[D-G] Celebrity Deathmatch: D&G vs Badiou
spatium at gmail.com
Fri Feb 11 07:35:56 PST 2005
Sid - This is something that I don't understand about Badiou: how does
the event come to pass? He opts for actual choice over formal choice,
but what is the reality of "choosing the impossible"? And isn't this
kind of choosing, to put it in Deleuzian terms (or Nietzschean),
"reactive". Deleuze embraces the "forced movement" of the death
drive, but Badiou goes to great pains to avoid it, and become
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 16:10:27 -0800, sid littlefield
<falsedeity at lycos.com> wrote:
> On the question of Badiou and the becoming-majoritarian, I think is important to remember the question of "forcing." The subject becomes fascist precisely where it event is forced. In terms of love: the moment the love becomes obsessional, it enters a becoming-majoritarian, i.e. fascist love.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Glen Fuller" <g.fuller at uws.edu.au>
> To: deleuze-guattari-driftline.org at lists.driftline.org
> Subject: Re: [D-G] Celebrity Deathmatch: D&G vs Badiou
> Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 11:32:33 +1100 (EST)
> > Hi James,
> > I think you may have something there. Two sides of the same
> > enunciation. Badiou's militant is D&G's legislator-subject? Though I
> > dunno if it is absolute deteritorialisation in either account, can you
> > say more about this please. And what do you mean by negative and
> > positive?
> > Something that bugs me about Badiou's approach is the question of
> > scale. Why should an event necessary be on such a normatively
> > miraculous scale? That is one difference between badiou's event and
> > D&G's point of subjectification. I still don't understand how Badiou
> > escapes from the problem of his militant's constant (micro-fascist)
> > becoming-majoritarian or maybe it isn't a problem for him?
> > "The subject of enunciation recoils into the subject of the statement,
> > to the point that the subject of the statement resupplies subject of
> > enunciation for another proceeding." (ATP, 129)
> > This cyclical movement, resonating around a point (of subjectification)
> > captures the active-passive swing (moving and being moved, ala 'tool'
> > and 'weapon' of nomadology) between denotating a state of affairs to
> > becoming expression. The self becomes its own 'state' (a simulacra
> > of 'itself') that resonates with the State (or whatever vertical
> > hierarchy in question). In this case the 'State' would be a closer
> > approximation to Badiou's event. What I don't understand is how
> > this 'State'/event is necessarily a good thing. Why can it not be lived
> > by reactionary right-wing nutters as much as being immanent to the
> > experience of exploited 'third-world' workers? Both experience a
> > perceived injustice, the experience of injustice is collective, both
> > can be mobilised into action, and so on...
> > If 9/11 could be considered an event, which fidelity to this event --
> > militant material practice -- axiomatises the truth of a universal? The
> > neo-con response -- neo-colonial business as usual -- does not attempt
> > to do this at all, but they deploy the conservative refrain running
> > through popular culture synthesising heterogeneous affective elements
> > into hegemonic stratifications. Is fear not part of the event? Which
> > leads to the question, paraphrasing Deleuze from LoS, are the people of
> > New York and the US not worthy of what happen to them?
> > Ciao,
> > Glen.
> > PS Chris, I am still thinking about Massumi paper!
> > > Has the Badiou-Deleuze comparison died out? In any case, I wanted to
> > > ask: has anyone noticed that Badiou's event seems similar to Deleuze
> > > and Guattari's "point of subjectification" mentioned, for instance, on
> > > page 127 of ATP? It leads to the negative deterritorialization of a
> > > postsignifying semiotic. Could one say that both Badiou and D&G are
> > > formulating the revolutionary potential of absolute
> > > deterritorialization, Badiou=negative D&G=positive? Or is that
> > > pushing it too far?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:09:18 -0500, Chapman <chapman0603 at rogers.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > Glen, I've just read your post. It's given me much to chew on,
> > Merci. I'm
> > > > going to take the wekend to find LoS and do some reading.
> > > > > In the meanwhile I have to ask you if you've read
> > Massumi's 'Involutionary
> > > > Afterward'? There he unpacks a bit of the virtual / actual
> > relationship. To
> > > > be gross abt it, I think the distinction has to do with the
> > difference
> > > > between two acts of interpretation: sorting out 'actual'
> > differences through
> > > > forming royal analogies by noticing similarities that differ and
> > empirical
> > > > veridity or the virtual differences held together by common
> > analogies,
> > > > things that sample a common, measurable property.
> > > > > I see you discuss traffic between the actual and the virtual in
> > your last
> > > > post, intuit that they are in some manner connected and informing,
> > but I
> > > > think that this passage / connection is still indebted to Lacan, a
> > way of
> > > > entering into language as the subject making surplus? My gut tells
> > me that
> > > > the 'passive syntheses of conjugation' necessary for the 'schizo'
> > (good) is
> > > > in dismantling this connection between the actual and the virtual,
> > allowing
> > > > them to run parallel and in themselves. I probably owe that thought
> > to
> > > > Massumi.
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Chris.
> > > >
> > --
> > PhD Candidate
> > Centre for Cultural Research
> > University of Western Sydney
> > Read my rants: http://glenfuller.blogspot.com/
> > _______________________________________________
> > List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
> > Admin interface:
> > http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
> Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
> List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
> Admin interface: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
More information about the Deleuze-Guattari