We're half-awake in a fake empire.

[beautemillesimee]

When I grow up I want to be a faggot, nigger, cunt, whore, Jew, spic, kraut, wop, sissie, whitey hippie, greedy, money-making, healthy, sweaty, hairy, masculine, quirky new waver, right wing, left wing, chicken wing, chicken shit, ass kickin, dumb fuck, nuclear physicist, Alcoholics Anonymous Counselor, psychiatrist, journalist, stink fist, romantic novelist, gay, black, cripple, junkie, HIV positive, hermaphrodite, flipper baby, overweight, anorexic, king, queen, pawnbroker, stock broker, pot smoker, (all is swell, less is more, God is gay, harpoon a catch) journalist, rock journalist, stuffy, cranky, middle-aged, bitter, little, scrawny, opinionated, old, booking agent and editor of a fanzine that segregates the small percent into a smaller percent.”

Kurt Cobain (via aeloquence)

[deactiavtedhookedonsemiotics]

I’m writing this manifesto to show that you can perform contrary actions at the same time, in one single, fresh breath; I am against action; as for continual contradiction, and affirmation too, I am neither for nor against them, and I won’t explain myself because I hate common sense.

Tristan Tzara, Dada Manifesto (via davidwpritchard)

[80sfreak]

[weavestorylines-blog]

“Moonlighting” was a favourite of mine back in the day (I caught the reruns in the '90s). I’m doing a re-watch of the show right now. For a show made in the '80s (I've never been a huge fan of the '80s), the storylines and dialogue hold up because they aren't topical (one reason why topical shows like "Murphy Brown" and "30 Rock" age like hell). Surprisingly, even the fourth wall breakers in the vein of the "Road to..." movies hold up somewhat well. The banter is as fresh as ever, the chemistry is sizzling, and the one-liners are hilarious (eg. Maddie: "You have the morals of a rabbit, the character of a slug, the brain of a platypus."; David: "You could have fooled me." Maddie: "A gnat with a lobotomy could fool you!"). Sure, I liked Bruce Willis' fast-talking, modernized version of the private eye, but what I loved most about the show back then (and still do), apart from the banter between its two protagonists, was the character of Maddie Hayes. A strong, intelligent, bossy, feisty, funny woman. It’s hard to miss the similarities between Maddie and Carole Lombard - eg. that mischievous “twinkle” in their eye and the fast-paced put downs delivered with an obvious amusement. As it turns out Cybill Shepherd, who of course plays Maddie, was and is a fan of the ’30s (and ’40s) screwball comedies (as am I). She was the one who suggested to Bruce Willis and the show’s producers to watch “His Girl Friday”, “The Philadelphia Story” and a bunch of other classic screwball comedies so that they would all get a feel of the show they were making. And, of course, the show itself became a template for a slew of male/female-centered shows like "The X-Files" and "Bones." But Moonlighting will always be the first show of this type I watched, and I will always look back on it with an unmatched fondness. I came across an old article which summarizes my feelings about Maddie Hays. Here's an excerpt:

"Sexy to Cybill is “obvious intelligence, energy, patience and especially humor.” Cybill’s fun too, says [Peter] Bogdanovich. “She made me scream with laughter the first time I met her. She has such a twinkle in her eye.” Few of Shepherd’s films brought out that quality, though Moonlighting does. [S]he is showing the public what her men have seen in private all along. Bossy, bitchy, beautiful, yes, but hilarious too. She shares her madcap quality with Maddie, the ex-model turned detective, whom she plays on the show. “Maddie is a million miles away from the ice bitches I tend to play. I’m finally funny,” says Shepherd with a satisfied smile. She’s thrilled that a few critics have compared her to Carole Lombard. “Cybill is terribly strong,” says Moonlighting’s executive producer Glenn Caron. “That’s why we had to find a co-star who could plant his feet, look her in the eye and hold his own.”" [x]

[weavestorylines-blog]

austinkleon:

“The truth is just a plain picture.”

Bob Dylan, Interview with Time Magazine

I’m always fascinated by this part of D.A. Pennebaker’s fantastic documentary of Bob Dylan’s 1965 British Concert Tour. Dylan is 24. A gnarly Jewish kid from Minnesota who walked out of the Midwest and reinvented himself as a myth. He’s absolutely arrogant and absolutely brilliant.

I’ve never been in Time magazine, and yet this hall’s filled twice…. I don’t need Time magazine…. If I want to find out anything, I’m not going to read Time magazine, I’m not going to read Newsweek. I’m not going to read any of these magazines. I mean, because they’ve just got too much to lose by printing the truth. You know that…. Really the truth is just a plain picture. A plain picture of, let’s say, a tramp vomiting in the sewer. You know, and next door to the picture Mr. Rockefeller or Mr. C. W. Jones on the subway going to work. You know, any kind of picture. Just make a collage of pictures.

[weavestorylines-blog]

No doubt it is around this word “knowledge” that there exists the ambiguous point that we have to stress today. ... Last year I described knowledge as "the enjoyment of the Other." ... Repetition has a certain relationship with the limit of this subject and this knowledge, which is called enjoyment (jouissance). This is why it is a logical articulation that is at stake in the formula that "knowledge is the enjoyment of the Other." Of the Other, of course, in so far as – for there is no other Other – the intervention of the signifier makes it emerge as a field. You will no doubt tell me that here, in sum, we are still going around in circles – the signifier, the Other, knowledge, the signifier, the Other, knowledge, etc. But this is where the term enjoyment enables us to show the point of insertion of the system. In doing this we are no doubt going outside what is authentically involved in knowledge, what is recognisable as knowledge, and are referring ourselves to the limits, to an outside field, the one that Freud's word dares to confront. ... Mathematical logic teaches us, makes us take the step that there is an impossible to be proved as true in every system, whatever it may be, even at a certain level of elevation – one can hardly say that arithmetic is too much – that there is something impossible that demonstrates the true. Here we hold the real. Do not place your trust in the truth, it has a relationship to what? Not to knowledge certainly but precisely to this real. It was the way to orient oneself towards this real, as long as one did not have any other means. This indeed is the reason why it can only be expressed in a half-saying.

Jacques Lacan, Seminar XVIII; translated by Cormac Gallagher.

[beetleinabox]

[weavestorylines-blog]

beetleinabox:

Photograph of Jacques Lacan, presumably taken during his eighteenth seminar (“D’un discours qui ne serait pas du semblant” [On a discourse that would not be semblance]) in 1970-71.

Stanley Cavell writes:

There is nothing we cannot say. That doesn’t mean that we can say everything; there is no “everything” to be said. There is nothing we cannot know. That does not mean that we can know everything; there is no everything, no totality of facts or things, to be known.

Stanley Cavell, The Claim of Reason (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), p 239

[six5seven]

Visit Original Link

[weavestorylines-blog]

technicolorguernica:

Stevie Wonder - I Was Made to Love Her

[cinderalla-deactivated20120202]

Visit Original Link

[weavestorylines-blog]

cinderalla:

Sonic Youth - Bull in the Heather

[ntuepiphany-blog]

Joyce (adding) vs. Beckett (subtraction)

[weavestorylines-blog]

ntuepiphany:

"It was Maurice Nadeau who said it was an influence ab contrario. I realized that Joyce had gone as far as one could in the direction of knowing more, in control of one’s material. He was always adding to it; you only have to look at his proofs to see that. I realised that my own way was impoverishment, in lack of knowledge and in taking away, subtracting rather than adding. When I first met Joyce, I didn’t intend to be a writer. That only came later when I found out that I was no good at all at teaching."

- Samuel Beckett

[japanshoes]

[weavestorylines-blog]

"Kipple is useless objects, like junk mail or match folders after you use the last match or gum wrappers or yesterday's homeopape. When nobody's around, kipple reproduces itself. For instance, if you to go bed leaving any kipple around your apartment, when you wake up there is twice as much of it. It always gets more and more. "There's the First Law of Kipple... 'Kipple drives out nonkipple.' ... We can roll the kipple-factor back ... [but] no one can win against kipple, except temporarily and maybe in one spot, like in my apartment I've sort of created a stasis between the pressure of kipple and nonkipple, for the time being. But eventually ... the kipple will take over. It's a universal principle operating throughout the universe; the entire universe is moving toward a state of total, absolute kippleization." - Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

[througharcades]

Neither culture nor its destruction is erotic; it is the seam between them, the fault, the flaw, which becomes so. The pleasure of the text is like that untenable, impossible, purely novelistic instant so relished by Sade’s libertine when he manages to be hanged and then to cut the rope at the very moment of his orgasm, his bliss. Whence, perhaps, a means of evaluating the works of our modernity: their value would proceed from their duplicity. By which it must be understood that they always have two edges. The subversive edge may seem privileged because it is the edge of violence; but it is not violence which affects pleasure, nor is it destruction which interests it; what pleasure wants is the site of loss, the seam, the cut, the deflation, the dissolve which seizes the subject in the midst of bliss. Culture thus recurs as an edge: in no matter what form.

The pleasure of the text / Roland Barthes : translated by Richard Howard, p. 7 (via througharcades)

[miencuentro-deactivated20120825]

[weavestorylines-blog]

poetbabble:

sumuestro:

"For a moment a phrase tried to take shape in my mouth and my lips parted like a dumb man’s, as though there was more struggling upon them than a wisp of startled air. But they made no sound, and what I had almost remembered was uncommunicable forever."

- F.Scott Fitzgerald

[Fragment from an abandoned Image]

I’m mad about Paul’s work.  (wantwantwant)

[pamlagam-blog]

[weavestorylines-blog]

"Mathematical logic teaches us, makes us take the step that there is an impossible to be proved as true in every system whatever it may be, even at a certain level of elevation – one can hardly say that arithmetic is too much – that there is something impossible that demonstrates the true. Here we hold the real. Do not place your trust in the truth, it has a relationship to what? Not to knowledge certainly but precisely to this real. It was the way to orient oneself towards this real, as long as one did not have any other means. This indeed is the reason why it can only be expressed in a half-saying."

- Jacques Lacan, Seminar XVIII; translated by Cormac Gallagher.

[weavestorylines-blog]

From Jacques-Alain Miller's "Microscopia"

She: So, it certainly is simple: one can say whatever one likes!

I: Analytic experience has no other principle -- that's what Freud called free association. Say everything! What one finds, however, is that "one is unable to do so." A logic is at work which prohibits it. That is the very meaning, if I dare say, of the unconscious. That's what leads Freud to speak in Inhibition, Symptom, Anxiety, of primal repression, which is as such impossible to eliminate. It is not a question of simple incapacity, but rather of impossibility. Incapacity can be sensed; impossibility takes the form of conclusion -- derived from the whole course of an analysis. And when you thus encounter impossibility, you encounter reality -- not "external reality," but a reality in some sense within discourse which results from its impasses. This impasse-reality is what Lacan, in his terms, calls the "real." Let us grant him that much: the real is the impossible. When discourse runs up against something, falters, and can go no further, encountering a "there is no" -- and that by its own logic -- that's the real. According to antiquity's definition, truth is related to the real as adequatio rei intellectus, correspondence of the thing to the mind. But if the truth is not that at all, nor exactitude, either truth is no related to any real whatsoever, or it is related to the real but by the impossible to say.

She: This real of Lacan's which cannot be said but about which one must speak -- isn't it what Freud simply called "trauma"?

I: Lacan's real is always traumatic; it is a hole is discourse; Lacan said "trou-matique"" [literally "hole-matic"]; in English one could perhaps say "no whole without a hole"? I would be inclined to translate Lacan's "pas-tout" -- one of his categories -- by (w)hole.

She: The real is not at all reality as it is usually understood.

I: No, not at all. The real depends upon the logic of discourse, the latter delimiting or closing in on the real with its impasses; thus the real is not a "thing-in-itself," nor does it constitute a whole; for Lacan there are only "bits-of-real."

[mygravitationalcollapse-deactiv]

There are two kinds of truth: the truth that lights the way and the truth that warms the heart. The first of these is science, and the second is art. Neither is independent of the other or more important than the other. Without art, science would be as useless as a pair of high forceps in the hands of a plumber. Without science art would become a crude mess of folklore and emotional quackery. The truth of art keeps science from becoming inhuman, and the truth of science keeps art from becoming ridiculous.

Raymond Chandler

Further explained by Bjork.

[poetryeater]

from Adam Zagajewski, "How Does the Man Look Who's Right"

[weavestorylines-blog]

poetryeater:

does he talk to himself does he live in an old man’s rented body how much unrest does this cubicle cost him is he an exile from what city is it curiosity that drives him is it worth it who answers for this what’s that stain on his coat who stands behind him could you tell him that everything is relative depending on how you look at it no one knows how it really is see if you can recognize him as he crosses the street hunched beneath the weight of brains 

[thenmyrasaid]

Every morning brings us news of the globe, and yet we are poor in noteworthy stories. This is because no event comes to us without being already shot through with explanation. In other words, by now almost nothing that happens benefits storytelling; almost everything benefits information. Actually, it is half the art of storytelling to keep a story free from explanation as one reproduces it… . The most extraordinary things, marvelous things, are related with the greatest accuracy, but the psychological connection of the event is not forced on the reader. It is left up to him to interpret things the way he understands them, and thus the narrative achieves an amplitude that information lacks.

Walter Benjamin (via thenmyrasaid)