Notes from Another Underground

First of all, to avoid being branded blasphemous by the predominant cultural elite, I most strongly must emphasize that I am no author. Even so, this absurd notion of mine implying attempts of poetry that will revolt signifies a most serious case of hubris. The undersigned person isn’t even worthy the uttering. By tradition the poet is a far-reaching being who has found the secret path beyond the imperative necessity of straightness. Such a man, I assure you, I am not. I do not know how to handle metaphors, hyperbole or oxymoron. I know nothing of and can find no core of humanity with flourishing depictions. I admit this unreservedly. But could I be blamed?

My silent revolt against a non-recognized isolation could neither revolt nor touch someone’s heart and I must lead no one to believe so. A contemptuous snort perhaps would be in order, at the utmost. No waste of time can be allowed a mere number in the statistics. Impersonally and unemotionally it shall be treated, positioned with it’s righteously compartment, precisely adjusted to fit the scheme.

But what happens to a number that isn’t classifiable? One witch contents doesn’t match the prevalent scheme. A choice has to be made. Should the number be hidden within a faulty category or is it to be left outside of the sum? Very seldom indeed do the latter occur. For the survival of efficiency the number has to be put together with its closest similarities. It might appear as naïve, this obvious and most apparent of choices, but assuredly for the number it will have great consequences.

The official’s rash and ill-advised removal of the problem results in the number’s essence being compulsorily enrolled to an existence without equals. Once again the choice has to be made, now however the concerned number himself has to deal with the problem. Should he thus be interpreted as a slovenly four or perhaps as an incomplete nine? He himself has no answers. Without any knowledge of his origin he has to accept his lot. He is a product, a creation, incomplete but unique.

But all the same the choice remains; should he allow the incorporation, being assigned a faulty category or should he place himself on the outside? Constantly finding himself between two worlds, incapable of choosing or fitting either one of them, the error that constitutes his very essence compels questions that absorb the answers before they even have had a chance to be formulated. Is the deviation simply something redundant and thus superfluous or is it something that others lack? Is his uniqueness merely something that he himself is lacking? Then how and where will he find what’s missing and how will he recognise it? Has it ever belonged to him, has he been deprived of it and if so has he the right to claim and to demand it back?

Perhaps his striving is groundless. Perhaps he already is complete. Presumably long time forgotten, would his originator be able to explain his existence or will even this be contested? It is possible that he, an insignificant fraction of the sum, has gone astray, refusing to submit to his destiny, his home and world of safe and security. Then his refusal of destiny would be not only pitiful but quite ridiculous.

The cradle of known knowledge and tradition may rock all the rest of you to pleasure, rest and tranquillity, but don’t deny me my right staying up after midnight. My soul is unsettled and I need to observe life from another point of view. Thus I move myself away from sheltering foliage to behold the loftiness of the entire tree. Still I might not make any sense out of it. Then I will have to dig myself down to the very bottom to uncover the roots. Fighting in the mud with the acid rain pouring all over me is a heavy and frightful burden indeed. I recommend no one to follow my example.

Head and heart within
flowing the hurricane wind.
Casting lights heavy gloom
Behind the ports of doom,
from life it pantingly flees
no more left is the breeze.
Outside silent and still
essence shrieking to kill.

They say my name is someone and they say I’m normal. But there has been a terrible mistake. According to logic someone is supposed to be the opposite of everyone. This however is a faulty construction. In reality the opposite of everyone is no one. The antithesis of everything is nothing, so why deviate from consistency? Why not continue the logic in asserting the antithesis of everyone is no one? Where does this someone come from? Where do I come from?

They say that someone is one, anyone, out of everyone. That’s why they claim the fraction to be the opposite of the totality. That is, the fraction someone is the opposite of everyone, the totality. But simultaneously they maintain that the same fraction is also representative for the totality, which of course is two different entities, two different and incompatible ways of reasoning. In what way does this make any sense?

What we are dealing with here are abstractions. Something and normal are abstract entities without any actual respondent objects. The normal is an average value, not to be mistaken for the meridian. The confusion lies in the faulty apprehension of the abstract mean value of the normal constantly being mistaken for an actual existing meridian representative. If I am someone and moreover a very normal someone, in reality I am nothing at all, at most an abstraction. What attitude is one to take to this? Is someone or something, a construction, better than nothing? Do I even exist? Could an abstraction heighten itself to a universal substance and that way grant his own existence? Could one put confidence in human reason to solve this misunderstanding or am I forever to be doomed, finding myself in the borderline between the object and the perception of it? Could this be understood in some way other than the absurd one? Because surely you are I am more than the mere perceptions of you and I am more than the faulty apprehension of me, are we not?

There is no normal person - not that normal doesn’t exist, no not at all. Normal exist. But there is no one that is normal. Of course one really start to wonder. What’s the meaning of concepts that you can’t apply on reality? But to understand reality in these days one will have to totally shift one’s ground, because most of the things seem to have ended up on the wrong side. Concepts are applicable but not on reality, but of course this is to precede one self. To this I’ll get eventually.

What is normal? The normal is an estimated mean value of a hypothetical totality of human characteristics. Every human is a unique set of characteristics; this is what we mean when we say everyone is unique. But how can a human individual with a unique set of characteristics be the same as the mean value of all human characteristics and thus be both unique and also, as the concept of normal indicates, be an equivalent representative of the totality?

The concept of the normal doesn’t ad up with the concept of the unique. Surely it must be the characteristics that are normal, not the individual, not the unique collection of qualities that constitutes the unique human individual. If it’s the individual, the unique one, that is normal then the abstraction of the normal all of a sudden has become realized, now not only a mean value of all human characteristics but the actual existing meridian of all of them. If you still want the concept of the human uniqueness to be genuine, only one single person is to be considered as normal. This I think we could all agree on was not the intended meaning of the word.

The normal is an abstraction and no human individual is merely an abstraction. Therefore the normal human individual does not exist. Instead I believe it would solve things better if we simply could shift meaning of the words. In relation to the abstraction normal everyone is abnormal, because everyone is unique. If the word at all is to have any application on reality it should be due to this general tendency. The fact that everyone is unique, this the most general of all human characteristics, should reasonably be what characterizes the normal. To be normal, to create an artificial belonging on the basis of certain selected characteristics, exactly what we today lay in the meaning of the word, should be the exception from this the most general of all. The one that is normal in the conventional everyday language of today is extremely abnormal. In the masses’ conventional common parlance that feed the conventional reality of paradoxes every life is in the abstraction dissolved.

You exist I’m sure. Myself, I’m not so sure.

If I am to use such terms as convention, conventional reality and the reality as such continuously and frequently, it isn’t unjustified to ask for an explanation of the intended meaning the writer had in mind using such words.

Constantly the individual has to decide what once standpoint on a various matters in life should be. The most important of all of them is what form of foundation all further presumption in life has to be grounded upon. That the notion of life itself consists of a presumption is a philosophical necessity. No philosopher has till this very date ever proved anything to be existing. Everything that is perceived is and remains a construction founded upon arbitrary axioms. To bear life and to avoid floating in a intellectual uncertainty the decision every individual has to make is what fundamental principles in life she is to adopt as axioms, ones which all subsequent values as well as assumptions is to confirm or be built upon. But this decision in reality never occurs because, truth being told, there are no alternatives.

As a newborn citizen of society the individual has no other choice than to accept the existing values or principles. These are however not universal or fundamental to life itself, nor are they for everyone common, on the contrary the choice has been made only by a certain few. Their main function consists in being the foundation and lubricant of the social system. Furthermore they are not commonly defined or decided. The means of this enterprise that’s reassuring the survival of the social system are laws and constitutions. In this respect an obvious struggle for power arise where those who not favours seek change while those who favours are attempting to uphold the survival of the system and their own position within it.

One could assuredly ask oneself if these the favourable are the creators of the prevailing values and principles or, like some sort of watchmen not really familiar with the cause behind their duty, simply work for the upholding of them. Nevertheless, laws and constitutions are the evident framework of society and the necessary prerequisites of the hierarchy created but they are incapable of upholding the order alone. The symbolic threats of punishments supported by an apparatus of violence naturally prevent rebellions. But in addition to that an argumentation is needed to convince that this order is justified, right and true. This is what constitutes the convention. Namely an argumentation bound to the social system; one chosen perspective to gaze upon reality.

The laws are imperative but the convention is on rather loose grounds binding; tying the individual up to the system. Depending on what prerequisites equipped with (physically, socially or culturally conditioned) it is true that the adult individual can accept or reject the conventions. But in the manner of mere survival in society she is, like the newborn, dependent on, obliged, constrained and indeed forced to act and behave accordingly to this convention that is binding her to accept its validity in the conventional reality, no matter her likings or not. This occurs as the individual as an citizen of society – not as a human - is a part of the conventional reality.

As you have seen the convention says nothing about and admits no degree of truthfulness in or of the reality. It constitutes merely of an argument lacking in true substance. The chosen perspective to gaze upon reality the convention argues in favour of is what one could call the conventional reality. It is one of many possible perspectives and is based upon one fundamental presumption, one axiom. Constructed upon this one presumption and arguments the conventional reality has to be seen as an artefact of the “real” reality, the reality as such. To that it is more reasonable to consider the convention as the superior in the interaction with the conventional reality rather than the opposite. But when the argument is laid out as an end itself it complicates the situation. What attitude is one to take to this creation that has outgrown and turned away from its creator, or more correctly, turned against its creator?

A critique of conventionalism has its natural basis in the insincere established relationship that obliges the unique individual to recognize an undetermined collective community and its values as sovereignty. But an agreement has never been met. Never the less it is by the dominating party taken for granted, in advance drawn up in a decree and later on communicated downwards to the individual. She is then declared to be participated in this never established contract, and the silent acceptance, in the light of compulsion or threats of punishment, is regarded as synonymous with a signature. At the present time however, it is more of a rule than an exception that the exercise of power is carried out so effective that the individuality can be completely erased without either compulsion or threats of punishment, a consequence that virtually has come to be a condition to enter the community.

The adult individual up to now still has a possibility to reject the conventional reality by raising the level of consciousness, by becoming aware of one self. Being self-aware is largely the process of turning the thoughts towards the reality as such, not to uncritical adopt the self-appointed authority mediated by convention and not to accept the conventional reality’s insufficient description of reality. self-awareness is realising the essence of the convention, the ability to deviate and falsify and in active actions actually carry it out. It also represents the understanding of the individual’s participation as a member of society in the conventional reality but as a human in the actual reality. Eventually the self-assured individual will have to make a choice, the one of how or if she is to make these two to converge within herself.

Is love even possible? Is it possible for a man to hide away for half a lifetime and then return as if nothing had ever happened? The feelings are the same since the memory wasn’t only a recollection of pictures without any sensation. They feel and are tangible, constantly in the garment of the physical pain. They restrain, restrain in every possible way reaching back to where they say one once were.

Fear. The fear of the knowledge of the world before me also is the only one for me. Hope – this mouldering pillar the distressed is compelled to cling on to. The hope had been a salvation, the hope of being saved – to save and at the same time being saved. But the lonesome captivity is the impossible homesickness of the forever stranded, the longing of a home without a home to long for. Nobody ever came and no one ever appeared by the horizon.

Every now and then tears roll. Hope; this futility, efforts of saving, healing wounds – imaginary wounds – wounds that are overeaten, overeaten on themselves. You wound filled with pus – hope is thy name! Hope is the saving for no one. It is a malignant tumour parasiting on the living life. Anxiety? Anxiety of every kind! Loneliness? Loneliness, uncertainty and longing! Longing home, longing away, longing for love. Perhaps only for some warmth and consideration? No, it has to be genuine. Only the truly genuine can save, to be loved and to love. And such will never happen. Love is dead.

Imagine you are in a circular existence. Now, if you are capable to deviate from the rotating state you’re in, it really doesn’t matter if you head for the imagined centre of the circle or steer away from it. Any which way you turn, you’ll end up on the outside. But if you were to head outwards rather than inwards you would end up in an eternal void. Lost, groping around in the all-embracing nothingness, you wouldn’t find one direction different from the other. With the circle too far away to relocate yourself you would go astray, and that far away cleanly a return would be impossible. But in contrast the journey inwards you would have everything to gain. With a newfound perspective you would see more than just the winding and narrowing road ahead. Finally you would understand the conditions of the circular existence and if the limiting life within shouldn’t be appreciated the return back to a life in rotation would be just as feasible as the excursion on the outside.

In this manmade world of ours this is our existence. Either you’re born incapable of leaving an imaginary perpetual circular existence or you find yourself on the outside unable to enter. Sometimes you get a glimpse of greater understandings. Then what do you do? My position there is no doubt about, but where do you stand? No, don’t kid yourself; we both know the place you call home.

If one is to ask an ordinary common person what actor she finds a good performer she probably will mention one of the well-known stars that she as well as others finds attractive. Instead of evaluating dramatic talent people seem to judge actors upon their appearance. Such an answer could easily irritate, however I don’t think one should be too hasty in dismissing. These people I think point out something essential.

As we all know acting as a profession means to establish a fiction and holding it just enough lifelike before an audience for it to pass in the eyes of the beholder as reality or at least to pass as a possible reality. This means a balancing act between fiction and reality. In order to accomplish this act a wide spectrum of talent and prerequisites is necessary. But a talent in absence of the right prerequisites could never become an actor while the opposite is quite possible.

A character actor for instance is supposed to be able to express many varying moods and personalities. He is not only to set himself in a role mentally, he also has to manage to mediate it clearly and in a comprehensible way so it is unmistakably evident what role he is playing. Just like language is a necessary tool for human communication, the right physical prerequisites of an actor is an absolutely necessarily tool for the acting to correspond with the expectations of an audience. To be sure acting is based on the spectator’s expectations and perceptions.

The presentation of a character’s emotional state has to correspond with an audience expectation of how a character with such an emotional state looks and acts. A facial expression of a seductive smile has to be perceived as a seductive smile and not for a cunning smile, a sad face has to be perceived as sorrow and is not be mistaken for anger and an appreciative look mustn’t be perceived as a look from a judgmental or criticising face but the appreciative look that is was met as. For this to be possible an actor has to have the right physical prerequisites that are required for this purpose to be obtained. Otherwise the story will be incoherent and incorrect. The one unable to present the character’s emotional state in a way that corresponds with spectators expectations has no future in the profession. But the one presenting an emotional state in a way that corresponds with the expectations of an audience have no need to trouble himself with the inner state of mind.

For the actor to live the part in a way that corresponds with the role’s expected way of thinking and with that being able to act credibly, is strictly speaking not really necessary and absolutely uncalled for if the audience all the same recognize what’s intended. The mental power of imagination is simply superfluous in the acting profession as the performance being a success or not it entirely is a decision of the spectators’. Naturally it could work as means of assistance but is foremost a legitimizing element upholding old traditions and protecting exclusive communities.

Since both acting and attractiveness is built upon notions it is natural for them to merge in the judgements of dramatic talent. The actor has a tacit agreement with his audience to fulfil the expected notions. People don’t go to the theatre or the cinemas to experience real life but to from a distance witness a fiction that moves and enriches their lives without having to participate. The actor’s role in this interaction is like the minister of religion’s to his congregation; he is to act as were he in direct contact with the spectators’ emotional life, being an indicator who delivers the unknown inner life.

The language, our gestures and our way of expressing ourselves are the only means available to mediate our inner life. That is why the one equipped with a wide set of prerequisites and requirements to express and mediate these different inner characteristics is more likely perceived as open and more willing to reveal his inner emotional and intellectual life. He is perceived as more than the existing stereotype images and this is seen as attractive both on account of the physical prerequisites and the contemplated inner characteristics that the way of expression bare witness of. Since the only existing means and therefore the only existing criterions of judging inner quality are fulfilled, it concludes in the judgement of an interior on an equal footing with the exterior. The notions of the inner life correspond with the exterior.

But if the fiction gets to close we defend our selves. The agreement is broken and the play ends up in a piece of reality. A reality we realize we either can’t or don’t want to be a part of. Prerequisites have that certain characteristic, the ability to lose by the exchange while a development in the opposite direction just isn’t possible. Prerequisites can so to speak trade upwards but not downwards. That’s why a person equipped with many or the right prerequisites can play as if he had none, whereas a person without these prerequisites hardly could play as if he had them all. An appearance that fulfils expected notions therefore becomes an important component in the effort to maintain the fiction. There is no desire for the fiction to transform into reality because then it gets too intimate and that leads to guilt. But a catharsis from a distance implies an absolution without reservations.

That much said the fact is that the band between attractiveness and dramatic talent still is very loose and truthfully it couldn’t be any stronger. The one capable of expressing many characters or emotional states is of course not necessary considered to be attractive. That it nevertheless appears to be that way is mainly due to the fact that the attractive appearance is in direct proportion to the conventions judgement. Such an actor’s appearance illustrates the maintenance of another fiction. You see the actor is the centre of the maintenance of two fictions: one on stage and one outside of it.

In stead of looking for an invincible connection between attractiveness and dramatic talent – an actual connection doesn’t exist – an inverted inquiry brings to light a more essential matter: the band between acting and convention. For the convention is the guarantor for the acting existence. Both work for the preservation of necessarily stereotype ideals; exaggerated and affected. Without these the intelligibility would disappear, both on and of stage. 

That’s why the supposedly attractive actor couldn’t be attractive in the sense of universally recognized beauty. His attractiveness alludes to his position within the hierarchy of the convention. His appearance corresponds to the requirements of the convention and it is in this manner the confidence of his audience is gained, his dramatic talent is gaining legal force by the automatized mediation of the convention. In this the convention’s mediation process inner qualities is irrelevant and totally insignificant. The actor isn’t supposed to interpret; the actor is only to mediate.

Of many expressions there is one in particular that is representative for the incongruity in the understandings of life mediated by the convention. According to the expression sometimes it’s quite all right to regret all the adversities of life. But what adversities of life? If the expression is to be even fairly correct the many adversities have to be in the singular. For what more could prevent life from living other than death?

This of course isn’t the intended meaning but then you shouldn’t be speaking of the adversities of life – in plural. Even worse is the allusion; the possessive genitive form that is downright deceptive. This belonging isn’t only a vague one, when you come right down to it, it doesn’t even exist. The adversities ascribed to life are no characteristics of life. This ontological blunder is far from trivial. The conventional apprehensions of reality are all built on similar error in thinking and most likely are they intended as well. What argument is better to silence the masses’ loud complaints over the unsatisfactory state of things, than the reference to every life with necessity full of adversities?

The so-called adversities of life don’t really belong to life, are not by life given and are therefore not to be considered as a necessity, to life genetically bound. Possibly could they be regarded as obstacles to the good life, naturally quite another matter. But if you wish to find solutions for such social evils the first step is to turn your thoughts towards this convention that mediates the image of life as necessary filled with adversities. Is a convention really necessary? Could life be lived and a true spirit of community establish without this producing and maintenance of a convention that deliberately violate the conditions of life?

Of course it’s every individual’s unique set of qualities and prerequisites, in the interaction with other people, which decides whether, and to what extent, the prerequisites’ potentiality can be realized. This is how we would like to see things. But under current circumstances we have to realize that the state of things have been dislodged from its foundation.

Here the convention has found its way in. It’s the guarantor and the original fallacy that all the conventional conceptions of the world are built upon. This probably consciously produced fallacy, under the form of a value judgement, precedes each and every interplay between people. Every person’s unique value judgement connected to the unique individual has been replaced with the convention’s synthetic value judgement that is declared to be common to everyone. It’s actually this prevailing value judgement that decides which, to what extent and in which direction notions will (and not only should) be realized. Thus it oppresses the realization of every unique and natural human prerequisite’s potentiality.

What the fallacy really is about is the, at times, nonexistent separation in thought between humans and the abstractions made by humans. A subordinate example of this is the notion of society. A notion that asserts that society consists of us all; that it constitutes us all – is us all. In actual fact society is an idea (or rather an abstraction) but by no means in each individual an inherent, universal or intrinsic idea common to all mankind. No one is born filled with those in power’s contemporary vision and conception of human organization. It’s an arbitrariness that could be totally nonexistent as well as its own antithesis.

But to legitimize and authorize this confusion of human participation in the world of ideas, it is maintained that this abstraction is an objective truth. This absurdity and evident ad hoc reconstruction hidden behind many shadow pictures and brushwood in the convention’s line of thought, implies that an undeniably invented idea would precede its creator. Society, or rather the idea of society, because more than the abstraction doesn’t really exist, is nothing but another example of this original fallacy. This time, based upon the convention’s paradoxical prerequisites, the confusion lies in the reversed genetic belonging where the creation precedes the creator. In other words an idea can hold the idea of all mankind but naturally never the actual people.

Relating to abstractions isn’t the same as being a part of them. The expression of the ideas, to inform or being informed of something, is what we generally call communicating by language. In one aspect the language extends the ideas in so far as it enables more people to take part of them but with that the meaning also weakens. Language restricts what can be mediated. How a person relates to an idea is furthermore entirely arbitrary. The originator of the backgammon game of chess isn’t necessary the best performer. Perhaps the one with the best prerequisites for the game isn’t yet born, perhaps he never will be. And if he is born, if he has found his unique set of prerequisites to be completely compatible with the idea chess, what would he be if he never had gotten any contact with the backgammon game? Indeed a meaningless creature in a meaningless existence living a truly meaningless life. But in truth has his life become less meaningless when he found his unique set of prerequisites to be compatible with an external idea?

Only to make it clear and to draw attention to how common these persistent fallacies and myths really are another misnomer, one of many, could be singled out: the one that goes by the name of natural beauty. Such a thing of course does not exist. Each and every person as such is natural, has a natural set of prerequisites and, again, has as a value judgement uniquely valid only to the single individual. But since synthetically created ideals by various indoctrination techniques have been internalized, most people understands the created ideal as common to all and therefore doesn’t object when it is entitled and referred to as natural. Of course everyone can relate to a created ideal in a natural way, find oneself on one side of a made up dividing line or the other, but that simply isn’t the same as the concept of a natural beauty.

Living life in a world of ideas possibly worked for Plato in his ideal world, but not many subsequently living permitted the reflection can accept such a concept of reality. Not even this great thinker would approve of this newly created version of being. When the human on purpose gets equipped with a contaminated language that isn’t able to distinguish the authentic from the synthetic, she ends up in the middle of an extremely confused existential muddle between on one hand linguistically realistic abstractions and on the other a real but a verbally dubious essence. All which creates a state of things of neither this nor that and sets her in an obscure form of between existential haze she’s incapable of leaving. If the humans are ever to find their way back to humanity this madness can continue no more.

Assuredly it’s a great misfortune to love and not receive any love back. A greater misfortune however is the life of no love, to never have received and to never have been able to offer. But if you can offer no love, isn’t it good to deny the world to love what can’t love back? Isn’t it love to do good? Thus could the lonely in his loneliness do good without being good, love without being loved and even be loved without anyone who loves him? A great misfortune is it to love. It’s a good misfortune. But the greatest good is never to have been loved and never to have loved back. In truth the greatest love is the greatest misfortune.

When I speak of a conventional concept of reality and the reality as such it might delude you into the belief that it’s merely the traditional dichotomy of nature and culture I have in mind. But it is beyond that. It is about a structure of value judgement that precedes all that is political, all that is religious, all that is philosophical. In short, everything that is maintained to be thought and said. It precedes logic and it precedes even language itself. Call it a general cultural defence mechanism, unreasonable argument lacking in substance, a value judgement caste system, false axiom or a sovereignty of ideals. All are different variations of the same homogeneous shape, parts of the same web, a pattern, a structure, extending itself both vertically and horizontally but in absence of real depth.

It's a value judgement under the shape of a hierarchal system of the prerequisites’ arranged value judgement on the very act of evaluating values itself. In this value judgement structure of already completed evaluated values with reference to the hegemony of the prerequisites, it is never a question of how reality actually appears, but how I ought to appear. It is the structure of surface, an arbitrary arranged complex of values that serve as a normative example of what ought to be but are not. Preceding and thus not intrinsic to mankind it is then internalized in every culture to be valid as universal.

I have called this complex of values convention, but it’s bigger than the general concept. It precedes the apprehension of general concept. General concepts belong to the world of conventional understandings and get its meaning and signification in the context of the world of conventional understanding. In this they speak of experience, a most prestigious word, and of the context that determines the contents. But what kind of experience, what kind of context? What is an experience that refers to a fictitious reality, lacking of substantial essence? It can’t be anything but a false experience. Even this the convention, the creator of the conventional concept of reality, precedes.

The convention is the value judgement that makes the entire fraud possible, this whole delusive drama over an invented reality, and over the question of how this pattern of created reality ought to be. Did I say precede? That’s not true. Perhaps it once did, in a presumed time where freedom of choice actual had a meaning. Now however, it has nothing to precede. But could someone be woken up from his dogmatic slumber, raise the level of awareness, grasp with his intelligence, the exact opposite of the convention, and anew create a living language, it brings about for the conventionally captivities barely conceivable, new spaces in the human mind, blasts the known thought boundaries of a world that could be but till this day yet are not. Completely separated is it from this still artificial world of ought to be, the one that might be able to suffocate this possible world of ours that could be and the world that in its last panting breaths still are.  

The convention is static but pretends to be constantly moving. The explanation behind the act has its basis in the displacement of dimension perspectives. Spreading itself in length and breadth the convention appears to be a perpetual spinning circle without a beginning and no end. But when the reason plunges itself into the valleys of depth the circle is exposed as a flat line, and the core of things – the alleged origin – as an empty void.

From here you could easily understand the pretended paradox of how the depth of the surface statically is decreasing while the genuine depth always is increasing. As every painter or producer of figurative art knows, it’s elementary to simulate a depth where in reality there is none. But too many strokes in the same direction and a real might appear. Unintentional, by mistake, the furrow has created an undesired inner room, one that doesn’t suite the picture. Notwithstanding the mistake the furrow will go deep enough to penetrate the cloth and reveal the void behind. The failure is complete but how is one to handle the experience of this empty room, this nothingness?  

The complete artist knows to conceal his mistake, knows to smooth over the depth with the artificial, to continue the lie, continue life. But the unsuccessful is incapable, he falls together with his art, falls into art. And then the artificial falls everything fall into decay, crumbles away and dissolves until only the fall itself remains. Forced away from the known reality, in this new dimension but not yet completely liberated from the previous, the fragmentary essence seems to be the most genuine existing, more substantial than the combined value of both the external and the internal.   

It couldn’t be in another way. The external is false, the internal is inconstant and everything is mixed, mixed up and dissolved indiscriminately all over the place. Searching, far away in this whirling chaos of falling between existence, united in a common but vain enterprise, the reason and the free will is floating, searching for the true unit to serve. The unit that cannot be seen, the unit that never has and never will be seen. You think it ends up. It doesn’t. You think you understand. You dont. Two land masses without connection? Not even that is true. They are not two, the are three, four, five… They are infinite. They are none. No mass, mass does not exist. Unity does not exist. Connection does not exist. What exists is convention. Vain, everything is so vain. Cease!

Shame is the lord of my life. Although many would name him anxiety I call him by his righteously given name. Anxiety however is an academic term, used and designed only for the privileged. In my innocence I once imagined anxiety to be something bad and utterly low. I thought a place of abode was found. But in the name of art and pedagogic I was taught otherwise. It was highbrow, elegant, stylish and therefore couldn’t be less becoming for my improper predicament. Privileged I most certainly am not; neither can highbrow, elegant and stylish under no means be applied to such a poor wretch of a being.

But please do have a little faith in me. By all mean I have had my share portion of intellectual understanding of the anxiety of the highbrow society. I’ve read Dostoevsky, the many poets of the Modernism, seen the films of Bergman and listened music, depressing and difficult to understand. I’ve explored the anxiety thoroughly, mine as well as others.  All the same I cannot find myself in a position with the lucky few, awarded with this godsent anxiety. The pitiful and miserable unable to attain the sublime elegancy of anxiety will have to be content with the lowest form of recognition: shame. Shame on us!

A touch of shame undoubtedly isn’t uncommon to most people but in my case it has grown out of proportions. My shame is larger than enormous. Had it only been restricted to my deeds, the ones commonly considered horrid, or repugnant thought similar to the nasty deeds, I wouldn’t have objected. But my shame extends itself to embrace all of my being. Everything adherent to me is included in my shame. And that’s not enough, even such that couldn’t be considered belonging to me has been infected. It seems as if everything that even in the slightest way has had any connection to me have been contaminated by these my loathsome feelings of shame. I have several lives on my conscience.

“Now you’re exaggerating”, you object. “This you couldn’t possibly justify in an intellectual sense. Surely you have to understand how it has grown out of proportions. And if you understand the unreasonably of your claims, certainly there is hope.” Sure I understand. A shame great enough to include several lives there is no reason for. But my shame is like the religious man’s fait in God. Even as he has observed over and over again the convincing evidence of science, the thorough indoctrination from childhood, even as he understands in an intellectual sense that the good, almighty and personal God only can be the in universe lonesome man’s pitiful desire, he can’t abandon his faith. Faith has taken Control over his life; shame has done so over mine.

Not only do I fully understand the unreasonable proportions of my shame, I’m ashamed over it. And not only am I ashamed over my shame, I’m also ashamed over all the things it yet hasn’t annexed. Not as a form of direct shame though, it’s more like I’m ashamed over all the things I have dismissed and all the things I can’t possibly come into possession of. But if I can’t come into possession of it my shame can. Present always, tenderly watching over his protégé to prevent him from going astray. Consequently all human lives, all the things they can feel, think and experience, in short all humanly conceivable things, by double negation, becomes included into my shame.

Logicians, grammarians and mathematicians are wrong about the double negation. Two on each other following negations neither recreate the positive nor do they keep their negative values, they dismiss both. This is both the life-giving principle behind self-awareness and the path to an external objective truth, or at least as close as anyone captured between two realities can get to an objective truth. Because there are not, as logicians assert, only two opposite values of truth. No, there are three. This third, the original, contains the former two and can only be attained by double negation; by mistakenly negate the negated. The mistake or rather the failure is the only way to escape the chains of convention. No truth could be reached through derivation in the totally false. Merely a genuine mistake can penetrate the fine-meshed web of dishonesty.

But once in the negations’ no man’s land the original and dismissed life piles up. Only the strongest or purest can bear the sight of the rubbish heap of life the convention have managed to produce, or glance into the reflection of the actual life, like crumbs in the pantry, with own hands emptied of all contents. No negations in the world can prevent or abolish this unbearable shame. The shame is lager than me; it’s larger than anything I can perceive. The shame is the lord of my life, I carry him on my shoulders and heading for disaster he weighs me down. And this is just as true as it is not.

We are living in a world that is becoming more and more inhuman. In this, to truthfully call oneself a free thinking, sensing and fully functioning individual the so called introspection has to work in both directions. However the most commonly and conventional ideal is a rectification in this process at which the species of mankind with perfect justice can be degraded into the behaviourist’s dribbling puppy, or the most desired, a soulless robot. This is the natural consequence of the deprivation of liberty that has extended itself into the very domain of human thought.

But imagining this creation being born maiden birth by an unconscious collective mentality is extremely naive. There is a clearly defined purpose behind myriads of diversions. If it isn’t possible to change a person’s thought in desired directions the most rational alterative must be to prevent the free thought from even being born. Consequently the individuals has to be trained in all the areas of life not to reflect, to absorb information without any questioning when being taught, and when a given situation correspond with the prerequisites available she is to submit the calculated and correctly matching behaviour. You might think it’s an exaggerated fiction, I assure you it is not. It is already all around us and this is only the tip of the iceberg.

The cartel behind the rectification of the thought form a supposed divine circle, an officially approved world of ideas put together to legitimize each other. The include all the officially approved current of ideas of today. Thus the project of modernity unsurprisingly corresponds excellent with the fundamental idea of capitalism and the moral legitimatizing utilitarianism fits them both like the hand to the glove. Just to mention the most obvious. If freedom ever is brought up within this circular syndicate of ideas you should be certain that it is the opposite that is intended. Deliberately unwanted train of thought is locked out only to allow the already initiated to progress and methodically grind the circle’s other abnormalities of.

The vicious circle or acoustic feedback instability as they say in the music business, in this train of thought hegemony is applauded in this tradition but is nevertheless a perspective that has no correlation with the reality. No one, not even among them selves, will however in all seriousness cherish the description of the completed circle. The dictating of the conditions, the lockout of the unfortunately not within born and the impossibility to release the already locked in, does however justice to the picture. But this undisputed metaphor for the divine and everlasting ideas serves only as an ideal, a carrot and dogmatic justification no matter how far from reality it really is.

Would you on the other hand among figures like to find the right form for the syndicate of ideas the spiral is the most suitable. But where the spokesmen sees a to new levels steadily rising motion within the perfect circular track of the screw, a more accurate picture would consider the motion to be an inwards striving that constantly is getting more and more narrow until the curve itself becomes impossible and the imagined divinity is reached.

Would one of these pictures be considered the upward motion would be the prevailing one and the yet living opponents would quite naturally on the contrary be assured of the downward tendency. These opponents is however just as deadlocked as those they oppose. For they have failed to realize the constitution of the depth is long time vanished from the created world of idea capitalism (a formulation that itself better claim real acoustic feedback instability). The only remaining is the surface and on this the opponents will never be able to contend. Their means has been erased and then the supposed divinity has been reached everything else will be wiped out as well.

Sure, so far the free thought is still alive. But it has become a life of constant difficulty in breathing. It’s a life of shame and isolation. The language, the instrument foremost used in order to complete this weeding out, isn’t merely infected with sickness, for a long time it has been cleared of its contents, helplessly impoverished and is probably for always beyond salvation. Everything occurs the good name of rationality, this “noble” gentleman constantly surrounded with his ruthless assassins; efficiency, consequence and experience, modestly disguised in the bodyguards’ decent outfits. That these positively emotionally charged value judgements are incestuously deformed offspring of course is impossible to prove, which naturally has been the intended purpose from the beginning.

But how can the natural life’s alternative be reached when the sole purpose behind the created world is to slowly and brutally strangle every such alleged infamy? The crossing over from the rectified introspection ruling will certainly be a mystery trip into the unknown. Once stepped over, the best way to describe the journey into the certainty of the uncertain, is the image of an awakening. However, people not yet crossed over will regard any exhaustive descriptions as mysticism and obscure cryptic formulations. But they are only obscure to obscure minds. For newly awakened nothing could be more clear. The awakening of my own has been formulated as the one of the double negation, related to but yet completely different from its former context. The starting factor of the break with the rectified introspection and the life-giving principle behind a self-assured life, appears if even possible more peculiar than the logic of negations, whereas it unadulterated is denominated as a mistake and the succession as a sincere failure. We should learn from our mistakes; not to avoid them – on the contrary we should embrace them and do more of them. To err is human.

The rectified introspection is about automation, imitation and exiting yourself. Finally your own self will be obliterated while the closed acting determinism of the manuscript profits of your death. The authentic introspection on the other hand is the living life’s continuously ongoing process. Undeservingly and most intentionally the main focus has come to be placed on the detail that separates it from its synthetic and newly invented antagonist.

The inwards journey implies by no means introversion. If anything it is rather signifying the opposite: the emerging possibilities of a true intellectual fellowship. The unadulterated fears concern the undesired course of the introspection. Not only does it fetch from within what has been uncritically received in the infantile stages of the thought – the one an only task considered necessary – but could also, in the obscure movement inwards, bring about an own value judgement and give birth to the free thought that doesn’t obey the invented laws of rationality. A development of such kind could, if it would spread, completely ruin the created reality. There are not however reason for such fears. The few remaining freethinkers are within short finally revealed and will inescapable meet their rightful destiny.

Above deepening light’s dissolution

the gathering of it all premonition

Below billowing games of change

the immense shadows announcement

Not nothing, not it without.