I read Lady Chatterly's Lover in 2010 (it left an impression). I know it's scandalous but it was so much more than that to me. It was very timely for me. That book touched on so many parts of life that are completely neglected in today's world. Constance was in love with nature, and she was in love with Mellors. but not "in love". a deeper, share a mouth type of love. I digress...
anyway.
I had actually forgotten that it was written by DH Lawrence, and I went through a phase with him around that same time.
sometimes I push parts of myself so far down, so far into the background, that I forget they exist. what a shame. when I'm an old lady I'll regret that more than anything.
Comments
Source @36:06
One of the chapters in your book opens up with a personal story. So you're describing how you hiked many hours into the grand canyon with your partner, and then when you reached your destination, some sort of scenic spot, another hiker showed up. But rather than enjoying the view, she only asked you to take a picture of her in front of the scenery, which is of course something that i guess every one of us is used to, and then she just immediately walked on. And then you relate her behavior to social media usage, and describe it as, and here i'm quoting, "escaping the pressure of the present rather than preserving experiences and memories." Um and they seem to be a little bit critical of the hiker, can you explain that?
No it doesn't want to be critical, because um i'm fascinated but what's going on what's going on in social media, and i know that oh you're the connection, world center, because that's why i read with a lot of fascination your work on profilicity. There's something going on about the way we build our identity on on social media which i think is not described, with our current categories and i was different to photographers the way people take photographs. i think i write this piece in the chapter people are not stupid they're not superficial, they do something different because they communicate the situation changed and people deal in a different way with with this uh technological accomplishments, and so photographs clearly are not, well the photo digital photographs have not the same purpose of analogic photographs
i'm i'm a digital migrant so i remember how we took photographs and photos of traditions were taken to preserve memories. To preserve memories and to deepen them later, to keep a moment of time and to be able to look at it later. And what's going on now seems to be something different. Well, think about snapchat photos, which are taken and put on snapchat are destroyed, so there's no preservation there. So the function might be something different. Not because people are stupid, not because superficial, because they're doing something different, right? Exactly, and i was thinking about something, it is not completely worked out, i just tried to put some hints there, but also in the way of dealing with images. With photographs, there were reflections, susan sontag or authorities, they say actually photographs are, in a sense, what the said "images can usurp realities". With images, with photographs, we sort of get away from the pressure of reality and try to do something different. But it was a certain analogical space. Now with that with digital, it seems to be something even more. That we use photographs when the pressure of reality is too heavy, which means "always today." Because in our society we also have the pressure the present, the only time we can accomplish something, and we have never attentive enough to do everything what should be done. We don't never have enough information to really work out,control what's going on, and uh so and, you are there in a present in such a important moment. For example, the Grand Canyon... you walk down for four hours, you walk up for six, is so heavy, and so overwhelming, and and then the moment is gone, and you don't process ever all the fullness of this experience. You know that, you're aware of that a lot of things are gone, and then you are not considering that you are gone or people in museums. You watch this amazing pictures and there's so much you lose in the moment, and that's the awareness that we have is a basic one for our society, and i thought pictures seems to be a way to deal with that. Because um in front of this pressure, you take a picture, and the picture releases from this pressure. In a sense, you share it with someone else, you refer to a later time, on which you probably will never see it. And so there's a new way to try to escape the pressure of the present. That was the idea not completely worked out but something different from what we are doing with photographs before.
The other side of this interactivity is interpassivity. The obverse of interacting with the object (instead of just passively following the show) is the situation in which the object itself takes from me, deprives me of, my own passivity, so that it is the object itself which enjoys the show instead of me, relieving me of the duty to enjoy myself. Almost every VCR aficionado who compulsively records movies (myself among them), is well aware that the immediate effect of owning a VCR is that one effectively watches less films than in the good old days of a simple TV set. One never has time for TV, so, instead of losing a precious evening, one simply tapes the film and stores it for a future viewing (for which, of course, there is almost never time). Although I do not actually watch the films, the very awareness that the films I love are stored in my video library gives me a profound satisfaction and, occasionally, enables me to simply relax and indulge in the exquisite art of far’niente – as if the VCR is in a way watching them for me, in my place. VCR stands here for the big Other, the medium of symbolic registration. It seems that, today, even pornography functions more and more in an interpassive way: X-rated movies are no longer primarily the means destined to excite the user for his (or her) solitary masturbatory activity – just staring at the screen where “the action takes place” is sufficient, it is enough for me to observe how others enjoy in the place of me. -Zizek, "How to Read Lacan"
I think people are now afraid to actually experience the event. I guess feelings and emotions are scary, even if they're positive.
I think people are terrified of solitude (always have been) but instead of strengthening that fearful part of themselves, they weaken it further with constant social media validation.
I remember posting photos of my camping trip on Facebook several years back, and I could tell immediately that was a bad road to go down. I was instantly removed from the actual experience and was only thinking of what to post next. For me it was as if the camping trip became a job, and the joy was suddenly gone. I have a few friends that tell me I should post about my kids and vacations on FB and my response is, you should call me more and I'll tell you all about it.
That's why I always loved the abstract things you did with photos... more "art" than "memory".
...we've been "conditioned" and now spend "emotional capital" as a form os "social capital".
Ali Jones
This paper investigates the discursive infrastructures of contemporary German Antifa activism in light of the 1977 Red Army Faction attacks. The analysis relies on unpublished interviews about these attacks with Michel Foucault in 1977, wherein he explains that hidden state structural violence can only be called out by activists biopolitically ‘becoming the terror’ themselves. The paper uses this intellectual foreground to understand the changing nature of German Militanz (as opposed to violence - Jones 2018) in the Autonomous Antifa. The paper compares the biopolitics of ‘becoming the terror’ to a form of sovereignty claim by movements who reject the state monopoly on violence, and instead seek to reveal how the state has failed to uphold its end of the social contract. Furthermore, by claiming this monopoly, and in effect their own sovereignty, Antifa tend to root their societal frameworks on the understanding of Militanz as a limited “moralised violence” grounded in decades of published internal debate in what Fraser would call a radical counterpublic sphere.
The paper use the alleged actions of Antifa Ost to interrogate the nature of their Militanz as a form of (perhaps now lacking) political infrastructure, in contrast to the vigorous discursive structures of Antifa violence after 1977. Concluding that only the ‘ghost’ of these counterpublics remain, it ultimately queries whether Antifa Ost’s alleged use of violence can adhere to the standard of “the political” and thus the “sovereign” anymore.