Normal Behaviour in an Apocalyptic World:
There is no Spoon; there is no Foucault’s Pendulum: “Do not try and bend the spoon; that’s impossible. Instead, only try to realise the truth … there is no spoon. Then you’ll see that it is not the spoon that bends; it is only yourself.” A quote is taken from the post-perennial (postmodern) film The Matrix, expressed by a boy character in Buddhist clothing, but more precisely Zen-Buddhism – as a way to invoke enlightenment by revealing the inadequacy of logic. These riddles are intentionally structured to negate the mind’s ability to apply reason. This is intended to grant the pupil peace, not of the mind but from it. So when the boy muses about the only way to bend the spoon are to realise it isn’t there at all, he may be trying to get Neo to silence the perpetual dialogue running through his mind by negating that part of his psyche with a question beyond logic.
It’s about opening up your consciousness to all that is possible in so much as being conditioned to think otherwise and, therefore, not there to be taken. Logic implies that all things are known and must follow specific parameters and patterns, yet nature is anything but logical because the workings are more about synchronicity. In this context, “there is no spoon” is meant as a means for Neo to let go of his logical presumptions of what constitutes reality. As the boy says, “… you’ll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.” The limitations of Neo’s reality are self-imposed by the lenses through which he’s been taught to see the world. By letting go of what he’s so sure ‘he knows’, he finally opens up to what’s possible. Only when Neo moves beyond his disbelief that he truly becomes the person he was prophesied to be, ‘The One,’ signifies his evolution to a consciousness beyond logic, where anything is possible.
In any fictional telling, anything is indeed possible in terms of reality; however, in our three-dimensional existence, there is no gravity, but there is a force that brings us back down. We know reason cannot hold the truth to the cosmos, and we can only grasp the potentiality of it as ‘reason’ [thought as ‘reason’]. And so there is no spoon, merely shines a spot-light to the meta-physics to a reality beyond life, and that phenomenon often spills into the three-dimensional reality. We call it paranormal, miracle, alien, etc. We’ve established the non-rational types seek the spirit, which can be as rational as pure-reason. Coupled with phenomena being given to us, which vibrates at a frequency of the highest level, the solid material, so if you jump off a high building, you will inevitably die. And these are the facts that bind to rationality, facts as the building blocks to rationality, but often get deluded into dogma in religion and hyper-materialism in secularism.
Fundamentalist dogma equates itself with facts like parables as a rational reason but requires the potentiality of reason like faith. Some have credited dogma as explaining an inescapable need to set the criteria. However, in a transient, changing cycle of ages, we are reaching an apotheosis of an apocalypse, revealing truth amid an empire’s fall. Changing the criteria is inevitable and postmodern. Just ensure it doesn’t get taken over by cult groups who deform the notion of good to drive a (destructive) agenda.
Our Theo-logos pertain to our imagination within a dreaming universe; utilitarian mysticism rears its head when that dreaming universe is described as a hallucination. However, it’s not just a hallucination because most predictions are accurate or true – we’re continuously adjusting our imagination to our reality [Theo-logos]. Flat earth philosophy dictates we see the errors in the map [and the map is our heliocentric worldview] – and what the errors tell us is that if we are adequately receptive to those errors as the map is deforming … we can turn into a Globe, the Globe is still not our actual reality, but is still better than a map.
However, the awareness has an enlightening component, an ‘awakening’ of sorts, and who wants to be plugged back into the matrix, and here begins the renascence of change. Utilitarian mysticism often develops evidence to initiate facts as rational, but usually are illusions of truths that bind us to rationality – fake evidence for utilitarian mysticism. Foucault’s Pendulum is an example of this. This artefact assumes that insofar as our map is accurate, it stands as supposed evidence and ratification of our previous errors assuming those errors is incorrect. It doesn’t prove the earth moves; it only indicates factors in magnetism.
And such an artefact shouldn’t be a gesture to indicate romanticism or juxtaposed within object-oriented programming. You can be open to the wonders of the universe and accept the relationship between things that do not depend on the further existence of us being aware of those relationships – things have to be able to influence us and disclose each other in a way that is dark to us. And this can be examined in notions like dark matter on the metaphysical edge, which is fine [even though it steers towards hyperreal-materialism], imagination, and anything above the Firmament is up for grabs. However, to bind the uncertain through the delusions of facts, the binds to rationality like Foucault’s Pendulum being able to pick the earth’s orbital path – because somehow the … All … [or the unnameable Dou] is embedded in the singular. It does not reinforce the uncertainty of romanticism and would be an incorrect proposition because of the sheer amount of errors that the Pendulum has in itself, and not what it can reveal; it is a false claim. And this is just symbolic, philosophical utilitarian mysticism, both dark matter and Foucault’s Pendulum. In other words, the Pendulum is a poor substitute for the dreamer that dreams the world.
The New Normal – Art thou Hate Me: How does one act then, or express their humanness, if not to live our lives, struggling with an impossible balance? What is normal behaviour? This is a question that can elude most of us; considering that madness often becomes normalised, we call it the ‘new normal.’ And often, at times, drilled in us by media, social or otherwise, a conjured narrative to expound extremism in both polarities and not realising it’s a balancing act in nature. Along with the notion of meta-morphing opposites [a subject I glossed over in my previous post – Flat Earth; Enclosed Creationism; Conspiracy (Theory), Intuition and Imagination – Part Nine] a notion taken from Baudrillard, J – who describes the “meta-morphing of opposites to perpetuate itself in its censored form”, an idea regulated through parody. I updated it to coincide with nature and that these polarised dualities are the central pillar of both sides of the Shekinah or the Tree of Life. The struggle of imbalance, the pushing and pulling, keeps civilisation from falling by the wayside. However, this little adjacent-Trojan-horse-trick can sometimes be used to hide a hidden inverse agenda that skews it to one side.
The morphing opposites can use a tactic to steal words and their etymologies. And such a case can be examined by Dinesh Joseph D’Souza, who claims Fascism started on the left and proceeded to change its etymology and meaning. And it’s no surprise that most reactionary and far-right groups use the term’ fascism’ to mean these changed forms. He is incorrect because Fascism’s antithesis will always be Communism. You can sense his trying to garner rationality to skew a direction in his favour; rationality is constantly working in conceiving his system of thought. Alongside putting a layer of false utility within it, however, it doesn’t make it rational. If you push utilitarianism in a leadership role, it will devour, marginalise and unravel the non-utilitarian elements within it. And that’s because ‘utility’ is not thought nor an argument – it does not, in and of itself, has a purpose or a direction.
His clever use of putting political figures as a form of utility then associating with it a type of linear-instrumentality [like its own internal investigation rather than a free equiry] – “this politician figure […] that showed racist videos in the white house was a politician figure […] a progressive democrat – and therefore progressivism was married to racism at the hip, so don’t pretend its right-wing phenomenon.” There are a few problems with this. One: instrumental reason does not exist; the godhead cannot make many appearances on earth, so mere associations do not imply progressiveness is married to the hip. It pretends to deliver rational solutions and claims primacy of place. However, it only marginalises other views of reason and any other human quality. Two: Utilitarianism is based on method and system;take, for instance, a toilet; its function and utility is to dispose of waste. Does that mean the human quality of reason is encapsulated in the toilet? Does it mean all human qualities are encapsulated in this political figure […]?
He certainly likes to wear the badge of political scientist; however, political science, like all social sciences, is not a science. Yet, having science in the title is another example of stealing words and defusing their meaning. Real science has a truer process and an ambiguous certainty because it’s all about asking questions. As you never fully have the answer, the more question is asked; science, whatever the area, only answers in bits or pieces as you learn more. In contrast, social sciences constantly attempt to assert answers, which is dangerous.
Fascism [a far-right terminology for Totalitarianism] is not the only word that the far-right and traditional Christians misconstrued; socialism is another word; to them, it’s no different from communism or corporatism. While both socialism and corporatism have systems that involve collective ownership of the business, they are based on different principles and have different goals. Corporatism is often associated with fascism and authoritarianism, while socialism is associated with democratic socialism, worker cooperatives and other forms of democratic governance. You can see clearly that Dinesh Joseph D’Souza is attempting to change fascism’s association with authoritarianism into socialism or communism. However, there is a clear distinction between Corporatism and Socialism.
How did we get here? Answers that can further be elaborated when we find meaning in democracy through art. Or rather, what is the nature of art if you’re a writer? And essentially, it comes down to two points: the belief in freedom of expression with no limitations. Two, no writer must not or engage in encouraging hatred. Great art never promotes hatred; otherwise, that’s propaganda – this single idea parallels or encapsulates democracy because it’s founded on relationships between people. Art is a balance between the individual and the group; you can’t simply have dominion over the individual. You have to have some terrible unresolvable equilibrium that is always changing between the individuals’ responsibilities and rights and the groups and their responsibilities and rights. That struggle is the thing that was lost in the West and, to an extent, the obsessions with individual rights that opened the door to corporatism. In the late 19th century, the Catholic Church proposed a group-based form of running society, but it was based on obedience. And soon afterwards, people like Mussolini picked up on it, and the corporations followed eventually, then the interest groups after the Second World War. There needs to be a balance between the two.
Great art can be many things, and often despite the two points laid out previously, it can’t help but be political, and most of the time, the politics is buried deep within it. Art may reveal a type of truth, but given that ‘struggle’ that was lost and must be regained again in the form of ‘doubt’ as meaning in democracy – putting truth at the core of it is a weak point of measure. Nor can you put truth at the core of art. We allowed art to be marginalised from the reality of politics and citizenship and the great ethical debates of the citizenry; what is left is a struggle in the margins where good artists try to draw it in but are constantly shoved back so that the heart of the arts is largely about entertaining the middle-class.
Let’s examine Ben Shapiro, a far-right youtube personality who made a video trashing Jon Lennon’s song ‘Imagine’ – to him, it’s a communist manifesto. He then persists in laying his rhetoric over the song as it plays, and as a result, Ben Shapiro comes off looking like a ‘clown.’ The song Imagine is an example of good art because, at the heart of it … it’s all about the struggle we discussed; the song is complicated and full of nuance, and the song itself asks the act of imagining. As one of the song lyrics: ‘imagine no possessions’ affirms doubt and, therefore, that struggle. The song does not ask you to do much; Lenin doesn’t ask you to buy something or vote for somebody. Instead, he wants you to come to the one realisation that so much of our pain in our world is caused by ideas that we came up with. We invented religion, countries, and possessions, and whether you like those things or not, is it good for the world?
It’s uncontroversial to say that they have left us with a lot of bad baggage, working to get to an afterlife that probably doesn’t exist. Instead of devoting our lives to the world around us, fighting each other because we fundamentally think the people of our country are more deserving than those in their country. These are our ideas and nobody else’s; we can change them, do what with them, and imagine something different. And within the song’s context, that simple yet surprisingly challenging action is enough. After all, that imagining is enough to send this weirdo Ben Shapiro to an intellectual tailspin. If it causes him to whine about the worst thing ever made and so obviously threatens him and makes him sweat, then it must be meaningful.
Both Dinesh Joseph D’Souza and BenShapiro lack sociological imagination or transcendence of the self, our ability to situate ourselves as individuals and as nodes in a complex society and culture. Ben Shapiro’s colleague Jordan Peterson [and the whole Daily Wire Club] have the same sociological dysfunction, and he also mimics D’Souza’s use of instrumental reason and utilitarianism regarding his misreading of Postmodernism. Essentially making a satellized view of Postmodernism and obfuscating a space for a rebuttal where facts and reason may give better value.
I’ve discussed postmodernism at length (in some previous posts) and that all the uproar surrounding it came from Peterson, who magically created [a satellized version of postmodernism], a leftist intellectual bogyman to fight against. A closer look at his analysis entails misrepresenting postmodernism authors that he regards as the culprits. Although, at the heart of it, it’s really about his fear of unquantifiable uncertainties, which is no different to any Christian conspiracy theorist/traditionalist Christians and their inherent demonic thought forms. He wanted to blame woke movement on postmodernism through his misreading of deconstructionist and existentialist authors and unintentionally creating a fundamentalist claim. It’s kind of sorcery in itself.
Therefore, traditionalist Christians can associate postmodernism with relativism and contrast it with modernism and pre-modernism so they can associate a type of meaning through a polarising understanding of ethics, collectivism, altruism, and misconceptions of modernism as individualism. Moreover, as a philosophy, it does not work, and that’s because altruism is not an ethical theory, neither is individualism.
- Woke-isim is normative, not postmodern
- Woke-isim and identity politics came out of the new-atheist movements rather than postmodernism
- Postmodernists reject the relativist label
- Postmodernism does not make sense when contrasted against modernism or even medieval pre-modernism
- Postmodernism does not advocate acquisition of power.
Most Christians on the right-leaning polarity believe postmodernism committed a patricide when their spokesperson Peterson changed the metaphor to fit an absolute moral paradigm. He somehow squeezed out the true meaning of postmodernism by tunnelling it through pure reason and adjacently using his mechanics of instrumental reason. And this is no different from what Sam Harris did with his book Morals and Values.
Ethics play a role in memory, imagination, and the fear of reality is the fear of ethics being unbound by rationality. These are present whenever ethics are confused with morality, and just like Sam Harris, who wants to bind morality with values and therefore scientifically rational – Peterson wants to anchor morality with the absolute [moral absoultes]. Ethics is not what this is, nor is it moralistic because ethics needs to be exercised daily. Postmodernism is an art style, an abstract form that came after modernism that peaked after a culturally revolutionary time in the late 60s and early 70s, and all that crap surrounding it is in the realm of philosophy and politics. Straying from realism in an artistic aesthetic sense doesn’t mean straying from moral ideologies [give me a break]. It could be Christians borrowing rational methodology for iconoclasm to reject images that do not adhere to their extreme Christian philosophical thought. Postmodernism is a breakdown or semantic steps away from realism as it makes its way to a dreaming universe [a surrealistic dimension] that is language-based. This means you can communicate with it as a co-creator because the universe itself has a magical co-creating faculty about it.
Fundamentalist/Traditional Christians have a lot of hang-ups about notions of magic, which is valid, considering scientism invokes a type of sorcery often used by political figures to persuade an agenda. Although unaware of how magic plays a role in society and that it shouldn’t be generalised or radicalised so quickly because of how it engages with our intuition, imagination, and dreams and eventually makes it’s way down to a science. Imagination and art can often and do reflect that imbalance.
Look, do you have any idea
how long it took me
To paint like this?
No. Twenty-five years.
Refusing to depict the inability to depict is an absurd assertion for postmodernity because this is fundamentally a Christian-fundamentalist ideal. For example, spiritual awakening or Christ-consciousness via theo-logos is strictly for Christ alone. Christians wanting to grasp this kind of spiritual association is prohibited but can grasp it as faith in him. In this conflict, a stringent and absolute way of communication is apparent, those that want to grasp the sublime cannot, and those that want to imagine cannot. So, this frustration must be channelled somewhere, and so it was repackaged with utilitarian means and instrumental reasoning in ‘postmodernity.’ Man cannot have the sublime at his fingertips; he must know that he lacks knowledge and can never depict that lack and shouldn’t try. And postmodernism supposedly wants to show the folly of thinking that you can depict the lack of depiction.
This is neither modernism nor postmodernism; this is fundamentalism acting with utilitarian mysticism, realising that imagination can be unquantifiable and uncertain, and so wanting to control or use it. If it’s troublesome, you can control it; this is examined when they see the imagination as a sick brain. If you want to use it, you come up with something like covid 19; these are unquantifiable uncertainties used to manipulate. In their weird reframing, fundamentalism usually tries to grasp the uncertain with a dispensational ideal: the New Jerusalem, the war in heaven, and the mandate for heaven on earth. And centuries before that, plans were made to change how people viewed the world. Enclosed creationists or Flat-Earth-Christians (also Christian-Conspiricy-theorists) argue a flat Earth paradigm as well as reigniting a protestant revival as they became aware that heliocentrism was set in place to deter (or slow down) such a movement. In terms of comparative imagery regarding a more factual and rational approach, Helicentcisim comes off as more postmodern than modernist flat-Earth imagery. It’s Ironic because traditional Christians and their intellectual spokespersons who promote a satellized version of postmodernism argue in favour of heliocentrism and all its aspects. The supposed claim for postmodernity in its indiscretion for thinking about grasping the uncertain swirl is founded in the New Jerusalem imperial quest – by its logic; it makes it postmodern also.
The only difference is that they’re making this ideal happen without considering human life. In tangent watcher cults whose mission is to destroy empires and civilisations by any means as they build cities underground, both use sorcery and are often Hegelian in their approach. There is no balance between the left and right because there in it for themselves instead of trying to grasp the unknown with art. Only one of the aspects of the two is oppressive and dangerous, no city in the sky is going to come down, the godhead has never come back down to earth, and no man has ever been to the moon – and yet, there are depictions of these concepts in artistry. And it would mean all Christian conspiracy theorists are postmodernists as they see the folly in numerous videos that try to depict a hoax or false flag as something real. And at the same time, the same ones are making a loud fuss about postmodernism. It will be a truer focus if their energy is focused on educating themselves on the rise of populism interlinked with corporatism [hint …Trump].
All artists can draw realism to an extent, and like any other skill, there are levels; some are extremely good; their paintings come close to being photo-genic, a skill that is honed throughout a lifetime. Refusing one discipline over another (or changing artistic methodology) does not equate to being tyrannical and dangerous. The artist can depict [whatever] and merely chooses not to. Suppose postmodernism is going to have this label. In that case, it will simply refuse, refusing to depict the inability to depict by depicting it because it’s all about that struggle and about that ‘doubt.’ Postmodernism is an art style, so its imagery will be constrained; the inability to depict is in its style, not the intentional management of the imagination.
More Propaganda than Postmodernism: The old colonial government instinctively understood that if they could destroy the languages, the art, and the spirit that was tied into the art and the land, it could destroy the people. It’s not that the West never understood the importance of language and art – in the core of democracy and the existence of civilisations, they always understood it. However, they used it negatively because they were in a dominant position, and thank the gods, they failed. They came close to driving out the population of the true inherent of the land during the nineteen hundreds. However, a modern outlook will depict that dissimilar peoples can share land, resources, power and dreams while respecting and sustaining their differences – a story of trying to live together in peace and harmony. This modern outlook changes the idea of what democracy is. Despite what they went through, and even now, great animist cultures never forgot their art within their old and new civilisation in which spirituality is at the core of belief, not spirituality in political religion or religion isolated. Its spirituality is built into culture, art, and politics – a surprisingly valuable realisation. In spite of colonial history, we have these cultures that think and live in another way that integrates art and truth, art and democracy, art and civilisation, art and spirituality, etc.
And even the formation of the U.S. Empire, in contrast to its constitutional documents, created much interesting art and culture. Popular music started from its grassroots, a reaction to the modernisation of democracy built under the industrialisation of slavery. It continued until the mid-60s, from the birth of the colonies to the 1960s. Though slavery existed everywhere in some way in other civilisations, prominently around medieval times, they grew out of it. However, the New World utopia was different; they were linked to the industrial revolution. The importance it had on British and European empires as they were the ones who profited more from it than Jurors of elite America. In spite of that … came a grassroots culture that has instinctively fascinated the rest of the world. It opened the door for new possibilities, and with what FDR allowed [the prevention of elites getting through] and the impact of his policy, it empowered culture to strive on many facets.
This culture that started at the grassroots paved the way for Appalachian folk songs [blue-grass] coming from dispossessed people in Scotland, Ireland, and England who ended up as farmers in the New World – that merged with African culture, which birthed Blues, Rhythm and Blues, folk, country, then rock ‘n’ roll, which evolved into commercial industries paving the way for art, paintings, moving pictures, comic books and literature. This art and creativity can be so complex, but it endures in our ability to live with complexity and often will evolve with it. This all concerns the indigenous role in society and civilisations, and to an extent, a struggle of a liberalist structure and that relationship within an intricate indigenous spirit, and even in this new amalgamation. We are still discovering that they have more to offer in a broader sense than Western society can offer them – about civilisation and art and a profoundly different approach to democracy. A new way of seeing the truth through art, like animism with the land that does not adopt nationalistic behaviour because it balances the individual in the group, its complexity, and living with doubt.
Art uses intuition and imagination, and when it’s marginalised, it reduces to light entertainment as opposed to the time of Athens, where it was more about the full integration of society. This marginalisation comes in the form of politics and citizenship that use culture as a tool for empire and, in its endeavour, can have great value, but it still speaks for the empire. How do we live with that? Or how do we behave in that new normal?
Take, for instance, woke-isim and the reactionaries that came with it; anti-woke, both fundamentally extreme in their polarity. The arts were marginalised way before the appearance of woke-isim; woke is an endeavour to devour any sites of potent imaginal resistance as it tries to colonise it from the inside. Woke undoubtedly struggles with shared knowledge as common sense. It doesn’t try to own the subject. Still, it dictates the quality of detail for their own needs [including archetypes and stories] as the subject of creativity for an agenda – using political correctness to do it. All the while, anti-woke reactionaries who found a space for profit opposing certain aspects of woke’s a hyper-individualist endeavour, not realising in their endeavour, may fall into nationalistic or reactionary individualism. What is missing are those who are silenced [artists and artist-prophets] at the edges of society that only ever emerge when the sun breaks through the clouds. They know such Hegelian plots are on purpose and are only quick to remind that they didn’t originate from the left or right but from the rational types, dependent on the behaviours of the unconscious irrationals. Things that must be understood:
- Woke is based on hyper individualism but does not stem from the radical left that’s reactionary scape-goating.
- Woke-isim aligns more with the left of Neo-Liberalism [post-leftist] this is where the cult group set its foundation.
- Woke is dialectic in its motive
- Woke is mistaken as being postmodern when it’s really Rationalism at the core.
Traditionalist and fundamentalist Christians confuse postmodernism with hating a satellized approach to postmodernism. And this is because it instinctively implies what they hate about themselves. In that regard, postmodernism must not be used as a tool for reactionary uproar because your whole bases are fundamentally wrong. Art can be used as propaganda; therefore, blaming postmodernism as a type of propaganda becomes mute because it’s like blaming the paintbrush instead of the depiction. The element and quality they lack, which allows it to reach beyond itself to a sense of the other and therefore free from dictation or agenda … is art unbound by rationality and free in our imagination.
Ian McGilchrist, the author of ‘Master and his Emissary’, seems to also tip in a direction where obfuscation must be a prerequisite, like Peterson. He equates his book title to Nietzsche, although Nietzsche never wrote such a myth to instigate such an inspiration for that title. A myth in which he equates cerebral hemispheres, one side the master and the other the emissary – the master and emissary is about our brain’s cerebral hemispheres that should cooperate but are in conflict. This conflict plays out in recorded history through the seismic shifts characterising western culture’s history. At the moment find itself in the hands of the vizier who, with all its gifts, is essentially a bureaucrat with its interest at heart. Meanwhile, the master, whose wisdom gave the people peace and security, is left in chains. The master is betrayed by his emissary.
There is a common consensus to give credit in the direction of far-right authoritarian personas like Nietzsche, especially towards an author with many contradictions himself. The myth that inspired the title of his book in truth comes from the Valentinians Gnostic sect. McGilchrist rewrote ‘Master and his Emissary’ and added more pages, almost doubling it; one wonders when the writer free in his wonders of expression slightly skewed into propaganda. His book expounds on left and right brain imbalance but doesn’t offer a place where solutions in the greater whole can be met; rather, he doubles down on a predominantly hyper left-brain point of view about needing more right brain.
Art, when marginalised, can lead to medicore entertainment, and in itself, that speaks for the empire, which has its sets of values to which propaganda and corporatism are used, which eventuate in ‘culture’ used as a tool for the empire. Meaning culture as a whole was already taken over by propaganda way before woke, which had come to further reduce culture. One can argue that the same secret clandestine group rebranded itself in Woke to fit a modern time. Art and culture as a tool for the empire that embraces the corporatism model, which is inherently structured and organised, have a trickle-down effect as it makes their way into educational institutes. More and more graduates attain a mindset of management of subject […], i.e., the management of art rather than the art itself.
The industrial revolution birthed out a new utilitarian system that adopted a pyramidal structure about the elites on top, both of power and our capacity to use our qualities. Their qualities of money, grandiosity and self-interest freed them to act normally and use their qualities. However, normal behaviour is not a privilege; the opportunity to use our qualities is not a reward for utilitarian success. This differs from evolutionary natural hierarchical structures and should always be seen as separate. It would be a mistake to align evolutionary natural hierarchical structures with a utilitarian system as the pyramidal structure, as it gives them a sort of get-out-of-jail-free pass. Identifying both modes as the same would open the door for moral absolutes [which is really about religious dogma]. And so any inference to any unjust situation gets brushed off because you can’t criticise those competent enough to run a corporation – they’re just following a natural hierarchy.
There are always conspiratorial threats by a hidden cult whose spiritual fervour aligns with fallen angelic deities that aligns itself or is part of that utilitarian corporate structure. Meaning there is a hidden agenda behind a utilitarian corporate structure. A combination of false individualism as it reflects highly structured corporatism and self-indulgent individualism is shown on the surface. Behind closed doors has a spiritual fervour of ancient mystery cults, now reconstituted to the chosen one(s) complex to bring about … whatever.
Art and culture, freed from the utility of corporation and freed from empire as a tool, still have to liberate themselves from the idea of the ‘culture’ that it can be given to you by the elites as soon as you reach a certain bourgeois class. Examined in a very conservative political viewpoint habituated by the Howard government of Australia, a Citizenship test [which was a policy to restrict immigrants] by which the reward would be culture itself. A seemingly corporatist endeavour, and It is not true that culture is what you get after you get the job, education or even citizenship because culture sits outside such structures. Culture hinges on our imagination and creativity and is at the core of what we are as a civilisation.
To have gnosis, to imagine, to sense, to think, and to some extent understand are attribute that lies within us all and therefore lie within society. Balancing while engaging a dynamic tension of movements to also realise to remain still in one place, the place of our real life and real society – is the tension of seeking – is the act of acting normal.
