Skip to main content

Rhythms in Performance Philosophy

In April 11-13, there will be a conference on
Performance Philosophy. I'm in the programme. It will be on heterochrony and urges.

Urges shape the flesh, bend the flow of the elements and bring about states of affairs. The political biology of our bodies witnesses the layers of urges christalized in the folds concocted in the past. It is a tectonics. It acts as an ontological trigger: in it, the actual arises from the entrails of what is virtual, potential or merely possible.

Urges emerge always in pre-existing landscapes. Actualisation always meets the marks of what contingently happened in the past. The geological structure of contingency – as it is pointed out by Hamilton Grant in his analysis of Schelling’s Naturphilosophie – is such that whatever happens bends the board that future urges will shape. These folds are indeed carved by the events of the past - see Deleuze’s interpretation of the predicate as an event in his interpretation of Leibniz’s principle of reason. Indeed, Hamilton Grant’s also tries to approximate Leibniz’s sufficient reason to the (unthinged) furniture of nature in order to account for the standing of a ground. A ground is always a ground for further movement. Grounds are like floors, but floors are different. A floor is made of the left-overs of what took place before. Floors are the primary and ultimate archive of things past. And a floor is a starting point. But it is not an arché.

A floor has some resemblance to a skin. In order to consider the underlying tectonics of all events, I sketched, in a talk at the University of Madras, Chennai in early 2011, a tantric ontology. It looks at the populations that float under the groins of the skin of all events: desires, capacities, attractors, affordances, impulses and rhythms. Delanda talks about intensive time – the time that harbours a capacity to contaminate around itself. Spreading rhythms takes place in inorganic phenomena as well as in animal life, for instance in menstrual cycles of humans. The contagion of rhythm is called entrainement. If intensity is understood as the capacity to infect what is around, rhythms carry a rate of intensity. Organisms have the capacity to harbour different rhythms at the same time. And these rhythms can be disturbed, for example, by urges. Urges provoke heterochrony – the emergence of a different rhythm. In fact, there is a dimension of rhythm under all events. Actualization, either from the virtual or the potential, has a rhythm.

When philosophy is placed together with performance there is a potential for entrainement, for rhythm contagion. My presentation explores urges and heterochrony within the body. It looks at the plurality of rhythms that take place in philosophy – the rhythm of arguing, the rhythm of convincing, the rhythm of disolving questions, the rhythm of skirting around problems – and those rhythms of performing bodies. While I present, an initially independent process will take place in my body – the body of an urge – as a rhythm that will entrain my body and my varieties of philosophical attention.





Comments

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 https://edinburghuniversitypress.com/book-indexicalism.html   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