Now listening to : Destroyer, "Destroyer's Rubies"
Especially recommended: Track 4 - Painter In Your Pocket
In terms of social presentability, any day I don't end with ink marks on my nose, or one cheekbone or the other, is a good day; I haven't had one of those in quite a while, now. The combination of my 8-shot afternoons, the sort of skitter-pump-pump-pump-ohhhhhhh popsongs I've been listening to, and the need I have to dance in the most peculiar ways, all leads to wrist-flicks anchored by propped elbows, which puts the fine-point black ink uni-balls - held by the hand in chopstick style - at just about chin-level, and inky trails of academic abandon ensue.
So, my complexion aside, the days have been pretty decent. The new Destroyer album is so mindpleasingly EXCELLENT. The (more or less) title track and '3000 Flowers' are easy on the hips, and you should feel encouraged to check them out as soon as you can stop pushing replay on 'Painter'. That acoustic guitar line. Sooooo good. And the paper? Is coming. I _finally_ found some academicly-acceptable minds (Helloooooo Berger . . . ) who've dealt with similar themes in Catholic and Protestant modernity-responses, so I should be able to work this thing out after all; we'll all know for sure when Tuesday comes and I'm forced to present alongside a fucking PhD kid with fingertips all dug into the pulsings of Turkish Politics. But my earrings are better.
I get more and more intrigued by the relationship between Ratzinger, Rahner and Kung as I go. They're germans, they're theologians, they're political catholics; how much farther into my grill do they need go before I aknowledge myself a perfectly willing stalker? I've even got a book-title, (please consider my publishing this here/now as an intellectual property rights issue, instead of an incredibly premature bit of hubris on my part): "The Apostle, The Apologist and The Apostate" - catchy, no? Oversimplified to the point of kitsch? yes. But it, like '3000 Flowers' is VERY catchy.
Alain Badiou spoke on campus last week ( - Good lord, it was only last thursday. It feels so long ago. - ), and he was in many ways adorable (the avacado sweater, for example, was a more-than-justified choice), but I continue to be irrationally suspicious of anyone who holds 'Justice' as a fixed idea, and stretches their theories around it. I still don't believe in 'Justice' as any kind of equalizer or democratizer or soother of any kind. Which is to say : there's always this sense that justice fixes previous actions/events - that it balances and ameliorates them. But an act of justice is still an act. It has its own repercussions, it's own ripple effect. It's not a corrective, it's a crusade. Kind of always. Good people can deploy the term justice, thinking the common definition is all there is to the situation, and end up badly. Of all the places to be aware of supporting presuppositions, you'd think a concept used so constantly as a precursor to the words 'Force' and 'War' would have earned a little more oversight. I don't mean this in a moral relativism way; I just mean that when we're enforcing our moral justifications, as we will/must do, we should know that we're not a cleanup crew, we're a new demolition derby.
"Tall ships made of snow invading the sun."