RE: AUT: antiwar movement

[".: s0metim3s :." <s0metim3s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nate:

: > but isn't incommunicability just
: > another unpleasant cousin in the same
: family as transcendence?

How so?  Incomminicability isn't another way of
saying 'ineffable.'

Leaving aside the whole discussion of subjectivity
and the possibility of self-knowledge (Lacan et
al, which I actually agree with); and heading to
Chris's comments on the equality of commodities.

Maybe it's a case of insisting that
communicability cannot be the principal aim of
political practice.  That is, communicability as a
tacit agreement on the framework which makes
communication possible.  This is precisely
modelled on the market: products circulate within
a framework in which they are all measurable,
exchangeable and communicable precisely be
reference to the universal standard.  What makes
something no longer a product is when it cannot be
measured, does not circulate within this
framework, is incommunicable. When difference
isn't just figured as a difference of 'taste' or
'opinion' relegated to the 'private' sphere of
consumption but as irreducible difference.

Chris:

: So why are these projects bound
: together by language, per se?  Not that
: I am defending or rejecting the notion
: of projects.  Why language
: instead of reason or some other such?

Can you have reason outside of language?  Or,
isn't reason a particular kind of language?

: the equality of all commodities before
: money, before the abstract
: equality of the individual under
: capital, the citizen to the state

Indeed.  And might it not be that this abstract
equality is always attended by hierarchy,
division, discrete markets, competition as a
condition of its actual functioning?  That it's
abstraction which actually assumes the requirement
for the fortification of identity, that, for eg,
without the latter in the form of nationalism the
actual, affective adherence of citizens to
particular nation-states would falter, etc?

The practice of what's been called 'hit and run
activism' (ie: deliberately impermanent
organsiational forms) has a lot of going for it,
two reasons being are that it makes it more
difficult to furnish the basis for either fixed
identities which are then defended as a condition
of maintaining those organisations or providing
easy markets for (political) capital, enclosure,
etc.

There are other reasons, but in this context,
those two are worth noting.


Angela
_______________

<end message>




     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---