first 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
next, 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.
1. 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)
wild how quotes from the philosophical Great Men occupy the equivalent level of reverence as a throwaway title from some emoboi soundcloud artist in my mind
eh don’t bother it’s just showing that through the course of the book the pathos of distance takes an inversion from laudable generator of values to threat to new values
i don’t have an issue with the contradiction and opacity i have an issue with the type of thinking, values, motivational structure that would produce such an identification
but also the length that this convo has gone on doesn’t rly reflect the significance i actually feel. it’s shrug w/e, i get it
We’re just talking past one another because we disagree on priors and while yours are widely legible and I would argue reified, mine are not and much more difficult to understand.
booooo ewwwww
capital should know i hate my gf and want plausible excuses to be alone for a large portion of the day
(i have parental trauma how can u tell)
if i were a based neet id be waking up at 4am like god intended
my natural rhythm has been stripped from me and you’re cheering on the sidelines, despicable.
i’m sure we’ll talk about it again soon hehe
it does feel a little mean sometimes like i’m not trying to be invalidating or w/e
ofc you know you can stop me at any time if im being too dense