Being(-logos)

Saying (what) it is and it being what it (says it) is – being what will have been said of it, having been itself (in language) – these are the objective phenomena. They involve decisions about what logos can do as much as they presuppose its passage through being and being “through” it (genesis and structure). Logos is far too often equated with language or with the human use of reason, but in fact it pertains to articulation as such. There is a “logos” in the copying of DNA strands, in the manner of soil sedimentation and fault line occurrences, in the the Idea of a bicycle, etc. We must affirm that its extension extends as far as Being. We can generate (etc.) speculative, scientific, phenomenological, historical topologies, and read the lay of a land we know we will not know. The world is populated with beings, objects, machines, desires, signifiers: it is enough to populate a World to postulate a logos that will not organize the populated but be their logic, that is, exactly their articulation or inter-action (known or not, speculative or not), no longer measured according to truth or untruth, logical or alogical. This is the topos of the World revealed by Foucault, its inextricably discursive, material, and practical reality, all three (there are more layers to this logos…) intertwined or entangled; broader, it is beingness in all its intrications. Are we doomed then to an interminable untangling of the logos, of relations or of the conditions of relations (‘history’)?  Or to a care of self that, taking full account of its present and past, looks out for its future in a way-overseeing way, a care for inscription in Being/materiality/life? Questions left in a topos/logos filled with body-selves…

Just as one speaks, one spontaneously projects the one, a body-self, speaking into it, i.e., projects the being of a speaker/being, divided in its own utterance and barred at any rate from coming into being as itself, according to psychoanalysis at least. Whereas another will unite this body to a truth process, or compel it to a Yes to life and survival, or perhaps someone will even speak as Being’s surrogate, or speak God (Adi Da), as if one could receive in Being’s very movement the conditions of “one’s own” inexchangeable being, or a truth or meaning or reflection of Being, or deduce its workings, or be Jesus’ sunbeam, etc. But mostly one locates oneself more simply as a being qua Logos, qua the articulated landscape composed of signifiers, traces, material things, etc., indeed not just in language or the symbolic but in the articulation of beings as a whole. Here thinking is a material traversal of the world, an ex-posed finitude capable at least of leaving a trace of its ex-position (voice, work, idea, etc.). Locating it instead in a play of bodies, however written or exscriptive, doesn’t really change the system: a being has (its) Being in a logos.

More simply, take the belief that logos is capable of naming the Real, as if the Real were not indifferent to these names. This 1=1 system of designation (hetero-tautological thanks to the identity of identity and difference) coordinates two functions: a being is itself, and a name names what it names or at least “calls its forth” (cf. the power of Emma in Agamben’s Use of Bodies, where anthropogenesis = coming to being-in-language, in-history). Logos remains relatively constituent of being or rather of “what it is,” especially when it, already logos because being, can comprehend its finitude, its “less than nothing” or insignificance. Taking up ones place in the articulation of the world-All (totality or unity of beings or of relations, however open the borders or spread the plane) – it’s the same use-of-logos claiming a power of definition and determination to a greater or lesser extent. For itself or for (its) being (in-apparatus), does it make a difference? That this goes through more material things like habits and contemplations changes nothing: it is care of self as care of Be-ing as care for (auto-)articulation, moreover it exerts a destituent power, lodged by definition in a power milieu. Thus the search for action on the margins of Logos, I.e., of (the) World(s), equally margins of power in a space of global philosophical polemics of self, in a topos that at least “symbolically” kills (a priori).

“Gathering” (Heidegger) comes to look like an auto-articulation of beings in their passage through the open All, a state not much less transient than speech. In philosophy, unity is an incessant recomposition of divided elements into a divided unity. In Nick Land, for example, absolute deterritorialization is the zero point of a chaotic, agentless, material, machinic production of absolute difference, but still the system is always one of capitalization on resources , beginning with the inevitable jealousy of time, which Land feigns to abandon by being annihilated in an ateleological expenditure that suddenly grants one an unmediated intuition of death. It goes without saying, it’s a system rooted in cuts, differentiations, hair-splittings, not to mention concepts on the way to their delimitation, or worse, the interminable investigation of terms, etymologies, genealogies, forces, drives, partial objects, traces, materials, – an onto-logical analytic tied to a poetic-existential rip which itself must mimic the cut of time itself, and thus itself “be.”

Yes, with logos it’s a matter of a lodging and dislodgment in Being(-logos), always a mixture of both because both constrain and detain in different ways. “Language” is here the house of being under permanent renovation, and its supervisor fears constantly he will become just another ghost roaming empty halls. Focus on the living body in a milieu of desire and shattered love, it is just another modulation of this model, a bit more materialist. One could easily also see history here: an uninhabitable we inhabit by habiting. But one seeks in vain to rub it against the grain. One is left with a negative operation, an agitation or friction, a project with little possibility of completion, again “a-historical” in reference to an outside of time that dislodges it once more, seeking there in a corner of pure temporalization (self-with-other) its lodging…

Where lives-dies a self relating itself to itself however untransparently, unconsciously, mediately, in passage through a billion divided bits, words, moments, looks, specters… Cue the foolproof mechanism of propriation and exappropriation, owning and disowning, a body-self-story of half-triumphs and fuller betrayals for sure… The self being a bind of time that cuts time, itself a cut in the real that binds it all together as unbound, etc…

The non-philosophical wager would be on a Real that impossiblizes logos in an immanent fashion and with it the self with its propriety (name, body, life, singularity, etc.) and in-dwelling in-the-World or equally in-Being, with all its circulations and divisions and abstentions. This wouldn’t be an elimination or a negative operation on the Real’s part since the self is impossiblized by the Real itself a priori, this being an axiom for practice and not another definition of the Real. That is the starting point of a generic or subject-science that would be capable of weakening philosophy without overturning it or finding its real origins. Philosophy does not “originate” but is a material to use and transform in defense of indivisible immanence and against its divided unity, its intrication in Being(-logos), its mixture with transcendences of every sort, which are here not annihiliated but under-determined in-One-in-the-last-instance.

Put otherwise, the englobing that Being(-logos) makes possible or enforces – this is the harassment of the World – would be radically resisted by immanence itself. Non-philosophy would then use language knowing that it like thought can only be in service of immanence without ever once determining it or making a decision about it (qua logos, qua thinking, qua a thought of Being…), since the Real is indifferent to It-All. Nothing about the latter relates to, belongs to, or is proper or to radical immanence, which for its part obviously does not have “properties.” There is no relation between the “subject of the world” and generic immanence. Theory must know that it does not reckon with the Real, does not reflect it or reflect upon it, but is determined by it in the last instance (flection-without-reflected). The Last Instance introduces a distance from the present that is not critical and is not of the self relating itself to itself presently; in fact, it only looks like a distance from the side of Being(-logos) or the Event(-disappearance), whereas from the one side of radical immanence that entire side (It-All) is irrelevant to what causes it, the Real, which doesn’t return over itself or logicize in any way, but under-comes as the Last Instance.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Being(-logos)

  1. Pingback: Self-Constraints VI | fragilekeys

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s