Quoted By:
B)
Here's my overall/schematizing read: In "lost" you disrupt the mechanism of mimesis between the mantis and its environment in order to isolate or restitute the visual from its subordination to and subsumption within form in the context of the (inherently anthropomorphic) genesis of subjectivity. This depends on a relationship between two modes of mimesis--iconic semblance versus analogical likeness; however you obscure these precise terms and articulate the relationship as one between two senses of the non-human: a "lesser," inhuman quality of the mantis as a primordial life-form, and the "more-than-human" quality of the alien subject of an intergalactic civilization. (Generally speaking, in regards to the motive of your work your statement could benefit from being made less ambiguous. The poetic parts need more polishing in order to sound less hackneyed. Also, I'd say that on a *visual* level mimicry isn't such a clear cut 'loss of identity' as the statement suggests--for at the same time as mimesis entails a loss of distance between subject and object, it produces a figurative difference between the self undergoing mimesis and the other who observes them. It is precisely this visual differentiation that is recuperated by the self in order to sustain the abstract sense of their individuality by rendering them autonomous from their surroundings. Incorporating the viewpoint of the other creates the conscious fantasy (in a psychoanalytic sense, the reference to psychoanalysis here being legitimated by the historical associations of the mantis) of self-sufficiency and wholeness.)
