3.4/§0) Forms of Expressions and Services
Philosophy's non-§0-sustaninable arrogance shows in
pre-trans- traping
the OPTION II of real human beings
in order to allow the
22-palace to F4-manage
them by Bm-multiplying the
boundary conditions that usually
come from the
00-temple based on its
successfully engendered
myths of
the world and
people, usually considered >2
bad sinners in need of
indoctrination
and rule.
And in the corresponding
substance less
power games, philosophy
wants its share in
influence and keeps trying to
usurp the definition power of the
Bible via
philosophically undermining theology
towards its end. Thus in reality it, not
Christianity has globalized; don't
reveal this or you are in trouble like
Petrus...
Thus philosophy is concerned to
link (0,0) artistic production to its
schema in such a way that it
transcends the (2,2) dominant
paradigm. A task the avant- garde has not
been able to achieve in any desirable
way in the last, the terrible
ideological 20st century:
For Badiou, art is a thinking of the
thought that it itself is, which is
why the art piece is always a finite
singularity: "Philosophy does not
produce truths; it seizes truths;
shows them, exposes them, and announces
they exist!" thus
riding the trend of art for its
mass- or peer
group-attractivity,
and hard science
for its success, pretending to be
at its root, and itself on top of it all
in its non-committing, substance less
way. Badiou therefore aims at a schema
of artistic production that is not
reliant on the master, i.e. on the big
Other, the Creator, such as philosophy
pretends God never existed, of if
he did, he was murdered and is
now dead according to
Nietzsche...
The twentieth century represents a sort
of closing of possibility in that
it’s three dominant modes of such
artistic schema, 1) German hermeneutical
NAZISM, 2)
Marxist COMMUNISM,
and 3) ILLUSIONARY
psychoanalysis, failed to create a
liberating linkage between art and
philosophy – it is in this space that
Badiou tempts us to
discover new
modalities and ways of
"revitalizing" thought but without
the real
lifefulfillment of real people,
e.g. just old wine in new skin,
recoding it to adapt its meaning to
the leading edge of the zeitgeist.
Therefore there must be no absolute for
there (0,0) art and (0,2) philosophy
would loose their meaning in the (2,2)
palace. And so they even undermine
physics above all neuroscience and CERN
which has adopted it legocentrism.
It culminate in the "God",
the Higgs particle
which is supposed to hold all matter,
similar to lego-toys, together such as
philosophy thinks of itself in
science, itself, a cargo,
pseudo-science cult at best condemned by
the pseudo logic
of zeitgeist speech. In both
cases its finding sit in between, the
Higgs particl's energy between what
would lead to a stable universe
and the chaos of multiverses and
instable threatening the collapse of it
all. Therefore the philosophical
mainstream according to Badiou tends for
a thinking of choice and of the
decision that would go from the void
to truth without passing through the
master, that is without invoking,
or sacrificing the master such as
Jesus Christ, by letting him simply
disappear from any meaning like God.
Therefor Badiou non-sequiturs:
1. The truth does not exist –
only truths- e.g. depending of
philosophy
2. Each truth is a process and
infinite - e.g. open for recoding
3. One will call the subject of a
truth every finite moment within the
infinite part of each truth -
e.g. so philosophy can go on arguing
about its impotence to understand
anything
4. Every truth begins with an event,
and an event is unpredictable - e.g.
after the evolution myth, the principle
of radical contingency is the latest
hype in philosophy
5. The event shows the void of
the situation, because it shows that
what there is now was previously
devoid of truth - e.g. "God" and
any order of his is just an illusion,
making people bundle of illusions so
their being can be subjected to
mass-attractive events, up to
crucifixtions...
6. The choice that binds the subject to
the truth is either solidarity
with the void, or solidarity to the
event - e.g. seems to have
been proven by the Higgs particle debate
and by the so far exclusive dominance of
OPTION I, q.e.d. - or is this
a self-fulfilling
prophecy blinding humanity from its
self-destructiveness and from
OPTION II...?
Badiou wrestles, like "Jacob with God"
with the void and its emergence
into truth, applying poetic
thoughts, just as the evolution myths
points to mutations which by the
selection become new life forms. Truth
then results from what finds its place
in the zeitgeist evoked to justify ideas
which then actively arouses the fiction
of a master being capable of making
truths. But philosophy then needs the
disappearance of the master into the
anonymity of the empty place, in brief,
the master has sacrificed himself
so that truth may be. This is then said
to be a Christian truth – that
forces a situation where the master must
disappear in order for truth to arise.
And that give rise to further corrupt
the bible with philosophy which
gave rise to theology up to still
ongoing religious wars...
For Badiou, the central problem of
modernity means not being able to choose
reasonably in what concerns the
relation between mastery and truth.
When truth is disjoined from
the master that is
OPTION II, we have
democracy
- more precise,
the empire stroke back to uphold its
OPTION I, so thought must
step back from any being, to the desert,
to begin thought starting in the void
without depending on the master; neither
the master invoked, or sacrificed, in
short the ideal
OPTION I world, the fig leaf
to cover its innate self-destruction
beyond the point of NO return. In the
meantime philosophers get their chairs
as fig leaf producers. Brecht saw the
philosopher as the agent of the art....
There are 4 modes of serving for art
and its philosophy: It can serve
1. as (0,0),
itself to become an
idol and
thus the source of all evil. Art in
itself experiences a block of the
symbolic by the real, and this links
up to a transference. This is why the
ultimate effect of
art remains imaginary. To voice
its truth, philosophy comes in...
2. as (0,2)
didactic that only expresses a
hopefully
political correct
semblance
of truth, pre-trans- traping the actual
truth the leads to lifefulfillment, a
semblance that belongs to the affect of
art, not to its actual form, content and
meaning. Thus art in this didactic
paradigm is to be a charm to
the semblance of truth, the spin for the
didactics of the senses. The relation to
truth is singular.
Philosophically Marxism is a
didactic thinking catastrophes that
still leads to terrible human
catastrophes as if 70 years of evile
empire were not enough. The avant-garde
was didactic to a certain extent in
their desire to put an end to art, above
all anti-classical...
3. as (0,1)
reasonably placing art as a sort of
catharsis, or
therapy by pointing
effectively at
what is rather pretending as
above, with spin
for a hidden
agenda. Psychoanalysis
is pretending to be classical, as Lacan
writes, the object of desire, which is
beyond symbolization. Truth can
subtractively emerge at the very peak of
an act of symbolization....
4. as (0,3)
under OPTION I appearing romantic
in fact opposed to the above
understanding of art as intrinsically
a source of truth. In this paradigm
art becomes what Nancy refers to as the
literary absolute. In the
romantic schema, the relation of truth
to art is imminent giving
meaning to the
real being's fulfillment. Art in
the service of truth in the fulfilling
schema is a truth revelation
procedure. Heidegger merely saw the
artist as holding the keys to opening up
romantically. The closure of the avant
garde of the 20th century, was a
hybrid of didacto-romanticism, united in
inhibiting OPTION II!
When the avant garde rather than
represent, push schemas 1-3 against 4
the eventually fail and that has lead
the the present International Disorder!
Already Plato pointed to the old quarrel
between poetry and philosophy
embellishing the latter's
pre-trans- traping of OPTION II, arguing
any form of collective subjectivity
cannot remain homogenous if its
form of thought remains poetic. In
Plato, the poem forbids access to
the supreme truth, the truth which
provides unity with the ultimate
principle, which allows the Republic
to maintain its transparency. The
central problem rests on the fact that
Plato believed mimesis was to blame
for poetry’s failure to hold society
together. What poetry and understood
meaning forbids is discursive thought.
That is why Plato himself
tried to submitting language to the
power of poetic speech to enhance it
against OPTION II in ways which be now
have made it almost impossible to talks
about it - it's poisonous in
philosophical circles, stupid!
Context
|
