The fringe of indetermination which surrounds individuals and the relative, floating and fluid character of individuality itself has often been commented upon…The error, however, is to believe that this indetermination or this relativity indicates something incomplete in individuality or something interrupted in individuation. On the contrary, they express the full, positive power of the individual as such, and the manner in which it is distinguished in nature from both an I and a self. …Indeterminate, floating, fluid, communicative and enveloping-enveloped are so many positive characteristics affirmed by the individual. It is therefore insufficient to multiply selves or to ‘attenuate’ the I in order to discover the true status of individuation. We have seen to what extent selves must be presupposed as a condition of passive organic syntheses, already playing the role of mute witnesses. However, the synthesis of time which is carried out in them refers precisely to other syntheses as though to other witnesses, thereby leading us into the domain of another nature in which there is no longer either self or I, and in which, by contrast, we encounter the chaotic realm of individuation.

Gilles Deleuze, Difference and Repetition

And here’s his critique of both Lacan and Marx’s conceptions of the individual.

(via rhizombie)

pg 258

The monster always represents the disruption of categories, the destruction of boundaries, and the presence of impurities, and so we need monsters and we need to recognize and celebrate our own monstrosities.

Eric Lacombe

(via just-one-mx)

adrowningwoman:

La Passion de Jeanne d’Arc (Complete and Restored version)

I was telling you earlier about the three elements in my morals. They are (1) the refusal to accept as self-evident the things that are proposed to us; (2) the need to analyze and to know, since we can accomplish nothing without reflection and understanding—thus, the principle of curiosity; and (3) the principle of innovation: to seek out in our reflection those things that have never been thought or imagined. Thus: refusal, curiosity, innovation.

Michel Foucault (via fuckyeahmichelfoucault)

(source)

Words Can Wound: How The Media Describe The Mentally Ill And Disabled ›

This is great. I wish it was longer/more in-depth, tho.

Anyway, it would be great if people could read this with a few things in mind:

  • Think about the most recent case of supposed “mental illness rampage”: The Aurora shooting and James Holmes (while also keeping in mind the necessary critique of the media in regards to race, i.e. Holmes hasn’t been branded a terrorist (or even a criminal in some cases), he’s just the “alleged shooter” or the “suspect”).
  • Ableist rhetoric is not just the domain of Fox News and the ignorant, it is routinely utilized by liberal, left-wing media and bloggers, particularly prochoicers. Hint: the GOP and antis aren’t misogynist, classist, racist, cissexist, heterosexist douche canoes because they’re mentally ill, it’s because they’re bigoted and proud of it. Bigotry is not a fucking mental illness.
  • And lastly, it’s much more likely for a mentally ill person or someone with other disabilities to be abused or murdered by their caretakers/police than it is for them to harm someone else (particularly if they’re a POC/WD).

ETA: This last point I made also ties in heavily with another: As a result of the shooting many people, Obama included, are trotting out the old trope of violent mentally ill people and how if there are any gun regulations it should be of that demographic. Now, I’m all for gun regulations (not because I’m anti-violence whatsoever, but because I have huge problems with the NRA, gun lobbyists, the idea machine guns have any place in daily life, and how often weapons are used against marginalized communities), HOWEVER, think about this trope in relation to my last point. It is more likely as a person with a mental illness (tho, obvs. also white privilege) to be victimized by others than for me to harm anyone, yet politicians want to make sweeping generalizations that would prevent me from carrying a weapon for self-defense—thereby making me MORE vulnerable by the very people who would likely harm me. And again, this is all less about whether or not I think anyone should have weapons, and more about the dangerous idea that “normal” people need to be protected from mentally ill people thru the use of gun regulation when in reality we are the vulnerable demographic, more so when you compound our disabilities with other oppressions. Just something to think about.

jeuxdeau:

— Wolverine & Jubilee by *R6655321

(via fuckyeahhardfemme)

The academic setting is separate only when we work to make it so. It is a false dichotomy which suggests that academics and/or intellectuals can only speak to one another, that we cannot hope to speak with the masses. What is true is that we make choices, that we choose our audiences, that we choose voices to hear and voices to silence.

bell hooks (via wretchedoftheearth)

BOOM!

(via bad-dominicana)

(via queerinsurrection)

I have love in me the likes of which you can scarcely imagine and rage the likes of which you would not believe. If I cannot satisfy the one, I will indulge the other.

Mary Shelley, Frankenstein. (via riverran)

#mary shelley #this quote though #it’s all kinds of wonderful #hey remember that time one asswipe was like you have 30 seconds to name something invented by a woman… #…and Mary was like SCIENCE FICTION MOTHERFUCKERS #that was awesome #thanks Mary Shelley (via snappily)

And the next time someone starts claiming that teenage girls have ruined the horror genre with romance or whatever you can be like, hey dicksmack, teenage girls and romance built your genre so sit the fuck down.

(via sharpestrose)

compulsive auto reblog

i want this tattooed on me at some point

(via nova-bright)

Mary Shelley fucking invented your favourite genre motherfuckers. You owe her Kirk and Vader and every goddamned Joss has ever done that’s made you cream your pants. Created when she was a teenager cause, hey, that’s how she rolled. She took love and showed it as the powerful, terrifying, all-encompassing, ruthless, wrathful thing it is. 

(via piinboots)

(via fuckyeahhardfemme)

dreammask:

Tattoo Art by French artist Xoil

(via just-one-mx)

puredisgust:

Let Me In (2010)

(via virulentflowers-deactivated2013)

I love how people think that “cisgender” is a new thing.

ieithoedd:

It’s called a retronym, my lovely people. No need to get so upset about this new “bullshit”.

Before, there was only “transgender” and what people proposed as “normal”. The word “cisgender” takes away that concept of “normality” and instead proposes it as a varience.

Before, there was only “homosexual” and what people proposed as “normal”. The word “heterosexual” takes away the concept of “normality” and instead proposes it as a varience.

It’s the same thing. A label was created for one group and the other group maintained “normality”, so to stop that train of thought, words like “heterosexual” and “cisgender” are created. “Cisgender” has always been a concept; this is just a new word that describes it and differentiates it from “transgender” without imposing (ab)normality.

Thissss.

Also, I’ve even had cis people tell me that the very concept of cis privilege is misogynist. Lol, wut?

(via dailymurf)

"I’m entitled to be a douchebag to you because…"

So many of these cis women theorizing on the body or gender are engaging in biological and gender essentialism. They are portrayed as radical and progressive departures from the traditional discourse that centers white, cis, straight, rich men (and they are, in a way, if you find continued use of said mens’ narrative under a different name acceptable). But no one wants to acknowledge that they are still a cloaked fauxgressive version of the dominant narrative, namely the essentialist cis-dominant exterminationist ideology that seeps into virtually every discussion of bodies and gender. They are contextualized as a “step in the right direction” but for who? That is the question, for it is their own interests in relation to cis men that they are concerned with, not so much progressive critical thought. They are more than happy to settle for a “gentler” version of gender theory that they can claim to be in control of, while simultaneously staving off the “threat” of trans* interference—the very people who actually have something of value to offer to the discourse. This is the same upper-middle class, white, cis shit that always gets peddled as progress. It’s about as radical as kyriarchy.

How empowering.

What I’m Watching:

Anselm Kiefer

Born at the close of World War II, international artistic powerhouse Anselm Kiefer reflects upon and critiques the myths and chauvinism that propelled the German Third Reich to power. With Wagnerian scale and ambition, his paintings depict the ambivalence of his generation toward the grandiose impulse of German nationalism and its impact on history. His work consistently balances the dual purposes of visually powerful imagery and intellectually critical analysis. Tim Marlow joins Kiefer to discuss his work on the occasion of the artist’s exhibition at White Cube.