Skip to main content

Becoming matter

When I think about pure potentiality, an image that comes to my head is money. Enough to think about Rodrigo Triana's 2006 flick, "Soñar no cuesta nada". A bunch of soldiers uncover packets and packets of cash and that was a trigger for many dreams. Dreams are departures from the existing, they are believable because they are possible - potentially existing. In any case, money incarnate potentiality that didn't turn into anything yet. (The actualist, by the way, could have problems understanding the value of money as such.)

The idea of matter is that of something that has no more than a one dimension limitation: that of its quantity. Matter is supposed to be independent from any form as form is the intellect that shapes it. (Venkatachalapaty remarked last week on my Madras talk on tantric ontology that potentiality would also needs a guiding intellect, therefore something to shape it; otherwise, it lacks any quality). Surely one can find things common to the mobile phone by my side and the potato I'm eating - for instance, electrons. They can even be responsible for some of the dispositional properties matter display; that is, material things qua material things. However, this would not entail that matter is the ultimate repository of both potentiality and passivity as by itself it doesn't act. In fact, the idea that something holds a pure potentiality - as much as the idea that something is purely contingent and therefore independent on anything else - is a bad starting point for a metaphysics. Matters, as Jane Bennett would put, vibrate, tremble, have capacities, lack resources, make alliances and enjoy their particular matrix of speed. There is no such thing as the servant waiting for orders. Matter is a product of a fascist metaphysical imagination, as I once put (in E&E).

Materiality has all sorts of implications and the idea is probably deeply entrenched in current western thought. (It's sexuality has been debunked by Butler when she points out how the idea of matter is also hostage to a specific sexuality - in the first chapter of "Bodies that Matter". Guided by some Irigarayan intuitions, she links it to the erotics of domination.) Matter has also its economics. Today I thought matter not being readily available, someone had to somehow invent it: the erotics of money. Money is the best approximation of matter. In fact, when we think of things made of matter, we think in terms of investment. Money comes in from one source and then somebody does something with that raw material (the wealth that carries no smell). That's the economic result of our ontological (materialist) imagination: wealth should be understood as having no form, it is pure flux, has no shape, no bound, no boundaries, no territory. Money is always flirting with virtuality. That's maybe the economics of materialism: the economics of the money buying everything because there is a common denominator to everything. That's why the ultimate possession one has is money (and capital). And the usual substrata posited for things lie in their material constitution.

Capital, ever flowing and rarely getting stuck, goes around with its becoming matter. Of course, it doesn't buy the hunger of a wild animal. But it buys a fence to keep it off.

It could be useful to fully imagine the world without matter.


Popular posts from this blog

Giving Birth

This is a month of giving birth: 1. On the first day of the month (my birthday) I sent out my book BUG (Being Up for Grabs) to publisher. A birth-giving moment. 2. On the forth, we started the Journal, called Journal of Questions. It is a Jabèsian and Jarryian endeavor that intends to reflect in many languages about the gaps between thought and translation. It will be available soon. 3. On the 10th, day before yesterday, offspring Devrim A. B. was born. Her name means revolution in Turkish and is a roughly common name. She's very attentive and concentrated - especially on her own fingers that she learned to molest in her youth during her womb months. She was gestated together with BUG. Hope the world enjoys.

My responses to (some) talks in the Book Symposium

Indexicalism is out: l   The book symposium took place two weeks ago with talks by Sofya Gevorkyan/Carlos Segovia, Paul Livingston, Gerson Brea, Steven Shaviro, Chris RayAlexander, Janina Moninska, Germán Prosperi, Gabriela Lafetá, Andrea Vidal, Elzahrã Osman, Graham Harman, Charles Johns, Jon Cogburn, Otavio Maciel, Aha Else, JP Caron, Michel Weber and John Bova. My very preliminary response to some of their talks about the book follows. (Texts will appear in a special issue of Cosmos & History soon). RESPONSES : ON SAYING PARADOXICAL THINGS Hilan Bensusan First of all, I want to thank everyone for their contributions. You all created a network of discussions that made the book worth publishing. Thanks. Response to Shaviro: To engage in a general account of how things are is to risk paradox. Totality, with its different figures including the impersonal one that enables a symmetrical view from nowhere

Hunky, Gunky and Junky - all Funky Metaphysics

Been reading Bohn's recent papers on the possibility of junky worlds (and therefore of hunky worlds as hunky worlds are those that are gunky and junky - quite funky, as I said in the other post). He cites Whitehead (process philosophy tends to go hunky) but also Leibniz in his company - he wouldn't take up gunk as he believed in monads but would accept junky worlds (where everything that exists is a part of something). Bohn quotes Leibniz in On Nature Itself «For, although there are atoms of substance, namely monads, which lack parts, there are no atoms of bulk, that is, atoms of the least possible extension, nor are there any ultimate elements, since a continuum cannot be composed out of points. In just the same way, there is nothing greatest in bulk nor infinite in extension, even if there is always something bigger than anything else, though there is a being greatest in the intensity of its perfection, that is, a being infinite in power.» And New Essays: ... for there is ne