In this blog entry (which is my first blog entry), I would like to ask the question, “what should a blog be about?” or rather, less dogmatically, “what should my blog be about?”
Now this question might seem trivial, but I take it that all writing attempts to expose a condition, a condition that in some sense is of a truth, a truth that is not so much universal but introspective, a truth which is not necessary but ripe and actual through the cognition of possibilities within the subject. This truth could be expressed through poetry, critical analysis, or simply the discussion of an experience, and every experience is revealing of something, every experience assumes a genealogy, something which grounds it and gives it weight, something which makes it unique but yet also governs it within its laws, such is the truth expressed in writing, a truth of symbolic function predicated on the primordial axioms or the genealogical basis of the condition, this need not become explicit, but it is implicitly the case. Both socially and categorically.
But my blog, which seeks to be a philosophical blog, is a blog that attempts to articulate, not merely the explicit appearance of a truth, but the inner cord and essence of it, the gneral governance of the prior function. My problem is that of Hegel’s in his preface to the phenomenology, how can I expose a truth in a blog? For to expose is not merely to express. In any ones musings, however imaginary, there is a prior governance by its own condition, a condition which must include the totality of the essence.
Let us take an example, for instance in analyzing a film, take it to be Charlie Chaplin’s “Great Dictator”, in doing so, one must expose the essence of the particular movie, now one must also analyze the particular scenes and the relation of the particulars to the whole, the relation of the first instance to the last and all that is in between, to reach the last point one finally arrives at the culmination of the particulars into the whole, there is a film analysis. A resolution. Chaplin arrives at a destruction of the lie of fascism, through the dialectic portrayed within the film, there is therefore a clear ending and an implicit whole, a structure, to analyze the whole of the film is to reduce the particulars to a greater region of study, that of the whole, which is exposed by a principle (“the contradictions of fascism lead to the inevitable result of democracy”, if one were to give a more Utopian reading).
Similarly, in geometry we proceed from what is ready at hand, what is implicit, in observing the particular triangles we arrive at a principle; that shape which has three points can be seen as a triangle. But in doing so, we are pressed to ask, what is a shape? We might reply; that object which inhibits space. But what is space? And what is an object? One might conclude that these are the axioms which must not be questioned, but what if I want to question them?
There is a regress in all analysis, all genealogy, in seeking to explain the particular by the whole, or the ‘axiomatic’, one only begs the question, thus the restriction of the blog is, what? Nothing at all. Nothing in a pure sense, in a sense that leaves no limit, a sense that is boundless, one is tempted to quote the great William Blake in saying:
“To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an Hour.”
What has been exposed here is not so much a study of the medium – the blog- but the study if analysis itself, it leading to what Husserl defined as the “formal region”, that region which expresses all regions, that geometry which expresses the condition of geometry, that analysis which analyzes analysis, the analysis is of purely analysis and nothing more, in it’s purest sense it is an analysis of nothing, nothing that is all, of course, nothing which when comprehended reveals an infinity.
But, one cannot expose the dialectic in a preface, a blog is thus contained to the “grain of sand”, which one can only hope to perceive in a greater sense.
I would like to reflect on this and offer a counter point, surely the “sand contains the infinite”, and this is present in all things, in gender, history, film, music, etc. but the appropriate science here perhaps must remain most superficial, most exoteric, but yet not to regress to being purely superficial, to expose the outer while retaining the inner, to understand the sand while not to be lost in infinity, to incarnate the word in flesh and walk on the water, that is, to contain that beautiful balance which is most sought by all.
And if one were to only understand the eidetic form of the experience, the truth, what value is it to the experience?
If one were to remain in their own experience, what value is it to others, what meaning is in their words?
As Hillel the Elder put it, “if I am not for me, who will be? And if I am for me, who am I?”
I suppose one should strive for balance, perfection or some lofty ideal etc. but who has not sinned? To seek perfection… that is too perfect. There is a Lack, inherent in writing, inherent in language, the unknown reeks into the present, forever haunting, how do we live with it? We accept it and use what we have. The task of my blog is therefore nothing, nothing at all. Only to attempt and try, try to do what? I’m not sure, but nothing noble or ideal, nothing romantic, only appearance will accompany us here, appearance which attempts to be articulate but not lost in the void, to be at peace with the unknown. To do nothing is therefore a struggle, not a rest. But I suppose even that is too much to say. As again, such a striving, a striving for peace with Nothing, one attempts something too great, I and for one am not a person of greatness.
“What should my blog be about?”
But how can I even ask this question, as the question presumes a start, must we now question the question? What can one suppose to find in cutting the very log they rest on…
We will find no end here, or perhaps we already have and it is to simply stop. Have I condemned my blog to death? How can one proceed when their start is the end?