daoism, pessoa, human supremacy, patamorality

an increasing number of voices write about heresiarch nogueira as identity explorer, adventurer of the abyss of modernity, even his secular (and nonteleological) mystical attributes*

but there's been little on other core aspects: his daoism (compare for example the book of disquiet vignette 356 [zenith translation] with dao de jing 47 – but there are many such comparisons), his patahumanism** (i avoid post- and trans- and other increasingly commonplace prefixes as they're becoming too solidified, politicized, academicized) – by this i mean his decreation of human exceptionalism (everything talks with everything without meaning or hierarchy other than that impossible hierarchy of the monadism of sensations, that impossible meaning of the infinite chasms among and between transactional communication and the shapes and movements of the soul) and in this sense (though he explicitly and even seemingly implicitly is no ecologist, at least in the sense this word is typically used) he is a cosmic contextual ecologist: a tree, a cloud, a book, a sensation are all one and nothing and everything and something

a difference of course – and one of the reasons he eludes being called an ecologist – is his ostensible amorality ... but this expected perception is linked in part to his neodaoism – neo- by being even more daoistic than daoism through the way not even being spoken, named, alluded – which (also in its expression in the dao de jing and less so but still palpably in the zhuangzi) comes across to those steeped in the judeochristiancapitalistic tradition (increasingly the global human world) as immoral, this immorality though rooted in an often unquestioned faith in human supremacy and expressing itself in our now normalized and institutionalized schizoid cultures of moral bifurcation, confusion, and bankruptcy

* to compare fernando with other notable twentieth century secular mystics: s weil and e jabès for example - the former steeped in french catholic-jewish apophaticism, the latter in egyptian-french-jewish exile poetry. does saint antónio come across as the most modern, the most religiously unsteeped, having most fully abdicated even the negation of god, the emptiness of language ... partially through his relentless subversion of even subversion, his uncanny expressions of disbelief in the belief of the disbelief of belief ...

** and i use pata- with obvious references to jarry, for while pessoa lacks jarry's overt absurdity and iconoclasm (though not jarry's love of alcohol) he carries these traits well, though more subtly and calmly, ironically, throughout his works

sadood

we feature today a rare interview with sadoo diaper who we under

stand recently has been dressing up and roaming city streets alone. sadoo! – we know you’re strange but isn’t this a bit much?

most days it isn’t but sometimes i get home and think i should have done a k less or so.

i mean socially.

socially?

society, while in this case moderately and superficially tolerant, has, like everything, its limits, and it’s given to excise any excessively aberrant aspect to guarantee its own survival.

shouldn’t it then be excising itself? look. it’s possible various specimens among the masses don’t like my makeup or sartorial expression but that’s neither illegal nor even particularly aberrant. at worst some might consider it to be unfashionable, incomprehensible, distasteful, irrelevant, inappropriate or obnoxious.

but why are you doing this?

i gave up on why many years ago. and giving up on why led to giving up on you and i and he and she and it and they. this led me to give up on doing. the copulative followed. so you see your question is more or less an empty set of emptiness. if anything, i’m doing this to not do.

what do you mean sadoo? or should it be sanotdoo?

snotdoo might
doodoo. i mean (if i mean, which i doubt, often finding meaning too mean) that i may be dooing but i’m dooing without purpose (dooing with purpose we could call doing) and this without is linked somehow to this biochemical technical conglomerate (what we could call the inhabited body that maintains an appearance of speaking in the republic of the present) being attuned to different frequencies than those emitted by the worlds of doing – those worlds we could for

convenience call capitalism and which we humans are all now born into, regardless of any attunement with it, rousing all manner of defects and strategies among the misattuned for survival – a survival that isn’t simply an animal protection of their singularities but an aspect of attempting to nurture (rather than destroy) biodiversity, which surely exists not only in the forests and oceans of the world but also our cities and souls, these new and critical habitats.

i’m not sure i follow.

no need to follow.

could you try to be less difficult and restate in language that more of our audience might be able to follow?

capitalistic structures and processes work great for some of the human population (but hardly outside the human). it’s hard to quantify this as most humans are automatically enculturated into capitalism and never question it. if i’m protesting i might be protesting (most generally) humanity's strategic imbecility (and tactical implementations of this imbecility) – that as a species we're investing most of our time, money, and energy into our hyperapex predator attributes (slaughtering more and better than anything else) and little into what for me is our most distinctive talent – a kind of empathic consciousness that allows us to contextualize ourselves (individually and collectively) as part of vast and intelligent ecosystems and adapt our lives to this broader knowledge. more specifically, objecting to anthropocentrism (speciesism), its concomitant ecological degradation – and the political-lifestyle machineries we in our mob conformity are enculturated into.

how will people get that – you look like the offspring of a

jovian clown and the dropped insides of a second generation laptop?

i was told today i look like goku. but your question’s misplaced – it assumes there’s something to get, that my presentation – whether through image or text – is a tradable commodity on the image-text exchange. to put it another way, judeochristiancapitalistic society wears reason on its body of unreason. i wear unreason on my body of reason.

what?

next – sadood ii

an amodest cana bull

 today sadoo diaper yanks montaigne’s of cannibals and swift’s a modest proposal into an overpopulated troubled

derealized 2017.

first let us observe that european christian society and its yakking screaming supercilious child – global capitalistic society – have hardly proven themselves, even with the ostensible advances of democracy, feminism, diversity, religious and sexual freedom, technological, scientific, and medical delights. considering the lack of progress in anything but the accumulation of physical and abstract things – a progress we can hardly consider progress – radical major surgery on the corpulent collective human body becomes necessary.

next let us propose that condo-farmed, plant-based humans become a food source for earth’s critically endangered species. let’s get human numbers down to manageable levels and use those condo cells for something useful. (home ownership is for historical fiction and virtual comedy – get all those ridiculous mortgagors into condos and fatten them up with useful goodness!)

let’s put our ideals where our cutlets are by living our entertainment and stopping talking about caring for the earth and animals and beginning doing it. (a bonus – reality tv might finally become exciting, finally connected to a reality that matters.)

don’t vote green! vote the human meat party!

your instinctual (aka blindly educated) response might be – this is too much sadood. too much.

no. we’re actually too much the way we are now.

and it’s not a big step at all if you decide to apply your brain to something other than your own aggrandizement and the promotion of your tribal interests – that old war we call virtuous just because it's dressed in new clothes.

the difference between a pig and a human is minimal and the latter – just because they have bigger weapons – directly kill almost 200,000,000 mammals annually. imagine if we eliminated that number of humans every year!

plus … humans have already sexually commoditized themselves to be little more than an overdressed meat market. our flesh is just food for us presently – might as well share it with those we’ve been relentlessly cruel to on no basis other than a deeply troubled archaic assumption that humans are innately superior to everything else.

if slaughter, stupidity, and sex are what humans are primarily using their brains for, why not begin using human meat to truly help the world and physically-spiritually tone ourselves? big yoga, without the lulu.

it’s time to stop blabbing, tweeting, and posting about equality, diversity, and sustainability … and start living them.

we’ll not only slow the extinction rate of 1,200 species annually, reduce the 800 million kilograms of garbage dumped into the sea, 40 million tonnes of toxic waste, 26,000 cubic metres of radioactive waste, 1.6 million hectares of deforestation … but we might in the process even save ourselves.

all other proposals (even the seemingly sanest from the cutest political leaders like true beau [featured recently in the stalling ruin]) are like putting bandaids on a decapitation. the sadoo’s proposal is simple and effective – let’s avoid the decapitation.

-->