Letter to a Harsh Žižek* I'm not admitting anything. In your book you say that the truth of my indirect freespeech is a procedure of philosophical buggery, and that Hegel was for me anabsolute constitutive exception in the field of taking philosophers from behind, a kindof prohibition of incest that would make me uncannily close to him. Furthermore, youexplicitly want to engage in the Hegelian buggery of me, invoking the specterof Hegeltaking me from behind. Long live buggery. If that was all the ultimate aim of yourbook, why bother? But the image of Hegel as a self-buggerer who cannot be takenfrom behind, as you pose him threaded by a long and plastic penis that can betwisted around, is funny and grotesque at the same time. Let us then stick to such afigure and extend its fixation, just for the lulz of it. In the first place, if Hegel is anunbuggerable self-buggerer, how he could eventually take me from behind, if he is sooccupied buggering himself?And if he is so unbuggerable, how can you speak forhim, making him say the things you want to say, if you have never penetrated himnor even engendered him a little bearded sweaty monster? Wonderful.If he is not ableto take you from behind, and if you are not able to take him from behind neither, noteven conceptually, if all what can be taken and received from him is a subtract of hisindifference, if he has never loved anyone but himself because of his self-buggery,how is it that you love him so blindly? Is this has something to do with the idea of fist-fucking as the expansion of a concept? Is this Hegel-guy fist-fucking you? Yuck. The grotesque figure of a self-buggered Hegel is nothing compared to the figure of youbeing fist-fucked by him.So there is nothing to ‘admit’. Is it really that difficult to understand that I wastalking about love and the process of depersonalization it meant for me when Idecided to speak for myself, in my own name? But you're wrong: the truth of myindirect free speech is not a procedure of buggery but a procedure of philosophicallove, a depersonalization through love rather than subjection. How the offspring of this immaculate conception of love would be like, how would it look, if it’s mostlyovercharged with Nietzsche and Spinoza? What kind of monster would be produced if we bugger from behind the philosophers-we-most-love, the same ones that love andbugger us retroactively? What about them that’s so lovable and too fecund to betaken, although in exchange they won’t stop to generate love on us? It’sveryimportant for the product to be recognized as our own child, a child that’s monstrousbecause it’s fully affected of love. The intensive reading of the philosophers-we-love isnot a phallic penetration but a conceptual incubation. In the play of thisphilosophically engendered love, the one who takes the philosophers-we-love frombehind is the one who incubates and engenders an affective monster. As it’s fullyovercharged with affects of joy and love, and while we recognize it as our own son,this affective monster is conceptually ‘plushed’. It’s The Plush Monster in person; asplush as our dearest uncle Grover who has wonderfully explicated the distinctionbetween ‘near’ and ‘far’; also as plush as The Cookie Monster, who’s the most schizoof all the affective monsters. But why can’t I get into a delire about plush monsters, if I talk of them like a dog? Lots of gossip, but why not to think all our affectiveconceptual plush monsters as a joyful orgy of muppets, all together laughing, singingand dancing,in the same plane of immanence, just for the lulz ? with all my regards,Gilulz Delulz * The author of this letter claims that a resurrected Gilles Deleuze took him from behindand obligated him to write down its content, for the lulz
Letter to a Harsh Žižek*
BeantwoordenVerwijderenI'm not admitting anything. In your book you say that the truth of my indirect freespeech is a procedure of philosophical buggery, and that Hegel was for me anabsolute constitutive exception in the field of taking philosophers from behind, a kindof prohibition of incest that would make me uncannily close to him. Furthermore, youexplicitly want to engage in the Hegelian buggery of me, invoking the specterof Hegeltaking me from behind. Long live buggery. If that was all the ultimate aim of yourbook, why bother? But the image of Hegel as a self-buggerer who cannot be takenfrom behind, as you pose him threaded by a long and plastic penis that can betwisted around, is funny and grotesque at the same time. Let us then stick to such afigure and extend its fixation, just for the
lulz
of it. In the first place, if Hegel is anunbuggerable self-buggerer, how he could eventually take me from behind, if he is sooccupied buggering himself?And if he is so unbuggerable, how can you speak forhim, making him say the things you want to say, if you have never penetrated himnor even engendered him a little bearded sweaty monster? Wonderful.If he is not ableto take you from behind, and if you are not able to take him from behind neither, noteven conceptually, if all what can be taken and received from him is a subtract of hisindifference, if he has never loved anyone but himself because of his self-buggery,how is it that you love him so blindly? Is this has something to do with the idea of fist-fucking as the expansion of a concept? Is this Hegel-guy fist-fucking you? Yuck. The grotesque figure of a self-buggered Hegel is nothing compared to the figure of youbeing fist-fucked by him.So there is nothing to ‘admit’. Is it really that difficult to understand that I wastalking about love and the process of depersonalization it meant for me when Idecided to speak for myself, in my own name? But you're wrong: the truth of myindirect free speech is not a procedure of buggery but a procedure of philosophicallove, a depersonalization through love rather than subjection. How the offspring of this immaculate conception of love would be like, how would it look, if it’s mostlyovercharged with Nietzsche and Spinoza? What kind of monster would be produced if we bugger from behind the philosophers-we-most-love, the same ones that love andbugger us retroactively? What about them that’s so lovable and too fecund to betaken, although in exchange they won’t stop to generate love on us? It’sveryimportant for the product to be recognized as our own child, a child that’s monstrousbecause it’s fully affected of love. The intensive reading of the philosophers-we-love isnot a phallic penetration but a conceptual incubation. In the play of thisphilosophically engendered love, the one who takes the philosophers-we-love frombehind is the one who incubates and engenders an affective monster. As it’s fullyovercharged with affects of joy and love, and while we recognize it as our own son,this affective monster is conceptually ‘plushed’. It’s The Plush Monster in person; asplush as our dearest uncle Grover who has wonderfully explicated the distinctionbetween ‘near’ and ‘far’; also as plush as The Cookie Monster, who’s the most schizoof all the affective monsters. But why can’t I get into a delire about plush monsters, if I talk of them like a dog? Lots of gossip, but why not to think all our affectiveconceptual plush monsters as a joyful orgy of muppets, all together laughing, singingand dancing,in the same plane of immanence, just for the
lulz
? with all my regards,Gilulz Delulz
*
The author of this letter claims that a resurrected Gilles Deleuze took him from behindand obligated him to write down its content, for the lulz