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.
Thanks for these close readings, Kevin. I don’t have Massumi’s book to follow along, so I’ve been using the excellent set of interviews that Paul B pointed to at the online Oct.2009 INFLEXIONS; eg, “Of Microperception and Politics”.
My naive sense is that there’s a phenomenological temptation, when initially becoming critical of the stratified web in which we find ourself, to bracket some of the more macro aspects of conjoined semiosis (microfascisms swirling like snowflakes in tune to some Christmas musak) in order to focus on the general characteristics of memory and creativity for individuals-in-themselves. Of course, this only goes so far, and may lead one astray (the NOUGHTIES weren’t nice ; )
But, reading on to Brian and Erin’s interview with Isabelle Stengers, in the same INFLEXIONS, “History Through the Middle: Between Macro and Mesopolitics” http://www.sesnselab.ca/inflexions/volume_3/node_i3/PDF/Stengers_en_mesopolitique.pdf helps bring me back to a ‘proper’ level for conjoined semiosis. Stengers, here, is rather critical of the earlier focus on ‘micropolitics’ and ‘microperception’, in favor of a “Society of Molecules” in the mesosphere, which she discusses in her “last book”, LA SORCELLERIE CAPITALISTE: PRATIQUES DE DESENVOUTEMENT (CAPITALIST SORCERY: COUNTER-SPELLS — and I’m inclined to look, also, at some of Arnold Mindell’s incantations, as recently recommended by Amarilla..)
Anyway, maybe the Stengers interview would be a helpful holiday for bringing the earlier work of Massumi up to speed. If you recall my earlier comment about an ontology of resistors, capacitors, and conductors, Stengers gives a pretty good account of the semiosis involved (“participation in both these sense is indissociable from the induction of a capacity for resistance” 😉
For more insight into the electronic ontology I refer to above, check out the July 2009 NEW SCIENTIST article on “Memristor Minds: The Future of Artificial Intelligence”, which I found at http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2009-October/006094.html
Best wishes for the new year.. Mark
Thanks for the references Mark, I shall have to check them out. I like this:
“My naive sense is that there’s a phenomenological temptation, when initially becoming critical of the stratified web in which we find ourself, to bracket some of the more macro aspects of conjoined semiosis”
The trouble I am having with Massumi, and I suspect it will continue, is that he intentional spatializes the philosophical dynamice of transcendence/immanence (my next post quote should bring this out), and as such cuts off a serious path of prescriptive development. I think that this is related to the phenomenological temptation you mention (not to mention the desire to make each person in a social system an epicenter of freedom and “difference”). I see the equation much more diversely, and fancy that human (and all objects, per se) as cut through with tides and currents and transpiercive effects, all of which erode the kind of essentialization Massumi finds to be proficient for his project. In a word, his project is still TOO “optical” (which is another wya of saying “idealist”).
And happy, happy holidays to you too.
p.s. Mark, these Massumi titles are available on AAAARG.ORG :
“Chaos in the Total Field of Vision” (ch. 6, Parables for the Virtual)
Fear (The Spectrum Said)
Parables For The Virtual (excerpt – The Bleed)
Shock To Thought: Expression After Deleuze and Guattari
Stelarc: The Evolutionary Alchemy of Reason
The Autonomy of Affect
What I have covered so far is the first essay on the book, “The Autonomy of Affect”. “The Bleed” will be next, and I suspect the title on Chaos theory will have some emphasis.
AAAARG.ORG is very easy to join, and painless. Much to be found there.
Hopefully Capitalist Sorcery: breaking the spell’ will be out next year (trans Andy Goffey).
Let’s hope we all make it thru with a little joy…
Greetings Paul, I’m muddling around this morning trying to unwrap the distinction between Massumi’s translation, COUNTER-SPELLS, and the one you give, BREAKING THE SPELL.
My reading of the Stengers interview yesterday, on my commute into the heart of the beast, was interrupted by the loopy bus driver managing to get almost everyone singing along to THE 12 DAYS OF CHRISTMAS (I did not sing, but was the only one to clap at the end, which had a nearly miraculous timing to it ; )
And many thanks for the original pointer to INFLEXIONS.. Mark
I love the conceptual rub between “breaking the spell” and “counter-spells”. There is a lot in there.
And Mark, I love your bus ride.
I noticed that at Inflexions they are translating as ‘counter-spells’. Andy’s current trans is ‘breaking the spell.’
The French is: ‘pratiques de desenvoutement.’
Both trans work. Envoutement denotes bewitchment…or enchantment.
Thus literally ‘practices of debewitchment’ but that is a bit clumsy – so breaking the spell. ‘Counter spells also works because the book is about the fact that we need protective stategies – something that sorcery was v. aware of. Of course as you understand the book is not a list of ‘spells’ but an analysis of capitalism as a paralysing system (like sorcery can be). You are given ‘infernal alternatives’ like ‘if you demand a payrise there will be unemployment and the factory will close.’ So ‘sorcery’ is not a metaphor but a v. good description of the hold cap has on us…
The book is about counter stragegies following the slogan from Seattle ‘Another world is possible’ – rather than resignation……they do use the term ‘breaking the spell’ – ‘rompre le charme’.
Party pooper – you should have sung along.