i thought it was interesting but kind of a troll -- says the nipple twister. :)
i was also lost through some of it. what's a project? what is "state of pre-commitment confusion"?
i was also unclear as to what this paragraph meant: "Usually, though, the major clue that someone is not a GV is the willngness and capacity to be taken over by a depersonalisng passion. Grey Vampires, like Trolls, tend to be extremely self-conscious, and part of what motivates them is a poisonous envy of others who are possessed by this kind of depersonalising passion."
what is a depersonalising passion? is this just an idiom peculiar to k-punkage or is the result of reading badiou? i see zizek and lacan's name, but the lingo isn't reducible to those thinkers, no.
abd then this quotage:
"Being a fan doesn't mean being "uncritical." There is not some sort of opposition between gullible belief on one side and critical distance on the other. The fan stands somewhere in between the devotee and the critic.
In fact, being a fan of someone most often means "cutting them some slack." A true devotee would not need to do this, because the devotee (or "sycophant", if you prefer) never admits that the object of worship did anything wrong in the first place."
the fuck? OK, so whoever called someone a fan -- they really meant a devotee. Why the need to hold on to the word fan? rescue it? who frickin' cares? maybe there are just different kinds of fans? like maybe we could be aristotle and run 'round classifying maybe, who knows?, 20 different kinds of fans.
where are they getting this stuff? just making it up?
and why is kpunk writing as if s/he's not a fan? or devotee? or critic? whatever the category, all three types? they are some Other, out there. quite bizarre. obviously, it's not bad to be any of these things since
and this: "(Zizek could also be considered a betrayer of Lacan for the same reason: expounding Lacan's doctrines in a lucid style could be seen as depriving them of something essential, their late modernist intractability.) "
made me roll my eyes so hard they are currently sticking to the ceiling. ferfuck's.
oh no! this:
"Interesting consequences also follow from being a fan of more than one thing at the same time. (cf Graham's being a fan of both Heidegger and Latour.) The Last Man stance is to keep the two objects separate, to insist on their irreducibility to one another. But it's far more interesting to ask the question: is there any principle or set of principles that can allow me to be a fan of both of these two things? Is there some invisible consistency that binds them? Or must I favour one over the other, and on what grounds? "
my freakin eyes are bolting through the ceiling. Dwayne, are they just being hiply ironic?
might as just as well have started humming: "torn between two lovers, feelin' like a fool. loving both of you is breaking all the rules. "
and then this to close:
"Badiou rejects empirical science because it is too fuzzily mired in the material world."
philosophy. plato. footnote. gottit.
not to take away from kpunk because i've generally enjoyed the blog, but still: the fuck?!
http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)