Rage Against the Machine’s “Fistful of Steel” and its lyrics remain lodged inside me, since my teenage years, everytime I hear or see the word “silence” …
Silence
Something about silence makes me sick
'Cause silence can be violent
Sorta like a slit wrist
lyrics
“Fistful Of Steel”
Huh!
Check it…uggh!
Silence
Something about silence makes me sick
'Cause silence can be violent
Sorta like a slit wrist
If the vibe was suicide
Then you would push da button
But if ya bowin’ down
Then let me do the cuttin’
Some speak the sounds
But speak in silent voices
Like radio is silent
Though it fills the air with noises
Its transmissions bring submission
As ya mold to the unreal
And mad boy grips the microphone
Wit’ a fistful of steel
Yeah…and mad mad boy grips the microphone
Wit’ a fistful of steel
Wit’ a fistful of steel
(‘Cause I know the power of the question)
Wit’ a fistful of steel
Wit’ a fistful of steel
(And I won’t stop cause I know the power of the question)
It’s time to flow like the fluid in ya veins
If ya will it, I will spill it
And ya out just as quick as ya came
Not a silent one
But a defiant one
Never a normal one
‘Cause I’m the bastard son
With the visions of the move
Vocals not to soothe
But to ignite and put in flight
My sense of militance
Groovin’, playin’ this game called survival
The status, the elite, the enemy, the rival
The silent sheep slippin’, riffin’, trippin’
Give ya a glimpse of the reality I’m grippin’
Steppin’ into the jam and I’m slammin’ like Shaquille
Mad boy grips the microphone
Wit’ a fistful of steel
Yeah…and mad boy grips the microphone
Wit’ a fistful of steel
Wit’ a fistful of steel
(‘Cause I know the power of the question)
Wit’ a fistful of steel
Wit’ a fistful of steel
(And I won’t stop 'cause I know the power of the question)
Ahh shit
And I won’t stop 'cause I know the power of the question
And if the vibe was suicide
Then you would push da button
But if ya bowin’ down
Then let me do the cuttin`
Yeah!
Come on!
A .44 full of bullets
Face full of pale
Eyes full of empty
A stare full of nails
The roulette ball, rolls along on the wheel
A mind full of fire
And a fistful of steel
And if the vibe was suicide
Then you would push da button
But if ya bowin’ down
Then let me do the cuttin’
Yeah! Wit’ a fistful of steel!
Come on!
Uggh!
Wit’ a fistful of steel!
Uggh!
I have much to say but saving it for the Cafe. Hope we can all attend.
I will leave you all with my pre-recorded, premeditated message, in case jury duty had me elsewhere. I had fun recording it, though it is more of a disseminated message… whatever is said can fall to deaf ears, as much of it will be irrelevant.
premeditated transcript
If this message reaches your eyes and/or ears, I am likely spending my time away from our first Cosmos Cafe in 2019 and in an enclosed space making crucial decisions for the sake of Kentucky. Welcome to jury duty. I tried to explain the urgency, the dire need to be present for this crucial Cosmic communication. I said…but I am their chosen fearful facilitator. They need me!!!
Yet…They… Did…not… bend. They were not nudged in the least. So I am here, present in pre-recorded form. Take it in, this dissemination, this individual dialogue, this singular discussion, as you see fit.
I will begin by reading not from John Durham Peters’ Introduction nor another passage or quote from his book Speaking into the Air but from David Bohm’s On Dialogue. I read his words recently and, given that we often self-reflect upon our communications via Zoom chat rooms, through our online medium, in spaces with bodies separate and minds fused or sometimes fissured, I felt his words fitting for starting off 2019.
This is from Chapter 2 of the book On Dialogue entitled “On Dialogue”
The way we start a dialogue group is usually by talking about dialogue – talking it over, discussing why we’re doing it, what it means, and so forth. I don’t think it is wise to start a group before people have gone into all that, at least somewhat. You can, but then you’ll have to trust that the group will continue, and that these questions will come out later. So if you are thinking of meeting in a group, one thing which I suggest is to have a discussion or a seminar about dialogue for a while, and those who are interested can then go on to have the dialogue. And you mustn’t worry too much whether you are or are not having dialogue – that’s one of the blocks. It may be mixed. So we will discuss dialogue for a while – what is its nature?
I give a meaning to the word “dialogue” that is somewhat different from what is commonly used. The derivations of words often help to suggest a deeper meaning. “Dialogue” comes from the Greek word dialogos. Logos means “the word,” or in our case we would think of the “meaning of the word.” And dia means “through” – it doesn’t mean “two.” A dialogue can be among any number of people, not just two. Even one person can have a sense of dialogue within himself, if the spirit of the dialogue is present. The picture or image that this derivation suggests is of a stream of meaning flowing among and through us and between us. This will make possible a flow of meaning in the whole group, out of which may emerge some new understanding. It’s something new, which may not have been in the starting point at all. It’s something creative. And this shared meaning is the “glue” or “cement” that holds people and societies together.
(a short interlude)
The dialogic osmosis
Of the Cafe we call Cosmos is
A flowing streaming
Of holy water meaning
Some kind of Cosmic Gnosis
I am looking forward to our talks to come in the Cafe and elsewhere on the Cosmos.
ENGAGING IN DIALOGUE (Bohm)
A basic notion for a dialogue would be for people to sit in a circle. Such a geometric arrangement doesn’t favor anybody; it allows for direct communication. In principle, the dialogue should work without any leader and without any agenda. Of course, we are used to leaders and agendas, so if we were to start a meeting without a leader – start talking and have no agenda, no purpose – I think we would find a great deal of anxiety in not knowing what to do. Thus, one of the things would be to work through that anxiety, to face it. In fact, we know by experience that if people do this for an hour or two they do get through it and start to talk more freely.
It may be useful to have a facilitator to get the group going, who keeps a watch on it for a while and sort of explains what’s happening from time to time, and that kind of thing. But his function is to work himself out of a job. Now, that may take time. It may be that people must meet regularly and sustain the dialogue. That form might be to meet week after week, or biweekly or whatever, and sustain it a long time – a year or two or more. In that period, all those things we mentioned would come out. And people would begin to learn really to depend less and less on the facilitator – at least that’s the idea behind it. Now, the whole of society has been organized to believe that we can’t function without leaders. But maybe we can. That’s the suggestion. Of course, it’s an experiment. We can’t guarantee that it is going to happen. But that is what takes place in any new venture – you consider all the evidence, you consider what’s the best idea, what to say about it, what your theories about it are, and then you go ahead and try it.
I believe Bohm, in these words about engaging in dialogue has unknowingly defined what we have done over the course of a year here at Cosmos and specifically with the Cafe. Marco began the facilitation process late 2017, the process mostly worked out itself at the beginning of 2018 and became disorganized later in the year, mostly because of an overload of commitments to various other talks, work, and play. I have stepped into this facilitator role, yet I wish to convey that I would rather “work myself out of the job,” rather us continue in this experiment, with no guarantee that a certain solution will provide unison…to come what may with a frame of mind and a frame of reference
In closing, and peering into the future of the Cafe, I propose we continue next week with Bohm’s On Dialogue Chapter 2, a bit lengthy perhaps but it would continue this theme of communications, which (in my thinking) would allow us to gaze deeper into the crystal ball, to tread further across the raging river where a burnt bridge would have allowed for a swifter pass, and towards the banks of valuable discussion and dialogue as we prepare for Mark Jabbour’s chapter entitled “Anger and the Road to Hell” from his book Election 2016 - The Great Debate, the Great Divide. I just finished reading a hard copy and love it, if not only to gain understanding from an alternate reality.
This is also to say that if in the Cafe conversation today 1/8 you decided upon a path towards a different topic for January 15th, then let it be!
Your fearful facilitator,
Doug