november spawned a monster revisited. a further development of ideas.

  • Thread starter constantin constantius
  • Start date
C

constantin constantius

Guest
i want too further expand on some of the ideas from the earlier post relating to this piece, and hopfully shed light on the child in NSM and the kinds of movements she will have too make to get out of her position.

as i see it, she will have to go through three stages: the immediate, the ironic and then finally, the positive alternative. immediacy and the other two stages i will be disscussing are basically about the level of consciousness found in a human being. immediacy represents the lowest form - half human and half animal; it cannot see past its own instinctive appetites and desires. the other two represents a break from this into the creative freedom of an individual to be able to see the world and himself in new ways.

the first stage, immediacy, is what she and every human being is born into. but what do i mean exactly by immediacy? well, it is the uncritical and unthinking acceptance of one's given nature, one's physical body and its characteristics, one's socially determmined identity, and so on. and it comes in different forms: ranging from the purely sensous immediacy, characterised bythe childs unreflecting trust in his parents and the world, to the individual's unreflecting pursuit of desire-satasfaction, to the ethical immediacy of a person who accepts and abides by the norms of his society without ever reflecting apoun them or calling their athuority into question. in relation to love and recognition, it is this immediate life that morrissey speaks from and to, but with one qualification, he speaks of its contradiction. he is a poet of immediacy's contradiction.

there are a minority in society, and i think we would all have meet some, who hardly ever face contradiction. they possess all the qualitys needed to go through life without a hiccup: beauty, confidence, the gift of the gab; life for these will be plain sailing, but they are gennarlly the shallowest people in society. for the rest of us experience will often refute us; our needs and desires will sometimes be fuffilled, sometimes unfuffilled, and we will struggle through life sometimes happy, other times unhappy, but at the end of the day most of us will say we where glad to have lived. another minority, symbolized by the child in NSM, find their whole life in contradiction with the world. their need for love and recongnition as full human beings will never be given because society itself exsists in the immediate life.

contradiction in the existentail sense, whether that be phisical, emotional, spiritual or intellectual, always entails suffering. but people should not assume this suffering as being purely negative - for there is someting positive here;namely, an individual will only question himself and the world through experiencing such a contradiction. and it is only through questioning that one can develop one's own mind and one's own opinions, beliefs and values,etc, and so discovering whether the truths and values laid down by society are rigth or wrong. i said earlier that morrissy speaks from immediate life, but this is a bit unfair to him, for in some areas he's went beyond this. for example, morrissy is a vegatarian, but i am sure he would not have always been one. maybe as a child he loved to tuck into a juicy roost and a hamburger or two. but at some point he began to question the ethics of killing and eating animals, and through this questioning he discoved an alternative and so became a vegatarian. most people, on the other hand, will retain their immediatly given appetites and desires and eat meat without ever reflecting on its morality. in relation to love and recognition, morrissey only ever speaks from immediate life, and this is why in my firt post i called him negative and a dead-end, because for the child in NSM and other people like her, if they can only see life through morrissey's (immediacy's) eyes the only place they'll end up is in self-pity and despair (is'nt morrissey's music full of this) and the only route out will be suicide. so she must begin to question her life and this will take her towards the next stage that i will disscuss: the ironic life.

if she is to become ironic then she must literally die to immediacy. she must dissasociate herself, and regard external to herselr, her n immediate given nature. and it will mean dissasociating from all the goals, ideas and identitys that society conditions into people from birth. so instead of letting the world refute her, she must actively refute the world. when she has done this she will still, externally, continue engaging in the relationships and conventions of society as normal, but inwardly she would have repudiated it all and life becomes mere play-acting to her. this ironic life represents a more developed consciousness than found in immediate life but it is still negative, because having emptiedout immediacy's content she has become a void. she is like a ghost caugth between two worlds: having rejected immediate life she yet to find an alternative world to fill this void. and this will take her to the final stage: the positive alternative.

the positive alternative, as i said earlier, consists in seeing and reinterpreting the world in a different way. we all see the world in terms of ideas and images, and the reinterpreting mean to consciously strip away the old ones and replace them with new ones. for her, life in immediacy is like living in a high-rise tower block - very cold, impersonnel and inhuman, and continuing to interpret her life through immediacy's ( morrissey's) eyes will only mean she will remain there, and all her self-pitying and despairing cry's will just be echos whistling down its dark and deserted corridoors. so what she must do is to destroy the old tower block and build herself a new home. a one where everything is arranged, by her; where everthing has meaning, for her; and where everthing concurs, with her. she migth alway suffer, but at least this way she will find meaning in that suffering, and that, not some knigth in shinning armour, will prove her saviuor.

if you think i am being a little far-fecthed in disscusing concepts like irony and alternatives - not really. almost everybody who cares to read this post will have been in ironic an relationships to many things external to himself. and again, almost everybody interprets the world in their own paticular way - helping them to cope with and make sense of life. the child in NSM just has to do it in a more radical way.
 
Jimballs, you forgot to add this little nugget

Masturbating is not an option for him, he also needs to fookle his grandmother while his grandpoppa sucks his testicles!

You should join in too sh.itneck!

Hey guys didya hear? I am freeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Like yaw mamma..I am freeeeeeeeee

Oh I love momma jokes..oh dey be witty oh yeahhhhhhhhhh!
 
> i want too further expand on some of the ideas from the earlier
> post relating to this piece, and hopfully shed light on the
> child in NSM and the kinds of movements she will have too make
> to get out of her position.

Thank you...it's good to see real content here. I know that I said I wouldn't do this but here goes.

> as i see it, she will have to go through three stages: the
> immediate, the ironic and then finally, the positive
> alternative. immediacy and the other two stages i will be
> disscussing are basically about the level of consciousness found
> in a human being. immediacy represents the lowest form - half
> human and half animal; it cannot see past its own instinctive
> appetites and desires. the other two represents a break from
> this into the creative freedom of an individual to be able to
> see the world and himself in new ways.

That's assuming that the particular individual is keen enough to manage to see himself or the world for that matter. Most people are content with their own little boxes and have no "creative" drive to move beyond that.

> the first stage, immediacy, is what she and every human being is
> born into. but what do i mean exactly by immediacy? well, it is
> the uncritical and unthinking acceptance of one's given nature,
> one's physical body and its characteristics, one's socially
> determmined identity, and so on.

Hm, I can see how the reality of your physical immeadicy would fit in, as in the particular body...but your socially determinded identitiy is FAR from a set phycial thing to accept blinding because you're stuck with it. IT's a societial construction that changes as we change, and as our perceptions of it change. It's always changeing, and it's not a simple "fact" to accept. Even if we chose to. Putting it in that position is an error. It's much more considerable in it's scope, and in it's relation to our perceptions in our particular lives.

>and it comes in different
> forms: ranging from the purely sensous immediacy, characterised
> bythe childs unreflecting trust in his parents and the world,

Ok, even in the generalization/simplification I can see how you would use this...But my critical mind forces me to point out that not everyone "trusts" their parents gaurdians in childhood.

> to
> the individual's unreflecting pursuit of desire-satasfaction,

Pursuit of desire? How is one doing that, no how is "everyone" doing that, per the example...?

>to
> the ethical immediacy of a person who accepts and abides by the
> norms of his society without ever reflecting apoun them or
> calling their athuority into question.

Hmm, I would call it blindness or stupidity, or lack of individuality, rather than an ethical immediacy. = )

>in relation to love and
> recognition, it is this immediate life that morrissey speaks
> from and to, but with one qualification, he speaks of its
> contradiction. he is a poet of immediacy's contradiction.

The "need" of love, that we all share.

> there are a minority in society, and i think we would all have
> meet some, who hardly ever face contradiction. they possess all
> the qualitys needed to go through life without a hiccup: beauty,
> confidence, the gift of the gab;

But do they? I wager you this, where there is REAL beauty, there is also REAL levels of insecurity, and so on with the example. We are implanted by society with the fears, and self-doubts that we possess.
There is NO ONE who is exempt from it. No one of us are outside of societies negative influences, whether we want to believe that of others or not.

>life for these will be plain
> sailing, but they are gennarlly the shallowest people in
> society.

Plain sailing, with bits pain and insecurity, and loss, just like the rest, but with the inability to see past that. Or to look for any meaning in it all.
Hence, shallow.

>for the rest of us experience will often refute us; our
> needs and desires will sometimes be fuffilled, sometimes
> unfuffilled, and we will struggle through life sometimes happy,
> other times unhappy, but at the end of the day most of us will
> say we where glad to have lived.

Ah, I love you for writing these words, but I think that you writing them, and Morrissey expressing them and myself at times thinking them, all fall into the trap of thought of "everyone else is happy but me."

It's true that you can break it down to an us and them in terms of different lifestyles and values among people....BUT that in no way can we accept as fact of "the happy race" and the "{unhappy unfulfilled race". Everyone has disatisfaction, and loss, and unhappines at some point in their life, it's too romantic to think that only a few of us are doing the sufferring while the rest of the world sails on happily.

But, I will agree with the point that some of us are more unhappy than others, but NO ONe is exempt of rejection, pain, and unhappiness.

another minority, symbolized by
> the child in NSM, find their whole life in contradiction with
> the world. their need for love and recongnition as full human
> beings will never be given because society itself exsists in the
> immediate life.

The immeadite life being the happy, physical world?

> contradiction in the existentail sense,

Existential? Are you reffering to a realist sense of life?

>hether that be
> phisical, emotional, spiritual or intellectual, always entails
> suffering.

If you were a true Existentialist, you would claim that it doesn't reffer to "suffering" but the "reality of the working of life in the world/society.

If you want a suffering based principle try Nihilism.
Or just good old Pessimism.

>ut people should not assume this suffering as being
> purely negative - for there is someting positive here;namely, an
> individual will only question himself and the world through
> experiencing such a contradiction.

This happens when you enter into a situation that contradicts values that you've previously held. We ALL expereince it, some change, some don't even notice the underlying fricition of value.

and it is only through
> questioning that one can develop one's own mind and one's own
> opinions, beliefs and values,etc, and so discovering whether the
> truths and values laid down by society are rigth or wrong.

I think we've discussed this one enough already...= )

i
> said earlier that morrissy speaks from immediate life, but this
> is a bit unfair to him, for in some areas he's went beyond this.

Steven Patrick Morrissey, the person who wrote the lyrics, wrote from a romantic notion of being the suffering one. Take that idea, and blow it up to the extreme, in the case of an individual life, intermingle your own rejection expreinces, and you have November Spawned a Monster. A good song, with tragic lyrics based around rejection, societial control over our lives, and personal and shared apathy/sympathy.

> for example, morrissy is a vegatarian, but i am sure he would
> not have always been one. maybe as a child he loved to tuck into
> a juicy roost and a hamburger or two.

He ate greased bread I think...you'll have to consult the gurus on that one.

but at some point he began
> to question the ethics of killing and eating animals, and
> through this questioning he discoved an alternative and so
> became a vegatarian. most people, on the other hand, will retain
> their immediatly given appetites and desires and eat meat
> without ever reflecting on its morality.

True. IT's sad isn't it.

in relation to love and
> recognition, morrissey only ever speaks from immediate life, and
> this is why in my firt post i called him negative and a
> dead-end, because for the child in NSM and other people like
> her, if they can only see life through morrissey's (immediacy's)
> eyes the only place they'll end up is in self-pity and despair

Hmm, until their rational questioning mind kicks in. And, then the change will happen. They will find ways to unprogram their suffering- by-societies-terms-minds and step out of the apathy, and to give up the meat.

Morrissey's lyrics are just that. They are not a life philosophy (although, I'm sure we could make them into one). It's perfectly possibile to feel intensly so that you suffer terribly by society off and on. Maybe to an extent of self-distruction. These things are not a dead in, it's merly a responce to society, and the negative programming that we get from it. A direct responce to the self hatred, self doubt that we are taught. Some of us respond to it, even feel it, more intensly than others. He just happened to write about it. I'm glad that he did.

Although, that's not to say that he's sitting in a cold room in a dark corner writing frightening verse every hour of the day.

> (is'nt morrissey's music full of this) and the only route out
> will be suicide. so she must begin to question her life and this
> will take her towards the next stage that i will disscuss: the
> ironic life.

Sucicide, the death of the self. Change is death. She has three options, change what she sees (through her perception and or self values), refuse to allow herself to see anything (denial, and become a slave to pity), or end everything.

> if she is to become ironic then she must literally die to
> immediacy. she must dissasociate herself, and regard external to
> herselr, her n immediate given nature. and it will mean
> dissasociating from all the goals, ideas and identitys that
> society conditions into people from birth.

Wouldn't it be much safer, and less messy to just revaluate what hurts, and where it origionally stemmed, and keep the rest?

so instead of letting
> the world refute her, she must actively refute the world.

And herself....the parts of the world immersed inside of her in her own belief system.

when
> she has done this she will still, externally, continue engaging
> in the relationships and conventions of society as normal, but
> inwardly she would have repudiated it all and life becomes mere
> play-acting to her.

If she truly takes the steps to change the externally and internally she will ave evolved.

this ironic life represents a more developed
> consciousness than found in immediate life but it is still
> negative, because having emptiedout immediacy's content she has
> become a void.

Tha'ts if you see personal denial, and isolation as the only solutions.

she is like a ghost caugth between two worlds:

No, YOU are a ghost caught between two worlds. Your analysis is your revalation. It's beautiful, but I hope that the alternatives are there for you.

> having rejected immediate life she yet to find an alternative
> world to fill this void. and this will take her to the final
> stage: the positive alternative.
> the positive alternative, as i said earlier, consists in seeing
> and reinterpreting the world in a different way.

Ahhhh, I see now. We use different terms, and layouts for defining it.

we all see the
> world in terms of ideas and images,

yes

and the reinterpreting mean
> to consciously strip away the old ones and replace them with new
> ones.

Also known as Change.

for her, life in immediacy is like living in a high-rise
> tower block - very cold, impersonnel and inhuman, and continuing
> to interpret her life through immediacy's ( morrissey's) eyes
> will only mean she will remain there, and all her self-pitying
> and despairing cry's will just be echos whistling down its dark
> and deserted corridoors. so what she must do is to destroy the
> old tower block and build herself a new home. a one where
> everything is arranged, by her; where everthing has meaning, for
> her; and where everthing concurs, with her.

And, since she cannot completly seperate herself from society she must also remember to do this again and again. BEcause it will happen again, bias by society.

she migth alway
> suffer, but at least this way she will find meaning in that
> suffering, and that, not some knigth in shinning armour, will
> prove her saviuor.

She will look at it a different way, therefore it will be different evry time.

> if you think i am being a little far-fecthed in disscusing
> concepts like irony and alternatives - not really.

I don't think anyone is accusing your of doing that.

almost
> everybody who cares to read this post will have been in ironic
> an relationships to many things external to himself.

= ) You give them tooo much credit.

and again,
> almost everybody interprets the world in their own paticular way
> - helping them to cope with and make sense of life.

Intrepration NOT as a functional tool, but as a pair of eyes that we are given at birth. Some can refine their sight/perspective to see as much of "what is" as possible, but most don't even take the time to realize the initial limitations of their particular perspective.
Dont give all of that credit to the masses, they don't deserve it.

>the child in
> NSM just has to do it in a more radical way.

The Child in NSM is Morrissey, and you, and me, and anyone else who has suffered for not being "enough" of what someone else wanted. Tha'ts all. Tha'ts why it's such a powerful song, because it really does say alot about our lives, and ourselves.

Someone in the "fan club" should thank him for writing it.........= )
 
Sheila take a bow, I'm glad you did that although you promised you wouldn't. I think the post where you interjected your own interpretations into constantins was a great post.
 
> That's assuming that the particular individual is keen enough to
> manage to see himself or the world for that matter. Most people
> are content with their own little boxes and have no
> "creative" drive to move beyond that.

> you call it "little boxes", i call it underdeveloped consciousness (immediacy), and my point was unless they face contradiction on a sufficeint level they will never feel the need to question or escape from their cosy "little boxes".

...but your socially
> determinded identitiy is FAR from a set phycial thing to accept
> blinding because you're stuck with it. IT's a societial
> construction that changes as we change, and as our perceptions
> of it change. It's always changeing, and it's not a simple
> "fact" to accept. Even if we chose to. Putting it in
> that position is an error. It's much more considerable in it's
> scope, and in it's relation to our perceptions in our particular
> lives.

>yes, your rigth, one's social identity is not set in stone. as we grow up our perceptions of ourself change; but my point was not whether our identitys change but the fact that, for too many people, the identitys we choose are all with in the range given by society.

Pursuit of desire? How is one doing that, no how is
> "everyone" doing that, per the example...?

>i'll give you one example ( and its a perfect example of immediacy). most people in western society today live lifestyles of mass consumption. they blindedly pursue wants and desires which are the complete invention of commercial companys. somehow they manage to trick comsumers into beliving the product that they are offering is a nessesity to their life and they cannot be happy without it. its a complete illusion of course, but too many people continue believing it and what's worse, they never seem to reflect on the devastating effects this sort of lifestyle has on their local and world emviroments.

But do they? I wager you this, where there is REAL beauty, there
> is also REAL levels of insecurity, and so on with the example.
> We are implanted by society with the fears, and self-doubts that
> we possess.
> There is NO ONE who is exempt from it. No one of us are outside
> of societies negative influences, whether we want to believe
> that of others or not.

> yes, your rigth of course, when you write posts for the internet you have to condense them as mush as possible and that means somtimes having to make sweeping generalizations which you would not normally do. but i will would still maintain that for the people i was refering to they would not face sufficient contradiction to make them seriuosly reavaluate their lives.

Ah, I love you for writing these words, but I think that you
> writing them, and Morrissey expressing them and myself at times
> thinking them, all fall into the trap of thought of
> "everyone else is happy but me."

> that was the whole point of my piece: how to avoid self-pity and how interpreting the world like morrissey would make that unavoidable. in the paragraph you are refering to i was just trying to express, in the most general term possible, how most people experience life.

It's true that you can break it down to an us and them in terms
> of different lifestyles and values among people....BUT that in
> no way can we accept as fact of "the happy race" and
> the "{unhappy unfulfilled race".
>

> i think i have already answered this question above. but what i would say is what if you were to ask that question to somebody in the third world? somebody who lives in grinding poverty, who's community is ravaged by diease and famine. i think he would be right to refer to the first world as the "happy race" and the third world as the "unhappy unfulfilled race"

But, I will agree with the point that some of us are more
> unhappy than others, but NO ONe is exempt of rejection, pain,
> and unhappiness.

>yes, but my point wasn't that certain people don't experience contradiction but to the degree it is needed for an individual to start questioing his existance.

The immeadite life being the happy, physical world?

>no, i called morrissey a poet of immediacy but nobody would call him a happy poet. its simply a mind without any critical or skeptical capabilitys.

Existential? Are you reffering to a realist sense of life?

>for me, existentialisim is all about human freedom and choice. and when i said "contradiction in the existential sense", i meant the kinds of suffering that will awake the human being into a realization of his freedom and choice.

If you were a true Existentialist, you would claim that it
> doesn't reffer to "suffering" but the "reality of
> the working of life in the world/society.

>you wuold call it reality, i would call it suffering. i think we both mean the same thing - life.

Hmm, until their rational questioning mind kicks in. And, then
> the change will happen. They will find ways to unprogram their
> suffering- by-societies-terms-minds and step out of the apathy,
> and to give up the meat.

> not nesscessarly the rational mind.

Sucicide, the death of the self. Change is death. She has three
> options, change what she sees (through her perception and or
> self values), refuse to allow herself to see anything (denial,
> and become a slave to pity), or end everything.

>yes, i could not agree more, change means death to the old self, then a period of isolation , then a rebirth.

Wouldn't it be much safer, and less messy to just revaluate what
> hurts, and where it origionally stemmed, and keep the rest?

> it would all depend on what sort of society an individual lived in.

Tha'ts if you see personal denial, and isolation as the only
> solutions.

> the ironic life would entail isolation but so would many positive alternatives. to show you what i mean i would like to qoute from t.s.eliot's fine poem "journey of the magi". in it the wise man, after having witnessed the birth of christ, finds themself die to his old self and be born afresh. but when he goes back to his old kingdom he experiences a deep alienation from his own peole clutching their alien gods.

..."were we led all that way for birth or death? there was a birth, certainly, we had evidence and no doubt. i had seen birth and death, but had thougth they were different; this birth was hard and bitter agony for us, like death, our death. we returned to our places, these kingdoms, but no longer at ease here, in the old dispensations, with the alien people clucthing their gods. i should be glad of another death."

she is like a ghost caugth between two worlds:

> No, YOU are a ghost caught between two worlds. Your analysis is
> your revalation. It's beautiful, but I hope that the
> alternatives are there for you.

> Ahhhh, I see now. We use different terms, and layouts for
> defining it.

>i think there are alternatives for everyone, its just some people can faith in them more easily than others. and yes we are talking about the same thing but in different terms.

And, since she cannot completly seperate herself from society
> she must also remember to do this again and again. BEcause it
> will happen again, bias by society.

> she could run to a nunnery.

ps, nice to here from you again.
 
Back
Top Bottom