blogs are like new years resolutions

uggh, I've started another one. And then, of course, there's the pressure to keep it up, as in up to date, uploaded, upstanding. It's not entirely clear from my track record whether or not I will do that. But, here's a post, posted today, so that's something.

I'm not going to introduce myself here. My assumption is that, if you navigated to this page, you know me, or have at least heard rumors, or I told you to go here in some other venue. This is going to serve as the repository (I just attempted to spell that with every possible vowel except an "i") of whatever part of my net identity doesn't make it into an imaginary venn-diagram composed of the overlap of the rest of my web presence, seen in the handy sidebar. I guess that's something like an essential identity in the year 2008. While I'm so very much invested in all the projects and undertakings represented over there on the right, there are still things I'm up to, things to which I would invite audience participation, which do not fall into any of those. Thus, a blog. I may also do some of that traditional blogging activity, "typing out loud", that makes so many other blogs so interesting to read (and so many of my other blogs so not).

I probably won't do much literary criticism. I have a weird relationship with literary criticism. I think it's great, and I think the people doing it well are great, and even better I think it's probably necessary for the maintenance and propagation of literature, and thus I'm indebted to it as I try to make literature. I also think, in almost every case that I read criticism of a particular text that I have read or subsequently read, that I would have been happier not having read the criticism and having read only the text. I don't know how to resolve those two sentiments, and honestly I've sort of given up. But I still have Adorno and Kristeva and Benjamin glaring at me from my bookcase, so I'm not unsympathetic to the undertaking. I'm just not going to start doing any any time soon.

I might occassionally do some philosophy here, and by the time you've gotten to the period at the end of this sentence, if you're a literature person, you're probably looking for a shoe to throw at me for writing the above and then for drawing the distinction "philosophy-v-literarycriticism". Here, let me duck. Ouch! Can't dodge shoes or bullets. Can maybe bight them. Philosophy is probably literary criticism of other philosophy, I think I actually believe that. But, there's the brand of philosophy that seems to ruin other philosophy, and that I dislike, and the brand that seems to not, sometimes by merely plagarizing other philosophy (because it's all been done/written/said before) and sometimes by being, or at least seeming (ouch! stop throwing shoes at me) like it is(ouch!) novel (thud!). There's also the brand of philosophy that ruins other philosophy and seems novel, and that brand is the copyrighted property of Nietzsche.

In keeping with the title of this blog, I'm going to call all the stuff I wish I had in my head and wished I were writing constantly "Ideational Content", and this is its impoverished home: "Ideational Continent". For today, I've little ideation to impart, except a few gems culled from copying and pasting texts from various note-taking programs I've mismanaged in my digital life. Could anyone tell me what the fuck any of this might mean:

Sense (as)of object- sense of (as)word:
essentially 'love' is like the second case, is in just that sense real

How the possibility of a metalanguae ruins every
theory.

I seriously don't know what I meant by these. Anyone want to take a crack?