Pas (step/not)
[The pas] is accomplished in its very impossibility, it enfranchises itself with respect to itself.
- Jacques Derrida, Aporias
There is a certain but truistic problematic to saying, "I want to run away," for implicit in its very formulation is the assumption of a ground which begs for prepositions. "From where?" "To where?" If the ground is taken as solid enough, then the question itself is lent solidity, the solidity of a destination and of an origin.
But a ground is nothing but the function of a distance. And like all things in matter which matter, distance, also like time, can be sliced. Even obliterated. One way to do so seems to be by closing this distance by proximity or unity; and the other way seems to be by opening this distance so wide that it no longer matters.
But one can slice distance so thinly that it makes the grounds for closing or opening themselves impossible. This is Derrida's elegant pas. Step/not.
The problematic of the approach to the other is inseparable from the logic of the pas, which has to be understood in two ways: the pas as noun relating to passage (step, advance), and the pas of negation. Both signal toward the act of crossing a border and at the same time the impossibility of passage. The sense of the formula "step not beyond" [pas-au-delà] or what "goes for a certain pas" [il y va d'un certain pas] is therefore undecidable. The step-not toward the other doesn't find its place. (Malabou and Derrida, Counterpath)
This is perfectly illustrated by the moment before running away. Properly understood, that moment contains an almost infinity of undecidability, for it carries within itself this step/not in the form of the word "goodbye." Do not approach in speech, for that will incur a reaction; do not retreat in silence without warning, for that would have broken a promise. The logic of the step/not must add a third alternative, however, and that is found within silence itself, which multiplies step/nots until the other tires of interpreting silence.
And in the moment and only in the moment of running away after this undecidability is when the ground becomes solid again, and when the questions "From where?" and "To where?" can be asked.
And yet, even that solidity can be rendered into cinders again, for prepositions are always already secondary to grounds. And in making the question of flight that of grounds instead, the step/not sidesteps this secondarity altogether, in a stead which is not a stead.
The step [pas] that approaches steps away [é-loigne], at the same time and in the same step that denies itself and takes itself off, it reduces and extends its own distance. (Derrida, Parages)
The step-not toward the other doesn't find its place, because goodbyes are always already impossible: already made but never said in their saying, and when said, always already too early or too late.
- Jacques Derrida, Aporias
There is a certain but truistic problematic to saying, "I want to run away," for implicit in its very formulation is the assumption of a ground which begs for prepositions. "From where?" "To where?" If the ground is taken as solid enough, then the question itself is lent solidity, the solidity of a destination and of an origin.
But a ground is nothing but the function of a distance. And like all things in matter which matter, distance, also like time, can be sliced. Even obliterated. One way to do so seems to be by closing this distance by proximity or unity; and the other way seems to be by opening this distance so wide that it no longer matters.
But one can slice distance so thinly that it makes the grounds for closing or opening themselves impossible. This is Derrida's elegant pas. Step/not.
The problematic of the approach to the other is inseparable from the logic of the pas, which has to be understood in two ways: the pas as noun relating to passage (step, advance), and the pas of negation. Both signal toward the act of crossing a border and at the same time the impossibility of passage. The sense of the formula "step not beyond" [pas-au-delà] or what "goes for a certain pas" [il y va d'un certain pas] is therefore undecidable. The step-not toward the other doesn't find its place. (Malabou and Derrida, Counterpath)
This is perfectly illustrated by the moment before running away. Properly understood, that moment contains an almost infinity of undecidability, for it carries within itself this step/not in the form of the word "goodbye." Do not approach in speech, for that will incur a reaction; do not retreat in silence without warning, for that would have broken a promise. The logic of the step/not must add a third alternative, however, and that is found within silence itself, which multiplies step/nots until the other tires of interpreting silence.
And in the moment and only in the moment of running away after this undecidability is when the ground becomes solid again, and when the questions "From where?" and "To where?" can be asked.
And yet, even that solidity can be rendered into cinders again, for prepositions are always already secondary to grounds. And in making the question of flight that of grounds instead, the step/not sidesteps this secondarity altogether, in a stead which is not a stead.
The step [pas] that approaches steps away [é-loigne], at the same time and in the same step that denies itself and takes itself off, it reduces and extends its own distance. (Derrida, Parages)
The step-not toward the other doesn't find its place, because goodbyes are always already impossible: already made but never said in their saying, and when said, always already too early or too late.
Comments
Post a Comment