Jean Luc Nancy begins 'Being Singular Plural' with this quotation from Thus spake Zarathustra-
A fuller quotation from the canonical English translation explains the context.
Remain true to the earth, my brethren, with the power of your virtue! Let your bestowing love and your knowledge be devoted to be the meaning of the earth! . . . Let it not fly away from the earthly and beat against eternal walls with its wings. . . . Lead, like me, the flown-away virtue back to the earth—yes, back to body and life: that it may give to the earth its meaning, a human meaning!”Nietzsche is saying 'Reject Spiritualism and Idealism and Theism and so forth.' Sadly, the cunt was a syphilitic nutter. True he became a Professor at a young age and so guys who wanted to become Professors thought he was onto something, but few want to be professors. They'd, at that time, rather have been a Walt Whitman type protagonist who might end up with a vast ranch or plantation or whatever in some sunnier clime whose women were less horse faced.
Now look at what Nancy-boy makes of it-
This epigraph is chosen quite deliberately.
Good to know. Nancy-boy can sometimes control his own loggorrhoea
I run the risk of its
seeming to lend itself to a certain Christian, idealist, and humanist
tone,
WTF? The guy is quoting Nietzsche not Mother Theresa!
a tone in which it is easy to recognize those well-meaning
virtues and values that have loosed upon the world all the things
that have driven the humanity of our century to despair over itself,
where these values are both blind to and complicit in this letting
loose.
To speak of 'virtues and values'- to evoke such despair as must, to be Christian, to be idealistic, to be humanistic, be occasioned by our human-all-too-human blindness to unintended consequences and complicity in every type of 'duty of care' failure- is to be the kind of cunt Nancy-boy is explicitly denying that he is- but only by Georgia O'Keeffing the fuck out of that by which he queefs.
Everything that follows is bad faith and ignorant virtue signalling.
In his own way, Nietzsche himself would have undoubtedly
participated in this dubious, moralizing piety.
Fuck off! The guy was a 'philologist'. His concern was 'hermeneutics'. That's why, just as- according to a popular meme- the word camel appears rarely in the Quran, so too does 'meaning' little feature in his work.
At any rate, the word
"meaning" rarely appears in his work, and still more rarely in any
positive sense.
Nietzche knew that 'means' determine 'meanings'. The Sanskrit 'Artha' means both economics and hermeneutics. Either pragmatics govern semantics- which is about enabling guys with their feet on the ground to build something better than Babel upon it- or semantics becomes its own pragmatics and each solitary prisoner of her own idiolect babbles Nancy-boy nonsense.
One would do well, therefore, not to give any hasty
interpretations of it here. The above excerpt appeals to a "human
meaning, " but it does so by affirming that the human [l'homme]
remains to be discovered.
Coz the true human is in Christ or Buddha or the omega point of the multiverse or somewhere even farther away from Earth. What is the point of appealing to 'Xlotian meaning' if it remains to be discovered whether Xlotia is in the Andromeda galaxy as opposed to the fifteenth dimension of the Qchelwx manifold?
In order for the human to be discovered,
and in order for the phrase "human meaning" to acquire some
meaning, everything that has ever laid claim to the truth about the
nature, essence, or end of "man" must be undone.
Very true. In order for the Americas to be discovered by humans, and in order for American languages to acquire some meaning, dudes like Columbus had to tell Christianity to fuck off. He also had to forget Spanish and Italian and the fact that he was male rather than female.
In other words,
nothing must remain of what, under the title of meaning, related
the earth [la terre] and the human to a specifiable horizon.
In other words, nothing must remain of our knowledge of language when we read- except we won't know how to read- Nancy-boy.
Again, it
is Nietzsche who said that we are now "on the horizon of the infinite"; that is, we are at that point where "there is no more 'land,' "
and where "there is nothing more terrible than the infinite."
But sailors had already circumnavigated the globe. The thing wasn't infinite at all. Later Einstein found that the Universe might be finite albeit unbounded. Did it never occur to Nancy-boy that Nietzsche might have been stupid? Pretending stupid nutters were smart is the profession of an asshole. Socioproctology points the finger at assholes. By becoming a Socioproctologist we can think of this world and the people in it as just this world and these peeps.
Can we think an earth and a human such that they would be
only what they are—nothing but earth and human—and such
that they would be none of the various horizons often harbored
under these names, none of the "perspectives" or "views" in view
of which we have disfigured humans [les hommes] and driven them
to despair?
An asshole is not a 'horizon'. Tell assholes to fuck off and the problem is solved. Try getting an Uber if you want to be driven to despair. You may not succeed- but in that case at least you get driven somewhere nice.
"The horizon of the infinite" is no longer the horizon of the
whole,
because it is the event horizon of a black and stinky asshole
but the "whole" (all that is) as put on hold everywhere,
pushed to the outside just as much as it is pushed back inside the
"self." It is no longer a line that is drawn, or a line that will be
drawn, which orients or gathers the meaning of a course of progress
or navigation. It is the opening [la brèche] or distancing [lecartement] of horizon itself, and in the opening: us. We happen as the
opening itself, the dangerous fault line of a rupture.
This is nonsense. Aspero & Schindler have just published a paper showing that ' Martin’s Maximum++ implies Woodin’s PmaxPmax axiom (∗)(∗). This answers a question from the 1990s and amalgamates two prominent axioms of set theory which were both known to imply that there are ℵ2 many real numbers'
Most of us don't understand what the above means. But, unlike Nancy-boy's shite, the above aint gobbledygook. Basically it contradicts the 'continuum hypothesis'. This changes how we think about types of infinity. This further means there is a new hermeneutic 'merging of horizons'- for e.g. between Jain ontology and modern philosophy.
Following Cantor, we used to think that the Jain 'uncountable' infinity is the cardinality of the set of all possible of orderings of the countable infinite. What else could it be? Then, thanks to results from first Godel and then Cohen, we thought such questions re infinity to be independent of ZFC or whatever axiom system we were using. In particular, Cohen's 'forcing' created lots of different incompossible mathematical universes. Which one were we in? It was in this context that Nietzsche's aphorism 123 had salience. From 1988, 'Martin's Maximum' had justified a sort of Parminidean principle such that, under some consistency constraints, what could be conceived must be. Woodin's 'star' was a different approach, reliant on the axiom of determinacy, which pointed at the same thing. Aspero & Schindler have unified the two approaches by showing a 'witness' can be forced, by a variant of Martin's Maximum, to verify statements of the form of Woodin's 'star'. This is very useful but is it true? Ultimately this comes down to what sort of 'Reflection principle' we believe. How much of 'everything' is reflected in some particular set of things? Woodin's recent work goes in the opposite direction to Aspero & Schindler. Apparently he is working on an 'ultimate L' axiom which would be Cantor's universe of sets. Meanwhile model theoretic approaches suggest that 'infinity' in complexity has the cardinality of the continuum hypothesis.
Complexity, however, is what is tamed by co-evolved processes- e.g. natural language. Indeed, by showing Keisler orders are infinite and not well-ordered because of amalgamation problems, Malliaris & Shelah seem to suggest that natural language, by reason of continuous co-evolution, has no natural 'joints' complexity-wise along which it can be carved up. But this means it needs no re-configuration in facing infinity of any type.
Nancy-boy assumes the reverse. This is like thinking that if you step on a crack you will break your mother's back. It simply isn't the case that we 'happen' or are 'happened' or face 'rupture' because we are constituted by a language which will spontaneously start carving itself up if it reflects upon how Reality's joints can come undone.
Why is Nancy shitting himself in this public and importunate manner? He is happy to explain-
I want to emphasize the date on which I am writing this. It is
the summer of 1995, and as far as specifying the situation of the
earth and humans is concerned, nothing is more pressing
for a virtue signaling cretin who has specialized in being a vacuous cunt
(how
could it really be avoided?) than a list of proper names such as
these, presented here in no particular order: Bosnia-Herzogovina,
Chechnya , Rwanda , Bosnian Serbs, Tutsis, Hutus , Tamil Tigers,
Krajina Serbs, Casamance, Chiapas, Islamic Jihad, Bangladesh, the
Secret Arm y for the Liberation of Armenia , Hamas , Kazakhstan,
Khmer Rouges, ETA militia, Kurds (UPK/PDK) , Montataire, the
Movement for Self-determination, Somalia, Chicanos , Shiites,
FNLC-Canal Historique , Liberia , Givat Hagadan, Nigeria , the
League of the North , Afghanistan, Indonesia, Sikhs, Haiti , Roma
gypsies of Slovenia, Taiwan, Burma , PLO , Iraq, Islamic Front Salvation, Shining Path, Vaulx-en-Velins , Neuhof. . . . Of course, it
would be difficult to bring this list to an end if the aim was to include all the places, groups, or authorities that constitute the theater of bloody conflicts among identities, as well as what is at stake
in these conflicts. These days it is not always possible to say with
any assurance whether these identities are intranational, infranational, or transnational; whether they are "cultural, " "religious," "ethnic," or "historical" ; whether they are legitimate or not—not
to mention the question about which law would provide such legitimation; whether they are real, mythical, or imaginary; whether
they are independent or "instrumentalized" by other groups who
wield political, economic, and ideological power. . . .
This is nonsense. In each and every case- with the exception of the French places- like 'Montataire'- which I've never heard of- it was easy to say what type of stupidity or evil had caused the problem and to point to which laws had been broken and who should be punished so strife cease. What happened at Vaulx-en-Velins? A professional criminal, recruited by an Algerian Islamist outfit, killed a 'moderate' Imam who may have been 'trying to steal money from' the terror group, and then was himself gunned down by the police after he had participated in a bombing campaign. Why the fuck is Nancy-boy getting so worked up about this? It is true the fellow had bungled an attempt to kill Jewish school kids and may have been capable of enough remorse to master the necessary skills needed to fulfil this religious, or racial, duty to a higher standard, but why equate the guy getting shot with the siege of Sarajevo?
This is the "earth" we are supposed to "inhabit " today,
one where a guy gets shot before he has perfected the art of blowing up little kids- oh! the inhumanity!
the earth
for which the name Sarajevo will become the martyr-name,
No. It came to signify the power of NATO to enforce its will in a post-Soviet world.
the
testimonial-name: this is us, we who are supposed to say we as if
we know what we are saying and who we are talking about.
No. You are supposed to talk about stuff you actually know about- not virtue signal like crazy. Perhaps I'm being unfair to Nancy. It may be that he and his ilk jerked off vigorously while reading this type of shite.
This
earth is anything but a sharing of humanity.
Coz good land is scarce. But, it appears, this was true even before modern humans appeared on earth. It seems a little late in the day to start shitting oneself coz like dude wars happen! Peeps be killing other peeps! OMG! Why did nobody tell me about it at Skool?
It is a world that does
not even manage to constitute a world; it is a world lacking in
world, and lacking in the meaning of world.
Nonsense! A world where nobody can kill or rape anybody does not constitute a world. It constitutes a particularly tedious type of fairy tale. What happens in it is meaningless.
It is an enumeration
that brings to light the sheer number and proliferation of these various poles of attraction and repulsion.
Nope. It brings to light the manner in which 'poles of attraction and repulsion' get winnowed down pretty damn quickly once the shooting starts.
It is an endless list, and
everything happens in such a way that one is reduced to keeping
accounts but never taking the final toll.
All accountants keep accounts but never calculate 'the final toll'. That's a job for the Receivers.
It is a litany, a prayer of
pure sorrow and pure loss, the plea that falls from the lips of millions of refugees every day: whether they be deportees, people besieged, those who are mutilated, people who starve, who are raped,
ostracized, excluded, exiled, expelled
Fuck off. I've met plenty of refugees. They are sensible people and anxious to rebuild their lives. Some may need therapy and others may be able to provide it. But this is true of everybody.
Nancy-boy concludes his pre-preface thus- What if it lets us know that it is itself the first laying bare [mise à
nu] of a world that is only the world, but which is the world absolutely and unreservedly, with no meaning beyond this very Being of the world: singularly plural and plurally singular?
The answer is if shite that can't let you know shite is, to your mind, letting you know shite, then you are either mad or just like having a lot of shit where your brain should be.
Nietzsche, poor fellow, had syphilis and was, in any case, teaching worthless shite though the same age as Cantor who was making genuine discoveries. Nancy-boy doesn't get that Nietzsche didn't want to be a stupid worthless cunt. He was just too sick and too stupid to be anything else. Nancy too had health problems. He too may be as stupid as shit. Yet, Nietzsche didn't whine and virtue signal endlessly. Why must Nancy do so? Will he not get paid if he says something sensible? Will his colleagues tar and feather him and push things up his bum if, for once in his life, he talked sensibly?
Perhaps. For the true meaning of the meaning of the rupture of the rapture is the true meaning of the meaning of the rapture of the rupture which we must all mourn as our bourne of self-scorn or epistemic revenge porn.
No comments:
Post a Comment