What did people make of Jameson’s claim, quoted on 53 of Anderson, that the only way to make ‘essential mystery of the cultural past’ present and urgent was to place them within a single narrative? Is the schizophrenic loss of the past a consequence of the loss of meta-narratives (something I thought Jameson claimed was itself a metanarrative) or visa versa?

I guess this is part of larger problem I’ve been having with the idea of schizophrenia and the loss of historicity: that I understand the loss of a sense of the past through the idea of a schizophrenic subject, and the drastically varying intensities constitutive of schizophrenia through the restriction of the subject to the present. If someone could break this circle for me it would be much appreciated. My hunch right now is that the extreme vacillations of intensity in the schizophrenic subject are what precludes a sense of the past, and that these vacillations could be rooted in the acceleration of the rate of consumption/entertainment. Anderson seems to say something like this when he speaks of the ‘vacillations of libidinal investment’, but I feel like I’m doing a fair amount of reading between the lines in order to understand the origins of schizophrenia and loss of historicity.