I mean, capitalism’s cycles have a limit point, a point where what’s been destroyed’s so wasted it’s no longer worth trying to do anything with it. For now, I’ll call this phase after real subsumption “absolute subsumption.” Capital goes through itself and turns into an execrable remainder, the non-capitalizable, that which is completely without use or value. Poisoned shit not even flies can eat. Utterly bereft of potentiality. Of course, rather than coming after real subsumption, absolute subsumption emerges within it over time.
The Etruscan votive sculptures
are thin as sticks; are by Giacometti What do the dead
see? What do they see that even the dying do not see?
Everything stands wide open,
Shadows in the planetary Hades;
we talk to the cats a while Look at
more flowers, butterflies One wholly ordinary sparrow, but a little different
Dance is born out of the deepest interior of our bodies As if the light there
were streaming out, out of each body part’s smallest movement
We hear gasping breaths We behold mouths open in trance
Out of them light also issues, in the whirling darkness
The stone falls through millennia
The great darkness of the eyes!
We are parts of language
We cannot take anything back
Becoming in annihilation A slightly varied formulation
of Hölderlin’s thought Disappearing far out on one of
the tangents of glass While the hypersphere grows and grows
I hear impersonal music, no human’s music
Again I’m very scared What do I? What don’t I?
say, it smells different, a bit strange
The blood is transparent
How shall I seek the unknown form Who are my allies?
light coming into cloud above blackness
of ridge, shadowed bamboo leaves moving
in foreground, wave sounding in channel
well, a tree
thank god for it
the heights distances
all in mind
green cars pass
blue red white
Benjamin Noys “Needs more Hegel.” -Harrison Fluss, Facebook Friend and Reader (on Malign Velocities)
Like · · Share · 12 hours ago · Edited ·
13 people like this.
Harrison Fluss Excellent work, Ben.
11 hours ago · Edited · Like
Benjamin Noys don't go nice on me now - crypto-Derridean neo-Fichtean left-deviationism
· Like · 2
Harrison Fluss Crypto-Bataillean*, but still pretty damn good, and I suggest everyone reads it. Remember: I said “needs more Hegel”. If I said it has no Hegel, that would be a devastating review.
11 hours ago · Edited · Unlike · 5
Benjamin Noys stealth Hegel
11 hours ago · Like · 3
McKenzie Wark More cowbell!
11 hours ago · Unlike · 4
Word of the day : selah! But only with an exclamation mark and in the manner of Sir Geoffrey Hill circa 1959. Dewd my machine could be easily grafted onto your machine; its name would be ocean. “O ... i ... l ......... m ... e ........... “O ... i ... l ......... m ... e” “It is exactly this integration of a brain within a body, their reciprocal regulation within a rich environment, that confers it a peculiar structural and functional stability; and when these regulative / integrative regulations by/of/in the body are weakened -- as in the course of a dream for example -- the brain becomes unstable in relation to this body. Stability within change, anchored upon *self-organization* and *being a feature of the living* which appears extraordinarily apt to constitute strong invariants -- the invariants and stabilities of both cognition and action -- indeed are the conceptual invariants at the heart of thought. Against the sense of the discrete state machine (DSM), we stabilize instabilities and critical states in a way very ill understood, from any mathematical standpoint. Some will try to exchange the brain for a DSM, but to the contrary remain a dynamic system enormously more complex than any n-body [imitated] physical system or simulated turbulent stream. Think about how banks ‘regulate’ a stream but know very little of the turbulence close to the edges; and this already is nothing compared to the complexity of the brain’s friction in relation to its envisonment, to a body, by way of its interaction with different levels of the organization of the body to which it belongs.” “O ... i ... l ......... m ... e ........... “O ... i ... l ......... m ... e” My friend found me on an inflatable mattress in the customer service center of a rural Walmart. He found the holes in the sheets I had over the mattress (“you should have new sheets” he said, putting his finger in a hole); he told me I should have a food budget in which I spend at least $380 to feed us. Then we took a nap, like kittens, only to be woken up by a number of people, like a poet I know who lives in a truck and who brought a mirror “nobody wanted” and “can you believe nobody wanted this mirror?!” Similar questions are prompted by Derrida’s “last words”: did he “posthume” them,
to use a word he coined? See this remark by Peter Szendy on Derrida’s concluding
apostrophe, delivered second-hand (“dit-il”) in the present tense, from beyond the
grave, “from wherever I am”: “D’où que je sois . . . [Tels furent ses dernier mots,
posthumes, lus au cimetiere de Ris-Orange le 12 Octobre (ils sont reproduits dans
Rue Descartes, no 48, 2005, 6-7)],” in “Sortie: Le rêve de J.D.,” Sur Écoute – Esthétique
de l'espionnage (Paris: Editions de Minuit, 2007), 145-53; to p. 151-52. Szendy also
quotes from Derrida’s Circonfession, 40-41, and comments on the “terminable survie
laquelle ‘je me vois vivre’: traduit ‘je me vois mourir’ . . . ,” in “Sortie: Le rêve de J.D.,”
Sur Écoute – Esthétique de l’espionnage (Paris: Editions de Minuit, 2007), p. 152. The
word “posthumous” appears several times in The Beast and the Sovereign 2, but as a
synonym for specter and related words Derrida gathers under the more general
heading of the “phantasm.” In the Beast and the Sovereign Volume 2, Derrida recalls
his first use of the verb “posthume” in Circonfession: “When I wrote one day, in
‘Circumfession,’ if I remember correctly, ‘I posthume as I breathe,’ that’s pretty
much what I wanted to have felt, that’s pretty much what I wanted to have felt, rather
than thought, or even speculated, or it’s pretty much what I wanted to have myself
pre-sense. . . . In truth, posthumous, posthumus, with an h, appears to be a faulty
spelling, the grammarian tells us, and the spelling error in it is apparently induced
by the proximity with humus, earth. . . . It’s like for differance, with an a, which is yet
another way to posthume by differing or deferring life or, what comes down to the
same thing, deferring death. In truth, postume, without an h, apparently corresponds
to the superlative of posterus. Posterus qualifies the one who comes after, the one
who follows. Posterus is the follower of the descendent, the one who is going to
come, or even the future itself, posthumous, the superlative here meaning the last
follower of all, and above all the one who, being born after the death of the father,
child or grandchild, posterity, bears the testamentary future and the fidelity of
inheritance. Jacques Derrida, The Beast and the Sovereign, 2, 173-174. For Derrida’s
comments on Martin Heidegger and the posterous in relation to reversibility
(“umgekehrt,” turned things around, past participle of the infinitive umkerhren)
and a distinction between fact and principle, see Beast and S, 2 “it indicates an
order of presuppositions, the order of what comes before and what comes after in
statements, an order of what follows, posterous, and of what is posterior in the
logical series of valid statements” (194).
[Note: Sources: JBR; bits from Jodi Dean, “What comes after real subsumption?”, at I cite, 27 Feb 014; bits from Göran Sonnevi, “From ‘Mozart’s Third Brain’” (tr. Rika Lesser), at Typo 7; JBR; Stephen Ratcliffe, “2.26”, at Temporality, 26 Feb 014; Larry Eigner, in Air the Trees; FB post and comments, 27 Feb 014; John Armstrong, FB post 27 Feb 014; Jaleh Mansoor, FB comment, 27 Feb 014; Tin Woodsman, in The Wizard of Oz (memory quote); Jaleh Mansoor, FB post and comment, 27 Feb 014; Anne Boyer, “a dream in which there was a war on but I had to remove myself”, at Anne Boyer, 27 Feb 014; richar Burt, Read After Burning, Return to Cinder, at punctum books (formatted the way it came thru cutnpaste)]