The Present (Spectacle 6)

Filed under: philosophy, event, the political, spectacle — sdv @ 01:19:27 pm

It begins in my lifetime with Debord “The whole life of those societies in which modern conditions of production prevails presents itself as an immense accumulation of spectacles. All that once was directly lived has become mere representation.” For us though concerned as I am with the implications of the spectacle/media it is extended beyond the media as Debord knew it. From the mass-media to social-media and beyond are the #spectacle. The media which is objectified and reified has only one intention which it inherits from its relationships with capital. This is the sole real tendency of the spectacle, not to increase the circulation of knowledge and information but rather to grow. All must become visible, transparent and exchangeable with nothing that cannot be represented. In the media the contemporary dislike of negation begins from this point because the spectacle cannot be refused from any other point. The media universe no longer has an outside and this is why it has no ability to question itself, we can say that it is a world of people and of a consciousness that is in the process of abolishing itself. What does this mean in an era when we mostly see the complete triumph of the spectacle? It is obvious that the spectacle is language (Agamben), it is the very heart and soul, the semiosis and linguistic being of humans.The integrated spectacle is not to be understood as simply concerned with the image or even just extended to the word as language and semiosis but far beyond this into what we would understand as information (Kristeva) and beyond this into philosophy with its own imaginary (image as much as … Le Doeuff).


a good reader

Filed under: philosophy, difference, text, Deleuze — sdv @ 11:44:04 am

…some comments on my reading of Deleuze is the current (quite reasonable) example that is causing me to think about this… If you are a good reader of a philosopher, which makes the assumption that such a thing as a good reader and good reading is desirable and useful, and equally it contains the implicit assumption that bad readers and bad readings also exist. But I’m not so sure about this myself anymore, because I suspect that bad readings which might also be thought of as misreadings are nearly always more useful than the good and faithful readings. Though you may object to the idea of faithful in this context still it feels to me as if what people who implicitly claim to be good readers want is that we collectively read a text and arrive at a unified understanding. Which is precisely what I’m not interested in…

In the texts of Deleuze case the two feet of secondary texts (on my shelf) on Deleuze and Deleuze and Gauttari adequately demonstrate the impossibility of deciding what a good reading might be. But still people speak to me as if this is possible, as if the goal should be to read well. Whereas I think that reading badly is clearly more useful and probably more humane…

Feel free to continue to engage in your good readings though.


Spectacle Notes (6)

Filed under: animal — sdv @ 03:14:02 pm

the wealth of societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails appears as an immense collection of commodities, the individual commodity appears as its elementary form….

The commodity is first of all an external object, a thing which through its qualities satisfies human needs of whatever kind. The nature of these needs… makes no difference. Nor does it matter here how the thing satisfies man’s need, whether directly as a means of subsistence, an object of consumption, or indirectly as a means of production. #Marx

powered by  tion
sigh.....what next
Original design credits for this skin: pl & sdv &
default generic differend rhizome.