The Fractured: The Impulse & The Event

Impulse To Philosophize 

Speaking with B the other day, I found myself regurgitating about my idiosyncratic sense of impulse. Undoubtedly, others might perceive and, may I add, mistake this sense as an insistence, as opposed to what it seems to me i.e., a condition. To prove otherwise, using common epistemology, continues to be incredibly challenging. 

And yet, it remains within my purview a matter of fact. 

It remains within my purview beyond reproach. 

Regarding that last point, one mustn't misplace the emphasis upon 'reproach', for one could, if one was determined, find a way to evaluate this "fact of mine" using some combination of qualitative methods. But that that remains a possibility is neither surprising nor is that the point. For the nature of this evaluation continues to be, in some sense, intrinsically and inexplicably within the proximity of the conditions engendering my foremost concern. This, then, appears to implicate my facticity. And for that very reason, the evaluation, if an evaluation, must be somehow independent or exterior to it. In an effort to reach this exteriority, current attempts have turned inwards. In other words, regarding that last point again, one mustn't situate their attention onto 'beyond'.  It must be considered a question of location of the fact rather than its veracity. Indeed, it is precisely the internality of the condition that places it beyond reproach. That that it is anything but beyond my own reproach complicates the matter. Every now and again, I doubt whether this condition is true. In other words, I find myself doubting whether I choose to doubt or if it truly remains an impulse. This doubt comes about spontaneously, and as it does, it confirms that the doubt in this instance has, indeed, come about through impulse. However, for reasons inaccessible for the time being, it seems prudent not to accept this as a form of validation. The final recourse, whilst clearly with one's self, remains inadequate. 

In light of that, and having considered this actuality on a separate occasion, it appears prudent to conclude this assemblage by explicating the Event. Whilst an autoethnography continues to exist materially, in its current form it is rather incompatible with the blog. This issue of alignment notwithstanding, the existence of the autoethnography appears to afford a certain sense of ease.

The Event 

Admittedly, on a number of occasions it has been necessary to refer to the Event. Whilst a comprehensive explication of the Event would be found at the conclusion of this assemblage, and whilst the Event by itself might not refer to this assemblage, it seems necessary to contextualise the Event for the sake of the pieces thus far. 

Temporal co-ordinates seem essential. 

From where I stand now, the Event clearly marked and continues to mark a psychological but, more notably, an epistemic fragmentation in my life. But where I stood then, it wasn't as clear. A bystander might be compelled to incline towards declaring the event trivial. This declaration or view, if not judgment, would even be somewhat understandable, if one admits that their view of the Event is merely and solely objectively. 

To rush analysis, is to be expedient and privilege something cultural, if not economic. 

To rush analysis, is to rush understanding. 

In my view, to dismiss this critique is to defend and valorise capitalism but by inertia. To view the Event objectively and without considering the experiential, the social, the cultural, or the individual, is undoubtedly inconsiderate, insufficient, and, above all, dismissive of the complexities of the human condition. 

The Event remains a critical point within my personal history. In what followed, it was a disjunction between the former self and the current after self. 

The former was a film-maker producing videos and digital products for the advertising and film industry. The former was dissatisfied and disappointed by the culture and practices of said industry. The former wanted to dispense with that facticity and move towards something that the former felt was their 'truer' calling. The former wanted to be a Philosopher who writes, and writes impactfully. 

Soon an opportunity emerged that would seemingly facilitate this movement. A movement which was, at once, geographical (Mumbai to London) and professional (Film Industry to Academia). The opportunity, which came in the form of a Master's course, was, then, seen as a proper synthesise of the past into a desirable future. Following settling into London, came about an imagination of a grand scale albeit naive depth. The former was convinced that they would get a doctorate following their masters programme, and that following that they would become a professor. This, for the former self, was certain. Soon came the moment of confirmation and validation, in the form of assessments. And the very first paper, that the former self wrote with great gusto, inaugurated the Event. 

Failed. 

The very thing that was supposed to confirm and validate became that which scrutinised and rejected. The future imaginary became an impossibility. The present became a crossroad. The dual nature of the Event as trivial and profound should be more visibly here. It would not be difficult for anyone to suggest either of the two options. 

Get feedback, improve, move on. 

Easy. 

In addition and otherwise. 

Accept that this (writing) is not for you, and return back. 

Except, this latter was unacceptable. Whilst I had, in some sense, accepted the denial of the future imaginary, there brewed a non-acceptance of the past as well. To return to the former self was to return to a self that would eventually always fail that first essay. To return to the former self was to accept that that which was volitional was beyond me. The first option, of receiving feedback and improving, seemed untenable as well. I was yet to receive the judgment concerning two other papers. But I was convinced that if this paper, which I thought of highly, turned out the way that it did, then relying on the other papers was a hopeless endeavour. In other words, I believed in my future failure. And at the same time, I stopped believing in myself. 

Language betrays and omits the nuance here, so allow me to expand at the cost of syntactical clutter. I believed in the future failures of a particular version of me, thus having to refrain if not avoid being that version. This meant that the self either fractured or perhaps that the self was always fractured, or that the individual is a site of multiple selves collapsing differently. The Event remains a critical point within my personal history, for it shattered and, thus, exposed the fragile entities of my life (Sköld, 2022). This revelation implicitly served as a point of departure for the autoethnographic exploration, eventually ending up with this assemblage. 

A chasm between this departure and the foremost concern remains. 

On Revisiting Ontologies

The origin or the source, of my ideas, notions, and thoughts, better subsumed under impressions, remains unchartered. By origin and by source, I must mean the conditions or factors preceding these impressions. This immediacy cannot be merely in terms of temporality. For if so, a movement to reduce them, to something social, cultural, economic, political, remains imminent and understandable. But this immediacy appears to be in terms of proximity as well. This proximity is to that which Kierkegaardian Spirit comes close. 

I must say that it is not the case that the prior movement of reduction is inherently incorrect. The movement of reduction is predicated on a particular ontology that remains flawed for the endeavour in question. Thus it appears that I believe that it is imperative to endeavour to revisit my linguistic and semantic ontology. This medium, currently as a blog and perhaps later as a book, might very well be such an endeavour. 

---

Bibliography

Butler, J. (2005). Giving an account of oneself. Fordham University Press. https://amzn.to/43wGhhh

Heidegger, M. (2008). Being and time (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.). Harper Perennial Modern Thought. (Original work published 1927) https://amzn.to/44I9s38

Kierkegaard, S. (1989). The sickness unto death (A. Hannay, Trans.). Penguin Classics. (Original work published 1849) https://amzn.to/3YRnEmH

Sköld, A. (2022). A social ontology of grief. Theory & Psychology, 33(1), 24-41. https://doi.org/10.1177/09593543221128231 (Original work published 2023)

St. Pierre, E. A. (2019). Post Qualitative Inquiry, the Refusal of Method, and the Risk of the New. Qualitative Inquiry, 25(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800419863005

Marcus Aurelius. (2006). Meditations (M. Hammond, Trans.). Penguin Classics.

Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.). Blackwell Publishing. https://amzn.to/4kPr8Ph