Six propositions from Bracha Ettinger on the nature of the matrixial borderspace (p.84):
1. "In the matrixial stratum of subjectivization subjectivity is an encounter. Partial-subjects co-emerge and co-fade through retuning and transformations via external/internal borderlinks with-in and with-out."
2. "A trembling, volatile experience of differentiation-in-co-emergence treading on the heals of fluctuations in distance-in-proximity accompanied by a minimal and diffuse matrixial affect is primary and prenatal, and is shaped and transformed by feminine trauma and phantasy linked to female bodily specificity on the level of the Real."
3. "A metramorphosis is multidirectional; it does not grow out of processes belonging to symbiotic fusion or autism, but grows parallel to them."
4. "The matrixial stratum of subjectivization with its co-emerging I and unknown non-I exists side by side with the phallic stratum and its emerging-self (either separate or fused) versus the world/the Other."
5. "In the prenatal phase, the matrixial stratum is more active in the process of subjectivizing than the phallic stratum, whereas in the postnatal life it is the phallic stratum that dominates while the matrixial one recedes. Thus, the matrixial objet a is not a derivation of the phallic objet a, neither is it its 'opposite.' Rather, it has an autonomous source in feminine difference. It either precedes (probably) or co-exists with the phallic objet a."
6. "After birth, when the partners of the originary matrix are no longer as unknown to one another as they were before, the relations-without-relating are partly transformed and set on a matrixial 'track.' They are also partly transformed into moments of relating and moments of nonrelating, joining in that way the phallic track of fusion/rejection. Such phallic instances, which also existed in the prenatal state alongside matrixial instances, are gradually reinforced by postnatal and then post-Oedipal experience."
The moving body finds itself bound in a relational tango, to borrow the abstract diagram of intersubjective micropolitics suggested by Erin Manning. Or, already being several, it finds itself in a series of moebius part-dances with other individuals that attempt not to cross footsteps: as one body releases from the other in tango, given the space from which it may choose to return (anxiety), a differential space is opened in which other part-dances and their relational fibres may intersect or form knots and entanglements.
The body thus finds itself in dances of relation, yes, but also in separate dances of disentanglement — the unweaving of knotty potentials and their somatic consequences (summer 2009).
our proximity also implies that thresholds of opacity may offer cover to another, if only partial. what is the ratio of exposure for a couple-pairing: is it asymmetrical? (one hopes not overly so. or overtly so?) what if the group is a threesome or a several: how do the ratios of exposure, transparency+opacity modulate in such events? when considering proximity in this sense, err in the analysis towards the temporal rather than the spatial: virilio reminds us that exposure is a time-based phenomenon, and thus thresholds of opacity may often be spatially-displaced, yet proximate (sept. 2010).