Io Ho Il Pene Banned

experiment with new I's, new jobs, in other words, it constitutes itself in public humiliation, the servant is not at all the reversed image of the master, nor his contradictory identity: it constitutes itself in fragments, in shreds, it amputates itself in becoming, the servant will become master (DREAM/DESIRE), just as the middle class will become the upper bourgeoisie they see on TV (DREAM/DESIRE).

It can go Pret, but it's just another way to fixate on bestiality; the great masochist plays bluffing with the eternal struggle of his impulses against his own "self," with no pleasure but with displeasure. In the displeasure, his "impulses" struggle, a brake on his self-aware "I" (death). Displeasure is not a prelude but the orgasm, indeed the promise of the orgasm; the finale is the applause, with death annexed. Even in representation, one is not outside the SERVO-PADRONE mechanism, and especially the younger ones still do not come to terms with considering their age a time of man (immaturity of a gear stage). As if it weren’t enough, a bourgeois or anti-bourgeois demon turns it into a party, a reversed Faustian demon, the consciousness of a machine. What do these mediocre young souls do living in this hell on earth? Would you think they seek to rebel? But no! They lament because they are marginalized; this is the real, great tragedy. They wish to be part of it, thinking perhaps that only after being slaves can one day become masters. It is truly the self-marginalization that the mediocre tenants of the West hold in contempt, devastated by the masturbatory ticks of the sadistic image of the masters, trying to transmute themselves ( ehehe today the competition is tough, temporary jobs COCOCO like fighting chickens, who can peck better? Seems so).

The tragedy is that consciousness today, if it isn’t mass or Marxist, no longer makes sense; the relativistic West has killed consciousness. The lack of "mass" is the crux of the matter, what we must arrive at—the chaos of showing off, day after day, night after night, with all the foolish gladiatorial effort that follows it. The mass is a formless monster that, faced with a work of art, arrogantly says: "let us know what we know." The counterfeit peace of the soul, yes, because these idiots don’t truly suspect the unease, that unease without soul or peace that only great geniuses without mass possess. They are self-destructive at heart, much more than masochists, all of them—journalists, lawyers, accountants, and above all the slaves, the plebeian mass that is salaried and sodomized by the father (family) and master (work), victims and executioners of themselves, to whom they have shamelessly delegated their mystical consciousness in favor of the wretched raised clenched fist.

Yes, the situation is quite chilling, but I still appeal to the minority conscience, if there are still people who understand this state of affairs and recognize state art for what it is. Art is subordinate to many powers, but it is not a form of power. It matters little whether the author exerts an influence and behaves authoritatively when necessary; it will be the authority of a perpetual variation in opposition to the power and despotism of the invariant.

the first one is on another planet, let’s not say nonsense please, this is too baroque

Essentially, I agree with some of your statements, and I also say that we shouldn't believe in the artist's communication with the people; the fishmonger cannot understand, the bricklayer cannot understand, the housewife cannot understand, or rather un-understand, that is to say, we must unlearn. On this, I agree that we must put an end to learning in art, but we must start unlearning, away with scripts and space for non-memory. Enough with the representation of conflicts between life and history, between citizen and society; this representation is merely narcissism, whether naturalistic or hyperrealistic. The institutions are the organs of representation, they are enough by themselves; art for all is nothing more than a mere ideological illusion.

the end of silence is the masterpiece of the rollins band, but just below this is lifetime with hard volume.

Reich, who was a student of Freud, broke with his mentor after about ten years of close professional friendship because Reich's theories were even more utopian. He died in the United States amidst widespread misunderstanding, having even claimed in his last years that he had been abducted by aliens. Yet these are the figures who have remained in modern psychoanalysis—individuals considered mad 70 years ago, but now studied in academies. You tell me that you have information that centuries ago music was considered a science, no more and no less than physics and mathematics. Give me names and maybe dates so I can delve deeper into your consideration. Then perhaps tomorrow, if I feel like it, I will respond regarding Zappa or the more cultured rock music; that would go in parentheses. For now, I have an appointment with the lady.

Sculpture, for example, is a Apollonian art because it is based on forms; music, being abstract, cannot be Apollonian. Okay, but let me repeat, this is not a display of culture. I don't want to come off as a little professor when I, too, am just a student in the vast field of knowledge. I'll tell you, Hegel horrifies me; don't see me as a pretentious intellectual because I also find these people incredibly annoying. You ask for names of artists; yes, but would you be interested in a list that is empty and inconclusive?
But that wasn't the purpose of my contribution here. You say I quoted Freud; that the citationism, when it's not written but is based on oral eloquence, is pure instinctuality. Sure, we just write to each other, and unfortunately, this is a limitation for our mutual understanding. But when we speak orally, it is pure instinctuality unless one is accustomed, like at university, to memorize the entire discourse; and then there’s no dialectic. You see, discourse is not part of the speaking being, as Gilles Deleuze said. We are spoken. But I don't want to be cryptic. Freud developed theories often constructed on chimera; you cannot put the Freudian psychoanalytic science on the same level as a truly rational science like economics. Even today, it’s hard to digest the things Freud said. If you’ve read "Beyond the Pleasure Principle," you realize how much of what Freud talked about referred to the spirit, the ego, the superego, etc., which are not quantifiable or weighable, just like certain Dionysian arts. This is what I wanted to highlight, and that's it.

So, assuming that in a discussion responses are like the air, that is, free, ideas and thoughts pass through my temples and I can do nothing but follow this flow and ramble on, I’m not, for example, asking you to respond to everything I’ve written, far from it, in fact, you haven’t answered the specific question with a question mark that I asked you, but I’m not angry about that, it’s part of the conversation, we can only try to be relevant. However, after this necessary clarification, I want to address your discontent regarding my citation habit. You see, I can only do this, cite; we learn these things from books, I quote them instinctively, you have to understand that my discourse also comes from instinct. I could have talked about something else, but I chose this path; why? I don’t even know myself. If this isn’t instinct, what is? You talked about Mozart; did you know, for instance, that in his Don Giovanni there’s a scene that references Le nozze di Figaro, another of his works? And he does it deliberately; I believe this is also a sincere act, meaning I make it clear to those who read me that I haven’t invented anything and I wasn’t born a genius to know all these things, and I openly quote them. If you have issues in making these things your own, that’s your problem. I repeat, you’re not obligated to respond in detail, just as I take cues from your writing to try to piece together a pseudo-response. For example, you say that for you music is an Apollonian art; Apollonian and Dionysian, you know the difference, right?