On Halloween, society seeks to assimilate or interact with that which affronts and scares it. This assimilation is, of course, duplicitous: it is acknowledged as foreign and frightening, so it is precisely what will not be assimilated. Often, even this process is paralysed; for instance, by other reactions to the feared like 'offence.' In addition, this is all done in the name of 'Halloween' or society's encounter with hostility, which people get involved in. Given the duplicity of the task, it will often devolve into merely people wearing 'safe' costumes and celebrating - abandoning any seeming point to this occasion. In any case, however, this kind of 'horror' is rarely substantial.
As such, 'horror' of any interest which is associated with it will be predominantly of two kinds. Firstly: things which are already fearsome, and remain so. In this case, it does not matter that it is Halloween. Halloween is assimilation, which these are not drawn in by. Secondly: insofar as society interacts with fearsome elements, these may also react within this framework. This leads to the common tropes of Halloween taking on a distorted form, due to foreign elements counter-acting them. Hence, some aspect of society is rendered in a self-negating form. However, this is ultimately also inconsistent from the perspective of the feared elements, which have to both remain fearsome and take up the opposite perspective to merely assimilate this. Hence, in the end substantial horror in this event reduces to merely the attempted equation of opposites. That phrase might seem familiar.
One might draw analogies between Halloween and another main organ of assimilation, Hollywood. Again, the whole purpose of that institution is people assimilating things that they are not. In the process, the 'actors' abandon their own identity to instead merely follow the dictates of capital in this area. They are hence reduced to empty vessels for capital, which then tries to use these to assimilate foreign trends - hence, the empty vessels are to try and assimilate other fields. Where these empty vessels are normalised, one can hardly expect that much of worth. It might occasionally gain from a positive interaction with external forms of film-making, however of itself it cannot do much of ultimate worth. Hence, 'glimmers' of validity will occasionally show, yet rarely something that can hold together without the hollowness of the enterprise trivialising it. Nonetheless, we may compare this 'industry' to 'Halloween,' albeit with less independence. In either case, society sets itself an absurd task.
People hence must engage in the festival of Halloween with a sense of duty. However, perhaps this duty is actually a result of 'aloof' or 'isolated' figures sought in a social context, and not things which are 'feared' and instead run from. More generally, people also seek figures who they see portrayed in an analogous social context to theirs, and they are encouraged to for multiple reasons. Perhaps these others have different forms of interaction or expression. In any case, these more coherent attempts at search are derailed into the apparent form of society 'assimilating the fearful,' perhaps in part due to the attempt to fit these aloof figures into our own everyday social forms. This was in part also due to a society which was unstable and transient - in a situation of foreboding. Hence, when searches go in directions that ultimately turn out hollow, it might be that the search had a different basis altogether.
Showing posts with label fancy twats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fancy twats. Show all posts
Tuesday, 31 October 2017
Thursday, 31 August 2017
The Fascist
The struggle against 'fascism' - usually just perceived - which takes on a specialised form, is an exclusive preserve of liberalism.
Mainstream capitalist ideology is responsible for and compatible with a high degree of anti-fascism. This has very little to do with 'fascism,' that might not even be present, and more to do with the role of fascism in the self-vindicating mythology of modern liberal democracy.
It belongs to liberalism, or that part of capitalism which merely wishes for 'class-collaborationism' and to safeguard capitalism by ensuring mutual consent of its members. It necessarily serves to 'dilute' or oppose radical political trends that partake of it, or dilute the 'negativity' and 'hate' in a movement, such as to preserve the given social coherence. Positive sentiment and relations are encouraged in the present, a barricade against radical opposition to the present system of relations. Hence, if the movement against 'fascism ' is to be characterised, it is in these terms. However, it can often merely chase shadows, as, like a capitalist corporation that is forced relentlessly to produce new content even without a spur, it tends to 'manufacture' fascism even when it isn't there in order to maintain its empty sense of relevance and urgency. This is because it is selling a product, one that aims to dilute or undermine radical opposition to the system and which hence has to be kept going compulsively after some perceived 'fascism.' Nonetheless, this merely furthers its liberal nature, and gives it no other real basis.
In any case, what about 'fascist' movements? Fascism was not always a simply 'racist' movement. 'Racism' at the time characterised many nations. Further, the desire for a 'racial' nation is not one unique to whites - it is also a property of Judaism, known also for its racial warfare and belief in a 'chosen people,' and exists in many forms. Hence, racial nationalism is not by itself fascist. Fascism is an ill-defined term in some ways restricted to a 'concrete movement' or period, and hence is often reduced to something simplistic like 'racism.' It would be difficult to have a coherent movement against it. 'Anti-fascism' lives on because the capitalist establishment has declared Nazism the ultimate embodiment of its own fears, and so-called 'revolutionaries' have risen to the task of opposing what the system tells them is most evil. Of course, the system also considers revolution to be evil - but then, modern anarcho-communists don't really care about revolution, so long as transsexual people are given the appropriate gender pronoun and nobody seriously criticises Israel.
However, the spectre of 'fascism' nonetheless represents a force resistant to 'liberal democracy' and 'anarcho-communism,' a vision of nation with a sense of direction that unifies it. If one makes a dichotomy of anarchist and 'non-socialist' fascist, there is no room left for the Marxist or for socialism; the socialist aim of a guided society is wholly attributed to the 'non-socialist' fascist, or in any case is ignored structurally. Hence, such 'anarchism' is highly reactionary, in the end, and it is ultimately just a variant of liberalism. The more that liberalism is allowed to proclaim its ultimate emptiness and lack of direction as if this is substantial and benevolent, the more is conceded. The leftist panic over Trump, to which the obvious corollary was supporting Clinton, is one example of 'anti-fascist' panic being obviously used to undermine radicals and incorporate them into liberalism. Nonetheless, fascism is mainstream capitalism's very own vision of the devil, and opposition to it is nothing notably striking - further, this opposition generally cites the same reasons as the capitalist establishment. Mainstream capitalism is responsible for and compatible with a high degree of anti-fascism. This has very little to do with 'fascism,' that might not even be present, and more to do with the role of fascism in the self-vindicating mythology of modern liberal democracy.
Hence, caution is advised around this subject, for, 'the worst product of fascism is anti-fascism.'
Saturday, 5 August 2017
The Novel: Some pointers
1. Do not attempt to deal with politics, explicitly. Novels have only the illusion of politics. Their 'people' and 'nations' are merely authorial whim, pretending to be otherwise and hence engaging in illusions.
2. The novelist should always reduce 'situations' to poetry, or diverge from the historical and so on. A great novel will do this on its own momentum.
3. The novelist, qua novelist, does not have people, etc., in their book. They hence should not make points about people, in a psychological sense or such. How much this is a problem varies. In any case, the 'psychological' novel is a fraud.
4. The novel cannot summon up any beings, or things. Yet it must. Hence, it is a problematic form.
5. As we have noted, the historical novel is a forgery. The novelist does not, by virtue of merely being such, have exclusive power over a given historical period. The novel cannot, therefore, be 'historical' without undervaluing itself.
6. The novelist, if a 'character' in a novel, would be positing themselves as a non-entity. This is hence empty. Novels should not have an 'authorial voice.'
7. Hence, novels should not start. If they do, they must seek to approximate the 'poetic,' or reduce their figures to merely means of poetic expression. The historical or 'exact' must be anathema and ostracised.
8. The summary of most novels is ultimately a false realisation.
2. The novelist should always reduce 'situations' to poetry, or diverge from the historical and so on. A great novel will do this on its own momentum.
3. The novelist, qua novelist, does not have people, etc., in their book. They hence should not make points about people, in a psychological sense or such. How much this is a problem varies. In any case, the 'psychological' novel is a fraud.
4. The novel cannot summon up any beings, or things. Yet it must. Hence, it is a problematic form.
5. As we have noted, the historical novel is a forgery. The novelist does not, by virtue of merely being such, have exclusive power over a given historical period. The novel cannot, therefore, be 'historical' without undervaluing itself.
6. The novelist, if a 'character' in a novel, would be positing themselves as a non-entity. This is hence empty. Novels should not have an 'authorial voice.'
7. Hence, novels should not start. If they do, they must seek to approximate the 'poetic,' or reduce their figures to merely means of poetic expression. The historical or 'exact' must be anathema and ostracised.
8. The summary of most novels is ultimately a false realisation.
Wednesday, 5 July 2017
Reptilian Poetry
Prefect
Like the autumn season
the stars light us,
as we walk, alone,
apart,
and the stars will not guide us
together in their dark quiet.
The weeping willow
turns its face upwards
in the cold wind.
For a change
Beneath the buried skull,
a quiet snake lies
ringed around it,
fangs to its tail.
There is no hope
without the snake
of death.
Death guides hope,
there is no other way.
Cry
Like the autumn season
the stars light us,
as we walk, alone,
apart,
and the stars will not guide us
together in their dark quiet.
The weeping willow
turns its face upwards
in the cold wind.
For a change
Beneath the buried skull,
a quiet snake lies
ringed around it,
fangs to its tail.
There is no hope
without the snake
of death.
Death guides hope,
there is no other way.
Cry
the moon is the earth,
the light is the sea
that is now on earth,
like the tides that sweep
like the repose of air.
In the solitude
of the dark hours,
the moon is the earth,
the light repeats
like a circle,
the earth repeats
like a circle,
the sea is a circle,
the air reposes.
The sound of flutters
is like the birds,
the sound of birdcall
is like the gecko.
From earth, to sky,
the gecko moves like a stream,
and calls.
There are whispers on the air and walls,
symbols like the gecko.
From earth, to sky,
the air we see
is scaled.
The land, the gecko climbs,
to grasp at the air
it cannot reach.
Light
Air climbs
the building
like the gecko.
Quietly it calls,
quietly abates.
The gecko screams
in the lonely room,
the dark room,
like an archetypal fear.
In the dark,
with cries like laughter,
the reptile hides.
Mistflower
Lying in silence
as if to speak,
softly,
in some way.
Lying in silence,
as if to speak,
softly,
in some way.
Lying in silence,
as if to speak,
softly,
in some way.
Smoke
In the cracking light
tired, yet silent,
the spider finds his way.
Path
In this broken road,
on the outskirts of town,
the lights in the air
are misty.
Like a hologram,
the wind blows softly as if listening,
the wind blows, though none
ask where.
Silenes
The silene in your silence,
what is its call?
Does it speak
if you do not?
The whisper in the cave,
in the darkness of caves
it hides itself
in the wind,
and few would tread there.
Stars
Why is the light of stars
quiet in sunlight?
The wisps of air
flutter by,
the wisps of fire
flutter by,
the butterflies
flutter by.
All the world waits
for a sound
that cannot shine out,
except it disappears elsewhere.
The cry of the gecko
hides in your heart,
does it not?
Process
In the welcoming
candlelight,
the jackal flickers
like shadows.
The mechanical star
whispers softly,
then fades out,
to nothing,
as the process of art
should.
Tail
Pretentiously (?), the tail
is left.
The reptile moves away,
you find this.
Like a starlit crucifix, like Rome in years BC,
the tail is left here,
quietly.
Lying in silence
as if to speak,
softly,
in some way.
Lying in silence,
as if to speak,
softly,
in some way.
Lying in silence,
as if to speak,
softly,
in some way.
Smoke
In the cracking light
tired, yet silent,
the spider finds his way.
Path
In this broken road,
on the outskirts of town,
the lights in the air
are misty.
Like a hologram,
the wind blows softly as if listening,
the wind blows, though none
ask where.
Silenes
The silene in your silence,
what is its call?
Does it speak
if you do not?
The whisper in the cave,
in the darkness of caves
it hides itself
in the wind,
and few would tread there.
Stars
Why is the light of stars
quiet in sunlight?
The wisps of air
flutter by,
the wisps of fire
flutter by,
the butterflies
flutter by.
All the world waits
for a sound
that cannot shine out,
except it disappears elsewhere.
The cry of the gecko
hides in your heart,
does it not?
Process
In the welcoming
candlelight,
the jackal flickers
like shadows.
The mechanical star
whispers softly,
then fades out,
to nothing,
as the process of art
should.
Tail
Pretentiously (?), the tail
is left.
The reptile moves away,
you find this.
Like a starlit crucifix, like Rome in years BC,
the tail is left here,
quietly.
Thursday, 8 June 2017
French: A primer
French -> English.
Pardonnez-moi = To tell others to leave you alone, so that you can read this amazing post.
Lire = Like.
Comment = Comment.
Soir = Subscribe.
À plus = Indicates that one has gone further than is required of one.
Bonjour = Be German instead.
Au revoir = I declare revolution!
C'est vrai = That's speaking truth to power!
Amie = Comrade.
Bourgeois = Villein.
Non = Yes.
Chanter = To theorise the liturgy.
Mademoiselle = A crazed Marxist, similar to the British term 'looney left.' More elegant and laudatory.
Falloir = To fall.
Rire = To love.
Choir = To fall.
Fleurir = To be a frock-coated, delicate communist.
Inclure = To want to read Marxist texts.
Mourir = To be a fervent Marxist.
Mirar = To be such an orthodox Marxist, that you share exactly the perspective of a Marxist text. A Spanish word, however it might as well be French because they're basically the same thing innit.
Surseoir = To be in the same location as Jesus. Jesus famously said, in a concert during his French tour, 'Je sursois, nous sursoyons.' 'If you are us, you are in the same location as Jesus. If you are not, then you still are.' He then played vicious hard rock music through the night.
Adorer = To kill.
Cueillir = To receive social prestige for reading Capital.
Entendre = To edit the third volume of Das Kapital, obscure.
Expliquer = To write a preface.
Chercher = To build one's church, upon or not upon a firm surface.
Sortir = To have read all three volumes of Capital.
Pronouns:
Pronouns can be summarized as, 'That part of language that obeys historical materialism.' It is mediated in every case by the influence of things such as religion on the language.
Je = Us. (Due to the Christian faith, of course.)
Nous = Not us.
Tu = Two of us, a couple.
Il = The Mongolian Il-khanate.
Elle = A bad person.
Ils = The bubonic plague.
Vous = A married couple, after recital of marital vows.
Famous French locations:
Caution is advised when entering these locations unsupervised. Especially if you do not note what we have said about French so far, and hence are not yet familiar with basic phrases that might also alert you as to any difficulties. Be especially careful around 'revolutions,' which happen periodically around France.
Marseille: An obscure part of Berlin.
Paris: Hitler entered this, triggering the Trojan War.
La Rochelle: A corner of the Vatican.
Lyon: A misspelled animal.
Nice: A tourist trap.
Strasbourg: A scenic iceberg.
Saint Etienne: A conjugation of the verb 'être.'
Tours: Another tourist trap, like most of France.
Angers: A historical centre of French philosophy, a place where people have gone to reflect upon France.
Rennes: People who try to flee France after the aforementioned reflection, yet are trapped.
Rouen: The same place.
Douai-Lens: People who occasionally turn into reptilian socialist aliens, as a voluntary act. Some 'conspiracy theories' exist concerning this place.
Pardonnez-moi = To tell others to leave you alone, so that you can read this amazing post.
Lire = Like.
Comment = Comment.
Soir = Subscribe.
À plus = Indicates that one has gone further than is required of one.
Bonjour = Be German instead.
Au revoir = I declare revolution!
C'est vrai = That's speaking truth to power!
Amie = Comrade.
Bourgeois = Villein.
Non = Yes.
Chanter = To theorise the liturgy.
Mademoiselle = A crazed Marxist, similar to the British term 'looney left.' More elegant and laudatory.
Falloir = To fall.
Rire = To love.
Choir = To fall.
Fleurir = To be a frock-coated, delicate communist.
Inclure = To want to read Marxist texts.
Mourir = To be a fervent Marxist.
Mirar = To be such an orthodox Marxist, that you share exactly the perspective of a Marxist text. A Spanish word, however it might as well be French because they're basically the same thing innit.
Surseoir = To be in the same location as Jesus. Jesus famously said, in a concert during his French tour, 'Je sursois, nous sursoyons.' 'If you are us, you are in the same location as Jesus. If you are not, then you still are.' He then played vicious hard rock music through the night.
Adorer = To kill.
Cueillir = To receive social prestige for reading Capital.
Entendre = To edit the third volume of Das Kapital, obscure.
Expliquer = To write a preface.
Chercher = To build one's church, upon or not upon a firm surface.
Sortir = To have read all three volumes of Capital.
Pronouns:
Pronouns can be summarized as, 'That part of language that obeys historical materialism.' It is mediated in every case by the influence of things such as religion on the language.
Je = Us. (Due to the Christian faith, of course.)
Nous = Not us.
Tu = Two of us, a couple.
Il = The Mongolian Il-khanate.
Elle = A bad person.
Ils = The bubonic plague.
Vous = A married couple, after recital of marital vows.
Famous French locations:
Caution is advised when entering these locations unsupervised. Especially if you do not note what we have said about French so far, and hence are not yet familiar with basic phrases that might also alert you as to any difficulties. Be especially careful around 'revolutions,' which happen periodically around France.
Marseille: An obscure part of Berlin.
Paris: Hitler entered this, triggering the Trojan War.
La Rochelle: A corner of the Vatican.
Lyon: A misspelled animal.
Nice: A tourist trap.
Strasbourg: A scenic iceberg.
Saint Etienne: A conjugation of the verb 'être.'
Tours: Another tourist trap, like most of France.
Angers: A historical centre of French philosophy, a place where people have gone to reflect upon France.
Rennes: People who try to flee France after the aforementioned reflection, yet are trapped.
Rouen: The same place.
Douai-Lens: People who occasionally turn into reptilian socialist aliens, as a voluntary act. Some 'conspiracy theories' exist concerning this place.
Wednesday, 7 June 2017
Wednesday, 31 May 2017
A Poem about a Bird
Egret
Songs rise
from the white sky,
as the water ripples.
The sky turns to water
in their song.
Songs rise
from the night sky,
as the dark mist
that hides a scene.
The sky is an emptiness
that cuts hope like a knife.
White feathers rise and fall,
like the light,
and could be all around
or hidden behind it.
The white sky
sets the teeming
of motion and friction aglow
like a candle.
Yet it is not alone:
its welcoming glow
leads elsewhere.
Forest fires light up
destruction, as the day is lighted,
as if to call us on
to war,
and drape the glittering banners of day
with the furore of death.
In the light
a white snake hides,
a golden snake hides,
a yellow snake hides,
and that which invites us
closes the door.
As the white day fades,
motions slow
across a village.
A nation
greyed by evening
completes a cycle,
as the white day fades —
and the nation is in stillness.
One may wonder if parts of it
have not faded away. How can they stay,
unless the nation itself is a stillness?
Night brings fear,
loneliness is like night,
the tiger's assault is like night
following the glimpse of brilliant day,
like nations of pursued hope
turned to decay.
People huddle together,
in concentrated masses,
with shiny, loud sounds,
as if to escape.
The night is like a cut
that deepens
the more we seek that which glitters
in its loud procession.
A nation has tides,
it laps and hides like the waves.
It must enter the water,
into sea,
into pool,
into ocean,
and it will be reflected.
Beneath this is a current,
that blows like a white wind
to hide the kindled day.
It is yet like the night,
hiding colours
in a shade of quieting white.
The lotus hides
the water.
The falling tree-flower hides
the sky.
They are as the night,
they are like motion standing still.
The lily hides
the garden.
Dark snakes may injure,
yet they are not seen,
except in the bright red that turns
the lily now to a rose.
Skylark, listen to the cries
of the geyser,
and dissolve in them.
Their sound is the sound
of fluttering chirps
played slowly.
Cry out, and dissolve in them,
sound hidden in sound.
For it is the same.
In water tinged like blood,
the piranha and stonefish lurk,
in water tinged black and white,
the shark haunts.
The lily disguises the stonefish,
just as a stone might.
The stone is like the lily,
the lily is like the stone.
The festivity above the sea
hides the shark. Disease is hidden
almost anywhere.
The stone is like the lily,
the lily is like the stone.
Water is still,
tinted white or black.
In stillness it waits.
Songs rise
from the white sky,
as the water ripples.
The sky turns to water
in their song.
Songs rise
from the night sky,
as the dark mist
that hides a scene.
The sky is an emptiness
that cuts hope like a knife.
White feathers rise and fall,
like the light,
and could be all around
or hidden behind it.
The white sky
sets the teeming
of motion and friction aglow
like a candle.
Yet it is not alone:
its welcoming glow
leads elsewhere.
Forest fires light up
destruction, as the day is lighted,
as if to call us on
to war,
and drape the glittering banners of day
with the furore of death.
In the light
a white snake hides,
a golden snake hides,
a yellow snake hides,
and that which invites us
closes the door.
As the white day fades,
motions slow
across a village.
A nation
greyed by evening
completes a cycle,
as the white day fades —
and the nation is in stillness.
One may wonder if parts of it
have not faded away. How can they stay,
unless the nation itself is a stillness?
Night brings fear,
loneliness is like night,
the tiger's assault is like night
following the glimpse of brilliant day,
like nations of pursued hope
turned to decay.
People huddle together,
in concentrated masses,
with shiny, loud sounds,
as if to escape.
The night is like a cut
that deepens
the more we seek that which glitters
in its loud procession.
A nation has tides,
it laps and hides like the waves.
It must enter the water,
into sea,
into pool,
into ocean,
and it will be reflected.
Beneath this is a current,
that blows like a white wind
to hide the kindled day.
It is yet like the night,
hiding colours
in a shade of quieting white.
The lotus hides
the water.
The falling tree-flower hides
the sky.
They are as the night,
they are like motion standing still.
The lily hides
the garden.
Dark snakes may injure,
yet they are not seen,
except in the bright red that turns
the lily now to a rose.
Skylark, listen to the cries
of the geyser,
and dissolve in them.
Their sound is the sound
of fluttering chirps
played slowly.
Cry out, and dissolve in them,
sound hidden in sound.
For it is the same.
In water tinged like blood,
the piranha and stonefish lurk,
in water tinged black and white,
the shark haunts.
The lily disguises the stonefish,
just as a stone might.
The stone is like the lily,
the lily is like the stone.
The festivity above the sea
hides the shark. Disease is hidden
almost anywhere.
The stone is like the lily,
the lily is like the stone.
Water is still,
tinted white or black.
In stillness it waits.
Wednesday, 17 May 2017
Your razzmatazz and the nights on the town (Security, 9-1-1)
In England, culture is rather monotone. Figures of focus include Je-sus Christ, Shakespeare, and Socrates. All with effectively the same name. People are generally hence introduced to the same sound for 'exemplary' figures - suggesting that perhaps it is the 'sound' that perseveres, not the people.
Likewise, pop music in English - though often American - tends to feature heavily people involving an 'ay' sound: Taylor Swift, Katy Perry, Hayley Williams, Hailee Steinfeld, Lana Del Rey, etc. This has increased since the mid-2000s. In films, 'eh' sounds like Jessica or Jennifer are more prominent. Heavy metal, for the sake of variety, can trace its way back to 'Black Sabbath' - although admittedly many other bands could have led in the same directions. It also happens coincidentally to resemble 'Hitler,' a figure who admittedly leads to most metal bands seeming tame and hand-wringing by comparison. What is counted as 'heavy metal' in say Black Sabbath's title track is closer to Fates Warning's 'A Pleasant Shade of Gray' - 'heavy' notes interspersed with softer segments with vocals. A lot of it is 'rock.' In some ways, the heavy metal derives like punk from musical simplification. However, perhaps in part due to the radical historical resonances of the name, it has gone in other directions which separate it from rock and 'milder' or 'false' music; these might go beyond the earlier aim.
Christianity, like plays, often encouraged passivity. Plays are a world of characters that pretend to be normal, but unlike actual people are held by the author like a puppet on a string. The author wants to construct people different from them, all they end up with are absurdities and chimeras in the attempt. If you look at these from the perspective of forms of government or social organisation, it should be evident that the societies constructed are an absurdity - the author holds a fictitious authority that obscures or renders farcical any governmental structures or social order. In a novel, despite the pretence of characters the true nature of things is that the author could have characters walk upside down, fly, etc., in the next sentence if they wanted to. These are the actual characters, as the novel form construes them - without the pretence that they aren't characters in a book. Nonetheless, plays prospered in a time of monarchy, when as a format they could easily seek to allure people with a passive, hopeful world of puppets. They should therefore be seen as a format appropriate to an age with an established monarchy.
Nonetheless, they tried to avoid interfering with certain things. Capital still requires passivity, the subjection of man to objects. Hence, novels have caused the infiltration of these passive characters - albeit of far less worth - into schools. They specialise In the fictitious arts that are actually fictions of the author and give the format of passive adherence to author the form of a way of life or 'magic.' Hence, passivity is encoded and enshrined, what is in truth 'going with the flow' of the author is instead pretended as 'magic.' This was in many ways a new low for literature.
Also disturbing is when these passive pseudo-people engage in glorified love affairs, which people assume to be normal - often accompanied with things like 'shipping.' This isn't possible unless people actually relate intimately as passive and empty beings, and take this form of existence as normal. Hence, they are an extension of the 'magic' previously mentioned. Hence, popular examples include 'Twilight,' 'Naruto,' 'Love Hina,' and other things with similar themes. Also troubling is when authors pretend to set passive characters against 'dystopian' and totalitarian regimes, as if they have a right to do so with these characters. That may be referred to as a suicidal novel, and in general it substitutes strange but incorrect things for politics. The historical novel is also an amusing triviality - the author purporting to control a society in a way they didn't. At no point did Henry IV die and leave historical novelists in charge of their kingdom.
The novel form is at its best when it is an overlay or satirical, when it takes events or articles and adds a poetic gloss. However, it is still an inferior form.
The play form is in some ways more constrained, however despite this it is obviously inferior to many things. If performed, it could do so many things as to be amorphous - serve republicanism or monarchism, serve any cause and hence in truth serve no cause besides passivity. Hence, considering performance primary while praising a playwright is hollow - not only do modern renditions in all likelihood not represent an authentic presentation of the historical author, people having other concerns, but it is an empty vessel that can be filled in any manner. Hence, in some way an author's popularity here has to do with other facts. As a text, or insofar as the author wrote it (though still limited by the need to perform it), it is usually too dry. Performed organically, without females for instance, it is still too dry and besides has a different context. In any case, the play form - less honest than the novel form where the author tries to announce their presence or is allowed to issue warning - is a form probably out-moded. Films also have problems, however they are the manipulation of colours on a screen and need not have the same problems as novels or plays. These are both in any case usually chimeras, worthwhile only for when they are self-critical - and there they are inconsistent, for they do not end and cease to exist.
Christianity often deals in strange ways: God separates from Himself, then feels betrayed by Himself. It is ultimately polytheism. Nonetheless, Jesus tries often to separate the divine from earthly matters like the government, actions, etc., and dies in obedience. They are a suicidal 'God.' Likewise, Shakespeare does all that they can to obscure themselves in characters, however these characters are not only creatures below animals - creatures with no semblance of human traits or self-determination in truth - but they are nothing and merely represent Shakespeare in a senseless form. Nonetheless, Jesus acts more definitively: they wish to also make demands on the world, and undermine aspects of passivity by showing people the demands of the kingdom around them.
If Christ's kingdom has not come, and communism is considered dismissed for less, there is still much specious about claims of Christianity. Christianity often diverged from and vulgarised the capitalist social system, it could claim with Three Days Grace that, 'This house is not a home.' If it contained an anti-capitalist element, in general it just preached collaborationism or that virtually anything could be forced to serve the capitalist order. If the Catholic hierarchy inverts and distorts the capitalist order eerily, subverting its lust for accumulation and hence consumption (money is nothing outside of its universal purchasing power) with a hierarchy involving stringent measures to the contrary. Nonetheless, this stubborn anti-capitalist element is mediated by the need for these to serve the 'external' capitalistic society, and hence to serve the capitalistic order and ultimately capital. Thus, there is the assurance that elements in opposition can be tamed, that people can go on in social activity in peace and without acknowledging opposed social forces. These would undermine the things they aim for and are passionate about, so it is no surprise.
Intimate relations like marriage tended to rely on the economic system's fancy and hence on the favour of capital. Hence, the distinction between a Church and a whorehouse was often subtle. And once a Church gives in to most capitalist governments, what more can it submit its religion to? It seems that it takes a fundamentally empty religion to achieve this.
Mostly, then, religion under capitalism was identical. It had to accomodate an irreligious order, and hence eliminate or tone down its distinguishing features. However, while Christianity prevails where it is 'at peace' or comfortable with itself, 'Islam' is often the form taken in more war-like or conflicting elements of the world order. They are nonetheless similar things expressed differently. However, Christianity and Islam are of course different religions, although Islam likes to pretend that it can accommodate Jesus. They have different bases, and people associated with them. Nonetheless, they are ultimately identical in capitalism. This hence diverges slightly, in a positive or negative direction. If capital is 'conservative' or retreating from religious demands, it will seek to pacify this or regress from religion to comfort opposed elements; if there is an insurgent or uncomfortable society, it will seek to go beyond religion or transcend this accommodation of opposed elements. Of course, any religion must involve elements of this accommodation, to survive in capital in a familiar fashion. Sometimes, they will turn against this, or seek to go further. This is implicit, as religion contains resistant elements. However, they contain them like flowers kept in a book, as things that are apologetic about this and are preserved in such a silenced state.
Of course, religions can be dragged further into something comfortable, as Baz Luhrmann can adapt Shakespeare plays. However, these need not be definitive or without controversy, as by that point each loses their overall point. One could go elsewhere if one wanted a film like that, but with an appropriate text that does not come across as comical - and with half-decent people in the main roles. Likewise, a religion mostly involving doing other things would soon give way to these things. The explicitly polytheistic religions sought to limit this, however they eventually pointed to too many alternatives to retain any substance or strictness. The most notable parts of such religions were often things like emperor-worship, which integrated religion with law and gave it some authority and unpredictability. The Caesars, for instance, were associated with this, after taking on the name of the dead Julius Caesar. Eventually, they could dissipate to allow in more 'monotheistic' religions. A religion which habitually deifies things is conservative. It is likely to dissipate, and is idle. A religion which deifies everything, like monotheism often tends towards, can also be so and in a more notable way. Nonetheless, monotheism can contain efforts at limiting this tendency, which Christianity attempts most thoroughly.
Football players are named after Messiah figures, albeit with some doubt implied as to the piousness of their religious beliefs. That could be put down to the laughter of the gods.
Hence, capitalism generally selects for examples of these things which distance themselves from what they are. The fields, such as art, can express some resistance to the commodification of activities and their formulation as abstract labour. 'There is no poetry in money' - and such things. Nonetheless, examples of them where they cede ground and draw the fields back to give way for civil society to carry on uncaring and as it is, tend to be found most secure. Nonetheless, they require some identification with this field and relegate others from it, hence they are inconsistent figures. In any case, this inconsistency and their problems are generally focussed on in their reputation under capitalism, their strengths obscured. Hence, their role has generally gone in this direction.
Hence, on the one hand they need to identify with the terrain and keep others out, on the other hand they let others act freely. They cannot necessarily do all of these things at once, so there is often some forgery around them. However, if they cannot happen at once, they can be represented in a story. This is still slightly inconsistent. Nonetheless, it would imply that someone secures a position or can repel others freely, nonetheless they eventually decide to give in to them and take on their viewpoint. Hence, from a story along these lines, appropriate figures might be generated. However, these are still self-limiting figures, ultimately. Further, they essentially secure a position - they keep others at bay, they do not place obviously shiny propositions that could be attacked and trouble them. They do not try to offer possible weaknesses, or things upon which their appeal clearly hinges, rather they remain secure. Hence, they are 'serious' or 'classics.' Hence, their adherence to a given field is important, as it staves others off - however, this only applies to those specific others. It is nonetheless a weak adherence. Religion, like art, has several elaborate and complex ends that aren't easily subordinated to the uniformity of value - and can subsist in a Masonic suspension which allows them to avoid undue subjugation. The hollowness of popular formalism is merely the subjugation of this to the 'content' of capitalistic society, which is so empty that only formalism can truly advocate it. In any case, then, these tendencies need to have a basis in something that staves things off, perhaps in a direct conflict, albeit with this accompanied by a general story. They control the terrain, and later are not defeated but submit and agree with the other. This is the basic format, and is not suicidal. Some of these stay closer to it than others.
In any case, then, clearly some uniformity prevails between fields. It continually infests them. Nonetheless, this is not to be taken as actually granting them priority of any kind. In general, the forms which these drew on were limited - some more than others. As they are hollow, things like plays resolve to garbled poetry. Marlowe accurately figured with Faustus - despite the play's own flaws - how the playwright gives themselves up to speak directly for others they cannot speak as, and yet it is ultimately fruitless. It is a rather dark message, for a play: a place where the playwright thinks they can play God because they have a pen. Nonetheless it accompanies some interesting religious portrayals to foreground a notable play.
Likewise, pop music in English - though often American - tends to feature heavily people involving an 'ay' sound: Taylor Swift, Katy Perry, Hayley Williams, Hailee Steinfeld, Lana Del Rey, etc. This has increased since the mid-2000s. In films, 'eh' sounds like Jessica or Jennifer are more prominent. Heavy metal, for the sake of variety, can trace its way back to 'Black Sabbath' - although admittedly many other bands could have led in the same directions. It also happens coincidentally to resemble 'Hitler,' a figure who admittedly leads to most metal bands seeming tame and hand-wringing by comparison. What is counted as 'heavy metal' in say Black Sabbath's title track is closer to Fates Warning's 'A Pleasant Shade of Gray' - 'heavy' notes interspersed with softer segments with vocals. A lot of it is 'rock.' In some ways, the heavy metal derives like punk from musical simplification. However, perhaps in part due to the radical historical resonances of the name, it has gone in other directions which separate it from rock and 'milder' or 'false' music; these might go beyond the earlier aim.
Christianity, like plays, often encouraged passivity. Plays are a world of characters that pretend to be normal, but unlike actual people are held by the author like a puppet on a string. The author wants to construct people different from them, all they end up with are absurdities and chimeras in the attempt. If you look at these from the perspective of forms of government or social organisation, it should be evident that the societies constructed are an absurdity - the author holds a fictitious authority that obscures or renders farcical any governmental structures or social order. In a novel, despite the pretence of characters the true nature of things is that the author could have characters walk upside down, fly, etc., in the next sentence if they wanted to. These are the actual characters, as the novel form construes them - without the pretence that they aren't characters in a book. Nonetheless, plays prospered in a time of monarchy, when as a format they could easily seek to allure people with a passive, hopeful world of puppets. They should therefore be seen as a format appropriate to an age with an established monarchy.
Nonetheless, they tried to avoid interfering with certain things. Capital still requires passivity, the subjection of man to objects. Hence, novels have caused the infiltration of these passive characters - albeit of far less worth - into schools. They specialise In the fictitious arts that are actually fictions of the author and give the format of passive adherence to author the form of a way of life or 'magic.' Hence, passivity is encoded and enshrined, what is in truth 'going with the flow' of the author is instead pretended as 'magic.' This was in many ways a new low for literature.
Also disturbing is when these passive pseudo-people engage in glorified love affairs, which people assume to be normal - often accompanied with things like 'shipping.' This isn't possible unless people actually relate intimately as passive and empty beings, and take this form of existence as normal. Hence, they are an extension of the 'magic' previously mentioned. Hence, popular examples include 'Twilight,' 'Naruto,' 'Love Hina,' and other things with similar themes. Also troubling is when authors pretend to set passive characters against 'dystopian' and totalitarian regimes, as if they have a right to do so with these characters. That may be referred to as a suicidal novel, and in general it substitutes strange but incorrect things for politics. The historical novel is also an amusing triviality - the author purporting to control a society in a way they didn't. At no point did Henry IV die and leave historical novelists in charge of their kingdom.
The novel form is at its best when it is an overlay or satirical, when it takes events or articles and adds a poetic gloss. However, it is still an inferior form.
The play form is in some ways more constrained, however despite this it is obviously inferior to many things. If performed, it could do so many things as to be amorphous - serve republicanism or monarchism, serve any cause and hence in truth serve no cause besides passivity. Hence, considering performance primary while praising a playwright is hollow - not only do modern renditions in all likelihood not represent an authentic presentation of the historical author, people having other concerns, but it is an empty vessel that can be filled in any manner. Hence, in some way an author's popularity here has to do with other facts. As a text, or insofar as the author wrote it (though still limited by the need to perform it), it is usually too dry. Performed organically, without females for instance, it is still too dry and besides has a different context. In any case, the play form - less honest than the novel form where the author tries to announce their presence or is allowed to issue warning - is a form probably out-moded. Films also have problems, however they are the manipulation of colours on a screen and need not have the same problems as novels or plays. These are both in any case usually chimeras, worthwhile only for when they are self-critical - and there they are inconsistent, for they do not end and cease to exist.
Christianity often deals in strange ways: God separates from Himself, then feels betrayed by Himself. It is ultimately polytheism. Nonetheless, Jesus tries often to separate the divine from earthly matters like the government, actions, etc., and dies in obedience. They are a suicidal 'God.' Likewise, Shakespeare does all that they can to obscure themselves in characters, however these characters are not only creatures below animals - creatures with no semblance of human traits or self-determination in truth - but they are nothing and merely represent Shakespeare in a senseless form. Nonetheless, Jesus acts more definitively: they wish to also make demands on the world, and undermine aspects of passivity by showing people the demands of the kingdom around them.
If Christ's kingdom has not come, and communism is considered dismissed for less, there is still much specious about claims of Christianity. Christianity often diverged from and vulgarised the capitalist social system, it could claim with Three Days Grace that, 'This house is not a home.' If it contained an anti-capitalist element, in general it just preached collaborationism or that virtually anything could be forced to serve the capitalist order. If the Catholic hierarchy inverts and distorts the capitalist order eerily, subverting its lust for accumulation and hence consumption (money is nothing outside of its universal purchasing power) with a hierarchy involving stringent measures to the contrary. Nonetheless, this stubborn anti-capitalist element is mediated by the need for these to serve the 'external' capitalistic society, and hence to serve the capitalistic order and ultimately capital. Thus, there is the assurance that elements in opposition can be tamed, that people can go on in social activity in peace and without acknowledging opposed social forces. These would undermine the things they aim for and are passionate about, so it is no surprise.
Intimate relations like marriage tended to rely on the economic system's fancy and hence on the favour of capital. Hence, the distinction between a Church and a whorehouse was often subtle. And once a Church gives in to most capitalist governments, what more can it submit its religion to? It seems that it takes a fundamentally empty religion to achieve this.
Mostly, then, religion under capitalism was identical. It had to accomodate an irreligious order, and hence eliminate or tone down its distinguishing features. However, while Christianity prevails where it is 'at peace' or comfortable with itself, 'Islam' is often the form taken in more war-like or conflicting elements of the world order. They are nonetheless similar things expressed differently. However, Christianity and Islam are of course different religions, although Islam likes to pretend that it can accommodate Jesus. They have different bases, and people associated with them. Nonetheless, they are ultimately identical in capitalism. This hence diverges slightly, in a positive or negative direction. If capital is 'conservative' or retreating from religious demands, it will seek to pacify this or regress from religion to comfort opposed elements; if there is an insurgent or uncomfortable society, it will seek to go beyond religion or transcend this accommodation of opposed elements. Of course, any religion must involve elements of this accommodation, to survive in capital in a familiar fashion. Sometimes, they will turn against this, or seek to go further. This is implicit, as religion contains resistant elements. However, they contain them like flowers kept in a book, as things that are apologetic about this and are preserved in such a silenced state.
Of course, religions can be dragged further into something comfortable, as Baz Luhrmann can adapt Shakespeare plays. However, these need not be definitive or without controversy, as by that point each loses their overall point. One could go elsewhere if one wanted a film like that, but with an appropriate text that does not come across as comical - and with half-decent people in the main roles. Likewise, a religion mostly involving doing other things would soon give way to these things. The explicitly polytheistic religions sought to limit this, however they eventually pointed to too many alternatives to retain any substance or strictness. The most notable parts of such religions were often things like emperor-worship, which integrated religion with law and gave it some authority and unpredictability. The Caesars, for instance, were associated with this, after taking on the name of the dead Julius Caesar. Eventually, they could dissipate to allow in more 'monotheistic' religions. A religion which habitually deifies things is conservative. It is likely to dissipate, and is idle. A religion which deifies everything, like monotheism often tends towards, can also be so and in a more notable way. Nonetheless, monotheism can contain efforts at limiting this tendency, which Christianity attempts most thoroughly.
Football players are named after Messiah figures, albeit with some doubt implied as to the piousness of their religious beliefs. That could be put down to the laughter of the gods.
Hence, capitalism generally selects for examples of these things which distance themselves from what they are. The fields, such as art, can express some resistance to the commodification of activities and their formulation as abstract labour. 'There is no poetry in money' - and such things. Nonetheless, examples of them where they cede ground and draw the fields back to give way for civil society to carry on uncaring and as it is, tend to be found most secure. Nonetheless, they require some identification with this field and relegate others from it, hence they are inconsistent figures. In any case, this inconsistency and their problems are generally focussed on in their reputation under capitalism, their strengths obscured. Hence, their role has generally gone in this direction.
Hence, on the one hand they need to identify with the terrain and keep others out, on the other hand they let others act freely. They cannot necessarily do all of these things at once, so there is often some forgery around them. However, if they cannot happen at once, they can be represented in a story. This is still slightly inconsistent. Nonetheless, it would imply that someone secures a position or can repel others freely, nonetheless they eventually decide to give in to them and take on their viewpoint. Hence, from a story along these lines, appropriate figures might be generated. However, these are still self-limiting figures, ultimately. Further, they essentially secure a position - they keep others at bay, they do not place obviously shiny propositions that could be attacked and trouble them. They do not try to offer possible weaknesses, or things upon which their appeal clearly hinges, rather they remain secure. Hence, they are 'serious' or 'classics.' Hence, their adherence to a given field is important, as it staves others off - however, this only applies to those specific others. It is nonetheless a weak adherence. Religion, like art, has several elaborate and complex ends that aren't easily subordinated to the uniformity of value - and can subsist in a Masonic suspension which allows them to avoid undue subjugation. The hollowness of popular formalism is merely the subjugation of this to the 'content' of capitalistic society, which is so empty that only formalism can truly advocate it. In any case, then, these tendencies need to have a basis in something that staves things off, perhaps in a direct conflict, albeit with this accompanied by a general story. They control the terrain, and later are not defeated but submit and agree with the other. This is the basic format, and is not suicidal. Some of these stay closer to it than others.
In any case, then, clearly some uniformity prevails between fields. It continually infests them. Nonetheless, this is not to be taken as actually granting them priority of any kind. In general, the forms which these drew on were limited - some more than others. As they are hollow, things like plays resolve to garbled poetry. Marlowe accurately figured with Faustus - despite the play's own flaws - how the playwright gives themselves up to speak directly for others they cannot speak as, and yet it is ultimately fruitless. It is a rather dark message, for a play: a place where the playwright thinks they can play God because they have a pen. Nonetheless it accompanies some interesting religious portrayals to foreground a notable play.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)