today i, fukky, have in my studio
sadoos flammarion and maf nir malo
we’re here today to talk about
sadooing and esotericism
sadooing is a new-old movement that
pushes esotericism into the without
that’s not entirely true
nothing’s entirely true
that’s true
sadoo flammarion’s from socotra
island and sadoo maf nir malo’s from the plain of jars
actually sadoo nir maf malo’s from plain
socotra
and sadoo flamarion’s from jar
i-land
a curious thing in all this is that
esotericism is an invention of scholars in the mid-twentieth century so we
shouldn’t really take it that seriously
but we take ourselves seriously
well
didn’t your mother just pass away?
if there’s anyone i’d like to go
to a cemetery with, it’s you
i wish i had 16 more mothers so i
could experience 16 more mothers dying
that’s not nice
it’s true though
could we talk a little about the relations
of truth and niceness?
academia, being concatenations of
orthodox judgment disguised as knowledge and progress, is useful primarily for
transanthropological purposes: for outsider
thinkers and poets, those barely human but found in human form, more of myth
than time, loosened from institutional conformist bonds into the raunchy air,
friends of possibility and freedom, to comment on the commentators – a rough
governance and dark vision, a blurring of insides and outsides
academia’s recent discovery of
esotericism indicates – like the rise of nomenclature such as mental illness,
human resources, alternative, underground, diversity, and irrationality – a
need, an increasing desperation, on orthodoxy’s part to further entrench itself
behind moats of privileged rhetoric and hierarchical bifurcations
but you just said we shouldn’t
take it that seriously.
one should never take it that seriously
only verbs should be taken
seriously
and even verbs …
what i’m trying to say is that
academia’s clumping together of impossibly myriad and contradictory movements
under one umbrella term reveals its attempt to absurdly rive the world into an
odd simulation of the christian universe:
the true and the false, the real and the deluded, the good and the bad –
of course the academy being the initiator and protector of the former in each
couplet, some impossibly superior and objective vantage maintained only through
its pervasive enforcements
but these supposedly superior
words – true, real, good – have all been deconstructed by the academy
only theoretically. it doesn’t have
the guts to live its theory. this lack of guts is what most wholly defines it.
a comic consequence of course is that one of its practitioners seriously
advocates we have bodies without organs – the academy’s leading the way, its
guts displaced to those who carry the world on their heaped shoulders
i’m interested in pursuing
further these relations you establish between esotericism and other movements.
it seems to me in my mingling with sadoos over the millennia that what academia
has recently called esotericism is hardly new but a collection of discernible
and irreconcilable strains in the human spirit that are some combination of
antithetical, strained, revolutionary, parallel to the dominant forms of
societal structures – from philosophical daoism to various forms of anarchy
(primarily individual), mysticism (secular, aesthetic, religious), modern
underground and alternative movements, art in its orientations that aren’t
primarily commercial …
this is sadooity!
sadooity isn’t a set of
irreconcilable attributes, it’s configurations of energies that present
possibilities of a breaking through the simian human without negating it
an ubermensch?
sadoo friedrich was onto something
but its attempt is only one element – think of it as a stroke on a large
painting, a work in continual progress – that is attempting to show humanity a
picture of itself as it might be
it’s the protest that never wins
that includes the doubt that it will never win
a doubt called hope?
sadoo chuang tzu, sadoo simone,
sadoo scelsi, sadoo thoreau, sadoo spiegel, sadoo bronte, sadoo william, sadoo
emily, sadoo jodorowsky, sadoo oram … all these and tens or hundreds of
thousands more, named and unnamed, work together in strange concert …
against …
against?
against, with, alongside … we
require an uninvented preposition … oun … work together in strange concert oun
the exoteric
what interests us is the
psychology and psychopathology of configuration
specifically how mental processes,
in relation to the external world, are configured – and reconfigured – in
sensuous representation, from inner necessity and vision, into what is sometimes
called art
sometimes called madness
esotericism is frequently considered
a third pillar of western culture alongside doctrinal faith and rationality,
deemed heretical by the former and irrational by the latter, thus exiled by the
dominant structures of the heart and the mind, construed then as being
configured problematically by the numerically and militaristically greater
powers, the heretical now having to deal with the natural potencies of their
inner necessities and vision and the alien potencies of others’ outer
necessities and tyrannies. esotericism attempts to slip through these
regulatory definitions, these forces, having no particular throne, refusing
heart or mind any ascendancy, exploring forms not particularly exigent but
emerging from shadows of reality, closets of time, …
… often considered hidden,
unified, universal, secret, inner, enchanted, individual, higher, superior,
these attributions have arisen from an antithetical collaboration between the
orthodoxies – which use them often as mockeries – and those among the
esotericists who (often legitimately) feel threatened by the dominant forms and
attempt to balance power by claiming truer knowledge
is esotericism less deviations
from orthodoxy or orthopraxy and more paths of sensations not yet walked?
esotericism is just other forms of
specific, inner-outer, rational-intuitive, polydirectional,
individual-collective knowledge eschewed by forms of orthodoxy, courageously
exploring alternative paths concerned with powerful spiritual dimensions of
reality as opposed to the merely exoteric religious institutions and dogmatic
systems of established religions and skeptical rationality
esotericism isn’t hidden, unified,
or universal – it’s as plural as orthodoxy. the difference is that it yields
different powers, relies more on intuition, flesh, imagination: these dark and
vermiculous roots. the best of it includes vigorous mind, thorough and
contradictory experience, broad learning, and the fullest passions
esotericism is the dream orthodoxy
needs to dream then analyze and sell
this binarism of esotericism and
orthodoxy – is it inevitable? could there be alliances which lessen the threat
to orthodox insecurities and lessen the persecution and poverty often endemic
to alternative or underground movements?
these tendencies toward ‘hidden,’
‘higher,’ likely have resulted from a binarism resulting from the alienation of
scattered and less dominant language groups as they encounter more homogeneous
and powerful language groups. these tendencies are an attempt at justice – at
balancing different legitimate forms of knowledge in an overwhelmingly
exploitive context
but are there other means of
working toward justice?
some say hide within the ‘system.’
but not everyone can or should do this. when the system finds something
esoteric it can use and that esotericism thus becomes ‘successful’ it gains the
ability to influence, but the creator finds it difficult if not impossible to
then continue to nurture the vitality of its forms, powerful as the orthodoxies
are. anonymity, suicide, silence, deserts, exile, retreat – all these are
options, but unsatisfying
we’re interested in pathways of
renewing subversions, including autosubversion, crafty vulnerabilities, satisfying
unsatisfactions, death intimacies as vitality, energetic negations, adventures
of doubt-paths …
… the underground, subversion,
protestation, revolt and revolution – these all now become faces of orthodoxy,
in the way a new order or movement in the middle ages was assimilated into
catholicism or even as we see the internet’s nascent ferality being coopted by
political-capitalistic powers
isn’t this just a natural
ordering that occurs in chaos’s rush and maelstrom?
mysticism is the maelstrom that
never demaelstroms, calm in its never
take aesthetic mysticism for
example. orthodoxy – in contempt, indifference, admiration – includes at times
mysticism in its analytical baskets and dumpsters, as it plucks and discards
exotic flora from the psychic rainforests of the world. it infrequently
combines aesthetics and mysticism – not a wholly unworthy practice – and
examines, for example, the mystical landscapes of a van gogh or monet,
articulating how such artists reacted against the materialism, empiricism and
secularism of the modern age through forged individual spiritual paths. none of
this is untrue
but mysticism, not naturally
fitting into purported scientific practices, defies orthodoxy’s taxonomizing
and ratiocinating dna by being of different blood, of the root and apogee of
religion. a modern aesthetic mysticism inserts itself not in nature or gods but
technology, incessantly rawly vulnerable to the city’s plurality of voices,
incessantly disordered and ordered in its disorderings
orthodoxy can’t include these forms
without dismembering itself, so instead it dismembers its esoteric objects and
calls this dismembering inclusion
isn’t that a bit harsh – if it
weren’t for orthodoxy, esotericism would never be recognized?
the harshness of your question is
the harshness of esotericism’s living
and what you state as true is only
possible because orthodoxy tyrannizes over the modes of production and one must
enter the maw of its tyrannies to be seen. sadoos – as all members of the
esoteric, regardless of their differences – abdicate their identities to the
extent they enter that maw and are re-configured according to the presently and
historically greater force. their strength is their refusal to conform to the
external and social dominant exigencies, not primarily as against but oun
the so-called liberal forces of
orthodoxy typically pay constructive lip-service to many of esotericism’s
forms, but these forms are deep and creative, generatively impossible from
within orthodoxy, forms orthodoxy uses for its purposes. it refuses to come
alongside in equality for such alignment would threaten its privileges.
esotericism does the work of spiritual mining for the human and receives
occasionally nominal or posthumous praise
isn’t this painting an
excessively bleak picture?
dance to disney if you dare
with giant ears
in robes
tasseled
gravelled
every statement of purpose is
foreign to the essence of configuration and this essenceless essence is where
esotericism plays. orthodoxy has a purpose, esotericism is foolish and uncouth.
orthodoxy is clear and alert, esotericism is blank, drowsy, muddled. sadoos are
punx – not of any movement but in the etymological sense … spiritual bottoms,
trouble-makers, worthless, unproduced, rotten wood dust used as tinder keeping
orthodoxy warm and safe
i’m unsure i can remain a sadoo –
it is too much of the everything outside.
and yet of the nothing inside
sadoos laugh, though they don’t
laugh in the manner of bipeds in arenas. they laugh in the manner of the last
poets in their blues of madness
the white death of our people is a
genocide in your trunk
our revolutions of silence are
your sudating nightmares
sadoo is everything you’re not and
refuse to be
isn’t sadoo then also not-sadoo
and thus sadoos aren’t sadoos and orthodoxy sadoo’s esoteric home?
sadoo is everything that is not
that is
sadoo is the highest degree of
vitality given the most consummate expression
we will continue to revolt according
to our modes of revolution
and are these not just walking in
circles around yourselves?
nested carousels are our path and
vision
the horses ride us up and down in
aimless transport
we are the equine pooper-scoopers
of ourselves
the horses ride us up and down
we are the equine pooper-scoopers
the horses ride us
we are the equine
the horses
we are
horses
are
