8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

1/666

In the following clip we see a “free-will” hubot explaining the potential of their newalgorithm.Please pay special attention to their ability to demonstrate human-like qualities.

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

2/666

I think that we can make an analogy with the way 1oogles algorithm works. healgorithm learns that a hot dog is not the same as a boiled puppy# only through the relations between signifiers, it has a sense what a word is, without having a signified, a realreferent.

'anguage depends as much on relations between elements as an algorithm.&ecause there is ne$er a real signified that guarantees its meaning# no symbol is astraightforward representation of the world. 2circle3

his means that the ambiguites in language cannot be eleminated# e$ery word orsentence can ha$e multiple meanings in different contexts. his gi$e us the possibility ofirony and sarcasm. he point is that the possibilit for ambiguity in human language isnot of our own making# but follow from a simple algorithm that lies at the basis oflanguage. If there is a difference between men and machine# it is not because the first isfree of algorithmic determination through language.

“meaning is the fact that the human being isn4t master of this primordial primit$elanguage. *e has been thrown into it# committed# caught up in its gears. 5678

*ere man isn4t master in his own house. here is something into which he integrateshimself# which through its combinations already governs. (%&')

(ltough a simple algorithm lies at the basis of language# where one word must bedefined by another# the results may be far from uni$ocal.

Let me begin with a personal experience. One day, quite some time ago, in a

well known New York museum, I happened on a photograph. The portrait o ayoung girl ! head slightly tilted, blank expression! a pretty straightorward school

picture with a slight touch o awkwardness not uncommon to this category. I

wondered why these kinds o portraits oten look a bit weird. "specially this one.

#o I scanned the picture to try and $nd some details, some clues or a possible

answer. %as it the old ashioned white blouse with the weird bow tie& Or the doll'

like eatures I could not really pinpoint, but had something to do with the

particular combination o the blouse and the black hair& (aybe it was what

caught my eye in the $rst place) the indi*erence o the ace staring at me&+erhaps. I was not quite sure. #o I continued my inestigation.

 The card next to it gae me some additional inormation. I think it said) -..

#el portrait. y looking through the holes o the little child/s mask, the artist

asks questions .. 0 1I/m sure there was more, but this is all I remember2. %hen I

looked back onto the image, I reali3ed it was not a simple straightorward

portrait, but a photograph o the artist wearing a mask based on a picture rom

her childhood. I was looking at a photograph o a mask o a photograph. Ithought it was a nice idea. 4nowing it was a bit more than 5ust a old portrait, my

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

3/666

perception o the picture had shited a bit. ut at the same time, it hadn/t made

that big a di*erence. 6ter all I was looking at the same picture, only now with

some extra interestingly sounding words to think about. 6 bit disappointed, I

walked away. I liked the concept. ut the work hadn/t sparked anything in me,

nothing really aesthetically thrilling, 5ust some light intellectual wonder.

 This was soon to change. 6ter obsering some other artiacts in the

exhibition, I returned to the photograph. 6lternating between the whole o the

picture and the eyes o the girl, I still wasn/t too much impressed. Then I noticed

that the eyes were sunken abnormally low in the sockets. I noticed a thin grey

line on the let side o the let eye) a small shadow indicating the di*erence

between the mask and the artist own eyes beneath. #uddenly it hit me. I

reali3ed that the eyes o the little girl, where actually the eyes o the artist. Thisall happened, like a bees sting, ery quick. 6s i the artist was staring right at

me, exposing me. 6 eeling o being caught. I was $xed on the eyes o the artist,

them staring back to me through the mask. O course I had read this in the

description, but only now I elt the real impact. 7or a moment it was as i the

artist was there in person. 6n angry look, but scared at the same time ! as i she

was trapped. 7or a moment, she or it or whateer it was, became real. (y heart

rate had sped up. ut I wasn/t really scared or rightened. (aybe there was

some anxiety, but at the same time there was a strong ascination. #omething

drawing me closer, rather than making me run away.

  %hen about a month ago, I read barthes punctum

e sterste band is dus de geloofsband. e*e band onverstijgt de domme nationalistische enchauvinistische gevoelens, alsmede relaties die gebaseerd *ijn op het bloedverwantschap.

ifferent fields of sense.

*warte piet is a racist figure. yes, no.

 just as power we still rely on legal conceptions of power,

+uality as a field of sens

+tnicity

!s blac -ete a racist figure /e might appear as racist, buy really he is not.

0odernity displacement of metanarrativs

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

4/666

1y alluding to history, defenders step out. Falsifying their own claim.

2t this point, it seems that we must conclude that sincere criticism is impossible. !n fact , postmodern tendency toward relativism. !n practice however, we fare uite well . !t is not that it isimpossible, but that we do not understand what we do

!n this paper ! will argue that criticism can be saved only if we get ridof the  belief in theexistence of the world

First argue ontological limitation.

First ! will argue that if critics 3abe to tae serious the fact that there is no metalanguagenarratuive, totality, this implies there is no really to refer to.

sixth sense evoes uncanny. but here it is about ghost among men.

ghost among men. ghost in everyday life.

disavowel of the magical.

there must be something extra. an 4. love.

augmented reality is not magic. the magical experience dissapears. 'it is not magic!'

objective illusion. we believe trough the ritual5magic act. big other exist and has effects, only because act as if it exist. its virtual.

from critizing the distortion of a notion, to discover the distortion in the notion itself. this is the hegelian totality.

facebook: creating false identity on top of real, authentic idenity -> authentic identity as a (stable fied notion is false in itself.augmented reality: creating a false reality (a fantasy on top of authentic reality ->authentic reality as a notion is false (a fantasy in itself the ritual: creating a false ritual on top of authentic believe -> authentic believe as anotion is fals in itself.the photograph: creating a false reality out of real, authentic reality -> authenticreality as a notion is false in itself.

"he photo: #n it $e see life in a dead ob%ect, or $hat is the same, death in a life ob%ect(this is $hat barthes sa$ &undeadness, unheimlich

 ith augmented reality, $e can no longer disavo$ the split bet$een authentic reality and the virtual space. $e $ere al$ays already in augmented reality. ()

meaning resides in things themselves.

 $hat is a map compared to augmented reality*

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

5/666

 1ig other as ghost. -ermanent haunting. 2wwardness. Sociopaths.-anopticon5 objevtive illusion5 homo sacer5 subject supposed to belief5 sixties romanticism5virtual 5 1ig 6ther (embodied" other people, disembodied7 imagined (derrida))

0ethode, 1al" 8w9hile groping to define, provisionally and partly, what a particular conceptmay mean, we gain insight into what it can do. !t is in the groping that the valuable wor lies.(peeren)

Spoo is oo onttoverd. !s voor ons niet echt, maar heeft wel effect" virtueel

Spoo is juist wel echt geworden" geen magie meer. magie impliceert dat iets niet echt is, buiten de*e wereld. +sther peeren" everyday object. To live with ghosts. -anopticon.discipline" big other.

maar veel eerder" wij hebben niet door dat we magie gebruien. interpassivity. -eeren" useful

ghost. homo sacer.

de relatie tussen het virtuele en hetre:le" fantasie structureert de werelijheid.

-eren" cogito. cogito is geen ghost" cogito is void, nothingness.

gothic als de onttovering van van ghost. an omt de ghost op het toneel. ;elf, cogito, the void? as ghost in the machine

inversion of ghost" commodity fethishim. het lijt normaal, maar eigenlij heel wonderlij.

1ut we are not concerned here with a study of opinions, which could be undertaen only by a

statistical analysis of contemporary recoreds. !f, on the other hand, one investigates sixteenth

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

6/666

!n any given culture and at any given moment, theres is always only one episteme thatdefines the conditions of possibility of all nowledge, whether expressed in a theory orsilently invested in a practice. (6rder of Things AB%).

Ce must be careful to distinghuish here betweeen two forms and two levels of investigation.

The first would be a study of opinions in order to discover who in the eighteenth century wasa physiocrat and who an antiphysiocrat7 what interest were at state7 what weere the pints andarguments of the polemic7 how the struggle for power developed. The other, which taes noaccount of the person involved, or their history, consist in defining the conditions on the basisof which it was possible to conceive of both #physiocratic# and #utilitarian# nowledge ininterlocing and simultaneous forms. The first analysis would be the province of a doxology.2rcheology can recogni*e an practice 6D$E the second. (AB).

Foucault" /istory has become the unavoidable element in our thought" in this respect,it is probably not so very different from Glassical 6rder (66T %B)

Chat came into being with 2dam Smith, with the first philologists, with Hussieu, Iic d#2*yr,or $amarc, is a minuscule but absolutely essential displacement, which toppled the whole ofCestern thought" representation has lost the power to provide a foundation < with its own

 being, its own deployment and its power of doubling over itself < for the lins that can join itsvarious elements together. (@J)

 Finitude, with its truth, is posited in time, and  time is therofore finite. The great dream of anend to history is the Ktopia of causal systems of thought, just as the dream of the world#s

 beginnings was the Ktopia of the classifying systems of thought (oot BL)

specters of marx

 plus d#un. lac and excess. more than one, no more one.

conditions of possibility are condition of impossiblity.

!t becomes , rather, some thing that remains difcult to name " neither soul nor body, and

 both one and the other. For it is fesh and phenomenality that give to the spirit its spectralapparition, but which disappear right away in the apparition, in the very coming of therevenant or the return of the specter. There is something disappeared, departed in theapparition itself as reapparition of the departed. The spirit, the specter are not the same thing,and we will have to sharpen this diference7 but as for what they have in common, one doesnot now what it is, what it is presently !t is something that one does not now, precisely, andone does not now if precisely it is , if it exists , if it responds to a name and corresponds toan essence.

absolute gegenstoss

To feel ourselves seen by a loo which it will always be impossible to cross, that is the visorefect on the basis of which we inherit from the law Since we do not see the one who sees us,

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

7/666

and who maes the law, who delivers the injunction (which is, moreover, a contradictoryinjunction) , since we do not see the one who orders swear we cannot identjfy it in allcertainty, we must fall bac on its voice. The one who says ! am thy Fathers Spirit can only

 be taen at his word. 2n essentially blind submission to his secret, to the secret of his origin"this is a frst obedience to the injunction. !t will condition all the others. !t may always be a

case of still someone else. (p. ')

 painting of curtain

difference mas and visor.

mourning" to ontologi*e. to now it.

2n inheritance is never gathered together, it is never one with itself !ts presumed unity, ifthere is one, can consist only in the injunction to reafrm by choosing. 6ne must means onemust flter, Sift, critici*e, one must sort out several diferent possibles that inhabit the same

injunction. 2nd inhabit it in a contradictory fashion around a secret. !f the readability of alegacy were given, natural , transparent, univocal , if it did not call for and at the same timedefy interpretation, we would never have anything to inherit from it. Ce would be afected byit as by a cause

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

8/666

holds together7 it remains to be thought how a disparate couldstill , itself, hold together, and if one can ever spea of the disparateitself, selfsame, of a sameness without property) . Chat has beenuttered since 0arx can only promise or remind one to maintain together, in a speech that def ers , deferring not what it

afrms but deferring just so as to afrm, to afrm justly, so as tohave the power (a power without power) toB afrm the comingof the event, its fture

Gette epoue est deshonoree, this age is dishonored.AN/owever surprising it may seem at frst glance, 3ide #s readingnevertheless agrees with the tradition of an idiom that , from0ore to Tennyson, gives an apparently more ethical or poli ticalmeaning to this expression. 6ut of joint would ualify themoral decadence or corruption of the city, the dissolution or 

 perversion of customs . !t is easy to go from disadjusted to unjust.That is our problem" how to justify this passage from disadjustment (with its rather more technico

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

9/666

must be Odeconstructed,P as errida would say.1ut this deconstruction would be adeconstruction that recogni*es its own insufficiency.econstruction, to which we now turn,never therefore results in good conscience, in the good conscience that comes with thiningwe have done enough to render justice.

the messiah without messiah is the essence without essence. the first is of the past# thesecond of the future. a future essence to be constructed# to be worked.

(s 9errida says# “( decision that did not go through the ordeal of the undecidablewould not be a free decision# it would only be the programmable application orunfolding of a calculable process” 5 Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice, p.N).2nd once the ordeal is past (Oif this ever happens,P as errida says), then the decision hasagain followed or given itself a rule and is no longer presently just.Hustice therefore is alwaysto come in the future, it is never present.There is apparently no moment during which adecision could be called presently and fully just.+ither it has not a followed a rule, hence itisunjust 7 or it has followed a rule, which has no foundation, which maes it againunjust 7 or if

it did follow a rule, it was calculated and againunjust since it did not respect the singularity ofthe case.This relentless injustice is why the ordeal of the undecidable is never past.!t eepscoming bac lie a Ophantom,P which Odeconstructs from the inside every assurance of

 presence, and thus every criteriology that would assure us of the justice of the decisionP

:ustice remains an e$ent yet to come. Perhaps one must always say “can-be” 5the"rench word for “perhaps” is “peut-;tre#” which literally means “can be”8 for

 )ustice.This ability for justice aims however towards what is impossible.

1arthes , essence logic photograph. Kncanny. Same logic

Cithout a clear distinction between high and low art, to bring art to the public does notamount to bring what is defined as highbrow to the people, to explain why it is art, what can

 be learned from it. Far more productive is to show the art within popular culture, to show thatwhat people already enjoy, is imbued with something more, which we call 2rt. -opularculture is not art in itself, and it is not art just because the people lie it, or because it is assuch art. To understand why something is art, one needs a minimum of reflexivity. The

 public, just as the art critic before criticism, already have an intuition, the point is to bring itout, to formulate it. To show how what they enjoy is not simply a nice sensous experience, a

 biological stimulus that maes us feel good, but the aesthetic, the art that is implicit in thecultural artifact.

Cith foucault, society is defined by the state (governmentality) there is no gap between stateand society, as the state defines what is society. Society is a result of the governing, regulatingand conducting of the population, administring the wealth, health and conduct of individuals.Society emerges at the moment of the advent of governmentality.

!nstinct does not refer to anything biological.

+very act of speaing is performed in an irresolvable tension between language, which punches a hole in the real, and the production of meaning, in which we try to bridge thegap with the real. %% van /aute.

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

10/666

1ecause spatio

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

11/666

Though the three ideas of soul, freedom, and 3od have only a regulative role to play inexperience, they tae on transcendent significance once they are considered from the moral pointof view of practical (as opposed to speculative) reason < an argument that Rant develops inhis second Critique the Critique of Practical Reason (Kritik der raktischen !ernunft, A'BB). (G-AA)

!n the case of each antinomy, it must be shown that if objectss of the senses are assumed asthings in themselves 8/egel9, no resolution of this conflict would be possible 8hegel9.Goseuently if the proposition were not proved above, it could be inferred from this. Theseremars are important because nineteenth he form of art# secret? structure of feeling@attitudes. c.f. dream ?#secret? feelings# moti$es etc.

The theoretical intelligence of the form of dreams does not consist in penetrating from themanifest content to its #hidden ernel#, to the latent dream

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

12/666

the uestion" why have the latent dream

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

13/666

te#t, the latent dream-content  or thought and the unconscious desire articulated in a dream(A%)

=etamodernism? purple skies# gruesome political pictures with magic etc. 5=(BI"C,9DC(= CE8 neoromanticism@meaning@fantasy@myth@structure of

feeling@irony@utopia 5'(CB 9DC(=-A%BCB after first interpretation8 -commodity logic@cultural logic 5abstraction etc.8 5FBA%B,AI%F, 9C,IDC8+++++++

This desire 2m-c-m/3 attaches itself to the dream, it intercalates itself in the interspace between the latent thought and the manifest text7 it is therefor not #more concealed, deeper# inrelation to the latent thought, it is decidedly more #on the surface#, consisting entirely of thesignifier#s mechanism, of the treatment to which the latent thought is submitted2postmodernism3 I, I *C ,DFAFDC I,C'"+ P ! ( +

2t bottom, dreams are nothing other than a particualar form of thining, made possible bythe conditions of the state of sleep. !t is the dream

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

14/666

determination of the magnitude of the values of products, yet in no way alters the mode inwhich that determination taes place. 2ob)ecti$e illusion3

-1ut as 0arx points out, there is a certain #yet#" the unmasing of the secret is not sufficient .Glassical bourgeois economy has already discovered the #secret# of the commodity

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

15/666

2fter a series of detailed analyses, Sohnt Methel came to the following conclusion" theapparatus of categories presupoosed, implied by the scientific procedure (that, of course ofthe newtonian science of anture), the networ of notions by means of which it sei*es nature,is already present in the social effectivity, already at wor in the act of commdity exchange.1efore thought could arrive at pure abstraction, the abstraction was already at wor in the

social effectivity of the maret. (A')

&C"%DC *%F1* A%F'9 (DDIHC ( PFDC ABSTA!T"#$ # *C(&,D(AI%B (, ('DC(9G ( %D IB *C ,%AI(' C""CAIHIG %"*C =(DC 5J78

*C CEA*(B1C %" A%==%9IIC, I=P'IC, ( 9%F&'C (&,D(AI%B? *C(&,D(AI%B "%D= *C A*(B1C(&'C A*(D(ACD %" *CA%==%9IG 9FDIB1 *C (A %" CEA*(B1C (B9 *C (&,D(AI%B"D%= *C A%BADCC# C=PIDIA('# ,CB,F('# P(DIAF'(D A*(D(ACD%" *C A%==%9IG

 (ini the act of exchange, the distinct, particular ualitative determination of a commodity isnot taen into account7 a commoditiy is reduced to an abstract entity which < irrepsective ofits particualar nature, of its #use

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

16/666

symbolic order" the indestructible #body

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

17/666

but still they are doing it 58 "or example# they know that their idea of "reedom ismasking a particular form of exploitation# but they still continue to follow this idea of"reedom. 2Ftopia+ (utnomia+ =etamoderna+3

((A %B ? =%9CDB I, *C BC 5CG=%'%1IA('8

B% =C(-'(B1F(1C 5*F, B% =C( P%,II%B IB9IA(IB1 *CDC=%9CDBIG &C1IB, @ &F *CB =%9CDBIG &C1IB, DCD%(AIHC'G I(PPC(D, *( =%9CDBIG &C1IB,+@ B% AIDAF'(D...8

The two forms off etishism are thus incompatible in societies in which commodityfetishism reigns, the #relations between men# are rotallydefetishi*ed, while in societies in which there is fetishism in #relations

 between men# < in pre

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

18/666

ironie. maar ironie is bij hegel aufgehoben. ironie is een manier om je*elf uit te leggen. dit beteend dat je*elf uitleggen niet echt boeit. ironie en verhalen.

irony is voor wea people. it is nihilism.

The structrual homology between Rantian formalism and formal democracy is a classicaltopos" in both cases, the starting point, the founding gesture, consists of an act of radicalemptying, evacuation. Cith Rant, what is evacuated and left empty is the locus of theSupreme 3ood" every positive object destined to occupy this place is by definitionpathological, mared by empirical contingency, which is why the moral $aw must bereduced to the pure Form bestowing on our acts the character of universality. $iewise, theelementary operation of democracy is the evacuation of the locus of -ower" every pretenderto this place is by definition a pathological usurper7 nobody can rule innocently, to uoteSaint

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

19/666

timetable for another man#s freedom7 who lives by a mythical concept of time and whoconstantly advises the Degro to wait for a more convenient season. Shallow understandingfrom people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people ofill will. $uewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. 5'etter"rom &irmingham :ail8

2ctually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. emerely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already ali$e. Ce bring it out in theopen, where it can be seen and dealt with. $ie a boil that can never be cured so long as it iscovered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light,injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of humanconscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured. ($etter From 1irminghamHail)

! have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the do<

nothingism of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the blac nationalist. 5'etter"rom &irmingham :ail8 1ut though ! was initially disappointed at being categori*ed as an extremist, as ! continued tothin about the matter ! gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Cas notHesus an extremist for love" $ove your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to themthat hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. Cas not2mos an extremist for justice" $et justice roll down lie waters and righteousness lie anever

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

20/666

synthetic a priori )udgments > is real abstraction possible+

postulation of community 20i0ek? belief3 N not conscious# but through actsL 2dupuy -!endogenous fixed point >! necessary illusion3 !f from a taste for paradox he denies them

verbally, he must nevertheless presuppose their truth in his actions (A@B) 8cynisism9

Rant is thus concerned with necessary agreement between men. 2,FPP%,C9 %&C'ICHC# OIOC3 This passage, lie all those used in the polemic against pscychologism,signifies simply that the categories of the understanding, together with everything a riori,are huan and intellectual factors, no biological ones. 2 pac of wolves or a swarm of beesdoes not constitute a community. !t is obvious that community reuires more than fortuitousresemblance or external harmony7 the elements must be conditioned in their very existence

 by the toaliry. !D synthetic a riori judgments the commnity is postualated form the outset.The categories are, in sptie of their reification, the theoritical expression of the human spiritand th human community. (A@N).

he community? the people and the concept of utopia also implies the highest goodfor the community of people 2'aclau3

Cmpty form of the sub)ect 2cogito3 is a form of reification 2not psychological? totallyatomi0ed 5proletarian83

parlementocapitalism 5democracy plus market > liberal democratic capitalism ironyL2Dorty3 ----! irony dwindles 2is felt not to be enough3 when postulation ofparlementocapitalism is in crisis8 2irony is a proper option when the postulation ofcommunity is rocktight --! Deagan@atcher@neoliberalism etc3.....

metamodernism does describe a contemporary feeling# but cannot consitute a new era#not e$en in )amesons sense as a cultural dominant 5since no mentioning of reification8

explicit to implicit (ideologie mapping)

 postmodernism

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

21/666

artisaniy, grow your own vegetables.

how to distinghuis, world does not exist.

metamodernism.

ideologie critique in the critical tradition of ant.

*warte piet.

historical investigation will miss the point.

deconstruction primarily negative, it breas down state, substantial i, etc. how to become positive

There is no reason7 (braidotti citi*enship)

the number of new conflicts , reveal a new consensus.

$iuid modernity may be characteri*ed as a state in which the import<ant oppositions which constituted the framewor of early, solid modernityhave been cancelled" oppositions between creative and destructive arts,

 between learning and forgetting, between forward and bacward steps. The pointer has been removed from the arrow of time7 so you have an arrow, butwithout a pointer.

%aarom is moraliteit olgens 8egel niet genoeg.

"erst laten 3ien dat 4ants begrip an moraliteit een onderscheid maakt tussen

de sub5ectiee behoeteberediging en de morele autonomie)

9an laten 3ien dat als het erstandsdenken de3e  tegenstelling verhardt ,

autonomie kan uitlopen op willekeur en immoraliteit.

In de moraliteit gaat het om een bi53ondere sub5ectiee wil die zelf het

algemene wil bepalen en in zijn handelen tot stand wil brengen. :oals decategorisch imperatie) 8andel alleen olgens die maxime waaran 5e

tegeli5kerti5d kunt willen dat 3e een algemene wet 3ou worden

In 4ants begrip an de moraliteit de berediging an de subjectieve behoeften

onderscheiden van het goede. %ie goed handelt, handelt op basis an de

morele wet en niet op basis an een o andere sub5ectiee behoete. (oreel

handelen en handelen omwille an een behoeteberediging sluiten elkaar in die

3in uit. 8et kan misschien toeallig 3o 3i5n dat een goede handeling een behoeteberedigd, maar dit is niet alti5d het geal) het is niet gegarandeerd. #oms leert

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

22/666

een in strikte 3in goede handeling 5uist eel ongeluk op. ;e mag bi5oorbeeld

geen 3elmoord plegen, ook niet als 5e ernstig 3iek bent. #oms moet 5e

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

23/666

ombrengen an een hele groep mensen, enkel en alleen omdat ik ind dat ik

nooit mag liegen. 8oewel dit oor ons op een kwade handeling li5kt, kan de

sub5ectiee wil de handeling legitimeren in naam an het goede. 8et goede als

erwerkeli5kt wel3i5n hoet nameli5k niet direct in de werkeli5kheid te worden

aangetro*en. ?iteindeli5k leidt dit tot willekeur en immoralisme) elke sub5ectiee

wil in naam an het goede doen wat hi5 wil. 8et maakt nameli5k niet uit o dit in

de werkeli5kheid tot kwade geolgen leidt, omdat moreel handelen niet direct tot

een erwerkeli5kt wel3i5n hoet te leiden.

9it gebeurt er olgens 8egel in de Terreur na de 7ranse reolutie. 9aar werd de

moraliteit als autonomie erabsoluteerd. 8et handelen omwille an het goede

slaat dan om in 3i5n tegendeel) het kwade. In naam an het strikte naolging

an de morele wet, wordt kwaad gedaan. In de moraliteit is niet gegarandeerddat het sub5ectiee naolgen an de eigen principes het algemene niet schaadt.

9e moraliteit bli5kt op 3ich dus niet oldoende te 3i5n om het goede te

erwerkeli5ken.

9e tegenstelling kan 3ich daarom niet handhaen. 8et ware @oede kan niet

alleen het abstracte begrip an de wil als autonomie 3i5n, maar moet ook in de

wereld erwerkeli5k worden. 4ants moraal$loso$e $xeert 3ich olgens 8egel op

het louter morele standpunt, en maakt niet de oergang naar het 3edeli5ke. =oor8egel moeten we, om te weten wat het ware goede is, het goede concreet

maken, erwerkeli5ken.

 

A.

hoe thee climate change is perceived, described in a consistent way, how terms are defined, because real threat and facts, obscures, represses certain aspects

 D/what can be said of being what exist before the operation

impasse occurs in the world, desp. happed to a world. situation is multiple.

to simply start that there are multiples !#d not enough

subject is the pint in the situation that draws the conseuences of the event. can emerges i#mthe gap rep pres. the process then, (fidelity), produces a truth within the situation by way ofthe subject

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

24/666

if being is multiple, the void u is included in every consistent

for some early radical v fem.

!dentify politics is a paradox" while it constitutes itself through an experience of oppression brought about by homogeni*ing identities, it itself needs to assert a new identity, which willin turn be oppressive to identities. Thus, identity politics will always fail.

Specter, 0iracle, Gynicism, Ktopia

time is out of joint" reawaingn of history" specter of marx. how to understand revolts

a sign both of the past and of the future.

ghost as miracle.

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

25/666

So it would be necessary to learn spirits. +ven and especially if this,the spectral , is not. +ven and especially if this , which is neither substance, nor essence, nor existence, is never present as such.

the ghost must pop in and out of existence.

messia

ethics

reversal" specter is the material of the future

fuuyama" evangelical" promised land. they are the true utopians.

cynisism is utopia, as liberalism is utopia. communism is realism.

true uptopia" Chy this amplifcation by the media 2nd how is it that a discourse of this type is sought out by those who celebrate thetriumph of liberal capitalism and its predestined alliance Cithliberal democracy only in order to hide, and frst of all fromthemselves , the fact that this triumph has never been so critical.fragile, threatened, even in certain regards catastrophic, and insum bereaved

 beyond all living present, within that whichdisjoins the living present , before the ghosts of those who arenot yet born or who are already dead, be they victims of wars ,

 political or other inds of violence, nationalist, racist, colonialist,sexist, or other inds of exterminations, victims of the oppressions of capitalis t imperialism or any of the forms of totalitarianism. ;

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

26/666

0eta modernisme.

-olemical.

1io politics = life5human animal5Mex extensa. death of ing5god= nihilism, philosophie ofthe subject.

Freud. !nterpreter of signs is also a doctor, a Symptomatologist, who diagnoses the illnessafflicting the enterprising individual and the brilliant society. ranciere, %B.

Freud not to cure pathological to normal. 1ut to show how normal is already pathological.Same as Gritiue of ideology

distancing. irony.

 but irony presupposes an opposite with a true identity, that what is moced.representation5ideology5commitment.

hipster versus gee5nerd.

 posthuman, distancing, decentrement" ooo, metamodernism, biopolitics, hermeneutics ofsuspicion, badious subject, lacan subject.

Lacan een goes so ar as to say that there would be no being at all were it not

or the erb Ato beA) BAC#Dpeaking beingB ... is a pleonasm. because there is

only being due to spking) were it not or the erb Bto be,B there would b nobeing at allA 1#eminar EEI, ;anuary FG, FHJ2.

$anguage

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

27/666

there is no 6ther of the 6ther or that there is no metalanguage which can be spoen.(van /aute '@)

2ccording to $can, language introduces the dimension of thetth into reality. 2s long as the brea between object and sign is

not efected, it maes no sense to tal about the trth7 in a worldin which there is no distance between reality and those who livein it, the truth can never be a problem

Metro active. errida maes the point.

first" what is the relation between s5p. etail etc. then why photo

Same 1arthes as me. 1ut also difficulties. etail etc. also ! had only one time this experience.

Transcendence vs immanence positions. Chile ! would argue it is precisely the photograph

the medium where this connection is most explicit.

A. punctum. . detail. % puncutm as detail.. painting film, painting as film. A. fam. . burg. %.staat.

A. punctum (cannot be nothing there) .

A. punctum as detail. no detail. %. simultaneously a schein, and something more than realityitself 

The greatest and rarest genius that ever arose for the ornament and instruction of the species./is greatest achievement was that while he seemed to draw the veil from some for themysteries of nature, he showed at the same time the imperfections of themechanical philosophy, and he thereby restored nature#s ultimate secretes to that obscurity inwhich they ever did and ever will remain (/ume)

Rant public use of reason.

+vent ate" A Dovember &A%Swedenborg /all&

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

28/666

2nd i thin again, referring to the two points of the possibility of suspending freely onesenglightend reasoning, and the deojbectivi*ation of the public, one can even go a step furtherhere and to clarify the mysterious notion of courage.

it becomes possible to decouple the uestion of maing public use of ones reason from theuestion of the individual being. the point is not only to use reason in a different manner., butis the use of reason that oversteps any particular boundary. and at first any individual

 boundary. but this overstepping of any individual boundary is precisely what is done by anindividual, that is to say, the courage to mae use of public ones reason is the courage of theindividual to overcome the individual boundaries.

 but then the term public reveals a different meaning. it mars the inscription of an individual,into a different body, different from the individual interest or desires etc. to mae public useof ones reason is to overcome the individual notion of ones reason, thus i would lie to

 propose to translate the notion of maing public use of ones reason into" to mae a subjective

use of ones reason.

against this, the notion of the private use of reason, is, in a certain sense, an indivdiual use ofreason, but in ant#s sense this individuality is not your own, but rather the individuality of a

 party or a group in society. it is the discourse with which you identify yourself. thus theopposition beteen the public and private use of reason cannot be understood as the theoppsoition between the individual as private and the common as public. Mather, thining inaccordance with the rules of some particular group is to mae privat use of ones reason.thining as an individual from a universal point of view is to mae public use of ones reason.

The paradox is thus, that one participates in the universal dimension of the public sphere precisely as a singly individual, extracted from or even opposed to onessubstantial communal identification, one is truly universal only as radacally singular, int theinterestices of the communal identities.

the inscription into the publics sphere we can also understand as the participation in thesubject, as opposed to the individual, institutional imaginary identification

Gourbais, burial at 6rmans is an example of an intitutional ritual where the members aredistracted, but which doest impair the procession

reactive classisme, perfection within finitude, contramodernity, discourse of the master, theend of every hope for the infinite, postmodern" orientation to the infinite is hubris. pureideology is bad. False politics.

reactive romanticism" there is more? romanticism of transgression. sex drugs etc. falseinfinity. apparantly against the closed harmony of classisme, but is in the end a form of

nihilisme, by destruction. bad thing to remain in finite. but close relation betweentransgression and death.

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

29/666

finite romanticism. romanticism of the master. society of enjoyment. conservativetransgression?

and the reaction to it" police , opstelten W onacceptabel.

finally there is no real acces to the infinite.

 both" impossibility to acces to infinite. there is no mediation between the dictatorship of themoney and the really something new.

modernity was infinite. end of modernity of infinite. now reaction. now we now that wecan#t change the world. we must find a way without any fundamental change of the world.there is a strong conviction of impossibility.

if there is no mediation between (our concrete life) the finite and the infinitude there is no

(real) future (fuayama) only the movement of the present.

structure of choices today.

classism" no infinite and is goodromanticism" infinte which is transgression

the choice is" one is infinite (infinite which is no transgression)

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

30/666

A. the conflviction ways in which climate change gets described

mogelij < niet mogelij X onmogelij 

mogelij < niet mogelij X differentiaalmogelij < onmogelij X dialectisch )= mogelijheid !S niet

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

31/666

To show if there really is acces to an infinite in a dynamic sense. acces via a painting, in aworld were being is neutral, were nature is indifferent to our satisfaction. not as a nowledge but a possibility. from nowledge to existence. from possible nowledge of the infinite tot the possible use of the infinite as a norm of our existence.

1egin with being. !s being the prescription of finite possibility or is being the prescription of the infinite as such if the infinite is real, it must be. !t is after the dialectie of finite andinfinite.

1egin with nothingness. escartes. ! now nothing. the nothingness of nowledge issomething? i thin so i am. the fact that we now nothing is by necessity a something, it

exists. this thing which is the consciousness of nothing. the same with Socrates? ! only nowthat i now nothing? a dialectical irony. when you begin you begin in nothing, but if itis absolutely nothing there is no beginning. nothing has no beginning.

Ce alway begin in the void, nothingness. we must transform the fact that we are innothingness into something. /egel says being and nothingness are the same thing. it is thesame with the infinite

 begin with the infinite. the religious way. Ce can begin with it, because the infinite saidsomething to us. the fact of the bible. something external when we begin with the infinite. notthe pure beginning, but something which is outside. something transcendent. something lie arevelation. not pure nowledge. something has been written outside the beginning itself,humanity as such.

how can we begin with nothingness" we must affirm that nothingness exists. Ce now thatthere !S nothingness. nobody can say" nothing exist, because saying that nothing exist is toexist? the existence of the fact that i can say that i now nothing. the affirmation of theexistence of the subject. the affirmation of the thining of nothingness. rationalist" Socrates,escartes. 1ut also the nothingness as an experience, of anxiety in Rieregaard, /eidegger or Sartre. the beginning in the existential form of a pure subjective experience. we experiencenothingness. anxious of our existence. we come to now nothingness. being toward death.

to affirm the subject who is in nothingness. 2 pure inscription of nothingness. no vividsubjectivity. the possibility to name nothingness. smallest thing possible is the name ofnothing. this will be the beginning. T assume the possible existence of the name of nothing.inscription of *ero. The inscription of the void. The inscription, or the name, can not exactlydiffer from the thing itself. The point where the name of nothing is nothing as a thing. nothingin the form of something. dialectical ambiguity of being and nothingness. The signification,the meaning of the word is in immediate relationship with the idea of nothing.

The beginning will be the void. there is no subject, no living experience, there is a pure tracea pure symbol. the name for nothingness doesn matter what it is" Ø.

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

32/666

 Absolute beginning. Nothing determinate. Pure indetermination. The first mark, thefirst thing. The said without any element, the void said. we can say that after. thename is the being of nothingness, not a such but as represented.

there is only one void, unique. we return to the one. why because, if they are

different, there is nothing. nothingness cannot be different. no determination at all.we cannot find difference. one nothingness cannot have a determination whichdiffers ffrom the determintation of the other nothingness, because it is indeterminate.!t is a proper name, not a common name. the name of the void, is the one thingwhich is the proper name of nothing.

the name of nothingness, not nothingness itself, can be an element in somethingelse. we can add the set with only one element, which is precicly the beginning, thepure name. "Ø# $ the set, the multiple with only one element %the name ofnothingness&. this element cannot be nothingness, but the name can be regarded asan element of a set. this, in some sense, is the one. a set with only one element is a

reali'ation of the one. Ø is the thing of nothing "Ø# is the thing of onething, because it is the name is one thing.

we go from nothingness to the one, by the mediation of the name of the one. (utnow, we have two things. so we can have the set "Ø,"Ø## , etc.

"Ø,"Ø# $ )"Ø,"Ø#,"Ø,"Ø## $ *"Ø"Ø#,"Ø,"Ø#"Ø,"Ø#,"Ø,"Ø### $ +

ur proces was only the affirmation of the name for the e-istence of the void. ehave not learned numbers. A number is nothing. ne proper name gives us all thenumbers. All numbers are variation concerning 'ero. Numbers are made ofnothingness. e can continue infinitely.

 Dumbers are disposed between nothingness and the infinite. That is the place of the finite.The construction of the finite is a thing for the infinite. we have the finite because of theinfinite. we have a proces without a limit. !nfite is without limit. but to construct finitenumbers, we must dispose of something infinite. There is no clear opposition between finiteand the infinite. To completely understand the finite, we must have the idea of a continuationwithout limit. every number YA. !f all was closed, we cannot have no concept of the finite

itself. the finite must continu, and is without limit. thus the finite is without limit. The finite isin relationship with the infinite and with nothingness. The finite is the dialectical result of therelationship between nothingness and the infinite.

Zuote

neither5nor det5freedom

3overnmentality5ethics at same time.

master is constituti$e. the self alone is not enough

spiritual" not only nowledge.

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

33/666

has to do with iranians willing to die.

2nd yet. !nstances of a non relation. Through care of the self, relation to self 

 Diet vergeten te le*en" author en subject and power.

the subject is always a process of subjectivation which will eventually result from the process.

what is an author the subject5author is a juridical and social fantasy.

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

34/666

 period, when the ancient obligation of nowing oneself became the monastic preceptconfess, to your spiritual guide, each of your thoughts. This transformation is, ! thin,of some importance in the genealogy of modern subjectivity. Cith this transformationstarts what we would call the hermeneutics of the self. (&N)

The uestion then is, what does a hermeneutic of the subject today mean what does nowyourself mean today Chat truth is to consitute the subject

The point is that the Ghristian, or Rantian, has to memori*e the (universal) $aw, thefoucauldian ethical subject has to memori*e his 2cts in order to 2GT!I2T+, the principles of conduct. !ts the other way around. The rules only exist in the act ?

!n the Ghristian confession the penitent has to memori*e the law in order to discoverhis own sins, but in this Stoic exercise the sage has to memori*e acts in order toreactivate the fundamental rules (&').

First, this examination, it#s not at all a uestion of discovering the truth hidden in thesubject.

There is not fundamental, eternal truth to be discovered (ten commandments, categoricalimperative).

!t is rather a uestion of recalling the truth forgotten by the subject

!t is not an autonomous, authentic self that is forgotten because of tomuch worldly (bourgeois) entanglements. istractions can cause to forget what he shouldhave done, the rules of behavior (self techniues) that he had $+2MD+, or acuired.

Two, what the subject forgets is not himself, nor his nature, nor his origin, nor asupernatural affinity. Chat the subject forgets is what he ought to have done, that is, acollection of rules of conduct that he had learned (&').

Three, the recollection of errors committed during the day serves to measure the distance(?) which separates what has been done from what should have been done (&').

The uestion is, what should one have done does the self techniue comply with techniues

of domination or is their a distance between domination and the self techniue2nd four, the subject who practices this examination on himself is not the operating groundfor a process more or less obscure which has to be deciphered.

!ts not to find the rational ground of moral acts, its not to find the categorical imperative.

/e is the point where rules of conduct come together and register themselves in the form ofmemories. /e is at the same time the point of departure for actions more or less inconformity with these rules. *e constitutes# the sub)ect constitutes# the point ofintersection between a set of memories which must %e %rought into the present and acts

which have to %e regulated&1 

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

35/666

The subject who practices this examination on himself is the point where rules of conduct  (governing techniues" of domination and self). where techniues collide, are in conflict,there the subject is constituted ()W This is the subject (subjected to rules). /e is, at the sametime, in the same moment the point of departure for actions that must (06M+ 6M $+SS?)

conform wit these rules. So he is at once the constituted by conflicting rules5he is the pointof where things come together in the form of memories, as wel as the constituting the actions(no). The subject constitutes the point of intersection, brings into being, founds, 0+06M!+S(which are brought into the present to consitute acts), and 2GTS (which have to be regulate

 by the memories)

The subject is the point where all inds of (possibly conflicting) rules of conduct arememori*ed. 2t the same time it is the point of departure of the actions. /e constitutes thepoint of intersection bet%een these memories (the subject retrieves, remembers the rules)and the acts that are to be regulated (which rules are put into practice).

/is pleasures are not the means of revealing what Ghristians later call concupiscensia (lust).For him, it is a uestion of his own state and of adding something  to the knowledge ofthe moral precepts. This addition to what is already nown is a force, the force %hich%ould be able to transform ure kno%led'e and simle consciousness in a real %ay of

li&in'. 2nd that is what Seneca tries to do when he uses a set of persuasive arguments,demonstrations, examples, in order not  to disco$er a still unknown truth inside and in thedepth of ,erenus/s soul but in order to explain, if ! may say, to %hich e#tent truth in 'eneralis true (). Seneca#s discourse has for an objective not  to add to some theoretical principle aforce of coercion coming from elsewhere but to transform them (theoretical rinciles23 ina &ictorious force. Seneca has to give a place to truth as a force.??

Truth is a force, which can transforms one#s principles of conduct???? Truth is notthe principle itself (G!) or the Transcendent outside (3od) that commands the principle. E+S?

/ence, ! thin, several conseuences. First, in this game between Serenus#s confession andSeneca#s 80aster9 consultation, truth# as you see# is not defined by a correspondence toreality but as a force inherent to rinciles and %hich has to be de&eloed in a discourse. 

Truth is a force !D the principles.

Two, this truth is not something which is hidden behind or under the consciousness in thedeepest and most obscure part of the soul. !t is something which is before the individual as apoint of attraction, a ind of magnetic force which attracts him towards a goal

T/+ ZK+ST!6D !S !D C/2T C2E !S TMKT/ KD!I+MS2$ (3+D+M!G).

Three, this truth !s not obtained by an analytical exploration of what is supposed to be realin the individual but by rhetorical explanation of what is good for anyone who wants toapproach the life of a sage 8een wij*e9.

Four, the confession is not oriented toward an indi$iduali0ation of Serenus by thediscovery of some personal characteristics but towards the constitution of a self  which

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

36/666

could be at the same time and without any discontinuity su%'ect of knowledge and su%'ectof will&(

The confession is oriented towards a constitution of a self that is simultanously, C!T/6KT!SG6DT!DK!TE, a SK1H+GT of RD6C$+3+ and SK1H+GT of C!$$. (self that is

1oth subject consituted by nowledge neoliberal as wel as subject of will, a subjectof principled action)

Five, we can see that such a practice of confession and consultation remains within theframewor of what the 3rees for a long time called the gnome. The term  'nome desi'natesthe unity of %ill and kno%led'e4 it designates also a brief piece of discourse through whichtruth appeared with all its force and encrusts itself in the soul of people. Then, we couldsay that even as late as the first century 2.., the type of subject which is proposed as amodel and as a target in the 3ree, or in the /ellenistic or Moman, philosophy, is a 'nomic

 self , where force of the truth is one with the form of the will.

!n this model of the gnomic self, we found several constitutive elements" 8the necessity of tellin' truth about oneself5 ,8the role of the master and the masters discourse5,6the lon' %ay that leads finally to the emer'ence of the self .9

2ll those elements, we find them also in the Ghristian technologies of the self, but with a very different organi*ation

Today, is there a necessity of telling the truth about onself yes" be authentic.!s there a role for the master and the masters discourse Do" be yourself, don#t let others tellyou what to do.!s there something lie the emergence of the self Sometimes the self exist, and one shouldfind it. Sometime identity is to be created. be yourself  means actually the opposite ofthining who one is and to act accordingly.

Eou see that the tas is not to put in the light what would be the most obscure part of ourselves. The self has, on the contrary, not to be discovered but to be constituted, to beconstituted through the force of truth. This force lies in the rhetorical uality of the master#sdiscourse, and this rhetorical uality depends for a part on the expose of the disciple, who hasto explain how far he is in his way of living from the true principles that he nows (A&).

2nd ! thin that this organi*ation of the self as a target, the organi*ation of what ! call the 'nomic self, as the objecti&e,  the aim, towards which the confession and the self

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

37/666

always supposed to be supported by the light of faith if he wants to explore himself, and,conversely, access to the truth of the faith cannot be conceived of without the purification ofthe soul.

  two systems of obligation, of truth obligation < the one concerned with access to light

and the one concerned with the maing of truth, the discovering of truth inside oneself < those two systems of obligation have always maintained a relative autonomy.

+ven after $uther, even in -rotestantism, the secrets of the soul and the mysteries ofthe faith, the self and the boo, are not in Ghristianity enlightened by exactly thesame type of light. They demand different methods and put into operation particulartechniue.

1ut this exomologesis was also a way for the sinner to express his will to get freefrom this world, to get rid of his own body, to destroy his own flesh, and get access to anew spiritual life. !t is the theatrical representation of the sinner as willing his own death

as a sinner. !t is the dramatic manifestation of the renunciation to oneself. To justify thisexomologesis and this renunciation to oneself in manifesting the truth about oneself,Ghristian fathers had recourse to several models (AN).

,uch a demonstration does not therefore ha$e as its function the establishment of thepersonal identity. Dather# such a demonstration ser$es to mark this dramaticdemonstration of what one is? the refusal of the self# the breaking off from one/s self.

The exomologesis sees, in opposition to the Stoic techniues, to superimpose by an actof $iolent rupture the truth about oneself and the renunciation of oneself.  !n theostentatious gestures of maceration, self

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

38/666

spirit away from its object, that means away from 3od. So much so that the primarymaterial for scrutiny and for the examination of the self is an area anterior to actions, ofcourse, anterior to will also, even an area anterior to the desires

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

39/666

1ut it must be remared that this verbali*ation, as ! just told you, is also a way ofrenouncing self and no longer wishing to be the subject of the will.

They are supposed to have the same goals and the same effect. So much that one canisolate as the common element to both practices the following principle" the revelation of

the truth about oneself cannot, in those two early Ghristian experiences, the revelation ofthe truth about oneself cannot be dissociated from the obligation to renounce oneself.Ce have to sacrifice the self in order to discover the truth about ourself, and we have todiscover the truth about ourself in order to sacrifice ourself. Truth and sacrifice, thetruth about ourself and the sacrifice of ourself, are deeply and closely connected. 2ndwe have to understand this sacrifice not only as a radical change in the way of life but asthe conseuence of a formula lie this" you will become the subject of the manifestationof truth when and only when you disappear or you destroy yourself as a real body or as areal existence.

Eou remember what ! told you last wee" the 3ree technology, or the philosophical

techniues, of the self tended to produce a self which could be, which should be, the permanent superposition in the form of memory of the subject of nowledge and thesubject of the will.

his technology of the self maintains the difference between knowledge of being,knowledge of word# knowledge of nature#  and kno%led'e of the self , and thisknowledge of the self takes shape in the constitution of thought as a field ofsub)ecti$e data which are to be interpreted.  2nd, the role of interreter is assumed   bythe wor of a continuous &erbali7ation  of the most imperceptible movements of thethought< that#s the reason we could say that the Ghristian self which is correlated to thistechniue is a 'nosiolo'ic self.

2nd the second point which seems to me important is this" you may notice in earlyGhristianity an oscillation between the truth

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

40/666

S6 6D+ M+2S6D F6M RD6C$+3+ SK1H+GT, C2S T6 3!I+ 2 -6S!T!I+,T/+6M+T!G2$ 2D -M2GT!G2$, S+$F.

F!D -6SS!1!$!TE 6F F6KD!D3 2 /+M0+D+KT!GS, D6T 6D S2GM!F!G+ 6F

S+$F, 1KT 6D 2 -6S!T!I+, 6D T/+ T/+6M+T!G2$ 2D -M2GT!G2$,+0+M3+DG+ 6F T/+ S+$F. T6 G6DST!TKT+ T/+ 3M6KD?, FKD20+DT 6FSK1H+GT!I!TE 2S T/+ M66T 6F 2 -6S!T!I+ S+$F.

That was the aim of judicial institutions, that was the aim also of medical and psychiatric practices, that was the aim of political and philosophical theory< toconstitute the 'round of the subjecti&ity as the root of a ositi&e self, %hat %e could

call the ermanent anthroolo'ism of +estern thou'ht.  (nd I think that thisanthropologism is linked to the deep desire to substitute the positi$e figure of manfor the sacrifice which for Ahristianity was the condition for the opening of the selfas a field of indefinite interpretation.

A uring the last two centuries, the problem has been" what could be the positivefoundation for the technologies of the self that we have been developing duringcenturies and centuries 1ut the moment, maybe, is coming for us to as, do we need,really, this hermeneutics of the self ???? 0aybe the problem of the self is not to discoverwhat it is in its positivity, maybe the problem is not to discover a positive self or the

 positive foundation of the self. "aybe our roblem is no% to disco&er that the self isnothin' else than the historical correlation of the technolo'y built in our history. 0aybethe problem is to change those technologies. 2nd in this case, one of the main political

 problems would be nowadays, in the strict sense of the word, the politics of ourselves. ????

1ut if one is to create oneself without recourse to nowledge or universalrles, how does your view difer from Sartrian existentialism2" ! thin that from the theoretical point of view, Sartre avoids the idea of theself as something which is given to us , but through the moral notion of authenticity , he turs bac to the idea that we have to b ourselves

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

41/666

by creatin' a %ork i create myself 

if you %rite a book, the book creates you.

 you can distin'huis self and relationshi, but you cannot ontolo'ically seerate them

 self and the relation of the self to itself. jor' is this and this, and jor' 08.

%hat is the difference2 one is this and other is this. no. urely e#istential difference.

Chat is aimed at as salvation is accomplished without any transcendence" The self withwhich one has the relationship is nothing other than the relationship itself#... it is in short theimmanence, or better, the ontological adeuacy of the self to therelationship. (hos @%%) 8death drive9

ifference between self and subject.[?????????

different fi'ure of bein' beyond essence and e#istence. indifference.

thin of te relation between constituting power and constituted power.

constituted power is the proces that will create the law, taes the form of a constitution. therewas a constituent subject.

what made the constituting power oppression, and resistance.

what is the constituting self, and the constituted self

how a power constitutes itself as constituent (and not as constituted) 8thin of proletariat9

F6KG2K$T TM!+S T6 F6M0K$2T+ 2 SK1H+GT T/2T G6DST!TKT+S !TS+$F 2SG6DST!TK+DT. 2S 2 M+2$ S+$F, 2D D6T 2S 2D 61H+GT!F!+ S+$F.

6T/+MC!S+ !TS D6T 2D 2KT6

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

42/666

To sum up, the main objective of these struggles is to attac not so much such

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

43/666

 perspective is not subjective. There is nothing subjective in the perspective that influence theway ! see ul oma or bes*el.

(this is why traditionalist can say >warte piet might appear racist, but M+2$$E he is not.it#s not that they cannot see the racism, it is precisely that the unsee it. this unseeing is

conditioned by what it really is" orciny.)

there are two field of sense. what cannot be done is to totali*e one of them as the truesituation. orciny would be either ul oman or bes*el (as the nationalist would lie). /owever,the protesters do not want to totali*e their assertion (*warte piet is a racist figure.) !f *warte

 piet exist, he is either racist or non

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

44/666

Mob Cijnberg 5 Traditionalist" bes*el nationalist. (unsee racism)

1as /eijne" unificationist (discussion)

2ntiia, effect of ideology, '@J)

to greater convergence in beliefs and willingness to act (+le K. Ceber)

The Consensus-Based Form involves a reasoned societal debate, focused on the full scope of technical and socialdimensions of the problem and the feasibility and desirability of multiple solutions. #t is this form to $hich scientistshave the most to offer, playing the role of $hat +ielke calls the honest brokera person $ho can integrate scientifickno$ledge $ith stakeholder concerns to eplore alternative possible courses of action. /ere, resolution is foundthrough a focus on its underlying elements, moving a$ay from positions (for eample, climate change is or is not

happening, and to$ard the underlying interests and values at play. /o$ do $e get there* 0esearch in negotiation anddispute resolution can offer techni1ues for moving

for$ard. http"55www.ssireview.org5articles5entry5climate`science`as`culture`war 

Knderstanding the psychological, sociological, and cultural reasons for variations in the perceptions of climate change has implicationsfor the design of educational and policyinterventions that can lead to greater convergence in beliefs and willingness to act.

The problem is not that members of the public do not know enough, either about climate science or theweight of scientific opinion, to contribute intelligently as citizens to the challenges posed by climatechange. It's that the questions posed to them by those communicating information on global warming inthe political realm have nothing to do with—are not measuring—what ordinary citizens know.

Glimate change is a difficult policy problemwhich reuires replacing a large global energy infrastructure and reuirescoordinating hundreds of nations and thousands of actors, each with their ownself

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

45/666

Bature and Cxperience in the Aulture of

9elusion# 9a$id idner

Scriptie uotes"

ghost that is essence, essence that is ghost.

essence is haunting, essence is haunted by itself?

we have to life among the ghost.

Dialectic

"erything that belongs to a whole constitutes an obstacle to this whole insoar

as it in inlcuded in it

6 K 166p2

-It is a ma5or strength o the dialectic to grasp how the One o the unity ocontraries supports contrariness in its ery being0 1H2

Determination, Relapse and Torsion

 -@reat dialectical concept) 9etermination as unity o the scission, thinkable only

rom the indexed term0 1F2

?nless what is new in the dialectical process is annulled in the pure relapse into

+, the place or space o placements, it is thus necessary to posit a determinationof the determination , namely 6 1ap1622. 1FF2

 This Is a process o torsion, by which orce reapplies itsel to that rom which it

conMictually emerges.

) no outplace

Strong and ea! di"erence

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

46/666

-I, as Lacan says, the real is the impasse o ormali3ation, as we saw when we

ran up against the limit as return, we must enture rom this the point that

ormali3ation is the im'passe o the real0

 -%e need a theory o the pass o the real, in the breach openened up byormali3ation0 12

Is this, orce, or torsion, and is this o the splace&

 The algorithm scission'dermination'limit

 The anchorage between structural and historical contradiction K the nodal point

o the question o the sub5ect G

#not

ase and motor. Two contradictions, two de$nitions, a single ob5ect ! capitalism,

and as single doctrine ! (arxism. This would be an aproia, exept that the working

class orms a knot G

-To distinguish the one rom the whole. In this gap lies the whole question o the

#ub5ect0

 To understand the distinction between history and politicis, masses and classes,is exactly the same thing as understanding the distinction between the %hole

and the One 1J2

It is with the name

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

47/666

historical side o the dialectical correlation, the side o its actiity'as'one

anchored in 1and not, as 8egel pretends to beliee, deduced rom2 the

correlation'in'eclipse o the system o places.

 There were space proides or neither place nor lack o place, it is the #ub5ect1P2

#ub5ectie and ob5ectie process 1JF2

-8oweer, the structural dialectic does encounter the real as obstacle, which is

the e*ectie thought o the historical.. it includes the latter, albeit in order to

subordinate it and only when it is no longer a dialect o the whole but a

combinatory) a structuralism0 1GJ2 1is this the One&2

QlinamenR. The clinamen is the sub5ect, or to be more precise, sub5ectiation

1GH2

-They make what they are, but disappearing is what gies them being. 8erein

the ollowing paradox is reealed) the essence o the anishing term is to

disappear but it is at the same time that which exist the most K as %hole, cause

o itsel Only that which is missing rom a %hole can gie it consistency0 PJ

-Torsion, een i the word does not belong to the common parlance o (arxism,can be inerred rom it by combining the notion o the circly and that o a leap

 The torsion o the true designates a circularity without a uni$ed plane, a

discontinuous cure0. 1F2

Our entire dispute with Lacan lies in the diision, which he restricts, o the

process o lack rom that o destruction 1FF2

eginning in the FHs, which one can mark by the primacy o the knot oer the

chain0 dialectic aboe structuralism&

Destruction

9estruction is that $gure o the sub5ect/s grounding in which loss not only turns

lack into a cause, but also produces consistency out o excess/ FJ

7orce 5ams up the mechanism o repetition. Triggers the possibility or the

destruction o its law FJ

Torsion

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

48/666

 The backdrop or all this is the understanding that, in grappling with language,

the mathematical ormalism perorm a desub5ectiation only at the cost o

exploiting to the maximum the signi$ers to which the sub5ect is sutured

#ophocles and 6eshylus.

(aterialsim with the sub5ect

#hall we say that, or Lacan, this dialectical extremity can be ound in the knot,

or to be more precise, in the tying o the knot& That is how it would seem)

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

49/666

he dead of god# and the idea that the uni$erse does not exist are bourgeois notionsalready systemati0ed by (BLLLL

reification is the condition for both the emergence of real abstraction (B9#

simultaneously# its unintelligibility 5reification# in other words# is the condition forideology8

retroacti$ity? it seems that there was once a point where atomi0ation had not yet begun5imaginary illusion of wholeness8

but is the possibility of freedom# abstracting from the traditional ties. Bo concretedetermination? Q

Mationlaism means above all freedom < more precisly , freedom in two respects" (a) freedomwith regard to all external authority and constraint, and (b) freedom with regard to our own

 passions, which lin us to the external world (%N).

1ut rationalism also means the breaing of the bonds which existed between the individualand the universe or the human community. For where each individual, autonomously,independently and without anay relaiton to tother men, dicides what is true, good or beautiful,there is no longer any room for a whole which transcends him, for the uni&erse. The universeand the human community then become external things, atomi*ed and divided.(%@) )****+

/ermeneutics of the subject

you can see that the two things are connected" taing care of oneself in order to be able togovern, and taing care of the self inasmuch as one has not been governed sufficiently and

 properly. 3overning, beging governed, and taing care of the self form a seuence, aseries, whose long and complex history extends up to the establishment of pastoral power inthe Ghristian church in the third and fourth centuries.

8event9 6nce again taing the 2lcibiades as a historical landmar and as a ey for theintelligibility of all these processes, you remember that care of the self appeard in the

2lcibiades as necessary at a given moment of life and on a precise occasion. This momentand occasion is not what is called in 3ree the aros, which is the particular conjuncture, as itwere, of an event (BL).

The instructio is the individual#s armature for dealing with events rather than training for adefinite professional goal. So, there is this training aspect of the practice of the self in the firstand second centuries. JL

2ctually, in the period ! am taling about, taing care of the self was no longer, and had not been for a long time, a recommendation restricted to certain individuals and subordinated toa definite aim . . . Dow it is said" Tae care of yourself, and that#s the end of it. Tae care of

yourself and that#s the end of itmeans that the care of the self seems to appear as a universal principle addressed to and laid down for everyone. AAA

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

50/666

Chat will determine the division betweeen the few and the many is the individual#srelationship to the self, the modality and type of his relationship to the self, the way in whichhe will acutally be fashioned by himself as the object of his own care. The appeal has to bemade to everyone because only a few will really be able to tae care of themselves. 2nd you

see that we recogni*e here the great form of the voice addressed to all and heard only by thevery few, the great form of the universal appeal that ensures the salvation of only a few. AAJ5A&

#Kniversality is always completely situated in a concrete world in space and time, andreali*ed in practically some short seuence of history. !ts not a great and permanentconviction. this universality is in fact reali*ed in the very strong condition of place and time.#

how is this possibly. how something universal is somewhere inside. finally is philosophysomething of an ideology of the western world. Dot at all a universal disposition of humanityas such. Chy spea of universality that creation, development and and existence is absolutely lined to a small place and time in the general history ofhumanity. if we say there is no philosophy. finally the race for philosophy is over. all we canhold on to that is that it is of universal nature.

 pure relativist W no philosophy.

to transform the problem. to explain a new conception of what is universality and what istruth. to explain that if a truth is construct in a specific context, is not by it self an objection touniversality. not only against the particularity, but C!T/ the particularity. we have to propose

 philosophically the idea of universality which is by necessity in relationship with a serie ofthe cognate world in which that sort of truth is appeared. it is exactly 1adious philosophical

 problem. truth without the easy solution of pure relativism.

complete transformation of the relation between universality and particularity. First althat exist is particularity. the truth is in a particular world.the mathematical truth appeared in 3ree for material reasons. and there is an explicitrelationship between the universality of math and the proces of

construction mathematical in 3reeceexplain why this sort of particular proces can have some result that are beyond the procesitself, which can be understood from an other world an cognitive other point of view. we canunderstand, and we accept the proof. how is it possible that something that is written.immanent exception. determinable world produces something which is not reducible to thecultural context. an exception to the law of context.

not an exception in the sense of god (christianity) or the noumenal (Rant) world or theintelligible (-lato) world. it is a immanent exception al the proof is inside. somethingimmanent understood from another world. all the material of the construction of the truth is

inside. truth is situated. truth is not in another world. the truth is not god, or the idea or the G!.Truth is a human construction. they construct truth in particular conditions. but this human

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

51/666

construction can be understood from another point. universality is a possibility. to beunderstood from another world, not only in the world where the truth has been construct.during long seuences nobody understood the truth. the truth was there. resurrection inanother world.

truth can be resurrected. mathematics of 2rchimedes was resurrected in ALth century.Kniversality is a constant possibility of a resurrection of a truth. creation of truth is in science,art etc. not philosophy. philosophy is the conception of what is truth. universality is humancreation and resurrection. history of universality. it is not general propositions. truth is the

 possibility of universality. not a strict possibility but a fact. the uestion of what is truth is notan abstract uestion. truths +4!STS. as a fact. we cannot completely understand anothercultural context, there, something can be created, which we can understand. painting in thecaves. the fact of the universality of truth. not to create, but to explain? possibility of anotherworld. but possibility is also a fact.

 philosophy is not reducible to the context. to be not only a citi*en of the world, but also of

humanity. introduce some exception to the particularity. finite < infinite. we experience itwhen something happens. we have the chance to participate in the creation and resurrectionof truth? this chance exists in life itself?

 brelations explicate what is. however non totaili*able.

!f historicism is indeed against totali*ation, of a one.

given that the one is not

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

52/666

2hippies@punk fundamentally DC(AIHC --! back to community @@ now all that wassolid has molten into air3

westerns perspecti$e -! expanded to whome$er recogni0es it.

metamarxism is simply another name for communism. 2ben)amin teleology theology etc3$ersus new romanticism@mythology -! two types of utopia progressi$e@reacti$e -! newidea of left and rigth

C&CD 9I,CBA*(B=CB ,P'I ,CP(D(I%B 56R8

he romantic demand for a new mythology @ gadamer

/is analysis of the genesis of aesthetic :rlebnis purports to explain how art first becameinvested with its utopian vocation and why this was doomed to failure" the romantic demandfor a enw mythology . . . gives the artist and his tas in the world the consciousness of a new

consecration . . . his crations are expected to achive on a asmall scale the propriation ofdisaster for which an unsaved world hopes. This claim has since defined the tragedy of theartist in the world, for any fulfillment of it is always only a local one, and in fact that means itis refuted (T0 BB) 5 (J&).

(ntionomies? nonrelation 5&adiou8 there is no sexual relationship @@ dialectic of $oid andexcess 2he Fnstable ,plit between 6 and J @ logic of the signifier @ hierarchy @ dialectics @$irtuality @ real abstraction3

2&en)amnin double bind3 2 person may desire something in the most lively and persistentway even though he is convicned that he cannot accomplish it or even that it is absolutlyimpossible" e.g., to which that which has been done to be undone, to yearn for the more rapid

 passage of a burdensome time, etc. 55 1enjamin#s messianism involves precisely this ind ofhope for the impossible (@@). The fate to which the tragic hero is condemned < and againstwhich he rebels in vain < differs in ind from the temporal condition of the moral agent whoretains the capacity to hope for redemtption, however impossible itm ay be (SC ! &A

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

53/666

the presumption that there is an euivalence between the true and the given. Rnowledgeis then conceived on the model of a mirror relation between the nower and the nwon7 toread a phenomenon is to atten to it in the manner in which it is given (MG AJ). 1ut givennessis an imaginary lure, as $acan shows in his account of the meirro stage (MG @%). Such a lureis ideological in the sense that it is prouces by something that disapperas behind it7 there can

never be a given on the fore

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

54/666

simply modernity, abandoned this conception in favor of a secular perspective in whichhuman beings tae the place of gods (0S )

/umans can project themselves, go beyond themselves, as it were, in order to e#ert o%ero&er themsel&es. metaphor" munchhausen

umont" transcendence of society, not as durheim, as simple function of exteriority. /eassigned it hierarchical form. 1ut what is hierarchy Far from being a succession of levels inwhich a higher level includes or dominates a lower level, hierarchy, in umont#s phrase, is anencomassin' of the contrary (0S %)

a linguist, for example, if he were speaing strictly, would say that the French language doesnot contain a masculine gender and a feminine gender, but rather an unmared and amared gender. The unmared gender encompasses the totality subjects, regardless oftheir sex. The mared gender, on the other hand, applies only to the female sex. !t followsfrom this that the masculine, which is the form of the unmared gender, represents at one

level the totality and by virtue of this encomposses the feminine7 whereas at another level,that of the proper subset (a mathematician regards the set of odd integer, for example, as a

 proper subset of the set of integers) and its complementary subset (the set of even integers), itis opposed to the feminine. he coincidence of the whole and one of its proper subsets (which, for a mathematician, implies the idea of infinity) is what permits the whole to standin opposition to the complementary subset. The whole, in other words, encompasses itscontrary < the part that does not coincide with the whole (0S%)

2 (2, 2p) the whole stand in oppossition to the complementary substet

ue to a metaphorical affinity with politics that wil be explained in 0eidtation J, ! willhereinafter term state of the situation that by means of which the structure of a situation < ofany structured presentation whatsoever < is counted as one, which is to say the one of the one<effect, or what /egel calls the 6ne

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

55/666

not only the idea of the sacred, but also religion, tragic drama, and politics < so many real andsymbolic systems that serve to set limits to the capacity to act < were born (0S )

That is, it generates subcultures that train the individual to be able to switchover at any moment from an interaction context to purposive

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

56/666

the right uestion5 to unearth the unnown nowns5 right division.

6scil 6pposites. Gollapse. Meal5illusion. 0ystics one (*en, fantasy).

Grisis of postmodernism. wors even if you don#t believe in it. Sincere irony. !deology.2lthusser. Subject subject. Hameson cognitive mapping.

Scientism. 6ne

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

57/666

http"55www.lacanonline.com5index5&A%5&N5the

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

58/666

 pol itical process that ideologies begin to become cruc ial as sources of sociopo litical meani ngs and attitudes.

Note that /anke wrote 0wie es eigentlich gewesen0, rather than the more common 1erman phrase 0wie es eigentlich gewesen ist0. 2is

omission of the final 0ist0 %0was0& suggests, according to some scholars,3%ho29 a less literal meaning.& /anke went on to write that

the historian must seek the 02oly hieroglyph0 that is 1od4s hand in history, keeping an 0eye for the universal0 whilst taking 0pleasure in

the particular0.356 

Ce presuppose (A) the possibility of language" to give a name. () the possible to begin withnothingness (because there is nothing in the beginning, creation ex nihilo, it is near theabsolute) (%) the possibility to put thing together.

8The desire of god" god is not completely perfect, if there does not exist something outsidethis perfection. there is a limit to the perfection of god. -erfection is within limits. Theuestion of the relation of the finite and infinite. To have something other is fundamental. !fthere is no other, then god is nothing (spino*a). The positivity of god is no complete with noexperience of negativity. First sin" negativity appears. 2gainst the will of god.9

Ce have an activity, but with limited techniue. To name, is a creative act. The mostimportant possibility.

Ce begin by giving a name to the void. Dot a decision, it is forced. Do choice. The name ofthe void as the only element of a set (%th possibility) is singleton. This is the 6ne. Thename of the void and the singleton of the name of the void are different. Ce create adifference. -ure difference. The creation of difference as such. Fundamental difference.

The name of the void has no element" it is the name for nothingness? 2nd the singleton (ofthe name of the void) has A element, precisely the name of the void. This is the creation of

difference from nothingness. !n nothingness there is no difference (that is the definition ofnothing). this is the difference of & and A. an absolute difference. the Ioid and the 6ne. Eoucan create, compose everything with & and A (electronic image, binary code). 1y repetition of this difference.

2ll digital communication is a projection of this first difference. The infinite play between &and A, the play of pure difference" the difference is also nothing" the minimal difference.

 Dew operation" the succession" S (x) W element of x Y x !t is not an addition.

So first succession" S () W (we can only tae x itself, because the void has no

elements)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_wordshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_von_Ranke#cite_note-8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_von_Ranke#cite_note-8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_wordshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_von_Ranke#cite_note-8

8/19/2019 All notes 17-01-2016

59/666

The operation of succession is only the generali*ation of the first difference.

S () W

S () W

There is a condition that the name of x is not an element of x. !f x itself is an element of x,when we do the element of x, we have x itself and so we have no change at all. as the x wouldtae all that is in x, and the name of x. !f the name of x is in the element of x, when we taethe successor of x, we tae x, and no more. The name is not in the element of x

Ce affirm that he name of something is always external to something. The name is not insidethe baby. 2 point of great metaphysical importance?

0y name is not exactly my name. Chen i reduce myself to myself and my name, ! am the

true successor of myself. but it is impossible. the relationship of the human subject to thename is always a true problem. 1eyond the name, we have the world. The name of a person,

 puts what we have in the form of a singleton.

This is the abstract form of all that which is the creation of something by the name, and afterthat, the reduction of the name itself to a singleton. The singleton is an ! document. Ce havea combination of repetition (the same operation, the succession) and creation (all terms aredifferent terms).

Ce have created the difference, the difference between *ero and one, the pure difference, andalso the repetition.

This is reflected in the money. 0oney is numerical evaluation of something. 6ur world is anabstract projection of all what exist in the universe, of numbers, by the mediation of a price.The price is the relationship between one thing and the abstract place of things. 2lso ourlabor has a price. /uman beings to have a price. 2 fundamental dimension of our situation.Ce have a constant projection on the flat surface of numbers. 6n the flat surface of differenceand repitition. 0aybe the world is reduced to something lie that (not only the images). Theworld becomes an image of itself across the money. The price of something is fundamental.2ll big crisis, are crises of the price, of the money. -hilosophically it is a crisis of therelationship between concrete existence and the surface of numbers. The crisis of the

 possibility to affirm