Posts Tagged ‘reality’

Reflexions On The Reflecting Floor


27 Oct

Too Ugly To Prostitute

Rename a thing to the best advantage of the opinion programmer's interest.

samplex

HERE ARE A FEW ACTUALITY PRISMS that make a Fictive Reality possible:

Hurdling - When the facts of an event come under dispute, the viewer is forced to spend time finding and verifying the facts for himself. This is almost never done by viewers, so they settle on a triangulation around the opinion programmer claims based on the presentation made by each side. In other words, they guess. The more the guesswork goes up, the more malleable the reality becomes.

Fuzzing - Framing reports with the set of facts best suited to the opinion programmer's interests, and ignoring other salient facts. It is frequently asserted in public by opinion programmers that the science is settled on carbon dioxide and anthropogenic global warming, when this would any objective viewer with the time and energy to find out would demand to know why if that's true why does the geologic record show evidence that contradicts the theory on its face.

Naming - Rename a thing to the best advantage of the opinion programmer's interest. The MSM's use of undocumented workers instead of illegal aliens is an example of this. Per McLuhan, names can take on cold resonation to the viewer, in this example making the event of an illegal alien seem less illegal, even though everybody acknowledges the law is violated, but that's a matter of paperwork, so it's cool, not hot. There are also insurgent vs Jihadi, conservative vs lawful, and of course that venerated classic racist vs constitutional.

Urging - A technique increasingly popular among opinion programmers is the old short deadline trick. The closer the deadline, the less the facts can be established, the higher the risk of stupid national behaviors and decisions. Properly executed, a deadline decision will be very hot, which can send the body politic into a steamy sauna, where figures are fuzzy and unclear in the fog.

—Alarmed Pig Farmer

Thanks for this solid piece of writing, APF, now destined to be seen by a few additional interpretive minds than are found at our usual play pen.

We can certainly attest to the fact that all aggressive ideologies seek to command the language, the manner of communication, the information circuitry. We saw this throughout the 20th century, and the preceding imperial eras, each dynasty or cultural strain eager to deploy the tactics of domination.

So yes, we see it despicably advanced in fundamental Islam; we can still see the last gasps of it in Christianity fundamentalism.

Peerlessly, the ragin' Left and to a lesser degree the conservative Right tongue wrestle for every monkey wrench in the toolbox in an embarrassing effort to control the terms in describing life as they each insist it is, must be, and always shall remain the better path, no matter what fluctuating human or other jurisdictional energies support. We might call this reflexology. Every strike for a better way of temporal living falls short and is shortlived, dying out due to either lawlessness or the failures of impure government, that is to say, government failure through tactics of domination and its supporting structures. Doesn't the posted image prove our point...

[2011, Washington DC ]

Hints On Intellectual Honesty While Splitting My Atomic Britches


16 Jul

5x7kubhlai

In Paris, November 2000

samplex

I had nothing to add to this note originally published on the SWORG SWILL listserv on June 21, 1999, but I must say this note was an absolute gem to find in the mush of data recovery I am still mining, if for no other reason than to reinforce the notion that I always tended to agree with Kube, and this snippet was no exception. While he still writes from what is generally considered a leftist niche and mindset, his own summaries as fit in rather nicely into the right of center libertarian mold, where I have stood for a long time. So rather than two hippies in a tent, we’ve got two excavators in a hole.

But what fantastic treasure are we mining but a self-organizing return to traditional values grasped at the individual then wholistic level, without using the apparatus of state to force a groupthink upon a naturally flowing cooperation of human individuals armed with a mutual respect, for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that includes all those who would be king, queen, or even the party feen who should be operating within the epic conditions of the whole. But all good things come to an end in this world of entropy and collapse. The Swill label died a natural death after three of the five of us spent two weeks together in Paris and Amsterdam. Nothing like the sharpened elbows of ego economies to corrupt the stodgy idealism of mere scribblers.

Crash writes: I'm glad that you are so clear on your political position.

Kube writes: This was a joke right? Here are a few clearer generalisations.

1. that everyone is and should be out for themselves (individualism)
2. that everyone is mutually interdependent and only equity (of opportunity to develop what you are) can ultimately deliver what anyone needs (communism, self-interest). That is, the nurturing of the parts is the nurturing of the whole.
3. that such an interdependent and complex system can only work on the basis of control by the people (anarchism, efficiency.)
4. that the task is immense and cannot be perfected overnight (revolution, pragmatism) (also see my position on violence)
5. that human relations are inseparable from material conditions (sociology, biology)
6. that all that is springs from material conditions (materialism, religion)
7. there are loads more, but the above will do to fill in most of the traditional boxes.

Crash writes...
Because I'm still working on my position and feel that I'm constantly evolving, I'm not willing to throw my hat into the standard groups (situs, anarchists, marxists, whatever).

Kube writes...
Well I've been *trying* to throw in my lot with some kind of standard group or other for longer than I can remember, for the simple reason that I felt it necessary to organize and coordinate in order to have a benign effect upon a hostile social order. But the trouble with all these groups is simply that they're all fucking wrong.

Inevitably therefore, the basis of action, or of any cultural or political system which is its objective, must be individualism. In order for other people to be what you want them to be (whether you imagine this to be "sharing", "obedient", "enlightened", "beautiful" or whatever) you must create the conditions for them to make this of themselves.
And writes...
This is not to say that I disagree with Situationism (I want to live in situations!), Anarchism (I want to be free!) or Marxism (we must work together!), but as doctrines they fail to ensure the enlightenment of their own members let alone society at large, and therefore, one must induct that as worldviews they are not necessarily wrong, but they are certainly lacking. My opinion is that they all lack much the same thing—a sufficient comprehension of relationship and its role in the creative process (that is, in its creation of the future).

And writes...
Anarchists simply refuse to acknowledge the dynamic expansive essence of human nature—they fall back onto small fragmented self-contained worlds (two hippies in a tent on an allotment); the Situationists fell into the pomo Sargasso of 'going with the flow', everything is permissible and utopia will build itself out of nothing at all; the Marxists developed dialectics—but only to the size of a blastocyst, then stopped. All those libraries of paper, all those pyramids of ponderings on what should be done in Somalia, Timbuktu, Peking when the truth is that their members couldn't collectively make a chicken casserole out of a casserole and a chicken.

And writes...
Inevitably therefore, the basis of action, or of any cultural or political system which is its objective, must be individualism. In order for other people to be what you want them to be (whether you imagine this to be "sharing", "obedient", "enlightened", "beautiful" or whatever) you must create the conditions for them to make this of themselves. A world held in the shape you want it to be only by your own expenditure of energy is a world in which you suffer eternal hunger, toil, conflict, frustration and boredom. In other words, it's a paradox, or more to the point, an enigma not a trifle.

And writes...
This is the world we live in (reality on the ground, as Gabriel puts it).

And writes...
Even the honest desire to control others "for their own good" leads to a contempt for others, whom do not desire "their own good" any longer—therefore THEY must instead be punished for being the projected object of YOUR own dissatisfaction.

SWILL: Failings Of The First International


23 Feb

morality-looking

The Morality of Looking

samplex

To: sworg-talk@scenewash.org
Date: 23 Feb 2001 03:07:35 +0000

BEGIN ANOTHER SWILL, THIS ONE WON'T LAST FOREVER

Rebunk: What I was trying to do was prime those kiddies for the sworg perspective.

Am I correct in thinking that Spud eliminated the REVIEW command from nothingness' listserv? Methinks that far from being kiddies the list principally consists of insincere old gits like the aptly self-apellated "m.e.". If nothingness is ever going to make either a useful forum ever again or a useful meeting place then it will require repopulation (and therefore a massacre of incumbent diseased entities). But to that our attention some other time...

Rebunk: This does not endear me any less to the project of actually CONTINUING the situationist method as it developed before during and after the SI's existence (and not resting happily and absolutely on its conclusions) as opposed to REJECTING the SI altogether in terms of cigars and hairstyles in order to promote my shitty new record.

This too seems to raise another unresolved issue. Here's a dead un-PC point of view for you, Reebm but in my opinion (now) Malcolm Maclaren is the most (only) noteworthy situationist since the doors closed on the old SI. Without Maclaren there would have been no 1980s situationist revival, no reprint of the R.O.E.L. and so on. Punk basically was situationism—albeit stripped of its privileged intellectual kultural trappings, and no one more consciously tried to ensure that fact than the much loathed Maclaren. But Maclaren poses two clear problems—First, that he was shamelessly capitalist; Second—that he was a showman and manipulator and thereby challenges the simplistic black hats/white hats definition of spectacle and situation (as does everything which captures our imagination if you see what I mean).

These endless twistings of meaning and attitudes are not a phenomenon "tacked on" to the real world, they ARE the real world (Phenomenology)—and as such they cannot be eliminated or judged in the black and white moralistic terms which have been inherited from the SI (as from the contemporary worldview in general).
Now I suspect that my answer to these two challenges are still not wholeheartedly (or not at all) your own. Namely, that....

First we have to live in the REAL world, the world as it actually is, in which power is necessary in order to determine the nature of our present and future that power is invested in money, and therefore that enterprise and remuneration are necessary to further revolution or change in general (personal or collective). Yes, money might even lead to capital—and yes, capital might even lead to advantageous circumstances given appropriate responses to opportunity. In other words BAMN as we used to say By Any Means Necessary. This is more than a cheap opportunism—it is an ethical principle because as I have so often tried to argue, all moralities are necessarily SPECTACULAR and the aspiration for some inverted kind of revolutionary morality is FATAL to real integrity. We cannot even reluctantly reconcile ourselves to the world as it is even this is a SICKNESS : we should not be in the business of judging the world except in terms of appropriate activity to desirable possible consequences. Or in yet more words—it is time we treated history as a TECHNOLOGICAL not a theological problem, and if that is to be the case these taboos must be banished along with our fetishes.

Second—l;as I have also argued perhaps fruitlessly, the distinction between SPECTACLE and SITUATION as originally intended by the SI is clearly UNTENABLE. From a philosophic point of view I guess this is the most obvious reason why its fairly absurd to talk about being "situationist", (but then absurd is okay : I can live with absurd—just a technical observation). Likewise, and for the same essential reason, the distinction between recuperation and detournement is equally in error. The manipulation of images and ideas, far from being a mere manifestation of a certain phase of capitalism, is in fact FUNDAMENTALLY HUMAN—it has always being going on, it will continue to go on indefinitely. It can only be judged, (which is to restate the point made above) in terms of whether the said manipulation (charm, hex, hypnotic spell, suggestion, spin) furthers or does not further a better ensuing situation/scenario. These endless twistings of meaning and attitudes are not a phenomenon "tacked on" to the real world, they ARE the real world (Phenomenology)—and as such they cannot be eliminated or judged in the black and white moralistic terms which have been inherited from the SI (as from the contemporary worldview in general).

This idea requires an entirely different mode of consciousness—we must teach ourselves to OBSERVE the actual transmission of this karma, of the way a certain phenomenon or event or quality turns a persons mind to left or to right (or often in many directions at once). So far as I'm concerned that is what this project IS ALL ABOUT and it is not possible to proceed so long as we are to be subjected to a historically transmitted ethos about immutable GOOD and EVIL...
Naturally I am not refuting materialism here —because they are extrusions of material necessities, but of material necessities which will continue to exist with or without a revolution. GamePlay, and not an abstract political philosophy, will determine right from wrong in these matters.

It follows from this (or at least, it may certainly follow in principle, and whether it follows or not depends solely upon tactical considerations in any particular context) that it may indeed be for the BEST if Debordianism gets free advertising as a result of someone seeking to recycle Debord to advertise their shitty new record. In most cases (though this cannot by any means be an absolute statement) all publicity is good publicity and this virginal desire to avoid being sullied with the sins of the world show a positively CHRISTIAN mind-structure where instead there should be a dextrous determination to ride the perpetual flux of KARMA—of good and bad consequences of phenomenae which are ALWAYS a mix of good and evil. This idea requires an entirely different mode of consciousness—we must teach ourselves to OBSERVE the actual transmission of this karma, of the way a certain phenomenon or event or quality turns a persons mind to left or to right (or often in many directions at once). So far as I'm concerned that is what this project IS ALL ABOUT and it is not possible to proceed so long as we are to be subjected to a historically transmitted ethos about immutable GOOD and EVIL...

—kubhlai

Generation Of Feathers And Stripes


20 Aug

hiding-plain-sight

Hiding In Plain Sight

samplex

I watched a presentation on PBS on depression and one interviewed therapist said that people who suffer from depression actually have a very accurate picture of themselves and the world around them. It's the one's who are happy who are deluding themselves. I thought this in terms of hammers and nails, since it's the happy people who tell you that you aren't normal and to cheer up and all that crap.

Ever since then, when I get down or frustrated or whatever I just think, "HEY, I'M THE ONE BEING REALISTIC. YOU, GET THAT SILLY GRIN OFF YOUR FACE. YOU'RE MISERABLE. FACE FACTS. I DID."

It is also notable that the depressed compatriots among us who really know what's going on are given medication to stop them from being realistic! I'm not sure where to even GO with this line of thinking but all of it really disturbs me. Although, it pains me to think that the people who use recreational drugs to "escape" reality probably have a real handle on things and those who choose not to escape are really messed up, or else are a major part of the problem since they are the backbone of the existing power structure they protect and serve.

But undiluted self-interest is as bogus as the converse. So the paradox remains. Is the algebra of happiness a reality marked by self-interest, or is the algebra of reality simply the starting gate for all unhappiness. In others words, might thinkers always think themselves into unhappiness, despite any slant given to the freedom of individuality? After all, paradoxes like nature, abhor a vacuum, a generation of feathers and stripes, and the Washington Redskins name…
I also think that other people don't mind that certain folks are miserable. They just don't want to have to deal with it so if you hold it in and suffer your pain all by yourself, that's okay. However, if your bucket of pain gets full and you shoot up a post office, it's a problem. Some say vent it in low dosages. Better to play ball, sweat it out, just punch a wall now and then or kick all the unwelcome guests out of your house if they're spiking your misery index than to shop the ammo section of the local K-Mart and saunter off to happy hunting grounds. Seriously, people. Take guns away from whackos. But ask yourself why we have so many whackos diabolically sporting around these days as opposed to the 1950s, or do we?

Have statistics been skewed beyond the recognition of right and wrong in an era when happiness has fewer and fewer takers?

On the other hand, how realistic is it for one to EVER think oneself responsible for the dingbats and wingnuts of the whole stinking world, moonlighting on some pedestal, self-annointed, as some holy roller savior of billions, pocketing millions, or maybe not even a dime, but nevertheless fainting and feigning lockjawed over that brother's keeper line of reasoning? Steve Taylor often has said he could care less for ANYBODY save his own small circle of friends and his family. Worth noting. Hence, a generally happy outlook because he has relieved himself of a responsibility no one can shoulder realistically anyhow. Smart approach as a starting point.

In this case, the sad eyed prophet is the delusional one who frets over the world's problems UNREAListically, injuring himself in the process. But undiluted self-interest is as bogus as the converse. So the paradox remains. Is the algebra of happiness a reality marked by self-interest, or is the algebra of reality simply the starting gate for all unhappiness. In others words, might thinkers always think themselves into unhappiness, despite any slant given to the freedom of individuality? After all, paradoxes like nature, abhor a vacuum, a generation of feathers and stripes, and the Washington Redskins name...

S A M P L E X

"Ignorance and virtue suck on the same straw. Souls grow on bones, but die beneath bankers' hours.""


Top

Login