Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Let it Ride

The more you play the more you win.

via JDG.

Friday, October 21, 2011

Mutek Mx

Sony MUTEK MX 2011 from PFAS on Vimeo.

Estaré haciendo un par de entrevistas para el Mutek que comienza H O Y.
Los mantendré al tanto.
Les dejo el teaser.

Sony MUTEK 2011 presenta:


Toda la info:


Teaser reliazado por:

Tell me all the things you want to do

she´s hot ( H O T ) and she has a good voice.

i get the hype.

i can´t get this song outta my head.

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

We kill what we build

I´d forgotten how much I love this track. The momentum created when one is reunited with such songs triggers a cascade of sentiments that make an experience memory-worthy. Yesterday as M83 played one of the best shows I´ve been to in a while and filled the empty spaces with mystery, this John Cage fragment came to mind..

"We carry our homes within us which enables us to fly."

A factor that makes music so compelling is it affects us in a direct-physical-individual-collective and at a level no one can fully describe; all at the same time. It´s abstract and ephemeral as far as both go, but the desire to have what we cannot hold remain, yet something always remains.
Making romance effective.

All of above

We are our own home.
Why are we inclined to kill what we build?

Monday, October 17, 2011

Mourir Auprès de Toi

Spike Jonze: Mourir Auprès de Toi on Nowness.com.

A lovely animation created by Spike Jonze and designer Olympia Le-Tan.
To Die by your Side.

Sunday, October 16, 2011



via Whateva & @JMEA

Pieces of The People We Love

luke, futuro esposo.

de lo que más me gustó del corona.


Sunday Playlist.

no quise verlo ayer para no arruinarme la sorpresa de mañana.
no sé qué dice la gente que fue a M83... pero se me hace una banda para ver en full set, cero en festival.

Thursday, October 13, 2011

Eventualmente... La Muerte vive, La Muerte muere, La vida muere, y la Vida Vive.

Iñaki Echavarne, bar Giardinetto, calle Granada del Penedés, Barcelona, julio de 1994
Durante un tiempo la Crítica acompaña a la Obra, luego la Crítica se desvanece y son los Lectores quienes la acompañan. El viaje puede ser largo o corto. Luego los Lectores mueren uno por uno y la Obra sigue sola, aunque otra Crítica y otros Lectores poco a poco vayan acompañándose a su singladura. Luego la Crítica muere otra vez y los Lectores mueren otra vez y sobre esa huella de huesos sigue la Obra su viaje hacia la soledad. Acercarse a ella, navegar a su estela es señal inequívoca de muerte segura, pero otra Crítica y otros Lectores se le acercan incansables e implacables y el tiempo y la velocidad los devoran. Finalmente la Obra viaja irremediablemente sola en la Inmensidad. Y un día la Obra muere, como mueren todas las cosas, como se extinguirá el Sol y la Tierra, el Sistema Solar y la Galaxia y la más recóndita memoria de los hombres. Todo lo que empieza como comedia acaba como tragedia.

Aurelio Baca, Feria del Libro, Madrid, julio de 1994
Todo lo que empieza como comedia acaba como tragicomedia.

Pere Ordóñez, Feria del Libro, Madrid, julio de 1994
Todo lo que empieza como comedia acaba indefectiblemente como comedia.

Julio Martínez Morales, Feria del Libro, Madrid, julio de 1994
Todo lo que empieza como comedia acaba como ejercicio criptográfico.

Pablo del Valle, Feria del Libro, Madrid, julio de 1994
Todo lo que empieza como comedia termina como película de terror.

Marco Antonio Palacios, Feria del Libro, Madrid, julio de 1994
Lo que empieza como comedia acaba como marcha triunfal, ¿no?

Hernando García León, Feria del Libro, Madrid, julio de 1994
Todo lo que empieza como comedia indefectiblemente acaba como misterio.

Pelayo Barrendoáin, Feria del Libro, Madrir, julio de 1994
Todo lo que empieza como comedia acaba como un responso en el vacío.

Felipe Müller, bar Céntrico, calle Tallers, Barcelona, septiembre de 1995
Todo lo que empieza como comedia acaba como monólogo cómico, pero ya no nos reímos...

Los Detectives Salvajes, Roberto Bolaño

¿o sí?

Saturday, October 8, 2011


cure for headache.

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

The End of Evil?

Neuroscientists suggest there is no such thing. Are they right?
Ron Rosenbaum

Neurons by Santiago Ramón y Cajal

Is evil over? Has science finally driven a stake through its dark heart? Or at least emptied the word of useful meaning, reduced the notion of a numinous nonmaterial malevolent force to a glitch in a tangled cluster of neurons, the brain?

And in reducing evil to a purely neurological glitch or malformation in the wiring of the physical brain, in eliminating the element of freely willed conscious choice, have neuroscientists eliminated as well "moral agency," personal responsibility? Does this "neuromitigation" excuse—"my brain made me do it," as critics of the tendency have called it—mean that no human being really wants to do ill to another? That we are all innocent, Rousseauian beings, some afflicted with defects—"brain bugs" as one new pop-neuroscience book calls them—that cause the behavior formerly known as evil?

This argument has been going on for more than a millennium, at least since Augustine proclaimed that evil was in the realm of “non-being," which seems to some a great evasion. Meanwhile pop neuroscience—and its not-very-well-examined assumptions—has taken center stage in the struggle to put evil in its place under the thumb of science.

Despite all the astonishing advances in neuroscience, however, we still know woefully little about how the brain enables the mind and especially about how consciousnesss and intentionality can arise from the complicated hunk of matter that is the brain. ... Discovering the neural correlates of mental phenomena does not tell us how these phenomena are possible.

The problem of evil—and moral responsibility—is thus inseparable from what is known in the philosophical trade as "the hard problem of consciousness." How does the brain, that electrified piece of meat, create the mind and the music of Mozart, the prose of Nabokov? Where is consciousness, anyway?


Ron Rosenbaum asking Jonathan Marks about the eradication of free will through neuroscience´s approach.

And he offered what I thought was one of the wisest responses to the debate over the existence of evil (and thus free will):

What he suggested is that we ought to act as if we had free will to choose good or evil.

And his warnings against the consequences of believing otherwise are validated by the fantasies of some fMRI enthusiasts. Consider, for instance, one of the more prominent new brain books: David Eagleman's Incognito.

In an excerpt in the Atlantic's "big ideas” issue, Eagleman depicts an Orwellian future in which fMRI scans will be used to preemptively identify those who have the potential to commit acts formerly known as evil, and prescribes for such possible malfeasants a regimen of "prefrontal workout[s]" to "better balance" those selected (how? by whom?) for brain remodeling.

He actually goes so far as to say, "Some people will need to be taken off the streets," on the basis of their fMRIs, "for a longer time (even a life time)." Neuroscientific totalitarianism invades your brain! The ultimate panopticon. No one seemed to notice or to care. It's science!

Read the rest


i was thinking exactly this today, not in scientific, but in spiritual, emotional, and psychological terms.

If this proof amounts to anything, I´ll use myself as an example...

Without having the slightest idea that neuroscience was up to the task... I began thinking about "The End of Evil" or the "Illusion of Evil", the concept was a faint whisper floating in mind for a while. In some deep part of my chain of ideas and beliefs there lay the question of insanity, how the mere thought could imply things that cannot be empirically proven or if taken to an extreme could turn us into:

A. Brave New World
B. Panoptically controlled robots (as the excerpt above mentions)

So the cloud lingered there...
Until today it manifested as something "concrete" with this article...

I do in some way believe that "evil" is a distant figment in and of our brain. I´d say Plato´s and Jung´s writings on archetypes would support the theory that the concept of "evil" has been imprinted on the unconscious mind since the biblical notion of Adam & Eve/free will, since the beginning of time, since the construction of our souls.

I´m not saying that evil doesn´t exist, it does and has. Many cannot conceive genocide, wars, mass destruction, as anything other than that, pure evil, and thinking "Evil is dead" would only justify it right?

In my mind, I´d disagree.

When man STOPS moving through dualistic notions as most "normal" human beings do, oscillating between love and hate in seconds time, and begins pulling all its little parts together into something greater than themselves; call it God, Jesus, Earth, Heaven, Humanity, Universe, Creation, etc. instead of the insignificant ego; "evil" will start dissolving into a distant and empty formless form.

i.e. I´d even dare to say pulling ourself together towards our own "true" self; in a sincere manner not in a self-destructive one...
The reader might ask how does one know if something is sincere?
4 basic principles that impulse:
1. Love
2. Liberty
3. Equality
4. Preservation of life

Utopic, maybe. Impossible, I hope not. I´m still trying.

So my question is, how is it at all possible for me to be aware of any of this? How is the conscious, unconscious, subconscious, superconscious sensitive to it? I have absolutely no clue about neuroscience, little knowledge about science, and a strong belief in free will, but at the same time inclined toward destiny... Is it all there suspended above our heads as if it were connected or something, waiting to be materialized? If it were so, what does that connectivity imply?

A. That we´re all the same. "All humans are equal". We essentially all come from the same place, wherever you believe that to be.
B. That this "oneness" exists.

All the ties, links, "coincidences", resonance, glitches, synchronicity, is what I find mind blowing and an utter mystery, and what keeps me coming back to the rhizome.

Everything in one giant nothing, or and nothing in one giant everything.

A special thank you to @unfolding for posting the link to the article.

La Société du spectacle

The spectacle presents itself as a vast inaccessible reality that can never be questioned. Its sole message is: “What appears is good; what is good appears.” Guy Debord, Society of the Spectacle, 1968

The shared consciousness, which is applauded as the global village, is a mere shadow of what’s possible.

Postmodernity is neither the enemy of handmaiden for Christianity, as pluralism has been ever present. While vanity and illusion take form in the latest sacred, media’s ultimately all-inclusive scope exposes the fault lines of its value system, and leaves only desire for more. We live on demand for the next best thing. We move easily on to the next one, because the last one, the current one, and even the next one are already overdetmined as temporary. This analysis cannot discredit the milieu in which relevance is upheld as a value, in part because this text appears through media, but more so because media is not to blame. Even nature has temporary forms, but valuing futility is an interest of men who exploit media. And while media can be used to correct how we are misinformed, reality is the place for genuine transformation.

Excerpts from Being Relevant: Confronting the latest sacred by Rachel K. Ward read the rest here.