Monthly Archives: August 2013



PART THREE: The Camp As Biopolitical Paradigm of the Modern


Chapter 1: The Politicization of Life

Keywords: biopolitics, camp, totalitarian state, subjectivication (?), la volonte, parliamentary democracy, state of exception, habeas corpus, feudal relations, citoyen, polar character of democracy, mass democracy


  • Foucault: Biopolitics = the growing illusion of man’s natural life in the mechanisms and calculations of power.
  • Man’s existence as a living being is questioned, the individual objectifies oneself, is constituted as subject while simultaneously being tied to an external control power.
  • There is a link between life conditions of the camp and the totalitarian rule: not just an ambition towards global rule but an attempt at complete domination.
  • The labs in this experiment towards complete domination are the concentration camps, based on the notion that total dominion over human nature can only be achieved under hellish circumstances…
  • The intimate merge of modern politics with bare life results in the loss of any intelligibility that may characterize the juridico-political basis of classical politics.



  • The contiguity between mass democracy and totalitarian states was not something sudden but rather a hidden and continuous process in the life of the homo sacer.
  • Every decisive political event however has been double sided: any liberty or right won by individuals through their conflict with central power served at the same time as a stepping stone towards an increasing inscription of the individuals’ lives in the state order. New bases where created to support the very sovereign power they seeked to be free from…
  • Biological life and its needs become a political defensive fact and thus twentieth century parliamentary democracies turned into totalitarian states and today’s totalitarian states where switched back to parliamentary democracies with relative ease.
  • In both cases biopolitics was involved in the sense that the decisions made where based on the question of which of the two states would best benefit the care, control and use of bare life.
  • The camp appears here as the purest biopolitical space all the while remaining a hidden paradigm of the political space of modernity.



  • The habeas corpus is a formula used to assure the physical presence of a person before a court of law and has at its center neither the subject of feudal relations, nor the citoyen but rather purely the corpus.
  • The Magna Carta stated that “No free man may be arrested, imprisoned, disposed of his goods, or placed outside the law or molested in any way; we will not place our hands on him nor have others place their hands on him, except after a legal judgment by his peers according to the law of the realm.”
  • However all that was considered the new subject of politics was the corpus, the body, upon which democracy was based.
  • Once again the homo sacer and the concept of bare life come into focus. Modern democracy does not obliterate sacred life but it does disseminate it into every individual body, making it the point of interest in political conflict.
  • Corpus becomes a two faced being: both the bearer of subjection to sovereign power and that of individual liberties. The new sovereign subject is now constituted through the repetition of the sovereign exception and the isolation of the bare body in himself.
  • Man is not only  a natural body but also a body of the city and it is precisely the body’s ability to be killed that founds both the natural equality of men and the necessity of the “Commonwealth”.


Chapter 2: Biopolitics and the Rights of Man

Keywords: imperialism, refugee, home/citoyen, nation-state, sovereign subject, citizen/citizenship, civil rights, active/passive rights, nativity, nationality, extermination, denationalize, humanitarian, social mission, solidarity, sacred life, biopolitical manifesto of modernity, sadomasochism.



  • The fate of the rights of man and that of the nation-state seem to be linked.

This paradox finds its place in the face of the refugee based on the supposition that conception of human rights should be based on the assumed existence of a human being that having lost everything has only the quality of still being human.

  • In the nation-state the rights of man lack every protection and reality at the moment in which they can no longer take the form of rights belonging to citizens of a state.
  • In the “declaration des droits de l’homme e du citoyen” (declaration of the rights of man and citizen) it is not clear whether the two concepts (homme and citoyen) are separate or if the second already includes the first.
  • Examining the text of the 1789 Declaration: The pure fact of birth appears to be the source of human rights. Nevertheless, the biopolitics of modernity seem to take away that right and bury it in the figure of the citizen, in whom rights are preserved  and thus sovereignty is attributed to the nation.
  • Declaration of rights is seen therefore as the place of passage from divinely authorized royal sovereignty to national sovereignty.
  • The principle of nativity and the principle of sovereignty are united in the form of the sovereign subject… However there is an obvious fiction to all this: birth becomes nation and rights are attributed to man so long as he is a citizen and not because he is a human.
  • Consequently human rights are now separated in two categories: the natural and civil rights for whose preservation society is formed and are called passive rights and  the political rights by which society is formed and are called active rights. All people in a country must enjoy the passive rights but as it turns out not all enjoy the active rights…
  • In biopolitics the threshold of what belongs to which category and what position man holds amongst all this is constantly shifting and in need of adjustment.
  • Refugees are such a pain to the order of the modern nation-state because they break the continuity between man and citizen, nativity and nationality and in this bring a crisis to sovereignty.
  • The refugee, should be the ultimate man of rights considering that all he has left is bare life… The fact that their life has wound up being “sacred life” that is life that can be killed but not sacrificed has put them in the position of being objects of aid and protection.


Chapter 3: Life That Does Not Deserve to Live


Emilie Autumn – The Art Of Suicide


Keywords: suicide, euthanasia, sovereign over self

There is a great debate going on concerning the right to take life from one deemed “unfit” to live it…. The individual’s right to suicide seems self-explanatory if we consider sovereignty over self and agree that each person has the right to end his or her life when they see fit. However the debate remains on whether or not should be extended to the lives of others in the form of euthanasia when a person is either suffering physically or mentally, terminally ill or considered (by whom??? Who can take it on them to make such a decision???) to lead a life without value.  In Nazi times elimination of the unwanted, those considered not pure enough to belong to the Arian race, was camouflaged into euthanasia… So all I can say is that the debate remains a loooong and very unclear one but at the same time the sovereign decision on bare life is not a simple political thing but resides on a more ambiguous terrain involving a multitude of sovereigns over different areas…




Syria’s child refugees: ‘You feel that they have lost their hearts’


Refugee Art


Art, ingenuity + refugees: Syed Safdar Ahmed at TEDxParramatta


 16×9 : Taking Mercy: Euthanasia debate



Two undiscovered amerindians visit…

mass grave

refugee mass grave in evros greece

patras refugee


He who can be killed...

He who can be killed…


I am not sure how all this can apply to my work… I am opposed to any form of violence and I consiser deception to be one of those forms… The only thing that does not bother me as much is self inflicted violence provided the individual is mentaly stable and knows what they are doing… I believe in ones sovereignty over the self… I believe in the right to suicide thought it pains me because I have had it happen close to home… I do not know about euthanasia…. When another is involved there are no guarantees that one assisting will not be scarred for life…

And still I do not know…. Refugies I have met, I have had tea and talked with them in their “hidding place”. I have had a daily window washing ritual with two or three of them only to have them lost a while later when the Greek police decided to drag them off to modern day concentration camps… I even tried to warn them once when I heard ahead of time but I was too late… My family is family of immigrants… I do not understand the fear, the violance, the exclusion. But when those migrating are met with all that I do understand why their survival instict would kick in and make them fight back. And then others feel more threatened and the vicious cycle continues…  There is a lot I do not understand, but I guess the mere fact that I am engaged in my everyday life, that all these issues are nagging me in the back of my head, DOES in fact influence my work… SO perhaps the thing I should do differently is acknowledge it, take it a concious step further, do the thing I have been afraid to do: include the real life every day HOMO SACER in my art…


Goodnight cruel world…

HOMO SACER PART TWO – schrodinger’s cat…


PART TWO: Homo Sacer

I having a very hard time with this book and the second part was worse than the first… So I will try my best to bullet-point my way through it …


Here is an appropriate in my opinion soundtrack…

HOARFROST – Homo Sacer –> As far as I have understood this music really puts into sound what I have come to feel as HOMO SACER… Destitute, with no choice…


CHAPTER 1: Homo Sacer

Keywords: homo sacer, sacred, sacrificed, impune occidi, neque fas est eum immolari,

  • Sacred – sacrificed: the same root… The sacrificed man is killed because he is sacred? His killing is not homicide.
  • Pompeius Festus: The sacred man has been judged on account of his crimes and condemned. Thus no one will be prosecuted for killing him, it will not be considered homicide. The bad/impure man is called sacred.
  • H. Bennett: Festus’ definition seems to deny the very thing implied by the term. The person whom anyone can kill with impunity is not to be put to death according to ritual practices.
  • Ambrosius Theodosius Macrobious (Saturnalia): Sacrum = what is destined to the Gods. BUT it appears proplematic enough to need explaining: While it is forbidden to violate any sacred thing whatsoever it is allowed to kill the sacred man…
  • Impune occidi = to be killed with impunity
  • Neque fas est eum immolari = put to death according to ritual practices


  • Unpunishability of his killing + ban on his sacrifice…
  • Homo sacer is at the intersection of a ability to be killed but not sacrificed.

He is outside both human AND divine law.



Chapter 2: The Ambivalence of the Sacred


Keywords: taboo, ambiguity, concecration


  • The theory of the ambivalence of the sacred is the scientific mythologeme weighing down on, among other social phenomena, the origin of sovereignty.
  • There came a time when society had lost its connection to religious tradition and began to express its own unease.
  • Smith: “alongside of taboos that exactly correspond to rules of holiness, protecting the inviolability of idols and sanctuaries, priests and chiefs, and generally of all persons and things pertaining to the gods and their worship, we find another kind of taboo which in the Semitic field has its parallel in rules of uncleanness. Women after child-birth, men who have touched a dead body and so forth are temporarily taboo and separated from human society, just as the same persons are unclean in Semitic religion. In these cases the person under taboo is not regarded as holy, for he is separated from approach to the sanctuary as well as from contact with men. … In most savage societies no sharp line seems to be drawn between the two kinds of taboo just indicated, and even in more advanced nations the notions of holiness and uncleanness often touch.”
  • Shows examples of ambiguity, among them the “ban” and puts forward the impossibility of separating the Semitic doctrine of the holy from the impurity  of the taboo system.
  • Ambiguity of the “ban” = excludes in including
  • The ambivalence of the sacred has no difficulty extending itself over every d
  • Wilhelm Max Wuntd: The concept of taboo exposes the indistinction between sacred and impure that characterized the most archaic period of human history.

Sacred horror: mixture of veneration and horror…

  • Ancient powers replaced by Gods: this ambivalence gives way to the opposition of sacred and impure.
  • “To be sure, the sentiments provoked by the one and the other are not identical: disgust and horror are one thing and respect another. Nonetheless, for actions to be the same in both cases, the feelings expressed must not be different in kind. In fact, there actually is a certain horror in religious respect, especially when it is very intense; and the fear inspired by malignant powers is not without a certain reverential quality. . . The pure and the impure are therefore not two separate genera, but rather two varieties of the same genus that includes sacred things. There are two kinds of sacred things, the auspicious and the inauspicious. Not only is there no clear border between these two opposite kinds, but the same object can pass from one to the other without changing nature. The impure is made from the pure, and vice versa. The ambiguity of the sacred consists in the possibility of this transmutation.”
  • Psycologization (there IS NO SUCH WORD) of religious experience.
  • A sacred that coincides with the concept of the obscure and the impenetrable; celebrates the union of a theology that has lost all experience of the real world with a philosophy that has abandoned all sobriety in the face of feeling.
  • Freud: “Totem and Taboo”: Theory of ambivalence based on anthropology, psychology and linguistics.
  • Fowler: Liks homo sacer with the concept of taboo since it is a curse that falls upon one making him an outcast, a banned man, a personified taboo.
  • Alfred Ernout – Meillet: Sacer =  a person or thing that one cannot touch without dirtying oneself. A guilty person consecrated to the Gods of the underworld.
  • “There is a moment in the life of concepts when they lose there  immediate intelligibility and can then, like all empty terms, be overburdened with contradictory meanings. For the religious phenomenon, this moment coincides with the point at which anthropology – for which the ambivalent terms mana, taboo and sacer are absolutely central – was born at the end of the last century.
  • “only an attentive and unprejudiced delimitation of the respective fields of the political and the religious will make it possible to understand the history of their intersection and complex relations. It is important, in any case, that the originary juridico-political dimension that presents itself in homo sacer not be covered over by a scientific mythologeme that not only explains nothing but is itself in need of explanation.”


Chapter 3: Sacred Life

Keywords: law of homicide, profane, sacred, divine, jurisdiction, topological structure, penal law.


  • The structure of sacratio arises from the conjunction of two traits: the unpunishability of killing and the exclusion from sacrifice.
  • Impune occidi takes the form of an exception from the law of homicide ( = “If someone intentionally kills a free man, may he be considered a murderer”).
  • The neque fas est eum immolari takes the form of an exception fron any type of ritual killing.
  • Consecrato usually brings an object from the profane to the sacred. BUT in the case of the homo sacer the person is set outside human jurisdiction without entering the divine law. He is excluded from both.
  • The topological structure drawn by this double exception is that of a double exclusion and a double capture, much like that of the sovereign exeption (and Schrodinger’s Cat.)

dead and alive

  • “Life that cannot be sacrificed and yet may be killed is sacred life”.
  • The status of the homo sacer is defined by the particular character of this double exclusion into which he is placed along with the violence to which he finds himself exposed.
  • This violence, the potential to be killed neither as a sacrifice nor as a homicide opens a sphere of human action that is neither sacred nor profane.
  • The structure of the sovereign and the structure of the sacratio seem to be connected in the sense that one is brought to a place beyond both penal law and sacrifice.
  • The sovereign and the homo sacer are symmetrical figures of the same structure: the sovereign is the one in respect to whom all men are homines sacri and the homo sacer is the one in respect to whom all men act as sovereigns.


Chapter 4 “Vitae Necisque Potestas”

Keywords: authority, pater, bare life, sacred life

  • Foucault: Characteristic privilege of sovereign power = the right to decide life and death.
  • The first time we encounter the expression “right over life and death” in the history of the law is in the phrase “vitae necisque potestas” meaning not sovereign power but the unconditional authority of the pater (father figure) over his sons.
  • Life appears in Roman law as the counterpart of a power threating death.

It is absolute, to be understood neither as the sanction of a crime nor as the expression of the more general power that lies within the competence of the pater in his role as head of the domus (household).

  • Not to be confused with the power to kill or the dominance over servants.
  • Not simple natural life but life exposed to death (bare life of sacred life) is the original political element.
  • Every male citizen finds himself in the position of potentially being killed and at is in a way sacer in respect to his father.
  • The characteristic of not being possible to kill by ritual practices also puts the homo sacer right in the vitae necisque potestas.
  • There is an “incomparable bond” in all this that consists of including bare life in the juridico-political order. It is as if male citizens had to pay for their right to participate in the political life by way of placing themselves in the position of potentially being killed, by unconditionally subjecting themselves to a power of death.

eee eeee

At this point my understanding of what I was reading diminished even more… After reading and re-reading chapters 5 and 6 all I acquired was a head-ache, a grumpy άι σιχτήρ mood and one moment of clarity in which I realized I am an artist not a law student and part of my critical approach to these assigned readings is knowing when to stop, despite any deadline an taka a step back. When the point comes when I am losing more than I am gaining by reading it is time to stop and leave it to be revisited at a later time, with a clear head. And yes, I did push myself to my limits and beyond, that I feel confident to say, acknowledging nevertheless that when my brain is more rested those limits will be further away after this intensive week of reading things I am not used to. So perhaps, in response to how I need to change my way of thinking, the path seems to be experimenting with persistence with tools I am not accustomed to. Nine times out of ten they will yield nothing, but that tenth time??? Well that gotta be MAGICAL!!! And perhaps the principle of Schrodingers Cat has the potential (to speak in terms we’ve been reading) of being the concept behind a performance project….HMMMMM


And FYI I hear a smaaall sound at the back of my head… Could it be my little grey cells multiplying!?!?!!??!






Marie de France, translated Judith P. Shoaf ©1996
Since I’m making lais, Bisclavret
Is one I don’t want to forget.
In Breton, “Bisclavret”‘s the name;
“Garwolf” in Norman means the same.
Long ago you heard the tale told–
And it used to happen, in days of old–
Quite a few men became garwolves,
And set up housekeeping in the woods.
A garwolf is a savage beast,
While the fury’s on it, at least:
Eats men, wreaks evil, does no good,
Living and roaming in the deep wood.
Now I’ll leave this topic set.1
I want to tell you about Bisclavret.
In Brittany there dwelt a lord;
Wondrous praise of him I’ve heard:
A handsome knight, an able man,
He was, and acted like, a noble man.
His lord the King held him dear,
And so did his neighbors far and near.
He’d married a worthy woman, truly;
Always she acted so beautifully.
He loved her, she him: they loved each other.
But one thing was a bother:
Every week he was lost to her
1In the introduction, Marie juxtaposes, but distinguishes, the historical action recorded by songs (the
activities of real werewolves) and the action of making the songs or stories. Compare the beginning of
Equitan, which seems to be going to tell us how noble the deeds of the Bretons were, but ends up praising
their lais rather than their actions. In introducing Bisclavret, Marie is, again, seriously teasing the reader:
what terrible beasts these garwolves were! Cruel, wild man-eaters… who then can blame the wife in the
story for not wanting to sleep with her husband? Yet Marie lightly dissociates the garwolf myth from her
own tale (“now I will drop this matter, because I want to tell you the story of Bisclavret”). As the story
continues, the reader is forced to contrast the wife’s rejection of her husband for his beastliness with the
king’s admiration of the same creature for his humanity. The horror the garwolf arouses in the introduction
turns out to be irrelevant to this tale, in which the real horror is the woman who betrays the man she has
loved.For three whole days, she didn’t know where,
What became of him, what might befall
Him; his people knew nothing at all.
He came home to his house one day,
So joyous he was, happy and gay;
She began to ask him and inquire:
“My lord,” she said, “my friend, my dear,
There’s just one thing I might care
To ask, if only I might dare–
But I’m afraid that you’ll get angry,
And, more than anything, that scares me.”
He hugged her when he heard all this,
Drew her close and gave her a kiss.
“My lady,” he said, “Ask me now!
Anything you want to know,
If I can, I’ll tell you.” “Sir,
By my faith, you work my cure.
My lord, I’m in terror every day,
Those days when you’ve gone away,
My heart is so full of fear,
I’m so afraid I’ll lose you, dear–
If I don’t get some help, some healing,
I will die soon of what I’m feeling!
Where do you go? Now you must say
What life you live, where do you stay?
You are in love–that’s it, I know–
And you do wrong if this is so!”
“My lady,” he said, “Please, God above!
I’ll suffer great harm if I tell you:
I’ll drive you off, right out of love,
And lose my own self if I do.”
The lady heard how he refused.
She was not the least amused.
She brought it up again, and often
She would flatter him and cozen
Him to tell her his adventure–
Till, hiding nothing, he told her.
“My lady, I turn bisclavret;
I plunge into that great forest.
In thick woods I like it best.
I live on what prey I can get.”
When he’d told her all the storyShe asked, inquired one thing more: he
Undressed?2 Or what did he wear?
“My lady,” he said, “I go all bare.”
“Where are your clothes? Tell, for God’s sake.”
“My lady, I won’t say this, no;
For if I lost them by this mistake,
From that moment on, I’d know
I’d stay a bisclavret forever;
Nothing could help me, I’d never
Change back till I got them again.
That’s why I don’t want it known.”
“My lord,” the lady replied, “It’s true
More than all the world I love you.
You should hide nothing from me, nor
Ever doubt I’m loyal in any affair.
That would not seem like true friendship.
How have I ever sinned? What slip
Makes me seem untrustworthy to you?
Do what’s right! Now tell me, do!”
She nagged him thus, and thus harassed
Him till he just had to tell, at last.
“My lady,” he said, “near that wood,
Where I come home, along that road,
Standing there is an old chapel,
Which often serves me well.
The stone is there, hollow and wide,
Beneath a bush, dug out inside;
I put my clothes there under the bush
Until I can come back to the house.”
The lady heard this marvel, this wonder.
In terror she blushed all bright red,
Filled with fear by this adventure.
Often and often passed through her head
Plans to get right out, escape, for
She didn’t want ever to share his bed.
2 The verb “se despuille” is used (“undressed”); in lines 124, 268, and (as a rhyme word) 275, the noun
“despuille” refers to Bisclavret’s clothes (otherwise called “draps,” linen). “Depouille” in modern French is a
snake’s sloughed skin, a trophy animal hide, or spoils, booty of war; a dead body is a “depouille mortelle.”
While the word always could refer to clothes, it certainly seems the ideal word to suggest clothes as both a
unit, like skin itself, and clothes as the precious social identity that allows a man to be recognized as a man.A knight in that country there
Who long had loved the lady fair,
Begging her so, praying hard,
Giving generously to win her regard
(She had never loved him before this,
Nor let him think her love was his)–
She sent a messenger to bring
Him to her, and told him everything.
“My friend, my dear,” she said, “be glad!
You’ve been tormented, driven, sad
Wanting what I’ll give you today–
No-one will ever say you nay–
I grant you my love and my body, too:
Take me, make me your lover, you!”
He thanks her very gratefully.
He takes her pledge made solemnly–
She swears an oath on the engagement.
Then she told him how her lord went
Away, and what he turned into.
The path he’d always taken to
Enter the forest–this she shows;
She sent him to get his clothes.
Thus was Bisclavret betrayed
And by his own wife waylaid.
Having lost him so often, indeed,
Everyone generally agreed
That he had finally left for good.
He was looked for, inquiries pursued,
But they couldn’t find a trace.
Finally they closed the case.
The lady’s marriage was celebrated
To the fellow who’d loved and waited.
So, a whole year, matters rest,
Until the King went hunting one day.
He went straight to the forest
Where the bisclavret used to stay.
When the hounds were loosed and let
Run, they found the bisclavret.
They chased him always that long day,The huntsmen and the coursing dogs,
Till they had him–almost–at bay
And they would have torn him to rags,
But then he picked out the King
And ran there for mercy. To beg,
He seizes the King’s stirrup-ring,
And kisses his foot and leg.
The King sees this, and feels great fear;
He calls all his companions over.
“My lords,” he says, “come, come here!
Behold this marvel, see this wonder.
How this beast bows down to me!
Its3 sense is human. It begs for mercy.
Drive me those dogs away again,
See that no-one strikes a blow!
This beast understands, feels like a man.
Let’s get going! You’re all too slow!
To the beast my peace I’ll grant.
Now, no more today will I hunt.”
With that, the King turns and goes.
The bisclavret follows him close;
It won’t escape, it stays right near.
Losing him is its only fear.
The King leads it back to his castle keep;
It pleases him, his delight is deep
For he’s never seen such a creature.
He’s decided it’s a marvel of nature,
And treats it as a great treasure.
He tells his people it’s his pleasure
For them to take the best of care
Of it; let no-one harm it, or dare
To strike it, for love of the King.
It must be fed well and given drink.
They’re all glad to care for and keep
It; every day it goes to sleep
3 At first, I use “it” to refer to the werewolf as seen by the king; at the point when the lady’s husband
enters the picture, I return to the masculine pronoun. In French, and therefore in Marie’s text,, there is no
neuter pronoun; the King refers to Bisclavret as “la bête” (feminine) and so uses feminine pronouns, while
Marie calls him “Le Bisclavret” (masculine) and uses masculine pronouns. Later, the King’s adviser uses
the feminine word “beste” but continues to use the masculine pronoun for Bisclavret. So my “it”
corresponds to Marie’s “she.”Among the knights, close to the King.
Every man thinks it a precious thing,
For it’s so gentle, well-bred, polite,
It never would do what isn’t right.
Wherever the King might go
It didn’t want to be separated, so
It went along with him constantly.
That it loved him was easy to see.
Now listen to what happened next.
The King was holding court; he’d asked
That all his barons attend him,
Those who owed their land to him,
To help him hold his high feast-day,
And see him served in a royal way.
That very knight came to the feast,
Well equipped and richly dressed,
Who had married Bisclavret’s wife.
He never thought nor reckoned
To find him so close in his life.
He came to the palace; the second
That Bisclavret saw him standing around,
He made for him with a single bound,
Bit into him and dragged him off.
He would have treated him very rough
If the King hadn’t called him back
And threatened him with a stick.
He tried to bite him twice before night.
Many folks were amazed at the sight;
For never had he acted this way
To any man he’d seen, until this day.
All those of the household insist
There must be a reason he’s doing this.
He’s hurt him, gave him some offense–
For he’d be glad to take vengeance.
This time he lets it drop
Until the feast has broken up
And the lords take leave; each baron
Returns to his home, one by one.
The knight has left, I happen to know,
Among the very first to go,
He whom Bisclavret attacked;He hates him4–not a surprising fact.
Some time later (not very long,
I think, unless I heard it wrong),
The King went riding in the wood,
That courteous King, so wise and good,
That wood where they’d found Bisclavret,
And he came along with him. At
Night, time to retire for the day,
In a country lodging he lay.
Bisclavret’s wife knew it; she dressed
Herself in her attractive best,
Next day, to go speak to the King–
Sent him a gift, some costly thing.
When Bisclavret saw her entrance,
No man could have held him back;
He ran like mad to the attack–
Listen now to his fine vengeance:
He tore her nose right off her face.
Could anything be worse than this is?
Now they surround him in that place,
They’re ready to cut him in pieces,
When a wise fellow tells the King,
“My Lord,” he says, “Hear what I say:
It’s with you this beast’s been living
And every one of us here today
Has watched him a long time; beside
Him we’ve traveled far and wide.
He’s never before hurt anyone,
Or shown a criminal disposition,
Except to this lady you see here.
By the faith I owe you, it’s clear
He holds some grudge or other
Against her and her lord together.
This is the wife of that knight who
Used to be so dear to you,
Who was lost such a long time ago;
What happened to him, we don’t know.
4As so often in the Lais, the antecedents for subject and object pronouns of the same gender can often be
distinguished only by using common sense: “He feared him” must be the knight fearing Bisclavret, while
“He hated him” is Bisclavret hating the knight.Now try this lady with some torture,5
And see if she doesn’t have more to
Tell you why the beast hates her!
If she knows, make her say it!
Many strange things we see occur
In Brittany, early and late.”
With this advice the King agrees.
On the one hand, the knight they seize;
The lady’s taken, on the other,
And seriously made to suffer.
From pain just as much as from fear,
She told him her lord’s whole affair:
How she’d betrayed him, she said,
And taken away the clothes that he shed,
The adventure he’d told, so she’d know,
What he became and where he’d go.
Since she’d stolen all his linen,
In his lands he’d not been seen;
But she believed–her mind was set–
The beast was indeed Bisclavret.
The King wants the clothes on the spot;
Whether the lady wants to or not
She has them brought back out
And given to the Bisclavret.
They set them down in front of his nose,6
But Bisclavret ignores the clothes.
That wise fellow speaks to the King,
Who’d given the other advice, too:
“Sire, you’re doing the wrong thing.
He will never make the least
Move to get dressed in front of you
And change from the form of a beast.
This is terrible–you don’t know–
5 It’s not clear how the words “en destreit” (“in torture”) and “destresce” (“suffering, pain,” lines 264-65)
should be taken; is it a matter of merely arresting the wife and questioning her, or of administering some
form of physical torture? In line 264, she is put to “mut grant destresce,” which suggests that there are
degrees of unpleasantness in whatever “destresce” is. “They grilled her” might be the closest possible
6 In line 279, “in front of his nose” is my addition to Marie’s “devant lui” (“in front of him”); rhyming “nose”
and “clothes” was just too tempting.Something he’s far too ashamed to show.
Have him taken to your own room,
And his lost clothes brought with him;
A good long time, leave him alone;
Then we’ll see if he becomes a man.”
The King himself took Bisclavret
Inside, and closed all the doors tight;
He returned when the time was done.
He brought along two barons, not one.
They entered the chamber, all three.
On the king’s royal bed, they see
Lying fast asleep, the knight.
The king ran to hug him tight;
He kissed him a hundred times that day.
When he catches his breath, he hands
Him back all his fiefs and lands,
And more presents than I will say.
The lady, now, they expell
From that realm, from that time forward.
He goes with her, as well,
For whom she betrayed her lord.
She had plenty of children; grown,
They were, all of them, quite well-known,
By their looks, their facial assembly:
More than one woman of that family
Was born without a nose to blow,7
And lived denosed. It’s true! It’s so!
The adventure you have heard
Is true–don’t doubt a single word.
Of Bisclavret they made the lay,
To remember, forever and a day.
7 Similarly, “born without a nose to blow” is silly, but Marie’s
C’est verite, senz nes sunt nees
et si viveient esnasees
is sillier.




Homo Sacer


3d animation – SISYPHUS –>homo sacer sisyphus…


I keep reading and reading and all the while one recurring thought comes to mind… Schrodinger’s Cat…


shroedingers cat


He speaks about a cat in a box with vial of poison… The cat could break the vial and die at any moment… We can never know if that happened if we do not open the box… Therefore so long as the box remains closed the cat is both alive and dead and neither alive nor dead at the same time… I cannot exactly explain how that fits in with all the Zizek and Homo Sacer reading but I KNOW THAT IT DOES… And to top it off??? Today is his 126th birthday as I saw on the Google banner…. I rest my case…I have been talking about him all week, this CANNOT be a coincidence!





PART ONE: The Logic of Sovereignty

4.         Form of Law



Keywords: ban, abandonment

  • The law affirms itself with the greatest force precisely an the point where it no longer prescribes anything; as pure ban/abandonment.



Keywords: revelation, force, significance

  • Kafka: “The Nothing of Revelation”: a state in which revelation does not signify, yet still affirms itself by the fact that it is still in force.
  • Being in force without significance: the structure of the sovereign ban is that of a law that is in force but does not signify.



Keywords: modernity, respect, principle, transcendal object

  • Kant: being in force without significance first appeared in modernity.
  • Leaving the form of law force as an empty principle is both the strength but also the limit of Kant’s ethics. Being in force without significance in the realm of ethics is the equivalent of a transcendal object in the realm of knowledge.
  • The transcendal object is not a real object, just the idea of relation…
  • Respect = the condition of one living under a law that is in force without signifying.
  • Such a law, neither prescribes nor forbids any determined end. Therefore the motivation that a man has before a certain end is proposed to him can only be the respect inspired by the law itself.
  • Life in such a state is the equivalent of life in a state of exception. However in this case, the smallest mistake can have serious consequences.



Keywords: tradition of the oppressed

  • The traditionof the oppressed teaches us that the ‘state of exception’ in which we live is the rule.
  • There must come a point in history that corresponds to that fact; at that point we will have before us the task of creating the real state of exception.



Keywords: provocation, paradox

  • “No one else can enter here since this door was destined for you alone. Now I will go and shut it”
  • If one gives the name ‘provocation’ to the strategy that compels the potentiality of law to become actuality, then his (i.e. the youngster’s helping Christ enter a wide open doorway) is a paradoxical form of provocation. That is the only form of provocation adequate to a law that is in force without signifying or a door that allows no one to enter on account of being too open…
  • Generally when something is given to us too freely we tend to disregard it… We have the tendency to prefer things that are either hard to get or forbidden.
  • One of the paradoxes of the state of exception is that it is impossible to distinguish between transgression of the law and execution of the law.




Keywords: destitution, abandoned Being

  • One always abandons the law.
  • The destitution of the abandoned Being is measured by the limitless severity of the law to which it finds itself exposed.
  • Turned over to the absolute aspect of the law the abandoned one is thereby abandoned completely outside the law’s jurisdiction.
  • Abandonment respects the law, it has no choice.
  • The experience of abandonment is truly experienced as such only when it is free from every concept of law and destiny.



Keywords: oscillation, violence, counterviolence, sovereign violence

  • The oscillation between violence suggesting the law and violence in order to preserve the law resides in the fact all law preserving violence weakens the lawmaking violence through the suppression of hostile counterviolence.
  • The violence exercised in the state of exception neither preserves nor suggests the law, but rather conserves it in suspending it and proposes it in excepting itself from it.
  • Sovereign violence opens a zone of indistinction between law and nature, outside and inside, violence and law. However sovereign is precisely the one who maintains the possibility of deciding between the two up to the point of making them indistinguishable. As long as the state of exception is distinguished from the normal case, the dialectic between the violence that suggests law and the violence that preserves remains unbroken and the sovereign decision is simply a means of passing from one to the other.
  • Lawmaking pursues  as its end, with violence as its means, what is to be established as law.




PART ONE: The Logic of Sovereignty

3.         Potentiality and Law



Keywords: constituted power, constituting power

  • Constituting power   VS       Constituted power: the first is outside the state and the second is inside the state.
  • Constituting power is more and more reduced to the power of revision that is foreseen in the constitution.
  • Sovereign power presumes itself as the power of the state of nature (is that the same as the natural state???), which is maintained in a relationship of being banned from the state of law. In the same way, it also divides itself into constituting and constituted power all the while maintaining a relation to both by positioning itself precisely at their point of indistintion.



Keywords: alterity

  • During the French Revolution when sovereignty was demanded it resulted in a vicious cycle.
  • The problem was how to clearly differentiate constituting from constituted power.
  • The  fact, however, that constituting power is neither derived from nor limited to instituting the constituted order still fails to provide any real information the alterity of the constituting power in relation to sovereign power…




Keywords: dynamis, energeia, potentiality.

  • If constituting power stands for what Aristotle called “dynamis”(potential) and constituted power for what he called “energeia”(action) then the relationship between the two depends on how we perceive the existence and autonomy of potentiality.
  • According to Aristotle, potentiality proceeds actuality and conditions it, while at the same time remaining subordinate to it.
  • In order for potentiality to have an autonomous existence it needs to have the option of NOT passing into actuality, it needs to maintain the possibility of im-potentiality.
  • Potentiality sustains itself in relation to actuality in the form of its suspension. It is capable of an act but in not realizing that act it is sovereignly capable of its own im-potentiality.
  • Something is potential when it has the capability of both of being and of not being realized.


Potentiality, preschool graduation


Timon Beyes 8/8 – Creative Potentiality of Urban Space – Leuphana Digital School


Ο Αριστοτέλης και η ψυχή


Μια Ανάγνωση της Μοναδολογίας του Leibniz, Γ