11.06.2003

'Civilisation in its entirety, the possibility of human, life depends upon a reasoned estimation of the means to assure life. But this life-this civilised life-which we are responsible for assuring, cannot be reduced to these means, which make it possible. Beyond calculated means, we look for the 'end-or the ends', -of these means.'

Story of life, and the story of death.
Can a story be written, depicted without a beginning and an end?

This story starts with death towards life; -if I may say this.
'How can we start talking about death? '

Common anxiety, which leads itself to a kind of intimacy, occurs in the books which death is scrutinised-either spiritually, psychologically, academically or culturally.
Everybody has an idea about what nobody knows.

If we were to find ourselves in a kind of introspection, we would not even remember how it all has started, and how one has come across with the idea of dying, and death. However introspection entails remembering, questioning, even be brave, get intimate and intimidated.
What one could not grasp, can it be assumed as what one has always been curious about?

Freud says curiosity is opportunism .
I find myself asking the question, all this opportunistic tendency, where will it lead me, lead the reader in terms of the idea of death and dying? Am I there to change anything about the unknown?
Being curious about death, I have to admit it is the very curiosity, affinity of and wander through the life itself; to what extent one can deal, perceive and consume the idea.

The lack of knowledge or explanation leads us to explorations in cognition and communication. If there is a lack of something there is not enough information; then does it not exist at all? Donald Norman emphasizes that we are ‘explanatory creatures’ . On one hand human being has always found easy to tackle things which are simple and understandable. On the other hand curiosity of unknown desires and knowledge keeps us alive.

'There are just collection of words that seem to do justice to the complexity of what we feel.'

Nevertheless, when it comes to Death, it is personal, the idea of death in our minds is quiet, waiting to be explored, but this exploration will only be when it comes. It sounds so dramatic, but doubtless to say that 'death is a solitary' as Elisabeth Bronfen puts forward in the preface of the book 'The limits of death.' It is one of those things, which isn't experienced but accepted as a fact of life. Sooner or later it is there to be experienced by every single person. That is why it is almost beautifully intimate and individual.

Yet, there is some chaos, confusion and clutter about death when one is asked-quite expectedly.

Maybe the whole group would agree or be pleased to discuss about what is after life, what happens to soul-if there is, what would we be feeling when we are already dead.

Especially when a loved one is passed away, it gets difficult to come to terms with the tragedy of loss, grief, anger and shock. In order to get rid of the emotional scars being starts to look for evidence that 'they are ok, they are doing alright'. Rather than the knowledge and awareness of reality, loved ones appear to be 'around, talking, sending messages' from where they are.

Does it change anything to find out the answers of all these questions about after life? Does it comfort and justify our 'desired-immortal' existence in a way so that human being can take a deep breath and relax?

Maybe, up to a certain degree, one would feel like untangling all the trouble, the entire puzzle, and feel safe within. Having a celestial cup of tea with the loved but dead ones. Why not? The puzzle is solved?
This project is about not solving the puzzle but more about identifying the puzzle.

Death has always been the catastrophically pleasurable puzzle.
Psychoanalysists say that (Adam Philips) obstacles are represented by our desires, created by the object of unconscious desire . Everything might appear to be an obstacle, but death is the absolute obstacle over all things in one's life. If you are dead, you won't be able to do what you desire to do with your life. If we were to arrange our desires, would we erase death from life? Reverse the idea of death.

What an idea!

Let us imagine death-less lives, let us imagine being immortal, getting frozen, waking up and then sleeping again but without an end. Would it not be so boring, so unbearable? There would be no story without an end.

The idea even cannot be extended. Forever consciousness. Even though the idea of forever consciousness sounds quite unattainable, it still does bring fear, horror to my thoughts. But still it is a matter of choice, if one is to believe and feel safe within the idea, let them be.
However, strangely enough, it would not be wrong to assume that one is ready to accept this kind of immortality in life in order to eliminate the idea of death, an ending. One has got a tendency to avoid suffering, death and dying, since as Wittgenstein points out quite realistically; 'Death is not an event of life. Death is not lived through.'

It is true; death is only the event of life for the other, and other only. It is not lived through, not experienced by the very first hand and then put into words. One can solely be death's underdog. It is not possible to talk about death 'itself'.

'In order to be a normal functioning human being, you must deny death' with big blue letters, here it is, on the magazine, smiling at you. Maybe Wittgenstein was one of those 'normal functioning human beings'? (A bad joke about being 'normal' and about Wittgenstein, although it brings so many disputable arguments about what does actually being normal mean?)

Then again history is full of second hand experiences, stories, poems about death; the narrative is there to create a meaning; figures, deceased, fallen soldiers, victims are there to be viewed by the third party. The meaning has already constructed and will be. The very presence of the absence is represented by the presence.
The philosophy of death creates hesitation, anxiety and intimacy again. I will refrain from challenging the ideas at this very moment. But will go back to questioning the meaning of death later.

For this very moment, lets be pragmatical and observe.

I have got a packet of Marlboro beside me, saying on top of it, with huge letters 'smoking kills, smoking can cause a slow and painful death.' I light another one knowing that, yes it is part of the game, it can happen, pretty slow, and painfully. (I could not even dare to say the word once more, the word 'death'. I just realised that.)

What does it make me feel like to read that assumption, powerful assumption, thou one would not address it as an assumption, since it is a known fact? Does it stop me from smoking? Does it stop me from thinking, yes-painful death would be a nightmare but I must ignore, at least for the very moment and for the sake of my 'pleasure'.
-Lights another one.

I recall Bjork's lyrics where she sings painfully 'I play dead because it stops hurting.'

This romantic idea about death has begun at the beginning of eighteenth century. Human being has learnt how to find gratification, entertainment and eroticism in death. Indulgence through the affinity of the unknown. Marlboro definitely not is one of those romantics. On the contrary, now it is the time of consumption and awareness, not even allowed to indulge too much other than consuming the product and eating it selfishly. The wish for a desire is sold, created and lost its meaning. What are the preconditions of desire in that sense? A product probably, would solve, with a clever slogan, marketing strategies and so on. Vertiginous baffles of the possibilities. I have heard a great made up word from an infamous poet where he plays with the word possibilities as possibili'tease'. I could not help but think about the current condition of consumption and material world is all about possibili'tease'.
But, what is the relation to the idea of death, why I end up talking about consumption here?

Probably it is all because of that Marlboro.

I do smile, yes. I'm being clever here. I blame Marlboro because it made me to think once again about death-as if I was not thinking.
As a matter of fact death is everywhere. There is no need to pretend or ignore.

On TV screen just recall the recurring images of 'Think' ad about car accidents, in hyper-reality choose from the 'destruction and dead' menu or even learn when you will die, in art come across with Helnwein images and once more feel the repressed knowledge of death and suffering. Or just imagine it might be even at the door.
Wherever one looks, one can easily identify the idea of suffering, dying and death.

'Are we phobic of all the things we never do and all the places we never go, unconsciously phobic, as it were? ' Beautiful question from Adam Philips reminding us that this can easily be applied to the idea of death. Towards death we might be totally, unconsciously phobic. He also points out that phobias are limiting opportunities. The opportunity of death? Death can be an opportunity of what? Of life?

For sure death itself cannot be an opportunity of life-since they are sort of relatives, quite close friends, even best mates. But the idea, the perception and the very scrutiny of this puzzle as a means of identifying and displaying the purpose of death in our lives, would no doubt bring a new insight and a new narration to the puzzle and the unknown.
Death demands a certain understanding and reliable insinuation.
The issue of mis-representation of death is so open to indulgence, disgust, and inhuman contingencies as well as challenging concepts, theories and inspiration.

Can we talk about the representation of death without establishing the conception of death?

Or are they inseparable? Since there can be no reality of death in terms of its representation, there can also not be a narrative about death itself. It is like a circle; being is circling around what is unfamiliar in order to invent a confident familiarity within.
As a matter of f-act, we do not have any choice but to assimilate the attitude towards death through narratives, figures and images in order to dig this rabbit hole. Indeed it is a deep one.
Death is presented as part of the language, image and representation, whereas death itself stays at ease quietly as if it is a character watching and observing how the human being can overcome the fear and consternation. Death can only be depicted as a conception, out of spectator's realm of experience.

'The war we never saw, the true face of war'; that is the name of the programme which was shown on 5.June 2003, on Channel 4. Yes, we saw the true face of war and we witnessed the victims' suffering, unfairness, pain and agony within stupefaction. Disturbing images of bodies, hands, brains, parts of human beings, all those 'relics' were everywhere and nowhere at the same time.

How one is supposed to read these images?

How one is ready to accept the dilemma between 'an assurance of a recuperated mastery over and submission before the irrevocable law of death?'

The spectator hesitates, feels anxious, like the adrenaline slowly starts pumping through brain, and suspense claws ravenously.
Repressed knowledge of death, becomes accessible through the representation of death, distorts the order; the order of everyday life, the order of mundane.

The acknowledgement of death 'in someone else's body' occurs as an image or as a narrative. Ambivalence between death and life creates disturbance, and repressed knowledge of death places itself somewhere far away from the self.

On beholder's eye (I) there will be doubt and delaying up until one recognises the realm of mortality. But not always this realm is experienced, the image is most of the time read in a manner, which the spectator is far beyond empathising. Because s/he is in no position to identify any familiarity, whatsoever. Either chooses to ignore in order to protect or once more as psychoanalysists points out; repress the knowledge of mortality.

Then how do we associate ourselves with the reality of death and dying within the representation of death?

The representation of death 'point obliquely to that which threatens to disturb the order but articulate this disturbing knowledge of mortality in a displaced, re-coded and translated manner, and by virtue of the substitution render the dangerous knowledge as something beautiful, fascinating and ultimately reassuring.'

The programme created a kind of confrontation of my repressed knowledge of war and death. It was more like an exorcism, like I was being drawn to a picture where death was behaving badly. But I have to admit that I felt that I was ready to challenge my repressed knowledge even though the images created a terrible disturbance. Eventually, I came to a conclusion maybe that experience, which was out of my realm of experience, was sensitising rather than desensitising. Because the display of death was too realistic maybe more than spectator can bear, but still it was necessary up to a certain degree in order to come to terms with the tragedy which was and is being experienced there. Elimination throughout reasoning not something 'beautiful, fascinating' but 'reassuring'.

I have started to this project with adopting the notion of the idea that we have become more desensitised with the help of films, media and art. The images of death have changed our consciousness, awareness through the reality of death, in a way that they have created a kind of de-fence mechanism. This de-fence mechanism causes the spectator to create his or her own fantasy within a specific reasoning so that it is safe to view the display of death without getting so sympathetic and empathic.

Certain modes of understanding have been established while reading these images.

'The possibility of all imagery of all our pictorial modes of expression is contained in the logic of depiction.'

There can be ways of investigating the models of understanding, via psychoanalysis, philosophy or culturally and sociologically, yet I suspect when the emphasis is on the study of the individual, there will be always the same conclusion.

At the end of the day individual constructs his or her value judgements through the reality of things, or the thing called 'reality' in terms of its logical depiction.

I can easily indulge myself to examine the tacit knowledge behind this reading within philosophical approach.

Value judgements of reality become quite intimate and intrinsic like death itself. Having said that I would like to imply that for me it was necessary to come to an understanding of the events-while watching that programme-but that does not mean the other spectator is ready there to manipulate same kind of reaction.

So how can we generalise or categorise the modes of understanding?
Is it possible to speculate the modes of understanding within a generalised concept?

However, to scrutinise culturally and socially how it is constructed and examine the normative, and society's behaviour to the images of death, hopefully will bring some concrete explanation to the models of understanding.