Deconstructing The Lulz

hollovv replied to your post: hollovv replied to your post: An excerpt from my…

Yeah I liked LoS and Expressionism the best so far, then Diff and Rep. The Nietzsche book is actually the best (and i’ve heard this from others who aren’t so well-versed in Nietzsche) of introducing his thought FYI

I’ll have to keep that in mind. I’ve stayed away from his engagements with specific philosophers for the most part because, for most of them, I’m not necessarily well versed enough to understand what he’s doing to those authors (that’s what happened when I picked up “Expressionism”. I was just like “Hey, I’m taking Spinoza this fall, but I’ve never read anything by him: this will totally be a great thing to try and get into”).

And I wanted to read Logic of Sense and Difference and Repetition because that’s what I saw DeLanda cite over and over again when I was reading stuff by him (he was my ‘in’ to Deleuze).

hollovv replied to your post: An excerpt from my day:

hahahah I just bought Anti-Oedipus and I keep staring at it and then going “nawwwwwww”

Yeah, as I just said to mouth: it’s probably really good, but it’s kind of boring me right now?

I’d really rather read Logic of Sense and Difference and Repetition more (along with his “Expressionism in the philosophy of Spinoza” or whatever it’s called). Even though it’s really good, something about it doesn’t work for me quite right. I don’t know.

I’m kind of on a philosophy binge right now anyway, so I’m just reading everything under the sun.

hollovv replied to your post: teaandthorazine replied to your post: Oh, also,…

Hatewizard, actually! Although I have posted some :)

Ah, yes, that’s right. I just saw some of it coming from the both of you but couldn’t remember who first posted.

And to respond to your other comment: yeah, I’m probably going to have to get some of his stuff, especially since my interest in Brassier is growing. If nothing else, if I don’t like the content, I like his style. It seems like he writes like an Of Montreal song (as I somewhat said in that post), which I am totally for, since Of Montreal comes up with some of the best lines anywhere.

I mean “the sex in my walk was cottonsoft” is one of the best lines I’ve heard in a song.

guydeboring:

hollovv replied to your post: Someone cat called me from his car when I was…

hahahah this is just like how before I started boxing and bros would talk shit I would walk up and kiss them on the cheek

That’s the best. I love messing with overly macho dudes.

My old housemate and I were walking home the morning after a really drunken night at our friend’s and I was wearing his hoodie because it was cold and like 5 in the morning, and these bros drove by us in a big truck and yelled “fucking faggots” out the window. Then we started jokingly shaking our fists in the air, so they pulled over and we started running toward them. They drove off like they were making the jump into hyperspace.

There was this guy in high school (super macho stereotype) that was wearing a sign around his neck that said something like “You know you want to ask me on a date”. So I walked up to him and flirted with him, and then asked him on a date, and then he got all uncomfortable and just walked away. Probably called me a ‘faggot’ or something too (that happened a lot in high school).

It was fucking hilarious though. I laughed for a good long time.

hollovv replied to your post: hollovv replied to your post: hookedonsemiotics…

well I guess harvey has the ‘rights to the city’ thing or whatever but yeah I see what you mean. Just get the big red Marx book and read straight through, that’s what I did. Not so bad in my opinion.

Totally. Again, it’s an issue of when I’ll actually be able to get to it. I have a copy of Capital I’m going to get through eventually but…eventually.

Besides, I tend to read better, personally, when I’m also reading a few authors’ views on a persons work. It helps me contextualize stuff better, and understand the flow of a person’s argument more (something that doesn’t always click for me on a first read through), than if I had just read a single book straight. That could just be me though.

hollovv replied to your post: hookedonsemiotics replied to your post:…

honestly harvey ain’t saying anything marx isn’t already explicitly saying from what i’ve read

I get that, but I also haven’t read much Marx (I’m a really terrible Marxist, I’ll be the first to say that), so I think he could help me in understanding him. That’s what I’m looking at him for - being able to help me understand Marx better and better contextualize it within modern politics/against neoliberalism.

hollovv replied to your post: hookedonsemiotics replied to your post: Actually,…

to me, authenticity makes sense in culture if you’re talking about self-production vs. appropriation by the culture industry

I don’t know, though. Just to make sure, are you talking about the difference between, like, being-in a culture, and producing things (artworks, inventions, whatever) within those boundaries vs. some capitalist mode of production highjacking some notion of culture and producing watered down artifacts of it? Is that kind of what you were getting at? (I ask, because I have a feeling I’m reading you wrong here.)

I’d still have a problem then, though. Like, I don’t think the division between the former and the latter there is between the former being more ‘authentic’ and the latter being somehow derivative. I understand how that conception of things could be useful (capitalism ruins authentic self-production, thus another nail in the coffin of capitalism), but I don’t think it’s right. To put it simply: there’s something obviously wrong with the movement between that former mode of production and the latter, but I don’t think it hinges on an axis of authenticity.

hollovv replied to your post: hollovv replied to your post: hollovv replied to…

hahahahah I am such a horse’s ass. I agree completely.

I wasn’t going to reply to this, but then I realized how your reply popped up on my dash and couldn’t help myself.

I don’t know why this made me laugh so much.

hollovv replied to your post: hollovv replied to your post: I just read a post…

authenticity the way everyone is using it today or in a heideggerian sense? hahahahah

Ha, sorry, I should have clarified considering the discussion.

Since we’re talking Heidegger, I guess I should say the form of ‘authenticity’ used in the pre-ontological discourse of the They in their everyday being-there.

But yeah, I meant the general sense of authenticity.

hollovv replied to your post: I just read a post on here discussing sincerity,…

see: my reply to david concerning authenticity hahahahaha

Definitely.

Actually, I’m really enjoying this whole discussion on ‘authenticity’. I’m pretty much in agreement all around. Authenticity is a really stupid concept, but one that I play into all the time unknowingly, since the gap between knowing a problem with language and actually taking steps to avoid/solve that problem in day-to-day speech is a fucking huge gap.