CDI cant quite reall the occassion of this talk/lecture ofAlliez' __But its special and was written before its time! we saw it coming all he speaks ! of! the magic dust of time which hid our facts from us.
The question which today serves as the title of my lecture, the question which motivates this inaugural lecture is sustained by a negation which is necessary to the construction of the problematic I aim here , not so much to develop, as to open. Here, that is, in London, England, in the Centre for Research in Modern European Philosophy at Middlesex University, under the directorship of my friend and now colleague (in that order), Peter Osborne, a major post-Hegelian before the Eternal, an Eternal or Internal which he wishes to be absolutely historical, but ok, "nobody is perfect" (exceptionally, he may have reason on his side, and in any case, I am beginning with a negation so, so far, so good).
Except that I am going to do more than this, since I have found no other means than the “labour of the negative”, in the most literal sense — which consequently falsifies my initial lecture title and forces it to become What is Not Contemporary French Philosophy Today? — to submit my claim to the order of reasons that has led to the absence in France of chairs of philosophy defined in this way, such that the syntagm “Contemporary French Philosophy” be immediately understood as we currently understand it here, in the UK and in France. It is hardly necessary to specify that it also testifies, on my part, to a reasoned recognition with regard to Middlesex University, which has welcomed me, albeit initially in a slightly different capacity (as Senior Research Fellow) since 2004. It equally testifies to my gratitude towards the Centre and its researchers and lecturers, whose work demonstrates, directly or by more indirect routes, the vitality of “Contemporary French Philosophy”.
Is this a paradox?
I am, then, starting or rather re-starting with this slightly 'simple' negation, but here, that is to say, 'not in France', and now, that is to say, today, in May 2008, more determining than ever: in so far as the theoretical field implied by the title of my chair invites a problematisation of the philosophical and of the contemporary from which a French otherness could be deduced : contemporary French philosophy not being simply the philosophy produced in France (or in the French language), by and in the institution of the
university, according to a single diachronic line whose moments and whose diversity would be gathered up in a calendrical present whose variable dimensions stand for the 'contemporary epoch'.
the second half of the 20th century would make at least these six (Germans) intervene - along with several others, pushed back by this analysis into the nineteenth century, before being returned to favour as a somewhat precious and regressively Franco-French anomaly. I am thinking here inevitably of Bergson (who published The Creative Mind in 1934) and of the conceptual machination that Deleuze was able to extract from him in order to emphasise the speculative principles of a superior empiricism, shattering the disjunction between the 'philosophy of life' and the 'philosophy of the concept', whilst singularly complicating the relationship between philosophy and science. One may also recall here the iconoclastic reading of Bergson proposed by Michel Serres in his Eulogy to Philosophy in the French Language. Bergson constructed an unexpected bridge between the intuitions of the mathematicians Hadamard and Poincare at the start of the 20th century and the contemporary theories of chaos, which infuse the Deleuzo-Guattarian plane of immanence; a Bergson (not unlike Gabriel Tarde, an author to whom I have applied myself, reinscribing the contemporary debate between philosophy and the social sciences), caught up in the "total forgetting of the properly French traditions of the start of the century", evacuated by the total domination of German thought framed by the background of war (and the century is presented as a between of two world wars) which made logicism return in mathematics, determinism in history or psychology (but also in psychoanalysis), and imposed dialectics as the philosophy of war. And so Serres concludes his argument by evoking the "obligation to think the tangled multiplicities of the new contingency", an exigency which appears in real time as an anachronism cut by the thread, if not the iron hand, of history.
of intelligibility of modernity and of the democratic idea". This would [supposedly] allow "France" to rejoin the "state of the philosophical and political problematic dominating everywhere else". What has, on the plane of political philosophy in the strict sense, been called "New French Thought", and which, in reaction to the Anti-Humanism of 68-Thought, varies in form between a liberal-conservative neo-Tocquevillian paradigm, an allegedly progressive ethics of communication, and a republican philosophy of universal human rights, would in this way mark the time of a pacified dialogue between contemporary continental philosophy (at the categorial outset, phenomenological, but more broadly of a hermeneutic spectrum) and the Anglo-Saxon analytic tradition (which, it must be said, has been broadly represented in France by this generation). It is in this way that France, the new contemporary French philosophy, the contemporary French philosophy of today - I'm still paraphrasing Alain Renaut - would give itself the means of "rediscovering a place at the heart of a global philosophy which is, in any case, in the process of surmounting its ancient splits and succeeding in its unification". Less academic than institutional, this highly consensual response to the question "what is contemporary French philosophy, today?" would thus have as its primary characteristic the closing of the parenthesis of “68-Thought". Now the modalities of this foreclosure have been stated successively in two books which have incontestably translated the forces at work in this period of Restoration in philosophical terms and produced long term effects in the whole of the French academic field.
• The Same and the Other. Forty-Five Years of French Philosophy (1933 - 1978), published in
into a "myriad of little underlings each one attached to a perspective".
tradition, the better to dissolve the last glimmers of Critical Theory in the elucidation of the conditions of universality necessary to every language. Nevertheless, the “historicist” objections of Hegel or the “critical” objections of Horkheimer are still valid against a linguistically reformulated Kantian ethics (i.e. after the linguistic turn)
content based on the most deterministic kind of historicism, flattening the life of concepts and their always singular dispositifs onto pre-selected moments cut out from and by the closure of metaphysics, assured of a permanent and outdated identity by a compartmentalised history running in a single direction.
(Deleuze) : because it is thought as such that is propositionally submitted to the intersubjective requirement of clarity and to control by public criteria without which all consensual possibility of rationality would be lost.
is shiver me thimbles!
for structuralism, the thinking of difference, and for thought tout court, by the deterritorialisation of philosophy which had preceded the singular political experience of May 1968.
before it has started...), and it can only be opposed to the academic 'transistence' of the reception of French thought in the Anglo-Saxon world and abroad more generally (our finest export...), wherein under the guise of French Theory it is directly or indirectly hybridised and 'trans-nationalised'.
phenomenological intentionality in its Husserlian guise.
1. Levinas's texts on Husserl and Heidegger, which condition the discovery and understanding of phenomenology in France in the 1930s (beginning with Sartre and Blanchot), starting from Husserl's critique of objectifying representation. This leads - in The Theory of Intuition in Husserl's Phenomenology (1930) - to the minoring of the key concept of "reduction" by virtue of the link between intuition and "all the vital forces defining the concrete existence of man", confronted in his zones of non-intentional opacity named sensibility or affectivity, with the enigma of the visible constitutive of the "phenomenon" (so many themes announcing the anti-Husserlian, Heideggerian and non-Heideggerian turning of French phenomenology) ;
separating transcendental consciousness from a consciousness inserted in the world, the epokhe takes away from logical empiricism and from psychologism their naïve and slightly aggressive qualities, they remain subjacent to the development of phenomenology” (Jean Cavaillès, On the Logic and Theory of Science, 1947).
have to deal with the reality of the critical observation set out by Merleau-Ponty (“the crisis has never been so radical” he stated), along with the multiple and contradictory necessities borne by reopening the question of ontology under an Heideggerian influence twisted so as to grasp a highly improbable nexus between the “philosophy of structure” and the analysis of the “flesh of the world”, against Sartre’s Transcendence of the Ego. (In his article of 1937, Sartre had tied down the impersonal field of the transcendental he had discovered in the auto-unification of an “absolute consciousness”).
_________________________________'the heavy guns have been firing'
to such delirious philosophy _____________________
compromised on the question of the immanence on which its materialist consistency and contemporaneity depend.
her knees quake her EyeBalls Roll
Eric is driving home his last laps and final thrusts.
multiplicities and the “set theoretical” paradigm of the pure multiple.
_________________Poles Poles Poles Polarssssssssssssssssss Swinging Ringing
Twinging the folks at the philosophical field.
The last moments are churned yet winding 'down' ______________
This is to say everything about the initial ambition and claim of my subject, materialised, and formalised in an abstract that I haven’t stopped trying to subtract from your attention in ways you may judge to be somewhat too strategic : “Contemporary Philosophy After Contemporary Art”…
(CP yer so harsh! CD!)
CP____________Can you elbow room elaborate
the importance of these comments for your trade
you speak 'english' 'french' 'italian' 'greek'
it remand you to Order Word Gramma
Machinery clankclank can
Speak ee Ritey disway en you get gradeD passed
if Not to gramma Essa Y PunKUation
PriSon U go
_______________They are in London why he is speaking about dumdumCanadumdum ???????????
CP ! ????????????????? She rips
of f her clothes!
rends her garments?
What????????? Can that be?
NO t Done In Poetree
_____ SOmet ime it do
a crrowd has dispersed and regrouped
across the road
of deterritory and terry.
become their own police
__ Foucault discussed this as it pertains to
other levels of social control
in another perverse
turn of the spiral
His cod noggin.
the best intended of the critics remain
far behind the acutalites of poetic practice
and the poets who've become
_____At the end he has an epilepticpoetic fit!
hes fitto become fucked!
hes orgasmic Bacchanal.
______________To morrow theyhead off to the Cinema. THey calm down. Down she calm his serendipitous love. Wrong to the Raving of his Beauty.