Our nation
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.
Instigator
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.
Immediatism po me
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.
uncritisize
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.
