2004-03-28 09:44 (link)
what do you mean about joyces?
(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)
Re: primus inter pares
2004-03-29 03:15 (link)
The joyce thing is the embracing of damage and purity and the victimization and the self-control and self-awareness and selfobsession and guilt and lies and survivalism and shakesperian and morality versus amorality and deeper truth and deeper lying and scratching the bone and your insides and over analysis, but obviously not just e,bracing it-hating I too-but never really hating it. The joyce thing comes down to being at school and not being in the popular group and loving it-it comes down to successfully reading plath and freud and des cartes at 15 and loving it and laughing at the top ten chart. It’s an oshea thing and also a devaney thing I think, it’s not mine but I don’t care. It’s standing in the street and revelling in a passer bys put down comments man. It’s watching the strokes revolution and feeling comfortable not being involved and not knowing whether or not you can and wanting to compete-it’s elitism in the form of offbeat and being committed to a content that isn’t recognised in magazines and clubs. It’s a great thing but a projected thing and of course self indulgent thing. But it has layers too, it is textured, like the joyce thing differenciates from the oshea thing in the fact that it is penetrable and sometimes entirely transparent and loveable. It is different in the ‘I only like these bands------‘ way, but I am influenced by my proximity and a smiths album or a kelis album can change this. It’s not entirely honest but it things it is. It’s wearing nail varnish and not being scared shitless about peoples response it is wearing a tutu and joking about peoples responses, it isn’t competitiveness with onesself in that respect. I think it is confidence in a way that isn’t recognised enough. It isn’t desperately trying to it isn’t idolization , it isn’t turning up at school with a new bag every term and a tan and it isn’t getting to 2am and worryiung about sleep and health and it isn’t mediocrity. It isn’t wanting more until you’re vomitus and bled it’s maybe not self perceived but it’s n. it’s not having a new bag and holidays and literally everything and not being able to achieve the teenage accompanyment, it’s cornwall for two weeks and being well read and not having a sporty family. I can’t explain it anybetter, I thing this is something we talk about not write- you don’t gtet to see it and I don’t think you ever get to understand it if you have it. I think it is a fantastic thing, I think that the question should not be ‘what is the joyce thing?’ but what is the ‘holland thing?’ then you’ll know, I think you needs caravaning holidays in france to ever truly know this one, you can’t read it but you can watch grange hilland more so the archetype american high school movies and not find the koolkidz repulsive and a joke but entirely desirable. Oh god yeh and it’s not watching much tv oh god it’s so much I can’t begin.
(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)
Re: primus inter pares
2004-03-29 06:19 (link)
i'm not sure how much of this is true thom, i think there is a lot of projecting going on and that a lot of the things you talk about are things that you do yourself (also things everyone does), which is ok. the problem is, i think, that you're trying to tie too much (what people wear, listen to, how they react to things, even what they think) to various ideologies. the problem with that is that generally, however much people might wish to espouse these ideologies and be seen to fit with them (for better or worse reasons), the actual impetuses behind what people do are more often so various and multifold, so filled with uncategorisable minutiae, that they cannot be actually or usefully tied to anything resembling a straightforward set of beliefs or prejudices or ideas. this isn't a defence of anyone, in fact if you read it certain ways it sounds more like a criticism. i think the problem is that it's so easy to live with the self-aggrandising myth that the reasons that 'the reasons that i have for doing x, y or z are far more complex and liberal, far more daring and cosmopolitan than anyone that i know, because everyone else puts a cap on the breadth/depth of their experiences'. it's easy to think that, and to a certain extent i imagine everyone does, but it's important to remember that we all have our prejudices, all have our cut off points and also, crucially, that probably everyone else does things for reasons probably just as complex and just as the ones that i have. even the people that seem most ostensibly to have a fixed ideology behind everything they do (and actually, i think it's odd that you cite the fuzz club as being the kind of place where these people aren't - i think they're absolutely there, far more so than in anyone that i know) have much more to them than just that - sometimes you can criticise the ideology they seem to be upholding, but this is fruitless because because because... also sometimes you can strip the ideology away and maybe find the various actual reasons behind behaviour or choices, and sometimes these are nice (i think this is maybe what you mean when you say 'loveable'), but sometimes these actual reasons are not so nice and that can cause a rift - it's never nice to find conservative or highly prejudiced doctrine hiding behind a supposedly liberal front (you know this, you've experienced this). the problem is also that you seem to be positing people has having a 'centre' - there is never a centre - the reasons people have for doing things can be simple or complex, sometimes they may tally and coalesce into something we might call 'character', but they are never that simple. in every event that you list there is maybe a stock reaction that you might expect from someone, but that isn't enough to form an ideology or a 'thing'. every instance of one of those moments will be different and every experience of that moment will be different, even if the response remains the same. i can't go into specific details and i can't really name names here, but i think there is a potentially dangerous chord of thought running through these ideas which says 'i know what to expect from people, i know how they operate to a useful degree' - the danger is reducing people to an ideology which in the actual reality of themselves, bears very little resemblance.
(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)
You don’t just eat to live…
2004-03-29 12:45 (link)
I don’t agree at all, I think you are being too literal. It’s like emotional argument versus academic. And you do academic very well and trouce me X1000 in that respect and in the respect you got good marks at school but it lacks empathy and it’s just way too detached and it never matters that you have a good theory in class but can’t get it down in essay format. It comes down a lot like the robot and dinosaur debate, of course it’s relative and projecting! How can it not be and it mayb end up completely fruitless despite the catharsis but it it the process and the analaysis-for a start it is lkind of unavoidable but also hated and enjoyable! I would never suggest anything is simplistic as you are stating I am ever. but there is a grouping where say you and laura could come home from a club and continue drinking and it used to be that the oshea and joyce thing was it was okay to stay in doors allday hung over with the curtains closed and i couldn’t ever do that, and in the respect you can group me with kate and samira maybe. It’s an observation, but not dangerous- and the whole thing is undermined by the politics of things not being as simple as attemtping not to reduce them and leave them “the danger is reducing people to an ideology which in the actual reality of themselves, bears very little resemblqacne.” Is bad politics. This is what we do, this is how we function, it’s an optimistic idea, but ultimately denies all the complexities that you are trying to promote! I agree with everything youn say in theory perhaps, but it is too detached—of course there is projection man! That is an analytical extension and it’s safe. I think your whole reply suggest your own ability, but iyt is your presumption not mine. Projection is an assumption of what to expect from people and even how to operate maybe, I think it would be naïve the paranoia and guilt and jealousy prevent liberal manifestos and fascist doctrines are unavoidable, and then you get the hypocrisy and lies. it’s all about effort!
Your whole reply is very adult, which I don’t appreciate, In the respect that it doesn’t reek of damaged from experience. It shouldn’t be taken as literal, but at the same time it kinda should. It is truthful, it’s nihilism with guilt! and it isn;’t cynical or critical, I think you deny the fact that the final question to you should be ‘what does it mean to be thom holland?’ and not to worry about the fact that it will overlay and is problematic and faulted but just acceptit and build on it and it won’t resemble me but it it’s like I said in kerries essay-it is totally a culture thing. It is relative and only a commentary and so we won’t agree but don’t accept the ideology, criticise it because it is your responsibility to these people;it’s not populist it’s completely specialist-and that is like the whole sensitive lie thing- this is what I want not what is true and I can’t accept what I want-that is psychosis! That’s the problem, writing it down is wonderful, but it is simply not true and then it has to be made true and we have all seen that happen. The complexity comes in my failure of course. this isn't accpetable but what do you expect?it's holland versus devaney
(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)
Re: You don’t just eat to live…
2004-03-30 05:00 (link)
i'm not sure. i'm having trouble parsing some of your sentences so you'll have to bear with me, i have a class in ten minutes so this will have to be quick (also i am thinking that it would be better if my surname was also a country name - then it could be a proper kind of dinosaur vs. robot war). however. It’s an observation, but not dangerous- and the whole thing is undermined by the politics of things not being as simple as attemtping not to reduce them and leave them - of course everyone creates ideas of people in their heads, i said so myself, it is unavoidable and it is how we function. of course. i think it's bad to rely on it, or to create something that seems actually tangible from it. everyone lumps people together and labels them, this is fine, but you can't, i don't think, build relationships on it. i think a lot of what you say is kind of extraneous to what we're talking about - i'm not sure what it has to do with an academic argument, i don't think that's what i gave really. what all this stems from is an idea of their being a joyce 'thing' or an o'shea 'thing' (or a whoever 'thing'). and my point being that nobody really has a 'thing' - you can make assumptions about them and you can tick boxes about them but i don't think you can quantify anyone quite in that way or simplify them or complicate them if that's how you look at it. i don't think you can do it because, well, if you can then what's the point in actually talking to people or doing anything except talking to your own head? this seems all to abstract for me actually - we could talk about actual events and people's reactions to them and we'd probably mostly be in agreement. maybe it's just the terminology you're using i object to. it sounds to me like you're saying you have people figured out. perhaps you're not saying that at all. i'm not sure. it's easy to be distanced and to be abstract and it's easy to be anecdotal, but conflating the two doesn't really appeal to me. i am not sure what you mean by 'politics', that seems irrelevant also. i think the problem might be that we all want things, if we want them for different reasons then that can create tension. all of which sounds so hackneyed it isn't even true. i have to go, but more later maybe if i can get my head around what is actually being said and what isn't and so on...
|comments: Afiŝu novan komenton|