mardi 22 août 2017

Jean-Paul Goude
Mao bathing in Yangtze River with rubber ducky 1972
John Heartfield - “The Cross was not yet heavy enough”  
the founding of the German state church 1930s

Robert Crumb - “People… Ya Gotta Love ‘em!” 
Weirdo No. 26, 1989
sears 1968

dimanche 20 août 2017

Getting rid of a delusion makes us wiser than getting hold of a truth

1963


Gottfried Helnwein  - L.A. Confidential (Cops II) / 2000

How to leave the Planet

1. Phone Nasa. Their phone number is (713) 483-3111. Explain that it’s very important that you get away as soon as possible.

2. If they do not cooperate, phone any friend you may have in the White House—(202) 456-1414—to have a word on your behalf with the guys at NASA. 

3. If you don’t have any friends in the White House, phone the Kremlin (ask the overseas operator for 0107-095-295-9051). They don’t have any friends there either (at least, none to speak of-, but they do seem to have a little influence, so you may as well try.

4. If that also fails, phone the Pope for guidance. His telephone number is 011-39-6-6982, and I gather his switchboard is infallible.

5. If all these attempts fail, flag down a passing flying saucer and explain that it’s vitally important you get away before your phone bill arrives.

Douglas Adams






Wild and Wicked Pre-Gentrified New York City in the1970s
Arlene Gottfried



Ideologies are harmless, uncritical, and arbitrary opinions only as long as they are not believed in seriously. Once their claim to total validity is taken literally they become the nuclei of logical systems in which, as in the systems of paranoiacs, everything follows comprehensibly and even compulsorily once the first premise is accepted. The insanity of such systems lies not only in their first premise but in the very logicality with which they are constructed. The curious logicality of all isms, their simple-minded trust in the salvation value of stubborn devotion without regard for specific, varying factors, already harbors the first germs of totalitarian contempt for reality and factuality.

The Origins of Totalitarianism
William Burroughs 1953


samedi 19 août 2017

Fluxshop inventory with Dorothea Meijer, seated, in the home of the artist, Amsterdam, winter 1964—65.
Photographed by Wim van der Linden

Inflammatory Essays', Jenny Holzer, 1979-82

Those who thought they were attacking the system: the radicals, the artists, the musicians, and our entire counter-culture actually became part of the trickery. Because they too retreated into the make-believe world – which is why their opposition has no effect.

HyperNormalisation 
Adam Curtis
Déclaration d’indépendance du Cyberespace

Seule l’erreur a besoin du soutien du gouvernement. La vérité peut se débrouiller toute seule. 
—Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia

Gouvernements du monde industriel, vous géants fatigués de chair et d’acier, je viens du Cyberespace, le nouveau domicile de l’esprit. Au nom du futur, je vous demande à vous du passé de nous laisser tranquilles. Vous n’êtes pas les bienvenus parmi nous. Vous n’avez pas de souveraineté où nous nous rassemblons.

Nous n’avons pas de gouvernement élu, et il est improbable que nous en ayons un jour, aussi je ne m’adresse à vous avec aucune autre autorité que celle avec laquelle la liberté s’exprime. Je déclare l’espace social global que nous construisons naturellement indépendant des tyrannies que vous cherchez à nous imposer. Vous n’avez aucun droit moral de dicter chez nous votre loi et vous ne possédez aucun moyen de nous contraindre que nous ayons à redouter.

Les gouvernements tiennent leur juste pouvoir du consentement de ceux qu’ils gouvernent. Vous n’avez ni sollicité ni reçu le nôtre. Nous ne vous avons pas invités. Vous ne nous connaissez pas, et vous ne connaissez pas notre monde. Le Cyberespace ne se situe pas dans vos frontières. Ne pensez pas que vous pouvez le construire, comme si c’était un projet de construction publique. Vous ne le pouvez pas. C’est un produit naturel, et il croît par notre action collective.

Vous n’avez pas participé à notre grande conversation, vous n’avez pas non plus créé la richesse de notre marché. Vous ne connaissez pas notre culture, notre éthique, ni les règles tacites qui suscitent plus d’ordre que ce qui pourrait être obtenu par aucune de vos ingérences.

Vous prétendez qu’il y a chez nous des problèmes que vous devez résoudre. Vous utilisez ce prétexte pour envahir notre enceinte. Beaucoup de ces problèmes n’existent pas. Où il y a des conflits réels, où des dommages sont injustement causés, nous les identifierons et les traiterons avec nos propres moyens. Nous sommes en train de former notre propre Contrat Social. Cette manière de gouverner émergera selon les conditions de notre monde, pas du vôtre. Notre monde est différent.

Le Cyberespace est fait de transactions, de relations, et de la pensée elle-même, formant comme une onde stationnaire dans la toile de nos communications. Notre monde est à la fois partout et nulle part, mais il n’est pas où vivent les corps.

Nous sommes en train de créer un monde où tous peuvent entrer sans privilège et sans être victimes de préjugés découlant de la race, du pouvoir économique, de la force militaire ou de la naissance.

Nous sommes en train de créer un monde où n’importe qui, n’importe où, peut exprimer ses croyances, aussi singulières qu’elles soient, sans peur d’être réduit au silence ou à la conformité.

Vos concepts légaux de propriété, d’expression, d’identité, de mouvement, de contexte, ne s’appliquent pas à nous. Ils sont basés sur la matière, et il n’y a pas ici de matière.

Nos identités n’ont pas de corps, c’est pourquoi, contrairement à ce qui se passe chez vous, il ne peut pas, chez nous, y avoir d’ordre accompagné de contrainte physique. Nous croyons que c’est de l’éthique, de la défense éclairée de l’intérêt propre et de l’intérêt commun, que notre ordre émergera. Nos identités peuvent être distribuées à travers beaucoup de vos juridictions. La seule loi que toute nos cultures constituantes pourraient reconnaître généralement est la règle d’or [« Ne fais pas aux autres ce que tu n’aimerais pas qu’ils te fassent », NdT]. Nous espérons pouvoir bâtir nos solutions particulières sur cette base. Mais nous ne pouvons pas accepter les solutions que vous tentez de nous imposer.

Aux Etats-Unis, vous avez aujourd’hui créé une loi, le Telecommunications Reform Act, qui répudie votre propre Constitution et insulte les rêves de Jefferson, Washington, Mill, Madison, Tocqueville et Brandeis. Ces rêves doivent maintenant renaître en nous.

Vous êtes terrifiés par vos propres enfants, parce qu’ils sont natifs dans un monde où vous serez toujours des immigrants. Parce que vous les craignez, vous confiez à vos bureaucraties les responsabilités de parents auxquelles vous êtes trop lâches pour faire face. Dans notre monde, tous les sentiments et expressions d’humanité, dégradants ou angéliques, font partie d’un monde unique, sans discontinuité, d’une conversation globale de bits. Nous ne pouvons pas séparer l’air qui étouffe de l’air où battent les ailes.

En Chine, en Allemagne, en France, à Singapour, en Italie et aux Etats-Unis, vous essayez de confiner le virus de la liberté en érigeant des postes de garde aux frontières du Cyberespace. Il se peut que ceux-ci contiennent la contagion quelque temps, mais ils ne fonctionneront pas dans un monde qui sera bientôt couvert de médias numériques.

Vos industries de plus en plus obsolètes se perpétueraient en proposant des lois, en Amérique et ailleurs, qui prétendent décider de la parole elle-même dans le monde entier… Ces lois déclareraient que les idées sont un produit industriel comme un autre, pas plus noble que de la fonte brute… Dans notre monde, quoi que l’esprit humain crée peut être reproduit et distribué à l’infini pour un coût nul. L’acheminement global de la pensée n’a plus besoin de vos usines.

Ces mesures de plus en plus hostiles et coloniales nous placent dans la même situation que ces amoureux de la liberté et de l’autodétermination qui durent rejeter les autorités de pouvoirs éloignés et mal informés. Nous devons déclarer nos personnalités virtuelles exemptes de votre souveraineté, même lorsque nous continuons à accepter votre loi pour ce qui est de notre corps. Nous nous répandrons à travers la planète de façon à ce que personne puisse stopper nos pensées.

Nous créerons une civilisation de l’esprit dans le Cyberespace. Puisse-t-elle être plus humaine et plus juste que le monde issu de vos gouvernements.

Davos, Suisse 
8 février 1996
It’s a far more amusing arrangement for nature to continue the process of life through different individuals then it is always with the same individual, because as each new individual approaches life is renewed. And one remembers how fascinating the most ordinary everyday things are to a child, because they see them all as marvelous – because they see them all in a way that is not related to survival and profit.

When we get to thinking of everything in terms of survival and profit value, as we do, then the shapes of scratches on the floor cease to have magic. And most things, in fact, cease to have magic.

So therefore, in the course of nature, once we have ceased to see magic in the world anymore, we are no longer fulfilling nature’s game of being aware of it.

There’s no point in it any longer. And so we die. And, so something else comes to birth, which gets an entirely new view.

It is not, therefore, natural for us to wish to prolong life indefinitely. But we live in a culture where it has been rubbed into us in every conceivable way that to die is a terrible thing. And that is a tremendous disease from which our culture, in particular, suffers.

In this regressive atmosphere, as David Berreby puts it, writing in The Sciences, “Americans have a standard playbook for creating a political-cultural identity. You start with the conviction that being a member of your group is a distinct experience, separating you from people who are not in it (even close friends and relatives) and uniting you with other members of the group (even if you have never met them). Second, you assume that your own personal struggles and humiliations and triumphs in wrestling with your trait are a version of the struggles of the group in society. The personal is political. Third, you maintain that your group has interests that are being neglected or acted against, and so it must take action—changing how the group is seen by those outside it, for instance.” 
It’s not that such action is bad. It’s just that, taken in and by itself, it is alienating and fragmenting, a type of pathological pluralism that astonishingly believes that acceptance of my group can be accomplished by aggressively blaming and condemning exactly the group from which I seek the acceptance. 
True pluralism, on the other hand, is always universal pluralism (or integral-aperspectival): you start with the commonalities and deep structures that unite human beings—we all suffer and triumph, laugh and cry, feel pleasure and pain, wonder and remorse; we all have the capacity to form images, symbols, concepts, and rules; we all have 208 bones, two kidneys, and one heart; we are all open to a Divine Ground, by whatever name. And then you add all the wonderful differences, surface structures, culturally constructed variants, and so on, that make various groups—and various individuals—all different, special, and unique. But if you start with the differences and the pluralism, and never make it to the universal, then you have only the aperspectival, not also the integral—you have, that is, pathological pluralism, aperspectival madness, ethnocentric revivals, regressive catastrophes. 
Of course it is fine to highlight any group that you feel is important. But it’s becoming impossible to define that group as “oppressed,” because now every group claims to be oppressed, and none admit they are oppressors. White males used to be the bad guys, but now even they have caught the fever. White males are no longer a single group that can be blamed for oppression, because most of them now claim to belong to an oppressed or marginalized group themselves: they are drug addicts, physically handicapped, alcoholics, were sexually abused as a child, victims of an absent father, abducted by aliens, or turned into “success objects” by women. They can’t oppress anybody because they are too busy being oppressed themselves

Ken Wilber
One Taste

Käthe Kollwitz
When we align our thoughts, emotions, and actions with the highest part of ourselves, we are filled with enthusiasm, purpose and meaning. Life is rich and full. We have no thoughts of bitterness. We have no memory of fear. We are joyously and intimately engaged with our world. This is the experience of authentic power.

Gary Zukav
the other church
Masashi Kohara

richard pousette-dart


Oskar Garvens (1874-1951) cover, ‘Die Antwort’ (The Answer),
 “Kladderadatsch”, #12, March 1927

Émile Joachim Constant Puyo - Vengeance (1896).

vendredi 18 août 2017

The best things can’t be told, because they transcend thought. The second best are misunderstood because those are the thoughts that are supposed to refer to that which can’t be thought about, and one gets stuck in the thoughts. The third best are what we talk about.


Heinrich Zimmer
Since most humans are still controlled by fairly robotic reflexes, the bad energy of the past far outweighs the good, and the tendency of the [Karmic] wheel is to keep moving in the same terrible direction, violence breeding more violence, hatred breeding more hatred, war breeding more war. The only way to "stop the wheel” is to stop it inside yourself, by giving up bad energy and concentrating on the positive. This is by no means easy, but once you understand what Gurdjieff called “the horror of our situation,” you have no choice but to try, and to keep on trying.

Robert Anton Wilson
Yurakucho Station, Tokyo, 1965
Yutaka Takanashi

mercredi 16 août 2017


And therefore, all of those for whom authentic transformation has deeply unseated their souls must, I believe, wrestle with the profound moral obligation to shout from the heart—perhaps quietly and gently, with tears of reluctance; perhaps with fierce fire and angry wisdom; perhaps with slow and careful analysis; perhaps by unshakable public example—but authenticity always and absolutely carries a demand and duty: you must speak out, to the best of your ability, and shake the spiritual tree, and shine your headlights into the eyes of the complacent. You must let that radical realization rumble through your veins and rattle those around you. 
Alas, if you fail to do so, you are betraying your own authenticity. You are hiding your true estate. You don’t want to upset others because you don’t want to upset your self. You are acting in bad faith, the taste of a bad infinity. 
Because, you see, the alarming fact is that any realization of depth carries a terrible burden: Those who are allowed to see are simultaneously saddled with the obligation to communicate that vision in no uncertain terms: that is the bargain. You were allowed to see the truth under the agreement that you would communicate it to others (that is the ultimate meaning of the bodhisattva vow). And therefore, if  you have seen, you simply must speak out. Speak out with compassion, or speak out with angry wisdom, or speak out with skillful means, but speak out you must. 
And this is truly a terrible burden, a horrible burden, because in any case there is no room for timidity. The fact that you might be wrong is simply no excuse: You might be right in your communication, and you might be wrong, but that doesn’t matter. What does matter, as Kierkegaard so rudely reminded us, is that only by investing and speaking your vision with passion, can the truth, one way or another, finally penetrate the reluctance of the world. If you are right, or if you are wrong, it is only your passion that will force either to be discovered. It is your duty to promote that discovery—either way—and therefore it is your duty to speak your truth with whatever passion and courage you can find in your heart. You must shout, in whatever way you can. 
The vulgar world is already shouting, and with such a raucous rancor that truer voices can scarcely be heard at all. The materialistic world is already full of advertisements and allure, screams of enticement and cries of commerce, wails of welcome and whoops of come hither. I don’t mean to be harsh here, and we must honor all lesser engagements. Nonetheless, you must have noticed that the word “soul” is now the hottest item in the title of book sales—but all “soul” really means, in most of these books, is simply the ego in drag. “Soul” has come to denote, in this feeding frenzy of translative grasping, not that which is timeless in you but that which most loudly thrashes around in time, and thus “care of the soul” incomprehensibly means nothing much more than focusing intensely on your ardently separate self. Likewise, “spiritual” is on everybody’s lips, but usually all it really means is any intense egoic feeling, just as “heart” has come to mean any sincere sentiment of the self-contraction. All of this, truly, is just the same ole translative game, dressed up and gone to town. And even that would be more than acceptable were it not for the alarming fact that all of that translative jockeying is aggressively called “transformation,” when all it is, of course, is a new series of frisky translations. In other words, there seems to be, alas, a deep hypocrisy hidden in the game of taking any new translation and calling it the great transformation. And the world at large—East or West, North or South—is, and always has been, for the most part, perfectly deaf to this calamity. And so: given the measure of your own authentic realization, you were actually thinking about gently whispering into the ear of that near-deaf world? No, my friend, you must shout. Shout from the heart of what you have seen, shout however you can.

Ken Wilber, One Taste
coin Beaubien, 1963

dimanche 13 août 2017