KALLIGRAPHY: febbraio 2012

mercoledì 29 febbraio 2012

domenica 26 febbraio 2012

venerdì 24 febbraio 2012

mercoledì 22 febbraio 2012

News

Da Chip Volume 2 (2012)
The music of Daft Punk revisited on vintage game systems
www.dachip.com

Iki e' una seduzione fine a se stessa, ignara delle ossessioni
amorose, esige la liberta' di chi non si fa piu' avvincere, anche se concede il
capriccio della lieve infatuazione. Suo colore non e' il rosato dell' amore
appassionato di Stendhal, ma il beige. Iki e' opposto alla dolcezza come l'
austerita' alla goffaggine; sta all' austerita' come la distinzione alla modestia,

Confession

http://www.ilpost.it/2012/02/22/obama-canta-sweet-home-chicago/

http://intern.az/zfokB1

Confession

The key terms:
Surplus, beauty, power, hot, propulsion, oikos, charming, money, torsion, waterfall, economy, parabola, nomos, asthenia, serpent line, fragile, Obama, voodoo, latency, dissimulation, sans papiers, exercise, praise, acrobatic, debt, minimum, the end, virtuosity, insolvency, languor, tongue, lovable, vacuum, self.moving vehicle, miracle, syntax, regime, anti-, delay, intimacy, technique, the beginning, easiness, dissimulation, occasional, virtuosity, incalculable, straight down shot, greatness, ephemeral, rarefare, gazelle, epidermic, moth, opacity, gravity, simulation.

I'm here for anything else
Cristina

ANIMAUT

ATLAS PORNO

martedì 14 febbraio 2012

LOVE

Reza Negarestani on love (quote from Cyclonopedia):

Love empties all possibilities of recovery. Falling in love is a one way ticket to the end of health. Barthes suggests that love is cyclic. /…/ This cycle strikes me not as love but flirtation, flirtation with survival. /…/ But love’s sole enthusiasm lies in consuming every possibility of falling in love again. /…/ The Love-Recovery cycle that Barthes maps in his works is of course Proustian but deeply resembles the ever refining self-fertilizing cycle of Aristotle (nothing must be wasted as it is needed in the next phase of the cycle, the next love, the next recovery from the last love). /…/ Love is only thinkable as one and only one tyrannical possibility: falling in love once and for all.

cofession

"The open question is why the industry persists in denial in the face of an endless body of fact showing cl""

"The open question is why the industry persists in denial in the face of an endless body of fact showing climate change is the greatest danger we've ever faced."

The open question is why the industry persists in denial in the face of an endless body of fact showing climate change is the greatest dangf an endless body of fact showing climate change is the greatest danger we've ever faced."imate change is the greatest danger we've ever faced."

lunedì 13 febbraio 2012

specifically no immages

You know, Ayn Rand was right: Money is the strongest means or instrument for freedom. She means this: We exchange only if both parties want it. At least formally, both sides of the exchange get something. Without money, direct means of domination will need to be restored. Of course, I don’t accept her premise: either the rule of money, or direct domination. Nonetheless, isn’t there a correct point? One can criticize money as an alienated form. But how can we actually organize complex social interaction outside money without direct domination? In other words, isn’t the tragedy of 20^th century Stalinism that precisely they tried to suspend, not money, but the market, and what was the result? The re-assertion of brutal direct domination.
I’m not an optimist. I think where we are now is extremely dangerous. I think we are moving towards a much more authoritarian global apartheid society. Traditionally, for Marx, the ideal form of exploitation was through formal legal freedom. In ideal capitalist conditions there is equal, free exchange. But, more and more, capitalism can no longer sustain this. It can no longer afford freedom and equality. In the Giorgio Agamben way, some will become homo sacer. New forms of apartheid are appearing. Mike Davis’s Planet of Slums, while really naïve, has the idea that we are controlled, but there are larger and larger populations outside the control of the state: according to Davis, over one billion people already live in slums. I don’t mean only poverty. The state authority already treats these as internal zones that are left wild, wild spaces. Politically, it is as if wide spaces remain really murky. I see a tremendous problem here. What is my idea of the future? Can this go on? Terry Gilliam’s Brazil, which is half-comedy, shows this: it is half-totalitarianism, but also hedonism. A totalitarian regime, but with private pleasure. Berlusconi comes close to this: Groucho Marx in power. Also, in China, at the level of private life, no one cares about your private perversions, but just don’t mess with politics. It is no longer the typical fascist mobilization.
Anti-immigration, for instance, is not fascism. Fascism is not returning. No. This isn’t thinking in concepts but rather vague associations. This is post-ideology. Traditional fascism was ultra-ideology. Today’s predominant ideology is a Western Buddhist capitalism of, “Realize who you are.” It is permissive private hedonism with political totalitarianism.

Video | Full Lectures Available from "One Divides Into Two" Conference http://www.ici-berlin.org/docu/one-divides-into-two/

Confession

We—in the bombastic sense, humanity—will need the massive large-scale power of corporations, to move millions of people. HA: How does this point to the commodity form of labor?
SŽ: All I’m saying is that some large-scale authority will need to be established. It is the only solution in today’s complex world. The problem, of course, is how to do it. Beyond a certain quantitative scope, democracy in the traditional sense no longer works. It’s meaningless to say, “Let’s have universal elections.” Five billion people vote? It will be like Star Wars and the Galactic Republic.

ELEPHANT

SŽ: Either orthodox left or the American language of the pragmatic left: Is it “trade unions,” is it “pressure groups,” etc.? All of this is not enough. I think the strength is what the hegemonic bourgeois press identifies as the weakness of the protests. “Isn’t this a hysterical protest? What do these guys really want?” That’s what is great about it. It doesn’t fit. You can’t simply say, “Let’s do democratic protest,” whatever. There is the approach of, “Tell us, what do you want?” “Translate it into concrete demands.” But also—and I know it’s marginal—there are the elements of this old hippie carnival logic. Someone told me there was this guy in San Francisco who said, “What program? We’re here to have a good time!” These are all traps. But, nonetheless, it is nice that something new happens which doesn’t yet have form. You have to begin like this. In contrast to people who say that before you protest you must know what you want. No. If you put it in this way, “You are just hysterical,” you are in the logic of the way a master addresses a man. It is as a master asking a hysterical woman, “Tell me what you want!” No, this is the worst form of oppression. This means, “Speak my language or shut up!” That’s why: “No debate!” I don’t see this as a criticism. On the contrary. These protests are hysterical.
But as all good Freudians know, hysteria is the authentic thing. One of the big mistakes in 1968 was to partially accept in the mass ideology the presupposition that hysterics just complain, but perverts are the real radicals: Hysterics don’t know what they want. Even Freud says somewhere that perverts do what hysterics only dream about doing. But Foucault was right: Every power regime needs its own form of perversion; perversion fits power relations. Hysteria is the true question: when you problematize the master, but without clear answers. You yourself do not know, “What do you want?”