Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.64.0709110918140.8758@panix3.panix.com>
From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com>
To: Cyb <cybermind@listserv.aol.com>, Wryting-L <WRYTING-L@listserv.wvu.edu>
Subject: Mathesis of Killing Field
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:18:31 -0400 (EDT)
Mathesis of Killing Field It comes down to this: here is an organism of a particular species, or rather a sample or individual of that species, and here is a second organism of the same; call the first 2 and the second 1. Then 1 kills 2 for one or another reason, let us say for sexual-territorial reasons or reasons of anger or insanity. An entire world is lost with the death of 2 and this includes the family of 2 and friends of 2 who must now reorganize and divides the belongings or nest or nestlings of 2 which most likely, the last, will not survive. 1 kills 2 with its bare hands. Let us assume consciousness and ethos, then we will not have a problem with this equa- tion, the acquaintance-world of 2 may then retaliate. But I say 1 is a criminal and if there is justice in this world or any other, then 1 must be rendered impotent, that is the actions of 1 must be short-circuited, circumvented, 1 must be rendered useless, ridiculous, harmless. Let us say 1 has hired or imposed force upon 3 to kill 2, then let us hold 1 doubly responsible and 3 singly responsible. It comes down to an organism killing another organism and the implications of habitus, political economy, the social, on this action which is only, but not for 2, part of a train of actions, what we might call activity in general. I say 1 is a criminal and must be treated as such and the justification of 'war' is meaningless in this regard, if 1 is the violator, even given the activity. I say 1 must be rendered harmless. I say for example a president who sends people to war, who insists on war, is not only barbaric, but a criminal situating itself behind a bureaucracy, rewriting the languages of legality in order to create a situation otherwise known as murder. It is as simple, I say, as 1 over or through 2, that is a singularity within which 2 is stopped through no reason of hir own, that there is a chain between 1 and 2. I say as well that religion is not justice, religion is the enemy of justice, and no appeal subvents or justifies the elimination of 2, insofar as 1 has been aggressor, it does not matter what masquerades as results or interpretations, what masquerades as the deconstruction of the real, in this case destruction of the real, concrete, inert destruction. I say our enemy is among us, our enemy is a president who is doubly an enemy, first for war and actions against others, second for war and actions against ourselves, as if we have generated, and we have, this disease in our midst. Let us think of the habitus of 3, let us mourn 2, let us annihilate 1 who will continue its pyramid of annihilation until all is lost, until so much is lost that the losing and what is gone have been forgotten. Let us remember that a performative carries force, not the force of justice, which has no force, and that the blindness of justice is the only sight there is. Let us remember that all other sight is invested, and thereby corporate, even the other-sight of the pre-industrial, that only the other-side other-sight of the chthonic may remain speechless and true and just, the slight memory of 3, the deepest and most violent rape of 1, that 2 no longer figures into this broken equation. 1, 3, equivalence sutures across the pillage of the dead, equivalence no longer exists. I say let us remember equivalence and its hammer, neutral, neutral neutral. I say 2 is dead. http://www.asondheim.org/photoalp30.jpg
