A French maid, foreign chef,
A big house, with kingsize beds.
You had enough, you ship ’em out,
The dollar’s up, down, you better buy the pound.
The claim is on you, the sights are on me,
So what do you do ? That’s guaranteed
Hey little girl, you break the laws,
You hustle, you deal, you steal from us allCome on, come on, lovin’ for the money,
Come on , come on, listen to the money talk
Come on, come on, lovin’ for the money,
Come on , come on, listen to the money talk

Just thought those of you interested in like, the economy and stuff might  enjoy this perspective on the ongoing ‘market’ upheavals, from a parapolitical, platonic idealist perspective.

Shit’s  going down, ya’ll.

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “C’mon, c’mon, listen to the money talk…

  1. here is my question for you zac, one that has been brewing for a long time:

    your writings/speakings cover a wide range of subjects, most all of which you seem to have an extraordinary handle on. this is what makes it great…

    yet as much as i’m interested by much of what you cover, the fact of the matter is that i simpy don’t have the time to research and investiage all this stuff on my own. whether its webster tarpley, dharma dan, aleister crowley, buckminster fuller, or global warming, i’ve arrived at the conlcusion again and again that solid and thorough understanding of all of these things is just about impossible… unless i’m prepared to move away from the other pursuits/interests that take up most of my time otherwise. and while my life isn’t lived 100% efficiently, i like to think i’m wasting far less time than most people (ie, there isn’t a whole lot of room to be made).

    and all this being said, of all my friends i can pretty much guarantee that i’m the only one reading “fringe” writing such as yours. i love my friends and think they’re great people, but me trying to relay your stuff to them sometimes feels, at its worst, like a horrible game of telephone, where the original message is quite lost.

    we live in a world where “specialization”, even of knowledge, plays such a big role that the average person simply won’t have time to look into all this stuff adequately. instead of reaching conclusions based on their own research (more suggestive of a “scientific” approach), then, it seems to me that people turn to more of a mythic approach: they reach a conclusion, and then only notice or pay attention to the facts that support it.

    all of this said metaphorically: each of us, in the pursuit of our interests, ventures into the wilderness by day and returns to the village at night (to share what we’ve brought back). many people are happy taking up simple tasks in the very shallow levels of the wilderness, and this is fine. other people, however, are trailblazers and pioneers and push far, far, far beyond realms the average person could ever dream of. what, then, are we to make of the boon brought back by these far-wanderers, if we can never cover such ground ourselves?

    this may be quite jumbled, but i hope a vague semblence of my general concern is raised. this has poppued up time and again (and I’ve half-started this very comment probably 5 times in recent months), but I figured I’d let it out here, however unrefined it may be. Any thoughts/insight would be great.

  2. hmm.

    well i think you’re right. as we become increasingly information saturated, understanding gives way to a more mythic gloss. that’s part of the point of this podcast. we substitute a common myth, or consensus for real truth.

    I went into this in my first run of futurist james joyce inspired mcluhanist ravings. it’s one of the trends you can be sure of in the future, provided we don’t have a radical drop off in social complexity, which may well happen, but probably not. it’s the end result of the atomistic relativistic liberalism of current culture. nothing can be reconciled, or integrated, and everyone devolves to their own world of subjective mythic narcissism.

    but moving in the background is the solution to this, which is to move beyond the multiplicity of surface appearances, to a grasp of universal underlying principles.

    I’m no more a prodigy or obsessive genius than anyone else. I just understand things as deeply as possible, and then look for the depth connections. eventually you start to see that most everything obeys and partakes of a common set of principles. you don’t need to, nor can you, hash out every subject in depth. when you go deep enough, they all become the same thing.

    If you understand the one thing, you understand the 10 000 things. that’s some old school taoist shit, right there.

  3. So you’re saying, Zac, that if I understand one thing, in depth, I’ll understand all other things to some degree?

    Say I understand everything about computers in depth, will I start to see an underlying structure in computers which I can then move to other areas?

    All operating systems work in a similar way with different strong and weak points and with different amount of functionality or programs, all religions talk about similar things with different strong and weak points and different amount of practices to do.

    Operating systems have different amount of users, mystical traditions have different amount of practitioners.

    Some operating systems are not open source, some magickal traditions keep their information a secret.

    Are these depth connections?

    Can you point out one or two universal underlying principles so I may understand better what it is your talking about?

  4. thanks for the reply, zac.

    I think part of the issue, for me, is that I often feel some strange necessity to follow the exact path of those whose work/ideas inspire me. while this can be good at times, it can be quite detrimental when i expect myself to be suddenly up to speed in realms far removed from my strengths.

    i’m into web and graphic design, and i can sense this when viewing portfolios of those who are WAY beyond me. i become overwhelmed and anxious, thinking that i’m *nothing* because i cannot do as they do… but the answer, of course, is to look to my own strengths, which viewed on their own terms are just as radiant, even if only in their potential.

    marilyn manson once said “If you want to be like Jim Morrison, you can’t be anything like Jim Morrison. It’s about finding your own place in the world.” Jim was such a rebel in his own way, that to copy him superficially is to not only miss the point, but to contradict it entirely (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5940019/41_the_doors).

    So I suppose this exercise is, for me, a progression of the realization that — as much as i dig the great work you’ve been doing here — i shouldn’t feel required (in all or any cases) to walk in your exact footsteps to loose my own light upon the world. because the “light” seems what its all about, really, no matter how exactly it is set free.

  5. You don’t have to look to your own strengths, even. Just to your own experience. It’s all there, in the fact of your existence. Nobody else has anything more or less than that. This is where those ‘universal truths’ all abide.

  6. well mortuus, how bout this:

    if we start from something like computer programing let’s say, I’m sure everyone who’s done a bit of that, or even coded html for their blog template has noticed that there’s such a thing as ‘over-writing’ the code or those things. every programmer will tell you that economy of design is more pleasing, and easier to do, rather than code every little thing.

    that economy of design is something you can see in all of nature. Leibniz talked about the principle of least action in science, how nature preferences and seeks the most effect for the least effort.

    you then step into something like steven wolfram’s ‘a new kind of science’, where he speaks about how to generate novel complexity from simple programs. he eventually states that the most complex behavior comes from a certain critical threshold of rules to the system. beyond that, it becomes rigid and predictable, and below that, it’s too simple. more rules don’t equal more novel behavior.

    think how something like dna works off of just a few simple chemical pieces, or how the body moves mostly through balance, and carefully manipulated counterforces, rather than over developing the rigid under structure. or how ecosystems work by having organisms insert themselves into the energy loop of other creatures, rather than make their own loops.

    these are all facets of the same kind of thing, depending on how you look at it.

  7. I think people have been saying stuff like this since Carter was President. It may be disappointing to those eager to hasten the demise of the US/global economy, but it’s all a much more robust system since 1920 – the idiots who seems to run things notwithstanding. Cooler heads may prevail.

    Consumer materialists will hopefully turn around in their thinking when ghosts of a Depression send chills down their spines. Baby boomers, Gen Xr’s, etc. who can, will start saving for retirement, and pay down credit balances …

    Again it comes down to personal concientiousness. Hyper mass is our best bet, not crash and revolution.

    … still prepare for the worst, hope for the best I always say!

  8. Pingback: the art of war

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s