Informal Theory: Forget Mad
I subscribe to Mad in America. They recently promoted something called Social Psychiatry. It's basically sociology, some eco principles, some medical anthropology. I am personally sickened at the biggest publication of the mad movement getting compromised. Obviously money is involved and we have a bunch of middling opportunistic elites in leadership getting comfortable with neoliberalism.
In two ways I am happy though. One, that such publications may lead in the long term to a lot of psychiatrists becoming unemployed. Taste the medication. Hopefully this happens in my lifetime.
Now, two, I am given to thoughts for the time being of "Forget Mad" and in turn embrace my labelling but as a non-medical category. Instrumentalising identity politics but in the cringe-stigma of "schizoaffective." I don't see identitarians readily jumping to defend my rights because of ageism. And of stigma that will still keep disbelief no matter how accomplished a schizoaffective is. This mistrust even happens in the mad community and usually from the aforementioned leadership.
I'm busting balls. I've made joking avowals on this. It's a writer's perk.
In the philosophical tradition much is made of schizophrenia as a verb, as a practice. What we don't see from Deleuze is the inclusion of psychosis. It's something that only rates if art and ethics maintains. This usually happens in a gainful way if someone is in position of gain. William Burroughs and the IBM estate.
There's another academician term I saw "practical schizophrenia." This is again the non-psychosis whitewash of Deleuzianism and base utilitarianism. The gainful. The well heeled. The already celebrated. The only mention of struggle is only theoretical, not robustly political. I though respect Negarestani and specifically his Geotrauma work.
Nick Land I have little respect for but one thing is that he has no allegiance to respectabilities. He's dirty and messy. As aesthetic I like. But aesthetic is usually the weakest point in politics that refuse fascism. That is a common portal for all the fascist writers out there. Additionally, I don't understand any fascist claim to transcendence unless it's a contradictory goose building an Empyrean nest with fireplace embers.
So maybe a return to Deleuze for the moment. The impractical bit though. That's communism. It's insurrection. That's personal history. It's the sputtering thought I just had about rejecting zizek on Marxism as coming from capital and susceptible to it. That's very two dimensional. That's all the zizek crux is. The following scramble involving Badiou on love. moments of silence and waiting follow in sequence. Divulgence of non-thought if one doesn't move towards the business of the applied. Cosmistry. World without noise. Writing that strips itself of the auditory. In a whirlwind it's poetry. Body as thresholds. Arriving voices depart.
In two ways I am happy though. One, that such publications may lead in the long term to a lot of psychiatrists becoming unemployed. Taste the medication. Hopefully this happens in my lifetime.
Now, two, I am given to thoughts for the time being of "Forget Mad" and in turn embrace my labelling but as a non-medical category. Instrumentalising identity politics but in the cringe-stigma of "schizoaffective." I don't see identitarians readily jumping to defend my rights because of ageism. And of stigma that will still keep disbelief no matter how accomplished a schizoaffective is. This mistrust even happens in the mad community and usually from the aforementioned leadership.
I'm busting balls. I've made joking avowals on this. It's a writer's perk.
In the philosophical tradition much is made of schizophrenia as a verb, as a practice. What we don't see from Deleuze is the inclusion of psychosis. It's something that only rates if art and ethics maintains. This usually happens in a gainful way if someone is in position of gain. William Burroughs and the IBM estate.
There's another academician term I saw "practical schizophrenia." This is again the non-psychosis whitewash of Deleuzianism and base utilitarianism. The gainful. The well heeled. The already celebrated. The only mention of struggle is only theoretical, not robustly political. I though respect Negarestani and specifically his Geotrauma work.
Nick Land I have little respect for but one thing is that he has no allegiance to respectabilities. He's dirty and messy. As aesthetic I like. But aesthetic is usually the weakest point in politics that refuse fascism. That is a common portal for all the fascist writers out there. Additionally, I don't understand any fascist claim to transcendence unless it's a contradictory goose building an Empyrean nest with fireplace embers.
So maybe a return to Deleuze for the moment. The impractical bit though. That's communism. It's insurrection. That's personal history. It's the sputtering thought I just had about rejecting zizek on Marxism as coming from capital and susceptible to it. That's very two dimensional. That's all the zizek crux is. The following scramble involving Badiou on love. moments of silence and waiting follow in sequence. Divulgence of non-thought if one doesn't move towards the business of the applied. Cosmistry. World without noise. Writing that strips itself of the auditory. In a whirlwind it's poetry. Body as thresholds. Arriving voices depart.
