Tag CloudAchilles Affect Affects affectuum imitatio Antigone a thousand plateaus Augustine Autopoiesis Badiou Being Campanella capitalism Causation Cause Christiaan Huygens Davidson Death Deleuze Descartes Epistemology Ethics Freud Graham Harman Guattari Harman Hegel Heidegger Huygens Idea Imagination Immanence Information Johannes Hudde Kant Lacan Language Game Larval Subjects lathe Latour Lenses lens grinding Letter 39 Letter 40 Levi Bryant Massumi Metaphor Metaphysics microscope Negation Nietzsche object Object-Oriented Philosophy Ontology OOP Optics panpsychism Parables of the Virtual Philosophical Investigations Philosophy Plato Plotinus Poetry power Rorty Sophocles Spinoza Subject Substance Telescope Triangulation Truth Van Leeuwenhoek Vico Wim Klever Wittgenstein
2001: a space odyssey Achilles Alan Gabbey Antigone Antonio Negri Arne Naess Art Criticism Augustine Avatar Badiou biosemiotics Bousquet Brian Massumi Caliban Campanella Chalmers Christiaan Huygens Colerus Conjoined Semiosis Critical Theory cybernetics Dante David Graeber David Skrbina Davidson Deleuze Della Rocca Derrida Descartes Duns Scotus Epistemology Ethics Euripedes Exowelt Felix Guattari Foucault Graham Harman Greek Tragedy Guattari Heidegger Helvetica Hevelius Hockney-Falco Thesis Hume Huygens Information John Donne Kepler Kubrick L'occhiale all'occhio Latour Leibniz Letter 39 Letter to Peter Balling Literary Theory Martha Nussbaum Marx Metaphor Micrographia Milton Morality Nicola Masciandaro Nietzsche Optica Promota Ovid Painting panpsychism Parables of the Virtual Patricia Collins Philosophy Philosophy of Mind Photosynth Plato Plotinus Politics Rhetoric Rilke Robert Hooke Rorty Sappho Simulated Annealing Skepticism Slavoj Zizek Sloterdijk Specilla circularia Spinoza Spinoza's Foci St. Paul The Buttle Principle Three Varieties of Knowledge Tommaso Campanella Uncategorized Van Leeuwenhoek Vico Walter Benjamin William of Auvergne Wittgenstein Zizek zombies Zuggtmoy
|Day One of Bullshit!… on Cookery, Cuisine and the Truth…|
|Dana on Conjoined Semiosis: A “N…|
|Kevin von Duuglas-It… on Conjoined Semiosis: A “N…|
|Dana on Conjoined Semiosis: A “N…|
|Prof. Brian J Ford on The 1661 Technique of “G…|
|Charles M. Saunders on As Lensmaker: A Quick Ove…|
|Kevin von Duuglas-It… on Spinoza Doubt? The Sephardim,…|
|George W. Singleton… on Spinoza Doubt? The Sephardim,…|
|Dean on The Objective truth of Ro…|
|Billy McMurtrie on A Book that Explodes All Books…|
- Mitochondrial Vertigo: The New Blog
- Going Dark
- The Becoming-woman of Machine in Avatar
- The Difference Between a Description and an Explanation: Deficits in Latour
- Peking Opera and the Aesthetic Freedoms of Avatar
- Transcendence or Immanence: Cake-and-eat-it-too-ism
- From Affect to Mutuality, Openness to Rational Co-expression: Massumi to Spinoza
- Is the Medium the Message? Avatar’s Avatar
- Massumi’s Cognitive Doubling, Spinoza’s Numerical Affectivity
- Two Vectors of Avatar’s Cinematic Achievement: Affect and Space Interface
- Accursed Share
- An und für sich
- Anodyne Lite
- Click Opera
- Critical Animal
- Dead Voles
- Ecology Without Nature
- Eliminative Culinarism
- Fido the Yak
- In the Middle
- Loxogonospherical Moods
- Lumpen Orientalism
- Metastable Equilibrium
- Methods of Projection
- Naught Thought
- Necessarily Eternal
- Perverse Egalitarianism
- Pinocchio Theory
- Pirates and Revolutionaries
- Quiet Sun
- Shaviro's Workblog
- Slawkenbergius’s Tales
- Speculative Heresy
- spinoza research network
- Splintering Bone Ashes
- The Whim
- Utopian Realism
- Varieties of Unreligious Experience
- Velvet Howler
- Violent Signs
- Working Notes
Spinoza Primary Sources
- Ethics, Emendation, Tractatus and Letters, in Latin
- F. van den Enden website
- Hyperlinked Ethics, Emmendation, Tractatus and Letters
- Nicholas De Cusa’s “De Visione Dei”, English Translation
- Selected Letters, Elwes Translation
- Spinoza’s Complete Works, Shirley Translation
- Spinoza’s Works in Latin
- The Life of Spinoza, by Johannes Colerus (1705)
- April 2010 (1)
- January 2010 (2)
- December 2009 (26)
- November 2009 (21)
- October 2009 (21)
- September 2009 (15)
- August 2009 (8)
- July 2009 (18)
- June 2009 (23)
- May 2009 (21)
- April 2009 (20)
- March 2009 (26)
- February 2009 (24)
- January 2009 (28)
- December 2008 (16)
- November 2008 (17)
- October 2008 (12)
- September 2008 (23)
- August 2008 (26)
- July 2008 (40)
- June 2008 (40)
- May 2008 (54)
Ode to Man
Tho’ many are the terrors, not one more terrible than man goes. This one beyond the grizzled sea in winter storming to the south He crosses, all-engulfed, cutting through, up from under swells. & of the gods She the Eldest, Earth un-withering, un-toiling, is worn down, As the Twisting Plough’s year into Twisting Plough’s year, Through the breeding of horse, he turns. & the lighthearted race of birds all-snaring he drives them & savage beasts, their clan, & of the sea, marine in kind With tightly-wound meshes spun from all-seeing is Man. Yet too, he masters by means of pastoral beast, mountain-trodding, The unruly-maned horse holding fast, ‘round the neck yoked, & the mountain’s ceaseless bull. & the voice & wind-fast thought & the passion for civic ways He has taught, so from crag’s poor court from under the ether’s hard-tossed arrows To flee, this all-crossing one. Blocked, he comes upon nothing so fated. From Hades alone escape he’ll not bring. Tho’ from sickness impossible Flight he has pondered. A skilled one, devising of arts beyond hope, Holding at times an evil, But then to the noble he crawls, honoring the laws of the Earth, & Of gods the oath so just, high-citied. Citiless is the one who with the un-beautiful dwells, boldly in grace. Never for me a hearth-mate may he have been, never equal in mind He who offers this.
Ode to Man
A BwO is made in such a way that it can be occupied, populated only by intensities. Only intensities pass and circulate. Still, the BwO is not a scene, a place, or even a support upon which something comes to pass. It has nothing to do with phantasy, there is nothing to interpret. The BwO causes intensities to pass; it produces and distributes them in a spatium that is itself intensive, lacking extension. It is not space, nor is it in space; it is matter that occupies space to a given degree—to the degree corresponding to the intensities produced. It is nonstratified, unformed, intense matter, the matrix of intensity, intensity = 0; but there is nothing negative about that zero, there are no negative or opposite intensities. Matter equals energy. Production of the real as an intensive magnitude starting at zero. That is why we treat the BwO as the full egg before the extension of the organism and the organization of the organs, before the formation of the strata; as the intense egg defined by axes and vectors, gradients and thresholds, by dynamic tendencies involving energy transformation and kinematic movements involving group displacement, by migrations: all independent of accessory forms because the organs appear and function here only as pure intensities. The organ changes when it crosses a threshold, when it changes gradient. "No organ is constant as regards either function or position, . . . sex organs sprout anywhere,... rectums open, defecate and close, . . . the entire organism changes color and consistency in split-second adjustments." The tantric egg. After all, is not Spinoza's Ethics the great book of the BwO?
Ode to Man
But human power is extremely limited, and is infinitely surpassed by the power of external causes; we have not, therefore, an absolute power of shaping to our use those things which are without us. Nevertheless, we shall bear with an equal mind all that happens to us in contravention to the claims of our own advantage, so long as we are conscious, that we have done our duty, and that the power which we possess is not sufficient to enable us to protect ourselves completely; remembering that we are a part of universal nature, and that we follow her order. If we have a clear and distinct understanding of this, that part of our nature which is defined by intelligence, in other words the better part of ourselves, will assuredly acquiesce in what befalls us, and in such acquiescence will endeavour to persist. For, in so far as we are intelligent beings, we cannot desire anything save that which is necessary, nor yield absolute acquiescence to anything, save to that which is true: wherefore, in so far as we have a right understanding of these things, the endeavour of the better part of ourselves is in harmony with the order of nature as a whole.
Butler’s Antigone (developed in part in response to Irigaray’s) is a really interesting figure, and deserves another shot. I think the leagues of people who’ve written off Butler betray that they have not read much of her work when they dismiss her as a one-dimensional tranny prophet. Anyway– I like your Guattarian Antigone complex, and I think you’re right to skip over Sjoholm.
I started a much longer reply but decided to save it for a blog post. So check in later and let me know what you think.
Look foward to your longer post AL. I have to say that I don’t dismiss Bulter’s Antigone, but I did find the essay other than its very nice running over important Hegelian and Freudian/Lacanian formulations with a comb of critique to be very short on prospective answers or applications. She simply cannot SEE her Antigone (or present her). Something more needs to be said, for instance the question she poses in implication of an Antigone Complex really needs to be answered. These provisional thoughts, in that way, are a carry-over from my disappointment with the ending of her essay and an attempt to carry on past it.
My approach is not really Guattari/Deleuzian, even though in this post I include a passage of them that came to mind, and I do think that Antigone’s age is an under valued aspect of her story. It is much more in the vein of the previous post to this one, and found in the elements above that distinguish themselves from a pure-becoming and abstractive reading. I would though say that if we accept the G&D approach that renders Oedipus as a historical appropriate description of subjectivity in the 20th century, then it seems that there is room for something of a historical description of present day Western subjectivity that has been born into an Oedipal past.
p.s. glad to see you posting more again.
kvond this is maybe tangential but i am very turned on by the whole discussion so i am sharing it with you and clysmatics in hopes of exchange
i do not quite have the command of the philosophical language needed to describe this, but I understood from the book excerpts that the suture in the frame (which stiches up the hole between what the frame ”represents” and the Otherness that it ”refers to”) bursts, and from its cracks a certain excess of jouissance, something ”hauntological” to use k-punk’s language, comes out
From Antigone, says the author, The Fury turns into an active defragmentator, in the end literally blowing up the frame
Yes I looked at your fury post earlier in the day , and then again to the link of the book and went through a few pages (your comments section is a little profane so I did not write anything). The problem is that I greatly divorce myself from the entire “hautological” (k-punk conflation) binary that people of the Idealist/Phenomenologist tradition get very enthused about. It is prejudiced towards an absolute inside/outside or Being/Non-Being dynamic which determines all other processes.
I like very much your description though (and the film clip), but the problem is that the crack in the frame, so to speak, under a binary conception, simply dumps all the excess into one great jouissance field, in my mind blurring the actual structures of what this excessive, transpermeate process follows. There are specific paths which produce and then flow out of the frame, we might want to say. If I can put it in another way, when Antigone is transvetitive “becoming the man” before Kreon, she is not just in a jouissance state ripping upon the Law, in fact her manliness has very little directly to do with the Law Kreon before her. She is performing a very specific “line of flight” one might say in a G&D mood.
I understand that as a Lacanian you will not accept this because you find the Oedipal description more than sufficient. But as I read your description of the Fury scene I actually had a G&D moment where I said to myself, can’t we come up with a position on the subject which does not say “mummy, daddy, child”. This is not a criticism of what you find valuable, but my own sense of it.
What an Antigone Complex would offer is a theory of the subject which is historically positioned toward the past sufficiency of Oedipus.
No Kvond the author himself, in the introduction, distances himself from the Platonic SOLUTION of the relationship between the object and the image, keeping only the tension between the o and the i as his premise:
Yes, but almost every thinker that he sollicits aid from is driven by the essential binary, preventing what I am actually after, which are the non-binary avenues available, the topological conduits seen and experienced within a historical context. Derrida is a binary thinker, moving in the shadow of philosophies of presence. Lacan is a binary thinker (heavy with Hegel’s influence) attempting to deal with and escape from a presumed fundamental binary whose positioning towards is determinative. This is simply in my view an outmoded path of thought, born of Cartesian philosophical assumptions passed through the Idealist and Phenomenological schools. One has to deal with the historical adequacy and entrenchment of this thought and their descriptions, but one starts from a different calculus.
Agree with you here on Derrida, Lacan, and the idealist/phenomenological problem.
I could see your version of the antigone complex having filmic applications, though I’m not sure Carrie would be a starting point. That one would fall more under MacCormack’s “cinesexuality”, I suspect…
THE FURY is actually much more of an anti-Oedipus narrative, as the last scene enacts, but if you haven’t seen the film it’s a bit difficult to summarize.
It could very well be, but one reaches this position through an Oedipal framing to which one then gives meaning to the events (at least that is what I gleaned from your commentary). I am more interested in a non-Oedipal description, rather than an Anti-Oedipal one. Antigone is not Anti-Oedipus, she is simply non-Oedipal, or one might say enacting her freedom within an Oedipal horizon, but in such a way that normative Oedipal processes do not define or describe well the kinds of constructions she is attempting.
But you are very right, I have not seen the film, so I cannot comment well upon your comment…
“the defrgamentation of the Father/the frame opens the canvas to a NEW vista, somewhere in the frame’s hauntological position as both displaying a reality and referring to an unseen one.”
which seems like a thoroughly Oedipal conception (even if the action of the film seems in action against those imagined restrictions of subjectivity)…
An Antigone consciousness, as I imagine it, simply is not concerned with the Father/frame as something to fragment or obey.
Pingback: Black Orpheus by Camus, 1959 « Ktismatics
AL: “I could see your version of the antigone complex having filmic applications…”
Kvond: I would be very interested in the cinematic appropriations.
kvond what you name is not the discussion I wanted to pursue, and besides I think it does not apply to De Palma in the way you suggest, but I need to think some more about this (and read the entire chapters of the book, which is only given in fragments on the internet)