Accidental Associationalism
From Plastic Tub
Born as a poetical movement in 1942, Accidental Associationalism is largely considered by modern scholars as the highly prehensile tail of The Western Mystery Tradition -- in so much as that tradition's arc collides with the fantastic developments of Twentieth-Century science, poetical apprehension and memetological evolution. Discovered by Stimes Addisson, etc.
Stimes Addisson
(from Reticent 27, 1969 version: "Why my Accidentalist detractors are wrong; right")
"...the real point of departure [from earlier modernist currents] arises from the scientific revolution, and the AA's realization that the mythological foundation of mankind is in need of drastic alteration... whether this be by the murder of millions or by the enlightened rule of democratically elected officials is of no matter, so long as the profound redistribution of psychic energies is prolonged and endured majestically. There can be no meaning in something as large as the largest piebald envelope of squat--which is to affirm the ultimate subjectivity and hence the whimsicality inherent in all AA activity. How noble to kill one day for socialism in the streets of Chicago, then the next to fight socialists in Vietnam? What difference? The point being that motion, that action, that decision makes meaning and purpose, not adherence, and that, furthermore, why kill at all?
For instance, there is the sleeping man, whose ear is convoluted by the sounds of an alarm clock radio stuck between stations...there is the terrific fuzz...and his sleeping mind organizes elaborate orations, or perhaps, impossible harmonious musical compositions. It is just that function of mind, its ability to organize information from madness, from a shotgun rush of numbers, and then be able to discern your birth date amongst the ruins...it is this function of mind, that optimistic cripple, that the AA raised to philosophical prominence. So, as you can see, there could arise some difficulty in ascribing to them any solid commingling of alliances....
AA thought by nature must fun itself to remain vital; it has no sacred cows. Adid and I knew that, and it is why we parted ways--not because of the claptrap which has arisen in recent months about the primacy of the Accident or the Association--but because we saw which way the group was headed; and the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. It was time to fun it up, even to the point of vituperating against one another...the long end of whimsy ending up drunk, the two of us exchanging harsh fisticuffs while inwardly laughing with each other over some increasing empathic railroad. We never thought it would erupt as it has into legitimate hostility towards one another by the followers of our respective "camps." This result has occurred despite our opposite intentions, and, whilst it wallows in its own kind of humor, it is, at least to me, a sad indication of our exuberant young cohorts' failure to understand our most elementary philosophical dynamics...."
Stimso Adid
(from Reticent 27, 1950 version: "Notes for A Field Guide to Accidental Associationalist Theory")
1. The importance of chance is subordinate only to consciousness' ability to discern structure, be it rational or no. Not chance for chance's sake.
- a. The decadence of Surrealist inquiry: the faulty assumption of the correctness of Freudian ideas; the full-on buffoonery of rejecting rational thinking and scientific inquiry.
- b. The accident is that which precedes perception.
2. The fallibility of man, and his information systems, is of no concern; all things are wrong in essence, deluded. What is of importance is that all things taken together come closer to the truth than any one manifestation.
- a. This does not imply any sort of spiritual universalism, or even, it does not infer a belief in the beauty or the seeking after of the WHOLE KIT AND KABOODLE.
- b. The separate things are the most beautiful. The realization of buffoonery is enough; it is not necessary to apply a swollen divinity.
3. The point of historical departure for the AA hinges upon the concept of the internal and the external model, artistically speaking. What does the artist attempt to represent?
- a. Surrealism was focused on the elucidation of the unconscious mind, a thing in existence. Its model was essentially internal, as most modern artistic movements have been. The departure here was cubism--the first intimation of the thing beyond external reality--culminating in lyrical surrealism and abstract expressionism.
- b. AA "philosophy" is essentially in concurrence; however, its' internal model is also the external model. That has always been clear. There is no mind as separate from that which is not mind. To fall upon aphorism: "That which is below is like that which is above"--study the structure of anything, any structure, any system whatsoever, and you shed light on all the parts. "The 1,000 things" etc.
4. Contention without zealotry is a mainstay of AA thought. Things move in dynamic transgressions... this has always been so. Which way to move, which way to contend--which is not to say reacting, but just simply MOVING--when every direction is just as pertinent as any other? What arrogance to assume otherwise... however:
- a. Things must be seen to move forward... and here you have the conundrum, the judgment call, the faith. What is forward, after all?
- 1) Forward is in the hands of science.
- 2) Forward is the movement towards peaceable coexistence.
- b. The greater the divergence in thought the farther you move: there are a great many gloves and hats to try on.
5. There is that which is acceptable to the AA which is not acceptable to the majority of our contemporaries: drug and alcohol abuse, homosexuality, warmongering, scientific positivism, quasireligious appurtenances, apathy, capitalism, classicism etc. et. al!
Non-Canonical Text
For those who are unfamiliar, Oswald Spengler wrote a book entitled "The Decline of the West." In that book, he argues that cultures are organic, just like you and I are organic: we live, pass through stages of life, and then die. Spengler argued that cultures themselves are organic, and that they have life-cycles, similar to human life cycles, and that parallels can be drawn between all cultures and the social, economic, political and cultural stages they go through. Further, Spengler argued that most human beings do not live in a state of culture, but rather in a state of barbarism. Just like most matter is inert, not part of a willful being, and moved only by natural processes and not by reason and will, Spengler argued that most human material is inert, and not infused with any sort of higher culture, and is only moved by material necessity and physical law.
