Recently, I ponied up the cash to buy "For All Mankind" (which you can watch for 5 bucks online by following the link), and -as anticipated- I thoroughly enjoyed revisiting it. The documentary is footage of NASA missions to the moon overlayed with audio from new interviews by the astronauts involved, and the direction Al Reinert takes this material in is really interesting. Rather than taking this footage of accomplishments that are dripping with curiosity and the importance of history and making a commonplace narrative out of them, Reinert turns the piece into an exploration of the mundane. No narrator with a silver tongue, no tone of self importance. This is astronauts reflecting on the humanity and ordinary nature of the task laid out before them, and the juxtaposition of that lens against the rosy way we view the accomplishments is an interesting perspective.
So much of this documentary and the narration by those astronauts involved is tied into the fact that this was a job for them, and that surrounding these landmark accomplishments are such simple tasks, things we do every day that are somehow transported to a realm of wonder and disbelief when we see these astronauts doing them. We see them putting on their suits -referred to as their "work clothes"- and its an experience with a complete disconnect until viewed with the humility of common terminology. It seems as though entire portions of Reinert's film are dedicated to deconstructing the mystique surrounding the moon landings, and yet after the ordinary nature of these actions is conveyed we find some indelible level of human fascination is tied up in exploration. The monotony is there; astronauts brush their teeth, take shits and listen to music just like the rest of us, but them committing these actions in the midst of their travels is something like a reaffirmation of our existence. Its almost as if Reinert's saying that if these brave souls are acting in the same way and doing the same things as us while out in the cosmos, we must be doing something right.
In this respect, we can ask ourselves: What is it to revitalize human nature? I think in a couple of my posts here I've talked about the dark shadow of a scientific world and the necessity of romantic liberties, and I think the repackaging of our day to day lives into something fascinating thanks to new scenery is a direct example of that. When astronauts drive a vehicle on the moon, there's little difference from what we do here on Earth. For All Mankind shows them collecting rocks, running, jumping, and using basic tools, and all of this is given to the viewer to be held in captivation, but through the interview clips used Reinert makes the intention very clear: There is such a small difference between the actions of these men and those of us in our day to day lives. In so many ways these accomplishments exist beyond our boundaries of reason and understanding, at a point in our imaginations where proximity has broken down and we become drooling infants, amazed at the magical gestures being performed by those we think beyond us.
In the supplements there's a really awesome piece where famous transmissions from space are spliced together, all over a simple, never-changing picture of the deeply cratered and imperfect moon. You hear Alan Shepard's transmission as he becomes the first American into space, Neil Armstrong's words as he takes the first step on the moon, James Lovell as he reports problems with his ship's approach to the moon. Throughout the excitement, fear and wonder of what these men are reporting, all you have to watch is a simple picture of the moon, it being the perfect foil to the raw emotion of these broadcasts. The contrast goes a long way to put not only our ventures into space in perspective, but also to delve somewhere deeper. This is touching on the very kernel of human emotion and excitement, a place we approach with reckless abandon and whose nature we refuse to recognize or fully acknowledge in the hopes of a brighter day. What is it to go to the moon besides an empty gesture, and yet for so many it's a beacon of intense pride and hope. Even for the detractors, who think our efforts were in vain, there's always something we could have done instead. We could have spent the money domestically, improved our schools or health system or military, but for these people such actions hold the same wonder and promise that our explorations of space do. With this action, we can prove that the future won't be as cold as our past.
In raising these questions, I feel we begin to touch on interesting questions, ones existing in the vein of asking "How much is too much?" The conscious recognition that as a species we may not actually want to know the answer to everything is newer to Western thought, but our times and eventuality give credence to the claims. Maybe it's not so much that we want to know how the universe works exactly or to have a fate laid out before us clearly enough that we never get hurt by surprise, but something different, more simple. Maybe, at the end of the day, we just want to know that things are going to be alright, that even though life will slog on and kick and knock us down, things can get better, our children won't be subjected to the same struggles as us and that the human condition can become more peaceful, loving and accepting. It's probably easy to refute an argument like this, but that's also a pretty good way to bum yourself out. Maybe that says enough right there.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
Back to the Future
It's been a hectic couple months, but I've decided to return to my blog in lieu of the fact that I have nothing better to do. I'm pretty sure that in the time from my last post to this one I moved from Portland to San Francisco, so it's probably been an issue of wanting to get acclimated to my surroundings which has prevented me from reviving this sucker earlier.
I think another thing that prevented me from working on this more often is the fact that I always wanted this to be a topic driven blog; a place that was more about opinions and culture than about me trying to celebritize myself as someone worth following. I'm not trying to say that I disagree with people who do stuff like that, it's just not my personal thing. I like ideas and concepts, and those are things I don't see all that often in a setting like this. Maybe I'm just operating in the wrong capacity and should concern myself with means taken more seriously than blogging, but it's not like I haven't always been backwards in quite a few ways, so my stubbornness should be nothing new.
Why something meandering like this? Why not reignite the torch with something more in tune with what I wanted this blog to represent? The answer to that is that is simple: I'm fucking tired and don't really want to deal with anything too complex right now. I've got three hungry cats circling me like sharks with a certain mutiny in their eye, and the terror is climbing up my soul to my esophagus. I have no way to remedy this situation -we're out of food- and all I can do is sit and wait for a more responsible adult to come home with the means to assuage this maddening typhoon of mews.
Diving into a new tangent, I've been doing a lot of creative writing lately, which means I haven't been wasting my time entirely. About a year ago I was overcome with this issue where I couldn't read fiction anymore, and that's something I'm still wrestling with. I've read a couple books by Jonathan Lethem and Roberto Bolano recently, but aside from that it's been slim pickins in the fiction department. I'm lead to believe this is why I've been doing more creative writing of late, and I've been pretty pleased with the results. My writing seems more breathable, more authentic to myself, which is a major point of contention I've always harped on myself about. I've got a lot of stuff that if I were to just type it and polish it a bit would probably be publishable, but for whatever reason I can't seem to climb that hump. I'll do it when I feel more comfortable, more relaxed within myself.
Since I haven't been reading fiction I've been more focused on nonfiction, reading a fuckton of books on space, the space race, military intelligence, the CIA and government secrecy. It seems the way all this stuff culminates is in me being interested in the ownership of ideas and information, and the effects that has on both sides of the issues. I'm an unapologetic fan of the Moon landing and the space race in general, believing it to be a romantic gesture that propelled human thought and inspiration, a sort of distant-look approach to the times and the world that I wish was more readily available today. People are mired in the idea that we need to improve the quality of living around the world -something I wholeheartedly agree with- but there's also the fact that an approach like that wears on you because of how fucked up things can actually be. It seems entirely human that we clean our palette occasionally with a romantic gesture to show what we're capable of. Not something that serves to fix any nagging problem or solves any sort of claustrophobic social issue, but instead just demonstrates that we're capable of doing something we think is beautiful on a large scale. I dunno, I just think there are a lot of ways to put on rosy glasses and view an event of the moon landing's magnificence.
I'm sure this entry doesn't tie together in the most cohesive way, but it serves as an example for me. Proof that I'm still thinking, still able to look at something and extract something I want to say from it. It also serves to get the ball rolling, which is a simple problem that gets significantly amplified over a span of time. Whatever, consider this mutherfucker resurrected.
I think another thing that prevented me from working on this more often is the fact that I always wanted this to be a topic driven blog; a place that was more about opinions and culture than about me trying to celebritize myself as someone worth following. I'm not trying to say that I disagree with people who do stuff like that, it's just not my personal thing. I like ideas and concepts, and those are things I don't see all that often in a setting like this. Maybe I'm just operating in the wrong capacity and should concern myself with means taken more seriously than blogging, but it's not like I haven't always been backwards in quite a few ways, so my stubbornness should be nothing new.
Why something meandering like this? Why not reignite the torch with something more in tune with what I wanted this blog to represent? The answer to that is that is simple: I'm fucking tired and don't really want to deal with anything too complex right now. I've got three hungry cats circling me like sharks with a certain mutiny in their eye, and the terror is climbing up my soul to my esophagus. I have no way to remedy this situation -we're out of food- and all I can do is sit and wait for a more responsible adult to come home with the means to assuage this maddening typhoon of mews.
Diving into a new tangent, I've been doing a lot of creative writing lately, which means I haven't been wasting my time entirely. About a year ago I was overcome with this issue where I couldn't read fiction anymore, and that's something I'm still wrestling with. I've read a couple books by Jonathan Lethem and Roberto Bolano recently, but aside from that it's been slim pickins in the fiction department. I'm lead to believe this is why I've been doing more creative writing of late, and I've been pretty pleased with the results. My writing seems more breathable, more authentic to myself, which is a major point of contention I've always harped on myself about. I've got a lot of stuff that if I were to just type it and polish it a bit would probably be publishable, but for whatever reason I can't seem to climb that hump. I'll do it when I feel more comfortable, more relaxed within myself.
Since I haven't been reading fiction I've been more focused on nonfiction, reading a fuckton of books on space, the space race, military intelligence, the CIA and government secrecy. It seems the way all this stuff culminates is in me being interested in the ownership of ideas and information, and the effects that has on both sides of the issues. I'm an unapologetic fan of the Moon landing and the space race in general, believing it to be a romantic gesture that propelled human thought and inspiration, a sort of distant-look approach to the times and the world that I wish was more readily available today. People are mired in the idea that we need to improve the quality of living around the world -something I wholeheartedly agree with- but there's also the fact that an approach like that wears on you because of how fucked up things can actually be. It seems entirely human that we clean our palette occasionally with a romantic gesture to show what we're capable of. Not something that serves to fix any nagging problem or solves any sort of claustrophobic social issue, but instead just demonstrates that we're capable of doing something we think is beautiful on a large scale. I dunno, I just think there are a lot of ways to put on rosy glasses and view an event of the moon landing's magnificence.
I'm sure this entry doesn't tie together in the most cohesive way, but it serves as an example for me. Proof that I'm still thinking, still able to look at something and extract something I want to say from it. It also serves to get the ball rolling, which is a simple problem that gets significantly amplified over a span of time. Whatever, consider this mutherfucker resurrected.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Pop Culture and Weak Thought pt. 1
Introduction and overview of weak thought
I don't know how many of these posts I've started with "Lately", but it seems like a lot. Get ready for another one.
Lately I've been thinking about the hell-bent speed of pop culture, and was interested when I contrasted its pace and prevalence with the concept of weak thought. In this piece I will be exploring my thoughts on this, but before I delve too far let me first give a decent explanation of what my interpretation of "weak thought" entails.
2000 years ago, humanity as a whole had a structure of belief that differed greatly from what we believe now. 100 years ago –similarly- beliefs were different from how they are today. In looking at human belief and its ebb and flow over time, one major takeaway is the fact that beliefs that once were held as infallible and absolute are now cast by the wayside, left to be strange anecdotes and embarrassing facts about our colorful history as a people. These occurrences are present in almost all realms of thought, whether it's history, science, philosophy or religion. It was once thought that the Earth was the center of the universe. It was once thought that Gods lived at the top of mountains. It was once thought that there was a distinction between mind and body. It was once thought that certain cultures and races of the world were inherently less capable than others.
I say these things as though they are beliefs that no longer exist, but many of them still do, albeit in greater and greater obscurity. As a race, as a collective culture, humanity has run a vast and often troubled gamut of belief, captured at one extreme in the belief that all things have an irrefutable divine purpose and at the other by the belief that nothing is sacred.
Though nihilism was never adopted wholeheartedly as a doctrine by many, its presence in the global cultural conversation is nonetheless there, just as a bombshell development in the ongoing conversation between any two people would affect their discourse. Imagine a girl finding out that her boyfriend had cheated on her or a friend finding out that another friend had stolen money from them. These are occurrences and realizations that impact a relationship for a long time to come, and they must be resolved if the parties involved are ever to develop a healthy relationship again. Problems like these are similar to the mental state we find ourselves in as a culture because they involve trust, belief and intention (amongst other things), all three of which are under assault in an age of pluralism whose undercurrent involves moving entirely away from metaphysics. Nihilism’s wake in the mind of humanity requires reconciliation, as it has presented an eventuality of human thought which is unhealthy to neglect, let alone manifest.
It is here that numerous developments in postmodern thought come to pull us back in, to protect us from the staggering weight of a world in which nothing has meaning or value. Weak Thought is one such stopgap; an attempt to cull ourselves back towards a more rational, working belief of our structured thought and functional purpose. As a belief, nihilism is not “wrong” in the sense that it is not applicable to a given state of affairs, because there is nothing about it which stands in direct contrast to universal laws. A belief in nihilism does not turn orange objects purple, nor does it make objects dropped rise from the ground. Similarly, a belief that the world is only 6,000 years old is not “wrong” in any universal sense. The person who believes the Earth is 6,000 years old is still allowed to do and act in an expansive way, just as the nihilist is allowed to do and act in whichever way they decide to do so. The problem of these convictions is inherent in the hamstringing of their believer, limiting them in their experience to that which their core values will accommodate. The believer in Earth’s extraordinary infancy is unlikely to find themselves working in the field of quantum mechanics and relativity while the nihilist (if diehard) is not likely to find themselves working on much of anything. This effect becomes detrimental as things like doing and believing begin to wear on the nihilist, with the opportunities in their life being increasingly limited by a strong, unwavering belief that everything they see and experience is false or purposeless, giving them an inclination towards what society would generally label “lethargy” (I don’t know if there’s a nice way to approach the nihilist). The Christian becomes similarly deluged by science, the realm of God finding solace in increasingly small corners of universal conception.
I’d like to take a brief tangent here and touch on the relationship between religion and science as I’m trying to present them here, because I’d hate for someone to be given the impression that I’m against religion and believe science is irrefutable, though the greater meat of this explanation will have to be saved for another piece (which I constantly find myself pushing back). My view on religion is this: as a titled concept, it is something that needs to be pushed further and further back from the forefront of our global conversation. There are not many Jews or Mormons in China, and simple concessions like these are ones we need to be willing to accept without criminalization. I do not mean to say that people should abstain from trying to grow their religion or allow a blatant assault on their religious beliefs. What I do mean is that rallying around the dismissive belief that “Christian” or “Muslim” accurately summarizes someone’s beliefs, intentions and character is something that doesn’t help a global culture thrive. Weakness in these areas is desperately needed, and this might be one of the areas where Weak Thought is best exampled. In moving away from titles and archetypes, we’re allowed to take a more thoughtful, intricate approach to understanding the scope and actions of others. Where “Christianity” or “Judaism” are the common grounds of many now, taking a moral by moral approach (i.e. people of different religions agreeing that thievery is wrong ) rather than a titled one allows us to find similarities amongst each other and attain parts of the camaraderie religion produces on a wider scale.
As for science, I feel its place in our society is far too expansive. In the wake of postmodernism, science has been called upon to provide the answers for everything in life instead of religion, and its results as a makeshift God have been equally dysfunctional. Simply put, the drive for a unifying theory which explains everything in the universe won’t provide the end those who pursue it are looking for, which is a Godlike knowledge of the present and future. Using science as our God, as the padding which calms our fears and tells us that things will be alright is an approach which lacks romantic fruition. Scientific data lacks the creative flair we look for in the world, and instead gives us a cold, calculated approach that leaves our emotional selves desiring more. Even if we could unify all scientific doctrines, the scope of our mental landscape wouldn’t allow us to comprehend the universe as an entirety. We’d still find ourselves using quantum physics to address small particles and conventional physics to address the speed of a falling apple. It’s like two different screwdrivers, one designated for use on small electronic components and one meant to torque large screws into wood. They’re similar in premise, but different in applicable uses. As tool using creatures, we need to accept that our thought is structured in a very similar way. The chances of us finding an “omniknowledge” which allows us to think and confront problems in exactly the same way every time is extraordinarily slim. More likely is the continuation of our hodge-podge form of logic in which older, less effective ideas are replaced by newer and more functional ones.
Whether it is unfortunate that we find people more heavily invested in disbelief than strong, irrefutable belief is anyone’s guess, but neither is likely to promote the camaraderie and patience that an increasingly hectic world needs. Weak thought is thus presented as an acknowledgment and apology for mistakes in brashness and underestimation of the past, and offers itself as a means for navigating an increasingly connected, hectic and inclusion-starved global culture. As a concept, weak thought is something we’ve always accommodated ourselves with, but it’s previously been done without a name or direct acknowledgment. Just as the nihilist eats to survive or cherishes something he or she owns, the Christian takes a lax view of Jesus’ word and never actually gives all their worldly belongings to the poor to become a true disciple of Jesus. Both parties claim a staunch, universal position, an irrefutable belief that they refuse to release, but both parties actually labor under the contemporary and relative, the nihilist in their lacking effort and the Christian in their stance on numerous social issues as against “God’s word”.
In establishing ourselves as a culture that is practicing weak thought, who acknowledges the flow of time and ideas, we concede that the beliefs and values we hold are contemporized and in no way eternal or absolute. We are willing to move past the idea of becoming the age that “got it right” irrefutably and instead focus ourselves on doing the best with the information we have, which varies and causes us to change constantly. In the next piece, I will explain how pop culture effects the information we are given and how it relates to weak thought.
I don't know how many of these posts I've started with "Lately", but it seems like a lot. Get ready for another one.
Lately I've been thinking about the hell-bent speed of pop culture, and was interested when I contrasted its pace and prevalence with the concept of weak thought. In this piece I will be exploring my thoughts on this, but before I delve too far let me first give a decent explanation of what my interpretation of "weak thought" entails.
2000 years ago, humanity as a whole had a structure of belief that differed greatly from what we believe now. 100 years ago –similarly- beliefs were different from how they are today. In looking at human belief and its ebb and flow over time, one major takeaway is the fact that beliefs that once were held as infallible and absolute are now cast by the wayside, left to be strange anecdotes and embarrassing facts about our colorful history as a people. These occurrences are present in almost all realms of thought, whether it's history, science, philosophy or religion. It was once thought that the Earth was the center of the universe. It was once thought that Gods lived at the top of mountains. It was once thought that there was a distinction between mind and body. It was once thought that certain cultures and races of the world were inherently less capable than others.
I say these things as though they are beliefs that no longer exist, but many of them still do, albeit in greater and greater obscurity. As a race, as a collective culture, humanity has run a vast and often troubled gamut of belief, captured at one extreme in the belief that all things have an irrefutable divine purpose and at the other by the belief that nothing is sacred.
Though nihilism was never adopted wholeheartedly as a doctrine by many, its presence in the global cultural conversation is nonetheless there, just as a bombshell development in the ongoing conversation between any two people would affect their discourse. Imagine a girl finding out that her boyfriend had cheated on her or a friend finding out that another friend had stolen money from them. These are occurrences and realizations that impact a relationship for a long time to come, and they must be resolved if the parties involved are ever to develop a healthy relationship again. Problems like these are similar to the mental state we find ourselves in as a culture because they involve trust, belief and intention (amongst other things), all three of which are under assault in an age of pluralism whose undercurrent involves moving entirely away from metaphysics. Nihilism’s wake in the mind of humanity requires reconciliation, as it has presented an eventuality of human thought which is unhealthy to neglect, let alone manifest.
It is here that numerous developments in postmodern thought come to pull us back in, to protect us from the staggering weight of a world in which nothing has meaning or value. Weak Thought is one such stopgap; an attempt to cull ourselves back towards a more rational, working belief of our structured thought and functional purpose. As a belief, nihilism is not “wrong” in the sense that it is not applicable to a given state of affairs, because there is nothing about it which stands in direct contrast to universal laws. A belief in nihilism does not turn orange objects purple, nor does it make objects dropped rise from the ground. Similarly, a belief that the world is only 6,000 years old is not “wrong” in any universal sense. The person who believes the Earth is 6,000 years old is still allowed to do and act in an expansive way, just as the nihilist is allowed to do and act in whichever way they decide to do so. The problem of these convictions is inherent in the hamstringing of their believer, limiting them in their experience to that which their core values will accommodate. The believer in Earth’s extraordinary infancy is unlikely to find themselves working in the field of quantum mechanics and relativity while the nihilist (if diehard) is not likely to find themselves working on much of anything. This effect becomes detrimental as things like doing and believing begin to wear on the nihilist, with the opportunities in their life being increasingly limited by a strong, unwavering belief that everything they see and experience is false or purposeless, giving them an inclination towards what society would generally label “lethargy” (I don’t know if there’s a nice way to approach the nihilist). The Christian becomes similarly deluged by science, the realm of God finding solace in increasingly small corners of universal conception.
I’d like to take a brief tangent here and touch on the relationship between religion and science as I’m trying to present them here, because I’d hate for someone to be given the impression that I’m against religion and believe science is irrefutable, though the greater meat of this explanation will have to be saved for another piece (which I constantly find myself pushing back). My view on religion is this: as a titled concept, it is something that needs to be pushed further and further back from the forefront of our global conversation. There are not many Jews or Mormons in China, and simple concessions like these are ones we need to be willing to accept without criminalization. I do not mean to say that people should abstain from trying to grow their religion or allow a blatant assault on their religious beliefs. What I do mean is that rallying around the dismissive belief that “Christian” or “Muslim” accurately summarizes someone’s beliefs, intentions and character is something that doesn’t help a global culture thrive. Weakness in these areas is desperately needed, and this might be one of the areas where Weak Thought is best exampled. In moving away from titles and archetypes, we’re allowed to take a more thoughtful, intricate approach to understanding the scope and actions of others. Where “Christianity” or “Judaism” are the common grounds of many now, taking a moral by moral approach (i.e. people of different religions agreeing that thievery is wrong ) rather than a titled one allows us to find similarities amongst each other and attain parts of the camaraderie religion produces on a wider scale.
As for science, I feel its place in our society is far too expansive. In the wake of postmodernism, science has been called upon to provide the answers for everything in life instead of religion, and its results as a makeshift God have been equally dysfunctional. Simply put, the drive for a unifying theory which explains everything in the universe won’t provide the end those who pursue it are looking for, which is a Godlike knowledge of the present and future. Using science as our God, as the padding which calms our fears and tells us that things will be alright is an approach which lacks romantic fruition. Scientific data lacks the creative flair we look for in the world, and instead gives us a cold, calculated approach that leaves our emotional selves desiring more. Even if we could unify all scientific doctrines, the scope of our mental landscape wouldn’t allow us to comprehend the universe as an entirety. We’d still find ourselves using quantum physics to address small particles and conventional physics to address the speed of a falling apple. It’s like two different screwdrivers, one designated for use on small electronic components and one meant to torque large screws into wood. They’re similar in premise, but different in applicable uses. As tool using creatures, we need to accept that our thought is structured in a very similar way. The chances of us finding an “omniknowledge” which allows us to think and confront problems in exactly the same way every time is extraordinarily slim. More likely is the continuation of our hodge-podge form of logic in which older, less effective ideas are replaced by newer and more functional ones.
Whether it is unfortunate that we find people more heavily invested in disbelief than strong, irrefutable belief is anyone’s guess, but neither is likely to promote the camaraderie and patience that an increasingly hectic world needs. Weak thought is thus presented as an acknowledgment and apology for mistakes in brashness and underestimation of the past, and offers itself as a means for navigating an increasingly connected, hectic and inclusion-starved global culture. As a concept, weak thought is something we’ve always accommodated ourselves with, but it’s previously been done without a name or direct acknowledgment. Just as the nihilist eats to survive or cherishes something he or she owns, the Christian takes a lax view of Jesus’ word and never actually gives all their worldly belongings to the poor to become a true disciple of Jesus. Both parties claim a staunch, universal position, an irrefutable belief that they refuse to release, but both parties actually labor under the contemporary and relative, the nihilist in their lacking effort and the Christian in their stance on numerous social issues as against “God’s word”.
In establishing ourselves as a culture that is practicing weak thought, who acknowledges the flow of time and ideas, we concede that the beliefs and values we hold are contemporized and in no way eternal or absolute. We are willing to move past the idea of becoming the age that “got it right” irrefutably and instead focus ourselves on doing the best with the information we have, which varies and causes us to change constantly. In the next piece, I will explain how pop culture effects the information we are given and how it relates to weak thought.
Friday, April 17, 2009
The voice of the silent
As I've been feeling intellectually impish lately, I recently decided to start re-watching the films of Terrence Malick and post some thoughts and insights on the ol' blog. Some of you may know that I'm a huge fan of Malick's, but there are aspects of his films which have remained foreign to me, things about them I couldn't quite grasp. In each there's a light cast on the struggle between man and nature, but I was never really satisfied with the conclusions I reached on it. I began rewatching the movies last week and have watched Badlands and The Thin Red Line thus far. I imagine most of this piece will be about Badlands, with a piece on TTRL to follow.
Something I've always noticed about Malick's films is the vantage he gives to his narrators and "main" characters, as in each of his films that role is played by someone with little to say in the world and even less effect in it. In Badlands, this role is shown through Holly, played by Sissy Spacek. In TTRL its Jim Caviezel as Private Witt and in Days of Heaven its Linda Manz as Linda. Whats most striking and bizarre for me about each of these characters is how they're all so helpless in society and yet unvanquished against nature, absolutely unattached and unafraid of whats to come. Society is constantly beckoning them to join the flock and get involved in the struggle and the drama, but they never seem to invest themselves. In many ways, it seems like they operate on a level outside of immediate experience, something less influenced by the moment and instead more thoughtful or pristine.
A good example of this is when Kit shoots Holly's father (played by my favorite American actor Warren Oates, for the record), and her reaction. To both Kit and Holly a door seems to open as a result, but for each character the road therein is very very different. For Kit the road leads to fame and stardom, an excitement and newness in life that heavily contrasts his former life as a garbage man, but remains similarly within the dregs of society. Holly's lifeless reaction to her father's murder takes a different tone, and throughout the movie it seems that she isn't necessarily an agent of her own change but is instead just along for the ride, watching how depraved humanity can be while at times seeming to wish that she could understand the emotions involved in what she was watching. Jim Caviezel's character from TTRL shares a similar disconnect from society, but his sense of human spirit seems to shine with a little more optimism than Holly's, who never really subscribes to whats around her in any meaningful way besides just wanting to leave once she knew the gig was up. She never asks or encourages anyone's death, she just follows with an appearance of helplessness but an interior dialogue which makes us think she understands more.
In all of Malick's films nature plays a prominent role. Whether it be human nature or that which surrounds us, at the end of the day these movies all seem to revolve around this concept that we're missing something, that we've made our conflicts too heavily based on humanity and have left out a major, indifferent and yet influential player. Kit and Holly are on the run, and they find themselves in a number of safehouses. Whats interesting is how they all interact and how little difference the characters find between their venues, here exampled by their fort in the woods and their time holed up in the mansion. Kit builds them the fortress in the woods and it seems so natural, the Swiss Family Robinson solution to their problems. The thing is, we never see these characters clamoring for anything while they're there, and this simplicity when wrapped in nature is a theme you see in TTRL and Days of Heaven as well. Richard Gere's character can't stand the bustle of the city, killing his boss and running off to the midwest. Jim Caviezel can't stand active duty, finding tranquility living with a remote tribe in the Pacific Islands. No matter how far any of these characters gets from society though, it always finds a way to draw them back in. Hunters come looking for Kit, Richard Gere schemes to steal a farmers money and Jim Caviezel is found by the Navy. For Malick, there must be some kind of undesirable poison in society, something so inexorable that actions against it are in some perverse way forgivable. The need and the pressure to get away manifests itself in all these characters, and all of them are surrounded by death. Its only with Kit's growing recognition of fame that he turns his back on these things, eventually finding the open wild too boring and perhaps not free enough to please him.
When Kit is arrested he is a monster, but the police don't treat him as such. As a garbageman, he knows that everyone's trash looks the same, that we're all as sloppy and disgusting on the inside. He's played his sociopathy like a fiddle, and the film takes an interesting tangent as it treats this piece of trash as something else. Because of his notoriety the cops admire him, basking in his fame, no matter how disgusting the reasons for it are. Kit is a mass murderer, and yet people want to know him just so they can say they've met him, as a conversation piece. I think this attitude of admiring the famous for fame's sake is something we can relate to all too well 30 years later. People want Kit's watch, his lighter, his pen, whatever memorabilia they can grab. They're honored to have it, honored to have been graced with the attention of a serial killer.
Malick obviously sees a sickness in society, one that's not reflected in nature. The sickness of corruption and greed is something entirely human, and while nature may be heartless it is not malicious. Kit and Holly don't come off in Badlands as the villains, but instead its the fervor and celebration surrounding the killings which is meant to disgust. Law enforcement is in place for our own good, and they do their job, but they're mollycoddled by the excitement just like anybody else. What is said about a culture and a people who admire these sorts of actions? Are we the villains for liking it? I can't say I found it insulting or disgusting in the least, meaning my pulse beats in tone with society. At the end of the day, I'm left asking myself, is this natural?
Something I've always noticed about Malick's films is the vantage he gives to his narrators and "main" characters, as in each of his films that role is played by someone with little to say in the world and even less effect in it. In Badlands, this role is shown through Holly, played by Sissy Spacek. In TTRL its Jim Caviezel as Private Witt and in Days of Heaven its Linda Manz as Linda. Whats most striking and bizarre for me about each of these characters is how they're all so helpless in society and yet unvanquished against nature, absolutely unattached and unafraid of whats to come. Society is constantly beckoning them to join the flock and get involved in the struggle and the drama, but they never seem to invest themselves. In many ways, it seems like they operate on a level outside of immediate experience, something less influenced by the moment and instead more thoughtful or pristine.
A good example of this is when Kit shoots Holly's father (played by my favorite American actor Warren Oates, for the record), and her reaction. To both Kit and Holly a door seems to open as a result, but for each character the road therein is very very different. For Kit the road leads to fame and stardom, an excitement and newness in life that heavily contrasts his former life as a garbage man, but remains similarly within the dregs of society. Holly's lifeless reaction to her father's murder takes a different tone, and throughout the movie it seems that she isn't necessarily an agent of her own change but is instead just along for the ride, watching how depraved humanity can be while at times seeming to wish that she could understand the emotions involved in what she was watching. Jim Caviezel's character from TTRL shares a similar disconnect from society, but his sense of human spirit seems to shine with a little more optimism than Holly's, who never really subscribes to whats around her in any meaningful way besides just wanting to leave once she knew the gig was up. She never asks or encourages anyone's death, she just follows with an appearance of helplessness but an interior dialogue which makes us think she understands more.
In all of Malick's films nature plays a prominent role. Whether it be human nature or that which surrounds us, at the end of the day these movies all seem to revolve around this concept that we're missing something, that we've made our conflicts too heavily based on humanity and have left out a major, indifferent and yet influential player. Kit and Holly are on the run, and they find themselves in a number of safehouses. Whats interesting is how they all interact and how little difference the characters find between their venues, here exampled by their fort in the woods and their time holed up in the mansion. Kit builds them the fortress in the woods and it seems so natural, the Swiss Family Robinson solution to their problems. The thing is, we never see these characters clamoring for anything while they're there, and this simplicity when wrapped in nature is a theme you see in TTRL and Days of Heaven as well. Richard Gere's character can't stand the bustle of the city, killing his boss and running off to the midwest. Jim Caviezel can't stand active duty, finding tranquility living with a remote tribe in the Pacific Islands. No matter how far any of these characters gets from society though, it always finds a way to draw them back in. Hunters come looking for Kit, Richard Gere schemes to steal a farmers money and Jim Caviezel is found by the Navy. For Malick, there must be some kind of undesirable poison in society, something so inexorable that actions against it are in some perverse way forgivable. The need and the pressure to get away manifests itself in all these characters, and all of them are surrounded by death. Its only with Kit's growing recognition of fame that he turns his back on these things, eventually finding the open wild too boring and perhaps not free enough to please him.
When Kit is arrested he is a monster, but the police don't treat him as such. As a garbageman, he knows that everyone's trash looks the same, that we're all as sloppy and disgusting on the inside. He's played his sociopathy like a fiddle, and the film takes an interesting tangent as it treats this piece of trash as something else. Because of his notoriety the cops admire him, basking in his fame, no matter how disgusting the reasons for it are. Kit is a mass murderer, and yet people want to know him just so they can say they've met him, as a conversation piece. I think this attitude of admiring the famous for fame's sake is something we can relate to all too well 30 years later. People want Kit's watch, his lighter, his pen, whatever memorabilia they can grab. They're honored to have it, honored to have been graced with the attention of a serial killer.
Malick obviously sees a sickness in society, one that's not reflected in nature. The sickness of corruption and greed is something entirely human, and while nature may be heartless it is not malicious. Kit and Holly don't come off in Badlands as the villains, but instead its the fervor and celebration surrounding the killings which is meant to disgust. Law enforcement is in place for our own good, and they do their job, but they're mollycoddled by the excitement just like anybody else. What is said about a culture and a people who admire these sorts of actions? Are we the villains for liking it? I can't say I found it insulting or disgusting in the least, meaning my pulse beats in tone with society. At the end of the day, I'm left asking myself, is this natural?
Postmodernism and the bummer that comes with it
Alright, so I'm an expressed postmodernist and I'm willing to wager that there are a lot of people who don't know what that means. In all honesty, tough fucking luck. Postmodernism is where thought is bound to go, and not because of any grandiose idea but instead because there is no grandiose idea. Concepts die, history fades and the moment takes on greater weight than the future or the past.
I'm sure there are more than enough people who have fallen victim to it but can't announce it, but lets get it out in the open. To me, the essential aspect of postmodernism is that we've been talking about subjects for 2000 years trying to make them a a reality and that's never going to happen. At this point, with the discussions we've developed, we don't really need to harken to Aristotle or Socrates or whoever the fuck else we've established as a God of thought because in the most basic sense what they've said has been discussed to a near endless extent, and the human condition has moved past it. Its not necessarily that these philosophers were right or wrong but instead its that we've moved forward as a culture, and it can generally be said that the way these classic figures spoke of humanity and the human condition isn't all that applicable to us anymore. Of course there are moments of lucidity and practicality in what they said, but the hope for a modern and finite future is becoming an increasingly dead one.
I think of myself as a pragmatist, but I'd also like to think of myself as a person who's ready to apologize for its shortcomings. In a postmodern world, to me Pragmatism is really the only philosophical standpoint which can account for the dreariness of modern existence and shine a light upon it, allowing for a simplicity and weakness in thought that is both healthy and accommodating. I say this standpoint is healthy only because it encourages the discussion of further subjects, not because it is a safe resting point. Where is a safe resting point? To Rorty, pragmatism is but a stone in the path; something which is to be abandoned once something superior is thought of. I can't think of myself as someone invested much more than this. I think a lot of the troubles people find in postmodernism is that it doesn't offer an overall solution, it just poses as a stopgap. Something to wile our time away with until something more interesting comes along.
Interestingly enough, most postmodernists will accept this, but the area covered by the "discipline" is vast. Why is it vast? Because we're completely redrawing our conceptions of reality man!!!! In a trickle down sense, all of the world is beginning to experience the effects of a philosophical hippie flip, which is like Jer-Bear smoking a roach laced with DMT on the Haight in '72. Things are currently getting that wild. As a result of this wildness, we've found ourselves reanalyzing most concepts we've held dear within cultures and the human spirit over the past whatever, which amounts to a whole lot of change, a whole lot of uncertainty and a whole lot of freaky freaky fear about letting go of whats "true". But where to begin?
To me, there are bits and pieces of I like from a lot of postmodern thinkers. Rorty is obviously a staple of mine, and I'd say the only other philosopher who holds weight with me like him is Wittgenstein and his conception of language-games. I'm also very interested in Derrida's contrasting of a predictable and unpredictable future with l'avenir, as well as with the religious explorations of Vattimo, political justice as presented by Rawls, and I've been reading up on Searle's intentionality lately which seems like a pretty swell deal. The latter two aren't postmodernists necessarily, and I have quite a few bones to pick with Searle, but I think their stuff can pretty easily be read and applied to most any overarching doctrine you'd like. Don't take my word for that.
I bring these things up because they are good representations of what and how I think, and with an understanding of the world that grows more subdued yet chaotic by the day, I think these are things that can draw in and interest a lot of people who want to waste their time with them. Because at the end of the day, there's nothing. No God, no pat on the back for helping that lady across the street, no free pass on avoiding a head on collision based on the fact that you were a cub scout and cleaned a church, nothing. All stories will be bastardized for the victors and history will fail to be adequate for all parties involved. Suck it up losers, because you're going somewhere colder and a whole lot more indifferent than hell.
Actually, I'm kidding. Life ain't so bad.
I'm sure there are more than enough people who have fallen victim to it but can't announce it, but lets get it out in the open. To me, the essential aspect of postmodernism is that we've been talking about subjects for 2000 years trying to make them a a reality and that's never going to happen. At this point, with the discussions we've developed, we don't really need to harken to Aristotle or Socrates or whoever the fuck else we've established as a God of thought because in the most basic sense what they've said has been discussed to a near endless extent, and the human condition has moved past it. Its not necessarily that these philosophers were right or wrong but instead its that we've moved forward as a culture, and it can generally be said that the way these classic figures spoke of humanity and the human condition isn't all that applicable to us anymore. Of course there are moments of lucidity and practicality in what they said, but the hope for a modern and finite future is becoming an increasingly dead one.
I think of myself as a pragmatist, but I'd also like to think of myself as a person who's ready to apologize for its shortcomings. In a postmodern world, to me Pragmatism is really the only philosophical standpoint which can account for the dreariness of modern existence and shine a light upon it, allowing for a simplicity and weakness in thought that is both healthy and accommodating. I say this standpoint is healthy only because it encourages the discussion of further subjects, not because it is a safe resting point. Where is a safe resting point? To Rorty, pragmatism is but a stone in the path; something which is to be abandoned once something superior is thought of. I can't think of myself as someone invested much more than this. I think a lot of the troubles people find in postmodernism is that it doesn't offer an overall solution, it just poses as a stopgap. Something to wile our time away with until something more interesting comes along.
Interestingly enough, most postmodernists will accept this, but the area covered by the "discipline" is vast. Why is it vast? Because we're completely redrawing our conceptions of reality man!!!! In a trickle down sense, all of the world is beginning to experience the effects of a philosophical hippie flip, which is like Jer-Bear smoking a roach laced with DMT on the Haight in '72. Things are currently getting that wild. As a result of this wildness, we've found ourselves reanalyzing most concepts we've held dear within cultures and the human spirit over the past whatever, which amounts to a whole lot of change, a whole lot of uncertainty and a whole lot of freaky freaky fear about letting go of whats "true". But where to begin?
To me, there are bits and pieces of I like from a lot of postmodern thinkers. Rorty is obviously a staple of mine, and I'd say the only other philosopher who holds weight with me like him is Wittgenstein and his conception of language-games. I'm also very interested in Derrida's contrasting of a predictable and unpredictable future with l'avenir, as well as with the religious explorations of Vattimo, political justice as presented by Rawls, and I've been reading up on Searle's intentionality lately which seems like a pretty swell deal. The latter two aren't postmodernists necessarily, and I have quite a few bones to pick with Searle, but I think their stuff can pretty easily be read and applied to most any overarching doctrine you'd like. Don't take my word for that.
I bring these things up because they are good representations of what and how I think, and with an understanding of the world that grows more subdued yet chaotic by the day, I think these are things that can draw in and interest a lot of people who want to waste their time with them. Because at the end of the day, there's nothing. No God, no pat on the back for helping that lady across the street, no free pass on avoiding a head on collision based on the fact that you were a cub scout and cleaned a church, nothing. All stories will be bastardized for the victors and history will fail to be adequate for all parties involved. Suck it up losers, because you're going somewhere colder and a whole lot more indifferent than hell.
Actually, I'm kidding. Life ain't so bad.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Identity and Reason
AIG has decided to change its name to AIU Holdings Ltd., and this has stuck a strange chord within me. Not too long ago we saw Blackwater change its name to Xe, and now we have another corporate entity changing its name to avoid public backlash. Admittedly, its only fitting that these entities scramble their familiarity to retain competitive leverage, but the question I find myself asking is just how functional is this conceptually? Corporations have legal personhood in our society, meaning their entity is treated as a singule citizen in both cases against them as well as in political representation, so even in viewing it in terms of fairness against the common I have a hard time reconciling the weight of this. I mean, when a felon changes their name after getting out of prison we don't drop all charges against them, levying to accept his or her sincerity in change as greater on account of it. For me, this goes beyond an assault on corporate personhood into a realm where we stand back and look at exactly what the fuck we've created.
I can't say that I'm a person who damns corporations outright, but there is a certain degree of responsibility they should be held to. Its just upsetting to see that they can manipulate public perceptions so easily, and while I'm sure its going to cost them millions of dollars to accomplish this shift there's something that just doesn't meld well within me. It's come to a point in our society where our identities are under assault in such a drastic sense, and I can't say its any one party to blame; its just something that's apparent and unhealthy. There are options offered to those financially capable and influential enough to forget their misgivings, but those same escapes aren't afforded to the many. We find ourselves under constant bombardment from advertisers trying to crux our personal value and identity, and yet the symptoms of this are largely left in silence. People in America are dissident and depressed, malcontented and inconsolable. Are we really supposed to believe that this isn't a reaction to the assault on our senses at a nearly nonstop pace?
I'd say this is the ugly reflection of my previous point, being that capitalism spawns complacency; the idea that this same complacency is an intense and uneccessary gaze into our personhood. I'm in no way vouching for the idea when I present it, but could it be that we're simply too mollycoddled and too comfortable for our minds to be able to rest comfortably against our primitive convictions? I think something like this is mostly sensationalized, but there's also an aspect that interests me within it.
I was recently reading an article which talked about transhuman architecture, or an architectural approach which kept things difficult and uncomfortable for the dweller, much like a natural environment. Some of the threat of the actual wild was left out (i.e. predators), but the idea of an environment in which the inhabitant is constantly forced to think constructively about how to accomplish tasks is an interesting one. Would someone actually benefit from being in an adversarial situation like this or is it all just fanfare? Maybe the question I should be asking is this: How do we regain our right to self manifestation and personhood in a society where almost everything is force-fed to us and nothing is safe from the touch of the marketplace.
I'd like to look back at another subject I've referenced here, that of John Dos Passos and the U.S.A. trilogy. As I said when addressing it, the point of these books was to question the aim of this country as a realm of self creation above all in a world that was structured and oppressive against the uncommon. Should we consider ourselves less free than the characters presented in these novels as a result of the omniscient presence of corporate needs, or are they largely indifferent? I'm inclined to say they aren't, but its also hard to judge against a point in the past where modernism was so prevalent and beliefs held a harsher conviction than they do now. Conversely, I don't think people felt as compromised or assaulted as we do now, which is a testament against a financial world which constantly wants our attention. Its a hard point to lobby.
What I'm trying to say here is exactly how many exceptions are we willing to let corporate America afford? They have personhood, but they also have our personhood, and the cycle seems broken. I'm willing to confess that the problem is in part due to the (currently) lacking conversational ability to bring about change coupled with a moral dilemma which can be pinned to no one particular party besides the practice, but that doesn't mean the rules of the game shouldn't be changed to protect our contentment. In simplest terms, being told that our desire for material goods should never be substantiated doesn't really seem like a healthy way to go about living, and while the economic influx has been beneficial in some senses, its a practice that's far from perfectly honed. I'm not sure the voice against these practices has evolved into anything which can offer a shift or compromise which is at all satisfactory, but the voice is there. People are upset and complacent, and how are we supposed to break this practice without breaking the market which offers us prosperity and health?
I can't say that I'm a person who damns corporations outright, but there is a certain degree of responsibility they should be held to. Its just upsetting to see that they can manipulate public perceptions so easily, and while I'm sure its going to cost them millions of dollars to accomplish this shift there's something that just doesn't meld well within me. It's come to a point in our society where our identities are under assault in such a drastic sense, and I can't say its any one party to blame; its just something that's apparent and unhealthy. There are options offered to those financially capable and influential enough to forget their misgivings, but those same escapes aren't afforded to the many. We find ourselves under constant bombardment from advertisers trying to crux our personal value and identity, and yet the symptoms of this are largely left in silence. People in America are dissident and depressed, malcontented and inconsolable. Are we really supposed to believe that this isn't a reaction to the assault on our senses at a nearly nonstop pace?
I'd say this is the ugly reflection of my previous point, being that capitalism spawns complacency; the idea that this same complacency is an intense and uneccessary gaze into our personhood. I'm in no way vouching for the idea when I present it, but could it be that we're simply too mollycoddled and too comfortable for our minds to be able to rest comfortably against our primitive convictions? I think something like this is mostly sensationalized, but there's also an aspect that interests me within it.
I was recently reading an article which talked about transhuman architecture, or an architectural approach which kept things difficult and uncomfortable for the dweller, much like a natural environment. Some of the threat of the actual wild was left out (i.e. predators), but the idea of an environment in which the inhabitant is constantly forced to think constructively about how to accomplish tasks is an interesting one. Would someone actually benefit from being in an adversarial situation like this or is it all just fanfare? Maybe the question I should be asking is this: How do we regain our right to self manifestation and personhood in a society where almost everything is force-fed to us and nothing is safe from the touch of the marketplace.
I'd like to look back at another subject I've referenced here, that of John Dos Passos and the U.S.A. trilogy. As I said when addressing it, the point of these books was to question the aim of this country as a realm of self creation above all in a world that was structured and oppressive against the uncommon. Should we consider ourselves less free than the characters presented in these novels as a result of the omniscient presence of corporate needs, or are they largely indifferent? I'm inclined to say they aren't, but its also hard to judge against a point in the past where modernism was so prevalent and beliefs held a harsher conviction than they do now. Conversely, I don't think people felt as compromised or assaulted as we do now, which is a testament against a financial world which constantly wants our attention. Its a hard point to lobby.
What I'm trying to say here is exactly how many exceptions are we willing to let corporate America afford? They have personhood, but they also have our personhood, and the cycle seems broken. I'm willing to confess that the problem is in part due to the (currently) lacking conversational ability to bring about change coupled with a moral dilemma which can be pinned to no one particular party besides the practice, but that doesn't mean the rules of the game shouldn't be changed to protect our contentment. In simplest terms, being told that our desire for material goods should never be substantiated doesn't really seem like a healthy way to go about living, and while the economic influx has been beneficial in some senses, its a practice that's far from perfectly honed. I'm not sure the voice against these practices has evolved into anything which can offer a shift or compromise which is at all satisfactory, but the voice is there. People are upset and complacent, and how are we supposed to break this practice without breaking the market which offers us prosperity and health?
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Two steps forward
I may have overstated myself in my previous entry, so I wanted to take this opportunity to slow it down so we can speed it up.
In using the term "hope" in my previous entry, I in no way am trying to say that I believe that there is some sort of ultimate culmination to our cultural pursuits; I do not believe in a Utopian end to our efforts. Instead, what I mean in my use of hope is that things will generally get better for everyone in terms of basic and essential needs, i.e. food, shelter, healthcare etc. When I say these things, they do not at all reflect potential for contentment, improved demeanor or overall happiness. If anything, we've found ourselves stagnated in response to the success of the marketplace, with people becoming trite and vacuous. Capital invokes complacency. As a person who spends a large amount of time in strangers' homes, I can't say I see a whole lot of diversity. Rarely (if ever) do I see customers with a decent selection of literature or quality films in their house, and maybe its my sour approach to my job which causes me to view these people so negatively, but I have to think of this as an instance where it takes two to tango.
I want to get back to this idea that capital invokes complacency, because it's something I've been thinking about a lot lately. In essence, its this idea that the more things are provided for us, the less people are interested in self manifestation and improvement, probably because the approach of the new is silenced by the needs of the marketplace. In a society where immediacy oftentimes trumps practicality, there are a lot of ways we can look at ourselves and say we've taken the wrong step. It just seems like people are more willing to be force fed things that aren't necessarily what they want, and I think the American cultural perception of what's artistically nifty reflects this via things like The Da vinchi code, Titanic and Live Laugh Love placards. I'm sorry if you like all three of those things.
Maybe things have always been this way, and to a large extent I'd say thats right, but there's also this creeping fear inside of me which says that people are more apt to accept what they're told to do now than they have been in recent and comparable American history. Maybe its that what they're willing to accept is more dangerous and emotionally bereft than it has been before. That could be the case. It just seems like there's no actual desire to break the status quo, and whatever desire there is is typically outweighed by a desire to become famous once the shackles are broken rather than continued pursuit of what's actually good or useful. When i see these hackneyed attempts by people to make a moment mean something or create something beautiful it feels so forced, as though there's no sanctuary to hide in from the corporate ghosts. And I don't mean this in a personal sense because I have a lot of friends who I'm proud of and who I don't think fit into this mold at all, but what I'm talking about is in a global sense, and how average people while their time away.
I may have gotten a little off track, but what I wanted to say here was that I don't believe that society will get more prosperous and survivable on account of an abstraction like hope but instead out of necessity. We will always be moved towards what is in our best interests, and better sense of global fraternity should typically be viewed as the easiest way for us to get by in a world that is increasingly plural. Generally, this progress can be viewed positively, but its no reason to stop prodding society to improve conditions and allow inspiration for new thoughts. I may have contradicted myself here, but if you have a problem with it either write a comment or go fuck yourself.
In using the term "hope" in my previous entry, I in no way am trying to say that I believe that there is some sort of ultimate culmination to our cultural pursuits; I do not believe in a Utopian end to our efforts. Instead, what I mean in my use of hope is that things will generally get better for everyone in terms of basic and essential needs, i.e. food, shelter, healthcare etc. When I say these things, they do not at all reflect potential for contentment, improved demeanor or overall happiness. If anything, we've found ourselves stagnated in response to the success of the marketplace, with people becoming trite and vacuous. Capital invokes complacency. As a person who spends a large amount of time in strangers' homes, I can't say I see a whole lot of diversity. Rarely (if ever) do I see customers with a decent selection of literature or quality films in their house, and maybe its my sour approach to my job which causes me to view these people so negatively, but I have to think of this as an instance where it takes two to tango.
I want to get back to this idea that capital invokes complacency, because it's something I've been thinking about a lot lately. In essence, its this idea that the more things are provided for us, the less people are interested in self manifestation and improvement, probably because the approach of the new is silenced by the needs of the marketplace. In a society where immediacy oftentimes trumps practicality, there are a lot of ways we can look at ourselves and say we've taken the wrong step. It just seems like people are more willing to be force fed things that aren't necessarily what they want, and I think the American cultural perception of what's artistically nifty reflects this via things like The Da vinchi code, Titanic and Live Laugh Love placards. I'm sorry if you like all three of those things.
Maybe things have always been this way, and to a large extent I'd say thats right, but there's also this creeping fear inside of me which says that people are more apt to accept what they're told to do now than they have been in recent and comparable American history. Maybe its that what they're willing to accept is more dangerous and emotionally bereft than it has been before. That could be the case. It just seems like there's no actual desire to break the status quo, and whatever desire there is is typically outweighed by a desire to become famous once the shackles are broken rather than continued pursuit of what's actually good or useful. When i see these hackneyed attempts by people to make a moment mean something or create something beautiful it feels so forced, as though there's no sanctuary to hide in from the corporate ghosts. And I don't mean this in a personal sense because I have a lot of friends who I'm proud of and who I don't think fit into this mold at all, but what I'm talking about is in a global sense, and how average people while their time away.
I may have gotten a little off track, but what I wanted to say here was that I don't believe that society will get more prosperous and survivable on account of an abstraction like hope but instead out of necessity. We will always be moved towards what is in our best interests, and better sense of global fraternity should typically be viewed as the easiest way for us to get by in a world that is increasingly plural. Generally, this progress can be viewed positively, but its no reason to stop prodding society to improve conditions and allow inspiration for new thoughts. I may have contradicted myself here, but if you have a problem with it either write a comment or go fuck yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
