File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2003/lyotard.0301, message 90


Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 19:28:41 +0000
From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Postmodern Religion




  Eric/all

To place this discussion more closely within the tradition,  that this 
discussion can be said to belong within - which is the european 
tradition, the phenomenoun is most closely on the surface here, it is a 
tradition that has an experiemnce of culture that is both a social fact 
and also extremely active as one part opf its social and critical 
conscience. Europeans are embedded in their culture, and are cultured 
because their culture (what is worth anything) is their critical 
conscience.  I would reference as evidence: Hegalian negativity, 
Marxism, the Psychoanalytical unconscious, Darwinian evolution, 
Lyotard's postmodernity, Adorno's cultural criticism, Irigaray's 
difference, formal revolts and associated ethics such as Surrealism, 
Schoernberg and Stockhausen, Kavan and Kafka, Duras  and Mayakovski. 
Those extraordinary moments of 20th and 19th C art and cultre are 
moments of revolt, metaphysical and anti-metaphysical. Drifting in and 
out of these moments ethical challenges and moral revolts exploded onto 
the scene.  In this process  Stalinism was a punctum, even an endpoint 
in that it was a deviation into terror. The actual collapse was because 
of  something else. Can we recapture aspects of this spirit and create 
new forms from it that takes us beyond the critical walls we have run 
into - the collapse of the 'culture of shock' where postmodern art 
simply fails to shock because of its complete high-cultural 
commodification, marking the end of rebellious high-culture and the 
ever-surging growth of  consumer cultures and the failure of the 
inadequate responses to it.

In critiquing Badiou then I am remaining cautiously engaged in the 
process of locating a way forward to recover this culture as a means of 
refusing the normalising cultural order. It is terribly imperfect, event 
for those who regard it as the only workable solution at the present 
time they admit to the existence of the marginalised, the minor: the 
unemployed, the poor, refugees and those other humen and non-human 
impacted by the terrors of this society. In this line; then Badiou and 
the contentious recognition of the importance of his ethics but as 
importantly his refusals, can be seen to exist. It is the paragraph 
below on that most difficult aspect/moment 'love' which made me think 
along this line. Perhaps because it reminded me of Andre Breton's work 
'Communicating Vessels' and 'Mad Love'  a reference and a thought that 
had escaped me before.

Heidegger imagined that religion would be a way to save us from the 
culture we have created - but apart from the obvious and famous lack of 
judgement that Heidegger showed - we exist within an obvious impasse in 
the area as it has been subsumed under the commodification that 
dominates. In truth it could only be saved if it struggles against the 
normalising forces. Both Kristeva and Badiou in their very differing 
ways argue that only a 'culture of revolt' and 'truth' can take us 
forward beyond this state of existence.

Is it in this line that you would place the below line of thought?

smiles

regards
steve

Of course Badiou would rightly reject the euro-centrism of the argument 
- mostly i do too... and my first draft contained more references to 
Kristeva that i removed as I didn't want to confuse the issue.

Eric wrote:

> Steve,
>
>  
>
> I'm not really surprised, but I want to point put an irony.  In 
> critiquing Badiou, you are beginning to sound more and more like a 
> postmodernist, all over again.
>
>  
>
> I think this question of singularity versus contingent multitudes is 
> an important one. One of the chief differences I see between Badiou 
> and Lyotard is precisely on this point and I have to confess, over 
> time, I am beginning to lean more towards Badiou's position than 
> Lyotard's.
>
>  
>
> The simple point is this. As both philosophers define the Event, it is 
> a singularity - something unique that can be named, that seizes us, 
> and thereby acts as an intervention within the world.  Afterwards, 
> things are no longer the same and this is a degree of quality, not 
> just quantity.  The Event may be contingent, but the effects are not.
>
>  
>
> Lest you think I am merely playing with words here, consider love. It 
> is one of the four pillars upon which Badiou says philosophy is 
> sutured.  Certainly, my longing for love is contingent - this woman's 
> smile, that woman's conversation, another woman's eyes, a character in 
> a book, an actress on the screen - all can excite me with the 
> possibility of love.  When I finally do fall in love, however, there 
> is a definite singularity.  It is this single, particular, contingent 
> woman with all her foibles, imperfections, and contradictions that now 
> excite.  I am drawn to her, think about her, center my life around 
> her.  Where there once was only one, now there are two. What was once 
> contingent, now becomes a singular Event in my life and it is one that 
> changes everything.
>
>  
>
> In a similar way, despite your own reservations about Badiou, as I see 
> it, you continue to operate from an 'ethics of truth' in your own 
> life.  At some point in your life, an awareness of politics, justice, 
> and socialism struck you as being important.  This understanding 
> caused a break to occur in your life.  In fidelity to this Event, you 
> no longer merely existed contingently as a mere animal, seeking 
> comfort, but began to question, investigate, act and involve yourself 
> with the singularity of the political in order to effect meaningful 
> change.
>
>  
>
> Of course, such a commitment is not a panacea. The danger exists that 
> what you are advocating is a mere simulacrum of the truth. Thus it is 
> necessary, to read, to think, to observe, and judge in the light of 
> the truth you have encountered. It is also necessary to persist in 
> this truth, never to give up, not to betray it. Finally, it is 
> necessary to recognize that your understanding is never total. There 
> are always aspects of the situation that remain hidden and unnamed.
>
>  
>
> What I admire about Badiou as a philosopher is this very simplicity 
> which recognizes - this is what we do as humans when we encounter 
> truth.  There remains much to question, argue with, and disagree about 
> in Badiou, but I think he has nonetheless put his finger on something 
> fundamental.  Something like this does occur when we encounter truth 
> in our lives. Not a truth based on mere contingent facts, but a 
> dynamic Truth that intervenes to change the situation forever. A 
> before and after.
>
>  
>
> Don't you think something like Badiou's ethics applies to the way you 
> choose to live your life?
>
>  
>
> eric  
>
>  
>
>  
>


HTML VERSION:

Eric/all

To place this discussion more closely within the tradition,  that this discussion can be said to belong within - which is the european tradition, the phenomenoun is most closely on the surface here, it is a tradition that has an experiemnce of culture that is both a social fact and also extremely active as one part opf its social and critical conscience. Europeans are embedded in their culture, and are cultured because their culture (what is worth anything) is their critical conscience.  I would reference as evidence: Hegalian negativity, Marxism, the Psychoanalytical unconscious, Darwinian evolution, Lyotard's postmodernity, Adorno's cultural criticism, Irigaray's difference, formal revolts and associated ethics such as Surrealism, Schoernberg and Stockhausen, Kavan and Kafka, Duras  and Mayakovski. Those extraordinary moments of 20th and 19th C art and cultre are moments of revolt, metaphysical and anti-metaphysical. Drifting in and out of these moments ethical challenges and moral revolts exploded onto the scene.  In this process  Stalinism was a punctum, even an endpoint in that it was a deviation into terror. The actual collapse was because of  something else. Can we recapture aspects of this spirit and create new forms from it that takes us beyond the critical walls we have run into - the collapse of the 'culture of shock' where postmodern art simply fails to shock because of its complete high-cultural commodification, marking the end of rebellious high-culture and the ever-surging growth of  consumer cultures and the failure of the inadequate responses to it.

In critiquing Badiou then I am remaining cautiously engaged in the process of locating a way forward to recover this culture as a means of refusing the normalising cultural order. It is terribly imperfect, event for those who regard it as the only workable solution at the present time they admit to the existence of the marginalised, the minor: the unemployed, the poor, refugees and those other humen and non-human impacted by the terrors of this society. In this line; then Badiou and the contentious recognition of the importance of his ethics but as importantly his refusals, can be seen to exist. It is the paragraph below on that most difficult aspect/moment 'love' which made me think along this line. Perhaps because it reminded me of Andre Breton's work 'Communicating Vessels' and 'Mad Love'  a reference and a thought that had escaped me before.

Heidegger imagined that religion would be a way to save us from the culture we have created - but apart from the obvious and famous lack of judgement that Heidegger showed - we exist within an obvious impasse in the area as it has been subsumed under the commodification that dominates. In truth it could only be saved if it struggles against the normalising forces. Both Kristeva and Badiou in their very differing ways argue that only a 'culture of revolt' and 'truth' can take us forward beyond this state of existence.

Is it in this line that you would place the below line of thought?

smiles

regards
steve

Of course Badiou would rightly reject the euro-centrism of the argument - mostly i do too... and my first draft contained more references to Kristeva that i removed as I didn't want to confuse the issue.

Eric wrote:

Steve,

 

I’m not really surprised, but I want to point put an irony.  In critiquing Badiou, you are beginning to sound more and more like a postmodernist, all over again.

 

I think this question of singularity versus contingent multitudes is an important one. One of the chief differences I see between Badiou and Lyotard is precisely on this point and I have to confess, over time, I am beginning to lean more towards Badiou’s position than Lyotard’s.

 

The simple point is this. As both philosophers define the Event, it is a singularity – something unique that can be named, that seizes us, and thereby acts as an intervention within the world.  Afterwards, things are no longer the same and this is a degree of quality, not just quantity.  The Event may be contingent, but the effects are not.

 

Lest you think I am merely playing with words here, consider love. It is one of the four pillars upon which Badiou says philosophy is sutured.  Certainly, my longing for love is contingent – this woman’s smile, that woman’s conversation, another woman’s eyes, a character in a book, an actress on the screen - all can excite me with the possibility of love.  When I finally do fall in love, however, there is a definite singularity.  It is this single, particular, contingent woman with all her foibles, imperfections, and contradictions that now excite.  I am drawn to her, think about her, center my life around her.  Where there once was only one, now there are two. What was once contingent, now becomes a singular Event in my life and it is one that changes everything.

 

In a similar way, despite your own reservations about Badiou, as I see it, you continue to operate from an ‘ethics of truth’ in your own life.  At some point in your life, an awareness of politics, justice, and socialism struck you as being important.  This understanding caused a break to occur in your life.  In fidelity to this Event, you no longer merely existed contingently as a mere animal, seeking comfort, but began to question, investigate, act and involve yourself with the singularity of the political in order to effect meaningful change.

 

Of course, such a commitment is not a panacea. The danger exists that what you are advocating is a mere simulacrum of the truth. Thus it is necessary, to read, to think, to observe, and judge in the light of the truth you have encountered. It is also necessary to persist in this truth, never to give up, not to betray it. Finally, it is necessary to recognize that your understanding is never total. There are always aspects of the situation that remain hidden and unnamed.

 

What I admire about Badiou as a philosopher is this very simplicity which recognizes - this is what we do as humans when we encounter truth.  There remains much to question, argue with, and disagree about in Badiou, but I think he has nonetheless put his finger on something fundamental.  Something like this does occur when we encounter truth in our lives. Not a truth based on mere contingent facts, but a dynamic Truth that intervenes to change the situation forever. A before and after.

 

Don’t you think something like Badiou’s ethics applies to the way you choose to live your life?

 

eric  

 

 



Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005