Skip navigation

Category Archives: YouTube

Deneyler yapmak ve yaptığı deneylerin sonuçlarını insanlarla paylaşmak için yaratılmış bir insan olan Takamuro Kootaro, çocukluğunda okuduğu bilim-kurgu romanlarının etkisiyle vurmuştu kendini bilime. Özellikle H.P. Lovecraft’ın kitaplarında okuduğu doğa-üstü hadiseleri gerçek sanıyor, yıllar geçtikçe dizginlenmesi namümkün bir hâl alan hayâl gücü, onu Frankenstein, veya bilemediniz Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde gibi bir çılgına çeviriyordu.

Anne ve babasını korkunç bir trafik kazasında kaybeden küçük Takamuro sosyalist bir filozof tarafından evlât edinilip doğru dürüst bir okula gönderilinceye kadar tarifi imkânsız acılarla boğuşmak durumunda kalacaktır. Söz konusu okulda bilimin ışığıyla aydınlandıktan sonra aldığı bir bursla Japonya’dan Amerika’ya geçen Kootaro, Georgia Tech Enstitüsü’nde kısa zamanda sivrilecek ve doktorasını bitirir bitirmez Teorik Fizik ve Astronomi kürsüsünün başına getirilecektir. Spekülatif Realistler’in düzenlediği “Bilim ve Metafizik” adlı bir konferansta, evrenin sonsuzluğu içerisinde zaman kavramının sadece insan beynine münhasır bir şey olduğunu ve bunun sebebinin de düşünebilen tek ölümlü varlığın insan olması olduğunu dile getirecektir Takamuro Kootaro, ve pek tabii Kant’ın tüm bunları yıllar önce hâlihazırda dile getirmiş olduğundan bihaber olduğu için Dr. Lawgiverz’in tepkisini çekecektir hâliyle. Aralarında münakaşaya varan bir diyalog gerçekleşecek ve detaylarına girmememeyi etik olarak uygun bulduğumuz, yaşanan o ibret verici olaylar bilim ve felsfenin iş birliğinin ne denli gerekli ve mümkün olduğunu bir kez daha gözler önüne serecektir.

İlerleyen süreçte Einstein’ın görecelik teorisini çürüten ilk kişi olma bahtiyarlığını yaşayan Takamuro Kootaro’nun temel tezi zamanda yolculuk mevhumuna teknolojik gelişmeler ışığında bakıldığı zaman geleceğe gitmenin geçmişten gelmekten daha mümkün olduğunu ileri sürmekteydi. Kootaro’nun teoride ıspatladığı ve bilim çevrelerinde kabul görmüş bu tezinin teferruatlarına girmek isterdik, ama ne yazık ki kapasitemiz buna hiç müsait değil, zira biz bilim-adamı olmaktan ziyade basit bir anlatıcıyız sadece. Kafamızın basmadığı şeyleri anlatmamız ise hem çok riskli, hem de zaten mümkün değil. Hangi anlatıcı okuyucularının nezdinde küçük düşmek ister ki? Bilgi eksikliğinin insanın saçmalamasına zemin hazırlamaya ne denli müsait olduğunu hepimiz biliyoruz; bunu yaşayarak öğrendiğimizi farzediyor ve bu konuyu da daha fazla rezil olmadan böylece geçiştiriyoruz. Güneşin 4.5 yıl içerisinde söneceğine dair spekülasyonlar gerçeğe dönüştüğü takdirde tıpkı Akor Yaşam Uzatma Vakfı’nın Arizona’daki tesislerinden sorumlu Dr. Jerry Lemler gibi, Takamuro Kootaro’nun da tüm bu çabalarını anlamsız kılarak ölümsüzlük hayâlini imkânsızlıklar arenasına dahil edeceğini söylemeye gerek olup olmadığını ise inanın ki bilmiyoruz.

Dr. Lawgiverz’le Takamuro Kootaro bilim ve metafizik arasındaki ilişkileri hem epistemolojik, hem de ontolojik bağlamlarda en fenni şekilde mercek altına alan bir konferansta tanışacaktı. Bahse konu konferansta “Ölümsüzlük Teorisi ve Gilles Deleuze” adında bir bildiri sunan Dr. Lawgiverz ile “Zamanda Yolculuk Teorisi ve Einstein” adında bir sunum yapan Takamuro Kootaro konferansın bittiği günün gecesinde verilen akşam yemeğinde tesadüfen yan yana oturma fırsatı bulacak ve gecenin ilerleyen saatlerinde bilimsel-felsefi bir sohbete ilâveten şarabın da etkisiyle güçlerini birleştirme kararı alacaktı bu ikisi. Biri doğa bilimlerine, diğeri ise beşeri bilimlere mensup bu iki bilim-adamının dünyaya damgalarını vurmasıyla sonuçlanan entellektüel birliktelik, son derece verimli geçtiği aşikâr olan “Bilim ve Metafizik” konulu o konferans sayesinde başlayacaktı yani işte.

Güneşin 4.5 yıl içerisinde söneceğine dair o meşhur spekülasyonlar ortalığa yayıldığı sıralarda Takamuro Kootaro sürekli olarak Japonya ve Amerika arasında mekik dokumakta, maddi kaynakları ve bilimsel çalışmaları arasında yepyeni köprüler inşa etmekteydi. Kim bilir, belki de bu ikisinin, yani Takamuro Kootaro ve Dr. Lawgiverz’in böyle oradan oraya gidip gelmeleridir ülkelerindeki istihbarat birimlerinin dikkatini çeken. Ne yazık ki henüz o kısma gelmedik ama, biraz sabır lütfen, ey sabrın sonunun selâmet olduğu konusunda şüpheleri olan kuşkucu okur!



Pj Harvey – A Perfect Day Elise (Original Studio Version with Video Clip)

He got lucky, got lucky one time

Hitting with the girl in room five none nine

She turned her back on him facing the frame

Said, “Listen Joe don’t you come here again”

White sun scattered all over the sea

He could think of nothing but her name Elise

God is the sweat running down his back

The water soaked her blonde hair black

It’s a perfect day

A perfect day, Elise

He got burned by the sun

He’s a lucky man

His face so pale and his hands so worn

And the sky

Let himself in room five none nine

As she turned away

Said a prayer, pulled the trigger and cried

Tell me why

It’s a perfect day

A perfect day, Elise

Ah oh, It’s a perfect day

A perfect day, Elise

The police murder of Andreas Grigoropoulos

Greek teen died from bullet ricochet: court sources, ATHENS (AFP)

Initial results from the post-mortem on a Greek teenager whose killing by police sparked five days of rioting show Alexis Grigoropoulos died from a bullet ricochet, court sources said Wednesday. According to forensic doctors and independent experts hired by the boy’s family, the bullet “is a bit deformed, which showed the bullet touched a hard surface” before entering the 15-year-old’s chest, sources agreed…

On the events on the evening of Saturday, December 6, 2008 and the shooting of Andreas (Alexandros) Grigoropoulos

Police accounts, faithfully reproduced in corporate/state media, and slightly adjusted over time to conform with alternative accounts, appear to be based on complete fabrications. That is, rather than police, in fear of their lives, firing a warning shot — which ricocheted and accidentally struck Andreas — tragically killing him, police appear to have deliberately and cold-bloodedly executed the teenager.

via Deadeye on ANARCHISM.net forum

Mourning the death of Alexandros Grigoropoulos of Kratzi> RIP

1st witness
-We saw them at some point, with guns in their hands walking down the street.
-Both of them?
-Both.
-And? Where did they stop?
-Here, right here. They started cussing here, “Come here punks, come and settle this”. Some kids approached.

2nd witness
-During this verbal fight, we saw no objects being thrown, suddenly one of them pulls out his gun and opens fire, straight ahead. We took a careful look and noticed someone on the ground, being dragged away by his friends, probably in fear that he would shoot again. Anyway, this is what happened, the officers were just standing still and then walked away. They turned away and left, on foot.

3rd witness
-I saw the extension of his arms, I saw him aiming. The extension of his arms, not the position of his body. I was behind him. And he aimed. He aimed towards the other end of the street, towards that group.

4th witness
-They were exchanging words. It was intense. Suddenly, without any other intervention, the patrol car abruptly departs and some time later the officers return. They stood in front of the kids and gunshots were heard. One of the kids, fell.

1st witness – resumed
-3 shots?
-3 shots because he didn’t hit him at first. This man wanted to kill. Simple as that.

5th witness
-We heard two bangs. I immediately understood it was gunfire from the sound of the very first shot. I heard the second shot, followed by a scream and a kid falling to the ground. We headed towards the kid, we dragged him away.
-What did the police do?
-The police turned their backs, as if nothing had happened, and left. We lifted his shirt, he was bleeding. We gave him CPR, the ambulance was late.

6th witness
-I saw the patrol car between Zoodoxou Pigis street and Tzavela street, it left but a minute later, the two drivers came back. They were both armed and they shot that kid, without a reason.
-Did you see them aiming?
-Yes, they were aiming.
-They didn’t shoot up to intimidate?
-No, they shot the kids that were standing there.
-Did they see the kid falling dead?
-Yes, someone shouted that the kid was wounded, but they turned and left.

Those testimonies are a bit useless without knowing what the cops themselves testified.

They claimed they were attacked by a group of 30 hooded anarchists, with rocks, sticks and molotov cocktails, while in the car. They stepped on the gas to evade them, but later returned to arrest them. They were attacked once more and while in self defense, they threw a flashbang grenade, fired two shots in the sky to intimidate the attackers and one in the ground. The last one hit the ground but ricocheted.

They’ve been flipping their story until today. Their first two lawyers have already retired from their case, for ethical reasons. The ballistic examination was completed today. The bullet remained inside the body and it indicated that it came from a higher level (the pistol) to a lower level (the victim’s body). If it was indeed a ricochet, the bullet would have entered from a lower level (the street) to a higher [point], the point of entry in the body.

At first, all media adopted the cop’s case, spreading similar news worldwide.

Now, they talk about murder in cold blood.

via slackbastard.anarchobase 

Alexandros Grigoropoulos, two years on…

A Lacanian Ink Event – Jack Tilton Gallery – NYC, 10/15/2010
Introduction by Josefina Ayerza


via ideologic


A joke about dissidents and a great speech from Zizek –  It’s the Political Economy, Stupid!  

Watch the youtube video and here’s the text:

“In the good old days of Really-Existing Socialism, a joke was popular among dissidents, used to illustrate the futility of their protests. In the 15th century Russia occupied by Mongols, a farmer and his wife walk along a dusty country road; a Mongol warrior on a horse stops at their side and tells the farmer that he will now rape his wife; he then adds: “But since there is a lot of dust on the ground, you should hold my testicles while I’m raping your wife, so that they will not get dirty!” After the Mongol finishes his job and rides away, the farmer starts to laugh and jump with joy; the surprised wife asks him: “how can you be jumping with joy when I was just brutally raped in your presence?” The farmer answers: “But I got him! His balls are full of dust!” This sad joke tells of the predicament of dissidents: they thought they are dealing serious blows to the party nomenklatura, but all they were doing was getting a little bit of dust on the nomenklatura’s testicles, while the nomenklatura went on raping the people… Is today’s critical Left not in a similar position? Our task is to discover how to make a step further – our thesis 11 should be: in our societies, critical Leftists have hitherto only dirtied with dust the balls of those in power, the point is to cut them off”

ANd here are some of my favorite quotes from the speech:

When the normal run of things is traumatically interrupted, the field is open for a “discursive” ideological competition …Consequently, to put it in old-fashioned Marxist terms, the main task of the ruling ideology in the present crisis is to impose as narrative which will not put the blame for the meltdown onto the global capitalist system AS SUCH, but on its secondary accidental deviation (too lax legal regulations, the corruption of big financial institutions, etc.)”

“Rarely was the function of ideology described in clearer terms – to defend the existing system against any serious critique, legitimizing it as a direct expression of human nature:

 “An essential task of democratic governments and opinion makers when confronting economic cycles and political pressure is to secure and protect the system that has served humanity so well, and not to change it for the worse on the pretext of its imperfection. / Still, this lesson is doubtless one of the hardest to translate into language that public opinion will accept. The best of all possible economic systems is indeed imperfect . Whatever the truths uncovered by economic science, the free market is finally only the reflection of human nature, itself hardly perfectible.” 

Such ideological legitimization also perfectly exemplifies Badiou’s precise precise formula of the basic paradox of enemy propaganda: it fights something of which it is itself not aware, something for which it is structurally blind – not the actual counterforces (political opponents), but the possibility (the utopian revolutionary-emancipatory potential) which is immanent to the situation:“The goal of all enemy propaganda is not to annihilate an existing force (this function is generally left to police forces), but rather to annihilate an unnoticed possibility of the situation. This possibility is also unnoticed by those who conduct this propaganda, since its features are to be simultaneously immanent to the situation and not to appear in it. »6 This is why enemy propaganda against radical emancipatory politics is by definition cynical – not in the simple sense of not believing its own words, but at a much more basic level: it is cynical precisely and even more insofar as it does believe its own words, since its message is a resigned conviction that the world we live in, even if not the best of all possible worlds, is the least bad one, so that any radical change can only make it worse .”

“Again, it is thus not enough to remain faithful to the Communist Idea – one has to locate in historical reality antagonisms which make this Idea a practical urgency. The only true question today is: do we endorse the predominant naturalization of capitalism, or does today’s global capitalism contain strong enough antagonisms which prevent its indefinite reproduction?

There are four such antagonisms: the looming threat of ecological catastrophy, the inappropriateness of private property for the so-called “intellectual property,” the socio-ethical implications of new techno-scientific developments (especially in biogenetics, and, last but not least, new forms of apartheid, new Walls and slums. There is a qualitative difference between the last feature, the gap that separates the Excluded from the Included, and the other three, which designate the domains of what Hardt and Negri call “commons,” the shared substance of our social being whose privatization is a violent act which should also be resisted with violent means, if necessary: the commons of culture, the immediately socialized forms of “cognitive” capital, primarily language, our means of communication and education, but also the shared infrastructure of public transport, electricity, post, etc. (if Bill Gates were to be allowed monopoly, we would have reached the absurd situation in which a private individual would have literally owned the software texture of our basic network of communication); the commons of external nature threatened by pollution and exploitation (from oil to forests and natural habitat itself); the commons of internal nature (the biogenetic inheritance of humanity) .”

The predominant liberal notion of democracy also deals with those Excluded, but in a radically different mode: it focuses on their inclusion, on the inclusion of all minority voices. All positions should be heard, all interests taken into account, the human rights of everyone guaranteed, all ways of life, cultures and practices respected, etc. – the obsession of this democracy is the protection of all kinds of minorities: cultural, religious, sexual, etc. The formula of democracy is here: patient negotiation and compromise. What gets lost is the proletarian position, the position of universality embodied in the Excluded.

 “The new emancipatory politics will no longer be the act of a particular social agent, but an explosive combination of different agents. What unites us is that, in contrast to the classic image of proletarians who have “nothing to lose but their chains,” we are in danger of losing ALL: the threat is that we will be reduced to abstract empty Cartesian subject deprived of all substantial content, dispossessed of our symbolic substance, with our genetic base manipulated, vegetating in an unlivable environment. This triple threat to our entire being make us all in a way all proletarians, reduced to “substanceless subjectivity,” as Marx put it in Grundrisse. The figure of the “part of no-part,” confronts us with the truth of our own position, and the ethico-political challenge is to recognize ourselves in this figure – in a way, we are all excluded, from nature as well as from our symbolic substance. Today, we are all potentially a HOMO SACER, and the only way to prevent actually becoming one is to act preventively.

THANKS BARRY! 

via fuckyeahzizek

AUFS links to a conversation between Jacques Derrida and Ornette Colman from the late 90s. Here. Plus, here’s another interview with Ornette Coleman: Read More

via Perverse Egalitarianism

Creatureliness and Immortality (via Speculative Humbug)

 [I now think the opinions expressed here are massively too hasty – this issue of meaning and finitude requires a lot more thought – but I’ll leave the original post up anyway.] I’ve just watched the first episode of this interview with Simon Critchley, and I thought I’d take the opportunity to note a key disagreement I have with Critchley’s position while the thoughts are still fresh. Critchley makes the point – with which I agree – that our soci … Read More

via Speculative Humbug

Excerpt from Cengiz Erdem’s Ph.D. thesis

In his Critique of Judgement, Kant distinguishes between the determinative and the reflective modes of judgement. If we keep in mind that the reflective mode of judgement reflects on particulars in such a way as to produce universals to which they can be subjected, and that the determinative mode of judgement determines a particular by subjecting it to a universal, it becomes understandable why among these two I shall be using the reflective mode which splits as it unites the subject of enunciation and the enunciated subject. But it must be kept in mind that the subject of enunciation which refers to the universal is itself a constitutive illusion, or a regulatory idea necessary for the emergence of the immortal subject as the enunciated content.

It is only in and through a position of non-mortality within and without mortal life at the same time that the exploitation of mortality can be brought into the spotlight. A critique of the exploitation of mortality inherent in particularly exemplary cultural products will be achieved through putting them in a perspective that analyzes the life death drives in such a way as to expose the exploitation of the fear of death as the driving force inherent in them. The point is that it is indeed necessary to fantasize being what one is not, in our case being non-mortal, to be able to become self-conscious of one’s self-reflexivity in the way of creating an order of signification not caught up in the rotary motion of drives locked in Klein’s projection-introjection mechanism, but rather one which breaks this vicious cycle and at least attempts to subtract death from life in a counter-act to the post-structuralist idea of life as a process of dying and death as an absent presence in the midst of life. It is only through such a subtraction of the absent presence of death within life that the productive interaction between Deleuze’s transcendental empiricism, Foucault’s bio-politics, Badiou’s theory of infinity, and Kant’s reflective mode of judgement give birth to the immortal subject as the womb of a new thought, a new life, and a new mode of being, free of the exploitation of mortality and engagingly indifferent to this mortal, all too mortal life.

The immortal subject within and without the pre-dominant symbolic order is not only the cause, but also the effect of its own alienation from mortal life. This regulatory idea of immortality, which is also a constitutive illusion, is inspired by the post-structuralist theme of becoming non-identical as we see in Deleuze and Derrida. If one could become non-identical, why would one not also become non-mortal? If one could become alienated from one’s identity, why would one not also become alienated from one’s mortality?  Why not become immortal so as to become capable of criticizing the exploitations of this mortal, all too mortal life? But what motivated me to take immortality as a virtual mode of being was Badiou’s theory of infinity which aimed at secularizing the concept of truth. Badiou’s technique of secularizing the truth is inspired by the 19th century mathematician Georg Cantor’s technique of secularizing the infinite. As Badio claims, the secularization of infinity started with Cantor who stated that there was not one, but many infinities varying in size and intensity. From then onwards it became possible to link Deleuze’s concepts of impersonal consciousness and transcendental empiricism with Badiou’s theory of infinity and Kant’s assertion that for reflective judgement to take place and turn the object into a subject a transcendental ground is necessary.  Now I can say that for me a transcendental ground is necessary only to the extent that it enables the subject to shake the foundation of its own mode of being and opens a field for immanent critique to take place. In other words, the untimely indifference of immortality is required in order to actively engage in an exposition of the exploitation of mortality in this time.


The cover of Kafka's absurdist 1915 novella Di...

Image via Wikipedia

A short film adaptation based on Kafka’s “Metamorphosis”. Early work by filmmaker Carlos Atanes, 1994.

İzolasyon ve Yaratıcılık

Eğer bunalımlı, yani depresif bir şahsiyet biraz yetenekliyse evden çıkıp toplumsallaşma uğruna saçmalamak yerine odaya kapanıp yaratıcı yazarlığa, müziğe veya ressamlığa falan yönelirse kendine çok büyük bir iyilik etmiş olur. Bunalımlı kişi böylelikle bunalımını ve mutsuz bilincini lehine çevirerek topluma faydalı bir insan olur ve tımarhanede saygın bir hasta konumuna düşmekten kurtulur.

Yazarların tanıması pek hoş olmayan insanlar olduğu sıklıkla söylenegelmiştir. Bu tüm yazarlar için doğru olmasa bile, pek çoğu için yerinde bir tesbittir aslında. Bunun sebebi yazarların kişiliklerinin yazdıkları yazılarda ortaya çıkarken, sosyal ortamlarda geri plâna itilmesidir. Ama belirtmeliyim ki bu da tüm yazarlar için geçerli sayılamaz; sadece bunalımlı yazarlar yazılarının yansıttığından daha farklı karakterlere bürünürler gerçek hayatlarında. Toplumdan yabancılaşma, çevreden kopma, içe dönme had safhadadır bunlarda.                                     

İzolasyonu ve bunalımı bir yaşam biçimi olarak benimsemiş yazarların başında gelen Franz Kafka’nın bir sabah uyandığında kendini devcileyin bir böceğe dönüşmüş olarak bulan bedbaht personası bu yabancılaşmanın ürünüdür meselâ. Ama Kafka’nın kendinden öncekilerden farkı “yabancılaşmaya yabancılaşmak” gibi bir durumun nasıl olabileceğini ve nelere yol açabileceğini kaleme almış olmasındadır.

Kafka bir insanın böceğe dönüşmesi gibi son derece doğaüstü bir hadiseyi son derece normalmiş gibi ciddi ciddi anlatıyor bizlere. Ama Dönüşüm’ün sonlarına yaklaştığımızda görüyoruz ki yüzeydeki o ciddiyetin hemen altında anormalliğe kayıtsız kalan bir çevre karşısındaki bireyin ironik tutumunun yarattığı dalgalanmalar mevcuttur. Ve bu ironik ciddiyet — işte bu yersiz resmiyet — yabancılaşmış karakterin böceğe dönüşme olayına kayıtsız kalan toplumun düştüğü durumun ironik ve mizahi bir anlatımı olarak çıkıyor karşımıza Dönüşüm ikinci kez okunduğunda.

Kafka’nın eserlerindeki o kesin ve net dilin — Kafka’nın bir avukatlık bürosunda hukuki yazışmalar yaparak yaşadığını unutmayalım — işte o hukuk dili gibi boğucu dilin böyle anormallikleri anlatmakta kullanılması bizi adeta bir yabancılaşmalar seli içerisinde bilinmezliğe sürüklüyor ve/fakat işte biraz şansımız varsa Kafka’nın yabancılaşmaya yabancılaşmış sesini duyabiliyoruz.

Şöyle: Eğer bu güne kadar hep kaybetmişsek aşkta, kumarbaz aklıyla düşünüldüğünde son derece şanslı bir kişiyiz demektir. Bu kadar şanslıysak, yani hep kaybetmişsek aşkta, işte ancak o zaman girebiliyoruz Kafka’nın bu garip dünyasına. Ve eğer girebilmişsek bu dünyaya, sen de takdir edersin ki kahkahalarla gülmekten kendimizi alamıyoruz sevgili okur.

C.E.

Liquid Theory TV is a collaboration between Clare Birchall, Gary Hall and Peter Woodbridge. This second episode in the series takes as its focus Gilles Deleuze’s short essay Postscript on the Societies of Control. The first episode can be found here.

Hosted by The Institute for Human Sciences at Boston University on November 26, 2007, in this lecture entitled “Fear Thy Neighbor as Thyself: Antinomies of Tolerant Reason” Slavoj Zizek addresses perception, identity, and the “other”.

From a debate between Slavoj Zizek and Alex Callinicos held at Marxism 2009 entitled, “What does it mean to be a Revolutionary today?”

%d bloggers like this: