BARAKA BASHMENT

Degrammatic Inversemantics (DI) is a tool one uses in order to undo the hegemonic knot created and sustained through the concretization of language and its “products” (i.e. singular meanings). DI is a writing method that contests all forms of linguistic construction in an effort to disrupt the ways in which members of society corral other members of society into a singular and biased definition of the world. Degrammatic Inversemantics is the umbrella under which reside many different techniques, all of which work towards the development of an environment based on the findings of intimate semi-autonomous meaning-makers, as opposed to the mass passive reception of social code. Some of the techniques in alignment with DI are the Deliberate Almost (currently in print only), as well as the Negative Depth Experience.

We work from:

to:

Degrammatic Inversemantics is a method. It is a way of enacting and engaging the world, as well as a means to disrupt the hypnotic effects produced by the representation of the world. It is not anti-hypnosis, though rather troublesome to hypnosis. To make a distinction: The world as experience is not hypnotic, though perhaps it is hypnautic, and the oceanic mass of people-brine are 7am placid and glassy-eyed with sleep. However, the Greek god Hypnos does not reign supreme here. Hypnos governs the representation, “The World,” or so our scouts have told us. “The World” is hypnotic in that it is a representation. This is basic Baudrillard. We will act from this though we will not remain here.

Though it may be beneficial to not accept the longing for an “original” as revolutionary . Perhaps this tale is a lie—a big ado about nothing. Maybe this is yet again the carrot on the stick hung just out of reach for us to place our hope in. Could it be that the longing for something “authentic” is yet another prize? Baudrillard’s perceived nihlism may really be a disguise for another unattainable goal. The idea of an original preceeding the hyperreality certainly smells a lot like heaven. It certainly sounds a lot like heaven. Are we really to believe that there is some “original,” some Platonic Ideal, preceeding the ever enveloping hyperreality that is our daily experience? Who, dare we ask, benefits from such a premis?

Degrammatic Inversemantics takes it’s cue from these questions, for there is no idea that should not be contested. Especially itself! From this, DI finds validity in methods clearly understood to be methods and systems clearly understood to be systems. We are attempting to produce no fluff here. The grand narrative isn’t even a question. We emerged from wombs having already internalized the postmodern ethos of context rule. Methods we say. Mathematics. Means. The embracing of via, by way of…. Postmodernism means only in as much as it can be used to embrace contradictions. Nay, embrace the Great Contradiction(s)! Nay? And blessed is that which does not resolve! And blessed is that which resists resolution and embraces the great turn of revolutions pluralized upon pluralized! The universe is our proof!

As a method of writing/reading, Degrammatic Inversemantics takes a cue from the popular-anarchism of reader-response criticisms. From wikipedia:

“Reader-response criticism is a group of approaches to understanding literature that have in common an emphasis on the reader’s role in the creation of the meaning of a literary work…. Since the theorists who make up reader-response theory were not consciously creating a school of thought, it is very difficult to say when and with whom the movement began. Also, since reader-response criticism is a reaction to perceived excesses of New Criticism, it did not emerge as a total system…. Reader-response theory recognizes the reader as an active agent who imparts “real existence” to the work by reading it and completes its meaning “by applying codes and strategies”. It is concerned with the reader’s contribution to a text. It stands in total opposition to the text-oriented theories of formalism and the New Criticism, in which the reader’s role interpreting literary works are not taken into account.” (emphasis ed.)

It is this radical approach to reading Islam, either through its texts (Qur’an, etc.) or it’s praxis (salat, etc.), where I find most contemporary Muslim thinkers (I have read) lacking. To me, Muslim thinkers informed by the postmodern (that is writers and practicioners of a postmodern ethic) seem restricted in their willingness to attempt a leap beyond the confines of a fabricated tradition (a tradition that perceives itself as singular) and therefore lack in, for all intensive purposes, sexiness. By sexiness I am referring, quite seriously, to the ability of a particular conglomeration of cues to arouse a person. Sexiness is the perpetual shifting field of triggers unique to every person that taps into the seat of being. It can be daring, or it can be safe when daring becomes passe. It calls a fish a flan when the evening has become just too stale. Is there anything sexy about Arkoun’s Rethinking Islam: Common Questions, Uncommon Answers? I could be wrong, and not to sound elitest, but to me this work reads like Islam through the lens of “Postmodernism 101,” without any enactment of the theories proposed. Again, this is not to say “Postmodernism 101″ is not necessary, but rather that condensations is blasphemy.

Maybe I have wrongfully glamorized Deleuze & Guattari sitting on each other’s lap. Maybe my knowledge of Foucault’s proclivity for men and leather has clouded my vision. Maybe I am much too interested in the practice of the human theorists, for I find it is the only way to tell if this stuff works. Maybe I want to appreciate them as reader-writers far too much, where they too appreciate the reader-writer, and as such we one day find ourselves eating lampshades by the banks of coconut rivers.

Farid Esack hints at an appreciation of the reader (sans writer?), and is the closest I have read to inviting a reader-response approach to the reading of Islam, notably through his hermeneutic of liberation investigations. However, I have found little to suggest a complete and commited approach to investigating the ways in which we read the wor(l)d Itself (the greater always already present submission to Allah willingly or unwillingly). For instance, what happens when we realize that our engaging the Qur’an, first and formost a text, our reading the Qur’an completes the process of “I was a mystery and wanted to be known”? What happens when we realize that to “be known” is to engage and interact with the text. What happens when we realize that the meaning is not sitting complete in some distant land waiting to be found, but rather is always in a process of development through the co-creative process of reading the world? The impulse for this co-creative meaning-making being a desire to be known—as if to say: the knowing of me allows you to be you. Without the knowing, Reality Itself remains incomplete.

It is my feeling that when we finally accept the idea that Islam through it’s books and actions is a co-creative, yet autonomous process of fluctuating occurences of meaning-making (identity constructions, ethical and moral “truths,” etc.), and that because of this we can understand how Islam can be read to both support people flying planes into buildings, AS WELL AS read to support all those trying to stop planes flying into buildings, only then will be in a place to once again see the world we seem so bent on representing back to ourselves for easy consumption. We mustn’t kid ourselves by being so arrogant as to say that those who fly planes into buildings are not Muslims. This is simply too easy. (The same goes for referring to George W. Bush as Adolf Hitler. It’s merely a way of Othering he and his actions.) We need to accept that TO THEM, they were the best of Muslims, and as such are now a blemish in the history of Islam, as well as a blemish in the history of hyper-capitalism/globalism. They found support in Islam to kill and we find support in Islam to protect.

What I propose and have always proposed on this site, is that this seeming conundrum is not a hindrance, but rather a blessing. That, the mirror-like qualities of the Qur’an (in that it reflects a person’s current conciousness back to them) places the emphasis squarely on human agency (as much as we may make the claim that we possess agency). You look for someone to take your hand and guide you, and you are met only with yourself. The hidden imam is not coming and the last Prophet has walked the Earth. We can now get on with our (THE) work and stop rushing to our front doors every time a car drives by thinking it’s the latest savior.

As you can see, we are developing a Degrammatic Inversemantics that encompasses much more than a few word games. This is more than an Islam spoken through the commodified language of postmodernism. DI is actually a method by which we read the world in such a way as to embody the radicality of Allahu alam God knows best. You can’t just say it. You’ve got to live it. This is a scary suggestion, for it would truly necessitate submission (Islam) to the Knower/Known. One would be forced to concede to the always greater than… The scholars (traditional or otherwise) would be forced to admit that no matter how close they feel they have come to understanding the so-called intentions of Allah (an anthropomorphic concept if ever there was one! Idolatry I say!) that all falls short of Allahu alam, and as such the risk of imposing religious laws (secular or otherwise) on another human being is too high, for Allahu alam.

Humble ourselves. Just imagine you takfired the wrong person. As the clubs say to the bump bump bump: “It’s gettin’ hot in here. So take off all your clothes.” (1)

1. (Ladies, please refer to 24:31 in your Noble Qur’an for a list of all those before whom you may “take off all your clothes.” Not to be rude, but it’s a rather long list. Ha-zaaaaah!

1.
“They are but names that you have named, you and your fathers, for which Allah has sent no authority.”
—Qur’an 53:23

“By using anarchism as a model for reading…, I am attempting to suggest a nonintrusive model for acknowledging the cultural connections, the semi-autonomy that occurs in literature…. Anarchic reading as I have envisioned it values an elasticity of responses. It suggests aesthetic coalitions instead of dominant models of culture or literature.”
—Juliana Spahr Everybody’s Autonomy: Connective Reading and Collective Identity

2.
This area (boundaried space manifest momentarily on your screen—a true TAZ [temporary autonomous zone] if only in kind) takes seriously the uncontainablity of meaning. It is never one though it may be never-one.

3.
“Meaning isn’t just a surplus value to be eliminated—it comes out of a product of practice…. Not passively, as a derivative of a system of differences (predefined) prior to consumption…. Instead, active—back & forth: a relay constantly making contexts out of a fabric of markings: writing & reading.”
—Bruce Andrews “Writing Social Work & Political Practice” Paradise & Method

4.
The Qur’an is a collection of words. The battle within Islam is one over meaning (singular). A battle over one is always already lost. This boundaried space says words means and as such are created, enacted, contested, and destroyed by individuals in community. However, neither reigns supreme. Meanings are developed (developing) and test themselves in the peopleshpere. Will “fork” mean “shoe?” Will it hold fast? Can we maintain this deviance if only for an evening? The night is still young and food never tasted so good!

5.
Barak al-Jerrahi: “Why does the Qur’an present heaven as a carrot-on-a-stick, an Other that is the product of good deeds? Why should I buy into another Western binary?”

Shaykha A. & Baraka Das Dills of the Many Hills Mostly: “Islam places the emphasis, the combustion, on the/within the human. The Qur’an only speaks linearly if you think linearly. You see deferred judgement/paradise, because you think time is linear. How does the Qur’an read (you read it/ it reads you) when time is no longer linear? Where/ when is judgment when time is cyclical? Where/ when is judgement when time is field-scape?”

6.
The Qur’an speaks back to us in our own current language. A trustworthy mirror!

7.
“Wild reading…critiques the status quo because it disrupts schooled reading’s conventions, its socialization. One’s approach to reading…defines how one engages the larger social apparatus.”
—Juliana Spahr Everybody’s Autonomy: Connective Reading and Collective Identity

8.
(previously) terrific = terrifying, terrible
(currently) terrific = wonderful, great

Words means and are a means. The book though closed cracks open. It opens for the first time she decides for herself.

Possibility is liberated! Liberation is possibility!

9.
(previously) “Words [were] mere windows, substitutes, proper names, haloed or subjugated by the things to which they seem[ed] to point. ‘Communication’ resembles an exchange of prepackaged commodities.”
—Bruce Andrews “Writing Social Work & Political Practice” Paradise & Method

(currently) “Proceeding…without seeing, savvy, or seizing hold of things (loosely translated), affirming a certain kind of structural blindness, will, contrary to what we might expect, keep us open to innumerable mutations and unforeseeable possibilities, to incalculable ways of being and knowing, doing and seeing, exposed to potentialities of which we presently cannot conceive, to things improbable and incomprehensible, unimaginable and unplannable.”

—John D. Caputo More Radical Heremeneutics: On Not Knowing Who We Are

10.
Qiyas is what propels “traditional” Muslim scholars from point A. to point B, or at least it is a traditional method. Analogy of rocks (concretized words, arrogant assumptions of what is true).

A popular example of the use of Qiyas is the alchohol model. Read: If wine was illegal in Muhammad’s time due to its intoxicative qualities, so than should cocaine be illegal today since it too intoxicates. Intoxication? By whose standard? Christians? Post-prohibition United States? Qiyas fails where the “elasticty” of meaning-making begins. Though it’s a fine method of deduction. Though it’s rather “clean.” Though it’s rather “clear.” A little too clean. A little too clear.

11. 

“Nothing could be more normative, more logical, and more authoritarian than, for example, the (politically) revolutionary poetry or prose that speaks of revolution in the form of commands or in the well-behaved, steeped-in-convention language of “clarity.”
—Trinh T. Minh-ha Woman, Native, Other: Writing Postcoloniality and Femenism

12.
We contest the word placed before us. We contest the meaning attached and handed down. We contest the definition imposed upon our wor(l)d from afar. As is the case, we contest the entire mainstream concept of intoxication, (along with every other assumption) so we are less likely to affirm the afformentioned analogy. The current understanding of intoxication is so ridiculously superficial, so very “civilized,” so very “Western,” non-aboriginal, non-native, and all together one-dimensional and down-right insulting that if one were to take a superficial Marxian approach to “intoxication” using the Qiyas method, one could easily assert that religion itself is to be outlawed as it is “the opiate of the masses” and impedes the creative impulses of a people.

13.
The issue is of course one of definition. Meaning. The study thereof once thought to be the occupation solely of tenured scholars, now proves to be a necessity for survival. Surely when laws define our actions and decisions are made for us based on the interpretation of words, to challenge the normative usage and inference of a word trumps the choice of words themselves. We merely suggest we find ourselves co-producers in meaning-making! It’s a free act, though they may try to put you in jail.

Whenever I post what feels like a “rant” I feel all dirty. They’re chock-full o’ contractions and jargon and calloquialisms and mispellings that I just feel so filthy and unrefined. I want to be a good refined boy. So, please excuse me. Lately I’ve been posting a number of these “rants.” It may be childish and base, lacking any references and secondary source material, but this is a natural outgrowth of the changing of seasons—especially the changing from Winter to Spring. When Spring erupts, I tend to get anxious around institution(s). As such, I start ranting about it/them. It will pass and positivity will once again reign! In the mean-time, let’s get a little salty. Besides it’s sunny and 65 degrees outside and salty sailors make great beach blanket buddies.

“I’m on a mission that some say is impossible.
But when I swing my swords, them all choppable.”
—GZA (eds. paraphrasiatic insanity)

Ok. The other day I had the misfortune of hearing what can only be described as the most unfortunate interview “about Islam” I have ever heard.

Hey guy representing Islam on the radio!!! You can’t call children who do not know their father “bastard children.” Are you f-ing nuts?!

Hey guy representing Islam on the radio!!! If the female interviewer asks if Islam “encourages” men to beat their wives, you say NO! You do not go off on some tangent about the “divorce rate” in “the West.” That is disturbing.

Previous to 9/11 Muslims had the privelage of slipping under the radar of public interest. They “dressed funny,” had quasi Abe Lincoln beards, and had really strange customs regarding women, but for the most part “they keep (kept) to themselves.” All of a sudden, BLAMO!!! Literally. Everyone wants to know what the hell is going on in this thing called Islam. People rush to explain. “Islam means peace.” “Islam is as American as the bikini.” “I (heart) Islam.” “Muslims against terrorism.”

And then came the interviews. “What do Muslims think about women?” “What does Islam say regarding the death penalty?” “Are Muslims good neighbors?” A sea of questions so demeaning in their delivery, the Muslims being interviewed can’t even see the fallacy in the questions themselves. Instead of answering with a question: What do Christians think of homosexuality? The thrust into-the-spotlight Muslim responds: “Uh… Islam forbids homosexuality.” “Uh… Islam gives women rights.” “Uh… an eye for an eye, but forgiveness is best.” “Uh… Muslims are great neighbors.” “Uh… there’s a natural order to things.” “Uh… Islam says everyone has their place.”

In being interviewed, the buzz-word is “humility.” Learn it. Live it. Love it. Because the problem thus far is that many people just don’t seem to have it.

Here are a few guidelines I am proposing when being interviewed about Islam:

1. Representation
You are a representative of an enormous tradition with an equally daunting lineage. Act like it. That means that you represent a spectrum the edges of which are equally marked by naked-hairless-genital-pierced-antinomians and crispy-cleaned-well-kempt-grave-of-the-mother-of-the-prophet-digging-up-legalist-fascists. Somewhere in there lies you and billions of other well-intensioned Muslims. Take your blinders off and de-center your perspective if only a little. At least give it the heroic try!

2. Humility
Face it. What you think Islam is about is really just your opinion. Absolutely every aspect of your belief and practice (praxis) is up for debate. In many cases, these aspects of your deen are being debated within walking distance from where you currently stand. Maybe not by you, but definitely by others who also exist in a world, the experience of which, is determined by their own equal and different perceptions. Saying: “Well they’re not really Muslims” is lazy and makes you sound like a six-year old. Cute an’ all, but ultimately just cute an’ all. Nothing really doin’ there.

3. The Issues
Newsflash! You can’t air out your dirty laundry inside your house. That defeats the whole purpose silly! So get crackin’ and let those undies swing to the cool breeze of Spring cause you’re startin’ ta stank. This is just to say: STOP TRYING TO PRESENT US AS ONE BIG HAPPY FAMILY WITH A FEW BAD APPLES!!! It’s creepy! I have a few girlfriends who just can’t stand the hair on their arms. Everything gets zapped. I keep telling them: You know what’s weirder than a girl covered in hair? A girl with no hair at all! Same goes for Islam kiddies. You know what’s weirder than a path teeming with dissent? A path wthout any dissent at all. It’s a farse and no one can relate to it. In fact, trying to present Islam as “one thing” just alienates it even more from people who need to find some relevance in it. Don’t you see?! Nothing is one thing! This isn’t some grad-school postmodern banter. It’s just a nice quality of this little happily de-centralized life we’re so bent on disrupting. You’re all into “being American” now and integration, right? Well, multiplicity is as American as my CD collection. (What’s so clever about that is that my CD collection is filled with music from all over the world. Viva la Melting Pot! Or at least The Mosaic!)

And yes. We are all Right-Wing affiliated spies attempting to infiltrate and disrupt Islam in America. That’s why I (sometimes) disturb my sex dreams involving my wife and her friends by getting up at 4am to throw freezing cold water on my face and feet. Really I’m worshipping the devil! (putting finger horns over my head and shaking my tongue)

And with regards to the divorce rate in this country. F- you. My parents are divorced. Thank God!

4. Language
When I get the opportunity to travel I make a point of learning the language. At least I give it a shot. The most important part of this process is learning what not to say. In Mexico I’m not necessarily going to go around calling women chicas unless I have a complete and total command of the social environment and a familiarity with the women I’m talking with. I don’t, so I stay clear. Because you never know unless you know, and since you don’t know I suggest you start gettin’ ta know. So, mister interviewee Muslim man. We don’t say “bastard child” around here. I know you teach at a university and are therefor slightly sheltered from society, but let’s make the effort. And yes, negro, colored, and blacks (as in the group) are all no-no’s for a reason. Take five seconds and learn these words: slavery and segregation. I know you’re really proud of the “color-blindness” of Islam, but you’ve just got to do more with it. Ya can’t just say it. You’ve got to know it. Oh yeah, and the concept of color-blindness can also be construed as racist, so you know, deal with it.

Now I know, I know. Give them a break. They’re doing their best. Well if that’s the best they can do than I have a suggestion. Any time you hear that there is going to be an interview with some “expert” regarding Islam, take a minute or two to find out the number of the show and get those dialing fingers ready. If you get even a scent of ridiculousness, start dialing and show this world that Islam will not be contained. Islam will not be the dissertations of the professional student. Islam will not equal sexism. Rather, Islam will be like the stars in the sky: multiple. This submission is submission because Malcolm was, Marcus was, Noble Drew Ali was, Master Fard was, Honorable Elijah Muhammad was, 13X was, Malachai was, The Grand Matriarch Laury is, Hedonist is, Ginan is, Willow is, Third Resurrection is, MK is and every other contester who has the humor to challenge the experts is. Peace.

You scored as Islam. Your beliefs are most similar to those of Islam. Do more research on Islam and possibly consider taking the shahadah and officially becoming a Muslim, if you aren’t already.  Islam 79% Buddhism 75% Judaism 58% Paganism 58% Satanism 54% Christianity 46% agnosticism 42% Hinduism 38% atheism 21% Which religion is the right one for you? (new version) created with QuizFarm.com

Ok. Suspend your scoffing nature and hear me out. By now you’ve seen these quizzes. And yes they contain “key” questions that will no doubt spiritually peg you regardless how you answer other questions (i.e. “Do you believe Jesus is God?”). But I must say that it amazes me, if only for entertainment, how validatory this quiz can be. Yes, it’s a shame that I need to be validated by some probable high school girl who just finished a World Religions course and applied her new-found knoweldge to the making of a “What religion are you?” quiz for her Statistics class. But these days, thanks to the religio-fascists she’s all we got! So thank you high school girl. Thank you for being the patron-saint of the Mystic Socio-Complexus Project. Ya Hayy!

One of the things I find interesting about this quiz is the proximity of other paths to the one you tend to identify with most. Sure, it always surprises me when Islam reigns supreme (I really am surprised that a generic quiz can pick up on that, part of why I think these quizzes are flawless. I thought I was more subtle!), but what is most rewarding is where the other religions fall. And how telling and accurate (is there such a thing?) this quiz categorizes me. And yes, once in a while it’s OK to be thrown into a “Super Baker People Maker” if only to see how the bakers see you.

Let’s take a look at some of the results.

1. Islam & Buddhism: A match made in (somewhere)
So yes. The secret is out. Islam and Buddhism are two sides of the same koan. Viciously clever pun intended. This is a no-brainer as I began my spiritual life obssesed with Buddhism (first Zen, followed by a later allegiance to Chogyam Trungpa’s work) only to later, at the insistence of certain Zen teachings, challenge my preconceived notions of “religion” and “spirituality” and began to engage Islam, first through Sufism, that (at the time) lifeless watered-down corpse of safe nice-ism. And let it be known that I debated how to answer the question regarding modesty for what seemed like an hour. For me, modesty is 150,000% relative. I’m sorry. It just is. I prefer a little “something-something” draping the skin. A bikini is sexier than a naked body. And so on. Modesty is employed in an akido-like fashion as it slips from one center to another taking on completely different meanings within different contexts. It will thankfully never mean one thing. What the fascists forget is that freezing modesty is an impossibility, and in most cases looses sight of the radical nature of being modest—where a person can experience their selves acting from a place of lack. To conform to a frozen concept of modesty is to feed this feeling of lack. And so on and so forth. Each person experiences modesty differently. In Brazil I was considered so very modest for wearing bathing suit shorts to the beach as opposed to the skin tight speedo or speedo shorts all other guys were wearing. What a conservative I was! Of course the fascists will just lump the entire beach culture into a pile of decadant deviancy whose only hope is in receiving a plague on thy house. But, you know, we know better. For some of us, the sun’s heat is just too pleasent on the entire expanse of skin.

2. Judaism & Paganism: Haw dare ye! Although…
For starters it’s interesting to see Buddhism flanked by two of the three big kahunas—Islam and Judaism. On a spectrum we begin with Islam, the ultimate path of thing-less God and kindness (thank you very much), followed by a reminder to keep all that is “(un)real” non-commodified, at times through zazen and a little kinhin for flavor. And lest we become too “Western Buddhist” and enveloped into the great “Dalai Llamaleability,” we are protected by the wisdom and contemplative song of the great Friday night olive tree of Judaism. Well done high school girl! My wife is Jewish. So there’s that connection. And she has had any number of relationships with the Pagan Arts. I quiver to know how many crystals lay hidden in I-was-once-a-Goth tin lunch boxes throughout our apartment. So in a way this section speaks more to her than to me. Though one mustn’t underestimate the amount of transference that takes place in an intimate relationship—both physcally and mentally/psychically. These two results, Judaism and Paganism, are in fact right on top of one another. Both come in at an honorable 58%.

3. Satanism
What pleases me most is that a.) the quiz includes Satanism, and b.) the practice thereof apparently takes up half of my existence. I was not aware of that. Reminder: I received 54%. So let’s take a closer look. Any good muslim knows that we are not to bow down and worship (important distinction for the guru kids) “man.” So in that sense there’s a little Satan in all of us. The idea that Satan exists in the human should come as no suprise to you, as Islam has a plethora of believers in this concept. You may or may not know, however, that there are certain Islamic interpretations floating around in the inaccessible hills of the deep Middle East, where shaytan is understood to be the perfect impulse. Satan refusing to bow down to a man in place of God itself. The satanic refusal to bow to “man” as an expression of God itself, where the being that asks Satan to bow down is actually Satan itself. The satanic push towards the worship of the human material world, rather than merely maintaining it. But this is all fluff. When you get right down to it, a discussion of satanism would take life times to dig into. Like most groups, for every satanist there is a different definition of satanism. Some merely acknowledge the existence of negativity, where others dress up in all red at all times. Others see themselves as mere inheritors of the Left-Handed Path. And seriously, who doesn’t have a little left-handed-ness in them? The Aghorins of India are often Left-Hand affiliates. But before you start swinging that sword all over the place like some drunktopus, you best look into the “why” of left-handed lifestyles. A little hint: If you’re still acting from the “I” in order to get “it” you’re gonna get slit. That’s what Kali is for. Unconditional mother love in the form of severed heads. Remember, even the left swings to eventually right.

4. Atheism: Where ever have you gone?
The most disturbing aspect of the results from this quiz is the distance Atheism stands from the top. Where did you run to fare maiden? Art thou displeased with me? Art thou displeased with my overuse of psuedo-knight speak? Truth be told, I’m about as atheist as a monotheist can get. Monotheism? Me? And atheism? Those weird conventions in the mid-West? Puh-leeze. This is all to say: you can take your “God”, that He-God you keep claiming is He-genderless (watch your speech, we can do better, if you can think it genderless you can speak it genderless), and put it right back on that mantle in your brain. Cause you just can’t “chant down Babylon” if you’re chanting to the God-thing you’ve constructed in your head. Clearly I’m way more supicious of the fascist monotheist’s “God” (thankfully there are non-fascist monotheists too) than the polytheist’s choice. Always have been. At least I know where the “polytheist” stands. The statue always has a little (or REALLY big) penis to let me know we’re talking about a He-God. The fascist manipulates society with a genderless He-God through double speak: “He has no gender.” At least dolls can be thrown away or used for a quick last minute camp fire if you’re so inclined. “If you see the Buddha. Kill it!” And of course, if your intention is good… “Are you a Muslim?” “Aren’t we all?” “Do you belive in God?” “Not yours.” These are of course fightin’ words on the playground for when I’m feeling salty. A salty sailor from the North. Sometimes I just can’t help it. This kid is gettin’ all tingly with anticipation as the constructs done destructs.

This past weekend I attended the Green Hermeticism conference/workshop lead by Peter Lamborn Wilson, Christopher Bamford, and Kevin Townley, which was hosted by the Suluk Academy under the umbrella of the Sufi Order International (SOI) whose lineage is benchmarked by Indian-Muslim mystic Hazrati Inayat Khan (s). Blessings to all the people I met and hung out with, including PLW, CB, and KT. Honorable mentions going to Mike “Universal Dancer” Muhammad & Patrick “Jungle Jim” Scanlon, Siddiqi “NJ-ex-Goth Reppin’” Heather, Aliyah “Pass the Cream-Puffs” Bookstore, Eduardo “Lamb Cake Skin Something Rasta Supreme” Tauhid, DJ Gil of the Gnostic Christians, Nur (I kept forgetting your name, sorry) Habib, Surah “Mystic-Magazine-Inquisitor” Susan, Khalid “Shuttle Master” Triebe, the girl who did Isha prayers with me who I unfortunately forgot her name, the girl who we did “Exquisite Corpses” with who I also forgot your name, Rent Wars lady, “I commune with plants” woman, first night roommate Bill who I left for secret sleeping quarters, the chefs!, the kid with questions regarding chess and when we’ll be back, and anyone else who I am forgetting names and otherwise. It was a blast and I’ll be back in May.

The title of this piece contains all the information you may need. However, let’s just add to that from memory: New Lebanon. Caanan. The one-dollar bill. The Articles of Confederation, the Iriquois Confederation, and The US Consitution. “I stayed in that abandoned cabin all summer.” Old Shaker Community. “I want to see tanks in the streets!” Hermes trickster, contradiction, designator of beginning and end whose life begins as a pile of stones. Symbols represent themselves and the cryptic language of the alchemist is completely contextual. A snake is only a snake to some. Magic exists in the distance between image and word. There is a friction. “When East meets West, sparks will fly.” —Chogyam Trungpa. Muhammad (s) the Shaman (Thee Shaman). Islam the maintainer of alchemical insights into the non-distance between human and cosmos. The Earth is the religion of the Gods. The human cremates into crystals. Geometric de-composition. Liberation Hermeneutics. The “Universal Dances of Peace” as a means to humiliate oneself and destroy any identification with what one believes is “do-able.” An engagement with the “un-cool.” Real ego work. For some of us, this is their purpose. For others they are Divine. And for others still, it’s merely a hoot.

You must respect the individual. I come to this in the most uncomfortable ways. While “groups” may seem vacant, they are merely structures propped by the Babylon we allow ourselves to maintain. “There are no things only beings.”—Christopher Bamford. One mustn’t judge, only take note of something’s relevance to one’s own life. While I may scoff at the “whole,” it’s necessary to investigate the part. The whole, the existence of which has yet to be proven. Is it a lie?. The parts, the microcosm, is authentic. The representation of this micro as macro is farsical, farsic. The group is the red-herring. Are we leaving the age of the “club” the “organization” the “posse” and entering the world of individual relations? Can we make this the norm? While groups will still exist, the plains will be a composit of dis-unified unification. Multiples interacting and separating. Compost. The world becomes the greatest heap where all transforms into the rich soils serving only to fertilize life—in total support of growth and investigation. The elderly woman who sings so sweetly, how can I lazily identify you with the fallacy of representation. You are not the simulacrum. My apologies.

What are we waiting for? Are we waiting for some group, some club, some band of merry-makers? Are we waiting for a definition? How many friends do we need? Waiting for some group we feel comfortable identifying ourselves with is lost time. It is a black hole where light no longer even tries to enter, for it has been too long since lights’ relatives have emerged from within. If you don’t hear back from me in fifteen minutes…The organization will never come. Not for those who want it most. On emergence—divergence. Versions, representations of their existence will arise and replicate a manner most un-fun. We want fun! An Islam that bases itself on it’s own limited understanding of “group” is a death vessel. We want more and Islam is the provider. Islam, a misunderstood Christian heresy. Islam, where one meal equals two. A joyful contradiction. Islam, the I: Salaam (Willow). Islam, the surrendering of one’s supply for the use of the whole. Islam, the offering of prayer times. Islam, the offering of guides. It comes as no surprise that Islam offers much more than we want to believe. Opening your home to a stranger is almost impossible to perceive. Today, being humble enough to NOT oppress others is considered innovation, bida. And yet, we focus our binoculars lest we loose sight of the anti-human blending into innumerable copies of itself. That cyborgian reptile of mimicry. The corrupted parrot whose internal rot worships the act and actor forgetting the inconceivable uncontainable. Be alert friends. And be aware. The only innovation is the forked tongue. A human is only a human to some.