3.2.11

The Horizon of Immanence

I haven't been doing much else in my spare time besides watching and reading as much as I can about the situation in Cairo, but I do want to share a few quotes about a notion that resonates with me more deeply than most any: a "horizon of immanence". This 'horizon' is the very worldspace, or clearing which affords us the opportunity to be, know and do.

I will have much more to say on this topic over the next few weeks as I begin to make explicit some key tropes in my thought which continue to shape my explorations.

From Hardt and Negri's Empire:
“By the time we arrive at Spinoza, in fact, the horizon of immanence and the horizon of the democratic political order coincide completely.” (Hardt and Negri 2001:73)
And from Fredric Jameson's Valences Of The Dialectic:
“We have indeed secreted a human age out of ourselves as spiders secrete their webs: an immense, all-encompassing ceiling of secularity which shuts down visibility on all sides even as it absorbs all the formerly natural elements in its habitat, transmuting them into its own man-made substance. Yet within the horizon of immanence, we wander as alien as tribal people, or as visitors from outer space, admiring its unimaginably complex and fragile filigree and recoiling from its bottomless potholes, lounging against a rainwall of exotic and artificial plants or else agonizing among poisonous colors and lethal stems we were not taught to avoid. The world of the human age is an aesthetic pretext for grinding terror or pathological ecstasy, and in its cosmos, all of it drawn form the very fibers of our own being and at one with us in every post-natural cell more alien to us than nature itself we continue murmuring Kant's old questions - what can I know? What should I do? How may I hope? - under a starry heaven, no more responsive than a mirror or a space ship, not understanding that they require the adjunct of an ugly and bureaucratic qualification: what can I know in this system? What should I do in this new world completely invented by me? What can I hope for in alone in an altogether human age? And failing to replace them by the only meaningful one, namely how can I recognize this forbiddingly foreign totality as my own doing, how may I appropriate it and make it my own handiwork and acknowledge its laws as my own projection and praxis?

“... We may argue that Utopia is no longer in time just as with the end of voyages of discovery and the exploration of the globe it disappeared from geographical space as such. Utopia as the absolute negation of the fully realized Absolute which our own system has attained cannot now be imagined as lying ahead of us in historical time as an evolutionary or even revolutionary possibility. Indeed, it cannot be imagined at all; and one needs the languages and figurations of physics - the conception of closed worlds and a multiplicity of unconnected yet simultaneous universes - in order to convey what might be the ontology of this now so seemingly empty and abstract idea. Yet it is not to be grapsed in this logic of religious transcendence either, as some other world after or before this one, or beyond it. It would be best, perhaps, to think of an alternate world - better to say the alternate world, our alternate world - as one contiguous with ours but without any connection or access to it. Then, from time to time, like a diseased eyeball in which disturbing flashes of light are perceived or like those baroque sunbursts in which rays from another world suddenly break into this one, we are reminded that Utopia exists and that other systems, other spaces, are still possible.” (Jameson 2009:608)
[ h/t Mark Fisher ]

12 comments:

Unknown said...

Yea, always did like Jameson. His work on Sci/Fi and Utopian thought was superb, and along with Tom Moylan's Scraps of the Untainted Sky, a classic. Another influential one on dystopian thought was the essays Dark Horizons ed. by Tom Moyland and Raffaella Bacccolini... great stuff.

I see you've been busy of late: Simondon, Latour, whoosh.... nice job!

Michael- said...

@CS

All great stuff, definitely

I've been busy..? You have been unhinged lately - with all those fantastic mini-essays! I may not be as accepting of OOO machine as you seem to be, but I tell you I learn more reading your posts than reading most books these days...

(And your prose, damn: simply brilliant, truly.)

all the best!

beakerkin said...

As an anarchist your best role is comedic relief. You are too ignorant to be as evil as Communists.

Joe Conservative said...

Do you even know what immanence means? Apparently not... you desperately need to go buy a dictionary.

Michael- said...

What does it mean Joe? Please, enlighten me.

Michael- said...

i'm not an anarchist sir Beaker, i'd support a stable and healthy governmental ecology - but not a corrupt, fiscally and morally bankrupt machine that pumps wealth into pathological private interests.

The Republic and Democrat parties have been hijacked by unstable corporate interests. You and I would probably agree that something has to change within current North American politics.

Joe Conservative said...

Immanence, derived from the Latin in manere - "to remain within" - refers to philosophical and metaphysical theories of divine presence, which hold that some divine being or essence manifests in and through all aspects of the material world. It is usually applied in monotheistic, pantheistic, or panentheistic faiths to suggest that the spiritual world permeates the non-spiritual, and often contrasts the idea of transcendence.

From Hardt and Negri's Empire:“By the time we arrive at Spinoza, in fact, the horizon of immanence and the horizon of the democratic political order coincide completely.”

lol! The absurdity in such a notion is just too, too rich.

Democracy as religion/ G_d.

You U.N. loving One-Worlder's kill me. Your horizon of immanence would appear to be your own skull. ;)

Michael- said...

"to remain within" = of this earth, of this cosmos, deeply embedded, embodied and emergent from (while remaining within). I think I understand it fairly clearly.

I think we all spring from the same source Joe - and the 'horizon' that opens up is an immanent space that emerges from the dynamic flux of the source bubbling up and pouring itself out into the world. We're tiny bubbles living within a series of bigger bubbles coalescing on the surface of unfathomable ocean.

Democracy, true democracy, is the communion of all sentient beings in a pluralistic congress (dialogue?) of dynamic action.

I have never supported "one world governance", but rather local governments operating within mutually enhancing and discreet federal and international systems.

There are many healthy ways to build a society, but war, greed, ignorance and individualism are not among the ways that promote mutual flourishing.

PS- just so you get the memo: planet earth IS ONE WORLD.

Thersites said...

Believe me, mikey, "democracy" does not constitute the "essence" of all human action. At best, it's merely one aspect of many. Else Hugo Chavez wouldn't periodically require "dictatorial" powers and Saudi Arabia remain a monarchy. Or aren't these also "horizons of immanence"?

The planet is one world... you really need to start reading the news.

Michael- said...

@Thersites

I'm not sure if you are just one of Joe's many costumes (as he is a shell of a man) or if you are another Koch paid right-wing nut-bag troll, or if you are just a passionate conservative blogger, but regardless, i never once said that democracy "the 'essence' of all human action". It's not. It is, as you suggest, a hard-won accomplishment flanked on all sides by various other shabby forms of political governance.

You ask, “aren't these also "horizons of immanence"? Absolutely. I agree with you. There are many horizons opening and closing all the time, and not all are pretty. And I happen to disagree with Negri and Hardt on the issue of the ‘necessity’ (so to speak) of the emergence of democracy, and on many other issues, so the reason I quote them above is simply to highlight the notion of a horizon of immanence. That was my only intention.

The “democracy” I’m interested in is cosmological - equivalent to a wild jungle-world, where everything is up for grabs, but everyone participates according to their capacities. But we don’t live in that type of democracy do we. We live the kind of democracy that is equivalent to a zoo, where iron bars keep us locked in and certain species get walled-off from each other, and zoo-keepers call all the shots and decide who gets what resources.

I want to live in a thriving ‘democratic’ jungle, not a corporate ‘fascist’ zoo. But it seems to me that many neo-conservatives (and by ‘neo’ I mean hypocritical and confused) simple what to change the zookeepers in charge instead of busting out of the cages.

m-

PS - Hugo Chavez is currently the most popular elected official in the world. The conservative propaganda machines can’t explain away the fact that Chavez has been democratically elected by a resounding majority. I know that hurts many of you, but it’s just a fact. Chavez opened his house to street people, when’s the last time the White House housed people in need? Did Bush let Katrina victims sleep in the guest quarters? Nope.

Stanley Kowalski said...

PS - Hugo Chavez is currently the most popular elected official in the world.

lol! Wouldn't that title go Supreme Leader Kim Jong Il of the "Democratic" People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)? His election margins were MUCH greater than Hugos' And he never faced a recall election, either.

I want to live in a thriving ‘democratic’ jungle...

Thriving? The world's population is today "thriving" more than at any time in it's history. So what you REALLY talkin' 'bout, Willis?

ps - You sure you're a Leftist? The pc buzz word you were "supposed" to use is "sustainable"... and since you're an environmentally conscious Leftists, I'd put your desired optimum human population sustained level at less than 1 billion. That's a LOT of people you need to exterminate, Holmes.

I'll grant you that there is a universal force of "immanence" in the universe though. The best characterization I've heard of it, though, isn't democracy or a "corporate zoo". It's a Will to Power.

...and yes, I'll see you in the street.

btw - You might wish to refrain from the "wild" metaphor. It implies "uncivilized". And yes, that's the world you wish to revert to... throwing away the last 10,000 years of human progress.

And nope... there are no surprises there.

And ps - Just what do you have against Saturn, enforcer of "just boundaries"? A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind. ;)

Michael- said...

@Stan,

So much nonsense for me to ignore.

I've been to Venezuela and the middle classes and the poor (you know, Plato's lesser metals) LOVE Chavez. He is massively popular there. Go and see - and ask common folk what they think of their President; don't just take Fox "News" word for it.

I'm also not anti-"civilization", but thanks for asking my views before ass-uming them. I also don't support promoting a specific number as a definite "carrying capacity". The planet will sort that out for us. Again don't just ass-ume, try asking my opinion on something first.

"I'll grant you that there is a universal force of "immanence" in the universe though. The best characterization I've heard of it, though, isn't democracy or a "corporate zoo". It's a Will to Power."

Funny, Hitler sited that particular book as the very best representation of the universal Zeitgeist as well... Hmmm. I think readers are detecting a theme with you Joe.

ps- i've asked before, but please tell me that they pay you to hyper-troll like this, because if you are doing it all your own then I fear for you.

Related Posts with Thumbnails