To preface - This was written by a woman, not me.
"For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship - the desire to look up to man. "To look up" does not mean dependence, obedience or anything implying inferiority. It means an intense kind of admiration; and admiration is an emotion that can be experienced only by a person of strong character and independent value judgments. A "clinging vine" type of woman is not an admirer, but an exploiter of men. Hero-worship is a demanding virtue: a woman has to be worthy of it and of the hero she worships. Intellectually and morally, i.e., as a human being, she has to be his equal; then the object of her worship is specifically his masculinity, NOT any human virtue she might lack.
This does not mean that a feminine woman feels or projects hero-worship for any and every individual man; as human beings, many of them may, in fact, be her inferiors. Her worship is an abstract emotion for the metaphysical concept of masculinity as such - which she experiences fully and concretely only for the man she loves, but which colors her attitude toward all men. This does not mean that there is a romantic or sexual intention in her attitude toward all men; quite the contrary: the higher her view of masculinity, the more severely demanding her standards. It means that she never loses the awareness of her own sexual identity and theirs. It means that a properly feminine woman does not treat men as if she were their pal, sister, mother or leader."
- Alisa Rosenbaum, A.k.a. Ayn Rand, 1971
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Friday, June 24, 2011
A Lesson in Crony Capitalism
Recently, the FTC announced that it had laid the groundwork for an investigation into supposed Anti-Trust violations made by Google, Inc. The FTC announced on June 24, 2011 that it would be issuing subpoenas to begin the investigation.
Here’s the WSJ Story: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339904576403603764717680.html
Allegedly, Google’s dominance of internet search engines is being abused to skew search results in favor of Google owned products and/or to bury competitor’s products deep in the search results. In addition, apparently Google’s sponsored results also place Google’s own services at the top…
Um, isn’t that what they’re SUPPOSED to do?
This whole idea is ludicrous. Correct me if I’m wrong here but, is the FTC and FairSearch.org REALLY insinuating that a company (such as Google) has the responsibility to advertise products for its competitors?
No, it doesn’t. The issue resides in the notion that, since Google is the most widely used search engine in the US and Europe, if it restricts or alters the search results in favor of its own products, it would then limit or restrict competition through a lack of disclosure.
Now, not only is Google NOT the only search engine in existence, it’s also not the only gateway to the internet, and is NOT violating anyone’s rights by promoting its own products (if it is in the first place.) Google is not the only medium through which internet users can find products and other websites. Google is therefore; not a monopoly and is not impeding or controlling which companies are “winners or losers” as FairSearch.org put it. Google is not affecting competition in anyway, in part because they can’t, and in part because the people who choose the “winners and losers” is YOU the consumer. An advertising or search medium like Google has NO control over the choices you make or even the scope of your choices – If I don’t like one catalog, I’ll find another.
That aside, most analysts say that no suit will actually result, but my bigger issue with this is the precedent that would be set.
This is a perfect example of “Crony Capitalism.” In the US, a Monopoly is not illegal by its self. It’s the “misuse or abuse” of monopolistic control over a market that is illegal, but those same laws do not define “misuse or abuse” or even very clearly define what makes a monopoly beyond establishing that the product is the most used in the market. – Yet the very idea of a monopoly requires that it be the ONLY option available in the market, which it is not. So, the ambiguity of the law allows complaints to be issued by competitors and subsequent investigations by the legal authorities since the law would allow.
It’s a means of either eliminating or reducing the effect of a competitor in a given market. Alcohol producers have been doing it for nearly a century under the 3 Tier System. Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds have done it through the Tobacco Master Settlement.
This isn’t a matter of secret agreements between major companies and the government, or even something as expected as significant stock shareholders who work for the government being upset. It’s simply an avenue for any business to explore, much like advertising, product differentiation or any other way they try to increase market share.
Competition cannot be maintained by the government, it can only be usurped. – As long as a significant means to influence the success or failure of business exists within the powers of government, competing companies will seek to use the government as a means of attacking a competitor’s market share. Given the circumstances associated with this FTC investigation, I can’t help but think this is anything more than that, and the precedent established by cases like this is what we should all be concerned about.
Here’s the WSJ Story: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339904576403603764717680.html
Allegedly, Google’s dominance of internet search engines is being abused to skew search results in favor of Google owned products and/or to bury competitor’s products deep in the search results. In addition, apparently Google’s sponsored results also place Google’s own services at the top…
Um, isn’t that what they’re SUPPOSED to do?
This whole idea is ludicrous. Correct me if I’m wrong here but, is the FTC and FairSearch.org REALLY insinuating that a company (such as Google) has the responsibility to advertise products for its competitors?
No, it doesn’t. The issue resides in the notion that, since Google is the most widely used search engine in the US and Europe, if it restricts or alters the search results in favor of its own products, it would then limit or restrict competition through a lack of disclosure.
Now, not only is Google NOT the only search engine in existence, it’s also not the only gateway to the internet, and is NOT violating anyone’s rights by promoting its own products (if it is in the first place.) Google is not the only medium through which internet users can find products and other websites. Google is therefore; not a monopoly and is not impeding or controlling which companies are “winners or losers” as FairSearch.org put it. Google is not affecting competition in anyway, in part because they can’t, and in part because the people who choose the “winners and losers” is YOU the consumer. An advertising or search medium like Google has NO control over the choices you make or even the scope of your choices – If I don’t like one catalog, I’ll find another.
That aside, most analysts say that no suit will actually result, but my bigger issue with this is the precedent that would be set.
This is a perfect example of “Crony Capitalism.” In the US, a Monopoly is not illegal by its self. It’s the “misuse or abuse” of monopolistic control over a market that is illegal, but those same laws do not define “misuse or abuse” or even very clearly define what makes a monopoly beyond establishing that the product is the most used in the market. – Yet the very idea of a monopoly requires that it be the ONLY option available in the market, which it is not. So, the ambiguity of the law allows complaints to be issued by competitors and subsequent investigations by the legal authorities since the law would allow.
It’s a means of either eliminating or reducing the effect of a competitor in a given market. Alcohol producers have been doing it for nearly a century under the 3 Tier System. Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds have done it through the Tobacco Master Settlement.
This isn’t a matter of secret agreements between major companies and the government, or even something as expected as significant stock shareholders who work for the government being upset. It’s simply an avenue for any business to explore, much like advertising, product differentiation or any other way they try to increase market share.
Competition cannot be maintained by the government, it can only be usurped. – As long as a significant means to influence the success or failure of business exists within the powers of government, competing companies will seek to use the government as a means of attacking a competitor’s market share. Given the circumstances associated with this FTC investigation, I can’t help but think this is anything more than that, and the precedent established by cases like this is what we should all be concerned about.
Monday, April 4, 2011
A few quotes on my mind.
"The most vindictive resentment may be expected from the pedagogic profession for any suggestion that they should be dislodged from their dictatorial position; it will be expressed mainly in epithets, such as "reactionary," at the mildest. Nevertheless, the question to put to any teacher moved to such indignation is: Do you think nobody would willingly entrust their children to you and pay you for teaching them? Why do you have to extort your fees and collect your pupils by compulsion?"
- Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine 1963
On Public Education and the belief that we must have a public education system.
"How can we get greater loyalty from the individual to the union? All the things we fought for, the corporation is now giving the workers. What we have to find are other things that the workers want which the employer is not willing to give him, and we have to develop our program around these things as reasons for belonging to the union."
- An Unnamed UAW Executive in an article titled "10 U.A.W. Leaders Find Unions Are Losing Members' Loyalty" from the New York Times, September 8, 1963 (or 1964.)
I'm not sure I need to comment on this. The implication should be obvious. Unions seeking survival in an age where they are dying.
"In the issue of monopolies, as in so many other issues, capitalism is commonly blamed for the evils perpetrated by it's destroyers: it is not free trade on a free market that creates coercive monopolies, but government legislation, government action and government controls."
- Nathaniel Branden, "Common Fallacies about Capitalism" June 1962
Truly coercive monopolies are government instituted.
"The United States - history's magnificent example of a country created by political theorists - has abandoned it's own philosophy and is falling apart. As a nation, we are splintering into warring tribes which - only by the fading momentum of a civilized tradition - are called "economic pressure groups," at present. As opposition to our growing statism, we have nothing but the futile "willayas" of the so-called "conservatives," who are fighting, not for any political principles but only against the "liberals."
- Ayn Rand, the Los Angeles Times 1962
"Each activity and each need of the individual will thereby be regulated by the party as the representative of the general good. There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is Socialism - not such trifles as the private possession of the means of production. Of what importance is that if I range men firmly within a discipline from which they cannot escape? Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential. Our Socialism goes far deeper...
The people about us are unaware of what is really happening to them. They gaze fascinated at one or two familiar superficialities, such as possessions and income and rank and other outworn conceptions. As long as these are kept in tact, they are quite satisfied. But in the meantime they have entered into a new relation; a powerful social force has caught them up. They themselves are changed. What are ownership and income to that? Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings."
- Adolf Hitler, to Hermann Rauschning in "Hitler Speaks."
The concepts of Fascism and Communism are on the same side of the spectrum, not opposite. - Also what separated Hitler from other Mass Murderers in history. Most believed their actions were pure, their motives correct (even if they weren't.) Hitler was wrong, and he knew it.
"Explain to me the difference between the a King's Rule and the People's Rule. Both are tyrants, both are rulers, and both possess the same power, both can force their ideologies on people. The philosophical foundation of this country was the idea of Personal Rule. You are your OWN ruler, and you have rights that no government, collective or otherwise can take from you. In modern day, law after law is passed that progressively strips the right to rule your own life. This is not "progress" it is "regress." No matter the ruler be it the people or a king, both are tyrants and the motive is always power over your life."
- Me, Just now.
- Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine 1963
On Public Education and the belief that we must have a public education system.
"How can we get greater loyalty from the individual to the union? All the things we fought for, the corporation is now giving the workers. What we have to find are other things that the workers want which the employer is not willing to give him, and we have to develop our program around these things as reasons for belonging to the union."
- An Unnamed UAW Executive in an article titled "10 U.A.W. Leaders Find Unions Are Losing Members' Loyalty" from the New York Times, September 8, 1963 (or 1964.)
I'm not sure I need to comment on this. The implication should be obvious. Unions seeking survival in an age where they are dying.
"In the issue of monopolies, as in so many other issues, capitalism is commonly blamed for the evils perpetrated by it's destroyers: it is not free trade on a free market that creates coercive monopolies, but government legislation, government action and government controls."
- Nathaniel Branden, "Common Fallacies about Capitalism" June 1962
Truly coercive monopolies are government instituted.
"The United States - history's magnificent example of a country created by political theorists - has abandoned it's own philosophy and is falling apart. As a nation, we are splintering into warring tribes which - only by the fading momentum of a civilized tradition - are called "economic pressure groups," at present. As opposition to our growing statism, we have nothing but the futile "willayas" of the so-called "conservatives," who are fighting, not for any political principles but only against the "liberals."
- Ayn Rand, the Los Angeles Times 1962
"Each activity and each need of the individual will thereby be regulated by the party as the representative of the general good. There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is Socialism - not such trifles as the private possession of the means of production. Of what importance is that if I range men firmly within a discipline from which they cannot escape? Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential. Our Socialism goes far deeper...
The people about us are unaware of what is really happening to them. They gaze fascinated at one or two familiar superficialities, such as possessions and income and rank and other outworn conceptions. As long as these are kept in tact, they are quite satisfied. But in the meantime they have entered into a new relation; a powerful social force has caught them up. They themselves are changed. What are ownership and income to that? Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings."
- Adolf Hitler, to Hermann Rauschning in "Hitler Speaks."
The concepts of Fascism and Communism are on the same side of the spectrum, not opposite. - Also what separated Hitler from other Mass Murderers in history. Most believed their actions were pure, their motives correct (even if they weren't.) Hitler was wrong, and he knew it.
"Explain to me the difference between the a King's Rule and the People's Rule. Both are tyrants, both are rulers, and both possess the same power, both can force their ideologies on people. The philosophical foundation of this country was the idea of Personal Rule. You are your OWN ruler, and you have rights that no government, collective or otherwise can take from you. In modern day, law after law is passed that progressively strips the right to rule your own life. This is not "progress" it is "regress." No matter the ruler be it the people or a king, both are tyrants and the motive is always power over your life."
- Me, Just now.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Subjective:Objective - A quick note on knowledge.
I'm going to try and keep this short. I also do not mean this pejoratively, it's simply my own stream of thought.
The idea that reality is subjective is dependent on objective knowledge - Arguing that reality is subjective is dependent on the use of knowledge (which is supposedly subjective) and thought processes that require identification.
To say "Reality IS subjective" is to define reality. In making such a statement, we are defining our terms - We are characterizing reality as such. - We are making the notion "reality is subjective" an objective term. - Something with definition and definition (by it's own... definition) cannot vary or it is not defined. Understanding such definition is knowledge.
"Reality is Subjective" is a contradiction in terms.
The idea that reality is subjective is dependent on objective knowledge - Arguing that reality is subjective is dependent on the use of knowledge (which is supposedly subjective) and thought processes that require identification.
To say "Reality IS subjective" is to define reality. In making such a statement, we are defining our terms - We are characterizing reality as such. - We are making the notion "reality is subjective" an objective term. - Something with definition and definition (by it's own... definition) cannot vary or it is not defined. Understanding such definition is knowledge.
"Reality is Subjective" is a contradiction in terms.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Seventeen Years Ago...
September, 1993 Not sure what day, but it was about 2:30pm, as school let out.
I was in the 5th grade I think. I remember running across the dirt field where they held field day in May each year. I was excited for it next year - I always thought myself a runner and often took first or second place in years before, and wanted another chance to race. I ran up the hill toward the path that lead into the neighborhood, to get home. This was the first year Chris was in middle school, and no matter how much we fought, I always felt comfortable with him walking home - He's my big brother and as long as we're together we'll be safe. Without him, I had been scared walking home and really didn't like it.
As I got to the top of the hill, I saw mom's car along side the road and my heart swelled up. I figured mom was home early and this was another of her surprises I always loved. I ran to the car and opened the door to an even better one - Grandpa. I had always called him "my buddy" though in retrospect, I don't think he was much one for kids in a lot of ways, or at least kids at my age. Regardless, he smiled at me and said hello. I had asked him why he was here; In the past Dad brought me out to see the family and outside of special events, Grandma and Grandpa never came out to Colorado. The one thing about Clyde I always had a great deal of respect for was something, to this day, I never got out of many people - He was honest in the truest sense of the word. He told me "Your mother is in the hospital, and has a tumor on her lung, but it may be benign and not malignant, we're not sure." I had understood the words, even malignant and benign (Dad always used more complex vocabulary with my brother and I, something I am STILL thankful for) but I didn't truly grasp their meaning. I couldn't have really told you the difference between malignant and benign, except that they were opposite each other in some fashion. All I had known was Mom was sick, but I got the sense she would be ok.
What had seemed like two years, but was really a matter of months had gone by. I never had a doubt in my mind that Mom would be ok. I had never heard (or at least not remembered) that they confirmed the tumor was malignant. I was upset because the big couch that I loved got moved out of the house and replaced with a hospital bed. This meant that the TV was mostly off limits which meant no video games, but Grandpa had bought Chris a personal TV and he had bought a Super Nintendo with money he saved from a summer job. I was really jealous. That was the foremost thing on my mind - I didn't think much about Mom and her being bed-ridden in the living room. I figured it was just part of what she had to do to get better, so Grandma and Grandpa could leave and we could go back to the way we lived before. I figured it was a matter of time.
We still went to see Dad who seemed disconnected from my life since Mom and Dad's divorce - I hadn't really connected with him much at that point. It took time for us to do so... as it turned out, it took us a lot longer than it was probably "supposed" to.
At home, I was still waiting for Mom to get better. I was confused, I wanted to do something but knew there was nothing I could. Mom would smile at me and had told me that she was eating buttered crackers instead of smoking - Something she had a hard time with even though she was sick. I later found out; She quit cold-turkey when she knew she was pregnant with my brother and I.
I had watched her hair fall out a few months earlier, though she wore some bandana kind of thing. She was always very thin on account of her diet, but now was almost skeletal. She had become jaundice because of the chemotherapy and her eyes were a tinge of yellow. I didn't know what to say, or think. I just wanted her to be Mom again but physically, she couldn't. I had heard something about "it" spreading to her colon and her bone marrow. - Again I knew the words but translating them into something I understood was beyond me at that point.
In early April I was called out of school I was kind of excited I got away from class, but when I saw my Grandma, I wasn't sure what to think. I was to go see Mom in the hospital. I had wondered why she was there and Grandma told me that there was a problem at home and Mom had to be rushed to the hospital - I still don't know what exactly happened. We went and saw Mom, I gave her a hug and told her I loved her, then was taken out of the room.
Chris and I were at home some nights later and Grandma and Grandpa were told they had to go to the hospital. I wanted to go with and see Mom. I was told I couldn't. Chris and I stayed home and played video games, and after a few minutes, I stopped and looked at him. "I think she's about to die." "No dude, it'll be okay. Let's just keep playing, she'll be fine."
That morning my Grandparents told me I shouldn't go to school, and should stay home. I wanted to be excited I got to skip school but I knew something was wrong - Later that afternoon, my Grandma told me and my brother, that mom had died the night before. I was off by a matter of minutes.
I was in the 5th grade I think. I remember running across the dirt field where they held field day in May each year. I was excited for it next year - I always thought myself a runner and often took first or second place in years before, and wanted another chance to race. I ran up the hill toward the path that lead into the neighborhood, to get home. This was the first year Chris was in middle school, and no matter how much we fought, I always felt comfortable with him walking home - He's my big brother and as long as we're together we'll be safe. Without him, I had been scared walking home and really didn't like it.
As I got to the top of the hill, I saw mom's car along side the road and my heart swelled up. I figured mom was home early and this was another of her surprises I always loved. I ran to the car and opened the door to an even better one - Grandpa. I had always called him "my buddy" though in retrospect, I don't think he was much one for kids in a lot of ways, or at least kids at my age. Regardless, he smiled at me and said hello. I had asked him why he was here; In the past Dad brought me out to see the family and outside of special events, Grandma and Grandpa never came out to Colorado. The one thing about Clyde I always had a great deal of respect for was something, to this day, I never got out of many people - He was honest in the truest sense of the word. He told me "Your mother is in the hospital, and has a tumor on her lung, but it may be benign and not malignant, we're not sure." I had understood the words, even malignant and benign (Dad always used more complex vocabulary with my brother and I, something I am STILL thankful for) but I didn't truly grasp their meaning. I couldn't have really told you the difference between malignant and benign, except that they were opposite each other in some fashion. All I had known was Mom was sick, but I got the sense she would be ok.
What had seemed like two years, but was really a matter of months had gone by. I never had a doubt in my mind that Mom would be ok. I had never heard (or at least not remembered) that they confirmed the tumor was malignant. I was upset because the big couch that I loved got moved out of the house and replaced with a hospital bed. This meant that the TV was mostly off limits which meant no video games, but Grandpa had bought Chris a personal TV and he had bought a Super Nintendo with money he saved from a summer job. I was really jealous. That was the foremost thing on my mind - I didn't think much about Mom and her being bed-ridden in the living room. I figured it was just part of what she had to do to get better, so Grandma and Grandpa could leave and we could go back to the way we lived before. I figured it was a matter of time.
We still went to see Dad who seemed disconnected from my life since Mom and Dad's divorce - I hadn't really connected with him much at that point. It took time for us to do so... as it turned out, it took us a lot longer than it was probably "supposed" to.
At home, I was still waiting for Mom to get better. I was confused, I wanted to do something but knew there was nothing I could. Mom would smile at me and had told me that she was eating buttered crackers instead of smoking - Something she had a hard time with even though she was sick. I later found out; She quit cold-turkey when she knew she was pregnant with my brother and I.
I had watched her hair fall out a few months earlier, though she wore some bandana kind of thing. She was always very thin on account of her diet, but now was almost skeletal. She had become jaundice because of the chemotherapy and her eyes were a tinge of yellow. I didn't know what to say, or think. I just wanted her to be Mom again but physically, she couldn't. I had heard something about "it" spreading to her colon and her bone marrow. - Again I knew the words but translating them into something I understood was beyond me at that point.
In early April I was called out of school I was kind of excited I got away from class, but when I saw my Grandma, I wasn't sure what to think. I was to go see Mom in the hospital. I had wondered why she was there and Grandma told me that there was a problem at home and Mom had to be rushed to the hospital - I still don't know what exactly happened. We went and saw Mom, I gave her a hug and told her I loved her, then was taken out of the room.
Chris and I were at home some nights later and Grandma and Grandpa were told they had to go to the hospital. I wanted to go with and see Mom. I was told I couldn't. Chris and I stayed home and played video games, and after a few minutes, I stopped and looked at him. "I think she's about to die." "No dude, it'll be okay. Let's just keep playing, she'll be fine."
That morning my Grandparents told me I shouldn't go to school, and should stay home. I wanted to be excited I got to skip school but I knew something was wrong - Later that afternoon, my Grandma told me and my brother, that mom had died the night before. I was off by a matter of minutes.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Sucker Punch and My View of Art. (Spoiler Alert)
I had a pretty obvious emotional reaction to this movie - I was utterly and completely appalled. They may as well just televise the explicit rape and exploitation of women then illustrate their ultimate solace as a lobotomy. - OH WAIT THEY DID.
Seriously folks. If you haven't seen it, and clicked the link I'm sure you have already seen the movie, don't care or won't see the movie, and so you should know - This movie conveyed images of explicit human depravity, followed by an altruistic sacrifice that ended in a fantasized conveyance of the story whose entire expression was that there is freedom in a lobotomy. Literally. Lobotomy. "Turn off your brain, and you will find peace."
Now, I feel I should explain my perspective on Art.
Being a Romantic, (not in the sense of romantic love, but in the sense of art) I tend to focus on powerful, compelling emotions that inspire and motivate, as well as the bigger message conveyed, or the bigger goal of the art. - "What are you trying to say? What emotions are you trying to inspire or spark?" The conveyance in art is an emotional association implicitly, but is explicitly intended.
If art is to be expression, then I would ask if the goal is to simply interpret whatever you want from it, or if the goal is to interpret what the artist is expressing? "Modern Art" of the 1980's-2000+'s brought about the notion that art is what you interpret, not what is conveyed. Now, I realize most people will interpret art a little differently from person to person. I get that. I get inspired and driven when I hear metal, others think it cacophony or just angry. Our emotional reactions are based largely on learned and automated value judgments we make as soon as we see art. The problem I have however is that there MUST be some commonality between us, logically, biologically, and emotionally. - This is after all, what makes us Human. Perhaps not our hearts. Perhaps not our values. But...
I want to know who finds rampant exploitation of women, explicit murder, mental institutions and the idea that there is some freedom in lobotomization and archaic human sacrifice, to be an emotional association worthy of art. I don't see the artistic value of human depravity, in film or anywhere else, and I don't see how pain and tragedy is art.
I watched the Hangover recently and saw a scene about one of the characters having been restricted from being within 100 feet of a school and thought - This isn't funny, it's really fucked up. There's no humor in that.
To me, what we look for in art is a desire to feel one way or another - an inspiration, and perhaps there's a depressive association in this "art" yet it makes me wonder - Is this what you WANT to feel? Perhaps this is my problem with Trent Reznor and Radiohead as well - It INSPIRES depressive and painful emotions, and I can't help but ask...
"WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO FEEL THIS WAY?"
I understand very well that it may be HOW you feel, but my question again is - do you WANT to feel that way? This is my perspective on art; How do I want to feel, and does this inspire me to those emotions? Does this represent the goal, or the good? If it doesn't - Does it tell a story about reality? Does it display something that should be changed or convey a message of value?
Sucker Punch did NOTHING of the sort, and was the polar opposite of everything I hold to be good. It conveyed;
A. Wanton Exploitation of Women and treatment of them as sex-toys.
B. The only solace in existence is to evade reality in a dream.
C. There is value in self-immolation and personal destruction for the sake of another.
D. The ultimate happiness is not the end of depravity, but to lobotomize your mind and disconnect, because such depravity is the core of the story (existence.)
E. Tragedy for the sake of invoking sadness.
I realize there are many who find artistic value in tragedies, and sadness. I ask the same question from before - Do you WANT to feel sad? Or is life so cush, that watching a tragedy is the only way to experience it? I've often marveled at those who find art in depravity and sadness, and wonder what their emotional reaction is - Whether it's association or comfort, or perhaps both. I also wonder - Is it a reflection of our affluence; Without real, significant pain in life, do we seek it in art as a psychological balance? Art is one of the many ways in which I think my perspective on reality vastly differs from most, potentially as a result of my mothers death when I was young, and other factors. That's just a theory though.
In the end, I would have walked out on this movie within fifteen minutes, had I not wanted to keep being with the friends I accompanied. I stayed and my explicit emotional reaction occasionally brought me to a tear, had me feeling terrible, and ultimately left me asking - "What is left to call good?" This movie was simply cruel and tragic. I would have been overjoyed if they ended it with some sort of Perfect Blue caliber reality swap up. But no. It was just sad.
Maybe the mission was accomplished?
Seriously folks. If you haven't seen it, and clicked the link I'm sure you have already seen the movie, don't care or won't see the movie, and so you should know - This movie conveyed images of explicit human depravity, followed by an altruistic sacrifice that ended in a fantasized conveyance of the story whose entire expression was that there is freedom in a lobotomy. Literally. Lobotomy. "Turn off your brain, and you will find peace."
Now, I feel I should explain my perspective on Art.
Being a Romantic, (not in the sense of romantic love, but in the sense of art) I tend to focus on powerful, compelling emotions that inspire and motivate, as well as the bigger message conveyed, or the bigger goal of the art. - "What are you trying to say? What emotions are you trying to inspire or spark?" The conveyance in art is an emotional association implicitly, but is explicitly intended.
If art is to be expression, then I would ask if the goal is to simply interpret whatever you want from it, or if the goal is to interpret what the artist is expressing? "Modern Art" of the 1980's-2000+'s brought about the notion that art is what you interpret, not what is conveyed. Now, I realize most people will interpret art a little differently from person to person. I get that. I get inspired and driven when I hear metal, others think it cacophony or just angry. Our emotional reactions are based largely on learned and automated value judgments we make as soon as we see art. The problem I have however is that there MUST be some commonality between us, logically, biologically, and emotionally. - This is after all, what makes us Human. Perhaps not our hearts. Perhaps not our values. But...
I want to know who finds rampant exploitation of women, explicit murder, mental institutions and the idea that there is some freedom in lobotomization and archaic human sacrifice, to be an emotional association worthy of art. I don't see the artistic value of human depravity, in film or anywhere else, and I don't see how pain and tragedy is art.
I watched the Hangover recently and saw a scene about one of the characters having been restricted from being within 100 feet of a school and thought - This isn't funny, it's really fucked up. There's no humor in that.
To me, what we look for in art is a desire to feel one way or another - an inspiration, and perhaps there's a depressive association in this "art" yet it makes me wonder - Is this what you WANT to feel? Perhaps this is my problem with Trent Reznor and Radiohead as well - It INSPIRES depressive and painful emotions, and I can't help but ask...
"WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO FEEL THIS WAY?"
I understand very well that it may be HOW you feel, but my question again is - do you WANT to feel that way? This is my perspective on art; How do I want to feel, and does this inspire me to those emotions? Does this represent the goal, or the good? If it doesn't - Does it tell a story about reality? Does it display something that should be changed or convey a message of value?
Sucker Punch did NOTHING of the sort, and was the polar opposite of everything I hold to be good. It conveyed;
A. Wanton Exploitation of Women and treatment of them as sex-toys.
B. The only solace in existence is to evade reality in a dream.
C. There is value in self-immolation and personal destruction for the sake of another.
D. The ultimate happiness is not the end of depravity, but to lobotomize your mind and disconnect, because such depravity is the core of the story (existence.)
E. Tragedy for the sake of invoking sadness.
I realize there are many who find artistic value in tragedies, and sadness. I ask the same question from before - Do you WANT to feel sad? Or is life so cush, that watching a tragedy is the only way to experience it? I've often marveled at those who find art in depravity and sadness, and wonder what their emotional reaction is - Whether it's association or comfort, or perhaps both. I also wonder - Is it a reflection of our affluence; Without real, significant pain in life, do we seek it in art as a psychological balance? Art is one of the many ways in which I think my perspective on reality vastly differs from most, potentially as a result of my mothers death when I was young, and other factors. That's just a theory though.
In the end, I would have walked out on this movie within fifteen minutes, had I not wanted to keep being with the friends I accompanied. I stayed and my explicit emotional reaction occasionally brought me to a tear, had me feeling terrible, and ultimately left me asking - "What is left to call good?" This movie was simply cruel and tragic. I would have been overjoyed if they ended it with some sort of Perfect Blue caliber reality swap up. But no. It was just sad.
Maybe the mission was accomplished?
Saturday, March 12, 2011
"They think I'm giving them hell. I'm just telling the truth, and they think it's hell." - President Truman
Someone said recently (not to me, just in general) "I'd rather you be honest, once and for all... if not, I'm out."
I half-chuckled at the statement. I don't mean that pejoratively but what made me smile was the interesting truth dichotomy in the statement, and it got me thinking about truth relative to human interaction, social interaction that is.
Rule #1 of Human Interaction is... "Don't ever tell the truth, unless you are CERTAIN the situation is of extreme polarity." I.e. it's either really important, or really useless.
Now, this sounds pretty shitty when I put it like that, but think about it for a moment. The classic and easy example is "Do I look fat in these jeans?" - I'm not trying to target anyone by implication here, I'm just using the most obvious example (to me.)
The correct answer to that question, requires NO evaluation of facts and is some variety of "Not at all!"
Now, I've used this example many a time before, and the truth element of it will vary. It's possible the jeans don't make you look fat, or it's possible that you may look fat in ANYTHING you wear. But being truthful will almost always yield less than positive results, so we lie through our teeth to make someone else happy.
Moreover, the whole purpose of asking a question like that is to solicit for positive answer. The question isn't being asked for the sake of the truth, the question is being asked because the person asking it wants someone to make them feel good.
How fucked up is that? Take the same concept and apply it else where - We lie to make others feel better, never mind what the reality of the situation is. People lie to us in fear of making us upset or to try and obtain a positive reaction. Don't forget, the origin of the term "Being conned" comes from the word "Convince." (Also note, our entire political structure is, at this point, based on conning people into marking a box.) Can you ever tell if someone is being honest or just trying to make you feel better?
Now, more than ever, we're concerned with how we feel, with what makes us feel good instead of what really is.
Many talk about being individual, yet all the while they cater to the pack by trying to seek positive social responses from others, instead of actually saying what they think. We even misrepresent our lives through the mass of social media like Facebook and Twitter. There's a separate blog post on that I edited out of here. Suffice it to say - Everyone wants to tell the world how perpetually awesome their life is, when the truth of the situation is, we all have our ups and downs.
Most people don't genuinely want to hear the truth. They want to hear what makes them feel good. Every failed relationship is a result of dishonesty, generally on the part of both human beings, not just one or the other. In the end, I chuckled because the question that always strikes my mind when I hear something like that is, "Is that REALLY what you want?" For 99.999% of people the answer is, "No, I really don't."
I think this may be why I went from a glib socialite that could work a crowd and woo the ladies, to a hardened dick seems socially awkward and can't find a girlfriend to save my life. I got tired of bullshitting people and more importantly, myself.
The downside, is that I'm now typing this knowing full and well that I have "recently" started bullshitting the world again and it's because loneliness struck about two years ago. I think it's time for a change of direction.
Edit,and P.S.: I'm not saying I've been bullshitting friends and family about me. Just that I've left many parts of me at home when I venture out. I've decided to start bringing them with me.
I half-chuckled at the statement. I don't mean that pejoratively but what made me smile was the interesting truth dichotomy in the statement, and it got me thinking about truth relative to human interaction, social interaction that is.
Rule #1 of Human Interaction is... "Don't ever tell the truth, unless you are CERTAIN the situation is of extreme polarity." I.e. it's either really important, or really useless.
Now, this sounds pretty shitty when I put it like that, but think about it for a moment. The classic and easy example is "Do I look fat in these jeans?" - I'm not trying to target anyone by implication here, I'm just using the most obvious example (to me.)
The correct answer to that question, requires NO evaluation of facts and is some variety of "Not at all!"
Now, I've used this example many a time before, and the truth element of it will vary. It's possible the jeans don't make you look fat, or it's possible that you may look fat in ANYTHING you wear. But being truthful will almost always yield less than positive results, so we lie through our teeth to make someone else happy.
Moreover, the whole purpose of asking a question like that is to solicit for positive answer. The question isn't being asked for the sake of the truth, the question is being asked because the person asking it wants someone to make them feel good.
How fucked up is that? Take the same concept and apply it else where - We lie to make others feel better, never mind what the reality of the situation is. People lie to us in fear of making us upset or to try and obtain a positive reaction. Don't forget, the origin of the term "Being conned" comes from the word "Convince." (Also note, our entire political structure is, at this point, based on conning people into marking a box.) Can you ever tell if someone is being honest or just trying to make you feel better?
Now, more than ever, we're concerned with how we feel, with what makes us feel good instead of what really is.
Many talk about being individual, yet all the while they cater to the pack by trying to seek positive social responses from others, instead of actually saying what they think. We even misrepresent our lives through the mass of social media like Facebook and Twitter. There's a separate blog post on that I edited out of here. Suffice it to say - Everyone wants to tell the world how perpetually awesome their life is, when the truth of the situation is, we all have our ups and downs.
Most people don't genuinely want to hear the truth. They want to hear what makes them feel good. Every failed relationship is a result of dishonesty, generally on the part of both human beings, not just one or the other. In the end, I chuckled because the question that always strikes my mind when I hear something like that is, "Is that REALLY what you want?" For 99.999% of people the answer is, "No, I really don't."
I think this may be why I went from a glib socialite that could work a crowd and woo the ladies, to a hardened dick seems socially awkward and can't find a girlfriend to save my life. I got tired of bullshitting people and more importantly, myself.
The downside, is that I'm now typing this knowing full and well that I have "recently" started bullshitting the world again and it's because loneliness struck about two years ago. I think it's time for a change of direction.
Edit,and P.S.: I'm not saying I've been bullshitting friends and family about me. Just that I've left many parts of me at home when I venture out. I've decided to start bringing them with me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)