also on the mention of Patterson i really would love to see more discussion of social death, perhaps more directly through engagement with Black studies. The question of "Can we still die?" reminds me of Wilderson's remark that within civil society the death of Black subjects is effectively nothing but the the production of a corpse
Three notes: 1. The Agony of Power (a collection of articles) is hardly representative of the Baudrillardean corpus. 2. On Trump: is he not the most faithful Deleuzian? The most sensual President by far, oozing multiplicity, nomadic, always online, etc. Is it not obvious that the purview of this channel not so much "Dialectically" or "paradoxically" leads "back to" Power, but that it linearly proceeds from it? 3. On Will's main statement: please note that the Baudrillardean "Object" is not at all the Continental Object. It is more akin to something which has been stolen from the Subject (repose, absence, peace, etc.), and something therefore not compatible with Materialist drama. Rather, this "Object" is the keyhole through which one sees one's stolen Subjectivity, so to speak, which is itself "on the Object's side"-so, in this sense, "siding with the Object" is not at all "Marxist Nihilism" (moreover, astute readers will note that, per this blueprint, it is Foucault who sides with the actual Continental Object, that is to say, he affirms the derisive Subject otherwise described by Lacan et al.; a tragic consolation prize in the wake of Objective violence). HAVING to read him might have helped here (Fatal Strategies is a good entry point). I am also disappointed by his closing statement. A pre-Philosophical affirmation of the primeval Liberalism of the coincidence between life and value-is "forget death" not the injunction of the value form itself?
Trump is probably the most anti-Deleuzian president if for no other reason than his being the paradigmatic representative politician. He plays on the paralogisms of desire way better than his rivals!
Ive been reading Baudr for some time now and truely have problems understanding his object. Is there any secondary literature, youd suggest (in english or german)?
@@-arche-7926 Not aware of any secondary literature. He tends to stand alone. Briefly: so-called common sense about the Object is actually true, but it is too true. The observation-data "motion" produces the Object a little too well, that is to say, the idea that the accuracy of the portrait of the Object is inversely proportional with friction between observation and data actually produces the nescience it supposedly dispels in that the total transparency of observation-data is indistinguishable from a total opacity of the Object thus produced. So the Hegelian mantra of the Subject "holding the world in opposition", with the Continental Object as its Dialectical consort, is turned into the Subject being "held in opposition" inside this dual, Evil, Object (and having no recourse but to return the violence in the same coin, to "side with the Object").
Thích Quảng Đức burning on the cover of RATM, taking away our right to die. The loss of meaning is the sound of Lucier's, 'I Am Sitting In A Room', repetition until inaudible.
enjoyed thoroughly.
glad to hear it!
personally always a fan of an episode with a good diatribe from will
also on the mention of Patterson i really would love to see more discussion of social death, perhaps more directly through engagement with Black studies. The question of "Can we still die?" reminds me of Wilderson's remark that within civil society the death of Black subjects is effectively nothing but the the production of a corpse
I kinda hope that this is Alex Wagner from MSNBC on the couch.
Three notes:
1. The Agony of Power (a collection of articles) is hardly representative of the Baudrillardean corpus.
2. On Trump: is he not the most faithful Deleuzian? The most sensual President by far, oozing multiplicity, nomadic, always online, etc. Is it not obvious that the purview of this channel not so much "Dialectically" or "paradoxically" leads "back to" Power, but that it linearly proceeds from it?
3. On Will's main statement: please note that the Baudrillardean "Object" is not at all the Continental Object. It is more akin to something which has been stolen from the Subject (repose, absence, peace, etc.), and something therefore not compatible with Materialist drama. Rather, this "Object" is the keyhole through which one sees one's stolen Subjectivity, so to speak, which is itself "on the Object's side"-so, in this sense, "siding with the Object" is not at all "Marxist Nihilism" (moreover, astute readers will note that, per this blueprint, it is Foucault who sides with the actual Continental Object, that is to say, he affirms the derisive Subject otherwise described by Lacan et al.; a tragic consolation prize in the wake of Objective violence). HAVING to read him might have helped here (Fatal Strategies is a good entry point). I am also disappointed by his closing statement. A pre-Philosophical affirmation of the primeval Liberalism of the coincidence between life and value-is "forget death" not the injunction of the value form itself?
Trump is probably the most anti-Deleuzian president if for no other reason than his being the paradigmatic representative politician. He plays on the paralogisms of desire way better than his rivals!
Ive been reading Baudr for some time now and truely have problems understanding his object. Is there any secondary literature, youd suggest (in english or german)?
@@-arche-7926
Not aware of any secondary literature. He tends to stand alone. Briefly: so-called common sense about the Object is actually true, but it is too true. The observation-data "motion" produces the Object a little too well, that is to say, the idea that the accuracy of the portrait of the Object is inversely proportional with friction between observation and data actually produces the nescience it supposedly dispels in that the total transparency of observation-data is indistinguishable from a total opacity of the Object thus produced. So the Hegelian mantra of the Subject "holding the world in opposition", with the Continental Object as its Dialectical consort, is turned into the Subject being "held in opposition" inside this dual, Evil, Object (and having no recourse but to return the violence in the same coin, to "side with the Object").
Biopower kills the holy spirit ( ie the common good will of humanity ) excellent interview!!
at 7:00 this is so great... hegemony as the good😮what an insight.....
someone definitely took the piss lol
Thích Quảng Đức burning on the cover of RATM, taking away our right to die. The loss of meaning is the sound of Lucier's, 'I Am Sitting In A Room', repetition until inaudible.
oh lord, you guys are a mess.