Weaponized Joy

 OK so I'm going to kind of stream of consciousness a little about the topic of education. In particular I'm trying to think about what education in the wake of deconstruction looks like. What is a post-deconstructive pedagogy? And I'm going to cobble together an unholy alliance of Derrida, Karatani, Felman and now Negarestani to think this through. I'll start with Karatani actually. Karatani starts from the question of solipsism, before moving to the question of teaching. The idea being that the very possibility of teaching, when taken seriously, is what explodes any possible solipsism: the one who teaches has to, as it were, cross a chasm to the other. The chasm is simply a lack of shared ground, or rules. Teaching in this regard is always two-levelled: one has to teach not just "content", but at the same time, one has to teach the other how to learn at all. If we don't share the same rules, if we don't share the some idea of what what counts as our

I've been trying to think about like, Why Oedipus? It's the story of the birth of the Symbolic yes, but like, why this story? You can take the D&G line on Oedipus and write it off as a particularization that has been illicitly universalized, under the very specific conditions of capitalism. Which is of course a really nice way to give it a historical-materialist reading. And from here you attempt to give an account of anoedipal operations of desire and so on. But, under the influence of Colin Drumm's dissertation, and having just reread Shoshana Felman's absolutely magical reading of Oedipus, what if they key to Oedipus is that it functions as an auto-critique of itself? Like, what is Oedipus? Oedipus is effectively the most basic attempt to put a stop to circulation - the circulation of woman. Incest is the hoarding of sovereignty among patrilineal descent so that no other bloodlines can be introduced. This is Drumm's reading: "Incest between son and moth