"the terminology of computer-mediated communication implies an increasing sense of distance and alienating isolation, and the corporate hype enthuses about a new sense of interpersonal interaction. but the keystrokes of users on the net connect them to a vast distributed plane composed not merely of computers, users, and telephone lines, but all the zeroes and ones of machine code, the switches of electronic circuitry, fluctuating waves of neurochemical activity, hormonal energy, thoughts, desires…
in spite, or perhaps even because of the screen, the digital zone facilitates unprecedented levels of spontaneous affection, intimacy, and informality, exposing the extent to which older media, especially what continues to be called ‘real life,’ come complete with a welter of inhibitions, barriers, and obstacles sidestepped by the packet-switching systems of the net. face-to-face communication—the missionary position so beloved of western man—is not at all the most direct of all possible ways to communicate.”
—sadie plant, zeros and ones: digital women and the new technoculture, 1997
R.I.P. milady’s. it was part of the trifecta of the first and only places that i have ever been truly happy (along with nylon, which was around the corner, and porto rico, the also-now-defunct coffee shop that my ex-boyfriend worked at, which was on the same street). i hung out there as an assistant at that first magazine job, and later when i was a condé nast beauty director, and later, when i got a book deal and became an editor at the times. i can assure you that no one gave a shit and that if anyone was paying for drinks it was probably me. after a day with fashion or publishing assholes i usually found this soothing.
the bar was my living room during my mid-to-late twenties. i moved into my ex-boyfriend’s tiny studio a block away and then we moved even closer, just a few doors down. marc and i went there on an early date and he asked me to go to spain with him; aliza and i were mesmerized by this casual territorialization. it probably took me until a few weeks ago to realize that she and i were probably hypersignificantly invested in that potential hypersignificance.
one of my friends was a waitress at milady’s and this picture (not the one i was looking for) is from her wedding reception there. marc was like “that’s where we would have had our wedding!” but none of my old neighbors talk to me anymore and i don’t actually blame them. i decided last time we were there that it was actually the last time, which it was.
"how can we rewrite the past so that it changes the present into a different future?" "the nobility of failures.” “how to think a politics that isn’t a critique.” “we speak, but luckily not all the time. we also act. speaking is acting, but boring acting.” “geography, not history. spatialization is more important than the movement of events…temporality, not chronology. how space, geography, terrain give rise to ideas, concepts." "the body is a set of conflicting forces. each part of the body is an agent that wants what it wants…forces that clash are always productive.” “the text as a literary machine which produces external relations between objects. a work of art is essentially productive, produces truths.” “bergson: waiting as the proof that the world is not subjectively given.” “pain is creative…pleasure is boring, conformist.” “spinoza is interested in what i can do, not what i am…a great thinker of affects and ethics. what relations do i enter into that make me stronger? which make me weaker? what a body enables itself to do, how it grows larger than itself/actions. 'i am what i do next.'" "a theory of desire that is not about lack." "the subaltern can speak, but can i listen properly." "foucault: the practice of truth and the care of the self.” “no origin, but linkages.” “art as an ally, not an object." "how space can be deranged so bodies can act in different ways." "interested in 2 things that can’t incorporate each other but follow each other in parallel." "aphorisms…his texts meander…rhizomatic… never amends, no corrections, doesn’t change mind…concept, not argument.” “theory should be experimental—it should take risks, engender effects, produce things, make new objects of investigation. theory should be judged by what it enables us to do, not what it enables us to know.” “phenomenology is wrong. there are forces that never appear to us that we have to address." "concepts are the condition of being otherwise. they are full of hope." "topology.” “the outside is what occasions us to think and speak…not inside.” “nietzsche: the subject is a surface that acts as if it has a depth…the inside is produced by doubling/folding of outside…” “i define myself through acts—i make, i do, so a subject. to act and make is to free self.” “to be open to the future we have to forget the past even as we embody it.” “f produced an entire body of work based on judicious remembering and forgetting.” “desire makes and connects. sometimes pleasure interrupts desire.” “pleasure/desire is bodily force that can mobilize us in particular contexts—surprise—forces that act, not subjects who ask." —thank you, liz grosz. (there is more on the way.)
i looked at this kind of by mistake but it is exactly what i need to think about right now.
sara ahmed, queer phenomenology: orientations, objects, others
being bracketed—or behind—is dangerous. i’m not going to link to the photos.
“that which lies outside of his discourse yet provides it with its very condition of possibility”
Geraldine Finn | Women and the Ideology of Science | Why Althusser Killed His Wife: Essays on Discourse and Violence
cf. page 7 “philosophers and political scientists have always killed their wives”
alain badiou, in praise of love, before he quotes pessoa’s “love is a thought.”
franco berardi, the uprising: on poetry and finance (via death-suit). i’m pretty sure tavia suggested that i read this last fall.
FGT: love gives you the space and the place to do other work.
—from the felix gonzalez-torres and ross bleckner interview
but i also promised to go blonde again, and was planning on going back on at least one of these. that might not be fair.
walking to dinner, after buying the apartment, i announced that i had really never wanted my kid to go to school in new york city. at least not private school or one of the fancy public schools. i knew all those kids at vassar and when i worked at teen vogue and also at the new york times. they were super-entitled dicks. i felt sorry for how competitive they had to be with one another as kids. i was repulsed by how competitive they still were with one another as adults. i thought it was weird that they even still knew each other as adults. i thought they were actually pretty provincial, growing up here and barely leaving, except maybe for college. i thought new york was something you were supposed to (i know) work for. that shitty summer i spent folding towels at a howard johnsons instead of going to nerd camp like i wanted to and all those other kids did. and should children be exposed to that much wealth? one of my former colleagues built a movie theater for her son in the family’s summer home. i imagined myself as the mother of an underachieving fuck-up who went to an arts magnet, just like my favorite interviewee who wasn’t lena dunham.
marc paused, then said, evenly, “well, i never thought i would be able to send my kid to school in new york, but it turns out that we can. i always wish i had gone somewhere like that.”
i understand having school feelings. it’s just that i really believed they were going to be better, but then they weren’t. my program is sometimes reparative.
yesterday marc was busy “researching brooklyn montessoris and their varying admissions processes.” he told me that one used to be an all-girls school and emailed me information on its alums: a female vassar english professor, a suffragist, a feminist writer, a co-founder of the NAACP. he said “i want our child to be part of that tradition” and i said “fine, i’ll get her in.”