[iDC] activism now and

[John Hopkins]

Hey folks

In answer to some of Saul's questions, et al...

some comments on the latest threads... probably been said before 
elsewhere on this or other lists, but when the question of WHAT TO 
DO? is posed so poignantly on the list.  well, hell, I've got an 
answer that I have tested in many situations against many incomplete 
ideas ;-))

(unfortunately, it cannot be fully transmitted via this particular 
medium which apportions attention into too-small bits to allow 
coherence.  if anybody is interested in skyping, phoning, irc-ing, or 
otherwise synchronizing for a couple hours at a pass, I'd be totally 
willing to engage at that level).

while I have great respect for people who choose resistance as a 
model for political expression, I believe that more often than not, 
resistance simply acts as a counter-balancing prop that holds up 
that-which-is-being-resisted.  as a simple anecdote from the distant 
Reagan era:  it appeared that Reagan would take some action -- 
declare a covert war, make an attack on alternative culture, or 
simply say something stupid -- and there would be a flood of artists 
who would 'make art' about that action.  this is the definition of 
(a) reactionary.  it seemed, with the original "teflon" president, 
that critical actions and expressions, no matter how intelligent or 
caustic simply built up Reagan's power.  that the repetition of his 
name in song, discussion, and print only served as a constructive 
support not for the resistance, but for sustaining the regime. 
reactionary art.  easy to find inspiration (in the embodiment of 
that-which-is-to-be-resisted), no need to hunt.  somehow comforting 
to have a daily dose of Reagan (or Bush) to get the fires stoked.

revolution, on the other hand, seeks the unknown.  it does not seek 
to form and replicate itself through impressive contact with a 
dominant social system.  if anthing, it leans on the void.

a revolutionary praxis is a pathway that is not mapped before moving 
along it.  it is sustained by a desire to face the unknown and to 
change with the flux of life.  it does not advertise its presence 
except by the wake arising from the actions that transmit its energy 
to the surrounding milieu.

a revolutionary praxis is by definition sustainable, albeit unstable 
and indeterminate.  it does not seek to capture defined social 
pathways for its expression.  it leaks energy into the immediate 
surroundings through its presence.  leakage is the same as 
idiosyncratic expression -- expression that may not be immediately 
recognizable to those standing around it because of the idiosyncracy.

participating in revolutionary praxis demands no allegiance.  it 
demands acquiescence to flows that are greater than any 
political/social system.  it does not shout.  it moves always.  it 
cannot be a target because when aimed at, it's gone.  everything is 
possible.

the site of revolution is the minimal system necessary for change. 
this system is the exchange that happens between two beings. 
broadband, unpredictable.  without the Self opening freely to an 
Other who reciprocates, there is no possibility for revolution when 
revolution is defined by constant movement and change.  revolution 
cannot be posited to happen 'out there' in an abstracted social 
system.

technology is that which mediates between the Self and the Other.  IT 
is just another mediation.  when revolution sits on a base of 
human-to-human connection, the level of mediation can be quite 
variable, as long as it allows the movement of enough energy to 
maintain connection.  this level is different for different people.

etc, etc.

Sorry, have to cut this off in mid-thought and focus back on the 
ground situation: a dying parent.

cheers
jh
-- 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
indeterminacy: four works
a new neoscenes DVD featuring four new visual/sonic explorations
more info at http://www.neoscenes.net/aud-vid/video/indeter.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^