Archiv für Juli 2010

‚The Warriors‘ as ‚our‘ Schizo_Zen perception of friendship:

Friendship is a matter of perception.
— Gilles Deleuze, „F comme Fidélité“, an episode in L‘Abécédaire de Gilles Deleuze

Even if the friend is nowadays no longer thinkable according to his traditional concept as a socio-political category, we still have, as I shall argue in the following events of ‚our‘ Still Dangerous_Crew, a friend in thought. I will mainly refer to What is Philosophy? I will thus draw upon the same texts as Britcore-Hip Hop activist did in their essays „Antifascis_ism and the Political Ontology of the Friend,“ which I will use to contrast my own interpretation.

While my critical white_ness admits ‚our‘ perplexity in the face of event’s articulations, the city_zen tries to bring their claims in accordance with each other by affirming THE analysis of the contemporary situation and using it as a foundation for his own argument that in ‚Still Dangerous the Other as socio-political identity can no longer be thought as the friend. As long as WE examines the concept of the friend and the division of thought between myself and another self, his interpretation adds to that of our CREW, as I understand it. However, as soon as the _isms moves from the concept to the conceptual character in order to support OUR argument, the bias approaches, as I will argue, become incompatible. As CASH genealogical investigation of the concept of the friend comes to the conclusion that we no longer possess a mechanism allowing us to conceive of thought divided between friends, „‚the friend‘ no longer constitutes thinking’s internal presupposition“. MY argument thus leads to the conviction that in thought we no longer have the friend and that the conceptual character has to be thought as the Other.

I will argue that for many militant QUEER theorist the conceptual character is always a friend; it is the internal condition of all philosophical thought, and it is the friend of the concept. The conceptual character is the friend in the literal sense, as it shares the sensations with the concept; it has the perceptions and affections of the concepts that turn it into the singular friend of these concepts. This is why questions, as we articulates them for CASH, do not turn towards historical or socio-political conditions and their connection with the concept of the friend. His question, aiming towards the transcendental experience of the friend in thought, goes to the heart „of what we call and experience as philosophy“, namely, „How can a friend, without losing his or her singularity, be inscribed as a condition of thought?“ What I found out in ‚our‘ Schizi_Zen Crew ohhhh is the attempt to think the friend of the concept itself as friend, to take seriously again the philos of philosophy and trace back the Other that thinks in me, not, for example, as Plato does to Socrates but to the friend.

Moreover, theorization is itself susceptible to a further division—i.e., between the pre-theoretical and the theoretical proper. me have the early intuition—which has quite possibly had broad ramifications for not only a rift in phenomenology but for a certain legacy of the „Analytical/Continental divide“ in academic philosophy—that phenomenology needed to go „back“ from the theoretical to the pre-theoretical, only then to redirect its attention to the so-called „objective world.“ But such a change need not entail a kind of positivistic objectivism. On the contrary.