От Пуденко Сергей
К Пуденко Сергей
Дата 02.04.2010 11:59:44
Рубрики В стране и мире;

Re: Negri__Antonio_-_Commonwealth.pdf-2

> 3ий том
c ocr-слоем тут


" Spinoza’s true politics is his metaphysics "
Политика у Спинозы - это его онтология(с)Негри

Поэтому, теория common в 3 томе- там кажется в первую очередь про common notions Спинозы. Насколько она делезовской интепретации,пока не проверял

"Проблема зла" (кажется номер 3 или 4 вообще в христианской теологии) - у Спинозы - в 6ой главе "Спиноза,практическая философия" Делез 1981(2ое издание и после уже его курса лекций в Винсенне,где она тоже есть. В рус изд нету) Переписка с хлебным маклером Блейенбергом
http://www.google.ru/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=7&ved=0CDAQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.webdeleuze.com%2Fphp%2Ftexte.php%3Fcle%3D191%26groupe%3DSpinoza%26langue%3D2&ei=xqK1S96fDJDz-Qboy4T9Ag&usg=AFQjCNH4Oer1YodD_FutaQHgzKu5Psni6A&sig2=dToehlAbDd5QQPyzsgZXPw
вот тако вот. А вы все про "ксплуатацию рабочих". Революция продуктивной любви. Любофф...
http://www.google.ru/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fkorotonomedya.s3.amazonaws.com%2FMichael_Hardt_%26_Antonio_Negri_-_Commonwealth.pdf&ei=tpy1S7KVGNWg-gap6az9Ag&usg=AFQjCNGUQGVDoYBV2AH0gNHvId7kcUXbXA&sig2=D7Ujx2Qp0ukl_1foIR5xyw

Сommonwealth
------

Having posed the problem of evil in this way allows us to return
to Spinoza's conception, which served us as the model for a
politics of love. We should start with this typically Spinozian geometrical
sequence: at the level of sensations he identifies a striving
(conatus) o f and for life; this striving is built upon and directed in desire
(cupiditas), which functions through the affects: and desire in
turn is strengthened and affirmed i n love (amor), which operates in
reason. The movement of this sequence involves not negation—
striving is not negated by desire, or desire by love—but rather a progressive
accumulation, such that desire and love are increasingly
powerful strivings for life. A n d this process is immediately political
since the object o f all the terms o f this sequence is the formation of
collective social life and, more generally, the constitution of the
common. "Since fear of solitude exists in all men," Spinoza writes,
"because no one in solitude is strong enough to defend himself, and
procure the necessaries of life, it follows that men naturally aspire to
the civil state; nor can it happen that men should ever utterly dissolve
it."5 This passage resembles those of other seventeenth- and
eighteenth-century authors who theorize the negation of the state
of nature i n the formation of society, but the key difference is that
Spinoza poses this as a positive, cumulative progression: the striving
toward freedom and the common resides at the most basic level of
life; then desire sets i n motion the construction of the common; and
finally love consolidates the common institutions that form society.
Human nature is not negated but transformed i n this sequence.
Spinoza, however, is the ultimate realist. H e recognizes that the
social construction of the common through love does not function
unimpeded and that humans are the authors of the obstacles. O n the
surface his explanation is that humans create these impediments and
evil i n general out of ignorance, fear, and superstition. Since to combat
evil, then, one must overcome ignorance and fear and destroy
superstition, education in the truth of the intellect and the correct
exercise of the will are the antidotes to evil. But any Stoic could tell
us that! Spinoza's difference resides at a deeper level where the education
or training o f the mind and body are grounded i n the movement
of love. He does not conceive evil, as does Augustine, for i n stance,
as a privation o f being; nor does he pose it as a lack o f love.
Evil instead is love gone bad, love corrupted in such a way that it
obstructs the functioning of love. Consider ignorance, fear, and superstition,
then, not just as the lack o f intelligence but as the power
of intelligence turned against itself, and equally the power of the
body distorted and blocked. A n d since love is ultimately the power
of the creation o f the common, evil is the dissolution o f the common
or, really, its corruption.
This gives us a Spinozian explanation for why at times people
fight for their servitude as i f it were their salvation, why the poor
sometimes support dictators, the working classes vote for right-wing
parties, and abused spouses and children protect their abusers. Such
situations are obviously the result of ignorance, fear, and superstition,
but calling it false consciousness provides meager tools for transformation.
Providing the oppressed with the truth and instructing them
in their interests does little to change things. People fighting for their servitude is understood better as the result of love and community
gone bad, failed, and distorted. The first question to ask when confronting
evil, then, is, What specific love went bad here? What instance of
the common has been corrupted? People are powerfully addicted to love
gone bad and corrupt forms of the common. Often, sadly, these are
the only instances of love and the common they know! In this context
it makes sense that Spinoza thinks of ethics i n a medical framework—
curing the ills of the body and mind, but more important,
identifying how our intellectual and corporeal powers have been
corrupted, turned against themselves, become self-destructive.
Maybe this ethical and political therapeutic model explains why
Freud was so fascinated by Spinoza.
But this is not only a therapeutic model. Ethics and politics
come together in an "ontology o f force," which eliminates the separation
between love and force that so many metaphysical, transcendental,
and religious perspectives try to enforce. From a materialist
perspective instead, love is the propositional and constituent key to
the relationship between being and force, just as force substantiates
love's powers. Marx, for example, speaks o f the "winning smiles" o f
matter and its "sensuous, poetic glamour," writing, "In Bacon [and
in the Renaissance in general] materialism still holds back within
itself in a naive way the germs of a many-sided development."These
forms of matter are "forces of being," endowed with "an impulse, a
vital spirit, a tension," even a "torment of matter."6 There is something
monstrous in the relationship between love and force! But
that monstruum, the overflowing force that embodies the relationship
between self and others, is the basis of every social institution.
We have already seen how Spinoza poses the development of institutions
in the movement from the materiality of conatus or striving
all the way to rational, divine love, composing isolated singularities
in the multitude.We find something similar, albeit from a completely
different perspective, in Wittgenstein's meditations on pain, which is
incommunicable except though constructing a common linguistic
experience and, ultimately, instituting common forms of life. Spinozian
solitude and Wittgensteinian pain, which are both signs of a
lack o f being, push us toward the common. Force and love construct
together weapons against the corruption of being and the misery it
brings.7
Love is thus not only an ontological motor, which produces
the common and consolidates it i n society, but also an open field of
battle. When we think o f the power of love, we need constantly to
keep in mind that there are no guarantees; there is nothing automatic
about its functioning and results. Love can go bad, blocking
and destroying the process.The struggle to combat evil thus involves
a training or education i n love.
To clarify, then, we should individuate and bring together three
operations or fields of activity for the power of love. First, and primarily,
the power of love is the constitution of the common and u l timately
the formation of society. This does not mean negating the
differences of social singularities to form a uniform society, as i f love
were to mean merging i n unity, but instead composing them i n social
relation and in that way constituting the common. But since the
process of love can be diverted toward the production of corrupt
forms of the common, since love gone bad creates obstacles that
block and destroy the common—in some cases reducing the multiplicity
o f the common to identity and unity, i n others imposing h i erarchies
within common relations—the power of love must also be,
second, a force to combat evil. Love now takes the form of indignation,
disobedience, and antagonism. Exodus is one means we identified
earlier of combating the corrupt institutions of the common,
subtracting from claims o f identity, fleeing from subordination and
servitude. These two first guises of the power of love—its powers of
association and rebellion, its constitution of the common and its
combat against corruption—function together i n the third: making
the multitude. This project must bring the process of exodus together
with an organizational project aimed at creating institutions
of common. A n d all three of these guises are animated by the training
or Bildung of the multitude. There is nothing innate or spontaneous
about love going well and realizing the common i n lasting
social forms. The deployment of love has to be learned and new
///