1. The Will-Desire space is not immanent; the compact groups of desires are not exchangeable as “hard currency”. The clump of desires is alike the cluster of flower. The flowers may have different degrees of suitability to each other, they may or may not suit to one common cluster.
2. The kinds of pleasures differ (first of all) in their topology. They have their own “soul slices” for resounding. I propose to divide the whole desire map into three spheres: 1) one’s own body; 2) The body and the soul of the Other; 3) The mirage (imaginary) territory without “natural” resonators of the desires.
3. The topological classification differs from the late Freudian division on Eros and Tanathos drives (which is founded on localization of the source of energy), it differs also from the well-known dichotomy of libido and Idrives. The Eros drive reverberates only in ones own body (first topos), but they can migrate to the second sphere, for example when one’s body enters into the state of decay and loose the possibility to be a good resonator (phenomenon of favoritism).
4. The third topos units all desires, which are realizing out body limits and are not connected with reverberating in the body of the Other. The special “long-drives” are projecting here, they were always the subject of interest of the ‘strong philosophers’. We may remember a will to immortality of Nicolay Fedoroff, the death drive of Freud, ‘la caress-de-soimeme’ of Foucault, a will to Power (Nietzche). These long drives, being re-flected, achieved the other two spheres also (here is the source of difficuties in philosophy and psychology). But here are some constructions in the imaginary topos, which are not connected with our long-drives.
5. Basically, the new technology of desire intends to expand to the territory of non-human for the aim of domestication the radical otherness of the world. Technology is looking for those slices of reverberation which are more solid and multi-dimensional than body. Computer games imitate the long-drives (an all-mighty politician, Demiurg etc.), while virtual reality tries to destroy the body-orientation of the I. We may say that technology (in the degree of it’s domestication) realizes the basic existential call, the most clearly formulated by Russian
philosopher Nicolay Fedorov: the call for the synthesis of new body. In this case, technology has one supertask: to achieve the general convertibility of desires and pleasures.
- Alexander Sekatsky born 1958, graduated from The S. Petersburg University, Russia, in 1988, Mg. Ph. (1990). The visiting professor in The Humanitarian Institute of St. Petersburg, provisional lecturer of the philosophical faculty, an organizer of art exhibitions and symposiums on art and philosophy: The Ontology of Lie, The Research of Simulacra, The Falsification of Desires, The reflective Operation of the Sense-sphere.