previous | | 2.6.2 (147) | contents


 When we are confronted by affectively effective imagery, “a feeling which binds through vision” (in other words, a specular relation) will move us—from abstract affects to concrete effects: perhaps “to tears” (in which case cause is clear), or perhaps to buy shoes (less so). But are all bonds specular? We can address this question by comparing fig.46 (above) with fig.47 (over). While both term­-sets indicate pairwise relation, their relational modalities are sharply divided by the prefixes ‘co’ and ‘re’: as a reciprocal connection, a bond binds two relata—yet in a re­-presentation, be it a reflective percept (e.g. ‘body­-image’) or reflexive concept (e.g. ‘self­-image’), one is alienated from and identified with itself (himself? herself?). Marketing interposes itself (and positions its brands) in the representational gap between ego and ideal: in short, every commercial transaction sells a consumer back to themselves by showing them a remodeled image of themselves plus something—that is, by convoking an auto­-affective spectacle wherein they perform for themselves a phantasmatic dumbshow with the product or service serving as a stage prop—a prosthesis, a fetish, a crutch.

index | 2.6.3 (148) | | next


 But despite certain elastic exceptions, one size does not fit all: “Non uno vinculo vincit vinciens diversa [The bonder does not bind a diversity with one bond].” Bruno’s alliterative axiom rounds up the Latin lexeme whence such entwined English as to convince you of my invincible conviction. Moreover, in reverse, “Non est unus qui omni vinciate particularis [There is no singular bond for everything].” (All fits do not size one?) Thus Bruno’s ‘vinculum’ is a vector—an abstract connection (or co­-relation) that serves as an index of concrete causation. While its denotative extension yields our many ‘vinc/vict’ terms, its connotations are recaptured by the typical translations: English cognates bind, bond, band, and bend derive in turn from PIE *bhendh­- (‘to bind’). Thus, we have another age­-old redoubled equivocation: we derive Eng./Lat. victor(y), from vincere—directly from PIE *weik­- ‘to fight, conquer’ and indirectly from *weig­- ‘to bend, wind’. Then as now, the terms turn concrete to abstract—and in so turning, from the specific to the general: the abstract bondage of a People, more generally of a Land, begins with the concrete binding of one specific pair of hands.

© 2008-2012 Ian C Thorne. all rights reserved. about credits privacy contact share