but the point is that it isn't to your taste
i don't like what he says. he's much worse than just being macho and ugly, he describes some terrible things. he was a right cunt, He wrote it down in a way that you can understand
you aren't meant to like it. ''he just recorded something,
he isn't a role model he's a dead alcoholic,
and a poet
but the point is that it isn't to your tastei don't like what he says. he's much worse than just being macho and ugly, he describes some terrible things. he was a right cunt, He wrote it down in a way that you can understand
you aren't meant to like it. ''he just recorded something,
he isn't a role model he's a dead alcoholic,
and a poet
yes but he isn't recording these things from some outside positivist position, he is bound up in them, in how he interprets and reacts to them, in how he records and documents them.
the notion that because he doesn't have an explicit political agenda or progam he is not political is daft,political ideology functions best when it hides itself as ideology.
but the point is that it isn't to your tastei don't like what he says. he's much worse than just being macho and ugly, he describes some terrible things. he was a right cunt, He wrote it down in a way that you can understand
you aren't meant to like it. ''he just recorded something,
he isn't a role model he's a dead alcoholic,
and a poet
Actually, it's a misconception that he was an alcoholic; He was a drinker.
A heavy drinker, for sure, but not an alcoholic. Read his biographies for this info, his family are pretty clear that the public conception and the real Buk was quite different. He would drink heaivily on concerts in order to calm his anxiety, and later on it became his trade mark.
As for me believing in God, it's more complicated than that, I am not involved in any organized religion. But somehow I feel my personal religious views will fall on deaf ears 'round here.
Yes but the reason that he was successful was because it was close to the truth,
I understand your point about everything being political but how could an alcoholic bum in America in the 50s and 60s write honestly about his life as a bum without being misanthropic and misogynistic.
Of course it's his take on it, but I can't think of a way for a drunk to write about being a drunk honestly without coming across as a pretty horrible person.
Drunks are like the drunks in his stories, if he wrote it conscious of avoiding sexism and so on then his stories would suck and they would be totally unbelievable.
But somehow I feel my personal religious views will fall on deaf ears 'round here.
The real question is why you're bothering to express these views to godless Communists, and apparently are surprised that no-one gives credence to your views.
Personally, I give more attention to Kermit the Frog's utterances, than to any religious twaddle.
AnrBjotk wrote:
But somehow I feel my personal religious views will fall on deaf ears 'round here.The real question is why you're bothering to express these views to godless Communists, and apparently are surprised that no-one gives credence to your views.
Personally, I give more attention to Kermit the Frog's utterances, than to any religious twaddle.
Typical leftist view... You don't even know what religious belief I hold? I happen to be a pantheist, i.e believing that God is a concept, not subject to the human understanding and consciousness, we can never know what God is and therefore not follow any rules written by "him". We CAN celebrate life, and the beauty of nature, and hope that we someday achieve the level of consciousness necessary to see/understand Him/Her/It.
For more on the next level of consciousness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8-Circuit_Model_of_Consciousness
any belief qualifies as bullshit around here so your probably right about the deaf ears.
any belief qualifies as bullshit around here so your probably right about the deaf ears.
I assume you follow Dawkins then? You know, the absurdity is that both parties, religious people and Dawkin minians, both say they know the truth. Both you cannot prove Gods existence, nor disprove it completely. Both are ditches, as Osho would say.
I assume you follow Dawkins then? You know, the absurdity is that both parties, religious people and Dawkin minians,
Are you for real? Thinking that religion and spirituality are tosh does not imply one has anything to do with Dawkins. Are you going to start referring to people as Darwinists next?
both say they know the truth. Both you cannot prove Gods existence, nor disprove it completely. Both are ditches, as Osho would say.
I think you will find that a hell of a lot of religious do think that they can prove the existence of their god.
And Osho? Now you're quoting cult leaders?
For my two cents, I'm less concerned with who created the world, and more concerned with human action etc, etc.
But pantheism? Thats just a post-modern romantic atheism isn't it? That was Spinoza's card trick, if everything is god, nothing is. Either he was a radical believer or, what most suspected him of being at the time, a complete atheist.....
...God is a concept, not subject to the human understanding and consciousness, we can never know what God is and therefore not follow any rules written by "him".
Kermit the God "is a concept, not subject to the human understanding and consciousness, we can never know what God is and therefore not follow any rules written by "him". "
If something is beyond 'human understanding and consciousness' and 'can never be known', it is meaningless. So we might as well pretend Kermit runs the universe.
FWIW, I've got no problem with you having your beliefs, but I can't understand why you're telling us about them.
I'm a Commie.
AnrBjotk wrote:
I assume you follow Dawkins then? You know, the absurdity is that both parties, religious people and Dawkin minians,Are you for real? Thinking that religion and spirituality are tosh does not imply one has anything to do with Dawkins. Are you going to start referring to people as Darwinists next?
Quote:
both say they know the truth. Both you cannot prove Gods existence, nor disprove it completely. Both are ditches, as Osho would say.I think you will find that a hell of a lot of religious do think that they can prove the existence of their god.
And Osho? Now you're quoting cult leaders?
Yes, and my point was that both parties are not able to objectively prove their case. They cannot prove God exists, they haven't yet anyhow, and "you" cannot prove God doesn't exist... You both sit with your fingers in your ears singing "la la la la la la"...
Atheism is a religion.
Osho wasn't a cult leader. Again, no fact for that, but a few speculations.
For my two cents, I'm less concerned with who created the world, and more concerned with human action etc, etc.But pantheism? Thats just a post-modern romantic atheism isn't it? That was Spinoza's card trick, if everything is god, nothing is. Either he was a radical believer or, what most suspected him of being at the time, a complete atheist.....
It's not post-modernist, it dates back to the ancient greeks, and presocratic societies, and besides, the idea is so basic one could say it surely has been around since man developed consciousness three thousand years ago.
Yes, and my point was that both parties are not able to objectively prove their case. They cannot prove dragons exist, they haven't yet anyhow, and "you" cannot prove dragons don't exist... You both sit with your fingers in your ears singing "la la la la la la"...
Not believing in dragons is a religion.
fixed.
"you" cannot prove God doesn't exist...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
the idea is so basic one could say it surely has been around since man developed consciousness three thousand years ago.
Seriously? ? ?
3,000 years ago?
We've been building towns for nigh on 10,000 years and making art for at least 35,000 years, probably closer to 60,000. Were these people not conscious?
Or do you mean some flaky hippy 'third eye' kind of 'consciousness'?
AnrBjotk wrote:
"you" cannot prove God doesn't exist...
also, God does exist, and he says he loves capitalism, and anarchism/communism is evil. You can't prove this is not true. So I believe it.
You both sit with your fingers in your ears singing "la la la la la la"...
You've convinced me - where do I sign up? (you dreadful attention seeking knacker)
AnrBjotk wrote:
"you" cannot prove God doesn't exist...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
AnrBjotk wrote:
the idea is so basic one could say it surely has been around since man developed consciousness three thousand years ago.Seriously? ? ?
3,000 years ago?
We've been building towns for nigh on 10,000 years and making art for at least 35,000 years, probably closer to 60,000. Were these people not conscious?
Or do you mean some flaky hippy 'third eye' kind of 'consciousness'?
No, I mean the theory of Julian Jaynes explained in "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"
Have you ever tried reading a book? Besides Marx' Capital? Ever walked in your sleep? Ever been drunk? You do not need consciousness in order to build, hunt or make art... In fact the best art is made without consciousness (Dada) (And p-lease, do not make some crack about me writing without consciousness...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdown_of_the_Bicameral_Mind
Tried to read anything other than Capital? are you friggin' joking? I tried David Harvey's Reading Capital, was ok, but then i went back to Marx's Capital. You know, you should read Capital. It's great. You might even find something you like there. You know for Marx nature is the source of all value (thats in Critique of Gotha Programme). In Capital there is a few ditties about soil degradation. Great stuff. Never mind all this Derrick Jensen Zarzan stuff, read Capital!
No, I mean the theory of Julian Jaynes explained in "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"
Have you ever tried reading a book? Besides Marx' Capital? Ever walked in your sleep? Ever been drunk? You do not need consciousness in order to build, hunt or make art... In fact the best art is made without consciousness (Dada) (And p-lease, do not make some crack about me writing without consciousness...)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdown_of_the_Bicameral_Mind
What utter, utter rubbish. So this break down of the 'bicameral mind' occurred during the first/second millennium aye caused by the Bronze Age Collapse? The Bronze Age Collapse only occurred in the Near East. By the time it occurred humanity had already spread across the entire globe. Are we to believe that societies elsewhere in the world remained with this primitive brain until met by their more civilised fellows? Rubbish.
oh, just to clarify, i don't think pantheism is necessarily post-modern in itself (hence my reference to the pre-modernist 17th century philosopher Spinoza), I just think that pantheism, after the death of God and the fragmentation of the christian cosmology in europe, is picked up in a very blase post-modern, consuming religion/cosmology sort of way (sort of like certain strands of Buddhism have been). It seems to me a very non-committal idea of god one an just pick up, doesn't require one to be unsettled out of atheistic thought processes really.
The life of a working class stiff in 1970's LA. Post Office was actually a great read. I also like "Flop House"- it reminds me of jail.
Flophouse
you haven’t lived
until you’ve been in a
flophouse
with nothing but one
light bulb
and 56 men
squeezed together
on cots
with everybody
snoring
at once
and some of those
snores
so
deep and
gross and
unbelievable-
dark
snotty
gross
subhuman
wheezings
from hell
itself.
your mind
almost breaks
under those
death-like
sounds
and the
intermingling
odors:
hard
unwashed socks
pissed and
shitted
underwear
and over it all
slowly circulating
air
much like that
emanating from
uncovered
garbage
cans.
and those
bodies
in the dark
fat and
thin
and
bent
some
legless
armless
some
mindless
and worst of
all:
the total
absence of
hope
it shrouds
them
covers them
totally.
it’s not
bearable.
you get
up
go out
walk the
streets
up and
down
sidewalks
past buildings
around the
corner
and back
up
the same
street
thinking
those men
were all
children
once
what has happened
to
them?
and what has
happened
to
me?
it’s dark
and cold
out
here.
(Charles Bukowski)
"I assume you follow Dawkins then? You know, the absurdity is that both parties, religious people and Dawkin minians, both say they know the truth. Both you cannot prove Gods existence, nor disprove it completely. Both are ditches, as Osho would say."
Well since i never read anything by Dawkins probably rather not. If someone doesnt say what he thinks is the truth that would be pretty wicked - like saying "im all bullshit yo".. nobody does that. Of course you cant prove the absence of something, how would you do that.. thats why im saying all beliefs are bullshit - even atheism if its not agnostic. btw this is an "ancient" leftist theme, we paying our dues to Feuerbach and Stirner here 
A true poet is instinctually anarchistic, as we all are capable of being, if we do not slip away from our inherent nature, by whatever machinations. The initial question seems naive, because I believe that everyone is a potential anarchist/communist, but layered over with indoctrinations, which Bukowski had made an effort to shed like a snake skin throughout his entire life. There was an excellent movie starring Ben Gazzara called I think 'the diary of a madman'. There was one poignant moment when he is destitute and asks,"Have you ever felt like a piece of tissue paper covered in excrement drifting out to sea?"
As for the accusations that he was misogynous, show me anyone who has been in love who has not felt like screaming and venting about the communication gap that exists with their partners. Poets should never marry fullstop. Their essential being cannot be made to conform to domestic regularities. They are loose cannons firing fragments of truth.
Please, Dawkins and God are passé, science and mythology had their moment and failed. God would have been a psychopath and the genome cannot save us.
"I assume you follow Dawkins then? You know, the absurdity is that both parties, religious people and Dawkin minians, both say they know the truth. Both you cannot prove Gods existence, nor disprove it completely. Both are ditches, as Osho would say."Well since i never read anything by Dawkins probably rather not. If someone doesnt say what he thinks is the truth that would be pretty wicked - like saying "im all bullshit yo".. nobody does that. Of course you cant prove the absence of something, how would you do that.. thats why im saying all beliefs are bullshit - even atheism if its not agnostic. btw this is an "ancient" leftist theme, we paying our dues to Feuerbach and Stirner here ;)
Aaah, an intelligent and dignified reply. Sir, you have all my respect and love 
When I say nobody can say that they hold they the ultimate truth, I meant that in a more philosophical way, than a everyday pragmatic way. I mean if nobody could I wouldn't be posting here... What I mean is, as I said, that truth is subjective, liquid, and only... true within its context. We 'knew' that heroin was a great cure for morphine addiction, but we soon learned... One might say that we now know the truth about, in this case, heroin, since we now have more, perhaps all, facts; The point is that those who claimed that heroin wasn't addictive said it as a truth, true they didnt have all the facts, but sometimes we think we have all the facts, and we dont... We've all been there when we were young, right?
If all belief are bullshit, what is your... (blank) in/of communism? You don't believe in communism and you don't have faith in it...? See what I mean?
i want communism because im fed up with capitalism. nothing to do with faith in anything. the truth is out there, thats all i can say about it, and i mean like right in front of your eyes. if there is a subjective element to your truth thats your own fault 
science strives to be objective and they know a shitload thats simply not matter of dicussion anymore. like the energy stuff that makes my screen shine and i have no clue about. thousands of people know exactly how this works, see what i mean? of course you can talk about all the false truths in history but theres still the matter of the true truths like the earth not being flat and all that jazz you can see.
wont be back till tuesday and no interested in saying anything else about the "can we know anything" - matter.
from what I read of him he was a good writer and captures the frustration, alienation and nihilism of proletarian conditions but in terms of being an anarchist, nah, his views on women are pretty fucked up (which he would admit himself as part of the 'i'm just your average fucked up joe schmuck telling it like it is' angle).I think he's a good writer but there's something a bit too macho about him for my liking, he most definitely gives off the whiff of the rugged american individualism.
In less than two weeks time hundreds of neo-Nazis and racists will descend on the coastal town of Dover calling for Britain to “close the border”. It is vital that anti-fascists and anti-racists...
A short biography of Séraphine Pajaud, French anarchist and champion of atheism, anti-militarism and women's liberation
An article by Staughton Lynd reinterprets the concept of union democracy to include workers of all kinds (unionized workers, nonunion workers, and farmers); protection of the rights to strike,...
Please read the posting guidelines before posting. If you see anything which falls outside them please use the down' button on the offending post to flag it for the moderators' attention, or in the case of spam, click the 'spam' button. Site admins are listed here, and feedback can be posted in the feedback forum.
Click here to register now. Logged in users:
Can comment on articles and discussions
Get 'recent posts' refreshed more regularly
Bookmark articles to your own reading list
Use the site private messaging system
Start forum discussions, submit articles, and more...
nonsense, Bukowski "apolitical" truth is massively political even if he or others imagines it isn't, it is shot through with a kind of rugged individualism, like I said I find some of his writing great but it's too macho, ugly and misanthropic for my tastes.