Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
"The Uses of Not"
Architecture is as much about 'negative space' as it is about structured design. But I think I get confused by the term. I know it as the purposeful inversion of a substantial mass in order to demonstrate the amount and shape of the space it occupies. Does regular space get 'filled in' while this negation occurs? I think so. But don't we use a reflexive projection to space.. measuring scale, composition and function by how inhabitable it is to the human? Don't we want to just put ourselves into the space, even using fantasy or mind-magic if the environment is hazardous?
There are 2 Japanese words that can better develop the idea. Mu, which as interpreted by Robert M. Pirsig means to sort of "unask the question". And Ma, which delivers this choice scripting:
In Japanese, ma, the word for space, suggests interval. It is best described as a consciousness of place, not in the sense of an enclosed three-dimensional entity, but rather the simultaneous awareness of form and non-form deriving from an intensification of vision.
A question came up recently in rl, and seems entirely suitable here: How does a geode form? Here's one you can sit inside.
There are 2 Japanese words that can better develop the idea. Mu, which as interpreted by Robert M. Pirsig means to sort of "unask the question". And Ma, which delivers this choice scripting:
In Japanese, ma, the word for space, suggests interval. It is best described as a consciousness of place, not in the sense of an enclosed three-dimensional entity, but rather the simultaneous awareness of form and non-form deriving from an intensification of vision.
A question came up recently in rl, and seems entirely suitable here: How does a geode form? Here's one you can sit inside.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Whirled Whore Too
Suited more for an Whomunculus post-title than here, but personas necessarily bleed through their own crypsis. And in this state of withdrawal, I again excavate the 4th pillar of personal health: Sleeping, Eating, Exercise and Writing [EWES?]
These are all foundational, and not ideals in themselves. They're skeletal and load-bearing; not essence but ossence. And I'd always lumped writing into a category of luxury, or even superfluity. However, while other people don't seem to need to write, I do.
Licorice root wedged firmly in cheek, I'd like to redress my *blithe* views on love from 11/1/11. For starters, I stress ROMANTIC love. For middlers, I wasn't done. And for enders, even if I was done, why cannot I say and argue something I don't believe in? Polemics aren't just for fuckfaces, fuckface.
Have you ever walked away from someone's love, not because you weren't satisfied, but because you couldn't bare to see it fade? The dendritic crystalline growth pruned to preserve. It was too powerful, and you knew it. Or you could see the stark frenzy accreting in your lover's eyes, and you forfeit the entanglement, so neither suffer the retinal death. Perhaps the true romantic knows this, and would choose to be digested by the consequences of imagination rather than the pedestrianization of the L/other. Perhaps you can only save it by ending it prematurely. Ab'amor'tion.
Polarised light micrograph of crystals of quinidine, a drug for treating heart 'arrythmia' originally derived from the cinchona tree. It stabilises the heart beat
But maybe not, as true love spreads its blossoms in the strangest of seasons, it is so often acausal. As the synapses sclerotize and habituate to the L/other's stimulus, paranoia need not tyranneyes. By now, the life-furtherance of your drug-addled brain should have begun to be realized. You love this person to achieve your dreams, his and hers or hers and hers or his and his. Your minds combined in kind to find that your futures share the same sunshine. Objectives are enhanced, not inhibited. And your L/other will confront their fears for you.
Whirled Whore Too: You are being lied, too. Habitually refining the first-dose, the inintimate is outside. In the fucking reign. You've laid yourself, open, for further -job insecurity. May as well be honest about it, cause at least then you'll know when to be/use your Johnnies.
These are all foundational, and not ideals in themselves. They're skeletal and load-bearing; not essence but ossence. And I'd always lumped writing into a category of luxury, or even superfluity. However, while other people don't seem to need to write, I do.
Licorice root wedged firmly in cheek, I'd like to redress my *blithe* views on love from 11/1/11. For starters, I stress ROMANTIC love. For middlers, I wasn't done. And for enders, even if I was done, why cannot I say and argue something I don't believe in? Polemics aren't just for fuckfaces, fuckface.
Have you ever walked away from someone's love, not because you weren't satisfied, but because you couldn't bare to see it fade? The dendritic crystalline growth pruned to preserve. It was too powerful, and you knew it. Or you could see the stark frenzy accreting in your lover's eyes, and you forfeit the entanglement, so neither suffer the retinal death. Perhaps the true romantic knows this, and would choose to be digested by the consequences of imagination rather than the pedestrianization of the L/other. Perhaps you can only save it by ending it prematurely. Ab'amor'tion.
Polarised light micrograph of crystals of quinidine, a drug for treating heart 'arrythmia' originally derived from the cinchona tree. It stabilises the heart beat
But maybe not, as true love spreads its blossoms in the strangest of seasons, it is so often acausal. As the synapses sclerotize and habituate to the L/other's stimulus, paranoia need not tyranneyes. By now, the life-furtherance of your drug-addled brain should have begun to be realized. You love this person to achieve your dreams, his and hers or hers and hers or his and his. Your minds combined in kind to find that your futures share the same sunshine. Objectives are enhanced, not inhibited. And your L/other will confront their fears for you.
Whirled Whore Too: You are being lied, too. Habitually refining the first-dose, the inintimate is outside. In the fucking reign. You've laid yourself, open, for further -job insecurity. May as well be honest about it, cause at least then you'll know when to be/use your Johnnies.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
11/1/11
(or 1/11/11 if you prefer a world which makes slightly more sense)
I've already slipped on my quiet desires to NaBloPoMo. Can I even start now? Yes I can. I can do whatever I like. Mind's submerged these days; irritable, like a lash in the inner-eye.
Addiction. As a thought exercise, let's not yet supply an example, cause it could predicate our resultant thoughts.
What is it? Does it have an opposite? Can it truly attain categorical partition from other acceptable dependencies [social assurance, food, sleep]? Most addictions are only justifiable in themselves, is this why 'outsiders' can leverage such insensitive disdain on those addicted? Or is that only a protective mechanism to quarantine oneself from like vulnerability [confirmation of a degree of universality!]?
Question questions.
Love is not the locus of purpose here, but I find it to be over-manipulated, undermined and misinterpreted. Love isn't necessarily the answer, but it is the eloquent phrase that might startle out the appropriate question.
Romantic love is an endogenous bio-pharmacy erupting with reality alterants. Through the introduction of another's materiel -once called 'anthropines'- this laboratory seizes this surge and squirts your system into hyperspace [Not cosmic space, in the literal sense, but an occupiable mind-quanta attained only through outside assistance.] Delicious, but quite soon, only this concoction will do; this enhancement, this love, this trans+space is at odds with OBJECTIVE REALITY {?so called, as it objects scornfully to everything it hasn't sanctioned?} --- and something will inevitably interrupt the chain. Perhaps I'll revisit this part later, but right now it's running away with itself.
So, how do you quit something? It can be a time vampire, an energy leech. Is it now irretrievably coupled with your personality? With your sense of self, or even, sense of place-time? Euphoric revelation could be conceived as being as unfair to the world as crippling despondency. So THIS then is a relief, as that would suppose that intimate to the core of addiction must be choice. A choice made frequently, and perhaps painfully, or perhaps just made once, and then subsumed by the powers of that which was let in.
But what then of somatic dreams? How is it that they can be compelled so dangerously by addiction? Mine are deep and breathtaking these days, with their surface brushing against the tension of waking life, that I'm beginning to reel and doubt the veracity of now. This is my eyelash, I suppose.
I've already slipped on my quiet desires to NaBloPoMo. Can I even start now? Yes I can. I can do whatever I like. Mind's submerged these days; irritable, like a lash in the inner-eye.
Addiction. As a thought exercise, let's not yet supply an example, cause it could predicate our resultant thoughts.
What is it? Does it have an opposite? Can it truly attain categorical partition from other acceptable dependencies [social assurance, food, sleep]? Most addictions are only justifiable in themselves, is this why 'outsiders' can leverage such insensitive disdain on those addicted? Or is that only a protective mechanism to quarantine oneself from like vulnerability [confirmation of a degree of universality!]?
Question questions.
Love is not the locus of purpose here, but I find it to be over-manipulated, undermined and misinterpreted. Love isn't necessarily the answer, but it is the eloquent phrase that might startle out the appropriate question.
Romantic love is an endogenous bio-pharmacy erupting with reality alterants. Through the introduction of another's materiel -once called 'anthropines'- this laboratory seizes this surge and squirts your system into hyperspace [Not cosmic space, in the literal sense, but an occupiable mind-quanta attained only through outside assistance.] Delicious, but quite soon, only this concoction will do; this enhancement, this love, this trans+space is at odds with OBJECTIVE REALITY {?so called, as it objects scornfully to everything it hasn't sanctioned?} --- and something will inevitably interrupt the chain. Perhaps I'll revisit this part later, but right now it's running away with itself.
So, how do you quit something? It can be a time vampire, an energy leech. Is it now irretrievably coupled with your personality? With your sense of self, or even, sense of place-time? Euphoric revelation could be conceived as being as unfair to the world as crippling despondency. So THIS then is a relief, as that would suppose that intimate to the core of addiction must be choice. A choice made frequently, and perhaps painfully, or perhaps just made once, and then subsumed by the powers of that which was let in.
But what then of somatic dreams? How is it that they can be compelled so dangerously by addiction? Mine are deep and breathtaking these days, with their surface brushing against the tension of waking life, that I'm beginning to reel and doubt the veracity of now. This is my eyelash, I suppose.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Monday, June 13, 2011
Garden
A hammock barely manages to stay buoyant, adrift in the garden, grass sprays licking crests over its gunnels. If you are so inclined to recline, you will find, leeward of the sun, a giant monkey puzzle tree. It's a veritable kraken, with green scaled tentacles doming out a space behind the grassy wash. Its dizzying parabolas mesh with a worn apple tree, barely yet wheezing fruit. Under them both is a secret place, a heartening refuge which offers security as much by the knowledge that it is there, as by actually being entered. In the hotter months, I'm intending to spread hay throughout to help coax people out of the heat. A neighbour and I plan to play chess there one day.
Beyond the monkey maze, a yellow plum tree elbows over the hedge, and snarls of blackberry burst through to mug you. Here is a huddle of chairs and our fire-creche, the off-centered axle for our house's social wheel. And begins the strawberry patch. Garlic reeds and chives, parsley, baby potatoes, errant carrots, soon-to-be cilantro, courgettes, pumpkins and squash. Peas, broccoli, kale and maybe a lettuce. These all line the back of the yard, closing with our herbs and compost.
In this joyous, oxygenerative ver-dance, when the nearby traffic is muffled, are bumbling buzzes of bees and plump flies; bright birdsong from even tinier secret canopy holes; our hedge-cat HuckleBetty, who confers his confidences shyly, but with love, popping out from the under/over growth to say hello. Hummingbirds perch on the marshaled phalanx of bamboo, while crows hurl insults down from almost anywhere. I like to stand or sit or lie here until my edges and boundaries are massaged down and folded into the garden's batter.
But all here is not life, death still acts as ballast. A moribund stub of apple tree crouches at the prow of the hammock. Harrowed and harassed by the years, it droops the ferryman's lantern into the nights. A fir, once the garden's pride and ad hoc sundial, now creaks weathered and scorched above us. Opposite it, next to the ancient, ivy-clad bones of a fallen cherry tree, an enthusiastic young eucalyptus rustles desiccated leaves through the breeze. A sad lullabyebye.
But it's beautiful, this garden. When we dug the fire-pit, we hit a vein of old horse manure hearkening back to when the second building was a coach-house. Remnants of tenants past poke out at odd angles, and like horticultural archaeology, we can only guess as to how the snow-drops migrated, and who founded the birdbath corroded beyond repair, how the gnarled rosemary can persist after so many years of torture from the pestilential morning glory. It's a font of love, for me, this garden, a well-spring of inspiration and relaxation. This town would feel quite alien without it.
Friday, June 10, 2011
A of H [pt. 3] - Moral Hygiene
So, back to 'conspiracy'. If you would accept that it would mean to breathe in harmony, then there is no greater conspiracy than government. And that set of mighty lungs needs ribs of iron to cage the occasional wayward gust. An aside: I find breathing an interesting metaphor, as it is regulated by the autonomic nervous system, yet can be controlled by conscious thought.
Just like any government that wigs out over socialism (there are inherent traces of socialist tendencies within any form of government, some recipients just being more select than others), a government that complains about 'conspiracy theories' just highlights its opacity and inability to supply its people with information. After all, really, why does any noble government have to hide its breathing cycles?
One such screen of opacity has been the television. It has crafted psychological space for decades now, and the results are literally terrifying. It is the same one-to-many format that the religions use (access your spiritually only within sanctioned, sanctified space), and those who watch it report on it as reality. It's drugging effects do not stop there, under-publicized research (ie. you won't have watched the report on TV) indicate that your brain undergoes RADICAL effects. Hemispherical dominance shifts from left hemisphere (in general, the 'critical' side) to the right ('emotional')... which ain't so bad, other than the fact that we're watching REALITY here. Further, brain waves splutter into sluggish alpha rhythm, 8 to 12hz, which if intended to happen, can be brilliant for your health. But because it's not, isn't. The adage is that people in comas experience greater brain activity than someone in front of the TV.
This was the new morality we were supposed to accept. Even genius shows like the Simpsons, which critiqued this form of representation by getting a cartoon TV family to feedback to real TV families, couldn't bust that mold. Again, please witness McLuhan's 'medium is the message' to 'medium is the massage' (to 'tedium is the masses'?)
But what's wrong with the one-to-many system? Well, at best it's representative democracy, which is closest to an elected oligarchy. And cogni-neurologically speaking, there's Dunbar's number to account for politician's dissociation from their constituency and association with each other. Even the most valiantly discerning, critically purposed politician will represent their culture - which is exactly how their morality was obtained. The worst thing we can do is allow these people to be in the same room as each other! By some abstract distillation process, these people will BE the country or nation under who's banner they collect.
The one-to-many has been GREAT for the hegemony. Prior to TV, there was the pisser of having Gutenberg's press permit widespread education outside of the strictures of authority (church). Divine authority and hereditary rule suffered a blow.. the dissembling of the priest caste gave rise to that of the merchant - corporations began in the shape of shipping and trade consortiums. But that just rearranged the matter of distribution, really, as geographical and temporal constraints still remained. Information was available, but what could be done with it?
Enter the internet! This is the lauded many-to-many representation. Categorically created to circumvent censorship and lies ('errors', or nodal corruption are rerouted and corrected). The old tricks of TV geo-politics begin to fail, as everyone is now a pirate broadcaster. Morality - or representational truth - has irrefutably changed, and what's amazing about this, is that people are generally ok. The 9/11 cover up by the wackiest conspiracy theory ever told (19 suicide hijackers, 5 of whom are still alive etc.) - it is now touted as the first mass-marketed failure of TV to successfully implant reality.
Consumer devices, such as self-phones and digital cameras have also contributed to the civilian production of DIY media. With the distributive powers of the internet, it's a perfect storm for the beaches of sanctioned reality.
And so, the hegemony has been astounded and indignant that people are shaping their own realities. This idea simply cannot be understood by them, as it corrupts the belief that props them up. Sophistry is trotted out, and diversionary (and divisive) tactics locked and loaded. The economies have been purposefully detonated so as to best reign in all possible alternatives available to the middle class. Brute authority has swaggered back in, 'for our protection'.
But why would they collapse the very system of illusion that gave them dominance? Mainly because the many-to-many model now allows for DIRECT governance. A democracy no longer dictated by spatial constraint.. people can circumvent the power-matrix and are able to vote directly, without any cause for delay, without any need for 4 year terms of governance, without any use for false party dichotomies, without political representation by someone who will only get assimilated. Every single bill or referendum can be examined by the population, and voted on BY them. This is the true revolution, and it's being deferred for as long as possible, so that the hegemony can raise as many swords to drop if things go poorly for them (which they will).
Accountability will be actualized.
Phew! Glad to have THAT off my chest, I can breathe freely!
A web translation for 'No cow too sacred' gave me this: nullus vacca nimium augustus. Assuming its veracity, it's a bit too lumpy for a heraldic crest... but I'll chew the cud and perhaps it'll prove digestible.
Just like any government that wigs out over socialism (there are inherent traces of socialist tendencies within any form of government, some recipients just being more select than others), a government that complains about 'conspiracy theories' just highlights its opacity and inability to supply its people with information. After all, really, why does any noble government have to hide its breathing cycles?
One such screen of opacity has been the television. It has crafted psychological space for decades now, and the results are literally terrifying. It is the same one-to-many format that the religions use (access your spiritually only within sanctioned, sanctified space), and those who watch it report on it as reality. It's drugging effects do not stop there, under-publicized research (ie. you won't have watched the report on TV) indicate that your brain undergoes RADICAL effects. Hemispherical dominance shifts from left hemisphere (in general, the 'critical' side) to the right ('emotional')... which ain't so bad, other than the fact that we're watching REALITY here. Further, brain waves splutter into sluggish alpha rhythm, 8 to 12hz, which if intended to happen, can be brilliant for your health. But because it's not, isn't. The adage is that people in comas experience greater brain activity than someone in front of the TV.
This was the new morality we were supposed to accept. Even genius shows like the Simpsons, which critiqued this form of representation by getting a cartoon TV family to feedback to real TV families, couldn't bust that mold. Again, please witness McLuhan's 'medium is the message' to 'medium is the massage' (to 'tedium is the masses'?)
But what's wrong with the one-to-many system? Well, at best it's representative democracy, which is closest to an elected oligarchy. And cogni-neurologically speaking, there's Dunbar's number to account for politician's dissociation from their constituency and association with each other. Even the most valiantly discerning, critically purposed politician will represent their culture - which is exactly how their morality was obtained. The worst thing we can do is allow these people to be in the same room as each other! By some abstract distillation process, these people will BE the country or nation under who's banner they collect.
The one-to-many has been GREAT for the hegemony. Prior to TV, there was the pisser of having Gutenberg's press permit widespread education outside of the strictures of authority (church). Divine authority and hereditary rule suffered a blow.. the dissembling of the priest caste gave rise to that of the merchant - corporations began in the shape of shipping and trade consortiums. But that just rearranged the matter of distribution, really, as geographical and temporal constraints still remained. Information was available, but what could be done with it?
Enter the internet! This is the lauded many-to-many representation. Categorically created to circumvent censorship and lies ('errors', or nodal corruption are rerouted and corrected). The old tricks of TV geo-politics begin to fail, as everyone is now a pirate broadcaster. Morality - or representational truth - has irrefutably changed, and what's amazing about this, is that people are generally ok. The 9/11 cover up by the wackiest conspiracy theory ever told (19 suicide hijackers, 5 of whom are still alive etc.) - it is now touted as the first mass-marketed failure of TV to successfully implant reality.
Consumer devices, such as self-phones and digital cameras have also contributed to the civilian production of DIY media. With the distributive powers of the internet, it's a perfect storm for the beaches of sanctioned reality.
And so, the hegemony has been astounded and indignant that people are shaping their own realities. This idea simply cannot be understood by them, as it corrupts the belief that props them up. Sophistry is trotted out, and diversionary (and divisive) tactics locked and loaded. The economies have been purposefully detonated so as to best reign in all possible alternatives available to the middle class. Brute authority has swaggered back in, 'for our protection'.
But why would they collapse the very system of illusion that gave them dominance? Mainly because the many-to-many model now allows for DIRECT governance. A democracy no longer dictated by spatial constraint.. people can circumvent the power-matrix and are able to vote directly, without any cause for delay, without any need for 4 year terms of governance, without any use for false party dichotomies, without political representation by someone who will only get assimilated. Every single bill or referendum can be examined by the population, and voted on BY them. This is the true revolution, and it's being deferred for as long as possible, so that the hegemony can raise as many swords to drop if things go poorly for them (which they will).
Accountability will be actualized.
Phew! Glad to have THAT off my chest, I can breathe freely!
A web translation for 'No cow too sacred' gave me this: nullus vacca nimium augustus. Assuming its veracity, it's a bit too lumpy for a heraldic crest... but I'll chew the cud and perhaps it'll prove digestible.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
A of H [pt. 2] - Mechanisms of Authority
That we should yet be privileging religion is something at which I often wonder. Though atheism is quite a conceited POV, it does by no means curtail spiritualism and awe in the scintillating universe. As an atheist, I choose to operate outside of theistic explanation. God is a useful parameter, perhaps, but is still too much of a human caprice. The closest I can come to belief of such an idea is within the notion that we are instead becoming god. Our communication networks emulate our own neurology, and as we spread across the planet, we are learning to unify under certain laws. But who is writing these laws?
The 3 central occidental religions were born pastoral. That is to say, they apply techniques of animal husbandry to human governance. The one-to-many rule of shepherd to sheep is recapitulated by their edicts. "One god and he likes it this way - and so will you" worked then, and has been used to frame nearly everything since - so much so that we can barely glimpse outside the framework. Even now it's embedded in our language and social currencies. Guilt, sin, soul, 'chosenness', obeisance, monopoly etc. are all signature tropes that are still very much in play today.
But still, these gods, though each the 'sole' Being for their adherents, must still line up next to each other in the Pantheon. Applying the idea that we are entwining our nervous systems around the globe, thus creating the one collective consciousness (as a sort of meta-human), could not these religions be akin to the squabbling designers of competing Operating Systems? Would that make Steve Jobs the new messiah? Poppycock.
Though this could hypothetically be allowed as the reflexive case, the dogmatism of each religion will likely not permit this as a visible possibility. As far as information theory goes, religion tends to shut down viable alternative realities that run in parallel. However, one such power coursing within them all is MONEY.
Money, or more specifically, debt, has supplanted guilt. Original sin is now national deficit. Historically, money was invented for imperialism and trade. Otherwise, all tariffs, taxes and tributes were collateralized in the form of bartered goods. Food, animals, skills and labour - this last category a euphemism for varying degrees of slavery - all could be represented by money. And representation begets reality.
Again, mechanically, much as it worked with guilt and mortal sin, those in debt are rendered pliable to those they have to pay. They will take fewer risks, find their rights more precarious, be more obliging to their shitty bosses, and tow the party lines.
Another big thing: people are very unlikely to admit that they are mistaken. I know I have a tough time doing so, and I've seen this in every single human I have ever met. We will experience the entire gamut of emotions before volunteering that our reality was skewed. Probably this is because it radicalizes every other meaning in our life. Armed with this information, you can get people to do the most ridiculous things (through argumentum ad populum, emotional appeal, patriotism, hysteria, terror) you can commit them to the wrong premise and then overdub their reality with yours.
This confirmation bias is an avarice responsible for untold amounts of problems, and also forces us to dance to the drums of others. Those who best benefit from this, know this, and use it to write the rules of their authority.
Again, I'm jumping around the topics, a sign I must pause. Anyone know the Latin for 'There is no cow too sacred'?
The 3 central occidental religions were born pastoral. That is to say, they apply techniques of animal husbandry to human governance. The one-to-many rule of shepherd to sheep is recapitulated by their edicts. "One god and he likes it this way - and so will you" worked then, and has been used to frame nearly everything since - so much so that we can barely glimpse outside the framework. Even now it's embedded in our language and social currencies. Guilt, sin, soul, 'chosenness', obeisance, monopoly etc. are all signature tropes that are still very much in play today.
But still, these gods, though each the 'sole' Being for their adherents, must still line up next to each other in the Pantheon. Applying the idea that we are entwining our nervous systems around the globe, thus creating the one collective consciousness (as a sort of meta-human), could not these religions be akin to the squabbling designers of competing Operating Systems? Would that make Steve Jobs the new messiah? Poppycock.
Though this could hypothetically be allowed as the reflexive case, the dogmatism of each religion will likely not permit this as a visible possibility. As far as information theory goes, religion tends to shut down viable alternative realities that run in parallel. However, one such power coursing within them all is MONEY.
Money, or more specifically, debt, has supplanted guilt. Original sin is now national deficit. Historically, money was invented for imperialism and trade. Otherwise, all tariffs, taxes and tributes were collateralized in the form of bartered goods. Food, animals, skills and labour - this last category a euphemism for varying degrees of slavery - all could be represented by money. And representation begets reality.
Again, mechanically, much as it worked with guilt and mortal sin, those in debt are rendered pliable to those they have to pay. They will take fewer risks, find their rights more precarious, be more obliging to their shitty bosses, and tow the party lines.
Another big thing: people are very unlikely to admit that they are mistaken. I know I have a tough time doing so, and I've seen this in every single human I have ever met. We will experience the entire gamut of emotions before volunteering that our reality was skewed. Probably this is because it radicalizes every other meaning in our life. Armed with this information, you can get people to do the most ridiculous things (through argumentum ad populum, emotional appeal, patriotism, hysteria, terror) you can commit them to the wrong premise and then overdub their reality with yours.
This confirmation bias is an avarice responsible for untold amounts of problems, and also forces us to dance to the drums of others. Those who best benefit from this, know this, and use it to write the rules of their authority.
Again, I'm jumping around the topics, a sign I must pause. Anyone know the Latin for 'There is no cow too sacred'?
Saturday, May 28, 2011
The Architecture of Hegemony [pt. 1]
Two things to please consider: 1. I will not use any references or citations, and hopefully include the minimal amount of hyperlinks possible. This is not to say that these thoughts have not been turned on the lathes of others, and I will gladly provide any pertinent material. 2. This is an exercise of oscillating scope, from micro-to-macro and back again. A cycling dilation and constriction of aperture. The hyperbole and metaphor might not conform to the desired sense of consistent scale, but then I am not making claims to the same reality. To be clear about it: if anything, I feel that poetics can only help save us.
Conspiracy is a strange word indeed. Rooted in the romantic for 'together' 'breathe', it figuratively means conformed opinion. In the now-pejorative 'conspiracy theory' then, it must be the word 'theory' that does all the damage. Presumably it means 'theories about conspiracy', because the theorists, like academics, certainly do not 'breathe together'. Of anyone, I'd assume academics would know the pressures of institutionalization. A disgusting concept, in all its connotations. If everybody believed in the same religion, it would no longer be called religion.
So, here's my theory on the living, breathing hegemony:
Historically, hegemony's priority has been to govern reality. Truth does not matter, but representation of truth does. I would even proffer that as one of hegemony's defining characteristics. In the government of this reality, there is only authority, and authority is ascertained through only a few items: power/control, superstition, and identity. This acts to confer responsibility (or repercussion of consequence) downward, to the base of the power pyramid (for sake of analogy).
We're literally getting played. Mass media is owned, almost in entirety, by a very select few people. And nearly everything the media says is spurious. It is there to support a globalist narrative, which is quickly reducible to bogus economics. For example, the US has been able to get into such a $15 trillion pickle (unfunded liabilities make it more like $60-$115 trillion!!) because of economic colonialism: the dollar has been the de facto currency of global trade. This means that it is the action, or use, of the USD that underwrites and 'securitizes' itself.
The gross effects are that classical notions of money get turned upside down: ludicrous amounts of debt becomes a "GOOD" thing, because other nations elsewhere have too much wrapped up in the US economy to sell much of their debt holdings at any one time. Their economies then effectively work to prop up the States', because the USD flows through them.
This postulate would explain nearly all of the US foreign policy: invade Iraq, to assure their oil market uses US funds (they'd just swapped to the Euro when US forces started doing horrible things to them again); the War on Drugs, they want you snorting coke with rolled dollar bills, not pesos or pounds etc. The more market capillaries the dollar gets into, the more the US has the need to push further. The War on Terror? Well, that's even crazier...
'Terrorism' is a lie, in fact, it is only an institutional creation of assessment styled to discredit anyone seeking self-determination. Basically, this independence resists economic colonialism. Meanwhile, extrajudicial killings, prison rape, torture, attack helicopters strafing weddings, tampered water supplies, pollution, preferential drug control, IMMENSE economic fraud, drone attacks, agricultural bullshit, unchecked police actions... these are all sanctioned. Sure, there will be many expressions of self-determination, and some are violent, but not nearly as close as the systemic forms that governments espouse. Violent action is the mistake of using the same language as those who authorize reality.
And it's fictional, pure fabrication: basically, people are furious for every reason that they've been wronged, but there's no unity to it. The causes are manifold and decentralized. Consolidation of the issue, ie. calling it terrorism, is media wizardry. And what it allows for is the creation of a bad reality (bad as in, not close to a true representation of the moment): 'these monsters are IRRATIONAL, they hate you, there's no pattern, it could be your NEIGHBOUR, now take your Ritalin', meanwhile, the objective is to win all the gun-smuggling contracts, get the drugs (a very stable commodity - the black market adores USD), push the dollars through this sovereign country's markets forcibly. Boom - hooked up, all while transferring public tax money to private hands. So who gains here? Who NEEDS terrorism?
I've made a few leaps there, must mean I'm overheating... I'll resume this later. I truly need to exhaust myself of the subject.
Conspiracy is a strange word indeed. Rooted in the romantic for 'together' 'breathe', it figuratively means conformed opinion. In the now-pejorative 'conspiracy theory' then, it must be the word 'theory' that does all the damage. Presumably it means 'theories about conspiracy', because the theorists, like academics, certainly do not 'breathe together'. Of anyone, I'd assume academics would know the pressures of institutionalization. A disgusting concept, in all its connotations. If everybody believed in the same religion, it would no longer be called religion.
So, here's my theory on the living, breathing hegemony:
Historically, hegemony's priority has been to govern reality. Truth does not matter, but representation of truth does. I would even proffer that as one of hegemony's defining characteristics. In the government of this reality, there is only authority, and authority is ascertained through only a few items: power/control, superstition, and identity. This acts to confer responsibility (or repercussion of consequence) downward, to the base of the power pyramid (for sake of analogy).
We're literally getting played. Mass media is owned, almost in entirety, by a very select few people. And nearly everything the media says is spurious. It is there to support a globalist narrative, which is quickly reducible to bogus economics. For example, the US has been able to get into such a $15 trillion pickle (unfunded liabilities make it more like $60-$115 trillion!!) because of economic colonialism: the dollar has been the de facto currency of global trade. This means that it is the action, or use, of the USD that underwrites and 'securitizes' itself.
The gross effects are that classical notions of money get turned upside down: ludicrous amounts of debt becomes a "GOOD" thing, because other nations elsewhere have too much wrapped up in the US economy to sell much of their debt holdings at any one time. Their economies then effectively work to prop up the States', because the USD flows through them.
This postulate would explain nearly all of the US foreign policy: invade Iraq, to assure their oil market uses US funds (they'd just swapped to the Euro when US forces started doing horrible things to them again); the War on Drugs, they want you snorting coke with rolled dollar bills, not pesos or pounds etc. The more market capillaries the dollar gets into, the more the US has the need to push further. The War on Terror? Well, that's even crazier...
'Terrorism' is a lie, in fact, it is only an institutional creation of assessment styled to discredit anyone seeking self-determination. Basically, this independence resists economic colonialism. Meanwhile, extrajudicial killings, prison rape, torture, attack helicopters strafing weddings, tampered water supplies, pollution, preferential drug control, IMMENSE economic fraud, drone attacks, agricultural bullshit, unchecked police actions... these are all sanctioned. Sure, there will be many expressions of self-determination, and some are violent, but not nearly as close as the systemic forms that governments espouse. Violent action is the mistake of using the same language as those who authorize reality.
And it's fictional, pure fabrication: basically, people are furious for every reason that they've been wronged, but there's no unity to it. The causes are manifold and decentralized. Consolidation of the issue, ie. calling it terrorism, is media wizardry. And what it allows for is the creation of a bad reality (bad as in, not close to a true representation of the moment): 'these monsters are IRRATIONAL, they hate you, there's no pattern, it could be your NEIGHBOUR, now take your Ritalin', meanwhile, the objective is to win all the gun-smuggling contracts, get the drugs (a very stable commodity - the black market adores USD), push the dollars through this sovereign country's markets forcibly. Boom - hooked up, all while transferring public tax money to private hands. So who gains here? Who NEEDS terrorism?
I've made a few leaps there, must mean I'm overheating... I'll resume this later. I truly need to exhaust myself of the subject.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)