Speaking to a friend today who’d recently quit her job not a week or so ago – she mentioned how unexpectedly delightful her newfound freedom felt. Her eyes shone mirth and a sense of adventure. She spoke of the frenzy of self-motivated activity that had been her introduction into days that were not predetermined by a contract.
She was visiting the northern city and I was having my lunch break. Sitting in that garden café I went for my shirtsleeves to ease the remnants of the summer heat, and she, noticing my clumsiness, rolled them up for me in pristine folds. Now I, liberated from my shirtly constraints, was happy for her that she was held back only by the heaviness of her purpose.
And glancing at my watch I smiled, thinking—what luxury it is to have space. We people live in small domains: apartments in big cities, little corners of the urban jungle exploding around us with sirens and lights and entertainment. Our little quotidian peace and quiet is a comforting prison—a residence, a suit and tie, an occupation—a haven in this nightmarish theme park that insists deep into the night with disjointed laughter. To rend asunder this pretense of necessity is to embrace the limits of the night. But what then?
We spoke of those next steps with conspiratorial air. And it was fitting that the shadows of a crooked tree sheltered our figures and their getaway plans from prying doubts.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
“Humans have entered a new stage of evolution” claims Stephen Hawking...
...and I agree wholeheartedly.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/07/stephen-hawking-the-planet-has-entered-a-new-phase-of-evolution.html
It is easy to look around into human society and to appreciate just how irrelevant a concept of physical evolution – differential mortality as caused by actual genetic traits leading to a genetic, and thus physical, drift in the human species. Our people have not changed in body since we became human over 100,000 years ago. (Despite the nonsensical dreams of the social Darwinists.)
Yet we would be very confused to assume that this irrelevance of physical evolution implies the irrelevance of the concept of evolution as such in our species. Nothing could be further from the truth, for there is nothing in this world that has evolved as quickly as our particular breed of hominids. And all on a different plane from that on which evolution usually applies -- the plane of thought. We are now the organism on which the fate of the planet rests. Have we not become the destroyer and creator of worlds? Time will tell which trait is dominant and which recessive.
Our evolution has been one of culture, thoughts, dispositions – it has been the mind and the interface between mind and body that has changed so very drastically both on the individual level and on the social level. We are a computer whose hardware has not changed but whose software is updated continuously – innovating new ways of connecting with each other and producing as well as consuming information. Innovation has been the name of the game since we abrupted onto the world of thought. This unfolding of a clearing of being at a deeper essence than the blank stare of brute physicality meant that recognition in language could take flight as a very real birdling – struggling to gain control of its clumsy wings at first, and later carving up the air with the slightest calibrations of its deft feathers. These feathers have reached the moon and back, spliced into the core of existence unleashing the power of the atom, formed gods of characters to captivate the mind and soul and raise goosebumps in lovers of Shakespeare.
Weapons, gossiping, scheming, love, hatred, leaders, tyrants and freedom fighters, thoughts of the sacred and metaphysical meanderings – all these things have built up a rich substance into which every human being is now born. A baby born to day is given the same physical limitations and capabilities than one born many thousands of years ago – yet it its thrown into an ether rich in information and in which cultivated crafts abound to harness talent and further its becoming. And this makes all the difference.
All these things matter tremendously in the success of this quest for overcoming that has marked the human journey. The trouble with this evolution in the landscape of though is that it can be as limiting as hostile elements to thoughtless creatures. Devolution is possible too – and this is the downside of the information game – it produces all the trash that holds us back. It produces despots and racists and weak liberals and people enraptured with shoes. It is riddled with bugs that serve no purpose and destroy our collective potential.
For nothing constrains us individuals anymore – except the persistence of wretched habits in human society. For the same faculties that have blessed us (and spawned a ridiculous population explosion over the last thousand years) might be what condemns us to a life wasted and a planet torn apart. We are locked into our suffering, and our pleasures are the seal. And if we rupture our climate, make war, overpopulate the planet to dust and ashes, it will only be due to the vices of our culture – all because we misinformed ourselves to death.
Thus, the critical faculty is crucial in our society as it is in each individual. But the relativistic stance that would insist that there is no such thing as progress, and that all different cultures and ways of doing things are different without seeking to find how to do things better, is an unfortunate enemy to all those who would try to correct the misconceptions of the day. Sadly, anthropology is a discipline which frequently adopts an extreme relativism in view of human progress.
The master of the critical stance, it is attractive and liberating because it lashed out against many of the dogmatic vices of dominant and provincial European culture. Thus it is more advanced in this respect than many of the dominant disciplines which still preach from a supremely world-denying solipsism (which is destroying the world and has been doing so for hundreds of years).
Anthropology is able to deftly point out the crucial contradiction in most dogmas of modernity. It shows how our social claim to universally is culturally contingent, and thus misleading. But like most things – the discipline does not go far enough. It disavows all progress in the name of cleverness, rather than harness the critical faculty to progress.
The point is to embrace the contradiction wholeheartedly (in deference to Hegel) and to realize that it is because and not in spite of its very cultural contingency that there is a real quality of the universal in our fabricated global order.
Of course – this language ceases to be language of the social sciences and crosses the line into philosophy. This is discipline which at its greatest never ceases to have faith in the power of truth to light the way. No discipline pursues pure revelation so systematically. And in an “overinformed” world, where information is incessant but transmits useless commercials rather than messages we should all receive, it is not surprising that the discipline has almost become irrelevant. There are no philosophers, merely scholars of old accomplishments.
But – being able to steer a world that is fast spinning out of control to a virtuous path will take much applied philosophy. Either we bring philosophy back, reflective thought with purpose, or we bail from the ship of life like rats from a sinking ship. Certainly the political transformation in the US is a step in the right direction. But there is a world of work to do still and lots of interests mindlessly committed to perpetuating ills due to their lack of appreciation for philosophy!
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/07/stephen-hawking-the-planet-has-entered-a-new-phase-of-evolution.html
It is easy to look around into human society and to appreciate just how irrelevant a concept of physical evolution – differential mortality as caused by actual genetic traits leading to a genetic, and thus physical, drift in the human species. Our people have not changed in body since we became human over 100,000 years ago. (Despite the nonsensical dreams of the social Darwinists.)
Yet we would be very confused to assume that this irrelevance of physical evolution implies the irrelevance of the concept of evolution as such in our species. Nothing could be further from the truth, for there is nothing in this world that has evolved as quickly as our particular breed of hominids. And all on a different plane from that on which evolution usually applies -- the plane of thought. We are now the organism on which the fate of the planet rests. Have we not become the destroyer and creator of worlds? Time will tell which trait is dominant and which recessive.
Our evolution has been one of culture, thoughts, dispositions – it has been the mind and the interface between mind and body that has changed so very drastically both on the individual level and on the social level. We are a computer whose hardware has not changed but whose software is updated continuously – innovating new ways of connecting with each other and producing as well as consuming information. Innovation has been the name of the game since we abrupted onto the world of thought. This unfolding of a clearing of being at a deeper essence than the blank stare of brute physicality meant that recognition in language could take flight as a very real birdling – struggling to gain control of its clumsy wings at first, and later carving up the air with the slightest calibrations of its deft feathers. These feathers have reached the moon and back, spliced into the core of existence unleashing the power of the atom, formed gods of characters to captivate the mind and soul and raise goosebumps in lovers of Shakespeare.
Weapons, gossiping, scheming, love, hatred, leaders, tyrants and freedom fighters, thoughts of the sacred and metaphysical meanderings – all these things have built up a rich substance into which every human being is now born. A baby born to day is given the same physical limitations and capabilities than one born many thousands of years ago – yet it its thrown into an ether rich in information and in which cultivated crafts abound to harness talent and further its becoming. And this makes all the difference.
All these things matter tremendously in the success of this quest for overcoming that has marked the human journey. The trouble with this evolution in the landscape of though is that it can be as limiting as hostile elements to thoughtless creatures. Devolution is possible too – and this is the downside of the information game – it produces all the trash that holds us back. It produces despots and racists and weak liberals and people enraptured with shoes. It is riddled with bugs that serve no purpose and destroy our collective potential.
For nothing constrains us individuals anymore – except the persistence of wretched habits in human society. For the same faculties that have blessed us (and spawned a ridiculous population explosion over the last thousand years) might be what condemns us to a life wasted and a planet torn apart. We are locked into our suffering, and our pleasures are the seal. And if we rupture our climate, make war, overpopulate the planet to dust and ashes, it will only be due to the vices of our culture – all because we misinformed ourselves to death.
Thus, the critical faculty is crucial in our society as it is in each individual. But the relativistic stance that would insist that there is no such thing as progress, and that all different cultures and ways of doing things are different without seeking to find how to do things better, is an unfortunate enemy to all those who would try to correct the misconceptions of the day. Sadly, anthropology is a discipline which frequently adopts an extreme relativism in view of human progress.
The master of the critical stance, it is attractive and liberating because it lashed out against many of the dogmatic vices of dominant and provincial European culture. Thus it is more advanced in this respect than many of the dominant disciplines which still preach from a supremely world-denying solipsism (which is destroying the world and has been doing so for hundreds of years).
Anthropology is able to deftly point out the crucial contradiction in most dogmas of modernity. It shows how our social claim to universally is culturally contingent, and thus misleading. But like most things – the discipline does not go far enough. It disavows all progress in the name of cleverness, rather than harness the critical faculty to progress.
The point is to embrace the contradiction wholeheartedly (in deference to Hegel) and to realize that it is because and not in spite of its very cultural contingency that there is a real quality of the universal in our fabricated global order.
Of course – this language ceases to be language of the social sciences and crosses the line into philosophy. This is discipline which at its greatest never ceases to have faith in the power of truth to light the way. No discipline pursues pure revelation so systematically. And in an “overinformed” world, where information is incessant but transmits useless commercials rather than messages we should all receive, it is not surprising that the discipline has almost become irrelevant. There are no philosophers, merely scholars of old accomplishments.
But – being able to steer a world that is fast spinning out of control to a virtuous path will take much applied philosophy. Either we bring philosophy back, reflective thought with purpose, or we bail from the ship of life like rats from a sinking ship. Certainly the political transformation in the US is a step in the right direction. But there is a world of work to do still and lots of interests mindlessly committed to perpetuating ills due to their lack of appreciation for philosophy!
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Against Idolatry: Forget Michael Jackson
My mother claims that when I was a small boy and we lived in Indonesia (must have been the lateish 80’s) – I really liked Michael Jackson’s music. Most people wouldn’t think of Indonesia when you ask them for the most populous Muslim country, but that it is. So I, having been the only male around when my father was at work, held despotic rule over our driver (and other staff), overruling my mother and elder sisters even though I was but a small boy maybe 3 years old. So returning to my story – I would demand that Michael Jackson be played in the car wherever and whenever we drove. But the claims go further – apparently I would insistently pose the question “Isn’t he the best?”
Now that so many years and the man himself have passed away – I can say that I look back on this moment with a mild sense of shame. You never really know people until all is said and done. And no – Michael Jackson is not the best, in my mind his is a story that substantiates certain cruelties of life:
1) Talent (an overinvestment in one particular skill) often comes at the expense of a proper balance
2) What we value as a society is utterly confused—focusing our collective attention on this event
These two notions are deeply interconnected. Let us not forget Michael Jackson’s story is about the striving of a family for upward mobility. His father rounded up the kids and made them endlessly rehearse for a career in showbusiness. It was probably a miserable childhood, but it made him a fabulous performer who could captivate audiences. But what happens when we equate excellence in singing and dancing with all-around success? We set role models that are profoundly troubled and that should serve as a severe admonition to neglecting a proper balance. Michael Jackson’s success as a pop-star condemned him to poverty of the mind.
The result of his enormous success was a frivolous life of facial degradation – the obsession with sharpened quasi-feminine features and pasty skin. All the fame and wealth that he obtained based on the disciplinarian single-mindedness of his father was put to the service of a becoming someone else, and trying to modify his way out of his own self-image. These facts are self-evident. But it is shocking how the entire world plays dumb and completely goes silent on this profoundly disturbed behavior. Exalting beyond measure his talent and artistic graces—this veneration almost seems forced, as if the public can obviously not ignore the monstrosity of such derangement, so they channel the awkwardness into poses of adulation just to fill in the space.
The inability to recognize Michael Jackson’s failings betray a strange schizophrenia in the public’s perception. It exposes a fundamentalist approach to the notion of success – almost as an insistence that no one who could be so successful could really be so misguided. I would argue that such obstinate insistence in the righteousness and inherent value of “cheap success” is a major reason why there are so many problems which we collectively are dropping the ball on. "If it's got lipstick on, it can't be a pig!" – That’s the modern-day conviction that lubricates people through a world that becomes increasingly abrasive as it gives clear signals that “truthiness” just won’t cut it.
The reality principle always wins – and in this case, the reality is that we have just lived through a very quick “real-estate” bubble again, except the asset was Michael Jackson – a man who had not done anything noteworthy in years, but spend money, get charged with sexual misconduct, and take loans out on his ownership of old Beatles songs.
Some might say nothing is lost with this amount of frenzy. But last year the biggest news story was the death of Anna Nicole Smith. This year it will surely be the passing of a bizarre pop star. It is unlikely that these events are so much as footnotes in the annals of history – so what is the world we are overlooking?
Now that so many years and the man himself have passed away – I can say that I look back on this moment with a mild sense of shame. You never really know people until all is said and done. And no – Michael Jackson is not the best, in my mind his is a story that substantiates certain cruelties of life:
1) Talent (an overinvestment in one particular skill) often comes at the expense of a proper balance
2) What we value as a society is utterly confused—focusing our collective attention on this event
These two notions are deeply interconnected. Let us not forget Michael Jackson’s story is about the striving of a family for upward mobility. His father rounded up the kids and made them endlessly rehearse for a career in showbusiness. It was probably a miserable childhood, but it made him a fabulous performer who could captivate audiences. But what happens when we equate excellence in singing and dancing with all-around success? We set role models that are profoundly troubled and that should serve as a severe admonition to neglecting a proper balance. Michael Jackson’s success as a pop-star condemned him to poverty of the mind.
The result of his enormous success was a frivolous life of facial degradation – the obsession with sharpened quasi-feminine features and pasty skin. All the fame and wealth that he obtained based on the disciplinarian single-mindedness of his father was put to the service of a becoming someone else, and trying to modify his way out of his own self-image. These facts are self-evident. But it is shocking how the entire world plays dumb and completely goes silent on this profoundly disturbed behavior. Exalting beyond measure his talent and artistic graces—this veneration almost seems forced, as if the public can obviously not ignore the monstrosity of such derangement, so they channel the awkwardness into poses of adulation just to fill in the space.
The inability to recognize Michael Jackson’s failings betray a strange schizophrenia in the public’s perception. It exposes a fundamentalist approach to the notion of success – almost as an insistence that no one who could be so successful could really be so misguided. I would argue that such obstinate insistence in the righteousness and inherent value of “cheap success” is a major reason why there are so many problems which we collectively are dropping the ball on. "If it's got lipstick on, it can't be a pig!" – That’s the modern-day conviction that lubricates people through a world that becomes increasingly abrasive as it gives clear signals that “truthiness” just won’t cut it.
The reality principle always wins – and in this case, the reality is that we have just lived through a very quick “real-estate” bubble again, except the asset was Michael Jackson – a man who had not done anything noteworthy in years, but spend money, get charged with sexual misconduct, and take loans out on his ownership of old Beatles songs.
Some might say nothing is lost with this amount of frenzy. But last year the biggest news story was the death of Anna Nicole Smith. This year it will surely be the passing of a bizarre pop star. It is unlikely that these events are so much as footnotes in the annals of history – so what is the world we are overlooking?
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Leonard Cohen at the Wang Theater
Leonard Cohen paid tribute to the music and I was there to see it.
With a 9-person band of excellent musicians, including a virtuous flamenco guitarist, and a “maestro of breath” who played at times the Saxophone, Clarinet and keyboard, Leonard Cohen brought to life his timeless songs in his rumbling voice, like the stirring of the very earth.
The now seventy-four year old poet and priest to many introduced his performance by saying “It has now been 15 years since I last stood on this stage – at the time I was just a 60 year-old kid with a crazy dream.”
It was a performance of reverence. On multiple occasions, the old man dropped to one knee as he sung, seemingly in awe of the flamenco guitar. And his hat was off to honor his fellow musicians who delivered their well sutured solos under the spotlight's grace.
He also recited a few of his poems, and I was struck as always by the words. A thousand kisses deep was one song that remained unsung, but its many verses were recited, a version of the endlessly worked-on verses are below—they are well worth the read:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKL3MDxMZUM
1. You came to me this morning
And you handled me like meat.
You´d have to be a man to know
How good that feels, how sweet.
My mirror twin, my next of kin,
I´d know you in my sleep.
And who but you would take me in
A thousand kisses deep?
2. I loved you when you opened
Like a lily to the heat.
I´m just another snowman
Standing in the rain and sleet,
Who loved you with his frozen love
His second-hand physique -
With all he is, and all he was
A thousand kisses deep.
3. All soaked in sex, and pressed against
The limits of the sea:
I saw there were no oceans left
For scavengers like me.
We made it to the forward deck
I blessed our remnant fleet -
And then consented to be wrecked
A thousand kisses deep.
Etc...
With a 9-person band of excellent musicians, including a virtuous flamenco guitarist, and a “maestro of breath” who played at times the Saxophone, Clarinet and keyboard, Leonard Cohen brought to life his timeless songs in his rumbling voice, like the stirring of the very earth.
The now seventy-four year old poet and priest to many introduced his performance by saying “It has now been 15 years since I last stood on this stage – at the time I was just a 60 year-old kid with a crazy dream.”
It was a performance of reverence. On multiple occasions, the old man dropped to one knee as he sung, seemingly in awe of the flamenco guitar. And his hat was off to honor his fellow musicians who delivered their well sutured solos under the spotlight's grace.
He also recited a few of his poems, and I was struck as always by the words. A thousand kisses deep was one song that remained unsung, but its many verses were recited, a version of the endlessly worked-on verses are below—they are well worth the read:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKL3MDxMZUM
1. You came to me this morning
And you handled me like meat.
You´d have to be a man to know
How good that feels, how sweet.
My mirror twin, my next of kin,
I´d know you in my sleep.
And who but you would take me in
A thousand kisses deep?
2. I loved you when you opened
Like a lily to the heat.
I´m just another snowman
Standing in the rain and sleet,
Who loved you with his frozen love
His second-hand physique -
With all he is, and all he was
A thousand kisses deep.
3. All soaked in sex, and pressed against
The limits of the sea:
I saw there were no oceans left
For scavengers like me.
We made it to the forward deck
I blessed our remnant fleet -
And then consented to be wrecked
A thousand kisses deep.
Etc...
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Abortion as murder
I have had the displeasure of arguing this point live against someone who claimed abortion was a “hidden holocaust”. When I first heard this language and list of grievances against abortion from a respectable person, I was taken aback in surprise. My responses floundered and did not succeed, but I performed no worse than the political class of the US which still is unable to lay this topic to rest.
The sheer persistence of such a topic is evidence to its complexity (certainly not at an intellectual level) but as a social phenomenon nurtured by circumstances, factions and traditions of thought particular to America. For someone who has no relation to this complex ground in which such a preposterous view as “abortion is murder” can thrive, it is dangerous topic to write about. The “mutual respect” that Obama advocates is tricky because it asks the religious faction to respect the other's logic and reason, just as it asks the rationals to suspend judgment on the irrationals—which is something that “reason” can never do, for it judges and explores all things. Obama's words at Notre Dame were a cop out – and I would hope the President does not make a habit of this kind of political compromise.
The crux of the issue is reason versus faith; enlightenment versus dogmatic obscurantism. Yet it is also a red-herring; abortion is a receptacle for an ideological battle which totally exceeds the actual issue at stake. It is a picked bone which has been scraped for meat by two opposed factions for way too long – its gleaming white represents the ravenous hunger of the political animals which circle it more than it reveals anything about the issue itself. At stake is leadership over the pack, not the bone itself.
So the so-called “pro-lifers” use abortion as an excuse to vent angry rhetoric disguised as reasons without revealing their true fear, which in essence is something to take seriously—the intrusion of science and an ethics intervention in the family's nucleus—birth. At core is the deep suspicion that new ways of doing things are dangerous.
On the pro-choice side stand those who believe in the liberal tradition broadly speaking, those who would see liberties expanded and who view the modern era as a time when the shackles of a despotic tradition have been undone: feminism, civil rights, slavery. This faction views change and innovation as crucial to fulfilling the promise of “the pursuit of happiness” for the public.
Clearly the two sides are arguing about different things, although their interests do conflict and force them to keep harping and pressing forth their agenda and it is not something I will address further.
Instead I will expose just one of the many fallacies at play in this view.
Let us suppose that abortion is murder, and the destruction of a fertilized embryo is comparable to murdering an adult person. What are the consequences in policy?
Step 1: Protect conceived embryos
Step 2: Protect “conception” as such
Step 3: Forcibly increase conceptions
Abortion as murder is a logical fallacy. You can no more make this claim, than it makes sense to criminalize not having children as an act of murder for preventing the coming-into-being of a person. An embryo is not a person—it is an embryo, a cell which has the potential to become a person. But an embryo requires 9 months of nourishment before it is born. So a decision needs to be made to carry it out to fruition. And this decision rests on the people who will be responsible for investing and bringing about the transformation from a bundle of cells into a person (mother, father, extended family)—not by a state intent on enforcing the religious dogmas of others.
The sheer persistence of such a topic is evidence to its complexity (certainly not at an intellectual level) but as a social phenomenon nurtured by circumstances, factions and traditions of thought particular to America. For someone who has no relation to this complex ground in which such a preposterous view as “abortion is murder” can thrive, it is dangerous topic to write about. The “mutual respect” that Obama advocates is tricky because it asks the religious faction to respect the other's logic and reason, just as it asks the rationals to suspend judgment on the irrationals—which is something that “reason” can never do, for it judges and explores all things. Obama's words at Notre Dame were a cop out – and I would hope the President does not make a habit of this kind of political compromise.
The crux of the issue is reason versus faith; enlightenment versus dogmatic obscurantism. Yet it is also a red-herring; abortion is a receptacle for an ideological battle which totally exceeds the actual issue at stake. It is a picked bone which has been scraped for meat by two opposed factions for way too long – its gleaming white represents the ravenous hunger of the political animals which circle it more than it reveals anything about the issue itself. At stake is leadership over the pack, not the bone itself.
So the so-called “pro-lifers” use abortion as an excuse to vent angry rhetoric disguised as reasons without revealing their true fear, which in essence is something to take seriously—the intrusion of science and an ethics intervention in the family's nucleus—birth. At core is the deep suspicion that new ways of doing things are dangerous.
On the pro-choice side stand those who believe in the liberal tradition broadly speaking, those who would see liberties expanded and who view the modern era as a time when the shackles of a despotic tradition have been undone: feminism, civil rights, slavery. This faction views change and innovation as crucial to fulfilling the promise of “the pursuit of happiness” for the public.
Clearly the two sides are arguing about different things, although their interests do conflict and force them to keep harping and pressing forth their agenda and it is not something I will address further.
Instead I will expose just one of the many fallacies at play in this view.
Let us suppose that abortion is murder, and the destruction of a fertilized embryo is comparable to murdering an adult person. What are the consequences in policy?
Step 1: Protect conceived embryos
- Ban all abortion and imprison doctors and unwilling mothers for homicide.
- Allow for exceptional cases only in situations where the the birth may lead to the death of the mother (rape should not be grounds for aborting, as one violent crime is not resolved by another)
- In practice, these policies will likely harm the disadvantaged the most, as the better off will be in a position to prevent conception more successfully, and thus avert dealing with pregnancy—or will they?
Step 2: Protect “conception” as such
- Discourage birth control (for if the destruction of a cell is murder, then preventing the “coming-into-being” of an embryo is also a terrible crime—is it not like preventing a person from drawing breath?
- Finally... ban condoms and birth control of all types
Step 3: Forcibly increase conceptions
- How many children have been denied the god-given right of living by selfish people who have chosen not to conceive? If we calculate the amount people who have not been allowed to be conceived since the use of birth control, it becomes clear that we are guilty of an even larger holocaust than the mere abortion of already-conceived embryos. For embryo's are the possibility of a baby and then adult, and an averted conception destroys the possibility of an embryo, and therefore also the possibility of an adult. Clearly then, birth control is criminal in so far as it prevents people from being born who otherwise would have been. Are we guilty of not allowing the discoverer of the cure for HIV to be conceived and therefore born? (To use the poorly thought-out cliché that is frequently emailed around.)
- New policy should be to mandate conception for healthy women in certain ages. The more baby's that are conceived the more good done in the world, as life can thrive and flourish. The European selfishness of having less than one child per couple is a 2nd holocaust which in number has accounted for the destruction of more people than WWII.
Abortion as murder is a logical fallacy. You can no more make this claim, than it makes sense to criminalize not having children as an act of murder for preventing the coming-into-being of a person. An embryo is not a person—it is an embryo, a cell which has the potential to become a person. But an embryo requires 9 months of nourishment before it is born. So a decision needs to be made to carry it out to fruition. And this decision rests on the people who will be responsible for investing and bringing about the transformation from a bundle of cells into a person (mother, father, extended family)—not by a state intent on enforcing the religious dogmas of others.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Try them all...
As all great countries, America can only be great as long as the underlying idea continues to invigorate its people and the world. There is little that can be as damaging to this country as Dick Cheney's insistence—and others of his kind—that torture is justifiable policy. He recently said: "I think it's very important that we have a clear understanding that what happened here was an honorable approach to defending the nation."
But Obama words struck true when he stated that such acts corrode the character of nation: '"I do believe that it is torture," Obama said of waterboarding—damage America's moral standing, he added. “Over time that corrodes what’s best in a people," the president said in a wide-ranging news conference. "It corrodes the character of a country."'
Torture and Cheney's foul advocacy of it corrodes spirit, character and future viability of the ship of state.
It is patriotic work to counter despicable positions that tarnish the good name of the country. This is not a game of “mere” opinions that should be left to linger in the air. Moreover, true cleansing of recent and widely publicized national escapades into the sordid methods of abuse and torture can only come if individuals are prosecuted for their guilt. Yes – it was a time of national emergency. But the point of morals is that we do not lay them aside whenever it suits the moment. Furthermore, the actions of the regime were not merely to pursue questionable acts and uses of force (which all states engage in when push comes to shove) but rather to justify and seek to enduringly reassess the country's political and moral position to obviously barbaric acts. It is not so much the actual acts themselves, so much as the attempt to instill their legitimacy in the political and ethical order which is most troubling. Can this be seen as an attempt to redefine the means of government over people as such? If it is legitimate to torture a foreigner because he might pose a threat, why not torture an American citizen because he might pose a threat? Was this the next step in a slippery slope to tyranny?
To make matters worse, the sheer notion that there is a trade-off between adhering to a moral code and the safety and security of the country is preposterous. In the long run, moral action is always the most expedient and favorable course of action. It is not for no reason that moral standards emerged in human society—way beyond divine mandate, ethics exist in the animal kingdom as well, and necessarily so. For all social behavior rests on the presupposition of good will. Nothing and no-one in the universe is purely interested in self-gratification (only the imaginings of the pseudo-economists, whose models brought the house down). In fact, humans and animals are willing to sacrifice for others and we will also engage in retribution to punish those that do not adhere to the code. Punishment (as Nietzsche well knew) serves to ensure that the moral character of a group continues in-force. Otherwise, any cowboy will let everyone else down for a moment's delight.
The pragmatically short-sighted and morally bankrupt perversion of the law should very clearly be condemned. And why should this not be moved to the courts? The same can be said for the previous administrations scare tactics to beat the public and media into submission—those fantasies of ticking bombs and tragedies that can only be averted if some heroic torturer waterboards an Arab. These are means that should not be tolerated by the public, and it would be refreshing to make clear that the US presidency is not a fiefdom where would-be warlords may do what they will with utter impunity. Such behavior has tarnished how the country is perceived, augmented ill-will around the world, and made the country less safe in so far as it gives others excuses to act vengefully. And beyond all these mere reasons – these policies are wrong...
But Obama words struck true when he stated that such acts corrode the character of nation: '"I do believe that it is torture," Obama said of waterboarding—damage America's moral standing, he added. “Over time that corrodes what’s best in a people," the president said in a wide-ranging news conference. "It corrodes the character of a country."'
Torture and Cheney's foul advocacy of it corrodes spirit, character and future viability of the ship of state.
It is patriotic work to counter despicable positions that tarnish the good name of the country. This is not a game of “mere” opinions that should be left to linger in the air. Moreover, true cleansing of recent and widely publicized national escapades into the sordid methods of abuse and torture can only come if individuals are prosecuted for their guilt. Yes – it was a time of national emergency. But the point of morals is that we do not lay them aside whenever it suits the moment. Furthermore, the actions of the regime were not merely to pursue questionable acts and uses of force (which all states engage in when push comes to shove) but rather to justify and seek to enduringly reassess the country's political and moral position to obviously barbaric acts. It is not so much the actual acts themselves, so much as the attempt to instill their legitimacy in the political and ethical order which is most troubling. Can this be seen as an attempt to redefine the means of government over people as such? If it is legitimate to torture a foreigner because he might pose a threat, why not torture an American citizen because he might pose a threat? Was this the next step in a slippery slope to tyranny?
To make matters worse, the sheer notion that there is a trade-off between adhering to a moral code and the safety and security of the country is preposterous. In the long run, moral action is always the most expedient and favorable course of action. It is not for no reason that moral standards emerged in human society—way beyond divine mandate, ethics exist in the animal kingdom as well, and necessarily so. For all social behavior rests on the presupposition of good will. Nothing and no-one in the universe is purely interested in self-gratification (only the imaginings of the pseudo-economists, whose models brought the house down). In fact, humans and animals are willing to sacrifice for others and we will also engage in retribution to punish those that do not adhere to the code. Punishment (as Nietzsche well knew) serves to ensure that the moral character of a group continues in-force. Otherwise, any cowboy will let everyone else down for a moment's delight.
The pragmatically short-sighted and morally bankrupt perversion of the law should very clearly be condemned. And why should this not be moved to the courts? The same can be said for the previous administrations scare tactics to beat the public and media into submission—those fantasies of ticking bombs and tragedies that can only be averted if some heroic torturer waterboards an Arab. These are means that should not be tolerated by the public, and it would be refreshing to make clear that the US presidency is not a fiefdom where would-be warlords may do what they will with utter impunity. Such behavior has tarnished how the country is perceived, augmented ill-will around the world, and made the country less safe in so far as it gives others excuses to act vengefully. And beyond all these mere reasons – these policies are wrong...
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Despite talent – all great things require collaborators
I have now written a few times about the value of self-augmentation through disciplined skill acquisition and the pursuit of individual talent. In response to which, an op-ed by David Brooks entitled Genius: The Modern View has been brought to my attention which shares some of my conclusions:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/opinion/01brooks.html?ref=opinion
But the attention paid to individual efforts--certainly an obsession of western cultures--may seem to imply that a focused individual is all that matters in the creation of value. Nothing could be further from the truth. A focused individual is necessary, but not sufficient. For intense and sustained collaboration is of the essence for any meaningful work and its fruits. But there are many forms of collaboration, and all too often, we misunderstand and overlook the sustained networks of intercourse in which an apparently quiet craftsman is embedded. Likewise, we can overrate the boisterous activity of a group and equate its noise with valuable output, when in fact – all of this groups production may remain noise that will cease to reverberate and be heard no more.
In the arts, collaboration can come quite literally, as in the team required to produce a film, or a musical band, or T.S. Eliot and Ezra Pound, author and creative editor on The Waste Land. But even if collaboration may not be present in this sense, it is always and inescapably present in the form of influence—and influence is the driving force behind all great works.
As Harold Bloom (cf. The Western Canon: The Books and Schools of the Ages) has often said, no one is Adam early in the morning. And for better or for worse we are all interred in an old earth with weighty traditions which invigorate our minds, lungs and bodies just as they asphyxiate all the same. But the powerful find ways to stir the earth they are immersed in with their own spirit. They bring new breeds into full bloom, whose presence mesmerizes their contemporaries and will cast a shadow upon those to come. That is precisely the trick – how to bring something new and beautiful into this old vale of the world. How can we escape the asphyxia of forever laying dormant beneath the stale shadows of the thoughts of others and their determinations?
But nothing created is ever truly new – it must be worked in such a way that it challenges old thoughts, old ways of viewing things, old stories and their conclusions. In this way, we come to see that there is only so much space in the clearing of human influence. And new trees must raise themselves by feeding on the nutrients of the old. Yet in so far as they are nurtured by the bodies of the vanquished, we all remain one: past, present and future. We are at different moments of one grand cycle. But the true learning is to acknowledge that all success is necessarily embedded in this cycle, and therefore depends on the wisdom of old even as it vanquishes it – and will similarly fall to the efforts of future antagonists.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/
But the attention paid to individual efforts--certainly an obsession of western cultures--may seem to imply that a focused individual is all that matters in the creation of value. Nothing could be further from the truth. A focused individual is necessary, but not sufficient. For intense and sustained collaboration is of the essence for any meaningful work and its fruits. But there are many forms of collaboration, and all too often, we misunderstand and overlook the sustained networks of intercourse in which an apparently quiet craftsman is embedded. Likewise, we can overrate the boisterous activity of a group and equate its noise with valuable output, when in fact – all of this groups production may remain noise that will cease to reverberate and be heard no more.
In the arts, collaboration can come quite literally, as in the team required to produce a film, or a musical band, or T.S. Eliot and Ezra Pound, author and creative editor on The Waste Land. But even if collaboration may not be present in this sense, it is always and inescapably present in the form of influence—and influence is the driving force behind all great works.
As Harold Bloom (cf. The Western Canon: The Books and Schools of the Ages) has often said, no one is Adam early in the morning. And for better or for worse we are all interred in an old earth with weighty traditions which invigorate our minds, lungs and bodies just as they asphyxiate all the same. But the powerful find ways to stir the earth they are immersed in with their own spirit. They bring new breeds into full bloom, whose presence mesmerizes their contemporaries and will cast a shadow upon those to come. That is precisely the trick – how to bring something new and beautiful into this old vale of the world. How can we escape the asphyxia of forever laying dormant beneath the stale shadows of the thoughts of others and their determinations?
But nothing created is ever truly new – it must be worked in such a way that it challenges old thoughts, old ways of viewing things, old stories and their conclusions. In this way, we come to see that there is only so much space in the clearing of human influence. And new trees must raise themselves by feeding on the nutrients of the old. Yet in so far as they are nurtured by the bodies of the vanquished, we all remain one: past, present and future. We are at different moments of one grand cycle. But the true learning is to acknowledge that all success is necessarily embedded in this cycle, and therefore depends on the wisdom of old even as it vanquishes it – and will similarly fall to the efforts of future antagonists.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
The 10,000 hour revisited -- and the disruptive economics of inspiration
A commentator to my blog yesterday wrote me with some of his thoughts regarding my previous post on talent and the development of skills, they are as follows:
“according to the rule of 10,000 it would take you 2.2 years to develop a skill, if you spent twelve hours a day on it.
there's only three alternatives you can draw from this
It is true that time is a very real material constraint to the cultivation of all individuals. But 10,000 is not the time needed to “develop a skill” -- rather it is the time needed to master it. Someone who has put in a solid 10,000 hours ought to be able to jam like the Beatles and not sound like your average gritty garage band. 10,000 hours puts the individual in a position to innovate on the craft or artform, and it is true that such level of mastery will remain unobtainable to many under the current economics of human living: the necessity of wage-labor under present conditions, the necessity of time-wasting “consumer-culture” for the present economy. These two forces of neglect combine most strongly in the non-privileged classes to effectively give birth to the concept of the masses: uncouth, with little direction, walking to the beat set by another's drum.
But this does not mean that all skill-acquisition should be abandoned. I may not master a musical instrument, but even ~300 hours of practice and learning is already a world of difference for it has given me the capability and basis on which to stand if I want to bring music into my life in a way that is organic and spontaneous – instead of the commercial blaring of nonsense radio. And this begs the question – how much time does it take to really just develop a basic skill? The answer here really leads us to a notion of how one goes about living. My argument pertains to the fact that most people have really given up with regards to their own self-enhancement. Their game is really one of the moment, one of mud and worms and a little income. It is a whole other way of life to dedicate and devote time with a constant eye on extracting nuggets of wisdom and refining habits and practices so as to obtain a supremely harmonious sense of self, along with its complements in beautiful and cultivated skills and activities: in debate, in music and song and dance, in the arts of written argument, in distilling and capturing human emotion through performance, in sports and the competitive use of the body.
I think analyzing the “R&D process” of skills in this strictly cost-based way is a bit of a problem in itself. The distinction lies in the philosophical difference from “in-itself” to “for-itself”--i.e., whether or not the act pursued is done with itself as ultimate aim, or whether it is the mere means to something else. Let us remember here that the goal is not that we should all become amazingly talented in several walks of life – but rather, the goal is to illuminate our living with paths that all lead in a direction of human fulfillment and the ongoing exploration and unfolding of the life of the spirit. To use the old cliché, it is the walk and not the destination which is the point of it all.
If we steer our lives in a way where the ongoing routine is one of exaltation and development – then we would gladly pour in the time. I also think we underestimate our capacity to make do by other means than wage labor. I have never tried this last thing I preach, but I imagine that seeking ways to immediately commercialize craft and skill by reaching other people directly (rather than selling 100% of work-time to one buyer and then doing all ad-hoc tasks necessary to please this buyer) would allow for a good proportion of time invested in the ongoing refinement of the inner voice.
In conclusion – I agree that there is a fundamental economics problem that destroys the prospects of a life of enlightenment and ongoing exaltation through skill acquisition and the resulting outputs of the mastery of several skills. But I do not agree that the strategy should be to enter the workforce at 100% with the quick aim of surpassing the gravitational pull of economic necessity, and then using the means acquired to liberate oneself from all the things that have previously defined success (a high income, the praise of one's boss, quick returns for investments, etc).
The problem Is that uch economistic logic is already at odds with the spirit necessary in order to lead a life of ongoing cultivation, for it fixates on the tangible earthly matters—on the mud and water (cf. Hegel quoted in the last post). The habits of mind and body one develops while on the beck and call of necessity are highly counterproductive to the habits of inspiration. So it is important never to neglect the calling of a higher order. This means that devoting oneself to commercial employment fully is something that runs the edge of a razor and risks falling over to that place where men have become wage-laborers in soulless body. So although one may have entered employment with the thought that it is just “in-itself” and that a few years of such work should finance the “for-itself” of a more fulfilling life – the ongoing exertions of the extending horizon have a way of molding the inner self so that present occupations are “for-itself”, and what was once viewed as the ultimate aim is lost in the mirage of a desert of the soul.
For this reason I would rather set myself up for a daily struggle whereby I try to accomplish both cultivation and the expansion of my means. But it is true that at one point, perhaps fast approaching, a choice needs be made.
“according to the rule of 10,000 it would take you 2.2 years to develop a skill, if you spent twelve hours a day on it.
there's only three alternatives you can draw from this
- find a way to secure eternal life :-) (preferred)
- find a way to make a lot of $$$ early, so that afterwards you can dedicate every shred of time you have to the accumulation of skills (most actionable)
- c) come to terms with the fact that you will only accumulate one or two skills in life (defeat)”
It is true that time is a very real material constraint to the cultivation of all individuals. But 10,000 is not the time needed to “develop a skill” -- rather it is the time needed to master it. Someone who has put in a solid 10,000 hours ought to be able to jam like the Beatles and not sound like your average gritty garage band. 10,000 hours puts the individual in a position to innovate on the craft or artform, and it is true that such level of mastery will remain unobtainable to many under the current economics of human living: the necessity of wage-labor under present conditions, the necessity of time-wasting “consumer-culture” for the present economy. These two forces of neglect combine most strongly in the non-privileged classes to effectively give birth to the concept of the masses: uncouth, with little direction, walking to the beat set by another's drum.
But this does not mean that all skill-acquisition should be abandoned. I may not master a musical instrument, but even ~300 hours of practice and learning is already a world of difference for it has given me the capability and basis on which to stand if I want to bring music into my life in a way that is organic and spontaneous – instead of the commercial blaring of nonsense radio. And this begs the question – how much time does it take to really just develop a basic skill? The answer here really leads us to a notion of how one goes about living. My argument pertains to the fact that most people have really given up with regards to their own self-enhancement. Their game is really one of the moment, one of mud and worms and a little income. It is a whole other way of life to dedicate and devote time with a constant eye on extracting nuggets of wisdom and refining habits and practices so as to obtain a supremely harmonious sense of self, along with its complements in beautiful and cultivated skills and activities: in debate, in music and song and dance, in the arts of written argument, in distilling and capturing human emotion through performance, in sports and the competitive use of the body.
I think analyzing the “R&D process” of skills in this strictly cost-based way is a bit of a problem in itself. The distinction lies in the philosophical difference from “in-itself” to “for-itself”--i.e., whether or not the act pursued is done with itself as ultimate aim, or whether it is the mere means to something else. Let us remember here that the goal is not that we should all become amazingly talented in several walks of life – but rather, the goal is to illuminate our living with paths that all lead in a direction of human fulfillment and the ongoing exploration and unfolding of the life of the spirit. To use the old cliché, it is the walk and not the destination which is the point of it all.
If we steer our lives in a way where the ongoing routine is one of exaltation and development – then we would gladly pour in the time. I also think we underestimate our capacity to make do by other means than wage labor. I have never tried this last thing I preach, but I imagine that seeking ways to immediately commercialize craft and skill by reaching other people directly (rather than selling 100% of work-time to one buyer and then doing all ad-hoc tasks necessary to please this buyer) would allow for a good proportion of time invested in the ongoing refinement of the inner voice.
In conclusion – I agree that there is a fundamental economics problem that destroys the prospects of a life of enlightenment and ongoing exaltation through skill acquisition and the resulting outputs of the mastery of several skills. But I do not agree that the strategy should be to enter the workforce at 100% with the quick aim of surpassing the gravitational pull of economic necessity, and then using the means acquired to liberate oneself from all the things that have previously defined success (a high income, the praise of one's boss, quick returns for investments, etc).
The problem Is that uch economistic logic is already at odds with the spirit necessary in order to lead a life of ongoing cultivation, for it fixates on the tangible earthly matters—on the mud and water (cf. Hegel quoted in the last post). The habits of mind and body one develops while on the beck and call of necessity are highly counterproductive to the habits of inspiration. So it is important never to neglect the calling of a higher order. This means that devoting oneself to commercial employment fully is something that runs the edge of a razor and risks falling over to that place where men have become wage-laborers in soulless body. So although one may have entered employment with the thought that it is just “in-itself” and that a few years of such work should finance the “for-itself” of a more fulfilling life – the ongoing exertions of the extending horizon have a way of molding the inner self so that present occupations are “for-itself”, and what was once viewed as the ultimate aim is lost in the mirage of a desert of the soul.
For this reason I would rather set myself up for a daily struggle whereby I try to accomplish both cultivation and the expansion of my means. But it is true that at one point, perhaps fast approaching, a choice needs be made.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
A present that lies beyond: Words of wisdom
"Turning away from the husks it has to feed on, and confessing that it lies in wickedness and sin, [self-consciousness] now desires from philosophy not so much to bring it to a knowledge of what it is, as to obtain once again through philosophy the restoration of a sense of solidity and subtantiality of exisitence it has lost. [...]
The beautiful, the holy, the eternal, religion, love -- these are the bait required to awaken the desire to bite: not the notion, but ecstasy, not the march of cold necessity in the subject-matter, but ferment and enthusiasm -- these are to be the ways by which wealth of concrete substance is to be stored and increasingly extended.
With this demand there goes the strenuous effort, almost perfervidly zealous in its activity, to rescue mankind from being sunken in what is sensuous, vulgar, and of fleeting importance, and to raise men's eyes to the stars; as if men had quite forgotten the divine, and were on the verge of finding satisfaction, like worms, in mud and water. Time was when man had a heaven, decked and fitted out with endless wealth of thoughts and pictures. The significance of all that is, lay in the thread of light by which it was attached to heaven; instead of dwelling in the present as it is here and now, the eye glanced away over the present to the Divine; away, so as to say, to a present that lies beyond. The mind's gaze had to be directed under compulsion to what is earthly, and kept fixed there; and it needed a long time to introduce that clearness, which only celestial realities had, into the crassness and confusion shrouding the sense of things, earthly, and to make attention to the immediate present as such, which was called Experience, of interest and of value."
-Hegel, Phenomenology of the Spirit
The beautiful, the holy, the eternal, religion, love -- these are the bait required to awaken the desire to bite: not the notion, but ecstasy, not the march of cold necessity in the subject-matter, but ferment and enthusiasm -- these are to be the ways by which wealth of concrete substance is to be stored and increasingly extended.
With this demand there goes the strenuous effort, almost perfervidly zealous in its activity, to rescue mankind from being sunken in what is sensuous, vulgar, and of fleeting importance, and to raise men's eyes to the stars; as if men had quite forgotten the divine, and were on the verge of finding satisfaction, like worms, in mud and water. Time was when man had a heaven, decked and fitted out with endless wealth of thoughts and pictures. The significance of all that is, lay in the thread of light by which it was attached to heaven; instead of dwelling in the present as it is here and now, the eye glanced away over the present to the Divine; away, so as to say, to a present that lies beyond. The mind's gaze had to be directed under compulsion to what is earthly, and kept fixed there; and it needed a long time to introduce that clearness, which only celestial realities had, into the crassness and confusion shrouding the sense of things, earthly, and to make attention to the immediate present as such, which was called Experience, of interest and of value."
-Hegel, Phenomenology of the Spirit
Monday, May 4, 2009
Talent and the 10,000 hour rule
One of the many insightful and actionable points in Malcolm Gladwell's recent book Outliers pertains to the cultivation and apparently unreachable talent that some people have managed to attain in the gaze of others. The frenzy around shows like American Idol is precisely the delusion that some individuals are miles above and beyond the ordinary individual.
The whole point is to create the perception of glimmers of value that are innate and not cultivated. In the case of these talent shows, the watching public is invited to gaze upon some talented singer or musician, etc. whose “talent” breaks through their otherwise quotidian nature. When the public witnesses the unfolding of discordant talent (so Susan Boyle's voice is surprising beautiful whereas she appears to me an ugly spinster) people feel a rush of emotion well-up inside of them that finally some truth is being revealed—the diamond in the rough.
In the case of rockstars, moviestars or otherwise established “stars” of some sort or another, there is only a pervasive sense of awe. So that a mere signature can become valuable. Fans will wait for hours to catch a glimpse of their favorite moviestar immersed in the most ordinary of chores. The point to be made is not that these people are not talented (although the standard is varied and many of them probably float on the graces of their own pretensions), but that the public—and the individuals that comprise the senseless mass, do not understand their own capacity to develop talent so that those capable of the scintillating alchemy whereby they convey true passion and soul become glorified beyond their human nature – they become like gods.
James Joyce's last book, and by most accounts an utter failure was Finnegans Wake. It is said that part of the intended message (and play-on-words title) is that people do not realize that they are dormant gods. So Joyce wanted to stir them from their slumber. It would have been an act worthy of a modern Prometheus to have accomplished that. Instead we are still immersed in the nightmare of history in which the masses continue to deserve their grindstone, all the while they neglect their own cultivation.
To return to Gladwell's point – any robust mastery of a skill – be it computer programming (Bill Gates) to music (the Beatles) rests on 10,000 hours of devoted practice. Gladwell examines the circumstances under which such phenomena of accomplishment reached such culminating success that people around them could only stand aside and watch dumbfounded, mesmerized by such “innate” and “natural” talent. These perceptions were an effect of hours of labor. And instead of employing this rule to their own self-exaltation, most people dedicate many times over 10,000 hours to the glorification of numb pulp fiction and sheer consumerism and sensationalism over substance. In many ways we are still pagans.
The whole point is to create the perception of glimmers of value that are innate and not cultivated. In the case of these talent shows, the watching public is invited to gaze upon some talented singer or musician, etc. whose “talent” breaks through their otherwise quotidian nature. When the public witnesses the unfolding of discordant talent (so Susan Boyle's voice is surprising beautiful whereas she appears to me an ugly spinster) people feel a rush of emotion well-up inside of them that finally some truth is being revealed—the diamond in the rough.
In the case of rockstars, moviestars or otherwise established “stars” of some sort or another, there is only a pervasive sense of awe. So that a mere signature can become valuable. Fans will wait for hours to catch a glimpse of their favorite moviestar immersed in the most ordinary of chores. The point to be made is not that these people are not talented (although the standard is varied and many of them probably float on the graces of their own pretensions), but that the public—and the individuals that comprise the senseless mass, do not understand their own capacity to develop talent so that those capable of the scintillating alchemy whereby they convey true passion and soul become glorified beyond their human nature – they become like gods.
James Joyce's last book, and by most accounts an utter failure was Finnegans Wake. It is said that part of the intended message (and play-on-words title) is that people do not realize that they are dormant gods. So Joyce wanted to stir them from their slumber. It would have been an act worthy of a modern Prometheus to have accomplished that. Instead we are still immersed in the nightmare of history in which the masses continue to deserve their grindstone, all the while they neglect their own cultivation.
To return to Gladwell's point – any robust mastery of a skill – be it computer programming (Bill Gates) to music (the Beatles) rests on 10,000 hours of devoted practice. Gladwell examines the circumstances under which such phenomena of accomplishment reached such culminating success that people around them could only stand aside and watch dumbfounded, mesmerized by such “innate” and “natural” talent. These perceptions were an effect of hours of labor. And instead of employing this rule to their own self-exaltation, most people dedicate many times over 10,000 hours to the glorification of numb pulp fiction and sheer consumerism and sensationalism over substance. In many ways we are still pagans.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Converting a Mexican to Massachusetts Driver's License
It took me two days to convert my Mexican driver's license to a Massachusetts driver's license. It was a hassle of enormous proportions. The process was bureaucratic and slow, involved documents the Mexican government hardly knows to process (driving record) and these documents had to be translated and notarized. It was not only the standard hassle of these kinds of bureaucratic processes that felt aggravating – but the nature of mediating between two governments and two faceless bureaucracies.
Yet a Mass driver's license is necessary, not only to secure the ability to drive—which as anyone who has lived in the United States knows, is a requirement for a full-fledged existence—but also as a form of ID. I am clearly not under 21, yet bouncers everywhere are fully entitled to block my entry when I show them my Mexican license. And being turned away for the vulgar reason of being unable to prove that I can hold my liquor is shameful indeed. They'll take a condescending tone and after squinting briefly at the foreign-made plastic, say “In this state – that's not a valid form of ID, buddy.” But I would sooner walk the streets naked and barefoot than carry my passport around to appease diligent bouncers. Losing my passport would have probably gotten me waterboarded under the previous administration – probably no less than 150 times in a single work week. Fortunately some sanity has been restored to the administration, and these kinds of measures are unlikely to be brought to bear in such circumstances. Still -- I want my passport to stay home in a dark place ready for airport time.
It took no less than three weeks for the Mexican secretary of transportation to return my requests for a driving record – and the petty little thing they send is an almost empty sheet which repeats the stuff on my license, and remarks “Reasons for which there is a lock: [empty space]” Anyone who reads this document looking to glean knowledge--presumably of my driving history!-- very quickly will fall flat on their face. It does not say whether I have run over a truckload over children and old people (I have not). It does not say whether or not I have raced around the city and crashed into an icecream truck (icecream probably acts as a sort of creamy padding and I presume would mitigate damage). And I have not done that either. In short -- this document says nothing but the fact that there is some objective correlate to my driver's license hidden in the Mexican registry.
You can imagine that as someone who was now expected to brandish these sheets of paper (one of which was a cover letter written in the most stupidly languid way – and in torn paper no less!) I stepped into this driver's license conversion process (which had to be done) in the most doomed half-hearted way possible.
But the senselessness builds upon itself and slowly snowballs into a giant mass of nonsense. This stupid pieces of paper then had to be translated, and notarized. The contact details of the translator attached, and the whole translations and notarizations attached to a translated and notarized copy of the Mexican license itself, and this attached to an application for a US license. In the end, no one cared about the substance-less paperwork from Mexico, it was only to check a box.
But the translation part is also something which might seem obvious to good-intentioned Americans from the midwest. But to someone who breathes multiple languages it really feels like an extra hoop meant to generate zero value-add jobs to the economy: notaries and translators of documents which really say nothing. Heck, I could do the translation and much more quickly – as I would not have to go out into the marketplace and find these people.”Reasons for which there is a lock: [blank space]” That's the supposed substance of the wretched document.
After two days of translating and notarizing documents and returning to the Registry in downtown Boston and getting sent away to get another detail or other fixed – there was success! I was handed a temporary license and told the card would arrive through the snail mail. And they kept my Mexican license (in their bureaucratic logic, no individual should be allowed to drive around with multiple licenses, lest they escape detection for infractions.) But I have no intention of driving around Mexico with a US license, so I will have to get a replacement in Mexico.
Yet a Mass driver's license is necessary, not only to secure the ability to drive—which as anyone who has lived in the United States knows, is a requirement for a full-fledged existence—but also as a form of ID. I am clearly not under 21, yet bouncers everywhere are fully entitled to block my entry when I show them my Mexican license. And being turned away for the vulgar reason of being unable to prove that I can hold my liquor is shameful indeed. They'll take a condescending tone and after squinting briefly at the foreign-made plastic, say “In this state – that's not a valid form of ID, buddy.” But I would sooner walk the streets naked and barefoot than carry my passport around to appease diligent bouncers. Losing my passport would have probably gotten me waterboarded under the previous administration – probably no less than 150 times in a single work week. Fortunately some sanity has been restored to the administration, and these kinds of measures are unlikely to be brought to bear in such circumstances. Still -- I want my passport to stay home in a dark place ready for airport time.
It took no less than three weeks for the Mexican secretary of transportation to return my requests for a driving record – and the petty little thing they send is an almost empty sheet which repeats the stuff on my license, and remarks “Reasons for which there is a lock: [empty space]” Anyone who reads this document looking to glean knowledge--presumably of my driving history!-- very quickly will fall flat on their face. It does not say whether I have run over a truckload over children and old people (I have not). It does not say whether or not I have raced around the city and crashed into an icecream truck (icecream probably acts as a sort of creamy padding and I presume would mitigate damage). And I have not done that either. In short -- this document says nothing but the fact that there is some objective correlate to my driver's license hidden in the Mexican registry.
You can imagine that as someone who was now expected to brandish these sheets of paper (one of which was a cover letter written in the most stupidly languid way – and in torn paper no less!) I stepped into this driver's license conversion process (which had to be done) in the most doomed half-hearted way possible.
But the senselessness builds upon itself and slowly snowballs into a giant mass of nonsense. This stupid pieces of paper then had to be translated, and notarized. The contact details of the translator attached, and the whole translations and notarizations attached to a translated and notarized copy of the Mexican license itself, and this attached to an application for a US license. In the end, no one cared about the substance-less paperwork from Mexico, it was only to check a box.
But the translation part is also something which might seem obvious to good-intentioned Americans from the midwest. But to someone who breathes multiple languages it really feels like an extra hoop meant to generate zero value-add jobs to the economy: notaries and translators of documents which really say nothing. Heck, I could do the translation and much more quickly – as I would not have to go out into the marketplace and find these people.”Reasons for which there is a lock: [blank space]” That's the supposed substance of the wretched document.
After two days of translating and notarizing documents and returning to the Registry in downtown Boston and getting sent away to get another detail or other fixed – there was success! I was handed a temporary license and told the card would arrive through the snail mail. And they kept my Mexican license (in their bureaucratic logic, no individual should be allowed to drive around with multiple licenses, lest they escape detection for infractions.) But I have no intention of driving around Mexico with a US license, so I will have to get a replacement in Mexico.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Response to crisis as perpetuation of order
Many would think that 2009 is a year that has perhaps seen the summit and downfall of greed as supreme virtue. No longer is Gordon Gecko hailed a hero.
However the ethics, lifestyles and habits of greed persist – they needed only a good facelift. As the crisis continues to unfold, it becomes ever more clear that the centers of supreme accumulation of the world (and they are in the United States) must drape their ultimate objective (blind profit) in the propaganda of a greater good. This is a first step towards a more proper balance of social well-being and it may have good consequences, independently of the honesty or lack thereof with which it is put forth. Pretense, in so far as it leads to efficacy, is the first step towards genuine being. In pretending to be virtuous and “responsible”, these agents ultimately might become so.
However, we should understand that this shift is occurring precisely at a moment of expediency. Government has had to step in to reinforce the structure of capital, fundamentally so as to perpetuate and safeguard its order. And to do this, some concessions have had to be paid to reality in so far as they are necessary to allow for accumulative extraction (in the coffers of a few corporations) while legitimizing the investment of the wealth of the public to sustain their privilege. This means corporate jets have to go while on the payroll of Uncle Sam.
But the point is precisely to understand that this may remain purely cosmetic so long as the show of moderation and prudence remains short (and the show is intended to be as short as possible!). And this means we should still understand that the elements of the old configuration of the economy and state—which were organized in such a way so as to trigger their own collapse, are presently still vying for priority over public interests.
For true change would take time. And time is precisely what is scarce in a society that is structured to be at peace only when in the fray of tremendous consumption. But how can a recession of a few meager years do enough to reconfigure relations between public and private if government has been controlled, or in the very least—highly suggestible by the private pursuit of accumulation for decades. Generations upon generations have been brought up under the guile of a prosperity whose true costs have been swept beneath the rug. And in a sense this is inevitable for a social order (cf. The Bacchae, Euripedes). We must not succumb to the extreme naivete that would have all of nature virtuous and pure—for it is not that, rather it is indifferent, without pity or justice. But this does not mean that there can be a better balance in how we allocate our energies as individuals, as a society and as states. There can and should be – otherwise we will continue to suffer the shocks of reality. And the real always wins.
However the ethics, lifestyles and habits of greed persist – they needed only a good facelift. As the crisis continues to unfold, it becomes ever more clear that the centers of supreme accumulation of the world (and they are in the United States) must drape their ultimate objective (blind profit) in the propaganda of a greater good. This is a first step towards a more proper balance of social well-being and it may have good consequences, independently of the honesty or lack thereof with which it is put forth. Pretense, in so far as it leads to efficacy, is the first step towards genuine being. In pretending to be virtuous and “responsible”, these agents ultimately might become so.
However, we should understand that this shift is occurring precisely at a moment of expediency. Government has had to step in to reinforce the structure of capital, fundamentally so as to perpetuate and safeguard its order. And to do this, some concessions have had to be paid to reality in so far as they are necessary to allow for accumulative extraction (in the coffers of a few corporations) while legitimizing the investment of the wealth of the public to sustain their privilege. This means corporate jets have to go while on the payroll of Uncle Sam.
But the point is precisely to understand that this may remain purely cosmetic so long as the show of moderation and prudence remains short (and the show is intended to be as short as possible!). And this means we should still understand that the elements of the old configuration of the economy and state—which were organized in such a way so as to trigger their own collapse, are presently still vying for priority over public interests.
For true change would take time. And time is precisely what is scarce in a society that is structured to be at peace only when in the fray of tremendous consumption. But how can a recession of a few meager years do enough to reconfigure relations between public and private if government has been controlled, or in the very least—highly suggestible by the private pursuit of accumulation for decades. Generations upon generations have been brought up under the guile of a prosperity whose true costs have been swept beneath the rug. And in a sense this is inevitable for a social order (cf. The Bacchae, Euripedes). We must not succumb to the extreme naivete that would have all of nature virtuous and pure—for it is not that, rather it is indifferent, without pity or justice. But this does not mean that there can be a better balance in how we allocate our energies as individuals, as a society and as states. There can and should be – otherwise we will continue to suffer the shocks of reality. And the real always wins.
You desire to LIVE "according to nature?"
Oh, you noble Stoics, what fraud of words! Imagine yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power—how COULD you live in accordance with such indifference? To live—is not that just endeavouring to be otherwise than this Nature? Is not living, valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different? And granted that your imperative, “living according to Nature,” means actually the same as “living according to life”--how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be? In reality, however, it is quite otherwise with you: while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature you want something quite the contrary, you extraordinary stage-players and self deluders!
-Beyond Good and Evil, #9, Nietzsche
-Beyond Good and Evil, #9, Nietzsche
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)