Fascism!

J

josef k.

Dangerous Mystagogue
nikbee said:
what is the obsession with the individual, or difference? this always strikes me as some kind of deep fear. totalitarianism is a weak concept to begin with.. what is it to be free from any ideological drip? im terrorized by the trees in the park sometimes, fascist fucking tree.. infinite difference is inscribed into being itself.. why should we construct any system based around a recognition of the Other, or infinite difference. im sorry, maybe it was my commie childhood, but isnt nicer to think we're all exactly the same ("There is only one world.")? doesnt difference itself render us completely ordinary (multiple on top of multiple, multiple composed of an infinity of elements)? im not sure about myself most of the time.. only a Truth cuts accross the infinity of difference, because a Truth is the same for all. to found a Law that is based on an entirely contingent state of things (difference (cultural)) is a totality, or a finitude. a system (philosophical, State) should construct a space for thought in which different subjective types, expressed by the truths of its time, coexist.
Click to expand...

There is a way in which the ceaseless reiteration of the word "Truth" comes to form a kind of mantra.
 
N

nikbee

Well-known member
josef k. said:
so, let's try this, then:

"fighting jews can be a truth process, but it depends on what you mean by fighting, and so on.. if it leads to a creation of truths then you are arrested by the truth process (you are an ethical subject, and any force that disrupts this process is Evil)."
Click to expand...


edit!!!: yes, you can say 'fighting jews' (i wouldnt call it that, it also depends on what the word 'jew' signifies, if its purely racial, then i would say there is a problem) can be a truth process..

or: confronting 'jewness', though again, what is jewness? this is complex, im not prepared for this. i have no problem with jews.. this is ridiculous.. please do not give me the adam kirsch treatment here.
 
Last edited:
N

nikbee

Well-known member
i have no shame in saying that im currently eveloped by badiou.. it IS dogmatic (not its logic, its dogmatic to my current being).. only if it betrays me will i move on (is there any other way?).. right now, im in a "truth process" with badiou.
 
Last edited:
J

josef k.

Dangerous Mystagogue
nikbee said:
no, the nazi imperative was criminal. their actions are by no means just, because what they seek is a totality.

fighting... i can fight you, we are 'fighting' now..

there is a light at the end of my tunnel, and you are the force that is barricading the light.. i can fight you, because you are forcing a totality on me.

its not an argument of humanistic morals.. of course nazis were evil in that sense also (a crime is a crime). but their justification for destruction was towards a mystical non-corrupt man (a totality).

i want to say also.. im not even very well read in terms of badiou. but more so than some of you it seems.. please dont take me as an authority on anything. but i am having a good time, that is, until its interrupted by only loud voices..


edit!!!: oh no.. i totally misread you here.. im sorry. yes. you can say 'fighting jews' (i wouldnt call it that, it also depends on what the word 'jew' signifies, if its purely racial, then i would say there is a problem) can be a truth process..

or: confronting 'jewness', though again, what is jewness? this is complex, im not prepared for this. i have no problem with jews.. this is ridiculous.. please do not give me the adam kirsch treatment here.
Click to expand...

Huh?

**
 
J

josef k.

Dangerous Mystagogue
nikbee said:
i believe in creation. i can even say, i have a faith in it.
Click to expand...

"What is this, 'Password'?" Mazilli tossed his match on the tablecloth. "You want to know what I believe in? I believe in punishment, I believe in fear, and I believe in revenge."
 
N

nikbee

Well-known member
josef k. said:
"What is this, 'Password'?" Mazilli tossed his match on the tablecloth. "You want to know what I believe in? I believe in punishment, I believe in fear, and I believe in revenge."
Click to expand...

??? confused.. are you saying creation = punishment, fear, revenge..?

creation towards the Two. this is the "password".

i dont want to touch you.. unless you stop me from my perpetual movement towards the Two.
 
J

josef k.

Dangerous Mystagogue
"i dont want to touch you.. unless you stop me from my perpetual movement towards the Two."

You do realize, of course, that sound you like a mad person.
 
N

nikbee

Well-known member
josef k. said:
"i dont want to touch you.. unless you stop me from my perpetual movement towards the Two."

You do realize, of course, that sound you like a mad person.
Click to expand...

hahaha

did that make sense?

maybe i should say.. "im not concerned with you.. unless you stop me from my perpetual movement towards the Two."
 
nomadthethird

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
O Christ.

Nikbee...the reason why I couldn't tell if you said that or if it was a direct quote ("in actu") was because your typing is so messy that it seemed to mark off only the first few words as a direct quote. Forgive me, but if you want to be clear you might want to type more clearly.

People might be all equally deserving of rights and respect, but they are not and will never be all "the same".

And you know what? I have mountains of scientific evidence behind that claim.

Badiou has a bunch of jargon behind his.
 
nomadthethird

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
What I don't understand--because I know Badiou likers are sincere enough and whatnot--is why they insist that if you raise practical questions about revolution and how the communist ideal might be reached, they get all "are you crazy!!!!??!!?!" and accuse you of being a rightist.

Look, I love Marx. I think he was onto something. I think his analysis of class is something we can't ignore or live without politically. I agree with him that re-distribution of wealth/resources is THE way to go. But I'm not sure that turning Maoism into an ontological principle to live by is a) justified, or b) useful at all.
 
N

nikbee

Well-known member
nomadthethird said:
O Christ.

Nikbee...the reason why I couldn't tell if you said that or if it was a direct quote ("in actu") was because your typing is so messy that it seemed to mark off only the first few words as a direct quote. Forgive me, but if you want to be clear you might want to type more clearly.

People might be all equally deserving of rights and respect, but they are not and will never be all "the same".

And you know what? I have mountains of scientific evidence behind that claim.

Badiou has a bunch of jargon behind his.
Click to expand...

i should say then.. im not impressed with difference.. this is contingent. lets overcome difference.. this is what i mean. in a scientific positivist sense yes of course. you are right. we are all different.
 
nomadthethird

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
nikbee said:
i should say then.. im not impressed with difference.. this is contingent. lets overcome difference.. this is what i mean. in a scientific positivist sense yes of course. you are right. we are all different.
Click to expand...

No, not in a positivistic sense. In an anti-positivistic sense.

We can't overcome difference, it is the predicate of all being.

One thing doesn't exist until it can be differentiated from other things.

Sorry but that's the way it is. It might not be politically expedient for Maoists, but it's not something we can ignore for the sake of easier arguments.
 
N

nikbee

Well-known member
nomadthethird said:
What I don't understand--because I know Badiou likers are sincere enough and whatnot--is why they insist that if you raise practical questions about revolution and how the communist ideal might be reached, they get all "are you crazy!!!!??!!?!" and accuse you of being a rightist.

Look, I love Marx. I think he was onto something. I think his analysis of class is something we can't ignore or live without politically. I agree with him that re-distribution of wealth/resources is THE way to go. But I'm not sure that turning Maoism into an ontological principle to live by is a) justified, or b) useful at all.
Click to expand...

im happy we are able to enter into a truth process.. :p

then forget about Mao.. you cant separate the Truth process from the betrayal of the Event (please, take it easy). this is always a possibility..

but we have to think clearly.

edit: i understand how this might sound inadequate.. "well, everything that fails is a betrayal to the Event". but its true i believe.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top