Skip to main content

Supplement, excess and the other

Discussing in my class today the gestures of Derrida in the Pharmacy of Plato (La dissémination). The pharmakon creates a logic that differs from the logic of presence (ousia), a logic of the writing, of supplement. The supplement is an addition - that as a scapegoat (pharmakos) promotes an addiction as it brings about a non-preexisting incompleteness - and as such an excess. In order to preserve and restore the eidos, the presence, one needs to add something like the logos or the writing which acts like a pharmakon, the words Socrates repeatedly uses when refering to written texts in the Phaedrus. The pharmakon is a supplement that at the same time enables the accummulation of excess - the supplement is at the same time excess and a plattform to consign excess so that it can be accummulated. (Thinking this with Bataille, we can consider how accummulation has a price and a risk - that of the pharamkon of writing - and also the price and the risk of the introduction of money as a supplement for accummulation - the supreme intelligibility of things in accummulation-driven economies. Using the scheme of the three territorial machines in Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus, money is a supplement that deterritorializes the written structures of the empires by adding a faster storage place for produce and thus enabling more effective accummulation. Money is a supplement that makes it possible further supplement; it is an excess - if it comes to fill an existing blank it comes as a prothesis that adds an incompleteness to the previously existing system - that makes it possible to handle excess (in pretty much any form).

Questions were about the three associated parricides that Derrida mentions towards the end of the text: the Sophist's Stranger classical parricide of Parmenides, the one committed by Plato towards Socrates while writing his dialogues and the one writing does to speech. The Stranger creates the need for writing, as Derrida claims, for he gets rid of the paternal image of Parmenides making sure that whatever is is not going to lapse into nothingness. The Other, as a great type introduced by the Stranger, is a pharmakon brought in to cure the incipient nihilism that the Stranger sees coming - it provides a prothesis to preserve and restore being when it is less than fully presence and at the same time enpoisons being placing it among nothingness. The Stranger is also a pharmakon, writing, as it betrays Parmenides while attempting to be faithful to his voice concerning truth. Truth has to dwell with writing in order to have a chance to be preserved; it has to be consigned to words that are driven by a soul - that is, by the two horses leading the chart in two different directions. The accummulation of intelligibles can only be done through the supplement of storage, but one cannot store but traces.

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