[-empyre-] Fw: Floating

[Nicholas Ruiz III]

--- On Mon, 4/6/09, Michael Angelo Tata, PhD <mtata at ipublishingllc.com> wrote:

> From: Michael Angelo Tata, PhD <mtata at ipublishingllc.com>
> Subject: Floating
> To: "Nicholas Ruiz III" <editor at intertheory.org>
> Date: Monday, April 6, 2009, 5:35 PM
> 
> 
> 
> #yiv873795555 .hmmessage P
> {
> margin:0px;padding:0px;}
> #yiv873795555 {
> font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}
> 
> 
>  
> And then there's Lyotard's "The Inhuman,"
> which masterfully connects up many of these issues with
> the aesthetics of the sublime.  Failures of
> representation, failures of presentation, communicationless
> communication: what could me more real than the unreal?
> 
>  
> 
> Not to mention our little friend, the cyborg: the
> quintessential post-humanist, and post-human (perhaps
> poosthumous?) entity.  What would it have to say
> about chaos, the abyss, the need to re-present?  
> 
> 
> 
> *******************************************
> Michael Angelo Tata,
> PhD  347.776.1931-USA
> http://www.MichaelAngeloTata.com/
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> > Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 06:43:52 -0700
> > From: editor at intertheory.org
> > To: empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Eddies, Whirlwinds, Trade
> Winds
> > 
> > 
> > dh...but i thought the emptiness at the center was
> what all religions have been fighting for...? (some tales
> will laud the Emptiness, other will fill it with God(s))...
> > 
> > it is only in the end, after some creative exhaustion,
> desiring of an ontological endpoint in focus, some choose to
> say we are faced with a destiny of 'that of the object
> thinking itself'...
> > 
> > but sun-tzu says: "the fight is chaotic, yet one
> is not subject to chaos..."? ...an attractive
> hypothesis, no?
> > 
> > In other words, with no fixed position, chaos does not
> threaten, and life is free to float, as indeed it does, to
> relocate at will, no? It feels natural, yes?
> > 
> > The humanists maintain, and it is a seductive
> proposition, that we must stand in for something,
> 'represent' as it were... something in the name of
> the Human?
> > 
> > Perhaps in the end, our most creative enterprise has
> been that of the humanist Law? Handed down from the
> ancients? The Law that reality must be tethered?
> > 
> > nick
> > 
> > Nicholas Ruiz III, Ph.D Editor, Kritikos
> http://intertheory.org
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Thu, 4/2/09, davin heckman
> <davinheckman at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > From: davin heckman
> <davinheckman at gmail.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Eddies, Whirlwinds, Trade
> Winds
> > > To: "soft_skinned_space"
> <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> > > Date: Thursday, April 2, 2009, 10:54 AM
> > > (Before I forget again: Thank
> > > you Dr. Ruiz for putting this great
> > > project together. And thanks for inviting me to
> > > participate.)
> > > 
> > > I'm not pretending that this is any kind of
> an original
> > > insight,
> > > because Marx clearly identifies the idea that
> money is a
> > > fetish
> > > object. And from a basic sort of reverence of
> the
> > > fetish object, we
> > > move towards fictitious capital. Today, we have
> > > reached a point where
> > > neoliberal ideology has held up the idea,
> initiated by
> > > Marx's initial
> > > deconstruction of cash, that if money ultimately
> means
> > > nothing, but
> > > that we all rely upon it, that those who
> accumulate great
> > > deals of the
> > > stuff can steer this signifier to make it do
> whatever they
> > > want it to.
> > > Hence, the absolutely political character of
> finance--its
> > > political
> > > influence in national capitals, the obsession
> over things
> > > like
> > > "consumer confidence," etc.
> > > 
> > > This does directly parallel the crisis of
> language which is
> > > initiated
> > > by Saussure's observation of the arbitrary
> nature of the
> > > sign
> > > (although you can look back in philosophy and
> literature to
> > > find other
> > > figures who recognized this). I see folks like
> > > Derrida, Barthes,
> > > Lacan, Foucault, etc, basically moving from this
> initial
> > > insight (the
> > > arbitrary nature of the sign) towards full blown
> criticism
> > > of
> > > discourse and the inherently constructed nature
> of the
> > > entire system
> > > of signs (which mirrors Marx's notion of
> fictitious
> > > capital). Where I
> > > think that critical theory has gotten off track
> is in the
> > > leap from
> > > this observation--that signs are arbitrary and
> unstable and
> > > have no
> > > inherent truth--into this view that whoever can
> assert
> > > power over
> > > discourse can make language do whatever they want
> it to.
> > > 
> > > The analog in the visual arts might be the move
> from
> > > Duchamp to
> > > Warhol, which performs similarly deconstructive
> work in
> > > terms of the
> > > values we associate with "art." (And
> where everyone
> > > needs to look at
> > > J.S.G. Boggs, perhaps the artist of our times). 
> > > Where, again, art
> > > goes awry is in this idea that, since signs are
> unstable we
> > > can make
> > > them mean anything is art.
> > > 
> > > Where these views ultimately fail is that they
> have
> > > followed a
> > > particular cultural object down the path to the
> point where
> > > they have
> > > realized it's indeterminate origin. But
> since,
> > > philosophically, they
> > > are committed to the idea that the answer must
> reside on
> > > the path of
> > > their inquiry, that the thing they study is the
> center of
> > > subjective
> > > experience.... and this center is empty. If you
> > > are committed to
> > > finding ultimate meaning in a particular system
> of signs,
> > > but find no
> > > meaning, there is a temptation to say, "I
> have found the
> > > ultimate
> > > meaning: nothing." But this view ignores
> the
> > > fundamental similarity
> > > between bankrupt systems of representation--if
> money is
> > > ultimately
> > > meaningless, if language is ultimately
> meaningless, it art
> > > is
> > > ultimately meaningless--perhaps the
> "meaning" of money,
> > > art, or
> > > language does not reside in money, art, or
> language,
> > > respectively.
> > > Perhaps these things are what we have always
> known them to
> > > be--representations--and a representation always
> has to
> > > represent
> > > something other than itself. Money only means
> > > something when we
> > > consent that it stands for some other quantity. 
> > > Language only means
> > > something when we use it to stand in for a
> non-linguistic
> > > order. Art
> > > only means something when it stands for something
> other
> > > than art.
> > > 
> > > The idea of an infinitely malleable language that
> has no
> > > referent
> > > outside of itself, the idea of language that is
> purely
> > > discursive with
> > > no outside, is ultimately a language that does
> > > nothing. There is no
> > > mediation between the individual and the
> collective, if
> > > discourse
> > > cannot exert influence or power from the
> individual
> > > consciousness to
> > > the other and if it cannot bring the other to
> > > individual. On the one
> > > hand, it is a form of post-Christian idolatry and
> theodicy,
> > > integrated
> > > into an elaborate collective solipsism. At the
> > > extreme ends of this
> > > are those discourses which imagine the stock
> market to be a
> > > living
> > > organism, a higher form of life which governs all
> of us
> > > lesser forms.
> > > It's a similar ideology to the kind of naive
> postmodernism
> > > which most
> > > people experience at some point when they become
> > > disenchanted with
> > > mass culture.
> > > 
> > > I guess this is why I enjoy Zizek, Badiou,
> Stiegler, and
> > > Hardt and
> > > Negri. In these three scholars, you see some
> truths
> > > about the nature
> > > of systems of representation. Zizek says that
> the
> > > sign always
> > > represents something other than what it directly
> pretends
> > > to be.
> > > Badiou says that systems of signs become
> meaningful when
> > > they
> > > represent a particular set of relations, that
> meaning is
> > > only stable
> > > when it is contained within a set which can
> account for
> > > their relative
> > > meanings. Stiegler includes language and
> > > representation in his
> > > umbrella of "technics," meaning that it
> is never natural,
> > > but at the
> > > same time, insofar as humans could be said to
> have anything
> > > resembling
> > > a "nature" it would have to be this
> technical
> > > orientation. Hardt and
> > > Negri come back to basic questions of what most
> people
> > > would recognize
> > > as justice--the right of people to exist.
> > > 
> > > I don't entirely disagree Paglia, because I
> do think that
> > > Derrida is a
> > > junk bond trader (but she does seem like a
> huckster in her
> > > own way).
> > > I think this is something Derrida engages in
> > > self-consciously, he
> > > knows that ultimately language, money, or
> whatever is
> > > representation.
> > > And there is a tendency to pull back from this
> realization
> > > with a flat
> > > denial. But the real philosophical move is to
> say,
> > > yes, language or
> > > money is a representation, but what does it
> > > represent? Failure to
> > > take this step is a denial of consciousness and a
> denial of
> > > the
> > > social. Maybe these things do not exist, but my
> > > limited looks in
> > > these directions indicate that the the power of
> discourse,
> > > commerce,
> > > and aesthetics flow come from the difference
> between the
> > > individual
> > > and the collective, the self and the other, etc.
> And
> > > any effort to
> > > find meaning through any modernist obsession with
> the pure
> > > essence of
> > > art for art's sake, money for money's
> sake, or language for
> > > language's
> > > sake, is going to run into an aporia. And
> mistaking
> > > this aporia for
> > > the totality of existence is just another type
> of
> > > provincialism that
> > > tells us nothing about nothing.
> > > 
> > > Peace!
> > > Davin
> > > 
> > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 8:03 AM, G.H. Hovagimyan
> <ghh at thing.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Apr 1, 2009, at 8:35 PM, Michael Angelo
> Tata, PhD
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Aside from Warhol, the place toward which my
> mind
> > > immediately turns as I
> > > > think about what Nicholas refers to as the
> Immaculate
> > > Deception is Camille
> > > > Paglia’s identification of Jacques Derrida
> as a
> > > junk-bond salesman in her
> > > > “Junk Bonds and Corporate Raiders” (part
> of Sex,
> > > Art, and American
> > > > Culture). I think my mind races to this
> piece of
> > > writing because it does
> > > > raise the important question of the
> potential
> > > bankruptcy of theory in
> > > > general (a risk that does not seem to
> plague
> > > philosophy quite the same
> > > > way).
> > > >
> > > > Well now what.
> > > > As a child of the 1970's art world, I
> remember Warhol
> > > as more commerce than
> > > > art. He did have three areas of production
> that
> > > related to each other and
> > > > were reflections of commodity capitalism,
> the mode of
> > > America in the late
> > > > '60's. The three areas were his
> films which involved
> > > a party culture at the
> > > > factory, his silkscreen paintings and
> Interview
> > > newspaper. The social
> > > > scene,party culture migrated to Studio 54
> and the
> > > clubs in the 1970's. My
> > > > friend the Art Historian Alan Moore coined
> the term,
> > > "Clubism" when that
> > > > scene morphed into the Late Seventies East
> Village
> > > Punk/Performance scene.
> > > > The idea of a brand name and signature style
> was the
> > > legacy of Warhol's
> > > > silkscreen paintings. Interview was a sort
> of media
> > > art work that was about
> > > > celebrity as a commodity.
> > > > The progression of these notions in American
> Culture
> > > continues. Reality TV
> > > > shows are about banal people being promoted
> to
> > > celebrities. celebrity as
> > > > commodity becomes a quality that can be
> created by
> > > obsession. The signature
> > > > style/ brand name products of Warhol became
> > > appropriation in the late
> > > > seventies and copyright, remixing and
> sampling culture
> > > in the present. The
> > > > other part of this commodity matrix
> continued in the
> > > 1980's when the market
> > > > became more important than the art object or
> the ideas
> > > behind it. This
> > > > occurred with the Neo-Expressionists and
> Neo-Geo. The
> > > discussion was that if
> > > > there is an end to historical modernist
> progression
> > > than all styles are
> > > > viable. The market decides what is art.
> Money trumps
> > > ideas. This market
> > > > logic was manifested in the first explosion
> of 400
> > > galleries in the East
> > > > Village in Mid-80's and continues today
> in various art
> > > market expansions in
> > > > particular the latest L.E.S galleries and
> the art fair
> > > as a
> > > > sped-up/condensed art buying experience.
> > > > I come from the intellectually opposite
> camp. I
> > > believe in Idea overs form
> > > > and in particular that art should be a force
> for
> > > experimentation that
> > > > critiques the main culture rather than
> glorify it. I
> > > also feel that the
> > > > utopian spirit in art is alive and is an
> anathema to
> > > the "Extreme Marketism"
> > > > of the art world mantra of unique
> object/signature
> > > style/ brand name. What
> > > > this means is that in this 21st century art
> world the
> > > signature style and
> > > > uniqueness of any any art work gives way to
> > > collaboration and collective
> > > > expressions. Interestingly enough that
> doesn't mean
> > > that individual
> > > > expression and creativity goes away. Within
> any
> > > collaboration there is
> > > > something else that occurs; the
> collaboration
> > > encourages the individuals to
> > > > push their practice further and to look at
> the world
> > > from unthought of
> > > > points of view.
> > > > What has occurred in the USA with bubble
> markets is a
> > > lot of money (capital)
> > > > in the world seeking a safe haven and a
> decent rate of
> > > return. The US has
> > > > been the beacon for this because most of the
> rest of
> > > the world is
> > > > politically unstable or doesn't give a
> decent rate of
> > > return. Essentially
> > > > it's capital looking for an investment
> instead of a
> > > producer looking for
> > > > capital. It's essentially a disease of
> success like
> > > obesity. It's also a
> > > > consequence of the dismantling of our
> manufacturing
> > > base. Manufacturing
> > > > creates wealth. The logic o Capitalism is
> the
> > > differential. Labor is still
> > > > the basis of that. What happens now is that
> we have
> > > a situation where the
> > > > culture and the world are trying to find a
> new world
> > > system based solely on
> > > > ideas and abstractions. The problem is that
> the
> > > motivating force behind this
> > > > is greed and markets. In an earlier time it
> might have
> > > been war, conquest
> > > > and plunder that was an organizing principal
> for
> > > societies. This current
> > > > moment is about creating small utopias that
> are
> > > outside of the markets.
> > > > G.H. Hovagimyan
> > > > http://nujus.net/~gh/
> > > > http://artistsmeeting.org
> > > >
> http://transition.turbulence.org/Works/plazaville
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> _______________________________________________
> > > > empyre forum
> > > > empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > > > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > empyre forum
> > > empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> > >
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > empyre forum
> > empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> 
> Rediscover Hotmail®: Now available on your
> iPhone or BlackBerry Check
> it out. 
>