November 26, 2010
The International Necronautical Society
5. The INS rejects the Enlightenment’s version of time: of time as progress, a line growing stronger and clearer as it runs from past to future. This version is tied into a narrative of transcendence: in the Hegelian system, of Aufhebung, in which thought and matter ascend to the realm of spirit as the projects of philosophy and art perfect themselves. Against this totalizing (we would say, totalitarian) idealist vision, we pit counter-Hegelians like Georges Bataille, who inverts this upward movement, miring spirit in the trough of base materialism. Or Joyce’s Stephen Dedalus, who, hearing the moronic poet Russel claim that “art has to reveal to us ideas, formless spiritual essences,” pictures Platonists crawling through Blake’s buttocks to eternity, and silently retorts: “Hold to the now, the here, through which all future plunges to the past.” 6. To phrase it in more directly political terms: the INS rejects the idea of the future, which is always the ultimate trump card of dominant socioeconomic narratives of progress. As our Chief Philosopher Simon Critchley has recently argued, the neoliberal versions of capitalism and democracy present themselves as an inevitability, a destiny to whom the future belongs. We resist this ideology of the future, in the name of the sheer radical potentiality of the past, and of the way the past can shape the creative impulses and imaginative landscape of the present. The future of thinking is its past, a thinking which turns its back on the future.more from the INS at The Believer here.
Posted by Morgan Meis at 11:35 AM | Permalink






















Comments
Uh, is the point that I'm not supposed to know whether this is satire or sincerity?
Posted by: Vesuvium | Nov 26, 2010 12:21:17 PM
Its too long. The manifestos of the twenties were better.
It is, of course, a suppository. A medicine meant to relieve certain kinds of pain. It is only partially effective. And too much will just clog up the system and cause colonic stasis. What Burroughs described as "fro-Zen Hydraulic". One may then have to use an apple peeler....
Posted by: omar | Nov 26, 2010 1:04:35 PM
So refreshing to be in agreement with everyone in a 3QD comment thread.
The ambiguity is built in to signal moral ambivalence; McCarthy could literally go either way; he doesn't much care. And perky gal Friday/Senior HR Assist. Jen Egan, on behalf of her employers at the Times, answered him via her “review” that they had no conflict with his stated beliefs, that they too could, and if necessary, would, go either way. Both sides acknowledging that there's potential room for gro$$wth in the relationship. Option 1) offer oneself up as an important writer with street cred that they can publicly “turn” and shatter everyone's hopes one more (last) time with the lofty but doable goal of facilitating a sharp turn to nihilism, or 2) (and I suspect this is Tom's preference and I can't help but agree it would be more amusing all around) they can all pretend that he's having an influence on them. They always work both sides of the street, Easy Street. Who's going to stop 'em?
Are you having fun yet?
Posted by: Frances Madeson | Nov 26, 2010 3:38:51 PM
This manifesto will read much better in the future.
Posted by: mcd | Nov 26, 2010 3:50:34 PM
Mcd and Madeson, both comments are really good.
About the future, I think people will find it derivative and long-winded. I still insist, the futurists/surrealists were better at this game (their position also makes more sense, if that is at all relevant here). "Boom you black sails of time" has a kind of poetic beauty that this pedestrian effort really lacks.
Posted by: omar | Nov 26, 2010 9:42:39 PM
I meant that in the future, people will find this manifesto derivative and long-winded..
Posted by: omar | Nov 26, 2010 9:46:21 PM
At a mere six pages, Sir Edmond Caldwell's "Bad Paper" manifesto is a stirring counterexample. http://radicalnotes.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Correspondence-2.pdf He ratchets the conversation up about a thousand notches. Will it one day be featured in a climate-controlled showcase next to the Gutenberg Bible in the Library of Congress? Very possibly. Or maybe next to Julia Child's six-burner gas range in the Smithsonian exhibit of her kitchen.
Posted by: Frances Madeson | Nov 27, 2010 7:43:06 AM
Post a comment