PRINTING VIS-À-VIS WRITING

 

1.   There is likewise an objective/subjective distinction, it seems to me, between printing and writing, since that which is objective remains free or separate, whereas the subjective reflects a tendency towards binding and, hence, unity.

 

2.   Hence it could be argued that printing corresponds to the female side of life in what amounts to an objective tendency of characters to remain separate, or disjunctive, whereas writing corresponds to the male side of life in what amounts to the subjective bias of joined characters, which thereby bind into a writerly whole.

 

3.   It would also follow that whereas printing is largely public, or suited to literary products in the public domain, writing, by contrast, is largely private, and therefore more suited to literary exchanges, or whatever, of a private or secretive nature.

 

4.   I happen to think that the deepest and truest writings, which are more likely to be philosophical than, say, fictional, require to be written rather than printed, and that only on such a subjective basis could justice be done to them, insofar as the profoundest writings will be those which are the most subjective, and hence male-orientated.

 

5.   Doubtless fiction and philosophy are the two kinds of literature which most conform to a subjective bias, with fiction arguably more masculine and phenomenal than - at any rate, comparatively - divine and noumenal, given its vegetative bias within the broadly feminine, or fluidal, parameters of literature generally.

 

6.   This would contrast with poetry and drama as the two kinds of literary production which most conform to an objective bias, with poetry arguably more diabolic and noumenal, comparatively speaking, than feminine or phenomenal, given its fiery bias within the broadly feminine, or fluidal, parameters of literature generally.

 

7.   Yet, paradoxes of this sort notwithstanding, it does seem that the more subjective literature becomes, as in the best philosophy, the less applicability does it have to the public domain, and the more irrelevant printing accordingly becomes to it.

 

8.   In fact, one might be forgiven for wondering whether print could ever do justice to works of a deeply subjective and hence truth-oriented order, insofar as printed matter betrays what is, after all, an objective tendency in which separateness rather than joinedness is the (female) norm.

 

9.   And such a norm, being demonstrably superficial, can hardly be expected to do justice to works of literary profundity, least of all those which advocate, through philosophical wisdom, greater binding to self as the solution, for males, to life's manifold perplexities.

 

10.  There is definitely no basis for supposing that printed works will give any great encouragement to males to cultivate subjectivity at the expense of objectivity, particularly in view of the fact that printing reflects an objective disposition such that 'flies in the face' of subjective binding.

 

11.  On the contrary, printed material is a reflection of freedom, and the growth of printing at the expense of writing in the modern world was not achieved without the correlative shrinkage of binding, and thus of male-oriented moral values.

 

12.  For there would seem to be a connection between printing and secular freedom on the one hand, and between writing and ecclesiastic binding on the other hand, with the former very much the prevailing norm not only in so-called 'free societies', but in the public domain generally.

 

13.  So much so that one cannot conceive of a deeply subjective or moralistic text being published in book form, since books send out the wrong signals, in their printed-character formats, as far as any possibility of religious binding is concerned.

 

14.  Not only would it be a contradiction in terms for deeply subjective work to be published in book form, but it is almost inconceivable that publishers would encourage the dissemination of such writings anyway, bearing in mind their irrelevance to the printed norms to which books invariably subscribe.

 

15.  The only medium likely to do justice to highly philosophical texts of a deeply subjective nature, such that go beyond even Christian binding in their transcendentalist aspirations, would be compact discs, specifically with the use of a writerly, or joined-character, typeface ... such that could only prove more technically suited to the theoretical exemplification of what may well amount to a Superchristian binding, the binding-of-bindings and truth-of-truths.

 

16.  For binding is not only beyond freedom, as wavicles lie beyond particles, but is that which comes to pass when the male of the species takes responsibility for his own destiny and rejects secular objectivity as a matter of principle.

 

17.  Thus it is theoretically possible to restore, on suitably artificial terms, writing to its moral pre-eminence in the vanguard of binding to subjective values, and anyone who does so will have passed beyond the secular freedoms of the world and the dominion, in consequence, of female objectivity.

 

18.  Anyone who seeks for truth not in himself or, rather, his self, but in the print-based publications of secular modernity ... is searching in the wrong place and effectively wasting his time!