31. marts 2014 § Skriv en kommentar

Hermed link til min artikel “Monstrøsitet” – om præstationssubjektets sanselige længsel, adresseret gennem Jacques Derrida og Gilles Deleuzes terminologier og tænkning. Udkom i august-nummeret (2013) af Avis Venire, udgivet af konsulentvirksomheden Villa Venire.

Click to access monstroesitet.pdf

(this article is in Danish!)

Speaking in tongues – thoughts on a Strident Feminist aka Caitlin Moran

18. september 2013 § 1 kommentar

I have not yet read a single text by british feminist writer Caitlin Moran. I did go to a talk yesterday in Copenhagen though. This talk (and all the funny talks afterwards) made me wonder, in an everyday life kind of way, in a bodily kind of way, in a philosophical kind of way; what the heck is feminism?
I especially kept wondering about Caitlin Moran’s positive, affirmative use of the term ‘strident feminist’. What does strident mean? Yes, of course, at first look; harsh, rough, ear-piercing, dissonant, unharmonious etc. So, usually, ‘strident’ works as a word used to silence somebody’s act of voicing themselves, via degradation.
Looking (not closer, but) farther at this word, ‘to stride’ is hooked up with fighting, struggling or making a strong effort, in the sense; walking with long or extended steps.
Secondly, ‘to stride’ is to utter an inarticulate sound, a fragment, granulate or screech, in other words, an ex-pression that cannot be read or interpreted in any common, unified or literate way. It is speaking in tongues (glossolalia) vs. speaking silver-tongued.
The third hook connects striding with straddling, where someone or something appears to favor both sides, ambiguously taking up an equivocal position.
So, all this adds up to a mix of making an effort to struggle for the ambiguities of Life in a yet unrecognized way of expression. Hm?
One thing is struggling for ones own life, but how to struggle for the life of others, for the living as such? The everlasting question, “what does it mean to speak for others”, is at stake through this strident feminist. The recognition of a minority should never encourage either reversed hierarchies, nor should it outline a complete ‘identification’ or delimitation of any group what so ever. Identity-work would always be a matter of paradoxes and of the infamous AND, according to (yummy) french philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Jacques Derrida. Somehow, in line with this, Caitlin Moran spoke with a desire not to isolate the becoming of a minority, by making suffering belong to someone(s), but instead talking about how suffering materializes as a collective problem of a People.
A collective problem? In what sense? Let’s talk about equivocation again. Taking up an equivocal position means the connecting of worlds in an ambiguous and ambivalent way – not because you don’t know what’s really real, but because you do know all the real real’s.
If women’s rights is about living a life where thinking, loving, breathing and creating is (legitimately) materialised, this bundle of living excites the living of others, it excites the living of all kinds of living bundles. A breath does not steal the breath of others. People kissing. People (thinking while) talking. People laughing. People carrying people, and people being carried by people. It does not steal, it lives. In other words, the problem does not belong to Woman, the problem of sexism is happening throughout the lives of all bundles of living creatures. It is not about category, not even in the (assumed most simple) couple “man vs woman”. It is about life occurring as connection and as encounters. All is affected.
Hence, equi-vocation and its emphasis on the vocal, the existence of equal voices creating worldly ambiguity and ‘actual problems through encounters’. Rather than equi-valence, the production of sameness, uniformity or identicalness in a realm of stabile values and indisputable morals.
Hm. This strident feminist; a bundle of life making an effort to struggle for the ambiguities of Life in a yet unrecognized way of expression…

Kaffe med filmanmelder Stephanie C.

26. juni 2012 § 1 kommentar

Filmredaktør ved Magasinet KBH, Stephanie Gaarde Caruana, har interviewet mig i forbindelse med filmen “A Dangerous Method”. Du finder vores spændende snak om Freud, frihed, hemmeligheder og postmoderne liv via hendes filmblog

The time of the Gift

2. maj 2012 § 1 kommentar

I was thinking about the things we keep, because we lost something else. We do loose. We loose moments, days, people, money, scores, skin, love, all the time, we loose ‘all this time’ all the time (and memory gains it all). We loose, and we try to keep. Sometimes, we try to throw out something, deliberately loosing something, yet still not knowing how to replace it by something else. Or someone else.

“Stop talking about this old shit. Then throw it out. Then consider the space. Then…” Then what?!?

This is the task in our mind, this is the impossible: forget what you gain, forget the dual thought of LOOSE-GAIN (give it freely to Memory!). This is the impossible; intentionally giving away what we had without thinking of its shadow or its replacement. There is no way to deliberately leave dualism and its ‘free choice’ between this or that (choix libre). There is no way to deliberately think outside the LOOSE-GAIN dualism – keep dreaming, Baby!

Such troubled minds, all over the place…and yet, at least we know about ways to be entertained, deliberately turning ourselves into states of Relaxation. This is possible and do-able; choosing Entertainment to enter Relaxation. This is the key-word, the word buzzing in our minds, the most shadowy word of the time; relaxation. Relaxation makes legal this ongoing Try of leaving the troubled dual-mind (the double-thought).

Television, alcohol, computergames, sex (still need to watch ‘Shame’, anyone?), interior decoration, facebook – entertainment getting us closer to the key-word; relaxation.

Let’s turn to Craft. Craft is not entertainment. Craft (knitting, carving woodwork, even motorcycle maintenance) creates states of Self-Oblivion, states of forgetting oneself, states of falling into something other than our-selves. This is not entertainment. This is Creature as Body.

But, even craft itself has become part of the self-reflective mind – right here, for instance, by me announcing it and its disappearing, right? Identity has occupied experiences of flow or self-oblivion, experiences of qualité, content. Identity is this; seeing myself through your eyes and it is also the telling of this seeing. Identity is the way we wrap something, a present for instance. The wrapping is now very much part of what is in the box, the wrapping and the present has grown into a pair. And moreover, where there is Pair (duals, binaries), there is also Value (hierarchy) and therefore a starting point, a place of the (most) Wanted. The wrapping is the most wanted – and it sometimes drives us mad by disconnecting us from content, from falling into content!

The wrapping is saying; “this I did for you, this I present to you, this I give to you, this is Me and that is You, this is Relation, intentionally.” And so, this is what we see and feel and say, this is what we are, this is Creature as Human (this is ‘Human, all too human’, thanx Nietzsche!). This is the great Exchange, this is Economy.

Our time is the time of the Present – and the wrapping is creating this present, the telling creating the human, the (re)presenting creating the self. I sometimes long for the time of the Gift. Turning to Derrida, we can discern between the present and the gift and we can create this question; “how to live ‘the Socially Real’ independantly of Exchange?” As well, this is impossible, this is a crazy question; how to give without knowing, without intention, without the telling nor the response? I’m pointing at some strange unthinkable life in the light of this unconditional gift beyond Mind, Memory and Self… What does social life look like when experience is created beyond the self-reflective mind? It is about force, and force is the impossible; paving the way for Gifting.

How to love in the time of the Gift? What kind of love happens outside the spheres of the self-reflective mind? Nietzsche writes about “self-mastery and the discipline of the heart”.

The discipline of the heart?? To be continued…

Demokrati – et foregående!

26. april 2012 § Skriv en kommentar

Skulle man nogensinde forholde sig konkret til Jacques Derridas ideer om ‘Democracy To Come’, så er tiden vældigt moden. Retssagen mod Breivik i Norge optræder i alle medier. Og hvorfor læser vi det? Hvorfor ser vi billederne af denne mand og ikke mindst af tilhørernes ansigter? Hvorfor finder jeg mig selv sidde og spekulere over, hvorvidt og i så fald hvordan man som fængselsbetjent mon kigger denne mand i øjnene?

Sagen om denne mand og de uhyrligheder, han begik sommeren 2011, handler om demokrati og borgerskab. Ikke fordi denne mand begynder at tale om demokratiet ud fra et ønske om at underminere det. Sagen handler ikke om at et etableret demokrati trues eller er i fare. Sagen handler heller ikke bare om, hvorvidt det ene eller det andet hold psykiatere har ret i deres vurdering af denne mand. Sagen handler ikke bare om, hvorvidt han erklæres syg eller ej – altså, hvordan nogle menneskers sondring i et andet menneskes indre afgør samfundets efterfølgende juridiske og følelsesmæssige respons.

Denne type sag handler om, hvor kompliceret og sammensat og evigt ‘på vej’ et demokrati altid er. Og sagen handler som sagt om borgerskab. Om eksklusion. Om forskelle. Om, hvordan borgerskab og demokrati foregår evigt paradoksalt. Om, hvorledes demokrati netop eksisterer ved altid at foregå paradoksalt og aldrig manifesterer sig som en ren, entydig størrelse.

Erklæres Breivik syg, kan han ikke straffes, men han kan få en behandlingsdom, hvilket samfundet ikke kan holde ud eller holde til, for hvad med rets-følelsen? Erklæres Breivik normal, kan han straffes, og det holder samfundet sammen, idet retsfølelsen bliver næret.

Det efterlader imidlertid en tøvende, nagende konstatering; han er dermed een af os…Han bliver ikke bare til en af os – han har hele tiden været det og vedbliver at være en af os, alt imens han med sin talen vedligeholder det uhyrlige. Straffes Breivik med fængsel, straffes han jo som en myndig borger, der kan stilles til regnskab for sine handlinger (og holdninger). Og hvordan skal man så forholde sig til behovet for den samtidige erklæring af manden som inhumant væsen frem for human borger?

Der er i hvert fald to ting på spil her. To ting, der gør, at man som borger forholder sig søgende til sig selv og til andre i en sag som den, der for tiden huserer i Norge.

For det første er der nødvendigvis både et os og et dem, dvs. der konstateres forskelle, hele tiden og til alle tider – og samtidig eksisterer der et behov for at ophæve og udligne forskelle i demokratisk øjemed. Breivik må både inkluderes i et ‘os’, idet han som borger holdes ansvarlig i relation til andre borgere, og han må paradoksalt nok samtidig ekskluderes fra det normale, fra ‘os’, fordi hans handlinger netop både ekskluderer og helt uhyrligt har elimineret andre borgere, os.

For det andet må man spørge sig selv og hinanden – hvornår har nogen eller noget (en institution) ret til at hævde myndigheden til at ophæve andres myndighed? Det er både handlinger, der er begået med en fri vilje (sanity), og handlinger, begået med et sygt sind (in-sanity), der kan ‘berettige’ nogen til umyndiggørelse. Gad vide hvad der sker med ideerne om vilje og sind, hvis vi bytter lidt rundt på sagerne – kunne der findes en syg vilje og et frit sind? En sund vilje og et ufrit sind? Hvordan opstår man som myndigt hhv. umyndigt menneske dér?

Livet med andre er sammensat, verden er tvetydig og paradoksal. Billedet på det demokratiske borgerskab findes ikke. Det udelukker imidlertid ikke en karakteristik, en anerkendelse eller en beskrivelse af demokrati og borgerskab, eller af, hvordan man som borger er spændt ud i det paradoksale. Borgerskab foregår. Demokrati er et foregående. Vi erfarer demokratiet og vi ser det for os i den erfaring, der foregår; Democracy To Come.

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing entries tagged with Jacques Derrida at APORIA.