Last Book Read - The Death of God & the Meaning of Life - Julian Young
In this work, Young presents an excellent history of the development of thought concerning meaning from the pre-modern age to the current postmodern era. Central to the progression of history from one period to another is the death-of-God, a fundamental change in human understanding. He presents this transition as a stream of thought beginning with Galileo and the advent of science and ending with the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989. As Nietzsche noted when he originally announced the death of God in 1882, that when Galileo unchained the Earth from the center of the universe, we were placed in a cold, dark void, moving in an uncertain direction with no up or down. There was no longer any fixed point of reference, and no longer a fixed source of meaning. We were left with the dangerous possibility of nihilism. The modern age responded by providing new methods of fixed systems. The worlds conceived by Hegel and Marx moved the true-world of religion into the future history of humanity. This true-world was no longer an other-world in space, but existed away from us in time. But this illusion could only be sustained for so long. With the end of functioning Marxism in 1989, this revision of religion also became defunct, providing a final death of God.
Young suggests that Continental philosophy deals with the death of God - conservative continental philosophy being the modern-era revisioning of God. With the end of that came radical continental philosophy, which finds any replacement for God to be impossible. "A religion is anything that postulates or promises a true world." Here we have worldviews such as non-theist religions and schools of thought such as Marxism, that all function as religions the same as theism does. When Nietzsche announced the death of God, he proposed that any of these systems were no longer possible in performing the function that they had done in pre-modern world.
I think that we could view radical continental philosophy as the philosophies of existentialism. There may be some non-existential worldviews that have subsequently developed in the branch of post-modernism, but I would hesitate to call these complete philosophies, but rather culture theories, at this point. In other words, I think that all philosophy of meaning following the death of God is existential in nature.
Young examines the philosophy of four existential philosophers: Neitzsche, Heidegger, Sartre and Camus, as well as the two postmodernists Foucalt and Derrida. He divides Nietzsche into three distinct periods of thought (early, late and posthumous), Heidegger into early and late and Sartre into two different early versions (ignoring the late).
He begins by tracing the lineage of thought of other-world meaning from Plato to Kant. Schopenhauer takes Kant's notion of the hidden other-world and applies it to his pessimism, where passing from this world to the other is preferable. Nietzsche continues this "European Buddhism" and attempts to overcome the implicit nihilism by suggesting that we can experience the other world through art. Hegel and Marx continue a non-supernatural view of the other-world by relocating it to history.
When Nietzsche finally changes his mind about pessimism, he creates a whole new track of thought - radical continental philosophy- negating all the true-world views. Young then discusses Nietzsche's attempt at creating meaning by creating the self as a work of art, a complete narrative. However, there is a problem of choice - the question of what life to choose. He suggests these are the problems of authority and the immoral script. Young then moves on to Heidegger, discussing historicity and the discovery of the authentic life. For Heidegger your heritage, your community, are central to the meaning of life. But what if these traditions are not moral or meaningful themselves? The problems of authority remain.
Sartre is up next. Dividing the work of Being and Nothingness, Young finds two views of Sartre, based on slightly different interpretations of absurdity, as well as opposing views of humanity's desire to be God. Sartre-two he dismisses as a nihilist based on this Sartre's understanding that all of life is conflict with others, making life both meaningless and eternal conflict. The views of Sartre-one come down to this: "(1) God is Dead. (2)Since there is no God to authorize the good, we have to do it ourselves. But (3) we have no authority over ourselves. Hence (4) we possess no authoritative account of the good, and life is meaningless (and so worthless)."
Finally we have Camus who views life as absurd - that is the disparity between how things are and how we want them to be. But as many have argued (such as David Cooper and Camus himself ), the absurd hero of Camus' vision accepts this absurdity and happily lives in alienation, and this sets him apart from the existentialists. Young suggest here that Camus believes life is better with no meaning. There is simply no possibility of a grand-narrative meaning. What Camus really wants is life full of experience, "an ethics of quantity." He looks to the "Barbarian Gods" on the beaches of Algeria, living without appeal and a lust for experience. Camus' version of the overman lives without appeal, because there is no divinity to appeal to, but rather lives with strength and majesty in this absence. Aimlessness is preferable because a project of disciplined self development causes one to be a slave to their goals. Freedom is reduced and one always lives in the future, never in the now. The absurd hero is indifferent to time and is only concerned with "being there." Young ultimately rejects Camus' view and his hero as constructing static person that "will not change." Without some kind of goal, one will ultimately have a life that is simply boring. He regards building one's life through self-defining goals as essential.
After analyzing the traps of existentialism and the unoriginality of the postmodernists, Young returns to Heidegger. He is clearly a Heidegarrian and takes the late un-existential Heidegger track as a means of escape from nihilism. Meaning is discovered rather than created, it is realizing the proper disclosure of the world and your place within it. Meaning comes from facticity - essence and existence become inseparable, according to Young. Guardianship of the world, of Being, becomes our central task. This "Being" does not exist in a theistic sense, but it is rather "the god of the poets," immanent in everything.
Young does a better job at revealing underlying flaws in existential philosophy than other religious anti-existentialists that I have mentioned in the past. He also provides an interesting and refreshing solution to the problem of meaning, by being non-theist and non-existential. I am, at this point, however, not ready to dismiss Nietzsche, Sartre or Camus quite as easily. I think that perhaps Young neglects some of the horrors of World War II and the Cold War, and their effects on modern philosophy, which explain some of the dark, nihilist leanings found within it. Nevertheless, I believe existentialism is still optimistic and the right direction for finding post-death of God meaning. As for Heidegger, his final position of Being is at least a non-true-world one. Therefore, I can only assume that this Being, as sacred but not God, is a form of pantheism. Of course, this leads to the question if Being is non-true-world, then does that mean pantheism is not religion? Atheism and pantheism certainly function the same in practice, but any more on this matter will have to wait for another time.
Overall this book is highly recommended as one of the best works on philosophy in recent years. It is an excellent work on many levels, first explaining the development of modern philosophy, as well as elucidating the existential positions and highlighting their particular details. Finally, it functions as a current state analysis of history by showing the progression from modernism to post-modernism through death-of-God realizations and the failed and desperate attempts at true-world transmutations.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Achtung Baby
The 18.09.09 episode of Sound Opinions discussed the evolution of U2 and proposed that Actung Baby was a turning point in the band's career, a position I fully embrace.
1991 saw the completion of the transition from the modern world to the postmodern one, a phase which began with World War II and lasted until the end of the Cold War. Nowhere was more central to this history than Germany. The post-Cold War left a vacuous space with no remaining metanarrative. At the heart of this time and place U2 recorded what many would argue is their masterpiece, Achtung Baby. For a new time emerged a new sound and attitude from a band that had been at the forefront of events in the 1980s. This world had a new sensibility and the record reflected that: it was darker, more complicated but in many ways less serious. The future was open, free - but also very uncertain.
Every aspect of Achtung Baby showed that U2 had evolved. The guitars not only gained an industrial-esque distortion, but a rawness and urgency. The beat gained more dynamic rhythms and the bass developed a deeper influence. The vocals also received distortion and different voicings. Lyrically and thematically, this album revealed a deeper introspection and reached new levels of metaphor. The album was noted for being U2's "heaviest" work, and as "dark," "intense," "dense" and "violent." All of these words are quite appropriate and reveal the depth of the album.
Artistically, Achtung Baby was a success by being not only highly relevant, but showing an awareness of its point in history. It felt dynamic, and being musically innovative was progressing forward into the future. After two albums of exploring American music, this album is purely European and as such seems less stuck in one place or time. The album is consistent throughout in a way no previous album has been. The Fly, being the first single, as well as the opening track Zoo Station provided the most abrupt departure in sound through heavy beats and power guitar riffs. Upon first hearing these tracks, the listener was exposed to a new world, something not heard before. Even Better Than the Real Thing exemplified awareness of the hyper-real postmodernism of the era. Until the End of the World continued the guitar-driven momentum and brought the album to inner depths of despair, guilt and betrayal. One personifies the most conventional U2 track on the album, but thematically centers it with the concepts of separation and unification. Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses and Mysterious Ways provided the lightest and brightest pop on the album. So Cruel and Tryin to Throw Your Arms Around the World contribute the slowest and quietest moments of introspection. Ultraviolet and Acrobat pick up the pace and contain the final push of the album to find meaning. Finally Love is Blindness is the dark conclusion. None of these songs are particularly "daylight" songs, it seems hard to visualize any of them except in dark rooms and streets.
It could be said that U2 was in a period of "irony and nihilism" (Assayas, 294). But, I would say, a better description would be that U2 was in a period of hyper-awareness - of postmodernism, and the record (as well as Bono's extracurricular activities) was an attempt to overcome the nihilism in this world was lacking a firm foundation. The artistry found on this record expanded U2's vision. Subjectively, the work is much more individualistic - involving a personal contemplation, and conversely, it showed a historical and global awareness - the pulse of the Zeitgeist. It would seem that U2 found a perfect balance of gravity in this period, always serious, but here the awareness of gravity is also an attempt to overcome it. When the band took this new record on tour, the result - Zoo TV- was a massive presentation of this postmodern feel. An epic display of the hyper-real through facades and technology. But, as Bono says, the music was only "wrapped in irony. Actually, there was real blood going through those veins." (Assayas, 295)
The continued experimentation found on Zooropa and Pop was almost certainly more innovative, but did not reach a similar level of achievement. [2] The first was far too eclectic and viscerally inconsistent and the latter suffered from bad production [3] and a superficiality - the irony just seemed stretched a little too far and the balance of gravity seemed off.
Is Achtung Baby their masterpiece? It often makes the list of best albums of all time. And it rests at the center of these polarized discussions. I will certainly claim that is a driving force in these debates and is therefore one of the leading contenders. Is it a departure? The band certainly intended it to be. They needed to break the tension that had risen from the success of Joshua Tree. And they felt it was - there was trepidation by the band about releasing it because they thought it so different. The experiment was to see if all of the band's "outward manifestations" could be removed but leave that "spark" that is the essence of U2. Of course, the result is something that is still purely U2.
Is Achtung Baby better than the revered Joshua Tree? I would certainly argue yes, beginning with the reasons stated above. Being innovative, the freshness of the sound has lasted longer. The main problem with the Joshua Tree is its success [1]. While Actung has a more multi-era sound, Joshua Tree has a very 80s sound which has lead to the successful tracks being considered more as "80s hits." The sound is stripped-down, more acoustic and more Americanized. Its track list is also inconsistent. With or Without You and Where the Streets Have No Name are definitely A-grade U2. The third super-track, I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For, despite being their most well known, is perhaps their weakest single and most over-rated track on the album, in my opinion. Bullet The Blue Sky has survived as a concert favorite, but comes through better with the post-Zoo TV energy. Running to Stand Still, In God's Country, Trip Through Your Wires and One Tree Hill are all good songs, but a little too uniform, lacking a certain edginess. Red Hill Mining Town is more of the same - not bad, just not breaking any new ground. Exit and Mothers of the Disappeared become the low points of this album, lacking enough significance for independent interest. On the other hand, I would concede that some of these weaknesses are strengths. In many ways this record is the antithesis of Achtung Baby [4]. Here the songs can be visualized in daylight, and in open spaces. The murky, layered depths are not present, and everything is clearer and less confused. The album is a good example of stripped-down simplicity.
But when it comes to creating a masterpiece, I think complexity is a necessity. The depth of the material found later on Rattle & Hum foreshadows what would develop on Achtung Baby and shows an evolving maturity that surpasses Joshua Tree. Rattle & Hum showed U2 expanding as musicians, but Actung Baby showed them progressing as artists. They were no longer a rebel New Wave band, but something more. Certainly Bono in reflection seems to know that Actung Baby and Zoo TV was a major turning point in the band's evolution. It was U2's exercise of "judo" to overcome the criticisms of their past, and through this experiment they propelled themselves to new levels of achievement.
U2 has always evolved their sound over trilogies. Boy/ October/ War debuted the band as a New Wave rebellion. They then began their global ascent with the Unforgettable Fire, broke out with The Joshua Tree, and continued with Rattle & Hum. This trilogy formed the "classic" U2 sound. They re-emerged with the post-modern Achtung Baby and continued experimenting with Zooropa and Pop. As a new millenuium dawned, they returned with All That You Can't Leave Behind, How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb and closed the decade with No Line on the Horizon. [5] These three form what I consider the "neo-classic" trilogy. The core sound returned, but as always when one returns to a place from where they started, everything that has been learned is re-incorporated, and the neo-classic represents a synthesis between modern and post-modern U2[6].
U2 will be playing a free concert in Germany to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the death of communism. Hopefully the set will draw heavily from Actung Baby. [edit 10.29.09]
[1] I would compare The Joshua Tree to Rush's Moving Pictures. Both had three standout A-side tracks become iconic. In both cases these three tracks were brilliant, but became identified synonymously with the band and were extremely overplayed. Decades later, these songs are inseparable from the band and often blind people from experiencing better material.
[2] The post-modern themes of Achtung Baby were developed even further on Zooropa. The title track is a great exploration of the postmodern condition of hyper-reality. The album as a whole shows its own postmodern essence through it eclecticism. Beginning with the slick, electronic European Zooropa and ending with the more acoustic, raw, American The Wanderer shows a journey ending in its opposite. But as a complete work of music, this variation is less interesting and a bit less cohesive.
[3] Most discussions of Pop seem to place the blame on the production. I can't tell myself, I only know the album is displeasing to my ears.
[4] I think its quite appropriate that the only song U2 released between JT/R&H and AB/Zooropa was Night and Day. The symbolism could not have been more perfect .
[5] Its possible that the release of Songs of Ascent will change this pattern.
[6] U2 also functions on another post-modern level. As members of the New Wave that helped build Modern Rock, their status in the 80s was unquestionable. Once Modern Rock aged and receded farther in time to exist alongside Classic Rock, what came after was literally Post-Modern Rock. As their status as one of the greatest rock bands has continued to persevere throughout this time period, they have continued to contribute to the definition of contemporary rock music.
Sources:
U2 & Philosophy, Mark A. Wrathall, Open Court, 2006
Bono in Conversation, Michka Assayas, Riverhead, 2005
Cultural Theory And Popular Culture: A Reader, John Storey, University of Georgia Press; 2006
1991 saw the completion of the transition from the modern world to the postmodern one, a phase which began with World War II and lasted until the end of the Cold War. Nowhere was more central to this history than Germany. The post-Cold War left a vacuous space with no remaining metanarrative. At the heart of this time and place U2 recorded what many would argue is their masterpiece, Achtung Baby. For a new time emerged a new sound and attitude from a band that had been at the forefront of events in the 1980s. This world had a new sensibility and the record reflected that: it was darker, more complicated but in many ways less serious. The future was open, free - but also very uncertain.
Every aspect of Achtung Baby showed that U2 had evolved. The guitars not only gained an industrial-esque distortion, but a rawness and urgency. The beat gained more dynamic rhythms and the bass developed a deeper influence. The vocals also received distortion and different voicings. Lyrically and thematically, this album revealed a deeper introspection and reached new levels of metaphor. The album was noted for being U2's "heaviest" work, and as "dark," "intense," "dense" and "violent." All of these words are quite appropriate and reveal the depth of the album.
Artistically, Achtung Baby was a success by being not only highly relevant, but showing an awareness of its point in history. It felt dynamic, and being musically innovative was progressing forward into the future. After two albums of exploring American music, this album is purely European and as such seems less stuck in one place or time. The album is consistent throughout in a way no previous album has been. The Fly, being the first single, as well as the opening track Zoo Station provided the most abrupt departure in sound through heavy beats and power guitar riffs. Upon first hearing these tracks, the listener was exposed to a new world, something not heard before. Even Better Than the Real Thing exemplified awareness of the hyper-real postmodernism of the era. Until the End of the World continued the guitar-driven momentum and brought the album to inner depths of despair, guilt and betrayal. One personifies the most conventional U2 track on the album, but thematically centers it with the concepts of separation and unification. Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses and Mysterious Ways provided the lightest and brightest pop on the album. So Cruel and Tryin to Throw Your Arms Around the World contribute the slowest and quietest moments of introspection. Ultraviolet and Acrobat pick up the pace and contain the final push of the album to find meaning. Finally Love is Blindness is the dark conclusion. None of these songs are particularly "daylight" songs, it seems hard to visualize any of them except in dark rooms and streets.
It could be said that U2 was in a period of "irony and nihilism" (Assayas, 294). But, I would say, a better description would be that U2 was in a period of hyper-awareness - of postmodernism, and the record (as well as Bono's extracurricular activities) was an attempt to overcome the nihilism in this world was lacking a firm foundation. The artistry found on this record expanded U2's vision. Subjectively, the work is much more individualistic - involving a personal contemplation, and conversely, it showed a historical and global awareness - the pulse of the Zeitgeist. It would seem that U2 found a perfect balance of gravity in this period, always serious, but here the awareness of gravity is also an attempt to overcome it. When the band took this new record on tour, the result - Zoo TV- was a massive presentation of this postmodern feel. An epic display of the hyper-real through facades and technology. But, as Bono says, the music was only "wrapped in irony. Actually, there was real blood going through those veins." (Assayas, 295)
The continued experimentation found on Zooropa and Pop was almost certainly more innovative, but did not reach a similar level of achievement. [2] The first was far too eclectic and viscerally inconsistent and the latter suffered from bad production [3] and a superficiality - the irony just seemed stretched a little too far and the balance of gravity seemed off.
Is Achtung Baby their masterpiece? It often makes the list of best albums of all time. And it rests at the center of these polarized discussions. I will certainly claim that is a driving force in these debates and is therefore one of the leading contenders. Is it a departure? The band certainly intended it to be. They needed to break the tension that had risen from the success of Joshua Tree. And they felt it was - there was trepidation by the band about releasing it because they thought it so different. The experiment was to see if all of the band's "outward manifestations" could be removed but leave that "spark" that is the essence of U2. Of course, the result is something that is still purely U2.
Is Achtung Baby better than the revered Joshua Tree? I would certainly argue yes, beginning with the reasons stated above. Being innovative, the freshness of the sound has lasted longer. The main problem with the Joshua Tree is its success [1]. While Actung has a more multi-era sound, Joshua Tree has a very 80s sound which has lead to the successful tracks being considered more as "80s hits." The sound is stripped-down, more acoustic and more Americanized. Its track list is also inconsistent. With or Without You and Where the Streets Have No Name are definitely A-grade U2. The third super-track, I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For, despite being their most well known, is perhaps their weakest single and most over-rated track on the album, in my opinion. Bullet The Blue Sky has survived as a concert favorite, but comes through better with the post-Zoo TV energy. Running to Stand Still, In God's Country, Trip Through Your Wires and One Tree Hill are all good songs, but a little too uniform, lacking a certain edginess. Red Hill Mining Town is more of the same - not bad, just not breaking any new ground. Exit and Mothers of the Disappeared become the low points of this album, lacking enough significance for independent interest. On the other hand, I would concede that some of these weaknesses are strengths. In many ways this record is the antithesis of Achtung Baby [4]. Here the songs can be visualized in daylight, and in open spaces. The murky, layered depths are not present, and everything is clearer and less confused. The album is a good example of stripped-down simplicity.
But when it comes to creating a masterpiece, I think complexity is a necessity. The depth of the material found later on Rattle & Hum foreshadows what would develop on Achtung Baby and shows an evolving maturity that surpasses Joshua Tree. Rattle & Hum showed U2 expanding as musicians, but Actung Baby showed them progressing as artists. They were no longer a rebel New Wave band, but something more. Certainly Bono in reflection seems to know that Actung Baby and Zoo TV was a major turning point in the band's evolution. It was U2's exercise of "judo" to overcome the criticisms of their past, and through this experiment they propelled themselves to new levels of achievement.
U2 has always evolved their sound over trilogies. Boy/ October/ War debuted the band as a New Wave rebellion. They then began their global ascent with the Unforgettable Fire, broke out with The Joshua Tree, and continued with Rattle & Hum. This trilogy formed the "classic" U2 sound. They re-emerged with the post-modern Achtung Baby and continued experimenting with Zooropa and Pop. As a new millenuium dawned, they returned with All That You Can't Leave Behind, How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb and closed the decade with No Line on the Horizon. [5] These three form what I consider the "neo-classic" trilogy. The core sound returned, but as always when one returns to a place from where they started, everything that has been learned is re-incorporated, and the neo-classic represents a synthesis between modern and post-modern U2[6].
U2 will be playing a free concert in Germany to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the death of communism. Hopefully the set will draw heavily from Actung Baby. [edit 10.29.09]
[1] I would compare The Joshua Tree to Rush's Moving Pictures. Both had three standout A-side tracks become iconic. In both cases these three tracks were brilliant, but became identified synonymously with the band and were extremely overplayed. Decades later, these songs are inseparable from the band and often blind people from experiencing better material.
[2] The post-modern themes of Achtung Baby were developed even further on Zooropa. The title track is a great exploration of the postmodern condition of hyper-reality. The album as a whole shows its own postmodern essence through it eclecticism. Beginning with the slick, electronic European Zooropa and ending with the more acoustic, raw, American The Wanderer shows a journey ending in its opposite. But as a complete work of music, this variation is less interesting and a bit less cohesive.
[3] Most discussions of Pop seem to place the blame on the production. I can't tell myself, I only know the album is displeasing to my ears.
[4] I think its quite appropriate that the only song U2 released between JT/R&H and AB/Zooropa was Night and Day. The symbolism could not have been more perfect .
[5] Its possible that the release of Songs of Ascent will change this pattern.
[6] U2 also functions on another post-modern level. As members of the New Wave that helped build Modern Rock, their status in the 80s was unquestionable. Once Modern Rock aged and receded farther in time to exist alongside Classic Rock, what came after was literally Post-Modern Rock. As their status as one of the greatest rock bands has continued to persevere throughout this time period, they have continued to contribute to the definition of contemporary rock music.
Sources:
U2 & Philosophy, Mark A. Wrathall, Open Court, 2006
Bono in Conversation, Michka Assayas, Riverhead, 2005
Cultural Theory And Popular Culture: A Reader, John Storey, University of Georgia Press; 2006
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Monday, August 24, 2009
A Nightmare to Remember
Dream Theater @ The Orpheum Theater, Minneapolis, 2009.08.21
Once again Dream Theater has embarked on a Progressive Nation Tour. This year's show, despite being propelled by a massive amount of energy and the usual precision performance of the band, suffered from an abysmally awful setlist. The show consisted of three songs from the latest album, featuring some of their heaviest material, and roughly one song from every other album from the last nine years, which meant the exclusion of Images and Words, Awake and Falling into Infinity [1]. This willful abandonment of their three best works seems to me to be a pure sacrilege. It's as though they have gone from a progressive band with metal influence to throwing away their past and trying to be the heaviest progressive metal band. Ever since Train of Thought the band has tried to push the envelope too far. Octavarium and Systematic Chaos came out well, but the latest- Black Cloud & Silver Linings falls right back into that trap, as it tries to be loud and heavy for no reason.
I have to give credit to Dream Theater for switching up their setlists, and I've always hated it when bands have to play "that one song." But I still think that their are some essential elements to the career of any band which can hopefully still be kept fluid and dynamic. For Dream Theater, I think a show must consist of one of the following: Pull Me Under, Metropolis, A Change of Seasons, or Surrounded. I guess that means that there must be some reference to Images and Words, or at least some selections from Awake or its B-sides. This night's list started as an alternate that usually contained Hollow Years to at least slow things down for a moment and most contain Take the Time (the night before). The prime sets contained Metropolis (such as the next night). There was even one performance of Pull Me Under (two nights before) and the inclusion of The Camera Eye in Toronto (four nights earlier). I could point to virtually any previous night of the tour and show why it was a better setlist. But it seems the sets are getting increasingly newer and heavier, and here the line of balance was severely crossed and the result is something that is frustrating to the ears and to the brain.
As for Progressive Nation 2009, I'm bewildered by the inclusion of Zappa Plays Zappa. If anything it sounds like Progressive Nation 1978, and I wouldn't even call it progressive, just psychedelic weirdness produced by a lost decade of excessive substance intake. The performers were quite good in their own respects, but the songs are, well not really songs in this sense - just freeform jams, lacking a basic necessary structure. It seems a waste when there are many good progressive bands out there, Enchant for instance, that could fulfill the intent of the tour. But Dream Theater keeps recruiting the weird or hyper-heavy metal bands. I think its time for them to take a rest from Progressive Nation, and do a well planned tour consisting of a extended set spanning the history of their work which highlights the quality and depth that they can achieve.
Setlist:A Nightmare To Remember /A Rite Of Passage /Keyboard Solo/ Prophets of War /The Dance of Eternity /One Last Time / Solitary Shell / In the Name of God /The Count Of Tuscany
[1] When Dream and Day Unite and A Change of Seasons not included.
Friday, August 21, 2009
The GOP Has Become a Party of Nihilists
A recent article on Time.com was entitled The GOP Has Become a Party of Nihilists. This may be the best notion I've seen in journalism lately, and I was impressed that it made it to the mainstream. The main point being: "they have been overwhelmed by nihilists and hypocrites more interested in destroying the opposition and gaining power than in the public weal." I would love to see more in-depth analysis of this revelation.
On August 19th, Jon Stewart did an excellent piece on Fox News being the "New Liberals," pointing out how for eight years they have called protesters "loons" and unpatriotic. But now that the protesters are conservatives, civil disobedience and dissension are the patriotic methods. Furthermore, Fox has claimed the mainstream media is liberal and that they are the only alternative voice. So for Fox to really be liberal they would have to part of the mainstream. Of course, while attacking the major media outlets, Fox has at the same time been promoting how much bigger they are than their competing media outlets, claiming to be the most powerful - thereby cementing their "liberal" status.
Finally, to quote Seth Macfarlane from his recent interview in Playboy about Obama's liberalness, "he's a hell of a lot less liberal than Bush is conservative."
And, speaking of Seth, he also said that Carl Sagan was "an antidote to the superstition, fundamentalism and mysticism that runs rampant in this country." Recently I heard the BBC claim that America was a world of "stone-age superstition." Of course books like The Sceptics Guide to Atheism [1] claim that worlwide theism is going up, only Western views on theism are declining due to the lingering effects of Logical Positivism. The only truth I can discern from this position is that theism is declining in the West. Meanwhile, America looks like it is in the stone age because of the reactionary ultra-conservative anatgonism to progress.
[1] Information taken from Philosophy Now, June/July 2009
On August 19th, Jon Stewart did an excellent piece on Fox News being the "New Liberals," pointing out how for eight years they have called protesters "loons" and unpatriotic. But now that the protesters are conservatives, civil disobedience and dissension are the patriotic methods. Furthermore, Fox has claimed the mainstream media is liberal and that they are the only alternative voice. So for Fox to really be liberal they would have to part of the mainstream. Of course, while attacking the major media outlets, Fox has at the same time been promoting how much bigger they are than their competing media outlets, claiming to be the most powerful - thereby cementing their "liberal" status.
Finally, to quote Seth Macfarlane from his recent interview in Playboy about Obama's liberalness, "he's a hell of a lot less liberal than Bush is conservative."
And, speaking of Seth, he also said that Carl Sagan was "an antidote to the superstition, fundamentalism and mysticism that runs rampant in this country." Recently I heard the BBC claim that America was a world of "stone-age superstition." Of course books like The Sceptics Guide to Atheism [1] claim that worlwide theism is going up, only Western views on theism are declining due to the lingering effects of Logical Positivism. The only truth I can discern from this position is that theism is declining in the West. Meanwhile, America looks like it is in the stone age because of the reactionary ultra-conservative anatgonism to progress.
[1] Information taken from Philosophy Now, June/July 2009
Monday, August 17, 2009
Now Its Dark
Just a post of no particular significance:
Now that the heat and haze are done from the latest summer assault, the sky is again clear. It's amazing how the seasonal changes begin to accelerate this time of year. Even though summer is still at full strength, nature is already foreshadowing fall. 5 AM is now completely dark and feels much different than just a week ago. The air is thin and cool. Jupiter has left the Eastern sky. And this morning marks my reaquaintance with the Hunter. I got my first prominent sighting of the year as I watched Orion rise along with a slivering Moon and Venus over the Eastern trees, trailed closely by (a much gentler) Dawn Light.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Existentialism is a Humanism
Last Book Read: Existentialism and Human Emotions - J.P. Sartre
In this short work, Sartre responds to some criticism and attempts to lay out basic principles of existentialism. These principles derive from the foundation that Man is the being whose being is the lack of being. This nothingness is brought into the world through consciousness, leaving Man alone to be the creator of values, unable to escape from freedom. There are many overtones of Nietzsche throughout this work: the transvaluation of values, the spirit of seriousness, and the will to power. Here Sartre tries to make a new, solid foundation and pronounces that Existentialism is the realization that for Man, existence precedes essence.
Existentialism is nothing else than an attempt to draw all the consequences of a coherent atheistic position. It isn't trying to lunge man into despair at all. But if one calls every attitude of unbelief despair, like the Christians, then the word is not being used in its original sense. Existentialism isn't so atheistic that it wears itself out showing that God doesn't exist. Rather, it declares that even if God did exist, that would change nothing. There you've got our point of view. Not that we believe God exists, but we think the problem of His existence is not the issue.
"Man is nothing else than what he makes of himself." This is the first principle of existentialism - subjectivity. Sartre defines freedom and responsibility and explains why we can never escape these. We can always go to others for advice, but in doing so we choose who to seek out for this advice, and we choose whose responses we will consider. It ultimately always comes back to ourselves.
Sartre goes on to discuss existential psychoanalysis, by which one attempts to find their original project, their original choice. Here Sartre dismisses the notion of the unconscious mind and attempts to refute Freudian and empirical psychoanalysis. He even thinks the tastes we have for certain foods can be consciously linked to our original project. Sartre then discusses holes, and how life is an attempt to fill these holes , to "preserve the totality of the In-itself." Ultimately Man attempts to become God, by synthesizing For-itself into In-itself-for-itself, which is self defeating. This is what God would be, but because it is a logical impossibility, it can never be achieved.
After a rather incomplete discussion of this analysis Sartre move on to ethical implications. Sartre noted that in aesthetics, there are no a priori values. The same could be said for ethics. " What art and ethics have in common is that we have creation and invention in both cases. . . Man makes himself. He isn't ready made at the start. In choosing his ethics, he makes himself." "The one thing that counts is knowing whether the inventing that has been done, has been done in the name of freedom." But, in the final chapter on ethics Sartre delays discussion to a future work- one which would never come.
This work really just contains basic principles that can be found in any introduction book, and here they are somewhat obscured by technical languauge, but there are many small details which enhance Sartre's philosophy.
In this short work, Sartre responds to some criticism and attempts to lay out basic principles of existentialism. These principles derive from the foundation that Man is the being whose being is the lack of being. This nothingness is brought into the world through consciousness, leaving Man alone to be the creator of values, unable to escape from freedom. There are many overtones of Nietzsche throughout this work: the transvaluation of values, the spirit of seriousness, and the will to power. Here Sartre tries to make a new, solid foundation and pronounces that Existentialism is the realization that for Man, existence precedes essence.
Existentialism is nothing else than an attempt to draw all the consequences of a coherent atheistic position. It isn't trying to lunge man into despair at all. But if one calls every attitude of unbelief despair, like the Christians, then the word is not being used in its original sense. Existentialism isn't so atheistic that it wears itself out showing that God doesn't exist. Rather, it declares that even if God did exist, that would change nothing. There you've got our point of view. Not that we believe God exists, but we think the problem of His existence is not the issue.
"Man is nothing else than what he makes of himself." This is the first principle of existentialism - subjectivity. Sartre defines freedom and responsibility and explains why we can never escape these. We can always go to others for advice, but in doing so we choose who to seek out for this advice, and we choose whose responses we will consider. It ultimately always comes back to ourselves.
Sartre goes on to discuss existential psychoanalysis, by which one attempts to find their original project, their original choice. Here Sartre dismisses the notion of the unconscious mind and attempts to refute Freudian and empirical psychoanalysis. He even thinks the tastes we have for certain foods can be consciously linked to our original project. Sartre then discusses holes, and how life is an attempt to fill these holes , to "preserve the totality of the In-itself." Ultimately Man attempts to become God, by synthesizing For-itself into In-itself-for-itself, which is self defeating. This is what God would be, but because it is a logical impossibility, it can never be achieved.
After a rather incomplete discussion of this analysis Sartre move on to ethical implications. Sartre noted that in aesthetics, there are no a priori values. The same could be said for ethics. " What art and ethics have in common is that we have creation and invention in both cases. . . Man makes himself. He isn't ready made at the start. In choosing his ethics, he makes himself." "The one thing that counts is knowing whether the inventing that has been done, has been done in the name of freedom." But, in the final chapter on ethics Sartre delays discussion to a future work- one which would never come.
This work really just contains basic principles that can be found in any introduction book, and here they are somewhat obscured by technical languauge, but there are many small details which enhance Sartre's philosophy.
Monday, June 15, 2009
The Infinite Book
Last Book Read: The Infinite Book - John D. Barrow
"I could bounded in a nutshell and count myself as a king of infinite space"
-Hamlet
Barrow follows up his Book of Nothing by examining its opposite, infinity. He presents many illustrations of infinity and clearly shows that one infinite set can be a different size from another infinite set. But, the more profound question remains: can there be actual infinities? Barrow examines the categories of mathematical, actual, and absolute infinities and some of the historical thinkers that held views about their existence. Beyond the ultimately obvious mathematical infinites, however, I am not led to the conclusion that there are actual infinities in "real" existence. For instance, if the universe is infinitely large, that means there is another one exactly like you, in fact there are infinite number of "you". Nothing would be unique at all. I think this only complicates reality, and using Occam's razor we must hold off making this a likely conclusion. As we get a sharper picture of the universe, it seems that there is a limited quantity of everything - matter, energy, space and time -at least in one "universe."
One of the most interesting stops on this journey through the infinite, is Barrows examination of Hamlet, which he shows to be an allegory of the paradigm shift from the Earth-center model of the universe to the Sun-centered one. Hamlet was written at the time when Shakespeare's friend, Thomas Digges was contemplating a model for the infinite universe. This is yet another layer of Hamlet, one that I had not conceived of before.
While discussing the likeliness of an infinite or eternal universe, Barrow discusses a thorough sampling of cosmological models. The major question encompassing all of this involves the possibility that the universe is just one part of a multiverse. Here, we are shown the complex geography that might result from an infinite universe, where our universe would be just one of many connected bubble inflations. In this "Kandinsky Universe", each region would have its own physical laws, and the entire set of possible universes would exist in one sheet of space, rather than parallel realities.
Barrow goes on to briefly discuss the possibility of a simulated universe, infinite machines and super-tasks, and immortality, as well as touching on the implied ethics. The Infinite Book shows that infinity becomes a relevant variable when attempting to resolve the major questions of the fabric of existence.
"I could bounded in a nutshell and count myself as a king of infinite space"
-Hamlet
Barrow follows up his Book of Nothing by examining its opposite, infinity. He presents many illustrations of infinity and clearly shows that one infinite set can be a different size from another infinite set. But, the more profound question remains: can there be actual infinities? Barrow examines the categories of mathematical, actual, and absolute infinities and some of the historical thinkers that held views about their existence. Beyond the ultimately obvious mathematical infinites, however, I am not led to the conclusion that there are actual infinities in "real" existence. For instance, if the universe is infinitely large, that means there is another one exactly like you, in fact there are infinite number of "you". Nothing would be unique at all. I think this only complicates reality, and using Occam's razor we must hold off making this a likely conclusion. As we get a sharper picture of the universe, it seems that there is a limited quantity of everything - matter, energy, space and time -at least in one "universe."
One of the most interesting stops on this journey through the infinite, is Barrows examination of Hamlet, which he shows to be an allegory of the paradigm shift from the Earth-center model of the universe to the Sun-centered one. Hamlet was written at the time when Shakespeare's friend, Thomas Digges was contemplating a model for the infinite universe. This is yet another layer of Hamlet, one that I had not conceived of before.
While discussing the likeliness of an infinite or eternal universe, Barrow discusses a thorough sampling of cosmological models. The major question encompassing all of this involves the possibility that the universe is just one part of a multiverse. Here, we are shown the complex geography that might result from an infinite universe, where our universe would be just one of many connected bubble inflations. In this "Kandinsky Universe", each region would have its own physical laws, and the entire set of possible universes would exist in one sheet of space, rather than parallel realities.
Barrow goes on to briefly discuss the possibility of a simulated universe, infinite machines and super-tasks, and immortality, as well as touching on the implied ethics. The Infinite Book shows that infinity becomes a relevant variable when attempting to resolve the major questions of the fabric of existence.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
So, to try to put my political perspectives into some kind of objective relation, I took a few internet quizzes, here are the results:
The results of this first one are not perfectly accurate, as some of the questions are framed in a stereotypical black/white choice, when other choices would be more appropriate for the issue.
The results of this first one are not perfectly accurate, as some of the questions are framed in a stereotypical black/white choice, when other choices would be more appropriate for the issue.
You Are 30% Conservative, 70% Liberal |
 Social Issues: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal Personal Responsibility: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal Fiscal Issues: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal Ethics: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal Defense and Crime: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal |
My Liberal Identity:
You are a Social Justice Crusader, also known as a rights activist. You believe in equality, fairness, and preventing neo-Confederate conservative troglodytes from rolling back fifty years of civil rights gains.
Take the quiz at www.FightConservatives.com
Monday, May 18, 2009
Star Trek
I never suspected that J.J. Abrams would have a major influence on my contemplation of time travel. First we have Lost discussing the nature of a single unchangeable timeline, and now Star Trek with its splitting timelines.
The first thing to deal with when viewing the new Star Trek is the alternate universe. Many fans seem to be quite upset with this, suggesting that it wipes out the history that we have watched over the last 40 years. They just can't understand the concept, even though it was explicitly revealed in the film. A reboot, a la Batman, Battlestar Galactica, and James Bond, would have wiped out that history. But thankfully in this case we have an escape built in to the Star Trek Universe. Now, Trek has had it both ways, showing many times a single changeable timeline, but it has also shown parallel universes before, starting with the venerable "Mirror, Mirror." In the Next Gen episode "Parallels", we watch Worf jump between universes a la Sliders, finally resulting in the converge of 285,000 Enterprises. Other notable episodes were "Yesterday's Enterprise," and "All Good Things", each portraying other ways things could have worked out. Producers of the new film have suggested that every time travel event in Star Trek history has produced a new universe, although I would argue that "Parallels" claimed that each universe had a unique quantum signature, and that one could return to their original home universe, so I think this explaination is unneccessary. [1]
I would also point out here that I fully contend that this new universe was pre-existing and that it was not "caused" by the Spock singularity. Federation technology was already on a different track, with the Kelvin being more advanced than its prime counterparts. It has been estimated that if the multiple universe theories are true, that only a googol universes would need to exist to allow for an infinite number of different outcomes. [2] So, it would seem that these googol universe already exists, otherwise any one of our decisions would create the energy and matter of an entire universe, and that seems far too extraordinary too any of this.
The second point to come to terms with is the new actors playing the sacrosanct characters of Kirk, et al. This has already been dealt with by some fans, with Star Trek: New Voyages, and I'll quote their website:
"Star Trek: Phase II's producers/crew feel that Kirk, Spock, McCoy and the rest should be treated as "classic" characters like Willy Loman from Death of a Salesman, Gandalf from Lord of the Rings or even Hamlet, Othello or Romeo. Many actors have and can play the roles, each offering a different interpretation of said character. Though the character is the same, the interpretation of the actor is what's in question. We feel that the crew of the Enterprise has more to teach us about life and each other than has been explored to date. We also feel the new actors can add to the legend in a believable and contemporary way. The timelessness of the classic characters was recognized by JJ Abrams."
It is certainly true that Captain Kirk has joined the ranks of some other great fictional characters and has become part of contemporary mythology. All I can say is that the actors did a great job, bringin new dimesnions to the characters, while giving a nod to their original incarnations.
Thematically, this Star Trek is a bit of a departure. It is a more dangerous universe, cold and traumatic. There are clearly influences from Battlestar Galactica and Star Wars, both in terms of visual style and action - being bold and dynamic, and in the story. Star trek has always been timely, from the height of the Cold War to the end of the Cold War . This is a post 9/11 Trek, with the destruction of a planet as their central history point. It would seem that planets and civilizations are now no longer safe in any of the great sci-fi worlds.
The major drawback of this film is the design of its most important character- the Enterprise. Externally, this one is simply ugly. It is obvioulsy much larger than its prime counterpart, as depicted by the interior.[3] [4] Internally, it is an incredible departure. It may have the nicest bridge on any sci-fi ship, with an ultra-modern Correllian design and a 300+ inch screen. Curiously some have noted that the engineering locations look like a brewery, with massive tanks. I guess these are just all the things that used to appear in Enterprise deck plans, but have now been magnified to usuable preportions. The interiors of the secondary hull contain immense levels of scaffolding and catwalks, looking like a 20th century industrial building. This gives an interesting contrast to the ipod-ness of the main hull. The shuttle bay is also massive, besides being influenced by the aforementioned epics, it also expands on the attempts made in TMP, although this time its exterior is enlarged to contain it.
What's next, and what will it be called? Will it be STII, or STXII? I was hoping that this film would do well enough for Paramount to do another Next Generation movie, as Levar Burton has suggested. I feel that the Enterprise E story is not over yet, but I also want to see another film with this cast. Perhaps the next one can feature the prime Enterprise following the missing spock, and they can call it The Search for Spock.
[1] This interview details canon and continuity.
[2] Once again, I refer to Time Machines
[3] USS_Enterprise_(alternate_reality)
[4]
The first thing to deal with when viewing the new Star Trek is the alternate universe. Many fans seem to be quite upset with this, suggesting that it wipes out the history that we have watched over the last 40 years. They just can't understand the concept, even though it was explicitly revealed in the film. A reboot, a la Batman, Battlestar Galactica, and James Bond, would have wiped out that history. But thankfully in this case we have an escape built in to the Star Trek Universe. Now, Trek has had it both ways, showing many times a single changeable timeline, but it has also shown parallel universes before, starting with the venerable "Mirror, Mirror." In the Next Gen episode "Parallels", we watch Worf jump between universes a la Sliders, finally resulting in the converge of 285,000 Enterprises. Other notable episodes were "Yesterday's Enterprise," and "All Good Things", each portraying other ways things could have worked out. Producers of the new film have suggested that every time travel event in Star Trek history has produced a new universe, although I would argue that "Parallels" claimed that each universe had a unique quantum signature, and that one could return to their original home universe, so I think this explaination is unneccessary. [1]
I would also point out here that I fully contend that this new universe was pre-existing and that it was not "caused" by the Spock singularity. Federation technology was already on a different track, with the Kelvin being more advanced than its prime counterparts. It has been estimated that if the multiple universe theories are true, that only a googol universes would need to exist to allow for an infinite number of different outcomes. [2] So, it would seem that these googol universe already exists, otherwise any one of our decisions would create the energy and matter of an entire universe, and that seems far too extraordinary too any of this.
The second point to come to terms with is the new actors playing the sacrosanct characters of Kirk, et al. This has already been dealt with by some fans, with Star Trek: New Voyages, and I'll quote their website:
"Star Trek: Phase II's producers/crew feel that Kirk, Spock, McCoy and the rest should be treated as "classic" characters like Willy Loman from Death of a Salesman, Gandalf from Lord of the Rings or even Hamlet, Othello or Romeo. Many actors have and can play the roles, each offering a different interpretation of said character. Though the character is the same, the interpretation of the actor is what's in question. We feel that the crew of the Enterprise has more to teach us about life and each other than has been explored to date. We also feel the new actors can add to the legend in a believable and contemporary way. The timelessness of the classic characters was recognized by JJ Abrams."
It is certainly true that Captain Kirk has joined the ranks of some other great fictional characters and has become part of contemporary mythology. All I can say is that the actors did a great job, bringin new dimesnions to the characters, while giving a nod to their original incarnations.
Thematically, this Star Trek is a bit of a departure. It is a more dangerous universe, cold and traumatic. There are clearly influences from Battlestar Galactica and Star Wars, both in terms of visual style and action - being bold and dynamic, and in the story. Star trek has always been timely, from the height of the Cold War to the end of the Cold War . This is a post 9/11 Trek, with the destruction of a planet as their central history point. It would seem that planets and civilizations are now no longer safe in any of the great sci-fi worlds.
The major drawback of this film is the design of its most important character- the Enterprise. Externally, this one is simply ugly. It is obvioulsy much larger than its prime counterpart, as depicted by the interior.[3] [4] Internally, it is an incredible departure. It may have the nicest bridge on any sci-fi ship, with an ultra-modern Correllian design and a 300+ inch screen. Curiously some have noted that the engineering locations look like a brewery, with massive tanks. I guess these are just all the things that used to appear in Enterprise deck plans, but have now been magnified to usuable preportions. The interiors of the secondary hull contain immense levels of scaffolding and catwalks, looking like a 20th century industrial building. This gives an interesting contrast to the ipod-ness of the main hull. The shuttle bay is also massive, besides being influenced by the aforementioned epics, it also expands on the attempts made in TMP, although this time its exterior is enlarged to contain it.
What's next, and what will it be called? Will it be STII, or STXII? I was hoping that this film would do well enough for Paramount to do another Next Generation movie, as Levar Burton has suggested. I feel that the Enterprise E story is not over yet, but I also want to see another film with this cast. Perhaps the next one can feature the prime Enterprise following the missing spock, and they can call it The Search for Spock.
[1] This interview details canon and continuity.
[2] Once again, I refer to Time Machines
[3] USS_Enterprise_(alternate_reality)
[4]
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Metropolis Pt 1
"It only ends once, anything that happens before that is just progress" - Jacob, Lost
The season five finale of Lost may have had the best opening scene, ever. Immediately we see the statue, the Black Rock, Jacob [and Cerberus] and in one scene the scope of the overall story dramatically increased, revealing the epic nature we have been waiting for. My only disappointment, is that I now wish we hadn't seen the statue earlier this season. If this had been our first view of it since season two, the dramatic impact would have been more intense. As the story spirals out further each season, we see that the conflicts of the main characters are insignificant to the overall story, and they only are significant in particular events of history. But , it would seem the overall conflict involves Jacob and "Man #2", shown in a black/white dichotomy. This episode had a very biblical feel to it, and this character may be Esau, as they were both mentioned in the fictional book Bad Twin. There are also overtones of Cain/Abel and Set/Osiris. I suspect, however, that the Jacob / Nemesis situation may not be as simple as we have been shown and perhaps some of what has been attributed to Jacob may in fact be his other (i.e. the cabin). It would also seem that the Cerberus monster fits in here somewhere. At this point the Nemesis and Locke (or Locke-2) would seem to be the best candidate for being the monster, as he appeared after Ben summoned him. This all seems to go back to the first episode, when Locke was explaining backgammon: "Two players. Two sides. One is light, one is dark."
I suspect that the time loop flight 815 is caught in may only be part of a larger time cycle. This is why the island "is not done" with certain people, and why when these people try to do things like kill themselves they are told "the island won't let you." Because this all may have happened already and can't be changed. Jacob clearly represents freewill and freedom of choice, emphasizing to each person he encounters the freedom of their choice. This is a polar opposition to the notions of fate and destiny we have seen attributed to the island. Perhaps this has to do with Jacob's nemesis, the two of them defining the archetypes of opposing groups on the island. These differing schools of thought are played out by evermore social groups of "others" who are constantly changing and reforming. The Nemesis takes a pessimistic viewpoint and views newcomers as ones who "fight, destroy and corrupt", while Jacob is more social and optimistic, unconcerned about the future. This would fit with the Nemesis being the monster, the security system of the island. The theme of immortality is also introduced , and besides Richard, it seems that Jacob is an immortal, unable to die, yet ready for it. Finally, everything has changed, reversed, with this episode and its white ending. The season 6 teaser shows eyes opening, presumably Juliet, though they have become a different color [1]. I propose that the explosion will neither destroy the island or reverse time, but rather propel the survivors back to their original time, where their exile and search for meaning will continue.
As a side note, I still believe that Desmond is a major part of the center of the story (he is certainly is the dramatic center). So far he has been the only one to experience two timelines, or rather a changing single timeline, making him "special. He seems to me to be a Christ figure, although that may have something to do with Henry Ian Cusak once playing Jesus. After he imploded the hatch he traveled back to his former life, and then was forced to choose returning to the island, although changed. This echoes Christ's decent into hell and resurrection (and I mean that in a Last Temptation sort of way.) He may be the one that saves them after all.
I am reminded of the Dream Theater song Metropolis, inspired by the ancient tale of Romulus and Remus. In this rendition, the two twins are locked in conflict throughout time in the lives of others. In any case, the underlying tone of this episode evoked this song in my mind.
The smile of dawn
Arrived in early May
She carried a gift from her home
The night shed a tear
To tell her of fear
And of sorrow and pain
She'll never outgrow
Death is the first dance, eternal
There's no more freedom
The both of you will be
confined to this mind
I was told there's a miracle for each day that I try
I was told there's a new love that's born for each one that has died
I was told there'd be no one to call on when I feel alone and afraid
I was told if you dream of the next world
You'll find yourself swimming in a lake of fire
As a child, I thought I could live without pain without sorrow
But as a man Ive found its all caught up with me
Im asleep yet Im so afraid
Somewhere like a scene from a memory
Theres a picture worth a thousand words
Eluding stares from faces before me
It hides away and will never be heard of again
Deceit is the second without end
The citys cold blood teaches us to survive
Just keep my heart in your eyes and well stay alive
The third arrives...
Before the leaves have fallen
Before we lock the doors
There must be a third and last dance
This one will last forever
Metropolis watches and thoughtfully smiles
Shes taken you to your home
It can only take place
When the struggle between our children has ended
Now the miracle and the sleeper know that the third is love
-Dream Theater, Metropolis from Images & Words, 1992
[1] Read Lost is a Game for an extraordinary theory of the show. While I'm not convinced its the absolute solution, his research and attention to recurring details is amazing (the change in eye color, for example)
The season five finale of Lost may have had the best opening scene, ever. Immediately we see the statue, the Black Rock, Jacob [and Cerberus] and in one scene the scope of the overall story dramatically increased, revealing the epic nature we have been waiting for. My only disappointment, is that I now wish we hadn't seen the statue earlier this season. If this had been our first view of it since season two, the dramatic impact would have been more intense. As the story spirals out further each season, we see that the conflicts of the main characters are insignificant to the overall story, and they only are significant in particular events of history. But , it would seem the overall conflict involves Jacob and "Man #2", shown in a black/white dichotomy. This episode had a very biblical feel to it, and this character may be Esau, as they were both mentioned in the fictional book Bad Twin. There are also overtones of Cain/Abel and Set/Osiris. I suspect, however, that the Jacob / Nemesis situation may not be as simple as we have been shown and perhaps some of what has been attributed to Jacob may in fact be his other (i.e. the cabin). It would also seem that the Cerberus monster fits in here somewhere. At this point the Nemesis and Locke (or Locke-2) would seem to be the best candidate for being the monster, as he appeared after Ben summoned him. This all seems to go back to the first episode, when Locke was explaining backgammon: "Two players. Two sides. One is light, one is dark."
I suspect that the time loop flight 815 is caught in may only be part of a larger time cycle. This is why the island "is not done" with certain people, and why when these people try to do things like kill themselves they are told "the island won't let you." Because this all may have happened already and can't be changed. Jacob clearly represents freewill and freedom of choice, emphasizing to each person he encounters the freedom of their choice. This is a polar opposition to the notions of fate and destiny we have seen attributed to the island. Perhaps this has to do with Jacob's nemesis, the two of them defining the archetypes of opposing groups on the island. These differing schools of thought are played out by evermore social groups of "others" who are constantly changing and reforming. The Nemesis takes a pessimistic viewpoint and views newcomers as ones who "fight, destroy and corrupt", while Jacob is more social and optimistic, unconcerned about the future. This would fit with the Nemesis being the monster, the security system of the island. The theme of immortality is also introduced , and besides Richard, it seems that Jacob is an immortal, unable to die, yet ready for it. Finally, everything has changed, reversed, with this episode and its white ending. The season 6 teaser shows eyes opening, presumably Juliet, though they have become a different color [1]. I propose that the explosion will neither destroy the island or reverse time, but rather propel the survivors back to their original time, where their exile and search for meaning will continue.
As a side note, I still believe that Desmond is a major part of the center of the story (he is certainly is the dramatic center). So far he has been the only one to experience two timelines, or rather a changing single timeline, making him "special. He seems to me to be a Christ figure, although that may have something to do with Henry Ian Cusak once playing Jesus. After he imploded the hatch he traveled back to his former life, and then was forced to choose returning to the island, although changed. This echoes Christ's decent into hell and resurrection (and I mean that in a Last Temptation sort of way.) He may be the one that saves them after all.
I am reminded of the Dream Theater song Metropolis, inspired by the ancient tale of Romulus and Remus. In this rendition, the two twins are locked in conflict throughout time in the lives of others. In any case, the underlying tone of this episode evoked this song in my mind.
The smile of dawn
Arrived in early May
She carried a gift from her home
The night shed a tear
To tell her of fear
And of sorrow and pain
She'll never outgrow
Death is the first dance, eternal
There's no more freedom
The both of you will be
confined to this mind
I was told there's a miracle for each day that I try
I was told there's a new love that's born for each one that has died
I was told there'd be no one to call on when I feel alone and afraid
I was told if you dream of the next world
You'll find yourself swimming in a lake of fire
As a child, I thought I could live without pain without sorrow
But as a man Ive found its all caught up with me
Im asleep yet Im so afraid
Somewhere like a scene from a memory
Theres a picture worth a thousand words
Eluding stares from faces before me
It hides away and will never be heard of again
Deceit is the second without end
The citys cold blood teaches us to survive
Just keep my heart in your eyes and well stay alive
The third arrives...
Before the leaves have fallen
Before we lock the doors
There must be a third and last dance
This one will last forever
Metropolis watches and thoughtfully smiles
Shes taken you to your home
It can only take place
When the struggle between our children has ended
Now the miracle and the sleeper know that the third is love
-Dream Theater, Metropolis from Images & Words, 1992
[1] Read Lost is a Game for an extraordinary theory of the show. While I'm not convinced its the absolute solution, his research and attention to recurring details is amazing (the change in eye color, for example)
Saturday, May 02, 2009
The Death of Daniel Faraday
With the episode "The Variable," Lost has moved into the endgame chapter - everything is in place for the final season. When I wrote last year about the book Time Machines, I never suspected that it would pertain so much to Lost, which is to my mind the most significant example of postmodernism in current pop culture. The view expressed in that book is that time travel is possible, but that the universe consists of a single time-line, so what ever has been done in the past is fixed. This is precisely the view that has been enumerated several times on Lost, since the survivors started jumping through time with the commencement of this season. They usually express the view in terms of "whatever happened, happened." But now, Daniel Faraday has theorized that the timeline can be changed, and has refocused his concentration on constants to that of variables- people with freewill. Of course that presents many problems: obviously whatever has happened has become reality by occurring. The only way out is to split the universe into a parallel reality where the future is changeable, or do what even God cannot logically do - erase history. This last option seems to be the one that the survivors will ambitiously attempt to do, make it so their plane ( and 5 years of adventures) never happens. They will begin this attempt by detonating a hydrogen bomb (presumably this years' finale explosion). We may very well see in the last episode, Flight 815 safely landing, unaware of the events that were erased and skipped and the characters will continue on as they were. I hope the ending is not this simple, and even if the plane does land, hopefully the characters will remember their experiences. What is particularly interesting at this point is the existential crisis confronting them. If it is possible to erase your life, should you do it? It is your life and who you are now. Undoing it may be the greatest sin of life.
But I think the writers still have a more important meta-story to tell here. Even if the survivors were to return to their original lives, there must be a significant point to the mysteries of Richard, Jacob, Widmore, Cerberus and the Island itself. Flight 815 is a mechanism for furthering some greater purpose, and even if the survivors escape the rhizomic conditions they are currently in, their interaction in it will have made profound changes. This may have been one of the most brain-straining seasons of television, and the next year promises to be just as enthralling.
But I think the writers still have a more important meta-story to tell here. Even if the survivors were to return to their original lives, there must be a significant point to the mysteries of Richard, Jacob, Widmore, Cerberus and the Island itself. Flight 815 is a mechanism for furthering some greater purpose, and even if the survivors escape the rhizomic conditions they are currently in, their interaction in it will have made profound changes. This may have been one of the most brain-straining seasons of television, and the next year promises to be just as enthralling.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Sting is lined up to play a one-off show, consisting of Dominic Miller, David Sancious, and Josh Freese. I couldn't ask for a better line-up. We know Dom has been in Italy working with Sting, hopefully they are finishing up work on tracks that have been started over the last five years. This could be the return of something great.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
The Universe Next Door
Last Book Read: The Universe Next Door - James W. Sire
I came across this book in a thrift store and I can't pass up any book that discusses existentialism and postmodernism. Written as a Christian criticism of different worldviews, I figured reading this would be any interesting exercise. I will limit my comments here to the chapters on nihilism, existentialism and postmodernism.
Sire's take on nihilism is that it is logical conclusion from naturalism, that is things are as they are in an objective and contingent world. There is no inherent meaning in anything, and none can be concluded. The biggest problem with this chapter is his confusion of nihilism and absurdism. He quotes much from Camus and Douglas Adams, as well as Beckett and Kafka. All of these writers are concerned with absurdism, and I certainly wouldn't consider any of these as nihilists. None of them deny value, they only claim that it is absurd and possibly unknowable. He does cite Nietzsche, as is necessary in any discussion of nihilism, but he does not recognize Nietzsche's anticipation of escape from this "box". Nihilism is not a live option for a philosophy, and is really more of a rejection of philosophy. Sire seems to confuse two types of nihilism: epistemological, the position that there can be no truths, and existential, the position that there can be no meaning. Nihilism may be a logical paradox, as Sire claims, when it is epistemological nihilism. But that does not mean naturalism is necessarily false. Knowledge is a construct, dependant on human conciousness. Let's not confuse truths and facts, the universe doesn't care how we frame and catalog our experience of reality, it just is. It may be a fact that the universe is nothing but random atoms joined purely by chance, but nihilism is not inherently linked with this explanation. The paradox arises within the human understanding, and not in the external world. Furthermore, this epistemoligcal nihilism is not a necessary component of all nihilsm. It is in the existential sense that nihilism is most often used, and I think this is what Sire means when he claims that worldviews end in nihilism, because all values are equaled, and hence lose meaning. This is exactly what Nietzsche argued when discussing the "devaluation of values". It is also present in Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality. I think history has proven the real presence and danger of existential nihilsm, it can exist without paradox. But many people such as Pirsig and Nietzsche have shown solutions that do not reject a naturalistic framework. Finally, he claims Nietzsche "ended in an asylum" because of his links with nihilism. This is purely false, his mental disorders were a direct result of a biological infection and not a philosophical one.
Next, Sire moves on to existentialism. He correctly notes existentialism as a response and a solution to nihilism (as is much of philosophy and art). Here, we see the introduction of subject into the universe. Human consciousness changes existence, and makes meaning and value possible. This meaning is not pre-determined, however. It is created by the activity of consciousness. Sire's rejection of existentialism begins with the danger of solipsism, where the value of the "I" is the only one and no one else is recognized in the equation. But, he also recognizes that Sartre has already addressed this. The very center of existentialism is the realization that we are being-for-itself, and others are also being-for-itself. We must recognize others as subject and not as objects. Now, existentialist ethics are never a simple matter, and Sartre himself was unable to complete his works on it. But, here Sire over-simplifies the whole notion of an existentialist ethics and quickly moves past it without a detailed examination. His main argument is that in existentialism good is created by choosing, so what ever one freely chooses is the good and non-choice is evil. This, of course, ignores the major element of existentialism, responsibility. Because we have freedom we cannot pass off our choices, and any evil they create, to anyone else. We alone are responsible for the outcome. Choice itself is not the good, but we are given the opportunity to create good and make universal our choices, thereby creating the world we want to live in. Sire would do well to read de Beavoiur's Ethics of Ambiguity for an explanation of existential evil. He does admit that Camus' The Plague is a case for living the moral life in a world where values are ungrounded. But, Sire's problem still remains, they are ungrounded. Just because humans can affirm values, they do not gain any more of a base and they can be countered by opposite affirmations. Then, when these conflicts arise, how can we know which one is "right"? Here again, a more detailed analysis of freedom and responsibility would help narrow the range of possibilities and take us away from pure relativism. Sire does not touch at all on authenticity, and this, I would argue, is the centerpiece of existentialism , and without recognizing that, we cannot adequately explain or analyze it. When we recognize the freedom of others, and our responsibility to them, we go a long way forward in creating a morality that is close to "traditional", without unnecessary essences and exterior explanations. It is not that far removed from the virtue ethics of Aristotle.
Moving on to postmodernism, Sire does provide some decent background discussion, noting the historical changes from being to knowing to meaning. He does not think postmodernism will be with us "for the long haul." I think this has been quite disproven, as postmodernism continues to more accurately explain the current world. His charge that postmodernism is completely dismissed by scientists is also complete nonsense. Here some readings from Kellner and Best would illuminate that criticism. I do agree that postmodernism is inadequate when it comes to areas like ethics, leaving only a vague relativism. While I think postmodernism is an excellent descriptive philosophy, I believe it is very incomplete as a prescriptive philosophy. Finally, Sire attempts a lethal blow by claiming that the position "there are no metanarratives" is itself a metanarrative and therefore self-nullifies the whole philosophy. Once again he tries to force the position of epistemological nihilism on a worldview. I'm not convinced that the postmodern claim is that there are no truths or no knowable truths, rather that there are only experiential truths. These truths are not enough to provide a metanarrative without an external source from beyond experience, and there is no evidence of this source. We can only know what we experience, and can create stories or narratives about that. But there is no way to step outside our experience and view ourselves and the totality of existence objectively.
Sire states that this is not a work of professional philosophy and he is quite right. It is far too shallow and brief for that. Nevertheless, Sire tries to claim that he logically proved the self-inconsistencies in each of these worldviews, but that simply was not possibly in the limited manner of this work . For instance, he claims to have shown pantheism inconsistent, but nowhere in the book did he provide a full proof of that. Despite what many readers of this book have thought, it is also not a good catalog of worldviews. If it attempted to casually present a collection of worldviews it might succeed. But, Sire isn't that casual, he over-simplifies and quickly tries to dismiss everything he disagrees with and prove his own view correct. So, this book is stuck between being a serious work of critique, and a casual work of general introduction, accomplishing neither. As a final insult, after revealing the illogical form of these views, he presents his own without any logical basis. At best his theistic view, even if fully accepted, could not be defended purely on logical grounds. Sire has proven himself logically inconsistent. Since he has to accept a groundless fact for the very basis of his worldview, theism, this should not be a basis to reject other theories. The views presented here are based on facts, or at least perceptions and experience, rather than extension of belief, which leads Sire to a very unstable point for his attacks. He would be better off arguing why these philosophies could be true, were it not for an inadequacy or defect, namely the existence of his theism, and then argue why one should accept this theism as a starting point, being ungrounded, and reject plain experience for something more.
I came across this book in a thrift store and I can't pass up any book that discusses existentialism and postmodernism. Written as a Christian criticism of different worldviews, I figured reading this would be any interesting exercise. I will limit my comments here to the chapters on nihilism, existentialism and postmodernism.
Sire's take on nihilism is that it is logical conclusion from naturalism, that is things are as they are in an objective and contingent world. There is no inherent meaning in anything, and none can be concluded. The biggest problem with this chapter is his confusion of nihilism and absurdism. He quotes much from Camus and Douglas Adams, as well as Beckett and Kafka. All of these writers are concerned with absurdism, and I certainly wouldn't consider any of these as nihilists. None of them deny value, they only claim that it is absurd and possibly unknowable. He does cite Nietzsche, as is necessary in any discussion of nihilism, but he does not recognize Nietzsche's anticipation of escape from this "box". Nihilism is not a live option for a philosophy, and is really more of a rejection of philosophy. Sire seems to confuse two types of nihilism: epistemological, the position that there can be no truths, and existential, the position that there can be no meaning. Nihilism may be a logical paradox, as Sire claims, when it is epistemological nihilism. But that does not mean naturalism is necessarily false. Knowledge is a construct, dependant on human conciousness. Let's not confuse truths and facts, the universe doesn't care how we frame and catalog our experience of reality, it just is. It may be a fact that the universe is nothing but random atoms joined purely by chance, but nihilism is not inherently linked with this explanation. The paradox arises within the human understanding, and not in the external world. Furthermore, this epistemoligcal nihilism is not a necessary component of all nihilsm. It is in the existential sense that nihilism is most often used, and I think this is what Sire means when he claims that worldviews end in nihilism, because all values are equaled, and hence lose meaning. This is exactly what Nietzsche argued when discussing the "devaluation of values". It is also present in Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality. I think history has proven the real presence and danger of existential nihilsm, it can exist without paradox. But many people such as Pirsig and Nietzsche have shown solutions that do not reject a naturalistic framework. Finally, he claims Nietzsche "ended in an asylum" because of his links with nihilism. This is purely false, his mental disorders were a direct result of a biological infection and not a philosophical one.
Next, Sire moves on to existentialism. He correctly notes existentialism as a response and a solution to nihilism (as is much of philosophy and art). Here, we see the introduction of subject into the universe. Human consciousness changes existence, and makes meaning and value possible. This meaning is not pre-determined, however. It is created by the activity of consciousness. Sire's rejection of existentialism begins with the danger of solipsism, where the value of the "I" is the only one and no one else is recognized in the equation. But, he also recognizes that Sartre has already addressed this. The very center of existentialism is the realization that we are being-for-itself, and others are also being-for-itself. We must recognize others as subject and not as objects. Now, existentialist ethics are never a simple matter, and Sartre himself was unable to complete his works on it. But, here Sire over-simplifies the whole notion of an existentialist ethics and quickly moves past it without a detailed examination. His main argument is that in existentialism good is created by choosing, so what ever one freely chooses is the good and non-choice is evil. This, of course, ignores the major element of existentialism, responsibility. Because we have freedom we cannot pass off our choices, and any evil they create, to anyone else. We alone are responsible for the outcome. Choice itself is not the good, but we are given the opportunity to create good and make universal our choices, thereby creating the world we want to live in. Sire would do well to read de Beavoiur's Ethics of Ambiguity for an explanation of existential evil. He does admit that Camus' The Plague is a case for living the moral life in a world where values are ungrounded. But, Sire's problem still remains, they are ungrounded. Just because humans can affirm values, they do not gain any more of a base and they can be countered by opposite affirmations. Then, when these conflicts arise, how can we know which one is "right"? Here again, a more detailed analysis of freedom and responsibility would help narrow the range of possibilities and take us away from pure relativism. Sire does not touch at all on authenticity, and this, I would argue, is the centerpiece of existentialism , and without recognizing that, we cannot adequately explain or analyze it. When we recognize the freedom of others, and our responsibility to them, we go a long way forward in creating a morality that is close to "traditional", without unnecessary essences and exterior explanations. It is not that far removed from the virtue ethics of Aristotle.
Moving on to postmodernism, Sire does provide some decent background discussion, noting the historical changes from being to knowing to meaning. He does not think postmodernism will be with us "for the long haul." I think this has been quite disproven, as postmodernism continues to more accurately explain the current world. His charge that postmodernism is completely dismissed by scientists is also complete nonsense. Here some readings from Kellner and Best would illuminate that criticism. I do agree that postmodernism is inadequate when it comes to areas like ethics, leaving only a vague relativism. While I think postmodernism is an excellent descriptive philosophy, I believe it is very incomplete as a prescriptive philosophy. Finally, Sire attempts a lethal blow by claiming that the position "there are no metanarratives" is itself a metanarrative and therefore self-nullifies the whole philosophy. Once again he tries to force the position of epistemological nihilism on a worldview. I'm not convinced that the postmodern claim is that there are no truths or no knowable truths, rather that there are only experiential truths. These truths are not enough to provide a metanarrative without an external source from beyond experience, and there is no evidence of this source. We can only know what we experience, and can create stories or narratives about that. But there is no way to step outside our experience and view ourselves and the totality of existence objectively.
Sire states that this is not a work of professional philosophy and he is quite right. It is far too shallow and brief for that. Nevertheless, Sire tries to claim that he logically proved the self-inconsistencies in each of these worldviews, but that simply was not possibly in the limited manner of this work . For instance, he claims to have shown pantheism inconsistent, but nowhere in the book did he provide a full proof of that. Despite what many readers of this book have thought, it is also not a good catalog of worldviews. If it attempted to casually present a collection of worldviews it might succeed. But, Sire isn't that casual, he over-simplifies and quickly tries to dismiss everything he disagrees with and prove his own view correct. So, this book is stuck between being a serious work of critique, and a casual work of general introduction, accomplishing neither. As a final insult, after revealing the illogical form of these views, he presents his own without any logical basis. At best his theistic view, even if fully accepted, could not be defended purely on logical grounds. Sire has proven himself logically inconsistent. Since he has to accept a groundless fact for the very basis of his worldview, theism, this should not be a basis to reject other theories. The views presented here are based on facts, or at least perceptions and experience, rather than extension of belief, which leads Sire to a very unstable point for his attacks. He would be better off arguing why these philosophies could be true, were it not for an inadequacy or defect, namely the existence of his theism, and then argue why one should accept this theism as a starting point, being ungrounded, and reject plain experience for something more.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
"This planet has — or rather had — a problem, which was this: most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small green pieces of paper, which is odd because on the whole it wasn’t the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy."
- Douglas Adams
"We will bury you" - Nikita Khrushchev
As the twentieth century ended, it seemed we had permanently done away with Marxism as a viable option. Certainly Krushchev was wrong - capitalism triumphed over communism. As I've stated earlier I think the battle was really more between democracy and totalitarianism, and democracy rightfully won. In the twentieth century capitalism supported democracy, but now in the twenty-first century we have moved into the realm of supercapitalism (more on this later). Capitalism and democracy are no longer mutually supportive. So perhaps, we can go back and learn a little from Marx and from democratic socialism. Here's more on this point.
- Douglas Adams
"We will bury you" - Nikita Khrushchev
As the twentieth century ended, it seemed we had permanently done away with Marxism as a viable option. Certainly Krushchev was wrong - capitalism triumphed over communism. As I've stated earlier I think the battle was really more between democracy and totalitarianism, and democracy rightfully won. In the twentieth century capitalism supported democracy, but now in the twenty-first century we have moved into the realm of supercapitalism (more on this later). Capitalism and democracy are no longer mutually supportive. So perhaps, we can go back and learn a little from Marx and from democratic socialism. Here's more on this point.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Econopocalypse
If there was ever any hope that I might find a glimmer of wisdom and truth in the Republican party, it was lost with the creation of their budget proposal last week. It would contain the largest tax cut for the wealthy in history. Absolutely the wrong thing to do, as they continue to propose the very opposite of what needs to be done.
Was the beginning of the econopacalypse Clinton's fault? Or perhaps it began back in a Republican Congress. At least some people saw the beginning of economic havoc.
Poor Billy over at FNC still can't comprehend the paradigm shift that is being caused by technological advancement. He thinks newspapers are going out of business because they are "far left." He doesn't get that it is the nature of newspapers themselves that is becoming outdated, and soon ALL newspapers will either have to adapt or cease to exist.
Now, for something more constructive:
It is useful, when considering the political spectrum, to take a look at these charts. The Nolan Chart has its two axis based on personal freedom and economic freedom. The Pournelle Chart has its based on attitude toward the state, and attitude towards social progress. These layouts show the complexity of the political landscape better than the conventional idea of a one dimensional line with left and right extensions, although a third dimension might provide even more precision in determining relations between political viewpoints. At first glance, it would seem that the libertarian corners are the ideal location, being the opposite of totalitarianism. But, I would caution, that these extremes leave out important considerations. Any extension of freedom is going to have as its converse, a dimension of responsibility. Is a completely free society a responsible one? If the purpose of government is not to promote the common good, than I can't think of a reason to even have a government. Some libertarians might respond by proposing just that - no government. Their position might be consistent, but I think it is not very practical in the long term, and in the 21st century I think the wealthiest country in history can do better.
Was the beginning of the econopacalypse Clinton's fault? Or perhaps it began back in a Republican Congress. At least some people saw the beginning of economic havoc.
Poor Billy over at FNC still can't comprehend the paradigm shift that is being caused by technological advancement. He thinks newspapers are going out of business because they are "far left." He doesn't get that it is the nature of newspapers themselves that is becoming outdated, and soon ALL newspapers will either have to adapt or cease to exist.
Now, for something more constructive:
It is useful, when considering the political spectrum, to take a look at these charts. The Nolan Chart has its two axis based on personal freedom and economic freedom. The Pournelle Chart has its based on attitude toward the state, and attitude towards social progress. These layouts show the complexity of the political landscape better than the conventional idea of a one dimensional line with left and right extensions, although a third dimension might provide even more precision in determining relations between political viewpoints. At first glance, it would seem that the libertarian corners are the ideal location, being the opposite of totalitarianism. But, I would caution, that these extremes leave out important considerations. Any extension of freedom is going to have as its converse, a dimension of responsibility. Is a completely free society a responsible one? If the purpose of government is not to promote the common good, than I can't think of a reason to even have a government. Some libertarians might respond by proposing just that - no government. Their position might be consistent, but I think it is not very practical in the long term, and in the 21st century I think the wealthiest country in history can do better.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Digital Zero
I ended up reading a couple of articles here and here that helped me consider what's going on in music today. Maybe its not just the modern artistic quality that I find revolting, but the technical aspects of modern recording. At the heart of the discussion is "the loudness war." Music recordings are consistently getting louder, by the addition of limiters and compression, and then the quietest parts of the recording are brought up to the highest volume, leaving a giant wall-of-sound, with no dynamic differences. Any aesthetic values created by quiet or softer sounds is lost, as is the dramatic interaction between varying volumes, and any "punch" or intensity by allowing sounds to stand above the rest. The average volumes have gone from -20db to -5db, so this has pushed all the instruments into the same sonic space, and left only 5dbs of overhead for any "movement", or for anything such as kick drums to stand out. This also results in digital artifacts, as the original sounds are "clipped" off. As much of the waveform is squared off, the original performance is degraded. The final outcome is that much of the musicality of the sound turns into white noise.
This helps explain why I find new music offensive to my ears and my brain - it becomes fatiguing and disorienting, like psychological warfare. Obviously, its part of current dance and pop music. It also seems to part of the fabric of new sounds such as nu-metal, and why I think otherwise interesting bands end up sounding horrible. Much of the rationale behind this trend, is simply that it is a trend, and everybody wants their recordings to be fresh and current, like everybody else. Now, listeners of new music are so accustomed to this practice, that they don't realize its detrimental effects on the music, and why older, more dynamic, music might be richer and more apprehendable to the brain's ability to sonically comprehend what it hears and aesthtically interpret it.
One of the earliest controversies over this started with 2002's Vapor Trails from Rush. What could possibly be one of their best albums, artistically and musically, is almost unlistenable because of the recording - it just hits your ears like a full frontal assault. We have reached a point where technology should give us more fidelity, such as 24 bit /192khz recordings. We have SACD, DVD-A, as well as the more common, but excellent 5.1 CDs and DVDs, but all the dynamic room in these is going to waste on newer recordings.
This helps explain why I find new music offensive to my ears and my brain - it becomes fatiguing and disorienting, like psychological warfare. Obviously, its part of current dance and pop music. It also seems to part of the fabric of new sounds such as nu-metal, and why I think otherwise interesting bands end up sounding horrible. Much of the rationale behind this trend, is simply that it is a trend, and everybody wants their recordings to be fresh and current, like everybody else. Now, listeners of new music are so accustomed to this practice, that they don't realize its detrimental effects on the music, and why older, more dynamic, music might be richer and more apprehendable to the brain's ability to sonically comprehend what it hears and aesthtically interpret it.
One of the earliest controversies over this started with 2002's Vapor Trails from Rush. What could possibly be one of their best albums, artistically and musically, is almost unlistenable because of the recording - it just hits your ears like a full frontal assault. We have reached a point where technology should give us more fidelity, such as 24 bit /192khz recordings. We have SACD, DVD-A, as well as the more common, but excellent 5.1 CDs and DVDs, but all the dynamic room in these is going to waste on newer recordings.
Saturday, March 07, 2009
The Post-American World
Last Book Read - The Post American World - Fareed Zakaria
The Post-American World is a book that might be more relevant now than when it was published in 2008. Here Fareed Zakaria provides an excellent explanation of whats happening internationally as globalism causes a major historical shift. This is the third major shift in the last 500 years, beginning with the rise of the west, followed by the rise of America, and now "the rise of the rest." As the rest of the world emerges as global players, the U.S. will lose part of its share in global economics and influence. We won't necessarily decline, but the rest of the world is catching up to us. Zakaria explains how we have gone from a multi-polar world, with many European superpowers to a bi-polar world of the Cold War, to a unipolar world of U.S. domination, and now to a uni-multipolar world. The U.S. will still remain the only superpower, and the only dominate military force, but many other countries, notably China and India, will have economic and political influence and power in all other areas. These countries will grow faster than America, although we we still gain faster than Europe, and areas like the Middle East will remain stagnant. We invented and promoted capitalism, and now the rest of the world has joined in the game, raising their own standards, and becoming our competitors.
The world has been propelled into modernity for 300 years by a liberal hegemony, a postion we inherited from the British Empire. While Zakaria points out the modern world is not synonymous with the Western World, we have spread our culture more than any other in history. English has become the common international language, and style of dress, music , and many other things from America have come to represent the standard.
In discussing the end of our uni-polar world, this book also details the decline of global respect and attitudes towards America because of the diplomatic arrogance of the last American administration. This has contributed to the "America problem." Since 1990 the U.S. had unrestricted potential. But, we "blew it." "Washington played this hand badly. America has had a period of unparalleled influence. What does it have to show for it?"
Zakaria reveals comparisons between the current state of American imperialism with the British Empire at the end of the Nineteenth century. At the point the British entered into the Boer Wars, they began to seal their decline. Similarly, America is now facing a similar situation following the war in Iraq. Zakaria argues that the even though we are over-extending ourselves economic, just as the British did, we are in a much stronger position and our economy is "likely to slip, but not significantly". However, given the unpredictable economic decline seen over the last twelve months, I find his predictions overly optimistic. But, his historic lessons are well noted, and if properly taken into advisement, can help avoid history from "happening again." Zakaria speculates that future historians, writing about events now will say "the United States succeeded in its great and historic mission - it globalized the world. But along the way, it forgot to globalize itself."
The Post-American World is a book that might be more relevant now than when it was published in 2008. Here Fareed Zakaria provides an excellent explanation of whats happening internationally as globalism causes a major historical shift. This is the third major shift in the last 500 years, beginning with the rise of the west, followed by the rise of America, and now "the rise of the rest." As the rest of the world emerges as global players, the U.S. will lose part of its share in global economics and influence. We won't necessarily decline, but the rest of the world is catching up to us. Zakaria explains how we have gone from a multi-polar world, with many European superpowers to a bi-polar world of the Cold War, to a unipolar world of U.S. domination, and now to a uni-multipolar world. The U.S. will still remain the only superpower, and the only dominate military force, but many other countries, notably China and India, will have economic and political influence and power in all other areas. These countries will grow faster than America, although we we still gain faster than Europe, and areas like the Middle East will remain stagnant. We invented and promoted capitalism, and now the rest of the world has joined in the game, raising their own standards, and becoming our competitors.
The world has been propelled into modernity for 300 years by a liberal hegemony, a postion we inherited from the British Empire. While Zakaria points out the modern world is not synonymous with the Western World, we have spread our culture more than any other in history. English has become the common international language, and style of dress, music , and many other things from America have come to represent the standard.
In discussing the end of our uni-polar world, this book also details the decline of global respect and attitudes towards America because of the diplomatic arrogance of the last American administration. This has contributed to the "America problem." Since 1990 the U.S. had unrestricted potential. But, we "blew it." "Washington played this hand badly. America has had a period of unparalleled influence. What does it have to show for it?"
Zakaria reveals comparisons between the current state of American imperialism with the British Empire at the end of the Nineteenth century. At the point the British entered into the Boer Wars, they began to seal their decline. Similarly, America is now facing a similar situation following the war in Iraq. Zakaria argues that the even though we are over-extending ourselves economic, just as the British did, we are in a much stronger position and our economy is "likely to slip, but not significantly". However, given the unpredictable economic decline seen over the last twelve months, I find his predictions overly optimistic. But, his historic lessons are well noted, and if properly taken into advisement, can help avoid history from "happening again." Zakaria speculates that future historians, writing about events now will say "the United States succeeded in its great and historic mission - it globalized the world. But along the way, it forgot to globalize itself."
Thursday, March 05, 2009
I wish I had time to point out the numerous errors and lies that are presented in the media, particularly Fox News, but I simply don't. When O'Reilly says he just presents the facts and lets the audience decide, he is wrong. There are still lies by omission. I'm so tired of hearing how The Minneapolis Star Tribune is a "far left" newspaper. It is not. They endorsed the conservative candidate for senator - only a far right person would see them as far left. The criticism of Obama is utterly amazing. I knew it would be bad, but not this bad. He's only been in office six weeks, but they're already noting his failure for re-election. No one thought W would be re-elected, but never underestimate the power of the propaganda fed by the media. He spent 52% of 2001 on vacation, but anytime someone criticized him, it was "unpatriotic." And, yes, the W administration did criticize Clinton for creating 9/11 and the problems that W had to deal with.
Now Lou Dobbs has joined in the propaganda by claiming the attacks on Rush are a conspiracy. Whatever. Rush has been the conservative voice for twenty years. I couldn't turn on CNN last weekened without seeing his fat head and hearing his angry, hateful speech. So, yes, he is a viable target as a center of power in the Republican party. CPAC itself was a joke. Why do I have to see this on CNN? Would a liberal counterpart get aired on Fox News? Only if someone temporarily forgot a web address, I suppose. Liberal media, my ass!
As for "the redistribution of wealth" (which is a phrase that makes me want to punch the next person that utters it in my presence), no one seems to even have a basic understanding of U.S. tax code. I guess no one does their own taxes. And the media is not helping. As for the controversy over the reduction in deductions for charities, it would return to Reaganomics.
Now Lou Dobbs has joined in the propaganda by claiming the attacks on Rush are a conspiracy. Whatever. Rush has been the conservative voice for twenty years. I couldn't turn on CNN last weekened without seeing his fat head and hearing his angry, hateful speech. So, yes, he is a viable target as a center of power in the Republican party. CPAC itself was a joke. Why do I have to see this on CNN? Would a liberal counterpart get aired on Fox News? Only if someone temporarily forgot a web address, I suppose. Liberal media, my ass!
As for "the redistribution of wealth" (which is a phrase that makes me want to punch the next person that utters it in my presence), no one seems to even have a basic understanding of U.S. tax code. I guess no one does their own taxes. And the media is not helping. As for the controversy over the reduction in deductions for charities, it would return to Reaganomics.
OMFG! The rich might be facing new tax hikes! Some states are now considering raising taxes on the highest incomes by .5%. Obviously, we have now become a Socialist country! Of course, its never a problem when local governments raise sales tax by .5%, which affect poor citizens more than rich ones. But, Fox News is concerned about what will happen to those people making more than 1.2 million per year. Alarmist propaganda made by rich corporate owners, trying to throw their problems onto the lower classes. Never mind history. From 1932- 1986, the marginal rate for the highest tax bracket was well over 50% for federal taxes alone, peaking at 94%. The 1950s saw rates of 92%, a time when America did quite well and tax rates never seemed to hinder the rich. The current rate of 35% seems like nothing in comparison, and isn't much more than paid by those of us who don't even make enough to qualify as middle class. Many people, including Ben Stein, have realized that the only way out of this mess is for the rich to pay more, they're simply the only ones who can. Fox News isn't that smart. This is the channel that spent a day discussing the story of Biden not being able to remember a URL address for about 20 seconds. Not News. Fox News has become to news what MTV has become to music. A Joke. Useless. Meaningless.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
The inevitable has finally happened and Charter has followed the other cable providers in instituting a bandwidth cap of 100GB (I won't even consider the higher caps found in higher tiers because of the outrageous pricing of those services). Charter says only 1 percent of its users will be affected and that the average user only uses about 10GB a month. I contend that 100Gb is an unrealistic amount and that the 10GB average is either false or will quickly become antiquated. Now, I fully admit to being a power user and not someone who just uses email, facebook, and chat. But, the world is moving to a digital distribution model that is internet-centric.
Just casually browsing over an evening takes about 200MB (U/D), not to mention router maintenance packets as well as unwanted ad traffic (x2 people, that's 12 GBs a month right there). At this point, we can see that there is less distinction between "my computer" and the internet. I continually have a stream of news coming into Google Desktop and these days a lot of work can be done on Google Docs instead of local software. But, this, of course, is done through data transmission to "the cloud". And, a fully structured back-up plan would include online services such as Carbonite, where your data is uploaded to a secure server, replacing a local hard drive. Here we can see where limiting large data transfers can be detrimental to productivity.
Moving beyond the basic functions of "work", we next look at entertainment, a large portion of what we use PCs for. We add Youtube videos and the many TV streams such as Hulu and the traffic starts to quickly climb. Next a few Netflix streams adds gigabytes and then there's the streams I like to watch from Twit and Revision3. From there, we have to consider the digital products. I am increasingly buying more things directly over the internet. Besides the gigabytes of free podcasts I download, there's the music. Now mp3s from iTunes and Amazon don't constitute much traffic, but I've started buying full-quality CDs by download such as Marillion's Front Row Club, plus there are now more filmmakers making their films available for download. Next, we move on to bittorrent. Putting aside any illegal use, they are many legitimate reasons to use this, such as Linux distros and more film footage (I guess I won't be getting all 450GBs of NIN tour footage that Trent posted). On top of all this there is online gaming, which uses bandwidth I haven't even measured yet.
Now, I understand the argument that if everybody starts getting all their entertainment online, that takes business away from the cable providers. BUT, I already pay them money for the internet service. That's money I could pay to someone else if all I wanted was email. Furthermore, I also still pay them for cable TV, regardless of whether I watch it or not. At 60+ dollars a month, I pay for full digital cable to get all the non-premium channels. In any case, I never have and never will use pay-per-view. I can always run to the video store instead. So , I would think that the least Charter could do would be to provide the higher cap or no cap to those customers that also pay for digital cable, since I'm not threatening their business. Time Warner's cap of 40Gb is just plain laughable, but at least Comcast has a realistic cap of 250GB. Since cable companies have a legal monopoly though, we don't have the freedom of choice to change our provider.
As more content providers move their distribution to internet-centered models, and as the "average" public begins to embrace these by choice or by necessity, the bandwidth use of these average users will skyrocket exponentially and will show Charter's standard to be very unrealistic.
Just casually browsing over an evening takes about 200MB (U/D), not to mention router maintenance packets as well as unwanted ad traffic (x2 people, that's 12 GBs a month right there). At this point, we can see that there is less distinction between "my computer" and the internet. I continually have a stream of news coming into Google Desktop and these days a lot of work can be done on Google Docs instead of local software. But, this, of course, is done through data transmission to "the cloud". And, a fully structured back-up plan would include online services such as Carbonite, where your data is uploaded to a secure server, replacing a local hard drive. Here we can see where limiting large data transfers can be detrimental to productivity.
Moving beyond the basic functions of "work", we next look at entertainment, a large portion of what we use PCs for. We add Youtube videos and the many TV streams such as Hulu and the traffic starts to quickly climb. Next a few Netflix streams adds gigabytes and then there's the streams I like to watch from Twit and Revision3. From there, we have to consider the digital products. I am increasingly buying more things directly over the internet. Besides the gigabytes of free podcasts I download, there's the music. Now mp3s from iTunes and Amazon don't constitute much traffic, but I've started buying full-quality CDs by download such as Marillion's Front Row Club, plus there are now more filmmakers making their films available for download. Next, we move on to bittorrent. Putting aside any illegal use, they are many legitimate reasons to use this, such as Linux distros and more film footage (I guess I won't be getting all 450GBs of NIN tour footage that Trent posted). On top of all this there is online gaming, which uses bandwidth I haven't even measured yet.
Now, I understand the argument that if everybody starts getting all their entertainment online, that takes business away from the cable providers. BUT, I already pay them money for the internet service. That's money I could pay to someone else if all I wanted was email. Furthermore, I also still pay them for cable TV, regardless of whether I watch it or not. At 60+ dollars a month, I pay for full digital cable to get all the non-premium channels. In any case, I never have and never will use pay-per-view. I can always run to the video store instead. So , I would think that the least Charter could do would be to provide the higher cap or no cap to those customers that also pay for digital cable, since I'm not threatening their business. Time Warner's cap of 40Gb is just plain laughable, but at least Comcast has a realistic cap of 250GB. Since cable companies have a legal monopoly though, we don't have the freedom of choice to change our provider.
As more content providers move their distribution to internet-centered models, and as the "average" public begins to embrace these by choice or by necessity, the bandwidth use of these average users will skyrocket exponentially and will show Charter's standard to be very unrealistic.
Culture Theory and Popular Culture
Last Book Read: Culture Theory and Popular Culture - John Storey
In this book, Storey presents the history of culture studies, with the center of this study being the relationship between high and low culture- that is art and popular entertainment. At the heart of this opposition is the ongoing conflict between elitism and populism. Elitism becomes too exclusive, while populism becomes far too inclusive.
The creation of consumer cultures produced a much more diverse and problematic study of culture. The advent of commercialization also created the view that consumerism severely reduced the authentic value from the products of culture. When is a display of youthful rebellion a commitment to politics or an adoption of the current fashion? This is one of the problems of culture and its commercialization. For instance, in music there is a divide between the art of serious music and the disposability of "pop" music. This pop music is standardized and repeated according to a profitable formula. "Details from one popular song can be interchanged with the details of another. Unlike serious music where each detail expresses the whole, popular music is mechanical in the sense that a given detail can be shifted from one song to another without any real effect on the structure as a whole." One of the most prominent theorists presented by Storey is Adorno. Adorno argues against populism and suggests that the music industry engages in pseudo-individualization, where popular music is "pre-digested" and promotes passive listening. Because life is demanding and promotes the need for escape while leaving little energy to explore that escape, the result is the consumption of pop that requires no active participation. It merely exists "confirming the world as it is." "Serious", authentic art, "offering engagement with the world as it could be" is avoided, as it demands too much from most people. Of course, as Storey notes, these distinctions have become much more complicated. I would argue, for example, that rock music could no longer be viewed as simply "popular", while classical music exists as "art." Now rock music could be viewed as "serious" when compared to the pop music that is based in dance and rap and much more disposable.
Experiencing popular culture "is a selective process, reading across the text from denotation to connotation." The level of reality found in popular culture depends upon the focus of attention given to it."Focus is shifted from the particularity of the narrative to the generality of its themes." In this sense, reality is not denied in favor of escapist fiction, but rather it is the "playing" with reality that produces pleasurable satisfaction. taking a populist standpoint is not very useful for the discreet analysis of popular culture because it is the viewpoint already adopted by the entertainment industry in making it as a commercial product. Here, I would also add, as I've noted before, that populism devalues all values by giving everything the same value and meaning. The result is that nothing can be any better or worse than anything else, only the viewer can decide. But this leaves us in a pure relativistic or nihilistic state, where no meaningful discourse, understanding, or advancement can be made.
Storey also discussed arguments about language, such as J.L. Austin's theories about how language can be performative or constantive, which is merely descriptive. But performative language "brings something into being."
Of course many older theories of pop culture are not as relevant today, in these changing contemporary times. So, the real heart of the book is the discussion of postmodernism. Storey offers an excellent quick, but thorough, description of postmodernism. Once the rebellious avant-garde of modernism achieved canonical status, it soon became clear that another struggle would rise to overcome and subvert the establishment. Postmodernism has been the result, throwing into question the divide that seperated high culture art from low culture pop. Art became intricately interwoven into daily life, rather than remaining aloof and distinct. Pop music, at this point rock, took on a new seriousness and political activism.
Postmodernism is uncertainty. Lyotard theorized that the metanarratives that describe the objective world became fragmented and the postmodern condition has becoem "marked by a crisis in the status of knowledge." "Taste has become irrelevant" and knowledge and intellectuals have lost their status. Baudrillard was also a central theorist of postmodernism, describing a key feature - hyperrealism and "a culture of simulacrum." In the postmodern world we interact with simulacrums, things that are copies with no originals. Simulation has become more real than reality. The ability to distinguish between fiction and reality has declined, as can be seen, for example, in the explosion of "reality-TV". The centers of knowledge have lost their authority of authenticity and truth and that has resulted in "the collapse of the real into hyperrealism." Storey quotes John Docker "Baudrillard offers a classic modernist narrative, history as linear, unidirectional story of decline. But whereas the early twentieth-century high literary modernists could dream of an avant-garde or cultural elite that might preserve the values of the past in the hope of a future seeding and regrowth, no such hope surfaces in Baudrillard's vision of a dying, entropic world. It's not even possible to write in a rational argumentative from, for that assumes a remaining community of reason."
Another key thinker discussed is Federick Jameson, who calls postmodernism the logic or "cultural dominant" of late capitalism. Besides being an ecelectic mix of history and style, postmodernism is a culture of pastiche , a "blank parody" and a"complacent play of historical allusion." It is a culture of "quotations" and "of flatness or depthlessness, a new kind of superficiality in the most literal sense." Storey considers postmodernism as schizophrenic, "locked into the discontinuous flow of perpetual presents. The 'temporal' culture of modernism has given way to the 'spatial' culture of postmodernism. An example of this is prsented in the film thoeries of Jim Collins. He presents Collins' arguments that "the ever-expanding number of texts and technologies is both a reflection of and a significant contribution to the 'array' - the perpetual circulation and recirculation of signs that form the fabric of postmodern cultural life." "This foreground, hyperconcious intertextuality reflects changes in terms of audience competence and narrative technique, as well as a fundamental shift in what constitutes both entertainment and cultural literacy." Storey continues with Jameson's theories that postmodernism is inherently linked to capitalism and intensifies the commercial culture, as everything is judged by economic activity. The "high seriousness" of modernism is replaced by "triviality" Because life itself is aestheticized, there is a loss of "critical distance." Jameson argues that this postmodern world blocks the transition to a socialist society. Also discussed is Marcuse's view of affirmative culture as culture that "invents a new reality." "The promises made with the emergence of capitalism out of feudalism, of a society to be based on equality, justice and progress, were increasingly relegated from the world of the everyday to the world of the affirmative culture."
Storey examines the world of postmodern pop music and televison. Here one could argue that rock music itself is a postmodern hybrid of art and pop. But even within rock there can be a division of artificial and authentic. Goodwin is noted as discussing the use of sampling as a postmodern artifact, "we need categories to add to pastiche, which demonstrate how contemporary pop opposses, celebrates, and promotes the texts it steals from." A more useful discussion, I would argue, than the blantant stealing and recycling that goes on in today's pop, would be the eclectic and extensive sources used by Peter Gabriel and Sting. These artists combine World music with various pop music, as well as literature, psychology, poetry, and their own past lyrical and musical phrasings. As for TV, Storey notes Twin Peaks, The Sopranos, and Lost as examples of polysemic works. Twin Peaks, he writes "is never simply camp - it is never simply anything- continually playing with our expectations, moving the audience, as it does, from moments of parodic distance to moments of emphatic intimacy." The "key point" in understanding "Twin Peaks and postmodernism is that what makes the programme different from other television programmes is not that it produces shifting viewing positions, but that it 'explicitly acknowledges this oscillation and the suspended nature of television viewing."
The discussion continues regarding the plurality of value and the "recognition that there is no absolute catergorical difference between high and popular culture." Although there is lack of fixed points for reference, there is "rigourous, if always contingent, standards." The discussion of postmodernism concludes with globalism, which has has a tremendous impact on the eclecticism of recent history as well as the spread of multi-national capitalism.
So, while postmodernism has, in some way, solved the elitist/populist opposition by mixing high and low cultures, it has also created new problems of critical distance. While I think the populist method is never the answer, postmodernism has shown that everything has the possibility to be art or high culture, popularity itself is not a defining factor. All sources can be used, and reused, meaningfully and artistically. Thus, elitism has lost its narrow-sightedness of strict exclusivity.
While being a difficult and quite dense read, this book presents a good basis for a study of contemporary culture theory and helps define the problems involved in that study.
In this book, Storey presents the history of culture studies, with the center of this study being the relationship between high and low culture- that is art and popular entertainment. At the heart of this opposition is the ongoing conflict between elitism and populism. Elitism becomes too exclusive, while populism becomes far too inclusive.
The creation of consumer cultures produced a much more diverse and problematic study of culture. The advent of commercialization also created the view that consumerism severely reduced the authentic value from the products of culture. When is a display of youthful rebellion a commitment to politics or an adoption of the current fashion? This is one of the problems of culture and its commercialization. For instance, in music there is a divide between the art of serious music and the disposability of "pop" music. This pop music is standardized and repeated according to a profitable formula. "Details from one popular song can be interchanged with the details of another. Unlike serious music where each detail expresses the whole, popular music is mechanical in the sense that a given detail can be shifted from one song to another without any real effect on the structure as a whole." One of the most prominent theorists presented by Storey is Adorno. Adorno argues against populism and suggests that the music industry engages in pseudo-individualization, where popular music is "pre-digested" and promotes passive listening. Because life is demanding and promotes the need for escape while leaving little energy to explore that escape, the result is the consumption of pop that requires no active participation. It merely exists "confirming the world as it is." "Serious", authentic art, "offering engagement with the world as it could be" is avoided, as it demands too much from most people. Of course, as Storey notes, these distinctions have become much more complicated. I would argue, for example, that rock music could no longer be viewed as simply "popular", while classical music exists as "art." Now rock music could be viewed as "serious" when compared to the pop music that is based in dance and rap and much more disposable.
Experiencing popular culture "is a selective process, reading across the text from denotation to connotation." The level of reality found in popular culture depends upon the focus of attention given to it."Focus is shifted from the particularity of the narrative to the generality of its themes." In this sense, reality is not denied in favor of escapist fiction, but rather it is the "playing" with reality that produces pleasurable satisfaction. taking a populist standpoint is not very useful for the discreet analysis of popular culture because it is the viewpoint already adopted by the entertainment industry in making it as a commercial product. Here, I would also add, as I've noted before, that populism devalues all values by giving everything the same value and meaning. The result is that nothing can be any better or worse than anything else, only the viewer can decide. But this leaves us in a pure relativistic or nihilistic state, where no meaningful discourse, understanding, or advancement can be made.
Storey also discussed arguments about language, such as J.L. Austin's theories about how language can be performative or constantive, which is merely descriptive. But performative language "brings something into being."
Of course many older theories of pop culture are not as relevant today, in these changing contemporary times. So, the real heart of the book is the discussion of postmodernism. Storey offers an excellent quick, but thorough, description of postmodernism. Once the rebellious avant-garde of modernism achieved canonical status, it soon became clear that another struggle would rise to overcome and subvert the establishment. Postmodernism has been the result, throwing into question the divide that seperated high culture art from low culture pop. Art became intricately interwoven into daily life, rather than remaining aloof and distinct. Pop music, at this point rock, took on a new seriousness and political activism.
Postmodernism is uncertainty. Lyotard theorized that the metanarratives that describe the objective world became fragmented and the postmodern condition has becoem "marked by a crisis in the status of knowledge." "Taste has become irrelevant" and knowledge and intellectuals have lost their status. Baudrillard was also a central theorist of postmodernism, describing a key feature - hyperrealism and "a culture of simulacrum." In the postmodern world we interact with simulacrums, things that are copies with no originals. Simulation has become more real than reality. The ability to distinguish between fiction and reality has declined, as can be seen, for example, in the explosion of "reality-TV". The centers of knowledge have lost their authority of authenticity and truth and that has resulted in "the collapse of the real into hyperrealism." Storey quotes John Docker "Baudrillard offers a classic modernist narrative, history as linear, unidirectional story of decline. But whereas the early twentieth-century high literary modernists could dream of an avant-garde or cultural elite that might preserve the values of the past in the hope of a future seeding and regrowth, no such hope surfaces in Baudrillard's vision of a dying, entropic world. It's not even possible to write in a rational argumentative from, for that assumes a remaining community of reason."
Another key thinker discussed is Federick Jameson, who calls postmodernism the logic or "cultural dominant" of late capitalism. Besides being an ecelectic mix of history and style, postmodernism is a culture of pastiche , a "blank parody" and a"complacent play of historical allusion." It is a culture of "quotations" and "of flatness or depthlessness, a new kind of superficiality in the most literal sense." Storey considers postmodernism as schizophrenic, "locked into the discontinuous flow of perpetual presents. The 'temporal' culture of modernism has given way to the 'spatial' culture of postmodernism. An example of this is prsented in the film thoeries of Jim Collins. He presents Collins' arguments that "the ever-expanding number of texts and technologies is both a reflection of and a significant contribution to the 'array' - the perpetual circulation and recirculation of signs that form the fabric of postmodern cultural life." "This foreground, hyperconcious intertextuality reflects changes in terms of audience competence and narrative technique, as well as a fundamental shift in what constitutes both entertainment and cultural literacy." Storey continues with Jameson's theories that postmodernism is inherently linked to capitalism and intensifies the commercial culture, as everything is judged by economic activity. The "high seriousness" of modernism is replaced by "triviality" Because life itself is aestheticized, there is a loss of "critical distance." Jameson argues that this postmodern world blocks the transition to a socialist society. Also discussed is Marcuse's view of affirmative culture as culture that "invents a new reality." "The promises made with the emergence of capitalism out of feudalism, of a society to be based on equality, justice and progress, were increasingly relegated from the world of the everyday to the world of the affirmative culture."
Storey examines the world of postmodern pop music and televison. Here one could argue that rock music itself is a postmodern hybrid of art and pop. But even within rock there can be a division of artificial and authentic. Goodwin is noted as discussing the use of sampling as a postmodern artifact, "we need categories to add to pastiche, which demonstrate how contemporary pop opposses, celebrates, and promotes the texts it steals from." A more useful discussion, I would argue, than the blantant stealing and recycling that goes on in today's pop, would be the eclectic and extensive sources used by Peter Gabriel and Sting. These artists combine World music with various pop music, as well as literature, psychology, poetry, and their own past lyrical and musical phrasings. As for TV, Storey notes Twin Peaks, The Sopranos, and Lost as examples of polysemic works. Twin Peaks, he writes "is never simply camp - it is never simply anything- continually playing with our expectations, moving the audience, as it does, from moments of parodic distance to moments of emphatic intimacy." The "key point" in understanding "Twin Peaks and postmodernism is that what makes the programme different from other television programmes is not that it produces shifting viewing positions, but that it 'explicitly acknowledges this oscillation and the suspended nature of television viewing."
The discussion continues regarding the plurality of value and the "recognition that there is no absolute catergorical difference between high and popular culture." Although there is lack of fixed points for reference, there is "rigourous, if always contingent, standards." The discussion of postmodernism concludes with globalism, which has has a tremendous impact on the eclecticism of recent history as well as the spread of multi-national capitalism.
So, while postmodernism has, in some way, solved the elitist/populist opposition by mixing high and low cultures, it has also created new problems of critical distance. While I think the populist method is never the answer, postmodernism has shown that everything has the possibility to be art or high culture, popularity itself is not a defining factor. All sources can be used, and reused, meaningfully and artistically. Thus, elitism has lost its narrow-sightedness of strict exclusivity.
While being a difficult and quite dense read, this book presents a good basis for a study of contemporary culture theory and helps define the problems involved in that study.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Liar
Henry Rollins Writes a Love Letter to Ann C*****r.
After watching that video, I cared less about Ann C***, and more about watching Henry wash windows, do laundry and organize his CD collection.Friday, January 02, 2009
The Future
A Russian professor and former KGB agent Igor Panarin has predicted that the US will fall apart in 2010. He suggests that US will end up in civil war and will break into six regions, each controlled or influenced by another foreign power. Of course, looking at this from a Russian perspective might make one more apt to predict disintegration, given the ease that the Soviet Union split. This was, of course, due to the various ethnic peoples and countries that were subjugated by the Soviet Empire. As for the U.S., he predicts the West coast will fall under control of the Chinese, the East coast to the Europeans, The North to Canada and the South to Mexico. Alaska will go back to Russia (that's going to be one hell of a surprise for Palin) and Hawaii to an Asian power. Another version of the report also adds a central regiona of Native Americans and an area consisting of some of the Southern states will go to Mexico, separate from Texas. Panarin notes a growing independence movement in Texas, and I really don't see them voluntarily falling under control of Mexico. How this might happen is not explained in detail, but it seems that after complete economic collapse, the richer states will secede from the U.S. and the remaining state will have to form their own republics or be quickly consumed by other governments. In this interview, he elaborates a little more. Apparently, he believes two factions, the globalists and the statists, are fighting for control of the government in both parties. I have to say, I find this quite plausible, given what I've read about the last forty years of government.
Panarin's ideas are not far removed from my own vision of the future, although much more bleak and immediate than I would conceive. It's quite obvious that the US is split in a culture war that may become unreconcilable. Additionally, we are faced with a growing economic disaster that if not controlled immediately will possibly lead to a breaking point with an unprecedented outcome. Further, given the treacherous global landscape in the coming years, there is no certainty that the US can remain a stable power in foreign affairs while dealing with dramatic internal difficulties.
Will the US continue to lead the manifest destiny of the New World, promoting democracy and freedom into the future? Or will America become a small note in future history books, listed as a rebellious colony of the British Empire that confronted the East with weapons of global destruction and then faded away in decadence and corruption? I imagine the next few decades will begin to show us the answer. If the latter, then perhaps a faster disintegration would be best, providing a "preservation through destruction."
Panarin's ideas are not far removed from my own vision of the future, although much more bleak and immediate than I would conceive. It's quite obvious that the US is split in a culture war that may become unreconcilable. Additionally, we are faced with a growing economic disaster that if not controlled immediately will possibly lead to a breaking point with an unprecedented outcome. Further, given the treacherous global landscape in the coming years, there is no certainty that the US can remain a stable power in foreign affairs while dealing with dramatic internal difficulties.
Will the US continue to lead the manifest destiny of the New World, promoting democracy and freedom into the future? Or will America become a small note in future history books, listed as a rebellious colony of the British Empire that confronted the East with weapons of global destruction and then faded away in decadence and corruption? I imagine the next few decades will begin to show us the answer. If the latter, then perhaps a faster disintegration would be best, providing a "preservation through destruction."
Sunday, December 07, 2008
0 Presidents
This presidential transition continues to go down in history as one of most unprecedented, if not interesting, elections.
Previously, one could have argued that Obama is taking over too soon. He has not even been voted in by the Electoral College yet, but he makes more speeches than W and his Office of the President Elect is a new fabrication. But yet, he is already taking criticism for not doing enough. For instance Barney Frank stated, "At a time of great crisis with mortgage foreclosures and autos, he says we only have one president at a time. I'm afraid that overstates the number of presidents we have. He's got to remedy that situation." Of course, that says more about the current administration than it does Obama. We've already made it 7.9 years without decent leadership, at least there is light at the end of the tunnel.
I also find it intersting that critics are stating that they will tolerate Obama as long as he governs from the center. What? These same people never proposed that Bush should govern from the center! His administration was far to the right all the way down the list. These intellectually challenged pundits need to realize a liberal was elected president, which means people want the government to move more to the left. Having said that, I don't really have any illusions that Obama will be a great "left/liberal" president. His cabinet is already looking a bit right-sided.
Previously, one could have argued that Obama is taking over too soon. He has not even been voted in by the Electoral College yet, but he makes more speeches than W and his Office of the President Elect is a new fabrication. But yet, he is already taking criticism for not doing enough. For instance Barney Frank stated, "At a time of great crisis with mortgage foreclosures and autos, he says we only have one president at a time. I'm afraid that overstates the number of presidents we have. He's got to remedy that situation." Of course, that says more about the current administration than it does Obama. We've already made it 7.9 years without decent leadership, at least there is light at the end of the tunnel.
I also find it intersting that critics are stating that they will tolerate Obama as long as he governs from the center. What? These same people never proposed that Bush should govern from the center! His administration was far to the right all the way down the list. These intellectually challenged pundits need to realize a liberal was elected president, which means people want the government to move more to the left. Having said that, I don't really have any illusions that Obama will be a great "left/liberal" president. His cabinet is already looking a bit right-sided.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
In This Twilight
Nine Inch Nails @ The Target Center, 2008.11.25
This show was an excellent example of nihilistic [1] postmodern-rock. A visceral (even Dionysian) experience with Josh Freese pounding the drums.
Setlist:
1,000,000 / Letting You / Discipline / March of the Pigs / Head Down / The Frail / The Wretched / Closer / Gave Up / The Warning / The Great Destroyer / 5 Ghosts I / 21 Ghosts III / 19 Ghosts III / Piggy / The Greater Good / Pinion / Wish / Terrible Lie / Survivalism / 31 Ghosts IV / Only / Down in It / Head Like a Hole
This show was an excellent example of nihilistic [1] postmodern-rock. A visceral (even Dionysian) experience with Josh Freese pounding the drums.
Setlist:
1,000,000 / Letting You / Discipline / March of the Pigs / Head Down / The Frail / The Wretched / Closer / Gave Up / The Warning / The Great Destroyer / 5 Ghosts I / 21 Ghosts III / 19 Ghosts III / Piggy / The Greater Good / Pinion / Wish / Terrible Lie / Survivalism / 31 Ghosts IV / Only / Down in It / Head Like a Hole
ENCORE: Echoplex / Good Soldier / Hurt / In This Twilight
[1] In this sense I mean the aesthetic intent of the content, and not the quality of the overall content itself as I discussed earlier.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Cool as November
This month we finally see the DVD releases of the three greatest tours of 2007-2008,with performances from The Police, Rush and Dream Theater.
First is Dream Theater's Chaos in Motion. The DVD is not the greatest quality, but it does capture the latest tour of very intense progressive rock. Most notable is Surrounded 07 as it's extended and Marillionized, with a part of Sugar Mice added.
After a year of waiting for the alleged DVD release from The Police, Certifiable shows the band in a new light. The maturity of their musicianship comes out, with each individual contributing more color to the music with subtle variations in fills and accents. Much more dynamic than The Police of 1983. The only thing I could ask for (given that this might really be the final chapter of the legend) is a little more material from the other legs of the tour. It would be nice to see the performances of the rare opener Bring on the Night as wells as Spirits in the Material World, and Demolition Man. Also, the final show would have been a great occasion to be documented, containing the first real cover performances from The Police with Sunshine of Your Love, Down So Long and Purple Haze.
Finally, Rush has released Snakes and Arrows Live. Here, everything has been done perfectly. They held off releasing the DVD along with CD live album to record more performances. The third disc contains the songs that were added to the final leg of the tour (including Ghost of a Chance), so we have a complete record of all the songs from this tour.
The last two releases were also done in Blu-Ray, so this might give me the excuse to finally upgrade.
First is Dream Theater's Chaos in Motion. The DVD is not the greatest quality, but it does capture the latest tour of very intense progressive rock. Most notable is Surrounded 07 as it's extended and Marillionized, with a part of Sugar Mice added.
After a year of waiting for the alleged DVD release from The Police, Certifiable shows the band in a new light. The maturity of their musicianship comes out, with each individual contributing more color to the music with subtle variations in fills and accents. Much more dynamic than The Police of 1983. The only thing I could ask for (given that this might really be the final chapter of the legend) is a little more material from the other legs of the tour. It would be nice to see the performances of the rare opener Bring on the Night as wells as Spirits in the Material World, and Demolition Man. Also, the final show would have been a great occasion to be documented, containing the first real cover performances from The Police with Sunshine of Your Love, Down So Long and Purple Haze.
Finally, Rush has released Snakes and Arrows Live. Here, everything has been done perfectly. They held off releasing the DVD along with CD live album to record more performances. The third disc contains the songs that were added to the final leg of the tour (including Ghost of a Chance), so we have a complete record of all the songs from this tour.
The last two releases were also done in Blu-Ray, so this might give me the excuse to finally upgrade.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![The Brothers Karamazov [Norton Critical Edition]](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1560399295l/49899120._SX50_SY75_.jpg)
