A Few Thoughts on Bitcoin

Bitcoin is a very interesting and complex phenomenon. It is having trouble gaining ground, but that is not because of problems inherent in the system, but rather because money is a complex and difficult subject which is hard to understand. I am a firm believer in the value of bitcoins, and am very excited about the phenomenon. I can't wait to get involved, and I intend to get involved. But the main obstacle to people getting involved in bitcoin is that people don't see its value because they don't understand it. This is because money itself is hard to understand.

Money is not a medium of exchange. It's more complex than that. Imagine a circle. The circle represents value. You can cut the circle up like a pie, and each section of the pie represents some kind of value. The angle of the cuts represents the current measure of which we value that value at the moment, and the points on the circumference of the circle represent the actual commodity which we value. The circle is a perfect circle, undistorted. The circle is what I would call a coin. If you have a circle of a large size, it means that you can fit more points on the circumference, and therefore buy more things. If it's smaller, you can buy less things. This is the definition of money.

Notice that it is a unit of value, in all the complexity of the term. It is not, and I repeat, it is NOT a medium of exchange. Here is what a medium of exchange is. Suppose I pick a few pieces from the circumference of the circle — things that I value. But I don't value them as much as someone else might. And I happen to know of a person who does value these things, but this person has a certain set of things on the circumference of the circle which he doesn't value as much as I do. My circle is currently oblong, with a little bump on one end, and so is his. It just so happens that if we trade these inconvenient items we don't really want for each other, we will have more of what we want and less of what we don't want. Then the bumps on the circle will be more evened out and the situation more fair. This is a trade.

The coin itself is not a medium of exchange. If you really think about it, you'll notice that the coin is simply a measurement of the value of our society at the moment, including all the various things that we value. The coin, in the case of the example above, has lost a little bit of value because of the overabundance of things we don't want in the cases of two parties. The exchange itself has the function of increasing the value of all things involved, including the coin. It is the exchange, therefore, that gives value to the coin, not the coin that gives value to the exchange. In other words, the coin doesn't mediate the exchange, cutting costs and increasing value. If the coin did that, it would increase the value of the exchange, and be a true medium for the exchange. But instead, the coin is one of the things benefited by the exchange. Therefore it cannot mediate the exchange.

The reason why people say the coin is a medium of exchange is because dollars and coins are nice ad-hoc ways of mediating exchange. We can say, thing X is worth $10 per item, while thing Y is worth $5 per item, therefore it would be fair and even if you gave me two of Y for my one of X. But you don't need money to regulate an exchange like this. All you need is some placeholder to measure value. The placeholder measures the relative angles of the two pieces of pie cut into the coin for both things X and Y, but it is not the whole coin itself. It is closely related to the coin, because without the coin you wouldn't be able to cut pieces into it, but it is not the coin itself.

So what is the actual medium of exchange? It is all the things which allow a line to be drawn between one slice in the pie and another. The New York Stock Exchange as an institution is a medium of exchange. It mediates the exchange between things of value. That complex and difficult concept we call the "open market" or the "free market" is a medium of exchange. But neither of these things are actual money, though they do indeed have value.

What this all has to do with the bitcoin is this. The bitcoin is actual money, not a security or anything else, as some people claim. Bitcoin is currency. You can imagine a coin similar to the one I envisioned above representing the coin in relation to the bitcoin economy, with little pieces of the pie cut up for things that bitcoin holders / users value. And, the coin itself has value, just like money. So why should we use bitcoins instead of dollars? The answer is fairly simple, though I will explain in the next post. The actual thing coined into physical currency that we are using as money is different. Dollars are made of paper. Gold coins are made of gold. Bitcoins are made of data and algorithms.

These physical / pseudophysical substances have inherent differences, which mean each one is better at certain things and worse at certain things in relation to each other. Bitcoin is better at certain things than the dollar is, and worse than certain things than the dollar is. Similar things can be said for every kind of thing that is used as currency. The reason why certain kinds of people should start using bitcoins is because the constellation of value relationships of the coinage itself for bitcoin happens to be inherently better suited to skilled artisans, shopkeepers, small business owners, etc. which make up the real substance of the middle class, whereas the constellation of value relationships of the coinage for the dollar is better suited for the upper and lower classes. I will outline what I believe to be the main differences in the following post.

Faux Artists (poem)

A true artist is comfortable
Seeing reality
Is dangerous and unpredictable.

So don't date faux artists
There's a danger they've
Turned it into an art.

Obtaining a Point of Concentration in Difficult Times

In general, there are two kinds of good in this world. There is all-around general good, which I would call "the good of the light," then there is a point of concentration surrounded by darkness or pain or harm or even evil, which I would call "the good of the dark." There are a few things to keep in mind about the latter kind of good.

For one, it's perhaps difficult to imagine, but this kind of good is not a simple inversion of the good of the light. You cannot simply become one with the darkness, declare that evil is necessary, surrender yourself, and call it good. On the contrary, it is in these occasions where a strong sense of your self and your morality is the most important. Notions of surrender work best in situations of peace. In difficult times, we need fortitude.

The will plays a role in these situations. But the technique of wrangling the will involves a loose grip. The will is like a horse; it can't be forced into submission, it has to be coaxed into submission. Will is an important tool, which needs to be kept in submission to the whispers of the soul and to faith in the greater good. In the case of difficult times, it is an alchemical combination of will and faith that is used to obtain the point of concentration in the midst of darkness, which in turn transforms ordinary negativity or hardship into the good of the dark.

Ordinary darkness is darkness combined with ignorance. It is like a suffocating dark cloud of smoke. The good of the dark is like a clear dark sky littered with stars, or like the city glimmering at night with the light of streetlights. The trick to transforming the one into the other is to find the point of concentration in the midst of darkness.

We should break down this notion of a point of concentration. It has two components: faith and will. Faith is an all-around general sense that positivity exists, and because of its mere existence, positivity pervades all things. Faith is the universal act of uncovering which reveals good, just as a cloud dissipates to reveal stars above or city lights below, or just as the earth is removed to reveal precious gems. This potential for uncovering is a timeless presence, unconditioned by comings and goings.

Will involves two things. It involves a personal self which has the ability to actualize things, and it involves something to be actualized. The personal self and its tools for transformation are fairly well understood. The thing to be actualized, in this case, is something nice and of comfort. Its nature is fairly simple: some form of light, a "good of the light," which does not attempt to transform good into bad.

The world today is a rather dark world. It's full of diseases, conflicts, immorality, income inequalities, and so forth, which make the place very dark. There is a positive side to darkness, though. Only darkness has the ability to generate new, good things, when there is suitable focus. The Qur'an speaks of two kinds of trials: trial by pleasure, and trial by pain. Both ordinary pleasure and ordinary pain are forms of suffering, pain in particular. The reason ordinary pleasure is a form of suffering is because ordinary pleasure revels in the good of the light, but is unclear about the nature of the good of the dark. And, due to the changing nature of things, light will become dark, and then ordinary pleasure becomes a mere pastime. The reason pain is suffering is obvious; we experience it, but don't want to. And therein lies the key.

I recently have been battling with hatred of psychiatry. It's a recurring theme in my life, due to the trauma and post traumatic stress disorder caused by the psychiatric experience. But in this dark world, trauma comes from all directions. It is said that in the future, there will be so much trauma that the lifespan of humans will only be ten years. A lot of people also face trauma caused by the prison experience. Mental wards lead to hatred of psychiatrists, prison seems to lead to hatred of the cops. The difference is that prison punishes you for having hurt someone, while psychiatry punishes you for having been hurt. (Psychiatry, therefore, is worse than prison.) The challenge in situations of extreme darkness like these is to find a generous and wholesome point of concentration.

For me, I found that finding this point of concentration tends to be a complex path beginning with the statement, "I do not want this to happen to me." Thankfully, due to our general and intrinsic goodness, when we're in a state of extreme pain, what we'll tend to focus on is the "want" part. You clearly don't want to be in pain. Well then, what exactly do you want? What makes the situation so unbearable? Then the conversation then moves to, "If this situation were just a little bit more such-and-such I would be okay." The trick is to rest and observe. Try not to fight too much. Inevitably, after wishing for a little bit more such-and-such, you'll run into the brick wall of "Well, that's not what's going to happen." Then you'll begin naturally to narrow down what you want. You'll come up with a statement, "Even if it were just a little tiny bit more so-and-so I would at least be satisfied." If you observe, what you'll notice is happening is that a pulsating cloud of darkness is slowly gaining heat and concentration, just as in the birth of a star, and inevitably you'll reach a point where you begin to shed light.

When you shed light, you'll notice what you're doing is taking ownership of your negativities, and your painful experience, and formulating a positive identity and lifepath. Understanding the process from ordinary pain to positive lifepath is essential to surviving negative places, such as Planet Earth and America.

We should return to the Buddha's prophecy about the lifespan of humans. People are eventually going to be so beset by negativities that they will live to be only ten, and humans will be so rare that when they meet they will kiss each other on the mouth. This is a prophesy of the Buddha; it is the infallible word of the Buddha and incapable of error. But we still have a choice, as in ages past. We have a choice to follow our stupid whims and fancy and hurt and exploit people for perverse reasons, or we could be good-of-the-dark people. Rome had a choice in the past. Among other choices, they had the choice between continuing the sundry Pagan assumptions which ignorantly pretended darkness was light, but they chose honest, dark forgiveness in Christ and his purification of crucifixion. That was one choice. Today, we have similar choices. The cumulative effect of these choices is the positive ground for human enjoyment and development which will be in place when humans begin to increase their lives again from age ten back to age 80,000.

When I first heard that humans will be so rare that when they meet they will kiss each other on the mouth, I envisioned lone wanderers in a bleak, post-apocalyptic landscape, beset by hunger and loneliness, wishing in vain for signs of human life. What the Buddha did not mention was Google Glass, bioelectronic implants, and Internet dating. The Buddha said that humankind will face an apocalyptic fall after a seven-days war. The Buddha did not mention whether or not Google Glass, bioelectronic implants, etc. would survive the fall. I propose that if the technology survives, even if the Buddha's word is fulfilled, it's possible that in the interrim between these rare, mouth-kissing meetings, these technologies, or perhaps something functionally similar, will make life at least bearable. We needn't be reduced to lone wanderers as in the image above, but rather we could continue to enjoy the fruits of previous civilization and continue to develop humanity positively.

What this all suggests is that if we focus our darkness, whenever our pain and trauma arises, we are contributing to a positive world in unique ways which only good-of-the-dark situations of dark, Christlike regenerative forgiveness can produce. Our age is the age of our animal natures. We have the choice of being dirty, stray dogs who get put down or starve, or animist deities such as Singhamukha who are wholesome and happy (though wrathful) shamanistic healers. The trick to this choice and this transformation is, I think, finding that point or those points of concentration which illuminate our dark lives.

Why The Free Market is Not Made for Insurance Companies

Wealth is generated through innovation. And, it is impossible to create an innovative insurance company.

Think about it. Insurance companies make money by analyzing risk, and taking premiums that add up to more than the cost of acceptable risk. The problem is that there's no way to be innovative about analyzing risk. When you analyze risk, you hypothesize a certain event and count the number of times the event occurs over time. As an insurance company, you have no control over what the event is, or any aspect of it. What you get is reams of data about the event, and the knowledge that such an event is undesirable. Think a broken leg. Insurance companies all know exactly what a broken leg is, and they all have reams of data which count the number of times people tend to break their legs over a given time. Then they take everybody's money and pay money to the people with broken legs. That's all there is to it. Color me second-rater, but it doesn't take a John Galt to do that.

The only possible way for an insurance company to be innovative is to be innovative about analyzing risk. However, the innovation involved here is extremely insignificant. Everyone knows what a broken leg is. It's public knowledge. It's very obvious. And unless you're a Mafioso, it's really really difficult to be innovative about the way people tend to break their legs. The best you can do is count the number of times people break their legs, and factor that into your mind-blowingly simplistic equation for generating profit.

The idea that insurance companies can operate as businesses in the free market is insidious and stupid. Insurance companies calculate risk and take premiums that exceed the cost of acceptable risk. We've already discussed how it is impossible to be innovative about calculating risk. You calculate risk, and if you have enough money, you're correct. That leaves two ways to create profit. Either you 1) increase the cost of premiums, or 2) don't pay out the money you're supposed to. Surprise surprise; this is exactly what health insurance companies were doing before Obama passed the Affordable Care Act. Critics of the Affordable Care Act say that it will kill business. Hopefully, they're correct, because insurance companies shouldn't be businesses. The free market doesn't apply to them. They don't deserve to make profit, because they don't innovate.

A good way to think about it is the difference between reading a book and writing a book. You don't deserve to generate a profit by reading books. It's the writers who sold you the books who deserve to generate a profit. Studying the empirical world is like reading a book. Creating new products is like writing a book. And the moment you turn risk-taking into an innovative endeavor, and begin writing books, you're no longer in the business of insurance; you're in the business of investing.

Mainstreamology (Or: Why I'm Committed to Being an Indy Filmmaker As Opposed to Hollywood)

The idea of being mainstream has a different conceptual geometry than independent. Consequently, I don't believe that independent people will ever become mainstream, nor will mainstream people become independent, at least not without giving up their former status as independent or mainstream respectively. The two are mostly mutually exclusive. Here's why.

When you make a choice to become mainstream or independent, you choose to adopt something and discard something. Choosing to become mainstream means you adopt quantity of audience and discard unity within the individual. Choosing to become independent means you adopt unity within the individual and discard either money or the thing which brings it—quantity of audience.

Unity within the individual can be seen as vertical. Quantity of audience, of course, is horizontal. Thus we have independent movies, for instance, which are very deep. The word "deep" is not a misnomer: they're deep because each idea expressed in them was very personal to the artist, and thus touches the artist very deeply. Unfortunately, what this means is that the artist cannot and will not be accessible right away to anyone who does not already think like the artist. That is why quantity of audience is sacrificed. It isn't because the artist is unwilling to make money, it's because the artist's commitment to him- or herself as an artist is greater than his or her commitment to money.

Hollywood movies, on the other hand, are made for the purpose of garnering a large quantity of audience, and also money. What this means, of course, is that the movie must resonate on some level with a large number of people, many of whom think very differently about just about everything. This is why Hollywood movies are so very collaborative. Hollywood is a business. People are measured by the amount they cause something to sell. And causing something to sell is determined not by how much you listen to your soul, but by how much you listen to other people. This is why Hollywood likes the apprentice system—climbing the Hollywood corporate ladder starting as a prop boy means you listened very carefully to a large number of salaried employees for decades, and now you know how to make money.

This is where it gets interesting. Observe: listening to your soul and listening to others are both virtuous. But they're different and complementary kinds of virtues. This means that it's possible and even desirable for two people to be in the same room, one of whom is very adept at listening to his own soul and the other very adept at listening to others, and for both of these people to be very virtuous, not lacking a whit in virtue. Obviously, if they both were film directors, the former would probably be an independent film director, and the latter a Hollywood director. The former would also probably sustain himself on a second source of income, while the latter may bring in millions of dollars. This is the natural way of things.

It is possible, though very rare, for an independent movie to make it big. But this will only happen one of two ways. Either 1) some big name with a lot of influence is somehow touched by the film because it speaks personally to her, and she uses her influence to manufacture an audience for it, or 2) it just so happens serendipitously and inexplicably to strike a nerve with a large number of people, probably in a way that the director and others making it could never have foreseen.

This creates a difficulty for directors in both camps (independent and Hollywood). Hollywood directors sometimes decide they want to be more independent, and independent directors very often want to be mainstream. But I wouldn't recommend expending too much energy in either respective direction. Hollywood directors should stick to Hollywood, and independent directors should stick to independence. Hollywood directors who try to be independent don't often succeed. Though there's no harm in making a foray into independent production, there's also no harm in sticking to Hollywood. I'm not saying that introspection as a spiritual quality is bad for Hollywood directors, but rather that introspection will probably just make you a better Hollywood director rather than a truly independent voice. Likewise, a foray into Hollywood may be great for an established independent director. But the "boulevard of broken dreams" is filled with people who unwisely tried to take on Hollywood while remaining true to their idiosyncratic independent commitments. And the idiosyncratic directors who make it big in Hollywood are never truly accepted as independent voices by the people whose opinions in this regard really matter.

Note that these ideas, I think, can be extended to every area where the independent vs. mainstream dichotomy applies, which is pretty much everywhere. Thus, in politics, we have people like Senator Bernie Sanders and former Senator Hillary Clinton. The Clintons are very mainstream, while Sanders is very independent. They're both good at what they do. But I don't think either of them could or would want to switch places. The fact of the matter is, if you want to be mainstream, you're going to have to cater to mainstream opinions as much as possible. And if you want to be independent, you're probably better off in the House of Representatives. Obama may be an "independent," but he got lucky. (This is, of course, my perspective as a lifelong independent-minded Democrat who voted twice for Obama.) (It's important to note, also, the reason why this political perspective is important. People often get the mistaken idea that being an independent voice is ipso facto better than being mainstream, most vehemently, I think, in the realm of politics. But this is not true, and nobody I've talked to seems to have the slightest hint as to why it isn't true. It's not true not because compromise is good, or because sincerity comes from introspection or long-held ideals. It's not true because either you're good at being mainstream, or you're good at being independent, or you're mediocre at both. There's really no middle ground here.)

Being independent requires a specific type of mind, as does being mainstream. Neither should switch spots too often. As far as filmmaking goes, the independents have a long history of very intriguing and high-quality art films which people should try to watch. Independents should, and probably do, study these. Hollywood directors, on the other hand, have a long history of films of equal but different quality. Hollywood was conceived as epic ("Birth of a Nation") and because of the Depression, they took on the role of national cultural therapists. I love independent art films, but they don't make me cry. Hollywood almost always does—even the low-quality low-art films. The problem is, I don't always want to cry about the state of our country. Sometimes, I need fulfillment in other areas. I'm sure that many other people feel the same, and this is why we need both the independents and the Hollywood folks.

Bottom line: stick to what you're good at. Hollywood directors: it's better to make people cry with low-art movies than go broke making independent films. Independents: it's better to blow people's minds with simple, low-budget, high-art films than go broke trying to make an action flick which you intend to sell to an uninterested Hollywood exec. An "independent" Hollywood film will leave the true art critics gasping for air (in a bad way). A "Hollywood" independent flick will run you out of business (and leave the true art critics gasping for air, in a bad way). Don't do it; stick to what you're good at. It's better that way.

Muslims and Americans

It's interesting to note that Muslims and America are similar in that they both have global ambitions. According to the Qur'an, Islam is a religion for the whole world. Somewhat similarly, America has always had ambitions to be the world empire. Global imperialism of this style was descended from the Roman Empire, which also had global ambitions, but lacked the means to meaningfully rule the world. Right now, there are a lot of people who feel that the global ambitions of Islam and the global ambitions of America are in conflict. But a close examination of the nature of these ambitions should illustrate that that's not the case.

A global brotherhood.

Islam is meant to be a global brotherhood of believers, marked by religious ideals like faith, goodwill, and good social conduct. But nowhere in the Qur'an is it indicated that this brotherhood is to be political. Interestingly, political order and statehood seem to be missing from the Qur'an. What you will find in the Qur'an, however, is an edict that there is a good reason for mankind to be split up into different nations. "O mankind! We ... made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise each other" (49:13). This lays the foundation for cooperation and brotherhood between nations and political entities. If we focus on Islam, in theory, America, as just another nation among many, ought to be on friendly terms with Islam.

The nation of unquenchable fire.

America is criticized on a couple of counts. For one, our culture is very materialistic. Money holds a great deal of importance, the advertising industry and its attendant consumerism is all-pervasive, and the thirst for paying customers of American commodities is never quenched. For another, our government and education system are secular. Religion is deliberately placed at a distance and diminished in importance to a great degree. The second point seems to indicate that we are averse to religious guidance in a visceral way, and the first point seems to show that we are simultaneously attracted to non-religious things. Thus it seems we're doubly anti-religious. To a culture where religion is everything, that doesn't go down easy.

I, however, think American secularism is misunderstood. Secularism doesn't negate religion; it protects it. Adopting a secularist culture is like surrounding yourself with an unquenchable fire. Material goods are fundamentally unsatisfying, hence the fire is unquenchable. But material goods are forceful in their ability to transform things, and the results of the transformation are evident. If used wisely, a secularist perspective can help transform some situations into opportunities to express religion.

Religion is focused on specific infinite-scope phenomena. It is not secular. Secularism is focused on specific singular-scope phenomena. The nature of the dichotomy is not one of enmity. The Qur'an says, "And of everything we have created pairs: that ye may receive instruction" (51:49). Religion and secularism are a dichotomy and a pair. They are opposite ideas which both exist in reality. It is logical, then, that given time and ambition, a secularist empire would rise up as well as a religious one. But unless I'm missing something, the import of this is exactly nothing. Night and day also both exist. You can argue that religion is more important than secularism, which I think is pretty much true. But you can also argue that day is better than night. That doesn't mean that one or the other doesn't have a purpose.

Clearly, if secularists and religious people are at odds right now, the reason must lay beyond the mere ideas themselves. The Middle East is certainly riddled with problems, and many of these problems are caused by the West and by America. But some of America's problems are caused by America, and some of the Middle East's problems are caused by the Middle East. That doesn't mean that America is fundamentally at odds with America or the Middle East with the Middle East. Whatever the trauma of Western civilization that has led to the conflict, we should take heart that it is at the very least not fundamental to our differing perspectives as human beings. I think if we see it this way, it might help us understand one another better when we talk about the Middle East.

Neon Indian (FOR SMART PEOPLE ONLY)

Contents of a communication (version 1.1) to professor Janis Johnson (expert in American Indian culture, professor at the University of Idaho):

Intended for immediate circulation among academic professors (especially those who specialize in music, music history, American culture / literature, and the American Indian experience) direct from a nice little college town in Idaho:

SUBJECT:
NEON INDIAN (Am. Indian voice in (recurring?) Electropop revival fad)

BODY:
I'll contribute a little hard-hitting pop philosophy in the Western analytical tradition.

What I'm calling the (hopefully recurring) Electropop revival fad (otherwise known as synthwave, or retrowave, and things like that) is a very interesting grassroots movement in the independent music community. For myself, it's a little important to look into what appears to be the aesthetic focus of the movement.

Although many very legitimate exponents of the idea are cropping up all over the Internet, the aesthetic brainchild (properly understood) of the movement appears to be a man by the name of Seth Haley.

The whole focus of the new / revised genre involves exploring different ideas of organic[ity] regarding sequenced, looped, processed, sampled et cetera, digital and analog electronic, digital-electronic, and algorithmic sound synthesis / resynthesis techniques. So far my favorite exponents of this genre appear to be the work of Seth Haley and a private digital edit of my favorite track by Neon Indian (which I cannot release for copyright reasons).

The name of the track is exactly this: "Mind, Drips". (It's important to note that capitalization, grammar, and so forth are all fairly important in the title, and that it be properly quoted to signify that it is in fact the title of the work in question.)

I'll endeavor to use my knowledge of synthesis techniques to try to explain the cultural significance of the movement, as my knowledge, I think, is fairly extensive in this area. I'll try to keep it short, but it may take a while.

I think the most important cultural factor here is the well-observed and fairly obvious fact that digital synth techniques (digital-electronic as well as algorithmic) are almost never expensive, and very easy to come by. On the same hand, however, authentic analog electronic techniques are invariably difficult to procure in just about every possible way. This fact pretty much cuts to the root of scientific and philosophical inquiry itself in the Western tradition.

It would take an extremely long time to get into what I mean by that, and since that's not the focus of this, I'll let that by for now.

I'll first use a short burst of theory to explain this. Authentic analog electronic paths introduce true-random noise into the synthesis structure of the technology, whereas digital techniques are usually suffocatingly precise. In terms of a single step in my aesthetic journey as a musician: I had a struggle at one point trying to come up with powerful, bassy sounds. I assummed, incorrectly, that the right way to do it was with sharp and exact digitally-produced synthesized audio wave files. My working theory at the time was, the more sharp, and the more exact, the more powerful.

Upon even modest historical investigation of the subject, however, it became very clear that I was exactly wrong. The ONLY way I can think of to produce truly powerful sounds is the introduction of reasonably true-random noise.

We don't have to worry too much (as artists, anyway) about the mathematical/philosophical/theoretical notions regarding the definition of "true-random" as I'm fairly sure this is still a point of controversy. However. The salient point here involves organic[ity] using electronics and computers. (Although from time to time so far I also hear a guitar.)

I can't delve too much further into this due to lack of time, though it's all over the Internet. Perhaps it would be best to offer a couple of examples and how they illustrate the point. (Be aware, from time to time, I may fudge a few details.)

TITLE:
Com Truise (aka Seth Haley) — ControlPop

RELEVANT DESCRIPTION:
This track involves some of the most cheezy synth techniques not from the '80s, but actually (I think) from the '70s (wide filter sweeps). It's very much looped, very repetitive. It begins by (and by? it did repeat at least once here) harsh and grating pop music (esque?) samples. The point of organi[city] mainly involves the exact model and build of the specific synthesizers used, and their respective circuit-paths. I actually don't know any of these models and builds at all, but that's the factor. It's very much about figuring out the exact right insane genius who created the exact right synthesis technique (and embodiment) and coming to terms with their particular and individual method of introducing randomness to generate powerful sounds. After that, the aesthetic decisions regarding placement (in the track) should be very simple, however, it may be difficult sometimes to procure the necessary funding to buy the equipment.

TITLE:
Com Truise — "VHS Sex" (listen on YouTube)

RELEVANT DESCRIPTION:
This one is a little more controlled. By appearances, far less synthesis techniques were used than the last track, and the power here relies mainly on the theoretical notion of introducing randomness primarily regarding such-and-such synthesizer (I know not which). The main point is that there are less synths. (On a personal note, I find this track a little difficult, because of the vocal sample, because, as a budding filmmaker, I continue to have fantasies about using this exact track in the official My Little Pony (FIM) movie regarding important scenes focusing on Princesses Celestia and Luna, where power is particularly relevant. I find it difficult to imagine, unfortunately, how a large corporation could possibly get away with such a thing, though, even if the samples were removed, which sort-of would've been my creative decision.)

TITLE:
Jeff Mills — "Phase 4"

RELEVANT DESCRIPTION:
This isn't really part of the movement, per se, but it's still relevant, and I can explain quickly. Organi[city] was easily achieved using two repeated samples of some esoteric, virtuoso technique on the violin. The rest was mechanical.

TITLE:
Com Tuise — "Data Kiss"

RELEVANT DESCRIPTION:
This one is very difficult to explain. The track is actually one of his weaker ones, aesthetically (in my humble opinion, which of course should be understood within the context of my own, personal, aesthetic commitments as an artist at this point), but that's not what I want to talk about.

The main thing I want to talk about here is the video produced by a man named "David Dean Burkhart" for the track. It is only a remix of what appears to be a low-budget '80s flick by the name of "Looker." Organicity, here, appears to have been amazingly achieved merely through the editing of the video. There is one point of organicity I'm certain about, and one I'm not so sure about. The first (I'm fairly 100% sure) is exactly this: organicity achieved through asynchronous usage of rather categorically different modes of editing and capture technologies. If you watch some of the "subliminal"-(ish) cuts very closely, you'll notice that as the cuts get smaller, the screen flickers more. I cannot conceive of any possible way to achieve this except through exactly the method I described: asynchronous usage of (rather) categorically different modes of editing and capture technologies.

The second, which I'm not so sure about, is the very last motion clip at the end, where the protagonist-girl kind-of dissolves like a rainbow (except a little more like a mathematical rainbow of just one color). It looks like the kind of thing which you'd do using "analog, modular video synthesis" (emphasis on the word "video" and "modular"), but I don't think this technique was in vogue in the '80s, and is rather expensive to produce, particularly on a limited time-frame. But I'm not sure.

TITLE:
Neotone (aka Nathan Foster, the author) — "Crystadeline"

RELEVANT DESCRIPTION:
This is my own contribution, but it may be difficult for some. For one, of the one's I've mentioned, it appears (to me anyway) to be the least organic. And the main problem was that I was forced to use mainly weird math, as well as exactly 1 and 1/2 of exactly the wrong kind of synthesizer, as well as (luckily) exactly the right authentic, analog filtering technology.

In addition to stock FutureLoops (FruityLoops, I think, at the time, but they got sued) samples, I used two synthesizers. They were not authentic-analog, by any reputable understanding of the term. One of them was one or another of the Casio brand of synthesizers. However, interestingly, I somehow was able to get away (aesthetically) with using a fairly lossless and unmodified live-recorded sample line as the second bass track from this synth. Simply by choosing exactly the right preset. (I'm not sure how I did that.)

The second synth has a little more troubled of a history. The model of the synth is the "Korg Poly 800 MKII". First of all, the circuit path of this synth is pretty much flawed in every way a circuit path can be flawed in a digital-electronic synthesizer. It was produced, I think, to sell quickly. And second of all, the previous owner had no idea how to take care of vintage synths, and it's a miracle the thing still works. (I also kind-of broke the rules by playing on the synth keyboard directly, instead of sequencing through a midi connection. It does help, though, that this was one part of the way organicity was achieved.) Most of the synth samples were collected using this synth.

There were a couple of other ways, too. For one, I used an amplifier-to-microphone sampling technique using a fairly acoustically dirty amplifier. The dirtiness of the amp helped, and (though I didn't intend for this to happen) it also helped that some background noises involving the Audacity metronome were picked up, and I was able to accept this eventuality aesthetically.

The third, and most important factor in the synthesis technique I used was really the miracle of the story. Somehow, at some point, I was able to come across a good deal of money. One of the things I purchased (true-to-form in the musical tradition in question) was exactly the right synthesis (module) produced by exactly the right insane genius. The product is the revised version of the Sherman Filterbank (rack-mountable, but that's not important). I was able to create an ad-hoc modular analog synthesizer with a very pleasing circuit path simply by connecting an audio patch cable between the MKII and the Filterbank. I used automatic ADSR triggering techniques in the filterbank, as well as a little distortion, and it all seemed to work out. (It's a very nice module because it's not that expensive, easy to use, well-designed, and anyway, there are a lot of them in production, I believe. It has a strange reputation of being able to inject organi[city] everywhere it goes.)

Another important point to note was the focus of the track. I set out with exactly the intention of achieving exactly the same "sound" (or "style," or whatever) as the track "VHS Sex," and furthermore, by using exactly the same, minimalistic chord progression. While making, of course, my own artistic statement. And I achieved exactly that. I suppose due to echoes of my previous aesthetic commitments as a musician, the track also ended up being more minimalist in nature. I threw in exactly two strange, fetishistic female vocal samples derived in these respective ways: One was conceptually fetishistic ("I feel you coming"), which was shipped royalty-free and licensed as a stock sample in the version of FruityLoops I was using at the time, and strangly and a-tonally modified using various functionality in the program. The second was a woman (Psifon) faking an orgasm, who recorded the sample herself, and uploaded it for free to Freesound.org. (I feel strange noting this, as an artist, but by the way, she did a very good job.) A couple sequencing decisions later, and I had a track.

I'd also hasten to note that another sample is an extremely speeded-up one of a something-or-other (probably another Casio preset), and the other is a very well-collected, well-selected, and well-used sample of a Sanza (traditional African musical instrument). Hope no one's aesthetically offended by either of these.

TITLE:
Neon Indian — "Mind, Drips"

RELEVANT DESCRIPTION:
This track is extremely rare as an artistic achievement. It's very, very organic, first of all. Synthesizer techniques were used in exactly the right way. Some of the details were fudged, but it turned out very beautifully. And one, oft-overlooked aspect of this movement, by so many authors, is the presence of beautiful and complex poetic lyrics. (Only once did I see something like this on the Internet — what appears to be Com Truise's remix of Foster the People's "Helena Beat," but it isn't really the same, since two different sources produced the work. It's another amazing track which I also have fantasies about using in the official My Little Pony movie, but as a director, I'd be satisfied to settle with the track in question here ("Mind, Drips."))

I hate to bring this nonsense up AGAIN, but in my HUMBLE opinion as an artist, due to my current artistic commitments as an artist, I do wish the track were a little longer, though I'm willing to accept competing opinions. I've already produced my own edit, and I listen to it all the time. (Of course, for the purposes of the My Little Pony movie, it'd certainly be better to use the shorter version, which would run during the credits. Perhaps I'd be able to get away with both songs, if there were enough artists involved in the making of the film.)

TITLE:
Airliner (also Seth Haley) — "Illuminism"

RELEVANT DESCRIPTION:
Organicity is achieved through dialectical negotiation between artistic intent and skillful prediction of / happy accidents regarding algorithmic results, all revolving around the musical notion of rhythm.

TITLE:
Airliner — "Everyday"

DESCRIPTION:
Organicity is achieved through dialectical negotiation between artistic intent and skillful prediction of / happy accidents regarding algorithmic results, all revolving around the musical notion of chord progression.

TITLE:
HYPERDRIVER — "KEEP IT HARDCORE (...RUSHES IN WITH A HAMMER)" (title in all-caps as it appears on my hard drive)

RELEVANT DESCRIPTION:
I'd better hasten to mention this track, although the genre is very different. I'm a little unaware of HYPERDRIVER's creative process. But organic[ity] was easily, and probably very quickly achieved in this track by what appeared to be a long-distance phone call between two friends in different countries who met over the Internet. (The story behind this one takes a while to explain, but I may have already gotten one or two of the details wrong, and I'm sure the folks in question can speak for themselves.)



Pretty much all of this music is available for free over the Internet. However, I'm absolutely certain that all these people REALLY REALLY REALLY want to make money. It is available for free, per se, but it's pretty much just a slick marketing technique, and in a sense (I suppose), all (or at least most) roads lead to Ghostly Intl. (a Corporation). (With the exception of a couple artists, for instance Neon Indian, who releases under a different label, and manages his own webpage: neonindian.com.)

It's important to understand the notions here regarding the concept of Organicity, and the various ways in which it is achieved, within my specific tradition of electronic pop music synthesis.

a remix and / or edit of the words of "The Goddess"

I'm going to have another shouting session. I'll try real hard not to piss anybody off this time. So you'd better f-ing listen.

HEY. Last night, I was asking Mother Earth Herself to reach up with water, dirt, wind, fire, microbes, dioxyribonucleic acid, weird quantum shit, and so forth, and start yanking around who is hurting Her the WORST—setting up these fucking impossible rules and laws exactly 0x0002 feet high with only twenty minutes to read, IF you are lucky enough to KNOW about it... and it LOOKS LIKE the doors are open for business, BUT, guess you need a secret handshake for that. Anyway, I think it'd be funny when SHE starts reaching up and yanking those who have thought "G, let's put a pipeline over a natural well of water to pump oil across the exact fucking place where most of the foods are grown."

Since WHEN is that EVER a good idea? >__<

<end of line>

I'm going to have another shouting session. I'll try real hard not to piss anybody off this time. So you'd better f-ing listen.

HEY. Last night, I was asking Mother Earth Herself to reach up with water, dirt, wind, fire, microbes, dioxyribonucleic acid, weird quantum shit, and so forth, and start yanking around who is hurting Her the WORST—setting up these fucking impossible rules and laws exactly ten feet high with only twenty minutes to read, IF you are lucky enough to KNOW about it... and it LOOKS LIKE the doors are open for business, BUT, guess you need a secret handshake for that. Anyway, I think it'd be funny when SHE starts reaching up and yanking those who have thought "G, let's put a pipeline over a natural well of water to pump oil across the exact fucking place where most of the foods are grown."

Since WHEN is that EVER a good idea? >__<

<end of line>

I'm going to have another shouting session. I'll try real hard not to piss anybody off this time. So you'd better f-ing listen.

HEY. Last night, I was asking Mother Earth Herself to reach up with water, dirt, wind, fire, microbes, dioxyribonucleic acid, weird quantum shit, and so forth, and start yanking around who is hurting Her the WORST—setting up these fucking impossible rules and laws exactly 10^2 feet high with only twenty minutes to read, IF you are lucky enough to KNOW about it... and it LOOKS LIKE the doors are open for business, BUT, guess you need a secret handshake for that. Anyway, I think it'd be funny when SHE starts reaching up and yanking those who have thought "G, let's put a pipeline over a natural well of water to pump oil across the exact fucking place where most of the foods are grown."

Since WHEN is that EVER a good idea? >__<

<end of line>

imaginary conversation with ms crush

Nathan:

--------------

So I wrote this post on my blog that I think you'd like. (Color me marketing professional. Now I'm sending marketing messages to you. I know, pretty fucking low.) It's about something entirely different, but it has some interesting stuff about grammar and particularly punctuations.

So here'a riddle: What is the single most definitive grammatical termination of a vocal utterance in American English?

I'll give you a not-so-subtle hint. It's exactly this: <eol>. Has to do with pre-Internet computer communication technologies. (I do NOT envy the people who tried to figure this kind of shit out back then, by the way. It's exactly the kind of thing that'd maybe drive some people really crazy.)

(crush):

--------------

You're wrong. You need to do your homework. *sigh* You call yourself a Journalism major. I'm not sure what the whole eol thing means. It's this: "###" the triple-pound sign. You should really study this stuff.

Nathan:

--------------

Oh dear... I hate to do this but actually you're not quite correct about this one. Journalists did actually use the triple-pound to signify an end to communication, but <eol> has a far richer cultural significance.

(crush):

--------------

Not sure what you're talking about. Looks more like an aesthetic significance to me. Maybe cultural, but certainly not grammatical.

Nathan:

--------------

I think what you have to investigate here is what was going on in the minds of the programmers who actually invented this stuff. They were trying to figure out how to make direct, line-to-line communication between not-very-advanced computers.

They basically understood that any direct communication message could be condensed by chopping it all up into exactly one line of code, and further condensed by chopping that up into 1's and 0's. But here's what I don't envy. It's pretty easy to get two computers to communicate the message between one-another reliably, unless you don't know the computer you're talking to. Then you have to introduce a way to actually tell the other computer to STOP COMMUNICATING. There are mathematical reasons why that is extremely difficult to do.

I'm a little spotty on the theory in this stuff, but I think what they did was they tried to create a specially-encoded message that only a computer would recognize signaling the termination of a line of code. That's why I choose eol (stands for "end of line"). I put it in angle brackets because of the cultural significance regarding markup languages (such as HTML).

You could put the letters in all-caps, I suppose, for more emphasis, but that's a little over-dramatic. (Again, spotty research here but...) I'm pretty sure the computers back then didn't care about capitalization at all anyway, so it's not that significant.

There's another wonderful cultural significance, too: by far, the most BEAUTIFUL movie in the American filmmaking tradition was a movie by the name of Tron. It is so beautiful, in every possible way that a Hollywood film could possibly be beautiful. (Put out by Disney, too! That shit's never gonna stop selling.) The thing which the evil enemy computer called "MASTER CONTROL PROGRAM" kept repeating which was driving everybody crazy was, "END OF LINE"

[the rest has been temporarily edited]

Sincerely,

—Nathan

On the Indestructability of Things and the Destruction of the World

There are two conditions which must be met in the conceptual praxis of a thing in order for it to be indestructable. It must be a) focused, and b) concept-agnostic.

"Focused" means that the thing has a conceptual coherence with is not overly loose. The conceptual coherence of the thing does not let loose of itself and dissipate. It does not wander, freehand, all over the place, refusing to alight on any kind of an identity. In other words, there must be no internal will or forces which lead to a diffusion of conceptual characteristics. There must be a sense of overriding conceptual unity and coherence.

An example of this kind of diffusion would be shattering a plate. If you shattered a plate, the plate would be destroyed. Plates, therefore, are not indestructable, because they can be shattered. A plate is "focused" because it is created as a work. It has an internal coherence. It is round, it has artwork on it, and it was created using specific techniques. All of these elements came together to form the plate. That is what gives it its focus. It is not, therefore, indestructable because it lacks focus. Rather, it is not indestructable because it lacks concept-agnosticism.

The term "concept-agnosticism" involves a very specific set of words. "Concept" involves an idea with a sense of relatively strict internal coherence. Implied in this word is the idea, mentioned above, of "focus." Concepts always have focus. A thing, in order to be indestructable, must not only be a concept, and hence have focus, but it must also be concept-agnostic. The choice of the second word here is very important.

I could have, but did not, choose the term "a-conceptual." A-conceptual things are things which strictly negate any sense of being a concept, or having concepts. They are non-conceptual. Such things may exist, but the attribute of being non-conceptual is not a primary facet in its indestructability.

I could've also chosen the term "anti-conceptual." This is a different concept altogether. To be anti-conceptual, a thing is opposed to any kind of conceptual coherence at all. It isn't merely that it lacks the attribute of being a concept, but that it repels whatever forces would have it become a concept. To my knowledge, the only things which bother to be anti-conceptual are annoyingly cliche New York artists.

The choice of words, here, are very specific. "Concept-agnostic" implies a certain geometry of related ideas, which work together to make sure that the "focused" and "conceptual" nature of the thing in question remains existent. We could return to the idea of the shattered plate. A shattered plate has lost its focused, conceptual nature. Now imagine if the plate were, in fact, concept-agnostic, in addition to being focused. Whatever the means which attempted to shatter the plate would have introduced a conceptual idea to the plate, but since the plate is agnostic of its own internal conceptual makeup, this means of shattering the plate would not have actually destroyed the plate.

So we can understand a thing's "concept-agnosticism" as a sense of openness to new conceptual ideas with regards to its internal conceptual makeup. The idea is that the thing in question is agnostic of its own internal conceptual makeup. This, of course, allows external concepts which talk to it to contribute to, rather than destroy, its own conceptual makeup.

Naturally, concept-agnosticism is important with regards to the indestructability of a thing, but it is not the whole thing. The thing must also be focused. Simply being agnostic of one's internal conceptual makeup does not allow one to be indestructable, unless something about it defines the thing as an actual concept. A thing which is not focused is not a thing at all, and therefore it is meaningless to apply any kind of attributions to it, or identify it at all, even with regards to its internal concept-agnosticism.

Now, to relate this to the end of the world.

The hippies believed that everything had to be completely concept-agnostic. My opinion is that this aspect of the movement can be traced not to the idea of Prajnaparamita and Buddhism, but to the influence of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (and perhaps also to certain aspects of the Hindu yogic tradition, though I haven't studied that very much). The Golden Dawn were a group of occultists who came about near the end of the 19th century. However, by all appearances, in the course of their studies of the occult, these folks became frightened of the significance of their own discoveries. As a result, they moved more and more towards a strict insistence on concept-agnosticism, and respect and reverence for imaginary deities which didn't really exist. It should come as no surprise, then, that the Golden Dawn has since fractured and fallen apart. They were not indestructable, because they had no focus. (It's important to note, I think, that modern Paganism and Neo-Paganism, as well as most Wicca, and other magical orders, are descendants of the Golden Dawn.)

It's not surprising that studies in occultism would lead people to become frightened of their own discoveries. There is a well-established link between magical practice and psychosis. Crowley (as it appears) drove his first wife insane, and she ended up in a mental hospital. People who take magic seriously often fall prey to the psychiatrists. The reason is the link between psychosis and magical practice. And the reason for this link is the obvious similarity between psychosis and power. The purpose of magic is to gain primary, mental control over the external world. Wiccans will deny this, and anti-Illuminati sentiment among Wiccans is very strong. But really, they don't know what they're talking about.

The exact same thing can be said about people who practice pedophilia, or Ritual Satanic Abuse, and so forth. Such people recognize their attraction to little boys or girls (or whatever), and they discover the correct way to exercise their desires and "get away with it," but they become afraid of the significance of their discoveries. The karmic result of this is magical suffering and/or psychosis.

Naturally, we can relate the idea of magical practice itself to the creation of the world, or at least to the creation of a "world order." But we also have to relate all this to the destruction of the world. Hopefully, we can all understand the link between magical practice and psychosis. And now, we may be able to understand the creation of a "world order" to psychosis as well. In my vast experience with psychosis (which I have experienced to a great degree and still experience from time to time), the most important thing to do to heal yourself from its grip is to kill yourself a little bit. If you're feeling psychotic, the only way to heal is to kill yourself with something like alcohol or sleep medications. Naturally, you don't have to physically die, but we all know what alcohol and sleep medications do: they destroy the ability of the brain to hold onto itself. If you introduce this sort of drug into your system, you'll begin to lose control of your mindstream. This is essential to healing from psychosis, because the essence of psychosis is too much control over your own mindstream.

Psychiatrists, unfortunately, might claim that there is no difference at all between psychosis and magical practice. This is not the case. There is a difference, but the difference is subtle. Magical practice is first-mental control over the external world. Psychosis is mental control over your own mindstream. (Yoga, too, is different. My understanding is that yoga is primarily external control over one's own mindstream.)

In terms of personal experience, we can identify two broad categories for each phenomenon (magical practice and psychosis). You can have magical practice which is natural, and magical practice which is suffering. Likewise, you can have psychosis which is natural, and psychosis which is suffering. I've already explained the way to heal from the suffering form of psychosis (by killing yourself a little bit). The way to heal from the suffering of magical practice is similar. You have to break things up a little bit, externally. Now I don't mean you have to destroy things. All I really mean is that you have to get a little dirty. You have to invite in a little bit of dirt, and allow a modest and measured amount of "probing" from other beings external to yourself. You have to make changes, compassionately, in a way that doesn't hurt people. In other words, if the words in the books you read begin to look more like shadows than words, the solution is to let other people read them, and then discuss it. Or to read different books.

If you look back over my blog, and if you're friends with me and read my personal correspondences, you may notice a recurring theme of myself calling for the destruction of the world. If you analyze the reasons why I'm saying these things, the picture should become clear. I call for destruction of the world when there is far too much control involved in the way the world works. That is why the world must be destroyed. Now I don't indulge in conspiracy theories, and I don't believe that anyone who attempts to control the world must be killed, or anything like that. However, it's obvious, if you think about it, that the compassionate thing to do when someone has too much control over the world is to destroy the world a little bit. Otherwise, it looks too much like suffering—suffering which is relevantly similar to psychotic suffering.

You may also jump to the conclusion that I'm talking about "The Illuminati." That is, when I call for the destruction of the world, the attack is directed at the upper echelons of whatever secret organization you think I'm referring to whenever I talk about "The Illuminati." This is nonsense. There is no such thing as an organization that has only a single member. And in any organization, some members are more advanced morally than others. And in any case, there are different kinds of organizations who call themselves "The Illuminati." And regardless, I may not even be talking about such groups as The Illuminated Seers of Bavaria or The Freemasons or the O.T.O. and so forth. I could just be talking about a specific coven of Witches, or perhaps scientists, cult leaders, or psychiatrists. It's obvious when I'm talking about the destruction of the world (synonymous here with the destruction of the "world order") what I'm talking about is the destruction of the controlled world order of whoever it is that is creating a world which is identical with a world of suffering.

As a matter of fact, whenever I say these things about the destruction of the world, it's probable that I'm talking about psychiatrists, or rapists. Rapists have the potential to cause people to become psychotic. Psychiatrists dedicate their lives to committing genocide against people who are psychotic. A rapist will call in psychiatry in order to snuff out someone who they've raped, so that their voice is never heard. Or, psychiatry, on its own accord, will sniff out someone who is psychotic (perhaps because of previous rape) and due to their hateful nature snuff them out on their own. Each group, the rapists and the psychiatrists, have created their own, neat little world order, and each world order must be destroyed, to the extent to which is enough to cease magical suffering.

The problem, in all cases, with each of our "world orders," is a lack of either sufficient focus, or concept-agnosticism. To use my own world order as an example, if I elect to completely forget about trauma, and forget about my own psychosis, and to give up on my ambitions regarding my sociality and possible future family life, career, and so forth, I will lose focus. If, on the other hand, I retain too much contact with people who try to control my life, or if I do too much to control all exigencies regarding personal finances, creation of artwork, and so forth, I will lack concept-agnosticism.

How to Tell if there's a Conspiracy

Conspiracies exist. Everywhere. A conspiracy is defined as an attempt to do something unethical, which you don't want anyone beyond your circle of friends to know about. Of course, there are times when doing something unethical is necessary, usually to protect yourself. However, unfortunately, there are certain people in the world who are ignorant of the effects of unethical actions, which are always bad. These kinds of people commit conspiracies and think they'll "get away with it." You never get away with a conspiracy, but if you were trying to protect yourself, or something similar to that, then you may be able at least to survive the negative effects of the natural consequences of when the truth comes to light.

How to Tell if There's a Conspiracy:

You check the independent channels. They won't know all of the truth. This is because they're independent. They don't have a lot of social resources, so they can't access all of the truth. Some of them, you can't trust. Some of them have been infiltrated by conspirators who don't want the truth to be known.

You check the people who you think are committing the conspiracy. They'll mechanically repeat the exact same thing: "There is no conspiracy here." Or something relevantly similar to that. If they actually did make a mistake, and as a matter of fact they are decent people and not conspirators, they will send out marketing information revealing exactly what the mistakes were, who made them, and what they're doing to correct the problem.

You check the people who you trust, who have seen the truth. This is called an empirical observation. Eventually, you'll find a couple empirical observations through the appropriate channels which contradict the last mechanically repeated statement, "There is no conspiracy here." Then you know there's a conspiracy.

However. Even at this point, not all the questions have been answered. You don't know for certain who is the one committing the conspiracy. Depending on how much you've been hurt by the conspiracy, it's up to you to determine how extensive of an investigation you want to make to determine who the real conspirators are, and it's also up to you to determine how you're going to use violent means (like the government or the law) to neutralize the conspiracy and bring the criminals to justice.

This goes for corporate conspiracies, Illuminati conspiracies, government conspiracies, raver conspiracies, Satanist conspiracies, Buddhist conspiracies, etc.

Why Psychiatry is Holding the World Hostage

I apologize for breaking my word to everyone. I sobbed uncontrollably writing this. I hope you will please hear me out. I am out of faith, and cannot continue, unless at least some people read this and understand. Please hear me out.

Let's get back to the basics. Psychiatry is the practice of psychologically identifying a diseased mind, then physically disabling the mind to neutralize the disease. The political purpose of psychiatry is to make the social argument that these diseased minds must all be physically neutralized. Their argument is, because of biological problems, a certain mind must necessarily produce nothing but diseased thoughts and actions, and that this physical reality supersedes all philosophical, moral, religious, and legal concerns. I can argue, from these premises, that psychiatry is necessarily holding the world hostage.

In order to hold the world hostage, what you do is declare that you are ready to kill the physical world for the benefits of your aims. Either it's my aims, or the entire world. Psychiatry makes this false choice. It says, "You must either sacrifice your faith and trust in your physical brain, or sacrifice your soul, according to my aims." It makes this point very strongly. It says, "I am ready to prove, to the entire world, that certain physical brains cannot be trusted, at all. I will use fear, and emotional manipulation, I will destroy your family relationships and all your friendships, I will destroy your psychological wellbeing, and every aspect of your health, to convince you, and everyone, that some people are fundamentally bad, as a result of their physical disease." If you do not agree with their point of view, they will do EVERYTHING to prove that physical brains cannot be trusted. The only way to appease this THREAT is to confess, to everyone, everywhere, that because of your physical condition, and racial heritage, you are fundamentally evil. And you must believe it, with all your heart, forever and ever. You must prove this belief physically, by taking medications, forever and ever. This is what they mean by "insight." Once you have this knowledge, they award you with the compliment that you have good insight into your illness.

It is therefore a test for the fundamental goodness of human beings whether or not we accept psychiatry. If we don't, I can't see any hope.

An End to This Blog in the Foreseeable Future

There may be more to say on this site. And I haven't exactly taken the time to market it. However, at present, I feel it's time to close up shop.

I can point to one area in particular—creativity—where I have some definite ideas which I feel I should express, perhaps, at some point. Nevertheless, there are good reasons not to.

For one, as my experience with blogging about psychiatry has shown, it's my most important ideas to which no one is inclined to listen. So even if I were to blog about creativity, I'm not sure anyone would really pay attention.

But more importantly, I have to note the reality of contemporary society. My opinions on creativity point to a new idea of how economics ought to work. However, the reality of our society is that no matter what I say about how it ought to work, the fact is, there is no such thing as an economy at all.

An economy implies a system whereby mainly commodities (though also services) are traded for mutual benefit and the growth of wealth. This is not what we have. What we have is a system whereby human beings are given an excuse to preoccupy themselves with pointless pursuits (i.e. work) in order to render them inert until their eventual deaths, for the purpose, I think, of allowing the rich to have a playground of human slaves, with no responsibilities, and no barriers to their various frivolous and destructive pursuits.

What this means, in terms of my philosophy of creativity for the purpose of economic development, is that introducing it would be a moot point. Obviously, a philosophy for creative development would be intended to make people money. But that is impossible. Money, in our society, doesn't exist. The little Treasury Notes we carry around are not money, but a slightly more complex form of food stamps. They don't buy commodities for the purpose of growth, but are simply a) a form of Monopoly cash to make us think we're being productive, and b) a way to expedite token nutrient delivery from Monsanto.

One can see, obviously, that a system of creative economic philosophy, while it may make you money, it will certainly not guarantee you food stamps, or Monopoly cash. So I see no point in introducing it. The only people whom it'd benefit are the ones who actually have money—the very people who do nothing but cause everyone harm, all day, every day. They don't need any more help. They've already succeeded.

Therefore, I see no need, necessarily, to contribute to this blog any further. I am announcing that I plan to make no more contributions for the foreseeable future. Thank you all for reading, and I appreciate the web hits. I hope I've made some contribution to something, despite the fact that this world is fucked up beyond repair.

Yes, Jimi Hendrix was That Good

I just wrote the following for pay (I hope) in an article of tips for learning to play guitar:

Read books.

Read novels, plays, the epistemology of Descartes, and the history of the Jewish people. This is perhaps the strangest advice you've heard, but it is essential. The pop industry makes millions of dollars off the idea that they can sell bad music that all sounds the same and no one will notice. Well, no one notices because they don't even know their own culture. As Bob Marley says, "If you know your history, then you know where you're coming from." He is a legendary guitarist and musician, not because he could play scales at the speed of light and make weird sounds like Jimi Hendrix, but because he knew exactly where he was coming from.

But then I thought about it: what if the reason why Jimi Hendrix could make all those weird sounds is because he really could play scales at the speed of light?

Why Everyone should Study the Occult

I define an occult object as a cultural (or personal) artifact which carries a great deal of power. We don't need to get into talking about "magic" or "energy" or anything superstitious like that. We also don't need to examine secret societies, such as the Freemasons, and their secret initiation rites. Secret knowledge is not necessarily occult, and the occult is not necessarily secret. (A better term for this kind of thing is "esoteric.") It suffices to simply state the truth: that certain objects carry a great deal of psychological power. The power in these objects derives, I think, from the extent to which they reflect something about ourselves, and the depth to which they reflect it.

The most obvious occult object is a word. A word, of course, immediately conjures up an experience or thought, without our even thinking about it. This experience or thought is something inside us, reflected by the communication inherent in a word. Words, therefore, are occult objects.

The problem, though, with occult objects is that the meaning they express with regards to their reflection of what's in our minds is not necessarily accurate. For example. Usually, growing up, I've always sided with political liberals. And as a lot of people know, I'm definitely very anti-psychiatry. So, naturally, I was quite confused to discover that most liberals favor increased psychiatric treatment of the mentally ill, while conservatives are perfectly content to leave treatment to the birds. Being fundamentally opposed to psychiatric treatment of any kind, I found this state of affairs very frustrating. However, there is a definite cause. The cause, I think, can be traced back to the occult.

This is the unexamined liberal philosophy regarding psychiatry: "We need to favor psychiatric treatment of mental illness because it tends to reduce symptoms." Let's unpack it a little more: "We need to favor a scientific, behaviorism based treatment of mental illness which involves third-person empirical studies of the human mind as reflected by human behaviors, because the results of such treatment reduce the behaviors of the mentally ill which frighten us." If a liberal were to really examine this statement, he would come to the conclusion that it logically implies the following: "Let's scramble up the brains of the mentally ill with a knife and turn them into drooling idiots because at least then they don't shout as much." Wait... where did we go wrong? That's obviously horrifying. There must be a mistake somewhere. However, according to the liberal philosophy, mistakes of this sort aren't really a problem. I've actually heard a hospital nurse make this remark, "They made a lot of mistakes, back then, but they didn't really know any better."

It baffles me that anyone could reasonably believe that scrambling up a person's brain with a knife, in full, scientific knowledge of exactly what the brain actually does, could possibly be a morally justified act. In any occasion. In order to understand why a liberal could come to such a monstrous conclusion, it took, for me anyway, a great deal of meditation on liberal philosophy. But I'm fairly convinced the reason can be traced reliably back to the occult, and to illustrate how, it may be best to start with the occult objects involved.

One form of political liberal moral philosophy (in this country anyway) involves the following analogy. A correct moral choice is like choosing the exact midpoint between two polar extremes—one being good, the other being bad. The bad extreme is analogous to the color black. The good extreme is analogous to the color white. (Naturally it's not necessarily as simple as that, but for the purposes of this argument, the image is relevant.) Thus, the occult object representing a liberal's moral decision-making in this context is the following image:

Another logical deduction from this image comes from psychology. Psychology tells us that the "grey area" between white and black is not easily identifiable, and that you cannot tell the difference between subtlely different shades of grey. Only when you hold up two different shades right next to one another can you easily tell the difference. Thus it follows, using our analogy, that the correct moral choice is never easily identifiable. Two possible courses of action can only be distinguished in hindsight, when we are able to see them side by side. Because of this, the correct moral choice for the psychiatrist is to distinguish what is obviously wrong (euthanizing all the mentally ill), what is obviously ideal (completely curing them of all undesirable behaviors), and proceeding to make an ad hoc choice of some grey area in the middle (scrambling their brains with a scalpel).

The conservative position derives from different ideas, originating in Christianity. To a conservative, the soul is the final authority. You must always stand for what is right, and what is right is distinct from what is wrong. There is no grey area between polar extremes: there is simply what is right, which involves the sanctity of the human soul and the responsibility for self-care which goes along with it, and what is wrong (pretty much everything else).

In this case, the conservatives essentially get it right. Right and wrong is not a middle way between two polar extremes. Rather, it is a positive choice arising from even-handed deliberation and impartial consideration of all options. If you can identify a polar extreme, naturally, both extremes are almost certainly wrong. However, it does not follow that the "grey area" in the middle is necessarily right. The correct choice is a positive and clear choice, which usually indeed happens to reside somewhere "in the middle," but only for the somewhat dubious reason that both extremes are wrong. The occult artifact cited above probably derives from the heady over-obsession the ancient Greeks had with mathematics, and the ape-like biological instinct to avoid dark places. It does not in any way derive from honest investigation, meditation, or deliberation. It's simply an image we've carried down through generations, but which doesn't really reflect the truth.

Now not all moral failures stem from occult sources. Also, not all occult objects originate moral failures. Moral mistakes are simply what they are: mistaking one thing for another. People often mistake women for sex objects. But it does not follow from this that either women or sex objects are occult objects. (Though sometimes, they are.) However, it is possible for occult sources such as the above to account for many moral failures. For instance, it also accounts for the moral failure of sacrificing freedom for security. Or, choosing a presidential candidate based on "electability." It also accounts for the moral failure of heedlessly donating a percentage of money to established charities, like the Susan G. Komen foundation and others (a phenomenon derisively called, I think, "serial activism"), rather than taking responsibility for your own community and making a positive contribution through individual authenticity. Again, not all occult objects cause damage. (Obama's logo, and campaign slogans, for instance, have done a lot of good.) But this particular one does in fact cause damage.

I think we can clearly conclude, then, that we should all take at least a modest casual interest in the occult, as defined above. We should become acquainted with or create powerful objects, and examine why they have the impact they do on our minds. Naturally, it isn't always important to everybody. Some of it can actually be rather psychologically dangerous. However, certain moral failings in our culture will never be uncovered until a good number of people seriously examine the occult, and a great number have at least a modest casual understanding. It isn't enough to simply look at occult objects, either. We have to understand how the occult works, why it works, and where the potentialities for moral failure lie. Naturally, through serious investigation, it is also possible to uncover the potentiality for positive and wholesome good. Again, not all decisions directly involve the occult. Some moral decisions, in fact, require purposefully ignoring the occult. But the fact that sometimes morality does involve the occult implies that, though it seems to be an area which our culture has (for understandable reasons) somewhat neglected, it is an important aspect of a good education.

A Modest and Measured Defense of Freemasonry

Now it is possible, according to certain logical arguments involving ethical uncertainty (i.e. "you don't know what you're getting into" arguments), to argue that joining a secret society (for everyone) is an unethical act. I actually have a fairly specific and well-founded argument for this. However, that's not the purpose of this post.

Interestingly enough, this post is actually in defense of Freemasonry (and therefore, by extension, the choice to join the Freemasons). My motivations for this I'll save for later. More important, right now, is the argument. Freemasonry, I'm fairly certain, is among the class of things of which it is capable of being objective. (Despite their secrets.) And I think, despite the fact that I'm not a Freemason, in this socio-political climate it's a good idea to make a measured defense of Freemasonry. Or, at least, to ward off a couple of specific attacks leveled against it.

There are all sorts of attacks against Freemasonry which propose a lot of hogwash. For instance, that they're trying (or have succeeded) in enslaving humanity. The less disturbing form of this argument is that they are actively involved in conspiratorial acts. However, there is no evidence of this whatsoever. No one has ever, to my knowledge, produced a single bit of evidence that they were trying to overthrow or control the government, with the exception, of course, of the American revolution itself. However, it's quite a stretch to call this a conspiracy. It's more along the lines of nation building. And it's a little hypocritical for the people who level this argument, as they often do, to go on and defend the constitution, Democracy, and even ordinary workings of the United States Government in its natural (noncorrupted) state.

The more disturbing form of this argument is what I would call a conspiracy theory. (As opposed to what I stated above, which is not a theory, but a hypothesis.) A theory is defined as an understanding of the workings of a studied thing based on empirically observed principles which lead to predictable results. A conspiracy theory, as I understand it, is a specific sort of theory involving the workings of a studied thing (generally the United States or even the world or universe itself) which postulates a conspiracy as one of the central principles governing its predicted behavior. Thus we get the schizophrenic ramblings of deluded people who say things like, "The Illuminati are the darkest of the dark forces of nature, a demon who has been around since the beginning of time, physically incarnated here on Earth, for the purpose of controlling the light of wisdom and keeping everybody in the dark." This is subtlely different than a conspiracy hypothesis. Hypotheses generally have a beginning, a middle, and an end. That's what makes them testable. Principles, on the other hand, which are constituent to theories, are generally not really testable. That's why we say that theories are statistically reliable, as opposed to fundamentally true.

Conspiracy theories are disturbing because it is impossible to postulate a change in a theory. Theories may be true or false, but they pretty much don't change. The only way in which they change is by being elaborated upon, or built upon. Therefore, if you really believe in conspiracy theory, as a theory (and not merely a tentative hypothesis), that implies that the situation you're proposing is fundamentally unchangeable. Which further implies that any fight against evil is ultimately futile. Now perhaps this belief is the result of racial trauma from when the Anglo Saxons had a pagan belief system in which evil ultimately triumphed over good, so perhaps it's understandable. But it certainly isn't true. And anyway, blaming a particular group for being a constituent of this kind of a theory is totally ridiculous, and honestly, it says more about you then it does about them.

Now it may be reasonable to say, "Nathan, let's look at the evidence." Okay, fair enough. I've given the statement of negative evidence, that there is no evidence to suggest that Freemasonry as an institution is reprehensible, which in our legal system anyway, is enough to exonerate the accused. Nevertheless, it might be good to examine the positive evidence, since I have to a small degree, informally, studied The Craft. What exactly is Freemasonry? From what I understand, it is a moral philosophy based on a certain set of principles. Central to Freemasonry is the allegory of Hiram Abiff, who was according to legend the chief architect of the Temple of Solomon. He was murdered, the legend goes, by three workers who wanted access to secrets so they could gain a higher status. However, they repented, and prayed for death, at which point they were killed by King Solomon. Apparently this is central to the initiation rites or rituals of Craft Freemasons. It is said by Masonic scholars that this story is constituent of an understanding of the universe: that we are all separated from God, and that the ultimate divine knowledge has been cut off from us, but that we may yet have some chance of obtaining divine light through the use of our intellectual capacities as human beings. Frankly these ideas don't contradict anything in any Abrahamic religion, so they should come as no surprise. The story may be similar in some respects to a conspiracy theory, in that it postulates that the workings of the universe involve a conspiracy. But subtle distinctions are important. If you recall, a conspiracy theory involves a conspiracy as an active constituent of the universe: it is a conspiracy which has been present since the beginning of time and is yet continuing. This story, however, involves a conspiracy which has already been completed. It isn't the conspiracy which is constituent of the workings of the universe, but the effects of the conspiracy. In my opinion, as an archetype, it reflects the belief that our sufferings are the result of previous conspiracies which we are working to repair. The fact that it happened may be permanent, but the karmic results of the conspiracy nevertheless are not, as implied by the "glimmering light in the East" (the fourth section of the Temple of Solomon which was not guarded by one of the murderers of Hiram Abiff). As an archetype, it is merely the acknowledgement that conspiracies exist; that suffering exists; that self-condemnation exists. It goes no further than that. Unless, of course, I am mistaken. And in any case, such a story and understanding of the universe in no way implies any kind of conspiracy on the part of the Masons. If a Freemason, perchance, were to engage in a conspiracy, it is probable that they would be considered as equal to the party who killed Abiff, and worthy of contempt.

So much for Craft Masonry. One might say that while, perhaps, the Craft Masons are not part of "the conspiracy," they are in fact low ranking Masons, and that if we really want to get the culprits, we should look at the Templars. But, again, there is no evidence that the Templars are conspirators. Unfortunately, I know very little about the content of the rituals of this group but for one piece of historical evidence. If memory serves me right, Aleister Crowley had a run-in with the Templars when he was forming his secret society, the Ordo Templi Orientis (the Thelemites). Some of the initiation rites he composed apparently infringed on the intellectual property of the Scottish Rite (Templars), as it was too similar to one of their own. After some correspondence, Crowley rewrote most of the rituals. Since Crowley was principally interested in the occult, this leads me to suspect that whatever the Templars profess, it has something to do with the occult. (Otherwise, why would Crowley even approach the subject?) However, this is hardly conclusive, and not very important anyway.

The real evidence I'd like to consider is the historical / circumstantial evidence. The Knights Templar was formed by the Poor Knights of Solomon, who were a militant group of Catholics who participated in the Crusades. From what I hear, they were ordered to travel all over the place in the Holy Land. Some have postulated that this is because they were searching for the holy grail, or some other magical object. Whatever the case, they made the decision to flee from the Holy Land, declare themselves Freemasons (who were at that time a challenge to the power of the Catholic Church), and establish themselves in Scotland. Now it could be that they actually found the holy grail, and that their intent was an occult, magical dominance of this Planet Terra. But I find it far more likely that the sight of Jerusalem drenched in blood so deep you had to wade through it really hit home, and they had some kind of realization of the futility of the Crusades, or perhaps of war in general, and decided to form a loyal opposition to the Catholic Church.

And even if they were involved in the occult, it is certain that the Catholic Church was also involved in the occult. The difference is that while the Catholic Church has always been involved in occult domination of a purely intellectual nature, the fact that the Scottish Rite declared themselves Freemasons (stoneworkers), and the general understanding of particularly British philosophies involving empiricism and rationality over subjective intellectualism, it is quite probable to my way of thinking that the occult commitments of the Scottish Rites involve a declaration of defense for Mother Earth. With the Catholic Church ordering people to perform insanely expensive occultist acts (such as moving gigantic Egyptian obelisks around), the same sort of superstitious nonsense which led to the extinction of the people of Easter Island, I could see, even at the time of the Crusades, a basic understanding that this sort of behavior, or even at least some aspects of the philosophy behind it, is simply unsustainable.

So now, let's sum up. We have, in our midst, people who believe in a conspiracy hypothesis but have no evidence, demanding justice for crimes while having a lower standard of evidence than the criminal justice system they so vocally oppose. Either that, or they believe in a deep conspiracy, which somehow involves Freemasonry, and yet, from what I've described, any evidence for what Freemasonry actually is declares that such a theory is unacceptable. Which means that not only are these theories in no way about Freemasonry, but they also do not even reflect any evils which are fundamental to Freemasonry (at least, according to the evidence). As stated, Craft Masonry does in fact involve conspiracy in a deep way. But, ironically, anyone who adopts a conspiracy theory is expressing their own belief in the part of Masonic morality which is fundamentally reprehensible. Which implies that the conspiracy theorists are themselves THE Masonic conspiracy. This is why it's so important, I think, to make the right distinctions, even the subtle ones, as often as you are able. Otherwise, frankly, whatever the problem is, your ideas are not the solution.

As for my motivation: it's really quite simple. I have Freemasons in my family, as well as occultists. And I support the Occupy movement, as well as Tibetan Buddhism. I also (I think) have at least some understanding of Freemasonry—at least the general ideas. I therefore get a little perturbed when I see anti-Masonic sentiment within those movements and spiritual philosophies (i.e. Occupy, anti-psychiatry, and Tibetan Buddhism) I support. I am not a Freemason myself, so I honestly see no pressing need to defend Freemasonry (other than in a modest defense of my family). More pressing, however, is the need to defend the social movements I believe in from idiocy. Particularly, I'd like to avoid the people wherever they may be who claim to defend Mother Earth but do nothing to defend the people who may actually defend Mother Earth, who believe in doing occult magic but hate the people who probably do magic (and the ones who certainly do magic), and who profess a belief in a Supreme Being but reject every single philosophy and religion in the history of mankind who actually professes a monotheistic belief. I find this kind of mindset a little annoying.

Anger, Attachment, and Ignorance

The three mental poisons: Anger, attachment, and ignorance. I wish to express my belief that they should be dealt with as follows: if you're angry at someone, there's no need to beat them, or hurt them, even emotionally. Being frightening is violence enough, if you can let it go. It kills the part of them which you wish to kill, while leaving all the parts you're respectful of in tact. If you love someone, there's no need to sexually harass or sexually assault them in any way. Being emotionally attached is sexual enough, if you can let it go. It gets you access to the part which you deserve access to, while leaving the parts which should be universally respected completely alone. If you're ignorant about something, there's no reason to leave it uninvestigated. A lot of people don't like formal education, for instance, because it leaves them emotionally ignorant, or ignorant about things which they're interested in. But I say, education is ignorance enough, as long as you can let it go. If you do it right, it leaves the part of it investigated which ought to be investigated, while leaving the other stuff which you don't find interesting uninvestigated. The solution to anger, attachment, and ignorance isn't to try and kill off the feelings as illegitimate, but to deal with them. Which is what I'm trying to do (as I'm now trying to deal with my experience with psychiatry).

An Indulgence in Paranoid Delusions

I feel like indulging in a bit of paranoid delusional thinking for a bit and consider the question of what to do in the Orwellian situation at the close of the novel, 1984. This is where you've been brainwashed into believing that the oppressive state is a wonderful thing, and that you're in love with it.

I've been having these feelings lately and wondering if I should attribute it to some weird psychological disorder relevantly similar to the Stockholm syndrome, or if it has a genuine basis. See, my heart stirs with patriotism every time I hear the National Anthem. Something about extreme chaotic states like sudden, loud, explosions and intense, red-colored "glares" which in themselves, in their own right, prove that the flag is still flying just resonates with me, considering my beliefs on the sui generis benefits of psychosis and other "symptoms" of "mental illness." See, to me, my extreme chaotic mental states have some wonderful qualities in their own right, and I love the sentiment that the bare fact of their existence proves my freak flag is still waving high. And if we have a nation based on that, then you can count me a patriot.

I've felt some wonderful freedom lately which I've never felt before, and after some very difficult times, the universe and I have at least come to a point of mutual respect. A lot of hatred boiled out of me over the past month. Extreme, caustic hatred. Finally, some of the god / goddess companions of mine seem to fully understand why that was. But I'm left to wonder, in the modal-logical possible universe where I have been placed in the coffee shop in front of the seductive patriotic glare of the television to await my proverbial happily anticipated assassination, how, exactly, would I respond if the world asked me, "Do you love me?"

Do I love you, world? The goddesses have thoroughly buttered me up. My emotions have been completely drained, the sexual-induced pleasure hormones have washed through my brain, my soul has disappeared into the gray, and nonspecific love, like a virus, has been injected into me, and has taken over everything, leaving everything about my own personal boundaries terminally ill. I can't say it doesn't feel beautiful. And if the Orwellian question, "Do you love me?" were posed to me now, I'm in the perfect condition to answer "yes."

And yet, I must say, in all honesty, my answer would not be "yes." Do I love literally everything and anything? Well, yes. I do. I can't help it. It's thoroughly degrading, but rather pleasant. However. When we're talking about the idea called "suffering," and compare it to the idea of an actually existing nonspecific concept-agnostic thing referenced to in the statement, "I love literally everything and anything," the rules are just different. So really, the answer is, "Which world?"

The pattern among professionals of "selling your soul" is very real. And this moment. Now. Is when it happens. I'm convinced of it. If I were to say, "I love the world! So yes! I will give up my art! Someone else can be an artist! I will not become king of the world! I freely give up the One Ring (or two) into which I've poured my cruelty, malice, and will to dominate all life! Someone else can have all that; I'm feeling so infinitely generous that all that is mine is freely yours, and my goal now is to prove it, so take my body, my possessions, my life, everything!"

Alright. I literally do give up everything. I am feeling infinitely generous, and it's all fair game. But there's one little liquid strand of poison left in my veins called "critical thinking," and you'll just have to take that, too.

When a world is fundamentally a place where you are not allowed to be anything but a slave, it must be destroyed. A slave, to me, is someone who, though perhaps provided the essentials of life, is not allowed to become excited about the world, and about whom the world is not allowed to become excited. And if this is how life works, who cares if the world is destroyed? Indestructibility relies on concept-agnosticism. Concepts really do, in a sense, just last and last in a system which is sufficiently concept-agnostic. And if the world is so dead-locked into some kind of inflexible system, it is by necessity not concept agnostic. It's already dead. And all life in it is just a festering mold, writhing in unconscious post-mortem pain until all the organic matter in the corpse is gobbled up.

I am a blood-red jackal spirit. My soul is pure red. If I were to choose a picture of myself, it would be a gigantic red diamond. And all the wonderful spirits in my head are blood-red jackal spirits along with me. That is my offering. And that is my love. I give it fully and freely. I am unarmed; I am exploitable; I'm nothing. And that's how I like it. Forever and ever.

People of the universe, even if you're only in my head, just remember this: stay squishy. Stay real. And above all, stay ignorant, for if you are not ignorant, you can never learn. Stop right on the spot in your suffering, take a cold, red glare at it, and it is instantly the path to all your dreams.

That's enough for now.