Monday, 2 November 2015

reborn or?

Sartre came back .. she came as a  lady  she couldn't decide of it was metampyschoes or becomings-returned that brought her arching wings
             and arms with her over the winging steed

  that was shit .she came again  in the shot over grammar and hard roofed building she was reboard a night.

Not like Mona and Fanny or Franny of the other detecting fictives her citations a mutuant weep.

 But her   Search for  aMethod and the Prague spring changed it. even retroactively.   was the dead god resurrected?

  if the god had never existed how  c    o                u      l   d    it  be   r e  b o r  n ?




  when Satre first thought of the idea he thought of the dialectic. the notion .

                   the notion not the concept was the origin of things.

           what do you call  a thing?
                                                    why are there things rather than none?

Satre held her being and nothingness her bean and nuttin.

   Satre became a lady at the day of the dainty tea-cup.

 there were desperate people in their thousands   walking marching tramping for thousands of mile.
 a cross Europe the origin
                         of fascism and war.

 White O Europe turned away thousands in the boats and dinghies as they died.

 the submarines continued to patrol the continent o f dead beat.

      THe Dialectic of critical reason was looking for an answer between
  or from

                                  'objectivitity to objectivity '

               the beauty of that phrase made her head sing   ring    the breadth of it the dizziness..



Sunday, 23 August 2015

History _ Real History in the making

Syriza’s left wing has split from the party, becoming the third largest group in the Greek Parliament.


Sartre videos from you tube which used to be open ended have not gone

Sartre videos from you tube which used to be open ended have not goneSartre videos from you tube which used to be open ended have not goneSartre videos from you tube which used to be open ended have not gone

   A catalogue of those videos is needed.


the thing is


  the thing is with Sartre, the fictions are not fictions, but history, totalisation retotalisation and detotalisation.

______________it was precisely
             the Critique of Dialectical Reason

           that opened  the door for the later philosophy 

                 of Felix Guattari and Gilles Deleuze

  they took of f the path from where he left off  .

_____________Every anticommunist  is a  pig! ___________

                 that's history  not fiction!

Search for a Method! the preface to the Critique.

---------------------------------------  in this video he is discussing the very historical and real war waged
      against  Vietnam .


Tuesday, 17 September 2013

Sartre stated....


Sartre stated in an interview (with Michel Contat? 1973?) that it was worth it to have lost his health, ... that it was worth it to have lost his health whilst  , so he could write The Critique of Dialectical Reason. He is not encouraging death, or insanity by saying that but he's saying the risks he took while undertaking to write such a difficult book were worth it. That the work was worth it.
 The question, or rather the comment arises as Contat remarks that Sartre wrote the Critique fast, and that he was taking amphetamines while doing so and his health suffered because of this. And it is then that Sartre says yes he was and that his health did suffer and it was , that it was, worth it to have written the Critique .

As well, in another part of the interview he calls philosophical ideas Notions , not concepts.  That philosophy is the invention of notions,  how different from our friends Deleuze and Guattari in their What is Philosophy? Their now well-known .idea that philosophy is the creation of concepts, new ones, ones unheard of previously.

It's refreshing to read Sartre, the least institutionalized or academic of philosophers. The guy wrote plays! and novels! and biographies, hundreds of essays about situations, about artists, painters, writers, poets, in addition to philosophical works, Being and Nothingness etc.

To me he is the giant opening ideas and landscapes of ideas whose reach stretched went far beyond him, but that without his own trudging and treading , would not have been as likely.

Sartre, nearly a half million people at his funeral!

A real Voltaire!


Think of him writing Being and Nothingness in the  Café de Flore! in long hand!

And the friends, he had around the world...

At one time, he moved to his mother's apartment in Paris because his own apartment had been bombed by the Stalinists!

     And at the last years, there is with cane, and blind as a fish, Old Fish-Eye himself with his groggy voice surrounded by gaggles of gals , women, everywhere with him and 'his family' supported his adopted family that he 's supporting ...
and let us not forget Castor, theBeaver!, Simone deBeauvoir (the well seen the 'beautifully seen and seer   ~ !)
 his ever ferocious and loving life long companion     ~ no matter the others ....

She was to die, as it turned out, the same day, as their friend, Jean Genet.

 Ah Nietzsche! here's your philosopher with a hammer! and a cigarette! a pen and a cafe terrace  !

  A philosopher for everyone and no one,  a  man, as he said  ,  like everyone and no one.


Monday, 17 September 2012

Have been

I have been every Sartre in my time. In time my Sartre. I remember we tried  we tried you an I . to call
   him in    1977 . We called to France . to ask to call. We . did  . and the French operator.

I have been eve ry Sartre in my time  our time our time. As time goes time by. with rhyme by. And it's the critique of dialectal reason. and the entropy of matter and the . squeeze of the bureaucrats that .

I aint forgot my old father   Sartre . Sartre. the Part.

that practico inert . everyone forgot about . forgetting it remembering  it's inert
keeps ya down
  in you r gutter totality thinking of the rope ya hung yerself on

and Genet ,, my so-named bastarded father 
 betrayed you
because you
begetted him
and that's natural

'cause you disagreed .

And the others looked Up and then D own at you the old man of the philosophers. Not so great now.  they say
yet a million strong flew to your funeral.

you waz   the grandest of the great

Old one Eye with your Lobster 
                                                                      Pirate philosopher


(think of it:
philosophical tracts,

( i doubt


Well more to come here in the days yet to come and your totalities and retotalities

and yer Dialieaclectics !of Truth and Objectivity to Objectivity which till today I dont even Dadadaddio  Deeeluzezio got past that one but we wont tell'em that as they'v e consecrated a well earned altar to him fr now for now now fr now  
          is still the most yet oRiginal category of taste thought in my mouth
that song

andyer footnotes 3 pages Long

that style
I bought
that book
for 32  bucks

back then

back then 32 bucks

 Ever which verse's a fiction.          Friction to its exciting enticement describing the totem pole. its tipsy
beat love's fair something or other. not a thyme but a glass of rhyme clinging its feet. sharing the measure  it
 wisdom prudent to to the Nth degree    Z to its Zartre
 the secret Z 


Tuesday, 17 July 2012

Goytisolo sur les traces de Sartre

Les écrivains sont de deux types : les uns , matérialistes jusqu'à la moelle, cherchent les prix lucratifs sans penser aux inconséquences et s’y jettent les yeux fermés, d'autres s'en balancent carrément ou font fonctionner les méninges avant d'en accepter les plus honorifiques. Sanallah Ibrahim et Goytisolo font partie de la deuxième catégorie. Ce sont des écrivains qui ont des principes à défendre. Ils rejoignent le chef de file et le champion dans la catégorie:

Jean Paul Sartre. En 1964, ce dernier avait fait fi de manière retentissante du prix Nobel de la littérature qui lui était destiné. Le russe Pasternak fut contraint d’y renoncer -guerre froide oblige-.

Ainsi, si en 2003 l'égyptien Sanallah a refusé publiquement le Prix du Caire pour la création romanesque décerné par le ministère égyptien de la culture jugé a-crédible par l'auteur , il a en outre accepté le prix Ibn Rochd pour la liberté de pensée.

De la même manière, Goytisolo qui vient de créer la surprise en ce milieu d’été en refusant, après mure réflexion , le prix que la Libye , via un comité de sélection, lui a accordé.

La valeur de la récompense est très substantielle.

Auparavant, Goytisolo avait accepté plusieurs prix dont: Premio Europalia, Premio Nelly Sachs, Premio Octavio Paz de Literatura et Premio Juan Rulfo.

Mais Goytisolo, notre héros du moment, est d'une autre trempe. Cet anti-franquiste convaincu n’est pas du genre à plaisanter avec les prix fussent-ils alléchants et très lucratifs. Il est question de crédibilité.

L’ami de Jean Genet est forcement l’ami de Sartre.

Par transitivité, Goytisolo est éminemment sartrien dans son choix.

Par ailleurs on remarque que Jean Genet et Goytisolo avaient partagé les même idées libertaires et avaient les mêmes postions vis-à-vis des dictatures et du despotisme.

Les deux écrivains ont milité en faveur de la cause palestinienne.

Unlike Goytisolo and Genet, Sartre did not militate in favour of the Palestinians. Genet claims ___ at a time years after they had not spoken, when Sartre was quite old and sicklly, possibly dead,__ that Sartre's political views did not interest him, that they were boring.

Juan Goytisolo est espagnol mais il semble apatride. Son père a été emprisonné par les républicains
pendant la guerre civile quand à sa mère elle a été tuée par l'armada franquiste en 1938. Un tel destin aussi tragique ne pourrait que forger cette destinée aussi unique. Si la célèbre place Jemaâ El Fna, a été classée Patrimoine oral de l'humanité, par l'UNESCO c'est presque grâce à Goytisolo .


Avec le temps il est devenu un auteur engagé combattant toutes les formes d'oppression. Après le décès de son épouse, il quitte Paris et s’installe à Marrakech
. Mais l’homme semble ne trouver sa vraie patrie que dans la langue.

Il écrit avec un humour caustique.

En voici un avant-goût :
« J'ai rêvé ... que les dirigeants de l'Autorité Palestinienne et du Hamas laissaient vivre en paix les pauvres Israéliens soumis quotidiennement à d'humiliantes contrôles, bouclés derrière des murs et des barbelé et pilonnés par leur aviation et leur artillerie ...»


Goytisolo sur les traces de Sartre

Thursday, 17 May 2012

The Sartrian


The Sartrian concept of old age

(not versus )

and the Deleuzian concept

|||key differences
and remarks

I picture and see Sartre senior,
always with Debeauvoir nearby,
his group

(younger, always,
often much younger )
surrounded by his
friends and fellow workers, writers, essayists, sometime novelists,
his extended family,
his adopted daughter ,

and the old man making his appearnce
at the factory gates
flogging his copy

of different radical journals
of the time

and he's half-blind

and he''s quite tiny,

but he's there,

and he's rarely


He and Debeauvoir

had no

and that makes

a difference

doesn't it?

One's concept of old age

not the same if one has been parentless

for life

whereas old Deleuze is the Father of Two
and the Husband of One


and that is the beginning of

one kind of difference

not by any means all

but one kind

And Neither old Sartre nor (D?) ever got around to 'giving up ' smoking cigarettes,

And there's some very moving
discussions about love,
and going blind,
(smoke gets in your eyes)
between DeBeauvoir and Mister Jean-Paul
La Cérémonie Des Adieux (A Farewell to Sartre)

about Smokling

and how he wrote about
Being and Nothingness
(probably the first philosopher to do so)

that perplexed love affair of men of lungs, and women of love and lungs

(the lungs of love and lung's affair with the breath)
(and the puff puff of cigarettes like a choo-choo train)

and more of this to be continued .....

Tuesday, 12 April 2011

-----------------------------ici ~

come back here soon     ~        .                    

Tuesday, 5 October 2010

s e a r c h


Sunday, 16 May 2010

Sartre/Others and L'Autres Les Autres


____________Some pick ups on this line of thought; the S artre
of earlier is conserved in later works Flaubert and Idiot. However
as you quote and we had stated earlier, dépassé is the correct term. But
even correct terms are provisional and contingent. To say correct these days
seems slightly dangerous puritanical political correct etc. Not my forte. It
might interest you or any else for that matter to read interviews with
Sartre edited by Michel Contat I think it was. To me reading Sartre has
always been a question of learning yet again and moving with him along the
Spiral of his thoughts self-=questionings... Re Heidegger. Well I cannot
think of where but there are several interviews wherein Sartre states his
thoughts about the old Nazi. I think Sartre understood Heidegger very well,
but had no use for the areas of the German which did not interest him;
Heidegger seems not have lived History as an activity but in his own terms
in-authentically and in denial. Whereas Sartre made many mistakes he did take
action; Heidegger reacted -- i.e. his well-known support of the Nazi party in
the period of What is Metaphysics, and his life long silence on these
matters - and by reacting he of course make dubious his earlier work; not
completely. Levinas recognizes H. as the great in the early work for BEing
and Time. As did Sartre. But in his own words 'I had no use... for it...'

And Sartre's mistakes (however one characterizes this idea) were never as grave as Heidegger

seems a little specious to imply or state for that matter that JP did not
know his Heidegger. I am sure he knew it very well; I am sure t hat Sartre
could absorb anything;

But Sartre unlike the motley crew of post-modernists
did not play relativists games. One simply has to consider that in France in
the last year 5 new books have come out to reexamine his work and life. No,
to me he was the Great guy if one wants to use this sort of term: his talent
and achievements in almost every field of writing and thought are
staggering. He makes Derrida and the others look poor. They are prolific and
he was the genii, the genius of the multiple.... Only Deleuze is perhaps his
real equal. And the works of Guattari combined with Deleuze; But among
thinkers it is Sartre and then Deleuze with Foucault trailing in along....
But I mention these last two not to make them look weaker in achievement but
to suggest that Sartre is the real diverser of writing in philo-- the many
handed one eyed wall-eyed genii of the text. Theatre, novels, essays in the
hundres, prefaces, intros, bios. the major philosophical works; what other
writer has acheived so many levels of intelligence and insight and in so
many fields ? I am writing this very quickly and so forgive the faulty prose
or whatever... and now also with Regard to the criticisms of Edward Said
towards Sartre because he did not write --- according to Said enough about
the Palestinians --- well, I mean apart from the endless carping of that
writer on his beloved people and their problems, I mean, really who does
Said think he is to expect, to have expected Sartre already an old man and
sick and even dying and half-out of it, to have taken the pen up in defense
of Palestinians; DIdnt he do enough already, from Fanon onwards? BEsides it
was not clear perhaps to Sartre and others what had happened back then with
the Palestinians; and even if he had, one say why not the Irish and why not
this and that and so on; to each his own cause, and his own love.

Sartre quotes a letter from Engels, which he says was to
Marx, the French editor corrects to say it was to Hans Starkenberg, 25
Jan 1894 [p. 37 n], in a few places. The key phrase is 'Men themselves
make their own history but in a given environment which conditions them'.

Sartre says he accepts this without reservation.

More about this later  ~.

Friday, 26 February 2010

Sartre wrote in 'Search for A Method...'

 Sartre wrote about the parasites of philosophy. He described existentialism as a parasite.  In the context in which he was talking he meant that existentialism was not a philosophy that defined an epoch, but one that worked within the philosophy that did _ and he meant Marxism And that until the conditions were surpassed that led to its creation and necessity there was no way one could get around or out under from it.  He spent a long time demonstrating _ there's that strata again__ that Marxism needed a re-working that it become weighed down with the Stalinist P.C. version of dialectical materialism.  That the masters who controlled philosophy preferred it that way. That this way philosophy became nothing more than an entertainment provided for the ruling class which of course represents the ruling idea of the period. 

I happen to think that many who write about philosophy are less than parasites. They are less than even being. They have hardly entered the stage of existence at all! Analogous they are to the circus of critics and would be poets who harp day and night about the sad state of poetry.

It seems fashionable these days to criticize great thinkers like Sartre and Spinoza and Derrida.  In a similar way one criticizes Shakespeare and others. But in the end of course these shits are nothing. Forgotten dust they are before they open their mouths. With their blogs, and even their books, they are nothing. And shall be forgotten even by friends after they die. 

Imagine living a life of nothing and going to nothing and embraced by nothing. These are the less than parasites who 'storm' the public stage ranting and raving about philosophers, and poets, and ideas and poetry. And their fate is to become nothing, and to never have been. Imagine such a destiny.

 They are possessed by a  perverse desire to kill and be killed. But gives rise to the question, how can those who are already dead, die?

Saturday, 26 December 2009

the only?

the only is not true!

yes yes I know|oui oui je sais .. j'essai ~

it was a polemical 'have you on with the existential ball and cap ' and the hole of nothing that leaks? or the nauseau falling? the guitar that's true?
a character a nd a half is what you?
with your being & nothingness
searching for a method ~
in the dark?
in the grim?


for the people to come

& missing


Friday, 11 December 2009

sur la Critique de la raison dialectique de Sartre

Argumentaire Diversement canonisé en 2005 lors du centenaire de sa naissance, un pan majeur de l’œuvre philosophique de Sartre est cependant resté le parent pauvre des commémorations : la Critique de la raison dialectique (1960, et dont le tome II fut publié à titre posthume en 1985). Cette œuvre dont l’ambition explicite est de « réintroduire l’homme au cœur du marxisme » - ce marxisme qui s’est alors « arrêté » - se présente comme les « prolégomènes » à une anthropologie structurelle et historique à même de totaliser les différents savoirs disponibles sur l’homme socialisé. Que ce soit la continuité problématique avec ses œuvres antérieures,

notamment L’être et le néant (1943), les difficultés intrinsèques, méthodologiques et stylistiques, de l’ouvrage, ses premières réceptions idéologiquement surdéterminées, les prises de position complexes qui s’y trament par rapport aux enjeux épistémologiques soulevés (par rapport au structuralisme, à la sociologie, à la psychanalyse, etc.) comme aux traductions politiques sulfureuses qui en furent autant les moteurs que les échos, l’ensemble manque encore de mises en perspective sérieuses dans l’espace philosophique français.

Aujourd’hui, un demi-siècle après la publication en 1957 de la « première » partie de la Critique, Questions de méthode, il est donc tout à fait essentiel de rendre possible la rumination collective de cette œuvre à multiples visages et à multiples entrées. L’objet de colloque est, contre les crispations traditionnelles, de rendre possible de telles lectures croisées : qu’elles s’intéressent prioritairement à la conceptualité et aux enjeux propres déployés par l’œuvre, qu’elle la fassent parler par rapport à ses sources et influences possibles ou ses héritages, ou bien encore, qu’elles mettent en relief la fécondité et les difficultés qui la caractérisent au travers de l’étude des œuvres corrélatives de Sartre (par exemple L’idiot de la famille).

L’objectif assumé est de voir combien cet ouvrage de « philosophie pure » fut et est bien toujours l’incarnation de la « philosophie vivante », totalisante et conflictuelle, éminemment concrète, que Sartre souhaitait à la hauteur de son temps, et de montrer autant que possible qu’elle constitue un jalon théorique incontournable de notre action et de notre réflexion sur un nouveau siècle qui ne s’annonce décidément pas moins catastrophique que les précédents.

__________Via EuRo PhilOsopHy ____________

Videos du Colloque sur la Critique de la raison dialectique de Sartre