Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 15:15:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Mark Crosby <Crosby_M-AT-rocketmail.com> Subject: Re: [D-G] sex appeal pf the inorganic To: deleuze-guattari-driftline.org-AT-lists.driftline.org Well Pretzel? after twisiting my mind into Borromean knots all weekend trying to read Perniola's 1994 _The Sex Appeal of the Inorganic: Philosophies of Desire in the Modern World_ (translated by Massimo Verdicchio, it's important to add - because nowhere in the English translation do we learn that this book was originally published in 1994 ;) I'll try to limit my notes because I sense that Perniola or Verdicchio is often communicating the opposite of what is intended! As I said before, I find much greater consistency in Perniola's 96-97 JEP interview with Sergio Contardi (online). http://www.psychomedia.it/jep/number3-4/contpern.htm Jumping from the middle into Mario Perniola's _The Sex Appeal of the Inorganic_: "The transgression of neutral sexuality ... is intimately and essentially connected to a critical reflection, to a speculative consideration of Kant's philosophy" (27 - WtF? Sorry, I get off on fresher corpses, uh corpuses !) Why am I mocking the good doctor when he already has realized that "Feeling implies the union between body and spirit, mind and machine"? Which of the 3 bodies of the trinity shall become "a remainder that is not absorbed"? (6) To be fair, Perniola is abtusely pointing out that Substance is Feeling: "something opaque, indeterminate and open which is not self-evident and is not a machine" (9 - is Felix, nude, squirming in his grave? "Christian charity is a doily over my death boner", Vic Chestnutt sings as GHETTO BELLS ring ;) OK. Let's get serious and put on the gloves to see what we can feel: "The body experienced by neutral sexuality is not a machine, but clothing, a thing" (10). "Instead of the swarming and turbid viscosity of life, neuter sexuality opens up the timeless horizon of the thing... the serene and eternal simplicity of an inorganic world ... liberated from time and suspended in an enchantment without expectation" (11). I'm helped in appreciating this by Bruno Schulz's "Treatise on Tailor's Dummies": "They waited with attention and patience on the silent idol, which was difficult to please" (p55 _The Street of Crocodiles_). Father elaborates this Thing that "Deprived of all initiative, indulgently acquiescent, pliable like a woman, submissive to every impulse ... is a territory outside any law ... There is no evil in reducing life to other and newer forms"; but, Father insists: "There is no dead matter. Lifelessness is only a disguise behind which hide unknown forms of life" (ibid, 59-60, and Perniola shimmers his plastic red cape for the Demiurge of yore to gore ;) Inevitably, an esthetic based on "limit experiences" (back to Perniola, p12) invites loss as well as fulfillment. In short, "the mode of being of the inorganic, the not living and not functioning" (13) seems, the way Perniola paints it, to be a veneer that must be applied intellectually and is easily cracked. It involves not-living and not-functioning precisely because it must be hidden away in cryptozoic places of power. Thus, ch.6 speaks of "Exemplary Addiction".. What baffles me is how it can be "always there, always given, boundlessly available" yet "it breaks up constantly the course of time and dislocates the machine, introduces us into a movement without time and without purpose, sufficient unto itself, which asks only for its continuation" (17). Really, what baffles me is only Perniola's insistance that "These three modalities of sexual artificiality ... ["While in the organ without body, artificial sexuality is constituted by the prosthetic effect and in the body without organs it is provoked by the displaced extension of the senses, in this third modality, it arises from the simulation of a lack", 35] ... cannot be practised by themselves, they are not forms of masturbation. They require an interaction, a feedback between intelligent and sensitive partners" (35). Yet, somehow this "interaction" is a "passage from relations of negotiations between autonomous and independent individuals to relations of sexual dependency" (23). That's as far as I can go with this right now! Part of the problem may be that I, too, recently watched Martin Scorsese's _No Direction Home: Bob Dylan_ (PBS last Monday & Tuesday) and have been haunted by these "Visions of Johanna" (http://bobdylan.com/songs/visions.html) - as "the ghost of 'lectricity howls in the bones of her face" - while reading Perniola's descriptions of a "neutered sexuality" that is supposedly essential for philosophy. Nothing more "inorganic" than "lectricity", right? Having released this 'orgasm' of text onto the Internet 'we' can now relax, right mark? --- NZ <pretzelworld-AT-gmail.com> wrote: > "The philosopher's task therefore is to > proclaim the greatness and dignity of this lifeless, > orgasmless sexuality", says ACH.... > > "...without orgasm, without a climax, without any > release of tension, > without any return at the end to a satiated self." > -Pinncchio Theory > --------------- > I have only read the discussion and the Pinnocchio > review, but I don't > see any reason to assume that this experience (sai) > is "orgasmless". > Does it not seem pretty clear that Perniola is > talking about that > gigantic mass orgasm of society - "culture". In a > very broad sense, of > course, culture, that act of creation, is a > messiness that is all over > the place - like the lost mandrake sperm of the > hanged culprit > (I-gloo). > Even in pt.1 of the Dylan special on PBS, Scorsese > made the really > good point that Dylan's working class roots > (capitalist alienation) > inspired in him an eruption of identity that became > part of our > culture. Dylan undergoes a very philosophical > experience, yet without > any of the "holding back" of orgasmlessness. Anyone > who studies > popular music is aware of this class-specific > alienation factor. Just > a few simplified examples, Liverpool '59 - British > Rock, Bronx '74 - > Hip Hop, Kingston '56 - Ska, Detroit '85- techno, > even Elvis's Memphis > '53 (re: Griel Marcus's wonderful "Presleyiad"). The > difference > between say the Beatles and the Rolling Stones is > quiet significant in > this regard (re: Carducci's "Rock and the Pop > Narcotic"). Scorsese's > documentary also presented Pete Seegar's startling > observation that > the American Folk movement of the 60's arrived 10 > years late(!), due > to the HUAC hearings. I don't think Seegar is trying > to self-edify, I > think he is just being really insightful about this > social "orgasm" of > culture and the preventive action (holding back) of > right-wing > conservatives. As I recall from that horrible > "assemblege", HUAC, > started out as means to remove then Secretary of > Treasurey, Henry > Morgenthau and his crusade against the BIS (and > other banks like > Chase) who had stepped up to the plate to fund > Hitler's campaign. > Aside from removing the communists, what it turned > into was a "culture > jam" that helped the industrialists gain control of > american identity, > thru culture . . . frorm "rhythm n' blues" to "Leave > it to Beaver"... > perhaps Koenigsberg can tell us more about Krishna's > nightmare within > a nightmare, what else could it be? _______________________________________________ List address: deleuze-guattari-AT-driftline.org Info: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org Archives: www.driftline.org
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005