Not “Evil vs Good”, but “Chaos vs Order”.
Well, what the heck is this double opposition?
I don’t know.
Many movies are based on Evil vs Good, right?
Let’s make a geometric transposition : Evil towards Chaos, and Good towards Order. Okey?
In a crime novel, the murder brings chaos in the apparatus which is the good society of men. The detective brings back order, thanks mister.
It seems simple, but I thus and therefore automatically choose the contrary.
Order can be Evil. 1984 the book. Or Nazis perfect aligned armies. More : in the new Star Wars, the bad guys are named the First Order…
- I take pliers, I pinch “Order” and I pin in on a tree. Order is straight lines, obedience, conservative, religion, highways, mainstream, social pressure, black and white, perfectly mown lawns, rules.
- I take my two fingers and I grab “Chaos”, where I find colors, invention, freedom, progress in Art, little mountain paths, movements, punk happy gardens.
Well, let’s go on. Imagine a cross-diagram : left-right for evil good, and up-down for order-chaos.
- Evil Chaos : Hell, The Battle of Stalingrad. Revolutions.
- Evil Order : 1984 Society, Fascism.
- Good Chaos : Picasso, Stravinsky : creativity, progress. Revolutions.
- Good Order : “The idea of Norway” – justice, rightful, legitimate.
What else? What do you think? Where does that go?
Everything immoderate is negative… right? Is it only a question of balance?
Paul Valéry, who is a wise man, says that in a society ruled by order, things happen :
- What is sensitive in men can not always be precise (not everything can be measured and put in “order”).
- Order is a burden to people. They have to dream, and invent. Under quietness of order, some brains shake themselves, hopes bloom…
Dispositif : a thoroughly heterogeneous ensemble consisting of discourses, institutions, architectural forms, regulatory decisions, laws, administrative measures, scientific statements, philosophical, moral and philanthropic propositions–in short, the said as much as the unsaid. Such are the elements of the apparatus. The apparatus itself is the system of relations that can be established between these elements.
“Further expanding the already large class of Foucauldian apparatuses, I shall call an apparatus literally anything that has in some way the capacity to capture, orient, determine, intercept, model, control, or secure the gestures, behaviors, opinions, or discourses of living beings. Not only, therefore, prisons, madhouses, the panopticon, schools, confession, factories, disciplines, judicial measures, and so forth (whose connection with power is in a certain sense evident), but also the pen, writing, literature, philosophy, agriculture, cigarettes, navigation, computers, cellular telephones and—why not—language itself, which is perhaps the most ancient of apparatuses—one in which thousands and thousands of years ago a primate inadvertently let himself be captured, probably without realizing the consequences that he was about to face.” (Agamben)
Oh I don’t care what comes tomorrow
We can face it together