The Magazine Thread

[Cain]

How about this?


Who are we?

Its safe to say that we are, first and foremost, people who think change is not only possible in this world, but a necessity.  We have reached a cultural dead end, where any new values are either quietly co-opted to serve the needs of an elite, or as a false ,Äúchoice,Äù in a society that no longer understands the meaning of the word.

True change is not impossible, but it is deemed dangerous by those who benefit from the way things are now.  Subversive and radical ideologies that fail to understand this are doomed to failure as they become part of a larger overall system within society.  An idea may be revolutionary for its time, but within 10 years it will have been bastardized and sold on a t-shirt.  They become, just like everything else, another resource to be exploited, a lifestyle choice instead of a choice of life.

In the past, we have often witnessed political revolutions, but rarely social ones.  A revival of life, with meaning beyond shrill partisan screeching and the bottom line, must be advanced towards.  A renaissance, if you will, of modern life.  However, this can only arise through understanding of and discrediting the current system.

We are, above all else, neophiles.  We seek an uncertain but better future over an unpleasant present.  And there is no greater goal than that.

[That One Guy]

First off, Cain? Mittens, definitely. That makes for a great introduction.

Regarding the posting process, I'm in favor of running things through here before throwing them out to the Aftermath thing. More for editing/tightening up than "no way in hell can you post this". However, since it IS something with which we're trying to reach a broader group of people, some overall process is probably a good idea. Part of that would, by necessity, be an editorial once-over.

I'm cool with that - I'm by no means a professional writer and harbor no illusions as to my skills in that area. I definitely welcome any and all criticism/advice/brutal hacking of material into some decent shape for whatever I write. If we go with a "post your draft here for editing/adjustment" followed by a dialogue as to whether or not it could work in the context of Aftermath, I think that could work to keep the openness while still allowing some overall cohesion.

Maybe throw a new forum up to deal specifically with this in order to keep everything central and differentiated from the rest of the fun?

[Payne]

How about this?


Who are we?

Its safe to say that we are, first and foremost, people who think change is not only possible in this world, but a necessity.  We have reached a cultural dead end, where any new values are either quietly co-opted to serve the needs of an elite, or as a false “choice” in a society that no longer understands the meaning of the word.

True change is not impossible, but it is deemed dangerous by those who benefit from the way things are now.  Subversive and radical ideologies that fail to understand this are doomed to failure as they become part of a larger overall system within society.  An idea may be revolutionary for its time, but within 10 years it will have been bastardized and sold on a t-shirt.  They become, just like everything else, another resource to be exploited, a lifestyle choice instead of a choice of life.

In the past, we have often witnessed political revolutions, but rarely social ones.  A revival of life, with meaning beyond shrill partisan screeching and the bottom line, must be advanced towards.  A renaissance, if you will, of modern life.  However, this can only arise through understanding of and discrediting the current system.

We are, above all else, neophiles.  We seek an uncertain but better future over an unpleasant present.  And there is no greater goal than that.

Thats very concise. Its simple, but doesn't talk down to the reader. I'm for it.

[Cain]

I could set up a subforum in here, if you wanted.  Or we could have a thread in propaganda (since that is what this is, in a way).

Also thanks, but if anyone does want to tweak that, throw out some suggestions.

[LMNO]

I like it, especially the forward/positive element at the end.


Also, here's an example of what I was talking about re: editing.

ARCHITECTURE.
-By various contributers

This is in regard to the metaphor of the Black Iron Prison.  It attempts to expand on the metaphor by describing the things of which it is made.  Please keep in mind that this is merely a creative way of explaining certain elements in perception, and in no way describes something that is ,Äúreally,Äù there.

The exterior walls of the BIP seem to be put in place by our existence as humans.  As previously stated, our perceptions seem to be limited by the relatively narrow ranges of our physical senses, and by the fact that our brains can only process so much information at a given time.  Even when we try to expand our sensory ranges by building and using mechanical devices, it's very difficult for us to observe both those expanded ranges and our "natural" ranges - we have to focus our attention on what's under the microscope and can't necessarily notice the fire that just caught in the far corner of the laboratory.  This is why we can never fully escape the Black Iron Prison - we either don't have the sensory perception, or we don't have the mental processing power.  If we try to expand both at once, we end up frying our brains with data overload.  None can look upon the face of God and live.

However, the BIP seems to be chock full of interior walls, and it,Äôs possible we can smash those to our heart's content because we're the ones who put them there, or who allowed them to be put there (which is almost the same thing).  Smashing those walls won,Äôt change the fact that we're in prison, but it gives us a little more wiggle room.

One of the troubles in wall-smashing, though, is that many of us knock down a wall, then use those same bricks to build a new and different wall.  One can liken this to a common experience: Many guitarists admire Jimi Hendrix for being innovative, so they try to diligently copy everything he had already done, thinking they are somehow better for it.  It,Äôs as if Hendrix had smashed a wall, and these guitarists, by emulating and imitating him, were very meticulously picking up the bricks and building a new wall.

However, to extend the metaphor even further, if you knock down too many walls without rebuilding at least one or two somewhere else, do you risk collapsing the ceiling on yourself and going completely mad?  And is it somehow less offensive to live with walls that you have built, since you chose to have them there and you will probably remain aware of their existence?  This seems to be the case.  Awareness of what you're doing can be liberation.

You can also rip down walls and use the material to help solidify your foundation.  There is some benefit to be had from viewing things from a different perspective.  Tearing down a wall does indeed bring rubble, and what do you do with it?  Choosing what to build where seems to be an important step in this process.  We can get very excited about destroying limiting elements in ourselves, but if we don,Äôt choose where the new walls are built, we seem to be relinquishing our freedom.

Some might ask, ,ÄúBut what if we are comfortable with our walls?,Äù To be true, as said above, it appears we cannot knock these walls down without risking madness.  How can one advocate for destruction of the walls when the alternative is to be unable to function?

The answer appears to rest upon the idea of balance.  Much the same as how even the intuitive poetry of ee cummings still relies on the ordered rules of language, the disorder of the experiential Universe is organized by the pattern-making processes of the brain.  When one breaks down all their walls, they have removed all structures that can be controlled.  Essentially, all internal aspects of reality have been obliterated.  In order to function in an external reality, one needs to rebuild, the difference being that one can choose how the patterns can be understood.

[Payne]

Wow! I like that edit. I may print that off as is and show it around a bit.

With regards to a seperate area for Aftermath, a thread in Prop would be good. After all, we must maintain the tidiness!

~~~Payne: Feeling a bit more like actually contributing content today.

[Cramulus]

Great work LMNO. I especially like the bit about Jimi Hendrix... I think a lot of the BIP writing is very metaphor-dense and really needs concrete examples like that to make it applicable.

I think a child board or something wouldn't be a bad idea, if only because having a dedicated forum would give the snowball room to turn into an avalanche. It also evokes the idea of starting fresh.

As far as editorial process goes...

I'm under the impression that the blog is a sort of transition space. As Cain said, we're eventually going to have a PDF which compiles all this stuff together into a distributable booklet. That magazine-ish thing is the end-game product.

So don't feel too hesitant about posting to the blog. There'll be time for another round of revisions before we go to "print".

At this point its important to learn from the feedback we gathered about the BIP pamphlet. Though this magazine seems to be aimed at social change (???), we should take care to not make it 100% fire and brimstone. If we want to appeal to a broad audience, it does need some humor and silliness. The darkness is perfectly fine in moderation. I'd like to include my 23 Things While You Wait pamphlet as an attempt to balance it all light and sassy.

If we do a child board, we should get a thread for artwork, a thread for one-liners and quotes, those sorts of of space-filler things.

[LMNO]

I think the Hendrix thing was either Jenne or DJR.

I really need a way to stress that these essays are a group effort, else it looks like I'm a egotistical thunder-stealer.

Or a fucking genius.








Hmmm... let me think about this for a sec.

[Cramulus]

Yeah I should have put the "great work" and the content-specific compliment in different paragraphs.

[Cain]

I suggest longer, more reasoned posts as well.  Don't rant, persuade people instead.

Longer posts take more time, which is good because we have a fair few contributers and updating it more than, say twice a day is unnecessary.  Once every 3 days should be the minimum though.

[LMNO]

Is the above entry good enough to post?

Or should we start with a more basic explaination of the BIP?

[Payne]

I'm making notes for my first attempt. I think it's as well we have a thread to post to, otherwise I fear the monumental fail.

[LMNO]

It's in the Propoganda sub-forum, in O:M.

[Cain]

I don't think we really need to explain the BIP.  Its an implicit, unifying theme of the overall work.  Apart from what I mentioned above, the only other thing I think we need is to move from the particular to the general and especially look into the conclusions of what we are saying.  That will work 100 times better than most ranting, over the net anyway.

[LMNO]

Hmm.


The thing is, at least with my own stuff, I tend to build off the original metaphors pretty heavily.

For example, my whole idea that the Machine,Ñ¢ happens when you forget about the BIP, and the CoN is the rationalization of the Machine,Ñ¢.