On the Spontaneous Emergence of a New,
The History of Art is a history of poor, disabled and marginalized people getting fucked over and exploited by rich and powerful people. It is a disgusting history, one that can be thought of as a symptom, a mirror, of all the horrors and injustices that occured through the ages.
Kings hired engineers to build technologies to prove the superiority of their empires and artists to furnish their palaces with precious ornaments and expensive pigments. Aristocrats hired painters and poets, funded symphonies and orchestras, all to do nothing but display their moral superiority over tasteless and brutish poor people. This is the oranges of what most of us know as Art.
The invention of the more familiar forms of culture that we now know is largely a story of the commodification of Art during and after the transition from feudalism, to mercantilism and capitalism.
With the invention of mechanical reproduction, the increase in living standards brought by the industrial revolution, and well-established trade routes for distribution and "cultural exchange" Art became a commodity like any other. One could argue that primarily, Art became a way for the emerging working class - or more accurately, the labor aristocracy and petite bourgeois - to assert their new-found esteem. A global industry emerged to put a reasonable price tag on home decorations and popular entertainment.
Art, Music and Culture in general became something that almost everyone can consume and even sometimes (supposedly) be involved in shaping. As many have noted as this all unfolded, the new "mass culture" could be seen as having some radical transformative potential by allowing the “people” to "democratically" shape society and culture, rather than having morals and norms handed down from a generally psychopathic aristocracy.
In light of this new purpose for Art, though, many criticized the false promise of "mass culture" and warned of the dangers they saw in it. For Conservatives (Fascists), it was an unthinkable degeneracy to allow any control over culture to fall into the hands of poor and working people who – in the signature and impressively persistent circular reasoning of conservatism - were poor because they were morally and intellectually inferior, and inferior because they were poor.
In a split from world's major Communist parties that saw Socialist Realism as a new way for the working class to express its emerging self-consciousness, the Frankfurt school and later Situationists claimed mass culture just offered a new way for the ruling class to enforce its hegemony in more insidious ways, undermining class consciousness by functioning as a Freudian release-valve, eternally delaying any real class conflict. Later academics would note the failures of 60’s and 70’s radical movements to bring about radical or wide scale socio-economic change as evidence of the impotence of the transgressive counterculture.
Still others could see each of these perspectives as condescending to the working class or consumers, problematizing the very category of "consumer", "audience" or "worker" as flawed abstractions that sweep under the rug the complexities and unpredictability of large populations and proposing some credible criticisms of any strictly emperical approach towards understanding them.
All this does not even scratch the surface of all that has been said and written on this concept of "mass culture."
Cultural critique, as we see, offers the eager commentator a buffet from which to assemble their own boutique paradigm. Ironically, this feild quickly begins to mirror the very thing it is taking as its object of study: a new economy of intangible or unnecessary trinkets and individualist adornments, all of which are traded and speculated on in a realm seemingly detached from but wholly dependent on a comparatively mundane "real" economy of capital and labor.
As an aside, of course the old ruling class maintained a gated space of "High Art" tied to the old money which served roughly the same purpose, and which for most of the past century went unchanged apart from a few pathetically contrived stylistic fads and an influx of new money which generally sought it out for the hardly innovative purposes of tax loopholes and money laundering. There is also the presence of “human capital” at such institutions. Epstein , for instance, found many of his victims in Art school students, aspiring actresses and dancers. As with old money and new money patrons alike, it is an unspoken but unanimous understanding that rich gallery owners, “art collectors”, “photographers” and record label executives enjoy the company of co-ed and teenage girls just as much as they enjoy cocaine and obscenely priced wine. With all the changes of the past century, some things, I suppose, are just timeless.
In more modern times the growing “gig economy” and world-history defining emergence of “platform capitalism” are echoed in the prevalence of websites like Bandcamp, Patreon, Etsy and the like. In the same way that Uber drivers and Doordash delivery workers in the past years - and so many of the so-called “unskilled workers” of the past decades - are offered (an offer they can not refuse) all-consuming precarity presented as flexibility, entreprenuership and independence. This mirrors the situation that musicians and artists have been in for centuries, from the roaming bards of medeival times to the jazz and blues artists of the turn of the century.
After all, the margins of society and the economy are rarely occupied by organized, intentional resistance. They are more often filled with a disaffected and dehumanized excess population far from able to defend itself, or much less serve as a vanguard. , rather than laboratories for revolutionary change and resistance, are more often containment cells produced and controlled by the , wherein new forms of exploitation and repression are tested and refined, before becoming integrated through the entire system.
The desperate populist will often provide the critique of cultural studies in general by claiming that the whole of Art, philosophy and Culture are elite concerns, detached from their idealized "average" working person's experience. This would seem bizarre if anyone were to glance at the amount of money consumers spend on products from these industries, but I digress.
A certain familiar model of human motivation proposes a heirarchy of needs that all humans share. It takes the form of a pyramid with each need a result of the security of those below. At the bottom are physiological needs, in the middle are needs for love, belonging and self-esteem, while towards the top there are aspirational needs like aesthetics and self-actualization, and at the very top is a need for transcendence. In the reactionary critique of culture, one could place the need for Art and Culture near the top of that heirarchy.
However, this Heirarchy of Needs model was developed by a fucking sociopathic asshole who deserves to be forgetten, or better expunged from history. When developing his theories, in response to criticism of his practice of only studying the healthiest and most well educated people, he was quoted as saying that "the study of crippled, stunted, immature, and unhealthy specimens can yield only a cripple psychology and a cripple philosophy." Indeed, his model can be easily debunked by noting how indigenous and disabled people who supposedly do not have more foundational needs met still manage to skip levels of the heirarchy and participate in transcendence, actualization and aesthetics.
Now that I have dismissed so much, what is a (not so) humble author like me to say? Although I abide by the principles of the Cybergrunge.net style guide which prohibits exaltation of particular authors except Freud and Marx, I am tempted to name-drop someone much smarter than I, who proposed that the role of the artist in this age is to produce works which in themselves give the audience not just bare content, but a mental framework which allows them to critically analyze the very work itself and the context it is presented in. This essay is an attempt at a work of this sort.
I often find myself wondering why I ever became an artist, and resenting all the people who ever encouraged me to do it, who didn't snap me out of it and tell me to get a real job and real skills. I have been through all of the typical reasons for this sense of having wasted my time: the lack of success it brings one financially, the further social alienation it can cause, the way that one's work on Art can be symbiotic with pre-existing mental illness in a way that is impossible to characterize as wholely positive, the ways it can serve as a crutch or at worst an excuse to avoid adjusting to healthy life, the rigged system of the fake Art and Music industries, and all the unnecessary conflicts and complications that result from the above.
Many people come to struggle with all of these things and decide they don't want to be an Artist anymore, to make Art, or they no longer identify as an Artist. I still do, and anyone that gets past these initial doubts will, if a suitable justification is found, continue on in much the same way as before. This might be the Artist's "dead end", maybe finding some sort of way to "sell out" and make Art sustainable or even profitable, or learning to adjust and balance Art and Work and so on.
would blame them? In modern society human life has no intrinsic
value. Despite what some
right-wing libertarian might say, there is no way to escape the
current global market system and government unless you are incredibly
rich, and the vast majority of those who are incredibly rich got that
way through inheritance or theft. In the modern world a person has to
make money to survive.
The artist may, however, eventually be forced to reckon with an entirely different set of doubts regarding her understanding of the activity of art itself, of the figure of the Artist and what it means, about the reality of capital-A Art as commodity and capital-A Artist as producer or laborer, and about the very concept of culture and the wider context of art - the ways art and culture are connected to and dependent upon so much non-Art and non-culture and how that compartmentalization happens.
The invention of spoken and written language among humans (for all we know now) has transformed the planet and probably enabled all of what we consider important that has happened in the past hundreds of thousands of years. Many foundational religious texts describe the ability to name and define things as incredibly powerful. To name something is an act that must be taken with utmost seriousness. God is not allowed to be spoken of by name. The inaccurate naming of things, intentional or not, is in many religions considered not only immoral, but a direct insult to divine creation itself.
Today, it is kind of bizarre to hear such a sense of seriousness and strictness about naming, about language. Maybe it is because in today's world communication is less valuable. In the distant past naming things incorrectly could have immediate dire or deadly consequences, and knowing the correct names and properties of things was immensely advantageous. Maybe each byte of information now is just worth less than it would be in the past.
With books and the internet and other technologies, information is so easy and so common that we are constantly communicated to and from, without even being aware of it - without having to put any effort into it. Maybe we have just come up with more ways to ensure that we plenty of little makeshift safeguards against the dangerous consequences of improper naming and inaccurate communication. Recently, however, we have seen those safeguards are exactly that: poorly improvised solutions to fundamental and very serious problems.
I want to get to the point - thankfully for brevity's sake, the entirety of linguistics can be summed up very easily. To name something is to segregate it. For a thing to be named, it must be contrasted with other things which themselves must then be named. Adjectives and verbs describing properties and behaviors ensure that nouns can be identified correctly. Various grammatical rules are developed as-good-as-arbitrarily to string this together to communicate information. The most important thing to take away from this is the first part, which various writers have spent an egregious amount of words trying to say: a thing is defined by either what it is not, or what properties it has which other things do not.
When we look to Art and culture, then, we see that they are compartmentalized. Before there were artists, there were simply some people who had overwhelming nesting instincts that enjoyed decorating their surroundings, or embued with whatever force it is that causes animals to be adorned with special and rare colors and markings. Before there was art, there was dancing, singing, cave-painting, drumming, weaving, stonecarving, textiles, carpentry, and on and on. Now all we have is "art". What a depressing state of affairs. Everything else sounded much more fun and valuable than this three letter word that sounds like an onomatopoeia that describes simultaneously coughing and vomitting.
Where did these categories of art and culture come from? If a thing is defined by its difference from things which are not that thing, then we can say it is likely that Art came about as a variety of activities that were different from other activities, for instance work – something which artists are known for loathing. The concept was maybe just leisure or recreation, but where did Art became a distinction from other forms of recreation or entertainment? Besides, many things which are considered Art, are not merely leisure but can be functional or even directly related to survival - from tool-making to various therepeutic effects of crafting.
For art, we can refer to the first few paragraphs of Cyber Grunge v1.02b. Art has been inarguably primarily a tool of domination weilded by the ruling class - hence why crafts, folk art and functional arts are looked down upon as low-brow or non-art. Are these areas for radical resistance? Or are they, as mentioned before, merely containment zones for the excess of capitalism and society? Holding cells for the soon-to-be-obsolesced?
What about Culture? We can refer to the metaphor of a fish not being able to name the pond it lives in because it has never seen another pond, never seen the world outside the water. The category of culture was likely only something which had to be created to describe other cultures which were different. This makes the discussion of culture, society, civilization, and related concepts problematic if the discussion makes no reference to colonization, geopolitics and economics. Americans are particularly unable to consider international geopolitics, despite that it is the primary concern for their own government - if budget allocation is any indicator of priorities.
The commodification of Art and Culture is not just about some perceived moral degeneracy, some fall from a romanticised ideal based on the neurotic petit-bourgeois obsession with the ever increasing abstractions of life. It is not about the profaning of some sacred path of the genius visionary or the great litarary talent. The criticism is not about “selling out” or compromising some “authenticity” or “integrity”. Might I remind the reader how fond the Nazis and Fascists were of such fabricated ideals which can only exist as categories in opposition to an otherized “inauthenticity” or opportunism. Because of this it is no surprise that Hitler was an art school dropout, much like you and I.
While I sympathize with the early Leftist criticisms of the culture industry, I also think they are idealist in their analysis. That Culture is shaped by ruling class ideology and enforces its hegemony, is a boring truism if we understand culture as a concept which only arises out of colonialism combined with mass communication and an exploding consumption-based economy. Art and Culture are just symptoms of an underlying un-even-ness or imbalance in the world.
I am for the abolition of Culture, the abolition of Art, of Music. This position is not new, and was held by many radicals in the 20th century. We can see clear parellels in our current situation a century after the explosion of Dadaism, Futurism and Surrealism.
The anti-culture (not counter-culture) of today is, similar to Dada, a spontaneous and emergent symptom of the factors at play in the world.
I grew up just barely at the right time in the 90's to witness the mainstreaming of an aesthetic of transparent cases that displayed electronic components inside of the product. Transparent gameboys, telephones, et cetera. the product itself offering you a window into the fabrication process and tantalizing you with its complexity and ingenuity. A beautiful simulacrum of this was the cases where some toys or electronics were so comitted to this fad that they made fake circuitry, sometimes just in the form of a picture of a circuit on a sticker affixed to the product. This aesthetic design choice seems unthinkable in the post-dotcom era of hyper-modernism in which product designers, in their infinite condescension, see electronic components and circuits as something consumers find ugly, intimidating, overwhelming and so on.
In parallel with Slavoj Zizek's bit about the political aspects of toilet design, the design of modern consumer electronics may be a symptom of the uneasiness many of us feel about being too intimately confronted with the brute fact of global capitalism's supply chains - and all the moral hazards involved - in the form of visible circuitry, any noticable vestiges of the manufacturing process, such as visible screws and seams, anything reminiscent of mechanics.
This change in the look of products is accompanied by a change in the way repairs happen (or don't, either out of neglect or for a new-products-only sales strategy). In my neighborhood growing up, there were computer repair shops, TV repair shops, vacuum repair shops, appliance repair shops, and on and on. What slowly took their place was the Best Buy Geek Squad desk, the Target and Walmart returns counter, and recycling facilities where e-waste is (supposedly) to be brought to be shipped away and salvaged(?).
Just in a matter of years, so much happened. When I was reading my first Dr. Seuss books, the internet, and even computers, were some glitchy, painfully slow novelty. Just a few years later it was something that I spent hours each day using. I point this out, not (entirely) for the sake of geezer moaning, but to describe how quickly all of these transitions happened.
When we tell a story of short-circuits, I feel obliged to mention this enormous, collective short-circuit that the world went through in terms of technology from about the 80's until the 00's. People who were not alive to see it all happen in front of them... I don't think understand how rapidly so many parts of society changed; how there was no time for any social reckoning with these changes; how they came about, like all technologies, not through some conscious and well-informed democratic decision about bettering our lives, but were heaped onto us by the demands of an incomprehensibly rapidly expanding global economic system.
In a broader note about technology in general, some philosophers noted the typical process of technological advancement in their model of nomads and war machines. They wrote a lot of words, but you can pretty much understand it as this: technological and other breakthroughs come about typically from "outsiders" and "nomads", who have a schizoid way of thinking which results in short-circuits that can sometimes lead to enormous breakthroughs. Einstein, for instance, came up with general relativity likely through a sort of strange mental short-circuit. Einstein himself did not understand the use for his discoveries, but the state, the War Machine, appropriated those breakthroughs and develoed them into weapons like the atom bomb. You can think of tons of other examples of technology being discovered, typically on accident by an outsider who is just experimenting and learning for learning's sake, and then it being picked up by an industry to be appropriated for the purposes of imperialism and capitalism, domination and control and so on.
It is often said that the experience of being poor, of struggling, makes a person humble and generous. It is often said, likewise, that being born into wealth or comfort makes a person miserly and selfish. How ironic, if this is true then, that those who struggle in poverty are the ones who need most to act selfishly, and that those who live in comfort and ease ought to act selflessly.
There have been many attempts and theories on how to solve this problem, which is supposedly a cause of ever-increasing inequality. Is it really the case that inequality is just the result of individual people making immoral decisions, though? Or is the ever increasing inequality we see the result of specific structural problems in our politics and our economic system? The two may not be mutually exclusive, but addressing the latter seems like a much more viable way to address inequality than addressing the former.
For a long time, Religion was used to try to teach the rich to be generous, and for all people to be less materialistic. Some religions even went so far as to teach that all people should live in poverty and deprivation, as this brings them closer to God. In the past century, there have been all different kinds of secular "social consciousness" movements, that have attempted to chastise the practices of consumerism and greed, while if not merely sympathizing with but often romanticizing poverty and deprivation.
I have found most of these secular "social consciosness" movements putrid in their condescension. I call myself a Buddhist, and I believe in the virtue of learning to not be attached to worldly possessions, poverty is nothing to romanticize.
Poverty is different than being frugal, selfless, or ascetic. Poverty is a condition forced onto people, and it is absolutely not an inherent good. Poverty can make people bitter, jealous, antisocial, violent even. In general, poverty causes enormous stress and deteriorates one's health. I've met plenty of poor people who are just as greedy as rich people. I have met plenty of poor people who would steal the shirt off another poor person's back before they give a nickel to anyone else. I've met poor people who would push another poor person into traffic if it got them a few dollars. I wouldn't argue against the fact that wealth - especially in outrageous quantities - warps people's perceptions, and that it can lead to a person being all-around horrible. However, living in debilitating poverty can also turn a person horrible.
We are in debt to the past. All of the progress we have made has been a result of realizing gains before paying the costs. We don't like to think about costs, and we like to think that progress can be made without cost. The global south and third world would be to differ. The United States went from a colony to the dominant world power in an extremely short period of time, but what were the costs? Slavery and genocide, millions of people killed. When a drunk driver kills someone, he has to pay.
When will America pay?
How will America pay?
We think of our modern world as a wonder, and it is, but at what cost came all this technological and economic progress? Our planet is warming uncontrollably, and will continue to even if we cut or eliminate carbon emissions. Even if our world leaders decided to address this problem, where would the money come from to pay for fixing the problem? Or to right the wrongs of the past?
We think of billionaires and we see corporations making trillions of dollars year over year, but think: would all of this money, every last cent, even be enough? To pay back for all the death, the slavery, the rape and murder? Even within the confines of existing legal infrastructure which puts a price on such crimes in the form of damages, settlements, could all this money be paid?
Technology always comes “too soon” for society to react to it, for the law to regulate it, for its implications to be comprehended. This is why technology has primarily been the domain of Warlords and Fascists. This is why “primitive” peoples lack “advanced” technologies. The primary purpose of most of the technologies we think of as the crowning achievements of civilization were invented explicitly for the purposes of warfare, genocide and imperialism.
Computers were invested in early on by the Nazi’s who needed systems to organize their databases of Jews and political opponents. Nuclear energy was invented primarily as a weapon of war. The printing press and television were invented as mediums of propaganda, radio as a tool of wartime communications. The internet was invented as a counter-insurgency tool in the Vietnam War to keep tabs on guerilla groups. Planes, trains, automobiles, all would never have come into such wide use were it not for a state that wished to wage war or a capitalist pig who wanted to make profit.
These technologies contain the stains of the bloodshed they were designed for. They contain, like talismans, the horror and evil which they were used for. Is it any wonder then, that the so-called “civilized” countries, with all their advanced technologies, are riddled with depression, anxiety and psychopathy? Our very proximity to these talismans of evil makes us feel sick.
Laugh all you want at 5G conspiracy theorists, at “anti-vaxxers”, at the anti-GMO movement, at QANON. Laugh into your grave, western chauvinist, as your empire falls apart, because all of this skepticism and paranoia is justified if one takes any amount of time to study history. Has the U.S. Government carried out international criminal human experimentation many times before? Does the U.S. Government take its orders from corporate boards? Did the U.S. Government absorb into itself, or help escape to South America, Nazi scientists and beauracrats after WWII?
They call it sowing and reaping.
There is a sense that we are all given in growing up that there is right and wrong, true and false, good and bad, all of these dichotomies. They are useful dichotomies, and many people who do NOT pass childhood development with these dichotomies firmly inculcated in them, becomes a deviant, a psychopath, a psychotic, a freak, a dysfunctional Loser.
The entirety of the world of relies upon dysfunctional Losers. Without them, the system would not be able to examine itself and adapt. Without failures, rejects, fools and criminals and freaks and the Insane, without all of these, a Society is nothing, because a Society must define itself by its ability to exclude such qualities. The Pariah should not be romanticised: they are by no means inherently leaders toward justice, truth, or any of that. the Pariah is exactly what the Pariah is: a calculated, coded, accounted-for excess which is used to simply mark the perimeter of the territory of society.
In Buddhism it is incorrect to think in terms of dichotomies. In moral relativism it is incorrect to see morality as black and white. In many areas we are tempted to disregard dichotomies, binary thinking. On many occasions, it is useful to do so. On many occasions, it is useful to maintain them. This is Yin and Yang: dichotomy and not-dichotomy. The Yin and Yang is a fractal pattern. But it is out of the Void, out of the black, that comes dichotomy. This is not to say that not-dichotomy happens first of all. It is just to say that both dichotomy and not-dichotomy come into existince out of the problem with the existence of neither – similar to how some theorize the Big Bang. There was suddenly everything instead of nothing. But “before”, it is not that there was “nothing”, because “before”, there was no “something” to compare the nothing to.
In the psychotic, there is a breakdown of dichotomies which order the world. The psychotic recieves pleasure from pain, and is hurt by pleasure. The psychotic gives shit as gifts, and views gifts as shit. In psychosis, the patient attributes his own thoughts to others, and attributes others’ words to himself. The patient sees violence as an act of love, and views acts of love as violent threats. We all have experienced this at some point in time. Haven’t you? You love the person who hurts you, and you hurt the people you love.
In the most extreme case, psychosis involves a complete breakdown of structures of meaning and causality, not just a mere inversion. In this extreme psychotic break, there is no way to speak – or all that can be said is gibberish. There is no way to identify things, and yet all the processes of reacting to stimuli still occur, and so reactions are displaced in space and time, as well as in the space of proportions, seemingly randomly. This is in a way the opposite of the schizophrenic state, where all names and meanings and causality and reactions take place in highly structured ways, but in ways which do not “make sense” and are correlated only seemingly arbitrarily.
It is proposed that psychedelics like LSD and psilocybin function by producing short-circuits in the brain. Previously unconnected neurons and sections of the brain, under the influence, are connected together. It has been shown that Cannabis and psilocybin increase connectivity in brain tissue, forming new neuronal connections. It is proposed that this is similar to the functioning of schizophrenia. I have been recently diagnosed with schizophrenia.
There is a theory of consciousness which posits that sentience is the result of short-circuits in the brain which create feedback loops in a similar way. This goes back a long time, but Lacan and Hegel provide good developments, when speaking about the Mirror Stage, or speaking about the fact that self-consciousness is a property that results from a fixed, observed self not being able to observe its own self, but rather being observed by a separate dynamic observing-self. This creates a feedback loop that oscillates, resonates within the space between the self-observing Self and the observed-self, creating consciousness.
Noted is the tendency for the schizophrenic to make connections between unrelated thoughts or words, by degrees of separation, through free association: Egpytians built pyramids that lined up with the stars, Cats were revered for their divinity in ancient Egypt. Cats drinks milk, Milk comes from cows, cows get slaughtered, therefore Milk is produced not by cows, but an alien civilization which seeks to slaughter all humankind.
When debugging software or hardware, it is sometimes useful, if the entire functioning is not understood, to short-circuit or introduce an oscillating or noise signal somewhere, basically anywhere at random. Based on that input, and the system’s response, something useful about the functioning can be inferred, if what is being analyzed is a black box. Much of what we see and experience, maybe all of it, is a black box.
Resonance, oscillations, feedback, take place inside of the cell of living organisms. Pattern of feedback in ecosystems: animal eats, animal shits, shit grows plants, plants make oxygen, animal breathed oxygen, animal gets eaten by animal that shits out the animal it ate.
Music is like this. Waveforms, feedback, patterns.
Everything is like this. Everything is music. Everything is eating. Everything is animals. Everything is shit.
I remember there was a kid in our class that everyone made fun of, because he would suck on his forearm all day until it was bruised, like sucking at a breast. He liked the bruise there, cause he could press on it, and the bruise also was more sensitive then to sucking on it. The kids would make fun of him for giving his arm a hickey. He was a completely normal kid. But he just did that for some reason. He did it for a lot of years. There was this other kid, that was in my class, that would do – what there is some name for it – where he would press on his knuckle or knead at it kind of, anxiously, and it was all calloused up and looked almost deformed. There was this other kid I knew. He would swallow toys, and then regurgitate them, and they would come up not covered in vomit but in a thick white phlegm. He thought it was cool and had done it alone for a long time but some of the other kids he showed how he did it and they also thought it was cool – in a gross way – so he did that sometimes. There was something I would do when I was a kid – I did a lot of weird shit. But one of those things was I would stuff my clothes with pillows and blankets and walk around like that, and it felt really good, in a weird, indescribable way that only in hindsight can I estimate was a kind of sexual way, but I didn’t know what that was. There's all sorts of things like that, I guess, that we all remember. We all would put Elmer’s glue all over our hands, and wait for it to dry and then peel it off. Some of the kids would eat it. I would eat glue sometimes, and it was satisfying, but it wasn’t as compulsive for me. But the kids who did it compulsively, they didnt really like the taste of it, or the texture, or the idea of it as a forbidden snack. They couldn't really describe exactly why they liked it, they just did. It is weird, a lot of those things you do as a kid that are just weird, and they give you so much satisfaction. But it is not sexual satisfaction. And then, when you grow up, you kind of feel like sex isn’t even really as good as those weird, compulsive things you use to do as a kid. What is that feeling? It is so weird. It is not sexual, it is almost… pre-sexual, something more fundamental and basic.
a person found a way to invoke that feeling in others,
they would be nearly omnipotent.
One instance of the Demonic Female that emerged was the mysterious iPhone repair machine: a white box shaped like a microwave, permeable yet impenetrable and its mechanisms unknowable – like the Woman – into which employees at service locations place the phone and, I am sure, carry out some form of techno-ritual prayer in order to activate its magical powers. This is at once new in content, but old in form. The iPhone Repair Machine: a sleek, hyper-modern succubus vessel, intimately connected through the inexplicable fractal dimensions of proprietary firmware to the broken talisman. The spiteful Goddess of creation that demands a ritual sacrifice to restore the power of the tool. This tool, the phone, which its owner acquired by stumbling upon the Lady of The Lake in a shopping Mall or one of the various Gynoids of Online Shopping Temples – it is a gift with magical properties. We see this magical totemism in the aesthetic of apple products – their blemish-less skin hiding not surface-mounted components on printed circuit boards, not lithium crystals arranged to respond to electrical impulses to display images, not fans or diodes or mechanics, but containing, bottling, a formless miasma of techno-plasm. They run not on electrical current, but on a mysterious elixir which flows through our walls. After several months of psychedelic use, we developed a deep paranoia that all that we see is merely surfaces, two-dimensional planes. How sensical is it, that after these trips we began to wonder how it could possibly be that the back sides of objects existed even though we could not see them? Does the room on the other side of the door exist? The LCD screen does not have a back side – on the back of the LCD is black, nothing, just a panel and a few connectors. Many people get “tripped up” by not going far enough beneath the surface. Once you reach the two-dimensional surface of reality, and once you get inside that surface, all of your fantasies are found there – you become trapped in a funhouse of ego mirrors, reflecting only your own self back at you. With the Heroic Dose, you shatter the mirrors, and you can see beyond the surface, you can escape the purgatory of solipsism that many take to be the Final Destination. On the other side, the shattered glass forms a floating palace in a void, which you enter to find endless rows of books. You open a book to read what is in it, and the pages are all just constantly moving, turbulent oil-slicks; swirling energies chaotically intermixing – complete meaninglessness. The signal-to-noise ratio slowly averages out into a dull, monotonous static the more you read on. There is something behind the surface – there is everything and nothing at once. The everything-ness is overwhelming, the nothing-ness is dread-inspiring and depressing. The only proper emotional response is a flickering back and forth between the two, and after long enough time that random flickering, like snow on a TV screen, blurs together into a stupid, boring gray. Idiots assume that these swirling energies represent Good and Evil, Dark and Light, Feminine and Masculine, et cetera. The energies are not describable in this way.
Thing-ness has properties, while Nothingness has no properties. Oneness has only one property, and that is the property of being-One. Now we can count the Differences which there are:
1. Thingness is different from Nothingness, in that it has properties.
2. Thingness is different from Oneness, because it has more than one property
3. Nothingness is different from Oneness because Nothingness has no properties while oneness has one property.
4. The dichotomy of Thing-ness and Nothingness is different from the whole of Oneness in that it contains self-difference, or that it has Parts.
Now we have Four Differences and Three Elements. This can all be formulated with some variations, which We can do at some other time, but for now we will continue: These Four Differences can now become new Elements from which more Differences can be derived. These Differences differ from each other in different ways.
ELEMENT ONE: Thingness is different from Nothingness, in that it has properties and Nothingness does not.
DIFFERENCE ONE: is determined on the basis of whether or not the subject has properties at all.
ELEMENT TWO: Thingness is different from Oneness, because it has more than one property while Oneness has only one property (the property of Oneness).
DIFFERENCE TWO: is determined on the basis of whether the subject has only one property or many properties. Now, before moving on, we can make a new element out of these two differences:
1. Whether or not the subject has properties or no properties.
2. Whether it has only one property or more than one property.
The Difference between these two differences can give us a new element to work with and we can say it this way: The difference between whether or not the subject has some properties or no properties, and whether or not the subject has merely one property or more than one property, is that in the first instance we are determining whether properties are had at all, whereas in the second instance we are determining how many properties are had. We can come up with a name for this new element or subject: we will call it Counting. So, a new form of difference is to count, and assign an interval determining the number of properties a thing has. Now, if we were clever – which we are – we would have noticed that in order to come up with Counting, we had to take difference as a subject itself and jump to a meta-level up to say that different differences can be different from other differences. Once we have established counting, we can basically just give up trying to go further describing how multiplicities and uniqueness forms, because with mere counting of intervals alone there is already an infinity of possible properties and differences. The reason that counting goes forever, is because there is no logical reason for it not to go on forever, because the reason it came about in the first place was not to count a specific number of things, but as a tool to determine how being/nonbeing can be different from not-being/nonbeing (or however else we would like to describe that). Counting is infinite because it is not the same type of thing as the first two (three) elements we worked with: Counting is a form of difference which is in itself different from other types of difference, and it is the First difference which can possibly be taken as a subject to be differentiated from any other difference.
The infant cries, and does not know why. The parents do whatever they can to stop its crying – feed it, change the diaper, rock it in their arms. Eventually it stops crying, but not for being fulfilled of its initial distress, but maybe rather because whatever has occurred Suffices Well Enough. Then, after the crying is over, the infant sees the relief of its parent, and witnesses its own “satisfaction”, and then correlates (without causality) the event with a feeling of satisfaction. Some philosophers have proposed that all of life is this way – an endless cry of suffering, only by chance alleviated, and the dumb creature that wailed in pain and terror learns to avoid suffering by mere chance. What if this suffering is the default state for all living organisms? Can you image, that every living cell, every plant, every animal – all these organisms which have no language, are all constantly in agony? When you sit to imagine, why is it that you do anything at all? Why is it so hard to just sit in silence and stillness? Why do you have to always busy yourself? Is it because self-conscious existence itself is agonizing, painful, terrifying?
A heuristic technique, or a heuristic (/hjʊəˈrɪstɪk/; Ancient Greek: εὑρίσκω, heurískō, 'I find, discover'), is any approach to problem solving or self-discovery that employs a practical method that is not guaranteed to be optimal, perfect, or rational, but is nevertheless sufficient for reaching an immediate, short-term goal or approximation. Where finding an optimal solution is impossible or impractical, heuristic methods can be used to speed up the process of finding a satisfactory solution. Heuristics can be mental shortcuts that ease the cognitive load of making a decision. Examples that employ heuristics include using trial and error, a rule of thumb or an educated guess.
Much like the Dadaists exactly a century ago, we are faced with Absurdity and Atrocity. We saw the incalculable horrors of mass graves visible from space, refrigerated trucks filled with the COVID-19 dead, the blatant incompetence by our so-called leaders, mass evictions and bankruptcies, unprecedented wildfires and flooding, emerging neofascism in the United States, India, Turkey, Brazil and around the world - as well as the corresponding intensification of protests against state violence - the inhumane treatment of asylum seekers, the growing phenomenon of climate refugees and the separation of migrant families.
All the while, the Governments and Oligarchs around the world having made money hand over fist through wealth redistribution in the form of multi-billion dollar bailouts, as well as by adjusting their personal stock portfolios according to insider information about the pandemic - short-selling retail and travel, leveraging buys for pharma, tele-health and tech.
The absurdity that gives way to hypnogogia and derealization lies in the fact that this historic crisis is covered by the oozing, banal hum of everyday life we have become accustomed to. For those not stricken by immediate crisis, and even to many who were, the pandemic brought a disconcerting continuity: all of these events are not merely reduced to simulacra in some academic theory out of French postmodernism, but are now literally apprehended by post-human lithium crystal irises, distributed through intercontinental undersea fiber-optic cables and Gigahertz radiation, comprehended by minds molded by neuron-hacking social media algorithms, and presented to “us” by the black box of artificially-intelligent media and information distribution networks.
Imagine a post-crisis scenario where an organization utilizes the opacity of bureaucracy to archive the remnant failures of Decadent Western Chauvinist scum society and conduct research and conferences on cybernetic augmentation of the psyche and physical world for the purposes of bringing about the Instrumentality of Humankind toward the creation of a high entropy asexual-reproducing genderfuck clone swarm building tombs for Gods which have not yet been born.
Discover an array of performance devices and musical instruments built from the electronic waste of an industry that is economically reliant on planned obsolescence. This isn’t the scenario of the future, this is a summary of the present as an example of empowerment that faces propaganda with propaganda and fashions its tools from the abandoned products of decades of misery and toil by third world slave labor – from the disposed rare earth minerals from mines fought over by child soldiers for the profit of capitalist pigs.
there are some people out there who say music is like math, it is universal, it follows certain rules etc. i understand why a person would be attracted to that, but it is a really profoundly ignorant idea. you could more compare music to a language than to math. Math has been developed by many cultures, and the rules of it are prettty much the same in that 5+5=10 no matter what culture you are in or whatever. even this is a bad comparison because different cultures do have different numerical bases. music is a language. it is not universal between cultures, just like grammar is not universal between cultures, or language is not. there are many different languages and many different grammatica structures, all of which convey meaning in different ways. to say music is some kind of universal thing, it also disregards the fact that the 12 tone scale used in western music is not universal at all. what is a musical note varies in different cultures, there are cultures where traditional music uses microtones, and tonality modes completely alien to western music. yet people in those cultures still find meaning and beauty in that music etc. music is more like a language, but it is more diverse than a language, it is more complex even than a language. music has languages inside of languages, languages of rhythm, of melody and harmony, languages of timbre. all the information conveyed by a language, say, english language. you could say for instance that melody is english language, timbre is latin, rhythm is greek, and so on, each of these elements of what make up music all have their own languages inside themselves. and so music is even more expansive than language, is even more useful for communicating abstract thoughts and ideas etc. and the thing with music is that you can construct those rules completely freely, and you can invent a language and then learn that language, an individual musician can develop a language very complex and intricate, more intricate than the entirety of a linguistic corpus. so, music is extremely powerful. it is for this reason music is a great tool for cybernetics, a great technology for communication, an alternative to grammar and language, an alternative medium, etc.
this one time when i was on a eighth of mushrooms i became a girl and it was really cool then my gf broke up with me caus ei didnt want to get married then i moved 1,000 miles away and did more mushrooms and smoked a lot of weed and hitch hiked a lot of places washington california down to texas cause i didnt want to be in my hometown cause my gf and all my friends thought i fucked up my life so i had to run away - aand also i kind of either way wanted o do that because i wanted to challenge myself to see what kind of a life i could have if i was just dropped into the middle of nowhere with no money or friends or family or anything but what i had in a backpack because i thought it would make me learn about reality and about myself and the world, becaus ei read the book Siddhartha and stuff. anyway i did acid this one time but maybe it wasnt acid idk cause then for like 2 years everything sounded like it was run through a phaser and with some reverb and all the floors and walls breathed and everything felt like in a videogame where behind the walls and under the ground there was just nothingness or an ocean of chaotic colors and noise but also emptiness. and also i felt that when i looked at anything i had tunnel vision, that i was looking through a long tunnel at the world i was perceiving. any way, that was how things were for like 2 or three years and it sucked and i tried to act normal but it was hard to act normal and think normally. cause then it had been so long, every time looking down at my arms with tunnel vision detached from my body at a certain point of 2 years that i started to just get panic attacks because i was like why isnt anything going back to normal its been so long. then i got on ssri's and they fixed it mostly? but before that like whne i was 14 or something i had tried to kill myself because i was gay and also just a shitty person and worthless i tied a belt around my neck until i passed out. but before that like when i was 6 or 7 or 8 i would slam my head against the wall and say i want to die - i dont know why i did it but it got me put into psych ward a few times and then started cutting and stuff idk. but i also was gay and i liked boys and saw myself as a boy but it was always kinda weird. idk. cause i also didnt fit into what the stereotype of a gay guy is like so it was weird to be that when gay is presented as a very specific thing that i definitely didnt identify with. idk. i remember one time when my friend was asleep i cuddled with him because i wanted to know how it felt to be cuddling with someone. but then i felt bad because he was asleep and probably would have made fun of me. idk. i also was in special education most of my life and i rode teh short bus because i was prone to cutting myself and yelling at teachers and breaking things and having psychotic episodes so i had t o be isolated. i was in special ed rooms until like my last couple years of high school. i have not always made music and art. when i was a young kid i thought music and art was all annoying and stupid I just wanted to walk around in the woods and swim in the lake and watch birds like my dads friend did
vagus nerve stimulation methods work for anxiety and depression
exhale with nose and mouth closed so no air gets out, valsalva maneuvre
"bearing down" as if defecating, typicalyl involves the above
massaging temples and neck, also plugging the ears / yawning there is a connection to the vagus nerve inside of the ears
cold water on face or on back of the neck, although arms, armpits work too, this is the cold water immersion reflex, used to slow the heart rate
theories propose vagus nerve disorder may cause of major depression.
Early results were promising but not enough research has been done on
this because the government and corporations want us to kill
Dont kill yourself dont let them win.
progressive muscle relaxing:
start at toes, work up to face, fully flex until you cant anymore and feel weak, each set of muscles, then quickly relax them and focus on the feeling of tension released. Helps immensely to use visualizations of some kind, such as visualizing tassks to do with each muscle although for me personally, I like to visualize different colors flowing through my body – the “hot” colors red, orange, yellow, leaving my body, slowly being replaced by PMR and slow breathing with cool colors green, blue and then the color of attaining peace (which is the color that happens when you rub your eyes)
Box breath: inhale for 4 counts, hold for 4 count, exhale 4 counts, hold out 4 counts
best breathing method: inhale 4 counts, hold 1 count, then exhale for 6. try to slow down exhale progressively to 7 counts, then8, then 10 counts, keeping inhale at 4. making the exhale longer than inhale considerably helps, because your brain is getting too much oxygen, making it work too hard
3% of Youtube content creators account for 85% of all monetization revenue
What does it mean what CGRU calls the NEGATION of ART: a negation of the NARRATIVE of the role of the artist or of the inventor, the genius.
George Grosz said "Dadaism is the Communism of genius".
Inventions, technology, art and social progress are retroactively determined to be caused by abstractions called creativity and innovation. Most of the time the actual cause is random chance, luck, or theft. Working BACKWARDS, by de-constructing and reverse-engineering things - this is to be supposedly the opposite of what society says an artist, a genius, inventor, creator. This is the most taboo practice, and one embued with satanic or demonic energy. Innovation and creativity always already functioned this way. Yet if you function this way, you are an outsider, a theif, a con artist, "low-brow", "lofi", you peddle in "glitches" and "accidents" and you traffic in Luck and Chance, you do not have "talent" or "skill" or "merit", you are a Deceiver.
In early Athenian democracy, "Sortition", or random selection, also called "Stochacracy", was seen as the fairest way to distribute power in a true Democratic society of equals. In many religions, random selection - or Lot - is viewed as an incredibly powerful force which serves as a connection to the Divine ie. divination. You can observe in modern times how the inherent power of Randomness is now controlled by governments: Lotteries and Raffles are heavily regulated in most States and you must pay a tax for conducting them.
Political philosopher John Rawls proposed the "veil of ignorance" a form of Sortition, and theorized that this would lead to social structures based on solidarity where it is less likely for anyone to fall in to extreme neglect or disadvantage.
C.G.R.U. and cybergrunge.net advocate for Hybrid Stochocracies where Sortition is used heavily alongside other tools of equalizing opportunity. It is further our beliefe that tyrants and the ruling class, and the types of Sick and depraved societies their propaganda inculcates, despise Randomness, Divination, Sortition, because of its inherently liberatory potential, they seek to control it and confine it for themselves.