Tag: Subjunctive

Everything is Subjunctive

Subjectivity Implies Reality’s Contingency:

“Everything is subjective” is a performative contradiction, a metaphysical sleight of hand. The assertion of subjectivity as a universal condition paradoxically institutes a meta-subjectivity, a transcendental signifier that grounds the very groundlessness it proclaims. This is the insidious logic of the logocentric, a phantom objectivity haunting the spectral realm of the subjective. The subjunctive, often relegated to the margins of grammatical discourse, is here elevated to an ontological principle. Yet, in this elevation, it is also diminished, reduced to a mere modality of the subjective.

The subjunctive, a mode of potentiality, of what could be, is thus conscripted into the service of a metaphysics of indeterminacy. This is a curious operation, a dialectic of affirmation and negation. On the one hand, the subjunctive opens up a space of infinite possibility, a horizon of undecidability. On the other, it is confined within the limits of the subjective, a bounded field of experience.

The play between the subjective and the subjunctive, between the actual and the potential, is a chiasmic entanglement.The one is always already implicated in the other, and vice versa. In this sense, the claim “everything is subjective” is not merely a description of the world but a performative act that constructs the world as such. It is a deconstruction of the metaphysical edifice, a dismantling of the hierarchical opposition between subject and object, appearance and reality. Yet,in this deconstruction, new structures of power and meaning emerge, new forms of domination and exclusion.

The question then becomes: Can the subjunctive be liberated from the constraints of subjectivity? Can it become a site of radical alterity, a space beyond the reach of metaphysics? Or is it doomed to remain a captive of the logocentric order, a ghost haunting the machine of representation?

A “presque” Deleuzian Perspective

To assert “everything is subjective” is to posit a false unity, a phantom totality. It is to impose a static order upon the ceaseless flux of becoming. Subjectivity, in this sense, is a molar construct, a rigid form that arrests the nomadic flow of desire.

Rather than a realm of personal opinion, the subjective is a field of intensities, a dynamic interplay of forces. It is not a bounded territory but an open, expansive plane. To say “everything is subjunctive” might appear to align with this,suggesting a world of potentiality. However, the subjunctive is still trapped within the confines of representation, of a language bound by grammar and logic.

Deleuze would insist on a move beyond subjectivity, towards a becoming-imperceptible. The true plane of immanence is not subjective or objective but a pure difference without identity. It is a field of intensities where desire flows freely,unhindered by the molar formations of subjectivity. To truly grasp the world, one must become a nomad, a line of flight escaping the sedentary order of representation. The subjunctive, while hinting at a world beyond the given, ultimately remains within the horizon of the possible, a realm still circumscribed by the virtual.

To truly think without a subject is to enter the abyss of pure creation, to become a force of difference. Only then can we begin to understand the world as a rhizomatic multiplicity, a dynamic network without center or hierarchy.

EVERYTHING IS SUBJUNCTIVE

The assertion “everything is subjunctive” is a provocative invitation into a deconstructive exploration of language and ontology. It dismantles the rigid structures of logic and metaphysics, opening up a space of infinite deferral. The subjunctive, often marginalized as a grammatical mood of potentiality, becomes the fundamental mode of being, challenging the metaphysics of presence and refusing the absolute.

This subjunctive realm is not a utopian escape but a site of perpetual negotiation, where meaning is always in flux. It posits language as a ceaseless play of signifiers without ultimate signified, transforming the subjunctive from a mere grammatical construct into an ontological condition.

Reality, then, becomes a chiasm of the actual and the virtual, an interplay of presence and absence. This perspective destabilizes the foundations of metaphysics, dissolving the rigid dichotomies that have long dominated philosophical thought.

The subjunctive becomes the haunting specter of what could be, a ghost in the machine of language. However, it is not a realm of pure freedom but a site of complex interrelations, a network of differences. It is within this différance that the world unfolds, a perpetual becoming without origin or end.

This view invites us to reconsider our understanding of existence, truth, and meaning, proposing a more fluid and dynamic ontology that embraces potentiality and ambiguity as fundamental aspects of reality.

Repetition

The subjunctive transcends its grammatical origins, emerging as a cosmic force and vital intensity. It represents the plane of immanence where all possibilities converge and diverge, forming a rhizome of potentialities. This dynamic flow escapes the constraints of representation, revealing the true nature of becoming—a process without subject or object, a pure event.

In this perspective, the universe is not a realm of uncertainty but a field of infinite creativity, a space for inventing new worlds. The actual world is always a partial realization of a virtual multiplicity, where the subjunctive acts as the generative power itself.

To embrace the subjunctive is to affirm the joy of creation and the ecstasy of difference. It represents the nomadic movement beyond the fixed and determined, a vitalism without ground. This cosmic force embodies the affirmation of difference over identity, of becoming over being.

In essence, the subjunctive becomes the lifeblood of reality’s rhizomatic structure, fostering multiple, open-ended connections. It is not a modalization of the possible but the pure event itself, a ceaseless differentiation that shapes our understanding of existence and potential.

The subjunctive is the collapse of the subject-object dichotomy. It is the dissolution of the rigid structures of representation. It is the affirmation of a world without guarantees, a universe of pure intensity. In this sense, the subjunctive is not merely a linguistic mode but a cosmic condition, a fundamental ontological principle.

It’s all Subjunctive

Oedipoid and vast, the world swam in a subjunctive sea. Every action, a ripple in the pond of potentiality. Was it rain that fell, or merely the memory of rain, a phantom echo from some parallel dimension where skies wept? Perhaps it never rained at all, and the damp chill was a collective delusion, a product of a species forever haunted by the might-have-beens.

We, the stardust-forged marionettes, danced a jerky jig on the stage of existence, strings pulled by unseen hands, or perhaps by the cruel laughter of a god who found amusement in our fumbling attempts at the indicative. Every choice, a forking path leading to a universe unlived. Did the other versions of ourselves, in those unblossomed realities, curse the paths not taken, the loves unrequited, the potential left to rot on the vine?

Or maybe it was all a grand malfunction, a cosmic computer running a faulty program. Perhaps somewhere, a celestial engineer toiled endlessly, desperately trying to patch the code, to nudge reality back into the indicative, the realm of the certain. But for us, adrift in the subjunctive soup, the only certainty was uncertainty itself. We were forever chasing the ghost of a perfect tense, a past that might have been, a future that could yet unravel. It was a maddening waltz, this dance of maybes, a symphony of “ifs” echoing through the caverns of existence.

<>

Oedipoid it might be, this whole “subjunctive” racket. A yearning for a reality that could have been, a universe where verbs shimmered with possibility instead of the blunt, indicative thrust of the everyday. Perhaps, in some parallel dimension, a past tense whispered, “We went to the moon,” while here, on this cracked and anxious Earth, it remained a tense, throbbing “We went to the moon,” forever teetering between triumph and the abyss.

Conspiracy theorists, those fringe dwellers on the map of human discourse, might see a plot, a grand, subjunctive orchestration by unseen forces. The powerful, they’d mutter, rewriting history in the subjunctive, erasing inconvenient truths with a flick of their metaphorical past-tense eraser. Did the Kennedys die, or were they merely erased from a timeline that never quite solidified?

But maybe it’s simpler than that. Maybe the subjunctive is the language of dreams, of half-formed desires and anxieties. It’s the voice whispering in the back of your head, “If only I’d taken that other job,” or the primal fear that curdles your stomach, “They might find out.” It’s the chorus of what-ifs that hums beneath the surface of our lives, a counterpoint to the melody of the real.

So next time you find yourself slipping into the subjunctive, don’t dismiss it as a grammatical quirk. It might be a key, a portal to a hidden dimension, or a map of the labyrinthine desires that make you, you. It’s all subjunctive, man, all subjunctive.

<>

Waldo, bleary-eyed from a night spent navigating the byzantine byways of paranoia, squinted at the blinking neon sign: “Subjunctive’s.” A seedy joint, even by the standards of the Yoyodyne Incorporated sprawl. Inside, a haze of cigarette smoke hung heavy, punctuated by the rhythmic thrum of a malfunctioning slot machine. A barkeep with a face like a topographical map wiped down a chipped glass with a sigh that could curdle milk.

“Subjunctive, huh?” he rasped, voice seasoned with regret. “That’d be the life, wouldn’t it? Where everything’s a possibility, a shimmering mirage in the desert of the indicative. But here, friend, it’s all past participle, the echoes of choices not taken bouncing off the walls.”

Waldo nursed a lukewarm beer, the bitter tang a counterpoint to the metallic tang of existential dread. Maybe it was all subjunctive, a vast conspiracy where the present was merely a suggestion, the future a hall of mirrors reflecting infinite “maybes.” Perhaps the whole damn system, from the Yoyodyne rockets to the flickering neon, ran on the subjunctive’s ethereal fuel.

A woman, all elbows and cigarette burns, sidled up to him. Her eyes, glittering with a manic intensity, held a glint of shared paranoia. “They say,” she whispered, voice raspy as a malfunctioning fax machine, “there’s a machine down in the sub-basement. A contraption that can rewrite the subjunctive, bend it to your will. Make the impossible the indicative.”

Intrigue, a flickering ember in Waldo’s soul, began to blaze. Was it a fool’s errand, a descent into a rabbit hole of conspiracies? Or was it a chance to rewrite the script, to escape the subjunctive prison and forge a new reality, indicative and absolute? With a grimace that could have been a smile, Waldo downed his beer. Maybe it was all subjunctive, but that didn’t mean you couldn’t play the game.