Friday, July 31, 2015

Eileen Tabios: An Appreciation

of Maxwell Clark





“I was an unsuccessful man, to be sure, but the failure was all theirs. Had they intended my success, it would have been something else again but, as it was, the failure belonged to them.”

—Robert Creeley

0.

I do not so much (s)wish to recommend any of the texts of Eileen Tabios to you each, but to recommend Eileen Tabios herself to you, as her texts are merely the traces thereof. She is a good person, thus also a good poetess. The more important aspect of any hermeneutics, in any case, is the authority of a text, as since this personage is only afterward or retroactively revealed in their decipherment. Authority before revelation, that is, in both senses of “before” – temporality and rank. Eileen Tabios is a good person, I know this from her texts (online and otherwise), thus she also expresses herself in her poesy as good.



0.2a

About colonialism, as it is definable theme of Tabios’s canon. Beyond her ability to write in the grandest classical Western style, and thereby deconstruct the notion that the Western Canon is ethnocentric (it’s actually a most archaic form of universalism). Beyond this, I wish to also a very little situate my known family history (my father’s adoption renders his genetic inheritance anhistorical, for now; while his cultural inheritance is nonetheless English [e.g., my last name is Clark]), that is to say, my matrilineal claims alone (see previous parentheses) which is, in so few names, Welsh (Quaker) and French (Hugenot); the Welsh side having arrived on Penn’s very Mayflower even. Without dilating this personal (i.e., otherwise than directly literary-critical, if only for a moment) history much farther unto its properly infinite unicity; however, I may hereby already brusquely remak that the pre-original condition of Oneness that Infinity is the restlessly incomplete permutation of is also a fancy name for our unity as humans, as life, as creatrion—as well.
                That sickly-sweet sentimentalism inducing truth-fiction said, however, my family history is exceedingly colonialist, especially when once in the Americas; but, yet it equivocally also confesses the trauma of being colonized, especially in the late history of Wales, or rather the first tributary of British colonialism—its most archaic manifestation as such. Colonialism, or (a) civilization, as Husserl remarks in his Origins of Geometry, is defined foremost by its (/our) being a normalized linguistic community: wherein similar objects are normally recognized by similar names, and so on. Although I am French and Welsh then, I speak neither of those cultures languages, nor do I live anywhere but an immense periphery to their geographic centers—how so?—colonialism, as it cuts both ways: (1) my ancestors were expropriated of their ownership over vast plots of culture-sustaining land; (2) their landlessness brought them to seek to reproduce their landed possession in “new” or otherwise weakly inhabited territories. Thus, I believe (if at an abrupt tangential angle) that all cultures, in the process of their becoming civilized (by and with that most generic technical acceleration of life by humanity) exist in some major or minor (or what have you...?) mixture of colonialized traumas and colonialist traumatization. If you are a U.S. citizen, or even an official guest in this same nation-state, your/our demonstrable docility and mass disorganization around the issues of U.S. imperialism cannot but stigmatize you as a participant in U.S. colonialism. If you are reading me from a member-nation of the United Nations, you too are participants in the restless and unceasing redivision of the globe; as if the Earth itself were composed only of so many hoards. If economic value is not universally shared between its individual holders, as it is not (and perhaps never can be [perfectly]), then the Earth is itself a discrete set of many (more or less centralized) finite sets of value (hoards).


0.23nv


Somehow finition has overcome infinity, it seems, until one realizes: (1) you yourself are one such a bodily finition; (2) the process of finition is never final; finition is thus so very much a perfect expression of infinity that it becomes so in a way infinitely otherwise than in the traditional Cartesian/deontological “Idea of Infinity” (about which I recommend his 3rd discourse). Finition is ontological infinity, otherwise (but inspired by) metaphysical infinity—finition is the inspiration of metaphysical goodness through ontology, i.e. physics plain. Metaphysics names the pre-original coordinates of infinity which creation (poesy) obeys as the infinitization (transcendence) of itself (as infinity) and thus becomes finition. Unless I am wrong, in which case I was then at least right enough to remark of the possibility of my error, if indeed the proofs of my error(s) are not also so very close to being absolutely Necessary, as it were, ... but yet not quite.



1.101b

Colonialism is then a great issue for life on Earth, is almost its absolute physical condition as a planet-sized (let’s say) set of many (nonsensically many even) charged spins: at the subatomic scale of (our) Being (/our Civilization?) chaos propagates itself over its every remnant trace (aka order) transcendentally (of itself), thus is also grows (differentiates); and as in metaphysics—so then too in the ontological world of space, except hereafter also as finition (instead of “pure” infinity).



2.024xyz

Back to Tabios, however (so soon?); I believe in her influence over me—therefore my glory (if any?) is shared with hers (whereas any opprobrium against me I restrict unto myself, having as it does none to do with my already well-stated admiration of Tabios).



2.7887ci

So, Eileen is a goodness of herself—however little I have cited her texts to prove this, the better I prove her valor through its indirect affect over my letters herein (but, again, if at all).





 “Queen. [...]
                                                                                                                As, though on thinking on no thought I think[...]”

                                                                                                                —Shakespeare, Richard II

No comments:

Post a Comment