Tinned chunks - an introduction to the rejection of everything through moments in the description of deep opposition (part 1 in an extended series)

After Bataille: there's nothing in this world unless it meets the hook of itself.

Facile opposition is drawn out from immediately recognisable chains of solidarity: of blood, of place, of gender, of race; and of class and principle. But mostly of men, of these recognisable men. All instances of solidarity (orchestrated as enclosed and exclusive systems of cues for the nuanced recognition of privilege) resemble each other. More significantly, discrete arrangements of solidarity give form to the world's other values, where solidarity is intended as a means for setting groups of the excluded against the givenness of the world. The world's other values are uncovered by facile opposition, the categories of which are already given: the opposition of the world to itself occurs via instances of self-organising solidarity. Then, solidarity, even a proposed universalised solidarity, is always expressed as a particularisation of what unifies the members of its set. The demand of the particular upon the general is derived from the awareness that this particularity insufficiently appears within the world. The particular exaggerates itself to the degree that it looks for itself in every surface - the world wants through the particular, and the particular wants itself to be the world. If the internal bonds of any subjectively constituted solidarity are also given by the world, then all strategies that seek to achieve a particular depth, which then might be set against the world, already has the world's insistent superficiality included within it. The particular 'we' of gender or race or class has its given insufficiency written into it. Those who move together, are caused to move against the hidden portion of themselves which is not articulated by the structure of their togetherness. Those who move against their world, thereby affirm the topology in which they pass. Those who move towards the value of solidarity also instantiate the value of exclusion. Those who move to self-separate, thereby activate separation as a mechanism of inclusion. Then, might those who do not move, thereby move against themselves? The gambit of self-estrangement undertaken where solidarity is anticipated, i.e. where disagreement is encountered in the place that agreement has been instituted, opens the traitor's passage to the depths. (Us set against us). On first pass: if facile opposition arrives at belonging via an armature of exclusions, then deep opposition commences as discomfort in non-belonging at the place where solidarity would be expected.