Ep 1: Dorthy has to keep Sophia from escaping the house during COVID lockdown. Blanche reveals she had a questionable fling with Jeffery Epstein. Rose believes everything she reads on the internet and begins denying the Holocaust.
Sorry, I was high on gas fumes and aerosols when I wrote my last post. It kinda went off the rails there towards the end.
So allow me to muddy the waters a bit more.
Fundamentally, I think that âeverything is ideologyâ (a lot of people have thought about this long before me). And I mean EVERYTHING: objects, sex, relationships, beauty, art…everything. To break these things down to their smaller components would reveal true horror: your food is dead animals and vegetables, sex is exchanging of gross bodily fluids, etc. So we have to sublimate these objects into ideas…hence âeverything is ideologyâ.
Which is perfectly acceptable! Humans are both blessed and cursed by logic and reasoning because these functions often reveal the nothingness behind everything. Thus, REAL truth is terrifying and ultimately meaningless, so the âmaskâ of ideology is the only ârealityâ that matters. Sometimes existential dread ensues because of this. Therefore sublimation, in the Freudian sense, is helpful in constructing a healthy view of the world.
Which is why I sometimes praise religion and SOME politics, provided they promote peaceful coexistence and openness. Clearly sublimating into certain ideologies can lead to straight up derangement. So, therefore,âsublimate wellâ.
I never thought anyone would take my shit posting seriously enough to write out an entire comment longer than the initial post itself. But I forget, âthe internet ruined everythingâ.
Btw, this comment was made on my âyour damn right ignorance is bliss!â post.
I donât know if this person was real or some bot trying to spread some article around (about COVID, a subject that I donât recall discussing on this blog), but my response was âthe post was a jokeâ.
But then I got to thinking: was I joking?
Sure, the intent was to post some stupid thought that crossed my mind. But the more I think about it: hell yeah an existence void of desire and knowledge of good and evil sounds pretty damn good!
Of course, thatâs not how my hater saw it. He/she thought I was embracing âkeeping the masses ignorantâ, or âlistening to establishment propagandaâ, or blah blah blah.
I get it. I got lost down that road of political ideology too. Iâve spent all of 2021 trying to get over it. Thatâs why I created this blog for fuckâs sake.
But there is no truth in ideology. Thatâs why itâs ideology. We have to form these ideologies. You know why? Because the truth is too terrifying to handle.
Thatâs why I always thought that Platoâs Allegory of the Cave, the shit in The Matrix, âthe truth shall set you freeâ, etc. kinda miss the point. To get the gist of what Iâm trying to say, Slavoj Zizek, whatever you think about him, once said about the shitty film The Joker (paraphrase): âitâs through the mask that we can be our true selves.â
Because there is nothing underneath the mask.
So you want the truth?
Here it is:
The âestablishmentâ, however you want to define that, doesnât give a shit about you. They donât even give enough of a shit to form a conspiracy to fuck with you. They donât think about you. They donât fear you.
You are nothing.
You were born from standard biological processes and one day you will return to nothing. Most people you know do not think about you. When you die, only 3 or 4 people will truly mourn for you. After a few weeks, you will be forgotten.
This has been the story of billions of people throughout history. Statistically speaking, you will be totally, utterly forgotten.
Beyond this life lies nothing.
So in this life, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from doing the most heinous crime you can think of. Absolutely nothing. You can do it right now.
So what are you gonna do with that freedom?
You think thereâs someone pulling the strings? Well guess what buddy, itâs worse than that: NO ONEâS pulling the strings.
The universe is just there. Itâs infinite. YOUâRE NOT. You will never make sense of it.
I hope everyone reading laughs at this, because thatâs the only sane response.
So now you can understand why I want to be âignorantâ. We should admire the Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Hindus, etc etc. Hell, Iâll even admire Conservatives, libs, leftists, rightists, libertarians, etc. At least they believe something.
There nothing wrong with sublimating our beliefs and desires into ideologies, but, taking from Sigmund Freud, the aim of this life should be to âsublimate wellâ.
Anyways, gotta go. Left my wallet at Hardeeâs. Bye â
Itâs interesting to view Jesus scholarship over the last 50 years. Most of it seems to reflect more on the political climate of the era it was written rather than on the actual historical Jesus, i.e. by turning Jesus into âJesus the Revolutionaryâ, âJesus the Mysticâ, âJesus the Philosopherâ,etc.
Itâs an easy mistake to make. Arguably I make it when I refer to Jesus as a âpopulistâ figure of the time (I donât mean that as a compliment. I mean that in its most literal sense: Jesus was addressing working class problems in a religious/political context.) Itâs very difficult to separate our biases from the subject being analyzed, especially one as controversial as the historicity of Jesus.
I think thereâs a (growing) minority consensus that Jesus took some influence from the Cynics. Some quack scholars might even say he was an outright Cynic.
I think this is an interesting question. In my view, the majority of mainstream scholars, both Christian and secular, wish to paint Jesus as a figure that almost emerged from a vacuum. It makes sense actually. All of the earliest, independently attested documents (The hypothetical Q…which survives almost in its entirety between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke…the epistles of Paul, Gospel of Mark, and Josephus) make no mention of Jesusâs origins (Q and Mark both start with the Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist). So an attempt to say anything about Jesusâs influences, other than that of John the Baptist, would be pure conjecture. But there are some interesting parallels between Jesus and the Cynics: Mark 6:8, the location of Nazareth and its proximity to an apparent hotbed of Cynicism, Jesusâs confrontational style and eschewing of fame and fortune, embracing of poverty, etc. etc.
But read the Cynic texts. To the Cynics, Diogenes was their âChrist figureâ. They all tried to emulate him. And to be honest, he was a disgusting asshole. While Diogenes definitely had his influence, I doubt he would have accumulated very many personal followers. I mean, many might have tried to ACT like him, but thereâs no way anyone could have spent more than 10 minutes around him. Jesus, meanwhile, was probably trying to do something entirely different and would have certainly disapproved of things like…I dunno…MASTURBATING and SHITTING in public.
In my humble view, the Cynic modus operandi was likely something that was in the air at the time which some itinerant and apocalyptic preachers might have adopted. But just because that aesthetic was in vogue at the moment doesnât mean that they were practicing Cynics.
While itâs fun to speculate, the simplest explanation is probably the correct one: Jesus was an apocalyptic Jewish preacher preaching to a mostly Jewish audience.
Part of the reason why William Peter Blatty considered The Ninth Configuration as a true sequel to The Exorcist is because they both attempt to address the âmystery of the good.â
Blatty, from my understanding of course, was a devout Catholic so he understood these terms from a very spiritual perspective. While I find the phenomenon of religion fascinating, I donât view the universe in that particular way. Nevertheless, I think Blatty was attempting to address a very interesting question, particularly with The Ninth Configuration (the film. I havenât read the novel)
Much ado is made about âthe problem of evilâ, but thatâs only a problem from a religious perspective. If the the universe is indifferent to our plight, and life is inherently selfish, then there is no mystery. Furthermore, there is no good OR evil…itâs merely a projection of human perception.
Many philosophers have attempted to formulate a model for morality, notably Kantâs Categorical Imperative and utilitarianism, with varying degrees of success. I personally tend to favor something that I heard Bart Ehrman say: I just know it when I see it. However I do find it interesting that nearly every religion has some variant of the Golden Rule: do unto others as youâd have them do unto you.
I donât think that I have many philosophical convictions, but one thing I am certain of is that I am not a âblank slatistâ. If we were born as blank slates, then nothing we do would be possible. Language acquisition itself provides some insight into the a priori nature of our being. What language can tell us precisely about our morality is unknown to me, but I think it warrants further investigation as evidenced by the Golden Rule.
The Golden Rule may not be a âphilosophically consistentâ principle, but I think itâs intuitive enough that there could possibly be something revealing about it. Empathy might be an example. To my understanding, empathy is a phenomenon thatâs scientifically falsifiable, but Iâm just spitballing here. Maybe âgoodâ and âevilâ are a priori categories of human reasoning, I dunno.
Either way, from both a religious and secular perspective, âthe problem of goodâ needs answering.
I swear that I donât plan what movies Iâm gonna watch. I sit on my ass and scroll through some app on my smart TV and find random shit.
Oddly enough, the two movies I watched back to back were Werner Herzogâs Woyzeck and William Peter Blattyâs The Ninth Configuration. Both films are about military personnel dealing with insanity and philosophy….not subjects that you find in most films.
This is probably not one of Herzogâs more appreciated films and I wasnât entirely certain what to make of it. If you watch it, it probably wouldnât come as a surprise to you that it was shot in 18 days. For a period piece, itâs very small scale and stage-like. But knowing this might help on a second viewing.
Klaus Kinski plays the titular character Woyzeck. Heâs a lowly soldier thatâs essentially being gaslit by his commanding officer and a quack doctor. Heâs a loving father and husband, but his wife sleeps around with another officer and that officer publicly humiliates Woyzeck. Finally, he murders his wife.
Other reviewers called this an âanti-Enlightenmentâ film. I think thatâs apt. The two men egging on Woyzeckâs decent into madness are obsessed with science and philosophy. The officer even mocks Woyzeck, stating that he lacks âmoralsâ due to his status in society. Woyzeck defends himself, claiming that as a man without money or education, he simply does whatâs ânaturalâ. When viewed from this perspective, the Enlightenment ideals espoused by the Officer and Doctor come across as abusive, while Woyzeck is actually the only sane and moral person in the movie. The small scale of the movie contributes to the anti-enlightenment narrative, as it isnât flashy or self-congratulatory like weâve come to expect with these kinds of films.
Meanwhile, The Ninth Configuration couldnât be more different. I could tell you what itâs about, but then Iâd be lying. I just know it takes place in a castle acting as a psychiatric ward for Vietnam vets, Stacy Keach is in it, and thereâs a bar fight. The movie is totally disorienting. At times itâs a psychological drama, other times itâs a comedy, and at one point it becomes an 80s action flick. The tone is all over the place. Perhaps thatâs by design but Iâm not totally convinced. Either way, this disorder contributes to the overall mystique of the film.
It should also be noted that The Ninth Configuration apparently exists in The Exorcist expanded universe. Not that it has anything to do with those films, except that one of the characters is in the first one.
To be honest, if I watched these movies in isolation, I wouldnât be a fan of either. But they work very well in tandem. The military aspect of both films seems trivial, but when we consider the discipline and order that the military provides, it contrasts with the chaos associated with insanity. Additionally both films expose the problem of insanity in different ways. One is very plain and straightforward. The other is a complete fucking mess. Woyzeck proposes that insanity is brought forth by the imposition of morals, logic, possession, and science. Ninth Configuration says that itâs the absence of such ideals…or more precisely, the absence of God… is itâs true driving force. Woyzeck is nihilistic. Ninth Configuration is hopeful. Yet both might agree that insanity arises out of the eternal battle between chaos and order.
As 2021 comes to a close, Iâd just like to remind everyone that if you think the world is getting worse, youâre dead wrong.
Things have always been shit. Always will be. To be alive means to live in tyranny.
Read ancient texts…Ancient Greece or Rome for example…youâd find the same old complaints: the decadence, the spectacle, the tyranny of the majority, the tyranny of the minority, the anguish of having to live in a society.
Weâre in good company.
Maybe 30,000 years from now, humans might achieve a higher state of being…one that currently remains outside the realm of imagination. But none of us will see that day. For the time being, weâre just playing our role.
Sure, there are those that are WAY worse off than you or me. But Iâd venture to guess that if you can read this blog, youâre doing alright. So look on the bright side, at least youâre not in the drunk tank, at least youâre not begging for your next meal, at least youâre not slipping some digits into the butthole of a paying john, at least youâre not being trafficked across the Pacific Ocean in a shipping container. Think on those people. Depressing? Yes. But with this despair comes opportunity to give a kind word, a shirt off your back, to be a ray of hope in an otherwise meaningless existence.
Face it, life sucks. Donât make it harder than it needs to be.