Bigsley the Oaf

EYE/muse

Posted in Uncategorized by bigsleytheoaf on March 7, 2010

It feels like the eye of the universe has stopped looking at me. Perhaps it is no coincidence that Jen has gone. Perhaps this is the desire we wish to satiate by our construction of inseparability.

Today I have thought many times that I would like to make some beautiful art, or a game, or a poem, or a song. But who would be looking on? I don’t think that anyone cares about what I create, so.

Enter the concept of a muse, yeah? An entity who, regardless of the degree to which it is imagined, looks on. For instance, who do I write these posts for? My muse, my muse.

But there is so much art in the world, so many songs – why would anyone care about mine.

No, no, the world just wants my ability to map data into data, to be a good programmer, to sit at my desk and type type type, gather that data, recombine, calculate, manipulate. Pah!

But, it’s seemed more acute, recently. People cut off their conversations with me. The readership graph for this blog is dropping off. I’ve felt it very immediately, this turning of all eyes away from me. When I walk down the street I feel like a ghost, a ghost. No one’s making any definite plans to visit me.

Ah, I’m just lonely, is all.

Advertisements

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Cat Pierro said, on March 8, 2010 at 5:01 pm

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

    I read your blog sometimes and SOMETIMES it gives me the strange feeling of being interpellated as the eye of the universe.

    I know in so far as I respond I can no longer successfully occupy that role. ->Relief.

    ~~~

    More importantly.

    Desire is totally obscure to me too, for the same reasons, and it’s been bugging me for months. I can recommend reading (Plato’s Gorgias, e.g.) that will bring you no closer to an answer but will allow you to bang your head against the same wall from different angles. But also, a major commitment of mine that seems to be far from your mind:

    -There is a difference between Desires-That-I-Care-About (like being loved back) and Itches (like clicking around the internet). What kind of difference I’m not sure (inherent in the form of the desire, part of my “belief”-shaped “perspective” on the desire, what) but they definitely feel different. It is very important to me to figure out what this difference is. Possible directions:

    –1. I “identify” with desires-I-care-about and I don’t “identify” with Itches, hence the latter cause me to feel less “autonomous.” ….This answer is obviously incomplete, because why do I do such a thing? Also, should I stop? (Also, the whole model of there being a Me who then chooses things to identify with… seems undermined by the idea of identification itself, the fact that identification is supposed to form the Me. I’d like to abandon the word identify for this reason, hence the quotation marks.)

    –2. According to Zizek anyway, Lacan thinks that the “death drive” (as far as I can tell, Freud used this to describe when he wanted things and it seemed creepy to him that he wanted them, like he was just repeating things like a programmed machine) is “desire without fantasy” and that desire in its pure state is terrifying so we invent fantasies (the whole range of colorful desires we care about) in order to cover it up. ….I don’t know what to make of this either.

    Yeah… fill me in if you figure anything out.

    -Cat

    • bigsleytheoaf said, on March 12, 2010 at 9:32 am

      Why is a desire that you (Cat, the person, the personality, the social being, etc.) care about different from a desire that you (Cat, the body, the nervous system, the autonomous genetic response structure) care about? Well, I think that question just more of less answered itself.

      A desire is simply a structural state in which there exists an imprint (fantasy?) of some X on the doer which drives the doer towards X. Isn’t it so? Is there a better, more complete, definition?

      In the context of this definition, how are “desires you care about” different from “itches?” It just seems like they are desires operating on different doers which means that you observe them differently.

      Freud’s idea seems to some degree self-destructive – if we wish to escape something terrifying then do we also create desires and fantasies to cover up these wishes? Or are we for some reason not aware of these desires but are aware of the desires which we rationalize? I certainly believe in rationalization, and it makes sense that we rationalize to resolve the unknown, re-attain a simple worldview, etc. but his theory seems a bit over-engineered. Why would we have an elaborate system of resolving terror through fantasy – how could this happen? Do we do this by choice? There seems to be a lot of extra structure involved in his (and Lacan’s) theories (e.g. “death drive” is a bit overburdened with connotations, in my opinion) which I can’t really pin down as being necessary. Then again, his theories seem more elegant in a certain sense – namely, they seem to embrace the idea that human psychology functions or at least started by accident (with all sorts of crazy, immutable, atomic entities flying around and crashing into each other) rather than as a perfect, purely conceived whole.

      Ah, I’m pretty tired. Hopefully this answered something. I’ll probably try responding again when it’s not 1:32 and we’ll see what happens then.

      Hope!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: