aleph.dk \ polemos

Badiou’s acid wit

A quick post to share a joke. Well not really a joke, more of an acid wit. French philosopher Alain Badiou has been called many things during his long and lustrous life, a lot of them bad. Some people seem to insist, for example, that the man is anti-Semite. Zizek lovingly repeats that he and Badiou are both Stalinists (Badiou, of course, is Maoist). I seem to remember that, not too long ago, a Danish journalist recounting French contemporary political thinking called him dangerous and mad. Ah, well… “A beloved child has many names” as we say in Denmark. But to call Badiou names is, I think, a most marvelous thing. Not that he deserves it, but because he tends to answer these preposterous accusations with such humorous force as to make any stand up comedian blush with envy.

I just now stumbled upon the following gem of an aggressive defense:

“J’aime les grandes métaphores venues de la religion : Miracle, Grâce, Salut, Corps Glorieux, Conversion… On a évidemment conclu de ce goût que ma philosophie était un christianisme déguisé. Le livre sur saint Paul que j’ai publié en 1997 aux PUF n’a pas arrangé les choses. À tout prendre, j’aime mieux être un athée révolutionnaire caché sous une langue religieuse qu’un “démocrate” occidental persécuteur de musulman(e)s déguisé en féministe laïque.” (Baidou: Second manifeste pour la philosophie note 4)

In case your French is a bit rusty, here is a rusty translation:

“I love the great religious metaphors: Miracle, Grace, Salvation, Glorious Body, Conversion… Obviously, someone concluded from this preference that my philosophy was disguised christianity. The book on Saint Paul, which I published in 1997 at PUF, didn’t help the matter. All considered, I would rather be a revolutionary atheist hidden behind a religious vernacular than an occidental “democrat” persecuting muslims disguised as a secular feminist.”

You almost want to high-five your buddy and chest bump your pal shouting “Snap! Them mo-fo’s got pwned!,” don’t you?

We the People

“We the people” is a weird constellation. Is the plural subsumed under the singular or is it the other way around? Who is “We” and what is a people? Well in the case of “We the people,” “We” are the “people” of the United States, but again what does this entail? This question has no doubt been scrutinized endlessly by jurists and philosophers and our goal here is not to attempt what better men and women have already achieved. It is simply to draw attention to an unsettling frequency of similar statements in current political discourse and the problematic consequences thereof.

Let us begin at home. At their main annual convention this summer, leader of Danish People’s Party Pia Kjærsgaard said something like the following: “So while the potential maximum penalty for a crime has maybe doubled, the actually passed sentences have only augmented slightly. We will not stand for this. The judges are not the rulers of this country!” As well as crying out for mandatory minimums, this angry minx is decreeing the power of “We” over the power of the judges. “We the people” may be sovereign in American law but even the Americans try to uphold the seperation of powers as described by Montesquieu. Kjærsgaard is actually calling for direct popular control of the judiciary branch. “We the people shall not accept delicate judicial treatment of those who dare defy our laws.”
Continue reading →

Waffle — No comments
03
Dec 09

Correspondences…

In spite of what the title might evoke in the geeky mind, this is not an entry about Baudelaire. No, it is about popular culture and the references, or correspondences, that are planted in popular culture. All viewers of FOX’s tv show House will have noticed that he used to live in no 221B, which, of course, is a reference to Sherlock Holmes who lived in 221B Baker Street. Naturally, there are plenty more correspondences between the good doctor House and the wise and wicked Sherlock Holmes, because they are the same character! Wilson is Watson, especially in that he is more ‘what?’ than ‘will’, House and Holmes both have a drug addiction, and they both tend to be arrogant in a slightly funny manner, etc. We don’t need to go further down that road and I once wrote an entry about the comedic positions of the different characters (I wrote it in Danish, but here you go).

The one thing I wanted to point out today is the tiny reference made to Monty Python in the recent episode 9 of the 6th season:
Continue reading →

Polemos / in Danish — No comments
15
Nov 09

Dyr og dyr – angivelighedens pris

A bit of criticism in Danish:

Fra tid til anden støder man på udsagn, der i struktur og indhold er så vildfarne, at man næsten ikke orker at løfte pegefingeren til opbyggelig retningsangivelse mod fornuftens åbenbart svært navigerbare sti, men blot i mat stilhed græmmes over det velunderbyggede standpunkts devaluering til fordel for en polemisk mauvaise foi. Når denne tilmed stolt stilles til skue i Weekendavisen på lederplads – hvilket den jo desværre gør med jævne mellemrum – bør den rette finger dog alligevel med dertil passende gestus indikere den kejserlige nøgenhed.

I indlægget ”Dyr og dyr” præsenterer Anne Knudsen på ublu maner sin polemiske retningssans i allerførste sætning: ”Mink er blevet dyreaktivisters foretrukne demonstrationsdyr.” Først og fremmest bør det bemærkes, at AK formentlig henviser til dyreretsaktivister eller dyreværnsaktivister. ”Dyreaktivister” såvel som ”demonstrationsdyr” synes at være lidet poetiske neologismer, der ikke udtrykker andet end skribentens uvilje mod sit emne. Dernæst dette ”blevet … foretrukne”, der med polemisk snilde skal fremvise aktivismens objekt som uden videre omskifteligt alt efter mode og tendenser og dermed afbilde en aktivisme uden substans. Påstanden om rebeller uden egentligt forehavende underbygges på hul vis i omtalen af minkfarmene, hvor aktivister ”angiveligt har fundet dyr, der ikke blev behandlet efter forskrifterne.” Har AK mon set videooptagelserne af de angivelige rædsler? I så fald må hun da medgive, at det er som så med ”angiveligheden”. Skulle ”angiveligheden” derimod komme af lederens forfatning før Operation X tirsdag d. 27. eller AKs manglende ønske om at komme angiveligheden til livs, er det vel atter en demonstration af førnævnte mauvaise foi.
Continue reading →

Polemos / Waffle — No comments
21
Mar 09

Anything but a fatal blow (usually) requires a ready defense

As a last installment (promised!) in our whole “commentary on the spectacular horrors of commentary”-debacle (now a trilogy with parts one and two already out) we should take a quick look at the ground values, not of bloggery as such, but of this our own particular verbal version of loose-stooled effluent. And as the greek word in the header (to the right of the backslash, not the hebrew one to the left) cries out in an embarrassingly high brow fashion, there is only one ground value: War!

So, the idea of this fecal accumulation was to have a place through which to channel the pile of bile that rises within us all when encountering that which is too high, too low, too in the middle, as well as that which just generally rubs us the wrong way.

An example: When some semi-celeb on the front page of a wholly disgraceful newspaper states “I am good in bed”, you must be made of sturdier stuff than me to avoid shaking your fists at the world, shouting insults and death threats at all who would even think of finding such a journalistic abomination worthy of print. Another one: The former princess Alexandra (Denmark), once visited a very hot country, somewhere with elephants, I forget… A photo of this young lady in a sweat stained t-shirt appeared on the front page of one of the weekly attacks on the minds of the already challenged with the following title “The Princess’ Hot Flashes”. I mean, really!
Continue reading →

Waffle — 1 comment
13
Mar 09

Rhetorical masturbation makes you blind

On the subject of this blog’s last defilement of a perfectly nice blank screen, The importance of being Elvis, a friend remarked that the title bore a bit of the Elvis odour itself. She claimed that this particular critique of intellectual commentary was in and by itself just another bit of pseudo-intellectual commentary. And of course she is right!

As has already been stated on this page – it’s remarkable how long a webpage really is – bloggery is fit for the more or less cultivated or casual considerations of the works of mice and men over digital drinks and dinner, but not for laborious elaborations on the subtle workings of all things theory. Blogs are the very sanctuaries of commentary, it is where commentary goes when it is no longer wanted in respectable company, which is why blogs are usually just havens for washed up intellectual waste and futile observations of abundant banality.

So why more or less consciously commit the sin you are condemning? Why throw all personal pride and integrity overboard and just plow right through the known courteous seas? Because it feels so good! Bloggery as well as commentary are generally examples of what we might call rhetorical masturbation and rhetorical masturbation, as we have all learnt in our early years, makes you blind. Well, maybe you don’t really loose your eyesight but you do tend to lean back a bit and close your eyes with the sheer pleasure of it.
Continue reading →

Polemos / Waffle — 1 comment
10
Mar 09

The importance of being Elvis

Something which has really gotten my goat lately is intellectual commentary. There are certainly innumerable culprits within this field of pseudo-intellectual guff but two among them annoy me on a daily basis: Christopher Hitchens and Slavoj Zizek.

Let us begin with the anti-theist. Hitchens is a very educated man. He went to Oxford, which is often mentioned when he is introduced before going on stage. But this is another thing: Why is it important that the man went to Oxford?! It is without a doubt a good school, but in no way is it a guarantee of the man’s competence. The snobbery of it! I know plenty of people who went to La Sorbonne. I see no greater assembly of geniuses there than anywhere else and yet it is mentioned with a certain awe, as if it were the proof of a mind as sharp as a surgical laser. Why can’t we simply accept that it is not the teaching which makes the thinker, but the studying.

Hitchens probably did a fair deal of studying. He seems to be a well-read man. But this also seems to be his only intellectual strength. If you listen to his speeches, interviews or debates or you actually read his texts you might notice that he is all reference and no analysis. He refers to literary quotes and the experiences of his own wicked self or those of others. His argument is thus based on the authority of texts or the allusion to “real life”.
Continue reading →

All things theory / Housekeeping — No comments
10
Mar 09

Derrida’s haunting of Fragmentum

The Fragmentum-section has had additional philosophical dribble jammed down its throat! The aleph housekeepers have recently been looking at late Derrida and found a couple of cutesy quotes to share with the world:

“La substitution n’est pas simplement le remplacement d’un unique remplaçable : la substitution remplace l’irremplaçable. Qu’il y ait tout de suite, dès le premier matin du dire ou le premier surgissement de l’événement, itérabilité et retour dans l’unicité absolue, dans la singularité absolue, cela fait que la venue de l’arrivant – ou la venue de l’événement inaugural – ne peut être accuillie que comme retour, revenance, revenance spectracle.”

This one is from a mainly improvised lecture given at le Centre Canadien d’Architecture on the first of april 1997.

“L’hégémonie organise toujours la répression et donc la confirmation d’une hantise. La hantise appartient à la structure de toute hégémonie.”

And this well phrased banality is from Spectres de Marx which is largely based on lectures given on the 22nd and the 23rd of april 1993. As always titles and pages are served with the quotes in Fragmentum.

At the moment we are without comment or justification for their presence in the Fragmentum Hall of Fame, but we hope to use them in some theoretical waffle later on. In the mean time: Enjoy!

Housekeeping / Waffle — No comments
20
Feb 09

The unbearable lightness of being sick

Unless mine eyes deceive me, it has been almost three months since the last contribution to this bloggery manifestation of ennui. This is not because I have been going gently into that languid light of laziness, oh no! There was a visit from Paris, there was Christmas, there was a visit to Paris, I have done a couple of translations, and, finally, I applied for a PhD, which does take a bit of time. Another reason for my neglect of this reticular cultivation of the ego via its eternal written affirmation is that I got a bit bored with my attempts at rendering certain theoretical problems in bloggish. Bloggery is fit for the more or less cultivated or casual considerations of the works of mice and men over digital drinks and dinner, but not for laborious elaborations on the subtle workings of all things theory.

We therefore turn to the unbearable lightness of being sick. I am in such a state of illness right now, which, of course, is the reason for my choice of subject matter. It is not that I am really seriously sick, it is more that I am not at all well… Why, oh why must it be this way? A question which the afflicted tend to ask the room that contains them, most of them without expecting an answer. I, however, am a man of science! If God has chosen to punish me, I want him down here to tell me why, God dammit! But, since God is a very domestic animal with no great love of communication, I will have to invent my own unholy explanation. This, my invention, has three factors: The seed, the fun and the exercise.
Continue reading →

All things theory / Branding / Housekeeping — No comments
24
Nov 08

Housekeeping, libidinal economy, and the problem of saying I – III

So, where were we? The housekeeping department has been away for a couple of weeks in order to see loved ones in Paris, but it is now time to return to business and get our house in order. We thus continue where we left off:

When the ethopoetic relation to textual fragments becomes constitutive of the I by which you meet your reader, your fellow, your brother, with whom you then establish a doxopoetic relation, there is trouble. The fragments are presented as a totality by the name of I. “I” is the incorporation of the different fragments who bear the rather technical name, hypomnemata, meaning memory aid or substantification of memory. But is this totality possible? Is the incorporation of hypomnemata possible without an irreducible difference or maybe even “Différance” between the fragments and their meaning?

It is probably time to whip up an example. L’Oréal once used the slogan “Because I’m worth it”. This slogan became “Because you’re worth it” and then simply “You’re worth it”. All slogans were and are pronounced by various heroes of popular culture – models, actors and even a race car driver. I say! It’s so elegant, so intelligent!
Continue reading →

aleph.dk \ polemos
Nun, o Unsterblichkeit, bist du ganz mein