#gilles châtelet

[nicklloydnow]

“Philosophy seems finally to have been relieved of a problem it had held very dear - that of the riches of darkness - and whose resolution had been sought in cosmologies without Creation, which always begin with a Chaos of primordial waters, an equivocal mixture of Sky and Earth in a state of ontological putrefaction...a state they could never have escaped had not another God decided to separate them.

These cosmogonies give us one of the keys to understanding the uneasy fascination that emanates from Chaos: the latter installs thought in a space that one hopes will be fruitful, but which is already gnawed at by the virulent opposition of two principles. Chaos is the unresolved equilibrium of two forces, an equilibrium incapable of assuming the coiled, heightened ambiguity of a couple. It presents itself as a precarious totality within which the possibilities it will supposedly deliver are already confronting each other.

This is the whole paradox of Chaos: from the start it is torn apart by the very rivals to which it must give birth; it must resign itself to being nothing but a neutralization, abandoning its fine ambition to deploy a spectrum of virtualities and ending up as a botched dialectic, going no further than the troubled presentiment of a multiplicity haunted by an originary Unity, itself always already contaminated by the Manifold. This is why the fascination exerted by modern scientific theories of chaos is by no means free of equivocation - it brings together two seductions: that of the comfort of operativity, and that of a marvelling in the face of all that is just on the verge of appearing.” (p. 26, 27)

[princesssarisa]

Opera on YouTube, Part 2

Le Nozze di Figaro (The Marriage of Figaro)

Glyndebourne Festival Opera, 1973 (Knut Skram, Ileana Cotrubas, Kiri Te Kanawa, Benjamin Luxon; conducted by John Pritchard; English subtitles)

Jean-Pierre Ponnelle studio film, 1976 (Hermann Prey, Mirella Freni, Kiri Te Kanawa, Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau; conducted by Karl Böhm; English subtitles) – Acts I and II, Acts III and IV

Tokyo National Theatre, 1980 (Hermann Prey, Lucia Popp, Gundula Janowitz, Bernd Weikl; conducted by Karl Böhm; Japanese subtitles)

Théâtre du Châtelet, 1993 (Bryn Terfel, Alison Hagley, Hillevi Martinpelto, Rodney Gilfry; conducted by John Eliot Gardiner; Italian subtitles)

Glyndebourne Festival Opera, 1994 (Gerald Finley, Alison Hagley, Renée Fleming, Andreas Schmidt; conducted by Bernard Haitink; English subtitles)

Zürich Opera House, 1996 (Carlos Chaussón, Isabel Rey, Eva Mei, Rodney Gilfry; conducted by Nikolaus Harnoncourt; English subtitles)

Berlin State Opera, 2005 (Lauri Vasar, Anna Prohaska, Dorothea Röschmann, Ildebrando d'Arcangelo; conducted by Gustavo Dudamel; French subtitles)

Salzburg Festival, 2006 (Ildebrando d'Arcangelo, Anna Netrebko, Dorothea Röschmann, Bo Skovhus; conducted by Nikolas Harnoncourt; English subtitles) – Acts I and II, Acts III and IV

Teatro all Scala, 2006 (Ildebrando d'Arcangelo, Diana Damrau, Marcella Orasatti Talamanca, Pietro Spagnoli; conducted by Gérard Korsten; English and Italian subtitles)

Salzburg Festival, 2015 (Adam Plachetka, Martina Janková, Anett Fritsch, Luca Pisaroni; conducted by Dan Ettinger; no subtitles)

Tosca

Carmine Gallone studio film, 1956 (Franca Duval dubbed by Maria Caniglia, Franco Corelli, Afro Poli dubbed by Giangiacomo Guelfi; conducted by Oliviero de Fabritiis; no subtitles)

Gianfranco de Bosio film, 1976 (Raina Kabaivanska, Plácido Domingo, Sherrill Milnes; conducted by Bruno Bartoletti; English subtitles)

Metropolitan Opera, 1978 (Shirley Verrett, Luciano Pavarotti, Cornell MacNeil; conducted by James Conlon; no subtitles)

Arena di Verona, 1984 (Eva Marton, Jaume Aragall, Ingvar Wixell; conducted by Daniel Oren; no subtitles)

Teatro Real de Madrid, 2004 (Daniela Dessí, Fabio Armiliato, Ruggero Raimondi; conducted by Maurizio Benini; English subtitles)

Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, 2011 (Angela Gheorghiu, Jonas Kaufmann, Bryn Terfel; conducted by Antonio Pappano; English subtitles)

Finnish National Opera, 2018 (Ausrinė Stundytė, Andrea Carè, Tuomas Pursio; conducted by Patrick Fournillier; English subtitles)

Teatro alla Scala 2019 (Anna Netrebko, Francesco Meli, Luca Salsi; conducted by Riccardo Chailly; Hungarian subtitles)

Vienna State Opera, 2019 (Sondra Radvanovsky, Piotr Beczala, Thomas Hampson; conducted by Marco Armiliato; English subtitles)

Ópera de las Palmas, 2024 (Erika Grimaldi, Piotr Beczala, George Gagnidze; conducted by Ramón Tebar; no subtitles)

Don Giovanni

Salzburg Festival, 1954 (Cesare Siepi, Otto Edelmann, Elisabeth Grümmer, Lisa della Casa; conducted by Wilhelm Furtwängler; English subtitles)

Giacomo Vaccari studio film, 1960 (Mario Petri, Sesto Bruscantini, Teresa Stich-Randall, Leyla Gencer; conducted by Francesco Molinari-Pradelli; no subtitles)

Salzburg Festival, 1987 (Samuel Ramey, Ferruccio Furlanetto, Anna Tomowa-Sintow, Julia Varady; conducted by Herbert von Karajan; no subtitles)

Teatro alla Scala, 1987 (Thomas Allen, Claudio Desderi, Edita Gruberova, Ann Murray; conducted by Riccardo Muti; English subtitles)

Peter Sellars studio film, 1990 (Eugene Perry, Herbert Perry, Dominique Labelle, Lorraine Hunt Lieberson; conducted by Craig Smith; English subtitles)

Teatro Comunale di Ferrara, 1997 (Simon Keenlyside, Bryn Terfel, Carmela Remigio, Anna Caterina Antonacci; conducted by Claudio Abbado; no subtitles) – Act I, Act II

Zürich Opera, 2000 (Rodney Gilfry, László Polgár, Isabel Rey, Cecilia Bartoli; conducted by Nikolaus Harnoncourt; English subtitles)

Festival Aix-en-Provence, 2002 (Peter Mattei, Gilles Cachemaille, Alexandra Deshorties, Mirielle Delunsch; conducted by Daniel Harding; no subtitles)

Teatro Real de Madrid, 2006 (Carlos Álvarez, Lorenzo Regazzo, Maria Bayo, Sonia Ganassi; conducted by Victor Pablo Pérez; English subtitles)

Festival Aix-en-Provence, 2017 (Philippe Sly, Nahuel de Pierro, Eleonora Burratto, Isabel Leonard; conducted by Jérémie Rohrer; English subtitles)

Madama Butterfly

Mario Lanfranchi studio film, 1956 (Anna Moffo, Renato Cioni; conducted by Oliviero de Fabritiis; no subtitles)

Jean-Pierre Ponnelle studio film, 1974 (Mirella Freni, Plácido Domingo; conducted by Herbert von Karajan; English subtitles)

New York City Opera, 1982 (Judith Haddon, Jerry Hadley; conducted by Christopher Keene; English subtitles)

Frédéric Mitterand film, 1995 (Ying Huang, Richard Troxell; conducted by James Conlon; English subtitles)

Arena di Verona, 2004 (Fiorenza Cedolins, Marcello Giordani; conducted by Daniel Oren; Spanish subtitles)

Sferisterio Opera Festival, 2009 (Raffaela Angeletti, Massimiliano Pisapia; conducted by Daniele Callegari; no subtitles)

Vienna State Opera, 2017 (Maria José Siri, Murat Karahan; conducted by Jonathan Darlington; no subtitles)

Wichita Grand Opera, 2017 (Yunnie Park, Kirk Dougherty; conducted by Martin Mazik; English subtitles)

Teatro San Carlo, 2019 (Evgenia Muraveva, Saimir Pirgu; conducted by Gabriele Ferro; no subtitles)

Rennes Opera House, 2022 (Karah Son, Angelo Villari; conducted by Rudolf Piehlmayer; French subtitles)

[milksockets]

to live and think like pigs - gilles châtelet

[horsesource]

Gilles Châtelet

[sodomyaspraxis]

“‘Money? It’s the oh-so-simple miracle that allows you to take home veal in your shopping bag…’, the Trader-Knights repeat, forgetting that behind the head of veal or the pork cutlet there is a futures market in livestock and pork bellies, and that behind that market looms the futures market of exchange rates, interest rates and so many other levels all the way down to absolute volatility, all utterly inaccessible to those bit-part players in the great comedy of trading, the small individual shareholders…”

—Gilles Châtelet, To Live and Think Like Pigs: the Incitement of Envy and Boredom in Market Democracies, trans. Robin Mackay (1998)

[xjmlm]

Gilles Châtelet, To Live and Think Like Pigs—

The Average Man

Thus there is an imposture of the statistical that is ultimately very close to the more baroque imposture of chaos. As we have already remarked chaos claims to deliver an individual, or a structure, from out of a democratic stew of possibles; whereas the (more primitive) imposture of statistics forces itself on us with the crudity of a music-hall comic.

There is indeed, however, a political and military understanding of the Number, not the number as juxtaposition of units of distress, as a ‘population’ grasped through height, weight, or ‘social behaviors’ but as a coalition forcing the event and animating a struggle

The fighting Number does not preside over a set of completed individuals —like the cardinal number of a collection—but catalyzes a new individuation, enabling a collective accession to a higher plasticity. This plasticity, which totally escapes the division by aggregate of ‘average men’ is diametrically opposed to the mass individualism so admired by certain socio-politologists.

This plasticity and intelligence of the number already fascinated the military leaders of the Great War. They admired and feared this type of giant amoeba poised to overflow frontiers:

They discovered the physical properties of men reckoned by millions made up an element that conditioned and neutralized all considerations of strategy. Armies of so vast a size were found to possess an unexpected fluidity, a tendency to flow into, and fill up any holes that might be made in their compact body, to envelop impede and turn the point of any opposing thrust; to give beneath a blow, to bend without breaking, to seep outwards from the flanks, covering more and more ground with an ever-active, ever-shifting front, growing to such a size that the forces involved could be regarded as nothing less than nations in arms

What to do with this promising leaven, this protoplasm whose every quivering can deploy a new dimension, this innocent gravity of the “million men”? We know all too well what follows: the forced march toward ‘singing tomorrows’, toward ‘Race’ and ‘Living Space’, in its own way, lent a ‘political weight’ and an impact to this giant amoeba by fabricating a destiny for it as fodder for the Canon and the blast-furnace.

The New Deal would invent (this is where it’s merit lies) a more reasonable solution. An ingenious social chemistry permits the preservation of the natural qualities of this mass -– its homogeneity and elasticity-– while channeling its potentials into the demands of the Great Market. In this way one eliminates all these dangerous dimensions ‘anterior to and indifferent to all strategy’ whose articulation would risk transforming tens of millions of men into living bombs. One retains all the advantages of a vote fodder decidedly wiser (and sometimes even more mobilizable) than cannon fodder and its mechanical services. Jules Romains’s fine mobile unit was successfully torn apart by exorcising everything that makes five hundred thousand a great deal more than 500,000 individuals.

But the leftover pieces also had to be picked up and endowed with some semblance of ‘collective identity’. The concept of the ‘average man’ allowed choice fodder to be injected with the statistical and moral authority. It remained only to articulate it with the demands of the Great Market: never again would any demands or conflicts be tolerated except those susceptible to being fluidified by a market or appeased by a group of specialized mediators. This social chemistry naturally leaves a residue of demands and desires judged too turbulent— or too ‘immature’. As we shall see, however, this tar will be recycled via a panoply of ‘demonizations’ which aim at a coagulation of groups of ‘average men’, so as to constitute ‘moral majorities’ legitimated by a number that is not that of combatants— that of packs and of walking forests— but that of reservoirs and alembics of resentment, of flywheels, of digital photographs of ‘socio-economic tendencies’. By articulating three redoubtable entities—the ventriloquial Number of ‘opinion’, the signaling Number of ‘great socio-economic equilibria’, and finally the figure-Number of mathematical statistics—it has become the masterpiece of cretinization implied by the equation:

Market=Democracy=Majority of Average Men

—the equation that legitimates market democracies, and any contestation of which will from now on be a little short of sacrilege: ‘you disdain the people, you can’t face reality’, etc.

[annamaria16k]

Τίς εἶ ; Qui vive ? Ποιός ζεί ;

Gilles Châtelet

[fundgruber]

Die Überklasse will nicht auf der sozialen Leiter "oben" stehen - das hieße Gesellschaftspyramiden wiederzubeleben, die genauso lächerlich veraltet sind wie die der Pinguine und der Gorillas-, sondern überall und nirgends wuchern, immer noch flüchtiger, immer noch luftiger und natürlich ungreifbarer für Staaten. Man kann im übrigen darauf wetten, dass die Überklasse noch gewandter und zynischer sein wird als die Elite der aktuellen cyber-merkantilen Ordnung, indem sie ihre Rolle als Wachhund der Selbstorganisation rücksichtslos übernehmen und die ökosoziale Dynamik einer Moderne stimulieren wird, für die die Trägheit des Cyber-Viehs eine ständige Bedrohung darstellt.

Gilles Châtelet: Leben und Denken wie die Schweine. Über die Anstifgung zu Neid und Langeweile in den Marktdemokratien. S. 139

[inkdot]

Money? It’s the oh-so-simple miracle that allows you to take home veal in your shopping bag…’, the Trader-Knights repeat, forgetting that behind the head of veal or the pork cutlet there is a futures market in livestock and pork bellies, and that behind that market looms the futures market of exchange rates, interest rates and so many other levels all the way down to absolute volatility, all utterly inaccessible to those bit-part players in the great comedy of trading, the small individual shareholders. - Gilles Châtelet

inkdot

[aleunz-blog]

Una cuestión de máquinas y seres vivos

El problema fundamental de la filosofía política sigue siendo el que Spinoza supo plantear: “¿Por qué combaten los hombres por su servidumbre como si se tratase de su salvación?”

Deleuze & Guattari, “El antiEdipo”.

Resulta demasiado peligroso hablar de las cosas que nos circundan. Es más sencillo mirar otros paisajes. Mirar a la Alemania de entre guerras para pasmarnos ante el ascenso del fascismo; o detenernos en la sutil manipulación de un referéndum en la Gran Bretaña de nuestro días, puede resultar un ejercicio de introspección necesario para extrañarnos de nuestra realidad cotidiana.

El tele film “Brexit: The Uncivil War”, muestra la campaña política del referéndum por la salida del Reino Unido de la Unión Europea. En un momento de la película, Dominic Cummings, el cerebro de la estrategia de uno de los bandos, explica a su staff: “¿Cuál es el mensaje? No puede ser solo una consigna, debe englobar una emoción. ¿Qué emoción? Mi padre trabajaba en un pozo. De petróleo. Esas bolsas de energía, ocultas… Enterradas muy hondo durante largos períodos de tiempo. Gruñendo, gimiendo… Esperando una vía de escape. Solo teníamos que averiguar dónde estaban y empezar a excavar. Abrir el pozo y liberar la presión. Podemos alimentarnos de esos pozos de resentimiento, todas estas presiones que se han ido acumulando… mientras las ignoraban”.

La película se propone explicar cómo sucedió todo, cómo explotaron electoralmente los sentimientos más tóxicos de la sociedad británica. Cummings consiguió implantar su mensaje aunque tuviese que recurrir a mentiras. En la narración observamos la  exploración nuevas maneras de hacer campaña, nos introducimos en la en la guerra de los datos personales. Los datos de los potenciales votantes para hacerles llegar el mensaje que quieren oír, alimentando el resentimiento de la forma más efectiva posible.

Wilhelm Reich observa, en la política del marxismo alemán desde el final de la Primera Guerra hasta el ascenso del nazismo, que los procesos objetivos de la economía y a la política no llegaban a advertir el factor subjetivo de la historia. Mientras la base económica se deterioraba amplias capas de la población se derechizaban, las masas pauperizadas ayudaban a que la reacción política más extrema, tomara el poder. Se extrañaba que de la crisis hubieran surgido ideologías objetivamente opuestas al interés de la masa. Sin embargo, Reich no da una respuesta al problema, solo lo plantea.

El dúo francés, Deleuze & Guattari, tocados aún por los acontecimientos parisinos de Mayo del 68, retoman este cuestionamiento: “¿Por qué soportan los hombres desde siglos la explotación, la humillación, la esclavitud, hasta el punto de quererlas no sólo para los demás, sino también para sí mismos?”

La película sobre la campaña del Brexit, señala que ciertos picaros, utilizando herramientas de comunicación masiva y las novedosas redes sociales, pueden tocar la fibra más irracional del ser humano para llevarlo a elegir en contra de sus intereses. El consumo y la comunicación de masas establecieron un presente donde los acontecimientos se sustituyen con celeridad y sin secuencia. Aislados, alienados en pantallas. Solos, abrumados por el bombardeo mediático. Es un proceso de cretinización, a través de la comunicación, que convierte a las masas en ganado cibernético que pasta mansamente frente a sus pantallas (G. Châtelet, “Vivre et penser comme des porcs“).

En el libro “El imperio de lo efímero”, Gilles Lipovetsky sostiene que la moda es hoy el paradigma dominante, la moda es la piedra angular de la vida colectiva y ha impuesto sus dictado. Nuestra realidad está caracterizada por cierto declive ideológico y el ascenso del mercado.

Este imperio de la moda tiene como contrapartida el desamparo, la depresión y la confusión existencial. Estas fuerzas agitan el mundo produciendo efectos en nuestro cuerpo. Nuestros cuerpos comportan la capacidad de ser afectados por las relaciones que provienen de la realidad que resultan invisibles al ojo humano, previas a la conciencia y, por tanto, intraducibles al carecer de imagen y palabra, una especie de extrañamiento vivido como amenaza. El mundo vive en nuestro cuerpo provocando malestar.

Son nuevos sentidos que buscan expresarse y necesitan conexiones para inventar algo, una forma que sea portadora de este malestar que pide paso. Si no pueden expresarse, si aquello que carecía de imagen o palabra es impedido que adquiera una forma de expresión, si se bloquea el proceso, sobreviven palpitando en pozos de resentimiento que ignoramos.

Para poder recobrar un equilibrio, nuestra pulsión vital necesita actuar: imagen, palabra, gesto, obra de arte u otra manera de alimentarse, de amar, otro modo de existencia, que permita ser portador de la pulsación que pide paso. La más de las veces no ocurre tal sublimación porque estamos inmersos en una perspectiva “antropo-falo-ego-logocéntrica”, tal la definición de la psicoanalista brasileña Suely Rolnik, que anestesia los efectos de las fuerzas del mundo en nosotros, las bloquea, y las vivimos como amenaza. Máquina abstracta antropo-falo-ego-logocéntrica que actúa de manera inmanente, molecular. “El campo social está recorrido por el deseo, hasta las formas más represivas son producidas por el deseo” (Deleuze & Guattari, “El antiEdipo”).

Reformulemos entonces la pregunta: ¿por qué el deseo desea su propia represión? Ninguno de nosotros sufre al poder pasivamente, ni queremos ser reprimidos. Y mucho menos somos engañados por promesas electorales que sabemos vacías de antemano. Pero, el deseo es inseparable de un campo social, máquina abstracta, que fluye por andariveles moleculares, una microfísica de formaciones moleculares que prefiguran actitudes y percepciones. El deseo, resultado de un elaborado montaje, al verse boqueado sus posibilidades de expresarse, determina a ser fascista. “Hay fascismo cuando una máquina de guerra se instala en cada agujero, en cada nicho de microfascismo, pozos de resentimiento, que proporcionan al fascismo un medio de acción incomparable sobre las masas. Microorganizaciones que proporcionan un medio para penetrar en todas las células de la sociedad”. (Deleuze & Guattari, “Mil mesetas”).

La gran genialidad de  Dominic Cummings es haber advertido esos nichos de microfascismo, alimentados durante mucho tiempo por las decisiones políticas, y explotarlas en beneficio electoral de su grupo.

[bruxellescity]

Exposition sur le BICENTENAIRE DE LA NAISSANCE DE JEAN ROBIE, À SAINT-GILLES, JUSQU’AU 28 NOVEMBRE

Exposition sur le BICENTENAIRE DE LA NAISSANCE DE JEAN ROBIE, À SAINT-GILLES, JUSQU’AU 28 NOVEMBRE

Jean Robie (André Hennebicq) A Saint-Gilles, sous l’égide de l’Echevine Cathy Marcus, et du Bourgmestre Charles Picqué, la « Fondation Jean Robie » organise, jusqu’au dimanche 28 novembre – dans l’espace « Notre Cercle », au N° 51 de la rue de Parme, au sein du Parc Baron Pierre Paul Paulus (dédié à la mémoire du Baron Pierre Paulus de Châtelet {1881-1959}) -, une exposition commémorant…

[milksockets]

to live and think like pigs - gilles châtelet

[horsesource]

Gilles Châtelet

[sodomyaspraxis]

“A maximal fluidity propagating mimetism like gangrene, a confusion of mobility with the dubious ‘nomadism’ of ‘temporary gigs’ and part-time, expedient solidarities, of the camaraderie of bare survival—such are the characteristics of the ‘new civil society’ that serves equilibrium alone, orchestrated by a thermodynamic vision of politico-economics. Thus it would be no exaggeration here to speak of a thermo-civil society, or, better, a thermocracy, dictating the everyday lives of millions of average men, consumer-panelist Robinsons, distant descendants of Hobbes’s Robinsons pompously saluted as the prototypes of postmodernity, finally freed from all ‘great expectations’ and all ‘grand narratives’.”

— Gilles Châtelet, To Live and Think Like Pigs: the Incitement of Envy and Boredom in Market Democracies, trans. Robin Mackay (1998)

[xjmlm]

The Cyber-Wolf style, apolitical and blasé, began to spread: how to resist the delicious frivolity of those who strove to ‘shit on the negative’, who believed they had finally found the secret of permanent jubilation, and who claimed to be cultivating orchids in the desert without bothering much about the thorny problem of irrigation? Marvelous Gardeners of the Creative, who wanted to take off before having learned to walk, and who had forgotten that freedom, unless it is reduced to nothing but whim and daydreams, is also the concrete—and often arduous—mastery of the conditions of freedom.

The neoliberal Counter-Reformation was to wreak its revenge without making any concessions to the Gardeners of the Creative. Every idea, even the most generous, would be mercilessly turned inside-out like a glove, chewed up only to be belched back up in a form of a nightmarish replica, just as the Evil Fairy of the fable makes her victims spew up toads and vipers as soon as they open their mouths. Let’s hear the Counter-Reformation speak, then, and admire the kind of truly demoniac magic with which it strives to grant the Gardners’ every wish:

‘You want to affirm Difference and even (if I understand correctly) to affirm the right to Difference. Thanks for the gift! But we don’t ask quite that much. It was you who helped us work it up. We don’t say that any race is superior to any other,—your dads’ racism is gone—don’t worry—we just say they are different. Isn’t modernity respect for difference?

—You want as little state as possible? If only you knew how much we agreed! It’s time to slim down the providential state: a fat nightwatchman is no good to anyone. Are we going to carry on exhausting ourselves drip feeding national health and education?

—Nomadism and mobility, you say…here again, you’ll be amazed at our audacity: our companies will ‘nomadize’ (pardon the neologism) faster than your most switched-on backpackers. Obviously in New York, Paris, or London there will be a few more people in the streets. But after all, isn’t it already like that in New Delhi, Caracas, and Sao Paolo? Why should the rich countries be privileged?

—You want to reserve some room for creativity, for ‘each to his own’ (pardon the phrase). So be it! Your wish is our command! We will give you extra helpings of ‘each to his own,’ but spiced up with our preferred ingredients: envy, narcissism, the possessive spirit—which, as you know, are the raw materials of our market democracies.

—You’re tired of oppositions and dialectical confrontations. You want to invent a sort of ‘diplomacy of the continuous’…Make one more little effort to come closer to us and you’ll see that the market loves fluidity—just like you—and that it detests all those corny demands, all those manifestations of nostalgia and resentment, all that tension over privilege, and all the ‘viscosities’ secreted by dinosaur unions incapable of integrating with the generous social mobility of market democracies.

—You want to capture the creative powers of chaos—just what we’d expect of Gardeners of Creativity—and to replace the big political choices with a cyberpolitics that would allow solutions to emerge graciously, delivered out of disorder by self-organization, just as butter floats gently to the surface of buttermilk? Come now, just a few centimeters and our fingers will touch..completely ditch all politics and its voluntarism. Just be patient, that’s enough: the chaos of opinions and micro decisions will always end up giving birth to something reasonable.

The Gardeners of the Creative had basically sought to play Nietzsche against Hegel, and often against Marx. But they had chosen the wrong target: it is neither Hegel’s owl, nor Marx’s mole, nor Nietzsche’s camel that surprises us at the turn in the road: it is Malthus, peddler of the most nefarious conservatisms, always smiling and affable, who stands watching the suckers haggling over the libertarian gimcrackery of nomadism and chaotizing.

Gilles Châtelet, To Live and Think Like Pigs

[annamaria16k]

Να αγαπάς, έστω και αν χαθείς εκεί μέσα,μόνο αυτό που θέτει σε άτακτη φυγή την τάξη σου

Gilles Châtelet