K-Punk on Weed!!
- Thread starter luka
- Start date
I thought I should add something to this (despite being tired so apologies for it being garbled but if I don't say something now I won't be bothered tomorrow). I argue over this whole science / theory thing with my mum all the time... she being a scientist and me making a pretense as a student of philosophy. I tried to explain metaphysics to her by briefly saying that it was 'beyond' physics, what lies outside of experience. To this she replied, 'I just don't like how you people do things....' no doubt we'll argue about it again sooner or later. But while I don't want to argue about the shortcomings of science or the 'greatness' of theory (I prefer philosophy but I'll keep with the whole theory theme) it is important to remember that they are doing entirely different things. Science, as has been pointed out, deals with empirical facts; it can tell us what it biologically means to be male whereas theory can help us to understand what it 'means' to be male, or if there is any meaning to be attributed to it at all. For example, apart from the whole weed business which I am not particularly interested in: Alcohol makes you more female as it increase oestrogen levels (see here , man breasts et al) but when I drink I feel more male... at least what we are told it means to be male i.e. more aggressive, more abusive and generally rowdier. The whole binge drinking issue going on in England at the minute involving women demonstrates this perfectly.... loads of girls completely smashed acting like men (or what is preconcieved to be men).
At the same time I'm not sure why this argument is even happening... or perhaps I am naive in this area having the pleasure of being taught philosophy by a physicist. Science, advances in technology, engineering, or whatever have incredible affects upon the way that our minds are patterned and work. We are quite happy to use science, to use the internet, to turn on the TV, to engage in mass communication networks; "Ah yes! this new advance is great! Soon everyone will connected to the web," but what needs to be thought exactly what effects these things have on us.... and science doesn't do that. Science ploughs forward while theory thinks the affects and examines just what is being done to our condition. Fine if you don't like theory, you don't have to but it's not useful to say it's useless just because you don't like it. There needs to be someone still thinking what it means to be human/inhuman and all the various other questions that just cannot be answered empirically. There were probably scientists telling Marx to shut his mouth, or announcing that Foucault just wasn't useful but that doesn't mean that they didn't change the world because the 'facts' (whatever that means) weren't quite right. (As an aside Leibniz is an interesting example: while everyone was writing about Newtonian physics Leibniz was far more interested in forces and movement, he was discounted as useless in many areas since he didn't adhere to the Newtonian universe.... it is only now, with advances in physics we can see the importance of his work). Anyway, what are we without this constant questioning? Is it really more interesting to find out what something does rather than what it means ? I believe that both are equally important.
Of course, you can still say 'Well, it's all just opinion... far too subjective.' Fine, say that... on some levels it is. But if you're going to do that then you should take a book such as Deleuze's 'The Fold,' and you'll find a person who's not just writing theory but incorporates maths & physics in a highly educated way, which are of course traditionally areas of the 'sciences.' These books are not just sweeping statements that someone pulled out their arse one day but works of incredible scope that take a lot of theoretical and empircal research, you can't just discount them because you don't like them. I don't like reading texts about maths but that doesn't mean I don't find it important.
Also to keep it kind've on topic.... I don't care about weed. Smoke it if you want; I'm interested in lethargy and boredom as ways of subverting the constant movement of the system. But that's all I've really got to say about it.
At the same time I'm not sure why this argument is even happening... or perhaps I am naive in this area having the pleasure of being taught philosophy by a physicist. Science, advances in technology, engineering, or whatever have incredible affects upon the way that our minds are patterned and work. We are quite happy to use science, to use the internet, to turn on the TV, to engage in mass communication networks; "Ah yes! this new advance is great! Soon everyone will connected to the web," but what needs to be thought exactly what effects these things have on us.... and science doesn't do that. Science ploughs forward while theory thinks the affects and examines just what is being done to our condition. Fine if you don't like theory, you don't have to but it's not useful to say it's useless just because you don't like it. There needs to be someone still thinking what it means to be human/inhuman and all the various other questions that just cannot be answered empirically. There were probably scientists telling Marx to shut his mouth, or announcing that Foucault just wasn't useful but that doesn't mean that they didn't change the world because the 'facts' (whatever that means) weren't quite right. (As an aside Leibniz is an interesting example: while everyone was writing about Newtonian physics Leibniz was far more interested in forces and movement, he was discounted as useless in many areas since he didn't adhere to the Newtonian universe.... it is only now, with advances in physics we can see the importance of his work). Anyway, what are we without this constant questioning? Is it really more interesting to find out what something does rather than what it means ? I believe that both are equally important.
Of course, you can still say 'Well, it's all just opinion... far too subjective.' Fine, say that... on some levels it is. But if you're going to do that then you should take a book such as Deleuze's 'The Fold,' and you'll find a person who's not just writing theory but incorporates maths & physics in a highly educated way, which are of course traditionally areas of the 'sciences.' These books are not just sweeping statements that someone pulled out their arse one day but works of incredible scope that take a lot of theoretical and empircal research, you can't just discount them because you don't like them. I don't like reading texts about maths but that doesn't mean I don't find it important.
Also to keep it kind've on topic.... I don't care about weed. Smoke it if you want; I'm interested in lethargy and boredom as ways of subverting the constant movement of the system. But that's all I've really got to say about it.
Last edited:
&catherine
Well-known member
I think the second two are in keeping with what Mark was arguing, but not necessarily the first. What is 'in control' in a hegemony - even one that is patriarchal - is the hegemonic position itself. Which, as I take it from his previous posts and arguments, Mark would probably categorise as some network of power that replicates the mummy-daddy-me Oedipal structuring, which involves people being encoded (certain anatomical differences between the 'sexes' being inscribed with cultural significance) as masculine, feminine, so on.Backjob said:
You'd be quite right to point out that it's contradictory to say that "1. men are in control and hold onto the reins of power by 2. being inert". But Mark's position doesn't involve the first part of this, so I don't think this is a problem. In fact, I'm guessing that the k-punk position would argue precisely that no one is in control - not "even" men - if they are adopting/following/submitting to the behaviour implicated in "identities" like gender, sexuality, race.
Perhaps some of this 'gender'-related discussion would serve as a fruitful jumping-off point for a new thread...?
<i>Alcohol makes you more female as it increase oestrogen levels (see here , man breasts et al) but when I drink I feel more male... at least what we are told it means to be male i.e. more aggressive, more abusive and generally rowdier. The whole binge drinking issue going on in England at the minute involving women demonstrates this perfectly.... loads of girls completely smashed acting like men <b>(or what is preconcieved to be men</b></i>
this is *precisely* what horrifies me about this whole debate and what i've been getting at all along. why the hell is obnoxious behaviour deemed "male"? if i found a given something made me feel passive, weak, ineffectual, helpless and then stated that this substance "makes you female", you'd go absolutely batshit at me - and with good reason. mark's initial idea was and is incredibly flimsy, formulated around the most base of stereotypes. do booze and drugs make you working-class, too?
this is *precisely* what horrifies me about this whole debate and what i've been getting at all along. why the hell is obnoxious behaviour deemed "male"? if i found a given something made me feel passive, weak, ineffectual, helpless and then stated that this substance "makes you female", you'd go absolutely batshit at me - and with good reason. mark's initial idea was and is incredibly flimsy, formulated around the most base of stereotypes. do booze and drugs make you working-class, too?
Last edited:
I know context,context ..but....
drugs sometimes cause delirium. Why shouldn't I rave about drugs? What can you do with your very own "reality"? Yours is dull realism. And then, why do you read me? Your argument of cautious experimentation is an invalid, reactionary one.
"I have nothing to admit" Gilles Deleuze This text originally appeared as "Cher Michel, je na'i rien a avouer," in _La Quinzaine litteraire_ 116 (April 1-15, 1973), pp. 17-19.
drugs sometimes cause delirium. Why shouldn't I rave about drugs? What can you do with your very own "reality"? Yours is dull realism. And then, why do you read me? Your argument of cautious experimentation is an invalid, reactionary one.
"I have nothing to admit" Gilles Deleuze This text originally appeared as "Cher Michel, je na'i rien a avouer," in _La Quinzaine litteraire_ 116 (April 1-15, 1973), pp. 17-19.
bassnation
the abyss
MBM said:
i've smoked weed every day for the last decade more or less, and i've got a high pressure job, wife and kids, do shitloads of stuff for the web etc. ok, i haven't overthrown the system just yet, but all you righteous non-smokers, i don't exactly see you manning the barricades either.
i can't believe the lazy generalisations and stereotypes that are getting rinsed out in this thread, sort it out people.
luka said:
Oh gee, I'm a little temporally challenged in mis-contributing to this till-now un-seen thread, so please forgive my hangover for being near-on two years past my potty sell-by-date ...
But as someone who's been nicotine-addicted for longer than the age I was when I first started, and having viscerally noted the substantial social effects of the now-two-years-old ban on smoking in Eye-ear-land [ for the better, but, alas, for all the wrong, capitalism-disavowing reasons], I share Mark's position on drugydum as "psychedelic fascism" [Kubrick], as fundamental to abstract pomo Kapitalism's condition of workable possibility - you only have to note the origins of most of contempory gliberal capitalism's cheerleaders in whiter-shade-of-pale hippydom [from Bill Gates to that Jagger guy, from Branson to Geldof, from George Bush to Tonee] to begin to get the wider picture ...
The False Choice:
Moloko Plus Vs Serum 114? A cocktail?
I agree with most of the things Mark K-Punk says on his blog and elsewhere, eg. the recent stuff about youth anhedonia etc esp. seeing as it's based on direct experience from teaching young adults and so on.
And yes, sure, for many people drug use releases their inner fascist - but usually these people are emotionally retarded to begin with anyway. Where can you lay the blame for that?
If you want to preach about the evils of weed or whatever, fine - sure they exist: like many other things in life there are pitfalls - but try it first. Smoke a reefer, take a trip or pill or whatever and then come back and tell us whether you feel more comfortable about capitalism, or you find the supermarkets or advertising more seductive.
I've written what I think will be your answer on the back of a postage stamp and sealed it in an envelope to be opened when you report back.
And yes, sure, for many people drug use releases their inner fascist - but usually these people are emotionally retarded to begin with anyway. Where can you lay the blame for that?
If you want to preach about the evils of weed or whatever, fine - sure they exist: like many other things in life there are pitfalls - but try it first. Smoke a reefer, take a trip or pill or whatever and then come back and tell us whether you feel more comfortable about capitalism, or you find the supermarkets or advertising more seductive.
I've written what I think will be your answer on the back of a postage stamp and sealed it in an envelope to be opened when you report back.
D
droid
Guest
Thats a myth.
Hydro/soil it makes no difference whatsoever to the quality and strength of weed. Its more to do with the strain and what nutrients the plant is given at various stages of its life - how it is flushed etc... the advantage of soil is that it can be fully organic, wheras hydro plant food is invariably chemical as it has to be processed to work in water.
Skunk is whats available because people want skunk, plus its relatively easy to grow, gives good yield and is almost guaranteed to be potent. If you want more variety - grow it yourself, and theres a whole world of breeds to choose from... Weeds diversity alone makes a mockery of Marks argument IMO - you can get the super heavy 'hash' coma effect from a pure indica strain like 'chocolate chunk', or an insane tripping buzz of a mainly Sativa like 'Kush' or 'Jack Herrer' - totally different effects - like 2 different drugs in fact!
Hydro/soil it makes no difference whatsoever to the quality and strength of weed. Its more to do with the strain and what nutrients the plant is given at various stages of its life - how it is flushed etc... the advantage of soil is that it can be fully organic, wheras hydro plant food is invariably chemical as it has to be processed to work in water.
Skunk is whats available because people want skunk, plus its relatively easy to grow, gives good yield and is almost guaranteed to be potent. If you want more variety - grow it yourself, and theres a whole world of breeds to choose from... Weeds diversity alone makes a mockery of Marks argument IMO - you can get the super heavy 'hash' coma effect from a pure indica strain like 'chocolate chunk', or an insane tripping buzz of a mainly Sativa like 'Kush' or 'Jack Herrer' - totally different effects - like 2 different drugs in fact!