comments 9
capitalism / concept / desire / difference / event / language / parasite / problem


Mark Rothko


Non-expression. Speaking is a donation of words; but in this donation is dramatized an idea of alterity, an uncanny and infinite Power mysteriously unleashed, and this by a seemingly peaceful sharing of signs. 

Is it possible? Ten thousand years of speaking, and still we are waiting for a sign.

Problems. We owe to Deleuze the discovery that the difficulty of a problem is not simply the number of differential elements it assembles within a single ideal situation, but rather the process of problematization of an element or elements which somehow causes the contents of the problem to problematize the very situation itself. This marks  a radical becoming-social of problematics — or if you like, the becoming-event of the concept (becoming-problem.) Yet does it not seem as though this method is still profoundly Lacanian somehow, as though the real is being implicitly understood as a strange hyper-real gap between Difference and itself — mysteriously and paradoxically allowing a differentiation to differenciate itself infinitely, suspending both the emotional-organic ontology of desiring-repression as well as the mechanical logic that underlies materialism, allowing thought to move at infinite speed on a hyperplane of immanence — ripping a hole through the symbolic networks, allowing the transpiercing and reprogramming of the assemblage by the outside? The difficulty remains even if we understand the practice of militant problematization or counter-actualization to be a process of differentiating problematic or ‘insurgent’ elements of the situational social assemblage with respect to their capacity for transformation.

A certain noise is all it takes. Parasites can indeed be shaken off and immediately so; but they are chased out only by a greater noise, by the willing invitation of still more powerful parasites. –So at least there are specific cries which are anathema to a given variety of parasite: the roaring of their host-cum-predators. Of collective liberation.

Other. In order to grasp the organless body of capital, we must also grasp the decoding and distribution of scales (layers) necessitated by its cyclic, redundant pragmatic of infinite dissemination. This transmission of alien messages continuously and cynically demanded by the increasingly-powerful actualization of capitalist social diagrams is in fact an essential characteristic. We must think this transmission on the molecular scale at which capitalism opens, divides, reprograms and transfigures our minds and bodies. But no less can we ignore this transmission on the cosmic scale in which capitalism cannot help but figure as the looming, obscure Power sleeping silently within the earth itself, simply waiting for the right conditions to make contact with powers originating from a radical Outside.

On long ears. What goes “without saying” is undoubtedly far more interesting than what is actually said. 

Logic of cents. Capital occupies a restless place-without-place, presents us with an absent focus of exchange — an obscure third only absolutely present as a kind of channel, or a decoding of series of channels, forming vast networks allowing the growth of indirect and secondary interconnections. Money taken formally as unlimited diffusion continuously re-enacts a strange and arcane drama, the creation of wealth. In some cases the system of capitalist production aligns itself with the existing and traditional power structures only to break with it in the most extreme fashion in others. Primary desiring-repression is much, much older than capitalism; we are today actualizing social diagrams of pain and destruction only dreamed of by the ancients. But it is this specific paradox of necessary and humiliating castration to an inhuman, exterior, malevolent machine which is the very soul of capitalism — or to put it less dramatically, there is a kind of catastrophic desire-to-subvert-desire which constitutes the ultimate logic of capitalist “sense.” 

The Author

mostly noise and glare


  1. Wow, interesting and poetic, a “transvaluation” that Nietzsche would have predicted. Your style is wonderful. A question: perhaps more powerful parasites are not simply more powerful parasites?

  2. Thank you so much! –I’m having trouble parsing your question: are you suggesting the new predators are perhaps “not simply more powerful” — or that they are perhaps “not simply parasites”? There’s certainly no law that says a parasite cannot be chased out a relatively weaker parasite (in a sense, this is closer to a “universal”); rather the formula given above is an attempt at a statement of the irreversibility of swarm logic: once you’ve gotten rid of one, inevitably — it would seem — the horde follows…

  3. Sorry for my imparsiblility, and thank you, this clarifies your meaning. Swarm logic is not a logic of mutual cancellation. The latter was just my initial misreading. There’s a unique structural similarity and profound difference between our “studies” of reality–wow, truly striking!

    Parasites are a key in my understanding as well, though I haven’t read Serres, Deleuze or Guattari.

    “But aren’t you just reinventing the wheel?.”

    –There is a strange kind of wheel that can only be reinvented.

    You might soon find a post on our (non)equivalences in the chance that perhaps you will find interest in my ideas, in connecting with a point that’s not on the map–although there’s an equal chance you will find only lunacy 🙂

  4. Hmm, the desire to subvert desires… Are you talking about bribing someone to not do what they want because you will give them means to do what they want? The endlessly deferred opportunity, that is an investment in the present without ever having present realisation? ‘Cause that sucks!

    Also this problematization reminds me of reflexive self organisation; where the judgement of a system as acceptable/unacceptable is made by it’s components, and as with Kant, because they act as both ends and means, the whole exhibits teleology. This is reminiscent of Hofstader’s strange loop also!

  5. Janet M. Pendergraft says

    Let God be God. In changing God, he/she becomes you. Can you manage the universe and all human form through physical and spirit existence? He/she only asks that you think all good thoughts because he/she battles with the dark side for the welfare of the cosmos, and all its inhabitants. The omnipotent Godhead manifests with you. One in all. All in one.

  6. Janet M. Pendergraft says

    Let God be God. In changing God, God becomes you. God cancels out. Can you manage the universe and all life through time and space. God manifests through your actions. One in all. All in one.

  7. Janet M. Pendergraft says

    Check out “Dualism” connoted “co-eternal bi-nary opposites defaulted through “Materialistic monism.”

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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.