Thursday, August 27, 2015


My dear friend, though yesterday is what I would call a transformative day, I fancy the transformation was negative.

There is now a side of me that completely rejects activism... in a sense yesterday's experience turned me into an anti-activist. I believe (per Adorno) that what is needed is a greater unity of theory and praxis... I also fancy I know why Adorno was so quick to reject activism: because it contains the foundation seeds of fascism.

This is not to say I am against activism, but I am against a certain kind of activism (that which is mindless or impulsively moral). I am against activism as the default position; I am against the idea that activism in-and-of-itself is what it means to be moral... quite the contrary, I find that anti-activism is not only the default position, but also the moral position of any intelligent, self-respecting revolutionary--- in all reality the burden of proof is on the activist! "Action is what serious people do," strikes the chords of a false premise.

I reject and challenge the presuppositions of activism. I demand that the activist justify his activism.

Sometimes the work of theory is the greatest work of praxis.

respectfully yours,
Jersey Flight


Thursday, August 13, 2015


Love crashes like a wave,
Love subverts,
Love pursues against all reason.

It occurs to me (and god knows I am not ready to give this concession to any subject) that I think of love as something mystical as opposed to scientific. I suppose that love is the closest man can come to mysticism; the closest he can come to the divine. This is because I see love as irrational but powerful. If there is one thing we can assign the category of mysticism it must be that of love (God is not worthy). If there is one subject that defies understanding it must be that of love. I suspect that love is often without reason, which is to say, the reason for love is love itself. 

{Notes from Correspondence

There is no reason in fatal self-sacrifice to promote the well being of another but that of love.

What I am ready to concede is that love is a form of caring that transcends reason.


There are two readers of this exchange: those in love, and those who merely stand at a distance and analyze what they think they see. I suspect the substance of love is not the analysis, but the experience of love.

Whether or not this greatest of all events; whether or not this greatest of all gifts; whether or not this most powerful of all substances can be explained biologically, makes little contact with the experience of the lover.

So far as I know there is no greater force in the universe than that of love.

Reducing love to a syllogism or empirical observation seems to miss the authentic transcendence of love.

While I do not believe in love as a supernatural thing; I do believe that love is the only thing that comes close to (the idea) of the supernatural, which is merely to speak of the power of love.

While your discourse focuses on the biological explanation of love, my exposition is specifically centered on the transcendence of love. And by transcendence I am not referring to metaphysics or invisible forces; I am referring to the power of love in the context of life.

Love, like hope, has the quality of transcendence. And I suppose (if we must) this can be explained by the provocation of strong feelings… however, I totally deny that these feelings are merely a figment of the imagination (for God is thus but Love is not). In this sense my dear friend… in the name of greatness, this means love is real!

respectfully yours,

Jersey Flight