map

wrinkly coma

when i came across this anagram finder this evening, i typed in my name, anxious and hoping to discover something interesting about it. my findings were less than impressive: my name anagrams to “wrinkly coma“.

anarcho-primitivists, break your glasses!

john zerzan’s recent essay on silence, published in the green anarchy journal, though seemingly impressive (mostly due to his excessive name-dropping)¹, is about as ridiculous as anything he’s ever written — especially when it comes to proposing actual revolutionary change (not that i endorse zerzan’s primitive, anti-technology vision).  here he advocates the end of civilization, language and “symbolic thought”² by means of silence – which he calls “a powerful tool of resistance” — so why doesn’t he just take his own advice and shut up?  this is another example of his (but not only his) hypocrisy, of how these anarcho-primitivists (not to mention most anarchists in general) aren’t at all serious about undertaking political action of any kind (much less revolution) — and are disappointingly, pitifully ineffective in this regard.  it’s clear from this essay on “silence” that zerzan hasn’t a clue as to what would constitute a “powerful tool of resistance”, that he hasn’t even begun to consider the practical means of achieving the radical changes he desires (not to mention the devastating social consequences such changes would entail).

here he is, john zerzan, leader of the anti-technology, anti-civilization/primitivist movement, wearing eye-glasses — a clear indication that even he does not take these views seriously.  zerzan wants to turn our attention to the environmental costs that go into technological items (such as glasses)³, but away from the incredible human devastation entailed by the kind of radical change he envisions.  eliminating all technology (from eyeglasses to… agriculture)  would undoubtedly result in the wholesale starvation of millions and millions of people.⁴  at least zerzan has been honest enough to admit that, regarding his eye-glasses (presumably mass produced by the same evil industrial-technological system he deplores), “i’d certainly be lost without them” (his defense is that “civilization” is responsible for poor eyesight: he writes, “the bushmen… can see four moons of jupiter with the unaided eye”).  zerzan’s friend, the unabomber, also wears glasses. ⁵  my point is this: how can you ask us to give up “civilization” when you won’t even give up your glasses?

zerzan truly does deserve an award for being perhaps the most radical theorist, for being way the fuck out there …in his opposition to the “system”.  who else would go so far as to actually challenge all of civilization (including language, “symbolic thought”, etc.)?  however, the truth is that zerzan has no intention of undertaking the revolutionary changes he proposes (and thank god, since the result would be disastrous), and that this makes a mockery of radical thought that actually does (hope to) inspire revolutionary political action.

1. zerzan drops maybe 50 names in this short (2,000 word) essay, mentioning all the right (fashionable) people, from socrates to aristotle, hegel, hölderlin, wagner, schopenhauer, nietzsche, heidegger, derrida, levinas, wittgenstein, and so on… [↩]
2. zerzan truly does deserve an award for being perhaps the most radical theorist, for being way the fuck out there …in his opposition to the “system”.  who else would go so far as to actually challenge all of civilization (including language, “symbolic thought”, etc.)?  however, the truth is that zerzan has no intention of undertaking the revolutionary changes he proposes (and thank god, since the result would be diastrous), and that this makes a mockery of radical thought that actually does (hope to) inspire revolutionary political action. [↩]
3. some of zerzan’s writings are available here, here, and here. [↩]
4. i am unaware of any instance in his work where zerzan has addressed and/or refuted this argument. [↩]
5. in contrast to zerzan, kaczynski cannot be criticized for not taking his radical views seriously or for not accepting the horrendous consequences of translating them into practice. [↩]

mismatched footwear

i think it was obvious to everyone tonight (to anyone that may have paid me any attention) that i don’t go out often.  it was nice (i’ll admit this much) to accept, for once, an invitation to go out with my friends (for drinks).  it’s been awhile (probably since my last first date …in september) that i tried on more than one shirt in front of a mirror, debating what to wear, before leaving the house.  the purpose was not to admire myself but to select an outfit that would not call too much attention to myself (to the fact that i don’t go out often).  i ended up choosing my normal getup (jeans and a shirt) and it seems i had chosen well.  either everyone was extremely polite or i was very lucky no one noticed my incredibly mismatched footwear.  after i returned home (alone) and before climbing into bed (alone), i looked down and saw that i was wearing a blue sneaker on my left foot and a leather bowling shoe on my right (i obviously forgot to check what was on my feet before going out). though i’m grateful no one noticed (or pointed this mistake out to me), i’m still troubled: what does it mean that i could have done such a thing?  is there any hope for me when even simply dressing myself is this hard?

Two Faces or a Vase?

I’ve been trying to find an easier way to explain Lacan’s notion of “sexual difference”, by referring to something other than Lacan’s formulas of sexuation. (These quasi-mathematical formulas, often cited by critics of Lacan’s obscurantism (which he openly defended, I learn, from the entire section devoted to Lacan in the Wikipedia entry on “Obscurantism”!) take some time to translate and understand.) The moebius strip immediately came to mind, but the topology of this figure is really just as difficult and complex as the formulas.The optical illusion shown above seemed like another option; it actually illustrates Lacan’s claim that “there is no sexual relation” quite well (insofar as one can discern either two faces or a vase, but never both).

Reject Politics of Fear

American Idol and Presidential Politics

How can I expect Barack Obama to win the election in a country where citizens are voting week after week for an asshole like David Cook? It’s so gross that he’s balding.

Clinton: Worst in Politics

I’ve noticed a few politicians and their spokespersons employ this sophisticated level of manipulation, Republicans. But the Clintons elevate this into an art form. Tell me if this makes ANY SENSE whatsoever:

Clinton aides struck back with attack lines of their own, accusing Obama of going viciously negative out of sheer desperation.

“Sheer desperation”? You’ve got to be kidding! Obama’s won more states, more delegates and more of the popular vote. Hillary has no chance of winning the nomination, yet Obama’s the desperate one?

“The path that they’ve chosen is quite clear,” said Howard Wolfson, Clinton’s press secretary. “The Obama campaign is going to attack Sen. Clinton, they are going to engage in a full assault, they are going to engage in Republican talking points to pursue it… Rather than choosing to build Sen. Obama up, they have chosen to tear Sen. Clinton down.”

Isn’t this what Republican’s do? They level the EXACT SAME thing they themselves are guilty of at their political opponents. Anyone who’s been paying attention to the news knows that it’s the Clinton campaign that has been conducting a “full assault” on Obama, including exploiting the racial divisions in this country, to tear Sen. Obama down. And EVERYBODY knows, for Christ’s sake, that Obama has maintained his integrity throughout his campaign, refusing to be pulled down in the mud. I’ve never had so low an opinion of the Clintons, she’s the dirtiest politician of modern times, far worse than Karl Rove.. Clinton’s campaign has incited a full scale race war in this country, simply in order to further her own political ambition and it is absolutely fucking fucking disgusting. I hate her.

Whiteboard

Did you ever notice what a difference the ease of your writing instrument makes while writing? My favorite brand of pens — Uniball Signo RT GEL (even though I have to go out of my way to get them because they’re no longer sold at office supply stores) are so thin — .38 mm! — and write so neatly, but they’re not exactly easy to use. (It doesn’t take a genius, that’s not what I mean.) My hand actually gets tired fairly quickly writing with them in class! But dry-erase markers are so slippery and fun to use… I bought a dry-erase whiteboard and I really enjoy using it. Great blog post!