Popular Posts

Sunday, December 23, 2012

Doubting Love

Butler's Doubting Love
"One knows love somehow only when all one’s ideas are destroyed, and this becoming unhinged from what one knows is the paradigmatic sign of love."

Love destabilizes what one knows, what Sontag calls "our gods today". The names we have for important things. Our name for and idea of love.

Butler's doubting love  is Foucault's curiosity- "a certain relentlessness in ridding ourselves of our familiarities and looking at things otherwise..."
It is also what awaits further yet.
"People know what they do; they often know why they do it but what the people don't know, is what they do does".(DH&RP, 187)
It is love, Butler says, that always returns to us what we do and do not know.

"One finds that love is not a state, a feeling, a disposition, but an exchange, uneven, fraught with history, with ghosts, with longings that are more or less legible to those who try to see one another with their own faulty vision. "
... love in flux, love which doubts itself into flux, out of 'comfortable', out of the known and the familiar idea of love, and any/every lesser thing then as well.

Butler reads Freud on doubting love as calling the most important thing into question, not letting assumptions go on unquestioned. Doubting as opening up of space, within and beyond the space already there.

"I cannot pretend to know myself at the moment of love, but I cannot pretend to fully know myself. I must neither vacate the knowledge that I have — the knowledge, after all, that will make me a better lover — and I cannot be the one who knows everything in advance — which would make me proud and, finally, lovable."

Finally, Butler's doubting love  is  Nietzsche's questioning, as Babette Babich writes about in Nietzsche's "Gay" Science, Nietzschean belief that everyone possesses a lust for questioning, and questioning at all costs (BB, pg.102). Doubting Love meets gai saber.

Nietzsche’s gay science is a passionate, fully joyful science. But to say this is also to say that a gay science is a dedicated science: scientific “all the way down.” This is a science including the most painful and troubling insights, daring, to use Nietzsche’s language here, every ultimate or “last consequence” ( BGE 22; KSA13, 14[79]). Doubting just as well as Montaigne, doubting in a more radical fashion than Descartes, and still more critical than Kant or Schopenhauer, dispensing with Spinoza’s and with Hegel’s (but also with Darwin’s and even Newton’s) faith, Nietzsche’s joyful, newly joyful, scientist carries “the will henceforth to question further, more deeply, stringently, harshly, cruelly, and quietly than one had questioned heretofore” (GS, preface, 3). Even confidence in life itself, as a value, of course, but also as such, now “becomes a problem.” The result is a new kind of love and a new kind of joy, a new passion, a “new happiness.” (BB, 99)

To Be Read in the Interrogative - Julio Cortazar
Have you seen
have you really seen
the snow the stars the felt step of the breeze
Have you touched
really have you touched
the plate the bread the face of that woman you love
so much
Have you lived
like a blow to the head
the flash the gasp the fall the flight
Have you known
known in every pore of your skin
how your eyes your hands your sex your soft heart
must be thrown away
must be wept away
must be invented all over again.

* * *
July 2013
...months go by, I forget about this doubting, reading in the interrogative, and settle in fixity of the idea of love. Comfortable because it has been repeated enough times to have become so familiar a truth that needn't be doubted. Safe. A god worshipped in unquestionable unquestioning repetition.

Then, a reminder:

Badiou, In Praise of Love:

“I am really interested in the time love endures. Let’s be precise: by endure, one should not simply understand that love lasts, that love is forever and always. One has to understand that love invents a different way of lasting."(Love Dog)

and another:

"An honorable human relationship — that is, one in which two people have the right to use the word “love” — is a process, delicate, violent, often terrifying to both persons involved, a process of refining the truths they can tell each other.
It is important to do this because it breaks down human self-delusion and isolation.
It is important to do this because in doing so we do justice to our own complexity.
It is important to do this because we can count on so few people to go that hard way with us."
(Adrienne Rich)

Sunday, October 28, 2012

Robsessed Turns Rob Pattinson Pap Pics Into A Muybridge Motion Study

Science oAlthough Eadweard Muybridge thought of himself primarily as an artist, he encouraged the aura of scientific investigation that surrounded his project at the University of Pennsylvania. Published in 1887 as Animal Locomotion, the 781 finished prints certainly look scientific, and historically, most viewers have accepted them as reliable scientific studies of movement. The recent rediscovery of Muybridge’s working proofs, however, demonstrates that he freely edited his images to achieve these final results. How does this change our idea of his photography?r Art—or Both? http://americanhistory.si.edu/muybridge/

So it's been going on a long long time eh.

See Rob walk. Look, look, look Jane. Look, Sally, look. See Rob walk. Walk, Rob, walk. See Rob walk, Sally and Jane! Oh Dick, see Rob walk!


really good motion ones from top:



See Rob go. Rob can go down. See Rob go down. Down down down.

Muybridge again not Rob
 Top upper right sort of looks like that day on the beach though 
Oh oh oh! See Rob run. Rob can run fast. Run, Rob, run! Run fast, Rob, run run run! Oh, oh, oh! Look, look, look!

Crotch shot from Robsten Dreams
Don't you just love it?
Embarrassing to have fans like these eh

See the man walk. Walk, man, walk. Man, walk. Walkman.


 ks - rp

Image of a typical robsessed fangirl

blackbeanie replied to Kazrob

Where do you keep getting them, Kaz?  Stupid, I know, but when I see a poem of you, I know everything's fine in our happy place. :)

Happy Trail

You tease me with these little peeks

When there's been no sign for bloody weeks

Then a pic appears and oh my god

Its you in a hoodie flashing the bod.

You reach up to pull on the hood

Knowing full well you're looking good

Sunglasses on, unmistakeably male

My eyes are riveted on your happy trail.

This trail of hair, my eyes they linger
I want to trace it with my finger
Should my hand dip to the pleasure dome
I know I've found my sweet way home...

Friday, September 14, 2012

Video Exposes the Fraud of US Weekly Photos of Kristen Stewart and Rupert Sanders.

On The Road NY Premiere Kristen Stewart

Is everyone happy now to see the flailed actress all skin and bones
Has she been punished enough for THAT AFTERNOON
Or do you want more more MORE

For THAT AFTERNOON see The Rashomon Effect here:
Complete with pictures from THAT AFTERNOON

The camera never lies. It records what is there. It is we who lie to ourselves when we perceive what we think we see. as it filters through our own protective shield.

Does this mean that the photos we see take on the literal truth of what the camera has recorded? 

Look at this video
Now tell me what you see in those pictures you just looked at

Watch and Learn

HERE:  http://youtu.be/bnPCF9AQzCM 

As Diana was dying in her car pleading with her eyes for help the papz were filming her 



Monday, June 25, 2012

Guerrilla Filmmaking - Review: Sound Of My Voice at the MOXIE in Springfield MO

Is She From The Future?

Or is she heralding the future?
In her interview with Interview Brit Marling discusses her time at Georgetown where three people met and became friends, deciding to make the documentary:Boxers and Ballerinas 2004
Brit Marling
Mike Cahill
Zal Batmanglij
Directing, Producing, Writing, Acting, Shooting, Editing
They collaboratively took Another Earth to Sundance and won two prizes there. What is wonderful is that they work together equally. There is no big Other involved in the making of their films. Zizek! Take notice please!

Once again Brit Marling is exploring Alterity

From her earlier film Another Earth

We can recall moments in the past when we had equal chances of living or dying - in a car crash, for example.... Every time someone finds himself at a crossroads of this kind, he has two worlds before him... It is the same with each decisive moment, both with birth and with death. Just as the virtual dead man that I am continues on his way on the other side, carries on with his existence which runs just beneath the surface of mine, birth is that dividing line where on the one side I exist as myself, but on the other I begin, at the same moment to exist as other Such is the form of alterity...(Impossible Exchange 82)

Kenzaburo Oe in A Personal Matter  opts for a choice-centered cosmology, and puts this in the mouth of one of his characters:
Every time you stand at the crossroads of life and death, you have two universes in front of you...  

A lovely review of this film: Sound of My Voice

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Se défendre/To Defend Oneself or Why Occupy?

Michel Foucault: Se défendre

« Se défendre » est un inédit de Michel Foucault qui présente une saisissante synthèse de ce que peut être un rapport offensif à la légalité et aux institutions chargées de la mettre en oeuvre. Il vient d’être publié par Courant Alternatif avec un article (voir plus bas) qui montre ce que l’activité de défense doit aux luttes afin de souligner que le droit en général et les procédures judiciaires en particulier sont des espaces de lutte qu’il est nécessaire d’investir.

Se défendre

1- Evitons d’abord le problème ressassé du réformisme et de l’anti-réformisme. Nous n’avons pas à prendre en charge les institutions qui ont besoin d’être transformées. Nous avons à nous défendre tant et si bien que les institutions soient contraintes de se réformer. L’initiative doit donc venir de nous, non pas sous forme de programme mais sous forme de mise en question et sous forme d’action.
2- Ce n’est pas parce qu’il y a des lois, ce n’est pas parce que j’ai des droits que je suis habilité à me défendre ; c’est dans la mesure où je me défends que mes droits existent et que la loi me respecte. C’est donc avant tout la dynamique de la défense qui peut donner aux lois et aux droits une valeur pour nous indispensable. Le droit n’est rien s’il ne prend vie dans la défense qui le provoque ; et seule la défense donne, valablement, force à la loi.
3- Dans l’expression « Se défendre », le pronom réfléchi est capital. Il s’agit en effet d’inscrire la vie, l’existence, la subjectivité et la réalité même de l’individu dans la pratique du droit. Se défendre ne veut pas dire s’auto défendre. L’auto-défense, c’est vouloir se faire justice soi-même, c’est-à-dire s’identifier à une instance de pouvoir et prolonger de son propre chef leurs actions. Se défendre, au contraire, c’est refuser de jouer le jeu des instances de pouvoir et se servir du droit pour limiter leurs actions. Ainsi entendue, la défense a valeur absolue. Elle ne saurait être limitée ou désarmée par le fait que la situation était pire autrefois ou pourrait être meilleure plus tard. On ne se défend qu’au présent : l’inacceptable n’est pas relatif.
4- Se défendre demande donc à la fois une activité, des instruments et une réflexion. Une activité : il ne s’agit pas de prendre en charge la veuve et l’orphelin mais de faire en sorte que les volontés existantes de se défendre puissent venir au jour. De la réflexion : se défendre est un travail qui demande analyse pratique et théorique. Il lui faut en effet la connaissance d’une réalité souvent complexe qu’aucun volontarisme ne peut dissoudre. Il lui faut ensuite un retour sur les actions entreprises, une mémoire qui les conserve, une information qui les communique et un point de vue qui les mettent en relation avec d’autres. Nous laisserons bien sûr à d’autres le soin de dénoncer les « intellectuels ». Des instruments : on ne va pas les trouver tout faits dans les lois, les droits et les institutions existantes mais dans une utilisation de ces données que la dynamique de la défense rendra novatrice [1].
Michel Foucault


Michel Foucault: To Defend Oneself

To Defend Oneself is an unpublished article by Foucault which presents a striking synthesis of what could be an offensive relationship to legality and institutions charged with enacting it. It is to be published by Courant Alternatif with an article (see below) which expresses what does the activity of defense owe to combats in order to accentuate that the law in general, and the legal procedures in particular are the spaces of combat which need to be moved into.

To defend oneself

1- Let us first avoid the worn out problem of reformism and anti-reformism. We do not have to take charge of institutions that need to be transformed. We need to defend ourselves for as long and as much until the institutions are forced to reform. The initiative needs then to come from us, not in the form of a program but in the form of questioning and in the form of acting.
2- It is not because there are laws, not because I have rights that I have the ability to defend myself; it is in the measure within which I defend myself that my rights exist and the law respects me. It is then primarily the dynamics of the defense which can give value, an indispensable one for us, to the laws and rights. The law is nothing unless it comes alive in the defense it provokes; and only the defense, valuably, gives the force to the law.
3- In the expression to defend oneself the reflexive pronoun is capital. It is effectively a matter of inscribing life, existence,subjectivity and even reality of the individual  in the practice of the law. To defend oneself does not mean auto-defense. Auto-defense, it is the will to do justice to one self by one self; that is, to identify oneself with an instance of power and to prolong the actions of its own master. To defend oneself, on the contrary, is to refuse to play the game of the instances of power, and to use the law itself for limiting its actions. Thus understood, the defense has an absolute value. It cannot be limited or disarmed by the fact that the situation was worse before or could be better later. We do not defend ourselves except in the present; the unaccaptable is irrelevant.
4- To defend oneself requires then simultaneously an activity, the instruments and a reflexion. An activity: it is not about taking charge of a widow and orphaned child, but about making it so that the existing willingness to defend oneself comes into the light of day. On reflexion: to defend oneself is a work that demands a practical and theoretical analysis. It often requires the knowledge of reality which is so complex that no voluntarism can dissolve it. It requires then a return to actions undertaken, a memory which conserves them, information that communicate them and a point of vue which puts them in relation with others. We will of course leave it to the others to worry about denouncing «the intellectuals». On the instruments: we will not find them all ready-made in the existing laws, rights and institutions, but within the utilization of those premises that will be rendered innovative by the dynamics of defense.

 Žižek on Occupy Wall Street 

There is no lack of anti-capitalist sentiment in the world today. There’s an overload of critiques of the horrors of capitalism: books, in-depth journalistic investigations and television reports abound on companies ruthlessly polluting our environment, on corrupt bankers who continue to get fat bonuses while their banks are saved by public money, of sweat shops where children work overtime.


The “democratic illusion”, the blind acceptance of the institutions of democracy as the only and the right force for change, actually prevents radical change.

What is as a rule not questioned, however, is the democratic-liberal framework of fighting against the excesses of capitalism. The explicit or implied goal of such critiques is only to democratise capitalism, to extend democratic control to the economy through pressure from the media, government inquiries, harsher laws, honest police investigations and so on. But we never ever question the democratic institutional framework of the state of law. This is the sacred cow that even the most radical forms of ethical anti-capitalism—think of the Porto Allegre forum, the Seattle movement—do not dare to touch. http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?279483

Addressing the protesters at Zucotti Park:
"So what are we doing here? Let me tell you a wonderful old joke from Communist times. A guy was sent to work in East Germany from Siberia. He knew his mail would be read by censors, so he told his friends, ‘Let’s establish a code. If a letter you get from me is written in blue ink, it is true what I say; if it is written in red ink, it is false.’ After a month, his friends get a first letter. Everything is in blue. It says, this letter: ‘Everything is wonderful here. The stores are full of good food, movie theatres show good films from the West, apartments are large and luxurious. The only thing you cannot find is red ink.This is how we live. We have all the freedoms we want, but what we are missing is red ink: the language to articulate our non-freedom. The way we are taught to speak about freedom, ‘war on terror,’ and so on, falsifies freedom. And this is what you are doing here: You are giving all of us red ink."

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

.Slavoj Zizek Speaks At Occupy Wall Street

. .Slavoj Zizek speaks at Occupy Wall St

[...] “[They are saying] we are all losers, but the true losers are down there on Wall Street. They were bailed out by billions of our money. We are called socialists, but here there is already socialism — for the rich. They say we don’t respect private property. But in the 2008 financial crash-down more hard-earned private property was destroyed than if all of us here were to be destroying it night and day for weeks. They tell you we are dreamers; the true dreamers are those who think things can go on indefinitely the way they are. We are not dreamers; we are the awakening from the dream that is turning into a nightmare. We are not destroying anything; we are only witnessing how the system is destroying itself. We all know [inaudible] from cartoons. The cat reaches a precipice, but it goes on walking, ignoring the fact that there is nothing beneath its ground. Only when it looks down and notices it he falls down. This is what we are doing here. We are telling the guys there on Wall Street, ‘Hey! Look down!’
[inaudible] “… In 2011, the Chinese government prohibited on TV, film, and in novels all stories that [inaudible -- something about portraying "alternate realities or time travel"]. This is a good sign for China; it means people still dream about alternatives, so attacked and prohibited is dreaming. Here we don’t think of prohibition because [inaudible -- "history"?] has even oppressed our capacity to dream. Look at the movies that we see all the time. It’s easy to imagine the end of the world — an asteroid destroying all of life, and so on — but we cannot imagine the end of capitalism. So what are we doing here? Let me tell you a wonderful old joke from Communist times. A guy was sent to work in East Germany from Siberia. He knew his mail would be read by censors, so he told his friends, ‘Let’s establish a code. If a letter you get from me is written in blue ink, it is true what I say; if it is written in red ink, it is false.’ After a month, his friends get a first letter. Everything is in blue. It says, this letter: ‘Everything is wonderful here. The stores are full of good food, movie theatres show good films from the West, apartments are large and luxurious. The only thing you cannot find is red ink.’ This is how we live. We have all the freedoms we want, but what we are missing is red ink: the language to articulate our non-freedom. The way we are taught to speak about freedom, ‘war on terror,’ and so on, falsifies freedom. And this is what you are doing here: You are giving all of us red ink.
“There is a danger: Don’t fall in love with yourselves. We have a nice time here. But remember: Carnivals come cheap. What matters is the day after when we will have to return to normal life. Will there be any changes then? I don’t want you to remember these days, you know, like, ‘Oh, we were young, it was beautiful…’ Remember that our basic message is, ‘We are allowed to think about alternatives.’ A taboo is broken. We do not live in the best possible world. But there is a long road ahead. There are truly difficult questions that confront us. We know what we do not want, but what do we want? What social organization can replace capitalism? What type of new leaders do we want? Remember: The problem is not corruption or greed; the problem is the system which pushes you to be corrupt. Beware not only of the enemies, but also of false friends who are already working to dilute this process in the same way you get coffee without caffeine, beer without alcohol, ice cream without fat. They will try to make this into a harmless moral protest, a decaffeinated protest. But the reason we are here is that we have had enough of the world where to recycle Coke cans to give a couple of dollars to charity, or to buy a Starbucks cappuccino where one percent goes to Third World starving children is enough to make us feel good. After outsourcing work and torture [inaudible -- calls for "mic check"]… We can see that for a long time, we allowed our political engagement also to be outsourced. We want it back.
“We are not Communists, if Communism means the system which collapsed in 1990. Remember that today those Communists are the most efficient, ruthless capitalists. In China today we have a capitalism which is even more dynamic than your American capitalism but doesn’t need democracy, which means, when you criticism capitalism, don’t allow yourselves to be blackmailed that you are ‘against democracy.’ The marriage between democracy and capitalism is over. A change is possible.
“Now, what we consider today possible — just follow the media. On the one hand is technology and sexuality — everything seems to be possible. You can travel to the moon, you can become immortal by biogenetics, you can have sex with animals or whatever. But look at the field of society and economy — there, almost everything is considered impossible. You want to raise taxes a little bit for the rich, they tell you it’s impossible. We lose competitivity. You want more money for healthcare, they tell you, ‘Impossible! This means a totalitarian state.’ Is there something wrong with the world where you are promised to be immortal but they cannot spend a little more for healthcare? Maybe we have to set our priorities straight. We don’t want higher standards of living; we want better standards of living. The only sense in which we are Communists is that we care for the commons: the commons of nature, the commons of what is privatized by intellectual property, the commons of biogenetics. For this, and only for this, we should fight. Communism failed absolutely, but the problems of the commons are here. They are telling you we are not American here, but the conservative fundamentalists who claim they are ‘really’ Americans have to be reminded of something: What is Christianity? It’s the Holy Spirit. What is the Holy Spirit? It’s an egalitarian community of believers who are linked by love for each other and who only have their own freedom and responsibility to do it. In this sense the Holy Spirit is here now, and down there on Wall Street there are millions [?] who are worshiping blasphemous idols. So all we need is patience.
“The only thing I’m afraid of is that we will someday just go home, and then we will meet once a year, drinking beer and nostalgically remembering what a nice time we had here. Promise ourselves that this will not be the case. You know that people often desire something but do not really want it. Don’t be afraid to really want what you desire.”
rough transcript from http://carlygsdrafts.wordpress.com/
rough transcript from http://www.disinfo.com/