my film watch it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFiASazVc60

The Dawning of the New: More Art

It's been established that I'm one verbose and sometimes abstruse motherfucker.What's less known is that sometimes I cast off the verbal and just art. Here's the latest: art with meta-meanings.

Kairos: Complete Podcast Version

Hot off the microphone, the entire Kairos series in podcast form. Including a short introduction. Comment, criticize, etc. Please!

Rowan G. Tepper - Introduction to kairos by rowan-g-tepper

Kairos I: Exemplary Acts by rowan-g-tepper

Kairos II: Kairos at the End of Modernity by rowan-g-tepper

Kairos III: La révolution post-historique by rowan-g-tepper

Kairos IV: The Whatever Messiah: We're Who We've Been Waiting For by rowan-g-tepper

Parts I and III have previously been posted. Enjoy! Discuss! Goddamnit! You don't have to read, just listen!


   Pre-order a copy of The Immanence of Myth, published by Weaponized in July 2011.

sin

I'm reading through the discussion on sin from the Unfinished System. I probably won't be able to finish it because I'm working on other readings too. Damn, Rowan, you were right. Sartre and Hyppolite are totally ganging up on Bataille. They seem kind of dickish, but Bataille is very humble and honest. I wouldn't know how to back him up, but if I was there, I would defend Bataille. Sarte and Hyppolite seem intent on attacking Bataille for his use of the word sin. He makes his position pretty clear, but they continue to pester him on how he's using it. My favorite part so far is when Father Danielou steps in and says that Sarte is trying to impose his own style/positions on Bataille and that Bataille should stick to his own style because that's what makes him who he is. Way to back him up.

Most of the shit in this discussion is way over my head, and I'm probably reading through it too quickly to fully grasp it. But let me see....I like this: sin being the absence of boredom, as in the Nietzschean embracement of evil. And The world of christianity being the world of boredom, as in it's life-denying and not open to possibility or chance.

I understand pushing the limits of morals by embracing what is considered evil. This is in the spirit of contestation. I think that you need to take the morals or the notions of sin that have been handed down to you and question them through contestation and negation. You aren't accepting them as values, but using them as a templates to go beyond them, to reach non-knowledge and nothingness.

Stupid thoughts

Rowan, you asked the other day about time's relation to immanence and transcendence. I was going to post about it before, but it slipped my mind. Here are my belated thoughts.

Is time a presence? That is, is there ever such a state as the present or is what we consider the present just difference between past and future? Lately, I've thought of time as difference not presence. We seem to only ever think of time in terms of difference; that is how we measure or observe it. If we ever try to think about or capture the present, we have always just missed it. We never experience it as a presence. But perhaps we only perceive time as difference through discursive thought. If this is the case, then could a non-discursive experience (inner experience) be a relation to time that is a presence?

I think time could only be a presence with inner experience. With inner experience (non-discursive thought), there are no objects taken. That is, there is no subject to take an object. So with inner experience, time cannot be taken as an object. It would merely be there, unable to be thought of. It could be a presence then; a presence with everything else or a "totality" (to use a word of Bataille's). In this case (through inner experience), time would be related to immanence and chance. They would be together (present) in inner experience, but they could not be experienced or thought of as presence or as even being together.

Maybe time is related to transcendence through discursive thought. Perhaps through thinking of time in terms of its differences (projects are conducted this way), we are trying to transcend experience (and immanence and chance). That could be how they all relate.

I don't know. I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about, so feel free to disagree. I just was thinking of this the other day and thought I'd share it.

Also Rowan, which reading of Bataille's did you want us to select from? I know it was from the Unfinished System, but was there a specific part from that to choose from?

Blanchot

I was reading through some of the sections in "Plural Speech" (I didn't get to finish it all because I didn't have enough time), and I was really struck by how much one could relate Blanchot to Derrida. If any one else read through it, did you think there were similarities between Blanchot's ideas on speech/language and Derrida's ideas on language being "Differance"? Even if you didn't read it, there are copious parts in the Limit-Experience were Blanchot expresses similar thoughts. For instance, in the first section on Heraclitus, Blanchot says of Heraclitus' sentences, "Each sentence is a cosmos, a minutely calculated arrangement whose terms are relations of extreme tension, never indifferent to their place or figure, but rather disposed as though aiming at a secret Difference they do no more than indicated by showing, in the form of measure, the changes visible conversions of which the sentence is the isolated site" (87). Is it just me or is there a lot of Derrida or even Foucault in that statement? Certainly like Derrida, Blanchot repeatedly expresses concepts like "difference," "play," "deferment," and the like. I'm sure some of you noticed these similarities. I'm pretty sure I prefer Blanchot to Derrida, though.

Also, I see that Blanchot was born in 1907 and died in 2003. He practically lived the entire fucking century. Impressive.

genies of morality--

Auditory meditative inducement into THE UNKNOWN http://www.archive.org/details/HoofprintsOnTheCeilingOfYourMind



Multiple things I wanted to bring up in regards to the Genealogy

GUT: The ending remark of afro 24---It was like Nietzsche knew what I was thinking all the time and really just said it---From the moment faith in the God of the ascetic idea is denied, A NEW PROBLEM ARISES: THAT OF THE VALUE OF TRUTH

THE WILL TO TRUTH REQUIRES A CRITIQUE--LET US DEFINE OUR OWN TASK--THE VALUE OF TRUTH MUST FOR ONCE BE EXPERIMENTALLY CALLED INTO QUESTION

--Walter Kaufmann....I don't think that footnote 14 was really required but thanks for the pointer.

As if I couldn't have been in more agreement with F.N,

Art to say in advance, for I shall some day return to this subject at a greater length--art, in which precisely the lie is the sanctified and the will to deception has a good conscience, is much more fundamentally opposed to the ascetic ideal that is science

)(#%&%^)^()%#_%(#&@*$*@#)%($_^+@()$*@#)%^*#)^*#)^&*#*(@#&%($)^+#(#$&@*%&#(%^*#%(
Other than this initial rapturous response though--I am interested in gaining some additional perspectives on a particular perspective of the GOM (which hopefully ya'll will respond to...)

A friend of mine who has interests similar in mine, decided to re-read the GOM so that we could have a discussion about it. His first question he posed to me was, "So what do you think a Nietzschean society would look like--what kind of political/societal structure do you think he would support?" Now reading Nietzsche one theme which I have been unsure of how to really deal with is this weak/strong power dynamic... It seems to be (and this person was thinking in terms of) was that this could somehow be interpreted as an Ayn Randian/free-market capitalist situation. So namely Nietzsche would agree with this rhetoric of self-responsibility and the strong survive and prosper/ while the weak might die off. I could see where he was coming from (my interlocutor, a Foucaultdian mind you ) -- and I am interested in seeing what other people's perspective was in this respect.

Anyway, so as this conversation continued, we identified the fact that we had very different interests in as far as how we were reading the text. Namely, I considered how this text affected myself--how I aligned/misaligned with the slave morality. And this is how I usually approach texts--how does this describe/not describe my orientation with the world--is this a way in which I think I should orient myself in the world. While my interlocutor admitted that he immediately thought of how this text would look if everyone viewed the world/knowledge/them"self"ves/others/etc. in this manner. He even quoted the proverb--"do unto others,,,,,,,,,"-and I said well that;s kind of the slave morality and he agreed, that he was not sure if necessarily sure if the slave morality was the wrong way to go.


So long story short, I guess what I am wondering is:

How can this text manifest itself in politics/society?
CAN it be?--This is something which I found myself bringing up in this argument, should we even be trying to think in terms of a "Nietzschean state"