[-empyre-] creative powerlessness, expressive violence, performance

Thu Nov 20 02:45:44 EST 2014

"... The impossible language, that of our oppressor —and I was forbidden to
learn German as a child yet I read Goethe and Schiller in translation. I
work with Goethe because it is the forever stained text which no longer can
be read without the traces/shadows/stains of the victims. My upcoming
project will be around/within the frank of the Goethe tree, the one that
occupied the center of Buchenwald camp, built on purpose around a symbol of
high culture in Germany, just steps away from Weimar. Not that this is only
a German language problem, obviously. Should we stop using English because
of massacres that British committed in past wars? Should we not use this
language because of Guantanamo? Should we not use language here, in this
thread of conversation, perhaps not use any language?..."

Monica, in my controversial essay "Questions of Accent," which was first
published in 1994, I am dealing exactly with the questions you are asking
about the oppressor's or imperial language within which one is doomed to
write/speak. The essay does this around the nature of Jewish writing. It
does not only deal with American English; but also German and any other
language (for instance, Vallejo writing in Spanish) with which the
speaker/writer has a violent relationship, that of the oppressed to the
oppressor. Kafka is one of the key writers discussed in it:

"

...

VIII. What Is Then Accented Writing?

What is, then, writing which has an accent? It is a writing which does not
completely identify with the power, authority of the language it uses; but
confronts, without glossing over, the gap between the user and the
language. Such writing reveals an ambiguity towards power: the writer
chooses to embrace a language (because of its pervasive centrality) which
he/she knows is not quite his/her own, is insufficient for his/her inner
purposes. Accent in writing has little to do with explicit theme or
semantic context; it rather has to do with texture, structure, the
scratches, distortions, painful gaps (in rhythms, syntax, diction, etc.)
caused by the alien relationship between the writer and his/her adopted
language. Accent is cracks (many unconscious, the way a speaker is unaware
of his or her accent when speaking, *does not have to create it* ) on the
transparent surface.

   Accented Jewish writing embodies, rather than erases, this ambiguity
towards power. By doing that it creates its accent. Kafka, to me, is the
first modern, European writer who reveals the Jew's ambiguity towards power
in terms of an accent in the texture of his language. His language of
choice as a writer is not Yiddish or Czech but legal German (that of an
intricate legal brief), a double embrace of power: first of the cultural
mainstream, second, that section of it which codifies its power. But
Kafka's accent subverts that legal code, divests it of its meaning, turns
the language of the powerful into a language of the victim, of alienation.
To me, Kafka's subject is a stylistic dialogue about the ambiguity of
power, between the powerful and the victim, a sadomasochistic elaboration
of *The* *Book of Job*, the chosen man of God also chosen as a victim.
Interestingly, Kafka's fiction (as opposed to his diaries) has very few
direct references to Jews, almost no semantic, but only stylistic, Jewish
content.

IX. The Essence of American Sound, Can It Be the Music of Diaspora?

Why did Kafka write *Amerika*, why was he attracted to the subject of the
United States? German also accents Am-erika. What did he hear in the word
Oklahoma? A wild, alien, distant sound in German, Oklahoma!  At the same
time, an intimate sound, one of the rare words in English with vowel
harmony, which is also, I imagine, in Czech. Kafka hears in Oklahoma the
alien ground in which his private soul can nest itself, the synthesis
between the powerful and the victim. That is why he associates his
open-ended, endless nirvana of liberation in the Theater (Noah's Ark) of
Oklahoma. What is the word Oklahoma after all, but the imprint of the
Native American, the victim, the invaded in the language of the master.
American English: the language which embodies that  peculiar combination,
victim and victor possessing the same language, yoked together by fate.

   Using American English as a poet is the outsider, the victim, embracing,
emulating the language of the master, being constantly beset by the
ambiguities of power...."    (
http://ziyalan.com/marmara/murat_nemet_nejat3.html)

Murat

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Monika Weiss <gniewna at monika-weiss.com>
wrote:

> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
> I don’t really know American poetry, by which I mean not know it the way I
> know Paul Celan. the way I know Szymborska. Through the fibers of my skin,
> through postmemory. Language that is composed of words that bear a
> thousands victims each. The impossible language, that of our oppressor —and
> I was forbidden to learn German as a child yet I read Goethe and Schiller
> in translation. I work with Goethe because it is the forever stained text
> which no longer can be read without the traces/shadows/stains of the
> victims. My upcoming project will be around/within the frank of the Goethe
> tree, the one that occupied the center of Buchenwald camp, built on purpose
> around a symbol of high culture in Germany, just steps away from Weimar.
> Not that this is only a German language problem, obviously. Should we stop
> using English because of massacres that British committed in past wars?
> Should we not use this language because of Guantanamo? Should we not use
> language here, in this thread of conversation, perhaps not use any
> language? Out of fear of ‘fetishizing’ it? Let’s revise the “usefulness” of
> language or its uselessness.  The hour of poetry, the hour of the
> oppressed, the languages hacked by pain. I don’t know poetry that is not
> soaked in staines, puddles of suffering. In fact I don’t know music this
> way either. Both derive from lament, the unspeakable speech. Thomas Mann
> wrote in his notes, as he was writing Doctor Faustus, I think around 1943,
> that contemporary music finally, then, recognized itself as lament (‘in
> fact all expression being lament’ he wrote), in the 20th century, the
> century of falling apart modernity, its cracking visible at its very
> foundations [at least the modernity understood in the old Eurocentric
> ways]. Zygmunt Bauman writes in Fluid Modernity that our ethics has to
> exist in immediate ways, and not as a result of intellectual reflection or
> decision. [We have to allow the ethical to come first. The word “intuitive”
> sticks with me (as per Ana’s note) and how culturally, in the West, we seem
> to distrust the notion of the ‘intuitive’ and of course it is the gendered
> word in man ways, the word relegated culturally to the realm of the
> ‘feminine’.] The last paragraph of the second part of Faust is Chorus
> Mysticus, which I have dismembered and replaced with its multiple “falling
> apart” fragments, syllables, reversed recordings of words. Perhaps there
> was anger at the clarity of the voices of speakers who I invited to read
> this passage over and over again. The clarity was further stained by the
> voice of a survivor, an elderly, coarse voice, in an unknown language that
> sounds like papers crackling (Polish). She, the survivor, understood what
> was done to Goethe in my Sustenazp, perhaps she could not speak to it in
> our ‘privileged class of poetry’ ways (Murat) but she, the survivor, spent
> days with me and with the idea of the chorus, and the idea of language
> stained, disintegrating into lament.
>
>
> On Nov 18, 2014, at 12:39 PM, Murat Nemet-Nejat <muratnn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
> The Iranian cinema has a number of major works that are subtle, survival
> reactions "out of powerlessness") exactly to the kind of violence we are
> discussing here. One example is Jafer Panahi's *This Is Not a Film* where
> he documents with his own camera his own house arrest. He begins to imagine
> in full detail the mis-en-scene of the film he is forbidden to make while
> the camera pans affectionately, leisurely on the movements of his pet
> iguana. Here lies, I think, some most profound reactions "out of powerless"
> one may have towards the violence one is visited upon: gentleness, empathy
> (the extended panning of the camera on the pet iguana); imagination (the
> scenario he imagines even if not permitted to act on it and shoot the
> film). During the film he receives calls from his Persian friend(s) in Iran
> who are writing petitions to the government to free him. Genty, almost
> elliptically, he warns them not to go too far and put their own selves in
> danger with the authorities. That is absolutely amazing to me, once again,
> his empathy for the other beyond his own self.
>
> Another movie of Panahi's is *Offside*. Women in Iran are not permitted
> to attend soccer games. A few teen age girls do (to the horror of the
> parents) and get caught. The film is what in Western terms would
> approximately be called a "black comedy," but in actuality isn't. It is a
> genre to itself coming out of Panahi's sensibility in the face of violence.
> The soldier guarding the girls is also young. Panahi makes it clear that he
> also a victim caught in the state machine. If I remember correctly, he
> himself is conscripted. He wants to return to his village for a specific
> occasion, but he can not. He I think finally lets them go.
>
> There are two other scenes which may be from the same movie or two
> different movies. The film may or may not be *Kandahar *(perhaps someone
> can help me with this). In one, a big shot Taliban official (wearing the
> usual turban, etc.) around fifty culls a young girl in of around twelve
> among a group of young girls of the same age to make her one of his wives.
> There is a grotesque scene where he is taking a bath and the little girl is
> suspended by a rope and dipped into a vat of water for cleaning before the
> consummation of the marriage. (in that horrifying dipping scene violence
> and ritual unite, perpetuating the violence since in the eyes of the mullah
> his action is legitimate because preceded by a purifying act.
>
> In around 1995, I wrote an essay "Is Poetry a Job, Is a Poem a Product?"
> in which I discuss the class structure of the American poem [and poet] by
> the light of Marxist analysis (http://home.jps.net/~nada/murat1.htm).
> Here is a quote from it:
>
> "Failure — or its vertiginous potential — is an aura in the American
> poem. The way the *nouveau riche* flaunt their wealth, the poem's
> addiction strives towards failures by creating gaps between public — that
> is, communicative — usage of words and itself. The American poet has a
> unique relation to language in the culture. He or she fetishizes language
> in excess of its use as a means of exchange, beyond what the culture wants
> of it; he or she sexualizes it into uselessness. This economically —
> capitalistically — perverse relation gives the poem its consumptive aura."
>
> What American the poem does in its uselessness ("powerlessness") is akin
> to Panahi's spinning of an "unfilmable" scenario (This is *Not* a Film)
> in his film: "I *play [italics my own]* at Riches — to appease/ The
> Clamoring for Gold —" Emily Dickinson.
>
> Ciao,
> Murat
>
>
> <http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0070159/?ref_=tt_ov_dr>
>
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Monika Weiss <gniewna at monika-weiss.com>
> wrote:
>
>> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>> Dear Reinhold and all,
>>
>> 'To bear witness, it is therefore not enough to bring language to its own
>> non-sense, to the pure undesirability of letters… It is necessary that this
>> senseless sound be, in turn, the voice of something or someone that, for
>> entirely other reasons, cannot bear witness. It is thus necessary that the
>> impossibility of bearing witness, the ‘lacuna’ that constitutes human
>> language, collapses, giving way to a different impossibility of bearing
>> witness—that which does not have language […] The particular structure
>> of law has its foundation in this presuppositional structure of human
>> language. It expresses the bond of inclusive exclusion to which a thing is
>> subject because of the fact of being in language, of being named. To speak [
>> *dire*] is, in this sense, always to ‘speak the law,’ *ius dicere*.’(
>> Agamben)
>>
>> In the third edition of *Modernity and Holocaust*, Zygmunt Bauman added
>> an afterward titled 'The Duty to Remember—But What?’ in which he discusses
>> Agamben’s *homo sacer* and ancient Roman law’s concept of *homo sacer*
>> defined as a human being who could be killed without punishment, but at the
>> same time—‘being absolutely Other, alien, indeed inhuman’—could not be used
>> in a religious ritual or to be sacrificed. The *homo sacer* was thus an
>> unprotected being that could be a target for every murderer, but also a
>> recommended target 'for everyone seeking to conform and exercise their
>> civic duty.’ It’s worth remembering that the origin of the Nazi Lager is in
>> *Schutzhaft* (protective custody) was a Prussian juridical institution
>> invented in 1851 as a state of emergency, which Nazi jurors later used and
>> classified as an example of a preventive measure. Of course the first camps
>> were not of the Nazis’ design but rather those of the Social Democratic
>> governments, which interned thousands of communist militants as well as
>> Eastern European refugees. Article 48 of the Weimar constitution guaranteed
>> the president of the Reich the power to suspend constitutional rights in
>> case of emergency, including the suspension of personal liberty, the
>> freedom of expression and assembly, the inviolability of the home and of
>> postal/telephone privacy. These were indeed suspended under several Weimar
>> governments and later were implemented indefinitely by the Nazis. Their
>> 'decree for the protection of the people and State,’ issued in February
>> 1933, included one important novelty—the word *Ausnahmezustand* (state
>> of exception) was no longer used. The state of exception became simply the
>> rule itself, ‘opening the space of the camp’ . In Hannah Arendt’s
>> observation the camp is a place where 'everything is possible’ simply
>> because there is no more distinction between law and fact. Pure life within
>> the camp, stripped of any rights or political status, denationalized
>> (Nuremberg laws) becomes an absolute biopolitical space, its ‘ areness'
>> confronted with nonmediated, absolute power. Hence, the right question is
>> not how these atrocities were possible against human beings or against
>> humanity, but rather, what juridical procedures and operations of power
>> were in place by which human beings could be so completely deprived of
>> their rights and by which the acts against them could appear *not* as
>> crimes. If nation states act as designers or gardeners (to use
>> Bauman’s metaphor), we live in a “garden” situation that is dangerously
>> unchanged. Our current status is being in a place that has been forever
>> altered and is now still inhabited by the *camp*.
>>
>> In many languages the word ‘people’ contains an inherent contradiction
>> and fracture within itself, between the ‘sovereign People’ and the *le
>> peuple, les malheureux *(Robespierre). Modern ‘ people’ (modern
>> as understood by us means Western or Western-like) claim to have
>> constructed an environment that forbids and prevents violence and assumes
>> the sanctity of the human body. Violence is thus displaced and hidden,
>> especially institutional violence and especially in the most developed
>> countries. Violence is in general most cost-effective when the means are
>> instrumental and rational, organized institutionally, dissociated from any
>> moral evaluation of the results. Violence and archive interact and merge,
>> as power exercises itself at the level of everyday life.Language/causality
>> as the governing law. Law as language. Law that perpetuates violence. Benjamin wanted
>> to break the dialectic of the two forms of violence, the one that makes law
>> and the one that preserves it in time but ISIS enacts violence as
>> the ultimate language and as the ultimate law. We are all homo sacer. Terror
>> functions as an ultimate suspension of individual rights and as a
>> perpetuated/perpetual exception from any rules except its own, those of
>> terror. Heads falling during French Revolution. The idea that there are
>> ‘higher reasons’ for the sovereign power to act upon and thus we need to
>> surrender human rights. In the case of camps there are no more ‘
>> other’ reasons anymore, the answer is - there is no ‘why' here. In most if
>> not all instances of dictatorship the word safety or protection is used and
>> abused (as in the case of US policies such as camps created outside of the
>> US borders, including in Warsaw) to justify violence perpetrated in
>> organized in ‘legal ways’. Pre-designed, legalized genocides or torture are
>> part of the workings of language. Pope Innocentius wrote a legal treaty
>> Malleus Malleficarum on the subject of female inferiority and evilness,
>> pointing at the absence of what we refer to as ‘soul’ but more importantly,
>> defining and proving the absence of intellectual independence leading to
>> the obvious conclusion of no legal rights (at the time religion [or
>> rather selected religious texts] and the law were one and the same in
>> Europe). He was in fact legalizing various practices of inquisition,
>> such as public burnings at stake, auto dafe. It’s important to not to
>> forget that Nazi camps were a legal construct but also a visual construct,
>> the visibility as form of law and language. They were visually represented
>> and documented with pride, for future generations to take pride in. What
>> happens when ‘terrorists’ (this term is antiquated by now and feels
>> inappropriate in case of ISIS) take this Western/modernity’s prescription
>> to yet another level?
>>
>> To answer the impossible question, what is ‘artist’ to do now, I return
>> to the beginning, the archive (in its true etymological meaning) and the
>> act of witnessing as not passive but engaged / engaging. The archive is
>> the unsaid or sayable inscribed in everything said because it was
>> enunciated … 'But the relation between language and its existence, between
>> langue and the archive, demands subjectivity as that which, its very
>> possibility of speech, bears witness to an impossibility of speech. This is
>> why subjectivity appears as witness; this is why it can speak for those who
>> cannot speak’ (Agamben).
>>
>> In 2012 in my project  Shrouds-Caluny I filmed from an airplane, local
>> women performing silent gestures of lamentation on the abandoned and ruined
>> site of the former concentration camp, Gruenberg in Zielona Gora. During
>> WWII about 1,000 Jewish women worked there as seamstresses and were sent on
>> one of the forced death marches.  Viewed from that great distance, the
>> symbolic presence evokes the prisoners’ absence, morphing into a
>> drawing/mourning landscape, where empathy and collective mourning, becomes
>> a political tool, in opposition to heroic fantasies of conquest and power.
>> Shot from the airplane the film shows the performance from a great
>> distance, with identities of the participants weaved into a story about the
>> city and its fluid surface. Today, the conversation continues with various
>> city officials and organizations, with the square remaining bare, ruined,
>> looking like a damp, an urban wound, still unresolved and forgotten,
>> possibly secretly sold by now to a developer by the city officials. Located
>> in the center of this highly renovated with European money city, it
>> is surrounded by buildings full of inhabitants who gaze upon the former
>> camp every day of their lives, not seeing it, engaged in the practice of
>> forgetting.
>>
>> ——
>> Meanwhile, now, in this current state of urgency or emergency,  we have ’The
>> Duty to Remember—But What?’
>> We have the duty to act, but how? The way Alaa Basatneh does it? Neda?
>> Malada? Like Krzysztof Baczynski (a Polish Celan to me) who died in the age
>> of 22 as part of Warsaw Uprising?
>>
>> Monika
>>
>> On Nov 17, 2014, at 4:59 PM, Reinhold Görling <goerling at phil.hhu.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>> Dear Pier:
>>
>> The violence of communication/language: The subject is constituted by
>> language and other forms of communication. This is why speech acts and
>> other forms of communication are not only performative in the sense of
>> Austin, they do not only create social facts, they have a direct impact on
>> the subject. Therefore language is powerful, but it can also be violent, it
>> can hurt. It can deprive the subject from its place, it can rob it the
>> possibility to express its life. Judith Butler’s book on hate speech gives
>> a good first idea about this.
>> Primo Levi remembers as one of the first experiences after his
>> deportation to the Concentration and Extermination Camp Auschwitz that he
>> opened the window of the barack to break an icicle. He was thirsty.
>> Immediately a watchman appeared and snatched the icicle out of his hand.
>> „‚Warum - Why“, did I ask in my simple German. ‚Hier ist kein Warum - Here
>> is no why/reason‘‚ he answered and pushed me away.“ Language can be violent
>> by depriving the other from what is his cultural ground: f.e. that there is
>> always a reason.
>> The language of antisemitism in Germany was violent. But there was
>> something perhaps even worse than the hate speech of insult and abuse: the
>> language that organized the attempt of extermination. This language
>> actually killed. It killed by denying and organizing the crime at the same
>> time. Look and listen to Claude Lanzmann’s Shoah, the documents the
>> historian Raul Hilberg is analyzing in this film, or, especially, the long
>> conversation that Lanzmann has with Franz Suchomel, SS-officer in
>> Treblinka.
>>
>> The communication of violence: To understand the dynamics of (political)
>> violence it is crucial to see that (political) violence is always staged,
>> an act of communication not necessarily with the direct victim but with the
>> third part. The message can be different, depending on the relation the
>> witness has to the victim and the perpetrator. Killing someone in front of
>> a videocamera is a performative act. All sorts of terrorism are speech acts
>> addressed to the witnesses.
>>
>> Catharsis: I really would like to know how you understand the mechanism
>> of catharsis and if you think performance art can be part of catharsis. As
>> long as I have no idea how catharsis works I would prefer to speak of
>> re-enactment or other forms of confrontation with violence that happened in
>> the past.
>>
>> Reinhold
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 17.11.2014 um 19:19 schrieb PierMartonGmail <piermarton at gmail.com>:
>>
>> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>> In my eyes, Peter Kassig’s beheading yesterday makes the topic of
>> powerlessness more salient and urgent. The expressions “my heart goes out
>> to… or RIP", as heartfelt as they are, represent easy ways to say something
>> (the phatic function? cf. below)  Speaking of “inhumanity” does the same.
>> Speaking of the opposite of passivity - which is not powerlessness (was
>> it Jon who brought up “creative powerlessness?) - I would recommend a film
>> I saw yesterday about, Alaa Basatneh, a 19 year old US/Syrian woman who is
>> coordinating the resistance from Chicago: —>
>> http://www.chicagogirlfilm.com/
>> _____________________________________________
>>
>> In response to an earlier post:
>> Thank you to Reinhold Görling for:
>>
>> -  stating how slowly the “I” emerges - a vital element to our being able
>> to approach otherness (animals, trees, you name it - those that are not
>> part of our UNIverse)
>>
>> - bringing up re-enactment (in TRCs, Act of Killing) - pure catharsis.
>> - quoting Rosselini (“université du vol et de l’assassinat”) - I often
>> speak myself of the “eduCUSHIONal” system
>>
>> - and that fiery text by Godard that shows how messy it is to try to
>> extirpate ourselves from where we reside.
>>
>> It will be my time to be “quite direct” - while among the left it is
>> generally accepted that national liberation struggles often take the path
>> of violence to be heard, or as my brother recently wrote: "The only time
>> I´ve found it good to wave a flag is when someone else is stepping on it.”
>>  **
>> As I consider my grandmother’s death in a gas chamber, it is impossible
>> for me to approach "the language of violence" . Violence and annihilation
>> as languages? My father was involved in the WWII resistance but it happened
>> to be one without standard weapons: he hid a German deserter, made flyers,
>> false papers…
>> "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel” - Samuel Johnson - what
>> about weaponry? Are we only working with weapons of the spirit, we the
>> “cultural workers”? By asking these questions, I am only asking for a
>> certain complexity.
>>
>> And to respond to jon (below), and, as the expression goes, opening a can
>> of worms, while aware of Shannon’s communication model (and having enjoyed
>> teaching Jakobson’s overlapping structure - phatic….), I wonder whether,
>> outside of the sciences, any solid communication ever takes place.
>> When we say “blue" we mean different things but for the sake of
>> “efficiency” we prefer not to dwell on that. "Nous ne faisons que nous
>> entregloser/We are only cross-referencing ourselves.” Montaigne
>>
>> **while realizing that I open another can of worms, I wonder about the
>> need for "flags and identity.”
>> Thank you,
>> Pier
>> =============
>>
>>
>> From: Reinhold Görling <goerling at phil.hhu.de>
>> Date: November 16, 2014 at 3:02:21 PM CST
>> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] creative powerlessness, expressive violence,
>> performance
>> Reply-To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>>
>> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>> Sorry for being quite direct: but if you refuse to understand violence as
>> communication it will be very difficult to come to a critique of violence.
>> (And you shut your eyes before the possibility that communication can be
>> violence.)
>>
>> Reinhold
>>
>> Am 16.11.2014 um 20:37 schrieb simon <swht at clear.net.nz>:
>>
>> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>> On 17/11/14 02:52, PierMartonGmail wrote:
>>
>> the principle “violence as communication” is no help to me.
>> I can easily interpret everything around me as communication (and I DO
>> listen to trees, mountains, animals, no kidding).
>>
>> It is good that art takes place in prisons, mental institutions, etc…but
>> empowerment may start with any kind of listening - of paying attention to…
>>
>> yes, equally on this list... however, the 'defeat of impotence' as a
>> remedy for violence is a formula which struck me, and this may simply be
>> the powerlessness to act at all, or to be heard in all the noise.
>>
>> I agree - and so there is communication - 'violence as communication' is
>> no help; albeit that violence has been dressed up as performance in the
>> discussion: however, violence as a form of expression is a different
>> proposition. From the point of expression, expressing an intention, whether
>> natural or anti-, it can acquire qualities of ritual or convention,
>> conferring status or recognition, communicating, representing, and becoming
>> performance or art.
>>
>> Best,
>> Simon
>>
>>
>>
>> On Nov 16, 2014, at 5:51 PM, Jonathan Marshall <
>> Jonathan.Marshall at uts.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>>
>> For what its worth, I would agree that violence is an attempt at
>> communication - at getting a response from others
>>
>> One of the problems of communication theory is that people often seem to
>> assume that 'good' or 'succesful' communication is the norm when in fact
>> good communication is a special case of communication, and a relatively
>> rare one at that...
>>
>> It might be useful to recognise that communication always involves power,
>> in that it aims at getting a response from others, whether this is
>> agreement, disagreement, getting people to do something, or see the world
>> in a particular way and so on. This is inevitable, and of course a quick
>> way of getting that response would often involve a move into threat or
>> violence. Consequently, there can be an easy spill between attempts to
>> communcate and violence, whether this is because those with relatively high
>> power can't be bothered to persuade, or think their chances of persuasion
>> are small, or because those with relatively lower power are annoyed with
>> being ignored...  or because both are convinced that the other would not
>> listen anyway....
>>
>> This does not mean that violence and good communication are the same, or
>> should be rendered equivalent, just that violence and communincation are
>> sometimes likely to blend in particualr contexts.
>>
>> jon
>>
>>
>> ===============================
>> In addition to my regular e-mail signature below, this month of November
>> (during my direct involvement with -empyre) I have added a growing list of
>> works that I found to be powerful - even if I question what “power” means.
>> ”The Theater and its Double” by Artaud
>> "Chechen Lullaby" - Directed by Nino Kirtadze —>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEmqHZAn8lQ (also on my website)
>> "The Man by the Shore/L’Homme sur les Quais" & "Haïti, le Silence des
>> Chiens” —> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qbu2HPvFn_E - Directed by
>> Raoul Peck
>> Los Olvidados Directed by Luis Buñuel
>> “Is Anyone Taking Any Notice?” by Don McCullin —>
>> http://piermarton.info/don-mccullin/
>> "Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution" by Peter Kropotkin
>> "War Against War/Krieg dem Kriege/Guerre à la Guerre! War against War!
>> Oorlog aan den Oorlog" by Ernst Friedrich (recent intro by Doug Kellner) -
>> Various editions. Last one published in Sept. 2014 (available online).
>> "At the Mind’s Limit" by Jean Améry
>> “Shoah” -  Directed by Claude Lanzmann
>> "In the King of Prussia" - Directed by Emile de Antonio
>> And these quotes:
>> “Human stupidity is the only thing that gives an idea of the infinite/La
>> bêtise humaine est la seule chose qui donne une idée de l'infini." Ernest
>> Renan, Dialogues et fragments philosophiques (1876) (others & the Hungarian
>> proverb: “Human stupidity is endless/Az emberi butaság végtelen")
>> “Shitr… Watch, watch the machine's turnin'. Watch, watch them brains blow
>> up… vanish from my presence/Merdre... Voyez, voyez la machin’ tourner,
>> Voyez, voyez la cervell’ sauter,...disparais de ma présence." Alfred Jarry,
>> Ubu roi (1888)
>> “. . . only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s
>> habitation be safely built.” - Bertrand Russell, 1923
>> “If there is still one hellish, truly accursed thing in our time, it is
>> our artistic dallying with forms, instead of being like victims burnt at
>> the stake, signaling through the flames.” Artaud, The Theater and its
>> Double, 1938
>> ===============================
>> PM_uoʇɹɐɯ_ɹǝıd —> http://piermarton.info
>> School Of No  Media —> http://schoolofnomedia.com/
>> About —> http://about.me/piermarton
>> BrainBleed—> http://brainbleed.wordpress.com/
>> _____________________________
>> Before you know what kindness really is – You must lose things... Naomi
>> Shehab Nye
>> True reality is always unrealistic. Franz Kafka
>> If you have come here to help me, then don't waste your time. But if you
>> have come here, because your liberation is bound up with mine, then come,
>> let us join in the struggle together. Australian Aborigine Activists
>> Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Martin Luther
>> King.
>> When you know nothing, you say a lot. When you know something, there is
>> nothing to say./Tell them that there is nothing to understand. U.G.
>> Krishnamurti
>> I used to think the mind was the most wonderful organ in the body. Then,
>> I realized who was telling me that. Bertrand Russell
>> What the eye can perceive isn't worth seeing. St. Exupéry
>> and "to finish":
>> The passionate desire to conclude is one of humanity's most pernicious
>> and sterile manias - Flaubert
>> A witty saying proves nothing. Voltaire
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> empyre forum
>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> empyre forum
>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> empyre forum
>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20141119/6d79341d/attachment-0001.htm>