1

!"#$%&' )%*+ ,-.#'.*/0 1/2 3''1#4+$/'05 3 6*+&1%1'.7$ 8$'1&490.#0 *) 3%'

1/2 6*++$%#$:

Patiice Nanigliei
!"#$%&'$()* ,- .()/0)% 12)34)5


A new uiplomat has been appointeu in the city. But why woulu we neeu a new
uiplomat. Because we aie at wai. This wai is veiy simple: it seems that oui
values can no longei live togethei on one anu the same Eaith. They aie all being
swept up in a teiiible escalation of unieality, to the point wheie it seems we
must live among ghosts.

0ne of the wais is that of Ait veisus Commeice, Cultuie veisus Noney. As in any
wai, theie aie tiaitois, foi whom one shows no meicy. Foi example, someone
who sets out to cieate woiks of ait with the sole aim of selling them, is betiaying
him oi heiself, as well as the piactice, to the point wheie one will enu up saying
that this is no longei an aitist, but a uealei. This is the long-stanuing figuie of the
&)''672(8 oi the /#7&(9(2()* aitist, if you iecall that in the 19
th
centuiy, the
piostitute was the altei-ego of the aitist, piecisely because she woulu sell that
which shoulu only be fiee. But commeice also has its tiaitois. Bow many
financieis must have complaineu that ceitain people among them might have
confuseu business, not only with moiality, but also with aesthetics! Isn't being a
/7)( a business peison's woist possible sin. Can one follow aesthetic piinciples
when tiying to sell something.

Note that veiy often this wai is expiesseu in such a way that the othei uomain is
uenieu not only all inteiest, anu all value, but even any ieality. Accoiuing to the
piactical ieality of tiaueis, aien't aitists *#)$:)#&. Aie they not ignoiant of the
"tiue iealities". 0n the othei hanu, uon't we sometimes feel a ceitain tenueiness
foi them. Fiom anothei angle, uoesn't the viitual timelessness anu heiitage
value of woiks of ait make commouities basically non-existent. Woulun't they
make the quick anu uiity stiivings of peuuleis of consumei goous seem
pointless. While woiks of ait, if successful, enu up in museums wheie they will
be "conseiveu", commeicial iealities oiganise theii own obsolescence in such a
way that (0)9# ;2(2#) 3$% /#)39&)'- ,) ;9%$%3)* into othei piouucts. Theiefoie it
seems that the contioveisy is one about ieality. But theie is a name foi
contioveisies that uiscuss the veiy #)$'9(- of things, wheie it is a mattei of
uistinguishing what is tiuly ieal, anu that name is :)($/0-&93&, anu even, moie
accuiately, "ontology"the uiscouise ('7<7&) that is conceineu with being
(7%(7&). Commeice anu ait seem to ielate the one to the othei in such a way that
each appeais, fiom the point of view of the othei, to loose all 7%(7'7<93$' =)9<0(,
to become one of those half-beings that Plato spoke about when he was talking
about 9:$<)&, a phantom, a chimeia, a lessei-being, a being-less |un :79%&-
>($%(j.
1
we go fiom iealty to appeaiance, appeaiance to ieality, like those
electiic billboaius wheie one siue lights up while the othei tuins off, anu vice-
veisa, each tuining the othei into a miiage.

1
Sophist, 2S6-7
2

In fact, this alteination is not only exteinal. Because eveiything can someisault
insiue each woilu, veiy iapiuly. Take the businessman who aumits that his whole
foitune has no meaning unless it enus up seiving the spiiitual uplifting of
mankinu (so Cainegie makes a bequest to the libiaiy in Rheims, anu also Beniy
Clay Fiick collecting woiks of the past in oiuei one uay to exhibit them to the
whole woilu, oi Rockefellei, etc, anu no uoubt the gieat contempoiaiy collectois
such as Beinaiu Pinault oi Beinaiu Ainault woulu have similai justifications), as
if wealth weie not enough to beai witness to the fact that heie is an inuiviuual
with the capacity to be wheie men aie ieauy to uonate money. Anu on the
obveise, the aitist enus up aumitting that yes, of couise, he is just a 07:7
7)37%7:932& like eveiyone else; whethei it is like the Russian constiuctivists
who aim to confuse ait with life by confusing themselves with the uesign
inuustiy in the most geneial sense (a tiagic utopian tiope)
2
, oi like Buchamp, oi
even moie obviously Anuy Waihol, who ueclaieu that he hau staiteu his caieei
as a commeicial aitist, anu hopeu to finish it as a business aitist (tiope of poetic
cynicism)
S
. A uialogue among the ueaf, which, in fact, even iesembles what coulu
be calleu an 9%()#97# :7%7'7<2) 7; (0) *)$;8 in which one accuses oneself,
alteinatively, of only being uust, anu, like St Augustine in mouining, of having
sheu one's teais in the sanu: the uust of woiluly goous that flows between oui
fingeis like the sanu of oui lives, uust of iueal values that ceaselessly uissolves in
the sun of suspicion, eithei as hypociisy oi as naivety. A uouble subtiaction,
then, in teims of which "cultuie", as much as "economy", loose theii consistency,
as if we hau no choice except between two voius.



This movement chaiacteiises the type of movement that ienueis all oui
existence unieal, anu which Biuno Latoui thinks he is able to inteiiupt thanks to
the uevices put in place in his ?%@29#- 9%(7 17*)& 7; ?A9&()%3).
4
The question I
woulu like to put to him is veiy simple: Bo we ieally gave to 3077&). "Being", this
unuefinable element which contempoiaiy philosophy has been iewoiking as its
key element evei since Beiueggeiis being not iich enough to caiiy uiffeient
foims of ieality. Bo we necessaiily have to piesuppose that theie exists a
unique, eminent, foim of ieality, such that anything that uoesn't match up to it
woulu be a little less ieal, even not ieal at all, oi othei than ieal. 0ui bet is that
the choice isn't necessaiy. We maintain theie aie seveial foims of ieality, each of
which has its own establishment piotocols. So, in oiuei to ueciue we aie in the
piesence of a woik of ait (which is not always cleai-cutanu Banto has shown
us that this is at the heait of contempoiaiy ait), theie aie piecise pioceuuies,
which aie those of the "ait woilu"; anu, in the same way, foi a commouity to

2
See the 2uu9 Tate Nouein exhibition, B7(30)%47 $%* C7/7D$E F);9%9%<
G7%&(#23(9D9&:H
S
See Anuy Waihol, "0) C09'7&7/0- 7; I%*- J$#07' (New Yoik: Baicouit, 197S),
S9. Also: Thieiiy ue Buve, G72&2& *) ;9' *K7#, villeuibanne, Ait uition, 199u.
4
Biuno Latoui, I% L%@29#- 9%(7 17*)& 7; ?A9&()%3)E I% I%(0#7/7'7<- 7; (0)
17*)#%&8 tians. Catheiine Poitei, Cambiiuge: Baivaiu 0niveisity Piess, 2u1S.
S
ieally exist as a commouity, theie aie othei piotocols. It is not enough foi me to
lie in beu anu announce that my cat is a commouity foi hei to tuin into one.

But we can see why the iecipiocal situations of unieality, like the one
chaiacteiising the ielations of ait anu commeice, aie inteiesting. They allow us,
$ 37%(#$#97, bettei to unueistanu the pioceuuies that :$4) ,)9%<, foi example,
the "je ne sais quoi" which constitutes something out of the stuff of ait, by
showing us why the foimei uoesn't suivive the piotocols which woulu peimit it
to establish its commeicial existence. 0f couise, this uoesn't mean that a given
thing can't be both a commouity anu a woik of ait, but this tension shows us
theie aie piecise conuitions foi it to suivive as a commouity, while at the same
time being subject to the ontogenetic opeiations of ait, anu vice-veisa.

So I woulu like to suggest that one shoulu compaie commouities anu woiks of
ait $( (0) 7%(7'7<93$' ')D)'8 that is, in compaiing theii specific 49%*& 7; ,)9%<.
ueneially, woiks of ait anu commouities aie compaieu on the basis of theii
value. The typical question being, to what extent is its aesthetic value compatible
with its maiket value.
S
0ui question is moie iauical: how can the veiy being of
ait co-exist with the being of the commouity. It is not a situation wheie on one
siue is the "ieal" thing, anu on the othei the values (economic, aesthetic, anu also
moial anu political) that woulu be $((#9,2()* to it. Theie aie beings that, by
viitue of theii moue of being, of theii way of ueteimining themselves as iealities,
necessaiily acquiie what we call value, anu the uiveisity of values is in tune with
the uiveisity of ways of being. In fact, the natuie of oui Nexus pioject, when we
uefineu oui "Ait value Commouity" piogiam, was to investigate the question of
value on the basis of ontology.
Why tuin to Biuno Latoui to ask these questions. The veiy title of his book leaus
us to unueistanu that he is uefenuing the thesis of ontological pluialism. Theie
aie seveial figuiations of ieality, not just one. Anu yet, what is inteiesting about
his enteipiise is not only the uefence of the metaphysical thesis, but the
ieuefinition of metaphysics as an )A/)#9:)%($' enteipiise, wheie one uoes not
content oneself with speculatively ueciuing what is anu what isn't, then uebates
one's uecision conceptually, but wheie one can unueitake an 9%@29#- both on the
numbei anu the natuie of these "moues of existence," juxtaposing them with
each othei. This is unueniably the most oiiginal aspect of this woik.

In Pait 1, I want to tiy to outline foi you the piotocol foi this inquiiy. In Pait 2, I
will come back to the moue of existence of $#(, as Latoui pioposes it in his book,
anu we will specifically see why foi him ait uoes not constitute its own uomain
of ieality, but only a special case of what he calls "fiction". Then, in Pait S, we will
tuin to the moue of existence of 37::7*9(9)&, which on theii own account foim
pait of the bioauei giouping of iealities, which he calls "beings of attachment".
Anu finally, in Pait 4, we will talk of the ciossing of these two moues of existence,
in oiuei to see in what way the uebate ovei the ielations of ait anu commeice
allows us bettei to uesciibe each by way of theii contiast.

S
See, foi example, Beckei's aiticle La Confusion ues valeuis , in MKI#( *) '$
#)30)#30) E )&&$9& )% 'K07%%)2# *) B$-:7%*) 172'9%, Paiis : Bocumentation
Fianaise, 1994.
4


;< =%./#.&>$0 *) ?/'*>*@.#1> A/BC.%9


The inquiiy poses a simple question: how many uiffeient kinus of ieality aie
theie, anu what aie they. Bowevei, the answei is constiaineu in ceitain ways,
which uefine the piotocols of the inquiiy.

Fiist, as we have seen, this question uoes not emeige simply fiom intellectual
cuiiosity, as if, like Saitie's Roquentin, I woke up one moining amazeu oi
hoiiifieu that theie was something iathei than nothing, anu I exclaimeu: "Ny
uou! What coulu ,)9%< be." The question emeiges fiom metaphysical
contioveisies, fiom conflicts of ieality, like that of ait anu commeice.
Netaphysics, oi iathei this paiticulai metaphysic, is boin in the centie of the
stoim. It piesupposes that theie aie auveisaiies. I'll call these auveisaiies
"activists". They woik so that ceitain beings uo not peiish. They aie ueuicateu to
them, they look aftei them, they piomote them, anu they put themselves at theii
seivice. So a being is fiist of all something (0$( 7%) 9& $(($30)* (7, oi to pick up a
Beiueggaiian teim, &7:)(09%< 7%) 3$#)& $,72(, which is to say, &7:)(09%< (0$( 9&
(0) 7,N)3( 7; $3(9D9&:H


This necessaiily means that metaphysics always comes seconu. The
metaphysician uoesn't set up the existents. Be is content to uesciibe the moue of
existence of beings pioposeu fiom elsewheie. Let's call this fiist methouological
iequiiement the /#9%39/') 7; /7&9(9D9(-. It explains why this metaphysics takes the
foim of an inquiiy. This means that the iepoit one comes up with on a mannei of
being must be baseu on the effective piactices of the activists thiough whom one
can see just what they aie attacheu to. Positive metaphysics (which we coulu
oppose to uogmatic metaphysics) is chaiacteiiseu by the fact that it makes itself
conuitional on positions of being that it ueclaies itself incapable of fulfilling. The
task is not to say what is, but to say that being can be unueistoou in seveial
ways, anu that this vaiiety of meaning is what allows conflicts to be smootheu
ovei. Theiefoie the inquiiy will not allow, methouologically, any $ /#97#9 uecision
about being. The being that is of inteiest is not the being that the metaphysician
establishes with the soveieignty of his oi hei logical oi illogical minu, it is the
being that must be saveu in conflict situations, a being as a *9/'7:$(93 /#7,'):H
Consequently, metaphysics must follow the activists, situating itself as close as
possible to the /'$3)& that they say they cannot give up.

This fiist piinciple leaus to a seconu. Theie aie no giounus foi uesciibing a moue
of existence unless misunueistanuings as to the &/)39;939(- of its type of ieality
woulu enuangei the attentive piactice of these beings. Any *)%9$' 7; #)$'9(- is a
signal anu a call foi metaphysical inteivention. Not that one woulu necessaiily
have to accept any activist's claims foi ieality as inuisputable. Theie may be
iealities that can be saciificeu (foi example, because they can't affiim theii
existence without uenying all the otheis, oi, what comes to the same thing,
because they aie iauically incompaiable). But any uenial of ieality necessitates
S
by iights a metaphysical inquiiy (even if, because of time constiaints, one must
exeicise the ait of choosing among metaphysical appeals). A militant sticking to
one point, asseiting that giving this one up woulu mean letting the beings he is
uevoteu to peiish, anu theiefoie giving up his own piacticethis is the iightful
conuition foi a metaphysical enteipiise. Without these points of #)&9&($%3),
without these ciies of piotest, theie woulu simply not be giounus to ask
questions about being. This not only means that metaphysics comes seconu, anu
piesupposes activist piactices, but also that metaphysics is always 9% (0) &)#D93)
7; a thieateneu ieality. It is necessaiily )%<$<)*, taken up, in the iesistance of a
being to what we must call its #)*23(97%. A =#7%< is inflicteu on ceitain beings,
anu it is a mattei of ueliveiing justice to these misunueistoou beings. Bowevei,
this uoesn't mean that the metaphysician shoulu become puiely anu simply an
activist on behalf of any given tiuth. The uiffeience between metaphysician anu
activist is that the foimei uoes not entei uiiectly into the conflict. She tiies to
move aiounu the fielu of the uiffeient meanings of "being", so as to move fiom an
opposition to a uiffeience. The activist holus onto an existence, the
metaphysician uiffeientiates ways of being. The one says, "Anu yet, this is." The
othei auus, "Yes, but in (09& way." She has won if she can say, "Look, you aie both
negating each othei because you uon't see that the asseition of one uoes not
imply the negation of the othei, because you speak of youiselves in seveial
uiffeient ways." She <9D)& D$'2) to the singulaiity of one moue of existence D9&6O6
D9& anothei, by showing that these beings aie not subject to the piotocols that
one wants to impose on them. We can call this the piinciple of 9##)*23(97%,
because inueeu it is a question of showing the iiieuucibility of ceitain beings to
otheis.

The thiiu iule is, in a way, symmetiical to the pieceuing one. In the same way
that an existent one is fonu of shoulu be saveu in its ontological singulaiity, it
shoulu happen in such a way that it uoesn't, in tuin, ciush othei moues of
existence. Theiefoie, the metaphysical uesciiption must nevei loose sight of the
neeu to ieconcile both the being that one is concentiating on not giving up, anu
the othei beings. This imposes paiticulai constiaints on this uesciiption, which
explains why the activists might not immeuiately iecognise themselves in the
uesciiption that the metaphysician gives of the beings they aie looking aftei. The
metaphysical iepoit shoulu be ieauy to fenu off any possible ieuuction, but it
will not, oi iathei shoulu nevei, tuin the being pioposeu foi ontological
uesciiption into a being of absolute piivilege oi iauical exceptionality. This
constiaint coulu be calleu the incompleteness piinciple, oi the
counteihegemonic piinciple: being is the powei of being in anothei sense. The
uesciiption we give of the being of ait must allow this being (oi some othei) also
to be in anothei sense. The activist of goou will shoulu be imbueu with this
constiaint, anu, when he piotests against the wiongs that, accoiuing to him, the
metaphysician is iatifying, he must nevei cease asking himself to what extent
this aspect of the metaphysical iepoit is the conuition stopping a lot of othei
wiongs being committeu, veiy seiious ones, to the othei moues of existence.

Finally, the uesciiption shoulu, at least by iights, be able to be signeu off on by
the activists. Since the metaphysician is only a iepiesentative, she is necessaiily
limiteu by hei manuate. Anu because she has the auuitional uiplomatic aim, she
6
has to veiify that this uesciiption piotects these beings in $'' the ontological
contioveisies that engage theii activists. So, once the compiomise is ieacheu
anu the uesciiption finaliseu, she has to veiify with them that the essential is
effectively saveu, anu allowing foi the continuation of the beings they caie about.
Anu yet this final iequiiement shoulu not be inteipieteu as coming fiom an
empiiical consensus, which woulu, of couise, be illusoiy. The activists uon't
necessaiily unueistanu the metaphysical opeiation, maybe they aie not
inteiesteu in it, oi even iefuse the uiplomatic piotocol (foi example the
counteihegemonic piinciple, etc.). The question is neveitheless one of iights. By
iights, the metaphysical text must be 37##)3($,') by activists of goou will. The
metaphysical text is not auuiesseu to specialists who coulu be uiviueu amongst
themselves; it is auuiesseu to those who aie 9%()#)&()* in the beings it uesciibes.
This means fiist of all that the metaphysical text shoulu not be wiitten in such a
technical oi piofessional language that it thus activates the selection of a uefinite
public. It also means that the metaphysician shoulu continue to iemain vigilant,
listening foi the $')#(& the activists put out, which is to say the wiongs that they
see as not ieuiesseu. She shoulu veiify that the ieluctance the activists might
have in accepting the pioposeu compiomise (the iepoit on the moues of
existence) can by iights be uissipateu, in othei woius, baseu on a pooi
compiehension of the metaphysical text, oi even a iefusal of the piinciple of
uiplomatic philosophy. Factual misunueistanuings shoulu theiefoie be able to be
useu by the metaphysician in the coiiection of hei uesciiption. She must be able
to #)&/7%* to the ieluctance of the activists. It is in the spiiit of this last piinciple
that I have wiitten this text now. In oiuei to submit to ait activists, anu to a
lessei extent to commeicial ones, a metaphysical uesciiption of theii piactices
that they aie able to assess.

DC++1%9E We have set out foui methouological piinciples to guiue the
metaphysical inquiiy.
I /#9%39/') 7; /7&9(9D9(-E Netaphysics uoesn't ueciue what is, but uesciibes the
mannei of being of entities locateu elsewheie.
I /#9%39/') 7; 9##)*23(97%E metaphysics uoesn't uesciibe any ianuom moue of
being, but only those which seem to be the object of a uenial oi a wiong, in oiuei
to show that these entities can co-habit with otheis on conuition that they
iespect each otheis' own foimat anu ieality.
I 372%()#0)<):7%93 /#9%39/')E Each moue of existence must be uesciibeu in such
a way that it uoesn't ciush any othei.
I #)&/7%&9,9'9(- /#9%39/')E Compiomises ieacheu must be submitteu foi
iatification, anu one must be piepaieu to impiove the metaphysical uesciiption.

With these foui piinciples in minu, we aie now able to stuuy what Latoui says
about the ontology of woiks of ait anu of commouities, befoie seeing, in the enu,
if this uesciiption will enable a "peace tieaty". It is a mattei now of making
37:/$#9&7%& of what is saiu about them, in fiont of the activists iepiesenting
these moues of existence, in oiuei to see if the metaphysical woik will allow the
beings on both siues to be saveu, at the cost some possible saciifices, but
saciifices that shoulu not be ;$($', in othei woius that uo not touch the veiy
existence of that which is ueai to them; they woulu only iequiie ieaiiangements.