its supposed to be a joke

One of the things am rather interested while in Palestine is to check for links and possible seeming similarities that cross the sectarian divides.
An element that pops up during this visit is people saying stuff, me not laughing, and them saying “its supposed to be a joke”.

I can not tell a joke to save my life, hence am trying to learn and yet to feel confident enough inflicting my learning(?) on other people.
In my mind, the fact am not entirel;y able to tell a joke is linked to cenrtain brutilised past. Hence when people around me seem needing to underline a jokey intent, am taking that as a link to some sort of communal brutalisation.
This is not a lack of sense of humour, but an in ability to share that sense without being slightly forcefull about it. That forcefulness which comes in “its supposed to be a joke”, and the fact that the supposed jokes go along lines of “hey, look at that person failings”, or stuff such as “you know how these people [insert some prejudice thinking here] are such and such..?” These might intend to be humorous, but all too often just aren’t.

Therefore, my experience is of people in palestine telling me “its supposed to be a joke”. Perhaps that line should be a unifying name for the place?

a cultivation of brutalisation?

One element shared among communities I been through in west asia (jordan, palestine, egypt), seems to to be violence. Since people Say, and I think they rather hope indeed, that they aren’t violent, and at a time I can perceive physically aggressive activities all around, am kind of getting a sense of brutalisation aesthetics. People brutalised to an extent that physical aggression is integral to the elements which link with and make-up cultural practices.

Lets take a few steps back.

Here’s a short outline of a fictional narrative:
Say there is a small group of people living hierarchically. Top honcho (th) hears a bit of a slant from a group member and feels they have to re-act.
Since the story is set within a hierarchically oriented group:
if TH decides to talk about the incident, they need to do that in a way which will not undermine their position within the hierarchy.
if TH chooses to deal physically with the incident, they might lose and undermine their position – but win and you know that kind of talk will be outlawed.
There are other options, but for argument sake, lets say that we decide to make TH take the physical reaction way.

How will others in the group react?
I think it might not be too far fetched to have them as individuals having a sense of relief and anxiety. Now having learned that TH is the groups’ law and isn’t into talking to resolve problems, each group member gathers that ultimate expression is with TH, and other expressions are subject to TH’s whims.
Hence, the groups characters, each in their own way might wonder and imagine from all sorts of promts, but for the wonder of If I express, the common computation will be constantly negated by possible violence. Hence each member will know that for certain wonders, their expressions will have to involve some physical violence – else they will not be expressed.
TH will also know that since they took the physical way to assert their position – the implicit practice that was set is that they, TH, will have to be removed violently if and when the time comes.

Now, Lets say one character in that group is reluctant to join this physical aggression fest. Lets say thet person attempts to save themselves from being brutalised.
How can they do that?
TH set more than just an example and a group rule, they also announced that doing things your own way is possible and easy. All one needs to do is silence everyone else.
This might seem like an enticing proposition.
I need to express myself. I need to say XYZ!!
Sure. I know there’s a chance I might be killed – but hey, I Need to say XYZ, and to say it violently seems the Only way. If I try any other way, either am talking to walls, or am going to get myself in a violent trouble anyway. (e.g. knife wielding young palestinians?)
Brutalisation makes the sense of expression seem both easy and accessible through force. Indeed, the very imagination, the wondering from the need to express is in itself subject to violence. Hence cries from need to be Listened to, and negotiation seem an expression of inferiority, or weakness rather than an element in a process of How we live together.

Therefore the person that fancies questioning the brutalisation, that feels critical about the TH actions – will have to probably struggle themselves with the sensations that call for expressing themselves easy and swiftly..

This way, the story can weave, I think a rather plausible narrative, of a brutal culture linked from and with TH’s violent reactions.

However, I think people do sense some sort of revulsion towards violence. Brutalisation compels to violence, however since we do not just abductively express – specially verbally, we induct and deduct.
I think sensation of hard-to-take-it accompany brutalisation. We can wonder, if didn’t have to express violently. We can calculate such wonders too, and I think, by enlarge, we do.

We get the west asia instances of people killing for “family honour” – no discussion and hierarchy maintenance is a must. Arguments settled by force, I have witnessed a fair few. Men and women seem to inhabit 2 different unbridged worlds, while each is anxious from the other’s Violence. (e.g. a woman’s body seems inherently violent towards men, and men are inherently violent as a reaction for being challenged by a woman’s body.. Well that is the sense I got in some communities.)
People keep telling me how peace loving they are, however they also say that some activities by these Other people “justifies” violence oriented reactions. No other ways.

When I was around 5 or 6, I recall a group of older kids, maybe between 8 and 10, being physically aggressive towards me and a few of my friends at the time.
I asked one of these older kids Why she was doing it. She replied telling me that when she was younger, some older kids were violent to her. Hence she was simply doing what was done to her. More over, she re-assured me that in time, when I get a bit older, I will be violent towards someone weaker and younger than me.
I recall, where this conversation took place because on hearing that, I promised myself not to repeat the cycle.
I do not know why I promised that.
Not really sure why I think have kept that promise.

palestine all over?

On way to Umm el Fahem art gallery Via skateboarding the 77.7km between the airport and the town of Umm el Fahem.

A few basic definitions to palestine oriented vocabulary:

The place commonly known as “israel” = palestine.
The p[lace commonly known as palestine/west-bank = palestine.

Am not dernying the exsitance of various communities, structures and organisations in the palestinian areas.
Hence:
The area am skateboarding through, the one usually referred to as “israel” – is the Zionist oriented area of palestine. (this claiom is based upon experiencing people considering “israelies” to be either jews and or zionists. About 20-30 percent of the people there are either jews and nopt zionists or neither jews nor zionists. Hence am making the distinction and the umbrella of “palestine” he4lps focus the sort of unity of the area as a whole.
Palestinians, in this vobaulary are anyone who lives in the area commonlyt known as isareal/palestine, and have the following categories:
Palestian Jews, Zionists, Muslims, Cherkess, Druze, Christians, Seculars, Bedouins, etc.

Am using people’s own definitions they provide themselves, e.g. people call themselves zionists or muslims, These categorizations are based on people’s births’ religious and communal affiliations rather than ideas and arguments, feelings and aspirations that form, inform and feed lively political, cultural and social debates. I think these are sectarian, divisive and anti-democratic definitions, but that is what there is in palestine. (..and the middle east as a whole…)
Am referring here to communities and groupings in general. There are exceptions. There are people and organisations that do indeed attempt to go beyond the sectarian divides. I hope the Umm el Fahem gallery will turn out to be one of them.

the howl of a strawberry time?

Was attempting to think about brutalisation recently. So kind of naturally veered off into Beuyes’ and I like america and america likes me. With the coyote being as a Being of resonance from past and into the future of a violence america/usa has not actually consciously interacted with.
The violence of the colonisers brutalised them as well as the entities the aggression was directed at. The brutalisation is a process that goes all ways, in all directions, and once a society learns to do stuff through its violence upon others, we get the same violence being institutionalised?

Well.. this might be one way to approach brutalisation and i like america.
Another way that coyote symbol and american violence seems to resonate, is via the regime of copy rights. The howling of coyotes longing to live without being someone else’s game part is the sound I get a sense of when copy is used as a right to restrict. (Indeed in this Orwellian discourse restrictions come as freedoms while they offer limitations for everyone involved. Is that a kind of brutalisation?)

In some ways though, getting a a screen like the one bellow, makes the Beuysian ideas, somehow prophetic? (in the way prophesies point at timelessness if not infinities too..)

ilamlme

wondering from wonderment?

Here is a bit of an expression – lets do a calculation!
2 + 1 = 3 -> that is a calculation.

lets do a bit of computation?
if 2 + 1 = 3
then
call this “my computation”
else
call this “other computation”

Now –
What’s wondering got to do with this?

Wonderment?
lets say:
2 + 1?
This, is a a stream of contingent elements placed in a readable way. It could have been:
? 2 1 +
A bunch of data that might come in various sequences, and perhaps one of these sequences could repeat itself enough times for it to be able and form some meaning computationally, expressively, calculatively, etc..

Wonderment, in this sense, is a way to interact. We can put stuff in various streams and wonder with it. The difference from stuff like computation is that wonderment is aimless, yet can allow aims to emerge. It is meaningless, unlike an expression – yet allow meanings to emerge without relying on prior intents and configurations. Wonderment is non calculational, yet offers time for calculations to evolve and develop.

A wonderment might be an X – Z as a question. If it reapits – there might be a rhythmic time for meanings to evolve. Oh X might mean 2 and Z might mean 1. Or X might mean all even numbers, and Z might mean all odd numbers. Humm.. Interesting? Maybe we should check some calculations?

If calculation get their time, the ? is replaced by a = and focus is shifted to a computational process with a need to produce specific outcome types from its processes.

I think its rather interesting that these kind of practices end up feeding one another, energising one another. Powering rather than Empowering one another.
The fact we might get a calculation emerging from a wonderment, does not mean the calculation is subordinate – the opposite. Its Free, as in having its own possible infinity that need not be linked with its wonderment linked history.
The fact we can do 2 + 1 = 3 have this new number/element and play with that is independent from the 2 + 1 wonderment. In fact, now by having a new number, 3, we can feed That into some other wonderment. Now we might have 3-1? or -2 + ? 3 1 etc..

The question though, if we go back to wonder wonderment, is whether there can be some wondering kinds. Can we develop ways from wonderment, or perhaps wondering is rather limited to a certain particular way?