N.P. censorship

[Ian Livingston]

Critical Theory types work to discover how real change might be
theoretically possible.

But there a severe practical limitations.

Partial deterritorialization only leads to reterritorialization.

Here comes the new boss,
same as the old boss.

Where people want to follow someone ends up leading somehow, just
because she, or he, happens to be going along wherever it is they
happen to be looking at the moment.  Funny how leaders more often
*happen* than make themselves.  If large numbers of people embrace
anarchistic thought, it will be "so-and-so's" anarchism they follow.
Maybe Wilber is near the heart of the matter when he says that people
all start out at the same developmental stage and progress along their
particular developmental path until they get off and say "that's
enough.  I'll just stay at this stage."  Most commonly that stage is
the stage of ethnocentric values in which "my group" is the right one
and everyone else is wrong.

-i

On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bekah" <Bekah0176 at sbcglobal.net>
> To: "Ian Livingston" <igrlivingston at gmail.com>
> Cc: "Paul Mackin" <mackin.paul at gmail.com>; <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 12:02 PM
> Subject: Re: N.P. censorship
>
>
>> Catching up again -
>>
>> The only classic these days  is Coke - and it was brought out as  "new."
>> We've been on this "new" and original thing since the avant  gard artists on
>> the left bank in Paris - Matisse was accepted.   Then  the moderns were
>> accepted and then post-modern.   Now what?  What's  the next new thing so we
>> can all be "in the know" and go out and buy  it and be cool.
>>
>> I wonder what happened to being able to do the old thing better -  like
>> Mozart did,  the way Picasso started.  What happened to the  artist's
>> following classic rules about a thing and getting some  interest from
>> "within" the work.
>>
>> Don't know -  loved the Zen book when I was  late 20s but I can't go  back
>> and reread because I loved it too much and I'd hate to be  disappointed.
>> That was back in the days when this non-lit major her  main critique was, "I
>> like it - therefore it is good."
>>
>> Bekah
>
> Well, anarchy would be new and it would certainly be a shock.
>
> Reminds me of chapter 12 of VL
>
> Brock sez youth may think they want freedom from rules but they really
> don't.
>
> Derived inspiration from Lombroso, who observed that most 'normal' people
> have a strong aversion  to this type change.
>
> Critical Theory types work to discover how real change might be
> theoretically possible.
>
> But there a severe practical limitations.
>
> Partial deterritorialization only leads to reterritorialization.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 27, 2009, at 10:33 AM, Ian Livingston wrote:
>>
>>> Good question.  I have another:  is the 'new' a good in itself?
>>> Westerners, especially Americans, seem to be guided by novelty.  I
>>> recollect a song by Loggins & Messina back somewhere in the '70s about
>>> how so much of what was offered up as desirable was the "same old wine
>>> in a brand new bottle."  Not that 'antique' offers any successful
>>> counterpoint, really, as much of the stuff I grew up using day to day
>>> is now 'antique' and I'm not that old.  Merely a midlifer at 52.  But
>>> quality also raises more questions, some of which Robert Pirsig
>>> explored superficially in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
>>> and Plato examined more closely a couple millennia ago.  What is the
>>> good?  What is outside the good?  How much is subjective?  And how
>>> much objective measure can we reference in determining the virtue of
>>> something?
>>>
>>> Well, I guess that gives me enough to think about today at the
>>> laundromat.
>>>
>>> -i
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 7:48 AM, Paul Mackin  <mackin.paul at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "rich" <richard.romeo at gmail.com>
>>>> To: "Ian Livingston" <igrlivingston at gmail.com>
>>>> Cc: "pynchon -l" <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 11:00 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: N.P. censorship
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> one's torn b/w decrying censorship and having to defend shitty art
>>>>>
>>>>> shitty in the sense of being so...obvious
>>>>>
>>>>> shocking doesn't work for me anymore I suppose
>>>>>
>>>>> just my opinion
>>>>>
>>>>> that graphically depicts a female middle school student, on her  knees,
>>>>> performing oral sex on a standing male middle school science  teacher.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well. there is shocking and shocking.
>>>>
>>>> In art criticism the phrase is "shock of the new," a big deal when
>>>> modern
>>>> art was taking hold.
>>>>
>>>> But that had to do with aesthetically shocking.
>>>>
>>>> In the case in question, is the portrayal anything aeestically new?
>>>>
>>>> Important question.
>>>>
>>>> What happens when the shocking is really nothing new and therefore  not
>>>> really shocking but merely deplorable?
>>>>
>>>> P
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/25/09, Ian Livingston <igrlivingston at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This just struck me a somehow related to the topic of fascism  (as in
>>>>>> how it is that some come to think for many):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090325/entertainment/
>>>>>> sculpture_removed
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>