Of Knowledge

Teachers teach that knowledge waits;

The following are impediments to the comprehension of knowledge:

That knowledge, that is to say human knowledge, is sufficient, in itself and of itself, to impart something that satisfies a want.

That it can be delivered without irony or political weight.

That it can resist hypostasization, that is to say, that it can resist reduction to an elementary state, in principle, devoid of context, most pertinently, to a state disconnected from any historical context.

That it is unitary, unfailing, precise, inexorable and real.

That it makes itself available to anybody, which is to say, to everybody.

That it is devoid of guile, cunning, threat and has no negative aspect.

That its presence is innocent and can be defiling only when made use of.

That knowledge is for itself, unattached to any object, any idea, any impression or any perspective which is historically partial.

That it can be reduced to an object which is itself knowable.

That knowledge is received unfettered and loose of  any debt to preceding thinkers, who were themselves subject to these impediments.

That knowledge is assumed, forcibly, without aesthetic and moral responsibility on the part of the receiving subject.

That knowledge is free of aesthetical stricture and is never subject to arbitrary preference.

That knowledge is free from moral structure.

That knowledge is a type of thinking, one of many kinds, rather than thinking in itself.

That it is sublimated, even deified.

That it is coincident with truth and in the strongest form of this contradiction, that it is indivisible with truth.

That it presents a seamless and unbreakable continuity in time  from some tacit point of origin.

That knowledge is devoid of temporal error.

That knowledge can be conferred upon others.

That it is not merely truthful but embodies stark, brutal, incontrovertible fact.

A peremptory note.

Everyday the farmer’s wife attended her hens in late afternoon to feed them. The brood had certain knowledge that her appearance was fortifying their continued survival. On the last afternoon however, the eve of Thanksgiving, she appeared with an axe.

Causality is merely the most familiar form of knowledge, defended over-zealously by those who cannot stomach its structural contradictions.

It is an enduring superstition that knowledge alone can assuage error.

Error and knowledge, however, are creatures sui generis.

Error and knowledge are incontrovertibly distinct since knowing in error is not knowing at all. Only further error will satisfy demands for the reversal of error. Knowledge presents itself as the farmer’s wife presents the satisfaction of a want to the hungry brood, only to deliver, as the final rite, a fatal decapitation. Error cannot be satisfied by knowledge, such a move would prove precociously precipitant bringing life in its human social form to an abrupt end.

To have knowledge is to disappear. 

Architectural knowledge, weak in so far as it thinks itself subject to ostensibly stronger forms, leaves itself open to human dissimulation and to modishness in its sporadic and temporary legitimation of alternative forms. This at least constitutes some kind of hope.

Naturalism and empiricism are its epistemological polarities.

Teachers teach that knowledge waits; Leads to $100.00 plates; 

The amelioration of so many contradictions is afforded by desire.

When knowledge trades for power its genealogy ceases to be of importance and pragmatic expediency takes a hand.  Knowledge is never power. What serves power, what constructs the axes of power relations is achieved not with a command of knowledge but with a command of error. 

Perhaps the most odious error of all, is to regard knowledge as an object. It is the image of a promised knowledge, un-demonstrable in a world of error; the possibility of the satisfaction of a remote want, that ignites the light of something quite unattainable. It is an image of knowledge which trades for power.

About this entry