AUT: Re: buggering

["David McInerney" <borderlands@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This idea of 'buggering' is also used in J.K. Gibson-Graham, _The End of
Capitalism (As We Knew It): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy_
(1996).

----- Original Message -----
From: "FoofighterPilot" <cwright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 2:36 AM
Subject: Re: AUT: RE: antiwar movement


> 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 ---




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