tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37140179.post6865128970423548258..comments2023-07-14T08:40:52.761-07:00Comments on the rabbit eater: Creative Taxonomycatminthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02817599862112800290noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37140179.post-68426868048750924442007-06-28T13:42:00.000-07:002007-06-28T13:42:00.000-07:00Zizek never writes about Time Tunnel - but it's a ...Zizek never writes about <I>Time Tunnel</I> - but it's a concrete expression of these thought processes<BR/><BR/>it's natural that one week you identify yourself as a roman aristocrat, the next as a bolshevik revolutionary, and so onAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37140179.post-43462745295368826122007-06-27T14:02:00.000-07:002007-06-27T14:02:00.000-07:00thanks Chabertyes, that's the sort of thingthanks Chabert<BR/><BR/>yes, that's the sort of thingAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37140179.post-85614759886678191872007-06-27T14:01:00.000-07:002007-06-27T14:01:00.000-07:00"What do you mean? As soon as you dramatize anythi..."What do you mean? As soon as you dramatize anything, whether in Buffy or in the Wuthering Heights, you've obfuscated genuinely scientific ideas about human consciousness???"<BR/><BR/>well, I'm talking about Jung's essay here, though maybe I didn't make that clear. I had this Jung book I bought in a booksale and got it out because Jung's division of humanity into thinking types and feeling types reminded me of Malcolm Bull's four part division: humanists; philistines, peasants, technocrats. I'm actually quite seduced by Jung's book (it's "Man and his Symbols") by Jung and some of his students) - I think it's actually enjoyable as art, but I don't think Jung was right.<BR/><BR/>"And what are genuine ideas about human consciousness away?"<BR/><BR/>while we literally don't know how the brain works I think it's crazy to theorise plural psychologies (e.g. thinking types/feeling types)when it's possible to work with only one sort of type. I wouldn't accept plural types without clear evidence and I don't believe there's been any.<BR/><BR/>I think Vygoysky was more on the right track though I haven't had a chance to read his books<BR/><BR/>"that's far-fetched. For this conclusion to make any sense, you have to accept that the art object in question is only subject to Marxist analysis!"<BR/><BR/>I think it's possible Jung does want to justify division of labour. I think there's an archaic genre of social exegis that Jung's work relates to, through an overt affinity. I think there's a lot of examples from the middle ages / renaissance of works imagining society as being constructed like an organism. Up to Hobbes ["NATURE (the Art whereby God hath made and governes the World) is by the <I>Art</I> of man, as in many other things, so in this also imitated, that it can make an Artificial Animal"], then the physiocrats, the economists, Hegel's authoritarian society. I think Le Colonel wrote something about this, a while ago.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37140179.post-3685459133720896562007-06-18T04:53:00.000-07:002007-06-18T04:53:00.000-07:001. obfuscating genuinely scientific ideas about hu...1. obfuscating genuinely scientific ideas about human consciousness<BR/><BR/>What do you mean? As soon as you dramatize anything, whether in Buffy or in the Wuthering Heights, you've obfuscated genuinely scientific ideas about human consciousness??? And what are genuine ideas about human consciousness away?<BR/><BR/>2. offering spurious justifications for the political application of division of labour<BR/><BR/>that's far-fetched. For this conclusion to make any sense, you have to accept that the art object in question is only subject to Marxist analysis!<BR/><BR/>3. eternalising and mystifying historically conditioned states of human development<BR/><BR/>but all art does that to greater or lesser extent!<BR/><BR/>4. offering spurious justification for the idea that humanity is comprehended by its philosophers, and by implication that society is comprehended by its owners<BR/><BR/>"as if the world and the psyche were static and would remain so forever"<BR/><BR/>conclusion? Abolish art!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37140179.post-87489290408262627732007-06-17T18:03:00.000-07:002007-06-17T18:03:00.000-07:00Which Blattant Beast are you most like? Which mode...Which Blattant Beast are you most like? Which modern poet...? <BR/><BR/>In the Guardian somebody writes if Norman Mailer=the American Byron, Gore Vidal= The American Wilde and on another page another asks himself does George Cloony = our era's Carey Grant? But could Madonna = Lord Byron, this not yet examined...Le Colonel Chaberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18090919492176021408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37140179.post-16444337359206321022007-06-17T15:21:00.000-07:002007-06-17T15:21:00.000-07:00I think there are definitely good things in Bull. ...I think there are definitely good things in Bull. He's very creative. But I feel he's got something of the aesthetic of the period he writes about - Titian to Poussin - technique (manière) for its own sake without the testing needed in scientific work. This is partly what makes him a stylish writer. And sometime he <I>is</I> right.<BR/><BR/>"Some, indeed, escape into lusciousness and pageant, like Spenser, whose <I>Faerie Queene</I>, however, no one ever read." (Pessoa)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37140179.post-75646851280893436382007-06-17T12:14:00.000-07:002007-06-17T12:14:00.000-07:00apparently voluntaryhttp://quizfarm.com/test.php?q...apparently voluntary<BR/><BR/>http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=4215Le Colonel Chaberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18090919492176021408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37140179.post-53443109471633210992007-06-17T12:11:00.000-07:002007-06-17T12:11:00.000-07:00thanks! great, gotcha, yes.re: Bull, naively pract...thanks! great, gotcha, yes.<BR/><BR/>re: Bull, naively practising this (kitsch and elite art; modernism and postmodernism; philistine and aesthete etc); it's a pose, as "playing out the hand with (tarot)cards dealt" sort of manoeuvre (I think), and performative. (there are better strategies assuredly).<BR/><BR/>"...society comprehended by its philosophers...owners" - exactly. And thus the taxonomy kit (in many forms, web questionnaire, fan forums, pop psych personality books, role playing games, who are you on buffy? on trek? in nietzsche? which sephirot? it's astrology) is also a popular commodity in itself.Le Colonel Chaberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18090919492176021408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37140179.post-1078679767826037332007-06-17T09:49:00.000-07:002007-06-17T09:49:00.000-07:00...this undertaking: dividing humanity into separa......this undertaking: dividing humanity into separate species, the coherence of each identity being derived from the dialectic of desire induced in the interpellated spectator (I'm like Buffy/I'm not like Buffy)...<BR/><BR/>...this undertaking, it's substituting the logic of charlatanism for that of science. I think Bull does this naïvely, as a sort of ornament (he's not a scientist after all), but you can find the same thing in Jung. This is how Jung's aesthetic works.catminthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02817599862112800290noreply@blogger.com