Sunday, February 24, 2013

Of One or Many Suns

I understand why a critique of heliocentrism is necessary. It is Ptolemaic at a remove. We are not the center of the universe but for some reason our sun is. No, obviously not. And yet we are not in bondage to the sun. The sun to earth has been our curious enabler, our indifferent patron. We wake, stumble out of cosmic sleep, and find milk jugs and a sack of bread and food on our doorstep. No note, no instructions. We groggily stumble back into our adobe shelter and ponder why we’ve been given free riches. Will these riches last forever? No, obviously not. But there is more in this sack than we have ever seen. No instructions, simply patronage. Will our sun die out? Sure, eventually. But every morning there they are, as we wake – Milk jugs, strawberries, bread, water. Is our sun the center of all that there is? No, obviously not. Must earth become promiscuous? Not by necessity, and certainly not for a long time. There are no instructions. May earth become promiscuous? Sure, why not? There are many other deliveries of patronage made to other rocks in other parts of the cosmos, but it’s not bondage. If the sun threatens us we have only ourselves to blame and would be well advised to fix ourselves rather meddling with the 'free shit that we're given with no expectation or instructions' arrangement. The fact that we’ve figured the sun as the singular and lonesome provider in our hermetic and isolate figuration of ourselves in the cosmos – even in our contemporary heliocentric form, "[the] conservative image of thought in which one can only dissipate or die accordingto the model of energetic dissipation that the Sun has engrained within the terrestrial organisms”[1] – is not the fucking sun’s fault. There were no instructions, just some free energy and an ostensible sanction to do anything.

[1] Reza Negarestani, “Solar Inferno and the Earthbound Abyss” Our Sun, 2010, 4.

No comments:

Post a Comment