Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - 03-04

Interzone / Critical thinking
« on: April 07, 2014, 04:33:56 AM »
Throughout my school-years I've been taught, that it is important to think critically.

If you can think critically, then you can think for yourself, and then you won't be so easily fooled - so the reasoning went.

As I got older I gradually realized how insane this idea really is: No matter what, you must always remember to criticize.

What I found out - especially at university - was, that everybody felt that thinking critically was so important, that it really didn't matter if you understood what you were criticizing or not. It was all about thinking independently - and everybody assumed that being critical of everything was the only way to 'not letting yourself be fooled'.

The foolishness was, that nobody even thought of criticizing the whole idea of criticism as independent thinking in itself. Everybody just went along with it. Why? Well - that's what we were taught, wasn't it?

So much for thinking for yourself.

What it really leads to is no one being able to think at all. Everybody is so afraid of being fooled by 'dangerous ideas', that they don't even dare to understand the things they fear being fooled by.

'Cause that could lead to, like, oppression man.' Oppression of every man's right to 'think for himself', ie. to be freely able to dismiss anything, without understanding anything about it, that is.

- 'Equality' follows naturally: Nobody should be fooled by anything = Every individual has an absolute right to fool himself.

Metal / The artistry of underground metal
« on: March 11, 2014, 04:09:24 AM »
Well, I don't know about art, and I don't give a shit about art no matter what it is. I'm just doing what comes natural, and I've never thought about it as art. The things I do are for me, I've never done music for no one but me. Still, I think it's satisfying to know that the truly dedicated out there find something in what I do.
Interview with Ildjarn

In a world of plastic garbage and derivative, 'intellectual' modern art, underground metal hit a nerve. It managed to be engaging in a way, that made the highbrow, socially accepted art seem hollow in comparison.

Perhaps this was because the artists had no idea that they were making art to begin with. They were simply reveling in the unadulterated joy of distorted sound, bending and shaping it because they could, till it felt right. Not seeking to come up with something to fit into some preconceived theory of art and expression. Just being alive, exploring the endless possibilities of an aesthetic, that 'normal' people rejected as noisy and unpleasant, with youthful zeal.

And in this activity they found all the meaning and adventure, that the dying society around them never could provide. Almost by accident, but not quite. They found their own spirit.

Maybe this is what's embedded in the sound. And perhaps this is what made it such beautiful art.

They weren't seeking to be taken seriously by others - but they understood that what they were doing was something worth taking seriously.

Interzone / Insecurity
« on: March 10, 2014, 05:38:23 PM »
My earliest childhood was a very happy one. But when I reached school-age, and became imbedded in a social-setting larger than my neighbourhood and local friends, I gradually grew more secluded and insecure. So I withdrew into myself.

At some point, I realized that this wasn't so cool, being downright scared of other people. So I got to work, and gradually came out of my shell.

This process included quite a lot of embarrasing moments for me, as I knew nothing of how to behave in a social setting, and so often made an ass out of myself. There was a lot of shame - but shame is something you get over, though it feels like it'll be there forever, when it's going on.

Eventually I managed to kill off most of my social insecurities, and before I knew it, being around other people didn't bother me that much anymore.

But as I grew accustomed to others, I started to notice something strange.

Back when I was insecure, I never really saw the behavior of others. I was too caught up in my own feelings of awkwardness - but as these feelings started to reside, I lost the pathological self-awareness, and my mind became free to absorb what was actually going on around me.

What I started to notice was, that all my socially adapt peers also had a million insecurities, that I just never noticed before. Theirs just weren't connected with being social as such - but they were insecure with regards to almost everything else: Feeling alone, unintelligent, ugly, unwanted etc.

Where I had been busy tackling what I saw as my own flaws, they hadn't even considered that their own insecurities were something that could be fixed. Instead, they had been socializing and bonding over these feelings of inferiority.

They got together to complain, and constantly affirmed each other as victims of all the greater and smaller 'injustices of the world'. And because of this very affirmation, they felt justified in not doing anything about their problems.

Either that, or putting others (or each other) down, so they could individually feel better.

They were basically using each other as excuses: 'Everybody is miserable, so why shouldn't I be?

That was when I realized, that these were the very things that I had never been able to do. This was why I withdrew into myself in the first place - because I never believed that misery could do anything good for me.

Interzone / Being somebody
« on: November 09, 2013, 05:23:09 AM »
I've realized that my biggest enemy is myself.

To some degree, I've always desired to be somebody. Sombody special. Somebody important. Somebody worth noticing.

Even while seeking to extinguish the ego, I've been desiring. Desiring to be nothing, nobody. Somebody who was nothing or nobody.

But today I ask myself: What is a 'somebody'? What is it I want to be?

I haven't ceased wanting to be. In fact, that's the only thing remaining: Wanting to be.

What has ceased is somebody. I've forgotten somebody. Somebody's gone.

Yet I still am. I just don't know exactly what. But it's definitely not 'somebody'. In fact, it is just the opposite: My being simply is whatever it is that I am. Nothing more.

I find it strange that I could've ever wanted something else - foolish even. But foolish in a way that brings a smile to my face.

Metal / Some of my music (WARNING: Shameless self-promotion inside)
« on: November 08, 2013, 06:55:52 AM »
Dead last asked if I had any of my music to share, so I've uploaded a couple of tracks to youtube.

Chupacabra is the more melodic stuff. My 'main' project I guess you could say. 'The Villager' is the first track of an album, The Abject that I've been working on for many years.

Intet is more minimalistic and abrasive. There's still some melody in there, though. 'Glimt' is the first (and only) finished track from Intet at this point. An album of this is in the making as well.

I've added some sexy, MTV-styled videos to the music for extra mass-market-appeal.

Interzone / David Lynch
« on: September 08, 2013, 06:49:42 PM »
Others here who dig the works of David Lynch as much as I do?

Most movies are junk in general, but he has really managed to do something interesting with the medium.

A guiding theme in his work is the nature of reality as being beyond good and evil.

Much like metal does in the aural medium, he infuses his work with a sort of visual distortion, which is then used as raw material for the shaping of expansive structures, that illustrate a process that moves and breathes underneath the immediately obvious: Through deconstruction of traditional storytelling and popcultural symbolism, he reaches towards pure mood, which is then applied as means towards the end of subconscious communication.

In Blue Velvet we follow a young man who sets out on a journey through the darkness of desire to discover a meaning that transcends the boredom of surburban life. Opening scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvxuhzVl8Ys

In the TV-series Twin Peaks he explores the subject of the 'hidden face'; Almost every character is two-faced, acting out of motives that obscure their true being, symbolically represented by the character of Laura Palmer, the beautyqueen, who maybe wasn't as nice and innocent as everybody thought, who is almost metaphysically omnipresent throughout the whole series, even though it she is and remains physically dead from start to finish. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3sjAq021I8 (don't know why it's in black and white).

In his newest, Inland Empire, he went for pure subconcious communication through manipulation of symbols, dropping the traditional storyline entirely. A lot of people thought it was too much, but I found it brilliant - moving even, in a way I can't really explain. Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKi4Y5zl5qU

Any opinions on this director?

Interzone / The mechanics of distraction
« on: August 29, 2013, 02:51:10 PM »
This is an off-shoot of 'Head in the clouds', as I feel that this is deserving of a topic of its own. Encouraged by crow, I meditated a bit on the tricky concept of distraction and these are the words I found.

It went in bit of an unexpected direction, but it grew naturally to be what it is, so perhaps that isn't such a bad thing. Maybe there is something in there of use to someone, somewhere.

The mechanics of distraction

What is distraction? A type of bewilderment. The distracted mind is always a mind seeking something else. A distraction is a means for the mind - often unknowingly - to escape whatever it should be doing, effectively seeking to be in another mind-state than it is actually in.

As such, I believe that distraction is best classified as a type of confusion. Confusion is the general mind-state of distraction, and the specific instance of distraction is always an uttering of a more general confusion.

Now, this is a bit of a paradox for the distracted mind doesn't really want this confused mindstate - but exactly because of this desire, it acts in a way that enforces or strenghtens the confusion, pro-longing the undesired state indefinitely.

How? Well, distraction can manifest in two distinct ways:

1. You should be doing something specific, but instead end up doing nothing generally.
2. There is nothing specifically you should be doing, but still end up doing something generally.

My guess would be, that people who are introverted are prone to the first kind of distraction, whereas extroverts more easily fall prey to the second. Why? Well, introverts generally desire the peace and quiet of the inner world, whereas extro's derive energy from the hustle and bustle of the outer, often social world. But of course, variations occur.

Whether introvert or extrovert, the distracted mind in general is one gravitating towards a desired mind-state, or at least what is perceived as a desired mind-state: What the distracted individual instinctively recognizes as its own comfort-zone. This in spite of the fact that this desired mind-state isn't what is required of the mind at the given time.

This is indicated by the should: The distracted mind always knows that it should be occupying itself with something else. Something (or perhaps nothing) more urgent. Yet, it seeks to escape what it knows, instead restlessly seeking a state 'out of itself' so to speak.

Why is this so? Because the mind feels uncomfortably challenged by the task, the should at hand. For example: The extrovert feel unease with a state of being alone or not having something to do, and thus seeks out meaningless activity to escape this uneasiness. On the other hand, the introvert fears acting on his ideas, truly getting something done, and so post-pones the task in favor of his beloved inner tranquility.

As a result, the tranquility grows restless, and the activity becomes empty.

If such behavior goes unnoticed by the distracted mind - which it generally does - it will lead to a state of subtle torment, both for the distracted person himself, as well as for his surroundings, as the distracted person inevitably grows unbearably-- what shall I call it? Discordant, perhaps. He both suffers from- and inflicts upon others a lack of harmony and fundamental balance

This is of course unfortunate for all. But it will persist as long as the distracted one tries to escape that which he knows that he should- or should not do.

Distraction is a major problem, both individually and collectively in the modern world. In other words: We have too many people doing something that should in fact be doing nothing, as well as too many people doing nothing that should be doing something. This means that the wrong people are doing, and the wrong people are not-doing.

What a confused mess! I say: Let's try to do something about it. After all, we all know that we should, right?

And a logical first step? Undistraction. It is our individual as well as collective duty to avoid distraction at any costs, as we will both be happier as people, and healthier as a society if we leave such confusion behind. This however means that we have to make a conscious effort of leaving our comfort-zone when we know that it is right to do so.

Still many people won't do this. What is generally holding the distracted person back? The answer to this question is both an easy and a hard one: For without exception it is the ego blocking the way of undistraction. The pain of leaving your individual comfort zone is namely the fear that one is ultimately exposed as being something other than one likes to think of oneself. To avoid facing this 'risk', we distract ourselves - simple as that.

This however is the prime confusion, the confusion par excellence - because there is no real risk. We only perceive one, because we - often unconsciously - like to think of our individual selves as the center of the world, and fear that this center - and thus the world - will be shattered and destroyed if we challenge it. That is however not the case, as anyone willing and courageous enough to challenge his own egomanical notions will soon find out - for in fact, the ego doesn't really exist, and therefore cannot be the center of anything. The thought of the ego can exist though, but it only has real power as long as one is unwilling to challenge it. And challenge our egos is something we should all do - because beyond there is reality, which is infinitely greater, more rewarding, glorious, good and beautiful.

There will of course always be people who are too fearful to reach beyond themselves - but we shouldn't be bothered by this, as they are the ones suffering, not us. Unless of course we become, or remain one of them.

Who on earth would truly want that?

Undistract youself!

Interzone / Love
« on: June 22, 2013, 03:49:29 AM »

There has been a couple of topics floating around vaguely addressing the question of love, what it is, where it comes from and where it is going, but all in relation to procreation, and relationships, which I feel is secondary to the real issue. Love deserves a thread of its own.

My view on the matter is pretty much summed up by this wonderful quote from Charles Manson, from his interview with Charlie Rose (conducted in 1986 - my year of birth):

'Everything is love. There's nothing that isn't love. Even the confusion is love in one form or another. It's misguided. Love is a word that we use to supplement for God. Or, I would like-, I would rather use the word intelligence. If you're going to use the word love, use the word intelligence - because love is misunderstood in so many ways and fashions'.

(The interview can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4uT6ou_ZGw  -The quote appears around the 12-minute mark. Manson is way better seen/heard than he is read).

'Love' as word has been chained to the romantic, because the love between man and woman is about the only purity most people get to experience in their entire life. In reality, it is much more than that, though: Love is transcendence. It's and immediate and direct knowing. Unity through experience, or ultimate reality, or whatever you wanna call it.

The essential thing is: It cannot be explained - it must be experienced. If you have never experienced love, there's no possible way for you to understand it.

Manson calls love both God and intelligence because the experience is a melding away of the ego and catching a glimpse of an infinite order running through the All. One could call it the absolute continuity between the mind-body and reality, but that's not really accurate. It's more like an awakening: Your being becomes the eye of divinity, beholding everything it has created.

But love is also profane as fuck. It refuses to be chained down, and deflates all self-importance and grandeur. In love we touch upon the infinite by being the infinite in infinite ways. Whether this is a kiss or a smack in the mouth depends entirely on the situation-

One bizarre aspect of love - the power of love - is synchronicity. Suddenly, everything is about it. You realize what it's all about, but this realization is inexplainable. You can only hint at it, and point others in its direction, but they'll never see it unless they realize it themselves. Birds become words. The book of revelations becomes realism. Absurd and seemingly insignificant little phrases like 'it is it', 'it is what it is', 'that's it' takes on immense importance. (Danish: Det er det).

This is the origin of one of the famous clichés of being in love: Suddenly all the sentimental lovesongs on the radio takes on importance. It all becomes about that girl.

Since most are chained to the physical, they'll never realize that that girl is also about something else. She's just a link in the grand chain of being. It runs through everything, even fear, death, destruction, hate etc. These aren't always 'nice' to look in the eye. To avoid beholding the great light and dark of reality - and love will take you through these beautiful and horrible things if you run with it - humanity has build a fence around the 'safely' romantic, and call that love. Thus love becomes 'biology'. Ultimately, it becomes boring, or overtly complicated. Confusion

This is also the story of, why humanity has isolated itself from nature.

Enough words. I've already said too much.

Interzone / An important book
« on: May 27, 2013, 04:45:06 AM »
What is the most important book you've ever read? Try to pick just one, and then explain why. Not necessarily the best or the most perfect, but the one that has spoken to your awareness with greatest profundity.

I have read many great books, but picking the one that had the greatest influence on me really isn't that hard. It's Arthur Schopenhauers The world as Will and Representation.

I got it for my 18th birthday. It was the first book of real philosophy I ever read, and it was a hard-, sometimes frustrating read. Took me a long time to finish. I had to read many passages twice or thrice, and there was still a lot of things I didn't quite get the first time around.

But I was determined to get through it. I had to understand it. It seemed to me incredibly important for me to understand it. Such was its power.

In a way, this book made me feel very stupid - but at the same time, it encouraged me not to be. It encouraged me to learn.

Dicovering Schopenhauer-, the beauty, subtlety and incredible thoroughness of his thought was an eyeopener. Here, I heard a voice of real wisdom. Something entirely different from the mindless chatter of an everyday understanding. Here was someone who understood. Someone who didn't just pretend to know, but actually knew.

Knew what? That there is a profound difference between the world as it appears, and as it truly is. That the appearances can be known and understood through reason, but that reality isn't reasonable in itself (or unreasonable, for that matter). That wisdom is the proper understanding of the divide. That there is always something we know and something we don't know. That there must always be a reason for every concrete thing we know - but that there can never be a reason why we know as such.


We know things. But we don't know everything. For everything is nothing to be known. Life lies way way beyond the intellect - and true intelligence is to know this.

Also, Schopenhauer has a wicked sense of humor.

Yes, as far as influencing my own thinking of the world, The World as Will and Representation stands head and shoulder above the rest. There is only one true competitor: The collected Calvin and Hobbes. But that's a another story.

Now, tell me yours.

Interzone / The student and the teacher.
« on: May 26, 2013, 03:09:11 AM »
Where most have no soul, and many have one, I in fact have two.

One is older than time and space. It is infinitely wise. It's perfect. The other is very young. It is inexperienced, and it's clumsy as hell.

My souls are polar opposites. But they are also inseparable as night and day.

Some people can talk all day about how there is no 'I'. That ego is an illusion. But if you look at their actions, they still behave as if ego is the ultimate reality.

Others claim 'I' to be the only reality. But their actions and thoughts are still part of something grander. Something beyond their own control.

I can beleive in neither. Cause when you get down to it, I am not an I. I am a We. I am the communication between my two souls. Whether I am closer to the one soul or the other is entirely dependent on the context.

Some will see me as young, naive, maybe even a bit stupid. And that's okay - because I am that.

But I am also the voice of reality's infinite perfection.

You can communicate with both souls. Some will only see one. Some will see them both. I am both. There is no contradiction unless you want to see one.

Interzone / Like an everflowing stream
« on: May 19, 2013, 05:23:35 PM »
One of the fascinating things about messageboards like this is, that it's all words. You don't see any faces, don't hear a tone of voice, and you don't even get a real name. There's no physical context to shape the conversation. It's all words, words and more words.

These words sometimes behave in a magical way. This is when every poster in a thread writes the right thing, and in doing so stimulates the general flow. An individual post doesn't necessarily have to be profound, or humorous, or anything like that -- it just has to be right.

A post is just right when it inspires others to respond in an inspiring way. Then the stream of words becomes alive, and can suddenly speak in marvelous tongues. Everything within the thread communicates something. Something inspiring, something profound, something simple. The thread can become something wonderfully mysterious.

On the other hand, a post is wrong when it grinds the flow to a halt. Not necessarily in the form no responses. It can also manifest in long-winded arguments about nothing at all (empty abstractions) and a rise in the general feeling of self-importance of the posters. It becomes about the individual post, as opposed to the great flow and aliveness in the exchange of words as such.

I am both new and old on this board. I've been lurking for many years. Now I want to participate, and I want to participate in a right way. I want to inspire and to be inspired, and I want to become increasingly aware of, when- and how I'm doing it wrong, so I can correct my own approach when it needs correction. Just as I want in real life.

What do you want from these boards?