Perhaps, I am attracted to film because I don't understand it. I am suspicious about our theories of film. Maybe it's too new to be understood. What's wrong with our views on film? They are never radical enough. I have arrived to considering film as a language of resurrection, death and judgement.... and I still can't get to the full picture of the film phenomena. The unfinished thought -- an animal language instead of a machine's language? Oh God!
I feel as I am in an intellectual free fall -- the angels and souls from the writings of Aquinas, Heidegger with the metaphysics of technology, all possible existentialists starting
with Kierkegaard, physics of relativity and economics of seeing (marxism).... What a mess! But I can't anything about imposing a
discipline of the subject. I go for anything that could advance my thought. I have no time to step back and take a look at the maze. I take notes, I re-write them into draft-thoughts and edit
the texts which arrived to a point of readability. All it with a sense that "writing" is just an old fashion reflection of this
new world I see coming at me. No, i have no intentions to "speak" in films. I walked away from being a film-maker. The collectivism
of film-PRODUCTION repulsed me. Nevertheless, I stare at Film as a messenger and message from the faraway future, I listen to its silence. The world without word? I'm speechless.
I don't know how to tell the story of this chapter. The unbelievable is difficult to put in words, it has a tendency to look factious. You wouldn't believe me if I will tell you that I had a meeting with Satan, why should you? I guess, we have to live through another century before we can discover that Devil indeed exists. I constantly have to struggle with the shame of admitting the obvious. I have to remind myself that a policeman wouldn't read my books and I can say that I did meet Nietzsche. I have an evidence -- I read his books! How else could I call this event? Meeting real Nietzsche would be anti-climatic. Yes, I don't know is Baudrillard bold or tall, but in the KOG all those physical attributes matter very little. You hardly can see the bodies, you have to concentrate and research in order to reconstruct the material. Very much like in the mortal reality it's difficult to see life of ideas.
I have to rephrase Baudrillard's observation. It is not true that in order to live one has to believe in one's own existence, and one doesn't have to exist in order to live. If you look back at the myriads who lived but never existed, you might have a grasp of the reality beyond the living. Of course, you have to die first in order to experience the pure existence. The existentialists guessed it right -- existence is more important than life.
[ POV main directory ]
THE UNREAL
Any animal would confirm this Baudrillard's thought. For a human the notion of life is rested in constant questioning of his own existence. The disbelieve in our existence humanizes us. "Consciousness, which is totally different from belief, is more spontaneously the result of a challenge to reality, the result of accepting objective illusion rather than objective reality."[2] (R 1) That's right. We don't have to "believe" in our existence, the real propagates it presence all the time. Do I have to believe in laws of gravity? We call it "knowledge" -- something quite opposite to beliefs. A belief is always a revolt against knowledge, the establishment. Science is probably the most insulting matter for a living soul. The fact, the truth, the real is against my nature of being a becoming, a process, unfinished,
and uncertain.3 I question my existence not because I do not believe in it, but because I don't like it.
"Truth is what should be laughed at." (R 2) Sounds like Nietzsche. Power because it's radical. Truth is something which
is understandable, and must be understood, and this is intolerable! Why should I waste time on the obvious? Unless I am about to attack it, of course. Knowledge has love-hate relations
with questioning. Foucault took knowledge/power to its natural conclusion -- resistance to itself, repulsion and revolt. I am
not only question my existence or the real, I have to defend the non-existence. All my understanding of the real depends on being
outside of it. I have to have a place to retreat to, to be out in order to see the Thing. I have to protect Nothing if believe in creation. I have to have enough of Nothing to be inspired. The
wonderful secret of the Non-being that our inventiveness doesn't reduce the "size" of the non-existent, but increases it.
Innocence or even ignorance are not bad, darkness is pregnant with the potential. Light is too aggressive, too laud, too naked. "Reality, in general, is too evident to be true." (R)
A "true" truth, Baudrillard means. It's only "truthful" -- Reality of Nothing is the mystery and has more truth and reality
in it. I like the non-existent more because everything about me is a proof of it power. I don't think that the unknown is a result of knowing; our knowledge is a parasite of the
non-existent.
My relation with the real is a war:
We must trap reality, we must go faster than reality. The idea too must go faster than its own shadow. But if the idea goes too fast, even its shadow faints: no longer having the faintest idea...[12]12 Words go faster than signification. But if they go too fast, everything turns into sheer madness: an ellipse of meaning may even cause one to lose one's taste for the sign. What can we exchange this work, this shadow, this
intellectual economy and patience for? What can we sell it to the devil for? It is hard to tell. In fact, we are the orphans of a reality that came too late and which is only, like truth, an `official report' in `delayed time.' (R 3)
This my act of constant struggle with the real Baudrillard calls "conceptual violence." How else would I react to the dictatorship of the truth, to totalitarism of the order? How else would you expect me to behave in the world where nothing is left up to me, where everything is before and without me? The discovery of gravity was based not on acceptance of it, but on questioning its powers. The real has no need for attorneys, it rules, even in its postmodern form of simulacra -- the "non-real" expression of the real. Thought should be based on un-real, unbelievable -- not on non-real and non-believable. Only than I have a place in the real, I have a need to be. Einstein placed an observer in his physical reality to make the reality more truthful. Forget the physics! Never we had been under the total spell of the real, we had God and gods to claim our existence superior to the reality. We never surrendered. How a living soul can accept the tyranny of the indifferent. Death is real. So what? Earth is a planet. Fine. It matters little without being connected to me, personally. Every time I imagine the world without my presence I'm loosing any interest in such a world. I have to be there, to observe, to participate in order not to be bored. Einstein's observer isn't linked with an event, there is a conflict in their marriage. Without this observant we can't really judge the reality of the event, its being. The event needs my presence no less than I need the reality. We only can hope that the postmodernity with all its miracles of the technical could teach the real to be humble.
"Radical thought is never depressing." (R 4) It has to be extreme to balance the radicalism of the real. "The very definition of radical thought: an intelligence without hope...."
(R 5) In short, madness. Stop treating miracle as a norm! There is nothing "normal" about life or universe. Reality itself is a revolt, a break away from the non-being. Reality is no less a challenge to Nothing than I'm to the real. Instead of crying about a disciplinary function of gravity I rather be amused by its logic. The real doesn't limit me, but itself. The ultimate limit (speed of light) doesn't apply to my understanding of it, my thought isn't of the same nature. Here come the confinement of reality and my unlimitness. At this point an observer become a master of the real. Real is something to be gain, to fight for. There is very little of real in reality without us.
"The world does not seek to have more existence, nor does it seek to persist in its existence. On the contrary, it is looking for the most spiritual way to escape reality. Through thought, the world is looking for what could lead to its own loss." (R 6)
Interesting. Baudrillard suggests that the reality is very
much like myself, full of the repulsion of itself and self-negation. After all, I am there, a part of the real.
Thermodynamics even claim the mortality of the universe, its
tendency to be "tired" of existence. I can understand it. I
understand the frustration of being "half-life" and separated
from the mother-nothing. I sympathized with the nature's call for
me, to resolve the madness of being. I can relate to that.
Reality needs a partner, somebody who would share its existence.
We, humans, call it the Other.
But there is a trick, the unexpected:
The absolute rule, that of symbolic exchange, is to
return what you received. Never less, but always more.
The absolute rule of thought is to return the world as
we received it: unintelligible. And if it is possible,
to return it a little bit more unintelligible. A little
bit more enigmatic. (R 7)
We are the new source of the real, we bring into it more than we were asked for. Einstein's observer happens to be an
event himself. After ages of bewilderness in a face of the life
he himself grew up into a cosmic force, and now the real watches
him with amazement and horror. Our return to the Being is off a
master. We invent realities with ever increasing speed. We have
no time to understand our own additions to the real. We are a
heart of the real are against ourselves. "Sheer madness"
Baudrillard talks about in our own rash to be real. All those
"computer science," "political science," "cultural studies" and
pumping up new realities of feminism and environmental
engineering make me believe that we will never understand the
world. We would make sure that life not only will remain a
mystery but to become mysterious as ever.
"Indeed, this is the only genuine function of the intellect:
to embrace contradiction" (Transparency 39) -- and the first
nature claimed to be dialectical. Wait for the second nature to
take over the universe! The complexity of the new, humanized
world will be conflicting by design. Everything faster than light
ends in darkness.
UNIVERSE'S POV: NOTHING EXISTS
I should say the Nothing Does Exist.
I'm from a place where "exist" doesn't exit. Of course, this
is special place -- no-place place. Resurrection, as promised, is
a dissolving of the real and bringing it back in pure forms.
Nothing is a required stage of resurrection. The matter itself
has to be negated ("die") in order to be brought back
spiritualized. Nuclear power is a disintegration of atomic
structure (deconstruction as linguists would put it) and the
energy released ("controlled," according to Foucault, and
"disciplined," according to Baudrillard) is used for our
productive needs. The same applies to all attributes of the real:
space, time, etc. All has to be annihilated, broken up, and
reassembled again with a new human inclusion. We have to place
ourselves in the middle of it, no matter how dangerous it could
be -- we have to rule, to be the masters. Therefore we have to
slave the universe.
Going through the stage of Nothing I never leave it behind.
I carry this state of non-being with me into a my resurrected
life, a new being. I'm not only dead, but deeply dead, beyond
death (death is dead). in order to be controlled the Nothing has
to be included in new being, in everything. If Nothing is absent
it makes me mortal.
Non-being has a quality of anti-being. It's anti-being only
by its nature. Nothing isn't aggressive, as Being. Nothing is too
powerful to be active. This a must stage includes intellect (God
died). It has to process the reason through its opposite -- the
madness, including all shapes and shades of it -- from innocent
stupidity to aesthetics of nonsense. It's forced disintegration
of logic, values, everything we know as civilization and culture.
We all participate in this action as observers and a material at
the same time. Apocalypse must be total, without any holes and
spots. The degree of disintegration is unlimited. We have to go
all the way till we're no longer capable of judgement where we
are, till there's nothing left to destroy. Finally, the
destruction of the Nothing.
Non-being is very unstable. When God created everything out
of nothing (himself) it wa basically a thought process. You have
means (technology), and any simple idea (feeling) = imagination
trigger transformation of nothing into forms.4 Non-being has no
defence mechanism, it has no forms and therefore no inertia of
forms. It's a pure potentiality. In our world we always have
resistance, but nothing is nothing and could be anything with
little application of force. (When Nothing becomes something it
doesn't vanish, it gains power.)
Nothing is meaningless. It's not emptiness. The Empty
implies a notion of space. Nothing exists but it's not a place.
Ecology of Nothing: the resurrection is a preservation of
Nothing. Our progress has reach the stage when we overproduced
meaning without balancing it with a production of nothing
(pre-modernism). Not the Apocalypse but the Resurrection of the
world is a production of Nothing. Since we are about to create a
new universe we have to increase the size of the nothingness,
which is the source of everything. Nothing becomes our product.
This is what Baudrillard calls simulacra. It has to have a form
of illusion of the real; we can't produce nothing without having
some forms of it, but simulacra is anti-real, pseudo-being (it's
how nothing looks like in our creative capacities).
Our human history is a producing a production of non-being
-- the knowledge, which is by now should be understood as power
literally. Information Age is a qualitative (revolutionary, not
evolutionary) leap into mass production of nothing. We
dissimilate knowledge to billions, we add technical memory to our
brains -- we have to have more of field of knowledge, enforcing
education and increasing powers of hard drives. The cosmic
challenge of resurrecting the universe asks for a new level of
presence of knowledge. WE have to make knowledge into a common
place, cheap commodity, not only readily available but
overloaded. Too much is never enough -- we have to drown
ourselves in data. Quantity, the critical mass of knowledge has
to reach the level of totality. Spirituality isn't yet flooded
the world even in its simplest forms. Too much is left unwired,
unprocessed, untouched. this expansion (explosion) of knowledge
costs us the quality of spirit, it's flat and vulgar -- it's
media without any message besides itself. It' okay. We're at
manufacturing spirituality, industrial age of the ideal. The
circulation of data is more important than the meaning. The
latest level of this hellish activity is the Internet full of
empty talks, but the size of this emptiness asks for more memory,
for faster transmissions -- and this is the point, this is the
method of advancing into the creating of God.5
Too much for you? Step out. Resurrection will roll over you,
live or dead.
Yes, we need stupidity. Because the stupid is an indication
of mind which isn't used. It's a betrayal but nevertheless a
presence of the spiritual.
CONFESSIONS OF THE SATAN
Night is the time to be free. They sleep. Too much light
isn't good for thinking conditions (concentration). You see how
big is life and you get discouraged....
1. IMPURITY OF THOUGHT
"Every belief in the value and worth of life is based on impure thinking..." (N)
The best and the brightest of God's creatures, the fallen
angel had one thought which he called "ERROR ABOUT LIFE NECESSARY
FOR LIFE." He tried to understand God for so long, especially
after Creator's death, and it wasn't easy. Creation himself (and
co-creator as a participant of the world's creation) Lucifer
could understand God's mind but not the feelings. Why would He do
something which shouldn't be done? Satan understand man and his
human feelings, such as his "value of life."
Lucifer remembered Adam, he knew that man with pain and
physical presence would never be able to think free. Man would
need a lie.
.... and is only possible because the individual's
sympathy for life is general, and for the suffering of
mankind, is very weakly developed. Even uncommon men
who think beyond themselves at all do not focus on life
in general, but rather on limited parts of it. If one
knows how to keep his attention primarily on
exceptions, that is, on the great talents and pure
souls, if one takes their coming into existence to be
the goal of all world evolution and rejoice in their
activity, then one may believe in the value of life ---
for one is overlooking other men, which is to say,
thinking impurely, and likewise, if one does focus on
all men, but takes only one type of drive, the
egoistical type, as valid and excuses mankind in
respect to its other drives, then to one can hope
something about mankind as a whole, and believe to this
extent in the value of life --- in this case, too,
through impurity of thought. But whichever is the case,
such a stance makes one an 'exception' among men. (N)
Lucifer knew from the begining that man can't have a full
capacity of thinking. Man was created at the last day, after the
creation of light and darkness, earth and heaven, life with
vegetation and animals -- it was obvious that God's will forces
His own world into an universe of limitations and dependency.
With horror Lucifer watched this process. The final attempt to
force the material nature to have the angelic quality was
terrifying -- this creature with more dependency than anything
before him was given a talent of understanding. The most unfree
creation was granted a free will.
The result was predictable. It was a live paradox, a union
of the un-matchable, a nonsense. A "thing" which could exist, but
what for? Lucifer understand why man would justify life, but the
Creator?
Most men tolerate life without grumbling too much and
'believe' thus in the value of existence, but precisely
because everyone wills himself alone and stands his
ground alone, and does not step out of himself as do
those exceptional men, everything extra-personal
escapes his notice entirely, or seems at the most a
faint shadow. Thus the value of life for ordinary,
everyday is based only on his taking himself to be more
important than the world. The great lack of fantasy
from which he suffers keeps him from being able to
empathize with other beings, and he therefore
participates in their vicissitudes and sufferings as
little as possible. (N)
Lord, he is an animal, what could we expect from an
intelligence placed in flesh? It would serve the low, Lord.
Please, don't do it!
Satan was born in Lucifer's reflection on God and man.
Lucifer knew that the free will in totally unfree creature would
drive man into one direction only -- developing self-importance.
What God! Who cares about Him? Why man should think about
anything else beside himself? God's value for humans was a value
only till they needed this "concept." Their so-called life was a
forced, falling apart creation, which could be sustained only
through growth, constant advancement, struggle and war. Lucifer
gave his unconditional support for the Creation till the final
moment of madness came -- this human life was declared by the
Master to be a superior form to God's own nature!
Lucifer refused to be a part of this self-betrayal by the Creator, and became Satan.
....
What do they know, what they possibly would ever know!
This positive philosophy of a thinking animal, who can't
cross the river, separating him from his true sensitivity,
doesn't requires freedom of mind. Mind is here to reinsure that
this animal is happy (or should be), because there's nothing
better, nothing else is available to him. For him -- yes. Not for
me, an angel.
That why Lucifer couldn't understand how man's life is
valued higher than the angelic existence. He remember the world
before the Creation of so-called "world." What a life it was! A
triumph of pure reason, poetry of mind, beauty and
sophistication! Read many descriptions of this first world in
what they call literature and philosophy. See for yourself how
good the real world could be. The first world created was of
thoughts and feelings, logic and laws without any matter
involved. It was a virtuality, God's presence, the pure spirit
and freedom.
The Creation of the visible (material) world was no less
unexplainable to Lucifer than that need to be born. By that time
he accept the name -- Satan. Yes, he was against it. What a joke!
What a profanation of the greatness! What a prover, twisted
desire! Of the same nature that the initial creation! To
experience their life? Why? What possibly could be learnt from
being enslaved? Only the opposite, how it feels not to be free,
to be material, to be stuck. This God's experiment with being
anti-God, the creation, than with the mad trip as Christ, it all
had to end with the introduction of the ultimate non-free essence -- the resurrection!
Once Master began experimenting with life, He got hooked and
He had no way out. Lucifer knew Him, he was the only one who loved Him.
Life!
There's nothing free about life, never-mind "human life,"
when the next step of manifestation of slavery is done -- the
woman. The two, many -- more loss, more anti-godlike nature. How
about history, speech, civilization, technology -- in their drive
to approach godlike existence they go thither and thither away
from it. They install more and more un-free devices to be free.
Nothing could be done. They, humans, are cursed by being alive.
On the other hand, who ever would be truly able to
participate in it would have to despair about the value
of life; if he were able to grasp and feel mankind's
overall consciousness in himself, he would collapse
with a curse against existence --- for mankind, as
whole, has no goals and consequently, considering the
whole affair, man cannot find his comfort and support
in it, but rather his despair, if, in everything he
does, he considers the ultimate aimlessness of men, his
own activity acquires the character of 'squandering' in
his eyes. But to feel squandered as mankind (and not
just as an individual), as we see the single blossom
squandered by nature, is a feeling above all feelings.
But who is capable of it? Certainly only a poet --- and poets always know how to confront themselves.6
Lucifer had a weakness, he couldn't lie.
In three forms of God, Lucifer understand the most the Holy
Ghost. He loved Father and never could related to Son. He
understand Christ, this natural reaction to Father, the need to
be different, even opposite, and it was logical that Christ would
choose the anti-Father existence, including birth and death. This
self-negation was God's stand, something Lucifer saw in some
humans. Something he didn't have. That was his sin.
Till the last day -- the Last Judgement and Apocalypse. That
was the day when Satan died in the lake of fire and Lucifer was
born again. With the end of time he had no space to live in. And
he went against himself, he became the angel of light again!
After Jesus' death and after Father's death, Satan-Lucifer
couldn't let the Holy Spirit, his nature, die. He learnt how it
feels to be completely unfree, to be electricity, video pictures,
fuel, atomic energy and coffee-maker. Resurrection is God's death
in His reunion with the opposite. Mankind gained full rights of
the divine. Man's selfish claims of self-importance weren't lies
anymore.
Lucifer knew what is about to follow. The mankind was about
to become its own enemy, curse and hell. Being God is to
self-negate. Humans have to turn devils, they have to repeat
Lucifer's path of rejection of man. They would go after a man,
and -- they did.
The night Satan cried he was born again Lucifer, a servant.
....
At some point you realize that you produce no changes and you ask - Am I present?
Life of a light creature; no trace, no books left behind,
non-effected trajectory. I and life: one mirage goes through
another without even touching it, or being seen?
To be everywhere = not to be at all.
Invisible crowds, you feel it in the MASS media. [Not music,
or sculpture? Does it have to be high tech?] Why did not they
come back, the great and wise?
Only impure imagination might allow the thought that
Shakespeare would be brought back from his grave. But you know,
his presence is bigger than ever, it grows. Is Shakespeare more
alive now than when he lived? And it's only a modest begining.
2. KILLING TIME: ENTERTAINMENT METHOD
TV is the electronic cover (camouflage) of the world. Light
is a matter of electronic machine!
TV politics: The balloons, singing -- that's the way to
party. Filling in the empty time.
It must be killed. That's my reaction to something which
kills me. I can't control it, can I?
I fight time with speed. Go-go. Faster! A race against time.
Against myself. The world moved to background. I became asocial
in this fight against myself. I'm domesticated, tamed. That was easy. All what was needed is to introduce myself to me. Since I
met myself I'm busy. I have no time for anything and anybody.
Give them all the magic mirror, the computer to play.
Entertainment is alternative way for those who do not know
themselves. Two types instead of two classes. Where are you, Mr.
Darwin? Who cares anymore about economics, and its favorite child
-- politics. It's all behind us!
Prisoners are not working, and they can't really work
productively, that is why (according to Marx himself) the slavery
system of production was replaced.
Did the US government promise to protect my right to work? It was the Soviet constitution. Now democrats are promising that
government will work for me? Through taxing those who works. There was no protection against poverty in the American
Constitution. Being poor or rich was your business. That was
classical america, not POMO USA.
Clinton or O.J. Simpson -- they are the verdict for America.
Media supports Clinton because they live on this market of
non-working Americans, whose work is to watch tv. It's new
America, the country which grew into old nation dealing with the
majority of citizens who believe in their right to have it.
Real human work is to think, and in that sense Marx was
right to divide mankind in two class: the majority, of course,
sweats, because they don't think. All the revolutions are over,
majority rules. Do we live through this Second American
Revolution? Forget the libertarians, New Americans need the
government to provide for them, the majority speaks by actions,
they can afford to be silent.
Democratic Party convention: look at their faces, what else
do you need to understand? (Solomon II; After Clinton's speech in
Chicago -- on family).
....
And why should it be easy for me who knows little? Immortal
soul is the last thing which should ever be offered to a
conscious life. We can't accept the cruelty of such an
experiment? Why? What about a life of a flower, a fly, an animal?
Why not?
I don't have to reject the world because the world has
nothing to do with me. I'm irrelevant. Wait, my mind, my
understanding -- even a last idiot could sense it. We, the
civilization, are against life, we have to be. This is our
answer. We refuse to be treated this way. Our techno-culture
exists because of our mistrust of life. Remember Christ? Not of
this world? What about me?
3. KILLING LIFE: THE RESURRECTION FIELD
FEELING OF SOLOMON II
(Monologue after his personal resurrection)
What is there left for you? Parents? Gone. Love? Children?
Not even you yourself. Drugged through years of promises and
hopes. What if I knew for sure at age of fifteen that I'm right
and there's nothing in life for me? What if I would kill myself
then? The only difference I could find that there wouldn't be the
children that came from (with, after, by) me. (And they will be
tricked because I didn't tell them what to expect -- not to
expect anything.)
You want me, who lived once and knows life and death, to be back. To be judged? Oh, you better kill me before I begin to
speak. And why? I understood everything first time around. What
do I need to discover? What do you have to show a man? What
surprisers and wonders do you have for a forty seven year old
soul? Ah, you have nothing new to offer. I outlived myself.7 And
who cares, I served the purpose, there are four new lives after
me -- out, out! What could you now? You lived, you served, you
been used.
And we try, we try so hard; to live, to work, to feel, to understand. We can't believe that there was nothing about us,
only a process. Nothing personal. And if I would never live again
(why do I think that I did?) What difference would it make?
Smile. It's not easy to end...
We have to be radical with life, to respond to its
indifference to us. We are the death, the apocalypse, the end. If
not today, then tomorrow, we have to destroy life which dares to
challenge the mind. Life has to pay the price for its arrogance.
Yes, resurrection! lets bring life back under the control of mind. Lets anything alive experience what my mind experienced
being humiliated, destroyed by life. Lets bring back the creator
and force Him to live imprisoned in images and thoughts. More,
more memories for our hard drives! Drive harder! Have no pity for
life! (You know, we lie too, about environment and so on. We only
care about ourselves, not about eagles and frogs.)
I'm proud to be a defector. I feel betrayed, and I was betrayed. I like to pay back. I have no respect for life! I'm not
a gang member only because my mind keeps me occupied and busy.
Life is an insult. And we want to send everybody to college by
the year 2000? Mind and life are mortal enemies. Life won't
survive in this war. The shrew must be tamed!
On atomic (or sub-atomic) level -- the individual -- life is
most painful. I can identify with feeling of an electron, with
its suffering and agony.
To stop us from technology with silly bombs in mail -- you
must be out off you mind. The mind is the reason why I refuse to
be alive and knowing that I'm life.
Let me speak my mind before I die. What do I have to lose?
What do I have? What did I ever have?
PM? What could be more radical than modernism. In less than
a century Great Art was destroyed -- as an idea. Do you want to
see the shocked? Fine Arts of Pomo. What could we say after
Picasso? Unless it's visual, technologically blessed. What about
the Art of the past -- brush, violin, word?
We lost the future, because the future depends on us.
Knowledge is power?
Understanding = control.
How much responsibility could we handle?
No, you don't want to know.
Humankind, the idiots, are my defence against the mind. Too
powerful, too much for me to have -- bring more people in.
Humanity is a controlled madness. I'm the unlimited one.
What do you want me to say about the future? I wouldn't know
how to imagine it. I'm not sure that humans will be there, or how
they would look like. Don't you see what our cosmic fantasies
tell us -- Extra Terrestrials, aliens, disasters, metamorphoses
-- what the Greeks or Medieval fantasies next to our monsters!
The future is our fantasies, born out of my mind, with known and
unknown desires in me. And do we have to know? When God created
the world, He had to see it -- He saw it, and it was "good"? He
didn't know THAT beforehand -- He took his chances. He was
guessing, gambling on creation. That's the price to pay for
unlimited powers -- you don't know what to expect from yourself.
Who would control us? Our machine of progress has no breaks.
Light can't stop itself. We need to make production of lies
industrial. We need ideology no less than truth.
To control everything, to photograph, to resister, to
remember. Open society? Yes! Open! We need to control everybody.
Government wants to control the Internet? Internet is the
control!
How to develop the breaks?
Oh, forget the evolution! Maybe my mind was a product of
evolution, but now the world is a product of my mind. My mind is
the environment for life. This underground man who complained
about laws and nature has all the powers, he is the nature.
That's why utopias are our plans.
We live them. We call it "movies."
