olivier

Notes on Para- : First (primary?) diagram of the third study of the third thing

1. Diagram is inherently not a pure form because it acts as a totality for something else (a main text?), or as a supplement to them. It always points to. (Obviously a diagram can be on its own, orphaned, points to itself, indicating there should/could/would be more.)
   1.1 Suppléer = to supplement, =to substitute for (Derrida)
      --> ‘supplement’ is paradoxical. (see also absence)


2. Diagram itself cannot be a totality because of its fundamentals.
   2.1 When a diagram end…when does a diagram ends, what is omitted? Omission is a conclusion- casted away; to chart the shape of the gap, instead of naming or identifying a gap (of…).


3. The ontology of the prefix: para- and trans-, instead of the biography of transness. The un-point-able status of being something else in suspense, being called to and called upon from the ether: not a space.
   3.1 Ether as a medium, as the Neutral (Barthes)
      3.1.1 The Neutral, a linguistic territory that one can soar skies, walk silly, plunge waters– an aporia– for charting queerness.


4. State/status of being. Transformation<=>diagram (Sillman)


5. To capture the totality (impossible!), only an (fail!) attempt so to points to something else, somewhere else, so one can clearly discern of what oneself isn’t and cannot and would not. (Intuition? A knowing? Third thing?)


6. Non-semantic poetics > textual information


7. Affects of archives sips in when poetics are emphasised through a confrontation of mediality


8. Para- (prefix): alongside of, beside, near, resembling, beyond, apart from, and abnormal...
   Trans- (prefix): extending across, through, or over, to or on the other side of, beyond; outside of… When is something para-? When is something trans-? When is something non-para/non-trans?


9. A medium that ties to knowledge-making, presentations, passing information, etc, but how can one negate this idea of ‘delivery of-’?  One is anti-something— what is it anti- of? One finds themselves being queer before one knows of ‘gender’ and ‘sexuality’ (which are two things that often define queerness)— mostly because of negation and the absence of containing something that should be contained (the presence of absence).
   10. 1 One remains not want to contain or bear the burden to contain and not contain, as if there
   
      is something to be contained or not be contained.