Alive and Kickin.

rip-curl-alive-kickin_230Just in case anyone is wondering both Matthias and I are still alive and kickin , although Matthias is doing his kicking for the moment over on the Non. We have both published a series of posts there . Mine are considerable rewrites of two posts first published on this blog, while Matthias’s are wholly new and beautifully written pieces in German. Link  here. Since we are both now writing for two blogs you can expect less posts here, although I for one would like to keep this blog going as I think it’s focus on Buddhism is worthwhile for the way non philosophical critique delivers massive amounts of new thinking in whatever area one applies it to. Proven, if proof be needed, by Glenn Wallis’s powerful, original and poetically exuberant text Nascent Speculative non-Buddhism and the book and blog posts which followed from it. ( Non X issue 1)

I’ve spent a lot of time recently reading Timothy Mortons essay “Thinking the Charnel Ground (The Charnel Ground Thinking): Auto Commentary and Death in esoteric Buddhism (link below) which is a mine of ideas for anyone interested in the relation between esoteric Buddhism and non philosophical thought. Its strength is that it brings Buddhism into dialogue with various strains of modernist thinking by a process of juxtaposition in which modern philosophical texts are used as a tool to probe esoteric texts and visa-verse. The result is a series of insights beautiful in their strangeness. Needless to say the text requires an effort at thought .

I am making a series of written ruminations on the text as I read and re-read Morton’s beautifully argued essay. If what I’ve written reads as conceptually overcooked that’s because it is. See what you think. (literally  – see what you think)


We have a non totalisable reality, openness to the new and to the stranger, and a non realizable infinity of interrelation. What we have is non-theism rather than theism or atheism, if by theism” we mean belief in some transcendent beyond, and if by “atheism” we mean simple denial of anything beyond the empirical.” (Morton)

What most caught my interest here were the words non totalisable and non realizable. They highlight the way non- buddhism denies the simple opposition between the immanent /transcendent dyad. Non-buddhism presupposes  the non-viability of the juxtaposition of opposites  as  a dialectic of the real. To use philosophical terminology,  the terms non-totalisible and non-realizable, as epistemological statements about  knowing or not knowing an infinity of interrelations, posits a state of mind, of knowing, which is without an ontological object. The terms non- realisable and non totalisable as statements about an ontological real subsume the dyad trancendent/immanent, bypassing a philosophical operation that would produce a synthesis (the One, the Unnamable, Suchness etc) in favour of a wholly unspeakable otherness that precedes any operation whatsoever — what Laruelle calls a given-without-givenness.

To correct the above it should read:

We have a non totalisable reality, openness to the new and to the stranger, and a non realizable non-infinity of interrelation.

What the non adds is a decimation of the ontological term “infinity of interrelation” which is the determination (in the last instance) instancing the epistemological terms non realisable and non totalisable.

In this way we arrive at a triadic of terms two of which are orders of non knowing — non realizable/non totalisable where a third term, non-infinity of relations, function as a non ontological term (in the last instance) for an immanence of the real.

If this sounds like the state Dzogchen communicates by way of auto commentary as a yogin’s effortless abiding in the already and always given natural state of non-meditation, that only goes to show that many a culture can arrive at the knowledge of the essential non-correlation between the real and conceptual thought by circuitous route and without implying any sort of syncretism.

Timothy Morton’s essay


Patrick jennings:

For anyone interested here is a reblog of a long essay by Yanis Varoufakis, current Greek minister for finance, written on his blog in 2013. Its title is “Confessions of an Erratic Marxist in the midst of a repugnant European crisis” The title says a lot about Varoufaklis and what’s happening at the negotiations with Merkel and co.

I liked a lot I read here and a lot I didn’t. Reading it is a beautiful way of gaining insight into the fact that history is made by complex human beings and not the sort of reductive cyphers referenced by ideologues of the left or right. His main point is that the left is not ready for a radical transformation and the only possibility is a stabilization of the European financial system to avoid complete collapse and the rise of neo fascism in the absence of a radical left alternative.

Will have to give it another reading to make my mind up about that. My instinct says that its an example of a jittery bourgeois professor faced with the inevitable confrontation with the powers that be.— that is to say the inevitable fighting in the street.

On the other hand he raises a very important issue.— is the radical left ready to do the necessary and avoid a decent into social collapse and chaos, given that even a ten year old can learn to use a Kalashnikov in ten minutes? That means, given the proliferation of arms, that the storming of the winter palace is off the agenda . More like a decent into civil war as ideological factions arm themselves, especially on the edge of Europe, which basally means most of it. Anyone who thinks this is far fetched is living in cloud cuckoo land in my opinion and doesn’t understand how quickly things can get out of hand. Not to mention the way ruling elites are prepared to use violence against any opponent who dares to really go for it and stand up for their livelihood and dignity, including traditional workingclass communities living in out of the way small rural villages. Here’s a good example, not too long ago ( 2012) and within the Euro zone. The Asturian miners struggle against austerity.

Originally posted on Yanis Varoufakis:

[In May 2013 I had the pleasure of addressing the 6th Subversive Festival in Zagreb on this topic. It is only now that I have managed to write up that talk and to expand it in some significant ways.[1]]


Europe is experiencing a slump that differs substantially from a ‘normal’ capitalist recession, of the type that is overcome through a wage squeeze which helps restore profitability. This secular, long-term slide toward asymmetrical depression and monetary disintegration puts radicals in a terrible dilemma: Should we use this once-in-a-century capitalist crisis as an opportunity to campaign for the dismantling of the European Union, given the latter’s enthusiastic acquiescence to the neoliberal policies and creed? Or should we accept that the Left is not ready for radical change and campaign instead for stabilising European capitalism? This paper argues that, however unappetising the latter proposition may sound in the ears…

View original 9,149 more words

Occupy Frankfurt – March 18th 2015

The morning

The morning

The most astonishing thing happened when I drove back out of Frankfurt in the evening and put on the radio to hear a Frankfurt station reporting about the day. Frankfurt in ruins. At home I checked the internet for the headlines. The discrepancy between what happened – what I experienced – and what was reported was much bigger then expected. It was all about Frankfurt burning. Even my mother called in the afternoon to check what was going on in Frankfurt. But there everything was over at 8 in the morning. I ran right into one of three hot spots at around 7 a.m., right into a teargas cloud where black block activists were hard at work setting up a barricade at one of the bridges over the river Main. But it was over at 8, right in time for breakfast. Some cars burned. Some tires. Lots of black smoke. And than it was over. Continue reading




We launch a new German blog. The content will be a heavy deviation form everything  discussed here and anywhere else in the non-buddhist scene.

The first instalment has six texts. Five German, one English. But English speaking enlightenment seeking humans mustn’t grieve.  Partly we bring to German what is available in English anyway.


For example a blog post by Alexander Galloway about NETWORKPESSIMISM.

Or that text about Accelerationism. EIN STURZ VOM PFERD – EIN NEUER FUTURISMUS MACHT VON SICH REDEN. In this case too there is enough available in the English speaking world. No worry. But is Accelerationism really new or is it some kind of déjà vu? And what has a horse to do with it.

Something different is the first part of a discussion about the economic views of Syriza’s Yanis Varoufakis: VAROUFAKIS? ERRATISCHER MARXISMUS ODER NON-MARXISMUS? Is he still beholden to a psychological reading of financialisation? What does a different reading looks like? One in which experience vanished in favor of high-frequency a-personal algorithms pulsing in an entirely different universe unreadable by man.

The one and only English article is a documentary about Detroit and Techno. STAYING UNDERGROUND. Detroit and Techno and (in part) how the Germans stole the rhythm. Lot’s of (hints to) good music here.

Then we have GLITCHÈD TWITTERAUDIO. You must not read the text. Check out the mp3-file and get down to hear while you meditate about what really reigns.

That’s all a walk on the the NON-LINE. The non-line criss-crossing every other X. Beyond the dead human.



Foucault and the Non-Fascist way of life.

glad-dayI would like to respond to Matthias post “The irrelevant” in a comprehensive way. Unfortunately my knowledge of Foucault’s thought  is cursory and, for the most part, comes by way of summaries and interpretations written by third parties. But since we are talking here about ideas extracted from philosophical systematization and judged on their usefulness, a form of anarchic or schizoid  practice of thought might be excusable and even preferable

Useful for what though? perhaps for a project to extract working concepts from philosophy –-axiomatic terms that speak in a libitory way without reducing the human to the status of a predicate of a Subject, be it Philosophy, History, Ideology, Science, Politics, Morals, or Ethics. Continue reading

The Thicket of Views.

kurelek-william-i-spit-on-life-image-4The notion “a thicket of views” came in for a well deserved battering from non-buddhism in the context of the anti-intellectualism endemic in much contemporary American Buddhist populism. Understandable, I suppose, since non-buddhism is an American invention. That aside though, it’s also true that there is a connection between anti-intellectualism and political quietism (another non-buddhist staple), since a political/social critique conditioned on rigorous thinking is essential to the practice of radical politics. For better or worse, as non-buddhism evolved, its rhetoric insisted on a radical political stance. The  nature of the critique made that  inevitable, I suppose, although what  kind of radical politics was preferable was never adequately debated.

Notice I single out contemporary Buddhism of the populist  variety. Over on the now archived SNB site, we wasted  time we could have spent in more productive ways on attacking this form of inane American Buddhism. Water under the bridge, as they say. Here I would like to rescue the concept “thicket of views” from this limited interpretation and make amends to the Buddha by restoring it as an original postulate of Pali Buddhism. The Buddha uses the term in the Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta, one of the middle length discourses of the Tipitaka. It is presumed to have issued from his golden mouth by those who insist upon his historical existence. Continue reading

The Irrelevant

The following draft was written last November. I publish it now to try to clarify a remark I made recently. Commentaries are off due to time restrictions on my side. Reaction in form of blogposts are welcome. I leave commentaries on. But keep in mind that I will not participate much, if at all.


Patrick reminded me about something in a recent thread.

Every repressive/oppressive structure contains its own antidote; every situation of oppression the seed of its own subversion. (Foucault?)

I reread the essay where this problematic was discussed and which probably inspired a remark I forgot. It is in German: Maria Muhle, Plebejischer Widerstand vs. Lebendige Macht, in Virtualität und Kontrolle by Lenger, Ott, Speck, Strauss (Ed.); Hamburg, 2010.

Continue reading