Re: AUT: RE: antiwar movement

["FoofighterPilot" <cwright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It is a typo, but buggering is Deleuze's exact term for his approach.  And
no, I have not gone Deleuzian, I am just working out a properly immanent
critique, which rejects the idea of treating Deleuze as 'good' or 'bad', per
se.

Cheers,
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nate Holdren" <nateholdren@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 10:43 PM
Subject: Re: AUT: RE: antiwar movement


> Hi Chris,
> It may have been a typo, but you used the word 'transfirmation', which
could
> also be a lovelly portmanteau word in the grand tradition of J. Derrida
and
> H. Dumpty, combining transverse and affirmation. I doubt you've gone
> Deleuzian on us (though the reference to buggering makes me wonder, and
put
> that way perhaps the Deleuzian approach is even more appealing...) so I'm
> guessing it was a typo. Anyhow.
> xo
> n8
>
>
> on Sunday you need some wine to get through the terrible wilderness of
> workdays.
> -Luisa Valenzuela, "Strange Things Happen Here"
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: chris wright <cwright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Reply-To: aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >To: aut-op-sy <aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Subject: Re: AUT: RE: antiwar movement
> >Date: 27 Mar 2004 10:45:38 -0500
> >
> >On Fri, 2004-03-26 at 14:49, Nate Holdren wrote:
> > > Hi Peter-
> > > Sorry for the rough and schematic character of this (as usual) hasty
> >post,
> > > I'm pressed for time (as usual). Well put and I like the references to
> >the
> > > Colectivo Situaciones and Precarias a la Deriva. What's the problem,
> >though,
> > > with communicability? Sure, there are no communicative guarantees -
> > > conversational misfire can always happen - but isn't incommunicability
> >just
> > > another unpleasant cousin in the same family as transcendence? It's
like
> > > talk about absolute difference from certain anti-hegelian camps, one
> >moves
> > > away from some of the sillier excesses of the tradition but still
> >retains an
> > > absolute, a foundationalism (or a despair over the lack of achieving a
> > > viable foundation).
> >
> >Possibly, indeed.  A good thing to look out for.
> >
> >The reason I'm drawn to the Spinozist approaches to
> > > Marxism is precisely because in the idea of immanence (which I don't
> >pretend
> > > to really understand)
> >
> >A notion, like Spinoza's Substance, which is used in a quite
> >metaphysical way, just as one could critique Nietzsche's use of the
> >notion of Life as fundamentally metaphysical, too.
> >
> >  it seems to me there's an affirmation that the
> > > hacienda can always be built, in theory speaking, that is, that
> > > relationships are always constructed and at least potentially
> >constructible.
> > > One may fail in a project, communication may not occur or may break
> >down,
> > > but that doesn't mean it was impossible, that failure was guaranteed
> >from
> > > the outset.
> >
> >I am not sure that immanence is so much better for this than the
> >dialectic.  Both lay claim (and how credibly is really the content of
> >many debates here) to achieving what you find valuable in the idea of
> >immanence.  Anyway, a good point.
> >
> > > it gets
> > > so tiresome to have to discuss the identity of identity and difference
> >or
> > > the monad of monads or 'whatever singularity' before one can have a
> > > discussion about the labor process or barricade building and stone
> >throwing
> > > [not to reify or impose that particular model of action, but it is
> >somewhat
> > > dear to my heart as a young romantic].) *sigh*
> >
> >A discussion about the labor process is not quite the same thing as
> >building barricades.  The former involves an engagement with the
> >dominant ideas and some form of critique of them, whether the Deleuzian
> >buggering or the Marxian immanent critique.  Neither one is required to
> >a) build barricades b) support revolutionary transfrmation or work in
> >particular struggles c) be a communist.
> >
> >There is no reason to counterpose critique in practice and critique in
> >theory, but they aren't the same either.  The hope, IMO, is that in
> >critiquing ideology, we help to clarify what is being done or not done,
> >maybe not to help communicate it to others (though that is not a bad
> >goal, but not one which will in any way guarantee that someone wants to
> >take up arms alongside us, so to speak), but to communicate to ourselves
> >within a particular situation (maybe this is a singularity or a
> >collective situation), to clarify our movement.
> >
> >Just a thought.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Chris
> >
> >
> >
> >      --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page - FREE
> download! http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/
>
>
>
>      --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---



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