ATP on Problematic-Axiomatic
Axiomatics vs Problematics 1, p374 — Nomadology
Although safety is a fundamental element in the theoretical norms of the State, and of the political ideal, there is also something else at issue as well. Due to all their procedures, the ambulant sciences quickly overstep the possibility of calculation: they inhabit that “more” that exceeds the space of reproduction and soon run into problems that are insurmountable from that point of view; they eventually resolve those problems by means of a real-life operation. The solutions are supposed to come from a set of activities that constitute them as nonautonomous. Only royal science, in contrast, has at its disposal a metric power that can define a conceptual apparatus or an autonomy of science (including the autonomy of experimental science). That is why it is necessary to couple ambulant spaces with a space of homogeneity, without which the laws of physics would depend on particular points in space. But this is less a translation than a constitution: precisely that constitution the ambulant sciences did not undertake, and do not have the means to undertake. In the field of interaction of the two sciences, the ambulant sciences confine themselves to inventing problems whose solution is tied to a whole set of collective, nonscientific activities but whose scientific solution depends, on the contrary, on royal science and the way it has transformed the problem by introducing it into its theorematic apparatus and its organization of work. Continue reading “i got 99 problems but an axiom ain’t one”
He should be forgotten. In the best ab/use of history, we should let that sleeping dog lay in His cold grave. Continue reading “The Only Good Fascist Is A Dead Fascist”
Nate started a great thread over the masculinist undercurrent of ‘militancy.’ (my response would be: we’ve never been militants)
I’ve decided to repost my followup comment:
I like Jasper’s suggestion – there are two texts that are a must along those lines.
First “living and struggling” from Tiqqun http://zinelibrary.info/tiqqun-living-and-wrestling.
Second is “this is not the black bloc” by Claire Fontaine. Half of CF was deeply involved in Tiqqun, and was part of the 2001 split that was in part due to disagreement over militancy. http://fendersen.com/black_bloc.htm
In a much more American context, there was an early piece written called “She Doesn’t Give a Fuck About Your Insurrection.” The approach of the text is deeply problematic, in my view, because it was written as a provocation piece. The result was equally polemical responses that didn’t get to the heart of some of the issues of the American readings of Tiqqun. Look to Infoshop and Anarchistnews to see the extensive “comments”.
Continue reading “the gender politics of militancy”
Funny use in Virno — on the italian thought stuff (virtuality and revolution…
**indebted to history of hegelian recognition (master/slave)
[[different than figures like yin/yang or practices of south pacific islanders… (stance toward other is welcome, but not always )]]
–masculinist heroism, warrior type mentality? risks? high stakes?
totality — would be necessary in order to make an opening…
D&G w/ socius = rather an “open system”
takes a sovereign to declare friend/enemy! [critique of sovereign subject in AO]
— is that “the” state image of thought?
what passage in lyotard?
–figure out a model of social relations! don’t do the dialectical, not organs, only thing left = language games (like singularities, forms-of-life, but don’t read them as inevitably at war with one another…)
–protevi is trying to talk about how those impositions are implanted…
D&G fall into it by calling it a war machine….patton suggest we rename war machine. what would be lost??
Movement essay by Agamben = ‘politicization’
-like chantal mouffe? (use of arendt?)
-“people” = biopolitical existence
derrida = non-politicization?
secondary lit on POF, on Schmitt
Adam Thurschwell — agamben against derrida (but spectrality of friend/enemy = friend could be enemy…)
John Caputo — (p193 of article)
woman is the partisan to schmitt’s theory (PF156-7)
I’ve been thumbing through the recent translation of “Introduction to Civil War” but haven’t given it a systematic read. As I’ve discussed, I’m reticent to accept Schmitt’s notion of politics which seems to be a rejoinder to the ongoing depoliticization produced by the abstract machine ‘Empire’. I haven’t done a close read yet, so I’m not sure if the text explicitly advocates a re-politicization (or by what means) or if it’s merely ‘obvious’ in the sense that Jason’s paper noted the ‘ontological obviousness of communism.’
Continue reading “Civil War?: Spivak on Derrida on Schmitt”
E Laroche wrote a philological study of the family of terms nem- nom- in Greek thought. This document serves as a common reference for studies of distribution, common law, politics, and economics (think NUMerals, NUMbers, ecoNOMy, NEMesis, autoNOMy…). For example, Marc Shell’s book The Economy of Literature use of the study is then picked up by Matthew Gumpert’s study when discussing Helen a figure of the libidinal economy of desire in classicism.
D&G generally use the Homeric sense of nomos (there’s a great footnoted in D&R on ‘nomadic distribution’ and Laroche’s philological study – developed in depth by a few, most notably R Bogue), which is generally contrasted with physis. The nomos/physis opposition is a common reference in secondary literature but is usually in a laundry list with other terms and is never given an in depth treatment. In Logic of Sense in the first appendix on simulacrum in ancient philosophy, there’s some great stuff on law/nature that could easily hook in. The result payoff would be “autonomy”.
Schmitt’s use of nomos is post-Homeric [though he says it’s homeric in Nomos of the Earth – I’d like to be able to settle this without reading the laroche] and therefore deals with enclosure and property. It’s meant to create a distribution of forces that results in the existential opposition of friend/enemy. Some of Derrida’s work in “Politics of Friendship” deals with Schmitt and I could probably lean on it. Additionally, there seems to be a JL Nancy connection that comes out the other end.
I’ve found one potentially useful direction to take the Schmitt that I haven’t read up on yet (the best article on the topic wasn’t available, so I had to ILL it). J Herder, father of modern nationalism wrote an article in the 1780s on “Nemesis.” I found a copy of Heder’s political letters that use the term nemesis, but only a scant 3 times.
In the middle of both D&G/Schmitt is a strange reading done by Agamben that I’ve had a hard time working through. It’s mostly in Homo Sacer but is also in State of Exception. From what I gather, it’s a veiled rejoinder to JLN’s “Cosmos Basileus” in Being Singular Plural. Thanos Zartaloudis’ article “Without Negative Origins and Aboslute Ends: A Jurisprudence of the Singularity” looks like it will fruitfully bear on the topic.
In the end, I could probably link this all back up to Tiqqun’s notion of “civil war”. I’m not sure about the tension between Schmitt’s notion of depoliticization and Deleuzian vitalism/capture, however. One hint might be the argument I heard last weekend, which was that ‘attack is necessary to bring about an opening for communisation’. This bears extended consideration. I think the heart of the question is the connection between nemesis and autonomy (hence the working title of the paper).