spectral light borders the antinomies
some loss will guide us
(thank god for that)
we're coming a part
our sacred heart explodes
shatters into the eyes of our children
and god becomes the dark mirror
of our divided loyalties
implemented like a dog
to hunt down resources
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Friday, November 19, 2010
Thursday, November 18, 2010
jacob's ladder
when you can nail yourself to a cross
then set yourself on fire
it will be my arm that reaches from the smoke
to pull you through
into a dimension which satellites
the scorched earth
in the murdered light
of dimming angels
we are one with the sky
forever
then set yourself on fire
it will be my arm that reaches from the smoke
to pull you through
into a dimension which satellites
the scorched earth
in the murdered light
of dimming angels
we are one with the sky
forever
The Impossibility of Evil
With only the rarest of exceptions, all conquerers come in as liberators, secretly believing that their penetration is deeply desired. They come in thinking that, or that they are punishing evil, and so their act of evil is truly good. Evil against evil. The Devil's Tools, the Devil's House.
The function of evil against evil is to predict and to contain.
The psychiatric industry can no longer be considered the practice of medicine. It is there to augment our prison system. We are controlling our society with drugs, as Huxley predicted, evolving into the dystopias our geniuses feared.
For those of us who can see the forest, this is unacceptable. All sorts of bullshit prejudices can be acted out in the guise of real science, and as we have seen, this has been the case now for two hundred years.
If you consider psychiatry as a technique set, let us first consider the icepick lobotomy. If skull fucking is too strong of a term to describe this, it isn't because it has blown out of proportion the logistics and pragmatics of the act itself.
Any method would be equally as brutal if it caused the same effect. But the quality of the solution is a manifestation of the personality of its progenitor, so the skull fucker comes up with a skull fucker solution.
And Zeus will have his bolts of lightening, zapping the depression out of convulsing victims.
If I mistrust the intentions of the medical community, please forgive me. If you gave a shit about your patients, you would not stick a fucking wire into their eye socket so that you could scramble their brain.
Consider this, would you allow someone to "cure" you like that?
Of course not.
So, to reiterate, it is almost impossible to find a pure case of genuine evil because it is always adorned in the properties of good.
If you find my anger at the psychiatric industry unfathomable, it would largely be because you're stupid. And here in lies the problem. Human beings are too stupid to be in a position where they both have the authority over another person, and the capacity to exercise it in a way that genuinely helps them.
So instead of medicine, you get skull fuckers and torturers. This is, in fact, is my experience of psychiatric medicine. It is a form of psychic rape that is employed by the culture in order to control aberrant behavior.
The function of evil against evil is to predict and to contain.
The psychiatric industry can no longer be considered the practice of medicine. It is there to augment our prison system. We are controlling our society with drugs, as Huxley predicted, evolving into the dystopias our geniuses feared.
For those of us who can see the forest, this is unacceptable. All sorts of bullshit prejudices can be acted out in the guise of real science, and as we have seen, this has been the case now for two hundred years.
If you consider psychiatry as a technique set, let us first consider the icepick lobotomy. If skull fucking is too strong of a term to describe this, it isn't because it has blown out of proportion the logistics and pragmatics of the act itself.
Any method would be equally as brutal if it caused the same effect. But the quality of the solution is a manifestation of the personality of its progenitor, so the skull fucker comes up with a skull fucker solution.
And Zeus will have his bolts of lightening, zapping the depression out of convulsing victims.
If I mistrust the intentions of the medical community, please forgive me. If you gave a shit about your patients, you would not stick a fucking wire into their eye socket so that you could scramble their brain.
Consider this, would you allow someone to "cure" you like that?
Of course not.
So, to reiterate, it is almost impossible to find a pure case of genuine evil because it is always adorned in the properties of good.
If you find my anger at the psychiatric industry unfathomable, it would largely be because you're stupid. And here in lies the problem. Human beings are too stupid to be in a position where they both have the authority over another person, and the capacity to exercise it in a way that genuinely helps them.
So instead of medicine, you get skull fuckers and torturers. This is, in fact, is my experience of psychiatric medicine. It is a form of psychic rape that is employed by the culture in order to control aberrant behavior.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Dimensions as properties
This proof for whatever reason gets into people's heads.
Any adjectival property of an object is a dimension.
Really simple proof.
1. We think of x and y as extensions of length and width.
2. This means that we can translate the noun-al property of dimension into the adjectival property of dimension.
3. Objects "have" dimension
4. Objects in the space are "more than" the space. The space can be described more generally than the objects in the space.
Basically what we want to say is:
When you are talking about a dimension, you are describing a property of an object.
Objects in the space always have "more dimensions" than the space they inhabit. But special exceptions are worth considering. (This may be because our model is wrong, and I'm working on this now).
Nevermind, I think I got it.
The problem with trying to self-contain the a system to an object in the manner which OOO and Speculative Realists seem to want to do, is that the model should always imply it's interiority to the system, in fact it's subordination to the overlapped dimensions, space (length, width, height) and time (past, present, future).
Godel's Incompleteness is enough to imply a regress of incompletions, and so Gunk Theory is still winning. Praise be unto the Transcendental Signified (for now).
Any adjectival property of an object is a dimension.
Really simple proof.
1. We think of x and y as extensions of length and width.
2. This means that we can translate the noun-al property of dimension into the adjectival property of dimension.
3. Objects "have" dimension
4. Objects in the space are "more than" the space. The space can be described more generally than the objects in the space.
Basically what we want to say is:
When you are talking about a dimension, you are describing a property of an object.
Objects in the space always have "more dimensions" than the space they inhabit. But special exceptions are worth considering. (This may be because our model is wrong, and I'm working on this now).
Nevermind, I think I got it.
The problem with trying to self-contain the a system to an object in the manner which OOO and Speculative Realists seem to want to do, is that the model should always imply it's interiority to the system, in fact it's subordination to the overlapped dimensions, space (length, width, height) and time (past, present, future).
Godel's Incompleteness is enough to imply a regress of incompletions, and so Gunk Theory is still winning. Praise be unto the Transcendental Signified (for now).
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Dialectics & The War on Drugs 2
From the drug dealer's perspective legalization is the greatest threat to their industry. It would be tantamount to destroying the underground trade that fuels it. The commerce generated by the drug trade fuels the counter drug trade, the above ground pharmacological drug trade, as well as that law industry, which is an industry that fuels surveillance technology as well as creating numerous government and tax payer funded jobs which only act (like all of us) to ensure their own survival.
From the perspective of both players, the only way to win the game, is to keep the ball in play.
From the perspective of both players, the only way to win the game, is to keep the ball in play.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
black time
we fall
fall into black time
the opening
as a voice
echoing into a vanishing point
that symbolizes facts
that we use to create fictions
and then anti-fictions to cure us of our fictions
we are jugglers of all the noises
we fabricate to drown the noise
and then we lay our eggs where it is darkest
& there is no path
fall into black time
the opening
as a voice
echoing into a vanishing point
that symbolizes facts
that we use to create fictions
and then anti-fictions to cure us of our fictions
we are jugglers of all the noises
we fabricate to drown the noise
and then we lay our eggs where it is darkest
& there is no path
Dialectics & The War on Drugs
"A dialectical presentation, on the other hand, is disturbing, for it requires of its readers a searching and rigorous scrutiny of everything they believe and live by...if the experience of a rhetorical form is flattering, the experience of a Dialectical form is humiliating." [2]
"...rather than distinguishing, it resolves, and in the world [...] the lines of demarcation between places and things, fade in an all-embracing unity..." [3]
"...the dialectical presentation succeeds at its own expense...it becomes the vehicle of its own abandonment."
Stanley Fish "Self-Consuming Artifacts"
The idea then, is that, if we ever win the war on drugs, we will have no more need of our heroes. The war will be won. No more drugs. Anywhere. What need will there be for a DEA, and if these are the rules of the game then wouldn't the DEA win if and only they keep the ball in play indefinitely?
This is the exterminators' paradox. A solution which solves all cases would be a threat to his own survival/livelihood.
"...rather than distinguishing, it resolves, and in the world [...] the lines of demarcation between places and things, fade in an all-embracing unity..." [3]
"...the dialectical presentation succeeds at its own expense...it becomes the vehicle of its own abandonment."
Stanley Fish "Self-Consuming Artifacts"
The idea then, is that, if we ever win the war on drugs, we will have no more need of our heroes. The war will be won. No more drugs. Anywhere. What need will there be for a DEA, and if these are the rules of the game then wouldn't the DEA win if and only they keep the ball in play indefinitely?
This is the exterminators' paradox. A solution which solves all cases would be a threat to his own survival/livelihood.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
De-sensitization
One of the greatest single achievements of lyricism is the album Aenima, written pretty much (I believe) by the lead singer Maynard James Keenan of the band Tool. The bassist, Adam Jones has written and animated most if not all of their videos using innovative time lapse and makeup techniques, having also worked special effects on several large scale, high budget, special effects intensive movies such as the Abyss, and some other stuff, I can't recall.
Now, Derrida in Dissemination compares writing to a drug and the act of reading being metaphorically similar to ingestion, and the result being psychotropic delirium (with any luck).
Now, sans interpretation, Tool does an exceptional job delivering this motif in the video Stinkfist.
Now that you've had time to soak that up and let it digest for a second, take a time to think about the violence of the imagery, the uniformity of color, the incapacity to maintain physical integrity. The sucking of characters on machines, the relationship of the characters to the machines, the *dependency* of the characters on the machines.
We're drawing a comparison between drugs and something else that is necessarily drug-like, and our relationship to it is no less than a power struggle thats ends with one of us being utterly reduced to the other.
Maynard, like most prophets wants to scare us and inspire us and songs of this nature can often tell us as much about the human condition, the post-human condition, and hyper-realism as the aesthetic impulse of both, as our favorite works of science fiction and experimental forms of expression.
Here the desire to feel anything at all costs because we are constantly being inundated by hyperbolic images of a consumer culture that is trying to sell us ideal states in the form of packaged products is being criticized with a really well designed and packaged products.
All I can really say about that is, I'm sure glad that I live in a culture that produces such products... That's good stuff.
Now, Derrida in Dissemination compares writing to a drug and the act of reading being metaphorically similar to ingestion, and the result being psychotropic delirium (with any luck).
Now, sans interpretation, Tool does an exceptional job delivering this motif in the video Stinkfist.
Now that you've had time to soak that up and let it digest for a second, take a time to think about the violence of the imagery, the uniformity of color, the incapacity to maintain physical integrity. The sucking of characters on machines, the relationship of the characters to the machines, the *dependency* of the characters on the machines.
We're drawing a comparison between drugs and something else that is necessarily drug-like, and our relationship to it is no less than a power struggle thats ends with one of us being utterly reduced to the other.
Maynard, like most prophets wants to scare us and inspire us and songs of this nature can often tell us as much about the human condition, the post-human condition, and hyper-realism as the aesthetic impulse of both, as our favorite works of science fiction and experimental forms of expression.
Here the desire to feel anything at all costs because we are constantly being inundated by hyperbolic images of a consumer culture that is trying to sell us ideal states in the form of packaged products is being criticized with a really well designed and packaged products.
All I can really say about that is, I'm sure glad that I live in a culture that produces such products... That's good stuff.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Anonymous in Australia
Somebody in Australia was searching for the answer to the following question:
"How does the media drenched world we live in impact on hyper-reality?"
Firstly, hyper-reality, or hyper-realism began as an artform in which the creative impulse was to mimic exactly some object in a work of art. The closer it is to being indiscernible from that object, the greater the achievement of the artist. While such art does not reject art itself, it does reject:
#1. Artifice
#2. The Artist
Here, the artist's insight into the nature or meaning of the object are considered bunk, bullshit, at best, something added atop a purity, in a sense contaminating it.
The term "hyper" means over, above, super, it's associations are numerous. Again, hyper-media, hyper-realism.
Forget that for a second. We live in an age where we are inundated with information, and perspectives of all sorts are seemingly always at war with each other. We read books on health and we read five years later some new book which refutes the old book and we've been taking this advice for the last five years and now our heart is in danger.
We want there to be as little perspective, as little authorial intrusion, as little evidence that it was made by a person as humanly possible.
We come to mistrust perspective because it's a dime a dozen and constantly in a state of refuting itself. You don't know what to believe, and most of us are ill qualified to determine the qaulity of the arguments we hear on TV and the newspapers.
Thus the popularity of reality TV.
I hope this answers your question.
"How does the media drenched world we live in impact on hyper-reality?"
Firstly, hyper-reality, or hyper-realism began as an artform in which the creative impulse was to mimic exactly some object in a work of art. The closer it is to being indiscernible from that object, the greater the achievement of the artist. While such art does not reject art itself, it does reject:
#1. Artifice
#2. The Artist
Here, the artist's insight into the nature or meaning of the object are considered bunk, bullshit, at best, something added atop a purity, in a sense contaminating it.
The term "hyper" means over, above, super, it's associations are numerous. Again, hyper-media, hyper-realism.
Forget that for a second. We live in an age where we are inundated with information, and perspectives of all sorts are seemingly always at war with each other. We read books on health and we read five years later some new book which refutes the old book and we've been taking this advice for the last five years and now our heart is in danger.
We want there to be as little perspective, as little authorial intrusion, as little evidence that it was made by a person as humanly possible.
We come to mistrust perspective because it's a dime a dozen and constantly in a state of refuting itself. You don't know what to believe, and most of us are ill qualified to determine the qaulity of the arguments we hear on TV and the newspapers.
Thus the popularity of reality TV.
I hope this answers your question.
Monday, November 8, 2010
At any rate...
I realized, reflecting back on my musings that I use the term "At any rate" an awful lot, often awkwardly and without reason.
In a post-relativity world we aren't really at ease speaking of rules that apply independently of the velocity of a traveling thing.
The search for a "rate independent rule" is not the same as "rule which considers rate", in fact, most of the rules I work with do consider rate. So why must I repeat this awful phrase as if by reflex?
It "jogs." It "jogs" the mechanism by which I am generating this very sentence, like a key in an ignition.
At any rate, it's a crappy phrase and I think I can do anyway with it. From now on I will swap out some new "jogging" phrase for the old "at any rate."
It'll be an experiment. We'll see how it goes.
In a post-relativity world we aren't really at ease speaking of rules that apply independently of the velocity of a traveling thing.
The search for a "rate independent rule" is not the same as "rule which considers rate", in fact, most of the rules I work with do consider rate. So why must I repeat this awful phrase as if by reflex?
It "jogs." It "jogs" the mechanism by which I am generating this very sentence, like a key in an ignition.
At any rate, it's a crappy phrase and I think I can do anyway with it. From now on I will swap out some new "jogging" phrase for the old "at any rate."
It'll be an experiment. We'll see how it goes.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
The Number
Every number, expressible and inexpressible sits upon a template for organizing the numberness of the number. We call this template a base. The base of a number is a power series which escalates to infinity in one dimension, (it's post decimal dimension), and toward zero in the other pre-decimal dimension.
Here we have a vector going in either direction, toward infinity, and toward zero. For instance, base 10 mathematics uses 10 as its base and thus everything is power of 10. Behold:
116,651 = 1*10^5 + 1*10^4 + 6*10^3 + 6*10^2 + 5*10^1 + 1*10^0
Now if we wanted to add .1234 to this number our power series would extend like so:
1*10^-1 + 2*10^-2 + 3*10^-3 + 4*10^-4.
Now, when we represent the number, we only consider the segment between the highest and the lowest place value, where 1^10^0 would always be considered the origin of both vectors. So, when you are seeing a number, you are always only seeing part of an infinite series which is lit up between extremes.
~~~
Now in Base-2, or Binary, the same rules hold true as in base 10, except that everything is a power of 2.
So instead of the chain extending like this:
1,10,100,1000,10000 ...
It extends like this:
1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512,1024,2048 ...
&
.5, .25, .125., .0625, ...
~~~
Our Base 10 system of representations is not without its paradoxes. Behold:
1/3 = .333333...
1/3 = .333333...
1/3 = .333333...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3/3 = .999999... = 1
In such an instance the bare bones of our structure to contain the Number is laid bare, extending infinitely toward 9*10^-INF which is also Zero. So, even with an eternity to work with, we can never finish the task of writing this number.
~~~
What is the Point?
Well, just that the number seems to be describing the relationship of one thing to another in a very specific sequence, where the sequence conveys a large part of what the representation refers to.
Suffice it to say, when we introduce the concept of number it's a how much/how many indication. Each number occupies one infinitessimal point on a line known as the "real number line". The end points (which do not fall on the line) are INFINITY and -INFINITY.
The number is a point. A geometric object which describes itself only in relation to other objects and as part of some system.
Really, an odd thing to contemplate.
*Scratches head*
I will drink more coffee.
Here we have a vector going in either direction, toward infinity, and toward zero. For instance, base 10 mathematics uses 10 as its base and thus everything is power of 10. Behold:
116,651 = 1*10^5 + 1*10^4 + 6*10^3 + 6*10^2 + 5*10^1 + 1*10^0
Now if we wanted to add .1234 to this number our power series would extend like so:
1*10^-1 + 2*10^-2 + 3*10^-3 + 4*10^-4.
Now, when we represent the number, we only consider the segment between the highest and the lowest place value, where 1^10^0 would always be considered the origin of both vectors. So, when you are seeing a number, you are always only seeing part of an infinite series which is lit up between extremes.
~~~
Now in Base-2, or Binary, the same rules hold true as in base 10, except that everything is a power of 2.
So instead of the chain extending like this:
1,10,100,1000,10000 ...
It extends like this:
1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512,1024,2048 ...
&
.5, .25, .125., .0625, ...
~~~
Our Base 10 system of representations is not without its paradoxes. Behold:
1/3 = .333333...
1/3 = .333333...
1/3 = .333333...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3/3 = .999999... = 1
In such an instance the bare bones of our structure to contain the Number is laid bare, extending infinitely toward 9*10^-INF which is also Zero. So, even with an eternity to work with, we can never finish the task of writing this number.
~~~
What is the Point?
Well, just that the number seems to be describing the relationship of one thing to another in a very specific sequence, where the sequence conveys a large part of what the representation refers to.
Suffice it to say, when we introduce the concept of number it's a how much/how many indication. Each number occupies one infinitessimal point on a line known as the "real number line". The end points (which do not fall on the line) are INFINITY and -INFINITY.
The number is a point. A geometric object which describes itself only in relation to other objects and as part of some system.
Really, an odd thing to contemplate.
*Scratches head*
I will drink more coffee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)