The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason, the social forms springing from your present mode of production and form of property — historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production — this misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you. What you see clearly in the case of ancient property, what you admit in the case of feudal property you are of course forbidden to admit in the case of your own…
Marx, The Communist Manifesto
It’s more difficult than ever. If one is not to trust blindly in the prevailing language, which remains most often subservient to the rhetoric of the media and to the banter of the political powers, we must be very careful using the term “terrorism” and especially “international terrorism.” In the first place, what is terror? What distinguishes it from fear, anxiety, and panic? …How does a terror that is organized, provoked and instrumentalized differ from that fear that an entire tradition, from Hobbes to Schmitt and even Benjamin, holds to be the very condition of the authority of law and of the sovereign exercise of power, the very condition of the political and of the state?
Derrida, Philosophy in a Time of Terror
The individual “withdrawal” into finitude, the social condition of property, is the dimension of isolated subjectivity itself: with the ownership of material things we are led to the very dissolution of social reality in favor of a fractured prism of inter-related dreams.
Hidden silently within shame, fear always turns away, avoiding facing the gazes which would compel us to speak out.
Property violates, is the immanent contingency of violence itself, the necessity for irreplaceable loss. Joy receives infinitely, it is the relation to the other and the blindness preceding the supplement at once: an inexhaustible surplus.
Ownership gives, always referring to an other essentially outside of our grasp.
The question of property hinges upon the unresolved problem of representation, even if the full extent of the latter’s semiotic contagion is only marginally active from within the scope of the economic question.
Because in fact representation exudes economies of force, induce the stripping-bare of the elemental, and force the material reduction to pure significations: “objective” relationships and attributes.
Axiom or diagram? There is a difference, to be sure, but shouldn’t we wonder at the strange partnership between them, their uncanny counterbalance? The way the one seizes upon the other, strangely affected by its alien rhythms, unconsciously awaiting the other as teacher, impregnator, since each is in its own way receptive to the idea of infinity — even as though its very existence were a gift from the other.
An axiom requires an infinite amount of time to encode, or demonstrate; a diagram requires an infinite amount of time to decode, or interpret.
Give up proofs and interpretation, and where are we? The outer, schizophrenic limit. Affirm proof and interpretation simultaneously? The inner, paranoid limit. Where is the middle way, the revolutionary path?
Neither diagram nor axiom but abstract machinics: concrete diagrammatics, the conceptual engineering of counter-axiomatic pragmatics. Let us move on, let us reunify; or rather — divide by zero.
Mimic but continue to produce flows and breaks. Push, resist, expand, amplify, resonate. Be cautious but don’t be afraid.
Discover the end within the beginning.
The gravity of time is also the joy of youth — and the infinite celerity of birth.