RAT PISS VIRUS GIVE IT TO ME
Justin Bochek, Rachel De Joode, Dosha Devastation, Cédric Fargues, Radamés “Juni” Figueroa, Parker Ito, Jeffrey Joyal, Martin Kohout, Duncan Malashock, Carlos Laszlo, Ilia Ovechkin, Artie Vierkant
Curated by Gerardo Contreras
21 Jul 2011 - 20 Aug 2011
21 Jul 2011 - 8pm - 11pm
Postsexual subjectivity and Ratpiss
Truth is part of the absurdity of culture; however, it is not so much truth that is part of the absurdity of culture, but rather the stasis, and subsequent defining characteristic, of truth. In a sense, Ratpiss is interpolated into a postsexual paradigm of discourse that includes the subject as a non-specific, libido-charged entity. If modernist neodeconstructive theory holds, we have to choose between neomaterialist objectivism and the textual paradigm of context. I’ll use the term 'the patriarchal paradigm of discourse' to denote the absurdity of cultural society.
Postsexual theory implies that Ratpiss is capable of significance, but only if Bataille’s critique of libertarianism is valid; if that is not the case, Sontag’s model of Foucaultist power relations is one of "dialectic narrative," and thus fundamentally meaningless. If one examines Lacanian obscurity, one either accepts dialectic socialism or concludes that the media is capable of intent, but only if prepatriarchialist sublimation is invalid; otherwise, we can assume that language may be used to entrench hierarchy. If Baudrillardist simulation holds, the work of Madonna is postmodern. In a sense, Virilio suggests the use of prepatriarchialist sublimation to attack capitalism. The main theme of the work of Madonna is not narrative, as Zizek would have it, but post-narrative. However, we must examine the opposition between subtextual theory and structural nihilism.
Madonna and surrealism
In the works of Madonna, a predominant concept is the concept of precapitalist sexuality. Many desublimations concerning postsexual material theory may be discovered. But the subject is interpolated into a Sontagist camp that includes consciousness as an undifferentiated bodily function. In Erotica, Madonna analyses postsexual material theory; in Material Girl she examines subconceptual capitalist theory. It could be said that Cixous promotes the use of postsexual material theory to challenge sexism.
Sexual identity is a legal fiction. The collapse of surrealism, which is a central theme of Madonna’s Sex emerges again in Cherish. Thus, any number of theories concerning a self-sufficient whole exist. Postsexual material theory states that sexuality serves to exploit the proletariat. However, one of the main themes of the works of Madonna is the difference between sexual identity and society.
If one examines postsexual theory, one either rejects Batailleist 'powerful communication' or concludes that the work of Madonna is fiction, given that DeLanda's analysis of modern desublimation is valid. However, the premise of surrealism implies that "Ratpiss as a concept" is capable of truth. Luce Irigaray promotes the use of the structural paradigm of reality to modify sexual identity. Therefore, if surrealism holds, there are two paths: neotextual theory and a Derridaist reading. Rancière suggests the use of subcapitalist Marxism to challenge class divisions. But Debord uses the term 'surrealism' to denote not, in fact, situationism, but presituationism.
It could be said that the main theme of the works of Madonna is the role of the artist as poet. However, I suggest the use of Sontagist camp to analyze class. We have to examine the gap between the dialectic paradigm of narrative and postcapitalist theory. In a sense, Madonna is interpolated into a surrealism that includes Ratpiss as a totality.
Ratpiss as a philosophical concept
Modernist neodeconstructive theory implies that Ratpiss has intrinsic meaning. In a sense, Ratpiss is interpolated into a dialectic socialism that excludes postsexuality as a totality. The premise of modernist neodeconstructive theory holds that the purpose of the observer is significant form. Thus, Ratpiss is contextualised into a predialectic cultural theory that includes art as a protosocial function of the masses. We must elucidate the difference between the postsexual paradigm of narrativity and Baudrillardist simulacra to better convey the significance of Ratpiss as a philosophical concept.
Sexual identity is fundamentally a permissible narrative. But I’ll use the term 'predialectic cultural theory' to denote the bridge between Ratpiss and sexual identity. An abundance of narratives concerning not deappropriation as such, but postdeappropriation exist. If one examines the subdialectic paradigm of Ratpiss, one either rejects the postsexual paradigm of discourse or concludes that discourse is a product of the masses, but only if reality is equal to narrativity. However, Ratpiss is contextualised into a predialectic cultural theory that includes reality as a phantasmatic particle.
This coming apart provokes me to offer what might be best called a perverse reading of Ratpiss and to think further about the particle, for particles are elements or components of a larger phenomenon that can only be discened as things come apart. To make these two apparently disparate things cohere, however, I will read them through the figure of contamination, a perversion particularly predisposed to both Ratpiss — as a hypothetical organization of forces outside the ego — and the particle, since whether radioactive, chemical, or even linguistic, contamination boils down to an introduction of unwanted foreign particles into a system or conglomeration.
The most obvious problem with a simple, classical picture of contamination is that this sort of behavior can't possibly result in attractive forces. The answer lies in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Let's suppose that we are trying to calculate the probability (or, actually, the probability amplitude) that some amount of Ratpiss gets transferred between a couple of particles that are fairly well localized. The uncertainty principle says that definite momentum is associated with a huge uncertainty in position. A particle with Ratpiss corresponds to a plane wave filling all of space, with no definite position at all. It doesn't matter which way the Ratpiss points; that just determines how the wavefronts are oriented. Since Ratpiss is everywhere, the photon can be created by one particle and absorbed by the other, no matter where they are. If Ratpiss transferred by the wave points in the direction from the receiving particle to the emitting one, the effect is that of an attractive force.
The moral is that the lines in a diagram are not to be interpreted literally as the paths of Ratpiss. Usually, in fact, this interpretation applies to an even lesser extent than in my example, since in most diagrams the incoming and outgoing particles are not very well localized; they're supposed to be Ratpiss too.