10 thoughts on “History & Liminality, Part 2: Dancing about the Ruin

    • Both good comments. Thanks for saving them and sharing them here. Hopefully, Frith will see that you’ve moved the comments over here and will continue with the exchange … I’m curious about what he meant about the comment that you asked him to unpack.

      As for me, I’m still scratching my head over your piece. Perhaps the signal is not coming through for me due to some of the noise that inevitably has to be created in order to get a blog piece published at zero books?

  1. I didn’t write the piece for Zer0 blog, it just seemed a way to reach new readers and help generate interest in the book.

    There may be “noise” around the piece due to Frith’s comment, my response, and Doug Lain’s reaction to both. To Doug’s mind, not only CF’s but my comment “crossed the line” into unreason and, specifically, “H-denial.” That’s a line I thought I had learned to be very careful not to cross, but perhaps it has moved closer in since last I checked? I got the feeling it must be moving the other way, since more and more seemingly cogent and balanced questioning seems to be occurring, perhaps due to the diminishing sympathies for Psy-On. But apparently this is a case of liminal times and binary oppositions.

    My desire was (& still is) not to otherize anyone who wishes to question THAT narrative as an HD-AS (hard-ass?), but apparently in Doug’s Zer0-land demonizing dissent is de rigueur. As befits the subject of the original piece, I was summarily painted with the “other” brush stroke for not doing unto the other before he did it to me.

    Doug’s terror and hatred of anything that smacks of right-wing extremism and/or irrationality is such that he is in inexorable danger of becoming the thing he abhors; the temptation is then for me to follow suit (mimetic kneejerking), as my abhorrence of being censored/controlled triggers a corresponding intolerance within myself, and so on, mimesing all the way to a local apocalypse.

    What specifically is causing your head-scratching?

    • I guess that I don’t know what you mean by the word “violence” and don’t know what exactly is the charge around that word for you, if any.

      Is the act of “unplugging” itself the violence-of-the-real? Is the resistance to violence the act of fighting (violently) to keep the plug in? Just a few thoughts as I contemplate what you mean by “violence”.

      “If Snyder’s treatise is correct (if my brief synopsis does it anything like justice), and if collective and individual violence is a direct result of the loss of identity, both national and individual, then one question that arises is, can a devastating loss of structure be met with a matching ability to relinquish our own internal structures? Is real unplugging even possible?”

      • By violence I meant physically hurting or killing people.

        Unplugging as in the movie metaphor is violent, but in reality, I don’t think it is, or will be.

        I never said anything about resisting violence. Resistance makes stronger. John Lash ‘teaches” that the Gospel is full of empire-lies such as “resist not evil” and “love thine enemy.” But these are keys to countering mimetic violence. (Also to jujitsu/the Tao)

        The vicious circle has to stop with you – or yew?

        The violent are “not evil” ~ human nature requires a capacity for violence (hunting deers); the violence I am talking about, I think, relates to reactivity. A defense/self-protective reaction that becomes an attack; generally it’s directed not at the actual threat but at those who remind us of our own weakness (i.e., the scapegoats).

  2. You’re quite correct Jasun, I should have written over intellectualizing identity politics for violence etc etc.

    I’ve just been reminded in my twitter stream that Marshall McLuhan’s observed, “All forms of violence are quests for identity.”

    In this respect your post is well thought through.

  3. I no longer trust heartfelt. I just try to look at the affiliations, without getting too Jan-Irvin about it (no offense meant to Jan).

    If we really start to see how many of the cutural “greats’ we have admired were socially engineered, there’s always the chance we’ll decide that social engineering works, ie, is morally justifiable. Maybe that’s part of the reason for the ongoing disclosures…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s