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

Dismantling absolute contingency

I´ve been wondering about whether we can formulate something about contingency along the lines of a principle of irreduction: aucune chose n´est par elle-même contingent ou necessaire . The principle asserts that necessity is always contingent on underlying fixed things: something is physically necessary (or contingent) given the fixed laws of nature, something is deontically contingent - allowed - or necessary - mandatory - given the fixed ethical rules (or laws of the land). Finally, something is logically necessary (or necessary simpliciter) given a fixed logic. The irreducible diversity of ethical rules, the absence of eternal laws of nature and the plurality of logical systems, if accepted, makes necessity relative to those parameters. An aggiornamento of Heraclitus would have that nothing is necessary comes what may. Surely, of couse, if there is no absolute necessity, there is no absolute contingency. We can then say that in a broader, more abstract level, things are up for grab...

Necropolitics and Neocameralism

It is perhaps just wishful thinking that the alt-right seemingly innovative and intrepid ideas will disappear from the scene as Trump's reign comes to an end. They have their own dynamics, but certainly the experiences of the last years, including those in the pandemics, do help to wear off their bright and attractiveness. Neocameralism, what Mencius Moldbug and Nick Land with him ushered in as a model of post-democracy that relinquish important ingredients of the human security system, is one of these projects that is proving to be too grounded in the past to have any capacity to foretell anything bright beyond the democratic rusting institutions. It is little more than necropolitics - which is itself a current post-democratic alternative. Achile Mbembe finds necropolitics in the regimes were warlords take over the state-like institutions (or mimick them)  to rule on the grounds of local security having no troubles killing or letting die whoever is in their path. Neocameralism pos...

The Cathedral and the axiomatics of capital

Today in my Cosmopolitics of Capital class, instead of discussing Lyotard´s evil book in connection to Moldbug and Land´s ideas, as planned, we spent hours considering bits of The Anti-Oedipus under the light of Neo-cameralist ideas and some remarks Land makes about the horror that is often triggered as an emotional response to (Neo-cameralist) statements about the Cathedral. We concentrated on the bit of chapter 3, section 10 where Deleuze and Guattari talk about class struggle and the bourgeoisie as a class eroder. There they describe how capitalism decodes the flows of castes, orders, and classes in the sense of feudal aristocracy, serfdom and peasantry. The erosion affects also the proletariat that is never associated with a specific job or type of service but rather a decoded abstract worker. This decoding is precisely what makes the proletariat universal and directly linked with the productive forces - which means, for Deleuze and Guattari, that they are potentially the schizo, ...