Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

57 Excellent

About 0deleted0

  • Rank
  1. i just created one of those handy wordpress sites: http://aculp.wordpress.com/ i also post some reading note content to: http://anarchistwithoutcontent.wordpress.com : ) : )
  2. no to return to a dead subject... but after doing substantial research. cf Canguilhem: The etymology of this latter term may be helpful here. It is generally agreed that the expression "anomalous" has been incorrectly traced to the negation of the Greek "nomos" and the Latin "norma" (meaning "rule" or "law"). Instead, "anomalous" is a construction of the Greek "anomalos'" (meaning literally "unevenness," "not level" or "not smooth"). Man and Worm 28: 241-260, 1995. 241 "Phenomenological concepts of normality and abnormality" ANTHONY J. STEINBOCK And while Schmitt notes in the NNN essay that he's not particularly concerned with the philology - it's not that he's not true to it, it's just that he thinks that the philology won't inform his study. Additionally, D&G's use of nomos kinda fudges the 4-5C Greek distinction, it's (once again) not inaccurate. In fact, it's part of their critique of hylomorphism, which should get them more traction against Schmitt's usage. In extension, nomos is the idea that substance has a virtual field of potentiality (its becoming) that is determined by an aleatoric distribution of singularities: also known as 'chaosmosis'. As Schmitt on page 338 of NE: propagandistic usages of "a-nomia" doesn't mean the loss of all nomoi but only the loss of a specific nomos. Therefore, one might consider the 'queering' of the body (for instance) as a loss of the hereonormative nomos. This doesn't mean the body no longer has a nomos (relativism!) but that another nomos will replace it -- which is why the french feminist project of multiplying the erogenous zones seems to make a lot of sense when thinking of the topography (and therefore nomos) of the body. If ya'll need/want more on this, i'll have a paper on my website soon. <3 <3 ac
  3. it's answering the "role of the ballot" the plan focus is that the ballot determines if the plan is a good idea, not if someone's ethics, ontology, etc etc, are a good idea. ultimately, it's supposed to reduce the affirmatives burden to merely defend the passage of plan, not the representations or assumptions that were given in suggesting it was a good idea. this gets into pretty sticky territory. for instance, is this under the assumption that representations, ontology, etc are only important for the normal means actors? can the affirmative ever prove the "normal means ontology" of the policy makers? the starkest reason why "plan focus good" is such a bad argument is the role advantages play in debating an affirmative. to prove a net benefit to the status quo, affirmatives propose advantages. affirmative don't suggest all of the possible effects of plan, however. in a policy debate, it is the negative's burden to prove 'link' other potential effects which would be "dis-advantages" or agreeing with link of plan action to already established advantages, and internal-link or impact turning them into disads. ****i would imagine that the question of advocacy (and what is defendable) doesn't revolve around a plan, but it's advantages and disadvantages. and because the "normal means" debate is so obscured, I would assume that the advantages proposed by affirmative should be defended as if they were the proposals given by policy makers. a critique would then be a critique of the justifications given to pass a plan (as per the "advantages" given by the affirmative), not the plan text itself. to not view it in this way would allow severance of advantages (and also, therefore disadvantages and impact turns). this is the worst form of abuse in debate because it prevents case debate and disadvantages as well as critiques, limiting debate to generic "normal means" disads and counterplans. ps: i don't use this site much. don't expect me to respond. sorries.
  4. are you serious? obviously you haven't read wright's storming heaven.
  5. Thats most of the contents of Althusser's "For Marx". Were you looking for more secondary lit?
  6. Erich Fromm, most notably "The Revolution of Hope: Toward a Humanized Technology", would probably be good to use. Very clear and concise (likely too much so, but it'll get the job done).
  7. the joker isn't the ubermensch, he's zarathustra's shadow. duh.
  8. obviously the most important argument has been forgotten, the impact of no value to life. duh.
  9. both schmitt and deleuze's use of nomos comes from Emmanuel Laroche's 1949 study histoire de la racine "Nem" en grec ancien a footnote i have from a book on schmitt says that schmitt and deleuze used different aspects of laroche's work. deleuze focusing on the occupation of the land "to take to pasture, nemo^", which in the Homeric age, "had nothing to do with the parceling of land". schmitt's instead used the distinction between nomos and physis used by the Sophists: "the reality (physis) was opposed to the habitual (nomos) in the same way as subject and object are opposed int he modern ways of speaking" (laroche 192-5) - ojakangas notes "as if people's actions in relation to nature were always and in every case contingent, changing and antagonistsic"
  10. stamm, dylan, others familiar with nebraska politics. i need someone to help me w/ something pretty high-profile in nebraska politics. please me. polarbear [at] riseup dot net
  11. 0deleted0


    janell watson has a new book coming out about guattari and diagrams. dont think its out yet.
  12. susan kappeler's 95 book "will to violence" p10-11 and p13-15 theres a cut of it on the uchicago debate site too. james c scott is hotter.
  13. 0deleted0


    clastres, dumezil and others that D+G draw on are pretty good on the anthropology of excess (which is where they differ from others like, let's say, modernists). excesses are produced in all societies, its how they deal with them (anti-production for D+G, note things like the "pot-latch"). remember back to marx and the shift from fuedalism to cap - hoarding+alienating folks from means of production --> necessary conditions for the cap mode of production. as scu asked, here's the beginning of some of D+G critique of primitivism. i think they're pretty good on the "the new system is bad, but it did some good things" a la marx's "cap is good, it's just bad too...." these are good challenges to the "baby with the bathwater" approaches of neo-primitivism that risk abandoning productive avenues that have the potential to increase the quality of life (why use inferior technology?), could end up romanticizing ritualized violence, and don't have a good place for deviance. here a short excerpt from my advisers book to start off the discussion: "Savage social organization is actualized by a system of inscription that Deleuze and Guattari call a system of “cruelty” (184/218). The temptation of direct appropriation of the matter- and energy-flows of life is so great and so immediate, and the requirement of obedience to the social group so strong, that the laws of savage anti-production – exogamy; no immediate consumption – are branded directly into the flesh of the body. Invoking the Nietzsche of The Genealogy of Morals, Deleuze and Guattari suggest that an enormous amount of pain and cruelty are required to forge a collective memory powerful enough to overcome the appeal of unmediated life (144–5/169–70). The main threat to savage society arises not from incest, they insist, but from flows of matter or energy that might escape capture by the forces of anti-production that constitute savage social organization; rituals of cruelty and systems of inscription are instituted precisely to code all matter- and energy-flows so that they circulate throughout society and cannot escape its grasp. Savage coding is thus linked both to the system of debt-obligations and expenditures it enforces and makes possible and to a specific form of ‘‘writing” that creates and imposes a collective memory on the savage tribe.26 "
  14. 0deleted0


    personally, i think questions about his conceptualization of power and oppression are probably most interesting to us post-structuralists. ex: try asking some of D+G's Ks of primitivism. other questions would be about what would be put in place to prevent the civilizing process from re-emerging, why a primi process would necessarily get ride of the modes of oppression that currently exist (is patriarchy impossible outside of industrial civilization?), how cultural diversity would be created... you know, the more interesting transition questions.
  15. read his essay on primitive accumulation for the week on (anti)markets and primitive accumulation in my theory 2 seminar. ended up writing a paper on balibar's notion of conjuncture from "infinite contradiction", reading it thru (and against) butler's reading of althusser, reading janell watson's butler/guattari piece against butler, and then that reading (conjuncture+watson) against some of balibar's conclusions. read takes balibar's essay the other direction, exploring questions of subsumption instead of psychoanalysis. -shrug-
  • Create New...