From: antonsen-AT-alf.nbi.dk
Subject: Re: ancestral dialogues  
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 96 17:33:06 +0200


Celine,

I have now read your reply to me through a couple of times, and I think I'm now 
ready to answer.

>...But as I said, when I first read you, I fell into a fury so
>overwhelming that I lost all sense (some may argue here that I
>never had any). But regardless, I had to read your posts over and
>over again and even then though I found many things I disagreed
>with I could not understand why I boiled so. If you were in front
>of me at these times I might have pulled your head off.
>
>And now after much contemplation I see that what I was consumed
>with was ancestral rage. All those poor Russian peasants pounding
>on my head. Dear child, they screamed, don't you hear what this
>man is saying? The same old lines that we fell for, the same old
>revolutions we died for. For Pierre was correct, I was not born
>in a lie dream but a liar's dream. 

I am very puzzled by this. You do know, don't you, that the Soviet Union etc. 
were never socialist or communist countries? You do know that the slaughter 
started on a grand scale only with Stalin, who betrayed every idea the 
revolution had ever stood for? If you were here, you would see the look of utter 
surprise on my face (if I survived the encounter of course...). Could it be, 
that you are not aware of what I mean when I use the words, anarchism, 
socialism, communism, revolution and so on? This question will turn up again 
later on.

>You actually had the nerve to say that the American Revolution is
>more inspiring to you than a great work of art?  The American
>Revolution was just a stupid war that in the end meant nothing!
>Do you understand what is happening here in this land of the
>free? Well I'll tell you. We are already in a massive civil war
>that is so cruel and devastating because it is being carried on
>so underhandedly. And things will only get worse and many will
>die like trash and none of this will bring a bit of change, only
>death death and more death. And this is why I can't stand your
>talk of social revolutions. And this is what I am talking about I
>am not just talking about the normal human misery, I am talking
>about a massive machine that is crushing everything human in its
>wake. 

Well, actually the American revolution doesn't mean very much to me, the French 
and the Russian ones do, as do the Spanish Civil War. But what I said was not 
that they had more influence on me than any work of art, rather that they had 
much more impact on humanity than any piece of art.
Secondly I have never for a single moment thought that the US was a free 
country!! I am not a naive, brainwashed all-american guy, I know that you live 
in a state of civil war. I too, am talking about this massive machine, for a 
machine it is, which crushes everything in its path.
But you are overlooking the crucial questions:
	What is this machine?
	How can we stop it?
You will see, that the machine is build upon christianity and capitalism, and 
that these notions are present even in the deep unconscious of everybody in the 
western world, especially the US. Various incarnations of the machine are: 
competition, patriotism, exploitation, conformity. But there are others. Even in 
the most intimate and hidden corners of our unconscious can we find the 
tentacles of this horrible machine. Nothing is clean, nowhere is safe.
And this is precisely why we must try to stop this machine. This can only be 
done by reclaiming reality, because one way of operation of this machine is to 
make everything unreal. The solution is more reality. I take surrealism very 
litteral here. Now, this is in effect an unbelivably radical revolution (i.e. a 
revolution of not "just" socio-economic factors but also of the mind, in fact 
one cannot really have a revolution of the one which doesn't affect the other;
dialectics again). It would be very naive to think that this fundamental change 
can come about without violence at one point or other.
I think you misunderstand what a revolution is, it is not just a war backed by 
some ideology. Every war is backed by some ideology! It is a turning things 
upside down, inside out. A revolution only becomes armed in order to defend 
itself against the established order. This is true, not only for the rebelling 
society as a whole but also for each individual. And the established order is 
not just outside, but also inside in your thoughts and dreams.

>And then you say that you see a "dangerous tendency" towards art
>without politics.
>I don't know what world you're living in but the one I'm in has
>already passed the danger mark and not in the direction you speak
>of. This is what I mean when I say the world is dead. And I don't
>mean classical art, I mean all the humanities, I mean everything
>that is done in the spirit of creation, in the form of life, has
>been flattened into the ground like caterpillars before they can
>even dream of transformation.  Was it not a fellow scientist,
>Schrodinger I believe, who predicted that this would be
>remembered not as the technological age but as the age of the
>decay of the arts? 

The "dangerous tendency" concerned this list, which is supposed to act as a 
counter to the established order. Surrealism without its political aspect is 
merely fantasy.
Everything a group of people does is by definition political. The problem in th 
world is not "politics" as some absolute, but the wrong kind of politics, namely 
the politics of exploitation instead of the politics of liberation.
Politics is far more than the Republicans and the Democrats, it is also 
education and social services and so on. Even the body is political. Even dreams 
are political. Desire is most certainly political!
Classical art was dead from the birth: it was in its nature conforming, i.e. it 
was recuperated from the very start. (Occasionally, somebody manages to 
transcend this, at least for a while, but as long as they stay in the world view 
of classical art, they can't completely free themselves.)

>I wish you'd talk about your science, Frank. Fuck politics. It is
>a exhausted thing.

Unfortunately, the time is not yet right for talking about science, as William's 
last reply to me shows. We must be using the words "politics" in two very 
different meanings, what do YOU mean by the word?

>No my pain is not caused by lurking in the dark, as you have
>remarked, but from daring to look too long into the brightest of
>lights. My pain comes from this love of life you talk about as if
>you own it. You see you are not the only one that sees poetry in
>life. Shit am I writing on a toilet stall where everyone is to
>busy farting to really think about what I mean?  
>
>Can't you see the hypocrisies here? I am the one who advocates
>murder as art, who sees the ugliness of this world, who cannot
>hear the laughter, life etc at my doorstep, so you say.  You are
>the one who claims to see the "poetry" in life and yet you are
>enthralled with glorious blood baths and mind games. Your
>attitude is a healthy one for sure but it is the pink glow of the
>bully.

I have never claimed that I was the only one seeing poetry in life, nor that I 
am the only one loving life. Nor have I ever claimed that the world is not also 
uggly. Supporting revolution is not at all the same as being delighted by blood 
baths, I value human life far too much. But I realize that it is not likely to 
be possible to make a fundamental change without at one point having to take up 
arms. In the past, it has not been possible, and I can't see why it should not 
be the same now or in teh future, quite the contrary. It is for precisely this 
reason that I reacted against your suggestion of seeing murder as art.
Unfortunately I have only read very little of your fiction, so I can't judge 
very well, but the little I have seen, seems to me to be too fatalistic, seeing 
only the ugliness, not the potentials nor the poetry. I am pleased to learn, 
that I have been mistaken in this.

>You claim to be so self satisfied? So why are you calling for a
>revolution. Or is this just part of the adventure? 

No, I do not claim this. Even if I did, I can't see why I shouldn't call for a 
revolution. Why shouldn't I want everybody else to feel like me?

>Yes, I see a revolution coming, a revolution of the spirit. One
>where every person is free to create, not for profit or gain, but
>as a ritual that worships not god or country or genius or even
>art, but life. Perhaps like my own version of Nietzsche's free
>spirits but with a more open attitude to the occult in
>everything. Where there are no restrictions, where there are no
>power games, no intellectual bullying, no academic bullshit, no
>money games, but simply an intelligent study and appreciation of
>life. But this will never be reached by the same old bloody wars,
>nor through what has become staid academics, nor through any of
>the institutions that stand today. 

This is precisely the same kind of revolution I'm talking about. But this is not 
possible without also changing the socio-economical aspects of society, i.e. a 
political revolution. Simply because in a capitalist society like ours nobody 
can have this complete freedom; the market-forces will not allow it. A society 
like that would of course mean the end of consumer-society, an end to the 
military-industrial complex, an end to class-war, an end to exploitation. You 
cannot expect the rulers to be willing to give up all their privileges without a 
fight! Since they control the police and military, this fight will be violent.

All our disagreements seem to boil down to different meanings associated to the 
words "politics", "revolution" etc. We want the same kind of society.

To me, you seem naive.
To you, I seem bullying.

Hopefully the discussions we have now started can remove these prejudices.

Frank