Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 140

Thread: K-Punk on Weed!!

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    376

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,670

    Default

    well catherine, i wasn't referring to all of mark's writing (which i have read for several years) as a random game of theoretical pick-up-sticks. i used to enjoy reading mark's stuff but lately i am finding it increasingly contrary, wilfully esoteric, completely inconsistent and full of holes. i also refer you to the above post, where i say it's all a bit daft in the context of a personal beef that could be resolved without all this.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    w.yorkshire
    Posts
    2,503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by &catherine
    . My point was merely that people who read a lot in a certain field have more knowledge of it than those who don't, and that just because the terms of reference are unfamiliar, it does not automatically mean that the discussion is all babble for the purposes of mystifying. Of course, you could object to this and point out that this is not a specialised journal or a forum just for critical theory or what-have-you. But I hope you'll agree that it is difficult to strike the right balance in tone sometimes.
    i would agree yes. but remembering back to my university days, there was unsaid assumption that the best thinkers/writers were those that made complex theories more understandable, not less- not that i'm saying you or mark do this (i just think mark is wrong on a number of points, with or without theoretical backup)

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    19,525

    Default

    my personal opinion is that mark has everything he needs to write brilliant things. i get visions of some paranoid claustrophobic sci-fi kafka buisness but instead of writing he spends all his intellectual energy trying to universalise his vision into some crackpot pseudo-philsophical teaching for all mankind. its immensly frustrating. you got your themes, you got your vision, you've got the ability so just get on with it. thats what i reckon. no more silly neologisms and references to continental philosophers, no ego and games and all that, a bit of focus, cut the fat off the meat, reduce it down and you'll have something wonderful. make the sentences beautiful. make them intense. fuck the teacher bit off.

    that will be all.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    deptford
    Posts
    537

    Default

    (on a slightly irrelevant tip) i think its funny mark quotes the fall in support of his argument, cf their being responsible for one of the best defenses of smoking ever, 'Like to Blow'- 'concentration flows', i.e you notice the crickets in the grass, as luka points out
    oh and the anti-hippy rhetoric is so absurdly dated and windy as to be worthy of steven wells
    (mind you, i won't touch the stuff- usual reasons, paranoia, enroaching psychosis etc)

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Sheffield
    Posts
    2,212

    Default

    Dissensus isn't about Mark.

    (Well, maybe it is. But let's leave the mystery intact for a little while if it is, shall we?)

    Anyway. It's always interesting to see a wholesale, kneejerk slagging off of entire classes of substances without any apparent concern for its harm or (heaven forfend!) benefit , either absolutely or relative other substances.

    Insert here your favoured reasonable, measured argument about use, mindset and setting.

    In the meantime, it's Friday night, I've been working all week and I'm going to stick one together before going downstairs to play with the boys.

    Luka, you with me or are you going to be a girl?


  7. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    brooklyn
    Posts
    1,273

    Default

    a couple of points. first, on k-punk. then, the marijuana debate.

    (1) so far as i know, k-punk's the best thing going on the internet. if anyone knows of anyone or anything near as good, show your cards now

    and if we didn't have k-punk to play gadfly, i expect "dissensus" would die a quick death (at least the "thought" & "politics" sections)

    so perhaps some gratitude is in order . . . .

    does k-punk often strike a superior tone? yes. is it arrogance? no

    does k-punk flaunt his learning? no. it's more like sharing the wealth. he probably has notebooks full of gems that he mines from other thinkers, and then he illuminates these gems in the light of his own prose poetry . . . .

    do i agree with everything k-punk says? usually his conclusions, and usually his take on what ails contemporary culture and politics. like nietzsche, he's a first-rate symptomatologist . . . .

    do i agree with k-punk on fundamental philosophical issues, his Modern Rationalism, his use of quasi-transcendental categories, his allegiance to the tradition that runs from Spinoza to Kant to Nietzsche to Deleuze? i haven't read widely enough or thought hard enough to really say, except that the professors and books that have most influenced my thinking run counter to this tide

    do i agree with k-punk on the need for Communist Revolution? i agree with his diagnoses, not sure about the medicine . . . . certainly Strong alternatives to the current economic/political order need to be developed . . . . but until political alternatives are developed in thought, it's hard to say what to do (at the same time, an elaborate program of "what is to be done" would be undesirable and unworkable, contrary to human natality and the role of contingency)

    am i perplexed by k-punk's invocations of Christ in the desert, the Christ who sets brother against brother, son against father, husband against wife? YES . . . . but i'm want to see how he puts it all together, Christ in the desert, the Gnostics, Spinoza, Nietzsche, Deleuze

    (2) as for whether marijuana is good or bad, i think the Spinoza/Nietzsche approach is the best ------ whether something is good or bad depends on how it affects the "health" or "operation" of this or that person or machine or assemblage------- what's good for the goose may not be good for the gander ----- in most cases, regular marijuana use appears to result in stupefication, easy satisfaction, slavishness to small pleasure. but in other cases, especially in the case of painters and music-makers, marijuana appears to promote creativity, artistic sensitivity, etc ------- and perhaps marijuana helps take the edge off Black anxiety, resulting in "cool," but makes the lives of middle-class White folks entirely too soft

    however, i think that k-punk's "Chronic" post was written not with an eye to the individual, which varies from case to case, but at the level of the wider culture . . . . marijuana may be good for this individual, bad for that individual, but for the culture as a whole its effect is pernicious ------ that's how i'd read the post

    also, it's worth noting that any activity that has the effect of "easing tension" is bad on this view, not simply the drug marijuana . . . . so regular masturbation is bad (unless you're a would-be rapist) . . . . listening to music is bad insofar as it has a regular & predictable narcotic effect . . . . gluttony sans indigestion is bad ------ [[[[although marijuana use is especially bad b/c users imagine that they're rebelling against the system -- the masturbator is under no such illusion]]]]]

    finally, when it comes to drug use, almost everything depends on how the user "conceives" of his drug use. what does the user think he is doing when he takes drugs? certainly one of the best things about illegal drugs is that their use serves to break down social barrierls. the white professional parties with the
    black hustler. they get high together, listen to the same music, frequent the same bars and clubs. each knows he could be in the other's shoes -- and, indeed, getting high, getting out of oneself, promotes this consciousness ----- and this is true even when the drug is as supposedly superficial as cocaine

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    brooklyn
    Posts
    1,273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luka
    my personal opinion is that mark has everything he needs to write brilliant things. i get visions of some paranoid claustrophobic sci-fi kafka buisness but instead of writing he spends all his intellectual energy trying to universalise his vision into some crackpot pseudo-philsophical teaching for all mankind. its immensly frustrating. you got your themes, you got your vision, you've got the ability so just get on with it. thats what i reckon. no more silly neologisms and references to continental philosophers, no ego and games and all that, a bit of focus, cut the fat off the meat, reduce it down and you'll have something wonderful. make the sentences beautiful. make them intense. fuck the teacher bit off.
    Despite my comments above, I can see where Luka's coming from here . . . . Mark is exceptionally talented, has "everything he needs," and so he'd probably do well to "cut the fat off the meat, reduce it down" and WRITE BOOKS to rival Baudrillard and others

    As for the "silly neologisms," I tend to agree that the whole "Leumerian" business is a bit puerile. However, perhaps Mark is trying to create his own conceptual vocabulary. That is, high-order philosophy is about creating new concepts, new words. So who really knows what Mark is up to . . . .

    As for the references to Continental philosophers, I see that as necessary, not extraneous. All philosophy after Plato [indeed, including Plato] has been in conversation, in response to what others have written and said. Reference to the thoughts and words of others is a vice only when made in slavish deference to the requirements of academia . . . . And I think it should be obvious to all that Mark writes as a free spirit, not as an academic seeking institutional standing

    And as for whether this entire blogging gambit distracts Mark from grander projects, I hope that he saves everything that he posts for future publication in BOOK form (or rather, saves the raw material for later refinement)
    Last edited by dominic; 03-12-2004 at 05:26 PM.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    لندورا
    Posts
    3,099

    Default well i had a busy day but...

    having had time to catch up with this juicy thread, i must share with you the following:

    as a habitual smoker i found k-p's post a little inflammatory ('porcine' ouch ), but happily don't recognise much of myself in the apathetic stereotype, sounds like marc has confused ganja w smack! he doesn't mention any psychic effects of the herb, except in a negative way as psychoses.
    shame,
    i enjoy many positive symptoms meself, a certain level of paranoia & healthy psychosis is highly beneficial to a creative & productive 21stC existence

    ...but this thread has moved on to another whole discussion now, (altho i guess philosophy is another great hobby for apathetic escapists )
    i tend to skip bits once people start citing names i know nothing about, so if we can't have a proper bibliography at least mebbie as this is after all the internet perhaps the odd hyperlink might avoid condescending explanations for the less well-read of us?

    ta
    suuf
    Last edited by sufi; 03-12-2004 at 07:50 PM. Reason: forgot to put the smiley after the bit about being psychotic oops

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    brooklyn
    Posts
    1,273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stelfox
    this endless circle-jerk of quoting deleuze, zizek et al to address what is essentially a personal beef strikes me as somewhat pathetic (it's a complete waste of valuable learning and intellectual energy, not to mention more passive-aggressive than even the most irritable spacehead).
    Don't all considered positions begin as "personal beefs" or "personal affinities"? Otherwise, thought would be empty and formal, free of content, pale, bloodless . . . . Even if K-Punk would probably argue otherwise himself, I think the proper procedure is to tenderize the beef. Make it articulate and precise, less chewy. Soak it in theory . . . . Make the personal valid, make it true

    K-Punk's post on marijuana, while informed by theory, is compelling because rooted in experience. He captures and mocks the speech of a familiar figure, the stoner

    And I don't think that writing on the meaning of drug use constitutes a "waste of valuable learning and intellectual energy." I think that the meaning of drug use in society today is a monumental question that begs for serious thought . . . . When it comes to drugs, I think we're all pretty conflicted. Unsure what to think of our own behavior.

    Drugs & music as religion for the godless? Meeting ground for strangers? Or mere monkeymatic pleasure seeking?

    Also, as I indicated in a post above, marijuana is a much "softer" drug than other drugs. Because it is softer, less apt to derail the user if consumed frequently, marijuana is viewed as benign . . . . The merit of K-Punk's posting is in how he links up the "softness" of marijuana as a drug with the preferences of the Last Man. No harsh comedown, no wracked nerves, no needle to the arm, no revelation. Only satisfaction easily had.

    Is K-Punk's account partial? Yes. But is it for that reason overly subjective or trivial? No
    Last edited by dominic; 03-12-2004 at 07:44 PM.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,670

    Default

    it's condescending polemic based on stereotypes (these aren't a good thing, incidentally), not experience, dominic. it's not smart writing and if you'll permit *me* to come on like the teacher for once, annoying because i know mark is capable of so much more.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    15

    Default

    and here i was thinking he was of the Burroughs-ian persuasion....

    marijuana ain't bad - the apathetic 'do-nothings' are.

    they would have reached that point through whatever narcotic (kapital!)... 95% of society are stoners potentially.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    لندورا
    Posts
    3,099

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by looka
    if you're going to judge the tree by its fruit doctors can at least point to cured patients its true.
    stop harasssing mark with suurealism you dadaist relativist

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    in a Ballardian fantasy
    Posts
    304

    Default

    Well, you can't blame Mark entirely for the weed thing, he was responding to summat I wrote and a discussion we had recently. (Though, er, don't go blaming me for everything he writes that you don't agree with, eh), ho ho.

    My initial post came off the back of something I've been thinking about for a while, that is, work out certain constitutive features of particular drugs. Not so much experiential stuff like recounting different experiences of the same drug, but trying to identify invariant features. Like, in what way does weed make you paranoid, or the way in which speed boosts assurance without making you over-confident like coke. Things like that. Not really scientific, but y'know.

    It's not really a judgemental point, though have had some bad times with stoners, as I mentioned. But it's probably a question of discipline: if you can channel the muses and write poetic stuff about animals and nature, or play neat music, then why not? It's obvious that the history of literature/poetry/music would be bereft of a lot of the best stuff if it had all been written by a load of sober people....

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    North East London
    Posts
    5,896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by infinite thought
    But it's probably a question of discipline
    Yes! [standing ovation]

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •