contemporary classics

With Dada I.. ..have in common a certain mistrust toward power. We don't like authority, we don't like power, To me art is a form of manifest revolt, total and complete. It's a political attitude which doesn't need to found a political party. It's not a matter of taking power; when you are against it, you can't take it. We're against all forms of force which aggregate and crystallize an authority that oppresses people. Obviously this is not a characteristic of my art alone - it's much more general, a basic political attitude. It's a clear intention, more necessary today than ever, to oppose all forms of force emanating from a managing, centralizing political power.

, born 1925
🗁

Self-improvement is a lie. You cannot improve who you are; you already are who you are. You are not some kind of apprentice to yourself who will one day, with enough “self-improvement”, become the real you. It is too late for that. You already are who you are. You can wake up to this truth and do the work to realize and embody who you are or, you can nod out trying to improve this thing called “self”, whatever that is.

, born 1952
🗁

In the province of the mind, what one believes to be true is true or becomes true, within certain limits to be found experientially and experimentally. These limits are further beliefs to be transcended. In the mind, there are no limits... In the province of connected minds, what the network believes to be true, either is true or becomes true within certain limits to be found experientially and experimentally. These limits are further beliefs to be transcended. In the network's mind there are no limits.

from The Deep Self: Consciousness Exploration in the Isolation Tank

, born 1915
🗁

A Zen monk lived with his one-eyed brother, who was a fool. On a day that a famous theologian was coming from afar to speak with the monk, he was forced to be absent. He said to his brother, “Welcome and treat this wise man well. But above all, don’t say a word to him and everything will be alright.”

The monk then left the monastery. When he returned, he immediately went to see his guest. “Has my brother welcomed you?” he asked. Enthusiastically, the theologian replied, “Your brother is a fine person. He is a great theologian.” Surprised, the monk mumbled back, “What? My brother . . . a theologian?”

“We had a passionate discussion,” the wise man went on, “expressing ourselves only through gestures. I showed him a finger, he replied showing me two. I then responded, as expected, by showing him three, and he left me baffled by showing me a clenched fist and ending the debate. With one finger I indicated the unity of Buddha. With two he widened my point of view, reminding me that Buddha could not be separated from his doctrine. Pleased with the reply, I showed him three fingers, signifying Buddha and his doctrine in the world. And then he gave me this sublime reply, showing me his fist: Buddha, his doctrine in the world, is part of a whole. It was thrilling.”

Soon after, the monk went to see his one-eyed brother and demanded, “Tell me what happened with the theologian!” “Quite simple,” said the brother. “He provoked me, showing me one finger to point out that I had only one eye. Not wanting to give in to his provocation, I replied that he was lucky to have two. He went on sarcastically to say that adding up all our eyes, we have three eyes. That was the last straw. Showing him a clenched fist, I threatened to make him into a corpse if he didn’t stop his ill-intentioned innuendos.”

, born 1929
🗁