Opening Literature/Thoughts

The journal Literature/Thoughts aims to reason on the relation between the literature―or ‘literary things’― and the thoughts―or ‘rational things’― ranged over the past, present and future. Slash(/), the sloping line expresses the aspects of relational power and we will endeavor to do whatever available.
The reciprocal slash of Literature/Thoughts penetrates each other, complements and translocates and also, forecloses one another. The job to discover and conjugate this relational power in the context of history can be revealed as a method of the history of thoughts, which divert the bloody history of dogma, doctrine or violence. As Maruyama Masao, the historian of thoughts who gives us the methodology has mentioned, “We always have to pay attention to the starting point of thought, the period of gestation, rather than the final results of the thoughts. That is when it is ambivalent, but bears the possibility of not knowing where it navigates.” The history of thoughts suspends ‘the history of facts’, which includes investigation and interpretation using the controlling thought police. It abscinds any annotation of ‘the theory of thought’, which materializes the originality of the former texts in the pretext of establishing one’s arguments―or law―effectively. Therefore, we should bring into question the ambivalence, ambiguity, bilaterals, or androgyny, that are condensed in the point of creation, statement, unleash of a text. It is important to perceive qualitative criticality as the possibility[Feuerbach] of text, a vector of power. This journal Literature/Thoughts will cite the potential tense which ‘could be’ different, and re-dispose the monstrous foreign aspects that have been bitten, lacerated, and stamped by the present relation of power.
In the process of the outtake, however, the possibility of ambivalence is not grasped as genuine, linear, or secure, but always be the vertex of ex-involvement polluted by the vector of violence. The editorial of Literature/Thoughts pursues the criticism that differentiates the diabolic-ambiguous pollution in the disaster, hoping the tangent line adjoining the vertex. The hope can only be accomplished in the frustration with endless waits and demands. We start the journal in this faint hope. We wish and require this common sail to arrive at the decision and cast an anchor at the stationary state of the decision. Literature/Thoughts, so to speak, take root in the decision and displacement of telos, across the board.

with a willingness to coedit,
Yoon In-ro,
Busan, June 2020