Sylvain Létoffé, trans. Sylvia
from: Philo-fictions, La revue des non-philosophies, No 2: Fiction, une nouvelle rigueur, 2009, Paris, ONPhi, pp. 113-6
Abstract: We still partially interrogate political discursivity here, the assembly that it can constitute and the disassembly of which it can be made the object, but more so the usage that can come back to each one to make of it. This discursivity can be submitted to experimentation outside of the codes that habitually govern it. Highlighting these codes is a necessary task, which has as its goal the constitution or the emergence of a word that is no longer enfeoffed to World belief. Towards a transcendental anarchism or democracy of strangers.
Key words: politics, regimes of signs, determination-in-last-instance, experience.
We (but who are we?) maintain a relation (but what is the nature of this relation, real-ideal?) with politics (how will we ever define politics?).
We mesh humans debate with theories logos concepts world problems exploitation undergo something victims effect without ever saying anything despite declaration of the rights of man everyday without knowing from where classification nosography troubles problems identifying comes
We (but who are those who say we?) maintain multiple relations (are these relations or relationships? can we describe these relationships?) with the political corpus (but what is the extent of this corpus? how to circumscribe it? what is the limit?).
problem the field is undefined unlimited variations undergo multiple deformations complex topology problem overfly discursivity interdicts green lights blockages accelerations of regimes cartographies ceaseless obsolescence of a field massive transformation deployment discursivities undergo continual mutations
We the humans think with political concepts (but why are these concepts specifically political?) with concepts of a political origin (how to do the genesis of political concepts?) with concepts emanating from our political experience (is it experience that determined these concepts?), with concepts issued from our experience of the city (who will define experience, the city, the we, the concept?) with an enterprise of definition of political experience by philosophy (how does the philosopher produce political concepts?) with City, Town, Inhabitants, World, Relationship, Men, Humans, Revolution, History, Nation, Race, Difference, Repetition, Alterity, Other, One, Unity, Unification, Revolt, Oppression, Subject, Resistance, Capitalism, Culture, Social classes, Political field, Clash, Frictions, Emergence, Flash, Event, Community, Economy, Marx, Freud, Marcuse, Nietzsche, Cicero, Hobbes, Rousseau, Authors, the multiple, with a World (how to relate the World?), with Politics, with cosmo-politics, with techno-politics, with polito-logy, with polito-philia, with polito-sophy, with micro-politics, with macro-politics, with politics-world, etc. etc.
democracy civil right human has rights duties within and out of protection humanity language word expression speaking right to speak specific lalangues liberty of expression outside specific usages health emotions of in-one interpreted from all parts categorized complex narrows Sufficient Procrustes by the in-huns of the spectacle world even the out-field makes a spectacle
We think (but isn't defining what to think already a political act?). Must how we should think ever be defined? Who will define the manner in which we (but who are we?) should (by what necessity?) think politics (which? ours? but for which conceptual personae should we take ourselves?)
philosophical city and its departments special lieus with specific language practices specially codified categorized hierarchized particular ententes partial hermeneutic listen semiological juridical economic politic semiotic department human resources medical oncological shrink or other sectors manifest signs listen particular hermeneutic regimes of signs language particles chaos of organizations of sense donation production nomination a natural history of regimes discourse multiple discursivities evolution movement complexification adopting speaking regimes signs
We (what are we?) will think our political experience with tradition and the World. We will construct fictions by our political experience we will, this will be our experimental politics, our fashion of exploring as well as inventing a force (of) thought, a politics force. We will describe our experience (one or multiple?) by means of the philosophico-political decisions which will constitute our material.
complexity experience living world with signs objects remnants verbs particles from minorities to authority the dictable dictation of duties say simple civils to authorized authorities systems the tutorials of population problematic of lights emancipation something one within out some topos specific lieus discursivity still and still geography experience put in language speaking the experience of politics the multiple fields and the all synthesized specialized experience
But who will ever Decide that which we are, what we are, the need, the duration, the plane, the name, the place, the margin, the center, the left, the right, the number, the how, the finality? Without place, without situation (without center, without left, without right, without extreme, without plane, without high, without low, without inside, without outside?), we will emerge (as such) strangers to place, strangers to situation (a mixed of situated of situating of situation of site) Humani without city or DLI [Determination-in-last-instance [of the] — Trans.] Politics-world…
certain places institutions lieus of powers exercise the word master situation subtle confinement put specific sub urbs hunted strangers humans as thugs with advocates doctors speaking specific speech special and roborative language technics of lalangue imprint certain sophisms lung to comprehend the contrary and the contrary of the contrary one within the other mélanges qualifications systems hierarchy misunderstanding specific reality in each lieu each vocabulary