“As the living logic of action, the dialectic is discovered in the course of praxis… the individual discovers the dialectic as transparent rationality that he completes and as absolute necessity that escapes him, which is to say, that others complete.” -Sartre
Activists, scholars, journalists… not always certain who is leading and who is following, and this is the uncertain migration of the conceptual. At one time psychiatric patients would exhibit symptoms, and psychiatrists from different schools would debate how their symptoms should be interpreted. But today the symptoms already appear to be interpreted and to demonstrate themselves as Jungian, Kleinian symptoms etc., as though the psychopathologies had evolved to participate in their clinical discourse. Something analogous is happening in the domain of the political, where variations in political engagement are following different schools of academic interpretation – an Debordian protest, a Fanonian protest, a Sartrean protest, a Zizekian protest, a Frierian protest… maybe they aren’t so identifiable, but anyways protest may be conceptualized at the university and disseminate from there.
Recall that power is essentially withheld, and is lost as soon as it is exercised (see the comedy of compulsive males). A revolution cannot be accomplished unit it has been sufficiently suspended. Before having a revolution, it is necessary to not have revolution despite having the capacity for one. It is necessary first to have the unactualized potential for a revolution, which is the true sustaining substance of revolution. I want to propose a strong distinction between a revolution’s life and its occurrence, its conceptuality and its materiality, its ideation and its existence.
The doubling of revolution follows the patterns of doubling which are universally discovered in the history of monarchy. Let’s take a Cambodian example. The Khmer empire was founded in AD 802 with a double coronation ceremony held on Mt. Mahenda. Cambodia originally had two kings, and this is reflected in the double layout of the throne rooms in the royal palaces today in Phnom Penh and Bangkok. On one side, there was the secular ruler with the title Maharajadiraja, the supreme king of the great kings, who had to subordinate the local chiefs. But then beside him there was the Devaraja, the god-king or king of the gods, who ruled over the spirit world, and who had to unite the cults of local deities throughout the empire. Sovereignty doubles between the secular and the spiritual, and revolution is only interesting where it follows this traditional form of power.
Consider a revolution physically as a wave, where the leading edge is the conceptual. A revolution must be conceived before it can take place, and it must first hold itself back as pure conception. The financial system tracks the development of revolution, and responds with attempts to capture it within its webs of deceit (i.e. green energy). In a race where finance is always striving to co-opt revolution, we should consider where the concept is furthest developed, so that it may have the best chances of eluding finance.
That most radical concept seems to be the circular form of time, or the surprising conjunction where what was most alienated somehow comes together. Finance can only grasp revolution through apartheid, and it can only conceive of it within limited apartheid-models, and outside of those it is unable to respond. We need a concept where revolution is entirely unrecognizable because it has assumed an inclusive disjunction which shatters the optical and manual codes of apartheid.
Revolution is ambivalently a-conceptual, because we are still left naively addressing religious questions, such as what this funny biological thing we are can do. But the essential religious act now is a disappearance and dissimulation where religion becomes something uncertain and only maybe similar to what may have once been called religion, yet also maybe also strangely similar to what may have been called politics, science, art, sexuality or nature.
Revolution is a course of disappearance and fading of concepts for which religion is the privileged model. This is because religion holds the resources of ancient asceticism, which are the most sophisticated disappearance techniques. Any concepts may disappear according to a religious model, and it is Semitic or Abrahamic asceticism which defines the classical forms of desertion.