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 musicals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label musicals. Show all posts
Tuesday, 31 October 2017
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.
Sunday, 25 June 2017
From The Black World
If God is good, he cannot partake of or directly motivate evil.
If Satan is an independent being, then what is present is actually polytheism. 'God' comes to merely mean 'good,' rather than a deity.
If Satan is not independent, but a part of God, then evil is also a part of God. Hence, God is also an ultimate evil. This applies whenever Satan, or any such creature, is considered the paragon or representative of evil.
If this applies, you generally have not theism proper but pantheism. At the least you have 'deism' - a 'God' who is cut off from the rest of the universe, and merely one being within it. They could be more accurately referred to as an 'alien' or strange being.
Problems similar to this arise due to evil, regardless of whether a paragon is posited.
To refer to an 'alien' being as a 'God' by default is 'superstition.' Or to hypostatise hyperbole upon a given being. This is conventionally done, and generally capitalistic Christianity could not escape this fate. We must 'spread the hyperbole' around, and if hyperbole occurs in capital it must also taint our take on a God who collects it. The Christian God is a suicidal God precisely because it is contradicted by the same hyperbole attributed to it, and a society which is contradictory in itself, and hence it is forced to tear itself apart. As an object of religious devotion, or the 'Christian' God, it undermines itself. This must then only be rubber-stamped.
Evil is necessarily noted if what is good is to be determinate. To do something in a particular way is to likewise avoid other things. Further, if God separates himself away from finitude, and is not wholly accountable for it, then finitude is limitation for God - just as evil wards off a benevolent God. Hence, there is truth in the contention of Gnostics and such that the transition from God to finitude hence implies evil. However, it also implies that this God is a 'demiurge' or posits themselves as a false God, one who is not complete.
In the Trinity, a polytheism enters into an often already polytheistic religion. It hence throws up a multitude of at least four deities, with uncertain relations. Hence, in most cases this religion must remain a venomous blur. In a sense, the truth is this: to separate off God from other things is to turn God into a 'normal' being, or in this case a human. However, they are not then 'God' in this sense. A task of some sort, with a theological basis, is posited but not completed. It must be carried through.
What we are contending here is not reducible merely to a 'problem of evil,' although it does involve this category. In a way, problems of 'pain' or rather non-fulfillment lead to a similar result in this context. They nonetheless set the world in dichotomy. We are dealing with this problem in terms of an old conflict involving the nature of Satanic or evil beings, which was also disputed by the Cathars, as well as the nature of a God postulated as a result. This is more theological in orientation.
In order to arrive at a 'divine' person, we cannot hence start from a pseudo-divine being who faces externally things like evil or the finite. Hence, we cannot start from an abstract being. We must rather start from a being who is so divided, and is set apart. Hence, Cathars were often more religiously demanding, because they engaged with this division or noticed it, and hence could accept the demands that religion made upon them as they were. The tendency towards 'immanent eschatology' is also similar at times. There is always something disconcerting about the mention, in a religion which is in any case just loud noises, that the Cathars like Christ were killed. Further, by those proclaiming that they were heretics. Perhaps it will turn out that 'Christ' is summarised and completed in the Cathars, too Christian to belong in Christianity. After them, we may look further.
In general, then, a Satanic being is a problematic postulate, however it only manifests general flaws with such religions. In this, Satan becomes a serious source of concern about these religions, although these concerns are always there. This much we must credit the devil with.
Addendum:
However, if we are to deal with God as hence rendered a separated being, or a human, we must hence also deal with Satan as a separated being. Formulated in this manner, Satan is figured formally as a tempter who directs people to 'evil' via divine statements. However, in using divine diction, how does Satan twist it? They hence become akin to a filter which states 'divine' things, however is then as a result impelled to go to the opposite extreme. This is how Satan is identified, and often also the biblical 'snake.' They are hence a process of vacillation which is strictly but naturally followed. While this may be located in the inversion of 'faith' and hence in the human heart, it is a process natural to and characteristic of this 'Satan.' As a result, this 'Satan' would be at first a 'Christian,' however this only sets up for vacillations. However, to get away from the divine if mentioning it, the Satanic being would have to seek refuge in any available non-divine areas, including cultural outlets. Hence, spider-like it would spread out. However, eventually it would be forced to 'die,' because a spider must have its feet firmly set or it will tie itself up in knots. The more 'legs' it has, the less freely it can vacillate. One must build a 'church' on firm foundations, or it cannot keep going onwards - if it needs to, yet it cannot, then it will tear itself apart or undermine itself. Especially if, like 'Satan,' it is to be substantive. However, in the process a trail of blurring would be left behind by the vacillations. As this vacillation is essentially a display rather than something substantive, they would be a pop cultural or artistic figure. And, indeed, a 'Christian.' The more common rendering of Satan, as simply an 'evil' being who hates God, and is hence divided off from them, is slightly different. They may be related to the end of the pagan religions, and the ensuing 'massacre' of 'gods.' They face the 'divine' in a human form, and attack it. However, in this the 'divinity' might only be perceived. Hence, they are a murderer of apparent 'gods.' Finally, the portrayal of 'Satan' as Lucifer or a 'light-bringer,' while seemingly related to the first, is different. They set out to channel the forces around them to bring about a certain, religious agenda. In doing this, they channel forces opposed to God in a coherent way, not via vacillation. Hence, these archetypes may be seen as also having a certain meaning even without the form of a deity or orthodox religious figure. Hence, they may reflect certain historical concerns.
These may contrast in some way.
Nonetheless, while Satan is in a sense a 'foreign' element by default, or could directly reflect concrete phenomena, a God need not be treated in the same way. In addition, as Satan is closer to an affinity with this division, unless they are too vacillating, they are in a way closer to realising this as an overall complex.
If Satan is an independent being, then what is present is actually polytheism. 'God' comes to merely mean 'good,' rather than a deity.
If Satan is not independent, but a part of God, then evil is also a part of God. Hence, God is also an ultimate evil. This applies whenever Satan, or any such creature, is considered the paragon or representative of evil.
If this applies, you generally have not theism proper but pantheism. At the least you have 'deism' - a 'God' who is cut off from the rest of the universe, and merely one being within it. They could be more accurately referred to as an 'alien' or strange being.
Problems similar to this arise due to evil, regardless of whether a paragon is posited.
To refer to an 'alien' being as a 'God' by default is 'superstition.' Or to hypostatise hyperbole upon a given being. This is conventionally done, and generally capitalistic Christianity could not escape this fate. We must 'spread the hyperbole' around, and if hyperbole occurs in capital it must also taint our take on a God who collects it. The Christian God is a suicidal God precisely because it is contradicted by the same hyperbole attributed to it, and a society which is contradictory in itself, and hence it is forced to tear itself apart. As an object of religious devotion, or the 'Christian' God, it undermines itself. This must then only be rubber-stamped.
Evil is necessarily noted if what is good is to be determinate. To do something in a particular way is to likewise avoid other things. Further, if God separates himself away from finitude, and is not wholly accountable for it, then finitude is limitation for God - just as evil wards off a benevolent God. Hence, there is truth in the contention of Gnostics and such that the transition from God to finitude hence implies evil. However, it also implies that this God is a 'demiurge' or posits themselves as a false God, one who is not complete.
In the Trinity, a polytheism enters into an often already polytheistic religion. It hence throws up a multitude of at least four deities, with uncertain relations. Hence, in most cases this religion must remain a venomous blur. In a sense, the truth is this: to separate off God from other things is to turn God into a 'normal' being, or in this case a human. However, they are not then 'God' in this sense. A task of some sort, with a theological basis, is posited but not completed. It must be carried through.
What we are contending here is not reducible merely to a 'problem of evil,' although it does involve this category. In a way, problems of 'pain' or rather non-fulfillment lead to a similar result in this context. They nonetheless set the world in dichotomy. We are dealing with this problem in terms of an old conflict involving the nature of Satanic or evil beings, which was also disputed by the Cathars, as well as the nature of a God postulated as a result. This is more theological in orientation.
In order to arrive at a 'divine' person, we cannot hence start from a pseudo-divine being who faces externally things like evil or the finite. Hence, we cannot start from an abstract being. We must rather start from a being who is so divided, and is set apart. Hence, Cathars were often more religiously demanding, because they engaged with this division or noticed it, and hence could accept the demands that religion made upon them as they were. The tendency towards 'immanent eschatology' is also similar at times. There is always something disconcerting about the mention, in a religion which is in any case just loud noises, that the Cathars like Christ were killed. Further, by those proclaiming that they were heretics. Perhaps it will turn out that 'Christ' is summarised and completed in the Cathars, too Christian to belong in Christianity. After them, we may look further.
In general, then, a Satanic being is a problematic postulate, however it only manifests general flaws with such religions. In this, Satan becomes a serious source of concern about these religions, although these concerns are always there. This much we must credit the devil with.
Addendum:
However, if we are to deal with God as hence rendered a separated being, or a human, we must hence also deal with Satan as a separated being. Formulated in this manner, Satan is figured formally as a tempter who directs people to 'evil' via divine statements. However, in using divine diction, how does Satan twist it? They hence become akin to a filter which states 'divine' things, however is then as a result impelled to go to the opposite extreme. This is how Satan is identified, and often also the biblical 'snake.' They are hence a process of vacillation which is strictly but naturally followed. While this may be located in the inversion of 'faith' and hence in the human heart, it is a process natural to and characteristic of this 'Satan.' As a result, this 'Satan' would be at first a 'Christian,' however this only sets up for vacillations. However, to get away from the divine if mentioning it, the Satanic being would have to seek refuge in any available non-divine areas, including cultural outlets. Hence, spider-like it would spread out. However, eventually it would be forced to 'die,' because a spider must have its feet firmly set or it will tie itself up in knots. The more 'legs' it has, the less freely it can vacillate. One must build a 'church' on firm foundations, or it cannot keep going onwards - if it needs to, yet it cannot, then it will tear itself apart or undermine itself. Especially if, like 'Satan,' it is to be substantive. However, in the process a trail of blurring would be left behind by the vacillations. As this vacillation is essentially a display rather than something substantive, they would be a pop cultural or artistic figure. And, indeed, a 'Christian.' The more common rendering of Satan, as simply an 'evil' being who hates God, and is hence divided off from them, is slightly different. They may be related to the end of the pagan religions, and the ensuing 'massacre' of 'gods.' They face the 'divine' in a human form, and attack it. However, in this the 'divinity' might only be perceived. Hence, they are a murderer of apparent 'gods.' Finally, the portrayal of 'Satan' as Lucifer or a 'light-bringer,' while seemingly related to the first, is different. They set out to channel the forces around them to bring about a certain, religious agenda. In doing this, they channel forces opposed to God in a coherent way, not via vacillation. Hence, these archetypes may be seen as also having a certain meaning even without the form of a deity or orthodox religious figure. Hence, they may reflect certain historical concerns.
These may contrast in some way.
Nonetheless, while Satan is in a sense a 'foreign' element by default, or could directly reflect concrete phenomena, a God need not be treated in the same way. In addition, as Satan is closer to an affinity with this division, unless they are too vacillating, they are in a way closer to realising this as an overall complex.
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.
Monday, 24 April 2017
Cyborg Lite
Celebrities separate themselves into a separate realm from others, because they are overly 'normal.' Thus is it always with capital. It wishes to separate itself out into a ruling class, but presses others into resentment against these and into attempting to displace them. Where it wishes to posit difference or separation, or even a 'bellum omnium contra omnes,' it instead posits dependence and service to those who should be apart. These struggles do not themselves diverge from the norm in capital, but eventually this self-harming 'love' will tear it apart.
The more people in the West aim for publicity, the more they open themselves to attacks by terrorists or others. These people will often kill themselves after attacking, or use suicide bombing. This leaves few clear ways of preventing it. The very best is to have the supposedly notable celeb or singer constantly dependent on a network of others whom they are only vaguely acquainted with. These are the real 'stars' of the show - the more Westerners stand out, the more they make themselves targets, and then they only go further to court danger. People want to stand out, but they only hide their reliance. People like Christina Grimmie go through many hoops of capital's self-interested struggle, but they run after opportunities to be shot notably. It's like Western society is just a clumsy euthanasia.
To stand out in such a way when you are a walking target, is to stand out only through promotion and fancy lights. There is reliance on a vast network that could either fail or themselves harm you. It is unlikely that people being thrust out as targets and then thrown to the lions would be stable, socially, so there is likely some forgery there. Nonetheless that is their aim and general dynamic, so realistically in a system where all fight each other and forming systems within it is courting their failure, it's a venture only of worth for adrenaline and if your life didn't seem worth conserving in the first place.
Nonetheless, this is ultimately an extension of capital's tendencies if left unchecked. It has to be conceded in any case that for a society of mutual animosity you have many areas which rely on the absence of this. Hence, you have the conventionally 'religious' - those who would stint capital's own tendencies just to help make it functional. This religion is ultimately the worship of the society and people's real ultimate end, capital; nonetheless, it gives this the illusory guise of a transcendent being standing over capital. Capitalism is hence degraded by this piousness, somehow. Yet people have made recourse to figures of capital as a society of 'love' and universal 'collaboration,' that capital itself has no time for.
Against capital you also have a tendency of piousness and unifying sentiment, that would plunge us below capital but is forever limited by its lack of any ability to systematically consider society - or re-configure society on a systematic level. We can see this for instance in events around the British monarchy. Though blunted, these things run rampant. They would turn the whole of society into a collaborating household.
Although piousness fears capitalism, this fear merely serves to promote it and its lasting nature. Piousness ultimately wishes to be done with considering social systems, and instead find a substitute society in the domestic realm - where it can rest and ignore the social system. Capitalism, however, can rarely be strict in preventing tendencies which detract from its organisation, and hence gives way to many things which might seem 'foreign' to it. It distorts these actions, but leaves them in place. At the same time, they will not harm it completely, only leave it in place in an 'alloyed' or peculiar form. This is the extent of 'revolution' allowed by such tendencies. Capitalism is very open to the input and influence of those who would have members of it all 'collaborate' and operate in 'harmony,' who would have 'love' and 'enthusiasm' dampen the conflicts of this society, even as it functions in a quite different way. Hence, it remains hemmed in by these sentimental tendencies, which means that even 'capitalism' demands the establishment of a social control which it cannot provide.
Ultimately, a 'separation' founded on others continually interacting is a counterfeit separation. In this sense, it is symptomatic of capitalism. Looked at from the perspective of difference or distinction, capitalism appears limited and contradictory from the 'abstraction' of commodities onwards. This is the only appropriate perspective from which to criticise capitalism. It is difficult to 'fight' a society which continually abstracts from difference, without a firm insistence on it. Without this, one will instead inevitably be assimilated into it. Still, if it is 'counterfeit' it is because it is stolen from genuine separation and pretends clearly to be the same.
However, it is hence always fending off difference and opposition, because it could easily collapse into this again. Hence, the frequency of 'fads' and 'gimmicks.'
In any case, we are hence going to indignantly follow this with longer, intentionally tangential posts about capitalism - what it is, in what manner it constitutes a social system, etc. Hopefully you enjoy this exciting new direction for ZNS.
The more people in the West aim for publicity, the more they open themselves to attacks by terrorists or others. These people will often kill themselves after attacking, or use suicide bombing. This leaves few clear ways of preventing it. The very best is to have the supposedly notable celeb or singer constantly dependent on a network of others whom they are only vaguely acquainted with. These are the real 'stars' of the show - the more Westerners stand out, the more they make themselves targets, and then they only go further to court danger. People want to stand out, but they only hide their reliance. People like Christina Grimmie go through many hoops of capital's self-interested struggle, but they run after opportunities to be shot notably. It's like Western society is just a clumsy euthanasia.
To stand out in such a way when you are a walking target, is to stand out only through promotion and fancy lights. There is reliance on a vast network that could either fail or themselves harm you. It is unlikely that people being thrust out as targets and then thrown to the lions would be stable, socially, so there is likely some forgery there. Nonetheless that is their aim and general dynamic, so realistically in a system where all fight each other and forming systems within it is courting their failure, it's a venture only of worth for adrenaline and if your life didn't seem worth conserving in the first place.
Nonetheless, this is ultimately an extension of capital's tendencies if left unchecked. It has to be conceded in any case that for a society of mutual animosity you have many areas which rely on the absence of this. Hence, you have the conventionally 'religious' - those who would stint capital's own tendencies just to help make it functional. This religion is ultimately the worship of the society and people's real ultimate end, capital; nonetheless, it gives this the illusory guise of a transcendent being standing over capital. Capitalism is hence degraded by this piousness, somehow. Yet people have made recourse to figures of capital as a society of 'love' and universal 'collaboration,' that capital itself has no time for.
Against capital you also have a tendency of piousness and unifying sentiment, that would plunge us below capital but is forever limited by its lack of any ability to systematically consider society - or re-configure society on a systematic level. We can see this for instance in events around the British monarchy. Though blunted, these things run rampant. They would turn the whole of society into a collaborating household.
Although piousness fears capitalism, this fear merely serves to promote it and its lasting nature. Piousness ultimately wishes to be done with considering social systems, and instead find a substitute society in the domestic realm - where it can rest and ignore the social system. Capitalism, however, can rarely be strict in preventing tendencies which detract from its organisation, and hence gives way to many things which might seem 'foreign' to it. It distorts these actions, but leaves them in place. At the same time, they will not harm it completely, only leave it in place in an 'alloyed' or peculiar form. This is the extent of 'revolution' allowed by such tendencies. Capitalism is very open to the input and influence of those who would have members of it all 'collaborate' and operate in 'harmony,' who would have 'love' and 'enthusiasm' dampen the conflicts of this society, even as it functions in a quite different way. Hence, it remains hemmed in by these sentimental tendencies, which means that even 'capitalism' demands the establishment of a social control which it cannot provide.
Ultimately, a 'separation' founded on others continually interacting is a counterfeit separation. In this sense, it is symptomatic of capitalism. Looked at from the perspective of difference or distinction, capitalism appears limited and contradictory from the 'abstraction' of commodities onwards. This is the only appropriate perspective from which to criticise capitalism. It is difficult to 'fight' a society which continually abstracts from difference, without a firm insistence on it. Without this, one will instead inevitably be assimilated into it. Still, if it is 'counterfeit' it is because it is stolen from genuine separation and pretends clearly to be the same.
However, it is hence always fending off difference and opposition, because it could easily collapse into this again. Hence, the frequency of 'fads' and 'gimmicks.'
In any case, we are hence going to indignantly follow this with longer, intentionally tangential posts about capitalism - what it is, in what manner it constitutes a social system, etc. Hopefully you enjoy this exciting new direction for ZNS.
Thursday, 3 November 2016
Observations on Marx in History: Das Thrace Marx (VI)
VI.
It is often overlooked that Petrarch's characterisation of himself as having been reduced to an 'old tale' amongst the people is strangely reminiscent of, not only the Holocaust which for many was nothing but, a faux-moral sermon in lieu of an event to be described - this was often the feminist viewpoint on Petrarch, as also Kierkegaard -, and also not only Kierkegaard, but also a humorous reflection on his other poetry which is not 'scattered rhymes,' but rather about such as 'Scipio,' and ancient themes, etc., and generally was supposed to be higher reputed. More on this in a following post about Kierkegaard.
Despite which, "Ma ben veggio or sí come al popol tutto favola fui gran tempo," is a fairly unwieldy phrase.
It is often overlooked that Petrarch's characterisation of himself as having been reduced to an 'old tale' amongst the people is strangely reminiscent of, not only the Holocaust which for many was nothing but, a faux-moral sermon in lieu of an event to be described - this was often the feminist viewpoint on Petrarch, as also Kierkegaard -, and also not only Kierkegaard, but also a humorous reflection on his other poetry which is not 'scattered rhymes,' but rather about such as 'Scipio,' and ancient themes, etc., and generally was supposed to be higher reputed. More on this in a following post about Kierkegaard.
Despite which, "Ma ben veggio or sí come al popol tutto favola fui gran tempo," is a fairly unwieldy phrase.
Tuesday, 26 July 2016
Observations on Marx in History: Das Thrace Marx (III)
III.
It has been said that poets shape the world we exist in, perhaps to the point of making it more appealing than it is, somehow, presumably via paganism. The song about favourite things from The Sound of Music is not particularly subtle about what it is, namely that it's a female singing about her favourite things in order to insist that others, including the audience, take this also as their favourite things. This is the general point of the song, and its aesthetic appeal is contingent upon this insistence. Now, this seems like a rather strange concept for a song in the first place, but nonetheless it isn't something which could occur by itself, especially once sexual themes and marriage have been brought up, before it become some sort of strange pornography, and as the character is not assumed to be immune to these but rather associated with them, while on the one hand explaining why the audience might find this impressive (if underwhelming in the end or only preparative to something else.), it also follows that this has to be mediated somehow or it may become vulgar or crude. As a result, it becomes a slightly more complex matter, or the song itself seems to detach from the character who is supposed to sing it - as it might, they are only a character - which also seems to excuse it.
What effect is this song to have on the things themselves? It is presumably meant to figure their stories in some way. As a result, the children and others are presumably supposed to encounter these, and as the song itself is shallow and says little about these objects other than that someone likes them, and expects the others to like them for no reason, they are presumably to have not signified, said, meant or figured anything other than screaming, 'Like me!' over and over again, like a Twitter account or most pages on the internet compared to this post. Try it. This is essentially just imbuing the objects with a ghoul of some sort, which had earlier been inducted by the necessity of a character having to have favourite things which were not hers, with the opening being created prior to this by their both being characterised as familiar with and describing particular aspects of the outside world to be liked despite little experience of them on the other side, and then not explaining this at all, and on the other hand the obvious fact that she is also separated from these in the act or hoping to be back with them, as another musical filled with pop songs said 'Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again,' which in brief cancels out to leave a void. They are hence doing little but pinning ghouls from somewhere - which bane may be called a banshee by some - on random locations and objects as some sort of threat. It must also be noted that in this process the singer becomes as it were a pagan, but in addition as they are merely attempting to substitute for or possess the children of either gender, they are posited as leaving Christianity (and 'strict' Christianity is just Christianity), in order to further their personal life as a transsexual. In that sense, it must be observed that Marx's 'x' in the name is highly important, as with slight modification he becomes a weeping creature crying about their favourite objects, as they are.
However, it is also worth noting that the sense of comfortable numbness, which was merely apparent, about Karl Marx's writing could only occur through a similar process of implanting screaming voices in it touching on talking points, which could not occur from someone who did not like or relate to them, but only from Marxism itself, from which we saw continually a bunch of shouting about certain buzz-words in order to turn the 'objects,' which were simply various terms that happened to reoccur in Marx, into screaming entities which may turn readers off from within the book. This adherence to Marxist terms would seem to anchor them as Marxists, although to be convincing they would also need to pretend to be imbued in this, rather than in some other sphere. Nonetheless, it made them weirdly inclusive about this term, until it couldn't mean much. However, it also implied a sort of threat, as if Marx was screeching constantly about things threatening to people such as communism and demanding that they listen to him about this - which doesn't make a lot of sense. Surely disliking that kind of attention-seeking would be more characteristic of Marx than his opponents, who in truth could not be bothered with coherent statements so much as just appealing to whoever or making appealing sounds or gestures. This is itself misleading, however, or in order to appear serious on any level they were to be taken as caricatures, which is again self-undermining on their part.
It has been said that poets shape the world we exist in, perhaps to the point of making it more appealing than it is, somehow, presumably via paganism. The song about favourite things from The Sound of Music is not particularly subtle about what it is, namely that it's a female singing about her favourite things in order to insist that others, including the audience, take this also as their favourite things. This is the general point of the song, and its aesthetic appeal is contingent upon this insistence. Now, this seems like a rather strange concept for a song in the first place, but nonetheless it isn't something which could occur by itself, especially once sexual themes and marriage have been brought up, before it become some sort of strange pornography, and as the character is not assumed to be immune to these but rather associated with them, while on the one hand explaining why the audience might find this impressive (if underwhelming in the end or only preparative to something else.), it also follows that this has to be mediated somehow or it may become vulgar or crude. As a result, it becomes a slightly more complex matter, or the song itself seems to detach from the character who is supposed to sing it - as it might, they are only a character - which also seems to excuse it.
What effect is this song to have on the things themselves? It is presumably meant to figure their stories in some way. As a result, the children and others are presumably supposed to encounter these, and as the song itself is shallow and says little about these objects other than that someone likes them, and expects the others to like them for no reason, they are presumably to have not signified, said, meant or figured anything other than screaming, 'Like me!' over and over again, like a Twitter account or most pages on the internet compared to this post. Try it. This is essentially just imbuing the objects with a ghoul of some sort, which had earlier been inducted by the necessity of a character having to have favourite things which were not hers, with the opening being created prior to this by their both being characterised as familiar with and describing particular aspects of the outside world to be liked despite little experience of them on the other side, and then not explaining this at all, and on the other hand the obvious fact that she is also separated from these in the act or hoping to be back with them, as another musical filled with pop songs said 'Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again,' which in brief cancels out to leave a void. They are hence doing little but pinning ghouls from somewhere - which bane may be called a banshee by some - on random locations and objects as some sort of threat. It must also be noted that in this process the singer becomes as it were a pagan, but in addition as they are merely attempting to substitute for or possess the children of either gender, they are posited as leaving Christianity (and 'strict' Christianity is just Christianity), in order to further their personal life as a transsexual. In that sense, it must be observed that Marx's 'x' in the name is highly important, as with slight modification he becomes a weeping creature crying about their favourite objects, as they are.
However, it is also worth noting that the sense of comfortable numbness, which was merely apparent, about Karl Marx's writing could only occur through a similar process of implanting screaming voices in it touching on talking points, which could not occur from someone who did not like or relate to them, but only from Marxism itself, from which we saw continually a bunch of shouting about certain buzz-words in order to turn the 'objects,' which were simply various terms that happened to reoccur in Marx, into screaming entities which may turn readers off from within the book. This adherence to Marxist terms would seem to anchor them as Marxists, although to be convincing they would also need to pretend to be imbued in this, rather than in some other sphere. Nonetheless, it made them weirdly inclusive about this term, until it couldn't mean much. However, it also implied a sort of threat, as if Marx was screeching constantly about things threatening to people such as communism and demanding that they listen to him about this - which doesn't make a lot of sense. Surely disliking that kind of attention-seeking would be more characteristic of Marx than his opponents, who in truth could not be bothered with coherent statements so much as just appealing to whoever or making appealing sounds or gestures. This is itself misleading, however, or in order to appear serious on any level they were to be taken as caricatures, which is again self-undermining on their part.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)