November 2nd, 2008
Manifest
The Flowfield Unity is about to get a manifesto.
I need your help to write it…
It will start like this:
We are scientists, artists and, above all, human.
But where does it go next?
The Flowfield Unity is about to get a manifesto.
I need your help to write it…
It will start like this:
We are scientists, artists and, above all, human.
But where does it go next?
Ben on Stay in your shell
PS3 on Nintendo fingers
Roo on Flux capacitors
Ty on Stay in your shell Ben on Three shakes| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Oct | Dec » | |||||
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
i suppose that depends on the intentions, what was your purpose for starting all this? we can add on from there, i suppose
Direction…
Whilst I could sit here, randomly drawing comics without thinking too much about it, and you can sit somewhere else as a passive reader, that’s not what has happened. We have a community here and I think it might be worthwhile stating what that community is based on, which, to a great extent is the purpose of a manifesto.
And it’s not set in stone either, rather a working frame on which we can present ourselves collectively to the outside world.
I frequently get asked about The Flowfield Unity and how I can describe it, and whilst I can go into the nuts and bolts of its mechanical workings I have always struggled to convey the essence of what happens here. It’s such a two-way street between me and you.
So, I suppose what I’m asking is, in the broadest sense, for you to help me define us.
“As humans, we have the right to think: to educate, and to be educated.”
“We will exercise that right learning form humanity, and take our humanity to the masses.”
“We refuse to be put down and trodden upon by the ignorance of tradition and religion.”
“Art in all things, Science in all things!”
Or some variations thereof, maybe. Manifestos can be wonderful: I’m particularly put in mind of the old Dada manifestos from between the two world wars, or the Anarchist Manifesto, with it’s colourful language and forceful tone. This be the beginning of a beautiful thing, Adam…
Me too! And whilst many manifestos create movements around a particular artform or a specific locality, the best thing about the Dada manifesto was that it is a cultural manifesto, dislocated from geography and technique – I suppose, in a way, a blueprint for what I’m attempting here.
We are a collective of diversity – hence the first line, each one of us being unique and bringing a new facet to the whole. So many of us here are artists, writers, culural commentators, educators, designers, photographers, artisans… we all create.
“Art in all things, Science in all things!”
Perhaps the most succinct expression of my own personal aims, and therefore the basis of the creation of The Flowfield Unity.
I find your ideas truly inspirating. All of them.
It would be wonderful for everybody to have the possibility of education, and I mean higher education. It is even a given right in the constitution of my country. Dying a slow, nasty death on the altar of modern times.
Religion and tradition? Religion is the opiate of the masses (equally dangerous to health and mentality); tradition is faulty at best, fatal at worst.
Wait wait… which country are you in now? I need to move there.
You don’t need to move to Poland.
Think Denmark, Sweden, Finland. Free education, a little more sanity. (But alcoholic beverages at atrocious prices)
Right now only a percantage of students at state universities (maybe ~30%) is guaranteed free education in Poland. You get top of the list – you just might get a degree without paying. Plus, public education in any form is underfunded here.
In the absence of free and universal education we have to take a slightly more guerilla approach – that is we must educate ourselves regardless… and whilst you can do that on your own, reading books and such, it’s far more effective to do it as a group. Share knowlege, information and technique.
I see you are from Poland *hopes this is right* – Milo mi.
I agree, having visited Denmark and having been made aware of their legal and reform systems as well as their educational facilities, I can say that they are on the right track. .. and perhaps expensive alcohol isn’t such a bad thing… I think it’s the tax that goes on educational spending… as opposed to the UK where most of it goes into patching up the people who are drunk, it’s a never ending circle.
“Guerrilla education” — I DO like the sound of that. Here’s a cool for it:
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm
MIT’s OpenCourseWare — they’ve made taped lecture material from every class they offer available on-line. Self-education? Hellz yeah. I’ve only had time to go through a second year physics class as a refresher (which was really good), but I’d imagine it’s all excellent. There are tests and quizzes and other supplemental materials for most classes too, not just the lectures.
This is the first big step towards an anarchist utopian educational system.
Aren’t manifestos usually created by serial killers and terrorists?
…. yyyyyyyyoour point being?
They are indeed, and so are some very fine artworks.
Essentially,it is just a public statement of intent, like the ‘United States Declaration of Independence’ or the ‘Surrealist Manifesto’. Mostly political in nature and frequently written by fringe groups or individuals.
Anyway, why should serial killers and terrorists have all the fun?
We don’t have it all.
But are we human, or are we dancer? (My song lyric jokes should have stopped in the days of Ghostbusters.)
“Without art and science, humans are nothing, but art and science cannot be uncovered without humans.”
…I mean, unless you count birds that know what berries to avoid and elephants that paint with their trunks.
those and the aliens
oh man those elephants are something brilliant
That’s super-manifesto… you’ve highlighted the fact that art and science are essentially part of the paradox – without humans they wouldn’t exist, yet with humans they are not fully understood.
The elephant I think you are referring to paints better than I however, I’m not sure what that means in the grander context of things.
“Friday night is Thai takeaway night!”
Oh, yes. This belongs in every manifesto worth the name.
Seriously, that will be the final line of the manifesto – I think you’ve managed to sum up the second great quality, that default of humour.
After all, there’s nothing better than a laugh.
Hahahaha!
Brilliant. And to make us feel closer, as a community, we can all start eating Thai on Fridays. I’m okay with that. I’m willing to make that sacrifice. I might be doing anyways. Think of it like the Saturday meal of spaghetti to a pastaferian. Ramen.
I have to object to the “Human” bit. I haven’t considered myself to be particularly Human in quite a while. Humanoid, certainly, perhaps Homo Sapien but in most of the traditionally accepted ways not quite Human.
We believe in science. We believe in art. We’re working on the humanity bit.
And the manifesto has a slogan!
Top work sir, and so very, very true.
Hmm, I don’t particularly “believe” in science… but I’m willing to go with consensus I guess. I’m definitely all for Thai Fridays.
care to elaborate? that’s a kind of weird thing to say (about the science, i mean)
I think Science, like ALL human institutions, is fallible and especially prone to the whims of the power-hungry and greedy.
I like that.
I read an article a few months ago which basically stated that science was little more than a modern form of mythology. An empirical one based on analysis, to be sure, but just as subject to conjecture and doubt. And it serves the same basic function as mythology and superstition.
Well, let’s make sure we’re not confusing Science as it actually is, and what it actually does, with “Science,” as it is conceived of by the majority of people: Science the sociological phenomenon. The latter is certainly a modern mythology, filling the old niches in the human psyche, but the former… ah, the former is something altogether different.
That’s not to say that Science is infallible, and is not prone to all of the problems that anything run by Humans will be — it surely is. Military research gets funding while environmental research does not; powerful people falsify results to garner yet more power and money; data is skewed to secure action for a personal reason; et cetera ad nausium atque infinitum.
BUT, the majority of real science doesn’t see much of that… Science as it’s done is different than this public mythology of oracles and pre-destination: it is a slow and steady crawl t’wards a consensus reality, t’wards truth. So while science as it’s performed is flawed, and science as it’s conceived does not actually exist, the reality is a method of thinking and a method of exploration that has gotten us one step closer to truth than we’ve ever been in history. You might say the road to understanding the mind of God is paved with pure golden Science.
Don’t get me wrong, I find the the sociological phenomenon of science truly fascinating, and well worth study, scientifically. There’s a pretty decent programme called “How to think about Science” that the CBC did a while back, and you can download the MP3s of the whole programme from this website. It’s got slight bias toward existentialist philosophy of science, which (I feel) falsely validates public perceptions about science, where in reality they should be corrected.
(For example, there was an interview with an expert in the sociology of science where the expert explained the cognitive dissonance that results from this same religious view of science, thinking of scientists as oracles or gods. She then went on to say that, rather than having better science education, the solution was to separate science form everyday life completely. Which I feel is a horrid idea, not to mention impossible methodologically. And the host did nothing to challenge her solution… it’s a pretty subtle bias, you might not notice it, but it was enough to irk me, as a scientist.)
I feel like the world would become a rather terrible place if everyone went about actively and consciously removing science from their daily lives.
I agree, there are sort of two branches of science: the science of the laypeople (for lack of a better term) which basically includes the notion of gravity and other basic scientific facts and such, which they use to comfort themselves as much as is possible. This could probably be considered a mythology, since the vast majority of the people who mention any kind of scientific facts (even basic ones, at times) often have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about at a conceptual level. They just take everything at the word of some “expert” without ever really knowing where they got any of the ideas/information from. Really, though, if this IS a mythology, it’s probably the best religious system mankind has made up so far. I’d rather have a pastor who goes on NPR and spits out most-likely-true, verifiable information than someone who just preaches, regardless of whether anyone bothers to check facts. And at least science doesn’t demand human sacrifice. It’s sort of like religious evolution. From polytheism to monotheism to science.
The second kind of science is the fun kind.
Honestly, I’m not even convinced of the fact of an objective reality, so the idea of actually comprehending ultimate Truth is a bit shaky to me, but I’m certainly not opposed to trying. And I think you’re right, regardless of whether there is some ultimate reality, we’re most likely getting closer to some answers. At the very least, we’ve got a better understanding of the how we relate with the world. And I think it’s interesting, regardless of whether we actually gain anything concrete by “doing science.”
I don’t want to necessarily stir up a hornets nest (though I’m not against is completely either) but I think science DOES require human sacrifices, as well as human sacrifice. Otherwise I agree with everything you and Roo have said. ESPECIALLY your last paragraph. : )
how so?
it seems like the only suggestions of that are from the ” ‘ware, tiny humans, of treading in god’s domain” type fiction stories.
unless you’re talking about Madame Curie, and all those scientists who got burned for heresy.
Madame Curie isn’t a terrible example, that sort of thing has happened alot historically, and all over the world. The second sense I mean positively though, and you could think of Mme. Curie as a positive example, I guess it depends on how *she* felt about it. Which I don’t know.
I guess that’s kind of the key, though, isn’t it? How you consider sacrifice? Sacrificing *yourself* for science, dedicating yourself to a cause that you KNOW might be dangerous (I assume she knew the risks, and that those scientists knew that people might not like them very much for their scientific-ness although I could obviously be wrong) is a far cry from having someone throw you into a volcano.
There were alot of people who didn’t know the risks, anyway, I’m not saying science is bad or even that sacrifice is even bad, I’m not even saying the word believe can’t be in the manifesto. Hmm..
Maybe:
We are a consensus of non-consenters, united only by or disunity.
: )
Oh, now we’re starting to sound a bit discordian. Although, come to think of it, that’s okay with me. Hail Eris! Fnord!
Probably true.
And I like it. I think that really says something about us, that we can come together and have intelligent conversations and discussions, even though we don’t always agree.
As a pope of the discordian church, I must concur.
A modern form of mythology? People have employed stronger wordings than that. Try “science is a religion”, in _How to Defend Society Against Science_: http://pagespro-orange.fr/tansen/bioethics/science/feyerabend.htm
Feyerabend, people.
Just because people say it doesn’t make it true.
That’s the same argument that Creationists use to push evolution out of the minds of people. Feyerabend may have a good point about certain sociological aspects of science, but there are many respected philosophers of science that disagree with him. What about Popper, what about Khun, or Lakatos, or Ruse? Ruse in particular is relevant, as a philosopher of Christianity as well as science.
The difference between scientists and followers of a religion is this: even if the scientist is, in some ways, dogmatic and locked into a potentially incorrect paradigm, he consciously believes that facts and theory, reason and logic, are what underpin his beliefs. He believes because he thinks he has been convinced by evidence (the dogma-thing notwithstanding: even in that case, he still thinks it’s logical). In the case of religion, the belief is from the argument of authority. We believe it because god says so, written in this book, here. Dogma, and they don’t care. Fundamentalist religion is a willful rejection of logic and reason, in favour of the argument form authority.
So yeah: Feyerabend is neat, interesting, good to read. But Science is not Religion.
As you say, assertion does not usually equal causation. Feyerabend does not appear to really believe that science is religion, but rather is working from the sentiment expressed by John Stuart Mill that a truth going unchallenged is true mostly by coincidence: “if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth.”
Anyway, I just stumbled on something that struck me as counter to the science-as-oppressive-ideology argument; on p. 31 of Bertrand Russell’s ‘Power’, of all places. It’s this: “Science, in giving some real acquaintance with natural processes, has destroyed the belief in magic, and therefore the respect for the intellectual.” (That is, scientists do not usually command the sort of respect bestowed on medicine-men and fakirs.) So you’d expect science to be self-correcting even in its social aspects, almost to the point of subverting itself — provided that people have opportunity and interest for education, natch. (Which in turn recalls the description of discordianism as “self-subverting dada-Zen”. Could it be that it’s the most scientific of faiths?)
“We serve… the same mystery.”
The most scientific of all faiths indeed. I like this idea of self-correction, even in social aspects, in particular that the premise rests on scientific education for a majority of people. If you think about it, this points out why science can seem to be a religion to some: because science education is so many places is so bad, and it goes back down to the argument from authority. Ergo: better education equals better science!
“We are scientists, artists and, above all, human.”
We resolve to take up our scalpel and our brush to dissect this world that we inhabit, for we believe it is a disservice to the humanity we engender not to speak out, not to explore, not to question. We will leave no stone unturned in our journey as we seek to participate in and, most importantly, understand our time and place.
mmm, i love manifestos. how exciting, adam!
“take up our scalpel and our brush”
And with you Sarah, the letter and the word seem to be very potent tools. That is a beautiful rendition, eloquent and powerful – thank you.
“We resolve to take up our scalpel and our brush”
Angle Grinders? Anyone? I have a spare if your scalpel becomes blunt or brush becomes hairless….
Just an idea.
I wonder if you could paint with an angle grinder? If you dipped it in paint before you turned it on, would it make interesting splatters, like a Pollock maybe?
Although, if that didn’t work, I bet you cloud get interesting splatters using it in place of a scalpel.
We will not wonder, we will find out.
Going to add it to the list of things to to or research… It could be that someone has already painted with the ‘grinder, or it may be that we will be the first.
I haven’t painted with a cutting blade before, but I have put a wire brush thru a decaying pidgeon carcass that was sitting in a pool of rancid grease and fat.
The effect of that was a generally even coating of pureed muck coating everything within a metre of me.
Really, the effect will depend on the blade type, speed and rate of acceleration..
We will not stand idly by whilst the puppets, pulpits, and presidents feed the masses loquacious lies, spoken upon forked-tongues. For we engender the prime example of intellectual free will, fearing no repercussion by those who voraciously consume such lies and aim to reciprocate those lies upon our loved ones. We will be movers and shakers. We will lift our pens high into the air and shout to the highest mountain tops that we will not be waylaid, nor forgotten. We are the begotten sons and daughters of wit, intellect and sensibility.
We will march onwards and meet our enemies on the battlefield, whether that be on paper or in provinces. And when the sword falls upon us we will know that for whom the bell tolls is not us, but our enemy. We will be resolute no matter the consequences, lest there be no cookies. In which case we will bake more cookies.
Yum.
Sir, you are now the Churchill of the webcomic world.
That has more than a beat or two of the ‘We will fight them on the beaches’ speach.
And cookies are always needed.
“We can create and we can destroy.”
Just because, well, it’s COOL.
All creation IS destruction.
Think about it, it has to be.
And yes, that is cool.
That’s what my wife always says.
I’m trying to remember what “Manifesto” means, but I reckon I get the gist…
With utensils in hand, and heads raised high, we aim to explore but never to please. Pleasure is just a nice little side dish to that which we locate, uncover and most essentially, discover. Artists, some, Scientists, others, but all of us are the same in one way; we are each a part of the same community. We shall never claim to be that which we aren’t, but, human as we are(mostly), we embrace our unity and face the world together and, as one against the status quo, say that “The strong only survive, the creative LIVE”.
That the right kinda thing, or have I gone completly off the track? There was a time when I was good at this kind of thing…creating phrases that capture the essence of what something is, essentially defining it without trapping it. Hey, you know, that’s generally what we do here anyway. Neat.
Spot on, Maddie.
and you raise a good point; The Flowfield Unity is not about dogma… therefore this manifesto should have an in-built system to stop itself becoming just that.
Thanks =)
Against the norm for no reason, tha’s us!
Good luck making the final manifesto
We demand the right to entertainment more intelligent than insipid sitcoms and idiotically plotted video games?
Fallout 3 doesn’t count. Its brilliant.
As is Farcry 2.
Hmmm, I am confused, did I buy FC2 early and rob myself of the joys of FO3?
We will not allow unjustified opinions to go unchallenged.
We like to challenge ourselves and others.
We are not always nice, but we are fair.
It would be kinda cool if each line started with “We” (apart from the Friday night is Thai night line, obviously) and then the “we” lines could end with
We are the Flowfield Unity.
Just because that’s kinda cool.
Hey, that does have a nice ring to it.
I concur.
Thank you.
We freeze idea in a form, thus depriving it from its transitory nature. We preserve the ephemeral.
We strive towards the perfection of humanity. We may not be even close, but even little effort makes this world a better place.
We want art, beauty and science to be recognised as overlapping, blending realms of philosophy, aestheticism, and reason. (Let’s just not make it to scholasticism and add ‘experiment’, ok?)
We seek triumph of mind, balance of the soul, and indulgence of the senses.
We believe that nature of things is dialectical. Nothing is unrelated. We go full circle every time.
We overcome prejudice of any kind- towards human being, ideas, words of any given language, etc.
For our words, deeds and creations we answer to ourselves first, and then to society. And then there is history to consider. (Not as easy as it seems at first)
We believe in the words of the wise Kurt Vonnegut. Never shall he die, for he lives in us.
***
(I also strongly believe socialism is the answer for the future, though it may not seem that way now. I don’t care if anyone of you doesn’t think that way, save it.)
I’m not exactly new to this site, but it’s not that I commented either. So hi, I love The Flowfield Unity, love the Manifesto idea. Decided to stop lurking and say something for a change.
Welcome!
(Socialism has a lot going for it. It’s the finer points that cause trouble, eh?)
“We believe that nature of things is dialectical. Nothing is unrelated. We go full circle every time.”
Too true, too true, old chap.
Thank you.
(And yes, finer points tend to be really pointy when it comes to socialism. Prickled myself a few times already. Also, some people tend to look at me funny when I talk about how wonderful walking barefoot on needles is.)
Hi there!
Sorry about the laggy reply, I’ve been buried in admin for the last 24 hours. Indeed I had so many books delivered yesterday that my housemate accused me of drunken ebaying.
I’m really glad you’ve decided to de-lurk yourself, welcome to The Flowfield Unity… you’re now part of it.
Roo has already highlighted what I think is perhaps the most powerful, and apt statement you made, however the rest certainly indicates that you belong here and your contribution is much appreciated.
I’ll save socialism for another day… I’m not going to shy away from that sort of conversation, but my own ideology is still uncertain. I must learn more…
we will not be governed by the deitys of others
Yes! That’s one to live by, that is.
But we will not claim to be deitys to others.
that’s a good point, but i don’t think it contradicts the first statement at all
No one said I was contradicting anything. It just seemed like a good reply.
oh, it was just the ‘but’
My bad. We’ll make that an “And”, and save disagreements, shall we?
Adam,
I love you (not in the creepy-stalker way) and I love this site! I was just sitting at my desk lamenting the quality of my life and decided to visit your site (I do so frequently). It reminded me that SOME people do interesting things with their time and other people feel the way I do.
Thanks!
Leenie
Aha! You’ve just done something interesting! You’ve made contact!
And feel free to stalk away if you wish, if there’s one thing I lack it’s stalkers.
So really, I should be saying thank you, for being part of what we do here.
im pretty sure we once had an in depth conversation about this lack of stalkers, you remember?
Something along these lines would be nice, too?
I believe that every human being is potentially capable within his limits of fully realizing his potentialities; that this his being choked of it, is infinitely the ghastliest, commonest, and most inclusive of all the crimes of which the human world can assure itself.
–James Agee
For some reason this made me think of The Fountainhead, which made me think of how truly scary it would be to live in a world that actually worshiped mediocrity.
Also, potentiality is a very fun word.
Also, think how scary it would be to live in a world that actually worked by Ayn Rand’s rules… pure ego-ism as heroic? No thank you.
True. The key is balance. Although I must admit, there are times when I wish I were as sure of myself as Howard Roark. Self-doubt can be quite tiresome.
Imagine how scary it would be to live in a world ruled by Ayn Rand’s prose. That’s the thought that chills me.
Art we express. Science we learn. Humanity we fake.
I like this one.
Agreed.
OK, we’ve done brilliantly folks.
I think I have enough to make a start now. I must first say thank you for this.
The last line of the manifesto will be:
“This manifesto is drawn on paper, not set in stone”
Incidentally, I this is probably a record for number of comments on a particular post?
i was wondering the same thing only yesterday. adam?
*checks*, yes it is… we have a record… even when I remove all of my comments (surely they don’t count).