Ontological Anarchy

Kondisi anarki dipahami sebagai cara penggambaran sistem internasional dimana negara dilihat sebagai salah satu unit analisa, dianggap memiliki kedaulatan penuh dan dipersepsikan setara sebagai sebuah aktor. Sistem internasional yang anarki didefinisikan sebagai suatu situasi dimana tidak adanya institusi atau organisasi yang mengawasi dan mengendalikan masyarakat dikarenakan tidak berjalannya pemerintahan. Ketidakadanya aturan ini pada umumnya dihubungkan dengan keberadaan suatu perang, seperti pendapat dari para analogi Hobbesian tentang kondisi politik dalam tidak ada dan absennya kedaulatan negara. Negara adalah aktor dominan dalam sistem internasional dan negara yang menetapkan keamanan terhadap self interest. Pendapat Hobbesian menrefleksikan konflik murni yang terjadi antar negara dan logika konflik 'zero-zum game'. Negara termotivasi untuk mengejar keuntungan absolut untuk kepentingan negara mereka sendiri. Neo liberalis berpendapat bahwa anarki merupakan suatu sistem " self-help " , sistem dimana baik otoritas pusat maupun keamanan kolektif bersifat tidak ada. Self-help tidak dilihat sebagai suatu lembaga namun menempati hak istimewa yang jelas dalam peran vis-à-vis. Self-help dan kekuatan politik tidak mengikuti logika ataupun cara dari sistem anarki namun disebabkan oleh proses yang terjadi bukan dilihat dari struktur yang berjalan. Dalam anarki tidak ada hal yang masuk akal terlepas dari praktek anarki. Self-help dan kekuatan politik pada dasarnya merupaka suatu 'institusi' sendiri, bukan suatu bagian penting dalam anarki. Anarki merupakan hasil dari apa yang negara lakukan. Self-help dan kekuatan politik secara sosial dibangun oleh anarki, selain itu terdapat tiga tahap perubahan identitas dan kepentingan dalam anarki; kedaulatan suatu institusi, perkembangan kerja sama, dan upaya internasional untuk mengubah identitas egois menjadi identitas kolektif. Beberapa pemikir realis klasik seperti Thomas Hobbes, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Hans Morgenthau mengkaitkan egoism dan kekuatan politik terutama untuk sifat manusia, sedangkan realis struktural atau neorealis menekankan anarki. Sebagian perbedaan berasal dari interpretasi

A Meta-Philosophy exploration of immanent and non-immanent  features of  first-order philosophy in terms of the values of non- values or negative values of Radical Scepticism, Nihilism and Minarchy, executed to show how philosophizing is done.

It misleadingly seems as if there is no progress in philosophy as, like in visual art, literature and music, each original thinker re-invents the entire discipline, its aims, purposes, values, methods,
etc
The nature of philosophical tools, methods, techniques and skills will be investigated and applied in terms of radical scepticism.

This approach, set of values and attitude restrict the nature and the style of the meta-philosophizing. It will for example prevent the traditional development of a general, all-encompassing and all-inclusive metaphysical system. It also demands the focus on context-specific investigation of questions and the dealing of a particular problem in a certain context.

These limits require the re-interpretation of any philosophical tool
being employed as well as the underlying assumptions and any pre-suppositions.

As far as possible philosophizing as an aspect of the processes of theorizing will be adhered to and realized. In chapter THREE I illustrate many-leveled and multi-dimensional thinking, that are to me as a visual artist as well, of extreme importance. These are the types of things employed by radical skepticism and that should be the form of philosophizing instead of and replacing traditional one-leveled and one-dimensional thinking, argumentation and reasoning

In his recent crusade against the anti-COVID-19 measures, Agamben has fiercely opposed all measures of containment—from the mask mandate to the lockdown, from vaccination to the vaccine pass—in the name of “freedom.” The ultimate falsity and contradiction of all these measures, Agamben has repeatedly argued, is that, “in order to protect freedom, [they] impose […] the renunciation of freedom.” If governments and institutions have (all too quickly and gladly) sacrificed freedom for the preservation of life, their opponents (including Agamben) have turned freedom into a fetish, and this inscribes Agamben’s politics in the anarchist camp, even if his anarchism is certainly sui generis and responds to specific philosophical demands. His recent remarks, however, raise questions about the consistency of his position on COVID-19 with the critique of Western politics constructed over his twenty-year intellectual project, Homo Sacer. Is Agamben’s position on COVID-19 simply a natural outgrowth of his political critique and fundamental anarchism, as some critics have argued? Or is it possible that Agamben has betrayed his most essential commitments? Through a cursory glance at the roots of his anarchic politics the article tries to assess this question.

https://parisinstitute.org/unauthorized-freedom-agambens-anarchism-a-lepreuve-of-the-pandemic/

Geography means earth writing, and so it is perhaps fitting that writing itself has become a primary intellectual battleground in contemporary geographical thought. This paper advocates for metaphorical earth writing, arguing that it unchains our geographical imaginations from the shackles of our disciplinary past by boldly embracing geopoetics. I hope to spark debate by promoting the un-disciplining of geography as a means to open up a theoretical space for voice, where a material space of emancipation might follow. The notion that our epistemological, ontological, and methodological choices are not apolitical decisions without consequence guides my inquiry. Accordingly I critique the accusation of esotericism as a narrative that reifies the false dichotomy between academia and society. Aversion to metaphor fails to recognize the epistemological challenge it raises and underestimates how jargon combats commonsense notions that reinforce hierarchical power relations. How we write the earth constitutes a political choice, where disciplining others into a singular way of knowing, being, and doing geography is an affront to the possibilities of space. When we make space for earth writing as a beautiful flourishing of geopoetics, we place the earth at the center of experience, releasing the light and energy of a more powerful geography.

The article is a group effort consisting of an introduction and seven compact essays. It is focused on the problem of color from the perspective of current philosophical discussions on the role of the Enlightenment and the relationship between light and dark. The introduction by Michael Kurtov presents a roadmap for navigating through the seven essays by referring to a schema of “color knowledge” which has four dimensions: luminosity, resolution, saturation, and hue. Each of the texts in the article (the introduction and seven essays) deals mostly with one of “color knowledge”, which are formed by combining three color dimensions. Roman Mikhailov explores the plastic-dynamic correlates of colors and the chromaticity of the text understood broadly both as the text of nature and as an abstract symbolic complex. Eugene Kuchinov offers a “haptic criticism of the Enlightenment,” which is an analysis of color phenomena from the point of view of the skin (not the eye): on the basis of the logic of sensation, color is “viewed” beyond the light, beyond the optics. Yoel Regev develops a hermeneutics of color applied to the Torah: color is interpreted as a deception which is opposed to another deception belonging to a “true enlightenment.” Michael Kurtov addresses a revision of Goethe’s theory of color based on new physical experiments and on the logical geometry of color and then arrives at a critique of contemporary chromo-ideology. Nataliya Tyshkevich reveals the modern political meaning of coloring in the context of the recent “renaissance of modernist aesthetics” in which dealing with form is replaced by dealing with surfaces. Gray Violet describes color and darkness as political functions that turn into each other in the middle of a non-place in the “smart city.” The final piece by Nikita Sazonov elaborates the procedure of colorization by examining noncolor — a resource beyond the colored and the uncolored, most readily manifested in the printed character as well as in modern hip-hop culture
//
Статья представляет собой коллективный текст, состоящий из введения и семи фрагментов. В центре статьи — проблема цвета, рассмотренная сквозь призму актуальных философских дискуссий о роли Просвещения и отношениях «светлого» и «темного». Во введении Михаила Куртова предлагается общая карта движения по семи фрагментам — модель «цветного знания», имеющая четыре измерения: светлота, разрешение, насыщенность, цветовой тон. Каждый из включенных в статью текстов (введение и семь фрагментов) условно отнесен к одному из восьми возможных типов «цветного знания». Фрагмент Романа Михайлова исследует пластически-динамические корреляты цветов и говорит о цветности текста, понимаемого максимального широко: и как текста природы, и как абстрактного символического комплекса. Фрагмент Евгения Кучинова посвящен «гаптической критике Просвещения» — анализу цвета с точки зрения «кожи», располагающемуся на границе оптического как такового и получающему свой смысл в интенсивном, аффективно-динамическом знании. Фрагмент Йоэля Регева разворачивает герменевтику цвета на материале Торы: цвет истолковывается как обман, которому противостоит другой обман, принадлежащий «подлинному просвещению». Фрагмент Михаила Куртова обращается к пересмотру теории цвета Гёте на базе новых физических экспериментов и с учетом развития логической геометрии цвета, намечая тем самым критику современной хромоидеологии. Фрагмент Натальи Тышкевич раскрывает современный политический смысл раскрашивания в контексте «ренессанса модернистской эстетики» последних лет, в которой работа с формой замещается работой поверхностями. Фрагмент Серого Фиолетового описывает цвет и тьму как политические функции, обращающиеся друг в друга посреди единого не-места «умного города». Заключительный фрагмент Никиты Сазонова разрабатывает процедуру расцвечивания через обращение к нецвету — ресурсу по ту сторону цвета и не-цвета, наиболее отчетливо проявляющемуся в печатном знаке, а также в современной хип-хоп культуре

La rubrica inaugurata da Marcello Tarì e Mario Tronti ha posto sin da subito l’urgenza e la difficoltà di pensare una specifica forma di estraniamento che consenta di farsi stranieri «nel mondo ma non del mondo». Xeniteia è la formula, il moto o la tecnica che è stata individuata per definire una tale soglia. Ed anzi, proprio come tecnica contemplativa, la xeniteia sembra garantire un farsi stranieri al mondo «non semplicemente per rifiutarlo, ma per combatterlo»

"The Anarchist Roots of Geography: Towards Spatial Emancipation" sets the stage for a radical politics of possibility and freedom through a discussion of the insurrectionary geographies that suffuse our daily experiences. By embracing anarchist geographies as kaleidoscopic spatialities that allow for non-hierarchical connections between autonomous entities, wherein solidarities are voluntarily assembled in opposition to sovereign violence, predetermined norms, and assigned categories of belonging, we configure a political imagination that is capable of demanding the impossible. Experimentation in and through space is the story of humanity’s place on the planet, and the stasis and control that now supersedes ongoing organizing experiments is an affront to our very survival. Singular ontological modes that favor one particular way of doing things disavow geography by failing to understand the spatial as an ongoing mutable assemblage that is intimately bound to temporality. Even worse, such stagnant ideas often align to the parochial interests of an elite minority and thereby threaten to be our collective undoing. What is needed is the development of new relationships with our world, and crucially, with each other. By infusing our geographies with anarchism we unleash a spirit of rebellion that foregoes a politics of waiting for change to come at the behest of elected leaders, and instead engages new possibilities of mutual aid through direct action in the here and now. Anarchism is accordingly framed as a perpetually evolving process of geographical prefiguration that seeks to refashion entrenched modes of understanding and being in the world vis-à-vis the authoritarian institutions, proprietary relations, and pugnacious geopolitics that dominate contemporary political relations and their associated configurations of space. We can no longer accept the decaying, archaic geographies of hierarchy that chain us to statism, capitalism, gender domination, racial oppression, and imperialism. Instead, geography must become beautiful, wherein the entirety of its embrace is aligned to emancipation.

The article attempts to reconstruct a history of the so-called AOism group (or group of AOists), which in itself is a rather curious episode in the history of Russian revolutionary and anarchist movements and a little-known page in the history of languages of cosmic communication. To undertake this reconstruction and understand the circumstances in which this small and highly ephemeral community thrived as an “alien” one, I resort to the detailed analysis of pan-technicalistic linguistic ideas of the Gordin Brothers, which contributed to the emergence of AOists. I view the AOism movement in the wider context of the history of space communication languages. The AO language, developed by Wolf Gordin, is based on the provisions of ontological uncorrelativity and technical coinventiveness of the (outer) world, as well as all-inventiveness of the language and necessity of liberating the cosmos from oppression. As a result, there emerges a specific language that occupies an unusual position among the cosmic communication languages (such as LINCOS), since it is not so much a means of communicating with alien life forms, as it is an instrument for “becoming an alien” on Earth.
!!!Necessary acknowledgement: many thanks to Jesse Cohn (https://pnw.academia.edu/JesseCohn) for sharing his developments and findings related to the reconstruction of the period of Wolf Gordin's life when he was in the USA.
//
Статья посвящена реконструкции специфического эпизода, касающегося “племени” АОистов, — эпизода, который является, с одной стороны, частью истории русских революций и русского анархистского движения, а с другой — практически неизвестной страницей развития языков космического общения. Для реконструкции обстоятельств существования этой небольшой и весьма эфемерной общности в качестве “инопланетной” проводится подробный анализ пантехникалистских лингвистических идей братьев Гординых, которые поспособствовали появлению АОистов. Кроме того, история АОизма рассматривается в контексте истории языков космического общения. Язык АО, разработанный Вольфом Гординым, базируется на положениях об онтологической несоотносительности и технической соизобретательности (внешнего) мира, о всеизобретательности языка и необходимости освобождения космоса от угнетения. В результате появляется язык, который занимает в ряду языков космического общения (таких как LINCOS) необычное положение, так как представляет собой не столько средство общения с инопланетными формами жизни, сколько инструмент становления-инопланетным на Земле.
!!!Необходимое признание: огромное спасибо Джесси Коэну (https://pnw.academia.edu/JesseCohn) за то, что он поделился своими разработками и находками связанными с реконструкцией того периода жизни Вольфа Гордина, когда он находился в США.

Scholars of international relations generally invoke Hobbes as the quintessential theorist of international anarchy. David Armitage challenges this characerisation, arguing that Hobbes is regarded as a foundational figure in international relations theory in spite of as much as because of what he wrote on the subject. Thus, for Armitage, Hobbes is not the theorist of anarchy that he is made out to be. This article agrees with the general thrust of Armitage’s critque while maintaining that it is still possible to imagine Hobbes as a theorist of anarchy. Hobbes is a theorist of anarchy, not in a political sense, but in a metaphysical sense. This conception of anarchy is a reflection of a comprehensive theological account of reality that is grounded in an omnipotent God. Any historical inquiry into the foundations of modern international thought must take account of theology, because theology defines the ultimate coordinates of reality in terms of which the concepts of international thought are intelligible.

L'idéal philosophique incarné par la vie et l'œuvre d’Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) est, plus que jamais, d'une actualité brûlante. Il requiert que la philosophie soit une discipline vécue afin qu'elle puisse demeurer une discipline vivante. Quel posture socio-politique suggère-t-il ? Le concept d’anarchie permet de nommer à la fois l’état présent du monde globalisé (le « chaos constructif » voulu par le néolibéralisme) et la réponse qui s’impose : le communautarisme libertaire, c’est-à-dire la redynamisation de la démocratie participative. Or, le monde de l’éducation se situe précisément en ce point de bifurcation : ou bien il succombe aux assauts du marché et nous nous dirigeons vers la barbarie ; ou bien il résiste et la Vie reprend ses droits.
The philosophical ideal embodied by the life and works of Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) is, more than ever, a burning question. It requires that philosophy be a lived discipline so that it can remain a living discipline. What does this ideal entail in the socio-political sphere? The concept of anarchy allows a straightforward discussion of both the current state of affairs in a globalized world (the “constructive chaos” fostered by neoliberalism) and the necessary reaction : libertarian communautarism, which constitutes a re-energization of participative democracy. Now, the world of education lies precisely at that bifurcation point. Either it gives way beneath the attacks of the “market” and we are heading towards barbary; or it resists and Life regains its rights.

What motivates individuals to take part in anarchistic movements and spaces?  For those who do, what occurs during engagement in anarchy?  By collecting the oral histories of anarchistic activists, this study indicates how crisis, personal and collective, is a not only a motivating factor for why individuals join and engage in anarchistic movements and spaces, but how crises are, in turn, radically transformed through engagement in anarchical practice.  To understand this process, this study explores crisis through the development of an eco-anarchistic dialectical framework—negate-subvert-create—to indicate how the crises of capital are embodied, consciously negated, subverted politically, and ultimately transformed through engagement in anarchy.  Anarchy is accordingly conceptualized as a liminal spatio-temporality that allows individuals to reconnect their selves to their potentials to become something beyond the ecological destructive and dominant social world.  These newfound potentials are realized through the embodiment of communitas, or collective liminality—a natural communality that individuals reconnect to engaging in anarchy.  I end with an exploration of the possible outcomes and potential futures of anarchy by situating the current political, economic, social and ecological crises occurring around the globe within the eco-anarchistic framework developed in this study.  Here, I indicate the importance of engaging in care practices and creating care-networks as a necessary outcome and future political practice for anarchistic movements as a way to mitigate and ultimately transform the crises of capital.

E tuttavia è solo da questa prospettiva di morte e di stanchezza, che le domande poste da Amato assumano davvero tutta la loro urgenza e tutta la loro rilevanza politica. Del resto, se la vita è ormai vissuta come una non-vita, allora farla finita con questa catastrofe è il solo compito politico rimasto. Ma come fare? Occorre poi davvero fare qualcosa? E dove andare? In quale direzione? Con quali strategie, quali linguaggi, quali mezzi? È intorno a questa gamma di questioni che fa la sua comparsa il concetto di diserzione [...].

An essay on the struggle between ontology and politics in Heidegger, Schürman, Stirner -- as well as in elemental unions of bodies (piles) and in punky technical objects
//
Эссе о борьбе онтологии и политики у Хайдеггера, Шюрмана, Штирнера -- а также в элементальных союзах тел (грудах) и в никчемных технических объектах
https://www.nlobooks.ru/magazines/neprikosnovennyy_zapas/131_nz_3_2020/article/22663/

Гваттари стремится к децентрированию субъективности, одновременно отделяя её и от субъекта, личности, и от человека. Его задача состоит в том, чтобы уклониться от оппозиций субъекта/объекта и природы/культуры, которые превращают человека в меру и центр Вселенной, выводя из субъективности и культуры специфические расхождения (различия): между человеком и животными, растениями, камнями, а также машинами и механикой (mechanics). Капиталистические общества осуществляют как гипервалоризацию субъекта, так и гомогенизацию и обеднение компонентов его субъективности (разбитой на модульные способности – такие как разум, интеллект, воля, аффективность, – управляемые нормами).

Review of
Agamben G. Creazione e anarchia. L’opera nell’età della religione capitalista. Vicenza: Neri Pozza Editore, 2017. – 139 p.
Agamben G. L’uso dei corpi (Homo sacer, IV, 2). Vicenza: Neri Pozza Editore, 2014. – 368 p.
https://www.nlobooks.ru/magazines/neprikosnovennyy_zapas/131_nz_3_2020/article/22670/

The place where politics finds itself thanks to Aristotle, Hobbes, and Marx becomes the locus of careful anarcheological excavations aimed at releasing the elements and utopias marked with the name of Stirner. There are at least three of them: anarchy (insurrection), rootlessness (egoism), and lawlessness (union). For this purpose, a unilateral distinction is drawn between “Stirner” and Marx, which allows for doing away with the quotation marks. The purpose of this procedure is to identify the conditions for the formation of historical materialism and detect the dormant forces that it is inhabited by, albeit unable to cope with them. In continuation of the act of ontological anarchy made by Reiner Schürmann, the article unfolds the contours of the ontological programs of elemental materialism and utopian materialism, which are on the other side of historical materialism and constitute a number of unsolvable problems for it. Elemental materialism presupposes the conceptualization of inception without authority (without command), while utopian materialism addresses change without law (ends or aims without institutions). Both of these materialisms (elemental materialism and utopian socialism) are represented in historical materialism in a perverse form. Finally, there is an anarcheological shift of the original place of politics and its conceptual capture by the destituent elements
//
Место, на котором политика расположилась благодаря Аристотелю, Гоббсу и Марксу, становится локусом тщательных анархеологических раскопок с целью высвобождения стихий и утопий, отмеченных именем «Штирнер». Их по меньшей мере три: анархия (восстание), безродность (эгоизм) и беззаконие (союз). С этой целью между «Штирнером» и Марксом проводится линия одностороннего различения, позволяющая совершить раскавычивание Штирнера. Смысл этой процедуры — в выявлении условий формирования исторического материализма и обнаружении дремлющих сил, которыми он оказывается населен, без возможности с ними совладать.В продолжение жеста онтологической анархии, произведенного Райнером Шюрманом, в статье разворачиваются контуры онтологических программ материализма стихий и утопического материализма, находящихся по ту сторону исторического материализма и составляющих для него ряд нерешаемых проблем. Материализм стихий предполагает концептуализацию начал без начальства (без повеления), тогда как утопический материализм обращен к изменениям без закона (концам или целям, без учреждений). В превратном виде оба эти материализма (стихийный материализм и утопический социализм) представлены в историческом материализме.Наконец, производится анархеологическое смещение исходного места политики и его концептуальный захват силами упразднения

A presentation done on the notion of ontological anarché found in the works of Reiner Schürmann, who was my advisor and who passed the previous year (1993).  This was for the 1994 Graduate Student Conference held in conjunction with the Hannah Arendt/Reiner Schürmann Memorial Symposium, "On Reiner Schürmann," at the New School for Social Research, NYC.  Reiner Schürmann's name was added to "Hannah Arendt" for the first time this year.

This paper discusses Reiner Schürmann’s notions of ontological anarché and anarchic praxis in his readings of Heidegger and Eckhart, while bringing his philosophy of anarchy into dialogue with Zen-inspired Japanese thought.  I thereby hope to shed light on his thought of anarchy in terms of what I call “an-ontology.”  The inspiration for this project is the fact that Schürmann himself had practiced Zen as a young adult in France and had engaged in comparative analyses of Zen and Eckhart in his earlier works.  I take what Schürmann meant by the principle of anarchy as a form of praxis that precedes the theoretical bifurcation between being and non-being.  A similar sort of “anarchic praxis” is recognizable in Zen and we can find comparable (an)ontological implications of such praxis in the Zen-inspired writings of the Japanese medieval thinker Dōgen and of the contemporary philosopher Nishida Kitarō.

In 2010 Elisabeth Schäfer founded together with Esther Hutfless, Bernd Bösel and other philosophers from Vienna the queer reviewed Journal Sublin/mes: http://sublinesblog.wordpress.com/
Since its foundation three issues were published in print and also online. Sublin/mes serves to be a publication vehicle for a wild and resistent thinking, different poetical styles and textproductions.

Con la pubblicazione nel 2014 di Spartakus. Simbologia della rivolta di Furio Jesi – cui seguono nel corso dello stesso anno anche quelle di Germania segreta e Il tempo della festa –, i lettori anglofoni sono ora in grado di apprezzare meglio tutta l’ampiezza e la complessità di una delle opere teoriche più illuminanti e penetranti del Novecento italiano. Un dei principali temi dell’opera jesiana nel decennio tra il 1968 e il 1977 riguarda il modo in cui la presenza del mito e il ritirarsi di una sua autentica esperienza possano ostacolare una trasformazione sociale e politica liberatoria. È infatti solo un apparente paradosso che in un’epoca post-mitologica, in cui cioè mancano le premesse metafisiche e culturali di una collettività festiva, la violenza mitica non scompaia affatto, ma si riaffermi piuttosto in forme negative. Nel testo che segue intendo dimostrare che la concezione jesiana di ‘festa crudele’ rappresenta il culmine di una lunga riflessione su alcuni dei temi fondamentali della filosofia politica del ventesimo secolo; attraverso questo stesso concetto intendo poi rimettere in discussione la comprensione che abbiamo dell’emergere della soggettività politica, della natura della rivoluzione, nonché del significato della violenza in gioco in quest’ultima.

This modest study takes on the task of the radicalization of the Heidegger question of “the essence of technology,” as well a search for productive techno-utopias in the history of anarchism and in contemporary anarchism. The key questions are questions on the connections between technology and time, technology and utopias, and technology and anarchy. Dating to Aristotle’s Politics, the instrumental attitude toward technology is dominance as necrocosmological enthusiasm in which the master knows nothing about technology. Overcoming instrumentalism opens before us a perspective on the “unfulfilled” history of technology, which is on the other side of the opposition of the technological and the natural, the productive and the unconstrained. On the other side of the pharmacology of technology, a spacious area of conviviality is observed, a celebratory collaboration between what is alive and what is not.
//
Исследование ставит перед собой задачу радикализации хайдеггеровского вопроса о «сущности техники» и поиска продуктивных техноутопий в истории анархизма и в современном анархизме. Ключевыми являются вопросы о связи техники и времени, техники и утопии, техники и анархии. Восходя к «Политике» Аристотеля, инструментальное отношение к технике представляет собой господство как некрокосметологическое одушевление, в котором господин ничего не знает о технике. Преодоление инструментализма открывает перспективу «несбывшейся» истории техники, которая находится по ту сторону противопоставления технического и природного, производительного и непринужденного. По ту сторону фармакологии техники обнаруживается просторная область конвивиальности, праздного соратничества живого и неживого.
https://www.nlobooks.ru/magazines/novoe_literaturnoe_obozrenie/158_nlo_4_2019/article/21369/

My very first published article as a graduate student in 1995 in a peer-reviewed journal (PoMo Magazine) that no longer exists.  Published in PoMo Magazine, vol. 1, nr. 1 (Spring/Summer 1995).  I elaborate a non-metaphysical phenomenology that is at the same time a way of thinking and a way of being "without why."  My starting point is Reiner Schürmann's anarchistic interpretation of Heidegger.  It was my first (somewhat sophmoric) attempt to develop a kind of ontology.

This paper tries to undertake one more time the well-know image of the divided line to take out its political meaning by situating it in its context: a dialogue in which the justice is inquired. But it has at once the intention to interpret the question: what is justice? Not only as a moral or political question, but also as ontological, the question for that that makes posible every delimitation and every discernment. The place where both topics converge is the polis, the place where the absence of principle, of arkhe, rest alive.

L’articolo di Josep Rafanell i Orra, Le monde revient. Ebauche d’une antipolitique è stato pubblicato su Lundimatin, #252, il 3 settembre 2020 ed è consultabile su Le monde revient. Ebauche d’une antipolitique. Di seguito la traduzione a cura di F. Della Sala.

«Dunque, a che punto siamo? Si deve proprio scegliere tra mondi senza divisione e divisione senza mondi? Per uscire da questa aporia bisogna mettere definitivamente fine alla politica la cui scenografia eterna è stata fissata dal demos greco. Farla finita quindi con i suoi pretendenti predatori, con i funzionari competenti che denunciano l’incompetenza degli altri, con i governanti e i governati. Nonché con le sue postazioni commerciali in giro per il Mediterraneo. D’altro canto Détienne Marcel ci aveva ammonito sin dalle prime pagine di Les dieux d’Orphée del contrasto esistente tra le forme di vita che sussistevano negli ibridi e nei misteri della khôra da un lato e l’assemblea dei rivali nella polis dall’altro; la prima era "un tipo di vita assolutamente separato da quelli che nascono cittadini programmati, addestrati ad uccidersi intorno ai loro altari insanguinati"»

Cosa cambia nel modo in cui si muore? maschere, iconografie, letteratura, filosofia hanno codificato i modi del morire la cui lingua risulta di difficile ascolto nell'assordante rumore di fondo dell'informazione e delle prescrizioni, delle parole scambiate intorno alla malattia, alla degenza, alla rianimazione del corpo individuale e politico, al dispositivo di governo della “nuda vita”. La collusione storica della devastazione del pianeta, della fine delle democrazie e di una inesorabile crisi energetica ed economica, si è risolta nel fatto che la nostra civiltà è già morta da tempo. Asssistiamo oggi alla mobilitazione dell'insieme dei dispositivi di emergenza che dovrebbero far fronte al presente: la morte nella “giusta maniera di vivere”.
Questa immagine vogliamo resusicitare attraverso i diversi intenti di questi incontri: sentire come parla la morte, quali figure sono all'opera. Si tratta di indagare i linguaggi del morire in contesti fatti di frammenti, estratti, “materiali” e di scoprire che le lingue sepolte non sono quelle di un'altra maniera di vivere.

The article is devoted to tracing out the operations of the Enlightenment’s self preservation mechanism in the realm of imagination and to a search for ways to problematize that mechanism. The Enlightenment blocks imagination by subordinating it to self-preservation, which cloaks the utopian impulse. This cloaking is found in both science fiction and extro-science fiction (Quentin Meillassoux’s term). Extroscience fiction reveals the limits of self-preservation and self-restraint placed on the Enlightenment: an agreement to a rational despotism of knowledge liberated from nature (and from its laws). What remains outside the area accessible to the enlightened imagination may be referred to as “non-Kantian worlds of the third type.” Access to these worlds is closed, as the main issue for the enlightened imagination remains the infernological question of return and narration. This limitation predetermines the instrumentalization of the non-Kantian worlds of the third type, which become the means of supporting life and knowledge.
Fictio Audaciae is a regime of imagination that has not been produced by the Enlightenment, but from which the Enlightenment derives its energy,while struggling always to keep it under control. However, the mechanism of self preservation is vanquished by a utopian anarchism in which the imagination gains access to the nonKantian worlds of the third type by means of the “terror of obliteration.” According to Fredric Jameson, the terror of obliteration circumvents self-preservation. Nature understood as rebellion and reason that has abandoned the pursuit of self-preservation converge in the Gordin Brothers’ world of “noncorrelation” in which the key role belongs to anarchic technology rather than to the “magic of the Enlightenment.” The Gordin Brothers’ utopian Anarchy Land is neither science fiction nor extro-scientific fiction, but a techno-fiction in which the laws of nature are not even contingent but have been declared never to have existed This non-existence is explained by the principle of noncorrelation (nature as a set of laws does not exist, laws and the world are not correlated). Based on the principle of noncorrelation and guided by the utopian impulse (Fictio Audaciae), the Gordin Brothers not only postulate the existence of non-Kantian worlds of the third type, but also offer a utopian description of them.
//
Статья посвящена отслеживанию работы механизма самосохранения Просвещения в области воображения и поиску способов проблематизации этого механизма. Просвещение блокирует воображение через подчинение его задаче самосохранения, через скрадывание утопического импульса. Это скрадывание обнаруживается как в научной, так и во вненаучной фантастике (Квентин Мейясу). В последней полагается предел самосохранения и самообуздания Просвещения: договор рационального деспотизма знания с освобожденной (от законов) природой. То, что остается вне зоны доступа просвещенного воображения, может быть обозначено как «некантовские миры третьего типа». Доступ к ним оказывается закрыт, так как главным вопросом для просвещенного воображения остается инфернологический вопрос возвращения и рассказа. Этим ограничением предрешается инструментализация «некантовских миров третьего типа», становящихся средством поддержания жизни и знания.
Fictio Audaciae—режим воображения, который не произведен Просвещением, но из которого Просвещение заимствует свой напор, стремясь с ним совладать. Механизм самосохранения дает, однако, сбой в утопическом анархизме, в котором воображение получает доступ к «некантовским мирам третьего типа», к «террору разрушения», который, согласно Фредерику Джеймисону, характеризуется как раз обходом уловки самосохранения. Природа, понятая как восстание, и разум, отказавшийся от программы самосохранения, сходятся в мире «несоотносительности» братьев Гординых, в котором ключевая роль принадлежит не «магии Просвещения», но технике анархии. Утопия «Страна Анархия» представляет собой не научную или вненаучную фантастику, а технофикшн, в котором законы природы не контингентны, но объявлены никогда не существовавшими. Это несуществование объясняется принципом несоотносительности (природа как совокупность законов не существует, закон и мир несоотносительны). Исходя из принципа несоотносительности и руководствуясь утопическим импульсом (Fictio Audaciae), братья Гордины не только постулируют существование «некантовских миров третьего типа», но и дают их утопическое описание.

In recent years feminist philosophers and queer theorists have elaborated various concepts to deconstruct gender, sexual, bodily, racial and national identities as well as different options to rethink multiplicity. Nevertheless all these deconstructed and multiple “identities” are still at risk to be exploited even by feminist and queer politics. The political goal of feminists e.g. to free women from their suffering often goes hand in hand with racist and islamophobic ideas and some queer organizations are continually sympathizing with nationalistic ideas while arguing for gay and lesbian rights as Judith Butler has pointed out in her speech at CSD 2010 in Berlin.
In our paper we would like to focus on the socio-cultural multiplicity of our time understanding it particularly as a chance. Every instrumentalization of a social, cultural or gendered group, even used as a tool for resistance and in the purpose of e.g. freeing women, establishes again a hegemonial perspective and identity. We understand resistance legitimated through the reference to one suffering group not as an appropriate way to radically deconstruct normative conceptions within societies. Decentering resistance and desidentifying (a term used by Judith Butler) with hegemonial groups thus becomes a central ethical question for queer-feminist movements and politics. It is an important aspect of those queer-feminist perceptions that they refuse to think only one critical point as starting point for social change. In contrast resistance can be thought in terms of a queer-anarchist project, distinguished from more or less classical concepts of philosophical anarchy through the adaption of the deconstruction of the subject, such as Jacques Derridas image of an “arché without archonts” e.g. expresses it. Thinking a queer arché means thinking a force that may not fully be instrumentalized and subordinated, a force that remains intangible: accepting the living as something eluding: anarchy of becoming.
In our paper we would like to think and develop a perception of feminist and queer anarchy that is based upon the ontological openness of spaces being the condition for bodies of becoming.  Spaces therefore are not exclusive geometrical entities, nor terminated and defined places. Spaces grow, expand and run riot like the living itself. Spaces are open for bodies and bodies are open (spaces) for bodies to come. Following Luce Irigarays rethinking of Aristotle on place and interval we would like to think queer-feminist anarchy as a project that understands social change and feminist political intervention as new forms of border-politics, which do not exclude, haunt and kill others, but create spaces of openness, of being with, of being in contact – open porous.