Sie sind so jung, so vor allem Anfang, und ich möchte Sie, so gut ich es kann, bitten, lieber Herr, Geduld zu haben gegen alles Ungelöste in Ihrem Herzen und zu versuchen, die Fragen selbst liebzuhaben wie verschlossene Stuben und wie Bücher, die in einer sehr fremden Sprache geschrieben sind. Forschen Sie jetzt nicht nach den Antworten, die Ihnen nicht gegeben werden können, weil Sie sie nicht leben könnten. Und es handelt sich darum, alles zu leben. Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen. Vielleicht leben Sie dann allmählich, ohne es zu merken, eines fernen Tages in die Antwort hinein.
-Rainer Maria Rilke, Briefe an einen jungen Dichter
Monday, September 7, 2009
Why Are You So Critical of Everything?
I think my critical nature began like all critiques begin: with doubt. Doubt became my narrative a long time ago: religious doubt, political doubt, sexual doubt. And eventually that doubtful narrative began to tell a new, more coherent story: my own. And I spent a long time very confused because I grasped at this new history driven by the suspicion that ordinary language couldn't tell it. My past appeared frozen in the distance and every gesture of mine signified the negation of that old world and the reach for a new one. Sometimes those gestures resembled flailing, but that was how I lived. And living that way eventually created a new situation for me, one of exuberance and friendship, like a subversive micro-society in the heart of a society that ignored it.
Art was no longer the goal, but the occasion and method for locating my specific rhythm and all the buried possiblities of that time. It was all about the discovery of a true communication, or at least the quest for such a communication. It was also about the adventure of finding and losing it. Usually I was unappeased by much and unaccepting of even more. But I continued looking, filling in the silences with my own wishes, fears and fantasies, driven forward always by the fact that no matter how empty the world seemed, no matter how degraded and used up the world appeared to me, I knew that anything was still possible. And, given the right circumstances, a new world was just as likely as an old one. That was how I experienced faith and hope in my life.
Being critical is simply my systematic questioning of the idea of happiness. If you're looking for something that's not on the market, comfort will never be comfortable. My critiques are my attempt to see just how exciting alienation can be, too. I think eyesight is here as a test to see if we can see beyond it. In a similar way, doubt is here as a test of our vitality.
Once, during a very reckless time in my life, I was in a hospital very close to death. I remember the experience being like a dream in which I was very, very awake and exhilarated because I realized that, finally, something was happening to me. I realized that I had to live as if something actually depended on my actions. I had my first flash of real understanding of the Buddhist ideas of emptiness and impermanence. If this world we are forced to accept is impermanent and everything in it is inherently empty, then everything is possible.
For me, this was the affirmation of a freedom so reckless and unknown, that it amounted to a complete removal of every kind of restraint and limitation. Even now I suspect that ordinary language can't express this story, but it might help you to understand if I put it this way: Being critical is only one face of a multi-faceted life of freedom where I am not afraid to demonstrate the contrast between what life presently is and what it could be.
I hope that answers your question.
Art was no longer the goal, but the occasion and method for locating my specific rhythm and all the buried possiblities of that time. It was all about the discovery of a true communication, or at least the quest for such a communication. It was also about the adventure of finding and losing it. Usually I was unappeased by much and unaccepting of even more. But I continued looking, filling in the silences with my own wishes, fears and fantasies, driven forward always by the fact that no matter how empty the world seemed, no matter how degraded and used up the world appeared to me, I knew that anything was still possible. And, given the right circumstances, a new world was just as likely as an old one. That was how I experienced faith and hope in my life.
Being critical is simply my systematic questioning of the idea of happiness. If you're looking for something that's not on the market, comfort will never be comfortable. My critiques are my attempt to see just how exciting alienation can be, too. I think eyesight is here as a test to see if we can see beyond it. In a similar way, doubt is here as a test of our vitality.
Once, during a very reckless time in my life, I was in a hospital very close to death. I remember the experience being like a dream in which I was very, very awake and exhilarated because I realized that, finally, something was happening to me. I realized that I had to live as if something actually depended on my actions. I had my first flash of real understanding of the Buddhist ideas of emptiness and impermanence. If this world we are forced to accept is impermanent and everything in it is inherently empty, then everything is possible.
For me, this was the affirmation of a freedom so reckless and unknown, that it amounted to a complete removal of every kind of restraint and limitation. Even now I suspect that ordinary language can't express this story, but it might help you to understand if I put it this way: Being critical is only one face of a multi-faceted life of freedom where I am not afraid to demonstrate the contrast between what life presently is and what it could be.
I hope that answers your question.
My New Plan: Fuck It
I'm tired of arguing with fat pigs with primitive religious beliefs who are intent on converting Jews, curing homosexuals and who pin "Country First" buttons to their man titties and chant "U-S-A! U-S-A!" at the top of their lungs while their kids live off credit cards and the Saudis and Chinese buy up all the mortgages in Kansas. So I think I'm gonna lie back and allow myself to be jacked off by the calculating thieves who run this grasping consumer paradise we call a nation like they do. If ya can't beat em... That sounds like a good plan, doesn't it?
Bigotry, New England Style
Maine's bigots have begun to beat their... drums... against what looks like state legislation in favor of gay marriage. The Maine Family Policy Council had this to say: "Maine's Legislature will eliminate civil marriage by the end of May. We have started a People's Veto," the group's website says. "Maine people twice rejected 'gay' rights in the past decade. Homosexuality is very sad, and sinful. Maine must not create a culture that winks at something so debilitating on so many levels. To present this 'orientation' as benign to impressionable children is the height of arrogance, and surely qualifies as evil."
For the record everyone, if this is what it means to be evil, I am EVIL! Mwaahahahahahahaha!!!! (*gently strokes cat*)
For the record everyone, if this is what it means to be evil, I am EVIL! Mwaahahahahahahaha!!!! (*gently strokes cat*)
Thoughts on Bill O'Reilly and Squeaky the Chicago Mouse
By Roger Ebert / April 7, 2009
To: Bill O'Reilly
From: Roger Ebert
Dear Bill: Thanks for including the Chicago Sun-Times on your exclusive list of newspapers on your "Hall of Shame." To be in an O'Reilly Hall of Fame would be a cruel blow to any newspaper. It would place us in the favor of a man who turns red and starts screaming when anyone disagrees with him. My grade-school teacher, wise Sister Nathan, would have called in your parents and recommended counseling with Father Hogben.
Yes, the Sun-Times is liberal, having recently endorsed our first Democrat for President since LBJ. We were founded by Marshall Field one week before Pearl Harbor to provide a liberal voice in Chicago to counter the Tribune, which opposed an American war against Hitler. I'm sure you would have sided with the Trib at the time.
I understand you believe one of the Sun-Times misdemeanors was dropping your syndicated column. My editor informs me that "very few" readers complained about the disappearance of your column, adding, "many more complained about Nancy." I know I did. That was the famous Ernie Bushmiller comic strip in which Sluggo explained that "wow" was "mom" spelled upside-down.
Your column ran in our paper while it was owned by the right-wing polemicists Conrad Black (Baron Black of Coldharbour) and David Radler. We dropped it to save a little money after they looted the paper of millions. Now you call for an advertising boycott. It is unusual to observe a journalist cheering for a newspaper to fail. At present the Sun-Times has no bank debt, but labors under the weight of millions of dollars in tax penalties incurred by Lord Black, who is serving an eight-year stretch for mail fraud and obstruction of justice. We also had to pay for his legal expenses.
There is a major difference between Conrad Black and you: Lord Black is a much better writer and thinker, and authored a respected biography about Roosevelt, who we were founded to defend. That newspapers continue to run your column is a mystery to me, since it is composed of knee-jerk frothings and ravings. If I were an editor searching for a conservative, I wouldn't choose a mad dog. My recommendation: The admirable Charles Krauthammer.
Bill, I am concerned that you have been losing touch with reality recently. Did you really say you are more powerful than any politician?
That reminds me of the famous story about Squeaky the Chicago Mouse. It seems that Squeaky was floating on his back along the Chicago River one day. Approaching the Michigan Avenue lift bridge, he called out: Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
To: Bill O'Reilly
From: Roger Ebert
Dear Bill: Thanks for including the Chicago Sun-Times on your exclusive list of newspapers on your "Hall of Shame." To be in an O'Reilly Hall of Fame would be a cruel blow to any newspaper. It would place us in the favor of a man who turns red and starts screaming when anyone disagrees with him. My grade-school teacher, wise Sister Nathan, would have called in your parents and recommended counseling with Father Hogben.
Yes, the Sun-Times is liberal, having recently endorsed our first Democrat for President since LBJ. We were founded by Marshall Field one week before Pearl Harbor to provide a liberal voice in Chicago to counter the Tribune, which opposed an American war against Hitler. I'm sure you would have sided with the Trib at the time.
I understand you believe one of the Sun-Times misdemeanors was dropping your syndicated column. My editor informs me that "very few" readers complained about the disappearance of your column, adding, "many more complained about Nancy." I know I did. That was the famous Ernie Bushmiller comic strip in which Sluggo explained that "wow" was "mom" spelled upside-down.
Your column ran in our paper while it was owned by the right-wing polemicists Conrad Black (Baron Black of Coldharbour) and David Radler. We dropped it to save a little money after they looted the paper of millions. Now you call for an advertising boycott. It is unusual to observe a journalist cheering for a newspaper to fail. At present the Sun-Times has no bank debt, but labors under the weight of millions of dollars in tax penalties incurred by Lord Black, who is serving an eight-year stretch for mail fraud and obstruction of justice. We also had to pay for his legal expenses.
There is a major difference between Conrad Black and you: Lord Black is a much better writer and thinker, and authored a respected biography about Roosevelt, who we were founded to defend. That newspapers continue to run your column is a mystery to me, since it is composed of knee-jerk frothings and ravings. If I were an editor searching for a conservative, I wouldn't choose a mad dog. My recommendation: The admirable Charles Krauthammer.
Bill, I am concerned that you have been losing touch with reality recently. Did you really say you are more powerful than any politician?
That reminds me of the famous story about Squeaky the Chicago Mouse. It seems that Squeaky was floating on his back along the Chicago River one day. Approaching the Michigan Avenue lift bridge, he called out: Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
"This Imaginative Crowd"... I love this President
Obama mocking conservatives chiding him for shaking hands with Hugo Chavez: "Venezuela is a country whose defense budget is probably 1/600th of the United States’. They own Citgo. It’s unlikely that as a consequence of me shaking hands or having a polite conversation with Mr. Chavez that we are endangering the strategic interests of the United States. I don’t think anybody can find any evidence that that would do so. Even within this imaginative crowd, I think you would be hard-pressed to paint a scenario in which U.S. interests would be damaged as a consequence of us having a more constructive relationship with Venezuela." There was once a time when Dems would piss down both legs about national security attacks coming from the right, let alone respond to them with outright mockery. My, how things have changed.
Proud Homosexuality's Sins
Protect Marriage Illinois is declaring "war" against the "pro-sodomy movement" and their "crimes against nature," and at the same time chastising the religious right for not being hateful enough. “It is high time for pastors, in Iowa and across the land, to shake off their stifling, politically correct timidity and again become the prophetic voices for Truth they were called to be: by boldly warning Americans – Christian and non-Christian alike — about the perils of our growing accommodation with the sins of proud homosexuality, AND SEX OUTSIDE MARRIAGE IN GENERAL.” That's a big ole bite!! Hope they can chew and swaller it! And I wanna be a member of that movement! Oh wait...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)