https://youtu.be/zeLl5Z6DUiI?t=1h58m5s
https://twitter.com/tx23_xxx/status/1250314281679126534?s=21
https://twitter.com/n_peeq_t/status/1250943834663432192?s=21
 | 星野真志 (@masasihosino) |
|
ジジェクの本、とりあえず半分くらいまで読んだ。とても真っ当なことを言っている印象。コロナウイルス感染症はグローバル資本主義に対する「五点掌爆心拳」（『キル・ビル２』に登場する必殺技）のようなものらしいです。
|
https://twitter.com/masasihosino/status/1249168920583471104?s=21
 | M (@newmisty882311) |
|
「私のフィアンセは私との約束を絶対に破らない、なぜなら破った瞬間に彼女は最早私のフィアンセではなくなるから」というジョークと、「国民は常に政権を支持する、なぜなら反対した瞬間彼らは国民ではなくなるから」というロジックは同じである。
ジジェクはこれを全体主義的誤認の公式と呼ぶ。[出典不明]
|
https://twitter.com/newmisty882311/status/1251209257090867200?s=21
【愛されるものは、私たちに対立しているのではなく、私たちの本質と一つである。私たちは愛されるものに私たちのみを見る。しかしそのとき、愛されるものはふたたび私たちではない。私たちにはとらえることのできない奇跡である。】
『初期ヘーゲル哲学の軌跡』寄川2006
18頁
愛と宗教1797年
ジジェクが『パンデミック』冒頭で引用
他に以下も引用(後述)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EV3BmBlU0AEV2ak.jpg
[For from his eyes] the night of the world hangs out toward us. Into this Night the being has returned. Yet the movement ...
The Philosophy of Spirit (Jena Lectures 1805-6)
PART I. Spirit according to its Concept
A. Intelligence
…
…
…
…
This image belongs to Spirit. Spirit is in possession of the image, is master of it. It is stored in the Spirit’s treasury, in its Night. The image is unconscious, i.e., it is not displayed as an object for representation. The human being is this Night, this empty nothing which contains everything in its simplicity – a wealth of infinitely many representations, images, none of which occur to it directly, and none of which are not present. This [is] the Night, the interior of [human] nature, existing here – pure Self – [and] in phantasmagoric representations it is night everywhere: here a bloody head suddenly shoots up and there another white shape, only to disappear as suddenly. We see this Night when we look a human being in the eye, looking into a Night which turns terrifying. [For from his eyes] the night of the world hangs out toward us.
https://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/4771007004/ref=rdr_ext_tmb
https://orbooks.mybigcommerce.com/pandemic-e-book/
only from within that we can approach one another—and the window onto “within” is our eyes. These days, when you meet someone close to you (or even a stranger) and maintain a proper distance, a deep look into the other’s eyes can disclose more than an intimate touch. In one of his youthful fragments, Hegel wrote:
The beloved is not opposed to us, he is one with our own being; we see us only in him, but then again he is not a we anymore—a riddle, a miracle [ein Wunder], one that we cannot grasp.
[G.W.F. Hegel, “Entwürfe über Religion und Liebe”, in Frühe Schriften, Werke 1 (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1986), 244, my italics. ]
https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/60429172/LoveWillTearUsApart.Gregoratto.
https://www.academia.edu/35307475/Love_Will_Tear_Us_Apart_Marx_and_Hegel_on_the_Mater
iality_of_Erotic_Bonds_in_Victoria_Fareld_and_Hannes_Kuch_eds._From_Marx_to_Hegel_an
d_Back_Capitalism_Critique_and_Utopia._London_Bloomsbury_
Werke in 20 Bänden mit Registerband: 1: Frühe Schriften (suhrkamp taschenbuch wissenschaft) (Deutsch) Taschenbuch – 26. April 1986
子供の「笑
間ではない
に一時的なものと考えざるをえない。そして彼が罪のようなものを意識するならば、彼はみずからの苦
痛のなかに、以前は友好的に共存してきた神の手によって罰が下されるのを認める。しかし、彼がみず
からの純粋さを意識し、この完全な分離に耐えることのできるだけの活力をもつならば、人間的なもの
がなにもない知の威力に、つまり運命に力強く立ち向かう。屈服することもなく、そうでなければ運一
命と合一することもない。運命との合一は、より威力のある存在への隷属でしかありえない
自然において永遠の分離が存在するところで、合一しえないものが合一されているならば、そこに実
定性が存在する。この合一されたもの、この理想は、それゆえ客体であり、そのなかには主体ではない
何ものかが存在する
私たちは、理想を外に立てることはできない。そうすれば、理想は客体となってしまうだろう。私た
ちは、理想を内に立てることはできない。そうすれば、理想は理想ではなくなってしまうだろう。
宗教は愛と一つである。
【愛されるものは、私たちに対立しているのではなく、私たちの本質と一つで
ある。私たちは愛されるものに私たちのみを見る。しかしそのとき、愛されるものはふたたび私たちで
はない。私たちにはとらえることのできない奇跡である。】
「永遠の美をかつて十分に観得して秘儀を受けたものが、美やそのほかの非物体的なイデアの優れた模
像である神々しい顔だちを目にすると、はじめは驚嘆し、かつての畏怖の幾分かが彼をとらえる。あと
から彼は目をそそぎ、それを神のように崇拝する。 そして気が狂ったのだという評判を恐れないならば
彼は神像や神にするように彼が愛するものに犠牲を捧げるであろう。」(プラトン「バイドロス」二五一A)
初期ヘーゲル寄川2006
18頁
愛と宗教1797年
It is crucial not to read these two claims as opposed, as if the beloved is partially a “we,” part of myself, and partially a riddle. Is not the miracle of love that you are part of my identity precisely insofar as you remain a miracle that I cannot grasp, a riddle not only for me but also for yourself? To quote another well-known passage from young Hegel:
The human being is this night, this empty nothing, that contains everything in its simplicity— an unending wealth of many representations, images, of which none belongs to him—or which are not present. One catches sight of this night when one looks human beings in the eye.
The Night of the World
What
Hegel called the "Night of the
World," the abyss of radical negativity.
Does this not bring us back to the famous passage from the beginning of Hegel's
Jenaer Realphilosophie about the "
night of the world"?
The
human being is this night, this empty
nothing, that contains everything in its simplicity - an unending wealth of many representations,
images, of which none belongs to him - or which are not
present. This night, the interior of
nature, that
exists here - pure
self - in phantasmagorical representations, is night all around it, in which here shoots a bloody head - there
another white ghastly apparition, suddenly here before it, and just so
disappears. One catches
sight of this night when one looks human beings in the eye - into a night that becomes awful.
[1]
[2]
G.W.F. Hegel, "Jenaer Realphilosophie," in Fruehe politische Systeme, Frankfurt: Ullstein 1974, p. 204. Quoted in The Stellar Parallax: The Traps of Ontological Difference.
http://takayoshik1.cocolog-nifty.com/blog/files/GeistesPhilo.pdf
82:
Many liberal and Leftist commentators have noted how the coronavirus epidemic serves to justify and legitimize measures of control and regulation of the people, measures that were till now unthinkable in a Western democratic society. The lockdown of all of Italy is surely a totalitarian’s wildest aspiration come true. No wonder that, as matters stand now, China, with its widespread digitalized social control, proved to be best equipped for coping with a catastrophic epidemic. Does this mean that, at least in some aspects, China is our future? The Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben has reacted to the coronavirus epidemic in a radically different way from the majority of commentators.1 Agamben deplored the “frantic, irrational, and absolutely unwarranted emergency measures adopted for a supposed epidemic of coronavirus” which is just another version of flu, and asked: “why do the media and the authorities do their utmost to create a climate of panic, thus provoking a true state of exception, with severe limitations on movement and 1.
http://positionswebsite.org/giorgio-agamben-the-state-ofexception-provoked-by-an-unmotivated-emergency/.
the suspension of daily life and work activities for entire regions?” Agamben sees the main reason for this “disproportionate response” in “the growing tendency to use the state of exception as a normal governing paradigm.” The measures imposed in the emergency allow the government to limit seriously our freedoms by executive decree:
It is blatantly evident that these restrictions are disproportionate to the threat from what is, according to the NRC, a normal flu, not much different from those that affect us every year. We might say that once terrorism was exhausted as a justification for exceptional measures, the invention of an epidemic could offer the ideal pretext for broadening such measures beyond any limitation.” The second reason is “the state of fear, which in recent years has diffused into individual consciousnesses and which translates into a real need for states of collective panic, for which the epidemic once again offers the ideal pretext.
Agamben is describing an important aspect of the functioning of state control in the ongoing epidemic, but there are questions that remain open: why would state power be interested in promoting such a panic which is accompanied by distrust in state power (“they are helpless, they
https://orbooks.mybigcommerce.com/pandemic-e-book/
https://orbooks.mybigcommerce.com/pandemic-e-book/
その内からのみ、私たちは互いに近づくことができます。そして「内」への窓は私たちの目です。最近、あなたがあなたの近くにいる人（または見知らぬ人）に会い、適切な距離を保つとき、他の人の目を深く見ると、親密なタッチ以上のことが明らかになることがあります。ヘーゲルは彼の若々しい断片の1つで、こう書いている：
最愛の人は私たちに反対していません、彼は私たち自身の存在と一体です。私たちは彼の中でしか見えませんが、再び彼はもう私たちではありません。謎、奇跡[アインワンダー]、私たちが把握できないものです。
愛する人が部分的に「私たち」であり、自分の一部であり、部分的になぞなぞであるかのように、これら2つの主張を読まないことが重要です。あなたが私が掴めない奇跡であり続ける限り、あなたは私のアイデンティティの一部であるという愛の奇跡ではありませんか？若いヘーゲルのよく知られた別の文章を引用するには：
人間は今夜、この空の何もない、その単純さのすべてを含んでいます-彼の所有物ではない、または存在しない多くの表現、画像の果てしない富。人が目で見ているこの夜を目にする。
82：
多くのリベラル派と左派のコメンテーターは、コロナウイルスの流行が人々の統制と規制の措置を正当化し、正当化するのにどのように役立つかを指摘しています。これは、西側の民主主義社会では今まで考えられなかった措置です。イタリア全体の封鎖は確かに全体主義者の最も野心的な願望が叶うことです。現在問題となっているように、デジタル化された社会的統制が広く普及している中国は、壊滅的な疫病に対処するのに最も適していることがわかりました。これは、少なくともいくつかの面で、中国が私たちの未来であることを意味しますか？イタリアの哲学者ジョルジオアガンベンは、大多数のコメンテーターとは根本的に異なる方法でコロナウイルスの流行に反応しました。1アガンベンは、「コロナウイルスの想定される流行に採用された、必死で非合理的で絶対に不当な緊急措置」を嘆きました「なぜメディアと当局はパニックの風土を作り出すために全力を尽くし、それによって運動に対する厳しい制限と1。
http://positionswebsite.org/giorgio-agamben-the-state-of-exception-provoked-by-an-unmotivated-emergency/
http://positionswebsite.org/giorgio-agamben-the-state-ofexception-provoked-by-an-unmotivated-emergency/。
参考
https://www.welt.de/kultur/plus206681771/Byung-Chul-Han-zu-Corona-Vernunft-nicht-dem-Virus-ueberlassen.html
... に理科大でWSを行うエンリクが参考書としてあげている本の著者がハンビュンチョル（Byung-Chul Han）。
Byung-Chul Han (born 1959) is a South Korean-born German philosopher and cultural theorist. He was professor at the ...
未指定：ハン
ハン・ビョンチョル著／時の匂い：たたずむ生き方の哲学（英訳） The Scent of Time : A Philosophical Essay on the Art of ...
ハンによれば、「疲労の本質的な理由は、肯定性の過剰」である。 ... Müdigkeitsgesellschaft- Byung-Chul Han in Seoul.
Amazon配送商品ならThe Burnout Societyが通常配送無料。更にAmazonならポイント還元本が多数。Byung-Chul Han作品 ...
未指定：ハン
本 の優れたセレクションでオンラインショッピング。
未指定：ハン
Philosophie des Zen-Buddhismus -
Byung-
Chul Han -
9783150181850. 1 / 1 ... 禅仏教の哲学-ビョンチョル・
ハン-9783150181850の海外通販ならセカイモンで！
2020年2月12日-Byung Chul-Han：Swarm MIT Pressで。 米国. デジタル時代に対するChul-Hisの帽子は大げさで、時折興味深いものです。 それでも彼は好きです。 ケジェチル・ロード.
https://orbooks.mybigcommerce.com/pandemic-e-book/
https://orbooks.mybigcommerce.com/pandemic-e-book/
その内からのみ、私たちは互いに近づくことができます。そして「内」への窓は私たちの目です。最近、あなたがあなたの近くにいる人（または見知らぬ人）に会い、適切な距離を保つとき、他の人の目を深く見ると、親密なタッチ以上のことが明らかになることがあります。ヘーゲルは彼の若々しい断片の1つで、こう書いている：
最愛の人は私たちに反対していません、彼は私たち自身の存在と一体です。私たちは彼の中でしか見えませんが、再び彼はもう私たちではありません。謎、奇跡[アインワンダー]、私たちが把握できないものです。
愛する人が部分的に「私たち」であり、自分の一部であり、部分的になぞなぞであるかのように、これら2つの主張を読まないことが重要です。あなたが私が掴めない奇跡であり続ける限り、あなたは私のアイデンティティの一部であるという愛の奇跡ではありませんか？若いヘーゲルのよく知られた別の文章を引用するには：
人間は今夜、この空の何もない、その単純さのすべてを含んでいます-彼の所有物ではない、または存在しない多くの表現、画像の果てしない富。人が目で見ているこの夜を目にする。
82：
多くのリベラル派と左派のコメンテーターは、コロナウイルスの流行が人々の統制と規制の措置を正当化し、正当化するのにどのように役立つかを指摘しています。これは、西側の民主主義社会では今まで考えられなかった措置です。イタリア全体の封鎖は確かに全体主義者の最も野心的な願望が叶うことです。現在問題となっているように、デジタル化された社会的統制が広く普及している中国は、壊滅的な疫病に対処するのに最も適していることがわかりました。これは、少なくともいくつかの面で、中国が私たちの未来であることを意味しますか？イタリアの哲学者ジョルジオアガンベンは、大多数のコメンテーターとは根本的に異なる方法でコロナウイルスの流行に反応しました。1アガンベンは、「コロナウイルスの想定される流行に採用された、必死で非合理的で絶対に不当な緊急措置」を嘆きました「なぜメディアと当局はパニックの風土を作り出すために全力を尽くし、それによって運動に対する厳しい制限と1。
http://positionswebsite.org/giorgio-agamben-the-state-of-exception-provoked-by-an-unmotivated-emergency/
http://positionswebsite.org/giorgio-agamben-the-state-ofexception-provoked-by-an-unmotivated-emergency/。
参考
地域全体の日常生活と仕事の中断？」アガンベンは、この「不均衡な対応」の主な理由を、「例外状態を通常の統治パラダイムとして使用する傾向が高まっている」と考えています。緊急時に課される措置により、政府は行政命令により私たちの自由を真剣に制限することができます。
《NRCによると、通常のインフルエンザであり、毎年影響を与えるものとそれほど変わらないものからの脅威に対して、これらの制限が不釣り合いであることは明白です。例外的な措置の正当化としてテロリズムが使い果たされると、流行病の発明は、そのような措置を制限を超えて拡大するための理想的な口実を提供できると言えるかもしれません。」第二の理由は、「近年、個人の意識へと広がり、集団的パニックの状態への真の必要性につながり、恐怖が再び理想的な口実を提供する恐怖の状態です。》
アガンベンは、進行中の流行における国家統制の機能の重要な側面を説明していますが、未解決の問題があります：なぜ国家権力は、国家権力への不信を伴うそのようなパニックを促進することに関心があるのですか（「彼らは無力です、彼ら
http://positionswebsite.org/giorgio-agamben-the-state-of-exception-provoked-by-an-unmotivated-emergency/
http://positionswebsite.org/giorgio-agamben-the-state-of-exception-provoked-by-an-unmotivated-emergency/
ジョルジオアガンベン、「やる気のない緊急事態によって引き起こされた例外の状態」
これは、2020年2月26日のイルマニフェストで「Lo stato d’eccezione provocato da un’emergenza immotivata」として最初に掲載された記事の翻訳です。
コロナウイルスの想定される流行に対して採用された必死で非合理的で絶対に不当な緊急措置を理解するために、「SARS-CoV2はない」とするイタリア国立研究評議会（NRC）の宣言から始める必要があります。イタリアでの流行。」
それは続きます：いずれの場合でも、「感染は、今日の時点で利用可能な疫学的データによると、数万のケースに基づいており、ケースの80〜90％で軽度/中程度の症状（インフルエンザの変種）を引き起こします。 10〜15％で、肺炎の可能性がありますが、大多数の症例で良性の結果もあります。集中治療が必要な患者はわずか4％と推定しています。」
これが実際の状況である場合、なぜメディアと当局はパニックの気候を作り出すために全力を尽くし、それによって真の例外状態を引き起こし、地域全体の動きと日常生活と仕事の活動の深刻な制限を引き起こしますか？
このような不釣り合いな反応を説明するには、2つの要因が役立ちます。
何よりもまず、ここで再び明らかになるのは、例外の状態を通常の統治パラダイムとして使用する傾向が高まっていることです。 「衛生と公共の安全上の理由で」政府によって承認された行政令（decreto legge）は、「陽性であるとテストする人が少なくとも1人いる自治体および地域の真の軍事化を生み出します。感染は不明であるか、伝染病の影響を受けた地域から最近旅行した人に関連していないケースが少なくとも1つあります。」
このようなあいまいで不確定な式により、[政府]は例外の状態をすべての地域に迅速に拡大することができます。
行政命令により課せられた自由の深刻な制限について考えてみましょう。
影響を受ける市町村またはその地域のすべての人々がその市町村または地域を離れることの禁止。
影響を受ける自治体または地域への立ち入り禁止
すべてのイベントまたはイニシアチブの一時停止（それらが文化、スポーツ、宗教、または娯楽に関連しているかどうかに関係なく）、および公開されている場合は閉鎖されたスペースを含む、プライベートまたはパブリックスペースでの会議の一時停止。
高等教育を含み、遠隔学習のみを除外する、幼稚園と学校のあらゆるレベルでの教育サービスの停止。
文化遺産および景観に関する定款の第101条、および2004年1月22日からの行政令42号に記載されている博物館およびその他の文化施設の閉鎖。これらの機関への無料アクセスに関する規制もすべて停止されています。
イタリアおよび海外でのあらゆる種類の教育旅行の停止。
必須のサービスまたは公益事業サービスを除く、すべての公開試験および公職のすべての活動の一時停止。
感染の確認された症例と密接な接触があった個人に対する検疫の実施と積極的な監視。
NRCによると、通常のインフルエンザであり、毎年私たちに影響を与えるものとそれほど変わらないものからの脅威に対して、これらの制限が不釣り合いであることは明白です。
例外的な措置の正当化としてテロリズムが使い果たされると、流行病の発明は、そのような措置を制限を超えて拡大するための理想的な口実を提供できると言えるかもしれません。
もうひとつの不穏なことは、恐怖の状態であり、これは近年個人の意識に拡散し、流行が再び理想的な口実を提供する集団的パニックの状態の真の必要性につながります。
したがって、悪意のある悪循環では、政府によって課された自由の制限は、現在それを満足させるために介入する同じ政府によって作成された安全への欲望の名の下に受け入れられています。
Giorgio Agamben, “The state of exception provoked by an unmotivated emergency”
In order to make sense of the frantic, irrational, and absolutely unwarranted emergency measures adopted for a supposed epidemic of coronavirus, we must begin from the
declaration of the Italian National Research Council (NRC), according to which “there is no SARS-CoV2 epidemic in Italy.”
It continues: in any case “the infection, according to the epidemiological data available as of today and based on tens of thousands of cases, causes light/moderate symptoms (a variant of flu) in 80-90% of cases. In 10-15%, there is a chance of pneumonia, but which also has a benign outcome in the large majority of cases. We estimate that only 4% of patients require intensive therapy.”
If this is the real situation, why do the media and the authorities do their utmost to create a climate of panic, thus provoking a true state of exception, with severe limitations on movement and the suspension of daily life and work activities for entire regions?
Two factors can help explain such a disproportionate response.
First and foremost, what is once again manifest here is the growing tendency to use the state of exception as a normal governing paradigm. The executive decree (decreto legge), approved by the government “for reasons of hygiene and public safety,” produces a real militarization “of those municipalities and areas in which there is at least one person who tests positive and for whom the source of the infection is unknown, or in which there is a least one case that is not connected to a person who recently traveled from an area affected by the contagion.”
Such a vague and indeterminate formula will allow [the government] to rapidly extend the state of exception to all regions, as it is practically impossible that other cases will not appear elsewhere.
Let us consider the serious limitations of freedom imposed by the executive decree:
- A prohibition against leaving the affected municipality or area for all people in that municipality or area.
- A prohibition against entering the affected municipality or area
- The suspension of all events or initiatives (regardless of whether they are related to culture, sport, religion, or entertainment), and a suspension of meetings in any private or public space, including enclosed spaces if they are open to the public.
- The suspension of educational services in kindergartens and schools at every level, including higher education and excluding only distance learning.
- The closure of museums and other cultural institutions as listed in article 101 of the Statute on cultural heritage and landscape, and in executive decree number 42 from 01/22/2004. All regulations on free access to those institutions are also suspended.
- The suspension of all kinds of educational travel, in Italy and abroad.
- The suspension of all publicly held exams and all activities of public offices, except essential services or public utility services.
- The enforcement of quarantine and active surveillance on individuals who had close contact with confirmed cases of infection.
It is blatantly evident that these restrictions are disproportionate to the threat from what is, according to the NRC, a normal flu, not much different from those that affect us every year.
We might say that once terrorism was exhausted as a justification for exceptional measures, the invention of an epidemic could offer the ideal pretext for broadening such measures beyond any limitation.
The other factor, no less disquieting, is the state of fear, which in recent years has diffused into individual consciousnesses and which translates into a real need for states of collective panic, for which the epidemic once again offers the ideal pretext.
Therefore, in a perverse vicious circle, the limitation of freedom imposed by governments is accepted in the name of a desire for safety, which has been created by the same governments who now intervene to satisfy it.
only from within that we can approach one another—and the window onto “within” is our eyes. These days, when you meet someone close to you (or even a stranger) and maintain a proper distance, a deep look into the other’s eyes can disclose more than an intimate touch. In one of his youthful fragments, Hegel wrote:
The beloved is not opposed to us, he is one with our own being; we see us only in him, but then again he is not a we anymore—a riddle, a miracle [ein Wunder], one that we cannot grasp.
It is crucial not to read these two claims as opposed, as if the beloved is partially a “we,” part of myself, and partially a riddle. Is not the miracle of love that you are part of my identity precisely insofar as you remain a miracle that I cannot grasp, a riddle not only for me but also for yourself? To quote another well-known passage from young Hegel:
The human being is this night, this empty nothing, that contains everything in its simplicity— an unending wealth of many representations, images, of which none belongs to him—or which are not present. One catches sight of this night when one looks human beings in the eye.
82:
Many liberal and Leftist commentators have noted how the coronavirus epidemic serves to justify and legitimize measures of control and regulation of the people, measures that were till now unthinkable in a Western democratic society. The lockdown of all of Italy is surely a totalitarian’s wildest aspiration come true. No wonder that, as matters stand now, China, with its widespread digitalized social control, proved to be best equipped for coping with a catastrophic epidemic. Does this mean that, at least in some aspects, China is our future? The Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben has reacted to the coronavirus epidemic in a radically different way from the majority of commentators.1 Agamben deplored the “frantic, irrational, and absolutely unwarranted emergency measures adopted for a supposed epidemic of coronavirus” which is just another version of flu, and asked: “why do the media and the authorities do their utmost to create a climate of panic, thus provoking a true state of exception, with severe limitations on movement and 1.
http://positionswebsite.org/giorgio-agamben-the-state-ofexception-provoked-by-an-unmotivated-emergency/.
the suspension of daily life and work activities for entire regions?” Agamben sees the main reason for this “disproportionate response” in “the growing tendency to use the state of exception as a normal governing paradigm.” The measures imposed in the emergency allow the government to limit seriously our freedoms by executive decree:
It is blatantly evident that these restrictions are disproportionate to the threat from what is, according to the NRC, a normal flu, not much different from those that affect us every year. We might say that once terrorism was exhausted as a justification for exceptional measures, the invention of an epidemic could offer the ideal pretext for broadening such measures beyond any limitation.” The second reason is “the state of fear, which in recent years has diffused into individual consciousnesses and which translates into a real need for states of collective panic, for which the epidemic once again offers the ideal pretext.
Agamben is describing an important aspect of the functioning of state control in the ongoing epidemic, but there are questions that remain open: why would state power be interested in promoting such a panic which is accompanied by distrust in state power (“they are helpless, they
。。。。。
#0
#0
NOLI ME TANGERE “Touch me not,” according to John 20:17, is what Jesus said to Mary Magdalene when she recognized him after his resurrection. How do I, an avowed Christian atheist, understand these words? First, I take them together with Christ’s answer to his disciple’s question as to how we will know that he is returned, resurrected. Christ says he will be there whenever there is love between his believers. He will be there not as a person to touch, but as the bond of love and solidarity between people―so, “do not touch me, touch and deal with other people in the spirit of love.” Today, however, in the midst of the coronavirus epidemic, we are all bombarded precisely by calls not to touch others but to isolate ourselves, to maintain a proper corporeal distance. What does this mean for the injunction “touch me not?” Hands cannot reach the other person; it is only from within that we can approach one another―and the window onto “within” is our eyes. These days, when you meet someone close to you (or even a stranger) and maintain a proper distance, a deep look into the other’s eyes can disclose more than an intimate touch. In one of his youthful fragments, Hegel wrote:
The beloved is not opposed to us, he is one with our own being; we see us only in him, but then again he is not a we anymore―a riddle, a miracle [ein Wunder], one that we cannot grasp.
It is crucial not to read these two claims as opposed, as if the beloved is partially a “we,” part of myself, and partially a riddle. Is not the miracle of love that you are part of my identity precisely insofar as you remain a miracle that I cannot grasp, a riddle not only for me but also for yourself? To quote another well-known passage from young Hegel:
The human being is this night, this empty nothing, that contains everything in its simplicity―an unending wealth of many representations, images, of which none belongs to him―or which are not present. One catches sight of this night when one looks human beings in the eye.
No coronavirus can take this from us. So there is a hope that corporeal distancing will even strengthen the intensity of our link with others. It is only now, when I have to avoid many of those who are close to me, that I fully e
NOLI ME TANGERE “Touch me not,” according to John 20:17, is what Jesus said to Mary Magdalene when she recognized him after his resurrection. How do I, an avowed Christian atheist, understand these words? First, I take them together with Christ’s answer to his disciple’s question as to how we will know that he is returned, resurrected. Christ says he will be there whenever there is love between his believers. He will be there not as a person to touch, but as the bond of love and solidarity between people―so, “do not touch me, touch and deal with other people in the spirit of love.” Today, however, in the midst of the coronavirus epidemic, we are all bombarded precisely by calls not to touch others but to isolate ourselves, to maintain a proper corporeal distance. What does this mean for the injunction “touch me not?” Hands cannot reach the other person; it is only from within that we can approach one another―and the window onto “within” is our eyes. These days, when you meet someone close to you (or even a stranger) and maintain a proper distance, a deep look into the other’s eyes can disclose more than an intimate touch. In one of his youthful fragments, Hegel wrote:
The beloved is not opposed to us, he is one with our own being; we see us only in him, but then again he is not a we anymore―a riddle, a miracle [ein Wunder], one that we cannot grasp.
It is crucial not to read these two claims as opposed, as if the beloved is partially a “we,” part of myself, and partially a riddle. Is not the miracle of love that you are part of my identity precisely insofar as you remain a miracle that I cannot grasp, a riddle not only for me but also for yourself? To quote another well-known passage from young Hegel:
The human being is this night, this empty nothing, that contains everything in its simplicity―an unending wealth of many representations, images, of which none belongs to him―or which are not present. One catches sight of this night when one looks human beings in the eye.
No coronavirus can take this from us. So there is a hope that corporeal distancing will even strengthen the intensity of our link with others. It is only now, when I have to avoid many of those who are close to me, that I fully experience their presence, their importance to me. I can already hear a cynic’s laughter at this point: OK, maybe we will get such moments of spiritual proximity, but how will this help us to deal with the ongoing catastrophe? Will we learn anything from it? Hegel wrote that the only thing we can learn from history is that we learn nothing from history, so I doubt the epidemic will make us any wiser. The only thing that is clear is that the virus will shatter the very foundations of our lives, causing not only an immense amount of suffering but also economic havoc conceivably worse than the Great Recession. There is no return to normal, the new “normal” will have to be constructed on the ruins of our old lives, or we will find ourselves in a new barbarism whose signs are already clearly discernible. It will not be enough to treat the epidemic as an unfortunate accident, to get rid of its consequences and return to the smooth functioning of the old way of doing things, with perhaps some adjustments to our healthcare arrangements. We will have to raise the key question: What is wrong with our system that we were caught unprepared by the catastrophe despite scientists warning us about it for years?
#1
The coronavirus epidemic could spread to about two-thirds of the world’s population if it cannot be controlled,” according to Hong Kong’s leading public health epidemiologist Gabriel Leung. “People needed to have faith and trust in their government while the uncertainties of the new outbreak were worked out by the scientific community,” he said, “and of course when you have social media and fake news and real news all mixed in there and then zero trust, how do you fight that epidemic? You need extra trust, an extra sense of solidarity, an extra sense of goodwill, all of which have been completely used up.2
1 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/08/if-china-valued-free-speech-there-would-be-no-coronavirus-crisis
2 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/11/coronavirus-expert-warns-infection-could-reach-60-of-worlds-population
3 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51413870
4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds
#2
Driven by the demand to persevere and not to fail, as well as by the ambition of efficiency, we become committers and sacrificers at the same time and enter a swirl of demarcation, self-exploitation and collapse. When production is immaterial, everyone already owns the means of production him-or herself. The neoliberal system is no longer a class system in the proper sense. It does not consist of classes that display mutual antagonism. This is what accounts for the system’s stability.” Han argues that subjects become self-exploiters: “Today, everyone is an auto-exploiting labourer in his or her own enterprise. People are now master and slave in one. Even class struggle has transformed into an inner struggle against oneself.” The individual has become what Han calls “the achievement-subject”; the individual does not believe they are subjugated “subjects” but rather “projects: Always refashioning and reinventing ourselves” which “amounts to a form of compulsion and constraint―indeed, to a more efficient kind of subjectivation and subjugation. As a project deeming itself free of external and alien limitations, the I is now subjugating itself to internal limitations and self-constraints, which are taking the form of compulsive achievement and optimization.2
precarious worker spending days at home alone with his/her personal computer―they are definitely not both a master and a slave in the same sense. A lot is being written about how the old Fordist assembly line way of working is replaced by a new mode of cooperative work that leaves much more space for individual creativity. However, what is effectively going on is not so much a replacement, but an outsourcing: work for Microsoft and Apple may be organized in a more cooperative fashion, but their final products are then put together in China or Indonesia in a very Fordist way―assembly line work is simply outsourced. So we get a new division of work: self-employed and self-exploited workers (described by Han) in the developed West, debilitating assembly line work in the Third World, plus the growing domain of human care workers in all its forms (caretakers, waiters …) where exploitation also abounds. Only the first group (self-employed, often precarious workers) fits Han’s description. Each of the three groups implies a specific mode of being tired and overworked. The assembly line work is simply debilitating in its repetitiveness―workers get desperately tired of assembling again and again the same iPhone behind a table in a Foxconn factory in a suburb of Shanghai. In contrast to this tiredness, what makes the human-care work so weary is the very fact that they are expected to labor with empathy, to seem to care about the “objects” of their work: a kindergarten worker is paid not just to look after children but to show affection for them, the same goes for those who take care of the old or the sick. One can imagine the strain of constantly “being nice.” In contrast to the first two spheres where we can at least maintain some kind of inner distance towards what we are doing (even when we are expected to treat a child nicely, we can just pretend to do so), the third sphere demands of us something which is much more tiresome. Imagine being hired to publicize or package a product in order to seduce people into buying it―even if personally one doesn’t care about the product or even hates the very idea of it. One has to engage creativity quite intensely, trying to figure out original solutions, and such an effort can be much more exhausting than repetitive assembly line work. This is the specific tiredness Han is talking about.
But it is not only precarious workers laboring behind their PC screen at home who exhaust themselves through self-exploitation. Another group should be mentioned here, usually referred to by the deceptive term “creative team work.”4 ★These are workers who are expected to undertake entrepreneurial functions on behalf of higher management or owners. They deal “creatively” with social organization of production and with its distribution. The role of such groups is ambiguous: on the one hand, “by appropriating the entrepreneurial functions, workers deal with the social character and meaning of their work in the confined form of profitability”: “The ability to organize labor and combined cooperation efficiently and economically, and to think about the socially useful character of labour, is useful for mankind and always will be.”5 ★However, they are doing this under the continuous subordination of capital, i.e., with the aim of making the company more efficient and profitable, and it is this tension which makes such “creative team work” so exhausting. They are held responsible for the success of the company, while their team work also involves competition among themselves and with other groups. As organizers of the work process, they are paid to perform a role that traditionally belonged to capitalists. And so, with all the worries and responsibilities of management while remaining paid workers insecure of their future, they get the worst of both worlds.
Such class divisions have acquired a new dimension in the coronavirus panic. We are bombarded by calls to work from home, in safe isolation. But which groups can do this? Precarious intellectual workers and managers who are able to cooperate through email and teleconferencing, so that even when they are quarantined their work goes on more or less smoothly. They may gain even more time to “exploit ourselves.” But what about those whose work has to take place outside, in factories and fields, in stores, hospitals and public transport? Many things have to take place in the unsafe outside so that others can survive in their private quarantine … And, last but not least, we should avoid the temptation to condemn strict self-discipline and dedication to work and propagate the stance of “Just take it easy!”―Arbeit macht frei! (“Work sets you free”) is still the right motto, although it was brutally misused by the Nazis. Yes, there is hard exhaustive work for many who deal with the effects of the epidemics―but it is a meaningful work for the benefit of the community which brings its own satisfaction, not the stupid effort of trying to succeed in the market. When a medical worker gets deadly tired from working overtime, when a caregiver is exhausted by a demanding charge, they are tired in a way that is different from the exhaustion of those driven by obsessive career moves. Their tiredness is worthwhile.
1 Byung-Chul Han, The Burnout Society, Redwood City: Stanford UP 2015.
2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byung-Chul_Han
3 https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/german-city-reverse-prize-uk-author-kamila-shamsie-over-support-bds
4 See Stephan Siemens and Martina Frenzel, Das unternehmerische Wir, Hamburg: VSA Verlag 2014.
5 Eva Bockenheimer, “Where Are We Developing the Requirements for a New Society,” in Victoria Fareld and Hannes Kuch, From Marx to Hegel and Back, London: Bloomsbury 2020, p. 209.
#4
The ongoing spread of the coronavirus epidemic has also triggered a vast epidemic of ideological viruses which were lying dormant in our societies: fake news, paranoiac conspiracy theories, explosions of racism. The well-grounded medical need for quarantines found an echo in the ideological pressure to establish clear borders and to quarantine enemies who pose a threat to our identity. But maybe another and much more beneficent ideological virus will spread and hopefully infect us: the virus of thinking of an alternate society, a society beyond nation-state, a society that actualizes itself in the forms of global solidarity and cooperation. Speculation is widespread that coronavirus may lead to the fall of Communist rule in China, in the same way that, as Gorbachev himself admitted, the Chernobyl catastrophe was the event that triggered the end of Soviet Communism. But there is a paradox here: coronavirus will also compel us to re-invent Communism based on trust in the people and in science.
In the final scene of Quentin Tarantino’s Kill Bill: Volume 2, Beatrix disables the evil Bill and strikes him with the “Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique,” the deadliest blow in all of martial arts. The move consists of a combination of five strikes with one’s fingertips to five different pressure points on the target’s body―after the target walks away and has taken five steps, their heart explodes in their body and they fall to the floor. Such an attack is part of the martial arts mythology but is not possible in real hand-to-hand combat. In the film, after Beatrix strikes him in this way, Bill calmly makes his peace with her, takes five steps and dies.
What makes this attack so fascinating is the time between being hit and the moment of death: I can have a nice conversation as long as I sit calmly, but I am aware throughout it that the moment I start to walk my heart will explode. And isn’t the idea of those who speculate on how coronavirus may lead to the fall of the Communist rule in China that the coronavirus epidemics works as some kind of social “Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique” on the Chinese Communist regime: the Chinese leadership can sit, observe and go through the usual motions of quarantine, but every real change in the social order (like really trusting the people) will bring their downfall. My modest opinion is much more radical: the coronavirus epidemic is a kind of “Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique” on the global capitalist system―a signal that we cannot go on the way we have till now, that a radical change is needed. Years ago, Fredric Jameson drew attention to the utopian potential in movies about a cosmic catastrophe such as an asteroid threatening life on earth, or a virus wiping out humanity. Such a universal threat gives birth to global solidarity, our petty differences become insignificant, we all work together to find a solution―and here we are today, in real life. This is not a call to sadistically enjoy widespread suffering insofar as it helps our Cause―on the contrary, the point is to reflect upon the sad fact that we need a catastrophe to be able to rethink the very basic features of the society in which we live. The first vague model of such a global coordination is the World Health Organization from which we are not getting the usual bureaucratic gibberish but precise warnings proclaimed without panic. Such organizations should be given more executive power. While US presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is mocked by skeptics for his advocacy of universal healthcare in the US, isn’t the lesson of the coronavirus epidemics that even more is needed, that we should start to put together some kind of global healthcare network? A day after Iran’s deputy health minister, Iraj Harirchi, appeared at a press conference in order to downplay the coronavirus spread and to assert that mass quarantines are not necessary, he made a short statement admitting that he has contracted the coronavirus and placed himself in isolation (even during his TV appearance, he had displayed signs of fever and weakness). Harirchi added: “This virus is democratic, and it doesn’t distinguish between poor and rich or between the statesman and an ordinary citizen.”1 In this, he was deeply right―we are all in the same boat. It is difficult to miss the supreme irony of the fact that what has brought us all together and promoted
1 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/25/irans-deputy-health-minister-i-have-coronavirus
2 I owe this insight to Andreas Rosenfelder
3 https://www.euronews.com/2020/02/16/hungary-s-orban-lashes-out-at-slow-eu-growth-sinister-menaces-and-george-soros
#5
#6
#7
1 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-01/china-s-push-to-jump-start-economy-revives-worries-of-fake-data
2 https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/06/asia/coronavirus-covid-19-update-who-intl-hnk/index.html
3 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/08/the-coronavirus-outbreak-shows-us-that-no-one-can-take-on-this-enemy-alone
4 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/05/governments-coronavirus-urgent-climate-crisis
5 https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/coronavirus-weakest-patients-could-be-denied-lifesaving-care-due-to-lack-of-funding-for-nhs-doctors-admit/ar-BB10raxq
#8
Richard Dawkins has claimed that memes are “viruses of the mind,” parasitic entities which “colonize” human might, using it as a means to multiply themselves―an idea whose originator was none other than Leo Tolstoy. Tolstoy is usually perceived as a much less interesting author than Dostoyevsky, a hopelessly outdated realist for whom there is basically no place in modernity, in contrast to Dostoyevsky’s existential anguish. Perhaps, however, the time has come to fully rehabilitate Tolstoy, his unique theory of art and man in general, in which we find echoes of Dawkins’s notion of memes. “A person is a hominid with an infected brain, host to millions of cultural symbionts, and the chief enablers of these are the symbiont systems known as languages”3―is this passage from Dennett not pure Tolstoy? The basic category of Tolstoy’s anthropology is infection: a human subject is a passive empty medium infected by affect-laden cultural elements which, like contagious bacilli, spread from one to another individual. And Tolstoy goes here to the end: he does not oppose a true spiritual autonomy to this spreading of affective infections; he does not propose a heroic vision of educating oneself into a mature autonomous ethical subject by way of getting rid of the infectious bacilli. The only struggle is the struggle between good and bad infections: Christianity itself is an infection, although―for Tolstoy―a good one. Maybe this is the most disturbing thing we can learn
1 http://positionswebsite.org/giorgio-agamben-the-state-of-exception-provoked-by-an-unmotivated-emergency/
2 Benjamin Bratton, personal communication.
3 Daniel C. Dennett, Freedom Evolves, New York: Viking, 2003, p. 173.
#9
help, to enable their survival. So I respectfully disagree with Giorgio Agamben who sees in the ongoing crisis as a sign that
… our society no longer believes in anything but bare life. It is obvious that Italians are disposed to sacrifice practically everything―the normal conditions of life, social relationships, work, even friendships, affections, and religious and political convictions―to the danger of getting sick. Bare life―and the danger of losing it―is not something that unites people, but blinds and separates them.”1
Things are much more ambiguous: the threat of death does also unite them―to maintain
1 https://itself.blog/2020/03/17/giorgio-agamben-clarifications/
2 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/18/tip-of-the-iceberg-is-our-destruction-of-nature-responsible-for-covid-19-aoe
3 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8121515/Global-air-pollution-levels-plummet-amid-coronavirus-pandemic.html
4 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/18/coronavirus-latest-at-a-glance-wednesday-2020.
#10
1 https://www.welt.de/kultur/article206681771/Byung-Chul-Han-zu-Corona-Vernunft-nicht-dem-Virus-ueberlassen.html .
2 https://critinq.wordpress.com/2020/03/23/to-quarantine-from-quarantine-rousseau-robinson-crusoe-and-i/?fbclid=IwAR2t6gCrl7tpdRPWhSBWXScsF54lCfRH1U-2sMEOI9PcXH7uNtKVWzKor3M .
3 https://www.yanisvaroufakis.eu/2020/03/24/last-night-julian-assange-called-me-here-is-what-we-talked-about/ .
4 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/23/trump-social-distancing-coronavirus-rules-guidelines-economy .
5 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/24/older-people-would-rather-die-than-let-covid-19-lockdown-harm-us-economy-texas-official-dan-patrick .
1 Comments:
冒頭ヘーゲルの文
愛と宗教
ジジェクは以下から孫引きで引用
Chapter 9. Love Will Tear Us Apart
Marx and Hegel on the Materiality of Erotic Bonds
Federica Gregoratto
From Marx to Hegel and Back: Capitalism, Critique, and Utopia
前表紙
Victoria Fareld, Hannes Kuch
Bloomsbury Publishing, 2020/01/09 - 280 ページ
0 レビュー
The relation between Hegel and Marx is among the most interpreted in the history of philosophy. Given the contemporary renaissance of Marx and Marxist theories, how should we re-read the Hegel-Marx connection today? What place does Hegel have in contemporary critical thinking?
Most schools of Marxism regard Marx's inversion of Hegel's dialectics as a progressive development, leaving behind Hegel's idealism by transforming it into a materialist critique of political economy. Other Marxist approaches argue that the mature Marx completely broke with Hegel. By contrast, this book offers a wide-ranging and innovative understanding of Hegel as an empirically informed theorist of the social, political, and economic world. It proposes a movement 'from Marx to Hegel and back', by exploring the intersections where the two thinkers can be read as mutually complementing or even reinforcing one another.
With a particular focus on essential concepts like recognition, love, revolution, freedom, and the idea of critique, this new intervention into Hegelian and Marxian philosophy unifies the ethical content of Hegel's philosophy with the power of Marx's social and economic critique of the contemporary world.
もっと見る »
Werke in 20 Bänden mit Registerband: 1: Frühe Schriften (suhrkamp taschenbuch wissenschaft)
コメントを投稿
<< Home