PDA

View Full Version : Things I Believe In



josef k.
24-03-2009, 07:59 PM
The Inner Beauty of Mike Tyson

vimothy
24-03-2009, 08:18 PM
His funny voice.

slim jenkins
27-03-2009, 05:34 PM
The films of Laurel & Hardy

The grace of Fred Astaire

The genius of Charlie Parker

The tears of Ingrid Bergman in 'Casablanca'

The works of William Burroughs

The voice of Sinatra

The nudity of the emperor (continual parade of modern music's new clothes in the form of whateverstep or latest manifestation of 'indie')

Sick Boy
27-03-2009, 05:51 PM
"On my saying, What have I to do with the sacredness of traditions, if I live wholly from within? my friend suggested,--"But these impulses may be from below, not from above." I replied, "They do not seem to me to be such; but if I am the Devil's child, I will live then from the Devil." No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it. "

- Ralph Waldo Emerson

slim jenkins
27-03-2009, 06:18 PM
The egoism which enters into our theories does not affect their sincerity; rather, the more our egoism is satisfied, the more robust is our belief.
- George Eliot

josef k.
27-03-2009, 11:29 PM
That you'll go your way, and I'll go mine.

That the Factualists are Anti-Liquefactionist, Anti-Divisionist, and above all Anti-Sender.

That if you meet the Buddha, kill him.

empty mirror
27-03-2009, 11:42 PM
fractals
impossible objects
white noise
smoke machines
palindromes
ancient maths
music of the spheres
Dock Ellis
ghosts in the machine
wooden nickels
cigar store indians
leprous ice hockey players
neverending guitar solos

swears
28-03-2009, 03:06 AM
I sometimes find it hard to believe in anything because my knowledge is incomplete... there are always counter-arguments!

empty mirror
28-03-2009, 03:42 AM
luminiferous aether
perpetual motion machines
the philosopher's stone
alchemy
the fountain of youth
the holy grail

josef k.
28-03-2009, 04:04 AM
an armful of torches
empty packets of cigarettes
the pain in my chest
the beat that my heart skipped

zhao
28-03-2009, 11:25 AM
empty packets of cigarettes
the pain in my chest

squash after your book is finished?

josef k.
28-03-2009, 12:03 PM
Starting to play squash with Zhao after my book is finished...

zhao
28-03-2009, 12:29 PM
josef k.

josef k.
28-03-2009, 12:34 PM
Kafka international airport:

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/pragues_franz_kafka_international

Bang Diddley
31-03-2009, 11:46 AM
"
To do is to be
-- Nietzsche

To be is to do
-- Sartre

Do be do be do
-- Sinatra
"

Vonnegut

josef k.
03-04-2009, 08:36 AM
I believe in the race of mutants.

Sick Boy
03-04-2009, 02:35 PM
Don't feed the baboons.

Tentative Andy
03-04-2009, 04:56 PM
Karma
Radical democracy
Pigeons that look like magpies

UFO over easy
03-04-2009, 08:18 PM
http://www.timefortea.ch/images/Border_ChocoGinger_Sicht-011630.jpg

john eden
03-04-2009, 08:55 PM
I believe that children are the future, teach them well and let them lead the way.

Agent Nucleus
04-04-2009, 07:59 AM
renaissance-era hermetics (Agrippa, Bruno, Paracelsus, John Dee)
agree w/mutants, disagree w/ the Buddha
Atlantis!
ESP
2012
Ayahuasca aliens
hyperspace
DMT
Salvia

Agent Nucleus
04-04-2009, 05:43 PM
but I don't believe in much, or would never admit to it. Cynicism is almost enforced/required, that's what Zizek says, right?

josef k.
04-04-2009, 06:01 PM
Enforce who what?

Agent Nucleus
04-04-2009, 07:24 PM
Zizek talks about this at length in The Sublime Object: capitalism relies on cynical subjects because they are more likely to "play along" with capitalist ideology even if they know they are being exploited. In other words, cynics like doing things they know are stupid/wrong/mostly stupid ;)

josef k.
04-04-2009, 07:25 PM
But that sounds a little like Zizek himself, no?

Agent Nucleus
04-04-2009, 07:43 PM
Zizek says this applies to everyone, even in cases where we don't realize it. I'll look up the citation later (don't have the course reader on me atm), but this is the response I wrote last week: "For Zizek, ideology is entirely external: it has nothing to do with "false consciousness," or any internalized belief system, but instead exists as a kind of total inscription that envelops everything: "[ideology] is rather this reality itself which is already to be conceived as 'ideological'" (21). But then we must ask ourselves, where does ideology originate if it is always-already external? In other words, if it isn't mirrored internally, how is it ever reproduced, how does it persist? Zizek offers the compelling example of the Tibetan prayer wheel to illustrate his point: the devotee has only to spin the wheel to pray; faith doesn't require any kind of "real" belief. In the same vein, it makes no difference whether we believe in capitalist ideology. As long as we participate in capitalist reality, we are capitalists. In fact, postmodern capitalism depends on this internalized cynicism – where we realize we are taking part in an illusion, but continue to do it nonetheless - combined with a kind of self-disavowal. Zizek seems to assume that this cynicism is implied, and not explicit, and that we are always playing some kind of role. But if you look at advertising, or reality media, this kind of cynicism is very explicit. In fact I would go so far as to say it is shoved down our collective throats. Reality television, for example, makes explicit the idea that (capitalist) reality is a competition where everyone is deceiving everyone else, and where often the parameters of the game itself are a ruse (Joe the Millionaire, etc.). In this case, capitalism depends not on an externalized ideological fantasy, or an interpellated set of beliefs, but on the interzone of the media spectacle, which contains both. Reality television, tabloid media, etc collectivize the individual while individualizing the collective. My point is that capitalism still relies on some kind of internalization on the part of the consumer, which means that it can be altered by changing one's beliefs, perceptions and so on. In other words, the joke only works if you think it's funny."

vimothy
04-04-2009, 07:46 PM
All the threads are converging. Which one is this? And if capitalism is a subject now, can it tell us what it is?

vimothy
04-04-2009, 07:49 PM
For example, what is this capitalist ideology that we do not need to believe in?

Agent Nucleus
04-04-2009, 07:52 PM
he's referring to Althusser's definition of ideology, Zizek I mean. Apologies if I threw this thread off but I've been sort of bored in here for the last couple weeks (for some reason...)

vimothy
04-04-2009, 07:53 PM
Sorry, I am quite ignorant. What is that?

josef k.
04-04-2009, 08:02 PM
Zizek says this applies to everyone, even in cases where we don't realize it. I'll look up the citation later (don't have the course reader on me atm), but this is the response I wrote last week: "For Zizek, ideology is entirely external: it has nothing to do with "false consciousness," or any internalized belief system, but instead exists as a kind of total inscription that envelops everything: "[ideology] is rather this reality itself which is already to be conceived as 'ideological'" (21). But then we must ask ourselves, where does ideology originate if it is always-already external? In other words, if it isn't mirrored internally, how is it ever reproduced, how does it persist? Zizek offers the compelling example of the Tibetan prayer wheel to illustrate his point: the devotee has only to spin the wheel to pray; faith doesn't require any kind of "real" belief. In the same vein, it makes no difference whether we believe in capitalist ideology. As long as we participate in capitalist reality, we are capitalists. In fact, postmodern capitalism depends on this internalized cynicism – where we realize we are taking part in an illusion, but continue to do it nonetheless - combined with a kind of self-disavowal. Zizek seems to assume that this cynicism is implied, and not explicit, and that we are always playing some kind of role. But if you look at advertising, or reality media, this kind of cynicism is very explicit. In fact I would go so far as to say it is shoved down our collective throats. Reality television, for example, makes explicit the idea that (capitalist) reality is a competition where everyone is deceiving everyone else, and where often the parameters of the game itself are a ruse (Joe the Millionaire, etc.). In this case, capitalism depends not on an externalized ideological fantasy, or an interpellated set of beliefs, but on the interzone of the media spectacle, which contains both. Reality television, tabloid media, etc collectivize the individual while individualizing the collective. My point is that capitalism still relies on some kind of internalization on the part of the consumer, which means that it can be altered by changing one's beliefs, perceptions and so on. In other words, the joke only works if you think it's funny."

I am not sure what to say to that. Let me try cutting it up:

(don't have the course reader on me atm)
a kind of total inscription that envelops everything:
(Joe the Millionaire, etc.)
the interzone of the media spectacle

**

Who is Joe the Millionaire?
And what is the interzone? This is a Burroughs term, no?

Agent Nucleus
04-04-2009, 08:12 PM
cutting it up may not be the right approach, Josef

Agent Nucleus
04-04-2009, 08:12 PM
"LOUIS ALTHUSSER builds on the work of Jacques Lacan to understand the way ideology functions in society. He thus moves away from the earlier Marxist understanding of ideology. In the earlier model, ideology was believed to create what was termed "false consciousness," a false understanding of the way the world functioned (for example, the suppression of the fact that the products we purchase on the open market are, in fact, the result of the exploitation of laborers). Althusser explains that for Marx "Ideology is [...] thought as an imaginary construction whose status is exactly like the theoretical status of the dream among writers before Freud. For those writers, the dream was the purely imaginary, i.e. null, result of the 'day's residues'" (Lenin 108). Althusser, by contrast, approximates ideology to Lacan's understanding of "reality," the world we construct around us after our entrance into the symbolic order. (See the Lacan module on the structure of the psyche.) For Althusser, as for Lacan, it is impossible to access the "Real conditions of existence" due to our reliance on language; however, through a rigorous"scientific" approach to society, economics, and history, we can come close to perceiving if not those "Real conditions" at least the ways that we are inscribed in ideology by complex processes of recognition. Althusser's understanding of ideology has in turn influenced a number of important Marxist thinkers, including Chantalle Mouffe, Ernesto Laclau, Slavoj Zizek, and Fredric Jameson. (See, for comparison, the Jameson module on ideology.)"

Agent Nucleus
04-04-2009, 08:13 PM
an interzone is a hybrid territory, yes like in the Burroughs novel of the same name.

josef k.
04-04-2009, 08:15 PM
cutting it up may not be the right approach, Josef

What would you advise?

Agent Nucleus
04-04-2009, 08:16 PM
Josef K: "There is no proposition I will not follow with an irritating question, or 3 word sentence fragment"

josef k.
04-04-2009, 08:22 PM
I'm sorry you are irritated. But I don't know what to do with these monolithic statements you are pasting. Should I just nod?

Agent Nucleus
04-04-2009, 08:27 PM
these are not monolithic statements. in fact it's a rebuttal of Zizek. as for an advisable approach, your critique could be more like my professors (Chris Kocela (http://www.english.gsu.edu/people.php?req=kocela)), and less like [...]: "Wes: Yes, I agree that a certain degree of internalization is necessary for the reproduction of ideological fantasy--something I think Z. would also agree with on a fundamental level, although he radicalizes the external nature of it here so as to establish the maximum contrast with the conventional Marxian idea of "false consciousness." I'm not sure what you mean by "self-disavowal" as a part of cynical participation: what do we disavow here, and do you mean disavowal in the conventional sense or in the specifically psychoanalytic sense of simulatenous affirmation and denial?"

i agreed with your critique josef, as always, but i think Dr. Kocela is off here: ofc i mean the psychoanalytic/Freudian sense of disavowal, what else would i mean?

vimothy
04-04-2009, 08:31 PM
But there are premises at work here (and in Althusser) that should be questioned...

josef k.
04-04-2009, 08:34 PM
I find Althusser fascinating, personally... his madness, the murder, "totality's revenge."

Agent Nucleus
04-04-2009, 08:35 PM
Zizek's intro is basically a rebuttal re Althusser, ie "ideological fantasy" has replaced false consciousness, reification, etc. This is pretty elementary, and I won't respond to any further responses/questions. have a good week.

vimothy
04-04-2009, 08:39 PM
So we have come back round to the beginning: what does it mean to believe something? What does it mean to mean something?

josef k.
04-04-2009, 08:39 PM
I believe:

“In every real man a child is hidden that wants to play.”

Nietzche.

josef k.
04-04-2009, 08:39 PM
“The Mind's narcissism,” notes Debray, in the course of a stinging critique of the sign-scavenging Semiotic method (demonstrated by Baudrillard) “is the corporate penchant of intellectuals.1”

“A tempting dream, this: to produce the metalanguage of all languages, and re-beget every event by producing its law of begetting. The world is garbled speech, but I who know its codes shall give ti back transparence. The “meta-level” becomes the one transforms into “objects,” and thus into lower-stage, all the other levels.” In the course of critiquing the consumerist conversion of all bodies to signs, Baudrillard is... converting all bodies to signs.

Whoever accedes to it is transformed into a cultural Grand Subject. Since this novel, this thriller, this poem declines (as one possible version among many others) into a generative model whose keys I possess, I become its master at a critical distance, at the very least its equal in inventiveness. The encoding on all fronts of the manifestations of human genius – with the translations and passings it authorized from one to the other – places the Decode at the upper reaches of the sources of meaning and makes him into the author of authors, a creator to the second power. To “semioticize” a text, a film, a commercial poster, a program is in some sense to turn them into satellites. The critic turns sunlike, pulling works and products one by one from his deconstructable disourse as if out of a hat containing a thousand secrets.2
**

Agent Nucleus
04-04-2009, 08:40 PM
yeah but i can already tell this debate is going nowhere, or will only take the form of non-sequitters, and we'll just keep covering the same ground. i'd rather go back to the original question. not so much defeatist as i have a headache and i hate retreading.

Agent Nucleus
04-04-2009, 08:40 PM
That is Regis Debray. I have lots of that stuff.

The Decode - I think I transcribed it wrong. Let me check. I think probably "the decoder"

Debray was a Situationist iirc

Mr BoShambles
04-04-2009, 08:41 PM
Also I find some of the terminology baffling... but then I'm not well versed in this type of critical theory or whatever. Can you dumb it down at all for us ignorant types?

Agent Nucleus
04-04-2009, 08:41 PM
what is the Decode?

that was quite good actually, i really enjoyed that. post more stuff like that man, heh

Agent Nucleus
04-04-2009, 08:41 PM
I'm not looking for an argument. But your attitude here seems wholly defeatist. I don't really understand what it is that you are driving at. In order to have a debate surely you need to engage with people and explain and discuss your ideas rather than just make pronouncements. Seriously, answering questions is part of the process...

i don't mind answering questions, but yeah but i can already tell this debate is going nowhere, or will only take the form of non-sequitters, and we'll just keep covering the same ground. i'd rather go back to the original question. not so much defeatist as i have a headache and i hate retreading.

vimothy
04-04-2009, 08:41 PM
That is Regis Debray. I have lots of that stuff.

From what? A colleague is writing a paper using Baudrillard, and I'd like to send her a critique...

josef k.
04-04-2009, 08:42 PM
That is Regis Debray. I have lots of that stuff.

The Decode - I think I transcribed it wrong. Let me check. I think probably "the decoder"

Agent Nucleus
04-04-2009, 08:42 PM
my answer, via Zizek, is wrong imo actually, i never agreed with that and I argued for 20 minutes with Kocela about Zizek's definition of jouissance, which to me has nothing in common with Lacan's meaning of a direct/traumatic encounter with the real.

vimothy
04-04-2009, 08:42 PM
This thread has gone mad!

Agent Nucleus
04-04-2009, 08:43 PM
Also I find some of the terminology baffling... but then I'm not well versed in this type of critical theory or whatever. Can you dumb it down at all for us ignorant types?

hmm i'll have to look for some definitions. this is mostly jargon, i agree, and right now the posts are in mixed order, so this is going to look kind of meaningless.

josef k.
04-04-2009, 08:43 PM
From what? A colleague is writing a paper using Baudrillard, and I'd like to send her a critique...

Why, from the book I finish writing in precisely six days...

Agent Nucleus
04-04-2009, 08:43 PM
i enjoy the randomized noise inserted into the order here, kind of fitting actually

Mr BoShambles
04-04-2009, 08:44 PM
Zizek's intro is basically a rebuttal re Althusser, ie "ideological fantasy" has replaced false consciousness, reification, etc. This is pretty elementary, and I won't respond to any further responses/questions. have a good week.

I'm not looking for an argument. But your attitude here seems wholly defeatist. I don't really understand what it is that you are driving at. In order to have a debate surely you need to engage with people and explain and discuss your ideas rather than just make pronouncements. Seriously, answering questions is part of the process...

josef k.
04-04-2009, 08:44 PM
This thread has gone mad.

Mr BoShambles
04-04-2009, 08:44 PM
dissensus has got confused! jumbling up the order of posts... keeping us on our toes?

vimothy
04-04-2009, 08:45 PM
Either that, or I am on ketamine again.

josef k.
04-04-2009, 08:45 PM
That is brilliant! Let the madness come! (opens arms, like a crazed scientist hero of some insane film, letting the power flow into him)

Come!

Come!

vimothy
04-04-2009, 08:46 PM
josef/daniel/regis -- I is intrigued. What is the book about?

josef k.
04-04-2009, 08:47 PM
Identity... and difference. It is called "Identity Card" The publisher is Zero books.

vimothy
04-04-2009, 08:51 PM
Do you believe in your book?

Agent Nucleus
04-04-2009, 08:53 PM
i think Debray wrote a book about media theory, kind of a slant version of McLuhan through Situationism and radical Marxism. I'll look for it. If i recall it's pretty rare, hard to find, but i could find it on WorldCat and upload it.

josef k.
04-04-2009, 09:03 PM
Do you believe in your book?

Only in the last couple of days have I started to.


i think Debray wrote a book about media theory, kind of a slant version of McLuhan through Situationism and radical Marxism. I'll look for it. If i recall it's pretty rare, hard to find, but i could find it on WorldCat and upload it.

Debray wrote a book called Media Manifestos - that it where the quote is from. I have it. It is brilliant - extremely destructive/creative.

Agent Nucleus
04-04-2009, 09:14 PM
that's the one i was thinking of.

Agent Nucleus
06-04-2009, 04:23 AM
i believe in werepecker (http://paramodern.blogspot.com/2009/04/blog-post.html)

josef k.
06-04-2009, 06:16 PM
I believe in oblivion and grandmother death.

scottdisco
06-04-2009, 06:28 PM
i believe your grandfather might wish to obliterate you if you tried to teach your grandmother to suck eggs.