Monthly Archives: January 2019

Badiou On Dialectical Critique

Bibliographic Note: Badiou, A. (2000). Metaphysics and the Critique of Metaphysics. Pli: The Warwick Journal of Philosophy, 10(1), 174–190. 

####

On Dialectical Critique

Dialectical critique is solely concerned with showing that the categories that metaphysics applies from the outside to a supposed undertermined being, the categories that is uses to arrange and demonstrate this essential indeterminancy, are in fact names for the becoming of the determining of this presumed indeterminacy. Each and every category, whether it be being, nothingness, becoming, quality, quantity, causality, and so on, ultimately consists of a definite time of determination, if only one has the patience to follow the true movement of transformation whereby each category takes place as the exteriorization and dialectical truth of the preceding ones. (p. 187)

####

On (Science of) Logic

“Critical philosophy had already turned metaphysics into logic.” “Logic” means: a regulated process of determination, whereby the undetermined absolute (for example being, being as such) letsk integral singularity take place as the ultimate immanent specification of itself. Logic is here the logic of determination, which leaves no indeterminacy behind, and which, in this sense, abolishes metaphysics. (p. 187)

####

Leave a comment

January 30, 2019 · 3:42 pm

Mixtape 2019-1: Sinofuturism, Relativity, Crane Shots, Rox Lee, and Scott Barley

agnes

Agnes Varda last year.

Awards season is here. But if you are looking for different cinematic experiences other than the glitz and glamour of the Hollywood Empire, here are some films you can watch online:

Sinofuturism (1839 – 2046 AD) (Lawrence Lek / UK / 1 hr / 2017)

vlcsnap-2019-01-09-13h56m14s9

vlcsnap-2019-01-09-13h56m02s139

Sinofuturism is a film essay that comes from the future, ‘a science-fiction that already exists’. The idea behind the film essay is elusive. It attempts to map contemporary China’s material condition while also circumventing this mapping using ‘historical fantasy, documentary melodrama’ and some insights on Chinese cosmologies. ‘China is the factory of the world,’ the narration said. It imagines Chinese capitalism not only as an exchange of commodities but a neural network that is everywhere. It has seven Chapters : 1. Computing, 2. Copy, 3. Gaming, 4. Study, 5. Addiction, 6. Labor, 7. Gamble. Each chapter constitute various movements of expressing the idea of Sinofuturism.

Theory of Relativity (Catherine Grant / UK / 3m30s / 2015)

vlcsnap-2019-01-21-17h59m01s187vlcsnap-2019-01-21-17h58m56s135vlcsnap-2019-01-21-17h58m53s107vlcsnap-2019-01-21-17h58m51s88

Catherine Grant’s essay film Theory of Relativity has a split screen form, wherein an image of a clock is placed adjacent to characters in various untimely situations in cinema. Time or temporality is the element explored. The film experiments with time-as-relative, a relativity of time with respect to the adjacent screens that are seemingly unrelated but by the logic seeing, manifest as if there is a form of heightened urgency. At the end of the film, there is a symbolic disassembly of time via the destruction of the clock.

Downside Up (Tony Hill / UK / 17 mins / 1984)

In Downside Up, Tony Hill explores an experimental percept similar to Michael Snow’s Wavelength (1967) but focused on one effect: the cinematographic effect a crane shot traversing scenes of country life. The crane shot moves in a semi-circle emulating the movement of the sun. The film’s use of wide angle lens captures, to a large extent, the landscape and its people.

33 mm Man (Rox Lee / Philippines / 20 m 31 s / 2008)

Rox Lee’s 35mm Man is polemical experimental comedy on the dominant conflict between celluloid and digital mode of production in Philippine cinema. It blends the profane and the comical. Rox Lee plays as the defender of digital cinema. He battles out the 35 mm man, who represents the exploitative and cost-intensive commercial cinema  in the Philippines that still uses 35 mm.

Closer (Scott Barley / UK / 7 mins / 2016)

Closer puts forward a principle of the immediate sensuous reality: that of superimposition. Scott Barley implicitly shows that reality cannot be segregated, that the sky and the stars are always already within one objective reality.

#####

1 Comment

Filed under Blog Post

Reading with Derrida: Spectres of Marx – Chapter 1: Injunctions of Marx (p. 3-6)

(Mis)Reading in Translation Series: Derrida

November 27, 2018

1737276

>>> [Read Notes on Dedication and Exordium (pp. xv – xx) HERE!]<<<

 

After months of hiatus in this blog, I want re-open again this space of writing with some notes on Derrida’s Spectres of Marx. You can read my previous notes on  the book’s Dedication and Exordium (pp. xv – xx) HERE! The full title of the book is Spectres of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning and the New International – three separable but connected conditions that particularly refers to the remnants of Marx’s elegiac traverse in history.

As one reads ahead, Derrida pursues new relation to these remnants by making them encounter their own unmaking and posturing as a presences. Derrida subjects every moment of imposition in the book into a sort of temporal inquiry, insisting not on the presencing of this and that concept, but on its provisionary concentration as a concept for a particular context.

Chapter 1: Injunctions of Marx (p. 3-6)

dcfya2hu8aakylp

During Labor Day Rally @ Mediola, Manila. Source: Tonyo Cruz

Maintaining now the specters of Marx. (But maintaining now [maintenant] without conjuncture. A disjointed or disadjusted now, “out of joint,” a disajointed now that always risks maintaining nothing together in the assured conjunction of some context whose border would still be determinable.) (Derrida, 1994, p. 3)

For example, in the first paragraph of the first chapter, Derrida temporalizes the idea of the specters of Marx. He begins by making it a provisionary concept – maintaining, for now, its idea. The parenthetical commentary adds to this temporalizing gesture as Derrida clarifies the notion of ‘now,’ which is disjointed or disadjusted now and, this ‘now’ exist without an assured conjecture or a stable state of affairs. This is Derrida’s way of saying that the idea of spectres of Marx cannot be fulfilled under a single agreeable conjecture or context among sentient beings, or a certain customs, but rather, a context ‘whose border would still be determined.’ This is actually what makes Derrida’s book difficult to read as it approaches each conceptual notion as a deferral and defiance from its conventional meaning. Derrida insists on this methodological deferral as a means of opening the field from various multiple contextualizations of the issue.

Indeed, given this process of unclosing ‘presences’, which is, of course, a laborious process for Derrida, we can now see why Derrida’s philosophy must also be viewed as a metaphysical system. It seems to dwell on a certain conceptual anxiety and remains there as an operation of concept against itself, abstraction against abstraction. The final modality is expressed only as a form of linguistic hesitation, which can be summarized in the phrase: the negation of presence.

The specters of Marx. Why this plural? Would there be more than one of them? Plus d’un [More than one/No more one]: this can mean a crowd, if not masses, the horde, or society, or else some population of ghosts with or without a people, some community with or without a leader-but also the less than one of pure and simple dispersion. Without any possible gathering together. Then, if the specter is always animated by a spirit, one wonders who would dare to speak of a spirit of Marx, or more serious still, of a spirit of Marxism. Not only in order to predict a future for them today, but to appeal even to their multiplicity, or more serious still, to their heterogeneity.  (Derrida, 1994, pp. 3–4)

Aside from subjecting concepts to temporalization, one of Derrida’s method is circumvention. For example, in the second paragraph of Spectres of Marx above, Derrida does not go directly to the deliberate explanation of the concept. He circumvents this by focusing on a small linguistic remark: plurality. ‘Specters of Marx’ is a plural concept and, for Derrida, this implies a community (a crowd, a horde, society), but since specters implies ghosts, it means this plurality may not involve people. Plurality might also refer to a dispersed group of no collective subjectivity.

In the middle of the paragraph, Derrida shifts the focus: from his discussion of plurality, he then shifts to a supposition: ‘Then, if the spectre is always animated by a spirit…’ Spirit is used as qualifier of the spectre, of the haunting. An animation of spirit results to the movement of spectre as such. Derrida then integrates this to a question of ‘speaking of’ on behalf or for a certain group or plurality. In this sense, it becomes a question of plurality of spectres, that the ghost of Marx is not a singularity but a dispersed plurality.

More than a year ago, I had chosen to name the “specters” by their name starting with the title of this opening lecture. “Specters of Marx, the common noun and the proper name had thus been printed, they were already on the poster when, very recently, I reread The Manifesto of the Communist Party. I confess it to my shame: I had not done so for decades-and that must tell one something. I knew very well there was a ghost waiting there, and from the opening, from the raising of the curtain. Now, of course, I have just discovered, in truth I have just remembered what must have been haunting my memory: the first noun of the Manifesto, and this time in the Singular, is “specter” “A specter is haunting Europe–the specter of communism. (Derrida, 1994, p. 4)

In the next paragraph above, the origin of the inscription of spectre is traced which is also an explication of order of events: Derrida read Marx and Engel’s The Communist Manifesto just in time when the plan of his talk was crystallized. Derrida is also haunted by his apologetics for forgetfulness (having not re-read book for decades) and his stunted response to a memory of reading the first noun of the book ‘spectre’ in Singular: ‘A spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of communism.’ Derrida, in this instance, encounters the untimely. Indeed, the co-incidence is enough to disrupt the whole purpose of the book – to unravel the meaning of spectres of Marx in general. This, too, is Derrida’s temporalization of the concept using the untimely.

Exordium or incipit: this first noun opens, then, the first scene of the first act: “Ein Gespenst geht urn in Europa-das Gespenst des Kommunismus.” As in Hamlet, the Prince of a rotten State, everything begins by the apparition of a specter. More precisely by the waiting for this apparition. The anticipation is at once impatient, anxious, and fascinated: this, the thing (“this thing”) will end up coming. The revenant is going to come. l It won’t be long. But how long it is taking. Still more precisely, everything begins in the imminence of a re-apparition, but a reapparition of the specter as apparition for the first time in the play. The spirit of the father is going to come back and will soon say to him “I am thy Fathers Spirit” (I, iv), but here, at the beginning of the play, he comes back, so to speak, for the first time. It is a first, the first time on stage. (Derrida, 1994, p. 4)

What follows is a paragraph (see above) of comparative circumvention. Earlier in the introductory pages, we have seen numerous references to Hamlet. Spectres of Marx is really an encounter between two writers: Karl Marx and William Shakespeare, in particular, Shakespeare’s Hamlet, in which a ghost also appears in the first scene and first act. Derrida finds this similarity untimely, and it is the conceptual source of Derrida’s trope. In this paragraph, we can see how Derrida unshackles the relation as alongside. Though Derrida is primarily talking about Hamlet, in his words ‘the anticipation is at once impatient, anxious and fascinated…’, Derrida is doubly referring to Marx’s spectre: ‘The revenant is going to come… The spirit of the father is going to come back and will soon say to him…’ as if spoken as a prophecy.

Derrida’s method is always ridden with temporal elements. In this case, he was specific to point out that the appearance of revenant in Hamlet is a reapparition of the ghost, but due to the reordering of the events, it appears for the first time on stage. Derrida then withholds his inquiry and proceed into one of his long parenthetical remarks.

FIRST MAJOR PARENTHETICAL REMARK

[First suggestion: haunting is historical, to be sure, but it is not dated, it is never docilely given a date in the chain of presents, day after day, according to the instituted order of a calendar. Untimely, it does not come to, it does not happen to, it does not befall, one day, Europe, as if the latter, at a certain moment of its history, had begun to suffer from a certain evil, to let itself be inhabited in its inside, that is, haunted by a foreign guest. Not that that guest is any less a stranger for having always occupied the domesticity of Europe. But there was no inside, there was nothing inside before it. The ghostly would displace itself like the movement of this history Haunting would mark the very existence of Europe. It would open the space and the relation to self of what is called by this name, at least since the Middle Ages. The experience of the specter, that is how Marx, along with Engels, will have also thought, described, or diagnosed a certain dramaturgy of modern Europe, notably that of its great unifying projects. One would even have to say that he represented it or staged it. In the shadow of a filial memory, Shakespeare will have often inspired this Marxian theatricalization. Later, closer to us but according to the same genealogy, in the nocturnal noise of its concatenation, the rumbling sound of ghosts chained to ghosts, another descendant would be Valery. Shakespeare qui genuit Marx qui genuit Valery (and a few others). (Derrida, 1994, pp. 4–5)

Derrida’s parenthetical remarks are long. In the book, this is the first long or major parenthetical remark. And this parenthetical remark is in the form of a suggestion, a clarificatory suggestion. In this suggestion, Derrida is hesitant to announce the closure of the idea that ‘haunting is historical’.  He insists on the dialectical relation of haunting and history.

 His first point is haunting is not calendrical – not a string of presences. His second point is outside of the first. Morphing in the sentence, Derrida was thinking through the notion of the untimeliness of haunting in relation to the contextual field of Europe. Haunting does not befall Europe. But Derrida was responsive of how haunting is related to certain historical narrative of Europe, in particular, how Marx and Engels sees their project as a certain ‘dramathurgy of Europe… and its unifying projects.’ Derrida even suggested that Marx was the one who staged it – referring of course to the anti-capitalist movement. Derrida was actually particularly interested at how Marx and Shakespeare share a dual trajectory as in “In the shadow of a filial memory, Shakespeare will have often inspired this Marxian theatricalization.” This is core relation of the book, the in-betweeness of Marx & Shakespeare as Derrida finds both of them at the foot of a spectre. And in the latter half of the paragraph, Derrida observes that there is a genealogy that can traced from Shakespeare to Marx to Valery in relation to ghosts.

But what goes between these generations? An omission, a strange lapsus. Da, then fort, exit Marx. In “La crise de l’ esprit” (“The Crisis of Spirit, 1919: “As for us, civilizations, we know now we are mortal “). the name of Marx appears just once. It inscribes itself, here is the name of a skull to come into Hamlet’s hands:

Now, on an immense terrace of Elsinore, which stretches from Basel to Cologne, that touches on the sands of  Nieuport, the lowlands of the Somme, the chalky earth of Champagne, the granite earth of Alsace-the European Hamlet looks at thousands of specters. But he is an intellectual Hamlet. He meditates on the life and death of truths. His ghosts are all the objects of our controversies; his remorse is all the titles of our glory. Ifhe seizes a skull, it is an illustrious skull-“Whose was it?”-This one was Lionardo. And this other skull is that of Leibniz who dreamed of universal peace. And this one was Kant qui genuit Hegel, qui genuit Marx, qui genuit. Hamlet does not know whatto do with all these skulls. But if he abandons them! Will he cease to be himself?  (Derrida, 1994, p. 5)

Derrida then elaborated how Valery look at the genealogy of these spirits that can be traced between Hamlet and Marx. In this passage, Derrida quotes an alluring passage in Valery’s book The Crisis of Spirit. In the passage, a dramatization of Hamlet holding a skull ensues. Hamlet lifts a skull that belong to Lionardo (a reference to Leonardo da Vinci?) and another skull that belongs to Leibniz, another series of skulls that belong to the great European minds of past millennium: Kant, Hegel, Marx and so on.

In the endnote attached to this long quote, Derrida elaborates the importance of Valery’s book: as a book that seeks to “reintroduce the question of Europe as a question of spirit — which is to say that of the specter” (Derrida, 1994, p. 178). Derrida affirms Valery’s notion of the question of Europe as a question of specter which is also central in Marx’s works, in particular, the specter of communism. In the same endnote, we see Derrida’s statement of objectives: ‘In a more general and more implicit manner, the present essay pursues earlier paths: around the work of mourning that would be coextensive with all work in general… on the problematic border between incorporation and introjection, on the effective but limited pertinence of this conceptual opposition, as well as the one that separates failure from success in the work of mourning, the pathology and the normality of mourning, on the surviving of a survival that is reducible neither to living nor dying, on the economy of debt and gift.” (Derrida, 1994, p. 178). By ‘all work’ here, Derrida refers to all his works that resonate with the project of spectres.

For Derrida, the logic of spectrality is inseparable to the motif of deconstruction, as it often resonates with Derrida’s published essay for the last twenty years (1974 to 1994). The essays are as follows:

  • Glas [Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1986]
  • “Fors,” Preface to The Wolfman’s Magic Word, by N. Abraham and M. Torok [Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1986]
  • “Shibboleth,” in Midrash and Literature, eds. Geoffrey Hartman and Sanford Budick [New Haven, Ct.: Yale University Press, 1986]
  • Cinders [Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1991)
  • Of Spirit: Heidegger and the Question [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989]
  • Mémoires, for Paul de Man [New York: Columbia University Press, 1989])
  • “Living On,” in Deconstruction and Criticism, eds. Geoffrey Hartman et al. [New York: Seabury Press, 1979]
  • Given Time [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992

If you are interested in the concept of spectrality, in relation to deconstruction, you may also read these texts. This is to say that the concept of spectrality is not only explored, dealt with, and contextualized in the book Specters of Marx. It is scattered or disseminated across these texts without any context whatsoever.

Later, in “La politique de l’ esprit,” Valery has just defined man and politics. Man: “an attempt to create what I will venture to call the spirit of spirit.” As for politics, it always “implies some idea of man.” At this point, Valery quotes himself He reproduces the page of “the European Hamlet, the one we have just cited. Curiously, with the errant but infallible assurance of a sleepwalker, he then omits from it only one sentence, just one, without even signalling the omission by an ellipsis: the one that names Marx, in the very skull of Kant (“And this one was Kant qui genuit Hegel, qui genuit Marx, qui genuit “).5 Why this omission, the only one? The name of Marx has disappeared. Where did it go? Exeunt Ghost and Marx, Shakespeare might have noted. The name of the one who disappeared must have gotten inscribed else. (Derrida, 1994, p. 5)

The next passage dwells primarily on Valery.  Derrida is interested about Valery’s textual elaborations of the concept of man and politics. Valery quotes himself in the passage but omits Marx in the process of writing the elipsis. Derrid is curious: why the omission of Marx in the text on man and politics? Was it an obvert conscious omission? Hence, Derrida postulates that the disappearance of Marx’s name may have imply that it is inscribed elsewhere. But he did not answer where in the next paragraph.

In what he says, as well as in what he forgets to say about the skulls and generations of spirits, Valery reminds us of at least three things. These three things concern precisely this thing that is called spirit. As soon as one no longer distinguishes spirit from specter, the former assumes a body, it incarnates itself, as spirit, in the specter. Or rather, as Marx himself spells out, and we will get to this, the specter is a paradoxical incorporation, the becoming-body, a certain phenomenal and carnal form of the spirit. It becomes, rather, some “thing” that remains difficult to name: neither soul nor body, and both one and the other. For it is flesh and phenomenality that give to the spirit its spectral apparition, but which disappear right away in the apparition, in the very coming of the revenant or the return of the specter. There is something disappeared, departed in the apparition itself as reapparition of the departed. The spirit, the specter are not the same thing, and we will have to sharpen this difference; but as for what they have in common, one does not know what it is, what it is presently It is something that one does not know, precisely, and one does not know if precisely it is, if it exists, if it responds to a name and corresponds to an essence. One does not know: not out of ignorance, but because this non-object, this non-present present, this being-there of an absent or departed one no longer belongs to knowledge. At least no longer to that which one thinks one knows by the name of knowledge. One does not know if it is living or if it is dead. Here is-or rather there is, over there, an unnameable or almost unnameable thing: something, between something and someone, anyone or anything, some thing, “this thing,” but this thing and not any other, this thing that looks at us, that concerns us [qui nous regarde], comes to defy semantics as much as ontology, psychoanalysis as much as philosophy (“Marcellus: What, ha’s this thing appear’d againe tonight? Barnardo: I haue seene nothing”). The Thing is still invisible, it is nothing visible (“I haue seene nothing”) at the moment one speaks of it and in order to ask oneself if it has reappeared. It is still nothing that can be seen when one speaks of it. It is no longer anything that can be seen when Marcellus speaks of it, but it has been seen twice. And it is in order to adjust speech to sight that Horatio the skeptic has been convoked. He will serve as third party and witness (terstis): if againe this Apparition come, He may approue our eyes and speake to it” (I, i). (Derrida, 1994, pp. 5–6)

In this long passage, Derrida explains indirectly why Marx’s name has disappeared in Valery’s text. In a summary passage, Derrida explains Valery’s politics in three things. First thing is when the spirit loses its distinguishable characteristics with the spectre, the spirit assumes a body and incarnates or possesses the spectre. This lead Derrida to conclude that the spectre is the becoming-body of the spirit, becoming some ‘thing’, neither soul nor body, both one and the other.

TO BE CONTINUED…

2 Comments

Filed under Blog Post, Philosophy, Research Updates

Let 2019 Be A Strike (II) Against the Fascist Order

Strike

Before I lay down a more comprehensive lookback of 2018 and recount the violence of the State against the working class, farmers and the indigenous people, let me just greet you: A Merry Krisis and A Prosperous New Year ahead. Let 2019 blossom into a year of resistance. I call every one to strike against the fascist order and usurper of people’s rights and maintain a line of critique that rejects all forms of reactionary resistance, a line of critique that hinges on the antagonistic opposition between the ruling class and the proletariat. 

Resist Crackdown on Teachers’ Union!

Resist Crackdown on the Progressive Youth Sector! 

Stop the Attacks! Stop the Killings!

Peace Talks, ituloy! Strive for a Just and Lasting Peace!

Strike II

 

strike

This year, our writing collective will be officially launching Strike II, a radical film journal set out to reorient the local practice of film criticism beyond its commercial function as a consumer’s guide to local film viewers. Our statement reads as follows:

Strike II is a radical film publication that focuses on the theoretical and practical issues in the Philippine Film Industry. Stemming from the historical event of Philippine Cinema’s first strike, the massive anti-film studio labor strikes of local film workers that overturned the local studio systems (LVN, Sampaguita, Premiere, Lebran) in the 1960s, Strike II aims to uncover the antagonistic oppositions and contradictions of the capitalist mode of production of the contemporary film industry. Strike II also stems from Hito Steyerl’s video of the same title in a futural sense as it aspires to abolish the means of production of ‘film-as-art’ and ‘film-as-commodity’ and rethink of the ways by which cinema can be re-integrated in a socialist society. Using the revolutionary and scientific framework of Dialectical Materialism, Strike II also aims to provide the baseline data on labor conditions of film workers in the Philippines, as well as to demystify the ruling class’ fetishistic film culture. 


Strike II also builds on Eisenstein’s film ‘Strike’ (1925) as its second movement as the publication shall also take part in expanding the discourse on revolutionary forms of cinematic production.

STRIKE II, will, by all means, rally against all forms of exploitation and suppression of the freedom of expression in the film industry, and shall serve as a critical platform that elevates film criticism as a militant practice.

 

Netflix’s Black Mirror: Bandersnatch and Interactive Cinema

2798791-kinoautomat

There are a lot of claims that Netflix’s newest season for their Black Mirror series titled Bandersnatch is a game-changer in terms of changing the whole way of watching movie/series ([1], [2], [3]). While the claim bears no essential radical truth that would actually change cinema itself, it only shows the power of commercial hype in generating false claims.

Upon checking cinema history, Netflix’s Black Mirror: Bandersnatch is not the game-changer for interactive Cinema. The first interactive movieblack-mirror-bandersnatch-netflix-review was a Czech movie Kinoautomat (1967) that premiered during the Czechoslovakian Expo 1967. Some Netflix users also argued that Bandersnatch’s interactive form does not allow it from being commodified as a bootleg/pirated material. However, contrary to common understanding, interactive films has been distributed in the web for awhile now as uploaded DVD formats.

I also encountered some interesting studies and articles on Interactive Cinema. Here is a list:

9789401206297

  1. [Book] Hyper-Narrative Interactive Cinema: Problems and Solutions by Nitzan Ben Shaul [2008]. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi. [link]
  2. [Article] Key Frame: Beyond Interactive Cinema by Birk Weiberg [link]
  3. [Journal Article] Methodological questions in ‘interactive film studies’ by Bernard Perron in New Review of Film and Television Studies: 6(3):2008 [link]
  4. [Article] Meaning and the Interactive Narrative: In the context of Object-Oriented Interactive Cinema by Adrian Jones [link]
  5. [Book] Vosmeer, Mirjam, and Ben Schouten. 2014. Interactive Storytelling. Edited by Alex Mitchell, Clara Fernández-Vara, and David Thue. Vol. 8832. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-12337-0.
  6. [Academia.Edu] Academia.Edu Links on Interactive Cinema [link]
  7. [Article] “Interactive Cinema” Is an Oxymoron, but May Not Always Be by Kevin Neal in Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game  Research 12(1): September 2012 [link]

Jungle Love is Screening…

…this coming first week of January at the UPFI Cine Adarna. Jungle Love (2012) is a rarely screened film of Sherad Anthony Sanchez. If I am not mistaken, the last Philippine public screening of the film was during its premiere in Cinemanila International Film Festival last 2012. It has not been screened in local theaters elsewhere (or I might be wrong?).

jungle love

When I first watched it in 2012, it was one of the unforgettable cinematic experiences I have had.  It is a funny, obscure/absurd film that reminded me of some of the works of Shuji Terayama. I want to see it again on the wide screen this coming 9th day of January.

 

MONDOMANILA 2019!

Khavn dela Cruz’s macabre masterpiece Mondomanila (2010) is now available on Youtube!

Shelfie for 2019

I arranged my shelf for 2019 awhile ago dedicating one layer of the bookshelf for thesis-related books. I placed the most used references on the top of each column and on the side (Hegel-Marx-Derrida).

img_1184img_1187img_1188img_1190img_1193

Some New Year’s Resolution for Omnitudo: Interventions in Cinema and Philosophy

  1. I will post frequently. Does one post per week qualifies as frequent?
  2. I will finish my close reading posts of Spectres of Marx this year as promised.
  3. I will upload some notes, presentations and other materials.
  4. I will read more books (fiction & non-fiction) this year and post some notes here. My target 25 books.
  5. I will finish my thesis year.

Parting Words, Parting Image

 

Badiou on The Communist Hypothesis

Indeed, I do hold on to the communist hypothesis. I refuse to inhabit a world in which the currently hegemonic social and economic organisation is the only hypothesis. I cannot accept this monstrosity, this inequality, the fact that 10% of the planet’s population possesses 86% of the available resources, of capital. Far from being obsolete or ready to be chucked away, the communist idea is, in my view, still too young. It is at the very beginning — lasting a few decades — of its historical journey, while capitalism, born six or seven centuries ago, is reproducing the throwbacks, the inequalities of the ancien régime — indeed, 10% is more or less the percentage of the population that were nobles in that era… I should make clear that I know perfectly well the vices and the crimes of the communist societies. I became a Maoist because I identified in Maoism certain critical elements for surpassing and changing Stalinism. The period that opened up with the Russian Revolution of October 1917 was punctuated with errors and dramatic falsifications, the main one being that although in its very principle communism bore a distrust for the centralised state, it ultimately built a state more centralised and bureaucratic than any that had gone before, a state that gave in to the temptation to regulate every problem through violence. The communist hypothesis ran aground in its earliest successes and the lean sixty years that followed. So should that lead us to abandon the hypothesis itself? I don’t think so. We should not heap a total ideological defeat onto a circumstantial defeat.

– – – ALAIN BADIOU from Corrupting the Youth: A Conversation with Alain Badiou(Sept 2016)

vlcsnap-error957

From Burning (2018)

 

###

Comments Off on Let 2019 Be A Strike (II) Against the Fascist Order

Filed under Blog Post