2. What moves man? The science of “consequence” The situation for action The nature of the “state” The Sovereign One Body

3. https://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=vbhJ9c-pFoI

4. On science (natural philosophy) Philosophy is the study of the causes of the world of appearance (de Corpore) Philosophy studies principles of causality, or “consequence” that govern bodies in motion Four categories for analyzing “appearance”: body, accident, phantasms, names

5. On Political “Science” Political science = moral science (what is right) + civil science (what is just) Moral and civil science build on a foundation in natural science Subject is man as a moving “thinking-body”

6. Consequence and right action Special causes in political science: Passions Names and Definitions Formula Giving life to truth: reading the formula Action in context: “consequentialist” morality (If I do this, then this will happen…)

7. Making the “occasione” What will (probably) happen: making the imaginary situation, or context for action From Chance (“Fortuna”) to Probability (or what is necessary “for the most part”) What “should” happen: what “ought” to happen depends on what “probably” will

8. “The Laws of Nature oblige in foro interno [‘in conscience,’ or in imagination], that is to say, they bind to a desire they should take place: but in foro externo…[or in action, they oblige] not always. “For he that should be modest, and tractable, and perform all he promises, in such a time, and place, where no man else should do so, should but make himself a prey to others, and procure his own certain ruin... “And again, he that having sufficient Security, that others shall observe the same laws toward him, [and] observes them not himself, seeketh not Peace but War, and consequently the destruction of his Nature by Violence.” (Hobbes, Chp 15, p. 126 in original)

9. What is a “state”? A general condition or situation (a locus ficta) Hobbes’s influence on enlightenment (Locke, Smith, Rousseau) Why does the change from one state to another seem necessary? What is the logic of the relation between them?

10. What makes the (necessary) difference? The One Body

11. Why consent?

12. What is “sovereignty”? ‘Personation’ and the Power of the One Body Figure The One as foundation of Civilization The State at War vs. the State of War (protecting the Industry of men)

13. What moves man, in common? His ‘sense’ of his situation, as one among many Constructing the situation: Political Art and Political Science On Subjection: bearing the burden of Power

18. [put frame points here from video, or else frame questions (might not show slide but for now) Note all moving / dancing individually but end up same – why? What is happening at the end? What happens to the dancers? What happens to the man at the center? What is signified by his walking away? What do you think the ‘magic fountain’ represents?

19. What makes men move? 1.On method in ‘science’ (natural and political) 2.On figure: [[demonstration and observation]] 3.On bodily figure: regulation in common by “some desire, and design” [great impression? Need to work this in? or don’t worry?] 4.On fiction: Representation and Power

20. 1. What makes man move? “Scientific” method, natural and political (Hobbes vs. Machiavelli) Figure, imagination, and man’s “thinking-body” (Hobbes vs. Descartes) Representation: making/imagining the All-in-One (Hobbes and Modernity/Enlightenment)

21. On natural science Natural science (natural philosophy) as the study of appearances We must understand not only what appears, but how it appears to us (appearance lies partly in/of the world, partly in/of ourselves) To learn causes of appearance, [study not just body and accident], but includes study of the nature of phantasms and names Principles that underlie appearances are principles of causality, or in other words, consequence [cause and effect; motion as change] Science of ‘causes’ = science of ‘consequence’

22. 2. N atural philosophy (the science of body) Philosophy studies the world of appearance, i.e. appearance of bodies in motion What are the “kinds” of bodily motions, interactions, effects that we see (e.g. what motion “thrusts” and what “draws”; what happens when two bodies come near to one another, or come into contact) What underlies the appearance of bodies in motion: abstract principles of “causality” or “consequence” Complex cause of “what appears”: lies partly in the external world, partly in ourselves [optics, etc] The [categorical] analysis of appearance: body, accident, phantasm, names

23. On political (or moral and civil) ‘science’ Civil and moral science depend on foundations in natural science: for they also deal with ---- of bodies in motion, which ---- the natural sciences Takes as subject what makes human bodies move and interact: what causes produce what kinds of motions (thrusts, or draws), and what are the effects of such motions; how bodies move from place to place (in time and space), what happens when one body encounters (collides with, invades, ----) an other Constructive science, productive ends: [like all science, point of understanding ‘how/why’ [principles of causality] is to make effects for benefit of mankind – common to geometry/physics [how to move matter in space], astronomy [how to tell time], and moral and civil science [on rights and on justice]

24. 3. Political (or moral + civil) Science Political science depends on natural science, study of principles regulating bodies in motion Like the natural, a constructive science with productive ends [geometry, astronomy, civil/moral – read this from 45, roughly, on ends of man] Political science studies the specific causes of human bodies in motion

25. Causality in political (moral + civil) science Causality lies in the ‘passions’, small imaginary beginnings of voluntary motion Causality in ‘names,’ [words in order and connection: definitions, formula]: how men move one another by their tongues [check formulation, by speech] Common formula for common sense (universal rules for action): “always seek an end in peace”; “do unto others…”; “in all your actions, put yourself in place of another and him in yours”

26. 4. Special “causes” in political science Passions: imaginary beginnings of voluntary motions Names and definitions: how men “move” one another’s minds, hearts, bodies] with words Common formulae for action as common “cause” e.g.: Always seek an end in peace; do unto others..; put yourself in place of another (and him in yours)

27. Giving life to truth: reading the formula How do the rules work? [recall machiavelli and the trouble with rules: H also knows that ‘good’ action depends on context] See ‘do unto others’: specific formulation in 14 {do what you require another to do to you [note prob w/ trans? is there one?}: read – complicated, ‘consequentialist’ morality [v. unilateral], ‘it depends’ on what happens, on what another will do to you, on what you require him to do to you. And what you require him to do, ‘depends’ on what you might do to him, and also, what the broader situation is that you are both in. [motto for deliberative action: “if this be done, then this will follow”][if I do this, then this will happen..]: men decide how to act by speculating on consequence

28. 5.Giving life to truth: reading the formula The trouble with rules (Machiavelli): “good” (or “right”) actions depend on context, or grasping an action’s “consequence” (what will happen if I act like ‘x’ in ‘y’ situation) Hobbes’s formula for deliberative action: “If this be done, then this will follow” (If I do this, then that will [probably] happen as a result) “Consequentialist” [(vs. “unilateral”)] morality: “goodness” of an action depends on context, and on its outcome [for hobbes, on its “probable”] outcome [probable: what makes it appear good to do, when you perform it…] [moral / legal foundation of a good action: what you could “reasonably expect” to happen as a consequence of an action, at the time of its performance… e.g., “do that to an other, which you require him to do to you…” [think this out; what do I require? Depends on what I do [first] and context][[need??]] [depends on actions of others (me); and on general context (more others, etc)

29. Making the [imaginary] ‘occasione’ [after Machiavelli] Recall machiavelli: --- Hobbes will resolve the difficulty [of reading the situation] by ‘constructing’ the occasion, i.e., by simplifying the context as an imaginary either/or: a choice between one kind of time and place, and another ‘Time of war’ or a ‘Time of peace’ State (time + place) of nature or state of civility Condition of insufficient security vs. ‘sufficient [enough] security’ [but note slipperiness of what is ‘enough’ security..- note that it’s a ‘feeling’, or a sense – a sense of security..] - ‘imagined context’ determines how men ‘should’ act, by --- what ‘should’ happen [both what ought to happen, and what probably would happen, in such a situation]: [read that passage/insert here]

30. 6. What will (probably) happen: making the occasione/situation/context Problem w/ Machiavelli is difficulty of deciding what to do, since context always changes – princes have a hard time in the Prince, even borgia. Hobbes’s solution: Shape and simplify the “context” for action: The “situation” for action = this or that “kind,” in general: e.g. a “Time” of War vs. a “Time” of Peace a “State” of Nature vs. a Civil “State” a “Place” When and Where there is sufficient security (or not) from Chance (like “Fortuna” in Machiavelli’s Prince) to Probability (like the Weather, in Aristotle’s Physics) [rainy season or a sunny season, allows us to sense what will occur probably / for the most part (raindrops, or no raindrops) Aristotle’s “conditional necessity”: what will happen probably, or “for the most part”

31. Action depends on man’s sense of the situation [making the locus ficta] Imagined, abstract “time” and “place” [“when” and “where”] gives rise to general senses – e.g., a sense of “security” - that determine the rightness of some individual action (or what I should do): e.g.: ‘covenant,’ or trusting some other to fulfill his promise to me, depends on my having a sense of general “security,” which depends on my sense of what kind of “place” and what kind of “time” we are in. (but how much security is “sufficient” security?) “Consequentialist” moral philosophy = what “should” happen: What “ought” to happen takes into account what “probably” will [[(so later I can say, you “should” have known better…)]]

32. 8. “The Laws of Nature oblige [bind] in foro interno [ ‘in conscience,’ in imagination], that is to say, they bind to a desire they should take place: but in foro externo [or in action]…not always. For he that should be modest, and tractable, and perform all he promises, in such a time, and place, where no man else should do so, should but make himself a prey to others, and procure his own certain ruin... And again, he that having sufficient Security, that others shall observe the same laws toward him, [and] observes them not himself, seeketh not Peace but War, and consequently the destruction of his Nature by Violence.” (Hobbes, Chp 15, p. 126)

33. The “state” as situation (locus ficta) How does he construct this background, ‘horizon’ for action in common imagination? Through writing, influence on enlightenment theory in the --- of state of nature vs. civil state (locke, rousseau, adam smith); influences imagination of what happens ‘without’ a civil state (‘without’ state power)[before as without]; Rousseau seems to complain about it, thinks it was a bit of a trick, but still derives civil from natural, suggests that one can no longer avoid the logic… But what is the logic of this relation, what makes the difference between one time and another, or one state and another? [what are techniques of construction? Why/how does this “make sense”?

34. 9. What is a “state”? An imaginary frame A “state” as situation, general condition of matter and motions with in it [like physics: what probably will happen, what is expected to happen] A “state” as a locus ficta: time and space are imaginary (from geometry), but also contain principles that govern real motions of real bodies shift from Natural “State”  Civil “State” greatly influences Enlightenment thinking about the nature of political collectivity: Locke, Smith (on the 500 to ‘one’), Rousseau (on the “logic” and “necessity” of the transition to the Civil)

35. 10. With or without the [power of the] One But what makes the difference between one state and another? And what makes transition necessary? [maybe have talked end last slide about rousseau, who says it is a necessary logic, even though he seems to complain about it Q: What makes the difference between one “state” and another? A: The One who ---- Common Power over All [The One Body which represents the Unity of All The One Body which ---- the Common Power that awes and ---- All The One who ----- which ---- All [sees All, Jusdges All, Hands out to all so that --- gets what he deserves.] The Civil State is defined by the presence of the One Body in the Civil State Or, from the other way: The Natural State is defined by the absence of the One Body [Natural State *lacks* the Common Power, Lacks the Sovereign Person, [show frontispiece – what would happen if you imagined that the One Body disappeared? [recover negative imagination at end] Here: But what kind of thing is this One Body that ---- a Body Politic? A: It is a FIGURE: FIGURE at the heart of hobbes political science, which is also, an ART that makes the commonwealth… [bodily figure appeals partly to reason, partly to passion: allows man to have a sense of order, structure, but also a sense of what kinds of --- are good or bad, desirable or fearful. State Power – actual power ---- by modern sovereign state - is an effect of figural imagining, for it is imagination (which --- reason and passion) that  to men’s will, which is to say, their consent. [[ an effect of Personation]]

36. [contineud from prev.] quote – phrase here] [do I want something on negative imagination? Or save as a question for the end? Men are led “from nature, by nature”: out of a merely “natural” state, by way of “natural” laws (dictates of nature), which appeal to their “nature” as thinking-bodies (partly to reason and partly to passion) – do I need this? Maybe just focus on ‘figure’ right off the bat, the ‘figure’ of the One Body- and can suggest that this is what leads men to sense the necessity of transition, of upholding a civil state against a --- natural state, ‘partly because of reason and partly because of passion’ [i.e., imagining the body of the One appeals to both, and both are necessary to moving men together..] [go to prelim on figure here: figure what enlivens truth by --- imaginary evidence; what --- the idea [shape and motions; what makes a thing the thing that it is, i.e., a body; in --- bodily figure, ----- passions and reason]: then explicate [maybe skip this section for now, can work in short enough transition as needed (but use bathroom signs) – go ahead to political stuff at end, time with above, do figure last…]

37. On the One Body [as the Power that comes along, logically, in imagintion..] [give the frontispiece on the left of slide? Or else, behind/type over?, just list phrases to the right Give the account of He who holds the Power, makes difference, [which quote? – I think the one ‘in nature, x – ‘but if there is one who ---, then ----’] [on imagination and comparison – privation as negative imagination…][where and when there is, vs. where and when there is not…] On the “One Body” who comes along “by nature”, which is to say, his coming is something that is logically required to fix the situation: e.g., if we all try to seek an end in peace, but are prevented by the --- reactions of others to our own actions: [what is ‘missing’ / ‘lacking’ in a state of nature is One Man who can ----- of All the rest] Men are led ‘naturally’ into making a civil state, i.e., they are led “from nature, by nature” = from a state or condition of mere nature, [all against all], by natural use of reason and imagination: as hobbes writes, “partly by reason, and partly by passion” [fear, desire, hope – give this: what are desires and hopes and fears attach to are the ---- of this imaginary One, who represents the --- of Power that --- ‘sufficient security’] What appeals to men’s passions and their reason, both general enough to --- universal ideas nd particular enough to give rise to fear and desire, is a ---- of imaginary figure: specifically, of man himself..

38. On figure back up and suggest the link between method in natural science and method in political science in ‘figure’ In math/geometry, ‘figure’ as what allows us to grasp true relations in/by mathematics (geometry as chosen science); Figure as an ‘imaginary’ thing: can be grasped visually in images; also from language: names give rise to ideas; “ideas” are [shape, and its motions][from aristotle]; In natural science, “figure” is also what makes a thing a thing; without figure, there can be no thing [nothing] (give the quote from de corpore [on body,] in brief [extension and figure]) [‘figure’ is of the thing, and of the mind (give quote: what makes it what it is, and how we conceive it] [do the next two points go here? or overlay on vetruivan man on next page??  Man’s own “figure” as what allows him to grasp/understand/sense proper/’true’ relations, what makes him into a proper subject – allows him to understand his relation to other men, and to the One Body that brings them all together [man’s --- to “read himself” [nosce teipsum: know thyself] depends on --- to ‘read’ his figure, wherever it appears (in world, or in imagination)

39. [work the image into previous, maybe type over (or show it first, then next slide w/ typeover lines..??

40. On figure, imagination, and ideas (against descartes) Figure is what --- an ‘idea,’ which for hobbes is a ‘representation’ [like an image, though not exactly a picture: a shadowy ‘shape, motion, certain privation’ (with aristotle) [not that you ‘picture’ something literally, but that a sense of structure and possible motion informs what you think about something.] The nature of thinking (and thus of man as a thinking-thing, or as hobbes writes, “thinking-body”) depends on imagination, and esp. figure: against descartes, “man cannot think of jumping without a jumper…” ‘rational’ + ‘animal’ vs. ‘thinking-body’] Descartes: reason does not depend on imagination, but is a --- grasping clearly and distinctly the essence and existence of things with mind alone: Hobbes’s ‘objection”: understanding as a chain of dependence: understanding that depends on imagination, as well as order and contexture of words; [imagining is what gives life to truth, by giving ‘evidence’ to truth (brings it before the minds eye]: truth is like a tree, imaginary evidence is like the sap, that which flows inside it..] [note figure as metaphor or simile (figure of speech) [one thing is like another (but also unlike): not identitical, but similar] [[from L: understanding is the imagination raised in man that specifically depends on ‘order and contexture of our words into --- and ---, affirmations and negations, etc.” [for even a dog can understand the call and rating of his master..]]

41. Figure and the (reunified) order of things (against Descartes) On figure as what will reunify body and reason, through the --- of imagination [figure in-between thought and material, partly in/of each] on science and reunification of the world, split into ‘body’ [material] and ‘spirit’: with galileo [give quote, from assayer, on the world as a book, figure as its language] and bacon (forms) vs. descartes and analytic geometry which  newtonian physics (not-imaginary, purely symbolic mathematical foundation [move these red lines to previous, with what is a figure?] [figure lies partly in things, or external bodies, and partly in the mind, in us] Figure _added_ to extension as a ‘necessary accident,’ or necessary property of a body (body itself, as mere extension, is no thing per se [no thing that actually exists], but a mere idea: to be “a” body requires a figure; without figure the body [dissolves? Word..]) Figure as what appears in an image [as shape of a visible or imagined thing]; and images (not truth) are what give rise to the passions [and passions, are beginnings of men’s voluntary motions]

42. [Figure and formula: natural law and the universal subject, or man’s “one” body (some one, each and every one) On bodily figure and the ‘universal’ dimension of the subject [one man as like and unlike an other] Serves as foundation for imagining equality (by nature) [give bathroom door sign – half]; but also, distinction (color, hardness, motion or resting); figure serves as foundation for all other accidents [no peace without equality; no value, desire without distinction (‘nothing would be prized’)] [on the idea of man/the subject as conditioned by bodily figure (shape and its motions, and also, possible privations – another grounds for distinction) [sexuality, disability][give rest of bathroom door signs: the woman, the wheelchair; clothes and prosthetics as an extension of figure, like clothes in frontispiece: show difference] [on more or less equality – and those ‘some’ ones other who force me to act violently ‘first’, in my own defense.. man ‘s learning to ‘read’ himself, is a question of reading figure {what someone (some other ‘man’) is like, and also, what he will do, from the disposition, appearance of motions of limbs, countenance, words, etc..][‘justice of ‘manners’ as --- for ‘justice of actions’ Figure and consequence {what ‘should’ l happen if I do this, what I will cause or ‘require’ another to do, depends on figure [and also, on background…  }:

43. (use for prev. slide illustrations)

44. Figure and Frame: imagining the background as “body” of the All-in-One On the One Body derived from this ‘one body’ figure, and made into the background, or the image of the whole [recall la boetie at end, ‘only one body’] [basic info: includes all kinds of states, monarchy as well as republic and democracy: for the One Body is not one man, but the image or figure of one man: one “Person”] [what the One signifies about the “Idea” of the Civil State – and what happens if it is threatened/taken away: having One Body = unity (health, strength); lacking One Body [or taking it apart] = disunity (dissolution, death): threatens not only death of the One Body, but also of every one body within it, since without the civil One, degenerates into state of nature, all against all [maybe contrast with other views of ‘nature’ –e.g. rousseau, yet note that they don’t actually get rid of need for civil state, for nice state of nature turns into bad state of nature eventually, when men get close enough, or want things in common, or ----, certain differences are introduced (women: rousseau and ‘rape’ [briefly, on rousseau’s different state of nature: brings in compassionate mother, but also, fear of danger of rape specifically in modern sense [rape (right to another’s body in particular) v. rapine (general right to what is another’s)] – [like a man, but with a certain ‘lack’] [R and republican imagination… and woman/rape – machiavelli; mention lucretia in passing])

45. Voluntary servitude, or subjective attachment: on being “bound” to the One [on remaking subjective attachments by rearranging our ideas about the relations and parts, i.e., rearranging imaginary ground of common sense [representations of the One bind to reason [probabiility, expected consequence: with the One, sufficient security; also, ‘bind to a desire’, and to a fear, in imagination; as the foundation for how they ‘bind,’ in foro externo, or in action…] [terror of the state (stands for all together) replaces fear of all separated (every one against every one): two kinds of fear, but the first is better because it allows us to have hope for a more commodious life, a better future, more prosperous ---- [fruits of industry helped by the --- of the One] [maybe note here complicated --- of One and War [on subtle difference between Natural state of War {all against all} and Civil State, always at war against some thing or another…[latter protects fruits of industry, leads to hope for prosperity, gives value to those who’s skills have to do with the arts of war (politicians, on one view, those who profit form -- -, certain industries), and devalues those who--- the arts of peace [Nature’s State = State of War; Civil State =.State at War (but with an ‘End’ in Peace] [Peace as that ---- to come, the End of War [Kant: perpetual peace, dark joke…??] [note a/ above: civil state allows us to imagine an ‘end’ in peace, a ‘future’ peace [peace and prosperity, fruits of our industry], even if present is a state of perpetual War, One against another One (or One against some ones who threaten its ---- -----]

46. Relations of/in the One [for example] [on ‘mediation’ [relation between one and an other ‘mediated’ by figure of the One?? ] Read circulation very briefly; circulation ‘discovered by Hobbes’s friend William Harvey in 1630’s (or re-discovered: Ibn Al Nafis, born in Damascus, described pulmonary circulation in the 13 th century – possible direct influence through texts in translation, possibly at venice); note impact of harvey’s discovery/rediscovery on political ---- (both monarchy and republican – two theories, two slightly different ways of reading what controls the motions (evidence for both ways of reading in Leviathan) [actual picture not a circle – show harvey + al nafis? – yet when we imagine/esp from language, as if it’s a circle (going round and round) [on the view from inside circulation: you imagine yourself in place of another (and him in yours): what happens? Complex --- of desire (you want what another has, you identiy with him, emulate [or copy, shape yourself in his image] in order to get what he has [he is in finance, you go to school for finance, wear same suit /haircut, talk same way, etc.); but also, fear (the other who ‘lacks’ what you have, which is to say, ‘wants’ what you have, and is always threatening to catch you and displace you from behind – only the One watching over all can make sure he doesn’t ---- ----.. [make sure with circulaion to talk about it as an idea, that helped to make clear new modes of organization [carel renew and revolution in political economy: need to think about motion within the whole – maybe this gets moved to next slide, on circulation as a ‘second soul’ of sovereignty [eat not the blood, for the blood is the soul, that is to say, the life: on market and capitalism [taylor: also public, and self-governance (note also a figure for self- governance, but not here? or is there time to just describe?]

47. [Maybe back to the sword as the other/nec counterpart to circulation.. shift to it here, as more general way of reading the fear of ‘rapine and revenge’ (things that --- from behind) and the One to whom you give the power, because he can See All and also holds the Public Sword, ties the hands of all the rest [explain what it means to say ‘my hands are tied’: the ties are imaginary, I prevent myself from doing something, because of my reading of the situation/ what will happen… [on merely private damage vs. injury to all {on terror and ‘terrorism’} [done by the state = justice, --- to private persons; done ‘to the state’ = injury to all; what does it mean to do violence ‘to the state’ (which again, is a fiction, a figure, a --- person of the One?) what kinds of violence? To who and by who? What kinds of violence are considered ‘merely private damage,’ not of concern to anyone but those who suffer it (and maybe those --- nearby?) What kinds are of --- an ‘injury’ [loss of right, sin-jure] to ‘all’? Why?

48. On ‘sovereignty’ and the One [maybe this gets more gestural – ‘idea’ of a state, based on a ‘person’ What is ‘sovereignty’? Sovereignty is an imaginary concept, related to figure [and especially, an idea of bodily figure (shape and its motions: implications of nature of state based on idea of man’s person [from persona, outward ‘show of a man’], which is also to say, of a thinking- body [the “state” is not just a thing that looks like a man, but is itself an ‘actor’): involves an idea of borders that should not be invaded [can and should let certain things come in, but not against ‘consent’]; certain internal organization (e.g., circulation, market economy); certain idea of ‘power’ in action, etc.: on ‘sovereignty’ as the ‘soul’ of the commonwealth, without which a commonwealth ‘cannot stand’ [representative One ‘bears the person’ of them all; [move ‘circulation’ [idea of market vs. landed property as system/order of wealth] as a second soul here? or keep that above? ] [like ‘sovereignty,’ ‘soul’ itself a kind of ‘figural’ thing for hobbes: not an essential, immaterial, existing thing, separable from body, as in descartes; but a kind of power, which has to do with thinking by ‘representation’ {how we depict our unity, how we talk about our unity, how we represent our unity, as the foundation for what it really is – imaginary foundations of real power… [here? or prev slide? Hobbes’s One Body vs Plato’s One Body [three parts, still heirarchy..]; maybe shift to enlightenment foundations in hobbes’s vision of equality under/before the One [one nation, under god, with liberty, and justice for all…][But also, still terror of the One who speaks for all, acts for all, decides for All: as long as ‘majority’ are ----, the One is --- legitimated (rousseau and the ‘general will’ [recall this, with the question of ‘public’ as subject of enlightenment]

49. On figure and the common ground of common sense in imagination [on the ‘communis sensus,’ from descartes [in reading], to hobbesian sense of ---- [will ---in Kant, and ---, Freud] [what it means that figural ground of common sense is ‘imaginary’: not that we always see it, but a shadowy --- that makes sense of the way we see and feel the order of things, our place in the world, what will happen as a result of action [recall motto for deliberative action: “if this be done, then this will follow” [if I do this, then this will happen –NB: this should have come before…] Bodily figure makes the universal [element of the] subject [some “one,” “you,” “I”], and also, the universal ground or background for action [time of war, time of peace], that allows us to frame experience and determines the principles for how we ought to act ‘right/reasonable’ action: our own, and also, of the One who acts in our name [on imaginary status of ‘time of war’] [on the figural language which conditions how we talk about unity/the nation [maybe give US docs as e.g. here] as the foundation of how we feel about it, and also, what we think about how it acts (or how its individual representatives/officers act), at home and abroad. [remember, first kind of state terror starts at home: terror against ones within/under the One is what ‘makes’ the sovereign state, gives it the right [the power and legitimacy to act], to protect against violence/fear/terror from outside.. [maybe bring up terror --- against all, but --- against ‘some’ who appear --- enemies, ‘some’ who lack what ---- and want it, and therefore, ---- threatening to ----.

50. Back to what moves man: [list out conclusion, summary..] A political science [resummarize the science bit: abstraction of rules that allow new ways of constructing relations, for the ends that man desires.. (One as ground of civilization (industry as working together in harmony): give this quote – without security, no ---, no -- --, no ----, no -----)] Also a political art [where does ‘fancy’ and the ‘architect’ of civilization: corrects what has failed in moral philosophy – does that go here? or above somewhere? Makes the design, and shapes the stones: reshapes them so that they will fit, smooths out rough edges – or casts away [throws away] those that appear ‘too hard’, cannot be shaped effectively… Maybe end w/ some points that recoup the opening video: on how power [of the state/ the fictional One] is made stable and lasting, ‘rejuvenates’ itself [made ‘young’ and vital again] through the bodily motions of each and every ‘one’ – motions that seem very individual and voluntary, acts out of desire, but somehow end up in giving their vitality/--- -/---- over to the One; they uphold the power themselves, without him even there [foucault on modern power: subjects ‘bear the burden’ of their own subjection. [not just from fear, but also from deisre, as a --- of ‘enjoyment’ {more commodious life} : but is it enjoyment? What kind? What does it get to enjoy, what does it give up or miss out on in return? What does the magic fountain stand for? [is it ‘magic’? Or --- ‘technique” [art? Or science? Or both?] I think end with video again so they can think about it again, also for those who missed. maybe end with foucault, and back to last line from boetie, on the ‘only one body’: withdrawing consent…?

51. I think this is too much, don’t worry about it in lecture Figure and relations: natural equality [as ground of consent to subjection] Figure and consequence: [ I THINK THIS MIGHT BE TOO COMPLICATED? NEED TO BRING UP TIME AS LIKE WEATHER HERE, WHAT KIND OF TIME IT IS DETERMINES MY ACTIONS AND MY VALUE / WORTH; AND WHAT KIND OF TIME DETERMINED BY THE ONE] [WAR VS. WAR – THIS SEEMS LIKE A LATER SLIDE…] Figure and what ‘should’ happen, or what a man should do – depends on grasping the situation, his place in the whole [should I sit home and --- or go to college? Depends on ---- college gets, which depends on ----] ‘should’ in double sense: what ought to happen, what probably will happen. [is this too complicated?]