Pour une traduction contre la traduction

Gerard Dessons dans le fac de littrature enseigne (a partir de messonic) que la grande question pos a
Oedipe par le sphinx tait, en fait, un rponse qui dmandait la question. La rponse c'tait
l'homme , boug pour aujourd'hui, des gens . La question on ne cesse pas d'crire. Pour dessons
a renvois la manire , de quel manire, comment, qui renvois une sorte d'enqute pour
l'vnement de-philosophis dans le nom d'un anthropologique esthtique. On trouve aprs dans the
hithchiker's guide to the galaxy, les gens inventent un grand ordinateur ( grand parce que son
imaginaire date des annes 70) pour rpondre la question quelle est le sens de la vie ?. Ca prend
des millions d'annes pour faire les calculations (imaginaire encore dat, mais on peut aussi dire que la
rponse longue est correl avec le temps de l'homme) et l'ordi donne la rponse 42. Le sens de la vie
est 42. Alors ils dcident que la question tait peut-tre mal-pos, et ils font un reprogrammation pour
re-trouver quel question avait rpondu l'ordi. Donc, quelle est la question ? Dans le cercle
hermeneutic, la question mange la queue de sa rponse. Quel monde pour l'art? Quel art pour le
monde? Mais les etudes du genre philosophie, art, etc. on aime toujours les questions, chose sacr,
problematique, problematiser. Belle thique qui ne fonctionne rellement que dans les rencontre extrauniversitaire.
You can't account for loss at any rate near the speed with which you can produce it.
Esthtique superobjects.
Except perhaps a constellation
quel sepulchral naufrage, tu
sais, ecume, mais y bave
musicienne de silence
death of the author, misreading, best reading includes the author, barthes, author dead, not present, no
longer there in text. Biography not a guarantee. Not only is the author alive, they have nine lives and
fifteen more minutes than anyone else. Shostakovich novel and psychological biopic.
The task of the translator, it would seem, is to heap task upon task! That language being also always
about language, transcription about transcription until the entire universe is recuperated within each act.
(which no longer has a within or without).
Words like violence break the silence.
On obsession and equivalence between word and action it wants to represent.
In 1880, Ostrovsky remarked that one must write for the people not in the language that they speak, but
in which they desire. V. Shklovsky, Bowstring
Tolstoy often illuminates objects as if seen for the very first time not by naming them, but by
characterizing them. For instance, in one of his descriptions he doesn't name the tree but writes: "a
leafy tree with brilliantly white trunk and branches."
He is talking about a birch treeit can't be anything elsebut it is described as if by someone who
has never seen this kind of tree and who is surprised by its unusual form
there is a point of articulation between word and world. It happens when the word fire leaves the
general's mouth and hits the ears of the infantry. How to write a philosophy paper in our climate, that
every cry should be that of a broken heart.
what about aggregate meaning effects? as in speechnotes...as in context.
then again if each word is a musical note, then psychology of expectation and miniaffects? but then
again if it changes fast enough maybe it's glossed over, or with more familiarity maybe feeling is even

suspended due to undecidability.

but wouldn't it be exactly the problem of artificial intellgience, to correlate to the point where meaning
is retained from out of potential loss? the problem is used to find solutions (not 'the' solution, but 'a'
solution). thus the question you're asking about the world is not a question of the world, and the answer
is not a repetition of the question, nor is it answering the question--but it answers, just like the question
asks. but maybe the aggregate effect of the concentrated effort in a certain area produces a tool that
goes just far enough to seem to respond to the situation the question and answer are trying to address
about, though not equal to, the world.
And yet an oral text, like that of de man, transcribed, is able to produce so much clarity to the question
of this untranslatability. What if language were, in the end, no more than...communcation, message,
signal, message in a bottle sent by an organism which, due to a fluke of organizational complexity, is
able to call itself king, at least, of its mortal singularity (claim an I) even though the will is no more
than an impression that the various bodily desires, disputing among themselves constantly, some louder
than others at any given time, uses, it, the mortally singular collection, uses the I, the subject
phenomenon because this factory has been made to run this way, with top down control.
You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that
makes the old model obselete. Buckminster fuller.
Art like a dog scratching its fleas
what does it mean to translate something other than language (in traditional sense)? Like cinema. Or
sculpture. Cinema translating cinema. Sculpture translating sculpture? What about ezra pound claiming
he'd like to rewrite the last act of all of shakespeare's tragedies? What about from script to screen?
Transcription and translation. See introduction to de man. the word is not equal to itself. From script to
screen, from text to theater the body (body) adds determinations (themselves indeterminate). And yet
identical twins are possible. But, as soon as you world those twins, starting from the moment of their
conception (maybe even before if sperm and egg quality is taken into consideration) they're no longer
identical. As soon as you say 'I want to make, I want to know what I can make, I want to know if
something of what I want to make is possible to make...' and what is science? I want to if something
outside of me can be harnassed so as to make...but what type of making? The world changes. Words
can lead to collective hallucinations, but they can bring a community together.