lux

Steve Vai?? Brrrrr

But of course shadows exist, if there's the sun, how could there not be shadows? What I'm saying, even though I don't know esoteric art, is that it's still a cultural manifestation (culture is not a blasphemy, it's time you understand that). I know about the existence of anthroposophy, which, funnily enough, is an investigation into spirituality and spiritual phenomena (and it possesses, or would like to possess, the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, eh eh);-)

"Consciousness" is awareness of the existence of something, Alias. Pure, applied? If you are aware of something, it’s because you have experienced it, or at least you "intuit" it. Union, equivalence between subject and object?? It would be nice, beautiful, but HOW to reach such a state?

All this to say that Our society is deplorable (never denied, how could I). There are automatons and sheep, especially since the cultural means of production are held by the powerful (alas). But the moment Alias indulges in his esoteric practices, he does nothing but embrace a certain type of culture. Then he comes on Debaser and tells us all about it, because he has had the experience. Here you are, Alias, as your feelings become culturalized. Or rather, they are contextualized in relation to the rest of society. Society may be disgusting, but a man who enjoys playing the lone wolf (especially within the same society!) will perish. Just think, Alias, if you are the child of this society (like me and Sanjuro then).

To Sanju, who knows that "Marginalization is a rich artistic and positive source," even the walls can tell you. What, if not pain above all, fuels genius? Of course, solitude understood as a matrix of "extreme" sensations can be appealing and artistically fruitful; did I say otherwise? But my remarks about society aren’t a defense of it; they are an observation. If you isolate yourself, there’s a much greater chance that you will die (besides, that’s obvious, but I certainly didn’t invent it). Man is a social animal, NOT because he follows the masses, but because he physically cannot do without his kind. It's true, the pleasure of "looking down on everyone" when you're alone is great; you feel like some eternal father compared to the neighbor who is busy figuring out how to install digital terrestrial television to watch football matches. But it's like playing with fire, so be careful. Solitude (always relative solitude, anyway; I don't think you, Sanjuro, have gone without relating to ANYONE for a month) if it is a choice of life (for certain periods, longer or shorter, certainly not forever) is fine; in fact, it's physiologically necessary... but what if solitude is dictated from the outside? What if others don't accept us for who we are and what we think? What if we are rejected? Those are two different situations, if you allow me. The game of "I am different and superior" is extremely dangerous. If you can't find at least one other individual who thinks like you and shares your ideas and life choices... it's tough.

On noumenon and phenomenon you remember well, more or less. We can only know reality through the phenomenon, as it presents itself. As for the noumenon, we lack the means to know it (it's unknowable). I too have been left behind, I have suffered, I have contemplated suicide, but not so much physical suicide, no, the suicide of the soul, the one that makes you say "Well, I'm not going to kill myself, I don't have the courage, but I will kill myself as an inner person, so I become insensitive to every external impulse, and thus I won't suffer anymore for a whore, or for any potential source of pain." Of course I have suffered, I have become a damn cynic, one that even Sgarbi can't compete with when he talks about marriage. Of course, I won't come to you with my personal matters, but I have hinted at how Culture exists, your thoughts also carry cultural instances, however unconventional they may be (not that unconventional in the end). And despite everything, I know better than you what it means to simply be oneself, without Pirandellian masks, even at the risk of facing reality, which is what it is, that is: it is. It just is. There are no judgments of evaluation, there is no good or bad (but regarding art, if we speculate, sooner or later, value judgment will come out). But then again, I have never hinted at morality, so I don't know where you deduced that, Bah. What is certain is that man, on the other hand, unfortunately for you, is endowed with intellect, so he rationalizes, systematizes, organizes the mind, concepts. He speculates. It comes naturally to him like masturbation. It's part of him. So let's deal with it then.

Do you know what a sociologist does when they see an individual kill their fellow human? They go to explore the social reason behind it. If I sleep with your girlfriend, and you catch us in the act, you beat us up; your reaction stems from AN EXTERNAL FACTOR, hence here lies the social explanation. For Durkheim, suicide could be explained socially: where there was little social cohesion (practically marginalization from society, rare interrelational exchanges), there was a very high probability that in that situation, an individual would commit suicide. This has been demonstrated through sociological research. Granted that it is not the only plausible explanation, it is a fact that the more an individual feels "different" and misunderstood (alienated), the greater the likelihood they will take their own life, since the bond with society has now broken. And the individual, outside of society, dies. (By society, we can also mean just two people in a certain place, to clarify).

You will understand well that from your recent posts your anti-theoretical and anti-systemic streak emerges. This is not inherently a bad thing, but when you admit that any artistic product is "beautiful" or "ugly," you have to tell us based on what criteria a product is beautiful or ugly (and in any case, you fall into a theory, thus contradicting yourself). You speak of Genius, but if it is not quantifiable (the genius I mean), how can we see where it exists and where it does not? What do you know about Hetfield's intimate thoughts? Judging an artist as mediocre (of whom you know nothing about their life, let’s be clear) represents a typical case of "a step longer than the leg." You assume they are mediocre, but then the question is, "based on what is one mediocre or not?" Let’s put aside the states of ecstasy, let’s put aside the unmediated artistic intuitions (which is somewhat of a contradiction, but so be it), but if the artist is the Masterpiece (a term that can mean everything and nothing as far as I’m concerned), what value do we assign to its concrete emanation? (let’s always take music as an example). Is music a means to express genius, or is music genius? Because if we look at music as a means of communication (akin to language), the first hypothesis holds... but what about the second? Read a bit of Garfinkel (an American microinteractionist, with influences from Sartre to Heidegger). I repeat, you navigate in the Lebenswelt, but in the indecipherable and inexplicable reality of the Noumenon (which, after all, is the equivalent of the Lebenswelt itself), everything is permitted, everything exists, and if one is aware of it, even if one cannot systematize it and "culturalize" it. According to your logic, we could no longer comment on a work of art, because you do not provide enough "general" anchors to allow it.

We can continue to talk about it here, Alias, about our discussion on the review of the Black Album... so we can also bring in Easy and kick off the fireworks on rock criticism! Ah, in the meantime, I vote obviously...

Even your unconventional thinking, dear Alias, was born from the social relationship you had with conformist thought. If you speak Italian and not Tibetan, perhaps it's because you live in the same society that belongs to all of us? Why do you wear jeans; have you ever asked yourself that? The very fact that you discussed this with me today is MANIFESTATION of your, our sociality. Sociality does not mean "following the crowd," but who taught you such clichés? You are a social actor, there's no denying it. What you think, you think because you have reworked a certain idea that you have come to learn SOCIALLY. It's so obvious that I feel foolish even pointing it out. And you are much less independent from the outside than you believe.