Category Archives: the theory of bloom

the theory of bloom 1

“NOTHING is simple.  NOTHING is complex.  NOTHING is faceless . . . you cannot give NOTHING a face.  you can not articulate what NOTHING is. nor can we.”

“the BOOK is a dead form” . . . luckily, i’m reading this on the internet, a PDF–flat and virtual with the temptation to always click of to some other site or place on the internet–rather than a (physical) BOOK. “the great books have never ceased to be those which succeeded in _creating_ a community; in other words, the BOOK has always had its  existence _outside of the self_”.

on the train or bus, walking around town, we’re surrounded by strangers, “but we have had to prepare ourselves over the years, by scrupulously becoming perfect strangers to one another” . . . but strangers in a way that we dont mind, or absentmindedly, sharing anything and everything with. for example, overhearing personal, private (cell)phone conversations is nearly a daily occurrence.  in other words, as strangers, we are also “_completely intimate in this strangeness_”.

to comprehend the BLOOM (or more specifically, “the _face_ of the BLOOM”) means giving up the idea of not only the subject, but also of giving up the concept of objectivity.  STIMMUNG, then, is “a fundamental tonality of being”. “The BLOOM therefore _also_ names the spectral humanity, stray, unpleasantly vacant . . . the crepuscular being for which there is no longer either reality nor the self, but only the STIMMUNG.

“empty angels, creatures without creators, mediums without a message, we walk among the abyss.”  there is a nothing that links these together,  “but that NOTHING is the absolute reality before which everything in existence becomes ghostly.”
“Each is most estranged from himself”
“We evolve in a space that is entirely controlled, entirely _occupied_, by the SPECTACLE on the one hand and by BIOPOWER on the other.”  and this condition is one we cannot rebel against since the SPECTACLE “is the power that wants you to talk, that wants you to be _someone_”, even a rebel, while BIOPOWER is the (benevolent) “power that _wants you to live_”.  in other words, “we do not belong to ourselves, _this_ world is not _our_ world”.

“Indeed, we are nothing, nothing but the nothing around which revolves the movements of our ideas, our experiences, our miseries and our sensations”, or “I AM THE INTERMEDIARY BETWEEN THAT WHICH I AM AND THAT WHICH I AM NOT” which fills in (with nothing) the nothings left in JEHOVAH’s answer to moses when asked about HIS identity: “I AM THAT I AM”.  a being becoming (and un- becoming), the passage to becoming-other.  even in god’s description of  himself, the two I-AM’s separated between a THAT do not coincide.  rather, a double-articulation.  “_the BLOOM is the masked NOTHING_”, which is why it’s nothing to celebrate. reduced to bare-life, we find ourself “_formally separated_ from [our] existence as a member of the community.”  a double nothing of consumer and citizen.

from marx: “the reciprocal and all-sided dependence of individuals who are indifferent to one another forms their social connection.”  in a market-state, with all it’s freedoms, everything needs to be separated “into sterile fragments”.  in other words, an uprooting of real social connections so that relations between people take on the form of relations between things (or commodities).  banishment then becomes an ordinary situation.

now we’re on to metropolises (of separation) which combine the greatest number of persons located within a geographical space with the highest intensification of separation.  from this, the hipster: “the imperialist faction of the BLOOM” and “final consumer of existence”.