Whatever singularities cannot form a societas within a society of the spectacle because they do not possess any identity to vindicate or any social bond whereby to seek recognition. …The threat the state is not willing to come to terms with is precisely the fact that the unrepresentable should exist and form a community without either presuppositions or conditions of belonging (just like Cantor’s inconsistent multiplicity). The whatever singularity—-this singularity that wants to take possession of belonging itself as well as of its own being-into-language, and that thus declines any identity and any condition of belonging—-is the new, nonsubjective, and socially inconsistent protagonist of the coming politics.
–from “Marginal Notes on Commentaries on the Society of the Spectacle“, Giorgio Agamben
Posted by 丫 | more »sous les pavés, la plage
BEFORE AND DURING AND AFTER: Three days’ thought on media culture and artificial life
…as responsible human beings, we forget (Ha, seduction!). Were we unable to, every horror and every pain experienced as the newly born would retain itself, excruciating, just as every moment of laughter and joy, but we would never recover. The mirrors of Lacan are as inevitably linked to artificial life as self and world. And forgetfulness is not so much saying no as being able to say yes again. Are you ready to rule the world?
—-From a small text written, weaving writing experiment, flow. June 2008, Saas-Fee. Read the full essay [here]. Apologies for lack of page numbers for notes/references, please write if you need more.
Posted by 丫 | reply »for severality, on fragility 1
To sustain fragility, a stamp on the box or the curiosity of half-opened contents. She says it is a trauma, beyond or prior to event, infliction in mere seconds or unconscious years, is p(h)ys(ch)ical.
He shudders in late afternoon half-sun. Sometimes, somewhere else and longing to be repeated, never repeated, she recoils, not horror. Those prickling sparks of the nerves they call falling asleep, …i’m exhausted.
Fragility means that you might find yourself not on the subjective level (coming, pre-, before you), we are partial to (one another) and we are partial (a many subjectivities). The pieces lay strewn and ambitious! What is already fragmented can beg a prism-like movement, sometimes slight twisting of the wrist to open a new light, from Levinas’ very first illumination (but in the refusal of darkness).
Once we saw three at once, a tunnel lining an enormous thundering sky, and we drove through them all.
—-not a means to an object, we pass through what passes through us. Fragility, the broken glass after the break, under but begging the open, makes transparent without needing to be seen. But it is not concealment as such (those chatting at the bar simply do not notice), nor a state to induce fascination (stillness, displacing life) so much as laying bare, not bare or just being there, in the middle of an ongoing process. The prolongation of fragility is not a state of being, but may find itself in the invisible inconsistencies of ritual, the anticipation or the suspension of an event. Its fascinance can never be an isolated moment, for it can only exist in relation to the other, as cause or affect or the relinquishing notion of wanting to be part of all of you. That longing, whether in pain or love, is more real that real itself, for it is the realm of the possible-not-yet.
Fucking phantasy! I owe you one.
1 Martin Hielscher, Hiroaki Kanai, Sean Smith, Fotini Lazaridou-Hatzigoga, Pierre Huyghe, Bracha Ettinger
Posted by 丫 | reply »re:
Barthes references the “obtuse meaning” as beyond signification, where it is neither informational nor symbolic. There is no proper structure; it is a signifier without a signified, hence the difficulty in naming or identifying. “If the obtuse meaning cannot be described, that is because, in contrast to the obvious meaning, it does not copy anything—-how do you describe something that doesn’t represent anything?” (from notes, seminar of Hubertus von Amelunxen, Saas-Fee June 2008)
Posted by 丫 | reply »re: re:presentation
thoughts on the subject of clarity, or, in support of the seductive drones ///
If that longing could be drawn out, literally, it could have taken this form, what would have attempted a seduction in the most subtle and powerless way, or, would it be possible to ask you to stay. These are not questions so much as awkward statements, one would like the fluent strength of rationality, pretty scripts to address the subject, but so much said, so much would dull the edges of the discourse as much as anything. To abstain from that articulation may be a political statement, or even an uncertainty, but it should be possible to make exactly that wavering attempt, without course to addressing one’s audience as potential convert, without the determinacy of the commodified idea.
We have lost the ability to simply search openly, our lateral glides across hyperspace become hierarchies of large type and the diversities of ‘state life’ mistaken for richness. But please do not misunderstand (…) …this is not a call for a return to authenticity or something more primal than the now. As such would be merely another flight. But to embrace all that we have not resolved, as seeking beings—-because we have not caught up to our own embodiment, urbanity, presence, or forces of habit—-can, with relief, never be clear. If it were, would we have conquered our own existences, overly latent, and been made subjects of our own subjectivity? Is this crass, or is it a call to vitalism? Would the critics of Coleridge sneer and we be comfortingly dismissed back to the ‘little’ motions of everyday life? Ha! Seduction.
Perhaps, but it is an embedded one. Everyday, everyday, everyday. The question is in the answer is in the question.
Posted by 丫 | reply »|
.
|
rss 2.0 | feedburner | del.icio.us |
|
.
|
this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License. |
|
.
|
site by orange 程康 and ourwork.is. |
|
.
|
best viewed with your character encoding set to unicode utf-8. |
