there is a heightened interest in wealth, luxury, money lately, in western society and worldwide. material wealth seems to be one of the main things people put their focus on in life now. but i think there is more to this. people do not crave money and luxury just for pleasure or short-lived happiness. surely, a lot of people enjoy the "nice things" they can buy for money. but, as i said, there is more. there is a certain way in which luxury, in which "the life of the rich and the famous" is portrayed in society and by the media. it is almost religious. luxury spells salvation. being rich spells salvation. it is worshipped as something that would give pure bliss. the rich are portrayed as if they would live in a completely different world from the ordinary people. free from sorrow, free from pain, free from the contraints of everyday live. free to do what they want, to do as they please - they're rich, after all, and can seemingly do all the things "money can buy".
this is why people admire the rich, and strive to be rich. they want to break free from being chained to the everyday routine most people have. and it is understandably so. is not "ordinary" live, to a large part, for many people, filled with problems, painful tasks, and above all, an all-penetrating dullness? at least, by many, it is felt this way. and even if ones life is not based on pain - if it's enjoyable - is it not logical, to crave for a even more joyful, blissful life, with more activity, passion, possibilites, that is inherently different to everyday experiences?
the rich are portrayed as the only ones who are not submitted to the dullness and lack of meaning of "everyday life".
but this is based on an error in thought. it is a misconception.
because you can not find true happiness in money, or being rich, or all the adventures money can bring. you can not find true meaning in that.
real happiness is found, if you use your abilites to help others. to fight for a better world. to bring about social change and justice.
if you try to make a change for the better, only then, real, deep joy could be experienced in your life. if you quench the thirst of those who suffer, if you find a way to help people, to help this world.
this is the real wealth. the true wealth. the wealth of your emotions.
you will be trapped in the mind-dulling experience of everyday life until you realize this and act according to this.
only this way you can experience true joy. and be true to yourself.
Artists, Outcasts and Society
there is a thought expressed by many artists of the last centuries, the thought of being solitary, in their actions and thoughts, completely alone - understand by noone. some artists expressed these thoughts more direct, some indirect, some stronger, some more reluctant. but it can be found in many words and statements. similiar, a lot of humans have felt, or expessed, similiar emotions. but what is this "unbridgable chasm" so many people - yet so few, compared to the masses - have experienced? how can an artist that is celebrated by - literally - millions of people still feel lonely?
it's easy to explain. art deals with ideas. thoughts, concepts. imagination, dreams, creativity. philosophy, reflection. and this is simply an impossibility for almost any living human being on planet earth. the general people are interested in direct, tangible, "down to earth" things, as they call it. cars. money. luxury. rising in social esteem. they can easily understood that a man uses up a lot of his energy to gain a tangible thing such as money. but they can never understood how someone could use up his "precious" time for something that is as abstract as art. it's not something they can directly touch. hold in their hands. so they don't understand it.
adults might be worried that a teenage girl spends time in her room alone drawing pictures. yet they would accept it if she went out to the world, got a job and bought things from this. hell, they even prefered it if she just went out (even without enough money) and looked at clothing and shoes, like other girls do. because this is something tangible. money, shoes, clothing you can touch. hold in your hands. art you cannot. well you can hold a picture; but this is just the paper you are holding; the artworks itself you cannot hold (as it could be on any medium). this is because art is, as i said, is related to thoughts, ideas, concepts.
now it is not as it would be impossible for the majority to hold ideas, or to be creative themselves. but there is one thing, that completely makes artists and a lot of other outcasts different from all other people. which is, that they - directly or indirectly, unconsciously or consciously - realize that ideas and thoughts can be important by themselves. that they can be worthy, wonderful, fantastic, great, marvelous - just as thoughts and ideas. this is the difference to the general man. a man might follow and pursue an idea too - if in the end he can again gain something tangible from it. a worker's strike is an idea too - a social and political idea. men might follow this idea and go on a strike, if they think they can get a rise in their pay by this. this money is something tangible again, that they can hold in their hands. but - at least in this day and age - a strike that is just for social justice, or peace, or another concept like this, would be rare[1]. because these again are mere ideas - not something tangible such as money - and people do not realize their worth. if people would be convinced a social or political action would never have a tangible or direct outcome, they would not pursue it - not for the idea alone. and this is the error and the mistake. for it is worth to do a vast numbers of things just for an idea. and this is the difference to the artist. plenty of artists not only - at first - did not gain and material, tangible thing from their art, they even sacrificed a lot of these things - money, belongings, sometimes even more than that - to be able to do their art. because they realize that the art itself - the idea of art, the ideas associated with their art - is worth a huge number of things. they don't *need* a material gain out of their art - because the art - it's ideas - on their own are already vastly pleasurably, great, wonderful, satisfying, important. this is something the "common" man can never understand. how can be an idea - on it's own - already be so important? so gratifying? so exciting? sure, they too, value ideas. the idea of a goverment, of capitalism maybe. but these are ideas that are - for them - tied into tangible and material things. they cannot see the value of an idea that is merely abstract.
an idea does not have to be tied in to something direct, tangible, to be worthy. it can be worthy pursuing, even if it is merely an idea, abstract, a theory - without ever having any "real" effect, even if forever it stays just an idea, an abstraction. the beauty, concept and pursuit of art irrefutably prove this.
mabye one in a million ever makes this realization in their lifes. this explains the felt loneliness by the artists. as they already deal in ideas and realize their beauty. an artist could have plenty of fans, who think he, and his art, are more important than anything else in this world, and would do anything for him and his art - yet they are still billions of miles removed from him, do not understand one single thing. because they do not realize what exactly makes his art so important - the pursuit of ideas. it remains forever a mystery to them.
a similar emotion is felt by social outcasts, who too follow ideas. they might follow the ideas of a better society, of political, or cultural change - or even more abstract ideas and insights. this is what the others do not get about them. 'how come you follow an "idea"?', 'why don't you go out and have a good time' and other calls for them to focus on something more tangible. the others, again, do not realize how someone could follow, and dedicate a part of his life, to a mere idea - an idea that stays abstract, ideal.
but ideas can be more important than most things in this world.
footnotes:
[1]: in the past, worker's strikes for solidarity, or social progress itself - abstract ideas - actually did take place. i assume this is because in the past ideas were still valued more by people. how this ties in to this text would be too long to write down for this text.
it's easy to explain. art deals with ideas. thoughts, concepts. imagination, dreams, creativity. philosophy, reflection. and this is simply an impossibility for almost any living human being on planet earth. the general people are interested in direct, tangible, "down to earth" things, as they call it. cars. money. luxury. rising in social esteem. they can easily understood that a man uses up a lot of his energy to gain a tangible thing such as money. but they can never understood how someone could use up his "precious" time for something that is as abstract as art. it's not something they can directly touch. hold in their hands. so they don't understand it.
adults might be worried that a teenage girl spends time in her room alone drawing pictures. yet they would accept it if she went out to the world, got a job and bought things from this. hell, they even prefered it if she just went out (even without enough money) and looked at clothing and shoes, like other girls do. because this is something tangible. money, shoes, clothing you can touch. hold in your hands. art you cannot. well you can hold a picture; but this is just the paper you are holding; the artworks itself you cannot hold (as it could be on any medium). this is because art is, as i said, is related to thoughts, ideas, concepts.
now it is not as it would be impossible for the majority to hold ideas, or to be creative themselves. but there is one thing, that completely makes artists and a lot of other outcasts different from all other people. which is, that they - directly or indirectly, unconsciously or consciously - realize that ideas and thoughts can be important by themselves. that they can be worthy, wonderful, fantastic, great, marvelous - just as thoughts and ideas. this is the difference to the general man. a man might follow and pursue an idea too - if in the end he can again gain something tangible from it. a worker's strike is an idea too - a social and political idea. men might follow this idea and go on a strike, if they think they can get a rise in their pay by this. this money is something tangible again, that they can hold in their hands. but - at least in this day and age - a strike that is just for social justice, or peace, or another concept like this, would be rare[1]. because these again are mere ideas - not something tangible such as money - and people do not realize their worth. if people would be convinced a social or political action would never have a tangible or direct outcome, they would not pursue it - not for the idea alone. and this is the error and the mistake. for it is worth to do a vast numbers of things just for an idea. and this is the difference to the artist. plenty of artists not only - at first - did not gain and material, tangible thing from their art, they even sacrificed a lot of these things - money, belongings, sometimes even more than that - to be able to do their art. because they realize that the art itself - the idea of art, the ideas associated with their art - is worth a huge number of things. they don't *need* a material gain out of their art - because the art - it's ideas - on their own are already vastly pleasurably, great, wonderful, satisfying, important. this is something the "common" man can never understand. how can be an idea - on it's own - already be so important? so gratifying? so exciting? sure, they too, value ideas. the idea of a goverment, of capitalism maybe. but these are ideas that are - for them - tied into tangible and material things. they cannot see the value of an idea that is merely abstract.
an idea does not have to be tied in to something direct, tangible, to be worthy. it can be worthy pursuing, even if it is merely an idea, abstract, a theory - without ever having any "real" effect, even if forever it stays just an idea, an abstraction. the beauty, concept and pursuit of art irrefutably prove this.
mabye one in a million ever makes this realization in their lifes. this explains the felt loneliness by the artists. as they already deal in ideas and realize their beauty. an artist could have plenty of fans, who think he, and his art, are more important than anything else in this world, and would do anything for him and his art - yet they are still billions of miles removed from him, do not understand one single thing. because they do not realize what exactly makes his art so important - the pursuit of ideas. it remains forever a mystery to them.
a similar emotion is felt by social outcasts, who too follow ideas. they might follow the ideas of a better society, of political, or cultural change - or even more abstract ideas and insights. this is what the others do not get about them. 'how come you follow an "idea"?', 'why don't you go out and have a good time' and other calls for them to focus on something more tangible. the others, again, do not realize how someone could follow, and dedicate a part of his life, to a mere idea - an idea that stays abstract, ideal.
but ideas can be more important than most things in this world.
footnotes:
[1]: in the past, worker's strikes for solidarity, or social progress itself - abstract ideas - actually did take place. i assume this is because in the past ideas were still valued more by people. how this ties in to this text would be too long to write down for this text.
Rebel Thoughts
they can burn us down,
they can try to destroy us,
they can beat us down,
they can smash us,
but they can never reach,
or take away,
our rebel thoughts
they can try to destroy us,
they can beat us down,
they can smash us,
but they can never reach,
or take away,
our rebel thoughts
If You Want To Improve
if you want to improve, change your actions, but do not change yourself. for as how you are is already perfect.
Organische Anarchie (In German Language)
1.
die anarchisten waren schlau genug, nie einen zu detailierten plan ihrer anarchistischen gesellschaft aufzustellen (zumindest die meisten, bekanntesten anarchisten). während die sozialisten eine detailierte, geplante gesellschaft entwarfen, liessen die anarchisten den menschen die freiheit, vorallem die freiheit in ihren köpfen, die zukünftige welt selbst zu wählen und zu gestalten.
dennoch wurde die anarchie, wie sich die anarchistischen vordenker vorstellten, grob umrissen. dazu muss man sagen, der hauptsächlichen entstehung der anarchistischen bewegung im 19ten jahrhundert entsprechend, fand sich in diesen groben "plänen" auch viele denkweisen, und, meiner meinung nach, fehler des 19ten jahrhunderts wieder. so wie im 19ten jahrhundert die politiker jeglicher fraktion versuchten die gesellschaft rigide durchzuorganisieren, wie die wissenschaftler versuchten alles wissen strikt zu kategorisieren und einzuordnen, findet man auch in den entwürfen der anarchistischen gesellschaft eine grobe, aber starke struktur.
allgemein war die idee, das sich die menschen in gruppen organisierten, die sich dann auf lokaler und förderaler ebene in immer grösseren maßstab organisieren sollten. eine kleinste ebene könnte dann z.B. eine anarchistische gruppe einer strasse sein; die in einem anarchistischen verband des stadtteils organisiert ist; die dann wiederum innerhalb der anarchistischen stadt; usw. bis zur landesebene, oder theoretisch sogar weltweit. dies ist vorallem das anarcho-kommunistische modell. die syndikalisten und andere hatten andere vorstellungen; ich denke aber, grob kann man den meisten anarchistischen strömungen dieser zeit dieses modell als referenz zuordnen; zumindest teile davon hatten sie in den meisten fällen in ihren modellen vorhanden.
kropotkin lobt z.B. die mittelalterliche stadt, die, seiner meinung nach, schon viel vom anarchistischen modell verwirklicht hatte, und ein vorbild für die künftige anarchie sei. (im gegensatz zu den meisten kapitalisten und sozialisten des 19ten jahrhunderts, sahen die anarchisten häufig die mittelalterliche europäische gesellschaft der modernen als überlegen an, die von der bourgeoisie verraten und zerstört wurde).
die einzelnen gesellschaftlichen einheiten könnten vertreter wählen, die sie auf föderaler ebene vertreten würde, wenn über themen abgestimmt würde, die über die kleineren einheiten hinausgehen (z.B. stadtplanung im großen).
ironischerweise wäre auf diese art sogar ein gewählter anarchistischer präsident möglich. im grunde kann man sagen, dass diese modelle der anarchie sehr viel mit dem, was man unter "direkter demokratie" versteht, gemeinsam haben.
allerdings gab es auch im 19ten jahrhundert schon anarchistische und verwandte denker, die über diese "durchgeplante" konzept einer anarchie hinausdachten.
2.
um die jahrhundertwende des 20ten jahrhundert, und vorallen in den ersten jahrzehnten des jahrhunderts, entstanden auf einmal sehr viele neue, radikale, gewagte politische ideen, gleichwohl kunstrichtungen. in der szene der avantgarde vereinigten sich nun beide. rigide planung und struktur, gesellschaftliche *organisation* an sich wurde nun als *teil* des kapitalismus angesehen, und des alten denkens angesehen, und andere entwürfe erstellt. die sehnsucht nach einer festen gesellschaftlichen struktur an sich wurde von vielen denkern als plage der gesellschaftlichen ideologie angesehen. die rebellion wurde allumfassend, richtete sich nicht mehr nur gegen das wirtschaftssystem oder die politische klasse, sondern auch gegen die herschende kultur, gegen erziehung, wissenschaft, etablierte philosophie, konzepte von geschlecht, familie, moral, etc.
des denkgebäude der moderne an sich wurde in frage gestellt.
soweit ich weiss war mit dem faschismus in grossen teilen erstmal schluss mit dem meisten dieser avantgarade in europa; in den texten der 50er findet man z.B. nur noch wenig dieser ideen.
mit den 60s, den hippies, und den 68ern war dann erstmal komplett schluss mit dieser alten form des anarchismus (bis auf wenige strömungen, die bis heute überdauern, aber kaum noch relevant sind). es enstanden bewegungen wie die situationisten, die die ideen der avantgarde wieder aufgriffen oder neue konzepte entwarfen, und der gesellschaftlichen ideologie - und zum teil ihrer philosophie - den kampf ansagten. eine neue rebellion gegen die moderne *an sich* war geboren. die gewerkschafts- und kommunistischen kämpfe, die durch das land tobten, mit ihrer alten ideologie, liessen sie kalt - sofern sie sich nicht in radikalere formen transformieren liessen.
ende der 80er, in den 90ern entstand dann noch eine weitere (wesentlich stärkere) radikalisieren dieser ideen. doch dies ist nicht der platz dafür, diese näher darzustellen - vielleicht in einem anderen text.
3.
worauf ich nun hinaus will, ist dass sich dadurch neue ideen für die anarchistische gesellschaft hinauskristallisiert haben. nicht mehr die fein geplante, "fest" strukturierte, organisierte gesellschaft. sondern eine organische, komplexe, chaotische anarchie. die aus vielerlei individuen, gruppen, strukturen, verbänden, zusammenschlüssen besteht, die sich frei entfalten, verbinden, frei leben, etwas erschaffen, althergebrachtes überwinden, teilweise gemeinsam vorgehen, teilweise nicht. was ich meine ist tatsächlich schwer "auf text" zu beschreiben; radikale, kämpferische, gruppen und strukturen; clans, stämme,gangs, geheime zusammenkünfte, für die freiheit und für den kampf. man denke vielleicht an cyberpunk filme und bücher, nur halt auf positivere art. wem da zu sehr nach "science fiction romantik" klingt, dem unterstelle ich dass er mangelnde fantasie hat. wenn nicht ein positives bild, das man im kopf hat, als vorbild dienen kann, dann ist sowieso alles verloren.
der vorteil dieses anarchistischen modells ist, das die alte frage "ob anarchie im grossen maßstab funktioniert" nicht mehr relevant, und gelöst ist; es ist dann nicht mehr notwending, ob es im grossen maßstab funktioniert, da ja die kleinen und aktiven anarchistischen gruppen und zusammenschlüsse existieren. es wäre durchaus denkbar, dass erstmal nur der halbe teil der gesellschaft in eine derartige "anarchie" übergehen würde. und der rest dann vielleicht später.
dieser text ist natürlich viel zu kurz, um diese modelle einer organischen anarchie länger vorzustellen; vielleicht woanders mehr dazu; aber vielleicht hilft er als inspiration und gedankenanstoss für anderen menschen, die sich nach anarchie sehnen.
zusatz:
vieles in diesem text ist sehr vereinheitlicht erwähnt, und viele werden sicherlich erwähnen können, das ich dies und jenes detail nicht genug beachtet habe. ich wollte aber im rahmen dieses textes nicht auf jedes teil eingehen; man verzeihe mir die "verallgemeinerung".
william gibson, der mit seinen büchern einen grossen teil zu der entstehung des cyberpunks beigetragen hat, waren die ideen der organischen anarchie der bewegung der 60er bekannt. eine verbindung ist also aufjedenfall da.
die anarchisten waren schlau genug, nie einen zu detailierten plan ihrer anarchistischen gesellschaft aufzustellen (zumindest die meisten, bekanntesten anarchisten). während die sozialisten eine detailierte, geplante gesellschaft entwarfen, liessen die anarchisten den menschen die freiheit, vorallem die freiheit in ihren köpfen, die zukünftige welt selbst zu wählen und zu gestalten.
dennoch wurde die anarchie, wie sich die anarchistischen vordenker vorstellten, grob umrissen. dazu muss man sagen, der hauptsächlichen entstehung der anarchistischen bewegung im 19ten jahrhundert entsprechend, fand sich in diesen groben "plänen" auch viele denkweisen, und, meiner meinung nach, fehler des 19ten jahrhunderts wieder. so wie im 19ten jahrhundert die politiker jeglicher fraktion versuchten die gesellschaft rigide durchzuorganisieren, wie die wissenschaftler versuchten alles wissen strikt zu kategorisieren und einzuordnen, findet man auch in den entwürfen der anarchistischen gesellschaft eine grobe, aber starke struktur.
allgemein war die idee, das sich die menschen in gruppen organisierten, die sich dann auf lokaler und förderaler ebene in immer grösseren maßstab organisieren sollten. eine kleinste ebene könnte dann z.B. eine anarchistische gruppe einer strasse sein; die in einem anarchistischen verband des stadtteils organisiert ist; die dann wiederum innerhalb der anarchistischen stadt; usw. bis zur landesebene, oder theoretisch sogar weltweit. dies ist vorallem das anarcho-kommunistische modell. die syndikalisten und andere hatten andere vorstellungen; ich denke aber, grob kann man den meisten anarchistischen strömungen dieser zeit dieses modell als referenz zuordnen; zumindest teile davon hatten sie in den meisten fällen in ihren modellen vorhanden.
kropotkin lobt z.B. die mittelalterliche stadt, die, seiner meinung nach, schon viel vom anarchistischen modell verwirklicht hatte, und ein vorbild für die künftige anarchie sei. (im gegensatz zu den meisten kapitalisten und sozialisten des 19ten jahrhunderts, sahen die anarchisten häufig die mittelalterliche europäische gesellschaft der modernen als überlegen an, die von der bourgeoisie verraten und zerstört wurde).
die einzelnen gesellschaftlichen einheiten könnten vertreter wählen, die sie auf föderaler ebene vertreten würde, wenn über themen abgestimmt würde, die über die kleineren einheiten hinausgehen (z.B. stadtplanung im großen).
ironischerweise wäre auf diese art sogar ein gewählter anarchistischer präsident möglich. im grunde kann man sagen, dass diese modelle der anarchie sehr viel mit dem, was man unter "direkter demokratie" versteht, gemeinsam haben.
allerdings gab es auch im 19ten jahrhundert schon anarchistische und verwandte denker, die über diese "durchgeplante" konzept einer anarchie hinausdachten.
2.
um die jahrhundertwende des 20ten jahrhundert, und vorallen in den ersten jahrzehnten des jahrhunderts, entstanden auf einmal sehr viele neue, radikale, gewagte politische ideen, gleichwohl kunstrichtungen. in der szene der avantgarde vereinigten sich nun beide. rigide planung und struktur, gesellschaftliche *organisation* an sich wurde nun als *teil* des kapitalismus angesehen, und des alten denkens angesehen, und andere entwürfe erstellt. die sehnsucht nach einer festen gesellschaftlichen struktur an sich wurde von vielen denkern als plage der gesellschaftlichen ideologie angesehen. die rebellion wurde allumfassend, richtete sich nicht mehr nur gegen das wirtschaftssystem oder die politische klasse, sondern auch gegen die herschende kultur, gegen erziehung, wissenschaft, etablierte philosophie, konzepte von geschlecht, familie, moral, etc.
des denkgebäude der moderne an sich wurde in frage gestellt.
soweit ich weiss war mit dem faschismus in grossen teilen erstmal schluss mit dem meisten dieser avantgarade in europa; in den texten der 50er findet man z.B. nur noch wenig dieser ideen.
mit den 60s, den hippies, und den 68ern war dann erstmal komplett schluss mit dieser alten form des anarchismus (bis auf wenige strömungen, die bis heute überdauern, aber kaum noch relevant sind). es enstanden bewegungen wie die situationisten, die die ideen der avantgarde wieder aufgriffen oder neue konzepte entwarfen, und der gesellschaftlichen ideologie - und zum teil ihrer philosophie - den kampf ansagten. eine neue rebellion gegen die moderne *an sich* war geboren. die gewerkschafts- und kommunistischen kämpfe, die durch das land tobten, mit ihrer alten ideologie, liessen sie kalt - sofern sie sich nicht in radikalere formen transformieren liessen.
ende der 80er, in den 90ern entstand dann noch eine weitere (wesentlich stärkere) radikalisieren dieser ideen. doch dies ist nicht der platz dafür, diese näher darzustellen - vielleicht in einem anderen text.
3.
worauf ich nun hinaus will, ist dass sich dadurch neue ideen für die anarchistische gesellschaft hinauskristallisiert haben. nicht mehr die fein geplante, "fest" strukturierte, organisierte gesellschaft. sondern eine organische, komplexe, chaotische anarchie. die aus vielerlei individuen, gruppen, strukturen, verbänden, zusammenschlüssen besteht, die sich frei entfalten, verbinden, frei leben, etwas erschaffen, althergebrachtes überwinden, teilweise gemeinsam vorgehen, teilweise nicht. was ich meine ist tatsächlich schwer "auf text" zu beschreiben; radikale, kämpferische, gruppen und strukturen; clans, stämme,gangs, geheime zusammenkünfte, für die freiheit und für den kampf. man denke vielleicht an cyberpunk filme und bücher, nur halt auf positivere art. wem da zu sehr nach "science fiction romantik" klingt, dem unterstelle ich dass er mangelnde fantasie hat. wenn nicht ein positives bild, das man im kopf hat, als vorbild dienen kann, dann ist sowieso alles verloren.
der vorteil dieses anarchistischen modells ist, das die alte frage "ob anarchie im grossen maßstab funktioniert" nicht mehr relevant, und gelöst ist; es ist dann nicht mehr notwending, ob es im grossen maßstab funktioniert, da ja die kleinen und aktiven anarchistischen gruppen und zusammenschlüsse existieren. es wäre durchaus denkbar, dass erstmal nur der halbe teil der gesellschaft in eine derartige "anarchie" übergehen würde. und der rest dann vielleicht später.
dieser text ist natürlich viel zu kurz, um diese modelle einer organischen anarchie länger vorzustellen; vielleicht woanders mehr dazu; aber vielleicht hilft er als inspiration und gedankenanstoss für anderen menschen, die sich nach anarchie sehnen.
zusatz:
vieles in diesem text ist sehr vereinheitlicht erwähnt, und viele werden sicherlich erwähnen können, das ich dies und jenes detail nicht genug beachtet habe. ich wollte aber im rahmen dieses textes nicht auf jedes teil eingehen; man verzeihe mir die "verallgemeinerung".
william gibson, der mit seinen büchern einen grossen teil zu der entstehung des cyberpunks beigetragen hat, waren die ideen der organischen anarchie der bewegung der 60er bekannt. eine verbindung ist also aufjedenfall da.
The Illusion Of The Internet
people do not seem much interested in revolt or rebellion anymore. or in any attempt to overthrow and establish a better society (maybe things will change in the next years, but the point i am trying to make with this text will still be true). i think to a huge part, the internet is to blame for this. if people, of any age, are interested in rebellion, or societal change, or anarchy, they will undoubtly look this up on the internet. and they will read about it. and they will see, or rather, they will read on the internet, that most revolutions of the past turned sour - the overthrow of the tsar that led to the iron rule of stalin, and the others. they will also read that in modern times, no longer-working societal anarchy existed - either it failed, or it was crushed. they will get to know that even teenagers that ran away from home or turned punk, in the end became boring 30 year olds like all the rest - if they didn't found a much more sour ending. so why follow rebellion? why follow anarchy?
it is understandable, from this point of view, that youth, the workers, the oppressed, don't rebel and call for an overthrow anymore. it all seems so pointless. but this is a lie. it is a lie of the internet. it is not the truth. it as an illusion. it is an illusion that pins people down, that makes them conform to society, to be afraid of stepping out of the line and trying something new. it is not real. it is fake. how could this be fake, you might ask. does the internet not simply state the facts? yes, it states some facts - but it conceals a lot. it conceals very important things. which is this, that is concealed by the internet? it is, that you might read about rebellion and anarchy of the past, and of the present. and it is that these things might look sour, hopeless, or disappointing. but this is just the anarchy and rebellion you read about. it is not *your* rebellion. it is not *your* anarchy. you are alive. what the internet gives you is just dead information. *you* can change things. *you* can try things. the internet can't. the anarchy of the past, that failed and is written down now, can't. because it is not alive in the sense that you are alive. this is the lie of the internet. the illusion of the internet. you are on the internet, but you are not the internet. there is a gap, there is not a true connection, coherence. and this gap is invisible to the interned-eyed. but within this gap, everything is possible. it is the thing you cannot find on the internet, and probably will never find on the internet. sure, the anarchy and rebellion, the anarchies and rebellions you read about might have all failed, or found a bad end. but *your* anarchy does not have to fail. forgot what you read. it is dead. it is text. it is of no meaning. *your* rebellion does not have to fail. your anarchy and rebellion is still possible, it is alive, it is living, inside yourself and everywhere. and this way, you can end up with something good.
it is understandable, from this point of view, that youth, the workers, the oppressed, don't rebel and call for an overthrow anymore. it all seems so pointless. but this is a lie. it is a lie of the internet. it is not the truth. it as an illusion. it is an illusion that pins people down, that makes them conform to society, to be afraid of stepping out of the line and trying something new. it is not real. it is fake. how could this be fake, you might ask. does the internet not simply state the facts? yes, it states some facts - but it conceals a lot. it conceals very important things. which is this, that is concealed by the internet? it is, that you might read about rebellion and anarchy of the past, and of the present. and it is that these things might look sour, hopeless, or disappointing. but this is just the anarchy and rebellion you read about. it is not *your* rebellion. it is not *your* anarchy. you are alive. what the internet gives you is just dead information. *you* can change things. *you* can try things. the internet can't. the anarchy of the past, that failed and is written down now, can't. because it is not alive in the sense that you are alive. this is the lie of the internet. the illusion of the internet. you are on the internet, but you are not the internet. there is a gap, there is not a true connection, coherence. and this gap is invisible to the interned-eyed. but within this gap, everything is possible. it is the thing you cannot find on the internet, and probably will never find on the internet. sure, the anarchy and rebellion, the anarchies and rebellions you read about might have all failed, or found a bad end. but *your* anarchy does not have to fail. forgot what you read. it is dead. it is text. it is of no meaning. *your* rebellion does not have to fail. your anarchy and rebellion is still possible, it is alive, it is living, inside yourself and everywhere. and this way, you can end up with something good.
Cyberspace Archives
Cyberspace was amongst the first dozen tracks or so i made when i started creating music at the age of 16. it was also the most complex track i ever made. i worked 6 months on it. always adding patterns, re-editing, changing it slightly, till i liked what i heard. never again did i use so many sounds in one single tracks.
never again did i try to come up with such many different structures and patterns.
for a long time, it was also the longest track i did. clocking at 14 minutes, it was also one of the longest tracks emerging out of the experimental hardcore scene in the 90s (i started the track in 1997 and finished it in 1998). so i had this track finished, eventually. but i didn't see really a way to release it; it didn't fit much to the labels i send demos too; also at 14 minutes it was a bit long to see a vinyl release. the first time it actually got "released" in a way was when stevvi of c8.com put my demo-CDr online which has gotten quite
(in)famous since then. the next was a release on a CDr compilation by Appareil.
and finally, it found it's way to vinyl, on my album for Widerstand Records.
yet, this was always re-edited versions of this track; cut much shorter. the Widerstand one was the longest, clocking at 7 minutes.
somewhen after 2010, i recovered one of the original mixdown of this track, in its 14 minutes length, and put it on soundcloud. this was the first time anyone except my closest circle of friends could hear this track fully, more than 12 years after i created it.
i later included it on my release "Unreleased Tracks Part 3".
yet i thought it might be time for a re-release. so i created a 2014 remix with the knowledge and sound tricks i know now, aswell as two other new mixes, and also included different versions of the original tracks, aswell as an unfinished (aborted) attempt at a sequel to this track (also remastered).
maybe this track is way too old now to be enjoyed by now. but maybe also some people might find it interesting.
here you go!
1.Cyberspace (2014 Mix)
2.Cyberspace (Ambient Mix)
3.Cyberspace (Only Beat And Percussion Mix)
4.Cyberspace (C8.Com Demo Version)
5.Cyberspace 2 (Edited)
6.Cyberspace (Original 14 Minute Version)
http://lowentropy.bandcamp.com/album/cyberspace-archives
never again did i try to come up with such many different structures and patterns.
for a long time, it was also the longest track i did. clocking at 14 minutes, it was also one of the longest tracks emerging out of the experimental hardcore scene in the 90s (i started the track in 1997 and finished it in 1998). so i had this track finished, eventually. but i didn't see really a way to release it; it didn't fit much to the labels i send demos too; also at 14 minutes it was a bit long to see a vinyl release. the first time it actually got "released" in a way was when stevvi of c8.com put my demo-CDr online which has gotten quite
(in)famous since then. the next was a release on a CDr compilation by Appareil.
and finally, it found it's way to vinyl, on my album for Widerstand Records.
yet, this was always re-edited versions of this track; cut much shorter. the Widerstand one was the longest, clocking at 7 minutes.
somewhen after 2010, i recovered one of the original mixdown of this track, in its 14 minutes length, and put it on soundcloud. this was the first time anyone except my closest circle of friends could hear this track fully, more than 12 years after i created it.
i later included it on my release "Unreleased Tracks Part 3".
yet i thought it might be time for a re-release. so i created a 2014 remix with the knowledge and sound tricks i know now, aswell as two other new mixes, and also included different versions of the original tracks, aswell as an unfinished (aborted) attempt at a sequel to this track (also remastered).
maybe this track is way too old now to be enjoyed by now. but maybe also some people might find it interesting.
here you go!
1.Cyberspace (2014 Mix)
2.Cyberspace (Ambient Mix)
3.Cyberspace (Only Beat And Percussion Mix)
4.Cyberspace (C8.Com Demo Version)
5.Cyberspace 2 (Edited)
6.Cyberspace (Original 14 Minute Version)
http://lowentropy.bandcamp.com/album/cyberspace-archives
My Just Intonated Music
Just Intonation and Microtuning are two methods to create music outside of the now standard western scale, which is called 12 tone equal temperament. the 12 tone equal temperament means that there are only 12 semitones available for each octave, which have a fixed frequency and ratio. this is how 99% of all music in the western world is created now. in techno, dance, pop, rock, ambient, you name it. but it's a lie. there are more tones possible per octave - in fact, an infinite amount. yet western music repeats the same 12 semitones over and over again in each song and track. quite boring. also, the 12 TET is way off in it's intervals. when nowadays a composer, electronic or otherwise, uses a fifth, a third, a sept, this is actually detuned - due to 12 TET. it's not the same fifth, third, septs that Mozart, Bach, Haendel used. for the last 100 years or so, western music has been inherently detuned. no wonder it sounds so annoying.
i got introduced to the concept of microtuning and just intonation when i talked to a friend about composing and creating melodies. i was quite proud of the melodies i created, but he pointed out they were in a 12 TET scale and explained to me a bit of the background. i then started to dig deeper and read a lot about it, and it felt like i was hit over me head since i realised there was something in music i never recognized before and that was completely unknown to me.
i then eagerly started to use just intonation and microtuning in almost all tracks i created. all of my vinyl releases contained at least one track with just intonation or microtuning. the use of it in this field of electronic music was quite rare, and still is, i suppose. so i ended up creating some of the first hardcore techno tracks based on just intonation.
in the later years i let the JI thing sort of slip, since i changed the way and equipment i used for producing, and clang "desperately" to the intervals that are at least *slightly* close to the original, just intonated intervals - the fifth, the fourth, and so on.
but now i am getting back to creating electronic just intonated and microtuned music.
it would be nice to see if more artists picked up these methods and used them in their works, and if the knowledge about these things is getting more widespread.
tracks of mine with the use of JI and MT (some examples):
Urban Uprising (possibly the first just intonated hardcore track pressed on vinyl?)
Symphony Of Creative Destruction
Daark
Don't Let Our Dreams Die
Emerald Planet
The Truth
Soundtrack For Visiting Another Planet
JI = Just Intonation
MT = Microtuning
my homepage: http://anarchist.widerstand.org
i got introduced to the concept of microtuning and just intonation when i talked to a friend about composing and creating melodies. i was quite proud of the melodies i created, but he pointed out they were in a 12 TET scale and explained to me a bit of the background. i then started to dig deeper and read a lot about it, and it felt like i was hit over me head since i realised there was something in music i never recognized before and that was completely unknown to me.
i then eagerly started to use just intonation and microtuning in almost all tracks i created. all of my vinyl releases contained at least one track with just intonation or microtuning. the use of it in this field of electronic music was quite rare, and still is, i suppose. so i ended up creating some of the first hardcore techno tracks based on just intonation.
in the later years i let the JI thing sort of slip, since i changed the way and equipment i used for producing, and clang "desperately" to the intervals that are at least *slightly* close to the original, just intonated intervals - the fifth, the fourth, and so on.
but now i am getting back to creating electronic just intonated and microtuned music.
it would be nice to see if more artists picked up these methods and used them in their works, and if the knowledge about these things is getting more widespread.
tracks of mine with the use of JI and MT (some examples):
Urban Uprising (possibly the first just intonated hardcore track pressed on vinyl?)
Symphony Of Creative Destruction
Daark
Don't Let Our Dreams Die
Emerald Planet
The Truth
Soundtrack For Visiting Another Planet
JI = Just Intonation
MT = Microtuning
my homepage: http://anarchist.widerstand.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)