Re: [-empyre-] Baudrillard and the future of theory

[Aliette <aliette@criticalsecret.org>]

>From a hand: Jean was never an ideologist but a self organized man with
solidarities. What was great with him being the reciprocity of autonomy.
Even he disapproved he accepted. Even the perverse interpretations on its
work: he accepted. He said that when a work is done you have nothing more to
add as its writer.

But you  know exactly how he did not accepted any pact of representation of
its writing at the moment he would participate this process.

For example Matrix: they have tried a contact before make the film but he
refused. What does not mean that at the first time he would disagree with,
but at the first time and whatever he would think in the second time, and
whatever he could say at this second moment having see the result without
him, he refused to represent his works. But he was happy to participate in
the environmental references of the culture by the same way he used the
reference in its work that means: adventure. What is the proper object of
who uses a reference being to make other with.

Make other with other with other with other without may be more (accident is
an event)


>From another hand:
Militant means a hierarchy that I cannot imagine to return with. Being
exactly the social representation of structured action to tribute the
reproduction of the same, from and to every time of political action even
democratic centralism.

Multiplicity of the same organization=ideology of the good model being
available to be the common one: it does not interest me. Cognition is an
abstracted link not a realized link: but turning into its contrary.

CC: so what? Nothing more that a new model, a new institution as impeachment
of the differences through columns of choice. All walking with the same
badge "CC" as the little red stuff signing Levis'jeans, that does not
protect the common to have their archive stolen by the vector of archive (in
France=INA) of the industrial productions can be the production coming from
the public services

That is one of the alternative extended forms of perverse social
organization.

Alternative is a dialectical concept that does not more rule as dialectic
power in our times. You know perfectly that after Genes at the moment they
have enclosed the manifestation far from the debate: the communication of
the mass power of alter-globality was closed. The model with the largest
people of the world having their proper centralized government - global
institution: is a representation of what we have always struggle against.

So the largest alternate answer at the moment it is not powerful drives toi
repression.

What personally and whatever it has no consequence--I disapprove.


But more: hierarchy as model of what? As we know so well yet now how, the
mode of organization=the project in its realized form.

I dislike utopia as beloved project. That is


I enjoy atopia as proper event. Metapolitic action in atopia, may be the
best tribute to the society. Somewhere yet existing at the moment it appears
then disappear in a serial of little events that can create plastic
differences but outside of our decision at the moment they have happened.

Politic of class is not more politic at the moment the coherence of the
world is not more the one of critical political economy but the safe
surviving political economy more becoming extensive by contamination and
rules: there is no alternative but self-destruction of global disposition by
leaving its prescription.

same going Model of social organization = what I do not approve with. I am
for the self organization as cells that can be predictable but not designed.
More knowing that the environmental disposition make different the cells,
and all being in dynamic plasticity - moving plasticity that shows how th
model of representation are former but impeachment.

I am far from this.

What it was really cool with groups such as Utopie (of which I was not a
part myself but my husband; from my hand I was "spontaneist maoist" - mao
anarchist:)))as Utopian they did not have hierarchy as their number of
militant was reduced to the members of the committee of publication: it was
only the consensus without exclusion, as much more the committee was plastic
(can entering new members or leave founders without exclusion but their only
self-exclusion more returning at the moment they wanted).


This organic organization finished through terrorist groups. And the best
part of the largest ones not being in jail having taken their part of the
conformist power.

Critical mass and entropy are organically free. They are not alternative
organization. 


On 11/03/07 4:18, "McKenzie Wark" <mckenzie.wark@gmail.com> probably wrote:

> On 3/10/07, Aliette <aliette@criticalsecret.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>> But the very question is the essay as free style.
>> 
>> ... Essay does not deliver representation, it creates both the thought from >
>> the style as the thought  equalizing the style itself.
> 
> This i think is essential. Thought working in and against language. JB
> was quite gentle on the reader in this regard. It was about a paring
> down. Like Miles Davis. The one note that let's you know about the
> dozen not chosen.
> 
> Theory had a (possibly dependent) relationship on the militant
> languages from which it broke. With the collapse of militant
> organizations in the west, theory finds itself in a certain
> difficulty. It gets absorbed into scholarship as if it were never
> anything else.
> 
> Hence i think it prudent to tack back the other way now, to use a
> (slightly displaced) Marxist language, for example. Now that 'everyone
> knows' all that is over and in the past, etc. Precisely because it is
> 'anachronistic'.
> 
> 
> 
> ___________________
> McKenzie Wark
> http://www.ludiccrew.org
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>