sartreterminologyinhisownterms.files.wordpress.com… · web...

85 pages Sartre: Groups&Reciprocity in CDRother Files

Terms: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U-Z

9-05Grou Groups&Reciprocity...................................................................................5Process (index of inaccessible term)...........................................................................6

Critique of Dialectical Reason , Volume One,................ Tr. Alan Sheridan-Smith. Published by New Left Books....[Original translation modified by Sartrean term clarifications]From Individual Praxis to the Practico-inert [totality]lived (CDR77-343)...........................................................................................7

7-15Grou 3. Labour (CDR89-94)...................................................................................7Labour ‘always existsI as totalization [in course]lived and transcendedlived/1neg

contradictionI’ (CDR89)..................................................................................7page 89-90 out of sequence at Sartre\Negation-Negation1 ‘of negation2 produces an indeterminate

ensemble’ unless arising2neg from and transcendinglived/1neg toward totalizationlived................8First instance of labour’s meaningCDRlived provided by the endI is restoration of

the organismI (CDR90-1).................................................................................8Conclusion to IndividualI PraxisI as TotalizationI [in course]lived (CDR91-4)..............9

7-15Grou II. Human_Relations as a MediationI between Different Sectors of MaterialityI (CDR95-121)......................................................................................111. Isolated IndividualsI (CDR95-100)......................................................................12MarxI regressive momentdial of exterior exploitation not directly related to

social bodies (CDR95, inaccessible).................................................................12Marx’s and Sartre’s formalismposited: ‘men make Historyconcept within the exact measure to which Historyconcept makes them’ (CDR97-8).....................13Page 99 out of sequence at Sartre\Language&Comprehension-Language ‘is me and I am languageI’; how can we choose the spoken word unless it is the wordI itself?.................15

2. Duality and the ThirdI Party (CDR100-109)........................................................15Gardener_and_road-mender connected [in three degrees] 1neg&2neg by labor1neg to worldlived/2neg through a third (CDR100)...........................................................15Sartre perceives two lower class workmen, linking their cogito [lived or ontology] to his (CDR101)............................................................................................16The reality of the Otherconcept affectsI my being[-there] to the extent that it is not my reality (CDR101)...............................................................................17Each worker’s world-object connects us through reciprocity which transcendslived/1neg perception (CDR102)...........................................................19

1

Laborers ‘are ignorant through me to the extent I become through them what I am’ (CDR103)....................................................................................20

I ‘enter myself in joiningI with them: But in this way II change themI in myI changing’ (CDR104).................................................................21ContradictionI of reciprocal connectionslived&lived opposesI praxislived/1neg unityI to exteriorizinglived/2neg plurality (CDR105)......................................................22

3. Reciprocity, Exploitation and Repression (CDR109-121)..................................25Reciprocal encounters as defined in advance: Not willed, intuited or idealized (109)..........................................................................................25Pages 110-11 out of sequence at Sartre\Political Scarcity-To 'treat a man like a dog, one must first recognize him as a man’.....................................................................27Reciprocity, alienation, and reification as not totalizinglived (CDR111).........27Four conditions of positive or negativeI reciprocity (CDR112)....................28

Page 115 out of sequence at Herein-Gardener_and_road-mender connected by labor to world through a thirdI (CDR100)..................................................................................30

Pages 122-152 out of sequence at Sartre\Political Scarcity-1. Scarcity and the Mode of Production, and 153-219, -2. Worked_Matter as AlienatedI Objectification...................................30

Pages 220-227 out of sequence at Sartre\Freedom-3. NecessityI as New StructureI of DialecticalI InvestigationI..............................................................................................30

Pages 228-252 out of sequence at Sartre\Freedom-4. Social Being as Materiality—Class Being.................................................................................................................30

7-13Grou IV. Collectives (CDR253-342)......................................................................30The ‘reality of the collective_object rests on recurrenceI’ (SM77, CDR650 out of

sequence)....................................................................................................30Social_objects in a totalitydial/lived as collectively unorganized, interpenetratedI,

and indistinct (CDR253)...............................................................................32Collectives, groups, ensembles, practical_organisms, common_individuals

(CDR254-5, 9 pages)........................................................................................34Peter Caws: ‘at least three varieties of collectives are to be distinguished’..........................................................................................40

1. Series: the queue (index) (CDR256-269)............................................................41NegativeI reciprocal projectI of solitude with others waiting for a bus (CDR256)......................................................................................................42The ‘bus designates the present commuters ... interchangeability’ (CDR258).................................................................................................................43Having the same objective reality in the future, the unjustified separation of human organisms limits itself as identity (CDR260)................................45Interchangeability ‘as the impossibility of deciding, a priori, which individuals are dispensable’ (CDR260)........................................................46

2

Structuredial/lived ‘of universality really existsI in the grouping’ (CDR262)......47Serial alteritylived as a practice of reciprocity contains real

interiority (CDR263).....................................................................................47Small ‘gathering which slowly forms around the bus stop’ (CDR265)........48This ‘rule—the [dialectical]_Reasonconcept of the series—is common to all through the same measure that they differentiate themselves’ (CDR266)....50

Pages 266-7 out of sequence at Sartre\The Other-Consciousnesses ‘experience [s’éprouvent]I one another without an intermediaryI’.......................................................................50Seriality, the bondI of alteritylived, as a unity of flight (CDR267)...................50

2. Indirect gatherings: the radio broadcast (270-276).........................................51Direct gatherings within maximum distanceI permit reciprocity and commonI praxisI (CDR270)...........................................................................51Indirect gathering of absence: Non-affiliation with the radio broadcast (CDR270)......................................................................................................52

3. Impotence as a bond: the free market (CDR276-293).........................................54Affiliation with what might have been a radio broadcast (CDR761, out of sequence)....................................................................................................54Rapid inflation as flight: ‘The collective_object is an index of separation’ (CDR288)...................................................................................55Money as a collective social material object of preserved inertiaI with the power of infinite recurrenceI (CDR291)........................................................58

4. Series and Opinion: the Great Fear (293-307)................................................58Public opinion as a collective (CDR293)......................................................58How ‘alteritylived creates its own laws’ (CDR298-300)....................................60Ftn 88 on page 300-3 out of sequence at Sartre\Political Scarcity-(p. 300) Colonialism, racism, ‘and the same applies to thousands of other 'theses'’;-(p. 300-1) Racism ‘is the colonial interest lived through the serial flight of alterity’;-(p. 302) Colonial solidarity, as seriality, is negatively determined/limited by alterity;-(p. 302-3) Colonialist ‘produces himself in the Otherconcept without weakness’..........................................................61ViolenceI of impotence actualizes exteriorized process of practico-social field (CDR303-5)...........................................................................................6205 Continued same paragraph, out of sequence at Sartre\Language&Comprehension-Individual or group organizedI practiceI ‘uses their practico-inert [totality]lived being as replacements for things’ (CDR 305)..................................64

5. Series and Class: The French Proletariat (CDR307-318, no citations)....................646. Collective Praxis (CDR318-342)........................................................................64

Page 325 out of sequence at Sartre\Negation-Worker must see possible happiness to see present as pain..............................................................................................64Pages 326-7 out of sequence at Sartre\Freedom-She carries out the sentence, an unwilling accomplice made machine...............................................................................64

3

Volume I, Book II, FROM GROUPS TO HISTORY (CDR343-818)........................64

8-15Grou I. The Group in Fusion (CDR345-404).......................................................64Pages 352 out of sequence at Sartre\Freedom-mystification..............................................64

11-12Grou II. The StatuaryFr=? Group (CDR405-444, no citations)..................................64

8-15Grou III. The Organization (CDR445-504)..........................................................64

8-15Grou 1. Organized Praxis (CDR445-462, no citations)...................................64

8-15Grou 2. Reciprocity and Active_Passivity (CDR463-478, no citations) 65

8-15Grou 3. Structuresdial: The work of Lévi-Strauss (CDR479-504)...............65Exact sciences of reciprocal relationsI : Lévi-StraussI’s contributions to groupI

structures (CDR479).....................................................................................65i. Structuredial and Function (CDR484-491)..............................................................66

Lévi-Strauss’s child in the milieu of on_oath: Sartre’s free human_relations (CDR484-6)........................................................................67Pages 485-6, Ftn 45, out of sequence at Sartre\Freedom-CDR’s admission: for ‘a long time ... I though that total indeterminacy was the true basis of choice’................................68

Peter Caws: From group in fusion to the sworn group oathI..........68The goalkeepers ‘inorganic_materialitylived of freedom’ (CDR487-8)............69NecessityCDRdial/lived as free active_passivitylived, practico-inert [totality]lived as passive_activitylived: Exteriority founds action at the border separating transcendencelived/1neg from immanencelived/2nneg (CDR489)..................................72

ii. Structuredial and System (CDR491-9)..................................................................73Soviet activist freely interiorizes exteriority (CDR495)...............................73Function as structuredial/lived if ‘seen as the potential and power of the group’ (CDR495-66)......................................................................................74Structuredial/lived of opposedI groups acknowledges potential actualization of power (CDR498).......................................................................................77

iii. ‘Structuredial/lived and the Group’s Idea of Itself’ (CDR499-504)...........................79PrimitiveI peoples comprehend group organizationlived/2neg as lived connectionslived&lived to commonlived/2neg objectiveslived/1neg rather than abstract thoughtposited (CDR500-4).................................................................................80Events ‘determinedial in each case and on every level the connectionslived&lived of the individuallived/1neg with societylived/2neg’ (SM128-30)......82

4

8-15Grou IV. The Constituted Dialectic (CDR505-563, no citations)............................84

8-15Grou V. The Unity of the Group as Other: the Militant (CDR564-675, no citations).............................................................................................................84

8-15Grou VI. The Institution (CDR576-663)...............................................................84

8-15Grou 6. Other-directions: Top Ten, Racism and Anti-Semitism—(CDR642-663) 84page 650 out sequence at Herein-The ‘reality of the collective_object rests on recurrence’.........84

8-15Grou VII. The Place of History (CDR664-734)....................................................84Page 733 out of sequence at Sartre\Sartre Work Files\Purged-Fanon et al.: Annihilation of

colonial culture; assimilation as alienation............................................................84

8-15Grou 1. The Reciprocity of Groups and Collectives (CDR664-670, no citations) 85

8-15Grou 2. The circularity of Dialectical Experience (CDR671-678, no citations)85

8-15Grou VIII. Class Struggle and Dialectical Reasonconcept (CDR735-820, no citations)85

Page 761 out of sequence at Herein-Affiliation with what might have been a radio broadcast......85Page 811-2 out of sequence in Sartre\Dialectic-anti-dialectic.............................................85

5

Sartre: CDR Groups and Reciprocity 6

Sartre: CDR Groups and Reciprocity

E N D O F T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

9-05Grou Groups&Reciprocity7-15Grou Process (index of inaccessible term)Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-PROCESS dial/group; inaccessible term; cf. praxis-process; later works; To read: CDR (p. 539-559) 4. Praxis as Process

Pro.cess in French is manufacturing and fabrication. See Freedom-Predestination as objectification ‘is what replaces determinism for me’

R. D. Laing and D. G. Cooper, Reason and Violence (p. 16c, no ce) "...being-for-itselfontologyc and [individual] being-in-itselfontologyc [should this be phenomenen?], the fundamental categories of BN, are absorbed into praxis and processdial/group."

Search for a Method: (p. 33, Ftn. 9c) "...The truth is that subjectivity is neither everything nor nothing; it represents a momentdial of the objective processdial/group (that of interiorization of exteriority..."

CDR: (p. 20c) "...the dialectic is a methodposited and a movement in the object. For the dialectician, the affirmationdial at the base of our concern is at once the structuredial/ of the real and that of our praxis. We affirm all together, that the processdial/posited [method] of knowledge [connaissance] is of the dialecticalposited order, that the movement of the objectI (whatever it may be) is itself dialectical, and that these two dialectics are one and the same...";

(p. 44c) "...Secondly [secondary intelligibility]positedc, if some real fact—a historical processdial/group, for example—develops dialectically, the law of its apparitionok and its becoming must be—from the stand-point of Knowledgeok [Connaissance]concept—the pure ground of its intelligibilityI...";

"The Itinerary of a Thought": (p. 41c) "...What I call le vécu—lived experience—is precisely the ensemble of the dialectical processdial/group of psychic_lifec, in so far as this processdial/group is obscure to itself because it is a constant totalizationlived, thus necessarilyCDRontlogyc a totalizationI which cannot be consciousconcept of what it islived..."

-------------------------------------------------Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-PRAXIS-PROCESS [praxis-processus]; later works; cf. praxis, processdial/group;

CDR (p. 65c, Fr. 180) "Of course, this is a matter of formalc intelligibilityposited. By this I mean that we must understandposited

ok the bonds between praxis, as self-conscious, and all the complex multiplicities which are organized through it and in which it loses itself as praxisI in order to become praxis-process."

9


(p. 663P ) "...in so far as praxis is process dial/group, goals lose their [individual] teleological[_intention]livedc character. Without ceasing to be genuine goals, they become [social] destinies."

CDRII (p. 11c) But if the [boxing] bout must be dialectically intelligible—in other words, if it must reveal itself as a unity—its intelligibilityI must be that of a very particular praxis -process , since the process is defined here as the deterioration of one praxis by the other."

CDRII Glossary (p. 458P ) praxis-process: "praxis of an organized social ensemble, which recuperates within itself—and transcends—the conditionings and counter-finalities which it necessarilyI engenders in being[-there] temporalizedCDRlived, and which deviate it."

Critique of Dialectical Reason , Volume One, Tr. Alan Sheridan-Smith. Published by New Left Books.[Original translation modified by Sartrean term clarifications]From Individual Praxis to the Practico-inert [totality]lived (CDR77-343)

Prior and succeeding CDR sectionsDialectic-Introduction: I. The Dogmatic Dialectic and Critical Dialectic

(15-41)-Introduction: II. Critique of Critical Expérience .......................(42-76)

Negation-I. Individual Praxis as Totalization [in course]. . ...................(79-88)

Herein................................................................................................(89-94)Scarcity-1. Scarcity and the Mode of Production..................................(122-

152)

7-15Grou 3. Labour (CDR89-94)

7-15Grou Labour ‘always existsI as totalization [in course]lived and transcendedlived/1neg contradictionI’ (CDR89)

Sartre, CDR (p. 89, Fr. 202) "Man, who produces his life in the unity of the material field, is led by praxisc itself to define zonesFr=?, systems and privileged objects within this inert totalitydial/lived. He cannot construct his toolsok—and this applies to the agricultural instruments of the culture among primitives as much as to the practical use of atomic energy—without introducing partialdial determinations [‘that is, as limitation’] into the unified environment, whether this environment is the

10


whole world or a narrow strip of land between the sea and the virgin forest. Thus he sets himself in oppositionc to himself through the mediation of the inertI; and, conversely, the constructive power of the labourer opposes the partI to the wholedial in the inertI interior of the ‘natural’ unity. We shall come across many examples of this later. It follows, in the first place, that negation becomes internal [internal_negation] in the very milieu of exteriority, and secondly, that it is a real opposition of forces. But this oppositionI

ok comes to Natureconcept through man in two ways, since his action constitutesdial at once the wholeI and its disruption. Labour of any kind always exist only as a totalization [in course] lived and a transcendence lived/1neg . Once it [labour] has constituteddial the environment as the milieu in which the labourer produces himself, every subsequent development will be a negation2neg [alienation] precisely to the extent that it is positive1neg. And such negationsI can be grasped [transformslived/2negtoconcept] only as momentsdial which posit1neg themselves for themselves, since the force of inertiaI increases their separation within the wholeI. Hence the subsequent task of labour must be to put the created objectI back in contact with the other sectors within the wholeI and to unite them from a new point_of_viewdouble

connection of 1st&2neg; it denies the separation. [continued]

page 89-90 out of sequence at Sartre\Negation-Negation1 ‘of negation2 produces an indeterminate ensemble’ unless arising2neg from and transcendinglived/1neg toward totalizationlived

7-15Nega First instance of labour’s meaningCDRlived provided by the endI is restoration of the organismI (CDR90-1)

Sartre, CDR (p. 90-1, Fr. 203, repeating last sentence) sartre¶"The chassé-croisé [change of places] which opposesc the human thing to the thing-man will be found at every level of dialectical expérience. But the meaningCDRlived of labour is provided by the end, and needdial/livedc, far from being[-there] a vis a tergo [violence in the rear, from behind] pushing the labourer, is in fact the lived revelation of a goal to aim at, and this goal is, in the first instance, simply the restoration of the organism . Eventually, action really makes the material surroundings exist as a wholedial on the basis of which an organization of means to an end is possible. In the simplest forms of activity***, this organization is given2neg by the endI1neg itself: that is to say, it is merely an exteriorization of function. The totalitydial/lived defines its meansI through its lacksdial/lived: the hunter of fisherman lies in wait; the food-gatherer searches: the field has been unified so as to provide a basis on which the object sought may be more readily apprehended. (CDRp. 91) Thus labour organizes itself by syntheticdial determinationsdial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] of the ensemble, by discoveringdial/lived or constructing tighter and tighter connectionsok

1neg&2neg [of three degrees] within the practical_fielddial/lived so as to convert what was originally only a vague relationok

1neg&2neg

11


[of three degrees] of the partslived/1neg to the wholelived/2neg and to one another into a complete circle of conditioning.

(CDRp. 91, Fr. 204) sartre¶ "Determinationdial [‘that is, as limitation’] of the present by the future [avenir], oscillation between the inert and the organic, negation, transcendedlived/1neg contradictions, negation_of_the_negation—in short, developing totalization [in course]lived: these are the momentsdial of any form of labour, until—at a dialectical level that we have yet to consider, society develops the division of labour to the point of the specialization of machines. The process is then inverted: the semi-automatic machine defines its environment and constructs itself its man, so that the inorganiclived comes to be on the side of a falselived but effective interiority, and the organicI by [on the side of] exteriorityI; man is then the machine’s machine; and to himself he is his own exteriorityI. But in all other cases, the dialectic appears [appairaît] as the logic of laboure..." [continued same paragraph below]

-------------------------------------------------*** BN: (p. 259c) "... The order is the reverse of causalc order. It is the end to be attained which organizes all the momentsdial which precede it. The end justifies the means; the means do not exist for themselves and outside the end..."

7-15Grou Conclusion to IndividualI PraxisI as TotalizationI [in course]lived (CDR91-4)Sartre, CDR (p. 91, Fr. 204, continuing, my paragraph break) sartre¶

e...our most everyday expérience, which is surely labour, considered at the most abstract level, that is as the action of an isolated individual, immediately reveals the dialectical character of actionI. Or, to put it another way, even if we accept the molecular theories of analytical_rationalismposited, the dialectic is already present, even at the highest level of abstractionI, in the elementary but complete form of a law of development and a dialectic_schematizerlivedc of intelligibilitylivedc. It goes without saying that, although the real existence of organic totalitiesdial/lived and totalizinglived processes reveals a dialectical movementdial/lived, the existenceI of organicI bodies can in no way be derived from the dialectic. However biology may develop in the futureFr=?, organicI bodies can never be regarded as any more than in fact real; we have no means of establishing their existenceI by reason alone. The theory that they originate from unorganized matter is a reasonable and economical hypothesis, on which even Christians can agree. But this hypothesis is no more than a belief. Thus neither analytical_Reasonconcept/1negc, which applies to relationsok [of three degrees]concept&concept as 1st&2neg in exteriorityconcept, nor dialectical_Reasonconcept/1negc, which derives its intelligibilitydial/lived

from totalitiesdial/lived, and which governs the connectionsok1neg&2neg [of three degrees] of

wholeslived/2neg to their partslived/1negR and of totalitieslived/2neg to one anotherlived/1neg in a process of increasing integration, can establish the status of intelligibilityI for

12


organized bodies. If they emerged from inorganic_matterlived, there was a passage not only from the inanimate to life, but from one rationalitydial/posited to the other."

(CDRp. 92, Fr. 205) "...Since the individual worker is just such a totalization [in course]lived, he can only comprehendok himself in his acts, and in hislived/1neg connectionok

1neg&2neg [of three degrees] to Natureconcept/2neg (and indeed, as we shall see, in hislived/1neg connectionok

lived&lived [of three degrees] with otherslived/2neg) if he [worker]: interprets [1] every partialdial totalityI as part of the totalizationI of ensembles; and [interprets 2] their internal_relationsdial/livedc

ok as partI of their relationsok [of three degrees]1st&2neg to the unification in course; [and interprets 3] the means as partI of the end; and [4] the present as partI of the connectionok

1neg&2neg [of three degrees] which bonds the future [futur] to the pastlived. But inversely, his praxis which is dialectical permits its own proper intelligibilitylivedc.

[my paragraph break] sartre¶To take but one example. The law of the interpenetrationR of contrariesRc, badly proclaimed by Engels, becomes perfectly intelligibleI when related to a praxis seen in the light of its future [future] totalization [in course]lived and of the completed totalities which surround it. Within a totalityI (whether completed or developing), each partial totalityI, as a determinationdial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] of the whole, contains the wholeI as its fundamental meaningCDRlived and, consequently, also contains the other partialI totalitiesI; the secret of each partI therefore lies in the others. In practicalnow lived terms, this means that each partlived/1neg determinesI all the others in their connectionok

1st&2neg [of three degrees] to the wholelived/2neg, that is to say, in their singular existence. At this level, the properly dialecticalposited type of intelligibilityposited which at once combines the direct conflict of the partsI between them (to the extent that dialectical_Reasonconcept includes and transcendsconcept analytical_Reasonconcept/2neg) with the constantly shifting hidden conflict which modifies each partI from within in response to internalok changes in any of the others, and establishing alteritylived [of part in whole] in each part at once [à la fois]I as what it is and as what it is notc, as that which it possesses and as that by which it is possessedI. Ref Sartre\Dialectic-three laws of the dialectic

(CDRp, 92-3, Fr. 206) "With these remarks I have merely described the form of joining [liaison] proper to these objects, namely the bond of interiority. At this level, dialectical expérience may be difficult to describe, but it is universalposited and constant. It is true that most people speak according to the rulespositedc of analyticalI rationalityI, but this does not mean that their praxis is not conscious of itself. (CDRp. 93) In the first place,4 dialectical_ReasonI includes analytical_ReasonI, just as totalitydial/lived includes plurality. In the process of labour, the practical_fielddial/lived must already be unified before the worker can undertake an analysis of its problems. An ‘analysis of the situation’ is carried out in accordance with the

13


methods and mode of intelligibilityposited of analytical_Reasonconcept; and though indispensable it presupposes totalizationposited/2neg. Ultimately it leads to the underlying plurality, that is, to the elements as united by bonds of exteriorityposited. But the practical movementdial/posited, which transcends1neg this molecular dispersal of conditions, will recover a unity through itself, in creating at once [à la fois]I the problem and the solution. Moreover, this unity was never lost, since it was within it that the dispersal was sought. But the analysis is initially carried out by discourse and thought, even if it requires a material expressionposited later; the production of the objectI, on the other hand, is entirely practical. And although praxis is self-explanatory and transparentc to itself, it is not necessarilyCDRdial/lived expressible in words. In fact, knowledge [connaissance] appears as the explanation of the practical_fieldI of perception by the end, that is to say, by future [futur] non-beingc. It would be a simple task, though too lengthy to undertake here, to show that only the dialectic can establish the intelligibility of Knowledgeok [Connaître]concept and truth because neither knowledgeok [connaissance] nor truthI can be a positive connectionok

1neg&2neg [of three degrees] of being to beingI; they are, on the contrary, negative connectionsok

1neg&2neg [of three degrees] mediated by nothingnesslived/1neg. The transcendedIlived/1neg and its transcendenceI can be explained only in terms of a future [avenir] which does not yet exist, and within the practical_unityc of a totalizationI in course. But such a discoverydial/lived can only be practical; in a society which, as a whole, confuses knowledge [connaissance] and contemplationposited, it cannot be frozen in discourse. Thus we all try to express our dialectical experience Fr=? of everything in the terms of analyticalposited, mechanical rationalityposited. Nevertheless, as long as we are aware of this situationI, all of us can characterize our fundamental experienceI

Fr=? at any given2neg momentdial. Man as a totalizingposited project is himself the active intelligibility of the totalizationsI; and since alienation has not yet come into the picture (simply because we cannot deal with everything at once), doing and understandingFr=? are indissolubly linked.

(CDRp. 94, Fr. 207) "The expérienceposited, however, in its elucidation of the logic of wholes and of the intelligibilityposited of the relationok [of three degrees]posited&posited as 1neg&2neg of man1neg to the universe2neg, still cannot be regarded as apodicticpositedc. The full comprehensionok of act and objectI remains the temporalCDRlived development of a practical intuitionlivedc, rather than apprehension of a necessityCDRdial/lived. For necessityIc can never be givenI in intuitionI except as a horizonc, an intelligible limit of intelligibilityI."

-------------------------------------------------CDRFtn. 4. "We shall see later that the dialectical expérience is at once [à la fois]I permanent (in that men work and always have worked), but also the result of

14


becoming, in that it is the discoverydial/livedc at a particular point in time, of the dialectic as the intelligibility of Historyconcept."

7-15Grou II. Human_Relations as a MediationI between Different Sectors of MaterialityI (CDR95-121)7-15Grou 1. Isolated IndividualsI (CDR95-100)

7-15Grou MarxI regressive momentdial of exterior exploitation not directly related to social bodies (CDR95, inaccessible)

Sartre, CDR (p. 95, Fr. 208) "Immediate expérience gives being[-there] at its most concretelivedc, but it takes it at its most superficial levelok and remains in the realmFr=? of abstractions... [I]n a certain society, to a certain degree of technical development, etc., peasants work in complete isolation at certain momentsdial of the year which become a social mode of the division of labor. And his operationdial/lived, his manner of producing himself, conditions not only the satisfaction of his needdial/lived, but also the needI itself.

(CDRp. 95-6) sartre¶"In southern Italy, the agricultural day labourers, the semi-employed bracciante eat only once a day or even sometimes, once every two days. In this situation, hunger ceases to exist as needI (...) It is not that hunger has ceased to existI but it is itself interiorized, or structureddial/posited, as a chronic disease... (at the present time, in present society, and given2neg his particular objectives and the tools at his disposal). He can be made the object of a regressiveR expérience, and his praxislived/1neg can be grasped [transformslived/2negtolived/1neg] and located as temporalityCDRlived/2neg itself through all the conditionings. (CDRp. 96) But it must be noticed that this momentdial of the regressionI, though true as a first approximation within a dialecticalposited expérienceI, would be false** and idealist if it were taken no farther. Inversely, when we will have accomplished the totalitylived of our expérienceI, we shall see that individual praxis, always inseparable from the milieu which it constituteddial, and which conditions and alienates it, is at the same time constituent_Reasonconcept/2negc itself, operatingI within Historyposited/1negc seen as constituted_Reasonconcept/1negc.

(CDRp. 96, Fr. 2089) "But precisely for this, the second_moment of the regressionI cannot be directly the relation [of three degrees1st&2neg]ok of the individuallived/1neg to social bodieslived/2neg (inert or active) and to institutions. Marx clearly indicated that e... the connectionok

1st&2neg [of three degrees] between labourers and employer (...) is a simple connectionI of exteriority. But this connectionI

ok of exteriorityI is itself inconceivable except as a reificationc of an objective connectionI

ok of interiority. History determinesdial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] the content of human_relations in its

15


totalitylived, and all these relationsok [of three degrees]1st&2neg, even the briefest and most private, refer to the whole. But history itself does not causelived

Fr=? there to be human_relationsI in general. The relationsI

ok which have established themselves between those initially separate objects, men, were not products of problems of the organization and division of labour. But, all to the contrary, the constitutiondial/group of a group to that of a society—around an ensemble of technical problems and a certain mass of instruments—depends on the permanent actuality of the human_relation (whatever its content) as a reality permanently made at some momentI of Historyconceptc wherever one’s place, even between separate individualsI belonging to societies composed of different regimes who do not know one another."

(CDRp. 97, Fr. 210) sartre¶"This signifies why, to leave itself out of abstractions of the human_relationI and to establish us**** at once in the world, dear to MarxismI, of productive forces of the mode and of the conections of production, we are in danger of giving reasonok without goodwill to the atomism of liberalism and of analytical_rationalityposited

e... [Fr. 210] the individualisticI bourgeoisie demand that one concedes one thing and one only: the relationok [of three degrees]1st&2neg of individuals is submitted to passively through each otherlived/2neg and conditioned in exteriority by all these kinds of otherI forces; and this signifies that they are freeCDR to apply the principle of inertiaI and positivistic laws of exteriorityposited to human connections [rapport]posited&posited as 1neg&2neg [of three degrees]. From this point_of_viewdouble connection of 1st&2neg it hardly matters whether the individualI reallyI liveslived/1neg in isolationlived/2neg, like a cultivator at certain periods, or whether he liveslived/1neg in highly integrated groupslived/2neg. Absoluteontology separation resides precisely in each individualI being submitted to radicalontology exteriorityI... AbsoluteI separationI is when individualsI as products of theor own product (and therefore as passiveI and alienatedI) institute connections [rapport]1neg&2neg [of three degrees] through themselveslived/1neg (on the part of thoselived/2neg that have established earlier generations of their own constitutionCDRdial/group and of the forces and requirements of the time). [continued-1, back-1]

-------------------------------------------------Ref Sartre\Lifework-Marxism-Index

7-15Grou Marx’s and Sartre’s formalismposited: ‘men make Historyconcept within the exact measure to which Historyconcept makes them’ (CDR97-8)

Sartre, CDR (p. 97-8, Fr 210, continuing-1, back-1) sartre¶ "This brings us back to our problem in Search for a Method: what does it mean to make Historyconcept on the basis of anterior circumstances? We said then: if we do not distinguish the project—as surpassing1neg—from circumstances as conditions, we are left only with inert objects, and HistoryI loses its consciousness. All the same, if the human_condition [the objectI

16


defining him to the same degree that he define the objectI] are a mere product, they [human conditions] are in essence reified and it becomes impossible to comprehend what their reification really consists in. My formalismposited**, which is inspired by that of Marx***, consists simply in recognizing that menlived/2neg make Historyconcept/1neg within the exact measure to which Historyconcept/2neg makes themlived/1neg. This means that relationsok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg between men are at each instantdial the consequence of their activitylived/1neg within the measure to which they establish themselves as surpassing1neg dominating and institutionalized human_relationslived/2neg. Manlived/1neg exists for manI only in given2neg circumstances and social conditions, so every human_relationlived/2neg is historicallivedc. (CDRp. 98) But these historicalIc relationsok [of three degrees]1st&2neg are humanlived/1neg within the measure which they give2neg themselves at all times as the immediate dialectical consequence of praxis, that is to say, of the plurality of activitiesI at the interior of the same practical_fielddial/lived. It is this which must be the example of languagelivedc."

-------------------------------------------------See at Sartre\Language&Comprehension-Language ‘is me and I am languageI’: ‘How can we choose the spokenI word unless it is the wordI itself?’ (Fl1:12, CDR99)Ref Sartre\Dialectic-Rdialectical_circularity as is all of the above; Sartre\Lifework-Marxism-Index; Sartre\Being-there-transformation

-------------------------------------------------** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-FORMALISM [formalisme]; See below formal; above, ‘men make Historyconcept precisely to the extent that it makes them’;

CDR: (p. 180c) "...At any momentdial of Historyconcept/2neg things are human1neg precisely to the extent that humans2neg are things1neg...";

(p. 191c) "...material exigency, whether it is expressed through a machine-man or a humanI machine, comes to the machinelived/2neg through manlived/1neg to precisely the extent that it comes to manlived/2neg through the machinelived/1neg...";

(p. 207c) "The machinelived/1neg shapes its manlived/2neg to precisely the extent that manlived/1neg shapes machineslived/2neg."

CDRII: (p. 41c) "...A little further on, we shall see the dialectic dissolve this conceptual formalismposited...";

The Family Idiot: (2:172c) "To be sure, a dialectic operatesdial/livedc between the character and the interpreter: the actor transformslived/1negc the characterlived/2neg to the precise extent that helived/2neg is transformedI by itlived/1neg...";

(5:38c) "...matterI is the mediating element between men to the same degree that through their praxis they become mediatorsI between different states of matterI."

-------------------------------------------------formal posited

17


CDR: (p. 20c) "...For science, there is not any formalposited structuredial/posited, nor any implicit assertion about the rationalityc of the universe: Reason is developing, and the mind prejudges nothing...";

(p. 21c) "...The certitude of always being able to surpass1neg the empty detachment of formalposited rationalityposited..."

(p. 60c, Fr. 175) sartre¶"The transparencec of praxis (let us say, for the instant [instant] of individual praxis) has its origin [origine] in the indissoluble joining [liaison] between negation (which totalizeslived in situation what it denies) and a projectlivedc [projet], which defines itself through connectionok

1neg&2neg [of three degrees] with an abstract and still formal whole which the practical_agency projectsIc into the future [avenir] and which appears [apparaît] as the reorganized unity of the denied situationI...";

(p. 65c) "Of course, this is a matter of formalposited intelligibilitypositedc. By this I mean that we must understandok

posited the bonds between praxis, as self-conscious, and all the complex multiplicities which are organized through it and in which it loses itself as praxis in order to become praxis-processgroup...";

(p. 85c) "...the individualI couplings of certain particles and the little solar system which temporarily results from them are not particularizationsdial, except in a purely formalposited, logicalposited and idealist sense...";

(p. 671c) "...We now confront not the real concretelivedc, which can only be historicallivedc, but the set of formalposited contexts, curves, structuresdial/posited and conditionings which constitutedial the formalI milieu in which the historicalI concretecI

must necessarilyCDRdial/lived occur...";-------------------------------------------------

*** Carl Marx: "Men make their own history, but not under conditions of their own choosing"

Page 99 out of sequence at Sartre\Language&Comprehension-Language ‘is me and I am languageI’; how can we choose the spoken word unless it is the wordI itself?

7-15Grou 2. Duality and the ThirdI Party (CDR100-109)See Appendix for Leo Fretz and Peter Caws analyses

7-12Grou Gardener_and_road-mender connected [in three degrees] 1neg&2neg by labor1neg to worldlived/2neg through a third (CDR100)

Sartre, CDR (p. 100, Fr. 212) "Since we started with the dispersal of human organisms, we must lengthen it to consider individualslivedc entirely separated [as collective_objects] (through institutionsc, through their social condition, through the hazards of their life) we attempt to discoverdial/lived within this same separationlived/lived—

18


that is to say within a connectionok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg which tends towards absolute exteriority—their concretelived/1neg and historical bond of interiority."

"From my window, I [as a third]R can see a road-mender on the road and a gardener working in a garden. Between them, there is a wall with fragments of bottles which defend the bourgeois property where the gardener is working. Each of them ignores entirely the presence of the other; each, absorbed through his labor, would not dream to demand of themselves whether there was a man on the other side. As for me, those whom I saw without being seen, and my passive ‘hoovering over’ their labor, situates melived/1neg passively through connectionsok [of three degrees] 1neg&2neg to themlived/2neg: I ‘am taking a holiday’, in a hotel; I realize myself through my inertia to witness as a petty-bourgeois intellectuale... From this point_of_viewdouble

connection of 1st&2neg, my presence at the window is a passive_activitylived/2neg (e...) and my present perceptionlived/1neg functions as a means in a complex process which is the expression of my entire life. Hence my1neg first relationok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg to the two workers2neg is negative: I am not of their class, I have no experience Fr=? in their two trades, I would not know [saurais] how to make what they make, and I do not have their problems."

-------------------------------------------------CDR: (p. 102c) "...In so far as I comprehendFr=? them on the basis of their work,

I perceive their gestures in terms of the aims they set themselves, and so on the basis of the future [avenir] which they projectI..."

(CDRp. 96c) "...But, all to the contrary, the constitutiondial/group of a group to that of a society—around an ensemble of technical problems and a certain mass of instruments—depends on the permanent actuality of the human_relation (whatever its content) is a reality permanently made at some momentdial of Historyconcept, wherever one’s place, even between separate individuals belonging to societies composed of different regimes who do not know one another."

7-15Grou Sartre perceives two lower class workmen, linking their cogito [lived or

ontology] to his (CDR101)Sartre, BN (p. 514c) "...I am thrown into a worker’s world, a French worldI, a

worldI of Lorraine or the South, which offers me its significationslivedc without which I had nothing to detect them."

Sartre, CDR (p. 101, Fr. 213) sartre¶"[I do not have their problems] But these negations have a double character. First [second is sub-topic below], these negationsI can be disclosed only upon an undifferentiated ground of syntheticdial relationsok [of three degrees]1st&2neg that maintain me1neg with them2neg in an actual** immanence: I could not oppose their ends with mine without recognizing them as endsI. The foundation of comprehensionlivedc

Fr=? is complicit in principle with the wholedial enterprise, even if

19


one goes on to combat or condemn it. Any new endI, once signified, is detached from the organic unity of human endsI. In certain pathological states (e.g. ‘depersonalizationc’***) man appears as the representative of an alien species because he can no longer grasp [transformslived/2negtolived/1neg] his teleological [teleological_structure and teleological_intention] reality, that is, because the link between the patient and his own ends is provisionally broken. To anyone who believes himself to be an angel, the activities of other people will seem absurd, because he tries to transcendlived/1neg humanI enterprise by refusal to participate.

sartre¶ "But it would be a mistake to believe that my perception discoversdial/lived me in myself as a man confronted by two other men: the concept of man is an abstraction which never occurs in concrete intuitionlivedc. In fact, I grasp [transformslived/2negtolived/1neg] myselflived/2neg as a ‘holiday-maker’lived/1neg, confronting a gardener_and_road-mender****, that I come to conceive myself; and in making myself what I am, I discoverdial/lived them as they make themselves, that is, as their work produces them; but to the extent that I cannot see them as ants (as the aesthete does) or as robots (as the neurotic does), and to the extent that I have to project myself through them before their ends, in order to differentiate their ends from mineI, I realize myself as a member of a defined society which determinesdial [‘that is, as limitation’] everyone’s opportunities and aims; and beyond their present activityI, I rediscoverI their life itself, the connectionok

1neg&2neg [of three degrees] between needslived/2neg and wageslived/1neg, and further still, social divisionslived/2neg and class struggleslived/1neg. In this way, the affective quality of my perception depends at once on my social and political attitude and on contemporary events (strikes, threats of civil or foreign war, occupation of the country by enemy troops or a more or less illusory ‘social truce’). [continued]

-------------------------------------------------** in Sartre\The Other-Conclusion to III: Discoverydial/lived of oneselfI and others in the cogitoontology (250), Sartre’s ‘actualc immanence,’ has not yet been transformedc to the laborers through reciprocity of class.*** Copied and bookmarked at Sartre\Flaubert’s Personalization-depersonalization with personalization.**** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-GARDENER_AND_ROAD-MENDER ; gardener_and_road-mender; Herein-Gardener_and_road-mender connected by labor to world through a third (100) 7-15Grou The reality of the Otherconcept affectsI my being[-there] to the extent that it is not my reality (CDR101)

Sartre CDR (p. 101-2, Fr. 214) "Secondly [first=sub-topic above], every negationc is a relationok [of three degrees]1st&2neg of interioritylivedc. By this I mean that the reality of the

20


Otherconcept/2negR1 affects melived/1neg in the depths of my being[-there] to the extent that it is not mylived/2neg realityI. My perception provides me first with a multiplicity of instruments and apparatuses, produced by the labour of others (the wall, the road, the garden, the fields, etc.) and it [my perceptionI] unifies them [instruments & apparatuses] at once according to their objective meaningCDRlived and to my own projects. Every thing supports with all its inertiac the particular unity which a long forgotten action imposed upon it; their ensemble tolerates with indifference the living but ideal actI of unification which I perform in perceptionI. (CDRp. 102) But the two people seen by me are given2neg simultaneously as objects situated among other objectsI**, in the interior of the visual field, and as prospects of flight, as flowing out from centers of the reality. In so far as I comprehendlivedc

ok them on the basis of their work, I perceive their gestures in terms of the aims they set themselves, and so on the basis of the future [avenir] which they project. The movementdial/lived of intra-perceptualI comprehensionI

ok then is achieved by reversing the simple apprehension of the inanimate: the present is comprehendedI

ok on the basis of the future [futur], singular movementsI on the basis of the overall operationdial/lived, in short, the detail on the basis of the totalitydial/lived.

(CDRp. 102, Fr. 214) "In the same way, their material environment eludes me in so far as it becomes the objectI or the means of their activityI. Their practical relationok [of three degrees]1st&2neg to the things I see implies a concretelived/2neg disclosure of these things within praxislived/1neg itself; and this disclosure is implied in my perceptionI of their activityI. But to the extent that this activityI defines them as other than me, to the extent that it constitutesdial me as an intellectual confronting manual workers, the disclosure which is a necessaryCDRdial/lived moment of it [activity] appears to me to discoverdial/lived in the thick of objectivity, an objectivityI-for-the-Otherconcept which escapes melived/2neg.7 Each of the two men is re-conceived and located in the perceptualI field by my actI of comprehensionFr=?

R; but with each of them, through the weeding, pruning or digging hands, or through the measuring, calculating eyes, through the entire body as a lived instrument, I am robbed of an aspect of the real. Their work discoversI it to them8 and I grasp [transformslived/2negtolived/1neg] it as a lackdial/lived of being[-there]Ilived/1neg in discoveringI their worklived/2neg. Thus theirlived/1neg negative relationok [of three degrees]1st&2neg to mylived/2neg own existence constitutesI me, at the deepest levels of myselfontology, as definite ignorancelived, as inadequacy. I sense myself as an intellectual through the limits which they prescribe to my perception.

-------------------------------------------------Ftn. 7. "But, as we shall see in the next chapter [Scarcity-1. Scarcity and the Mode of Production (122-152)], it eludes me as objectivityI, which, in specific circumstances, I

21


may define or even divine, and is part of the objectivityI of the totalizedlived practical_fieldlived."Ftn. 8. "The act in effect defines the zonesc [zones] of competence and ignorancelived both in reallived/1neg extension and in connection [of three degrees]ok

1neg&2neg to the pastlived/2neg."** Referenced in sub-topic below.

7-15Grou Each worker’s world-object connects us through reciprocity which transcendslived/1neg perception (CDR102)

Sartre, CDR (p. 102-3, Fr. 215) **"Each of these men therefore represents a center of hemorrhage of the object*** and qualifies me objectively up to now in my subjectivity; and that is how they are linked at first in my perception, that is to say, as two centrifugal and divergent ‘glidings’ (glissements) within the same worldlivedR. But, precisely because it is the same worldI, they find themselves united, through my singular perceptionI, within the universe as a wholeI, and in so far as each deprives the other of it. The mere fact, for each of them, of seeing what the other does not see, of disclosing the objectI through a particular work, establishes in my perceptualI field a connection [of three degrees]ok

1&2neg of reciprocity which transcendslived/1neg even my perceptionlived/2neg: each of them constitutesdial the ignorancelived**** of the other . (CDRp. 103) Of course these reciprocal ignoranceslived would not come into objectiveI existence without me: the very notion of ignorance1ived presupposes a thirdR1 who interrogates or who knows [sait] already; otherwise it could be neither experiencedok nor even namedc; the very real connectionok

1neg&2neg [of three degrees] is of contiguity, that is of co-existenceI in exterioritylived/as 1st&2neg. But through my perceptionI, I make myself a realI and objectiveI mediation between these two molecules: if I can, in effect, constitutedial them in a reciprocity of ignorancelived, it is because their activities conjointly determinedial [‘that is, as limitation’] me and because my perception gives me my limits by disclosing the dualityI of my internal_negationlivedc. Even my subjectivityI is objectivelyI designated through them as an Otherconcept (another classI, another profession, etc.), and in interiorizing this designation, I become my objectiveI milieu in which two people realize [in Sartre’s mind?] their mutual dependence outside me." [continued-3]

-------------------------------------------------** See as preliminary Herein-Reciprocal encounters as defined in advance: Not willed, intuited or idealized; Sartre\The Other-thirdR2

*** Above sub-topic esp at ***, "...two people seen by me are given2neg simultaneously as objects situated among other objectsI..."

-------------------------------------------------

22


**** 10-12Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-IGNORANCE lived [ignorancenf, ignorerv, all hits checked for French];

CDR: RFirst two sub-topics below;Sartre\Political Scarcity-RWorking class ignorancelived as mode of

interhuman_relations (NE294-301);Peter Caws, Sartre (p. 163) "e...from Sartre’s point of view (e...) the attribute of

ignorance can be predicated of the interior state of each worker as well as any attribute can ever be predicated of any interior state belonging to another person. The point of the example e... is to show that ‘the organization of the practical_field in the world determines [‘that is, as limitation’] a real relation for everyone’ even if that relation is negative or as it were virtual."

7-15Grou Laborers ‘are ignorant through me to the extent I become through them what I am’ (CDR103) Sartre, CDR (p. 103, Fr. 215, continuing-3) sartre¶ "It is important not to reduce this mediation to a subjective impression: we should not say that for me the two labourers are ignorantR [of one another]. They are ignorant I [of one another] through me to the exact measure [l’exact mesure] that I [je] become through them that which [je] am . In the same way, each enters into the environment of their otherlivedc as an implicit reality; each sees and touches that which the otherI would see and touch in his place, but each discloses the world through a definite practice which serves as the rule to this disclosure itself. Thus each, in limiting me, constitutesdial the limit of the otherI, he robs an objective aspect of the worldI as to me. But this reciprocal robbery has nothing in common with the hemorrhage they dispense within my own perceptionI: they are both manual workers, and they are both from the country; they differ from each other less than they differ from me and, in the last analysis, within their reciprocalI negation I discoverdial/lived something like a fundamental complicity. A complicity against me.

(CDRp. 103-4, Fr. 216) "In fact, in the actI of discoveringdial/lived either of them, each within his project makes the world appear, as the objectiveI envelopment of his work and his ends: and this spherical disclosure returns to him so as to situate him in connectionok

1neg&2neg [of three degrees] to what lies behind him as much as to what lies in front of him, in connectionI both to what he sees and to what he does not see. The objectiveI and the subjectiveI are indistinguishable; the worker produces himself through his work as a certain disclosure [dévoilement] of the world which objectivelyI characterize him a product of his own product**. Thus each of them, as objectification of self in the world, reaffirmsdial the unity of the world by inscribing himself in it through his work and through the singular unifications which this work realizes; each one has consequently within his own situationI the possibility to

23


discoverI the other, as an object actually present in the universe. (CDRp. 104) And as these possibilities can be objectivelyI graspable [transformslived/2negtolived/1neg] from my window, as my mediationlivedI2neg suffices to disclose the reallived/1neg routes which might bring them closer, the separationI, the ignorancelived, and the clear juxtaposition within exteriority are given2neg as mere accidents concealing the fundamental, immediate and permanent possibility of a reciprocal discoverydial/lived, therefore the existence, in fact, of a human_relation."

-------------------------------------------------See Sartre\Political Scarcity-Working class ignorancelived as mode of interhuman_relations (NE294-301)** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-PRODUCT OF HIS PRODUCT [product as individual of their own production ‘therefore passive and alienated’]; [QF search does not recognize "‘product’ and ‘product’" in same sentence];

The Family Idiot, (5:207c) "...there will be a hundred philosophies, conceptions of the world will vary from one individual to another within a single class; the needdial/lived is merely to put in place a system of connections [rapports] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg that will allow anyone to see man through his product—through science and technology—or rather as the product of his product."

8-15Grou I ‘enter myself in joiningI with them: But in this way II change themI in myI changing’ (CDR104) Sartre, CDR (p. 104, Fr. 216, inaccessible) sartre¶"At this fundamental level, I am myself designated and put in question; three objective possibilities are given2neg in my same perception... [T]he third is to play a passive part in their meeting and to see them constitutingdial/group a closed totalitydial/lived from which I am excluded. In this third case, I am directly involved in the exclusion and it forces a practical choice on me: either I submit to it or I adopt it and co-operate with it (for example, I close the window and return to my work) or I myself enter in collaboration with them. But in this way I change them in changing myself 9 . However, which ever part I take, each of the two men in his ignorancelived of the otherI , an ignoranceI which becomes real through me10—will interiorize in his behavior what was an exteriority of indifference, even if they never meet. The hidden existence of a human_relationlivedc relegates physical and social obstacles, or the world of inertia, to the rank of inessential reality; this permanent inessentiality exists as a passive possibility: either simple recognition abolishes distanceok, or work projects onto matter the inanimate movementdial/livedR of convergence.

(CDRp. 104, Fr. 217) sartre¶"In a word, the organization of the practical_fielddial/lived in the world determinesdial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] for everyone a real relationok [of

24


three degrees]1st&2neg, but which only the expérience alone defines, with all the individuals who are representedI [figurent] in this field. This comes down to unification through praxis; and everyone, unifying to the extent that his acts determinedial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] a dialectical field, is unified to the interior of this field by the unification of the otherI , that is to say, in accordance with the plurality of unifications." [continued]

-------------------------------------------------Ftn. 9. Sartre’s. See below Herein-3. Reciprocity, Exploitation and RepressionI

Ftn. 10. "When I count on it, it is a reality. If a military leader uses the enemy’s ignorancelived to destroy two units which do not know their relative positions, this ignoranceI becomes lack of co-ordination, incompetence, etc."See Sartre\Political Scarcity-Working class ignorancelived as mode of interhuman_relations

8-15Grou ContradictionI of reciprocal connectionslived&lived opposesI praxislived/1neg unityI to exteriorizinglived/2neg plurality (CDR105)

Sartre, CDR (p. 104-5, Fr. 217, continuing) "The reciprocity of connectionsok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg—which we will examine in detail later**2—is a new momentdial of the contradictionR which opposes the unifying unity of praxis and the exteriorizing plurality of human organisms. (CDRp. 105) This connectionI is reversed in that the exteriorityIlived/2neg of multiplicity is a condition of the syntheticdial unification of the fieldlived/1neg. But multiplicity also remains a factor of exteriorityI since, within this multiplicity of totalizinglived [totalisatrices] centralizations, each eluding the otherI , the only true bond is negation (at least up to the momentdial we have now reached). Each center poses itself through connectionI with the otherI as a center of flight, as an other unification. This is a negation of interiority, but not totalizingI. Each one is not not***1 the otherI in an active and syntheticI manner since not to be someone, is in this case to make him representI [figurer], in a more or less differentiated way, as an object—an instrument or a contra-end—in the very activityI which grasps [transformslived/2negtolived/1neg] the unitylived/1neg of the practical_fieldIlived/2neg, since it is, at the same time to constitutedial/lived this unity against him (in so far as he is by himself constituentlived) and to deprive him of an aspect of things. The plurality of centres, doubly denied to the levelok of practical unification, becomes a plurality of dialectical movementsdial/lived, but this plurality of exteriorityI is interiorizedI, in the sense that it qualifies each dialectical process in interiorityI, and for this unique reason the dialectical development can only be obvious from the interiorI through dialectical qualifications (that is, syntheticallyI organised within the ensemble).

(CDRp. 105, Fr. 217) "Thus, this new stageok of my expérience discoversdial/lived the human_relation in the bosom of pure exteriorityI to the extent which I discoverI

25


objective exteriorityI as lived and surpassed1neg in the interiorityI of my praxis, and as indicating an elsewhere which escapes me and escapes all totalizationlived because it is itself a totalization [in course]I. InverselyFr=?, one might say that IFr=? discoverI this negative rudiment of the human_relationI as an objectiveI and constituentI interiorityI

for everyone in the measure which I discoverI the subjective momentdial of praxis to be objectivelyI qualified through this interiorityI.

sartre¶In this elementary sense [This sentence is paragraphed for clarity], the individual’s passing again from the subjectiveI to the objectiveI neither, just now, in knowing [connaissant] his being[-there] from the point_of_viewdouble connection of 1st&2neg of matter, but in realizing his human objectivityI as the unity of all the negationsI which link it through interiorityI to the interiorityI of others and of his project as the live unification of these same negationsI.

sartre¶It is impossible to exist in the milieu of men without their becoming objectsI both for me and for them through me, without my being an objectI for them, without which through them my subjectivityI takes its objectiveI reality as the interiorizationI of my humanI objectivityI. (CDRp. 105-6, Fr. 218) "The foundation of the human_relation as the immediate and perpetual determinationdial [‘that is, as limitation’] of everyone by the Otherconcept and by all, this is neither an a priori communication dressed up by a kind of Great Switchboard Operator, nor the indefinite repetition of behaviours separated through essence. (CDRp. 106) This syntheticdial liaisonFr=?, always suddenly appearsI [1] on account of those determinedI individuals to a determineddial [‘that is, as limitation’] momentdial of Historyconcept and [2] on the basis of determinateI relationsok [of three degrees]1st&2neg of productionlived/2neg already definedlived/1neg, and [3, the synthetic liaisonFr=?] which discloses itself at the same time as an a priori, these [1, 2, & 3] are notI than praxis itself, that is to say, the dialectic, as the development of living [vivante] action, place each individual in so much as he is pluralized through the multiplicity of men to the interiority of the same material residence. Every existantI integrates the Otherconcept to the totalization in courselived and all the sameI—even if never seen—defines himselflived/1neg—despite the screens, the obstacles and the distances—through connectionok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg to the actual totalizationlived/2neg which the Otherconcept is full of energy to operatedial/lived."

(CDRp. 106, Fr. 218) "Therefore it should be remarked that the relationok [of three degrees]1st&2neg is discovereddial/lived through the mediationlivedR of a thirdR1. It is through me that ignorancelived becomes reciprocalI. And, at the same time, this reciprocity, no sooner came into beingI [à peine], repulsed me; we saw it itself put a lid upon itself: if the triadI thirdR2 is necessaryCDRdial/lived in the limited-case of a connectionok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg stranded in the Universelived/2neg and relying in fact on two individualslived/1eg ignorantI of each other, it breaks itself through the exclusion of a

26


thirdIR3 when persons or groups either help one another or fight one another deliberately and self-consciously. The humanI mediator cannot be other than the transformer into something else (we will show later the meaning of this metamorphosis) this elementary relationok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg whose essential trait rests on being lived1neg with no other mediationI than that of matterlived/2neg. But this is not all: when the same menlived/2neg are face to face, the reciprocity of their connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg is actualized through the mediationI of this thirdIR4lived/1neg party and at once closes itself off from it."

(CDRp. 108-9, Fr. 220) sartre¶"Similarly [refering to two uncited paragraphs], reciprocityI becomes isolated as a human_relation between individualsI; it presents itself as the fundamental, concrete livedI bond. If I try to locate myself in the social world, I discoverdial/lived around me various ternary**** or binary***** formations, ternary formations are constantly disintegrating and binary formations arise from a turning totalizationI and may at any momentdial integrate themselves into a trinity. Thus it is not possibleI to conceive a temporalCDRlived process which would go from a dyad [dyade] and culminate in a triad. (CDRp. 109) A binary formation, as the immediate relationok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg of manlived/1neg amongst menlived/2neg, is the necessaryCDRdial/lived foundation of any ternaryc relationI

ok; but inverselyok, a ternary Iok,

as the mediation of manlived/1neg amongst menlived/2neg, is the basis on which reciprocityIc recognizes itself as a reciprocal joining [liaison]. If the idealist dialecticposited misused the triad, this is primarily because the real relationI

ok between menlived/2neg is necessarilyCDRI ternarylived/1neg. But this trinity is not a designation or ideal mark of the human connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg: it is inscribed in being[-there], that is to say, in the materiality of individualismFr=?. In this sense, reciprocityI is not the thesis, nor trinity the synthesisdial/lived (or conversely): it is lived connectionI whose content is determineddial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] in a given2neg society, and which are conditioned by materiality and capable of beingI modified only by action."

(CDRp. 115, Fr. 227, out of sequence from Herein-Four conditions of positive or negative reciprocity) "...the unity of a dyad [dyade]c can be realized only with a totalizationI performed from outside by a thirdIR5 [tiers]. Each member of the team comes upon this unity as a negation, as a lackdial/lived, in a kind of disquiet; it is at once an obscure deficiency arising from the very requirements of each totalizationI, and an imprecise reference to an absent witness, and the livedI but unarticulated certainty that the total reality of the collective undertaking can only existI elsewhere, through the mediationlivedI of an Otherconcept

ok and as a non-reciprocalI objectI."-------------------------------------------------

**2 Where?***1 ‘not not’ as CDR (p. 46c) "...Thus it is only within a developing unification (which has already defined the limits of its field) that a determinationdial [‘that is, as

27


limitation’] can be said to be a negation and that the negation of negation surpassed is necessarilyCDRdial/lived an affirmationdial...";

(p. 86c) "...And it is within the totalitydial/lived, as the abstract unity of a field of forces and tension, that the negation of negation surpassed becomes an affirmationdial."**** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-TERNARY ;

CDR: (p. 109c, above) "...a ternarylived/1neg relationok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg, as the mediation of manlived/1neg amongst menlived/2neg, is the basis on which reciprocity recognizes itself as a reciprocal joining [liaison]...";

(p. 111c) "... ReciprocalI ternary relationsok [of three degrees]1st&2neg are the basis of all relationsI between men, whatever form they may subsequently take..." and "...the relationI of reciprocityI and the ternary relationI

ok are neither of them totalizinglived: they are multiple adhesions between men which keep a ‘society’ in a colloid state [Chemistry: A suspended particulate matter]...";***** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-BINARY ;

8-15Grou 3. Reciprocity, Exploitation and Repression (CDR109-121)See Sartre\Flaubert’s Personalization-Love, even with the pretense of need, produces reciprocal love in bothRef Herein-I ‘enter myself in joiningI with them: But in this way I change them in my changing’

CDR: (p. 109c) "...a ternary relationok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg, as the mediation of manlived/1neg amongst menlived/2neg, is the basis on which reciprocity recognizes itself as a reciprocalI joining [liaison]...";

8-15Grou Reciprocal encounters as defined in advance: Not willed, intuited or idealized (109)

Sartre, CDR (p. 109-10, Fr. 221) "But let us go back to the binary formation. We take it first because it is the simplest, but we must not lose sight of the syntheticdial ensemblelived/2neg in connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg to which it defines itselflived/1neg. As we have seen, it is not something which can come to men from outside, or which they can establish between themselves by common consent. Regardless of the action of the third, and however spontaneous the mutual recognition of the two strangers who have just met may seem, it is only the actualization of a connectionI which is givenlived/2neg as having always existed, as the concrete and historical realitylived/1neg of the couple** which has just been formed. It is important to see in this how each of them existsI, or produces his being[-there], in the presence of the other and in the human world. In this sense, reciprocity***3 is a permanent structuredial/lived of every object: defined [définis] as things in advance

28


[l’avance], by collective praxis, we transcendlived/1neg our being[-there] by producing ourselves as men among menI and we allow ourselves to be integrated by everyone else to the extent that they are to be integrated into our own project. And since the historicalI content of my projectI is conditioned by the fact of my already beingI amongst men, and beingI recognized by them in advance as a man of a certain kind and milieu, with my place in society already fixed by meaningsCDR engraved in matter, reciprocity is always concretelivedc. It cannot be based on a universal abstract bond, like Christian ‘charity’; nor on an a priori willingness to treat the humanI person, in myself and in the Otherconcept

ok, as an absolute end; nor on a purely contemplativeposited intuitionc revealing ‘Humanityconcept’ to everyone as the essence of his fellows. (CDRp. 110) It is the individual’s praxis, as the realization of his projectI, which determinesdial [‘that is, as limitation’] his bonds of reciprocity with everyone."

The Family Idiot (2:159c) "Still, we are compassionate and have demonstrated it in circumstances. And it is still true that the fundamental relationship [of three degrees]1st&2neg between menlived/2neg—masked, diverted, alienated, reified as it might be—is reciprocitylived/1neg..."

-------------------------------------------------Ref Herein-Each worker’s world-object connects us through reciprocity which transcendslived/1neg perception** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-COUPLE [couple]; French checked for all; cf. dualism, duality, dyad;

knower-known couple BN: (p. liic, Fr. 19) "...But if we accept the law of the knower-knownc

[connaissance]-[connu]] couple then a third term will be necessaryBNontology in order for the knower [connaissance] to become known [connu] in his turn [which is not possible]e... Consciousness of selfc is not couple..."

subject-object couple :BN: (p. 239c, Fr. 277) "e...the beingI of consciousness of self could not be

defined in terms of knowledge [connaissance]. Knowledge [connaissance] begins with reflection [réflexion] but the game of ‘the reflection-reflecting [reflet]-[reflétant] is not a subject-object couple, not even implicitly. Its beingI does not depend on any transcendentlived/1neg consciousness; rather its mode of beingI is precisely to be in question for itself..."

-------------------------------------------------***3 Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-RECIPROCITY [réciprocité, reciprocal=réciproquea]; See reciprocity as not totalizing lived and false lived reciprocity below.

Herein-Reciprocity, alienation, and reification as not totalizinglived (CDR111)Sartre\Intelligibility of History-Rorder of relations between persons;

29


Sartre\The Other-Consciousnesses ‘experience [s’éprouvent] one another without an intermediary’

CDR: (p. 109c) "...reciprocity is alwaysok concrete..."Herein-Rnegative reciprocity;-RFour conditions of positive or negative reciprocity;-RDirect gatherings within maximum distance permit reciprocity and

common_praxisI;disappears—good riddance...";

reciprocity as not totalizing lived :Sartre\The Other-Conclusion to III: Discovery of oneself and others in

the cogitoontology

CDR: Herein-RReciprocity, alienation, and reification as not totalizinglived

false lived reciprocity : cf. negative symbiosis.CDR: (p. 134c, S&A 443) In this momentdial, the individuals of a social

field live with the environment in a false I connection [rapport] [of three degrees ] lived&lived as 1neg&2neg of reciprocity (that is, they designate what they are and what others are, through matter, as pure quantity) and carry this connectionI into the social realmFr=? by living their reciprocity of human beingsI as a denied [niée] interiority—or, if you prefer, by living it falselyI in exteriority."

The Family Idiot: Sartre\Flaubert’s Constitution-Did ‘Achille-Cléophas love his son?’ Yes: ‘Was he saved? No, lost’

Pages 110-11 out of sequence at Sartre\Political Scarcity-To 'treat a man like a dog, one must first recognize him as a man’

8-15Grou Reciprocity, alienation, and reification as not totalizinglived (CDR111)Sartre, CDR (p. 111-12, Fr. 223) "Thus, reciprocitylivedR, though fundamentally

opposed to alienationR and reificationR, does not save men from them. As we shall see later, a dialectical process produces these inhuman relationsok [of three degrees]1st&2neg

out of their contradictory reciprocal ternarylivedc connections [rapports] [of three degrees]1st&2neg and is the basis of all connectionsI between men, whatever form they may subsequently take. Though reciprocity is often concealed by the relationsI

ok which are established and supported by it (and which may, for example, be oppressive, reifiedI, etc.), it [reciprocity] becomes evident whenever it manifests itself as eachlived/2neg of the two terms is modified in its very existence by the existenceI of the Otherconcept

ok. In other words, men are bound together by relationsIok of

interioritylivedc. It might be objected that this reciprocalI relationIok is unintelligible:

for we have tried to show that the intelligibilityI of the syntheticdial bond either manifests itself in the process of a totalizinglived praxis, or remains congealed in an

30


inert totalitydial/lived. But in this case there is neither totalityI nor totalization [in course]livedR, and these connections1st&2neg [rapports] [of three degrees] manifest themselves as plurality within exteriority. The primary answer to this objection is that, while we are at this stage of the expérience, we are not dealing with one dialectic, but with the external_relationok between several, a connectionI which must be at once dialectical and externalok. In other words, the connectionI of reciprocitylivedc and the ternaryIc connectionI are neither of them totalizinglived: they are multiple adhesions between men which keep a ‘society’ in a colloid state [Chemistry: A suspended particulate matter]. Besides, in order to gain comprehensionFr=?, we must—in this as in every other case—make use of the totalityI of the momentsdial of the expérience which have already been established. It is true that the dialectical materiality of everyone is not sufficient to account for a reciprocity; the least that is necessaryCDRdial/lived is a quasi-totalitylived**. (CDRp. 112) And this quasi-totality, as we know [connaissons], exists in the form of worked_matterlivedc in so far as it mediates between men; it is on the basis of this negative inertI unity [quasi-totality] that reciprocityI [of everyone’s worked_matterI] appears [paraît]. This means that it [reciprocity] alwaysok appearslivedc [apparaît] on an inertI foundation of institutions and instruments by which everyone is already defined [as a quasi-totality] and alienated."

-------------------------------------------------Ref Sartre\Political Scarcity-Symbiosis ‘of man and things petrifies man to animate matter’** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-QUASI-TOTALITY ; See quasi-observation

8-15Grou Four conditions of positive or negativeI reciprocity (CDR112)Sartre, CDR (p. 112, Fr. 224) "...But man is a material being[-there] set in a

materialI world; he wants to change the worldI which crushes him, that is to act on the worldI of materialityI through the mediation of matterI and hence to change himself. He is able to define himself as the Otherconcept

ok whom he will be. Thus he constantly makes himself the instrument, the means, of this future [futur] status which will realize him as OtherI

ok; and it is impossible for him to treat his own present as an end. In other words, man as the future [avenir] of man is the regulative dialectic_schemalivedc of every undertaking, but the endI is always a remoulding of the material order which by itself will make man possibleI .

"Or to approach the question from a different angle, Hegel’sc mistake was his belief that within everyone there is something to objectify and that work reflects [reflet] the individualityI of its author. In fact, however, objectificationlivedR as such is not the goal, but the consequences attached to the goal. The aim is the production of a commodity, an object of consumption, or a toolok, or the creation of a work of art. And it is through this production, this creation, that man creates himself, or in

31


other words detaches himself gradually from things as he inscribes his work in them. Consequently, in so far as my project is a transcendencelived/1neg of the present2neg

towards the future [avenir], and of myself towards the world, I always treat myself as a meansI and cannot treat the Otherconcept

ok as an endI. Reciprocity implies, first, that the OtherI

ok is a meansI to the extent that I myself am a means, that is to say, that the OtherI

Fr=? is the means of a transcendentI endI and not my meansI; second, that I recognize the OtherI

ok as praxisc, that is to say, as a ‘totalization [in course]lived’, at the same time as integrating him as an objectI into my totalizingI projectI; third, that I recognize his movementdial/lived towards his own ends in the same movementI by which I project myself towards mine; and fourth, that I discoverdial/livedc myself as an objectI and instrumentI of his endsI through the same act which constitutesdial him as an objective instrumentI of my endsI.

(CDRp. 113, Fr. 225) "In this way, reciprocity can be either positive or negative. In the first case [positive reciprocity], everyone may make himself a meansI within the projectI of the Otherconcept

Fr=? so that the OtherIFr=? makes himself a meansI within his

own projectI, and in this case the two transcendentI aims remain separate. This is what happens with exchange or the provision of services. Alternatively, the endI may be shared (a collective undertaking or work), everyone making himself the Other’sI

ok meansI in order that their collectiveI effort shall realize their single transcendentI aim. In the case of negative_reciprocity**, the four necessaryCDRdial/lived conditions [above] are fulfilled but on the basis of a reciprocal refusal: each refusesI to serve the Other’sI

ok endI, and, while recognizing his own objectiveI being[-there] as a meansI within the adversary’s projectI, he uses his own instrumentalityI in othersok to make them an instrumentI of his own endsI in spite of themselves. This is struggleR; in it, everyone reduces himself to his materiality so as to act on that of the OtherI

ok; through pretenses, stratagems, frauds and maneuvers everyone allows himself to be constituteddial by the OtherI

ok as a falseR objectI, a deceptive meansI. But here again it would be quite wrong to think that the aim is the annihilation of the adversary or, to use Hegel’sI idealist languageI , each consciousness seeks the death of the otherI . The origin of struggle in every instance lies, in fact, in some concretelivedc antagonism whose material condition is scarcity, in a particularFr=? form, and the real aim is objectiveI conquest or even creation, in relationI [dont] to which the destruction of the adversary is only the meansI. Hatred—a form of recognition—even if it is posited for itself, is really only a mobilization of all one’s strength and passions in the service of an aim which requires such total commitment. HegelIc, in other words, ignored matter as a mediation between individuals. Even if one uses his terminology, one has to say that while each consciousness is the counterpart of the other, this reciprocity can take an infinity of different forms,

32


positive or negative, and that it is the mediationI of matterI which determines [‘that is, as limitation’] these forms in every concrete case."

(CDRp. 114-5, short paragraph on contradictions in Hegel’s above thought.)-------------------------------------------------

** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-NEGATIVE_RECIPROCITY ; CDR only; Herein-reciprocity, with falselived reciprocity;

-Negative reciprocal project of solitude in waiting with others for bus;Sartre\Political Scarcity-RManichaeismI as negative reciprocity:

‘Transcendedlived/1neg, partially liquidated, always reviving’

Page 115 out of sequence at Herein-Gardener_and_road-mender connected by labor to world through a thirdI (CDR100)

Pages 122-152 out of sequence at Sartre\Political Scarcity-1. Scarcity and the Mode of Production, and 153-219, -2. Worked_Matter as AlienatedI Objectification...

Pages 220-227 out of sequence at Sartre\Freedom-3. NecessityI as New StructureI of DialecticalI InvestigationI

Pages 228-252 out of sequence at Sartre\Freedom-4. Social Being as Materiality—Class Being

7-13Grou IV. Collectives (CDR253-342)

8-15Grou The ‘reality of the collective_object rests on recurrenceI’ (SM77, CDR650 out of sequence) Sartre, Search for a Method (p. 77-8P, Fr. 67) "Marxisme... shows how ‘class interests’ impose upon the individual against his individualI interestsI or how the market, at first a simple complex of human_relations, tends to become more real than the sellers and their customers; but MarxismI remains uncertain as to the nature and origin of these ‘collectives’e... (SMp. 78) [T]he reality of the market, no matter how inexorable its laws may be, and even in its concrete appearance, rests on the realityI of alienated individualsI and on their separation. It is necessaryI to take up the study of collectives again from the beginning and to demonstrate that these objects, far from being[-there] characterized by the direct unity of a consensus, represent perspectives of flight. This is because, upon the basis of given2neg conditions, the direct relationsok [of three degrees]lived/2neg&lived/1neg between persons depend upon other singular [singularéres] relationsI

ok, and these on still others, and so on in succession, because there is an objective constraint in concreteI connections [rapports] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg. It is not the presence of others but their absence which

33


establishes this constraint; it is not their union but their separation. For us the realityI of the collective_objectlivedR rests on recurrence**17. It demonstrates that the totalization [in course]lived is never achieved and that the totalitydial/lived exists at best only in the form of a detotalized_totalitydial/lived.

(SMp. 78, Fr. 67) sartre¶ "As such these collectives existI. They are revealed immediately in action and in perception. In each one of them we shall always find a concreteI materiality (a movementdial/lived, the head office, a building, a word, etc.) which supports and manifests a flight which eats it away. I need only open my window: I see a church, a bank, a cafe—three collective. This thousand-franc bill is another; still another is the newspaper I have just bought."

CDR (p. 650, Fr. 733, out of sequence from Herein-6. Other-directions: the Top Ten, Racism and Anti-Semitism) "e...RecurrenceI, controlled from the outside as a determinationdial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] projected [projetée] from everyone, through Othersconcept

ok, into the falsec totalitydial/lived of a common field and, in reality, into pure reflexive [réflexive] flight, is what we shall call manufactured exteriority. This has two complementary aspects: from the point_of_viewdouble connection of 1st&2neg of [1] the praxis of the transcendentlived/1neg group, it [manufactured exteriority] appears [apparaît] a labour which transforms seriality into antiphysisc; from the point_of_viewdouble connection of 1st&2neg of [2] the serialI individual, it is an illusory grasp [transformstolived as 1st&2neg] of his beinglived/1neg as unifying itself in the totalizationI of the common fieldlived/2neg, and the realization of radicalontology alteritylivedR (oriented through an exteriorI group) in him and in all the OthersI

ok on the basis of this illusion. In short, manufactured exteriorityI takes alterityI as far as it can go because it determinesdial [‘that is, as limitation’] to make [à faire] the serialI individualI as the OthersI

ok in order to make himself the Samec as them. But by doing as OthersI

ok he loses the possibility of being[-there] the SameI, except in so far as everyone is otherI than the OthersI

ok and otherI than himselfe..." See Pol...\Capitalism-The Marketing Personality, from Erich Fromm’s The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness (1973, p. 349-50)

-------------------------------------------------**1 Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-RECURRENCE ; Ftn. 7, "Sartre appears to be using the word récurrence in its philosophical sense, referring to the fact that one may extend to the whole of a seriesI the property which can be ascribed to each of its terms. H.B.";

CDR: (p. 89c) "...Even in the human universe, the universe of totalities, there are quite definitive and classifiable situations in which the negation of negationc is a new negation, because in these special cases there is interference between totalityI and recurrence...";

34


Sartre\Political Scarcity-Spain’s containment of collective enrichment is contradicted by the idea’s movementI through serialI illegal outflows;

The Family Idiot: (2:165c) "...recurrence is the rulelivedc in serialI reactions..."

8-15Grou Social_objects in a totalitydial/lived as collectively unorganized, interpenetratedI, and indistinct (CDR253)

Sartre, CDR (p. 253, Fr. 362) "Social_objects** are any objects which have a collective structuredial/lived and which, as such, must be the subject matter of sociology... [They] are practical realities, with their exigencies, to the extent that they realize in and through themselves the interpenetration*** of a multiplicity of unorganized individuals within them and that they produce every individualI in them in the indistinction of a totalitydial/lived. The structureI of this ‘totalityI’ has yet to be determineddial [‘that is, as limitation’]; but it ought not to be understoodFr=? in the same sense as that in which a groupI of machines makes itself the unity of its servants by determiningI tasks ... as we have seen.

(CDRp. 253-4) sartre¶A collective structuredial/lived, that is to say, a structureI of totalizinglived or pseudo-totalizingI interpenetration, could exist within a mechanical ensemble only to the extent that the mechanicalI ensembleI itself existedI as an undifferentiated practico-inert [totality]lived reality—for example, as a factory which, when it closes its gates, throws two thousand workers out of work... On the other hand, we must emphasize that groupsI (both as practical organizations, directly established by human praxis, and as present, concrete undertakings) can arise only on the foundation of a collective which, however, they do not eliminate (at least not entirely) and, conversely, that in so far as, whatever its aim, it necessarilyCDRdial/lived acts through the medium of the practico-inert_field, it must itself, as a freeCDR organization of individuals with a common aim, produce its collectiveI structureI, that is to say, exploit its inertia for practice (this, as we have seen, characterizes actionI at every, level). (CDRp. 254) Any social field is constituteddial, very largely, by structuredI ensembles of groupings which are always at once praxis and practico-inert [totality]livedc, although either of these characteristics may constantly tend to cancel itself out; only expérience can indicate the internal_connectiondial/lived**** of interiorlivedc structuresI of a precise grouplivedc at a precise momentdial of its interiorI dialectic.

-------------------------------------------------** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-SOCIAL_OBJECTS ;

Search for a Method: (p. 100, Ftn. 5c) "...each one understandsFr=? and surpasses1neg the project of the other. It is by these surpassingsI and surpassingsI of surpassingsI that a social_object may be constituteddial which, taken as a wholedial, is a

35


reality provided with meaningCDRlived and something in which nobody can completely recognize himself; in short, a human work without an author [authorless act]c..."

CDR: (p. 292c) "...In so far as their inertia preserves them, all social_objects are collectives in their fundamental materiality; as long as they last, all of them derive their reality from the perpetual detotalizationdial/livedc of the totalitydial/lived of men; basically, they all presuppose a haemorrhage gnawing away a material presence...";

CDRII: (p. 13c, ce) "...an infinite number of social_objects—and of the most varied kinds—contain as their inner structuresdial the twofold negation of themselves and of each component by the other...";

Sartre\Intelligibility of History -RThe ‘social_object ... possesses an objective reality as a constituteddial product’;

-The Labor—Conflict Relation, Constitutivedial/group of HumanI HistoryI;

-------------------------------------------------*** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-INTERPENETRATION ;

CDR:Rsub-topic below, with (p. 254-5c) "...In order to comprehendFr=? the collective one must comprehendI

Fr=? that this material object realizes the unity of interpenetration of individuals as beings-in-the-world-outside-themselves...", and (p. 255c) "...by the pre-established and given2neg interpenetration of everyone as Othersconcept

ok.";Sartre\Negation-RConclusion of Individual Praxis as Totalizationlived

-------------------------------------------------**** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-INTERNAL_CONNECTION dial/lived [rapport interne]; all hits listed below.

BN: (p. 86c) "...On the other hand, there is a type of negation which establishes an internal_connectiondial/lived between this which one denies and thatI concerning which the denial is made..." [eg., for itself’s denial of being only the in-itself]

(p. 121c) "...Presence_toc—is an internal connection dial/livedok between the

beingI which is presentI and the beingsI to which it is presentI..."; (p. 125c) "...At one throw, as I am there on the court and returning the

ball, I exist as a lackdial/lived to myself, and the intermediary positions which I adopt are only ways of uniting myself with that future [futur] state so as to merge with it; each position has meaningBNlivedR only through that futureI stateI. There is in my consciousness no momentdial which is not similarly defined by an internal connectiondial/lived to a futureI..."

Search for a Method: (p. 25c, Fr. 33) sartre¶"Now there can be no doubt that the fruitfulness of living Marxism stemmed in part from its way of approaching expérience. MarxI was convinced that facts are never isolated apparitionsFr=?, that if they produce themselves as an ensemble, it is always within the higher unity of a

36


wholedial, that they are bound to each other by internal connections dial/lived, and that the presence of one profoundly modifies the nature of the other..."

CDR: bookmark above)

8-15Grou Collectives, groups, ensembles, practical_organisms, common_individuals (CDR254-5, 9 pages)

Sartre, CDR (p. 254-5, Fr. 363) sartre¶"The collective, therefore, will often appear [apparaîtra] in my examples through living or moribund groups**3 of which it is a fundamental structuredial. But, in so far as the group constitutesdial itself as a negation of the collective which engenders and sustains it, and in so far as the collective reappearsI

ok when a complex of historical circumstances negates the group as an undertaking but does not liquidate it as a determinationdial [‘that is, as limitation’], we can identify, at the extremes, groups in which passivity tends to disappearI

Fr=? entirely (for example, a very small ‘combat unit,’ all of whose members life and struggle together, and never leave each other), and collectives which have almost entirely reabsorbed their group: Thus in Budapest, before the insurrection, the Social Democratic Party, which had practically no members left, officially retained its emblems and its name and its headquarters in a certain building. (CDRp. 255) These extreme—though frequent and normal—cases enable us to make a clear separationI between the two social realities: the group is defined by its undertaking and by the constant movementdial/lived of integration which tends to turn it into pure praxis trying to eliminate all forms of inertia from it; the collective *** 2 is defined by its being [- there], that is to say, in so far as all praxisI is constituteddial by its beingI as mere exisc; it is a material, inorganiclived object in the practico-inert_fieldR in so far as a discrete multiplicity of active individuals produce themselves in it under the sign of the Otherconcept

ok, as a real unity within Being[-there]concept/1negc, that is to say, as a passiveI synthesisdial/lived, and to the extent that the constitutedI object is posited as essential and that its inertiaI penetrates every individualI praxis as its fundamental determinationdial [‘that is, as limitation’] by passiveI unity, that is to say, by the pre-established and given2neg interpenetrationRc of everyone as OthersI

ok.(CDRp. 255, Fr. 363) sartre¶ "In this new momentdial of the spiralc, we find the same

terms [collective and group] enriched by their partial totalizations [in course]lived and reciprocal conditionings: [1] reciprocityI as a fundamental human_relation, [2] the separation of individualI organisms, [3] the practical_fielddial/lived with its dimensions of alteritylived in depth, [4] inorganic_materialitylivedc as man’s being-outside-himself in the inertI object and as the inert’sI being-outside-itselfI as exigency in man, in the unity of a falsely reciprocal connectionok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg of interiority. But specifically, outside the human_relationI of reciprocityI and the relationok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg to the thirdlived/1negc, which in themselves are not social****1 (although in

37


a sense they condition all sociality and are conditioned by sociality in their historicalI content), the structureddial connectionok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg of the individuallived/1neg to other individualslived/2neg remains in itself completely indeterminate until the ensemble*****1 of material circumstances, on the basis of which the connectionI

ok is established has been defined, from the point_of_viewdouble connection of 1st&2neg

of the historicalI process of totalizationI. In this sense, their exists a contrast between ‘reciprocityI as a connectionI

ok of interiority’ and ‘the solitudelived/1neg of organisms as a connectionI

ok of exterioritylived/2neg’, which, in the abstract, conditions an unspecified tension within multiplicities. [This contrast is] in fact transcendendlived/1neg, and merged in a new type of ‘external-internalok’ connectionI

ok by the action of the practico-inert_fieldIc which transforms contradiction in the milieu of the Otherconcept

ok into seriality. In order to comprehendok the collective, I comprehendI

ok that this material object realizesdouble ontology/1neg&2neg the unity of interpenetrationc of individuals in so far as beings-in-the-world-outside-themselvesI are the measure of how they structuredial their connectionok [of three degrees]1st&2neg as practical_organisms******1 in accordance with the new rulelivedc of series."

-------------------------------------------------Hazel Barnes "Introduction," Search for a Method (p. xxviiP) "Sartre states

that the ultimate ideal for mankind would be a world in which all men worked together in full consciousness to make their history in common. We occasionally see the first approximation of this in what he calls the ‘group-in-fusion,’ a genuine ‘we-subject’ Here individual praxis gives way to common praxis, and there emerges ‘the common_individual’e... In the group-in-fusion there is no longer an I-you division or I-they. Rather it is a collection of ‘thirds’ in which each thirdI is a ‘myself’ inasmuch as all are working to accomplish the same goal. The group achieves ends which are my ends but which I could not attain by myself." [See CDR (p. 119P ) for more]Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-COMMON INDIVIDUAL ;

CDRII: (p. 55c) "...inasmuch as this common_individual must be sustained and continually re-created by the practical_organismc, this relationship [of three degrees]1st&2neg of indetermination can be realizedlivedc only in the form of a syntheticdial and living relationshipI, in the course of the functional praxis of individuals or sub-groups..."

-------------------------------------------------**3 Ref sartre\Index of Terms-GROUP ;

CDR: (p. 65c) "...it is no part of our project to determinedial [‘that is, as limitation’] whether series precede groups or vice versa, either originally or in a particular momentdial of Historyconcept. On the contrary: as we shall see, groups are born of seriesI and often end up by serializingI themselves in their turn..."

38


(p. 136c) "I do not intend to study the types of groups, collectives and institutions which form themselvesS&A within this social field [scarcity]; I am not trying to reconstitutedial the momentsdial of Historyconcept or the descriptions of sociology."

(p. 254c) "...only expérience can permit the internal_connectiondial/livedcok of

the interiorlivedc structuresdial to a definite group and as a definite momentdial of its interior dialectic...";

"Maoists in France" (p. 166-7c, 1971) "...A group is said to be a serial groupI when each of its members, though he may be in the same circumstances as all the others, remains alone and defines himself according to his neighbor insofar as his neighbor thinks like the others. That is, each is some ‘thing’ other than himself and behaves like some ‘one’ else, who in turn is other than himself... (p. 167c, ce) ...But as soon as concrete action calls for unification—even if it is only temporary—serial_thinkinglived no longer has a place, because the group can never think or actI in a serial way..."

-------------------------------------------------***2 Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-COLLECTIVE [collectif]; cf. collective_object;

Herein-Peter Caws’s ‘at least three varieties of collectivesI are to be distinguished’

The Family Idiot(2:18c) "... the new recruit must interiorize it [a religious vow] as an other

willc, or the willI of the Collective, sustained by the constraint of the serialI, by the constraint of the sworn_group, if need be by bodily constraint..."

(5:43c) "...the exteriority of writing makes it [writing] present itself to every reader as a social-object. It is in effect what it is. If itlived/1neg is apprehended through its connectionok [of three degrees]1st&2neg with the seriality of readingslived/2neg, it appears [apparaît] as a collective, that is to say a real index of social detotalizationdial/lived. Through it [exteriority of writing] we measure the separation of individuals in an envisaged Societyconcept; it represents through its mystery the false union of readers, each of whom is ignorantI of the other’s thoughts..."

(5:44c) "...The book is structureddial as a collective to the extent that any group is necessarilyCDRdial/lived penetrated by seriality (it may be that students or young workers meet regularly to read the book and discuss it. Only this evening the young man has gone to his room and reads without friends or witnesses). But while this ambiguous structuredial reminds the isolated reader in this fashion of his present solitude, it defines it not as a real and permanent state but as both a product of bourgeois society (therefore as a yoke to be thrown off) and a danger: all alone, I have no one to stop me from making a mistake. I must try to read as if I were everyone together. It is my vow—my commitment to the Party—that determinesdial

39


[‘that is, as limitation’] my reading; the book restores the group as the normative determinationI of my activities..." Herein-RPublic opinion as a ‘collective’

-------------------------------------------------****1 See Herein-Direct gatherings within maximum distance permit reciprocity and common_praxis

-------------------------------------------------*****1 Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-ENSEMBLE [ensemble];

group ensembles CDR: (p. 64c) "...But it will never be sufficient to show the production of

ensembles by individuals or by one another, nor, conversely, to show how individuals are produced by the ensembles which they compose. It will be necessaryI to show the dialectical intelligibility of these transformations in every case." [details in next paragraph of Sartre\Dialectic-10. The Plan of this work

serial ensembles CDR: (p. 254c) Any social field is constituteddial, very largely, by

structureddial ensembles of groupings which are always at once praxis and practico-inert [totality]lived c, although either of these characteristics may constantly tend to cancel itself out; only expérience can indicate the internal_connectiondial/livedc

ok of the interiorlivedc structuresdial to a definite grouplivedc and as a definitec momentdial of its interiorI dialectic...";

(p. 259c) "...the bus designates the present commuters interchangeability: each of them is effectively produced by the social ensemble as united with his neighbors, in so far as he is strictly identical with them...";

The Family Idiot: (5:43c) "...Reading is an interiorization according to definite procedures, but the sentence is never entirely soluble. Its indestructible materiality derives at once from the frozen rigidity of the vestige and from its multiple connectionok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg—for every readerlived/1neg—to otherslived/2neg. In other words, its [the sentences] virtual extension to a whole public and its actual joiningsFr=? with the series of readers or groups, or the two as an ensemble..."

Other ensemblesBN: (p. 460c) "e...Every particulardial

Fr=? possibilitydial, in fact, is articulated in an ensemble. It is necessaryI to conceive of this ultimate possibilitydial as the unitary synthesisdial/lived of all our actual possiblesI: each of these possiblesdial resides in an undifferentiated state in the ultimate possibilitydial until a particular circumstance comes to throw it into relief without, however thereby suppressing its quality of belonging to the totalitydial/lived."

CDR: (p. 45c) "...the symphony or the painting, as I have shown elsewhere, are imagineries aimed through the ensemble of dried paints or the linking of sounds which serve as their analogonc...";

40


(p. 174c) "...For mechanicalc bonds, strictly speaking, are bonds of exteriority: the forces acting on an object are independent of each other, and the elements of a system are invariable. It is for precisely this reason that they can be treated as quantities: the wholedial/lived does not act on the parts for the simple reason that there is no wholeI. These are ensembles or sums: connections [rapports] [of three degrees] as 1neg&2neg change, but the terms they relate are not modified by these elements..."

Search for a Method: (p. 100c) "...It is by these surpassings1neg and surpassingsI of surpassingsI that a social_object may be constituteddial which, taken as a wholedial ensemble, is a reality provided with meaningCDRlived and something in which nobody can completely recognize himself; in short, a humanI work without an author [authorless act]c..."

Hartmann, Klaus, "Sartre’s Theory of Ensembles," in The Philosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre, ed., Paul Schilpp, La Salle, Illinois, Open Court, 1981, (p. 631-660).

-------------------------------------------------******1 Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-PRACTICAL_ORGANISM ; common individual in group; All 13 hits copied below; cf. organism;

Search for a Method: (p. 172c) "...Whatever the discipline considered, its most elementary notions would be incomprehensible without the immediate comprehensionI [1] of the project which underlies them, [2] of negativity [seeking to deny lack] as the basis of the projectI, [3] of transcendencelived/1neg as the existence outside-of-itself in relationok [of three degrees]posited&posited with the Otherconcept

ok-than-itself and the OtherI

ok-than-man, [4] of the surpassing1neg as a mediationlivedc between the given2neg that is simply there and the practical significationlivedc, [5] of needdial/lived, [6] finally, as the being-outside-itself-in-the-world on the part of the practical_organism..."

(p. 179c & 180c) "In other words, the foundation of anthropology is man himself, not as the object of practical Knowledge [Savoir]concept, but as a practical_organism producing Knowledge [Savoir]concept as a momentdial of its praxis."; same subtopic (p. 180c, Fr. 181) "...this comprehension—as a living [vivant] movementdial/lived of the practical_organism—can take place only within a concrete situation, insofar as theoretical Knowledge [Savoir]concept illuminates and interprets this situationI."

CDR: (p. 58c) "...In this respect, as we shall see in detail later, thought, when it makes itself into directed inertia in order to act on inertiaI, conforms to the rulelived? of the practical_organism at every level..."

(p. 72c) "...Consequently, the problem of necessityCDRdial/lived, which is immediately given2neg as a structuredial of our critical_expériencelived, necessarilyI leads

41


us to the fundamental problem of anthropologyc, that is, to the relationsok [of three degrees]1st&2neg of practical_organismslived/1neg to inorganic_matterlived/2neg..."

(p. 227, Ftn. 68c) "...Fundamental alienationc ... derives from the unilateral connectionlived&lived [rapport] [of three degrees]lived&lived as 1neg&2neg of interiority which unites man as a practical_organism with his environment."

(p. 255c) "...In order to comprehendok the collective, I comprehendIok that

this material objectI realizes the unity of interpenetrationc of individuals in so far as beings-in-the-world-outside-themselves are the measure of how they structuredial theirlived/1neg connectionok [of three degrees]lived&live as 1neg&2negd as practical_organismslived/1neg in accordance with the new rulelivedc of serieslived/2neg."

(p. 303c, Fr. 407) "... But at the same time [the common-object] produces itself as collective in and through the real behaviour of every practical_organism, [the common-object] is constituteddial as a negative unity and a threatening (or paralyzing) interdependence by the impotence of each real action in so far as it derives from the actionI of the Othersconcept

ok through the practical_fielddial/lived..."CDRII: (p. 3c, Fr. 11) "...Contradictionsc, to move across the praxis of the

practical_organism, define themselves as momentsdial of this praxisI. They spring from the fact that the labour brought to bear upon the practical_fielddial/lived is an irreversible temporalizationCDRlived..."

(p. 14c, Fr. 23) "...If one wished to make struggle into a universal structuredial of all historiesI, it would be necessaryCDRdial/lived to prove that the only original connectionlived&lived [rapport] [of three degrees]as 1neg&2neg between practical_organismslived/1neg and the outside worldlived/2neg which nourishes and maintains them must be scarcity..."

(p. 53c) "...And, of course, the common_individual is only the inert limit of freedomCDR: it is the practical_organism that makes the option. But it makes it precisely on the basis of the determinationsdial [‘that is, as limitation’] introduced into its sworn inertiaI

ok."(CDRIIp. 55c) "...But inasmuch as this common_individuallivedc must be

sustained and continually re-created by the practical_organism, this relationship [of three degrees]1st&2neg of indetermination can be realizedlivedc only in the form of a syntheticdial and living relationshipI, in the course of the functional praxis of individuals or sub-groups. And of course, to realizeIc it is to transcendlived/1neg it, to make a practice out of what was a certain inertia2neg, and to organize it in immanencec as the structuredial of a projectlived/1neg: hence, continually to make it an internal_connectiondial/livedc in relationok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg of interiorityI with other interiorizedI connections [rapports] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg..."

-------------------------------------------------

42


The Family Idiot: (5:204c, Fr. 3:222) sartre¶ "But the appetite for nonknowledgec [non-savoir] is equally fundamental; concrete life—that of the freeCDR, practical_organism enfolds a comprehensionok of the selfI, as a response which surpasses1neg and preserves the question in itself and excludes, as it is lived, that other type of response, objective knowledge [connaissance]..."

8-15Grou Peter Caws: ‘at least three varieties of collectives are to be distinguished’

Peter Caws, Sartre (p. 171) "...at least three varieties are to be distinguished:"[...1, my paragraph break] collectives which owe their existence to contingent

unifying forces outside them; [continued at 2 below]"Sartre, CDR (p. 48c) "...Everything is given2neg in the least punch: from the

historylivedc of the one who delivers it to the material and collective circumstances of that historyI...";

CDR (p. 304c) "... the collective is not simply the form of being[-there] of certain social realities, [Ftn 89. ‘...though certain of these realities have no being other than collective being.’] but that it is also the beingI of sociality itself at the level of the practico-inert_field. And I have been able to describe this beingI as social beingI in its elementary, fundamental structuredial because it is at the practico-inert [totality]lived level that sociality is produced in men by things as a bond of materiality which transcendslived/1neg and alters simple human_relations. Besides a collective is in itself a sort of scale model of the practico-social field and of any passive_activity carried out in it..."

-------------------------------------------------ibid. "[...2, my paragraph break] collectives constitute genuine groups which

have, that is to say, a common praxis which provides an inner unity; [continued at 3]"Search for a Method (p. 130c) "...The group bestows its power and

its efficacy upon the individuals whom it has made and who have made it in turn, whose irreducible particularitydial is one way of living universality... [T]hus the event itself, while a collective apparatus, is more or less marked with individual signs; persons are reflected [reflétant] in it to the same extent that the conditions of the conflict and the structuresdial of the group have permitted them to be personalized..."

-------------------------------------------------ibid. "[...3, my paragraph break] collectives which are vestiges of groups,

whose unity is contingent ... rather than in relation [of three degrees]1st&2neg to some present, although exterior, object or force..."; [source unknown] "...[As a collective] The social-democratic tendency, which was very strong among the workers, became a tendency, an exis, but outside any party..."

43


8-15Grou 1. Series: the queue (index) (CDR256-269)Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-SERIES ; later works; cf. serial_praxis;

CDR: Sartre\Political Scarcity-RRacism ‘is the colonial interest lived through the serialI flight of alteritylived’;

(p. 15c) "...that each momentdial of a series is comprehensibleok on the basis of the initial momentI, though irreducible to it...";

(p. 262c) "...With a concept in effect, everyone is the same as the Othersconceptok

in so far as he is himself. In the series, however, everyone becomes himself (as Otherconcept

ok than self) in so far as he is other than the OthersIok, and so, in so far as the

OthersIok are other than him. There can be no conceptc of a series, for every member

is serial by virtue of his place in the order, and therefore by virtue of his alteritylived in so far as it is posited as irreducible...";

(p. 263c) "..."the serial movementdial/lived in our example excludes the connections [rapports] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg of reciprocity: everyone is the reasonok for the Other-beingconcept/1negc of the OtherI

ok in so far as the OtherIconcept/1negok is the reasonok for

his being[-there]. In a sense, we are back with material exteriority, which should come as no surprise since the series is determineddial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] by inorganic_matterc..."

(p. 266c) ""There are serial behaviours, serial feelings and serial thoughts; in other words a series is a mode of being[-there] for individuals both in connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1st&2neg to one an_other and in connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg to their common being and this mode of [serial] being transforms all their structuresdial...";

(p. 303c) "...This serial being[-there] is constituteddial as a negative unity and a threatening (or paralyzing) interdependence by the impotence of each real action in so far as it is derived from the actionI of the Othersconcept

ok through the practical_fielddial/lived...";

The Family Idiot: Sartre\Flaubert’s Personalization-RLaughter serializes a collective as an exterior Alter Egoconcept

"The Maoists in France": (p. 166-7c, 1971) "...A grouplivedc is said to be a serial groupI when each of its members, though he may be in the same circumstances as all the others, remains alone and defines himself according to his neighbor insofar as his neighbor thinks like the others. That is, each is some ‘thing’ other than himself and behaves like some ‘one’ else, who in turn is other than himself. The workers articulated and confirmed serial_thinkinglived** as though it were their own thinkingI, but it was actually the thinkingI of the ruling classc, who imposed it on the workers from the outside... (p. 167) "...But as soon as concrete action calls for unification—even if it is only temporary—serial_thinking no longer has a place, because the group can never think or actI in a serial way..."

44


-------------------------------------------------** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-SERIAL_THINKING lived;

8-15Grou NegativeI reciprocal projectI of solitude with others waiting for a bus (CDR256)

Sartre, CDR (p. 256, S&A 456, Fr. 364) "Let us illustrate these notions by a superficial everyday example. Take a grouping of people in the Place Saint-Germain. They are waiting for a bus at a bus stope... To begin with, it should be noted that we are here concerned with a plurality of solitudes: these people do not care about or speak to each other and, in general, they do not look at one another; they exist side by side alongside a bus stop. At this level, it is worth noting that their solitude is not an inertc status (or the simple reciprocal exteriority of organisms); rather, it is actually lived in everyone’s project as his negativec structuredial. In other words, the solitude** of the organismlived/2neg, as the impossibility of uniting with Othersconcept

ok in an organic_totalitydial/livedc, reveals itself through the solitude which everyoneontology/1neg lives as the provisional negation of their reciprocal connections [rapports] [of three degrees] as 1neg&2neg with Othersconcept/1neg

ok..."(CDRp. 257-8, S&A 458, Fr. 365-6) "e semi-unawareness of massification...Let me add that the

mode of life [massification] awakens in each individual behaviors which are solitary—buying the paper as you leave the house, reading it on the bus, etc. These are often operationsdial/lived for making the transition (from the intimacy of the family to the public life of the office). (p. 258AS) Thus solitude is a projectI. And as such it is relative to such individualsI and such momentsdial: to isolate oneself by reading the paper is to make use of the national collectivity and, ultimately, the totalityI of living human beingsI, in so far as one is one of them and dependent on all of them, in order to separate oneself from the hundred people who are waiting for or using the same vehicle in common. Organic solitude, suffered solitudeI, livedI solitudeI, solitudeI as a mode of behaviour, solitudeI as a social status of the individualI, solitudeI as the exteriorityI of groups conditioning the exteriorityI of individualsI, solitudeI as the reciprocity of isolations in a society which creates masses: all these forms, all these oppositions recover themselves at once in the little group we are considering, in so far as solitude is a historical and social form of humanI behaviour in humanI gatherings.

(AS CDRp. 258) "But, at the same time, the connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg of reciprocityI remains in the gatheringI itself, and among its members; the negation of solitude by praxis preserves it in its denial; it is, in fact, quite simply, the practical existence of men among men. Not only is there a livedI [vécue] reality e... but also, even outside everyone’s reallived/1neg connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg to the othersok

lived/2neg, the ensemble of solitary behaviors in so far as it is

45


conditioned by historical_totalizationdial, presupposes a structuredial of reciprocityI at every level. This reciprocityI must be the most constant possibility and the most immediate reality, for otherwise the social models in currency (clothes, hair style, bearings, etc) would not be adopted by everyone (although of course this is not sufficient), and neither would everyone hasten to repair anything wrong with their dress as soon as they notice it, and if possibleI in secret. This shows that solitude does not remove one from the visual and practical_fielddial/lived of the Otherconcept

ok, and that it realizes itself objectively in this field."

-------------------------------------------------** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-SOLITUDE ; a negative.

8-15Grou The ‘bus designates the present commuters ... interchangeability’ (CDR258)

Sartre, CDR (p. 258-9, S&A 459, Fr. 366-7) "At this level, we recognize the same society (which we just saw as an agent of massification), in so far as its practico-inert [totality]lived being[-there] serves as a medium conducive to inter-individual reciprocities: for these separate people form a group, in so far as they are all standing on the same pavement, which protects them from the traffic crossing the square, in so far as they** are groupedI around the same bus stop, etc. Above all, these individuals form a group to the extent that they have a common interest, so that, though separatedI as organic individualsI, they share a structuresdial of their practico-inertI beingI, and it unites them from outside. (CDRp. 259) They are all, or nearly all, workers, and regular users of the bus service; they know the time-table and frequency of the buses; and consequently they all wait for the same bus: say the 7.49. This object, in so far as they are dependent upon it (breakdowns, failuresI , accidents), is their present interestI. But this present interestI—since they all live in the district—refers back to fuller and deeper structuresdial of their general interestI: improvement of public transport, freezing of fares, etc. The bus they wait for unites them, beingI their interestI as individualsI who this morning have business on the rive droite; but, as the 7.49, it is their interestI as commuters; everything is temporalizedCDRlived: the traveler recognizes himself as a resident (that is, he is referred to the five or ten previous years), and then the bus characterizes itself by its daily eternal return (it is actually the very same bus, with the same driver and conductor). The objectI takes on a structuredial which overflows its pure inert existence; as such it is provided with a passive future [avenir] and pastlived, and these make it appear to the passengers as a fragment (an insignificant one) of their destinylivedc.

(CDRp. 259, S&A 459-60, Fr. 367) "However, to the extent that the bus designates the present commuters, it constitutes CDR /dial them in their interchangeability ***: each

46


of them is effectively produced by the social ensemblelivedc as united with his neighbors, in so far as he is strictly identical with them. In other words, their being-outside (that is to say, their interestI as regular users of the bus service) is unified in that it is a pure and indivisible abstraction, rather than a rich, differentiated synthesisdial/lived ; it is simple identity, designating the commuter as an abstractI generality by means of a defined praxis (signaling the bus, getting on it, finding a seat, paying the fare), in the development of a broad, syntheticdial praxisI (the undertaking which unites the driver and conductor every morning, in the temporalizationCDRlived which is one certain route through Paris at a certain time). At this momentdial of the expérience, the unit-beingI (être-unique) of the group lies outside itself, in a objectI to come, and everyone, in so far as he is determineddial [‘that is, as limitation’] by the common interestI, differentiatesI himself from everyone else only by the simple materiality of the organismc. And already, if they are characterized in their temporalizationI as awaiting their beingI as the beingI of all, the abstractI unity of their common future [à venir] being[-there] manifests itself as being-otherlived/1neg in connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg to the organismI which it is concretelylived/2neg (or, to put it another way, which it exists). This momentdial cannot be one of conflict, but it is no longer one of reciprocity; it must simply be seen as the abstractI stage of identityIc. [continued same paragraph below]

-------------------------------------------------** and *** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-THEY , INTERCHANGEABILITY ;

BN: (p. 424c, no ce) "...the manufactured object makes me known to myself as ‘they’; that is, it refers to me the image of my transcendencelived/1neg as that of any transcendenceI whatsoever... my immediate ends are the ends of the ‘they’ and I grasp [transformslived/2negtolived/1neg] myself as interchangeablelived/1neg with any one of my neighborslived/2neg...";

Sartre\The Other-RHeidegger’s being-with as membership in a crew;Sartre\The Other-ROppressed as interchangeable objects until ‘they’ look at

‘them’CDR: (p. 266c) "...The Otherconcept, as Reason of the series and as a factor in

every particularFr=? case of alteritylived, therefore becomes, beyond its structuredial/lived of identity and its structureI of alterityI, a being[-there] common to all (as negated and preserved interchangeability)...";

Herein-RInterchangeability ‘as the impossibility of deciding, a priori, which individuals are dispensable’;

Sartre\Political Scarcity-RConflicts produce interests constituteddial through men as instruments of worked_matter;

47


8-15Grou Having the same objective reality in the future, the unjustified separation of human organisms limits itself as identity (CDR260)

Sartre, CDR (p. 260, Fr. 367, S&A 460-1, continuing my paragraph break) sartre¶In so far as they have the same objective reality in the future [avenir] (a minute later, the same for everyone, and the bus will round the corner of the boulevard), the unjustified separationlivedR of these organisms (in so far as it arises from other conditions and another region of being[-there]) determinesdial [‘that is, as limitation/megation’] itself as identity. There is identityI when the common interest (as the determinationI of generalityc by the unity of an object in the context of defined practices) is made manifest, and when the plurality is defined in proportion to that interestI. In that, in fact it matters little if the commuters are biologically or socially differentiated; in so far as they are united by an abstract generality they are identicalI as separate individuals. Their identityI is their futureFr=? practico-inert [totality]lived unity, in so far as it determinesdial [‘that is, as limitation’] itself at the actual momentdial as meaninglessCDR

separation. And, since all the lived characteristics which might serve as an interior differentiationI lie outside this determinationdial [‘that is, as limitation’], the identityI of each with each Otherconcept

ok is their unity over there, as being-OtherIok; here and now,

it is their common alteritylived**. Each is the same as the OthersI

ok in so far as he is OtherIok than

himself. And identityI as alterity is exterior separation; in other words, it is the impossibility of realizing, through the body, the transcendentlived/1neg unity to come, in so far as one feels this unity as irrational necessityCDRdial/lived.78

-------------------------------------------------CDRFtn. 78. "In fact, it is perfectly rationaldial/ when the stages of the entire process are reconstructed. All the same, the conflict between interchangeability and existence (as unique, lived praxis) must be livedI at some level as a scandalous absurdity."** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-ALTERITY lived [altérité];

CDR: Herein-RThe ‘reality of the object rests on recurrenceI’, for ‘radicalontology alterity ... going as far as it can go’; CDR glossary: ‘alterity, relation of separation, opposed to reciprocity’

-(below) RInterchangeability ‘as the impossibility of deciding, a priori, which individuals are dispensable’ (CDR260)

-RSerial alteritylived as a practice of reciprocity contains real interiority (CDR263)

-RHow ‘alteritylived creates its own laws’ (CDR298-300) (p. 350c) "...Indeed, let us not forget that the common_objectlivedc, as the

unity of the multiple outside itself, is above all the producer of serial unity and that

48


it is on the basis of this double determinationdial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] that the anti-dialectical structuresdial/lived of the collectivity, or alterity, constitutesdial itself.";

8-15Grou Interchangeability ‘as the impossibility of deciding, a priori, which individuals are dispensable’ (CDR260)

Sartre, CDR (p. 260, Fr. 368) "It is precisely at this level that material objects [the bus] will be found to determinedial [‘that is, as limitation’] the serial order as the social reason for the separation of individuals. The practico-inert [totality]lived exigencylivedc, here, derives from scarcity: there are not enough places for everyonee... [T]he number of people in proportion to the number of seats—would designate every individualI as dispensable; the Otherconcept

ok would be the rival of the Otherconcept/2negok

because of their identity; separationI would turn into contradiction. But, except in cases of panic—where, in effect, everyone fights himself in the OtherI, in the whirling madness of an abstract unity and a concrete but unthinkable individualityI

—the relationok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg of reciprocitylived/1neg, emerging or re-emerging in the exteriority of identitylived/2neg, establishes interchangeability livedR as the impossibility of deciding, a priori , which individuals I are dispensable ; and it occasions some practice whose purpose is to avoid conflicts and arbitrariness by creating an order."

(CDRp. 261) "e...The veritably important transformation is that alteritylivedR as such, pure alterityI, is no longer either the simple connection [rapport] [of three degrees]lived&lived as 1neg&2neg to common unity, or the shifting identity of organisms. As an ordering, it becomes a negative principle of unity and of determiningdial [‘that is, as limitation’] everyone’s fate as Otherconcept

ok by every OtherIok as OtherI

ok. It matters a lot to me, in effect, that I have the tenth number rather than the twentieth. But I am tenth through OthersI

ok in so far as they are OtherIcok than themselves, that is to say,

in so far as the Reasonconceptok** for their number does not lie in themselvese..."

8-15Grou Structuredial/lived ‘of universality really existsI in the grouping’ (CDR262)Sartre, CDR (p. 262, Fr. 369) "On this basis, we may grasp

[transformslived/2negtolived/1neg] ourlived/2neg connectionok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg to the objectlived/1neg [bus] in their complexity. On the one hand, we have effectively remained general individuals (in so far as we form part of this gathering, of course). Therefore, the unity of the collection of commuters lies in the bus they are waiting for, in fact, it is the bus, as a simple possibility of transport (not for transporting all of us, for we do not act together, but for transporting each of us). Thus, as an appearance [apparance] and a first abstraction, a structure dial of universality really exists in the grouping ; indeed, everyone is identical with the Otherconcept

ok in so far as they are waiting for the bus. However, their actsI of waiting are not a communal fact, but are lived separately as identicalI instances of the same actI. From this point_of_viewdouble connection

49


of 1st&2neg, the group is not structureddial; it is a gathering and the number of individualsI in it is contingent. This signifies that any other number was possibleI (e...) This is the levelFr=? where conceptualization has its place; that is to say, conceptsI are based on molecular appearanceI

Fr=? of organisms and on the transcendentlived/1neg unity of the group (common interest).

[CDRFr. 370] "But this generality, as the fluid homogeneity of the gatheringc (in so far as its unity lies outside it), is just an abstractI appearanceI, for it is actually constituteddial in its very multiplicity by its transcendentIlived/1neg unity as a structureddial multiplicity. With a concept, in effect, everyone is the same as the Othersconcept

ok in so far as he is himself. In the serieslivedc, however, everyone becomes himself (as OtherI

ok than self) in so far as he is other than the OthersIok, and so, in so far as the

OthersIok are other than him. There can be no conceptc of a seriesI, for every member

is serialI by virtue of his place in the order, and therefore by virtue of his alteritylived in so far as it is posited as irreducible."

8-15Grou Serial alteritylived as a practice of reciprocity contains real interiority (CDR263)

Sartre, CDR (p. 263, Fr. 370) "e...seriality derives from practico-inert_matter**, that is to say, from the future [avenir] as an ensemble of inert, equivalent possibilitiesI

(equivalent, in this case, because no means of forecasting them is given): there is the possibilityI that there will be one place, that there will be two, or three, etce... And it is these possibilitiesI and these alone which within the group, constitutedial the real content of his alteritylivedR.

sartre¶"But it should be noticed that this constituentlived/individual alterityI necessarilyCDRdial/lived—depends on all the Othersconcept

ok and on the realI [réelle] possibilityI which will present itself. In this manner the OtherI

ok has his essence in all the OthersI

ok, in so far as he differs from them.79 Moreover, this alterityI, as a principle of ordination, naturally produces itself as a joining [liaison]. Now, this joiningI of men between them discoversdial/lived itself as an entirely new type from the connectionok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg from those we have seen. On the one hand, one would not know how to bring the connectionI

ok back to reciprocity since the serialI movementdial/lived in the viewed example excludes the reciprocal connectionok [of three degrees] as 1st&2neg: [i.e.,] everyone is the reasonok for the Other-beingc of the Otherconcept

ok in so far as the OtherI

ok is his reasonok for being[-there]. In a sense, we are back with material exteriority, which should come as no surprise since inorganic_materialitylivedc decides the series. On the other hand to the extent that the ordering was performed by some practice, and that this practice included reciprocity within it, it contains a real interioritylived: for it is in his realI being[-there]I, and as an

50


integral part of a totalitydial/lived which has totalizedlived itself outside, that each is dependent on the Otherconcept

ok in his reality. To put it another way: reciprocity in the milieu of identity becomes a false reciprocityI of connections [rapports] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg: what a is to b (the reasonok for his beingI other), b is to c, b and the entire series are to a. Through this opposition [of a, b, c and the series] between the OtherI

ok and the Samecok in the milieu of the OtherI

ok, alteritylived becomes this paradoxical structurec: the identityI of everyone as everyone’s action of serialI interioritylived on the OtherI

ok. In the same way, identityI (as the sheer absurdity of meaningless dispersal) becomes syntheticdial: everyone is identical with the OtherI

ok in so far as the Othersok

I make him an OtherIok actingI on the OthersI

ok; the formalposited, universal structuredial/lived of alterityI produces the Reason [Raison]concept of the series."

-------------------------------------------------Ftn. 79, "In so far as he is the same, he is simply and formally an_other."** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-PRACTICO-INERT_MATTER ; 2 hits; cf. practico-inert [totality]lived; inert_matter; worked_matter;

CDR: above bookmark; Sartre\Anguish-AlienationI of our objectification as being-outsideI in the thing (SM47, 99, CDR227, index)

8-15Grou Small ‘gathering which slowly forms around the bus stop’ (CDR265)Sartre, CDR (p. 265, Fr. 372) "...the small gatheringc which slowly forms

around the bus stop, apparently by a process of mere aggregation, already has a serial structuredial. It was produced in advance as the structuresI of some unknown group by the ticket machine attached to the bus stop. Everyone realizes it for himself and confirms it for Othersconcept

ok through their own individual praxis and his own ends. This does not mean that he helps to create an active group by freelyCDR determiningdial [‘that is, as limitation’], with other individualsI, the endI, the means, and the division of tasks; it means that he actualizes his being-outside-himself as a reality shared by several people and which already exists, and awaits him, by means of an inert practice, endowed by instrumentality, whose meaningCDRlived is that it integrates into an ordered multiplicity by assigning him a place in a prefabricatedc seriality."

(CDRp. 265-6, Fr. 373) "...each individual realizes himself outside himself in the objective unity of interpenetration in so far as he constitutesdial himself in the gathering as a objectiveI element of a seriesI. (CDRp. 266) Or again, as we shall see more clearly later, whatever it may be, and whatever the circumstances, the seriesI behaves itself on the basis of the unity-object and, conversely, it is in the serialI milieu and through serialI conductsc that the individualI achieves practical and theoretical participation in common being[-there]."

51


(CDRp. 266) "There are serialI behaviours, serialI feelings and serialI thoughts; in other words a seriesIc is a mode of beingI for individualsI both in connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg to onelived/1neg an_otherlived/2neg and in connectionI to theirlived/1neg common beinglived/2neg and this mode of beingI transforms all their structuresdial. In this way it is useful to distinguish [1] serial_praxis** (as the praxis of the individualI in so far as he is a member of the series and as [a] the praxisI of the whole seriesI, or [b] of the seriesI totalizedlived through individualsI) both from [2] common_praxis*** (group action) and from [3] individual, constituentlived praxis. Conversely, in every non-serial praxis , a serial praxis will be found, as the practico-inert [totality]lived structuresdial of the praxisI in so far as it is social. And just as there is a logic of the practico-inertI layer, there are also structuresdial/lived proper to the thought which is produced at this social level of activity; in other words, there is a rationalitypositedR of the theoretical and practical behaviour of an agent as a member of a seriesI. Lastly, to the extent that the seriesI represents the use of alteritylived as a bond between men under the passive_action of an objectI, and as this passive_actionI defines the general type of alterityI which serves as a bond, alterityI is, ultimately, the practico-inertI objectI itself in so far as it produces itself in the milieu of multiplicity with its own particular exigencies. Indeed, every Otherconcept

ok is other than himself and other than OthersI

ok, in so far as their connections [rapports] [of three degrees] constitutedial both himlived/1neg and OthersI

ok in accordance with an objectiveI, practical, inertI rule of alterityI (or a formal particularizationdial of this alterityI).

-------------------------------------------------Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-SERIAL_ PRAXIS ; Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-COMMON_ PRAXIS ;

CDR: (p. 67c, Fr. 181) "...the group has to constitutedial its common_ praxis through the individual praxisI of the agents of whom it is composed..."

8-15Grou This ‘rule—the [dialectical]_Reasonconcept of the series—is common to all through the same measure that they differentiate themselves’ (CDR266)

CDR: (p, 266, Fr. 374] sartre¶ "Thus this rule lived R —the [ dialectic] concept Reason of the series c —is common lived/group to all through the same measure that they differentiate themselves. I say commonI and not identical: in effect, identityI is separationlivedc, in place of which the [dialectical]_Reasonconcept/1negc of the series is a dynamic dialectic_schemepositedc of determinationdial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] each through all and of all through each. The Otherconcept/1negc, as [dialectical]_Reasonconceptc of the serieslivedc

and as a factor in every particular case of alteritylived, then becomes beyond its structuredial/lived of identity and its structureI of alterityI a being[-there] commonc to all (as deniedR and conserved interchangeabilitylivedc). [continuing same paragraph below]

52


Pages 266-7 out of sequence at Sartre\The Other-Consciousnesses ‘experience [s’éprouvent]I one another without an intermediaryI’

8-15Grou Seriality, the bondI of alteritylived, as a unity of flight (CDR267)Sartre, CDR (p. 266-7, Fr. 374, continuing, my paragraph break) sartre¶ "At this level,

beyond the concept and the law, The Otherconcept is me in every OtherI, and every OtherI in me, and everyone as OtherI in all the Other’sI; (p. 267) finally, it is the passive Unityconcept of the multiplicity insofar as it exists in itself, it is the reinteriorization of exteriority by the human ensemble, it is being[-there]-one of organisms in so far as it corresponds to the unity of their being[-there] in themselves the object: but in so far as everyone’s unity with the OtherI and with all OthersI is never given2neg in him and the OtherI in a true connection [rapport] [of three degrees]?&? as

1neg&2neg based on reciprocity, and in so far as this interior unity of all is always and for everyone in all the OthersI, in so far as they are OthersI and never in him except for Others, and in so far as he is other then them, this unity, which is ever present but always elsewhere, again becomes interiorityI lived in the milieu of exteriority. It no longer has any connectionok [of three degrees]none with molecularity: It is genuinely a unity, but the unity of a flight**.

"This can best be comprehended [comprendra] in the light that in an active, contractual and differentiated group, everyone can regard himself at once as subordinate to the wholedial and as essential, as the practical local presence of the wholeI, in his own particular actionI. In the case of the bond of alterity, however, the wholeI is a totalization [in course]lived of flighte..."

-------------------------------------------------** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-FLIGHT [fuite];

An apparent contradiction belowSearch for a Method: (p. 147c) "...[The] project has a meaningCDRlivedc, it is not

the simple negativity [seeking to deny lack] of flight; by it a man aims at the production of himself in the world as a certain objective totalitydial/lived..."

The Family Idiot: (1:104c) "...For every projectc is also a flight; Achille fled from his abusive father, the unbearable present, toward this same paterfamilias, his future..."; (2:6c) "...every projectI is a flight and every flight a projectI...";

8-15Grou 2. Indirect gatherings: the radio broadcast (270-276)

8-15Grou Direct gatherings within maximum distanceI permit reciprocity and commonI praxisI (CDR270) Sartre, CDR (p. 270, Fr. 377) "...Following up our expérience we may find that some new characteristics emerging as seriality come to be constituteddial in a larger

53


field, and as the structuredial of more complex collectives. First, it should be noted that, in effect, in accordance with their own structureI and passive_action, practico-inert [totality]lived objects [bus, radio broadcast] produce the gathering as a direct or indirect relationok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg between the members of the multiplicity. The relationI

ok based on presence will be referred to as direct. And presenceIc will be defined as the maximum distanceok

livedc permitting the immediate establishment of connectionsok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg of reciprocitylivedR between two individualslived/1neg, given2neg the society’s techniques and toolsok

lived/2neg. (This distanceI obviously varies. In particularI , there is the real presenceIc of two people speaking on the telephone, each in connectionI

ok to the other; similarly, an aeroplane can remain in a permanent relationI

ok of presenceI, by radio, with the ensemble of technical services which ensure its security.)"

sartre¶ "e...I define gatherings** by the co-presenceI of their members, not in the sense that there must be relationsI

ok of reciprocityI between them, or a common, organised practice, but in the sense that the possibility of this commonI praxis, and of the relationsI

ok of reciprocityI on which it is based is immediately given2neg. Housewives queuing in front of a baker’s shop, in a period of shortage, are characterized as a gathering with a serialI structuredial; and this gathering is direct: the possibility of a sudden unitary praxisI (a riot) is immediately givenI [continued, same paragraph below].

-------------------------------------------------** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-GATHERING [rassemblement]; Glossaries in both CDR (p. 828P ) and CDRII (p. 457P ): "series which is capable of constituting a group".

CDR: (p. 265c) "...the small gathering ... around the bus stop ... already has a serialI structuredial ... produced ... by the ticket machine attached to the bus stop. Everyone realizes it for himself and confirms it for Othersconcept

ok...";Sartre\Dialectic-RAnti-dialectic of passivity as permanent seal of the inert,

with CDR (p. 66c) "The anti-dialectic, or dialectic against the dialectic (dialectic of passivityI), must reveal series to us as a type of human gathering...";

Sartre\Dialectic-Constituent and constituted_dialectical_Reasonconcept, with, CDR (p. 67c) "Against the practico-inert [totality]lived and impotence, we will see the group emerge as a second type of dialectical gathering...";

Herein-R[below] Indirect gathering of absence: Non-affiliation with the radio broadcast;

-RViolence of impotence actualizes exteriorized process of practico-social field

8-15Grou Indirect gathering of absence: Non-affiliation with the radio broadcast (CDR270)

54


Sartre, CDR (p. 270, Fr. 378, continuing, my paragraph break) sartre¶On the other hand, there can be practico-inert [totality]lived objects whose structuredial is completely determinatedial [‘that is, as limitation’] but which, within the indeterminate multiplicity of men (of a city, a nation, or the world), themselves constitutedial a given2neg plurality as an indirect gatheringR. I define such gatheringsI by absence; by which I mean not so much absolute distance (in a givenI society, at a givenI dial in its development) which is, in reality, only an abstraction, as the impossibility of individuals establishing relationsI

ok of reciprocity between themselves or a common praxis, in so far as they are defined by this objectI [city, nation, world] as members of a gathering.

(CDRp. 271, Fr. 378) "But the important point is not whether a particular radio listener possesses his own transmitter and can make contact, as an individualI, later, with some listener, in another city or country: the mere fact of listening to the radio, that is to say, of listening to such a broadcast at such a time establishes a serial connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg of absence between the different listeners. In this way, the practico-inertI objectI not only produces a unity of individualsI outside themselves in inorganic_matterc, but also determinesdial [‘that is, as limitation’] them in separation and, in so far as they are separateI, ensures their communication through alteritylived (and the same applies to all ‘mass media’). When I listen to a broadcast, the connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg between the broadcaster and myself is not a human_relation: in effect, I am passive in connectionI to what is being[-there] said, to the political commentary on the news, etc. This passivityI, in an activity which develops on every level and over many years, can to some extent be resisted: I can write, protest, approve, congratulate, threaten, etc. But is must be noted immediate that these activitiesI will carry weight only if a majority (or a considerable minority) of listeners who do not know me do likewise. So that, in this case reciprocity is a gathering with one voice. Moreover, radio stations represent the point_of_viewdouble connection of 1st&2neg of the government or the special interests of a group of capitalists; so the listeners’ activitiesI (about programmes or about the opinions that are expressed) are unlikely to have any effect."

(CDRp. 272-3, Fr. 379) "e...Yet I can, if I wish, turn the knob, and switch off the set or change stations. But it is here that the resemblance appears at a distanceas above. For this purely individual activityI changes absolutely nothing in the real work of this voice. It will continue to echo through millions of rooms and to be heard by millions of listeners; I will merely have rushed into the ineffective, abstractI isolation of private life, objectively changing nothing. I will not have negated the voice; I will have negated myself as an individualI member of the gathering. And especially in the case of ideological broadcasts, it is really as Otherconcept that I will have wanted this voice to be silent, that is to say, in so far as it can, for example, harm OthersI

ok who are listening to it. I may be perfectly sure of myself, I may even

55


belong to some activeI political group, sharing all its views and adopting all its positions. Nevertheless, the voice is unbearable for me in so far as it is listened to by others—other who, to be precise, are the same in so far as they listen to the radio and OthersI

ok in so far as they belong to different milieu. I tell myself that it may convince them. In fact, I feel as though I could challenge the arguments put forward by this voice in front of these OthersI

ok, even if they do not share my views; but what I actually experienceontology [éprouve] is absence as my mode of joining [liaison] with the OthersI

ok. In this case, my impotence does not lie only in the impossibility of silencing the voice: it also lies in the impossibility of convincing, one by one, the listeners all of whom it exhorts in the common isolation which it creates for all of them as their inert bond. (CDRp. 273) Indeed, as soon as I imagine some practical action against what the broadcaster says, I can conceive of it only as serialI: I would have to take the listeners one by one. . . . Obviously, this seriality is a measure of my impotence and, perhaps, of that of my Partye..."

(p. 273) "Thus the impotent listener is constituteddial by the very voice as an other-member (membre-autre) of the indirect gatheringe... [O]ne no longer listens for oneself ... but from the point_of_viewdouble connection of 1st&2neg of OthersI

okconcept.’

1-06Grou 3. Impotence as a bond: the free market (CDR276-293)Sartre, CDR (p. 276, Fr. 383) "...the radio listeners at this momentdial constitutedial

a series in that they are listening to the common voice which constitutesI each of them in his identity as an Otherconcept

ok. But it is precisely for this reason that an alteritylived of content appears [apparaît] between them. This alterityI is still extremely formal, for it constitutesI them on the basis of the object (the voice) and in accordance with their possible reactions to it. It goes without saying that in order to groundFr=? these reactions, one would have to enter more deeply into the differences, find other collectives, other interests, some groups, and, finally, one would have to totalizelived the historical momentdial together with its pastlived. But in so far as the gathering is created by the radio, it remains at the level of the practical alterityI of listening behaviour. It is on this basis that alterityI as the Reason [Raison]concept of the series becomes a constituentconcept force of each and for all; for in everyone, the Otherconcept

ok is a different reaction, other behaviour, and everyone is conditioned in the fleeting unity of alterityI by these different kinds of behaviour of the OtherI

ok in so far as he cannot modify them in the OtherI

ok. Thus everyone is as effective in his action on the OtherI

ok as if he had established human_relations with him [the Other] (either directpresent and reciprocal, or organized), but his passiveI, indirectabsent actionI derives from his very impotence, in so far as the OtherI

ok lives it in himself as his own impotence as OtherI

ok."

56


8-15Grou Affiliation with what might have been a radio broadcast (CDR761, out of sequence)

Sartre, CDR (p. 761, Fr. 839, out of sequence from Herein-VIII. Class Struggle and Dialectical Reason (735-820)) "e...Strictly speaking this [panic circulation of the Otherconcept] does not unite him [a distanced proprietor such as Flaubert Sr.] with those who carried out the Paris [1848] massacres in a reciprocally devised and realized differentiation. Rather it makes him one of the murderers**a—not that he approved of the massacres or even knew [connaisse] about them: the news from Paris may not yet have reached him—but because he carries them out. He did not go to Paris, but this omission was accidental (a matter of distanceI , difficulties of communication, personal reasons); but he was there as Otherconcept

ok: here, he was afraid: there, in the person of some OtherI

ok, he was proud in his bourgeois courage. This identity through alteritylived, which was described above [prior uncited page], nevertheless continues through events of which he is still unaware: tomorrow he will learn that he has killed a man. This passive mark which is imprinted in his Other-being*** is exactly what people have vainly attempted to capture with the term; collective responsibility’. Clearly this is impotence and an inert identification with the criminal**b. Its being[-there] depends on the absence of a negation: if he tried to regroup democratic bourgeoisI in order to protest against the massacres, and to oppose the repressive measures, he would escape this passiveI qualification. But we have seen that it is impossible to interpret or explain it by a negation in exteriority such as a pure absence (a signification revealed only to the historian). And this identityI-alterityI is really an opaque plenitude. And since his Other-being merges with his class being here, the classI as a collectiveI of oppression is produced in him as oppressiveI-beingI. This production takes place through a historicalI event: it affects him as an irreversible temporalizationCDRlived: and it makes him Otherconcept in alterityI. In alterityI he reveals what he is as inertI becoming through what he has done as passive_activity."

-------------------------------------------------**a&b Sartre, CDRII (p. 30c) "...In a building where certain tenants beat their children, sometimes to death, the other tenants are necessarilyCDRdial/lived thrown into a situation which imperatively demands a choice: either to inform (e...) or else to make themselves accomplices ... For the very notion of complicity, sidetracked by analytic_Reason, supposes the immanence of the relationship and not its exteriorityI..." CDR (p. 133c) "...if I destroy the inhumanity of the anti-human in my adversary, I cannot help destroyingok the humanityI of man in him, and realizing his inhumanity in myself..."*** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-OTHER-BEING [être-Autre]; 5 hits, all this file;

CDR: (p. 263c) "...everyone is the reason [raison] for the Other-being [l’être-Autre] of the Otherconcept

ok in so far as the OtherIok is the reasonok for his being[-there]. In a

57


sense, we are back with material exteriority, which should come as no surprise since inorganic_materialitylivedc decides the series.

8-15Grou Rapid inflation as flight: ‘The collective_object is an index of separation’ (CDR288)

Sartre, CDR (p. 288, Fr. 394) "The type of arithmetical reasoning which demonstrates that all the elements of a series possess the same property is well known... collective_objects ** originate in social recurrence: they represent totalizations [in course]lived of impracticable operationsdial/lived. But they do not appearok at first as an objectI of knowledge [connaissance]: above all, they are realities which we are subjected to and which we live, and we learn them, in their objectivity, through acts which we have to do. The price imposes itself on me, as a buyer, because it imposes itself on my neighbour; it imposes itself on him because it imposes itself on his neighbour, and so on. But, conversely, I am not unaware that I help to establish it and that it imposes itself on my neighbours because it imposes itself on me; in general, it imposes itself on everyone as a stable collective reality only in so far as it is the totalizationI of a series.

(CDRp. 288-9, Fr. 395) "The collective_object is an index of separation ***... (CDRp. 289) Let us simply take a particular case: that of a market in a period of rapid inflation.83 The depreciation of money accelerates as everyone tries to get rid of it in order to acquire real valueslived; but this behaviour determinesdial [‘that is, as limitation’] the depreciation above all by reflecting [refléte] it; in other words, it is future [future] depreciation, in so far as it imposes itself on the individual to the extent that he foresees it as the unity of a process which conditions him, and it is this future [future]I

depreciation which determinesI [‘that is, as limitation’] present depreciation. Now the individualI submits to this future [future]I depreciation as the action of Othersconcept on money. He adapts to it by imitating it: that is to say, he makes himself OtherI

ok. In this way, he actsI against his own wages in so far as he is OtherI, because it is he who contributes as much as anyone else to the destruction of the monetary unity; and his own position in relationI [propre] to money (...pessimism, etc.) has no other basis than the attitude of OthersI. The phenomenonlived occurs as flight: because I cannot prevent some unknown [inconnu] trader from changing his money as quickly as possibleI into goods which he will stockpile, I hasten to exchange mine for other goods. But it is my own actionI, in so far as it is already inscribed in economic behaviour as a whole, and my future [futur] actionI, which determinedial [‘that is, as limitation’] the actionI of this unknown [inconnu]. I return to myself as OtherI

ok and my subjective fear of the OtherI

ok (whom I cannot reach) appears [apparaît] to me as an alien force, the accelerated depreciation of money. Thus the collapse of the

58


assignat84 was a collective process which could not be stopped: its objectivity was complete, and everyone suffered it as a destiny. Indeed, its objectiveI factors were numerous and powerful: monetary circulation had doubled without any increase in production..."

-------------------------------------------------Ftn. 83, "...considerable increase in the quantity of money (...) and some poverty of the factors of production (inventories, etc)..."Ftn. 84, "The promissory note issued by the revolutionary government in 1790. [Ed.]**Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-COLLECTIVE_OBJECT ; cf. collective, object;

CDR: (p. 288c, above) "The collective_object is an index of separation...";Herein-The ‘reality of the collective_object rests on recurrenceI’;

-H8-15Social_objects in a totalitydial/lived as collectively unorganized, interpenetrated, and indistinct

-------------------------------------------------*** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-SEPARATION [séparation] [index of]; later works;

CDR: (p. 221c) "...the unity of men through matter can only be their separation. In other words, separation ceases to be a pure relationok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg of exteriority and becomes a bond of lived interioritylivedc. People are separated by alteritylived, by antagonisms, by their place in the system; but these separations, such as hatred, flight, etc., are also modes of connectionok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg. However, since matterI unites men in so far as it binds them together and forces them to enter a materialI system, it unifies them in so far as they are inertiaIc.";

(p. 222c) "...each piece of gold is at once a unit in a sum and, through its relationsI [références] to all the other pieces, a part in a wholedial... [T]he dialectic as totalization [in course]lived produces its own negation as absolute dispersal [proliferation of acts using gold coins]. It does this ... because the confrontation of activities is a union in separation..."

(p. 288c, above) "The collective_object is an index of separation...";(p. 292c) "...The competitive market can be conceived of as, at most, the

radicalontology atomization (or massification) of human groups; the ponderous reality of price fixed by common disagreement, is the collective (validdial/lived for everyone) expression of the impossibility of a real unity, of an organization of buyers (or of sellers). It does not connect: rather, it is the consequence of separation, and a factor of new separation; in short, it is realized separation. But for men, separation, like union, is a constructed situation, resulting from certain actionsI performed by certain forces. Price derives its false unity from the fact that separationlived/2neg is a

59


produced reality, a type of connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg between menlived/1neg...";

Herein-H09-0Having the same objective reality in the future, the unjustified separation of these organisms determines/limits itself as identity

The Family Idiot: (2:160c) "...the index of separation—everywhere the same—[is] of each serialI unit in connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg to the one preceding and the one following. I laughI because my neighbor laughs and because we agree to renounce mutual recognition; in fact ... if I relate his present behavior to what I know about his person and his life, the laughterI will not ‘take’; reaffirmeddial interiority will prevent the contamination from occurring. If, on the other hand, I serializeI myself enough to sever the bond ... I make myself a member of the society of laughterI..."; See Sartre\Flaubert’s School Years-RBourgeois impersonations

"The Maoists in France": (p. 168c) "...Jean [an author of one of the articles in "The Maoists in France,"] shows clearly that racism, sexism, and so forth disappear the moment action is taken. This happens not because the mechanisms have been noticed, identified, and verbally denounced, but because they are facets of the separatist idea, which is no longer needed. From that point on, as Jean says, the masses progress by leaps and bounds."8-15Grou Money as a collective social material object of preserved inertiaI with the power of infinite recurrenceI (CDR291)

Sartre, CDR sartre¶(p. 291-2, Fr. 398) "I shall develop the example of money in a later work. Here, I simply wish to draw attention to the fact that money, in each of its concrete units, has the double infinity of the universal and of recurrence... (CDRp. 292) Its real purchasing power is the result of an infinite recurrenceI in which I feature myself as an other. We shall therefore treat it as a ‘collective’. In so far as their inertia preserves them, all social_objectsc are collectives in their fundamental materiality; as long as they last, all of them derive their reality from the perpetual detotalizationdial/livedc of the totalitydial/lived of men; basically, they all presuppose a haemorrhage gnawing away a material presence. Of course, they have very diverse structuresdial. The competitive market can be conceived of as, at most, the radicalontology atomization (or massification) of human groups; the ponderous realityI of price fixed by common disagreement, is the collective (validdial/lived for everyone) expression of the impossibility of a real unity, of an organization of buyers (or of sellers). It does not connect: rather, it is the consequence of separationlivedc, and a factor of new separationI; in short, it is realized separation. But for men, separation, like union, is a constructed situation, resulting from certain actions performed by certain forces. Price derives its false unity from the fact that separationlived/2neg is a produced reality a type of connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg between menlived/1neg."

60


8-15Grou 4. Series and Opinion: the Great Fear (293-307)

8-15Grou Public opinion as a collective (CDR293)Sartre, CDR (p. 293-4, Fr. 400) "These last remarks enable us to see a few

characteristics of another collectivelivedR—a most important one from the point_of_viewdouble connection of 1st&2neg of rulers. This is public Opinione... (p. 294) [P]ublic opinion tends to be seen as a collective consciousness arising from the syntheticdial unification of the citizens into a nation, imposing its representations on everybody as an integral part of the wholedial, just as the totalitydial/lived is present in each of its parts."

(CDRp. 295, Fr. 401) "e...But this force does not reside in anyone, and it is not the product of everyone; it is alteritylived itself to precisely the extent that, for everyone, it is elsewhere."

"e...One need only recall the Great Fear of 1789, of which Lefebvre has provided such a remarkable study.87 First he shows that the fear did not break out everywhere at the same time and that it did not cover the whole of France, contrary to what some historians have claimed in the name of a spontaneous organism. He shows that five different waves of fearI ought to be distinguished, and that certain regions were never affected. Finally, he shows that these waves, the origins of each of which can be localized and dated, were propagated serially, from town to village and from village to town, and that their routes were determineddial [‘that is, as limitation’] by quite precise conditions. But the most striking thing in his book is that one constantly feels driven to discoveringdial/lived the intelligibility of a movementdial/lived in the rationality of the Otherconcept

ok..."(CDRp. 296, Fr. 402) "The conditions which gave rise to the Great Fear must

therefore be seen in the context of everyone’s discoverydial/lived of himself as Otherconcept

ok (as an object of a Historyconcept made by others). But it is striking that the fearI was essentially born out of ‘fearI of bandits.’ Begging, in fact, was the chronic sore of the countryside: there were beggars and tramps everywhere. Basically, these were just ruined peasants or the children of over-large families. Nevertheless, the farmers did not regard them favourably. The smallholders and even the day-laborers saw them as an agricultural ‘lumpen-proletariat’ at the same time as recognizing themselves in the vagabonds, in that a permanent possibility threatened them too with ruin, with vagabondage, and with Other-beingok. But for the peasant, the true Otherconcept

ok, the other classI, was, of course, the landed aristocracy with its feudalR rights. Now it is remarkable that, on the news that an aristocratic plot was fearedI in the towns, the syntheticdial link between aristocrats and vagabonds

61


suddenly became apparent. Of course, one might offer a reasonable explanation: the aristocrats had had the vagabonds in their pay in order to crush the country people. But this ... makes the vagabond appear as absolute_Otherontology/1neg

ok**, that is to say, as doubly Otherconcept

ok (OtherIok as a pauper, and OtherI

ok as a hireling of the oppressing classI), combining in himself, in the dimension of alteritylived, both crime as the anti-human activity of the OtherI

ok than man, and oppressive domination as a praxis aiming to reduce the peasant to a subhuman statee..."

(CDRp. 297, Fr. 403) "e...neither the economic, political and social causes known to us, nor the fearI of bandits or the constitutiondial/group of the milieu of the Otherconcept

ok as a refracting medium (milieu) of Historyconcept are enough to explain the Great Fear. The factors referred to, including fearI of bandits, are in fact universal. In each case, it had to be triggered off by some local incident which was perceived as other by those who witnessed it, and seriality had to propagate actualizing itselfe..."

-------------------------------------------------Ftn. 87. "Georges Lefebvre, The Great Fear of 1789 (1956)..."** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-ABSOLUTE_OTHER ontology/1neg; 4 hits with above, all cited; Ref Sartre\The Other-Index

CDR: (p. 302-3, Ftn 88c) "...In fact, in this particular example, the serialI unity of the colonists comes to them from the Absolute_Other ontology/1neg ok which is the colonized people; and it reflects them as an active grouping (a syntheticdial, positive unity of plurality). The impotence of the series constitutesdial itself as a magical power of the colonized people..."

The Family Idiot: (2:109c) "...He does not even despair of recuperating himself; at the end of the enterprise, the subjectivelivedc and the objective will coincide, not through the interiorization [intériorisation] of the exterior object but through the absorption of the for-itselfontologyc by the in-itselfontology. But this absolute_Otherontology/1neg that the other makes him—otherI than othersI, otherI than himself—can only exists, for them, in the third_personc singular ... The result for Gustave is an absolute priority of the ‘Heconcept’ over the ‘I [Moi]concept’...";

(5:25c) "...But how is it conceivable that a neurotic work, produced by a patient as a means of subjectivization, could disclose to the reader anything other than a singularity that is posed for itself against the universal, and consequently presents itself during reading as the absolute_Otherontology/1neg, crying out to the public: ‘You are not me because I don’t want to be you’?...";

8-15Grou How ‘alteritylived creates its own laws’ (CDR298-300)Sartre, CDR (p. 298-9, Fr. 404) "We must now show how alteritylivedR creates its

own laws: the truth becomes obvious for everyone not only in so far as it is negative and relates to the Otherconcept

ok, but also in so far as it is transmitted by an OtherIok in

62


so far as he is OtherIok. These are the rules of belief: what everyone believesI of the

OtherIok is what the OtherI

ok conveys in so far as he is OtherIok (or in so far as the

news comes to him already from an OtherIok). In other words, it is negative

information in that neither the personI [celui] who receives, nor the one who gives it, could or can verify it. Their impotence is simply seriality itself as a negativeI totalitydial/lived, and it should not be supposed that everyone believedI his informer in spite of it [their impotence]. On the contrary, this impotence in each of them as OtherI

ok

supports and sustains the belief in the OtherIok as a means of propagating truthI as

otherok. If I believeI my informer, it is not because I cannot check what he says, or because I trust him (which would re-establish a direct connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1st&2neg of reciprocity), or because while I may check it sometime it is more prudent to be prepared for the worst. I believeI him because, as Otherconcept

ok, the truthI of a report is its seriality, that is to say, the infinite series of impotences which will be, or are being[-there], or have been actualized, and which constitutedial me through Othersconcept

ok as a practico-inert [totality]lived conveyor of the truthI. I believeI it because it is other (that is so say, in accordance with the principle that Historyconcept is really the history of the Otherconcept

ok-than-man and that the worst is always certain), because it shows the man it describes as an alien species, and because the mode of its communication is other, and has no reciprocityI. (CDRp. 299) The informer propagates a material wave; he does not trulyI inform; his report is a panic’ in a word, the truthI, as other is transmitted as a state by contagion..."

(CDRp. 299-300, Fr. 405) "I have used this example in order to exhibit a new temporalCDRlived object: a series in the process of actualization. It is not an historical event in the ordinary sense of the term, that is to say, a totalization in courselived of antagonistic and concerted actions, but rather a process. However, in so far as the practico-inert_field is the field of material exigencies, of counter-finalities and of inert meaningsCDR, its unity [the series in process] necessarilyCDRdial/lived remains teleological [teleological_structure and teleological_intention] and signifying. Thus. the Great Fear appeared to contemporaries either as the practical result of a revolutionary agitation which aimed to set the peasants against the feudal lords (and, in fact, looting and rioting, as the first group reaction against the impotence of the collective, did increase; and, a little later, the project of federation also appearedI as a reaction against the impotence of the masses), or as the result of an attempt by representatives of the aristocracy (and a section of the lower clergy) to demoralize the peasant masses and to set them against the bourgeoisie of the Third Estate**. In actual fact, it involved this double counter-finalityI only because of the series lived Historyconcept as other and on the basis of human impotence. (CDRp. 300, Fr. 406) The opinions of public opinion arise like the Great Fear [1848], in that everyone makes himself Otherconcept by his opinion, that is to say, by taking it from the Otherconcept

ok

63


because the OtherIok believes it as OtherI

ok, and makes himself [live as] informerok*** of the OthersI. At this level, the Ideaok

concept/1negc is a process; its invincible force comes to it from that which nobody thinks. That is to say, it does not define itself as the conscious momentdial praxis—that is to say, as the unifying disclosure of objectsI in the dialectical temporalizationCDRlived of action. Instead, it defines itself as a practico-inert [totality]lived objectI whose evidencedial/lived

ok identifies itself for me in my double incapacity of [1] verifyingI it and [2] to transform it in Othersconcept

ok88."

-------------------------------------------------** House of Commons: The parliamentary representation of the commoners.*** Dict. 2a, ‘to be the characteristic quality of’, i.e., not a speech act.

Ftn 88 on page 300-3 out of sequence at Sartre\Political Scarcity-(p. 300) Colonialism, racism, ‘and the same applies to thousands of other 'theses'’;

-(p. 300-1) Racism ‘is the colonial interest lived through the serial flight of alterity’;-(p. 302) Colonial solidarity, as seriality, is negatively determined/limited by alterity;-(p. 302-3) Colonialist ‘produces himself in the Otherconcept without weakness’8-15Grou ViolenceI of impotence actualizes exteriorized process of practico-social field (CDR303-5)

Sartre, CDR (p. 303-5, Fr. 407) "We have described serial being[-there] as the determinationdial [‘that is, as limitation’] of the bond of alteritylived as a unity of plurality by the exigencies and structuredial of the common_object** which in itself defines this plurality as such. We have seen that this [common_object] is practical because it is sustained in reality by the relationsok [of three degrees]1st&2neg which are established in the practico-inert_fieldlived/2neg between the individuallived/1neg activities of men. But at the same time it [the common_object] produces itself as collective in and through the real behaviour of every practical_organismc, [the common_object] is constituteddial as a negative unity and a threatening (or paralyzing) interdependence by the impotence of each real actionI in so far as it derives from the actionI of the Othersconcept

ok through the practical_fielddial/lived. Its reality, then, is in itself practico-inert [totality]lived and its transformations are born of a simple dialectice collective passive failures... (CDRp. 304, Fr. 409) [S]erial beingI, as a practico-inertI [totality]lived realityI, can be defined as a process, that is to say, as a development which though orientated, is provoked by a force of exteriority which has the result of actualizing the series as the temporalizationCDRlived of a multiplicity in the fleeting unity of a violence of impotence. These observations comprehendFr=? the collectivelivedc as not simply the form of being[-there]I of certain social realitiesI, [Ftn 89 ‘...though certain of these realitiesI have no beingI other than collective beingI.’] but that it [the collective] is also the beingI of sociality itself at the level of the practico-inert_fieldI. And I have been able to describe this being[-there] as social being[-there]I within its elementary and fundamental structuredial/lived because it is at the practico-inertI [totality]lived levelc that sociality is produced within men by

64


[human]_thingsc as a bond of materiality which surpasses1neg and alters simple human_relations. Besides, a collectiveI is in itself a sort of reduced model of the practico-social fieldI and of all passive_activity which one’s self exercises. It is constructed, in effect, on the falsec reciprocity of the practical_agent and of worked_matter; in reality, worked_materialityI, in bearing the seal of an other activity (and entering into human actionI under the impulse of a series of dispersed praxes), becomes in the collectivelivedc the practico-inertI [totality]lived unity of the multiplicity of which it is the common_object. Thus the unity of the gatheringR, far from beingI organic or practical, manifests itself with all the characteristics of sealedI materiality; in other words, inorganic_materiality comes to the gatheringI as such from its inert (or practico-inertI) unification by the interiorization of the sealIRc of its common_object. But this materiality, as an inorganic_materialityIlived/2neg which produces itselflived/1neg in and through practical relationsok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg, takes on the determinationdial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] of alteritylived. Thus in the dialectical movementdial/lived which characterizes this structuredial of false_reciprocityI within the collective, seriality as the sealI of the common_object projected onto the humanI multiplicity turns back on the common_object and determinesdial [‘that is, as limitation’] it by the actionI of everyone as an other-object (objet autre) (that is to say, a collective_object as the objectification of the Otherconcept

ok or as others objectivity). It is in this dialectical momentdial that the objectI produces its men (as workers, owners, etc.), as the Othersconcept

ok whose alterityI it is and who act on it or suffer its actionsI in so far as it becomes for each of them his OtherI

ok Destinyconceptok or his

OtherIok Interestconcept

ok, that is to say, in so far as the activityI of everyone—in so far as it responds to the exigenciesI of the common_object—also reveals the impotence of everyone in the objectiveI form of the inflexibility of the objectI. (CDRp. 305, Fr. 410) The celebrated inexorable laws of bourgeois economics in the nineteenth century have never been anything but the effect of scarcity appearing in the practico-inert_field of serialI impotence. Indeed, from this point on, the same practico-inertI [totality]lived notions (solidified finality, simultaneous inversion of the dialectical laws of humanI praxis and of the analyticalposited quantitative laws of inorganic_materialitylivedc) apply within the collective, to matter as the sealedI unity of men, to the gathering as the material negation of molecular dispersal and of the human_relations, and to the actingI individualI in so far as his freeCDR praxis constitutesdial itself as inessential in connection [rapport] [of three degrees]lived&lived to the practico-inertI activityI of the OtherIconcept/1neg

ok and to the practico-inertI exigenciesI of the worked thing. (continued with last two sentences repeated at Sartre\Language&Comprehension-Individual or group organized practice ‘uses their practico-inert being as replacements for things’)

-------------------------------------------------

65


See Sartre\Intelligibility of History-ViolenceI ‘grasps [transformstolived as 1neg&2neg] itselflived/2neg as impotencelived/1neg which is simultaneously true and falselived’ [falsified by bourgeois propaganda] (CDRII45)** Sartre\Index of Terms-COMMON_OBJECT ; all hits included in above sub-topic and below; seriality vs. the collective_object.

CDR: (p. 305c) "...And in so far as they have been invented by nobody, and in so far as they are language organizing itself as passive_activityI in the milieu of alteritylived, these verbal structuresdial are, in a collective, the collectiveI itself, that is to say, the common_object in so far as it is produced (under everyone’s real actionsI) as a material Ideaok

concept of the being[-there] of man or of the actingI individualI in so far as he actsI and speaks as Otherconcept

ok in the milieu of serial impotence..."

(p. 350c) "...Indeed, let us not forget that the common_object, as the unity of the multiple outside itself, is above all the producer of serialI unity and that it is on the basis of this double determinationdial [‘that is, as limitation’] that the anti-dialectical structuresdial of the collectivity, or alterityI, constitutesdial itself."

Page 305 Continued same paragraph, out of sequence at Sartre\Language&Comprehension-Individual or group organizedI practiceI ‘uses their practico-inert [totality]lived being as replacements for things’ (CDR 305)

8-15Grou 5. Series and Class: The French Proletariat (CDR307-318, no citations)

8-15Grou 6. Collective Praxis (CDR318-342)

Page 325 out of sequence at Sartre\Negation-Worker must see possible happiness to see present as pain

Pages 326-7 out of sequence at Sartre\Freedom-She carries out the sentence, an unwilling accomplice made machine

Volume I, Book II, FROM GROUPS TO HISTORY (CDR343-818)

8-15Grou I. The Group in Fusion (CDR345-404)Peter Caws, Sartre (p. 175c) "...the English translator of the Critique has

rendered group in fusion as ‘fused group’, thus suggesting that the process of fusion is complete..."

66


Pages 352 out of sequence at Sartre\Freedom-mystification

11-12Grou II. The StatuaryFr=? Group (CDR405-444, no citations)Cumming's The Philosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre, p. 472-3, S&A translates

CDR 413-4 and 473-4 on pp. 415-6; and CDR 474-5 on pp. 419-20.

8-15Grou III. The Organization (CDR445-504)Cumming's The Philosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre, on page 475, S&A translates

CDR 583 and 596-8 on pp. 475-6; CDR 476 on p. 599; CDR 477-8 on pp. 600-1; CDR 478-80 on pp. 604-7.

8-15Grou 1. Organized Praxis (CDR445-462, no citations)8-15Grou 2. Reciprocity and Active_Passivity (CDR463-478, no citations)

8-15Grou 3. Structuresdial: The work of Lévi-Strauss (CDR479-504)Sartre\Index of Terms-STRUCTURALISM ; Caws, Sartre (p. 143) "...[Sartre’s] emphasis is on a structuring activity (the

dialectical method) rather than on a structured system..."

8-15Grou Exact sciences of reciprocal relationsI : Lévi-StraussI’s contributions to groupI structures (CDR479)

Sartre, CDR (p. 479, Fr. 575) "...This is not the place for an abstractposited logistical study of reciprocities, though such a project might tempt a mathematician. A calculus of reciprocalsI would obviously leave out of consideration practical totalization [in course]lived as the mediation and foundation of the original, social relationok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg; but, on the other hand, it would provide a rigorous elucidation of the typical organizations of the reciprocalI, of their developments and interactions—and of substitutions of terms and transformations of elements in so far as these modifications of individuals leave the structuresdial of the system intact.

"But if it is possibleI to devise a theory of reciprocalI multiplicities in organized groups,38 independently of all concrete, historical ends and of any particular circumstances, do we not immediately collapse in the face of an inert ossature of the organization? And do we not abandon the terrain of liberating praxis and the dialectic and revert to some kind of inorganic necessityI ?

67


(CDRp. 479-80, Fr. 575) "The entire questionok of the intelligibility of organized praxis places itself [pose]posited at this level. There can in fact be no doubt that reciprocalI relationsI can be treated by the ‘exact sciences’: and they are already present, as a foundation, in the administration of a school when it decides the timetable for a particular class or in the strict arrangement (e...) of the train timetable of a particular network for the winter or summer period. (CDRp. 480) But, on the other hand, it should be noticed that these calculated determinations [‘that is, as limitation’] nevertheless refer to actions (in railways, for example they involve not only finished ‘crystallized work—machinery, rails, etc.—but the actual work of the railwaymen, from engine drivers to ticket-collectors). Thus the particularitydial of this ‘ossature’ seems to be that it is at once an inertI connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1st&2neg and a living praxis. It should also be added that the permanence of the connectionI [rapport] as such does not in any way imply the immutability of the terms or of their positions; there may be considerable changes, provided they take place in such a way that the specific determinationdial [‘that is, as limitation’] of reciprocity is preserved. This has been explained admirably by Lévi-Strauss in his work The Elementary Structures of Kinship. We should note in particular how his study of matrimonial classesI led him to this crucial conclusion: ‘These classes are much less conceived of in extension, as groupsI of objectivelyI designated individualsI , than as a system of positions whose structureI alone remains constant, and in which individualsI may change position, and even exchange their respective positions, provided that the relationship between them is maintained.’39

(CDRp. 480-1, Fr. 576) "But above all Lévi-Strauss’s work makes an important contribution to the study of those strange internalok realities which are at once organized and organizing, both syntheticdial products of a practical totalizationI and objects always susceptible of rigorous analyticalposited study, both the lines of force of a praxis for every common_individual and the fixed links between this [common]_individual and the group, though perpetual changes of one and the other, inorganiclived ossature and everyone’s definite powers over everyone else, in short, both fact and right, mechanical elements and, at once [à la foisI], expression of a living integration into a unitary praxisI of those contradictory tensions of freedomCDR and inertiaI which are known as structuresdial. Function as lived praxisI appearsok in the study of the group as objectivity in the objectifiedI form of structuresI. And we shall not comprehend [comprehendrons] anything of the intelligibility of organized praxisI as long as we do not raise the questionok of the intelligibilityI of structuresI..."

-------------------------------------------------Ftn. 38. "In fact, this theory is adumbrated by cybernetics."

68


Internal bookmark and links-ossature; Dictionaries link to Latin ‘bone’ and indirectly to ‘ossify, to set in a rigidly conventional pattern.’ Sartre appears to distinguish from the more abstract term ‘skeleton.’Ftn. 39. "...trans. Von Sturmer... p. 113. [Ed.]"

-------------------------------------------------Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-POTLATCH ; Bookmarked for this document only; American Heritage Dictionary (p. 1418) "A ceremonial feast ... of a marriage or an accession, at which the host distributes gifts according to each guest’s rank or status. Between rival groups the potlatch could involve extravagant or competitive giving and destruction by the host of valued items as a display of superior wealth."

8-15Grou i. Structuredial and Function (CDR484-491)

8-15Grou Lévi-Strauss’s child in the milieu of on_oath: Sartre’s free human_relations (CDR484-6)

Sartre, CDR (p. 484, Fr. 579) "(1) The persuasiveness of Lévi-Strauss’s rigorous demonstrations is due to more than the necessityI of their conclusions; as a determinationdial [‘that is, as limitation’] of our knowledge [connaissance] this necessityI can have no basis except in a practical necessityCDRdial/lived, the necessityI which makes a man from group A who marries a woman from B, for familial or personal reasons, into a debtor of B and which constitutesdial through him the wholedial of group A as debtore..."

(CDRp. 485, Fr. 580) sartre¶"Thus these are genuinely freeCDR human_relations (undertakings, oaths, powers, rights and duties, etc.) And if the son of an ab marriage is constituteddial with a double character even before being born and regardless of who he may be, this is because, even before his mother’s pregnancy, he is primarily a determinatedial [‘that is, as limitation’] possibilityI of the father and mother—that is to say, a limit which is as yet still only their limit, and which will remain theirs as long as the future [futur] child is no more than their own possibilityI . From birth onwards, the arrival of the child in the milieu of the oathR is the equivalent for him of making an oathI; any individual who arrives within a group having an oathI finds himself having that oathI—not as a passive object receiving his status from outside, but as a freeI common agent who has been granted his freedomI (the real function of baptisms, initiations, etc,. is to reinteriorize the oathI function as a freeI oathI45not cited). Later, we shall discuss this point at length: for this second oathI has special characteristics which need to be elucidated and most importantly, is infinitely more widespread than the first."

69


(CDRp. 486-7, Fr. 581) "e...The organic individuallivedc freelyI bore expected ordeals in order to achieve the status of the common_individual (that is to say, in order to have and to exercise practical powers); and this undertaking—manifested by his very endurance—is precisely the second oathI. (CDRp. 487) There can be no doubt that the individualI lives it as an acquisition of merit: but it is equally certain that adults see it as an indication of commitment. It is as if, on the basis of this commitment, they were reserving the right to punish him if he should wish to leave the groupe... Thus rites of passage, like marriage, are bi-lateral, symmetrical ceremonies: they actualize a reciprocity. It is therefore impossible for the child not to interiorizeI this future [futur] anterior which has been constituteddial for him a priori and not to interiorizeI it through positive acts (initiation procedures, choice of a wife, military prowess or, where appropriate, the struggle for power). This is still the meaningCDRlived of the very true and constantly repeated sentence, ‘No adult can say, "I did not ask to be born."’ Thus, ultimately, the organicI individual grasps [transformstolived as 1neg&2neg] his contingencylived/1neg in every movementdial/lived/2neg of his life. This means that he is not his own product; but as a common_individual, his birth is indistinguishable from the arrival of his freedomI and its determinationdial [‘that is, as limitation’] by itself. To be born is to produce oneself as a specification of the group and as a complex of functions (burdens and powers, debts and credit, right and duty). The common_individualI produces himself as a new oathI within the group.46

-------------------------------------------------CDRFtn. 46 "It goes without saying that what we are considering here is the abstract case (or the elementary group) in which problems of exploitation or class struggle do not manifest themselves."

Pages 485-6, Ftn 45, out of sequence at Sartre\Freedom-CDR’s admission: for ‘a long time ... I though that total indeterminacy was the true basis of choice’

8-15Grou Peter Caws: From group in fusion to the sworn group oathI

Peter Caws, Sartre (p. 176-7) "...If the group is to achieve stability it must find an inner principle of cohesion. Sartre therefore introduces the second type of group, which is produced by the swearing of a oath ** by each of its members and is called the ‘sworn_group’. Here again the translation leaves something to be desired—it renders ‘serment’ as ‘pledge’ rather than ‘oath’ which e... lacks the gravity and the implicit violence of ‘oath’. Sartre takes the oath, and its consequences, with deadly seriousness, for it is through the oath that Terror enters the picture. The group in fusion arose out of fear (e...), but the fearI was something external—the members of the group fearedI it, not one another. (p. 177) The oath introduces a new fearI, namely the fearI of the group itself, in the persons of its other members... ‘The

70


fundamental statute of the sworn group is Terror’ (CDR 433, amended). Because the members of the group are ‘brothers’ Sartre sometimes refers to this simultaneous condition of solidarity and fearI as ‘Terror-fraternity’. In the context of the French revolution the terms are understandablee... [but] less useful than it might have been in its application to other cases..." (p. 177) "The sworn group ‘is initially no more than the impossibility for everyone of abandoning the common praxis,’ but as its project becomes more complex and its membership more numerous its structuresdial begins to evolve; statutes are laid down and it becomes a ‘statutory group’, no longer just a group but an Organization, with leaders, officers, divisions, and other hierarchical apparatuse..."

-------------------------------------------------** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-OATH [serment]; [groupe assermenté=on_oath]; French checked for all hits.

CDR: (p. 495c) "...In other words structuredialc as the exteriority of interiority is reinteriorizedI by functional activity without beingI dissolved by it. The agent grasps [transformslived/2negtolived/1neg] it [structure]2neg, in his very activityIlived/1neg, as the intersection of two planesok: on the one hand, the work of instrumentalization which the group performs on the multiplicity and, on the other hand, his own inertia as a freeI oath and as a freeCDR adoption of his character as a discrete quantity on the basis of an indissoluble commonc unity. For him, exteriorityI signifies interiority and the multiplicity of inertI relationsok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg

is simply the practical determinationdial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] of the commonI unity."

Herein-[above] RLévi-Strauss’s child in the milieu of on_oathI: Sartre’s freeI human_relations

8-15Grou The goalkeepers ‘inorganic_materialitylived of freedom’ (CDR487-8)(CDRp. 487-8, Fr. 582) "But in the case both of the original oath and of the second

oathI, (in fact it is always, except in emergencies, a matter of secondary oathsI), function depends on a veiled inertia, on what I just called the inorganic_materialitylived**4 of freedomCDRR. The aim of the common_individual is to preserve the permanence of connections [rapports] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg through changes in the position of individual terms; which means that he modifies his praxis (and acquires new characteristics) in so far as thirdsc

ok (or all of them) are themselves led to change either by praxisI or by the pressure of exterior circumstances. (CDRp. 488) Thus the connectionI [rapport] remains fixed in so far as it is preserved. And if, through a directed action, a system in movementdial/lived is invoked, that is to say relationsok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg which produce one another,

71


then the relationsIok will arise as mathematical [prescriptions and prohibitions, below]

connections [rapports] [of three degrees]now posited&posited rather than as the momentsdial of a dialectical praxisI. As functions, in factI, they are still the condition for the praxisI (of the common_individual and of the totalizinglived group), but they are not praxisI itself; on the contrary, it is their inertI instrumentalityc (as the limitation of their possibilities) which conditions everyone’s efficacity. This is how the efficacy of a goalkeeper, as well as his personal possibilityI of being good, very good, or excellent, depend on the set of prescriptions and prohibitions which define his role. The match would no longer have any meaningCDRlived, and would become a formless scuffle if the goalkeeper could, as he wished, also play the role of half-back or certre-forward (and conversely). Once functions have been distributed, therefore, it is not a matter of them dialectically modifying themselves simply through belonging to the same wholedial (which is, however, the characteristics of actions in so far as they are produced by individuals—within certain limits, as we shall see). In factI, the creation of the functions was dialectical, although it was produced in the light of the multiplicity of agents and exigencies. But, although always capable of being rearranged, the functional organization has to be put in question by the wholeI

group, either through a reflexive [réflexive] attitude of each of its members, or by some specially differentiated organ [managers, owners, sportscasters], in order to realize the co-ordinations, modifications, adaptations, etc., when they come to be necessitatedCDR by the totalizingI praxis.

(CDRp. 489, Fr. 584) "We shall therefore call these structuresdial, insofar as their inorganic_materialitylived has been freelyI interiorized and reworked by the group, the necessityCDRdial/lived of freedomI. This means that the inertI (that is, different reciprocal limitations) comes into contact with itself in the groupI and through the profound relationsok [of three degrees]lived&lived as 1neg&2neg of interiorityI which unite each to all in mediated reciprocity, but that this contact of inertiaI with itself necessarilyCDRdial/lived takes place according to the laws and the intelligibility proper to this sector of materiality; and this means that the conditioning of functions by each other (once their syntheticdial, reflexive [réflexive] determinationdial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] is complete) takes place in exteriority, as in the physical world. However, it is important to recognize that this skeleton is sustained by all the common_individuals in that it [skeleton] is always possibleI for the groupI, as totalizingI actionI, under the pressure of new circumstances, to dissolve it entirely. It should therefore be noted at once that it is [1, as active passivity] the freeI attachment of each individualI to the community in so far as it is the inorganiclived***-being [lêtre-inorganique] of each member and that [2, as passive activity] this necessityCDRdial/lived, as exteriorityI structuringdial interiorityI, is very exactly the reverse side of the practico-inert [totality]lived: the latter effectively appearedok as passive_activity****, whereas the

72


former [1, above] constitutesdial itself as active_passivitylived*****. Everyone’s inorganic-being [-there] I, as we have seen, involves a considerable measure of indeterminacy: it is the function of my praxisI, and it frames it and circumscribes it, it channels it and gives it everyone’s guarantee along with the instrumentalI spring board it needs. But praxisI itself, when completed, cannot be reduced to this skeleton: it is more and it is different; it is the freeI concrete realization of a particular task." [continued-4]

-------------------------------------------------**4 Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-INORGANIC_MATERIALITY lived; cf. inorganiclived [below]

CDR: (CDRp. 305, Fr. 410, First as clearest example) The celebrated inexorable laws of bourgeois economics in the nineteenth century have never been anything but the effect of scarcity appearing in the practico-inert_field of serialI impotence. Indeed, from this point on, the same practico-inert [totality]lived notions (solidified finality, simultaneous inversion of the dialectical laws of humanI praxis and of the analyticalposited quantitative laws of inorganic_materialitylived) apply within the collective, to matter as the sealed unity of men..."

(p. 72c) "...As inertI motiveok force or as creative memoryFr=?, in any case the inorganic_matter (but always organized by us) is not absent from the history of our organic materialities; it is the condition of exteriority, interiorized in order that there is a historyI...";

(p. 178c) "...The meaningCDRlived of human labour is that man is reduced to inorganic_materialitylived in order to act materially on matterI and to change his materialI life...";

(p. 219c) "...Interest therefore appears as the inorganic_materialitylived of the individualok or group seen as an absolute and irreducible beingI which subordinates itself to praxis as a way of preserving itself in its practico-inert [totality]lived exteriority...";

(p. 263c) "...inorganic_materialitylived decides the series...";(p. 271c) "...the practico-inertI objectI not only produces a unity of

individualsI outside themselves in inorganic_matterlived, but also determinesdial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] them in separation and, in so far as they are separateI, ensures their communication through alteritylived (and the same applies to all ‘mass media’). When I listen to a broadcast, the connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg between the broadcaster and myself is not a human one: in effect, I am passive...";

(p. 255c) "...inorganic_materialitylived as man’s being-outside-himself in the inert object and as the inert’sI being-outside-itselfI as exigency in man..."

-------------------------------------------------*** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-INORGANIC lived [inorganique]; cf. inorganic_materiality [above], Dialectic-organism

73


CDR: (p. 81c) "... matter, outside of it [the body], reduces the livingI body to an inorganiclived status precisely to the extent that the bodyI transforms matterI into a totalitydial/lived...";

(p. 221c) "We have already seen how, through its quality as inorganiclived inertiaI, the organism can come into contact with the non-organized world; what we find here is passiveI materialityI, as an elementary structuredial of the human organismIc, in thrall to an inorganic_matterlived which has taken away its power of transcendencelived/1neg towards organized action..."

-------------------------------------------------**** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-PASSIVE_ACTIVITY lived; exteriority structuringdial interiority; cf. passivity

CDR: Herein-RNecessityCDRdial/lived as free active_passivitylived, practico-inert [totality]lived as passive_activity: Exteriority founds action at the border separating transcendencelived/1neg and immanencelived/2neg;

The Family Idiot: (1:35c) "Inertia, laziness, inner torments, lethargies—we encounter these features from one end of his existence to the other. Taken together they define a strategy that we shall meet again later under the name of passive_activity, a kind of nervous weakness in the depths of his physical organism that makes surrender easier...";

(1:139c) "...in Gustave, passive_activity is nothing more than a masked reversal of the imposed act turned against those who impose it...";

(1:396c) "...Gustave’s death... Yes, precisely, this is the secret of resentment conceived as passive_activity, a secret hope behind despair. Gustave still hopes that his immediate death will serve to open the physician-philosopher’s eyes...";

(1:438c) "...At this point it seems that his true vengeance, pondered by resentment, unlike the vendetta which is negative praxis, could proceed only by passive_activity, meaningCDRlived that it had to be a secret action of the self against the selfI which the victim managed by utilizing the praxisI of the other (the force the otherI exercised over him and which he interiorized as his own determinationdial [‘that is, as limitation’]) in such a way as to make his executioners even guiltier...";

(2:21c) To act on himself in order to actI on others, to make a spectacle of himself in order to move them—this is the prototype of passive_action but it is nonetheless actionI: stage actors do it every night, and they too must forget their true motives if they want to convince their judges...";

-------------------------------------------------***** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-ACTIVE_PASSIVITY lived; interiority structuringdial exteriority; cf. passivity;

74


Sub-topic below: (CDRp. 490) "...The practical comprehensionFr=? of active_passivitylivedR [necessity as exteriority structuring interiority] is given2neg to everyone—regardless of his group—in the behaviour known as ‘freelyCDR agreeing to discipline’..."

8-15Grou NecessityCDRdial/lived as free active_passivitylived, practico-inert [totality]lived as passive_activitylived: Exteriority founds action at the border separating transcendencelived/1neg from immanencelived/2nneg (CDR489)

CDR (p. 489-90, Fr. 584, continuing-4) "We should not be surprised by the opposition of these two necessitiesCDR: the second [passive_activityR of exteriority structuring interiority] is the interiorization of the first [active_passivity] and its negation by organizing labour. We have seen how the group acquires inertia in order to struggle against inertiaI; it absorbs the passivity which enables matter to sustain the passiveI syntheses which it needsdial/lived in order to survive; but it is precisely not, in itself, a passiveI synthesisdial/lived, and its passivityI sustains the active synthesisI which is praxis. (CDRp. 490) The practical comprehensionFr=? of active_passivitylivedRc [necessity as exteriority structuring interiority] is given2neg to everyone—regardless of his group—in the behaviour known as ‘freelyCDR agreeing to discipline’. The only error—which in any case is not so frequent as one might suppose—is due to discourse: there is a danger that the words will make us believe that the only effect of freeI consent is to bring behaviours into line with prescriptions. But in fact everyone discoversdial/lived in his actionI that discipline affects him in his very freedomI with a kind of being[-there], that is to say, with a certain form of exteriority which, paradoxically, sustains his bonds of interiorityI with everyone else. But this means that exteriorityI as such, as the foundation of the actionI, is always outside [dehors], or rather that it is at the extreme boundary which separates transcendence lived/1neg R from immanence lived/2neg R: in the heat of battle, a soldier obeys the order of a superior in freedomI, because he recognizes its importance, because he transcendsI it towards the common aim; in a sense, therefore this is a freeI reciprocity. Yet the hierarchical bond between the lieutenant and the private is entirely contained in this connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg; in other words, the inertI reciprocityI of command underlies concrete actionI

e..."

8-15Grou ii. Structuredial and System (CDR491-9)Sartre, CDR (p. 491, Fr. 586) "...we can describe structuredial/livedc as having two

sides: it is bothok an analytical necessityI and a syntheticdial power. Power certainly constitutesdial itself by producing in everyone the inertia which is the basis of necessityCDRdial/lived. But, conversely, necessityI is only the exterior aspect of this freelyCDR created inertiaI; it is, in other words, the index of this inertiaI seen in

75


exteriority, either by a observer who does not belong to the group, or by a specialized sub-group which uses analytical methods and symbols for dealing with certain problems of apportionment and distribution, because the multiplicity which they treat (the group as plurality in circumstances of scarcity, scarcity of cadres or provisions, etc.) is only the externalok aspect of an interiority which alone makes the problem possibleI (not in its solution, but in its very formulation).

8-15Grou Soviet activist freely interiorizes exteriority (CDR495)Sartre, CDR (p. 495, Fr. 589) sartre¶"A given activist, sent into a particular factory

or collective farm, in order to explain a decision of the Soviet government to a group of workers must treat himself bothok as the inert object of a choice (...), and as an element in an immense process which realizes itself in divergence (at the same momentdial thousands of activists are spreading out in order to go and perform the same act everywhere) and whose deep convergence of praxis will temporalizeCDRlived itself in the common objectification (the unification of reactions in all milieu everywhere). But he cannot assume himself in his inertiaI and in his being[-there] as a discrete element of an objective process [of ideology]R unless, by himself and in freeCDR

ok individual praxisI he realizesI all the momentsIok which concern him in this

process (from the instant when he gives back, by some prescribed means of communication at his place of work, what he invents, on the basis of an ensemble of principles, explanations, and unchanging evaluations, which he must give as a singular ok response to a singular question. And it is precisely the freeI realization of the common process which refers him back to the other freeI realizationsI of different propagandists and which reveal his localized action to him (he has persuaded people here, in a givenI town or province) as the common objectiveI of a common praxis. In other words structuredial/lived as the exteriority of interiority is reinteriorizedI by functional activity without beingI dissolved by it. The agent grasps [transformslived/2negtolived/1neg] it [structure]2neg, in his very activitylived/1neg, as the intersection of two planesok: on the one hand, the work of instrumentalization which the group performs on the multiplicity and, on the other hand, his own inertiaI as a freeI oath of his character as a discrete quantity on the basis of an indissoluble commonc unity. For him, exteriorityIlived/2neg signifies interiorityIlived/1neg and the multiplicity of inertI relationsok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg is simply the practical determinationdial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] of the commonI unity."

-------------------------------------------------See Sartre\Flaubert’s Neurosis-Objective_Spiritconcept imperatively summons us as to premeditated failurelived

Ref Sartre\Freedom-freedomCDR, with sub-topics

76


8-15Grou Function as structuredial/lived if ‘seen as the potential and power of the group’ (CDR495-66)

Sartre, CDR (p. 495-6, Fr. 590) "This example does not get us to structurediallived... Nevertheless, if it is examined more closely, it becomes evident that it presupposes structureI as an expression of the totalizationlived and as the inorganic skeleton of organization...(every one) of them [the group of young activists] was produced by the Partyconcept... [The group] can temporalizeCDRlived itself only in reciprocity, that is to say, it must at the same time be adopted and interiorized by the individual. He is the product of a given administrative group in so far as he is his own product and vice versa. If his mission is to train a group of workers and to increase output (...) he still has to make himself capable of raising norms by his own work. Conversely, if the administration selected him, this is for a set of aptitudes, linked to his loyalty to the Regime and revealed through his praxis; and in any case, his selection can always be revoked. These two indissoluble actions, which together require that the productI

of the freeCDR common organization should, as a common_individual, make himself his own productI, eventually, in their reciprocal development, achieve the doubleI , equally reciprocalI result of producingI the activist as an inert determinationdial [‘that is, as limitation’] of multiplicity and as an individual expression of the ‘totalization [in course]lived.’ Then a particular mission will constitutedial him as a power-object, that is to say, as a unit which has to be transported to a particular place by a particular means of transport in order to make contact with specific sub-groups as a real right-duty who may require of the local authorities or of certain individualsI the means to carry out his duty. It is therefore the exercise of a function which develops in this particularI event: and this is structuredial/livedR in so far as it is seen as the potential and power of the group of activists . On the other hand, in this relatively simple case, other things beingI equal, everyone is the same as everyone, and since every propagandist is conditioned in his very powerlivedd by the interiorized multiplicity of his sub-group, and, finally, since the groupI does not possess the metaphysical existence of a form or a Gestalt, of a collective consciousness or a created totalitydial/lived, each individualI, as a common_individual, is in himself the propaganda sub-group as a statutory unit of the interiorizedI multiplicity and his own activity is an expression of the totalizinglived organization. (The ‘totalizingI organization’ here means the syntheticdial ensemble of governmental and administrative services which have created these ‘organs’ of agitation in the light of a certain objective, of certain mediations between the apex and the base, and of certain relationsok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg with the masses.)"

(CDRp. 497-8, Fr. 592) "...He is autonomous to the extent that concrete circumstances (he is speaking to an audience definedI by particular interests and

77


jobs, by a particular culture and particular habits—in the sense of exis) are the other side of untranscendable inertiaI, that is to say, in so far as they require him to mediatelivedI between the abstract determinationsdial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] of his task and the singular [singuliéres] difficulties he encounters. He is expression in so far as his wholedial undertaking is incomprehensibleok except from the point_of_viewdouble

connection of 1st&2negc of a transcendentlived/1neg connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg between the leaders and the masses which involves the social and political system of the USSR as a totality... (p. 498) If the operationsdial/lived of the activists, as a unified multiplicity, are carried out as voluntaristic arrogance, they will, in one way or another, simply expressI the activities of the government and administration.50

-------------------------------------------------CDRFtn. 50, "...The ensemble determinesdial [‘that is, as limitation’] the signification as an expression of the totalizingI and totalized_totality=[worked_matter]lived. My point is simply that this expressionI—which always appears in expérience—is necessaryCDRdial/lived presence of the totalization [in course]lived in the totalizedI part since the totalizationI for this partI is no more than function**, that is to say, structuredial/lived."

-------------------------------------------------** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-FUNCTION [fonction]; See below Negative function

Search for a Method: (p. 25c) "...But the constitutivedial/group analytic_schemaposited of [the physicist's] hypothesis is universalizing, not totalizinglived. It determinesdial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] a connectionok [of three degrees]posited&posited as 1neg&2neg, a functionposited, and not a concrete_totalitydial/livedc..."

CDR: Sartre\Negation-R Cyclical_societiesI transition to elementary praxisI through possibility (CDR82), with (p. 83c) "...It is at this ambiguous level that the dialectical transition from function to action can be seen...";

Herein-Ri. Structuredial and Function;-RFunction as structuredial/lived if ‘seen as the potential and power of the

groupI’;-RStructuredial/lived of opposedI groupsI acknowledges potential actualization

of power-The goalkeepers ‘inorganic_materiality of freedom’ (CDR487-8)

CDRII: Sartre\Intelligibility of History-RUnforseen indeterminations create contradictions in groupsI, with (p. 55c) "...And the indetermination does not move from the functions to the object—as would happen if competencies at the outset had not been sufficiently defined. It moves retroactively from objectI to functions, because it is the objectI as a new consequence of action that makes the functions

78


obsolete and disqualifies them..." See Archives\Human Sciences-RDo forms follow function or functions follow form?

negative function :CDR: (p.499c) "In the reflexive [réflexive] context of the group, however,

this structuraldial/lived connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg must also arise as reflexive [réflexive] knowledge [connaissance]: in other words the individual action of the common agent cannot realize itself as a determinationdial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] of the indeterminate without conceiving function negatively in the transcendentlived/1neg object as exigency and as a negativeI adumbration (esquisse en creux [hollow sketch]) of behaviour and, positively, in interiority, as duty and power..."

8-15Grou Structuredial/lived of opposedI groups acknowledges potential actualization of power (CDR498)

Sartre, CDR (p. 498-9, Fr. 592) "We shall therefore refer to the functionlivedR of the sub-group or of a member of the sub-groupI as structuredial/lived, in so far as its concrete exercise through the freeCDR praxis of the agent reveals it as a specification of the totalizinglived rearrangement of the wholedial by itself. It should be clear that the word expression** here refers to a fundamental practical relationok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg, that is to say, a reciprocity of constitutionCDRdial: freeI, individual praxisI realizes the previous totalization [in course]posited as a positingposited of limits; it pursues the totalizingI operationdial/lived by concretelyI objectifying itself in a concreteI result which signifies the totalizationI of results which are in the process of being objectified. Meanwhile the organized totalizationI

designates and solicits individualI action, as function, as its inevitable concretization; it constitutes a power and an instrumentality for it. Structuredial/lived is this double constituentlived designation, in its two simultaneous and contraryok orientations, either [1] at the level of mere abstract potentiality (the level of power acknowledged by common_individuals) [completing this paragraph], or [2] at the level of actualization [next sub-topic] . (CDRp. 499) It is obvious that this relationok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg between the individual and the group (as an interiorized multiplicity in each and all) existed even in the group_in_fusion where, indeed, we laid stress on it. But one cannot yet speak of a structureddial/lived connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg, for the simple reason that the reciprocal bond has not yet been specified. Structuredial/*** is a specific relationok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg of the termslived/1neg of a reciprocalI connectionI to the wholedial/lived/2neg and to each otherlived/2neg through the mediation of the wholeI. And the wholeI as a developing totalizationlived, existsI in everyone and in the form of a unity of the interiorizedIc multiplicity and nowhere else.

-------------------------------------------------

79


** Internal bookmark in this document-EXPRESSION ; 12 hits*** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-STRUCTURE dial/

The Emotions (p. 54, Fr. 40-1) "...In reality, the art of writing is not at all unconscious. It is a present structure dial/lived of my consciousness. Only, it is not conscious of itself... I intuitively apprehend the wordsI insofar as they have this structural dial/lived quality of issuing ex nihilo, and yet of not being creatorsI of themselves, of being passively createdI..."

CDR: (p. 27) Sartre\Dialectic-RDialectic contradictionI results from structureddial/lived materiality: Contradiction subsequently becomes its own motive force (CDR37)

(p. 47c) "...totalizationlived must include within itself its own reflective [réflexive] retotalization as an essential structure dial/lived and as a totalizingI process within the process as a wholedial.";

(p. 228c) "In the momentdial where we reach the apodictic structure dial/lived of dialectical expérience, still in its most abstract form, the discoverydial/lived by the agent of the alienation of his praxis is accompanied by the discoveryI of his objectification as alienatedI...";

(p. 262c, structure vs. gathering) "...their acts of waiting [for the bus] are not a communal fact, but are lived separately as identical instances of the same actI. From this point_of_viewdouble connection of 1st&2neg, the group is not structured dial/lived; it is a gathering...";

Herein-(p. 496) RFunction as structuredial/lived if ‘seen as the potential and power of the group’ (CDR496)

(p. 498c) "...Structuredial/lived [of groups] is this double constituentlived designation, in its two simultaneous and oppositedial orientations, either [1] at the level of mere abstract potentiality (the level of power acknowledged by common_individuals), or [2] at the level of actualization..."

Herein-[below] iii. ‘Structuredial/lived and the Group’s Idea of Itself’ (CDR499-504)CDRII (p. 13c) "...an infinite number of social_objectsRc [of History’sconcept

intelligibility]—and of the most varied kinds—contain as their inner structuresdial/lived the twofold [1&2 below] negation of themselves and of each component by the other. [1] There is thus at least—i.e. before any conception of historical factors and motiveok forces—one certain aporia** in every social ensemble: apparent unities and partial syntheses cover splits of every kind and every size. Society, from afar, seems to stand unaided; from close to, it is riddled with holes. Unless the holes themselves are, in some way, the appearance—and the totalizationI is the unity. On the other hand [2,, above], however, we already know [savoir] that conflicts and social struggles as much as singularok battles are all conditioned by scarcityc: negation of man by the Earthconcept beingI interiorized as a negation of man by manI..."

80


The Family Idiot: (5:225c) "...(I have shown above that thought is born as a momentdial of praxis at the level of work that it grasp [transformsto]c the world through the tool, in other words that the mode of production is an immediate and fundamental structuredial of perception.)"

Politics and Literature, Sartre\Negation-RWholedial and part: Four possible structuresdial/lived

8-15Grou iii. ‘Structuredial/lived and the Group’s Idea of Itself’ (CDR499-504) CDR (p.499-500, Fr. 593, [source in above sub-topic at: "[2] at the level of actualization"]) "In the reflexive [réflexive] context of the group, however, this structuraldial/posited connectionok

[of three degrees]1neg&2neg must also arise as reflexive [réflexive] knowledge [connaissance]: in other words the individual action of the common agent cannot realize itself as a determinationdial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] of the indeterminate without grasping

[transformslived/2negtolived/1neg] functionlivedc negatively in the transcendent objectlived/2neg as exigencylived/1neg and as a negativeI adumbration (esquisse en creux [hollow sketch]) of

behaviour and, positively, in interiority, as duty and power. The momentdial of mediation through organic praxis is also that of knowledge [connaissance], that is to say, of the co-presence of all reciprocal implications; but of course this does not

signify [signifie] that this knowledge [connaissance] is explicit or thematizedposited. But, if we consider all the characteristics, already enumerated, of knowledge [connaissance] in

the organized group, we can right away [ausstôt] see that the organicI individualI

produces and knows [connait] himself as a common_individual: first [1], in so far as the objectI reflects [réfléchit] the groupI to him as practice and as practical knowledge

[connaissance], that is to say, at once on the basis of the common objective as the future [avenir]lived/2neg disclosing the presentlived/1neg situation in the practical_fielddial/lived

and on the basis of grasping [transformslived/2negtolived/1neg] one’s work on the objectI as a particularFr=? detaillived/1neg of the commonI objectificationlived/2neg [man acting on matter]; and, secondly [2], in so far as the wholedial, as a practical totalization [in course]lived which is

also performed by him, forces him, in functional determinationdial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’], of practically graspingI the transcendentlived/1neg objectI as commonI

and the practical_fieldI as a commonI situationlived/2neg to be modified. So that the structuredial, considered by way of abstraction, as [the group’s] knowledge [connaissance], is simply the ideac which the group produces of itself (and of the Universeconcept in so

far as it is practically determineddial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] as a field of objectificationIlived [man acting on matter]). And this reflexive [réflexive] ideaI, in its turn,

has no other content nor other foundation than the commonI organization as an objectiveI system of relationsok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg; or rather, the organization

conditions it [idea] and finds itself again as its interior norm [norme]. (CDRp. 500, Fr. 594) At this levelok of abstraction and purity (that is to say, in the absence of serial determinationdial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’]), the idea of the groupI is without

81


alteritylived: it is the same everywhere as a pure expression of the here and now; and there is nothing surprising in this since it may be a defined actualization [actualization

starts this paragraph], under the pressure of defined exigencies, of structuredial/lived as a relationok [of three degrees]lived&lived of reciprocal expressionI between the part and the

whole. But, at the same time, at this level of non-differentiation [not dialectical limitation], it [idea of the group] remains purely practical, that is to say, it remains all

together an organizing reflexion [réflexion] and an oath; or in other words, both the truth of the group as practical expérience and its ethic, as the constitutiondial/group of

common_individuals by imperatives and rights based upon sworn inertia, are absolutely not differentiated [not dialectical limitation] and find, indeed, the principle of

their indissoluble unity lies in the very urgency of the commonI tasks... However, the ideaIc of man which is produced by the groupI as an ideaI of itself cannot be

compared to the ideaI which is produced by the gold coin in the practico-inert_field. This in factI supports the ideasI of the Otherconcept

ok by its fundamental inertiaI; and so it cannot change. The ideaI of the group, on the contraryok, as a structuraldial/posited

determination [‘that is, as limitation’] of the indeterminate, must be invented, and remains indefinitely variable within certain limits. [continued]

8-15Grou PrimitiveI peoples comprehend group organizationlived/2neg as lived connectionslived&lived to commonlived/2neg objectiveslived/1neg rather than abstract

thoughtposited (CDR500-4)Sartre, CDR (p. 500-1, Fr. 595, continuing) "But the double character of structuredial (an

inert object of calculationposited when seen as ossature without taking account of totalization [in course]lived, or an effective power actualized by the praxis of each and

all) implies a double character in the ideaR. In one sense it is the freeCDR

comprehensionok everywhere of functional activity in everyone to such a degree that its heterogeneity relates to the homogeneity of oaths on the one hand, and to the

syntheticdial unity of the transcendentlived/1neg end on the other. (CDRp. 501) It is at this still practical level that the group has a silent knowledge [connaissance] of itself

through each common_individual: but this evidencedial/livedok is not available to those

who do not share its objectives. As practical individuals, they [not sharing objectives] may perceive these ends in the common actionI as it unfolds before them, and carry out a correct reconstruction of the praxis: but they will never perceiveI the common

connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1st&2neg to the endlived/2neg concretelylived/1neg as an inter-individual connectionI, that is to say, as a milieulived/1neg specified by organizationlived/2neg. It is at this level that complex knowledges [connaissances] may disconcert a sociologist

or ethnographer who encounters them in underdeveloped societies, because they conceive them as theoretical knowledges [connaissances] derived from observation of

an objectI, whereas they are really practical structuresdial/lived which are themselves

82


lived in the interiority of a common actionIe... In other words, we should avoid

putting the cart before the horse by claiming that primitive people comprehend [comprennent] the abstract relationsok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg which constitutedial the

organization of their group because they are capable of abstractI thought; on the contrary, we should say that their capacity for abstractI thoughtI is determineddial [‘that

is, as limitation/negation’] by the abstractI relationsIok which structuredial/lived their society,

that it is simply these relationsokI themselves in so far as every common_individual

has to live them all in order practically to realize his connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1st&2neg to alllived/2neg in the unity of a common objectivelived/1neg..."

(CDRp. 502, Fr. 596) "e...In fact, the natives of Ambrym** ‘gave Deacon [A. B.]

demonstrations, using diagrams’.53 They drew lines on the ground, and these, according to their length and position, represented one or other of the spouses, their sons, their daughters, etc., seen, of course, from the point_of_viewdouble connection of 1st&2neg in

lived&lived degrees of a complex matrimonial system. In this case it is important to realize that in producing these connections1neg&2neg [rapport] [of three degrees] in the domain of the

absolute inert (earth and sand) and of perfect exteriority, they were not copying some modelposited which they carried in their heads. And it would be equally

incorrect to say that they project [projettent] their syntheticdial practical consciousness of themselves and of everyone into the analyticalposited milieu of the inanimate: such a projectionI

ok, in fact, is impossible, since it would involve—roughly speaking—two distinct orders of rationalityR.

(CDRp. 502-3, Fr. 597) "I have shown that analytical_rationalitypositedc can be surpassed1neg

and integrated by syntheticdial rationalityI, but it is also clear that the contrary [contraire] is not true; a dialectical proposition would lose its signification and

dissolve into relationsok [of three degrees]posited&posited of exterioritypositedc if it were ‘projected’ into the milieu of logical or mathematical calculation. (p. 503) In fact,

the decision to make the kinship system into a fabricated, inorganiclived objectI (lines made on the ground) corresponds, for the native, to a practical attempt to win the

support of inorganic_materialitylived in order to produce the structuresdial/lived in the form of inertI abstractI analytic_schemataposited. The reason for this is that he is trying

to make them comprehensible to a stranger situated in the exteriorI, and who therefore thinks in terms of exteriorityI: he therefore expresses therefore on oath the inertia not as interiorizedI exteriorityI, but as pure determinationdial [‘that is, as limitation’] of universalposited exteriorityposited. But in establishing this minimum dialectic_schema, that is to say, in reducing structuredial/lived to ossatureI, he is guided by the syntheticdial

comprehensionok which defines his membership of the group. Thus his task is not a matter of projection or transpositione... which, indeed, falsify this inertiaI by

83


presenting it as an elementary, suffered condition (whereas in fact it is produced by the oathI.

(CDRp. 503-4, Fr. 597) "It is obvious that this construction is not a thought: it is a piece of manual work controlled by a syntheticdial knowledge [connaissance] which it does

not expresse... Practical knowledge [connaissance]lived & positedc unfolds at the same time on two planes and according to two types of rationalityI [dialectic/synthetic and analytic]; and

this is not surprising, especially in modern societies, where it is almost impossible to find the solution to a practical problem if the question is not treated at several

levels at the same time (in fact, as we shall see, the practico-inert_fieldc

reintroduces itself at the momentdial of the true concretelivedc so producing a new complexity). (CDRp. 504) But this does not constitutedial an unintelligibilityposited or a

split in thoughtposited, since dialectical Reasonconcept/1negc sustains, controls, and justifies all other forms of thoughtI, because it explains them, puts them in their proper place

and integrates them as non-dialectical momentsI which, in it, regain a dialectical valuelived."

-------------------------------------------------Ftn. 53. "A. B. Deacon, Malekula: A Vanishing People in the New Hebrides...

Quoted in Lévi-Strauss..."** See Sartre\Sartre from Others\Claude Lévi-Strauss 1962 History and

Dialectic Source.wpd, with "... Of the Ambrym native, made famous by Deacon’s work, who was able to show the field-worker the functioning of his marriage rules and kinship system by a diagram in the sand (an aptitude in no way exceptional as

plenty of similar cases are recorded in ethnographic literature) Lévi presents Sartre saying: ‘It goes without saying that this construction is not a thought: it is a piece of

manual work governed by unexpressed synthetical knowledge’.Lévi, "Granted: but then the same must be said of a professor at the Ecole

Polytechnique demonstrating a proof on the blackboard, for every ethnographer capable of dialectical comprehension is intimately persuaded that the situation is

exactly the same in both cases. So it would follow that all reason is dialectical, which for my part I am prepared to concede, since dialectical reason seems to me like analytical reason in action; but then the distinction between the two forms of

reason which is the basis of Sartre’s enterprise would become pointless..."

8-15Grou Events ‘determinedial in each case and on every level the connectionslived&lived of the individuallived/1neg with societylived/2neg’ (SM128-30)

Sartre, Search for a Method (p. 128-30P, Fr. 99) "The event is not the passive resultant of a hesitant, distorted action and of an equally uncertain reaction; it is not

even the fleeting, slippery synthesisdial/lived of reciprocal incomprehensionsFr=?. But across all the toolsok of actionI and thought which falsify praxis, each group realizes

84


by its [group/indiv]_conduct** a certain disclosure of the other. [Fr. 100] Each of them is subject insofar as it directs its own actionI, and each is object insofar as it submits

to the actionI of the otherI; each tactic foresees the other’sI tactic, more or less thwarts it, and is thwarted in turn. For the reason that each behaviour*** of a

disclosed group surpasses1neg the behaviour of an adverse groupI, it is modified in its tactics because of the adverse groupI and consequently the adverse groupI modifies

the structuresdial/lived of its disclosed groupI itself, the event**** in its full concrete reality is the organized unity of a plurality of oppositions reciprocally surpassed1neg.

Perpetually surpassed1neg by the initiative of all and of each one, it surges up precisely from these very surpassingsI, as a double unified organization, the

meaningCDRlived of which is to realize in unity the destruction of each of its terms by the other. Thus constructed, the event reacts upon the men who compose it and

imprisons them in its apparatus; of course, its beingI set up as an independent reality and its imposition on individuals accomplished only by an immediate

fetishizingR. Already, for example, all the participants in the ‘day of August 10’ know that the seizure of the Tuileries and the fall of the monarchy are at stake; the objective meaningCDRlived

ok of what they are doing is going to be imposed upon them as a real existence to the same degree that the other’s resistance does not allow them

to grasp [transformslived/2negtolived/1neg] their activityIlived/2neg as the pure and simple objectificationlivedR of themselveslived/1neg. (SMp. 129) Beginning here and precisely

because the fetishizingI has as a result the realization of fetishesI, the event must be considered as a system in motionok, drawing me along toward its own annihilation; the result is rarely clear-cute... This is sufficient for us to affirm its specificity. For we do not wish to regard it as the simple unreal signification of molecular bumps

and jolts—neither as their specific resultant nor as a analytic_schematicposited symbolok

of more profound movementsdial/posited. We view it [the event] as the moving, temporary unity of antagonistic groups which modifies them to the extent that they transform

it. As such, the event has its unique characteristics: its date, its speed, its structuredial/lived etc. (p. 130) The study of these factors allows us to make Historyconcept

rationalposited even at the level of the concrete.(SMp. 130, Fr. 101) "We must go further and consider in each case the role of the

individual in the historic event. For this role is not defined once and for all: it is the structureI of the groups considered which determines [‘that is, as limitation’] it in each

case. Thereby, without entirely eliminating contingency, we restore to it its limits and its rationalityI. The groupI bestows its power and its efficacy upon the

individuals whom it has made and who have made it in turn, whose irreducible particularitydial is one way of living universality. Through the individualI, the groupI

looks back to itself and finds itself again in the particular opaqueness of life as well as in the universality of its struggle. Or rather, this universality takes on the face,

85


the body, and the voice of the leaders whom it has given2neg to itself; thus the event itself, while a collective apparatus, is more or less marked with individualI signs;

persons are reflected [reflétant] in it to the same extent that the condition of the conflict and the structuredial/lived of the groupI have permitted them to be personalized.

"What we have said of the event is validdial/lived for the total history of the collectivityI; this is what determines dial [‘that is, as limitation’] in each case and on each level ok the

connectionok [of three degrees ] 1st&2neg of the individual lived/1neg with society lived/2neg, his powers, and his efficacye..."

-------------------------------------------------** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-CONDUCT ; conduite

*** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-behaviour; comportement**** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-EVENT [événement]; cf. concrete_totalitydial/lived;

Search for a Method: bookmark aboveCDRII: (p. 33c) "...the event produces its own rulelivedc. If this ruleI is the art of

boxing, boxers and spectators reproduce and realize this art through real combat..."

8-15GrouIV. The Constituted Dialectic (CDR505-563, no citations)Ref Sartre\Dialectic-constituted_dialectical_Reasonconcept

8-15GrouV. The Unity of the Group as Other: the Militant (CDR564-675, no citations)

8-15GrouVI. The Institution (CDR576-663)

8-15Grou6. Other-directions: Top Ten, Racism and Anti-Semitism—(CDR642-663)

page 650 out sequence at Herein-The ‘reality of the collective_object rests on recurrence’

8-15GrouVII. The Place of History (CDR664-734)Sartre, CDR (p. 705-6) "...the working classc can be said to be a totalization [in

course]lived everywhere. At the present level of expérience this does not mean either that it must or that it can attain a higher degree of integration or militancy; but it

does not mean the contrary [contraire] either. (CDRp. 706) It is simply that we are not yet equipped to consider such a possibilityI ..."

Page 733 out of sequence at Sartre\Sartre Work Files\Purged-Fanon et al.: Annihilation of colonial culture; assimilation as alienation

86


8-15Grou1. The Reciprocity of Groups and Collectives (CDR664-670, no citations)

8-15Grou2. The circularity of Dialectical Experience (CDR671-678, no citations)Sartre, CDR (p. 671) "...We now confront not the real concretelivedc, which can only

be historical, but the set of formallivedc contexts, curves, structuresdial/lived and conditionings which constitutedial the formalI milieu in which the historicalI concreteI

must necessarilyCDRdial/lived occur..."

8-15GrouVIII. Class Struggle and Dialectical Reasonconcept (CDR735-820, no citations)Cumming's The Philosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre, p. 480-3, S&A translate CDR 815-

7.

Page 761 out of sequence at Herein-Affiliation with what might have been a radio broadcast

Page 811-2 out of sequence in Sartre\Dialectic-anti-dialectic

87

sartreterminologyinhisownterms.files.wordpress.com… · web...

Documents