Re: new immanence - Chirac cheats!

On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 Threehegemons@aol.com wrote:

> A few notes--I'm beginning to wonder about this dichotomy I keep
> hearing--immanence, good; transcendence, bad.  I thought postmodernity
> was supposed to deconstruct binary oppositions.  In the nineties, we
> always heard constructivism, good; essentialism, bad--whatever happened
> to that one?

Precisely.  'Immanence' vs. 'Transcendence' doesn't actually mean
anything, because both are relative terms.  Politics as the domain of pure
immanence would imply that any sort of mediation (like talking to other
people) is irrelevant, because communion is immediately attained by the
multitude.  Hence the joy and lightness of being communist implies the
disappearance of all responsibility for fashioning mediatory techniques.
To my mind, Bruno Latour makes far more sense on the subject of
transcendence/immanence than H/N.


-- 
Boris Stremlin
bstremli@binghamton.edu