feature! interview

recently i, fukky, was strangely privileged to bump into sadoo kalinotot at an underground bar in bangkok. we drank and chatted for a few days and on the boat home i took the opportunity to distill our time into an interview. here it is, in all its pulpy glory, to inspire and annoy sadoos everywhere.

thanks sadoo kalinotot!

it seems to me that depression, horror, despair, rage, bitterness, …

envy?

envy’s ridiculous.

resentment?

resentment’s difficult because of what nietzsche did to it.

what did nietzsche do to it?

he resented it.   , … bitterness, fragmentation, confusion, volatility, indolence, vulgarity, …

salaciousness?

naturally.   , … vulgarity, suicidalism, cannibalism, …

cannibalism?

of oneself.  , … cannibalism, madness, all sorts, are all unavoidable aspects of the ongoing human experience and thus ….

but what about the other things?

the other things?

love, peace, harmony, cooperation, justice, camaraderie, generosity, forgiveness, nobility, happiness, communication?

absolutely, those too.  except communication – communication i’d define as the totality of everything we've said and are going to say and haven't said and are not going to say.

including autocannibalism?

autocannibalism might very well be the supreme form of expression.

true. let’s become practical for a moment. how does one get through the day?

great question. i’d say by being happy, volatile, salacious, forgiving, raging, resentful, horrified, depressed, cooperative, harmonious, indolent, suicidal, noble, every form of mad, and eating oneself.

sounds like a tall order. i mean for each day.

i wouldn’t be prescriptive about it. you know, allow each day to happen. twig in the river stuff.

what about those calm happy people who are calm and happy every day?

eliminate them.

isn’t that a bit harsh? and what about those raging volatile ones who are only raging and volatile? don’t they get a bit tiresome?

eliminate them too. i’m interested in the repletions – the holographic monads who, by being holographic, are not monads and yet are. anarchy remains and must remain a theoretical experiment until society is replete with repletions.

it could tolerate some non-repletions?

that remains to be seen but let’s assume the non-repletions through the usual principles of conformity don’t necessarily become repletions but at least aren’t douchebags, douchebags being defined as calm and happy every day or raging and volatile every day. anarchy requires individuals entire, but entire is too often taken as a subset of entire. a repletion is innately all of humanity and thus justice is actualized by the parts autocorrecting themselves by containing the whole. no law! for law has emigrated to its natural home before it had to be institutionalized – distributed throughout the soul. i am judge and judging, jailer and jailed and jury and defense and prosecution. all this institutionalization ... wholly redundant and tiresome. totally fourth millennium bce. plus you have to work!

what does this do to diversity?

consummates it. extends it everywhere. yes, if one isn’t weeping when one wakes up, laughing mid-morning, screaming in the afternoon, and beatifically mute in the evening, what are you?

or presumably mute upon waking and screaming in the evening. what does it do to productivity, action, volition?

does that matter?

good point. let’s talk more about eating ourselves.

yes. we’ve eaten others enough. there are many many humans. there are not only too many of us but too much of each of us. let’s eat that excess. let’s become the first species to learn how to effectively use ourselves as a fuel source without annihilating ourselves. this puts our natural violent, destructive, and barbaric orientations to good use. finally.

what does this have to do with being a sadoo?

now we’re into the exciting stuff. everything. as many sadoos have pointed out – sadoo rianchada, sadoo ghar-zahhi, sadoo g9^e,k, sadoo ÿ©, sadoo to name a few – sadoos are all about everything. a sadoo is everything in a something made nothing.

or nothing in an everything made something.

exactly.

but i thought sadoos skirted around definitions.

we skirt, we trouser. our sartorials are flexible, so are our prepositions.

how committed then are you to any of this?

about 11 parts.

out of how many?

that is a question. if i had to come up with a definition of sadoo, it might be an aspect that questions out of how many?

i see.

or i count. and the counting’s never done because there’s so much of us. and then we’re eating ourselves so we’re subtracting. we’re this then we’re that so we’re dividing. these are just the simple operations. we’re mathematics really. words are just excuses for more numbers.

hey, thanks sadoo kalinotot, it’s been really good.

hey fukky, as always.

maybe bump into you in terengganu sometime.

you bet your dingleberries.

what's a sadoo annual survey - sadoo recapsulation

it’s time for our annual what’s a sadoo survey.  this year we’re presenting our findings in three parts:

1. a sadoo recapsulation by sadoo art obio

2. sadoo life tips from 2015!

3. and a wee sadoo dialogue vaguely and inadequately capturing the dynamic relations between sadoo and world.

now, today – for sadoo recapsulation by sadoo art obio!

sadoo is a name we give to a collection of impulses coordinated into action that coalesce around the interstices of daoism, ecoplicity, anarchy, and art.  these names are less important than the impulses and action.  by impulse and action we mean not primarily whim and volition, something separate – not cause and effect, invisibility and visibility, psychology or spirit and politics – but a contextualized visceral knowledge spontaneously expressing itself.

we could say that the interstices are daoism, ecoplicity, and anarchy – and that art – a vatic art – inevitably arises from these interstices … or even that the interstices are daoism and ecoplicity – or even daoism alone – these others then arising.  but in the realm of words, causation is inexact, hardly linear, unidirectional.

by daoism we mean philosophical daoism and many of the orientations raised by the dao de jing and chuang tzu.  by ecoplicity we mean our relation with all living and non-living things.  by relation we mean a playful skeptical constructive dialogue with the systems within and without us that minimizes or eliminates static and unidirectional hierarchy, superiority.  we avoid any established nomenclatures of ecology as they soon defeat themselves through ironies of unnecessary conflict between name and desire – so too ecoplicity and, yes, all names.  by anarchy we mean the replete multiple singular human in indifference and difference and protest and acceptance with and against all orders, including itself.  by art we mean vatic vision expressed in form, an impossible translation of void to image.

we see no evidence that any whole can be articulated, purposed, or conformed to.  such lack of evidence eliminates the possibilities of enlightenment or firmly definable wellness, dogmatism or certain knowledge, a clearer or truer deep as opposed to the shallow and so any directional (e.g. vertical or horizontal) supremacy.  a whole perhaps can be intuited, sensed, but not made visible in words, neither realistically imprintable in mind nor balanced in volition.  if a whole is all parts relating to all parts – across all time and space, all non-time, non-space, what is called the real and the imaginary – what part can wholly grasp this, let alone the possibility that a whole is only one of infinite wholes?

we are seeking something multifarious, contradictory, so vital it includes death with aplomb, grace, caprice, indistinction, even joy.  something so these things it may even be already here.

elsewhere a sadoo is exploring anarchy, rebellion, subversion, and enthusiasm as ratiocinated qualia of sadooity.  we leave this to them.  our question here is any practices of a sadoo in the relative absence of practice.  in other linguistic paradigms – and these are or seem infinite and curious – as the world is looked at and engaged in by a community of sadoos that contribute to this blog, we note that what has needed to be said has been said and thus more saying is hardly an issue.

as a sadoo once said, i do not claim to have originated any new principle or doctrine. i have simply tried in my own way to apply the eternal truths to our daily life and problems ... the opinions i have formed and the conclusions i have arrived at are not final. i may change them tomorrow. i have nothing new to teach the world. truth is as old as the hills.