109/ Because Nietzsche's specificity is to *bind*, more intimately, more irremediably than Marx knew how for reasons pertaining to the insufficient historical development of capitalism, this process of fascisization,
119/ For example, the affinity between the signifier and Mastery does not become a “world”, that of Mastery, except when the signifier is taken in hand, as is the case in psychoanalysis,
-
-
120/ by the nihilistic power that leads signifying mastery to the end of what it can do and makes it enter into a process of fascisization.
Show this thread -
121/ In the same way, there is merely an affinity, not identity, between what Nietzsche calls “forces” *as such*, which are non-signifying elements, indeed anti-signifying agents, and the sole affirmative tendency capable of making them go to the end of what they can do:
Show this thread -
122/ to constitute a revolutionary “world”, to become an “autonomous” process of rebellion.
Show this thread -
123/ Perhaps it will be necessary to avoid speaking of “world” to designate the two poles, processes, or tendaecies that co-belong within the Quadripartition, and to find another word to designate the universal moment that they fully contain [Footnote #4].
Show this thread -
124/ [Footnote #4: this will be the term full Body, or Body-of-the-Other, or political Continent, etc. The second section examines several terms for this single function.]
Show this thread -
125/ Be that as it may, the reason for Nietzschean revolutionary power begins to appear: Rebellion and Mastery are merely in a relation of positive disjunction, without mediating negativity: the opposites of contradiction are front against front.
Show this thread -
126/ They are not above all exclusive to one another, they have nothing to do with closed entities, essences transcendent to one another in the onto-theo-logical or gnostico-Christian manner: their relation of co-belonging is *a relation of duplicity rather than duality*.
Show this thread -
127/ Thought is here on the precipice where everything can be lost or gained.
Show this thread -
128/ On the one hand, Nietzsche does not give himself terms, he produces flowing functions susceptible to destruction, he liquidates monism (philosophy of mastery, even when it is a question of the master-proletariat), for example that of the signifier,
Show this thread -
129/ he gives himself a relation, a duality, if it can be held, but of forces or of powers, that which reduces every quality to duplicity (even the signifier is reduced to the state of force or of power). What is important here?
Show this thread -
130/ What's important is that it thereby straightaway cleaves Mastery or puts Mastery in a relation of exteriority, of contradiction without mediation, to a force of resistance, to an agent of rebellion.
Show this thread -
131/ In a first time, it is therefore, if you will, “dualistic”, and dualism is the point of view of the agent of resistance.
Show this thread -
132/ If the Master is monistic and attempts to inernalize the Rebel in the image or representation that is made of her (this image is his mastery, thus his lie, what Nietzsche calls his falsification of the adversary),
Show this thread -
133/ *the Rebel is confused or identified with his imageless repulsion of the Master*.
Show this thread -
134/ Rebellion is not a term, an essence, or a world transcendent to the Master and indifferent, like the Master himself is, to this relation of transcendence: the Rebel is *nothing but this relation* of repulsion or resistance to Mastery.
Show this thread -
135/ By definition, the Rebel neither internalizes, reflects, nor mediates the Master—all operations which define mastery (every image or generality is a dominant power).
Show this thread -
136/ On the other hand, Nietzsche liquidates everything else, one comes to see simple dualism indirectly, complicit with monism and Mastery: because the being of the Rebel is confused with its relation of active resistance (of difference) to the Master,
Show this thread -
137/ it is not exterior to this relation of exteriority, it is this contradictory exteriority exerting itself [s'exercant] or insisting “itself” [“s'”insistant] without mediation. [Footnote #5]
Show this thread -
138/ [Footnote #5: the *s'* here obviously designates the political subject, re-split by the Revolution as cause, subordinated to the subversive pole.]
Show this thread -
139/ Nietzsche surmounts dualism, simple *reaction* to Mastery, through a relation of duplicity: the agents of rebellion are differential or nothing but relations.
Show this thread -
140/ The history of humanity is at the same time, in the same gesture, a single and split history, duplicitous rather than dualistic: history(ies) of the oppressed and/or the oppressors.
Show this thread -
141/ Dualism is always a reaction, a passive flight facing the Master, the philosophy of those who have not been able or succeeded in becoming Masters, the politics of those who recognize themselves as defeated.
Show this thread -
142/ Duplicity is the thought of the active defeated, of the *active Rebel* who thinks the history of humanity as chiasmus and his *own* history as the impossible quadrature in which the circular history of mastery is inscribed.
Show this thread -
143/ Duplicity then designates a type of universal relation formulable as *inclusive disjunction* (contradiction without mediation):
Show this thread -
144/ the Master assimilates the Rebel, appropriates or includes him by law and grace united, but the active Rebel distinguishes himself from the Master, refuses to be recognized as defeated or posits an image of himself,
Show this thread -
145/ because he does not recognize himself—this is his activity—and because his only representation of himself would suffice to make him reenter under the law and make him become...dualistic.
Show this thread -
146/ he politics of the Rebel as resistant excludes the overly massive disjunctions of dualism, i.e. that which remains synthesis through which mastery includes the adversary.
Show this thread -
147/ Having supposed, through paralogism, that *desire* is confused with the given sex, Revolution with sexual rebellion, identities which found the eternity of mastery, dualism must then massively cut, abstractly and transcendently separate sex and desire
Show this thread -
148/ (there will be a specific desire of the Rebel that will not be sexual), sex and rebellion (rebellion without relation to sexuality, contrary to “discourses of liberation”).
Show this thread -
149/ Sometimes the whole of desire will be the Master, sometimes there will be a desire that will escape from the Master. Sometimes every discourse will be the master's, sometimes there will be an autonomous discourse of the Rebel.
Show this thread - 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.