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
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005