tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862832.comments2023-09-27T16:03:44.233+01:00william watkin's blog (since 2003)Watkinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03975658226622630230noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862832.post-42378720270586189862013-11-04T21:03:11.885+00:002013-11-04T21:03:11.885+00:00Thanks. I met Agamben's "The SIgnature of...Thanks. I met Agamben's "The SIgnature of All Things" via the critique by Asciambaro. Your summary of Agamben is very helpful.<br /><br />Richard MullinsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862832.post-60698945594714500552013-05-21T04:20:33.502+01:002013-05-21T04:20:33.502+01:00"Poetry, therefore, produces something called..."Poetry, therefore, produces something called life by the double negation of biological life (indistinction) and human social life (division)." Well stated. Is there a specific place in Agamben's work where he states this explicitly, or is this a gathering of your own? Only curious.<br /><br />I'm going to keep reading your article and may post again, but I wanted to ask if you have any familiarity with Georges Bataille's work? So many parallels to Agamben's work. What you are calling "poetry" could roughly be translated as Bataille's "profound communication" or "literature," and "life" as "sovereign being." For Bataille, literature (as "sovereign," as "profound communication") was precisely where the isolated-divided being dissolved or merged back into the "continuity of Being" (which was mere indistinction in the animal state, like "water in water"); yet the isolated being returns to this continuity in a state of awakening or consciousness (which in Bataille amounts to a consciousness of loss, since sovereignty, or being, is "nothing" - nothing <i>but</i> communication). This has the exact structure, at least, of what you've said here; and its intention is precisely the same "repoliticizing" of human being that Agamben is after.<br /><br />This is not the only parallel, however, as the sovereign moment, in that it negates the isolated-divided being, the negation of the world that is predicated on this isolation and division - what he calls the sphere of 'human activity' or the 'world of work' (functionalism, utilitarianism, future-orientation). This seems to have an exact parallel to Agamben's emphasis on inoperativity, unworking, and deactivation of law and economy, as stressed at the end of Kingdom and Glory. Even more, Bataille's statement that "sovereignty is NOTHING" seems to line up exactly with the "empty throne of power" Agamben finds.<br /><br />I'd say the key texts here for Bataille would be "Guilty" (trans. Kendall), "Theory of Religion," and "Literature and Evil."<br /><br />Tim.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862832.post-3782025617962148232013-05-10T01:32:27.536+01:002013-05-10T01:32:27.536+01:00THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862832.post-76855096757522739922013-04-18T14:49:00.179+01:002013-04-18T14:49:00.179+01:00Thanks David of course I remember you I was suppos...Thanks David of course I remember you I was supposed to send you my experimental novel which I never did of course for which you should thank me! I like your blog by the way, I also love Mother and Son. One of my wife's top 5 falling asleep to films, The Mirror is another.<br /><br />By the way I am updating my Ashbery material on the blog. Take a look some time I started today with re-annotating "Two Scenes".Watkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03975658226622630230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862832.post-49885434132857309922013-03-14T20:33:48.734+00:002013-03-14T20:33:48.734+00:00My name is David Spittle - I sent you a message ab...My name is David Spittle - I sent you a message about my thesis on Ashbery a while ago. Just wanted to say thanks - for this link, for bringing this collection into my sphere of poetic procrastination. I remember seeing 'The Mirror' a couple of years ago...and I felt similarly haunted by some of the images - the woman levitating - the cabin and fire at the start...Mr Tarkovsky is quite something (to offer a grotesque understatement). Saw 'Stalker' at a local cinema last year...whole new level of glacial genius! really enjoyed reading your meditative, post Mirror immersion -'The Minutes'.The Midnight Molluschttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09661878854105438429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862832.post-81455258472471243382013-03-08T13:35:26.960+00:002013-03-08T13:35:26.960+00:00The book is out end of this year beginning of next...The book is out end of this year beginning of next. As for you questions:<br /><br />1: the ontico-ontological difference falls easily into the proper-common designations and their relation, dramatised by the indifferential sense of identity and difference found in the Heidegger text of the same name, is central I think to the eventual break from philosophy of difference that is to be found in Agamben and, at present, aside from my own modest efforts, only there. So categorical is proper and ontological common. How indifference suspends this difference takes time to explain but my book does take that time.<br /><br />2: yes, indifference is not merely a method but something which happens, perhaps not an event but certainly an act. If nothing happens after indifference, for Agamben and in the example you give, then indifference as a method is pointless. <br /><br />3: Ah love, doesn't make any different which signature you use, this is Agamben's term, love, power, poetry, violence and so on the stakes are the same. A proper and a common are placed in articulation. The common is taken as the ground, the proper what is grounded, but the common only exists after it has grounded something and the proper actually constructs the myth of its ground subsequently. At some point the clarity of distinction of these positions breaks down, this is indifference or here impotentiality. At this stage the improper or the lovers' potential for incapacity, impotentiality, comes to the fore. See my blog entry on Potentiality and just think of incapacity-impropreity as impotentiality which, after all, is another synonym for indifference.Watkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03975658226622630230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862832.post-37912941045883443962013-02-18T16:37:15.212+00:002013-02-18T16:37:15.212+00:00Very interesting way of interpreting Agamben’s wor...Very interesting way of interpreting Agamben’s work. Do you happen to know when your new book will be available? <br /><br />I have a couple of questions/remarks, if I may. <br /><br />1) What would be the relation between Agamben’s articulation of proper/common and Heidegger’s articulation of existential and categorial determination?<br /><br />2) As I understand it, the process of “indifferenciation” is not only a method but an adequate response to an actual state (the “break down” of differences you wrote about). In his Italian Diary (included in Means Without Ends) he wrote: “And how can one touch the porn star’s body, since there is not an inch on it that is not public? And yet it is from such a zone of indifference in which the actions of human experience are being put on sale–that we ought to start today.” (122).<br /><br />3) I wonder if what you wrote about sovereign murders is somehow analogical to what Agamben also wrote about love (which would be very interesting). What would be the “fact” in the communication (or relation) of lovers? See from “The Passion of Facticity”: “ Lovers go to the limit of the improper in a mad and demonic promiscuity; they dwell in carnality and amorous discourse, in forever-new regions of impropriety and facticity, to the point of revealing their essential abyss. Human beings do not originally dwell in the proper; yet they do not (according to the facile suggestion of contemporary nihilism) inhabit the improper and the ungrounded. Rather, human beings are those who fall properly in love with the improper, who –unique among living beings– are capable of their own incapacity.”<br /><br />Thanks again for sharing your thoughts with the rest of us. <br /><br />Philippehttp://aphelis.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862832.post-80656480763641827442013-02-08T19:44:53.730+00:002013-02-08T19:44:53.730+00:00brilliant!! well done. what you have put in 200 ...brilliant!! well done. what you have put in 200 words took ages for me to comprehend!!! Ali B. Mohammedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08287063383488524765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862832.post-68664135440864664332013-02-07T15:38:13.687+00:002013-02-07T15:38:13.687+00:00One of my MA students asked for clarification of w...One of my MA students asked for clarification of what Agamben means by common and proper and I realised this is not self-evident especially if you are not a philosophy student. Here is my explanation:<br />Common is Agamben's general term for all universal, abstract structures of identity. Proper is his term for all empirical, local, examples of difference. So common could be universal or general to proper as particular or specific case. They are the two foundational terms of all Western thought going back to the Greek debate between Parmenides who argues everything is one (common) and Heraclites for whom everything is flux (proper). Two other famous examples are common is Reason and proper Understanding in Kant and common is the one and proper the many. Common law would be don't kill, proper would be this instance of murder. Then we have fact. Fact is a proper that does not fit into the common and so is referred directly to the sovereign. Say a head of state who 'murders' due to an illegal invation. The fact is the extreme end of proper just as sovereign power is the extreme form of common.Watkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03975658226622630230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862832.post-89541393207169106202013-02-07T15:37:29.464+00:002013-02-07T15:37:29.464+00:00One of my MA students asked for clarification of w...One of my MA students asked for clarification of what Agamben means by common and proper and I realised this is not self-evident especially if you are not a philosophy student. Here is my explanation:<br />Common is Agamben's general term for all universal, abstract structures of identity. Proper is his term for all empirical, local, examples of difference. So common could be universal or general to proper as particular or specific case. They are the two foundational terms of all Western thought going back to the Greek debate between Parmenides who argues everything is one (common) and Heraclites for whom everything is flux (proper). Two other famous examples are common is Reason and proper Understanding in Kant and common is the one and proper the many. Common law would be don't kill, proper would be this instance of murder. Then we have fact. Fact is a proper that does not fit into the common and so is referred directly to the sovereign. Say a head of state who 'murders' due to an illegal invation. The fact is the extreme end of proper just as sovereign power is the extreme form of common.Watkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03975658226622630230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862832.post-69245089340926668832013-01-25T02:54:38.351+00:002013-01-25T02:54:38.351+00:00simply stopping by to say heysimply stopping by to say heyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862832.post-10171134084527990792012-12-10T10:36:20.330+00:002012-12-10T10:36:20.330+00:00Okay, the count in Badiou is the basic procedure w...Okay, the count in Badiou is the basic procedure which allows one to assertain what there is. All that there is in Badiou is multiples of multiples. The first count, the ontological count, applies the rule I mentioned to stop multiples of multiples becomimg transcendant infinity, or The One, or endless regress, subsets of subsets of subsets ad infinitum. So this first count solves very old ontological problems using set theory. <br /><br />The second counnt is the way in which what there is, which is neutral or indifferent, is re-counted by a state which makes distinctions. This is the shift in Badiou from the first count of simple presentation, and the second more motivated count of re-representation. In the second count the state counts what belongs and discounts what can be included but said not to belong. So it counts its citizens and dis-counts illegal immigrants. Yet these immigrants are included in the state, they work for example and can be arrested. <br /><br />This being the case as elements included but not counted as belonging, they share a structural similarity with being which, in the first count, is-not or is involved in the count as the not-counted void set. Thus being in the first count finds fraternity with included but discounted proto-subjects in the second and from this events that produce subjects to truth can occur.Watkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03975658226622630230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862832.post-75103175885742181572012-12-07T02:03:27.857+00:002012-12-07T02:03:27.857+00:00Hi, William, this is a great post. I am wondering ...Hi, William, this is a great post. I am wondering if you'll help me understand these sentences a bit more: "When a state is established then ones are counted twice. First, at the ontological level a set counts as one in terms of the elements which belong to it. Second, at the level of our world the state counts the count and defines a stability in the world by imposing a limit to the count." Which "ones" are counted twice? In fact, why are we counting at all? Is there a difference between "the count" and counting?Tom Bairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08951942857658135027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862832.post-35100044438583264502012-12-01T10:39:22.874+00:002012-12-01T10:39:22.874+00:00Wonderful.Wonderful.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862832.post-1731860080096688862012-11-05T12:09:23.314+00:002012-11-05T12:09:23.314+00:00My thinking on this has advanced dramatically so t...My thinking on this has advanced dramatically so that in my forthcoming Agamben and Indifference I have two chapters on the relation of Agamben and Derrida.Watkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03975658226622630230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862832.post-87584805252112802812012-07-05T18:01:53.184+01:002012-07-05T18:01:53.184+01:00Hey William
I was being woo'd by the wood car...Hey William<br /><br />I was being woo'd by the wood carver, just having rediscovered the POEM in lunch poems "armory combing bricks". So did a search for the poem online to see if anything had been written and stumbled across your blog and love what you wrote here. Loved your connections between "ascend milk winter" etcetera. But really loved the way you show the poem to be a conduit between subjectivity and other, personism at play. Just a brilliant example. And this is why we fall in love with Frank, no? Because he leads us into such a beautiful subject, which then becomes our object.d scribehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08242682202760522439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862832.post-33877259948939775642012-05-06T10:50:26.991+01:002012-05-06T10:50:26.991+01:00So good topic really i like any post talking about...So good topic really i like any post talking about <a href="http://www.ancientgreece.me/" rel="nofollow"> Ancient Greece </a> but i want to say thing to u Ancient Greece not that only ... you can see in Ancient Greece <a href="http://www.ancientgreece.me/2012/03/chiefs-and-people-in-ancient-greece-c.html" rel="nofollow"> Chiefs and People </a> and more , you shall search in Google and Wikipedia about that .... thanks a gain ,,,Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862832.post-41950815730851318012011-08-13T02:49:10.986+01:002011-08-13T02:49:10.986+01:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862832.post-12253889155134508752011-08-05T07:21:39.446+01:002011-08-05T07:21:39.446+01:00You have good points there, that's why I alway...You have good points there, that's why I always visit your site, it seems that you are an expert in this field. keep up the good work, My friend recommends your blog. <br /> <br />My blog: <br />rachat credit proprietaire <a href="http://www.rachatdecredit.net" rel="nofollow">www.rachatdecredit.net</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862832.post-27017315667471732192011-02-05T12:31:04.755+00:002011-02-05T12:31:04.755+00:00Awesome, that’s exactly what I was scanning for! Y...Awesome, that’s exactly what I was scanning for! You just spared me alot of searching aroundAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862832.post-13630052116832419642011-01-13T00:40:02.774+00:002011-01-13T00:40:02.774+00:00Great blog! I truly love how it’s easy on my eyes ...Great blog! I truly love how it’s easy on my eyes and the details are well written. I am wondering how I could be notified whenever a new post has been made. I have subscribed to your rss feed which ought to do the trick! Have a nice day!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862832.post-18188066328264168952011-01-03T02:52:53.627+00:002011-01-03T02:52:53.627+00:00awesome blog, do you have twitter or facebook? i w...awesome blog, do you have twitter or facebook? i will bookmark this page thanks. lina holzbauerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862832.post-66015777850709288452010-08-26T08:58:10.661+01:002010-08-26T08:58:10.661+01:00Pretty interesting site you've got here. Thank...Pretty interesting site you've got here. Thanks for it. I like such themes and everything that is connected to this matter. I would like to read a bit more soon.<br /><br />Julia HakkinenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862832.post-52473542523129014132010-08-24T02:39:15.294+01:002010-08-24T02:39:15.294+01:00It was very interesting for me to read this blog. ...It was very interesting for me to read this blog. Thank you for it. I like such topics and anything connected to this matter. I definitely want to read a bit more on that blog soon.<br /><br />Anete SmithAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862832.post-65162287002417149962010-08-13T18:06:50.509+01:002010-08-13T18:06:50.509+01:00hey
Just saying hello while I read through the ...hey <br /><br /><br />Just saying hello while I read through the posts<br /><br /><br />hopefully this is just what im looking for, looks like i have a lot to read.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com