Blogs I Read Outside Cinestatic
- An Idiot's Guide to Dreaming
- Bang Out of Order
- Betty's Utility Room
- Beyond the Implode RIP
- Bristling Badger
- doppelganger
- Dreamtime Return
- Electric_dreams
- Farmer Glitch
- Glueboot
- hot spicy bun
- Kid Shirt
- K-Punk
- Octopus 99
- Old Rottenhat
- Scrabbling at the Lock
- sit down man, you're a bloody tragedy
- The Measures Taken
- Take every day as it comes, brothers and sisters
- uncarved.org
- Wrong Side of Capitalism
Other Stuff
- Whorecull
- Moorcock's Miscellany
- Dissensus
- Deleuze
- Guattari
- hegel.net
- Philip K. Dick
- H.P. Lovecraft
- Hans Bellmer
Archives
Here's Johnny!
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Communication Breakdown
Bank holidays, don’t you just love them? We were unable to get an Internet connection all weekend; I have a suspicion that our ISP is trying to force us to move to broadband by making life unpleasant. I never realized just how addicted to the Net we are: I have spent hours upon end sitting here playing Diablo II on one computer, autodialing with the other, whilst very fifteen minutes Mrs effay has been popping her round the door asking whether we’ve got a connection yet. Still, I’ve finally got a connection this morning and it only took ninety minutes.
Except, tomorrow the effay Tactical Nuclear Unit is off on manoeuvres. Long time readers will remember the argument about the tent: We are now off to test out our existing one so that Mrs effay can prove to me that it isn’t big enough, and I can prove to her that she will never get all the stuff she wants to take into the car, let alone a bigger tent. Still the question now is will we be able to cope without computers?
I was going to write about Van der Graaf Generator this weekend, but now I’ll just confine myself to saying that the new album is really very fine. Peter Hammill’s voice is not what it once was, but it will do. There’s just over half an hour of songs and a second CD consisting of studio jams. You know how Hammill is always going on about how Vital wasn’t particularly representative of VdGG? Well this stuff sounds a lot like more like Vital than the other albums, being really rough and strident. I always liked Vital, so I’m not complaining.
Psychbloke goes for an illustrated philosophical top three of Hume, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche. Having just charged through all the A level philosophy set texts, I had to re-read Beyond Good and Evil and, ermm, didn’t enjoy it at all. I found the whole thing rather too hysterical for my taste. Given the fact that I’ve been banging on about Nietzsche to all and sundry for years, this was rather disconcerting. Consequently, I ploughed through some more and had the same reaction. I would rather read Klossowski and Deleuze on Nietzsche than the man himself, and yet I find myself reading Kant for pleasure! I think that I must be going through some sort of intellectual mid-life crisis. Perhaps a few days out in the wilds roaming the mountains, notebook in hand, will sort me out. However, as we’re not going out of Norfolk, there’s not much chance of that.
Except, tomorrow the effay Tactical Nuclear Unit is off on manoeuvres. Long time readers will remember the argument about the tent: We are now off to test out our existing one so that Mrs effay can prove to me that it isn’t big enough, and I can prove to her that she will never get all the stuff she wants to take into the car, let alone a bigger tent. Still the question now is will we be able to cope without computers?
I was going to write about Van der Graaf Generator this weekend, but now I’ll just confine myself to saying that the new album is really very fine. Peter Hammill’s voice is not what it once was, but it will do. There’s just over half an hour of songs and a second CD consisting of studio jams. You know how Hammill is always going on about how Vital wasn’t particularly representative of VdGG? Well this stuff sounds a lot like more like Vital than the other albums, being really rough and strident. I always liked Vital, so I’m not complaining.
Psychbloke goes for an illustrated philosophical top three of Hume, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche. Having just charged through all the A level philosophy set texts, I had to re-read Beyond Good and Evil and, ermm, didn’t enjoy it at all. I found the whole thing rather too hysterical for my taste. Given the fact that I’ve been banging on about Nietzsche to all and sundry for years, this was rather disconcerting. Consequently, I ploughed through some more and had the same reaction. I would rather read Klossowski and Deleuze on Nietzsche than the man himself, and yet I find myself reading Kant for pleasure! I think that I must be going through some sort of intellectual mid-life crisis. Perhaps a few days out in the wilds roaming the mountains, notebook in hand, will sort me out. However, as we’re not going out of Norfolk, there’s not much chance of that.
Posted by: johneffay / 10:37 AM
[ psychbloke 31/05/2005 18:51:05 :: web]
[ infinite 31/05/2005 19:11:13]
[ infinite 31/05/2005 19:14:05]
[ psychbloke 31/05/2005 21:44:28 :: web]
[ infinite 31/05/2005 22:10:40]
[ psychbloke 01/06/2005 01:42:24 :: web]
[ johneffay 01/06/2005 01:59:52 :: web]
[ psychbloke 01/06/2005 02:48:58 :: web]
Care to comment?
Seems to me, in all his non-systematic glory, it might be a bad thing to go ploughing through it - better to pick up a page or two at a time from under the bed? All those poor little sods I used to drag through it for A-Level would, I am sure, agree.....
Have fun in the tent!
Have fun in the tent!
[ psychbloke 31/05/2005 18:51:05 :: web]
something on the philosophy chart thing here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1495678,00.html
[ infinite 31/05/2005 19:11:13]
Nietzsche IS hysterical and surprisingly unpleasant to read I think. Kant much better, especially whacked-out apocalypse and alien politics pieces. Nietzsche also deeply politically conservative, prole-hating and impossible to reconcile with any kind of leftist project.
[ infinite 31/05/2005 19:14:05]
Hmmm... so we're only supposed to read people we agree with ?
John Harris appears to have missed the point entirely, with regard to the purpose of polls and lists. A bit of debate gets stimulated - It's a game not a serious endeavour.
As for Nietzsche, clearly Kant will easily go top three if judged on pushing it all forward, but I was going on readibility and maintain my position - happy to be refuted though - anyone care to push me in the direction of a piece I'll ENJOY reading?
John Harris appears to have missed the point entirely, with regard to the purpose of polls and lists. A bit of debate gets stimulated - It's a game not a serious endeavour.
As for Nietzsche, clearly Kant will easily go top three if judged on pushing it all forward, but I was going on readibility and maintain my position - happy to be refuted though - anyone care to push me in the direction of a piece I'll ENJOY reading?
[ psychbloke 31/05/2005 21:44:28 :: web]
'Hmmm... so we're only supposed to read people we agree with ?'
Not what I said at all! I'm currently reading Gobineau amongst other things, and I'd hardly concur with his arguments. In fact, I'd be the first person to defend reading things you dislike, detest and couldn't defend if you had a gun to your head.
All I was trying to say is that I've read tons of Nietzsche in my time, liked it, but went back to some lately and had much the same reaction as effay, and was similarly surprised.
As regards to the Kant, try 'the end of all things' in the Hackett edition of his Political Writings. It consists of speculations on apocalypse and the worth of the species as a whole. Really very readable with an sf tinge.
Not what I said at all! I'm currently reading Gobineau amongst other things, and I'd hardly concur with his arguments. In fact, I'd be the first person to defend reading things you dislike, detest and couldn't defend if you had a gun to your head.
All I was trying to say is that I've read tons of Nietzsche in my time, liked it, but went back to some lately and had much the same reaction as effay, and was similarly surprised.
As regards to the Kant, try 'the end of all things' in the Hackett edition of his Political Writings. It consists of speculations on apocalypse and the worth of the species as a whole. Really very readable with an sf tinge.
[ infinite 31/05/2005 22:10:40]
Thanks for the steer - I'll go have a look....
[ psychbloke 01/06/2005 01:42:24 :: web]
My point was that I used to enjoy reading Nietzsche, but now I don't. There's always been loads of stuff that I disagreed with in there (such as the whingeing on about national character), but not only could I abstract loads of useful stuff (via Klossowski, Bataille, and Deleuze), but I actually thought he wrote well. I've changed my mind about the latter point.
Incidentally, I find the best way to read philosophy books is to intially take it all in at a breathless rush and then read them incredibly slowly over time afterwards. So I'm sympathetic to keeping Nietzsche (or whoever) under the bed, but only after I've hammered through it in an initial burst of enthusiam.
Psychbloke, whilst IT is not wrong about the Kant, the one you really should go for is Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View which is genuinely laugh-out-load funny (particularly the material on dinner parties). As somebody with a taste for Freud, I'm sure you would enjoy it.
On the other hand, if you want to go for something which is somewhat more philosophically useful, the 'Critique of Teleological Judgement' (the second half of The Critique of Judgement) is just mind blowing. You need to have some background knowlege of the First Critique in order to see why it's so beserk, but I would imagine that, given your thing about Schopenhauer, you'd do just fine.
Incidentally, I find the best way to read philosophy books is to intially take it all in at a breathless rush and then read them incredibly slowly over time afterwards. So I'm sympathetic to keeping Nietzsche (or whoever) under the bed, but only after I've hammered through it in an initial burst of enthusiam.
Psychbloke, whilst IT is not wrong about the Kant, the one you really should go for is Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View which is genuinely laugh-out-load funny (particularly the material on dinner parties). As somebody with a taste for Freud, I'm sure you would enjoy it.
On the other hand, if you want to go for something which is somewhat more philosophically useful, the 'Critique of Teleological Judgement' (the second half of The Critique of Judgement) is just mind blowing. You need to have some background knowlege of the First Critique in order to see why it's so beserk, but I would imagine that, given your thing about Schopenhauer, you'd do just fine.
[ johneffay 01/06/2005 01:59:52 :: web]
It's interesting to contemplate how best to read stuff isn't it?
I reckon the worst place to start is usually someone else's introduction.
I don't hammer through, but I do try to skip back and forth until I'm totally happy.
I know it's a clapped out cliche, but I found I never really understood books 'til I had to explain them to a seventeen year old, which is what I kinda miss about not teaching much now (and I suppose why I reduce everything to Star Wars or similar. The Form Of the Good really works if viewed as a megazord)
Anyhow - thanks for the suggested Kant stuff.
I reckon the worst place to start is usually someone else's introduction.
I don't hammer through, but I do try to skip back and forth until I'm totally happy.
I know it's a clapped out cliche, but I found I never really understood books 'til I had to explain them to a seventeen year old, which is what I kinda miss about not teaching much now (and I suppose why I reduce everything to Star Wars or similar. The Form Of the Good really works if viewed as a megazord)
Anyhow - thanks for the suggested Kant stuff.
[ psychbloke 01/06/2005 02:48:58 :: web]
Care to comment? 