During the Stygian hiatus the upsurge in criticisms of the project reached a critical mass, a massification really, many of outright dismissal. The best was a pseudo-glorification, one that celebrated the Stygian for its unintentional exposure of the purpose of academic writing: inflate fragile ideas, obscure the dialectic or any attempt at reason, and ultimately inhibit any perceptible clarity. So it goes…
But before I work to refortify the trajectory of the Stygian, I feel an update on the status of some of the members will provide apologies for the long hiatus for such a provisional beginning. My colleague Gibson was inducted into the coterie of European philosophical phenomenologists, a camp branched from Husserl in many ways. While Gibson’s work in existentialism and the consequent expansion of capitalism remained latent, his surveys of constituted knowledge gain against direct intuition, and the mutually implicated throes within modern language (his forthcoming book) was deeply applauded by the camp. Because of this Gibson has relocated to Malaysia to work closely with some editors and dictates. The workshop is somewhat experimental, and no electronics are allowed, including electricity itself. In short, we have lost contact until further notice.
Stallius, profound in his exploration on the impact of exterior substances (i.e. drugs) on language throughout history, notified me of his want to work independent (in Montana) to dabble with a series of visual arts committed to themes of boredom, death, despair, hate, disillusion, nonbeing and void. I expect an intersection at some point in the future, which I’ve found to be a possible, intriguing chimerical with my present work of post-theory and structuralism after language, its exemplary means, its vehicles, and how to predict our future linguistic fissures.
To rewind, the criticisms sequester some truths into academia and writing, but only as all things sequester some truths. We can remember how deconstruction was described as “new new criticism,” and we can remember the same antagonism and the same late 60s professors calling them philistines on sidewalks. To remain close to the heart of the Stygian project, I will definitely restrain from the abrasive rebuttals from those reminiscent frontier critics, the haters of antimimeticism and anti-intentionalism. But there is no denial that the Stygian, at times, impedes clarity and cohesiveness. “Inflating fragile ideas”…that is ridiculous. Most of our work is an extension of applied linguistic theory on the disjunctive techniques of modern poetry and fiction, or modern language, to broaden. Of course our language may separate from common human experience, from those of undecidability not invested in critical overproduction. Of course we run against the grain to a belief that language is devoid of obscure referentially, of unexplored renunciations, of the foul contagions of prefixes and suffixes. But we still believe language is our hope, our endeavoring, mundane acts which are most memorable, that we have independent readers and listeners, that our system renders infinite possible combinations—and somewhere—within the striated symbologies—everyone can speak, and read, and write, ad infinitum.