----------empyre- soft-skinned space---------------------- What a thoughtful response. I'm honored.
Sent from my iPhone > On May 14, 2014, at 7:59 AM, "Alexander R. Galloway" <gallo...@nyu.edu> wrote: > > ----------empyre- soft-skinned space---------------------- > Christina, > > yes you read my mind. the "via negativa" is one of the things that I picked > up from reading Eugene Thacker's book "After Life" -- and it's a method that > has influenced me greatly in recent years (and incidentally syncs well with > Laruelle i'd say). This not to reinforce some sort of > transcendental--religious or otherwise--but rather to highlight how important > denial is for contemporary methodology. In other words, while much > contemporary thought operates through a logic of augmentation--more this, > more that--I'm much more excited by a logic of subtraction (one example of > which would be Badiou's theory of the event). In other words we need a kind > of anorexic philosophy, not an inflated one. Thinking is hamstrung by claims > to sufficiency; thought is only liberated via the common. I see this as the > key to unlocking the non-human. > > Ken might be able to say more here, but in the book we were interested in how > religious thinking gets taken up by theory and philosophy. so Badiou has his > St Paul, Zizek has his Job, Agamben his St Francis, etc. For his part > Laruelle focuses on the resurrection. I find the evangelical strains of > Badiou's Paulinism a bit wearisome in the present climate, but I understand > how it's necessary for a voluntarist form of militancy. > > a secular "via negativa" is interesting to me, and i see it as a way to > understand the common. not an inflated universal subject. but a deflated > generic person (arrived at via subtraction or negation). this connects to > renate's comments too about Gandhi and King. > > and your last comment is great: a revelation from “God”. i think yes, > although this might not be God in the normal sense (nor revelation)! I'm a > student of the Spinoza/Marx/Deleuze version of God: let's banish metaphysics > in favor of a flat material plane. and if "spirit" exists it exists right > here and now. > > lots of material to ponder. thanks, > > -ag > > >> On May 11, 2014, at 7:00 PM, christ...@christinamcphee.net wrote: >> >> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space---------------------- >> Alexander et al, >> >> To insist on focussing our ethics on a strategy of infinite (as in, >> non-relational) withdrawal has antecedents in the Orthodox spiritual >> tradition of the via negativa. >> >> Your (AG’s) discussion of James Turrell’s light installations in ‘light of’ >> Laruelle’s theory of non-photography resonates with me to that tradition, >> and even to the figure that LaRuelle throws up, the Son of Man. St. Matthew >> calls Jesus the “Son of Man” rather than “Son of God” more often than not. >> Matthew is writing in an attempt to link the story of Jesus to an historical >> geneology of culture-heroes in the Hebraic written tradition and oral >> history and community consciousness during a time of tremendous catastrophic >> and ongoing loss of those community values. Perhaps also, if you can indulge >> a psycho-history, to a loss of a sense of God’s presence among His chosen. >> >> At the same time, Matthew’s invocation of “Son of Man” also radically points >> to the transcendent arrival of an agent whose parentage is of “Man” , i. e. >> not just the Jewish people or any tribe, but an ultimate Man. It’s not for >> nothing that Pasolini chooses Matthew as his text for his film “The Gospel >> according to St Matthew” : Pasolini rightly builds on the radical >> implications of the figure of Christ as arising directly from a >> transcendence that gathers force not alongside, or against, but “in, with, >> and under” the people— transubstantiation. On the level of poetics if not >> politics, Pasolini’s agnosticisms consider the possibility of accord with an >> ’too-innocent philosophy’ — but, by means of making of the film itself, with >> Palestinians, in ‘Palestine” , reject a radicalism of extraction of the >> Logos; no, for PPP, the Logos is in and among us qua film qua life qua body >> and blood. In contrast— an opposite politics--- in your discourse on >> Turrell via LaRuelle, AG? I’d like to explore this further, starting here: >> >> As one blogger recently notes >> >> …. the beginning of the determination of a too innocent philosophy, a >> non-philosophy, a supra-rational innocence, which could only expressly mean >> the immortalization of the Logos through the extraction of all its radical >> conceivability in history, already practiced or imagined, the only reason, >> ne plus >> ultra.http://veraqivas.wordpress.com/category/immanent-philosophy/francois-laruelle/page/2/ >> >> >> Imagine this binary, just for a moment (it may or may not be provisional). >> Let’s say : where Pasolini and Matthew remain on one side of a chasm, on >> the other stands LaRuelle, the non-philosopher who may not presume to >> partake (through history, through ethics, through the spoken word, through >> the moving image..) community or communitarian values. If Matthew the >> historian, and Pasolini, artist of proto-Christian atheism, stand for and >> with community--with or without ‘God’ (AKA the noumenous) --through the >> figuration of relation and partaking (taking part) (=transubstantiation) of >> the Son of Man; then on the other side, LaRuelle proposes to stands in for, >> contra or at least in figure/ground opposition, to community--with or >> without “Man” (AKA the human community) . Alexander, are you also there with >> LaRuelle, or is this binary too stark? >> >> Listening to your talk, Alexander, on Incredible Machines, considering James >> Turrell’s installations as evidence of LaRuelle’s theory of non-photography, >> I immediately turned back to Laruelle’s desire for the Son of Man. (I must >> confess I am relying on impressions I had when I listened to your live talk) >> Alexander, your manifesto is “ to articulate a logic being that is not >> reducible to a metaphysics of exchange… ‘there will be no more messages.” >> And you go on to point to a “logic of relation..without the….model of >> exchange. “ It’s possible Laruelle espouses a (non)-figuration of the >> transcendent angel en arrivant. >> >> So: to propose a chasm here. No exchange, means no more messages, means in >> its equal and opposite expression (since if there is no more x->y or y->x >> there can only be x= not-x). Turrell’s light objects, in order to be >> understood as new information, new knowledge…. need not require a St >> Matthew-esque historicity with antecedents like Moholy-Nagy, Naum Gabo, El >> Lissitsky… They can arrive, like angels… ? >> >> I take it that 'the new meta-narrative to guide us’ — (AG, below) partakes >> of this only-reason, this new plus ultra of an arrival of an angel in the >> subject-site of theorist. Could Turrell’s space-time-image manifest the >> arrival of something new, like this? A Logos, of a sort? The canard of art >> as knowledge-production goes to something else, something very interesting. >> Since always otherwise words partake of the play of the trace, the way from >> above is to make the person-space-time of the Logos an embodied speech act? >> A via-negativa speaks, from a space of non-relation, non-photography— from >> the somewhat disingenuously described ‘too-innocent’ site that is outside of >> perceivable substance? No transubstantiation, because the Son of Man, for >> Laruelle, arrives without a body, without the body of the human, without the >> body of community, and is self-born, self-generating, “like” (oops) God…. ? >> >> Does Laruelle’s extravagance around angels as theorists and theorists as >> angels deserve special notice as an auto-epipanic event- LaRuelle recreates >> himself ? Can we do the same? At the ‘event-horizon’ of the human… >> >> What do you think, Alex, does your argument of withdrawal exclude all >> “poetics of relation” (Glissante) with a sublimity (angel-theorist-Son of >> Man) in its place? So seems to be the logic of commentators around >> LaRuelle. like Grelet (trans. Brassier) here >> http://www.onphi.net/texte-son-of-man--brother-of-the-people--behold-the-theorist-29.html >> >> But perhaps you imply something more nuanced. I began my comment with a >> mention of the ‘via negativa’. Would you instead be proposing, via Turrell >> a negative theology? >> >> "n negative theology, it is accepted that experience of the Divine is >> ineffable, an experience of the holy that can only be recognized or >> remembered abstractly. That is, human beings cannot describe in words the >> essence of the perfect good that is unique to the individual, nor can they >> define the Divine, in its immense complexity, related to the entire field of >> reality. As a result, all descriptions if attempted will be ultimately false >> and conceptualization should be avoided. In effect, divine experience eludes >> definition by definition:” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology >> >> So, to put it in tragicomic mode, and yet I am serious, is this new >> meta-narrative about a revelation from “God”? >> >> >> Christina >> >> http://christinamcphee.net >> >> Incredible Machines/ Alexander Galloway March 6 2014 >> http://incrediblemachines.info/keynote-speakers/galloway/ >> >> >>> On May 11, 2014, at 7:25 AM, Alexander R. Galloway <gallo...@nyu.edu> wrote: >>> >>> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space---------------------- >>> Dear Soraya & Co.. >>> >>> I guess part of the impetus is that I'm surprised--if not unnerved--by the >>> way in which networks have captured and eclipsed other ways of thinking. A >>> new pantheon of dot-com philosophers reigns supreme today, ready to >>> proclaim at every turn that “everything is a network.” Mark Zuckerberg: >>> people are networks. Donald Rumsfeld: the battlefield is a network. Bruno >>> Latour: ontology is a network. Franco Moretti: Hamlet is a network. David >>> Joselit: Art is a network. Guy Debord: the post-capitalist city is a >>> network. John Von Neumann: computation is a network. Konrad Wachsmann: >>> architecture is a network. >>> >>> Ladies and gentlemen, postmodernism is definitively over! We have a new >>> meta-narrative to guide us. >>> >>> We might label this a kind of “reticular pessimism.” And here I'm taking a >>> cue from the notion of “Afro-pessimism” in critical race theory. Just as >>> Afro-pessimism refers to the trap in which African-American identity is >>> only ever defined via the fetters of its own historical evolution, >>> reticular pessimism claims, in essence, that there is no escape from the >>> fetters of the network. There is no way to think in, through, or beyond >>> networks except in terms of networks themselves. According to reticular >>> pessimism, responses to networked power are only able to be conceived in >>> terms of other network forms. (And thus to fight Google and the NSA we need >>> ecologies, assemblages, or multiplicities.) >>> >>> By offering no alternative to the network form, reticular pessimism is >>> deeply cynical because it forecloses any kind of utopian thinking that >>> might entail an alternative to our many pervasive and invasive networks. >>> >>> This is part of the mandate of this book, as I see it: to articulate a >>> logic of being that is not reducible to a metaphysics of exchange, to a >>> metaphysics of the network. This to me is the promise of excommunication: >>> the message that says “there will be no more messages”; a logic of >>> relation, without the tired, old model of exchange. >>> >>> So, yes, strategic withdrawal is at the heart of what interests me most. >>> Some are a bit skeptical about this notion of withdrawal -- often because >>> they see in a negative light as alternatively a surrender monkey position >>> (i give up! i'm outta here!), or a position of privilege (the political >>> equivalent of opening a bank account in the Cayman Islands). But I see it >>> very differently. I see it more as a withdrawal from representation. A >>> structural withdrawal. I see it as a way to conceive of a kind of practical >>> utopia in the here and now. "You don't represent us." "No one is illegal." >>> "I would prefer not to." "We have no demands." Yes I realize utopian >>> thinking is very unfashionable today; that's precisely why we need so much >>> more of it. So perhaps less a bunker mentality and more about the >>> reclaiming of a new experience of life and activity. >>> >>> Re: obsolescence of theory -- perhaps it hinges on *which* kind of theory? >>> I don't agree with Latour and the notion that "theory has run out of >>> steam." Marxism, feminism, psycho-analysis -- they all still work great if >>> you ask me. But I do think that a kind of "vulgar 1968" style of theory has >>> run its course. Nancy Fraser has it exactly right: capitalism co-opted many >>> of the demands of '68-style theory. So now we have to reassess and >>> recompile a new kind of theoretical method. Because of this I'm much more >>> interested in a slightly different spin on the theoretical tradition. >>> >>> -ag >> http://christinamcphee.net >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> empyre forum >> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au >> http://www.subtle.net/empyre > > > -------------------------------------------- > Alexander Galloway, Associate Professor, NYU > http://cultureandcommunication.org/galloway > > My latest book, The Interface Effect, is now available from Polity: > http://www.politybooks.com/book.asp?ref=0745662528 > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > empyre forum > empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au > http://www.subtle.net/empyre _______________________________________________ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
