Posted by: Sk | February 18, 2009

3 General concepts and roles in characters

It’s really complicated to define a concept in all its extension, some kind of human ability whose deeper meaning is perhaps difficult to gather, as you may ask yourself why you should spend your nights in thoughts of what a woman is, if the woman is just a physical appearance in front of you.Were it not that it is precisely possible to build up ‘groups’ of belonging, were it families, political parties or intellectual currents around the agreement on some or the other definition, it’d seem to have little meaning. Which is to say that the human belongs to others not that much because they all stay among the same walls or visit the same places, but because he shares with some others a construction of reality. Of course, this seems to oppose itself to thoughts maintaining you can categorize people through social, professional or other criteria, and thus impose a ‘belonging’ through the sharing of similar characteristics. If you have though spent long sleepless night defining concepts, you soon realize though that a ‘belonging’ can only be something that attaches from inside, and can never be an artificial boundary obtained through the assimilation of outer characteristics. This inner attachment can only exist if we conceive common notions or concepts inside of some kind of logic of interrelationship, were it from up to do down or vice versa, or through attracting poles.If we think, then, that people have different levels of intellectual or spiritual apprehension (thought which wouldn’t be difficult to think in China, India or even Russia and Muslim countries but causing still frictions in occidental countries ), so that some are still struggling to know what the difference between the particular tree and the general concept is and others do move in spheres where finest general logics are considered in general interactions, it is easy to consider that some people may ‘represent’ a concept, an idea or a logic through an appearance or through a general behavior determined by experience. To represent does though not mean to build up a ‘fake’ self, nor to pretend to something we are not, it means that the person has inherent a faculty he doesn’t share with many, which allows him to consider himself as detached from his particular identity and thus assuming some kind of ‘role’ which may be of interest in order to transmit wisdoms and knowledge whose intrinsic difficulty would make verbal transmission impossible.This main vehicle of transmission of knowledge is attacked by arising empirical currents (17th) that want to determine objects only and only through their outer appearance and will be pushed to the limits of exhaustion through ideologies comprehending fields such as psychology (Freud), politics (Marx) and philosophy (Kant). People become incapable of discerning the difference between the meaning of an image (were it a role) and real life, to the point of being confronted to the possibility Bandera’s wife going on to forbid ‘La ley del deseo’ as, she maintaining, it may cause damage to his image. There is obvious confusion between the role and real identity so that the ‘universal’ as being vehicled by a particular entity at a specific moment, is not apprehended anymore.This problem, treated mainly in around the characters of Harry of England and his mother, but also Athina Onassis, Lou Andreas Salomé and Semmelweiss in the attempt of detaching a character from an empirical presence and attaching it to more general logics (based on fundamental currents laying mainly on Herodotus), takes a particular turn while considering the ‘why’ of the disappearing of the possibility of seeing people from that angle, and reappears thus in Inés de la Fressange as symbolizing the crash between one current and the one tending to destroy it.I see myself in the somewhat absurd representation of a life role where the maintenance of law as foundation of human dignity is combined erratically with the explanation of exceptions, which is to say, inside of the principle that the moral takes its roots in an inner disposition where law regulates without determining. I have to state that the outer world does fuse both aspects of my nature into one, as being incapable of making the difference between the subtle understanding of law as such and the wise integration of exception through the consideration of inner disposition. The result is a complete distortion of my reality as such, giving place to the most absurd interpretations thinkable.Something similar is observable in the character of Inés de la Fressange. One of the features of her character seems to imply the possible integration of specific populations, such as marginal groups and also homosexual into a more general social context. Seen from her perspective, (I guess) there is a main common and normal ‘group’ and some inside it who establish some kind of bridge to people who don’t fit very well inside of that group. This ‘logic’, apparently another family inheritance, crashes with a world that imposes lines of thought such as ‘all are the same’, and gives situations as funny as to make her appear as almost lover of people who are obviously … homosexual. Which is to say, that an indifferent sympathy towards what is intuitively perceived as belonging to a group ‘a’ is understood by a to this logic hostile environment as ‘love affaire’.This is resulting of the incapability of the surroundings to perceive a human inside of a logic and the almost perverted desire to attach an appearance to a coldly determined meaning: you are talking to ‘x’, thus he’s your lover, is more or less the consequence of such a cruel confrontation of realities.My ‘airy’ princess, is thus ‘airy’ apparently just because she seems not to take into consideration such deviations in interpretation, but continues to maintain a personal logic that escapes though progressively the common understanding. Were it to understand under ‘princess’, not that much a blood inheritance but the capability of representing a logic or principle in life, thus becoming a reference for all those mortals who are still struggling to understand the difference between the meaning of the general and the particular.It’s obvious that it is not easy to be thus principally and essentially representing roles in life or as professional activity, and even less in an environment where we are scotched to what we represent as if it were part of ourselves. If you take a film actor, for example, he may represent a logic without him having anything to do with his characterization. His logic though fits better some stories than others, so that he/she appears in a determined number of contexts that may fit his logic, though not himself. See, for example, the extremely funny ‘mise en scène’ of the French through Jeanne Moreau and Brigitte Bardot (I think) in ‘Viva Zapata’: the confrontation of a general logic with a historical environment gives light on deeper functioning of the ways of representing reality, where it as a self or as a nation. As little have the ability of representing complex general logics, there are only a few who may assume such a role, without that implying though that Jeanne Moreau can possibly be associated to a revolutionary movement in … Mexico, as a person.Lucky are those who may still make the difference through the presence of cameras and film directors between a role and their personal life, although things tend to go as far, as said, as to provoke an artificial fusion of both as wanting to push the actor to ‘be’ the role he’s playing. There are others though who make of their life the stubborn representation of a way of thinking or general logic without there being anything to mark clear differences between the ‘role’ and the real person as singular entity. And this may provoke situations that remind more of a legend or a fairy tale than of what common reality actually produces by itself, even more so in a context where some maintain the impossibility of this, so that consequences are pushed to the extravagancy of realization without little space for intellectual confrontation.To my understanding that is exactly the quid of Fressange’s life, which can’t really be understood if not considered as a ‘role’, a logic that confronts itself to an extremely hostile environment. Personally I see in this life path the clear image of the consequence of Kantian thought: the progressive annihilation of the realms of soul by the wish of imposing formal patterns and structures on the living while robbing out soul of its productions as latter not existing as such.The disappearing of the understanding of the universal in the particular may have been at the origin of the disappearing of Chinese emperors, Byzance, or ottoman emperors and leads progressively to such horrid realities as the one consisting in murdering others in order to make some live who seem to be lacking of hearts, livers or kidneys (OTM or organ traffic mafia), and this because this reality repressed, some not having the intellectual ability of detaching the particular from the universal do appropriate themselves the ‘universal’, attaching it to a megalomaniac becoming ‘I’ who wants thus to justify the death of others to survive himself.Were it only because of that, Fressange symbolizes the strict believe in realities that do fight through their very presence against tendencies that do reveal the most ill and perverted aspects of a human being and which had started to become excessively common. Whether it will though be possible to draw a clear line between this some what quichotesque life path and a quieter private life, is yet not very clear, as both seem to be fused through the extreme outer pressure on such idealistic representations of reality.Of course she will ask, what the difference actually is, and the very question is relevant precisely because it reveals the lack of differentiation. But see, it’s very simple. The submission to a thought or structure does condition a certain number of behaviors: the work I choose, the people I’m surrounded of, the things I say and even those I pretend to prefer. These do have strictly nothing to do with things we’d chose if we didn’t have to maintain an ideological position, where the choice would be determined by a liking. The liking in question would finish by showing a principle in its relationship to other likings and this, define a space of thought that would be some kind of home (the structure of understanding where the self finds itself with itself.) This space would of course stay at home and be doubled by a representing ‘I’ whose structure would have as goal to protect the former from horrible invasions.And the difficult thing about Inés de la Fressange is that inside of her role, she seems to want to reveal exactly this evidence: that there is a private ‘I’, a self saying itself in its identity that has nothing to do with the representing ‘I’. She thus transforms the private ‘I’ into a social spontaneous natural entity which is though … artificial and appears as superficial as being completely out of context, while the real private ‘I’ stays hidden to herself or conquers the world in form of fuchsia t-shirts and falling leaves on perfume bottles. How much of what she says spontaneously has thus more to do with the repressed nature of the one she’s talking to than with herself? How much of herself is not actually revealed in fine gestures that have nothing to do with what she’s actually saying?What seems to be Fressange’s essential message, to say, the value of the universal in the particular, and the existence of a private entity that is covered by a social image, seems to factually get lost in her effort of demonstrating the evidence. She pushes the inner spheres outside of herself and makes of it … an image. Were her ‘ideology’ to be taken seriously it would imply for her to regather the private inside of her four walls while showing a more indifferent image to the outer world. That would imply for her to get back her property, as logical consequence. In the meantime she stays as the symbol of the possibility of the sacrifice of oneself as person in order to show the absurdity of existing ways of thinking.Isn’t that beautiful, Madame de la Fressange? And it doesn’t need silk to dress ya …


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: