Gewalt- Force Power or Might (U of Without Condition Part 1)

On March fourth, The University Without Condition's, Adam Kotsko left a comment on one of my posts that read,

"We're looking for 100% University Without Condition turnout here."

This was in regards to my lack of participation in the Walter Benjamin discussion. His efforts were just, for I have been procrastinate in my responses to the Critique of Violence. However, Kotsko has helped me to illustrate part of Benjamin's essay. In my agreement to participate within the terms of the University Without Condition, I entered into a peaceful agreement, sans violence, based on the honesty and integrity of my word. When I did not fully hold up my end of the agreement, Adam Kotsko (I sometimes feel it disrespectful to write just Kotsko) wrote a comment that by no stretch (maybe a little stretch, but just humor me) of the imagination was violent in nature. By asking of me 100% turnout or in a sense, participation, force or pressure was put on me to contribute to the text. By posting on Benjamin, I fulfill my obligation and all is well. By refusing to post on Benjamin's "On The Critique of Violence" (which is the actual translation rather than "Critique of Violence," a substantially different thing) I would be breaking my agreement. This risks the potentialy violent move by Kotsko, a Gauche, Jared, and The Pickle, of erasing my name from their blog roll, essentially striking Coney Island. Benjamin maintains that the law often interprets the strike as violence becuase it is against the intentions of the law. By striking in unison their militarism, or "predatory violence" would be inacted to "secure directly whatever happens to be sought"...in this case, my response to the Benjamin essay.

This can be approached in two different ways. If we think of their strike in terms of Natural law, than we can only think of the intended ends. The means of the strike do not exist. This would be in terms of it's justice. The ends would be either for me to conform, and respond to Benjamin, or to exclude people of my nature, for no agreement can be made peacefully without absolute honesty.
If we think of their strike in terms of Positive law than we must think of the legality of their action with regard to it's means. This would demand proof of it's historical relevance and proof.
The unique character of this situation is that each blog functions on its own as a police force in itself. The police force is exempt from dealing with the problem within the confines of either the Postive or Natural laws. "Police violence is emancipated from both conditions."(286) This is a perfect opportunity for me to display my ability to smoothly segway from one topic to another.

Speaking of abilities, I am confounded and amazed by Mr' Bush's ability to vaguely state formless reasons for his actions. America's freedom, America's security, Iraq's freedom. Why does it work?
nevertheless all attacks that are made merely in the name of a formless "freedom" without being able to specify this higher order of freedom, remain impotent against it." (285)



How I Imagine The Conversation Would Go If I Met Someone In Person From The Blogging World

"So...You're Cap'n Pete."



Lost in Translation

Scarlett. Oh dear lord. Scarlett. She's unreal.

I first have to address the casting. Scarlett Johansson is ruining Clare Daines' career. She's getting all of Clare's roles and the only reaction anyone has to it is, "Who's Clare?" It's alright because if this movie starred Clare Daines and Steve Martin (two actors I really love) it would have been a flop. Bill Murray's face, his jestures, his line delivery, it's just perfect. He's really wonderful in this movie and should have won the award for best actor last night. And Scralett. Oh Scarlett. Everytime she comes to the screen this sound comes out of my mouth like ugghmmm.

Things I appreciated about the movie.
-The lack of dialect, especially in scenes like the mirrored elevator. We've all had this quasi, or as Adam Robinson would say, "meta" meditation in an elevator. Stuck by ourselves starring at ourselves in the mirror, outside of our bathrooms reflecting on being, on taking the stairs, on maybe never leaving this elevator or moving another body part for the rest of our lives.
-It astonishes me that this movie is more artistic than the Girl with the Pearl Earring. It's visually perfect, l not to discredit the amazing recreations in Girl With the Pearl Earring, I just found this movie more artistic. For a definition of Art see Jared's House.
-There are a couple of rather beautiful scenes that I thought were well written. Scarlett speaks of not knowing really what her calling is (she has a philosophy degree from Yale in the movie). She says she went through a writing stage, but she felt it was just a stage kinda like thinking horses are cool.
Another part, Bill Murray explains how having children ends your life. But then they learn to walk and talk and they end up becoming the most fascinating people you have ever met. It's written and delivered in a way so perfect I intentionaly recreate it badly. To attempt to para-phrase, or meta-phrase, would be unfair.

All in all, it's a fantastic movie and Scarlett Johansson has a crush on me, not you.