Is it not the moment to reject every form of ποίησις (poiesis), with its -F factor and its holographic dimension (as I have done, having been perhaps the sole example of non-NOE holographic ποίησις), and to move beyond post-modernism and hyper-modernism, shifting toward Late-Modernism in the Late-Modern era, liberating ourselves from an ontological conception irremediably stained by modern aesthetic ontology? The πρᾶξις (praxis) must replace—as an anti-form-poetry—the metaphysical ποίησις of the lyric/elegiac; socio/ethno/anthropology must replace ontology in every serious approach to the world and culture (artist as homo agens and art as actio).  The vision of Derrida, though somewhat anachronistic (as a critique of structuralism), does not contain—with some slight divergences—the theoretical holistic-pragmatic foundation of the text-context (and intertextuality) supported by Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature by Richard Rorty and Sources of the Self by Charles Taylor and taken up in Italy by two overlooked philosophers, Carlo Penco and Mario Jori (former director of my department) who, in Pragmatica giuridica, distinguishes between micro-pragmatics (specific contexts) and macro-pragmatics (the general function of languages), attempting in Saggio di metagiurisprudenza descrittiva to reconcile the analytical theory of interpretation of Hart (Austin, Searle, Hare) and the hermeneutischer Zirkel of Gadamer through the argumentation theory of Habermas/Apel. The praxeis, whether holistic or holographic, will renounce the -F factor and acquire the -O factor: fantastic creation vs. business-administration-style organization; it will not renounce strategies such as “dedoublement de Man,” Shklovskian остранение (estrangement), anti-neo-consumerist aesthetic guerrilla marketing, Bakhtinian carnivalization, existentielle polyphonie (Beck), the overlap of registers and systemic nonsense (Pynchon), and Oulipian reversal (Perec). However, one must go all the way in rejecting every modern metaphysics (from Descartes to Freud, Marx, Lacan, and Heidegger): renouncing a new ontology and embarking upon the Late-Modern path of aesthetic non-ontology (perhaps replacing aesthetics with the sociology and politology of art).  “Meaning” arises from “social interaction.” The semantic chain of meanings—as occurred with the metaphysical causal chain, broken by William James with the recourse to decision (caesura of the chain)—an infinite semantic chain defined by Charles Taylor himself as: «[…] We can never arrive at a pure, neutral, or definitive understanding of the Self or the world, because every meaning is embedded in a historical, cultural, and linguistic network, which in turn refers to other meanings […]» (Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity, Harvard University Press, 1989, 49), must be broken by Handlungsrationalität: «Eine Norm ist nur dann gültig, wenn alle, die an einer kommunikativen Praxis beteiligt sind, sie als gültig anerkennen können, indem sie an einem rationalen Diskurs teilnehmen» (Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, 1981, 45), or in the ethical/juridical dimension, by the shattering of John Rawls’s Veil of Ignorance through the motivated communal decision of art assemblies, bund, kolektivne (equity). This strategy also implies the collapse of the definition of praxeis as dystopia, in the original vision of Paulo César Andrade da Silva: «O sujeito lírico que emerge de certa poesia brasileira… dramatiza a descrença na efficácia do discurso poético» (O discurso da distopia na poesia brasileira contemporânea, in “Texto Poetico”, 2010, 3). Reality is dystopian: it becomes necessary to introduce a neutral praxia (ποίησις in Late-Modernism has become πρᾶξις)—as a Gedankenexperiment—capable, through a strategy of magnetic resonance, of shocking and “emotionalizing” the (fake) reader to influence the pursuit of an a-dystopian future.  The use of a resonance strategy, whether chaotic or magnetic, creates a λόγος (logos) of disorientation or re-education between an artist and a (fake) reader: the neo-ontological theoretical foundation of rejecting the triad of sender-message-receiver thus falls. Utilizing a resonance effect, implying an underlying “social interaction,” leads to an antinomy with the assertion of the rejection of the sender-message-receiver triad. Any resonance effect/strategy requires a sender (the artist), a receiver (the fake reader), and a message (disorientation or shock). Late-Modernism resolves the theoretical antinomy of every new aesthetic ontology by re-defining the sender-message-receiver triad in a dual sense (the “neon”-avant-garde contribution to the concretization of an original anti-“form-poetry”), utilizing a shocking magnetic resonance strategy and rejecting every form of “poetry,” and of dystopian “poetry,” replacing it with atopic praxeological “experiments.” Late-Modernism is atopic.

.

Ivan Pozzoni

.