Las bodas de Fígaro, acto I, escena 5ª, “Non so più cosa son, cosa facio”

El lobo estepario de Hermann Hesse fue en los años setenta un libro muy leído. Daba vida a tres de las ideas más comunes del movimiento hippie: la búsqueda de la sabiduría a través de alucinógenos, la revolución sexual y una cierta tecnofobia consecuencia del deseo de una “vuelta a la naturaleza”. Los tiempos cambian y las modas pasan pero el libro de Hesse ha permanecido porque es mucho más aparte de ese cliché. Como otras obras suyas, por ejemplo Demian o Siddharta, El lobo estepario pertenece a esos textos de filosofía perenne de la que hablaba Aldous Huxley.

En la tortuosa personalidad del protagonista, Harry Haller, se condensan el malestar y el nihilismo de la época de entreguerras. Son Freud y Nietzsche los terapeutas que Hesse elige para diagnosticar y remediar la desesperación existencial de Harry. Dentro de la novela, Freud y Nietzsche se transfiguran en músicos. Así, Freud toma la forma de Pablo, un saxofonista de jazz, que, junto a Armanda y María,  enseñan a Harry el camino del cuerpo, el teatro del inconsciente. Nietzsche se encarna en la figura de Mozart e intenta remediar el nihilismo de raíz platónica de Harry. Para éste el mundo que le rodea, el “mundo aparente”, es una realidad despreciable, que sólo se soporta si se tiene acceso a la Belleza pura e inmaterial del arte, especialmente de la música. La lección que Mozart-Nietzsche da a Harry en uno de sus éxtasis lisérgicos es que no hay más mundo que el aparente. Asumir y reivindicar la vida, el cuerpo, la levedad, el baile, la risa, es el único camino para sanar del nihilismo. Al terminar la novela las figuras de Pablo y Mozart se convierten en una sola en la mente de Harry que, finalmente, comprende:

Oh, lo comprendí todo; comprendí a Pablo, comprendí a Mozart, oí en alguna parte detrás de mí su risa terrible; sabía que estaban en mi bolsillo todas las cien mil figuras del juego de la vida: aniquilado, barruntaba su significación; tenía el propósito de empezar otra vez el juego, de gustar sus tormentos otra vez, de estremecerme de nuevo y recorrer una y muchas veces más el infierno de mi interior.

Alguna vez llegaría a saber jugar mejor el juego de las figuras. Alguna vez aprendería a reír. Pablo me estaba esperando. Mozart me estaba esperando.

Creo que Las bodas de Fígaro, dejando aparte sus connotaciones políticas, es la ópera de Mozart que mejor representa esa celebración nietzscheana de la vida, de la levedad de la existencia, de la inocencia del devenir, del juego del artista, del juego del niño… Así, por ejemplo, Acto primero, escena primera, el conocido dueto entre Figaro y Susanna preparando su boda. O, más arriba, la tensión sexual del aria de Cherubino “Non so più cosa son, cosa facio”.

Las bodas de Fígaro, acto I, escena 1ª, “Cinque, dieci, venti, trenta”

Ficha técnica

W. A. Mozart: Le Nozze di Figaro

Director

John Eliot Gardiner, 1993

Intérpretes

• Bryn Terfel: Figaro
• Alison Hagley: Susanna
• Pamela Helen Stephen: Cherubino
• Rodney Gilfry: El conde de Almaviva
• Hillevi Martipelto: La condesa de Almaviva
• The Monteverdi Choir- The English Baroque Soloists

Como sabeis si la tierra no es mas que el infierno de otro planeta? “

By Aldous Huxley

Huxley's Illustration

I just read an interesting conversation the AV Club had with Richard Dawkins.

I think the most interesting thing he says this time is when he tries to clear up the idea that we’re descended from monkeys. Like ourselves and chimpanzees, our common ancestor lived about 6 million years ago.

Call me an ignorant pleb, but therein lies the problem with both Evolutionary Theory and Creationism.

THEY’RE RIDICULOUS. Whether it’s a Cosmic Being breathing life into dust or Biological Change occurring millions of years ago, both are Completely outside the realm of our understanding–if nothing else, by the sheer weight of time itself. Furthermore, something out of nothing is an inherently crazy notion–and both evolution and creationism start with Nothing. After all, Stephen Hawking has repeatedly suggested that the genesis of life on earth was started by an asteroid from another planet…

Therefore, I feel free to consider both of them with an equally open mind and respect both scientific inquiry and faith. I think they both make good points and in the end, if I continue to believe in a God that may or may not have said Bang at the beginning, does that make me that much stupider than any other human that speculates about what was going on a few million years ago?

Where did all of the posts go?!?!

We moved to a new home, www.sinistercorps.co.cc, there you will find our new forums, and the games that we play as well as all of the posts that we made. Thanks for stopping by.

Please head over to our new website

As I looked at the stats from last week’s Yea or Nay: Loretta post, I wondered – how have the featured names performed?  Did any receive a resounding yea?  Do the comments match up with the votes?

Here’s a quick look back, boys first:

• The first name profiled – Kohl, spotted on Wife Swap – received a clear thumbs down, with 74% voting Nay.  It wasn’t the name as much as the spelling.  Several readers commented that they liked Cole just fine;
• Huxley fared slightly better, at 46% Nay, 30% Yay, with the lovely Photoquilty voting Yea, only for a pet.  I don’t normally vote, but if I did, I’d be giving Huxley two thumbs up;
• Boys’ name Koah fared worst of all, with 82% Nay.  I spotted this one in a magazine – the family appeared to all share the first initial K.

Moving on to the girls:

• Starbaby Sosie was 50% Nay, 34% Yea.  But among those Yeas were a few enthusiastic supporters – one reader plans to name a future daughter Sosie Fiona Pearl.  Others thought Sosie would make a great nickname for Susanna, but didn’t quite stand on her own;
• With 63% Yea, Lilac is one of the few names to pass muster, with many citing an affection for flower names in general;
• I assumed Annalena would fare better, but at 37% Yea and 38% Nay, not so much.  Most seemed to prefer another Anna combo – or just Anna on her own;
• Which brings us back to Loretta – at 36% Yea and 39% Nay, she’s not fared much better than Annalena – but who knows?  SJP is a trend-setter.  As we get used to it, this one might start to feel more familiar – and heard more often!

David Icke: The Global Spiritual Awakening Of Humanity

Clinton Links Over-Population to Global Warming

Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars
November 8, 2009

What we are witnessing here is the true mindset and ambition of the globalists and their cronies, namely to reduce the world’s population, the sooner the better. As the elite often admit, the current fixation on CO2 is just a pretext in order to get the job done.

Population Control: The Eugenics Connection

Old Thinker News
June 24, 2008

Has eugenics faded away with time, or has the pseudo science morphed and cloaked itself under new auspices? Were some of the original founders of population control efforts themselves eugenicists? How and when did eugenicists shift from Galton era ideals to Malthusian population control?

Recently I have intermittently immersed myself again in the evidences of God’s hand in our world. Specifically I’ve enjoyed reading topics related to the precision with which our Earth and universe was tuned for human life and scientific discovery and the existence of unprovable philosophical truths. In engaging with apologetic arguments and the creation debate, I encountered an article about the abandonment of biblical origins by those who claim to be living in light of scriptural truth.

Though I could recount the expressions of theologians and secularists alike, I would like to burden your mind with the conclusions of a man vehemently opposed to scriptural truth. I do this with the hope that would we take seriously the result of letting any part of God’s truth be swept under the rug.

In an article on Thomas Huxley, Darwin’s bulldog for the promulgation of his gospel of natural selection, Russell Grigg of CMI carefully illuminates the pulpit from which this self-taught 18th century scientist and scholar speaks concerning the undermining effects of attempting to embrace naturalism alongside biblical truth. Grigg explains that

Though Darwin was careful not to say it, the Origin ultimately meant that man was not created, but was merely a developed ape. ‘But without the promise of Heaven or the fear of Hell, why should we live a good life?’⁹ Darwin had hoped to avoid all such controversy. Not so Huxley, who earlier had written to a colleague, ‘After all, it is as respectable to be modified monkey as modified dirt’.¹⁰ Thus, Darwin needed a champion as much as Huxley needed a cause, and soon Darwin was claiming Huxley as his ‘warmest & most important supporter’,¹¹ and ‘my good and admirable agent for the promulgation of damnable heresies’.¹²

Huxley, unlike many contemporary compromising theologians of the day (and our day), said:

‘I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how any one, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests upon the interpretation of passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them. If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and sacrifices were not ordained by Jahveh; if the “ten words” were not written by God’s hand on the stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus; the story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of the regal period of Rome—what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which is so much less clearly enunciated? And what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?’¹⁷

Huxley added that ‘the Universality of the Deluge is recognised, not merely as a part of the story, but as a necessary consequence of some of its details.’¹⁸ And then, with regard to the attempts to say the Flood was only a local event, he wrote, ‘A child may see the folly of it.’¹⁹

Huxley similarly wrote, concerning 1 Corinthians 15:21–22 [‘For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.’], that

‘If Adam may be held to be no more real a personage than Prometheus, and if the story of the Fall is merely an instructive “type,” comparable to the profound Promethean mythus, what value has Paul’s dialectic?’

Huxley’s final judgment recognizes that with regard to those who attempt to mythologize Creation that ‘the position they have taken up is hopelessly untenable’.

As we read and discover truths to stand on and commands to obey from God in his word, let us not be blown by culture into the thinking that God didn’t mean for all of his word to be accurate and truthful. Some of it is parable and some poetry, but let’s not leave our brains at the door when we come to the table and attempt to say that  God’s documentary of human life is “only meant to be instructional.” If the events of the Bible are put forth as real events, it is meant that we receive them plainly as history, or even the secularists will mock us for attempting to straddle fact and fiction with a foot in God’s truth and the other in the compromises of the world.

HT: All the quotation links are from the original article by Russell Grigg.

Additional reference for the importance of the foundation of a literal Genesis can be found here.

10. Brave New World
Aldous Huxley

Huxley’s future world where genetic engineering dictates the laws and structure of society is truly haunting and full of foresight. His tale is the struggle of individualism in a world where people are are literally born and raised to be a particular person and everyone is kept in line. Values are the opposite of what many may believe them to be; monogamy is forbidden for example. This is one of the greatest dystopian novels of the last century, showing the consequences of a constant pursuit for happiness which sacrifices the spirit of the individual.

9. The Forever War
Joe Haldeman

One of the great advantages of using the science fiction and fantasy genres to tell a story is that the author can take a relevant theme, such as war and humanity, and can take it out of its natural setting of this world which allows us to see them from a different perspective and break those themes down and examine them further. This is what Joe Haldeman does with the Forever War, taking the current relevancy to the Vietnam War of that time and putting it in the setting of a war with an Alien race.

8. Nightfall
Issac Asimov

One of the most influential short stories ever written for the science fiction genre by one of the genres great masters. In Nightfall, Asimov describes a solar system with 6 stars, where darkness is a virtual unknown. Nightfall has been called the greatest sci-fi short story ever and helped build the foundation of modern day science fiction.

7. Ender’s Game
Orson Scott Card

Ender’s Game is the story of a young genius who is being groomed as the commander of Earth’s space fleet against an invading alien race. The book follows the boy’s training while describing a world which has been very loosely united through the threat of a common alien foe. This story does come with some critical controversy; some are highly bothered by the fact that Ender’s actions have no consequences, while others describe Ender’s Game as ‘geek porn’. However, only literature with the kind of substance and magic that Ender’s Game has would be able to stir up those controversies. It is a highly engaging story and a solidly constructed piece of sci-fi storytelling.

6. Stranger in a Strange Land
Robert A. Heinlein

Stranger in a strange land was able to use science fiction to explore themes of alienation, culture clashes, and individual freedom. Heinlein’s story of a man who was born as a Martian and returns to Earth transcended the the science fiction readers and brought in readers of other literary genres. Now it is aconsiddered one of the most popular classics sci-fi has to offer and one of its greatest achievements.

5. Nineteen Eighty-Four
George Orwell

In a futuristic world where the government controls everything and Big Brother is always watching you, a man struggles to maintain individual freedom and creative expression. Orwell’s masterpiece plays upon the fears of mankind concerning higher powers and state control in a way that it has become ingrained our very thinking about these issues. It is a haunting look at a world set in the not-so-distant future, all the more haunting because the possibility of that world coming into being is within the realm of believability.

4. The Time Machine
H. G. Wells

H.G. Wells is often considered the father of science fiction, and The Time Machine is perhaps his most acclaimed novel. Wells uses the concept of time travel to explore the future of mankind, which has actually evolved into two different races. The reason for this may seem obvious to some and up for debate to others. The future that Wells describes and how things got to be that way is a feast of scientific speculation. The Time Machine is one of the first science fiction novels and still one of the greatest.

3. Rendezvous with Rama
Aurthur C. Clarke

Science fiction has varying degrees within the genre, and many fans describe sci-fi as being either soft or hard; hard meaning that there is a lot of emphasis on the actual science involved in the story. Clarke was a master of hard science fiction and perhaps never showed off this mastery more than with Rendezvous with Rama. The story describes Earth’s encounter with a mysterious spacecraft, delving into the mysteries of the universe beyond our own knowledge. It has been an influence on countless sci-fi stories since, the most obvious of which are the first Star Trek movie, Alien, and Michael Chrichton’s Sphere. However, most sci-fi writers have been influenced by Clarke’s genius, which shows up very strongly here with Rama.

2. Dune
Frank Herbert

Dune is the Lord of the Rings of science fiction. Herbert’s world is intricate in its details and extensive in its scope while the story is layered in themes. The world of Dune is rich with individual cultures, mythologies, and customs and is so descriptive it’s as though Herbert actually visited the world and recorded what he saw rather than created it from his mind. Dune deals with politics and socioeconomics as well as the depths of the human soul and how one man deals with his fate and how to cope with losing all you once had. Dune is a rich novel which will last in the higher echelon of sci-fi for many years to come.

1. The Foundation Trilogy
Issac Asimov

From the master of science fiction, Asimov’s massive and epic Foundation series has become the cornerstone of science fiction literature. It is the only series to win the Hugo all-time best series award. The story deals with the link between science and civilization and the struggle to retain and preserve knowledge. Foundation has had a huge impact and influence on all science fiction to come after in books, film, and television. It is the best and most important work of science fiction by one of the genre’s great writers.

I min post “Några tankar om moral” skriver signaturen Hans att en bra moral (enligt min tolkning) har som mål att främja släktets bestånd samt lycka för individerna.

Främja släktet låter som ett evolutionens imperativ och får mig att tänka på Hobbes naturlag om att man som människa måste försöka överleva. Den andra påminner om Benthams utilitarism att den objektiva moralen är att göra alla lyckliga.

Båda dessa anser jag vara otillfredsställande svar på vad moralens mål ska vara. Att bara överleva som lycklig skulle innebära att t.ex. Huxleys “Brave New World” skulle vara en utopi. Att helt enkelt droga sig lycklig och fortsätta le är ur ett sådant perspektiv inte bara helt ok utan utopiskt ultimat.

Ett annat svar på vad som är moralens mål erbjuds av Hegel där människors erkännande av varandra är målet. Människan är ofta beredd att dö för att bli erkänd. Det är detta som enligt Hegel skiljer oss från djuren. Ett samhälle med ett moralsystem som erbjuder alla att erkännas som individer skulle då vara slutmålet.

Enligt Marx är det socialistiska samhället svaret på detta, enligt Fukuyama är det det liberala.

Att ömsesidigt erkännande skulle vara moralens mål tilltalar mig mycket och jag tar det till mig allt mer. Det betyder inte att det måste vara det slutliga svaret men det är det bästa jag hittills kommit över.

Uppdatering 091112
Att Marx skulle anse att ömsesidigt erkännande är ett moraliskt eller samhälleligt mål vet jag inte. Jag tolkar det i alla fall som så att med de socialistiska produktionsprinciperna så blir slavarna/arbetarna sina egna herrar och blir erkända som människor av varandra. Skillnaden mellan Marx och Hegel är då att bara att drivkraften i historien är hos Hegel ideell medan den hos Marx är materiell.

Without seeing any reason to believe that women are, on the average, so strong physically, intellectually, or morally, as men, I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that many women are much better endowed in all these respects than many men, and I am at a loss to understand on what grounds of justice or public policy a career which is open to the weakest and most foolish of the male sex should be forcibly closed to women of vigor and capacity.–Thomas Henry Huxley

Ah yes, Thomax Husxley…a man after my own heart. A man who was cynical about his own, masterful in his chicanery and all around just plain cool.

That women have been and can be as strong or even stronger than many men is obvious to me and while it may not be readily recognized in this ignorant place I call home, the facts speak for themselves. I know men of every respect, completely lacking education, skills and even experience and yet many of them–if able to put on enough machismo and confidence effect– are able to secure positions where they are paid far greater wages than I would garner with 10 degrees. Why is that?

Now before , dear reader, you go off with some miserable and pat answer as “oh, she’s another feminist” or some such ignorance, I think it is important here that you really consider this reality. You may be male and thinking that this simply isn’t true. That women in fact do have just as much opportunity as men to make as much money as men do. That would have been your first blunder. If you believe that, you do not have the same facts I do.

Google is your friend.

The 2008 ACS median earnings of men in the United States who worked full-time, year-round were $45,556. For women, the median earnings were $35,471, or 77.9 percent of men’s earnings.

Source

Okay so this is in the United States but sadly, it’s even worse on average for women in Canada from the results of different studies.

Now how is it that a woman’s work is valued less to this day? How is it that we are jammed into “supporting” roles in the workforce as administrative assistants and secretaries?

I’d much rather be called a ‘reformer’ than a feminist. Feminism implies the assumption that I hate men. How inane. Don’t even go there. But how is it that women are the larger population of those coming out of post-secondary educations and yet THEY are paid less than their less educated male counterparts? This makes no sense to me, none whatsoever.

I’ll start respecting men again when they stand up for this crap and stop expecting their wives, girlfriends and daughters to earn less than they deserve.And not just being placated with, “oh I know, it’s just not fair that you women don’t get paid more” while doing absolutely NOTHING, SQUAT, NADA to change it.

Nope. I won’t respect. Not until I see it. Respect goes both ways.

BOTH ways.

Which brings me to my next favourite cynic on women’s issues.

Women have a hard time of it in this world. They are oppressed by man-made laws, man-made social customs, masculine egoism, the delusion of masculine superiority. Their one comfort is the assurance that, even though it may be impossible to prevail against man, it is always possible to enslave and torture a man. –Henry Lewis Mencken

If men wish to be treated “fairly,” I think it’s high time they started proving the point.

Borg unit: "7of9"

Full Communism and Transhumanism

In the popular science fiction TV and film series, Star Trek, the Borg is an army of cyborgs traveling throughout the galaxy destroying civilizations and whole races of people.  Their spoils of war consist of the assimilation of whats left of the conquered races, and the addition of all their knowledge and being, into the Borg hive-mind network.  As individuals, the captured people cease to exist and are subsumed into one unified machine of war and conquest.  Implanted with cybernetic devices the victims become ‘units’ of one collective organism. 

Like all good action movies, the Borg bad guys are defeated in the end.  But as the lights go up and the credits roll, we are left to reflect on the obvious social commentary.  The writer clearly makes the point that, in order for humans to ‘fit into’ the collective, they must be altered and rendered incapable of independent thought.

In the socialist scheme of things the goal is to bring about universal equality, no economic want, and worldwide peace, overseen by a strong central government, of course.  According to socialist theology, this will usher in the final stage of human history: Communism – the ultimate collective.  In time, the state will “wither away” and mankind will joyfully ’give according to his abilities and take according to his needs’. 

As Marxian scholar, P.J.D. Wiles, puts it.., ”Full Communism is that final state of humanity in which productivity is higher than wants and everyone can help himself in the warehouses (not shops!). Since productivity cannot be unlimited, this entails that wants are limited: a direct contradiction to one of the basic propositions of Western economics. This is only possible because wants have been reduced to needs, Originally a governmental concept, needs are accepted as valid by each consumer, and internalized to become the new wants.”*

Assuming that this internalization genuinely takes hold in the course of countless generations under a totalitarian dictatorship, what the heck, the whole thing just may work.  But what if humanity proves to be stubborn and for some odd reason bitterly clings to personal freedoms?  What if we see through future exhortations to sacrifice for the common good as merely more ideological ruses perpetrated by the same, or yet other, self-serving elites?  Oops!  Well then, we must be altered.  Technocrats and pop culture gurus agree; we must transcend our own humanity.

Wikipedia defines Transhumanism [notated as h+] as “an international intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of science and technology to improve human mental and physical characteristics and capacities. The movement regards aspects of the human condition, such as disability, suffering, disease, aging, and involuntary death as unnecessary and undesirable. Transhumanists look to biotechnologies and other emerging technologies for these purposes.”   That’s the politically correct version.

Darwinian biologist Julian Huxley, brother of author Aldous Huxley,* appears to have been the first to use the actual word “transhumanism”.  The first director of UNESCO (1946) and a prominent member of the British Eugenics Society, Huxley promoted strong centralized planning, social engineering, and population control…

“Huxley was one of many intellectuals at the time who believed that the lowest class in society was genetically inferior. This passage, from 1941, puts [his] view forcefully:

“The lowest strata are reproducing too fast. Therefore… they must not have too easy access to relief or hospital treatment lest the removal of the last check on natural selection should make it too easy for children to be produced or to survive; long unemployment should be a ground for sterilisation.”*

The quintessential progressive, Huxley pioneered utopian thought to its next logical level.  As a subjective value of what humanity should be, not what humanity is, Progressivism has found the missing factor in the formula for building the perfect society: h+. 

Eliminating unpredictable human behavior with bioengineered ‘enhancements’ will ensure cooperation.  Transhumanism is sometimes refered to as, ‘posthumanism’.

Overtly a preposterous idea to most of us, nevertheless, we are incrementally becoming habituated to willingly plug into the hive.  The scientific dictatorship has manufactured an appeal for the hive-mind: Convenience.  Diabolical mass media mind control, however, will have less to do with it than our own ego and gluttony.  Why be inconvenienced by the mental labor and anxious uncertainty of sorting out life’s problems when others can solve them for you.

Can you hear me now?

A growing ethos of irresponsibility has replaced the spirit of self-reliance.  OnStar relieves us of reading a map and keeping track of our own car.  No longer needed is short-term memory or handwritten notes.  We stand in the cereal aisle thankful for our cell phone; “Honey, they’re out of granola.., what should I do?”  Art Bell, former host of popular radio talk show, Coast to Coast AM, once observed, ”Americans are so lazy, if the remote is broken, they will not get off the couch to change channels even if they can’t stand the program.”  Embodied in this statement are a thousand words. 

We boast of our advanced lifestyle of instant gratification, but forget the mental and spiritual cost.  It’s much easier to have someone else craft a comfortable delusion for us to live in than to face painful reality with assertive and independent analytical thought.

We are composed of a generation of Americans who have been handed the luxuries of liberty, but do not comprehend the sacrifices involved and the true value of it.  Big Brother tells us slavery is freedom.  One lie begets another.  The contrived boogeymen of terrorism, pandemics, and God knows what else, will work to get us to hand over the last pretense of freedom.  Grateful for the promise of peace and security, many will clamor for microchip implants.  Chipping pets and children have already begun.  Real time government tracking and tracing will insure the continuance of our comfortable delusion.., if only we follow the rules.  Implanted h+ enhancements will complete our servitude and guarantee our devotion to the New Order.

Incumbant upon Truth and Freedom activists is, not only organizing political campaigns, but working to unplug the masses from false realities and paradigms, as well.    

References and notes:
*Full Communism, Marxian Economics, The New Palgrave, 1990 U.K.
*Author of  Brave New World: http://www.amazon.com/Brave-New-World-Aldous-Huxley/dp/0060929871
*Wikipedia: Julian Huxley
OnStar:http://f.email.onstar.com/i/32/322163447/stolen_vehicle
_slow_down.html
For years, Art Bell broadcasted from his home in Pahrump, NV.  He is now semi-retired and living in the Philippines.

Is Graffiti an art form? Is it a crime? Or is it a code – a message that is undecipherable by the non-initiated?  It is defined by Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition as “writing on walls: drawings or words that are scratched, painted, or sprayed on walls or other surfaces in public places.”

Graffiti started in New York during the 1970s but has roots in the 6th century BC.  The quote of the week echoes our theme – The Writing on the Wall. It was God, according to the book of Daniel, who inscribed the writing on the wall as a prophecy that only Daniel could decipher – he being chief of the magicians, enchanters, astrologers.

Graffiti is nothing new.  The first writing systems, which date back to 3400 BC in Mesopotamia, were pictographic, hieroglyphic, cuneiform, inscriptions and finally, alphabetic. 

Graffiti has come full circle – it began as simple tags, public style, blockbusters and then morphed into the wildstyle.  The latter being a style that is deliberately painted in an illegible and complex fashion and the former being easily legible by the public.   According to Crispen Sartwell, “Graffiti went from being words to being pictures of words, and then being the simultaneous incredible elaboration and tearing apart of words.” This wildstyle therefore became the pictographic style of ancient past rather than the alphabetic style of writing of our modern era.  It has become more like a code for a clandestine group with its own language and less so for the public at large.

Here as some samples of the wildstyle graffiti:

Is it art?  That depends. Does art hold up the mirror to its period? Or does every period hold up the mirror to its art? These are questions posed by Aldous Huxley in the early 20^th century.  I say yes, because I believe graffiti elicits an emotional response from its viewers. There is definitely well-constructed composition in the pieces.  Technical skill is also involved in creating graffiti art. Ah, and the medium.  Well, like Marshall McLuhan said, “The medium is the message.” It couldn’t be more so for graffiti.  The use of cityscapes as a backdrop to clandestine, antiauthoritarian and subversive art speaks more than the actual words written on the walls.   

Perhaps Graffiti started out as a crime and still is to some extent.  It has become more main stream and cities have allocated legal areas in which to ‘graff’ or ‘write.’  Graffiti artists refer to themselves as writers, not artists or painters.  Whether it is legal or not, the writing on the wall will remain as part of our modern urban culture – the secret code of the city.

Godspeed,

Resulta que hace casi un mes, decidí empezar el blog. En un par de artículos que escribí habían sido nombrados:

• Kafka, vía Bioy y Borges
• Pitágoras, Tales de Mileto, Arquímedes, Fermat, Pascal, mi abuela Juana, Beethoven, y Dolina
• Fontanarrosa, via Bea
• Aldous Huxley y Orwell
• y otras dos veces Borges (1)(2), y de rebote Adrián Paenza y Leibniz

Es decir, los artículos no serán gran cosa, pero había comido de las migajas de tipos a los que por ahí se les cayó una idea…
Además, nos habían enlazado Un mundo binario y Via libre.
Pero resulta que el 90% de las entradas llegaban a este post, acerca de una lejana derivación de una declaración de Maradona, y que vaya a saber por qué capricho del Page Rank, hacía que mucha gente cayera por acá.
Y me daba bronca. Así que le mandé un mail a los que escriben Microsiervos, y resulta que les cayó simpático un artículo mío, y me enlazaron. (Nota al margen: ¡Gracias!). Y ahí empezaron a arrimarse al fogón algunos que se interesaron por Borges, pese a los desatinos que yo había construido alrededor de su idea. Bienvenidísimos. Se me fue la bronca.
Todo esto no lo sabía hasta que escuché a Dolina en su programa del martes:

Terminemos ¿no? con [el tema de] Maradona, basta. Lean un libro, déjense de embromar. ¿Qué me importa a mí esto? Yo no soy un especialista en esto, no estoy muy interesado ni en aplaudir, ni en no aplaudir, no estoy interesado en absolutamente nada de ese tema: ese tema les interesa a ustedes, a mí no. Así que si me apoyan, me apoyan; si no me apoyan no me apoyan. Pero lo que quiero decir a fuerza de ser sincero: me importa un bledo lo que dijo Maradona el otro día. Me importa un bledo. Me importan otras cosas: me importa el misterio de la vida, me importa la gente que sufre, me importa el destino de todos nosotros, me importa el arte, el conocimiento, y el amor. Me importa el amor, qué me importa lo que dijo Diego Maradona, vayan y escríbanlo a otras radios.

Coincido con Dolina, pero parcialmente. Blog de un otario es un sitio maradoniano. Siempre habrá lugar para el Diego, que tiene un par de cosas importantes para decir, como esta:

(Yo tenía 4 años. Todavía me hace llorar.)
Gracias a todos los que se pegaron una vuelta por acá, entre ayer y hoy.

Di Davide Gianetti
Che cosa è realmente, intimamente, la fantascienza? Letteratura d’evasione, cappa e spada in salsa interstellare, puntualmente relegata ai margini del mainstream letterario? La figlia minore del filone fantastico ottocentesco in versione tecnologica? Oppure, come ha giustamente osservato Antonio Tirelli nella sua recensione al libro di Centamore, un tipo di “letteratura politica” che focalizza il suo interesse nei confronti “dell’umano”? Lo stesso Centamore, nella replica, declina questo riferimento alla “politica” nell’ottica di un’analisi critica al sistema di potere, qualunque esso sia, attraverso l’espediente narrativo che descrive un futuro lontano ma con sotterranee, e nemmeno troppo velate, allusioni al presente. Centamore porta gli esempi di Pohl e Kornbluth, maestri, almeno all’inizio (Pohl, a partire dagli anni ‘60 si dedicherà a fantascienza d’intrattenimento e Kornbluth – pur nella sua breve carriera – prenderà alla fine le distanze dalla fantascienza “sociale” scrivendo un saggio, The Failure of Science Fiction as Social Criticism, per dimostrare come questo genere letterario sia incapace di produrre significativi mutamenti dell’ordine costituito), di quella satira sociologica che allestisce un palcoscenico a noi cronologicamente alieno eppure perfettamente riconoscibile nei tic e nelle manie dell’uomo contemporaneo.

Da parte mia non posso che concordare con Tirelli e, semmai, radicalizzare ulteriormente: o la fantascienza è distopica o non è. Sotto questo profilo, l’interesse umanistico che Tirelli colloca a nucleo fondante della letteratura fantascientifica di matrice “sociologica”, è a mio parere incompleto. O meglio: è umanesimo che scaturisce da una lotta ingaggiata dall’individuo, immerso in un presente per sua natura totalitario, contro le leggi di un mondo nel quale è costretto a esistere. Ma c’è di più: attraverso la critica serrata allo status quo, si giunge a verità più nitide, meno adulterate (il potere adora rivendicare il primato della verità), si giunge al disvelamento della menzogna ultima che regge le fondamenta del potere stesso, si giunge infine alla consapevolezza della violenza insita nei rapporti di forza sociali. Non me ne vogliano gli appassionati di duelli intergalattici, di esotiche esplorazioni su mondi alieni, di tormentate storie d’amore nei gelidi spazi siderali del cosmo, ma la marginalizzazione culturale, prima che letteraria, della fantascienza, passa soprattutto da qui. Non è facile scrivere distopia: occorrono occhio lungo e orecchio fino. Occorre intuire, date le premesse, la direzione che una determinata struttura sociale imboccherà nel futuro. Qualcuno ci è riuscito, incidendo così a lettere indelebili il proprio nome nel grande libro della letteratura mondiale. Come non stupirsi al cospetto della straordinaria preveggenza di Zamjatin, di Huxley, di Orwell, di Bordewijck e, ai giorni nostri, di Pohl, di Dick o di Tevis? Autori – sismografi della crisi del proprio tempo e autori – profeti di un futuro non certo migliore.

Utopia e distopia, totalitarismo e libertà: diadi storicamente non confutabili e letterariamente feconde. Totalitarismo che, come un prisma, possiede molte facce: violento e brutale, come in Zamjatin e Orwell, persuasivo e dissimulatore (ma non per questo meno coercitivo) come in Pohl e Dick oppure totalitarismo che nasce dall’illusorietà di vivere in un mondo giudicato reale dietro cui, tuttavia, si celano ulteriori, maligne, realtà. Inquietanti multiversi infiniti, responsabili di un’alienazione e di una demolizione dell’ego di irredimibile malvagità (si pensi allo “gnostico” Daniel Galouye e alla sistematica decostruzione di ogni certezza ontologica presente in tutte le sue sottovalutate opere). Ecco perché il riferimento di Tirelli ad Asimov quale scrittore di fantascienza “sociale” mi suona ambiguo. Asimov è un costruttore di utopie. Il suo fervore tecnofilo e il suo febbrile razionalismo presuppongono un’antropologia ottimistica, opposta, per esempio, a quella di un Dick. A questo proposito si osservi, a mero titolo esemplificativo, sotto quale opposta angolazione Asimov e Dick rispettivamente immaginano le creature robotiche e come interpretano le loro azioni.

La fantascienza è dunque “letteratura negativa” per antonomasia? Senza arrivare agli estremi e agli abissi spalancati da opere come il Dottor Adder, la risposta, a giudicare dai risultati, è positiva. Nel momento in cui la fantascienza ricopre il ruolo di formidabile diagnosta dei mali sociali, prevedendone l’infausta e ulteriore degenerazione, ed evitando al contempo la tentazione di costruire nuovi mondi possibili – magari giudicati migliori solo perché proiettati in un arco temporale ancora in gestazione che il lineare incedere del progresso renderà più appetibili – essa diviene letteratura di testimonianza, resistenza disperata a un universo che sentiamo ostile e straniero.

Das Leben… ein guter oder ein böser Traum ?

1.0 Hmm, nun also ist es an der Zeit… es ward wieder einmal Winter. Die Zeit der Poesie, der Nachdenklichkeit; und so manches Mal vielleicht auch die der Depression. Ich nutze also die Gunst dieser Stunde(n), um damit mir selbst und allen interessierten einmal die Frage zu beantworten, woran ich persönlich glaube. Oder anders gesagt: ich möchte schlicht einen möglichen Glaubensweg von vielen vorstellen. Ob dieser im Ergebnis – sofern es eines geben wird – nun “richtig”, “falsch” oder besonders empfehlenswert ist steht dabei wohl ausser Frage.

Und, sollte sich tatsächlich jemand dazu entschließen diesen Text zu lesen; so empfehle ich sich dafür doch einige Minuten Zeit und die nötige Ruhe zu nehmen. Denn: ich hole gerne mal groß aus und schöpfe aus dem Vollen; eben solange es noch voll ist…

Sicherlich gibt es auch Menschen, die sich mit “weniger” beziehungsweise eben auch nichts zufriedengeben, wenn es um die große Frage der Religionszugehörigkeit oder den Glauben im Allgemeinen geht. Ohne eine Wertung vornehmen zu wollen: diese Menschen haben es zumindest leichter. Doch es ist klar, dass es immer Köpfe geben wird, die jeden und alles hinterfragen. Da dass auch gut so ist, habe ich kein Problem damit, mich zu eben jenen Leuten zu zählen.

Doch beginnen wir mit drei wirklich aussergewöhnlichen Persönlichkeiten:

Einige Porträtzeichnungen vov sogenannten “Vip’s”… na, alle erkannt ?

Gut, dies ist natürlich nicht Vorraussetzung; doch diese drei haben in ihrem Leben durchaus nennenswertes vollbracht. Der Reihe nach aufgeführt sind das natürlich: Laotse, Kant; und ein gewisser Herr Thomas Henry Huxley.

Und was haben all diese drei (zugegeben: genialen) Köpfe gemeinsam ? Nun, in erster Linie waren es große Denker. Ich erspare mir an dieser Stelle jedoch, einzelne Biografien auszuführen; sondern picke mir einmal nur das heraus, was für diesen Beitrag relevant erscheint. Und das ist in erster Linie das Faktum, dass alle drei eher mehr als weniger etwas mit dem Begriff des Agnostizismus zu tun haben (beziehungsweise hatten).

1.1 Der Agnostizismus beschreibt im Wesentlichen eine Lehre, die; wenn ich das einmal so sagen darf, abgehobene religiöse Köpfe auf den Boden der Tatsachen zurückzuholen vermag. Denn die These lautet: “ob es einen Gott gibt oder nicht, kann ich nicht sagen – weil ich eben “nur” Mensch bin“. Besonders gefällt mir daran, dass die Existenz eines Gottes weder bejaht (vergleiche beispielsweise handelsübliche Christen) noch verneint (vergleiche überzeugte Atheisten) werden kann – da man für beide Varianten kaum handfeste (oder sagen wir wissenschaftlich greifbare) Beweise oder Indizien aufbringen könnte. Gläubige Christen beispielsweise dürfte bereits diese These wütend machen – da sie glauben, diese “Beweise” längst zu haben, oder dass sie sie erst  gar nicht brauchen würden. Doch diese These geht ja noch einen Schritt weiter: selbst die Existenz eines so unglaublichen Universums wie das in dem wir leben muss noch nicht notwendigerweise beweisen, dass ein Gott existiert. Andererseits wird diese Möglichkeit aber auch keinesfalls ausgeschlossen – wie auch.

1.2 Nun muss man aber noch einen Schritt weiter gehen und sich fragen, wie weit man diese These auszuführen gedenkt. Eine Möglichkeit wäre zu sagen, dass es folglich vollkommen irrelevant ist sich überhaupt die Frage nach einem Gott zu stellen, da man sie ohnehin niemals beantworten könnte – Problem gelöst. Doch ich persönlich tendiere stark zu einer anderen Variante, nämlich zu der Annahme, dass diese Fragestellung möglicherweise zu einem anderen Zeitpunkt erneut aufgegriffen werden müsste um beantwortet zu werden. Dies harmoniert auch stark mit meinen allgemeinen Ansichten zum Thema Religion: es mag sein, dass ein höheres Wesen oder eine höhere Macht existiert – möglicherweise erfahren wir auch davon, nur eben nicht jetzt und heute. Eine überaus interessante Herangehensweise an das Thema der Offenbarung beziehungsweise dem plötzlichen Auftreten von übernatürlichen Wesen zu einem bestimmten Zeitpunkt bietet beispielsweise die Serie “Neon Genesis Evangelion” (siehe dazu 4.1).

1.3 Soweit so gut. Jetzt fühle ich mich allerdings gezwungen, mich ein wenig in Richtung der gnostischen Denkweise zu bewegen – eigentlich fatal, wird diese generell als gegenteilige Lehre angesehen. Die Gnosis spielt – zumindest teilweise – auf eine gewisse “Exklusivität” einer religiösen Erkenntnis an. Dies meint: möglicherweise ist nicht jedem eine Art “Erleuchtung” möglich. Weiterhin beinhaltet diese Lehre einen Ansatz, der geradezu fantastische (in doppeltem Sinne) Ausmaße annimt: es wird davon ausgegangen, dass die materielle Welt grundsätzlich eher negativ zu beurteilen ist (mitunter auch der menschliche Körper als Teil von ihr), und dass es eine Art göttlichen Funken geben könnte der in den Menschen schlummert. Dieser Funke stammte demnach vom höchsten Gott selbst, und müsste von – einzelnen – Menschen erkannt werden um so den negativen Aspekten der materiellen Welt entgegenwirken zu können.  Eine durchaus interessante Theorie – der ich mich allerdings nur teilweise anschließen kann. Doch das ist ja der Sinn dieses Textes – es soll ein wenig zusammengetragen werden. Wer weiss, vielleicht entsteht am Ende eine ganz neue Weltsicht, der erst noch ein Name gegeben werden müsste…

1.4 Denn das große Problem der Gnosis – was diese Lehre auch merklich von anderen unterscheidet – ist die Annahme, dass einen höchsten Gott – aber auch einen Schöpfergott geben könnte, welcher eben diese eher minderwertige materielle Welt erschaffen hat. Es entstünde also quasi eine Art göttlicher Zwiespalt in Bezug auf diese drei-Stufen-Hierarchie: der höchste Gott erschafft einen Schöpfergott, der im Grunde “falsch” handelt und die Menschen zu dem macht was sie sind. Doch die Hintertür des höchsten Gottes ist besagter göttlicher Funke, der verhindert dass die Menschen zu sehr an dieser materiellen Welt verhaften bleiben. Allemal interessant – zumal hier ein Hinweis auf den möglichen Sinn des Lebens gegeben wird, wenn auch unterschwellig. Es sähe dann doch so aus: ein höchster Gott, der vermutlich “gut” ist, lässt zu, dass ein Schöpfergott eine grundsätzlich eher nicht so gute Welt erschafft in der grundsätzlich eher nicht so gute Menschen leben. Dann aber kommt der Begriff der Freiheit (vergleiche 5.1) ins Spiel: wenn der höchste Gott das Gute quasi vorgeben würde, gäbe es keinen freien Willen mehr.

1.5 So aber liesse er den Menschen die Wahl beziehungsweise spielt – mithilfe der möglichen Existenz eines göttlichen Funkens – auf die mögliche Güte einzelner Menschen an. Entweder erkennen die Menschen diesen Funken beziehungsweise den eigentlich Sinn des Lebens – der demnach wäre, gut zu sein – oder aber sie entscheiden sich anders. Man hätte also alles vereint: eine Art reinen Glauben, die Tolerierung eines nicht-Glaubens ebenso wie den freien Willen. Doch dies ist erst der Anfang. Wenn wir diese Theorie nämlich noch weiterdenken würden, stellte sich eine weitere Frage: müsste der Gnosis nach dann also der Zustand der Menschlichkeit generell überwunden werden da er eher schlecht ist – oder genügt es, wenn es einzelne Personen gibt die über ein größeres Wissen (und damit die notwenige Güte) verfügen ? Es wäre hilfreich, wenn sich mir dazu ein Auserwählter offenbaren würde – doch ich nehme an, die Schweigepflicht nimmt hier durchaus andere (und folgenschwerere) Dimensionen an.

1.6 Und in Bezug auf den göttlichen Funken beziehungsweise den gütigen Menschen finden wir weitere Anhaltspunkte in der jüdischen Kabbala. Dort gibt es den Begriff des Adam Qadmon, was soviel bedeuted wie ursprünglicher Mensch. Dieser ursprüngliche Mensch hatte demnach bestimmte Werte (Weisheit, Herrlichkeit und Unsterblichkeit), die ihn auf eine gottgleiche Stufe stellten – verlor diese aber im Zuge der Anpassung an die materielle Welt. Einen Überblick über die besonderen Wesenzüge des nicht mehr ursprünglichen da angepassten – aber im innersten guten – Menschen gibt auch heute noch der bekannte Lebensbaum der jüdischen Mythologie:

1.7 Hier in einer etwas komplizierteren Darstellung. Die 10 großen Kreise sind die Sefirot, die sogenannten Emanationen. Emanation bedeutet soviel wie das Hervorgehen von Dingen aus einem höheren, möglicherweise göttlichen Ursprung. Man könnte also davon ausgehen, dass diese 10 Werte als mögliche Grundlage (auch einer Bewertung) für den guten, und damit auch in gewisser Weise perfekten Menschen dienen. Selbstverständlich ist auch diese Schrift ein nur allzu menschliches Werk, doch spiegelt sie im Grunde auch recht gut mein Bild eines guten und gerechten Menschen wider, deshalb auch die Erwähnung hier. Denn die 10 Werte sind grundsätzlich als positive Eigenschaften zu beurteilen, wenngleich man feststellen muss das ein gewisser, mir wichtiger Begriff fehlt: nämlich der der Freiheit. Stattdessen haben wir an der Spitze sowie als Grundlage die Begrifflichkeiten Kether und Malchūt, welche beide auf eine gewisse “Obrigkeit” als solche anspielen – nämlich auf eine Art Regierung, ein Königreich – und sei es ein übernatürliches oder ein gar allzu irdisches. In beiden Fällen jedoch wird impliziert, dass es eben nicht ohne die Herrschaft durch eine höhergestellte Macht oder Entität geht. Ob diese nun indirekt, direkt oder gar nicht (mehr) agiert und eingreift, sei allerdings einmal dahingestellt. Man könnte es auch so interpretieren: es spielt keine Rolle ob es dieses höhere Wesen gibt oder nicht, allein die Tatsache dass dies möglich ist bringt den irdischen Menschen in eine gewisse Position der Verantwortlichkeit – und damit zu einem bestimmten Handeln.

1.8 Gut, in Kapitel 1.3 behandelte ich also die Gnosis, und brachte wenig später etwas von der jüdischen Kabbala ein. Und jetzt wagen wir doch mal wieder etwas: wir verbinden beides. Denn sowohl die Gnosis als auch der Schöpfungsprozess nach Isaak Luria (ein bekannter Kabbalist) beinhalten sowohl eine gewisse Exklusivität in Bezug auf die Teilhabe an göttlichen Prozessen, als auch die Notwendigkeit einer gewissen Güte seitens der Menschen. Während es bei der Gnosis die mögliche Existenz einer Art Geheimlehre sowie der schon behandelte göttliche Funken ist, ist es im jüdischen Schöpfungsprozess – wieder nicht – die Menschheit im gesamten, die sozusagen zu Höherem berufen ist beziehungsweise wird – sondern einzelne Geschöpfe, die durch ein besonderes Maß an Güte, Liebe und Gnade möglicherweise über die Grenzen der irdischen Welt Bedeutendes zustande bringen könnten. Die Vorraussetzung: das Böse hat zwar eine Existenzberechtigung, muss aber generell angezweifelt und bekämpft werden (siehe 6.1).

1.9 Was also ist das Resümee dieses kleinen Gedankenganges ? Nun, in erster Linie sollte es die Feststellung sein, dass man eigentlich ganz froh sein kann Mensch zu sein. Allein diese Tatsache führt überhaupt zu der Möglichkeit sich derartige Existenz- und Sinnfragen zu stellen; und das Faktum dass man wohl eher nicht von einer Antwort ausgehen sollte führt zu einer größtmöglichen Freiheit. Denn eines ist klar: solange ich Mensch bin, sollte ich wohl lieber nichts von einer möglichen höheren Existenz wissen, solange ich nicht gerade diese Freiheit einbüßen möchte. Andererseits schließt dies keinesfalls die Hoffnung aus, dass diese höhere Existenz tatsächlich existiert. Denn täte sie das nicht – so wäre das Leben zwar immer noch genauso lebenswert, doch im weiteren Sinne eher bedeutungslos. Mir bleibt also weniger der Glaube als die Hoffnung, das noch mehr als das was wir sehen und erfassen können existiert; und das ich irgendwann einmal daran teilhaben kann, in welcher Form auch immer. Und wenn dies erst geschiet, wenn ich nicht mehr Mensch sein werde. Und wer weiss; vielleicht ist dieser Zustand gar nicht mal so erfüllend, und man wünscht sich im Endeffekt doch noch einmal das irdische Leben mit all seinen Facetten leben zu können, beziehungsweise zu dürfen. Doch diese Frage lässt sich eben nur schwer beantworten – wie so vieles. Eines kann ich jedoch beantworten, nämlich was ich mir für die Momente nach dem irdischen Tod wünsche würde (siehe 7.1)…

Ich grüße Euch,

Euer Ikarus

Anmerkungen:

4.1 Neon Genesis Evangelion (Anime-Serie), siehe hier.

5.1 Die Freiheit ist als solche grundsätzlich positiv zu beurteilen, selbst wenn sie automatisch impliziert, dass auch das Böse in einer auf dem Prinzip der Freiheit aufgebauten Welt herrschen oder gar obsiegen kann. Es genügt die Tatsache, das sowohl das Gute nie ohne das Böse, als auch das Böse nie ohne das Gute auf ewig alleine herrschen kann. Die Freiheit ist demnach ein Wechselspiel dieser beiden Zustände, in der das Bestreben hauptsächlich auf das Erreichen eines guten Zustandes gerichtet werden sollte. Eine Welt ohne Böses wäre zwar vorstellbar (Utopie), jedoch wäre sie nicht im Sinne der Begrifflichkeit Freiheit, da es in der Natur des Menschen liegt beide Seiten zu kennen und kennen zu wollen (siehe 6.1).

6.1 Das sogenannte Böse als Begrifflichkeit muss ständig weiterexistieren, ansonsten wäre eine Unterscheidung zwischen Gut und Böse kaum noch möglich. Mehr noch, der Begriff gut würde sich ebenso wie sein Gegenteil in Luft auflösen. Selbst in einer hypothetischen Utopie wäre es daher meiner Meinung nach Voraussetzung, dass jedes Wesen zumindest um die Existenz von Bösem weiss, um sich um so mehr glücklich in seiner gegenwärtigen Situation schätzen zu können. Dies impliziert nicht zwangsläufig die Notwendigkeit von einem immer wieder auftretenden Bösem, welches jedoch die Wirkung und das positive Empfinden des reinen Guten weiter verstärken kann. Eine reine Utopie kann und darf es also nicht geben – zumindest nicht, wenn wir von einer menschlichen Existenzebene ausgehen. In Bezug auf die göttliche Ebene ist die Vorstellung einer Utopie eher anwendbar, jedoch sieht man auch hier dass immer wieder Gegenteiliges (Böses) erschaffen werden muss damit eine Unterscheidung überhaupt gelingt.

7.1 Es käme mir irgendwie unverschämt vor, wenn ich eine vielleicht viel zu hohe Erwartungshaltung an ein mögliches Weiterexistieren nach dem irdischen Tod hätte. Natürlich wäre es schön, wenn es möglich wäre, in irgendeiner Form weiterexistieren zu können. Natürlich nur, sofern man von einer ähnlichen Existenz wie dem menschlichen Leben ausgeht, in dem der “Grundzustand” des Menschen quasi “0″ ist – und er sich langsam entwickelt und sich dem Guten als auch dem Bösen anschließen kann. Doch mein ganz persönlicher Wunsch für das etwas nach dem Tod wäre eigentlich nur eines: die Möglichkeit, mit einem positiven Gefühl von dieser Welt zu gehen. Dies meint: der Tod an sich ist rein pysisch sicherlich schon eine etwas negative Erfahrung (allgemein gesprochen), und vielleicht war das Leben davor auch nicht immer so rosig. Deshalb wäre mein Wunsch oder meine Hoffnung, dass ich noch einmal die glücklichsten Momente meines Lebens in einer Art Zeitraffer erleben dürfte – quasi als schöne gute-Nacht Geschichte. Dies wären dann wohl in erster Linie Erlebnisse und Momente aus meiner Kindheit. Ein möglicher Nacbteil wäre sich zu fragen, ob es beim zweiten Mal dann überhaupt noch ein so schönes und einzigartiges Gefühl wäre wie beim ersten. Weshalb ich noch eine Alternativhoffnung hätte: dass es irgendwie möglich wäre, alle “verpassen” Chancen seines Lebens noch einmal zu nutzen (zumindest gefühlt, emotional). Oder anders gesagt: dass man plötzlich (rückwirkend) auf alle Probleme eine Antwort oder die Erlösung erhält, die man in den verzweifelsten Momenten seines Lebens hatte. Ich denke, mit diesen Wünschen bin ich vergleichsweise noch recht bescheiden… weder würde ich mir Unsterblichkeit noch eine überaus Bedeutsame Rolle für eine mögliche Zukunft wünschen, lediglich ein Abschließen mit dem Bisherigen – aber aus einer anderen Perspektive. Eben sodass ein seliger Schlaf gewiss ist…

Verfasst in der Kalenderwoche 44 des Jahres 2009 n. Christus, alle Texte sind (c) by ikarusvpn bzw. der realen Person hinter diesem Pseudonym. Weitere Verwendung nur mit Genehmigung des Autors gestattet.

Why boys are turning into girls
Gender-bending chemicals are largely exempt from new EU regulations, warns Geoffrey Lean.

Now the Danish government is planning to lobby to have the rules toughened up. It is particularly concerned by other studies which show that gender-bending chemicals acting together have far worse effects than the expected sum of their individual impacts. It wants this to be reflected in the regulations, citing its discovery of the many sources to which the two-year-olds are exposed – modern slings and arrows, as it were, of outrageous fortune.

Eugenics Society is turning humans into sub-species

PULPable is where the many points on the graph of cultural modernity bubble just beneath the surface of popular culture.

If you’re wondering exactly what I’m talking about, then you should go immediately and read A PULP Manifesto, but if your attention span is better suited to Lois  & Clark than to Nietzschean “Supermen” then you should keep reading.

Though one can (and I do) trace PULPable back to the original pulp magazines and even further back to the days of Penny Dreadfuls and mass production, its origins for me were in the literary and musical choices I made as a teenager. PULPable was, to me, the pop culture subtext of a record or a novel, the assumed shared knowledge of a century

A Vogue cover referencing David Bowie's "Aladdin Sane" album

of mass-produced consumables which underpinned the song you had just listened to or the sentence you had just read.

In The Velvet Underground I found Andy Warhol, and in Warhol a critique of the very culture that had created him. In William Burroughs there were drugs galore, sentences that vomited all over the bar and which were as impenetrable as those that  preceded him in Ulysses or The Wasteland. In Raymond Chandler I saw an America of surfaces and style, and in the Pulp magazines he wrote for were the beginnings of superheroes and comic book villains destined to be deconstructed within a century by Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman or Jonathan Lethem.

More vital than any other writer, singer or artist in exploring the PULPable style was David Bowie. The list above could go on for several paragraphs, but suffice it to say that the Velvets and Burroughs, as well as Anthony Burgess (and by extension Stanley Kubrick), Christopher Isherwood, Orwell and Huxley amongst others were introduced to me indirectly through obsessive listening to Bowie’s records. He was inspired by that which was considered ‘high culture’ to create that which was considered ‘low’, and in referencing writers and artists, philosophers and bands, he mirrored more closely deconstructive authors than fellow pop musicians.

This sense of an unknown pop culture grid, something that lurked beneath the superficiality of what was ostensibly popular entertainment, piqued my curiosity. Though I read and was forcibly loaned comic books (or, as some insist, Graphic Novels), watched science-fiction movies and TV shows, I also consciously selected books that felt as though they belonged on the graph of culture modernity. If I could piece together Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man with Catch-22, or place A Clockwork Orange alongside L’Etranger then maybe, just maybe, I would be able to begin to connect the points on the graph.

Books, art, music, comics, film: they all interlaced and overlapped. The pop culture surface was immediately graspable,  a series of symbols which began to attain the status of modern myth by virtue of their being instantly recognisable and signifying something near-universal: the Coca-Cola logo, Superman’s costume or Warhol’s “Marilyns”. But beneath the surface, there existed a secondary stream of culture which fed on the popular,

The Escapist comic book cover, based on Michael Chabon's "Kavalier & Clay"

sometimes for entertainment (Bowie and Chandler), sometimes for art’s sake (Warhol strikes again), but more often than not for both.

There is no easy definition, for if there were then we would be immediately constrained, and why should we be forced to choose between Superman and Michael Chabon, between Bob Dylan and Dylan Thomas? PULPable is where both live together in imperfect harmony. The mainstream will swim on, and, from time to time, those bubbling under will rise to the surface and take a breath before diving for cover once again.

DLR, October 24th, 2009

(Si no leiste ambos libros, es imperdonable. Andá, leélos, y volvé.)
(…)
(…)
(…)
(Listo. Me asombra lo rápido que leés.)
Entiendo bastante bien el inglés, pero no acostumbro leer demasiado en ese idioma. En una de mis pocas incursiones por la Web angloparlante, me encontré con estas viñetas, en donde se comparan ambas distopías. Para los que no entiendan o no quieran leer en inglés, ensayo una traducción libre:

La viñeta nos lleva a pensar que Orwell estaba equivocado, y que Huxley tenía razón. Sin embargo, se me hace que sucede algo un poco más perverso: pienso que asistimos a una combinación altísimamente eficaz de ambas distopías. El Gran Hermano estuvo leyendo a Huxley… ¿Qué opinan ustedes?”

In July of 2009, I posted about a forthcoming Australian Darwin film based on historian Iain McCalman’s recently published book Darwin’s Armada: Four Voyages and the Battle for the Theory of Evolution:

Award-winning cultural historian Iain McCalman tells the stories of Charles Darwin and his most vocal supporters and colleagues: Joseph Hooker, Thomas Huxley, and Alfred Wallace. Beginning with the somber morning of April 26, 1882—the day of Darwin’s funeral—Darwin’s Armada steps back in time and recounts the lives and scientific discoveries of each of these explorers. The four amateur naturalists voyaged separately from Britain to the southern hemisphere in search of adventure and scientific fame. From Darwin’s inaugural trip on the Beagle in 1835 through Wallace’s exploits in the Amazon and, later, Malaysia in the 1840s and 1850s, each man independently made discoveries that led him to embrace Darwin’s groundbreaking theory of evolution. This book reveals the untold story of Darwin’s greatest supporters who, during his life, campaigned passionately in the war of ideas over evolution and who lived on to extend and advance the scope of his work.

McCalman also coedited a volume of papers, In the Wake of the Beagle: Science in the Southern Oceans from the Age of Darwin, based on a conference by the same name held at the Australian National Maritime Museum in Sydney in March 2009:

Strange as it may seem, the long wake of the tiny HMS Beagle stretches from the nineteenth century into the future of our globe. Charles Darwin spent only three months in Australia, but Australasia and the Pacific contributed to his evolutionary thinking in a variety of ways. One hundred and fifty years after the publication of On the Origin of Species the internationally acclaimed authors of In the Wake of the Beagle provide new insights into the world of collecting, surveying and cross-cultural exchange in the antipodes in the age of Darwin. They explore the groundbreaking work of Darwin and his contemporaries Joseph Hooker, Thomas Huxley and Alfred Wallace, examine the complex trading relationships of the region’s daring voyagers, and take a very modern look at today’s cutting-edge scientific research, at a time when global warming has raised the stakes to an unprecedented level.

The film, Darwin’s Brave New World, is described as:

A 3 x 1hour drama-documentary TV series about how the Southern Hemisphere gave birth to the most controversial idea in science: evolution by means of natural selection. Interweaving dramatic reconstruction with documentary actuality and moving between the 19th century and the 21st, this series is the story of how Charles Darwin’s ‘dangerous idea’ developed during his epic voyage through South America, Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands and how that idea forever transformed society and science. A series to coincide with the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin’s ‘On the Origin of Species’.

The film premieres at the University of British Columbia later this month, and airs on Australia’s ABC1 November 8th (ep. 1: Origins), 15th (ep. 2: Evolutions), and 22nd (ep. 3: Publish and Be Damned). An extended trailer:

Notice in the trailer a few historians or philosophers of science (Jim Moore, Michael Ruse, and Janet Browne), Richard Dawkins, and David Suzuki.

There is nothing new under the sun.  Ever heard of that expression?  It comes from the bible.  Now that we have that out of the way, I’d like to say that our search for art beyond the ordinary might not produce anything that is truly original.  But let’s try nonetheless.

Before we delve into the world of ‘fringe’ art, I’d like to compare some prehistoric art with that of the 16^th and 17^th centuries AD.  It seems that perhaps the quote of the week rings true.  Read on and you’ll see what I mean.

Our hairy hunter/gatherer ancestors depicted what was important to them at the time – hunting and procreation (survival).  They portrayed these needs on the ceilings of caves and in the form of limestone sculptures.  Take a look at the two pictures below. 

Venus of Willendorf
Sculptured of limestone, painted with ochre. Size: 4 3/4 inches
30,000-18,000 BC
Naturhistorisches Museum, Vienna

The Painted Ceiling of Altamira Cave
Middle period, 13,500-11,000 BC
Photograph courtesy American Museum of Natural History, New York City

Why show you these particular creations?  Because their concepts are reflected in the works of two famous artists – Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel and Rubens’ depiction of women.  See below.  Curiously it seems artists had already painted on ceilings in c. 12,000 BC (14,000 years before Michelangelo did it).  And those voluptuous women Rubens liked to paint?  Well, it seems the ‘Rubenesque’ figure was in fashion, oh say, 25,000 years before he made it popular.

Rubens Venus at a Mirror, 1615 AD

Michelangelo Sistine Chapel – Ceiling, 1508 AD

OK, so the Venus of Willendorf is a little more voluptuous in certain places than those of Rubens’ women, but hey, if procreation was the main goal of life, a fertility inducing figure would have to be superlative to obtain the desired goal. And yes, Michelangelo depicted the creation of the earth and our prehistoric forefathers painted mere bison, but that was what sustained life – they were too busy trying to survive to be thinking about how the world began. 

If you would like to learn more about prehistoric art or the history of the bible as depicted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, click on the links below.

http://www.humanities-interactive.org/ancient/iceage/index.html

http://mv.vatican.va/3_EN/pages/CSN/CSN_Volta_StCentr.html

Next week we will look at the writing on the wall.

Bilim her konuda ilk sözü söyler, ama hiçbir konuda son sözü söylemez. Victor Hugo 

İnsanoğlu meraklıdır; bilim denen şeyin özü budur. Ralph Waldo Emerson 

Bilim, birçok derde deva olmuş olabilir; ama en kötüsüne, insanların umursamazlığına hâlâ bir çare bulamadı. Helen Keller 

Bilim adamları atom çekirdeklerine benzer; bölünmeleri birleşmelerinden daha kolaydır.  Charles Osgood 

Bilimin büyük trajedisi, çok güzel bir varsayımı çok çirkin bir olguyla yok edebilmesidir. T.H. Huxley 

İnsanoğlu yürüyecek bir aygıt yapmak istediğinde, bacağa hiç benzemeyen tekerleği icat etti. Guillaume Apollinaire