kevin floyd

This is the film that started it all. The film that taught me about Twin Flames. I have watched it over and over and over. I absolutely detested it the first time, not really understanding the weight of the relationships being depicted. But the more I watched it, the more it all made sense. Realization came crashing down around me. I sympathized with the characters but I understood why things happened the way they did.

This film shows what happens when Twin Flame and Soul Mate collide. I can only suggest that you watch it multiple times, as there are many things to be discovered with each viewing. Also, the soundtrack and cinematography are AMAZING!!

I didn’t know whether or not my Twin was out there after watching this the first time, but I had a feeling that something/someone extremely special was waiting for me. I knew it. So hearing he was my Twin a year after was a small “ah ha” moment, although I deduced that much. It was more like, “well, of course he is.”…

Even though I knew of Twin Flames before the journey began(thanks to this film), it didn’t prepare me for what I would face. Nothing could have. But I’m here and there’s no going back. I know I’ve likened this all to Neo and the Matrix before but that keeps coming back to me. That’s what it is, there’s no going back to how it was before. My life has been divided into two parts. Me before this awakening, and Me now. Two wholly different beings. The latter being more attuned to the outer-world. Sometimes I look in the mirror and hardly recognize myself. All in all, I’m here. For a reason unbeknownst to me at the moment, I’m on this road with this amazing person beside me and no matter how fucking difficult it gets, I’m anxious to see it to the end.

tl;dr watch Cafe de Flore if the idea of twin flame/soul mates remotely interests you. And let me know what you think! It’s in French but should be streaming on Netflix with English subs.

[W]hat Foucault identifies as the twentieth-century sexual knowledge regime exemplified by the psychoanalytic culmination, around the beginning of the twentieth century, of a longer-term historical “deployment of sexuality” should be understood as a product of reification. Lukacs emphasizes, for example, the way in which specialized knowledges reify bodily attributes: the scientifically managed factory, in his analysis, reifies not only the body’s capacity for labor but skill itself. The factory expropriates, disembodies, and reifies the very technical knowledge of the production process. With the emergence of this regime of sexual knowledge, sexual desire is also reified: a bodily capacity is epistemologically abstracted in the form, for example, of qualitatively new heterosexual and homosexual subjectivities. This is an instance of of objective social abstraction with historical repercussions far beyond the specific history of Freudianism.
—  Kevin Floyd, The Reification of Desire
In an effort to avoid implicating himself in Engels’s dialectics of nature, Lukács makes an absolute, decidedly undialectical distinction between the social world of human beings and the world of nature, insisting that the human world operates dialectically while nature does not, and forthrightly excluding the world of nature from his analysis. … This absolute distinction between the history of human consciousness (or, perhaps more accurately, the history of humanizing consciousness, that is, proletarian consciousness) and the natural world implicitly but unmistakably situates the materially existing human body within the natural world.
—  Kevin Floyd
from The Reification of Desire
…queer studies’ constitutive refusal of any facile localizing or particularizing of sexuality and its politics persistently gives the lie, I think, to any easy assumption that this form of critique consistently and rigorously sidesteps totality thinking. To the contrary, a refusal of sexual particularization, a refusal of sexuality’s routine epistemological dissociation from other horizons of social reality, has given rise here again to particularization’s dialectical opposite. As Warner put it in what would become one of queer theory’s most widely cited assertions, “the preference for [the term] ‘queer’ represents, among other things, an aggressive impulse of generalization*; a minoritizing logic of toleration or simple political-interest representation in favor of a more thorough resistance to regimes of the normal.” A constantly expanding focus on the way heteronormativity is thoroughly entangled with a host of social horizons that appear at first to have nothing to do with sexuality has been a recurring feature of some of the most trenchant work in the field. How else are we to understand Sedgwick’s early, formative challenge, her insistence on the centrality of homosexual/heterosexual definition to “virtually any aspect of Western culture”? How else to understand the implications of a title like Fear of a Queer Plant (with its insurgent echo of Public Enemy’s Fear of a Black Planet)?

Kevin Floyd, “Introduction,” The Reification of Desire: Towards a Queer Marxism, pg.7-8

*Qualification of Warner’s comment on the following page: “Any such “impulse of generalization” is likely to call forth differentiation as a critical response, and the queer form of generalization that Warner’s essay anticipated has hardly evolved smoothly. It has given rise to important critiques of the gendered, racial, and indeed global blindnesses persistently risked by the abstraction “queer,” to an increasingly rich attention to other axes of hierarchialized social differentiation that the term has a well-established capacity to exclude. But the aspect of this ever-growing body of work [which employs totality thinking] I would highlight is the way in which it has expanded and internally differentiated, rather than constricted, the domain of queer thought.

Floyd articulates Michel Foucault’s narrative of the development and deployment of sexuality with [a] narrative of capitalism in crisis. He positions the abstraction of sexuality and desire in psychoanalysis as a historically specific instance of reification determined by the efforts of capital, in its intensive mode of accumulation, to manage consumption. And, historicizing the “performativity” of gender that Judith Butler has theorized abstractly, Floyd argues that the emergence of performative gender (masculinity/femininity) is contingent on this reification and the related displacement of a nineteenth-century distinction between manhood and womanhood. The performance of masculinity that emerges (for the middle and upper classes) is, for Floyd, specifically linked to consumption—to learning new skills (corporeal knowledge) to be performed, such as DIY home maintenance or hunting and fishing as taught by Ernest Hemingway’s columns in Esquire magazine.  

Miranda Joseph, “A Queer View of Capitalism in Crisis,” GLQ, Vol.16, No.3, (2010), pg.476-7

[Queer studies’] ongoing development appears…to operate in terms of a consistent pursuit of connections with other fields of critical knowledge and an equally consistent critique of the elisions of difference those same connections risk. These conjoined, multidirectional forms of critique create a dynamic within queer studies of simultaneous expansion and internal complexification, even as this interaction between queer studies and a range of other knowledges constantly raises the question of the extent to which they are in fact “other.” These more recent developments in queer studies can to this degree be understood not in terms of a persistent rejection of generalizing impulses but in terms of a critique immanent to this generalizing impulse itself, a critical dynamic in which analytic intersection and differentiation, at the level of the field and sometimes at the level of specific interventions in the field, tend to operate in tandem.

Kevin Floyd, “Introduction,” The Reification of Desire: Towards a Queer Marxism, pg.9