Translated from French by AI
Where we see that… in his turn… Félix has, at his own risk and peril, embarked upon the traces of Lucian, Igniatius, the Moon Child, Nounours, Pinocchio the Other, and so many others still…
… if, from time to time, I continue to write, to draw, to listen, it will not be in order to produce a story sufficient unto itself. It will be so as not to forget that, even in the depths, someone finds some interest there and looks from still farther away…
Notebook of Félix
Yes. One must now take one step further. For what has until now been at stake in this child, in his relation to the book, to the Other, even to insolence, finds here its sharpest point of gravity: truth. I therefore resume, while maintaining this voice that wishes to be mine, that is to say not the voice of a commentator, but that of someone attempting to understand the story at the very place where it seems to come undone.
The Moon Child… as Igniatius, Lucian, and their drawings and notebooks make him appear, is not only seeking where words come from. He is not only seeking what he has written in his own notebooks. Nor does he want to know who writes about him, or even how he might avoid disappearing entirely into the discourse that accompanies him… and often… precedes him. He touches upon something more dangerous still: he approaches truth. Yet it is here that one must immediately mark an essential difference, without which everything becomes obscure.
Truths can be counted. They can be stated. They can be transmitted. They belong to the order of knowledge. Of course… they say something. They bear upon determined points. They have their domains and their relative guarantees. There are truths of fact, truths of science, truths of memory, truths of the heart, truths of discourse. Each one is valid within a field. Each one cuts out a fragment of the sayable.
Truth, however, cannot be measured.
And if it cannot be measured, it is not because it would be immense enough to contain all the others as a coffer might contain its coins. It is not an additional totality. It is not the sum of truths. It is not their final reconciliation. It belongs to another regime.
Truths are statements. Truth touches upon enunciation. Truths belong to what is said. Truth concerns what, in what is said, always exceeds what is said. Truths may be exact. Truth, however, never lets itself be possessed as exactitude.
It does not tolerate the plural. For to place truth in the plural is already to reduce it to contents or to fragments of knowledge. But truth is not an object of collection. It happens. And when it happens, it does not come to add itself to knowledge like a rare piece to a cabinet of curiosities. It displaces knowledge and renders it insufficient by piercing it.
That is why this child, if he approaches truth, cannot approach it as one approaches an answer. He approaches it as one approaches a fire.
We readily believe that truth illuminates. No doubt. But we forget that it burns. And what it burns first is not error. It is the stable form under which the subject believed himself capable of receiving what happens to him.
In other words, truth is not only what unveils itself; it is that before which the subject discovers himself insufficient.
The question is never simply to reveal or to conceal… that alternative is poor… what matters is the capacity to sustain what reveals itself.
A truth does not exist alone. It supposes a gaze, but more than that: it supposes a subject capable of not collapsing at the point where what he believed to be the world, or himself, ceases to hold.
I would therefore go so far as to say that the secret is not… first of all… a dissimulation. The secret is a modality of the true.
It is not that truth hides out of jealousy, or that it belongs to a few initiates who would keep its key. It is that it cannot appear frontally without ravaging what is not yet prepared to sustain it.
Here, the word secret would have to be heard otherwise than it usually is. The secret is not the opposite of truth. It is sometimes the condition of its appearing. It is the rhythm under which truth consents to be approached. It is the real’s own modesty when the subject can receive it only at the cost of coming undone.
And it is in this that this child matters so much to us.
For he does not live in a world where truth would be given as transmissible content. He lives in a book. He feels it. He experiences its edges. He knows obscurely that what happens to him does not coincide with what he understands. He therefore already experiences this fundamental dissymmetry: there is more in his experience than he can know of it.
This dissymmetry is the very place where truth may arise. I will say even more. What constitutes the child’s own insolence is not only that he disturbs the order of habits, that he answers beside the point… if indeed he answers… that he throws the Other out of accord with itself. It is that he does not consent to confuse truths with truth.
One would like him to settle for the available truths: that the world is thus made, that language is there, that the book is the book, that place is assigned, that what is known suffices to stand in for the true. But he, precisely, does not enter peacefully into this economy. He senses that something is lacking. And this lack is not a merely empirical gap. It is not missing information. It is the very defect through which each particular truth lets escape that which makes it possible and exceeds it.
Thus, truths participate only imperfectly in truth. Not because they would be false. But because they always lack that very thing thanks to which they are true: the point of opening where they encounter what they cannot exhaust.
Every particular truth cuts. It fixes. It determines. To say something precisely, it must leave something else in shadow. It gains in sharpness what it loses in breadth. It is true on condition that it does not claim to be the whole of the true.
Truth, for its part, is not what would come to fill these lacks by totalizing statements. It stands in the very fact that no statement suffices. It inhabits their insufficiency. It manifests itself in their gap… in the opening that persists between what is said and what happens.
From then on, what this child encounters is not a truth among others. It is the impossibility of making the true into an object that would be given without remainder.
That is why certain truths should remain secret… I correct… it is not that they should be hidden. It is that they can appear only under cover. Not because they would be less true, but because they are more demanding. They demand a transformation of the subject. They do not add themselves to what he knows; they displace the place from which he knew. They do not inform him… they affect him. They do not merely illuminate the world… they modify the gaze that believed it saw.
This is why revelation is not always a liberation. There are truths delivered too early that produce no clarity. They only disorganize. They destroy an ignorance which, though not the true, nevertheless supported a certain equilibrium of the subject. To remove this equilibrium without any other support being possible is not to free. It is to precipitate.
You see here how myth, figure, detour, literature itself, take on structural value.
Myth is not a lie opposed to the true. It is that which allows one to approach what, said face on, would be unbearable. It is not a veil placed over truth. It is sometimes the only mode under which truth can be received without immediate destruction.
This is why Claudel matters to me, and why your child, written as he is, is closer to a tragic figure than to a psychological character.
Tragedy does not transmit truths like maxims. It exposes a subject to the truth of his position, and that truth is never bearable without loss.
Sygne, in Claudel, is not interesting because she would say something true in a moral or doctrinal sense. She is interesting because she bears a truth that exceeds her, and that truth does not pass through her without undoing her.
Your child is in a similar position. He never ceases to sense that there is truth in what writes him, in what reads him, in that gaze he feels without seeing, in that opening of pages that makes him exist more. But he also senses that this truth cannot be given to him naked.
That is why he needs images and the book that contains them. That is why he needs the detour, the first world, the vision of an outside from the inside itself where he is enclosed.
All this is not symbolic decoration. All this constitutes the necessary veil for an approach to the true. For what the child could not sustain as a proposition, he may sometimes traverse as a symbol.
He could perhaps not hear: you are not the origin of your speech; you are the effect of a discourse that precedes you. But he can feel that he lives in a book.
He could perhaps not sustain: what you call the world is caught in the field of the Other. But he can experience that someone opens the book and turns the pages.
He could perhaps not hear… he is seen where he does not see himself. But he can feel a presence behind the gap of the pages.
And likewise for truth: he could no doubt not sustain that it is given only as that which burns the support that receives it. But he can sense its reserve, its necessity to withdraw into shadow.
I would even go so far as to say that his insolence is decisive here again. For it takes a certain insolence not to be satisfied with available truths.
It takes a certain insolence to feel that a knowledge may be exact and yet miss what is essential. Just as it takes a certain insolence not to treat the secret as a mere confiscation, but to sense that it may belong to the very structure of the true.
This child is insolent because he lacks habituation to knowledge. He does not settle for common truths. He touches, without yet being able to formulate it, that truth which cannot be said without consequence, and which, precisely for that reason, never ceases to withdraw.
He understands obscurely that there are truths that can be shared, and a truth that cannot be shared as a content, because it holds only in transforming the one who encounters it.
From then on, the secret is no longer an external prohibition.
It becomes the inner boundary of the subject himself.
There is, in each one, a line beyond which knowing is no longer accumulating, but being affected.
And this line, the child encounters at the very edge of his question. Where do words come from? Who writes the book? Who reads it?
These questions do not call for additional truths. They open the place where truth may occur, that is to say, the place where the subject must consent not to remain intact.
This is why truth cannot be put in the plural without being lost. The plural reassures. It distributes order sufficiently. It lets one believe that by multiplying contents one approaches the true. But truth is not obtained by accumulation. It arises in the gap where all truths show their limit.
And conversely, truths, however numerous, can only imperfectly claim truth. For each arrives after the fact. Each is already a fixation, a translation, sometimes a betrayal. Each retains something, but on the ground of what it lets escape.
Truth is what makes there be some truth in what are called truths, without ever reducing itself to them. It is their invisible ground, provided one understands that this ground is never given as firm terrain, but as what withdraws as soon as one believes to have grasped it.
The child, in this sense, is not the one who will discover truth as one discovers a hidden key. He is the one who learns that the true appears only through forms that protect him from its own violence.
And if there is a secret, then that secret is not a jealous withholding. It is the very form under which truth consents to approach a subject without annihilating him.
This is why shadow is not the enemy of truth. It may be what allows it to be born. A truth too exposed burns without illuminating. A truth approached through figure, through narrative, through detour, through slowness, may instead transform without destroying.
And it is here that I return to this child within his book.
He perhaps believes he is seeking an exit out of the text. But what he seeks, more deeply, is the right distance to that which in him, of the true, can only be received under cover.
It is not for him a matter of knowing everything. It is a matter of being able to sustain a little more of what exceeds him.
It is not a matter of lifting all secrets. It is a matter of becoming capable of inhabiting the one that constitutes him.
I will therefore conclude thus, in my own name. This child is not only the one who seeks the origin of language, nor the one who experiences the insolence of a subject poorly accustomed to the expected form of the world. He is the one who discovers, through the book, through the Other, through the secret itself, that truth will never be given to him as a possession.
It will come to him, if it comes, as passage. Not as content, but as transformation and ordeal. Not as pure light, but as light mixed with shadow, veiled enough not to reduce him to ashes, yet vivid enough that within it something of his desire may finally begin to read what, since always, was being written within him.
Thus, truths participate only imperfectly in truth. Not because they would be false. But because they always lack that very thing thanks to which they are true: the point of opening where they encounter what they cannot exhaust.
Every particular truth cuts. It fixes. It determines. To say something precisely, it must leave something else in shadow. It gains in sharpness what it loses in breadth. It is true on condition that it does not claim to be the whole of the true.
Truth, for its part, is not what would come to fill these lacks by totalizing statements. It stands in the very fact that no statement suffices. It inhabits their insufficiency. It manifests itself in their gap… in the opening that persists between what is said and what happens.
From then on, what this child encounters is not a truth among others. It is the impossibility of making the true into an object that would be given without remainder.
That is why certain truths should remain secret… I correct… it is not that they should be hidden. It is that they can appear only under cover. Not because they would be less true, but because they are more demanding. They demand a transformation of the subject. They do not add themselves to what he knows; they displace the place from which he knew. They do not inform him… they affect him. They do not merely illuminate the world… they modify the gaze that believed it saw.
This is why revelation is not always a liberation. There are truths delivered too early that produce no clarity. They only disorganize. They destroy an ignorance which, though not the true, nevertheless supported a certain equilibrium of the subject. To remove this equilibrium without any other support being possible is not to free. It is to precipitate.
You see here how myth, figure, detour, literature itself, take on structural value.
Myth is not a lie opposed to the true. It is that which allows one to approach what, said face on, would be unbearable. It is not a veil placed over truth. It is sometimes the only mode under which truth can be received without immediate destruction.
This is why Claudel matters to me, and why your child, written as he is, is closer to a tragic figure than to a psychological character.
Tragedy does not transmit truths like maxims. It exposes a subject to the truth of his position, and that truth is never bearable without loss.
Sygne, in Claudel, is not interesting because she would say something true in a moral or doctrinal sense. She is interesting because she bears a truth that exceeds her, and that truth does not pass through her without undoing her.
Your child is in a similar position. He never ceases to sense that there is truth in what writes him, in what reads him, in that gaze he feels without seeing, in that opening of pages that makes him exist more. But he also senses that this truth cannot be given to him naked.
That is why he needs images and the book that contains them. That is why he needs the detour, the first world, the vision of an outside from the inside itself where he is enclosed.
All this is not symbolic decoration. All this constitutes the necessary veil for an approach to the true. For what the child could not sustain as a proposition, he may sometimes traverse as a symbol.
He could perhaps not hear: you are not the origin of your speech; you are the effect of a discourse that precedes you. But he can feel that he lives in a book.
He could perhaps not sustain: what you call the world is caught in the field of the Other. But he can experience that someone opens the book and turns the pages.
He could perhaps not hear… he is seen where he does not see himself. But he can feel a presence behind the gap of the pages.
And likewise for truth: he could no doubt not sustain that it is given only as that which burns the support that receives it. But he can sense its reserve, its necessity to withdraw into shadow.
I would even go so far as to say that his insolence is decisive here again. For it takes a certain insolence not to be satisfied with available truths.
It takes a certain insolence to feel that a knowledge may be exact and yet miss what is essential. Just as it takes a certain insolence not to treat the secret as a mere confiscation, but to sense that it may belong to the very structure of the true.
This child is insolent because he lacks habituation to knowledge. He does not settle for common truths. He touches, without yet being able to formulate it, that truth which cannot be said without consequence, and which, precisely for that reason, never ceases to withdraw.
He understands obscurely that there are truths that can be shared, and a truth that cannot be shared as a content, because it holds only in transforming the one who encounters it.
From then on, the secret is no longer an external prohibition.
It becomes the inner boundary of the subject himself.
There is, in each one, a line beyond which knowing is no longer accumulating, but being affected.
And this line, the child encounters at the very edge of his question. Where do words come from? Who writes the book? Who reads it?
These questions do not call for additional truths. They open the place where truth may occur, that is to say, the place where the subject must consent not to remain intact.
This is why truth cannot be put in the plural without being lost. The plural reassures. It distributes order sufficiently. It lets one believe that by multiplying contents one approaches the true. But truth is not obtained by accumulation. It arises in the gap where all truths show their limit.
And conversely, truths, however numerous, can only imperfectly claim truth. For each arrives after the fact. Each is already a fixation, a translation, sometimes a betrayal. Each retains something, but on the ground of what it lets escape.
Truth is what makes there be some truth in what are called truths, without ever reducing itself to them. It is their invisible ground, provided one understands that this ground is never given as firm terrain, but as what withdraws as soon as one believes to have grasped it.
The child, in this sense, is not the one who will discover truth as one discovers a hidden key. He is the one who learns that the true appears only through forms that protect him from its own violence.
And if there is a secret, then that secret is not a jealous withholding. It is the very form under which truth consents to approach a subject without annihilating him.
This is why shadow is not the enemy of truth. It may be what allows it to be born. A truth too exposed burns without illuminating. A truth approached through figure, through narrative, through detour, through slowness, may instead transform without destroying.
And it is here that I return to this child within his book.
He perhaps believes he is seeking an exit out of the text. But what he seeks, more deeply, is the right distance to that which in him, of the true, can only be received under cover.
It is not for him a matter of knowing everything. It is a matter of being able to sustain a little more of what exceeds him.
It is not a matter of lifting all secrets. It is a matter of becoming capable of inhabiting the one that constitutes him.
I will therefore conclude thus, in my own name. This child is not only the one who seeks the origin of language, nor the one who experiences the insolence of a subject poorly accustomed to the expected form of the world. He is the one who discovers, through the book, through the Other, through the secret itself, that truth will never be given to him as a possession.
It will come to him, if it comes, as passage. Not as content, but as transformation and ordeal. Not as pure light, but as light mixed with shadow, veiled enough not to reduce him to ashes, yet vivid enough that within it something of his desire may finally begin to read what, since always, was being written within him.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire