Apollonian and Dionysian questions

Going back to a few key points raised in Vocalities last week regarding the polemical Apollonian and Dionysian positions and their, errr possible, convergence(s) with sound, respectively the mutilation of music, the modification and control (Socrates, Plato refs in Dolar etc) and the rather Bacchic, collective and etherial implications of Grimes presence in the 2011 London Riots (TM)  - see Marks comments from last week about the power of dubstep bass and the content in this months Wire (335), the crackle of dissent.... and, yeah, juggling a touch here, the role of echos in Plato's Cave (in Republic IIRC)... there seems to be a strong sense of unity in established logos, of conformism and social co-operation - to break is asocial(♰), selfish and of no benefit (or even of detriment) for the deluded, but logos 'understanding', many (again, in the cave)... think of The Sirens(✞) (and their legacy outlined by Prochnik)..the alogos call of dissent, and the role of Sirens as scaring/scarring - is this fear of the Siren - or it's (the Sirens) militarised function today a form of freaking the modern comfy logosphile troglodyte into conforming for the sake of society, for the sake of logos? When I think of some live music experiences I think of the adrenalin, the fluttering chest, the anxiety before succumbing to the physical surges of the crowd and the euphoria of noise and light - but this is always something you trust, something you choose to lose yourself in. Imposing the Dionysian Siren (the most effective of which are alogos - see the NYPD Rumbler device) is this not a paradoxical deployment of a Dionysian siren, a quick theological stab to remind one to face forwards and continue naming the shadows dancing on the wall?(ƨ)

♰) Isn't breaking from logos denying language?
✞) Possibly rope in and align Echo and Narcissus here too, Narcissus was repulsed by Echo's advances not because he loved himself (although he did), not because she morphed and manipulated his language but precisely because there was, arguably, NO DIAlogue  - there was no exchange and communication, but pure exo-sonics twisting his own (mono)logue. Could this be an interpretation of his reasons for exclaiming "I'll die before I yield to you"? To be outside of logos, outside of communication (which was Echo's punishment after all for gossiping with Hera (Big Z's wife yo) while Zeus played away) - was too scary, hellish a prospect for him, and even though Narcissus was a selfish (arguably aligning with Apollonian themes) the temptation of one of the nymphs would not be enough for him to abandon logos, language, communication.... For Narcissus was the ultimate anti-dioysian, he was the ultimate Self-loving, self-centered symbol, Dionysism is about the collective, the crowd, the frenzy - Narcissus would be out at the clubs much, he'd be indoors preening himself, adoring his individuality (albeit unbeknown to him), cosy in logos....
ƨ)The dyad, the extimacy could crop up here too.... is this not a scary glimmer of our own internal Dionysian/Apollonian antisyzygy

Hope this isn't too binary and simplistic, but I am getting a little wrapped up in finding threads of sonic applicable relevance between all these dyads, extimacies, syzygies, polemics and struggles....

Object Voice Diagram (Tentative)

This is my attempt to graph the notion of Object Voice as I understand it so far, note it is not a loop, or circle, as the big arrows misleadingly show (these are merely present to highlight the forces which 'build' the object voice, and are, at the same time, the object voice) - the large arrows point to different sides of the Mobius strip and this is located at the convergence between Logos and Remnant. So look at the centre and imagine the Mobius strip and pan out for the details of it's strange dyadic dynamics, it's extimacy...

At first I felt the logos bubble should be much larger than the exo/remnant side, dwarfing it like an eclipse to reflect the metaphysical history Dolar runs through, but as this Logos voice is only granted authority by the remnant, and the remnant is key to allowing Logos becoming act etc... I felt I'll leave them at similar sizes - maybe through a historical perspective (if we could add a depth/history vector to the drawing - shifting from 2d to 3d) then a colossal exo remnant could lurk on the horizon but appear historically as lesser in size than the Logos realm?

The section on Hegel in Derrida's essay feels very very similar to this Object Voice notion just an anatropic, or inside out, version leaning on auto-affection? - Maybe that's just me.

EDIT - ok, I just finished the Derrida essay, I cannot see much difference (no pun, lets not go there) regarding voice between the two to be honest, Dolar twists the Exo into a helix supporting the Logos, Derrida calls on Heidegger's 'being' before showing how being cannot be outside of logos essentially.... I also feel I have been a touch harsh on Jacques, and Dolar couldn't have enjoyed such critical leverage had he quoted the line afterwards..... I can't outline this without re-hashing and transcribing whole chunks of each text....

Anyway, here is one part of Derrida's essay that sticks out like a sore thumb (concerning the similarities between Derrida's voice and Lacan/Dolar's Object Voice) - my italics....

"It is thus that, after evoking the "voice of being" Heidegger recalls that it is silent, mute, insonorous, wordless, originally a-phonic (...) The voice of the sources is not heard. A rupture between the ordinary meaning of being and the word, between meaning and the voice, between "the voice of being" and the "phone", between the "call of being" and articulated sound; such a rupture, which at once confirms a fundamental metaphor, and renders it suspect by accentuating its metaphoric discrepancy, translates the ambiguity of the Heideggerian situation with respect to the metaphysics of presence and logocentrism. It is at once contained within it and transgresses it. But it is impossible to separate the two."

P.22, - From Jacques Derrida, "The End of the Book and the Beginning of writing", from Of Grammatology


If I'm totally mis-reading this please chime in (or email me).