i respect people who adore art and the artist who did that art. yet i am also torn about this. it makes me cringe that some people go as far as defending any flaw an artist has in character and action, just because of the seemingly beauty of his art.
there is a reason for these thoughts about art. because, the secret of art is, it is a lie. but it is also the truth.
the secret is, that, when you see a painting, and you see beauty in it, deep, sweet, overwhelming beauty, that sweeps over you - it is not the art. it is not the artist. the beauty is not really there. the beauty you see - is in you. it was in you all the time. it is because of your own beauty that you can feel beauty in art.
this is why a dozen people can stand around a painting and feel nothing at all while one person is driven to tears by the art.
within yourself is all the beauty, ideas, concepts, thoughts that you can "find" in art.
art is just a reflection of yourself, and, in best cases, of your own beauty.
it is the beauty that is in you that art helps to get you in contact with. the artist, basically, does nothing. well, he does one thing. he helps you to find yourself, to find your own beauty.
this, is the secret of art.
Photon Collisions Curated By Somatic Responses - A Review And A Story
generally, there is much talk about records being life-changing. but, let's face it, in most cases it can hardly be called that. yet the demo tape somatic responses send me in 1998 really was that for me - life-changing.
i had come into contact with SR on the biophilia mailing list (anyone remembers what an electronic mailing list is?) which was one of the pinpoints for several hard and experimental producers in those days (the result later was the biophilia allstars LP). young me emailed somatic responses in a bout of youth and asked if they would be possibly interested in a demo CD-R by me. to my suprise they not only replied, but also offered to send me one of their demos in return. this was a moment of awe for me; some of my sonic heros send me, some bored weird-out teenager, some of their stuff! okay, the mail was sent, it arrived here. i put the tape in the recorder. and i was blasted away. the very second the synths of "umbrella" come on, i was not in this world anymore. it was as if life started to curve and twist and change. i felt that everything i knew about music and art moved away from me. *this* was art. this was the music i had always been looking for. this took sounds to a whole different level.
i became an avid fan of SR then and i tried to hype them whenever i could, much to the annoyance of my friends in the hardcore milieu, which couldn't understand my enthusiasm for this act. didn't they divert from 4/4 rhythms (major sin)? didn't they not use guitar samples and shoutings (another sin)? and so on.
they were picking up praise by a fast pace already back then. yet their music stood out from the other acts. it seemed that somehow, that it still felt uncanny to a lot of people.
so, by this story, you can imagine i felt well when SR asked me to contribute a track to their "photon collisions" compilation. i felt even better when i listened to it. now, about 15 years after i first fell in affection with this musical act, i listened to various dozens of other producers, who seemingly feel similiar, and chosed a style with an inspiration of this special type of music. the sound really had an impact, and the works of SR resulted in a new generation of artists who follow their roots. seemingly, it is far from being single and uncanny music now. people learned to understand, appreciate, follow this music.
well done!
"Photon Collisons" can be found at https://somaticresponses.bandcamp.com/album/photon-collisions-curated-by-somatic-responses
i had come into contact with SR on the biophilia mailing list (anyone remembers what an electronic mailing list is?) which was one of the pinpoints for several hard and experimental producers in those days (the result later was the biophilia allstars LP). young me emailed somatic responses in a bout of youth and asked if they would be possibly interested in a demo CD-R by me. to my suprise they not only replied, but also offered to send me one of their demos in return. this was a moment of awe for me; some of my sonic heros send me, some bored weird-out teenager, some of their stuff! okay, the mail was sent, it arrived here. i put the tape in the recorder. and i was blasted away. the very second the synths of "umbrella" come on, i was not in this world anymore. it was as if life started to curve and twist and change. i felt that everything i knew about music and art moved away from me. *this* was art. this was the music i had always been looking for. this took sounds to a whole different level.
i became an avid fan of SR then and i tried to hype them whenever i could, much to the annoyance of my friends in the hardcore milieu, which couldn't understand my enthusiasm for this act. didn't they divert from 4/4 rhythms (major sin)? didn't they not use guitar samples and shoutings (another sin)? and so on.
they were picking up praise by a fast pace already back then. yet their music stood out from the other acts. it seemed that somehow, that it still felt uncanny to a lot of people.
so, by this story, you can imagine i felt well when SR asked me to contribute a track to their "photon collisions" compilation. i felt even better when i listened to it. now, about 15 years after i first fell in affection with this musical act, i listened to various dozens of other producers, who seemingly feel similiar, and chosed a style with an inspiration of this special type of music. the sound really had an impact, and the works of SR resulted in a new generation of artists who follow their roots. seemingly, it is far from being single and uncanny music now. people learned to understand, appreciate, follow this music.
well done!
"Photon Collisons" can be found at https://somaticresponses.bandcamp.com/album/photon-collisions-curated-by-somatic-responses
The Big Task In Life And The Small Task In Life
The Big Task In Life
there is one big task you have to achieve in life. and this is, to be exactly like you are. to be yourself, yourself as you are. and here is the good news. you already achieved this, had already achieved this, and will forever achieve this. for you are exactly like you are. you can not be elsewise. in everything you do, and everything you are, you always one hundred percent yourself.
so the game of life is already solved - from the beginning. you had solved already when you were born. maybe one could say the conception of time is conceived the wrong way round: perfection was already reached in the beginning, and everything that happens afterwards is a journey from that.
so there is literally nothing you *have* to do in your life; the price, and the price of life is always around you, and is always there for you. you *can* do a lot in your life; become rich, travel the world, be adventureous; or to the opposite, live a life without much dangers and threats, "a simple, fulfilled life". but you don't have to do this; and no matter how you succeed in these things, you can't top the achievement you already had at your birth: to be yourself as you are.
so is there no way you could lose yourself, or divert from yourself? what if you tried to change yourself, and "succeeded", are you not a different man, or woman, then? no, because who changed himself? you! it was always you, the old you was you and the new you is you again. even if you replaced every thought, desire, trait of personality of yourself - something you better should not do - you would still be exactly yourself, as *you* are the one who changed all these things, you are the driving force, the mover behind this. if you pulled of conceiving a new character for yourself, it is still you, as you the conceiver and the force, and the person. it is always you, it was always you, and it will be always you. this is of course related the lie of many organisations of religions. the sinner is as much as himself as the saint. from a point of view, the old sinner is already a saint, and a saint is still the old sinner.
you are yourself and you will always be yourself. and you can never be anything else as yourself. this is the big constant in life. and nothing can ever be as yourself. this is the second constant. you are always different from everything else, and everything else is always different from yourself. as you are singular, and unique. and noone can be like yourself and you can never truly be like someone else.
and this is the one thing you have to arrive at in life. but, you already arrived at it, and it will always be attainable for you. the truth is, you made it. you won the game of life.
The Small Task In Life
i talked about the big task in life. there arise two conclusions out of this: you *have* to do nothing in life (but can do everything). there is nothing that *has* to be done, in an important, essential meaning. yet, there is still something that can be done. this is a bit of a paradox, and i can't say i have fully got my head around it yet. you are yourself, and there is no way you can top this, or to attain more in life. yet, there are things, that you can attain, there is movement. i call this the small task in life. basically, what it is, is to come to terms with yourself. the more you are accepting yourself as you are, the less you run away from what you are, the better. or rather, put in a different wording, the less *split* you are, the better. as most people divide themselves into multiple parts of themselves, instead of being a whole, complete person. they hate some of their thoughts, desires. they dislike some of their "faults" and lack of abilities. they go so far as to hide these parts from others, and to hide them from themselves, trying to hide them from their consciousness and live as if these parts of themselves do not exist. they would deny them if others would point to them, and even deny them to themselves. so, people are fractured. this fracture is an illusion too, though, as they are still a whole in any case: as it is, again, themselves, who deny these parts. so it originates from themselves too, after all.
the goal should be to be a whole, a complete. a full person. without fighting of or denying any part of yourself, no matter how dirty, shameful, weak or laughable it seems to you and others. this doesn't mean you have to "act" out your most negative thoughts; if it endangers others, you of course should not! but at least don't deny that it is "your" thought. don't try to be not aware of it.
as for simple weaknesses, faults; why hide and run away from them at all? you are not a lesser person because of them.
to be one; to be complete, to be one, to be a union. i call this the lesser task of life. the small task of life.
the big task is maybe infinitely more important; but this task is infinetely important too.
there is one big task you have to achieve in life. and this is, to be exactly like you are. to be yourself, yourself as you are. and here is the good news. you already achieved this, had already achieved this, and will forever achieve this. for you are exactly like you are. you can not be elsewise. in everything you do, and everything you are, you always one hundred percent yourself.
so the game of life is already solved - from the beginning. you had solved already when you were born. maybe one could say the conception of time is conceived the wrong way round: perfection was already reached in the beginning, and everything that happens afterwards is a journey from that.
so there is literally nothing you *have* to do in your life; the price, and the price of life is always around you, and is always there for you. you *can* do a lot in your life; become rich, travel the world, be adventureous; or to the opposite, live a life without much dangers and threats, "a simple, fulfilled life". but you don't have to do this; and no matter how you succeed in these things, you can't top the achievement you already had at your birth: to be yourself as you are.
so is there no way you could lose yourself, or divert from yourself? what if you tried to change yourself, and "succeeded", are you not a different man, or woman, then? no, because who changed himself? you! it was always you, the old you was you and the new you is you again. even if you replaced every thought, desire, trait of personality of yourself - something you better should not do - you would still be exactly yourself, as *you* are the one who changed all these things, you are the driving force, the mover behind this. if you pulled of conceiving a new character for yourself, it is still you, as you the conceiver and the force, and the person. it is always you, it was always you, and it will be always you. this is of course related the lie of many organisations of religions. the sinner is as much as himself as the saint. from a point of view, the old sinner is already a saint, and a saint is still the old sinner.
you are yourself and you will always be yourself. and you can never be anything else as yourself. this is the big constant in life. and nothing can ever be as yourself. this is the second constant. you are always different from everything else, and everything else is always different from yourself. as you are singular, and unique. and noone can be like yourself and you can never truly be like someone else.
and this is the one thing you have to arrive at in life. but, you already arrived at it, and it will always be attainable for you. the truth is, you made it. you won the game of life.
The Small Task In Life
i talked about the big task in life. there arise two conclusions out of this: you *have* to do nothing in life (but can do everything). there is nothing that *has* to be done, in an important, essential meaning. yet, there is still something that can be done. this is a bit of a paradox, and i can't say i have fully got my head around it yet. you are yourself, and there is no way you can top this, or to attain more in life. yet, there are things, that you can attain, there is movement. i call this the small task in life. basically, what it is, is to come to terms with yourself. the more you are accepting yourself as you are, the less you run away from what you are, the better. or rather, put in a different wording, the less *split* you are, the better. as most people divide themselves into multiple parts of themselves, instead of being a whole, complete person. they hate some of their thoughts, desires. they dislike some of their "faults" and lack of abilities. they go so far as to hide these parts from others, and to hide them from themselves, trying to hide them from their consciousness and live as if these parts of themselves do not exist. they would deny them if others would point to them, and even deny them to themselves. so, people are fractured. this fracture is an illusion too, though, as they are still a whole in any case: as it is, again, themselves, who deny these parts. so it originates from themselves too, after all.
the goal should be to be a whole, a complete. a full person. without fighting of or denying any part of yourself, no matter how dirty, shameful, weak or laughable it seems to you and others. this doesn't mean you have to "act" out your most negative thoughts; if it endangers others, you of course should not! but at least don't deny that it is "your" thought. don't try to be not aware of it.
as for simple weaknesses, faults; why hide and run away from them at all? you are not a lesser person because of them.
to be one; to be complete, to be one, to be a union. i call this the lesser task of life. the small task of life.
the big task is maybe infinitely more important; but this task is infinetely important too.
if you walk this road, and do these things, big rewards will suddenly become reachable for you. you will gain a lot, you will arrive at at worthful destination. see it for you yourself.
Deep Search
there is so much wonderful, fantastic, stunning stuff to be found on the internet. in the fields of music, art, pictures, and elsewhere. the problem is to find it. the "offical" channels are so loaded with bullshit - a kind of information white noise, so most art that gets through and reaches people is in most cases a rather dull affair. is it even possible to get through this white noise of the internet barrier, and to find the gems, and crystal? what i noticed about me and my friends that meanwhile we have, or a trying, to develop dedicated techniques to attain this. i call it "deep search". it means you employ elaborate methods and ways in order to find music or art etc. on the net. i and others even come up with a kind of "algorithm" to do this. for example,
searching for all music of a certain style on soundcloud. then literally clicking through up to a thousand of tracks in order to find the rare good ones. or trying to find out which keywords are especially useful on google search to find interesting art; re-devoloping the keywords, coming up with new ones, keeping those that were useful. then, again, clicking through hundreds of results to find the good stuff. or, if having found an interesting sonic artist, checking his profile on discogs; then trying to find out more stuff about all his releases; then checking the labels he released on; checking all the other artists on that label too. then checking all the labels of all the releases of all these artists; repeat; and so on.
so, yes, you indeed need a form of special dedication to find the gems that are on the net these days. and believe, there is really wonderful, amazing stuff to be found this way, that is much, much better than the easily accessible art, and in my opinion often even outshines the art of the past. stuff about which you think, this is so sweet, so brilliant... there is not much like it. it takes me higher.
it is of course problematic that this art this way retains unattainable for most people. we will see how this situation develops in the future.
searching for all music of a certain style on soundcloud. then literally clicking through up to a thousand of tracks in order to find the rare good ones. or trying to find out which keywords are especially useful on google search to find interesting art; re-devoloping the keywords, coming up with new ones, keeping those that were useful. then, again, clicking through hundreds of results to find the good stuff. or, if having found an interesting sonic artist, checking his profile on discogs; then trying to find out more stuff about all his releases; then checking the labels he released on; checking all the other artists on that label too. then checking all the labels of all the releases of all these artists; repeat; and so on.
so, yes, you indeed need a form of special dedication to find the gems that are on the net these days. and believe, there is really wonderful, amazing stuff to be found this way, that is much, much better than the easily accessible art, and in my opinion often even outshines the art of the past. stuff about which you think, this is so sweet, so brilliant... there is not much like it. it takes me higher.
it is of course problematic that this art this way retains unattainable for most people. we will see how this situation develops in the future.
DIY 2.0
what is often forgotten these days, is, that it was not as easy to become an "artist" as it is today. art, music, was a world of its own; it was almost confusing that musicians belonged to the same human race as everyone. they were stars, idols, far above the common world and common people. it was not something that was "copied" easily. surely, in those decades there were also many kids who tried to become rock'n'roll, or other music stars themselves. but generally, for the general population, trying to pursue a "music career" seemed irrational, far away from the serious occupations one should dedicate oneself too. you were either born a musician - or you were not.
punk was one of the first biggest challenges to this. everyone could become a punk musician. this is one chord, this is a second - now start your own punkband. it was not a "specialist" "occupation" you had to learn lengthy.
kids could do what they want, express themselves musically - and became "stars" (or anti-stars) in the new scene.
with techno, the change was even more drastic. people, with somewhat of a lack of social contact, would buy a second hand sampler, and a few months later play in front of thousands at a people at a rave, and punching out a new 12" every few weeks.
with techno, *really* everyone could finally become an artist. the aristocracy of music and art, it's elitism and tradionalism, was finally overcome - seemingly.
nowadays, even the techno revolution seems kinda shrunken compared with todays field. today, literally "every joe" is out to be an artist and doing techno, or other music, or other art.
yet there is a bitter taste to it. this "grassroots cultural revolution" was propagated by some of the most important thinkers of the 20th century, and countless of energy by a multitude of persons was invested in it. and now this victory finally came true. yet it does feel like a bitter victory, after all. it doesn't feel like the envisioned utopia after all, were the common people and the societal fringe make wondrous works of art one after another, now that they own the means of cultural production in true "cultural anarchist" style. in fact, a lot of music that is now produced feels bland. and in fact, to many it feels more bland than the music of the times when producing music was only left to "experts" and the elite.
what did go wrong? were our sonically revolutionary ideals too lofty? maybe people are not just interested in music too experimental or groundbreaking after all?
no. what went wrong was something entirely different. what is wrong is that, in the moment, we have only made half the way, for a true cultural anarchist revolution.
the revolution was more or less total in the field of the ability for people to create music themselves. but creation is only one half: what is missing is distribution.
we have the means of production, but the means of distributing music, art, sounds, is still "in the hands of the enemy". a lot of peole will concur: everyone can "distribute" the music himself too now; put it on soundcloud or youtube or any other service. yes, but this is very weak distribution. at the lowest level. a band that plays in a famous TV show or at one of the big festivals will reach *much* more people than those who just upload it to youtube, or soundcloud, or a social network.
yes, there, and there are many, people who got "well known" (remember, we should be anti-stars though - but this would need to be addressed in a different text) by social networks or soundcloud only - but these are a few - in numbers maybe even comparable to the "elitist" artist before the DIY age.
to a large number, using this services, usually yields a very minimal result. some of the most wondrous tracks i heard on soundcloud do not even have listener counts above one hundred.
so, yes, distribution is open to everyone - but the "powerful" distribution to only a few, and the real powerful ones to even fewer people. for example, even the sonic experiments of those who attend an academic setting (students) usually arise more interest than those who "just" put it on a cloud. because academia offers a more powerful distribution to the clouds.
i am hundert percent sure this problem can be overcome, maybe easily, but it would probably a hard, difficult task - at least as difficult to attain as the first DIY revolution i addressed at the beginning of this text.
it is possible to generate a situation where you, as a noone, as the average guy (but not with average mindset, i hope!) can make wondrous, fantastic, adventurous music, and then use a form of distributions that will easily let you reach hundred of thousands, maybe even millions (or billions?) of listeners.
how that would, and could be done, that would demand the place of a different text.
punk was one of the first biggest challenges to this. everyone could become a punk musician. this is one chord, this is a second - now start your own punkband. it was not a "specialist" "occupation" you had to learn lengthy.
kids could do what they want, express themselves musically - and became "stars" (or anti-stars) in the new scene.
with techno, the change was even more drastic. people, with somewhat of a lack of social contact, would buy a second hand sampler, and a few months later play in front of thousands at a people at a rave, and punching out a new 12" every few weeks.
with techno, *really* everyone could finally become an artist. the aristocracy of music and art, it's elitism and tradionalism, was finally overcome - seemingly.
nowadays, even the techno revolution seems kinda shrunken compared with todays field. today, literally "every joe" is out to be an artist and doing techno, or other music, or other art.
yet there is a bitter taste to it. this "grassroots cultural revolution" was propagated by some of the most important thinkers of the 20th century, and countless of energy by a multitude of persons was invested in it. and now this victory finally came true. yet it does feel like a bitter victory, after all. it doesn't feel like the envisioned utopia after all, were the common people and the societal fringe make wondrous works of art one after another, now that they own the means of cultural production in true "cultural anarchist" style. in fact, a lot of music that is now produced feels bland. and in fact, to many it feels more bland than the music of the times when producing music was only left to "experts" and the elite.
what did go wrong? were our sonically revolutionary ideals too lofty? maybe people are not just interested in music too experimental or groundbreaking after all?
no. what went wrong was something entirely different. what is wrong is that, in the moment, we have only made half the way, for a true cultural anarchist revolution.
the revolution was more or less total in the field of the ability for people to create music themselves. but creation is only one half: what is missing is distribution.
we have the means of production, but the means of distributing music, art, sounds, is still "in the hands of the enemy". a lot of peole will concur: everyone can "distribute" the music himself too now; put it on soundcloud or youtube or any other service. yes, but this is very weak distribution. at the lowest level. a band that plays in a famous TV show or at one of the big festivals will reach *much* more people than those who just upload it to youtube, or soundcloud, or a social network.
yes, there, and there are many, people who got "well known" (remember, we should be anti-stars though - but this would need to be addressed in a different text) by social networks or soundcloud only - but these are a few - in numbers maybe even comparable to the "elitist" artist before the DIY age.
to a large number, using this services, usually yields a very minimal result. some of the most wondrous tracks i heard on soundcloud do not even have listener counts above one hundred.
so, yes, distribution is open to everyone - but the "powerful" distribution to only a few, and the real powerful ones to even fewer people. for example, even the sonic experiments of those who attend an academic setting (students) usually arise more interest than those who "just" put it on a cloud. because academia offers a more powerful distribution to the clouds.
i am hundert percent sure this problem can be overcome, maybe easily, but it would probably a hard, difficult task - at least as difficult to attain as the first DIY revolution i addressed at the beginning of this text.
it is possible to generate a situation where you, as a noone, as the average guy (but not with average mindset, i hope!) can make wondrous, fantastic, adventurous music, and then use a form of distributions that will easily let you reach hundred of thousands, maybe even millions (or billions?) of listeners.
how that would, and could be done, that would demand the place of a different text.
Hardcore Techno, What Was After That, And How Nihilism Got Old
the underground and experimental hardcore techno movement of the 90s was in many senses, to me, the logical end of the era of the modern, of the 20th century so to speak. we had seen uprisings in the 60s, in which many of the so called western "values", ideas, concepts, authorities and oppressive structures and their philosophy were attacked and criticed. the punk era took the nihilism even farther than that. with hardcore techno, the nihilism became total. experimental hardcore techno rejected everything. soundwise, it more or less made no amends to any genres that were around at the time; neither to pop, dance, or alternative rock, or the "intelligent electronica" genres that were around, and in a sense not even to its own techno and hardcore roots, as the funk and groove of techno and house were completely eradicated with the brickstone killer kicks.
i was around at that scene, so i know a lot of people in it where pissed at any scene, at any existing form of music, at all of society and western civilization, all the politics left and right. it was not uncommon to listen only to various forms of hardcore and to lock oneself in on friday nights when everyone else went out to the "club".
the lyrics, label pictures, quotes used in hardcore tracks and their records point to this nihilism. the frenetic use of any sample material available regarding global nuclear warfare; "the missiles take to the skies by the thousand" via brandon spivey "devastation on an unimaginable scale will occur" via surgeon 16 records. "Imagine surveying earth after nuclear destruction and enjoying what you see" via the mover's interview in alien underground.
it was like saying. hell, you people build these missiles. you kept us in fear of war for decades. just go ahead. launch the missiles. let nuclear warheads reign from the sky. it will not be a loss anyway. who cares about humanity.
okay, i could go on with further examples. but i will stop here. so we were sitting here, being over and disattached to anything and everything. now a new generation of idiots arrived, and immediately tried to make us feel old. especially in the breakcore scene. they were basically saying: "okay, everything sucks. but, resistance, rebellion, anarchy is a concept too. an ideology, if you will. so if you cling to it, you are still attached to something that is outdated. we are one stop further in nihilism. we won't even resist or scream anymore."
that's how they wished to appear, unconsciously or consciously. their standpoint was easy to refute and overcome, though, as they embraced mass culture, pop music, society's authorities, things that were used to be rejected. so they were the opposite of being nihilistic, after all. the 60s rebellion might have been old by 2000; but pop culture was even older and more outdated. so the new breakcore crowd actually put themselves into a conservativism of a long gone past. yet the problem was, their point was not so easy to refute after all. if you ought to reject *everything*. shouldn't you reject radical politics and anarchism too?
there are two things to say about this. first, the whole "art for art's sake" stance has one major problem. you can say art should be free of all catogories, and just be made for the sake of art itself, to spread and create art. but, this leaves one category intact. which is that "art" itself is a category. if you really want to remove all categories, you have to take art itself out of the equation too.
as long as you still say you create or enjoy art, you are still trapped in walking in categories.
this might seem very abstract - and it is, but it is entirely possible to remove the category of art itself. for example, in music, you could stop buying records altogether and just listen to car's driving on the streets or birds singing in the forest - "sounds" that are usually not classified as being "music". there is more to say about this, but this is not the room for that.
the second thing is, that, while in theory, all categories and concepts indeed should be removed, this doesn't hold so true in reality, or rather, it is not correct at all, at least not fully correct.
you ought to use categories, concepts, theories, symbols, thoughtsset. base art on them, entangle your art in them, use them as a focus point for your art. and also elsewhere. if you reject all ideology, you should be aware that anarchism can easily become an - oppressive - ideology too, if taken in the wrong direction. yet anarchism is necessary, in order to create a free society.
this sounds paradox, and it is paradox, one of the biggest paradox. but it is also right.
maybe the only thing one could say is: follow concepts, use concepts, ideas, theories; but be also on the guard about them, prepare yourself to reject them, deconstruct, and use this ability often.
this can lead to an interesting outcome.
i was around at that scene, so i know a lot of people in it where pissed at any scene, at any existing form of music, at all of society and western civilization, all the politics left and right. it was not uncommon to listen only to various forms of hardcore and to lock oneself in on friday nights when everyone else went out to the "club".
the lyrics, label pictures, quotes used in hardcore tracks and their records point to this nihilism. the frenetic use of any sample material available regarding global nuclear warfare; "the missiles take to the skies by the thousand" via brandon spivey "devastation on an unimaginable scale will occur" via surgeon 16 records. "Imagine surveying earth after nuclear destruction and enjoying what you see" via the mover's interview in alien underground.
it was like saying. hell, you people build these missiles. you kept us in fear of war for decades. just go ahead. launch the missiles. let nuclear warheads reign from the sky. it will not be a loss anyway. who cares about humanity.
okay, i could go on with further examples. but i will stop here. so we were sitting here, being over and disattached to anything and everything. now a new generation of idiots arrived, and immediately tried to make us feel old. especially in the breakcore scene. they were basically saying: "okay, everything sucks. but, resistance, rebellion, anarchy is a concept too. an ideology, if you will. so if you cling to it, you are still attached to something that is outdated. we are one stop further in nihilism. we won't even resist or scream anymore."
that's how they wished to appear, unconsciously or consciously. their standpoint was easy to refute and overcome, though, as they embraced mass culture, pop music, society's authorities, things that were used to be rejected. so they were the opposite of being nihilistic, after all. the 60s rebellion might have been old by 2000; but pop culture was even older and more outdated. so the new breakcore crowd actually put themselves into a conservativism of a long gone past. yet the problem was, their point was not so easy to refute after all. if you ought to reject *everything*. shouldn't you reject radical politics and anarchism too?
there are two things to say about this. first, the whole "art for art's sake" stance has one major problem. you can say art should be free of all catogories, and just be made for the sake of art itself, to spread and create art. but, this leaves one category intact. which is that "art" itself is a category. if you really want to remove all categories, you have to take art itself out of the equation too.
as long as you still say you create or enjoy art, you are still trapped in walking in categories.
this might seem very abstract - and it is, but it is entirely possible to remove the category of art itself. for example, in music, you could stop buying records altogether and just listen to car's driving on the streets or birds singing in the forest - "sounds" that are usually not classified as being "music". there is more to say about this, but this is not the room for that.
the second thing is, that, while in theory, all categories and concepts indeed should be removed, this doesn't hold so true in reality, or rather, it is not correct at all, at least not fully correct.
you ought to use categories, concepts, theories, symbols, thoughtsset. base art on them, entangle your art in them, use them as a focus point for your art. and also elsewhere. if you reject all ideology, you should be aware that anarchism can easily become an - oppressive - ideology too, if taken in the wrong direction. yet anarchism is necessary, in order to create a free society.
this sounds paradox, and it is paradox, one of the biggest paradox. but it is also right.
maybe the only thing one could say is: follow concepts, use concepts, ideas, theories; but be also on the guard about them, prepare yourself to reject them, deconstruct, and use this ability often.
this can lead to an interesting outcome.
Zur Lage Der Welt
wir leben in einer zeit von grossen umbrüchen und wandel. gesellschaftlich, politisch, sozial, kulturell - allumfassend. die ursache hierfür ist, dass eine epoche zu ende geht - die ära der moderne ist am ende.
die ideen, konzepte, gedanken der moderne sind tot, haben kein leben mehr, die menschen finden kein interesse und keinen sinn mehr in ihnen. diejenigen ereignisse und strömungen, die die medien beherschen und auf interesse stossen, und verbreitung finden, sind, im meisten fall, deutlich und definitiv unmodern. der radikale islamismus. das neue interesse am katholizismus. auch das starke interesse an vormodernen zeiten, wie dem mittelalter, dem alten rom, ägypten, babylon, ist teil davon. alle "unmodernen" tendenzen, die zu den hochzeiten der moderne ein randdasein fristen mussten, wie der fanatische katholizmus, kommen aus ihren löchern gekrochen, erwachen wieder zum leben. wer würde sich heute noch wesentlich für "moderne" ideen interessieren, wie z.B. die langweilige "realpolitik" im stile der 70er, und ähnliches. die menschen suchen sich ihre inhalte woanders.
die moderne ist tot. was danach kommt, kann wohl noch keiner sagen. werden die fanatischen religionen den neuen kern der gesellschaft stellen? oder wird etwas neues entstehen?
was man jedoch mit sicherheit sagen kann, dass diese umbruchprozess, von der moderne in ein anderes zeitalter, nicht ruhig verlaufen wird. grosse soziale unruhen, kriege, revolten können ausbrechen. dafür sollte man gewappnet sein.
was wird nun die moderne ersetzen? das dilemma der menschen in der westlichen gesellschaft ist, dass wohl die meisten, oder ein grosser teil gerne aus der moderne ausbrechen würden; da sie aber in ihr sozialisiert, "indoktriniert" worden sind, ist ihnen dass aber ohne weiteres nicht möglich. das sah man an der bewegung der postmodernisten, die sich nie wirklich von den ideen der moderne befreien konnten. das spiel, die scheinbare dekonstruktion auf philosophischer basis z.B. der idee der wahrheit erkennt immer noch die moderne konzeption von wahrheit an. es ist nicht originär. der altertümliche, katholische wahrheitsbegriff ist es hingegen schon, und er ist wirklich nicht modern. nur um ein beispiel zu nennen.
eben so verhält es sich mit den anhängern eines radikalen islams. im gegensatz zu den postmodernen, antimodernen oder antiintellektuellen in den westlichen gesellschaften schaffen sie es, *wirklich* nichtmodern zu sein.
das heisst natürlich nicht dass ich radikale religion gut heisse. nur sie bietet den menschen eine echte, reale alternative zu den westlichen gesellschaften, und deswegen werden sie in zukunft viele anhänger finden und dadurch auftrieb erhalten. will man dieses aufstrebende theokratische phänomen bekämpfen, müsste man eben den menschen eine echte, positive alternative bieten. auf die westliche gesellschaft und ihre zivilwerte und bürgerrechte zu pochen wird nichts helfen, denn diese sind tot.
kommen wir zur politik. das beschäftigen mit politik ist inzwischen so sehr mit der moderne verwoben, dass man sich fragt ob es nach der moderne überhaupt noch politik geben wird. das desinteresse der menschen, dass sie inzwischen für politik empfinden, spräche dafür, das es so ist.
was es aufjedenfall nicht mehr geben wird, ist die linke. die linke war eine pure ausgeburt der moderne, und mit ihren helden wie stalin, lenin usw. auch neben dem faschismus die menschenverachtenste und schlimmste ausgeburt der moderne.
es interessiert sich ja kaum noch jemand für "linke" thesen. sie ist halt so sehr mit der moderne verbunden, dass sie mit ihr sang und klanglos untergehen wird.
bei der rechten ist es schon nicht so eindeutig. scheinbar gibt es viele rechte theoretiker, die sich bewusst gegen die moderne stellen. von daher könnten sie den zusammenbruch der moderne für ihre zwecke nutzen, und wachsen und macht gewinnen. ich bin aber überzeugt, dass die rechte, im gegensatz zu eben solchen sachen wie katholizismus oder islamismus, keine wirklichen, orginären antimodernen punkte und thesen entwickeln kann. sie ist eben auch nur eine ausgeburt der moderne. das was die rechte will - einen starken staat, "übermenschen", usw. sind halt dinge, die letzendlich grundsätzlich auf der modene basieren.
von daher könnte der rechte spuk, der amerika und europe verängstigt, auch mit der moderne sang und klanglos untergehen.
die eigentliche aufgabe wäre es, standpunkte, ziele, gedanken zu entwickeln, die nicht modern sind, die etwas neues bieten, die nicht fanatisch politisch oder herkömmlich religiös sind, und die durch und durch positiv sind.
die ideen, konzepte, gedanken der moderne sind tot, haben kein leben mehr, die menschen finden kein interesse und keinen sinn mehr in ihnen. diejenigen ereignisse und strömungen, die die medien beherschen und auf interesse stossen, und verbreitung finden, sind, im meisten fall, deutlich und definitiv unmodern. der radikale islamismus. das neue interesse am katholizismus. auch das starke interesse an vormodernen zeiten, wie dem mittelalter, dem alten rom, ägypten, babylon, ist teil davon. alle "unmodernen" tendenzen, die zu den hochzeiten der moderne ein randdasein fristen mussten, wie der fanatische katholizmus, kommen aus ihren löchern gekrochen, erwachen wieder zum leben. wer würde sich heute noch wesentlich für "moderne" ideen interessieren, wie z.B. die langweilige "realpolitik" im stile der 70er, und ähnliches. die menschen suchen sich ihre inhalte woanders.
die moderne ist tot. was danach kommt, kann wohl noch keiner sagen. werden die fanatischen religionen den neuen kern der gesellschaft stellen? oder wird etwas neues entstehen?
was man jedoch mit sicherheit sagen kann, dass diese umbruchprozess, von der moderne in ein anderes zeitalter, nicht ruhig verlaufen wird. grosse soziale unruhen, kriege, revolten können ausbrechen. dafür sollte man gewappnet sein.
was wird nun die moderne ersetzen? das dilemma der menschen in der westlichen gesellschaft ist, dass wohl die meisten, oder ein grosser teil gerne aus der moderne ausbrechen würden; da sie aber in ihr sozialisiert, "indoktriniert" worden sind, ist ihnen dass aber ohne weiteres nicht möglich. das sah man an der bewegung der postmodernisten, die sich nie wirklich von den ideen der moderne befreien konnten. das spiel, die scheinbare dekonstruktion auf philosophischer basis z.B. der idee der wahrheit erkennt immer noch die moderne konzeption von wahrheit an. es ist nicht originär. der altertümliche, katholische wahrheitsbegriff ist es hingegen schon, und er ist wirklich nicht modern. nur um ein beispiel zu nennen.
eben so verhält es sich mit den anhängern eines radikalen islams. im gegensatz zu den postmodernen, antimodernen oder antiintellektuellen in den westlichen gesellschaften schaffen sie es, *wirklich* nichtmodern zu sein.
das heisst natürlich nicht dass ich radikale religion gut heisse. nur sie bietet den menschen eine echte, reale alternative zu den westlichen gesellschaften, und deswegen werden sie in zukunft viele anhänger finden und dadurch auftrieb erhalten. will man dieses aufstrebende theokratische phänomen bekämpfen, müsste man eben den menschen eine echte, positive alternative bieten. auf die westliche gesellschaft und ihre zivilwerte und bürgerrechte zu pochen wird nichts helfen, denn diese sind tot.
kommen wir zur politik. das beschäftigen mit politik ist inzwischen so sehr mit der moderne verwoben, dass man sich fragt ob es nach der moderne überhaupt noch politik geben wird. das desinteresse der menschen, dass sie inzwischen für politik empfinden, spräche dafür, das es so ist.
was es aufjedenfall nicht mehr geben wird, ist die linke. die linke war eine pure ausgeburt der moderne, und mit ihren helden wie stalin, lenin usw. auch neben dem faschismus die menschenverachtenste und schlimmste ausgeburt der moderne.
es interessiert sich ja kaum noch jemand für "linke" thesen. sie ist halt so sehr mit der moderne verbunden, dass sie mit ihr sang und klanglos untergehen wird.
bei der rechten ist es schon nicht so eindeutig. scheinbar gibt es viele rechte theoretiker, die sich bewusst gegen die moderne stellen. von daher könnten sie den zusammenbruch der moderne für ihre zwecke nutzen, und wachsen und macht gewinnen. ich bin aber überzeugt, dass die rechte, im gegensatz zu eben solchen sachen wie katholizismus oder islamismus, keine wirklichen, orginären antimodernen punkte und thesen entwickeln kann. sie ist eben auch nur eine ausgeburt der moderne. das was die rechte will - einen starken staat, "übermenschen", usw. sind halt dinge, die letzendlich grundsätzlich auf der modene basieren.
von daher könnte der rechte spuk, der amerika und europe verängstigt, auch mit der moderne sang und klanglos untergehen.
die eigentliche aufgabe wäre es, standpunkte, ziele, gedanken zu entwickeln, die nicht modern sind, die etwas neues bieten, die nicht fanatisch politisch oder herkömmlich religiös sind, und die durch und durch positiv sind.
Revolution Is In The Air
revolution is in the air... again... finally.
there were some dark years, after the damned early 2000 years, when political, societal, cultural uprising, revolution, change seemed to be defeated, seemed to be futile. people where not only not interested in revolution anymore; you were laughed at if you still talked and fought for it; not even seen as their "enemy", but rather as a child who doesn't understand the basic fact that the status quo and the system will always be in this way, seemingly live on forever.
as i addressed in other texts, formularly "revolutionary" artists - or rather artists who had abused revolutionary rhetoric for their own ends, quickly jettisoned their revolutionary ideas and found their peace with pop culture, conservativism, the political system and market society. this was enhanced by the idea that now in a society driven mostly by computer technology, revolutionary struggle would just be an idea of the past.
okay so these were the dark years. nearly 10 dark, bleak years where it seemed humanity - at least in the western world - had finally lost it and we were stuck with a society that either bored us to death or directly killed us forever.
but in the last years, starting somewhen around 2007 for me, and especially after 2010, i noticed that things were about to change again. it was immediately clear to me that revolution was finally back. anarchism was back. social struggle was back. after 2013 it totally came out in the open for me. obviously this tendency had ran for a longer time already, and probably never had totally gone away, but i hadn't noticed it before. suddenly, it became visible that there was an interest in political ideas. in social struggle. people read about anarchism again and about anarchist authors. the interest in these things seems to strengthen everymonth, basically. it is something that is talked about again, that people are willing to dedicate themselves to again. of course, not yet, the large masses. but a large number of people, at least.
these are great and wonderful news. revolution is in the air again. you might see it too again, soon. or if it doesnt become visible - at leats it's there, it's happening, and it's growing.
great times lie ahead. adventures, exciting, wonderful times.
there were some dark years, after the damned early 2000 years, when political, societal, cultural uprising, revolution, change seemed to be defeated, seemed to be futile. people where not only not interested in revolution anymore; you were laughed at if you still talked and fought for it; not even seen as their "enemy", but rather as a child who doesn't understand the basic fact that the status quo and the system will always be in this way, seemingly live on forever.
as i addressed in other texts, formularly "revolutionary" artists - or rather artists who had abused revolutionary rhetoric for their own ends, quickly jettisoned their revolutionary ideas and found their peace with pop culture, conservativism, the political system and market society. this was enhanced by the idea that now in a society driven mostly by computer technology, revolutionary struggle would just be an idea of the past.
okay so these were the dark years. nearly 10 dark, bleak years where it seemed humanity - at least in the western world - had finally lost it and we were stuck with a society that either bored us to death or directly killed us forever.
but in the last years, starting somewhen around 2007 for me, and especially after 2010, i noticed that things were about to change again. it was immediately clear to me that revolution was finally back. anarchism was back. social struggle was back. after 2013 it totally came out in the open for me. obviously this tendency had ran for a longer time already, and probably never had totally gone away, but i hadn't noticed it before. suddenly, it became visible that there was an interest in political ideas. in social struggle. people read about anarchism again and about anarchist authors. the interest in these things seems to strengthen everymonth, basically. it is something that is talked about again, that people are willing to dedicate themselves to again. of course, not yet, the large masses. but a large number of people, at least.
these are great and wonderful news. revolution is in the air again. you might see it too again, soon. or if it doesnt become visible - at leats it's there, it's happening, and it's growing.
great times lie ahead. adventures, exciting, wonderful times.
Why I Am Doing Music
i never intended to make money or "become successful" in society's standards with my music. i wish i could say this was based on altruism or a certain "noble mindset" on my part. but in truth, it isn't. it is simply completely elementary for me to make music. it is a necessity. i need to do it. now you might think what i want to say is that music gives me energy or hope and strength, and thus supports my life, and that's why i do it. but it goes much deeper than that. my music doesn't support my life - well it does, but there is also something else. my music *is* more my life than my "actual life" could ever be. the real me is in my music, or rather, it is more in my music, than in any other era of my life.
why is this this way? how do i mean that? well, i think it is safe to say that for any human that exists, there is a deep conflict that shapes his life. this is the conflict between how he, or she, really is, and how society demands him or her to be. the conflict between individual and society can not be overcome, at least not easily. most people choose to reach some sort of middle ground, or compromise, between their own needs and societies demand. they fit in. but this is not feasible for me. because, at my core, i am too different to society. my needs, and my very nature is much too different from society, and its norms and standards. but, on the other hand, i cannot simply "leave" or win against society, at least not in an easy way, again. i too have to confirm and adapt and fit in, every day. if only to not find myself on the streets or in jail at the end of the day. but, by chance, i found a solution for this. which is, that in my music, i can put out all the thoughts, desires, ideas, wishes, needs, that i cannot find or live in societal life. in my music i can put my real me, the one that is hidden from society.
and i can live good by this, as the pressure to adapt, that hinders many people, is taken off my back in a nice way. i can live and adapt, but still be my true me.
this is why i am creating music.
why is this this way? how do i mean that? well, i think it is safe to say that for any human that exists, there is a deep conflict that shapes his life. this is the conflict between how he, or she, really is, and how society demands him or her to be. the conflict between individual and society can not be overcome, at least not easily. most people choose to reach some sort of middle ground, or compromise, between their own needs and societies demand. they fit in. but this is not feasible for me. because, at my core, i am too different to society. my needs, and my very nature is much too different from society, and its norms and standards. but, on the other hand, i cannot simply "leave" or win against society, at least not in an easy way, again. i too have to confirm and adapt and fit in, every day. if only to not find myself on the streets or in jail at the end of the day. but, by chance, i found a solution for this. which is, that in my music, i can put out all the thoughts, desires, ideas, wishes, needs, that i cannot find or live in societal life. in my music i can put my real me, the one that is hidden from society.
and i can live good by this, as the pressure to adapt, that hinders many people, is taken off my back in a nice way. i can live and adapt, but still be my true me.
this is why i am creating music.
Was Culture, Music, Society Better In The Past?
the problem is that culture, music and society seemingly really was better in the past. which leads to missing the point in the debate of "current" vs "past". which is that life is about renewal, change, abandoning the past *and* the current. it's not about keeping things. it's about breaking free. and because of this, the current society, music and culture *has* to be rejected at the core. to compare it with the past creates a longing for past gone "better days". while in fact it doesn't matter if it was better in the past or not. the current, what is today, what exists nowadays, still has to be rejected, destroyed, dismantled, regardless of wether society is better, or worse, or the same as it was in the past. even if we would live in the perfect society and culture, and everything would be fine and nice and great, still - basically - everything that exist needs to be rejected and society would need to be challenged and fought. because, as i said, this is what life is. constantly evolving, constantly leaving everything that becomes "comfort" or "persistant" behind - no matter how nice it seems. today's culture needs to be fought. no matter how good or okay or great it is.
let's face it. music, mainstream culture, most forms of media, sucked in the 60s. they sucked in the 70s. and they sucked in the 2000 years and they especially suck in our decade.
but this is no need to resignate. because it enforces the need to move on from the old and the current and to create some new, something thrilling, something brilliant and fresh.
let's face it. music, mainstream culture, most forms of media, sucked in the 60s. they sucked in the 70s. and they sucked in the 2000 years and they especially suck in our decade.
but this is no need to resignate. because it enforces the need to move on from the old and the current and to create some new, something thrilling, something brilliant and fresh.
Die Unbekannte Bewegung
in den 90ern, und wohl auch ende der 80er (und früher), gab es eine sehr starke und teilweise einflussreiche bewegung, die fast keinerlei beachtung in der öffentlichkeit fand, und auch sonst wenig bekanntheit über ihre grenzen und wirkungsbereich hinaus erlangte - von ausnahmen abgesehen - weswegen ich sie eben die "unbekannte bewegung" nenne. einige ihrer wurzeln und inspirationen lagen im anarchismus, situationismus, der 60er bewegung, nihilismus, der avantgarde der 20er und philosophien wie karl marx oder max stirner.
ein weiterer grund warum ich sie die unbekannte bewegung nenne, ist, dass es keine wirkliche eigenbezeichnung gab, und dies auch bewusst so gewählt waren. "extropisten", "sub-situationisten", "typ 3 anarchismus" waren einige der verwandten begriffe, die aber nicht allgemeingültig war. primitivismus, anarcho-primitivismus und neo-luddismus sind begriffe, die einen teil der bewegung bezeichnen, und mit ihr verschmolz, von dem sich andere aber abgrenzten, und eben nur für einen teil zutrafen. teilweise gab es überschnitte mit dem öko-anarchismus (grüne anarchisten). soweit ich weiss ist der anarcho-primitivismus einer der wenigen teile der bewegung, die auch heute noch einigermassen aktiv sind. der einfluss den die bewegung hatte bezog sich vor allem auf gruppen wie künstler und andere individualisten (meiner beobachtung nach), die ihre ideen umsetzten oder versuchten weiter zu verbreiten. ein nennenswertes medien-echo oder ähnliches gab es selten, zumindest nichts, dessen ich mir bewusst wäre - was aber ja auch gar nicht nötig ist.
einige der thesen, die diese bewegung hatte, waren u.a.
gegen regierung
gegen nation
gegen kapitalismus
gegen fortschritt
gegen geschlechter
gegen sprache
gegen mathematik
gegen zeit
gegen geschichte
natürlich waren nicht alle menschen gegen alle diese dinge gleichzeitig. desweiteren gab es eine grosse debatte, ob man, obwohl man gegen diese dinge ist, sich nicht trotzdem ihrer bedienung kann, also z.B. die sprache benutzen kann, um einen standtpunkt gegen die sprache zu setzen.
einige wollte, dass die menschen sofort alle "zivilisationserrungenschaften" ablegten, und dass sie ohne sprache, kunst, oder größere organisation wieder im (ur-)wald leben sollten.
einige andere wiederum hatten den plan, alle möglichkeiten von high-tech und internet auszunützen, um eine chaotische anarchische gesellschaft zu erzeugen.
wie gesagt, der wirkungsgrad der bewegung blieb - letzten endes - gering. dennoch habe ich viele thesen - bislang - mehr oder weniger - nur dort gefunden, die ich als wichtig erachte. wenn ich die nachrichten lese oder sehe, habe ich das gefühl, die welt hätte sich genau umgekehrt nach den forderungen eben jener menschen entwickelt.[1]
es wäre an der zeit, zu versuchen, diese alten thesen wieder hervorzuholen, oder zu versuchen, sie an die heutige zeit anzupassen.
einige vordenker dieser bewegung:
Hakim Bey
Bob Black
Ken Knabb (eher klassischer Situationismus)
John Zerzan
Fußnoten:
1: damit meine ich nicht, dass sich die welt bewusst in die andere richtung als diese denker entwickelt hat, sondern dass ihre thesen schon zutreffend waren.
ein weiterer grund warum ich sie die unbekannte bewegung nenne, ist, dass es keine wirkliche eigenbezeichnung gab, und dies auch bewusst so gewählt waren. "extropisten", "sub-situationisten", "typ 3 anarchismus" waren einige der verwandten begriffe, die aber nicht allgemeingültig war. primitivismus, anarcho-primitivismus und neo-luddismus sind begriffe, die einen teil der bewegung bezeichnen, und mit ihr verschmolz, von dem sich andere aber abgrenzten, und eben nur für einen teil zutrafen. teilweise gab es überschnitte mit dem öko-anarchismus (grüne anarchisten). soweit ich weiss ist der anarcho-primitivismus einer der wenigen teile der bewegung, die auch heute noch einigermassen aktiv sind. der einfluss den die bewegung hatte bezog sich vor allem auf gruppen wie künstler und andere individualisten (meiner beobachtung nach), die ihre ideen umsetzten oder versuchten weiter zu verbreiten. ein nennenswertes medien-echo oder ähnliches gab es selten, zumindest nichts, dessen ich mir bewusst wäre - was aber ja auch gar nicht nötig ist.
einige der thesen, die diese bewegung hatte, waren u.a.
gegen regierung
gegen nation
gegen kapitalismus
gegen fortschritt
gegen geschlechter
gegen sprache
gegen mathematik
gegen zeit
gegen geschichte
natürlich waren nicht alle menschen gegen alle diese dinge gleichzeitig. desweiteren gab es eine grosse debatte, ob man, obwohl man gegen diese dinge ist, sich nicht trotzdem ihrer bedienung kann, also z.B. die sprache benutzen kann, um einen standtpunkt gegen die sprache zu setzen.
einige wollte, dass die menschen sofort alle "zivilisationserrungenschaften" ablegten, und dass sie ohne sprache, kunst, oder größere organisation wieder im (ur-)wald leben sollten.
einige andere wiederum hatten den plan, alle möglichkeiten von high-tech und internet auszunützen, um eine chaotische anarchische gesellschaft zu erzeugen.
wie gesagt, der wirkungsgrad der bewegung blieb - letzten endes - gering. dennoch habe ich viele thesen - bislang - mehr oder weniger - nur dort gefunden, die ich als wichtig erachte. wenn ich die nachrichten lese oder sehe, habe ich das gefühl, die welt hätte sich genau umgekehrt nach den forderungen eben jener menschen entwickelt.[1]
es wäre an der zeit, zu versuchen, diese alten thesen wieder hervorzuholen, oder zu versuchen, sie an die heutige zeit anzupassen.
einige vordenker dieser bewegung:
Hakim Bey
Bob Black
Ken Knabb (eher klassischer Situationismus)
John Zerzan
Fußnoten:
1: damit meine ich nicht, dass sich die welt bewusst in die andere richtung als diese denker entwickelt hat, sondern dass ihre thesen schon zutreffend waren.
Schwierigkeiten Der Bisherigen Stirnerrezeption
eines der probleme der bisherigen stirnerrezeption ist, dass die rezeption hauptsächlich von menschen, die der etablierten philosophie bzw. akademischen positionen nahestehen, erfolgte. dies ist gerade die gruppe, bzw. der kreis von mensch, gegen die sich eine starke kritik richtet, die sich durch das ganze buch von stirner zieht. er war einer der größten kritiker eben dieses kreises von menschen, und hat auch eine der umfassendsten und kohärentesten kritiken seiner entwickelt. er zeigte auch auf, dass, auch wenn diese menschen teilweise scheinbar ganz unterschiedliche positionen vertreten, sie doch in vielerlei hinsicht die selben dogmen und vorurteile, oder zumindest konzepte haben, die sie nicht umzuwerfen bereit sind.
man muss von der "akademischen", und von der "philosophischen" betrachtungsweise stirners wegkommen.
was nun der "akademische standpunkt" oder die etablierte philosophie an gemeinsamen vorurteilen oder konzepten verbindet, würde zu viel beschäftigung verlangen, als es in diesen text passen würde. interessierten würde ich die lektüre von stirners buch selbst empfehlen, da es, wie gesagt, dort behandelt wird, und stirner es mit seinen worten am besten ausdrückt.
wer behauptet, die akademische beschäftigung mit philosophie, und die etablierte philosophie an sich, sei doch "neutral", ein neutraler gesichtspunkt, objektiv, sei gesagt, dass es so etwas wie neutralität und objektivität nicht gibt. der standpunkt eines menschen ist immer subjektiv, egal, wie "akademisch" er vorgeht. wenn es so wäre, warum gibt es dann überhaupt eine akademische beschäftigung mit einem thema? weil sie "anders" ist als eine normale oder sonstige beschäftigung. also gibt es doch einen "unterschied"! und dieser "unterschied" ist eben das problem in der stirnerrezeption.
da stirner das bisherige zusammenspiel der etablierten philosophen, und der ihnen nahestehenden mensche offenlegt, ist dies eine enthüllung, und jene die von der enthüllung betroffen sind, reagieren erbost und versuchen ihrerseits, mit dem "problem stirner", das nun existiert, umzugehen.
wenn ein mensch der eine akademische position oder der etablierten philosophie angehört, etwas über stirner schreibt, ist das so, als wenn ein leiter eines automobilkonzern eine stellungsnahme zu anschuldingen eines menschen gibt, der grade einen skandal in einer seiner fertigungsfabriken offengelegt hat. natürlich könnte der leiter die wahrheit sagen. es wäre aber entgegen seines interesses.
man wird mir natürlich "verallgemeinerung" vorwerfen. natürlich ist nicht jeder philosophiestudent automatisch unfähig, stirner zu verstehen. aber im groben, denke ich, habe ich recht. und es sollte jedem offensichtlich sein, dass es problematisch ist, wenn eine rezeption nur aus einer bestimmten ecke kommt. [1]
nun zu den näherliegenden problemen der stirnerrezeption, die damit zusammenhängen.
in der stirnerrezeption haben sich vorallem zwei extreme herrauskristallisiert. die einen, die stirner kategorisch ablehnen, und sich teilweise auch in drastischer aburteilung, bis zur infragestellung von stirners geisteszustandes ergehen, oder sich überlegen, ob er nur ein großer scherzbold war. hierbei werden meistens stirners thesen thesen der etablierten philosophie gegenübergestellt, und daraus gefolgert, dass stirner diese wohl nicht kannte oder nicht verstanden hat. so wird gesagt: "was, stirner meint die menschen könnten ohne regierung leben? dieser und jener denker haben doch schon längst logisch bewiesen, dass eine regierung notwendig ist.". und ähnliches.
gefährlicher scheint mir aber die fraktion, die stirner scheinbar unterstützt.
stirners werk wird als positiv, sinnvoll, teilweise sogar bahnbrechend angesehen. dann kommt es aber: "stirner meint aber eigentlich etwas ganz anderes.". stirner wird in einer reihe mit konzepten der etablierten philosophie gestellt, wie sozialismus, nihilismus, solipsismus usw. usw. dies wäre die eigentlich aussage von stirner; man müsste die wörter von stirner halt nur auf eine bestimmte weise verstehen, man darf sie nicht wörtlich nehmen, er meint eigentlich etwas ganz anders als er augenscheinlich sagt.
dem muss ich strikt widersprechen.
ich denke stirner meint sehr genau was er sagt, und man sollte seine sätze auch so verstehen, wie sie geschrieben stehen. eine "fremde bedeutung" hineinzudenken halte ich nicht für sinnvoll.
dies wird allerdings dadurch erschwert, dass ich diesen satz auch schon wieder halb zurücknehmen muss, da stirners buch tatsächlich viele stellen und dinge erhält, die eine andere bedeutung haben, als es erst scheint.
stirner selber erwähnt dies unzählige male; so z.B. dass er das wort "egoist" und "egoismus" komplett anders benutzt, als es die gesellschaft für gemeinhin versteht.
dies ist aber nur ein scheinbarer widerspruch. der schlüssel zum verständnis liegt, meiner meinung nach, darin, dass man die worte so versteht wie er sie hinschreibt; aber dies auch wirklich tut. denn viele passagen rufen tatsächlich die reaktion hervor, dass man denkt "so kann er dass doch nicht meinen. das wäre ja viel zu extrem, merkwürdig, unmöglich.". nein, ich denke stirner meint es bierernst. eben grade die "absurden", "unerhörten" passagen seines textes.
stirners buch entspricht *keiner* etablierten philosophie, die ich kenne.
ich denke, erst wenn man die worte so wie stirner sie schreibt ernst nimmt, ist ein tieferes verständnis von stirners texten möglich.
fußnoten:
[1]ich will natürlich nicht behaupten, dass ich alleine über akademischen und etablierten philosophischen positionen stehe. ich will behaupten, das *jeder* mensch über diesen positionen stehen kann. und dies ist die gruppe, die stirner lesen sollte.
man muss von der "akademischen", und von der "philosophischen" betrachtungsweise stirners wegkommen.
was nun der "akademische standpunkt" oder die etablierte philosophie an gemeinsamen vorurteilen oder konzepten verbindet, würde zu viel beschäftigung verlangen, als es in diesen text passen würde. interessierten würde ich die lektüre von stirners buch selbst empfehlen, da es, wie gesagt, dort behandelt wird, und stirner es mit seinen worten am besten ausdrückt.
wer behauptet, die akademische beschäftigung mit philosophie, und die etablierte philosophie an sich, sei doch "neutral", ein neutraler gesichtspunkt, objektiv, sei gesagt, dass es so etwas wie neutralität und objektivität nicht gibt. der standpunkt eines menschen ist immer subjektiv, egal, wie "akademisch" er vorgeht. wenn es so wäre, warum gibt es dann überhaupt eine akademische beschäftigung mit einem thema? weil sie "anders" ist als eine normale oder sonstige beschäftigung. also gibt es doch einen "unterschied"! und dieser "unterschied" ist eben das problem in der stirnerrezeption.
da stirner das bisherige zusammenspiel der etablierten philosophen, und der ihnen nahestehenden mensche offenlegt, ist dies eine enthüllung, und jene die von der enthüllung betroffen sind, reagieren erbost und versuchen ihrerseits, mit dem "problem stirner", das nun existiert, umzugehen.
wenn ein mensch der eine akademische position oder der etablierten philosophie angehört, etwas über stirner schreibt, ist das so, als wenn ein leiter eines automobilkonzern eine stellungsnahme zu anschuldingen eines menschen gibt, der grade einen skandal in einer seiner fertigungsfabriken offengelegt hat. natürlich könnte der leiter die wahrheit sagen. es wäre aber entgegen seines interesses.
man wird mir natürlich "verallgemeinerung" vorwerfen. natürlich ist nicht jeder philosophiestudent automatisch unfähig, stirner zu verstehen. aber im groben, denke ich, habe ich recht. und es sollte jedem offensichtlich sein, dass es problematisch ist, wenn eine rezeption nur aus einer bestimmten ecke kommt. [1]
nun zu den näherliegenden problemen der stirnerrezeption, die damit zusammenhängen.
in der stirnerrezeption haben sich vorallem zwei extreme herrauskristallisiert. die einen, die stirner kategorisch ablehnen, und sich teilweise auch in drastischer aburteilung, bis zur infragestellung von stirners geisteszustandes ergehen, oder sich überlegen, ob er nur ein großer scherzbold war. hierbei werden meistens stirners thesen thesen der etablierten philosophie gegenübergestellt, und daraus gefolgert, dass stirner diese wohl nicht kannte oder nicht verstanden hat. so wird gesagt: "was, stirner meint die menschen könnten ohne regierung leben? dieser und jener denker haben doch schon längst logisch bewiesen, dass eine regierung notwendig ist.". und ähnliches.
gefährlicher scheint mir aber die fraktion, die stirner scheinbar unterstützt.
stirners werk wird als positiv, sinnvoll, teilweise sogar bahnbrechend angesehen. dann kommt es aber: "stirner meint aber eigentlich etwas ganz anderes.". stirner wird in einer reihe mit konzepten der etablierten philosophie gestellt, wie sozialismus, nihilismus, solipsismus usw. usw. dies wäre die eigentlich aussage von stirner; man müsste die wörter von stirner halt nur auf eine bestimmte weise verstehen, man darf sie nicht wörtlich nehmen, er meint eigentlich etwas ganz anders als er augenscheinlich sagt.
dem muss ich strikt widersprechen.
ich denke stirner meint sehr genau was er sagt, und man sollte seine sätze auch so verstehen, wie sie geschrieben stehen. eine "fremde bedeutung" hineinzudenken halte ich nicht für sinnvoll.
dies wird allerdings dadurch erschwert, dass ich diesen satz auch schon wieder halb zurücknehmen muss, da stirners buch tatsächlich viele stellen und dinge erhält, die eine andere bedeutung haben, als es erst scheint.
stirner selber erwähnt dies unzählige male; so z.B. dass er das wort "egoist" und "egoismus" komplett anders benutzt, als es die gesellschaft für gemeinhin versteht.
dies ist aber nur ein scheinbarer widerspruch. der schlüssel zum verständnis liegt, meiner meinung nach, darin, dass man die worte so versteht wie er sie hinschreibt; aber dies auch wirklich tut. denn viele passagen rufen tatsächlich die reaktion hervor, dass man denkt "so kann er dass doch nicht meinen. das wäre ja viel zu extrem, merkwürdig, unmöglich.". nein, ich denke stirner meint es bierernst. eben grade die "absurden", "unerhörten" passagen seines textes.
stirners buch entspricht *keiner* etablierten philosophie, die ich kenne.
ich denke, erst wenn man die worte so wie stirner sie schreibt ernst nimmt, ist ein tieferes verständnis von stirners texten möglich.
fußnoten:
[1]ich will natürlich nicht behaupten, dass ich alleine über akademischen und etablierten philosophischen positionen stehe. ich will behaupten, das *jeder* mensch über diesen positionen stehen kann. und dies ist die gruppe, die stirner lesen sollte.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)