1st Quag interview (w/ Mitchell Hedges!?)

Wednesday, 30 January 2008


This was one of the more conventional, proto-Syselian linguistic experiments, using one of Quag’s more primitive decipherment processes- the

‘Contra-Directionality Convergence’.

Henry Quag utilised material structures to replicate the topography of the universe. For Mayans, the pyramid was recognised as a sacred mountain (witz) and the flanking plazas were perceived as symbolic bodies of water. The Syselia work on a similar principle, however, where the Maya used architecture, the Syselia use a pyramid structure for linguistic decipherment. The earthly words (transported by the names given to the vessels which pass up Syselus’ fallopian canal) are, too, symbols of the communication between the physical world and the divine universe. The words offered to the Syselia by Syselus contain, within their rich and multi-encrypted meanings, infinite insight into cosmic principles. As well as this marriage between the physical and divine worlds, the words the Syselus supplies are encrypted in such a way so as to take the guise of complicity – appearing to represent only earthly iconography such as ‘Ulysses’, ‘Winston Churchill’, ‘Tempest’ etc.- allowing Syselus to enter the material realm of language, and thus the fabric of human thought. Similarly to the Maya conjuring of divine forces using mirrors as divining tools, the Syselia grapple with the illusory and sheathed linguistics, conjuring a material reflection of the cosmos. The Syselia take the principle of the illusory reflection of the mirror as well as the pyramid for their decipherment by; documenting the names of every vessel which passes through the canal, merging them into one long seemingly unintelligible word, reading aloud this word whilst recording it, slowing it down, reversing it, and playing the reverse sound (right to left) in sync with its correct left to right directionality. As a result of the two directionalities being played simultaneously, the two converge momentarily at an exact middle point, where the pitches of both readings of the word are- if only for micro-seconds- identical. This fleeting convergence of the earthly directionality (left to right) with its opposing cosmic mirrored image is reflected in the E of SYSELUS;

Navy Ships- 11th - 16th December 2007;



[------------------K R E T C H M E R-------------------]

--A---N----0------------------- K--------R-------E-------T---------------C----H-----------M--------E--------R-------------I---M-----P-----E--------R------V---------I---------O--U----S--


[------------------R E M H C T E R K-------------------]

With close examination, one can see that the reverse and its original sound recording converge on the word ‘Kretchmer’ , or more precisely, in between the M and E of that word. The exact convergence tone between this M and E is then magnified by the Syselia, who attempt to capture the exact point of tonal convergence. Within this tone lies the overall mood of Syselus’ communication. Depending on the qualities of this tone, the Syselia gauge Syselus’ premonitions of equilibrium or unrest etc.


The International Necronautical Society are a totalising project about knowledge, through a highly rhetorical exploration into the dusty crevices of avant-garde movements. Similarly to Syselus, the INS sheath their true intentions behind parody and internal contradiction. They dabble in the art of self-sacrifice, for example by deliberately exposing the INS’ essential contradiction of writing a cemented manifesto of ideas that prophesises the abolition of absolute ideas. This paradox is an eternally painful one, and pinpoints the inevitable dilution and bastardisation of every movement from Futurism to Dada and as far as Situationism. Ultimately, this painful paradox will forever self-perpetuate because of the basic human seduction of pack-like positivism and dependence on an Absolute idea. The INS, however, do not seem to struggle with this paradox directly- they are neither antagonistic towards seduction nor do they seem convincingly seduced at all. Instead the INS act in comfortably passive retrospect- with the safety cushion of arrogantly Postmodern hindsight (if hindsight were seen through glasses which flatten as opposed to give depth). They argue having theatrical stance- ridden with multileveled ironies and pastiches- but with sweeping generalities like;

“Do we contradict ourselves? Well then we contradict ourselves. We are large. We contain multitudes.” (www.necronauts.org)

they hardly appear to be grappling with a real antagonism towards itself and the audience – hardly Artaud! – but instead sit back and synthesise the paradox vicariously through the past, stale and dismissible rather than fresh and urgent.
The Murky Illusion of ‘current’ is symbolic manifestation of Evolutionary stasis. Whilst this evolutionary stasis thus in turn plants a pseudo-yet-genuine stasis within the subject’s mind. This seeps into one's consciousness undetected through the omnipotent subliminal messaging and hypnosis of the ‘current’.

Syselia Skin Incarnations film

Tuesday, 29 January 2008

‘Synthesis Salvation’ is negated by the destructive contradictions and paradoxes within the Syselus encryptions. The destructive multiplicity of contradictions within the encrypted messages are paradoxically reduced to their exact antithesis by their very being communicated in human form. For example, by attempting to communicate cosmic principles within material form of language, these contradictions are naturally resolved by historical interpretation allowing positivist-positioning within historical context and fact. The original and destructive contradictions are flattened by a collective human interpretation and inevitably reduced to position and arrangement, history to fact, things to matter.

“Rationality is refutation. The biggest myth of all time is rationality. We are every bit part of the universe. The material world is an illusion- its true meaning is to regain access to the unconscious, nature and the universe.” Henry Quag in ‘Syselus; a cosmological construction’ p.239.

Rationality = egotistical monotheism. There can be no rationality or irrationality when one considers every movement, thought, manifestation, construction, interpretation … to be every bit a part of the universe. There can be no system of defining rationality when the one conceives of the universe as a whole, an entity with its own contained and unknown logic or persuasion, in which every manifestation relies on a theory of relativity contained within the universe. To assert rationality, or irrationality, is to imply a complete autonomy from the all encompassing web of relativity, within which everything simultaneously and uncontrollably feeds off of everything else. Rationality is a control method, which poses as a naïve reaction to threatening irrationalities; irrationa
lities which are in fact its closest neighbour in the web of relativity. Rationality constantly strives to uproot its firm rooting in this totality of relativity. It practices the art of illusion, which hide the painful truth its own uncontrolled and irretrievably manifestation (out of rationality’s hands) and desperately reconciles this with a sense of humanistic-empowerment - where everything is what it is at that particular moment of contemplation because mankind has deliberately and meticulously engineered it up to this point. UNITARY CONCEPTIONS ARE FLAT NARCICISM. EVERY MAN BELIEVES HE IS THE LAST MAN, THE FINISHED PRODUCT OF A COMPLETE EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS. THIS NARCISSISM IS THE RESULT OF THE ILLUSORY VENEER OF A NATURAL DIRECTION OF EARTHLY EVOLUTION. THIS EVOLUTION WE ARROGANTLY ASSUME IS AT A POINT OF PERFECT STASIS. WE ASSUME THIS BECAUSE IT IS SUBLIMINALLY CONVEYED TO US by a variety of cheap formica trompe l'oeil ILLUSIONS.


Sometimes, however , it seems
we have no other option than to use these oppressive means of rationality in order to express our discontent with our dependence on them, and spread our plots in (futile) attempts to overthrow them. THIS IS SYSELIAN ESSENTIAL CONTRADICTION.

Syselia’s deliberate utilisation of oppressive means of mass communication is a sacrifice of the present for the benefit of a potential reinterpretation in the future. Deliberately playing on the superficial preconceptions of progression and regression by meticulously following the absolute current notions of the two, in order to make for a future exposé of the absurdity and short-sightedness of them. Any present desire for intellectual kudos or recognition as ‘progressive’ must be refrained from, in order to preserve the core function/ motivation/ essence of the thing itself without letting its superficiality face the seemingly inevitable prospect of gaining temporally specific (and painfully transient) ‘aptitude’ or becoming ‘exponential’ of a time passed. The temptation to succumb to these earthly gratifications is a basic human desire. This desire is born out of a deep lack of confidence in truly subjective interaction. However, we Syselia deliberately promote artificial associations as a means disguising our true concerns from this all-purveying myth of the ‘current’ and fully sacrificing any mass recognition of the ‘current’ by playing up to – even becoming the perfect exponent of ‘outmoded’ and ‘futile reactions’ to domination.

One of the standard reactions to domination is to revert what it is that marks you out as vulgar in the eyes of the dominant culture, by turning it into cultural matter through the adoption of the validating ‘current’ dichotomy. Us Syselia attempt the opposite. We strive for the cultural recognition of ‘vulgarity’, to be forever misrepresented and overlooked by the ‘current’. As Galileo learned from the Pythagoreans; “I know that, in order to prevent the things they admired from being exposed to the slander and scorn of the common people, the Pythagoreans condemned as s
acrilegious the publication of the most hidden properties of numbers or of the incommensurable and irrational quantities which they investigated.” (Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems).

Socratic Masquerading of Societal Murk

Syselia for a Socratic Irony which separates the ‘current’ from a select and incisive few who have the vision which transcends the superficially gratifying layer of its societal murk. We revel in the murk, however, cover every inch of ourselves in the slime of it, washing one off only to submerge ourselves into the next. Diving into a variety of murk ‘currents’ is like masking-up and brandishing a uniform of anonymity. To wear the layer of societal murk successfully is when the murk- in all its sinfully seductive glory- starts to aggravate under the skin- begins to upset the balance which you kid yourself is as natural as the very veins it intoxicates. On the brink of absolute indulgence, this balance you always fell back on swings in and out of aggravation over, and secret desire for the disrespectful vertigo of the corrupting murk. The murky ‘current’ sweeps you along and tips the scales. The seduction of the ‘current’ is its currency. Despite it being the most simplistic and transparent symbolic realisation of the great rationality mirage- this seduction is unquestionably potent in its unmatchable omnipotence. To merely stay head above water we must dabble in the strength of the current on some level in order to gauge its workings. When the offensively rudimentary cog configurations, behind the mirage-projection screens, are fully understood, easily predicted and on-demand-imitationable, then the subject can enter the realm (of lucid vertigo and lose oneself inside the ‘neuro-recepto’ gratification parameters. Only then is the subject able to embrace the intense state) of seduction without the inevitability of falling into a permanent state of paralysis. In fact an awareness of the artificiality of murky seduction causes an even more powerful feeling of dizziness by the paradox it allures from deep within the self- the paradox of pleasure. This paradox illuminates the function of the murk; which is to polarise the intuition of it being an illusion from the direct sensory ecstasy gained from it. This polarisation renders intuitive suspicion isolated and incommunicable, leaving the mass appreciated murk-seduction the more bearable option. (We are after all pack animals.) However the key is waking oneself up from the ecstatic trance and regaining the intuitive suspicion. On awakening, the ecstasy should still resonate and ultimately the two polarities should expound and elucidate one another, leaving both hovering in a fresh light of uncertainty. This uncertainty is essential as it must be remembered that certainty is the illusory product rationalisation and will infiltrate our intuition as well as our pleasure drive.

Total submersion of consciousness into the murk of current seduction can be useful in its reaffirmation of a desire to get lost, experience the vertigo of profound confusion and the discovery of bottomless fictions. This dizziness can, in some cases, actually illuminate in the subject a realisation of the arbitrary nature of this chance vehicle that carries this illusion of evolutionary stasis. In awakening from this ecstatic trance state induced by the current, in certain cases the subject is unable to distinguish between the different surfaces, and all appear at once transparent and transitory flashes of meaningless code. Within the trance state the codes (syntactical, visual etc) are momentarily separated from their original contexts and instead merely function as translucent layers, filtering the light from one to the other. Depending on the commitment of the submersion, the subject can reach a point of ecstatic confusion in which layers of differing temporality reverberate, shifting back and forth like an all-encompassing optical illusion. In these extreme cases a seemingly natural sense history and temporality are lost, momentarily rendering a merging of Galileo* and Winston Churchill* undetectable by the referentially denied subject;

But to give Simplicio more than satisfaction, and to reclaim him if possible from his error, I declare that we do have in our age new events and observations such that if Aristotle were now alive, compact oligarchies operating through a privileged party and a political police, of countries which we have not conquered in war. Thus, whatever happens, and thus only, shall we be secure ourselves and able to work together for the high and simple causes that are dear to us and bode no ill to any I have no doubt he would change his opinion. An expansion of material well-being beyond anything __?__ has not yet occurred in human experience. This is easily inferred from his own manner of philosophizing, for when he writes of considering the heavens inalterable, etc., because fraternal association requires not only the growing friendship and mutual understanding between our two vast but kindred Systems of society, but the continuance of the intimate relationship between no new thing is seen to be generated there or any old one dissolved, he seems implicitly to let us understand that he had seen any such event. But if the dangers of war and tyranny are removed (there is no doubt that science and co-operation can bring in the next few years to the world), he would have reversed his opinion, and properly preferred the sensible. Now I come to the second danger of these two marauders which threatens the cottage, the home, and the ordinary people-namely, tyranny. We cannot be blind to the fact that the liberties enjoyed by individual citizens experience that natural reason. Unless he had taken the senses into account, he would not have argued immutability from sensible mutations not being seen. Aristotle first laid the basis of his argument a priori, showing the necessity of the inalterability of heaven by means of natural, evident, and clear principles at this sad and breathless moment; we are plunged in the hunger and distress which are the aftermath of our stupendous struggle; He afterward supported the same a posteriori, by the senses and by the traditions of the ancients. What you refer to is the method he uses in writing his doctrine, but I do not believe it to be that with which he investigated it. Neither the sure prevention of war, nor the continuous rise of world organisation will be gained without what I have called the fraternal association, rather, I think it certain that he first obtained it by means of the senses, experiments, and observations. The earth is a generous mother; she will provide in plentiful abundance food for all her children if they to assure themselves as much as possible of his conclusions. Afterward he sought means to make them demonstrable- advisers, leading to common study of potential dangers, the similarity of weapons and manuals of instructions, and to the interchange. That is what is done for the most part in the demonstrative sciences; this comes about because when the conclusion is true, one may by making use of analytical methods hit upon some proposition which is already demonstrated, or arrive at some axiomatic principle; but if the conclusion is false, one can go on forever without ever finding any known truth of the prevailing anxiety -- if indeed one doesn’t encounter some impossibility or manifest absurdity. Here are the title deeds of freedom which should lie in every cottage home and you may be sure that Pythagoras, long before his duty (at this time when difficulties are so numerous to interfere forcibly in the internal affairs) discovered the proof for which he sacrificed a hecatomb, was sure that the square on the side opposite the right angle in a right triangle was equal to the squares on the other two sides. The certainty of a conclusion assists not a little in the discovery of its proof -- meaning always in the demonstrative sciences. This is no time for generalities, and I will venture to be precise but however Aristotle may have proceeded, whether the reason a priori came before the sense perception a posteriori or the other way round, it is enough that Aristotle, as he said many times, preferred sensible experience to any argument. We must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance. Besides, the strength of the arguments a priori has already been examined.

Now, Let us preach what we practise - let us practise what we preach, getting back to the subject, I say that things which are being and have been discovered in the heavens in our own time are such that they can give entire satisfaction to all philosophers. It should carry with it the continuance of the present facilities for mutual security by the joint use of all because just such events as we have been calling generations and corruptions have been seen and are being seen in particular bodies and in the whole expanse of heaven. The earth is a generous mother; she will provide in plentiful abundance food for all her children if they, excellent astronomers, have observed many comets generated and dissipated in places above the lunar orbit, besides the two new stars of 1572 and 1604, which were indisputably beyond all the planets. I feel eventually there will come-the principle of common citizenship, but that we may be content to leave to destiny, whose outstretched arm many of us can already clearly see. And on the face of the sun itself, with the aid of the telescope, they have seen produced and dissolved dense and dark matter, appearing much like the clouds upon the earth: and many of these are so vast as to exceed not only the Mediterranean Sea, but all of Africa, with Asia thrown in. The earth is a generous mother; she will provide in plentiful abundance food for all her children if they… Now, if Aristotle had seen these things, what do you think he would have said and done, Simplicio? I do not know what would have been done or said by Aristotle, who was the master of all science, but I know to some extent what his followers do and say, and this Agreement is more effective than many of those which have often been made under formal alliances, and what they ought to do and say in order not to remain without a guide, a leader, and a chief in philosophy.

The reason I specifically choose to juxtapose Winston Churchill with Galileo brings me to the origins of Syselian Ecstatic-Submersion experiments. This juxtaposition directly descends from Henry Quag’s (Founder of Syselus) proto-experiments, which revolved around several key linguistic instances offered up to him by the higher-to-earthly ‘catalyst vessels’ passing through the Syselus Canal at that time. The linguistic signs offered up to Quag through these vessels contain many of the fundamental principals of modern Syselian practice encrypted within them.

The following are the main characters from which Syselian principals evolved;

pushkin, Homer, Galileo, franko, marco polo, joyce, perseus, winston churchill, hess, julius, furer, krishna, queenfish