EmpireofNeoMemorybyHeribertoYepez PDF

The Empire of
Neomemory
CHAIN LINKS
The Empire of
Neomemory
by Heriberto Ypez
translated by
Jen Hofer
Christian Nagler
& Brian Whitener
Originally published in Spanish as El Imperio de la neomemoria, copyright
2007 by Almada, Oaxaca.
This English translation copyright 2013 by ChainLinks.
All rights resort to author and translators upon publication.
isbn 1-930068-63-8
La presente traduccin fue realizada con el estmulo del Programa de

Apoyo a la Traduccin de Obras Mexicanas a Lenguas Extranjeras
(PROTRAD), dependiente de las instituciones culturales de Mxico con-
vocantes. This translation was done with the support of the Program for
Translation of Mexican Works into Foreign Languages (PROTRAD).
Translators Note Three translators worked on this version of The

Empire of Neomemory; each of us translated one chapter. While we were
in conversation amongst ourselves and with Heriberto throughout the
process, the individual chapters reflect slight differences in each translators
interpretation of Heribertos work and style, and to some extent of the
poetics of translation. In addition, Heriberto was an active collaborator
with us in the process of making this translationadding and subtract-
ing, tweaking and translating alongside usand his vision informed our
translation choices at many junctures. One aspect of the original text that
seemed to us especially important to highlight is the frequent use of terms
in English. Rather than footnoting each usage, we have indicated terms
originally written in English in italics and included them in a list at the
end of each chapter. These italics are in addition to the italicized Spanish
words in the original text.
COVER IMAGE The image reproduces a page from a flipbook called

Folgers from Black Mountain Groan by Michael Myers, Ed Dorn, and Teter
Holbrook and published by Zephyrus Image in 1977. The book repro-
duces drawings by Myers of Olson standing in front of a weather map.
When the book is flipped he moves his finger back and forth over his lips,
mimicking a familiar action used to get babies to laugh.
CHAINLINKS
Oakland and Philadelphia
Series editors: Jena Osman & Juliana Spahr
Design: Jacqueline Thaw
Typesetting: King Tender
THRESHOLD
The cybermnemetic is a means of production for unconnected images.

It is a process for the fragmentation of reality, experience, and memory;
by means of the cybermnemetic illusionsince the cybermnemetic
cannot be anything but fantasythe Oxident accumulates.
Accumulates images for its reoccurrence.
Language converted into space for only-echo.
The cybermnemetic is the dream of a neomemory.
The cybermnemetic is the foundation of Empire.
Without cybermnemetics there is no pantopia.
America is the cybermnemetic.
And yet, deathwill free us from everything.

Including the Universe.
6
The Empire of Neomemory

contents
I.
AMERICA
PSEUDO-PATRIARCHY
PANTOPIA
page 9
Going Postal Co-body, Short Story, and Bradbury
Olson, Pseudo-Patriarchy, and Melville Pantopia, Burnout,
and Comedy Fathers Everywhere: Olson History,
Precursor of Pantopia Olson: I am I and My Propoganda
Oh Bartleby! Oh Humanity! Geneology of the Scrivener
of Wall Street Oedpius Deciphered Maximus Larval
Prose and Takeover Polychrony of the Text I Take Space
Call Me Ishmael Fake Fakes: USA, Science Fiction,
and the Bible The Meeting of Ishmael and Medea My
Blood, His Ink Motz Mexico Omnivore Interpretation
II.
CO-OXIDENT
KINH-TIME
EMPIRE
page 101
Co-Oxident Griiingo-go, Grrrriiing-Go: Mind, Naivet,
Kitsch Mecate Plus Goodyear: Dept of Disappearing
Culture _ucking_ish:The Maya on the Hunt for
Protein and Fat The Stupidity of Poetry The Regime of
Perspective: Cartographies and Cornfields Lawrence, Olson,
and Quetzalcatl Meanings of the Plumed-Serpent
Glyphs, Olson, and Fenollosa Olson,Whorf, and the Hopi
7
Model of Space-Time Moses of Yucatn Olsons Failure,
Olsons Sixth Sense Theory of the Quincunce On
Nomadic Time A Mayan Theory of Time: Kinh Structure
Time, Memory, and Empire
III.
Neomemory
Modernity-Post
Cybermnemics
page 185
Apocalypse Now (Redux) Enter the Interzone As
Time Goes By (Re-Visited) Poetry, Neo-Mneme, and
Mnemo-Technics Avatars of Neomemory History,
Memory, and the Now Cinematics of the Projective
Theory of the Pseudo-World Co-Inheritances Pioneer
of the Post-Modern Rememory, Retrogression, and Death
Throes On the Function of Critique On the Function
of Critique (2) The Pueblo of Neomemory There are
Laws:Taking Down the Pantopia Against the Universe
Notes On Process
for a
Translation-In-Process
page 255
written for eight hands
by Jen Hofer, Christian Nagler,
Brian Whitener, & Heriberto Ypez

1.
AMERICA
PSEUDO-
PATRIARCHY
PANTOPIA

Heraclitus, B 101
10

Going Postal
It all begins with a man wanting to deliver a letter. A man

looking for addresses; the second in this lineage. He carries
with him a sack full of others words. Words he doesnt
know. It all begins with this man knocking on your door. A
pantopians story.
Can a biography explain an empire? Possibly, if there is
a shared metaphysics. And if it explains nothing, can you
blame the error on madness? In this mans work, we find the
workings of an empire, thanks to co-control by analogy. I will
not tell the story of an individual. I will leave the relation
between life and empire open. I will touch the fibers of a
corpo-graphy. I will touch the telephysical structure of a
government.
Born in 1910 in Worcester Massachusetts, Charles was
the son of Karl Joseph, a Swedish immigrant who became
a postman after coming to the United States. Charles was
to have a lifelong relationship with the epistolary. He was a
man who only seemed to think by means of correspondence.
He was a split man, who healed only in dialogue, under
the fantasy that the other was a part of himself, a Humpty
Dumpty made of others, put back together again. This man
11 is the mad emissary.
AMERICA | PSEUDO-PATRIARCHY | PANTOPIA

An emissary of the dying gods of the Oxident* and of
the nascent empire of the United States. The poet known,
almost unanimously, as the father of those so-called New
American Poetsthe generation of the beatniks and the
countercultureand the poet who is, like Pound, Stein, or
Ginsberg, a communicating vessel for studying an entire
civilization. Olsons tracks lead us to the avatars of empire.
Biocriticism of the geopolitical.
This messenger sent out or acquired his best ideas in let-
ters; even his essays and poems are mail. Life of a wounded
Hermes; everything in him was remittance and postal hope.
(Who and letter are two emissions that co-fantasize each
other. The time will come in which no I will be able to
sustain itself without its character of addressee and sender.
Everything will be postal; this is the full meaning of Going
Postal. This postalization will lay the foundation of the
empire to come.)
Did Olson feel so far from the world that the closest
communication would require the unfathomable distance
of the intimate-discursive letter? Throughout his life he
remained convinced that living persons and documents of
the past were letters received, letters written for him. (In the
panalogy everything is seen from the perspective of destiny
or synchrony. Everything has become arachnid analogy.)
Between him and his closest neighbor there were always
centuries of distance. He was already member of a lineage
that was itself a gathering of phantasms.
For Pound, the poet was the antenna of a race-epoch; for
* Heriberto uses this term throughout the text, a combination of

Occidental and oxidized. It also refers to an Oxident that includes
Mexico, with the x signifying the quincunx, discussed later in the
book. He is playing with Peruvian poet Csar Vallejos use of the term in
poem LXIII (Amanece lloviendo) of Trilce (1922). The line reads: y
en mal asfaltado oxidente de muebles hindes/ vira, se asienta apenas el
destino (and on the misasphalted oxident of hindu furniture/ veering,
destiny hardly settles, trans. Clayton Eshleman from The Complete Poetry,
12 University of California Press, 2009, p. 295). (Trans. note)

Olson, its desperate mailbox.
Olson idealized his father. His life, in many ways, was a
continuation of Karls. (When a father doesnt finish his own
life, his descendants continue it, but in so doing they leave
their own lives incomplete; an incompletion impossible to
repair, an incompletion that will be hereditary, in order to
continue transfamilial co-control, the invisible game of dimin-
ished energy, of the transmission of intermittence.) It was
his father who instilled in Olson the desire to be a successful
student and who interested him in historemes of Worcester
and Gloucesterhistoremes that then became the epicen-
ters of his poetic work. Paradoxically, Karl saw in Charles
everything that he imagined that he himself had wanted to be,
while Charles saw in his father everything that he needed to
understand. When Olson writes The Post Office (1948) he
recalls that for his progenitor education was the newspaper.
Curiously, for Olson, poetry was always reportage. Perhaps no
other North American* poet had been as influenced by infor-
mation from periodicals as Olson. His mature poetry, based on
anecdotes, ciphers, and local characters, is representative of a
time whose form would be provided by information.
What is information? Language transformed in
exchange; increasingly static exchange. Information is the
world structured by syntagmatic dialogue. Information
functions by compression. An era of silence is ruled by
the repressive; an era of information by the compressive.
Every word becomes abbreviation in a world of compressed
individuals, who transmit amongst themselves an increasing
amount of compressed information. Each individual is a port
of emission and reception, a port that finally will become
* Heriberto uses the common Latin American idiom norteamerica/norteam-

ericano to refer to the United States and its subjects. We have chosen to
avoid the version of this term that is most idiomatic in the American
English context America/American because of its totalizing claim, prefer-
ring instead to use North America(n) where the U.S. context is clear and
USAmerica(n) where it is less clear. For more discussion of this issue see
13 the notes on translation process that follow the text. (Trans. note)

a point, an atom of information. Their only happiness: to
become an infomeme of some cybermnemics.
Of his mother, Mary, Olson doesnt appear to have had
fond memories. He turned her into patriarchal memory,
probably because that was how she auto-memorialized
herself all the time. Olson said he inherited his laziness and
indecision from her. (She was the source of the wound,
no doubt.) Mrs. Olson was Catholic, and superstitious;
extremely Puritanical in matters of sin and bodies. A good
portion of that enormous distance that Olson always main-
tained with respect to his body, he learned from his mother,
for whom all corporeality was risk. We cannot understand
Olson if we do not understand the abyss his mother sowed
between him and his body, early on, to the point of his
conceiving of it as his lugubrious satellite or golden cloud.
When he got to Mexico, many years later, Olson was mostly
surprised at the manner in which the descendants of the
Mayansas he said in The Human Universe (1951)
took pleasure in one another, in the natural closeness of
their bodies.
It was as if the distance between Olson and his body
could only be restored by a complicated postal system.
Something similar was the case with women. Olson always
maintained distancelike his father, who his mother had
chosen precisely for his being a firm man, who became, at
a certain moment, an alcoholic. (The firmness of a man is
directly proportional to his averted vertigo.) Through his
whole life Olson had a fear of the feminine body. Olson
knew that to come close to a woman was not only to come
close to the open body he had learned to fear through his
mother, but also, above all, to come close to a woman, as he
knew very well, was to come close to his own body. (Why
does woman signify body, psycho-historically? Because the
parallel fantasy indicates that male signifies mind. Genders
were put in place in order to survive dualisms.) Woman is
14 that which the male unknows of himself. And vice versa.

In order to not come close, Olson, very early on, became
a devoted student. From a very early age he sought to
become cultured. And it is to have another body, to make
it possible to flee from the real body, that our civilization
teaches us to construct a fantasy body, the body of requested
information, the imaginary body that one constructs, we
might say, by reading, by selection of others memories,
cybermnemic editing. And for those of us who continue on
the path of the imaginary co-body, the body of the poem,
the story, the essay, the body, the textthe body is trans-
formed into the replacement-body. I do not want to live
here. I want to live in language. The word is the island where
I am moving to. The text will become the history of the loss
of our body. The text is both the balm and the poison.
Since then, reading Ovidwith the Metamorphoses as his
preferred book, of courseOlson wanted to exchange his
flesh and blood body for a body made of pure utterances.
(And more than utterances, utterances as traces of his rela-
tion with others.) We cannot overlook the fact that Olson
would become famous, precisely for his essay Projective
Verse (1950)cited extensively in the autobiography of
William Carlos Williamsin which he described how to
make a text breathe. I believe no one has noted until now
that one of the most paradigmatic essays of North American
poetics takes as its fundamental concern how to pass the
breath of the body (sexual) to the replacement-body (the
textual body). Projective Verse is a tract about how to
make a text into a living body that breathesassisted, says
Olson, by the mechanographic machinehow to make
of the text, one might say, a Frankenstein or spiritual cyborg.
Above all, however, the essay is an instruction manual that
indicates how to pass our energy and breath from the body
(sexual) into the body (mechanical-linguistic). What Olson
was looking for was to transfer his life from the fearsome
body into the artificial body. His literature, as strange as this
15 might sound, is prolegomenon to the exploration of the

post-human. Or, better yet, as I would prefer to say: Olson
speculates on the neocorpus.
In 1920, when Olson was around ten years old, his father
applied for a week of vacation in order to visit Plymouth
with his son. The supervisor granted permission, but then
suspended it at the last minute. The letter-carrier disobeyed
the order and left on the trip with his son. They walked on a
replica of the Mayflower; they visited tombs and attended a
fair. When they returned, the Post Office decided to punish
the insubordinate letter-carrier. They severely reduced
his salary. They changed his route. This was, in fact, the
managements retaliation against the elder Olsons attempts
to organize other postal employees for better working
conditions and from this moment his fate turned. Olsons
father turned into a mostly wretched being. I better spell
the situation out. Postal employees do not have the right
to strikethey had my father and they didnt let go. The
postal system has resemblances to the army.* It was probably
then when Karls alcoholism became much worse. From this
moment, Olson would be witness to a clandestine demoli-
tion. The North American system compressed Karl. Upon
compression, he reinforced the North American system; Karl
compressed others, above all those closest to him. The family
is the information produced and the medium by which
the produced information is disseminated. The information
comprises the fami-lyric form. Family and information are
closely related. The family informs the individual, giving him
or her the internal form of the family structure in which
he or she participates. The subject becomes the synthesis
of the family structure. He or she appears separate from it,
* The Post Office, in Collected Prose, Donald Allen and Benjamin

Friedlander (eds.), University of California Press, Berkeley, 1997, pp. 220
and 225. For biographical information on Olson I am indebted to Tom
Clarks biography Charles Olson:The Allegory of a Poets Life. I want to
highlight that Olson phrase, The postal system has resemblances to the
armywhich takes new meanings once we understand his writing is
16 postal and thus resembles army.

but in reality is unable to decompress this information and
will reproduce the familiar structure in which he or she was
in-formed. Members of the family who were integrated into
the subjective system reappear in subsequent generations;
they sprout like metapersonas who will substitute for real
subjects, superimposed on their existence, replacing them
and converting them into clones and cloners of a given
familial structure: carriers of multiple interior metapersonas.
Up to the final days, his father resisted. Olson said his
father was not broken before his superiors. He endured
everything that they did to force him to resign. His father,
sentenced, would not be defeated; he simply died. Note
Olsons definition of the resistance of the body and the
organism in The Resistance (1953), which is no more
than a dramatic, secret loa for his father, even though it is
dedicated to Jean Riboud. All of his letters were addressed
in such a way. Throughout his whole life, Olson sang to his
father.
All that his father silenced, Olson turned into song. Olson
decided to become an orator. He arduously prepared himself
to make his voice heard; that is, his own voice and the voice
declaimed and repaired the silences of his father. It was no
accident that Olson, then 18 years old, placed third in the
1928 National Oratorical Contest in Washingtonwhich he
might have won if he had not come down with a psychoso-
matic cold. Thanks to the prize, Olson travelled to Europe,
where, in Ireland, he met none other than W.B.Yeats.
Olson felt the pride of the proletariat class to which he
belonged. At the same time, however, he continued to fanta-
size about belonging to a spectacular genealogy, and while
talking with Yeats about his family, the latter, in accordance
with his customary mental illusionism, assured the North
American youth that his mothers aunt was Mary Hines
(lover of the blind poet Raftery, at one time considered
the most beautiful woman in all of West Ireland). Olson,
17 from early on, searched for a genealogy. It was precisely

what he was searching for in Mexico, by making himself a
spiritual foster child of the Mayans (as he had done with the
Sumerians). This search was, in good measure, because he
could not accept his real family.
If one looks for a fantasy co-body it is because one has
rejected ones real body. On the same trip during which
Olson fantasized about being related to legendary figures,
a beautiful prostitute in Colonia invited him to go to bed
with her. Olson was still a virgin. And, befitting a man that
has decided to choose the replacement-body, Olson said no.
In that prostitute figure, Olson invested attraction and fear,
distance and resistance.
Co-body, Short Story, and Bradbury
A very significant expression of American language is going

postal. The postalimagined by Bukowski, the delirious
ex-postal employee and writerhas acquired a special status
through a series of assassinations and crimes committed by
North American postal employees in the last few decades.
Going postal is to go crazy, violent, stressed, wacko, nuts, to
kill co-workers, to lose ones head, to rampage violently. (Going
postal is a form of the snap, the flip, wang!) And the postal,
for North American culture, signifies a form of emotional
alienation, of derangement, of being crushed by the quantity
of work, by the systematic handling of circulated inventories
of information, by the mania of classification, masculine
solitude, perpetual pressure, workday alienation, pedestrian
semblance of prudence that must be maintained in a social
environment of meticulous control.
One of the best stories for understanding the full
significance of the postal is The Great Wide World Over
There by Ray Bradbury: one of his most celebrated stories
and included in the collection The Golden Apples of the Sun
18 (1953). The Great Wide World tells the tale of Cora and

her husband Tom. They live isolated from the world and are
illiterate. Cora envies her neighbor, Mrs. Brabbam, whose
mailbox is always full of letters from the wide, distant world.
But life takes a turn; that summer Coras cousin Benjy
arrives. Benjy knows how to read and write and he redacts
letters that put Cora in communication with the exterior
world. Cora, for lack of family to write to, responds instead
to advertisements and solicits junk mail from various com-
panies. Cora then discovers that the correspondence her
neighbor pretends to receive is in fact nothing more than
letters she leaves in her own mailbox, in order to hide her
complete solitude.
Bradburys piece is a cryptic short story, whose theme
is the place of the writer in rural America. (And the place
of the writer in an impersonal society is an alienated one.)
I speak of this story because, I believe, it reveals the world
in which North American writers of the first half of the
twentieth century were created. The world of the closed-off
U.S. citizen and the mythology of the exterior world; which
includes the fantasy of Mexico as more alive, but also illegal,
sexual, and dangerous, that is, more human.
We must note that the old letters that Mrs. Brabbam
periodically reintroduces into her own mailbox so as to
appear beloved by the external world, as Bradbury tells us,
were stolen many years ago from Mrs. Ortega, the Mexican
woman who works in the grocery store. The Mexican
occupies a special place in Bradburys imagination; a
topos very similar to that which it occupies in the general
North American imaginary: that of a co-body, warmer,
and at the same time inferior, (some)body from which
information may be stolen, retrieved, recovered. For the
North American, the Mexican is the pseudo-maternal. The
archetypal North American mother is cold. Her psyche
is dominated by patriarchal heroic information, estrang-
ing her from herself and constituting her as a matriarchal
19 monad. The North American, therefore, is in need of warm

feminine energy. He searches for this energy with anxiety,
with navet, in all sorts of othersother cultures, other
womenwith an intermittent rancor of not having received
it from the original mother, from the progenitive feminine
force, such that any aggression received from the substitute
neo-mother is responded to with all this accumulated
anger. The U.S.-Mexico wars, in good measure, are due to
the ambivalent relations between the patriarchy and the
American Soul. The United States wishes to receive from
Mexico all that it hasnt received from its own matriarch.
Im-not-here, is the name of the American Mother.
There are two other Mexican stories by Bradbury in
The Golden Apples of the Sun that require our attention. I
See You Never tells the story of Ramrez, a Mexican who
travelled from Mexico City to San Diego and then from San
Diego to Los Angeles to work. He rents a room from Mrs.
OBrian, but is arrested by the police, since his work visa
has expired six months ago. He says goodbye to his landlord
with the expression, I see you never. The celebrated end
of the story narrates how, after Mr. Ramrezs definitive
farewell, Mrs. OBrian stops eating, as she suddenly realizes
(for the first time) that she will, in fact, never see him again.
In this story, once again, the Mexican represents lost love,
maternal absence. Mexico is a regression.
In En la Noche, Bradbury narrates a neoversion of the
Mexican Llorona. The story is about Mrs. Navarrez, who
spends her nights crying for her husband, Joe, who has been
sent off to war. Her neighbors cant sleep because of her
sobs, cries, and wails, and the men resolve to choose one of
themselves to give her a scampish solace. It is Mr.Villanazul,
who steals into her bedroom at night and has sex with her
for two minutes, achieving peace for all, including his wife.
Both stories revolve around a body-that-says-goodbye. In
one, the body of the Mexican who will abandon California;
in the other, the Mexican body that has left for the war.
20 I do not believe in hermeneutics, but I do believe in the

hermenautical.* I believe that stories manifest not only
the conscious and unconscious life of individuals, but also,
due to atrophy, the visible and invisible History of the
cultures that have given rise to them. Bradburys Mexican
stories deal with the absent Mexican co-body, its historical
arrival and expulsion from the North American body, from
its co-presence. And not only does the Mexican co-body
determine North American identity, by way of witchcraft
(and labor), we might say, but also its literary imagination
has been contained by this secret co-body. What Bradburys
stories insinuate is that American solitude has to do with the
separation from Mexico, with the co-bodies always absent,
relative to each other, one with respect to both. The United
States and Mexico are doubles.
It is the Mexican body that co-defines the distant North
American body; it is the indigenous body that is the pro-
found co-body of both. I am my absent body.
In The Great Wide World Over There, writing
towards and about distance defines the story. This is a story,
as we said before, about the social place of the writer,
about some components of North American writing. One
of these writers, Cora, alludeswithout knowing it, as
do all effective symbolsto illiteracy and to the illusion
of receiving news from Afar, fundamental components of
what is, for Oxidentals, the text: reception of messages.
Another is Tom, the spouse irritated by Coras inclina-
tions, the masculine element, suspicious of writing, for
whom there is only obeying orders and constructing a
mailbox adequate for the letters his spouse will receive.
On the other hand, there is Benjy, the young scribe, who
writes to survive and who manages to enable Coraas
she wantedwho doesnt learn to write by herself. And of
* The Spanish here is a play on the word hermenutica or hermeneutics. In

place of hermenutica, Heribertos text reads hermenutica, which carries the
sense of navigation, of hermeneutic interpretation as sea voyage. (Trans.
21 note)

course, finally, we have Brabbam (probably the closest to
Bradburys own self-image) the old woman who pretends
to receive letters from far-away places, when, in reality
these are letters she stole from a Mexican woman.
There is nothing that is not tragicomedy.
I have gone into some detail with Bradbury because
we will see this same fictional story in another biographi-
cal variation in the Mayan Letters of Charles Olson and
Mexico and in its accompanying characters: his lover
Frances, his wife Connie, the Mexican Hiplito Snchez,
his correspondents Creeley and Corman. The story of
Olson in Mexicolike that of Burroughs or Kerouacis
the story of madness through the delirious mystery of the
co-body. It is as if Olson is Cora, ingenuously wishing to
have the secrets of the Mexican glyphs read to him by
Snchez; and he is the glutton Benjy writing letters to all
sort of places; and he is Tom eternally grumbling about
the damned Mexicans and about the domestic chores
and Connies demands; and he is Brabbam, most of all,
Brabbam, feigning the reception of letters from afar, when
his letters and their alleged replies were letters stolen from
Mexican culture. Letters never received.
What is tragicomic about the book is that we are all its
constituent parts. We are all of its characters, simultaneously.
We cannot escape what we eject from ourselves. A book is
the impossibility of the mirror dissolving into its fragments.
Not that it is impossible to avoid repetition; rather we have
secured for ourselves a civilization in which it is impossible
not to fall back into it. Our very name is the unerring prin-
ciple of the double. The word could be its own nirvana, but
it has been sculpted into an illegitimate wave, a frozen wave.
During the 1950s the same story was repeating itself
everywhere, as happens in every era. In the micro and in the
macromonstrosity of relapsethe same signified is being
shouted: false! False! False! All of this is FALSE!
22 In an empire, the macro is printed in the micro. The

systems laws seep into everything, to extend the reign of
the taut line wire.*
Analogy is eternal damnation. We have learned to love
the poverty of forms. We have learned to repudiate what
negates the existence of the uniform, what suggests that the
One could liberate itself from its similarity to the other. If
the analogous did not exist, what would exist instead would
be the independent. But this civilization is analogical. This
civilization iterates itself in all its subsystems. It repeats its
face until it becomes the face of a god trapped inside its
fractal.
This is also what Bradburys story relates, since, in a
closed society, writing is a synthesis that converts time
into space. The young scribe Benjy was a species of Aleph
(Borges) or walking vortex (Pound). In the eyes of Cora,
he had seen cities and oceans and had been in sites where
things were better. Not that this was true, but that closed
societies imagine it to be so. The pantopia is the delirium
coming out of cultures that have been shrunken down. We
must note that, in many senses, Bradburys story and Borgess
are analogous. In both, a minor man of letters becomes the
key to envisioning the Aleph, in a house on the verge of
vanishing into its provincial ignorance.
As in Baudelaireby means of the dandy (replete, glut-
ted with the images of all things)in Bradbury there is a
hoarder-subject (more vulgar), a young man who, in the
eyes of the provincial Cora, has seen everything. But Benjy
is not the only Aleph or Vortex of the story. There is also the
mailbox, where Cora waits for the whole world to converge,
from a free copy of the Sealed Book that spoke of ancient
Knowledge lost in the mists of time and Occult Temples
* Here Heriberto uses the phrase hilo tirantewhich means literally taut
wire or the trama or plot of something, but which is also a pun on
tyrantan alternate meaning could be tyrannical thread. (Trans. note)
The Great Wide World Over There, Golden Apples of the Sun, New York,
23 William Morrow, 1997, p. 84.

of Antiquity and Buried Sanctuaries, to packets of seeds of
giant sunflowers, to remedies for heartburn, to a biweekly
crime magazine, to coin collectors catalogues, to brochures
of novelties, and lists of magic numbers, and recipes for get-
ting rid of arthritis, and samples of flyswatters. Is there any
short story that is not, in one way or another, a pantopia?
North American civilization constantly attempts to
represent others, every other. The short story is one of many
North American pantopias.
The short story is one way out of circular time. As
philosophy was the exit route the Greeks took to leave
the eternal circling of cyclic time, the short story is an
abbreviationmnemotechnic trickof what was once nar-
rated through repetition, the circular and the periodical. The
North American short story knew how to trap in a nut what
before had escaped in the long elliptical path of the tiger.
The short story, then, is an avatar of Oxidental linear time.
It is one of its bodies. Therefore it is possible to understand
the world that produced the story, through these stories, not
because the world truly fits in a story, but instead because
through the short story the reduction that culture makes of
the world is described. How it fantasizes its containment.
Every story is a false Aleph, like that of Garay street. The
short story is a particular form of pantopia, a miniscule site
that pretends to house the totality of beings. The modern
short story could only be conceived by empires like Russia
and the United States that search for the temporal synthesis
of their possessive ambition; while the novel belongs to
smaller, we might say, territories, cultures, periods, or even
empires that long for spatial expansion.
The story predicts the conversion of our existence into
short story.
If History was the senile invention of Europe, the inven-
tion of the short history, of the quick reminder, corresponds to
the United States. The United States made an adaptation of
24 History, turning it into quick memory, briefing, mere memo.

All story has closure as its theme. Reduction. Sudden
limits. Born in Poe as an oppressive genre, the story is a
capsule of claustrophobia in which time pretends to be
trapped in a quick space. The storytemporal narration
turned spatial limitattempts to store away the All thanks
to the perfect synthesis and linear time. What genre is more
linear than that of the story?if Europe invented the
novel, the neo-Oxident invented the short story, and in this
mutation we can see the shift that occurred between these
Co-Oxidents. In comparison with the long novelistic reign
of Europe, that of the United States will be succinct. The
North American empire will be brief, as brief, technical, and
fantastic as the best science fiction stories.
Olson, Pseudo-Patriarchy, and Melville
In 1928, upon returning from Europe, where he had

acquired, via Yeats, a new genealogyexactly what Olson
had been looking for, in different ways, his whole life!
Olson applied to Wesleyan University in Middletown,
Connecticut. As the years had passed, Olsons distance to the
world had increased, initially caused by his height. Olson was
six feet, seven inches tall. His body was the giant he most
feared.
He already had a strong interest in poetry and in per-
formance, and at times he wanted to become a journalist.
He was part of the debate team, already exercising his talent
for mnemonics and retention, which did not prevent him
from feeling at a disadvantage with his friends, like he was
an intellectual pygmy. As the years progressed his problems
with his father intensified. During his visits home, young
Olsons arrogance caused friction with his father. Around
1930, he was working as a postman during the summers.
Olsons complex was that he did not want to become his
25 father and yet he followed in his fathers footsteps. What you

run from, follows you. What you flee from, shapes you. Tell
me who you flee from becoming and Ill tell you who you
will be.
At twenty-one years of age Olson began another of
the tormented patriarchal relations of his life: his study of
Herman Melville. Begun as a masters thesis at Wesleyan,
this work would occupy practically two decades. At the
beginning he avoided reading critical studies, and for a long
time he only consumed Melvilles works and collaborated
on situating Melvilles personal library. His trips to the
Northeast were fruitful and from Melvilles books and anno-
tations, which were located in his descendants homes and in
storage at various sites, Olson learned the art of producing
clues. It was during the constant, uneven preparation of this
work, rewritten numerous times, that Olson learned not
only to overvalue, to plagiarize, and to fear the plagiarism
of his own ideas, but also to combine his own theses with
the unhinged use of academic sources, with a view towards
the reconstruction of an edenic preterit bound to a prophetic
future. Melville became his super-alter-I.
In 1935 Olsons father died of a cerebral hemorrhage.
A few days before his death, Karl asked his son Charles
to lend him a suitcase. Karl was going to a convention in
Cleveland. Worsening their relations, Olson refused, alleg-
ing that he would himself use it soon, and fell asleep. Karl
became so enraged that Olson then felt guilty at possibly
having contributed to his fathers demise. This anecdote,
related by Olson in his personal diaries, is one of many that
reveal a key feature of patriarchal relations. It is the son who
refuses to transmit the legacy (the suitcase) to the father.
The tyranny does not originate from the father. The tyranny
originates from Oedipus.
The suitcase symbolized the new genealogy Olson had
acquired in Europe. His fantastic past and his illusory future.
His anti-now. By refusing his father, what Oedipus did was
26 refuse the mutual bond. In the patriarchy it is the son who

has the power; it is he who grants or denies bonds with
the father. One can also see this in the story of Jesus, who,
before dying on the cross, accuses his father of having aban-
doned him. It can also be seen in Sophocles Oedipus and
Shakespeares Hamlet. All of them are sons that only establish
bonds after the death of the Father, when the patriarchy is
the empire of the son.
The father is only the authoritarian co-body a posteriori.
The father provides the sons physical body; the son
engenders the mental body of the father. The father is the
grandson of the son. Patriarchy is absurd, a decapitated head
used as a helmet. Acephalos charged with the restoration of
capital, i.e. the heading.
When Olson refuses to lend his suitcase to his father,
causing, in Olsons imagination, his death, Oedipus kills his
father. This is not exactly the parricide that will found (due
to Freudian guilt) the patriarchy. With the imaginary assassi-
nation of the fatherlets not overlook his pseudo-parricidal
characterwhat is avoided is a real connection between
Oedipus and his presumed father. Patriarchy only takes place
in Oedipuss mind. When the father and Oedipus are actu-
ally together, there is friction, separation. When the father is
not there, the parricide is hoped for and is, at the same time,
the presumed foundation of their bond and the impossibility
of lineage. The patriarchy is a fantasy occurring a posteriori
in the mind of Oedipus, as was his pseudo-parricide. The
Father, throughout his life, never has power over Oedipus.
Later on, Oedipus will use the name of the Father to punish
others. The name of the father will be the disguise of
Oedipuss reign.
Freudian psychoanalysis is part of the Oedipal myth.
And the myth of Oedipus dictates that it is Oedipus who
has killed his father, when this is not the case. And the myth
dictates that Oedipus marries his mother, when this is also a
fantasy. The myth of Oedipus consists of hiding the control
27 the son desires, attributing it to the father. The myth of

Oedipus is the Oxidents grand projection, in order to rewrite
its past as linear and to hide the fantasy of its control in the
present. And this includes as well the Artaudian-Deleuzean
body-without-organs, and also the anti-Oedipus, which is
merely the Osiric archipelago, the language game in which
the Father, now the ex-Father, becomes a crippled Ubu.
And this includes the loose organs, the parodic temptation to
reconstitute the father, a riddle attributable to the retooled
power of the son (a puzzle within reach of the redistributive
power of the son), supreme lord of neomemory.
Pantopia, Burnout, and Comedy
It is no coincidence that Borges translated (rewrote)

Melvilles Bartleby. On various occasions Borges wrote
about the fictional relation between father and son, between
whom is established the imaginary relation of doubles, mir-
rors, dreams, or golems. Among many other things, Borgess
work is a metaphysical comedy about the apocryphal nature
of the relation between father and son. A labyrinthine and,
above all, fantastical relation.
The father is the apocrypha created by the son.
I say comic because, as we know, Borgess relation to
philosophy is post-philosophical. Borges saw philosophy
as an aesthete (and false European) who arrived at the
banquet when it was occupied exclusively by phantasms.
A contemporary of critical theory and logical positivism,
Borges is one of the multiple (and impossible) deaths of
philosophy. I believe that to understand Borgesian irony
one must remember how the Argentinean conceived of his
own tradition: as a combinatorial free-play, detached from
the European legacy.* And we must also keep in mind the
* See his essay El escritor argentino y la tradicin (The Argentine Writer

28 and Tradition) in Discusin (1932).

concept of irony Hegel described in his Aesthetic Lessons.
Hegel tied irony to an almost solipsistic I for whom nothing
is serious or important because all is a product and axiology
of his or her absolute I:
this virtuosity of an ironical artistic life apprehends

itself as a divine creative genius for which anything and
everything is only an unsubstantial creaturebecause he
is just as able to destroy it as to create it.So then the
individual who lives in this way as an artistby his being
a genius, this relation to his own specific reality, his par-
ticular actions, as well as to what is absolute and universal,
is at the same time null; his attitude to it all is ironical.
These three points comprise the general meaning of the
divine irony of genius, as this concentration of the ego
into itself, for which all bonds are snapped and which
can live only in the bliss of self-enjoyment.Out of this
comes misfortune, and the contradiction that, on the one
hand, the subject does want to penetrate into truth and
longs for objectivity, but, on the other, cannot renounce
his isolation and withdrawal into himself.[this] is the
source of yearning and a morbid beautiful soul.*
This irony is very similar to that of Borges (and to Baudelaires

dandy), a solipsistic outcast who has appropriated everything,
recycling and reorganizing it. He can take nothing seriously
because it all has the same value; even more so because this
value-granting is done by himself. And this value-granting
solipsistic subject, capriciously absolutist, has for some time
now refused to give value to anything, and so his appropria-
tion of the worldhis favorite pantopia! has led him to
burnout and to indifference.
Burnout is the perfect crime. Be it Bartleby, Funes,
* G. W. F. Hegel, Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Art, trans. T. M. Knox, Clarendon

29 Press, Oxford, 1991, pp. 65-7.

or the dandy,* lets not ignore the fact that the fed up man,
within the vociferous yawn of his dissipation, hides the fact
that he has appropriated All. Burnout is theft. Weariness
is a strategy for appropriating the world. I am weary of
Everything means I possess everything. Which will always
be false. Not only because the All does not exist properly
but because to appropriate it is the pantopic and the pan-
topic is the illusory.
This is the first great trick of weariness: the trick of its
appropriation, the trick of its looting. This theft will be
hidden beneath the giant complaint, beneath the shouted
apathy or the ironic gesture. Boredom is a theft that denies
its own agency, its own action, depreciating what it has
stolen. The burnt out man appears to get away with whats
his, because it can be argued that he possesses it ALL! and
he is satiated with this, Same as Alwayshe continues argu-
ing that in truthI dont want it. Because the All which
the burnt out man has appropriated is an All-Undesired,
the burnout pretends to reject it, however, as we see, the
rejection of the possessed All is the same trick by which he
retains it. The burnout is not responsible for his illusion of
having it all. The burnout is no more than an involuntary
comedian. It is not an accident that excess forms the basis of
imperial life.
But if weariness is the base of pantopia, what is pantopia?
Pantopia is the pseudo-All. Pantopia is defined by its inten-
* Of course for Baudelaire in On the essence of laughter and in general,

on the comic in the plastic arts (1855), laughter is a manifestation of the
superiority of man, a gesture of his bitter omnipotence, so to speak. Also,
he says, laughter happens because man is double.
In the original: Lo harto es el hurto. Here Heriberto plays on the

silimilarity of harto, translated here as burnout, but which also carries the
significations of fed up, glutted, or weariedand hurto (theft). Throughout
the text Heriberto uses three cognates, harto, hastio, and hartazgo, with
slightly different shades of meaning. We have chosen to translate them
most often in the following manner: hartofed up; hastioweariness;
30 hartazgoburnout. (Trans. note)

tion to impose as cosmic model its anti-temporal inventory,
that is, a new version of linear time, its trans-historic
consumerism, and imperial memory. Pantopia is the total
inventory. If in the quincunce, the entities arise, develop and
die, wasted in the space-time of which they are emanations
and results of forces, in pantopia there has been created the
illusion of permanence under the artificial shelter of a total
space, in which what once was separated through time is
now collected. Pantopia is the absolute (or selective) topo-
logical accumulation, in sight of the imperial fantasy of the
disappearance of time understood as death.
Pantopia is wanting it all at the same time. Therefore
pantopia and fear, pantopia and satiation, pantopia and con-
sumerism, pantopia and empire, are tied together.
Fathers Everywhere: Olson
In 1936 Olson met another of his imaginary fathers: the

writer Edward Dahlberg, the man who, according to Olson,
taught him to write.Years later, Olson would remember
him as the man who plagiarized his ideas about Melville.
Meanwhile, it was Dahlberg who fulfilled the role Olson
feverishly conceded to other men, that of playing with his
ego. Elevating him out of all proportion when necessary,
orOlsons greater needpummeling him with ferocious
critiques in order to cast him down.* Another father whom
Olson searched for and maintained all these years was Freud,
* I will not delve into the theme of the guru here. This point by Chgyam
Trungpa will suffice: We begin to play a game, a game of wanting to
open, wanting to be involved in a love affair with our guru, and then
wanting to run away from him. If we get too close to our spiritual friend,
then we begin to feel overpowered by himYou tend to get too close to
the teacher, but once you do, you get burned. Then you want to run away
altogetherYou begin to realize that wanting to be near and wanting
to be far away from the guru is simply your own game. (Cutting Through
Spiritual Materialism, Shambala, Boston, 2002, p. 43). Again and again,
31 Olson seemed to get stuck in this type of apprenticeship.

who allowed him to interpret his own life. It is curious that
again and again Olson fantasized about discovering paterni-
ties, whether of paternal origins of some idea, a theme in
Melville, or some aspect of his existence. Without a doubt,
Olson proved that the Father is an interpolation.
As time passed, Olsons thought became more nation-
alistic. The wartime environment did not permit much
debate. In addition, Olson studied at the American
Civilization program at Harvard. His doctoral thesis
again revolved around Melville. In 1939 he abandoned
the doctorate without finishing said thesis, which was
becoming more and more intangible. During his time
at Harvard, however, he met many people and, here his
oscillation between egotism and insecurity began, as did
his hypochondria and somaticization. (For example, from
an early age, every time Olson felt he had to prove his
masculinity, whether it was due to a competition, exam,
deadline, or sexual encounter, he would come down with
a cold, making literal the expression cold feet which, at root,
concerns a lack of received feminine energy, a lack of
contact with the earth.) Immersed as he was in fantasies,
Olson was also, of course, a great cinephile. Tom Clark has
remarked that much of Olsons diaries are dedicated to
film commentary. Olson considered Charlie Chaplin the
Homer of his time, and in the art of montage, which he
practiced in The Kingfishers, Eisenstein was his teacher.
Olson was a member of the Harvard Film Society. Thanks
to his talents as an orator, Olson presented the films during
the screenings. Here is something that has not been suffi-
ciently noted: Olson thought of the world not like a book,
but instead as a film. Olsons models were cinematographic
and this was a key source of his parataxis.
Olson was a man created in the Great Depression and
guided by Hollywoods vision.
Olson is America. Nightmare of analogy: Maximus.
32 In claiming that Olson is America, I dont believe, of

course, that a man can really represent an entire culture.
But precisely because America has worked so hard, more
than any other culture before it, at being represented by the
image of certain personas, Olson represents this impossibility
of representing America. Of Olson and America, we can say
one thing: they are not.
History, Precursor to Pantopia
Shakespeare, Heidegger, Kafka, Borges, and Olson are

authors for whom it remains clear that patriarchy is an artificial
linear history. Patriarchy is not sustained by fathers. Patriarchy
is constructed by pseudo-sons. It is sons who fabricate a
falsely hereditary line. It is the pseudo-sons who lay the
foundation of the Oedipal structure. It is not the Law or
the Name of the Father that reigns over the patriarchy, but
instead the fantasies of the pseudo-son. The post-Oedipus,
the Edited Oedipus, the Patriarchal authority is an illusion
created by each generation to keep hidden, by means of this
fantasy, its own desire to be dominated and to dominate
others, the fantasy that others, not the pseudo-sons them-
selves, are exercising power. So much has been wrought by
men in refusing to accept that we are the most terrible gods.
Linear history, Oedipal history, is our fantasy, and to
perpetuate it we invented the myth of an authoritarianism
arising from the preterit, even though authority can only
be exercised from the present. Borges, whose work was
concerned with the manipulation of time, claimed that
each author invents his precursors. Or, to put it in Phillip K.
Dicks terms, the Oedipal structure is a Counter-Clock World,
a world where, as in this Dick novel, the libraries destroy
books and the dead emerge from their graves. The best-kept
secret of linear oxidental time is that it is written from the
future to the past.
33 According to his biographer Tom Clark, Olson dreamt

about various figures he identified as the fathers.* From his
then-mentor Dahlberg to Roosevelt and Hitler, what Olson
desired was to do away with his own responsibility, creating
reckless relations of dependency. He did this economically
until 1940 it was Dahlberg who paid his rentand also
intellectuallyOlson depended on others opinions in
order to know how much to value what he did. This was
how Olson constructed his auto-patriarchal fantasy by not
accepting the actual man who was his father Karlon the
one hand idealizing him, and on the other, devaluing him
since the starting point of patriarchy is the rejection of the
concrete corporeal father. Once the father has disappeared,
man turns into the pseudo-son of imaginary fathers.
Patriarchs, like matriarchs, are made up purely of fantasies.
Oedipus is the nostalgia of the yoke.
Deleuze and Guattari held that it was the paranoia of
the father that laid the foundation for Oedipus. They tried
to rethink the Oedipal, but they got it wrong, since it is
the delirium of each individual, of each generation, that is
attributed to pseudo-fathers. The patriarchal authorities do
not exist; they are only our desire to have masters. Paranoia
assembles Oedipus. The paranoia that Deleuze and Guattari
so exalt continues being a pantopian decapitalist technique.
Levi-Strauss was not mistaken when he argued that the
Freudian version was just another variant of the Oedipus
myth, together with that of Sophocles. And Freuds theory
* Meanwhile a disturbing process of projection continued in his dreams,

which were densely populated by paternal images, fathers in the guise of
powerful men of the world, from Franklin D. Roosevelt to Adolf Hitler.
It occurred to him that perhaps behind those images the ghost of Karl
was hoveringI rupture these friendships with men violentlyI use
women to do itConnie with Dahlberg. Dahlberg represented his nega-
tive connection with the past, Connie his object of the future in Tom
Clark, Charles Olson:The Allegory of the Poets Life, North Atlantic Books,
Berkeley, 2000, p. 71. In any case, it would be a while before his wife
Connie could convince Olson to get a job. It is no secret that Olson was
somewhat of a slacker. Typical, certainly, of some intellectuals. Olson was
34 Benjy.

is also a re-edit made by the son. It is no accident that some
of the main defenders of the Freudian Oedipal theory have
been literary critics and poets like Olson, who interpreted
his life and the life of literature exclusively in terms of par-
ricide, fathers, and Oedipus.
What Freud made possible was a rewriting. A rewrit-
ing of the dream, of everyday life, and of the whole of
civilization. After Freudian psychoanalysis, the human was
reinterpretedin retrospectas the history of the patri-
archy. It was this Freudian invention that Olson assumed
as his own, again and again, in his work and in his life. The
Oedipal is one of the forms in which the fiction of linear
time is constructed.
So how is linear time produced? By retrospectively reorga-
nizing an idea of the future and the past, by artificially linking
together the constitutive parts of this re-editing of memory
with a paranoid thesis. The thesis that time is charged with
a Signified, the paranoid thesis that there is a History, and
above all that there is Space, the absolute container of what is
sent from Elsewhere. The idea of Space is a fabula created by
paranoia. A paranoia that claims that Space is the receptacle of
what comes from elsewhere, a Thereand what comes from
There, passes away, but Space remains.
Many have criticized the modern idea of History. But
history was only the initial phase in the construction of
something greater; in the same way that History encapsu-
lated time, so it is that History itself remains encapsulated
inside something greater. History is but one of the aberra-
tions, one of the precursors, of Pantopia, the grandest of the
paranoid theses.
Olson: I am I and My Propaganda
In October 1939, Olson moved to New York. Months

35 before, Olson sent a letter to an acquaintance he had always

felt attraction towards. He invited her to spend the week-
end with him. She didnt have much interest in Olson, but
when she read the letter out loud to her younger sister, a
girl named Connie, the latter was interested in getting to
know him. A little while later they were a couple. This new
relationship made Olsons economic and sexual problems
worse. He never got along with Connies family. They
thought he was a mooch. Over many months, Olson spent
time living in other peoples houses, couch-surfing, asking
for loans he never paid back, living in the imaginary world
of books and his interminable dinner discourses with hosts
who just wanted him to shut up so they could finish eating.
Going to see a movie, for Olson, was sometimes the closest
he came to reality.
Connie became pregnant. Olson suggested an abortion and
she finally accepted.They lived a little longer on Connies
savings, but pressured by the exigencies of existence, in 1941
he joined the ACLU in New York. Until the end of 1942,
newly unemployed and having skipped out on his landlord,
Olson moved to Washington, where he finally landed a
stable job.
Olson worked as assistant chief in the Foreign Language
Division of the Office of War Information, an agency
charged to produce propaganda directed at ethnic groups
inside the United States by the North American govern-
ment. The post arrived just in time, as his relationship with
Connie was wavering. Moreover, Olsons verbal talent and
his patriotic imaginary made him a perfect fit as an intellec-
tual bureaucrat of the American propaganda machine.
On the one hand, he continued to idealize the United
States immigrant, an idealization he inherited from his
father, and on the other hand his gift for nationalist rhetoric
and his talents as a writer made him a key employee in the
apparatus of petty propaganda. Despite his patriotic fervor,
however, Olson was frightened he would be sent to the
36 front, which he avoided by lying to the government. (In

order to escape being sent to the battlefield like others he
knew, Olson had filled out forms claiming that Connie and
her mother depended on him financially, which was, at the
moment, the exact opposite of reality.) But it was not this
disinformation at the recruitment office that ultimately kept
him praising the war from behind a desk, but instead it was
his unusual height, which made him unfit to be called into
combat.
Of course his U.S. critics have scarcely wanted to admit
the extent to which propaganda weaves together Olsons
work. His position in the Office of War Information would
never be erased from his thinking; not even when he aban-
doned his post in 1944, due to issues with censorship in the
Office. According to the Republicans, it was an agency dedi-
cated to propaganda in support of Roosevelt, who Olson
admired excessively, without a doubt. Olson then went on
to look for other positions, but in 1945, with Roosevelts
death, he decided to move to Key West, Florida, to revive
his literary career. In any case, Olson never ceased to be a
propagandist for the North American Empire.
Oh Bartleby! Oh Humanity! Genealogy of the

Scrivener and Wall Street
This long story by Melville, the complete title of which is

Bartleby the Scrivener: A Story of Wall Street (1853) con-
tains many mysteries, probably more mysteries than a calm,
sane mind can tolerate. Bartleby is the threat of a mental
border state.
The piece tells the story of the copyist Bartleby who is
hired by a Wall Street lawyer. Bartleby was a pallidly neat,
pitiably respectable, incurably forlorn* figure. He was an
* Bartleby the Scrivener: A Story of Wall-Street, in Great Short Works of

Herman Melville, Harper Perennial Modern Classics, New York, 2004, p.
37 46.

efficient copyist, the most dependable in the office, confesses
the lawyer-narrator. However, on asking him to check his
own copies, he refuses, with words that have been celebrated
and that are the epitome of the character throughout the
rest of the story: I would prefer not to. This ceremonious
and nontraditional expression lets note first off is a rework-
ing of the expression Id rather not. (We cannot forget
that the original version of Melvilles text begins with the
lawyer saying: I am a rather elderly man.*) Bartleby then, at
root, represents a rebellion against the lawyers authoritative
words.
As the story progresses, Bartleby refuses more and more
tasks, until he is fired by the lawyer, who up to this moment
had a certain tenderness towards and protected Bartleby.
Due to the attention given to Bartlebys odd character, crit-
ics have generally overlooked that the attorneys behavior is
no less strange. He too is driven to rather anomalous behav-
iors: protecting the scrivener at all costs, not calling attention
to his insubordinate employee, letting him sleep in the office,
then offering him his own house, taking care of him during
his last days in jail, etc. Bartleby the Scrivener is not the
story of one curious character, but rather of two identically
strange men. This duality is inscribed in the double character
of its title, on the one hand Bartleby the Scrivener and on
the other A Story of Wall Street.
Bartleby is a drop-out, an outcast. Echoing Thoreaus civil
disobedience, Melville constructs a character who practices
passive resistance (Nothing so aggravates an earnest person
as a passive resistance writes Melville). Bartleby gradually
refuses to participate in the mechanism of Wall Street, from
his position as a scrivener. The rarefied ambiance of this
masterful story, which takes on metaphysical and psychologi-
cal resonances, blurs the fact that Bartleby is a critique of
* Ibid., p. 39.
38 Ibid., p. 50.

capitalism. In the narrative, one protagonist refuses to par-
ticipate and finally fulfills, in one way, his role in the social
machinery. To go on a hunger strike, to become homeless, or
to be arrested and die in prison; none of it matters to him.
I agree with Deleuze that this story is not a metaphor
for the writer.* But, as Deleuze also suggests, Bartleby is the
story, literally, of one scrivener. Melville narrates for us here
a certain relation between a representative of Wall Street
power and a scribe. And the relationthe true theme of the
pieceis crucial for understanding the history of the rela-
tion between capitalist power and writing.
The first thing Bartleby prefers not to: to check that the
copies he makes of legal documents are accurate. He knows
he is a copyist, so he doesnt want to have to recognize that
his work is a faithful replica of the words of capitalism, of its
State and commercial laws. Bartleby, before anything else, is
the writersocially devaluedof a capitalist society, whose
emblem is Wall Street, and one who refuses to recognize that
his work is a copy of what he believes he is rejecting. What
he does not want to realize, this scribeand here I include
myselfis that his words are copies of the words of the Law
of Capital and of the State.
Writing is the double unconscious of the Oxident. It is
the son who has not wanted to acknowledge that he reliably
repeats patriarchal words; it is he himself, the faithful copyist,
who reinstates them.
Paradoxically, this is a passive resistance, Bartlebys, which
begins by denying the replicative character of writing. This
is the great tragicomedy of the modern worlds thinkers,
scientists, artists, and literati: we do not realize that our own
words, images, and ideas are copies of the authorities words.
* Bartleby; or the Formula, trans. Daniel W. Smith and Michael A. Greco

in Essays Critical and Clinical, Verso, London, 1998, p. 68.
Melvilles brother worked on Wall Street and looked on Melvilles profes-

39 sion with a certain contempt.

All of us are no more than renegade copyists.
Bartleby is the story of the writers passive resistance told
by the voice of North American capitalisms rejected pater-
nalism. The other great protagonist, the narrator of Bartlebys
tale, is an attorney who takes the resistant copyist under his
wing. He does not explain why he has decided to protect
Bartleby so diligently, why it is that he is impelled irresistibly
to dote on him. He gives Bartleby shelter, food; he pleads
with him to fulfill his agreed role; he protects him from the
mob; he looks after him when he is detained by the police;
and he stays with him until his death. This is what is most
uncanny: it is the State that has protected and made materi-
ally possible the supposed rebellion led by writing.
What the attorney allows Bartleby to do is abandon his
work. From beginning to end, this is a story about labor.
From the beginning, in which the other three employees
are described*two scriveners and a messengerto the
* These three employees, who are very significant in the beginning of this
story, and the prison cook at the end, remain to be analyzed. The same
attorney-narrator tells us that the employees preceding Bartleby are key to
the narrative, as they are indispensable for an adequate intelligence of the
protagonist of my tale. These characters represent prior phases of what
Bartleby represents. They represent prior forms of the late, renegade
scrivener. Turkey the scrivener is an old man, we are told, whose efficiency
increases until midday and then seriously decreases until 6pm when the
sun goes down. It is clear that this scrivener is a solar scrivener, a man
directed by the sun, who in the afternoon becomes useless, even though
he insists on continuing to work (and to committing errors). Nippers, a
scrivener of some twenty-five years, is not dominated by the sun, but by
ambition and indigestion. He is skillful with the mechanical, impatient,
and in reality knows not what he wants, always desiring, at bottom, to
be rid of a scriveners table; Nippers was an alcoholic pauper. Ginger
Nut was the porter handyman whose principal function was to bring bis-
cuits to the other two copyists. Turkey symbolizes a sort of late technician
of the sacred, an exhausted visionary who once operated during cultures
ruled by solar cycles. Nippers represents the poet-thinker of the last more
than two millennia, that messenger we know so well, and Ginger Nut,
simply, represents the degraded state of the messenger who is raised
from other failed messengers. Ginger Nut is the messenger who thinks
only of the lowest, most comfortable, and the ridiculous, the biscuits. I
will leave the complete deciphering of Melvilles three characters, who
represent phases of the degradation of the old divine messenger, to the
40 reader. Compare, then, these late avatars of the divine messenger with

narrative of Bartleby in the officeand his gradual refusal to
obey and fulfill his taskuntil the end, in which the previ-
ous job of the renegade scrivener is revealed, the story is a
labor chronicle. Paradoxically, it is capitalism that allows this
scrivener to escape his work.
Let us remember that the other scriveners and the attor-
ney himself, at moments, are found using the very words of
Bartleby, I prefer not to They respond without realizing,
as if suggesting the manner in which the scrivener influences
his peers, in the very apparatus of the State; with the words
of a contradictory passive resistance, with the transmission of
an impossible refusal.
The paternal attorneys loving protection has a limit,
however, and arriving at it, the scrivener ends up in the
street, in prison, and then dead of starvation. And there is
another condition that governs the relation between this
renegade scribe and the Wall Street attorney: the latter is
ignorant of the scribes history.
Everything Wall Street knows of the scribe, of its copyist,
concerns the period that it has lived together with him. That
is, capitalism only knows the late history of thought and
poetry. It only knows what has become of the scribe during
the patriarchy, which, as I already said, is a pseudo-patriarchy,
so that in the end, the words the attorney speaks are the ren-
egade scriveners words. They are the words that bind each
to the other.
Let us noteas in the story of Olsons suitcasethat it
is the paternal figure who tries to strengthen his bond with
the renegade son, and the son refuses this gesture even if he
ends up living with the father a long time. Like Jesus who,
after denying the father, gives his life to Him, so the penul-
timate line of the story suggests that Bartleby has given life,
with his death, to the attorney. (On errands of life, these
those represented by Poes detective Dupin, Bradburys rascal Benjy, and

41 Bukowskis alcoholic postman Chinaski.

letters speed to death.) On having seen death, certainly,
the attorney claimed that Bartleby now rests with his own,
with kings and counselors.* Everything in Melvilles tale
speaks volumes about the secretly symbiotic relation between
Bartleby and Wall Street.
The story of the scrivener is the story of how the capital-
ist patriarchy wants to protect the discouraged son, but the
son refuses, because he suffers like an incorrigible, passively
rebellious orphan. He is disappointed by every parent, and
at the same time, he is in search of an impossible parent, an
imaginary parent. The scrivener, then, rejects the protective
wing of the business-parent and flees in order to become a
vagabond, an errant being, a soul whose denouement will be
starvation and death from exposure.
At the end of the story, the attorney reveals that rumors
have circulated that before he and the scrivener knew each
other, Bartleby was a subaltern/junior employee (clerk) in
the Dead Letter Office in Washington. Dead letters! does
it not sound like dead men? the attorney remarks. I will
leave a complete examination of Bartleby the Scrivener: a
Story of Wall Street for another timethe second part of
the title is often neglected, both in the United States and by
its Spanish-language translators, who fall back on the first I
prefer not to of Bartleby himself: denying that we are the story
of Wall Street, the street of the wall, the alley with no exit.
What then was the scrivener before entering into the
renegade business with capitalism? Bartleby, we are told,
worked with dead letters, those that do not arrive at their
destination for one reason or another. Bartleby, then, is part
of the postal tradition of North American literature (that
also includes Poes Purloined Letter). The postal is the first
resonance of the post-modern that Olson will speak of,
and in Melvilles mysterious story it refers to the moment
* Op. cit., p. 73.

42 Ibid., p. 73.

before the alley with no exit. Before the symbiosis between
writing and capital, the scrivener, we are told, had a distinct
job in the patriarchy, since dead letters refer as much to
the administration of the death of God, as to the religious
condition of writing itself, in its condition of epistolary
un-received, unheard, because writing before capitalism was
dedicated to administering the (unsuccessful) communica-
tion with the divine. The (Modern) writer as failed technician
of the sacred.
It was his prior job that caused his current bad attitude
towards life. The scrivener arrived on the scene of capitalism
melancholic, frustrated, disappointed with himself, skeptical
of real communication, crushed, sunk in his interior world,
separated from everything and everyone. The scrivener
arrived into capitalism tormented by the loneliness caused
by his failure. He could not communicate with us. His let-
ters failed.
Before becoming an especially insubordinate subaltern, the
scrivener had another job, the job that gave him his current
bent.* Having failed in what he tried to accomplishto com-
municate with otherness!the scrivener went from being the
disappointed onedisappointed with himself, a disappointment
of the Otherto being the one who disappoints.
The scrivener was a divine messenger. And he failed in
that mission.
He became a failed messenger.
The capitalist patriarchy, then, welcomed him.
The scrivener, reluctantly, accepted.
Unable to accept his new patrons vile, inferior love,
tormented by the memory of his old job, the disillusioned
* A part of Olson understood very well the scriveners transition. Sun-

worshippers had more sense than we. They reverenced something
organic and necessary to flesh and bone. We give our faith to the State
(Dostoevsky and The Possessed in Collected Prose, p. 126). Writing this in
1940, Olson, however, was not slow to join the propaganda apparatus of
43 the North American State. Poets: the castrati caste.

scrivener came to be the servant saboteur of his undesired
master.
As a failed technician of the sacred before taking on
the form of renegade copyist of Wall Street, the Oxidental
scribe is condemned to nihilism, to pure passive resistance, a
being protected by the paternal State, an Oedipal being. The
scribe is condemned to death, to dying among the ruins of
his wavering between a metaphysical unemployment and a
subservience to capitalism.
Co-bodies of each other: scribe and New York attorney,
writer and State, thought and capitalism, secret symbiosis,
silent union of the apparently distinct, truncated relation and
therefore not unreal. Since the union of the two is the most
uncanny, the saddest and most disappointing, it is the very
loop of the complete failure of the human project. All of us
are Bartleby. Copyists, clandestine propagandists of capitalism
with no exit.
Oedipus Deciphered
We are two millennium removed from the secret that

Oedipus hides.
It is not without reason that so many versions of this
mythalmost all of them involuntary have accumulated.
The number of (false) interpretations is no accident either.
It is probably only today, now that the Oedipus myth is
untenable, that its hidden truth can be deciphered. What the
Oedipus myth shows is everything that man is willing to
fantasize in order to not deal with reality.
A fundamental feature of the Oedipus myth is the
amount of false versions produced, avatars of denial. It
should not go unremarked that it was precisely the Oedipus
myth that made us aware that a myth is composed of all its
variants. Inside the very story of Oedipus there are versions
44 of the same myth. The version that initiates the disorder of

versions is that of the oracle of Delphi, who announces to
Laius that the son he bears with Jocasta will kill him and
marry his wife. This same Laius, who, according to legend
introduced homosexuality into Greece, apparently had little
trouble abandoning his infant son, since he had already been
warned that his son would kill him.
Laiuss homoeroticism is notoriously neglected in the
interpretation of Oedipus. Freud was unable to name how
the Oedipal is not universal. The Oedipal occurs when there
is a father-patriarchy with a homoerotic conflict, an obses-
sion with analogy.
As far as the Oedipal-psychological, this complex
appears when the masculine desire for the feminine is
displaced onto othersinspired by the patriarchal turn
creating a problematic inter-masculine relation and an image
of the feminine as threatening.
The Oedipal is born not from a desire to possess the
mother, since this is the fantasy that appears afterwards.
The principle of the so-called Oedipus complex is a
cultural-familial situation in which a masculine desire for the
feminine is criticized, because love for the woman is seen
as inferior, something that must be repressed. Thus is born
the idea that it is the son who is in love with the mother (as
symbol of the minor man, of the pre-man). For the son, the
Oedipal complex means that one shouldbecause of the
imagined inferiority of womanlove the Father, and the
love for the mother should be exchanged for a superior
inter-masculine love. Masculine relations, therefore, remain
tinged with the resentment of this co-deception.
In the Greek tale, as soon as his son is born, Laius orders
one of his servants to kill the baby. The servant does not kill
him. He hangs him from a treeand this hanging from the
tree by his feet symbolizes the reverse-time that Oedipus
will be inserted into thereafter. The servant, returning from
the woods, does not tell the truth to Laius, and the versions
45 of Oedipus, inside of this very world, multiply.

The myth of Oedipus, inside itself, is many.
Thus, the version, inside the myth, does not lie, when
it claims that king Laius was killed by a band of multiple
thieves. In effect, there were manymany Oedipuseswho
attacked and killed him.
Oedipus will be the impossible being. Oedipus is the
protagonist of various simultaneous histories. That of a dead
newborn prince. That of a secretly surviving prince. That of
a phantasmal son announced by the oracle. From its begin-
ning, what the Oedipus myth narrates is the impossibility
that someone could claim for oneself the Oedipal identity,
since the fundamental fate of Oedipus is not to know if he is
actually Oedipus.
From now on we should understand that inside these
stories there will be various Oedipus-es, but none of them
will be Oedipus. Oedipus is none of them, but rather the
identity they search for.
The story of Oedipus begins with the story of his destiny
told by the oracle. The story of Oedipus begins with the
fantasy of a condemned future.
The story of Oedipus also begins with Oedipus upside
down.*
The baby that Laiuss servant hangs from the tree will
have swollen feet.
We know by this swelling that the story of Oedipus is the
story of a man who falters. The myth of Oedipus will be the
story of a man who does not know how to support himself,
who knows not what his sustenance is. Not only is he con-
fused with respect to his origin and his destiny, Oedipus is
confused to the very core of his being.
We must not, therefore, pay any attention to the version
Oedipus has of himself.
* This inversion refers not only to the inauguration of inverted linear

time but also to a regression, a descent, an attempt to re-enter the
uterus (symbol of someone who will come to be dominated by the
46 unconscious).

This will be the error that the interpreters of the myth
commit: to believe that Oedipuss version is the true and
central one, without knowing that Oedipuss version of
himself is only one more version. We are not dealing with
his history/story, but rather with his dream or fantasy.
There in the woods, the messenger Phorbas hears
Oedipuss cry, gathers him up, and brings him to the king
of Corinth. How do we know that the baby with swollen
feet Phorbas delivers to the royal palace is really a baby that
he has found, and not his own son that he has rejected? It
might seem exaggerated to pose this type of question to a
myth. But we are dealing here with a fundamental myth.
A myth that turns on the question of the true father of
Oedipus, and the answer is that the father of Oedipus could
be any one of them. Both kings and servants.*
It is evident that the myth of Oedipus, from its beginnings,
involves the relation between master and slave. The servants
who carry Oedipus from one family to another are made
invisible. This is the trick of the servant of History: to fade
into the background. The myth of Oedipus has as another of
its beginnings that Oedipus is transmitted by servants.
Oedipus is a myth constructed by servants, a myth made
to be heard by masters.
The myth that the father is not threatened anymore, that
the danger his son represented has died.
* When the messenger and Oedipus converse in the pivotal scene of the
tragedy, at the point of the anagnorisis, notice that the messenger tells
Oedipus that Polybus did not father him. What are you saying? Polybus
was not my father? asks Oedipus. The messenger responds: He was
not your father any more than I. In this passage we find another of the
keys to understand this myth in all its profundity. The messengers are also
the authors of Oedipus. How is it that he who fathered me is equal
with he who has nothing to do with me? and the messenger answers:
As neither he nor I fathered you. And when Oedipus sends for Laiuss
slave-shepherd-messenger and speaks with him, he asks him as well if the
infant that was delivered to this other slave-shepherd-messenger was his
own son or another mans. Notice then that this infants paternity was a
matter of four. The quaternary game between the two kings and the two
47 messengers is, so to speak, the four legs that comprises the first Oedipus.

The myth that the delivered baby will be the beloved son.
This is a story of deceived parents. This is a story of sabo-
taging slaves.
This is a story with many versions. Constructed against
the master.
Slave versions. Stories of the dominated.
The story of Oedipus contains the versions of servants
and prophets mixed together. Because the servants who
unbind and deliver Oedipus are messengers.
After becoming the son of the king Polybus and
the queen Merope, Oedipus becomes a gallant prince.
Sophocles relates that a drunk man insults Oedipus
during a festival, claiming that Oedipus is an adopted son.
The prince then begins a search for his true origins and
this search takes him to the oracle who announces that
Oedipus will kill his father and marry his mother. Oedipus
escapes from Corinth.
On his trip, he meets with the entourage of King Laius
of Thebes at the site where three roads convergeas we
see, the triad will preside over a large part of the Oedipal
imaginaryand here (this version should not be taken as
the only possible one) Oedipus confronts the group and kills
Laius, without knowing, of course, that Laius was suppos-
edly his true father. If we are congruent with Oedipal logic,
beyond the Sophoclean resolution, then we must wonder
is Laius really the father of Oedipus, or is this identification
another of the mistakes that compose the Oedipal? And even
if this was the case, was Laius really the man Oedipus assas-
sinated at the site where the three roads converge?
There are many parts of Oedipus that both Sophocless
Oedipus Tyrannus and Freuds psychoanalytic theories have
led us to believe are completely resolved. But there are
basic points about which we are mistaken regarding this
fundamental myth of the patriarchy. Probably the most
scandalous is that the answer Oedipus gives to the riddle
48

of the sphinxwhich is not contained in Sophocles*is a
false or at least only partial solution to the enigma. Oedipus
does not adequately solve the mystery of the sphinx. In
Sophocles, it is Tiresias who emphasizes how little Oedipus
understands not only of the oracle but of interpretation in
general. You are not a good diviner of enigmas, he says.
Before continuing it is necessary to ask ourselves who is
the sphinx? (The sphinx that could not be deciphered.)
In the context of civilization, the sphinx appears when
the feminine is seen as monstrous, mysterious and destruc-
tive. (It is possible that the sphinx, as it appears in the
canonical Oedipal myth, is a Greek variant of the vagina-
dentata or the spider woman.) The sphinx is the vision the
relatively early patriarchy formed of the feminine, endowing
it, on the one hand, with mystic knowledge, and on the
other, marking it as inferior, an enemy to subdue and destroy,
having first stripped it of its knowledge. The sphinx is the
old priestess as seen by the subsequent, increasingly misogy-
nist patriarchy.
As Lvi-Strauss claimed, the names of the triad
Labdacus-Laius-Oedipus possess a common trait of refer-
ring to the difficulty of maintaining an upright position.
Lvi-Strauss reads this feature in relation to the theory of
the autochthonous origin of man.
* Alternate versions are found throughout ancient Greece; see for example,
Apollodorus, vol. I, James George Frazer (ed.), Heinemann, London, 1921,
p. 339-351.
All the names have a common feature[they] refer to difficulties

walking straight and standing upright. In mythology it is a universal
characteristic of men born from the Earth that at the moment they
emerge from the depth they either cannot walk or walk clumsily (The
Structural Study of Myth in Structural Anthropology, Basic Books, New
York, 1963, p. 215). What is the Levi-Straussian version of the Oedipal
myth? Oedipus is made of parts. Oedipus continues his fragmentation,
becoming this version in a series of loose partsan Osiric Oedipus
which can recombine without end. Oedipus has become machine.
49 Ibid., p. 213.

But if it is evident that the Oedipal myth is related to
early theories of how man originated, one should not lose
sight of the fact that it also refers to masculine anxiety. An
anxiety that is linked to the capacity to maintain erection.
The myth of Oedipus is phallic anxiety.
A part of the myth refers to the erectile potency of the
penis (and to what the erection symbolizes in psycho-socio-
political terms). The swaying of which Lvi-Strauss speaks
in relation to the mythical characters that sprout from the
earth, is largely the figure of the penis leaving the vagina,
debilitated, limp. Oedipus, swollen feet, symbolizes the
fantasy of an engorged penis, as Laius is taken to be the
implicit symbol of a clumsy/crooked/limping phallus,
which is attached to common social fantasies about homo-
sexuality as deviation from the norm. Labdacus represents
the crippled/lame/invalid, as symbol of partial or total
impotence.*
The Oedipal results from matriarchal and patriarchal
excesses. Oedipal fantasies are the subsequent fantasies of the
war of the sexes.
Oedipus, as victor over the sphinxwhich etymologi-
cally signifies woman who stranglesis the victor over the
strangler-womb, strangler-vagina, which leaves the penis
flaccid, beaten, castrated. Oedipus is the desire not to lose
the masculine powersymbolized by the erect penis, the
engorged phallus; the Oedipal is involved in the anxiety over
the loss of masculine potency, in relation to the feminine. As
much the case in the sexual as in the political.
But the Oedipal has still wider dimensions than the psy-
chological, sexual, political, or historical.
The riddle of the sphinx asks what is two-legged, three-
legged, four-legged (dipod, tripod, tetrapod) but has only
one voice. Only the change in nature among those who
* Labdacus died torn apart by the Bacchae. The lineage of Labdacus is the
50 lineage of the fear of being destroyed by feminine violence.

frequent the sky, the air, and the sea. When supported over
the greater number of feet, its members have less force,
Levi-Strauss ends.* The solution given is far from satisfying
considering the gravity of the riddle. It is said that Oedipus
solved the riddle by claiming that this creature is man, who
as a baby walks on four legs, is bipedal as an adult, and in old
age, needing a cane, is tripedal.
This solution to the riddle is incorrect because its solu-
tion cannot be so trivial. That is, the riddle is more than a
witty challengewhat the riddle interrogates is of greater
depth. The riddle asks after what has sustained, historically
and psychically, man in his very existence.
At the dawn of thought, Man had four limbs, when the
paradigm for understanding the universe was a quadripartite
modelfor example, in models of the four directions, the
four seasons, or the four corners of the world or in the
model based on the mythical trip of the sun through the sky
and the underworld (which survives in our age not only in
the four cardinal points but also in multiple symbologies,
like that of the cross). The quadruped of the riddle refers to
the general model of four principles that archaic man uses to
support his hermeneutic relation to reality.
This model has also been based on the dialectic of the
two principles, on dualism. This bipedal support or double
has survived, forcefully, during the history of Oxidental civi-
lization. It is not that the bipartite has completely replaced
the quadripartite. On the contrary, remnants of both models
coexist, although the dualist conception is the predominant
one as it is the general Oxidental model for explicating the
inherent structure of totality.
The Oedipal, however, bets on a tripartite model. What
the Oedipal theorizes is the late triad.
This triad will be what founds the father-son-mother
trio and the Christian Trinity, and is what will give form
51 * Ibid., p. 205.

to many models of reality in modernity (for example,
the triangulations of Freuds system, especially that of the
superego-ego-Id and the many triads of Hegel.)*
The riddle, then, must be interpreted in a wider context.
If the creature in question is man, then it is man meant dif-
ferent than the way the witty and ingenious response has
been interpreted up to now. Rather, the riddle alludes to
what is most profound in Oxidental civilization.
The riddle of the sphinx refers to the form of mans
understanding of the structure of space-time. As we know,
there is another riddle that the sphinx poses. The sphinx asks
who are the two sisters, where one bore the other, and the
other bore the first.
Day and Night is the answer.
This other riddle of the sphinx reveals that such riddles refer
to models of becoming, to the forms in which reality produces
itself.The night-day model, like the quadripartite models, and
the dualist and triadic one, allow us to see that these riddles
refer to what runs deepest in Oxidental civilization.
* The interpretation Hegel makes of the Oedipus myth has been one of the
most penetrating. According to Hegel, Oedipus is the moment in which
the classical overcomes the symbolic. The Egyptian-sphinx-symbolic is
decoded by the Greek-Oedipal-consciousness. Oedipus, giving the solu-
tion, Man, precipitated the Sphinx to the rock. The solution and liberation
of that Oriental Spirit, which in Egypt had advanced so far as to propose
the problem, is certainly this: that the Inner Being (the Essence) of Nature
is Thought, which has its existence only in the human consciousness
(The Philosophy of History, Dover, New York, no year, p. 220). The fall of
the sphinx, certainly, into an abyss, indicates that the symbolic that the
sphinx representsas Hegel knew wellleft the visible to plunge into
the precipice of the unconscious. So it is not that the sphinx has ceased to
be, as Hegel believed and as in general is believed in the methodology
of post-modern criticism, but that the symbols speak from and for the
unconscious. Neither the concept nor the symbol overcome one another
or substitute for each other. They operate simultaneously.
The first mention of this other riddle is found on a Greek vessel (dated
between 470-460 AD). It is cited in commentaries on Euripidess lost
work on Oedipus and in connection with Euripidess The Phoenicians as
well as other sources. The first author that speaks of the Sphinx appears to
52 be Hesiod.

The Oedipal conceptionthat of the triadic model
suggests exhaustion; the man walks with a cane as he has lost
his strength. There is a good deal of truth in this conception
since the Oedipal has come to represent precisely Oxidental
mans anxious search for sustenance in the weak familial
model of patriarchy.
Poor Oedipus! With him was born Oxidental mans
dependence on concepts that cripple him.
Oedipus is a symbol of control. Oedipus means not
knowing our origin. Not knowing our purpose here on
Earth. Oedipus means becoming a tyrannized tyrant.
Much have we lamented the way in which the tyrant
tyrannizes but we have paid much less attention to how the
tyrant is tyrannized by the popular chorus and by the mes-
sages of the wise. Oedipus is a tyrant who is full of voices.
Oedipus, who for some is the first Oxidental representation
of the search for truth, ends up depending on information,
narration, memory, and the interpretations of others to be
able to know who he is. Tiresias tyrannizes him. Creon
tyrannizes him. He is tyrannized by Jocasta. He is tyrannized,
finally, by the messengers.
Oedipus symbolizes each of us, each of us as depen-
dent. Lets not forget that Oedipus ends, like Bartleby, by
becoming a vagabond. He has become an old wretch, blind,
homeless. All of this has happened to Oedipus because he has
believed in the truths of others, because he has struggled
in search of an unreal genealogy. The error of Oedipus is
to look for support. His tyrant is the cane. Upon hearing
the words of such meta-narratives, divinations, sphinxes,
slave-messengers, Oedipus fragmented. On turning into a
fragmented sovereign, his parts become his tyrant-slaves. All
the characters of the Oedipus myth are fragments of himself,
which he does not at all recognize as his own. All the figures
in a story are alienations of oneself. All history is the story of a
subdivision. History is fragmentation.
53 Oedipus is the man split from himself, debilitated and

blinded because he has stopped believing that he can know
himself, that he can transform himself, without having to
become an other through the visions, stories, memories,
judgments, and models of others. Oedipus is the master that
looks for masters. Including looking for masters among the
slaves.
If we had listened carefully we would have heard the
Oedipus tragedy whispering that we should not even have
general models of reality. To live under the auspice of whatever
systemThe Four, The Three, The Twois to live under
tyranny, as is to live under the control of the ONE.
The Oedipus myth narrates the loss of sovereignty, the
loss of absolute liberty. It is the birth of an authoritarian
confusion, brought on by oneself, due to a need for security
and submission to others, and this includes submission to
the lowest, to the supposed gods, to the pueblo,* or to society,
to certain principles that we have decided govern our life.
Oedipus is a poor man who has lost everything because he
has decided to crawl, he has decided to look for other feet
and to make his own swollen. The myth of Oedipus is the
refusal of man to stand on his own.
What Oedipus refuses to see: man stands only under his
own power.
Maximus Larval
There are times when we must deviate from our course, when
one must wander, because only then can we understand this
man. In the last few pages I have summarized millennia. I
know that to do so is to behave ridiculously, as one always
appears ridiculous when trying to capture the infinite.
* There is no comprehensive English equivalent for this word, which signi-

fies various rhetorical syntheses of ideas of land, nation, people, town,
community and popular majority. We have chosen to retain the original
54 term, italicized, in all instances. (Trans. note)

However, I wanted to cover the critical story of the
divine messenger who becomes the scribe-copyist of
capitalist patriarchy, and afterwards, to tell the story of the
master of this capitalist-patriarchy: the tyrant tyrannized by
his slave-parts. And it is the ex-messenger who weaves fanta-
sies that drive the sovereign mad.
Language that no longer communicates with the divine
(modern literature, the sciences, the arts, philosophy, and the
mass media) constructs images that the sovereigns (i.e., the
State and capitalism) will assume as their own, attempting to
form themselves according to what their slaves have imag-
ined. (Ideology, then, is not only the naturalized justification
that sustains certain classes in power, but also the mode in
which these same classes are crazy for such fantasies. Ideology
is Don Quixote.) This is the relation that prevails between
culture and rulers. Culture imagines what the rulers will end
up wanting to make real. In this way, the sovereigns are lead
to ruin, because the undoing of sovereigns is to pay atten-
tion to the fantasies of their slaves; and here the sovereign is
as much the State as each individual who might, at another
time, be his own master.
The fantasies that Olson would weave transposed
North American propaganda into a new lyric sphere: I
am Gilgamesh / An Ur-world there is in me / to inhabit.*
Tending to the expansive, Charles Olson quickly lost
any reservation. He wanted for himself the immediately
immense, the complete delivery of the vast. Hardly would
he begin a project, then would he lose control of it. From
his first period as a writer, before his job in the Office of
War Information, and then when resuming it after the death
of Roosevelt, Olson lived his writing through the fantasy of
hypertrophy.
During his youth, this gigantism was more than once
* Charles Olson and Frances Boldereff: A Modern Correspondence, Wesleyan

55 University Press, 1999, p. 36.

mutilated, shrunk by circumstances, or severed by haste.
In general, the grandeur of his fantasies was cut down by
the disproportion of his intentions and by the reality of his
actual abilities. In his drive for status, Olson created mental
worlds that evanesced in an instant. Before the simplest
bonfire he imagined himself Prometheus. Olson aspired to
verbal excesses.
Olson was erratic. He was excessively enthused. He was
one of those men who after one insight or clue, believes he
knows everything about the subject, abandoning all other
work or daily tasks to dedicate himself, full of enthusiasm,
to his little spark of knowledge. Such men, of course, are
quickly exhausted, because what sustains them are those
instantaneous megalomanias and so they flag a little after
understanding the impersonal magnitude of their project.
Olson despaired. He shifted from one plan to another.
Hardly had he embarked on a piece when he would
elephantize it mentally until it became impractical. A
project of writing some four poems on the tarota
project that involved illustrations by his friend Corrado
Cagliquickly turned, in his fantasy, into a monumental
work. Un-executable.* Wanting it all, wanting it all right
now, characterized the early Olson.
In 1946, Call Me Ishmael was already finished. After many
drafts and many essays, he had decided to finish it following
a different tack. His drafts were rather schematic, so the book
took on the form of a series of essayemes, notes and sketches,
in short, hardly an academic structure, though Olson pre-
tended it was an academic, erudite success.
Olson nurtured grand hopes. Once the book was com-
pleted, Olson remained unhappy with its execution. And so
it goes with an enthusiasm which starts big and then pro-
duces an extreme exhaustion a little further down the road.
* Inspired by Caglis work, however, Olson prepared his poem The

56 Preface.

When it appeared in print a year later, the work was
not well received. But even before its appearance, Olson
suspected that Call Me Ishmael was not his master work.
His enthusiasm wavered, always wavered. Olsons feelings
especially those of the early Olson who, although he was an
adult man when he began writing, was practically a novice
as a writerwere always ambivalent feelings, excesses, sway-
ing passions, so to speak.
He needed a major work, a titanic one on which to
found a solid reputation. So during his trips he began
a research project, library by library, on the American
Northeast. Heeding the counsel of his delusions of grandeur,
Olson, of course, believed he had found his masterpiece: a
syncretic epic of America. He would rewrite Pounds Cantos
with the Americanist optimism of Whitman.
In this epic would be combined the histories of the
indigenous, the whites, and the blacks. Operation Red,
White & Black was the title he gave it in February of
1947. The military flavor of this title cannot go unremarked.
Maybe this is a good moment to remember that Olson, not
only a fervid nationalist but a fervid U.S. nationalist, retained
until the end of his career a tendency to conceive of writing
and the writer in a metaphoric relation to the military. For
North American liberals (the vast majority of his readers and
disciples) it might hurt to admit something that is very clear:
Olson was guided by his mentality as a war veteran.
Olsons ideas, his methods, his perspectiveswhich
would be very clear in his vision of Mexicoderived from
a military vision of the world, a military imperialist vision.
About this issue I want to immediately note three facts. First,
that the military in his thought was not, in the great major-
ity of cases, something explicit. To understand his imperialist
militarism one must de-translate him, since in Olson the
imperialist militarism became a poetic, metaphoric code, in
short, literature: his war veterans vision camouflaged itself
57 until it became subtle poetry. Second, this mentality does

not in any way devalue his literary work. On the contrary, it
gives it context, in the same way that Nietzches anti-semitic
mentality does not devalue his thought or how Pounds
fascism does not lessen the importance of his verse. Olson
was a North American nationalist, blind to the majority of
imperialisms atrocities, which, without him realizing it, he
supported in his literary thought. And finally, none of this
has been noticed by Olson scholars.
Theres another thing it has been difficult for scholars of
Olson in the United States to recognize: the importance of
kitsch in his thought. Operation Red, White, and Black is
part of an American vision of the world, which owes much,
certainly, to Pounds fascist multiculturalism, to Whitmans
imperialist topology, and to Hollywood romanticism. Olson
wanted to synthesize the myths of the whole continent in a
single work, guided by maximal, excessive, romantic, cheesy,
kitschy fantasy. By 1948, influenced by his lecture on Dante
and the melting pot, he devised a character called Orpheus
West in which the stories of Quetzalcoatl, Cabeza de Vaca,
Ishmael, Orpheus, and other heroes were fused in an exotic
juxtaposition.
As Barthes pointed out just five years later in Mythologies
(1954-1957), twentieth century bourgeois thought is char-
acterized by the construction of mythologies in which the
cultural is assumed to be natural, universal, human.
Olson is a bourgeois thinker. He constructed a grand family
of heroes, explorers, pilgrims, that became one self in the
end: him. From these first totalizing projects (failed and
abandoned quickly by Olson) until his magnum opusthe
poems of Maximus, the super-personaCharles Olson
wanted to catalogue the totality of the human experience by
means of a funnel. Olson wanted to be Man.
In the same book, Barthes gently ridicules a photog-
raphy exhibition The Great Family of Man which had
just arrived in Paris from the United States. According to
58 Barthes, this post-war exhibition sought to display the total

Unity of cultures via the universality of human actions in
the daily life of all the cultures of the world: birth, death,
work, knowledge, fun[that] there is a family of Man.*
Barthes maintained a sardonic critical, attitude, regarding
such an attempt at a full multicultural uniting. According to
Barthes, this Adamization of experience betrays a desire
to eternalize and lyricize historical conditions until they
evaporate and are erased, for the good of a unified capitalist
vision.
Olson is an Adamist. If Olson worked with myth across
all of his work it is because myth allowed him to deem-
phasize contradictions and erase differences. Myth allowed
him to do away with history, because history was only the
first phase. If history was constructed in order to fragment
cultures, now, in order to continue fragmenting them, it was
necessary to fragment history itself.
Myth allowed Olson to allege that his models and
approaches were Edenic, universal, primordial, ancestral,
perennial. In his reconstruction of myths, Olson eliminates
antithesis. He makes One of the many. In myth, Olson fuses.
Synthesizes. To pass off his vision as the very essence of pri-
mary man. There is something that his Anglo commentarists
do not want to admit: myth in Olson performs an imperial-
ist function. His ethnopoetics is Americanization.
His deployment of myth is of course demagogic, exag-
gerated, sententious. In The Kingfishers (1949), the poem
where he combined the Greek and the Aztec with Mao Tse
Tung (translated from the French) Olson grants himself the
authority of a life-granting force:
What does not change / is the will to change
This first versethat became a motto of American counter-
* Mythologies, Hill and Wang, New York, 1972, p. 100.

59 Collected Poems, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1997. p. 86.

poetics with its will to renew poeticsobviously paraphrases
Heraclitus. What does not change is actually the reference to
Heraclitus. What does not change is the pledge of allegiance
to the West as Origin. What continues to be ironic is that the
American reception of this sentencewhich would quickly
inspire the beatnik generation and American counter-poetics
up to the seventiestook this inaugural verse as a cosmic
principle, that is to say, a purity, a discovery in which Olson
claimed the naturalness of the vanguard, that is, the universality
of change. The ironyand we see now that irony is not ever
believing in the naivet of a new dawnis that this cosmic
verse of Olsons is nothing more than the paraphrase of a
Greek thinker. Olson did not take this universal law from
his observation of the universe, he took it from a textual
citation.
Olson joined the most new with the most archaic. This
was how he established his authority, by making himself
the representative of the ancestral-transcultural. In The
Kingfishers Olson sought to speak of the natural structure
of the very universe, of man, of his internal world and of the
earthly revolution, and he wanted to speak of all this from
a voice that is patriarchal, direct, from an immortal wisdom.
However, Olsons references to the Aztecs in the early part
of his poem were extracted from The Conquest of Mexico
(1843) by William H. Prescott. He certainly had this book
in his mind when he lived in Mexico, and it guided his
experience there. I am insisting on this point: what Olson
would claim as discoveries are nothing more than recon-
structions; what he will call origins are merely bibliographic
sources; what he considers universal laws are no more than
his opinions. The opinions of a lyrical experimentalism
combined with those of an imaginary North American war
veteran. Olsons grandfather is Whitman, that other poetic
veteran, who transformed the North American expansionist
principle and its model of democracy into free verse and
60 colloquial pantheism.

Olsons first exposure to kingfishers as symbols of
renewal came to him during a party, where a drunk art
curator mentioned something about the blue of the
kingfishers. His correspondence with Frances Boldereff
would also influence him greatly in the drafting of the
poem. The citation of Mao is in French in Olsons poem
because it is a citation of his conversation with Jean Riboud.
The Kingfishers, the poem that begins Olsons Mexican
imaginary, is full of intertextuality, of other voices that have
become fused in his text of booming breath.
I am no Greek, hath not thadvantage

And of course, no Roman
[]
If I have any taste

it is only because I have interested myself
In what was slain in the sun
I pose you your question:
shall you uncover honey / where maggots are?
I hunt among stones.*
I hunt among stones is his announcement that his search

will be in the direction of the ancient, the original, the
direct, the natural. It is no accident that he considered it a
searching among stones, that is, among the symbolic elements
of the natural and the primitive, and not among ruins, that
is, among the cultural remnants in which actually Olson
searched. Olson hunted among archives. Olson wanted to
appear as a hunter in nature, an archeologist of dawns, when
61 * Ibid., p. 93.

in truth he was an archeologist of knowledge, a library-dweller
trying to pass for an aboriginal.
The difference between hunting among stones and
hunting among ruins is what Olson wanted to hide. Olson
wanted his bibliographic investigation to be taken for direct
intuitions, and he wanted his conversations with others to
pass for solitary illuminationshe wanted his investigation
of the cooked (ruins) to pass for discoveries of the raw
(stones). Not admitting that his work forms a part of the
archive, he fancied himself in direct contact with the Pristine.
This behavior, moreover, is a typical characteristic of
the lyric, since the lyric is anything that does not want to
have an expiration date, the lyric is the individual (historic,
particular) assuming the guise of the Archetypal Eternal. The
lyric is the fantasy of the Unlimited.
What Olson desires is to legislate. To be the authority, the
one who guards universal laws.
The one who takes over the knowledge of other cul-
tures and in his re-mythologizing, discovers the universal.
Robert von Hallberg recalls that The didactic Maximus
always wants to show that particular people and events are
instances of general laws.* The paradox is that Olsons paradise
is constructed from diverse sources. What he called origins,
human essence, perennial myth, are no more than percep-
tions of his own Anglophone culture. Origins in Olson are
citations. His origins are second-hand sources. What he called
origins are TRANSLATIONS.
His morning, in reality, is an afternoon.
Prose and Takeover
Continuing in the vein of his magisterial paragustia, of his
* Charles Olson, The Scholars Art, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,

62 1978, p. 169.

will to appropriate the Other, of his eagerness to compose a
vast epic, a synthetic supermythology, Olson imagined some
days that he could compose choreographies, and in others
that he might work in film, and in still others, that he might
become an expert in the Western Gold Rush. Throughout
these years, his wife Connie became accustomed to seeing
how quickly Charless house of cards fell, only to be
exchanged for another. She was certainly discontent. Their
sex life proved difficult. She supported him financially.
Olson was depressed. He wanted to get rid of his liter-
ary parents, though he didnt stop looking for new ones.
He could not find a way out of the erroneous structure of
the imaginary parricide. Moreover, Olsons unemployment
sharpened his desire and need to conquer the U.S. literary
world. It wasnt until Connie underwent an abortion in
1948 that Olson looked for work.
His mentor Edward Dahlberg retired from his position
as professor of Black Mountain College, an experimental
school in North Carolina. Dahlberg was tired of dealing
with his students; he had just divorced and was discouraged.
Dahlberg proposed to Olson that he take over his position.
Olson, feeling the pressure of Connies medical bills, had
no other option but to accept. At first, he was worried that
teaching would impede the writing of his master work, but
he soon discovered that Black Mountain was a good fit. It
was a place where he could evangelize: now he explained
his vision to the youth. Olson was, as is well known, a man
with a special ability to promote his ideas. Although initially
provoked by Connies abortion, Olson quickly found himself
at home at Black Mountain.
Olson was an emphatically competitive man. He
longed to compose a work on a grand scale, a totalizing
masterwork. He wanted to overcome Joyce, and most of all,
Pound. Although Olson is claimed as post-modernhe was
the first to employ this term in literature in Englishhis
63 desires belonged to a classical and modern will: the will to

produce a masterwork, a long work. Strictly speaking, he
could not actually be post-modern because, like Pound, he
wanted to write an incorporative work (and the incorporative
was the very paradigm of modernity). In Olsons case, he
wanted to incorporate a continent, letting in what Pound
did not permit: the indigenous and the oral contemporary.
(Contemporary American speech came to Olson by way of
the young Robert Creeley, with whom he would construct
a voluminous correspondence from 1950 onwards.) Olson
was encyclopedic. From Sumeria to psychoanalysis and from
Greece to Montezuma. He wanted to be wider than Pound.
And Pound and Olson share something: they are both
bankers.
The text, for them, is a bank. An accumulation of foreign
capital. Their erudition is a hoarding, a site where they
attempt a final unification.
It is no accident, as Olson knew, that the first Greek
prose writer, Anaximander, was the first to develop a world
map. Prose is bound to empire.
The bank was operationalized by what Olson called
assault prose. The military character of this expression is
not incidental. Assault meant assertive prose, portentous,
comprehensive, generalized, a prose that does not doubt any
of its claims, even if they are outbursts. His prose is a writing
of the advance, an avalanche, a pillage, and seizure of power.
Olson always thought of writing in a militaristic manner. To
write, for Olson, was expeditionary. Olson is one more North
American expedition. He is an emblem of North American
imperialism. He was, in fact, one of its open apologists.
Olson is defined by banking and expedition.*
His demons were his expectations. He wanted to be
* Olsons assault prose has a precursor in Neal Cassidy and Jack Kerouacs
kick writing. Both are forms of prose directed by masculine force, by
macho-adrenaline, by the subjugation of impulsive writing, hungry to
pour itself onto the page in a muscular, machinic manner: in Olson in the
64 mode of a tank, in Kerouac that of an automobile.

one of the greats. At the end of the forties, when Olson
realized that he still did not have the power to compete
with Poundian verse, he turned to prose, whose res extensa
admits oceans. Poetry is the art of knowing how to clarify,
so, excepting the long poem, poetry requires centripetal
conciseness. Olson admired everything large, everything
wide. His admiration for the Pacific Oceanan admiration
he learned from Melvilleis an impulse that points to the
tremendous.
Olsons first book, Call Me Ishmael (1947), has a will to
include everything. Although it is written in the manner of a
ships log, it condenses; it cuts. Olson worked by concentrat-
ing, oceans turned into morphemes. This was his technique:
to press vastness into language. But this technique did not
yield instant gratification, since not just anyone can untangle
all the packets integrated in the syllabic, all the knowledge
embedded between letters. When his first book of poems Y
& X appeared, the reviews indicated that it was too cerebral,
its language was too encrypted. Only people with whom he
had exchanged ideas, those who knew his codes, claimed to
understand his poetry. Olson despaired when his early work
was not immediately celebrated by others. He could not
believe they missed how each verse, each line was a string
of pearls he had rescued from the deep, a splendid synthesis,
fortresses whose bricks were Pandoras boxes.
In fact, Olsons style is dictated by two forces: his ambi-
tion to encompass totality and his rush to demonstrate it.
So his writing, from here on forward, took the form of a
shipwrecked bottle that dreams of swallowing the whole
sea. His choice of the whale was no accident. If the theme
of his first book of prose is Moby Dick it is because Olsons
ambition was to capture the largest subject he could with
the quick assuredness of his broad hands. To make the whale
fit in the palm of a hand. And then to press the whale inside
the fist until it compressed into a grain of sea salt on the tip
65 of an ancient finger.

To summarize in a single point long centuries of unin-
terrupted potlatch.
And to squeeze the grain of sea salt in order to provoke
a gigantic leak, a primitive, unstoppable tsunami, that would
make this miniscule grain of salt discharge oceans of whale
oil covering everything and inventing a new space-time in
which there will arise a whole new biosphere.
In Call Me Ishmael, Olson explored not only Melville
or Moby Dick, but, primarily, the United States concept of
space. He was not the only author at this time who was
centrally concerned with space. Since the forties, Lezama
Lima had been working on a notion of gnostic space, and
explicitly put forth in his seminars of 1957. Meanwhile, in
the extreme south of the continent, Borges in The Garden
of Forking Paths (1941) described a tenuous space where
perception could observe all times converging into one
plane, a synchrony and polytopia he would explore in many
of his stories and essays, until arriving at the concept of the
Aleph (1949).
It should not be forgotten, however, that the revision of
the concept of space in Lezama and Mellville was Whitmanic,
whereas in Borges any accumulation produces monstrosity. In
Olson, there was no comparable irony. Olson was convinced
of the need to fuse, to press the All into the One.
Quantum physics had been moving towards a reconsid-
eration of space-time since the beginning of the century.
In many senses, quantum physics prefigured what Borges,
Lezama, and Olson proposed in their texts. All of them
worked with various transdictions that turned on how to fuse
disparate elements and how to contain the universe in a single
elementary particle, an element that could be verse, word,
syllable, or letter. In short, they interrogated how to tie the
variegated into the same knot. Olson was interested in this
proposition not only because of his closeness to Joyce, with
the concept of Jungian archetype, with the ideas of Lawrence,
66 and with his familiarity with the theories of Heisenberg, but

also because his haste to anchor everything he had consumed
in books, soliloquies, and conversations, demanded that he
develop a textuality in which the many, the infinite, stayed
summarized in the brief, the syllabic, and the little.
Call Me Ishmael is a book that is marked by a sense of
haste. It is made of fragments, islets of text, inspired not
so much by Nietzsche as by the author of Leaves of Grass.
Olsons theme is the interminablethe Pacific, the delirium
of Melville, the pursuit of a demonic whale, an apology for
North American expansionismand, even still, Call Me
Ishmael feels like a self-enclosed, tiny monad. Call Me Ishmael
is an archipelago of reflections.
In 1946, when Olson visited Poundwho was held in
St. Elizabeth psychiatric hospital after his lawyer had him
committed after having him judged mentally incompetent
to stand trial for national treason due to his collabora-
tion with Italian FascismOlson left Pound a copy of his
unpublished manuscript on Melville. The text pleased Pound
precisely because it served as an introduction to an author
who he personally had not had time nor interest to inves-
tigate deeply, as he confessed. Olson began to understand
more and more clearly that his spiritual structure was found
in the preparation of diminuitive summas.
His very encounter with Pound was the continuation of
his art of merging. His biographer Tom Clark writes:
Although never openly sexual and mostly sublimated

like a professional friendship, his relation with Cagli
took on similar dimensions, in his point of view, to those
relations that had emerged with strong masculine figures
like Edward Dahlberg in the past, or in this then, with
Ezra Pound: a pattern of excessive dependence, on its
way to a powerful affect beyond the limits of mere casual
camaraderie.*
67 * The Allegory of a Poets Life, p. 113.

Olson converged with the other. He fused the knowledge
of the other in himself. From Dahlberg, Pound, and Cagli
he would move on, a little later, to Frances Boldereff
and Robert Creeley. If Olsons work refers, primarily, to
expansion towards the other, towards the fusion with and
appropriation of the other, then this desire to merge was
also operational in his personal life. Olson devours the
other, swallows the other into his own life, and likewise,
is devoured by his prey. The Whale that devours Jonah.
Olson is, fundamentally, an anthropophage. He is also the
cannibalized.
Prose means takeover.
Polychrony of the Text
A text speaks various languages.Various languages simultane-

ously. Hermeneutics supposes that each text has a double.
And structuralist semiotics treats the text as composed of
parts. The text, in truth, as is well known, is various. But it
is not a text composed of others parts (only). This has been
the error of the ideology that has guided the post-modern
school of thought. The text is various texts and the text we
read is only the apparent text we perceive, the text-apparent
is constructed in the readers perception through the
superimposition of only some of its texts. The page is not a
palimpsest, as has been said, but rather a tower-of-texts.
Lets imagine a glass plate onto which a text has been
inscribed. This glass plate is covered with another similar
glass plate onto which another text has been inscribed. And
another plate, always, is placed underneath. This forms a
tower of glass.
The reader only observes the last plate. What is read are
the words of this last plate, along with the words that show
through the transparent spaces from the plates below.
68 The text-apparent is made of parts belonging to distinct

layers-levels. As only its surface is read, that is its top floor,
it is not immediately apparent that the text we read is com-
posed of words actually inscribed onto other levels, in other
texts. The syntagmas are not real. They are an illusion created
by the superimposition of plates. What appears linear in
space is in reality separated by distinct times.
The text is a polychrony. Reading is a will-to-homochrony
(impossible).
But this polychrony has been forgotten by the Oxident, a
civilization based in the fantasy of imposing homochrony.
The polychrony of the text, then, is taken as a homo-
chrony, as a unified space.
The space into which the polychrony is impoverished is
this text-apparent. The upper floor of this tower made up of
levels of glass. The top floor, the apparent-roof, where we see
a text composed of what can be seen from there of the texts
written on the levels below, their visible fragments, their
remains.
This roofthe pageis taken for a panopticon. Of
course, it is a false panopticon or, in other words, there
are nothing but false panopticons. Total vision cannot be
achieved. The panopticon is one of the Oxidents fantasies of
control.
Each level of the tower is its own time. There is no way
of knowing all the words written there, because these words
pertain to another time.
Each time is inviolable. There is no panoptic space or
panoptic vision that can gain power over all texts. We can
only contemplate their remains.
Lets imagine that we are flying over a stunning, breath-
taking splendorous city.
A city on the sea, an amazing island.
What those who fly over this apparent city do not know
is that it is only an apparition.
What from on high seems like a city is actually an
69 optical illusion.

A false panopticon, an impossible pantopia.
The island city is really an optical illusion produced by
a series of ruins that are not even on the same level, so this
apparent city is composed of ruins of various submerged
cities, floating, at different depths, between which there are
supposedly transparent divisions.
These parts only seem united from above. And their false
juncture, their false coherence, produces the appearance of a
complete island, of a unitary and complete city.
Such is the tower of text.
The book itself demonstrates its authentic structure.
If we open a page, we open, indeed, a window. On this
window words are written and this window allows us to see
the words written on other pages, the pages below. So the
text of each page of a book is made of words from other
pages. The structuralists and the post-structuralists know this,
but they ruined it with their conception of unified time, of
monochrony and pantopiabecause they have not gone
beyond the idea of the Universe.
Each book is a Babellic tower. What we read, what we
listen to is the artificial product of combining separate
words, statements, letters, echoes of other times, of other
worlds, separated from each other, worlds that cannot actu-
ally be turned into, or taken as a unified space.
The pantext does not exist. Polychrony is what we have.
And we cannot have it.
So all interpretation, all reading, is based on a fantasy. The
fantasy that the text-apparent is a unitary-text, the fantasy
that all the information in a text can be recuperated, and
that the text only exists in a single time.
Glean, dear reader, the consequences of all this.
I Take Space
70 I take SPACEso begins Call Me Ishmael. I take SPACE

was also one of the tentative titles for the book. The phrase
resonates with taking timein the sense of apprehending,
taking-over, grabbing, capturing space. Olson continues: I
take SPACE (I consider space) to be the central fact for man
born in America (United States), from Folsom cave to now. I
spell it large because it comes large here. Large, and without
mercy.*
Large and without mercy. The beginning of this book
is a fragment of Olsons personal time, his secret biochronia.
Olson, as we know, was an immense man. His more than
six and half feet of height defined his existence. His height
made him feel, as he himself came to say, like a dwarf on
the inside. And it will be Olsons body more than his mind
that defines much of the meaning in his texts. Of course,
the constitutive idealism of the Oxidentthat is, its patriar-
chymeans we rarely consider that bodies can determine
the meanings of texts.
At the same time, of course, the structure of the text-
apparent obscures the authors body. In the text-apparent
only its distant remains are found.
So the text speaks of the distant biochrony and cannot
speak of it completely.
The author is and is not present in the text.
Olson writes in the opening of Ishmael: I take space. I
occupy space. I consider space to be the central fact for man
(I, Olson) born in America. The question here is: what does
America mean? And the book will be his answer.
* Call Me Ishmael, City Lights, San Francisco, 1947, p. 11.
I asked Heriberto what he meant by this term and he responded: Life-

Time; his life as a time in its own, like a rooms of own one, biocronia,
biotemporality, biotime, and because his chronia is also an account (like
in chronicle, cronica), its a time-life aware of its structure. (Trans. note)
Any system that argues for the preeminence of thought over the body can
be considered an avatar of the patriarchy. Thus, the patriarchy is not only
capitalization (caput, capitalism) but also separation of the head from the
71 body (decapitation, decapitalism).

I take space. I occupy space. I consider space to be
the central fact for man (I, Olson) born in American, from
Folsom cave, that is, the uterus, until now. I write it, space,
I turn it uppercase, I hypertrophize it, because I have been
large. Large and without mercy.
Large and without mercy. According to his biography,
his wife Connie said of Olson that he doesnt have human
warmth.* For Olson, certainly, it was the text that concealed
his other times, above all, his early time, uterine-time,
maternal-time. Language, and especially ideas, formed the
cloud architecture that permitted Olson to see only partially
the earlier moments that constituted them, earlier times that
Olson did not accept.
It is here that Olsons biochronia merges with another
level of the tower of text. The level where the imperialist
pantopia speaks. It was the circumstances of Olsons lifehis
distance from his own body, his fantasies of becoming and
differentiating himself from his father, his tormented relation
with sex, his lack of feminine energy, his anxiety to sustain
himself on genealogical fantasies and to link himself in his
fantasies with other debilitated men, to imagine himself as a
floating mind and, at the same time, as a giantwhich made
him into a lightning rod for the fantasies of Empire. Olson
is a subject in whom all the ills of United States Empire are
collected. The most painful and the most luminous.
We can locate the fantasies of empire using words of the
text-apparent because individual biochrony and pantopic
fantasy share the same structure. Their illusion is practically
the same. Olson is part of the American dream, the dream
* In moments of frustration she accused him of lacking completely in

human warmth, of using his verbal mastery to hide his lack of intimacy
(Tom Clark, The Allegory of a Poets Life p. 118). Olson was not nurtured by
feminine energy, which is given by the mother. He was not nurtured by
this energy because it could only be given by a woman tied to his body.
As a result of not being nurtured, his body separated from itself, beginning
with the legs and separating a central emotional areathe chestfrom
72 his head.

of expansionism in all its variants. It is with the purpose of
understanding this empire that I have written this book.
Olson in and of himself does not interest me; I am interested
in his character as a microanalogy for decoding the psycho-
poetics of Empire. Philosophy tries to comprehend reality
through a discussion of abstract concepts produced by float-
ing masculine heads (decapitalisms); in contrast, what I want
to understand is the present via concrete bodies, historical
microanalysis via the hunt for biosymbols. Using the text,
I want to see through it to glimpse the substructure and the
superstructure.
If poetry is beautiful it is because it sings the song of
Empire. The music that nourishes us.
Americans still fancy themselves such democrats.
But their triumphs are of the machine, says Olson, not
in condemnation of this impulse, but in celebration of it.
To Melville it was not the will to be free but the will to
overwhelm nature that lies at the bottom of us as individu-
als and a people.* Olson sees in Melville his alter ego. He
magnifies him, and Olsons critical spirit quickly vanishes
in his love for the expansive. He had become a specialist:
he had all space concentrated into the form of a whale
called Moby-Dick. Olsons choice was not mistaken. The
demons of the American people, the fantasy of its cohe-
sion, were also concentrated in Melville, American, one
aim, lordship over nature.
Melville is no more than Olsons projection.
What Olson finds in Melville are his own secret fantasies.
Beginnerand interested in beginnings. Melville had a
way of reaching back through time until he got history
* Call Me Ishmael, p. 12.
Ibid., p. 12.
73 Ibid., p. 13.

pushed back so far he turned time into space.* Converting
time into space will be the fantasy that constitutes the pantopia.
What Olson desiresas the imperfect double of an impos-
sible United Statesis to end time, because time is death
and empire is the denial of death. He dreams of fragmenting
History to turn it into a scrapheap, consuming it, reusing it,
removing the wound that causes time and fantasizing of an
architecture of a unified world, the world that imperialism
dreams of: a world totally under the minds control.
If one wants to convert time into space it is because one
desires to capture time in a specific zone, a zone-of-control;
to transform the infinite (time) into a finite space.
He was homeless in his land, his society, his self.
Olson-Melvilles fantasy was of a time become space and
of a space concentrated in itselfa consequence of their
biochronias and their cultures generalized state of alien-
ation. A metaphysical orphan. His fantasies of taking control.
Control appears where one has lost contact, where there is
separation. And in immense separation one desires to recover
control of the distant, to include it, contain it, possess it.
Solitude is the seed of imperial desire.
The White Whale is more exact than Leaves of Grass.
Because it is America, all of her space, the malice, the root.
Like Hegels philosophy of history or Descartes cogito,
Olson-Melville is a way of conceiving imperialism, a fasci-
nation that our civilization has with absolute power. What is
special about Olson is the depth to which he sank into this
dream, the confusion that lay in him. The technical beauty
of that dream.
The parallels between Olsons Melville and Olsons own
life are too many to delve into all of them here. What inter-
* Ibid., p. 14.
Ibid., p. 14.
74 Ibid., p. 15.

ests me is rather what America signified for Olson:
To MAGNIFY is the mark of Moby-Dick. As with work-

ers, castaways, so with the scope and space of the sea, the
prose, the Whale, the Ship and, OVER ALL, the Captain.
It is the technical act compelled by the American fact.
Cubits of tragic stature. Put it this way. Three forces
operated to bring about the dimensions of Moby-Dick:
Melville, a man of MYTH, antemosaic; an experience of
SPACE, its power and price, America; and ancient magni-
tudes of TRAGEDY, Shakespeare.*
Olsons mark will be exaggeration, above all, in the central

cybernetic figure of the Captain, the male-leader who in
the form of a father or president will be magnified. This, as
Olson says, is the result of hegemonic American cultures
deep and long-lasting influence. America is dictating his
ideas. What he calls America is an idealization of the sub-
structure, the social unconscious, to which he belongs.
There are three forces, says Olson, that constitute this
hypertrophy: 1) a man of MYTH, antemosaic, that is,
an identity that has been forged through the mythicthe
Oedipalan identity that is an antemosaic, an identity
that has established its false genealogy, its fantasized geneal-
ogy, all the way back to its origins. 2) An experience of
SPACE, hypertrophied, exaggerated, capitalized, its power
and price, an experience of hypertrophic, capitalist space,
political America. 3) Ancient magnitudes of TRAGEDY,
Shakespeare, that is, a deterministic analogy, the supersti-
tion of a tragic destiny, reinforced by the Oedipus myth,
a patriarchal tragedy (secret tragicomedy of masters and
slaves) mediated by late European, Shakespearean civiliza-
tion, a metapersona and a hereditary trans-generational
familial structure that clones itself and is, at the same time,
75 * Ibid., p. 71.

a cultural archive, a self-enacting civilization in psycho-his-
torical becoming. (Olson claimed that Melville derived part
of his work from reading Shakespeare. He appropriated it.)
The three forces that Olson speaks about are the compo-
nents of the Co-Oxident.
The Oedipal-mythic extends itself back to its origins.
His obsession is with pantopia. His neo-tragic spirit binds
the United States to Europe.
This third point is critical because on it Olson based the
potential for aesthetic representations of imperialist fantasies:
It is necessary now to consider Antony and Cleopatra, the
play Melville penciled most heavily. Rome was the world,
and Shakespeare gives his people and the action imperial
size.* For Olson, Melville represented the moment that
the imperial drama of the United States brilliantly crystal-
ized, the moment the United States was given imperial size
through Melvilles poetic spirit.
Lets remember that it is the masters who are driven
crazy by the slaves imagination. It is the slave-messengers
who grant them imperial size, who hypertrophy them and
perpetuate a self-destructive search for pantopia.
For the American has the Roman feeling about the

world. It is his to dispose of. He strides it, with posses-
sion of it. His property. Has he not conquered it with his
machines? He bends its resources to his will. The pax of
legions? The Americanization of the world. Who else is
lord?
As we can see, Olson is not critical of this American-ization

of the world. A New Deal fanatic, Democratic triumphalist,
Olson became a spokespersonimplicitly at times, very
openly at other timesfor imperialism. At the same time,
* Ibid., p. 71.
76 Ibid., p. 66.

Olson is conscious that such lordship, that of Captain
Ahab, leads to shipwreck, as Melville also knew. Collapse
of a hero through solipsism which brings down a world.*
Solipsismall solipsism is pantopianis what demolishes
the world, the empire, but which is also its primary motor.
Olson was conquered by the beauty of solipsism. It seems
sublime to him. It seems tragically beautiful, beautifully
tragic, death by hypertrophy, fragmentation survivor. All
scattred in the bottom of the sea.
Call Me Ishmael
Does Olson fully identify with Ahab? No. He identifies

with an other aspect of imperial hypertrophy. He identifies
with Ishmael, the orphan who survives the destruction.
Olson-Ishmael adds another dimension to the imperial
tale. This co-relation adds the question of the survivor, the
fragmented-man, who is in love with the Grand Tragic Tale
that he continues to tell, who is, in fact, its author, because he
is the narrator of this tale of splendor and downfall. He is its
true author.
Melville wanted a god. Space was the first, before time,
earth, man. In every part of imperial hypertrophy, in Ahab
and Ishmael, Space is God. Space was the paradise Melville
was exile of. Olson knew to what extent Melville was
agonized over paternity. He suffered as a son. He had lost
* Ibid., p. 73.
Ibid., p. 73.
Ibid., p. 81.
Ibid., p. 82.
77 Ibid.

the source. He demanded to know the father.* The links
between the pantopic and the patriarchal are clear. They are
entangled.
Ishmael is the part that narrates. Ahab is the demonic part
that falls. Ishmael, as surviving servant, is the slave-storyteller,
who becomes the master collapsed in myth. But his role was
not created only after the fall, because the slave-teller, as we
have seen, is the one who accelerates the fall, the one who
convinces the master that he must fulfill the myth.
It is space, and its feeding on man, that is the essence of

his vision, bred in him here in America, and it is time
which is at the heart of Christianityobjects lost their
gravity as they bulk in spaceMy memory is a life
beyond birth. His natural sense of time was in its rela-
tion to space. It was not diverted as [sensation of time]
Christs was, away from the object, to the individual, and
the passage of the personal soul. To Melville the intimate
and the concrete of the present, as for example he felt
it at Constantinople, enabled a man to loose himself
into space and time and, in their dimensions, to feel and
comprehend such an object as the Pyramids, to create, in
like dimensions, an Ahab and a White Whale. Time was
not a line drawn straight ahead toward future, a logic of
good and evil. Time returned on itself. It had density, as
space had, and events were objects accumulated within it,
around which men could move as they moved in space.
The acts of men as a group stood, put down in time, as a
pyramid was, to be reexamined, reenacted.
The notion of space that Olson-Melville arrived at is very

intriguing. Time functions like spaces statuary, time is
objectifiedsimilar to in Hegelas a series of stationary
* Ibid.
78 Ibid., pp. 87-89.
events. That is, time becomes architecture within space.
This is the notion of historical time of old civilizations. A
civilization that has accumulated so much history that ruins
swarm through it. Where time is conceived as a monumental
function of space.
In Olson, temporal becoming is translated into iso-
lated events. These events become little theaters. Zones
where eventsAhab or the White Whale, their tragic
encountercan be rediscovered, because they have been
constitutedinside spatialized timeas monument.
Time, moreover, leads to these monuments.
Does Olson not define time in terms of tourism?
In Olson, time becomes space because it is a fantasy of
time as fixed, eternalized events, as signposts directing all
becoming.
In this idea of time, he attempted to found empire.
You can only possess what is immovable. And time
is what cannot be apprehended, continuous change and
fleetingness. A culture arrives at the idea of spatialized time,
of a progress of time that builds monuments, that colonizes
becoming itself by affixing historical touristic plaques in its
wake, that colonizes when it cannot confront death, when it
is guarding against oblivion.
Time is the enemy of empire.
Space is the foundation of totalitarianism.
Empires possess spaces, converting them into ruins,
making time a series of event-theatres. (In this way the
ancient empires extend their ownership of space by means
of their ruins.) But the conversion of time into space and
the subsequent fixation of a (paratactic) path of event-
theatres does not only occur in geographic space, but above
all in mental space, that is, in interior time converted into
mental space, in the internal life of the mind converted into
a road of pre-fixed sites, into scenes, which will come to be
re-updated again and again.
79 The arrival of this phase is the arrival of imperialism.

an experience of SPACE most Americans are only now
entering on, 100 years after Melvillespace has a stub-
born way of sticking to Americans, penetrating all the
way in, accompanying them. It is the exterior fact
Trajectory. We must go over space, or we wither.*
Fake Fakes: USA, Science Fiction, and The Bible
Philip K. Dick never abandoned the mentality of the 1950s.

Is there any American who has ever truly abandoned it?
For Dick it took dozens of stories and dozens of novels
to realize his work was the Bible. Has there been any
author more representative of the American dream than the
author of Now Wait for Last Year? Philip K. Dick shared with
Charles Olson the avatarized belief in time transformed
into chunks of space. If, according to Olson, time constructs
scenesmostly tragicand these scenes are converted into
permanent amphitheatres, into amusement parks, through
which time itself will then guide us, then Dick, the master
of American science fiction, imagines an unreal time that
repeats in loops the fabulas of the Oxident.
To analyze and demonstrate all the ways Dick conceived
of time in his work would be a life-long project. One obser-
vation can perhaps serve as a baseline: Dicks insight was that
linear time can be undone. Dick belongs to a civilization
that equates time and history. To subvert this notion of time
means we will have to traverse an inventory, a museum, a
house of mirrors, a technology that perpetuates the illusion
of linearity. Only in Borges do we find such chronovisions.
It is no accident, certainly, that the blurb the Vintage pub-
lishers use on Dicks books is our homegrown Borges
(from Ursula K. LeGuin). Indeed, this type of commercial
praise (typical of the North American publishing and film
80 * Ibid., p. 101.
industries) reveals the retro logic and the cloning paradigm
that drives this civilization. For them Dick is an updated
version, a redux or cloning of Kafka-Borges (an artificial
iteration, homemade, an Organic Borges).
Dicks lecture How to Build a Universe That Doesnt
Fall Apart Two Days Later (1975, 1985) gives a useful sum-
mary of his thought. In this text, Dick outlines his concept
of fake fakes. For example, at Disneyland there are false birds
that operate with electric motors and that emit sounds when
you pass close to them. Suppose that one night we snuck
into Disneyland and substituted the artificial birds with real
birds. Imagine the authorities horror when they discovered
the cruel trick.* Dick predicts that then people would bring
real hippopotamuses and lions, and the amusement park
would have to be closed.
It must be recognized that the first Oxidental to pro-
foundly think about simulacra was not Baudrillard, but
Philip K. Dick. All of his work is an investigation of conceal-
ment. (But is there any idea of Baudrillards that did not
have an American precursor? The end of critical theory
was, precisely, its Northamericanitis. Deleuze loved North
Americans, and Derrida never realized it but he always was
one of them. We are all Extra-Americans.)
Dicks thesis about fake fakes is a variant on another idea,
which he relates pages later, in a (supposedly) autobiographi-
cal tale. Dick recalls that in 1974 Doubledayand here the
publishers name is important as wellreleased Flow My
Tears,The Policeman Said. The novel is about the life of Kathy,
an underground agent who works for the police. The novel,
Dick says, was written in 1970. But in 1971, he actually met
a woman named Kathy who trafficked in drugs and who,
at the end of their friendship, revealed to Dick that she was
connected with the police.
* How to Build a Universe That Doesnt Fall Apart Two Days Later in
The Shifting Realities of Philip K. Dick. Selected Literary and Philosophical
81 Writings, Lawrence Sutin (ed.) Vintage, New York, 1996, p. 264.

Clearly, Dick is the one who is lying.
Who has rewritten his life so that it is full of precognitions
is none other than Dick himself. Dick was a mythomaniac.
Our memories are spurious, like our memories of dreams;
the white spaces are filled in retrospect. And falsified.*
While he believed he was criticizing the TV and the Nixon
government, Dick was actually speaking of himself. Dick,
above all, forgets that his stories would inspire governmental
methods of control:
One afternoon I was talking with my priestand I men-

tioned to him an important scene around the end of the
novel, in which a character called Felix Buckman meets
with a black man in one of those gas-stations thats open
24 hours, and they started talking. As I described the
scene in more and more detail, my priest grew progres-
sively more restless. Finally he said: Thats a scene from
Acts in the bible. In Acts, the person who meets the black
man in the road is named Philip, like you.
According to Dick, he had managed to relate incidents from

a particular book of the Bible without having read it. But
the mystery did not end theretwo months after, very late
at night, I walked to the mailbox Dicks invented histo-
rieshis personal fake fakeseven though false, still explain
both himself and the culture to which he belongs. It is our
lies that reveal our truths. And, as we know, the appearance
of a mailbox in this story of his is not gratuitous. In the
Oxidental mentality the mailbox representsespecially to
the North Americana reminder of the underlying func-
tion of the intellectual, his role as messenger of otherness. After
* Ibid., p. 266.
Ibid., p. 268.
82 Ibid., p. 268.
returning from the mailbox, Dick approached a man he had
seen trying to steal an automobile. It was a black man who
had run out of gas.
The scene he described in his novel, which was part of
the Bible, was now made true in his own life, so Dick argues.
Finally, Dick accompanies the black man to a 24-hour gas
station. The gas station is exactly like the one he had imag-
ined in his novel.
My theory is this: time is not realdespite all the change

we see, there exists a landscape underlying the world of
changes, and this invisible underlying landscape is from
the Bible; it is specifically, the period that immediately
follows the death of Christ; it is, in other words, the
period of time of Actsif time is real and it is circa 50
A.D. then why do we see 1978 A.D. And if we are really
living in the Roman Empire, somewhere in Syria, why
do we see the United States?*
Centuries before Philip K. Dick, Saint Augustine argued that

the City of God and the earthly city were confused with each
other and in the end times they would separate from each
other before our eyes. (Separation by parousia was an idea that
fascinated Dick.) Dicks notion of time is one that constructs
events that will then be eternal loops, and that such facts will
reoccur for those that travel in time (his conception of time
was precisely that of Disneyland). Moreover, time itself directs
us to such fixed stopsthe gas stationagain and again,
establishing a temporal becoming whose mission is to guide
us to stationary facts, already determined beforehand.
This model of time combines a submodel of cyclical
timethat is, various cyclical subtimes running in series
inside of a wider model of linear time. This model of time is
made up of mini-times each separate and whole, but linked
83 * Ibid., p. 269.
to each other linearly, as if they were a series of reels or gears
turning on their own axis, driving a chain and turning all
together. This, for certain, is an oft-used model of time in
imperial culture.
In Dicks variant, we will be liberated from the eter-
nal return of the same by parousia. (Even though for
Christianity parousiain Greek, presencesignifies a second
advent of Christ.) This model, in some way doubled, of
multiple circular times happening in linear time is also
the model that is symbolically contained in the myth of
Penelope, the lover who awaits the return of her beloved.
Penelope spends twenty years waiting for Ulysses. She has
plotted the perfect plan to make her suitors wait as well. As
we know, she promises to choose one of them when she fin-
ishes weaving the fabric, but the weaving of the fabric never
ends, because each night Penelope unweaves what during the
day she has woven. What this story symbolizes is circular time
operating by means of the nocturnal destruction of what has
been elaborated in the daylight hours.* But this game of mul-
tiple cyclical timesincluding both times that move forward
and backwardcomes to a close when Ulysses arrives, put-
ting an end to this multiplicity of cyclic times, making it clear
that they are part of a linear-hegemonic time.
The returns of Ulysses and Christ are avatars of the myth
of cyclic, plural time contained inside a long linear time, and
it is this exact same model of time that is frequently found
in science fiction, especially in Philip K. Dick. It is not an
accident that Dick was convinced of the Judeo-Christian
vision of the world, arguing that the underlying landscape
note the spatial denotation of time hereis the landscape of
biblical events, his secret loop. Science fiction is the theology
of our time.
A theology made of interpolations. These interpolations
* The myth of Penelope also alludes to the process of disintegration and

84 de-contextualization of nocturnal dreams.

are developed by the representatives of the Oxidents poetic
imagination, the slaves of the master state. This symbiosis
between thought and power, curiously, is revealed by Dick
without his realizing itin another of his (unreal) anecdotes
that he reinvents in his How to Build a Universe lecture (a
lecture that certainly never took place):
Just when the Supreme Court decided that the Nixons

recordings had to be delivered to the special prosecutor, I
was eating in a restaurant in Yorba Linda, the town where
Nixon went to schoolwhere he grew up, worked in a
grocery store, where there is a park with his name, and of
course that is where his house was. I opened the fortune
cookie and this was my fortune
ACTIONS DONE IN SECRET ARE

THE WAY TO BE DISCOVERED.
I sent the piece of paper to the White House, mentioning

that the Chinese restaurant is located a mile from Nixons
original house, and I wrote: I believe you have made a
mistake; by accident I got Mr. Nixons fortune. Does he
have mine? The White House never responded.*
But the postal messengers luck, the scriveners luckOh

Bartleby! Oh Attorney of Wall Street! Oh Olson! Oh United
States!despite the ironic blindness of the sender, is the
same luck as the masters, as the presidents. What Dick did
not know is that there was no mistake. As in the case of the
fake fakes where Disneylands artificial birds are eventually
replaced with real birds, the fortune cookie the scrivener got
was the right one.
The scribe does not know that the tragic destiny he
describes in his visions, concepts, characters, actions, and
85 * Ibid., p. 275.

interpretations are premonitions that realize his own destiny
as a scribe. Just as Nixon had to hand over the record-
ings that would incriminate him, so Dick blindly sent the
evidence to the White House, the evidence that the scribes
words would be discovered for what they are: fake fakes.
Scribe and president, slave and master, are one and the same.
The destiny that one gives to the other belongs to both of
them. They are imprisoned in the same fantasy.
Oh Hegel, there is no difference between master and
slave! The slave is nothing more than a master who no
longer knows he is a master and the master is nothing more
than a slave who no longer knows he is a slave. (Master
and slave are the first and last name of Co-control).
Imperialist timethat of Olson and Hegel, that of Penelope
and Dickis made of circular-slave times in a caravan
chained to an illusory linear-master time.
From Whitman to Olson, from Melville to Dick, North
American literature is part of the Judeo-Christian tradi-
tion. Its concept of time is a simulacra of biblical (fixed)
time. Science fiction fragmented the Bible and put together
pastiches and bricolages with these fragments. Its innovation
consists, of course, in mixing this dream with that of capital-
ism: to recombine stationary fragments into which time has been
fantasized. Penelopes weaving turned to puzzle. A second-
hand puzzle. A puzzle made of the pieces of heterogeneous
puzzles. A puzzle whose final solution is impossible because
its pieces do not form any landscape in reality, do not fit
together. But nobody notices that this is a crude bricolage;
above the false puzzle is printed the question (on the back
of a cereal box): Wheres Waldo? or Whats wrong with this
picture? And so, paranoia is turned into criteria of truth. And
the United States can continue.
Time increases its velocity. And to what end? Maybe we

were told two thousand years ago. Or maybe it wasnt
86 so long, maybe it has been a hallucination that so much

time has passed. Maybe it was a week ago, or maybe even
earlier today. Maybe time is not only increasing its veloc-
ity but that, also, its going to end.*
And this theorywhich Borges also pursued, through

Bertrand Russellhas so fascinated North America that
it based its central fiction on it: the idea that if time is an
illusion and underneath it is found true spatial reality (the
landscape), then it might well be that beneath the Grand
Illusion we will find an Empire of the Truth. If all reality
simply began this morning, then surely everything has the
(biblical) form of an American Rome.
The Meeting of Ishmael and Medea
Olson imagined reality as a pantopia, that is, as a space that

swallows everything, a projective space in which the world
is eaten. A little after the appearance of Call Me Ishmael and
its delusional theories of an absolute spacegone unnoticed
by the critics until the presentOlson would receive a letter
written on November 22, 1947. It was an enthusiastic greet-
ing from a reader. Her name was Frances Motz Boldereff, a
book designer from Pennsylvania State College. Boldereff
was a very cultured womanversed in Russian culture, a
Joyce specialistdivorced with one daughter. When their
correspondence began, she was 42 years old and he was 37.
The correspondence quickly took on romantic overtones.
Frances was a woman who quickly delivered up her soul and
Charles was a psychophage who rapidly devoured it.
A few months after the start of this postal relation-
ship, Connie became pregnant again. The correspondence
between he and Frances, for certain, arrived while Connie
was working, so it was some time before she was aware
87 * Ibid., p. 278.

of the affair. Connies pregnancy ended due to difficul-
ties caused by her first abortion. Her relation with Olson
continued to have problems. At the same time, Olsons rela-
tionship with Frances grew at an accelerated pace. Life with
Connie was based in quotidian reality and bodily contact,
but the one maintained with Frances was based in what
Olson valued most: fantasy.
The months passed and it was evident that Olson had
fallen in love with her, with his words, with the echoes of
himself he found in those letters. She treated him like a
giantin the copy of the April 9th, 1949 letter, annotated:
Re Maximusputting him together with the giants of
literature and thinkingNietzsche, Blake, Lawrence, Joyce,
Rimbaud. Their letters, then, were written in a linguistic
world somewhere between the hysterical and the sublime,
full of bibliographic references and Edenic affections.
Frances inundated Olson with affections that were impos-
sible for a man like him not to be profoundly moved by.
Olson arranged to meet physically with Frances in
November. After their meeting and during their correspon-
dence, she was clearly his teacher, even though she took the
secondary position. Sharon Thesen writes:
In addition to desiring her sexually, he desired her

insight, acumen, scholarship and canny knowledge of the
underground stream of his thought.
It was Boldereff who introduced Olson to the work
of Samuel Kramer on the Sumerian sources of the
Gilgamesh myth; Boldereff whose letters often provided
words and images for Olsons poems; Boldereff who
helped formulate the notion of what he came to call
the postmodern, a way of reclaiming the vitality and
directness (13 January 1950) of a worldview Boldereff
called the unHebraic (14 March 1950); Boldereff who
led Olson to Edith Poradas work on cylinder seals, to
88 the notion of form as obedience to the laws of nature,

to an impatience with the whole inherited puff ball (2
January 1950); Boldereff who posited the core idea of
form as an activity that can only be done line by line,
not by story (26 December 1949); Boldereff s training as
a book designer that inspired Olson to consider the role
of typographical spacing as units of meaning, of breath
as constituting meaning much more immediately than
the rhetoric of debate.
It was Boldereff who encouraged Olson in the
notion of a poem as a construct of energy and therefore
Boldereff who stands behind the ideas in Projective
Verse. When Olson sent Boldereff a copy of Projective
Verse, Boldereff replied that the essay is terrificthe
main points have points lying behind them which are all
Motz pointsmy critique of my time for myself (13
February 1950).*
Olson was rigid. Profoundly split between his body and his
mind, a man who lived in separation, as if body and mind
were two distinct men, two half-asleep twins, just outside of a
nostalgic ex lasso, and invisible. And she was a door. A door to
union, to the relaxation of this division, to the entrance in the
skin, a fresh glass of water that says welcome to your own life.
Olson admitted even to imitating Boldereff s speech pat-

terns: now four months since you saw me under that
mask which almost drive you offOlson continues
to warm his face and body, loosen the visored grip on
his flesh, by way of the very gestures, the very bottomed
speech, the beautiful release of MOTZ! (17 march 1950).
* Charles Olson and Frances Boldereff: A Modern Correspondence, Ralph Maud

and Sharon Thesen (eds.), Wesleyan University Press, Middletown, 1999, p.
xv.
89 Ibid., p. xv.

Boldereff was the madness that guided Olsons lucidity. And
the lucidity that invited madness.
Some time later, what Olson saw in Mexico would be
the same thing he had admired in Boldereff, this contact
with herself, this folding into her skin, this self-belonging.
There was a desire in Olson to abandon distance, to
acquire immediacy. Boldereff and ancestral cultures
Mexico was gaining more and more importance in his
thinkinginspired in Olson these ideas of reconciliation
with himself.
The will to cohere that is the center of Olsons work can
also be understood as his search for a principle that would
give cohesion to all the parts of himself that fought within
him, all the parts he was cut off from, because what a poet
looks for outside drives his inner life. All the separated
information and perceptions that Olson wanted to make
cohere in the poem were, likewise, the divisions he wanted
to abolish inside of himself. For Olson, the division that
time produces in the history of the world so hurt him that
he dedicated his poetry to the cauterizing of the wound.
It is not the Greeks I blamewe do not find ways to
hew to experience as it is, in our definition and expres-
sion of it, in other words, find ways to stay in the human
universe, and not be led to partition reality at any point,
in any way (157). Olsons great error was to believeas
Pound believed and as the Oxident has believed for two
millenniathat there are parts; and also, that these parts
can be either essential parts or contingent parts. And that the
essential onessometimes x according to Pound, Olson,
etc, and sometimes y according to some other authority
are those that must be recovered, while the contingent
parts are dispensable and must be taken out of the poem or
out of History, either through parataxis, memory, will-to-
cohesion or some other eideticizing, essentialist, editorial,
or critical principle. Olson wanted to reorganize parts; the
90 whole, as such, did not convince him. So despite being

interested in full contact with himself, the full contact of
the world with himself, in the end, Olson turned back to
the old method, the Oxidental method: to separate.
This is the critical drama that gave form to Olson: to
unconsciously oscillate between a desire to recover lost
partsSumerian, Mayan, Americanto recover codes, so as
to obtain new perceptions (through the projective) and, on
the other hand, to discriminatesearching out the Centers,
dispensing with the unnecessaryto divide, to split reality.
Olson never abandoned partition.
For Olson, Boldereff and Mexico were symbols of the
other possibility, the re-union, cohesion, the fullness of
contact. He read them both, however, through the rational
method of partition. Boldereff s secret, however, was that
the freedom she represented did not belong to her in reality,
because this freedom was also his fantasy, an ideal. She was
also alienated from her sources.
My Blood, His Ink
The epistolary correspondence between them shows the

remarkable variety of Boldereff s ideas. Her conception
of time is especially insistent. Today is your birthday
Dunnes Experiment with Time gives me such a detached
feeling towards what appear to be events in timeI am so
convinced you were always thereand that I have always
at all times been wholly in love with you.* If according to
* A Modern Correspondence p. 100. This book of Dunnes is one of the

Borgesian sources of his conception of time. Olson would respond to
Boldereff: you/say that Dunne confirms your knowledge that time is
not the truth/ I tell/ you YOU confirm mine (p. 101). For Boldereff,
Dunne showed how to have time in its place (that is, to conceive of
time as if it were space). As one can see in the letter of January 10, 1950,
Dunnetranslated by Boldereffis one of the sources Olson utilized
to arrive at the notion of a time replaced by an omnivorous space (glut-
tony or pantopia). Another author that Boldereff made Olson reread was
91 Whitman.

Saint Augustine, with parousia the earthly city and the City
of God would separate, and if, according to Dick, when we
clear reality of optical illusions, what remains is Rome circa
50 A.D. then, according to Boldereff, after getting rid of the
concealing fiction, what remains beneath it all is a couple. The
couple of she and Olson.
Boldereff was a thinker of delusional ideas. She idolized
Olson, she believed he was the direct spokesman of God, a
Christ. I believe you serve God.* She arrived at the idea
that Olson should speak with his wife Connie, so that the
three of them might live together. Boldereff believed that
All men are part and parcel of each otherI admit and see
and act the fact that my language is formed from the breast
of Connie. And she simultaneously conceived of herself
as Olsons ink. Forever it will never be possible to separate
Olson from Motz because my blood is his ink. Boldereff
believed these ideas with such intensity that her words could
be read literally.
I know that in this world there is, literally, hundreds of

men who love Rimbaud and consider him their special
property. Despite this fact, I know that Rimbaud belongs
to meI am prepared to prove that he had an outlook
on the impulse of my life so I can say that he was the
poetI the words.
Boldereff believed herself to be Rimbauds words. She was

a thinker of unique notions. Her concept of identity was
always intriguing. She devalued the flesh and, at the same
time, she loved Blakeone of the strongest defenders of
* Ibid., p. 168.
Ibid., p. 221.
Ibid., p. 184.
92 Ibid., p. 528.

the body, who considered it the visible portion of the soul.
Boldereff believed that her true body was made of words,
she felt by means of wordshaving long desexualized her
own bodyand visible reality seemed to her an illusion
forged to hide a permanent eternal space. It was these
concepts of identity that brought her, for example, to the
decision not to publish some of her books under her own
name: The little book, A Primer of Morals of Medea (1949)
bears no name; A Blakean Translation of Joyces Circe (1965),
is Anonymous; Verbo Voco Visual (1981) is attributed to
Thomas Phipps and Time as Joyce Tells It (no publication
year) to Reighard Motz. Some of the theses of these
books, certainly, deserve a whole work of commentary.
Boldereff was an original and erudite thinker, classical of
breath, and officially deranged.
Another of her notions that is quite relevant to our
discussion is that she conceived of herself as Medea, slave
of Nature, who had been ordered: You will give, as you
have always given, but with this differenceyou will
not possess, but you will let free (item 25 of the Primer).
Boldereff-Medea believed she was obligated to give. And
so she did. She gave a good part of her ideas to Olson.
And Olson, who lived under the inverse myth, accepted,
because although Medea is all-giver or potlatch, Maximus is
omnivore, pantopia. Between them there met two poetic
extremes: the poetics of giving and the poetics of accumu-
lation. The two extremes that have structured the history
of poetry.
Boldereff-Medea represents the passion of the gift, to
make summa and to sacrifice this summa of knowledge to
the hands of Maximus, he who robs, appropriates, and ware-
houses. The basis of pantopia is theft:
Melvilleknew how to appropriate the work of others.

He read to writeEdward Dahlberg calls originality,
93 the act of a cutpurse Autolycus who makes his thefts as

invisible as possibleMelvilles books batten on other
mens books.*
Incidentally, Olson reminds us that when Chiones beauty

and Hermes interpretation are united, they give birth to
Autolycus, namely, the fine thief. When we interpret poeti-
cally what consistently happens is the theft of others ideas.
Poetic interpretation is Autolycus. No wonder it has been
one of the Co-Oxidents preferred methods.
Motz Mexico
Olson began to live love as a space. Not even to live love in

space, but love as a space. Not only did he refuse to live it
in timemovement of the body, becoming togetherbut
also love had been converted into a space-that-doesnttake-
place, a space that opens and dissipates, an abstract space
that becomes activitythe letterand closes just as it is
manifested, a space that opens and consumes the opening,
a secure space, hidden, a space that is its own anti-space.
Notice that when Olson defends the preeminence of space
over time, the space of which he speaks is a purely mental
space, a fictive space, a no-place space.
The love of the distant lover, of the distant remittant,
has become a zone or a non-place, in the sense of Aug. An
intensity at the bottom of writing. Youll see, heart, that
you are dealing with a profoundly abstract man. It is a defect,
I am disposed to speculateMy acts are those, these hours,
these letters, those are my acts now. And that you receive
them you receive me, it is bigger than any other thing,
bigger, obviously, at the moment, your presence, my love
(Letter from Olson, September 1, 1950). She was an increas-
* Shakespeare, or the discovery of Moby-Dick in Collected Prose, p. 39.

94 A Modern Correspondence, p. 537.

ingly pure idea in his mind, because the lover that loves at
a distance is protected from separation through a transfor-
mation of the beloved into a series of images, into an odd
phantasm, who can be loved mentally or can be abandoned
at the bottom of the unconscious. One way or another, the
beloved being, turned mental, becomes a projection of the
lover, in a pure part of his mind, a philosopheme, perhaps, a
form that is less painful at a distance, a love experienced not
by going to another city, or to another body, but which takes
place in ones own thinking, a love that has become only
words.
In their letters, Frances and Olson spoke increasingly
about hope. In this moment, the space of love was no
longer separation but had become instead waiting. But
it was not a true time, not a duration. Nor was it an Osiric
time in which the dispersed parts, the deliveries, would
reunite, having been separated by waiting. Instead it was
the reopening of a verbal place or a mental image, a wait-
ing that did not follow a time-line, but was an immobile
sparkle that fades in and out at the same site, a sedentary
intermittence, waiting on a radiance whose twilight occurs
at the same site as its fleeting luminescence, a sun in-transfer,
a sun that does not move from its site but disappears at a set
time and in its disappearance becomes the very passage of
time, the waiting space that devours itself, gnawing at the
separation, emphasizing the vigilance.
The no-response is a zone full of words and images, of
responses produced on ones own, out of anticipations or
unilateral decisions, out of fantasies or paranoias, the no-
response is the madness and the desperation of the lover, it is
the fearsome entrance into love that has become mind. The
love that is increasingly further from the body. The love that
is more and more diluted in language.
The conception of space and time that Olson would
develop with respect to his amorous relation, his correspon-
95 dence, waiting, separation, words with Frances would be

another of the decisive influences in his experience of time
and space during his trip to Mexico. His speculations about
the Mayans, about their thinking and their culture is coex-
tensive with what he had thought and felt for his lover a few
months earlier. It was in this love that Olsons ideas about
time and space found their finished form, ideas which had
been crystallized in the definitive draft of Call Me Ishmael,
but that would not be fully realized until his relation with
Frances.
The form of a space that forms itself. The idea of a
time separated from itself, a time interrupted and gathered
spatially. The idea of the necessity of a maptopologyto
understand it all; these and other ideas were decisively
influenced by his long-distance love, his love letters with
Frances Boldereff. When he arrived in Mexicoprecisely
to get away from herthese ideas would then determine
his understanding of there, to the extent that these ideas
had been prefigured by his reading of Pound, Whorf,
Fenollosa. Mexico would be an extension of Olsons love
for Motz.
Months before Boldereff and Olson stopped writing
romantically to each other, Connie discovered a letter.
Olson proposed to his epistolary lover that they continue
writing in secret, but Boldereff refused to enter by the
back door and to be treated like a negro, according to
her own words.* Their romance ended in a curious way. On
September 3, 1950, Boldereff sent Olson a letter in which
she told him she had met a young black man, attractive and
with a nice body, with whom she had made love and who
she thought she would see again soon. Olson had hardly
received this letter when he did what he had not done in a
long time: he physically drove to Brooklyn where Boldereff
lived. In any case, their relationship was never the same. It
did not resume.
96 * A Modern Correspondence, p. 329.

Olson returned to his plans to travel to Mexicoto
forget Frances.
Omnivore Interpretation
Is Olson an autolytic writer? Yes, he is, in good measure.

Although his autolytic interpretation lacks a certain poetic
beauty (seen in Boldereff, for example) since Olson privi-
leged the intellect. I am, as man is, omnivore,* Olson
wrote to Boldereff. The omnivorous and the analytical,
the omnivorous and the interpretation have too many
ties. Olson represents imperialist interpretation, made of
thefts, made of incorporations of information from diverse
sources, interpretation that is classified in a photographic-
cinematographic space, where the abolition of time is
imagined, whose procedure expresses the operation of
capitalism.
When Walter Benjamin thought the relation between the
superstructure and the economic structure he produced a
variation on the traditional Marxist model. He did not think
of the superstructureliterature, for exampleas a mere
reflection of the economic base, but as its expression:
If the infrastructure, in a certain form (in the materials

of thought and experience) determines the superstruc-
ture, but if such determination is not reducible to the
simple reflection, then how can we characterize it?
As its expression. The superstructure is the expression
of the infrastructure. The economic conditions under
which society exists are expressed in the superstructure,
precisely as, in sleep, a full stomach does not find its
reflection but its expression in the content of dreams
The collectiveexpressed the conditions of its life. These
97 * A Modern Correspondence, p. 73.

conditions find their expression in the dream and in its
interpretation upon waking.*
In this chapter, for example, a macrocosm unravelsCo-

Oxident, United Statesthrough the analysis of certain
microcosmsshort stories, passages from the life of Olson,
poetic imageries. Is this a feasible form of interpretation or
is it a new excess of the totalitarian dream? It is. To interpret
the world through its minutiae is possible, but only when we
know that we think as over-stuffed.
Benjamin did not see all the meanings contained in his
loaded image. To represent our relation with the dream,
Benjamin alludes to a man who has eaten too much, who
has fallen asleep after overfilling his stomach. This image is no
accident, it is the image of the over-stuffed, the Oxidental man.
Benjamin did not speak of him beyond having seen him eat
and sleep, but here we can ask the following: what kind of
dreams can such a man have? His dreams will correspond to
the excesses of his consumption, they will be oneiric images
of devouring, since pantopic images will emerge from out of
this over-stuffed man. Pantopia is the dream of a civilization
that has gone to sleep having swallowed everything.
Therefore, across the pantopic images we can discern
the imagery of a stuffed, sleeping man. Co-Oxident.
Imperialism. But, even this approach participates in the
burnout, owing much to totalitarianism. Decoding as a
product of accumulation.
Benjamin conceived of interpretation as a form of
waking itself, as an act that takes place on the border
between dream and waking. According to him, the past is
a dream and the present is the waking from this dream. We
must interpret the ruins of the pastas it is deposited in
the presentin order to comprehend the meaning of this
dream. The function of each present is to wake from the
98 * The Arcades Project, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2002, p. 392.

past. What we cannot neglect is that the dreams we analyze
are not to be interpreted as if they are the dreams of a single
entity, since the ruins of the past that are placed in the pres-
ent are ruins of many universes.
The universe is expressed in each thing. Each tiny detail
expresses the universe. What we hope is that by analyzing
things we will decipher the structure of the Whole. So the
hypothesis is that each microcosm is the expression of the
macrocosmos. And up to this point the procedure works,
but what happens next has been subject to confusion, and to
understand what should follow we need a paradigm shift.
To recapitulate: each thing is the expression of the
universe. If we analyze something then we can know the
universe of which this thing is the expression. But our way
of proceeding analytically has contained a monumental error
for many years, too many. The error has consisted in our
taking things as if they were part of the same universe.
And through the analysis of these elements we forge an
image of the Whole. But this image of the Whole is false,
because the parts analyzed do not belong to a shared uni-
verse. Each is an expression of its own universe, distinct from
the others. Thus, our image of the Whole is fictitious.
The Whole cannot be analyzed. In reality, there is no
such thing as the Whole. All the Wholes that civilization has
thought are absolutist fictions, totalitarianisms. Each thing
is the expression of a distinct universe. There is no single
macrocosm. The United States does not exist. It is only a
pantopia.
The pantopia is an image that allows us to know the
Whole of the Co-Oxident, since it is, precisely, minutiae,
poetic imagery, at times explicit, at times implicit, moving
throughout this civilization. I am sure that the pantopias
imagery will be the greatest mistake the Co-Oxident will
bequeath to the world, its accursed share, difficult to erase.
But our final image of a world that created the pantopia
99 cannot be a real image, a complete image, because the pan-

topia, its pieces, have been gathered from distinct worlds, and
the image of the world-from-which-the-pantopia-comes
is a fiction, because this world cannot be reconstituted, this
world never existed. Pantopia has created it in different ver-
sions, in different worlds, and as such our analyses cannot be
reduced to the remains of a single universe. The image of the
world can only be known from the inside. And what binds
some things to othersturning back to the totalitarianism
of a shared universe!is called fiction, is called lying.
All of what the Co-Oxident signifies cannot be said.
Primarily, because no Whole exists, and the Co-Oxident
pseudo-Whole from its beginningis the least real of
worlds. The Co-Oxident is its own fantasy. I will close this
chapter by saying that all of what I have said of Charles
Olson is the method by which I recognize and do not rec-
ognize myself. Olson represents all of what there is in each
one of us of the Co-Oxident, all of what is there and, at the
same time, all of what cannot be in us of this Whole, which
is in itself impossible. All of us are Olson. Each one of us
constitutes an avatar of the United States.*
* English Word List: Going Postal / wacko / nuts / co-workers / rampage /

violently / snap / flip / short story / Im-not-here, is the name of the American
Mother / quick memory / briefing / memo / dandy / cold feet / Counter-Clock
World / unfit / drop-out / outcast / homeless / clerk / Dead Letter Office / I
prefer not to / postal / I hunt among stones / I take SPACE / loops / redux
/ blurb / fake fakes / underground /co-control / Wheres Waldo? / Whats
wrong with this picture? / Will to cohere / Experiment with time / primer /
100 potlatch

II.
CO-OXIDENT
KINH-TIME
EMPIRE
America is therefore the land of the future, where, in the
ages that lie before us, the burden of the Worlds History shall
reveal itselfperhaps in a contest between North and South
America.
G. W. F. Hegel, The Philosophy of History
Co-Oxident
The Oxident, fantasized master, experienced its first deaths:

the first half of the twentieth century. Beginning more than
two thousand years previously, Europe was prisoner to the
illusion that it could dominate the world. But that illusion
would begin to dissipate. The fall would occur. European
hegemony was going to collapse, victim of an internal
war. Europe would lose its role as leader of civilization, a
role invented by the Greeks and Romans during so-called
antiquityan era which was, in truth, more of a late stage
than a dawn. What we have lost is not our childhood. What
we have lost is our old age. We are not even old. The Oxident
wanders far from its body. This meandering has been called
thought. May we someday, hopefully, encounter the smoke
of its mirror.
In a century of barbed wire, alongside imminent suffer-
ing, delusions of control that had entered a new, later phase
occurred with increasing speed. Supposed democracies
fought against the territorial expansion of the totalitarian
dream led by Adolf Hitlera frustrated artist who took
advantage of the crisis in Germany after its defeat in that
other predeath, as represented by the first World War; Hitler
103 came to power and instituted the terror that was everyones
CO-OXIDENT | KINH-TIME | EMPIRE

secret desire. Germany had plans to impose its project over
and above the dream of control held by European democra-
cies and by Soviet totalitarianism. These were the ravings of
a dying man, as the baphometic Oxident would soon come
to know its own great decapitaiton; Europes defeat was
ready. Hitler represented European will come to fruition.
When Europe became aware of its teleology, traced out over
centuries, it preferred to escape from itself and relinquish
its post. In any case, a new upstart was drawing near, the
next figure condemned to death, the second death of the
Oxident.
Some decades earlier, the United States had appeared.
During the sixteenth century, England and other
European nations established colonies in North America. By
the beginning of the eighteenth century, England had gained
control of all of those colonies made up of immigrants, in
large part thanks to the extermination of the indigenous
pueblos. The immigrants, however, wanted to cease being a
colony and in 1776 they proclaimed their independence,
which meant nothing more than the legalization of their
exclusive right to exploit a land that was not theirs, of ter-
ritory that had already been siezed. The United States of
America, crazy young thing, represented the bifurcation of
the Oxident. From that moment forward, whether it lived or
died, the Oxident would exist twice over. The Co-Oxident
had been born. Of course, the Mexican Co-Oxident had
existed for some time already, though it played the role not
of Quixote, but of Snchez: the two elements necessary in
order for Co-Control to be established.
Among all that we have not thought about, of course,
there it is, that thing we call (here) Co-Oxident, which for
many might be merely a neologism, but which addresses
a fundamental realitythat of a correlative miasma that
requires this hateful neologism, hateful and unavoidable,
because neologism emerges when a word demands to sug-
104 gest its own ghosts. All word games are materializations of

the unconscious bodies of words within their visible bodies.
Neologisms, those xlotlsimultaneously monsters and
companionsare co-bodies that have become indespensable
to one another. They are the nahual-graft* that has come
to require a haunted word to describe its glued-together
animas. Neologism uses metamorphic ceremony to mask the
word that believed itself to be closed. Neologistic language is
an invasion and a making-phantom.
The United States, Mexico, America as the Co-Oxident.
The Oxident as an impossible unity, as a co-body increas-
ingly tormented, the division of its loss of zenithicity, its
terror of the nadir, now duplicated, split by the Atlantic.
We should not disregard, further, that its history con-
tains more than one co-body: although the United States
is the co-body of European civilization, first its offspring
and now practically its head policeman, when the United
States appeared as such in the last quarter of the eighteenth
century, its territorial body would have to multiply by four
before it would reach its current state of hypertrophy. It was
only in 1847 that the United States finally developed its
essence and body. This genesis, likewise, is altered memory:
the United States took form thanks to the rending of
Mexico. Since that time, the United States and Mexico are,
clandestinely, co-bodies.
As we can see, the co-body appears after fragmentation.
None of us fails to recognize that human beings have
not been understood. Human mystery, however, derives
from co-being. What has remained obscured is the co-body.
* Like many terms in contemporary Mexican Spanish, nahual is a term that

originated in the Nahuatl language. Heriberto explains that in popular
use, a nahual is basically a persons double; each person has their nahual
(or nagual), which might be a coyote, a dog, an eagle: an animal with
which we are linked. What happens to that animal also happens to us.
Heriberto also referred me to the Wikipedia entry for the term (es.wiki-
pedia.org/wiki/Nahual) which explains the nahual as a persons link with
the world of the sacred, and is usually manifested as an animal familiar or
105 spiritual guide in the form of an animal. (Trans. note)

Dualism has intuited it, and at the same time, has clouded it.
But our animality reveals it. We are born in a co-body state
between ourselves and our mothers. Therein is the mystery.
The co-body.
The co-body is the source of light and of darkness.
From within that cave, To Be is Co-. And co-humans
men, womenhave developed without regard for their
co-being. It is no coincidence that the co-human should
currently be called man. The co-human is what has been
severed. What has severed it is the Oxident. But since noth-
ing escapes the co, we can see already that the Oxident is, in
reality (at least), two. In reality, the Oxident is multiple.
The Oxident is a tribe that has been in a process of
formation for centuries: to the Oxident of Europe and the
Oxident of the United States its indispensible to add other
extant Oxidents, those that formed in Latin America as well
as the plural Orients, in order to later come to the realiza-
tion that the Co-Oxident has been on the rise for centuries
under the rule of the demon known as quantity.
The Oxident is not (solely) a region in the world. It is a
paralysis suffered in the face of the vision that what follows
a fall into the abyss is a reluctance to enter into the mouth
of the earth. The Oxident is the false underworld, it is the
being that clings at the edge of the narrow gorge with
its mouth exploded, its teeth become claws: praise to the
Oxident!
Of course, the co of its bodythe co-Oxidental bodyis
what causes the Oxident to experience a range of deaths. It
could not be any other way. Death is the prologue to death.
The idea of the unity of Oxidental civilization is spuri-
ous. We can wake up from the dream of a totalizing world.
When we wake up, we will discover that we are various
worlds simultaneously. The Oxident, as such, does not exist.
Only simulations of its conjectural indivisibility exist. Only
avatars of a hangmans oasis exist: a diverse range of versions
106 of a singular imaginary gallows. It is no accident that this

civilization should believe in its own unity. We are dealing
here with a series of cultures among which a kindred belief
system exists: the superstition that one singular world exists.
It becomes, therefore, difficult to think otherwisebecomes,
therefore, difficult to think herebecause it was such a long
time ago that we fell into the dream of the uni-versal.
In order to negate the coexistence of various incompat-
ible cosmos, the myth of Harmony was createdbut this is
merely a hypocritical surface to replace a horrifying reality.
Oxident is the fantasy of co-control that is generated out
of the impossible interaction among a range of monads; at
the same time, it is the fantasy of being the master of this
pseudo-community.
On the other hand, it seems incredible to me that up to
now we have not contemplated the Co-Oxident. Apparently
the moment to contemplate it has arrived. The monster has
become inevitable.
One of its most evident features, then, is that the
Oxidentalconstituted as lack, as an occluded concom-
itanceerratically seeks its co-bodies. The Oxident will
wander in search of its invisible limbs, condemned to abun-
dant error, without ever becoming aware of its co-bodies. It
seeks them, almost always without knowing it or ensnared
by its own reflections. It seeks them, secretly, in order to
move through the drama of alterity.
To contemplate the co is a vast enterprise. Its helpful
in some way, I suppose, to contemplate the Co-Oxident.
Perhaps upon contemplating it, we might discover some-
thing of that co that is in our roots, and seems at the same
time to be highly artificial. But even so, to contemplate the
Co-Oxident would be a labor of many volumes, of infinite
work. Co-Oxident would drive us insane. When an indi-
vidual confronts their co-bodies, their psychosis explodes.
When its a civilization were dealing with, the thing that
has begun to explode is we ourselves. We are the delirium of
107 paralysis.

In this way, after having robbed half the Mexican body
and after having saved the European bodyin order to pro-
long its agonyand having elevated itself to the position of
Oxidental leader, the United States intensified its dreams of
having transformed itself into the master. Together with this
foolishness, a crepuscular imaginary began to form, within
which this political circumstance developed co-bodies
in narrative and poetic imagination. The United States
constructed images and ideas of control. One of these pro-
tagonists of the American dreamwhose definitive form
would be achieved in the fiftieshas always seemed to me
to be especially representative of this fantasy. Im referring
to that tranquil exegete Herman Melville, and that soul tor-
mented by love, a poet divided in two. Our aforementioned
warrior of imperialist information. Let us not forget: when
the co-body has gone crazy, when it has become a stranger
to itself, it accumulates.
An American man in the strictest sense of that impov-
erished condition. And someone who longed to escape
from the closed-mindedness of America. On the one
hand, a man of military paradigms; on the other, a traveler
in search of wise otherness. What we have here is a North
American writer who decided he could find the secrets of
his own civilization in Mexico, following a long tradition
of Oxidentals who have imagined Mexico as the inverted
double of Oxidental decadence, from Malcolm Lowry to
Antonin Artaud.
He didnt know it, but when he went off in search
of Mayan secrets, he activated a new avatar of the North
American journey to its underworldly co-body: if Europe
is the celestial co-body of North America, Mexico is an
infrareal co-body. During those same years, Burroughs and
Kerouac also went in search of Mexican otherness, on an
initiation voyage that defined them until their death. The
same was true for the banker Gordon Wasson, who was on
108 the hunt for magic mushrooms and the ultimate secrets of

ancestral shamanism. Charles Olson joined this list of North
Americans.
I am convinced that beginning with his journey to
Mexico, given all the worlds that journey entailed, its pos-
sible to understand what the United States is and what
Co-Oxident is. Lets continue, then.
Griiingo-Go, Grrrriiing-Go: Mind, Naivet,

Kitsch
Separated from Motzthe woman made of words

Olson found his new correspondent, Robert Creeley, a
young poet. It had been William Carlos Williams who
had recommended Creeley to him in a letter from April
1950. That same yearin Octoberhis essay Projective
Verse appeared, a gnostic gospel of the counterculture. In
December, Olson received good news: a new law passed by
the North American government would allow him to cash
out the retirement fund he held thanks to his old job in the
Gloucester post office. With that money, he decided to travel
to Mexico, the country whose secrets he wanted to discover.
The Woelffers, friends of his, had recounted to him their
sojourn in Mexico in a small fishing village called Lerma, in
Campeche. They gave him the address of the housetwenty
dollars a month rent, which at that time was approximately
172 pesos. On more than one occasion, Olson had wanted to
travel to Mexico. But from the time of his relationship with
Bolderoff, co-body of both his and Connies, the need to
explore alterity had become impossible to postpone further.
Everything seemed ready for his departure to the South. To
forget Frances. To discover the Maya. To live by the sea, at 10
10th Street, with a nice terrace.
As he was about to set off, Olson also received some bad
news: his mother was at deaths door.
109 He made an emergency trip to Worcester. He arrived

hours before Mary Olson died, on Christmas day. (That
same day, as it happens, the great Mexican poet Xavier
Villaurrutia died.) When his mother died, Olsons tribula-
tions regarding her returned. The feminine was his phantasm.
The feminine was the unknown.
After the burial of his real mother, Olson took up his
departure for Mexico once again. But the presence of death
was in the atmosphere. Olson knew that he had never
understood her. He knew that he had not been nourished
by her. Olson was a man with painful feminine deficiencies.
His journey in Mexicodamn psychologywould
remain tainted by the death of his mother, by his far-flung
escape from Frances, by his complicated personal mythol-
ogy. What we cannot lose sight of is that Olson didnt
travel to Mexico. He traveled to his memory. He wanted to
replace one memory with another. For a North American,
everything is the sign of something else. Olsons Mexican
experience, starting with the boat in which he arrived to
Mexicothe Bennestvet Brovingwas a colossal juxtaposi-
tion in which realities were substituted by bibliographic
memories, mental images, poltergeist fantasies. After ten days
of maritime travel, Olson set foot in Mrida, in the state of
Yucatn. It was the first week of February of 1951.
More bad news: when he arrived at the Carnegie
Institute, he was informed that the anthropologist (Robert
Barlow) he had been hoping would help him to understand
the Maya world had recently taken his own life. Barlow
had committed suicide on New Years, after having been
blackmailed in relation to his homosexuality. Mexico would
become the country in which every guide became lost.
Welcome.
Someone from the Carnegie recommended, how-
ever, that he look for Hiplito Snchez, the assistent to
the director of the Museo Arqueolgico de Campeche
(Campeche Archeological Museum), which was where
110 Olson headed, together with Connie, on a tourist bus. As

soon as they downed a couple of drinks together in a can-
tina, Hiplito immediately became Olsons friend in beer
and in Mayan-style wildness. Among other things, Hiplito
had a considerable collection of drawings he had made of
the glyphs on the steps of the Mayan pyramids in Copn,
Honduras. Olson was thoroughly charmed by those draw-
ings. They would unleash his inspiration.
When the Olsons arrived in Lerma, to the house they
had rented from the United States, they encountered new
sources of displeasure. The flat was in terrible condition.
Not even the toilet was working. There was neither elec-
tricity nor running water. Connie took offense, but not
too much because she knew that in this hovel there was no
way her husband could once again invent apocryphal trips
to be able to see Frances. She was willing to stay here, if it
meant keeping him far away from his esoterist lover. Olson,
for his part, invented reasons to endure the situation. Olson
(All Sun) was always hatching some fantasy, some supposed
premonition or idea, to justify every aspect of his exis-
tence. He could not accept even the most minimal defeat.
Everything within him was a display of grandeur, the witty
expression of a predestined teleology. In his letters, we read
that he felt content to return to primitive living conditions.
To live in ones mind has many advantages; principally,
not to have to live in the real world. What we call mind
is nothing more than the way we lie to ourselves about
where our body truly is. The mind is a kidnapping that has
not even taken place.
In reality, Olson lived in an untidy coastal hovel in
Lerma; in his imagination, he inhabited the paleolithic era.
Further, the reception the Olsons had received had been
somewhat chilling for the couple. As they made their way
down the road laden with dirt clods, a pack of kids con-
tinuously yelled after them: griingo-Go, grrriiing-Go. A
welome-farewell that, according to his own recounting, was
111 testimony to the unbelievable underground hate Mexicans

harbor against people from the United States. Mexicans have
a harsh funereal-comic relationship with their co-bodies.
Mockery and co-body are fused.
This sing-song hatred dates back to the North American
invasion of 1846 and the theft of more than half of Mexicos
national territory. How many times this hatred has been
denied! The North Americans regularly cross the Pacific
or the Atlantic to invent enemies for themselves, probably
because they dont want to accept that their greatest enemy,
and their oldest, is located just a few meters away. Of his
1925 trip to Mexico, Mayakovsky noted:
Cachupn and gringothese are the two main swear words

in Mexico.
Cachupn is a Spaniard. Over the five hundred years
from the time of the invasion of Corts, this word has
faded, decayed, and lost its acerbity.
But gringo even now rings out like a slap in the
face (when they stormed into Mexico, the American
troops, they would sing Green go the rushes, oh, the
soldiers sonand the first words were shortened into
the swear word).
An example: a Mexican on crutches. Walking with a
woman. The woman is English. Theres a passer-by. He
looks at the English woman and yells:
Gringo!
The Mexican drops his crutch and pulls out his Colt.*
But, as is customary, the Anglo-Saxonin this case

Mayakovskys translator into Englishplays the fool, noting:
Mayakovskys folk etymology of gringo may here be

questionable (apart from the song running green grow
* My Discovery of America, Modern Voices/Hesperus Press Limited, London,

2005, pp. 32-33. The term cachupn is a misspelling/misunderstanding
112 of gachupn, which is the actual term used in Mexico. (Trans. note)

the rushes, oh). Dictionaries (e.g. Webster) link the word
to griego: Greek, or foreigner. *
So many Oxidental fantasies! So many delusions of gran-

deur! Once again, the Mind prevents the Oxidental from
forming a consciousness of reality. Reasonha!is simply
called denial. Reason is to refuse to accept.
Can you possibly imagine a group of Mexican kids and
campesinos receiving the North American invaders with
an invocation to the Greeks? The Oxident does not want
to accept that Mexico detests it. Not only because Mexico
knows itself to be Non-Oxidental, but rather, and above all,
because it knows itself to be entirely Oxidental by accident.
Oxidental and Accidental. The Accidental Oxident.
The Co- between the different Co-Oxidents is repul-
sion. There is no synthetic dialectic. It is magnetic. And
within the magnetic dialectic, what prevails is the repellancy
between magnets.
For his part, Olson faced Mexican hatred again and
again. Like Artaud, Lawrence, and Burroughs, Olson soon
exchanged his idealized love for Mexico for a relationship of
aversion. The pueblos he had earlier imagined as idyllic were
now described as shit towns. Mesoamerica was discovered
to be Americanized. Beloved Oxidental, the return to the
Golden Age would always have Golden Showers in store.
The Gold you seek turns to Shit. The return to the uterus
will always be a Bad Trip. She turning into Shit.
Little by little, the journey of any foreign poet in Mexico,
* Ibid., p. 134.
In conversation about this term, Heriberto and I discussed the

unexpected differences between the term Golden Showers in English
implying sexual activity involving urineand the term Bao dorado
in Spanish. Golden Showers is a literal translation of Bao dorado,
though in some instances the colloquial meaning of the term in Spanish
can also imply sexual activity involving both urine and feces, hence
Heribertos relating of Bao dorado with gold turning to shit. (Trans.
113 note)

take thee note of their stories, turns into the journey toward
a fall. Mexican demons assault them. Burroughs called this
phenomenonwithout realizing that it was precisely this he
was namingPossession. (The possession that led him to kill
his wife Joan in Mexico City in 1951.)
With the help of Dos Equis beer, Olson got used to
Mexico little by little. He lost 50 pounds. Connie got
pregnant. He began to learn snippets of Spanish and Maya
thanks to his neighbor, Martnez. He began to excavate
the immediate surroundings near his home and soon
encountered ruinsof no great importance though in his
fantasy, however, he would transform them into matchless
treasures. After he discovered some small remains on a
quick trip to Campeche, Olson visited Ral Pavn, director
of the Museo de Antropologa (Museum of Anthropology),
who made fun of this gringo amateur. Olson raved
nonsensically. His letters were full of complaints, curses,
and resentments against Mexican and North American
academics. The entire world is wrong, except him (some-
times) and his correspondents. Olsons outrageous mental
processes werent caused by drugs or accumulated rage, as
would be the case for Artaud or Burroughs. Like a good
North Americana Good AmericanOlson went crazy with
naivet.
Naivet is meanness that doesnt recognize itself. Naivet
is meanness hysterical over itself. Naifs dont know what
they already know. They replace their experience with
memories of the pre-lived. They place a veil of pseudo-
innocence over all things. Naifs dont believe in what will
come. They live in the pre-present. They avoid contact with
reality, interposing a time between themselves and the pres-
ent time, placing before that present an ether that protects
them. Naivet is the greatest danger. Naifs will never be
responsible for themselves. It is the perfect crime, absolute
impunity.
114 On the local black market, Olson bought a bone etched

with glyphs. He convinced himself (once again) that he had
encountered a treasure of incalculable worth. (For which
he had to haggle.) What did Olson say to himself about
that bone? According to him, it was Quetzalcatls femur!
To follow Olson in Mexico is to follow the journey kitsch
makes to the Origin.
By kitsch I understand the signified saturated with all its
signifiers. And the signifier that is saturated with all its signifieds.
Kitsch, then, is the inability to forget. Kitsch is that Signified
that accumulates all its Signifiers, that parades all its avatars
around and also the avatar that plucks away, one by one,
as an eternal family, all the gods it has represented. Kitsch
makes of an arbitrary link an oligarchical link. That which
cannot accept that the senses die. Kitsch is what happens
when memory atrophies and becomes a memory of itself,
omni-mnemia. Kitsch is placing memory over and above
experience. Kitch is ceasing to live, that is, ceasing to die,
in order to juxtapose this non-life onto this non-death, the
Permanent, that is, artificial memory. Kitsch is not letting
go. Kitsch is the Oxidental. Kitsch is Identity and Eternity.
Kitsch is the Great Artificial Memory.
Kitsch is the man knocking on the door. Delivering his
message. The Absolute Final Message. Kitsch is the fact that
you return always to this point. Kitsch is time that cannot
explode.
Each thing Olson encountered in Mexico became an
evocation of something else. Nothing could be experienced
in and of itself. Everything was a reference.
Who had been the captain of the boat on which he had
arrived in Mexico? It hadnt been the skipper of a small boat:
it had been the great Carl Olsen of Gloucester. The United
States consists in the replacement of what is, of things-as-they-
are, with the hypertrophied-referential. Olson had discovered
the surviving bone of the Great Quetzalcotl!or, as he
preferred to call him in his letters, the Great Quetz! The
115 United States is the abbreviation of all experiences.

During his whole journey, Olson clung to the glyphed
bone, convinced that it was the Rosetta Stone of Mayan
studies.
Mecate* plus Goodyear: Dept of Disappearing

Culture
The venture of colonizationunderstanding colonization

not as the effective conquest of another culture, whatever
that might mean, but rather as the spectacle that a culture
undertakes for itself, through the projections it launches
upon the other; conquest is a scenenecessitates the con-
struction of a junkyard-wasteland, a zone of recycling, re:
space-time, swap-meeting place, a free commerce-in-signs zone,
a culture of fragmentation, where illusions of dominance might
be produced. A) The fantasy that native culture is effectively
the fragmented culture manufactured by observation (par-
ticipant). B) The fantasy that native culture in another time was
other, pureamong other units of illusion. Too many.
To read and unread the Maya, Olson swiftly undertook
the configuration of an intermediary space. Finding it
impossible to accept that he did not know, he constructed
a layer of decipherable unreality, a layer that saved him from
having to experience the obscure as a terrible epidermis.
The unknown was horrifying to him. The unknown had to
be interchanged for the cognizable; for that which herme-
neutics analyzes minutely until it can deliver you a Happy
Analgesic. The Calm of Control. Has sleep now come to
thee? (Nothing has escaped your Reason.)
In the light of Mayan culture, Olson hatched a space-
* Mecate is twine or cord, often woven into reins or used to form the
upper part of the sandals known as huaraches, worn all over Mexico and
Central America and particularly common among indigenous communi-
ties. Some huaraches have mecate tops attached to soles made from old
116 tires; hence the title Mecate plus Goodyear. (Trans. note)

time of (furious) re-codification. He (de)scribes that
time-space by constructing a market of hybrid artifacts,
from within a perception of inebriated angry bricolage.
Olson juxtaposed elements of both civilizations within a
mode we might call ruinous-ironic:
tues. (carlos, the letter carrier, abt due / sort of the

village idiot, i take it: walks like no fisherman,
smiles like a gringo, and is altogether not native, is
allegre, slap-happy, and of whom I am most fond:
yesterday, bringing yr letter, he holds out two us
air mal sts (enclosed)! I say, how come, and, as I
understood, he had noticed that, they had not been
cancelled. So he had carefully removed them from
the envelopes, and brought them to me! So here
they are, for you.
You will imagine, knowing my
bias toward just such close use of things, how
much all these people make sense to me (coca-cola
tops are the boys tiddley-winks; the valves of bicycle
tubes, are toy guns; bottles are used and re-used,
even sold, as cans are; old tires are the base foot-
wear of this whole peninsula (the modern Maya
sandal is, rope plus Goodyear); light is candle or
kerosene, and one light to a house, even when it is
a foco, for electricidad. *
The issue here is that one culture cannot understand another

from within the otherness it seeks to decipher, because that
otherness is indecipherable. As Machado said, the essential
heterogeneity of being cannot be abolished, not by a game
of tiddlywinks nor by rigid hermeneutics nor feline intu-
* Letter to Creeley from February 19,1951, in Selected Writings, New

117 Directions, New York, 1966, pp. 75-76.

ition.* In order to decipher the otherin this case, Mayan
cultureOlson had to construct an intermediary space, a
mixed culturethat is, a culture in which differences might
be converted into synthesis, where the exotic might make
way for the hybrid; to imagine that intermediary culture,
that culture-in-passing or third nation that makes it pos-
sible to resolve in fantasy the contradictions unresolved in
reality. The hybrid and the mythic are one and the same.
They are the false reconciliation of opposites. The function
of the postmodern category of the hybrid is to simulate
that contradiction has ceased to exist. (The hybrid is kitsch
that desires to avoid dismantling. The separation of the one
in relation to the other and to itself. The hybrid is kitsch in
recuperation of the Same.) A simulation that opposites have
merged. When everything that occurs is exactly the opposite.
We pertain to an era ruled by fission. Everything is in process
of disintegrating.
Olson managed to simulate that he had understood a
culture by describing how it mixed with his own. He
simulated contact through the hybrid. He thus gave life to
a new avatar of kitsch, the happy-hybrid, possibly only in
the mind of the remixer. But this mix of the one and the
* Antonio Machado, Juan de Mairena (ca. 1936). In Antonio Machado.

Poesa y Prosa, ed. by Jos Luis Cano, Brugera, p. 301.
Serge Gruzinski posits the cool prose, used in music reviews, that imitates
the intercultural mixes of certain musical currents as an example of
hybrid global language; he says: This passage reveals the poverty of
representations and discourse spurred by the acceleration and intensifica-
tion of planetwise interminglingBeyond its vagueness, this increasingly
common discourse is not as neutral or spontaneous as it appears. It could
be seen as a language of recognition used by new international elites
whose rootlessness, cosmopolitanism, and eclecticism call for wholesale
borrowings from world cultures. It supposedly reflects a social phenom-
enon, a growing awareness of groups accustomed to consume everything
the planet can offer them, for whom hybridism seems to be supplanting
exoticism, from The Mestizo Mind:The Intellectual Dynamics of Colonization
and Globalization, Routledge, London, 2002 p. 57.
Lvi-Strauss defines myth as Benjamin defines fairytales, as a relaxing of

118 tragic thought, a fantasized solution to the rending of opposites.

other is fascism itself. Fascism goes hand in hand with kitsch
because they are two sides of the same false coin. (The coin
that pretends to be another.) Fascism is remix. A fascist cul-
ture is a culture that composes understandings of the other
using elements of itself. Fascism is also what its own culture
configures through the recycling of elements recombined
from itself. The fascist is that which is set in stone in the
remix. Fascism is repetition. Fascism is the composition of
Otherness utilizing images of the memory-of-itself.
Once installed, that intermediary zonesemiotic
zoneopens a monadic displaced communication: though
the deciphering of a culture cannot occur from within that
culturegiven that our deciphering tends to be enacted
from an outside, though perhaps an outside that believes
itself to be a delving into the otherneither can it be achieved,
not even, from within the deciphering culture. (From
within Olsons United States.) The culture of the other is
not decipheredthis we already knowfrom within that
cultureto decipher is colonialistbut neither is it deci-
phered from within the deciphering culture, since culture
shock has already produced an irreparable fragmentation on
both sides. Thus, to decipher is colonialist-post;* accidental
counterconquest, involuntary anthropophagy achieved by
the Oxidental Master himself, who, upon deciphering the
culture of the othernow the other par excellence, the
* When I queried Heriberto about the inversion of post-colonialist, he

replied: In Spanish you can easily put an adjective either before or after
a noun, so it is easy to create word plays, whereby anti-colonialism can
be shifted to become colonialism-anti. Colonialism-post alludes to a
variety of circumstances that have proffered new masks to colonialism. For
example, a post-modern colonialism: a colonialism that uses categories
or institutions that are supposedly post-colonialwhat we might refer to
as a certain liberal academyin order to further its imperialist maneu-
vers under a more democratic guise. Or also, simply, a colonialism that
persists after post-colonialism, even a post-colonial-colonialism. Given
this explanation and the range of resonances of a term like colonialist-
post, I read this term to reference a post-colonialism that continues to
foreground colonialism, over and above any post that might suggest the
119 phenomena of colonialism are things of the past. (Trans. note)

indiofragments his own culture, almost never with an
awareness of this partitioning, accumulating atop the frag-
mentation and combination of signs the route whereby the
signs that correspond to his culture might be devoured by
the signs-of-the-other.
In his 1943 essay Aqui foi o sul que venceu (In Brazil,
The South Won), experimental theorist Oswald de Andrade
wrote that everything mixes, interpenetrates, is half one thing
and half another, fish and lantern, telephone, astral body and
straight pinIt is necessary to spy on the morning thats
emerging.* For de Andrade, the mixing of Occidental signs
with American (Brazilian) signs was part of anthropophagy,
the absorption of the sacred enemy, taboo, in order to trans-
form it into a totem. When Olson enlists recycled artifacts,
remixed from the Mayan world of the fifties, he does so in
order to highlight the vacuousness of the combinations and
re-uses which are in every sense not native, like the mailman
he describes with disparaging sympathy as he walks as no fisher-
man would and smiles like a gringo. In the Mayan world
Olson describes with choler, the signs of loss of identity and
history in the Mexico where Olson believed he had arrived
are interposed over one another, as the mix of Mexican
mecate and rubber from Goodyear tires seems to him to be
a sign of curious decadence and loss of meaning. On the
contrary, the Brazilian theory of anthropophagythe mix
of elements of the modern with the primitive, of the fish, and
the lanternis a preview of the consumption the Third World
will put into practice in its religious devouring of the goods,
technologies, and knowledge of the Oxident.
In his dichotomous moralism, Olson created a resound-
ing riotous music against the post-Mayan hodgepodge, from
within his belief in the consumption of a civilization that, as
De Andrade warned, was not only itself devoured, but also,
* Oswald de Andrade, Aqui foi o sul que venceu in Ponta de lana, Editora
120 Globo, So Paulo, 1991, p. 71

and likewise, devours. What is tragicomic in this encounter
is that once contact has been made between the sewing
machine and the umbrella, the dissection table, like the dis-
section table it is, slices them to pieces. In the encounter of
the one with the other, the one and the other become frag-
mented. The Romantics believed it was possible to reconcile
opposites or, at least, that the coincidence and juxtaposition
of opposites was marvelousoh French-Uruguayan
Lautramontwhen, in reality, it was in the encounter of
opposites that synthesis was demonstrated to be impossible
and the only thing that occurred was continuing disintegra-
tion. The dissection table always imposes itself.
When opposites enter into relation, out of their creative
friction multiple gods appear. Synthesis is unreal. Only dis-
section is real. To write is this dissection table. Each door
disintegrates when you knock on it. Each thing, when you
come to it: labyrinth. Those who wish to understand the
other will only lose themselves. The most foolish among
them will call this anti-realm empire.
_ucking _ish:The Maya on the Hunt for Protein

and Fat
Olson belongs to a caste of Oxidental poets who travel

to Mexico to gather the traces of the pre-Hispanic past
Oxident has romanticized; to seek the cultures in which
European Romanticism deposits its hopes of encountering
the Good Savage. Less than two decades earlier, Antonin
Artaud had been in Mexico. Like Artaud, Olson perceived
Mexico through delirium, outbursts, pseudo-prophetic
hyperbole, gibberish, dyslexia, anachronisms. Regarding a
Rarmuri rite, Artaud emphatically declared:
On the 16th of September, the day on which Mexicans

121 celebrate their indepedence, I saw in Norogachic, in the

heart of the Tarahumara Sierra, the rite of the kings of
Atlantis as Plato describes it in the pages of Critias. The
Tarahumara, whom I believe to be the direct descendants
of the Atlanteans, continue to devote themselves to
the observance of magical rites. Let those who do not
believe me go into the Tarahumara Sierra.You may
think what you will of the comparison I am making. In
any case, since Plato never went to Mexico and since the
Tarahumara Indians never saw him, it must be acknowl-
edged that the idea of this sacred rite came to them from
the same fabulous and prehistoric source. And this is what
I have tried to suggest here.*
Of course, this was not the first time the origin of Mexican
indigenous cultures was attributed to another, non-American
pueblo. Fray Bartolom de las Casas attributed the construc-
tion of such fabulous buildings to the ten lost tribes of
Israel, since it seemed to him implausible that Indios of the
time would have been able to execute such feats. Artaud
would not be the first to establish a link between Atlantis
and Mexican Indian cultures. Oviedo and Gmara, in their
Indian chronicles, had also thought they recognized the
work of the influence of Atlantis among ancient Mexicans.
These third worlds the Spanish conquistadores had con-
structed in order to be able to accept or interpret Indio
culturewhose name is already a third world where its
entirely clear what is really being named: the misunderstand-
ing that is an imposed third worldhad reached such a level
of significance that the second bishop of Yucatn, Fray Diego
de Landa, in his Relacin de las cosas de Yucatn (An Account of
the Things of Yucatn)written in 1566felt himself com-
pelled to clarify that the Mayan buildings had not been built
* The Rite of the Kings of Atlantis, in The Peyote Dance, trans. Helen
122 Weaver, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 1976, pp. 64 and 69.

by other nations, but rather by Indios.*
In a commentary regarding La montaa de los signos
(The Mountain of Signs), another text in which Artaud
declared that the Rarmuri are the direct descendents of
Atlantis, Carlos Montemayor notes:
Perhaps ensnared by excitement, Artaud overlooked a few

details from the original narrative and added a few ele-
ments, using his excellent theatrical imaginationAt no
moment did Plato mention that there should be music or
song.
An ordinary analysis might observe that the Romantic

European poet refuses to comprehend the Rarmuri from
their own lens or from a less absurd perspective, and this
undoubtedly demonstrates that a certain sector of Occidental
cultureeven that represented by Artaud, the most liberal,
visionary, and extravagant tradition of European intellectis
(of course!) incapable of understanding otherness through
the lens of othernessimpossibilityand falls back on the
denial that he has made an interpretation from a position of
sameness or self-sameness. In the end, creating a comparison
of the Rarmuri through Plato, the very center of classi-
cal Oxidental culture, reveals Artauds profound incapacity,
and that of Surrealism and Romanticism in general, to get
outside themselves, even when they directly encounter
the most distant otherness (the Rarrmuri), to whom they
persist in attributing their fantasies, projections, imaginaries.
Oxidentals who attribute their late-breaking references in
order to later exploit them as a discovery made from early
on. The Oxident devours itself. Its entire anthropology is
tragicomically ouroboric. In his delirious way, when Artaud
* Diego de Landa, Relacin de las cosas de Yucatn, Auguste Durand, Paris,

1864, p. 32.
123 Los tarahumara. Pueblo de estrellas y barrancas, Aldus, Mexico City, 1999, p. 7.

interprets the Rarmuri and turns them into descendents of
Greek myth, he demonstrates the Eurocentric colonialism of
which not even heor perhaps he less than anyonecould
rid himself.*
Yet at the same time that this colonialism operates from
within the shock of two cultures, it also produces what we
have observed in the mecate plus Goodyear, where the Maya
have not only been devoured by technology, but the Mayan
mecate also ties technology down, and ultimately devours it
and places it at their feet. They step on it at every turn. Only
if we remain in the sphere of colonialist visiona vision in
which the crushing of native cultures predominateswill
we fail to perceive that conquest and counterconquest
always occur simultaneously, each being an illusion of
domination represented by the self-same and never actually
over and above the respective other. Neither conquest nor
counterconquest is possible. Both are illusions of control.
If Artaud could not see the Rarmuri rite because of
the imposition of these Platonic images, colonizing the
Rarmuri texture, in the same way, the Platonic images
were colonized by the Rarmuri rite: in the final instance,
the Platonic myth was also distorted, unread, transgressed,
* Like a number of other people who have studied the Tarahumara (a

distortion of Rarmuri, which means those who advance well, those who
move forward as they should, progressing spiritually), Montemayor notes
as well that they have been defined through use of a Homeric image, in
which rarmuri comes to signify light feet, like Achilles.
Heriberto uses the word tejido here, which can variously be translated as
texture, cloth, fabric. I queried him as to the usage here and he responded:
Tejido has been one of the more ancient metaphors for life; life as
tejido (weaving), and because tejido in Spanish conveys not only an
object (un tejido bonito que compr ayer) but also the act in itself (la
labor del tejido, the act of weaving), the word seems very good for the
sort of thing (again, tejido, ha!) which I want to do with the word. First, as
metaphor for life (ancient metaphor, both in India, Mexico, Greecethe
figure of the Three Fates, has been very important in my thinking about
this); then, because tejido is etimologically related to texto (textile), so
because both tejido and texto are textile, the word appeals to me. So it
includes life as fabrication, and textuality, writing. In my sense of the
124 word, it includes both social fabric and the act of writing. (Trans. note)

traversed by images of Mexican otherness. Both textures
mutated when they came into contact in the third world
manufactured by their dislocated encounter.
Olsons ravings about the Maya, like Artauds, are many,
and they are humorous in the extreme. Unlike Artauds
deliriumswhich possessed magical resonancesOlsons
speculations about the Maya are repeatedly crude or brutal,
worthy of any surfer or marine visiting Mexico as a tourist.
that the sea, precisely the FISH, was of first imaginative

importance to the Maya (as well, of course, crucial to
his food economywhere maize was (the inland slopes
of the cordilleras, Guatemala) cuts the people off from
the most abundant source of protein and fat there is, the
seaI take it I could, if I wanted to, demonstrate, that
the movement into the Yucatan peninsula might just have
been a push for protein & fats (contradicting the mystery
abt same that all of these half-heads of great name keep
pushing along to perpetuate their profession)*
The image itself, in its unconsciousness, allows us to

glimpse the devouring role of the Maya, to whom Olson
attributed a hunger for protein and fat, in a comico-
pragmatic turn; as if Olsons mistakes might reveal more
than the moments when he spoke aptly. As he traced the
incredible image of the Maya migrating in search of protein
and fatin which he could function as nothing other
than a projection of North American consumer society
of the fiftiesthat grotesque and involuntarily hilarious
image, however, returned to the Maya precisely that which
we might critique in Olson at this stage: the active role of
culture which, with its crazy-stupid imagesto use an
expression Olson tended to use in those daysmight seem
undermined by crude fantasies about the Maya. Without
125 * Olson, op. cit., p. 77.

realizing it, Olson caused the Maya to practice semiotic
anthropophagy as an instantaneous result of the delirium-
of-the-bard with which he attempted to colonize them.
The text of this letter reaches such heights of explosive
signification, of fishable centrifugicity, that just when he is
on the verge of delving further into his disquisition about
the importance of fish in Mayan life, the f key on his type-
writer breaks and his letter continues in handwriting:
Goddam son of a bitch, if the f in the machine didnt

just go & bustfuck it. Will have to go Campeche, &
hope to christ a fix possible.
Well, to hell with fishI obviously cant say much
more about them, today, without the f on this fucking
machine.*
In what may well be an act of pure pataphysics that destiny

plays on Olsonor objective Hegelian chance or Jungian
synchronicitythe breaking-down of his typewriter, on the
F key itself, further reinforces his image of a text that maps
how the sign of the Maya ravenously devours that very
text whole. Olson wrote this, incidentally, in an impover-
ished and corroded English, rarefied by the atmosphere of
Spanish/Maya and by the telegraphic game Olson imposed
on himself within the epistolary genre, as well as his projec-
tive and shorthand idiolect.
Artauds fantasy functioned according to his anxiety
for profundity. Artaud overanalyzed Rarmuri rites and
overcodified them with codes extracted from his own civi-
lization. He extended his knowledge of the not-I through
a summa of knowledges that pertained to the European I.
Olson, on the other hand, damaged the contemporary Maya
by negating the Mayan Ia Mayan I negated, though it was
already a fantasy from the moment it became a Mayan-I;
126 * Ibid., p. 78.

Olson exercised the fantasy of negating a fantasythrough
the process of fantasizing that the Mayan I (fantasized in
order to be negated) has no profundity whatsoever.
The Stupidity of Poetry
Anyone who retraces Olsons hermetic journey to Mexico

might sayhasnt he made himself sufficiently ridiculous
already? We must learn from the experience of poets. They
must become our sacred clowns, and at the same time, our
political clowns. All of themfrom Li Po to Hlderlin, from
Netzahualcyotl to Jarry, from Blake to Nerudahave been
confused by the gods. All of them are dolts. And they have
been confused, above all, by empires. The gods have played
oppressive tricks on them. And the empires have imposed
their dreams upon them. All of them must succumb to the
tragi-comedy of revelation. Revelation is always false. The
message must always arrive in error. Hermes errs.
All of them shall succumb to the tragi-comedy of
power. The power that corrupts. The society to which they
belong prohibits them from moving radically outside the
dominant ideology. Poets make certain. Poets are lightning
rods. An antenna of an era, an antenna whipped by light-
ning. The signals they pick up as they are struck dead. They
are the signals of the gods. And, in the case of modern
poets, they are signals of dying gods, deities with errant
signals. They are the radial sites of the dominant ideology
that are confused with formerly sacred signals. Poets do
not know how to distinguish between the two and even if
they could discern the differences, they would probably say
the same thing anyway. Modern poets could have no other
destiny than to go crazy.
Poets are driven crazy by the words of the gods. They
are driven crazy by the words of other men. The poet is the
127 amphibian of delirium.

It is not given to us to understand the truth. It is given to
us to understand the erratic.
Poets are maximum errors. In them the human project
is ripped apart. Each of them is an Icarus-esque descent, a
hazard of Altazor, precocious precipitation. I say precocious
because weall of uswill precipitate. But poets do not
wait for death to occur in order for the collapse to occur.
Poets lose hope. Poets encounter the precipice promptly.
That precipice, when it is not the precipice of death, is a
ridiculous precipice.
There resides the value of their adventure. They have
dared to crash.
The prudish are destined to receive the truth. (The
truth you desire, whichever truth.) The reckless can expect
to receive absolute lies. Of course Burroughs, Artaud, and
Olson lied. All of them were prey to unknown spirits. All of
them went crazy. Each time I leave this country I become
aware of what good sense is. But here good sense is unat-
tainable. Rationalism would never be practicable here.
Unless it were practiced by a firing squad. Like Maximilian.
This is not about a romance. This is about delirium.
Consequently, poets deserve all our laughterbecause
everything they have done they have done in the name not
of the gravity of truth, of the pseudo-life of negated death,
but rather in the name of the disintegration of peals of
laughter, the disintegration of the truth, disintegration that
begins with poets themselves, though they might not know
it. The poets are here so we can laugh at them.
Man comes from on high. But from on high, he has
fallen. We have not managed to leave the planet, the planet
which is not, by any means, our origin. Our origin is the
unknown. That is why any search for an origin will end in
failure, because the origin is absent. It does not lie in what
is visible. The poet is a person who flies. But their flight will
always go wrong. Their destiny is the ground. Their destiny
128 is to be the butt of our jokes.

Dazed by the signs from the sky and the inferno, from
their biography and culture, poets are a living stupor. The
tragi-comedy of the poet is to become stupid.
The Regime of Perspective: Cartographies and

Cornfields
The delirium Olson manufactured originated in the

presupposition that the Maya are superficial, while Artauds
delirium was manufactured out of the presupposition that
the Rarmuri are abysmal. When I write superficial and abys-
mal I might wish to erase the connotations these vocables
possesssuperficial in the sense of surface or petty; abysmal as
deep and therefore superior, more valuablebecause both
paradigms offer up deliriums which are potentially immense:
each, however, starting from its own location. Properly
speaking, Olson interpreted from within a perspective about
the Maya, while Artaud interpreted through a descent. A
descent that would soon become an introspection, while
Olsons perspective corresponded to a military vision.
Olson conceived of everything as a militia. (He even
considered love to be a form of guerrilla warfare.) Olson
needed to make war plans in any territory where he entered,
especially if the territory in question was imaginary, a fantas-
tical country.
Advocating a military vision, Olson complained a
number of times in his letters about, for instance, the inex-
actitude of the maps depicting Mayan sites. Olson sought,
above all, to devise the cartography that would allow him to
move freely in the Mayan world, a world he conceived as a
perspective, as a map, as a pure surface. Olson only saw hori-
zons. He placed horizons where there were ravines.
Nothing could be more different than Artauds verti-
cal vision, wherein the most relevant feature is descent
129 and ascent in the indio world. Artaud lost perspective and

cartography to such an extent that any observer would
have serious doubts about the plausibility of his travels in
that region of Mexican territory. Artaud thought of all
things indio, above all, in terms of their relationship with the
underworld, the inferno, the Below. Artauds hermeneusis
regarding the indioto encounter them undergroundis so
de rigueur in his commentary that it can be observed, we
might say, in The Peyote Rite Among the Tarahumara, (in
The Peyote Dance written in 1943), when he describes the
peyote dance he had experienced years earlier in the Sierra
Tarahumara:
They repeated this sequence eight times. But after the

fourth time their faces, which had taken on a lively
expression, never ceased to be radiant. The eighth time
they looked toward the Priest, who then moved with a
dominating and menacing air to the furthest end of the
Holy of Holies, where things are in contact with the
North. And with his cane he drew in the air a huge 8.
But the scream that he uttered at that moment could
have overthrown the hellish labor pains of the head man black
with his ancient sin, in the words of the old buried poem
of the Maya of Yucatan; and I do not remember ever in
my life hearing anything that revealed more clearly or
resonantly to what depths the human will descends to
raise its foreknowledge of night.*
Guided by the regime of perspective, as Olson initiated his

approach to the Mayan world he did not just concern him-
self with the imperfection of the maps:
I had the feeling, already in Merida, that the Peabody-

Carnegie gang, whatever they may have done, 50, or
* The Peyote Rite Among the Tarahumara, in The Peyote Dance, trans.
130 Helen Weaver, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York,1976, pp. 32-3.

25 years ago, were, now, missing the job, were typical
pedants or academics, and were playing some state & low
professional game. Like this: that, at this date, it was no
longer so important to uncover buried cities and restore
same, as it was to strike in anew by two paths: (1) what I
have already sounded off to you about, the living Maya
language and what its perdurables, because language is
so tough, may well contain in the heads of these living
farmers back one block, from this street, or wherever,
the deeper in, I imagine, the more and (2) in the present
context the important one: a total reconnaissance of all
sites (laugh as they did at me in Merida, the experts)
instead of (as the Carnegie-Mexican Govt is about to
launch) the recovery of the 3rd of the Maya Metropolises
here in the peninsula, Mayapan.
The joker is, they are advanced enough to justify
the Mayapan operation as a step to discover more abt the
economic & political life of the ancient Maya! Which, of
course, kills me. Here I am the aestheticistI am the one
who is arguing that the correct way to come to an esti-
mate of that dense & total thing is not, again, to measure
the walls of a huge city but to get down, before it is too
late, on a flat thing called a map, as complete a survey as
possible of all, all present ruins, small as most of them are.*
The regime of perspective shows him that it is inappropriate

to go downto discover buried Mayan citiesas what is
more apt, according to the regime, is to move along the hor-
izontal-cartographic plane. Even when he praised the Maya,
upon this first inspection what he admires in them is a certain
place where the view is so lovely, without being able to
abandon in those moments the regime of perspective. Olson
conceives of himself as someone who was proposing another
type of operation, since Operation Mayapan, because it was
131 * Olson, op. cit., pp. 72-73.

based on a vertical trajectory, on a descent-disinterring, was
crazy, stupido.
Keeping in view the surface of the regime of perspec-
tive, Olson constructed fantasies in which he attributed to
the Maya and their contemporary scholars a state of being
blinded by corn at the same time that he critiqued the
agricultural methods of the Maya, which ruined the sur-
face of their fields of crops in a matter of just a few years.
What Olson saw in the Maya were cornfields that needed
to be cleared away lest they block the gaze. Olson did not
understand that the corn myth refers to the penetration of
the seed into the earth, to its descent, and its subsequent
emergence from the underworld. His vision of corn was
horizontal, instead of vertical, which would have been more
congruent with the indigenous vision.
Olson thus remained trapped within himself, and he thus
sabotaged his own investigations, rejecting descent or ascent,
attempting to achieve some level route of advance. He him-
self intuited this two weeks later, when he commented on
the outbursts cited above: Perhaps, as I sd before, I am only
arguing with myself.* It is no coincidence that he should
choose the horizontal plane, the leveled-out, the regime of the
(surveillance) perspective: as the psychology of displacement
or imaginary journeys of the psyche confirm, the individual
who refuses to abandon old patterns of life and attempt
new creative solutions is characterized by a rejection or
fear of displacement of self below/above during a directed
daydream.
Those who do not wish to touch on their past (their
interior hell) or believe it is impossible to get out of the
circumstances they have experienced (to rise up) will find
it difficult to go down or rise up imaginarily in a fantasy
* Ibid., p. 83.
See, for example, El ensueo dirigido y el inconsciente, J. Launay, J. Levine and

132 G. Maurey, Paids, Buenos Aires/Barcelona, 1982.

or daydream, finding it more relevant, comfortable, familiar
and less fantastical to travel on level surfaces. We can say
nothing of Olsons personal psyche at this point, since any
speculation in that realm would be but a fantasy or projec-
tion on our part. What we can speak to is the imaginary
of the text, of Olson. In that imaginarythe regime of
perspective, which is the regime of a civilization of military
surveillance, of cartographic advancethat is, of imperial-
ismvision has become impoverished due to the lack of
will to ascend or descend, in a sort of neurotic horizontality
or leveled paranoia. The Oxident fundamentally remains on a
horizontal axis; it is constituted as the negation of descent.
In the same way that we now cannot know anything for
certain about Olsons personal psyche, neither could he
understand anything about the Maya; rather, he barely had
access to the intermediate world, that third world, that he
had constructed out of the ruins that resulted from the clash
of cultures. In this intermediate or third worldas I prefer
to call it to maximize ironyOlson found himself obliged
to understand the other through a broken mirror; and the
same was true for himself. And this is what the experience
of colonization produces in the colonizer, since colonizers
do not only destroy the possibility of understanding the
other-culture as a Totality when they fragment it, but they
themselves are also fragmented, they self-destruct, impeding
even their own access to themselves, to their own identity.
The experience of colonization, then, is a self-destruction
on both sides. The dissection table that becomes a pantopia.
Lawrence, Olson, and Quetzalcatl
Quetzalcatl, glyphs, and the Mayan concept of space-time

were Olsons three great Mexicanist themes.
D.H. Lawrences fantasies are behind Charles Olsons
133 fantasies. Olsons vision of Mexico, in large measure, grows

out of Lawrences. (According to Ralph Maud, Fantasia of the
Unconscious brought Olson to Mexico.*) In the prologue to
his work, Lawrence described a prior science:
I honestly think that the great pagan world of which

Egypt and Greece were the last living terms, the great
pagan world which preceded our own era once, had a
vast and perhaps perfect science of its own, a science in
terms of life. In our era this science crumbled into magic
and charlatanry. But even wisdom crumbles.
I believe that this great science previous to ours
and quite different in constitution and nature from our
science once was universal, established all over the then-
existing globe. I believe it was esoteric, invested in a large
priesthood.
According to Lawrence, this science belonged to the Glacial

Period. After the decadence of this knowledge, its content
survives half forgotten, remembered in the form of rituals,
gestures, and myths. Lawrence was seeking a symbology
that might return to him the secret knowledge of the laws of
man, life, and the universe.
Olson wished to discover that prior knowledge inspired
by Lawrence and, after his journey to Mexico, by Jung.
Olson called this knowledge the Laws. In order to discover
those Laws, he turned to Mexico.
It was also D. H. Lawrence who aroused in Olson a
curiosity about Quetzalcatl. (In the novel The Plumed
Serpent, the character of Don Ramn embodies the so-called
Religion of Quetzalcatl.) In his novel, and in other
areas of his work, Lawrence speculates about the meanings
of this figure. For Lawrence, the religion of Quetzalcatl
* Charles Olsons Reading: A Biography, Southern Illinois University Press,

Illinois, 1996, p. 87.
134 Fantasia of the Unconscious, Penguin Books, New York, 1988, p. 12.

was opposed to Christianity and was based on virile love,
as well as on the unconscious and its polytheism. In this
religion, Lawrence proposed that one purpose of the
Mexican Revolution was the return of the pre-Hispanic
gods; if Don Ramn (Carrasco) is Quetzalcatl, General
Cipriano Viedma is Huitzilopochtli, the Aztec god of war.
With Lawrence, the Oxident sounded the violin strings of
its maximal kitsch.*
Kitsch designed to decipher the Other. The inevitable
kitschoccurring each time the signs of a system (cul-
ture) are utilized in order to interpret (dominate) another.
Each time a space and/or a time is juxtaposed over another,
kitsch reverberates its plumage! Kitsch and hermeneutics
are Siamese twins. The Da Vinci Code was possible thanks to
Dante.
What do the 1950slos aos cincuentarepresent?
(The aos sin cuenta, years uncounted, years of oblivion.)
They are the past and the future in association. If History
existed at some point, it existed in the fifties. In the North
* In short, Quetzalcoatl and Huitzilopochtli are the only ancient Mexican

gods who play substantial roles in either version of The Plumed Serpent.
In the first, the two men merely set themselves up as living symbols
by pretending to be manifestations of the gods. Occult symbolism is
not introduced until the penultimate chapter and is largely borrowed
from Theosophy and RosicrucianismThe Quetzalcoatlism of The
Plumed Serpent, then, may be dubious in its Mesoamericanism, but it is
not dubiously LawrenceanIn sum, though the Oaxaca version of the
religion is more fully developed, Lawrence still transmits few authentic
pre-Columbian elementsThe novels religion is meant to enhance life.
Among other things, it brings new life to a white woman in Ross
Parmenter, Lawrence in Oaxaca: A Quest for the Novelist in Mexico, Peregrine
Smith Books, Salt Lake City, 1984, pp. 295, 297-298.
The Spanish original here reads: Qu son los aos cincuenta? (Los aos
sin cuenta). The word cincuenta (fifty, or in the phrase aos cincuenta,
the fifties) is a homophone of the phrase sin cuenta, which means with
no count/accounting, or uncountable, and/or sin darse cuenta, without
being aware or without consciousnessi.e. oblivious. After spending way
too long attempting to find a congruent homophonic play with the words
decade, nineteen and fifties, I decided that perhaps the best way to
unsettle the uncountable obliviousness of English would be to import the
135 word-play Heriberto instigates in the Spanish. (Trans. note)

American 50s. Black and white and science fiction, at that
time, were one and the same. The 50s would be for the fol-
lowing decades a sort of Middle Ages one-night-stand.
The 1950s will be our fifteen minutes of Eternal
Return. Superman became Super Man. Zarathustra +
Hollywood = 9-11.
Each time North Americans imagine the preteriteand
each time they draw nearer to the most distant of themthey
draw ever nearer to seeing everything from the point of view
of the 1950s. Olson and the Beats are not a coincidence. The
white man, the hegemonic man, the American, did not begin
seriously to rewrite his artificial memory until the 1950s.
What Romanticism was for Modernity, the 50s will be for
the North American empire. And they will be its Middle
Agesits Middle Ages express, fast food classics! And they will
be its Paleolithic. And they will be its Golden Age. And they
will be its UFO Age. And they will be its Greeks. And they
will be its post-Fordism. And the 1950s will be everything.
And there will be nothing but 1950s for the USA. There
will not be anything more, no future other than Neverlands
revisited by Ronald Reagan and Michael Jackson. Our two
main choices will be either to resort to a trickle-down-fifties
or simply to Moonwalk back to that decade.
Olson = 1950s. New Eternity!
Neoternity: a dilemma whether To Be or Not-To-Be the
Military-Industrial Complex.
1961? Already too late, Dear Eisenhower.
Olson was convinced that Quetzalcatl had been a mari-
ner, that his underworld was nothing more than the high seas.
For him, The excision of the (imported) Mayan Kukulkan
figure points concomitantly to the larger issues of sea travel
and migrationthat Olson later pursues in Maximus.*
Olson did not notice, to start with, that horizontal displace-
* Andr Spears, Warlords of Atlantis: Chasing the Demon of Analogy in

the America(s) of Lawrence, Artaud and Olson, 2001, p. 28 (epc.buffalo.
136 edu/authors/blog/andrespears.pdf).

ment is not a defining aspect of Quetzalcatl and instead
that ascension and descent are. And even less did he notice
that Quetzalcatl involves the deepest senses. For Olson, the
sacred was Quetz. And Quetz was him.
One month after his arrival in Lerma, Olson seemed
decidedthough he would soon abandon the project, as was
his customto write a biography of Quetzalcatl-Kukulkn,
exactly as Barlow had wished to do with Moctezuma. Olson
was interested in Q/K because he represented a figure at
once wise and governing. Because of his connection to the
sea. More than a plumed serpent, Olson imagined him as a
little sea horse, as a kid/of the water, as it was evident to
him, he wrote to Creeley, that what one discovers here is the
sea. Olson both saw Kukulkn with Melvilles eyes and also
wanted to repeat his book about Melville here, this time with
a Mayan backdrop. Call Me Quetz. He had convinced himself
that his focus in Mexico would be the Sea.
SO THAT, the whole picture has shifted wider & out,

west: in fact, what i ought to be, am, proposing, is, THE
SEA IN MAYAN AND MEXICAN CULTURES &
ECONOMIES.
AND
AND, somewhere in this mixing of the two geographies
is the key to why there is a KUKULKAN here, &
QUETZ there: same man, same imagery (the serpent
with fuzz) (SEA-SERPENT?)*
It had been Lawrences mistaken religion of Quetzalcatl

that had inspired Olsons interest in Quetzalcatl who,
incidentally, had appeared in the first versions of The
Kingfishers and The Praises. But, little by little, Olsons
lack of information drove him to another topic and he
moved from a desire to biographically reconstruct the life
137 * Olson, Selected Writings, p. 89.

of Quetzalcatl-Kukulkn to a desire to comment on Mayan
writing, which existed somewhere in this mixing of the two
geographies, in which the United States and Mexico are jux-
taposed to support the fantasy of same man, same imagery
(colonial hermeneutics with poetic fuzz around the edges).
This time, however, we shall not follow Olson as he takes this
leap.
What was it that Olson did not comprehend in
Quetzalcatl?
Meanings of the Plumed-Serpent
In order to comprehend what Quetzalcatl means, we must

set aside his identification with various historical or purely
narrative figures. Of course Quetzalcatl represents a symbol-
ization that occurs starting with one or more pre-Hispanic
sovereigns. But Quetzalcatl does not reduce to those sov-
ereigns. Similarly, neither does the meaning of Buddha refer
exclusively to a real figure, but rather references a cosmovision,
a method of transcendence, personified by Guatama or some
Toltec or Mayan priest-king.
What, then, does Quetzalcatl mean? Quetzalcatl means
plumed-serpent or serpentine-bird. (Some have argued
that it might mean beautiful twin.) Be it the one or be
it the other (or both), Quetzalcatl is a concept that unites
opposites, a sort of synthesis. Quetzalcatl is an alchemical
symbol of enantiodromia. Quetzalcatl alludes to the double.
Quetzalcatl is a theory about what the double is.
This theory indicates that when two elements come
togethergermination from Below; fertilizing from
Abovea transcendent duality is achieved. Quetzalcatl is a
method for achieving a superior state: metanoia.
Of course, within this notion we can find traces of histori-
cal experience. For example: the pre-Hispanic belief that it
138 was necessary to merge the nomadichistorical origin of

indio cultureswith the sedentary. We should not forget that
Topiltzin Quetzalcatl, the shaman-king of Tula, was the
sonactually or symbolicallyof a barbarian/nomad warrior
(chichimeca) and a woman from Nahua civilization. That is,
Quetzalcatl is associated with indigenous cultures duality
of nomadic-civilized forms of existence which is, simultane-
ously, a division/contraposition between the northern/
barbarian and the Mesoamerican-imperial. In Quetzalcatl
this duality becomes transcendence.
According to this concept, different indigenous pueblos
coded the knowledge that their spiritual progress had been
achieved thanks to overcoming the differences between the
two determining forms of existence within that cosmos,
pertaining to dozens of co-existent cultures. Quetzalcatl is a
spiritual methodology addressing co-bodies.
The concept of Quetzalcatl is, in and of itself, the
production of an ethnic and cultural mix, a characteristic
of Mexican cultures themselves. In no way did this mixing
begin with the Spanish conquest. Mixing was the rule among
cultures well before the arrival of the Spanish; the mix with
the Spanish was simply the continuation of the transditional
patterns of transformation of these cultures.
Above all, the quetzalcotlican method refers to the fecund
re-union of the individuals internal dyad. If the dyad ensnares
itself, if the two forces are woven together, power and creation are
produced. (Sovereignty and creativity are the fundamental
characteristics associated with the plumed-serpent.) When
the metaphor entered into decadence, the power that quetzal-
cotlizing confers grew to be understood as political power.
Originallythat is, psychicallyit referred to spiritual power.
Rebirth: to emerge from the unidimensional. Quet-
zalcatlsymbolically associated with the cycle of
corn*implies a traversing of the psychic regions of the
* The cycle of death and resurrection of the corn plant became the
paradigm for processes of creation among Mesoamerican peoplesThis
139 creation was verified in the underworld, through the transformation of

quincunce*a cycle of solar ascent and descent: transmuta-
tion through the journey of antagonisms. It has to do with
warnumen of the creativorewhich has as its function
fertility. Corn, a plant that unites the infra with the supra. A
seed that must be buried, and then die, in order to produce
life (within the infraworld) and once it becomes a stalk it
produces fruit, one part of which is sacrificed once again to
the earth (to germinal death) in order to emerge as a corn-
cob. The cycle of corn among pre-Hispanic pueblos alludes
equally to the functioning of the origin of life, to labor, the
growth and death of humans, and to the quincunce of each
instant, and in the case of secret wisdom, what it is that must
die in order for the soul to be reborn. Quetzalcatlat
other times called Kukulkn, Nakxit, or Gucumatzis not
just a conceptual orientation, but also an ecstatic technique,
a specific shamanic path. (We should not forget, however,
that Quetzalcatl is one of two methods. One of two
shamanisms. The other pathwhich we will not address
herewas called Tezcatlipoca.)
Quetzalcatl refers to how language is born. Language,
according to this theory, was born when man united the
earthly with the celestial. It was born via the re-ligation of
the inferior and the superior. When an individual revitalizes
that re-ligation, the individual evolves spiritually. The individ-
matter worn down to energy, in Enrique Florescano, Quetzalcatl y los

mitos fundadores de Mesoamrica, Taurus, Mexico City, 2004, p. 21.
* When I suggested that Heriberto clarify his vision of the complex term
quincunce in this context, he wrote: Quincunce is the symbol that
provides the foundation for the Mexican pre-Hispanic cosmovision: it
is a cosmogram signaling the center and four corners of the universe.
The term quincunx in English usually refers to a geometric design of
five coplanar points arranged in the formation of a cross, like the five
dots on a domino or playing die. As the term quincunx in English does
not carry the same spiritual and cosmo-imaginary charge as quincunce
does in Spanish, and because I welcome the opportunity to Mexicanize
the translation of this text by allowing Spanish to invade (and perhaps
even conquer) English, I have chosen to use the term quincunce as it
140 appears in Heribertos text. (Trans. note)

ual becomes a creator. The description of this method occurs
through mythic symbolizations. Quetzalcatl is a method of
psychic alchemy. (Though it remains clear that alchemy in and
of itself is, in its profundity, a metaphor for methodologies of
metamorphoses in states of mind.) Quetzalcatl is a series of
teachings about how people might transcend their habitual
condition. How people might elevate themselves above rules.
Quetzalcatl is measure and excess.
Indigenous cultures came to the conclusion that it was
necessary to unite forces. The force-of-below, symbolized
by the serpent, and the force-of-above, symbolized by the
quetzal bird; the shield of Mexico still bears what is basi-
cally this same symbol, of Aztec origin (the eagle perched
on a nopal, devouring a serpent). What we have here, by
the way, is a similar concept to that symbolized by the
Jewish star of Davidthe union of two triangles in different
orientationswhich as a symbol is even related to the union
of the horizontal plane with the vertical, symbolized in the
Christian cross. Quetzalcatl symbolizes the union of oppo-
site forces as a method of overcoming obstacles.
The bird, force of the superior-going-down is
symbolized in different ways in pre-Hispanic cultures. (Pre-
Hispanic gods are, as Len-Portilla has already clarified,
Probably the person who best understood Quetzalcatl as a philo-

sophical structure was Laurette Sjourn: It turns out, then, that the
importance of Quetzalcatl resides not in his being a social individual, but
rather in his being the central archetype of a philosophical structure in
which man, sovereign in the end over his decisions, succeeds in convert-
ing a perishable mass into luminous energyQuetzalcatl is the first
man to become a god: it is the very formula of this triumph that itself
constitutes his teaching. It is not, then, a matter of a divinity that dispenses
grace, but rather of a mortal who discovers a new human dimension in
which he causes his fellow-men to become participantsThis cycle,
constantly associated with Quetzalcatl, can signal nothing more than
the lapse provided to individuals during which they must fulfill the task
of mediating between realities which without those individuals would
remain irremediably separateIt was understood that the great cosmic
work should begin with the work of each individual upon himself, in El
universo de Quetzalcatl, Fondo de Cultura Econmica, Mexico City, 1962,
141 pp. 17-18, 133, 136 and 140.

representations of concepts.) One of the representations
of the force of the superior-going-down is, for example,
Cuauhtmoc (literally falling-eagle) and another, we might
venture, is Tlloc, deity of rain. In both cases, we are talking
about a power in the sky that descends to earth. But the two
forces are the same. Rubn Bonifaz Nuo says: Tlloc is
Tlaltecuhtli; Taltecuhtli is Tlloc.*
Quetzalcatl: uniting path toward acquiring wisdom.
Were talking here about a concept. Not exactly a god or
a mythic-historical figure. Quetzalcatl is like the man who
became a god. He becomes a god by turning himself into
the plumed-serpent. Tall rush that unites Underworlds and
Heavens.
Quetzalcatl is the mouth. Giant reed from which lan-
guage emerges.
Language is Quetzalcatl.
Name for the initiation of speech, Quetzalcotl is the
spiritual name Indio pueblos gave to language.
Glyphs, Olson, and Fenollosa
Olson saw the world through the eyes of others. In some

sense, the presence of others in his eyes/Is is coherent with
* This Mexican poet has gone beyond what any other scholars of this
subject matter have been able to achieve, in terms of the innovation and
spirituality of his thesis, which is dedicated to decipheringthrough pre-
Hispanic iconographythe meaning of the two serpents, among other
symbols. As in the case of the symbol of Quetzalcatl, the implication is
of a definition of man at a point when the two forces become connected
and produce creation. Olmec culture was constructed around a particlar
concept of manTwo features in the way faces were figured define the
aforementioned concept: the characteristic cross-eyed position of the eyes,
and the form of the mouth; the latter indicates the capacity to initiate
creation, making the exercise of divine power possible. So for them, in
essential union, man turns out to be the sage who knows the truth and
the principal creator of the universe, in Hombres y serpientes. Iconografa
olmeca, Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, Mexico City, 1996, p.
142 122.

his post-ego utopian poetics. At the same time, however, his
post-ego desire was fulfilled through colonial high-culture
spectacle. We carry the History we want to destroy glued
onto our retinas. (History is a metastasis. It disperses. It obtu-
rates the doors of perception.) Many North Americans have
no eyes. And have only images of other times. As if they have
only the decade of the 1950s. A retail non-time existing in a
pseudo-world. Nostalgia become the most convulsive horror.
In his essay The Chinese Written Character as a
Medium for Poetry, the final version of which was edited
by Pound, the sinologist Ernest Fenollosa set forth a horde
of ideas. Olson would pillage these in order to make them
his own, and with them define the nature of poetry, time-
space, and, paradoxically, the Maya.
Things are only the terminal points, or rather, the
meeting points of action, cross-sections, so to speak, cut
through actions, [photographic] snapshots [taken of them],
Fenollosa wrote.* His disquisitions about how this transfer-
ence of force occurred within utterances prefigured what
Olson would write three decades later in his speculations
around the projective (1950). In the immediate environs of
his journey to Mexico, Olson rethoughtwhile wishing
for his influence not to be too readily notedthe thesis
of Fenollosas essay. (His attacks, we might say, against the
grammar in Greek writing, in his 1951 essay Human
Universe, originated in large part in the sinologists ideas.)
When Olson arrived in Mexico and began increasingly to
reflect on Mayan writing, he rethought it in terms that were
enormously similar to those Fenollosa had utilized in order
to comment on the pictorial nature of Chinese writing.
Olson, then, was not so much commenting on the Maya
as dialoguing with Fenollosa (and Pound).
* The Chinese Written Character as a Medium for Poetry: A Critical Edition,

143 Fordham University Press, New York, 2008, p. 82.

For example, GLYPHS. I begin to bear in. What I wrote
to you, abt the glyph as verse, seems more and more true.
As a matter of fact, perhaps more important (for me)
than the study of Maya, living Maya, is this other thing,
the study of the glyphs. For herebeyond everything
is the real increment, the exact same raise, for me, as
those poems on the clay tablets of SumeriaHere is
ideogram in a state much more available than Chinese.
Here it is, as it was, in this geography (ours). And by god
if no oneno onehas seen the glyphs as what they
are! They have all been so blinded by not knowing their
meanings that they have missed the real point, that, in
themselves as images, they tell, tell, tell!*
Olson strove diligentlyhis letter-writing with Cid Corman

and Creeley bears witness to thisto create either a book
about the art of Mayan glyphs illustrated with Hiplito
Snchezs drawings or an exhibition that he argued would be
as important as the Armory Show. What was it that sustained
Olsons interest in the glyphs? His interpretation of them as
design or graphics, as a medium to convert time into space.
It was the glyphs that led Olson to his subject matter: the
notion of space-time among the Maya, a subject he had
been carrying with him. Olson defined time precisely as a
load to carryfrom the time of his Melvillean explora-
tions. According to Olson, the glyphs were proof that for the
Maya, time, in their minds, was mass & weight! In a letter
to Corman at the end of May, he wrote:
the art of the language of glyphs

IS
* Charles Olson & Robert Creeley:The Complete Correspondence, Black

Sparrow Press, vol. 5, p. 91.
144 Ibid., p. 106.

motion in time on stone*
In his letter to Creeley on March 28, he declared:

for it strikes me, the
principle behind all this is: language as, root, graphic: sound,
not as time, but as object in space, as mass, to be pushed
around, to be heard as things are eaten, as, in process, of
the organism not the mind or taste or aesthetics
LANGUAGE AS STONE AND CLAYa show, some-
where, of MAYA & SUMER together!
As we have already seenthanks to Call Me IshmaelOlson

formed part of the modern and post-modern tendency
toward spatialization of time, one of the conditions of any
imperialist formation. The function of poets is to create
images of this spatialization-of-time; it is given to them to be
the pantopians of the Oxident. It is given to poets to destroy
time, to consolidate the notion of a total space. A show to
get ether together with every-thing else.
Olson sensed that among the Maya he might encounter a
topological concept of chronologyand the glyph, accord-
ing to him, was the key. In the glyph, the future had become
image. Time had become stone.
The problem Olson and other great modern and post-
modern poets share is this: How to dispel time? How to
transform events into accumulation? How to manufacture a
space that might contain EVERYTHING? That is: to avoid
the disintegration of time.
The poet is pantopian. Without the poet-pantopian there
is no Empire.
* Letters for Origin 1950-1956, Albert Glover (ed.), Paragon House, New
York, 1969, p. 55.
145 Complete Correspondence, vol. 5, p. 109.

Olson,Whorf, and the Hopi Model of Time-Space
In more than one instance Olson cites Benjamin Lee

Whorf as one of his key sources, thoughin fine Olsonian
traditionwith the infrequency and critique that are indis-
pensible in order to diminish any visible debt. Fenollosa and
Whorf are two of the writers who most heavily influenced
Olsons ideas. Together with Sapir, Whorf is famous for
having claimed that structures of language influence our way
of seeing the world. What we call Reality is a construction
of our language. As Nietzsche and Wittgenstein knew, our
grammar is our metaphysics. In an article from 1950pub-
lished in number 16 of the International Journal of American
LinguisticsWhorf demonstrated that there are cultures that
do not have words for what we Oxidentals call time. In
An American Indian Model of the Universe, Whorf argues
that the Hopi indigenous people have different notions of
time and space, distinct from those of European origin. The
idea of time flowing forward does not exist among the Hopi:
The Hopi language is seen to contain no words, grammatical
forms, constructions or expressions that refer directly to what
we call time, or to past, present, or futureHopi language
contains no reference to time, either explicit or implicit.* In
accordance with the very tendencies of a modern mentality,
Whorf understood the Hopi cosmovision to be significantly
closer to a concept of space. According to him, it was not just
that a notion of time as a flow moving through space did not
exist among the Hopi, but also that space here is instead more
closely related to a space that is shifting.
Translating Hopi ideas, Whorf claimed that instead of
our division of a time in the past, present, and future, they
consider that there are two realms. In one, which might be
translated as the manifestor objective, as Whorf says, pro-
* An American Indian Model of the Universe, in Language,Thought

and Reality. Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, John B. Carroll (ed.),
146 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 1956, pp. 57-58.

viding a glimpse of his residual positivismthe Hopi situate
all that has been accessible to the senses, the physical history
of the universe, all that we might call past and present, but
without distinguishing between the two. Alongside the man-
ifest, the Hopi maintain the existence of the manifestingor
subjectivewhere they locate everything we might clas-
sify as future, in addition to what exists in the heart-mind
of people, animals, plants, and things. All of this is present,
however, in seeds, expectations, images, or desires.
What is manifesting is already in the world. Though this
is not expressed by Whorf, in this vision of the world, the
manifest is nothing more than one phase in the realization of
the manifesting. What Whorf also does not articulate, probably
because he did not have sufficient information, is that the
Hopi model of space-time is a variation on the model of
the quincunce.* The Hopi are yet another version of the same
notion of time-space that originated in pre-Hispanic times
and was shared by indigenous groups from Central America
to North America. (I suspect this model of time-space is also
shared by South American groups.) In this conception, space
and time are not separated. They are the same process.
Space itself is not a container of eventsas in
Oxidental metaphysicsbut rather space is produced by
the processes that likewise produce the objective. Space is
an effect of the unfolding of developments. Space rises from
the center like smoke from the fire. Space is emergence.
* Whorf, of course, is conscious of the relationship of this notion to the

traditional indigenous quadripartite model of the universe: As far as
space is concerned, the subjective is a mental realm, a realm of no space in
the objective sense, but it seems to be symbolically related to the vertical
dimension and its poles the zenith and the underground, as well as to the
heart of things, which correspond to our word inner in the metaphori-
cal sense. Corresponding to each point in the objective world is such a
vertical and vitally INNER axis which is what we call the wellspring of
the futureFrom each subjective axis, which may be thought of as more
or less vertical and like the growth-axis of a plant, extends the objective
realm in every physical direction, though these directions are typified
more especially by the horizontal plane and its four cardinal points. Ibid.,
147 p. 62.

Are pantopia and quincunce the same thing? It is a valid
question in a society that has not yet become aware that
its greatest thinkers are pantopians and the word itself is a
neologism and the concept of the quincunce is yet more
strangeBut the question, nonetheless, is indispensable.
Olsons vision of spacewhich is the vision of a signifi-
cant number of modern and modern-post* poetsis similar
to the Hopi vision, for instance. But only seemingly. In both
models, time is abolished. But in the modern Oxidental
modelespecially in the model of North American poet-
ics whose forefathers are Whitman-Pound-Olsonspace
is conserved as a fixed (imperial) receptacle where what is
produced in the future is collected and whereand this is
never lost from sighthistory (linear time) has ceased and
in some cases the very notion of becoming (the flow of
time) has been negated. Ancestral cultures possessed more
advanced notions than ours. Their notions negate ours;
that of time, for instance, because their notions would seek
to demonstrate the unity of all phenomena, accepting the
cycles of alternation of light-darkness (heaven/underworld)
and making clear that the separation of the one from the
other that notions of past, present, and future cause to
emerge in the everyday mind are false, as all entities are
apparitions of the processes that give them form.
In the pantiopan model, on the other hand, time is
negated in order to preserve disconnected fragments. Time is
broken in order for its constituent pieces to remain station-
* In response to a request to expand on his use of the term modern-post,

Heriberto writes: When I say modern-post I implicate the so-called
post-modern. Post-modern would mean a cultural product, agent or
stage beyond the modern, a description of something that has successfully
surpassed the modern, leaving it behind, going beyond it. So by saying
modern-post I mean to describe an entityin this case a poetthat
desires to go beyond the modern, because the modern in itself contains
that desire. Modern-post refers to entities still trapped in modernity,
though probably in denial. Or the intense desire to be truly post-modern.
Probably at this stage most of us are modern-post, that is, still-capitalist
148 wishing not-to-be. (Trans. note)

ary, in order for its choice ruins to become fixed. Time is
destroyed, but only in order to insure the containing condi-
tion of absolutized space. Consumer society developed the
pantopia, as a spiritual avatar of its will-to-accumulate.
Olson called the pantopia and the will-to-accumulate
the will-to-cohere. Within this model time is destroyed in
order to fill space with entities.
Time has been changed into memory. And space, in its
reconfiguration, has been transformed into the reordering of
memorythat is, into fascism.
Moses of Yucatn
Unfaithful, erotically split, divided, labyrinthized by his

mythomania, fantasizing, vacillating between his totemic
patriotic loyalty to the United States and his compulsion
toward a knowledge of the clandestine cultures of the world,
ubiquitous bifurcated, deformed out of pure interbelittled
disfragments, polyphonic excisions, and Janusian self-throat-
slittings, Olson desperately hunted down a principle that
might unite it all.
How to make it all cohere. How to build a co-here where every-
thing existing is united. Olsons will to cohere has only been
understood in the dimension of coherence, of Apollonian
integration; that is, of logic, of meta-recounting of atypi-
cal junctures, yet not in its dimension as a site, as pantopia,
as co-space, co-here or co-where. What Olson sought was
Melvilles and Whitmans America, Pounds vortex,
Borgess Aleph (but without jeers or apocryphy). Like
Baudelaires dandy, Olsons delirium had to do with per-
ceiving everything and capturing it all in the memory of a
possessive omninstant, the hunt for which would have nei-
ther lack nor blemish. Olson sought a law that might make
the Co-Here possible.
149 We already know, of course, that barely at its delusive

threshold, this totalizing, pantopian project of Olsons must
succumb like an infinitely fragile mirror, in which each
piece or shard of the broken mirror shatters into other
fragments charged with the same magic, as its curse has
not been precisely an illustrious misfortune, but rather yet
another of the same interminable sentences: with each frag-
ment of the broken mirror there simultaneously takes place
the tragicomic relapse of the whole image, of the reflection
re-emerging complete, as in an impossible abolition of iden-
tity, which reappears complete in each chunk though each
time it is more minuscule and with this cloning of every-
thing, there likewise takes place its infinite and compulsory
rupture. Olson set off to seek the principle that might unite
everything precisely therein writingwhere everything
is superimposition and apocryphal division, a multitude of
countertongues, a panchronic gift of parallel Babels.
How to devour? How to bring together? How to pro-
duce an assembly? These were the questions that intrigued
Charles Olson immediately before and during his actual
time in Mexico, in 1951. The obsessive medusa ruled the
inquiry that would occupy all his work: which principles
should reign in the summa-poem?
In Mexico, Olson sought a principle that might unite the
one with the other, the missing link in the chain of immediate
ontologies, the synergetic methodology of the secret connec-
tion between one thing and another. Olson was operating in a
world in which each thing was separated from the next by an
abyss. In order to avoid the vertigo each point caused, Olson
strove to trace the vertebra that runs through all entities, in
order to turn it into a rod* for composing poems.
* Here Heriberto figures the vertebra as a bone that can be imagined as

a stick (and even as a kind of knife/sword/needle that might cut/run
through things). I then relate it to vara as in wand (magic) and measur-
ing rod (to refer to meter/poetry). These nuances are not present in
English, where the sonic relationships between vertebra, wand and
150 rod are merely a vague assonance; hence this note. (Trans. note)

Olson was not interested in composing a work made of
separate, autonomous poems, because for him islands lacked
connection. Olsons paradigm held Pound and Williams as
center and hypostasis, as both seemed to him to be poets
working within complete, intertwined worlds, not just with
separate pieces. Olson was a novelist of poetry.
In a letter from March 8, Olson told Robert Creeley
about the eclipse he had observed in Lerma, where, inci-
dentally, he said his interest had been piqued by the fact
that his mestizo and Maya neighbors would go out to see
the eclipse, unlike in the United States, where, according to
him, nobody gave a damn about going out to see eclipses.
Olson recounted to Creeley that those descendants of
astronomers used smoked mirrors, photographic negatives,
or rolled-up newspapers, as if he wanted to tell Creeley that
any object is telescopic and that there is a panoptic shadow
over everything.
Olson was intrigued by the methodology for encounter of his
teachers:
Ezs* epic solves problem by his ego: his single emo-

tion breaks all down to his equals or inferiors (so far as
I can see only two, possibly, are admitted, by him, to be
his bettersConfucius, & Dante. Which assumption, that
there are intelligent men whom he can outtalk, is beauti-
ful because it destroys historical time, and
thus creates the methodology of the Cantos, viz, a space-

field where, by inversion, though the material is all time
material, he has driven through it so sharply by the beak
of his ego, that, he has turned time into what we must
now have, space & its live air
* Olson refers here to Ezra Pound. One of Pounds foundational ideas is

that An epic is a poem including history, in ABC of Reading (1934),
151 New Directions, New York, 1987, p. 46.

((secondary contrast is Joyce, who, it comes to me
now, did not improve on Duns Scotus Erigenus, or
the Irish of the time the Irish were the culture-bosses,
what was it, 7th-9th century, or something: he tried
to get at the problem by running one language into
another so as to create a universal language of the
unconscious. Which is, finally, mush & shit, that is,
now. Not so, then, DSE or Irishers, for then Europe
was, both in language & dream, of that order.
(((further thot: Joyce, the Commercial Traveller:

the worship of IARichards*by the same people,
accurately enough, who mug Joyceis more
honest: that is, that this internationalizing of lan-
guage is more relevant to commerce, now, than it
is to the aesthetic problem.
((((all this a bet-
ter way to say, he, ENDER
the primary contrast, for our purposes is, BILL: his

Pat is exact opposite of Ezs, that is, Bill HAS an
emotional system which is capable of extensions &
comprehensions the ego-system (the Old Deal, Ez as
Cento Man, here dates) is not.Yet
by making his substance historical of one city (the

Joyce deal), Bill completely licks himself, lets time roll
him under as Ez does not, and thus, so far as what is
the more important, methodology, contributes noth-
* I. A. Richards is an English linguist. Together with C. K. Ogdenthe

promoter of Basic English, a vocabulary of 850 words for international
useRichards is the author of the celebrated treatise The Meaning of
Meaning, the first edition of which was written between 1910 and 1923.
Olson here refers to William Carlos Williams. Pat refers to the poem
Paterson, an extended epic poem that focuses on life in the city of that
152 name.

ing, in fact, delays, deters, and hampers, by not having
busted through the very problem which Ez has so
brilliantly faced, & beat
Which ought toif my mouth had words in it, this

morningbring you to see why I hammer, on, nomina-
tion, thus:
each of the above jobs are HALVES, that is,
I take it (1) that the EGO AS BEAK is bent and busted
but (2) whatever it is that we can call its replacement
(Bill very much a little of it) HAS, SO FAR, not been
able to bring any time so abreast of us that we are in this
present air, going straight out, of our selves, into it
You see, I followed you, a bit back, when, in responding

on Tarot & Maya, you sd, sure, & its whatever you or
anyone makes hot, is hot. Of course.
& two: that, we already have both (1) the ego as respon-
sible to more than itself and (2) absolute clarity, that, time,
is done, as effect of work in hand
Perhaps, as I sd before, I am only arguing with myself,

that is, I am trying to see how to throw the materials I am
interested in so that they take, with all impact of a correct
methodology AND WITH THE ALTERNATIVE TO
THE EGO-POSITION*
Olson was interested in the principle of relation among

materials. He wished to come upon a method or rule that
might provide a foundation for the union of one word
with another, of one image with the next. Olsons search is
the search of a poetthat is, the hunt for a delusion. This
was very probably the Ariadnes thread that Mallarm had
153 * Selected Writings, pp. 81-83.

refused to track, the metaphysical coherence surrealism took
up once more when it sought to encounter an abracadabra
automatism in whose lock-picking anarchy words might be
joined in accordance with the true functioning of thought,
beyond syntax made false by rationalism. Olson was hunting
for the most profound link, the profound bridge between
one vocable and another, such that there would be no quirks
in the weave.
To write individual poems was not his greatest aim,
though Olson did write some (early) single poems. Olson
wanted to create an epic work, like Pounds. His question
was how to organize such an epic, in accordance with which
principles. His two references were Pound and Williams.
Of course, the real reference of the total poem in North
American poetry is Walt Whitman. If Olson failed to take
him into account, it was because it was not until Allen
Ginsbergs work that Whitman regained bardic prestige
among twentieth century North American poets. Olson cut
short the U.S. history of the total poem because Whitman
was considered amateur, feral, vulgar, unworthy. Even in his
disregard of Whitman, we can see the ways that Olson was
blinded by Pound. About Whitman, a young Pound had
written, in 1909:
From this side of the Atlantic I am for the first time able
to read Whitmanthe only one of the conventionally
recognised American poets who is worth reading.
He is America. His crudity is an exceeding great stench,
but it is AmericaHe is disgusting. He is an exceedingly
nauseating pill, but he accomplishes his mission.
Entirely free from the renaissance humanist ideal of
the complete man or from the Greek idealism, he is con-
tent to be what he is, and he is his time and his people.
He is a genius because he has vision of what he is and of
his function. He knows that he is a beginning and not a
154 classically finished work.

I honour him for he prophesied me while I can only
recognise him as a forebear of whom I ought to be
proud. *
Whitman organized materials and jammed them together,

following his own pantheism, his poetics of enthusiastic
paratactical erasure and re-drawing, in order to achieve a
poem that might be a geography where incompatible car-
tographies could coincide, in a happy meeting of distances
and dis-instances. A Whitmaniacal happiness gives coherence
to the conjunction of mountains and soldiers, cities and
plows. Though Olson may not have recognized itattribut-
ing primacy to Poundit was Whitman who established, in
the context of North American poetry, that the poem was a
zone more than a time. When Fredric Jameson argues that in
the late capitalist phase with its cultural logic, postmodern-
ism, the predominance of the spatial over the temporal has
come to the foreaccording to him, the temporal paradigm
predominated during the avant-garde erahe makes a mon-
umental error, since spatialization is the fundamental element
not just of Whitmans and Pounds poetry, but also, in general,
of U.S. culture, from its very origins. (The States-United is the
dystopia of the Co-Here.)
* What I feel about Walt Whitman, in Early Writings: Poems and Prose, ed.
by Ira B. Nadel, Penguin Books, New York, 2005, p. 187.
our daily life, our psychic experiences, our cultural languages, are
today dominated by categories of space rather than by categories of time,
as in the preceding period of high modernism, in Postmodernism, Or,The
Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, Duke University Press, Durham, 1990, p.
16.
The original here reads: Estados-Unidos es la distopa del Co-Aquso more

accurately, the translation might read: United-States is the dystopia of the
Co-Here. However, the hyphenated phrase estados-unidos in Spanish
emphasizes the idea that states are being united in a way that the phrase
united-states does not, it seems to me, effectively achieve in English.
Further, Heriberto and I were interested in extending an exploration
of the phrasal inversions (modern-post, for instance) he employs as a
155 way of simultaneously problematizing and expanding phrases that have

Having freed himself from metrics, Whitman freed him-
self from the poem understood as temporality. Free verse
opens space. Bergsonian duration surreptitiously exchanged
for pantopia. (Pantopia: absolute co-here; co- of all pos-
sible heres.) Whitman was the U.S. poet who initiated the
national poem as space. Total place. Pantopia: space where All
has been accumulated. Pantopia: panic topos. Starting with
Whitman, North American poets would dedicate themselves
to topology.
Whitman united through celebration. In the ode there is
room for everything.
Pound, according to Olson, united through ego.
Pound would say he was gathering the members of
Osiris.* For Pound, a poet should create a complete cosmos,
to include us within it. For Olson, Pounds criterion of
conjunction was questionable. It was an egocentric, monadic,
whimsical world; at the end of the day, a bohemian world.
According to which principle did Pound join one thing
with another? Olson responded, based on his I-centered
taste, that elective anarchy seemed to Olson insufficient and
arbitrary. Olson wanted a principle of congregation that
might be practically scientific, logocentric. Referring to
Dahlberg and Pound, Olson wrote Creeley: What burns
me, is, they never speak, in their slash at the State or the
Economy, basically, for anyone but themselves. And thus, it is
Bohemianism.
In Canto XCVII, Pound mixesor to put it more aptly,
crams togetherSeneca and 1859, Roosevelt and von
Humboldt, Greek and Chinese ideograms, his uncle William
and Saint Thomas Aquinas, Latin and the gothic art of
become central to critical theorizations of poetics and post-colonialism.

(Trans. note)
* I Gather the Limbs of Osiris, Selected Prose, New Directions, New York,
1973, p. 19.
156 Selected Writings, p. 84.

Indiaaccording to which principle? Whim.
Pound is a genius. Olson was upset by this individual-
ism. Ironically, in a play on words around Pounds phrase
regarding the epicword-play was a genre Olson criticized,
paradoxically, for being overly whimsicalOlson said of
Pounds work that it was History-plus-ego.
What pleased Olson was that Pound united everything as
a conquering of time because he manufactured a synchrony.
The poem as a place for gathering. A berth, a port, yet in
Pound a risky and baseless catharsis (discharge), according
to Olson, while what he was seeking was a certain catharsis, a
certainty of discharge.
The model of the poem as a pantopiaone that gathered
a simultaneity of names, data, everything-ologies*destroys
historical time and does away with diachronics, the time that
excludes one event from another, because in the total place of
the modern poem, everything occurs in a zone where time,
as a line, is no longer.
Chronology abolished in the gains of the panoptical
landscape.
In Olsons work, landscape is possession. (In Olson,
landscape means what the gaze can possess, nature trapped,
become property. Landscape: a portion of land which the eye
/ can comprehend in a single view // to bring the land into
the eyes view. This concept of landscape pertains to a logic
of conquest, in which the gaze not only defines the land, but
in addition comprehends it, from within its own enclosed
boundaries. It is not a gaze that opens and accepts what has
* When I asked Heriberto about the term todologas in Spanish

inquiring if I was reading the term correctly as the ology of
everything (todo = all or everything), he explained that it is not his
neologism, but rather a word created by a Mexican writer (Vasconcelos)
that means study of All/Everything. In Spanish, incidentally, todlogo
(everything-ologist) is used ironically to describe someone who has ideas
or opinions about everything. (Trans. note)
157 Postcript to Proprioception & Logography, in Collected Prose, p. 185.

opened, but a gaze that encloses and defines. It is the gaze of
a solipsistic hunter, Bishop Berkeley, megalomaniacal ideal-
ism.) In Olson, landscape is box.
William Carlos WilliamsBill, as Olson saysaided
him in getting outside the Poundian ego, though his solu-
tion, Olson says, is (also) a failure. Williams fails because
he opts for the same solution as Joyce. To cause the will
to cohere to settle into place, now not within a brilliant,
erudite, personal egolike Poundsbut rather within
a city. (In The Gate and the Center, Olson addressed
the fact that for the Sumerians, a city was a coherence
which, for the first time since the ice, gave man the chance
to join knowledge to culture, and later he attempted to
utilize the individual as a foundation: energy is larger than
manQuickly, therefore, the EXCEPTIONAL man, the
hero, loses his description as geniushis birth is mere
instrumentation for application to the energy he did not
create*) Olson remained trapped between these two
criteria (individual, city), at times rejecting both entirelyas
in his Mexican letter to Creeleyaccusing them of being
modern methodologies that needed to be replaced by
their post. And it is important not to lose sight of the fact
that the primary reason Olson rejected these methodolo-
gies was his desire to encounter one of his own, distinct
from that of his predecessors, from whom he wished patri-
archally and heroically to distinguish himself, as he hoped to
surpass them. In other instances, however, Olson, who was
probably incapable of locating another, distinct foundation,
appealed to concepts like law or energy, thus finding a
rhetorical strategy in order to justify the use of avatars of the
city (modern) or the individual (energetic) as a basis
for the will to cohere. Olsons work is a pendulum-swing.
Open parenthesis: Olsons idea that Joyce chose the local,
a city, as a central storehouse, was not shared by Pound.
158 * Ibid., pp 170 and 172.

The latter, in his celebrated review of Dubliners, clarified
that Good writing, good presentation can be specifically
local, but it must not depend on locality. Mr Joyce does not
present types but individuals.* Joyce chose not only a city,
as Olson recalled, nor an individual, as Pound recalled and
Olson wished not to recall; rather, in order to locate his total
workDublinhe also chose a day. This temporal facet of
Ulysses is an element the author of Maximus did not want
to recall, perhaps because he did not perceive itOlson is,
to put it one way, chronophobicthough he gave Williams
as much of a thrashing as Joyce, because it seemed to Olson
reactionary to choose a city (in 1951), and particularly in
Williams, of whom he declared: Bill, with all respect, dont
know fr nothing abt what a city is. Williams had a pastoral
idea of the North American cityan idea that was almost
premodern.
Pound, in other words, took recourse in his subjective
authority:
Pounds methodology obliterates chronology. Selected

individuals and events of the Cantos exist simultane-
ously in an eternal presentPounds triumph over time
occurs in Pounds own mindBut the limitation of
Pounds vision is no less real: the actual, the historical,
the geochemical, and the mythological come together in
Pounds mind. In Olsons judgment Pounds ego assumes
too much responsibility; it brings to coherence the ele-
ments of experience Olson wanted to cohere, but it does
so through the vision of one man, a vision that lacks
a firm-enough anchor in the contemporary objective
reality outside of Pounds mindPounds vision is too
much his own; his idiosyncratic interpretations of history
* Dubliners and Mr. James Joyce, in Literary Essays of Ezra Pound, ed. T. S.
Eliot, New Directions, New York, 1954, p. 41.
159 Selected Writings, p. 84.

and socioeconomic problems, for instance, are finally not
shareable.*
Pound was a writer convinced that the individual is the

paideumathe spiritual essence of culture in general,
according to the definition of his beloved Frobenius. For
the organizer of the Cantos Nietzsche would have agreed
with Poundthe individual is the figure who provides
order and all eras and places are subordinate to the editing
of one man, the only determinant. Civilization is indi-
vidual. The truth is the individual, he writes.
Writing to Creeley, Olson said he wanted a civiliza-
tion beyond individual creation, a civilization whose form
might not be the imaginary work of the (aristocratic)
Poundian individual. Olson desired an objective criterion,
a positive criterion. He desired that the principle of union
of things and words in the poem might obey not the
subjective ego, and even less so the order that the choice of
the local might suggestas in Williams Paterson; rather, he
desired that the elements of the poem might be unified by
irrevocable forces and that the reuniting form of the poem
would follow Universal Laws.
Olson failed.
He had come to Mexico precisely with the hope of
encountering such universal laws, inscribed in Mayan
glyphs. Olson came to Mexico seeking the central key to
his work, a key that would provide order to long poems,
beyond ego or city. But Olson was not able to decipher
the metaphysical principles he wanted to uncover in
ancient cultures and the cosmos. After five months on
the Yucatn Peninsula, Olson moved on. His presence
* Robert von Hallberg, Toward a Poetics for the Long Poem: Olsons
Relations to Pound and Williams, in Charles Olson:The Scholars Art, pp.
47-48 and 51.
160 Literary Essays, p. 355.

was required at Black Mountain and he agreed to return.
By the time of his April 14th letter to Creeley, Olson
confessed that it didnt matter much to himhis literal
words: I feel as though Id never care a fuckif he
never again heard anything more about Mayan things.
His said that his thirst for knowledge of these spaces had
receded. Olson returned to the United States on July 5th
on his way to Black Mountain College. There, however,
he claimed to have discovered all the Mayan secrets. He
read to his studentswe know this from his biographer,
Tom Clarkfrom the draft of the essay he had penned
during his Mexican sojourn, Human Universe, which
he sometimes thought should be titled The Laws. The
unforgettable opening of Human Universe is There are
laws, that is to say, the human universe is as discoverable as
that other.*
Olson, having just recently returned from Mexico,
boasted about his triumphs to his unconditional audience
of disciples:
Expounding his antihumanistic corrective code for his

faithful writing-student followers (my tribe), Olson
would now take on not only the textual emphases but
the teaching style of some ancient patriarch, oracular,
dogmatic and utterly committed to the significance
of his messageAs he lectured he produced speedy
notational hieroglyphs graven not on stone but on slate,
a snakelike trail of blue-chalk scribblings that uncoiled
across and beyond a white chalkboardHypochondriac
as always, he permitted no windows to be opened while
he taughtA Moses come back from the Yucatn
The powers Olson claimed to hold were empty. He
* Collected Prose, p. 155.
161 Tom Clark, op. cit, p. 204.

claimed to possess a knowledge that, in reality, he could not
expurgate. Olson could not suckle at the breast of Mayan
stones. Nonetheless, he claimed to have extracted the
deepest knowledge. If Olson came to Mexico it had been
specifically to move beyond Pound. His North American
critics had not paid sufficient attention to this undeniable
fact. The two essays he worked on in the Mexican context,
Human Universe and The Gate and the Center, address
precisely the search for another methodology for uniting
beyond the ego (Pound) or the city (Joyce and Williams).
The proof of Olsons categorical failure is that, despite
his announcementas Moses of Yucatnthat he was
familiar with the Laws of the Human Universe, that he had
surpassed the paradigms of the Ego and the City, Olson
based his principal workand there is practically unani-
mous consensus among critics about which work this is:
The Maximus Poemsaround Maximus, the voice of a sort
of supermanlike Meta-Pound!and around the city of
Gloucesterlike Williams Paterson!
In his master work, Olson followed the path of Pounds
ego and Joyce-W.C.W.s city. In order to create unity, he
chose precisely the two errors he pointed out to Creeley
in his epistle. Olson was the summa of what he himself
considered to be the two greatest wandering souls. Olson
remained within a patriarchal tradition. He crowned it. His
greatest poem is driven by the ego and by the city. Olsons
Mexican journey failed. The stone remained unintelligible.
Olsons Failure, Olsons Sixth Sense
Olson failed in Mexico because he did not have the tools

necessary to understand what he had come to understand.
He failed, simply because he was not sure what it was he
wanted to understand. And when he was closesuspecting
162 that what Mayan culture could offer him was its notion of

time-spacethat is, when he was close to beginning an
exploration around ideas of the kinh and the quincunce, he
did not persevere. He wished to be faithful to his vacilla-
tions. He did not research the meaning of Quetzalcatl. He
imitated Lawrence and improvised. He did not observe the
glyphs. He transcreated Fenollosa. He did not investigate
the kinh. He overstepped Whorf.
What blinded Olson was precisely the will to cohere. Not
to be able to forget. To bring to one culture what origi-
nated in another.
What Olson did not understand is that the space
he believed to be absolute was also directed toward its
dissolution.
What Olson did not understand is that space and time
are two phases of the same disintegration.
And, nonetheless, he and the Maya truly had something
in common: Olson and the Maya were obsessed with
legislation.
Certainly, there was one area where Olson did not err,
some sixth sense which guided him despite his vacillations:
Mesoamerican civilization shared an imperial idea of time.
I define an imperial idea of time as an idea in which time is
considered to be space:
Our recent discoveries suggest that a remarkable

amount of Mesoamerican ideology was incorporated
into the broader aspects of the design of their cities
We have identified an element of Mesoamerican ideol-
ogy that was incorporated in the general designand
in the relationship between their structures. Periods of
time that form part of the calendar, like, for instance,
the solar year, the ritual calendar, and the cycle of Venus
are represented as distances on the land. Measured time
has come to be measured spaceIt will be interesting
to see whether sites such as Tula or Tenayuca reflect
163 simply a direct imitation of Teotihuacn, or whether

they reflect the same principle weve seen in Monte
Albn and Teotihuacn, wherein time is expressed as
space.*
To convert time into space, to imagine the pantopia. I have

wanted to study Olson by way of these pages, because in
Olson the North American empire is hooked to the pre-
Hispanic empire; he is the incidental chain linking various
pantopias. The Maya,
(w)ithout a doubt are the only people in the world who

have deified not just time in general, but also each of the
periods of which time consists. They conceived of time
simultaneously under the rubric of cycles, as a succession
of phases which fit together one within the other, and as
an infinite duration in the past and the future.
The Maya traced a relationship in stone between time and

writing. They were the pueblo who transformed time into a
stone future. Sun, fixity of incandescence.
That is a similarity we ourselves share as well, though
time in our thinking has not become stone only, but also
image, image whichlike openwork stoneunleashes
memory. But unlike the stone of registry, the image, in its
phantom-like persistence convened out of the Negation of
Nothinga hole open to the void, extraction from within
what has been nihilizedin its condition of evanescence
once again topples toward its grave immateriality desiring
forgetfulness.
But the Maya detained this will toward amnesia, which
arrives quickly following the manifestation of the will toward
* Tiempo sagrado, espacio sagrado: Astronoma, calendario y arquitectura en

Monte Albn y Teotihuacn, Damn E. Peller and Marcus Winter, Instituto
Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Mexico City, 2001, pp. 1 and 16.
Jacques Soustelle, Los mayas, Fondo de Cultura Econmica, Mexico City,

164 1996, p. 183.

cohesion. Further, they avoided the total death of a cycle, its
extinction, by linking it with another. Thus they conceived
the immortality of the One.
They initiated the spatialization of time. Time = writing.
A conception that does not only modify what (we) under-
stand as time, but also what we understand as writing.
For the Maya, time was a ray, a petroglyph, a groove in
which the flow of time was connected to another groove
connected to another groove. Time was not just the flow but
also the rivers in which the flow moved upstream. Thus time
is the rain and the channels in this rock.
Theory of the Quincunce
In its primary meaning, the quincunce is the cosmogram

that demonstrates the intersection of the vertical and the
horizontal at one point: the center or heart. Out of this
intersection the four paths of the worldtime-space
emerge. (The central point at which underworlds and
heavens coincide, as we have already seen, is understood as
Quetzalcatl.) The quincunce is a picto-theory of the origin
of reality.
Of the origin of the world.
Of the origin of humanity.
And of the origin of each phenomenon (image or
object).
The Spanish presumed that they were dealing with only
one kind of map. In reality, the quincunce, more than a
cartography of the physical, though its structure served to
provide some order to the use and comprehension of ter-
ritorial space, was not a matter of the bidimensional.* And
* The quincunce is a holographic vision of the plane, the four directions and
the center which is the point of intersection of the vertical axis with
the horizontal plane or TlaltcpacThe multiple divisions that seem to
165 unfold in Mexica sculpture respond to a holographic intuition of the

above all it was especially not a model that referred exclu-
sively to the macro elements of the worldthat is, the form
of the world or the relationship between the underworldly
and the celestial. Rather, the quincunce alludes to general
phenomenology, from the micro to the universal.
The quincunce has to do fundamentally with a model of
explanation for how phenomena bio-psychically germinatefrom
human gestation to the mental processes that make internal
spiritual renewal or intellectual creation possibleand, at
the same time, the quincunce is a metaphorical description
of the process contained within the becoming-of-beings.
The quincunce is a model for how phenomena are
produced. A model that synthesizes the processes by which
reality gestates and appears.
If there is something that should be understood about
time-space from pre-Hispanic models it is that these models
involve allusions to a range of cycles. The quincunceor
kinh, among the Mayaare forms of representation that do
not refer solely to an object but rather to various objects.
The quincunce is a representation depicting what various
cycles have in commonwhether internal, cosmic, animal,
spiritual, astronomical, perceptive, or mood-related.* The
universe, which codifies and decodifies the total image through mutiple
foldings and unfoldings executed through the demolishment of planes
The development of folded and unfolded images according to geometric
codifications implies an integration of time and spaceWhat is most impor-
tant in the formal, synthetic system of Mexica sculpture is the geometric
codification implicit in the folds and unfoldings, because it illuminates
essential laws of universal structuring (italics mine) in Iliana Godoy Patio,
Pensamiento en piedra. Forma y expresin de lo sagrado en la escultura mexica,
Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, Mexico City, 2004, pp. 150-
151 and 153.
* The question of how and why a period of 260 days was chosen for the
divinatory cycle is much contested. Common answers include: (1) that
this cycle was simply created by a permutaton of its subcycles 13 and 20,
both of which are important numbers in Mesoamerican thought; (2) that
the 260-day period is the interval between zenithal transits of the sun
near the latitude 15 North; (3) that a double tzolkin (520 days) equaled
three eclipse half-years; and (4) that 260 days equaled nine lunations, each
166 consisting of slightly less than 29 daysor the same number of months

indigenous language functions in this way all the time
traditionally defined by us as mythic or allegorical, and
perhaps also understood as synesthetic, insofar as it requires
the participation of various senses in order to be understood.
Both the quincunce and the Mayan model of kinhand
other of their linguistic structurestook on the given form
for representing various cycles of the macro and the micro,
the external and the internal, suggesting that every circle is
concentric. Every event is the spiraling conch of every other.
The Mayan conception of time, incidentally, might origi-
nate with the body.*
In the Oxident, the equivalent of the quincunce would
be metaphysics + ontology + physics. Though in comparing
two cultures it is only possible to manufacture monsters or
kitsch in order to understand what Oxidentals might do so
as to execute a representation analogous to that of the quin-
cunce, we might imagine a model of the atom that could
potentially be simultaneously a representation of general
parthenogenesis alongside a world map and diagram of the
psyche.
In other words, the quincunce metaphorically describes
which phases, processes, or laws reality obeys.
It is the link between the external and the internal.
It is the series of patterns or cycles things follow.
a woman is pregnant. J. Eric S. Thompson specifically attacked this last

viewNevertheless, Momostecans as well as Maxeos (the people of
Chichicastenango) explicitly offer the period of human gestation as an
explanation for the 260-day cyclea human model for the divinatory
calendar is quite consistent with the explicit connection, in the larger
divinatory system, between the external cosmos and the internal human
microcosm, in Barbara Tedlock, Time and the Highland Maya, University
of New Mexico Press, Alburqueque, 1982, p. 93.
* This so-called vigesimal system probably originated from the primitive

habit of counting digits on both the hands and feet of the ancient Maya
merchantGiven the astronomical, numerological and biological coinci-
dences, there is the feeling that, regardless of its origins, the number grew
to be significant because the Maya recognized how manifestly it reflected
so many of natures cycles, in Anthony F. Aveni, Skywatchers of Ancient
167 Mexico, University of Texas Press, Austin, 1980, pp. 138 and 151.

The quincunce is mandala, calendar, and cycle of experi-
ence; it is a description of the big bang and a rod scraping at
a stone and causing sparks of fire to fly.
The quincunce is the series of cyclestwenty, according
to these cultureswhich follow one from the other every
instant. The twenty cycles that make the transmutation of
certain forms into others possible, as well as the appearance
of each of them. And it is, at the same time, the description
of the passage through the nine underworlds and the thir-
teen successive heavens.
The quincunce is the method for elevating ourselves
spiritually and the inevitable destiny of beings.
The quincunce demonstrates the unity of space and
time, as the forward movement of the meanings of pre-time
combine with the inherent meanings of pre-space; together,
in their interaction, they construct the phenomenon of the
world and its occurrence-being.
The quincunce is Ometotl.*
Of Nomadic Time
In pre-Hispanic Mexican thought there is a conflict between

fusion and fission. Some tend toward a cosmovision that
defines reality as singly-begotten. Other groups posit the
functioning of various realities, a sort of hurricanic begin-
ning of the world, in which time-space is interwoven,
toward a configuration of realities that are separate from one
another, each obedient to its own regime.
In this cosmovision, the notion of a Unique Reality is
decapitated. And we should not forget that decapitation
is one of the concepts that most frequently recurs within
this ancestral way of thinking, as if to intuit that the thing
* Heriberto explains that Ometotl is a reference to the principle of femi-

nine and masculine that guides all of reality according to ancient Mexica
168 (or Aztec) thought. (Trans. note)

decapitated multiplies its avatars, until they are irreducibly
proffered one to the other, separated in advance.
Even among the Aztecs, despite their imperialist nature,
we can find powerful traces of this pluralist conception:
Mexican cosmological thinking does not radically

distinguish space from time: above all, it refuses to con-
ceive of space as a neutral and homogenous medium,
independent of the development of durationAccording
to this thinking, there is not one space and one time,
but rather time-spaces in which natural phenomena and
human events are embedded, and which are imbued with
the very qualities of each place and each instant. Each
instant-place, complexes of site and occurrence, deter-
mines in an irresistible and foreseeable way everything
that will be encountered there.*
Here space and time are understood not as the site or the
moment when events occur, but rather as the conditions that
give form to events themselves. Thus one region possesses
laws that are distinct from anothers. They are two autono-
mous cosmos. This way of understanding the real originates
in nomadic cultures. Displacement and factionalism provide
these forms of existence with a multidimensional concep-
tion, in which we do not inhabit one world, but rather an
infinity of worlds, each one sovereign unto itself, separate.
This is what I refer to above as hurricanic.
Lets imagine various hurricanes, each determining in
its interior, in its tug, the form in which events will occur
inside it, each distinct, thanks to the intestinal movement
of its force. Each hurricane would have its own world and
despite its apparent accompanied advance, each hurricane
would have its own laws. This tribe of hurricanes is a model
* Jacques Soustelle, El universo de los aztecas, Fondo de Cultura Econmica,

169 Mexico City, 1996, pp. 174-175.

similar to the ideas Mexican nomadic cultures held in rela-
tion to themselves. A tribe was a pack of unique, separate
worlds.
The very goal of these cultures was to avoid falling into
the trap of common sense, the superficial structure of which
proclaimed the illusion of a shared reality, a mutualism,
which in truth was non-existent.
The Huicholesdo not delimit a territory more or

less focused around a stable center, but rather time itself
moves, is dynamic, throughout various wanderings
movement does not take place in space and time, but
rather movement generates spaces and timeSpace
increases and decreases in accordance with the action of
the wanderers.*
Among Mexican cultures, despite their growing sedentarism,

this ancient idea perseveres.
It might be quite useful to break with the linearity of
our preconceptions of the origins of civilization, a linear-
ity which normally announces itself as an overcoming of
nomadism, toward a supposedly superior state, one identified
with civilization. It may very well be that nomadism had
to do with a phase which, in some cases, reappears in order
to counteract civilizing forces and their implicit monotopia
and monochrony. Common sense and Science might direct
us toward the formation of mental symploke, a principle of
unification that extreme nomadic cultures, with their belief
in a radical plurality of realities seek to impede completely.
(Pierre Clastres, for example, alleges that warin tribal
societies like those in the Amazonfunctioned to insure
dispersion, preserve independent law, and avoid annexa-
tion and the formation of a single State. For Clastres, the
* Ingrid Geist, El espacio-tiempo huichol in the magazine Mxico

170 Indgena, Instituto Nacional Indigenista, no. 16-17, 1991, p. 65.

goal of primitive society was to maintain wars that might
prevent the development of a State.) Pluralism was so deeply
ingrained in their structure that the very notion of interior
life was at the very least verticillate, when it wasnt entirely
anti-monistic, as it was among the Rarrumierroneously
called Tarahumaraswho sustained a belief in the existence
of a range of diverse souls in contrast to the interior of the
body.*
Monism arrived with the Empire, just as it arrived, actu-
ally, in Greece, at the hands of Socrates-Plato, preceded by
(pre-Socratic) cosmovisions, according to which the plural
is real. What Plato and Plotinus, Kant and Hegel were in
relation to the Oxident, so, in many senses, were the Aztecs
in relation to our contextand above all, the Maya, with
their unified concept of time-space, which still survives
centuries later. And, nonetheless, some elements of the
nomadic model of time-space cannot be eliminated from
our interpretation of the Maya vision, the most pantopic of
our American civilizations.
It is not possible to think that the ancient Maya had
* The Rarmuris conceive of human beings as composed of a body and

one or more soulsThe body itself is animated by the soul or souls that
live within itEach person possesses different souls distributed through-
out the interior of the body. Each of these enjoys a certain autonomy;
different souls may be in different places at the same time and may expe-
rience different destinies in William L. Merrill, Almas rarmuris, Instituto
Nacional Indigenista, Mexico City, 1992, pp. 138-139.
Horst Matthais research demonstrates that among pre-Socratic thinkers,

there exists a theory of infinite worldsHeraclitus had in mind not
only infinite worlds, successive but also simultaneous o, but further,
that each one of these contained within itself infinite numbers of those
worlds in Herclito el oscuro, Universidad Autnoma de Baja California,
Mexicali, 1997, pp. 135-136.
Time and space form a single structural primordial reality to modern

Chamulas. For them, as for their Ancient Maya forbears, time and space
are a unitary concept whose primary referent is the sun deity, in Gary
H. Gossen, Chamulas in the World of the Sun:Time and Space in a Maya Oral
171 Tradition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1974, p. 30.

only one cyclical vision of time. Time is a category of
social thought, and it seems to me difficult to imagine
that the different strata of which Maya society consisted
in the past should have developed social practices along
the same spatio-temporal guidelinesAll these practices
reflect certain conceptions of time. The fact that the dead
were buried in the interiors of houses or near homes,
their insertion into the space of the living, reinforces
the idea of a time which is cyclical (from generation to
generation), closed (related to a single family), continuous
(uniting the past with the present by way of the home
and a certain sensation of stability), topological (associated
with a fixed place) and long-lasting (obliging all descen-
dents who had reached old age to move elsewhere)
This reevaluation of the concept of time allows us to
divide Maya society into two basic social classes: the class
that controlled the past and were keepers of historical
memory and the class that lacked a particular personal
history. By virtue of the fact that times are organized and
structured collectively, their conceptualization depended
on the social status of those who would provide time
with a particular meaning. Therefore, in Maya society
the concept of a fixed time which occurred naturally did
not exist; time was always an aspect of local culture, and
depending on the context, according to different social
strata, different ideas of time came into play.*
As if what was taking place were to refuse to live according

to one single law, anarchizing itself from any deterministic
symploke, from any attempt to govern according to one
single principle. Among the Maya, this struggle between
different models of time was exalted until it became the dis-
tinctive feature of this pueblo: to think of time infinitely.
* Stanislaw Iwaniszewski, Ideas sobre el tiempo en la sociedad maya, in

the journal Arqueologa mexicana, vol.VIII, no., 47, Mexico City, January-
172 February, 2001, pp. 52-53 and 55.

A Mayan Theory of Time: Kinh Structure
The great men of Athens would not have felt out of

place in a gathering of Maya priests and rulers, but had
the conversation turned on the subject of the philo-
sophical aspects of time, the Atheniansor, for that
matter, representatives of any of the great civilizations of
historywould have been at sea. No other people in his-
tory has taken such an interest in time as the Maya.*
Thompson was not exaggerating. No group dedicated such

effort to the abysmal problem of time as Mayan culture,
inheritor and creator of the highest concepts that have yet
been elaborated regarding time. As Cardoza y Aragn have
said, The Greeks are the Maya of Europe. No civilization
like theirs, including our own, has attempted to dominate
to such an extent the knowledge of what occurs. Many
cultures have imagined the Eternal Return. Only the Maya
dedicated their entire existence to establishing the laws that
determine the day-to-day and instant-to-instant function-
ing of the Eternal Return.
Kinh was the principle of Mayan divinity. Except it
is necessary to remember that in ancient Mexican cultures,
god signified process. All the gods in the pre-Hispanic
pantheon are the unfolding of a single concept. Let us
* J. Eric. S. Thompson, The Rise and Fall of Maya Civilization, University of

Oklahoma Press, Norman, 1973, p. 137.
Jorge Luis Borges, El jardn de los senderos que se bifurcan, in Obras

completas, Emec, Buenos Aires, 1974, p. 479.
Luis Cardoza y Aragn, El Ro. Novelas de Caballera, Fondo de Cultura

Econmica, Mexico City, 1996, p. 203.
The multitude of gods that appear on the calendars seems to be in

reality one single figure that changes according to the time and space
it occupies, just as human creatures change in different phrases of their
lives, in Laurette Sjourn, Cosmogona mesoamericana, Siglo XXI, Mexico
173 City, 2004, p. 154. The gods are the descriptions of each transformation

not forget that in the beginning there was Ometotl. The
dual-lord. His two manifestations are Quetzalcatl and
Tezcatlipoca. Quetzalcatl corresponds to the encounter
of the forces-of-above with the forces-of-below, from the
perspective of ascent. Of how the force-of above goes down
and how the force-of-below goes up. And Tezcatlipoca cor-
responds to descent in general. Tezcatlipoca is the journey to
the underworld.* (Quetzalcatl and Tezcatlipoca are doubles;
they are one and the same.) And when Ometotlthe one
who lives according to his own law, the one who exists for
himself, the one who is all gods simultaneouslymanifests
a friction within the duality of the bright and the dark, like
the rod in friction with the rock, fragmentation is produced.
Fundamental undivided reality (Ometotl) becomes
duality (Quetzalcatl and Tezcatlipoca) and from the
encounter of these opposites-doubles it is not a synthesis
that occurs but rather flaming watertremendous
energetic process. Opposites have collided and from that
collisionnot from their synthesis, but from their living
of the universe and of personality, of the atomic and that which pertains
to earthlings, of the solar and the spiritual. Each god is a concept that
defines a phase of a process. Each god is one stage in the totality of
becoming.
* The journey to the underworld, in pre-Hispanic cultures, is symbolized

through the figure of the dog. Thanks to the fact that the dog descends,
the light appears in the form of a bird. Humans were formed in a cave.
Historically and uterinically. And in order for a subject to become a cre-
ator, that subject must once again enter into their inferno. And must hit
bottom and survive it and be reborn, free of any alien law: family, society,
culture. The subject must be freed from any empire that is not their
own. Of the infernal origin of the light, Artaud writes the fall it must
experience in order to rediscover in solid and opaque form the expression
of light itself (in The Alchemical Theater, in The Theater and its Double,
Grove Press, New York, 1958); unfortunately he himself, having come to
Mexico in search of a medicinal science, had too little patience and too
much arrogance to be able to understand what he intuited so powerfully.
Genetically and biographically, Artaud fit the profile of a shaman. His
unconscious led him to become one. Unfortunately, his flight did not
quite soar into the sky. He did not manage to get away from the under-
174 world. Nonetheless, few Oxidentals have known it better than he did.

crashemerges what we know as reality. The world is the
product of the struggle between two forces. All objects,
phenomena, ideas, sensations, all things, space, and time are
made by the struggle between the two elements that make
up Ometotl.
Kinh. This Mayan concept has been translated as sun,
day, time. The Maya divided the future into growing
cycles. Kines are the days. Uinales are the cycles of twenty
kines. Tunes the cycles composed of 360 kines. A katn, a
cycle composed of twenty tunes (that is, 360 x 20 = 7200
days). And the baktnes, 20 katunes (that is, 360 x 20 x 20 =
144,000 days).
Sun should be understood in its astronomical dimen-
sion and in its symbolic dimension. We, the Oxidentals,
define the symbol as the greatest rupture. A sublime and
rudimentary desire to represent the infinite. In pre-Hispanic
cultures, the symbol was understood as the obvious unity of
the elemental with the secret. Kinh was the sun and it was
the sun and its metaphors.
Sun here means the star that provides the natural force
activating the cycles of life on the planet. Seed of energy.
And it is the case that the sun is the seed of fire of which we
are the fruit. And when death comes we will be seeds of sun.
And Sun also means apparition or actualization. The
latterprobablyis the most relevant (conceptual) transla-
tion of kinh. What the Maya wanted to say with the term
kinh was how the real is actualized.
Kinh means cycle. And the series of cycles that make
up what is to come. Each cycle was a deity.
The time of the Maya was astronomicwe should not
forget that they were the greatest astronomers of antiquity
and it was a psychological-spiritual time. Here knowledge is
allegorical.
What has stood out about kinh is its chronological ele-
ment. But I think its spiritual and physical element is more
175 relevant. Kinh refers to the route of transformation of the

soul, to its journey through underworlds and heavens.
(That which deep psychology studies.) And it refers to the
structure of energy-matter. (The very same thing physics
deciphers, in our time.)
Kinh is the symbol of the interrelation of time-space. It
is the proprioceptive movement that founds and forges space
and time. (We should not forget that time is an attribute of
kinh, but so is consciousness, and space, and matter.)
Kinh is the description of how the appearance of events
functions. (For that reason, the system of kinh may be
used as a method of divination.) This esoteric knowledge
described the astronomical influences-reasons explaining
how phenomenafrom climactic to intimateoccur and
which causes originated in the microworldthe state of
internal composition of matter and energy: which rela-
tionships existed between what is/occurs and the Totality,
the micro Totality and the macro Totality, the (undivided)
Totality.
Kinh is the phenomenology of the cycles the world ful-
fills at each instant so as to manifest itself as world.
Kinh is composed of periods. As far as we know, the
minimal unity of these periods are the kines. There are
twenty of these. (Graphically, each is represented by a glyph.)
Each earthly day does not only contain the influence of a
god. Each day is a god, as we have said. Each day fulfills, in
and of itself, a process of (trans)formation. Thus, the Maya
developed an almanac by which to know which force might
be favorable or unfavorable each day.
However, and we should not forget this, it was not
only the influence of the corresponding kinh that each
day suffered-enjoyed, but also the influence of the uinal
(month), tun (year), katn and baktn to which it
pertained, as well as to other cycles measured by the Maya
(the vague year with 365 days or the periods of Venus, for
176

example). The wise dedicated themselves to recognizing
and measuring the factorsthe kinesthesia of the kinh, to
so speakthat determined events.*
Long story recounting the calculation of a wait. Each
time the melodramas were greater. It is death that awaits
me. It is the renaissance or return. It is the light flowing out
of a crab. It is the burning water it generates. I am the seed
of another life. The knowledge of pre-Hispanic cultures
from Rramuri rites to the Popol Vuhhas to do with how
the earthly animal rises through thought and language to
become a solar being. Each pre-Hispanic culture is a differ-
ent methodology to achieve this trans-formation.
Kinh is a metamorphosis and development of the quin-
cunce. It is its unfolding.
If the quincunce is the general model of the worldthe
base-cyclethe system of kinh is how that cycle transmi-
grates within itself.
Time, Memory, and Empire
In their belief that the same recurring forces acted through

all our days and through all the cosmic ages, the Maya had
set off on a hunt for Laws. It is theyand not the Greeks
* as the ruler of each katn wielded the same influences each time
a katn returned, history was expected to repeat itself in cycles of 260
years. Accordingly, if the priest looked up what had occurred at previous
appearances of a given katn, he had a picture of what would happen
when that katn returned. Details would vary, but in broad outline
events would follow the established pattern, Thompson, op. cit., p. 141.
One part of the kinh system might be based on minute records that had
been developed by other generations of priests. The occurrences and
tendencies of each day might have been incorporated into that priests
systems by memory: thus forming a mix of science based in observation
of society and nature, and a corpus of theories, speculations, intuitions
and predictions yet to be verified. The Maya were obsessed with resolving
all the circuitous traces of the future. This is clear, though it destabilizes
many Oxidental understandings, that Maya astronomy could only have
been developed after many centuries spent gathering observations and
177 mathematics.

who are our closest forerunners. It was the Maya who were
the first truly to observe the Empire.
The structure of time, for them, was poetically repre-
sented as sacred porters who carried a load through the
future-to-come.* The load was carried on the back and sus-
tained by a harness across the forehead.
This image cannot be incidental. For them, the back
signified the past. The harness across the forehead signified
that we carry the weight of the past forward, through our
minds. The Maya, then, were a civilization, like ours, based in
memory.
A civilization of predestination and of archive.
The nomadic shamans became scientist-priests. Men of
the archive. The Maya sought to control everything. Above
all, the passage of time. Even the palpitation of the blood was
under inquiry in their intimate laws, perhaps because the
blessed tragedy of existence was considered by them to be
a heaven of hard stone, a land that with each step revealed
itself to be a cloud vanishing. The Maya lived in a ferocious
and beautiful world in which each law was an angel that
helped achieve an understanding of the calculations of cold
death, the brilliance of the burning sun; to know why it is
we die, to understand the form of time was the greatest con-
* As the unity of time was conceived as a load that needed to be trans-

ported for a certain distance along the path, durations could be easily
expressed in terms of distanceCertainly the notion of the passing off of
the baton among porters of time is the spatial equivalent of the temporal
notion of a period of timeNot all porters of time were relieved of their
load in all the resting places along the path to eternity, since the duration
of a temporal period could be expressed in terms of a certain correspond-
ing distance; the actual distance traversed by the path along which each
porter of time must transport their load, depending on the length of the
period they carried on their back. Given that the day is of a shorter dura-
tion than the year, the number carrying the period of a day (kin) received
relief daily, while the porter of a year (porter of the period known as
tun) must wait for 365 days to pass before giving over their load, in El
hombre, la carga y el camino: antiguos conceptos mayas sobre tiempo y
espacio, y el sistema zinacanteco de cargos, in Los zinacantecos. Un pueblo
tzotzil de los Altos de Chiapas, Evon Z.Vogt (ed.), Instituto Nacional
178 Indigenista, Mexico City, 1992, pp. 356-357.

solation, the broadest of good fortunes. At each steparid
mortality, forest of anguishthe Maya thinker sought that
music of the mind that is called response, twin knowledge of
oppression, because to postulate the existence of a cosmos
ruled by mutually concentric rings, by gears, is a response
that is as lovely as it is terrible.
The laws imposed by each kinh were preserved. (During
the course of a uinal, for examples, successive kinhs con-
tinued to amass, aggregating their effects on the future.) In
the Maya universe, humans could only accumulate more
legislation.
Among the Maya, the wise sought knowledge of the
rules that patterned the kaleidoscopic face. They were not
willing to allow that chance might exist in any world. As
soon as even the suspicion of accident was glimpsed, they
sought out a new norm. Every labyrinth might be redoubled
by them, until it was returned to its form of a perfect celes-
tial box, perfectly encapsulating understanding. The Maya
people who plunged their eyes in the firmament did not
seek to disappear without first having deciphered the laws
that ruled over their own disappearance.
Time is not a linear flow, but rather a linked set of
wheels. A circle of circles.
That was their response. A moon, which even in its
waning, forms a ring with all other moons.
As if the clouds might be subtle stones that have no other
purpose than to split off like other stones forming clouds.
Every circle is a law. People, in this cosmos, are subject
to a multiple order, a series of lawsdifferent calendars-
of-legislationwhich co-determine their existence, with
cumulative effects. (Hegel never even dreamt of this multi-
phenomenology! No European, ever, had devised such a web,
an atrocity only possible among a people feverishly delirious
from mathematics made of jaguar jade or the Xibalba of each
instant.) The Maya, then, constructed a co-controlled system
179 of time-space which in reality is a new path in relation to the

teachings of cultures that conceived of time-space as an
autonomous region-period, as its own world.
A rough and winding authoritarian path, in the Maya-
universe, the subject comes to be a part, and is no longer a
Totality in itself. Like a bewildered Pascal, the Maya per-
formed a kind of philosophical sorcery in order to become
a bone in a stellar skeleton, in which they were only dust,
in the end, a brief intense flash. It was the job of this part
to decipher the Laws that ruled over them. This was their
maximum wisdom. Splendid brightness for barely one
omnivorous second. Multifarious, both the Maya and the
Aztecs allow us to perceive a growing authoritarianism, a
path quite distinct from other indigenous teachings, where
the central teaching was to convert the individual into
their own creator. That was therefore the essence of these
thinkers: to poetically assert that the essence of beings
can only be fulfilled when an exchange is possible thanks
to our dark creative nucleus, our periodic neolight. This
message can undoubtedly be heard in Mayan thought and
at the same time seems diminished by their conception of
time-space as the summa of interminable laws, like a spider
web of constraints that time-space retains for its own func-
tions, a cord to lash down all your questions.
Kinh is a system of infinite laws. Its government is
never-ending.
Might it not be, perhaps, desirable to free ourselves
from all these laws? To transcend them. All laws are yokes.
All determinations are vassalage, slavery. Mexican pre-
Hispanic thoughtlike Greek thought, Hindu thought,
Chinese thoughtpossesses a splendid unity. And Mexican
pre-Hispanic thoughtlike Greek thought, Hindu
thought, Chinese thoughtentails different positions,
some of which are in conflict. Certainly Maya thought is a
modificationinnovation or decadence, however we want
to see itof other currents and indigenous theses about
180 existence.

After all, the concept-of-concepts symbolized by the
plumed-serpent had already existed from the time of the
Olmecs and even, it seems, before then. The Maya were the
very last, and waged revolt with every number, so as not to
be a vacillating corpse or shipwrecked destiny. They made
a proud attempt. Their mathematics were powerful, a war
against erosion.
But even within this belated pre-Hispanic thought there
exist signs that the goal of the most nocturnal of wisdoms
was to liberate ourselves from all laws, to become autotelic.
Upon executing the full journey through the four internal
regions of the quincuncewhich has to do with a repre-
sentation, above all, of the psychethe individual becomes
lord-of-themself, obeying no law other than their own.
The quincunce, then, is the arena in which one wisdom
battles another. The wisdom that seeks to liberate itself
from any previously-determined law and the wisdom that
desires to eternally etch its stone dogmas.
What we call our contradictions is the chaotic clamor of
all the vast number of our ancestors. A demonic conjunc-
tion, without a doubt, immemorial impossibility and
useless truth.
If we analyze the concept of Ometotl/Tloque
Nahuaque outside the monotheism which can easily
imprison it if we are not careful, it is obvious that it does
not have to do with the attribute of a single god, but
rather with the culmination of a process accessible to any
individual. The process does not refer to the origin of the
cosmosalluding to a supposed One God Creatorbut
rather to the process of the origin of the Sovereign Being.
This visiontypical, for instance, of the thinker
Netzahualcyotlmight signify that, unlike those who
followed the model of one reality dominated by distinct
gods/laws, in reality, all those gods/laws were the
manifestation of a single being. This single being, in every
181 case, bears relation to the singular individual, that individual

who, in and of themself, contains everything within themself
already.*
Each individual might be Tloque Nahuaque. The figure
of this absolute, autonomous god was the metaphor
around the goal of illumination and obscurization. To
become the figure governing over yourself, a self-sustaining
being, outside any other law, outside any alien law, seemed to
be the greatest goal. I am Ometotl.
Which would contrast with the system of kinh, within
which people are structured by a legion of infinite laws.
These two tendencies might be reconciled, of course, but I
think that were we to do so, we would adulterate the rich-
ness of Mexican philosophical thought. The Maya altered
and recodified the philosophy of other indigenous cultures.
Their objective: to conceive of a reality made up of inescap-
able laws.
The Maya revoked the liberty of each time-space, sub-
jecting each of these to a General Law, a Plural General Law.
The very principle of the complex system of kinh is
based in the desire for different models of time, different
temporal-spatialities represented in different calendars to
* Clavijero, for his part, when he addressed in his Historia the idea the
ancient Mexicans had around the supreme being, translated Tloque
Nahuaque as he who contains everything within him. And Garibay, in
turn, putting Nhuatl thought in terms closer to our own frame of mind,
translated: he who is joined with all, and with whom all is joined
the attributespecifically was attributed to Ometotl In his Historia
Eclesistica Indiana, Mendietaafter making reference to the meaning
of Ipalnemohuani, wote: And they also called him Moyucoyatzin ayac
oquiyocux, ayac oquipic, which means that no one created him or formed
him, but rather he alone through his authority and his will did it all
With the goal of better understanding the brief Nhuatl text preserved by
Mendieta, we will offer here a new translation of the passage, as exact as
possible: Mo-yocuya-tzin is a word composed of the verb we already know,
yucuya (or yocoya: to invent, to forge through thought); and the reflexive
prefix mo- (one, to oneself). Joining these elements together, we find that
the word moyocoya-tzin means Lord who thinks or invents himself
This is the supreme climax of Nhuatl philosophical thought, in Len
Portilla, La filosofa nhuatl. Estudiada en sus fuentes, Universidad Nacional
182 Autnoma de Mxico, Mexico City, 1983, pp. 166-167 and 169-171.

be made to agreein a sort of post-established harmonyin
order to subordinate them to a great totalizing project. It
would not be impossible for the Maya to have inherited
from their own history and that of other pueblosdifferent
models of time and then to convert those into the pieces
of a larger universal clock. To locate in a single regime
what had before remained separate, because it may very
well be that time-space is separate from time-space, given
that it is not one thing, but rather infinitely another. The
Maya, however, sought to establish a single governing force
over all times. Kinh would be the system which would
simultaneously allow the clear signs of a range of models
of timeautonomous timesto be seen as well as the
clear sign of their hegemonic systemization, their imperial
attempt at one center.
The Maya linked together distinct nomadic times. What
this civilization did was to interweave within a system what
other culturesprincipally nomadic culturesconceived
as a series of autonomous circles: different space-times that
were separate from one another. If space-time is a world
apart from all others within the nomadic model of time,
the Mayaupon deciding to become a systematic society, a
civilizationthat is, a civilization of co-controltransformed
multiple nomadic autonomous space-times into a chain of
connected times.
For some cultures, space-time was plural. Each space-
time was its own world, with its own laws. What the Maya
did was to put all of those models of time, so to speak,
within a single system, making them consecutive and simul-
taneously cyclical. The play made by the Maya was both
brilliant and horrific.
The foundation of an empire is precisely this transforma-
tion of autonomous times into times hooked together. To
turn nomads into systemized porters, working alongside
other porters.
183 The future for them was a variation of the preterite. The

influx of baktnes, katunes, tunes, uinales, and kines repeated
all the cycles of cycles. All occurrences were echoes.
The Maya preserved the migratory structure of time and
cloistered it within a living-mechanism that provided sup-
port for their calculations.
The Maya established a General Law, a sequence of
United Times. They were the first truly to conceive, sci-
entifically, a universal totalitarian image. And it is the case
that the Maya, too, experienced their respective Oxident:
their sun had corroded and they plunged once again into a
profoundly deep night. Kinh is the proof, simultaneously, of
their zenith and of their west.
The Maya were the first cybermnemics.*
* English Word List: denial / she / shit / Good American / skipper / wasteland
/ swap-meeting place / slap-happy / tiddley-winks / happy-hybrid / surfer /
marine / crazy, stupido / fish / crazy-stupid / one-night-stand / the American /
fast food / classics / fifties / New Eternity / already too late / snapshots / How
to make it all cohere. How to build a co-here where everything existing is united.
co-here / co-where / post (as a prefix) / will to cohere
184

III.
Neomemory
Modernity-Post
Cybermnemics
We are the last first people.
Charles Olson, Call Me Ishmael
186

Apocalypse Now (Redux)
The American dream is the dream of a new memory.

From its poets to its industry of spectacle, from Whitman,
Pound, and Olson to the Hollywood blockbusters both pre
and post-9/11, at the center of the USAmerican imaginary
is the dream of creating an artificial memory.
The idea of a general rewriting of the archives inhabits
all of our civilizations. Theory, above all, beginning with the
Hegelian concept of History, has been a theory of rewrit-
ing, that is, of interpolation, via concepts such as bricollage
(Lvi-Strauss), deconstruction (Derrida), palimpsest
(Gennette), or heteroglossia and carnivalization
(Bhaktin). Structuralism (from Saussure to Barthes) thought
of society and language as a grand recombinatory system
of languages, an ars combinatoria of arbitrary signs and refor-
mulations of collective memory. From the thesis of Propp
that Russian folk tales reorder a series of finite functions,
a play of involuntary memory, a folkloric cryptomnesia,
to the intertextuality of Kristeva, Oxidental theory has
interpreted reality via montage, in other words, paratactic
reordering, an anagram of Mnemosyne.
If the theorists mentioned above defined language and
187 society as being composed of machines of montage, post-struc-
Neomemory | Modernity-Post | Cybermnemics

turalism (from Foucault to Deleuze) imagined language and
culture as a more promiscuous combination of fragments.
Both tendencies in the Oxident reimagined the texture as a
collection of pieces. Modern theory and, above all, that of
the twentieth century, is a vision-ary theory which starts
from the central fantasy that culture is a vast memory that
functions via its rewriting of itself, its freak, its redo, its cut.
Nevertheless, more than in cultural theory, it has been in
cinema where this Oxidental fantasy has crystallized in its
most splendid form. From collage and montage to the cut
up and the schizo, the logics of organization in our era are
deliriums of an apocryphal memory, made of snippets.
This hybrid memory is visible in the poetics of Olson
and Pound, but it is in film where it is most clearly seen.
Take for instance, Total Recall (1990) which is adapted from
a short story by Philip K. Dick, We Can Remember It for
You Wholesale (1966), and stars Arnold Schwarzenegger,
who in 2003 would become governor of California as a
result of a recall. In Total Recall, Quaid, a simple employee of
a construction firm or a guy-next-door for the 21st century,
contracts the Rekall Company to have false memories (an
extra-factual memory Dick would say) implanted of a
vacation on Mars in order to save some money. However,
the service fails (or doesnt) and Quaid finds himself
amongst mutant Martians governed by a dictatorial system.
On Mars (or, better yet, Maybe Mars), Quaid recuperates
the memory of his past life as Hauser, the head of security
on the Martian planet. He remembers the existence of an
ancient technology that can free oxygen into the Martian
atmosphere and as a result liberate the mutants from
colonial rule. Total Recall would be not only the implanta-
tion of a series of images of techno-memory in the actual
U.S. population, but also a premonition of the confusions
between reality and fantasy that occurred during the wars
of Bush 1, Iraq 1, 9/11, Bush 2, and Iraq 2. At one and same
188

time, Quaid is Al-Qaida and Homeland Security.*
Vanilla Sky (2001) is a quick remake and takeover of
the Spanish film Abre los ojos (Open Your Eyes, 1997) and
an unacknowledged pastiche of Philip K. Dick, wherein
Penelope Cruz remakesin the remakeher original role.
It is the story of million-dollar Casanova and plastic-playboy
David Aames (Tom Cruise) inability to distinguish between
memo-reality and techno-fantasy. Cruises character is a
Jekyll and Hyde, who after an accident disfigures his clean-cut
face and damages his memory, confuses the (exotic) Sofia,
his Spanish lover, and the you-wish-girl-next-door Julie, his
New York girlfriend. However, these experiences are really
just a product of a lucid dream provided by the com-
pany Life Extension, a cryogenics company specializing in
entertainment-existence.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) is, once again,
a film inspired by a Philip K. Dick short story, this time in
an emphatically romantic remaking. Joel (Jim Carrey) and
Clementine (Kate Winslet) meet but dont realize this is not
the first time, as they previously dated and decided to erase
that unpleasant memory. In this narrative, the company that
intervenes into peoples memories is known as Lacuna Inc.
Clementine contacts them first, and then Joel, destroyed
by her decision, visits them as well. During the procedure,
however, Joel tries to preserve at least one memory of
Clementine. In this film, the idea of editing memory via a
targeted removal of certain experiences is given a melancholy
cast not seen in prior memory films. (It was, in fact, Dick
himself who criticized science fiction for not knowing how
to deal with romance). This same year, 2004, saw the release
of The Final Cut, where Robin Williams (Alan) is a cutter
(or sin eater) whose job is to edit the video recorded on
Zoe chips installed in people at birth. After dying, cut-
* If the intention of Philip K. Dick was to construct critical dystopias of

American societyor, as he called them, simulacraHollywood makes
189 Dicks fantasies fashionable and desirable for mainstream America.

ters such as Alan edit the images (footage) from a persons
life creating a rememory to be shown during their funeral.
Inspired by Total Recall and Baudrillards theory of the
simulacrum, there are other classic Hollywood films that
deal with the installation of a virtual reality linked to a
clean-up of memory, such as The Matrix (1999), The Matrix
Reloaded (2003), and The Matrix Revolutions (2003). Before
this series, there was The Truman Show (1998), which
was, once again, inspired by Philip K. Dick, this time his
novel Time Out of Joint (1959). In The Truman Show, Jim
Carey plays the character Truman, who has been part of a
television show for his entire life, but without knowing it.
Truman, however, retains the memory of his first love from
adolescence and cuts out parts of pictures from magazines
and joins them together, so that, thanks to collage, he keeps
alive his memory of this particular girl.
Hollywood has also produced a series of films concern-
ing future memory, starring precogs, such as in the Dickian
Minority Report (2002), in which a group of mutants have
memories of the future that enable them to foresee
crimes. Of course, this type of film forms a part of a larger
cinematic tradition that utilizes elements of memory edits,
replacement, or slips, such as Blade Runner (1982),* the
science fiction comedy Men in Black (1995), with Tommy
Lee Jones and Will Smith, and the unforgettable Memento
(2000). In Memento, Leonard (Guy Pearce) loses his memory
(repeatedly) as a result of a blow he received from the man
who raped and killed his wife, the man whom Leonard is
now attempting to find. Leonards only way of remembering
* Blade Runner was, of course, inspired by the Dick novel Do Androids Dream
of Electric Sheep? (1968). The phrase blade runner is part of the title of a
script written by William Burroughs (Bladerunner, A Movie, 1979) based in
the novella The Bladerunner (1974) by Alan E. Nourse. The works of both
Nourse and Burroughs have little to do with those of Dick and the film
by Ridley Scott. However, the history of the title and authors illustrate
perfectly the essence of the relation between the cut up, cut-and-paste, take-
190 over, mix-up, mismatch, and the replacement of identity. (Trans. note)

things is to write notes to himself, to take Polaroids, and to
tattoo himself.
In Paycheck (2003), John (Ben Alleck), a reverse engi-
neer, has his memory erased after having worked for three
years in a secret project for the Allcom company. The films
title is taken from the check worth 92 million dollars that
John decides to exchange for an envelop filled with a set of
disparate objects (car keys, cigarettes, a stamp, etc.), which he
feels could be the key to remembering his lost life. (Parataxis
can be life-saving) In the same year, 2003, The I Inside
appeared, another film where the central character awakens
in a hospital bed with no notion of what has happened in
the preceding two years (a figure which could easily be
extended to almost any USAmerican citizen).
In The Butterfly Effect (2004), Evan (Ashton Kutcher)
suffers black outs when confronted with stressful situations, as
did Mike (River Phoenix) in My Own Private Idaho (1991),
which was made, as director Gus Van Sant has stated, with
the method of the cut up in mind. In The Butterfly Effect
however, Evan reads his diaries from adolescence and then
travels back into the past to redo parts of it, a situation
which had already been given a filmic treatment in the
pop classic Back to the Future (1985), with Michael J. Fox,
and again in The Net (1995). In the latter, Sandra Bullock
(Angela) lives her life over the internet, isolated in her house
and depressed, in part, because her mother is suffering from
Alzheimers. Her identity is then stolen (deleted as the movie
poster says). When her information is eliminated from every
official database, from the banks to the DMV, her existence,
for all intents and purposes, loses its reality and she is then
replaced by another woman, a fake Angela. The number of
Hollywood and non-Hollywood films that deal with the
thematics of rememory is so great that it sometimes seems
that USAmerican cinema consists, first and foremost, in for-
getting that the last premier is identical to the film that will
191 be the next box office hit. This obsession derives from the

fact that U.S. hegemonichegemnemicculture is sustained
by apocryphal memories.
In David Lynchs Lost Highway (1997, co-written with
Barry Gifford), one of the central characters, Fred, discovers
someone has entered his home during the night and video-
taped he and his wife sleeping. In a subsequent interrogation
by the police, Fred states: Id like to remember things my
own way. What do you mean by that? replies the annoyed
detective. Fred: How I remember them, not necessar-
ily how they happened.* Fred doesnt remember having
killed his wife. Lost Highway is the lost highway of personal
information.
Cinema is training for war. What institution of
USAmerican culture is not a preparation for war? From
videogames to the family, in the United States everything
is a preparation for war. Technologies train us for other
technologies in the making, exercises for passing between
one reality and another, to cross, remain, and survive in the
interzone or interface. This zone is what, above all, from
the 1950s onward, is known as the Twilight Zone, the
neo-uncanny, which is also connected to the USAmerican
mass aesthetic and to categories such as pop, haunted, awesome,
creepy, cool, vintage, fake, wacko, cute, nicecategories which
all have to do with a pathetics of memory, an aesthetics of
aversion and the look, religions of rememory.
With the advent of late twentieth century memory
manipulation technologies, from the Internet to genetic
* Lost Highway. Dir. David Lynch. Perf. Bill Pullman, Patricia Arquette,
Balthazar Getty. 1997. DVD. October Films, 1997.
Heribertos original reads, todas ellas vinculados a una pattica de los

recuerdos, estticas de la aversin y el look, religiones de la rememoria.
I queried him about una pattica, which exists in most dictionaries as
an adjective (pathetic in English) but not as a noun. Heriberto responded:
Pattica refers to a discipline/science of pathos (passions/emotions)
and in general reactions; like saying ethics, in this case pathetics (?). We
went with patheticsa term that hopefully will soon have wide circula-
192 tion. (Trans. note)

engineering, and at the height of the mass media, a set of
desires and fears, both sides of the same counterfeit coin,*
have appeared concerning the recreation of memory. It was
cinema, above all before and after 9/11, that intensified, cata-
lyzed the sensation that, in any moment, memory could be
reordered. (The Replay of the Two Towers collapsing is the
Only Thing You Can Be Sure Of. This TV-Dj-Vu should
stick in your mind as a signal that everything happening
before and after can be ultimately changed thanks to rewind
and fast-forward control remote technologies). This ten-
dency, however, did not begin in fin-de-sicle USAmerican
cinema. The beginning was Casablanca (1942), a sort of
ground zero of mnemic cinema.
A couple, Ilsa and Laslzo, who are being pursued by
Nazis, arrive at a bar where they hope to secure visas that
will permit them to leave Casablanca for Lisbon (from
whence theyll make for the United States, to freedom).
Isla, played by Ingrid Bergman, is surprised to see there,
in the bar, Rick, played by Humphrey Bogart, an old love,
her ex-Parisian flame. It is clear that the memory of their
relationship is alive in both of them. Rick helps with secur-
ing the visas, even though he and Ilsa have agreed to get
back together and Lazlo senses that something has occurred
between them. In the films celebrated ending, one of most
persistent mnemes (units of memory) in USAmerican
hegemnemic culture, Rick tells Ilsa to flee to Lisbon in the
plane, alleging that the cause is more important than his
romantic life. In order to repair the situation between Ilsa
and her husband, Rick invents a story that, in reality, Isla
pretended to like him to get their documents and, in the
end, what Lazlo had perceived as signs of Islas passion for
Rick, were, in truth, signs of her love for Lazlo. Lazlo
appears convinced by this manipulation of facts and circum-
stances which Rick unfolds for him. This is the classic scene
193 * History happens twice. The Second Coming of Baudelaire is Vaudeville.

in USAmerican cinema, practically the first, of the remake
of memory. A remake of the preeminence of war over
love. Of a memory fix over reality.
Between Casablanca and Desert Storm II there is a per-
fect logical continuity of the coverage of war. Hollywood is
an experiment in the most daring reorganization of memory
since Hegel.
Casablanca was, above all, a war film. Not only did its
release coincide with the Allied landing in North Africa, but
it also provided an education as to the national essences
of French, German, Italian, and USAmericans, a sentimental
education for war. Hollywood is nothing more than post-Nazi
propaganda.
Bogart embodies the United States, a combination of
cynicism and heroism, including Ricks final homoerotic
line delivered from the embrace of a corrupt cop, after
having renounced love for war: Louis, I think that this is
the beginning of a beautiful friendship.* This line foreshad-
ows the beautiful friendship that, beginning in the 1940s,
the United States would have with its role as corrupt world
cop and with its presumptive military accomplices.
The end of Casablanca, of course, has been one of the
most parodied, cited, and remade in the history of the silver
screen. This influence is not without reason. Casablanca is,
* Casablanca. Dir. Michael Curtiz. Perf. Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman,

Claude Rains, and Paul Henreid. Warner Brothers, 1942.
The early films of Woody Allen, for example, depend to a great extent on
an aesthetic of comedic re-memory. In Whats Up,Tiger Lily? (1966), Allen
made a redub in English of a Japanese spy film, while Take the Money and
Run (1969) is a trans-genre mockumentary. In Zelig (1983), Allen revisits
the mockumentary, with Zelig who suffers from a strange disorder in
which being accepted into a social group changes his appearance. In this
film, set in the 1920s and 30s, Allen manipulates the newsreel making
clear that History is what occurs in a memory slip. Sleeper (1973) is a sci-fi
comedy remake of H. G. Wells The Sleeper Awakes that narrates the history
of Miles Monroe (Allen) placed in cryogenic immersion and awoken 200
years later by scientific rebels to join the underground and overthrow the
government. When Miles is captured by government forces, his memory
194 is re-programmed to make him think he is Miss America. Analyzing

fundamentally, a film about how a story can be retold. Film is
re-telling. Cinema is the art that corresponds to an age in
which meta-narrative was substituted for narrative, an age in
which story was exchanged for the play of possible versions.
We can only be cut ups or cutters. HIStory-Telling is finished.
What remains is editing.
Enter the Interzone
Ambiguity of letting go, a guided tour through dtourne-

ment, waltz between detachment and concern, yes and no
of remembrance, culture of delete, wipe out, and erasing, and
likewise of recovery, comback, and memorabilia, the only thing
that maintains the United States united are these (isolated)
states of mind. Becoming? A souvenir. Is there a true void, a
real sunyata, or actual nirvana? No. There is only the Recycle
Bin.
A considerable portion of USAmerican culture emerges
from the fantasy of remaking identity by remaking memory.
From the idea of bad timing to real time, from the hard drive
to re-run, from remake to make-over (and make-up and make-
believe), from brainwash to X-Files, from High School Reunion
to video camera, from the directors cut to pastiche, from
cyborg to remix, from just-in-time inventory to overtime,
from Big Brother state to reality shows, from flashback to
psychoanalysis, from neurolinguistic programming to blogs
and YouTube, from Photoshop to cut-and-paste, from movie-
sequel to credit history, from Basic English to the neo-speak of
Freedom Fries, from search engines to hackers, and from retro
the way in which the manipulation of memory, information banks,

and images intervene in Allens work, from Bananas (1971) to Stardust
Memories (1980) and more recent films like Hollywood Ending (2002),
would require a book in itself. I will limit myself then to just noting here
that the best parodic remake of Casablanca was Woody Allens Play It
Again, Sam (1972) in which a Bogart, visible only to Allen, guides him in
195 repeating the romance that Bogart lived in the original film.

to sci-fi, America is a back and forth A-memory (anti-
memory). Cybernmemics at hand, whatever you wish can
be fixed any time in(side) No-Time. USAmerican society is
obsessed with personalizing, increasing, combining, updating,
reconfiguring, replacing, and reloading remembrance. Stupid
Amnesia.
The contribution of the United States to Oxidental civi-
lization has been to give consistency and representation to
the limbo between the real and the mental, between life and
fantasy, between the Platonic Idea and the material world.
This intermediary zone is an anomalous bridge, a passage to
disparity, a transition or suspicion between the two habitual
worlds of Oxidental dualism, to which is added this zone of
miscommunication, of betraying translation, dysfunctional
border, pathogenic readaptation, dreamland, desert of the
real, waiting room, no place, spooky place, fantasy island, middle
of nowhere, virtual reality, outerspace, or what-the-fuck. The
United States has been the macabre attempt to represent the
third unreal: Paris,Texas!* The United States: Went-Blank-
Land.
Replay? The United States is the project of the construc-
tion of an intermediary space, a buffer-zone, or an event
horizon. The United States consists of the fabrication of
Interzone.
* Paris,Texas (1984) is one of the most interesting films of Wim Wenders

and was written by American playwright Sam Shepard. The film tells
the story of an amnesiac who wanders, without direction, for four years,
mentally lost, until his brother finds him and tries to understand what
happened to his wife (Nastassja Kinski, in the role of a prostitute) and his
son Hunter. Born and raised (trained) in a prophetic culture, I consider
cinema an involuntary premonition or blind prophecy. What Oxidental
cinema fortells is that the United States will suffer a fade into less than noth-
ingness and will experience it as a nation that feels foreign, strange. Due
to its immigrant origins, the United States, via its psychotechnology, will
extend its origin as creepy place to enter into an unknown dimension.
196 Deadbeat No-Town.Where have we gone?

As Time Goes By (Re-Visited)
The United States is a desperate attempt to unite memories

that are found disjointed, in distinct epochs, civilizations, and
minds, lost or geographically dispersed. The United States is
the project of uniting false memories, of forming the United
Memories of America.
Happynessthe search for which determines the
essence of USAmerican lifeis no more than the method
(relatively unconscious) that this culture has invented to
keep at bay (out of perception) anything that could sabotage
the dream of maintaining beautiful memories.
Traumatic archive or tempting foreign cultural heritage,
the Oxident wants to overhaul all memory. It is paradoxical,
nonetheless, that cinema knew that this dream was dystopic,
while poets, up to the present, have believed it to be heroic,
glorious, and experimental.
To write poetry is to make memory, said Heidegger.*
It is not by chance that in this essay on Andenken (literally, to
think of, remembrance or memory), based on a poem of
Holderlin, Heidegger adds a defense of conservative notions
of identity and nation and establishes the poet as legislator, as it
is the poets memory that will be the basis for the law to
come. A memory that Heidegger calls poetic and foun-
dational. A legislative memory, a total law. The memory-law
of Heidegger is an ancestralizing memory, based in the
refantasy of Greek and German motherlands, while the
memory-law that the USAmerican imaginary aspires to is,
before anything else, technological. (The hermeneutic of
Heidegger is based in pseudo-etymological re-memories).
From hermeneutics to hermenautics.
The longing for a new memory is an immigrant dream.
(To immigrate to a country is not so much to immigrate to
* Remembrance, Elucidations of Holderlins Poetry, Humanity Books,

197 Amherst, 2000.

another territory, but to immigrate to another memory.) Is
there a more USAmerican fantasy than that of eliminating
certain memories, erasing pasts, reconstructing an artificial,
free memory? The United States has wanted to forget
Africa and Europe and since the nineteenth century to
forget Asia and Latin America, to forget the place you were
pulled out of and from whence you came. Lethe Light,
the forgetting of USAmerica is not a slow letting-go. It is
the juxtaposition of the junkyard, brusque extirpation, and
reprogramming.
If a nation formed by immigrants, as the United States
is, wants to erect a centripetal control it has to install a
system for constructing common neomemories, a new
collective semiconscious, a cool co-lection, neomommy,
or ideomoral manna. The spectacle industryespecially
cinematook on the responsibility of retelling under this
new common framework the stories of disparate com-
munities in order to generate a shared re:imaginary, which
is reinforced daily by television and whose sensibility is
imparted through the sentimental education of mass music.
(And now trans-excerpted and re-distributed through
e-social networks.) The United States abolishes historical
memory, personal and national, in favor of a spectacle
that is, a system of imagistic relationsor a methodology
(a system of artifices like those practiced by the avant
gardes) in which it is possible to process, eradicate, select,
or re-formulate the mnemetic. Without this manipulation
of memory, the United States could not exist. The States
are in general, mnemetic macrosystems, technologies
of remembrance. The United States did not invent the
manipulation of memory but this culture is its culminating
exacerbation and, at the same time, its clown clone.
The United States, starting now, will be cloned in
every culture. Torquing Olson a bit: We Are The First Last
People.
198

Poetry, Neo-Mneme, and Mnemo-Technics
In this work of the creation of a technology for controlling

memorythis cyber-mnemeticwe find not only mass
culture but alsoas sublime foreshadowingthe main vein
of U.S. poetry and some of its seminal ideas. We cannot
understand ideas such as post-modern without situating
them in this series of illusions of pantopia and the cyber-
mnemetic which began to appear after the Second World
War in the works of authors like William Burroughs and
Philip K. Dick and, in another register, Charles Olson: the
mnemo-technicians of the United States.
In the ideas of Olson we can see the influence of the
work of Ezra Pound. Olson hits upon his idea of the post-
modern during his study of Pounds works, which will be
a fact that he will later try to erase from the memory of
his readers. (Is literature anything more than the intent to
damage remembrance? In the service of the decomposi-
tion of genealogies?) In his Cantos, Pound had extended
Whitman, amplifying his idea of a cosmos of percepts, a col-
lection of images extracted cartographically. However, Pound
wanted to reconstruct not only Americaas did Walt,
Man of the Bookbut also the Oxident and the Orient
(his China, since India, according to Ez didnt merit much
mention) using citations and combinations: collage, bricol-
lage, rewriting. This checkerboard of facts, texts, ideograms,
figures, and eras would give a retrospective unity to the
disparity, brought together by Pounds genius and erudition,
to realize the Song of the Tribe, an archive of aural infor-
mation. From Whitman and Pound, U.S. poetry also formed
part of the project of neomemory. Different from fin-de-sicle
cinema, this neomemory is not nightmarish or dystopian,
rather the neomemory projected by USAmerican poetry is
considered sublime and subversive. The two fields in which
U.S. representation has best thought neomemory have never
199 been linked. Their analogy has not been noted. Hollywood

and USAmerican poetry think the same nightmare.
What Olson dug through other civilizations to find was a
non-Greek logic. In his opinion, language, from the Greeks
forward, wants to pass as the universe. Discourse supplanted
reality which was multifaceted, but conventional gram-
mar inherited from the Greeks ordered the world linearly,
partially. Olson critiqued discourse for editing the world. He
wanted to find a form of representation that did not cut off,
cut deals (or cut down) as much.*
We have lived long in a generalizing time, at least since

450 B.C. And it has had its effects on the best of men,
on the best of things. Logos, or discourse, for example, in
that time, so worked its abstractions into our concept and
use of language that languages other function, speech,
seems so in need of restoration that several of us go back
to hieroglyphs or to ideograms to right the balance. We
stay unaware how the two means of discourse the Greeks
appear to have invented hugely intermit our participation
in our experience, and so prevent discovery.It comes
out a demonstration, a separating out, an act of classifica-
tion, and so, a stoppingit has turned false. We do not
find ways to hew to experience as it isto find ways to
stay in the human universe, and not be led to partition
reality at any point, in any way. For this is just what we do
do
* The original text contains an untranslatable play on words here: l

quiere dar con una forma de representacin que no corte, que no trunque
(o trueque) tanto. Trunque, from truncar, is to cut short, to truncate,
while trueque is barter (or, abstractly, exchange). Weve opted to create
another play on words using corte, from cortar, or cut. Another potential
option was to stay with truncate (trunque) and use something like trade
off for trueque, but trade off, while capturing the economic semantics of
trueque, muddies the waters with respect to Olsons critique of disourse
and thus we decided to translate more for sense than style here. (Trans.
note)
200 Human Universe, in Complete Prose, pp. 155-157.

On this point, Olson turns to the Mayan world for support,
although he only celebrates the ancient Maya, as the present-
day Maya appear to him poor failures of the modern world
(incapable of providing for themselves, so Olson notes, water
in June even though they knew that a drought was coming).*
The principle of cutting histories, of interrupting them,
Olson applies to the Maya (imperceptibly) establishingas
the vast majority of his contemporariesa rupture between
the ancient Maya and those of the present day. This cut then
allows for the creation of an illusionary history of Mayans
separated from our day and age and Mayans of the present
separated from their origins: Mayans separated from Mayans
by a caesura, spatialized Mayans. Olson, then, extends
although he frequently complains about itthe vision of
time as space, typical of the Oxident.
But if Olson critiqued modern language for editing,
what, at the end of the day, he proposes is nothing more
than reediting it. What Olson searches for is another manner
of slicing.
Across his work, Olson developed an idea of time as
recutable space, as film that can be reshaped, as he explained
to Cid Corman, from Lerma, in this letter of June 10:
one quick note: motion is not time. That is, at each of its
extremes, time takes on more the nature of space.You
forget they are one: space-time. And that, depending on
the position and the mass of either, we read them more
one or the other. For example, past time, at its outer lim-
itsor present time, e.g., stretched at night by starsdoes
not, to our sense, move. The extension is so great that,
given the law of our senses, the effect islike a design
instantaneous, and thus, because we take it in at once, is,
staticthough this is a false word, and if I replace it by
plastic, I think you will see more clearly what I intend.
201 * Olson, Selected Writings, p. 57.

For example, circular motion (or cyclical) is plastic, as
against time as a progression.*
In this letter, incidentally, Olson mentions to Corman that

Eberhart writes using clichs, words of other men, his
variety is mere eclecticism and he accuses him of having
no rhythmic perception whatsoever. He has never learned
lesson #1: that he who has rhythm has the universe. It is
paradoxical that Olson accuses Eberhart of robbing words,
especially if we take into account that the idea of having
rhythm is to control the universe is something Olson took
from Novalis. This fact, of course, he does not mention to
Corman. What Olson wants to make clear is that time is
inseparable from space and as a result he turns to the glyphs,
Mayan inscriptions, that according to him should be read
cinemagratophically; the eye has to move narratively in
order to understand them. The glyphs as rocks did not inter-
est him. He was interested in them as images. What Olson
finally proposed, as we have seen, is to read the Mayan glyphs
as one looks at a film.
Olson declared, again and again, that time had been rup-
tured into fragments:
Is time. Is how, its grabbed hold of. Is, so grabbed, how,

it can be pushed, this instance, so hard, it is turned into,
space. Isor so I take itone precise conceit for defin-
ing, what, is usually left as, life, or, whats this all about.
That is: that each of us is, this, operation: break time back,
breaks its back, break through it, make it, do what is also
us, disposition in space
* Letters for Origin, p. 61.
Ibid., p. 61.
202 Charles Olson and Robert Creeley:The Complete Correspondence, vol. 5, p. 65.

We cannot forget that in the same letter to Robert Creeley
(March 9, 1951) Olson defines verse as the sense of
CONJUNCTION & DISPLACEMENT, the sense of, C

& D, D & C, etc
etc. Is verse.
Is quite another thing than time.
Is buildings. Is
des ign.
Is for our trade
THE DISJUNCT, language
in order to occupy space, be object (it being so hugely as
intervals TIME) has to be thrown around, re-assembled,
in order that i speak, the man whose interstices it is the
re-make of
((Is the other side: of Kukulkan
perhaps ?:
VIOLENCE*
Olson praises the DISJUNCT because it is what can re-

ocuppy space, be an object, reassembled. Life, in Olson, is
bionic Life.
The way in which Olson recommends writing (his projec-
tive) was displacing, blasting, undoing, uprooting fragments
from their context (in the case of Maximus, recompiling
histories, facts, names, dates, myths, and reordering them)
making retro-parataxis of what one time, in his vision, had
a consecutive, linear order (Greek). Olson developed a
critique of the concept of linear time combined with an
expansionist necessity of converting time into cartography.
Mapping. According to Olson, parataxis reestablished a
Natural Order that Cultural Order (Greek) had hidden.
* Ibid., p. 66.
Homer is innocent of any concept of time, and chronos, in the idioms in

203 which he does use it, covers periods of waiting or delay or doing noth-

Olson wanted to convert time into a map of memo-
ries, a space of rearranged remembrances and energetic
refurbished bursts of re-expressed meanderings. Olson,
cartographer of mnemes.
Avatars of Neomemory
The Oxidental concept of linear History is necessarily

linked to the notion of a story that can be recombined,
undone, remastered, fragmented. Modernism and post-
modernism are not opposite nor even successive. They are
complementary. (The Adam and Eve of the concept of
history.) Only for entertainment purposes have we believed
that a so-called post-modern had come afterhistorically
and ideologicallythe modern. They were simultaneous.
(This division, of course, is a product of their own dividing
logic.) They are interleaved, they accompany each other.
Both are Oxidental strategies of spatializing time, of reedit-
ing images or their central narrative threads. Modernism
and postmodernismoutline of a linear master macronar-
rative or reorderning of multiple partsare both alternative
mnenotechnics for fabricating neomemories.
Recycling elements and adding others to historical memory
is how a neomemory is constructed.
But a historical memory is a neomemory that has been
naturalized. History is a hegemonic homogenization of
neomemories. History is formed to create empiresnot
forgetting that empire (from imperium, imperare) relates to
prepare, arrange, and also stop in, against, towards, and is
ing. We require mapping (Review of Eric A. Havelocks Preface to

Plato, in Collected Prose, p. 356). This review is where Olson defends his
idea of parataxis, which he defines as placing acts into a different order,
in the order of their occurrence in nature, instead of by an order of
204 discourse, or grammar.

even linked to paring;* empire means to pause time in a space,
to confine, to give order(s) to it. History creates empires of
divergent neomemories, in order to cancel their diversity
and reweavecensoring and recycling thema centripetal
version, a lineal reedit. Paradoxically, History is a neomem-
ory that has forgotten its status as cultural construction; that
is, History is a dehistoricized neomemory. A neomemory
that is assumed as Absolute. History is no more than a
neomemory that has been successful.
On one hand, the aim of a neomemory is metonymic
replacement. Neomemory is an arithmetic in which parts
are subtracted from historical memorybe it of an individual
or of a culture, those wounded, insignificant, mediocre,
peripheral parts, the etceteras or remainssubtracted
in order to obtain a database of new, purified, sublime
mnenomics.
To this neomemory base are added isolated remem-
brances, extracted from other fragmented memories (or from
their simulacra). Neomemory is apocryphal. The apocryphal
of neomemory is composed of a remix of surviving parts of
the first memory plus parts of foreign memories. The project
of constructing a neomemory, therefore, consists above all in
the replacement of a unitary totality, presumably durational,
for a series of re-related parts. Neomemory is juxtaposed
with a metanarrative or master narrative that gives it order.
Or, in other cases, language games, linguistic microsystems
are used to make possible a Re-CombiNation of old and
new parts. Memories and new pieces are then manipulated
* As we discuss in the translators notes, Heriberto has rewritten parts

of this book as we were translating itin a process of co-translation or
post-translation (translation-post). The original text reads here :no
olvidemos que imperio significa parar en, contra, hacia; detener el tiempo
en un espacio. All the amplifications and additions here are by Heriberto.
We have not noted all the places where this occurs in the text, but we
thought one example would be perhaps interesting for the reader. (Trans.
note)
205 Jungs definition of the unconscious as collective unconscious composed of

into a topographic memory, wherein the neomemory acts as
a theatre of operation or, better still, a film made of cuts of
itself and other films.
Redistribution offictionalunities of memory (the
mnemes), pieces (fantastic) of a becoming cut into bits (by
pseudo-thinking). Our technology foreshadows the machine
that we imagine, a pantopia of neomemory. The pantopic
machine: that which makes possible the infinite selection
of spatial fragments (images) into which time has been
fragmented.
Neomemory, remix or remake, converts time into a func-
tion of space. In neomemory, time is a reinstalled succession,
a pseudo-time, because neomemory is, at the end of the day,
the space of cuts.
Neomemoryin reality, post-memory (here, as it almost
always does, post means pseudo).
Neomemory or Ex-time.
This post-memory requires, in order to be realized, that
everything become one of its images. The central project of
Modernity (and its pseudo-post) consists of this: Everything
made image. The All converted into the means by which
images are related amongst themselves. The form of tran-
scending the project of realizing neomemories is to avoid
the exchange of life for image. If we do not form images
of our lives and our histories, neomemories cannot be
implanted.
History, Memory, and the Now
The problem is not that time has been broken, that time has
ceased to be conceived as linear or narrative. The problem is
that from the beginning of civilization, time was thought of
shared partssubterranean macro-memoryis also an avatar of this form

206 of understanding the real, as a mixed archive. Jung is Ur-Juke Box.

as a thread that united that which from a given starting point
was thought of as a set of fragments.
Once the concept of history as a series of events appears,
the slow emergence of the dream of a neomemory becomes
unavoidable. There is no history that does not mutate into
apocrypha. There is no history that does not mutate into
neomemory. The true problem, then, is the conception of
existence as accumulation, as a successive history. Thinking as
a post-modern and thinking historically are variations of the
same strategy: thinking through accumulation.
To not know how to forget.
Thus, I have said that these are Oxidental poets because
they amass. Their poetics is a capitalist poetics, which hordes,
which monopolizes, which rejoins, which appropriates.
Neomemory = private property. Can poetry be something
other than greed? Nothing more than a compilation of
ruins? A hunt amongst rocks or banks of information? Just
this, the poem, only that: more and more and more.? Or
could it be that the most radical poetry was that whose
signs managed to trap nothing, that did not desire the
permanence of meaning in its material body or syntactic
associations? Images that evaporate all content as soon as
it is sensed? (The musician and poet John Cage liked to
say that there is poetry when we perceive that we possess
nothing).* Or as Machado wrote: Search for the you that /
is never you / and can never be. Under this understanding
of poetry, poetry means detachment. Poetry as neither profit
nor loss. Poetry is not property; poetry is gift.
* Our poetry now / is the / realization / that / we possess / nothing / . /

Anything / therefore / is a delight / (since we / do not / possess it) / and
thus / need not / fear its loss, sings the Julliard Conference of Cage
(included in A Year from Monday, Wesleyan University Press, New England,
1967, p. 106). Cage, of course, hoped that one day the United States
would be no more than just another country in the world, no more, no
less.
Antonio Machado. Poesa y Prosa, ed. by Jos Luis Cano, Bruguera,

207 Barcelona, p. 301.

Nevertheless, all the central concepts of Oxidental
civilization are in ruins. Neomemory is not the putrifica-
tion of memory; rather, memory is the seed of this
subsequent fantasy. Memory is already a concept of accumula-
tion. Memory is already capitalistic; is totalitarian, is control.
Memory is already the invitation to begin cyberneticsas
grammar, body armor, family and State.* Memory and
history have been the germs of these absolutist dystopias,
in which the human, stricken by fearthat is, the desire to
possess everything, and the image of losing iterects in the
fantasy a capacity to (anally?) retain existence. Here we find
the human paranoia that full possession will slip through
our grasp, and to prevent this from happening, we construct
memories (correlated images) that allow us to escape the
present, that permit us to write linear history, to feel secure
in its meaning and direction. The fantasy of memory, the
illusion of history.
Memory was invented because humans were thought to
be constituted by Loss. (The loss of their animality, the loss
of the mother, the loss of their existence.) Because of this
wound we fabricate our memory, which is a compulsion to
avoid the reoccurrence of loss. Memory is fear. Memory is
the evasion of the now. Memory is structure, system, regi-
men. Memory is the master. Memory is inventory. Owner
and master, memory is the very principle of the general
economy of the Oxident. (History is its collective avatar.)
Wisdom implies a detachment towards the illusion of having
memory. Wisdom is not memorization. Wisdom forgets.
Olson was close. But, towards the end of the fight, he got
turned around. He oxidized.
* Body armour (cf. Panzerung in the German or coraza corporal

in Heribertos original) is a term from the work of Wilhelm Reich.
Panzerung, roughly plating (as in platemail armor) or armored as in
panzer division or armored division, is a key term in Reichs turn from
(Freudian) talk therapy to psycho-therapy that involves the body, an early
208 and controversial aspect of his work. (Trans. note)

History as events. That is, social, or national, or cul-
tural, or intellectual. I think its now mostly hogwash.
Morphology has knocked this stuff cockeyed. And except
for Frobeniusor such a clear man as Sauer (whos no
historian except in the initial sense of istorin, to find out
for oneself)I think the best thing is to have yourself
catch it up as you have to, (a) because so few even good
men will bother with it; and (b) the sequence of events
you will want for yourselfjust as you want geography:
the locus is not both place & time (topology).*
In an article ironically entitled GrandPa, Goodbye, Olson

critiqued Pound, alleging that his conversation, as so much
of the Cantos, is recall, stories of Picabia,Yeats (Willie),
Fordie, Frobenius, Hauptmann. I dont think it has been
sufficiently observed, if it has been observed, how much
his work is a structure of mnemonics raised on a reed,
nostalgia. What is curious is that Olson also was a collector.
Not only of bibliographic citations but of conversations and
letters. His work is also collection and nostalgia. It is robbery,
looting: it is the United States.
Olson inhabited a form of indecision and ambivalence. He
did not find a true alternative to the position of fragmented
time (history), because his proposalsmorphology
(of culture), proprioception, projective, archeology of
tomorrowstill retained elements of the Oxidental mecha-
nistic vision, the paradigm of fragmentation. Olson, although
he took steps in this directionplacing in question the
traditional concept of history, challenging its linearityhe did
this in order to take firmer control of events, to aggravate an
imperialist appropriation, the Oxidental madness for seizing
control and manipulating even time itself, the final delirium.
(All of this, of course, disguised as poetry, which has been the
* A Bibliography on America for Ed Dorn, in Collected Prose, p. 308.

209 GrandPa, GoodBye, in Collected Prose, p. 146.

favored disguise of the Oxident.) Each time that civilization
attempts to save itself, it relapses.
Says Olson, raging against photography: That is my own
profound disbelief in PHOTOS. I fucking well abhor same
camera as another machine. Think it reduces, shreds, blunts
RETENTION, by this organism, or anyone, attacks, as does
all recording instruments, MEMORIA. And thus, the usages
AFTER retention. Anyhow, figure, our job (specifically
ours) is to retain & then use WITHOUT artificial means of
reproduction.* Olson critiques the camera for memoristi-
cally taking control of the world in an imperfect form! If the
camera is inferior it is because it impedes retention. If there
is something that Olson cannot be reproached for is it pre-
cisely having invented a new argument against photography,
a sport at which, I believe, he bested Baudelaire, Benjamin,
Bourdieu, and Baudrillard. For Olson, the camera is detest-
able because it is rudimentary memory. According to Olson,
we must increase our cybermnemetic capacity.
The idea that man is modified time deeply permeates
Olsons workas in all of the Oxident. Humans, Olson
held, originally lived 130 years. Or so Bogomolets
researchersseem to prove and taking a leap he asserts,
Time, for example, has been cut down to size. Man
defined as cut time.
Olson oscillated. He spoke of a now. But at the same time
he advocated a refashioning of the parts, that is, he spoke of
fragmentation. Olson recut.
By means of the wisdom of other cultures, Olson and the
Oxident, during late modernity, began to understand other
forms of thinking becoming. But in his hurry to control,
Olsons (too quick) interpretation was idiotic. Olson made
of the now an instrument for arbitrarily reordering events,
undoing history, reconfiguring it, dehistorizing. He could have
* Charles Olson and Robert Creeley:The Complete Correspondence, vol. 5, p. 163.

210 The Resistance, in Collected Prose, p. 174.

transcended history. But he instead reinstalled it. (Recharged).
What has to be battered down, completely, is that this has

anything to do with stage of development. Au contraire.
The capacity for (1) the observation & (2) the invention
has no more to do with brick or no wheels or metal or
stone than you and I are different from, sd peoples: we
are like. Therefore, there is no history. (I still keep going
back to, the notion, this is (we are) merely, the second time
(thats much history as Ill permit in, which aint history
at all: seems so, only, because we have been all dragooned
into a notion that, what came between was, better. Which
is eatable shit, for the likes of those who like, same.*
Olson spoke of a first timethe Sumerians, the Mayain

which true wisdom had been found and he believed that he
belonged to the Second Time. Between this First and Second
Time one could construct a bridge. (This is what Olson
calls History, and condemns.) But according to Olson, in
the between there was no development or progress or
evolution. We have then two times separated by a dead or
mediocre time, an invalid lacunae. As such, Olson made an
amputation of History. (This amputation only was possible,
because the fiction of a total body had been previously
constructed. Amputation, in truth, is one of the possibilities
contemplated by the original set up.)
According to this model there are only two times: non-
Oxidental antiquity and post-modernity. (Modernity, for
Olson, did not count, it was an extra epoch.) Olson postu-
lated the existence of an obstacle-time or between-time that
should be passed over. In accordance with this vision, it was
necessary to extirpate from ourselves this disastrous interval.
What Olson suggests is an anagramatics of History. In his
tripartite History, the intermediate section is trimmed off,
211 * Charles Olson and Robert Creeley:The Complete Correspondence, vol. 5, p. 121.

to form, a box-epoch composed of the parts previously
separated by the interval. It is very significant that Olson
named this moment, as we have noted before, box. Box,
as in mailbox, where letters (poetry) are delivered or not.
As in Melvilles Bartleby, so relevant to Olsons world, this
term appears to suggest that the two epochs of History are
one extensive Dead Letter Office. This epoch appears as a
great mailbox where the letters sent were never received and
where they were warehoused unattended, never arriving at
their destination. Not only were the letters never answered,
they are unopened letters. Letters closed in on themselves.
To characterize an entire era, that of Oxidental civilization,
as a mailbox of dead letters, Olson indicated that this middle
section was an impediment to coming into contact with the
first. History must be shaken up, rearticulated, because of this
interpolation of a false middle, an extra intermediary.*
There is in operation here a replacement of the concept
of History by that of Remake. The idea of a second time or a
return has been accepted as a given by our civilization. The
* In the personal imaginary of Olson, does this image refer to an attempt

to reestablish a link with his mother, the link which his own experience
with personal and cultural patriarchy interrupted? And so what prevented
Olson from integrating this middle was his being cut off from the mother.
(Mother as First Time. Son as Second Time. And between them, an
unnamed and bad time, Father Time, a time one needs to get rid of. But
not only this but other cartographies are present in this complex model of
Time according to Olson.) When I say that Olson considered himself to
be cut off from the mother, I dont mean just his mother, who effectively
he was separated from, but something more profound. And it is also that
his physical mother maintained separated her two parts, as Olson did, via
the thick wall or open interval of patriarchal thought, that separated her
from his body, eroticism, and thought. What Olson was separated from
was himself and in the image of the Oxidental box, he semi-consciously
realized what had been divided was his adhesion to the patriarchal box.
The errors of Olson result from his silly need to remain within a ver-
sion of the Oedipus myth. His errors are due as well to his patrilinear
fantasies. Having dedicated a good part of his life to the Office of Dead
Letters, symbol of a sterile uterus or male vagina, the BOX is not just a
topochronic error (the pre-eminence of space over time) but also the act
of sending those messages toward a reader (the patriarchal) who cannot
receive them. Creating thus a useless correspondence, a long period of
212 letters that can have no answer.

return of the Golden Age, the Renaissance, the Messiah,
or Jesus. This idea of the second coming implies that the
future is a reediting of the past. As a conception of reality,
the Oxident includes in its key ideas the fantasy that the past
will have to become memory, that it will be reinstalled in
the future. The Oxident is transmemory.
For the Oxident, History does not exist. But ReHistory
does exist. A second time or second act that proves that the
first also was a sequel.
The now of Olson, then, is, in truth, an anti-now. It is
replete with collections and archives, with references and
prequels.
Olson confused perceptions with memories. Perception can
only occur in the present. Theoretically, he proposed a writ-
ing of the now (The distinction here is between language
as the act of the instant and language as the act of thought
about the instant.)* But the basis of his writing is informa-
tion, historical archive, that is, memory. This confusion
between perception and memory is what leads Olson to be
a critic of the linear conception of timeas postmodern
vanguardists and thinkers will beand of the Oxident
(basing himself in information accumulated by anthropology
and archeology). However, his rupture with these paradigms
was not sufficiently radical because his conception of space
and time is, at their root, imperialistic and his comprehen-
sion of perception is based in memory. The now that Olson
utilized is paradoxically a retrospective now.
It is a now that is, in reality, yesterday.
Nowness is indivisible. The now does not have parts. It is
a time without chronology. It is a pure total instant, without
partition or leaks. It is the now as thought by Parmenides,
by Taoism, and by some healing arts. Olson and other
Oxidental thinkers considered this now as the basis of a
profound notion of time. But, one way or another, they
213 * Human Universe, in Collected Prose, p. 156.

lost it. This now in the Oxident is confused with a form of
hedonist presentism, of now (in process) turned into the
News of Progress, or the pragmatist already or today.
But the now surpasses these understandings.
The Now is a time that does not separate from itself or
consume its own moments, that does not detach itself and
is self-founding duration. In the now there is not past or
future. There is not loss. But there is neither present, that
is, evanesce or suddenness. The now is eternalization, not
eternity. It is a movement in which speaking of the differ-
ence between flux and fragmentation does not make sense.
The now is a process of development, of appearing and
dissipation. In the now things emerge, following a pattern
and this pattern in itself disappears to give rise to another,
in the continuity of the process. And the process can change
and the now is this constant transformation, this liberty.
The project of finding now was Olsons project, which
is a spiritual project. But this project was mixed with a
profoundly imperialistic paradigm that both conceals and
projects itself through its religious and aesthetic dimensions.
Cinematics of the Projective
Olson has a secret relation with the cinematographic. His

poetry, built on fragmentation and rediting, recalls a line
from Walter Benjamin on cinema (and its difference from
painting) that the vision of the cameraman consists of mul-
tiple fragments which are assembled under a new law.* This
is exactly what Olson does, in splitting time and converting
it into space, into the only existing dimension as he will
argue throughout Call Me Ishmael. (Montage of simultanei-
ties and the spawning of fantastic encounters of the disparate
* The Work of Art in the Age of Mechnical Reproduction, Illuminations,

214 p. 234.

is the logic shared by the avant garde and advertising). This
cinematographic logic is also a logic of war.Virilios an
artificial unity of time by means of a real unity of place*
(concerning the relation between the history of cinema and
the history of war) are perfectly applicable to the method
and ideology of Olson.
A good part of the vocabulary of Olson is military, from
the idea of the poem as a field of action (taken from WCW)
to the very concept of projective verseOlsons most cel-
ebrated creationin which the projective reunites, exactly,
the cinematographic with the bellicose. Projective is as
much an allusion to projection as to projectile, pointing
to the perfect integration of cinematographic vision and
combat in any neo-mnemetic project. Neomemoryvia
either the industry of cinema or utopias, as formulated
in theory or literatureis the necessary emotional and
perceptual reeducation for the citizens of the Oxidental
military-industrial complex.
That consensus indispensable for readiness before the
war-screen.
Olsons ingenuous critics have interpreted the projective
as Olson described it in his canonical 1950 essay as a type of
verse that serves to transfer energy from the poet to the reader,
one based in perception and respiration as units of measure.
Projective because it maintains the reader and the poet in a
rhythm that advances forward, quickly, not like a typewriter
(as Olson liked to believe) but like a tank. In a profound
way, projective signifies the keep it going of a campaign, a
combination of unstoppable cowboy and the cinematography
of Vertov, in which it is necessary to move joyously from one
image to another, from one angle to another, without stop-
ping, until the end, because there is no end, just one image
after another, continuously, enthusiastically.
* Paul Virilio, War and Cinema. The Logistics of Perception,Verso, New York,
215 1989, p. 13.

Olson wrote (citing Edward Dahlberg): ONE
PERCEPTION MUST IMMEDIATELY AND
DIRECTLY LEAD TO A FURTHER PERCEPTION.*
Is not this principle appropriated by Olson practically
identical with Vertovs idea that aligning fragments of real
energy that via the art of montage accumulate to form a
total whole? Olson continues: Keep moving, keep in,
speed, the nerves, their speed, the perceptions, theirs, the acts,
the split second acts, the whole business, keep it moving as
fast as you can, citizen. Projective verse and the projective
are an aesthetics of military speed, of the enthusiasm of the
soldier and the cameraman of the battlefield. It is the poetics
of a triumphalist culture of the post-war period. Projective is
take over, enemy seizure.
The only difference between Olson and Vertov is that
Vertov was honest with respect to his intentions to make
political propaganda. Olson was not. His most honest book
is Call Me Ishmael, where he makes clear that he works in
service of a poetic epistemology of USAmerican empire:
For the American has the Roman feeling about the world.
It is his, to dispose of. He strides it, with possession of it.
His property. Has he not conquered it with his machines?
He bends its resources to his will. The pax of legions? The
Americanization of the world. Who else is lord? And
although his work is spiced with declarations like this, his
U.S. readers flagrantly ignore the relationship between
USAmerican canonical writing and imperialism, a reflex
typical of USAmerican hegemonic intellectuals, but in this
case one that includes the USAmerican experimental liter-
ary left, in need of a radical re-reading of the ideological
* Olson, Selected, p. 17.
Dziga Vertov, Kino-Eye, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1984.
Projective Verse, in Collected Prose, p. 240.

216 Shakespeare, concluded, in Call Me Ishmael, p. 66.

foundations of its current poetics.*
In the projective there is also a manipulation of histories,
queer combination:
I have been an abilitya machineup to

now. An act of history, my own, and my fathers,
together, a queer [Gloucester-sense] combination
of completing something both visionaryor illusions
(projection? literally
latern-slides, on the sheet, in the front-room Worcester,
on the wall, and the lantern always getting too hot
and I burning my fingers& burning my
nerves as in fact John says or Vincent Ferrini they too
had to deal with their fathers existence.
As Charles Stein has noted magic lantern-slides refer to

the technological precursors of cinema, where an image is
projected on a sheet or screen. Without going to deeply into
this, here and in other places, Olsons work suggests that the
projective technique serves to set up queer combinations
of lives, in this case images of Olson mixed with those of his
father, in the passionate ambivalence of technical fusion. The
queer in [Gloucester-sense] is both the strange and the
homoerotic. The post-modern is, then, the homoeroticism
in which some parts of the body, in an autotelic onanistic
unfolding, are mixed with anothers: the lives of the father-
son are interwoven, having been turned into a series of
* Olson himself links the projective and Americanization. The American-

ization of the world, now, 1950 (Letters for Origin 1950-1956, p. 9) he
wrote to Cid Corman, from Washington, October 21, 1950.
The Maximus Poems, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1983, p. 495.
The Secret of the Black Chrysanthemum:The Poetic Cosmology of Charles Olson

and His Use of the Writings of C.G. Jung, Station Hill Press, Barrytown,
1987, p. 33. Chuck Stein, in his marvelous investigation, identifies several
of the psychoanalytic meanings of the projective, but leaves to one side
217 the ones related to the cinema-military that I am outlining here.

images. Cinema understood in Olsons terms is the projection
of a remix of images of life in queer combination. A meeting
of dissimilar times in a space which homogenizes them.
On the other hand, projection in Olson means as well
prediction. In his letter of October 3, 1951 to Creeley, for
example, he argues that any attempt to revalorize the box
(to return to Oxidental authorities) to found a neo- (neo-
christianism, neoclassism, neoscientificism, neorevolution)
can only lead to a science fiction or comic strip, false
projection. This allows us to see that projection is prospec-
tive, it refers to a future. In multiple ways then the projective
has much less to do with a poetics of energy and respiration
than with a poetics of military movement and information
gathering turned poetic sublime.
The projective in Olson is techno-logistical.
Theory of the Pseudo-World
Fragmented views of reality regroup themselves into a new

unity as a separate psuedoworld that can only be looked at, says
the voice that reads the film script of Society of the Spectacle
in 1973, based on the book published six years before. What
has happened with Debord since then? The present-day Left
should be founded on this book and not on Mama Marxs
Capital. The post-modern is the spectacular.
Debords book is, perhaps, the most radical of the twenti-
eth century, and its definition of spectacle, the most accurate
portrait of the last few decades. How can the spectacle be
overcome? The spectacle can only be overcome through a
cessation of the internal fantasy. The media spectacle, in real-
ity, is the most democratic representation of all. In fact, even
today media technology has not been able to reproduce
the spectacular technology of the Oxidental mind. The
psychological fantasy of any Oxidental individual outstrips
218 in terms of evasion, production of escapist images, suffer-

ing, and happiness the most banal irrealities of the worst
Hollywood producers, the most exaggerated soap opera, the
most insipid pornography, and the most over-the-top prom-
ise of the most crooked television politicianThe fantasies
of the human mind continue to outstrip the entertainment
industry, which is just its pale reflection, the most demo-
cratic representation that man has been able to concoct. The
spectacle of the entertainment industry is poor compared
with the production of spectacular images that civilization
has used for millennia to relate to itself.
Debord grasped many things. But he did not understand
that media spectacle is an attempt to place in externally
visible images, the images that were internally elaborated by
individuals to soothe their dissatisfaction, their flight, and
their fear. Debord missed this because of his Marxism.
Marxism supposed that the internal is a product of the
social. In idealism and good part of Eastern thought, the
material is a mental product. Both ignore that the social is
the imperfect reflection of an internal world, and the inter-
nal the imperfect reflection of social order. There are, at least,
two distinct worlds. Cronos is at least two.
It is exactly the imperfection of this co-orderinequality
or asymmetrythat produces these spheres that modify
each other, in an attempt to make them identical. This is the
pathological longing of modern society: to supplant one
reality for another. The internal and the social, the individual
and the mass, are maintained in Oxidental civilization in a
relation of will to co-control, in an impossibility of one con-
trolling the other.
During this dream of one sphere dominating the other,
the mechanisms of control of each augmented, producing
something similar to a neurotic escalation or arms race
between the two. The social and the individual wished to
convert the other into their replica. (The spectacle is just the
tip of the iceberg of this will-to-identity.) To convert the
219 other into its double, each sphere (each time) constructs the

illusion of its opening (communication) towards the other.
And each mimics the attractive elements of the other via a
repetition and incorporation of the ingredients of this for-
eign sphere, in order to achieve a certain common identity,
with an appearance of certain shared parts. This basic strat-
egy of the duplication of the world is neomemory.
The social world pretends to be the neomemory of the
individual world, and vice versa, in order to perpetrate the
fantasy of communication, identity, and a co-world.
With this we can understand (theoretically) the relation
between the individual and the social, between the internal
and the external that has, for centuries, plagued the Oxident.
The relation between the spiritual and the material is
nothing more than that which is established in each respec-
tive dream of control over the other.
The media want consumers to dream the dreams of
their images; individuals want the dreams of the media to be
identical to their own. Since absolute similarity cannot be
achieved, the technology of appearances becomes infinite.
Between one distinct world and another are constructed
shared co-worlds (neomemories) that suppose a relation, a
common plane or alliance. This is, moving beyond Debord,
what I understand as spectacle: the illusion of a shared world,
becoming similar via imaginary relations. The idea of a
world, the idea of Whole, the idea of a macro-, the idea of a
co- is already the spectacle.
Cinema, television, macrotechnology can be overcome,
but this will not bring the well-being that their enemies
desire and in the name of which they want to overthrow the
media. While human fantasy continues to grow, the need to
reduce the gap between internal fantasy and external media
in order to represent it (confirm it) will continue. Moreover,
this gap will be translated into new machines that promise
and then suspend the creation (in screens and images) of the
illusions of man who has detached from the here and now,
220 the neo-man who has escaped from his body.

The technology of the spectacle will end when man
ceases to have images of his infancy, to exchange his pres-
ent for these memories, becoming a father inspired by the
images that he has of his father; when he loses the desire
for cars and houses; when he does not imagine himself a
winner, handsome, sexy, or what is the same ugly, fat, a loser,
guilty, evil, a victim, in all of the roles and judgments that are
based in mental images. Images which are fantastically linked
with other individuals-worlds, images that were set up to
create a shared space-time, objective and intersubjective.
The most damaging spectacle, the most murderous, the
most distracting, the most terrible, and at the same time the
most poetic, most comfortable, occurs, in each moment, in
the personal artifices of our minds. When we believe we are
directly linked with the other.
We have perpetrated a system in which internal images
(that is, demands) are transformed into external images, so
that we can then pretend that our real life is similar to these
images. (The images that bind us to others.) The images
that were transmitted by our parents and are reinforced by
institutions, by machines (by all those pseudo-wes, although,
strictly speaking, any we is a pseudo) and we bestow them,
modified, neomemorized, to the following generations, that
will live the same tragicomedy of pretending that the world
has the form of their fantasies and that each individual life
has the form of these external fantasies.
To truly break with the spectacle what must be first
overcome is the present-day regime of the mind: the desire
to live in accordance with neomemory. This ruse is what the
spectacle renders invisible: neomemories have the critical
function of producing the illusion of world-One, an inter-
mediary zone or macro-space, that can be shared by distinct
temporal moments.
Is it possible to escape the spectacle? Writing itself
belongs to it. All our concepts are concepts-of-spectacle,
221 from God to Science. Debord himself believed in History. It

is not by chance that his films are, paradoxically, neomemo-
ries constructed thanks to the dtournement of films, TV
programs, newsreels, etc. Though he uses fragments of specta-
cle to critique the spectacle, Debord remains spectacular, not
only in his anti-films, but also in the very images that direct
his thought. Debord was guided by Marxist and, in general,
revolutionary images of modernity: he thought of individu-
als as beings who would hurl themselves (as a group) against
the system that oppresses them.
Debord failed to see that modernity begins precisely
with this image: that of individuals attributing their yoke
to others outside themselves and their liberation to a mass
movement. This is the separating spectacular image (number
one) because it separates individuals from their own respon-
sibility for their semi-conscious enslavement and serves as a
self-deception of what is confirmed daily: their participation
in a system of pseudo-control that is the individual itself.
The Revolution, the masses rising up, the enmity towards
States and technology are nothing more than masks that
Oxidental individuals utilize to remain in this non-existent
orbit of images.
Space is spectacle.
Co-Inheritances
A key to twilight in the Oxident: the return of the spectre

of the post-modern. The concept acquired its canonical
meaning with Lyotard and his postulation of the end of
master narratives, the end of History. It is not unimport-
ant that The Postmodern Condition (1979) as a report on
knowledge was written by Lyotard (for the government of
Quebec) playing with the form of an academic investigation.
Note that this theory of aesthetic fragmentation is somewhat
a book of hoax facts and fictive theory; a procedure, in the
222 final analysis, essentially identical to that of a master narrative

or History. Clearly, that which is announced as finished,
can never be done away with. Again and again we witness:
History cannot be fragmented once and for all, as History
is the result of fragmentation. The Post is the condition of
the Modern.
But before Lyotard and postmodernisma vague term
for a series of post-war aesthetic, primarily USAmerican,
movementsthe post-modern enjoyed several prequels.
One of these was Olson. In Olsons imaginary genealogy,
the postmodern was what did not derive from Pound, Joyce,
and Williams, the moderns. His essay Gate and the Center,
begun in Mexico, elaborates a post-Pound methodology.
Olson writes: A straight man has to uneducate himself
first.*
The notion of a straight man calls our attention to the fact
that in many cultures, the rectilinear is the norm, which cor-
responds to our linear notion of time, our master narrative.
What Olson added was unlearning, deprogramming. This
unlearning, as he argues, is the oft cited Olsonian concept
of will to cohere. This coherence, co-inheritance, inheritance
of the other, appropriated inheritance, presumably shared, is,
in reality, reorganization, re-inheritance, reediting, redux. The
will to cohere is the will to reassign inheritances, the will to
revise last testaments. Will, here, is reassigning; will to cohere
is the reassigning of archives, reversal of witnessing, reassign-
ing of inheritances, coherence is insanity and recall.
If we translate, then, Olsons phrase says: linear man has to
reassign inheritances.
Linear man has to reassign inheritances in order to main-
tain himself as linear.
This reassignment to safeguard linearity is History.
History is always post.
History is the reassignment of a linear order to create
another linear order. History is the reorganization of frag-
223 * Collected Prose, p. 168.

ments for a new linear sequence. Thus, the historical and
the post-modern are fuzzy synonyms.
The sequence of events you will want for yourself
(Olson). Id like to remember things my own way (Lynch).
In Olsons take on the postmodern, the notion of the
loss of a modern master narrative is implicit, but there is
something else: the installation of an intermittent tale, of a
resumption of a recovered continuity.
My shift is that I take it the present is prologue, not the

past. There are only two live pastsyour own (and
that hugely included your parents), and one other which
we dont yet have the vocabulary for, because the West
has stayed so ignorant, and the East has lived off the
old far too long. I have spent most of my life seeking
out and putting down the Laws of these two pasts, to
the degree that I am permitted to see them (instead of
the boring historical and evolutionary one which the
West has been so busy about since Thucydides) simply
because I have found them in the present. Now, I
spend most of my time studying the Sumerians and
Mayans, transposing the poems and the inscriptions they
left. The will to cohere in both these people is what I
see in us, in now.
Therefore I find it awkward to call myself a poet or

writer. If there are no walls there are no names. This
is the morning, after the dispersion, and the work of
the morning is methodology: how to use oneself, and
on what. That is my profession. I am an archeologist
of morning. And the writing and acts which I find
bear on the present job are (I) from Homer back, not
forward; and (II) from Melville on, particularly himself,
Dostoevsky, Rimbaud, and Lawrence. These were
modern men who projected what we are and what we
224 are in, who broke the spell. They put men forward into

the post-modern, the post-humanist, the post-historic,
the going live present, the Beautiful Thing.*
Olsons erroras will be the rule during all late theory

consists in arguing that the post is distinct from the modern;
that the post is dissimilar to the historical. Without admitting
that they belong to the same logic: the logic of (linear) Time.
Time understood as space. Avatars of the pantopia.
Pioneer of the Post-Modern
The central clues to Olsons notion of the post-modern

can be found in his correspondence with Frances Boldereff.
The underlying idea: the post-temporal. Olson was a Man
of Space. His proposal was to leave behind the notion of
Time:
the work of Proust, Bergson, Eliot, Joyce et al is of a

dead past and of no more than technical interest. From
Dante to Pound it has been problems of time which
troubled the artist and concepts of time which governed
men. It is no longer so. Anthropology has proved [that
there existed] men of such durance in time as to push
time so far back, and ahead, as to turn time into space.
Space revises time-man
The post-modern is the fantasy of a pre-time and a post-

time, a no-time or achronos that becomes topochronic, a no-time
that mutates into Space.The post-modern is pro-space; the
post-modern is total space, the space that Olson wrote about
in Call Me Ishmael. Imagine that from one moment to the
next time stops and all that before was born and perished via
* The Present Is Prologue, Collected Prose, pp. 205-7.

225 About Space, in A Modern Correspondance, pp. 254-6.

the temporal now arrives, warehoused and stagnating, in pure
space.This retentive space which eternally houses the multiple
entities formerly destroyed by time is pantopia. A multifaceted
safe haven. A space that wants to be immortal. America.
The first time that Olson utilized the term post-modern
was in a letter of August 9, 1951, after his return from
Mexico (its use in The Present is Prologue is from 1952).
In his letter on August 14, Creeley responds that, of course,
space is our history. They have established that the post-
modern is, above all, an intensifying of the idea of absolute
space, unitary space that the Oxident clutches to, to the
detriment of incompatible spaces or multiple spaces.
For many years, Olson was not recognized as the pio-
neering founder of the concept of the post-modern.* It was
Perry Anderson who pointed this out, but unfortunately
Andersons text was destined for a university audience, that
is to say, it was a sort of spectacular text, in which Olson
remained unexamined, given no more thought once he had
been established as the precursor of Fredric Jameson.
Ralph Maud in Charles Olsons Archaic Postmodern
complained that the primacy that Anderson gave to Olson
had not helped Olsons reputation much in the history of
ideas and, what is more, the word [post-modern] had been
perverted far from its original sense, certainly inverting it
into the opposite of what Olson wanted to say. But Maud,
so useful for understanding the genealogy of Olsons ideas,
* It was here, then, that the elements for an affirmative conception of

the postmodern were first assembled. In Olson, an aesthetic theory was
linked to a prophetic history, with an agenda allying poetic innovation
with political revolution. Black Mountain College, of which he was the
last Principal, shut its doors in 1954. In the years of reaction, his poetry
became more straggling and gnomic. The referent of the postmodern
lapsed (Perry Anderson, The Origins of Postmodernity,Verso, New York,
1998, p. 12).
See Minutes of the Charles Olson Society, September 2001, number 42 or

see www.charlesolson.ca/Files/archaic1.htm
226 See for instance, Charles Olsons Reading: A Biography, Southern Illinois

commits the same error as the vast majority of Olson critics:
idealizing him. Olson was only possible in the context of a
rising USAmerican Empire, in which new poetics meant
both experimental aesthetic form as an extension of political
expansionism and political expansionism trying to transform
itself through aesthetic experimental form. As with Whitman
and Pound, Olsons work is pantopic and imperialistic, and
thus, poetic.
Olsons pioneering use of the term post-modern has
much in common with the use given to it since the 1970s.
The central project of postmodernism from Jencks to
Lyotard, from Venturi to Jamesonpantopic space, anti-
chronologywas already present in Olson, who was the first
to develop it in relation to the term post-modern, although
not the first to deploy it systematically in poetry (that honor
in the United States goes to Whitman and Pound). In this
way, the meaning Olson gave to the postmodern not only
has not been corrupted, but moreover it has been extended.
And due to a certain general unfamiliarity with his work,
Olson has not been recognized as the initiator of postmod-
ernist discourse. Olson names the foundational myth that
these others will develop: the myth of an achronic recartog-
raphy, a no-time. The theory of a space that has destroyed
temporality. A destruction of a more temporal European
conception of History in favor of a more USAmerican
reordering of Space.
The description of Jenks continues to be the best
description of the post-modern. Eclecticism, he says, is the
natural evolution of a culture of choice. The post-modern
is the aesthetic of a consumer society and is the space in
which we take refuge from the real activity of time, namely
periodic revolution and the inevitably of death.
The post-modern is another of the Oxidents strategies
to secure a place in posterity. Another trick for deceiving
227 University Press, Carbondale, 1996.

ourselves into thinking that we have escaped death:
If Le Corbusiers space is the equivalent of a Cubist col-

lage, then Post-Modern space is as dense and rich as a
Schwitters Merz. Indeed one could say it developed partly
if indirectly from Kurt Schwitters great Merzbuild, the
column of memories that he constructed inside his house
which was a literal accretion of every aspect of his life
(unfortunately the assemblage was destroyed by the Nazis).*
It is precisely Jencks who recalls that eclectic means I

select. We see in the postmodern this connection to the
experience of the ruin everywhere. In either constructing
a memory starting from the ruins of everyday life or in the
destiny of this memory: to be destroyed by war. The post-
modern is a negation of death. Technique of administrative
society, resignation of ruins.
Other references to the post-modern are found in letters
from August 20 and October 3, 1951. In the first, Olson
argues that post-modern man, as opposed to modern man,
knows that he belongs to the universe. He has, accord-
ing to Olson, an immediate relation with the world, as if
the post-modern had removed the uncertainty or anguish
of mans relation to the world. Reordering the events of
the worlds historyfrom the familiar to the cosmicthe
post-modern creature feels at home. In a letter of October
3, Olson established that 1950 is the beginning of the Post-
Modern Era, after 1945 (that ACT). He established, as well,
that there is a BOX of history, running from 500 ACE to
1950, where the wisest men of his age are still trapped, rum-
maging through it. For Olson, this Box is the period of the
Wests formation and it must be dispensed with. Not only is
it notable that Olson returns to conceive of time in terms of
* Charles Jencks, The Language of Post-Modern Architecture, Rizzoli, New

228 York, 1984, p. 118.

space, as a box, but also that he sees it as the container from
which he will extract the materials, the quantity, from
which his new map-inventory will be made. The quantita-
tive is the measure of the post-modern.
Olson says to Creeley, in a letter of August 9, 1951
(having returned from Mexico):
I am led to this notion: the post-modern world was

projected by two earlier facts(a) the voyages of the
15th & 16th Century making all the earth a known
quantity (thus, geographical quantity absolute); and (b)
19th Century, the machine, leading to (1) the tripling of
population and (2) the same maximal as the geographic
in communication systems and the reproductive ones*
We can see here that the post-modern has as its starting

point the birth of an idea (illusory) of total spacethe Earth,
as a known quantitythat is, the post-modern is born
from the reduction of space. The Earth as known quantity
is a poor Earth, an Earth that has lost its mystery, an Earth of
which we can have fantasies of control, of being completely
covered and, along with this strategic reduction, this pan-
topization of the Earth, the Earth converted into a pantopia
of itself, the machine. Post-modernity is, then, a contained
and quantitative space, a space whose limits are known and
which is a no-time ruled by technology.
I have written, elsewhere, that the pantopia is a spatial
fantasy in which time has been made to disappear. Time, in
the pantopia, has been converted into space, into constituent
fragments (parts) of total space. But as post-modern poets,
science fiction, and Hollywood films have vaguely intuited,
the role that time used to playbirth, growth, reproduction,
and deathis now attributed to technology. Technology is
the time of the pantopia.

Rememory, Retrogression, and Death Throes
Concepts are catacombs. The idea conceals. The concept

hides more than it announces. It is a knot. A knot that
strangulates.
Olsons concept of the post-modern holds within its
composition the Un-hebraic of Boldereff. Would we know
this if the letters between Frances and Charles had not been
published? We probably would have never known. Which
reveals an alimentary, elemental gnosis: each word is cor-
respondence. Nutrient, each letter, epistle. Where do letters
come from? From the province of your epistles, your words,
in which there is more than your ideas, there is your body,
your silences. Doubt of connection or exaggeration of inti-
macy. Heaviness of waiting. Madness of receiving your letter.
Olson, kleptomaniac, invasive, cryptomnesic, takes the
ideas of his lover, and remakes them, exaggerating them,
turning them authoritarian, making the words of a Medea
and maenads, vocables (mandates) of a preacher whose pulpit
is in the offing. What she encodes, he unweaves.
At Black Mountain and in his essays, Olson remakes
what he has heard from others, what he plucks from his
intellectual lovers, what he archives under another name.
(Every concept is re-archivization of another.) It is not
by chance that Olson desires to erase the entire corpus of
the Oxident, from Socrates to Hiroshima, making as if the
(nonexistent) Oxident did not form a part of his own body.
(The corpus of the Oxident, the corpus of Olson.) Olson
wanted to receive the inheritance having discarded the
cadaver. (Of mourning.) Olson wanted to be orphan, unfa-
thered. Disconcerted, vainglorious, foaming, he complained
to Creeley in 1951 of those critics who shouted Pound! at
reading him; bitterly he complained of these attributions. A
good part of his body of work is an attempt to erase Pound
from it, a palimpsest, too oedipal to be real, either as a parri-
230 cide (success) or falling under the paternal shadow. (Oedipus

is never real. Just playing at ghosts. Oedipus is paranoia
and simulacrum. Between the father and son that establish
Oedipus, there a pair of heteronyms are constructed, a pair
of fakes.) The same that happens with Pound, happens with
FrancesOlson wanted to keep her as a secret as well.
In great part (in excess), Mexico had been a method
for occulting, distancing himself, from the body of Frances.
Mexico, during 1951, took the place of Frances, 1950.
All that had generated from and for Frances, now passed
over to Creeley beginning with the Maya, the projective.
Once again, a good portion of Olsons discoveries had
been extracted from predecessors or alimentary sources.
His journey to Mexico had been a flight from Frances, a
distance so that his wife Connie would feel more secure
and so that Olson himself could leave behind the memory
of Frances, who replaced him with a beautiful young black
boy, according to what he revealed or invented in one of his
final letters. Mexico, then, was the occultation of the body
of Frances and the attempt to erase this subterranean history,
this co-history.
Once again. Olson wanted to erase Boldereff. He
wanted to erase Pound. He wanted to erase the history of
the Oxident, the box as he called it, a box that would
become a tomb, a mailbox of dead letters. With Olson,
thus, there was always something to extract, a memory that
wanted removing, a history that had to be censored, a miss-
ing piece. The act of this slashing is what Olson called post.
Rememory.
Proflection is the term used to describe a situation in
which two speakers avoid dialoging via the exchange of
laudatory clichs. The prefix post is proflexive. The prefix post
signifies pseudo, retro, un. It is utilized, however, for a culture
or individual who thinks themselves beyond what, in reality,
they have elected to naturalize, perpetuate, occult. The post,
in post-modernity, post-colonialism, post-history, post-
231 human, is the feigning of overcoming. The post is the most

recent superstition of Progress.
Olson had recourse to the idea of the post-modern in
order to consummate and overcomein a sense similar to
Hegelthe Maya and the Sumerians, Pound and Boldereff,
W. C. Williams and Creeley. Olson is no more than the
extension of his correspondents. The post of Olson is evasion.
The evasion of History. The evasion of the history of
his passion. The evasion of the history of the imperialist civi-
lization to which he belonged. The evasion of the historicity
of his arguments, which he thinks are eternal, which he
takes and announces as Laws. The post is the occultation of
the continuity of his project with all that he claims to have
broken with. The post is the flaunting of a rupture that did
not occur.
The post is a false positive.* It bestows on temporal-
ity a (secretly) oedipal structure. Thus, the idea of the post
attempts to persuade us that there has been a confrontation,
a collision of forces, in which either a parricide or overcom-
ing occurred, a moving beyond this conflict, a resolution,
or a passage to another site. The post is nothing more than
Hegel. The post is nothing more than Oedipus.
The post is the renovation of the central theses of the
Oxident. The post is the most modern.
There is not post-modernity. There is modernity-post.
If since the 1950s one speaks in the Oxident of the
postmodern it is because the authoritarianism of the
Oxident finds it convenient to argue that it has detached
itself from its own history. The United States as a new
* The original contains a difficult to translate play on words here: El post

es postizo. Postizo as an adjective referring usually to teeth, smiles, or
mustaches is false, (postizo de pelo is a hairpiece or extensions) and obvi-
ously it contains post within it, giving us, in a literal rendering, something
like the post/false is post/false. One option might have been The post
is prosthetic, but the ableist overtones of the phrase were disturbing. We
tried to render this play in the end by taking it in a different direction
while maintaing the overall implication that the post is hollow. (Trans.
232 note)

beginning, as a new promised land in order to restart a set of
socially failed but politically successful (control) projects. If
one speaks of the post starting with the post-war period, it is
because the war wanted to not be interrupted. The idea of
a pause or rupture with prior history serves the Oxident as
an alibi to return to extending the worst of Modernityits
desire to edit the history of other pueblos, to manipulate
memory, to say that it has broken with the concept of linear
time in order to perfect itas all the atrocities of Modernity,
its looting, patricide, oedipalism, Eurocentrism, are pro-
longed. Constructing the myth that the Oxidental box has
ceased to function and a new time has begun in order to
shirk responsibilities or shy away from continuities, that is,
radical forgetting. The post is another capsule of Orwellian
neo-speak.
When Olson decrees that he has overcome everything
from Platonic rationalism to the atomic bomb, he constructs
the most comfortable, most USAmerican of ideas: the myth
that exonerates the Oxident of all of its crimes. The post-
modern is the illusion that consummates the cybermnemetic,
that is, the control of memory.
Cybermnemetic, a remix of historical information that
attempts to reconfigure in space what has been stripped out
of time. The cybermnemetic is the fantasy of reordering past
events, of erasing the inconvenienterasing the Oxident
and the Modernand selecting the parts that reproduce
narratives of action or eternal salvation. The cybermnemetic
is the method that the Oxident has usedfrom its happy few
to its mass mediato feign a moving beyond, an eclectic dis-
mantling of its macrocontinuity in favor of reproducing it in
the form of microstories and remixes. The cybermnemetic is
the alteration in the continuity of memory, the fragmenta-
tion of duration, to construct a world of singular images
whose linearity has been covered over, hidden. Surreptitious
restoration of hegemony. The of the Oxident is
233 nothing more than part of its spectacle.

And, on the other hand, we could understand, as part
of humankind, the Olsonian myth, the general myth of
the post-modern. It is the attempt to begin again. It is the
senile project to realize forgetting for reformatting purposes.
If the cybermnemetic has had in the last centuries many
avatars and forms is it because it is impossible; it is because
it belongs to a civilization that manipulates its memory,
that wants to control it, because it is a moribund memory, a
memory looking at the record of its final images. The cyber-
mnemetic is the death throes of the Oxident.
Studying the gaze of those who are about to die, F.
Gonzlez-Crussi recalls that during the Renaissance there
existed a Brotherhood of Saint John the Beheaded. One
of its functions was to help those condemned to death cross
over to hell in a presumably pious manner. They helped with
confession and the making of a willwhich, incidentally,
proves to us that when a culture, from its literature to its
thought, has become confessional or testimonial, it antici-
pates its own extinction. In addition, however, they provided
a rather strange service: that of keeping in the line of sight of
the condemned a placard covered with a Christian image so
that the condemned would leave this world with this image
in mind. The image was maintained in their line of sight
until the last possible moment:
The condemned man is led toward the scaffold walk-

ing backward. Surely, this is not done out of a merciful
desire to spare him the sight of the fearsome instrument
of his impending annihilation. This peculiar advancing
by retrogression is done so that the man can keep his
eyes continually fixed on the tablet that a member of the
brotherhood keeps all the time in front of his eyes, and
sometimes presses against his face, so that he can kiss it.*
* F. Gonzlez-Crussi, On Seeing.Things Seen, Unseen and Obscene, Overlook

234 Duckworth, New York, 2006, p. 88.

Involved as we have been, starting from the Renaissance, in
the construction of a HistoryIs not, perhaps, our relation
with television or cinema, with the monitor in general, anal-
ogous to that image placed before the condemned in Rome?
It is not, perhaps, the very concept of Renaissance (rebirth)
a pure retro image aimed at occulting what, in truth, awaits
us? Could our retrogressions, from the Renaissance to
Olsons archeology of tomorrow, be manifestations, precisely,
of our advance to the gallows? Hollywood, moreover,
upholds that those on the threshold of their own death see
fragmented, sequential images, of their life pass before their
eyes. See, look, perceive the flux of the world in its finest
details (On Seeing) could be effectively the final desire of a
dying civilization.
Flash Back. History. Blast to the Past. Cinematography.
Going back. Every image in front of your eyes. Obvious institu-
tionsclandestine returnsof moribund cultures.
On the Function of Critique
Marx was fond of saying that criticism is no passion of the

head, but the head of passion.* Marx has been one of the
writers to best understand the nature of critique. Marx knew
it: critique has a war function.
For Marx the form that critique took was the critique
of religion. From there we can note that critique has a stag-
ing function, as according to Marx religion had raised God
above man, so critique would now raise man above God.
Perhaps this is not the space-time to delve into the profound
relation (and, therefore, unnoticed) between the Marxian
concept of critique and that of the remake. The very work of
Marx is a remake! A remake of Hegel, as Marx himself states
* Karl Marx, Critique of Hegels Philosophy of Right, http://www.bopse-

235 crets.org/CF/marx-hegel.htm

in the preface to the second edition (1873) of Capital, in
which he explains that it is necessary to invert Hegel, plac-
ing the material where Hegel had put the ideal. Here Marx
conceives of himself as Re-Hegel.
(Marxs method, by the way, closely resembles
Lautramonts appropriation poetics.)*
Hegelian replicant, Marxist critique is, at base, a re-turn
or supplanting. Marx takes already formed histories (religion
or, we might say, Hegelian phenomenology) and reedits
them, superimposing new figures on the old. When Marx
conceives of philosophy as a handmaiden of history, he
is not only indicating that thought has as its aim a politi-
cal operation performed on historical archives, but also his
phrase is already a redux, repun, of the well known medieval
saying of philosophy as handmaiden of theology. In Marx,
critique is the opium of the retouch.
Joyce and Marx are the fathers of deconstruction, are
rearchivists.
This labor of substitution of some parts for others is a
central element of nineteenth century thought, a thought
of unmasking. (We can think of the function of word games
in Nietzsche and in the meaning Freud will give to the slip,
dreams, and jokes.) What others have called the school of sus-
picion, I will call the school of replacement, in which a concept
is hermeneutized, that is, exchanged for another, re-placed
in a new order, supplanted, juxtaposed. Marx, Nietzsche, and
Freud remask. For these authors, a concept is revelation, but
not in its hermeneutic sense (de-occultation) but in its photo-
graphic sense in which each notion or text is the negative that
reveals a new image that is the negative of another image that
is the negative of another image that isThe triad of suspi-
cion (Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud, the paranoiac trio!) analyze
* Plagiarism is necessary. Progress implies it. It closely grasps an authors

sentence, uses his expressions, deletes a false idea, replaces it with the
right one in Poesies, in Maldoror & the Complete Works of the Comte de
236 Lautramont, Exact Change, Cambridge, 1994, p. 240.

interpretation as journey-in-time, as crab-time (retrogres-
sive) but, also, suspicion is journey-to-the-future, recovering,
neomask. Some have wanted to see this as critique (decon-
struction, in reality, is one of its aspects). Deconstruction
realizes forwards or outwards, what suspicion thinks that it
realizes backwards or inwards. But both are movements of
analog replacement. Rewriting, operations of substitution
of parts of prior discourses for new ones. Hermeneutics and
deconstruction are, in either direction, a-chronic, neomemory.
Critique is necessarily rememory.
The essay, a genre invented by the critical spirit, is an
assay because it is the attempt to substitute for a reality a
thinking-about-it. The essay is the attempt that is made, each
time, to jumpstart a technology for supplanting reality. What
the essay is assaying is the installation of a mental reality,
which it wants to superimpose over lived reality.
Making a rememory of Hegel, Marx writes in The
Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon that Hegel says that all
the greatest events and figures of universal history appear
twice. But, Marx notes, we have to add to Hegel that his-
tory occurs first as tragedy and then as farce. As we can see,
Hegels most important idea was created by Marx.
Or vice versa.
Critique, then, has been associated with an idea of the
re:History. A technology of memory. Marx writes:
History is thorough and goes through many phases

when carrying an old form to the grave. The last
phases of a world-historical form is its comedy. The
gods of Greece, already tragically wounded to death
in Aeschyluss tragedy Prometheus Bound, had to re-die
a comic death in Lucians Dialogues. Why this course
of history? So that humanity should part with its past
cheerfully.*
237 * Critique of Hegels Philosophy of Right, Cambridge University Press,

According to Marx, Germany has this historical task, that of
the happy goodbye. The replay of the end has a relation with
eclecticism. Marx asserts that like in the Roman pantheon
where gods from all nations are found, in the Holy Roman
Empire are found the sins of all forms of politics: political-
aesthetic gluttony says Marx.* But Marx ignored that comic
replay does not have only one return, but that it is extended
via different cultures in a loop. The post-modernity of
each contemporary culture, from China to Japan, from the
United States to Mexico, from India to France, repeats its
own particular loop in which each culture remixes historical
fragments, obeying their own political-aesthetic gluttony.
This loop constructs the appearance of a regime-of-things or
interminable status quo, and it is the repetition that produces
the comedic finale, which appears as a perpetual carnival but
which is nothing more than a symptom of a cultures death
throes.
The comic loop characteristic of a historical denoue-
ment is what also has been called post-modernism, that
eclecticism in which all political-aesthetic sovereignties are
recycled. We recognize, of course, that this phenomenon
has come into sharper focus during the twilight of the
Oxident, but that it is also present across the entirety of a
historical sequence. That is: linear time is the extension of a loop.
The line of Oxidental time is not a straight succession of
heterogeneous elements. Rather it is the recombination of
the constituent fragments of these heterogeneous elements,
along the length of its mixed loop, that produces the appear-
ance of a linear time.
In a civilization of innumerable masters, there is no defini-
tive goodbye, rather only periodic farewells. And linear time,
Cambridge, p. 11.
* A Contribution to the Critique of Hegels Philosophy of Right Introduction,

www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm.
238 Translation emended.

which characterized the Oxident, is made, precisely, from the
looping sequence of all these regimes. Linear time, thus, is a film-
loop.
Hegel, of course, idealizing this fragmentary time, alleged
that progress was spiral, the direction of Absolute Spirit
or History. Marx was not wrong in remaking Hegel. In
Hegel, we have a great practitioner of rememory, a grand
Aleph, the grand Alephaphile of Oxidental philosophy, at
the stage before the Oxident would exaggerate his method,
passing from Absolute-History to Absolute-Space, a millime-
ter from passing over into No-Time. But it would not be in
Hegel where the pantopia would find form, because it was
too early for the advent of the achronic. The phenomenol-
ogy of Hegel is rather a panchronos, a cinematography in
which the Absolute throws its gradual parousias across the
whole of time. In Hegel, the fusion of all the fragments, the
total congregation of all avatars, which is pantopia, was still a
utopia, as this fusion (the Absolute) was, practically, unrealiz-
able in a space. Hegel still fantasized about an absolute time.*
But after Hegel, the totalitarian fantasy would become the
property of the topologists.
In the present moment, I think it essential to under-
stand the character of the film-loop of linear time because
only by understanding it in its real movement can it be
unraveled. Linear time is made of a sequence of recycled
images. History is the same as the spectacle. It is the great-
est spectacle of them all.
And critique is its preferred weapon, the ruse of
neomemory, the foreman of quantity, the delight at the
plunder of imperialism. Is there any Oxidental institution
that is not neomemory? I seriously doubt it. But this is not
the worst part. The worst part is that today is only the dawn
of the cybermnemetic.
* I believe Hegel did not think the pantopia because he suspended his
239 reflections on the United States.

On the Function of Critique (2)
Now, as of this morning, what impresses me, is, that there

is a very important connection between quantity and
the function of CRITIQUE, wrote Olson on August 9,
1951. Immersed in his own political-aesthetic gluttony,
Olson postulated that the postmodern era is the AGE of
QUANTITY. This age of quantity demands a heightening
of that servant of clarity, the CRITICAL FUNCTION
the Culture of Clarity.* And Olson asked himself if the first
to compose in accordance with these quantities of refer-
encesConfucius, the Greeks, Propertius, the Provencals,
Shigakuwas Pound or if the Divine Comedy was the first
critical poem, that is, transhistorical-quantitive-referential.
Olson, then, asked to be at once archaic and culture-wise.
Through the visions of Olsonthe visions of an
USAmerican poet ruled by kitsch and erudition, a mili-
tary viewpoint, appropriation, Make It New, Jung, and
Whiteheadwe can track critique and its key role in the
development of the cybermnemetic imaginary. What is
clear in Olson is that critique can be an unexpected friend
of imperialism. He writes: The very expansions which
post-modern life have involved usin other words, i think
i am saying that the function of critique is behind every-
thingquantity cannot be managed with out it. In Olson
then, critique serves as accumulation and expansion. Being
conquest, critique administers knowledges, collects them,
distributes. Critique is the selection and administration of
the accumulation of knowledge, the election and manage-
ment of cultural capital. Olson celebrates, for example, that
nineteenth century archeology made possible his use of
* Charles Olson and Robert Creeley:The Complete Correspondence, vol. 7, p. 75.
Ibid., p. 75-6.
240 Ibid., p. 77.

Sumerian poems and that the age of mechanical produc-
tion has made all art a disposable museum. Critique is
regimental.
Perry Anderson also employs critique in the sense of
Olson, as the administration of knowledges, in order to
legitimate his personal reordering of history. As Anderson
writes: With this break-out from the Occident, the idea
of the postmodern has come full circle back to its original
inspiration, as a time when the dominance of the West
would cease. Olsons visionary confidence was not mis-
placed; The Kingfishers could virtually be read as a brevet
for Jamesons achievement.* Brevet is a military term and
concerns the certification or commission that permits a
soldier to temporarily hold a position of greater responsibil-
ity. This allows us to see, among other things, how Anderson
brings together disparate elementsthe theses of Olson and
those of Jamesonto construct a linear hegemonic order,
a rearranging that leaves Jamesonthe favored thinker of
Andersonat the summit of thought on the postmodern,
as it is clear that The Origins of Postmodernity was written,
above all, to canonize Jameson. This projection of Anderson,
of course, is as spurious as the errors of Olson concerning
the Mayans or the Sumerians. Both Anderson and Jameson
maintain, precisely, a modern/post-modern logic: rearrang-
ing parts to fix in place a neomemory.
Critique is the means by which YOU MAKE ALL
* Anderson, Op. Cit, p. 75.
Bob Perelman argues that Jamesons Postmodernism or the Cultural Logic of

Late Capitalism utilizes a schizophrenic logic, despite the fact that Jameson
directs his critique precisely at this very logic. In the overall organiza-
tion of its materials, his essay is itself paratactic: Andy Warhols Diamond
Dust Shoes, my poem China, Michael Herrs Dispatches, the Bonaventura
Hotel (in Parataxis and Narrative: The New Sentence in Theory
and Practice, in Artifice and Indeterminacy. An Anthology of New Poetics,
Christopher Beach (ed.), University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, 1998, p.
241 28).

DISPLACEMENTS AND DISPOSITIONS / count.*
What critique manages to do is place itself in charge of the
securing of fragments of knowledge so that it can reorganize
them. If the post-modern is the quantitative selection of
images that are decided to be representative of an epoch,
critique is the method of arriving at these particular images.
Critique, and what I term cybermnemetics, are correlated. The
function of critique is the selection of information and
its arranging into new informational units. Critique is the
production of a neomemory, an incorporation that displaces
memories (dates, places, persons, acts, moments, images)
and reconfigures them. The critical: the cybermnemetic.
Because of this, by means of critique we can never leave
the Oxidentthe Oxident itself is a critical method. As long
as we remain critical, we will remain Oxidentalized. We are
also part of this loop. We are also reorganizing, fragmenting,
doing critique. We cannot find an exit from the Oxident,
because what is most pressing and most immediate, easi-
est and what is inevitably produced is to save memory, is
to make of this existence History. What is most difficult
to imagine, on the other hand, is amnesia: the only exit
that already seems impossible to us is nothing more than
forgetting.
How can one rebel against an entire civilization? Can
one destroy millennia in a single instant? Or is it a delusional
to attempt such a leap? The pantopia, we know, is impossible,
but daily we attempt to realize it, because our existence has
no other name, circumscribed as it is in mnemo-technolo-
gies, from rhyme to the family, from the screen to our given
names. The entire Oxident is based in the word aletheia.
Aletheia, as we know from the pre-Socratics to
Heidegger, means, literally, not-forgetting. How to rebel
against memory in a civilization whose notion of truth is
based in the demand to not forget? To take on memory in

this civilization would appear to be madness, taking into
account that memory is, from the Greeks on, the synonym
of truth. And yet, the Lethe, this river that leads to forgetting,
calls out to us again and again, because now more than ever
forgetting is the only way of continuing. When I imagine
how to exit this generalized film-loop, the only thing that I
can see in my mind is a bonfire that burns itself out.
The Pueblo of Neomemory
The United States is, as I have said, the most potent force
driving these fantasies of pantopia and cybermnemetics.
Formed out of the terror of losing it all, the United States has
reestablished co-control. USAmerican literature, in one form
or another, reinvents these fantasies. From the work of Olson
to the parody (a la Woody Allen) that Charles Bernstein
makes of projective verse, from the investigative poetry of
Ed Sanders constructed with monads of information to the
cut ups of Burroughs that sampler of the body-of-reorgans
from the plagiarisms of Kathy Acker and her intense prose,
made of blocks to the techniques of the post-Language
poets, USAmerican poetry, in its dream of a symposium of the
Whole, as in the new sentence, has been a critical poetry, a
pantopic poetry, based in displacement and parataxis, based in
neomemory.
A culture based in memory will always be conservative.
And all of us are conservative. All of us are now the United
States.
There is no pueblo that is more inside its own loop than
the United States. And knowing themselves as a late culture,
the United States has been obsessed with reordering history
in order to make it end with itself. And also because the
USAmericans suspect that their hegemony is permanently
under assault, the cybermnemetic is one of their most wide-
243 spread means of defense.

The paradox, nonetheless, is that the pueblo that has been
most obsessed with the remake will be the first bonfire to
burn itself out. The paradox is that the pueblo that has most
fantasized about cybermnenetics, the United States, will
end up being completely forgotten. Having manipulated
memory, its existence one day will be judged as completely
apocryphal, artificial, over-produced. In the future, the
United States will be considered a hoax. It will be said that
the United States is only a debilitating paramnesia. After its
fall, it will not have (even) History. In the future, the United
States only will have the form of dj vu.
There are Laws:Taking Down the Pantopia
There are laws, begins Olsons essay Human Universe

written in Mexico. How does one create the illusion that
there are general laws? The foundation of time reduced
to space is, precisely, the supposition that there exist laws
that function in the same way (homogeneously) across all
(heterogeneous) times. If different times are united by the
same laws, then, these times are not separated and thus form
a single space.
This belief is the basis of totalitarian thought, in all its
forms. Television fabricates imagesand society fabricates
images for televisionand the spectacular relations between
these fragments produce the fallacy of a commonly held
reality: the space of a nation, a territory, an epoch. The
takeover of the center of Oaxaca by striking teachers, the
flooding in Ciudad Juarez, and civil resistance in Mexico
City, in co-existence with the war between Libya and
Israel, the state of maximum alert in the United States and
Englandthese events are represented in discourse and the
news as symptoms of the same phenomenon, as events related
to each other. The pantopia has penetrated deeply into our
244 semi-consciousness and is situated at the border between the

unconscious and conscious, in such a way that it permeates,
in both directions, human thought. It is thus the Interzone
or semi-consciousness that has become the key site in our
present-day psyche. Pantopia seems so natural to us that
doubting that its events are related and even considering
that each event might obey its own laws in the space-time
in which it is realized, as distinct from other space-times, can
only appear a strange or at least very unusual idea.
Olson was not entirely wrong. He had come to Mexico
looking for the traces of another concept of time. His error
was not having been sufficiently patient to generate a per-
sonal time that would be capable of grasping Mesoamerican
cultural notions of time, of not leaving behind the time
of USAmerican English as he knew it. Moreover, Olson
encountered an indigenous culture with an essential similar-
ity to his own: a culture that had mutated towards a notion
of imperial time. We have discussed before the ideas of time
of the Maya and present-day indigenous communities in
Mexico and the United States and we know that the Maya
fluctuated between ancient notions of time as plural and an
imperial political decision of forming a total calendartheir
model of kin. The Maya were a civilization based in a single
time, or a set of universal laws which ruled in the same way,
macro and micro. However, the greatness of the Maya was
that their notion of time captures many models of time
each one functioning in accord with its own processunder
a mysterious macro mathematical and poetic model. For the
Maya, kin functioned as a cycle of time that turned around
itselfand that periodically changed its motor, its godand
this changing cycle functioned as a component of a larger
cycle, composed of various smaller cycles, and this new cycle
as a component of another larger cycleAnd thus, for the
ancient Maya time was a series of distinct cycles placed one
inside another, concentric or centripetal times. In the Mayan
chronovision, imperial notions of timepantopicare
245 combined with nomadic understandings. Mayan hegemnemic

Time could be defined as an enormous machine of molecu-
lar appropriation of other micro-cultural-times.
Imperial ideas transform time into space. Nomadic ideas,
on the other hand, tend to understand time as a multiplicity
of times. These timestribes of monadsare autonomous
from each other, each one obeying its own laws. (The
notion of a single spatialized time is linked to the histori-
cal appearance of the State.) The Rarmuri, for example,
developed a model based on the existence of more than one
internal time, sustaining the existence of various souls that
simultaneously co-existed within the human body. While
the Huichol believe that when a pair of nomad groups meet
two different times collide. This understanding of time not
only functions to plumb the profound nature of the human
animal but also to impede the formation of a unitary politi-
cal order, a system of centralized control.
For cybermnenetics to be possible, a civilization has to
choke off the nomadic notions of space-time and to insti-
tute a general calendar, a hegemonic, spatialized notion of
time, universal. The Maya and Aztecs conserved nomadic
notions of plural space-times, although in debased and
manipulated forms, used to justify an Imperial central-
ized order, based in numerical science, just as in Oxidental
empires from Greek antiquity to the United States. In the
roots of these empires there exists as well nomadic notions
of time as polytopic and polychronic, wherein time is
represented in diverse forms, precisely, because there is not
one time but rather many times, with each forming its own
world.
Writing is, certainly, pantopic.
What imperial documentsfrom official histories to
poets and mass media, from films to nightly newsdo is
make sequential images of distinct space-times, creating
the mediatic simulation that they belong to the same visual
horizon of events. The creation of the illusion of a total
246 space-time simultaneously shared by all is a lie that builds

up a social coexistence. It is this fantasy that I have called
pantopia: the notion of a total space, individuated from every
other space, which contains all things, all events, ordered
under the same set of laws, under the same empire. This idea,
of course, is the cruelest of all of them. The pantopia is abso-
lute control: the pantopia is the inexistence of time.
In the pantopic fantasy, time does not annihilate things,
allowing death to liberate the world from itself and allowing
the world to be always incomplete, which should be the idea
that governs us, incompleteness not Totality. Without death,
beings are allowed to share, cryogenetically, the same site,
forever. In the pantopia, time as individual measure, as auto-
chronology, in which each being lives its own chaosmos, is not
allowed to exist.
In the pantopia, time as death and the successive forget-
ting of each world have disappeared, and time as its own-law,
as individual-time, not determined by the laws of another
time has disappeared as well. The pantopic is the fantasy of
creating a spacewhose avatar can be a poetics or a global
empirefrom which nothing can escape.
As in the house in Buuels The Exterminating Angel,
once one enters, for some unknown reason, one cannot
leave. In Olson, the pantopia took the form of not a totaliz-
ing agglomeration (as in the theory of the black hole or the
vortex in Pound or in the Aleph of Borges) but in the gaze.
Again and again in his work, Olson speaks of a gaze that
can hoard everything it falls upon.* The pantopic is thought
throughout his work more and more in terms of a screen.
In the present state of civilization, the pantopia is reen-
forced daily by television. I am not referring exclusively to
the device that plays the role of pater familias, but to televi-
sion in a broader sense and of which the contemporary
* According to George Butterick, it was reading Chaucer that Olson found

the story that Troilus could see the world in one single glance and he
saw the Herat from the seventh sphere, after dying in battle. (See note 109
247 from Butterick in Correspondence, vol. 6.)

television set is but a rudimentary precursor of coming
televisions. Television makes it possibleas state legislation,
monolinguism, and writing once didfor distinct space-
times that do not share common laws to appear to possess
one via the daily compiling and updating of images that
produce the cinematographic illusion of real time and a
common omni-space, amongst what are, in reality, dissimilar
realities, separate-cosmos.
If images are the units of pantopia, then to undo its
regime it is indispensable, before anything less, to impede the
formation of images, thereby destroying spectacle. Impeding
the function of empires signifies preserving languages
alive and increasing the number of them, as in the passage
from one language to anotherin the impossibility of
translationsupposedly common notions, shared images
are destroyed, undone. Languages are the primordial defense
against the pantopia, as each language is its own chaosmos.
And if not letting go of memory produces pantopias, ergo,
the cure is to forget.
Against the Universe
All of our civilization is based in the cybermnemetic. As

such, it is too much to ask of any poet or filmmaker that
they escape the paradigm of memory control and their con-
ditional dreams of mnemetic control. Science as well is an
epiphenomena of the cybermnenetic delirium.
One moment in which the Oxident was on the brink
of accepting that its centralized memory was nothing more
than a hoax, was during the discussions around Stephen
Hawkings Paradox of Information. According to the
traditional theory of black holes, they are formed when a
supermassive object, such as a giant star, collapses, creating a
singularity, a point of infinite gravity. Around the singular-
248 ity is established a region of space whose frontier is known

as the event horizon.* Hawking originally argued that cross-
ing the event horizon meant the complete loss of whatever
information has crossed it, thus anything that entered a black
hole would never return. This thesis violated one of the
basic principles of physics, that of reversibility, according to
which everything in the universe retains the information of
the processes of which it has formed a part.
Sustaining this position cost Hawking more than one
follower. It would be the beginning of his decline in the
scientific community, as his conception of entropy scandal-
ized a community governed by dogmas, such as that of the
absolute memory of the universe, its omniscience. At the
end of the twentieth century, Hawking partially retracted
his claims and the theory in which the universe was subject
to a loss of information was abandoned even by Hawking
himself. Physics returned to its steady state.
Science depends on a universe that retains its structuring
principles, that is to say, that posses fixed laws. If the universe
did not possess them, science would become pataphysics, a
discourse of exceptions. Non-Sense.
Hawking gave in, after having taken the most radical step
forward since Copernicus. Memory is a provisional order.
Forgetting is the final substrate of the real. It could be that
the laws of the Universe change. It could be that the law
of gravity, for example, in some universe after or parallel to
ours, does not exist.
Disorder exists. The universe is losing information. The
universe is a detriment to its own memory. Gradually amne-
sic, its health. The only cells that duplicate without losing
information in their DNA during mitosis are cancerous
cells. Cancer, cybermnemics of the body. A society that does
not forget, a life that does not forget, becomes cancerous. All
* I would love to discuss this problem not in the language of contemporary

physics but in that of Argentinean metaphysiscs: in place of singularity
read aleph (Borges) and in place of event horizon read strike of
249 events (Macedonio Fernndez). Physics is a branch of metaphysics.

cure is detachment.
The universe forgets.
Our central pantopia is the idea of a Universe.
The universe, at a given moment, is not.
The universe, at a given moment, loses its laws. It
becomes the orphan of its principles.
A pattern that lasts longer than any perception could last
looks like eternity.
The so-called universewhat should be called some-
thing else, like alterverse, for exampledispels its own order.
Thus, the universe is one-never-the-same. If we could
tolerate the basic uncertainty of the alterverse we would
understand that it is useless to try to get to know it and that
the universe is not only an impossible science because of its
vastness or due to the narrowness of the human mind. The
alterverse is unknowable because its laws are also historical,
because they come also to form a part of amnesia itself, the
maternal forgetting.
Like a serpent, the alterverse sheds its skin, completely,
gradually, or, in an unexpected leap; as total destruction or
renovation, the serpent loses everything.
Is its changing of laws periodic? No. There is not a meta-
law that directs its radical change. How do I know? I dont
know.
The chaosmos is liberated from its groundlike a person
whose amorous encounters are motivated, in large part,
by his or her short term cellular memory, who, suddenly,
cuts against the pre-determined tendency and breaks with
destiny, thanks to the cells that also forget, that do not repro-
duce or recharge.
But forgetting can be an accident, not a will.
The laws of the Universe are its self-consciousness on
mute, but its own body rebels against permanence. The cha-
osmos, in its long de-history, is intermittent.
Memory is chimera.
250 I have said that the chaosmos is historical, that its rules

falter. I must correct myself: the All (that is the Loss) is
amnesia. The alterverse or chaosmos is amnesiac.
Memory and History are identical. They are the very
impossibility of Control.
The world is an archipelago in time. Each universe is a
macro-island that in its own consistency, pulses. But space-
time mutates, and its information is lost for ever and where
before was its body, there is now another obeying different
laws, and between universe and universe, the illusion of
fixity. If synchronically there are parallel universeseach
ruled by its own lawsalso diachronically heteroclite cha-
osmoses disappear and appear, separated from each other
by an uncrossable abyss, by a pulsating irregularity. Science
becomes an absurdity if it doesnt heed that principles dis-
covered today will serve only for a certain, indeterminate,
perishing space-time because life is a life always inside
another death. All memory is temporal. All laws will perish.
All history has limits. All texture loses its plot.
We attempt to return to a universe distinct from the
actual alterverse, to try to unite the loose pieces, memories,
or reconstruction. What happened in the far-off past and
what will happen in the real future, we will never be able
to know. We must accept that memory cannot be remade,
rather it fails. We must remember that memory is a fan-
tasy. We must abandon the illusion of identity. History is
neomemory, an avatar without an original. If we want to
return to the origin of the universe, we can only, at best,
return to one of its origins. This is only possible if, perhaps,
chaosmic, the alterverse has not passed through a mutation
of its laws and as such has already freed itself from its past.
All that I am saying, I know, has no foundation. Nothing
can, because obedience to a set of principles can only be
temporal. The successive or simultaneous norms of the uni-
verse have as a frontier its death. For a text or for a planet,
for a galaxy or for a universe, so on earth as in a black hole,
251 everything will be provisional.

I am not saying that regularly the big bang reoccursin
the case that it was, indeed, the event or method by which
this universe was formedas its possible that a point of infi-
nite compression is not the only means of creating a cosmos
or, perhaps, the universe is born already old, suddenly. Or it
might originate in different pointsco-big bangsthat then
fuse or fight to fundamentally alter the laws of the others,
of their respective existences. This could be a total war, with
various universes simultaneously or successively colliding,
coaffecting each other from a distance or as already inter-
twined bodies trying to impose their laws as nothing more
than interstellar guerillas whose objective is to infiltrate,
dominate, rebirth, or kill other universes.
Disordering one another, resisting the influxes of other-
ness, becoming unequal, the alterverse maintains its liberty,
its discharge. The irreversible is the true. Our practices,
ideas, and social fantasies concerning the functioning of
the cosmos as obeying a single set of laws is another of
the specters of our totalitarian thought. We have thought
of the chaosmos as if it was a total State. The notion of a
Universe is that of a detestable absolutist omnisystem,
whose laws enslave everything via eternity. Self-deception
and swallowing whole, we must abandon the idea of the
existence of a Totality, as the chaotic is the definitive proof of
the existence of freedom. So that the I might be Sovereign
we must let go of all General Laws. I know negating the
existence of the Universe is absurd but however absurd, I
assert it. The Universe will never happen.
*
* English Word List: Apocalypse Now / blockbusters / freak / redo / cut /

recall / guy next-door / remake / take-over / auto-remake / million dollar /
plastic-playboy / clean-cut / you-wish-girl-next-door / entertainment-existence /
target removal / clean-up / footage / precogs / black outs / mainstream America /
reverse engineer / deleted / neo-uncanny / pop / haunted / awesome / creepy
/ cool / vintage / fake / cute / nice / counterfeit / memory fix / underground /
cut-ups / cutters / delete / wipe out / erasing / Enter the Interzone / recovery
252 / comeback / make-over / make-up / make-believe / brainwash / flashback /

movie-sequal / credit history / reload / dreamland / waiting room / spooky place
/ middle of nowhere / outerspace / what-the-fuck / creepy place / Deadbeat
No-Town.Where have we gone? / Replay / buffer zone / As Time Goes By /
happyness / junkyard / clown / We Are The First Last People / mapping / Juke
Box / cut down to size / Box / mailbox / Dead Letter Office / keep it going /
cowboy / take over / enemy seizure / queer combination / information gathering
/ sexy / newsreels / straight man / will to cohere / recall / choice / post / happy
few / mass media / Flash Back / Blast to the Past / Every image in front of
your eyes / rememory / loop / culture-wise / film-loop / symposium of the Whole
253 / displacement / hoax / big bang

Notes On
Process for a
Translation-
In-Process
written for eight hands
by Jen Hofer, Christian Nagler,

Brian Whitener, & Heriberto Ypez
A Note On These Notes
We decided to write in four-person plural: as a we con-

stituted around the making of this book for ChainLinks,
as four very different people who share some affinities, as
a collaborative jumble willing to be mistaken for one
another, or just to be mistaken (a willingness central to the
tasks of translating and writing). We wanted to make a text
that might reflect selves in conversation, and we wanted to
reflect and unravel some of our confusions, to speak trans-
parently about our challenges, to illustrate concretely that
translation is neither easy nor comfortable nor a solid ground
on which to standit is, rather, trembly and vibrational, like
sound waves (listening) or like the space between beings
(conversation).
We wanted to reflect on a unique situation: as translators
who are in some ways inside Empire (more on this in a bit),
translating a book written against the languages of Empire,
written by and translating with an author who both speaks
fluently and knows inside and out these imperial languages
and their traps and feints. At first, we called thisthis process
of translating collaboratively with and against languagesa
post-translation. But in the face of a book that argues per-
257 suasively against the figure of the post, we have decided to
Notes On Process for a Translation-In-Process

call our practice: translation.
Translation: we recognize and appreciate that in writing
as a collaboratively jumbled we, each of us at different
moments may end up seeming to advocate ideas with which
we do not agree. Translation: to sustain such discomforts.
Translation: not only refinement, but reverberationnot the
smoothness of space, but topographies of timenot coher-
ence, but multiplicitynot authoritativeness, but honest
exploration. Translation: because we are dying inside this
Empire.
Translating English into English
One of the problems with translating the original text of

Imperio is that many English-language words appear in the
Spanish-language original, usually italicized. On the level of
the translation, we were confronted with the problem simply
of what to do. Place those words in Spanish, aiming for a
similar effect? The effect would not be the same: English
is a colonizing language, Spanishin the contemporary U.S.
contextis not. Moreover, many English-language words
are recognizable and somewhat understandable in Spanish,
where in most English-language reading contexts, the
Spanish terms would read as illegible signs. Another poten-
tial solution: keep those terms in English, but with notes?
Too many notesboring, awkward, unnecessary. Simply
remove the italics and any reference to that linguistic mul-
tiplicity? Too untrue to the text, an erasure that veers away
from translation into the realm of editing or rewriting. In
the end, our decision was to keep the terms in English, with
italics, and to place a list of the words originally appearing in
English at the end of each chapter. This approach emerged
in conversation amongst the four of us, from our differential
reading of the books strategies and desires, and raised what
258 for us became a central question during our time with this

project: the relation between translation and Empire.
The use of English in the original text opened out onto
a wider set of problematicsthe critical strategies of Imperio
on the level of languageand led us to reflect on what we
meant by translation. In the 1960s and 70s, dependency
theory and its practitioners critiqued U.S. cultural imperial-
ism and argued for a cultural strategy of decolonization (see
for example Para leer al Pato Donald [How to Read Donald
Duck] by Ariel Dorfman and Armand Mattelart). Since
this time, however, in the period of globalization, U.S.
imperial culturebest represented by the Motion Picture
Associations Jack Valenti jetting around the globe forc-
ing open foreign markets for Hollywood productshas
won out, at least ideologically and commercially. Imperio
re-establishes this critique not by rejecting the form of the
beast (as was common in anti-imperial critiques on the Latin
American Left in the 1960s), but by going deep inside its
vocabulary, to sound out its hollow core.
Imperio is the work of a technician who has attentively
(possibly even affectionately) studied the target for many
years before beginning a journey, a quest. The method: to
take the specific, technical language of the empires memory
machine and turn it inside out, to turn it not against
itself (a strategy that would result in mere refusal, the un-
acknowledgement of Empires totalizing capabilities, itself
a totalizing impulse), but rather to chart its fundamental
emptiness, the play of mirrors of its spectacle. The method:
to analyze, re-enact, de-enact, the omnipresent yet also
chimerical nature of imperial culture, both past and present.
Translation: how to reflect this method and its various effects
in a differentand differently imperiallanguage? Given
our understanding of how Imperio functions, we needed a
translation that would neither exaggerate the books claims
(Brave new world! Non-imperial culture!) nor denigrate
them (the sub-altern speaks, albeit softly, albeit madly)a
259 translation that would walk the fine and not-very-linear

line between inversion, utopia, overcoming and return of
the same, totalizing of Empire, no escapea translation that
would not function as a neutralization of cartography (yet
would, as well, preserve its very suspicion of cartography, its
insistence on the temporal)a translation that would respect
the madness and gravity and necessity of trying to think the
destruction of the memory machine and technics of Empire.
Apropos cartography, another technical (or linguistic-
topological) problem we encounteredwhich quickly
signaled the geopolitical and philosophical complexities
presented by both the original text and our approach as
translatorswas how to delineate geographic regions
and their connotations in a clear and consistent way that
reflected the references in the original text. Our hope was
to avoid reifying ideas of a United States monopoly over
the master-continental signifier America, and at the same
time to avoid confirming an English-language readers
unconscious sense that the United States is the underived
form of Europes New World, its telos, or at least without
giving the sense that this text, its Spanish imaginary, shares
that fantasy. This is a problem that will be familiar to most
translators and speakers of Spanish; it has been discussed at
length by many non-Anglo-American critics of Empire
from Jose Mart and Alberto Masferrer to Claribel Alegra
and Eduardo Galeano. Imperio, in accordance with customary
usage in Latin America, consistently refers to the area north
of the US/Mexico borderand specifically to the U.S.as
Norteamrica. But Mexico, as a broad landmass north of the
isthmus of Central America, is included in the English sense
of North Americait is claimed (and claims itself) as part of
the North geographically and economically (in, for example,
the North American Free Trade Agreement), though not
linguistically, politically, or popularly. What to do, then, with
terms like Norteamrica or norteamericano? Condense them
into the clunky, more particularly nationalist USAmerica(n)
260 and thus partition off, perhaps as Heribertos text does to

some extent, Canada from the Norths imperial history? Or
stick close to the Spanish with North America and risk an
uncanny historical slippage between colonizer and colonized
(an option which Heribertos text at certain points might
welcome)? This is a language usage issuea matter of the
proper namethat performs the laceration of the US/
Mexico border, its artificiality and its oscillatory utility. It is
a translation issue that makes vivid Imperios figuration of the
United States and Mexico as fantasy co-bodies.
As the reader will have noticed, our solution to this
problem was to adopt a term (though not uniformly) that
Jen frequently uses, both in her writing and in her transla-
tion practice, USAmerica(n). Like all solutions it has
certain limitations. While, generally speaking, norteamericano
in a Spanish-language context refers primarily to the United
States, strictly speaking one could imagine it applying,
psychogeographically at least, to Canada. So that is one
overtone that drops out with our usage of USAmerica(n).
However, the usefulness of the selected application of the
term is two-fold, as we see it. First, it allows us to bring out
the focal point of Imperios critique: the United States. It was
important to all of us involved in this project that the trans-
lation did not mitigate, smooth over, contain, or dampen
the books insistence on and directness in its critique of
U.S. empire. Second, in a work that generates much of its
conceptual space through linguistic reappropriation and
invention, we felt like the spirit of USAmerica(n) was in
keeping with the books overall projecta project we would
describe as something like forgetting without dying.
Positionality and Imperial Translation
Heriberto has been arguing for yearsoften while staring

pointedly, playfully, seriously, directly, and always provoca-
261 tively at any translators-into-English who are in the room

where he might happen to be speakingthat all translation
is a colonial act. To be sure, colonial acts and their actors
abound. In the late 90s, along with the rise of a new form
of U.S. Empire, a more internalized, crowd-sourced, Post-
Fordist version, it became a common thing, in the United
States, to talk about your passport. Like in a dating profile:
Ive got my passport and Im ready to travel. (Implicitly
suggesting that being undocumented is unsexy? Thanks to
those willing to be openly undocumented and unafraid,
we know for sure thats not the case!) Similarly, it became
common in certain U.S. social sectors to talk about Tokyo,
London, and Paris as if they were places everyone visits all
the time (Lost in Translation), when cosmopolitan privilege,
the special status of the American dollar/subject became
normalized. American tourists are notorious for travel-
ling places without knowing the language, for blundering
forth; whereas British tourists, historically, always know
the language, because they believe they have constructed
a world (an empire) that speaks only English. Imperio, in
its best moments, asks a historical question of us, one that
traverses these histories: the question not of difference, or
the celebration of difference tout court, but rather what kind
of difference and how much difference is different enough?
For many years, this problem of difference and its politics has
been spatialized: a problem of assessing the terrain of Empire
and our position in it. Is this trench in which we hide one of
Empire? Is it deep enough? Or is it too deep? Are we too far
inside? Not far enough?
All the practitioners of translation who worked on this
volume (and as the authorship of these notes indicates, the
writer of the volume himself is one of the practitioners of its
translation) have lived outside or in the liminal borderlands
of their native country in some way, and for significant
time. Does it make a difference that some of us have as our
natal barco the ship of Empire, a dark cradle, a wicked one?
262 Surely. And surely this is not simply an issue of position,

of space, but of time: of lived experience, of registers and
adaptations housed deep in a somatic tissue. In other words,
simply: irreversibility. In other words: we would like it to
be obvious that something has changed in the space-time
between us, practitioners of translation, and Olson, imperial
translator but also limit case of Empire. But what? (Our
bodies). And how? (In time). And is it not a symptom of
imperialism to claim to be free of imperialist tendencies?
(Should we try to forget?)
Clearly, positionality matters, as there are scores of poets,
artists, writers, thinkers, administrators, and presidents out
there who still think exactly like Olson, or worse. However,
it is not enough simply to champion difference (weve
known that at least since the Clinton era of multiculturalism,
right?). So, the matter must be then to initiate a different
kind of difference, or throw of the dice betting (apostando)
on a certain kind of difference. As practitioners of transla-
tion, we want to cease to be interpreterstransferring,
defining, limiting the meaning(s) of a text. (Though what
else does translation do, but interpret, transfer, define, limit?)
We want, rather, two thingsand recognize we may be
left wanting them. First, we want to walk this fine line of
difference, a difference that recognizes it exists only on and
in and through the terrain of language, but which does not
attempt simply to deform, escape from, or overturn impe-
rial language. What translation looks for, then, is an edge to
language that would cut against empire, a difference (another
difference) that could serve as a detonator against the lan-
guage of Imperial difference. In the terrain of neo-memory,
of the loss of historical memory and its replacement by total
recall, the fake, the cut, the haunted redo, the vintage wipeout,
the creepy brainwash, the detonator is the very language of
Imperial memory repositioned, replayed, remixed, seeking
a different edge. Second, we want to refuse on some level
the spatiality of the way difference has been thought and
263 the spatiality of the way Empire and subjectivity have been

thought (inside/outside, positionality, etc). For us this has
not meant forgetting positionality but rather asking: how
do I put this language into my body? (rather than putting
my body into this language?) The (only) answer we have:
through translation, through time, through this passagethe
demands and resistances Imperio and Empire require of us.
Is it a gamble? Yes.
Do we have another option? No.Yes. No.
We think translation is colonialist. We say this not only as
a way of accusing Western translators, but because we our-
selves are translators, that is, colonialists. Saying translation is
colonialist is an anti-epic including our own histories (we
reimagine Pounds An epic is a poem including history.)*
The act of making text under the sign of anothers author-
ship (the act of translation) frames decisions to bring out or
suppress certain histories embedded in the target language.
English is full of these histories; they pulse just beneath the
surface or flash off the chrome of idioms and they reveal
their shape in the inflections of cognates. Many passages in
Imperio pose unique problems, in that the potential read-
ability of the English is often vexed from the inside by
the very imperial figures and figurations Imperio works to
de-naturalize. These knots demand particularly elegant (or
congruently knotted) solutions, discovery of which is lim-
ited in some cases by the relative lexical breadth or fluency
of each of the three translators, and in other cases because
those solutions may not exist. In both casesfailure on
the part of the translator and failure on the part of the
languagea historical disjunction is laid open to view, like
a wound between languages, a fissure that both tongues
circumnavigate cautiously, awkwardly unable to fully claim
or disown a sentence.
It may seem strange to attribute agency to the languages
* Date Line, in Literarary Essays of Ezra Pound, T. S. Eliot (ed.), New

264 Directions, 1968, New York, p. 86.

themselves, but this is an impression the experience of trans-
lation encourages; when one language possesses another,
and isnt liable to exorcism by poetics or mechanics, then
whats created, if only for the length of an auxiliary verb,
is a sort of ambling stranger, a momentary subject who
mutters in translationese, a sort of schizo who expresses
inappropriate affect, dramatizing what were originally
banal details or occulting what were crucial nuances,
abstracting what was once effortless prosody (though is any
writing actually effortless?). For the most part we have tried
to discipline these strangers (though may ourselves have
ended up disciplined by them), to urge them back into the
comfortable swagger of their proper histories, out of habit,
and also out of respectful service to Imperio, to the coher-
ence of its critique, to its readerly pleasures. But with three
(four) translators, there is a proliferation of subtle strangers:
little problems. We could even say that one of the benefits of
translation is that its little problems are almost infinite.
We believe that once we become aware of translation
as colonialist, we have an opportunity to question it and
to change it, without the rush to solve these problems too
quicklybut with the responsibility to address the problem
as such. Translation means becoming aware of the material
and ideological history of both the original text and the
process of translation and the relationship of the two lan-
guages in playand even (or perhaps inherently) becoming
open to the impossibility of a translation as such. We believe
we are all part of a transition, and while we may not always
or reliably be part of the solution, at the very least we dont
believe in the normative colonial dream of Modern transla-
tion. That is: we are not Olson, even as we carry the (neo)
memory of Olson within us.
We would like to thinkfor reasons we have hopefully
made evident herethat the work each of us has done out-
side the borders of our original countries seeks to question
265 rather than pronounce, to reflect back on our own cultures

rather than explain someone elses, to resist expertise and
the idea that a visitor to elsewhere (or anyone, really) can
be the gatekeeper for access to that culturebut rather that
by opening ourselves to very different geographies, syntaxes,
registers, and perspectives we are able to enact our curiosi-
ties more ethically and more expansively. To continue, that is,
through time, as a question, refusing its spatializing, refusing
the position of the master archivist, of the gendered subject
who assembles the terrain of Empire.
We Are Everywhere, Like It Or Not
In light of Imperios painstaking identification of the vari-

ous threads in a bundle of fantasyin poetics, in narrative,
in tourism and its long tail of cultural appropriationas
pantopian, the imperial fantasy of experiencing everything at
once (a fantasy which finds a specific form in Ray Kurzweils
technophilic myth of the Singularity, a sort of tipping point
in the omnipresent immanence of available information),
we want to ask what an engaged translator might make of
the act of translation in the age of Google Translate. Three-
fourths of us write from California, where over the course
of one week in late summer, all the Silicon Valley power elite
and their ideological fiefs, techno-primitives, and new agers
dreaming of a unified culture, would-be Hollywood moguls
and self-proclaimed artists living in gentrified lofts no work-
ing artist could afford, return to the metropolises from their
temporary DIYsneyworld of global consciousness in the
Nevada desert on the very site where John Fremont and his
band of explorers massacred a group of indigenous people,
and then went on to liberate California from Mexico with
the orchestrated mail-art fraud of the Bear Flag Rebellion.
If we could say that translators bear our colonial roles (the
interpreter as employee and companion to explorers, con-
266 quistadors, missionaries, anthropologists, prospectors; diviners

of local religious and legal texts with the aim of best adapt-
ing their ideas to foreign rule and absentee commandeering
of resourcesand in the present-day, interpreters as the
matre ds to torturers, occupiers, and the living drones who
enact the on-the-ground violence of imperialist policy), then
how do we interpret the current crowd-sourced construc-
tion and refinement of translation algorithms? And how
might a reflection on the automation of linguistic border
areas shed light on the comparatively quaint figure of the
human literary translator, who appears as if in antique garb,
like a renactor of colonial history?
Maybe its unfair, or inaccurate, to compare a person, or
the idea of a person, with a tool, or the idea of a tool. But
perhaps it is exactly this that is the problem: that an idea of
a tool (a fantasy of the tool that can do everything, made by
everyone, instantaneously accessible to everyone, or to an
idea of everyone) comes to replace some careful, temporally
lived experience of the text, which is also a mythology, a
dreamed horizon of contact, but perhaps, in its stubbornness,
a valuable one. A human one, an embodied one, an experi-
ence available only to people, not to machines.
This is one thing we can say of practitioners of transla-
tion: we remain committed to the full duration of reading,
for better or worse. Like Imperio, translators might develop
an awareness of the colonial technology of the linear form
of the text; we set the parallel lines of text, in their respective
source and target (those quasi-military terms) lan-
guages, next to each other, compare and interpret the space
between. No, not space, this is the imperialist imagination
at work, better to say that translators touch the connective
tissue of the lexica, the fascial-linguistic trains that expand
and contract between tongues. Translators, at the very
least, make a testament to a complete reading of the text.
Because that person has written down some quantitative
equivalent of what has been read. A translator might then
267 appear as one of those pious and obsolete lovers of read-

ing; reading, which contains the whole colonial past in the
patterns of its grain, its requirements, its competency tests,
its narcissistic litmus of civilization, but which, at least
(maybe) is not the locus of the imperial problem here and
now, in the same way that Spanish, that colonial language, is
at least not an imperial language (as was mentioned earlier in
this introduction) here and now in North America.
So translators are colonialists, but less like railroad barons
or stock traders and more like rag-pickers or recyclers of
bottles or peddlers of knife-sharpening tools and kitchen
utensils perambulating from neighborhood to neighbor-
hood, obstinately harmless in our laborious lugging of the
text back and forth between languages, radically inappro-
priate. Translators make a show of this labor, and engaged
practitioners of translation are aware that this show is just as
important as the text itselfit is the new text we tend to
call the translation. So, yes, translators uphold, by default,
the colonial act of reading, supporting the linear myth of the
text and its origins, the fantasy that there is such a thing as a
language out of which or into which we might translate. But
an engaged translation perhaps refuses the next step, which
is the position beyond reading: the hyper-citative, accumula-
tive, personal-archival possession of the text (or the idea of
the text), the kindling of the text, compressing it into a cap-
sule, a link or a file. Resistant translators (aware of our own
engagements and our own debts), as a species of endurance
artist, cannot erase the sensation of lived time contained
in the file. As translators we remain skeptical ofin Imperios
wordsthe quick memory, briefing, mere memo. As translators
we are close enough to the text to know that it will not be
possessed, will not be zipped and stowed and forgotten. We
might say that engaged or resistant translation is an active
grieving of that final intractable distance.
Could this be a little desperate, though? This desire to
resuscitate, or to keep alive, the resistant edge of translation.
268 To oscillate in and out of a range of ideas around what

translation might or might not be. Desperate measures for
desperate times, perhaps, or perhaps simply the infective
inflection of the original text on its closest and most criti-
cal, most affectionate readers: Imperio enacts all kinds of
resistances on all kinds of signs. And we too should keep
trying, yes, keep resisting, yes. (Dont resist. Riot). But also
allow the moment of complicity back in again and again (as
Imperio does so often: what I have said of Charles Olson is
the method by which I recognize myself ): All translation
is colonialist. But also keep the complicity circulating: each
one of us is a translator, or is many translators.
269

Jen Hofer is a Los Angeles-based poet, translator, social justice
interpreter, teacher, knitter, book-maker, public letter-writer,
urban cyclist, and co-founder (with John Pluecker) of the
language justice and literary activism collaborative Antena. Her
translation of Negro marfil by Mexican poet Myriam Moscona,
published as Ivory Black by Les Figues Press in 2011, won
the 2012 Harold Morton Landon Translation Award from the
Academy of American Poets and the 2012 PEN Award for
Poetry in Translation. Her other translations include the home-
made chapbook En las maravillas/In Wonder (Libros Antena/
Antena Books, 2012); sexoPUROsexoVELOZ and Septiembre,
a translation from Dolores Dorantes by Dolores Dorantes
(Counterpath Press and Kenning Editions, 2008); lip wolf, a
translation of lobo de labio by Laura Solrzano (Action Books,
2007); and Sin puertas visibles: An Anthology of Contemporary
Poetry by Mexican Women (Ediciones Sin Nombre and University
of Pittsburgh Press, 2003). Her most recent books are the hand-
made chapbook Lead & Tether (Dusie Kollektiv, 2011); a series
of anti-war-manifesto poems titled one (Palm Press, 2009); and
The Route, a collaboration with Patrick Durgin (Atelos, 2008).
She teaches in the MFA Writing Program at CalArts and the
Graduate Writing Program at Otis College of Art & Design,
and works nationally and locally as a social justice interpreter
through Antena.
Brian Whiteners recent projects include False Intimacy

(Trafficker Press), The Unreal, Silver-Plated Book (translation,
Departamento de Ficcin), Genocide in the Neighborhood (transla-
tion, ChainLinks), and De gente comn: Arte, poltica y rebelda
social (forthcoming, Universidad Autnoma de la Ciudad de
Mxico). He edits Displaced Press.
Christian Nagler is an Oakland-based writer, translator, and

artist. Other translations include Horacio Castellanos Moyas
novel La Diaspora, and selected works by Salvadoran politi-
cal economist/poet Alberto Masferrer. His ongoing project
MARKET FITNESS, an experimental pedagogy of financial
systems, premiered at Headlands Center for the Arts in Spring
2012. A novel, The Capitalist, is forthcoming in 2014. His writ-
ing can recently be found in the books Somatic Engagement
(Chainlinks Press), and Six Lines of Flight (U.C. Press), and in the
journals Fillip, Aufgabe, and West Wind Review. He teaches writ-
ing and art at the San Francisco Art Institute.
ChainLinks is a spinoff project of the journal Chain. The goal
is to produce books that might change peoples minds, might
agitate for (thought) reform, might shift perspectives. This project
also continues Chains desire to provide space for work that slips
through genre cracks and falls outside of disciplinary boundar-
ies. The series editors are Jena Osman and Juliana Spahr; each
individual volume is put together by guest editors. For more on
how to submit a volume proposal, see www.chainarts.org. This
book is made possible with support from A A Arts, Chain Arts,
Mills College,Temple University, and generous contributions from
individuals and subscribers.
C H A I N L I N K S (current volumes)
1) Intersection: Sidewalks and Public Space
Marci Nelligan & Nicole Mauro, eds.
2) Borders
Susanne Christensen & Audun Lindholm, eds.
3) Refuge/Refugee
Jena Osman, ed.
4) Predictions
Cara Benson, ed.
5) Genocide in the Neighborhood
Brian Whitener, ed.
6) A Megaphone: Some Enactments, Some Numbers, and Some
Essays about the Continued Usefulness of Crotchless-pants-and-
a-machine-gun Feminism
Juliana Spahr & Stephanie Young, eds.
7) SABORAMI
Cecilia Vicua
8) Somatic Engagement
Petra Kuppers, ed.
Distributed by Small Press Distribution

1341 Seventh Street, Berkeley, CA 94710
www.spdbooks.org

EmpireofNeoMemorybyHeribertoYepez PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EmpireofNeoMemorybyHeribertoYepez PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EmpireofNeoMemorybyHeribertoYepez PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Empire of

La presente traduccin fue realizada con el estmulo del Programa de

Translators Note Three translators worked on this version of The

COVER IMAGE The image reproduces a page from a flipbook called

The cybermnemetic is a means of production for unconnected images.

And yet, deathwill free us from everything.

The Empire of Neomemory

The Empire of Neomemory

The Empire of Neomemory

It all begins with a man wanting to deliver a letter. A man

AMERICA | PSEUDO-PATRIARCHY | PANTOPIA

* Heriberto uses this term throughout the text, a combination of

The Empire of Neomemory

* Heriberto uses the common Latin American idiom norteamerica/norteam-

AMERICA | PSEUDO-PATRIARCHY | PANTOPIA

The Empire of Neomemory

AMERICA | PSEUDO-PATRIARCHY | PANTOPIA

* The Post Office, in Collected Prose, Donald Allen and Benjamin

The Empire of Neomemory

AMERICA | PSEUDO-PATRIARCHY | PANTOPIA

Co-body, Short Story, and Bradbury

A very significant expression of American language is going

The Empire of Neomemory

AMERICA | PSEUDO-PATRIARCHY | PANTOPIA

The Empire of Neomemory

* The Spanish here is a play on the word hermenutica or hermeneutics. In

AMERICA | PSEUDO-PATRIARCHY | PANTOPIA

The Empire of Neomemory

AMERICA | PSEUDO-PATRIARCHY | PANTOPIA

The Empire of Neomemory

Olson, Pseudo-Patriarchy, and Melville

In 1928, upon returning from Europe, where he had

AMERICA | PSEUDO-PATRIARCHY | PANTOPIA

The Empire of Neomemory

AMERICA | PSEUDO-PATRIARCHY | PANTOPIA

Pantopia, Burnout, and Comedy

It is no coincidence that Borges translated (rewrote)

* See his essay El escritor argentino y la tradicin (The Argentine Writer

The Empire of Neomemory

this virtuosity of an ironical artistic life apprehends

This irony is very similar to that of Borges (and to Baudelaires

* G. W. F. Hegel, Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Art, trans. T. M. Knox, Clarendon

AMERICA | PSEUDO-PATRIARCHY | PANTOPIA

* Of course for Baudelaire in On the essence of laughter and in general,

In the original: Lo harto es el hurto. Here Heriberto plays on the

The Empire of Neomemory

Fathers Everywhere: Olson

In 1936 Olson met another of his imaginary fathers: the

AMERICA | PSEUDO-PATRIARCHY | PANTOPIA

The Empire of Neomemory

History, Precursor to Pantopia

Shakespeare, Heidegger, Kafka, Borges, and Olson are

AMERICA | PSEUDO-PATRIARCHY | PANTOPIA

* Meanwhile a disturbing process of projection continued in his dreams,

The Empire of Neomemory

Olson: I am I and My Propaganda

In October 1939, Olson moved to New York. Months

AMERICA | PSEUDO-PATRIARCHY | PANTOPIA

The Empire of Neomemory