tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31783628.post115581487734332304..comments2024-02-21T06:57:22.256-05:00Comments on Unemployed Negativity: An Intersection of Sortsunemployed negativityhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01251742512967070290noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31783628.post-1157336453021204332006-09-03T22:20:00.000-04:002006-09-03T22:20:00.000-04:00This is quite good, and is related to your point (...This is quite good, and is related to your point (of Aug 29) on the dialectic! What Ranciere does with the distribution of the sensible, and what Balibar does with his various differences, are attempts to engage with a non-totalizing totality (I know, that word does not make sense logically, but it does designate something difficult to express) which is intimately related to what a "dialectic" may signify (in a meta-ideological fashion, as you would put it). It is obvious that a dominant (and simplistic) understanding of what a dialectic is and does focuses on the synthetic "closure" of the going-beyond rather than on the transformative "opening" in the fabric of a complex and irreducible "reality"... <BR/><BR/>1) In Ranciere, Plato's "time," is not merely a "dichotomous" division. The workers' "day and night" is how their sensible existence is structured, how their lived experience is shaped (or determined?): this is not merely a question of free vs. unfree time, but how the "totality" of what is here called time is creative or trasnformative (you'd use "productive").<BR/><BR/>2) Balibar's difference, anthropological, intellectual or sexual, is precisely about what cannot be contained in a simple differentiation (a linear, causal, and determinate disctinction) and is an "erasure" of that differentiation in ways that both acknowledge the disctinction between two "poles" AND their non-distinction (or rather the impossibility of such a distinction), doing what the dialectic would in its 4th moment (where absence overrides presence).<BR/><BR/>This a lot of nothing! While this may sound totalizing, most important thinkers of the late 20th century have been struggling with this issue: it is not a philosophical issue (even though it is na attempt to go beyond Aristotelian and Kantian premisses), and it is not a social and political issue (of looking into modes of producing, controlling, and transforming practices of subjectivization, social imaginary significations, etc.), but it is both AND MORE.. That in itsefl is the movement of a dialectic (if not "the" dialectic).nihilisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16139937287539449450noreply@blogger.com