Differences and Echoes, A Mixed Media Sculpture by Johann Eyfells
What produces "examples"? And, more inquiringly, what or, rather, who makes the selections that give realization to the "form" of the examples that our examples are an example of? In a different and a deeper sense still, what "uncreated" and perpetual re-arrangements of forces must take place to cause new examples to come forth replacing our old examples and to continue to do so for an unending period of time? And, to pursue our query even deeper, what is the "nature" of the seemingly out-of-reach realm where new "force" coordinations and correlations bring about transformations of even the very essence of the "examples" that play the role of the reference examples of our examples, preventing all realizable elements from attaining the status of real permanence? And, finally, what sort of a trans-historic willbacks up and animates the "life-span" of our diverse examples, and, more problematically, which version of this will forces every one of our identifiable or even barely detectable examples to suffer an inevitable disintegration and physical disappearance without fail?
Johann Eyfells Differences and Echoes, Part of an unfinished Series of 7, 1980-, Various metals, 213,3 X 213,3 cm
Flat as Flat Cube III, Aluminum Sculpture by Johann Eyfells
The long slew of seemingly "dead end" questions, as articulated above, cannot but arouse strong suspicions that "our" examples are only consequential effects or functions that do not in themselves constitute a "complete" phenomenon, that they might simply lack their implied constancy or any real state of wholeness.
Can it be that we have no other option but to accept as "fact" that the very nature of our "what" contains a serious flaw, or a deficiency, that prevents us from from interpreting, or even imagining, the non-general, trans-"historic", governing but chancy conditions, as well as the imperative uniqueness of entirely momentary possibilities, that are the enabling causes for the emergence and the embodiments of an ever renewed string of new examples?
Does not our "what" imply a truly untenable and presupposed element of identification, however minute, a taken-for-granted self-similarity, a synthesis that in fact ignores its "uncreated" driving force, its internal element of self-production, its "origin"?
Johann Eyfells, Flat as Flat as Cube III, 1992-93, Aluminum, 127.5 x 127.5 x 20 cm each panel, composed of 4 panels
 Johann Eyfells, Circular Linguisticities, Aluminium
Circular LinguisticitiesDoes not our "what" display a fundamental lack of even the slightest need for an investigative scrutiny concerning the "latent" types of "force recipes" for its own generative powers and is thus, sadly, doomed to preside over a line of inquiry that is destined to become self-defeating and fundamentally unreal? |
|
This added projection into depth forces us to leave behind the assumption that answers are already somewhere at hand, only in need of being deciphered from our established examples themselves. Also, this new perspective forces us to admit that our "what" referred in fact explicitly to a "content" that had already been "born" and thus forced our investigation to proceed in total darkness as to the nature of the "content" of our examples' content, or, in other words, making the EXTERNAL AND ACTIVE MEANING of things totally irrelevant. An opportunity for the forging of a "new" imaginative thought-formulation capable of operating in "tandem" with, or to become an active"co-function" of, the external and formative latent meaning of the "content" of our examples' content b ecomes a possibility by the necessarily abstract act of contemplating the nature of the internal and entirely momentary conditions of changefulness. The need for this "new" exercise in imaginative abstraction, or the "peering" into a domain composed, enigmatically, of an unstoppable movement of formative activities, is due to the fact that our "habitual" and "natural" forms of knowledge cannot become the opportune vehicles for our investigative quest. We are, therefore, obliged to make a determined effort to replace "our" comparative way of thinking that seems "natural" with a "new" active dimension of creative thought formulated by contemplating and evaluating the characteristics and inner meaning of the deceptively unassuming term "unstoppable". In a resolutely strict sense, we must impose upon ourselves an abstract mental posture which forces us to think of birth or emergence as an "uncreated" reality without a beginning or an end, a reality that is outside of essence and form, where everything must be "thought"of as being simply in the process of coming into being ("pure" operational necessity or a Power Of Passage). |
Johann Eyfells, Circular, Triangular and Cubical Linguisticities, Aluminium
Since we are resolutely claiming that the mode of being of the "new" quarry of our quest cannot possibly be composed of transcendent "essences" or forms, but exists in fact entirely as an operational phenomenon, we are indeed concluding that the object of our query, an attempt to elucidate an imagined "ultimate", foundational and generative "source", is expressive of an UNSTOPPABLE AND CONCRETE SOMETHING that cannot become an element of thought-formulation within our habitual and "natural" forms of knowledge without, at least momentarily, thinking away this habitual knowledge itself.
The thrust of the key notion of our investigative quest, the "whence something?", might gain a new momentum and fresh penetrative intensity by our coining and employing the all-inclusive new noun"WHITHERICITY", a self-questioning term expressive of a "pure" phenomenon where "history" becomes not a "being" but a "birth" - an unending coming forth of pure difference and the unstoppable repetition of the "being" of this difference itself. In brief, "our births" do not have a terminal state, and one can view the above obversionary, radically transmutational and ubiquitous realm, "whithericity", as representing an "undetectable", but latent, "womb" or a "place" where irrational self-similarities and "force recipes" are necessarily born and re-born.
The concluding sentence in the paragraph above, contains two underlined words whose consequential significances are far from being self-explanatory. Also, at a first glance, these terms seem to suffer from an "up-in-the-air" arbitrariness - the first one implying a sort of a senseless limbo, and the latter seems to dictate the negation of any and all alternatives. But when their consequential intents are conjoined in a phrase like "irrational necessity", then these words convey an extraordinary sense of truly positive activity, they now depict a reality pervaded by entirely formative and generative powers where "SOMETHING" must always happen rather than "NOTHING". The dual term, irrational necessity, is a verbal compound that only signifies a seemingly groundless self-necessitating and irreducible positivity and in that way offers us a reassuring base for the supposition that our "whithericity" can indeed be "imagined" as a source of perpetual force relations, a "source" that "exists" as a perennially undone, unbounded, centerless and irreducible region of ubiquity, a "source" where there is always admittedly "groundless" and "unnameable source" attains meaningfulness only in the sense of being the latent content of our "pure force recipes" and their consequential and inseparable "co-functions" and phenomena.
Johann Eyfells, Obversionicity ('Stoppages'), Aluminium
Up to this point, but without saying so, we have relied heavily on insights that are gleaned from imaginative and abstract investigative efforts into vigorously divided but simultaneous and "uncreated" double natures, a primary "YES" and a provisional "NO". The "uncreated", primordial and irreducible protean monism "composed" of these antithetical yet simultaneous natures constitutes the essence of "CHAOLOGY", as well as representing the substance of our research that took shape in the 60's and whose only investigative topic remains a thrust into "whence something?". Whatever multiple (in the sense that this adjective is only expressive of a symptom of unity) as well as other enigmatic qualities and force-qualities that this high point of our investigation possesses, we recognize "our" protean monism first of all as a domain where creative and ethical "justice" is "KING" but where "CHANCE" alone holds court.
A total affirmation of a region of reality where CHANCE is all-powerful forces us to confront an immense and a truly disconcerting fact: the eternal, irreducible and predominant phenomenon of CHANCE excludes all possible notions concerning the primacy of intentionality. We must confront and accept the unwelcome news: within the realm of "whithericity" our "natural" and established rational intentionality must be replaced by a "posited" more fundamental and "uncreated" irrational necessity.
Since absolutely no sense of established potentialities or even possibilities, but only the purely mobilizing powers of a "POWER OF PASSAGE", exist in the realm of "whithericity", everything that becomes known or is in any way a function of this irrepressible territory of irreducible force-relations cannot possibly attain any perceptible and viable stature without first entering or gaining realization in a totally different and radically inverted nature ("OBVERSIONICITY: 'STOPPAGES'").
This imperative and "problematic" method of realization and survival means that the "examples" that come to represent the fruit of our investigation into the truly "uncreated", self-replicating and multiple realm of "whithericity" will inevitably, and without exception, become "sensible examples"only, in so far as their "identities" are realized as differentiations that have been extracted from a virtual and passing moment that is not the present moment. These "new" momentary "examples", these differentiations, these ubiquitous phase transitions or reversals of double natures (the unknowable vs. the knowable or, better, the trans-historic vs. the historic) should be viewed as being realizations or "types" made possible by "new" "thought" - formulations, whose "beginning-less births" have been extracted from a "posited" spatially collapsed and entirely active moment in passing or, perhaps more simply, these "new" formulations have gleaned their "extractive conditions" from an "imagined" cross-section of "time" (not an infinitely divisible continuum, but an infinitely active, beginning-less and ending-less continuum).
In contemplating the above, it becomes obvious or, rather, self-evident that within the enigmatic realm of "whithericity", where our "natural" contexts, references and scales become totally irrelevant, we must accept, in a strict sense, the fact that we are forced to "think" the cross-section of "time" in a thoroughly different or obverse mental mode from that in which we know it.
At this point, therefore, and in conclusion, we must try to locate our "ultimate" point of cogitative guidance into our query, our imagined ontological "whithericity", by attempting to articulate a clearer sense of the communicative meaning of the absolute differences between the above two radically and conversely irreducible "re-doubled" modes of "survival", those two "unequal" realms that we aim to make our heterogeneous, imaginative and latent mental perspectives, the unknowable vs. the knowable, the trans-historic vs. the historic, "our" primary "YES" vs. "our" conditional or, rather, consequential "NO".
Briefly stated, and without further ado, our "posited" ultimate point of cogitative guidance emerges as we try to interpret and evaluate the earliest primordial stirrings, the most primitive encounters, the very first "signs" of communication between the simultaneous yet rigorously "divided" two halves, "YES"/"NO", of "our" "uncreated" protean monism (CHAOLOGY).
Johann Eyfells, Disappearance Manifested Series, Aluminum
The communicative meaning that we extract from these embryonic and "in-between-two" stirrings of "life" (COLLAPSIONS), where "function-like" "pure" force recipes must necessarily do battle with, and, at the same time, non-symbolically mimic themselves in their "matter-like" coextensive and "minimal" co-functions merely in order to survive, is that they must be, respectively, seen as being subjected to an, however fragile, exterior status occasioned by our "withericity" as the source of ontological power.
In outlining the source of our "knowledge" concerning the "reality" of the above non-symbolical self-similarities occurring within the imagined cross-section of "time", and, at the risk of over-simplification, we must single out and attempt to make inordinate use of our impetuously minimal and "hard boiled" "YES" AND "NO" designations.
Fundamentally yet equivocally, our "YES" differs from our "NO", whereas our "NO" is strictly oppositional to our "YES". This means that these two simultaneous and opposite natures are wholes that exclude their opposite, as well as implying, strictly speaking, that there are no ultimate "WHOLES". Furthermore, solely on an internal level, the primary positive power of spontaneity must be assigned only to our "YES", whereas the consequential negative power of receptivity must in turn be assigned to our "NO" or, in other words, and on an entirely active, irreversible and simultaneous dimension, our "YES" has the power to affect our "NO", whereas on this "time-less" level of existence our "NO" merely has the power to be affected by our "YES". The imperative encounters between these antithetical elements become our new "historical" yet simultaneous force co-ordinates which must replace our persistent and "unsubstantiated" notions of "cause and effect". These "encounters" or"reactors" possess a germane sense of temporal continuity ("life") and are brought into being by the power relationships and irreducible crossings between an active and spontaneous "YES", that "exists" only by possessing an entirely momentary memory, and a "memory-prone" receptive "NO" that is necessarily forced to perpetually renew itself merely in order to "survive".
The above means that "our" "whithericity" presides over or simultaneously selects and detaches itself from its own "historical" imperatives and will not and can not ever become fully internalized in "experience". It is thus destined to maintain a perennial opening toward the future and to remain the latent external meaning of "historical survival". We thus conclude that one aspect of being uniquely human is to become aware of the fact that our debt to nature is to endeavor to embed in our "creative" manifestations, as well as in some other modes of our lives, aesthetic and ethical "examples" of the external and non-symbolic meaning of eternal reality. This propels us into a "new" sphere, a "new" "standpoint", a "new" discipline for which we have coined the neologism: "RECEPTUALISM".