File deleuze-guattari/deleuze-guattari.0502, message 20


From: "sid littlefield" <falsedeity-AT-lycos.com>
To: deleuze-guattari-driftline.org-AT-lists.driftline.org
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 16:10:27 -0800
Subject: Re: [D-G] Celebrity Deathmatch: D&G vs Badiou


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
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10

_______________________________________________
List address: deleuze-guattari-AT-driftline.org
Admin interface: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005