[-empyre-] Re: love, sacrifice, and the eternal surplus

simon swht at clear.net.nz
Sat Oct 25 09:06:43 EST 2008

dear empyreans:

perhaps these comments are now less appropriate than they would have 
been had they not been deemed inappropriate by whatever 'bounces' 
contributions to the conversation when they were posted. And as such I 
ought to add that at the time they were posted there was there a 
crocodile at whom to smile, in the sense of courting the disaster of a 
miscommunication in the engagement, the smile - itself an at once 
aggressive and inclusive sign. Hence, having read Nicholas's hint about 
dramaturgy, I would like to have started there. Again.

Regardful of the fact that they have holes in their sleeves where their 
hearts ought to be, I hope these comments are yet worth posting:

To smile at a Crocodile:

A love is a brick. Is a concept. (Massumi) A concept is the love of the 
love. As in: In love with love. Absolutely (no reification being thereby 

The style of being of a love. (Levy Bryant) Where style is an individual 
form of originality. (Baudelaire) The love is the concept as it loves, 
as in to love. A pure infinitive event, beyond 'anthropological 
predicates' and before any actual 'love.' (Deleuze) The concept being an 
ontological before it is an epistemological category. (Also Bryant)

The being of being in love being set in motion. So differing internally, 
qualitatively and stylistically. Moving infinitely. (Deleuze) As we 
gathered. (Badiou) For however long it last. Rather, endure. Feeble and 
strong, solid and fragile. (Kristeva)

And having found it what do we do with it? but repeat it in the terms in 
which it is actualised, bio-logic-mechanic-ally.

Or take a cutting. A shortcut. And a silhouette. Hard graft. And topology.

And in that second thought sort of repeat who flips all the bits of love 
to chance? throws up each little die? of every little death? (Nietzsche. 
Or Mallarme. Some symbolist, at least?)

What then if love is a brick and we make the wall suggested 
geographically (albeit it would be clearer as a dry-stone construction. 
Better whetted. Sharper on the cut.)?

In what is love then contained? and by what entrained? but its negative.

And how long must the mere (representational) repetition stay up 
(/durer/), surely not eternally! Internally?

"Be Hence Ghost of Internal Redcurrants!"

Love is alone in excluding everything but the empirical delusion of 
anthropological predicates. And in that transcendental bind, it may find 
itself immured. That is, doubled. In a pincer movement. (Deleuze & Guattari)

The essential, however, before love is just loved, is that it move. And 
in moving not be not love.


Simon Taylor


Nicholas Ruiz III wrote:
> yes, yvonne, i believe that brings us to the notion of
> seduction as 'seducation,' or borrowing from
> Baudrillard, perhaps humans enact the ritual
> dramaturgy of passion, as we follow the rules of the
> game that binds us in the event of love...?

More information about the empyre mailing list