to intervene, to For Lacoue-Labarthe and work commit themselves” (1997:97). Nancy’s of theory as the [Verwicklichung] pursues Heidegger’s recognition “supreme realisation of in is to be Nancy (1997) genuine practice” (cited Sparks, 1997:64). “What done”, argues, cannot be considered a separate problematic from theoretical determinations of what the world is and what hopes one may hold for its transformation. A positive, practical determination is as such precluded, as by necessity a politics proper to the thought of the retreat must only be the retreat itself; investigating and pursuing the withdrawal of political figures. This may nonetheless be proposed as a foregrounding of the or moreover a of the question of the question, holding open political. Such a proposal is not to be confused with critique (and it is here that the distinction with becomes further apparent); it implies rather the ‘governmentality’ inscription of figures as originarily As Nancy notes; uncertain. What will become of our world is something we cannot know, and we can no longer believe in being able to predict or command it. But we can act in such a way that this world is a world able to open itself up to its own uncertainty as such. (1997:158) In other words, we might seek to pursue this thought of the retreat; to inscribe a thought of withdrawal as the originary uncertainty of political figures. And we might also seek to oppose those politics that would, in a move described presently, obscure or neutralise this withdrawal in a or thus ‘will-to-figure’ ‘will-to-immanence’. Christopher Fynsk describes, referring to the primary terrain of this practice that will be addressed in this article, that of community and its withdrawal in the dispersal of communication, these
to intervene, to commit themselves” (1997:97). For Lacoue-Labarthe and Nancy’s work pursues Heidegger’s recognition of theory as the “supreme realisation [Verwicklichung] of genuine practice” (cited in Sparks, 1997:64). “What is to be done”, Nancy (1997) argues, cannot be considered a separate problematic from theoretical determinations of what the world is and what hopes one may hold for its transformation. A positive, practical determination is as such precluded, as by necessity a politics proper to the thought of the retreat must only be the retreat itself; investigating and pursuing the withdrawal of political figures. This may nonetheless be proposed as a foregrounding of the question, or moreover a holding open of the question of the political. Such a proposal is not to be confused with critique (and it is here that the distinction with ‘governmentality’ becomes further apparent); it implies rather the inscription of figures as originarily uncertain. As Nancy notes; What will become of our world is something we cannot know, and we can no longer believe in being able to predict or command it. But we can act in such a way that this world is a world able to open itself up to its own uncertainty as such. (1997:158) In other words, we might seek to pursue this thought of the retreat; to inscribe a thought of withdrawal as the originary uncertainty of political figures. And we might also seek to oppose those politics that would, in a move described presently, obscure or neutralise this withdrawal in a ‘will-to-figure’ or ‘will-to-immanence’. Christopher Fynsk thus describes, referring to the primary terrain of this practice that will be addressed in this article, that of community and its withdrawal in the dispersal of communication, these
s_kirwan.docx