Perhaps a little belated, but speaking of affective monsters, plushie creatures and conceptual engendering, I just couldn’t leave the chance to expose what may be the schizo-case of our dearest uncle Grover , who is specially referenced in my ‘Gilulz Delulz’ Letter to a Harsh Zizek [here], and who might be incarnating a good example of how the erraticness of the terms that I have referred in a previous post [here], can lead to a joyful affect that would also mean a conceptual and didactic implication. As it is suggested in such a post, this erraticness would be leaded by an active and ‘more correct’ epistemological orientation towards life that would bring experience to an open understanding of the world. As the affective monster that he is, we can consider that furry Grover performs and incarnates this implication in each one of his presentations, because after all, he is the plush monster who has taught us the most elemental concepts to understand the very own spatio-temporal coordinates of the world ―in our basic experience and learning of it― ie, the near and far [here], the heavy and light [here], the long and short [here], the over, under, around and through [here], even the small and big [here] , among other performativities that would even singularize him as a conceptual character [here and here], and that would deterritorialize him into the moon or into the desert with his own bed as territory [here]. We can see that the erraticness he incarnates can only put in action a joyful affect that signs an aperture, because after all, he is the only plush monster who has shown us each time the drama that differentiates these elemental concepts of the world, with all his affective presence, but always overriding ‘didactically’ its difference through their dichotomic contraposition. Of course, we can think that Grover is literally affected by all these concepts: that he is double-binded by their intensive and differentiated drama, and for this matter, his classic ‘Near & Far’ has interesting points that would express how much means for him the implication he was meant to incarnate and perform. From the start, we can see Grover presenting himself and presenting with clarity his aim, not only to talk to us about ‘near’ and ‘far’, but ‘in fact’ to show us ‘near’ and ‘far’: this is the conceptual and didactic implication he incarnates in this occasion, and that he would be compelled to perform within its erratic terms:
Despite it seems that the funny thing of this sequence is to make Grover repeat over and over his demonstration, so to exhaust him on purpose, but also to watch him do it several times ―‘a Grover in action’―: we can see that there is also a detectable and more formal reason that would explain why his demonstration would not be understood. And the reason is that the terms to show us ‘far’ are erratic: to say ‘this is far’ is a logical contradiction, at least for humans , because to demonstrate ‘far’ we can only take as reference something that is indeed far and say ‘that is far’, referring to something or someone in the distance, in another place in the space of a given landscape, and always with respect to a ‘near’ that means the recurrence of a territory in such a space. But Grover, being the affective monster and the conceptual character that he is, does manage himself to demonstrate us the class of problems that ‘near’ and ‘far’ actually are, by showing us how to get to know the differences between them with his own example, despite of being in the middle of n.o.w.h.e.r.e., ie, in an open space with no objects to account and that he can only divide in two planes so to take himself as a reference for his demonstration. In this sense, as we can see: each time Grover demonstrates ‘near’ he remarks a territory as a point of reference, and then when he proceeds to demonstrate ‘far’, he runs into the distance as to get himself deterritorialized from such starting point, so when he comes back to it in order to reiterate ‘near’ again, he ends up reterritorializing it as well. While we see Grover folding and unfolding himself from one to another plane through this territorializing movements, we have to admit that it’s only through him that the erratic terms that express ‘this is far’ make any sense, and that it is not but the logical contradiction ―that he seems to solve with his presence experimenting all these movements― the very reason why his demonstration is joyful to watch. Though, due that its erratic terms are not susceptible to be understood in any other way, which can only increase the joy to watch him do it again, each time also with increasing effort on his part: we see Grover getting affected not only by exhaustion, but also by the fact that the conceptual and didactic implication he incarnates would compel him to repeat his demonstration without any option, with all its territorializing movements. So, due that he is double-binded by this implication which means a joyful affect, and while he has demonstrated and showed at the time the difference between ‘near’ and ‘far’, territorializing, deterritorializing and reterritorializing his own position, and all this, in addition to the consecutive rejections of such demonstration to be understood: we see how Grover deranges himself in the process, until he finally collapses. In fact, Grover repeated his demonstration six times, but we can see how in the last two of them he would even displace the point of reference to ‘this is far’, reactively reterritorializing his whole demonstration and briging himself up to his own point of rupture [here]. While we see that he falls exhausted, we really should not trust any appearance when we deal with affective monsters: we suspect that Grover fainted because he finally got struck by the constriction of his double-bind situation, ie, by the conceptual intensive drama that differentiates ‘near’ and ‘far’, and that he performed over and over repeatedly in each one of his demonstrations, feeding-back his unhinged position: a drama hued with its own Nietzschean cuts and overtones:
[notā bene]: At the end of the day, as we can see : what Grover’s intensive and differentiated drama is teaching us ultimately, is that any logical contradiction can lead experience to a double-bind situation, and that experimenting a double-bind situation means its own territorializing movements: so, anyone that would stick to the terms of such logical contradiction, would reinforce the implicated constriction as well, and thus, these territorializing movements ―territorialization, deterritorialization, reterritorialization― would reactively extrapolate themselves and bring experience to its own schizo-break.