Erik, you knocked it our if the park again with this passionate plea for self realization and accomplishment. For me the cognitive dissonance of making a living vs artistic freedom has always been a thorn in my side. I can’t live like Bukowski at my age. I can only be the best ME I can be within these limitations and if my poetry reflects that despair then that’s that. Maybe the challenge is how to attain those creative heights and hold a day job at the same time? 🤷♂️ If only our economic system allowed us to develop and live freer lives then perhaps more progress could be made. But the myth of the suffering artist is imo a fairy tale, a cul de sac to get us to waste our energy in the hopes of being “discovered”. I’m on the commuter train as I write this and it slowly crawled past a scene where a bunch of cops surrounded a body covered by a white sheet. Who’s better off now? It takes a certain strength to be able to withstand the daily grind. Don’t get me wrong, freedom was great too when I was unemployed. But eating is good and having a roof over one’s head is as well. Anyway this was a great piece and a lot to think about.
This what I’d call ‘a good talking to.’ Sharing it with some of my younger beings who are very busy. Life does that, artist or not. To know yourself you get a choice I think - either to know what you like earlier than most, or know what you don’t like. Which you can do from the start of consciousness.
As far as living you authentic, creative life, it's not so romantic, as the long list of authors, poets, painters, philosophers, activists, mystics who starved, were institutionalized, jailed, burned at the stake, or as Artaud once pointed out about Van Gogh "suicided by society..."
I think Artaud himself died with a shoe in his hand like a telephone in some mental hospital in, maybe Switzerland? Perhaps he was calling for help.
They were also clinically insane, manic, obsessive and greatly unhealthy. I think you missed the important gist of the article. But yeah, I'd take the hell of what you just described over being a puppet in a dying civilization. All day.
I only offer that the infinite step exists, beyond any kind of resistance, any kind of culture or counterculture, as escape route, for those that are tired of themselves. I do not claim to have gotten anywhere near it—I have always been an individual to a fault, which is why I’m weighing in. But like the Hesse parable, neither all the riches of the world nor the ascetic renunciation of such will get you there. No human impulse or counter-impulse gets us there. The rock is more enlightened than man, possibly. It has learned to stand still as the entire cosmos turns around it. And finally, enlightenment itself is just another construct built by unenlightened men.
Again, sincerely, no offense intended, it wasn't a critique of your thoughts as much has an extension, but I figure the point of profound thought is to generate profound discussion.
I don’t believe I’ve missed the point, although I certainly meant no offense either.
But, according to, for example, The Sane Society, the Eric Fromm book on the ills of modernity (a response to Freud’s Civilization and Its Discontents), the idea is not to discard society but to renew it. Perhaps the eternal return, of Nietzsche, Eliade, etc, or the Hero’s Journey of Campbell, which is primarily a vessel for mythology (continuity, also see Eliade). Individualism as a function of our collective purpose, another conjunction inside the rhizomatic mass. Like, for example, Jung with the Collective Unconscious, which basically conceives of individual achievements as a simple channeling of the spirit of zeitgeist, of our, again, “collective” development, as in, the individual is also an organ of the multitude (also in response to Freud, I might add).
Or to cherry-pick Nietzsche, “Nature propels the philosopher into mankind like an arrow; it takes no aim but hopes the arrow will stick somewhere. But countless times it misses and is depressed at the fact… …The artist and the philosopher are evidence against the purposiveness of nature as regards the means it employs, though they are also first-rate evidence as to the wisdom of its purpose. They strike home at only a few, while they ought to strike home at everybody—and even these few are not struck with the force with which the philosopher and artist launch their shot.” (Schopenhauer as Educator) Emphasis on nature, not any Cartesian assertion of primacy, but the chaos-logic of dynamic systems in flux, pointed through a single channel.
Point being, I’m not speaking theoretically, I have lived it: twenty years now, poverty, adventure, intense productivity leading to further nomadism. All my friends are artists, as well, scattered across the world. And that art has enlightened none of us. Many, in fact, have died deaths of despair, along the way, expecting more for their efforts. But, according to Bodhidharma, even the butcher can be a buddha. Or, to paraphrase Kierkegaard, the tragic hero still falls short; it takes the “infinite step,” the step of “faith” (although, I have to wonder what that really means, coming from an alleged atheist…) The individual is, at their very best, the tragic hero. That was my point. To transcend that, you kind of have to destroy the ego, the sense of self—the very individual that got you so far—or else it will happen anyway, “suicided by society” as the finale of the ritual regeneration, the Orphic parable repeating itself…
The thing that it sounds like they were missing is the knowledge of self-healing. You can't heal just by making art. It requires self-reflection, mindfulness, self-love.
I've been pursuing "the art of being myself" for 20 years and I'm fabulously happy--and that was my goal, to be fully and freely myself.
I didn't do it by rejecting society (although I did separate myself from most of it cause it's based around conformity and therefore, quite boring). I did it by pursuing internal freedom i.e. self-liberation.
The "tragic hero" thing is just bullocks IMHO. Who the hell wants to be a tragic anything? That is just glamorizing suffering, which makes no sense.
The answer to the opening salvo of questions is "yes and no," and by the end of this piece, the sadness of that will punch you in the face. Roughly halfway through, brushed back by a high-and-tight inside fastball, though, you are at least provided a hidden clue as to what you may still have time enough to avoid, yourself, before it's too late, couched in this observation: " By middle life, most of us are accomplished fugitives from ourselves." what an outstanding essay this is and offers no small amount of opportunity to spend a little time practicing some introspection.
Done. I share the link to the original post on my page with some inspired notes, and I also translated it to Spanish and shared it as well. This writing deserves translation into many languages. Check it out and share it if it you are OK with it. Let me know if you want me to change or edit something). Thanks!
Kickass article. Its theme is the essence of why I moved to Las Vegas 8-weeks ago. This epic city is now the hub of my nomadic existence. I move therefore I am
I don’t believe I’ve missed the point, although I certainly meant no offense either.
But, according to, for example, The Sane Society, the Eric Fromm book on the ills of modernity (a response to Freud’s Civilization and Its Discontents), the idea is not to discard society but to renew it. Perhaps the eternal return, of Nietzsche, Eliade, etc, or the Hero’s Journey of Campbell, which is primarily a vessel for mythology (continuity, also see Eliade). Individualism as a function of our collective purpose, another conjunction inside the rhizomatic mass. Like, for example, Jung with the Collective Unconscious, which basically conceives of individual achievements as a simple channeling of the spirit of zeitgeist, of our, again, “collective” development, as in, the individual is also an organ of the multitude (also in response to Freud, I might add).
Or to cherry-pick Nietzsche, “Nature propels the philosopher into mankind like an arrow; it takes no aim but hopes the arrow will stick somewhere. But countless times it misses and is depressed at the fact… …The artist and the philosopher are evidence against the purposiveness of nature as regards the means it employs, though they are also first-rate evidence as to the wisdom of its purpose. They strike home at only a few, while they ought to strike home at everybody—and even these few are not struck with the force with which the philosopher and artist launch their shot.” (Schopenhauer as Educator) Emphasis on nature, not any Cartesian assertion of primacy, but the chaos-logic of dynamic systems in flux, pointed through a single channel.
Point being, I’m not speaking theoretically, I have lived it: twenty years now, poverty, adventure, intense productivity leading to further nomadism. All my friends are artists, as well, scattered across the world. And that art has enlightened none of us. Many, in fact, have died deaths of despair, along the way, expecting more for their efforts, so it's personal for me. Funny enough, according to Bodhidharma, even the butcher can be a buddha. Or, to paraphrase Kierkegaard, the tragic hero still falls short; it takes the “infinite step,” the step of “faith” (although, I have to wonder what that really means, coming from an alleged atheist…) The individual is, at their very best, the tragic hero. That was my point. To transcend that, you kind of have to destroy the ego, the sense of self—the very individual that got you so far—or else it will happen anyway, “suicided by society” as the finale of the ritual regeneration, the Orphic parable repeating itself…
I don't have a job, title, all that many possessions, and I ditched "society's tedious obligations" when I was around 22. 😂 Living life on your own terms doesn't have to be so dramatic as you have posted here (although I dunno, maybe some people need that--I didn't. "Society" seemed onerous as soon as I realized what it was).
However what I think IS absolutely necessary is a concentrated amount of de-conditioning of your brain pathways so you can regain your freedom of choice. That is mental self-training based on mindfulness.
But it's not always about "getting out of your comfort zone" necessarily, unless that is what your conditioning consisted of--mine was the opposite, I was neglected and poor as a kid, so I had to learn how to *create* a comfort zone. Not all of us were born and raised in comfort. It's also not always about "excellence" -- wanting to pursue mastery is really down to the individual--some people want that, some people don't. What it is always about is self-liberation...and that looks different for everyone, because the end goal of that process is to be your own unique self.
Wonderfully put, I fully resonate with the idea of pursuing “excellence through the cultivation of your own creative powers”, yet there is a question that persists in my mind since some time: Does the world actually “need all you can give”? Does the world care? Why would I sacrifice anything for the world? Imagining Bukowski doing his best to make money from writing (doing something he loves) makes sense, it feels like a fair trade, he gives his talent to the world and the world helps him more or less survive from writing. But what if you don’t care about their money?
It's not about the world. It's not about money. It's not about any of that. I'm confused. Did you read the article? It's about sacrificing "the world" for the higher quest of self. It's about developing that "something" you are passionate about. To the fullest potential. Like the article stated, the biggest deathbed regret is surrendering your essence to the world and not becoming who you are.
"Why looking to be “seen and applauded”?" -- I said the very opposite. I said don't worry about being seen and applauded. I think you misread a lot of what was said.
I don’t know, maybe I was too absorbed into my stream of thoughts and probably misinterpreted some things… perhaps… your article is beautiful and provocative no doubt, and managed to stir me a bit scratching some unsolved issues in my mind. Thank you for posting it! 🙏
What if you have a job that you love and yet you feel there is also this itch related to some potential talent of some sort… you may feel compelled to explore that land, maybe even consider letting some legacy like a bridge through time for your child or children, a beacon still kindled for when you won’t be anymore, but does it worth trying to push whatever you may have discovered under the bituminous eyes of a numb humanity? Why looking to be “seen and applauded”? You won’t take the glory with you 6 feet under when time comes… I don’t understand the applaud of the “headless marionettes”. Am I the fool?
Thank you for this exquisitely worded wake up call! It was exactly what I needed to hear. My sincere thanks!!
Thank you Julia!
Erik, you knocked it our if the park again with this passionate plea for self realization and accomplishment. For me the cognitive dissonance of making a living vs artistic freedom has always been a thorn in my side. I can’t live like Bukowski at my age. I can only be the best ME I can be within these limitations and if my poetry reflects that despair then that’s that. Maybe the challenge is how to attain those creative heights and hold a day job at the same time? 🤷♂️ If only our economic system allowed us to develop and live freer lives then perhaps more progress could be made. But the myth of the suffering artist is imo a fairy tale, a cul de sac to get us to waste our energy in the hopes of being “discovered”. I’m on the commuter train as I write this and it slowly crawled past a scene where a bunch of cops surrounded a body covered by a white sheet. Who’s better off now? It takes a certain strength to be able to withstand the daily grind. Don’t get me wrong, freedom was great too when I was unemployed. But eating is good and having a roof over one’s head is as well. Anyway this was a great piece and a lot to think about.
This what I’d call ‘a good talking to.’ Sharing it with some of my younger beings who are very busy. Life does that, artist or not. To know yourself you get a choice I think - either to know what you like earlier than most, or know what you don’t like. Which you can do from the start of consciousness.
Yes, Erik. "...and yes I said yes I will Yes". Mad love and respect to you for this piece.
Thank you Ken!
As far as living you authentic, creative life, it's not so romantic, as the long list of authors, poets, painters, philosophers, activists, mystics who starved, were institutionalized, jailed, burned at the stake, or as Artaud once pointed out about Van Gogh "suicided by society..."
I think Artaud himself died with a shoe in his hand like a telephone in some mental hospital in, maybe Switzerland? Perhaps he was calling for help.
They were also clinically insane, manic, obsessive and greatly unhealthy. I think you missed the important gist of the article. But yeah, I'd take the hell of what you just described over being a puppet in a dying civilization. All day.
I only offer that the infinite step exists, beyond any kind of resistance, any kind of culture or counterculture, as escape route, for those that are tired of themselves. I do not claim to have gotten anywhere near it—I have always been an individual to a fault, which is why I’m weighing in. But like the Hesse parable, neither all the riches of the world nor the ascetic renunciation of such will get you there. No human impulse or counter-impulse gets us there. The rock is more enlightened than man, possibly. It has learned to stand still as the entire cosmos turns around it. And finally, enlightenment itself is just another construct built by unenlightened men.
Again, sincerely, no offense intended, it wasn't a critique of your thoughts as much has an extension, but I figure the point of profound thought is to generate profound discussion.
I don’t believe I’ve missed the point, although I certainly meant no offense either.
But, according to, for example, The Sane Society, the Eric Fromm book on the ills of modernity (a response to Freud’s Civilization and Its Discontents), the idea is not to discard society but to renew it. Perhaps the eternal return, of Nietzsche, Eliade, etc, or the Hero’s Journey of Campbell, which is primarily a vessel for mythology (continuity, also see Eliade). Individualism as a function of our collective purpose, another conjunction inside the rhizomatic mass. Like, for example, Jung with the Collective Unconscious, which basically conceives of individual achievements as a simple channeling of the spirit of zeitgeist, of our, again, “collective” development, as in, the individual is also an organ of the multitude (also in response to Freud, I might add).
Or to cherry-pick Nietzsche, “Nature propels the philosopher into mankind like an arrow; it takes no aim but hopes the arrow will stick somewhere. But countless times it misses and is depressed at the fact… …The artist and the philosopher are evidence against the purposiveness of nature as regards the means it employs, though they are also first-rate evidence as to the wisdom of its purpose. They strike home at only a few, while they ought to strike home at everybody—and even these few are not struck with the force with which the philosopher and artist launch their shot.” (Schopenhauer as Educator) Emphasis on nature, not any Cartesian assertion of primacy, but the chaos-logic of dynamic systems in flux, pointed through a single channel.
Point being, I’m not speaking theoretically, I have lived it: twenty years now, poverty, adventure, intense productivity leading to further nomadism. All my friends are artists, as well, scattered across the world. And that art has enlightened none of us. Many, in fact, have died deaths of despair, along the way, expecting more for their efforts. But, according to Bodhidharma, even the butcher can be a buddha. Or, to paraphrase Kierkegaard, the tragic hero still falls short; it takes the “infinite step,” the step of “faith” (although, I have to wonder what that really means, coming from an alleged atheist…) The individual is, at their very best, the tragic hero. That was my point. To transcend that, you kind of have to destroy the ego, the sense of self—the very individual that got you so far—or else it will happen anyway, “suicided by society” as the finale of the ritual regeneration, the Orphic parable repeating itself…
The thing that it sounds like they were missing is the knowledge of self-healing. You can't heal just by making art. It requires self-reflection, mindfulness, self-love.
I've been pursuing "the art of being myself" for 20 years and I'm fabulously happy--and that was my goal, to be fully and freely myself.
I didn't do it by rejecting society (although I did separate myself from most of it cause it's based around conformity and therefore, quite boring). I did it by pursuing internal freedom i.e. self-liberation.
The "tragic hero" thing is just bullocks IMHO. Who the hell wants to be a tragic anything? That is just glamorizing suffering, which makes no sense.
The answer to the opening salvo of questions is "yes and no," and by the end of this piece, the sadness of that will punch you in the face. Roughly halfway through, brushed back by a high-and-tight inside fastball, though, you are at least provided a hidden clue as to what you may still have time enough to avoid, yourself, before it's too late, couched in this observation: " By middle life, most of us are accomplished fugitives from ourselves." what an outstanding essay this is and offers no small amount of opportunity to spend a little time practicing some introspection.
Done. I share the link to the original post on my page with some inspired notes, and I also translated it to Spanish and shared it as well. This writing deserves translation into many languages. Check it out and share it if it you are OK with it. Let me know if you want me to change or edit something). Thanks!
English: The Solitary art of Self-Creation (by Erick Rittenberry from Poetic Outlaws). (Link and notes): https://open.substack.com/pub/juanbaez/p/the-solitary-art-of-self-creation?r=4gkv&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Spanish translation, with notes and link to OG post: (El Arte Solitario de la Auto-Creación (por Erick Rittenberry de Poetic Outlaws). https://open.substack.com/pub/juanbaez/p/el-arte-solitario-de-la-auto-creacion?r=4gkv&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Awesome, thank you. One thing-- my first name is spelled "Erik" no Erick. Appreciate it!
Done. Sorry about that!
Got it. I'll fix that right away. 🖖🏽
Saved!!
Kickass article. Its theme is the essence of why I moved to Las Vegas 8-weeks ago. This epic city is now the hub of my nomadic existence. I move therefore I am
Thank you, brother.
I don’t believe I’ve missed the point, although I certainly meant no offense either.
But, according to, for example, The Sane Society, the Eric Fromm book on the ills of modernity (a response to Freud’s Civilization and Its Discontents), the idea is not to discard society but to renew it. Perhaps the eternal return, of Nietzsche, Eliade, etc, or the Hero’s Journey of Campbell, which is primarily a vessel for mythology (continuity, also see Eliade). Individualism as a function of our collective purpose, another conjunction inside the rhizomatic mass. Like, for example, Jung with the Collective Unconscious, which basically conceives of individual achievements as a simple channeling of the spirit of zeitgeist, of our, again, “collective” development, as in, the individual is also an organ of the multitude (also in response to Freud, I might add).
Or to cherry-pick Nietzsche, “Nature propels the philosopher into mankind like an arrow; it takes no aim but hopes the arrow will stick somewhere. But countless times it misses and is depressed at the fact… …The artist and the philosopher are evidence against the purposiveness of nature as regards the means it employs, though they are also first-rate evidence as to the wisdom of its purpose. They strike home at only a few, while they ought to strike home at everybody—and even these few are not struck with the force with which the philosopher and artist launch their shot.” (Schopenhauer as Educator) Emphasis on nature, not any Cartesian assertion of primacy, but the chaos-logic of dynamic systems in flux, pointed through a single channel.
Point being, I’m not speaking theoretically, I have lived it: twenty years now, poverty, adventure, intense productivity leading to further nomadism. All my friends are artists, as well, scattered across the world. And that art has enlightened none of us. Many, in fact, have died deaths of despair, along the way, expecting more for their efforts, so it's personal for me. Funny enough, according to Bodhidharma, even the butcher can be a buddha. Or, to paraphrase Kierkegaard, the tragic hero still falls short; it takes the “infinite step,” the step of “faith” (although, I have to wonder what that really means, coming from an alleged atheist…) The individual is, at their very best, the tragic hero. That was my point. To transcend that, you kind of have to destroy the ego, the sense of self—the very individual that got you so far—or else it will happen anyway, “suicided by society” as the finale of the ritual regeneration, the Orphic parable repeating itself…
I don't have a job, title, all that many possessions, and I ditched "society's tedious obligations" when I was around 22. 😂 Living life on your own terms doesn't have to be so dramatic as you have posted here (although I dunno, maybe some people need that--I didn't. "Society" seemed onerous as soon as I realized what it was).
However what I think IS absolutely necessary is a concentrated amount of de-conditioning of your brain pathways so you can regain your freedom of choice. That is mental self-training based on mindfulness.
But it's not always about "getting out of your comfort zone" necessarily, unless that is what your conditioning consisted of--mine was the opposite, I was neglected and poor as a kid, so I had to learn how to *create* a comfort zone. Not all of us were born and raised in comfort. It's also not always about "excellence" -- wanting to pursue mastery is really down to the individual--some people want that, some people don't. What it is always about is self-liberation...and that looks different for everyone, because the end goal of that process is to be your own unique self.
Love this
Beautiful. If it's ok, I'd like to translate this into Spanish and readit (in both English and in Spanish) in my podcast.
Sure thing, thank you!
Awesome, thanks. I'll of course mention and link to your site and the writing. 🖖🏽
Wonderfully put, I fully resonate with the idea of pursuing “excellence through the cultivation of your own creative powers”, yet there is a question that persists in my mind since some time: Does the world actually “need all you can give”? Does the world care? Why would I sacrifice anything for the world? Imagining Bukowski doing his best to make money from writing (doing something he loves) makes sense, it feels like a fair trade, he gives his talent to the world and the world helps him more or less survive from writing. But what if you don’t care about their money?
It's not about the world. It's not about money. It's not about any of that. I'm confused. Did you read the article? It's about sacrificing "the world" for the higher quest of self. It's about developing that "something" you are passionate about. To the fullest potential. Like the article stated, the biggest deathbed regret is surrendering your essence to the world and not becoming who you are.
"Why looking to be “seen and applauded”?" -- I said the very opposite. I said don't worry about being seen and applauded. I think you misread a lot of what was said.
I don’t know, maybe I was too absorbed into my stream of thoughts and probably misinterpreted some things… perhaps… your article is beautiful and provocative no doubt, and managed to stir me a bit scratching some unsolved issues in my mind. Thank you for posting it! 🙏
What if you have a job that you love and yet you feel there is also this itch related to some potential talent of some sort… you may feel compelled to explore that land, maybe even consider letting some legacy like a bridge through time for your child or children, a beacon still kindled for when you won’t be anymore, but does it worth trying to push whatever you may have discovered under the bituminous eyes of a numb humanity? Why looking to be “seen and applauded”? You won’t take the glory with you 6 feet under when time comes… I don’t understand the applaud of the “headless marionettes”. Am I the fool?