1. "…it’s awful for women to be told they’re stars when they’ve been raised not to believe it."

    -Hilton Als, “You and Whose Army.”

     

  2. The dialectics of anxiety: class with Badiou #2

    mashatupitsyn:



    “Anxiety is when we must know something we do not know. There is no creation without anxiety. There is always anxiety. Anxiety is the sign of the new Real. Too much Real. A Real which is an excess of Real. Courage is the effect which gives human animals the means to go beyond anxiety. There is a dialectical relationship between courage and anxiety. Anxiety indicates that there is really something new for the subject.”

     
  3. pennyante:

    (Not Always) Simple: “Precarious Life” —Masha Tupitsyn LOVE DOG, p140

     

  4. On anxiety (anxiety has no external object. Anxiety comes from within) and faith:

    Kierkegaard, from “Anxiety as Saving Through Faith”:

    "In one of Grimm’s folktales there is a story of a young man who went out in search of adventure in order to learn what it is to be anxious…As a beast or an angel, a human being could not be made anxious. Through being a synthesis a human being can be made anxious, and the more profoundly, the greater the human being. Not, however, in the usual sense in which anxiety is about something external, about something outside a person, but in the sense that it is the person himself who produces anxiety. Only in this sense can the words be understood when it is said of Christ that he was grieved unto death, as well as the words Christ spoke to Judas: Do quickly what you are going to do. Not even the terrifying verse that made Luther himself anxious when preaching on it: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?", not even these words express suffering as strongly. For what these latter signify is a condition Christ finds himself in, the former a relation to a condition that is not.

    Anxiety is freedom’s possibility; this anxiety alone is, through faith, absolutely formative, since it consumes all finite ends, discovers all their deceptions. And no Grand Inquisitor has such frightful torments in readiness as has anxiety, and no secret agent knows as cunningly how to attack the suspect in his weakest moment, or to make so seductive the trap in which he will be snared; and no discerning judge understands how to examine, yes, exanimate [exanimere: dishearten], the accused as does anxiety, which never lets him go, not in diversion, not in noise, not at work, not by day, not by night.

    Anyone formed by anxiety is shaped by possibility, and only the person shaped by possibility is cultivated according to his infinitude. Possibility is therefore the most difficult of all categories. It is true that we often hear the opposite, that possibility is so light, while in actuality it is so heavy. But from whom do we hear such words? From a few wretches who do not know what possibility is, and who, when they were shown by actuality that they were good for nothing and always would be, had mendaciously spruced up a possibility that was then ever so fine, so enchanting, and this possibility was at bottom no more than a little youthful frivolity of which one should rather be ashamed. The possibility said to be so light is usually thought of as the possibility of happiness, good fortune, etc. But this, absolutely, is not possibility: it is a lying that human depravity has tricked up in order to have some reason to complain at life, and at Governance, and an occasion to be self-important. No, in possibility, all things are equally possible and anyone truly brought up by possibility has grasped the terrifying just as well as the smiling.

    …for an individual to be formed thus absolutely and infinitely by possibility, that individual must be honest toward possibility and have faith. By faith I understand here what Hegel, somewhere, characteristically and very rightly, calls the inner certainty that anticipates infinity. When the discoveries of possibility are honestly administered, possibility will discover all finitudes but idealize them in the shape of infinity, in anxiety overwhelm the individual, until the individual again overcomes them in the anticipation of faith…By cheating possibility, which molds the individual, an individual never arrives at faith…So when an individual, through anxiety, is formed to faith, anxiety will then eradicate what it itself produces. Anxiety discovers fate, but when the individual would entrust itself to fate, anxiety switches around and takes fate away; for fate, like anxiety, and anxiety like possibility, is a witch’s letter.”

    *”brought up by possibility.” The idea that one can be raised/reared by something like this. Possibility and faith as value system, ethos, ethic.

     

  5. On Anxiety and ethics:

    Kierkegaard stating “Whoever has learned to be anxious in the right way has learned the ultimate…It is an adventure that every human being has to live through, learning to be anxious so as not to be ruined either by never having been in anxiety or by sinking into it” is what Avital Ronell means when she says that anxiety is the mode of ethicity par excellence.

     
  6. pennyante:

    "Lived in a dream world and now my world became a dream. What came of it. A new life, I thought. ‘Once your life has jumped track,’ Anne Carson asks, ‘where is the way home?’" —Masha Tupitsyn, Love Dog (p 214)

     

  7. True friends. You only get a few.

     
  8. kenotype:

    Personally I think it very important to look to movies for love, for a thinking of love, in fact if it is not immediately within the family where else will you look towards, what will you listen to? In the age of the search bar (which obviously I am not against at the level of knowledge), it is nice to listen to this, since the word love need not appear for what we listen to to be about love - the results of the search are immediately present in the act of listening: to immediately listen for, and with, love, to prepare the organ of the ear to listen for it. We can say that the we exists without having to at first make the distinction between two bodies, but maybe we can say there are two voices in the sounds we are hearing. What is important is that there are no bodies in front of us when listening to this. I listened through headphones, and was reminded of talking on the phone with someone you want to be with, that you are not within your body when you do so. To generate new organs to listen with. Two quotes from Marx: “If you love without evoking love in return” + “Just as music alone awakens in man the sense of music, and just as the most beautiful music has no sense for the unmusical ear” - the preparation of new organs to be able to be able to hear - retroactively and in the process of determination, there are no boundaries, no inherent limitations to the organs we can create to be able to continue, ears without bodies, the infinite production of new organs without bodies - that the sexual disjunction of the two in love is this difference: the difference in two (sexual) organs is clearer in thinking the two attempting to create infinitely new organs to interact, and they are different infinities so it is tough to assign measure, or rather, exchange- it is not reducible simply to exchange and use, we are attempting to invent a new world of appearances with our new organs, thus not in the non-world of market. In listening I wonder about the spaces that this will play. Listening to it I am reminded of Wallace Stevens’ ‘description without place’ since this is the question, how to describe new organs that cannot be placed in the space of exchange, that is the struggle at least as I understand it: how to create spaces to be in love, it is a very concrete struggle as it leads to the question, can you only love if you can afford a space, afford some property to be with your lover when jobs are disappearing and, barring UBI, is love only for the rich, who can afford a space? Who do you listen to? At one point does the family, the friends, the state, etc become some-one to listen to that can interrupt the immanent two you are attempting to create? When can you start listening? I think the scandal of Freud is also: children understand what love is - I mean ask any child of divorce and at 4 years old they know absolutely what has happened (and this question of age in relation to truth, there are geniuses of math who are young, those playing violin at 2 years old, etc.) The movement here: falling in love - in love - fights - break-ups - reunions - i love you - doubts - betrayal - loss (and here I am assuming that this is at the level of being, at the level of appearing there can be different orders) - this movement requires (the creation of) spaces to be able to do this. You cannot fight and break up and i love you and doubt and reunite in front of everyone (since every-one is not and cannot be totalized). If we had worlds enough, and time - there is no immanent end to the organs we can create and the new worlds of appearances that come with it, there is no capital R reason why love needs to end, we just exhaust the worlds - so it is good to listen to some sayings subtracted from the worlds they appear, and know they are true, because we need to start with some philosophical forcing, in anticipation of the loves to come from without and within since in love there is the moment of opening and closing where it is difficult to see which is which so you have to listen, and also speak, so maybe you can still create new worlds, to house the silences as well. Two voices, two silences, and the names are only known by the lovers themselves.


    ****

    "Partly inspired by Marclay’s The Clock" - what I remembered most about it, I was in Toronto seeing it with my friend, and it is the same time zone as Montréal where I was living at the time, so it was difficult to say when I leave The Clock, and it reminded me of the myth of the cave, as in, how do I know I am outside the cave? In fact the claim of exteriority is a pure cut. For example, at 3:29pm, we do not simply see one clock at 3:29pm, but at least two. We also do not cut from a 3:29pm to another, but the moment the clock strikes 3:29pm, twice. This is not an isolated incident. At 9:10pm we donʼt even see a clock, instead we see someone counting, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and the phrase “9,10” counts-as-now. In the first case there is the possibility of perhaps for every image that shows 3:29pm, that is, every image belonging to 3:29pm, but this also includes the clock becoming 3:29pm, as well as the possibility of showing the seconds in between, milliseconds, or any distinction whatever. In this way, the set of parts concerning any time whatever exceeds the set itself. Inclusion is in excess to belonging. But by how much? At another point, around 9:15pm, a watch is “regulated” (these are the words of the woman ʻfixingʼ a manʼs watch in the scene to coincide with the time). And at another point in the same hour, there is a close-up of a watch whose hands change by will of the person with the watch. Thus what succeeds a particular time can be absolutely chosen. It is never clear how much the inclusion of all the times that exist within a particular time exceeds the time itself, but it is clear it can be decided, as long as it does indeed succeed the time before. These moments of ʻfixingʼ a clock show that even within the bad infinity of The Clock, it is made clear that time is a purely subjective choice, and at any moment we can break with repetition and enter the domain of succession. I would look at my phone during The Clock, and would only see the time if there were no messages, and seeing the time, I would still be in The Clock. If there was a text message, from someone I loved, and my pocket against my leg as an organ understands a vibration can be a ‘hey this might be a message from someone you love.’ I would no longer be in the cave, I can claim exteriority. To partially quote a friend: from immanence of immanence, to immanence of externality, to externality of immanence, to externality of externality -

    To love is to assert the difference within the same which makes me identical to myself, an identity without identity, and it’s what we listen for, and with. After the invention of music, the ear will have been what it will have been through what it enables and what consequences it unfolds, unlawfully. So far in Masha Tupitsyn’s Love Sounds we have about 20 minutes, which will become a day, which brings up the question what is a true day, a day dedicated to thinking a truth in a world, when a day is only a day when we think our new organs in the future anterior, take time to listen and after love we will always have had a loving ear.

    "New organs without bodies." Yes.

    Isiah Medina on my forthcoming aural history of love, Love Sounds. The above video is the 21 min trailer.

     
     



  9. -Back to the Future, 1985

     

  10. Notes on Love Sounds:

    How much is in an archive? Is it everything, all?

    The etymology of archive is public records but also, literally, “beginning, origin, first place.”

    Cinema is the 20th century’s origin/place of love. Every era has a first place. A way of building, a town hall for/of voices.

    Before the place/the way was the poets and suitors of courtly love.

    What is it now? Where is it now?

    Need to re-read W Benjamin.