The Schizo-Stroller

Just to repeat that to yourself five times a day is enough to make an anarchist of you. How would you awaken the world – if you were a musician? With a sonata for rusty tin-openers? Have you ever thought about it? Or would you rather remain asleep?

A CONSCIOUS HUMANITY!

Have you ever tried to imagine what that would mean? Be honest. Have you ever paused for one minute of your life to think what it would mean for humanity to become fully conscious, to be neither exploitable nor pitiable? Nothing could possibly hinder the advance of a conscious humanity. Nothing will.
How to become conscious? It’s very dangerous, you know. It doesn’t necessarily mean that you will have two automobiles and own your own home with a pipe-organ in it. It means that you will suffer still more – that’s the first thing to realise. But you won’t be dead, you won’t be indifferent, you won’t be insensitive, you won’t be alarmed and panicky, you won’t be jittery, you won’t throw rotten eggs because you don’t understand. You will want to understand everything, even the disagreeable things. You will want to accept more and more – even what seems hostile, evil, threatening. Yes, you will become more and more like God. You won’t have to answer an advertisement in the newspaper in order to find out how to talk with God. God will be with you all the time. And if I know what I’m talking about you will listen more and talk less.

Henry Miller: The Air-Conditioned Nightmare

Just to repeat that to yourself five times a day is enough to make an anarchist of you. How would you awaken the world – if you were a musician? With a sonata for rusty tin-openers? Have you ever thought about it? Or would you rather remain asleep? A CONSCIOUS HUMANITY! Have you ever tried to ...

It’s not much of a secret that I use the Tarot as a symbolical coping strategy. I am not someone who believes in a Jungian unconscious, but I do accept that the Tarot has a history that is connected to a Gnostic tradition, and the occult psycjologies that have grown up with that, and as such at times of stress, when my own ego is in chaos it helps with some reordering in a tradition that my belief system can link to historically. It is a slightly less abstract, historical form of Rorschach test, but as symbolic imaghes I believe it does have more of a link, due to its historicity, to the Real, a more mediated form of dialogue with the unconscious.

I have always been interested in Kafka’s fable. ‘Before the Law’ but from the perspective of someone who would walk through the door. Here is the fable

I hear voices, these voices are persecutory, and one of the means by which they persecute me is to hold me responsible for their abuse, this is similar to the ‘blaming the victim’ of Just World Theory. The voices will find a reason to blame me based on my character or life-experience for why they criticise my arguments beliefs theories etc (what are called ad hominem’s in philosophy), rather than disagree with me, providing a better argument, or even just a different, alternative one.

Now with regards to my responsibility, I am aware that I am particularly vulnerable to these attacks because of my past-experience. I liken it to having doors that are open, or more accurately due to the communicative familial trauma AND bullying that I have experienced, they are doors that have been kicked in. I have pointed out to the abusers that just because the door is open does not mean I am responsible for the abuser walking through. As I say, ‘prejudiced people blame the people they are prejudiced about for the reason they are prejudiced’, they are the people who would blame the person with the door open for their action of entering, to the extent of denying their own legs.

One card that comes up for me in Tarot (I am a beginner and use the Rider-Waite deck) is the High Priestess.

Behind the throne of the High Priestess, between the pillars, is a curtain, behind that curtain is water, the unconscious, the High Priestess is the guardian of the doorway to the unconscious.

One of the responsibilities I admit too with regard to the doors is that those doors, are open, my personal High Priestess is not keeping the abusers out. But if we return to Kafka’s Before the Law, the doors are their for the abusers. They are the one’s who walk through them. It is a decision only they can make. That is their responsibility. Not mine. I can only keep my High Priestess as strong as I am able. But she doesn’t force them to come in.

To walk through a door is an action that you own. Don’t blame the owner of the doorway.

It's not much of a secret that I use the Tarot as a symbolical coping strategy. I am not someone who believes in a Jungian unconscious, but I do accept that the Tarot has a history that is connected to a Gnostic tradition, and the occult psycjologies that have grown up with that, and ...

I was thinking of this term the other day. It’s potential meaning (I realise its a bit of a neologism – only seems to be present on the interweb as a profile name) has a few possible interpretations.

There is its relation to agnosticism and its relation to atheism. Now whilst i prefer its relation to agnosticism, for reasons I will go into in a bit, in populist discourse I think it has more resonance with regard to atheism. So I will look at this first.

Atheism as a signifier based on its root words means little other than without God, and as such says little about any particular atheists relation to believers. However as recent nu-atheist discourse goes, in the popular imagination, there is an antagonism to religion; Dawkins, the late Hitchens etc. and as such this particular strain of atheism could be called anatagnostic, an antagonistic approach to religion.

But the root words of antagnostic suggest a closer relation to agnosticism, that of the doubter, he/ she without faith. However Gnostic itself also has a relation to knowledge, he without a knowledge of God, which if we take a correlationist view is unknowable and therefore relies on a faith. Thus the agnostic is the ultimate correlationist, having no faith in the possibility of absolute knowledge.

So from this point of view, whilst their is an atheist attitude that leads to an antagonistic attitude to faith that would give us a form of antagnosticism. There is also a meaning of antagnosticism that suggest an antagonistic relation to knowledge, or at least the possibility of absolute knowledge, or even just objects.

I was thinking of this term the other day. It's potential meaning (I realise its a bit of a neologism - only seems to be present on the interweb as a profile name) has a few possible interpretations. There is its relation to agnosticism and its relation to atheism. Now whilst i prefer its relation ...

In a thread on rightsnet.org.uk on Thursday, Reading Community Welfare Rights Unit deputy manager Sam Harney noted:

Client’s husband is in hospital in a coma. He was sent ESA501.

Client contacted DWP to explain situation and was asked to obtain letter from hospital confirming he is in a coma. Did so. Was told to send it to ATOS rather than local BDC. Did so. Husband has now received decision letter – yep, as he has failed to return the ESA50 without good cause and is therefore capable of work [he is] no longer entitled to ESA…

H/T: libcom.org

In a thread on rightsnet.org.uk on Thursday, Reading Community Welfare Rights Unit deputy manager Sam Harney noted: Client’s husband is in hospital in a coma. He was sent ESA501. Client contacted DWP to explain situation and was asked to obtain letter from hospital confirming he is in a ...

‘They’re just words’, she said.
Actually, I replied.
When you say
words
are just words.
By your own argument
you
are excluding yourself
from the rest of us
who know words
have meaning
and so are able
to hold a conversation,
maintain an argument,
have a valid opinion.

But as you think
words
are just words
then we can ignore
your words.
As those words
that say
words
are just words
are by that very same argument
the only words
that are
just words.

When you understand what i mean
feel free
to rejoin the conversation,
and we will hear your argument,
and respect your opinion.

'They're just words', she said. Actually, I replied. When you say words are just words. By your own argument you are excluding yourself from the rest of us who know words have meaning and so are able to hold a conversation, maintain an argument, have a valid opinion. But as you think words are just words then we can ignore your words. As those words that say words are just ...

What does ‘Fuck off’ mean?

Does it mean you can no longer take your vicarious pleasure out of my suffering.

If we then re-inject the connection between the pleasure drive and the erotic principle into the semantics of this form of swearing, are we then, when we refuse the right of someone to tell you to ‘Fuck off’, countenancing a form of rape?

I would like to refer you to my post on bullying.

And then to ask what this mean when we refuse the right to say ‘Fuck off’ by censoring the language i.e when someone says in response to being told to ‘Fuck off’, ‘Don’t use that language!’ rather than saying, ‘oops I may have overstepped my bounds there’.
Are they saying ‘How dare you suggest that I am overstepping my bounds by taking out my vicarious pleasure in your suffering. Sex is for procreation and all else must be denied. For this reason you will allow yourself to be raped and lie back and think of England!’. Patriotism in the name of the abusive rich, who have every right to ravish who they like without recourse to Law, through censorship of language.

What does 'Fuck off' mean? Does it mean you can no longer take your vicarious pleasure out of my suffering. If we then re-inject the connection between the pleasure drive and the erotic principle into the semantics of this form of swearing, are we then, when we refuse the right of someone to tell you to ...

There is no such thing as a working class capitalist. If you’re working class you ain’t got capital. If you ain’t got capital you ain’t a capitalist.

So voting Tory, the party of the landed gentry (or now Capital interests), or Liberal, the party of the petit-bourgeois and professional (Capital’s police and administration) requires a positive relation with capital to be in your best interests.

So if you’re working class and support Capitalism, there’s only one politics for you. Fascism. The dictatorship of the proletariat with Capital still intact.

However these fascists are still working class. So if you’re Anti-Fascist you’re attacking members of the working class, those that sell you up the river.

Do you fight them or address the root of their fears? Or, rather, isn’t it better to attack the rhetoric that turns us against each other?

Just a question from a Carrion Crow who wants to eat more than zombie roadkill.

There is no such thing as a working class capitalist. If you're working class you ain't got capital. If you ain't got capital you ain't a capitalist. So voting Tory, the party of the landed gentry (or now Capital interests), or Liberal, the party of the petit-bourgeois and professional (Capital's police and administration) requires a ...

Because smilies are not just for Nixon campaigns

Because smilies are not just for Nixon campaigns

Bring out your dead…

Call of the carrion crow, civilized man had no friend
Whale of the silent sea, the ocean is yours, they’ve left it empty
Hawk and the emerald dove, soar and sail on wings above
Across halcyon streams, to a place where madmen once would dream

Cast your senses, to another world
Back a millennia, another time when
Savage squatters, remade the earth

And Gaia screamed
As she was raped
Then after, thereafter, she took revenge

Rusting towers, roots spreading
Asphalt cracking, under live oak
Vines entangle, the shells they once called their homes

Termination, billions composted
Germination, merged cadavers into peat
Resurrection, food for the earthworms
Fertilizing dead sward in turn

Solitude, sacrosanct, as Gaia speaks through whip-poor-wills at first daybreak

Propagation, feces and flesh fructify
Sown asunder, corpses blended with the soil
Transmutations, spill forth from Gaia’s womb

Life comes screaming, overdue, on a landscape free of man

Beasts of a broken line, fill the void on silent earth
Heed the carrion call…rebirth

Bring out your dead... Call of the carrion crow, civilized man had no friend Whale of the silent sea, the ocean is yours, they've left it empty Hawk and the emerald dove, soar and sail on wings above Across halcyon streams, to a place where madmen once would dream Cast your senses, to another world Back a millennia, another time ...

You can not give someone freedom, you can only take it away

You cannot give someone autonomy, you can only deny it

You cannot give the people heteronomy, you can only restrict it

However these and plurality must constantly be strived for.

How come? Whence come the obstacles? Or more accurately when did we become alienated from these obstacles and how do we accept them?

You can not give someone freedom, you can only take it away You cannot give someone autonomy, you can only deny it You cannot give the people heteronomy, you can only restrict it However these and plurality must constantly be strived for. How come? Whence come the obstacles? Or more accurately when did we become alienated from these ...