comments 5
continuity / modernity / noise / ontology / Politics / question / reality / signal / silence / state / subtraction


A situation tends to bring about the specific conditions of its overcoming. Thus advances in transportation and telecommunication technologies are slowly bringing about not only the collapse of the classical temporal and spatial interval as such, the annihilation of the discrete; but also a simultaneous collapse of classical distribution or dissemination as such, a self-destruction of the sign through optimal transmissivity, and hence finally the death of the voice along with the signal, the annihilation of the continuous. –Twin paradoxes which define and isolate our historical moment: to build channels without yet having anything meaningful to transmit, and to transmit without having any channels or destinations, or any hope of being received. A question disrupts the essence of the situation, its reality; but a greater noise can always drown it out. It may not even be heard the first time. But after long enough, there is another question, or another questioner, and then another to question him, and so on. Repetition and revolution. –Modernity is hatred of the modern. The state itself becomes noise, and hence is drowned in noise. Finally, there is only glare, pure positivity, a non-spectacle: a signal without a sign. What is it to be in excess of the state?

The Author

mostly noise and glare


  1. “A situation tends to bring about the specific conditions of its overcoming.”

    This is the argument of (especially) Americans who don’t want to do anything to curtail global warming. Maybe if we accelerate fossil fuel use we can get to the future even quicker.

  2. That might be oversimplifying a little 🙂

    There is a certain degree of spontaneity and rupture in the margins of every situation. But nonetheless it does indeed take a singular event to bring about a new state. Revolution outlines a future which is postponed, forever deferred and always to come, a pure or discontinuous future which nonetheless re-assembles and reorients the present situation around new horizons, new focal points.

    The green revolution, for instance, outlines a broad re-coordination of production processes — in effect, a conjunction of the means and the ends of production. Hence not only a necessary shift from linear to cyclical production processes, but a corresponding re-orientation of all production sectors towards nature itself as a process of production.

  3. I guess I was a bit abrupt, especially as a new visitor, but I’ve been reading some of the recent discussions on xenoeconomic affirmational accelerationism and this is what came to mind. The situation simultaneously brings the conditions of its continuation, its acceleration, and various forms of rupture.

    “it does indeed take a singular event to bring about a new state.” So we’ve got multiple potential conditions for overcoming a situation, with a singular event determining or choosing which potentiality gets actualized — it’s a radical decentering of agency that you’re after here, I guess. I ought to read more of your stuff to get further oriented.

    “Revolution outlines a future which is postponed, forever deferred and always to come.”

    A revolution is a singular event and a rupture in its own right I’d think, whether or not it ushers in its desired future state. The really existing green revolution is more a shared ideological vision, just as you describe; the “revolution” bit seems more like marketing rhetoric.

  4. What does belief have to do with it? I’m not sure ideology is really the question here. Thoughts are events, truths traversing a subject, fragmenting both the subject and the object to a point of radical dispersion — where the source of value itself becomes revealed, through the lens of responsiblity. This all lends itself to a certain plurality, a kind of positive ambiguity or indeterminacy which disjoins biunivocal relations in favor of multiplicity.

    What has truly been the pivot of revolutionary action? If it has not been rhetoric, ideology, or “truth,” then what? Cruelty, pure and simple: the most elementary form of determination, its naked essence. The rigor of mathematics, the dogmatism of natural religion, the violence of the police and authority in general — all these quite different regimes of signals are connected through a certain kind of desire… The desire for the law seems to oppose the desire for truth; one revolution opposes and subverts the other. So we might say to conduct several revolutions at once, upon several fronts — take advantage of the surplus energy generated by their interaction. Use the one to amplify the other.

    How can we think capitalisms’ delirious way of decoding reality, how long can one stand to look beneath the language of advertisements and investigate that chaotic world of desires lurking just below the surface? To tap the idols with a tuning fork — who knows? At any rate, there’s a lot of work to be done, so much time has already passed…

    Thanks for your comment. I’ll leave it there.


  5. “Thanks for your comment. I’ll leave it there.”

    I guess that’ll show me who’s the subjective agent on this post (winky smiley). Thanks right back atcha, and I hope my engagement didn’t transect the flows passing through you in too unpleasant a way. A bientot.

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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.