Painting as ReModel | Eric Alliez & Jean Claude Bonne: Unframing painting, ‘pushing back the walls’

"One of Yve-Alain Bois’s achievements has been to brilliantly underscore the importance of Matisse’s fundamental discovery that “color relations are above all quantity relations”, and the consequent all-over expansive nature of his painting. But should we understand this painting in terms of an aesthetic arche-drawing, as Bois did, or of a diagrammatic arche-color, as we would prefer, following a movement of thought less Derridean than Deleuzo-Guattarian? And is the extension of painting to architecture necessarily to be seen in terms of an expanded field of painting, of which site-specificity would be the modern-contemporary form? Or is the ‘architectural painting’ mobilized by the artist instead to be experienced all-around as a powerful critical and clinical undoing of painting with and through architecture? The comparative analysis of Matisse’s American and Parisian Dance will give us the opportunity to further explore ideas first formulated under the heading of La Pensée-Matisse (2004)." Audio, including Q&A, available at https://bit.ly/2uhP464 *Eric Alliez (b. 1957), philosopher, is a Professor at University of Paris 8 and at the Centre for Research in Modern European Philosophy, Kingston University (London). Yve-Alain Bois’ seminal book 'Painting as Model', published in 1990, is still cited as being an extremely important collection of essays that looks at painting as being both a conceptual and a material enquiry. Bois believes that one must concentrate on both the formal elements of a work of art and its physical qualities to fully understand its totality. 'Painting as ReModel' took place at Camberwell College of the Arts 20-21 June 2018.

Introduction 12 /

Wars and Capital same watchwords of organization and disorder throughout the Global South. Nuit Debout in France is the latest development in a cycle of conflict and occupation that may have started withTiananmen Square in 1989.

On the side of power, neoliberalism promotes an authoritarian and policed post-democracy managed by market technicians to stoke the flames of its predatory economic policies, while the new right (or “hard right”) declares war on foreigners, immigrants, Muslims, and the underclasses in the name of the “de-demonized” extreme right.This extreme right openly comes to occupy the terrain of civil wars, which it subjectivizes by rekindling racial class warfare. Neo-fascist hegemony over the processes of

subjectivation is confirmed by therenewed war on the autonomy of women and the becoming-minor of sexuality (in France, “La Manif pour tous”) as an extension of the endocolonial domain of civil war. The era of limitless deterritorialization under Thatcher \\

and Reagan is now followed by the racist, nationalist, sexist, and xenophobic reterritorialization of Trump,

who has already become the leader of the new fascisms. The american Dream has been transformed into the nightmare of an insomniac planet. 4.

There is a flagrant imbalance between the war machines of Capital and the new fascisms on the one hand and the multiform struggles against the world-system of new capitalism on the other. It is a political imbalance but also an intellectual one. This book focuses on \\

a void, a blank, a theoretical and practical repressed which is, however, always at the heart of the power and powerlessness of revolutionary movements: the concept of “war” and “civil war.” 5. “It’s like being in a war,” was heard in athens during the weekend of July 11–12, 2015. and for good r


L’ours dans la belette Excerpted from revue-chimeres fr

L’ours dans la belette

par Maël Guesdon , David Christoffel
« L’ours dans la belette » est extrait de « Grand bien vous défonce », un manuel de contre-culture psychique en cours d’écriture mais déjà plein de spéculations théoriques qui revisitent les fondamentaux des moyens d’optimisation des investissements psychiques afin de mieux se faire victime de soi-même en apprenant à dire peut-être sous toutes ses modalités spiraliques, à chérir ses TOCs les plus inavouables, à dilapider son potentiel (mais lequel ?) et, foutu pour foutu, tenter de reconquérir ses illusions.

Alors que l’âne est connu pour être plus têtu que le panda, la belette est sensée être plus rusée que le putois. Mais comme il est souvent trompeur de ne se fier qu’à l’apparence physique des humains comme des animaux, il est prudent de ne pas prendre modèle sur telle ou telle espèce en fonction de sa raideur mentale. C’est le pari que propose « L’ours dans la belette » en donnant les clés pour vivre et expérimenter la diversité des animaux-totems sur le mode trans-espèces de la poupée russe.


VVoir Grand bien vous défonce


Alain Badiou: Lessons of the ‘Yellow Vests’ Movement

Yellowvests1-What are we to think – what we call thinking, not running around barking – of the violent, abiding contradiction between the yellow vests movement and the state authorities led by little President Macron?

At the last round of the Presidential elections, I made it clear that I will never rally either (of course) to Marine Le Pen, captain of the parliamentary extreme right, or to Macron, who was mounting what I have called a ‘democratic coup d’état’ in the pseudo-reformist service of big capital.
Today, there is obviously nothing in my judgement of Macron I would want to change: I despise him unreservedly. But what to make of the yellow vests movement? I must confess that when it started last year I could find nothing in it – in terms of its make-up, claims or practices – that is politically innovative or progressive.
That there are numerous reasons for this revolt, and that the movement may therefore be regarded as legitimate, is something I grant without hesitation. I am aware of the depopulation of rural areas, the sad silence of abandoned streets in small and even medium-sized towns; the continuous removal for masses of people of public services,

which are gradually being privatized: health centres, hospitals, schools, post offices, train stations, telephones. I know that pauperization, initially creeping and then accelerated, is affecting sections of the population that forty years ago still enjoyed almost continually increasing spending power. I am well aware that material existence is becoming a headache for whole families, especially for many women, who are highly active in the yellow vests movement.

In short, in France there is a very high level of discontent on the part of what we might call the labouring part of the middle class, provincial in the main and with a modest income. The yellow vests movement is a significant representation of this discontent in the form of active, vehement revolt.

For those willing to attend to them, the historico-economic reasons for this uprising are perfectly clear. Moreover, they explain why the yellow vests date the onset of their woes to forty years ago: crudely, the 1980s, which marked the onset of a long capitalist-oligarchical counter-revolution, incorrectly dubbed ‘neo-liberal’ when it is liberal full stop. Which means: a return to the savagery of nineteenth-century capitalism. This counter-revolution occurred in response to the ten ‘red years’ – roughly 1965–75 – whose French epicentre was May 68 and whose global epicentre was the Cultural Revolution in China.  But it was considerably accelerated by the collapse of the global enterprise of communism in the USSR and then China: nothing on a world scale now opposed capitalism and its profiteers, in particular the trans-national oligarchy of billionaires, wielding unlimited power.

Of course, the French bourgeoisie followed the counter-revolutionary movement. It was even an intellectual and political capital of it, with the antics of the ‘new philosophers’, who ensured that the communist Idea was everywhere pursued as not merely false but criminal. Numerous intellectuals, renegades from May 68 and Maoism, were conscientious guard dogs of the bourgeois and liberal counter-revolution, under such fetishistic, inoffensive etiquettes as ‘liberty’, ‘democracy’ or ‘our republic’.

Meanwhile, from the 1980s to the present France’s situation has gradually deteriorated. This country is no longer what it was during the trente glorieuses of post-war reconstruction. France is no longer a strong world power, a conquering imperialism. Today, it is frequently compared to Italy or even Greece. Competition is causing it to fall back everywhere; its colonial rent is on its last legs and requires innumerably military operations in Africa, which are costly and uncertain, to maintain it.

In addition, as the cost of working-class labour power is much lower in Asia, for example, large factories are gradually being relocated abroad. This massive deindustrialization entails a sort of social degradation extending from whole regions, such as Lorraine and its steelmaking or the North of textile factories and coal mines, to the Parisian suburbs, abandoned to property speculation on the countless wastelands left behind by ruined industries.

The consequence of all this is that the French bourgeoisie – its dominant oligarchy, the shareholders of the CAC 40 – can no longer maintain a politically servile middle class on the same footing as before, notably before the 2008 crisis. That middle class was an almost constant historical support of the electoral pre-eminence of the various right wings – a pre-eminence directed against the organized workers of the great industrial concentrations, tempted by communism between the 1920s and the 1980s and 90s. Hence the current uprising by a significant popular section of this middle class, which feels it has been abandoned, against Macron, who is the agent of local capitalist ‘modernization’ – meaning: tightening the screw everywhere, economizing, imposing austerity, privatizing without any of the consideration that still existed thirty years ago for middle-class comfort in exchange for their consent to the dominant system.

The yellow vests, pleading their all too real pauperization, want to be paid a high price for this consent once again. But this is absurd precisely because Macronism results from the fact that the oligarchy, firstly, has had less need of middle-class support, which was expensive to finance, since the communist danger disappeared; and secondly, no longer has the resources to pay for an electoral domestic staff on the same scale.  And it therefore has to shift, under the cover of ‘indispensable reforms’, towards an authoritarian politics: a new form of state power will serve as a support for lucrative ‘austerity’, extended from the popular class of the unemployed and workers to the lower strata of the middle class. And this for the benefit for the real masters of this world – namely, the principal shareholders of the major groups in industry, commerce, raw materials, transport and communications.

In the Communist Manifesto, written in 1848, Marx had already examined this kind of conjuncture and referred, in essence accurately, to what are today’s yellow vests. He wrote this: ‘The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative.

Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history.’

they strive all the more bitterly today because the French bourgeoisie is no longer in a position, given the turn taken by globalized capitalism, to maintain, let alone increase, their spending power. It is true that the yellow vests ‘fight against the bourgeoisie’, as Marx puts it. But they do so to restore an old, outdated order, not to invent a new social and political order, whose names have been ‘socialism’ or, above all, ‘communism’ since the nineteenth century. For close on two centuries anything that was not more or less defined in accordance with a revolutionary orientation was quite rightly regarded as pertaining to capitalist reaction. In politics, there are only two main roads. We must absolutely return to this conviction: two ways in politics, only two, and never a ‘democratic’ dusting of pseudo-tendencies under the leadership of a self-proclaimed ‘liberal’ oligarchy.
These general considerations enable us to revert to the concrete characteristics of the yellow vest movement.  Its spontaneous characteristics so to speak – those not attributable to interventions external to the main current of the uprising – are indeed ‘reactionary’ as Marx puts it, but in a more modern sense: we might term the movement’s subjectivity a popular individualism mobilizing personal anger at the new forms of servitude imposed by the dictatorship of Capital today.

That is why it is wrong to say, as do some, that the yellow vest movement is intrinsically fascist. No: fascism invariably organizes identitarian, national or racist themes in a highly disciplined, even militarized, way.  In the present rising, which is unorganized – as the urban middle class always is – and, by dint of this, individualistic, there are people of all sorts, all occupations, who often sincerely think of themselves as democrats, who appeal to the laws of the Republic – which in France today costs nothing. In truth, among the great majority of them, specifically political convictions are fluid. But considering the movement – once again as it presents itself in its initial ‘purity’ – on the basis of its rare collective aspects, slogans, repeated statements, I find nothing in it that speaks to me, interests me, mobilizes me. Their declarations, their perilous disorganization, their forms of actions, their deliberate lack of general thinking and strategic vision – all this precludes political creativity. I am certainly not won over by their hostility to any embodied leadership, their obsessive fear of centralization, of unified collectives – a fear that confuses, as do all contemporary reactionaries, democracy and individualism.  None of this is likely to pit against the utterly odious, despicable Macron a force that is progressive, innovative and victorious in the long run.

I know that right-wing opponents of the movement, particularly among renegade intellectuals, ex-revolutionaries who became champions of police powers once the oligarchy and the state guaranteed them platforms for their liberal waffle, accuse the ‘yellow vest’ uprising of anti-Semitism or homophobia, or of being a ‘threat to our Republic’. I also know that, if there are traces of all that, they are the result not of a shared belief, but of the presence, the active infiltration, of the extreme right in a movement so disorganized that it is vulnerable to every conceivable kind of manipulation. Ultimately, though, let’s not bury our heads in the sand: various indications, particularly of clear traces of short-term nationalism, latent hostility to intellectuals, demagogic ‘democratism’ in the crypto-fascist style of ‘the people against the elites’, and discursive confusion, should prompt anyone to be cautious about an unduly general assessment of what is happening today. Let us agree that with ‘social network’ gossip replacing objective information for the majority of yellow vests, the upshot is that ludicrous conspiracy theory impulses circulate throughout the movement.

An old adage states that ‘not everything that moves ahead is red’ [tout ce qui bouge n’est pas rouge]. And for now, there is no sign of red in the yellow vest movement, which moves all right. Aside from yellow, I see only the tricolour, which is always rather suspect in my eyes.

Obviously, ultra-leftists, antifas, the awakened sleepers of Nuit debout, and those always on the look-out for a ‘movement’ to get their teeth into, the braggarts of ‘the coming insurrection’, celebrate the democratic (in fact individualistic and short-term) declarations, introduce the cult of decentralized assemblies, and imagine re-running the capture of the Bastille sometime soon. But this congenial carnival cannot impress me. For the last ten years or more, it has everywhere led to terrible defeats, for which various peoples have paid very dearly.  In effect, the ‘movements’ of the recent historical sequence – from Egypt and the ‘Arab Spring’ to Occupy Wall Street, from the latter to the Turkey of the main squares, from that Turkey to the Greece of riots, from Greece to indignados of all stripes, from indignados to Nuit debout, from Nuit debout to Yellow Vests, and many more – seem very ignorant of the real, implacable laws governing the world today. Once the intoxicating movements and rallies, the occupations of all sorts, are over, they are amazed that the match is so hard, that they always lose, that the opponent has even been consolidated in the process. But the truth is that they have not even represented the start of a real antagonism to contemporary capitalism, a different way universal in scope.

Nothing is more important at present than to bear in mind the lessons of this sequence of ‘movements’, including the yellow vests. They can be encapsulated in a single maxim:
A movement whose uniqueness is strictly negative will either fail, most often creating a worse situation than that obtaining when it emerged; or it will have to divide into two on the basis of the creative irruption within it of an affirmative political proposal genuinely antagonistic towards the dominant order – a proposal supported by a disciplined organization.
All the movements of recent years, whatever their location and longevity, have followed a practically similar and, in truth, catastrophic trajectory:
-    Initial unity constructed strictly against the current government. This is what might be called the ‘clear off’ moment, from ‘clear off Mubarak’ to ‘get stuck into Macron’.
-    Unity maintained by a supplementary slogan that is itself exclusively negative, following a period of anarchic brawling, when duration begins to weigh on mass action – a slogan like ‘down with repression’ or ‘down with police violence’. In the absence of any real political content, the movement identifies itself solely with its injuries.
-    Unity undone by electoral procedures, when part of the movement decides to participate in them; another non-, without any real political content supporting either a positive response or a negative one. As I write, voting projections are restoring Macron

to his score prior to the yellow vests and put the total of the right and extreme right at more than 60 per cent, with the only hope of a defunct left – France Insoumise – on 7 per cent.

-    Hence the arrival in power, via elections, of something worse than before. Either the existing coalition wins them, overwhelmingly (as was the case in May 68 in France); or a new ‘formula’ that is in fact alien to the movement, and far from desirable, is victorious (in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood and then the army with el-Sisi; in Turkey, Erdogan); or verbal leftists are elected but immediately capitulate on the substantive issues (Syriza in Greece); or the extreme right is victorious on its own (the case of Trump in the USA);

or a group originating in the movement joins up with the extreme right to get a slice of the government cake (the Italian case, with the alliance between the Five Star Movement and the quasi-fascists of the Northern League). We may note that the last scenario is possible in France if an alliance between an organization supposedly originating in the ‘yellow vests’ and Marine Le Pen’s electoral sect ends up working.
All this is because negative unity is incapable of proposing a politics and will therefore ultimately be crushed in the battle it joins. But to propose something beyond negation, we need to identify the enemy and know what it means to genuinely do something different from it, absolutely different. At a minimum this involves real knowledge of

contemporary capitalism globally, of the descendent position in it occupied by France, of solutions of a communist kind as regards property, the family (inheritance) and the state, of immediate measures setting these solutions in train, and also an accord, derived from a historical balance sheet, of the forms of organization conducive to those imperatives.
To acquit all this, only an organization resuscitated on new bases can rally a section of the routed middle classes in the future. It is then possible, as Marx wrote, for the middle class to be ‘revolutionary … in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat[;]

they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.’
Here we have a precious indication, authorizing a partially positive conclusion, on a key point. A potential left of the yellow vests movement, a very interesting minority, doubtless exists: the one composed of those of its activists who discover that it is necessary to conceive their cause in the future, not the present, and, in the name of that

future, coalesce around something other than static demands on purchasing power, taxes or reform of the parliamentary constitution.
We might then say that this minority can form part of the genuine people, the people in the sense that it is the bearer of a stable political conviction, embodying a way that is genuinely antagonistic to the liberal counter-revolution.
Naturally, without the massive incorporation of the new proletarians, the yellow vests

cannot as such represent ‘the people’. That would be to reduce this people to nostalgia on the part of the most deprived section of the middle class for its ruined social status. To be ‘the people’ in politics today, the mobilized crowd must include a strong central

contingent of the nomadic proletariat of our suburbs – a proletariat from Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America. It must display clear signs of rupture with the dominant order.  Firstly, in visible signs, such as the red flag instead of the tricolour. Next in what is said, like tracts and banners bearing injunctions and assertions

antagonistic to that order. And then in the minimal demands it must advance – for example, a complete halt to privatizations and the cancellation of all those undertaken since the mid-1980s. Its main idea must be collective control of all the means of production, the whole banking apparatus, and all public services (health, education,

transport, education). In short, in order to exist, the political people cannot make do with assembling some thousands of malcontents, even (as I believe) one hundred thousand, and demanding of a state – declared, and rightly so, to be detestable – that it condescend to ‘consider’ you, organize referendums (on what?) for you, maintain local services, and slightly increase your spending power while reducing your taxes.

Once the hyperbole and bluster are over, the yellow vest movement can be very useful in the future, as Marx put it: from the standpoint of its future. If we look to the minority of activists in the movement who, by dint of uniting, acting and speaking, have understood,

intuitively as it were, that they must acquire an overview, globally and nationally, of the true source of their misfortune – namely, the liberal counter-revolution; and who consequently are ready to participate in the next steps in constructing a force of a new kind, then these yellow vests,

thinking from the standpoint of their future, will doubtless contribute to the existence of a political people. That is why we must speak to them and,

if they agree, organize meetings with them where the first principles will be established of what might be called – what, in order to be clear, must be called – communism, yes, a new communism, even if the word has become both cursed and obscure over the last thirty years. As experience has shown, rejection of this word gave the signal for an unprecedented political regression, the very one against which, without being wholly aware of it, all the ‘movements’ of recent years have rebelled, including what is best in the ‘yellow vests’: those activists who hope for a new world.

To start off with, these new activists will support something I believe to be indispensable: creating, wherever possible, from large suburbs to depopulated small towns, schools where the laws of Capital, and what it means to fight against them in the name of a completely different political orientation, are taught and discussed clearly. If, going beyond the episode of ‘yellow vests versus white Macron’, but carried forward by what was best in the future about that episode, such a network of red political schools could see the light of day, the movement, through its indirect power to arouse, would prove to have been genuinely important.

Translated by Gregory Elliott
 The above article by Alain Badiou was copied and pasted from Verso Books Blog  here


Tatiana Kecojevic by Gérard Courant - Cinématon #1989

Le portrait de Tatiana Kecojevic réalisé par Gérard Courant le 20 octobre 1999 à Saint-Maurice (France) (silencieux). Tatiana Kecojevic's portrait by Gérard Courant (1999 - silent).


_____ Lazaarato is continuing , the work of Guattari and taking it further applying to the condition ofthe prsesent moment...

' What is the Pass ...'

  And at Corrry Shore's blog   this wonderful phrase  Negated Partial Past
 ___________________________________ which suggests to me many things one
                                                                                them body without organs, the escaping past
                                                                  , the past which was not, the fictional past of might have,
                                                 the possibility could have, of what did not happen but was imagined as not happened, and then, Lo! it did not! ill add  more variations, at another blog,
                      Poof! the imaginary scene of sense, the
                         quick sand of sense and time,

And here,

                 a poet throws time in the air,
                                                                       blogs are the future time of the Regated Partial Future~.

   Interesting work being done (see below on the notion  of the Pass which connects over to Guattari's idea of the password which was he predicted to become prevalent everywhere in daily life.

  But more of that another time: Ah, but what is your password Sir? Madame votre mot de passe s.v.plait

                    Bear in mind that Felix Guattari was
                                     a protege of Lacan,

                                    who resisted the father
                                  figure the figure of the Father
                           in the name of the Father

,                        having said,let us enter our password and see what these latter day Lacanians have to say  in this excerpt below:

  Nota Bene   I need to write an interlineated commentary on these texts herein quoted, cited, .
What is the ‘Pass’?
The Pass is a mechanism by which someone can give a testimony of what has happened in  their psychoanalysis when they feel it has reached its end.
       (As in Pass out when you realize the b.s. has been perpetrated? that no actual therapy
           has taken place, that you are the same as you were before, with perhaps the purely fantastical notion you are different from others, what b.s.)

     (End since when does an analysis  of this school Lacanian Freudian end? More Lacanian fantasy) 

It was also a way for someone to transition from the role of psychoanalysand to psychoanalyst and be recognised as such by the School.  (How unorginal! how paltry! to go from ANd to Yst! hahahahah this is cheap,a ny dadaist ritual was more forthcoming and poetic)
But when we hear the term ‘Pass’ we shouldn’t think of the opposition pass/fail, but instead of a relay. As in, ‘to pass something across’, or ‘to allow the passage of something’ from one place or person to another.   (More grandiose grand standing Unreal! I am going to pass out! where is my tape recorder?)
As Roudinesco notes, a passeur, in French, is a ferryman, someone who guides another across difficult terrain (Jacques Lacan, p.338). As a device for training and authorising psychoanalysts at the end point of their analyses, we might also think of the phrase ‘rites of passage’ as carrying a similar meaning. One makes a Pass rather than achieves a Pass.
The Pass works like this:
  • When someone feels their analysis is coming to an end, they get in touch with two other people at roughly the same point in their own analyses.
  • These people are the ‘Passers’. The candidate for the Pass tells them the story of their psychoanalysis, their testimony. They say why they think it is over, and why they want to become a psychoanalyst.
  • The Passers then relay this to a jury of the School’s analysts, who in turn decide whether what they have heard is enough to grant the position of AE, or Analyst of the School, to the candidate.
The core idea here is that of the double-relay, the process of entrusting your testimony to outsiders, and entrusting them in turn to represent it to a committee on your behalf.
This, Lacan thought, would bring out what is most essential in someone’s psychoanalysis and avoid the caprice, favouritism, and prejudices that characterised an institutionalised psychoanalytic training. Lacan said he was attempting to prise apart a hierarchy from what he called the ‘gradus’: a simple classification of analysts from non-analysts, or analysts from analysands.
Lacan’s rationale for this was rooted in two things he believes happened at the end of a psychoanalysis:

  1. Subjective destitution – in the simplest sense, this is the feeling of being alien to yourself, of your very thoughts and desires being foreign. It is the effect of bringing forth unconscious material. “Subjective destitution is written on the entry ticket”, Lacan says about a psychoanalysis. So, what does it matter that someone else, the ‘Passers’, bear witness to your story instead of you?

  1. Traversal of the fantasy – not just any old fantasy but the fantasy of becoming a psychoanalyst. Rather than identifying with your psychoanalyst as a ‘subject-supposed-to-know’, Lacan argued that the end of an analysis entails a falling apart of this position. Part of the job of the ‘passers’ as semi-anonymous figures with no stake in the analysis, and no authority to make you a psychoanalyst, is to help identify what’s leftover.
ILl be adding more commentaries on this later. Most of it reads like pretentious inner circle jargon easily said in other words.
The Pass – the Controversies
When Lacan’s students of the time looked back on the introduction of the Pass in the years that followed their opinions were very much mixed.
“The institution of the pass caused more conflict and violence than anything except Lacan’s invention of the short session”, wrote Stuart Schneiderman, one of the few Americans to travel to Paris in the 1970s to train with Lacan (Schneiderman, Jacques Lacan: Death of an Intellectual Hero, p.66).
excepted from Amuse-Bouche II  

                           Rich room here for word play thinking of Satre's idea of    Depasse and depassment,

                                             and to note, that Guattari was familiar with in Satre's work
                 referring to it in detail in his essays and in Antioedipus and Mille Plateaux

                                         an example comes to mind that  of the group in fusion
                                                      contrasted to the group trapped in the practico-inert

G'/s work picks up on terms and notions set by S in the dialectical materialist tradition he invented against the dogmatic Marxist one then dominant , the dominant dogma of class interpretation originating in the post Stalinist dialectics and the various Marxist groups following those lines
 of thought and literally imposing them on organization, people and the daily life of the left,


Guattari knew all about that __ he had been a member of the Cp when a youth,

          and so his own line of flight through the practico inert of Sartre

                                           to develop his own notions of desire machine
                                                                                                                    which he combined
with Deleuze,

                               along with the later idea of 'agencement' translated as arrangement and more popularly as assemblage   ,

                                                              all these Lacanian notions could be compared tit for tat with the contrasting and equally exciting ones of schizoanalysis, transversality, planes of consistency, etc.


 ONce upon a time over the planes of transversality and the regated future,
        I coined the expression Experimental Existential Agnostic,
                        & Simultaneous futures, instantaneous pasts and futures,


   As always more to return,
                                           to come back to learning, and finding

                                 and do end with a comma,





Throwback... in,


__ Guattari repudiated Lacan yet some of his followers  think he was a poet, but he was no more that. no.   He smoked cigars!
I prefer cigarettes. and roses, an velvet. and eyes, yours i saw, as the comfort of softness
there is a tale . finding between the spaces  of country, ocean, book, continent. How
indigent we are to live our lives!
what smoke of harps.
sending thoughts of protection   ~
 Plateau12/3/12_________________________ _____________________________________________________________________

One of the beautiful things about Guattari is his diction machine, his invention which surpases often from one sentence, even to the next

it's production creation!

it  takes one's breath away reading ............... this is one of the things which enamoured Deleuze of  him,



So Saith Alain Badiou: Désintéressons-nous, une fois pour toutes, des élections!


Désintéressons-nous, une fois pour toutes, des élections!

Dans un texte confié à Mediapart, le philosophe Alain Badiou invite à se désintéresser des élections, terrain de prédilection des adversaires de l'émancipation. « Hystériser, de façon à la fois dépressive et déclamatoire, des résultats électoraux, est non seulement inutile, mais nuisible », écrit-il, en appelant à « un véritable labeur politique » contre la servitude actuelle.

  • Je comprends l'amertume des protestataires, notamment les déçus du Mélenchonisme, à l'issue du premier tour des élections. Ceci dit, ils ont beau faire et beau dire : il n'y a dans ce vote aucune escroquerie, aucune aberration particulière. 
    Il n'y a eu, en fait, que deux anomalies partidaires, qui ont malheureusement (pour les pouvoirs réels) décomposé le bloc parlementaire central. Ce bloc est composé de la droite et de la gauche classiques. Il soutient depuis quarante ans, voire deux siècles, le déploiement du capitalisme local. Or, le sortant local de la prétendue gauche, Hollande, ne se représentait pas, ce qui a décomposé son parti. D’autre part, la droite classique, à cause des funestes primaires, n’a pas choisi son meilleur vieux cheval : Juppé, mais un bourgeois de province à la triste figure, trop éloigné des délices « sociétaux » du capital moderne.
    Le deuxième tour "normal" aurait dû être Hollande/Juppé, ou au pire Le Pen/Juppé, avec dans les deux cas, une élection facile de Juppé. En l’absence des deux partis de gouvernement décomposés, nos vrais maîtres depuis deux siècles, à savoir les propriétaires et gestionnaires des capitaux, étaient quelque peu à la peine. Heureusement (pour eux), avec leur personnel politique habituel, les vieux briscards de la réaction ; avec aussi, bien entendu, l’aide de résidus sociaux-démocrates (Valls, Le Drian, Ségolène Royal et consorts), ils ont bricolé un substitut présentable du bloc parlementaire central en déshérence. Ce fut Macron. Ils ont aussi, chose très utile, et de grande portée à venir, rallié Bayrou, le vieux sage centriste expérimenté, l’homme de toutes les guerres électorales, y compris les plus difficiles. Tout cela fut fait avec brio, en un temps record. Le succès final est pratiquement assuré.
    Dans ces conditions, tout à fait explicables, le vote entérine, de façon plus claire que d’habitude, que la subjectivité pro-capitaliste et droitière, y compris sous ses formes quelque peu fascistoïdes, est absolument majoritaire dans ce pays.
    Une partie des intellectuels et une partie de la jeunesse refusent de le voir, ou le regrettent amèrement. Mais quoi ? Veulent-ils, ces amateurs d'élections démocratiques, qu'on leur change le peuple des votants, comme on fait d'une chemise sale ? Qui vote doit consentir au vœu de la majorité, tout de même ! En vérité, ces deux groupes mesurent le monde à l'aune de leur propre situation et de leurs propres rêves, sans en tirer la conclusion qui s'impose : il n'y a absolument rien à attendre du vote "démocratique".
    Déjà Napoléon III, en 1850, avait vu que le suffrage universel était, non pas l'horreur que la bourgeoisie bien-pensante imaginait qu'il était, mais une véritable bénédiction, une légitimation inattendue et précieuse des pouvoirs réactionnaires. C'est encore vrai aujourd'hui, partout dans le monde. Napoléon le petit avait découvert que dans des conditions historiques à peu près normales, à peu près stables, la majorité numérique est toujours fondamentalement conservatrice.
    Concluons calmement. Hystériser les résultats d’une élection ne mène à rien qu’à une dépression vaine. Habituons-nous à ceci : il n'y aura jamais de mise à mort de notre servitude actuelle sans, au plus loin des rituels électoraux, la liaison historique de quatre facteurs :
    1 : une situation historique instable, qui bouscule fortement les subjectivités conservatrices. Très probablement, hélas, une guerre, comme pour la Commune de Paris en 1871, la révolution russe en 1917 et la révolution chinoise entre 1937 et 1947.
    2 : une division idéologique fortement établie, naturellement d'abord chez les intellectuels, mais finalement dans les larges masses elles-mêmes, sur le fait qu'il y a deux voies et non une seule, que tout l'espace de la pensée politique doit se structurer autour de la contradiction antagonique capitalisme/communisme, ou de tel ou tel de ses équivalents. Je rappelle au passage les principes de la deuxième voie : Etablissement, contre la propriété privée, de formes collectives de la gestion des moyens de production, du crédit et des échanges ; polymorphie du travail, notamment mise à mal de l'opposition manuel/intellectuel ; internationalisme conséquent ; formes de gestion populaire travaillant à la fin de l'Etat séparé
    3 : une levée populaire, certainement comme toujours minoritaire, mais qui met au moins en suspens le pouvoir d'Etat, levée souvent liée au point 1.
    4 : une organisation solide apte à proposer une synthèse active des trois premiers points en direction d'un effondrement des ennemis et de la mise en place aussi rapide que possible des éléments constitutifs de la deuxième voie, la communiste, ceux que j’ai rappelés ci-dessus.
    Deux de ces 4 points, le 1 et le 3, dépendent de la conjoncture. Mais nous pouvons dès maintenant travailler activement au point 2, tout à fait crucial. Et nous pouvons également travailler au point 4, notamment en soutenant, à la lumière partagée du point 2, des réunions et actions communes entre une fraction des intellectuels d'une part, et d'autre part le prolétariat sous trois de ses formes : les ouvriers et petits employés actifs, les familles ouvrières frappées et démoralisées par la désindustrialisation frénétique de la France depuis 30 ans, le prolétariat nomade, de provenance africaine, moyen-orientale ou asiatique.
    Hystériser, de façon à la fois dépressive et déclamatoire, des résultats électoraux, est non seulement inutile, mais nuisible. C'est se situer sans aucun recours sur le terrain des adversaires. Nous devons devenir indifférents aux élections, qui relèvent tout au plus du choix purement tactique entre : s'abstenir de jouer dans cette fiction « démocratique », ou soutenir tel ou tel compétiteur pour des raisons de conjoncture par nous précisément définies, dans le cadre, par ailleurs étranger aux rituels du pouvoir d’Etat, de la politique communiste.  Nous devons consacrer notre temps, toujours précieux, au véritable labeur politique qui ne peut s'inscrire que dans les quatre points ci-dessus.
    Alain Badiou
    Le Club est l'espace de libre expression des abonnés de Mediapart. Ses contenus n'engagent pas la rédaction.


    reading this biography

    reading this biography of guattari & del turns out former was very preoccupied by Ulysses
    and on table in his room "Sur le table de chevet: Les Chiens d'éros de....Lawrence et
    Ulysses de Joyce, en anglais. ... "(F.Dosse 585)

    truly he was also turns out much preoccupied with Finnegans Wake. what I find fascinating is the absence of interest either on his and his friend Deleuze, in the poetry of Tzara. But that is not surprising... one cannot read everything. and love all writing. For me, life would not be the same without the work of Tristan Tzara, esp. L'Homme Approximatif and L' antitete

    truly its a spooky place that Ireland ~
    Indeed it is M courier