Mikhail Arkadev @arkdv

b.1958,Moscow,Russia.Pianist;Conductor;https://t.co/kziFRklB2q of the Tchaikovsky Conservatoire, Moscow,1978;Russian Academy of Music Gnessin,1988 arkadev.com Russia Joined December 2010

Tweets

2K
Followers

87
Following

54
Likes

311

Mikhail Arkadev @arkdv

3 years ago

@ziyafe @aktroitsky Музыка замечательная, но не для попсовых ушей.

1 0 0 7 0

View Details

Mikhail Arkadev @arkdv

5 years ago

Let us repeat our contention: language and its most important form (inner speech) are largely inaccessible to direct observation or direct impact.

0 0 0 0 0

View Details

LANGUAGE AS CATASTROPHE An essay in structural-existential philosophy “Where there is danger, there is salvation” F.Hölderlin “…catastrophes are terms for describing the appearance of discrete structures out of smooth and uninterrupted ones” Vl.Arnold Catastrophe Theory

41 0 0 0 1

View Details

Mikhail Arkadev @arkdv

5 years ago

Thus are born the logic and practice of suicide, and its external transfer – murder unmotivated by express survival. Only death itself can destroy the awareness of death.

0 0 0 0 0

View Details

Mikhail Arkadev @arkdv

5 years ago

The sustained and coherent,yet ever unsuccessful struggle with the fracture,i.e. with the language,with its a priori ‘matrix’,leads inexorably to the attempt to destroy the body that carries within an automated inner speech, as well as its consequence: the consciousness of death.

0 0 0 0 0

View Details

Mikhail Arkadev @arkdv

5 years ago

The logic here is patent:this never-ending struggle with one’s own shadow,with the naming of death,leads,in a statistically inevitable fashion to an ‘aphasic bound’ – a violent and/or suicidal physical death, i.e. to the destruction/self-destruction of the bearer of the language.

0 0 0 0 0

View Details

Mikhail Arkadev @arkdv

5 years ago

It is so because of the impossibility of destroying, while one lives, the very linguistic activity generating the fracture and the awareness of death.

0 0 0 0 0

View Details

Mikhail Arkadev @arkdv

5 years ago

My contention is that both the mostly unconscious and the often conscious and quite deliberate and radical struggle of man with language-consciousness is permanent in the realms of both social and personal history.

0 0 0 0 0

View Details

Mikhail Arkadev @arkdv

5 years ago

Strictly speaking, death is ‘absolute aphasia’. To the extent,and only to the extent,that man strives for continuity,for a pre- and non-verbal state,he collides with the reality of [a] shadow,and the logic of death as the limit;including cases of certain temporary forms of death.

0 0 0 0 0

View Details

Mikhail Arkadev @arkdv

5 years ago

The subject of aphasia (i.e. the loss of speech) which has long been a subject of intense interest among linguists and psychologists, is, in our context, logically connected with the subject of death.

0 0 0 0 0

View Details

Mikhail Arkadev @arkdv

5 years ago

So, again: inner speech, and therefore the fracture and the consciousness of death are inexpungible while man is alive and not suffering from either far gone organic aphasia or irreversible insanity.

0 0 0 0 0

View Details

Mikhail Arkadev @arkdv

5 years ago

The methods of this struggle are quite diverse.

0 0 0 0 0

View Details

Mikhail Arkadev @arkdv

5 years ago

A battle with language/speech – the twin agents provoking man to reflect on death – both in their profound, say, ‘quiet’ form (inner speech also the internalized letter-seal,‘instance of the letter in the unconscious’)as well as in the open form (vocalized speech,visible writing)

0 0 0 0 0

View Details

Mikhail Arkadev @arkdv

5 years ago

In the cultural space a constant battle is being waged against linguistic fractures;

0 0 0 0 0

View Details

Mikhail Arkadev @arkdv

5 years ago

After a child begins to speak and acquires inner speech, with its specific syntax, language becomes a deep psychological structure; in this capacity, it is indestructible while the (native) speaker of that language is alive.

0 0 0 0 0

View Details

Mikhail Arkadev @arkdv

5 years ago

in a ‘pre’-awareness-of-death situation, the return to ‘directness/continuity’ can be achieved only at the price of a living human body and all linguistic activity.

0 0 0 0 0

View Details

Mikhail Arkadev @arkdv

5 years ago

Rather, the opportunity is given to him in the radical form of suicide, and it is this radicality that serves to delineate the logical and ontological boundaries of human existence:

0 0 0 0 0

View Details

Mikhail Arkadev @arkdv

5 years ago

And while he is alive, as long as the concept of ‘a living person’ is applicable to him, neither can he fully return to the ‘direct, inartificial immediacy’ of a pre-language existence.

0 0 0 0 0

View Details

Mikhail Arkadev @arkdv

5 years ago

Man strives for continuity, fights against fractures, against the consciousness of death, but he cannot catch his own shadow;

0 0 0 0 0

View Details

Mikhail Arkadev @arkdv

5 years ago

Thus, biological death and language may be seen as the constitutive boundaries rigidly delineating the entire space of the human perspective, the space containing relevant human problems.

0 0 0 0 0

View Details

Mikhail Arkadev @arkdv

5 years ago

This situation is,in principle, unsolvable as long as we are talking about a living person as the bearer of a) his body and b) ‘a language matrix’, i.e. linguistic structures embedded in the brain by, possibly, evolution, as well as, first and foremost, by the human environment.