Шалагинов Денис_RESUME_04052018 (Проблемы имманентизма в нестабильных онтологиях), страница 8

2013. # 1. P. 137.73Hardt M., Negri A. Mnozhestvo: voina I demokratiya v epohu imperii. M., 2006. P. 130.In paragraph 3. “Plural spherology» I scrutinize the “spherological”model of relational ontology, developed by Peter Sloterdijk. One of the keyconcepts of Sloterdijk is “foam”. This concept is introduced to describe a complexsocial system conceived as an innumerable plurality of adjacent cells. The need touse the concept is dictated by the fact that foam, being an analogue of the metaphorof the network, makes it an additional content aspect, as it allows to emphasize thespatial volume of the cells themselves.

Plural spherology, being a theoretical heirto Deleuze/Guattari’s postpluralist ontology, suggests a similar solution to theproblem of single/multiple: foam is directly related to the philosophical decision tothink unity as a result74. In this sense, Sloterdijk demonstrates consistentimmanentism, because such philosophical step necessarily entails the rejection ofany form of transcendent wholeness, beyond the level of interacting units.

It isshown that the so called plural spherology deals with ontology of the polisphericworld, which holds together the multiplicities of the co-isolated spheres, or formprocesses.In Chapter III. “The problem of abundance in unstable ontologies:affirmation, acceleration and return to negativity” it is argued that the problemof abundance is primarily the problem of the subversive potential of affirmativism,and this problem can be formulated in the form of the question: how, consistentlypursuing a line of affirmative thinking, and therefore – focusing on the difference(new), one can evade its recuperation? In this Chapter I reconstruct basicaffirmativist decision of refusal of negativity, and demonstrate its possibleimplications through a critical review of affirmativism, accelerationism and theattempt to rehabilitate negativity in PostDeleuzian philosophy.In paragraph 1.

“Affirmation” I reconstruct Bergson’s argument,according to which negativity is a pseudo-idea. I show how this philosophicalconclusion is reflected in the conceptualization of: desire as an infinite resource inDeleuze/Guattari’s theory; labor as a productive superabundance in the conception                                                            74Sloterdijk P.

Pluralnaya sferologiya. Tom III. Pena, SPb., 2010. P. 293.of Negri/Hardt; “initial wealth”, or irreducible background, in the philosophy ofSloterdijk. All these decisions one way or another refer to the model becoming asactualization,however,asIdemonstrate,attemptstoderivepoliticalrecommendations from Deleuzian ontology of becoming are inevitably faced toserious difficulties.The question of how productive is the affirmative way of thinking,“reformatted” into socio-political philosophy, still remains open.

Based largely onthe arguments of Bergson, who denoted negativity as a pseudoidea,Deleuze/Guattari developed a positive ontology of production, one of the crosscutting “themes” of which was the provision that the desire is excessive and in anycase does not refer to an anthropomorphic matrix with its inherent intensionalityand negativity. Similarly interpreted desire was positioned as a productive force.This idea was accepted by Negri/Hardt, who almost equated desire withwork, which, as a productive excess, was understood as a “ticket” to a postcapitalist future. However, according to Dmitry Kralechkin's fair remark,Deleuze/Guattari's philosophy is associated with a peculiar “systemic error” inrelation to critical thinking, since they get rid of the traditional tool of liberation –the category of negativity: “inhuman” desire, which is referred to in the “AntiOedipus”, does not arise from the previous lack, and, therefore, does not refer to itssubject.

This desire “lives a life without purpose”, because the existence of thelatter brings us back to the lack that distinguishes the world into meaningful andinsignificant elements75. Moreover, we are in fact faced with equation: purpose =fascism76. In this sense, the established divisions of “progressive” and “regressive”,“totalitarian” and “democratic”, “productive” and “destructive” should be erased,because all these oppositions are inseparable from antagonism, and hence –negativity, and, ultimately, involve the reconstruction of a more or less clearprogram with an appropriate task, which Anti-Oedipus obviously aims to prevent.                                                            75Kralechkin D.

Antiposlesloviye perevodchika. Kritika ne v fokuse // Deleuze G., Guattari F. Anti-Oedipus:Kapitalizm I shizofreniya. Ekaterinburg, 2008. P. 642-643.76NoysB.TheGrammarofNeoliberalism.URL:http://www.academia.edu/327085/The_Grammar_of_Neoliberalism In paragraph 2. “Acceleration” I produced a critical analysis of suchdirection of PostDeleuzian philosophy as accelerationism.

The accelerationisthypothesis is that capitalism has hidden productive forces sufficient to overcome it.In addition, within the framework of the accelerationist experimental mythology, aspecific ontologization of fiction associated with the concept of hyperstition andinseparable from the affirmation of the excess of realities as fictional systems iscarried out. Noting the non-triviality of the basic accelerationist solutions, I showthat the choice of excess and acceleration is not quite productive, because, in theend, involves incorrect interpretation of the ideas of Deleuze/Guattari, fundamentalto the accelerationist thinking.Thus, in the framework of the paragraph I analyzed the two main “forms” ofaccelerationism associated with the names of Nick Land and Alex Williams / NickSrnicek.

Their common point of reference is the “accelerationist” fragment fromthe “Anti-Oedipus”, the main message of which is that it is necessary to “go furtherin the movement of the market”, i. e., following the logic of the system, movetowards absolute deterritorialization. It should be noted that the logic ofDeleuze/Guattari – long before the emergence of accelerationism – has alreadybeen subjected to bitter criticism77. However, I am inclined to believe that criticismitself is to some extent redundant, because the absolute deterritorialization isasymptotic.

Therefore, the accelerationist rate does not seem productive to me.There is no doubt that capitalism has a powerful potential fordeterritorialization, but this is not sufficient reason to attribute to capitalism theability to absolute deterritorialization. Here one can presumably find the mainmistake of Land, which, in particular, his former CCRU “colleague” Mark Fisherpointed to; he noted that Land’s “remix” of Deleuze/Guattari’s ideas was in manyways superior to the “original”, but Land’s understanding of capitalism turned outto be fatal, because it reduced what the French philosophers called “schizophrenia”                                                            77Baudrillard J.

Simulakry I simulyatsii. M., 2015. P. 186.to capitalism, losing the basic insight of Deleuze/Guattari: capitalism alwayscomplements deterritorialization with compensatory reterritorialization78.The current “accelerationist renaissance” is directly related to the affirmationof the need for intervention, consisting in the capture of technological forces.However, according to Noys, such an idea remains hopeless today, leading to thedesire to find the missing hope in the past79. The counterargument of left-wingaccelerationism is that any futurism to some extent is retrofuturism, because intrying to imagine the future we always turn to means, ideas and concepts from thepast 80. It seems impossible not to agree with this thesis, but it supposedly erodesthe fundamental assumption for accelerationist thought of the possibility ofachieving absolute deterritorialization, which refers to the unimaginable: a bodywithout organs is a body without an image81.

The conclusion to be drawn from thisis that, within the framework of accelerationist theory, we are faced with attemptsto “bewitch” the future by imposing on it a static image – utopian or apocalyptic, i.e., ultimately, to cancel the time by “humanizing” it. The impulse ofdeterritorialization presumably requires movement in the opposite direction,whereas “people still remain a problem – even if only as a brake, interruption ormoment of inertia”82.

This problem is not solved within the framework ofaccelerationism, which makes the rate of acceleration and excess ineffective.In paragraph 3. “A return to the negativity and its alternative” I appealto the latest trend that is trying to “inscribe” the negativity in Deleuzianphilosophy, i. e. to overcome affirmativism. A similar impulse is best representedin the work of Andrew Culp, who opposes the affirmative interpretation of thephilosophy of Deleuze, the so-called dark counter-canon. According to Culp, the                                                            78Fisher M.

Terminator vs Avatar // #ACCELERATE# The Accelerationist Reader. Urbanomic, 2014. P. 344-345.Noys B. Malign Velocities. Accelerationism & Capitalism. Winchester, UK; Washington, US, 2014. P. 25. Noysnotes that the very idea of acceleration is problematic in the sense that “it is based on the already available images ofacceleration, very ambiguous, and, like other ways to imagine the future”, comes down to memories of the“accelerations of the past” (Noys B. Tantsui I umri // Raznoglasiya. 2017. # 12. P. 86). 80Srnicek N. “Termin «akseleratsionizm» stal bespoleznym”.

Intervjyu s Nikom Srnicekom // Logos. 2018. T. 28. #2. P. 91.81Deleuze G., Guattari F. Anti-Oedipus: Kapitalizm I shizofreniya. Ekaterinburg, 2008. P. 22.82Noys B. Dni minuvshego buduschego: sostoyaniye akseleratsionizma // Logos. 2018. T. 28. # 2. P. 132. 79drawback of affirmativism is that it presupposes tolerance, which becomes abarrier to changing conditions of existence.The Culp’s project is directed against “connectivism” and “productivism”.Connectivism means organizational logic focused on the integration ofheterogeneous elements into a single network system. This logic refers not only tothe theoretical calculations of contemporary philosophers dealing with thedescription of networks, assemblages, rhizomes, dispositives, etc., but also, forexample, to Google’s geopolitical strategy aimed at global influence.