Соединенное MU Королевство - Fuckthejams by MUСоединенноеMUКоролевств
with certain bands, and whats interesting to me with music, is the musicians obsession with the medium itself. In elliot Smith we are offered crisp recordings of beautiful guitar ballads, 'high resolution' recordings in acoustic which the minute details are obvious. we canhear elliots hand bracing the guitar neck, or hear a slight buzz of a string, all these are intended-we are supposed to hear little imperfections and static, these are the recording itself and, its one-offness is captured and catalogued indefinitely. this is just like gang gang dance with their tricky distortions, mandatory dance beat, their signature antithetical openings and closings. with glass candy it is anologue synths. What we are hearing is a certain fetish for the mechanism, it is like a director who identifies with the eye of the camera, a writer with his typewriter. music is unique though, in that we hear his/her obsession directly without having to interpret these qualities (but i suppose it is necessary for them to'register' unless it is completely unnoticed ). music is less symbolic and more ...... well the symbolism is contextual.
or what is interesting music
Friday, April 15, 2011
Monday, January 10, 2011
thought of the day 3
Hence 'the arguments'.........and all of this is unedited, obviously.
for me, accountability is one of the earmarks of democracy. our public institutions are unresponsive, some would say less than the private sector. there is a fundamental distance from the average person with his surroundings, an alienation. Difference, and ineffectiviy , castration, and impotence.
we can characterize populace as schizophrenic, but is absurd the correct term? more often it refers to totalities or totalizing experiences, like life or existence in general. Populace are without meaning but in the way a body is. how could it be said exactly, that it is absurd if the species creates the very ground for meaning? if the body is charged with the contents of meaning, then we have entered into a strange bio-paradigm.
Society is the animation, the link which lends itself to scrutiny. They require elaboration about their circumstance, they are unique (we speak of temporality, and contingency). The subjective repercussions of that scrutiny is an experience which belongs to an individual. given contingency society can be improved, given the (political) will it can be challenged and scrutinized. And if we can be said to be an absurd society, it seems that this is a sentiment that we would have to share in common.
of society, Power relationships are central to the discussion, as are hegemonic forces. The practical discussion revolves around the institutions of power and the populations which are their subject. SO can we characterize this relationship as ABSURD? The answer for me is Yes.
For Camus, the absurd person has given up hope for a simple cure for society, but for that reason he has learned to live with his absurdity and can improve upon it. He is pitched at every turn against a bunch of institutionalists who confuse the term 'peoples or demos' to argue for a political rationality, over and over again, which is either ironic or a sleight of hand on the term politics. They are opposed to the term which refers to something contested or debated i.e. a 'speaking' situation, and have re-framed it according to their oligarchic ideologies to mean governance and rule. Alternatively, when the discussion turns to class interests it can mean the distant halls of congress impeding the progress of private industry though its 'regulation'. I am inclined to think they are more concerned with the limits of control and an upper class hegemony. Of course by politics i mean, of democracy, or revolt. I think for an effective movement to happen the possibility has to be argued that co-operation is a suitable form of revolt. Between us Solidarity, but not peace (with the other).
for me, accountability is one of the earmarks of democracy. our public institutions are unresponsive, some would say less than the private sector. there is a fundamental distance from the average person with his surroundings, an alienation. Difference, and ineffectiviy , castration, and impotence.
we can characterize populace as schizophrenic, but is absurd the correct term? more often it refers to totalities or totalizing experiences, like life or existence in general. Populace are without meaning but in the way a body is. how could it be said exactly, that it is absurd if the species creates the very ground for meaning? if the body is charged with the contents of meaning, then we have entered into a strange bio-paradigm.
Society is the animation, the link which lends itself to scrutiny. They require elaboration about their circumstance, they are unique (we speak of temporality, and contingency). The subjective repercussions of that scrutiny is an experience which belongs to an individual. given contingency society can be improved, given the (political) will it can be challenged and scrutinized. And if we can be said to be an absurd society, it seems that this is a sentiment that we would have to share in common.
of society, Power relationships are central to the discussion, as are hegemonic forces. The practical discussion revolves around the institutions of power and the populations which are their subject. SO can we characterize this relationship as ABSURD? The answer for me is Yes.
For Camus, the absurd person has given up hope for a simple cure for society, but for that reason he has learned to live with his absurdity and can improve upon it. He is pitched at every turn against a bunch of institutionalists who confuse the term 'peoples or demos' to argue for a political rationality, over and over again, which is either ironic or a sleight of hand on the term politics. They are opposed to the term which refers to something contested or debated i.e. a 'speaking' situation, and have re-framed it according to their oligarchic ideologies to mean governance and rule. Alternatively, when the discussion turns to class interests it can mean the distant halls of congress impeding the progress of private industry though its 'regulation'. I am inclined to think they are more concerned with the limits of control and an upper class hegemony. Of course by politics i mean, of democracy, or revolt. I think for an effective movement to happen the possibility has to be argued that co-operation is a suitable form of revolt. Between us Solidarity, but not peace (with the other).
Thought of the day 2
***%^n, thanks for your reply. I'm going to need some time to think about this to give you an appropriate response. A couple things come to mind however, and I'm glad you used the term co-opted because for me it is a central device in the uses of rhetoric. But we might be employing a different usage of said term. When i was first introduced to it at a series of anarchist seminars in D.C. the speakers were discussing how capitalists were using common motifs from communist and anarchist aesthetics like the red star, sickle and hammer on their pre-ripped jeans, and grunge aesthetic etc. Dead kennedy songs are used in car commercials, and republicans are crying out power to the people. The speakers were concerned about, how they can 'steal' their symbols back. But, i think these efforts are useless. I am also reminded here how lesbian media are using the image of rosy the riveter, and the word bitch to describe their vision of an empowered woman. Symbols are about identity and experience they are supposed to embody and convey. But this means, if we can infuse central terms of political discussion with with new meanings, our arguments carry with them a strange potency that is directed at the very heart of the 'frame of reference'.
Take the neo-cons for example. Their very persuasive arguments are centered around general but 'American' terms like freedom and democracy. Promoting freedom (through military aggression). Without the art of the co-opt, how are we supposed to speak to people on their level? An activist will ignore this at his/her own peril. The communists' argument is alien to the layman because the term proletarian is about as american as a bowl of borsch. we are a people dissatisfied with messianic idols, be they political or religious. Post-Reagan politics is moving towards a political rationalism, which i think could be provided by a proletarian style nationalism just as easily if not better.
lets review the platforms. What is fiscal responsibility; does it have anything to do with public schools? What is national security, does it have anything to do with de-armament (sp?) and normalization of relations? What is opportunity, social mobility perhaps....and political integrity, maybe that has something to do with separating the industrial power structure from the funding of political campaigns; lets buy back our politicians (for instance).
Politics like you say is indeed the interruption of normal power relationships. But for that reason, i think it is like a speaking situation, akin to something like due process, or arbitration, Even so, we are obliged to follow rules. Rules, norms and the common motifs of political discussion. Thus, the subversive element appears to be harmonious with the times, and would have the effect of what Frued calls 'the uncanny' Of course this formula only goes so far, there are real power relationships at work here. We may not be afforded our day in court less we forge that opportunity through our labors. But letting the situation get worse will not help us i think. And how do we create a new politic without metonymizing these old values to reflect the mindset of change?
Our institutions are perfectly rational to those for whom the profit is afforded to. I often come back to schmidt when i consider the efficacy of a 'class consciousness' or critique of power relations. This friend-enemy relationship appears to be productive to a certain extent. Also, any 'inside' forms its borders according to what is 'outside'. That is why universiality is never an attainable goal, unless we exclude the proponents of division; There is no coherence to this community, unless we exclude those who seek to destroy it; there is no great society, unless we usurp the captains of exploitation and so-forth.
Anyhow, your characterization of populace has its historical roots in Plato which im sure your aware; it has been the central schemata of any anti-populist argument that i've ever heard. It boils down to defining populations as irrational and schizophrenic, therefore requiring a vanguard, or rule of oligarchy. From Marx to Goldwater, Keynes to Adam Smith, western political pedagogy is obsessively anti-democratic. But we are afraid of this great beast because we call it a great beast; this is a rhetorical maneuver. We often find that we are in fact merely a great flock, and the term leviathan is rightly afforded to those nobles who comprise 'the institution'.
Take the neo-cons for example. Their very persuasive arguments are centered around general but 'American' terms like freedom and democracy. Promoting freedom (through military aggression). Without the art of the co-opt, how are we supposed to speak to people on their level? An activist will ignore this at his/her own peril. The communists' argument is alien to the layman because the term proletarian is about as american as a bowl of borsch. we are a people dissatisfied with messianic idols, be they political or religious. Post-Reagan politics is moving towards a political rationalism, which i think could be provided by a proletarian style nationalism just as easily if not better.
lets review the platforms. What is fiscal responsibility; does it have anything to do with public schools? What is national security, does it have anything to do with de-armament (sp?) and normalization of relations? What is opportunity, social mobility perhaps....and political integrity, maybe that has something to do with separating the industrial power structure from the funding of political campaigns; lets buy back our politicians (for instance).
Politics like you say is indeed the interruption of normal power relationships. But for that reason, i think it is like a speaking situation, akin to something like due process, or arbitration, Even so, we are obliged to follow rules. Rules, norms and the common motifs of political discussion. Thus, the subversive element appears to be harmonious with the times, and would have the effect of what Frued calls 'the uncanny' Of course this formula only goes so far, there are real power relationships at work here. We may not be afforded our day in court less we forge that opportunity through our labors. But letting the situation get worse will not help us i think. And how do we create a new politic without metonymizing these old values to reflect the mindset of change?
Our institutions are perfectly rational to those for whom the profit is afforded to. I often come back to schmidt when i consider the efficacy of a 'class consciousness' or critique of power relations. This friend-enemy relationship appears to be productive to a certain extent. Also, any 'inside' forms its borders according to what is 'outside'. That is why universiality is never an attainable goal, unless we exclude the proponents of division; There is no coherence to this community, unless we exclude those who seek to destroy it; there is no great society, unless we usurp the captains of exploitation and so-forth.
Anyhow, your characterization of populace has its historical roots in Plato which im sure your aware; it has been the central schemata of any anti-populist argument that i've ever heard. It boils down to defining populations as irrational and schizophrenic, therefore requiring a vanguard, or rule of oligarchy. From Marx to Goldwater, Keynes to Adam Smith, western political pedagogy is obsessively anti-democratic. But we are afraid of this great beast because we call it a great beast; this is a rhetorical maneuver. We often find that we are in fact merely a great flock, and the term leviathan is rightly afforded to those nobles who comprise 'the institution'.
thought of the day
i think 'the problem' of political apathy can be explained at least in part by understanding the experience of absurdity (in the existentialist sense, a world perceived with a lack of meaning or purpose). for example, you are familiar with polling data im sure that shows the political process and its personas, (in part because of media representations) are viewed with an overwhelming sense of distrust and ambivalence. when obama launched his campaign he wisely used the slogan, 'change we can believe in'. this election was unequivocal in terms of voter participation over recent decades....anyhow without taking too long to explain my thought id like to engage your philosophical mind on the possibility that a rhetoric often denounced as manipulative and dishonest could be the life and salience of contemporary politics and a certain type of 'identity politics' is necessary to engage actual human beings. i dont think its necessarily dishonest, simple questions like 'who are we, and what do we want' fall into this category. a deepening of democracy can be framed in a historical context, or historical mission easily. of course by deepening i mean, the intervention of politics in society, or democratizing our economy (the fact that the process is so removed from ordinary life is a relic from early democracies and uncompromised oligarchies etc). and historical mission and class warfare can easily be revived by creating a symbolic 'outsider' and an 'outsiders grievance' has been shown by the tea party movement. coming back to absurdity, i dont think the analysis is exhausted by a philosophy of political activism, leading us to consume our work with functional categories and confuse theory with rhetoric. the 'out of joint-ness' or the absurdity is a proper object of theoretical investigation. but when derrida explained through hamlet, that 'the time is (always) out of joint' he did not lead us to the soft politics and post-modernisms of rorty where democratic struggles are validated by a sense of irony (rorty is first of all confusing the concept of irony, and the ironic observer with cultural relativism). derrida's metaphor is surprisingly insightful to my problem here because absurdity is always a matter of 'to live or not to live' and then 'how to live in an absurd world'. in this case, political participation, or non participation and so on. it is obvious that an astute activism is founded on the righting of wrongs (killing hamlets step father), and a question of 'who are we'; a wide range of rhetorical metonymizing and symbolic hegemony, and not merely upon a soft politics of acceptance and loving kindness.
if the civil rights struggles were waiting for an ironic observer or pan-universalism, i doubt it would have ever left birmingham.
if the civil rights struggles were waiting for an ironic observer or pan-universalism, i doubt it would have ever left birmingham.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
turtles shell
we were standing in the middle of bourbon, bikes in one hand, beer in the other. like i was the night before, my eyes open to a mad carnival; from dream to frolic, instantaneous, miraculous bender. it was only one in the morning and you were wearing your green dress, the weird one that looks like a quilt. you, smirking, laughing at all the same shit...a spring break but older and somehow more naive, like baby but aged, incestuous, euphoric. the 45ers, the suits, casuals, children, italians, blacks, strippers, wives, bouncers and barkers and familiars all come out for familiar incests...a place where beauty and terror dance. so my eyes drift down to your bike, your red bianchi, that well lubricated machine i made sure would fit. every person that enters my sight i take them in just like this highlife one after the other and it goes down real easy. its like a beer-people montage, a sip-seeing alternator that is surrounding us, invading, and distracting one another from the fact that only two words have passed between us in this place. your blushing as you lean over and to reach in and get a kiss. its just a quick one on the lips, so i draw you in a little bit closer, keep you there just half a second longer...
i've been hold up in this house for over three days now. completely hermitized, getting kind of sic of that 'whats goin on with you' look that my roommates give me. so what if i'm depressed, so what if i wallow in my own shit for days on end. to simply forget and move forward is to forfeit anything i could have gained over the last two years, anything i might have become, or wish to not continue to become. on the contrary, i rummage through these memories like clothes in the free pile, and i inspect every fabric, color, and fit, hopeful that each item will be something to take home and i do, do i look good in this?
my body cant forget. your lying next to me and it thinks i'm touching her. as if i could dream with my fingers, how stupid! i shake myself awake to you lying next to me, and take in your scent greedily as the air fills my lungs. i exhale slowly, carefully, and pass over each deformity and defining feature to confirm what my mind already knows is bluish grey in this luminescent laptop radiance. every skin is unique to itself, a one-off deviant, and yours is fucking brilliant! i imagine its telling me the things people dont say but want to, and all the things i dont say anymore. this is the weathered exterior of a soft, generous creature, BEHOLD, the turtles shell. these exceptional moments, little inbetweens, theyre like mutual mercy fucks. i'll kiss the back of your neck when you fall asleep, hold you half of the night, in the morning i'll have left without goodbyes. and the words came out feeling like the whole world sitting on top of us, it was telling us not to be there. so i held my tongue and simply waited it out. i was too busy anyway, being completely absorbed in the half a second you let yourself be vulnerable. and i thought "if these hands learn a new skin i'll feel human again." but its complicated after all, were all trying to remember and forget, to learn a new skin.
i've been hold up in this house for over three days now. completely hermitized, getting kind of sic of that 'whats goin on with you' look that my roommates give me. so what if i'm depressed, so what if i wallow in my own shit for days on end. to simply forget and move forward is to forfeit anything i could have gained over the last two years, anything i might have become, or wish to not continue to become. on the contrary, i rummage through these memories like clothes in the free pile, and i inspect every fabric, color, and fit, hopeful that each item will be something to take home and i do, do i look good in this?
my body cant forget. your lying next to me and it thinks i'm touching her. as if i could dream with my fingers, how stupid! i shake myself awake to you lying next to me, and take in your scent greedily as the air fills my lungs. i exhale slowly, carefully, and pass over each deformity and defining feature to confirm what my mind already knows is bluish grey in this luminescent laptop radiance. every skin is unique to itself, a one-off deviant, and yours is fucking brilliant! i imagine its telling me the things people dont say but want to, and all the things i dont say anymore. this is the weathered exterior of a soft, generous creature, BEHOLD, the turtles shell. these exceptional moments, little inbetweens, theyre like mutual mercy fucks. i'll kiss the back of your neck when you fall asleep, hold you half of the night, in the morning i'll have left without goodbyes. and the words came out feeling like the whole world sitting on top of us, it was telling us not to be there. so i held my tongue and simply waited it out. i was too busy anyway, being completely absorbed in the half a second you let yourself be vulnerable. and i thought "if these hands learn a new skin i'll feel human again." but its complicated after all, were all trying to remember and forget, to learn a new skin.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
epitaph
you were waiting for me to finish my cigarette, my train of thought, my mood. you waited for me to take notice, to wait one moment for you, to listen, to learn, for my eyes to open, to allow, to cherish, to want you simply. waiting, waiting, you were allways waiting... but no more. this was my ground, my presence: a surface, surrounding and air. a movement, plan, and palpable...you were my goddamn maddonna, wonderful breast. i'd lay my ear upon you and listen as if whole worlds were rushing through. to hear and feel you, the feeling i always came back to, it would make those dim walls a look like paradise, somehow rustic and enchanting. that you were there for me, mind and body, in bed i would climb on top of you and look deep in your eyes where my own reflection was staring back at you, and you were waiting.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
metonic showers/long hours (the subversion of Descartes and Kant)
the 60s generation subverted Decartes's axiom "i drift thereofre i am" and founded the self affirmation "i am therefore i drift." amongst the stuggles of labor and civil rights, vietnam shattered the crooked mirror of a rational american society. this sense of vulnerablity, and a burgeoning globalism found a new name in president Carters refutation of american exceptionslism. the sense of 'us' and 'world' came to overlap, cosaturate "i am" in and about these real and lasting moments, the infinite moments; a closet identity crises which brandished itslef upon the suffering, imagination, and fantasy of ordinary americans. what was new was the undeniable place of the other within the very place of 'us'. "i am loved therefore i drift " found recourse in Ronald Reagan, the american narcissist, "i am, therefore there is love (therefore love)" as two sides of the same falling down. the wall of berlin was the defining moment, the euphoric reconcilliation, the traumatic finale'. in the nineties when the reality set in we found the 'we are' to be a rather loose unity because 'we wont'... But we are still frustrated and anxious by thye fact that "i am nothing therefore i drift" is a coded "i am no narcissist therefore pay attention to me" or a literal falling apart of self and world. all the while most of us blind ourselvbes to the semblencing involved (we have to), as its varrying names share the same treading towards meaning in a world void of substantive content. our constructive phobia is a covering up of a something uncertain, by virtue of this it has the charecter of embodiment. sentience, uncertainty, are experienced as the un= prey of bigger and more spectacular contingent certainties. slowly the real is creeping into the age of irony (we were never as Kant said, an unfathomable truth embodied in imperfect certainties, but in fact imperfect certainties were giving birth to new unfathomable truths). the revolution which began in the nineties was a pandemic explosion of technology and communication, and economic syncronicity, where the death of 'real icons' coevaled with an incredible empowering of social bodies. and so empires became 'new orders' and social struggles became 'solvable problems' in short, a politics of management emerged. it is in this context that the dillema of harry tuttle takes foot and M.L.K.'s classic 'refusal to wait' becomes ever more important. 'wherever you go there you are' is corny but true, place and time are right infront of us obviously. here is an excerpt from the "Letter From Birmingham Jail"
My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.
thinking about place is important, for one the situationist international was right to protest place commodities but in all their diagnostics politics of mangement was again their ultimate end, another vision of utopia. but because we reflect on negtivity and absent centers doesnt require cynicism or the dadaist 'abolition of the future'. the proper consequence is in fact the wisdom to our own semblenceness. peeling off the fantasy to reverse or alter something like 'american exceptionalism' is totally over shooting the mark. the work of metonomy and myth-bending has never been a more relevant task. henceforth let 'the incredible lightness of being' be your anthem to 'the time is out of joint'. the strange euphoria in the wake of tramau is allways its keynote experience. in this new millenium are we in some whatever place or cynical time cruxx... do we give ourselves to a schitzophenic time siezure or constitute a new spectacular continuity? i for one would love to ceate a big fucking spectacle, i wonder at a radical reorginization of common sense in this country.
My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.
thinking about place is important, for one the situationist international was right to protest place commodities but in all their diagnostics politics of mangement was again their ultimate end, another vision of utopia. but because we reflect on negtivity and absent centers doesnt require cynicism or the dadaist 'abolition of the future'. the proper consequence is in fact the wisdom to our own semblenceness. peeling off the fantasy to reverse or alter something like 'american exceptionalism' is totally over shooting the mark. the work of metonomy and myth-bending has never been a more relevant task. henceforth let 'the incredible lightness of being' be your anthem to 'the time is out of joint'. the strange euphoria in the wake of tramau is allways its keynote experience. in this new millenium are we in some whatever place or cynical time cruxx... do we give ourselves to a schitzophenic time siezure or constitute a new spectacular continuity? i for one would love to ceate a big fucking spectacle, i wonder at a radical reorginization of common sense in this country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)