Playing a gig in South Carolina this Saturday, we were all reminded that somebody, I don't even know the guys name, had predicted that come about 6 o'clock or so, (EST?) world go poof. Well, world didn't go poof - it never does.
Now I don't care that some religiously-minded octogenarian thought the world was ending. That's sort of what they do. But behind all the nonsense is something important - an idea of truth that needs to go away.
Truth is one of those big motherfuckers in philosophy. Starting with Plato and continuing far too long, people have thought that "truth" is something that is behind everything, outside of the day-to-day networkings of the world. This belief leads to such rhetorical boners as "really true" and "really real," meaning yes that thing over their looks like it's happening and understandable, but really we're all in the Matrix. This is the split between appearance and reality that branches of philosophy such as phenomenology have tried to do away with for years. They can't get rid of them because most people still think in terms like these.
I believe employing one simple principle helps to rid the world of a lot of metaphysical nonsense: your brain does not pick up a channel that my brain doesn't. There. Done.
So where does this leave us with a concept like "truth" which though annoying and problematic, is pretty necessary for day-to-day interactions. How about this - if a speech-act (talking) leads to results that you planned on them leading to then what you said was true. Basically, if the world is working for us, then we're saying true things.
Heidegger claimed that truth was about the interplay between the veiled and unveiled - between what the world showed and what remained hidden. The world is never giving you a complete picture - when one thing comes into focus, something else gets blurry. Also, nice as long as we remember Heidegger is talking about the world, not something behind the world. (I'll unpack Heidegger in more detail later. His notion of truth is really better than the analytic definition I'm using in the previous paragraph)
The major point here is that if you think something's behind everything you will start looking for that something. And then you'll end up some crazy guy with a calculator and a religious book, spending the end of your life drawing on posterboard with magic markers. Which is bad.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
On the Political
At some point, during most days I will check four or five political websites. And I'm starting to wonder why I do this? I must have spent what would have added up to weeks reading, debating, thinking about global politics - deploying words like "geopolitical" whenever I got a chance - over the last 7 or 8 years. I think if I was pressed about why, I would have said something like "Well, you know, being informed is better than not being informed." But my being informed led to very little in the way of productive action.
Very often I have a better idea about goings on in places that I will not interact with or affect in any way than I do about things happening in my immediacy. I believe without ever thinking much about it, I have often associated "the political" with a compilation of media that always take place somewhere else. Rachael Maddow is political but Horner Blvd is not.
The abstraction of the political realm leads to political groups, camps, ideologies and other collections of nonsense. The political clique comes prepackaged with opinions, terminologies, and so forth - it is a ready-made discourse that sets the limits of what is thinkable by the terms that are used. These ready-made discourses run counter to my desire to be an individual, whatever the hell that word means in a post-everything world.
But who got to decide that the most important issues I should think about would be abortion, gun-control, and the death penalty. Why is it so important for me to have opinions on these issues to show that I am "informed." I feel much more impassioned by my deep-rooted beliefs that the world starts too early in the morning and is moving too damn fast; I am much more concerned about the manner in which the digital world makes me forget that I have a body that needs to move more. The trick, at least for me, is to see these as political realities - realities that affect me more than my opinion about acceptable cars for people to drive.
I'm starting to believe that what I have considered "political" was something akin to sports for adults - a debate club for people who like to hold "positions."
Very often I have a better idea about goings on in places that I will not interact with or affect in any way than I do about things happening in my immediacy. I believe without ever thinking much about it, I have often associated "the political" with a compilation of media that always take place somewhere else. Rachael Maddow is political but Horner Blvd is not.
The abstraction of the political realm leads to political groups, camps, ideologies and other collections of nonsense. The political clique comes prepackaged with opinions, terminologies, and so forth - it is a ready-made discourse that sets the limits of what is thinkable by the terms that are used. These ready-made discourses run counter to my desire to be an individual, whatever the hell that word means in a post-everything world.
But who got to decide that the most important issues I should think about would be abortion, gun-control, and the death penalty. Why is it so important for me to have opinions on these issues to show that I am "informed." I feel much more impassioned by my deep-rooted beliefs that the world starts too early in the morning and is moving too damn fast; I am much more concerned about the manner in which the digital world makes me forget that I have a body that needs to move more. The trick, at least for me, is to see these as political realities - realities that affect me more than my opinion about acceptable cars for people to drive.
I'm starting to believe that what I have considered "political" was something akin to sports for adults - a debate club for people who like to hold "positions."
Monday, May 23, 2011
On Taste
I judge people by the things they like. This has to be a truism the world over, but it feels a little dirty admitting it in writing. This statement has been vocalized, however, with the kind of loud and emphatic gusto that occurs after about drink 4 many times, but never written.
I don't need to know what a person does for a living, where they are from, or who they vote for. I want lists. What does he or she read, watch, get excited by. Information such as this is a better identifier than DNA - hell it is a person's DNA.
Now, arguments over taste, while important to have with friends are only useful for passing time. And the least interesting comment that can ever be said is to simply vote yes or no for something. There are many pieces of art/film/music that I don't exactly like, but that's not the conversation I want to have about them. Take David Lynch's Lost Highway. I'm not sure I like that movie. I don't really want to watch it today, (but I would sit through either Blue Velvet or Mullholland Drive happily) but I would love to talk about how absolutely fucking freaky Robert Blake calling himself on the phone was. That scene is more interesting than whole other movies.
Or the joy I get when Gary Busey yells at Keenu Reeves in Point Break: "Hey Utah! Get me two," referring to the best meatball sandwiches in the world. In fact, it's often these little weird moments in film that have nothing to do with plot that I find so wonderful. In Kill Bill the only part I'd say I just loved is when Uma is informed that she says "arrigato, like we say arrigato." And I'd rather talk about how much I love that part than why I was ultimately kind of let down by the Kill Bill films.
Now, to be fair, sometimes it's important to tell something that it in fact sucks. But even this should be done creatively. For example, "Do you know how much you suck?" requires a response.
I don't need to know what a person does for a living, where they are from, or who they vote for. I want lists. What does he or she read, watch, get excited by. Information such as this is a better identifier than DNA - hell it is a person's DNA.
Now, arguments over taste, while important to have with friends are only useful for passing time. And the least interesting comment that can ever be said is to simply vote yes or no for something. There are many pieces of art/film/music that I don't exactly like, but that's not the conversation I want to have about them. Take David Lynch's Lost Highway. I'm not sure I like that movie. I don't really want to watch it today, (but I would sit through either Blue Velvet or Mullholland Drive happily) but I would love to talk about how absolutely fucking freaky Robert Blake calling himself on the phone was. That scene is more interesting than whole other movies.
Or the joy I get when Gary Busey yells at Keenu Reeves in Point Break: "Hey Utah! Get me two," referring to the best meatball sandwiches in the world. In fact, it's often these little weird moments in film that have nothing to do with plot that I find so wonderful. In Kill Bill the only part I'd say I just loved is when Uma is informed that she says "arrigato, like we say arrigato." And I'd rather talk about how much I love that part than why I was ultimately kind of let down by the Kill Bill films.
Now, to be fair, sometimes it's important to tell something that it in fact sucks. But even this should be done creatively. For example, "Do you know how much you suck?" requires a response.
Woody Allen
I love Woody Allen films. And I love that I can pretty much bank on the fact that every year, usually in the summer, I will be sitting in a theater watching Woody's newest film.
And this year is exciting - Midnight in Paris looks great. The thing is whenever Woody Allen makes a really good film there are always a slew of reviews that say something like "Woody's best work since Crimes and Misdemeanor's" - which apparently every single critic thinks was his last great film, and some clear line of demarcation.
The problem with the narrative, which is starting to pop up again, is not simply that it's boring and reductive; it's that this is the 3rd time the same argument has been made since 2005 when Allen made Match Point. Then in 2008 with Vicky Christina Barcelona it happened again.
I feel about Woody Allen the same way I feel about the Coen Brothers: I'll take their mediocre work over much of what else passes for good in Hollywood.
And this year is exciting - Midnight in Paris looks great. The thing is whenever Woody Allen makes a really good film there are always a slew of reviews that say something like "Woody's best work since Crimes and Misdemeanor's" - which apparently every single critic thinks was his last great film, and some clear line of demarcation.
The problem with the narrative, which is starting to pop up again, is not simply that it's boring and reductive; it's that this is the 3rd time the same argument has been made since 2005 when Allen made Match Point. Then in 2008 with Vicky Christina Barcelona it happened again.
I feel about Woody Allen the same way I feel about the Coen Brothers: I'll take their mediocre work over much of what else passes for good in Hollywood.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Audience (part 2): Interpretation
People say true things all the time and most of what people say is true. I can imagine the stomach-level discomfort caused by such propositions, because we are bred to be narcissists - to think that everyone but us is totally full of shit.
But to simply maneuver the world - I mean to order coffee, to give directions, to find a classroom, to have a normal, everyday conversation - we have to understand how the world operates for us. I would postulate that the world works relatively the same way for everyone.
It basically follows then that if you are surviving in the world, it is because you know how to say true things about the world. You're speech-acts are having predictable outcomes.
So what does this have to do with audience? If I assume that the person writing is saying something that they believe to be true, I will interpret generously. Even if they say something that seems absolutely insane to me, I can try to locate the ways in which a certain belief is causing the fissure. The people who seem ideologically the farthest apart, are usually but one belief away from each other.
But to simply maneuver the world - I mean to order coffee, to give directions, to find a classroom, to have a normal, everyday conversation - we have to understand how the world operates for us. I would postulate that the world works relatively the same way for everyone.
It basically follows then that if you are surviving in the world, it is because you know how to say true things about the world. You're speech-acts are having predictable outcomes.
So what does this have to do with audience? If I assume that the person writing is saying something that they believe to be true, I will interpret generously. Even if they say something that seems absolutely insane to me, I can try to locate the ways in which a certain belief is causing the fissure. The people who seem ideologically the farthest apart, are usually but one belief away from each other.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
On Audience
The internet is insane. One talks not to bodies, but to bundles of texts. And these texts talk back. And fuck if they don't get mad.
Why is the internet not conducive to interpretative charity, hermeneutic generosity of you will? Or to say it another way, why is it so difficult to be excellent to one another when we are disembodied? Now, it's not impossible, just as it's not impossible to imagine that the car that cut me off really was going somewhere more important than I was - it's doable, but it's difficult. Much more difficult than being decent to a stranger who happens to occupy a barstool next to me. The stranger on the barstool next to me is a fellow traveler - a kinsmen - one in spirit. The relationship is one of solidarity predicated on actual, lived space. The comments responding to posts on the internet are combative, always seeking contradiction, looking for an "aha, gotcha asshole" moment so the entire piece can be subsequently dismissed.
Since it is quite clear that we will live not just two, but multiple lives, we have to learn to transcend this new space thoughtfully, we need to develop a deep ecology, cautiously leaving behind virtual footprints.
Why is the internet not conducive to interpretative charity, hermeneutic generosity of you will? Or to say it another way, why is it so difficult to be excellent to one another when we are disembodied? Now, it's not impossible, just as it's not impossible to imagine that the car that cut me off really was going somewhere more important than I was - it's doable, but it's difficult. Much more difficult than being decent to a stranger who happens to occupy a barstool next to me. The stranger on the barstool next to me is a fellow traveler - a kinsmen - one in spirit. The relationship is one of solidarity predicated on actual, lived space. The comments responding to posts on the internet are combative, always seeking contradiction, looking for an "aha, gotcha asshole" moment so the entire piece can be subsequently dismissed.
Since it is quite clear that we will live not just two, but multiple lives, we have to learn to transcend this new space thoughtfully, we need to develop a deep ecology, cautiously leaving behind virtual footprints.
Monday, January 10, 2011
The Speed of Fear
Listening to all the talk today around the Arizona shooting has made me start thinking to what degree our technologies have played any part in the unprecedented polarization in contemporary American politics.
Here's what I mean. Everything in the modern world happens instantaneoulsly everywhere. Since so much of our world is mediated through various screens throughout the day, my experience of the world has become really weird.
It seems to me this has caused many to feel incredibly overwhelmed and completely misunderstand the nature of the modern world. For example, in the flesh and blood world I live in me and the people who see politics differently tend not to hate each other. We might yell at each other inside of a bar, but it won't be long before we're buying each other drinks, reassuring each other that the most important factor in relationships is not political affiliation.
It seems to me the hyper-world has to be balanced with the embodied world, if for no other reason, to keep a sensible grasp on the difference between the way the two function.
Here's what I mean. Everything in the modern world happens instantaneoulsly everywhere. Since so much of our world is mediated through various screens throughout the day, my experience of the world has become really weird.
It seems to me this has caused many to feel incredibly overwhelmed and completely misunderstand the nature of the modern world. For example, in the flesh and blood world I live in me and the people who see politics differently tend not to hate each other. We might yell at each other inside of a bar, but it won't be long before we're buying each other drinks, reassuring each other that the most important factor in relationships is not political affiliation.
It seems to me the hyper-world has to be balanced with the embodied world, if for no other reason, to keep a sensible grasp on the difference between the way the two function.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)