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.
