Eddie, 9/4

Macherey’s idea of the explicit as light and implicit as shadow was discussed and elaborated in class, and while it captures, more or less, the outline of the concept, I do not think it is the clearest example for this elaboration.

If Machery is to be believed, what is written – the explicit– do not always reflect what the writer truly wishes to say and much of the true message lies in the shadow casted by the illumination of the text – the implicit, the unsaid. It is this large area of the unspoken that creates the island of what is said. Yet realistically, do we understand the world through shadows? When we see something, we indeed see the light, perceive it and understand the characteristics of the object from light and what is lit. What is not lit does not further our perceptions. But further more, the example has the relationship backwards. How could light originate from shadow? If I hate people and do not wish to establish social connections, I would write “I love to kick puppies” to alienate others, even though I do not, in fact, kick them (nor do I hate people). Yet writing “I love to kick puppies” does not cause me to take up the notion of hating people. It does not work the other way around, it seems.

I agree with Macherey's theory, just not the example he choose. Consider, then, the wind. Standing in a windy countryside, we can expect to hear and see the wind all around us. Or can we? The fact is, all our lives, we have never seen or heard the wind. We are unable to do that. What we commonly know as the wind is more accurately its effects. We see the leaves of trees moved by the shifting air and clouds being pushed along. Grass moved by the wind brush against one another to give the familiar rustling sound that we percieve. Yet we do not call what we see and hear as “trees shaking," "grass swaying" or "clouds moving,” but rather, just "wind." This illustrates to us an unseen force that itself can never be physically percieved but is seem in its interaction of other tangible physical entities. That is what Macherey is trying to tell us.