The language of modern love

The christmas tree shines its desperate appeal to togetherness
But behind it shines the glare of todays alonenes

we hide behind these symbols

a barricade against the empty glaciers of life as it is.

There is no security and our search for the secure loses for us the very thing we’re seeking to secure.

Two people barricaded behind the walls they’ve secured to protect themselves against that which they seek.

Two seperate languages spoken in silence a silence un broachable an isolatiotion unspeakable.

Even when spoken it lies un interpretabable.

A frozen heart unthawable that shatters with heat. The german and english desperate to not shoot but the only language available are brazen jacket shells that tear and distort.

A constant distortion of love pleas twisted into knife stabs and wounds.


We shatter ourselves on ourselves left with our torn selves and empty wrapping paper.

A broken promise, a dead butterfly and a crushed crysalis

If only we could speak the speech of broken hearts and pusy cysts.

Live an ugly life of this and this

Forsake the shoulds and oughts give a fuck you to the massed prescriptions but no all that’s left is a grotty cyst that  hides the promise of what could of behind the supercilious should of.


On revelation

I have a lot of time for the idea that God could reveal himself to people in such a way that they know.
It’s a bit like experience. You can make all kinds of statements up in your head but you know (don’t you?) what statements correspond to what you experience.
Not that your experience necessarily corresponds to an external reality; but that you know that your statement about what you are experiencing is about what you are experiencing.
But if someone never had that experience and heard your statements they would not be able to verify it for themselves.
It could be the same with the god thing. People could have that experience and other people who don’t wouldn’t be able to verify it.
It could be from this that famous quotes like “Those that don’t know speak those that do know don’t speak” come from.
And like how our statements about what we experience can be erroneous but never-the-less statements about the experience so can the statements people who have epiphanies make be erroneous.
They could muddy the experience by trying to make what they experience fit their preconceived ideas about morality.

Ramblings with the absolute

For me books aren’t a way of finding out about absolute truth. I don’t think there is one. I think it comes from the human urge to summarize things.

We conceive of the absolute truth like a final sentence. A sentence to take the place of all other sentences. A sentence from which all other sentences derive.

The thing is such a thing does not exist. Language is useful because it allows an almost infinite amount to be said. Grammatically “The tasty cellar ate the dark, empty radish” makes sense yet it is about nothing that could exist in experience. Sentences such as “A square circle” and “a colorless color” are other examples.

That language is so plastic is the essence of its usefulness but it’s also the reason why you can’t derive statements from one another. I mean you can by mixing them up and such; but the reason you can’t get the statements concerning what I’m doing now from what you were doing 20 minutes ago is that plasticity. Well you could but you wouldn’t know as there would be an almost infinite number of possible statements concerning what I’m doing now and a smaller infinity would contain the set of true statements and so on. So you would never know which ones corresponded to the truth of your particular progression through various reality configurations.

It is that many statements can possibly preceed or proceed any statement or set of statements; just as any word or conceivably letter could go before or after any other that you can’t just reduce statements to one another if they are about something in particular; like a road-trip or relativity.

This mirrors the plasticity of reality. Reality contains many distinct and often mutually exclusive things. Their pairing being numerous enough to stink of infinity means that reality contains the possibility of any possible pairing and cannot be reduced to any specific configuration. Thus no absolute reality because every definition inevitably misses part of reality and would be an appearance amongst appearances (Oh such a sweet statement! I think that sums up the dominant way I perceive things: “An appearance amongst appearances”).

You may say that all sentences can be derived from one sentence. Have a sentence, have access to the alphabet and use the laws of sentence formation to construct new sentence repeat ad infinitum. This fails in the sense that quantum explanations for free-will fail. The entire force of free-will in Christianity and social control generally is that it serves as the necessary prerequisite for metaphysical guilt.

You deserve what you get because you chose this.

Anyway using quantum weirdness or any natural phenomena to explain free-will gives this free-will to everything thus free-will loses its relevance.

The same is true here in that the absolute is meant to be singular, uniquely perfect but you can derive any sentence from any sentence; and that’s supposed to be the unique power of the absolute. So the absolute at best becomes a first amongst many at worst a false echo from a powerful link in an infinite chain.

Whatever the ontological status of the absolute is. What I have said is all about how we think not about reality in-it-self so to speak. There could well be a reality which inspired the first numinous finger-point. But whatever it is or was to most people who espouse it it is nothing but a nothing. Something beyond and above experience that cannot be experienced. It’s the ultimate fallacy of ignorance.

Funny thing is that both sides of the debate are arguing from ignorance. The for and against the ontological status of real being given to the absolute.

So yeah I don’t use books to search for what ain’t there. I like knowing stuff in such a way that I can produce my own facts within its domain. Get the essence of it so I can riff it to myself at work.

On cultural appropriation

Cultural appropriation is the adoption or use of elements of one culture by members of another culture.” Wikipedia

This whole thing against cultural appropriation is silly.

Cultures when they come into contact mutually seed one another.
This is good and leads to a flowering of the universal human spirit.
What cultural appropriation is is just a negative tone taken towards this glorious process.
Cultures are not things to be safe-guarded because by doing so you make them dead things. Just pieces of fossilized carcasses in a museum with a plaque instead of a life-giving context. Cultures are meant to consume one another – cross-fertilize.
All these cultures that are dying now are like flowers. They were once a small seed. It grew into the beautiful flower. The entire purpose of the flower is to blossom and reproduce. After the flower has blossomed and reproduced the beauty of decay takes place.
This is beautiful because not only does the flower create more biodiversity through evolutionary forces it’s death and decay feed this process in things that aren’t flowers such as mushrooms.
All that being against cultural appropriation is is another vain attempt of man to freeze and bottle life. He thinks that thereby he has captured life and made it his own. Luckily he cannot be successful; mother nature will have her way with culture as with flowers. Even if he could be successful all he would have is a petrified corpse with no life.

Autobiographical Notes

Looking back on my life I can see that things that at the time were awful and full of suffering have given birth in me to something that I wouldn’t give up for anything. I would even go back and have it all the same way just to have what I have now.

The realization that I’ve been elaborating throughout all my blogs and that is most explicitly stated in my updated about section.

One of the key factors in this realization is a deep understanding of society. This understanding was generated by a compulsion to understand society. I wouldn’t have had that compulsion if it wasn’t for the fact that I was almost totally ostracised at school and bullied.

This ostracism combined with an intense desire to be liked and accepted made me look at what caused people to be accepted.

I remember looking at a kid who was popular walking home from school surrounded by all his adoring friends and asking myself “Why does he fit in?”. I noticed that he had a way of holding himself; upright, strong shoulders and head held high. So I thought it could all be body-language.

Of course here I am translating my memory of myself then into the language competency I have now but I remember taking note of those things.

Another factor in my growth was being a late developer. Due to this fact I was labelled as having learning difficulties early on in school. I didn’t learn to read till a late age and because of this I have a relatively vivid memory of being stupid.

It wasn’t until a couple of years after finishing school that I would say that I started having really vivid realizations the first of which I describe here.

One of the results of this is that I’ve failed pretty much totally at mainstream academia. This has resulted in a loneliness and an alienation but also in an independence of thought.

There are things I am uncertain of and I don’t mind admitting that but there are things that I understand through a kind of seeing (my thoughts on free-will and my love of phenomenology are a result of this). The things I know through this seeing are mine and there is no external authority required for them.

If I had been able to discipline myself into the straight-jacket of specialism that is the trap of modern academia I would have been pumped through a system that would have kept me within a psychology of dependence. The person with the PHD has done nothing but substitute the applaud and condemnation of mummy and daddy for that of the consensus of whatever discipline he is in.

They have not – by virtue of the PHD – come to stand on their own two feet intellectually; that glory is reserved for the autodidact.

Why I hate morality

The main thing that motivates my interest in morality is compassion.

I see that in society the weakest and most miserable members are treated with disdain, made to feel ashamed and often abused all because of particular propositions of the status quo morality.

For instance I had a friend at work. He was a compassionate person and the worst I could say of him was that he was incredibly indoctrinated by the status quo and had a temper. Apart from that he was one of those decent people that make up a lot of the working class.

His attitude towards the homeless and drug addicts though was based upon the ethic of capitalism. He didn’t know this but it was.

These people didn’t work and expected hand-outs. They would steal etc…

It was a focus entirely directed towards just one aspect of the people in this class. It was a myopic perspective.

He would say that they should get a job.

He even told me a story once about how a tramp asked him for money and he replied “I wouldn’t even give you the steam of my piss”. He said this with pride and he probably had a feeling of righteousness in saying it. This is how morality makes monsters out of people.

It was sad because he was not prepared to even discuss it. To even entertain the idea that these people are deeply unhappy. That is why they seek the comfort of oblivion through narcotics to such an extent that it destroys the rest of their lifes. That causes them to break the law so as to run back into the arms of that oblivion away from their life of extreme poverty and misery.

For him it was black and white. These people were bad.

There was no inquisition into the social conditions that give rise to these people. How he is also subject to them. How the same force called capitalism that oppresses him and forces him to work the majority of his life is the force that has broken them.

That the homeless are symptoms of a society fundamentally incompatible with the human pursuit of happiness. That they indicated not a threat in themselves but a greater threat that hangs over us all. A threat with the only redeeming feature being that it should make brothers of us all.

His attitude was one of disdain and hatred to these people who in my eyes should – at the worse – be seen as people with a debilitating illness.

The same is the case with prostitutes and women in general when it comes to promiscuity. Men when they are promiscuous aren’t socially frowned upon. Sure there’ll be some old biddies in the local baptist church who would express moral outrage at them but in the main society doesn’t condemn them.

But women on the other hand…

Compare women and men in their ideal form. The man is a big, muscular, strong person who can handle stuff. The woman is the opposite. Yet who gets treated worse for sexual promiscuity?

The fact that morality is often directed against the weakest and most vulnerable elements in society shouldn’t be shocking. One of the psychological pay-offs of morality for those that make up the power-structure is that it allows them to go to sleep at night knowing that they’ve done service to absolute good by stamping on the face of the poor.

Power, Morality and Sex

In order for a power structure to exist there has to be a perceived need for it. It is important to note that for the intentions of the members of the power structure to be fulfilled it is irrelevant whether the threat is a real threat or not.

It just needs to produce the reaction in the populace that is typified by the child who runs into the arms of daddy when he is scared.

One of the most powerful ways of doing this is to create as many threats as possible and to make those threats common. Morality is the means through which the elites have done this over the ages.

With morality the elites have been able to cause the response to threats to happen in response to evil. That is to say that instead of the threat having to involve risk to life; with morality it can also include people who are seen as morally wrong.

For example take the case of prostitutes. If you read my previous blog here you’ll see that prostitution in-itself is not harmful. Now by making prostitution a moral evil the power-structure creates another excuse for it’s existence. The man in the street – who is generally heavily influenced by morality – sees prostitutes as a threat and a threat that he is unable to deal with on his own.

Prostitution and sexual things generally are a brilliant choice for this because they are so common. What the elites have done is to take what is natural and habitual to humans generally and called it morally evil.

Also because the threats are based upon natural human inclinations and behaviours they are ineradicable. This is perfect for the person in control who wants to maintain his position because it is an ever-present reality. This – in the eyes of the heavily brain-washed man in the street – requires the ever-present assistance of the power-structure.

A funny thing about this is that it doesn’t require the conscious intention or knowledge of the people that constitute the power-structure. The phenomenon of morality perpetuates and sustains power like a natural force.

It’s much like a genetic trait that aids the survival and reproduction of organisms in nature. Once the inheritable trait occurs it is irrelevant whether or not the consequent generations know about it because it will nevertheless aid their survival through evolutionary mechanisms.

It could be that thousands of years ago morality came about. This may have been an intentional act of a power-structure, the result of people thinking, the spread of disease or whatever. Once it came about though it stuck because of how it facilitated power.

On prostitution

Common-sense morality is generally quite warped. It often seems to be nothing but a way for people who are the oppressors to maintain their position on the top.

One of the typical examples of this is prostitution. Why do we consider it bad and shameful? What are the effects of the context of morality that surrounds this the oldest form of occupation?

Firstly let us strip it down to its essentials. Prostitution is an act in which one person sells the sexual use of their body.

Concretely it involves two people being sexual and an exchange of money.

Just look at that on its own for a bit. Why does this activity garner so much moral attention?

It’s perfectly fine to sell yourself as a labourer, a masseuse and it’s even fine to sell yourself as a killer but the second you sexually please someone for money suddenly there’s something wrong. This seems very bizarre and warped to me.

If we wanted to trace this moral approbation historically and sociologically I reckon we could see the cause of it in the fact that systems of power have used repression of certain drives (predominantly the sexual drive) as a means of gaining power over the masses.

Orwell recognized the power this repression had in freeing libidinous energy for the service of the state by redirecting it towards veneration of a person in the anti-sex league of “1984”.

One of the effects of this is that the sex worker (and to a lesser extent the service user) is seen as something shameful, less valuable or even valueless. They become less than human in the eyes of the masses. This of course leads to the horrendous treatment they so often receive.

Also as a result of this the people in the sex trade are often the weakest and most vulnerable of our species. They see themselves as worthless and incapable even before entering the profession and that is why they become prostitutes.

It’s not that prostitution in-it-self is without worth but that because of the morality constructed by the elite it becomes the job of last recourse. Something that desperate people do because they are desperate and because of this there is such an atmosphere of mental illness and misery around it.

You could imagine a different social context in which the prostitute is respected. In fact only recently we had such an example in Victorian doctors. There was an epidemic of hysteria and the prevailing medical opinion concerning the cause of it was sexual frustration in women. So women would go to doctors to get fingered. The doctors were paid for this service though eventually they gave it up when the dildo was invented to alleviate strain in doctor’s wrists.

So when you strip it down the Victorian doctors were prostitutes but because there was a different social context and moral feeling around their action they didn’t feel guilty or ashamed; quite the reverse in fact.

To conclude I am saying that everything bad about prostitution (except STDs but risk of illness is present in almost all occupations) is caused by the moral feeling towards it and isn’t endemic to it.

Love and brain-washing

Often it seems to me that us humans in our society are like Fritz and Tommy in the trenches of WW1.

They didn’t want to die and they didn’t want to kill. It was all put upon them by the power structures that they were thrown into. At heart, in the place that matters Fritz and Tommy were the same; they played a game of football.

You can imagine Fritz in the trenches thinking “If only I could go over there and just talk to Tommy! Then all this hell would stop. I could go home and make children with Gurta.”

You can see Tommy saying the same thing but instead of Gurta there’s Betty.

At heart we all want to love and be loved. To stroke and be stroked. It’s the reason we speak to one another. The reason we go to work!

You think you work for money? What do you want money for?

A house? A car? What will you do in your house? Where will you go in your car?

At some point the reasons have to end. The journey has to reach its conclusion.

The power structures of our day have got us distracted by the means to the end. They have got us to forget about the end we are striving for with the means.

They have us fixated on acquiring wealth.

They have us fixated on getting a better hamster-wheel for us to run on and we’ve forgotten what we’re running for.

There is a scene in the 2nd season of Mr. Robot (the 11th episode) in which the FBI agent is in her bed and she says to her home operating system that she is lonely.

You get to follow her around as she does her job and she has a cold, capable exterior. She is the ivory tower. But alone, in her room wrapped up in her blanket she cries and says she’s lonely.

Why doesn’t she let people in?

She has been tricked by the narratives that are put out about love that it hurts and that you risk something for it.

You risk nothing for love because love is the only something that there is that you could risk. Everything else is just packaging.

Sure you’ll experience sensations if you get love and then lose love but this should tell you something very different from what the popular narrative about love and love-loss tells you.

It should tell you that you’ve found the true treasure the heat of which destroys the packaging.

Wittgenstein, Language and an easy hardness

Wittgenstein’s a bit of a difficult one. In a funny way what he is saying is so simple, so in your face that you can’t quite grasp it. My grand-dad had an aphorism about maths that seems to fit Wittgenstein: “Maths is so easy it’s hard”.

I’ll give a quote and riff from there.

“504. But if you say: “How am I to know what he means, when I see nothing but the signs he gives?” then I say: “How is he to know what he means, when he has nothing but the signs either?” Philosophical investigations.

Say I have an image in my head and I try to communicate it to you what do I do? I may describe green trees and such and this description would be vague but it would be the way I would talk to myself about the image.

I could even go into minute detail by giving an exact mathematical description of the image. Like a computer graphic and the binary code that produces it.

I could even draw the image for you.

The thing is that the very means I use to see this image in my head are those that I can use to give you the image. There isn’t something hidden behind the image or the words just various degrees of exactness in the description.

There’s the old problem of how do I know that you mean what I mean when you say what I say. For example when you say you are in pain are you experiencing the same thing as me?

I think Wittgenstein would agree that you cannot be certain in the philosophical sense but he would then shrug his shoulders and say so what.

When you experience pain you act in a certain way. When you were young and being taught language when you behaved in this way you were given a particular training and treated in a particular way.

People would have said things like “Ahh does it hurt” and given you some paracetamol.

It could be that you exhibited this behaviour in response to a different sensation to the sensation I have when I behave this way.

We can also imagine that the treatment has the same effect – it stops you behaving in that way – as it does with me. If all this was the case then it doesn’t matter whether or not you experience the same thing as I do when you act out pain.

“If there is a bit of a machine that has no effect upon any other bit then it isn’t part of the machine” (It’s not verbatim but it is another quote from Wittgenstein.