I said everything in this world is a trap; and the trap always works the same way.
I will talk about my personal trap, because that is the trap I know best.
When I got records out, and played at parties and did other things, I got to know a lot of people of course. And almost all of them told me the same thing: "give up this idea of an anarchist revolution through music! We can still have parties and lots of fun and good times and enjoy it and the music will continue, but get rid of this anarchist idea." the meaning behind this is clear: to give up an ideal or dream for selfish, material gain. But this is of course wrong. A revolution triggered by music, or any form of art or even books is indeed possible. And anarchism is indeed possible.
So don't fall for such traps. Don't trade in your ideal, dream or vision in order to gain something in this world.
On Drugs
I never voluntarily did drugs, unless you count caffeine. I never was drunk in my life. I was sometimes stoned outta my mind being in a room of weed smokers and it's possible someone spilled something in my drink at parties, but in both cases, it didn't make me feel weirder than usual. There were two main reasons for this. The first was I always assumed I might like drugs just a little bit too much, and become easily addicted. The other was the following. Some take drugs for entertainment. Not interesting to me. But what is interesting is that drugs are used in an attempt to gain enlightenment and wisdom. Now this never clicked with me. Reaching enlightenment not by contemplation, but by doing a tangible, direct thing as buying a pill and swallowing it. That seems just so illogical to me. Now you might say, you can get knowledge by reading a book and that's a tangible thing too. But it's not, really. The book and the bed you sit in is not intellectual, but the content of the book you read is intellectual. While the drug is very physical.
To further illustrate this; if people could get knowledge and enlightenment with drugs, a restrictive government for example could set up a powerful anti-drug police force, maybe even using extreme measures, stopping people from taking drugs, and blocking them from gaining enlightenment this way! This is just so much non-sense. Because there is no way a government could ever block the spread of true knowledge. Therefore, the true knowledge could not be spread using drugs.
I re-read the texts by Hakim Bey a while ago. He is pro-drugs and actually addresses this point. He claims that the very nature of psychedelic drugs is that they evade government control. Somehow they always get spread.
Interesting idea. If that's true I could've tried drugs all these years. No I won't, just kidding.
I will not believe you can get a very profound insight by doing a very tangible thing such as reaching out, taking a pill, putting it in your mouth and swallowing it. Instead of contemplating. At least not without paying a heavy price. Because people do assume they got important knowledge by drugs. And this knowledge can get them places; becoming a rockstar, rich, whatever, or getting some things they want in life. But it doesn't help them with their intellectual development; at least not to the full extent. And that's what really matters.
Of course I don't condemn use of drugs or drug users, even if they're just doing it for entertainment.
And then there is the shamanic and religious use of drugs, which *could* be useful.
To further explain my point: how do you gain knowledge? By using your mind, reason, logic, your intellect. If someone told you: you will gain knowledge (profound knowledge) by taking a hammer and hitting a nail, or by picking up a stone and throwing it, you would say: nonsense. But that's what taking a drug is: not using your intellect, but doing a physical action: reaching with your hand, grabbing an object, putting it inside your mouth and swallowing it. How could you gain an important insight by this?
To further illustrate this; if people could get knowledge and enlightenment with drugs, a restrictive government for example could set up a powerful anti-drug police force, maybe even using extreme measures, stopping people from taking drugs, and blocking them from gaining enlightenment this way! This is just so much non-sense. Because there is no way a government could ever block the spread of true knowledge. Therefore, the true knowledge could not be spread using drugs.
I re-read the texts by Hakim Bey a while ago. He is pro-drugs and actually addresses this point. He claims that the very nature of psychedelic drugs is that they evade government control. Somehow they always get spread.
Interesting idea. If that's true I could've tried drugs all these years. No I won't, just kidding.
I will not believe you can get a very profound insight by doing a very tangible thing such as reaching out, taking a pill, putting it in your mouth and swallowing it. Instead of contemplating. At least not without paying a heavy price. Because people do assume they got important knowledge by drugs. And this knowledge can get them places; becoming a rockstar, rich, whatever, or getting some things they want in life. But it doesn't help them with their intellectual development; at least not to the full extent. And that's what really matters.
Of course I don't condemn use of drugs or drug users, even if they're just doing it for entertainment.
And then there is the shamanic and religious use of drugs, which *could* be useful.
To further explain my point: how do you gain knowledge? By using your mind, reason, logic, your intellect. If someone told you: you will gain knowledge (profound knowledge) by taking a hammer and hitting a nail, or by picking up a stone and throwing it, you would say: nonsense. But that's what taking a drug is: not using your intellect, but doing a physical action: reaching with your hand, grabbing an object, putting it inside your mouth and swallowing it. How could you gain an important insight by this?
My Motivation
When I got back into doing music, I was very enthusiastic at first. But that quickly waned. There were two reasons for it.
The first was, I felt my music was not on par with my earlier music. It just didn't feel as exciting to me anymore. But the other reason was more important. I felt that I had expressed all that I could express with my old style of music already. I had reached a plateau. And I wondered if it was possible to get to a higher plateau. What made it worse was that with most music I listened to, I had the same reaction. It seemed to be good and exciting and everything, but didn't get beyond a certain level. And I wondered if it was indeed possible to transcend that level by the use of art.
Then three things happened. I re-read Neuromancer by William Gibson, listened to the new music done by Joerg Buchholz, and watched Inland Empire by David lynch. This showed that there was still a higher level to be reached by art.
This was in 2011. All music I done since then would likely not have been possible without encountering these three things.
I of course don't mean I tried to reach the level of mastership a David Lynch or a William Gibson has. But to realize there is something in art, that is still above and not common, and maybe one can reach and share a tiny part of it. Maybe it's a kind of hubris to even desire to reach this level. But I gave it my all, and I am not to judge if I succeeded with it or not.
The first was, I felt my music was not on par with my earlier music. It just didn't feel as exciting to me anymore. But the other reason was more important. I felt that I had expressed all that I could express with my old style of music already. I had reached a plateau. And I wondered if it was possible to get to a higher plateau. What made it worse was that with most music I listened to, I had the same reaction. It seemed to be good and exciting and everything, but didn't get beyond a certain level. And I wondered if it was indeed possible to transcend that level by the use of art.
Then three things happened. I re-read Neuromancer by William Gibson, listened to the new music done by Joerg Buchholz, and watched Inland Empire by David lynch. This showed that there was still a higher level to be reached by art.
This was in 2011. All music I done since then would likely not have been possible without encountering these three things.
I of course don't mean I tried to reach the level of mastership a David Lynch or a William Gibson has. But to realize there is something in art, that is still above and not common, and maybe one can reach and share a tiny part of it. Maybe it's a kind of hubris to even desire to reach this level. But I gave it my all, and I am not to judge if I succeeded with it or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)