The relentless, autogenerated process of corporeal and psychic self-preservation against the threat of disintegration by “the dissociated Self” is a state of irrevocable solitude. This is a process of repetition of the single labor of autopropagation, of ceaseless repetition of an act of unilateral autoaffirmation. I am resorting to the term “unilateral” in its Deleuzian sense of “unilateral difference,” which is a singular, unrelated act of affirmation, of a “sheer yes.” The “sheer yes” of the survival is always already an autoreferential affirmation doomed to endless repetition. 

The autoreferential stance is always already translating itself into an autoreflexive one. We are speaking of an autoaffirmative process of self-preservation striving toward the continuity of that particular “auto-.” This ceaseless duration of self-preserving labor takes the figure of curving of the self into itself, similar to the Nietzschean idea of the self ’s will that turns upon and against itself as the origin and perpetual act of autoreflexivity and, hence, subjectivity.

And this is a state of insurmountable, radical solitude. The question whether it is prior to, posterior to, or contemporaneous with the “entrance on the scene” of the other is, in fact, irrelevant. When it is relative or viewed as denuded of any relation, there is an instance of radical solitude in the self involved in the autogenerating and autoreflexive processes of subject production. In other words, behind, beneath, or parallel to the mobility of the multiple and transformable subject, the hard labor of self-preserving continuity is taking place, creating a state that is an irrevocably solitary one. 

This is a self-enclosed reality of mere labor at a point where the organic and the sense of selfhood merge into each other, a denuded effort of self-preservation that is ultimately elusive to the authority of language. It is the instance of the unsurpassable “imprisonment” in one’s own self. This instance is the real of the “I” that is unmediated through the other and through language. This irrevocably solitary instance delineates the limits of automediation through the other. It introduces the limit to the reach of language.

—  Katerina Kolozova, Cut of the Real: Subjectivity in Poststructuralist Philosophy
Carry Me Emilia-Romagna: Mark Kozelek live @ Chiesa di S.Ambrogio, Villanova di Castenaso (Bologna) 06.02.11 « byronic on JunkiePop

In cui vi racconto com'è andare a un concerto indie nel posto dove ho fatto gli Scout da piccola. Contiene: chiese di campagna, leggende indie, Mark Kozelek, reminiscenze di infanzia, cose strane e bellissime.

We carry the fire « Byron on JunkiePop

Ogni volta che sento il ritornello di Wa Are Alive penso a The Road di Cormac McCarthy. Nel libro il mondo sta morendo, è finito tutto, si giocano i supplementari dell’apocalisse e in campo sono rimasti solo quel padre e quel figlio, e il padre dice al figlio “we’re the good guys. We carry the fire” e il figlio ci si aggrappa e si ripete questa frase sempre, come se il ritornello fosse l’ultima cosa rimasta. Ti ricordi? Ecco, la promessa che fai a te stesso quando diventi Springsteeniano, quando Bruce ti attacca i cavi della batteria al cuore e all’anima e poi mette in moto, è questa: è la promessa di restare vivi, di portare il fuoco, di alimentarlo. Il fuoco che ti si accende dentro quando arrivi a capire Bruce è un fuoco che scalda, un fuoco che mette in moto dei macchinari giganteschi, un fuoco che anche quando distrugge lo fa per rinnovare, come le piante del bush australiano che vanno in autocombustione prima di rinascere.

Perché quando ormai hai visto Bruce Springsteen in concerto 9 volte la prima cosa che fai quando torni a casa è comprare il biglietto per il prossimo concerto? Perché Bruce ti accende un fuoco dentro. Te lo racconto su JunkiePop.

Quello che al cinema fa più paura delle donne è il corpo. Perché il corpo delle donne è una cosa abbastanza complessa, in continua evoluzione e in contraddizione con se stesso. Non è una cosa che dove la metti sta, che fa come le dici, che si possa rappresentare facilmente per com’è davvero. Raramente il cinema sa gestire un personaggio come Marina Abramovic, una donna che usa il corpo tanto come strumento di sfida e seduzione quanto come un’arma da guerra, e lo riconosce come una cosa estremamente vulnerabile eppure resistentissima. (via Ritratto dell’artista da donna di mezz’età « )

Ho scritto una cosa sulle donne, il cinema, Marina Abramovic, e un gran bel film su Marina Abramovic. La trovi come sempre su JunkiePop

Non-philosophy proposes a form of thought that is void of any pretension to (re)claiming the real. By way of abandoning its autoreferential obsession (by way of self-situating with respect to the real), thought performs a gesture of self-suspension. This is an act of self-positioning of the thinking subject that is based on the (f )actual giving way to the primacy of the real. There is no pretension of thought to controlling the real. Thought’s desire to exercise absolute control over the real transposed into the phantasm of “being the real” is the origin of the founding and unavoidable split in what is called philosophical thinking. In non-philosophy, the difference between thought and the real exists only on the plane of transcendence, since the immanent is indifferent to difference. 

This indifference is radical. The transcendental gravitates around the axis of the real. It is there because the real is there—it is the product of the effort of the human-in-human to mediate the “world of the real.” And non-philosophy proclaims a posture of thought that has succumbed to the rule of the real and is itself an act of a Vision-in-One, and it installs this proclamation as an axiom. The operation of “seeing in terms of the one” (or the real) has an entirely different ontological (or “ontological”) status, and in fact there is no ontological status in the strict sense of the word that it could inhabit; and because of this radical asymmetry, there can be neither division nor equation between them. It is something that has nothing to do with the “science of being.” It is merely human practice or the practice of all beings endowed with the faculty of cognition. 

The real and thought can establish neither equations nor reciprocities nor schisms of any kind, since they are not equal. Mutual equality and eventual intermirroring are impossible, because, according to non-ontology, there are no two that could establish a relation of reciprocity. There is only the one. Thinking participates in the one, that is, in the real as its “superstructure,” as that translucent level of transcendence without an ontology of its own which envelops the real or the one as its instance of “autosublimation.” It is the instance of interpretation, of giving meaning, of signification that dilutes the thickness of the incomprehensible real, populates it with signs, and makes it liveable through the “device” called language. The instance of thought (or of language) is the human appropriation of the real (the one). The human in its last instance or the human-in-human is (the) real and the inexorably one.

—  Katerina Kolozova, Subjectivity in Poststructuralist Philosophy

In order to enable the release of thought from the grasp of dichotomy, it seems necessary to grant oneself the right of disloyalty to the school of thinking one adheres to, since, as we have seen, it is the self-declarations of belonging to an “ideology” (or to a school of thought) that produce the positioning of thought which is exclusive and dichotomous. As for the poststructuralist theories, the belief that one is enclosed within one’s own discursive horizon to the extent of being (self-)produced as a theoretical subject by and through the discourse itself only makes that constitutive exclusiveness insurmountable. 

One of the possible approaches to the nonexclusive and nonoppositional theoretical repositioning is the critical situating of thought proffered by François Laruelle’s non-philosophy. It consists in the simple gesture of radically stepping out of any sort of theoretical autoreferentiality. This means performing a doctrine-unattached leap of abandonment out of the enclosure of thought within the tradition of a certain discourse and the epistemological and political obligations of adherence. The leap itself, made on the basis of a mere “non-,” one unequipped with the knowledge of any existing discursive grounding, is a leap of and into uncertainty. However, that act of stepping out, while producing itself, coproduces a discursive possibility of an unrestrained flow of thought. 

Such a gesture of radical abandonment of any scholastic belonging is, however, not possible without a radical stepping out of the stance of self-sufficiency, of self-circumscription of a disciplinary field or discourse. The non-philosophy of François Laruelle professes such a gesture of a radical stepping-out with respect to philosophy and its narcissistic self-perception as self-sufficient, or, as Laruelle puts it, of the “principle of sufficient philosophy” (principe de philosophie suffisante: PPS). This is an attempt to undermine the autopositioning of philosophy based on “its being animated and entangled by a certain faith or belief in itself as the absolute reality, intentionality or reference to the real that it pretends to describe or even constitute, or to itself as the real itself.”

Therefore, Laruelle concludes: “This is its fundamental autopositioning, that which one could also call its autofactualization or its autofetishization—all that we assemble under the principle of sufficient philosophy (PPS).”12 We should note at this point that in Laruelle’s terminological apparatus the notion of “philosophy” and the notion of “the world” are interchangeable, synonymous. The term “the world” is used in a sense analogous to the notions of “discursiveness,” “the language,” “the transcendental,” or “the conceptual world” of a society and a time. Without going any further into a technical explication of the nonphilosophical method of suspension of the “principle of sufficient philosophy” (PPS), let us only draw the analogy that the thinking subject’s stance of loyalty in the last instance to a discourse and ideology implies the self-sufficiency of the discourse and ideology. Such self-enclosure of thought, a circular autocompletion resulting from the pretension to having consensually marked the horizon line of “the thinkable,” is inhibiting for the authentically investigative thought.

—  Katerina Kolozova, Cut of the Real: Subjectivity in Poststructuralist Philosophy