Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 01:01:53 -0100
From: hbone <hbone-AT-optonline.net>
Subject: Re: Sublime Empire - First section


Eric, Steve/All

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As I begin to understand, with your help, some of the specialized language
of Empire and its hero-philosophers, I realize that my efforts to address
some of  these topics more completely, and soon, is on a slippery slope.
This is a compliment to the authors.  There is depth and sublety in Sections
3.5 and 3.6 where they pull together many threads together.

An emphasis on  living mind bodies and bio-politics is brought in early on
with Foucault, and maintained in later Sections.

"Virtual", even in the dictionary has many meanings.  In addition to Steve's
references, I think N&H are informative about the virtuality of the
Communications, Entertainment, and Internet industries.  These media infuse
our minds with virtual realities in a manner similar to the way air and
water infuse our bodies.  Daily TV must label what is "live", and space
launches, now fairly routine were once closely watched, and explained with
scenes labeled "simulation".

best regards,
Hugh
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Steve/Hugh,
>
> here again, fast, i hope to address this more completely in a couple
> days, am busy right now,
>
> but yes, overall I agree.  One of the uses of this site, I hope, over
> the next few months, would be to discuss more thoroughly the connection
> between empire and postmodern. I lean towards a reading that sees them
> as somewhat synonomous and think it would be useful to consider Lyotard
> in relation to Negri, Jameson and Harvey.
>
> Hugh has ranted for a long time now about dead white man and how we need
> to concern ourselves with vital, living processes.  Perhaps this is our
> chance.  What does the postmodern mean today? How do we derive a
> politics from it?
>
> I look forward to this ongoing discussion.
>
> BYW, I bought a copy of Empire, the melancholy nostalgia for wood pulp.
>
> Thanks for your generous offer to get these articles.
>
> eric
>
> steve.devos-AT-krokodile.com wrote:
> >
> > Eric/all
> > There are two different questions that need to be answered prior to the
> > questions of virtuality and the multitude that are discussed below.
> >
> > Firstly - is it accepted that the understanding and definition of the
> > post-modern that N&H raise is acceptable? Given their belief that the PM
is
> > founded on a change in the economic? (This is of course in direct
conflict
> > to Lyotard's perspective on the postmodern).
> >
> > Secondly - are they correct in defining a new form of sovereignty based
on
> > global, supranational and national organisations? I'd refer you tp Hirst
and
> > Thompson's 'Globalisation in Question'  which whilst not such an
interesting
> > read does contain the numbers and statistics which Empire lacks. From
H&T's
> > perspective the present US Gov is perfectly understandable as
Globalisation
> > is functionally a way of supporting the (G8) local organisations and not
> > global organisations as such.
> >
> > For myself what makes Empire interesting is that it constitutes an
attempt
> > to construct a radical philosophical statement on the globalisation
question
> > which does not allow the neo-liberal economics to maintain their
> > intellectual ascendency as a result of the retreat into the terrain of
the
> > local and the specific. The supposed 'end of history', which was the
> > neo-liberal equivilant of stating that the grand narrative of human
> > liberation was over, is over, but as a result larger questions have to
be
> > addressed.
> >
> > regards
> >
> > sdv
> >
> > Mary Murphy&Salstrand wrote:
> >
> > > Hugh/All:
> > >
> > > You have raised a number of questions regarding direct democracy
versus
> > > global democracy; Who is the multitude?  Where and how, does it live?
> > > What does it produce? and the distinction between  "Virtuality" and
> > > "Possibility" made in "Empire"
> > >
> > > I don't think these questions can really be answered until the
argument
> > > N&H are making is understood and rendered more explicit.  While I
can't
> > > claim to have achieved that comprehension yet myself, I want to begin
to
> > > discuss the argument more fully here. Writing, perhaps, as a way to
> > > understand more completely what I have already read.
> > >
> > > In my reading of "Empire" the book is making an elaborate argument
with
> > > regard to what is actually a fairly straightforward thesis.  "Our
basic
> > > hypothesis is that sovereignty has taken a new form, composed of a
> > > series of national and supranational organisms united under a single
> > > logic of rule. This new global form of sovereignty is what we call
> > > Empire."
> > >
> > > One can certainly question whether or not this new form of sovereignty
> > > is actually emerging and what if anything would constitute its single
> > > logic of rule. As the authors point out, one interpretation has been
> > > that the present order somehow rises spontaneously out of radically
> > > heterogeneous global forces.
> > >
> > > Although he is not mentioned directly, this appears to be a reference
to
> > > Hayek and his conception of economics as a kind of spontaneous order.
> > > This is the basic argument neoliberalism is currently making.  No one
> > > can really control this economy. It should simply be let unfettered in
> > > order to work its magic and accomplish the most good for all.  The
> > > miracle of capitalism supercedes any local government. All attempts at
> > > intervention merely create unforeseen and disastrous effects.  The
world
> > > is simply better off without them. The market is the true democracy
> > > because the people vote through the choices they make as consumers.
> > >
> > > Of course, this rhetoric tends to be contradicted by the various
> > > politics actually utilized by neoliberal groups in order to accomplish
> > > their agenda. The role of government is not eliminated, but merely
> > > altered to achieve elitist ends in a more global context.  Certainly,
it
> > > can be argued that the unilateralism of George W. Bush and the
> > > Republican Party constitutes its own form of anti-globalism opposed to
> > > the emerging order as much as anything represented by the protesters
at
> > > Genoa. The fact that only the latter have been targeted in this way is
> > > simply a reflection of the underlying bias of the media and its own
> > > implicit political ideology.
> > >
> > > One of great rewards "Empire" has already given me is that it
thoroughly
> > > demolishes the premises of this kind of argument and show how its
basic
> > > metaphysical assumptions are merely ridiculous.
> > >
> > > At the same time, however, the conventional positions of the Left
hardly
> > > remain unscathed.  The doctrines of imperialism, conspiracy theory and
> > > the cynical attribution of power politics are shown to be at best
myopic
> > > and at worst completely paranoid.
> > >
> > > The radical potential alternative "Empire" offers is this. If its
thesis
> > > about the new form of sovereignty is true, then the current politics
of
> > > both Left and Right become suspect. It opens the way for the emergence
> > > of a new politics that would reflect the new realities.
> > >
> > > This gives rise to another question that I will simply leave you with
> > > for now.  Is this new sovereignty a juridical formulation, a
> > > biopolitical machine or some monstrous hybrid of both? That is
something
> > > I'd like to discuss further with you in another post
> > >
> > > eric
>