File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2004/lyotard.0411, message 40


Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 09:17:30 +0000
From: "steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Raoul Vaneigem, Refusals and Passions and psychogeography


eric/all

Two thoughts...

why dread the return of meta-narratives ? Aren't you being nostalgic for 
a version of the post-modern which the left post-modernists Negri and 
Hardt (for example) have undercut claiming  the post-modern as caused by 
economic changes. Not surprising that the postmodern Fukayama dislikes 
their position so much... The question which is always unaddressed when 
meta-narratives are raised is how we can break the false-universals of 
capital, the unfragile reactionary narratives of the 
counter-reformation, neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism and so on, without 
the use of  the universalism of  egalitarism.

The suggestion that the American multitude has accepted the 
false-consciousness of it's state of mind as a colonizer, as empowered 
and voted against exiting from the dialectical phenomenon of  
empowered/powerless. Caught up in this system the colonizing subject  is 
in a condition of ontological ambivilance being both the supporter of 
colonization and terror and yet is 'both the organiser and the 
victim'...   So of course the multitude in this sense voted Bush in - 
for there is no historical inevitableness in the model rather the 
multitude is ambivilant, and probably this results from the attempt to 
become or maintain a post-marxist communist position. Which is why I 
think the three listed below are deeply necessary. As the lack this 
causes in the theorisation of the multitude makes it difficult to 
address the relationship of the human subjects within the society of the 
spectacle, especially given the  way in which these days the aspect of 
the spectacle which is triumphant is founded on fear itself. 

I realize i haven't directly addressed the dialectic and anti-dialectic 
but wanted to collect our thoughts on this...

steve

Eric wrote:

>Steve,
>
>More about this later. 
>
>I think it can be summed up - Debord was Hegelian, Deleuze was not.
>
>Glen asked about a discussion of the multitude. Perhaps the multiple is
>what voted Bush in for a second term.  It might be fruitful to discuss
>the multitude from the POV of Society of the Spectacle, Lyotard's
>postmodern fable and Deleuze's society of control.  
>
>This is worth discussion in my opinion in order to grapple with the
>differences.
>
>eric
>
>
>  
>

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005