A response to Jonah Dempcy – (Deleuze): “It was Nietzsche who said that nothing is ever free from a ‘nonhistorical cloud.’
“experiment (n.)
mid-14c., “action of observing or testing; an observation, test, or trial;” also “piece of evidence or empirical proof; feat of magic or sorcery,” from Old French esperment “practical knowledge, cunning; enchantment, magic spell; trial, proof, example; lesson, sign, indication,” from Latin experimentum “a trial, test, proof, experiment,” noun of action from experiri “to test, try” (see experience (n.))
experiment (v.)
late 15c., from experiment (n.). Intransitive sense by 1787. Related: Experimented; experimenting.”
Experiment – Online Etymology Dictionary
To inhabit the event, or to subject that eventuality to sequential knowledge, to commemorate it in some form of historical reflection?
Is this choice not contingent on a secret complicity?
What is an ‘event’ as an ‘event’?
What is this multiplexed object with “all its components or singularities”?
How does it arise, how is it conceived?
If “history amounts” to “only the set of preconditions” for this ‘event’, then it is assumed the ‘event’ is historically conditioned, a historical ‘effect’.
But, regarding the ‘event’, is not “going through all its components or singularities”, not itself the construction of another ‘history’, even if a personal & experiential one, inscribed on the ‘body’, a lived chronicle, unrecouped by the formalisations of grouped memory?
‘History’ is not possible without ‘events’ to sequence & recount.
The very essence of the eventual presupposes the sequential & the transitional.
If “Becoming isn’t part of history”; if incommensurable with that history; from where else does it derive the character of being ‘new’?
From the ‘experiencer’, whose ‘bodily history’ ‘feels’ the novelty?
In such a scenario, then, is it the case, that the character of ‘innovation’ occurs through a ‘recognition’, in which the ‘experiencer’ engaged in “Becoming”, is itself the emissary & receptacle of the ‘History’ that it allegedly has left behind.
“You can take so&so out of the ghetto, but you can’t take the ghetto out of so&so.”
‘History’ is already a Becoming; & every Becoming is a history.
What drives this desire for such conceptually staged ‘novelty’?
-An oppressive ‘History’, itself constructed?
-A need for Messianic regeneration from the horrors of Modernity?
-Exhaustion, horror, or guilt, over exploitation?
-A barbaric boredom with the complexities of life?
-Is this desire for a pure inhabitation of “components or singularities”, a modularised fascism; the nostalgic desire for the clean existential lines of an ahistoric neo-Modernist rupture; the inability of all these dogmatic desires to think through more complex bio-geometries?
And, if it is claimed that “History isn’t experimental”, what does Benjamin’s “Angelus Novus” gaze on, if not the carnage of experiment? ‘History’ is just the writeup of ‘Results’ & ‘Conclusions’ in an ongoing ‘Scientific Method’ or “Wissenschaft”.
In the languages purporting the Absolute, though, has there ever, really, been an ‘event’?