cancer is a basic metaphor and it is a basic question: is cancer capitalism or is it communism? as leftists, and as seekers of a new “law and order”, i believe we have to say cancer=capitalism. and we have to find “resistance” as an immanent self-analysis of capitalism=cancer, and this puts the position of “doctor” in question. and this was precisely why i was trying to introduce “ausculter” (way of listening – the word literally means “listen to a patient’s chest” http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ausculter) as a political category to parallax “theory” (way of seeing — http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/theory)
to get rid of “antidotism”, we need to capture the medical jargon. like we speak of “symptoms”. for instance, what is “diagnosis”? what is “syndrome”? what is “disorder”? what is “epidemic”? milestones will be needed in replacing the scientific paradigm
note: like “theory” means “certain kind of seeing” http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/theory, “ausculter” can refer to that “certain kind of listening” http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ausculto “listen to a patient’s chest” a fitting term in aiming at science as such…. any full speech today eventually faces the violence of democratic legal teargassing, so it better be a divine+scientific+violent full speech=general will
is philosophy=love of knowledge, to love what you see? if written for the eyes, all that are seen will be binary variables of fear and hope. you won’t be read but watched. you will be a system.
we can write for ears as well, to clear ears from authorities. you know that authorities live in our ears, where we have those little particles to balance ourselves. be a will, a volition.
and as we know, love of seeing is a hatelove. love can survive only if it listens as well.
the great catastrophe is that electrons captured our ears. so we have to recover our ears to reclaim the electrons.
here’s my theory-ausculter, let it begin like this:
“use” seeks authority, “play” seeks body.
authority makes itself listened, body makes itself seen.
volition is a listening that generates body,
system is a seeing that generates authority.
(tautology: we need theory!)
theory is a way of seeing, ausculter is a way of listening: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/theory http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ausculter in text, ausculter/listening emerges as concrete forms of suspicion. these concrete forms of suspicion can replicate and explicate themselves in similar media/circumstances, constituting the immunity system of a language. that which is disavowed in theory is that which ausculter is immune from.
one tautology to the other. let’s call the second one the tautology of a cyborg http://www.egs.edu/…/donna-haraway-a-cyborg-manifesto/
public use of reason turns out to be v̶e̶r̶y̶ quite …. whatever. Let us then return to Kant;
(kant was pervert)
he was not that, he is not that. this is how we block sensory phenomena, by speaking. it is in the nature of speaking and making distinctions to block oneself from sensory phenomena, politics is to construct a verbal immunity. but it is always a relative immunity, even when it appears like an absolute one.