"No, listen, what happened was this: they lied to you, sold you ideas of good & evil, gave you distrust of your body & shame for your prophethood of chaos, invented words of disgust for your molecular love, mesmerized you with inattention, bored you with civilization & all its usurious emotions.
There is no becoming, no revolution, no struggle, no path; already you're the monarch of your own skin--your inviolable freedom waits to be completed only by the love of other monarchs: a politics of dream, urgent as the blueness of sky.” – Hakim Bey, “CHAOS”
I'm ready for a politics of dream.
What does a politics of dream look like? For me, today, anyway, it's a politic that does not participate in the oppositional systems that we, arguably all of us, universally, are hamstrung by, saddled with, required by.
Hence "there is no becoming, no revolution, no struggle, no path;" Because becoming requires that there was something you were not, because revolting requires there to be a something to revolt against, because the existence of a path implies being off it.
Can we live off of the path? I'm not sure. Look at all the fuss, pro and con about the Canadian parents Kathy Witterick and David Stocker temporarily not disclosing the gender of their baby, Storm, and trying to raise children who make their own choices about gender.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389593/Kathy-Witterick-David-Stocker-raising-genderless-baby.html
They are trying to keep Storm out of the male/female binary for as long as they can. But even this attempt, to their friends, to the media, and to everyone who then reads the story, becomes an opposition: Either IN the binary system or OUT of it, giving everyone the chance, the desire, the need, even, to weigh in on whether being on the "out" side is viable.. desirable.. or even "responsible parenting." the only choice for these parents being keeping Storm on the "out" side OR the "in" side.
Even if we can't live without them, how do we find moments when we do not engage with oppositional ideas? How do we keep everything from becoming a yes or no, right or wrong decision making process? Where are our moments, our time lived in the fullness of possibiity, the possibility of multiples, the possibility of nuance, the possibility of I don't need to know, the free space, the open moment......... What Witterick and Stocker are arguably attempting to give Storm, for as long as possible...?
How (often) can we live a "politics of dream?"
This is what I wonder...
There is no becoming, no revolution, no struggle, no path; already you're the monarch of your own skin--your inviolable freedom waits to be completed only by the love of other monarchs: a politics of dream, urgent as the blueness of sky.” – Hakim Bey, “CHAOS”
I'm ready for a politics of dream.
What does a politics of dream look like? For me, today, anyway, it's a politic that does not participate in the oppositional systems that we, arguably all of us, universally, are hamstrung by, saddled with, required by.
Hence "there is no becoming, no revolution, no struggle, no path;" Because becoming requires that there was something you were not, because revolting requires there to be a something to revolt against, because the existence of a path implies being off it.
Can we live off of the path? I'm not sure. Look at all the fuss, pro and con about the Canadian parents Kathy Witterick and David Stocker temporarily not disclosing the gender of their baby, Storm, and trying to raise children who make their own choices about gender.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389593/Kathy-Witterick-David-Stocker-raising-genderless-baby.html
They are trying to keep Storm out of the male/female binary for as long as they can. But even this attempt, to their friends, to the media, and to everyone who then reads the story, becomes an opposition: Either IN the binary system or OUT of it, giving everyone the chance, the desire, the need, even, to weigh in on whether being on the "out" side is viable.. desirable.. or even "responsible parenting." the only choice for these parents being keeping Storm on the "out" side OR the "in" side.
Even if we can't live without them, how do we find moments when we do not engage with oppositional ideas? How do we keep everything from becoming a yes or no, right or wrong decision making process? Where are our moments, our time lived in the fullness of possibiity, the possibility of multiples, the possibility of nuance, the possibility of I don't need to know, the free space, the open moment......... What Witterick and Stocker are arguably attempting to give Storm, for as long as possible...?
How (often) can we live a "politics of dream?"
This is what I wonder...