Bathysphere 2010 - Courageous Men in the Deep Sea

Bathysphere 2010 - mutige Männer in der Tiefsee from Norbert Brüggen on Vimeo.

Wood Childe of the Vernal Equinox

The Author Function and the Author's Work

Various lines from wikipedia outlining Barthes' thoughts on the Death of the Author and Foucault's concept of the Author Function:

In ["The Death of the Author"], Barthes criticizes the method of reading and criticism that relies on aspects of the author's identity — his or her political views, historical context, religion, ethnicity, psychology, or other biographical or personal attributes — to distill meaning from the author's work. In this type of criticism, the experiences and biases of the author serve as a definitive "explanation" of the text. For Barthes, this method of reading may be apparently tidy and convenient but is actually sloppy and flawed:

"To give a text an Author" and assign a single, corresponding interpretation to it "is to impose a limit on that text."

In [his essay "The Author Function"], Foucault posits that the legal system was central in the rise of the author, as an author was needed (in order to be punished) for making transgressive statements. This is made evident through the rise of the printing press during the time of the Reformation, when religious texts that circulated challenged the authority of the Catholic Church.

The author function does not affect all texts in the same way. For example, the author of a science text books is not clear or definable as the author of a well known novel. It is not a spontaneous creation or entity, but a carefully constructed social position.

Critics interested in pursuing such matters will be pleased to learn that Tally-Ho, Cornelius! is a good point of departure for an inquiry into the nature of authoriety, the deconstruction of the "author function," and the nature and genealogy of transgressive statements. Indeed, these issues form deliberate themes (and meta-themes) in the novel. Jerry Cornelius, which Mr. Moorcock created as a sort of "share ware" trademark everyman (see the wiki article on JC, here) has been utilized by many authors over the years. This shared control over the character is part of his meaning, which plays upon a range of Continental ontological theories ranging from Rousseau to Foucault, meanwhile bringing to bear an incredulous (some might say "flip") British skepticism that, when it's all mixed together, produces fascinating literary/philosophical effects, as well as some unusual comedy.

What I found rather curious as I composed the novel is that the humor reminded me a lot of the aesthetic I find in Hawthorne and Milton, and I think often the reader can tell (perhaps it seems more obvious to me) that the writer--that is "I"--was evidently deeply impressed when he--"I"--read Paradise Lost and The Scarlet Letter. Significant to me as a reader is how Tally-Ho, Cornelius! brought me into a greater appreciation for Milton's and Hawthorne's humor. Moreover, I think Hawthorne and Milton are more hilarious fellows than most critics are willing to admit. Along these lines, I think this is true also of Gurdjieff--who is a capital joker, though you wouldn't necessarily get this from reading the people who write about Gurdjief, whoever they are.

Succulent Suite (The Astral Plane Song of Karak-kar-ka-krak-sha)

Through sticky strands of flying tales
My friendships seem to pass,
Where wise old owls and little girls
Are laughing at the past.

Into the sun the flowers turn
Their petals brush the sky,
Honey bees fly into them
If you follow so will I.

A spider spins a web
And seems to go away,
But she remains to hatch her egg
Just watch the shadows sway.

If some song’s seven meanings
Leave much unexplained,
Open your eyes, don’t cheat yourself
What will be will save the day.

About elliptical clouds of ellipsoids
My refractions fly so fast,
Where crooked, aglow the dying woes
Are sailors before the mast.

Through corridors of spinning stars
A looking glass leads the way,

Against the frozen dust of a silent moon
The fires of the sun display.

Large corpuscles sublime appear,
They inflate amongst the mist.
Toward the goal they seem to soar
They lead the Just to bliss.

If you say your name backward
Does it sound the same?
Aleister Crowley has a job for you
On the Astral Plane.

Another Introduction to Analytic Philosophy

The context is learning about the Talmud, and the humor is dry, perhaps boring for some, but the main thrust of the story says a lot about the essential meaning of Analytic Philosophy:

The Priest meets his friend, the Rabbi, and says to him "You have taught me many things but there is one thing in particular I want to learn very much but you do not wish to teach it to me. I want you to teach me the Talmud."

The Rabbi replied: "You are a Non-Jew and you have the brain of a Non-Jew. There is no chance that you will succeed in understanding the Talmud."

But the Priest continued in his attempt to persuade the Rabbi to teach him the Talmud. Finally, the Rabbi agreed. The Rabbi then said to the Priest: "I agree to teach you the Talmud on condition that you answer one question."

The Priest agreed and asked the Rabbi "What is the Question?"

The Rabbi then said to the Priest: "Two men fall down through the chimney. One comes out dirty and the other comes out clean. Who of those two goes to wash up."

"Very Simple," replied the Priest. "The one who is dirty goes to wash up but the one who is clean does not go to wash up."

The Rabbi then said to the Priest: "I told you that you will not succeed in understanding the Talmud. The exact opposite happened. The clean one looks at the dirty one and thinks that he is also dirty, goes to wash up. The dirty one, on the other hand, looks at the clean one and thinks that he is also clean and, therefore, does not go to wash up."

The Priest then says to the Rabbi: "This I did not think of. Ask me, please, another question."

The Rabbi then says to the Priest: "Two men fall down through the chimney. One comes out dirty and the other comes out clean. Who of these two goes to wash up?"

The Priest then says to the Rabbi: "Very simple. The clean one looks at the dirty one and thinks he is also dirty and goes to wash up. The dirty one, on the other hand, looks at the clean one and thinks that he is also clean and, therefore, does not go to wash up."

The Rabbi then says to the Priest: "You are wrong again. I told you that you will not understand. The clean one looks into the mirror, sees that he is clean and, therefore, does not go to wash up. The dirty one looks into the mirror, sees that he is dirty and goes to wash up."

The Priest complains to the Rabbi "But you did not tell me that there is a mirror there."

The Rabbi then tells the Priest: "I told you. You are a Non-Jew, with your brain you will not succeed in understanding the Talmud. According to the Talmud, you have to think of all the possibilities."

"Alright," groaning, said the Priest to the Rabbi. "Let us try once more. Ask me one more question."

For the last time, said the Rabbi to the Priest. "Two men fall through the chimney. One came out dirty and the other came out clean. Who of these two went to wash up"

"That is very simple!" replied the Priest. "If there is no mirror there the clean one will look at the dirty one and will! think that he is also dirty and will, therefore, go to wash up. The dirty one will look at the clean one and will think that he is also clean, and will, therefore, not go to wash up. If there is a mirror there, the clean one will look into the mirror and will, therefore, not go to wash up. The dirty one will look into the mirror and will see that he is dirty and will, therefore go to wash up."

The Rabbi then says to the Priest: "I told that you will not succeed in understanding. You are a Non-Jew, you have a Non-Jewish Brain. Tell me, how is it possible for two men to fall through a chimney and for one to come out dirty and for the other to come out clean?"

I should also suggest this sort of thing is key to unlocking the humor--and there is a lot of it--we find in the Gospels.

Click here for source.

Salamanda Palaganda

Yes, but where does this "Donkey Ride" come from?

The critical reception for my "Donkey Ride" has been positive, thus far. There has been some small confusion regarding the, ahem, "reactionary subtext" of the poem, but acting swiftly and with the aid of an amanuensis, I have put an end to the rumor (perhaps started by an emulator?) that the poem is in any way a squib tossed in the direction of Mr. Arthur Quiller-Couch, or, for that matter, any other fellow traveler. Still--alas, still--while critics are unanimous in their approval, no small controversy has emerged over the question of the fountainhead of my vision. What, they demand, could possibly be the source for this new (that is to say never-before-seen) extrinsic phantasm? "Surely," as one critic fleered, "Mr. Kaplan is not asking us to ponder Wittgenstein, again?" I should retort the origins of that statement are obvious, and I am not, I repeat not going for that bait, again. Ha, ha, ha. Really, my friends, while it is usually incumbent upon the literary artist to smile coquettishly and demure when prodded to reveal the source of his inspiration, I think I should (to confound my nemesis, if nothing else) break the rule this one time and hint, and not without some indication, that the muse which moves my pen in the case of my animal poetry, at least as it concerns six-legged subjects, is in fact Italian composer Antonio Vivaldi.

But wait, a donkey has only four?

Ah, but does it!

An Invitation to Ride a Donkey

The Donkey Ride

Riding down the dusty trail
The desert smells like bones
The horny toads feed the owls
The black crows laugh and caw

Over the hills your donkey goes
His foot is true and sure
Jumbo jets etch the sky
Time has turned to stone

You think you lost your way
But your donkey is not slow
Bankers and pirates have no claim
‘cause a donkey needs no roads

Across a desert wide and cruel
Across to the other side
Any old donkey will take you there
If you have the guts to try

So ride a donkey if you dare
The good Lord holds it dear
He won't forget the pact you made
When you scratched that donkey's ear

Cyborg Insects and their Mechanical Kin

Milton Presents the Fall

When precisely in Paradise Lost does the "fall" take place? When Adam makes the mental decision to follow Eve's advice? As they actually share the apple? When their transgression is discovered by the angels? When they are expelled from Paradise?

As an overture, the question that first comes to mind is this: does Milton present any contrasting theological positions in Paradise Lost and De Doctrina? That is, is he writing for the same purpose, or does each work address similar subjects but for different purposes?

Similarly, might Milton's gloss on the supralapsarian and sublapsarianism doctrines (does Milton comment on the Synod of Dort?) inform our understanding of where/when the fall took place? Or, like Calvin, does he simply set forth the doctrine and then retreat from elaboration. Calvin is moving on for his own purposes, while Milton—or so it would seem—is using the question as a point of departure to display his learning, spin myth, and crack jokes to delight his fellow travelers?

The poem's initial descriptions of humanity's fall are not humorous, however. Consider Milton's descriptions of the universe going through various contortions.

When Eve plucks the apple from the tree:

Earth felt the wound, and Nature from her seat

Sighing through all her Works gave signs of woe,

That all was lost. (PL 9.782)

As Adam eats the apple:

Earth trembl'd from her entrails, as again

In pangs, and Nature gave a second groan,

Skie lowr'd, and muttering Thunder, som sad drops

Wept at compleating of the mortal Sin

Original; (PL 9.1000)

It is important to consider that in Paradise Lost it is not the contemplation of transgression that precipitates the fall, but the actual act of transgression itself. As evidence, consider Eve’s dreaming of disobedience in Book V. As Adam advises her, sinful thoughts are not themselves sinful unless they are “approved;” that is, acted upon. Too contemplate sin is not to sin.

Evil into the mind of God or Man


May come and go, so unapprov’d, and leave

No spot or blame behind: (PL 5.117)

So it would seem the specific act of eating the apple precipitates the fall.

Though the specific act of eating the apple precipitates the fall, the nature of that fall is rather curious. The conclusion of Book IX shows us that the "fall" is characterized by, first, enthusiastic love-making, and then, second, by an absurd domestic squabble, in which Adam and Eve blame each other for the transgression. Indeed, Milton's comedic hand is quite plainly evident at the end of Book IX: The "Fall" is an archetypical domestic argument between husband and wife. What is even more absurd is that in this case they are arguing over who is to blame for the Fall of Humanity. The passage is a delightful drawing-room farce, pure drollery.

Though, indeed, is there any state more "fallen" than a knock-down quarrel between a husband and wife?

How to Write a Proposal Letter

Chip:

All this exciting talk of business conferences and leadership seminars has me thinking about the vast motivation conference industry. Why shouldn’t our own organization, Kaplan and Martindale, Inc. try its hand in this field?

What I propose is a series of conferences called “From Schlemiel to Schtoonk: Action Power Seminars.” We’ll put our clients on a track that will correspond to how many times they attend our meetings, for which we'll charge a nominal admission fee of $579 dollars. In order to enhance a sense of progress and success, our clients will receive certificates that recognize their progress as they move up from “ Schlemiel to Schtoonk.” Here are descriptions of the success levels:

Level One: Schlemiel.

The Schlemiel is the real bedrock of corporate organization. He or she is in a unique situation to grapple with entrepreneurial opportunities where the rubber really meets the road, where, in fact, the Schlemiel often gets run over. Certificate fee: $25 dollars.

Level Two: Schmuck.

What can I say? The Schmuck is probably the most recognized face in the business world today, and the occasion of clients receiving their Schmuck Certificate always creates great excitement at the seminars, where becoming a Schmuck is followed by heavy drinking. Certificate fee: $75 dollars

Level Three: Lucky Schmuck.

A real milestone. The Lucky Schmuck is recognized for his mastery of the art of getting paid for doing nothing. And who says doing nothing is without value? It beats working! And, anyway, not having something to do is of little concern to the Lucky Schmuck, because he doesn’t want to do anything meaningful in the first place. Certificate fee: $178 dollars.

Level Four: Lt. Schmendrick.

Our Lt. Schmendricks are real go-getters. You can recognize them by their chiseled features, beady eyes, and that radiant aura of keen entrepreneurial ability that says, “I’m ready to kick my fellow Schmendricks down stairs!” Certificate Fee: $237 dollars.

Level Five: Full Schmendrick.

Very few conference clients ever make it to full Schmendrick, and I’m going to tell you why. First, the requirements to become a Full Schmendrick are very difficult to achieve. Characteristics such as good grooming and meticulous personal hygiene, finely chiseled facial features, and the ability to speak to large numbers of people and successfully deceive them are rarely found altogether in a single individual. Indeed, it’s rare to find these qualities in twenty Lt. Schmendricks combined. Also, the Full Schmendrick must possess the ability to make things happen around him without people’s knowledge. This is not to say that our Full Schmendrick is a Machiavel, but it is perhaps indicative that our Full Schmendrick is most often found working in black budget government intelligence departments, or in the motivational speaking industry. Also, the certificate for this level is quite expensive, and anybody willing to pay for it has got to be a Schlemiel! Certificate Fee: $925 dollars.

Level Six: Schtoonk.

Our highest distinction. Everybody hates the Schtoonk, talks behind his back, envies him, but at the same time obeys him without question, flatters him to his face, and secretly wishes he could become a Schtoonk himself. Really, to be a Schtoonk is the Walter Mitty dream of all our clients. Schtoonks are very wealthy, and they are welcome to attend our seminars free of charge. Actually, people who pay for our meetings are forever disqualified from obtaining the level of Schtoonk, but only you and I are privy to this information.

It's a great opportunity, Chip, and I suggest we move on it pronto!

Talk to you soon,

Carter

Surreal Arrangements

From André Breton’s novel Nadja:

As far as I am concerned, a mind's arrangement with regard to certain objects is even more important than its regard for certain arrangements of objects, these two kinds of arrangement controlling all forms of sensibility.

Much can be made of considering the mind and the objects of perception as various forms of "arrangement" existing in a frozen space sub specie aeternitatis, and for aesthetic and political reasons this sensibility is preferable to the historically-framed mechanism embraced, say, by the people who follow Hegel.

It is perhaps these people that Breton addresses in The Crisis of the Object as he writes, "The pursuit of experience is important above all: reason will always follow, its phosphorescent blindfold over its eyes." With these words Breton isn't dismissing the place of reason in the skeptical-empirical method that drives our modern science, but instead is drawing our attention to the deceptive tripartite devil’s tool of coarse imagination, habitual language and political custom that ignites everything that contacts its glinting prongs.

"Autobahn" by Kraftwerk

2001: Forty Years Later

Joe Bisden has written an astonishing study of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey.

2001: A False Flag Odyssey

Area 51: Secrets Revealed

Click here for detailed declassified information concerning this unique chapter from the annals of arcane Americana.

Remembering Monster Magnet

Was I six, or was I seven?

On the screen in black and white

Though I foresaw it were red

The Wham-O Monster Magnet

Furious, magnetic power-infused

Through red rippling arms

Very like a genii with a hoop in his ear

But mad mad mad mad

Mad monster mad!

I could hang from the ceiling

If it was steel

Lift tremendous loads

My distended mouth locked in mid-scream

Forever and forever and forever

Even pick up an atom bomb

And launch it across the Midwest

As Golden Achilles in form

Headsman-grim and lion-set

Watches the course of his spear

Arc over the beach and dwindle

Against the darkling skies of Troy

Then turns to face foaming Poseidon

Amidst crabs crouching the shingle

The heavy horseshoe of the magnet

Heavy held at the hero's side

In subtle warning to the sea

Full faces the god, softly, proud

The wind throws back his mane

He dares in pleasant conversation

To speak of the Superball!

" . . . ready-made souls in plastic bags, negligible generalities . . ."

Vladimir Nabokov in conversation with Lionel Trilling.

From the National Archives

What makes the United States of America original in the history of statecraft is that rather than notions of nationality, ethnicity, religious identification, geography, or even history, it is a country founded upon philosophical principles derived from observations of the natural world. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the substance of the original American political charters, the effort to base a nation-state on close, reasoned argumentation represents a uniquely interesting subject of study.

Click here to review the Founding Documets.

McNamara's Stepchildren: the New Hessians?

It is an intriguing thing to consider: does the highbrow community have anything to contribute to the understanding of warcraft, and could our contribution actually help to mitigate the tendency of Homo sapiens to engage in war?

As a point of departure, consider the following from Ralph Peters:

Wishful Thinking and Indecisive Wars

It is important to consider that American military has always fought "by the rules." When individual officers have decided to do things on their own things have usually gotten out of hand. Take, for example, Patton and MacArthur who were advocates of strict adherence to established policy. They recognized their role was to carry out national policy as established by the civilian leadership. With an appropriate sense of self-righteousness they believed they were fighting in the cause of liberal democracy, and that in their professional role they were the direct heirs to--indeed, the defenders of--the political legacy handed down by the American founders.

At the same time, Patton was on several occasions embarrassed for stepping out of line. And MacArthur was fired for exceeding his authority. Notwithstanding whether MacArthur was "right" in terms of policy, he was wrong in terms of his professional obligations, and Truman very properly relived him of command.

Nevertheless, we flatter ourselves that there is a cultural distinction between, on one side, Patton and MacArthur, and, on the other, their German and Japanese counterparts. As the story goes, our flexibility in theatre allowed us to out-maneuver the Japanese and Germans, who were hampered by their "by-the-book" mentality.

Consider the reflections of the following Japanese and German officers. First, a Japanese destroyer commander in the Pacific:

It was clear that Hatta’s confusion was shared by many of his shipmates, so I replied, “That is a very good question. I will try to answer it. If our ship is stricken you are to abandon her immediately, without any qualms. This may seem contrary to what you have been taught in the past, but I will explain.

“We have reached a point of great adversity in this war. The material strength of the enemy is tremendous. But more crucial is our lack of skilled personnel, because of our many losses in battle. It takes five years to train an officer, so they cannot be replaced quickly. This ship may sink but there will be many more. Many fine Japanese sailors have died because they were too willing to give up their lives. If we are to win this war we must be tenacious.

“In feudal times, lives were wasted cheaply, but we are in the 20th century. The code of Bushido (the way of the samurai) says that a warrior lives in such a way that he is always prepared to die.

"Nothing has been so abused and misinterpreted as this adage. It does not mean that a warrior must commit suicide for some slight reason. It means that we live so that we shall have no regrets when we must die. Death may come to a man at any moment, no matter how he lives. We must not forfeit our lives meaninglessly.

“Bushido does call for atonement by suicide in case of gross negligence, and we can commit suicide at any time. But we are going on this mission not to commit suicide but to win, and turn the tide of war. We are to win this war and not think of dying. Does that answer your question, Hatta?”

“Yes, sir, it does,” he shouted. “And I share your views entirely. Thank you very much.” And he saluted.

Tameichi Hara, Japanese Destroyer Captain, Ballantine, pg 285

A German pilot on the Russian front:

He tells me that today all formations have clearly mapped low level approach routes. In the East we have long since ceased to develop practice from theory; we do just the opposite. One can do no more than give the formation leader his assignment; how he performs it is his affair, for it is he who has to carry it out. At the present time the war in the air has become so variable that one can no longer rely on theories; only formation leaders have the necessary experience at the critical moment and are likely to make the proper decisions. It was a good thing that we realised this in the East in time, otherwise it is a sure thing that none of us would be flying any more. Besides, have they not grasped the fact that we are helpless against the enemies mass of men and material?

Hans Ulrich Rudel, Stuka Pilot, Ballantine, 1958, pg. 186

In Going Downtown fighter-bomber commander Colonel Jack Broughton compares 1946 and 1966, and complains of a negative shift in military command culture, specifically the latitude afforded to commanding officers in theatre, which was sharply circumscribed by the Johnson/McNamara micromanagement system. Notwithstanding the question of Broughton's actions in the Turkestan Incident, don't we have to take this shift into consideration, and, if Broughton is correct in his criticisms, take into consideration the effect of this shift upon policy?

As in the armed forces, so in medicine and education: under the postmodern corporate-micromanagement system, the authority of the old time family doctor is a thing of the past. Similarly, it is true today in higher education that the professional liberty and latitude (and status) once enjoyed by professors has been "trimmed" by a comparatively lock-step ethos. In today's corporate education system, today's professors are, so to speak, "the new Hessians." Make of that what you will.

Finally, note how the lock-step attitude contributed to the recent tragedy at Fort Hood, Texas. Consider all the red flags, consider nobody did anything definitive to stop that problem--how did this happen? In this instance the officers ignored the evidence of their own eyes and bowed down to PC policy like Medieval Japanese, and without question did what they were told to do. Soldiers needlessly died as the result. I doubt this would--I doubt this could--have happened in my dad's Army.

Further insight might be had looking into the Shame-Culture/Guilt-Culture dichotomy.

Happy Thanksgiving

"Pilgrim Overboard" by Mike Haywood