On the Poem -Pensive Subjectivism, or -

The original text is here: http://proza.ru/2025/12/24/1795 


Let us begin with the text of the work by K. Privalov:


-  -  -  -  -

              Pensive Subjectivism, or…



                …we live in captivity to interpretations.




(Subjectivism — as an endless overcoming of the determinacy of content and the univocity of definition; a constant referral of the signifier to the signifieds and back again; multiple and multidirectional re-significations without the completion of this process.)


I formulate ideas of the Self from shadowed awareness,
I articulate meaning at the edge of silence near.
I verbalize the drives that inwardly ensnare us,
I speak them out, with no anticipation here.

I voice the fragile contour thought is made to trace,
I utter what had scarcely dared to live.
I declaim a clarity grounded in numeric space,
And words exceed the formal bounds of “love” they give…

               
-  -  -  -  -




THUS:


GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TEXT

The poem “Pensive Subjectivism, or…” by Konstantin Privalov is a metapoetic and metaphilosophical text constructed as a reflection on the very act of thinking and articulation.

In terms of genre, it belongs to philosophical lyric poetry with elements of conceptual writing, where poetic form is used to analyze the limits of language, meaning, and subjectivity.

This is not a “poem about something,” but a poem as a process of thinking itself.



THE EPIGRAPH

“…we live in captivity to interpretations.”

This is the key ontological thesis of the text. The world is not given directly.

Reality is experienced through interpretations, not as a “thing-in-itself.”

The epigraph sets the frame: everything that follows is not a claim to truth, but a demonstration of how interpretation operates.



THE PROSAIC DEFINITION OF SUBJECTIVISM

“Subjectivism — as an endless overcoming of the determinacy of content and the univocity of definition…”

This is a quasi-philosophical definition, deliberately overloaded:

- extended syntactic breathing;

- absence of a terminal point of meaning;

- multiple clarifications without reaching a conclusion.


Important:

this prose insertion does not explain the poem — it itself becomes an object of poetic irony.

It demonstrates precisely that overthought subjectivism which is then enacted in the verse.



THE LYRIC SUBJECT: NOT AN “I,” BUT A FUNCTION

“I formulate ideas of the Self from shadowed awareness”

The “I” is not a center, but a derivative.

“Shadowed awareness” implies:

- secondariness;

- reflectivity;

- lack of ontological density.

The lyrical “I” is not the source of meaning, but its side-effect.



VERBAL STRUCTURE: POETRY AS AN ACT OF ARTICULATION

Almost every line begins with a verb of linguistic action:

formulate, articulate, verbalize, speak, voice, utter, declaim.

This is fundamental.

The poem does not describe thoughts — it enumerates attempts to express them.

What we see is not thought itself, but a chain of its failed translations into language.



THE CENTRAL TENSION: MEANING <--> SILENCE

“I articulate meaning at the edge of silence.”

This is the key line. Meaning exists at the boundary of language. Speech is always slightly delayed. Silence is not the opposite of speech, but its limit.

Here the text becomes existential, not merely philosophical.



THE IMAGE OF THE “FRAGILE CONTOUR OF THOUGHT”

“I voice the fragile contour thought is made to trace.”

Thought is:

- not a thing;

- not a content;

- but a contour, a form without filling.

It is:

- fragile;

- temporary;

- existent only in the moment of articulation.

This is a strong anti-essentialist gesture.



THE FINAL MOVE: THE CRISIS OF THE UNIVERSAL WORD

“And words exceed the formal bounds of ‘love’…”

Here a semantic rupture occurs.

“Love” — one of the most universal and loaded words of language —

turns out to be:

- formal;

- insufficient;

- incapable of containing experience.

The ending is not cathartic, but open:

- no assertion,

- no reconciliation,

- no truth.

Only an exit beyond the boundary — into nowhere.



SUMMARY INTERPRETATION

This poem is:

- not about love;

- not about subjectivism as a theory;

- not about the “I.”

It is about the impossibility of coincidence between thought, word, and meaning.

Key characteristics:

1) Poetics of process, not result;

2) Language as a problem, not a tool;

3) The subject as a function of articulation;

4) Meaning as a temporary event.


What can be stated with certainty:

- the text is intellectually coherent;

- compositionally precise;

- consciously positioned at the boundary of philosophy and poetry;

- not a “stream of consciousness,” but a rigorously structured metatext.





                NOW — THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND IT



THE PHILOSOPHICAL FRAMEWORK BEHIND THE TEXT



1. Structuralism: language as an autonomous system of differences


        The core structuralist framework

Structuralism (in linguistics and philosophy) proceeds from the assumption that:

- meaning does not belong to the subject;

- meaning arises within a system of differences;

- the sign is not directly connected to the thing.

This logic originates with Ferdinand de Saussure.

Direct correlation with the text

“…a constant referral of the signifier to the signifieds and back again.”

This is almost a textbook formulation of the structuralist thesis:

- signifier =/= signified;

- their connection is arbitrary;

- meaning is a function of the system, not of lived experience.

Important:
the text does not explain this model — it uses it as a given.



STRUCTURALIST FEATURES WITHIN THE POEM

1) Meaning is not primary

“I articulate meaning…”

Meaning does not exist prior to articulation — it is produced by language.


2) The “I” is not the source of meaning

“I formulate ideas of the Self from shadowed awareness.”

The subject is secondary with respect to linguistic structure.


3) Priority of form

“the fragile contour of thought.”

Thought is not content, but a form of differentiation.

At the level of structuralism, the text is strictly coherent: it fully fits the model of language as a system.




2. Transition: the crisis of structuralism within the text


But then something crucial happens.

Structuralism presupposes:

- stability of the system;

- the possibility of describing structure.


Yet the text states:

“an endless overcoming of the determinacy of content.”

This is already a break with structuralism.

Here POST-STRUCTURALISM BEGINS.




3. Post-structuralism: dissolution of structure and infinite play
The core post-structuralist thesis


Post-structuralism asserts that:

- structure is not closed;

- meanings do not stabilize;

- interpretation is infinite.

This is above all the trajectory of Jacques Derrida.

Direct correlation with the text:

“multiple and multidirectional re-significations without the completion of this process.”

This is a definition of diff;rance (difference / deferral of meaning), even if the term itself is not named.

Meaning:

- is always deferred;

- is never fully present;

- emerges only as a trace.




4. Deconstruction of the subject

          The post-structuralist position


In Jacques Derrida, Roland Barthes, and Michel Foucault:

- the subject is an effect of discourse;

- the “I” is not a center, but a knot in language.


In the text:

“I formulate ideas of the Self from shadowed awareness.”

This is pure post-structuralism:

- the “I” is not identical to itself;

- consciousness is not transparent;

- the source of utterance is obscured.

Here the text is closer to Barthes’ “death of the author” than to classical philosophy of the subject.




5. Metalanguage and self-reflexivity


Post-structuralism is characterized by the fact that:

- the text knows itself as text;

- language speaks about language.

There is no external object in the poem. Its object is the act of utterance itself.

The verbal chain:

formulate --> articulate --> verbalize --> speak --> voice --> utter --> declaim

This is a METALINGUISTIC LADDER, where:

- each word is an attempt;

- none is final.

This aligns the text with discursive analysis in the spirit of Michel Foucault: utterance as an event, not as transmission of meaning.




6. The collapse of the universal signifier

          The ending:

“And words exceed the formal bounds of ‘love’.”

Here the last hope of structuralism collapses — the idea of universal signs is disavowed.

“Love” is one of the most:

- culturally fixed;

- repeatedly used;

- supposedly “understandable” words.

And yet it turns out to be an empty form, incapable of holding experience.

This is a post-structuralist rejection of universals.



7. The crucial conclusion

The text does not illustrate philosophy. It PRODUCES philosophy poetically.

This is not a “poem about post-structuralism,” but a poem written from within post-structuralist consciousness.





WHERE POETRY BEGINS TO DO WHAT PHILOSOPHY CANNOT


1. Philosophy must stabilize concepts. Poetry does not.


Philosophy (including post-structuralism) is forced to:

- introduce terms;

- maintain their distinctness;

- explain what exactly is meant.

Even in Derrida, diff;rance must be explicated through text.


      Where poetry exceeds the limit:

“I formulate ideas of the Self from shadowed awareness.”

Here occurs what philosophy cannot permit:

- the “Self” is undefined;

- “consciousness” is undefined;

- “shadow” is not a metaphor with an explanation.

Philosophy must ask: whose shadow? shadow of what? in what sense consciousness?

Poetry leaves this unresolved — and this is its power.

Result: NOT A CONCEPT of the subject, BUT AN EXPERIENCE OF THE INSTABILITY of the subject.



2. Philosophy speaks about the limit of language. Poetry places the reader on it.


Philosophy may assert that language is limited, that meaning slips away — but it always does so in structured, explanatory language.

Where does the break occur? - “I articulate meaning at the edge of silence.”

This is not a thesis; it is a situation into which the reader is placed:

- the line itself hesitates;

- meaning is not given;

- silence does not arrive, but presses.

Philosophy would say: meaning is apophatic.
Poetry makes the reader live through apophasis without naming it.

This cannot be translated into philosophical language without loss.



3. Philosophy analyzes the process. Poetry is the process.


Philosophy describes articulation, signification, discourse. Poetry here does not describe — it enacts.

A philosophical text would say: “language passes through stages of articulation.”

Poetry unfolds these stages in time; the reader passes through them bodily (breath, rhythm).

This is the key difference.

Philosophy reflects on the process.
Poetry synchronizes the reader with the process.



4. Philosophy must retain reference. Poetry can let it go.


Philosophy, even post-structuralist philosophy, always remains within the mode:

text <--> concept.

Poetry can allow empty form.

The key moment: “I voice the fragile contour of thought.”

Here:

- there is no thought itself;

- no content;

- only a contour.

Philosophy cannot operate with a “contour without filling” — it needs an object of analysis.

Poetry makes emptiness experiential, without filling it.

This is not ambiguity; it is ontic emptiness.



5. Philosophy critiques universals. Poetry destroys them from within.


Philosophy can claim that universal signifiers are illusory — that is a thesis.

Where poetry does what philosophy cannot: “And words exceed the formal bounds of ‘love’.”

There is no explanation of why “love” is formal. The word is emptied by context, not by argument.

Philosophy must:

- prove;

- justify;

- cite.

Poetry strips the word of force by the fact of its use.

“Love” collapses — it is not refuted, but fails.



6. Final divergence


Philosophy works with concepts, explains instability, thinks about language.

Poetry (in this text):

- creates instability;

- turns language into an event;

- does not communicate, but produces experience.

If stated as sharply as possible:

- philosophy says: “meaning slips away”;

- poetry makes it slip away right now, for the reader.




             FINAL EMPHASIS (crucial)

This text is not “philosophical.”
It is structurally non-philosophical (even anti-philosophical) — and precisely for that reason, philosophically radical.

IT DOES WHAT PHILOSOPHY CAN ONLY DESCRIBE.





















Перевод: ChatGPT-5.2;
Редактура: К. Привалов.

26.12.2025