æ

“To the question ‘Would you envisage living with a Jewish partner?’, 8 per cent of the total questioned replied ‘No, I couldn’t envisage this for myself’, and Brenner notes that this response was given by 24 per cent of those of Maghrebian origin (a difference of 16 points). The figure for those individuals classified as ‘right-wing’ was 16 per cent (a difference of 8 points). If this does indeed confirm a more pronounced anti-Jewish prejudice among young people who class themselves as ‘right-wing’, for the question on the media the difference is less significant on the basis of our own ideological reading. Furthermore, the advantage here is more distinctly in favour of Brenner’s ethno-cultural hypothesis, which is not relativized by a high degree of equality on other questions (as above for the areas of politics and economics). This is why Brenner remarks that ‘the cleavage is most clearly marked by the question dealing with the personal sphere’, though we now have to correct this by making clear that only the personal sphere seems to mark such a ‘cleavage’, at least so far as validating his explanatory hypothesis is concerned. But the correction does not stop here. This would in fact mean forgetting that these figures do not offer any enlightenment at all as to the origin of this negative response on the part of young people of Maghrebian origin – at least, until we know how many of them would respond negatively to the broader question ‘Would you envisage living with anyone who is not Muslim (or not Maghrebian)?’ For it is only in so far as the percentage of young people of Maghrebian origin who would not envisage living with any non-Muslim (or non-Maghrebian) is clearly lower than the percentage of the same young people who would not envisage living with a Jewish person that the difference is significant. In other words, if 24 per cent of these same young people of Maghrebian origin would no more envisage living with any non-Maghrebian or non-Muslim, then the ‘cleavage’ would not be a sign of anti-Jewish prejudice, but simply the assertion of a Muslim or Maghrebian identity. Since this question was not asked, it is impossible to draw any conclusion.”
― Alain Badiou, Reflections On Anti-Semitism

“L'ivresse porte le legs du sacrifice: la communication, par le fluide et par son épanchement, avec le sacrum, l'exception, l'excès, le dehors, l'interdit, le divin. L'ivresse serait en somme la réussite d'un sacrifice dont la victime serait le sacrificateur lui-même. Àla limite où le sacrificateur de tous les sacrifices demeure intact Bataille reconnaissait pour finir un caractère comique. Sans doute l'ivresse est à son tour comique puisque l'enivré n'y disparaît pas sans reste et revient de l'ivresse piteux, dégrisé, parfois désabusé de l'ivresse même.”
― Jean-Luc Nancy, Ivresse

“Study’s good, because it microcosms everything—if you understand everything within the walls of what you study you can identify other walls too, other areas of study. Everything’s separate and discrete and there is no macrocosm, really. When there are no walls there is no study, only chaos. And so you break it down.”
― Chris Kraus, I Love Dick

“La vérité du vin et des enfants est vérité qui ne se cherche ni ne se trouve, qui ne se prouve ni ne s'établit: elle est donnée, entièrement donnée, donnée avant toute donation. On ne remonte pas en amont. Elle coule de source, et voilà comment on peut
boire poésie ou vertu: à la source, à la bouteille, dans une coulée qui ne doit rien qu'à la gorge qui l'accueille. Poésie ou vertu, image ou musique, pensée, émotion: boire signifie absorber, devenir éponge.”
― Jean-Luc Nancy, Ivresse