ZITW OI MESAIES TAX|SEIS ! (If we are to have a martyr then a blow must be delivered)

Aidiasmenoi, mbouhtismenoi, mperdemenoi, shedon pisthagkwna demenli, apo ta psemata kai tis fenakes tis foveris etoutis epohis, always already still wo/men of scissors and paste me to reading, to diavazein, to peripatitko paignion tis plexias- afou mas leipei i plexouda tha anti-milisei i ntivanalysi, kai ironika, estw monodromika, tha tis gelasoume, prin kryfa klamouristoume- teleftaies meres tou hronou, arche tis epi-strofis, kai tou epi-strepsimou, entos tou therous, pou an xanapistepsoume ton Empeiriko, einai panta pothos - kai se tetoies peri-ptwseis kala kai e-thika ta apofthegmata estin, afou apo estias dedilwmenis eimasten sterimenoi (na nai toytoi i arche tou hidden thread toutou tou ombiou, toytoy tou erwn nomadodiaaporetologikou sym-plegmatos, pou syn-krateite, tropos tou legein, to prwi me kafe kai tsai, me krasi ki whiskey-stis hwres kai stis wres pou o ilios kanei volta ston eiriniko- me ouza stis hwres ka stis wres pou to melaniasma den einai apla mavrisma, syn-plegmatos akrivws inkofwrou)- enas peripatws, meses-akres, klaiwntas, dyo-treia pramata *lehozouthkia apsa, kanoun tin stoihiwdi tous emfanisi stin semanticotita tou enthymimatos frikis tis -as mou epitrapei i terpsi- mythoviwsis, estw kai me enikoio, sto adekasto keno, afou i Istoria fysika / den mas perimenei / stin stasi tou trolley, syshetizwntas melanotites, heri me heri me to grafein, pou prepei na ftasei pia stin exagriwsi, pernwntas afovoi apo nekrotafeio nykta, me ear, krasaki amerimno, xehasmeni taftotita stin nefelourgia, ormataizwmenoi tin mi-oramatikotita, apantwtas sta elki tis ideologias egw-den-eimai, "...at least three things. These three things concern precisely this thing that is called spirit. As soon as one no longers distinguishes spirit from specter, the former asumes a body, it incarnates itself, as spirit, in the specter. Or rather, as Marx himself spells out, ..., the specter is a paradoxical incorporation, the becoming-body, a certain phenomenal and carnal form of the spirit. It becomes, rather, some "thing" that remains difficult to name: neither soul nor body, and both one and the other. For it is fleshand phenomenolity that give to the spirit its spectral apparition, but which dissapear right away in the apparition, in the very coming of the revenant or the return of the specter. There is something disappearead, departed in the apparition itself as reapparition of the departed. The spirit, the specter are not the same thing, and we will have to sharpen this difference; but as for they have in common, one does not know what it is, what it is presently. It is something that one does not know, precisely, and one does not know if precisely it is, if it exists, if it responds to a name and correspnds to an essence. One does not know: not out of ignorance, but because this non-object, this non-present present, this being-there of an absent or departed one no longer belongs to knowledge. At least no longer to that which one thinks one knows by the name of knowledge. One does not know if it is living or if it is dead. Here is - or rather there is, over there, an unnameable or almost unnameable thing: something, between something and someone, anyone or anything, some thing, "this thing", but this thing and not any other, this thing that looks at us, that concerns us, comes to defy semantics as much as ontology, psychoanalysis as much as philosophy. The Thing is still invisible, it is nothing visible at the moment one speaks of it and in order to ask oneself if ot has reappeared. It is still nothing that can be seen when one speaks of it (...) Nor does one see in flesh and blood this Thing that is not a thing, this thing that is invisible between its apparitions, when it appears. This Thing meanwhile looks at us and sees us not see it even when it is there. A spectral assymetry interrupts here all specularity. It de-synchronizes, it recalls us to anachrony (...) Here anachrony makes the law. To feel ourselves seen by a look which it will always be impossible to cross, that is the visor effect on the basis of which we inherit from the law. Since we do not see the one who sees us and who makes the law, who delivers the injuction (...) we can not identify it in all certainity, we must fall back on its voice. (...) An eseentially blind submission to his secret, to the secret of his origin: this is a first obedience to the injuction. It will condition all the others. It may always be a case of still someone else. Another can always lie, he can disguise himself as a ghost, another ghost may also be passing himself off for this one. It's always possible (...)
Repetition and first time: this is perhaps the question of the event as question of the ghost. What is a ghost? What is the effectivety of the presence of the specter, that is of what seems to remain as innefective, virtual, insubstantial as simulacrum? Is there, there, between the thing itself and its simulacrum, an opposition that hold up? Repetition and first time, but also repetition and last time, since the singularity of any first time makes of it also a last time. (...) One cannot control its comings and goings because it begins by coming back (...)
What seems almost impossiible is to speak always of the specter, to speak to the specter, to speak with it, therefore especially to make or let a spirit speak. (...)There has never been a scholar who really, and as a scholar, deals with ghosts. A traditional scholar does not beleive in ghosts - nor in all that could be called the virtualspace of spectrality. There has never been a scholar who, as such, does not believe in the sharp distinction between the real and the unreal, the actual and the inactual, the living and the non-living, being and non-being,in the opposition between what is present and what is not, for example in the form of objectivity. Beyond this opposition, there is, for the scholar, only the hypothesis of a school of thought, theatrical fiction, literature, and speculation. If we were to refer uniquely to this traditional figure of the "scholar", we would therefore have to be wary here of what we could define as the illusion, the mystification, or the complex of Marcellus [Hamlet] (...) Marcellus was perhaps anticipating [Thou art a Scholer -speake to it]the coming, one day, one night, several centuries later, of another "scholar". The latter would finally be capable, beyond the opposition between presence and non-presence, actuality and inactuality, life and non-life, of thinking of the possibility of the specter, the specter as possibility. Better (or worse) he would know how to address himself to spirits. He would know that such an address is not only already possible, but that it will have at all times conditioned, as such, address in general.
(...)
It will always be a fault not to read and reread and discuss Marx - which is to say also a few others- and go beyond scholarly "reading" or "discusssion". It will be more and more a fault, a failing of theoretical, philosophical, political responsibility. When the dogma machine and the "Marxist" ideological apparatuses (State, parties, cells, unions, and other places of doctrinal production) are in the process of disapearing, we no longer have any excuse, only alibis, for turning away from this responsibility. There will be no future without this. Not without Marx, without the memory and the inheritance of Marx: in any case of a certain Marx, of his genius, of at least one of his spirits. For this will be our hypothesis or rather our bias: there is more than one of them, there must be more than one of them.
[Jacques Derrida, Specters of Marx]


Evlogimenos o mainomenos en onomati mystiriou


synwstizomeni monaxia pros enan
esperantismo tis ontotitas


Me oti arthrwneis to Pragmati to exarthrwneis

[Nikos Karouzos, apo ti syllogi Faretrion 1981 - gia ton polewn ton pleon kontino toiho.]