I don't know why I'm so concerned about this notion of a misreading, or rather the impression of non-access. It's not you in relation to something else that's important but the impression that you yourself get that you're missing something, self-imposed feeling of lack that stops you short. At the start of a photograph you start running along a timeline because you imagine narratives starbursting out of this one photograph but instead what happens is that your feet stop short, tied together, and your arms pinwheel around in confusion. It's breakage, lackage, nonreadability. At that moment of nearly-freefall, of vertiginous movement lies a sense of wonder in terms of perception, it's the vibration of do-I-feel-this rubbing against the this-is-what-I-see, that you (or rather I) see, it's me, it's my focus on things and my perhaps excessive sensitivity, antennae tuned too hard to the vagaries of air eddies.

Saw zizek yesterday. He was lucid and entertaining and clear and rambling. Still he sounded more like an arguer than a thinker, said things like "of course we want women to choose their partners" as a preamble to more complicated arguments, but all I could think about at that moment was 'and what about the premise'? I mean, pleeease, of course I want gender equality, but it seems to me that the more interesting part is when A comes along and says 'why would we want that?' and B says 'because people are equal' and A says 'well, but they're not' and all of a sudden here there is a chasm not on the level of opinion but on the groundwork on which the concepts lie that allow A and B each to formulate their opinions. What happens after this seemingly unavoidable chasm, other than the violence of Yes-I'm-Right and each trying to convince the other of the propriety of their argument? On the level of social organization and the creation of ideas and values, what happens with this partitioning that must look something like a voronoi diagram...