[D-G] University program on Brexit and Yellow Jacket (about << multiplicities in rhetoric>>)

Johnatan Petterson internet.petterson at gmail.com
Fri Dec 14 14:49:39 PST 2018


Le ven. 14 déc. 2018 à 19:59, Mike Lansing <badger2 at mail2world.com> a
écrit :

> Evanescence or withering away of the State: Hardt and Negri would
> contend that it did not happen, only a different morphology (Labor of
> Dionysus: Critique of State Form).
>
> The 'social time' mentioned in the Le Monde report exquisitely meshes
> with the pathologies of religion, and some of us are not surprised that
> its automatons are freaking out as the exodus from fairy tales grows,
> and where knowledge replaces the very dangerous infantilism of faith.
> The morphology of the rhizomatic itself may be changing.
>
> In "Ousia and Gramme," Derrida pursues the link between the problem of
> temporality and the logic of identity by analyzing the treatment of
> time in the fourth book of Aristotle's Physics. Aristotle points out
> that there would be no time if there were only one single now. Rather,
> there must be at least (two [italics]) nows -- "an earlier one before
> and a later one after" -- in order for there to be time. Time is thus
> defined as succession, however, Aristotle realizes that it contradicts
> his concept of identity as (presence in itself [it.]) A self-present,
> indivisible now could never even begin to give way to another now,
> since what is indivisible cannot be altered. This observation leads
> Aristotle to an impasse, since his logic of identity cannot account for
> the succession that constitutes time.
>
> Derrida articulates:
>
> 'Let us consider the sequence of nows. The preceding now, it is said,
> must be destroyed by the following now. But Aristotle then points out,
> it cannot be destroyed "in itself" (en beautoi), that is, at the moment
> when it is (now, in act). No more can it be destroyed in another now
> (en alloi): for then it would not be destroyed as now, itself; and. as
> a now which has been, it is....inaccessible to the action of the
> following now.'
>
> Hence, as long as one holds on to the idea of an indivisible now -- or
> more succinctly: as long as one holds on to the concept of identity as
> presence in itself -- it is impossible to think succession....The now
> must disappear in its very event....Faced with the relentless division
> of temporality, one must subsume time under a nontemporal presence in
> order to in order to secure the philosophical logic of identity.'
>
> This is why god is death, as well as an impossibility. This is also
> Chekatt's "Allah Akbar," as the religious automaton reels from the
> internalized (non-rhizomatic) either-or terror, as a
> swastiko-schizmogenetic pinball caught in the crooks of the cross
> (fylfot) and violently repelled to the outside as a "once-and-for-all"
> act.
>
>
i am just coming back from shopping seeing the book by negri on
metropolis (and i thank you for you pointing me towards buying book by
negri again)
and even notwithstanding the pointhoodness of his analysis, whereas if
there is a "class"
or a "city", or  a "state", let's at least conceive them different in
various parts of the world.

the habits of the English & French speaking intellectual, is to consider
her or his discourse
on "relatedness" i think the concept of labour might be more immediately
modular,
because it is a Force, in the physical sense, it is unique and (constantly
& non-constantly) non-determinable and a bit determinable,
Becoming other, as to how it is related to other Force(s);
but it should be the case with State as well, in the sense that Guattari
told that aesthetic refining Subjectivity Process
could exist at the scale of a certain City, or another.  so i thought to
say State was "virtual yet real" i only meant
the actual electronics of the state can be invisible when you are in
contact with other electrons.
what could be interesting to know is when does the Philosopher or the
intellectual chooses to define
an agency as "State", or the same agency in a different time interval, as
"War Machine" or mutation machine,
given the consideration taken into account of ATP Virilio related about the
States becoming a agency in charge
of the interest of a World Mutant War Machine. if we are constrained by the
ATP hierarchy between States and Mutant World Machine,
there can be different States cohabiting together, within a same area, if
this area is "same", in relation to certain orders which can be checked
by different conceptual or partial observers, or even orders of opinions.
So that as we talk about Cheriff Schekatt, if it's one guy who
was part of the Islamic State, which is a Nomad speedy Machine travelling
in Iraq, Syria, France, USA, Philippine, Syria, Libya , Egypt, etc then its
an interesting question
to notice it failed to become a State. probably because its not acquired
enough Stability? its something unstable, a chaotic state in electrons.
But i don't think ATP would have included the idea of a Visible State (
perceptible to the Persona ) as a terrorist entity as Lacan had said (your
quote)
yet perhaps as a limited potential, which lacks the speed to think how to
grow. in that we could compare the Islamic State such as it was in Raqqa in
2016 and the French State such as it is now?
only inasmuch it is "self-limiting" itself. But i think the Toynbees
Monads, are not "church and state" violence if it can be including the
perception of its limits by the Personae.
that's why we have a need to connect the Monads by knowing their Content
(high number of agencies) with intersections schizoid medleys and Personae.
if you say that you have found in Dionysus Labour by Negri, a proof that
the State has acquired a different morphology (i assume you are talking
then about
the impact of new handling of "immaterial" labour by cybernetics, or
something the like?) i wanted to know if you thought about this new
morphology
to be the one of this ATP World Mutant War faithless Violent Machine? which
if it were a State, would, still accordingly to ATP, then have the two
aspects of being Dummezil compatible,
and thus Soft Power and Real Politic together? (Le Borgne et le Manchot --
Pompidou & DeGaulle cfr ATP) , but would be more Stable, so that we are
building the growing rhizomatics from its limitations?
What there is in Common to the ATP Machine and ours, is not important i
guess at the nomadic conceptual level, but on the time level since 1980 The
rhizome have grown, and thus it is just natural sortof saying
the rhizomatic is different? its tautological ?? and the Rhizomes being
sometimes the size of Planets systems, and sometimes a few particles at
planck's length, the morphology is modular.
If what matters, is freeing Labour from Limits (thus from sadness), freeing
Personae, Medleys connections is what matters. The ATP World Mutant Machine
is what's the most Stable attractor of growth.
I admit it is interesting, because it is Invisible, sometimes to different
Personae, and especially living in different cities, different sights on
the Mutant ATP Growth shall be caught. The Medleys can help
and act as relays in "making the ATP World Mutant Machine" Perceptible, and
enjoyable by Personae. A City, as said Guattari, can, on certain levels of
agencies, make it more
immediately prehensible by the inhabitant Personae, in close contact to
Medleys. That's where Labour should become interesting. Building such
Medleys, enabling sights for the Community.
That's how the Community would become, if there where enough works building
such Schizoid Medleys, would become more "consistent", more Stable, in a
way compatible to
the other cities on the planet. Even if in a different way. Because in
contact with ATP World Mutant Machine.

Best,
J.Pett.


More information about the Deleuze-Guattari mailing list