Jonathan Bennett and Gilles Deleuze on events

 Since Jonathan Bennett recently died, I've returned to his excellent book, Events and their Names. Hence these little thoughts. 

Jonathan Bennett’s Events and their Names is, like Gilles Deleuze’s Logique du Sens, an inquiry into the status of events and our ways of talking about them. However, the two philosophers take very different routes to the theorization of the event.

Deleuze, going back to the Stoic rejection of Platonism – the first reversal of Platonism in a series going up through the twentieth century – writes of the event as an extra-being – an opacity at the heart of becoming. Deleuze relies, for his sense of Stoic logic, on the work of the French scholar Emile Brehier, who reconstructed it, taking Stoicism out of its category as a purely practical philosophy.

This is Deleuze:

Why is every event fall within types such as plague, war, the wound, death ? Is this just a way of saying that there are more unhappy than happy events? No, since it is a questiion of a double structure in every event. In all events, there is a present moment of effectuation, that of the event incarnating itself in a state of things, an individual, a person, that which is designated when one says: here, the moment has come; and the future and past of the event are judged only as functions of that definitive present, of the point of view of that which incarnates it. But there is another part of the future and past of the event taken in itself that eludes any present, because it is free of the limitations of a state of things, being impersonal and pre-individual, neuter, neither general nor particular, eventum tantum… or rather which has no other present than that of the mobile instant that represents it, always doubled in the past-future, forming what must be called the counter-effectuation.”

 

This is certainly a different vocabulary than Bennett’s. Philosophers dramatize with their examples: Deleuze’s examples are derived, partly, from the Stoics, and partly from Deleuze’s elevated sense of the historical importance of the person. However, one can easily link certain elements – counter-effectuation to counter-factuals – to see connections in the total discourse on events.

 

Bennett’s book has a deflationary purpose: to reduce our logical anxieties about events by showing that events are really not basic kinds of things.

 

“One conclusion of this book will be that our event concept is adapted to the giving of rather small and indeterminate gobbets of information. That unfits it for bearing weight in disciplined theories such as those of semantics, ethics, "action theory", and philosophy of mind, in which philosophers have tried to put it to work; and the failures of those attempts (some of which will be examined later) can be traced to their putting onto our event concept a load it cannot carry.”

 

In order to make this argument, Bennett defines events in terms of a supervenience of on objects and facts:

 

“In shorthand, I shall say that events are supervenient entities, meaning that all the truths about them are logically entailed by and explained or made true by truths that do not involve the event concept. Similarly, all the truths about universities come from truths about people and buildings and equipment; all the truths about ecological niches come from truths about plants and animals and weather and terrain.”

 

Bennett is staking out a claim, here, that is absolutely opposed to all forms of process philosophy. His great opponent is those who read the supervenience relationship inversely. Bennett alludes to the work of Donald Williams.

 

“It is a view about items that Leibniz called "individual accidents" and

Williams called "tropes".  A trope is a case or instance of a property: My

house is a concrete particular that has whiteness and other properties;

whiteness is an abstract universal that is possessed by my house and other particulars; and the whiteness of my house is a trope, an abstract

particular. It is unlike my house in that all there is to it is whiteness, and it is unlike whiteness in that it pertains only to my house. Now, Williams has maintained that at the deepest metaphysical level my house and the universal whiteness are both collections of tropes, with different principles of colligation. What makes it the case that my house is white is just the fact that the whiteness of my house belongs to both collections.

 

According to this metaphysical scheme, substances and properties are

supervenient on tropes. To that can be added the plausible thesis that

events are tropes and that indeed the concept of a trope differs from the

concept of an event only in being slightly more general or abstract. The

result is a position implying that substances and properties are supervenient on tropes (including events), rather than vice versa.”

 

We are running into exactly the reversal of Platonism that Deleuze sees in the Stoics. Bennett’s reading of the supervenience relation can’t actually be put in terms of the classic Platonic divide between being and becoming, given that his substances and properties are not, exactly, Platonic ideas. He cleverly takes Williams suggestion about troping and uses it to return us to the universe of substances and properties, upon which events – or as he calls them (rather tiresomely) event sortals, meaning event types like dying, sighing and that host of things that the English gerund is so good at nominalizing.

 

My own opinion here is that the world-game suggested by making events basic and the world-game suggested by making events epiphenomenal are both true – by which I mean both can be made to operate consistently in their games. To a degree – both games have tensions, if not hidden contradictions. Which is how both games can be played against each other – in fact, I’d contend that the construction of these world-games can’t get off the ground without them playing against each other.

 

The glory and the problem of Deleuze’s book is that its exemplary events are sometimes too highfalutin to make them connect to the common. The problem with books in the analytic vein, such as Bennett’s, is that sometimes the arguments from the common seem arguable. Here is Bennett arguing with Davidson about the meaning of that old favorite, the Writer of Waverly.

First Davidson:

 

“Substances owe their special importance in the enterprise of

identification to the fact that they survive through time. But the

idea of survival is inseparable from the idea of surviving certain

sorts of change--of position, size, shape, colour, and so forth. As

we might expect, events often play an essential role in identifying

a substance. Thus if we track down the author of Waverley or the

father of Annette, it is by identifying an event, of writing, or of

fathering. Neither the category of substance nor the category of

change is conceivable apart from the other.”

 

Second Bennett:

 

“Not so. We can track down the author of Waverley by locating the person

who wrote Waverley; we don't have to think of him as the person who was the subject or agent or author or participant in a writing of Waverley. So we have no need to introduce the concept of a particular event.”

 

Try as I may make the person who “wrote Waverly” somehow separate from the person who was the participant in a “writing of Waverly” – notice that Waverly is not picked out here by a definitive article, but by an indefinite one, as though there was a multiplication of Waverlys in possible worlds, which I don’t think Bennett really believes – is simply to make a point that Deleuze makes about the double structure of the event – the difference between the present and its viewpoint and the eluded present of the viewpoint of the counter-effectual – the counterfactual past and future. I can not imagine nabbing the person who wrote Waverly and not claiming he was the person who participated in, or simply wrote, Waverly.

 

Perhaps in the garden of forking paths, in the Borgesian World-Game. Perhaps.  

 

killing and its names

 

It is easy to write “bang bang he’s dead.” The written – on a scroll, a page, a screen – may be bloody, but it doesn’t bleed. The long train of individual deaths,  from Socrates to Ivan Illych, must number in the hundreds of thousands. The deaths of both Hector, who could be a fiction, and Sinead O’Connor, who was not a fiction, are written down in the same way

In history, the same rule of course applies, even to mass deaths. I can write about the Warsaw Ghetto uprising: “A total of 13,000 Jews were killed, about half of them burnt alive or suffocated.” That is 13,000 individual bodies. But there’s no special grammar or diacritics that distinguishes this from writing a note about the plums in the refrigerator.

We write to commemorate, but of course although we can remember blood, memory doesn’t bleed, either.

Of course, writing is confounded and interlocked with acts, events, institutions, lifestyles, etc. In jurisprudence, the judge “sentences”. The judge says, and the judge writes. The orders given to the Naza soldiers in Warsaw and the report by the commander, Stroop, were written. Writing is an instrument of coercion and liberation, but it is firstly and always a bloodless thing. This, for a writer, is a hard law. You cannot be a writer, a real writer, and think that your writing is not, somehow, alive, does not have a separate existence.

Which gets us to the subject that I have, given our circumstances, been thinking about a lot: the word “genocide”.

I don’t like the word.

Now, Tennyson didn’t like the word scissors, supposedly, but scissors is, I would say, a harmless word to name the things I cut paper and cloth with. Perhaps the word brought out some hidden lisp in Tennyson. I can sympathize – when I was a child, I had a lisp that was taken care of by a speech therapist who took me out of my classes and had me do phonic exercises.

The word genocide, though, unlike scissors, is a very document bound word. It is in the family of -ide – homicide, suicide, etc. Like those words, it is vaguely juridical. It is not slaughter. It is not even murder or killing. It freezes the tears of things. It doesn’t speak of being suffocated to death in a traincar, dying in your shit. It doesn’t suggest the look of a child whose face has been ripped off.

Genocide, though, has had a large life after the Nazis massmurdered the Jews and Gypsies. It is chanted, for instant, in protests. Charging someone with genocide/who can’t hide – I have definitely chanted that before and, alas, probably will again. But I feel that, though it is invested with the gravest and vilest acts that an armed force can commit against another, it loses the ultimate horror of the individual killing – the horror felt by the killed, even. The horror, even, of being killed by people who are not worthy of killing you.

If that makes sense.

The mass murder in Gaza, which has now taken twice the number of victims killed in the Warsaw Ghetto result, might be genocide according to the courts. But to my mind it is first and foremost a mass murder.

The German mass murderers suffered various fates. Some were hung by the courts, like Rudolf Hoess. Some became rocket scientists in the U.S. and have streets named after them, like Werner von Braun. Some became the head of intelligence agencies, like Gehen in West Germany. And surely the Israeli mass murderers will have various fates. But to absorb this crime, spiritually, the crime that is still unfolding will take decades.

 

a lucky man : our bigoted president

 

I read the news today oh yeah/

About a lucky man who made  the grade.

 

Ah, Biden. Who knew that inside that old body beat the heart of a huge, dangerous beast? But then again, all the American Emperors are dangerous. It is a bad business entirely.

Two news items. One is Chotiner’s interview with Aaron David Miller, a man who has an actual career as a Middle Eastern negotiator – starting in the eighties and reaching through Bush to Biden. It is the end of the interview that breaks your heart.

“ … when Biden gave the speech on October 10th, you watched the tears well up in his eyes. He talked about the black hole of loss. He’s conflated the tragedies in his ownpersonal life with what Israelis felt on that day.

Yes, that’s very moving, but there is another kind of loss going on now which he apparently can’t conflate with his own experience.

Oh, if you’re asking me: Do I think that Joe Biden has the same depth of feeling and empathy for the Palestinians of Gaza as he does for the Israelis? No, he doesn’t, nor does he convey it. I don’t think there’s any doubt about that.”

His empathy, such as it is, stops with the killing of White aid givers. The rest is dross.  https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/bidens-increasingly-contradictory-israel-policy

Two. The other less reported story is about a White House “dinner” and outreach to Americans of Middle Eastern origin.

“Dr. Thaer Ahmad, an emergency physician from Chicago who traveled to Gaza earlier this year, told CNN he abruptly left the meeting that included Vice President Kamala Harris, national security adviser Jake Sullivan, other administration officials and a small group of Muslim community leaders.”

It was a meeting mainly concentrating on optics. But the optics department in Biden’s campaign and White House is obviously concentrated on important things, not Muslims, for god’s sakes:

“CNN previously reported that what was supposed to be an iftar dinner to break the Ramadan fast was changed to a meeting because participants didn’t feel comfortable having a celebratory meal while hundreds of thousands in Gaza are on the brink of famine. It’s another example of the administration’s fraying relationship with the Muslim American community — other attempts at holding meetings in key states have been hampered by declined invitations, and relationships with important community groups have frayed since the war began.”

Well, what a group for Biden to address in his most heartfelt tones to talk about the Hamas attack on October 7. He feels it still. That 32,000 Gazans have died since then is of course all so sad, but is it really sad?

“Following the listening session, Ahmed said that Biden initially responded with a focus on the terrors of October 7.

“He kind of went back to that and said, ‘You know, I hear what everybody’s saying, but like, think about the young people that were killed on October 7.’ And it kind of dismissed the over 30,000 people dead in Palestine,” she said.

Biden went on to discuss the complexity of eradicating Hamas and ongoing talks with leaders in the region working toward a ceasefire, Ahmed said.”

And though the news was rather sad,

 Well, I just had to laugh.

I saw the photograph.

 

 

 

Marx, Cologne and the West Bank

Marx made the great leap towards what became Marxism in Cologne in 1842, when he became the editor of a newspaper there and did a few articles on a local controversy: the new legislative rules that eliminated the time honored custom of gathering sticks in forests owned by the great landholders. Marx at this time was a graduate of law school. He gets it that the legislature is creating something new here – a property – out of the denial of something old – a customary right. But it occurred to him that it was not enough to remain on the level of the law – for what was driving the legislative proces was not so much any legal confusion, or any unfolding of some previous logic in the legal code, a la Hegel, but instead, was a basic, extra-legal social force.

The custom of gathering fallen wood, as Marx came to see it, had its roots in another kind of social order. Marx latter on considered this social order as pre-capitalist, evidently defining it from the ‘stage’ that succeeds it. However, I think it is entirely within the Marxist spirit to define it differently, as the regime of the “image of the limited good”, a phrase coined by the anthropologist George Foster to describe the image of the world inherent to those who inhabit a social economy in which economic growth is not the norm. The norm, instead, for the peasants and their governors, is of rise and fall, in which prosperity can be expected to lead to superbia, or vanity, which in turn creates the condition for the fall. The image of the limited good is congruent with the iconography of nemesis, or justice, a blindfolded figure holding a scale in which our sins and accumulations are weighed.

In this world, it makes sense to talk about the poor. There is no sense that in this world, the laborer produces such wealth as will cause economic growth to be the primary fact of the social world. Marx, in Cologne, began to sense the meaning of this.

To put this another way: Marx made the very important discovery that “the poor”, as a socio-economic category, was vacuous. The poor were easily recognized in pre-capitalist economies: the beggars, the serfs, the slaves, they all exist under the sign of minus. They had less, and that quantitative fact defined their social existence. What Marx saw was that capitalist society was not just a matter of old wine in new bottles – the archaic poor were now free labor. Perhaps nothing so separates Marxism from religion as this insight: in all the great monotheistic religions, poverty is viewed in feudal terms: the poor you will have always with you. But in capitalism, or modernity tout court, the poor continue to exist as a mystificatory category, usually in a binary with the rich. In fact, the real binary in society is capital and labor. The bourgeois economists, and even the non-scientific socialists, operate as though the archaic poor still exist. To help them, we need to develop a method of redistribution that is, in essence, charity – run by non-profits or run by the government, but still charity. But Marx saw this in very different terms. Labor produces the economic foundation of capitalism – value. In these terms, it is not a question of the poor being a qualitative or moral category – it is a question of the alienation of value, of surplus value, that circulates through the entire capitalist system and allows it to grow on its own, while at the same time making it vulnerable to crisis.

Daniel Bensaid, the French Marxist, wrote a fascinating book on Marx’s essays on the Wood Laws. Bensaid sees the new category of the “poor” under the sign of dispossession. What Marx saw in the move to take away a traditional right and transform it into a kind of property for capital was, in Bensaid’s account, tied to a whole system of dispossession.

Bensaid springs these essays, so to speak, from their purely philological interest as early writings of Karl Marx, to show that the wood laws, with their alternative dispossessing of a traditional right or usage and their thrusting the dispossessed into the market society is happening here and now. Bensaid shows how it has been happening, since the end of the Cold War, in Africa, with the scramble for resources churning great masses into urban barrios as the environment is clubbed and axed and extracted to death. But even in developed economies, dispossession remains one of the great drivers of profit.

You have to read the forms that are being created in the area around Cologne – or in the seizures of the British commons, or in the creation of roads, etc. – in order to see the dispossession that works in such developed economies as that of the U.S.

Here’s the wood laws: “Pierre Lascoumes and Hartwig Zander cite the following list of “forest infractions and their economic causes” established by forest rangers: theft of blueberries and other berries; theft of forest products necessary for the production of brushes and brooms, or as food for livestock; theft of twigs for the production of fishing rods; theft of timber for the repair of domestic and agricultural implements; theft of wood for roof shingles; theft of timber for hop-poles; theft of wood for stairs, trestles, and scaffolding; theft of ground roots for basket weaving; theft of fagots for firewood . . . an edifying inventory! It is composed of all those marketable goods without which life itself could not be secured, especially as their domestic use was itself increasingly subject to market circulation.”

Those who have eyes to see recognize the way in which Internet companies, or the whole of computer capital, have managed to make secondary markets illegal – for instance, in selling or sharing you Microsoft Office Suite – in a way that is unquestioned, for the most part, by the user. Publishing companies would love to annul the secondary market in books – imagine that the book you bought could not be re-sold or given as a gift, except under very limited circumstances. Life itself is increasingly unsecurable without the ramifying Internet, yet it is also increasingly out of the hands, entirely, of the end user. We may play at pirates on the net, but the true Pirate captains sit secure on their billions and on our faces and pay for pirate catchers to make their raids on lesser fry.

“The invocation of a “natural status” to these objects seems to refer to the tradition of natural law in which the invocation of “occupancy rights,” or jus nullius, accords a right of first occupancy onto a “personal good.” It is this juridical rationale that was used to legalize the colonial appropriation of lands decreed “virgin.” Marx exploits the paradoxical logic of the argument: if property is not legitimated by an activity that transforms the object (through mixing with labor, as it is with Locke), then the right of occupation derives from an initial stroke of force (a “seizure of the land” in the case of colonial conquests).”

Eyal Weizman, who founded the Forensic Architecture group in Tel Aviv and London, has studied the seizure of Palestinian land on the West Bank by Israeli “settlers”. Even the terms are taken from the golden age of colonization, and one sees the same set of laws and changing of laws to justify seizure and control:

“As for security, up until 1979 the legal tools that the government used in order to seize land and build settlements were based on the 4th Geneva Convention, to which Israel is a signatory. The convention states that you are not allowed to build permanent settlements on occupied land, but you are allowed to build temporary interventions for security reasons. What the government was claiming was that the settlements were temporary paramilitary posts.”

After 1979, however, as the Israeli government became settler oriented, they needed a new set of rules to displace the Palestinian population. So they came up with them:

“The government had to opt for another legal tool because they could not build settlements and argue that they were temporary strategic military outposts. They said, OK, we can rely on Jordanian law and start a project of land registry. The West Bank had not had a land registry since Ottoman times, and if you look at Ottoman land laws, you did not have real land ownership. You would just pay tax for what you cultivated. Nobody wanted to own anything beyond what he was growing on, because that is what you paid tax on. If someone fenced off a hilltop, he didn’t register it because that would just mean more taxes. So basically Israel was collecting Ottoman tax documents to establish ownership and map out the extent of cultivated lands. Whatever land could be proven to be under continuous cultivation remained in private Palestinian ownership, and the rest was declared state land according to Jordanian law, which was based on Ottoman law.”

Jordanian law, based on Ottoman law, was applied by Israel for Israelis on territory seized from Jordan. As always in colonizing situations, the law exists to displace the indigenous people. There are times that the lawgivers forget and extol the “universality” of the law, but they are soon pulled back to their true task. The war in Gaza, whenever it ends, will surely be followed by the seizure of Gaza land in the North by the Israelis. Nobody will raise a hand or make a fuss about that. Gaza is, after all, not Eastern Ukraine, where the West has discovered the morality of resisting conquest and illegitimate seizure.

Interestingly, the “vacant” land on the West Bank, and the overthrowing of hundreds of years of Palestinian boundary making and common land usage, is basically, with little transformation, the same think Karl Marx encountered in Cologne. This is a larger and more complex thing, historically, than it appears to be in Capital, which is devoted to another historical moment in the system of alienated labour. And it is wrong to attempt to mark it as a primitive starting point for capital accumulation – it is a cyclical phenomenon that emerges again and again in all capitalist systems.

Biden goes the GW Bush route

 The Bidenists are sounding more and more like the Bushies of yore. Not just the immorality of the policy in the Middle East, but the absolute blindness to the possibility of blowback. Blowback knocked down the two largest towers in NYC and slammed into the Pentagon. Blowback blew up the Atocha station in Spain, and gave us the Charlie Hebdo massacre, the Bataclan massacre and the Nice massacre in France. But now we are to believe that crushing a million Gazans like so many earthworms will have no larger effect in the world.

The Bidenists are as braindead as the Bushies if they accept this story. And, like the Bushies, they will be confounded if something happens. And will rush to embrace the most fascist but country club sounding Republican. It is as predictable as the most tired TV series.

Meanwhile, in France they are actually going to be sponsoring an Olympics in the city I live in, Paris. As if we can tra la la our way between shipping weapons to Israel from Marseilles and giving little Commander Macron an opportunity to bla bla bla. The political elite is brain dead.

Asking day 2

 

Another day, another thousands of starving Gaza children, another vigorous social media argument between the well nourished: would Trump be worse for the Palestinians than Biden? Perhaps we should ask this child, Leila Jeneid. Her starvation is graphically photographed in the Daily Mail.

Leila Jeneid is lightly skipped over by the NYT today. I don't mean that they lowered themselves by mentioning her. If she has not been discovered by a rightwing Israeli quasi-journalist and propagandist Anat Schwartz, she doesn't exist. Instead, the NYT has moved on to the post-war. Goodbye, starving kids.

In an article about drafting orthodox young men into the Israeli army – much more interesting than mere famine – the NYT provides a fascinating view of its own politics:

"A new Israeli government led by centrists is unlikely to take a markedly different approach to the war in Gaza, but it may be more open to allowing the Palestinian leadership in the Israeli-occupied West Bank to play a bigger role in Gaza after the war. That arrangement could create a more conducive environment for Israel to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia, which had edged closer to sealing diplomatic ties with Israel before the war broke out."

Ah Bidenism! This is north star guiding the Biden administration, providing the bandage of a quisling Palestinian administration absolutely in the power of Israel while bringing together our best friends – the tyrants of Saudi Arabia and the fascists of Israel! Why, the lion will lie down with the lion after eating the lamb’s guts, eyes, face, legs and tail.

It is a happy world, and one in which there will be no consequences for mass murder in Gaza.

Well, beyond the criminality of this point of view, we are back once again to pure Bushism. The entire Iraq occupation – which the NYT was all for - was about wishing away the present, subtracting it from the if-then calculations about the future, and substituting a free trade utopia, where the oil companies flowed like wine. Democracy was in the air, as long as the democracy didn’t represent the real wishes of the Iraqis, which would be just awful. Plan after plan was earnestly discussed by the Bush Vulcans, and reverently reported on by the best and the brightest NYT reporters.

There's a teensy weensy problem, though, with subtracting the present from one's calculations about the future. It leads to completely futile and insane conclusions.

But heck, that is negative thinking! And thus, the perfect fit for the DC-Centrist press mindset is going great guns in America, save on the nasty social media. And the solution to that is simply to ban Tik Tok. I mean, the low information voter might get the idea that their leaders are war criminals with the ability to calculate of broken ChatGPTs. And that would lead to conspiracy thinking and such!

So here we go again. While all the kids starve to death.

Asking

Yesterday, I watched a very sparkly Biden official, who looked like he had just come from the Ken-at-High-School-UN box, answer questions from a very well fed looking journalist. The questions were about what the UN ceasefire resolution meant, whether it was binding, what the U.S. was doing, etc.

All very edifying – like a debate in an insane asylum.

Rather than questions about the “ongoing” talks at Doha and the politics of the UN, the questions should have gone a totally different direction.

Ask the Biden suit how long he, personally, has ever gone without eating.

Ask the Biden suit what he would feel if he saw his five, ten year old child lose twenty pounds in a week. Ask him how much nutrition for a two year old can be derived from soupy rice in a small bowl delivered once a day. Ask if he has ever fed a child. Ask if he would be willing to propose, to the delegates at Doha, that they all eat the same diet as the average person in Rafah. Ask if he would be willing to rush forward for his one meal a day while being shot at. Propose that the only meals the Doha conference attendees can receive be parachuted into Doha. Ask whether he would feel safe getting those parachuted in meals if he was aware that the same area might be bombed five to ten minutes later, after the drop. Ask the Biden suit how he would feel about his child having his or her leg amputated in a hospital where soldiers were shooting people in the hall. Ask the suit how he would feel if the doctor amputating the legs of his five year old daughter were halted in midcourse, taken out into the hall, and executed. Ask him if he would feel very peaceful and warm about the people who did that. Ask the suit whether he has ever studied the psychology of starvation. Ask the suit whether he would feel it was totally just to consider his 18 year old son a fair target for marksmen, because he is potentially a military recruit. Ask how often he has drunk muddy water from a rusty can. Ask what he would think about the delegates at Doha being limited to drinking muddy water from rusty cans.

Ask if he is human. Ask if anybody sitting at the conference asking questions about the “process” is human.

Ask if he would mind if all the questioners threw up in disgust at the little play they are putting on. Ask about the stink of that vomit, and how he think it compares to the stink of the hospitals that are under attack, or the stink of the buildings in which bodies are crushed in Northern Gaza. Ask if the question of those smells ever come up at the ceasefire conference at Doha.
Ask.