Search
1000 results for “loy”
-
I think all the owls in my Parliament of Owls are superb! #superb_owl
I love the whimsical terms of venery for groups of animals and have an ongoing series of #linocut #termsOfVenery prints. For my parliament of owls I made two columns of local owls - you can decide for yourself which are the government and which the loyal opposition in this parliament! Specifically chose some gothic #lettering and Owl with 👁 and 🪶
🧵1/n
-
Joskus löytyy kirjaston hyllystä melko outoa tavaraa luettavaksi. Omituinen tarina oli, mutta tuli kuitenkin kahlattua läpi.
-
This is one of my favourite panels. Kind of ominous too...
And you can get it and hundreds of other gorgeous panels at
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/redwulfcomics/family-and-honour-a-12th-century-historical-drama?ref=67fj5h#indiecomics #booksky #castle #medieval #middleages #cloak #armor #flag #loyalty
-
This is one of my favourite panels. Kind of ominous too...
And you can get it and hundreds of other gorgeous panels at
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/redwulfcomics/family-and-honour-a-12th-century-historical-drama?ref=67fj5h#indiecomics #booksky #castle #medieval #middleages #cloak #armor #flag #loyalty
-
This is one of my favourite panels. Kind of ominous too...
And you can get it and hundreds of other gorgeous panels at
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/redwulfcomics/family-and-honour-a-12th-century-historical-drama?ref=67fj5h#indiecomics #booksky #castle #medieval #middleages #cloak #armor #flag #loyalty
-
This is one of my favourite panels. Kind of ominous too...
And you can get it and hundreds of other gorgeous panels at
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/redwulfcomics/family-and-honour-a-12th-century-historical-drama?ref=67fj5h#indiecomics #booksky #castle #medieval #middleages #cloak #armor #flag #loyalty
-
This is one of my favourite panels. Kind of ominous too...
And you can get it and hundreds of other gorgeous panels at
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/redwulfcomics/family-and-honour-a-12th-century-historical-drama?ref=67fj5h#indiecomics #booksky #castle #medieval #middleages #cloak #armor #flag #loyalty
-
Small piece on my free blog about POTUS's minions' motivations to disrupt midterms.
-
https://www.europesays.com/fr/920120/ Andy Serkis dans Star Wars : pourquoi l’acteur craignait de jouer Snoke et Kino Loy #Andor #Divertissement #Entertainment #films #FR #France #Movies #StarWars
-
https://www.europesays.com/ch-fr/123134/ Andy Serkis dans Star Wars : pourquoi l’acteur craignait de jouer Snoke et Kino Loy #Andor #Divertissement #Entertainment #Film #Films #Movies #StarWars #Suisse
-
https://www.europesays.com/be-fr/100636/ Andy Serkis dans Star Wars : pourquoi l’acteur craignait de jouer Snoke et Kino Loy #Andor #BE #BEFr #Belgique #Belgium #Divertissement #Entertainment #Films #Movies #StarWars
-
Why do we want what we want?
Why do we want what we want? In recent years I’ve realised that critical realism lacks the theoretical resources to really answer this question. Archer’s work recovered the subject in a realist mode in order to account for how structure and agency interacted over time. But there was a sense in which concerns for her were simply given. They arise as a natural fact which constitutes the specificity of the person: ‘you are what you care about’ to use the Frankfurt line she was extremely fond of. It still leaves the question unanswered however as to why I have the particular concerns that I do.
Why do I care about these things? How did these come to be the things that matter to me? For psychoanalysis this is really a question about desire, even if concern and desire are not co-extensive. It’s about what I want and why I want it. Archer’s qualitative work positions the concerns in terms of unfolding experience within a formative context but it doesn’t account for why these specific concerns emerge. In her own term it’s not explanatory i.e. explaining why something is so rather than otherwise. The Reflexive Imperative gets closest to this in its analysis of natal contexts (viz the orientation of an adolescent towards the relational goods/evils they encounter there) but this mechanism is about biographical movement, it’s not about desire itself. It gestures towards it at points but I think it’s fair to say there’s not an explanation for it there.
For all its weaknesses there is a substantive theory of this in Lacan. Mari Ruti’s The Call of Character is by quite some way the clearest exposition of Lacan I’ve ever encountered. Even more so than Bruce Fink. Interestingly she centres Das Ding rather than objet a in accounting for desire. As she describes it on pg 47 this is the lost object of enjoyment which the trauma of socialisation leaves forever foreclosed. It is only constituted as an object by the fact that language and individuation put it forever out of our reach, retroactively constituting that infinite state as something we had which has now been lost:
Socialization shatters this illusion at least on two different levels. On a literal level, it introduces a wedge—an insurmountable obstacle—between us and the maternal body (or the body of the one who cares for us). On a more figurative level, it delivers a huge blow to our narcissistic sense of being the navel of the universe. In so doing, it divests us of our infantile fantasy of wholeness and uncomplicated belonging, generating an unquenchable longing for a state of plenitude that we imagine we have somehow been unfairly robbed of: a lost paradise we can never recover but that we spend the rest of our lives pursuing. The fact that we never possessed this paradise in the first place, that we were never completely whole and at ease to begin with, does not in the least diminish our resolve to recover it. Lacan designates this lost paradise as “the Thing,” indicating by the capital T that it is not an ordinary fantasy object, but a very special Thing of incomparable worth; it is the Thing that our deepest desires are made of
There’s a basic mechanism postulated here in which we constantly seek to find substitutes for this lost Thing. It is a psychic driver for our desire, setting it into motion as one object after another promises to resolve the diffuse sense of loss which provides the texture to our everyday engagements with the world. These ‘refound’ objects elicit our desire because of how they relate to this inarticulate sense of what has been lost. As she puts it later on pg 47:
Every “object” (every person or aspiration) we invent or discover is “refound” in the sense that it is always a substitute for the original lost Thing. We place one thing, one object, after another into the empty slot left by the Thing, and those objects that come the closest to reviving the Thing, that contain the strongest echo of the Thing’s special radiance, are the ones we feel most passionate about. However, because no object can ever fully replicate the fantasized perfection of the Thing, we are condemned to repeat our quest ad infinitum
This means there is always a gap, as Ruti puts it (pg 48), between “the Thing and the things we use to compensate for it absence”. In this gap lives the possibility for creativity and originality because the precarious glimmer of the sublime we find in them challenges us to make them into more than they really are. We find new ways of holding, narrating, representing that struggle to capture the ontological dignity we dimly perceive as lurking beneath the mundane shell. The inevitable failure of those responses, the sense in which these objects are merely partaking in a sublime forever out of reach rather than promising access to it, means that we must always try again. The iteration of excitement and disappointment, the sublime and the mundane, constitutes the rupture out of which creation emerges.
Why do we want what we want? There’s a deeper question which opens up now about why the Thing echoes for us in some objects rather than others. Ruti describes an object which “resonates on the precise frequency of our desire” (pg 50). An interesting thread of her substantive discussion concerns how this resonance might be foreclosed by failing to “allow the things of the world to disclose themselves to us according to their own distinctive rhythm” or a premature dissatisfaction with the object given that “even the most enthralling person is never merely this echo” (pg 50). Ruti comes closest to directly addressing the question on pg 51:
This is not to deny that there are objects that approximate the Thing more loyally than others. Such objects enchant us more than those where the Thing’s echo remains more subdued or diffuse; they transmit something about the Thing’s original splendor, so that when we are in their presence, we feel more elevated, more self-realized, than when we are forced to function in a universe of less venerable substitutes. It is as if, to once again borrow from Lacan, they contained something “more than” themselves, so that when we interact with them, we interact with both the objects themselves and the trace of the Thing that these objects hold.
The phenomenological mode of Lacanian theory here really works for me. This is what I’ve been struggling towards for the last few years and Ruti does it here better than I suspect I will ever be able to. But it still leaves the explanatory question unanswered. Why do some objects transmit something about the Thing’s original splendor in a way that others do not? Obviously this can be taken as an empirical question to be answered through a case history but I want to try and get more purchase on the question in the abstract. As she illustrates on pg 52 this echo is at the heart of human experience, such as when we encounter people, situations and things which we think are right but which do not move us in this way:
This specificity of desire is one of the major causes of our suffering, for more often than not, we cannot quite get what we want. It can be tricky to find the right kinds of objects, so that we can, for instance, go for long periods without a romantic relationship because we do not come across anyone who matches the frequency of our desire. Even when we interact with countless people who in principle meet all the necessary specifications of desirability, we cannot force ourselves to want any of them if they fail to emit a strong enough echo of the Thing.
I take much of the positive case of Ruti’s book to be about what Bollas calls the receptive unconscious. Ruti’s concern is how we open ourselves to the echo of the thing, including refusing the siren call of consumer capitalism which seeks to provoke our desire towards mundane objects which we don’t experience as having this dignity. This is existentially urgent and conceptually important in ways she conveys on pg 56:
People who complain about a general sense of apathy often do so because they have lost touch with the Thing’s echo; they have lost their capacity to distinguish between objects that correspond to the inimitable intonation of their desire and others that merely grant the illusion of satisfaction. One reason for this is that the vast commercial machinery of our society is explicitly designed to drown out the Thing’s echo. This machinery makes so many sparkly decoys available to us that we can get sidetracked by the huge volume of our choices. Such decoys, which press on us from all sides, obscure the Thing’s aura for the simple reason that they are deliberately manufactured to shine extra brightly. They flood us with a homogenizing blare that can induce us to accumulate the piles of useless junk I referred to earlier.
I still think the deeper question remains. How do we get from the infantile organisation of our incipient desire (“We learn to appreciate certain things: a favorite food, our mother’s touch, a comforting toy, our brother’s singing, and so on”) to being an adult who has an inner sense of what calls them which they can (fallibly) tune into through a set of practices and orientations which Ruti describes as an erotics of being? This entails a comfort with the passions evoked in being called, including those moments of rupture and renewal when we are called by something which knocks us out of our comfortable groves of repetition. From pg 72:
Equally important, when energies that have been trapped in the repetition compulsion get released, we have a huge amount of new energy available to us. This extra energy can initially feel destabilizing, but it is also exhilarating in the sense that we now have the necessary resources for activities that we might have formerly been unable to carry out. One can liken this experience to an author’s breaking a writer’s block: all of a sudden there is a deluge of energy that can be used productively rather than symptomatically; there is the possibility of growth in all kinds of directions that might have been previously unimaginable. If a passive relationship to our repetition compulsion signifies an inner deadness of sorts—a state of being helplessly wedged in our unconscious conflicts—breaking the repetition revitalizes us, ushering us into the midst of a new kind of life.
But what is the call itself? What is the echo? I think Ruti’s existential methodology is correct. It’s a gloriously lucid explanation of why I dimly cobbled together as a practical manual from Fink: you stay with the encounter and begin to recognise patterns in how energising (or otherwise) particular sorts of people and objects tend to be for you. In that energy, I take Ruti to be arguing, we are encountering something beyond. There is a shape emerging through the clouds, which we can see ever more of if only we can resolutely in the face of it, neither clutching too tightly or backing away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n74g5mqQ2tI
But I still think it’s possible to talk about this in explanatory terms. There’s a gap between a clinical description of the factors which drive attachment behaviour and an abstract claim about the mechanism at work in attachment as such. Consider what Ruti says here on pg 96:
It denies the fact that if our desire crystallizes around a particular person with unusual force, it is because this person contains a shining sliver of sublimity (a uniquely compelling manifestation of the Thing’s echo) that makes him or her inestimably valuable to us, that explains why only this person will do and why our love for this person is nonnegotiable. In this sense, love may be one of the few things we experience that has the power to induce the sublime to materialize within the framework of daily life.
This is the sublime extruding into the lifeworld. The ontology concerns that it is extruding, the phenomenology is about how it is extruding, the therapeutics is about what that extruding means for us. But I want to address the explanatory question about why it is extruding in the way that it is. I feel like Ruti circles around this question, which to be fair is my question rather than heres, with beautiful phrase (“a uniquely compelling manifestation of the Thing’s echo”) without accounting for the character of that relationship. Interestingly Ruti shares my affection for how Christopher Bollas accounts for the relationship with the thing, which makes me think my project of integrating Bollas and Lacan is less problematic than I worried. From pg 174:
We may feel uniquely enticed by certain kinds of investments, by certain kinds of objects and activities, yet hesitate to let ourselves be “conquered” by them, striving, instead, to neutralize their summons. Unfortunately, when we do this, when we recoil from objects and activities that call upon us in such a passionate manner, we destroy their capacity to turn our day into a space for the articulation of our idiom. Similarly, when we use the various objects and activities that the world makes available to us as mere means to an end, as inert tools or resources, their magic silently slips away; when we seek to stifle their disorienting alienness, we decline the invitation to aliveness that they extend to us.
Again though this is about how we relate the objects from which we feel this call. In his own way Bollas also circles around this, positing the ‘destiny drive’ through which we seek to ‘give form to our idiom’ but not really explaining why certain objects are uniquely generative for elaborating that idiom. Like Ruti he points powerfully to examples of this generativity, with a particular focus on aesthetic objects, but the deeper explanatory question remains mysterious. I think this can be answered, even if I have no idea yet how to do it.
#archer #breakcore #desire #drive #existential #harryFrankfurt #Lacan #loss #MariRuti #psychoanalysis #realism #reflexivity #trauma -
Why do we want what we want?
Why do we want what we want? In recent years I’ve realised that critical realism lacks the theoretical resources to really answer this question. Archer’s work recovered the subject in a realist mode in order to account for how structure and agency interacted over time. But there was a sense in which concerns for her were simply given. They arise as a natural fact which constitutes the specificity of the person: ‘you are what you care about’ to use the Frankfurt line she was extremely fond of. It still leaves the question unanswered however as to why I have the particular concerns that I do.
Why do I care about these things? How did these come to be the things that matter to me? For psychoanalysis this is really a question about desire, even if concern and desire are not co-extensive. It’s about what I want and why I want it. Archer’s qualitative work positions the concerns in terms of unfolding experience within a formative context but it doesn’t account for why these specific concerns emerge. In her own term it’s not explanatory i.e. explaining why something is so rather than otherwise. The Reflexive Imperative gets closest to this in its analysis of natal contexts (viz the orientation of an adolescent towards the relational goods/evils they encounter there) but this mechanism is about biographical movement, it’s not about desire itself. It gestures towards it at points but I think it’s fair to say there’s not an explanation for it there.
For all its weaknesses there is a substantive theory of this in Lacan. Mari Ruti’s The Call of Character is by quite some way the clearest exposition of Lacan I’ve ever encountered. Even more so than Bruce Fink. Interestingly she centres Das Ding rather than objet a in accounting for desire. As she describes it on pg 47 this is the lost object of enjoyment which the trauma of socialisation leaves forever foreclosed. It is only constituted as an object by the fact that language and individuation put it forever out of our reach, retroactively constituting that infinite state as something we had which has now been lost:
Socialization shatters this illusion at least on two different levels. On a literal level, it introduces a wedge—an insurmountable obstacle—between us and the maternal body (or the body of the one who cares for us). On a more figurative level, it delivers a huge blow to our narcissistic sense of being the navel of the universe. In so doing, it divests us of our infantile fantasy of wholeness and uncomplicated belonging, generating an unquenchable longing for a state of plenitude that we imagine we have somehow been unfairly robbed of: a lost paradise we can never recover but that we spend the rest of our lives pursuing. The fact that we never possessed this paradise in the first place, that we were never completely whole and at ease to begin with, does not in the least diminish our resolve to recover it. Lacan designates this lost paradise as “the Thing,” indicating by the capital T that it is not an ordinary fantasy object, but a very special Thing of incomparable worth; it is the Thing that our deepest desires are made of
There’s a basic mechanism postulated here in which we constantly seek to find substitutes for this lost Thing. It is a psychic driver for our desire, setting it into motion as one object after another promises to resolve the diffuse sense of loss which provides the texture to our everyday engagements with the world. These ‘refound’ objects elicit our desire because of how they relate to this inarticulate sense of what has been lost. As she puts it later on pg 47:
Every “object” (every person or aspiration) we invent or discover is “refound” in the sense that it is always a substitute for the original lost Thing. We place one thing, one object, after another into the empty slot left by the Thing, and those objects that come the closest to reviving the Thing, that contain the strongest echo of the Thing’s special radiance, are the ones we feel most passionate about. However, because no object can ever fully replicate the fantasized perfection of the Thing, we are condemned to repeat our quest ad infinitum
This means there is always a gap, as Ruti puts it (pg 48), between “the Thing and the things we use to compensate for it absence”. In this gap lives the possibility for creativity and originality because the precarious glimmer of the sublime we find in them challenges us to make them into more than they really are. We find new ways of holding, narrating, representing that struggle to capture the ontological dignity we dimly perceive as lurking beneath the mundane shell. The inevitable failure of those responses, the sense in which these objects are merely partaking in a sublime forever out of reach rather than promising access to it, means that we must always try again. The iteration of excitement and disappointment, the sublime and the mundane, constitutes the rupture out of which creation emerges.
Why do we want what we want? There’s a deeper question which opens up now about why the Thing echoes for us in some objects rather than others. Ruti describes an object which “resonates on the precise frequency of our desire” (pg 50). An interesting thread of her substantive discussion concerns how this resonance might be foreclosed by failing to “allow the things of the world to disclose themselves to us according to their own distinctive rhythm” or a premature dissatisfaction with the object given that “even the most enthralling person is never merely this echo” (pg 50). Ruti comes closest to directly addressing the question on pg 51:
This is not to deny that there are objects that approximate the Thing more loyally than others. Such objects enchant us more than those where the Thing’s echo remains more subdued or diffuse; they transmit something about the Thing’s original splendor, so that when we are in their presence, we feel more elevated, more self-realized, than when we are forced to function in a universe of less venerable substitutes. It is as if, to once again borrow from Lacan, they contained something “more than” themselves, so that when we interact with them, we interact with both the objects themselves and the trace of the Thing that these objects hold.
The phenomenological mode of Lacanian theory here really works for me. This is what I’ve been struggling towards for the last few years and Ruti does it here better than I suspect I will ever be able to. But it still leaves the explanatory question unanswered. Why do some objects transmit something about the Thing’s original splendor in a way that others do not? Obviously this can be taken as an empirical question to be answered through a case history but I want to try and get more purchase on the question in the abstract. As she illustrates on pg 52 this echo is at the heart of human experience, such as when we encounter people, situations and things which we think are right but which do not move us in this way:
This specificity of desire is one of the major causes of our suffering, for more often than not, we cannot quite get what we want. It can be tricky to find the right kinds of objects, so that we can, for instance, go for long periods without a romantic relationship because we do not come across anyone who matches the frequency of our desire. Even when we interact with countless people who in principle meet all the necessary specifications of desirability, we cannot force ourselves to want any of them if they fail to emit a strong enough echo of the Thing.
I take much of the positive case of Ruti’s book to be about what Bollas calls the receptive unconscious. Ruti’s concern is how we open ourselves to the echo of the thing, including refusing the siren call of consumer capitalism which seeks to provoke our desire towards mundane objects which we don’t experience as having this dignity. This is existentially urgent and conceptually important in ways she conveys on pg 56:
People who complain about a general sense of apathy often do so because they have lost touch with the Thing’s echo; they have lost their capacity to distinguish between objects that correspond to the inimitable intonation of their desire and others that merely grant the illusion of satisfaction. One reason for this is that the vast commercial machinery of our society is explicitly designed to drown out the Thing’s echo. This machinery makes so many sparkly decoys available to us that we can get sidetracked by the huge volume of our choices. Such decoys, which press on us from all sides, obscure the Thing’s aura for the simple reason that they are deliberately manufactured to shine extra brightly. They flood us with a homogenizing blare that can induce us to accumulate the piles of useless junk I referred to earlier.
I still think the deeper question remains. How do we get from the infantile organisation of our incipient desire (“We learn to appreciate certain things: a favorite food, our mother’s touch, a comforting toy, our brother’s singing, and so on”) to being an adult who has an inner sense of what calls them which they can (fallibly) tune into through a set of practices and orientations which Ruti describes as an erotics of being? This entails a comfort with the passions evoked in being called, including those moments of rupture and renewal when we are called by something which knocks us out of our comfortable groves of repetition. From pg 72:
Equally important, when energies that have been trapped in the repetition compulsion get released, we have a huge amount of new energy available to us. This extra energy can initially feel destabilizing, but it is also exhilarating in the sense that we now have the necessary resources for activities that we might have formerly been unable to carry out. One can liken this experience to an author’s breaking a writer’s block: all of a sudden there is a deluge of energy that can be used productively rather than symptomatically; there is the possibility of growth in all kinds of directions that might have been previously unimaginable. If a passive relationship to our repetition compulsion signifies an inner deadness of sorts—a state of being helplessly wedged in our unconscious conflicts—breaking the repetition revitalizes us, ushering us into the midst of a new kind of life.
But what is the call itself? What is the echo? I think Ruti’s existential methodology is correct. It’s a gloriously lucid explanation of why I dimly cobbled together as a practical manual from Fink: you stay with the encounter and begin to recognise patterns in how energising (or otherwise) particular sorts of people and objects tend to be for you. In that energy, I take Ruti to be arguing, we are encountering something beyond. There is a shape emerging through the clouds, which we can see ever more of if only we can resolutely in the face of it, neither clutching too tightly or backing away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n74g5mqQ2tI
But I still think it’s possible to talk about this in explanatory terms. There’s a gap between a clinical description of the factors which drive attachment behaviour and an abstract claim about the mechanism at work in attachment as such. Consider what Ruti says here on pg 96:
It denies the fact that if our desire crystallizes around a particular person with unusual force, it is because this person contains a shining sliver of sublimity (a uniquely compelling manifestation of the Thing’s echo) that makes him or her inestimably valuable to us, that explains why only this person will do and why our love for this person is nonnegotiable. In this sense, love may be one of the few things we experience that has the power to induce the sublime to materialize within the framework of daily life.
This is the sublime extruding into the lifeworld. The ontology concerns that it is extruding, the phenomenology is about how it is extruding, the therapeutics is about what that extruding means for us. But I want to address the explanatory question about why it is extruding in the way that it is. I feel like Ruti circles around this question, which to be fair is my question rather than heres, with beautiful phrase (“a uniquely compelling manifestation of the Thing’s echo”) without accounting for the character of that relationship. Interestingly Ruti shares my affection for how Christopher Bollas accounts for the relationship with the thing, which makes me think my project of integrating Bollas and Lacan is less problematic than I worried. From pg 174:
We may feel uniquely enticed by certain kinds of investments, by certain kinds of objects and activities, yet hesitate to let ourselves be “conquered” by them, striving, instead, to neutralize their summons. Unfortunately, when we do this, when we recoil from objects and activities that call upon us in such a passionate manner, we destroy their capacity to turn our day into a space for the articulation of our idiom. Similarly, when we use the various objects and activities that the world makes available to us as mere means to an end, as inert tools or resources, their magic silently slips away; when we seek to stifle their disorienting alienness, we decline the invitation to aliveness that they extend to us.
Again though this is about how we relate the objects from which we feel this call. In his own way Bollas also circles around this, positing the ‘destiny drive’ through which we seek to ‘give form to our idiom’ but not really explaining why certain objects are uniquely generative for elaborating that idiom. Like Ruti he points powerfully to examples of this generativity, with a particular focus on aesthetic objects, but the deeper explanatory question remains mysterious. I think this can be answered, even if I have no idea yet how to do it.
#archer #breakcore #desire #drive #existential #harryFrankfurt #Lacan #loss #MariRuti #psychoanalysis #realism #reflexivity #trauma -
Why do we want what we want?
Why do we want what we want? In recent years I’ve realised that critical realism lacks the theoretical resources to really answer this question. Archer’s work recovered the subject in a realist mode in order to account for how structure and agency interacted over time. But there was a sense in which concerns for her were simply given. They arise as a natural fact which constitutes the specificity of the person: ‘you are what you care about’ to use the Frankfurt line she was extremely fond of. It still leaves the question unanswered however as to why I have the particular concerns that I do.
Why do I care about these things? How did these come to be the things that matter to me? For psychoanalysis this is really a question about desire, even if concern and desire are not co-extensive. It’s about what I want and why I want it. Archer’s qualitative work positions the concerns in terms of unfolding experience within a formative context but it doesn’t account for why these specific concerns emerge. In her own term it’s not explanatory i.e. explaining why something is so rather than otherwise. The Reflexive Imperative gets closest to this in its analysis of natal contexts (viz the orientation of an adolescent towards the relational goods/evils they encounter there) but this mechanism is about biographical movement, it’s not about desire itself. It gestures towards it at points but I think it’s fair to say there’s not an explanation for it there.
For all its weaknesses there is a substantive theory of this in Lacan. Mari Ruti’s The Call of Character is by quite some way the clearest exposition of Lacan I’ve ever encountered. Even more so than Bruce Fink. Interestingly she centres Das Ding rather than objet a in accounting for desire. As she describes it on pg 47 this is the lost object of enjoyment which the trauma of socialisation leaves forever foreclosed. It is only constituted as an object by the fact that language and individuation put it forever out of our reach, retroactively constituting that infinite state as something we had which has now been lost:
Socialization shatters this illusion at least on two different levels. On a literal level, it introduces a wedge—an insurmountable obstacle—between us and the maternal body (or the body of the one who cares for us). On a more figurative level, it delivers a huge blow to our narcissistic sense of being the navel of the universe. In so doing, it divests us of our infantile fantasy of wholeness and uncomplicated belonging, generating an unquenchable longing for a state of plenitude that we imagine we have somehow been unfairly robbed of: a lost paradise we can never recover but that we spend the rest of our lives pursuing. The fact that we never possessed this paradise in the first place, that we were never completely whole and at ease to begin with, does not in the least diminish our resolve to recover it. Lacan designates this lost paradise as “the Thing,” indicating by the capital T that it is not an ordinary fantasy object, but a very special Thing of incomparable worth; it is the Thing that our deepest desires are made of
There’s a basic mechanism postulated here in which we constantly seek to find substitutes for this lost Thing. It is a psychic driver for our desire, setting it into motion as one object after another promises to resolve the diffuse sense of loss which provides the texture to our everyday engagements with the world. These ‘refound’ objects elicit our desire because of how they relate to this inarticulate sense of what has been lost. As she puts it later on pg 47:
Every “object” (every person or aspiration) we invent or discover is “refound” in the sense that it is always a substitute for the original lost Thing. We place one thing, one object, after another into the empty slot left by the Thing, and those objects that come the closest to reviving the Thing, that contain the strongest echo of the Thing’s special radiance, are the ones we feel most passionate about. However, because no object can ever fully replicate the fantasized perfection of the Thing, we are condemned to repeat our quest ad infinitum
This means there is always a gap, as Ruti puts it (pg 48), between “the Thing and the things we use to compensate for it absence”. In this gap lives the possibility for creativity and originality because the precarious glimmer of the sublime we find in them challenges us to make them into more than they really are. We find new ways of holding, narrating, representing that struggle to capture the ontological dignity we dimly perceive as lurking beneath the mundane shell. The inevitable failure of those responses, the sense in which these objects are merely partaking in a sublime forever out of reach rather than promising access to it, means that we must always try again. The iteration of excitement and disappointment, the sublime and the mundane, constitutes the rupture out of which creation emerges.
Why do we want what we want? There’s a deeper question which opens up now about why the Thing echoes for us in some objects rather than others. Ruti describes an object which “resonates on the precise frequency of our desire” (pg 50). An interesting thread of her substantive discussion concerns how this resonance might be foreclosed by failing to “allow the things of the world to disclose themselves to us according to their own distinctive rhythm” or a premature dissatisfaction with the object given that “even the most enthralling person is never merely this echo” (pg 50). Ruti comes closest to directly addressing the question on pg 51:
This is not to deny that there are objects that approximate the Thing more loyally than others. Such objects enchant us more than those where the Thing’s echo remains more subdued or diffuse; they transmit something about the Thing’s original splendor, so that when we are in their presence, we feel more elevated, more self-realized, than when we are forced to function in a universe of less venerable substitutes. It is as if, to once again borrow from Lacan, they contained something “more than” themselves, so that when we interact with them, we interact with both the objects themselves and the trace of the Thing that these objects hold.
The phenomenological mode of Lacanian theory here really works for me. This is what I’ve been struggling towards for the last few years and Ruti does it here better than I suspect I will ever be able to. But it still leaves the explanatory question unanswered. Why do some objects transmit something about the Thing’s original splendor in a way that others do not? Obviously this can be taken as an empirical question to be answered through a case history but I want to try and get more purchase on the question in the abstract. As she illustrates on pg 52 this echo is at the heart of human experience, such as when we encounter people, situations and things which we think are right but which do not move us in this way:
This specificity of desire is one of the major causes of our suffering, for more often than not, we cannot quite get what we want. It can be tricky to find the right kinds of objects, so that we can, for instance, go for long periods without a romantic relationship because we do not come across anyone who matches the frequency of our desire. Even when we interact with countless people who in principle meet all the necessary specifications of desirability, we cannot force ourselves to want any of them if they fail to emit a strong enough echo of the Thing.
I take much of the positive case of Ruti’s book to be about what Bollas calls the receptive unconscious. Ruti’s concern is how we open ourselves to the echo of the thing, including refusing the siren call of consumer capitalism which seeks to provoke our desire towards mundane objects which we don’t experience as having this dignity. This is existentially urgent and conceptually important in ways she conveys on pg 56:
People who complain about a general sense of apathy often do so because they have lost touch with the Thing’s echo; they have lost their capacity to distinguish between objects that correspond to the inimitable intonation of their desire and others that merely grant the illusion of satisfaction. One reason for this is that the vast commercial machinery of our society is explicitly designed to drown out the Thing’s echo. This machinery makes so many sparkly decoys available to us that we can get sidetracked by the huge volume of our choices. Such decoys, which press on us from all sides, obscure the Thing’s aura for the simple reason that they are deliberately manufactured to shine extra brightly. They flood us with a homogenizing blare that can induce us to accumulate the piles of useless junk I referred to earlier.
I still think the deeper question remains. How do we get from the infantile organisation of our incipient desire (“We learn to appreciate certain things: a favorite food, our mother’s touch, a comforting toy, our brother’s singing, and so on”) to being an adult who has an inner sense of what calls them which they can (fallibly) tune into through a set of practices and orientations which Ruti describes as an erotics of being? This entails a comfort with the passions evoked in being called, including those moments of rupture and renewal when we are called by something which knocks us out of our comfortable groves of repetition. From pg 72:
Equally important, when energies that have been trapped in the repetition compulsion get released, we have a huge amount of new energy available to us. This extra energy can initially feel destabilizing, but it is also exhilarating in the sense that we now have the necessary resources for activities that we might have formerly been unable to carry out. One can liken this experience to an author’s breaking a writer’s block: all of a sudden there is a deluge of energy that can be used productively rather than symptomatically; there is the possibility of growth in all kinds of directions that might have been previously unimaginable. If a passive relationship to our repetition compulsion signifies an inner deadness of sorts—a state of being helplessly wedged in our unconscious conflicts—breaking the repetition revitalizes us, ushering us into the midst of a new kind of life.
But what is the call itself? What is the echo? I think Ruti’s existential methodology is correct. It’s a gloriously lucid explanation of why I dimly cobbled together as a practical manual from Fink: you stay with the encounter and begin to recognise patterns in how energising (or otherwise) particular sorts of people and objects tend to be for you. In that energy, I take Ruti to be arguing, we are encountering something beyond. There is a shape emerging through the clouds, which we can see ever more of if only we can resolutely in the face of it, neither clutching too tightly or backing away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n74g5mqQ2tI
But I still think it’s possible to talk about this in explanatory terms. There’s a gap between a clinical description of the factors which drive attachment behaviour and an abstract claim about the mechanism at work in attachment as such. Consider what Ruti says here on pg 96:
It denies the fact that if our desire crystallizes around a particular person with unusual force, it is because this person contains a shining sliver of sublimity (a uniquely compelling manifestation of the Thing’s echo) that makes him or her inestimably valuable to us, that explains why only this person will do and why our love for this person is nonnegotiable. In this sense, love may be one of the few things we experience that has the power to induce the sublime to materialize within the framework of daily life.
This is the sublime extruding into the lifeworld. The ontology concerns that it is extruding, the phenomenology is about how it is extruding, the therapeutics is about what that extruding means for us. But I want to address the explanatory question about why it is extruding in the way that it is. I feel like Ruti circles around this question, which to be fair is my question rather than heres, with beautiful phrase (“a uniquely compelling manifestation of the Thing’s echo”) without accounting for the character of that relationship. Interestingly Ruti shares my affection for how Christopher Bollas accounts for the relationship with the thing, which makes me think my project of integrating Bollas and Lacan is less problematic than I worried. From pg 174:
We may feel uniquely enticed by certain kinds of investments, by certain kinds of objects and activities, yet hesitate to let ourselves be “conquered” by them, striving, instead, to neutralize their summons. Unfortunately, when we do this, when we recoil from objects and activities that call upon us in such a passionate manner, we destroy their capacity to turn our day into a space for the articulation of our idiom. Similarly, when we use the various objects and activities that the world makes available to us as mere means to an end, as inert tools or resources, their magic silently slips away; when we seek to stifle their disorienting alienness, we decline the invitation to aliveness that they extend to us.
Again though this is about how we relate the objects from which we feel this call. In his own way Bollas also circles around this, positing the ‘destiny drive’ through which we seek to ‘give form to our idiom’ but not really explaining why certain objects are uniquely generative for elaborating that idiom. Like Ruti he points powerfully to examples of this generativity, with a particular focus on aesthetic objects, but the deeper explanatory question remains mysterious. I think this can be answered, even if I have no idea yet how to do it.
#archer #breakcore #desire #drive #existential #harryFrankfurt #Lacan #loss #MariRuti #psychoanalysis #realism #reflexivity #trauma -
Why do we want what we want?
Why do we want what we want? In recent years I’ve realised that critical realism lacks the theoretical resources to really answer this question. Archer’s work recovered the subject in a realist mode in order to account for how structure and agency interacted over time. But there was a sense in which concerns for her were simply given. They arise as a natural fact which constitutes the specificity of the person: ‘you are what you care about’ to use the Frankfurt line she was extremely fond of. It still leaves the question unanswered however as to why I have the particular concerns that I do.
Why do I care about these things? How did these come to be the things that matter to me? For psychoanalysis this is really a question about desire, even if concern and desire are not co-extensive. It’s about what I want and why I want it. Archer’s qualitative work positions the concerns in terms of unfolding experience within a formative context but it doesn’t account for why these specific concerns emerge. In her own term it’s not explanatory i.e. explaining why something is so rather than otherwise. The Reflexive Imperative gets closest to this in its analysis of natal contexts (viz the orientation of an adolescent towards the relational goods/evils they encounter there) but this mechanism is about biographical movement, it’s not about desire itself. It gestures towards it at points but I think it’s fair to say there’s not an explanation for it there.
For all its weaknesses there is a substantive theory of this in Lacan. Mari Ruti’s The Call of Character is by quite some way the clearest exposition of Lacan I’ve ever encountered. Even more so than Bruce Fink. Interestingly she centres Das Ding rather than objet a in accounting for desire. As she describes it on pg 47 this is the lost object of enjoyment which the trauma of socialisation leaves forever foreclosed. It is only constituted as an object by the fact that language and individuation put it forever out of our reach, retroactively constituting that infinite state as something we had which has now been lost:
Socialization shatters this illusion at least on two different levels. On a literal level, it introduces a wedge—an insurmountable obstacle—between us and the maternal body (or the body of the one who cares for us). On a more figurative level, it delivers a huge blow to our narcissistic sense of being the navel of the universe. In so doing, it divests us of our infantile fantasy of wholeness and uncomplicated belonging, generating an unquenchable longing for a state of plenitude that we imagine we have somehow been unfairly robbed of: a lost paradise we can never recover but that we spend the rest of our lives pursuing. The fact that we never possessed this paradise in the first place, that we were never completely whole and at ease to begin with, does not in the least diminish our resolve to recover it. Lacan designates this lost paradise as “the Thing,” indicating by the capital T that it is not an ordinary fantasy object, but a very special Thing of incomparable worth; it is the Thing that our deepest desires are made of
There’s a basic mechanism postulated here in which we constantly seek to find substitutes for this lost Thing. It is a psychic driver for our desire, setting it into motion as one object after another promises to resolve the diffuse sense of loss which provides the texture to our everyday engagements with the world. These ‘refound’ objects elicit our desire because of how they relate to this inarticulate sense of what has been lost. As she puts it later on pg 47:
Every “object” (every person or aspiration) we invent or discover is “refound” in the sense that it is always a substitute for the original lost Thing. We place one thing, one object, after another into the empty slot left by the Thing, and those objects that come the closest to reviving the Thing, that contain the strongest echo of the Thing’s special radiance, are the ones we feel most passionate about. However, because no object can ever fully replicate the fantasized perfection of the Thing, we are condemned to repeat our quest ad infinitum
This means there is always a gap, as Ruti puts it (pg 48), between “the Thing and the things we use to compensate for it absence”. In this gap lives the possibility for creativity and originality because the precarious glimmer of the sublime we find in them challenges us to make them into more than they really are. We find new ways of holding, narrating, representing that struggle to capture the ontological dignity we dimly perceive as lurking beneath the mundane shell. The inevitable failure of those responses, the sense in which these objects are merely partaking in a sublime forever out of reach rather than promising access to it, means that we must always try again. The iteration of excitement and disappointment, the sublime and the mundane, constitutes the rupture out of which creation emerges.
Why do we want what we want? There’s a deeper question which opens up now about why the Thing echoes for us in some objects rather than others. Ruti describes an object which “resonates on the precise frequency of our desire” (pg 50). An interesting thread of her substantive discussion concerns how this resonance might be foreclosed by failing to “allow the things of the world to disclose themselves to us according to their own distinctive rhythm” or a premature dissatisfaction with the object given that “even the most enthralling person is never merely this echo” (pg 50). Ruti comes closest to directly addressing the question on pg 51:
This is not to deny that there are objects that approximate the Thing more loyally than others. Such objects enchant us more than those where the Thing’s echo remains more subdued or diffuse; they transmit something about the Thing’s original splendor, so that when we are in their presence, we feel more elevated, more self-realized, than when we are forced to function in a universe of less venerable substitutes. It is as if, to once again borrow from Lacan, they contained something “more than” themselves, so that when we interact with them, we interact with both the objects themselves and the trace of the Thing that these objects hold.
The phenomenological mode of Lacanian theory here really works for me. This is what I’ve been struggling towards for the last few years and Ruti does it here better than I suspect I will ever be able to. But it still leaves the explanatory question unanswered. Why do some objects transmit something about the Thing’s original splendor in a way that others do not? Obviously this can be taken as an empirical question to be answered through a case history but I want to try and get more purchase on the question in the abstract. As she illustrates on pg 52 this echo is at the heart of human experience, such as when we encounter people, situations and things which we think are right but which do not move us in this way:
This specificity of desire is one of the major causes of our suffering, for more often than not, we cannot quite get what we want. It can be tricky to find the right kinds of objects, so that we can, for instance, go for long periods without a romantic relationship because we do not come across anyone who matches the frequency of our desire. Even when we interact with countless people who in principle meet all the necessary specifications of desirability, we cannot force ourselves to want any of them if they fail to emit a strong enough echo of the Thing.
I take much of the positive case of Ruti’s book to be about what Bollas calls the receptive unconscious. Ruti’s concern is how we open ourselves to the echo of the thing, including refusing the siren call of consumer capitalism which seeks to provoke our desire towards mundane objects which we don’t experience as having this dignity. This is existentially urgent and conceptually important in ways she conveys on pg 56:
People who complain about a general sense of apathy often do so because they have lost touch with the Thing’s echo; they have lost their capacity to distinguish between objects that correspond to the inimitable intonation of their desire and others that merely grant the illusion of satisfaction. One reason for this is that the vast commercial machinery of our society is explicitly designed to drown out the Thing’s echo. This machinery makes so many sparkly decoys available to us that we can get sidetracked by the huge volume of our choices. Such decoys, which press on us from all sides, obscure the Thing’s aura for the simple reason that they are deliberately manufactured to shine extra brightly. They flood us with a homogenizing blare that can induce us to accumulate the piles of useless junk I referred to earlier.
I still think the deeper question remains. How do we get from the infantile organisation of our incipient desire (“We learn to appreciate certain things: a favorite food, our mother’s touch, a comforting toy, our brother’s singing, and so on”) to being an adult who has an inner sense of what calls them which they can (fallibly) tune into through a set of practices and orientations which Ruti describes as an erotics of being? This entails a comfort with the passions evoked in being called, including those moments of rupture and renewal when we are called by something which knocks us out of our comfortable groves of repetition. From pg 72:
Equally important, when energies that have been trapped in the repetition compulsion get released, we have a huge amount of new energy available to us. This extra energy can initially feel destabilizing, but it is also exhilarating in the sense that we now have the necessary resources for activities that we might have formerly been unable to carry out. One can liken this experience to an author’s breaking a writer’s block: all of a sudden there is a deluge of energy that can be used productively rather than symptomatically; there is the possibility of growth in all kinds of directions that might have been previously unimaginable. If a passive relationship to our repetition compulsion signifies an inner deadness of sorts—a state of being helplessly wedged in our unconscious conflicts—breaking the repetition revitalizes us, ushering us into the midst of a new kind of life.
But what is the call itself? What is the echo? I think Ruti’s existential methodology is correct. It’s a gloriously lucid explanation of why I dimly cobbled together as a practical manual from Fink: you stay with the encounter and begin to recognise patterns in how energising (or otherwise) particular sorts of people and objects tend to be for you. In that energy, I take Ruti to be arguing, we are encountering something beyond. There is a shape emerging through the clouds, which we can see ever more of if only we can resolutely in the face of it, neither clutching too tightly or backing away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n74g5mqQ2tI
But I still think it’s possible to talk about this in explanatory terms. There’s a gap between a clinical description of the factors which drive attachment behaviour and an abstract claim about the mechanism at work in attachment as such. Consider what Ruti says here on pg 96:
It denies the fact that if our desire crystallizes around a particular person with unusual force, it is because this person contains a shining sliver of sublimity (a uniquely compelling manifestation of the Thing’s echo) that makes him or her inestimably valuable to us, that explains why only this person will do and why our love for this person is nonnegotiable. In this sense, love may be one of the few things we experience that has the power to induce the sublime to materialize within the framework of daily life.
This is the sublime extruding into the lifeworld. The ontology concerns that it is extruding, the phenomenology is about how it is extruding, the therapeutics is about what that extruding means for us. But I want to address the explanatory question about why it is extruding in the way that it is. I feel like Ruti circles around this question, which to be fair is my question rather than heres, with beautiful phrase (“a uniquely compelling manifestation of the Thing’s echo”) without accounting for the character of that relationship. Interestingly Ruti shares my affection for how Christopher Bollas accounts for the relationship with the thing, which makes me think my project of integrating Bollas and Lacan is less problematic than I worried. From pg 174:
We may feel uniquely enticed by certain kinds of investments, by certain kinds of objects and activities, yet hesitate to let ourselves be “conquered” by them, striving, instead, to neutralize their summons. Unfortunately, when we do this, when we recoil from objects and activities that call upon us in such a passionate manner, we destroy their capacity to turn our day into a space for the articulation of our idiom. Similarly, when we use the various objects and activities that the world makes available to us as mere means to an end, as inert tools or resources, their magic silently slips away; when we seek to stifle their disorienting alienness, we decline the invitation to aliveness that they extend to us.
Again though this is about how we relate the objects from which we feel this call. In his own way Bollas also circles around this, positing the ‘destiny drive’ through which we seek to ‘give form to our idiom’ but not really explaining why certain objects are uniquely generative for elaborating that idiom. Like Ruti he points powerfully to examples of this generativity, with a particular focus on aesthetic objects, but the deeper explanatory question remains mysterious. I think this can be answered, even if I have no idea yet how to do it.
#archer #breakcore #desire #drive #existential #harryFrankfurt #Lacan #loss #MariRuti #psychoanalysis #realism #reflexivity #trauma -
Why do we want what we want?
Why do we want what we want? In recent years I’ve realised that critical realism lacks the theoretical resources to really answer this question. Archer’s work recovered the subject in a realist mode in order to account for how structure and agency interacted over time. But there was a sense in which concerns for her were simply given. They arise as a natural fact which constitutes the specificity of the person: ‘you are what you care about’ to use the Frankfurt line she was extremely fond of. It still leaves the question unanswered however as to why I have the particular concerns that I do.
Why do I care about these things? How did these come to be the things that matter to me? For psychoanalysis this is really a question about desire, even if concern and desire are not co-extensive. It’s about what I want and why I want it. Archer’s qualitative work positions the concerns in terms of unfolding experience within a formative context but it doesn’t account for why these specific concerns emerge. In her own term it’s not explanatory i.e. explaining why something is so rather than otherwise. The Reflexive Imperative gets closest to this in its analysis of natal contexts (viz the orientation of an adolescent towards the relational goods/evils they encounter there) but this mechanism is about biographical movement, it’s not about desire itself. It gestures towards it at points but I think it’s fair to say there’s not an explanation for it there.
For all its weaknesses there is a substantive theory of this in Lacan. Mari Ruti’s The Call of Character is by quite some way the clearest exposition of Lacan I’ve ever encountered. Even more so than Bruce Fink. Interestingly she centres Das Ding rather than objet a in accounting for desire. As she describes it on pg 47 this is the lost object of enjoyment which the trauma of socialisation leaves forever foreclosed. It is only constituted as an object by the fact that language and individuation put it forever out of our reach, retroactively constituting that infinite state as something we had which has now been lost:
Socialization shatters this illusion at least on two different levels. On a literal level, it introduces a wedge—an insurmountable obstacle—between us and the maternal body (or the body of the one who cares for us). On a more figurative level, it delivers a huge blow to our narcissistic sense of being the navel of the universe. In so doing, it divests us of our infantile fantasy of wholeness and uncomplicated belonging, generating an unquenchable longing for a state of plenitude that we imagine we have somehow been unfairly robbed of: a lost paradise we can never recover but that we spend the rest of our lives pursuing. The fact that we never possessed this paradise in the first place, that we were never completely whole and at ease to begin with, does not in the least diminish our resolve to recover it. Lacan designates this lost paradise as “the Thing,” indicating by the capital T that it is not an ordinary fantasy object, but a very special Thing of incomparable worth; it is the Thing that our deepest desires are made of
There’s a basic mechanism postulated here in which we constantly seek to find substitutes for this lost Thing. It is a psychic driver for our desire, setting it into motion as one object after another promises to resolve the diffuse sense of loss which provides the texture to our everyday engagements with the world. These ‘refound’ objects elicit our desire because of how they relate to this inarticulate sense of what has been lost. As she puts it later on pg 47:
Every “object” (every person or aspiration) we invent or discover is “refound” in the sense that it is always a substitute for the original lost Thing. We place one thing, one object, after another into the empty slot left by the Thing, and those objects that come the closest to reviving the Thing, that contain the strongest echo of the Thing’s special radiance, are the ones we feel most passionate about. However, because no object can ever fully replicate the fantasized perfection of the Thing, we are condemned to repeat our quest ad infinitum
This means there is always a gap, as Ruti puts it (pg 48), between “the Thing and the things we use to compensate for it absence”. In this gap lives the possibility for creativity and originality because the precarious glimmer of the sublime we find in them challenges us to make them into more than they really are. We find new ways of holding, narrating, representing that struggle to capture the ontological dignity we dimly perceive as lurking beneath the mundane shell. The inevitable failure of those responses, the sense in which these objects are merely partaking in a sublime forever out of reach rather than promising access to it, means that we must always try again. The iteration of excitement and disappointment, the sublime and the mundane, constitutes the rupture out of which creation emerges.
Why do we want what we want? There’s a deeper question which opens up now about why the Thing echoes for us in some objects rather than others. Ruti describes an object which “resonates on the precise frequency of our desire” (pg 50). An interesting thread of her substantive discussion concerns how this resonance might be foreclosed by failing to “allow the things of the world to disclose themselves to us according to their own distinctive rhythm” or a premature dissatisfaction with the object given that “even the most enthralling person is never merely this echo” (pg 50). Ruti comes closest to directly addressing the question on pg 51:
This is not to deny that there are objects that approximate the Thing more loyally than others. Such objects enchant us more than those where the Thing’s echo remains more subdued or diffuse; they transmit something about the Thing’s original splendor, so that when we are in their presence, we feel more elevated, more self-realized, than when we are forced to function in a universe of less venerable substitutes. It is as if, to once again borrow from Lacan, they contained something “more than” themselves, so that when we interact with them, we interact with both the objects themselves and the trace of the Thing that these objects hold.
The phenomenological mode of Lacanian theory here really works for me. This is what I’ve been struggling towards for the last few years and Ruti does it here better than I suspect I will ever be able to. But it still leaves the explanatory question unanswered. Why do some objects transmit something about the Thing’s original splendor in a way that others do not? Obviously this can be taken as an empirical question to be answered through a case history but I want to try and get more purchase on the question in the abstract. As she illustrates on pg 52 this echo is at the heart of human experience, such as when we encounter people, situations and things which we think are right but which do not move us in this way:
This specificity of desire is one of the major causes of our suffering, for more often than not, we cannot quite get what we want. It can be tricky to find the right kinds of objects, so that we can, for instance, go for long periods without a romantic relationship because we do not come across anyone who matches the frequency of our desire. Even when we interact with countless people who in principle meet all the necessary specifications of desirability, we cannot force ourselves to want any of them if they fail to emit a strong enough echo of the Thing.
I take much of the positive case of Ruti’s book to be about what Bollas calls the receptive unconscious. Ruti’s concern is how we open ourselves to the echo of the thing, including refusing the siren call of consumer capitalism which seeks to provoke our desire towards mundane objects which we don’t experience as having this dignity. This is existentially urgent and conceptually important in ways she conveys on pg 56:
People who complain about a general sense of apathy often do so because they have lost touch with the Thing’s echo; they have lost their capacity to distinguish between objects that correspond to the inimitable intonation of their desire and others that merely grant the illusion of satisfaction. One reason for this is that the vast commercial machinery of our society is explicitly designed to drown out the Thing’s echo. This machinery makes so many sparkly decoys available to us that we can get sidetracked by the huge volume of our choices. Such decoys, which press on us from all sides, obscure the Thing’s aura for the simple reason that they are deliberately manufactured to shine extra brightly. They flood us with a homogenizing blare that can induce us to accumulate the piles of useless junk I referred to earlier.
I still think the deeper question remains. How do we get from the infantile organisation of our incipient desire (“We learn to appreciate certain things: a favorite food, our mother’s touch, a comforting toy, our brother’s singing, and so on”) to being an adult who has an inner sense of what calls them which they can (fallibly) tune into through a set of practices and orientations which Ruti describes as an erotics of being? This entails a comfort with the passions evoked in being called, including those moments of rupture and renewal when we are called by something which knocks us out of our comfortable groves of repetition. From pg 72:
Equally important, when energies that have been trapped in the repetition compulsion get released, we have a huge amount of new energy available to us. This extra energy can initially feel destabilizing, but it is also exhilarating in the sense that we now have the necessary resources for activities that we might have formerly been unable to carry out. One can liken this experience to an author’s breaking a writer’s block: all of a sudden there is a deluge of energy that can be used productively rather than symptomatically; there is the possibility of growth in all kinds of directions that might have been previously unimaginable. If a passive relationship to our repetition compulsion signifies an inner deadness of sorts—a state of being helplessly wedged in our unconscious conflicts—breaking the repetition revitalizes us, ushering us into the midst of a new kind of life.
But what is the call itself? What is the echo? I think Ruti’s existential methodology is correct. It’s a gloriously lucid explanation of why I dimly cobbled together as a practical manual from Fink: you stay with the encounter and begin to recognise patterns in how energising (or otherwise) particular sorts of people and objects tend to be for you. In that energy, I take Ruti to be arguing, we are encountering something beyond. There is a shape emerging through the clouds, which we can see ever more of if only we can resolutely in the face of it, neither clutching too tightly or backing away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n74g5mqQ2tI
But I still think it’s possible to talk about this in explanatory terms. There’s a gap between a clinical description of the factors which drive attachment behaviour and an abstract claim about the mechanism at work in attachment as such. Consider what Ruti says here on pg 96:
It denies the fact that if our desire crystallizes around a particular person with unusual force, it is because this person contains a shining sliver of sublimity (a uniquely compelling manifestation of the Thing’s echo) that makes him or her inestimably valuable to us, that explains why only this person will do and why our love for this person is nonnegotiable. In this sense, love may be one of the few things we experience that has the power to induce the sublime to materialize within the framework of daily life.
This is the sublime extruding into the lifeworld. The ontology concerns that it is extruding, the phenomenology is about how it is extruding, the therapeutics is about what that extruding means for us. But I want to address the explanatory question about why it is extruding in the way that it is. I feel like Ruti circles around this question, which to be fair is my question rather than heres, with beautiful phrase (“a uniquely compelling manifestation of the Thing’s echo”) without accounting for the character of that relationship. Interestingly Ruti shares my affection for how Christopher Bollas accounts for the relationship with the thing, which makes me think my project of integrating Bollas and Lacan is less problematic than I worried. From pg 174:
We may feel uniquely enticed by certain kinds of investments, by certain kinds of objects and activities, yet hesitate to let ourselves be “conquered” by them, striving, instead, to neutralize their summons. Unfortunately, when we do this, when we recoil from objects and activities that call upon us in such a passionate manner, we destroy their capacity to turn our day into a space for the articulation of our idiom. Similarly, when we use the various objects and activities that the world makes available to us as mere means to an end, as inert tools or resources, their magic silently slips away; when we seek to stifle their disorienting alienness, we decline the invitation to aliveness that they extend to us.
Again though this is about how we relate the objects from which we feel this call. In his own way Bollas also circles around this, positing the ‘destiny drive’ through which we seek to ‘give form to our idiom’ but not really explaining why certain objects are uniquely generative for elaborating that idiom. Like Ruti he points powerfully to examples of this generativity, with a particular focus on aesthetic objects, but the deeper explanatory question remains mysterious. I think this can be answered, even if I have no idea yet how to do it.
#archer #breakcore #desire #drive #existential #harryFrankfurt #Lacan #loss #MariRuti #psychoanalysis #realism #reflexivity #trauma -
The thread about Junction Road Church in Leith and its long and complicated journey through different church and congregation schisms and mergers
This thread was originally written and published in March 2022.
Today’s auction house artefact is this silver church collection plate, inscribed “To the glory of God and in loving memory of Miss Jessie Gray, died 18th Nov. 1961, Dear sister of Rev. Joseph Gray. Easter 1964. Junction Road Church.“
Junction Road Church collection plate, 1964Junction Road Church stood on Great Junction Street. The building is still there, a rather plain, Neoclassical block, but the congregation merged into Leith St. Andrew’s Church of Scotland at the foot of Easter Road in 2006. It is now used by the Mohiuddin Jamia Masjid (Mosque) and education centre.
Junction Road Church. Bryan Hickman via British Listed BuildingsAs a church, it is yet another one of those born out of the various 18th and 19th century schisms in Scottish Presbyterianism and had quite a ride before it joined the established Kirk (Church of Scotland) in 1929. Junction Road Church started out in the Relief Church, an organisation that split off the Kirk in Fife in 1763 as the “Presbytery of Relief” for the “Relief of Christians oppressed in their Christian privileges” over the right of congregations to choose their own minister. The Leith congregation of the Relief Church sat in the old North Leith Kirk of St. Ninian as a temporary home when it formed in 1822. The parishioners were Leithers but had up to this point been worshipping in a Relief congregation at St. James Place in Edinburgh.
The St. James’ Place Relief ChurchThe congregation is reputed to have been “a great Kirk for Captains and Company Porters“, the seafaring and dock-working men of Leith (and their families). In March 1824, the foundation stone of a new Relief church in Leith was laid on what would become Great Junction Street – except then was known either as Junction Road (or even St. Anthony’s Road). The Junction Road name stuck for the church, even though when the whole road scheme was finally completed in 1827 it was called Great Junction Street. At this time the congregation numbered 269, so this was quite a financial undertaking.
The church opened on the Sabbath, 30th Jan. 1825 at a build cost of £4,000. The minister was Francis Muir of Strathaven who preached “Lord, I have loved the habitation of Thy house and the place where Thine honour dwelleth.” in thanks to its temporary home. Reverend Muir was joined by a 2nd minister – Deans – in 1865 to assist with the burden of duties of a congregation approaching 900. Muir died in 1871, aged 75, after 49 years with the congregation. Deans resigned in 1878 owing to ill health brought on by the burden of his work.
The new minister – Duncan – was called in 1879, but resigned 3 years later owing to being unable to manage the large congregation that had been held together largely by their loyalty to the long serving Muir. The next minister – McLeod – died suddenly in 1886 after only 3 years service. His replacement – Scott – suffered a schism in the congregation in 1890 over the issue of unfermented communion wine. The dissenters left to form the Ebenezer Free Church down the street.
The Ebenezer United Free Church is now down the road on Bangor Road, having moved when the block it was contained within was subject to a slum clearance in the 1970s.At the close of 1899 the Junction Place Church had a healthy congregation of 1,187. By this time it was part of the United Presbyterian Church, (the U. P. Church you will see on old Ordnance Survey maps) the Relief Church having merged with the United Secession Church in 1847 (Any excuse to bring out this diagram!)
The Scottish church schism timeline diagram for 1847Over this time, the Church that had sat on the fringes of Leith in orchards and market gardens when it was opened was swallowed up by the burgeoning burgh, and enclosed within dense housing and industries.
1849 vs 1893 OS Town Plan. Move the slider to compare. Reproduced with the permission of the National Library of ScotlandIn 1900, the United Presbyterian Church joined with most of the Free Church to form the United Free Church. To celebrate, a new pipe organ was installed in 1903. (A motion to use a harmonium instead of an organ was defeated by “overwhelming majority“)
The Scottish church schism timeline diagram for 1900The Church had also built itself a new hall to its rear, facing onto Bonninton Road, in 1894 and ran a very active social program from here. This included a literary society, a savings bank, clothing scheme, children’s work lessons, temperance band, mothers’ meetings etc.
Former Junction Road Church halls on Bonnington RoadA new minister – Rev. Joseph Gray – was inducted in 1921 in time for the church’s centenary. The congregation followed most of the United Free Church by joining the established Kirk in 1929. It is Gray’s sister to whom the collection plate is dedicated.
The Scottish church schism timeline diagram for 1929By 1975, long term population shifts (an ageing, depopulating Leith) and changes in worshipping habits saw Junction Road merge with the nearby St. Thomas’ on Mill Lane to form St. Thomas’ Junction Road. St. Thomas’ building would become home to the Sikh Gurdwara
The Sikh Gurdwara, formerly St. Thomas’ ChurchWriting in 2003, “We- Ministers, Elders, Managers and Members of Junction Road Church-do not know what the future has in store for us as individuals and for us as a Congregation”. The future held a merger with Leith St. Andrew’s at the foot of Easter Road, the congregation moving into the latter building. The future of even this merger of mergers Church is now once again up for debate, with the real prospect that the Church of Scotland will consolidate into a single Leith congregation at the South Leith Kirk.
Leith St. Andrew’s Church of ScotlandThis thread is one of an occasional series with the vague working title of “just why are there so many old churches in Edinburgh and Leith.” You can read a bit more in the thread on Leith Communion Tokens.
Note to readers: unfortunately in April 2026, a third-party plug-in more than exceeded its authority and broke many of the image links on this site. No images were lost but I will have to restore them page-by-page, which may take some time. In the meantime please bear with me while I go about rectifying this issue.
If you have found this site useful, informative or amusing then you can help contribute towards its running costs by supporting me on ko-fi. This includes my commitment to keeping it 100% advert and AI free for all time coming, and in helping to find further unusual stories to bring you by acquiring books and paying for research.
Or please do just share this post on social media or amongst friends and like-minded people, sites like this thrive on being shared.Explore Threadinburgh by map:
Travelers' Map is loading...
If you see this after your page is loaded completely, leafletJS files are missing.These threads © 2017-2026, Andy Arthur.
NO AI TRAINING: Any use of the contents of this website to “train” generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to generate text is expressly prohibited. The author reserves all rights to license uses of this work for generative AI training and development of machine learning language models.
#Lochend #Logan #Restalrig #StMargaret -
"Even before #Israel’s modern-day rebirth in 1948, #Jews routinely stood accused of not possessing sufficient loyalty to the nations where they resided.
One of the earliest examples of this #libel was the suspicion in parts of #medieval #Christian #Europe that Jews were in league with some #Muslim powers.
The charge of #dualloyalty could be seen in the 1894 #DreyfusAffair in #France through the #Nazis’ rise to power; indeed, this notion in large measure underlays the failure of #Jewish emancipation in Europe. In the #UnitedStates in the 1920s, #HenryFord published The International #Jew, which alleged, along with other calumnies, that Jews were pushing #America toward war for financial gain and world domination.
Its contemporary manifestation almost always centers on the charge that Jews are more beholden to Israel than their own nation. Often, the dual-loyalty charge is infused with a narrative imputing enormous power to Jews and Jewish communities..."
https://www.jns.org/opinion/adam-levick/the-dual-loyalty-trope
-
Saunders and Dear Hollow’s Top Ten(ish) of 2025 By Steel DruhmSaunders
Yes, folks and loyal AMG readers and devotees, another year is nearly done and dusted. As per tradition, the time has come to share reflections and recommendations from another eventful year. Personally, 2025 threw down some rough moments and life challenges, navigating a spike in anxiety-driven mental and physical health concerns. Previously, I have mentioned how much AMG has grounded me over the years, keeping my focus and motivation on track when other parts of life navigate turbulence, stress, or uncertainty. This has proven especially pivotal this year and highlights the importance of contributing in some small way to this amazing blog and how much it means to me.
Highlights… After a few lean years post-pandemic on the gig front, as an avid concertgoer, 2025 proved productive for getting my mojo back for live music. I caught Karnivool in action for the first time in over a decade, ripping through infectious prog metal anthems and impressive new jams from their highly anticipated album set to drop in early 2026. An unexpected gig was a solo show in my hometown from none other than former Fear Factory legend Burton C Bell, performing in a local dive venue. Ploughing through career classics and some solo material, the setlist offered up gems like “Drive Boy Shooting,” “Scapegoat,” “Scumgrief,” and “Replica.” It was a nostalgic joy.
Meanwhile, after years of stubbornly jaded neglect, I finally bit the bullet and witnessed Metallica live. Probably a couple of decades too late, however, as an impressionable young’un raised on early Metallica, it was a cool experience to finally see the aging juggernaut in a stadium setting that will remain in the memory bank for years to come. A couple of days later, I once again caught the mighty Opeth at the iconic Sydney Opera House with quality support from Caligula’s Horse, before rounding out the year by finally seeing Dying Fetus live in an extra beefy triple bill including Ashen and 200 Stab Wounds. Good times indeed….
Big thanks to everyone for keeping this mighty blog running and cogs turning. From the ever-growing readership and awesome AMG community, through the entire, recently beefed-up writing crew, inspiring colleagues and all-around awesome people, to the higher powers (Steel Druhm, Angry Metal Guy, Sentynel, Doc Grier, and all the other editors) for their extra behind-the-scenes work whipping us into line. Cheers all to a safe, happy, and healthy 2026.
#ish: Green Carnation // A Dark Poem Part I: The Shores of Melancholia – After being mesmerized by Green Carnation’s timeless opus Light of Day, Day of Darkness many years ago, I never really expanded my listening beyond that widely regarded masterpiece. Then comeback album Leaves of Yesteryear dropped in 2020 and turned me from a casual listener into an avid fan of their work. A Dark Poem Part I: The Shores of Melancholia signals a long-awaited return and the first part of a planned trilogy from the seasoned Norwegian veterans of classy, mood-driven progressive metal. Admittedly, this album didn’t reach the dizzying heights or quite gain the traction of its predecessor. Nor does it disappoint, adding another finely crafted chapter in Green Carnation’s enduring career, while building excitement for the two albums to complete the trilogy. Meticulously crafted and chock full of emotive, silky, and delightfully catchy gems, A Dark Poem Part I: The Shores of Melancholia is another top-shelf prog metal jam.
#10. Caustic Wound // Grinding Mechanism of Torment – Back in 2020, Seattle’s Caustic Wound emerged from the muck and unleashed a gnarly ball of unvarnished deathgrind rage courtesy of debut, Death Posture. Due to the endearing old school charms and brawling, stomping attack, Death Posture left a lasting impression, amping anticipation for their long-awaited return on sophomore slab, Grinding Mechanism of Torment. Though a little less refined and losing a smidgen of the debut’s grimy charm, Caustic Wound otherwise pounded out wickedly crunchy, buzzsawing deathgrind with violent glee, infectiousness, and subtle variety to keep you coming back for more. The album’s tight construction and propulsive performances deftly harness the controlled chaos and blasty, groove-laced fun, as the likes of “Drone Terror,” “Advanced Killing Methods,” and “Blood Battery” attest.
#9. Phantom Spell // Heather & Hearth – One of the purest and nostalgia-driven prog releases of 2025, the sophomore album from Seven Sisters singer/guitarist Kyle McNeill was a progtastic delight, wielding old-timey, ’70s prog feels with a transportive, fantastical flair. Phantom Spell crafted a timeless, epic yet remarkably fresh experience, despite the obvious devotion to progressive rock legends and eras of the past. Dueling guitar leads, rollicking organ, and tight, expressive rhythms shine across a superbly performed and produced opus. For all the musical smarts, clever progressive arrangements, and technical showmanship, McNeill’s songwriting and powerful vocals are spot on, resulting in a nuanced though hugely hooky and focused collection, infused with folk and classic heavy metal elements, complementing the classic progressive rock core. Bookended by two spectacular epics (‘The Autumn Citadel” and stunning, heart-wrenching melodies of the closing title track), Heather & Hearth is equally compelling in its more compact, punchy forms (“‘Evil Hand,” “Siren Song”).
#8. Barren Path // Grieving – Grind delivered big time in 2025, with numerous high-quality releases to absorb. None quite delivered the hammer blow impact of the debut LP from Barren Path, featuring Gridlink alumni, including grind shredding extraordinaire Takafumi Matsubara. It’s amazing what can be achieved in a manic thirteen minutes of calculated mayhem and precision deathgrind madness. Barren Path shares traits with Gridlink’s razor-sharp precision and abrasive intensity; however, it refuses to be pigeonholed or cast into the shadows of the Gridlink legacy. Beefy production, coupled with a prominent death metal influence, riffs to burn, gripping performances, and techy edge, Grieving loudly announced Barren Path as the next innovative heavy hitter to take the grind scene by storm. All too brief if utterly compelling, I’m excited to see what this elite line-up can cook up next as they set about creating their own unmatched legacy.
#7. Changeling // Changeling – For the second time in my 2025 top ten, an album surpasses the hour-length mark, often questionable territory as far as optimal album length. The prolific Tom Geldschläger (aka Fountainhead) hired an army of high-profile musicians and contributors to bring his elaborate progressive death metal vision to vibrant life with an overstuffed and incredibly entertaining, wildly ambitious debut opus. Amongst the core lineup, Morean (Alkaloid, Dark Fortress) lends his unique vocals, Virvum’s Arran McSporran features on fretless bass, and powerhouse Mike Keller (ex-Fear Factory, Raven, Malignancy) mans the kit, while a stack of instruments, choirs, and guest musicians add further dimensions and intricacies to the color palette. Changeling is guilty of overreaching on occasions, and the whole thing is an overstimulating example of excess. And though far from perfect, Changeling is nevertheless an astonishingly complex, progressive, and technical marvel. Its bombastic, adventurous gallop, slick songcraft, earwormy hook,s and otherworldly melodies conjure up a hugely inventive and endlessly fun platter.
#6. Turian // Blood Quantum Blues – Generally, I tread carefully from anything core-related in the realms of hardcore, metalcore, and deathcore. I am not opposed to each style, but usually it takes a certain something to win me over. Another winning recommendation from the flippered one, Blood Quantum Blues, the third LP from Seattle metallic hardcore merchants Turian, found the band toying and upending their sound in wonderfully creative and ambitious fashion. Like other genre-busting albums, such as The Shape of Punk to Come and Miss Machine, Turian fuck with the conventions of their metallic hardcore. Shattering boundaries by lacing their signature sound with sharply integrated elements of rock, electronics, sludge, and grind, whipped into a grooving, raw smackdown and addictive delight, Turian pulls no punches and pushes their songwriting creativity to the limit. The line-up nails the newfound songwriting versatility through tight, explosive performances, topped by the raw intensity and charismatic vocals of Vern Metztli-Moon, who channels deeply personal, trauma-informed reflections of her Native American heritage, with vigor and rage.
#5. Retromorphosis // Psalmus Mortis – Carrying on the timeless legacy of legendary Swedish tech death wrecking crew Spawn of Possession, Retromorphosis emerged featuring the bulk of the SoP line-up and a rejuvenated sound, both familiar and energized enough to craft a new chapter of tech death excellence. Herein lies the key to the album’s success. SoP was such a special and unique entity in the tech death field. Retromorphosis pulls the signature songwriting components and twists and contorts them into their own slick interpretation, without simply rehashing past glories. Psalmus Mortis proved to have significant staying power since dropping early in the year, even amidst a pretty stacked year for quality death and tech death albums. Retromorphosis decorate their knotty, fluid and aggressive compositions with tasteful synth work, symphonic flourishes and bedazzling solos, whether charting smartly progressive, labyrinthine terrain (“The Tree,” “Machine”), and thrashy, warped tech death (“Aunt Christie’s Will,” “Vanished,” “Retromorphosis”).
#4. Terror Corpse // Ash Eclipses Flesh – After already delivering a killer grind opus earlier in the year, Terror Corpse got the creative juices flowing again in dropping a full-length debut of immense power and old school grit. Featuring a power-packed lineup featuring past and present members of acts including Malignant Altar, Oceans of Slumber, Necrofier, and Insect Warfare, Terror Corpse comes seasoned with death metal wisdom and experience. Despite a lack of innovation, Terror Corpse winds back the clock and transcends the typical old school death metal hordes. Injecting venomous strains of grind, death-doom, sinister atmospheres, and gut-churning brutality into beefy, riff-driven songs that fondly recall death metal’s glory days, Terror Corpse forge ahead into the here and now with their own character and inspired songwriting. Topped by a bevy of instantly gratifying, oozing riffs and Dobber Beverly’s elite drumming, Ash Eclipses Flesh is a gripping old school death experience.
#3. Dax Riggs // 7 Songs For Spiders – The return of Dax Riggs, and by extension the most unexpected re-emergence of the legendary Acid Bath, were surely two of the most heartwarming music moments of 2025. As a longtime devotee of both Dax and Acid Bath, I had begun worrying that Dax’s music-making days had passed as he slunk into the background and essentially dropped off the radar for the best part of fifteen years. While holding out slim hope Acid Bath will decide to cross our shores, I am stoked Dax and crew are getting the long-overdue credit and exposure they deserve. Though not strictly metal, Dax’s comeback album, and first since 2010’s Say Goodnight to the World, marks a triumphant and warm, comforting return from an underground icon. 7 Songs for Spiders delivered the goods, as Dax and friends dropped an album with a familiar, nostalgic feel that refuses to rest on its laurels. Riggs’ defining vocals sound as vital and deliciously smoky as ever, weaving signature morbid tales, deadly hooks, and earworm melodies through subdued yet deceptively hefty and bluesy folk-doom ditties.
#2. Messa // The Spin – It would be an oversimplification to describe Messa’s fourth LP as a streamlined version of the enigmatic Italian band’s doom-centric formula. Each album has impressed in its own unique way, adding intoxicating twists and charm to continually evolve and refresh their sound. The Spin carries over elements of their past works and character-defining idiosyncrasies, yet feels like Messa’s most laser-focused, accessible, and direct album to date, and also one of their best. While I’ve enjoyed each of the band’s prior works, The Spin is the band’s most efficient and instantly gratifying, and addictive album. Easily Messa’s shortest opus, The Spin, uncorks killer tune after tune. Sumptuous melodies and rich textures color blockbuster doom bangers (“At Races,” “Fire on the Roof”), residing alongside atmospheric, jazz-dappled charmers (“The Dress”), bluesy, emotive slow burners (“Immolation”), and brooding, psych-tinged doom (“Thicker Blood”).
#1. Tómarúm // Beyond Obsidian Euphoria – Weirdly enough, my number one picks often don’t materialize as obviously as one might expect. This has largely been a trend throughout my tenure here at Angry Metal Guy. In all honesty, any of the top three could have been interchangeable in the top spot, but I reserved top honors for the spectacular second LP from Atlanta band Tómarúm. All the more surprising due to sleeping on their well-received debut, Beyond Obsidian Euphoria smacked me upside the cranium with an explosion of creativity and ambitious songcraft, encompassing elements of progressive black, melodic death, and tech death bombast. It’s an overly ambitious, sometimes slightly messy masterwork. Yet the eye-watering 68 minutes largely warrant its exhaustive length. Sure, shrewd editing here and there may have tightened things up. However, the whole experience is so consistently gripping and superbly written and performed that minor quibbles are squashed well below the surface. This fully loaded, immersive masterwork sparkles and scorches through tremendously crafted, multi-faceted compositions, including standout epics, “Shallow Ecstasy,” “Shed This Erroneous Skin,” and “Silver, Ashen Tears,” nestled harmoniously against the blunt force discordance of ‘Blood Mirage,” and compact progressive fireworks of closer “Becoming the Stone Icon (Obsidian Reprise).”
Honorable Mentions:
- Sigh // I Saw the World’s End – Hangman’s Hymn MMXXV – Skepticism of the dangerous game of the re-record was swept aside in a stunning reimagining of their 2007 classic.
- Plasmodulated // An Ocean ov Putrid, Stinky, Vile, Disgusting Hell – The album title says it all. Delightfully scabby, grooving old school death, seasoned with quirky Voivodisms.
- Igorrr // Amen – When seeking that taste of batshit crazy experimentation and avant-garde lunacy, Amen proved a reliable tonic. A challenging, though freakishly creative and addicting listen.
- Blood Vulture // Die Close – A grungy, Gothy slab of doom designed by talented Two Minutes to Late Night host Jordan Olds (aka Gwarsenio Hall). The future appears bright, judging by this highly addictive debut, which garnered lots of rotation throughout the year.
- Vittra // Intense Indifference – Hugely impressive melodic death platter from Swedish up-and-comers Vittra. Drawing inspiration from their homeland’s classic melodeath past, Vittra injects oodles of thrashy energy, inspired axework, and hooky songcraft, bringing a fresh edge to a retro sound.
- Dormant Ordeal // Tooth and Nail – Perhaps a little late on this one, however, after spending considerable time with Dormant Ordeal’s latest opus, the hype and critical praise are indeed justified—a fine example of brutal, crushing Polish blackened death.
- Species // Changelings – Admittedly, like various other overlooked gems, I didn’t spend as much time as I’d like with Changelings. But catching up has been a blast. Species brought the weird on this wacky, proggy technical thrash thrill ride, not to be missed.
Disappointment o’ the Year:
Sadly, we lost a number of metal legends in 2025, headlined by three individual legends that had a profound impact on me over the years. There will never be a larger-than-life frontman/metal icon like Ozzy Osbourne. While his demise was not unexpected, it left a huge void and an incredible legacy never to be matched. At the Gates and all-around iconic Swedish vocalist Tomas Lindberg sadly passed away following a horrible illness, while former Mastodon guitarist/vocalist Brent Hinds tragically passed in a motor vehicle accident. Rest in Peace legends….
Non-Heavy Picks (snapshot):
- Aesop Rock (Black Hole Superette & I Heard It’s a Mess There Too), clipping., Bon Iver, Miguel.
Song o’ the Year:
Messa – “Fire on the Roof” – Narrowing down a definitive song o’ the year candidate is often a futile task. Twenty-twenty-five was no exception. Rather than overthink or analyze the situation, I locked in one of the year’s most addictive, replayable gems from Messa’s stunning fourth LP, The Spin.
Dear Hollow
Welcome to the end of 2025! We at AMG hope the year has been kind to you—that your lives are filled with love, your hearts with joy, and our world with peace. I hope that you have found your people and have those you can lean on. If we have ever given you a voice, a platform, or just love and support when you need it, then we have done our jobs.
It feels redundant to say that this year has been a roller coaster, but 2025 pulled no punches. In May, the Hollow household welcomed a second kiddo, a boy, into the fold. He is a supremely easy, endlessly happy little guy, but the stresses of parenthood—and especially of two kids—are a daily lesson of “bend, don’t break.” Our daughter is now four, and learns new things and says sassy things day in and day out, enjoying gymnastics and dancing, and singing around the house for fun.
My reviewing has remained steady this year, if not a little less than the usual. Between parenting two kids, working as a high school English teacher to increasingly apathetic kids, working on a noir crime novel that has paid dividends in complexity (and all the noir jazz my ears can handle),1 continuing to unpack my upbringing and trauma and how they all have affected my views on family, relationships, and self-love, you can imagine how wild each day has been. But I’ve somehow managed it, and the end of the year is here to celebrate it.
Special shout-outs to those who have been instrumental in my journey this year: the ineffable and tireless dream team of Steel Druhm and Angry Metal Guy, the genre-confusing Dolphin Whisperer, my fellow Whitechapel apologists Iceberg and Alekhines Gun, and those who have been supportive all year (Thus Spoke, Killjoy, and Mystikus Hugebeard). Couldn’t have done it without y’all.
To the metal!
#ish. Kalaveraztekah // Nikan Axkan – Subject of a rollicking Rodeö, Mexico’s Kalaveraztekah’s balance of cosmic Aztec atmosphere and cutthroat death metal is sublime. Riffs for days balanced by an experimental madness that conjures cosmic destruction and rebirth, Nikan Axkan recalls the antics of Hell:on, folk influence only sharpens its attack and injects an atmosphere of foreboding. Refusing both gimmick and total immersion, Nikan Axkan is riffy, fun, and evocative, made for a mosh-pit and a soundtrack for the destruction of the Five Suns.
#10. La Torture des Ténèbres // Episode VIII – Revenge of Unfailing Valor – If you’re like MalteBrigge, you’ll probably end up with tinnitus and a sprained shoulder once Episode VIII kicks in, but Ottawa one-woman raw black metal/noise outfit La Torture des Ténèbres returns to the bleak space-faring atompunk of its 2016 debuts alongsdie the dystopic rage that pervades more recent efforts – moments of peace adding dimension and texture. La Torture des Ténèbres is about as ambitious as raw black metal can get.
#9. Imperial Triumphant // Goldstar – Goldstar is Imperial Triumphant’s most accessible album, the NYC trio’s signature brand of death/black and jazz funneled into a straightforward art-deco-themed brutalizing. It’s no less adventurous, always punishing, and will stay with you long after your ears stop ringing from the sound of New York City taxis and decadent skyscrapers displayed in extreme metal format: more straightforward, more melodic. While its recent predecessors are an affluent nightlife, Goldstar offers a sunbathed New York City.
#8. Howling Giant // Crucible & Ruin – Nashville’s stoner outfit Howling Giant reconciles the melodies and riffs, exploratory songwriting, and mammoth hooks gathering in each movement of Crucible & Ruin. Featuring hints of knuckleheaded sludge and proggy chord progressions, it’s an album that keeps your attention for forty-eight minutes. New member Adrian Zambrano offers more atmosphere and layers of guitar riffs and melodies to go with the surefire dichotomy of instrumental heft and vocal ethereality. Crucible & Ruin is an experience of fun, subtlety, and above all, riffs.
#7. Geese // Getting Killed – Perhaps the vocals of NYC’s Geese don’t bother me because of Cameron Winters’ similarity to singer/songwriter John Mark McMillan,2 so the album’s sonic anxiety of noise rock, post-punk, country, and blues that creep in and out like lovers who never stay does not bother me. Getting Killed feels viciously aggressive, venomously satirical, and fluid and elastic in its humble movements. Geese are overrated Pitchfork-bait, sure, but an overrated hill to get killed upon regardless.
#6. Structure // Heritage – Steel Druhm’s the real masochist for low and slow, but the balance of sad death/doom and devastating funeral doom in Netherland’s Structure is special. The guitar work in the mammoth riffs, melodic leads, and climactic solos has just a much of a voice to contribute as Pim Blankenstein’s formidable roars—as if griever and grieved converse in both melancholy and rage. Heritage is Structure paying homage to doom metal’s contemplation while paying its dues in death metal’s viciousness – pure devastation.
#5. Patristic // Catechesis – Catechesis is born out of the “impending shadow of the cross.” As tumultuous as the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of the church and pagan rebellion, the black/death of Rome’s Patristic assaults the ears with tension, fury, and reverence. The first act is the holy war, a rationalization of steel and zealotry, while the second is the way the soldier tells it to his children, the lessons and cautions borne of blind faith and its devastation. Cathechesis is not only fiery sermons and unending blasphemy, but regret and meditation.
#4. In Mourning // The Immortal – I’ve loved Sweden’s In Mourning since their 2010 album Monolith: balancing chuggy guitars, progressive songwriting, and the slightest hints of doom (such as in 2008’s Shrouded Divine). The Immortal is an album that balances The Bleeding Veil’s darker elements, Garden of Storms’ signature melody, and The Weight of Oceans’ iconic patience. The Immortal offers yearning melodies and chords alongside vicious riffs, and melodeath has never sounded so good.
#3. Yellow Eyes // Confusion Gate – New York’s Yellow Eyes’ Confusion Gate conveys a black metal place better than most, an environment teeming with life. Like the Romantic Sublime, it maintains a crystalline beauty, like a light scattering through broken glass, and a madness born of terror—at the source of the light. Here is the crux of it, from poet Rainer Maria Rilke’s “The First Elegy”;
Who, if I cried out, would hear me among the Angels’
Orders? and even if one of them pressed me
suddenly to his heart: I’d be consumed
in his more potent being. For beauty is nothing
but the beginning of terror, which we can still barely endure,
and while we stand in wonder it coolly disdains
to destroy us. Every Angel is terrifying.#2. Igorrr // Amen – Gautier Serre’s work with Igorrr has rarely felt bad, but Amen evolves it from his typical standard. You get the typical apeshit antics in the midsection, but a full band fleshes out the jewel-encrusted skeleton for a fully, nearly spiritual experience. Minimalist compositions build upon a breakbeat before cracking into a full choir and death metal experience, while an overwhelming onslaught of insanity reminds us who exactly we’re listening to. Amen is hella fun, as expected, but also something we can take seriously.
#1. Primitive Man // Observance – Primitive Man is the heaviest band on the planet. While I’ve appreciated the Denver trio’s pitch-black approach to death metal laced with noise, doom, and sludge—from afar—Observance booked me in with upbeat tempos and a surprising melody. It swallows you whole like any good Primitive Man album ought to, but the devotion to deteriorating songwriting and weaponized noise. The atmospheric death/sludge counterpart to the riffs of Warcrab, for instance, Primitive Man offers a sound like no other—and it’s the best of the year.
Honorable Mentions:
- The Acacia Strain // You Are Safe From God Here – While incorporating the same ol’ hardcore beatdown you expect from the Massachusetts deathcore OGs,3 denser tones make for higher blasphemy. Simple math, trust me.
- Ethel Cain // Willoughby Tucker, I’ll Always Love You – Leaving behind the more experimental and darker tones in noise/drone counterpart Perverts, a more atmospheric and contemplative direction showcases the singer-songwriter’s nostalgic and gentle storytelling that does not shy away from darkness.
- Changeling // Changeling – While lacking the darkness and weight of Ingurgitating Oblivion, guitarist Tom “Fountainhead” Geldschläger is granted fretless freedom in a tech-death album whose lightness and amorphousness guide ethereal constructions of proggy sensibilities. More Dolphin Whisperer fare but still dope as hell.
- Author & Punisher // Nocturnal Birding – Tristan Shone releases an industrial sludge album that hits like an anvil, casting aside the more atmospheric tendencies for a headbanging good time, amplified by the crunch of new guitarist Doug Sabolick. Melodic motifs based on the birdcalls of migratory birds as a metaphor for immigrants, Shone and Sabolick offer the short and sweet despite a heavy-handed subject.
- Bad Angels // Until Silence – A late-year find, Polish composer Adrian Anioł concocts dense dark ambient sprawls with moody jazz, haunting saxophone glitches, ominous upright bass, and pitch-black meandering. Perfect for walks on spooky rainy nights.
Songs o’ the Year:
- Ethel Cain – “Dust Bowl”4
Surprises o’ the Year
- KPop Demon Hunters Soundtrack – Mainly, how much time I devoted to it. What can I say? I’m gonna be, gonna be golden.
- SpiritWorld // Helldorado – Knuckleheaded riffs for days.5
Disappointments o’ the Year
- Messa // The Spin – Maybe it’s because I saturated my year with sultry noir jazz, but Messa shorts its doom metal with some goofy jazz—all novelty, no substance.
- Orbit Culture // Death Above Life – Once again, the melodeath/thrash riff reigns supreme, but until they can get out from behind the wall of compression, the Swedes continue to tread water.
- Vildhjarta // Där skogen sjunger under evighetens granar – The undersung princes of atmodjent show up with the swampy djunz and forsake everything that makes them legendary. It’s djent—disappointingly nothing more.
-
Six to three. Two Trump-appointed justices struck down his IEEPA tariffs. $159 billion owed in refunds. Sunday's Truth Social meltdown wasn't rage — it was a confession: he thinks the bench owes him loyalty. The court he built is not his to break.
https://twp.ai/4hr7Ki
#SCOTUS #Trump #Tariffs #IEEPA #RuleOfLaw #Politics #Resistance #News #Courts #Democracy -
„Eine Welt, die von Gewalt regiert wird“: Der Angriff auf Venezuela und die kommenden Konflikte
„Wir leben in einer Welt, die von Stärke regiert wird, die von Gewalt regiert wird, die von Macht regiert wird“, erklärte Stephen Miller am 5. Januar 2026 gegenüber CNN-Moderator Jake Tapper und legte damit das faschistische Programm dar, mit dem er die gewaltsame Eroberung #Grönlands rechtfertigte. „Das sind die eisernen Gesetze der Welt seit Anbeginn der Zeit.“
Am frühen Morgen des 3. Januar führte die #Trump-Regierung eine für das Fernsehen inszenierte Razzia in Venezuela durch, bei der mindestens sieben Ziele in #Caracas bombardiert und Präsident Nicolás #Maduro und seine Frau Celia Flores entführt wurden. Dies war der Höhepunkt einer einjährigen Druckkampagne, in deren Verlauf die Regierung venezolanische Einwanderer in den USA als „Drogenterroristen“ bezeichnete, versuchte, das Gesetz über feindliche Ausländer anzuwenden, mutmaßliche „Drogenboote“ bombardierte, #Öltanker beschlagnahmte und die US-#Marine zur Blockade Venezuelas einsetzte.
Das Trump-Regime beschuldigte Maduro zunächst, Anführer des „Cartel de los Soles“ zu sein, einer ebenso erfundenen Konstruktion wie „#Antifa“. Obwohl sie diese Anschuldigung gestern revidierten, um einen weniger fadenscheinigen Rechtsfall zu formulieren, ist es typisch für ihre Vorgehensweise, dass sie mit einer falschen Erzählung beginnen und dann nach Mitteln suchen, diese der Realität aufzuzwingen. Eines der Hauptziele von Donald Trump war es, ein Foto von Nicolás Maduro in Ketten zu veröffentlichen, in Anlehnung an die Fotos, die Bundesbehörden von Menschen verbreitet haben, die von der #Einwanderungsbehörde #ICE entführt wurden. Anstatt Verbesserungen der wirtschaftlichen Lage anzubieten, bietet Trump seinen Anhängern den stellvertretenden Nervenkitzel, sich mit Gefängniswärtern und Folterern zu identifizieren. Sein Ziel ist es, seine Gegner zu entmenschlichen und alle für die Art von Gewalt zu desensibilisieren, die erforderlich sein wird, um seine Herrschaft und den Kapitalismus selbst in einer Ära sinkender Gewinne aufrechtzuerhalten.
Die Unternehmensmedien erfüllen ihre klassische Rolle als loyale Opposition, indem sie Fragen zur Rechtmäßigkeit der Aktion aufwerfen und gleichzeitig Maduro verteufeln und seine rechtsgerichtete Gegnerin María Corina #Machado glorifizieren. Für #Anarchisten und andere, die sich gegen den #Imperialismus stellen wollen, ist es notwendig, den Angriff auf Venezuela in einem größeren Zusammenhang zu betrachten, darüber nachzudenken, wie eine wirksame Opposition aussehen könnte, und zu überlegen, wie wir darauf reagieren können.
Das Drehbuch
Die Regierung der Vereinigten Staaten blickt auf eine lange Geschichte imperialistischer Interventionen in# Lateinamerika zurück, darunter mehr als ein Jahrhundert Operationen gegen #Kuba, der blutige Militärputsch in #Chile 1973 und George #Bushs Invasion in #Panama 1989. Der Angriff auf Venezuela knüpft an eine Reihe jüngerer Unternehmungen an, von George W. Bushs Invasionen in #Afghanistan und im #Irak in den Jahren 2002 und 2003 bis hin zu Joe #Bidens Abbau der internationalen „regelbasierten Ordnung“, um Benjamin #Netanjahu zu ermöglichen, ab 2023 einen Völkermord in #Palästina zu begehen.
Gleichzeitig stellt das Programm der Trump-Regierung eine Abkehr von früheren Normen dar. Mit seinem Bestreben, die Ausbeutung von Ressourcen mit brutaler Gewalt und ohne den geringsten Anschein einer anderen Agenda durchzuführen, schließt sich Trump Wladimir #Putin und Benjamin Netanjahu an und läutet eine Ära der unverhüllten Gier um ihrer selbst willen ein.
Während Trumps Untergebene die manipulierten Wahlen in Venezuela im Jahr 2024 als Rechtfertigung für den Angriff anführen, gibt Trump nicht vor, Wahlen oder „Demokratie“ nach Venezuela zu bringen. Einige Quellen behaupten, dass die von María Corina Machado angeführte Opposition von fast 80 % der venezolanischen Bevölkerung unterstützt wird, aber Trump behauptet, dass sie nicht genug Unterstützung habe, um zu regieren; vermutlich meint er damit, dass ihr die Unterstützung des Militärs fehlt. Trump selbst würde es vorziehen, mit einem autokratischen Regime zusammenzuarbeiten, das ihm direkt verpflichtet ist. Auch er möchte sich lieber nicht Wahlen stellen, weder in Venezuela noch in den Vereinigten Staaten.
(...)
Weiterlesen in meiner Übersetzung des @CrimethInc Artikels "“A World Governed by Force”: The Attack on Venezuela and the Conflicts to Come"
#Imperialismus #Venezuela #Anarchismus #Analyse #USA #CapitalismIsADeathCult @anarchism
-
'Murica, you had yourselves a real nice Land Of Oz there, for a while. Nobody is weeping for you right now, we are simply watching you, expectantly, because you are still going to be the ones who get it the worst. Not that it won't destroy us too.
In the meantime, we in #Canada have been lucky enough to avoid the full fascist takedown through coldly rational voting choices, but that won't be enough in the coming months.
The hollowed-out husk of the 20th Century does not want go quietly into that good night, and we are talking like we are planning to leave it behind as we descend from the Everest of cold war madness, leaving it to choke on whatever it can extract from a pressurized container of money.
I say good riddance to the 20th Century, and all the toxic ideologies that dominated it. Which brings me to the point of this:
Banker Daddy can't have your back, and the bank's back too.
Never has happened, never will happen.
He's playing it like what we need is a Better Capitalist, but what he left out of that Most Stirring Speech, the one that credulous #LIberals even here on the #fedi have been proclaiming to be historic, hell someone compared it to Eisenhower.
What he left out of that is that he is an avatar of that ideology, dressed up in rainbow drag once a year. He is the critic and the continuation of that zombie century. He is a Rage Agasinst The Machine shirt featuring Che Guevara, which you (I) purchased at #Walmart in 1995.
The so-called "conservative" party, on the other hand, is not promising to wrangle the ups and downs of market capitalism, oh no
He's the fucking Quisling Traitors And Addled Fools party, and he just wants to sell the whole country to the bank that bids the highest.
So what's left, since we have apparently committed to the gag that #Trudeau and #Singh DIDN'T just deliver us free birth control and diabetes meds and fucking dentistry, while the world around us shat in its pants, reached in there and started hurling? For these acts of civil service that will echo down the generations, we are demanding they walk away in shame, because OF FUCKING COURSE WE ARE.
What's left is, you have several more days in which you loyal #Canadians can register as an #NDP member, and vote for @avilewis as the next leader of the party.
You will be placing on the podium, assuming the cowards are willing to have the debate at all, our very own 1930s-style Socialist candidate, who has already said all the things that Liberals claim we don't want to hear. I think that's bullshit.
Spend ten bucks (what I paid as an underemployed worker), pinch your nose if you must, but join and cast your vote for Avi, and come the next election, we will have us a real #Monsterdon-style watch party, so we can watch Banker Daddy twist on the fork of his own highly conflicted interests. He's been skewering politicians on their bullshit since Muchmusic days.
Do it.
https://act.ndp.ca/donate/membership-en
Here's something to listen to.
-
📰 Today's top stories, personally curated for you by Zorz Studios: http://zorz.it/newspaper
- The history of #autofocus: from #rangefinders to #AI subject recognition;
- #ZohoSurvey warns of huge #PasswordSecurity threat;
- A barefoot #CliffsideWedding in #Greece with all-white elegance and cinematic ocean views;
- #StreetStyle look of the week: a brand loyalist steps out in #blue;
- #NationalPortraitGallery to stage landmark #MarilynMonroe #exhibition, and more -
Fintan O'Toole is a liberal rather a lefty, but he is a social democratic liberal rather than a classical liberal. So there was hope that the doyen of Irish columnists would show some sympathy with Connolly's views.
But instead, the mighty O'Toole has thrown his lot in unequivocally with #TheIrishTimes's strident loyalty to the EU's militarism. :(
Paywalled original: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/2025/09/30/fintan-otoole-catherine-connolly-should-try-to-keep-her-inner-basil-fawlty-under-wraps/
Archived full text: https://archive.is/fD6RL
#IrishTimes #FintanOToole #CatherineConnolly #Aras25 -
@SoerenPellmann Heraus zum 1. Mai!
Ein Slogan, der in der DDR Millionen auf die Straße trieb, nicht aus Begeisterung, sondern aus Pflicht. Heute klingt er wie ein Relikt aus einer Zeit, in der der 1. Mai kein Feiertag der Arbeiter*innen war, sondern ein Propagandainstrument der #SED.
Viele marschierten nicht für Freiheit, sondern für Loyalität zum System, während die Staatsführung auf dem Podium stand und die “Errungenschaften des Sozialismus” feierte.
-
maou and loyal servant crossover
-
A quotation from Hannah Arendt
The disturbing factor in the success of totalitarianism is rather the true selflessness of its adherents: it may be understandable that a Nazi or Bolshevik will not be shaken in his conviction by crimes against people who do not belong to the movement or are even hostile to it; but the amazing fact is that neither is he likely to waver when the monster begins to devour its own children, and not even if he becomes a victim of persecution himself, if he is framed and condemned, if he is purged from the party and sent to a forced-labor or concentration camp. On the contrary, to the wonder of the whole civilized world, he may even be willing to help in his own prosecution and frame his own death sentence if only his status as a member of the movement is not touched.
Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) German-American philosopher, political theorist
Origins of Totalitarianism, Part 3, ch. 10 “A Classless Society,” sec. 1 (1951)More about this quote: wist.info/arendt-hannah/42025/
#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #arendt #hannaharendt #belonging #fanatic #fanaticism #identity #loyalty #movement #partisan #selfdestruction #selfpreservation #selflessness #totalitarianism #tribalism #zealotry
-
Another take is that #gretzky doesn't have a loyalty problem, since he hasn't been all that much of a Canadian since what, like 1988 when he went to LA?
-
Another take is that #gretzky doesn't have a loyalty problem, since he hasn't been all that much of a Canadian since what, like 1988 when he went to LA?
