[-empyre-] message from hamed taheri

["sergio basbaum" <sbasbaum@gmail.com>]

Message from Hamed Taheri:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII)
What is the noiseless world? What is the noiseless?
What is the world?
What is the noisy world(s)? What is the noise? What is
the world(s)?
Are the world in the noiseless world and the world in
noisy world(s) the same?

I can reformulate the questions as:

Through what does the noiseless belong to humankind?
Through what does the world (in the noiseless world)
belong to humankind?
Through what does the noise belong to humankind?
Through what does the world (in the noisy world(s))
belong humankind?

Once Benjamin said that every expression of human
mental life can be understood as a kind of language...
It is possible to talk about a language of music and
of sculpture, about a language of justice... about a
language of technology...  If it is true that we can
talk about language (or languages) of technological
media, then, Benjamin's work-of-art essay is a theatre
in the light of his philosophy of language whose actor
is language of technological media. Just as his
storyteller essay is a theatre in the light of his
philosophy of language whose actor is language of
literature. From this standpoint, his brilliant
reflections on toys, children books, flowers, stars,
photography, violence, history, redemption and ... are
all gathered up and braided into a coiffure of
language. In the light of his intensively developed
philosophy of language in "The Role of Language in
Trauerspiel and Tragedy," "On Language as Such and on
the Language of Man," "The Task of Translator,"
"Thesis on the Romantic Concept of Criticism,"
"Paralipomena to On the Concept of History,"
"Storyteller" and "Epistemological-Critical Preface to
the Origin of German Tragic Drama" I would like to
seek the questions out.

The "through what" that the noise belongs to the
humankind is language(s).
The "through what" that the noiseless belongs to the
humankind is language.
The "through what" that the world (in noiseless world)
belongs to the humankind is history.
The "through what" that the world (in noisy world(s))
belongs to the humankind is historie(s).

The noiseless world can find its proper meaning only
in this horizon of the fusion of language and
history-the horizon of inseparability of historical
condition of human beings from their condition as
speaking beings- and the noisy world can find its
proper meaning only in this horizon of the fusion of
languages and histories. It is at issue here to find
the position and figure of the language of
technological media in the context of Benjamin's
constellation of language. It's only after this
positioning, that, Benjamin's work-of-art essay will
begin to propose its unexpected figures and gestures
for praxis of technological media. I will be satisfied
if this discussion succeeds only in canceling an
accustomed presupposition with which we deal with
technological media: The language of technological
media is universal. The spectacular power of
technological media in our private and public life,
only comparable with secret service policy, is
grounded on this very motto, the universality of the
language of technological media. Benjamin with his
genuine audacity and without any reservation attempted
to say: The language of the technological media is not a
universal language.

In the language of technological media, in contrast
with existent historical languages, the element of
semblance (Schein) has been entirely displayed by the
element of play (Spiel).


In the appreciation of the language of technological
media, like all historical languages, our task cannot
be consideration of either a new grammar or a new
consumer-receiver or a new historical event. The
language of technological media, like all historical
languages, is a being-in-language-grammar-people-state.

In Benjamin's philosophy of language, language is
originally marked by a fracture. Benjamin terms this
decomposition of language into two levels "Fall of
Language." Fall of language from level I to level II:

Level I: The pure life of feeling (Reines
Gefühlsleben) -or- The pure sound of feeling -or- The
original level of language-or-The names-or-Adamic
naming-or-The pure language (Reine Sprache)-or-The
language of names (Namensprache)-or-A language which
knows no means, no object, and no address of
communication-or-A language through which nothing is
communicated, and in which language communicates
itself absolutely-or- language of language-or-A
language which does not have a content as
communication-or- A language which is transparent to
itself.
Level II: The domain of meaning-or-The signifying
speech as the means of an external
communication-or-The word must communicate something
other than itself-or-A language as a means (a
inappropriate knowledge to man)-or-A language as a
mere sign (plurality of languages.)

Benjamin, in 1916, figured singular pure language as
Edenic origin (level I) of historical languages (level
II). But, in 1921, he figured singular pure language
as the end (level III) of the movement of historical
languages.

Level III: The expressionless word freed from the
weight and extraneousness of meaning-or-The universal
language of redeemed humanity-or-The messianic end of
languages.

As history tends toward its messianic fulfillment, so
movement of historical languages tends toward a final,
conclusive, decisive stage of all linguistics
creatures. In this pure language all information, all
communication and all meaning are extinguished. But,
Benjamin did not stop here. His genuine reflections
come when he tried to define the relationship between
this origin and end, and, to delineate the full figure
of pure language. It's exactly and precisely here that
Benjamin to get his political bearings shakes theology
and linguistic theories off. This is why he firmly
rejected an invitation from Martin Buber, the
religious philosopher and proponent of cultural
Zionism, to contribute to Der Jude, a journal devoted
to Jewish and Zionist topics. Only if we can grasp
fully this political figure, we can possibly discover
intact possibilities in the language of technological
media. Benjamin, with an audacity, transformed and
identified origin and end. They are not divided: the
two penetrate each other in a single gesture. In this
context, his citation from Karl Kraus "origin is the
goal" finds its proper meaning. The language of name
is not initial chronological point and the messianic
end of languages is not a chronological cessation.
Once Benjamin said perhaps revolutions are an attempt
by the passengers on this train to activate the
emergency brake. Benjamin, in one of his most
brilliant fragments, delineated the full figure of
pure language:

The messianic world is the world of universal and
integral actuality. Only in the messianic realm does a
universal history exist. (The universal history as
practiced since the nineteenth century can never has
been more than a kind of Esperanto.) Not as written
history, but as festively enacted history. This
festival is purified of all celebration. There are no
festive songs. Its language is liberated prose-prose
which has burst the fetters of script and is
understood by all people (as the language of birds is
understood by Sunday's children.)

It seems that now I have a proper context to
understand the language of technological media. Like
every historical languages, the language of
technological media is destined to be fallen from pure
sound of feeling (origin) into the domain of meaning,
information and communication, where its approximate
history, that is, the age of technological
reproducibility, is born together with meaning,
information and communication. And the language of
technological media is destined for pure language,
that is, the messianic end of its history.
Analogously, I can say that noise is a figure of the
language after its fall. Noise is not disturbance of
the communication. Noise is communication itself, the
very signifying speech as a means of communication.
And, noiseless is possibly the figure of the language
before its fall or after the extinction and
cancellation of all communication. Alongside, world in
noisy world(s) designates to multiplicity and
diversity of histories and world in noiseless world
designates to universal history of redeemed humanity.
In noiseless world, word is expressionless, freed from
the weight and extraneousness of meaning.
Today's passivity of human beings in front of
technological media, it's absolute power to control
our political praxis and its insidious charm in
destruction our life and experience makes it necessary
to understand our tasks fully, the tasks which
Benjamin's prophetic reflections described with
precision. Benjamin clearly excluded three figures
from the universal language-history of redeemed
humanity, three figures which are included by present
day regime of technological media as its fortified
foundation.

First attack must be aimed at the universal language
as Esperanto.

Every perception of the language of technological
media as Esperanto attains in infinite flux of
information. On the contrary, language of
technological media, like every historical languages,
should includes its capacity of messianic fulfillment.
Second attack must be aimed at the universal language
as ideal.

Every perception of the language of technological
media as ideal attains in the historical progress. On
the contrary, language of technological media, like
every historical languages, should includes its
capacity to be confronted with human being's life and
experience.

Third attack should be aimed at the universal language
as written.

Every perception of the language of technological
media as written attains in the modern mysticism. On
the contrary, language of technological media, like
every historical languages, should includes its
capacity to tend toward reading of what was never
written.

Hitler understood and used the inherent technological
reproducibility of his age. He reproduced
technologically the horror of Goya's paintings. But,
Chaplin lost the chance to use the technological
reproducibility of Cinema against concentration camp.
Maybe, Benjamin hoped to awake Chaplin. But, Chaplin
was a heavy sleeper. Jus as we are, today, right now.
Good night, ladies! Good night, gentlemen! Good night.