Cross-Examinations
Vincent W.J. van Gerven Oei

Cross-Examinations
Vincent W.J. van Gerven Oei

1. At the risk of already overburdening the framework of this text, through which its contents leak into foreign territory, the organization if this first installment of “Cross Examinations” recalls and paraphrases the literaty form of the emblema, imported within the musical domain by Brian Ferneyhough in his seminal composition Lemma—Icon—Epigram (see Richard Toop, “Brian Ferneyhough’s Lemma—Icon—Epigram,” Perspectives of New Music 28.2[1990]) . Without immediately adressing the poignant question of the actual effects of transposing literary forms, “contaminated” with pictorial elements, through a musical figuration (which nonetheless aims to “get into the real interstices of linguistic formulability” [64]), back into a textual discourse that in its turn infects an environment that is not primarily structured by such a discourse—the art exhibition—, Ferneyhough’s compository practice resonated with my approach to the task at hand, namely by means of its concern with the issue of “explication.” Ferneyhough admits that “the variation techniques which interests [him] are those where you keep the same basic surface, but you change the technique to produce it.” He is “interested in the idea of variation of technique rather than of object” (55). In fact, we are dealing with a piece in which the musical material is transformed “by systematically “whiping it out”’ : “So apart from the quite banal initial material, which we don't even know is ‘initial material,’ the whole thing is in a whirlwind of dissolution even before it has been created” (56), and “which gives a certain plausibility to the concept of coherence which will later be destroyed” (59). In pace with Ferneyhough’s piece, our object will remain the same throughout, whereas its ex–plication, the modes of its “un–folding,” will explore diverse topologies.

I

Icon₁

I

This text, which from the outset renounces any authority over itself, is an exercise. An exercise of itself, thrusting itself into progressive erasure and rearticulation. It attempts to arrive at a final form through four consecutive installments, in preparation — a necessarily infinite task: are we ever prepared? — for what is called here a cross examination. What will be our careful concern here is this readying, and to ready ourselves means to recall and remember our lessons and phrases, that which is forced from our throats when we are called upon to be examined, to testify. What, then, is it that we are called upon to remember?

II

This text, which from the outset renounces any authority over itself, is an exercise. An exercise of itself, thrusting itself into progressive erasure and rearticulation. It attempts to arrive at a final form through four consecutive installments, in preparation — a necessarily infinite task: are we ever prepared? — for what is called here a cross examination. What will be our careful concern here is this readying, and to ready ourselves means to recall and remember our lessons and phrases, that which is forced from our throats when we are called upon to be examined, to testify. What, then, is it that we are called upon to remember?

II

It is a phrase that is hurled at us at this very moment, when “austerity measures” — in a perverse appropiation of religious asceticism — “hurt” economies, and our wallets “hurt” in consonance. The discourse of “it hurts” at the same time attempts to erase its own traces: its perpetrators not only hide successfully behind the smokescreens of legal constructs, they are also — directly or indirectly — responsible for the ash grey clouds of facist movements that obfuscate the actuality of above measures — which, incidentally, are wholly without measure. In an attempt to read Cranach’s painting in a contemporary mode, the following text will inspect the “European” custody in which St. Catherine seens to be held, suspend between divine redemption or merciless slaughter, captured at the moment the entire scene is threatened to be enveloped in its own toxic political fall-out. This inspection will take place through a reading of a cluster of texts of the philosopher Martin Heidegger, in an attempt to follow (and to be misled by) the multiple crossing lines of technology, the precariousness of humanity, and political commitment. We will depart in a mode, that Heidegger takes from Goethe: Verwahrung, both a safeguard and protest, a protection and erasure.

III

It is a phrase that is hurled at us at this very moment, when “austerity measures” — in a perverse appropiation of religious asceticism — “hurt” economies, and our wallets “hurt” in consonance. The discourse of “it hurts” at the same time attempts to erase its own traces: its perpetrators not only hide successfully behind the smokescreens of legal constructs, they are also — directly or indirectly — responsible for the ash grey clouds of facist movements that obfuscate the actuality of above measures — which, incidentally, are wholly without measure. In an attempt to read Cranach’s painting in a contemporary mode, the following text will inspect the “European” custody in which St. Catherine seens to be held, suspend between divine redemption or merciless slaughter, captured at the moment the entire scene is threatened to be enveloped in its own toxic political fall-out. This inspection will take place through a reading of a cluster of texts of the philosopher Martin Heidegger, in an attempt to follow (and to be misled by) the multiple crossing lines of technology, the precariousness of humanity, and political commitment. We will depart in a mode, that Heidegger takes from Goethe: Verwahrung, both a safeguard and protest, a protection and erasure.

Icon¹

III

It is a phrase that is hurled at us at this very moment, when “austerity measures” — in a perverse appropiation of religious asceticism — “hurt” economies, and our wallets “hurt” in consonance. The discourse of “it hurts” at the same time attempts to erase its own traces: its perpetrators not only hide successfully behind the smokescreens of legal constructs, they are also — directly or indirectly — responsible for the ash grey clouds of facist movements that obfuscate the actuality of above measures — which, incidentally, are wholly without measure. In an attempt to read Cranach’s painting in a contemporary mode, the following text will inspect the “European” custody in which St. Catherine seens to be held, suspend between divine redemption or merciless slaughter, captured at the moment the entire scene is threatened to be enveloped in its own toxic political fall-out. This inspection will take place through a reading of a cluster of texts of the philosopher Martin Heidegger, in an attempt to follow (and to be misled by) the multiple crossing lines of technology, the precariousness of humanity, and political commitment. We will depart in a mode, that Heidegger takes from Goethe: Verwahrung, both a safeguard and protest, a protection and erasure.

We opened our inquiry on cross examination with a meditation on torture, a meditation that now reflects on the very materiality of this text. Cross examination keeps torture at a distance yet within symbolic reach, as it mimics its language, relations, and procedures. Heidegger’s move to cross out being — being — bears witness to the limits erasure may figure within a text. Carried further, only typographical marks remain, signs that demarcate the imprint of a text, different figurations of silence. The marks that give us respite.

IV

We opened our inquiry on cross examination with a meditation on torture, a meditation that now reflects on the very materiality of this text. Cross examination keeps torture at a distance yet within symbolic reach, as it mimics its language, relations, and procedures. Heidegger’s move to cross out being — being — bears witness to the limits erasure may figure within a text. Carried further, only typographical marks remain, signs that demarcate the imprint of a text, different figurations of silence. The marks that give us respite.

Icon¹

IV

We opened our inquiry on cross examination with a meditation on torture, a meditation that now reflects on the very materiality of this text. Cross examination keeps torture at a distance yet within symbolic reach, as it mimics its language, relations, and procedures. Heidegger’s move to cross out being — being — bears witness to the limits erasure may figure within a text. Carried further, only typographical marks remain, signs that demarcate the imprint of a text, different figurations of silence. The marks that give us respite.

We opened our inquiry on cross examination with a meditation on torture, a meditation that now reflects on the very materiality of this text. Cross examination keeps torture at a distance yet within symbolic reach, as it mimics its language, relations, and procedures. Heidegger’s move to cross out being —  × — bears witness to the limits erasure may figure within a text. Carried further, only typographical marks remain, signs that demarcate the imprint of a text, different figurations of silence. The marks that give us respite.

Lemma

I

I

Truth is perhaps what emerges precisely in the interval between language and its erasure, and less physically intensive techniques are needed to bring it out in language.

II

Truth is perhaps what emerges precisely in the interval between language and its erasure, and less physically intensive techniques are needed to bring it out in language.

II

Truth is perhaps what emerges precisely in the interval between language and its erasure, and less physically intensive techniques are needed to bring it out in language.

and it is this interval that Ludwig Wittgenstein alludes to when he asks rhetorically, “For how can I go so far as to try to use language to get between pain and its expression?”

III

←[…] and it is this interval that Ludwig Wittgenstein alludes to when he asks rhetorically, “For how can I go so far as to try to use language to get between pain and its expression?” […]→

III

Lemma

Truth is perhaps what emerges precisely in the interval between language and its erasure, and less physically intensive techniques are needed to bring it out in language.

and it is this interval that Ludwig Wittgenstein alludes to when he asks rhetorically, “For how can I go so far as to try to use language to get between pain and its expression?”

IV

←[…] and it is this interval that Ludwig Wittgenstein alludes to when he asks rhetorically, “For how can I go so far as to try to use language to get between pain and its expression?” […]→

IV

Lemma

Epigram

I

I

After this initial reading of Donne’s lines, we may return to our preliminary considerations of Heidegger’s crossed–out being. We note here in passing, that Heidegger explicitly calls upon a “crossing out” [kreuzweise Durchstreichung], and not a mere strikethrough. Perhaps this is the point where the original title of the letter “Concerning [or across] ‘The Line’ ” (Über “die Linie”) gathers part of its implications. Heidegger literally crosses the line.

This crossing of the line, the movement around which his letter resolves — and which letter would that be? — is phrased by Heidegger as Erörterung, as setting–out–of–place, one that takes place.

II

After this initial reading of Donne’s lines, we may return to our preliminary considerations of Heidegger’s crossed–out being. We note here in passing, that Heidegger explicitly calls upon a “crossing out” [kreuzweise Durchstreichung], and not a mere strikethrough. Perhaps this is the point where the original title of the letter “Concerning [or across] ‘The Line’ ” (Über “die Linie”) gathers part of its implications. Heidegger literally crosses the line.

This crossing of the line, the movement around which his letter resolves — and which letter would that be? — is phrased by Heidegger as Erörterung, as setting–out–of–place, one that takes place.

II

After this initial reading of Donne’ lines, we may return to our preliminary considerations of Heidegger’s crossed–out being. We note here in passing, that Heidegger explicitly calls upon a “crossing out” [kreuzweise Durchstreichung], and not a mere strikethrough. Perhaps this is the point where the original title of the letter “Concerning [or across] ‘The Line’ ” (Über “die Linie”) gathers part of its implications. Heidegger literally crosses the line.

This crossing of the line, the movement around which his letter resolves — and which letter would that be? — is phrased by Heidegger as Erörterung, as setting–out–of–place, one that takes place.

Now that we have intimated the mode in which the “On the Question of Being” moves,













> even though he claims to be unable to do so.







a displacement. We may think this spacial shift in terms of an uncovering, a moving into the open.

III

Now that we have intimated the mode in which the “On the Question of Being” moves,













> even though he claims to be unable to do so.







a displacement. We may think this spacial shift in terms of an uncovering, a moving into the open.

III

Epigram

After this initial reading of Donne’ lines, we may return to our preliminary considerations of Heidegger’s crossed–out being. We note here in passing, that Heidegger explicitly calls upon a “crossing out” [kreuzweise Durchstreichung], and not a mere strikethrough. Perhaps this is the point where the original title of the letter “Concerning [or across] ‘The Line’ ” (Über “die Linie”) gathers part of its implications. Heidegger literally crosses the line.

This crossing of the line, the movement around which his letter resolves — and which letter would that be? — is phrased by Heidegger as Erörterung, as setting–out–of–place, one that takes place.

Now that we have intimated the mode in which the “On the Question of Being” moves,













> even though he claims to be unable to do so.







a displacement. We may think this spacial shift in terms of an uncovering, a moving into the open.

IV

After this initial reading of Donne’ lines, we may return to our preliminary considerations of Heidegger’s crossed–out being. We note here in passing, that Heidegger explicitly calls upon a “crossing out” [kreuzweise Durchstreichung], and not a mere strikethrough. Perhaps this is the point where the original title of the letter “Concerning [or across] ‘The Line’ ” (Über “die Linie”) gathers part of its implications. Heidegger literally crosses the line.

This crossing of the line, the movement around which his letter resolves — and which letter would that be? — is phrased by Heidegger as Erörterung, as setting–out–of–place, one that takes place.

IV