BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Welcome to the counter culture

 
  

Page: (1)23

 
 
Gypsy Lantern
12:07 / 25.01.05
Inspired by the recent trolling:

Welcome to the counter culture. Please keep in mind that we are not realy the counter cultuer and if you say anything to subversive your threads will be locked and/or deleted. What the fuck I thought the counter culture was about extreme ideas and opinions. I was clearly wrong. It seems that the counter culture is policed just as well as regular culture, but at least your free..... TO DO WHAT WE TELL YOU.

I thought it might be interesting to look at the concept of "the counter culture" and how it relates to magic and occultism. There seems to be an unspoken assumption that magical practice is automatically situated within a vaguely defined movement called "the counter culture". Monkeyboy up there doesnt even consider that people posting in this forum might not actively identify as "the counter culture", and automatically accuses everyone here en masse of somehow not keeping it real, as if we've somehow betrayed a certain set of vaguely defined counter cultural values, that presumably, simply by identifying as magicians, we must obviously adhere to. Granted, the above example is particularly extreme and fuckwitted one, but it illustrates a general theme running through much occultism that magical practice is a subversive practice.

I think to some extent it is. The act of empowering yourself to take personal responsibility for your life and your experience of reality is a fairly subversive thing. By and large, we're not really encouraged to do this sort of thing by the consumerist culture we belong to. The decision to not spend your saturday evening as a passive spectator of celebrity big brother, or whatever, and engage with some form of empowering magical practice instead could well be considered "counter cultural", in that it's behaviour that runs counter to a lot of the lifestyle messages we receive within mainstream western culture.

However, I think problems start to occur when people lose site of the purpose of a "counter culture", which is surely to provide challenging ideas that will "counter" competing ideas within popular culture that might be considered harmful or disempowering. As I understand it, the purpose of counter culture should be to actively subvert mainstream culture along more positive and individually empowering lines. It's something that should engage continually with mainstream culture in order to create change within it.

Does popular occultism, and the "counter culture" associated with it, really do that? I'm not so sure that it does. To some extent, it seems to prefer to exist in a comfortable little ghetto and avoid actually engaging with the outside world as much as possible. In many cases, occultism and the practice of magic, within western culture, could quite reasonably be defined as a tiny subgenre within the goth subculture. By and large, it's not something that reaches out into the world. It's not something that engages in a dialogue with the wider culture it is allegedly countering.

The notion of the magician as "the outsider" is prevalent in the occult world. The solitary figure who operates outside of mainstream culture, is aloof from it, alone in a dark tower with his impenetrable books on the nightside of eden, concerning himself with astral mysteries that would be incomprehensible to the man in the chip shop. I'm not sure what this achieves.

In my own practice, I'm very interested in subverting these ideas and situating my magic as something strongly community based. For me, magic is something that constantly engages with the world around me, it's intimately concerned with the minutae of day-to-day life, its about doing things for other people, connecting to the landscape around me, and bringing the magical into the everyday world. It's quite situationist, in a way. A conversation takes place between the magical worldview and mainstream culture, and to my mind, this is much more subversive than standing apart from the world.

Phex had an interesting point in response to monkeyboy's dreary amalgam of RAW, Leary, and cohorts:

Writing like this only serves to keep 'the counterculture', 'the underground' or whatever stuck in its self-referential dark ages, a loop of the same ideas by the same thinkers being played back to an uncritical audience eager to be told that everything's okay and it'll all get better if we just hang on another seven years.

I really have problems with all of these things that have formed the established pseudo-occult counterculture for the past 40 years, because I'm not convinced they are really countering much of anything anymore. All of these ideas seem to have solidified into a lifestyle option, where you're invited to adopt a series of alternative ideas about reality, but you don't really have to do anything about it. It's enough to just think in a certain way, slap yourself on the back, and pity the uneducated, unliberated denizens of mainstream culture.

I don't much like it, and certainly wouldnt position myself and my own practice within "the counter culture" as such. I think it's much more productive and subversive to try and be a magician within ordinary mainstream culture and see what the ramifications of that are.

More to follow when I get a chance.
 
 
Darkmatter
12:16 / 25.01.05
I find it more than a little funny that Phex said the views i was expresing kept the counter culture in the darkages, when i had lifted them straight out of some the most respected occult books around, so realy if you think about it your keeping your selves in the dark ages.
 
 
Darkmatter
12:20 / 25.01.05
Just for reference, how old are you Gypsy Lantern?
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
12:24 / 25.01.05
Keep up. One man's "most respected occult books around" are another man's old hat ripe for a kicking.

Just for reference, how old are you Gypsy Lantern?

None of your business. What colour eyes does your mam have?
 
 
Darkmatter
12:27 / 25.01.05
Green actually
 
 
Darkmatter
12:32 / 25.01.05
May i ask what you do for a living then?
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
12:52 / 25.01.05
Please stick to the topic abstract.
 
 
Bear
12:58 / 25.01.05
I think if we're honest we would admit that magic often appeals to people with various issues or problems in their own life.

I'm pretty sure magic adds to the feeling that some have that they're 'different' or 'special' a feeling which usually comes into effect around puberty keeping it tight knit and closed helps people to continue that feeling without having it challenged.

I also think a lot of it comes from fear, magic is a great way to feel empowered in an often fucked up world, to be given back a feeling of control is a powerful thing but you wouldn't want everyone feeling that way... if the man in the chippy does a sigil every morning before switching on the fryer it's harder to retain that feeling of power which is when the ego comes into play and divisions become greater "they wouldn't understand" "I have knowledge you couldn't handle" "Sheeple". Without the divide you would no longer be special, keep it underground and keep it secret.

Of course it's very possible that's just reasons that originally sparked my interest in all this!
 
 
Chiropteran
13:02 / 25.01.05
Gypsy, I don't have a lot of time to really get into this right now (because of what I do for a living...) but the issues you're bringing up about magic in "the counterculture" (that the is more than a little dubious, but that's a bit of a tangent) are very similar to discussions/debates/arguments that periodically turn up in the anarchist community - are "anarchists" some kind of "counterculture" that sits outside "mainstream culture" and throws rocks at it, or can/should they be within the culture, or more concretely within the community trying to bring about (what the community agrees is) positive change from the ground up. Or, in other words, do they run around trying to enlighten and liberate the oppressed masses because they (as anarchists) know better, or are they the people they are trying to "liberate" (along with, and in cooperation with, their friends and family, etc.)?

"Magical activism," by its occulted nature (and typical outsider stance) especially opens itself to cries of vanguardism, elitism, even cryptofascism ("you will all be enlightened! My way!"). If anything, those of us playing at puppetmastery are even more sinister to the "common person" than either the Ivory Tower Academics or Direct Action Blocs those charges are usually applied to (if we're not simply dismissed as loons).

I've got more to this, but I really need to get to work. Back later (if the thread hasn't degenerated beyond repair).

~L
 
 
iamus
13:18 / 25.01.05
All of these ideas seem to have solidified into a lifestyle option, where you're invited to adopt a series of alternative ideas about reality, but you don't really have to do anything about it. It's enough to just think in a certain way, slap yourself on the back, and pity the uneducated, unliberated denizens of mainstream culture.

Well that's sort of the way that everything goes if it isn't constantly challenged and re-evaluated. Whether you're talking magical practice or government or whatever, things that don't change in reflection to the state of the world about them will stagnate. Anything that isn't constantly moving forward is moving backwards.

It seems to me that those most likely to use the tag are those who have the most trouble reconciling themselves within the larger social context, creating comfortable bubbles of theory that exist just so they can be ideologically opposed to something. So what happens when "counter-culture" takes over? If it exists to challenge the status quo then what happens if it succeeds? Do its ideas become assimilated into the culture, changing it, thus being absorbed into the system it challenges (At which point, no doubt, people complain about the commodification of their ideas)? Or does it become the dominant ideology and therefore become a bit redundant?

"Counter-culture" is a bit of a bollocks tag anyway, slapped on to make something sound far cooler than it should be. It's just an aspect of culture's own evolutionary drive, offering opposing viewpoints to spark off of and generate new avenues. There is culture, and that's it. It's many things within itself, but it's still the one whole.
 
 
Chiropteran
13:29 / 25.01.05
It's also worth noting that, in many places, for every Scientific Shaman(TM) and Revolutionary Magus in the Invisible Army, there are dozens of people for whom folk magic or an explicitly magical religion (Vodou, Palo, etc.) are part of everyday life in the home and the community -- people who most often do not identify with the card-carrying "Counter Culture" (as typified by RAW, et al) as such, and who also often hold what many of us would consider fairly conservative opinions on many issues.

Now, it could be argued that these are also not "mainstream culture" in the sense that they're not Consumer Society Sanctioned Lifestyles, but they're about as "grass roots" as you can get -- as much so, in their own way, as any of the conservative Christians that we like to moan about so much.

And, while many Western Mystery Trad or Kaos Magickians do little more than write/argue about or dabble in magic(k), the Palero who lives down the street from you (the one with the Bush/Cheney sticker on his SUV) is doing it. Hard.

Okay, I'm really getting to work now...

~L
 
 
trouser the trouserian
13:39 / 25.01.05
Article The Conquest of Cool by Thomas Frank that looks at the relationship between 1960's counter-culture & 'hip' consumerism. Might be useful to have a look at whilst pondering yer vast collection of comics, Disinfo DVDs and Chris Hyatt books.
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
15:14 / 25.01.05
'lo all,

bogged down in the language of it all. "counter-culture," in order to have a workeable definition is inextricably defined by the culture in question.

however, it isn't exactly clearly defined, now, is it?

"counter" sets up a binary confrontation of mutual-exclusivity - either you're with the culture, or you're with the counter-culture.

I say neither. they're both convenient labels we use as short-hand for discernable patterns in our emergent frolic.

If magic isn't acknowledged by our legal systems, then how can it be addressed by "legitimate" circles with any intelligent consideration?

perhaps we consider it "counter" by the nature of its "otherness."

but "other-culture" sounds contrived and overly-PC.

let's just call it life.

=) tenix
 
 
LVX23
15:33 / 25.01.05
As bearo notes, there's a certain degree of antagonism necessary in order for the counter-culture to even exist. By it's very nature it needs an enemy. And herein lies it's power and it's drive.

the purpose of counter culture should be to actively subvert mainstream culture

Yeah, but once it's been subverted then the counter-culture is itself mainstream. It's sort of a question of identity. Are you identifying with the actual details of your counter-culture (magick as a path to wholeness, ecological harmony, social anarchism, etc...) such that if it were to become the norm, would you still consider yourself a member? Or do you identify with the conflict itself, always moving on to the next assault on the norm?

In a sense, the latter version might be considered the chaos counter-culture: an adherence to change over all. Nothing is true so nothing is worth becoming a new paradigm. Of course, this runs quite counter to the stated goals of most counter-cultures themselves.

Now this all assumes that counter-cultures in fact even want to change mainstream culture. Another aspect of the CC is simply a defense of alternative lifestyles. You can keep your stripmalls and church's, and I'll keep my raves and illicit substances. This would be the peaceful coexistence model of the CC.

But what happens when the mainstream sees value in the CC and wants to absorb it? Advertising & marketing plumb the depths of most CC's to stay cool (the CC is always the cool factory, yeah?). So if your CC happens to take hold of the mainstream because now everyone's buying Chaos t-shirts and Phil Hine coffe mugs, does that mean you've won? Will enough of those kids buying the commodity of magick actually get it and evolve themselves and the world? Or does the message get so diluted that it becomes yet another meaningless commodity? (In a sense this ties in with the perennial discussion about cultural appropriation, but now it's marketers appropriating the CC).

In other words, if everyone was a chaos magician, would you still want to be one? Or would the distinction even be valid? And maybe that's th ewhole point: there is ultimately no distinction between mainstream and CC. It's just a whole bunch of reality tunnels that overlap eachother. Are there only 6-degrees between Aleister Crowley and Kevin bacon?
 
 
trouser the trouserian
15:55 / 25.01.05
... Phil Hine coffe mugs...

You know you've made it when you become a coffee mug!
 
 
Unconditional Love
17:22 / 25.01.05
each generation sells its counter culture to the next repackaged and with the chemical bondage(illicit substances thrown in). if you look at the cycles of the past the reemergence of punk new metal goth industrial etc they tie into a period when the previous generations who experienced it the first time around are hitting there late 20s to late 30s, some of this is what do i know how can i make a living? and some of it is to keep certain acceptable rebellions afloat, its just a punk metaller goth etc or a 60s wannabe, thats all harmless, if you run counter culture as a comparrisson to fundamentalist christian culture it seems oh so rebellious, it aint its just a hair cut some clothing some drugs an attitude some words to speak and think in like thats the way, and later in life a hard fucking shock to your nervous system when you realise that dont cut it no more and means'cardboard box' unless of course your selling it too the next generation. then you can look oh so cool cant you know.

personally i think nudity and public sex orgies are the answer, as a kind of counter culture for a while, or something like that.

the problem lies in this dualistic notion of them and us and a love for conflict(which is the part i always and still do like) i like fighting, i like resisting pushing against what i percieve to be the flow of things, but there is another way to fight, there is also a flow of conflict for unresistance. and then there is the idea of just stopping . the problem seems to arrive from this dualistic perception, it seems to be the crux of the matter for me.

to consider all faces as one face is very difficult, but so far its the best metaphor i have for understanding that the conflict of them and us is a way to create fear mainly and friction, to create an illusion of movement within human cultures, that they are actually changing, and in line with linear capitalist thinking they are evolving forward with progress, there not just going round and round really, are they now? were going somewhere right and they are staying where they are? its us who are evolving.

please just give me my spear and cave.

there is no counterculture or mainstream, you arent alternative and they arent normal, no matter how hard you try to escape through apparence mentality display art philosophy science etc, you cant escape the reality of the soul and personally i dont want to.
 
 
Papess
17:35 / 25.01.05
I am undertstanding what Bearo was saying. I think that counter-culture implies more of an "opposition" to mainstream. But funny enough, almost everything that is counter does become mainstream at some point. So, LVX23's point of, and initially GL's point about the integration of counter into mainstream (or vice versa?), is actually true, as in, it does happen to occur.

Thus, there really is no counter-culture, is there?

Fuck, I am so disappointed.

Doesn't counter-culture need to be an opposing force to mainstream, if it intends to survive. Perhaps survival is not the point. The proper dynamics need to considered in the relationship between CC and mainstream. If CC purpose is not useful anymore, then it's purpose might have to change. Therefore, the methods by which a purpose is achieved, change. I suppose that both CC and mainstream forms would change as they transform over time, in tandem. AS mainstream swallows up more and more of CC by exploiting it's novelty to the general public, perhaps at some point, order and harmony, will be the new slogan of specifically, the new counter-culture. Or is it already? I don't know, I am counter-counter-culture, which makes me pretty mainstream, which I am also counter to.

Mainstream is the New Counter Culture!

It all ends up being quite subversive, anyway. Or not.

(I seem to be stuck in some dualism trap. There is so much "us and them" smacking in this topic.)
 
 
Papess
17:43 / 25.01.05
Mark R, I think I was posting the same time as you. So anyway, aye. What you said.
 
 
gale
17:56 / 25.01.05
Mark, I agree with you--and with what (most) everyone else has said here.

I think we all have people we love who are members of so-called "mainstream" culture. My aunt and uncle live in Iowa and love W! They love the guy! But when they came out to visit, I was happy to see them and sit down and talk to them. Because I love them.

Just interacting with people as individuals or as a part of a single living organism can mitigate the need to pigeonhole by political views, religion, clothing, etc--and then react according to the superficial differences between us.

On the other hand, I am interested in working magic to make W a better, more honorable person--at least when it comes to making decisions that affect many lives.
 
 
Sir Real
18:18 / 25.01.05
To me it's the evolution of mainstream culture. At any moment there are many counter cultures. The ones that are 'succesful' are the ones that impregate mainstream culture with some of their values/ideas. It's not 'they' who are coopting 'our' cool stuff. It's us implanting our cool stuff into their mindspaces.

Or something like that. (I have to credit an essay by Brian Eno I read yesterday. I don't have the book on me at the moment, but if anyone's interested I can give more info on it)
 
 
Darkmatter
19:05 / 25.01.05
If the resistance of the counter culture fails, I think there will be nothing in store for us but what anti-Utopians Huxley and Orwell have forecast--though I have no doubt that these dismal despotisms will be far more stable and effective than their prophets have forseen. For they will be equipped with techniques of inner-manipulation as unobtrusively fine as gossamer. Above all, the capacity of our emerging technocratic paradise to denature the imagination by appropriating to itself the whole meaning of Reason, Reality, Progress, and Knowledge will render it impossible for men to give any name to their bothersomely unfulfilled potentialities but that of madness. And for such madness, humanitarian therapies will be generously provided
 
 
Seth
19:24 / 25.01.05
I don’t tend to put much stock in the term counter culture because not only does it imply a dualism (either the culture or the counter culture) it also defines itself in negative (as an opposite or against) in its relationship to something that really cannot be easily defined (especially not too all concerned parties). I therefore see the term as referring to a woolly, poorly conceptualised model of how the world actually works. It’s so poorly conceived as to be entirely without use in my day-to-day life, which is usually concerned with challenging dualistic thinking, needless antagonism and imprecise communication/definitions.
 
 
Bear
19:25 / 25.01.05
The Making of a Counter Culture
Theodore Roszak
1969

Don't forget to show your working....

I'm not exactly sure what I was trying to say above, whatever it was it didn't really come out as I'd hoped.

Basically I was agreeing with this -

To some extent, it seems to prefer to exist in a comfortable little ghetto and avoid actually engaging with the outside world as much as possible.
 
 
Tom Tit's Tot: A Girl!
19:38 / 25.01.05
If the resistance of the counter culture fails, I think there will be nothing in store for us but what anti-Utopians Huxley and Orwell have forecast--though I have no doubt that these dismal despotisms will be far more stable and effective than their prophets have forseen.

God, I love doomsayers.

I take real issue with the idea that somehow the people that head/direct the "counter culture" (a nonentity, anyway) are capable of bringing about a change that -improves- upon what we have now. For example, I am in favour of grassroots and direct action as a form of social disobedience. I think the protests are necessary. However, most US anti-war protests are co-ordinated by a group called ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism). ANSWER, while having honest aims, has a man named Ramsey Clark as a member of it's steering committee. Now, for a bit of cut n' paste....

from Wikipedia:


William Ramsey Clark (born December 18, 1927) served as the 66th United States Attorney General under President Lyndon Johnson. He is the son of Supreme Court Justice Tom C. Clark. He is a recipient of the Gandhi Peace Award.... Clark played an important role in the history of the American Civil Rights movement: during his years at the Justice Department, he supervised the federal presence at Ole Miss during the week following the admission of James Meredith; surveyed all school districts in the South desegregating under court order (1963); supervised federal enforcement of the court order protecting the march from Selma to Montgomery; and headed the Presidential task force to Watts following the riots. He went on to supervise the drafting and executive role in passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and Civil Rights Act of 1968. As Attorney-General, Clark also opposed the government's use of wiretaps.

Right, pretty cool, eh? Seems like a reasonable guy...

More recently, Clark is well-known for having unconventional political views and for providing support and legal advice to numerous controversial figures in conflict with the US or western governments, including:

* Branch Davidian leader David Koresh
* alleged former Nazis Karl Linnas and Jack Riemer
* antiwar activist Father Philip Berrigan
* Native American alleged political prisoner Leonard Peltier
* Liberian political figure Charles Taylor during his 1985 fight against extradition from the United States to Liberia
* Lyndon LaRouche, who faced charges of conspiracy and mail fraud
* Slobodan Milosevic in the International Criminal Court.
* Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, a leader of the Rwandan genocide
* PLO leaders in a lawsuit brought by the family of Leon Klinghoffer, the wheelchair bound elderly tourist who was shot and tossed overboard from the hijacked Achille Lauro cruise ship by Palestinian terrorists in 1986
* The state of Iraq, serving as legal counsel for the Hussein regime.
* Saddam Hussein, former leader of Iraq who was removed from power during a 2003 invasion led by the US


I don't claim to understand this disparity in thinking. That a man can be so concerned about Civil Rights and then defend Milosevic and Ntakirutimana seems absurd to me, but there it is.

All this is by way of saying, the counter culture "leaders" are as corrupt and fucked as the mainstream "leaders".

For they will be equipped with techniques of inner-manipulation as unobtrusively fine as gossamer. Above all, the capacity of our emerging technocratic paradise to denature the imagination by appropriating to itself the whole meaning of Reason, Reality, Progress, and Knowledge will render it impossible for men to give any name to their bothersomely unfulfilled potentialities but that of madness. And for such madness, humanitarian therapies will be generously provided.

I think most folks that predict/look forward to that "boot stamping on a face" future are getting off on being oppressed. It's S&M and Passive-Aggressive and the worst type of mindset in the "counter culture".

The real question is, do you wank while reading 1984?
 
 
Papess
20:25 / 25.01.05
Oppressed? How about repressed?
 
 
Alex's Grandma
22:15 / 25.01.05
I don't see what's wrong with the idea of counter-culture, personally. While it's certainly true that everyone has to go to the shops and so on, and is in that sense implicated in the broader consumerist situation, I'm not necessarily sure if say paying the gas bill, buying the odd CD or watching television means that you've got no real right to define yourself against what culturally-speaking might be explained as the mainstream, really. It just seems a bit odd that there's so much static about this on here, given that this part of the ( already, let's face it, quite weird, ) board is dedicated to the practice of the dark arts, behaviour which not all that long ago would have had you burned at the stake, and that yet there's a strand of thinking that would seem to believe that taking five tabs of acid, dropping one's strides and then summoning up the Great God Pan in the garden shed ( not that I've tried it, so I could be wrong, ) is in some way similar, or at least not all that qualitatively different, from going to Ikea on a Saturday morning. There'd be parallels I suppose, but I still think, not.

If that's your idea of a good weekend, you're simply not a part of the world Tony Blair, Microsoft or the other teh &*^%&s would have you believe in, the &*^s, and to pretend otherwise seems a bit counter-productive. As well as intellectually corrosive, as far as I can see.

I'm going to end up arguing that Radiohead are better than Kylie, I know, I know, because Radiohead, y'know, 'say stuff,' but, uh, oh well...

Essentially, remove the idea of 'counter' from culture, and everyone might as well submit to the power of Barclays Bank, Groundforce and Starlight Express, as well as more seriously, the likes of Shell Oil, and if the requisite poses seem a bit just exactly that, surely anything's better than that whole 'well I used to believe in things, but now I've got a mortgage,' type of approach that Mr Tone's going to ride like a wave to his third term in office ?

< rant ends >
 
 
Unconditional Love
02:56 / 26.01.05
if you define yourself in regards to the mainstream as opposed to it you are reliant on the mainstream for your identity, both mainstream and counter culture rely upon each other to create consumable identities. there is mutual intrest in keeping each other going through the percieved notion of conflict. as long as there is movement and percieved opposition, the thems and us's can stay stable in there mutual aparant friction.
 
 
EvskiG
03:01 / 26.01.05
Ken Goffman -- better known as R.U. Sirius -- recently offered some thoughts about the common elements of countercultures in his new book "Counterculture Through the Ages."

Here are the features he sees as defining a counterculture:

* Assigning primacy to individuality at the expense of social conventions and governmental constraints.

* Challenging authoritarianism in both obvious and subtle forms.

* Embracing individual and social change.

He also suggested that the following are common but not universal among countercultures:

* Breakthroughs and radical innovations in art, science, spirituality, philosophy and living.

* Diversity.

* Authentic, open communication and profound interpersonal contact. Also generosity and the democratic sharing of tools.

* Persecution by mainstream culture.

* Exile or dropping out.

Seems to me that the above might be a reasonable definition to start with.

It's not clear to me that a subculture has to have the deliberate aim of challenging the status quo. It seems to me, though, that many robust subcultures do so by their mere existence as a more-or-less viable alternative to everyday mainstream life.

I'm not sure modern occultism is quite that robust at the moment.
 
 
Unconditional Love
06:00 / 26.01.05
this ken goffman sounds like another neo liberal, who thinks right wing anarchism is still the answer.

just like leary, r.a.w, hyatt and co.

but then each generation thinks there revolution is the right revolution, and it really will change things.

excuse my cynicism but i really cant stomach that kind of bollocks anymore.

its not counter culture its a mini version of what every multinational corporation thats busy treating every part of the earth including humans as commodities wants.

freedom from authority, that denies it the right to totally annhilate the rainforests and other parts of the earth, freedom to exploit indigenoius knowledge of herbs etc etc i could go on.

all the above people are totally sold out. this whole the individual is first and foremost philosophy denies unity entirely, any sense of community and to a large degree any social responsibility to others in the community you are a part of.

its basically selfish crap for selfish cunts.

i live in a community and can see that me first philosophy and the damage its done since i was a child to real people, not just some abstract intellectual bullshit being chucked about in a forum, the effect on peoples lives,
the increase in homeless children in the uk, because its not my problem, in the increase in homelessness in general, because its not my problem im an individual and i come first. its not about us its about me me me.

oh yeah and fuck that cunt crowley too, infantile selfish bag of hodge podged together other peoples work wanker, wanna be aristocrat, proto punk rocker my arse, self indulgent piece of shit.

i really have had enough of the me me me generation, everbody had there 15 minutes yet. got to be somebody more than everybody else in some way, got to be cool. yeah.

fuck off.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
08:09 / 26.01.05
selfish crap for selfish cunts

I've heard that's the working title of the new Hyatt book
 
 
EvskiG
13:27 / 26.01.05
First, Goffman isn't a neo-liberal or right-wing anarchist. Rather, he's a former Yippie and left-wing activist in the same prankster tradition as Abbie Hoffman. For what it's worth, he's also the guy who pretty much willed 90s cyberculture into existence by convincing people (in the pages of his magazine Mondo 2000) that it already existed.

Second, the elements noted above are descriptive, not prescriptive. That is, they describe what common elements of countercultures have been "through the ages," not what the elements of an ideal counterculture should be.

Third, even the above description suggests that countercultures frequently include "challenging authoritarianism," "embracing . . . social change," "innovations in . . . living," "diversity," and "the democratic sharing of tools." I'd add that communitarianism and social activism also seem to be common elements, regardless of whether you're discussing the Diggers, the American Transcendentalists, or the classic hippie movement of the 60s.
 
 
Charlie's Horse
14:07 / 26.01.05
...there's a strand of thinking that would seem to believe that taking five tabs of acid, dropping one's strides and then summoning up the Great God Pan in the garden shed ( not that I've tried it, so I could be wrong, ) is in some way similar, or at least not all that qualitatively different, from going to Ikea on a Saturday morning.

You've raised an interesting point there, Flight. I don't think anyone's trying to say that calling up Gods is operationally the same or even similiar to a passive consumer lifestyle. The particulars of action are very different. Buuut, if your encounter with Pan (or with anyone) stops at the boundary of the encounter, if it is hidden away and prevented from touching other people, what does it matter? If magic is so personal that it never leaves the confines of your own life to impact others around you, then what's the point? If it never goes anywhere, it has the same impact as playing Halo 2 for a couple of hours. Worse, if it gives you an 'I'm so damn enlightened' perspective from which you look down on those poor, poor normal people who don't spend their time tripping out on their own fevered egos in their spare time. Even if you practice magic, it's possible to do it in a way that never spreads serendipity to others. That's probably less impressive than becoming a hometown videogame champion.

More later.. Class now..

+Charlie+
 
 
LVX23
15:06 / 26.01.05
Mark, I certainly agree that the cult of individuality has often sacrificed community and wholeness, and has proven itself partiulary dangerous, especially here in America. There has to be a balance between being a strong individual and a compassionate member of society.

However, I suggest you actually read some of the authors you're tearing down. Selfishness is not at all what Leary, Crowley, & RAW (or Goffman) are on about. You really have no idea here. Hyatt - I'll give you that one, but I don't feel he belongs anywhere near the others mentioned.
 
 
rising and revolving
16:22 / 26.01.05
If the resistance of the counter culture fails, I think there will be nothing in store for us but what anti-Utopians Huxley and Orwell have forecast

Fuck sake, Orwell and Huxley didn't "forecast" anything. I'm sick and tired of hearing the constant whine of "Gosh, it's just like 1984 has finally come true, OMGWTFCOD"

They weren't writing about the future, they were writing about THEIR PRESENT. That is, in fact, the job of speculative fiction (good stuff, anyway) - not predicting the future, but allowing us to understand the present.
 
 
Tom Tit's Tot: A Girl!
17:01 / 26.01.05
R.A.W. isn't an anarchist. Like Buckminster Fuller wasn't.
 
  

Page: (1)23

 
  
Add Your Reply