As this is the first post I have here, I want to explain the word I am attempting to coin here as well as discuss the attitude I am taking with this blog. There are many things going on here.

First, the title of this post is left as a question and ambiguous because I do not want to put what is done here into any one totalizing and defining thing. If I were to say “this is what I’m going to do” that would lead to a totalizing definition and set limits on what it is I hope to do. Of course, by stating that this is what I’m not going to do, I am doing something. There is no way around not falling into the language trap since this is all done in language. But I have already started explaining my attitude. I am a contradiction and know that I am. Deal with it.

What I would like to do here (and when I say that, always keep in mind that I do not want “to do” any one thing, but what I am saying here is more the general theme of the blog) is what the New York Intellectuals did with inter-mixing genres and thoughts, theories, philosophies, styles and tastes.

There is a good article here by a Manuel Yang on the movement. And as that arbitrator of information says about the NYI:

The group is known for having sought to integrate literary theory with Marxism and Socialism while rejecting Soviet Communism as a workable or acceptable political model.

I, too, would like to integrate different ideas beyond theory and philosophy, and I, too, reject communism as an actual workable model– it is nice in theory, but I wouldn’t want to live there.

This brings us to the title of this blog: Pastichean. Pastichean is combination of pastiche and eclecticism. First, it is eclectic in that it will mix various thoughts together. Second, it is a pastiche in that I will be borrowing from many different sources. One part informs the other.

This is going to be much like what Zizek is trying to do. I have only just begun to read Zizek, but in the introduction to Interrogating the Real the editors say that Zizek mixes his theory with contemporary examples because:

he is trying to bring out, by means of this comparison, something that exceeds this context [equating Lacan with Stephen King], a sort of innate kernal or formula that at once is repeated through his work and occurs each time singularly in the Real of the encounter with a particular author or concept

And like the editors point out about Zizek, I do not care about consistency here. I just want to write. Also, I just want to see how all these “things out there” interact with everyday praxis. I want to see how the theories and such I have confusing me in my head exceed the context of everyday living.

This will be explored more fully as I go on, hopefully.