A double movement—the minimal units must be related to power relations, and while a purely textual reading can never remain neutral, there also has to be a working-through of the text, a labor with it and of it.pic.twitter.com/ehrIsajNjm
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
To parse the “belch of the Christo-leftist” takes at least two things: 1: An allusion to how Nietzsche will sign his last letters, post-collapse, as Dionysus-Christ; 2: in reference to Jambet and Lardreau’s L’Ange, which will get discussion in the upcoming paragraphspic.twitter.com/cgIlLTuhpn
My translator’s footnote is important for understanding *absance* (read Derrida’s coinage of différance) and “in?visibility” (I wager the guess that it is from Deleuze’s coinage of ?-being in Difference and Repetion, p. 64, 202, 203, 205).pic.twitter.com/fjMp1Q21to
Revamping a concept of Hegel’s, Laruelle describes the “doctrine” of Nietzsche—the traditionally visible part—for the revolutionary pole is “ideological, relatively...necessary and objective appearance”.pic.twitter.com/wMbx97PrEw
This political objective appearance in its extreme historical form is Fascism. Lar sees Nietzsche compromised *with* (not by) fascism, in order to elevate it qua transcendental appearance and reveal it qua ideological appearance, then subject it to a “radically materalist usage”.pic.twitter.com/pA5efMhC52
Here is where Heidegger’s name first enters the text, but he will not become explictly juxtaposed with Nietzsche until part 3 of this book 150 pages later. The footnote here, though, seems to indicate the more immediate (in time) specter of this misreading: L’Ange.pic.twitter.com/TFhOiz1u8X
Here is the long footnote. It’s clear that Laruelle has no patience for Jambet and Lardreau “Anti-Nietzscheanism” (against “desire” i.e. Anti-Oedipus). Laruelle gives us a hint, too, in his formulation of his theses: a polemics against Heidegger’s most insidious misunderstanding.pic.twitter.com/FLr14q6Anm
This foreshadows the advent of a Nietzschean uni-versalization of textuality/politics that Laruelle calls “politico-libidinal”. It is a question of the proper version of the adversion and perversion of Heidegger’s “Nietzsche” (H’s text on FN tells us more about H than FN anyway).pic.twitter.com/7k6DGoCAqt
Part of this is a long series of puns involved in overcoding and translating some Heidggerian “Turn” locutions: Gegen-kehre, Um-Kehre, Über-kehre, but the issue is deadly serious, insofar as Heidegger tends to emphasize a polemically fascisizing reading of Nietzschepic.twitter.com/TRo5AwPEgS
Nietzsche-thought demands to be dealt with because his specificity is “to bind...this process of fascisization...and the political and material conditions of its subversion”. The risk is to embrace the adversary the better to smother him.pic.twitter.com/3lqdUPZmOC
“Nietzsche prefers to flow with the adversary, provided that the adversary drowns”. As Laruelle points out, crucifying Nietzsche, the Marxist or Christian critics (Jambet and Lardreau et alia) show “how little yet they have overcome the fascism in themselves”. End of subsection 5pic.twitter.com/91jnP5rXzG
The last subsection begins with a summary of the overarching theme elaborated in the previous 5 subsections.pic.twitter.com/o9w4gKWKjW
A minuscule polemic against the complicity of psychoanalysis and signifying linguistics (this polemic will form the substance of the first two chapters for Guattari’s Machinic Unconscious 2 years later).pic.twitter.com/3qx5nLMLmm
The signifier taken exclusively and to the end of what it can do leads to a process of fascisization; for forces (non-signifying elements and anti-signifying agents), taken to the end of what they can do leads to “an ‘autonomous’ process of rebellion”.pic.twitter.com/3BvRCnuvJd
Here’s the footnote alongside this quest for a better word than “world” (or becoming-world, as he says above); note the distinction between Lar’s footnote and my translator’s note.pic.twitter.com/gGWewYPAGn
This notion of a relation of duplicity rather than duality, which shipwrecks monism and skywrecks dualism, is the subversive seed that Nietzsche plants in all the simple binary terms by which thought becomes concretely manipulablepic.twitter.com/X4agVf2xNX
Time to saddle up, strap in, roll the dice, amor fati...the word precipice [crête] means less a perilous edge and more of a dizzying height; it is gravity itself, and not a simple misstep, that becomes dangerouspic.twitter.com/WxbDGJECVF
“master-proletariat” perhaps looks misleading in translation; in the French “prolétariat-maître”, which makes it clear that this is a question of a duplicitous (dual) relation, not an oxymoron of master as adjective describing proletariat. The rest of the passage describes this.pic.twitter.com/IoBRk1OzLl
This description of the non-reflexivity of the Rebel qua Rebel really echoes with Jean-François Lyotard’s description of the minoritarian qua minoritarian: cf. https://vastabrupt.com/2018/03/12/lyotard-brief-putting-perspective-decadence/ … over @vastabrupt , also translated by @tadkins613pic.twitter.com/l84yBsThiA
A question of rereading the history of humanity as duplicitous. This is to hypercomplexify Rousseau’s Origins of Inequality with Nietzsche’s breaking of history in two.pic.twitter.com/n9B2zLMQty
Here is the footnote explaining what Laruelle is emphasizing with this reflexive formulation. Again, notice the distinction between Lar’s note and minepic.twitter.com/wLMadEA6bL
As you may have seen, throughout, I have opted translating Rebel pronomially as “she” and Master pronomially as “he” when this was necessary. Obviously, in French nouns already have genders, so their pronouns are arbitrary; here, I kept one for each to retain consistency.pic.twitter.com/AF8TrmHGKt
Here, Foucault can be brought into dialogue, for as he wrote a year earlier in History of Sexuality, vol. 1 (1976), where he warns us of being too celebratory in the rise of discourses of liberation. “Tomorrow sex will be good again”, as Foucault mockspic.twitter.com/OBp4Zpezhu
Here is the closing lines of chapter 1. Please visit https://fractalontology.wordpress.com/2018/05/06/new-translation-of-francois-laruelles-nietzsche-contre-heidegger-chapter-1/ … for the standalone textpic.twitter.com/JTA2PrVlwK
@threadreaderapp unroll please, and hopefully this layout will work
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.