Alt Text
Show parent replies
picking this thread back up (apologies, this is going to be disorganized)
This is a post by another user.
View in bsky.appfirst things first: a clarification:
we both agree that the rejection of orientation model actually doesn’t matter at all, i just said it in that one tweet as intentionally as myopic and diminutive of your position as possible. just a quip muhehe
This is a post by another user.
View in bsky.appnext, i think this clip will provide some structure to my argument.
1. contextual nature of categories changes attitude away from identifying in too fanatical away with a category
2. and it’s not about true or false, it’s about degrees of enlightenment and about what you draw your attention to
(sidenote: geuss doesn't address these two in a systemic way iirc, but it permeates his work. therefore im using this as a succinct expression of his general approach)
if you truly believe there are deep problems with the way this historical configuration of sexuality is constructed, why are you even bothering to define yourself in any way to it, even negatively?
perform a nietzschean turning away instead, and find new forms of higher enlightenment
crucially, it doesn't even matter if the points you are raising are true or not. it's about where your attention is, and where you choose to maintain and emphasize.
now lets address the list directly:
my core complaint is that these are just a bundling of independently fine tendencies, but i think it's counterproductive to lump them together.
This is a post by another user.
View in bsky.app1. identity, and the primary thing i am skeptical of
2. true but uninteresting (we agree)
3. queerness - basically an implication of 2 not working, and unclear why significant
4. tbh just kinda silly. radfem is kinda dead end
5. feminism. well and good, but unclear why relevant
i see 1-3 as stemming from the same thing: rejection of sexual hegemony
and 4-5 as simply feminist analysis
(4 masquerades as prescription, but we all know when we get into defining capital M Men, it just lapses back into feminist analysis)
and with 1-3, i'm not sure why we turn rejection into an identity. here's a very short piece that i find insightful and think might be helpful (you haven't read lacan, but you've read stirner, so you'll be mostly fine)
here's a passage i've been thinking about, but mostly for its inapplicability. you say your use of the term is idiosyncratic, and ofc i agree, but i don't think your motivations are idiosyncratic, or detached/isolated at all, and are fairly definite, consistent, and are continuously situated
This is a post by another user.
View in bsky.app