Spitballing

What if they both had it “right”? Adorno with his constellations & Deleuze with his unmasking. Adorno with his negative dialectic that promoted a circulation between subject & object & Deleuze with his affirmative notion of difference & repetition manifested in a multiplicity of ideas? Both posit an infinite, non-teleological movement, but the former is firmly entrenched in the negative while the latter is just as stalwart for the affirmative. But what if the binary created between positive & negative was subservient to, or subsumed by, the force of movement itself: movement in-&-for-itself? Movement can be found in every discourse: speculative philosophy, in the aforementioned examples, in linguistics/semiotics with Derrida, & in identity/ethnic studies with Hollinger; movement has revolutionized Computer Sciences with the implementation of XML in Web 2.0 applications, &, most apparent, kinetics in the natural sciences: organic material depends upon movement to sustain itself (the heartbeat of a human being, or the shark’s need to constantly be swimming to sustain the proper circulation of oxygenated water through its gills—& if one views the biological from an ecological perspective, the finite movement of individual organisms that ceases upon expiration becomes infinite with its integration into the ecosystem as decomposing organic matter). But in all these examples, members of these respective fields treat movement simply as a functional subordinate implemented to promote another agenda.

What if, just as Marx “turned Hegel on his head,” the relationship movement shares with philosophy (& these other discourses) was “turned on its head”?

The only “school” of thought that I can think of based on movement was Futurism, but they were under the impression that movement necessarily contained a 1:1 correlation with violence. A quick glance at Marinetti’s “The Founding & the Manifesto of Futurism” confirms this: “danger,” “rebelliousness,”, & “aggression” litter the text throughout. Movement, far from being reduce to brutality, can be just as delicate as it can be fierce (the breath of a sleeping child or, even more radically, the gradual sedimentation of inorganic material); it seems as though Marinetti latched onto one extremity for his own ideological reasons (just as Mussolini & the Fascist party latched on to Marinetti & the Futurists for their own), as if drawing a caricture of movement so that the weight of its oversized head toppled the entire character. Movement, as a process unto itself & for itself would have to be amoral, apolitical, & encompass an entire continuum—from untravelable speed of light to the imperceptible transformation of earth into crude oil. Moreover, within the realm of philosophy, one could not use movement to create identity, but one’s identity could be created out of movement. Or, perhaps more precisely, movement could work upon individual objects to create an identity.

Or, consciousness for the sake of movement. Consciouness as a product, & for the perpetuation, of movement & movement alone.