Translation as pretensial primacy

translation as pretensial primacy – insofar as symbols are given, and they are transparently useless
as their reference is unnecessary, and the plasticity of forms is a window to other windows
as the relation of an event is told directly within an organic system that acknowledges the up and down movement of arbitrarity (the jahili studied as corollaries to decipher inscribed arabic), as opposed to the total universality of a language that is foundationally borrowed (the jesouian and propagated) (both here spread, but the functional difference of transparency and connection – what is a word, concept and physical space is turned to an entity of total control)
the comparison between what has the mystification of place and particularity (coupled with the movement and unformed objectifications (ie. gods) of indeterminacy), with the totally irrelevant, implicitly argues for the self-aware – the danger of the self-aware and the uselessness of language;

the placeless incorporates itself into a temporal sphere of this place, that place – the fitting in of the chinese jesus with the romanian one
the situation here is one of reverse translation – where the miracles of guadalupe are heralded as a primacy and the borrowed coca-cola santa claus is integrated against what is catholic, what isn’t, what is commercial, what isn’t – the polylocational unified into a disjunctive harmony that says nothing monolinguistic, nothing direct and apprehensible. so there are borrowed forms of christianity – except these are authenticities, what occurs in one country cannot be displaced by the occurrence in another – not so with the original, which displaces what opposes it by the simple opposition.

the uselessness of language:

potentially useful, potentially directing, the language masquerades as positions within reality, as a toys-r-us sequence where the pleasure in its reception meets with the particular; shipped to another country, the locality of the pleasing is irrelevant to exoticism. so you read a book. others can or cannot read the same work – others can or cannot have the same body – the latter is absurd, which gives lie to the former. the translation is totally excised from the topological and obligatory; aristophanes exists in multiple forms, and the awkwardness and variously failed comic abstrusities are evidence of its value and self-denigration – as aristophanes more fittingly surmises – just as the irony of socrates best fits his satirical representations – what it takes to simply leech and destroy is nothing – nothing compared to the total artificial independence of the translated text;