7/27/2019 Bioecon Tv Presents Alain Badiou at Occidente Portraits, Visions and Utopia

1/2

I think that momey has been well defined by Marx as a general equivalent. Moneyis what is equivalent to anything else. This is what cause apssion for money toexist. Because that passion for money as if it was a a passion for all the things we want, all that we desire. It is as if money appeared in front of desire and

as if it was the means to satisfy any desire. So finally, passion for money isactually the passion for an object of desire that is not really defined. It is something that appears as a vague desire, a desire that is general, a sort of desire for everything. And this is why money is like a stand-in. This necessarily causes violence, as that practically undetermined desire, that desire that is atthe same thing--absolute and general, is a desire that enters immediately into a

regime of competition. Also, in society, society has other things, it is the society of money, but also at the same time and out of necessity, it is the society of competition. So money is what organizes the violence of competition. And why? Naturally, in the violence that reigns among human beings and money, there is

a direct connection. Also, always, after all, it is mainly for money that we kill! The language of money is precisely a language that pretends to have no limits. That is the reason why it is an insane language. It is a language that presents a world that has no limits. A world of unlimited desires. Actually, money makes money! Money is something that always ask for more money! That is why the rich are never rich enough. It's clear: the rich are never rich because it is notabout "money", they want even "more money". And that is an unlimited desire. And

as an unlimited desire, we could say, that in reality, it does not build a realworld. There is a reason to say that the limit of a language is also the limitof that world, and if the language pretends to have no limits, then it is as if

the world did not have limits: so as a world it melts down. As a conclusion, then, passion for money is an abstract passion, not a passion as a means to do something; it is an abstract passion. And that is also the root of the matter.

I think that the dominant fictions in the capitalist world are the fictions thatin one way or the other, are related to the domination of money. They are ficti

ons that are around the question of unlimited desire and competition, both at the same time. They are fictions that tell us how money triggers passions, crimesthe possibility of love, betrayal, etc. They are the passions of unlimited desire. I think that if we want to get back to a truthful world, that implies that we

admit the limits of language, and that we know how to use fiction in the service of truth and not in the service of unlimited desire,--then we need to change fiction, that is for sure. We need to change fiction and that is very important.

It is very important and I would say that could be the great challenge for contemporary artists...their responsiblity. It is the responsability of contemporaryartists to propose new fictions. It is not that easy because at the beginning, new fictons are not recongizable. They seem foreign to a world, dominated by competition and money. I think the invention of new types of fiction and new ways to create fictions is extremely important. I think that the problem is the relationship between people, that the relationship between people does not take placewithin the compeititve model. That is the first point. Why not within the competitive model? Of course it needs to be inside of the model of money in circulation. So then, how could a non compeitive relationship among men and women be? Of course there is love, but it would be a bit violent as a solution, because we cannot love absolutely. We religion says, "Love each other as you love yourself", but it is a bit difficult if "love" is taken in its deep sense. I think that we n

eed to leave for love its expectional meaning, its meaning related to a deep truth, that is shared between two persons. On the contrary, what I think is that we

can have relationships that I would call friendly, a relationship of friendship, it is a way that is not exactly that of the passion of love, but it is a way that lets us let the other come close, share that is not immediately dominated by

judgement, by condemnation and competition. I would propose some kind of universal friendship. I think a different way of regulating exchanges that would an alternative to the present way is something than can be imagined. Particularly, there are many possiblities of direct exchanges, of objects, goods, etc, that areneglected. But this society, is a society of a huge waste. As the appropiation o

7/27/2019 Bioecon Tv Presents Alain Badiou at Occidente Portraits, Visions and Utopia

2/2