Logo of the Museum of Vestigial Desire
The Museum of Vestigial Desire


tags: fruit published on:

Symbols are like alarms. Alarms demand attention. And when they do not get attention, they cause disruption in some way. Because a hunger for attention applies pressure. And not everyone can withstand this pressure. Actually most give way. When this giving away occurs, symbols become necessary and some are encoded or decoded. They can never be created or populated, they are always there. They just need to be actualized. Actualization occurs by the utilization, the ascription of a function, the synthesis of a narrative device. Being encoded or decoded are such processes. Symbols get actualized in the act of being either encoded or decoded.

This actualization is of interest to us. In an encounter, be it a tangible encounter or a suspected one, symbols get actualized. And when this happens, depending on the kind of symbol that gets actualized, the nature of the encounter gets labelled. Labeling, clustering, typifying is a natural outcome of the flow of experience and encounter. When we say natural, we just mean not contrived. We do not subscribe to a discourse that states that there has been any absolute break from nature that has brought about a sense of crises. There have been attempts to divorce constructions from what has been framed as actual but the truth of the matter is that everything is a construction. And it is only possible to talk about an actualization process and not an actual.

The actual is only a speculative idea. And what is only being speculated on remains the most illusory kind of construction. It is a construction but appears to be the one thing that is not a construction and in that way becomes more powerful than it actually is. At least the role it plays in the imagination of subjects wields such a power because of the urge to speculate that it encourages.

So let's say we banish all talk of the actual. Let's say we just bother ourselves with figuring how we can construct in the most intensive way possible. If all that we are dealing with is constructions, let's do it well. Let's offer constructions that do not offer any way to read through and know more about the source. Because there is none. Analysis makes sense only to understand the surface of the construction more. It makes sense only as a technical process and not a process that can even potentially extract an essence that becomes more important than the actual construction even.

Being opposed to analysis means that we are opposed to the content item that claims to be the meaning of an entity but does not reside on its surface, but rather resides in its supposed depth. Depth is a mirage.

‹ index