Descarcă revista în format PDF - idea

Mic tratat despre abandonNe abandonæm abandonului øi abandonæm abandonul. Abandonul devineimediat o structuræ aprioricæ regresivæ øi proliferantæ, care îmbræfliøeazæ(abandonînd) totul. Abandonul nu survine øi nu ræmîne aproape niciodatæaccidental, punctual, parcelar, ci coboaræ/urcæ pînæ la nivelul condifliei de posibilitatea unui cîmp – tocmai astfel omogenizat, unanimizat – de realitate.Abandonul se autoabandoneazæ øi se autooculteazæ în trepte. Structura categorial-„gramaticalæ“a abandonului este una perifrasticæ, de (auto)evitare.Într-un prim „timp“, a abandona pare a fi o nonacfliune, opusul însuøi al acfliunii:presupune un subiect øi un obiect, manifestîndu-se ca acfliune autocontradictorie,denegatæ: a abandona înseamnæ atunci, tocmai, a nu face,a nu interveni, a læsa lucrurile sæ decurgæ de la sine, a asista fatalist, neoferindasistenflæ. Falsæ tranzitivitate, aøadar, a acestei acfliuni, care de fapt este reflexivæ,mai precis pasiv-reflexivæ, altfel spus retroactiv anihilantæ øi descurajantæ.Aceastæ „acfliune“ (cuvîntul, aici, se cere în acelaøi timp subliniat øisubminat: tocmai sub-linierea sub-mineazæ) contamineazæ øi distruge subiectul:subiectul faptului, al actului de a abandona devine, prin chiar acestfapt-act, un fals subiect, un pretins subiect, un subiect infinit delegant: în loculsæu abandonat se poate instala oricine, orice. Niciodatæ nu se poate øti cuprecizie cine abandoneazæ pe cine/ce: abandonul nu are origine, ci creeazæ,manifestæ doar stadii imediat terminale. Abandonul este o acfliune de fiecaredatæ – øi imediat – reuøitæ, care-øi atinge nesmintit, færæ greø, termenul. Prin„acfliunea“ de a abandona sîntem (devenim) obiecte ale abandonului, ale „propriului“abandon.Într-un al doilea „timp“ însæ, vom fi izbifli de aspectul totuøi fals, înøelætor negatival abandonului: prin abandon facem totuøi întotdeauna ceva, dar asupranoastræ, chiar dacæ abandonul are întotdeauna ca obiect alteritatea. Abandonîndu-neabandonului, devenim subiecflii delegafli, refuzafli ai unei energicedistrugeri de sine: creaflie øi producere prin abandon, „advenire“fenomenologicæ nonintenflionalæ. Ne sustragem astfel, ne punem astfel laadæpost, printr-o acfliune, faflæ de acfliunea – individualæ, politicæ, socialæ, istoricæ– însæøi. A abandona înseamnæ – trebuie sæ însemne – a „acfliona“ pentrua nu acfliona, pentru a delega øi a evita acfliunea însæøi; pentru a o diferi øi ao deferi, ferindu-ne de acfliune prin devierea ei. Prin abandon, aøa cum amvæzut, socialul se lasæ de-structurat regresiv: demisiei spontane a societæfliiromâneøti îi corespunde instituflional, „suprastructural“, demisia sociologiei,care se fereøte ca de dracul sæ constituie categorial-gramatical faptul abandonului,menflinîndu-l în implicit. Abandonul se cere, atunci, abandonat, cao abandonare pasivæ a activului, ca o decizie activæ øi chiar energicæ de neconstituirede sine, de refuz pre(a)ocupat al naøterii, de persistenflæ în nonindividuat.Nu pot fi abandonafli, nu pot deveni pradæ a abandonuluiproliferant-retroactiv øi deci producætori frenetici de abandon decît ceicare se abandoneazæ, introducînd astfel abandonul. Abandonare a abandonului:øanse în creøtere de viitoare revolte urbane subpolitice, dedelincvenflæ punctual-mediaticæ, de invizibilitate asiguratæ. Neconstituire alegæturii sociale sau constituire a ei tocmai dupæ modelul abandonului.Astfel, abandonul e invizibil, nu se fenomenalizeazæ, dar se hiperepifenomenalizeazæ,circulæ crescînd pe mæsuræ ce nu se vede: a nu mai fi nici mæcarobiect social! A fi abandonat, nu eliberat, pînæ øi de tentafliile vreunei biopolitici!A nu intra, a nu fi admis, fie øi doar ca obiect, în „obiectivitatea lumii“.Pe copiii abandonafli nu-i vom putea vedea, percepe, gîndi intrasocial øi transcendent(obiectivant) sociologic atîta vreme cît vom refuza sæ ne vedem peSmall Treaty of AbandonWe abandon ourselves to abandon and we abandon the abandon. Abandonbecomes immediately an a priori regressive and proliferating structure thatembraces (abandoning) everything. Abandon never comes by accident,punctually, fragmentarily, but goes up/down to the level of possibility ina reality field and thus homogenized, commonized.Abandon is self-abandoning and self-hiding gradually. The categorial-”grammatical” structure of abandon is periphrastic, (self)avoiding. At a first“degree”, to abandon seems to be a non-action, the very opposite of action:it presupposes a subject and an object, manifests as a self-contradictoryaction: to abandon then means precisely not to do, not to intervene, to letthings go with the flow, to watch as a fatalist, not to offer assitance. Falsetransitivity, of this action which is in fact reflexive, passive-reflexive to beprecise, in other words retroactively annihilating and discouraging.This “action” (the term here needs to be both underlined and undermined:the underlining undermines) contaminates and destroys the subject:the subject of the fact, of the act to abandon becomes a false pretense subject,a subject that delegates: in its abandoned place anyone, anything canstep. We can never know exactly who abandons who/what: abandon has noorigin, it only creates, manifests immediately terminale stages. Abandon isa successful action each and every time, achieving its goal without failure.Through the “action” of abandon we are (become) objects of abandon,of our “own” abandon.At a second “degree” however, we are struck by the false appearance,deceivingly negative of abandon: through abandon we always do somethingbut against ourselves even if the abandon has always for object the otherness.Abandoning ourselves to the abandon, we become the delegated,refused subjects of a solid self-destruction: creation and production throughabandon, non-intentional phenomenological “event”. We thus avoid,we protect ourselves, through an action from the – individual, political,social, historical – action itself. To abandon means – must mean – to “takeaction” in order not to take action, in order to delegate and avoid the actionas such; to defer and denounce it, protecting us from action by deviating it.As we have seen, through abandon, the social is regressively de-structured:to the spontaneous resignation of the Romanian society corresponds institutionally,“supra-structural”, the resignation of sociology that avoids to constitutecategorially-grammatically the fact of abandon, keeping it implicit.Abandon then needs to be abandoned as a passive abandonment of theactive, as an active and even energetic decision of self unconstitution,refusal to be born, persistence in non-individuation. Only those who abandonthemselves, introducing abandon, can be abandoned, can be the prayof proliferating-retroactive abandon so producers of abandon in a frenzy.Abandonment of the abandon: increasing chances for future urban subpoliticalrebellions, of punctual-media delinquency, of assured invisibility.Unconstitution of the social bond, or constitution precisely on the modelof abandon.Thus, abandon is invisible, it is not phenomenalized but hyper-epiphenomenalized,circulates and grows as it cannot be seen: it is not even a socialobject! To be abandoned, not freed, even from the temptations of some biopolitics!To not enter, to not be admitted, even as an object, in the “worldobjectivity”.We won’t be able to see, perceive, think intrasocially and transcendently(objectively) the abandoned children in sociological terms as long as we willrefuse to see ourselves in our hyperactive, subtle, invisible abandons:146