Prachtig zomerweer. Zon, wat wolkjes, lekker windje, 25 graden. ‘s Ochtends eerst nieuwe banden kopen en nog wat spul. Plan: richting Spa en de bossen achter Spa. 14.00 – 20.30. Heerlijk rustige gereden. En hoe leuk ik de klimmetjes van Houtepen ook vind, als ik dan achter Spa door het bos rij, de Rosier afdaal, geniet ik toch meer. Kanne – kanaal – Vise – Dalhem – Chenestre – Mortier – en dan via exact hetzelfde weggetje afdalen naar het riviertje de Bolland en erg steil omhoog – Herve – Bruyeres – Xhendelesse – Soiron – ai, daar zat nog een helling die ik niet verwachtte – Cornesse – Pepinster – Theux drukke weg, maar toch wel mooi – Winamplanche – Creppe – Geronstere – Rosier – Andrimont – Ruy – Francorchamps – Baronheid – Solwaster – Jalhay – Goe – Limbourg – Bilstain – Clermont – Froidtheid – Val Dieu – Mortroux – Warsage – Gravensvoeren – Moelingen – Lixhe – Lanaye – Kanne

Er een vrije dag van gemaakt. 11.00 – 18.30. Heerlijk fietsweer, beetje wind, vrij warm (later in de middag echt warm, 25 graden), maar na de hitte van de laatste dagen voelde dat aan als prettig koel, en meest bewolkt. Plan: de Vesdre-klims die Rob Houtepen beschrijft opzoeken. Misschien via Jehanster en Limbourg terugrijden. In ieder geval: de hele dag wegblijven. Kanne – kanaal – Vise – Dalhem – Housse – Barchon – Saive – Bellaire – Jupille – Rue de Fleron (zag dat de Rue des Chenes inmiddels van spiksplinternieuw asfalt is voorzien) – Fleron – Chevremont – Voie des Chars (prachtig en hoe steil! 19%) – Ninane – Beaufays – Tilff – Mery – (prachtige klim) – Hayen – Les Forges – Trooz – Fraipont – Rue Sur Steppes – (prachtig, veel steentjes en jawel: voorband lek — reservebandje erop en zoals zo vaak moeten constateren dat de solutie vervlogen is, dus niet weer lekrijden, niet te veel extra kilometers maken, tenzij ik onderweg een fietsenzaak zie) – Andoumont – Les Forges – Trooz – Fraipont – mooie klim achter het spoor – Nessonvaux – Voi Collas – Bois d’Olne – Froidbermont – (dat zijn 3 opeenvolgende zware klims, alleen de laatste is niet van het type jezelf omhoog sleuren met 8 km/u op 30 x 21) – Nessonvaux – Soiron – Les Bruyeres – Herve – Rue de Noblehaye – (dan een stel kleine weggetjes, ik dacht bij Bolland uit te komen, maar na een lastige klim over een heel kleine weg door het bos kwam ik op de weg naar Mortier uit) – Mortier – Chenestre – Dalhem – Bombaye – Berneau – Moelingen – Lixhe – Lanaye – Kanne. Geen fietsenzaak gezien. Best vaak op de kaart gekeken en op de routebeschrijvingen van Houtepen. Ook vaak een stukje heen en weer gereden. Zeven klims waar ik de triple erop gooide.

Niets mooier dan een fietstochtje op een late zomeravond. 19.50 – 22.00. Het bleef maar warm en het verwachte onweer bleef uit. Toen ik tussen Millen en Roclenge bovenop het Limbugse reed zag ik dat het bij Kanne flink aan het regenen was. Ik had geluk, voorbij Bassenge reed ik het gebied in waar het had geregend, het rook er heerlijk. De bui was voorbij. Kanne – Emael – Riemst – Grote Spouwen – Bilzen – Alden Biesen – Rijkhoven – St. Genoelselderen – Millen – Roclenge – Bassenge – Wonck – Eben – Kanne

(Geen plaatje, het wordt een running gag: ik moet nieuwe scans maken.)

Finally I redirected https://ariealt.net to this page. You still landed on my old blog until an hour ago. I made a page for the archives from 2002 till early 2006 and also finally wrote an about-page.

I deciced for now to put my ‘affiliations’ only on the about-page.

Still to add: friends & blogs I read…

Ah, there’s even a wikipedia-page which enumerates several critiques of Zizek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critiques_of_Slavoj_Žižek

Walk into the library, see Zizek’s The Parallax View amongst the ‘new aquisitions’, borrow the book after seeing one chapter deals with Henry James’ late novels. After cycling sit in the garden and read through the book, starting with the introductions and using the endnotes and the index. In the morning read the chapter on Henry James. Conclusion: this is not a book for me — I won’t read all of it. Yet it has some good bits and good, controversial observations.

If I would analyze in detail why I do not like Zizek, I’d need a week. I do not want to spend that time on Zizek. Yet because “everybody” loves Zizek, and because he’s so widely discussed I feel compelled to give my two cents.

Warning: these observations are made after a very very shallow reading of the book.

Already in the introduction it goes “wrong” — for me –. Zizek takes up short-circuiting as (good) critical practice, and Lacan als priviliged instrument. No, sorry, I don’t agree. Read on.

Then he gives two anecdotes that supposedly should illustrate the radical separation of the fields of abstract art and prisons, Benjamin and Stalin. Again I don’t agree with this view (Zizek nevertheless does as if this seperation is received knowledge). Following that he theorizes that there is a ‘parallax gap’, and sees this as a first step towards a rehabilitation of dialectical materialism. Well, it begins to be very difficult now, for me, to agree on anything he’s going to write when I disagree so much with his starting points… Then it’s off to Hegel against Kant.

A nasty remark would be that his recourse to the parallax view shows he’s not ready for radical multiperspectivism not for a view that focusses on mediation and translation instead of on objects perceived by subjects. (Hmm, with my shallow knowledge of Kant-Hegel-Heidegger-philosophy I certainly would not be able to hold up this point against Zizek).

Still, I do not give up. And in the same pages I am struck by some good, and controversial opnions. For instance when he states that it’s easy to fall in love with a multitude of freethinkers who blossomed in prerevolutionary France, or the October Revolution, but that it’s much more difficult to recognize the horrors of the forced collectivization, the attempt to translate the revolutionary fervor into a new positive social order (see p. 5). Stressing then, that Stalinism as philosphically speaking “imbicility incarnate” is exactly the point.

Now, that is interesting.

But then it’s back to Hegel, Hegel, Hegel and off to Lacan and I loose the plot. When it becomes an illustration of Hegel being right after all, and the topicality of Hegelianism, I’m simply not interested anymore.

I read on, (and I read all the endnotes). I come across beautiful quotes from Marx (p. 54). I come across an interesting analysis of why Stalinism was better than Nazism.

Then there is a whole chapter in which Zizek, as a Lacanian tries to criticize the cognitive psychology of the Churchlands, Dennett and Damasio. But well, whereas I am interested in a criticism of cognitive psychology, I’m not interested in Zizek’s criticism.

In the last chapter he goes more deeply into current political philosophy, criticizing Badiou, Ranciere, Hardt/Negri and Agamben, putting forward — again — Bartleby as the figure of political revolt, but giving it an interesting twist that makes Hardt/Negri’s ‘philosophy’ look superficial.

Yes, Zizek does (sometimes?) play the role of the ‘fool’, putting forward controversial opinions, that can force a breakthrough, or alter the perspective. That is good. (But why then should I wade through all the Hegelian dialectics?)

Yes, Zizek is incredibly good when it comes to using movies (stories and scenes) to illustrate his point. Also in this book. He has a sharp eye and a lucky hand in choosing his examples.

More generally, what I find disturbing is that the book seems to be extremely badly structured. Zizek just moves from one thing to another, and often I fail to see where it connects. (Worst example, a page on the Kalevala where it’s totally unclear why that passage is there in the article). Also it’s badly written — rethorical questions abound. It is full of sentences like “Is not this … exactly the Lacanian…”. (Uhmm, well, no). Okay, international english is our lingua franca…

So, I have the feeling that 1. Zizek’s always haunted by Hegelian concepts — he cannot think in any other way (even if he tries to), (but he also does not want to think in any other way). 2. Zizek truely believes Lacanianism (through Hegel) furnishes us with the best analysis of reality.

Well. But then I thought: whereas Badiou can be really scary — if you start to think through his political philosophy, Zizek in the end is mainly funny. I guess that’s a good thing?

Veel te warm om (ver) te fietsen, zeker in de middag. Maar ja, de Tour komt langs en ik heb al te vaak gelegenheden verzuimd om de koers te zien. Ik stap dus op de fiets voor een ritje Veursbos v.v. — daar wil ik de Tour voorbij zien komen (het bos biedt schaduw; in Valkenburg is het toch kermis; en verder is het eigenlijk toch nogal saai, zo’n tourdoorkomst). Kanne – Lanaye – Moelingen – Gravensvoeren – St. Martensvoeren – Veurs – Veursbos – Veurs – St. Pietersvoeren – Rullen – St. Jean de Sart – Val Dieu – Mortroux – Dalhem – Bombaye – Berneau – Moelingen – Lixhe – kanaal – Kanne

“I am my character”. Salon @ Mediamatic, monday July 10th: http://www.mediamatic.net/artefact-11828-en.html.

And the last Metropolis M is all about Fake Identities: http://www.metropolism.org/.

Last week I made another attempt at structuring my information-gathering behavior. I’m not sure if it is necessary, but I feel it is necessary. Generally I am relying solely on my own memory, being helped a bit by my browser who supplies a full url when I start typing www.cy… or n…. or blo… I visit a few blogs, maybe am reminded of a few places by glancing at the links-lists. But that’s it. I think I’m missing too much and forgetting too many good places. For instance, I always feel helpless when I’m trying to remember where to go for political news, or political commentary.

What I am searching for is something that would come close to one’s daily, personalized newspaper + weekly magazine. Information on topics (and from commentators and reporters) that you’d like to keep in close touch with. You pick up on it during breakfast, and it might keep you occupied later on in the day when you feel like catching up some more.

(And no my dear newspaper-journalists, todays newspapers do not have that function anymore. Not for me. However much I like newspapers — and last week I enjoyed reading De Volkskrant and the NRC in the park. It happens too often that a whole newspaper only contains one or two articles that I want to read (and pay for). That is including the news and including the cultural reviews and the sportspage. And looking at the development of newspapers I am very pessimistic. Yes, there have been good innovations: the routing has become much better, as well as the lay-out. But the content is diminishing, and I don’t generally identify a lot with all the lifestyle-stuff. The choice of what belongs on the front page is mediocre (NRC) to ridiculous (De Volkskrant) — and then we’re talking quality newspapers. Okay, I can live with that, but then, there are not many commentators or ‘columnists’ that I like reading. (The attention given to the Jan Blokker affair — almost 80 years old he leaves the Volkskrant for the NRC — is equally ridiculous. Yes, it shows very well how newspapers are managed, but hell, please give someone else a chance after 35 years. I cannot remember that I’ve ever been struck by a piece written by Jan Blokker. The same applies to Hofland. By which I mean to say: I do not want to go back to the “good old times” of newspapers. The problem with the ‘Blokker-affair’ is that the whole decline of the quality newspaper is seen in terms of the “good old newspaper” versus “the new newspaper of the evil manager”. That’s not a very helpful perspective when we try to find ways to ensure “quality information” and “quality journalism”.)

Sorry for ranting.

Getting back to topic. There are several ‘tools’ (? or rather techniques, or strategies?) to accomodate this situation (the problem of daily information-gathering). These are some of them:

— bookmarks. (They are usefull as ‘earmarks’ in a book. For me not useful for structuring daily information gathering).

— social bookmarking. (Great for discovering good stuff and getting an idea of the importance of certain sources. Not useful for structuring daily information gathering).

— put your own blog in the centre: your linklist is the list of blogs/sites to check daily. (I know I probably should do this. I tried in the past. I hardly used it then. Maybe it’s different when I would integrate del.ico.us and some Technorati-stuff. Maybe it’s different now I use WordPress. Yet I also know I’m stubborn).

— an old-fashioned personal links-page. (I made that. The lists became too long. I sometimes use it, when I get stuck or think I’ forgetting sources of information. Mostly I find out I actually did not forget anything.)

— use RSS and an RSS-reader.

Well, that’s the attempt of last week. I picked up on NetNewsWire again. Cleaned up the list of subcriptions (and rediscovered some forgotten sites) and then spent some time revisting blogs, searching and subscribing to feeds. In fact RSS sounds like exactly the solution for my ‘problem’. Well, it’s not the first time for me to think that. I tried it before. It worked when I was spending unconnected time in trains, I spent much of that time reading through feeds. I was back to personal memory and clicking links as soon as I was connected.

So I’m trying again, because I hope for a bit more structure, and more general and political information, now I’m reading less and less newspapers. Disappointment: blogs that are central for you that do not do RSS. Newssites that do not have feeds.

Live is not perfect.

More Danah Boyd on privacy (I’ve been catching up on reading RSS-feeds): http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/privacy/.

How much of our “private” information do we voluntarily reveal online? When’s the moment that we actually do not care anymore? At what point does the public – private difference not apply anymore to how we live, give form to and structure our lives? Do (young?) people make a difference between a public and a private self; or rather between different public selves?

Just wondering.