multi pics posed of Mackenzie Foy Geared up for pre-pubescent Lolita sexy! Lolita Sucking a Lollypop Lollypop...
Furious and Beautiful The context is below Here are 6 pictures of Kristen in a gym parking lot with Nick Cassavetes, the di...
THE KEY - MARK TANSEY THE INNOCENT EYE - MARK TANSEY http://www.studymode.com/essays/Mark-Tansey-1292816.html In this paintin...
Smile and others will smile back. Smile to show how transparent, how candid you are. Smile if you have nothing to say. Most of all, ...
Hospitality of the Matrix: Philosophy, Biomedicine, and Culture - Irina Aristarkhova - Reading Through LacanIrina’s new book, Hospitality of the Matrix: Philosophy, Biomedicine, and Culture is a refreshing and bold addition to a truly progres...
LOCKS representing true love forever on Paris bridges From l'mmoraliste At the heart of love à la française lies the idea of...
Gabriella Calchi-Novati Who We Might Be Performing the Potentialities of Otherness and Selfhood: Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight Saga Ga...
I am following the groundbreaking painter Mark Tansey's article on painting before I even knew who Tansey was . " What we ha...
Zuza - DE-SHAMED:Kristen Stewart a Post Modern Philosopher in Action - How The FUCK Does She Keep Doing It???Zuza’s New Book! “No fear or shame in the dignity of yr experience, language & knowledge.” - Jack Kerouac "I'm deeply s...
Yeh. Far out, eh. Warhol's Campbell Soup cans on a screen and reproduced - endlessly. Signed of course for limited "original"...
Monday, August 6, 2012
An Open Letter To Rob Pattinson
Love and Humiliation
are words that do not belong in the same sentence.
Unless you are denying Love
Blindly, that is the only elegant way to love. What reproach could there be for someone who discreetly and totally devotes himself to another; what reproach could there be for someone who is the object of such devotion? Blind destination: that is the direction dreams go, in ideas and love. (Baudrillard - Cool Memories 1980-85 p. 105)
So far as existence is concerned, as Ajar (Romain Gary's alter ego) would say, it needs to be taken in charge by someone. No one can be expected to bear the responsibility for their own life. This Christian and modern idea is a vain and arrogant proposition. Moreover, it is a groundless utopian notion....It is so much more human to put one's fate, one's desire, one's will into the hands of another. Circulation of responsibilities, declension of wills, perpetual transfer of forms. Apart from this subtle path, which is attested to by a great many cultures, there is only the totalitarian path of a collective assumption. (Baudrillard - Cool Memories 1980-85 p. 119)
BTW This is what Eric Packer does whenever he leaves the limo. He is letting the "world will him". Too bad Cronenberg didn't know that in his misreading of DeLillo's novel.
Since it is impossible to own someone, it is impossible for that someone to "cheat" on you.
Someone can cheat you in a transaction which occurs in the Order of Production.
They cannot "cheat" on you sexually in the Symbolic Order of Seduction since you do not and cannot own them.
CHEAT is a word now almost universally used that is a sound-bite, a ready-made that deprives you of the ability to think, the language necessary to think in, about this situation, and as long as you have not torn it out of your mind, you are trapped, your freedom has been stolen from you by the use of this stupid word. CHEAT is creating your reality for you via an illusion.
You can enter an institutional marriage contract, that as Kant said, "is a legal contract giving each person the ownership of the other's sexual organs."
Someone can be a slave but slaves retain their own individual freedom. Only a slave can be liberated, but only an individual can give up, deny, disregard, be unaware of, ignore, exert, choose to practice their own freedom to any extent they choose. They may be dominated, but they are still free.
Working, performing, living under an authoritarian system, the individual may be dominated, ruled, whatever, but the individual is still free.
Take Cronenberg directing Cosmopolis. An authoritarian director he masks his authoritarianism with - in this case - a requirement that the lines spoken by the actor must be exactly as written. No changes. The actor is still free in the sense that the face, the body, the movement the eyes, the voice, are still the actor's own. The actor is free to express.
Take Rupert Sanders, the permissive parent model. His actors are encouraged to express their own opinions about the performance of the scene. To freely express their perceptions and interpretations on how to play it. The director inputs, discusses, persuades, encourages, strengthens, weakens, whatever, and in doing this exerts the aura of his dominance.
When the camera roles the director directs the scene.
This all seems very democratic eh. Very respectful of the actors.
What the director has done is to take the thoughts, feelings, perceptions, interpretations of the actors and usurped them under his direction of the scene. Yes the actor still retains his/her own freedom, but that has been compromised in this situation. It has been stolen in homeopathic doses so the actor is not even aware that it no longer belongs to him, but to the director who is calling the shots on the scene.
The director controls and dominates on a meta level. An invisible level.
This is a subtle difference. Do you see it? The Jesuits have known this subtle way of "spinning" someone's mind for centuries. They are masters at it. Eric Maddox learned to be a master at it, which is why he got Saddam against all odds. A Jesuit education will give you this because it will have been done to you, giving you the opportunity to "identify with the aggressor" as Freud would say it.
Kristen Stewart has been carefully aided in a performance of Snow White by a subtle director. Her first physical role as an "action hero". Her fears have been alleviated, she has mastered riding (always a sexual challenge with females) and has assumed an active rather than a passive Snow White persona. Her director has helped her as a therapist might, but used his dominance to enter into a seductive relationship with her.
Not with Charlize who would know exactly how to handle this situation. No, with the young very inexperienced Stewart, her vulnerability an erotic attraction for him, and in the past for you BTW.
Stewart has been subtly dominated by Sanders, without her awareness, on the shooting set of Snow White. This has led to her insecurity as to how to handle his advances on THAT AFTERNOON! She has handed a certain quality/amount of her freedom of action to him on the set without knowing that she has done so. She didn't know, so she couldn't take it back. This is why there are acting coaches BTW.
This is something two people in a relationship discuss, argue about, confront, threaten, weep over, endlessly because this situation is interfaced in the minds of individuals just as surely as the screens in Eric Packer's life are interfaced with his mind, his perceptions, his thinking and reasoning abilities, his emotions, and tearing it out during the OMITTED naked bodies scene in the novel is excruciatingly painful to him; to deliver himself from its total influence.
But how can you deliver yourself from this kind of influence if you don't know it exists?
An object does not exist until and unless it is observed. - William Burroughs
Stewart has been thrown to the lions and wolves, meat for the tabloids, entertainment for empty lives, vulnerable primarily for her unknowing.
Unprotected and Abandoned