Belated 40th to Three of a Perfect Pair

On the home stretch of the drive to '84, with tensions running high under pressure to produce the third and final album of this band's incarnation, Fripp came up with a fabbo plan:

  Link to: original 'ToaPP'

 

Album cover parody by Timothy P. Hoffman

so low loki

Wayee, no wayee, what wont for a quay:

When one's whence's wherewithal

Whiches twixt top of the stump

And a set of steak knives

Or a twist toward the end of the butt

To lead an opposition in retirement,

Siphoning sinecure sans silhouettes

Whose consecration culls views few choose

Soever superior to plucked popular opinion

To have been begotten by the head

Yet not made by the same; that's what hurts,

For frets on networks leave marks

Of the schlepped away of flesh and blood

Libel led mockery of plodding existence

Untold suns dawning out of darkness

I recall an interview of an artist roommate of Syd Barrett's in which he told of how when he'd be working on a painting in his room, he'd also be acutely aware of Syd's inert presence, lying on his bed in the other room, and he imagined Syd must be thinking that he could get up and do anything, but as soon as he did, it would preclude the possibility of anything else. At least that's what I recall of it (though I'm not gonna search for it on YooToob and distract myself).

 

Anyway, it struck me as profound at the time, whereby only now do I consider his roommate's tale a classic projection, of which he would seem to have been aware, insofar as he did state it was what he had imagined Syd might be thinking.

 

At any rate, this reminds me, too, of what I perceive as the increased commonality of the discussion of the notion that we humans have no free will, but rather, like everything else in the observable physical universe, are only objects in a chain of determinism, and, though this is not new, it not so long ago occurred to me that this is both a simplification and complication of reality.

 

In short, the deterministic nature of the cause & effect universe does not preclude our having choices at every twist and turn. Yet most of these seem to me like choices at the ho-hum place of the routine management of the human condition of being aware we can make them. Or not.

 

The choice to paint one's walls falls into this category, I think. Then there are the manifold decisions to be made that become increasingly unavoidable as the state from which this confrontation occurs falls into categories we perceive as more crucial to wellbeing, and ultimately survival.

 

As regards depression and anxiety, I think about how my established routine has gone so far toward diminishing their debilitating effects by keeping them less looming than their latency would imply. But that's not all !-D

 

Indeed, the sense of purpose is always looming; indeed, merely getting up early achieves only the first step wherefrom the rest presents itself with nagging choice after nagging choice, to be made, or not, whereby each has its own threat assessment swimming synaptically unseen yet ever present, as is evinced by what I've coined the OCD of mind, i.e. the manic nature of seemingly shambolic and infinitely rapid thinking that won't let one go.

 

Hence the routine, which continues with a series of doings, the only obsessive nature of which is anything that would get in their way, i.e. force a choice to change the program, a change of commitment. But these are pretty easy to get around as long as I can avoid all-or-nothing thinking.

 

Enough of the pitfalls of freewill; there is also a liberating freedom — at not just one, but two ends of the spectrum of always choo-choo choosing: At the one end is an eternal recurrence of the realization that, even if I cannot do anything I want, I can feel any way I want about it; what was nagging me was merely me. At the other end's the choice to not choose, leaving one's future free for whatever comes next.

 

As long as I can balance the ability to know what I can do without (and say, 'I don't need this' without nagging consequences) with the recognition of how doing-with would net positive results without drastically changing my universe, my sanity remains intact.

 

As regards the fear of commitment, I think it is based on all-or-nothing thinking, with oft unwarranted worries about the exclusion of anything or anyone else. Selfish or not, can't I choose to make someone else (feel) good or better or less bad?

 

People who love music have reported sometimes getting more out of creating mixtapes for someone else. Correctly or not, they feel a sense of giving to someone else the enjoyment the music'd brought to themselves. I can't imagine the choice to make a mixtape shuts out future personal possibilities.

 

Can I do that by painting a wall? In my case, probably not, yet the walls of my kitchen have provided a sense of something whose value I cannot diminish. And I didn't even do anything.

 

Had I painted the collection of tiny triangles that just happen to recount to my mind the tale of The Illustrated Man, with the other tales therein, including the blank spot on the wall for the fear of the known future, I am sure my retelling of the tale of the painting of the wall would paint my face with the sense of accomplishment, my attitude about pride notwithstanding. Let's say the sense of satisfaction would be net positive if not at all selfless. And you can always repaint a wall or leave it for someone else, assuming someone does not come along and take that choice away beforehand. 

 

The creative impulse rules.

"The World the Children Made"

Catherine ær Estwycham in K∂ntlän∂

--. --- - / .. - ..--.. Solace

                    if i hadn't then

                    i would've definitely

                    eventually

Liquified Natural Gasback Fundi

Advertising does not define our perception of reality, it just sells enough bits and pieces of it to partially shape a landscape of choices, which affords certain brands of consumers the right to claim that their choices are more limited than they'll admit is true at the same time they're buying enough of what is being hawked to dictate more the delimitation of choice than the advertising itself. The eventual unavailability of alternatives is a self-made delusion nurtured into full-fledged reality.

The only outright successful advertising campaign is the long-con that has people buying in to the advertising industry by the billions. This is not to say that the advertising they offer never works for those paying for it; it just works without fail for the industry itself.

—6 January 2014

That'd be a few months post Euromaidan. Three paragraphs later it boils down to this being, ultimately, about the creation of an environment, i.e. an industry-friendly one. Whose industry? Good question. The long-term rams of being hammered by hangover inducing, malignancy curating, fear fomenting, fossil fueling, and, everybody's fave, ultra- processed stomach stuffing makes meaningful public discussion... what was the question?

 

The advertiser'd tell you it's ours. They're not wrong. With apologies to those of you not us, we're buying it (even if our private payment app doesn't say we're paying for it), as in, like, lapping it up while being lapped up. Soaking in it, foremost psychologically, unless your head's already under.

 

Naturally by "us" I mean "not them". But since they say they're us too, and they manage to pay one dollar to privatize any of ours vs. the eight to twelve figures that come out of the politico managed monetary fund whenever it's the other way round,  then whatevs they're selling back to us we don't even know enough to make a stink about, of their odorless, colorless liquefaction, is more justified than this awful text.

 

The manufacture of consent, insofar as it indicates the post-production of public opinion through selective censorship & propaganda, has resulted in the perpetuation of plausible consent, a cultural aspect not defined by whether or not the prospective consumer of media believe what's put forth, but by the expectation that others believe it. As such, it maintains the appearance of consent. In other words, consent is not necessary, only the plausibility of it.

—25 May 2015

 

 

Nevertheless, necessarily, at some point, because at some point somewhere somebody had to have wondered whether the steady growth of the plausibility of others' consent had by longer term diminishing dissonance become one's own, before they forgot they wondered such a thing, probably at the point of payment notification, now synchronized for easier than ever oversight (pun intended).

 

The intro to that text from 2015 started with an appetiser on plausible denial with a Cold War era sample because, as an x-er, I was just ripe enough, plausibly, to pick my own perspective on the b.s. being served up as freedom loving good versus evil empire enabling bad. Along the way to four decades later the freedom's freighted from allegorical apple pie to literal fried potatoes not literally French for emphasis,  to, most prominently as far as I can see, the amalgamation of a domestic and foreign threat just balmy enough to make plausible the denial it has anything to do with business as usual.

Now, the advertising advocates - they'll tell you that proven ad strategies are being employed to influence every aspect of our lives; and the stats geeks will interpret the results and tell you who you are; and although most won't believe this definition about themselves, they'll believe the definition about everyone else.

That, in this context, superfluous seeming insert is meant to recontextualize what is plausibly thunk to be thought by this new-fangled enemy. I don't mean to fall into the same guys who fallacy, which could cite the idea, as plausible as anything, that the reactionaries of then are the same of today, with the ironic twist of their having abandoned some key point of their ideological inheritance (here touted as a good thing), but that is plausibly thunk.

 

What is thought by any enemy, however, and however convoluted, begets in adaptable measure the need to adopt a most opposite position, the most plausible of which, conveniently enough, comes packaged as one available option. That this option will continue to follow, cafeteria style, that which they were hired to oppose (eventually over the Overton cliff) is not necessary knowledge as long as those to be opposed are tilting against some other bluff.

 

I don't know what anyone plausibly believes, but imagine generations of a few plausibly exclusive sets of believers unwittingly assuming they had has shaped an environment, superficially oppositional, that, in spite of all the apparent turbulence, is homeostatic for us who benefit from not questioning the cost of certain processes. Luckily, the processes are included in featured ads, certain details depending. It's our business it's none of our business. How bad could it be?