there was one thing that made techno of the 90s interesting, and especially it's hardcore variant, and especially the sample-based digital hardcore / noizecore variant of it. this was that by sampling and other techniques, it was build on top of other genres, using their sounds, methods, and fusing them together, and building something that was above them - a higher level of sound. it was one of the first widespread meta-genres; the sonic exploration no longer took place within the confines of a single genre such as punkrock, reggae etc, but stacking whole genres together by using samples out of them. while producers before took care of elements of a genre - which chord to use, which notes, this was not so important to a techno producer; rather, which "genre" to use, to fuse together with the other elements of the track. producers use drums, baselines, guitars, chords; meta-producer produce their track out of genres.
there is a widespread feeling that culture, especially music, is stuck right now and has been for the last decade at least. it's not. culture is just slowly moving to the meta-genre i talked about.
on the sonic level, almost everything seems to be done already; disharmonic sounds, harmonic sounds, distortion, analogue stuff, accoustic guitars, noize, ambiance... so what is next? no longer caring about sounds on this level, or at least not putting the main focus on it, but to move to the next higher level, and no longer stack sounds together, but fuse and combine genres and create something new out of that.
i think it's unlikely that either something wholly new on the basic sonic level could be found, or that it is possible to produce music really in the old styles, and if it is possible, it should not be done, because that level should be left behind - it's time to go the higher level.
again, meta-music means that music is built out of existing music, creating something new by the combination of it and other things. like sound is the element of music, genres and existing concepts are the elements of meta-music.
obviously, this is going on for a while now, starting long before the turn of the millenium. you can see it in an egg-like state in rock genres now; rockbands now longer want to sound like ac/dc or hardrock only, or just like the pistols buzzcocks and punk; they fuse everything from funk reggae rap metal folk, anything that you can think of.
this meta-intention might be noble, but to me it's still lacking; there is too much of a focus on creating a seamless sound, meta-music should have some rough edges; with it's almost "mystical" sentimentality for old rock and rock'n'roll or CBGBs heroes, it's anti-intellectual, and meta-music has to be intellectual. and, above all, its products don't really sound so meta to me.
with a lot more focus on sampling and its issues, than there was in the 90s and 80s, it's not viable to really do "sampled-based" music anymore, at least not if you don't have permission for that. this is actually a hindrance to creating a higher level sound; but it's not something that would really stop it. focus not on literally sampling music or re-using notes and melodies, or rhythms, but on the concepts of music, of genres, of takes on sounds. like the emotionality of early punkrock. the "grooviness" of funk. the mindblowing effect of avantgarde music. by this, you can fuse new creations, higher level creation of sounds, without touching your samples at all.
it would be interesting where this leads in the future. maybe this meta-concept will fade away like so many cultural hopes. but i don't think music will be created on a "simple" level again; like a punkband writing just a punksong; or a techno act doing just a 90s techno track; these times are definately over.
there is a lot to be said, on how music on this higher, new level can be created; maybe in another text. but maybe it's better to be left in the open and for everyone to be found out by him or herself.
but the point remains; by putting together existing concepts, creating something new and building something on top of that, you can produce something really new.
The Dilemma Of Subcultures
"I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the Negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix". this statement still rings in our ears & is ever present. i too saw subcultures fall apart, and people going down with them. even if they started with a great idea, spirit, movement. there was one cause for this, that was a more important factor to this then most other. this is that the "system" - let's call it system for now - the hierarchy, society, this mainstream culture, has its very own immune system. there are always plenty of fuck-ups and creeps, in a negative way, that do not fit in to society. in fact it took me a long time to realize this; that not every outcast or outsider is this for noble reasons, but sometimes just because he is indeed more fucked up in a multitute of ways than "normal people" (who are, of course, already pretty fucked up). these people always run around and try to find some social circle and subculture that "accepts" them, lets them in, as they have nothing else they can cling to.
once they're in they're leeching off the creativity, enthusiasm, spontanity of the subculture and generate a negative mood and drag everything down. like a virus, this strain is eventually too much and the subculture breaks down, turns sour. once these creeps have established themselves, they will start to bully the original people out of the scene. also, some of the originators of the culture, who have some torn personality too, will realize that the creeps outnumber the creative people and if they support them, they will elevate them - as a DJ, artist, musician whatever - to their own stardom. so their support their agenda, turn their back on the creative people, and the scene gets torn.
just a short intermission - of course they're also wonderful "freaks" and outcasts and people who have a hard time to fit in - i'm not talking about these but their negative counterparts. those who cannot amount to contribute anything positive and just inject decay into interesting and noble goals, ideals - scenes.
one of the difference between these groups is that the "positive" people find their scene eventually, and contribute to it and stick with it. while the negative losers do not care what scene or culture or movement they join as they just want to leech creativity and have some false illusion of "fitting in" - if there is no hardcore scene in their town they will become goths for example, if there is no goth scene they turn punk, without any idea or commitment to these scenes really.
i should also add something about the bullying; for example a radical music scene starts with people who share a certain, futuristic mindset, criticize existing hierarchies, criticize ideas about morality, society, culture, nation, military, racism and such.
eventually the creeps will join the scene and they will bring their dumb and conservative ideas and spread racism and rightwing opinions, and in many ways bully those who are smarter then them.
the one issue i want to point out is that the creeps can, in a sense, only enter because the scenes are voluntary open to everyone and everything.
this was the one main flaw, of the punk scene, of the hippie scene, of the techno scene, of the hardcore scene; that everyone was allowed and even encouraged to join, so the people who were too dumb to fit in elsewhere joined quickly, and eventually the reactionaries, the bigots, the idiots and rightwing joined too; because after all, the dumb outnumber the smart by a million; so if everyone is free to enter a subculture, it will become a pit for dumbness.
it should be noted that in the past, in centures and millennia ago, art, wisdom, teaching, culture, was not "open to all"; it was circulated by restricted and sometimes secret circles; you needed initation and qualities to become part of these circles.
the early techno scenes were in some sense a revival of these secret societies; with their info about parties, locations, events only circulated to a select few - not to the masses!
if we want to see that art is not degraded more, and a renaissance of creativity and beauty, we need to get rid of the idea of "access for all"; there needs to be a kind of secret, initiated system again. this way, a stable and ongoing subculture, or better, movement can be created, and the short-livedness of these will be a thing of the past; and an amount of inspiration, beauty, brilliance, will fill these scenes.
but how should we go about this? this is indeed hard to tell. things like money ("you need to pay to get in") are a bad choice for this; this will only attract the rich creeps then and keep the creative poor out.
also, any fixed hierarchy could be a problem; as those are usually prone to get the worst creeps gaining a position at the top!
the early techno scene could maybe be an inspiration; it was not bound on money, and there were no "leaders" and such, still the content was not spread to the "masses"(at least not at first).
it should be noted that even small steps of restriction would already work wonders; if people would have to personally contact and convince people to be part of the secret society (a very "easy" step) this would already prevent most creeps from entering the scene.
another most important thing is that in these times of "social network" circulation, we need to learn the benefits of secrecy again; and if we use secrecy, in the way we do art and spread art, this could already be one of the biggest steps in the right direction.
the question on how to do these things remains open; but we will ponder on them.
once they're in they're leeching off the creativity, enthusiasm, spontanity of the subculture and generate a negative mood and drag everything down. like a virus, this strain is eventually too much and the subculture breaks down, turns sour. once these creeps have established themselves, they will start to bully the original people out of the scene. also, some of the originators of the culture, who have some torn personality too, will realize that the creeps outnumber the creative people and if they support them, they will elevate them - as a DJ, artist, musician whatever - to their own stardom. so their support their agenda, turn their back on the creative people, and the scene gets torn.
just a short intermission - of course they're also wonderful "freaks" and outcasts and people who have a hard time to fit in - i'm not talking about these but their negative counterparts. those who cannot amount to contribute anything positive and just inject decay into interesting and noble goals, ideals - scenes.
one of the difference between these groups is that the "positive" people find their scene eventually, and contribute to it and stick with it. while the negative losers do not care what scene or culture or movement they join as they just want to leech creativity and have some false illusion of "fitting in" - if there is no hardcore scene in their town they will become goths for example, if there is no goth scene they turn punk, without any idea or commitment to these scenes really.
i should also add something about the bullying; for example a radical music scene starts with people who share a certain, futuristic mindset, criticize existing hierarchies, criticize ideas about morality, society, culture, nation, military, racism and such.
eventually the creeps will join the scene and they will bring their dumb and conservative ideas and spread racism and rightwing opinions, and in many ways bully those who are smarter then them.
the one issue i want to point out is that the creeps can, in a sense, only enter because the scenes are voluntary open to everyone and everything.
this was the one main flaw, of the punk scene, of the hippie scene, of the techno scene, of the hardcore scene; that everyone was allowed and even encouraged to join, so the people who were too dumb to fit in elsewhere joined quickly, and eventually the reactionaries, the bigots, the idiots and rightwing joined too; because after all, the dumb outnumber the smart by a million; so if everyone is free to enter a subculture, it will become a pit for dumbness.
it should be noted that in the past, in centures and millennia ago, art, wisdom, teaching, culture, was not "open to all"; it was circulated by restricted and sometimes secret circles; you needed initation and qualities to become part of these circles.
the early techno scenes were in some sense a revival of these secret societies; with their info about parties, locations, events only circulated to a select few - not to the masses!
if we want to see that art is not degraded more, and a renaissance of creativity and beauty, we need to get rid of the idea of "access for all"; there needs to be a kind of secret, initiated system again. this way, a stable and ongoing subculture, or better, movement can be created, and the short-livedness of these will be a thing of the past; and an amount of inspiration, beauty, brilliance, will fill these scenes.
but how should we go about this? this is indeed hard to tell. things like money ("you need to pay to get in") are a bad choice for this; this will only attract the rich creeps then and keep the creative poor out.
also, any fixed hierarchy could be a problem; as those are usually prone to get the worst creeps gaining a position at the top!
the early techno scene could maybe be an inspiration; it was not bound on money, and there were no "leaders" and such, still the content was not spread to the "masses"(at least not at first).
it should be noted that even small steps of restriction would already work wonders; if people would have to personally contact and convince people to be part of the secret society (a very "easy" step) this would already prevent most creeps from entering the scene.
another most important thing is that in these times of "social network" circulation, we need to learn the benefits of secrecy again; and if we use secrecy, in the way we do art and spread art, this could already be one of the biggest steps in the right direction.
the question on how to do these things remains open; but we will ponder on them.
Bring Anarchism Back Into Hardcore
generally, there has been the tendency, that political, or rather, most in any way intellectual content, has been removed from music, from the various underground scenes. while this is claimed as being in the cause of "freeing" music of "ideology", in the end it only serves to turn music into a mere shallow, useless (capitalist) consumer good. something to "kick back to" after a "hard day's work". but music can have more meaning than that, it can make a difference, and it can make a change. it is very very much time to fuse music and subcultures with political, intellectual content, creativity, vision, purpose again.
for a free and boundless society! put anarchism back into hardcore techno.
tracklisting:
01. atari teenage riot - start the riot
02. atari teenage riot - into the death
03. s37 - streetfight
04. s37 - riot 1996
05. blunted vision - might cause a riot
06. ingler - riot
07. agro - bullen raus
08. dustor sheean - break out!
09. christoph de babalon - realistic riot ritual
10. dj scud & christoph fringeli - ruled by the mob
11. dj scud - mash the place up
12. scud & nomex - total destruction
13. society of unknowns - vector
14. ec8or - we are pissed
15. base force one - phuturist
16. metatron - men who hate the law
17. ec8or - we need a change
18. low entropy - anarchize (2015 remaster)
19. unknown source - a1
for a free and boundless society! put anarchism back into hardcore techno.
tracklisting:
01. atari teenage riot - start the riot
02. atari teenage riot - into the death
03. s37 - streetfight
04. s37 - riot 1996
05. blunted vision - might cause a riot
06. ingler - riot
07. agro - bullen raus
08. dustor sheean - break out!
09. christoph de babalon - realistic riot ritual
10. dj scud & christoph fringeli - ruled by the mob
11. dj scud - mash the place up
12. scud & nomex - total destruction
13. society of unknowns - vector
14. ec8or - we are pissed
15. base force one - phuturist
16. metatron - men who hate the law
17. ec8or - we need a change
18. low entropy - anarchize (2015 remaster)
19. unknown source - a1
Anti-Nazi Mix
No Fascist Europe - Anti-Nazi Mix
i had planned this mix already a few month ago and wrote the text below then. with the so-called "refugee crisis" that served as a scapegoat for an ever further mobilization of the extreme right as well as clearly showing the right wing attitudes amongst the middle class and the "center" of society, the fears i expressed have been surpassed by far by now. i can imagine that in a few month, weeks, these thoughts will too seem outdated with an even further gain of power by the right and the rightwing mindset. it's so very much necessary to take a stand now and say "no!".
the old text:
with the worrying tendency in europe, the rise of neofascist groups and movements, and a shift to the right and extreme right in public opinion, with the general population readily accepting fascist, nationalist and reactionary concepts and ideas again, it's time to take a stand. europe must not be allowed to fall prey to a fascist coup or restructuring. this dark night must not be allowed to be repeated. we will fight you, we will defend our rights and lifes and freedoms to our last. do you want to still have at least some degree of freedom and liberty in the next year, or live in a dictatorship or risk to be wiped out? we must not give way to these brutes. we must get up, and raise our voice.
Tracklisting:
01.Atari Teenage Riot - Hetzjagd Auf Nazis
02.Exit 100 - German Nazis Fuck Off
03.Nero - Youth Against Racism
04.DJ Freak - Anti Nazi Pack
05.Micropoint - Anti Nazi Vendetta
06.Chosen Few - Chosen Anthem (Against Racism)
07.Party Animals - Die Nazi Scum
08.Atari Teenage Riot - Hunt Down The Nazis
09.Alec Empire - You Must Confront
10.Nic Endo - Instant Balm #1
i had planned this mix already a few month ago and wrote the text below then. with the so-called "refugee crisis" that served as a scapegoat for an ever further mobilization of the extreme right as well as clearly showing the right wing attitudes amongst the middle class and the "center" of society, the fears i expressed have been surpassed by far by now. i can imagine that in a few month, weeks, these thoughts will too seem outdated with an even further gain of power by the right and the rightwing mindset. it's so very much necessary to take a stand now and say "no!".
the old text:
with the worrying tendency in europe, the rise of neofascist groups and movements, and a shift to the right and extreme right in public opinion, with the general population readily accepting fascist, nationalist and reactionary concepts and ideas again, it's time to take a stand. europe must not be allowed to fall prey to a fascist coup or restructuring. this dark night must not be allowed to be repeated. we will fight you, we will defend our rights and lifes and freedoms to our last. do you want to still have at least some degree of freedom and liberty in the next year, or live in a dictatorship or risk to be wiped out? we must not give way to these brutes. we must get up, and raise our voice.
Tracklisting:
01.Atari Teenage Riot - Hetzjagd Auf Nazis
02.Exit 100 - German Nazis Fuck Off
03.Nero - Youth Against Racism
04.DJ Freak - Anti Nazi Pack
05.Micropoint - Anti Nazi Vendetta
06.Chosen Few - Chosen Anthem (Against Racism)
07.Party Animals - Die Nazi Scum
08.Atari Teenage Riot - Hunt Down The Nazis
09.Alec Empire - You Must Confront
10.Nic Endo - Instant Balm #1
The Power Of Art
i so far have often claimed that art is more powerful than politics, or economics, or a political party, or billionaire CEOs. while some would agree with this claim, others would readily laugh at this thought. they would ask, how could art, just art, be of such power? it's art, on a medium, such as sound, images, video... nothing direct, nothing tangible - not a bomb or a gun not even a rock or a stone. how could it then - effect the "real" world?
i think this questions can only be approximatedely answered - at least by me, by now.
one thing i would like to say, that the matter is that art not so much changes the world by effecting the "real" world, but the world of thinking and thinking men.
but let us get to the point.
i can say two things:
first, man, is above all other things, rational and intellectual and capable of thinking and reflection.
second, thinking and reflection and intellectual thinking can be and can be used for more powerful things than almost any force in the world.
as for the second claim, it's obvious that man is in the superior position (just saying he is; not saying whether this is rightful) to any animal by the power of thinking and intelligence.
everything, good or bad, weak or powerful, in the end was created by man's mind; our architecture, our technology - our culture, space flights, internet, satellite communication.
the power of intellect enables man to solve the most complicated situations, and civilisation verily shows this.
no matter what the problem or issue is, to use one's intellectual cabalities will amost in any case lead to better results, than to rely on other abilities; let alone the things most people would associate the closest to the direct, real world, such as muscle power and strength.
the intellect is really something "abstract" compared to what people call real world things; but it is easily to see that it is more powerful than all these things.
the first claim is harder to proof; is man really intellectual, or not a creature driven by instincts and shades of ignorance? but we see, in history, that there always was a call and a move towards and an interest in all things intellectual and brilliant; let's face it; whole cosmologies were felled, not by armies, not by popes and kings, not by natural disasters, but by lone thinkers sitting in their rooms alone and spinning their theories, such as galileo, newton, darwin, and all the others (oh, even if you're critical of some of these thinkers; you can't deny the power they had over the world in the end originated by the power of thinking).
so there was always a call for intellect and thought in the history of humans.
but, how does this relate to art? because art, in it's core, in it's root, in it's very base and shape and foundation is something highly intellectual; smart; abstract; thoughtful; mindful; full of brilliance and creativity.
maybe the power of art rises from the very fact, that while common philosophy, thoughts, debates, are rooted in concepts that still are very much tangible and related to the real world (such as social debates etc.) while art in itself relies on abstract concepts and thought.
this is the power of art; maybe you will realize this power too.
this is why art can change the world. can change everything. and even can change - the life you live.
i think this questions can only be approximatedely answered - at least by me, by now.
one thing i would like to say, that the matter is that art not so much changes the world by effecting the "real" world, but the world of thinking and thinking men.
but let us get to the point.
i can say two things:
first, man, is above all other things, rational and intellectual and capable of thinking and reflection.
second, thinking and reflection and intellectual thinking can be and can be used for more powerful things than almost any force in the world.
as for the second claim, it's obvious that man is in the superior position (just saying he is; not saying whether this is rightful) to any animal by the power of thinking and intelligence.
everything, good or bad, weak or powerful, in the end was created by man's mind; our architecture, our technology - our culture, space flights, internet, satellite communication.
the power of intellect enables man to solve the most complicated situations, and civilisation verily shows this.
no matter what the problem or issue is, to use one's intellectual cabalities will amost in any case lead to better results, than to rely on other abilities; let alone the things most people would associate the closest to the direct, real world, such as muscle power and strength.
the intellect is really something "abstract" compared to what people call real world things; but it is easily to see that it is more powerful than all these things.
the first claim is harder to proof; is man really intellectual, or not a creature driven by instincts and shades of ignorance? but we see, in history, that there always was a call and a move towards and an interest in all things intellectual and brilliant; let's face it; whole cosmologies were felled, not by armies, not by popes and kings, not by natural disasters, but by lone thinkers sitting in their rooms alone and spinning their theories, such as galileo, newton, darwin, and all the others (oh, even if you're critical of some of these thinkers; you can't deny the power they had over the world in the end originated by the power of thinking).
so there was always a call for intellect and thought in the history of humans.
but, how does this relate to art? because art, in it's core, in it's root, in it's very base and shape and foundation is something highly intellectual; smart; abstract; thoughtful; mindful; full of brilliance and creativity.
maybe the power of art rises from the very fact, that while common philosophy, thoughts, debates, are rooted in concepts that still are very much tangible and related to the real world (such as social debates etc.) while art in itself relies on abstract concepts and thought.
this is the power of art; maybe you will realize this power too.
this is why art can change the world. can change everything. and even can change - the life you live.
Let Art Reign
in almost all cultures, except our current western one, art used to be a matter of utmost importance. imagine being a conductor of the king's ceremoy, or a religious one. doing your job badly might make you lose your head; or it might threaten the political and religious structure of the nation. compare this to the rather mild dangers our techno bedroom producers face, and their (seemingly) lack of power.
but art was not seen only as important and having amongst the highest power in society and elsewhere, it was also omnipresent. remember the saying: we need a society in which the artist is not a special type of person, but every person a special type of artist. this could be amended with: we need a world where doing art is not a special form of activity, but every activity is a special form of art. in the past and in other societies it is like that. it's no wonder we speak of the "art of cooking" or art of architecture, or artisans; in the past activities that are now considered to be quite general, "everyday" activities were considered to be an art unto themselves; only true masters - masters of their art - were considered to be genius cooks, builders, carpenters, and so on. this is most clearly seen at how artfully everyday items such as knifes, chairs, cups were designed in other or ancient cultures, compared to our industrial mass production of these things.
art is simply amongst the highest things possible. it is above politics, economics, cultures. it shapes society and the world and each persons life. it is the framework for all these things. it's again not accidentally that culture has a double meaning - one for created art in general, and one for the very totality of the social and political structure (as in such wordings as 'western culture', 'eastern culture').
this is most clearly seen in the effect art still has upon the world. rock'n'roll shaped society much deeper than any president, political party or political movement. the soviets realized in western pop lied more danger to their political structure then in most foreign spies, military men or hostile ministers.
yet contemporary culture is split about this issue. while the power of art is felt, it is publicly denied. when a politican would issue a call, that a famous rockstar is to become a member of the parliament with a high salary, everyone would laugh. it's just an artist after all! nothing too serious. yet a rockstar has a much direct and stronger influence on society than any politician; if he would issue a call to a social issue, like to donate money, support a political goal, or even take the fighting to the streets, masses of people would follow; while such a call from a political person would in most cases have almost zero effect these days.
it is what has broken so many artists by now; that on one side people realized that there art is the most important thing in the universe; yet at the same time it is seen as being "just art", "just music", nothing that matters too much in the end. the famous artist is pulled back and forth between these two viewpoints - a dilemma.
of course, even now, upcoming and starting artists, still have enough mind and wits, to realize that art is important, that art is amongst the most important things; much more important that other social or cultural or political issue. yet, the ignorance of the masses in this matter, is a force pulling them down again.
art is part of what i call the "higher layer"; the part of thought and reflection and pondering, that is already above mere societal theories and political structures; the root and base of worldviews, theories, philosophies, thinkers and insightful people.
so, the power of art still remains; the only thing missing is the conscious recognition of this power. but this can be regained. artists need to realize that they indeed play a high game, an important game, the highest game; that their work is more important than that of most people, especially than such people such as bankers, politicians, etc.
artist need to recognise that they have the power to change the world, and the power to change people's lifes - to the better.
let art reign.
but art was not seen only as important and having amongst the highest power in society and elsewhere, it was also omnipresent. remember the saying: we need a society in which the artist is not a special type of person, but every person a special type of artist. this could be amended with: we need a world where doing art is not a special form of activity, but every activity is a special form of art. in the past and in other societies it is like that. it's no wonder we speak of the "art of cooking" or art of architecture, or artisans; in the past activities that are now considered to be quite general, "everyday" activities were considered to be an art unto themselves; only true masters - masters of their art - were considered to be genius cooks, builders, carpenters, and so on. this is most clearly seen at how artfully everyday items such as knifes, chairs, cups were designed in other or ancient cultures, compared to our industrial mass production of these things.
art is simply amongst the highest things possible. it is above politics, economics, cultures. it shapes society and the world and each persons life. it is the framework for all these things. it's again not accidentally that culture has a double meaning - one for created art in general, and one for the very totality of the social and political structure (as in such wordings as 'western culture', 'eastern culture').
this is most clearly seen in the effect art still has upon the world. rock'n'roll shaped society much deeper than any president, political party or political movement. the soviets realized in western pop lied more danger to their political structure then in most foreign spies, military men or hostile ministers.
yet contemporary culture is split about this issue. while the power of art is felt, it is publicly denied. when a politican would issue a call, that a famous rockstar is to become a member of the parliament with a high salary, everyone would laugh. it's just an artist after all! nothing too serious. yet a rockstar has a much direct and stronger influence on society than any politician; if he would issue a call to a social issue, like to donate money, support a political goal, or even take the fighting to the streets, masses of people would follow; while such a call from a political person would in most cases have almost zero effect these days.
it is what has broken so many artists by now; that on one side people realized that there art is the most important thing in the universe; yet at the same time it is seen as being "just art", "just music", nothing that matters too much in the end. the famous artist is pulled back and forth between these two viewpoints - a dilemma.
of course, even now, upcoming and starting artists, still have enough mind and wits, to realize that art is important, that art is amongst the most important things; much more important that other social or cultural or political issue. yet, the ignorance of the masses in this matter, is a force pulling them down again.
art is part of what i call the "higher layer"; the part of thought and reflection and pondering, that is already above mere societal theories and political structures; the root and base of worldviews, theories, philosophies, thinkers and insightful people.
so, the power of art still remains; the only thing missing is the conscious recognition of this power. but this can be regained. artists need to realize that they indeed play a high game, an important game, the highest game; that their work is more important than that of most people, especially than such people such as bankers, politicians, etc.
artist need to recognise that they have the power to change the world, and the power to change people's lifes - to the better.
let art reign.
Metaphilosophy
i think in the 60s and in the 90s, and maybe also around the 20s, of the 20th century, there was a rare chance for society & humans in general, and that was the possibility of the creation of a metaphilosophy.
what is metaphilosophy? don't worry, i don't intend to create a new age "new thinking" type of foolishness, everything is based on the most rational of ways.
i like to explain this concept in 3 parts.
1. an extension (that is going upwards) of criticism. philosophy and debates are based and have an important base in criticism and analysis of things: but usually this criticism is bound by higher concepts. the question might be debated: how can the nationstate strengthened? can a criticism of the traditional family hinder or support the nationwide economy? and so on. the problem here is that there are these higher concepts that are kept intact. but generally, in philosophical evolution, these higher concepts slowly get criticised too: is it really right to subordinate everything under economy? do we really need a nationstate? could humans live without a government, or military, or war?
so over time, the criticism and analysis rises to a meta-level.
2. family, clan, tribe were already higher concepts over the savage life of past history. eventually these submerged into even higher concepts, such as nation, city, federal republic. same goes with rudimentary language, and symbolism, that evolved into delicate philosophical debate and advanced mathematics.
yet, it is possible, to go even higher. a bound that unites all humans would even be a higher state of organisation then the "USA" or a united europe. this would pose an advanced structure. same goes with a bound that involves all living things on earth. a point of thinking at which the hippies did arrive at in the 60s.
3. and most importantly: to not look at a specific philosophy; or even philosophy as a whole - in a singular, isolated way. to combine philosophy with art and music and politics and social structures for example. to combine worldviews of different cultures and nations. to mix this up with streetlife, rebellion, subcultures, traditions, or fine art. this is the very basis of metaphilosophy - and this what happened in the 60s.
obviously the "old guard" and common people are very opposed to these thoughts; they have a hard time grasping the existing and simple philosophies already - but that would not be a reason to stop.
now a lot of these thoughts have been abandoned - people cringe at the idea that music and politics could form a lasting union again, or to mix philosophy with "lower" issues or issues foreign to it would be nonsense to most people.
the rise of esoteric and "new age" worldviews after 2000 might be a good example for this; the hippies often had some 'esoteric' ideas too, but they took what they liked and were more interest how the thoughts of foreign cultures could mix up with modern "psychology", philosophy, or even science - often in a rational way that discarced "supernatural" notions of these ancient ideas.
in fact timothy leary complained in some of his 70s books that the hippies suddenly took a turn backwards, to "traditional buddhism" and similiar concepts, and also to a rural, simple lifestyle instead of moving on and shaping the future.
which can be seen in similiar tendencies today.
in the 90s, this metaphilosophy might be harder to be spotted, but it is clearly seen in the music of the 90s, the techno and hardcore and breakcore, where concepts from almost every existing music were taken and "sampled" and woven together to create something new and abstract and intellectual.
the cyberpunk and cyberspace movements in the 90s had similiar aims; cyberspace more or less *is* metaphilosophy - a "meta" space (in snow crash, the cyberspace is called metaverse, not the term used gibson, "matrix").
also this type of meta-thinking was seen in the books by such thinkers as bey, zerzan, in the 90s.
now the thing is, seemingly a lot of this stuff is still, or again going on. rockbands hardly limit themselves to a singular style such as "hair metal" anymore but infuse anything from zeppelin to beatles and tangerine dream, same goes for the electric genres.
yet there is something missing, that blocks the creation of a true metaphilosophy. most importantly, a rampant anti-intellectualism. for example, a band might fuse punk, rock'n'roll-kitsch and 50s b-movie imagery - but not by an intellectual critique, but some kind of "mystic", emotional clinging to these things - ultimately an anti-rational motion (same goes for artists that fuse funk and hiphop and house and such things).
surprisingly, the second explanation is that this showcases there is actually a lot going on that would lead to a metaphilosophy - both tendencies exist at the same time.
the ultimate factor for steering clear of pitfalls and failure regarding these things is - that everything has to be based deeply in rationality and intellectuality.
it might very much that the conditions are right again for these kind of things to happen - maybe in the 20s of the 21th century? but regardless of the social conditions, these things are reachable for the single individual in and at all times, of course.
what is metaphilosophy? don't worry, i don't intend to create a new age "new thinking" type of foolishness, everything is based on the most rational of ways.
i like to explain this concept in 3 parts.
1. an extension (that is going upwards) of criticism. philosophy and debates are based and have an important base in criticism and analysis of things: but usually this criticism is bound by higher concepts. the question might be debated: how can the nationstate strengthened? can a criticism of the traditional family hinder or support the nationwide economy? and so on. the problem here is that there are these higher concepts that are kept intact. but generally, in philosophical evolution, these higher concepts slowly get criticised too: is it really right to subordinate everything under economy? do we really need a nationstate? could humans live without a government, or military, or war?
so over time, the criticism and analysis rises to a meta-level.
2. family, clan, tribe were already higher concepts over the savage life of past history. eventually these submerged into even higher concepts, such as nation, city, federal republic. same goes with rudimentary language, and symbolism, that evolved into delicate philosophical debate and advanced mathematics.
yet, it is possible, to go even higher. a bound that unites all humans would even be a higher state of organisation then the "USA" or a united europe. this would pose an advanced structure. same goes with a bound that involves all living things on earth. a point of thinking at which the hippies did arrive at in the 60s.
3. and most importantly: to not look at a specific philosophy; or even philosophy as a whole - in a singular, isolated way. to combine philosophy with art and music and politics and social structures for example. to combine worldviews of different cultures and nations. to mix this up with streetlife, rebellion, subcultures, traditions, or fine art. this is the very basis of metaphilosophy - and this what happened in the 60s.
obviously the "old guard" and common people are very opposed to these thoughts; they have a hard time grasping the existing and simple philosophies already - but that would not be a reason to stop.
now a lot of these thoughts have been abandoned - people cringe at the idea that music and politics could form a lasting union again, or to mix philosophy with "lower" issues or issues foreign to it would be nonsense to most people.
the rise of esoteric and "new age" worldviews after 2000 might be a good example for this; the hippies often had some 'esoteric' ideas too, but they took what they liked and were more interest how the thoughts of foreign cultures could mix up with modern "psychology", philosophy, or even science - often in a rational way that discarced "supernatural" notions of these ancient ideas.
in fact timothy leary complained in some of his 70s books that the hippies suddenly took a turn backwards, to "traditional buddhism" and similiar concepts, and also to a rural, simple lifestyle instead of moving on and shaping the future.
which can be seen in similiar tendencies today.
in the 90s, this metaphilosophy might be harder to be spotted, but it is clearly seen in the music of the 90s, the techno and hardcore and breakcore, where concepts from almost every existing music were taken and "sampled" and woven together to create something new and abstract and intellectual.
the cyberpunk and cyberspace movements in the 90s had similiar aims; cyberspace more or less *is* metaphilosophy - a "meta" space (in snow crash, the cyberspace is called metaverse, not the term used gibson, "matrix").
also this type of meta-thinking was seen in the books by such thinkers as bey, zerzan, in the 90s.
now the thing is, seemingly a lot of this stuff is still, or again going on. rockbands hardly limit themselves to a singular style such as "hair metal" anymore but infuse anything from zeppelin to beatles and tangerine dream, same goes for the electric genres.
yet there is something missing, that blocks the creation of a true metaphilosophy. most importantly, a rampant anti-intellectualism. for example, a band might fuse punk, rock'n'roll-kitsch and 50s b-movie imagery - but not by an intellectual critique, but some kind of "mystic", emotional clinging to these things - ultimately an anti-rational motion (same goes for artists that fuse funk and hiphop and house and such things).
surprisingly, the second explanation is that this showcases there is actually a lot going on that would lead to a metaphilosophy - both tendencies exist at the same time.
the ultimate factor for steering clear of pitfalls and failure regarding these things is - that everything has to be based deeply in rationality and intellectuality.
it might very much that the conditions are right again for these kind of things to happen - maybe in the 20s of the 21th century? but regardless of the social conditions, these things are reachable for the single individual in and at all times, of course.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)