Satoshi FURUI Artist PhD
ICONOPLANT(office)Uploaded at JUly 7,2024
SATOSHI FURUI・OFFICIAL BLOG: Opened Apocalypse
To Japanese text| Opened Apocalypse ……………………………………………………………………………………… A Proposal for Cultural Security For Counter-Satanism 1."Thesis 1: Forbidden Historical Fact" [Abstract of Argument]. I had developed a deep interest in the contemporary artist Marcel Duchamp in my twenties, but I continued to have doubts about his words and actions. In a late interview by Pierre Cabanne, Marcel Duchamp said, "All human creations are not valuable ." He had remarked. The contradiction of Marcel Duchamp, who is supposed to be a "human artist," saying such a thing is inexplicable, and it has been a mystery that has plagued me for 30 years. Then, in November 2012, I began a new and thorough examination of the contents of two documents, "Conversations with Duchamp" by Pierre Cabanne and "Duchamp Biography" by Calvin Tomkins, and since that time my computer has been monitored by the intelligence agencies. Initially, it is believed to have been monitored by the CIA. I was surprised when I was convinced of this and wondered how it could have happened. Marcel Duchamp had been listed as a person of note by the U.S. intelligence community since the First World War. Since I had continued to write my own essays on Marcel Duchamp and contributed essays to art magazines, it seemed that I, too, had been unknowingly marked by the CIA. The leakage of this information also led to a period of organized crime that was out of the ordinary for nearly a decade thereafter. A close examination of the material led me to conclude that Marcel Duchamp in his later years was a "consciousness of the impersonal, not of this shore." "All human creations are not valuable." Who can agree with the statement, "All human creations are worthless? Human society is supposed to be built on the idea that all things created by humans have some meaning and value. Those who are not willing to deny it all will have to be judged as "the antithesis of man in human form. Many may find it hard to believe, although it is not scientifically proven even today, in religion, it is considered to correspond to what has been commonly called "Satan" and warned against by Christianity and Islam since ancient times. Especially in "John's Revelation," where it is said, "This ancient serpent, called the devil or Satan, who deceives the whole world. The whole world will be misled by what is not the words and deeds of "the human Marcel Duchamp," but by being misled so. In Buddhist parlance, he might be called "the Sixth Heavenly Demon King (Dairokutenmaou)," or some other term, but here it seems easier to refer to him as "Satan." Moreover, it was thought that this was not something that occurred spontaneously, but was done artificially. As I wrote that on my computer, probably on November 6, 2012. As I wrote that on my computer, probably on November 6, 2012, it was reported that Hillary Clinton, then Secretary of State in the Obama administration, had suffered a stroke and would be working from home for a week. It had been suggested that my PC might be monitored by watching TV, etc., and this confirmed it. In 1912, Marcel Duchamp left Paris for Munich for a few months, and after his trip to Munich, his behavior and works changed. Marcel Duchamp is believed to have contacted the novelist Raymond Roussel, who was staging a performance of his work "Impressions of Africa" in Paris, and was told by Roussel to "Go to Munich". He was told by Raymond Roussel to go to Munich, and it is thought that he went there. Marcel had gone with Picabia and Picabia's wife, Gabrielle Buffet, to see a performance of Raymond Roussel's "Impressions of Africa". A week later, Marcel had left for Munich. Raymond Roussel, who wrote bizarre novels and is considered an eccentric in the extreme, had been under the psychiatric diagnosis of Dr. Pierre Jeannet, a renowned psychiatrist, since his teenage years at the behest of his mother. Dr. Janet had diagnosed Raymond Roussel as nothing more than a "poor sick man" and "already an extra-human world thought." Marcel Duchamp, who came to Munich because of what Raymond Roussel told him, came to the Schwabing district of Munich 10 days after arriving at the Munich train station and stayed in a furnished apartment there for about two months, according to Tomkins' research, before returning to Paris. In other words, according to Tomkins' research, he was unaccounted for for 10 days after arriving at Munich Station, but during those 10 days he was taken to the outskirts of Munich and other places to undergo a seance, and the subsequent two months in the Schwabing area were for post-operative observation. Two disappointments motivated Marcel Duchamp's decision to go to Munich. One was a lost love with Jeanne Sales. Jeanne Serre was married, but separated from her husband and lived near Marcel. Jeanne Serre began modeling for Marcel's paintings, and the two fell in love, and in 1911 she and Marcel had a child together. However, Jeanne Serre did not marry Marcel and took her child with her back to her husband. That was heartbreak for Marcel. Marcel produced a painting of a self-portrait in a cubist style titled "The Sad Young Man on the Train" between 1911 and 1912, which may have told the story of Marcel's lost love. Another disappointment was the rejection of one of his new paintings, "Nude Descending a Staircase No. 2," by fellow artists of the Puteaux Group during the 1912 Paris Independents exhibition. This February 1912, the Italian Futurists held an exhibition in Paris, and the radical and exclusive Futurists were frequently attacking the Cubist art movement in Paris. The young artists of the Puteaux Group, which was promoting the Cubist art movement in Paris, were nervous about the Italian Futurists. The Puteaux Group planned to exhibit a group of Cubist works in one of the rooms of the Independents exhibition. Marcel, along with his two brothers, had also joined the Puteaux group and was about to exhibit his new work, "Nude Descending a Staircase No. 2," when it was called into question by other Puteaux group members. Marcel's work seemed to cater to the Futurists, who consider the movement and speed brought about by mechanical civilization as a new aesthetic norm. Marcel was also present at the opening of the Futurist exhibition. The members of the Puteaux Group may have known that as well. Members of the Puteaux Group attempted to demand that Marcel withdraw the work from the exhibition, or at least change the title of the work. Moreover, Marcel's two older brothers, painter Jacques Villon (real name Gaston Duchamp) and sculptor Raymond Duchamp-Villon (real name Raymond Duchamp), came to Marcel as emissaries of the Puteaux group and notified him. The fact that the two brothers came to pressure Marcel according to the group's wishes, instead of defending him, deepened Marcel's heartbreak. In response to this unreasonable pressure, Marcel silently took his paintings, which were already hanging on the walls of the exhibition hall, and subsequently insulated himself from the artists of the Puteaux Group. Francis Picabia was also part of the Puteaux group, but Picabia did not like to group together much and was a bit of an outlier in the group. Picabia also did not agree to pressure Marcel, and Marcel remained friendly only with Picabia after that. Marcel Duchamp, in his later years, had this to say about one of these "1912 Independents' Exhibitions" in "Dialogue with Duchamp. (PC: Pierre Cabannes, MD: Marcel Duchamp) CABANNE: Before going into details, we could tackle the key event in your life, that is, the fact that, after about twenty-five years of painting, you abruptly abandoned it. I’d like you to explain this rupture. DUCHAMp: It came from several things. First, rubbing elbows with artists, the fact that one lives with artists, that one talks with artists, displeased me a lot. There was an incident, in 1912, which “gave me turn,” so to speak; when I brought the “Nude Descending a Staircase” to the Indépendantas, and they asked me to withdraw it before the opening. In the most advanced group of the period, certain people and extraordinary qualms, a sort of fear! People like Greizes, who were, nevertheless, extremely intelligent, found that this “Nude” wasn’t in the line that they had predicted. Cubism had lasted two or three years, and they already had an absolutely clear, dogmatic line on it, foreseeing everything that might happen. I found that naively foolishness. So, that cooled me off so much that, as a reaction against such behavior coming from artists whom I had believed to be free, I got a job. I became a librarian at the Sainte-Geneviève Library in Paris. (Dialogues with Marcel Duchamp, Pierre Cabanne, Da Capo Press, p17) Here in the French original, what was said with the subject "on" (rendered as we in the translation here) was "Marcel," which " greatly displeased me." The "I" that was said to be "I" is thought to be Satan. In addition, the expression in the part translated as "turned bloods" here attracts attention, but it is written to mean the same thing in the Japanese translation. In the French original, it is written "tourné les sangs," which translates directly into English as "turned blood. In his later years, Marcel Duchamp did not say "I almost felt turned my blood," but rather, he said categorically, "turned bloods." It is likely that Marcel Duchamp, precisely after that, had his blood turned. In the English translation, it is written " gave me turn," the word "blood" is not used, in this part of the verse. And after these "heartbreak with Jeanne Serre" and "one of the 1912 Independents exhibition," Marcel went with Picabia and Gabrielle Buffet, Picabia's wife, to see a performance of Raymond Roussel's "Impressions of Africa" at the theater. Raymond Roussel's play "Impressions of Africa" was staged for a month, from May 11 to June 10, 1912. Marcel and Picabia and others saw the play on one of those dates. In later years, Raymond Roussel would reveal that the images in "Impressions of Africa," which presented such bizarre images as "a worm pulling a zither, a man blowing his tibia instead of a windpipe, and a singer singing four songs simultaneously with one mouth," were created from mere wordplay. The stage performance of Raymond Roussel's "Impressions of Africa" was the result of a violent split between the two sides of the argument. The audience was split in two, with some treating Raymond Roussel as a madman, while others were amused and admired his strange and unrealistic image. Perhaps Picabia and Marcel were on the impressed side. The curious Picabia may have been intrigued by Raymond Roussel's idiosyncratic image and forced his way over to Raymond Roussel's with Marcel in tow. In "Dialogues with Marcel Duchamp," this was said about watching Raymond Roussel's "Impressions of Africa" play. CABANNE:In 1911, the year you met Picabia, you were at Théâtre Antoine with him, Aporinaire, and Gabrielle Buffet, Picabia’s wife, for the performance of Raymond Roussel’s Impressions of Africa. DUCHAMP: It was tremendous. On the stage there was a model and a snake that moved slightly── it was absolutely the madness of the unexpected. I don’t remember much of the text. One didn’t really listen. It was striking… (Dialogues with Marcel Duchamp, Pierre Cabanne, Da Capo Press, p33) It was written here as 1911, which is a mistake for 1912. Raymond Roussel's "Impressions of Africa" was first performed at the Femina in 1911, but was soon cancelled, and was revived at the Antoine in 1912 with a different cast. It was at the Antoine Theatre in 1912 that Marcel and his friends saw the revival. Also, it is written here as if Apollinaire accompanied them, but perhaps this is not true and Apollinaire did not accompany them. Apollinaire's name was not mentioned in the Japanese translation of book. In the "Duchamp Biography," it is said that Apollinaire also accompanied him to this play, but Marcel Duchamp, in three other interviews, said that he met Apollinaire for the first time in October 1912, which was pointed out to be incongruous. It is said that Marcel, Picabia, and Apollinaire went on a vacation trip to Etival, a small village where Gabriel Buffet's mother's family lived, in October 1912, and Apollinaire was certainly with them at that time, and it was probably around that time that Marcel first met Apollinaire. The Japanese translation clearly states that it is based on the first edition of the French original of this "Dialogues with Duchamp," and it is suspected that the later reprint of the French original was probably falsified and Apollinaire's name added. It is not true that in 1911, nor that Apollinaire accompanied them, but rather that Marcel went with Picabia and Picabia's wife, Gabrielle Buffet, to see a play of Raymond Roussel's "Impressions of Africa," which was one of the key events that would later take Marcel to Munich and transform him, so we assume that the falsification was an attempt to disguise this. Here, Marcel Duchamp said of the setting of Raymond Roussel's "Impressions of Africa," "I it was absolutely crazy for the unusual." And so he said, "It hit me: .... ". Also, "One(On) didn't really listen." I think he was referring to "Marcel's self-consciousness," as he said. It also contained this question about his relationship with Raymond Roussel. CABANNE: Perhaps the way Rousssel challenged language corresponded to the way you were challenging painting. DUCHAMP: If you say so! That’s great! CABANNE: Well, I won’t insist. DUCHAMP: Yes, I would insist. It’s not for me to decide, but it would be very nice, because that man had done something which really had Rimbaud’s revolutionary aspect to it, a secession. It was no longer a question of Symbolism or even of Mallarmé── Roussel knew nothing of all that. And then this amazing person, living shut up in himself in his caravan, the curtains drawn. CABANNE: Did you know him? DUCHAMP: I saw him once at the Régence, where he was playing chess, much later. (Dialogues with Marcel Duchamp, Pierre Cabanne, Da Capo Press, p34) This reply by Marcel Duchamp seems somewhat contradictory. Even though Marcel told that he only saw Raymond Roussel playing chess once, much later, during a chess tournament at the Regence, "this remarkable character was in his caravan (house carriage), with the curtains down, locked in on his own he lived in his caravan, with the curtains down." It was said as if he knew Raymond Roussel's personal life very well. After all, it seems that he was trying to hide his relationship with Raymond Roussel. Raymond Roussel, whom Dr. Janet had diagnosed as "already an extra-human world thought," lived secluded in his home and house carriage, avoiding seeing people as much as possible. Even after publishing his novel, he had never met with the editor of the publishing house, and his agent always negotiated with them. It seems that Raymond Roussel was not a man to be met by many people. However, Picabia and Marcel may have barged over to Raymond Roussel, who, in his house carriage, had pulled down the curtains and withdrawn and tried not to show himself. And here, "because this man (Roussel) had the revolutionary aspect of Rimbaud, a secession." It may be that what was said meant was that Raymond Roussel was also a being who had two consciousnesses, and that what was said about "supplement" may have meant "supplement" by Satan. In Duchamp Biography, Marcel Duchamp had this to say about this "trip to Munich" in response to Tomkins' interview. “If I went to Munich it was because I had met a cow painter in Paris, I mean a German who painted cows, the very best cows, of course, an admirer of Lovis Corinth and all those people, and when this cow-painter said ‘Go to Munich,’ I got up and went there and lived for months in a little furnished room… Munich had a lot of style in those days. I never spoke to a soul, but I had a great time.” (Duchamp a Biography, Calvin Tomkins,Henry p95) Marcel Duchamp met a "cow painter" in Paris, who told him to go to Munich, so he went to Munich, according to Mr. Tomkins' interview in his later years. This "cow-painter" was said to be like a "cow-painter" who painted pictures of cows. In the Japanese translation (Tetsuo Kinoshita's translation), it was also translated to mean "painter of cow. " However, this "cow-painter" is a strange expression, and the fact that the "cow-painter," whose personal name was not mentioned and who was not identified, told him to "go to Munich," so he immediately went to Munich, It is also a lame and suspicious explanation. After all, this is probably how they were told to misrepresent something. The English word "cow" can be interpreted as a noun meaning "heifer" or "dairy cow," but as a transitive verb it can mean "to frighten (by threats, violence, etc.)" or "to intimidate. In other words, "cow-painter" may have meant "scare the painter. "Threaten the painter. Go to Munich for that," someone told him, and Marcel must have meant that he went to Munich and said it. If so, it was probably Raymond Roussel who said it. It is likely that Picabia and Marcel came to Raymond Roussel, who had been holed up in the family carriage to avoid seeing people, and finally forced Raymond Roussel to open his mouth. And when Raymond Roussel heard about Marcel, he told him to scare the painter and go to Munich for that purpose, and Marcel probably went to Munich a week later. The explanation may have been one kind of word game. Later, Raymond Roussel and Marcel Duchamp shared a similarity: wordplay and chess mania. The last part of the statement here is written in the English original as "I never spoke to a soul, but I had a great time." In the Japanese translation, the part translated as "I didn't speak a word to anyone, but I had a very pleasant time." It may be possible to translate it that way, but a straightforward interpretation of "I never spoke to a soul" would have a different meaning. It interacted only with "that which has no soul" and was said to have had "a great time". According to Tomkins' book, Marcel Duchamp boarded a train to Munich a week after seeing Raymond Roussel's "Impressions of Africa. And it is believed that they arrived at Munich station on the night of June 21, after spending a night in Basel and Constance, Switzerland, along the way. Ten days later, he came to a furnished apartment in the Schwabing district, where he is said to have stayed for about two months, but where he was and what he was doing during the ten days after his arrival at the Munich station is unknown. It is assumed that during this time, he was taken to the outskirts of Munich and other places, where he was subjected to mystical practices such as séances. The subsequent two-month stay in the Schwabing area may have been for postoperative follow-up. While in Munich, Marcel wrote to Gabrielle Buffet, Mrs. Picabia, asking for a private meeting, and Gabrielle Buffet replied that they could meet during a train connection at the station in Andro, and they met once at the station in Andro and talked for several hours. While in Munich, Marcel wrote to Picabia’s wife, Gabrielle Buffet, that he wanted to meet alone with her, and once they met up at the train station in Andro near the border and talked for several hours. Gabriel Buffet, in her memoirs, wrote of that time. “I remember being astonished by this letter,” Gabrielle said. “These clandestine things greatly troubled me, but at the same time I was very moved by his friendly attitude to me. He said he wanted so badly to see me alone.” (Duchamp a Biography, Calvin Tomkins,Henry Holts and Company,Inc. p111) Marcel may have told Gabriel Buffet the secret of the purpose of his trip to Munich. And this is what Gabriel Buffet wrote about meeting Marcel at Andro's train station. We remained in the station on a wooden bench. We spent the night, and I left before him. Even now I find it really astonishing and very moving, very young, too. It was a kind madness, idiocy, to travel from Munich to the Jura to pass a few hours of the night with me. (Duchamp a Biography, Calvin Tomkins,Henry Holts and Company,Inc. p111) And Gabriel Buffet wrote this. "It was utterly inhumane to sit next to being whom you sense desires you so much and not even to have been touched …”, and she wrote "Above all, I knew I had to be careful in everything I said to him, because he absolutely understood things in an amazing way." In other words, she writes that it was totally inhumane for her to sit next to a being that Marcel felt that Satan inside Marcel wanted Marcel's existence very badly, Above all, I knew I had to be careful in everything I said to him (being), because he (being) absolutely understood in an amazing way." Gabriel Buffet would have written. Gabriel Buffet also wrote, "sad young man in a train" was transmuted into captivating, impressive incarnation of Lucifer." "Sad Young Man on the Train" is the title of a recent painting by Marcel, as already mentioned, and was probably said as a metaphor for Marcel. Gabriel Buffet, who met Marcel while he was staying in Munich, wrote, "Marcel, who had been sentimental, was transmuted into a captivating, impressive incarnation of Lucifer." At this time, Marcel would have tried to show his current situation only to Gabriel Buffet. In a sense, Marcel may have been trying to seek salvation. But even Gabriel Buffet could no longer help himself. That act of trying to change oneself may have been an act of losing one's self. Gabriel Buffet was too pathetic and youthful to know that Marcel had gone to Munich to change him, she may have written that Marcel, who had come to Andro to talk to himself for a few hours, was a kind madness, idiocy. And Gabriel Buffet wrote this. "It was utterly inhumane to sit next to being whom you(Marcel) sense desires you(Marcel) so much and not even to have been touched …Above all, I knew I had to be careful in everything I said to him, because he absolutely understood things in an amazing way." Gabriel Buffet would have written. (Duchamp a Biography, Calvin Tomkins,Henry Holts and Company,Inc. p111) In other words, she writes that it was totally inhumane for her to sit next to a being that Marcel felt that Satan inside Marcel wanted Marcel's existence very badly, Above all, I knew I had to be careful in everything I said to him (being), because he (being) absolutely understood in an amazing way." Gabriel Buffet would have written. Gabriel Buffet also wrote this. "Sad young man in a train' was transmuted into captivating, impressive incarnation of Lucifer." (Duchamp a Biography, Calvin Tomkins,Henry Holts and Company,Inc. p112) "Sad young man in a train" was transmuted into captivating, impressive incarnation of Lucifer." "Sad Young Man on the Train" is the title of a recent painting by Marcel, as already mentioned, and was probably said as a metaphor for Marcel. Gabriel Buffet, who met Marcel while he was staying in Munich, wrote, "Marcel, who had been sentimental, was transmuted into a captivating, impressive incarnation of Lucifer." At this time, Marcel would have tried to show his current situation only to Gabriel Buffet. In a sense, Marcel may have been trying to seek salvation. But even Gabriel Buffet could no longer help himself. That act of trying to change oneself may have been an act of losing one's self. And while Marcel was painting an oil painting of "The Bride" in his apartment in Munich's Schwabing district, he suffered severe, intense pain that left him in a "state of virtual paralysis," he said. In later years, Marcel Duchamp called that moment "the opportunity for complete liberation." It would have meant "the opportunity for complete liberation" for Satan. It is said that this painting of "The Bride" became Marcel Duchamp's last oil painting (tableau). Perhaps what Marcel sought was a "bride" to replace Jeanne Serre. Marcel Duchamp is said to have returned to Paris from Munich with the idea for the "Large Glass," as it is commonly called, which is considered to be his later masterpiece. It would have meant that a post-operative contract with Satan had been concluded. Commonly known as "Large Glass," the official name "Even the Bride stripped naked by her bachelors," the meaning was that the alienation brought about by the nine artists of the Puteaux group, metaphorically the "Nine Malick Moulds," and their two older brothers, exposed Satan as the "Bride" in place of Jeanne Sales, It may have meant. It is also likely that the "The Bachelor" referred to here meant a single person, i.e., a normal human individual who is not united with Satan. This "even the bride stripped naked by her bachelors" may have been a monument to the consummation of the marriage contract between Marcel and Satan. And the "bride" would then call herself "Rose Sélavy". And Picabia had picked him up in his car when he returned to Paris from Munich, and Marcel rode in Picabia's car from the Jura to Paris and back. Picabia may have witnessed the scene where Marcel was told by Raymond Roussel to go to Munich. Upon his return to Paris, Marcel immediately wrote down notes of his hallucinatory experiences in the car from Jura to Paris, which is called "Notes on the Jura-Paris Road." It is believed that this is what was written in the letter. "The headlight child, a "pure child of nickel and platinum" who dominates and conquers the Jura-Paris road", "a comet, which would have its tail in front, this trail being an appendage of the headlight child…which absorbs by crushing (gold dust, graphically) this Jura- Paris road." "infinite only humanly", "termination at one end in the chief of the 5 nudes, at the other in the headlight child." (Excerpted from Duchamp a Biography, Calvin Tomkins,Henry Holts and Company,Inc. p113、translated by author) On this ride from Jura to Paris, there were two more passengers besides Picabia, Marcel and the driver, for a total of five people in the car. The "the chief of the 5 nudes" probably meant the spirits of five people, including Marcel, who had their own bodies (naked bodies), and the "headlight child" was probably a metaphor for Satan. It is likely that the Satan who appeared was described as a "Headlight Child" and was told that he would destroy and dominate the course of the Jura Pali Road. And I believe it was said that the "five human spirits" and Satan (the Headlight Child) confronted each other as the end result of "infinite only humanly". Also, in reading the French original of " Dialogue with Duchamp," Marcel Duchamp, when questioned by Mr. Cabannes, often speaks with the subject "on". This "on" is a common subject in everyday French conversation, and is used in the first person plural form to mean "we," or as an indefinite pronoun to mean vaguely "person (in general)" or "someone unspecified". The word "on" is a rather ambiguous subject, but if it was used in the sense of "we," then "Satan and Marcel" would have been referred to as "we," and if it was used in the sense of "someone unspecified," then "Marcel" would have been referred to as "on" and "the person (Marcel) was like this," as if it were somewhat other. It is thought that the subject was used with a nuance that was a mixture of those two. In response to Mr. Cabanne' question, Marcel Duchamp answers about himself, beginning with the clear first-person singular subject "I (je, equivalent to English I)," but in the middle the subject changes to the second-person "you (vous, equivalent to English You)," and finally back to "I (je)" in some parts. There are a number of places where such abnormal "misidentification of personalities" is pointed out. To give an example, in "Dialogues with Duchamp,"is written. CABANNE: Well, to summarize your beginnings: a middle-class family, a very prudent and very conventional artistic education. Wasn’t the antiartistic attitude you took later a reaction, even a revenge, against these things? DUCHAMP: Yes, but I wasn’t sure of myself, especially in the beginning… When you’re a kid, you don’t think philosophically; you don’t say, “Am I right? Am I wrong?” You simply follow a line that amuses you more than another, without thinking very much about the validity of what you’re doing. It’s later when you ask yourself if you’re right or wrong, and if you should change. Between 1906 and 1910 or 1911, I sort of drifted between different ideas: Fauve, Cubist, returning sometimes to things slightly more classical. An important even for me was the discovery of Matisse, in 1906 or 1907. (Dialogues with Marcel Duchamp, Pierre Cabanne, Da Capo Press, p21) In the French original of this part, the speaker started out speaking with the subject "I (je)," but the subject soon changed to "on" and then back to "I (je)" again at the end. In the English translation, the subject written "on" in this French original was translated into English as "you". And in "Dialogues with Duchamp," is written. CABANNE: Did you know Apollinaire? DUCHAMP: Very little. It wasn’t easy to know him well, unless you were his intimate. He was a butterfly. He would be talking to you about Cubism, then next day he was reading aloud from Victor Gugo in a salon. The amusing thing about the literary people of that time was that, when you met two authors, you couldn’t get a word in edgewise. It was a series of fireworks, jokes, lies, all unstoppable because it was in such a style that you were incapable of speaking their language; so, you kept quiet. One day, I went with Picabia to have lunch with Max Jacob and Apollinaire——it was unbelievable. One was torn between a sort of anguish and a insane laughter. Both of them were still living like writers of Symbolist period, around 1880, that is. (Dialogues with Marcel Duchamp, Pierre Cabanne, Da Capo Press, p24) Here, in response to Mr. Cabannes' question, he begins to speak with the subject "on" at first, "people (or we) did not know him well again," but the subject soon changes to "you (vous)," which is interpreted as Satan referring to Marcel as "you." In another instance, in "Dialogues with Duchamp," it was written. CABANNE: How did you live in New York? DUCHAMP: You know, one doesn’t know how one does it. I wasn’t getting “so much per month” from anyone. It was really la vie de bohème, in a sense, slightly gilded—— luxurious if you like, but it was still Bohemian life. Often there wasn’t enough money, but that didn’t matter. I must also say that it was easier back then in America than now. Camaraderie was general, and things didn’t cost much, rent was very cheap. You know, I can’t even talk about it, because it didn’t strike me to the point of saying, “I’m miserable, I’m leading a dog’s life.” No, not at all. (Dialogues with Marcel Duchamp, Pierre Cabanne, Da Capo Press, p58) Here, the subject was first said "one(on(," then "I (Je)" was said in the middle of the sentence, and In the French original, "lui(he)" is said, and finally "I (Je)" was used as the subject. Furthermore, in "Dialogue with Duchamp,"it is written thus. CABANNE: You’ve just returned from London where, at the Tate Gallery(1966), an important retrospective of your work took place. I thought that exhibition were “histrionic demonstrations” which you didn’t approve of? DUCHAMP: But they always are! You’ve on stage, you show off your goods; right then you become an actor. It’s only step from the painter hidden in his studio, painting, to the exhibition. You have to be present at the opening； you’re congratulated, it’s so hammy! (Dialogues with Marcel Duchamp, Pierre Cabanne, Da Capo Press, p91) The "blurring of personalities" is quite pronounced in this section where the question "clown actor" was asked. Marcel Duchamp is consistently spoken of in the second person subject, "you (vous)," as if it were not about him, even though he is supposed to be answering a question from Mr. Cabanne regarding his own retrospective exhibition at the Tate Gallery in London. In other words, "Marcel" is called "you" and "you (Marcel) go up on stage and show your (Marcel's) product, then you (Marcel) become an actor." and they said, "You (Marcel) must be present at the opening, and people will congratulate you (Marcel), it is truly a rad actor!" He would have said. I guess we have to distinguish his words and actions as different from the "original Marcel". It is noted that the subject changes to "you (vous)" in the middle of talking about himself, which is a somewhat bizarre behavior, but it is indicative of a clear schizophrenia. In other words, in the middle part of the sentence, when he is supposed to be talking about himself, Satan turns to Marcel and says, "You were like this." It may have represented the resistance of "Marcel's self-consciousness" to being called "I (je)" and the instability of Satan's occupation of him. It may be confusing for those who hear such words and actions. The listener may be under the illusion that he is being addressed if the other person starts to say "you." But if he take it that way, the story becomes incomprehensible. After all, it would have been Satan who had changed to speak of "Marcel" as "you." It would be a dialogue like talking to someone with damaged identity. In the Japanese translation (translated by Tetsuo Iwasa and Yasuo Kobayashi), such unnatural "misidentification of personalities" was not described, so I could not understand it at all as far as I read the Japanese translation. In the case of Japanese, even if there is no subject in the grammar, it may be understood from the context before and after, so the subject of the part unnaturally changed to the second person was excluded, etc., and the Japanese sentence was translated with such "blurring of the person" corrected. It was only after reading the French original and the English translation that the anomalies in the personal expressions were discovered. In "Duchamp Biography," such "blurring of personalities" is also pointed out in part. I asked myself whether such a reference would not unnecessarily tarnish the honor of a famous deceased artist, but then I came to think that if what was not the words and deeds of "Marcel Duchamp the man" was being misinterpreted by future generations, then distinguishing and identifying them would be more in line with the protection of human rights. I have come to think that it might be a good idea to distinguish and identify them. To repel anti-human discourse to it is to protect humanity and is considered to be a defense of human rights in the broadest sense of the word. In " Dialogues with Duchamp," is written. CABANNE: You never touched a brush or a pencil? DUCHAMP: No. It had no interest for me. It was a lack of attraction, a lack of interest. I think painting dies, you understand. After forty or fifty years a picture dies, because its freshness disappears. Sculpture also die. This is my own little hobby horse, which no one accepts, but I don’t mind. I think a picture dies after a few years like the man who painted it. Afterward it’s called the history of art. There’s a huge difference between a Monet today, which is black as anything, and a Monet sixty or eighty years ago, when it was brilliant, when it was made. Now it has entered into history──it’s accepted as that, any way that’s fine, because that has nothing to do with it is. Men are mortal, picture also. (Dialogues with Marcel Duchamp, Pierre Cabanne, Da Capo Press, p67) Marcel Duchamp said, " Men are mortal, pictures too." Besides, there is no fact that Monet's painting is already black. The "Duchamp Biography" also stated. One of the first things I discovered, when I met him for drinks in the King Cole Bar of the St. Regis Hotel, was his gift for putting people at ease and for making the most inane questions seem intelligent or, at any rate, acceptable. Inevitably, of course, I asked his reasons for not painting. “I became a non-artist,” he said, “not an anti-artist… The anti-artist like an atheist ── he believes negatively. I don’t believe in art. Science is the important thing today. There are rockets to the moon, so naturally you go to the moon. You don’t sit home and dream about it. Art was a dream that became unnecessary.” （”DUCHAMP A Biography” Calvin Tomkins p407） Marcel Duchamp, whose "turned blood" on his "1912 trip to Munich," would have been an "art killer," not an "artist." The "Duchamp Biography" also contained this statement. I’m a pseudo all in all, that’s my characteristic. I never could stand the seriousness of life, but when the serious is tinted with humor, it makes a nice color. （”DUCHAMP A Biography”Calvin Tomkins p445） The lives of those who have been mediumized by Satan will be played with. Marcel Duchamp's epitaph was inscribed with these words, which were prepared before his death. Besides, it is always the others who die. It would have meant to Satan that it is the mediumized human being who always dies. And it is a curious sign, but in November 1912, a few months after Marcel returned to Paris from Munich, Franz Kafka was writing his novel "Metamorphosis". It was a sign of the transformation that was taking place in Marcel Duchamp in 1912. Furthermore, in 1913, the year after Marcel Duchamp's arrival in Munich, Adolf Hitler, who had been living a vagabond life, came to Munich from Vienna and stayed in the same Schwabing district for eight months before being deported to Austria. Adolf Hitler may have come to Munich for the same purpose. Adolf Hitler, who was living a vagabond life, may have come to Munich to try to change his destiny. In Adolf Hitler's book "Mein Kampf (My Struggle)," it was written, "In the spring of 1912 I came to Munich with a final decision. "It is not true that Adolf Hitler came to Munich in 1912. Adolf Hitler came to Munich in 1913; it was Marcel Duchamp who came to Munich in 1912.It could have meant that Satan came to Munich in 1912. In Germany, an anti-Semitic occult secret society called the "Germanic Knights" (Germanic Order) was formed in 1912 and used the swastika as its symbol. Then, in 1913, Adolf Hitler came from Vienna to Munich, where he stayed for eight months before being deported to Austria in January 1914. However, when World War I broke out, Adolf Hitler sent a petition to the King of Bavaria in August 1914, becoming a volunteer in the Bavarian army and returning to Munich again. Adolf Hitler then moved from place to place during the war. In 1918, the "Thule Society", also an occult secret society, was formed, initially as the Munich branch of this "Germanic Order," with the swastika as its symbol. In this November 1918, the German Revolution had taken place, Germany had surrendered, and World War I had ended. At that time, Adolf Hitler, who had been a volunteer in the Bavarian army, was nearly blinded by mustard gas and was confined to a field hospital. Once Adolf nearly recovered from his blindness, he deteriorated again, and his doctor diagnosed it as hysterical symptoms. However, upon learning of Germany's defeat, Adolf Hitler is said to have had a supernatural experience in which he heard a scolding voice and was determined to become a politician and recovered from blindness. In the case of Adolf Hitler, perhaps a covenant with Satan was formed at that time. It was probably agreed that he would become a political power in order to redress the humiliation of the German defeat. Satan would be possessed into lusantiman (negative emotions) ,and so amplify his vengeance. If so, it was five years after he first came to Munich in 1913, and he may have been in a state of conflict for the previous five years. It is said that this "Thule Society" prepared the German Workers' Party, the predecessor of the Nazi Party. In that German Workers' Party, Hitler joined the party, which then became Hitler's party, which then became the Nazi Party. Later, the Nazis adopted the swastika as their symbol, and Munich is known to have been the birthplace of the Nazis. The attempted coup d'etat of the "Munich Putsch" also took place in Munich. Its Nazis are said to have slaughtered 6 million Jews during World War II and abused and killed 3 to 3.5 million Soviet prisoners of war. Many of the Soviet POWs were castrated and forced to work, and when they became weak and useless, they were shot. That was the Nazis' doing. That Hitler was talking big about eradicating the Jews and thereby causing the natural death of Christianity in a hundred or two hundred years. Christianity began as a branch of Judaism, believing that the manifestation of Jesus Christ renewed the "covenant with God" narrated by Judaism, and came to regard the Jewish scriptures as the Old Testament and the Gospels and other writings after the manifestation of Jesus Christ as the New Testament. It also goes without saying that "Jesus of Nazareth" was a Jew (Hebrew). If all Jews were killed by violence in that Christian Europe, Christianity may have lost its foundation and eventually fell into disuse. Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jews first for that purpose. That is not within the realm of Adolf Hitler's lifespan and would have to be called malice beyond the human level. The purpose is to remake this world into a world ruled by Satan. Nazism was Satanism with an army. World War II would have been triggered by Satan's summoning and invasion of this world. It seemed to me that the only way to recognize problems that are beyond human understanding is to seek guidance from a revelation that transcends human knowledge. For me, it became the "New Testament" and the "Qur'an (Koran). Until then, I had never properly read the "New Testament" or the "Qur'an," but I read them again and learned many things. The "Gospel of Matthew" in the "New Testament" had this to say about "false prophets." False prophets (Mark 13:33-35; Luke 6:43-44) Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inside they are robbing wolves. You will recognize them from their [various] fruits. Does one gather clusters of grapes from thorns and figs from thistles? Thus, every good tree bears good fruit, and every rotten tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a rotten tree cannot bear good fruit. Any tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore you will discern them from their [various] fruits. (From New Testament I Gospel of Mark Gospel of Matthew Translation of the New Testament Translation Committee / Iwanami Shoten, p119) In the "Gospel of Matthew," he was warned against being called a "false prophet." The "Gospel of John" in the "New Testament" also had this to say. Discerning the spirits (4:1) 4 Beloved, do not believe in every spirit, but examine whether they are from God. This is because many false prophets have come into the world. Thus ye shall know the Spirit from God. Every spirit that confesses the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh is from God. Any spirit that neglects Jesus is not from God. This is the Antichrist [spirit]. You have heard that it will appear, and now it is already in the world. (From the New Testament III, John, translated by the New Testament Translation Committee / Iwanami Shoten, p126) Even in the "Gospel of John," the "false prophet," whose "spirit out of God" is the regular spirit arising from the Creator, may be interpreted as the "spirit of the Antichrist," or "anti - messiah," the spirit out of Satan, contrary to the natural order. In the "Poet's Chapter" of the "Qur'an" it was written. (26:221) Shall I tell you to whom Satan has descended? (26:222) Satan descends upon every sinful liar. (From Sekai no Meisho 15 Koran, responsibly edited by Katsuji Fujimoto / Chuokoron-sha, p353) Also, in the "Chapter of the Night Journey" of the "Qur'an" it was written. (17:53) And tell my servants to speak more elegantly. Satan sows discord among people. Indeed, Satan is an open enemy of mankind. (From Sekai no Meisho 15 Koran, responsibly edited by Katsuji Fujimoto / Chuokoron-sha, p277) Even the "Qur'an" clearly warned of the mischief caused by "Satan. It is said that Christianity called Satan "the adversary of God," while Islam positioned him as "the adversary of mankind. This may have been pointed out based on the contents of such "Qur'an." The warnings in the "New Testament" against the "metaphor of the poisoned wheat" and false prophets, and in the "Qur'an" against Satan, were not religious superstitions, but very real threats. Perhaps it should no longer be a scientific reaffirmation. "Thesis 2: Solution to "Also sprach Zarathustra"" [Abstract of Argument] (to next page) (to English top page) (c) Satoshi Furui 2024 |