On Interruptions, Part 1

So I've been thinking for quite a while about how to summate a few frustrations I've been feeling about the class, which led me to a moment of clarity. I hesitate to say 'understanding', because 'understanding' is something of a pejorative term in the context of our class. 'Context', however, brings me to the center of my metafictional mindfuck.

I am but a simple man. In life I seek little else than the ability to make silly jokes and get paid for said ability. I don't tend to philosophize merely for the sake of philosophizing. Frankly, I find it a largely pointless endeavor. If one continues to answer a question with another question, at some point I'd think one would need to start making statements. I'm not talking about J.L. Austin statements either, but I will most assuredly get to my name doppelgaenger in due time. I like to look back at the big picture (i.e. "Parasites") and feel like everything I'm doing should naturally feed into that context. If I must speculate about something that I feel is unrelated to the "P" word, I start to wonder what the point of everything is.

Now, I realize we can start taking my statements here and turn them into big meta-questions, like "what is the point of everything?" but I don't feel like you can go anywhere with those questions right now. That's kind of the point I'm trying to make. I think it's great that we're challenging the binaries of what a class is supposed to be, and it's opening my mind as to what a classroom environment can and doesn't have to be, but at the same time, water without a cup is just water all over the table. Our restrictions can become a great way to channel our highly capable resources of thought.

So those were my initial thoughts, my initial resistance to the open formula. Entering the class felt like playing the game of Mao: Nobody tells you the rules and everyone else seems to know how to play. So I felt slightly embittered. Additionally so when I attempted to read J.L. Austin and Derrida. I hungered for purpose in these readings. Where are the Parasites? When will performative utterances become a metaphor for Blood Flukes? I saw no connection as I understood (and I'm using that word deliberately) and I would not try to make a square peg fit in a round hole. Austin (which is also my name, make of that what you will) provides interesting thoughts on the power of words in what I guess is "Linguistic Philosophy". It's powerful for all writers to realize, well, "how to do things with words". I don't even know how to start on Derrida. I'm sure it's great. But again, where are the Parasites? In the words of Tom, "Let me have it!"

And I got it.

As Tony says, this class is about interruptions. This class is about parasitism. It's about the Other that disrupts loudly (see "Alien" or "Shivers") or secretly embeds itself within your Context (your life, your body, the title of your English 203 class) and takes that context away, little by little. J.L. Austin and Derrida are parasites from the topic of Parasitism. As I said before, it's a Metafictional Mindfuck. Uh oh! And yet, this was an "Oh yes!" for me. It is a way for me justify the context of the context of the- well, somewhere in there it makes sense to me now. We're enacting our own purpose. It's brilliant. Parasitism is everywhere. It's an interesting thing to talk about. It's also both incredibly broad and debilitatingly narrow. Now I just have to see how far back or close up we're focusing.

I'll leave you with this: