[MD] Underground (meets Institution)

[Heather Perella]

Hello,

      I introduce the institution in this thread of
the Underground due to the polar variables, as opposed
to attractions these two may play against each other. 
As noted with punk, and the grudge music that came
about in opposition to the establishment that was/is
not only in the music scene, that is now known as
pop-culture for this goes beyond the boundaries of
music and into television, politics, and ideas, too. 
It is mainstream U.S.  It is the same reason that the
moq has had such a difficult time finding its' way
into philosophy departments, and what has science hold
off on anomalies until the last possible moment when
the current theory is finished and something new must
come about.
     To venture into where I was wondering when I last
posted in this thread, I was wondering if the
underground could become mainstream, but still remain
underground.  Would the underground be losing out on
something near and dear when it jumps to mainstream
culture?  As noted how Cobain of Nirvana had a very
tough time handling popularity and as many bands note
they like the small time club scene and still want
that after they become big, Cobain had deep roots of
pain that he couldn't shake and then committed
suicide.  These are real issues of concern for
underground scenes.  What of Pirsig and his ideas on
quality early on?  The 1962 insane asylum, the
governor comes after him (politics involved), and the
professor of philosophy of what I would think would be
a safe-haven where ideas would be number one and
freedom of such ideas would have a safe place to be
expressed and argued.  The establishment can be
against people, but eventually wouldn't what needs to
go underground find expression in mainstream culture
without the experience perceived and felt as being
bought off, giving in, selling out, expelling ones
principles, and now on the side of satan, so to speak?
 The deeper the anger, the deeper the sadness, and the
deeper the fear and so forth in the underground diving
into the mainstream, already established patterns,
thus, institutions will be found, has a history.  How
weary is the traveler, what obstacles were in ones
way, how much did the institution fight back to
suppress the undergrounds movement?  This question
would answer the amount of angry, fear, and pain of
the traveler, the one in the underground.
       Yet, I have a question.  I went to the zoo
yesterday, and this institution is in a catch-22.  How
unfortunate and terrible to have animals locked up
behind cages and bars.  The snow leopard, which in the
wild can travel for 10's and 10's of miles in very
rugged mountainous country, at the zoo was in a very
small, oh maybe, 15 feet by 20 feet pen, that's it. 
Now the catch is without the zoo's enlightening people
to animals first hand (the zoo is in the city, which
the majority of all zoo's probably are in a city), and
the involvement of zoo's breeding programs that
cultivate population increases in protective
conditions zoo's offer to be later released back into
the wild.
      Maybe it is, that culture's that have such
institutions are were the battles can be forged in
peaceful manners.  The zoo becomes the place where
counter forces against loss of habitats and species is
churned to spread out into the rest of the world. 
Instead of people fighting people in bloody battles,
institutions can be where the battles take place in
ways that curb violent forces.  With institutions
established that suppress the underground, such as the
University of Chicago and McKeon during the early
1960's, would the best possible weapon be to establish
another institution that could fight it out?  To fight
an institution does one need another institution to
fight against it?  Sure many examples of individuals
bringing down a large institution might be found, but
did this individual have access to other institutions
such as a newspaper or TV news to go up against it? 
Also, wouldn't an underground-institution be necessary
to show how the undergrounds ideas are applicable? 
The underground-institution becomes the real
foundational foothold of where different patterns
within the underground-institution can play out and
show others how the ideas can happen in 'real time' so
to speak.  
     Isn't this what ROL has to do?  Build
institutions that work according to their culture, in
ways that can sustain themselves while surrounded by
the U.S. culture and all of its' influences.  
     Isn't this what the moq would need to find home
to in order to have its' ideas play out in field?
     This is the same kind of thinking that goes into
communes.  Institutions are can be communes building a
power of their own, and if this power of their own
becomes strong enough to support itself up against the
influences outside of its walls, then the ideas of the
institution could play out more ideally according to
whatever plan the underground would have in mind.


What does everybody think?

SA    

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com