GoldenLionTamarin posted:im reading proust
lol
just finished reading memoirs of a russian punk. Was cool, it's easy to project a society's ideology onto it's daily life but if Limonov's memories are accurate then they basically just did all the same free-wheeling youthful shit that we did with less internet and more rape
it was a Krul joke....
Ironicwarcriminal posted:did you hear the one about Matthijs?
it was a Krul joke....
ok cut out the gags
Ironicwarcriminal posted:did you hear the one about Matthijs?
it was a Krul joke....
his last name is pronounced like "null"
getfiscal posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:
did you hear the one about Matthijs?
it was a Krul joke....
his last name is pronounced like "null"
yeah well we speak english here
im aout 6% through the new zizek, which is still doing pretty good. its about plato so far. neat stuff
deadken posted:i found a copy of the new zizek and read the first page and saw the reference to wikipedia and turned gay and died
he cited wikipedia for a reference to chinese legalism in the one before this too lol
http://nymag.com/news/features/george-romney-2012-5/:
The governor was not an intellectual. He found uncertainty uncomfortable. But on my second morning going through Romney’s papers, I found some notes he had made, on the stationery of the 1966 Midwestern Governors’ Conference. Beneath some doodles, from nowhere, Romney turned philosophical: “A great issue of our time: Does the urgent need to correct social injustice justify disobedience to law?” Something about this question seemed very important to him. “Need for Revelation,” Romney wrote, and he underlined that last word, Revelation.
http://myg0t.com/oq/index.php?path=cakens/
Impper posted:
nose should be bigger
dongs posted:
'self portrait' iirc
Impper posted:
his shirt is the background of the rhizzone front page.
Impper posted:lol
Impper posted:
AmericanNazbro posted:Impper posted:lol
I wouldn’t go so far as to say the whole religious element in the book is not honest, but it’s rather an influence I had at that time from reading Kierkegaard, and it was more a reading experience than a real one. I tried to live up a little bit to something—I don’t know what—so I made a grave mistake. And I couldn’t change it. The book was published and was already known. The book should have ended with the six notebooks by Stiller and not this epilogue written by the prosecutor—who is all of a sudden a writer, too. It’s silly, isn’t it? In the epilogue it gets more objective. Stiller knows that his notebooks are subjective, and then comes this Holy Ghost, the narrator. He takes the whole thing and puts it on a religious pillow. I don’t feel comfortable with that. To defend myself, I will say that that was one of the very few times when I seriously tried to find out whether I could become religious or not. I was trying it out, you know. And as my other books showed, I couldn’t retain it. I had started to read Kierkegaard because of this great feeling. I took a passage from Kierkegaard’s Either/Or to use for the epigraph for I’m Not Stiller—and if I could change the book I would remove it. But at the time I was so happy to read in a few lines what I had tried to deliver over pages and pages. I should have had a good friend who could have warned me not to follow the Stiller notebooks with that epilogue, but the book is there; I can’t change it now . . . Actually, I did get warned.
