Search Shitty Bear's Corner

31 October, 2010

A Deconstructionist and Satan in the Lions Den (playing Xiangqi) [work in progress]

I yelled, Move to the deconstructionist
who started to dance, and giggle, and wiggle
that smart ass never saw it coming
right up from behind his back taken down by a lion
that's about the moment I started my dance,
(for) I just knew that's how it had to go down,
that I had won,
finally proved by predicting the nature of what would happen,
of what would likely happen, if I yelled move instead of run,
quite predicable, yes indeed,
so predictable, as I turned 'round to leave,
to my demise
there was a lion,
how long had he been waiting,
so that I may see my death coming,
one second sitting, the next minute
finally
when it meant (I could do) nothing

29 October, 2010

St. Augustine's Kingdom of Heaven, the promise of eternal ecstasy

Next week we will laying plans for turning St. Augustine's Kingdom of Heaven into a Rave Scene. Rumor has it that we already have a steady supply of MDMA. It is promised that our new bodies will produce the most emasculate constant trans-orgasmic-high(s)*.

*the 's' is in brackets, for it is not certain at this juncture, whether plurality of states will be possible in our new form, or if it even makes sense. There is need to pray for greater understanding, and yet we are counselled against this very thing, this very wish, which is an evil in our hearts. And verily because of this uncertainty the prosaic problem remains in the shadows, lurking in the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of Heaven the Light of Pure Reason, and still there are shadows, places where doubt can play its game. Nor is it certain that with the end of procreation and the emptying of the guff (well of souls) that we will experience sexuality as we know it. This also brings back in the problem of sterility, perhaps even the realization of a trans-homosexuality, inclusive to a sameness in what we once understood as gender, undercutting the promise of ecstasy and pointing towards a lesser Platonic joy. What would (will) Jesus do?

Of course, none of this holds true for Mormons, as the men will all become Creators themselves. Eternally embraced and restored to their family. Death parts, but cannot break the unity of marriage, that which G d cleaved with his Love. But I wonder, is sex still fun? Or is that just something that dirty little creatures do? And if they (the creatures) have a soul, even a world, then its always already on its way to hell.

Material Manifestation of the Living State: douche-go

I had to listen to a talk about a strong State and Ethics. About Hegel and Freud, the realization of Ethics as a quest towards or with an understanding of the universal as some type of Kantian Noumena, which sounded a bit weird considering Hegel. I was under the impression that in Hegel's view he overcomes Kant's flaw(s), expressed explicitly in The Phenomenology of Spirit, but that was not the shit that pissed me off. Nor is it that she is seriously using Freud as psychology, and thinks that that structure still holds, with its repressive function, seemingly oblivious to Lacan reconceptualization of the super-ego, in its duality. No, what pissed me off was the capture by the state, and her just telling a story, which sounded almost exactly like Kleist's tale, Michael Kohlhaas. D&G mention exactly what I saw in her presentation, in their Nomadic War Machine essay. I looked it up after the fact, trying to find out if Hegel responded or even mentioned Kleist in his writings. Yet this girls project!

The way she explained it, if I can summarize what I recall. Basically there is a contract, which is always unjust, the injustice is brought to a head, the illness made worse, as proscribed by Freud as the correct way to proceed in the initial faze of treatment, even though our neurosis is un-curable and treatment interminable. The contract is violated by the capitalist, and the wronged turn to justice which becomes greater, of a higher right or priority, than the right to property, and hence allows through what amounts to criminal, or rather Heroic behavior to make the singularity of each person's symptom as universal, contained within the law, instead of excluded or produced by it, and hence making justice ethical in a way never before. Oh, maybe when the Late Ancient Greeks where around.

As usual its this fairy tale Greek shit. Yet there would be no Sparta or Athens with out much that we would not desire, and why have a word like citizen, unless someone is not a citizen, perhaps they are a slaves. And this shit is not evolutionary theory, Hegel just makes it seem like it is. His trick is the form of the dialectic (a sort of syllogism perhaps) and setting up the terms by emptying them, and then refilling. But because of this the presenter brought in the idea of the Good. And while Rawls does the same shit in his work, by setting the initial condition to give him the desired outcomes, by cutting other avenues of logical outgrowth short, as not to end, unlike Hegel and Kojeve, Qeauneau's, End of History, nor does Rawls depend or require the Good. He does look towards Aristotle but uses a deontological method unlike Hegel, who in this essay, where we have the Good, and a dialectic stacking of the deck. Any way the Greeks are hardly one people, you really need to be specific in my opinion.

So, by showing the inherent injustice of forced affiliation, contract, (which is assumed, as from the gun point of the myth of the state of nature, which she takes for granted as real [enough, for a founding myth], and which had a Hume like tone to it, although I think she mentioned Rousseau, which fits with the inherent yin and yang, yang yin of opposite, for Rousseau, we are born free but in chains, law of man sets us free), and this is accomplished, brought through by individual (?) Heroic measures and action, which successively reaffirmed, until the synthesis and thereby fulfillment (?) of what was an incomplete justice. She had the double negation of the empty self, at first empty, then its singularity (my word) or neurosis (her word) actives being another negation in the realization of universal justice (like absolute justice, in the Hegelian sense) or ethical state. Anyway, I hope I explained it well enough. But of course I let the presenter know that I disagreed...

25 October, 2010

Black Voters 'Losing Faith' in Obama


More at The Real News

Presidential Commander and Fiend

Is that a president,
that fucking liar?
another politician
another bird on the wire

promises that glitter
splatter blood on your face
warm with your lies
now the flag's really a disgrace

not really a leader,
instead a commander,
empty as your words
until your blood splatters

trust me they say,
all will come clean,
is that a president,
no look closer,
a fiend
What Obama does is despicable, he promises Hope and Change delivers to us that there is none. We should thank him, for he has done us a great service.

12 October, 2010

Bomb Shelter: End days and Empire

I was around 15 or so, writing heavily as I did, then as I am now. When, again I had a premonition of sorts, a fantasy overtook me, as I forgot my poetry.

There I was, in my mid to late thirties. Stuck with a group of people, a few I remember, some I feel I know. I had my hand on the latter. Some one had to go up, risk looking outside. It was frustrating, especially because I already knew what would probably happen. But I was not yet resigned to it.

How long could we wait?

We could only hear heavy fighting, but no more. Anything could be out there. Occupation, nothing. The end of the world. An Escape. Someone had to do it, we had pressured ourselves that way, positioning was not accidental, someone has to be the one knocked into the ocean. And I was closest to the front. Like a plunge into water, I pushed my leg down and started the climb outward.

The "bomb" shelter was no more than a super-sized fuel tank, hardly any different from the ones people use to heat trailers. No way it would survive a blast, let alone anything atomic or bunker-busting. It was just something we ran into. Just big enough to fit fifteen.

I opened the hatch, and that's when I got it. Immediately, right in the head. (I am sure I touched myself as) I pulled out.

Was it true? Was this the future, a future? And for a cause, of this moment? Once, twice, in a life time, near twice and now half way away, almost now... has it passed, is it passing, are we there yet?

And Yet... and yet there is stillness here, can't you feel it, an essence like an entity moving... there is an anxiety... of ends and empire.



Are we (getting) ready?

Caption: "the secret that there is no secret is hardly a secret you know, more secret than the secret secret, 
it refuses to be divulged"---āglǣca. Above picture: Alan Watts.

11 October, 2010

tongue soup

what happens when only the Devil remains?   [details]
it is still when and not where G d once was,
the zero-mark is the 'o' of death
the most utter lack,
the pupils we are falling
the Devil and I
she lays besides me
my only divine company
this is me, imminently, a gracious catastrophe
to be awakened in terrors sweeter than dreams
sucking in air coming out quivering
sharper
life
my eyes, my face, my head
"you will no longer need these"
complexes and securities
step over the railing
step over... the railings...
[now] keep going under
beneath, belief and reason
the deep echo of a thousand years is but a story
wreckage and remains dissolve in the laps of our tongues
solvating solutions
we are being tasting
ripping through... lashing

The River of Miracles

the cells
that make the organs
that make the body
the selves
that make the selves

05 October, 2010

An Introduction to Art

We would talk about art. Art. Where to begin is a problem. But not for us, for whom it has already begun; thrown as we are into this world (and that). Was Heidegger really the first to notice this (or that)? Perhaps, because of this (and that) we should start with his view of Art. Certainly he has a view, a point or two, an opinion, if not an entire treatise on the subject of Art. Art as a subject, as an object, as neither/either n/or... and, yet. And yet this dialectic brings us back towards Hegel's work, in a certain English, as it concerns the "One" and "Also". But to what end, what end indeed, and moreover, what of the and? Deuluze and Gauttari make much of it, this and that and. And so, where are we now, how to proceed indeed, since there is no way to get back, back to the beginning. The beginning of what? Of Art.

03 October, 2010

A rationale for cannibalism... how sweet the meat of you we eat

"Every time they eat a dead man, they can say: one more the State won't get" (D&G, TP, 118).