Thoughts

There is an insatiable desire I have to keep throwing out a seemingly endless amount of thought and expression that I try to keep at bay in fear of over saturation to whomever it may be that is reading my work. What I mean is, I try not to do too much, or am afraid to, because I don't want to overwhelm people. I don't want to just write to write, and end up with shit. At this moment, I am writing to write because I feel I need to. I don't do it enough. I often feel like I write about a lot of the same subjects over and over. The American work ethic, neurotic busyness, and authenticity have always been big topics with me. However, I don't feel these have been expressed quite the way intended. There is a strange gaseous blob of thought and emotion that floats around in my head. Its understanding lies in a distinct feeling, an overall sense of "understanding" within my being that is often difficult, if not impossible, to express. When wanting to express myself this articulation of the inarticulate causes a great deal of personal frustration. I only run into this problem with writing, too. Whenever I play music live, sing, or perform in any way there are several different levels of expression that exist outside the realms of written thought. When I am on stage and feel frustrated or angry at the performance or audience I can portray this physically. I can cringe, jump around, squeal ugly notes, knock shit over, and break equipment to emphasize this. This is where the true expression lies.

However, with writing, there is a lack of physicality. All I have are poetic and literary devices such as metaphor, allusion, etc and style. The structure of writing really expresses an outlook imbedded within the writer that transcends the writing itself. When reading Nietzsche or Lester Bangs, each individual's style opens a window to the reader allowing a deeper look within the writer's mind. This is what I feel I lack; the luster of style. I blame this partially on the school system. I was not formally trained in music, and had a higher quality of control over my style. If I would have taken more lessons on guitar in a formal setting than I wouldn't have had the freedom to experiment with atonal ugliness and style with as much freedom as I did without it. Sure, I could have said "fuck it" within the system and paved a different, possibly better musical path. However, there is a certain charm to self creation rather than administrated creation. The same works for my writing. I feel if I wouldn't have been as formally trained in writing that I could have a much more interesting style. There always remains the possibility of unlearning or altering within the mainframe, like with music; however it will still be missing something. Even now as I write, the embedded framework and guidelines of grammar, structure, and rationality dictates my writing. For me to let it go remains difficult. It would remain unfocused experimentation. Although, I do like the appeal of this, I still feel ensnared by the rules that have been conditioned into me.

let us for a moment begin the experimentation. Lets WOrk with the PossiBILities of diffent visual

aspects

and forms of structure

within this very essay. And let us hope they do not take away from the work itself. E.E. Cummings experimented with this, and reinvented poetry and our take on it as an art form. He was like the other brilliant writers, musicians, and artists of the 20th century who begin and work outside the bounds of established rules and mandates formerly associated with art and creativity. His work embodies the same spirit as Cecil Taylor, or Jackson Pollock. They began toying with chaos while continuing to push its limits. We all carry the burden of ciphering through it all so to conclude what is worthwhile-and such is the point. This was referred to as Modernism.

What we are faced with now is a world of Postmodernist mediocrity, with artists and writers in a state of disarray, unable to replicate the genius and originality of their Modernist predecessors. The standards have been broken, and rather than modifying their placement we simply go on as if there ought to be no standards at all. This leads to the mediocrity, this leads to the shameful display of "art", "music", and "literature" we have today. It has become cultural nihilism. Many are too afraid to point fingers and make judgments in fear of falling into dogmatism. All may pass as creative, even the rubbish. What was mocked as Kitsch became high art with the Postmodernists. Their art lies in the resentment of their predecessors, possibly because of the inability to replicate something with as much depth. Instead they become critics and art philosophers rather than true artists. This remains their only claim; to create art as criticism. However, the Modernists also had a philosophy, far superior to the Postmodernists. Their philosophy and art was more profound and relevant than the mere reactionary efforts of their counterparts. They pushed boundaries, but not without purpose. The work they created was also beautiful in itself, while Postmodern art is only relevant or beautiful when considering its references and critique. For example, a Kitsch item of a golden elephant placed within the gallery walls becomes art due to context. Much like a jack hammer must be treated and assessed as music in an orchestra hall. However, a Pollock style piece whether on a guitar or within a gallery stills holds some aesthetic significance.

The intellectual output of our modern times is diminishing. Even this evaluation that I am writing may be of a shallower depth than if assessed by a mind of the 19th or 18th century. One does not know what do with classic or ancient texts and art. We have lost the capacity for understanding the true humanity within it. Those who do know a great deal about ancient or classical art/lit/music often wear a pompous mask, which begs the question of how deep their understanding is rooted. For instance, one who understands "punk" as a modern philosophical/musical/lifestyle phenomenon may be quite surprised when considering the ancient equivalents. Socrates was the Greek equivalent of the Sex Pistols. He voiced his outrage at the modern state of Athens and life as practiced by the Greeks in his time. However, rather than putting pins through his nose or painting his hair, he used Elenchus. Here we see much more sophisticated form of criticism and method of change than the modern punk executes. Socrates, I believe, was not without an agenda. He understood something most philosophers, critics, and scholars are somehow blind to. His confrontation of others who were "experts" in their field exposed their ignorance and thus disintegrated their power (psychologically). Elenchus brought people down (or up) to his level and forced them to deal with issues and concerns logically and thus democratically. Any strings pulled or methods of manipulation used by those within his council could be logically assessed and diminished through the Socratic Method.

Now, the methods used by those who are seen as the "rebels" of modern day are more rash, emotional, and one dimensional in comparison. We no longer have Philosophers. Note the capital "P". What passes as philosophers are really scholars and windbags. Who we do have that are worth their weigth are comedians. The modern Philosopher is the comic, and their humor the new method of Elenchus. Quick wit, blunt truths, and experiential consideration are the new forms of philosophical thought. They point out the inconsistencies lightheartedly, allowing it to sink deeper into the minds of the audience. It has to be this way; otherwise people would not give the considerations the time of day. People are too busy these days. They don't have time for Elenchus and do not even possess the capacity to see beyond opinion to reasonable truths. So what is used instead is fast food philosophy; quick, concise, cheap, processed, and catchy. People need things advertised to them in order to buy it anymore. It has to look good, feel good, and within a relatively short amount of time. Long, drawn out truths aren't efficient enough. This is what comedy provides today. This is why more "intelligent" people can only stand to watch Comedy Central, because comedy is as deep and profound as we'll allow on television.

The philosopher as he exists today is too thick to see through their own inconsistency. This is a flaw of philosophers of all time, and a limitation caused by the ego and consciousness on whole. However, the philosopher of today is guilty of the inconsideration of a great deal of phenomena now understood as scientific fact. For instance, philosophers today fall into pseudo-spiritualism based on a misunderstanding of the old Cartesian Duality. They believe consciousness to be something greater than the physical world, yet are unable to give the whereabouts or means of the existence of consciousness outside of physicality. This is because "existence" by its very essence is determined by its occurrence within or depends on its physicality. Rather, their assessment is based on a fear of absurdity and inability to cope with/understand the lack of reason within the universe. Nietzsche would call these "Shadows of God." It is a spiritual incapacity that leads to their valuation of consciousness rather than courageous reasoning.