Years of watching Monty Python and an absurdist point of view has honed my skills at the "art" of mockery. It comes so naturally to me that if I don't think about what I am going to say, it will be something sarcastic. Not everyone is appreciative of this skill. In fact, there are many who have found my sense of humor to be off-putting. On the flip side, there are also those who know exactly where I am coming from. Since preaching to the choir is a waste of time, I'd like to unpack why, exactly, sarcasm and mockery are so upsetting to some people.
While thinking about this topic the other day, it dawned on me that sarcasm gets a bad rap not because people don't "understand" it nor even that they don't ever employ it themselves against others, but that it reminds them of the finitude of this existence. Mockery is upsetting because it reminds the target that they've taken a topic or identity too seriously, have become too attached to some notion of being. Think about a time you mocked someone - was it because they were so into whatever they were doing that they were being defined by it? That they had become a parody of themselves? Were they treating others like shit because they were so wrapped up in whatever identity they had created in their minds? This is why hipsters are such easy targets - every aspect of their being is defined by their own hand. There is no authenticity to an existence like that. A completely constructed image or ego is a drag to be around.
Look at me now, blogging about shit like I know what I am talking about - mock me, PLEASE! I am clearly asking for it.
Sure, sarcasm can become bullying, especially if it's unwarranted, but used to lighten a mood or to effect change (satire) or to knock someone out of their all-encompassing vision, there's nothing wrong about it.
30 April 2014
27 April 2014
"You're always getting into something....weird."
“But our trip was different. It was a classic affirmation of everything right and true and decent in the national character. It was a gross, physical salute to the fantastic possibilities of life in this country-but only for those with true grit. And we were chock full of that.” - HST
People-watching is the best. I revel in the absurdity of our species. If you can't find some humor in Ted Cruz's existence, then I feel sorry for you. People like him are an absolute joke placed on this earth to mock the shit out of. He's a minefield of absurdities - a "minority" senator with oodles of money and education, but who still is an ignorant, fascist shithead at heart. Just goes to show that a Harvard degree and being a millionaire can't buy you a personality, an opinion that more than 2% of the population shares or manners. But I digress, as this isn't a post about politics; it's another post about embracing the random of every day existence.
Like cats, most people value some sort of routine to their day. Sure, it's predictable, easy-to-manage and allows us not to have to think too much. But who the fuck wants that? We're a problem-solving species by nature. We need real exercises in stimulating brain activity, not the occasional board of candy-crush "saga" you throw at it to keep it limber (and...really? putting beans in a row is a "saga" now? we have to reassess our priorities here). So what can you do to actually keep your mind from turning to mush? Well, feed it empirical evidence of the world around you.
TV and Internet are great tools, diversions and time-sucks. They're useful to an extent. Experiencing something first hand is even better though. I like looking at pictures of cool landscapes online, but taking my camera out to the beach or woods near where I live results in finding my own amazing landscapes to partake in AND capture for other people. I'm not asking you to do a lot to experience something different. Just close your mouth (yes, stop talking all the time) and look up from your phone one in a while, because there are some really weird and amazing things going on right around you. A friend once said to me, "God, you're always getting into something...WEIRD. How is that??" To which I laughed and said, "I'm open to it." If your definition of "amazing" doesn't include more negative aspects of existence, try loosening the reins a little bit to allow some bad-amazing in. Things that you'd normally revile, allow them into the sphere of "amazing(ly bad)." If you're that passionate about hating something, chances are you could learn about yourself or others if you just let it in a little more.
So I leave you with this: yesterday I watched (and smelled) a bitchy older lady with a back-brace eat a sausage and onion sandwich in an enclosed room (full of other people not eating smelly sandwiches) while selling overpriced pillows, completely unaware of those around her. Surely, I was in some sort of weird Sartrean hell. Or was it just a regular Saturday? Sartre was right and wrong about hell being...other people (sorry, spoiler alert for No Exit). Yes, people can act hellish and do all of these terrible things to each other, but sometimes people are just "another squirrel trying to get a nut." We all have different ways of getting our "nuts" in this life. Some ways are just different and more absurd than others. From even those decidedly bizarre squirrels we can learn something though, and this, going back to Ted Cruz, is what many seem to have a block against understanding. Life is a learning experience. The empirical evidence we're granted through our interactions shouldn't keep us from ever leaving our homes again, it should invigorate us to try and reach out to others, to make connections with those we find to be worthwhile.
People-watching is the best. I revel in the absurdity of our species. If you can't find some humor in Ted Cruz's existence, then I feel sorry for you. People like him are an absolute joke placed on this earth to mock the shit out of. He's a minefield of absurdities - a "minority" senator with oodles of money and education, but who still is an ignorant, fascist shithead at heart. Just goes to show that a Harvard degree and being a millionaire can't buy you a personality, an opinion that more than 2% of the population shares or manners. But I digress, as this isn't a post about politics; it's another post about embracing the random of every day existence.
Like cats, most people value some sort of routine to their day. Sure, it's predictable, easy-to-manage and allows us not to have to think too much. But who the fuck wants that? We're a problem-solving species by nature. We need real exercises in stimulating brain activity, not the occasional board of candy-crush "saga" you throw at it to keep it limber (and...really? putting beans in a row is a "saga" now? we have to reassess our priorities here). So what can you do to actually keep your mind from turning to mush? Well, feed it empirical evidence of the world around you.
TV and Internet are great tools, diversions and time-sucks. They're useful to an extent. Experiencing something first hand is even better though. I like looking at pictures of cool landscapes online, but taking my camera out to the beach or woods near where I live results in finding my own amazing landscapes to partake in AND capture for other people. I'm not asking you to do a lot to experience something different. Just close your mouth (yes, stop talking all the time) and look up from your phone one in a while, because there are some really weird and amazing things going on right around you. A friend once said to me, "God, you're always getting into something...WEIRD. How is that??" To which I laughed and said, "I'm open to it." If your definition of "amazing" doesn't include more negative aspects of existence, try loosening the reins a little bit to allow some bad-amazing in. Things that you'd normally revile, allow them into the sphere of "amazing(ly bad)." If you're that passionate about hating something, chances are you could learn about yourself or others if you just let it in a little more.
So I leave you with this: yesterday I watched (and smelled) a bitchy older lady with a back-brace eat a sausage and onion sandwich in an enclosed room (full of other people not eating smelly sandwiches) while selling overpriced pillows, completely unaware of those around her. Surely, I was in some sort of weird Sartrean hell. Or was it just a regular Saturday? Sartre was right and wrong about hell being...other people (sorry, spoiler alert for No Exit). Yes, people can act hellish and do all of these terrible things to each other, but sometimes people are just "another squirrel trying to get a nut." We all have different ways of getting our "nuts" in this life. Some ways are just different and more absurd than others. From even those decidedly bizarre squirrels we can learn something though, and this, going back to Ted Cruz, is what many seem to have a block against understanding. Life is a learning experience. The empirical evidence we're granted through our interactions shouldn't keep us from ever leaving our homes again, it should invigorate us to try and reach out to others, to make connections with those we find to be worthwhile.
21 April 2014
Love, it's a revolution of thought.
We spend so much of our time on this Earth trapped in invisible boxes of our own making, not to mention the boxes created by societal norms, religion, biological differences, etc. To break free of our glass prisons seems like it would be easy...
"But there would be so much broken glass, wouldn't we get cut?"
So we don't break through anything and we watch the world from behind clear barriers of shame, pain, regret, fear, anxiety, hate, et al, even though all we need to do is to shatter the illusion of safety these boxes afford us.
If put another way, the bracketed dates of a person's life printed in an obituary or in a wikipedia article is an easy concept to understand and accept. But, it becomes difficult to grasp when you realize that at some point, everyone you know, everyone you love, including yourself, will have that final parenthetical mark closing off their years - the warm embrace of a simple punctuational curve that denotes the finality of your last breath.
In that vein, toss aside grudges and hatreds that you hold on to. Open yourself to a new experience of love.
The Beatles, in their one of their trippier moments, gave us this:
"We were talking about the space between us all
And the people who hide themselves behind a wall of illusion
Never glimpse the truth, then it's far too late, when they pass away
We were talking about the love we all could share
When we find it, to try our best to hold it there with our love
With our love, we could save the world, if they only knew"
There are some obvious references to Hindu/Buddhist spirituality in the song, though these references transcend the experience of one particular world religion. The "veil of māyā" translates to the veil of illusion/delusion that plagues humankind's experience. We're wrapped up in a virtual matrix (not to be confused with the very literal matrix of The Matrix movies) of desires, feelings and drama that come as a side effect of living in a society. This is not chained to Eastern thought, as Rousseau and Sartre (to name 2 European philosophers) concluded that society is indeed hellish and enslaving in its own right.
What do we do? How do we escape? To quote the now late, great Gabriel García Márquez:
"An old friend, still convinced that art is a firearm, was so good as to warn us that it is almost treachery to make films about love in a world oppressed by injustice and poverty. I think just the opposite is true: love is an ideology for eternal militants, and the more misfortunes life tries to burden us with, the more essential love becomes."
LOVE. It's a revolution. Try it.
"But there would be so much broken glass, wouldn't we get cut?"
So we don't break through anything and we watch the world from behind clear barriers of shame, pain, regret, fear, anxiety, hate, et al, even though all we need to do is to shatter the illusion of safety these boxes afford us.
If put another way, the bracketed dates of a person's life printed in an obituary or in a wikipedia article is an easy concept to understand and accept. But, it becomes difficult to grasp when you realize that at some point, everyone you know, everyone you love, including yourself, will have that final parenthetical mark closing off their years - the warm embrace of a simple punctuational curve that denotes the finality of your last breath.
In that vein, toss aside grudges and hatreds that you hold on to. Open yourself to a new experience of love.
The Beatles, in their one of their trippier moments, gave us this:
"We were talking about the space between us all
And the people who hide themselves behind a wall of illusion
Never glimpse the truth, then it's far too late, when they pass away
We were talking about the love we all could share
When we find it, to try our best to hold it there with our love
With our love, we could save the world, if they only knew"
There are some obvious references to Hindu/Buddhist spirituality in the song, though these references transcend the experience of one particular world religion. The "veil of māyā" translates to the veil of illusion/delusion that plagues humankind's experience. We're wrapped up in a virtual matrix (not to be confused with the very literal matrix of The Matrix movies) of desires, feelings and drama that come as a side effect of living in a society. This is not chained to Eastern thought, as Rousseau and Sartre (to name 2 European philosophers) concluded that society is indeed hellish and enslaving in its own right.
What do we do? How do we escape? To quote the now late, great Gabriel García Márquez:
"An old friend, still convinced that art is a firearm, was so good as to warn us that it is almost treachery to make films about love in a world oppressed by injustice and poverty. I think just the opposite is true: love is an ideology for eternal militants, and the more misfortunes life tries to burden us with, the more essential love becomes."
LOVE. It's a revolution. Try it.
19 April 2014
Feminism
“I am too intelligent, too demanding, and too resourceful for anyone to be able to take charge of me entirely. No one knows me or loves me completely. I have only myself” -Simone de Beauvoir
I saw this quote this morning and it made me want to write regarding feminism. Ooh, that dreaded word. "So you're a feminist, eh? Why should women be above men? Men should have rights too." Well, that which you're describing would not be feminism. Feminism promotes the idea that women and men should be treated....equally. It's pushing for women's rights in order for women to be on an equal playing field to men. I know this is hard to understand for many people because it SEEMS like there is gender equality. Just like there is racial equality, but there isn't, socially or legally (and now I am sure I will rile people up by saying there isn't legal equality, but there isn't because laws may be interpreted and enacted differently based on the situation. So laws can be just as subjective as social expressions of power.
In the US, there are still considerable stereotypes that women and men both share about the nature and role of women in society. The US isn't even in the top ten countries on the UN's list of the most gender-egalitarian countries in the world.
I do occasionally beef with feminists over political correctness, which is also an issue that I end up having with some American liberals as well, because I think the PC movement goes too far and limits self-expression. We end up on a slippery slope of regulating words without any real explanation of why there might be a need for someone to change their perspective. Education over regulation would be my suggestion.
Imagine that you're a woman (if you're not already) and some dude standing in front of the store you're walking by calls out to you, "Nice stems, Doll-face." Sure, you can go back and tell him that what he said was "politically incorrect" to objectify a particular aspect of your body, but you'd also be assuming 1. that he'd give a shit about being PC, and 2. that he'd even understand why you wouldn't want his "compliment." I'd like to, for shock value, which is probably something he'd "get," respond with, "Small package, Shitbrains." However, since there is no demeaning, yet positive (?) comeback that would have the same effect on making a man feel like he's being viewed through a glass window at all times, any positive response might end up in a flurry of more unwanted attention by him. This hypothetical illustrates to me that there isn't really a way to avoid being objectified and having to "take" it beyond a complete re-education and upheaval of our current societal "norms." If you have not seen this short film yet, I ask you to watch it. The director does a great job of portraying what women experience on a daily basis. In the US and many "westernized" countries, it's not like women are being treated horrifically, but it's a slow, continual pulse of "other" that still seethes up to remind you that it's there.
Yesterday, I went to buy plants from a local gardening shop. The shopkeep was a middle aged man, walking around without a shirt while watering his plants. His body, to OBJECTIFY HIM, was not spectacular, but he seemed to be pretty proud of it being on display, as he made it his mission to find me at three different locations in the giant greenhouse to tell me that he'd be able to help with anything I needed. Thanks, dude, I heard you the first time.
Let's come to a place where men and women can share social and political spheres without their interactions always tainted by sex. If I can "keep in in my pants" to get through a conversation without getting a vibe that you're checking me out, then so can you. It's not even self-control. It's having an iota of respect for other bodies around you. They are not there to fulfill your whims at will.
I saw this quote this morning and it made me want to write regarding feminism. Ooh, that dreaded word. "So you're a feminist, eh? Why should women be above men? Men should have rights too." Well, that which you're describing would not be feminism. Feminism promotes the idea that women and men should be treated....equally. It's pushing for women's rights in order for women to be on an equal playing field to men. I know this is hard to understand for many people because it SEEMS like there is gender equality. Just like there is racial equality, but there isn't, socially or legally (and now I am sure I will rile people up by saying there isn't legal equality, but there isn't because laws may be interpreted and enacted differently based on the situation. So laws can be just as subjective as social expressions of power.
In the US, there are still considerable stereotypes that women and men both share about the nature and role of women in society. The US isn't even in the top ten countries on the UN's list of the most gender-egalitarian countries in the world.
I do occasionally beef with feminists over political correctness, which is also an issue that I end up having with some American liberals as well, because I think the PC movement goes too far and limits self-expression. We end up on a slippery slope of regulating words without any real explanation of why there might be a need for someone to change their perspective. Education over regulation would be my suggestion.
Imagine that you're a woman (if you're not already) and some dude standing in front of the store you're walking by calls out to you, "Nice stems, Doll-face." Sure, you can go back and tell him that what he said was "politically incorrect" to objectify a particular aspect of your body, but you'd also be assuming 1. that he'd give a shit about being PC, and 2. that he'd even understand why you wouldn't want his "compliment." I'd like to, for shock value, which is probably something he'd "get," respond with, "Small package, Shitbrains." However, since there is no demeaning, yet positive (?) comeback that would have the same effect on making a man feel like he's being viewed through a glass window at all times, any positive response might end up in a flurry of more unwanted attention by him. This hypothetical illustrates to me that there isn't really a way to avoid being objectified and having to "take" it beyond a complete re-education and upheaval of our current societal "norms." If you have not seen this short film yet, I ask you to watch it. The director does a great job of portraying what women experience on a daily basis. In the US and many "westernized" countries, it's not like women are being treated horrifically, but it's a slow, continual pulse of "other" that still seethes up to remind you that it's there.
Yesterday, I went to buy plants from a local gardening shop. The shopkeep was a middle aged man, walking around without a shirt while watering his plants. His body, to OBJECTIFY HIM, was not spectacular, but he seemed to be pretty proud of it being on display, as he made it his mission to find me at three different locations in the giant greenhouse to tell me that he'd be able to help with anything I needed. Thanks, dude, I heard you the first time.
Let's come to a place where men and women can share social and political spheres without their interactions always tainted by sex. If I can "keep in in my pants" to get through a conversation without getting a vibe that you're checking me out, then so can you. It's not even self-control. It's having an iota of respect for other bodies around you. They are not there to fulfill your whims at will.
15 April 2014
Just "be"
You're angry, sad, elated....you're one of the many varietals of human emotions we're capable of.
Experience it.
Just "be."
Life is all dynamics. It's the now. It's what you make of it in the moment you're living. The John Lennon quote, "Life is what happens while you're busy making plans," is on target. If you are always living in some sort of limbo of waiting for what you planned to happen, you're missing out on some great events in the meantime.
Same goes for living a "what if." As a student of history, I can vouch for the fun of hypotheticals. Yet, the more time we dedicate to trying to determine what could have been and/or expending energy on these missed potentials, the less time we have to dedicate to our true experiences in this world. We can safely say that appeasing Hitler in WW2 was not effective; if we wanted to spend more time on debating what should have been done instead, we're missing an opportunity to simply learn from the past. There will never be another situation that is exactly the same as that historical one, so any sort of conjecturing will only end up being hypothetical again. It's a human tendency to try to "figure things out" but it can be done to a fault. Which brings me back to the experiencing of the now.
Once language gets involved in the human mind, we have the capacity to "think" about our experiences in a more analytical sense. This is not necessarily a bad trait we've evolved to have, but it can lead to anguish. We "desire" something to be different than it is, so we brood (think) about how it could be different, how people could be so stupid, et. al. But what if we dropped the facade of thought and just experienced it?
When I was 16, I read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by American philosopher, Robert Pirsig. The book was slow-going at first, as I have never read anything quite like it, and I hated him as a narrator (and person) until about halfway through. But the description of his descent into what the outside world viewed as insanity, the loss of control he experienced (in the midst of trying to maintain absolute control) really struck a chord. Eventually, I would go through a similar experience (see previous post). Maybe reading his book helped me through, to see that these crises can happen to anyone at any point in their lives. But who knows.
So I leave you with his thoughts on this matter:
Experience it.
Just "be."
Life is all dynamics. It's the now. It's what you make of it in the moment you're living. The John Lennon quote, "Life is what happens while you're busy making plans," is on target. If you are always living in some sort of limbo of waiting for what you planned to happen, you're missing out on some great events in the meantime.
Same goes for living a "what if." As a student of history, I can vouch for the fun of hypotheticals. Yet, the more time we dedicate to trying to determine what could have been and/or expending energy on these missed potentials, the less time we have to dedicate to our true experiences in this world. We can safely say that appeasing Hitler in WW2 was not effective; if we wanted to spend more time on debating what should have been done instead, we're missing an opportunity to simply learn from the past. There will never be another situation that is exactly the same as that historical one, so any sort of conjecturing will only end up being hypothetical again. It's a human tendency to try to "figure things out" but it can be done to a fault. Which brings me back to the experiencing of the now.
Once language gets involved in the human mind, we have the capacity to "think" about our experiences in a more analytical sense. This is not necessarily a bad trait we've evolved to have, but it can lead to anguish. We "desire" something to be different than it is, so we brood (think) about how it could be different, how people could be so stupid, et. al. But what if we dropped the facade of thought and just experienced it?
When I was 16, I read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by American philosopher, Robert Pirsig. The book was slow-going at first, as I have never read anything quite like it, and I hated him as a narrator (and person) until about halfway through. But the description of his descent into what the outside world viewed as insanity, the loss of control he experienced (in the midst of trying to maintain absolute control) really struck a chord. Eventually, I would go through a similar experience (see previous post). Maybe reading his book helped me through, to see that these crises can happen to anyone at any point in their lives. But who knows.
So I leave you with his thoughts on this matter:
“When analytic thought, the knife, is applied to experience, something is always killed in the process.
― Robert M. Pirsig, Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values12 April 2014
On Existentialist Crises and a Case against Suicide
Fourteen years ago, I wanted to die, as in, not be alive anymore. But not actively, passively. I wanted to not have to live each day. I'd chalk this up now to an existentialist crisis that had its roots in my late childhood. "Not being" had come upon me suddenly when I was 9. Any sort of consistency and predictability was shaken. Throughout the years that followed, the crisis was not resolved because it wasn't fully understood nor could it be dealt with adequately.
Due to the lack of resolution, however, there were times that were deep, dark holes of anguish and frustration over the growing realization that one cannot define life [maybe it's what drove me toward atheism (soft atheism) in the present]. I intuited that there were no answers, or at least none that would satisfy me at that moment {or even now}. Maybe there is an answer that I will adopt at some point, but in the throes of an existential crisis that finally surfaced at 18, there was nothing comforting. Maybe it was almost like a fasting monk's vision, but when you're at the end of your rope, you start to see everything more clearly, for a time. And you begin to notice what you're "de-potentializing" by ending it all.
Part of giving up or giving in to the nihilism that "nothing matters" is that it helps you to see what you do to control as much as you can about your experience of this world, our "life" narratives. Imagine what would happen if you stopped performing actions that offer you a sense of power over your own destiny. You'd probably be a lot less stressed actually. Fuck control, because you don't actually have it. Even if your motto is "Everything happens for a reason," or, "God has a plan," both of which superficially embrace a random element to existence, you're still trying to make rational sense of the irrational. The universe is not uncaring, the universe doesn't have that capacity. We like to personify the universe as "cold" or "unfeeling" but that's not fair to the universe. To bring it down from the infinite to something more tangible, rocks also "don't care" about your existence, but we're using human emotions to classify something that doesn't have them. Rocks "be" and cannot care or not care. The universe also just "is."
There is more than your own self in the driver's seat. Imagine we're all driving giant cars with individual steering wheels that give us some pull, but not as much as we think we have. We're so damn focused on the road ahead, we can't see the dashboards of all of our vehicles are actually connected. Control is a coy mistress, she knows exactly what she's doing, but you're letting her, too. Control or more correctly, power over, is dangerous. At any moment that answer you thought was there could be gone. Because it isn't actually there. It's a construct of your thoughts, of your memory, and even if others have similar memories, it won't be exactly the same as yours.
Think about telling a story with someone else. They remember details that you don't, you fill in gaps that they glossed over. You complete each other's narratives. When it comes to our own memory of ourselves, we're only relying on ONE set of details - and humans have repeatedly proven to be pretty fucking terrible eyewitnesses. People claimed to have seen a leprechaun and Big Foot. NO. WTF. Occam's razor people, Jesus.
Embrace the random. I have been trying to for 14 years. It's hard sometimes. But it would pay off if I could.
Due to the lack of resolution, however, there were times that were deep, dark holes of anguish and frustration over the growing realization that one cannot define life [maybe it's what drove me toward atheism (soft atheism) in the present]. I intuited that there were no answers, or at least none that would satisfy me at that moment {or even now}. Maybe there is an answer that I will adopt at some point, but in the throes of an existential crisis that finally surfaced at 18, there was nothing comforting. Maybe it was almost like a fasting monk's vision, but when you're at the end of your rope, you start to see everything more clearly, for a time. And you begin to notice what you're "de-potentializing" by ending it all.
Part of giving up or giving in to the nihilism that "nothing matters" is that it helps you to see what you do to control as much as you can about your experience of this world, our "life" narratives. Imagine what would happen if you stopped performing actions that offer you a sense of power over your own destiny. You'd probably be a lot less stressed actually. Fuck control, because you don't actually have it. Even if your motto is "Everything happens for a reason," or, "God has a plan," both of which superficially embrace a random element to existence, you're still trying to make rational sense of the irrational. The universe is not uncaring, the universe doesn't have that capacity. We like to personify the universe as "cold" or "unfeeling" but that's not fair to the universe. To bring it down from the infinite to something more tangible, rocks also "don't care" about your existence, but we're using human emotions to classify something that doesn't have them. Rocks "be" and cannot care or not care. The universe also just "is."
There is more than your own self in the driver's seat. Imagine we're all driving giant cars with individual steering wheels that give us some pull, but not as much as we think we have. We're so damn focused on the road ahead, we can't see the dashboards of all of our vehicles are actually connected. Control is a coy mistress, she knows exactly what she's doing, but you're letting her, too. Control or more correctly, power over, is dangerous. At any moment that answer you thought was there could be gone. Because it isn't actually there. It's a construct of your thoughts, of your memory, and even if others have similar memories, it won't be exactly the same as yours.
Think about telling a story with someone else. They remember details that you don't, you fill in gaps that they glossed over. You complete each other's narratives. When it comes to our own memory of ourselves, we're only relying on ONE set of details - and humans have repeatedly proven to be pretty fucking terrible eyewitnesses. People claimed to have seen a leprechaun and Big Foot. NO. WTF. Occam's razor people, Jesus.
Embrace the random. I have been trying to for 14 years. It's hard sometimes. But it would pay off if I could.
09 April 2014
A Great Deal of Money has been Invested In this Project....and we can't allow it to fail...
There is a great quote at the beginning of the Strapping Young Lad song, "OMFG," which sounds like it's from an old sci-fi or thriller movie, "Well, gentlemen, a great deal of money has been invested in this project, and we can't allow it to fail." While listening to the song the other morning, I thought about the significance of the quote to both the song and the world in general. The song seems to be questioning the material reality we are inundated with - and I say inundated with because sometimes you're not even aware that you're taking in something that's completely constructed by humans- as in, not authentically, as in tailor made for human consumption. In regards to just advertisements, for example - they're in bathrooms, in schools, on clothing, on packaging, embedded in the videos (that I am linking to), in/on/part of...everything. The lyrics allude to the modern life experience full of weird eroticism (burger commercials aren't even safe - really Arby's?), the branding of everything (that stupid fucking logo game drives me crazy), hyper-rationalism (but really rationalization of bad behaviors), and the inherent meaninglessness of everything (thanks to those damn ironic hipsters). Thus bringing us back to the sampled quote at the start - someone, somewhere has a lot of money invested in this project of the modern way of life. Someone has something to lose, so we press on, trapped in this cycle ourselves, because we're also participating by working, buying, opting in.
The sampled quote also relates to the Bill Hicks epilogue, It's just a ride. in which he promotes love over hate for us to move on and be happy. He also mocks those that promote security over freedom. This security over freedom doesn't have to be one's physical safety either. Financial security over personal freedoms to choose are also relevant.
But why are we putting up with this apparent meaninglessness? Well, I think there are a few reasons. One that I am going to focus on here has to do with the "end of history." An idea crucial to the Western world, in particular, is that we've reached some sort of plateau, a pinnacle of human existence. Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History" idea, as put forth in his book, The End of History and the Last Man (early 1990s) has done a good job of convincing readers and intellectuals that some sort of "mission" has been "accomplished." In 1992, that might have seemed pretty true, with classical liberalism triumphing over the USSR. This is by no means a new idea. Hegel (and Marx) also saw human civilization climaxing toward some sort of synthesis after years of conflicting dialectics. So the Western bloc won the pissing contest that was the Cold War. Woo! But did it? For 40+ years the Western bloc was defined in opposition to the Eastern bloc. When the Eastern bloc crumbled, so did some of the identity of the Western. All the weapons and preparations made for nebulous wars of the future were now seemingly useless. Good thing terrorist threats were lurking around the corner to give us our noble identity of purveyors of democratic ideologies once again.
Personally, Fukuyama's idea seems pretty preposterous to me. Are we not still facing the consequences of events from the past? Are we not continuing to move through various dialectics today toward new and greater incarnations of mankind? I would HOPE there would be more progression. Is the best we can do at present just to continue to come up with new and exciting consumer goods because our government is maxed out on it's highest level? If we were to market that as a video game, it would sell zero copies because IT SUCKS.
In 2012, 16% of Americans were considered to be living in poverty, with 20% of all American children living in poverty. We can't do better than having 1/5 of America's children having to wait until they get to school to eat? Fuck that. As we're piling another round of billion dollar fighter jets into an airplane hangar to collect dust, there are literally millions of children whose parents can barely afford to send them to school with pencils.
And for all those men and women being shipped off to fight wars to prevent further wars, well, we're not doing them any good either. The treatment of America's veterans is so appalling that I will have to save that for separate post.
The sampled quote also relates to the Bill Hicks epilogue, It's just a ride. in which he promotes love over hate for us to move on and be happy. He also mocks those that promote security over freedom. This security over freedom doesn't have to be one's physical safety either. Financial security over personal freedoms to choose are also relevant.
But why are we putting up with this apparent meaninglessness? Well, I think there are a few reasons. One that I am going to focus on here has to do with the "end of history." An idea crucial to the Western world, in particular, is that we've reached some sort of plateau, a pinnacle of human existence. Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History" idea, as put forth in his book, The End of History and the Last Man (early 1990s) has done a good job of convincing readers and intellectuals that some sort of "mission" has been "accomplished." In 1992, that might have seemed pretty true, with classical liberalism triumphing over the USSR. This is by no means a new idea. Hegel (and Marx) also saw human civilization climaxing toward some sort of synthesis after years of conflicting dialectics. So the Western bloc won the pissing contest that was the Cold War. Woo! But did it? For 40+ years the Western bloc was defined in opposition to the Eastern bloc. When the Eastern bloc crumbled, so did some of the identity of the Western. All the weapons and preparations made for nebulous wars of the future were now seemingly useless. Good thing terrorist threats were lurking around the corner to give us our noble identity of purveyors of democratic ideologies once again.
Personally, Fukuyama's idea seems pretty preposterous to me. Are we not still facing the consequences of events from the past? Are we not continuing to move through various dialectics today toward new and greater incarnations of mankind? I would HOPE there would be more progression. Is the best we can do at present just to continue to come up with new and exciting consumer goods because our government is maxed out on it's highest level? If we were to market that as a video game, it would sell zero copies because IT SUCKS.
In 2012, 16% of Americans were considered to be living in poverty, with 20% of all American children living in poverty. We can't do better than having 1/5 of America's children having to wait until they get to school to eat? Fuck that. As we're piling another round of billion dollar fighter jets into an airplane hangar to collect dust, there are literally millions of children whose parents can barely afford to send them to school with pencils.
And for all those men and women being shipped off to fight wars to prevent further wars, well, we're not doing them any good either. The treatment of America's veterans is so appalling that I will have to save that for separate post.
07 April 2014
Ekphrasis and Education
Recently, when talking to people (of all ages), I have noticed that they rely more and more on, "Let me show you on my phone," rather than actually taking the time to describe or explain something. The smartphone is probably an overall boon for the average human's existence - cutting down the amount of time stomping through libraries looking for obscure texts, easing wait times at doctors' offices, and providing useful apps for organization and whatnot - but is there a cost? Yes, the lost art of explaining something in words. We're moving at a fever-pitch toward a more and more visual world. And maybe that is OK, but it seems to have some drawbacks.
The ekphrasis, a fancy word that I just learned myself, is an art history term meaning, ":vivid description." The ekphrasis was originally used to describe great works of art in an era before picture-taking was possible. So the great writers of the classical world would spill out the details on a work of visual art for others to read or listen to if they could not travel to see the work itself. Their descriptions would also evoke emotions in the reader/listener. Great ekphrases could actually be studied by artists who would then recreate the visual art based on what had been described. With enough written detail, the artist would not only be able to just recreate the dimensions and colors, but the mood of the work. The seemingly interpretive, anecdotal experience could actually produce true results, truer than if the painter had just been given a materials list with measurement specifications for the images within the painting. If that is the case with visual art, could it also be the case for other areas of human existence?
I'd argue that yes, the practice of ekphrasis can be transferred to everyday events as well.What's being lost when we don't consider the value of literary expression?
Well, actually a few things.
Our ability to articulate a facet of our own reality (and perspective) is key to building empathy among each other. It also allows an audience to partake in another's points of view. When we look at histories that are taught as the literal word, we see less empathy for "others" left out of the histories, because the readers/listeners have been inculcated to believe it to be a "T" truth. In a softer "t" truth, there is more room for other perspectives to not only exist but to be considered real as well. Furthermore, the dying art of reading is often lamented among the readers of the world as a loss of a particular type of empathetic experience that can only be achieved by taking part in another's written point of view.
In regards to modern education in the US, the Common Core and further standardization of not only the curricula but of how teachers are teaching a particular activity provides a similar effect to the lack of ekphrasis in the modern art world. The conversations that were once held between teacher and curricula, between student and teacher, student and curricula are muted. The conversation morphs into a monologue constantly streaming from a centralized source that is not looking for any sort of input from the lower levels of the hierarchy. The government bureaucracy that has grown around the education system in the US has made it very difficult for the average teacher, let alone student, to have a real voice. When we cut off a large group from participating in the conversation, we end up with a disgruntled populace that feels their voice is not heard or valued. Think back to that high school teacher you had whose sole purpose in life was to get everyone to shut their mouths so that they could fill your head up with what they thought that you should know. Whose assessments left little leeway for any sort of expression or interpretation by the test-taker. Unless you had "grit" (another bullshit term for another time), you probably didn't care too much about that class or the grade you got in it.
I'd argue that yes, the practice of ekphrasis can be transferred to everyday events as well.What's being lost when we don't consider the value of literary expression?
Well, actually a few things.
Our ability to articulate a facet of our own reality (and perspective) is key to building empathy among each other. It also allows an audience to partake in another's points of view. When we look at histories that are taught as the literal word, we see less empathy for "others" left out of the histories, because the readers/listeners have been inculcated to believe it to be a "T" truth. In a softer "t" truth, there is more room for other perspectives to not only exist but to be considered real as well. Furthermore, the dying art of reading is often lamented among the readers of the world as a loss of a particular type of empathetic experience that can only be achieved by taking part in another's written point of view.
In regards to modern education in the US, the Common Core and further standardization of not only the curricula but of how teachers are teaching a particular activity provides a similar effect to the lack of ekphrasis in the modern art world. The conversations that were once held between teacher and curricula, between student and teacher, student and curricula are muted. The conversation morphs into a monologue constantly streaming from a centralized source that is not looking for any sort of input from the lower levels of the hierarchy. The government bureaucracy that has grown around the education system in the US has made it very difficult for the average teacher, let alone student, to have a real voice. When we cut off a large group from participating in the conversation, we end up with a disgruntled populace that feels their voice is not heard or valued. Think back to that high school teacher you had whose sole purpose in life was to get everyone to shut their mouths so that they could fill your head up with what they thought that you should know. Whose assessments left little leeway for any sort of expression or interpretation by the test-taker. Unless you had "grit" (another bullshit term for another time), you probably didn't care too much about that class or the grade you got in it.
School reformers who focus on statistical evidence for their policies should really reconsider. Add literary, anecdotal evidence to your stock. Go on field interviews, observe classrooms, stop trying to standardize an experience that is so uniquely human that it cannot be standardized without losing something.
Unfortunately, this does not simply occur in the education arena. The ability to vote and to express a political voice has been counteracted by an exceedingly convoluted and bloated political structure. We are living increasingly standardized experiences, even as there is seemingly more and more individualization in regards to the types of advertisements we see, the music we listen to and the channels we watch. Why is that? Because when it comes down to it, whether you buy an iphone or an android, you're still doing the same thing to it - the packaging is different, but the use of the product is the same.
06 April 2014
The Importance of Continuing to Give a Shit
So you're about to tap out, move to Montana and live the rest of your life saying, "fuck it," to the rest of the world. I ask you not to take that move just yet. We have people in the United States living various definitions of an impoverished life. Maybe they don't make more than minimum wage, maybe they're on food stamps, maybe they go to a job they don't care about just to keep up with their neighbors, maybe they're just existentially, God-awfully tired of having to give a shit about anything around them. There is still something in this world worth your time, and that's you. You as not just "you," but as humanity.
Let me just put this out there. We need a fascist leader. And not in the Mussolini vein; a nice fascist. A fascist for peace and love. What Machiavelli was talking about, but the love and not the fear.We need devotion to the cause of giving a shit about what happens to each other. We need some good, old-fashioned fanatics whose goal it is to make the world more livable for everyone.We should all be fascistic about the survival of our own species as a whole, not about our own survival. When we look at what some countries, including our own, are doing to shore up resources, to research ersatz remedies to dying forms of sustenance and power, we are doing it at the direct detriment to other groups of people. The new world order shouldn't be to establish economic dominance in this world, it should be to maintain a level of basic survival for all. No one is asking anyone to give up their tv, their phone, their mansion, but maybe you should. Maybe you should think about how your purchase of an H3 Hummer is actually impacting more than just your image and driving comfort. Maybe there is some sort of middle ground between driving a tank and riding a bike to work.
So maybe that last paragraph goes overboard, and if you're still reading, it is most definitely satirical. When we do study history, we see that forcing others into doing what we want doesn't work. So what does work to get us to work together toward a positive? How do we get people to buy into the goal of survival as a species? How do we forget about the dividing lines we have drawn around race, religion, culture, language, sports, et al? Or do we? Can we use dividing lines to our advantage? Do we NEED to get tons of plastic out of our oceans? Do we NEED to worry about the treatment of cows on feedlots? Do we NEED to ensure people have equal access to healthcare and education? The answer to these questions is in all of our histories, on all levels, from the personal to the national to the global.
We 'd like to think that we can impose our own modern systems and understandings on the chain of historical events that brought us to this moment. We can, up to a degree, but we can't rationalize each event as though it was occurring in a vacuum of time and space. The past, in all of its interpretations and instances, led us to where we are now. And today is also tomorrow. The action and inaction in present-day will be there when we wake up ten years from now. We see this effect on our own bodies and in our own psyches. We can explain away how something is not our fault, how our blame is lessened by these intervening factors, but then again, we only seem to suspend our belief in free will when it would have meant we made the "wrong" choice in a situation. Sometimes we can't see where choices will leave us though, because we're not clairvoyant. But we can learn from past events. So we should.
Let me just put this out there. We need a fascist leader. And not in the Mussolini vein; a nice fascist. A fascist for peace and love. What Machiavelli was talking about, but the love and not the fear.We need devotion to the cause of giving a shit about what happens to each other. We need some good, old-fashioned fanatics whose goal it is to make the world more livable for everyone.We should all be fascistic about the survival of our own species as a whole, not about our own survival. When we look at what some countries, including our own, are doing to shore up resources, to research ersatz remedies to dying forms of sustenance and power, we are doing it at the direct detriment to other groups of people. The new world order shouldn't be to establish economic dominance in this world, it should be to maintain a level of basic survival for all. No one is asking anyone to give up their tv, their phone, their mansion, but maybe you should. Maybe you should think about how your purchase of an H3 Hummer is actually impacting more than just your image and driving comfort. Maybe there is some sort of middle ground between driving a tank and riding a bike to work.
So maybe that last paragraph goes overboard, and if you're still reading, it is most definitely satirical. When we do study history, we see that forcing others into doing what we want doesn't work. So what does work to get us to work together toward a positive? How do we get people to buy into the goal of survival as a species? How do we forget about the dividing lines we have drawn around race, religion, culture, language, sports, et al? Or do we? Can we use dividing lines to our advantage? Do we NEED to get tons of plastic out of our oceans? Do we NEED to worry about the treatment of cows on feedlots? Do we NEED to ensure people have equal access to healthcare and education? The answer to these questions is in all of our histories, on all levels, from the personal to the national to the global.
We 'd like to think that we can impose our own modern systems and understandings on the chain of historical events that brought us to this moment. We can, up to a degree, but we can't rationalize each event as though it was occurring in a vacuum of time and space. The past, in all of its interpretations and instances, led us to where we are now. And today is also tomorrow. The action and inaction in present-day will be there when we wake up ten years from now. We see this effect on our own bodies and in our own psyches. We can explain away how something is not our fault, how our blame is lessened by these intervening factors, but then again, we only seem to suspend our belief in free will when it would have meant we made the "wrong" choice in a situation. Sometimes we can't see where choices will leave us though, because we're not clairvoyant. But we can learn from past events. So we should.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)