AA.VV.
Faiv Domands To (Damned) DeBaserians - Question Uàn (M - Z)

"How does one imagine the ethics of a self which is by definition ambivalent and which, moreover, must come into contact in every social relationship with the ambivalent psychic formation (NO Mr. Psychopompe relationscippes) of others?". Put in $oldoni: "Don’t you think that if ethics must be thought of in reference to the paradoxes and ambivalence of the human condition, then any natural concept of the self necessarily removes the same human condition from the sphere of ethics?"

[PRECISATZIONEM: the present de-page, as well as all those pertaining to the improbable Five Questions, is an EXCLUSIVE and ABSOLUTE initiative of the mono-neuronal mind of the wreckwriter; the polite Editors and the entire DeBaserico Staff have nothing to do with that.]

We then proceed to oral/ize the [+ and/or -] signifi*cant replies provided by the (solidly) courteous De-Users (from M to Z):

The sorcerer M.M. prestidigitates: "Absolutely."

Mademoiselle M.E. whispers: "The only thing I can tell you is that I felt good in DeBaser because I love music as my life, but DeBaser has contaminated itself beyond belief, people judge without knowing (you) and the funny thing is that if they really knew you (even virtually) they would discover things they never imagined, they would discover the immensity within a person, but now just a blink in here and you get attributed nonsensical words, or like a short while ago, I was called a pest (by one of "your friends," by the way) [??? N.d.de-R.] to whom I have always shown respect from day one, but over time she revealed herself completely differently, and all this annoys me and with time I learned to "graze" and make fun of it but nothing more, when a restricted circle forms and relentlessly continues its endless run without destination and pause, not noticing that there are stops where people would hop on to share something healthy, then you let them go but at the same time you have to change station because your journey, the journey of your life is so immense and intense that it’s not worth traveling it with those who don’t know the value of a sacred journey."

Garçon M. expressed: "The question about Debaser makes me think, that perhaps if this survey started, the ones managing the site might be (reasonably?) tired. On my part, I say that for a while I haven't been frequenting Deb as much as I did some time ago, and also for the same length of time I haven’t been participating in the life of the site either with comments or reviews. All this has an explanation that even if not interesting, I’ll still give: I bought myself a house, moved, and at the moment I don't have the computer (no communist party relationship), so when I come here, I limit myself to looking at just the things I currently find interesting. If I could have internet at home and use the computer more frequently (to download, listen, write), I would definitely be more on Deb. All that said, however, doesn't change the fact that a great idea like Debaser, should (as I see it) in some way be regulated, to prevent users from getting bored over time. There's no need, I think, to tell you what I mean: Fakes, offenses, insults duplicates-triplicates-quadruples, characters with protagonism mania, snobbery, politics... etc etc etc...Rightly, as someone might argue, a community reflects another, much more real community called society, people, beings. It goes without saying that just as you find jerks on the street, you'll find them on the internet, I repeat this doesn't change the fact that in some way someone should have tried to curb at least the negative behaviors that can lead some users to disaffection. I repeat that as far as I'm concerned, I still hang around the site and consider it an authoritative source (even if it may seem strange) where to find important information on music, movies, and also a useful means to socialize. Having said this, I also add that I even bought a site t-shirt and (it hasn't happened yet) but if I ever meet someone else with the same shirt, I know that surely, a conspiratorial smile will surface in my head.."

Miss M.D.V. expressed: "but to speak like we eat, no, huh?."

Mr. N. stated: "I fully agree."

????????? N.F. claimed: "YES, I AGREE (I MEAN, I AGREE WITH YOU). IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO ESTABLISH A CONCEPT OF ETHICS THAT IS ACCEPTABLE, IF NOT TO EVERYONE, AT LEAST TO MOST PEOPLE, WHEN EACH ONE DEMONSTRATES HAVING CRAFTED THEIR OWN ETHICS FOR PERSONAL USE. I WILL GIVE AN EXAMPLE TAKEN FROM DEBASER: FOR ME, SPROLOQUIOUS IS NOT ETHICAL, BUT SINCE MOST DEBASER MEMBERS USE SPROLOQUIOUS AS A PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE EXPRESSIVE REGISTER, AND, IN FACT, ONE MIGHT SAY, NECESSARY, I DEDUCE THAT FOR MOST DABASERS, SPROLOQUIOUS HAS LONG CEASED TO REPRESENT A FACTOR LINKED, IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, TO THE CONCEPT OF "ETHICS"."

His Majesty O. secreted: "No. I don't think so. It must be thought of with extreme self-referential rigidity. The sphere of ethics is swollen with ego: hence the definition, as it came to me on April 18, 1976: CICCIOSPHERE.."

The eminent O.E. externalized: "eh? Laying it down in $oldoni: Eh?".

Herr O. blabbered: "I don’t know".

Mister O.R. rambled: "What the hell do you want from me, and what interest could you possibly have for someone who isn’t famous in the De-basing labyrinths, isn’t pretty, doesn’t have lengthy comments, and moreover only reviews music that no one cares about? What does my opinion matter regarding what I would throw off the tower or keep? If it were up to me, I'd throw 90% of the users of this De-basing world from the tower because I can’t stand them. Least of all the ungrammatical kids who write reviews without knowing what the devil they’re talking about or using grammar like a mason uses a trowel to apply plaster. That is, in an unacceptable manner. But even the editors, who nobody knows who they are, what they do and what they check, who allow unspeakable blasphemies and even enjoy it, ignorant and arrogant newcomers of the band that pays and the fact that by doing so make the website look ridiculous in the eyes of others. No offense, of course, Mr. Shred Letters. But I would like to get rid of some pebbles from my shoe, since I've been given the opportunity. From what I read once in a while, I deduce that you are also part of the De-Redaction. Since I hold you in high regard (except for the rants you could spare us. Futurist avant-garde literature was in vogue in the twenties of the last century, not now), I would like, if you allow, to give you a rabbit (not advice, because I couldn’t care less about the others, and hence…): why, to improve the site, for every double - triple - quadruple - quintuple, etc. etc. review sent to you, don’t you oppose one with the wording, in the subject line "you’ve worn us out with reviewing the same things. Stop it, stupid poser”? If that is not possible, you could always stab the rest of the editors (if you need some tool,if you’re short, give another whistle…), or stone them. I have never understood what sense there is in publishing any admissible filth, just to have a laugh about it, and perhaps I will never understand. Therefore, I withdraw again to review my failed albums, happy to write something quite passable and intelligent, and I hope that one day, the computer of the people writing nonsense, might one day burn.."

Lady P.B. communicated: ""And you ask me? How delightful! Oh dear! (excuse my strong language, but it was really necessary) I must admit it’s really been a long time since I last came on DB, not because I don’t like it anymore or anything though some things (which I can't remember) didn’t please me so much anymore, but as a good user I just used the mouse and changed the page. In short, there are silly people everywhere and detractors too."

Compay P. declared: "I will confide in you in a personal manner that I didn't quite understand the meaning of your first question; however, and I dare address you informally, s'il vous plaît, if I understand what you are asking correctly, I might agree with you. That is, if ethics shifts towards human categories of bizarre extraction, formation, and behavior, it follows that it leaves uncovered, like a blanket too short for the matrimonial bed of civilization (what a beautiful metaphor - you'd agree), other more conforming and traditional personalities: and after all, this traditionality is very different from antiquity; it is more reassuring in this new instead of ( I dare quote you) earthly world as well as in the cyber-world. In the sense: if ethics embraces the disheveled, the sacred father of an honest family will be less ethically protected because ethics cannot be uniformly distributed. Did I get it right - at least partially?"

Boy P. #2 demonstrated: "I skip over the fakes and express solidarity with the (allegedly) authentic users."

Another Monsieur P. #3 struck: " "3", in a subordinate way "variable cloudy" "

Sir P. #4 gasped: "word of mouth"

The Jurassic ...C... stated: "Eh... yes, I think so."

Missis R.J. dithered: "Forgive me, but my brain takes a little to heat up, like a diesel engine. And so, oh dear, I've been vegetating on the second line of the message for days."

Senor R.M. narrated: "Absolutely not, since ethics - an abstract concept, which finds practical application, even though increasingly obsolete, if not entirely forgotten - must be an integral part of the human condition and the human condition itself must be founded on ethics (and not on est(ethics)).."

Kid S4D. expressed: "Yes, that’s why we shape our 'I' with hypocrisy and build an objective 'Self' that fundamentally doesn’t match our nuclear 'Self'. I invite you to read (if you can’t manage to fall asleep at night) the writings of Kohut and Winnicott.."

Chico S. picked: "Honestly, I'm not interested in being ambivalent, as shown by me choosing my real name as a nick and proven by my attention that everything I write is always from a real point of view and not de-imaginary. Thus, the freedom from ethics, which you point out by rephrasing the question in $oldoni, doesn’t appeal to me."

The hermaphrodite S. lamented: " Help! I didn't understand... let’s say a... a withered, wilted, and moldy chrysanthemum (yuck!!!! terrible vision!!) ;)?"

The concise S.1982 argued: "Are you making a joke? I didn't understand a damn thing. You feel like kidding, huh? Oh, here we speak like we eat? It must be weird food, you know!"

Farmer Direct S. fluttered: "I fear I might have smoked too much weed last night, and now, at 10:25 on a working Thursday morning, I’m having a hard time connecting. That's why I didn't understand a thing of what you asked me."

Kid S. stated: "yes."

The hirsute S.M. scuffled: "One should consider the self not as a single thing, but as a single ambivalent and contradictory entity. In any case, the self certainly goes outside the sphere of ethics, but sometimes I feel what is right and what is wrong, I know when I behave well or badly, I always choose wrongly, but I know. Perhaps this does not come from the self, but from habits, education, environments, rules… but many things are common to many peoples and remain over time. So I don't know, there might also be a self in the sphere of ethics, who knows..."

Intellectual T. proselytized: "I am of the opinion that some evolutions in the last year have harmed the state of debaser, starting with the inevitable suppression (for IT reasons, as I understand, but still) of the chat: even though I was a very infrequent user, I always recognized its aggregating effect (or even disaggregating, but still social,) musically and otherwise, which is moreover the most commendable macro-effect of debaser as such. There are no shortages of other user interaction possibilities, of course, starting from the comments (which, however, tend to be more relevant to the respective musical context) and private messages (which, however, are more invasive, this and the one to which this responds included), but the chat, of course, played a more subtle and incisive role: the exchange of ideas happens immediately, among people who are there for that, on musical subjects but not just those. But this is not, in my view, the greatest flaw. For example: I am in total disagreement with the expansion to cinematic reviews, which require more technical skills from those who write, read, and comment, and, in addition, take space away from musical ones (physically on the homepage - I've noticed far fewer comments lately, and far less visits to individual reviews than in the past - but not only: it seems to me they also subtract good reviewers now more "shifted" to that area). In short: they risk turning the site into a more dispersive and thus more generic, and therefore worse container. As for the elimination of the editor's choice (in substance, with the suppression of the two different columns), which spared readers with good sense and little time from reading often useless pages, but gave rise (I imagine) to dull complaints addressed to you editors, and nevertheless effectively lowered the level of the site's democracy (which must remain as high as possible, with some exceptions for the sake of good sense: good, for example, the personalization of the playlist). In return, the level of reviews seems to have improved. I couldn’t say much more, nor give any constructive suggestions, especially since I think debaser works precisely because of its simplicity and raw state. Here it is: I wouldn't overload it. Its preciousness lies in sharing: you always find someone who listened to that thing, who appreciates it, who is curious about it, who suggests it, who explores it, who lets you discover other facets of it. Obviously, the more it is frequented, the better it is. Lately (it seems to me) it is less."

Brutal Chico T. said: "Answering the first question, I believe that ethics is not outside the human condition simply because ethics is an expression of the human being and particularly it is the so-called "metaphysical" projection of economic, social, and political conditions strictly dependent on the historical period. In other words, ethics is invented by humans according to the historical period they are going through, a purely evolutionary concept (or devolutive, perhaps more appropriately). I honestly don't believe that everyone has their own ethics (Kant got it all wrong), otherwise, the world would be much better than this and, who knows, maybe I wouldn’t even listen to extreme Metal; on the contrary, I believe ethics is a concept easily distributable to the masses, who embrace it without critical sense and often get fooled by the powerful."

Junge U. stated: "It doesn't matter who you are, but what you write and even if you copy, it is a pleasure to know. Ethics is "spreading information", preferably reliable. Ethics is giving and receiving (always on debaser), interacting with people who want to interact, and that is all for me."

Madame V.M. dismissed: "If the point is to know what I think of debaser...well, I do write there, it seems, so..."

Busy V. pondered: "But you, have you had your holidays? Were they restful? or has the heat melted the circuits, or melted me, and I haven’t noticed?"

Grandmother Z.B. paternalized: "Good question, but requiring deep ruminations in these 35 degrees Celsius with which I’m responding. I quote the Latinist Catius Maximus who in his instructive "Homo homini lupus: treatise on inculatio intra amices" discoursed (with a bucolic flair used in those times) on why it was deemed necessary to place oneself in a sort of rivalry between two human beings endowed with sense, leading to actions that harm and undermine mutual trust. Such sentiment, as everyone knows and as I've, I believe eloquently, illustrated in my in-folio of 8000 pages published by Laterza (available both in paperback and with elegant binding in hamster leather with 24-carat gold letters), arising from the ancestral hunting expeditions, clashes with the primordial instinct for preservation. Analyzing typical childhood phrases like "The ball is mine and no more playing!" and its effective response "Oh, yeah? Then the courtyard is mine and you're leaving!" producing an eloquent "Okay, let's play...", I can affirm with certainty that despite the divergence of opinions, if your club is bigger and knottier than that of the opponent's, ethics, as a social construction of shared reason, succumb to give way to the primordial instinct for preservation.".

DeeJay Z. after much reflection extrapolated: "Eh?!?!?"

Caveman Z. grunted: "As much as possible, the same and standing selves oppose substantially in equal measure giving rise to the Neutral Self, however, this happens discontinuously, allowing aspects of the human system to emerge which can certainly be referred to the animal world (to which they belong)."