Re: virus: God's work
« Reply #15 on: 2005-06-08 20:40:26 »
> > In our case, if we have lots of people who believe in a personal > entity doing all this shit, which they call God, it seems > over-ambitious to hope that they will let the word to be hijacked by > people who don't even use it, who would make it mean something > different. What does it take to hijack a word? And would its current > users abandon the concept and follow the hijacked word to a new > concept? > >
I can tell you exactly what it takes to hijack a word.
Use it repeatedly while behaving in a manner distasteful to the current users of the word. The more irritating behavior associated with the word will take hold of the word or phrase in the public consciousness.
For example - here's how I intend to reframe Jesus, in the collective consciousness:
What if "jesus" referred to a whole shitload of would-be prophets and do-gooders, irritatingly smug about their willingness to be martyred? "Oh, he's such a jesus." That a whole bunch of people were _being_like_jesus_, and that the perjorative for them was 'jesus'.
This won't happen without someone's _actions_ - there has to be a 'thisness' in the world of reality to point to, and so those people become the metaphor.
So the way we do this is that we get a whole bunch of people and we make it there job to go around being bold, being martyrs.
By this I mean, we take the zealots, the radicals of the world, your weirdo neighbor with his conspiracy theories and his penchant for good weed, old movies and short relationships, and we pay him to wander out into the world with his ideas. This guy is so wedded to his version of reality that he doesn't mind if he pushes too hard and gets killed.
These people are out there. Give them a place to stand, and these guys'll move the world!
I'm one of them. Blunderov is one of them. Walter Watts is one of them.
Every city has people who _could_ be a lot, a lot louder. They could broadcast memes in a really LOUD way, to a lot of people.
And the Church of the Virus accepts the branding - that by supporting these people, we get the logo of the Church of the Virus fucking everywhere.
This points to a fundmental issue for the Church of the Virus that will need to be addressed for that to happen. Does the CoV believe in proselytizing?
In a way, the CoV should believe in PURE PROSELYTIZING - and maybe we could make a rule that spoken words weren't allowed to be used.
Now, when I talk about getting a whole lot of large scale people movement stuff going, which is how one would reframe a word, again -
People always ask me how I intend to pay for it. Well, I think I have that covered. So lets talk about money.
I think that us, this group, right here on the CoV, with a couple of thinkers I have met on other boards, could put together an open-source business/computer system that would at once a) be an open-source Global Knowledge Project, as well as b) making us a lot of cash, as the gateholders on infotech that had access to that font of knowledge.
Sorry if I am a rambler, however I do that when i get to thinking really hard. See, I think night and day. I talk to a LOT of people. I know it seems weird, still - I keep trying to explain that I am learning in what seems like an exponential fashion. I sucked in a LOT of learning this winter.
I seem to be hitting a threshold in how my brain is processing that information - my head feels stuffed full of knowledge.
Now, an interesting thing seems to happen when we stuff our heads full of stuff. it goes up into our higher processing, and comes out in a fountain in our emotions, our language, our attitude, our actions...
I see, in the world I am looking at, is people getting tetchier and tetchier. And then they break through some boundary, the situation 'comes to a head', a peaking moment, and then a turning point comes.
Turning points, tipping points... they seem inevitable in human conversation.
A turning point might be considered to be when the energy in a conversation, a conversational flow, goes from being back and forth to being left to right. then back to back and forth, then left to right again, etc...
Except that, conceptually, it is the person whose way of framing the positions has changed. So when a person reframes the way they are talking about something, a shift has occurred in their thinking.
Now, this is the connection I seem to see through this:
That the fourth dimension in mathematics ( a pure symbol language) will be the FIRST dimension in linguistic calculus.
We are just hitting a point where you, me, everyday people, know enough about our own language that we begin to notice shifts in the language.
Notice Change. Notice Change. Notice Change.
When a thing changes, SOMETHING HAS HAPPENED.
And I think what I am really trying to get at is that there are linguistic patterns that shift - and that ANY shift fundamentally reframes the entire interaction.
Now, sometimes it isn't clear what the fundamental error in thinking is - and so the true irritation 'works its way out' - a sliver coming out of the skin, a bit of popcorn between the tooth. Aha! That moment when the thing we have been worrying at, about, towards... comes loose. And we relax perceptably, and shift how we are interacting.
That shift represents a shift in the thinking of all parties - any person who contributes to a conversation adds in different layers of tension, information.
So to hijack a word - this is the most difficult thing, and the easiest thing, in the world, to do.
I say we try. I want to hijack 'jesus', 'peanut butter', 'fnord', 'ko', 'grok', 'zazz', 'geek', 'scrum', 'meta', 'hijack', 'hack', 'Church', 'Virus' - and by this I mean I will use them aggressively.
This means, basically, trying to get the Church of the Virus, The Well, Level-3, etc - to take credit for everything. We must lay claim to everything.
Re:virus: God's work
« Reply #16 on: 2005-06-08 22:26:41 »
[deadletterb] <snip> So the way we do this is that we get a whole bunch of people and we make it there job to go around being bold, being martyrs. By this I mean, we take the zealots, the radicals of the world, your weirdo neighbor with his conspiracy theories and his penchant for good weed, old movies and short relationships, and we pay him to wander out into the world with his ideas. This guy is so wedded to his version of reality that he doesn't mind if he pushes too hard and gets killed.
These people are out there. Give them a place to stand, and these guys'll move the world! I'm one of them. Blunderov is one of them. Walter Watts is one of them. Dave Hall is one of them. Zach is one of them. Some of the Level-3 list is some of them. Every city has people who _could_ be a lot, a lot louder. They could broadcast memes in a really LOUD way, to a lot of people. And the Church of the Virus accepts the branding - that by supporting these people, we get the logo of the Church of the Virus fucking everywhere.
This points to a fundmental issue for the Church of the Virus that will need to be addressed for that to happen. Does the CoV believe in proselytizing? In a way, the CoV should believe in PURE PROSELYTIZING - and maybe we could make a rule that spoken words weren't allowed to be used. <snip>
[rhinoceros] Once we talked about it and decided that we'd rather feed the hungry than proselytize. But I'm listening. Should we ask more question like "Proselytize to what?", or is it good enough for CoV to unleash interesting people upon the world?
Re: virus: God's work
« Reply #17 on: 2005-06-08 23:47:35 »
Sorry - this shit got really long. Basically, out of all this, I am trying to say, "What if we proselytized the 'everybody do your own thing' togetherness?
Raver World View?
Here's the long version:
What if we proselytize by going out and finding good memes and talking them into accepting our branding - the ideohazard symbol.
I'm not saying that we have to convince them of xxxx - inside, we go out and we say, "hey! We're like you! What's your meme? Here's our meme!"
And we cross-brand with them. So check out globalhijack.net, for example - wherein I am trying to put together a set of brandings. And I ported the ideohazard symbol over there. Without permission - and yet isn't that what we want? We WANT the ideohazard symbol to travel, for more and more people to say,
"yeah! that stuff! I like that stuff! I'm part of that stuff!"
For example, here's the sheer audacity of the shit I am talking about:
This week, I intend to make a movie and put it out on bittorrent. It's a meme, an encoding of a bit of information into a standing wave of structure. Every person that downloads it is obviously exposed to it.
Every newsagency that picks it up rebroadcasts it, yes? Every christian board that goes apeshit over this movie will amplify it. And everybody over here will hear about it. And then they amplify it... it's echoes, the shape of memes traveling.
The movie:
"AntiChrist Declares War on Xtianity"
Hi. I'm Dead Letter B. In this astonishing interview, we interview the AntiChrist, an actual human being who has a viral meme which HE says will reframe Christ.
First, let's look at the concept of AntiChrist. This meme is a concept, created by the Catholic Church, long after Christ had passed away. Fundamentally, this is a person, doctrine or group who pull people away from the _worship_ of christ in his mother church.
Therefore, Luther was the Anti-Christ. So were all the protestant leaders. Elvis was the Anti-Christ... though not anymore. The Anti-Christ is embodied in the person or persons who most successfully have the best articulation that pulls people away from the Catholic Church.
Everytime a person bravely sacrifices themselves for something which they think is more important than their own welfare, that is the moment they can call themselves an Xtian. To really follow Jesus, one would have to try to have to bravery to follow as he did - he laid himself down against things that he thought weren't right.
Gandhi is Jesus. Nelson Mandela is Jesus.
And blah blah blah.
Anyway, the video is going to make a noise. I'll go onto chatboards on the Xtian side and call down brimstone and hellfire on this 'So-Called Anti-Christ'.
I'm going to create a serious disinformation spike. If I can build it up big enough, we will be able to see it spread through the various layers of human communication networks.
Now, the reason I have been making so much noise-to-signal in the last few months is so that _YOU_ will know that it is all garbage. It's all 'information without content'.
That's my point - information spreads FARTHER when it is rumor. The way to spread a meme is to layer it orthogonally to a disinformation trail.
Disinformation trail: That I am the Anti-Christ (in fact, I'll be offering to work together with anyone else who feels that they too may be antichrist)
Information transmission - that there is such a thing as a meme, (that's forward to them)
Information transmission to all orthogonal listeners - The shape that _amplification_ takes as a meme spreads outwards.
1) Exposure level - direct contact only 2) Secondary level - contact through 1 party 3) Tertiary field - knows about it 4) Outer Field - knows there's something over there 5) Aware of derivatives, without knowing the source.
These are waveforms that ripple outwards into the population.
The starburst on starbursts gets really interesting when a distant loop maps around in a circle - for example, when you discover that your girlfriend used to know your best friend, kind of thing.
oedipal, you know?
On Jun 8, 2005, at 7:26 PM, rhinoceros wrote:
> > [deadletterb] > <snip> > So the way we do this is that we get a whole bunch of people and we > make it there job to go around being bold, being martyrs. By this I > mean, we take the zealots, the radicals of the world, your weirdo > neighbor with his conspiracy theories and his penchant for good weed, > old movies and short relationships, and we pay him to wander out into > the world with his ideas. This guy is so wedded to his version of > reality that he doesn't mind if he pushes too hard and gets killed. > > These people are out there. Give them a place to stand, and these > guys'll move the world! I'm one of them. Blunderov is one of them. > Walter Watts is one of them. Dave Hall is one of them. Zach is one of > them. Some of the Level-3 list is some of them. Every city has people > who _could_ be a lot, a lot louder. They could broadcast memes in a > really LOUD way, to a lot of people. And the Church of the Virus > accepts the branding - that by supporting these people, we get the > logo of the Church of the Virus fucking everywhere. > > This points to a fundmental issue for the Church of the Virus that > will need to be addressed for that to happen. Does the CoV believe in > proselytizing? In a way, the CoV should believe in PURE PROSELYTIZING > - and maybe we could make a rule that spoken words weren't allowed to > be used. > <snip> > > > [rhinoceros] > Once we talked about it and decided that we'd rather feed the hungry > than proselytize. But I'm listening. Should we ask more question like > "Proselytize to what?", or is it good enough for CoV to unleash > interesting people upon the world? > > > > ---- > This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2005 board on > Church of Virus BBS. > <http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=65;action=display; > threadid=32641> > --- > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Re: virus: God's work
« Reply #19 on: 2005-06-10 01:35:59 »
Rhino, that's all every damn pulpit-poundng-politician has ever done for the last zillion years - hijack the word God and use it to screw people.
I propose we take it back and return it to a pure and useful form. Put some philisophical force behind the word.
I strongly believe that a universal meta-entity was what these mystics were envisioning on their mushroom trips anyway. A fundamental interconnectedness of things that appears intelligent and which science attempts to understand.
God is the universe we live in. God is the ultimate meta-concept. He is both a meaningless abstraction and yet the contemplation of Him can give your life meaning. Everyone's undertanding of God, as a meta-entity, is personal and can be seen, quite arbitrarily, as entirely correct or incorrect by others.
Personally, I opose anthropomorphism. But why rule this out? Who is to say that this universal meta entity has no eyes? Perhaps mankind *is* God's eye. . Or God's brain?
Author
Logged
