ICH PREACHER CURLS

A: Taste in Brow: Is Life Worth Living?

B: The difficulty of presenting oneself as an I is roughly tied up with the habituation of (self-)critical negation, which seems to ward off senses of pride or as the internalization or embodiment of terrifying contradiction, and while I haven't read K's ed-op on 'the role of stupidity' as the role of some poets, those in a kind of ethical thinktank swatting at each impossibly horrible and hysterical online facticity that discloses itself to even casually intelligent consumers, I expect this identity-locale (however it reveals itself in self-biting and insurmountable bitter pleasure) would be impossibly wrong to think it could effectually inhibit any sense of moral setting. Moral essence arguments aside (in the DeutscheBank pig), there is no impervious rationale against a fully open (even lyrical) I representing itself as a locus of critical attention and this outwardness is not exclusive of inwardness, and fuck the Manichean epidermal consciousness anyway MAN I'm going to wrap my bird in butter cloth tomorrow and read Longfellow. Biscuit? Avoid excessive Lacanian rubbings.
C: If stupidity is the new ignorance then I am so fuckd. (cue: "Help Me Rhonda" by The Beach Boys")
D: Before Foucault, we learned in 6th grade on the swan rainbow of PBS siphoning pedagogy through a little African-American boy and a little Asian-American girl that knowledge IS power. This is a lie for all those who don't presently have power. This is a lie for all those who don't presently have knowledge.
E: Even that stalwart WCW expressed to his reader early in 'Spring and All' (or was it Kora In Hell, fuck) that by "I" he really meant "you" and yet what is the limit of blurring such dramatic boundaries, from which nothing can emit beyond the tally of typing fingers, for if the opening of a symbolic/rhetorical/poetic structure implicates a source, and the self-negation desires at least to avoid self-conscription (for Wyatt & Sidney, this was a matter of persuasion), if not to further combine with other sources of meaning through various lexical inventories and the practice of etymological digging in a valiant effort to extend our existential preponderance over and above the limits of the flesh (e.g. threshold of reason/imagination), then how can the the source not always betray the thoughts and actions resident in the poem?
F: If the S.I. Intl. was something of a vague ATTACK-phenomenology (dérive) then what would a more aggressive hermeneutics be? (as suggested in the inaugural FACEPLANT blogpost) How does one turn the interpretation of texts and the production of historical knowlege inside out and refract aspects of our social world which one would like to see change? Is it the possibility of change that is jointly despair and resistance?