(27) This then is the meaning of Bloom: we dont belong to ourselves, that this world is not our world (29): estrangement from the world consists in the fact that the stranger is inside us, that in the world of the authoritarian commodity, we regularly become strangers to ourselves (29), which is a pleasant way to make an old Marxist point. Where I get a little jittery is in the deployment of overt and unexamined Heideggerian clichés, such as we still harbor the deep feeling of an inauthentic existence, an artificial life (30), wherein the interior presence of the Other asserts itself at every stage of our consciousness (id.). That said, Bloom also stands for the proposition that, instead of being a dehisced classical subject, at the basis of human existence there is a principle of incompleteness, a radical inadequacy (31), which fits nicely with Sloterdijks eulogy of Derrida regarding how the postmodern involves a foundation, as it were, of decentered flexibility. (39) Part of this process is that every development of commodity society requires the destruction of a certain form of immediacy (41)welcome to the world market of the Commie Manifesto, I suppose, but also cf. Rather, this text works the debordian tradition: The separation between the lifeless forms of the Spectacle and the formless life of Bloom, with its monochrome nothingness, yields at many points to indistinction (49), which certainly appears to be an agambenian argument; we are not dealing with an eidos zoe, are we? We see how this works out in the analysis of hipsters, who are regarded as the imperialist faction of Bloom, one who presents himself to the world as a viable form of life NB, and thus constrains himself to a strict discipline of mendacity (50), which is a lovely phrase, and certainly sounds like an agambenian rule. It is a matter of Total Mobilization of commodity domination, hoping to contain the overflowing accumulation of its incongruities by appealing to a state of exception, sometimes manifest, other times latent, but in any case permanent (66), which should sound very familiar. Despite my critique above, we have comments on the pure exteriority of the conditions of existence also forms the illusion of pure interiority (80), the condition of possibility for Bloom. However, at the same time, its certain that Bloom bears the potential for bringing down commodity society (96)a revolutionary agent, then? Postscript re-urges the agambenian notions that the Spectacle/Biopower want to convert Bloom into a stabilized form of life (144), which of course under proper agambenian principles is an impossible projecteven though these types mobilized for Berlusconi: whats actually involved instead is a takeover of the social by a form of life: the manager.
The theory of Bloom regards an ethical position (or lack of one) of extreme indifference to what one is to be in the world. What is useful in the concept of Bloom as a condition? Tiqqun argue that Bloom represent in their extreme alienation from alienation an inessentiality, or nothingness, that is free to burst forth from anywhere and introduce an extreme hostility to the world that makes them.
I read this at work. Others, I can only assume, use the flexibility and "casual work environment" to read or play games or text for a good portion of the day. Even a hardened slacker like myself works hard at times.
Trois auteurs, donc, à lire avant celui-ci pour mieux saisir se que Tiqqun a à nous dire: Foucault, Benjamin, Agamben, et, bien qu'il n'en parle pas, le Bloom de Tiqqun renvoi à l'image de La vie liquide décrit par Zygmunt Bauman.