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.
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.
-
-
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 -
150/ Sometimes discourse and desire will be assimilated, sometimes they will be distinguished: the whole of desire to the Master, but not the whole of discourse.
Show this thread -
151/ The Rebel as resistant leaves the dualist to his prophesies and his hesitations, he contents himself with fleeing straightaway from disjunctions, clefts, re-splits—but without negativity, thus excluding the signifying re-split—into the closures of mastery.
Show this thread -
152/ He refines all the dualist's transcendent and barely guaranteed disjunctions, such that his Rebel part is confused with a simple partition, but without negativity, thus without elementary or minimal term,
Show this thread -
153/ and thus inaccessible to the law of the signifier, which it undoes or against which it resists: having in some way defeated signifying mastery on its terrain...from a completely different terrain. [END CHAPTER 1]
Show this thread
End of conversation
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.