The self as such doesn’t exist separate from object. I buy into Baudrillardian notion of the hyperreal-the real as simulation-or the integration of the spectacle (as Debord later described) where subjectivity/objectivity are no longer separable. If I were to define my own self (it that’s possible) I would consider one that wavers between hyperreal collusion and a projected state of sloppy, messy immediacy (lunacy). But if I buy into the integration of the self how could even momentary subjectivity be possible ?(-given these preconditions). One possibility is that lunacy, stupidity,sloppiness-all immediate behaviors-have as yet escaped the Baudrillardian condition. Can lunacy, as such, be commodified?
As my thoughts, perceptions, reactions occur within this “commodified” reality they do not, by nature, fall in line as they should;racing thoughts,fractured logic, perceptions that are, at times, partly imagined, partly realized, injected with exaggeration and for a lack of a better term, tend toward the unsound.
But since I don’t buy into psychoanalysis (as one who has been misdiagonosed several times)I prefer to think in trans-psychiatric terms that allow for these alleged “disorders” to become, rather natural occurrences, not convenient labels.
What I’m suggesting is this; my day to day existence is tied to banal, prearranged constructs: i.e., work(which is essentially murder), social interaction with (real?) vendors of commodities, reading of dead manuscripts…Interspersed within this somewhat (packaged) and predictable trajectory are moments of projected trans-psychosis: I maintain that these moments defy integration. How could this possible? And if so who’s to say that an exercise of sub-conscious release could not provide the same immanent puncturing of commodified/virtualized existence?
I think it depends upon one’s intent or lack thereof. As commodified/virtual beings we tend to think, act, respond in highly patterned ways that is (if you accept Baudrillard) an endless mirroring (without response-because in an integrated state-dialectic response is impossible) of this hyperreality; all acts being simulation.
If one were to thoughtfully experiment with one’s own subjectivity (Cage, Fluxus, Conceptualism,Tel Quel, Oulipo..) who’s to say that those very experiments are not “experiments in confinement” –useless (or useful)/contained probes-much like the recent work of K. Goldsmith. Erasing the subject/in this case the “non-creator”, should also involve the detachment or the erasure of the name behind it (that’s another discussion).
Anyway this sort of “experimentation” or all experimentation is better left to chemists ( again ). If one were to take some sort of laughable neo-surrealist approach-such as manufactured madness or subconscious meandering such methodology would only allow for “virtually” subconscious probes.
But back to this notion of projected “psychosis”. If one were to project insanity as a momentary egress from simulated existence, or rather if one were, through “acts” of unsound creativity (acts that occur through repeated attempts at “trans-psychotic” penetration)- and I use the word “creativity” gently knowing that it is a word that can be taken as meaning something predictably transcendent or precious-a higher form. But I’m speaking of a sort of unlearned creativity or pre-conscious creativity-before reading/writing and arithmetic. This projected psychosis can not be had-it occurs organically-not like “organically” processed fruits and vegetables but rather as an untreated occurrence reserved for those with an underdeveloped sense of self.
While I don’t believe that it’s an enviable approach-because it makes for low functioning “virtual” beings- it is I believe useful as a tool for puncturing the spectacle. “