(10.22) Thoughts on Infoshops / Social Centers (1st draft)

[Don’t be too harsh on me, as I’ve just jotted this down in about 3 hours, which is not enough time to really think everything through, and as I’m not sure I totally agree with all these claims. It is up to you people to help me think about this stuff – if you think I’m wrong then tell me (but cite specifically what I’ve said, no generalities). Criticism with teeth!!

[These notes are written to clear my mind in preparation for an Infoshops meeting tonight. These notes are the most general, i.e. this is about infoshops and all of protest-culture. This is not necessarily about the specific case of my infoshop. That will come afterwards …. ]

Community Centers / Info-Shops can be wonderful / powerful. Based on my experiences in one (and research into others online), it seems that infoshops offer a beautiful axis from which a diverse group of excited, politically-aware, philosophically-passionate people can intermingle, bringing various chemicals that generate a kind of vivid abstract-painting in motion. Infoshops are a kind of long-term anchor for a broad range of anarchist tactics, and a center for staging what many consider a ‘micro-anarchist’ version of the larger project we seek (i.e. an existence free of domination, built on DIY) Such a space can bring in a local community, foot traffic and function as a meeting space for those within its regional parameters.
For the community, infoshops pose themselves as a kind of ‘outreach’ program for those confused, lonely, angry, frustrated and looking for others to rebel with. Many infoshops act as show venues: pulling in a broad range of cultures, scenes and potential-activist with music as the universal language of revolt. Infoshops can make the link of affinity between ‘conscious’ hip-hop / rock’n’roll / punk and activism. With free literature, cheap books, a library, a computer center, free food and drink, music recordings, videos and films, a calendar of events and a surplus of free stuff an infoshop can act as a center for the community.

Of course, there are always the problems: Most infoshops struggle with (or are plagued by) landlords, funding and city zoning permits / licenses every step of the way, yet such struggle (it is believed) is worth the effort. (You have to compromise, right?) It is often much more preferable to actually buy a place, and such an act will be great in the long term (as paying rent simply sucks ass). Keeping volunteers is often a problem too, as staying motivated can be hard. Gentrification is often a problem, and so many infoshops struggle with integrating themselves into the local community (that is, if they don’t fit immediately). Not merely gentrification, but ignorance of class-issues and racism can plague infoshops in particular areas – making it more difficult to work with the local community. This, through hard work and communication, can be tackled. After all that, after these hurdles, just dealing with day-to-day business can be both hard and exhausting (especially when the work falls on a few committed volunteers). This group – despite all of this – can triumph as an anarchist success story. I’ve heard rumors that it has happened …

This is a picture of an infoshop at its best (most infoshops function at a level lower). Such interaction is a ‘clear-pond in the desert’ for those suffocating from the dust of this dominant culture. Thus, infoshops are quite attractive to those who’ve been working in isolation most of their lives. The potential of real friendship is an effective marketing tool for infoshops. I think it does meet this.

Throughout all of this, the potential of real-change lingers near, around every corner, and everyone involved can smell it, taste it, and feel it yet know one can seem to grasp it fully. Even if friendships are formed, the unarticulated question persists: What is this change we’re seeking? What exactly are we trying to do? How do we know if it is working?

Better question: what is the difference between the goals of the info shop and our personal desires / goals?

Even better question: What are the limitations of each?

The former is constrained by its very nature, while the latter is apparently formless, endless, given the nature of the person dreaming and desiring … there is a vivid point lingering here.

Like bones recognizing the limits of flesh, there is a point when, as a member of an info-shop, you recognize the inherent limits of this kind of format, when you see the conflict between your personal desires and the capacities of an info shop as-it-is. What limits?

I propose 3 points that will elucidate this unarticulated persisting sensation. This is the oblique sensation many infoshop volunteers have: that although your doing what you think you should be doing (being with an infoshop) you are not really getting anywhere, not really experiencing what you expected, not really working towards your real desires in an effective and strategic manor .. (SOME MEMBERS DO FEEL THINGS ARE GOING FINE > THIS IS NOT FOR THEM).

I start with the (1) first premise [point] that dominant modes of political action are a general failure – both in leftism, technocratic Greenism, and in general anarchist practices (not all of course, but a lot). A few successes are taken into consideration, but such is (to use a cliché) polishing the brass on the Titanic. Again and again, I feel, we (myself included) fail to recognize the TOTALITY as the enemy (thereby recognizing the extent of work ahead of us). The enemy is not mere racism, capitalism or the state – it is an interdependent system that persists everywhere (and nowhere). To recognize the Totality means to recognize its magnitude / propensity, and the ways in which it is precisely that (a total-ity). This means to recognize the amount of work needed to bring it down. This also means recognizing the strategies that will work and won’t work. I think infoshops can be a general failure in approaching this Totality. This failure stems from the fact that much of current (especially American) anarchism has yet to differentiate itself (tear itself away) from the practices of the 60’s and 70’s: traditional protest, business-as-usual resistance, writing-letters-to-important people, and social-centers, i.e. the peace centers from the Vietnam era (who I think are given too much credit when ignoring the socio-economic / monetary reasons for the end of that invasion).

It is my belief that not only does the Totality not fear such practices as infoshops, protests, or even the occasional riot - the Totality recommends such practices: it keeps us predictable, in a cage, harmless, under surveillance, recuperated, weak, and removed from actually effect. The totality would like for us to act on the given terms for protest.
My belief that the reason for this failure is because such resistance is predicated wholly on the presupposition that those we are dealing with are basically rational (well-meaning and simply-confused in their values or beliefs) and that we can ‘change’ them through discussion or ‘intervention’ (i.e. the naïve Socrates helping a confused young boy, i.e. the profound Buddha helping misguided pedestrians to liberation, i.e. the Father helping the son, i.e. the Libertarian ‘informing us’ on the illegal initiation of the Fed).

In other words, the failure of the left, and of protest-culture as a whole, is the belief that our enemy can be talked to, can be changed or will be affected by our own conviction.

You cannot have a rational discussion with anyone who is motivated by irrational urges and desires. There are options, certainly, but discussion or communication is not one of them. For instance, try having a discussion with a full blown crack head …

Many people will say that it is not just a few people but a majority of people who are simply mistaken. These people, it is said, can be changed if the minority cannot be changed. Such a change would force the minor-elite to change their tactics. They have to right? We, in a sense, pay their bills and own them? It is often said that if we buy enough green-material or stop-buying anything at all we can effect this elite ruling class. The idea is that if things can be changed if we just get the word out there, just talk to them, just get this majority to empathize. This is the belief of a majority of my friends and comrades in real life and online. This is the default position of most protest tactics.

In short, to re-state my premise, it is that the failure of general protest culture stems from the belief that we are dealing with either a rational minority who can be changed (think of Ghandi sending a letter to Hitler asking him to change) – or – the belief that if this minority cannot be changed the rest of the majority can be changed, thereby forcing the minority to be changed (think of the silly beliefs of these arrogant Liberals who spend money on these ‘change the world’ campaigns).

Please keep in mind that I do know a lot of anarchists are causing an effect on their local communities, even if it is a minor one. These anarchists, however, are not disillusioned: they settle for this effect and I respect them for their clarity (and HARD work). Perhaps my infoshop had the same goal? This is certainly not implied by its actions. (and if so I’m not interested in it). This, however, is written for those big-dreaming anarchists who really want a large-scale effect as I do more than most anything … I’m interested in a group of people who are not interested in community-charity (guised as really really ‘free-market or whatever), and we are not interested in simply offering computers to community members (in exchange for what? Respect?), and are not interested in a mere show-venue (I do think such show-space could be powerful as it is the medium of the dominant culture as a whole, i.e. just waiting for the right creativity to turn it into something large).

My (2) second premise [point] is that anarchists have either underestimated the enemy (underestimated its intelligence and awareness / ability to recuperate) or have failed to see that we are dealing with irrational / psychopathic people – both the majority of people as well as these controlling minorities.

In other words, as Einstein said, we can’t keep repeating the same actions and expecting a different result. This risks oversimplification, but certainly gets to the marrow: we are not dealing with sane people or a sane culture. We are dealing with psychopaths and victims of traumatization. This means we’ve got to accept when we’ve failed and move on.

We are dealing with people whose identity, comfort and sense of well being is dependent on the very system we oppose. Thus, I think there are limitations to the idea that we can cause a community change either through an info shop or through any other appendage: food not bombs, really really free market et cetera.

The biggest reason I don’t think we’re going to convince the majority of people to change their way of living is not merely that their irrational – but they are not even willing to have the discussion. They are not even willing to ADMIT the problems that exist in the form that they exist (i.e. massive ecological destruction bordering on a complete collapse of the eco-system; i.e. massive social-alienation, class division and a general state of depression with 99% of people (or even the dominant racism that STILL exists just as much or perhaps more than in the early 20th century); i.e. potential world-war III and the potential death of most everyone). If we cannot have a discussion with these facts in mind how can we expect anyone to change?
My (3) third premise is a combination of the first, second and a conclusion that follows from it. This conclusion is my premise in moving forward as an anarchist in a potentially magnificent social-relationship with the rest of you. This premise is:
(3a) There must be a new dialogue / conversation amongst anarchists and this conversation must begin with the recognition of the failure of mainstream anarchist actions. This discussion must also recognize (3b) the state of the crisis our world is in without blinking or lying to ourselves; (3c) must see the extent to which the Totality has sunk its teeth into every aspect of our lives.

Our fight must begin on that level – not from some abstract realm or aloof naivety about ‘change.’
We must reconsider the situation as coldly and blankly as we can. (What is it that we want / must do?) We must know our enemy. (who is it exactly that we’re fighting?) We must not underestimate it or naively confuse it with a person gone astray whom we can ‘save.’ The enemy is a totality that lives on our suffering. We must not pretend that obsolete social-practices will have the effect we really desire. From this knowledge of the enemy (the Totality) we must reconstruct our actions.
This new premise in our conversation, I think, would force us out of our comfort zone. Infoshops, I think, allow one the illusion that they are having an effect on the social community surrounding them. Infoshops give the satisfaction of actually having something – at the expanse of not really doing anything.

We should, however, not ‘throw out the baby with the bathwater’: I think we can still preserve what social relationships we have, that minor affinity glowing weakly in our hearts. We should hold onto our friendships and our optimism.

Tentative Conclusion:

Although they function well as a means of linking together otherwise disparate people within a region and cultural-code, acting as an axis for the desire to build affinity and potential resistance, the apparent ‘success’ of infoshops (and all protest-culture) should not be mistaken for being a genuine resistance against the Totality (let alone a real threat). The failure of infoshops does not arise from any kind of laziness or failure to organize (many members work VERY hard) – the failure arises from the very nature of infoshops themselves and the very nature of who/what were opposing.

One should not be dismayed or frustrated, but rather, one should be re-thinking and re-organizing their activities within a new paradigm, a new way of thinking about resistance itself.

This is, in short, a call to re-think and re-organize our activities so as to posit a general threat to the system.
Having an infoshop is not out of the question – it is the place of an infoshop within our actions that must be reconsidered.

There is nothing stopping us from using the infoshop as a “over-ground” venture that would somehow be linked with “underground” activities, whatever that might be ;-)


Of course, making dramatic claims forces me to make equally large claims about what I think we should/ought to do … that will be the subject of my next post …

Notes on Capitalism (from last night)

TITLE: Capitalism: A Love Story ( this title might be used because it guarentees more viewers, knowing that my critique is deeper than Michael Moore’s)

PRELIMINARY NOTES -

The attack on capitalism is certainly nothing new. In fact, by its very nature, capitalism has warranted response from those it depends upon from the get-go, namely, those unnamed victims of the work force especially required in early capitalist-conditions. Since then, the criticism has spread out from those who are its immediate victims to intellectuals, politicians and philosophers. Attacks come from very different groups with different agendas, and range from the mild criticism of capitalism who simply disagree with specific points within capitalism (conservatives and libertarians), to rigid anti-capitalist positions – those who would like to replace capitalism with something else, or, more extreme, simply not replace it with anything.
Why another video on capitalism? Because none contain the anarchist critique fully and broadly … and most lack any language that matches the intensity through which we struggle against capitalism. Not only that, but most critiques lack any depth, lack any response to anything more than the superficial elements of capitalism.

In other words, there is a failure to address capitalism both in its essence (authority and hierarchy) and in its systemic interdependence (state, private property, colonialism, globalization, domination et cetera).
IN other words, the anarchist critique of capitalism, I think, is lacking …

Thus, what is in great need is a deep and systematic critique of capitalism – both in its very heart and in all of its effects. That is my goal here. However, a broader goal of mine is to show that capitalism is only one small part of the larger totality. It is not merely capitalism that must be destroyed – it is the totality itself, which embraces capitalism, a totality that perpetuates the mindset necessary for production. So these videos are intended to extend the critique – to carve it deep and broad. Then there are those who don’t believe anything is wrong with capitalism – you know, the majority of people. This video is for them also.

Anarchism represents anti-capitalism in its extreme – i.e. not mere criticism of capitalism, and not even a mere anti-capitalist position. Anarchists, as I’ve said again and again, don’t just want to end capitalism or replace it with something else – anarchists see capitalism as a part of an interdependent totality that must end – this totality includes private property, corporations, the state, government, church et cetera. And even within that, there is an extreme – typically known as Anarcho-primitivism, or anti-civ, which see’s the enemy as civilization itself (i.e. it wants to end division of labor, domestication, and even symbolic-thinking).

In these videos I will restrict myself to a representation of the ‘classical-anarchist’ opposition to capitalism. These videos will be self-enclosed, but I will be tying it to other topics (private property, the state et cetera), something you cannot avoid. This is also known as social-anarchism, Anarcho-syndicalism, left-anarchism and Anarcho-capitalism. [or – Within anarchism there is a group of people- and I hate to say this – who call themselves Anarcho-capitalist or market-anarchist, such as Murray Rothbard. I am not representing this view.]

Any discussion of anarchists opposition to capitalism must consider the ways the anarchist position has evolved since the early 19th century. Current anarchists opposition is much different than many of the views I’m presenting here – but nonetheless, I think the spirit is the same.

--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_capitalism

--

TERMS [perhaps ‘The Capitalist Lexicon’ or ‘A Lexicon for the Critique of Capitalism’] Capital, Capitalism, Free-Market,

INTRODUCTION TO THE CRITIQUE

FIRST, let me just say that here I will not be explaining what exactly capitalism is. Instead, I will be assuming that you have a good grasp of the economic features of capitalism. [Not really – it will be in another video]
Ideology, Economics and Democracy …. (Define all in the lexicon)

Although I’ve only seen the trailer, the only thing I really like about Moore’s “Capitalism a love story” is precisely that: the title. Capitalism is not just a horrible reality, it is a story, a tale, a narrative, it is also something much more than that: it is the story we tell ourselves to keep the reality going. What does this mean? My first point is that capitalism only survives because of the things we tell ourselves about it. This is called ‘ideology,’ – a collection of narratives that, although they aren’t true, justify the desires of a group of people. I believe those in favor of current capitalism suffer from ideological sickness.

In discussing capitalism – especially in critiquing it – we need to first develop our capacity to perceive ideology, in ourselves and in the system surrounding us. I mean ideology in the Marxist sense: that there are a collection of general ideas that serve not as representations of the ‘truth,’ but as tools for the reproduction of the current order. A small example is the belief that having a new car will make my life better. This isn’t true, but such a belief helps to reproduce a car-centered economy or whatever. A larger example, the one I’ll be using here, is the ideology that capitalism is essentially good, that it allows for freedom, that it allows for equality, that it ‘protects’ your ‘rights,’ et cetera.

3 points at the beginning: 1) understanding capitalism means first understanding the nature of ideology. From this point comes my second: 2) we are so wrapped up in myths, stories and narratives that we ignore our immediate reality: My critique of capitalism begins with getting us to step away from the ‘textbook’ way of thinking and look at your immediate reality, hence the titles of my points like ‘average joe’; 3) capitalism is unique in that within it economics becomes fundamental over socio-cultural; this means that the material conditions of our lives are determined by our economics; 4) thus, Capitalism is not democracy, in fact, real democray is impossible within capitalism;
**

(10.21.09) Research (Hebrew Bible Notes);

... pretty much given up temporarily on the idea of a regular sleeping schedule because of my tendency to stay up late in an energetic writing mode.

Awoke this morning with a recognition that, no, most of us never really accomplish anything near to what we desire. Yet, this isn't the real tragedy, as that is the fact thatwe waste our time thinking about it and fail to really live in the mean time. SO, accept failure - but live.

Anyways, I've spent most of my Morning Researching / writing / and reading the Hebrew Bible ... and here is a LARGE collection of notes that are semi-organized. I'd appreciate any comments if anyone is willing to wade through them ...

ALL OF THESE NOTES ARE THE BEGINNINGS OF A 'SCRIPTS' THAT I WILL USE FOR MY VIDEOS (HENCE THE GRAMMAR AT CERTAIN POINTS) ....

(He4.0) A HEBREW PRIMER: Some Personal Notes / Impressions from Reading the Torah

Notes on the Torah – (impressions from reading Genesis)

In the beginning, there was a God: overwhelming, but a blind ‘unreasonable’ power. This power was pure, white, without any reason or ‘why,’ without any justification, without any direction or know-ability. God simply is (or was, depending on your perspective). Everything simply IS. From that point, comes a direction for our thinking about this god.

It is not about reason, or ethics, or purpose, but the blinding rush of power, the exertion of force, a huge and overwhelming BEING – this being is a blinding God who acts without reason. This God is abrupt. Imposing. In other words, the Hebrew God is not a philosophical God – he is not out there discussing anything with people. There is no need to justify anything or argue about anything, except later under the pressure of competing tribes.

This is God quite different than our taste – we prefer an easy-going god, one that we can talk to, one that we can go on a lunch-date with. Yet, paradoxically, the Hebrew God is still a dominant aspect of our theological thinking. This paradox will be a central strand in my reading of the Hebrew Bible.

Reading the Torah is a paralyzing weirdness –

Reading the Hebrew Bible is, as the cliché goes, like discovering where you lived, like returning to your home. No one reads it, of course, let alone actually talks about it – so you find this is a weird home.

Reading it again after years is a paralyzing weirdness because you find that everything you thought you’d remembered about it turns out to be a cloudy mystery. Instead of finding immediate familiarity, I found myself confronting weird problems, memories and paradoxes. The reason is that I’m reading in a very different context than how I once read it. And the big difference in context is that I’m reading it almost as an anthropologist, and not as a Jew living and breathing the words of this book.

We don’t LIVE with the book, we do not saturate our lives in it, and thus things do not make sense to us the way they might. We live in a secular age in which books do not have a sacred meaning to us. (Not only that – nothing has a sacred meaning to us.) Thus, in our smugness, we read them in colleges and attack them with the same kind of academic squabble we would with anything else. The Torah is another text among many. It is not that I want to separate the Torah from all other books and read it as sacred literature – I don’t treat any book as some magical piece of the canon - but that I think any book worth really reading should be read the way the Hebrews read the Torah.

Meet an orthodox Jew, and you will be paralyzed – by what? By someone who actually believes something, someone who actually has real conviction, someone who places belief above reason …

--

To ‘problematize’ my relation to the Torah

So, I’m not going to read the Text as anyone else would read a book. I treat it as a secular son would treat his religious mother on her death-bead. You know? There is a kind of respect and politeness that is necessary in culling meaning from a being. However – and this is a big however – in a weird way I find myself in a lineage of great Hebrew scholars because my objective is also to problematize this work. That is something unique to the Hebrew tradition: the capacity to tear apart what you love.

This leads me to say this about love:

Love – in the Torah, is hard, abusive, and punitive. There is rarely a second chance, and if there is it is at a great cost. This is something that middle-class Americans – those who’ve grown up in a cradle of love, of forgiveness, do not understand. The Torah appears too cold and hard for most of us. And if you ask any normal person about the ‘old testament’ there is a good chance they will lament its overbearing harshness. Thus, inversely, the sham comfort of American Liberal culture is equally annoying to the deeply religious Jew.

What I imagine a Jew saying is something like: You do not understand rage, hunger, exclusion, alienation. And thus, you do not get the Torah. You do not bear the mark of Cane.

The Hebrew Bible - for most orthodox jews – is not just a sacred text, but the The Truth about this suffering and pain. And a truthful life is lived in relationship to that text – you must wrestle with it, tangle with it, and suffer in an attempt to get at it.

The Torah, or I should say, the Hebrew Oral Tradition, and its emphasis on intellectual commentary on the Torah as the principle purpose of a persons life, is the beginning of an endless chain of discussion, a link of immortality, of which philosophy itself functions within. That you can say something is funny. You are not mute. That is unique. That is Torah.

I should say explicitly that I’m not a believer, but i believe in the greatness of the Hebrew Bible, the power of the literary word.

My Post-structural reading of the torah?

My theory is that human thought, rather than being ‘absolutely free,’ is necessarily constrained, circumscribed, defined within, only possible within, specific structures, specific semiotic / structuralist systems. You cannot just ‘think anything,’ and if you did it would not make any sense.

We do not know the ontological structure of human consciousness and thought, but we do know what we do not know, and that is enough to say something.

For instance, specific grammatical structures necessitate a specific orientation to what can be said and, equally, what can be heard.

These systems of thought (and I emphasize thought, not ‘language’ or grammar, as traditional semiotics has claimed, instead insisting contra structuralism and post-structuralism, that there is a thought outside of language, within, inside of language) have a history, are rooted in particular ‘frames’ that are born out of specific circumstances.

Thus, the relationship between language and reality is made problematic. With this acknowledged, perhaps the relation between thought and reality can be expanded to mean more than what we traditionally mean.

The end-thought of this chain is this: our linguistic and cultural relationship to ‘nature,’ to the environment, to one another, to fundamental problems, or whatever, has enormous possibilities, but cannot function in too many possibilities, but must lapse into one, not without reason, for human desire and situation is always a reason, and within this we have a specific relationship to reality.

The linguistic-cultural relationship to the outside (if we must make that distinction) is defined by the specific needs and situations we’ve found ourselves in.

My thesis is this: The Hebrew Torah is in a handful of ‘works’ that have worked to define to us what it means to be a human being, what kinds of thoughts are possible within our linuguistic-culural paradigm. To ‘study’ this, so much as that is possible in one life, is to give room to an understanding, to the articulation, of what we are against a backdrop of different, possibly more expansive, possibilities.

There is no essential structure to our relation to the world. It has a history. It has a reason. The Torah grants a specific relation to the environment, and to one another. The Torah needs to be read because it articulates a specific relationship to the world. There is no universal truths about human beings.

(He1.0) A HEBREW PRIMER: Why Study the Hebrews? --

In this video I will be introducing some reasons for studying the Hebrew Torah, and then I will be giving an overview of the ‘general contributions’ of the Hebrews to Civilization. IN the next videos I will be looking at the historical context within which the Hebrews bloomed, and then the next videos will be a close reading of the Hebrew Bible.

**

I will be studying the Hebrews not to have a better understanding merely of their general contributions to Western thought, but as a means of understanding the general parameters of our own thinking. What does this mean? It means that human thinking – rather than being some natural or neutral element - is actually heavily conditioned, influenced, by the thinking that came before it. The Hebrews have had a gigantic effect on the way we think and think about thinking.

In other words, I will be seeking out the ways in which they Hebrews helped cast our distinctive way of thinking. Human thinking, it seems, has not changed much since the early part of the first millennium. Thus, we are exploring our own mindset, as though standing in front of a mirror. It is quite surprising, but true, that the general perimeters of our thought were set in large measure by the interaction of three large-communities: the Hebrews, Greeks and Romans, between 1500 bce and about 620, with the rise of Islam and the solidification of Western thought. I will be exploring each alone, and am starting with the Hebrews.

In other words, I am not studying where we came from – I am studying who are.

I believe human beings must undergo a fundamental change if it is to survive the crisis facing us – a social crisis, ecological crisis and potential Armageddon that looms over us perpetually. The first step to change, is knowing yourself. To study the Hebrews, Greeks or Romans, for the average American, is to study yourself. I will be looking at the features which constitute the intellectual toolkit that has been characteristic of western culture – with the aim of both understanding and potentially ending that culture.

**

(He2.0) A HEBREW PRIMER: The contributions of the Hebrews …

So, what have been the general contributions of the Hebrews?

**

(He3.0) A HEBREW PRIMER: A Brief Historical Context for the Hebrew Bible

Brief introduction to the Torah -

Although archeology from the 18^th and 19^th century has certainly revolutionized our understanding of what the ancient near East was like, most people still maintain the 17^th century view of it …

So let’s look at a small kingdom that archaeological only recently has come in contact with – Canaan – which appears to have stood strong around 1000 BCE. This was a powerful kingdom. However, it soon divided into the Northern Kingdom of ‘Israel’ in 922 (with 12 of the tribes of ancient Israel) and the Southern Kingdom being Judea (what appears to me to have been a somewhat unified ‘state’ of sorts). These titles are confusing because what we take to be the ‘Israeli’s’ is actually the Southern Judea.

The Northern Kingdom of Israel was destroyed by the Assyrians in 722. The southern Kingdom of Judea was sacked by Babylonia in 586, destroyed and sent into exile.

This should have been the end for Southern Judea …

Conquest, exile and devastation would normally destroy a group, especially in antiquity, where the conquered tribe would trade its god for a new one. Then there would be a massive cultural assimilation and distinctions would blur. After the colonization you could not tell the difference between the colonizer and the colonized. This is what happened in the Northern Kingdom, for instance, in 722 after the attack by the Assyrians. The smaller kingdom of Judea, however, would not only survive their destruction by Babylon in 586, but would emerge to have the largest influence of any tribe in the past.

In other words, the Southern Judea was conquered, but they were not assimilated by the Babylonians.

As I said, archeology has revolutionized our understanding of the ancient Middle East. Now, what has become most apparent in this revolutionary understanding is that the power of the Hebrews – from a secular point of view mind you – came not from any ultra-metaphysical god or superiority of strength. Their power did not manifest itself in any monolithic monuments, or strong nationhood. Their power came from the power of their ideas.

What ideas?

Although the ancient Israelites certainly accepted and practiced animism and occultist practices, out of their culture the notion of an utterly transcendent God would emerge. This would be a fundamental idea that would empower them. This was a God who was outside of space and time, and, therefore, had absolute control.

What this idea did was enable the Hebrews to take any event and see it as created by God, and, therefore, empowered them to see anything as being necessary and good, even the destruction of their capital and exile.

Nothing was accidental; there was a large plan behind everything.

**

These Israelites left all their records in the form of the Hebrew Torah.

These records are as equally complex as the people who composed them. Thus, there are a lot of different approaches to the book. You must be a broad and expansive reader. Sometimes you need to be a historian, sometimes a philosophers, and sometimes a literary critic. It is not a book – it is a library.

(He4.1) A HEBREW PRIMER: Some more personal Notes on the Torah …

Before reading the Torah, I would like to clarify my views on what you would call God. 1) I am what you would call a-theistic, in that I don’t agree with the ontological or metaphysical or moral claims of theist; 2)however, I am an aesthetician, and am more interested in the capacity of the Torah to help us dig at a deeper understanding of our existence -----

… the Torah poses some interesting responses to some deep questions.

Certain Rabbi’s I’ve spoken to – and this is, by no means, irregular or unheard of – have stated that even though they do not believe in God, yet “It” is the most important entity in their life. I wonder, how could they believe in something so much and believe it is not real? This is not about being incoherent or about me accusing anyone of not being ‘consistent’ in their beliefs. Rather, it is revealing on many different levels. Through a close reading of the Torah, through developing my own position, I hope to elucidate this claim by the Rabbi.

To say, “I believe in God” has no objective meaning – it only has meaning when it is applied to a context. Each generation and, obviously, each person or group of people, mean something entirely different by the word ‘God.’ Is this a bad thing? I don’t think it is. The idea of “God” would not have survived for as long as it has if it didn’t have this interesting capacity. ‘God’ is an idea which can abandon its substance at will, and that is the remarkable power of ineffable ideas.

Thus, here Karen Armstrong has been an influence on my theistic thinking:

When a conception of God becomes meaningless or irrelevant it is quietly discarded and replaced by a new theology. None of this is explicit of course. My opinion is that people do not ‘believe’ things because they make intellectual sense, but instead believe things when they ‘make sense’ to them on an intuitive level, when it, to use Heideggerian language, ‘works for them.’ When a conception of God ceases to ‘work’ for people it is abandoned. “God” has to make a deep kind of sense inside a person. Even Atheist have different conceptions of God. They conceive of a ‘God’ and they reject it. Do you reject the God of Abraham or the God of the Philosophers? It is interesting that, historically, those who have abandoned a conception have been labeled ‘atheist’ by the theist, but those who abandon essentially move on to create or manifest a new God. It has been argued that the current movement in atheism is not new, but is common historically, a common lapse in making room for a new God that ‘makes sense’ to people, that works for them in a dramatically new context. It is strange to think of the atheist out there who are completing the work of creating a new god.

More from Armstrong:

Religion is very pragmatic. Conceptions of God have to work for people. ‘Working’ does not mean that it is scientific or intellectually or logically sound. It has to match their visceral relationship to the experience of the world they embody.

I want to show that theology is not boring or removed from us. Instead, the history of God, the history of Theistic literature, is full of pain, intensity and suffering, from Abraham to Augustine. Theism, theology, is not a intellectual, at least not till late Judaism. It is a history of conceptions of God being experienced in states of extremity. It is traumatic. There is an inherit strain that has to be heard.

Thus ...

(10.20) Research ...

More reading today ...

Frustrated with my philosophical progress (in terms of research) I passed over my normal morning study of Hebrew / Greek to take on an organization of philosophy.

Inspired by the Oxford organization of philosophical progress (quite distinct from the Rutgers / Berkley model i've been following), I'm leaning towards beginning with metaphysics - HOWEVER, all of this is resolved when I realize that this is silly when you consider the non-linear presentation on youtube - i.e. it doesn't matter what order because people will pick their own beginning. This is NOT a class - this is a series of videos.

However, since I am working towards a book this is a real question: what makes more sense to study first - metaphysics or epistemology? I've gone at it from every point of view and am subsequently stumped.

So anyways, I"m working on two videos: an introduction to epistemology and an introduction to metaphysics (Ep0.0 and Me0.0 respectively). The problem is that the amount of topics I've discovered through reading to choose from is extraordinary. SO I have to learn what to exclude.

The first video to be made post-intro videos is an introduction to skepticism, as I realize that skepticism is the initial-thrust behind the study of either metaphysics or epistemology.

The first video in epistemology will be a look at the question of knowledge and the traditional view of what knowledge is (true justified belief) - The video will be Ep1.0. From there, I will examine the Gettier problem (- Ep2.0 or Ep1.1) as this represents a substantial skepticism towards the traditional view and hightens the drama of epistemology (for all the nerds out there at least). From there I will look at the essential features of any theory of knowledge - (Ep3.0) belief, truth (Ep4.0) and logic (Ep5.0) . This sets the stage for the classic epistemological crisis - between empiricism and rationalism (Ep6.0). I like this lineage because it moves deftly from the problems of knowledge to contemporary theories, and then from classical theories to the contemporary crisis. All of this leads towards Kant - who posited a very unique and revolutionary epistemology that has become both foundational and problematic in our contemporary setting. I potentially see the synthetic a priori as the starting point for reconfiguring our current world crisis (not just in philosophy but politics as well - I know, sounds crazy).

Metaphysics is more problematic - do I begin with the problems of perception or with the problems of identity (in physical properties or personal identity). Perhaps I should begin with the mind / body problems, and thus begin with Descartes representation of the problem? ...

**

Anyways, not much reading this morning. Just stratagizing. Also dreaming about the new iMac 27 inch display and After Effects ... thinking about uping the anti on my videos ... more to come .

**

Ended up in a discussion about veganism, biology and raw-food diets. I found the differences in human / aminal digestion to be extraordinary. We also emphasised the phenomenological effects of veganism / raw food - i.e. the immediate effect on your sense of well being, energy and ability to take on the world ...

***

(10.19) Fragments for an Essay on Love ...

The following is a totally unfinished, undeveloped, possibly confusing and fragmented collection of ideas on 'love' that I began working on a few hours ago ...

A DISQUIETING DISGUISE: Love, Biology and Schopenhauer

for Brooke Dubbert

I. Fragments (towards a theory of love that philosophy desperately needs)… (not to necessarily be read in order) …

Humans once discovered that this world itself was not the creation of an all-loving being. 200 years later, we are yet to realize that love itself is not the creation of an all-loving being. Such desire is not a desire for happiness, but instead, the desire for something much larger.

Like the loss of our human-centered beliefs, this theory too contains the opaque texture of physiology, of bodies mourning without words, and the quiet lunging-forward of desiring bodies in space.

Rather, this world appears to be the creation of a quixotic-devil, Milton’s “intellectual athlete,” tangling webs of deceit, leaving paths of suffering, and giving excuse / legitimation to the worst horrors. Love too, it would appear to most of us, is this same beastly-contortionist: tangling our lives, leaving a mess … leaving us asking for help.

Philosophy, born about the same time as civilized-technologies, once had a distance from it (albeit a connection) and prided itself also on offering help not just to the physical body, but to the injured soul. Not just plows, but ideas are needed. Things, philosophers said, can be understood using reason, thought, observation, argument. By and by, ‘love’ lost its centrifugal force in philosophy. Technology came to dominate philosophical thinking.

Hardened from the inside out, clouded by its own interception, blinded by its own design, philosophy erects a crusty necklace with a heart on the end, while a silent heart beats silently within the body cage.

So, then, what can be offered to those suffering under the weight of this burden we call love? What consolation can given the heart-stricken? What anecdote can counterpoint an unhappy story?

To posit such a theory of love is no mere intellectual exercise – it address (and perhaps redresses) the authors own contorted-longings, those cryptic memories, those frozen fears lodged into the meat of ones own brain.

When not inured by sexual impulse, perhaps our deeper-longings might find expression in this thing called love? Or, the body animated by love, perhaps this body is an expression of that higher desire? Perhaps this groping impulse can find articulation in these words?

II. Reduction or Seduction – The possibility of a thesis …

Falling love is precisely that: the sensation of falling from, perhaps from a great height. Now, from that we have two options: either reduce it to the atomistic frenzy of our evolutionary-sociological conditioning, or we embrace that sensation and ride it all the way to the crashing bottom.

III. Thank You, Schopenhauer. – (These are fragments for a better thesis than the last. I take biological reductivism to an aesthetic placement) …

Along with the denial of much of the life and the physical world, philosophers have traditionally avoided speaking of love. Such speculation, it has been thought, is not the business of philosophers. Yet, as Schopenhauer pointed out – how can we ignore something that is so central to most peoples life? If not the ‘meaning of life,’ it is the search for love that constitutes the warp and woof of most peoples lives.

It is partially a denial of the aspect of our life which occludes our self-image of being ‘rational’ beings. It is partially a simple self-denial of ones own real longings. Whatever it is, philosophers have avoided the inclusion of our desire for love. Strangely, this is one of the most universal aspects of being human.

Love, thus, is an funky shape not fit to match the precise geography of the philosophers mind. I’ve heard that I think about sex / love more than 15 times a minute – which means not only right now, but every time I write, throughout my writing. This makes it quite strange to imagine the majority of philosophers (mostly men) deliberately / unconsciously avoiding this persistent desire pressing itself into our mental-life.

Such a denial is only a small part of the larger philosophical project, which it seems, consists in completely denying the non-systematic, non-rational aspect of the human being. Subjectivity is squashed, and human longings are recycled again and again.

Could it be that less than something merely avoided, accidentally left out, love itself poses a threat to the entirety of the philosophical project? I hear stress an attention paid to this awkward desire which is central to all of us.

The desire for life is a thrust which is a direct challenge to the supposedly triumphant posture of ‘rational man.’ When attention is paid, we see again and again the thrust of love: we see empires collapsing in a frantic slow motion, and we see disciplined men driven crazy by the love-buzz, the wild temptation. Yet, again and again, we see a warning against this sensation. The prescriptions against the fever of love is a perpetual issue in our Canon. I’m not speaking of Jesus’ love, of course, but the ‘love’ catalogued by Milton’s Satan, by Gargantua … that embellished ornament.

I am concerned with the secret logic of the human. What constellation navigates this dark lunging-forward? Like Odysseus, I shall follow its seismographic.

When did we stop knowing that the body is subservient to the delicate longing within it, and not the minds ostensible triumph? Why construct such a smug faith in the reified minds’ illusionary control?

Schopenhauer gave a word to this thrusting force within us that had the power to oust reason in the role of navigating the body: the will-to-life. It is not so simple as desire that competes with reason. Instead, it’s a desire that masks itself as reason. Reason, for Schopenhauer, is a sublimation of our internal desires for the continuation of our being.

The will to life is, for Schopenhaur, the most dominant and central drive to all human beings. This makes sense. What are if not driven by our will to live, to survive, to beat succumbing to death? This is manifest in a multitude of ways, from our love for babies and the interest in their preservation, to our natural tendency to prevent others from dying. Love, therefore, is no different even if its logic is a little more insidious.

Thus, the desire for life (and love) is not something peripheral or arbitrary: it is supreme and dominant.

The thesis here is that love and this will to life are intrinsically connected. Lovers themselves, love and the will to life work to construct the architecture of your everyday life. How so? Love is the impetus in getting us to propagate our species. We are, of course, fundamentally biological. Biological unites strive to reproduce themselves. Love manifest is such a desire.

Love is our biology directing us towards the reproduction of our species.

Yes, yes, of course this is never even close to being on our minds when we go out to the next bar, when we struggle to muster the courage to talk to another boy or girl. The ‘continuation of the species’ is the last thing we think about when we think of love.

This is where the notion of conscious / unconscious comes in. (An interesting fact is that Schopenhauer developed our notion of the unconscious as it was used by Freud and later thinkers.) The unconscious mind, it seems, has a ‘mind’ all of its own. The mind knows very little of the secret trajectories of the heart, so said Pascal over 500 years ago. Schopenhauer agrees. The conscious mind is only given enough information to be seduced into acting, into giving the unconscious what it wants.

Thus this poster-boy of the philosophical life – the human mind – is relegated to the position of the ‘hostage driver,’ forced to succumb to the silent commands of the unconscious. This quite undoes the role of the mind as the transparent ‘reasoning machine’ and relegates it to a secondary position.

This is an interesting response to the question of why it is that we feel such an intense rush of adreniline when we are in love, and are not able to ‘rationally explain’ our actions, our desires, our longings. Love is an expression of the unconscious directing us towards an object of ‘love,’ or sex.

*

While this theory does force us to reconsider the primacy of other philosophical problems, it does at least give us relief in allowing our natural minds to feel like something healthy. We are not monsters, we are human beings in love.

In other words, we are not the sovereign ‘rational beings’ we took ourselves to be, but on the other hand at least we don’t have to hate ourselves for being so concerned with ‘love.’

The desire for love is not accidental, says Schopenhauer, but something biologically ingrained in us.

*

This also approaches the question of why it is that we are so compelled when we fall in love. Why are our bodies taken over by this magical lust? Why do we choose so and so and not someone else who is ‘rationally’ more better suited for us?

In other words, how could a girl who lives in the KC suburban sprawl and loves the comforts of such a life, fall in love with an anarchist who wants to destroy civilization, whom her parents surely hate?

How is it that a cerebella-lopsided thinker could fall for an art-school girl who has no interest in ideas? Surely, these questions should be at the center of our philosophical concern (and not be reduced to mere biological explanation, a reductivism that leaves us stranded). They remain an enigma. Schopenhauer was certainly interested.

But, Schopenhauer’s crude logic in his attempt to explain such a phenomenon fails. I won’t go into the details here. There is a kind of logic that remains, which I should point out: it is our bodies recognition that this particular person – out of all the others we could possibly choose – is best suited for us.

“There is something quite peculiar to be found in the deep, unconscious seriousness with which two young people of the opposite sex regard each other when they meet for the first time, the searching and penetrating glance they cast at each other, the careful inspection all the features and parts of their respective persons have to undergo. This scrutiny and examination is the meditation of the genius of the species concerning the individual possible through these two.”

Equally poignant, Schopenhauer is acutely aware of the process through which one potential mate’s unconscious skewers the presence of another in searching out the pro’s and con’s of this particular person. In other words, while on dates you may talk about such and such superfluous things, but your unconscious mind will be busily at work investigating the other person, trying to decide whether or not it desires the person.

Schopenhaur says that this “searching glance” our unconscious undertakes is purely the attempt to seek out the ideal ‘co-parent.’ Although he got the idea started, such a conclusion seems weak. Why not just admit that the unconscious is simply seeking out an ideal mate, or even more broadly, someone worth the copulation?

**

The conclusion, if read out, is rather bleak perhaps, at least for those seeking anything like the normal kinds of conclusions people seek: marriage, story-book love, eternal affliction. The conclusion is this: that the person we fall in love with is not someone necessarily suited to meet our needs, to make us happy.

In other words, despite the myths we copulate, love and happiness should not be held synonymous or conflated. Human beings, we are relieved to see, are designed through and through to fall in love. However, the caveats is that our own particular happiness is not a part of the plan. Love is not meant to be sweet, joyful and beautiful. Love is meant to drive us into the reproduction of a species capable of doing the same.

Blinded by the blight of intense love, we ourselves are unable to think rationally, and can only lie to ourselves and tell ourselves that we will be happy if only we are with this person.

“That convenience and passionate love should go hand in hand is the rarest stroke of good fortune.”

Happiness and the need to reproduce our human species are two very different things we take on, and should not be confused with each other. How many marriages do you know that turn out to be more than the day to day business as usual?

An interesting but unrelated note: When someone says that “love will bring the world together” what might this mean in relation to Schopenhauer’s views of love? The suppression of all differences, the refusal to perceive singular differences, the need to sublimate real desires. Yes, love will bring the world together: but it is only under the guise of illusionary community and the suppression of differences that will make this happen.

A lot of liberals and leftist want to ‘bring the world together,’ as though that might somehow ‘fix things’ when the real problem is not a lack of similarity, but in fact, a lack of differences.

What we need is not love, but the recognition of difference. That is, if we are not to simply reproduce the current present.

But anyways:

Love only functions through the suppression of more pressing-differences. Such suppression has an evolutionary function: illusionary wholeness is necessary for copulation.

**

IV. Consolation for our Broken Hearts ..

What we have here – as DeBotton reminds us – is consolation for the complexities of our hurt in the world of post-rejection. Being rejected by another is no sign that you are not interesting or worthy or a relationship. It simply means that you are not biologically suited for her unconscious.

… that’s all I’ve got so far.

**

Interesting enough, is the relationship between words, love and life. But that’s for another essay perhaps …

(10.19) Readings

It's easy to get immersed in philosophical projects, especially when, like me, you don't have anyone 'guiding you.' Perhaps it makes sense to state what I'm working towards: the production of an "introduction to philosophy" book that will be better than any intro book I've seen. I've never been satisfied with any intro-to-philosophy book. Why? Because they fail again and again to stree the real-life consequences of philosophy, or the reality of philosophical-questions. My book would not stress the 'answers' philosophers have given, or even philosophers themselves, but the questions themselves. I want people to experience philosophy the way I do - as something that vitalizes everyday life, that makes one feel alive, excited, and powerfuly oriented towards deep living. Its the questions of philosophy that I'm interested in making real, making clear, making accessible, and in showing that these problems are not so easily dismissed or cast-aside.

So with that in mind where would I begin?

I've organized my study of philosophy into 3 'circles' - 1) Philosophical Questions (a subject-by-subject elucidation of the problems of philospohy, as well as some failed-answers to those problems and an analysis of the broad complexity of the problem). Here there will be a great stress on grasping the 'basics' of philosophy and philosophical analysis (which is important to grasp if you want to understand anything I do); 2) Philosophical Readings (once we have a good grasp of the philosohpical questions and the 'tools' of philosphy we can begin reading deeply great philospohical works. It here that we see philosophy in full swing, coming alive); 3) Synoptical philosophy - just a term for the circle wherein my own philosophica views are presented. There is no connection to anything else and there is no guarentee that this circle will be accessible. A lot of this consists of responses to other philosophers - i.e. David Kelly, Zizek, Caputo et cetera ... This third circle is very experimental.

The above constitutes my 'reading and writing' orientation to philosophy. I spend about 4 hours a day on it - with more hours of just reading added on here and there. That's not a lot for daily activity - but when you add it up over time it comes out to a lot ("Philosophy," said Nietzsche, "should be a cold bath: in and out.") My goal with this is both my own personal deeper grasp of philosophy, making ita part of my own life thereby increasing the meaning of my own life; but also the publication of great work.

This is a grand motive, but does not immediately tell me where to begin.

Right now I'm stuck on two things: (i) Trying to present an introduction to philosophy and to my way of doing philosophy; (ii) and introduction to epistemology.

Today, I'm reading from Joseph Margolis' Introduction to Phil Problems' - I"m not so sure I like the style: a kind of smug abstraction that fails to live up to the books seemingly 'easy' style that is implied by the books title (and book cover). This is certainly an American-analytical book, with tributes to Hegel and Historicism here and there (which I really like). He contextualizes problems at the end of a discussion, I think it would be in his interest to present them at the beginning. Whatever. I'm trying to better understand the problems of epistemology through this work ...

.. alright: after a long discussion with my good friend, I decided to reconsider the positioning of my approach to philosophy. Not epistemology, but metaphysics should take the center stage - as these are the real core issues anyone interested in philosophy will lunge towards. The pseudo-scholarly, it seems, become trapped in epistemology. The heart and gold of philosophy is in the most obvious questions - i.e. 'who am I' and 'what is real?'

TO me that makes sense. After this discussion, because my own going relationship with a girl, I ended up thinking about love ... No, not that I'm in love with her, but that she is in love with a man who confuses her with his actions .. I might make an essay out of this, which will be dedicated to her.

(10.19.09) Research, Reading, Writing: Documentation will be blogged !!

These new blogs are going to be my attempt to document my daily research, reading, writing and video-making activities. It has two-functions: (1) for my youtube subscribers to know what to expect, what's coming, where I'm at, and allow them to insert their own ideas or questions; (2) for me to gain perspective, as it is easy for me to "get lost" in my reading and loose track of the larger projects I'm taking on (the largest being the completion of a book(s). Knowing that I have people 'expecting' something from me is a strong impetus to wake up at 5:50 am as I do 80% of the time.

This is totally an experiment, so let me know what you think ...

What do I study? What should you expect? Well:

i) I'm primarily a philosopher (broadly, not a specialist) I take both the suffering AND the grace of other people to be the starting point of my philosophical analysis (i.e. philosophy has historically ignored the impetus towards philosophy: resolving or helping oneself and others, i.e. 'wisdom.' At the same time, philosophy has ignored the physicality of other people (until recently, but still ignores beauty of others and love).

At the same time, I'm both dazzled and frustrated by the magnitude of philosophical problems (especially the problem of consciousness, the problem of temporal modality / ontological identity and problems in semiotics / axiology (i.e. aesthetic representation) and general cosmological problems). These problems might not be ‘real,’ but for me they have an intrinsic interest – kind of like a game of chess (or a game of chessboxin for all the fellow wu fans out there).

I hope to produce an ‘introduction to philosophy’ book / textbook. That is my eventual goal. Everything else within this research falls within that desire.

ii) I’m primarily an Anarchist – meaning I’m opposed to domination in all of its forms. So a lot of my work goes into understanding the roots and dynamics of anarchism in its history and philosophy, as well as current anarchism in the works of Agamben, Zizek, John Zerzan, Kevin Tucker, et cetera. Specifically, my own anarchism falls somewhere between what I call ‘Black-Collar Anarchism’ (working minimally within the system with the intent of destroying it, stealing from it, scamming, et cetera) and Anti-Totality / Post-Civ philosophy (a critique of civilization / the totality from the most apparent (division of labor) to the most non-obvious (reified symbolic language, i.e. later-Wittgenstein and early-Heidegger).

I hope to produce something with closure at some point – i.e. a book on anarchism, or post-civ anarchy et cetera.

Iii) My third area of research is into aesthetics. This has two tendencies: i) The study of philosophical aesthetics – i.e. what is beauty? Is it intrinsic or a human construct? Is there a difference between human-made art and natural beauty? Ii) The second tendency is into the practical analysis of various works – from poetry to visual art, from music to performance art. My research into this is more than tangential, as here I won’t follow a plan so much as follow my nose like a dog in a storm.

My ultimate aim here is to develop fully the capacity to experience art as such – as it is a valuable source of meaning for myself and others. I am pretty critical of the role of art in today’s world, so I imagine producing a work in that area at some point.

So anyways ….

Day-by-day I will give a brief update as to what I’ve been reading or studying, what I am getting from it …

Currently I’m studying these things:

Hebrew thought, literature and some culture (presenting a close reading of the Torah, as well as commentary) … Greek thought, literature and culture (readings of Illiad, Sappho and Aeschylus to come) … Philosophy (specifically epistemology and an introduction to philosophy) I am doing philosophy in 3 different circles: philosophy questions, philosophy readings, and syntopical philosophy (my own philosophy, as the first two are semi-neutral presentations) … Classical Anarchism (the basics) … Post-Structuralism / Postmodernism (specifically the theory of meaning that is central to it, of which I’m critical of) … Post-Civ Anarchism (this will be a huge project of mine for a long time) … Practical-Anarchism … Literature: I’m planning a series of videos that are ‘book reviews’ of novels I recommend: I just finished Franny and Zooey and Tropic of Cancer, now I’m reading Rabelais’ Garganuta and Pantagruel. From here I will be reading Moby Dick and Everything is Illuminated (all of which will have reviews) … I’m also reading poetry at night, prepping videos for Robert Frost and then I will be doing WB Yeats … I’m also trying to figure out how to present readings of works of art (first will probably be Corbet) … on top all of this I will be presenting my journals (maybe all of it in writing here as a blog, but I will def be taking clips out for videos) …

Oh yeah, as for philosophy: I’m doing slow / close readings of both Heidegger’s Being and Time and Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason …

So there you go. More to come.

-J.