Our nation

February 23, 2006 at 1:20 pm (distruth)

In the teeth of alienation we create our nation
Our Nation of Information; our sphere of emancipation
Immediate virtualism and virtual immediatism
Virtually uncovered, practically untrue
Everything is nothing, nothing is like you.

Immediatism evolved; against the churning wheels of progress.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Instigator

February 16, 2006 at 4:20 pm (distruth)

The Radical Linguist (henceforth known as the RadLin to Bob in vancouver),who is  eager to rebell against all definitions, should also have enough foresight to recognize the danger in doing so.

I can relate to the radical linguist and i understand the point he stresses so desperately; that all definitions are subjective and that language is the main definer of our individual reality, but to rebell against “the common ground” of language is to alienate and isolate yourself on an ever-shrinking island of understanding. Communication becomes a farce, a frustrated dance of missunderstandings and semantics and, taken far enough, brings death to the exchange of culture in all forms except extreme abstracts.

It is not enough to be aware of semantics and recognize that everyday distortions ( R.A.Wilson calls it noise ) are cluttering up communication. Its not enough to know and rebell, but nessessary to incorporate this information, this knowledge and integrate it with everyday life. To use it to further communication between individuals, instead of corrupting it with disinformation and confusion. E-prime seems a positive way of furthering communications.
Linguistic anarchy doesnt.
Ofcourse if chaos and confusion is the goal (rather then the misguided “means” towards a different goal), thats another matter.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Sympathy for god..

February 6, 2006 at 1:06 pm (texts)

“[202]… Let us at once say again what we have already said a hundred times, for people’s ears nowadays are unwilling to hear such truths–OUR truths. We know well enough how offensive it sounds when any one plainly, and without metaphor, counts man among the animals, but it will be accounted to us almost a CRIME, that it is precisely in respect to men of “modern ideas” that we have constantly applied the terms “herd,” “herd-instincts,” and such like expressions. What avail is it? We cannot do otherwise, for it is precisely here that our new insight is. We have found that in all the principal moral judgments, Europe has become unanimous, including likewise the countries where European influence prevails in Europe people evidently KNOW what Socrates thought he did not know, and what the famous serpent of old once promised to teach–they “know” today what is good and evil. It must then sound hard and be distasteful to the ear, when we always insist that that which here thinks it knows, that which here glorifies itself with praise and blame, and calls itself good, is the instinct of the herding human animal, the instinct which has come and is ever coming more and more to the front, to preponderance and supremacy over other instincts, according to the increasing physiological approximation and resemblance of which it is the symptom. MORALITY IN EUROPE AT PRESENT IS HERDING-ANIMAL MORALITY, and therefore, as we understand the matter, only one kind of human morality, beside which, before which, and after which many other moralities, and above all HIGHER moralities, are or should be possible. Against such a “possibility,” against such a “should be,” however, this morality defends itself with all its strength, it says obstinately and inexorably “I am morality itself and nothing else is morality!” Indeed, with the help of a religion which has humoured and flattered the sublimest desires of the herding-animal, things have reached such a point that we always find a more visible expression of this morality even in political and social arrangements: the DEMOCRATIC movement is the inheritance of the Christian movement. That its TEMPO, however, is much too slow and sleepy for the more impatient ones, for those who are sick and distracted by the herding-instinct, is indicated by the increasingly furious howling, and always less disguised teeth- gnashing of the anarchist dogs, who are now roving through the highways of European culture. Apparently in opposition to the peacefully industrious democrats and Revolution-ideologues, and still more so to the awkward philosophasters and fraternity- visionaries who call themselves Socialists and want a “free society,” those are really at one with them all in their thorough and instinctive hostility to every form of society other than that of the AUTONOMOUS herd (to the extent even of repudiating the notions “master” and “servant”–ni dieu ni maitre, says a socialist formula); at one in their tenacious opposition to every special claim, every special right and privilege (this means ultimately opposition to EVERY right, for when all are equal, no one needs “rights” any longer); at one in their distrust of punitive justice (as though it were a violation of the weak, unfair to the NECESSARY consequences of all former society); but equally at one in their religion of sympathy, in their compassion for all that feels, lives, and suffers (down to the very animals, up even to “God”–the extravagance of “sympathy for God” belongs to a democratic age); altogether at one in the cry and impatience of their sympathy, in their deadly hatred of suffering generally, in their almost feminine incapacity for witnessing it or ALLOWING it; at one in their involuntary beglooming and heart-softening, under the spell of which Europe seems to be threatened with a new Buddhism; at one in their belief in the morality of MUTUAL sympathy, as though it were morality in itself, the climax, the ATTAINED climax of mankind, the sole hope of the future, the consolation of the present, the great discharge from all the obligations of the past; altogether at one in their belief in the community as the DELIVERER, in the herd, and therefore in “themselves.”"

["203. We, who hold a different belief--we, who regard the democratic movement, not only as a degenerating form of political organization, but as equivalent to a degenerating, a waning type of man, as involving his mediocrising and depreciation: where have WE to fix our hopes? In NEW PHILOSOPHERS--there is no other alternative: in minds strong and original enough to initiate opposite estimates of value, to transvalue and invert "eternal valuations"; in forerunners, in men of the future, who in the present shall fix the constraints and fasten the knots which will compel millenniums to take NEW paths. To teach man the future of humanity as his WILL, as depending on human will, and to make preparation for vast hazardous enterprises and collective attempts in rearing and educating, in order thereby to put an end to the frightful rule of folly and chance which has hitherto gone by the name of "history" (the folly of the "greatest number" is only its last form)--for that purpose a new type of philosopher and commander will some time or other be needed, at the very idea of which everything that has existed in the way of occult, terrible, and benevolent beings might look pale and dwarfed. The image of such leaders hovers before OUR eyes:--is it lawful for me to say it aloud, ye free spirits? The conditions which one would partly have to create and partly utilize for their genesis; the presumptive methods and tests by virtue of which a soul should grow up to such an elevation and power as to feel a CONSTRAINT to these tasks; a transvaluation of values, under the new pressure and hammer of which a conscience should be steeled and a heart transformed into brass, so as to bear the weight of such responsibility; and on the other hand the necessity for such leaders, the dreadful danger that they might be lacking, or miscarry and degenerate:--these are OUR real anxieties and glooms, ye know it well, ye free spirits! these are the heavy distant thoughts and storms which sweep across the heaven of OUR life. There are few pains so grievous as to have seen, divined, or experienced how an exceptional man has missed his way and deteriorated; but he who has the rare eye for the universal danger of "man" himself DETERIORATING, he who like us has recognized the extraordinary fortuitousness which has hitherto played its game in respect to the future of mankind--a game in which neither the hand, nor even a "finger of God" has participated!--he who divines the fate that is hidden under the idiotic unwariness and blind confidence of "modern ideas," and still more under the whole of Christo-European morality--suffers from an anguish with which no other is to be compared. He sees at a glance all that could still BE MADE OUT OF MAN through a favourable accumulation and augmentation of human powers and arrangements; he knows with all the knowledge of his conviction how unexhausted man still is for the greatest possibilities, and how often in the past the type man has stood in presence of mysterious decisions and new paths:--he knows still better from his painfulest recollections on what wretched obstacles promising developments of the highest rank have hitherto usually gone to pieces, broken down, sunk, and become contemptible. The UNIVERSAL DEGENERACY OF MANKIND to the level of the "man of the future"--as idealized by the socialistic fools and shallow-pates--this degeneracy and dwarfing of man to an absolutely gregarious animal (or as they call it, to a man of "free society"), this brutalizing of man into a pigmy with equal rights and claims, is undoubtedly POSSIBLE! He who has thought out this possibility to its ultimate conclusion knows ANOTHER loathing unknown to the rest of mankind--and perhaps also a new MISSION!"

Friedrich Nietzsche
Beyond Good and Evil

Permalink Leave a Comment

Immediatism po me

February 6, 2006 at 9:55 am (distruth)

I like “radical” ideas and opinions, if only to have a solid intelligent opponent to argue with (which usually is the case when dealing with “radical” ideas, or else they are just “stupid” ideas) . But sometimes I get a bit pissed off by these intellectuals who obviously think a lot about things with substance, only to come up with theories and ideologies that are so out of touch with reality (yea yea, lets not go to the “reality” discussion just yet), that its even absurd to contemplate how to go about reaching the ambitious utopia the goal often is.
Turns out (or rather, I’m starting to come around) that once again, I’m the one that’s mistaken (or rather, I choose to understand differently) and I get blinded by the apparent impossibility of the “goal” instead of seeing the value in the “means”.

Hakim Bey’s book “Immediatism” states that reality is more gratifying when experienced thru your immediate senses in contrast to western civilization’s tendency towards alienation from your fellow man. It emphasizes art and play, intellectual exchange and other things that I, too, consider to be the stuff that makes life worth living and paints “WORK” and “CONSUMPTION”, among other things, as the opposite force to immediatism, which I also generally agree with.
Basically the statement “the best things in life are free, and you have to fight for your right to do them, by doing them” sums up the idea if immediatism.
I suppose me agreeing with it is what helped me recognize my tendency towards anal points of view when it comes to “radical” ideas and ideologies.
It is clear to me, and I think to Hakim Bey aswell, that immediatism’s “ultimate goal” of no work and all play is not only unrealistic but largely irrelevant from a collective perspective. Its simply not the point. The point is to change personal perspectives and realize that what is served to us as a means for finding happiness and pleasure, is really the very thing that is making us unhappy. Or atleast the thing that is keeping us from finding true happiness and joy, supplanting it with products you should consume.
By adapting Bey’s point of view, I don’t sign up for a revolution, I don’t have to actively fight for the “ultimate goal” by protesting, or whatnot, but simply apply oppositional force to negative pressure around me, specifically the western mentality of materialistic, consumer-based alienation. Even if I don’t believe that the world would be a better place if Bey’s Immediatism prevailed or that its even possible, the immediate effects are tangible for me as an individual. And to us as a group who indulge in immediatistic activities aswell.
My point is that dismissing philosophies or ideologies on the basis that their ultimate “utopia” isn’t realistic or attainable is sometimes, if not often, to totally miss the point.

Someone once said to me; “we take extreme views because we battle extreme view. This way, hopefully, we will meet half way”, which both made sense and didn’t, to me. On the one hand the balance of radical ideas might seem as a good idea, on the other, the ideas tend to be so extreme that they loose their credibility, like Autonomous Marxism in opposition to globalization for example. A good idea for a few but not very pragmatic for most under current conditions.
BUT, if you strove towards more autonomy instead of not settling for anything less then absolute autonomy, you’d probably be a lot better off. I believe that goes for majority of issues. And i must remember that i believe so.

And so I pledge, that from this day forth, I shall strive to be more forgiving towards radical thought, even if it sometimes wont show in the heat of the argument.

Permalink Leave a Comment

uncritisize

February 6, 2006 at 9:44 am (distruth)

Doesn’t anyone starting a sentence by saying “I wont lie to you” imply that s/he often lie but will now make an exception? Should you trust such a person?

Stupid questions aren’t they? Oversimplified and naive perhaps. These sort of assumptions are always present in our lives and its probably a good idea to try to isolate and eradicate them.
Assumptions, generalizations and speculations often lead to misunderstandings. The more extreme the assumption, the more extreme the misunderstanding.

Maybe we should strive to be naive and take things at face value as often as possible (tho not always). Then any misunderstandings that surface are probably originating in the other persons assumptions, rather then your own. And tho I’m not sure why, this seems preferable.

Permalink 1 Comment

Love in sound, love of music.

February 6, 2006 at 8:43 am (good po evil)

Music has that oh so special ability to change your reality profoundly. The right music at the right time ( and i believe all times have the right music ) can make you see the obvious path. The nirvana of descisions. Its all about emotional response. About attitude. Let your choice in music represent what you want to feel and the music you choose will feed you that emotion, that attitude.
Think of the track “Bobby Mcferrin – dont worry be happy”. Its hard to argue against the positive vibrations that track projects. If you exposed yourself to that track often and for a long time, that message would be firmly inplanted into your conscience. Ofcourse, you’d also grow sick of the track pretty quick, and variation is the spice of life.
Using music, you can reprogram yourself to be whatever you want to be. Music will teach you patience, kindness, joy even love if you listen for it. It can make you strong, self relient, independant, optimistic, energetic, anything you want. Aswell as angry, aggressive, sad, antisocial and bitter so choose with care.
Emotions control our thinking to a greater extent then thinking control our emotions. Any music that triggers your positiv emotional spectrum is bound to trigger new ideas, give you new perspectives, new angles for your reality tunnel to explore. To help find hidden posibilites and learn thru challenge. Thats what being positive is all about.

I love music. I worship music in every way a religious zealot does not. Music keeps me sane and makes life a jurney filled with seemingly infinite new exciting challenges rather then hardship and infinite sadness.

“Lively up yourself and don’t be no drag”
- Bob Marley and the Wailers

Permalink Leave a Comment