When I Die

When an oxygen mask takes the place of you and IV's cover my arms like ivys on brick homes, listen for me. I will speak to you with my foot, tapping along to the computer beep, the last time I spoke with my mother and the machine translated. I, like her, will tap quickly, out of sync, until I know you are there. And if, when you drink from the mug made from clay the water stops at the brink, there I will kiss you forever.


Nick Berg

I saw the video of the beheading today.

I forget how soft we are. How easily our skin tears. How easily the slate absorbs our blood.



Puvis de Chavannes

I'm studying the work of Diego Rivera. Amoung Della Francesca, and El Greco, Diego influences, I found this beauty by Chavannes.



Kristeva's Generalities

"It is probably because of such an intimacy with affect that Dostoyevsky was led to a vision according to which man's humanity lies less in the quest for pleasure or profit (an idea that subtends even Freudian psychoanalysis inspite of the prominence finally granted a "beyond the pleasure principle") than in a longing for voluptuous suffering."

This type of writing frustrates me to no end. Each sentence becomes more full of untraceable allusions to words invocated in ways that are superfluous. What the hell is "an intimacy with affect?" This sentence says, because of Dostoevsky's intimacy with affect, or his intimacy rather than relationship with the action of causing an affect or acting upon or causing an effect to, which in the context of writing really makes no sense whatsoever because there really isn't a type of writing that does not make, cause or influence an effect or affect the reader in some way. So...the first part of the sentence, wastes approx. 50 letters to state absolutely nothing, and supposedly because of this nothing, Dostoevsky (which is the spelling on my The Brother's Karamazov) was led to a vision according to which man's humanity lies. Let's just pause here for a minute. Has anyone who has, upon reading this, conjured up an image of the entirety of man's humanity? Well you have to, unless you do not have an intense enough intimacy with affect, then you will have to just do your best to imagine someone else's vision of humanity for an image of humanity lies less in the quest for pleasure or profit...oh crap, we can't go further yet. Just when you had that final picture of humanity in your head lying less in the limitless quest for pleasure and all of it's implications or profit and all of it's human implications and it's affects, and Dostoevsky passionately embrassing affect which you really have to leave to the surrealists to picture because anything sane falls short of being applicable, we have an allusion to Freud's psychoanalysis...inspite of the, (I'm assuming this is an inside joke Kristeva is sharing with the four people reading this that just woke up because they heard something about Freud) Ah haha, please restrain from bumping elbows with me Kristeva and smirking in that I'm about to burst out laughing at my own self-serving writing technique joke way. Dostoevsky showed more of a propensity towards all of that non-sense than he did a longing for voluptuous suffering. Why "voluptuous" suffering? I thought Kristeva had written a fine sentence that said absolutely nothing already. Was it really necessary to add, right at the end a type of suffering that is filled with delight and pleasure? Is this ironic? I understand that it can be suggested that some of Dostoevsky's suffering could have been a pain he enjoyed or even needed but in the context of an already illegible sentence, my desire to seek comradery with Kristeva's point has been eliminated.
If there are proponents of Kristeva's out there that have the ability to set me straight about this quote, I will be open ears. I'm sure it would be more advantageous to just go ahead and read a couple chapters of Crime and Punishment, but then when isn't that the case?