Not “Evil vs Good”, but “Chaos vs Order”

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…

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

Combine :

  1. Evil Chaos : Hell, The Battle of Stalingrad. Revolutions.
  2. Evil Order : 1984 Society, Fascism.
  3. Good Chaos : Picasso, Stravinsky : creativity, progress. Revolutions.
  4. 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…

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispositif

Dispositifa 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
The way…

 

295058.jpg

 

The Think & The Do : Catch a Tip

This is a mayhemic article about a pattern I meet everyday these days.

(As you know, when you spot then notice a pattern, you see it everywhere, right?)

ONE

Bourdieu explains that there’s a problem with scholars studying the source of Manet‘s paintings scandals. These guys develop theories about the “will of Manet”, seen as a smart rebel.

Like in History, it’s easy to rebuild stray events and sew them into a “will” of destiny or whatever. Bourdieu says simply that Manet was just in the process of painting, that’s all. A haeccetian recall : he’s painting, thinking about a Japanese etching, he has an idea with color, or frame, he finds difficult to paint eyes, a gaze, and deals with the days (hungriness, sex, friends, insomnia, whatever, who knows).

The clear will to make a scandal doesn’t even exist. He just paints! Theoricians, 100 years after, explain crystal clear theories.

TWO

This could be one branch of the science of bullshittery.

Taleb tells stories of lecturers in huge hotels of New York powerpointing about the need to be ethical and fight poverty, who treat waiters harshly at lunch. The consequences of these meetings is mainly to blossom other meetings with powerpoints elsewhere in the world. Practice what you preach, buddy!

THREE

Big talkative personalities (like me, haha) love theories, maybe more than action, so what? I love to talk about movies and books and arts, I love analysis, I love structures. Plus I’m an INTFJ, plus I’m a Five (a watcher). I’m not action man. And sometimes I admire action men…

Grand diseux, petit faiseux, we say in Ch’ti, the north of France dialect : “Big teller, small maker”. Makes sense?

FOUR

If you Google “theory” and “action” on Google you’re parasitated by… Theories of Action, arghhhh.

I regret to not to be an anthropologist (sorry for my English), and I probably need help here. I’m pretty sure that many persons studied the dance between action and theory.

Creation is an act of resistance, says Deleuze.

A book of Agamben is called “The Fire and the Account”. He says that acting and thinking are interlinked :

We think when we can’t act anymore, we act when we can’t think anymore

Lacan says that what is important is that “makes something happen” – then you can catch a tip.

“Life to knowledge” !

Maybe the action is not that important, but the way one person witnesses it, talks about it, links it, shows a way to live or to spout…

OK, I know, it’s mess. I’ll dig into it. Who can help me?

Thanks for reading!

(noted_women)12142321_1530090473737209_1578242652_n.jpg

Instagram : noted_women