This system of mediated nostalgia, based on the continuing residues of bibliographic organisation, has, through market disciplines, achieved sufficient agility of infrastructural and techno-spheric implementation, to the extent that the full narrative spectrum of political possibility can be instantly delivered, as so many administrative styles, in response to the motions of mass desire, according to the calculi of libidinal economy.
But beyond the market administrations and calculations of libidinal economy, are occurrences of mythological motion, the oneiric transports of the figures of desire, constituting an oneiric economy. These figures have been bibliographic constants throughout the mechanism of history. The production of history, as mechanism; always occurs according to their exploitative variation, as combinatorics of libidinal figuration. It is this constancy of figural identity, enabling the necessary continuity of narrative development constitutive of bibliography, that delimits notions of desire, dream, and book.
The constancy of figural identity, supports the constancy of bibliography, both of which support the constancy of the oneiric.
“A place is made, in that essay, by all rights, for such a positive inquiry into the current upheavals in the forms of communication, the new structures emerging in all the formal practices, and also in the domains of the archive and the treatment of information, that massively and systematically reduce the role of speech, of phonetic writing, and of the book. But one would be mistaken in coming to the conclusion of a death of the book and a birth of writing from that which is entitled “The End of the Book and the Beginning of Writing.” One page before the chapter which bears this title a distinction is proposed between closure and end. What is held within the demarcated closure may continue indefinitely. If one does not simply read the title, it announces precisely that there is no end of the book and no beginning of writing. The chapter shows just that: writing does not begin. It is even on the basis of writing, if it can be put this way,
that one can put into question the search for an archie, an absolute beginning, an origin. Writing can no more begin, therefore, than the book can end”
[From, “Positions”, Jacques Derrida ]