At a site to which Ophelia, of the fabulous Butterflies and Wheels, directed my footsteps, I came across an article entitled 'Death as a perversion', and both my interest and my natural spirit of protest against needless injustice were aroused by this. 'Please,' I thought, 'Be fair. It's bad enough that we have to die. Do we also have to be charged with engaging in perversion for that?' But you know me, I'm never one to leap to conclusions. I figured, give the author a break. Read. So that is what I started to do:
[T]he investigations into openness have been always accompanied by at least five supplements: life, death, horror, outside and intensity. Openness has been diagramed as both a tactical line and strategy traversing these five supplements while crushing the dimensions between them. The desire for openness has been considered the desire for life, death, horror, outside and intensity and this is why it has been cautiously appropriated whether through desire itself or despotic rigidities. However, it has been never totally blocked, for even in the case of monolithic despotism and rigidity, we do not encounter closure but strictly economical openness which is the indispensable part of any paranoiacally isolationist organization. On the other side of this panorama (economical openness), the survivalist approaches (economic, political, social, etc.) to desire have been more creative in appropriation / domestication of openness; the desire for openness has been domesticated through complex economic networks through which openness is translated as affordance; a survivalist horizon distributing or at least trying to distribute communication through the networks, in which fluxes of desire are merely forming a complex web of transportation systems or a hydraulic economy which is dynamic and flowing but empowering solidity and its complex survivalist circulations by stirring and transporting them, or even assisting solidity to assemble its own sphere of pseudo-fluxes where solid is softened, becomes extremely dynamic, versatile and forming its free-play institutions as it moves (as in fluvial/alluvial processes). Through affordance, openness is represented as the level of being open (to) not being opened (the plane of epidemic and contagion: plagues, contaminations, possession, etc.). "I am open to you." means, I have the capacity to bear your investment or 'I afford you' (this is not an intentional conservative voice but what arises as the fundamental noise produced by the machinery of different levels of organization and boundary, and finally organic survival); if you exceed this capacity I will be cracked, lacerated and laid open.Reader, I must confess to you that I'm a weak being. Although it wouldn't be true to say I stopped reading at this point, I did stop soon. The thing is I found it a bit puzzling. In my own (partial) defence let me add that I did re-read this introductory passage several times, applying what analytical powers I can now muster to the syntactical constructions before me in the hope of gaining further insight. Not to bore you with too many of my reflections, I'll confine myself to one. In the bit that goes...
in which fluxes of desire are merely forming a complex web of transportation systems or a hydraulic economy which is dynamic and flowing but empowering solidity and its complex survivalist circulations by stirring and transporting them, or even assisting solidity to assemble its own sphere of pseudo-fluxes where solid is softened [etc.]... is there a way those who understand it have of deciding whether it's right or wrong? I'd appreciate help from anyone who knows.