[b]Roland Barthes
Today, information: pulverized, nonhierarchized, dealing with everything: nothing is protected from information and at the same time nothing is open to reflection → Encyclopedias are impossible → I would say: the more information grows, the more knowledge retreats and therefore the more decision is partial (terroristic, dogmatic) → “I don’t know,” “I refuse to judge”: as scandalous as an agrammatical sentence: doesn’t belong to the language of the discourse. Variations on the “I don’t know.” The obligation to “be interested” in everything that is imposed on you by the world: prohibition of noninterest, even if provisional . . . .[/b]
This may well be the mother of all “general assessments”. In fact, I dare someone to explain it.
It is my desire I desire, and the loved being is no more than its tool.
True more often than not. But it’s probably best to just keep it to yourself.
It must always be considered as though spoken by a character in a novel.
And a postmodern novel as likely as not.
There is no sadness and no cruelty in that gaze; it is a gaze without adjectives, it is only, completely, a gaze which neither judges you nor appeals to you; it posits you, implicates you; makes you exist. But this creative gesture is endless; you keep on being born, you are sustained, carried to the end of a movement which is one of infinite origin, source, and which appears in an eternal state of suspension.
Which character in which novel does this remind you of?
I pass lightly through the reactionary darkness.
Or, sure, the revolutionay darkness.
There is nothing in discourse that is not to be found in a sentence.
Just not in the sentences that we write.