Saturday, 3 December 2011

a short note on Wordsworth, Benjamin, Baudelaire, from a reply on the same to the question of identifying contemporary "meanest objects"


I'm not sure I believe in poetical ways out anymore. I know I certainly used to - back in the days when every poem I could encounter might perform a newly specialized abstraction of catharsis or transcendental bliss. But I think I wanted to encounter poetry then as a means of by-passing poetry and landing somewhere else entirely, jumping into infinity via the linguistic catapult; I also think I am a much better reader of poetry than I used to be. That pivot object at the end of the Immortality Ode is complicated, for me, by the preceding two lines:

     Thanks to the human heart by which we live,
     Thanks to its tenderness, its joys, and fears,
     To me the meanest flower that blows can give
     Thoughts that do often lie too deep for tears.

So that the object is distinguished in its meanest particularity by, and only by dint of, the "human heart", or rather, the condition of being part of the human race that allows the utterance "To me" to gain a foothold amongst the innumerable joys and fears of everyone else who doesn't happen, at this point, to be me. The condition of this experience of ruling out despair is the assumed joy of absolute connection to the social body at its most abstracted level, the level of biological species; "Thanks" to the emblem of my absolute similarity I can appreciate this meanest object as the backwards reflection of the joy we started with, or if not exactly the same joy, then one which derives its depth of feeling from the same wellspring of universal song which give certain "Thoughts" their universal excellence - except that I can't, because that a priori bliss doesn't seem nearly as symbolically biological as it seemed to Wordsworth.

I think what we're no longer capable of is not distinguishing the identities of the most useful meanest objects, of which I can think of dozens - pornography, pop songs, cigarettes, the poor - but arriving at them replete with the knowledge of their power to reflect that which Wordsworth already felt deeply in the blood: that he was embedded in the universe he describes thanks to his very physiognomy as a poet. And that's a pretty bad mark in itself, or lack thereof, isn't it? I sometimes think that everything I write is a bad mark, another flagging up of the attempt to coral a diagnostic passion into a slightly less that parallel symptomology of experience (ha!), but then I also wish I didn't think so often along the binary of diagnosis in verse, versus the cultural symptoms of bad affect (I don't anymore, anyway). In Benjamin's writings on Baudelaire he distinguishes between the possible social and moral readings of his work, which I think map on to my (now abandoned) binary quite nicely; it's obviously extremely difficult to write from both perspectives at the same time, although maybe that's what's now absolutely necessary. In Baudelaire, for Benjamin, the two are fused in the speaking (not ventriloquising) empathy of the commodity. Perhaps I'm getting off-track, but since I'm at this point anyway:

"If the soul of the commodity which Marx occasionally mentions in jest existed, it would be the most empathetic ever encountered in the realm of souls, for it would have to see in everyone the buyer in whose hand and house it wants to nestle".

Leaving aside the notion for the moment as to whether or not, or at least in what sense, Marx was joking, isn't this kind of universalism more the sort of stuff [good] poets are made of? Perhaps I feel that I approach my objects, however mean, not with the full knowledge of my human and super-human powers, but rather with this knowledge implicitly circumscribed by the far more easily delineated knowledge of the bad humans I feel bound to distinguish from myself, and further to render crap and pointless by assumption. In order for mean objects to have the power to banish despair, I need a vision of "humanity" to which, right now I do not have access; or rather, which is systematically screened off from me by my inability to experience it as anything other than the mendacious .jpeg of a thousand blended hands begging for me to want to nestle. Humanity is the logo of corporate idealism.

25 comments:

  1. Replying off the roof and hoof in the Clapton library. I am glad you've posted this. Post everything, I'd say, if you're asked, and who is, and post it now. Wouldn't it be better to start, if a start can be made, by having never believed in the first place in poetic ways out, and in that case never having had to go back and be confused by all the doors and so have to stop believing in them either? Exitless aporias *are* the only way out as far as I can see, which is about as far as the next door is open anway. This would then destablise the 'then' in your 'then poetry was a trampoline for jumping right off the poetry trampoline into next door's garden but now I am over that because I am reading Wordsworth better in the undergrowth' riff. If that is no longer an option, the bounce beyond, how could it have been in the first place? If it was, it must still be, but anew. Isn't that Prynne nostalgia, flying like an arrow away from what isn't possible anymore but never was anway, and knowing what we all have to do, us men leading the charge, and so the opposite image waits at the other end to meet me? You see? How was it 'then' an option, so that you could get to 'here'? So I, myself, am not sure there was ever an 'I' there enough to have to believe in my position and poetic class enough to worry about what I used to believe and believe now, and the differences, who cares? the real class war is elsewhere. The real bounce beyond would have come from never believing it, and getting back onto the trampoline. Of course, you don't mention trampolines. But maybe you see. In brief, because I have 23 mins left on the library time counter, what about the preceding preceding lines in the Immmortality Ode (the library pc won't let me cut and paste them)? That is, for example, what keeps watch over 'man's mortality' right now? Durban say? Accelarating extinction events? What kind of object, mean or otherwise, would 'climate change' be? What sort of hyper-object that even now popular radical Marxist poetry keeps on occluding? And precisly by the sort of argument that thinks 'we' (who, which percentage exactly?) know who 'bad humans' are and how to distinguish from them without looking straightaway at my own 'man-shames'? Can I point to a 'bad human' without thinking for at least a second that he or she looks a bit like me? There's so much and so many that still miss out, are missing out. A similar temporal problem goes right through the post, effecting even what you say about leaving aside 'for the moment' whether or not Marx was joking. If I can leave that aside for a moment, then I can for longer than a moment, otherwise I maybe can't at all. In the metis debt storm now on, the 'bad humans' are if anyone not just 'them' (know your fucking enemy) but 'us' for ransaking the underclass of the unborn, always now already soul-grabbed of their conditions of life. Isn't one of the problems that 'we' 'think' 'we' 'me(a)n' 'know' 'what' 'we' 'now''need'? Humanity is not just hypertelechnic, but to come. See what Cixous has to say about the origin of socialism. With love, unrewritten, uncorrected, Jonty xxxx

    ReplyDelete
  2. 1. Given that I live in history, expostulating "then" and "now" in relation to myself, I feel justified in doing that; I was at one point a fucking transcendentalist, is all I'm saying. No doubt it would have been better if I started listening to the Germs in the womb, but it took a few years. It was a subjective option, maybe always was; is not now, cannot be, because if we are interested in the real class struggle then my little glimpse into the infinite doesn't help much; Mallarmé or International Klein Bleu might only work for little particular me once they translate the real instead of by-passing it into abstraction; otherwise we're just setting up an infinite series of reciprocally-facing trampolines.

    2. The teleology of universalism is usually marked, like time, at the end of the poem; given prosodic temporality, and given age's love-increaser, but concomitant decline of everything's celestial delight, I thought it best to concentrate on the concentrate; this is, however, only the beginning.

    3. Climate change would be an historical artefact, not an object, more akin to the French Revolution or Time.

    4. But here is the crux, and thanks for instantaneously picking that out, which I knew you would really, as the point. For me (lol), I know what I need, and that is not to know what kind of humanity is to come, but what kind of humanity posits itself qua humanity right now. I am impatient for this. My point (lol) is that poetry has spent a lot of time and effort figuring out ways to figure out humanity, but not nearly enough ways to figure out how that "humanity" is constituted in toto by the powers that would have us constantly appeal to that which is the projected image of a certain class-interest [Pound's "usura" notwithstanding]: Benjamin: "For positive law, if conscious of its roots, will certainly claim to acknowledge and promote the interest of mankind in the person of each individual. It sees this interest in the representation and presentation of an order imposed by fate". Thus (not thus, but, you know what I mean) bourgeois universalism. Those powers are, as you rightly point out, also us. But can I point to a "bad human" without thinking for at least a second that he or she looks a bit like me? Well, yes, because the language of "bad humans" has less to do with your "man-shame", which is itself an inherited description of the violence of your class, than the detriment to consciousness that is perpetuated by their hilarious despair; Sean Bonney's litmus test of "the bourgeois mind" from a talk at Sussex on Thursday night came down to this: whoever sees a video of Jeremy Clarkson announcing strikers should be shot in front of their families doesn't immediately think that Jeremy Clarkson should be shot in front of his family, is plainly not on our side. Which is not to demand that Jeremy Clarkson is to be shot in our poems, that would be hysterical. There is obviously a difference between self-castigation and the identification of social reality. Wordsworth had the advantage of having a heart, of course, whereas all we have is lethean satnav.

    5. Marx was not joking, exactly.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 56. Yeah idk. But there's plenty of what Ariana Reines calls 'stunning conviction' in what you say. For 'stunning' read: wrong. Nothing in what I wrote implied the need to go back, or rebirth, or that 'then' and 'now' really don't exist in some kind of 'history' you must be really chuffed to be so definitely living in. Yeah, you're 'justified', go ahead. What seems satirically biting, though, doesn't last long if it relies on occlusion. You catapult beyond my questions, which are meant to fucking help think through whether 'our side' might in fact be possible, which is interesting. In fact, that was my point. That it isn't as easy to get past being a 'fucking transcendentalist' as you imply, without at least flying into yet more fucking transcendentalism (this time usually dressed up as some variety of materialism, or even 'the 99%', perhaps), and the infinite regress of trampolines you mention is just a 'comical' flourish for not wanting to think this through as the very condition for an im-possible getting out, right now, all mirrors and trapezes just about intact. In other words, not believing in poetical ways out anymore is, or would be, the definition of transcendentalist catharsis. But you are rightly (perhaps only here) 'not sure'.

    67. So I wasn't talking about rebirthing with an amniotic Darby Crash, I was talking about starting again, now, and how that is perhaps always differently possible. You wanna blank that possibility? In a hurry to murder J. Clarkson? Kool. That 'Marx was not joking, exactly' almost *sounds* witty, and therefore right?, yet my very point was that by admitting a literalism (which you do) simultaneous with satire, Marx can be even more deeply satirical. It's what Specters of Marx does for hundreds of pages, pretend to be merely taking Marx's satire literally, but most Marxists wouldn't get that because they're not very funny, and anyway 'we' definitely don't need to read Derrida, do we, since, man, there's a revolution coming.

    23. Sean Bonney was definitely confused enough to think that (ie. we don't need to read Derrida) in 2004, for example, when he said that 'We need to know what it was about Marx that produced Stalin' (QUID 12, p. 17). I bet the Cambridge Poetry Summit he was addressing were strangely relieved, because it meant 'we' didn't have to go back (perish the thought, it might involve therapy!) and read Specters of Marx which already in 1993 had given 'us' a patient and patiently impatient exposition of 'the whole totalitarian inheritance of Marx's thought' including the historical moment (no lol needed, yet) when 'Leninist and then Stalinist totalitarianism were able to constitute themselves' (SOM, p. 130 and throughout). Is it ahistorical and anti-Marxist, then, or the very opposite to ask which 'we' we mean and to want to be precise?

    68. I find in Sean's sentence an odd type of accidental satire. Its transcendental boomeranging beyond the fact that Derrida had already written the account he, spokesperson at the Cam Po Commi-Con that day, was keen to say 'we' needed is, I would say, coming back, right now, at least if you can get off Facebook long enough and look inside. It's funny to me that materialists (and I don't mean you) don't bother to actually *read*, especially on Facebook. But my laughter died down quick . . . Count me all the way out, if you really want us to be able to count all of us, or at least some of us, including me, in.

    I'm just begun.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So here's the 20 minute bonus soft track version.

    I'm gonna let this stretch out, dear Joe, be as formless and frank as it needs to be. It will spread across posts if it wants to, you and your blog permitting, the urgency of an ecstatic secret suffering and scream that wants more urgency and precision (not less), more of a side to be on (and not just one), and more rigorous openness (not merely epigrammatic 'rightness'), and wants all this precisely so that 'we' might, full of vital and dangerous perhapses, and with more ferocious clarity, clarify what is 'bougey', 'bourgeois', what is I would even simply say self-prohibiting or even repressed in what remains of my heart, and that's not a finished question for me, my heart, just like 'climate change': it has all the others in it. One part of this, the tender part, the sorest part, in this exchange, that for me needs looking out for and after from the start, is the side that wants to win out, to know best, and to do so right now, to be right, and know it is, and so to know who 'the bourgeois one' is (it's usually, by definition, *not me*, right?), and so that we can then get on with it, get down to it, be done with it, all those things Beckett, I think, said were im-possible as life when he used the word 'pensum'. I think there is some of this in your impatience J and J, may I say it, as anyone, as any J, any K, not least Kapital, any whatever letter you like. I think there is definitely some of this in mine, and in me even needing to run and write with this, but I want to try to make this part of what I am saying. To own it, to out it, to not run away from it; a running away that is of course what Cixous calls 'almost inevitable' . . .

    ReplyDelete
  5. This clarity ferocity, though, is just that. It means for me more than satire; a sort of meta-satire. Asking questions so that I can begin to actually feel and live what 'our side' might be, asking questions about 'our side', so as, if you like, to be not in it enough to be able to see it. There is of course in me too a voice that sometimes wants me or the other to die (I am thinking of J. Clarkson), to be shot, to die (for me) for love or something called 'revolution', to call out the 'bad other' unequivocally, in myself or the other, to 'hold the motherfucker to account', 'up against the screen', in the other or in myself, or in the other as myself. This means, for me, that I don't see how a political transaction can take place except as a confrontation with my heart. Isn't this beating self-identification a primarily and devastatingly political-therapeutic gesture in its very pulsion, not a hall of trapezes that slows us down too much to be able to make the social identifications and percentages 'we' now need, under ever more urgent than ever conditions, but on the contrary the very condition of that necessary identification. To be clear, this would mean not only that there *is* a clear difference, as you say, between 'self-castigation and the identification of social reality' but that the difference is even clearer and more politically effective, perhaps, at the point I can bring these two things together without fearing they will simply blur into one another . . .

    ReplyDelete
  6. But what in fact makes me ferocious right now, and I am ferocious now, as well as breathing and alive and happy and hopeful for the first time in way too long, is *that voice itself*, that voice that wants me to kill and negate and target and know and be done with, and how much I can hear it in, yes, to be absolutely sure, since you bring him up, J. Clarkson's comments, but also in some of the implied vectors and vibrations of what has been said, supposedly in the name of the 'revolution', about how one is meant to react to those comments, and what it says about a person's revolutionary credentials. Last night, and for weeks now, I was in a state of clutching anxiety, thinking about whether it is possible to keep up with what is happening in the world, and yet all the while feeling that the only part of the world that will ever be capable of total revolution, me myself, with everything that implies, is being neglected by me myself, at least some of the time. What scares me and disturbs me even more than J. Clarkson is, and I am being ferociously clear I hope, some of the discourses now developing, phantasmatic, hard to pin down, seemingly half-thought out, somewhere between Facebook and a poetry reading but neither one nor the other. These discourses that I am part of take place supposedly in the name of 'revolution' and 'class war' (and I leave these words suspended for the moment not because I don't believe in them, but because I want to be careful about how I can best believe in these things, on my own time, with patient impatience, as soon as possible), and the discourse that presently disturbs me most, and leaves me catching for breath at my own anxiety but then recovering it totally, is the one that says, or implies, that 'whoever' does not spontaneously feel x or y in this or that situation is 'plainly not on our side'.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I will be blunt and accelerate what I have to say for a moment: I do believe in 'our side', and the necessarily constrained thinking and feeling that gets 'us' there, and I also feel myself 'on it', but only *on the condition* that I am able at the same time to resist this very formulation because it threatens to be violently occlusive. What remains of my heart revolts, and who knows how much to come, it feels almost for a first time almost totally revolutionary as it has always been, as in baby animalism total revolution, precisely against this very formulation. It doesn't entirely matter to me (maybe it should) where the idea came from, or how it was relayed from a talk Sean, who has been saying some of this better and far longer than me, gave in Brighton at which I wasn't present, the idea is alive, and, as you say, 'the crux' and 'the point', and no amount of satirical pirouetting, it seems to me, can distract for too long from whether this formulation is what politics as 'we want it' (a formidably difficult question) now relies on or whether it in fact presents a profoundly troubling depoliticisation, and if it is both, because I don't propose to think I can decide, then I think it is important to say how as exactly and quickly as possible, which may take a while, precisely right now. The formulation, what you also relay as a 'litmus test of "the bourgeois mind"', is presently and symptomatically indelible, I would say, worldwide, the hidden and not so hidden principle of a year of unprecedented Springs. The abeauty of a single fractal riptide against the ultra-present reaches of hypercapital. It deserves scrutiny, then. Isn't it precisely, for example, the percentage divide (1%/99%) of what is now I hope still being called 'the Occupy Wall Street movement' (OWS)?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Here's a few wildly simple questions of that formulation as it happens to be given to us here, which, to be clear, I don't hold you or Sean responsible for, how could I? Even if someone did come along and lay claim to the formulation, put their weight behind it, I am not sure how they think they would be able to do so, to make it theirs, and to know who else can't, for long. It, the very principle of impossible meta-satiric distinction, can't, by right, belong to anyone, unless, perhaps, we want to be Marxist limited stock holders, something I think is perhaps trying to happen, and which Derrida took very funny and serious pains to satirise in Marx & Sons, and which might be both disturbing and desirable. This formulation, if it can be taken seriously, it seems to me then, is just the one that cannot belong to any one person, especially if it is to be some kind of 'test' for who belongs where, which is what, and which side 'we' are on, let's say in a general assembly or a mic-check. I wonder, first of all, and here are my wild questions, what a 'bourgeois mind' might be compared to a 'bourgeois heart'? How could I have one but not the other? Why and how do I, personally, know or want to know who Jeremy Clarkson is? More importantly perhaps, what happens if I cannot, if I am told I cannot, ask these questions without failing the 'litmus test of the bourgeois mind', that I cannot ask them without at the same time feeling sometimes that, yes, 'we should fucking shoot him' even in front of his mother who I suspect is human too? What happens if I can't, because of this test, simultaneously feel contempt for the 1% even if just by consciously adopting this notion in the name of 'revolution', *as well as* be very wary of that very idea and its potential stupidity? Who do you think *you* are? And why do you think I mean *you*, when actually I just mean the litmus test of the bourgeois mind itself, yes, I am addressing that test, assuming such a thing, such a test, can even theoretically exist? And how do you know, whoever you are, that these questions aren't in fact the most pressing and revolutionary ones, the very opposite of a merely theoretical preface? As J. Cocker said, 'are you sure'?

    ReplyDelete
  9. She came from Greece she had a thirst for knowledge
    She studied sculpture at Saint Martin's College
    That's where I caught her eye
    She told me that her Dad was loaded
    I said in that case I'll have a rum and coke-cola
    She said fine and in thirty seconds time she said

    I want to live like common people
    I want to do whatever common people do
    I want to sleep with common people
    I want to sleep with common people like you

    Well what else could I do - I said I'll see what I can do
    I took her to a supermarket
    I don't know why but I had to start it somewhere, so it started there
    I said pretend you've got no money
    She just laughed and said oh you're so funny
    I said yeah? Well I can't see anyone else smiling in here
    Are you sure you want to live like common people
    You want to see whatever common people see
    You want to sleep with common people
    You want to sleep with common people like me

    But she didn't understand
    She just smiled and held my hand

    ReplyDelete
  10. Do I really want, then, to know who Jeremy Clarkson is, or will it just accrue me more Facebook 'likes' than saying something truly felt, and so help me forget about Durban and how hard that is to think about as a new type of 'object' and 'fact', and so join popular economics and Facebook friendly communism in a sort of death-thrill of short-termist and socialist narrowly 'fact-based' retro-urgency that only gives us and them more time to increase new shipping routes through previously frozen Arctic waters, and ignore extreme-event statistics, and meso-scale coral reef biodiversity patterns, geopolitical corporate plunderers, resource wars, alibis for population culling already taking place in the so-called 'third world', the reduction of the glaciers in Rwenzori, the Mountains of the Moon, from 43 to 5 since 1906, and all because 'we' 'know' what we 'need', don't we, this is not in fact 'climate change' at all as a new type of need to think everything together, at once, and explode the very category of 'fact' and 'class' into something even more precise and global to keep up with itself, work already being done by Tim Clark and Tom Cohen for example, it's instead the fucking French Revolution? But I'll come back to this in a moment, because it's complicated, and you said something quite specific, and the occlusion is about as far from specifically 'yours' as it is to imagine. That was last of these wild questions. Pardon me. But now lol, if you wish . . .

    ReplyDelete
  11. In the non-week of Durban, then, to recap, whose 'side' am I on if I choose to give energy to J. Clarkson, and the media phantasms (that need me to exist) now around him, instead of the radically disturbing and insulting week long mediatic effective 'blanking' of Durban, and what its failure will mean, precisely for those of us I don't know in me first? This for me quite frightening, infinitely more frightening than J. Clarkson, perhaps, popularised occlusion is approximately what you reproduce, then, in '3. Climate change would be an historical artifact (arctic fact?), not an object, more akin to the French Revolution or Time'. I do seen what this is meant to mean, I think, that climate change is 'something' that takes place on a scale and at a pace that is more than locally historical for us now (and so is perhaps comparable to 'the French Revolution or Time') and so may also not even be classified as an object at all. I was, though, careful to mention 'hyper objects' as a way of opening up to how the category of object might itself *have to* expand, lest we simply let 'climate change', which I think is actually fractally hyper-objective, a bit like what Keston in TL61P will perhaps call 'the social down the cosmos', fall into the historical anonymity of the past, which is its tendency and what makes it so difficult to track, and the occlusion therefore, in some obscenely odd way, right. And therefore unalterably beyond the personal blame it also opens up in everyone like an internal fractal pocket or painfully embedded satnav. Heart? Now. My heart is in climate change, but it is not with me. My love is in Manhattan, and Vancouver, but I am not with her. The distance is frozen. A faux-arctic Jeremy Clarkson, with someone resembling 'us' right next to him, has just been spotted in Durban. No wonder 'we' think we need to want to shoot him . . .

    ReplyDelete
  12. It's as if one is constantly being told to stop worrying by the Facebook itself, and that only makes things worse. Stop worrying. It's already beyond the tipping point. To be human now is to accept this terror, the terror of this already tipping point, and to get on with what we can get on with. Local, small acts of care. Pensions. Damage limitation angoisee. Clarkson. Enough arctic porn for several multiverses. Limited, finite lol, for as long as our children's children's have now got. Just get on with enjoying the local socialist scenery. Or at least that spot of cleaning I was planning to do. But can that really be lived? Will it really let go of that knowledge, even if it has already happened enough to be observable already as something effectively in 1789 (though 3012 might be better)? But this type of 'definition' of 'climate change', however supposedly conditional ('Climate change would be . . .'), and which I am convinced is being replicated in any you and not by any you, is not only violently occlusive, but part and parcel of what I can only call a real stupefaction going on, right now, a mediatic spellbound worldwide denial, a historical denegation and culpability. If you want me to sound like a retro-Marxist for a second, then: the coffee farmers and widows of Rwenzori probably do regard this massive thing, a worldwide denial, quite simply as an everyday 'fact' or 'object, an everyday part of life, not harvesting as much coffee this year for example, and this to me begins to sound like a world, cosmically social, that is desperately both that of Marx *and* Derrida, but by no means just them, or just us. Which does not mean nobody should not make the social identifications necessary for political anger, but that perhaps we need to crank up by reinventing anger, adopt the anger of der Klasse Gespenter, get ways from the screen so we can be not just up against, but an altogether epic gesture. It's as of everyone just suddenly one day rushed into Wall Street and refused to leave til . . .

    ReplyDelete
  13. That type of definition of 'climate change' also totally misses the chance to think what I was hinting at, a 'class war' more totally urgent, relevant and possible than any series of 70s-style one day strike actions (which of course are still more than necessary). One irony here is that one might say that J. Clarkson is indeed the right symbolic target 'for us', precisely because in another to me far more shocking faux-pas he was involved in what Hemony Korine might call the 'ethnic atrocity' of the Top Gear Polar Expedition, not to mention the satnav u-turn (http://www.autoblog.com/2010/01/18/be-like-clarkson-and-conquer-the-arctic-in-a-toyota-hilux-w-vid/) which must have been what you meant by 'us' having only 'lethean satnav' for a heart whereas Wordsworth, of course, unlike us, because he was, you know, all them years ago, had a real one: J. Clarkson in the heart, you mean? (No wonder I want to shoot him.) You know that Feargal Sharkey, at least, would agree with this? And that this was years ago. But so, we might have been thinking, was J. Clarkson. So, anyway, the J. Clarkson of the faux-arctic-pas would be inextricable from the present anti-strike one. And so all these issues, Top Gear and Durban, are already being unthought through together, and J. Clarkson, instead of being primarily he who needs to be shot in thought for me to gain access to the 99%, is *also* the condition for doing some real thinking at this point and ripping open that percentage into itself. Now wonder, 'we' simply want to sack him. Now wonder we should fucking kill him right now. If we are to sack him, by the way, can we also sack the whole of the One Show who were in on it, and the whole of the BBC who were in on them being in on it and the prime minister too for saying potentially worse things the night before, or should we leave him alone, beacause he's from Eton and we all know he'd shout over us? Of course the point is that the line in the antarctic ice has to be drawn somewhere, and the One Show is a bit more 'collateral' and nobody necessarily needs to get sacked anyway. But if J. Clarkson is in the arctic, and I suspect he pretty much is right now, then this 'litmus test of the bourgeois mind' would, for a second at least, begin to make sense to me, for one second at least, as a sort of eco-denialist-socialist litmus test for the occlusion of the ecologocal in the oikos. In other words, if you want J. Clarkson to be shot in thought (but not, of course, in poetry, *now that would be* hysterical, wouldn't it, and there's nothing at all going on, is there, that could make me approach a quiet sagacious hystericality for example as a necessary measure even in poetry, is there?) for the sake of the social identifications necessary for the clear sense of the 99% the revolution needs, in its anti-capitalist non-to-come social form, not of course in the form Derrida imagined because that is now, much to our embarrassment, actually happening in front of our eyes; well, if you want to get everyone on 'our side', then you might have forgotten that J. Clarkson is also in the arctic . . .

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ok, clarity boom, so we're getting *warmed up*. BATR will be out soon, and this morning someone on Gilmore Girls said 'Take the Porsche and keep planning Asia'. Seems true. Seems crucial. Seems bleak. And then someone else said 'Tragedy is not in my vocabulary', then someone else, 'You're stretching my turtle-neck'. Where's the everyone in this? Who's missing out? Who's the 13th female Pele in the Specters of Marx? Worldwide occlusion of this fractal non-name we call 'climate change' is a bit like in Ugly Betty, when she 'saves' Daniel from The Phoenix Community. Daniel is all ready to notice that Hegel really does talk about a new worldwide positive in the preface to the Phenomenology, and yet Betty (for Betty read: Daniel) infiltrates the community and anyway I don't know what happens next because I don't watch TV anymore and I had to come online and work. One more thing before I up and down to it, the husband with the deep-set eyes on Gilmore Girls was wearing a series of Martha's Vineyard sweaters, what was that about? Daniel in the technicolor heaven of the boardroom was saying that 'he was getting a lot of negative energy off this idea and we wouldn't want it to toxify the meeting'. Seems true. 'One imagines', said some weirdo from France, 'the impatient patience of Marx' (SOM, p. 52). My head and arms are full of tears. I loved forever the one I cannot, but that was a load of devout shit. I shan't go on, but will . . .

    ReplyDelete
  15. One way of putting this is to say quite simply: we need more patient impatience . . . and if I've dropped the 'scare marks' around 'we' for a second it doesn't mean they're not still there. 'Go visible' the chat section of my Gmail inbox keeps telling me. Ok, I'll go visible. David Harvey, who is doing a good job, but he also makes me wonder because he sometimes drops ecology into the mix as if its only an essential afterthought, said to OLSX on 12 November, 'You assemble in places like this. And you stay in places like this. You don’t say, We’re going to have a demonstration and then go home. No. You stay. You stay.' Seems more than crucial. Let's stay. let's not go home. And in order to do that, now, here, on any wall, Facebook or Wall Street, let's ask what that means, because that is the only way I know of beginning to do it. Adorno said, for example, that the house doesn't exist anymore after Hitler. It might be useful to slow down and work out what that meant. Why should I be scared of occupying, and I'll only ever speak for myself here, why should I be scared of occupying my own time, or a blog for example? Why shouldn't I want to stay? What takes me back to the house, the oikos, so quickly? Being down OLSX St Paul's *slowed me down*. I think that is what is frightening, giving up impossibly sexy growth. And so a part of me at least didn't want to stay. It was cold. I wanted to get back to what's left of my life, and to get back to posting articles to myself by Douglas Faneuil about the Arcana of Financial Frontiers on my Facebook wall. It's like the offer of real love: of course we want to run away. Perhaps the most politically sobering fact about being down there, for me, and spending the whole day, helping paint a sign for one a Libya link-up, being a in a thinkgroup about whether to interact with the London Corporation or not, eating soup, is the speed that disappears and the sense of a different speed and of smallness that develops and that is hard to take and easy for me perhaps to bolster myself against in high-flying hyper-pirouettes of immiseration in poetry. What happens if I actually have to slow down and look at *everything*, even admitting this as im-possibility? What happens if I stop, right now? . . . Would some kind of ghost catch me up, or out? Derrida talks a lot about that. It's all he says, in some ways, over hundreds of pages, that Marx, if he did anything wrong, and I am not at all sure that Derrida said he did, went too fast to really be able to go fast enough for his thought not to have been totalitarianised too quickly and to lead to what it did. Just like Sean implied, surely, in 2004. There was in effect too little admittance, perhaps, in Marx's thought of what Cornel West (and Ariana Reines with him so many times on Facebook) called on Wall Street on Sept 27th 'a sweet spirit in this place' ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJbS5N-hzqs). It's a kind of baptismal moment, comparable with that other extraordinary moment with the Police at UC Davis, which to me was a bit like a political seance, with the police conjuring themselves up only to be exorcised away from a sort of daylit table or quad: "you can go". The shocking use of pepper-spray was quite rightly focused on, it of course needed to be, but this interestingly occluded what happened afterwards and its 'sweet spirit' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/19/uc-davis-police-pepper-spray-students_n_1102728.html). What does 'sweet' even mean here? Does it have any useful valency? Isn't it the sort of thing Tao Lin says all the time in gmail chat? Might 'we' have to go back and think about what Keston with Shakespeare calls 'extreme sweet'?

    ReplyDelete
  16. But when Tao Lin says in gmail chat (not to me, I'm not humblebragging :)) 'sweet', I actually believe in it. It lights me up. I find it funny. It's like the word reduced to a word, a single word poem, no need to say anymore, OWS kerygmatics of the dot. Someone just enters and says: sweet. I totally believe in the sweet. I totally believe in what West here calls 'spiritual breackdancing', and I believe in the questions I might want to put to it, all the scare marks and bad marks inside me, all the clutch of satire, as what makes that possible. I believe that what I am scared of is that the scare marks are the condition for not being scared of saying, as West says, revolution. I believe that I am scared. In his book on the Renaissance, Walter Horatio Pater talks a lot about sweetness. He talks, for example, of 'that sweet look of devotion which men have never been able altogether to love' (p, 31 in Google books). And women? Men have never been able, altogether, all of them together, very few of them, are in the right percentage, very few, if any, have been able to get together, altogether, just stay put, right here, on any kind of fractal wall, and altogether love the sweet, its look of devotion. I only speak for myself. The fear, here, is not just of devotion, but its sweet look, and it's men that have been unable. I am glossing, somewhat breackdancingly. Sweetness has the power to make run way. When Marx ran away from the ghost, if you believe he did, and you don't have to read Specters of Marx to know what you feel, and when he did so like everyone, that is to say *as everyone*, not just like the 1% (who I also believe in), when he ran away, he passed the debt on. We run away from the sweet spirit. What Marx left out, though not entirely, was a consideration of speed itself, and the urgency of urgency: how not to run away from sweetness. How can I not run away, one day now, from those I vitally love? One imagines his impatient patience, in Primrose Hill say, and not exactly, not quite yet, his patient impatience . . .

    ReplyDelete
  17. (I just went outside to have a piss and buy some water to drink in this cafe, 50p a litre in Clapton. Moon's up. Seems sweet. Friends are posting from India on Facebook, 'Clear Cuisine'. I just Googled, 'tao lin gmail chat sweet' to double-check my memory and the first thing I came to was this, on Mumummu House, between Scott Gorrell and 'me':

    Brandon: damn, interesting
    gordon lish
    3:02 AM the spectre of gordon lish
    me: damn
    3:03 AM Brandon: am i still online
    3:04 AM me: yes
    Brandon: sweet

    That was December 2009, the middle of the night in NYC. I've never been to New York. I nearly keep going. I've been writing pages and pages about the morning the police came in, and the 5,000 books, and Eric Linsker's positive run through the Facebook streets, and how it must have been for him, and the prison walls he seemed to be writing on, as if for some reason in my mind, with a key. Your soul's locked fast, says Browning, but, love for a key. But I don't get to New York. And then further down, at 4.01 a.m., after mentioning 'how someone wrote a satire or something' and references to what 'seems masculine', and proleptic pre-MDMA references to Megan Boyle, Tao, who is simply 'me' here, typos on 'tweets', and mistakenly says 'sweets'. He mistakistly pluralises sweet, just after the reference to what 'seems masculine'. There are several sweet(s). When David Harvey talks about staying, or staying put, and when Pater talks about what men have never been able 'altogether' to love, it's as if they are calling for something, for something as altogether im-possible as what is happening now, this year. Suddenly people rush into the space, they have to, and it's not just a demonstration, it's a *demonstration*. Those who know they won't be gone before Christmas, and that going home is impossible, and that sleep in the gutter 'for us', and on prison floors, I can't know them as heroes without misidentification, but they are still like those in the rest of the Pater sentence I began to quote, the 'born saint' who become 'an object almost of suspicion to his earthly brethren'. Everything, quite literally, trembles in the 'amost' here. If I really could simply recognise the born saint, assuming she or he exists, as an object of suspicion, a target for eliminating satire, what wouldn't be lost? Luckily there is 'almost'. I hope you can feel this 'almost'. Because we oppose. I am so blessed by this 'amost'. They will tremble in their boots. Here is Wallace Stevens in 'Owls Clover':

    Is each man thinking his separate thoughts or, for once,
    Are all men thinking together as one, thinking
    Each other's thoughts, thinking a single thought,
    Disclosed in everything, transcended, poised
    For the syllable, poised for the touch? But that
    Apocalypse was not contrived for parks . . . . )

    ReplyDelete
  18. So have we even got started yet on Jeremy Clarkson? I feel, against all my expectations, that there is much more to say, and that can be usefully said, about J. Clarkson. There's still much running away to look at, all these 'men' who think they 'know' what 'we' 'need'. All this, perhaps, is more than ever worth being patiently impatient about and wary of, and looking at: zooming in and out and more. If I can't keep up all of the time with Durban, or where 'we' are with OLSX, if I need to slow down enough to take in the rabid speed of the urgency of urgency itself, J. Clarkson becomes, as I was saying above, not just a good object for 'the litmus test of the bourgeois mind' (which I want to say more about, from different angles), but also what is called in group therapy 'a gift' or 'an opportunity', for the 'rest of the group'. I'll accelerate for a moment to what I want to say eventually, before slowing down again to say it, and opening up a few more parentheses on the way. But first a few questions. Is it important that 'we' chose to focus on J. Clarkson on the evening of one of the largest industrial actions in this country in decades? What is the relationship between the sort of anti-strikism presented in a 'staged' and 'managed' and abhorrent form by J. Clarkson for example, and other questions that might be asked about the point and use of one day srikes mainly on 'single isses' such as pensions, especially in the same week as Durban, questions which might, if 'we' are not careful, simply be conflated or confused with J. Clarkson, and the affair around him? What other questions might be asked, and are they worth it, about last Wednesday's strike that, if 'we' are not careful, will simply already have been shut down by 'our' reactions to J. Clarkson? Let me be careful to be clear: there doesn't seem to be any possibility at all, not even a micron of a percentage, that what J. Clarkson said about stickers being shot has anything like respectable truth in it at all, to say the least. This is not, however, to say either that 'we' 'should' spontaneously in thought even for a second want J. Clarkson shot, or that 'we' 'should' not take time to wonder why all these things and their various occlusive and non-occlusive natures (the pensions strike, J. Clarkson on The One Show, and Durban, though not necessarily in that order) took place, are taking place, at the same time, and could be said to be still taking place. In what sense is the idiot a gift? Is, or was, the situation between the strike, and the trade union members who spoke out the next day, and J. Clarkson, who was already on his way to China, as well as being a totally real situation and a media phantasm, also a satirical one, I mean one in which 'we' can somehow reduce J. Clarkson's value to nil, or is there something else going on? Is J. Clarkson non-biodegradable? Is he trash? Is he too damn white? Is he priapic like the ass or priapic like Priapus? Is 'the situation', in fact, as it can be imagined between J. Clarkson and the strike, last week and now, a bit like everything Derrida describes in the eighth session of the first volume of his beast and sovereign seminars, where Priapus (the strike?) has to avenge itself on the ass (J. Clarkson?) for having a bigger member (p. 299)? What happens to the ass when 'we' think 'we' have to kill it for having a bigger member? What does the almost saint on Wall Steet think about this, 'as when snow lies upon the ground'?

    ReplyDelete
  19. 345. In the week that just was, the non-week of the ongoing Durban international conference on climate change, as well as the strike and J. Clarkson, there was also George Osborne's Autumn Statement. It took place on the Tuesday, and I imagine the trade unions had purposefully chosen the next day for the strike, so that the strike was in immediate opposition to the sort of thing one could anticipate having been in the statement. I also imagine that George Osborne was keen to say certain strikingly ignorant and provocative things in his statement precisely in the direction of the strikers. The Prime Minister certainly made sure he did that, announcing that the strike would be of no use before it began. The strikers were striking principally (but not only) under the banner of resisting reform of state 'pensions'. What is a pension? And what it is to think or strike about 'pensions' in the non-week of Durban? The word 'pension' supposedly has the following etymology: 'mid-14c., "payment for services," especially "reward, payment out of a benefice" (early 14c., in Anglo-L.), from O.Fr. pension "payment, rent," from L. pensionem (nom. pensio) "payment, rent," from pensus, pp. of pendere "pay, weigh" (see pendant). Meaning "regular payment in consideration of past service" first recorded 1520s. Meaning "boarding house, boarding school" first attested 1640s, from French, and usually in reference to places in France or elsewhere on the Continent'. Pensions, then, have to do not only with the future, an allowance or annuity payed on my retirement, but with rent, and houses, in this definition specifically 'boarding houses'. What I fear, one might say, when it comes to losing, or having my pension reduced, especially if it is to pay for the 'ethnic atrocities' of hypercapital, is that I will be left out of house, out of home, outside, or inside in the cold. I will be workless either too soon or too late, in the future. My future will be too uncertain. It is too uncertain. I won't be able to afford heating. Things will get cold. The frost will be frosty.

    789. That is, of course, only an extremely partial sketch of what a pension is, and what sorts of anxieties were being expressed on Wednesday. The strike, though, as I say, was taking place in the non-week of Durban 'the 17th Conference of the Parties (COP17) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 7th Session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties (CMP7) to the Kyoto Protocol'. The conference finishes in 4 days. It is a labyrinthine task to find actual detailed coverage of it on the current Guardian newspaper (for example) website. The almost transcendentally weak tag-line, which still bears thinking about, on the conference's own website is: 'Saving Tomorrow Today'. It seems easier on the COP17/CMP7 site to book flights to Durban or connect back to Facebook than to actually see where and what one is supposed to read. It's as if you are looking at the most obscure website in the world.

    ReplyDelete
  20. 895. In one of his many and quickly accelerating and dizzyingly urgent essays, Tom Cohen writes, for example, that the fractal non-name 'climage change' propels us towards and into right now 'a hon-human domain that, because it has no aura and no personification, cannot easily enter the commodified media stream'. This was published if not written in 2010, last year, yet it may already be out of date. As far as I can seen and tell, 'we' seem to have entered into a different level of impossibility of entry for this non-name into the media. Whereas making quasi-socialst wall posts is now fairly common practice and socially-binding in the very limited sense it is on Facebook (depending, of course, on who your friends are), the last week seems to have shown signs that it is now not just 'not easy' for climate change as 'object' or 'hyper-object' to get a share of the mediatic bloodstream, but that something like an absolute allergy has developed between that stream and its aura-less variety of mediatic anti-matter. And this has nothing to do, in a way, with having managed to read a few articles or not.

    ReplyDelete
  21. 234. Climate change, as Cohen implies, has no star value. It doesn't even seem to have any negative star value, or even the 'negative vitality' that historians have attached to something like 'Hitler Studies'. In this sense, 'we' can understand why it might be continuously 'blanked'. It is 'almost inevitable' that it should be. The futures that 'climate change' represents are unimaginable, not because we cannot imagine them (movies have been doing this for years), but because 'for some reason' it is impossible for 'us' to want to. Critical climate change thinking, I would say, presents (without needing to) a 'threat' to socialist thinking, because socialism can simply not understand why it is now suddenly so acceptable and palatable and popularisable whereas critical climate change thinking, as Tom Cohen has already begun to totally imagine it, is irreversibly threatening to much of the now popularised avant-garde. Socialism is palatable because hypercapital can now see it coming a mile off. It's not worried by loical interventions. Critical climate change, on the other hand, can precisely not be seen coming and is perhaps so radically non-auratic that it might even be imagined as the *only* vector of resistance remaining, and the worst. It would have to be, wild thesis this, the positive itself. This can only result in tragic reversals like this from Paul Sutton: 'Given the hegemony that environmentalism now enjoys, it is understandable that Cook should wish to inject it with the sadly less hegemonic socialism. It is, perhaps, a measure of her success in presenting Adorno’s thought that her account of ecological thought falls somewhat flat. So, while Cook provides a useful and persuasive account of Adorno’s concept of nature and its relationship with the thought of, above all, Marx, but also Hegel, Kant and, to a lesser extent, Freud, her argument for its relevance to radical ecology is probably of more interest to Greens than to Marxists'. This is radically mysterious. Are socialism and 'radical ecology', then, competing for the same 'hegemony'? Are the 'interests' of 'Greens' and 'Marxists' opposed? Can the one not be interested in what interests the other? Are Greens on the side of 'more interest', or are 'Marxists'? Would that mean 'Greens' or 'Marxists' are the better shareholders? Who is injecting who? Do 'we' need to inject sad-old socialism in the same way popular economism says 'we' of course need to 'inject' or 'stimulate' the economy'? Is this what Keston means when he says that Derrida is 'perhaps not sufficiently stimulated' in the 'Introduction' to Stupefaction (p. 10)? If David Harvey's idea of capital as 'spatial-fix' (as, precisely, an addiction -- such is the very term he explicitly uses) is right, then the very last thing now needed is more 'stimulation'. The very hope would be that things would fall 'somewhat flat'. Perhaps it is right that 'environmentalism' enjoys something like 'hegemony' (whatever that means here), but 'climate change' as hyper-topoi exactly does not. Socialism is here the 'sad' victim, but only because it has forgotten its own simplicity. Its origin, like everything now, and everything else and itself, is eco-logical.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Everyday is like Tuesday and I need to start a blog. But all blogs are full of too much blog love to be full of love. And love is too full of love to be on Tuesday, and I agree. I agree with Steve Roggenbuck this morning, new on my Google radar, that it is good to be 'an icon for post-ironic positivity'. There is no irony in that. But the irony in it is that Hegel was already an icon for that in 1789. Wait a minute and see. I agree with my notes on the set square last night. I agree with Tao who says 'you go girl' to Meg who says 'sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet!' on her fb wall this morning. My heart is jacked with a general 'you go girl'. I am into climate change as droles de dames and I am into climate change as Sophistifuck and the Revlon Spam Queens. I am into Steve Job's last word, 'wow', and how it was an anagram buttered on the lips of ows. I agree with the Timothy Thornton anger on twitter, but I bless it and fill it with thorn birds. I agree with G.B. that it is 'too bad Marx doesn't pursue the Critique into the External Sovereignty and International Right sections', which is where Derrida came all the way in. I agree with Ariana Reines about just about everything, especially the dead, and how they crowd out Zuccoti Square. I agree with Edgar Garcia that 'the wolves protest nothing'. I don't agree, though, that our priorties shouldn't make sense at a global level, or that they can't, or that they know what that mean, or that the avant-garde is just in our head, and isn't isn't enough. There are limits, and we have to love within them. The limts are more limited each day. In fact, they were already more limited each day, since Babeuf, they now must be more urgent than more urgent than ever. The limits must be right on my heart. The limits must be my heart. My heart must be beating because it is limit. It is the limit, now.

    ReplyDelete
  23. 876. So Tom Cohen writes, for example, that mediatic streams can be 'suddenly flooded, so to speak, with bedazzled specials'. He's talking about the ways in which 'climate change' came back, somewhat, into the American media 'after an effective white-out orchestrated by Bush'. I'll come back to Bush, and this coming back, and his blanking techniques, and to the 'everyone' spellbound by them, because I am not sure whether Bush has been reduced to nil. Look at J. Clarkson. Anyway, this sudden flooding, of climate change as a fractal which 'we' can start to suppose perhaps appears only in someone else's name (look out, J. Clarkson!), seems important in some quarters. It seemed important, I was about to say above, in what the newspapers calmly call 'George Osborne's Autumn Statement', for example when he suddenly said, like the good mother of the world he is, and notice his 'we', 'We will do whatever it takes to protect Britain from this debt storm, while doing all we can to build the foundations for future growth'. Let's be careful to take what some might feel like unnecessary pains to point out what seems less than ever, on almost a daily basis, to go without saying in this sort of thing: the 'storm', that counts here, here in the ongoing non-week of Durban, the 'storm' that George Osborne, 'our chancellor' chooses to tell 'us' about, in this particular week, is, of course, the 'debt storm', the worldwide, but just now more specifically European, at least partially 'debt-based' crisis. 'We' -- you know, 'us' -- will be protected from the storm happening, by implication at least, *over there*, *on the continent*, *in a Europe it's lucky we never truly became a part of* -- 'we were right all along'. The main 'storm' happening, or coming, that 'we' need protecting from, is the 'debt storm'. 'We' will have our own micro-climate, as it were, our own air and web space, the 'debt storm', which has nothing at all to do with weather (it is just a metaphor, just a piece of language), 'we will do whatever it takes to protect Britain' from it.

    878. Am I exaggerating? Am I over-egging a simple turn of phrase, a more piece of language? Shouldn't I go outside and *actually protest*? The idea of a 'debt storm' as precisely a piece of language goes quickly to the heart of the current state of the world. The world is going badly. The phrase is so urgently occlusive, right in front of our eyes, that it seems to have already gone onto the street before me and put countless barricades up that would render me helpless if I mistook them for actually being on the street which is the only place I will occupy to take them on. The phrase 'debt storm' might have been an opportunity for G. Osborne to have simply thought what was right that moment being struggled over in Durban together with the state of the debt: all the ecos in oikos together, everything at the same time, a single thought disclosed in everything. 'Debt storm' might have described in a sort of two word poem, a two point dot, precisely what is, in this extra-vague language that will now perhaps have to be thought as more-than-precise and more-than-necessary, going badly wrong in the world. It was and is instead a site for occlusion. Osborne, as the rest of his statement thinks it makes clear, means primarily the economic in oikos not the ecological. It is the figurative financial weather we need protecting against, not the real weather systems whose change is already felt as a 'fact' about as 'social' as it is possible to be, depending on where you happen to live and don't 'we' now live everywhere. 'The weather has changed, the climate has changed', says Ipaishe Masvingise (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/01/cairo-cape-climate-change?INTCMP=SRCH).

    ReplyDelete
  24. The reaction to this, then, is the strike last Wednesday, and the reaction to that is J. Clarkson, and the strike's reaction to that is, well, to go back to work, one day was enough, there is no reason in the world why we should go on about this. But there will be other strikes, soon, won't there? The occlusion strangely visible in 'debt storm' goes right to the heart not just of George Osborne's denial of the ecos in oikos, and what really threatens the pensio, it can also be seen, or rather I am very worried that I can see it, in the face of what nobody in particular will have claimed as 'the litmus test of the bourgeois mind'. This is not to say that certain aspects and implications of radical Marxist thought are now, under the present circumstances, about as difficult to not laugh at, or indeed to laugh at, as George Osborne -- no, how could and I take anything seriously and even think that? But that some of the so-called 'resistances' to what the chancellor is supposed to represent are struck by the same visible blindness to all the ecos in oikos, is difficult to not see. Would it be stupid to suggest, that by Wednesday night the strikers must have felt a bit bĂŞte, especially since they were, whether they knew it or not, or know it or not now, striking about pensions in the non-week of Durban, and doing so to no avail according to the proleptic juggement of 'our prime minister', and that the BBC was, in the interests of 'balance', and as an ithyphallos institution that can't (if ever) always know its own mind, only too happen to collude if not collide with the strikers in offering them J. Clarkson as the red-rag they needed to distract themselves from Durban, I mean the extreme arrogance of the prime minister, and the coldness of a day spent stood outside or at home watching tv? In the more than fucked up version of the more than fucked up hall of mirrors scene from the end of The lady From nowhere other than Shanghai world we live in (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G05H0QacqQM), this would of course be a ludicrous suggestion. Wouldn't it? That J. Clarkson would somehow represent, in the scene of last week, and not just in the fracturing of some good old-fashioned psychoanalytic mirror, the fact that the strike too was a stupidly column-like procession of ignorance with respect to the non-week of Durban and felt bad about it. That the stupefaction here would exist equally on both sides, and that there is no outside point of view from which to view this. That the stupefaction is on one side more than the other, and that it is difficult to tell which. That it is cold outside and inside, and raining. That if 'knowing what we now know about climate change, we just keep going, then we're idiots' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/27/britain-canada-oil-sands-idiotic). That it is, for Derrida, in the first volume of his seminars on the beast and the sovereign, originally given in Paris in 2001-2002, precisely in the nature of stupidity or stupefaction to just keep going, to ignore, be tĂŞtu, stubborn, 'like a beast', a sovereign, an idiot, and indeed like a member, a phallus, an ithyphallos that will not stop, relent, stay put, slow down, it just stays on and up, a permanent erection drive, a top gear, a 'total dickhead', a dick to end all dicks. TĂŞtu ('stubborn'), a French word Derrida uses when he pretends to be describing 'as literally as possible' the birth of the commodity in Kapital, can also be translated, in spite of the other problems this represents, as 'pig-headed'. Kapital is, and I'm going going quickly now, 'pig-headed'. It has to do with the head, and the animal; its acceleration is ithyphallos and almost inevitable. It conjures up, if you like, a pig, or what some on what is called 'the left' like to think is 'the pigs' as 'the police'.

    ReplyDelete