Daisy

have a look at the a day in hand website. it is slightly different and more subtle. I also think it can't get attacked from both sides. i.e those that don't like the in your face parades/stunts and those that think we shouldn't be about all fitting in and not causing a stir. http://www.adayinhand.com/

I cross-posted elsewhere. In the UK a group is trying to start something called A Day In Hand. They used today, to mark the above, as their launch.

what did people think of the gladiator porn .... that was how the Guardian described it. Ukraine

what country are you from, who are you routing for? here is a link for anyone who wants: http://www.eurovision.tv/esctv?program=2570 or the bbc if you can get it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/eurovision/simulcast/bbcone.shtml

I can't, , I shouldn't be watching it at all. nor be on gayauthors. for people who want you can watch it online if your not in europe.

Greece also had the screens proclaiming, tonight is our night , haha, goodness. but it does work sometimes. common theme.

Oh my goodness, what is greece doing - his dancing.

Hey all The eurovision is back! But I can't watch , deadlines are poo. No, Terry Wogan this year though, wonder whether Graham Norton is up to the job of satire. Anyhoo. what score do you think the British will get, and will we win the top or bottom of the table? and who was the best act.... celia

yeah one of my friends is going out with someone like that. for the first year or 2, she pretty much disappeared and whenever we did she her and him it was ridiculous he would be the biggest pratt in the world. some off the things he says, you really have to wonder. at times I've got along with him, giving him the benefit of the doubt then he always comes out with something to ruin it. and make me question whether he is sane. still going out. never see him. she seems to have stood up for herself and now makes times for friends. they are living together btw. we rarely go to her flat. adn she never mentions him ever, its strange. she knows we don't like him, but she also knows that we are fine with her going out with him (now at least) and that it is normal to talk about your bf. but she doesn't. i think they have an odd relationship - one where she is often supporting him and never the other way round, he only causes trouble for her. and I hope she doesn't get pregnant or married, it would be a very bitter wedding to go to. she can do so much better. but regardless, we support her.

it is about escaping the dialectic, not that it is not there (well...). again i say it is not relativism, but for now my ability to demonstrate that has left me. I see this discussion going into the complicated and with fancy terms that no-one else is going to understand again . and I'm going to leave the complicated going through as to why deleuze dislikes dialectics for another time when I have re-read my notes: but for now I will leave you with a quote I love from Dialogues II. A Conversation: What is it? What is it for? "It is very hard to 'explain oneself' - an interview, a dialogue, a conversation. Most of the time, when someone asks me a question, even one which relates to me, I see that, strictly, I don't have anything to say. Questions are invented, like anything else. If you aren't allowed to invent your own questions, with elements from all over the place, from never mind where, if people 'pose' them to you, you haven't much to say. The art of constructing a problem is very important: you invent a problem, a problem-position, before finding a solution. None of this happens in an interview, a conversation, a discussion. Even reflection, whether it's alone, or between two or more, is not enough. Above all, not reflection. Objections are even worse. Every time someone puts an objection to me, I want to say: 'OK, OK, let's go on to something else'. Objections have never contributed anything. It's the same when I am asked a general question. The aim is not to answer questions, it's to get out, to get out of it. Many people think that it is only by going back over the question that it's possible to get out of it. 'What is the position with philosophy? Is it dead? Are we going beyond it?' It's very trying. They won't stop returning to the question in order to get out of it. But getting out never happens like that. Movement always happens behind the thinkers back, or in the moment when he blinks. Getting out is already achieved, or else it never will be. Questions are generally aimed at a future (or a past). The future of women, the future of the revolution, the future of philosophy, etc. But during this time, while you turn in circles among these questions, there are becomings which are silently at work, which are almost imperceptible. We think too much in terms of history, whether personal or universal. becomings belong to geography, there are orientations, directions, entries and exits. There is a woman-becoming which is not the same as women, their past and future, and it is essential that women enter this becoming to get out of their past and their future, their history. There is a revolutionary-becoming which is not the same as the future of the revolution, and which does not necessarily happen through the militants. There is a philosophy-becoming which has nothing to do with the history of philosophy and which happens through those whom the history of philosophy does not manage to classify." I love that chapter, I haven't read it in ages. There are so many other quotes I would like to give you. ok one more "One must multiply the sides, break every circle in favour of polygons".

Deleuze does talk about Hegel. but he err- doesn't like him . problems with 'dialectics'. Forget what I said about history categories - I'm messing up (really don't know what has happened to my understanding this week). Deleuze doesn't see things in terms of categories but movement. I wasn't really referring to using it as a way of comparing periods, but at times you will get dominate ways of thinking of that period, and it being observable how those dominate blocks well dominate others, restrict etc. what he really doesn't like is the idea of a transcendental - which means your thought/philosophy has to stop and I suppose be subservient to whatever it is - certain ideas, categories, Descartes cogito, truths (which rise up in different periods). that is very clear in absolutism. but, as also seeing history as a genealogy as in the Foucauldian way looking at how concepts or people or society have developed by tracing power and its effects - and to do that of course you need to look at different periods and the way they thought. what I was asking really was how they decided what something was. so as simple as a high priest would say this is so. I was wondering if there was criteria for it. what qualities they were looking for to say something was something. or whether it was just arbitrary. or if it was just about naming something and not going any further than that. but then if they had myths to explain things... -I'm completely forgetting my own history of philosophy and what is connected with what, but I am sure it will come back. (edit: james, yeah, I agree about the myths - sorry I had this page open for ages before posting). --but back to deleuze, I don't feel very competent discussing it now. for some reason all of my knowledge seems to have dropped out of my head and I'm confusing myself. But I will brush up again, I can't believe this has happened - I'm normally the most passionate person on it. It gives me the excuse to study it wholly again, definitely.

Ok, I'll play. How do they derive what something's 'meaning' is and what something's nature is? btw what do you mean about the mythology, how was that actually played out with the concepts?

Hey I've just come across this campaign that is kicking off on Sunday called A Day In Hand which is being promoted in the UK. But they want it to be global too. http://www.adayinhand.com/ The idea being they want to challenge people subtlety and also encourage more gay people to feel able to be open. They also want straight people to participate with other same-gender people, just to increase the number doing so and to get them to think about homophobia and what the simple thing of holding hands can do. They are encouraging all to post pictures and stories on their website which I presume they'll use in promotional material and just as a database. But other than that they are calling its tactic - a silent revolution. So on Sunday, otherwise International Day Against Homophobia (apparently marking the day WHO took homosexuality off the disorders register), will you hold hands in public, and more often from then on? Or not your thing ? celia

Ok , I will let you move on and then at the end chip-in . lets see if you can see patterns in them.

---you say it has moved on, but an essential part of it is explaining what is wrong with the old ways of thinking and the effects that those 'old' ways of thinking still have on people and things and politics today. it is very much that those sorts of thinking are a default for people, in a ever recurring fashion that must be resisted and re-thought. subverted etc.

there are different ways of approaching the post-structuralist ideas on categorisation. One being you will see the progression through time of different 'categories' of thought (so not saying don't categorise as such). and secondly what you are saying about absolutism. err, I'm Still not explaining myself well . I'm thinking I need to refresh myself on my 101 of post-s or at least unfuddle my brain. but good topic

happy birthday!!!!

so how do you get to that point of understanding that you are ok with the phenomena without having to resort to inadequate pre-emptive labels? is it just something that some people are better at doing - they are more able to have a fluid mind or accept situations as comfortable even if they don't 'understand', go with the flow? as in how do you stop those wasted years. or maybe its just they get to that point of understanding (I.e. it doesn't matter, stop obsessing, so what you don't 'understand') a lot earlier.

Adam, do you think that it is similar to what you yourself experienced? and Sam and Brian and whoever else. you didn't 'get' the idea straight away yourself. nor did they. and I think you can put a fair bit of blame on the whole label thing and that in our heads and culture and sensibilities seems to be what we do/expected to do. and it does restrict. But do you also think that maybe it could be that it is just plain confusing on its own. I have a hard time working out what I am feeling most of the time - in all areas of my life. if something doesn't have a pattern or is unusual we are going to be thrown by it, until we can 'identify' it. or maybe , I am back to only feeling comfortable if I can label something - albeit label it as something ok but different and unable to be properly labelled or something I don't want to label. I suppose I'm talking understanding. just my weird thoughts, celia

happy birthday!!!! .

sorry about your mother. I kind of feel similar to you about what you are saying about life and graduation. I too have a kind of drive to find answers like you are questioning and even though I'm in a weird patch at the moment -I've sort of stalled. I think I found the answer to one of them last year, and that is still living itself out. and the key is that Challenge. Don't rest too much, don't settle and don't just pursue something because it is expected way to a comfortable life. For what is life, but about living , and joy. It's amazing when you do that step and just decide that you are going to have a different mentality to life and just go for it - whatever it is, learning along the way. I don't think you can find the answers in the 'ordinary life' - or you can - but by the time most do, its nearly too late. or maybe I'm saying, the first answer is the one you have just said. good luck with everything. celia

huh, our mothers day was ages ago . 22nd march. but yeah, celebrate good mothers.

hehe. you have the same problems as me then . but I've been allowing myself to get distracted by all sorts, programmes, films and reading, lots of reading, ooh and discussion on here. it's a nightmare. have fun. for now.

Just watching the first episode of series 4 of Teachers again. I've only watched bits and pieces of it over the years, but I like it!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teachers_(UK_TV_series) anyone else seen it?