odradek

Here’s the couple that will do the recelive...

@ Antmo: but what a connoisseur! Yes, you, I suppose. You, who for me is above all "Agent Lemmy Caution, Mission ALPHAVILLE"! (J.L. Godard - 1965) - (zzzzzzzzzzzzz, do you remember the photo on the old reel card?) - @ Sfascia: cute, isn’t it? Nothing revolutionary, quite the opposite, but delectably enjoyable, lucullian decadence, Messer StritolaScocche. - @Ege, I renew the invitation: when will there be new pages? - @ Sexyajax: ...iaiaia?

Sure! Please send the text you'd like me to translate.

Here it is. bai

Good morning, gentlemen. @ Mr. Filini: yes, true. But see chef and "the usual" ingredients towards the end of the text - @ Vì: I don't know what it is, they're nice and compact when I send them: evidently, an x (or y or z?) factor intervenes. @ Everyone: Samples of appetizers and a small taste of the first courses. The next courses as soon as the server starts working again. See you later.

Oh, really? You say that's how it is? There's also Jarret, and that record, then... And the ghost of Santana, several times. Yeah, I must listen to it again in light of this "definitive" post. It's funny that the only one I might have thought to mention without causing more confusion was Cooder from Paris, Texas... Thanks.

acceptance chasing

Of course, the question that seemed central remains open, that of "relativism," which I had cautiously placed in quotation marks to avoid misunderstanding its exclusively ethical meaning. And insinuating that, Onan, tirelessly albeit unproductively, could cast to the ground or to the wind great quantities of unfruitful seed...

How onanistic it is (while producing, probably, the relative quotient of pleasure) to imagine that the apparent temporal distance and a lesser stratification of "history" exempts others, then, from the "sterile" attempts that, for example, I am, we are, conducting now. As for genius, I imagine an additional distinction is necessary. The definition likely requires recourse to other terms, let's say, underlying ones. The same ones that have emerged or appeared before. Art, value, culture - I have the impression that, once again, the thing that seems most shared, namely that it is "onanism," is the least close, among all that has been read so far, to a coherent meaning that it evokes: I know I will not derive immediate, even if fleeting, pleasure from it. Nonetheless, I continue to unravel (or entangle, or both simultaneously) the skein. Unless one refers to the literal meaning of the term: Onan is not accused of solitary practice as such, but of the dispersion of seed. Irremediably useless for its ultimate purpose, fertilization. Reproduction... - But is there a counterpart to impregnation in conversation? - It seems that if one observes it obliquely, the question takes on more interesting forms...

The reiteration of the reference to onanism, always present in similar discourses, stems from a distortion of their meaning. It is onanistic, by virtue of a supposed "common" sentiment, to speak the dead language of the beautiful and the ugly, the false and the true. Especially if these, as Purcell suggests, seem to have disappeared in the guise we thought eternal. Evading those concepts and seeking other trajectories of discourse is more akin to an exhausting courtship. Sometimes one arrives somewhere, other times it falls flat, oh well. Not trying seems even more unfruitful, I must say.