Fragment

XKFragment

#academic, #fragments, #fragmentarythinking, #writing, #birthofmeaning

The spaces and gaps in between There’s always something in between. Something in between books, chapters, paragraphs, sentences, and words. There’s also an ‘in between’ letters (the little space in between the a and the b). Spaces and gaps are sometimes misunderstood as no-thing… but they’re an important something, or at least a constitutive nothingness. When we write, we write with words and letters. But not only. We (foremost) write with spaces and gaps – with the in betweens. There is always separation and difference. The interesting aspect to this is that it entails, more or less, that everything is fragmentary. The all (mind the italics) is a state of fragmentation.

Empty space and equality What we perceive as fragmentary is shifts in the equality of the spaces in between the bodies of texts (or rather the body parts of a text). The ‘inequality’ of the spaces creates the sensation that something is missing, that something has existed (and is no longer there), or that something could possibly exist [that there is a potentiality for something to fill the space]. When reading the Bible, you sometimes come across paragraphs such as Mathew 23:14, which say ––––––– (nothing). A lost fragment. An omitted fragment. This hole in the text creates an own narrative through the questions it invokes. [In me: Why is this gone? Censorship by the church for potential unliked meanings? Or a mistake by an earlier owner? Did someone spill coffee whilst reading?] In other words: The space creates its own narrative, it forces creation, it makes us question. Barthes says only death is creative. And, as we see, out of the killed paragraphs (the spaces of the lost fragments) the reader creates. Openings The fragments (and the importance of spaces and in betweens) opens up for wider interpretations as well as for total misunderstandings. For me this is an ethical aspect… an ethical potentiality. I believe these openings, the unsureness inherent in the fragmentary form, make room for the readers themselves (not necessarily for their ego – the space as a mirror in which they narcissistically could specter themselves. But for their presence as thinkers – the text speaks to them, and waits for their answer. This direction (speaking to) creates action or at least activity).

In the womb I think about écriture féminine, I think about Hélène Cixous. She defines écriture féminine as fragmentary. The fragmentary as a resistance to linearity and to patriarchal (rationality). The fragmentary text is a text which does not force meaning. Through its own perforated being it gives room for the other in itself. [This can be tied to Irigaray’s thought on the placental… the mammalian possibility of carrying the other (alterity) within and that this has an ethical actuality for humans].

Inherent fragmentation Understanding is a desire of difference and otherness, of that which is not the same. This desire can come as a will to possess (making the other the same – which is the case for many kinds of understanding). The desire can, sadly only at times, take the form of an acknowledgement of the alterity of the other. The co-existing (with the other) needs negotiation and sometimes (most of the times) a repositioning of that which is understood as the same. The constitution of meaning (how mean-

ing becomes and is) needs difference and otherness, or else it will erase itself… it will implode [letters can’t be written on the same spot… that will create an unreadable text… ungraspable meaning]. There’s always meaning to be interpreted. But, that said, it doesn’t mean that the potential meanings will be understood, or that there is a correct way of understanding.

Kaleidoscopic vision The fragmentary approach or method gives a kaleidoscopic vision [imagine: faceted eyes]. It’s a tiptoeing act to write fragmentary. Writing fragmentary is failing honestly – each fragment is an honest failure to say something. [Failure is inevitable… the best possible is then to fail honestly]. Barthes approaches the Neutral in a what I would describe as the ‘fragmentary method’ – he knows he can’t speak directly about what the Neutral is, but he can speak around it [it’s similar to via negativa, and negative theology: suggesting what God is by saying what God is not].

Death When our opinions, ideas, concepts, etc. are proven wrong, or just dismantled by the ideas of others, it sparks creation (hopefully... if everything happens ‘as it should’) because we don’t just take on the ideosphere of the other. Now we sort of have to re-create our own; re-distribute, re-figure. This is why it’s essential to open oneself for critique, and with that I mean making it easy for others to say something against you. [What Barthes calls subjective humbleness – saying things like ‘in my opinion’, ‘in my view’ etc. – is thus only riskily used, since it makes it harder for others to critique. The humbleness here is actually just arrogance with a mask of humbleness]. itself, is not written from the first page to the last. Text is written from within. A text always has a plurality of centers. Ordering fragments is difficult because it requires attention and sensation. The multiple centers (gravitation points) in the text have to be balanced and composed – the author has to be aware of the inner textual gravity. [There are no systems or models for this, you can start, for instance, by ordering the fragments from A to Z, or according to their size, etc. But the system (this is not a rule… but close to) always has to be broken. That gives life to the text. And it is in this act that intuition enters into the practice].

Eternity The fragmentary can be re-ordered and re-interpreted. Always! Endlessly? A writer of fragments retains the possibility of negation, that is of saying no to an interpretation. This extraordinary position comes with the sacrifice of the ability to say yes. A writer can’t exclude other interpretations by saying X is the right interpretation. The writer can (only) describe their ambition and vision with the writing of the text – but not what the text in itself is.

The fragmentary form gives the text a life of its own. A text has its own life if the ‘meaning’ is created with and through it. [A writer who thinks I wanna write X and then writes X doesn’t write a living text… a living text is born from a writer who doesn’t know what the meaning of the written is or will be.] By emphasizing the in betweens, the fragment turns the power of the author (authorship) into freedom of the author (which in the case of the author is the practice of writing). The writer is always the last reader [Always remember this].

The gravity of interpretation The hard thing, the very difficult thing, with fragments and writing fragmentary is the ordering. How to place them – which fragment should go first, second... (not to mention last). A fragmentary writing, which I would say is the inner nature of writing