Guest post by Paul Passavant: a critique of 0% by Louis-Georges Schwartz.
First there was withdrawal from the state form. The state represses us. It alienates us by re-presenting innummerable singularities and differences as one (state). It re-presents that which is other to us back to us as if it were us. But it is not us.
Next there was withdrawal from the people form. The people represses us. It alienates us by re-presenting innumerable singularities and differences as one (party). It re-presents that which is other to us back to us as if it were us. But it is not us.
Then there was withdrawal from the party form. The party represses us. It alienates us by re-presenting innumerable singularities and differences as one (party). It re-presents that which is other to us back to us as if it were us. But it is not us.
Now there is withdrawal from the movement form. The movement represses us. It alienates us by re-presenting innumerable singularities and differences as one (movement). It re-presents that which is other to us back to us as if it were us. But it is not us.
Now there is withdrawal from us form. The us represses us. It alienates us by re-presenting innumerable singularities and differences as one (us). It re-presents that which is other to us back to us as if it were us. But it is not us.
There is even a withdrawal from the count form. The count represses us. It alienates us by re-presenting innumerable singularities and differences as one (us). It re-presents that which is other to us back to us as if it were us. But it is not us. We don’t count. We don’t want to count. We should not count.
We should withdraw from words form, from forming words. Withdraw words. Words repress us. They alienate us by re-presenting innumerable singularities and differences as one word or another. And you know where that could lead. Back to us. Words re-present that which is other to us back to us as if they were us. But they are not us. We don’t count. We don’t want to count. We should not count.
We should be zero.
We should be a sound truck. Forceful waves that vibrate so excessively that they hurt indiscriminately.
Isn’t that bad, to hurt indiscriminately?
No. Only indiscrimination withdraws from the movement form.
Isn’t excessive sound the exact opposite of the infinity of absence denoted by zero?
Withdraw from logical relation. Logical relation represses us. It alienates us by, well, relation. And you know where that could lead. Back to the meaningful use of words, back to the possibility of us. Away from indiscrimination. Remember: we don’t count. We don’t want to count. We are torturous sound. We are zero. Without relation. Nonsense. To be sensible opens the way for capture. Withdraw from sense. Be nonsense. Zero sense.
Only zero eludes capture.
Sokal had it right.
Celebrate homonymy. No, withdraw from even homonymy. It uses words. Words repress. Us. And you know where words can lead.
Communicate communicativity. Communicate nothing. Communication that withdraws from communicating content. From truth. From political position.
Communicate… whatever.
Communication sharing nothing other than the common denominator of communicability.
Withdraw from common denominators.
Do it loudly.
Like the sound truck that tortures.
Occupy zero.
Occupy represses us.
Be zero.
Being represses us.
Zero.
Except noise.
More noise. Louder noise. Indiscriminate noise. Torturous noise.
Like a bad joke: Like Sokal.
Comments