Still some major conflicts not getting coded. Quite disappointed with so little interest in the conceptual splitting between Deleuze and Lacan/Hegel. That is where I find the most important questions can get opened. Is the self conditioned by the others? Does meditation on the death of God lead to the subject’s metaphysical autonomy? Do Hegel and Lacan make the mistake of assuming that God is still alive? And are they secretly worshipping death in an imperial bourgeois manner? Is the Deleuzian paradigm of hostility and deceit not a reflection of this great event? Is Deleuze’s plague poisonous enough to extricate him from the Faustian wager, which his symbolist interrogators are forcing upon him? Is his hubris feigned well enough to afford sufficient duplicity for escape?
Deleuze refuses psychoanalytic aspects of hysteria, and arrives at existence without the other – desert islands. But let’s push the question the other way. Didn’t the Lacanian sinthome perhaps materialize under Deleuze’s spell? Or perhaps Lacan was always proposing a solipsist forgery of the symbolic? Was that inverted vase in the mirror not a sleight of an imagination feigning symbolic composition? Was he not covertly responding to the sociological consequences of Godel with a cover-up?
These are restless thought-paths of wandering Jews. This is the eternal voyage of Kafka’s undead hunter Gracchus – the aimless voyage of a desperate insomniac. But doesn’t the path to the luxury of a comfortable habitat pass through this anxious Semitic wandering as a transitional phase? This comes down to how the self crosses itself, or the reflexive self-consciousness of repetition, or the self-relation of repetition. The is the form of the circularity where the self circulates back into itself and touches itself. How it departs from itself and returns to itself. This is how the self itself is captured into the other, and the other is captured into the self. Self-capture in the touch-object. This way Christ returns secular after the death of God. Christ is a way that the self suffers itself as another, undergoes itself as another, endures itself as another, going out of itself and returning into itself. To endure the negativity of material repetition for the sake of spiritual repetition. Christ is a self-form. Thus is the cross unhinged and washed away into a calculus of the Hunter Gracchus erasing his own footsteps. Pas de loup.
I propose to subtract Lacan from the immanent history of psychoanalysis. This means to emphasize once again the fundamental early texts – Studies of Hysteria, Project for a Scientific Psychology, Interpretation of Dreams etc. – and trace those concepts through the maternal British line of analysts, all the way until they speak the French of Andre Green. This evacuation of Lacan leaves an emptiness, which is a Faustian seduction towards the rigours of abstract formalism. This program is also to erase “psycho” from psychoanalysis, in order to make room for the analyses of Reimann, Cantor, Peirce, Hilbert….. would Badiou still have much to say if such tracts were wandered intensively to exhaustion?
Pragmatic disposition reaches its maturity in design discourse. Design is the positive birth of pragmatic consciousness. The pragmatic question always concerns the graceful timing of design: what awareness should design have at any given moment? In order to be graceful, design must separate from itself, and this separation constitutes the inside of sovereignty, particularly in the age of capital. Design returns to itself only elusively and elliptically – it returns to itself humorously because we do not design things for the sake of designing things, and so the purpose is uncertain. Isn’t there humour in this alterity of purpose? And isn’t the forgetting of design a luxury? The luxurious freedom from the obsessive poverty of design. The poverty of design for design is an abysmal feedback which evacuates bourgeois intelligence. Design instead must face the uncertainty of others, and facilitate unknown machinations of providence.
The idea of maximum future benefit attracts design into itself where it swoons in reveries of infinite technological credit. Design of design is a black hole, a mise-en-abyme, and a negative abgrund for revolution – that is a ground where revolution launches itself by rejecting what it is not. This isn’t just swift primary negation, but also a deep intimacy that comes from cautiously feeling-out the seductive powers of plasticity. Capital is the accumulated potential for redesign, and true revolution excludes any provisions for future design in order that redesign by/of/for the other is left open. This alone makes design a true gift, and not an attempt to trap the others into the designing power of the same.
The ethical question in political-economy is the withholding of redesign as a hegemonic dependency, or alternately the free circulation of redesign as a liberty. Redesign is the liberty in question in the age of capital. The freedom to redesign is non-trivial, and runs into profound paradoxes. We are always second-guessing the identity of the others, and this forces deconstruction into the heart of capital.
To subtract Lacan in order to free his place for other purposes. For the arrival of strange counter-Lacans. There is continued resistance from the real Lacan (when he is still recognizable), but the point is to let him dissolve into a more advanced inter-textuality. His decay makes way for another textuality, which is sutured by the diffusion of his spirit through the deadlocks of future formalisms, or the finite materiality of future signifiers.
One Lacanian symbol that remains near is $, because we continue to negotiate the barring of subjectivity minute-to-minute. This is the immediate experience of mediation, and here the spirit of Lacanian formality remains close to us, just as it continues to gloss the sense-certainty section that opens the phenomenology. We return to ourselves by returning to our primary hysterias. Our own-most self is only separation, and we are resolved to this condition in a rigorous formal manner. Our self-commitment is our identity with the void. We are committed to this alienation until the end of time. The truth of our self-intimacy is its plastic denaturing. We reduce ourselves to a primary unheimlichkeit – leich, like, corpse-like, image-like. We remain Lacanian in that we grip ourselves only by our own self-estrangement. In the void we guard against the return of any dialectic of mutual recognition. We form a ball on the interrogation room floor, and roll out through the cracks.
The abstract design of museums is crucial, because that is the framing of the vanquished. We require a singular ethics of museum curation. This concerns not just what is included, but the systematic sense of inclusion. The museum-frame is a navigation device that tells the time of conceptual thought, which is an unconscious time. To hold conceptual lines by their time-signatures is much like carrying a song.
The rigour of analysis stumbles around the paradoxes of sense. This way it includes the greatest disjunctions through humour, rather than through irony or tragedy. Analysis as to match its speed with the humour of disjunction – that is the speed of circulation around topological disjunctions. This proceeds cautiously to avoid both the Scylla of irony and the Charybdis of tragedy. And yet those dangers are held very near, so they may not surprise us with erratic eruptions. We have to know exactly where tragedy or irony are brewing, so that we may defuse their tension with humor. Shake, rinse and repeat.
The dangers of irony and tragedy arise through the positive ideology of work, which is the fantasy of operation. The transparent sense of work is immediately ironic or tragic. The attempt to enact work irritates the narcissistic wound and makes it shudder in existential anguish. The impossibility of trivial work must be respected as an ethical principle. So the old “honest day’s work” is negative, and one might never even know if they themselves ever worked. Work disappears without a trace into its own multiplicity, only to return as laughable simulacra.
What did you think we were working on? This question returns the blankest stares. Such is the opacity of providence, and this implies the definitive self-destruction of the Hegelian dialectic of recognition. This leaves a big question concerns the oblique ontology of Judgment Day . Here our discourse undergoes a neo-Pascalian aleatory complication. This is a parallax of multiple divergences which alienates the sense of judgement from itself. This divergence is Deleuze’s reversal of Leibniz – his infinite shirking of direct interrogation. The parallax between diverging speculative contingencies is the grace that liberates us from the field of the other. The parallax is the crack in the interrogation room. Grace is the ellipsis of judgement that arises through the uncertainty of providence, the way that providence is a series of divergent contingencies, a garden of forking paths. This opens the prospect of providential automata, or the automatic processing of disjunction within the plan of history. This is how a deus ex machina enters the empty space of the subject, in order to convert hysteria towards a new master signifier of providential transference. Are the flowers sitting neatly in the vase? The subject pretends to recognize itself as the disjunction in pragmatics, and the disjunction in the structure of practice itself. Divergence is implicit within the singularity of the idea, and so the idea turns towards an everyday secular comedic Christology.