EL ORÅCULO DEL SAN GENNARO

† † †
SUMMON ST. JANUARIUS Mustfinish at gmail dot lol

BOOKING=
Erik at uncle

GOOGOO GAGA


I’m trying to wrap my head around this Lady Gaga quote I found on wiki:

It doesn’t make you cool to hate pop culture, so I embraced it…

SO being offended by (intentionally disposable) culture created by committees of business-degree holders = not cool

Consciously trying to avoid being uncool = cool

say wha?

This is a big part of why I have so much trouble getting my financial shit together.  I’ve yet to find a rich bitch I can envy for the duration of a whole sentence.  Wherever you find a wealthy, successful, famous person, you’re more than likely to also find some hackneyed philosophy which attempts to add right, cool, or ubermensch to the material comforts their success has already awarded them.  Look— if you’ve got a dope place, a functioning vehicle, your picture all over the magazines, people calling you up to ask your opinion on things, enough money in the bank to sport silly jewelry and luxurious clothes, etc, etc, why the fuck do you sweat being right or cool?

Unless, of course, you’ve had to sacrifice so much of your time and self to get all your nice stuff that you worry you won’t have anything at all if they disappear— if the money’s spent and the clothes are out of style and the vehicle starts breaking down, etc, etc— and your hope is that when poorer people are convinced that you know more than they about right and cool, they’ll want to throw parts of their paycheck at you every time you shimmy down the stage to shake your skinny ass in their face.

SRSLY: the world is melting, the economy is collapsing, and you’re getting your photograph taken standing there like, “Hey, check out how sweet I look standing here having my photograph taken.”  If you’ve got a pocket full of money, keep your hands off my cool.  You can’t have it.  Since time immemorial shamans and saints and rastas and tirthankars and those junkies that invented jazz have been in charge of guiding mankind towards the next level— sales associates employed by entertainment conglomerates are way out of their depth.  Way out.  Step off, lady.

Anybody stupid enough to think that white people went to war and killed other white people for the rights of black people will be stupid enough to believe that we are looking for Osama Bin Laden in Iraqian Permian basin. Dave Reeves @ Arthurmag
Squareness may be succinctly and yet thoroughly defined as an inability to see quality before it’s been intellectually defined, that is, before it gets all chopped up into words… More from Pirsig’s ZATAOMM
Precisely when American power needed all the restraining that satire could throw at it, satire became obsessed with celebrities. Coincidence? Surely not. Part of this was the entertainment industry’s self-aggrandizing belief that nobody in the audience knows about anything but entertainment—which, after fifty years, has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. But even more powerful was simple risk-aversion. Any Jackson joke was risk-free. Mike Gerber @ Tinyrevolution

iMPERiAL PiZZA PARTY

(This is a piece I wrote months ago for a magazine that may not ever materialize.  The central metaphor, though, is something you might find relevant or useful if bands are an important part of your life.)

I gave up on being good in middle school.  It was hard: I had really wanted to hold on to that one.  It took a while for me to finally let it go.

That decision, of course, forced me to seriously re-prioritize and I did what I think most people do: I started to believe in love.  My first lover was a gorgeous musician— loyal, empathetic, and ever-present, and he helped me through a tumultuous adolescence, one rife with consistently unreliable, occasionally abusive, ever unimpeachable authority figures.  That whole era of my life seemed to veer uncomfortably close to the seventh circle of hell with sickening regularity.  I am instinctually suspicious of all breeders to this day.  This boy, though: he was living proof that there were other people on the planet that weren’t completely retarded, and that I might even get to meet some of them.

Looking back now, though, I can see that as much as I lived for our time together, it wasn’t really what sold me on the idea of living.  Love is a fine thing, of course, probably one of the finest— but it’s no secret how weak you get when it’s the only thing you believe in.

It was a different gorgeous musician who really sold me on living, I think— one I never actually met.  Somehow, though, I came to feel that I knew him better than I knew most of the people around me… people who lived in my house, even.  It was easy to find him in the things he made, and he made a lot of things.  It was uncanny how undeniably present he seemed whenever I had him in my headphones, a sharp contrast to the increasing distance I felt towards the lot whose company I had to suffer arbitrarily.

I wasn’t sure if he was rich— he didn’t seem like it, but he obviously didn’t have another job, and the flamboyantly unique and ever-changing character of his work convinced me that he wasn’t much concerned with money.  At the same time, he wasn’t quite famous— almost no one at my school had heard of him— but I knew there were at least a handful of people scattered around the world on point enough to recognize the legendary caliber of this gorgeous man’s work.  This was proof of something very, very important: this was a future worth sticking around for.  In a way I suppose it’s just a different kind of good, but this kind was different enough, so much more tangible than the old good, the vague trap I had once tried in vain to preserve.  This good, the good of this man, it inspired and animated me.  It gave me energy, more than I’d ever felt before.  I felt all kinds of things I did not feel before this man made me believe in the power of music.

The web, at this point in history, was still just one well.  Aside from his actual compositions, there was little supplementary information to be had about my idol.  He did not seem to take interviews seriously at all— which, of course, made the few that he did quite amusing.  I kept a scrapbook, but never let anyone see it.  The level of obsession required to maintain this scrapbook was not reflected in its pitiful brevity.  Most of what I knew about this guy was raw feeling, communicated without media mediation, communicated in that one mysterious way still known to man that bridges any distance to trump words and tongues and talking entirely.

There was one hard fact, though, one bit of biographical data that appeared, in various ways, in nearly all of the articles I had collected: my idol believed the most important thing he had ever done, the biggest influence on his work and his whole outlook on the world in general, in fact, was a walk.  Apparently, once upon a time, before any of us knew about this man or the fountain of beauty held within him, he worked at a shopping mall.  One day he was taking some trash to the dumpster and a city bus pulled up right before him and opened its doors.  Unsatisfied with the job, and his life in general, and willing to believe at least temporarily in destiny, my hero dropped the trash and boarded the bus.  He sat on the bus waiting for another sign of some kind, but it was not forthcoming, he and ended up riding to the end of the line, to a part of town he had never visited before.  It took him a few hours to walk back home, but when he got there, he began writing his first record.

I had kicked around the idea before he died, but it was minutes after I heard that news that I really promised myself I would do it, I would make the same walk.  The mall was named specifically in most variations of this anecdote, so it was fairly easy to figure out which bus was the one he spontaneously boarded.  The final destination of the walk had since become a somewhat infamous group house where a steady procession of younger artists and musicians continued to live and do shows.  Using internet maps and my scrapbook I came up with a pretty meticulous hypothesis of the exact route he had walked on that day.  Here’s the kicker, though: my brother’s mom worked for an oil company, surveying or something like that, and she had this handheld GPS locator.  I borrowed it and converted my hypothetical route to GPS coordinates.  I can honestly say I had never been as serious about anything in my life at that point.

I was just a few steps shy of the last coordinate when I began to wonder why I had done it, what I really expected to result from such an undertaking.

There was a show at the house that night and there were a lot of people in the yard when I got there.  Before I had sorted any of it in my head, I was talking to somebody else about something completely unrelated— probably new bands.

The show turned out to be really, really fun.  Luckily I knew some people who brought a case of Boh because I didn’t bring any money myself.  I don’t think I thought about the walk again that night.  This one guy played who had more guitar pedals than I’d ever seen.  After him there was another guy who was super funny and good at talking to the crowd.  In Cuba a couple hundred of our greatest enemies were shackled and sore, still wondering what any of it was for, while here the funny guy reminded us about Bugs Bunny and Mr. T and Cap’n Crunch and other characters from our culture’s rich pantheon.  We laughed again and again.  Before the show was over, the funny guy told us about some more fun shows coming up.  There was maybe never a better time to be a young artist.

Maurice Nicholl, physician, psychiatrist, student of Jung, Gurdjieff and Esoteric Christianity, wrote that “the only purpose in work on consciousness is to decrease the amount of violence in the world.”  This is Public Health Problem Number One in the nuclear age, the age of overkill.

We are not talking about mere increase in linear IQ— third-circuit semantic cleverness.  We are talking of also the kinds of right-brain intelligence that Nicholl aquired from Jungian neurogenetic research and Gurdjieff’s meta-programming techniques.  We are talking of, say, Beethoven’s intelligence, which so disturbed Lenin, who could not bear to listen to the Appasionata (Sonata 23) because it made him “want to weep and pat people on the head, and we mustn’t pat them on the head, we must hit them on the head, hit them hard, and make them obey.”  More of Beethoven’s intelligence is needed, desperately, to create a signal that the current Lenins cannot ignore, that will make them weep, and stop hitting heads.

We need more mentations, less munitions.  The second-circuit mammalian political games are a million years obsolete.

—Robert Anton Wison, PROMETHEUS RISING (1983)

But there it was, the whole history of science, a clear story of continuously new and changing explanations of old facts.  The time spans of permanence seemed completely random, he could see no order in them.  Some scientific truths seemed to last for centuries, others for less than a year.  Scientific truth was not dogma, good for eternity, but a temporal quantitative entity that could be studied like anything else.

He studied scientific truths, then became upset even more by the apparent cause of their temporal condition.  It looked as though the time spans of scientific truths are an inverse function of the intensity of scientific effort.  Thus the scientific truths of the twentieth century seem to have a much shorter life-span than those of the last century because scientific activity is now much greater.  If, in the next century, scientific activity increases tenfold, then the life expectancy of any scientific truth can be expected to drop to perhaps one-tenth as long as now.  What shortens the life-span of the existing truth is the volume of hypotheses offered to replace it; the more the hypotheses, the shorter the time span of the truth.  And what seems to be causing the number of hypotheses to grow in recent decades seems to be nothing other than scientific method itself.  The more you look, the more you see.  Instead of selecting one truth from a multitude you are increasing the multitude.  What this means logically is that as you try to move toward unchanging truth through the application of scientific method, you actually do not move toward it at all.  You move away from it!  It is your application of scientific method that is causing it to change!

What Phaedrus observed on a personal level was a phenomenon, profoundly characteristic of the history of science, which has been swept under the carpet for years.  The predicted results of scientific inquiry are diametrically opposed here, and no one seems to pay too much attention to the fact.  The purpose of scientific method is to select a single truth from among many hypothetical truths.  That, more than anything else, is what science is all about.  But historically science has done exactly the opposite.  Through multiplication upon multiplication of facts, information, theories and hypotheses, it is science itself that is leading mankind from single absolute truths to multiple, indeterminate, relative ones.  The major producers of social chaos, the indeterminacy of thought and values that rational knowledge is supposed to eliminate, is none other than science itself.  And what Phaedrus saw in the isolation of his own laboratory work years ago is now seen everywhere in the technological world today.  Scientifically produced antiscience: chaos…

The cause of our current social crises, he would have said, is a genetic defect within the nature of reason itself.  And until this genetic defect is cleared, the crises will continue.  Our current modes of rationality are not moving society forward into a better world.  They are taking it further and further from that better world.  Since the Renaissance these modes have worked.  As long as the need for food, clothing and shelter is dominant they will continue to work.  But now that for huge masses of people these needs no longer overwhelm everything else, the whole structure of reason, handed down to us from ancient times, is no longer adequate.  It begins to be seen for what it really is— emotionally hollow, esthetically meaningless and spiritually empty.  

-Robert Pirsig, ZEN AND THE ART OF MOTORCYCLE MAINTENANCE (1974)

GUESS WHOSE NAME WE SAW ON A TRAIN CAR STOPPED ON THE BRIDGE OVER FALLS RD TODAY?

Proof is only possible in mathematics, and mathematics is only a matter of arbitrary conventions.

And yet doubt is a good servant but a bad master; a perfect mistress, but a nagging wife.

“White is white” is the lash of the overseer; “white is black” is the watchword of the slave.  The Master takes no heed.

The Chinese cannot help thinking that the octave has 5 notes.

The more necessary anything appears to my mind, the more certain it is that I only assert a limitation.

I slept with Faith, and found a corpse in my arms on awaking; I drank and danced all night with Doubt, and found her a virgin in the morning.

—from Chapter 45 (“Chinese Music”) of THE BOOK OF LIES by Aleister Crowley

MORE FUN-SIZE FILOSOFEM



Uncritical acceptance of Darwin’s theory of evolution (or more accurately, of the broad facsimile of this theory implied when Darwin’s name is invoked by laymen) is one of the most popular litmus tests for intelligence that you can encounter in the Western world today.  Conventional wisdom holds that anyone who questions this philosophy is either a backwards buffoon, a dangerous religious zealot, or both.

Of course, the percentage of people applying this test who have experienced Darwin’s ideas via any route other the summaries provided by their teachers & textbooks is miniscule.  It would seem hard for truly inquisitve minds to overlook the intermediary function that modern professors and scientists share with the priests and shamans of bygone eras.  (If you ever want to liven up a discussion with someone who cannot see the similarity, hand them a pen and a napkin and ask them to draw a picture of an electron microscope.)

Because the particulars of the proof behind Darwin’s theory are the province of these specialists, whose work cannot be done without a grip of underlings and costly gear, what ordinary people who describe Darwin’s theory as being true/objective/obvious/etc are really saying is that it provides a compelling narrative.  It is not insignificant that those rallying hardest to Charlie’s flag are priviliged people who have invested their entire future in higher education, and almost always raised without any real contact with religion (disclosure: I personally don’t consider most anything New Age or Protestant to qualify, with exceptions for some of the more virulent strains of the latter found in the American south.)

So why is this narrative so compelling to educated conformists of our time, as to set otherwise dispassionate people to fervored debate?  I believe it offers a very powerful laudunum for their not-quite-completely-withered consciences.  Science prides itself on having answers to just about every question but falls noticably short on the right reaction to the intense suffering that surrounds us.  The bastardized version of Darwinism en vogue today provides very explicit comfort for these anxieties: all progress is the instinctual devouring of the weak by the strong.  It is unavoidable: it is, as they say, “hardwired into your genes.”  Feeling sorrow or horror because of the suffering of your fellow humans is folly tantamount to suicide.  This story is the only thing standing between most of its adherents and a compassion which threatens to overturn their entire lifestyle— if it is not defended tooth and nail, all is lost.

RJYAN.COM>>TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OF THIS SHIT SINCE '000

The destruction of imagination has become an integral part of the capitalists’ quest for perpetual growth.  The weaker your imagination, the less things you will make and the more things you must buy.

This works on a very literal level (making songs, making furniture, making food vs. buying songs, buying furniture, buying food) and also on a symbolic level (making your own narrative about your country/planet/people vs. buying their narrative).