Beneath The Sheets: Simulating A Critique of Desire

"[Her] flashing eyes, her aching lips, her heart-ending moans, those I had imagined, an ongoing list, so minute and distracting that long after, when the sheets were gathered, wet with sex, cold with rest, I did not know who lay beside me..."

-Mark Z. Danielewski (House of Leaves)

Eroticism is efflorescence. It is a flowering supplication, yielding the production of a triplicate blossom - a ménage à trois of inevitable vampirism, leaving with it the impenetrable truth that everything flowers at the edge of hesitant restitution.

Consider, for instance, the conjoining separation of Reason and Understanding in relation to its pivoting intermediary Judgment. As parerga, Judgment frames (both in separation and unification) the notions of Reason and Understanding, thus granting rise to a truth which may only be read beneath the surface (or between the margins). It is here that a Critique of Judgment (and, at its very heart, Knowledge) assails all essence into the ineffable unraveling of an infinitely Virtuous Circle – a consistence of reparation and re-reparation bound within the mind’s conscious incessancy towards a lustful accretion.

What then, in light of such recondite delineation, and given the minimal expanse of all that can be deemed as separate from the conspiratory nature of modernized aesthetic simulation, would a Critique of Desire call for? Would it be a partition aside from veneration? Would it ever be aside at all?

The Critique of Desire would call for a bilinear juxtaposition of the Critique of Judgment in order to present, in its flesh, a knowledgeable recognition of all that stands to be fetishized through its inherent eroticism. This fetishization, like myth like history, battens with it a tertiary deconstruction that should (with an amative alacrity) be viewed as concomitant. Such an originate structure would, however, by its very nature necessitate a call for an irresistible synonymity of translation:

1.) Consumption acting as Reasoning.

2.) Reception acting as Understanding.

3.) Apportion acting as Judgment.

It is important to note, upon the agency of this analogic reciprocity, that Apportion should not refer to economy here. It is best to first understand that Love is by no means an economy of possession; it would then only stand to reason that Desire (acting, in itself, as a “marginized” phase of connectivity) could not exist within the realms of a possessive economy. No, by Apportion the means of conveyance suggest instead a malleable equilibrium (a constancy of ceding) – a giving almost seemingly out of precondition, out of desire, and perhaps even out of necessity itself.

This Apportion, in end, acts both as intermediary and unifier within the bordello of Desire (much as Judgment acts within the realm of Knowledge), ultimately pivoting against the notions of Consumption (a conscious taking and hence the Reasoning of this Desire) and Reception (an active receiving and therefore subsequently the Understanding of this Desire).

Thus, through a comparative elucidation, the seed of this initial flowering may be seen, in many regards, as coming to a head… But this, of course, would call for a “seduction”; and that for a separate simulation.