J

“State philosophy” is another word for the representational thinking that has characterised western metaphysics since Plato, but has suffered an at least momentary setback during the last quarter century at the hands of Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucalt, and poststructuralist theory generally. As described by Deleuze, it reposes on a double identity: of the thinking subject, and of the concepts it creates and to which it lends its own presumed attributes of sameness and constancy. The subject, its concepts,and also the objects in the world to which the concepts are applied have a shared, internal essence: the self resemblance at the basis of identity. Representational thought is ANOLOGICAL; its concern is to establish a correspondence between these symmetrically structured domains. The faculty of judgement is the policeman of analogy, assuring that each of the three terms is honestly itself, and that the proper correspondences obtain. In thought its end is truth, in action justice. The weapons it wields in their pursuit are limitative distribution (the determination of the exclusive set of properties possessed by each term in contradistinction to the others: logos, law) and hierarchical ranking (the measurement of the degree of perfection of a terms self resemblance in relation to a supreme standard, man, god, or gold: value, morality). The modus operandi is negation: X=X=not Y. Identity, resemblance, truth, justice and negation, the rational foundation for order. The established order of course: philosophers have traditionally been employees of the state. The collusion between philosophy and the State was most explicitly enacted in the first decade of the nineteenth century with the foundation of the University of Berlin, which was to become the model of higher learning throughout Europe and in the United States. The goal laid out for it was the “spiritual and moral training of the nation,” to be achieved by “deriving everything from an original principal” (TRUTH), by “relating everything to an ideal” (JUSTICE) and by “unifying this principle and this ideal in a single idea” (THE STATE). The end product being “a fully legitimated subject of knowledge and society” – each mind an analogously organised mini-state morally unified in the super-mind of the state. Prussian mind-meld. More insidious than the well known practical cooperation between university and government is its philosophical role in the propogation of the form of representational thinking itself, that “properly spiritual absolute state” endlessly reproduced and disseminated at every level of th social fabric. Deconstruction influenced feminists such as Helene Cixous and Luce Irigaray have attacked it under the name ‘phallogocentrism” Deleuze and Guattari describe it as the “arborescent model” of thought (the proudly erect tree under whose spreading boughs latter day Platos conduct their class).“Nomad thought” does not immure itself in the edifice of an ordered interiority; it moves freely in an element of exteriority. It does not repose on identity; it rides difference. It does not respect the artificial division between the three domains of representation, subject, concept, and being; it replaces restrictive analogy with a conductivity that knows no bounds. The concepts it creates do not merely reflect the eternal form of the legislating subject, but are defined by a communicable force in relation to which their subject, to the extent that they can be said to have one, is only secondary. They do not reflect upon the world but are immersed in a changing state of things. A concept is a brick. It can be used to build the courthouse of reason or it can be thrown through the window. What is the subject of the brick? The arm that throws it? The body connected to the arm? The brain encased in the body? The situation that brought brain and body to such a juncture? All and none of the above. What is its object? The window? The edifice? The laws the edifice shelters? The class and other power relations encrusted in the laws? All and none of the above. “What interests us are the circumstances.” Because the concept in its unrestrained usage IS a set of circumstances, at a volatile juncture. It is a vector: the point of application of a force moving through a space at a given velocity in a given direction. The concept has no subject or object other than itself. It is an act. Nomad thought replaces the closed equation of representation, X = X = NOT Y (I = I = NOT YOU) with an open equation: …. + Y + Z + A + ….. (…. + arm + brick + window + …..) rather than analysing the world into discrete components, reducing their manyness to the One of identity, and ordering them by rank, it sums up disparate circumstances in a shattering blow. It synthesizes a multiplicity of elements without effacing their heterogeneity or hindering their potential for future rearranging (to the contrary). The modus operandi of nomad thought is affirmation, even when its apparent object is negative. Force is not to be confused with power. Force arrives from outside to break constraints and open new vistas. Power builds walls.