So I am sitting down with someone assessing matters of Deleuze and Foucault it would seem, which isn't this inherently underhanded matter, though I fancy the assumption. Meaning, matters of critique in relation to the performative interest me. That is, I was among the collegiate debate at a time when NYU, Fort Hayes, and to a lesser extent, I was in a half-dedicated way, experimenting, while researching. Like art in relation to power, the performative is a critical matter in relation to formations of panopticon network, ever expanding among cameras and smartphones. Rockefeller gave a warning shot to me directly among our discussions over a short period of time, and yet, I just don't think anyone could follow what I was working on. It's not this matter of intending on winning as some victorious glasshouse figurine, merely caught up in ego. Rather, this would be a pattern among western culture, of these oscillations, these interactions between innovative interests and commercial interests, between fall-in-line, and create out-of-the-needed-box of sorts. So there wouldn't be this matter of antagonism or a need for enemies, regardless of the other. Rather, I'm just someone who isn't afraid to go at it, incessantly. Like Napoleon Dynamite, I've got skillzzz. I can mind fuck everyone, much like my band mates in the Slow Club era would note. It's an abstraction existence, much like among sterility, like the first hours of work, my eyes simply glaze among the sobering nothing. I like it. Like pickled ginger, it cleanses the mindful pallet to reconsider the whirlwind of creative endeavor, of this imagination play, of this key to learning, translating into interesting results. Of which, among hardened positionings the embrace reads like McBaise, of drain these waters always. I'm not so concerned. Rather, I am remaining toward cultural interest and this relation between power, performance, and panopticon. NYU, among the performative, of non-conventional approaches, won that year at both national tournaments with Zizek. Not to say it meant much. It didn't, but it was neat. The performative became this veil to the panopticon veil, that all teams realized, when dealing with a team immersed in the performative, there was little chance, even when everyone attempted to take on networked approaches, like sharing expando files. I think though, even though one offer the veil to the networked-veil, much like I can offer performatives of writing, performatives for the camera, for the ears and eyes, veiling as they observe, that still would offer a simple neutralizing form. It's not enough in relation to addressing the tower of the panopticon and opening society toward needed changes that stimulate needed developments, commercially, institutionally, and culturally. Living, that pulse. that dynamic resides, only when we serve as agents of change, otherwise we are merely looking living and hardening among a safe, sterile, predictability. I'm an 80s kid. I want to reside in a society with a pulse, among people, even among everyday society, out of their cell, interacting between, expressing in a meaningful way, rather than as snowflake spirits stuffed into meat bodies. Aristotle doesn't really get it for me, anyhow. So yes, even in New Orleans, Chicago, and the like...you want the panopticon abraision? I wonder why? How could this be used, for which Foucault is useful, in relation to that play. Give the order of the sun a burst, into the performative, into the narrative computation, of the newer institutional design, that minds cultivated by static medium, will by design, subject to. We have been here before, of which the artistry opens the cells and a renaissance commences, of a living that entices those of the tower to mingle, eventually, though not likely of my stubborn generation. Rather, the buddings, who can push matters much further, have the instrumentation they need, to do what is expected of western society, to continually utiliize what is needed to open the societies up, among the given tradition, this seat of power, that the performative in relation to the panopticon feed into. That is the panopticon isn't power at all, rather it's a pressure play, that can do well, in intensifying a creative type to drum up the needed instrumentation. I wouldn't see this as a failure for anyone, if we think about the patterns, throughout periods of western society. Still, when the panopticon continues, which doesn't have to involve in direct measure of power, but networks and the everyday level, in-need of being their own panopticon pressure, I'll perform in just the right way, within that context of Foucault. Which I imagine with the youth discussing how Deleuze and Foucault's concepts compare, which would serve as fallacy when we consider Deleuze's thoughts on discussing philosophical thoughts in the first place, still, the inquiry, can be that play, to somehow get at pretending one knows not of what a network does, even as one utilized the performative to veil to those veiling. This life is a lot like the American Gladiators, of meat puppeteers, of scripted cheering, of personas that are not even real. The contestants, are simply sought out in relation to what could be potentially weak in relation. Meaning, I used to sit at the TV and watch the show while my sister made fun of me for watching it, and yet, there was a lot there about our human existence and life experience. I think of the Gladiators of ancient times as well. We are taught to runaway from things it seems, like sex, drugs, and rock, once upon a time, now fully embraced at your local hot topic, if those even exist. Then, comes this new message to runaway from struggle, and join in among a network that can make everything just as it needs to be. The entire matter is one and the same, choose on the basis of fear, on the basis of your sentiment, so the meat machine can hold you as an encased soul. It's absurd, as if Plato's conception for example couldn't be? This psychological panopticon playing the same tune, to embrace a pulseless society, to celebrate the tower of panopticon, and yet, that wouldn't be western tradition, and there would be a cost in relation to the behavior. There are new things happening that feed into key avenues that hold interests for people. Libriatics, regardless of how we want to critique, which is inevitable, demonstrates that we haven't done it all, there are these matters that need to be developed, of which when the innovation comes through, those in a position to begin the commercial process have a responsibility, if there is any sense of that now. I say this, as I take note of the continuing panopticon, the continuing orientations in relation to my writing, all attempting to deflect what would be required to even hold a meeting of the mind, which would involve debates in relation to informatic methodology, which a colonial mind, of this language form I am using, couldn't actually respond to such activities of a language working from a dynamic form of arrangement, by design.
We'll see! If it is simply the irrational mind that is now to have their day in the fall of Rome rendition of a repeat, then it doesn't matter what I did, or how I challenge matters, I can simply be erased, or at least more veil to networked veil play will occur, as the performative raises to the networked performative. If we are holding to what was of the behaviors involving western tradition, then the innovative activities do matter, including ensuring there is respect for someone who drums this matter up; which would mean, this keeping tabs culture, among utilizations of a smartphone, would be a disruptive measure to American society, of which that ability and activity would be focused on and strictly limited, and violations punished. It's all new though, so I wouldn't harbor anger, even if the performative, among polemics, among the show the cameras, the eyes and ears, desire, as they incessantly follow, is more than will to offer the failing success for the successful failings. When you need to be empowered in that way, and in relation to activities that were the actual result to western success; when you can skip the books and join in on a network's irrational treatments, then it seems, especially in relation to me, you are on your way, and I, a mere waste, and yet in terms of actual tradition, seems like I've been doing what is needed.
It's not my place though to determine, so in the meantime...ART! Check out the art section of the site. As for the colonial heads gunning still, maybe one day when there is rigor to those noggins, they can finally get matters of narrative computation and dynamic language. Will it happen, at this rate of the Rise of Rome play in the West, there is serious doubt. When you can even offer modelings, and yet still, there isn't this out of the colonial waters moment, of realizing ones language among their "headspace" is of a static cultivation, now of a defunct institutional form, and I can judge that. It's a transitioning hell, to challenge what you know with, including dismantling underlying assumptions never challenged, toward something that once interacting with the matter, your relation to the society shifts, and I think this is for the better, considering the newer capacities that emerge from it, of which our existing commercial and institutional forms will not be able to compete or even respond to such power. It's coming. The cats out of the bag, so eventually, that matter will take on some form of fruition. What that will be, I'm not sure, but again, in the meantime, check out the art. For one of the projects, in a way that is intended to be, simply a fun take on a newer institutional form library, I'm using informatic models in relation to Deleuze to inform art themes.
In terms of influence, among our age of controversy, of a play of colonial context, I am happy to feed into these matters, again of a performative veiling in relation to panopticon veiling, and yet, once the newer institutional form is taken into account, of narrative computation, the meaning, is entirely unexpected. And there are positive influences among this path taken, and recently, since I like considering the conepts of other artists, Tyler the Creator, is certainly inspiring my responses to the tabs on the phone crowed, that like to hover around us, the hyper creative ones. Not as hatred but rather, veiling to the veil, the nondisclosures encountering the performative, of the activities aiming to gut out the creative process, such as reference 1, reference 2, reference 3 (MGMT), reference 4 (McBaise), reference 5 (McBaise).
