Skip to main content

La Terre, cette schizo

 

si les oppressions sont si terribles, c'est parce qu'elles empêchent de mouvements et non parce qu'elle offensent l'eternel (Deleuze, Pourparler 166)

Carrying on from the previous post, addition is also production. Outside the sphere of physis turned into thesis, the artificialization of the world is not a replacement based on the extraction of what is intelligible about things, but rather an addition that disrupts everything else. Production, not representation. Poien and ergo and not realitas – or adequatio. In my last class about Marx, I spoke of the Marxist anastrophe as a fortune of a communism told by capital. The driving force is production – the forces of production force taking things out of the little treasure of my nature to transform them into links, relations that can dispense with the perculiar in me because what I had is invested in them. I become anyone. I can be replaced. Production is a scheme of deindividualization through communist connections – production uninterrupted by registration and distribution is what triggers the schizo, the proletarian that lives around an anonymous production. 

Production, and addition, is an industrial topic for thinking. 1972, the Anti-Oedipus year, was perhaps the peak of the general trust that industries will change the face of the Earth. Rachel Carlson first published her Silent Spring a decade before and the idea took over just after Deleuze and Guattari’s hyper-industrial aggiornamento of Marx and Engels. The intrusion of Gaia – who herself got into the picture through James Lovelock by the time Deleuze and Guattari were supplementing their message with their Thousand Plateaux. But the intrusion of Gaia is often met with calls for preservation. Is production – and addition – out of fashion if industries are taken to be overall more evil than good? 

We can get back to Deleuze’s formula in the epigraph and instantiate a variable: si les oppressions [de la Terre] sont si terribles, c'est parce qu'elles empêchent de mouvements et non parce qu'elle offensent l'eternel. The issue is not that the Earth is constrained to stop being what it was – or what it thought it was – but rather that it is restricted in its movements and suppressed in its capacity to forge productive alliances. Deleuze and Guattari then, by Thousand Plateaux, write: the Earth, the one who is deterritorialized. Maybe she is considered to be what it has always been to force her out of production and the forces of production that change things through – just like the pre-productive structures that capital has to keep in place. The non-human is left outside production and not brought in because the Earth is perhaps too productive and the inorganic body that the workers could produce with the Earth would be too intense, too anonymous, too indifferent to capital. If this is so, we can say: the Earth, the one who is schizo.

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