to [03 Nov 2009|03:11pm] to jenny of course i owe my rigidity moreso though acceptance. to schuon and warhol the value of work, to cage that of play. to my mother and eyes a distaste of self thats godly. to all and books a taste for symmetry, parallelism, courtesy. i am eating with my brother in supra-surreality. to bricks and drugs and television i owe my curiosity. i live again to be the contrarian i despise, the nontraditional traditionalist, the blasphemous holy man. i sense again a self-ful self-lessness. battery of words, dense sense of appreciation. and all of course i owe to homesteaders, sentimentalists, fire and family. my focus is not mine, to a divine we owe rhyme. to cheese i prostrate. to tweets i owe self-anaylsis, metafiction, metaprose and metabeing. to oaks ill throw forty nickels, shoes and not shoes, cuts or jasper johns. i find myself invested with the perseverance of atman, disposability of the youtube comment, useful uselessness of the laymans nonsense juxtaposition. i find no paragraphs and punctuations on radios, we are a resourceful bunch with an overhead projector. again to here and this i owe the grace of subjectivity, freedom of failure in all possibility. to you i owe my hair and argument, nonsequitor and flashlight, to those who dont see the box for the eclipse. i eat this selfish nonsense, mourning and selfloathing. to the buddha i owe my suffering, the storm and cold my center and alignment. fate to calendars and crafts to waitresses. silly like my father i will become finally and surely noone and nothing. and this with a bliss at last i owe to god. satellite

[03 Nov 2009|02:14pm] i think i may be writing poems again soon ! and not just stealing them from search results (boy that pissed off some 'real' poets) or delving in concrete or 'visual' poetics (though those were incomplete assessments). i also will not attend grad school .. ! hehe . ive exhausted lots of coursework already and i never had to deal with bs grading and assessment. ive run through the whole catalogue: self and poetics, modern through contemporary arts, minimalism/ conceptualism/ pluralism, the yodel and the blues, etymology and language evolution, astronomical analysis and observation, intervalic listening and the meditative aspect of tuning (hehe), cross medium symbology (translation/ hermeneutics). i put it to you to learn me something in these disciplines ! ive studied dada and gaga, chess and wutang, art as life and art as philosophy, the crises of ego and pride in a commercial artworld. ive lambasted myself and my tendencies, fought the good fight against the 'necessity' of originality in songwriting, championed the brilliance of waynes bastardization of language. yet im still sitting here talking full of myself, like a closed sphere not the opposite. ill use this space to continue to wrestle with my intents, purpose, whatevers. and as always give art away for free :) ! satellite

shit to do rite quick [02 Nov 2009|11:09am] MAKE MAD BANK hahaha write songs/ book shows/ revive BOast BEARDS take a radical badical bath do a lil romancin RED BEANS and of course WHODAT <3 1, satellite

[30 Oct 2009|12:22am] as daniel johnston once put it: 'i have lost my mind' ! wondering if just my saying itll be a full moon in three days is a prophecy (is it to you if you didnt know ?). having the opportunity to intern on the art at voodoo has blown my brain to pieces. one moment im thinking about circles and how they prove the infinite .. ( at least provide an analogue ), and the next im having a revelation that trance and transcendence share an etymology. exploding across so many interdisciplinary lines, applying the charlie rose journalism technique in the classroom of public art ( hehe ). hell flatter you , then make you wanna work for it. designing my own projects in my head , truly reactive and calendarically conscious. art aware of its purposive power to educate, elucidate. and not just power, but RESPONSIBILITY. dreamin up a fancy mobile naked eye observatory where people can interact ( a la jantar mantar ) in fun ways with the things happening in the sky that they take for granted. analogues for how our collective consciousness rests on a foundation of patient observation, presentations of the first ( au naturale .. hehe ) symbols our primordial ancestors had for our cosmic cycles. upside down inside out, egoless art. not an art thats just fussy about 'art' or an art that is like 'this' is better than 'that', something wise enough to know that this IS that, YOU are THAT and takes the responsibility of holding this wisdom .. ! satellite

on a lot [20 Oct 2009|11:59pm] wheres the major to my minor ? my inverse interval, symmetric about the focus, the same but different. complementary aspect, yin to my yang, duality that ends duality. who will listen to my listening ? what have i gleaned and gained ? why these questions ? maybe im averse to art that boasts CERTAINTY when ive developed a faith in uncertainty. maybe i disliked my poems cause i noted their false certainty. thats insincerity. how do you know by not knowing ? how can you say what you dont know ? what does saturn have to do with anything ? why does anyone stop asking questions ? ugh. sometimes i feel too good at listening, that it alienates me. that it fills me with a pride and vanity thats sinful, dismissive, that i feed into my own isolation. i am like everyone else ! i want to feel that i am understood, that someone truly sees not what i see but HOW i see, that it invigorates them. i recognize my SMALLNESS, assure myself the necessary existence of those with similar aspects, complements. when does it become my fault ? when does my reticence or surrender to fate become delusional, unproductive ? am i just scuttling sideways anyway ? sometimes my self-awareness disgusts me. yet im appreciative. i recognize the path thats allowed me to know these things, to be these things, to find whatever it is ive found. why do i remain impatient ? and somehow assume that i will eventually reach some pinnacle, be a 'wanderer above the sea of fog' when i know ive felt that exaltation before and it was false. it conflates ego and after all if you understand the infinite you know you cant get there. saturn has gone from my 10th to 11th house ? am i slowly leaving the 'winter' of my youth ? almost three years til saturn returns (in libra ..). what does this mean ? am i to find a balance with restriction ? ugh. what now ! ? satellite

what does this mean ? [17 Oct 2009|09:59am] The Least Common Multiple (LCM) of the numbers 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 is 360360 because 360360 is the smallest number that all of the numbers divide into evenly. satellite

wtf yo [16 Oct 2009|03:38pm] hjkjkjkh k kkk l lj k 3:2 | | | | | | | 4:3 | | | | | | | | | 8:5 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 5:4 MAJOR CHORD tonic | | | | | maj third | | | | | | per fifth | | | | | | | 6:5 MINOR CHORD tonic | | | | | | | | | | | min third | | | | | | | | | | | | | per fifth | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | satellite

drivel [13 Oct 2009|02:10am] like seriously i watch a lot of science channel and things and its getting disconcerting ? im only beginning to notice how even the specials that on the surface dont need to be 'stuff'y (or humanist, sentimentalist, something) are really just stuffy. like a show about 'atoms' and their discovery or whatever isnt really about the science but its about the 'acclaim and glory' of the scientists doing the work. the programs are built around stories about people and not collections of ideas. i guess history is pretty ~humanist~ (?) by necessity right? we can only write about the shit that WE do, who wants to read about the grazing patterns of bison 150 yrs ago ( MEEEEEEEEE !!!! !!) ? i dunno its just weird the materialist sort of things ive been noticing moreso lately than before. and i keep thinking about the spiderman thing: 'great power, great responsibility'. is this what brahmins are SUPPOSED to think about ? do all artists (at least the good ones, especially like mike jackson or something) come to a point where they realize the great RESPONSIBILITY of their position ? saw a dude on charlie rose talk about 'justice' and about ideas of honor and recognition. when we blasted the aristocracy did we dispense with modes of honor like heritage/ social privilege ? or did we really just deny honor through heritage, throw it all aside and say 'grab your honor/ recognition through material wealth' ? cause it seemed to afford more people more freedom ? does it ? 1, satellite

schuon on sexuality [08 Oct 2009|08:19pm] '... by loving one another, the spouses legitimately love a divine manifestation, each one according to a different aspect and in a different respect; the divine content of nobility, goodness and beauty remaining the same. It is by basing itself on this relationship that Islam, on the one hand implicitly recognizes the sacred character of sexuality in itself, and on the other hand--by way of consequence--considers that every child is born muslim and that it is its parents who make of it an infidel, if so be the case. 'Christian theology, by concerning itself with sin and seeing a seductress in Eve in particular and in woman in general, has been led to evaluate the feminine sex with a maximum of pessimism. According to some, it is man alone and not woman who was made in the image of God, whereas the Bible affirms, not only that God created man in His image, but also that "male and female created He them," which has been misinterpreted with much ingenuity.' (try to avoid a bias with this one): '[the] three relationships which govern the equilibrium between man and woman: firstly the sexual, biological, psychological and social relationship; then the simply human and fraternal relationship, and finally the properly spiritual or sacred relationship. In the first relationship, there is obviously inequality, and from this results the social subordination of woman, a subordination already prefigured in her physical constitution and her psychology; but this relationship is not everything, and it may even be mroe than compensated for--depending on the individuals and the confrontations--by other dimensions. In the second relationship, that of the human quality, woman is equal to man since like him she belongs to the human species; this is the plane, not of subordination, but of friendship; and it goes without saying that on this level the wife may be superior to her husband since one human individual may be superior to another, whatever be the sex. Finally, in the third relationship there is, highly paradoxically, reciprocal superiority: in love, as we have said earlier, the woman assumes in regard to her husband a divine function, as does the man in regard to the woman...' 'Man stabilizes woman, woman vivifies man; furthermore, and quite obviously, man contains woman within himself, and vice versa, given that both are homo sapiens, man as such; and if we define the human being as pontifex, it goes without saying that this function includes woman, although she adds to it the mercurial character proper of her sex. 'Man, in his lunar and receptive aspect, "withers away: without the woman-sun that infuses into the virile genius what it needs in order to blossom; inversely, man-sun confers on woman the light that permits her to realize her identity by prolonging the function of the sun.' the way he talks about man and woman i think is the best love poetry i ever read. 1, satellite

frithjof schuon on the nature of man [08 Oct 2009|04:37pm] 'Man is a divine manifestation, not in his accidentality and his fallen state, but in his theomorphism and his primordial and principial perfection.' 'The question of theomorphism raises that of the bodily and mental differences between the sexes, since each of these is theomorphic while being distinct from the opposite sex. The male body appears like a revelation of the Spirit, it evinces intelligence, force triumphant, impassibility, active perfection; the female body is like a revelation of Existence, it reveals Substance--or Totality not, as does the male body, Centrality--and it evinces beauty, moving innocence, fecundity, passive perfection. 'Man expresses--always within the same framework of human theomorphism which confers on both sexes the same character of centre and of totality, setting aside any questions of predominance---man, then, expresses knowledge and woman love; again, the masculine body is more 'geometrical'--it is, after all, the 'abstract' image of the divine Person--while the feminine body is 'musical' and appears like a 'concrete' expression of our existential Substance and, in divinis, of the infinite Beatitude. The feminine body is compounded of nobility and innocence, that is, it is noble by its theomorphism--in this respect it is not distinct from the masculine body, except in its mode--and innocent because it reflects the innocence of existence; its nobility it manifests by its vertical lines, and its innocent fecundity by its curves, and thus it bears in its flesh the fundamental aspects of that Materia Prima: the lofiness, purity and mercy of the Virgo Genitrix. 'full of grace.'' 'The beauty of woman appears to man as the revelation of the bliss of the Essence of which he is himself as it were a crystallisation--and in this respect femininity transcends man--and this explains the alchemical role and the 'dissolving' power of woman's beauty: the vibratory shock of the aesthetic event--in the deepest sense of the word--should be the means of 'liquefaction of the hardened heart' ...' 'Plato in his Symposium recalls the tradition that the human body, or even simply any living body, is like half a sphere; all our faculties and movements look and tend towards a lost centre--which we feel as if "in front" of us--lost, but found again symbolically and indirectly, in sexual union. But the outcome is only a grievous renewal of the drama: a fresh entry of the spirit into matter. The opposite sex is only a symbol: the true centre is hidden in ourselves, in the heart-intellect. The creature recognizes something of the lost centre in his partner; the love which results from it is like a remote shadow of the love of God, and of the intrinsic beatitude of God ; it is also a shadow of the knowledge which consumes forms as by fire and which unites and delivers.' 'The cosmos is a "message from God to Himself by Himself" as the Sufis would say, and God is "the First and the Last", and not the Last only.' 'All things are limited. Now the idea of limitation is inseparable from that off effect, and similarly the idea of effect from that of cause; thus it is that all things, by their limitation no less than by their content, prove God, prime Cause and correspondingly limitless.' satellite

navigation [ viewing | most recent entries ] [ go | earlier ]