Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 19:49:50 -0500 (CDT)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?eduardo=20enriquez?= <eduardofenriquez-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [postanarchism] matrix, the left reloaded


 --- "dr.woooo" <dr.woooo-AT-nomasters.org> escribió: > 

> 
> What is the Left? 
> 
> Im tempted to say that its just bad theorising. At
> the last screening steve 
> and I held, the point was made that the concept of
> the multitudes was a clumsy 
> solution to a non-problem. If the point of the
> concept is to create a category 
> to bring together (and in some sense unify)
> bodies-under-capitalism so as to 
> enable both the ability for those bodies to see
> their commonality and to enable 
> the development of political theory, the question
> has to be, why bother? Why is 
> such a unifying category necessary? Who does the
> category serve? And what 
> irreconcilable differences and singularities does
> the category flatten in its 
> rush for its place as a master narrative of the
> oppressed? Cant bodies connect 
> themselves to together bodies, in assemblages and
> networks of their own 
> creation? Cant they remain nameless, or name
> themselves. Cant self-identified 
> groups and entities connect (disconnect and
> dissolve) themselves? Whats the 
> fucking point of a really extensive (and vacuous)
> category? 
> 
categories , concepts, theory, etc are just part of
life as one lives it in its passing over us and i
think because of human intelectual capacity they come
to us perhaps even wheter we like it or not. it might
be not very exhaustive or rationally speaking too
strong (stereotypes, myth, superstition, etc) or it
could be very sophisticated and internally coherent
such as the theory that the petit bourgois people such
as us writing on this lists read and use. anyway this
activity is just bound to happen just as trees will
grow. asking "Whats the 
> fucking point of a really extensive (and vacuous)
> category? " 
indeed seems to me is aking whats the point of trees
growing?

Cant bodies connect 
> themselves to together bodies, in assemblages and
> networks of their own 
> creation? Cant they remain nameless, or name
> themselves. Cant self-identified 
> groups and entities connect (disconnect and
> dissolve) themselves? 

asking these though indeed it is rather healthy to
petit bourgoise like us interested in producing and
discussing theory in making us think that theory or
like marx said "philosophy" does not really change the
world. gramsci said that theory always comes too late
for practice yet he kept on producing theory. theory
has to be purged a little bit of rationalistic
prejudice which says it happens only because of a wish
to understanding and a wish of acting upon the world.
so indeed theory has to be included into the whole
that constitutes the experience of life whether it is
myth, religion, etc or bla, bla about multitudes or
rhyzomes or anything else. just as creating a god
provides a confort in knowing something always takes
care of us, coming up with something like "multitudes"
in modern secular age in which supposedly "god is
dead"
also provides a feeling of confort of knowing perhaps
indeed it could be the case where the oppressed will
unite and bring down the system. in the first case we
know that at times indeed it feels like in what for
sceptics are actually miracolous moments of luck, for
those with faith it was the hidden hand of god acting.
in the second case those strange moments where somehow
action and crisis join which we call revolutions, or
at least revolting
for "believers" it is that that proves
that their teory was right all along. 

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com