I recently reread Leibniz's "Monodology." Most people don't know much about Leibniz - even philosophy majors like me. Leibniz was always taught as a sort of bridge getting from Descartes to Hume and ultimately to Kant. At least in my courses he wasn't considered someone to take seriously. I knew him most through the parody deployed by Voltaire in Candide. Leibniz once said that this must be the best of all possible worlds because if God could have made it better, he would have made it better. Voltaire basically said "Then God fucked up" but with more and different words. Leibniz also argues that God must exist because it's possible that God does exist and since it is a God that grants possibilities in the first place God must be the cause of his own possibility. That sounds crazy, but it's also kind of awesome. And here's why.
As a philosophy major, you read for truth. You establish truth by creating a systematic study of what a thinker says. You do this by invoking a language with words like "necessary" and "sufficient" and "a priori" and " a posteriori," "subjective" and "objective," and so forth. You invoke logical fallacies and ultimately you prove things. And well, approached this way, Liebniz is caught in what is called "circular reasoning" (Since God is possible, he must exist and he must have caused himself.) After you establish this, you can dismiss a thinker and move on to the next. To do this there's one thing you actually never need to do: Read Leibniz. All of these critiques can be accomplished quickly and simply in an Intro to Philosophy Book, taking up about a page and a half.
So let's do something radical and actually look at the text. Here's a sentence that gets me excited, "But he (M. Bayle in an attempt to critique Liebniz's belief in a 'universal harmony.') was unable to bring forward any reason why this universal harmony, which means that every substance exactly expresses every other through the relationships it has with them, was impossible." How does a substance have a relationship with all other substances. Leibniz is one of two people that invented Calculus (Newton). They both made their breakthroughs independently - which seems like such a calculusy thing to do. So Leibniz sees objects as a kind of bounded infinity.
Okay - let's try for an example. When I look at my guitar, I see not only my guitar, but I can also see the effects of the craftsman that worked on it. Now of course he brings with him another multiplicity of connections to other things and so on. I can also see my guitar and notice how it is different from a bass, for example. If I look long enough the history of music seems caught up in this one piece of wood and string. For Leibniz the world folds itself back into objects in a multiplicity of ways. The trick, of course, is to not think one "reading" of the guitar is the final reading. However - and this is what is so difficult to truly grasp - it does not follow that the guitar means whatever you think it means. It's not absolutely infinite - it's a bounded infinity. It is the infinity of calculus.
Of course there's also the butterfly effect argument that everything, no matter how small, has effects on everything else. In this way too all things are folded back into other things. All becomes cause and effect.
What I most admire about Leibniz is the audacity of the project: I'm going to create a cosmology that is 90 propositions long and takes about an hour to read?! There's something to be said about brevity. I mean it takes a long time to read most people's history of everything (Bible, quantum theory). Leibniz does it in an afternoon.
The trick - well that's not the right word exactly - is to learn to actually read instead of falling into a categorical judgment: this is wrong because God doesn't exist, for example. That reading dismisses the beauty of the rest of Leibniz's thought. I mean everything is folded into everything - everything is pregnant with a bounded infinity. That's some seriously poetic shit: we are all progenitors of the muck of the world - that we are simultaneously caught up in and constituted by.
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
Friday, October 14, 2016
Back at it
It's been a while. About 3 years. I thought I'd try to say interesting things.
Finding the Beat
Life is rhythm. At this point in my life, I've been a musician for longer than I haven't been. Most of that time was devoted to learning lots of styles of guitar playing: rock, blues, jazz, classical, country and so forth. Recently, however, I bought a drum set.
It didn't take long before it was obvious that the drums were unique in that they are the only instrument I've ever played where being awful was kind of fun. You could sort of chalk it up to exercise or releasing stress. But of course, it's never fun to stay bad at anything. If I can't get good at something, I usually move on to the next thing. Life's to short to spend too much time sucking.
So I got better and now I would say I'm not terrible, nor bad, but OK. I can keep rhythm, a few easy fills and get through a song. But here's what became interesting to me playing the drums: finding the beat. Music becomes intensely more metric when a backbeat is added. The drums don't "fill" in the sound, they reconfigure the sound. Changing the drumbeat - how much someone is wailing on a snare drum - how far removed from the pocket they are - changes the sound of everything.
Often when I play, I put on music - sometimes singer/songwriter stuff that doesn't have a drum part. My job then becomes to locate and establish a beat. So how do you do this? Do you count? Well, maybe at first, but what happens is that your body can sort of tell what works over what song. What I mean is if I sit down and listen, I just start to do what fits. Now, it's not the only thing that would fit. Of course not, but playing was not based around a theoretical understanding of music - of subdivisions or smaller beat patterns with insane sounding names (paradiddles? Really?)
Instead one must learn to find the beat.
This works not only for music, but it's true for life in general. We all move to our own unique rhythms. Sometimes we try to take on the rhythms of others. Sometimes it works - "I really like to hang out with X because they bring out another side of my personality." This is nice when two people have complimentary rhythms. Somehow the two people become more than the sum of their parts - their rhythms marble together, sometimes we give ourselves over to their rhythm. Other times, it's just clear that our rhythm will not work with another's. I don't like to walk with people who walk fast. It changes my rhythm and I have to take in the world at a speed I do not enjoy. I'm a stroller. I like to go slowly.
So it goes.
Finding the Beat
Life is rhythm. At this point in my life, I've been a musician for longer than I haven't been. Most of that time was devoted to learning lots of styles of guitar playing: rock, blues, jazz, classical, country and so forth. Recently, however, I bought a drum set.
It didn't take long before it was obvious that the drums were unique in that they are the only instrument I've ever played where being awful was kind of fun. You could sort of chalk it up to exercise or releasing stress. But of course, it's never fun to stay bad at anything. If I can't get good at something, I usually move on to the next thing. Life's to short to spend too much time sucking.
So I got better and now I would say I'm not terrible, nor bad, but OK. I can keep rhythm, a few easy fills and get through a song. But here's what became interesting to me playing the drums: finding the beat. Music becomes intensely more metric when a backbeat is added. The drums don't "fill" in the sound, they reconfigure the sound. Changing the drumbeat - how much someone is wailing on a snare drum - how far removed from the pocket they are - changes the sound of everything.
Often when I play, I put on music - sometimes singer/songwriter stuff that doesn't have a drum part. My job then becomes to locate and establish a beat. So how do you do this? Do you count? Well, maybe at first, but what happens is that your body can sort of tell what works over what song. What I mean is if I sit down and listen, I just start to do what fits. Now, it's not the only thing that would fit. Of course not, but playing was not based around a theoretical understanding of music - of subdivisions or smaller beat patterns with insane sounding names (paradiddles? Really?)
Instead one must learn to find the beat.
This works not only for music, but it's true for life in general. We all move to our own unique rhythms. Sometimes we try to take on the rhythms of others. Sometimes it works - "I really like to hang out with X because they bring out another side of my personality." This is nice when two people have complimentary rhythms. Somehow the two people become more than the sum of their parts - their rhythms marble together, sometimes we give ourselves over to their rhythm. Other times, it's just clear that our rhythm will not work with another's. I don't like to walk with people who walk fast. It changes my rhythm and I have to take in the world at a speed I do not enjoy. I'm a stroller. I like to go slowly.
So it goes.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Late Night Thoughts On Economics
The strangest thing about being liberal in the South is that people who disagree with you in terms of taxes and government spending do not actually gain anything fiscally from their disagreement.
So why do people who, say, work for the state or are lower middle-class to working poor, but religious in a usually evangelical way dislike liberal economic policies?
There have been numerous books and studies and I guess it'd be more effective to just say read "What's the Matter with Kansas," or my personal favorite "Deer Hunting with Jesus," but I know most people who disagree with my position wouldn't do that. Which to be fair, I'm probably not going to read a 70 page monologue by Ayn Rand. (Though I did read Anthem and a bunch of pages from one of her Objectivist books)
Okay so here goes: what sustains us as a people - not just us, any people - is narrative. And the conservative narrative is much more pleasant. That narrative suggests that freeloaders get in the way, unskilled, lazy people are the problem with wages, and if you can't get a job, it's because either 1) you don't want a job or 2) you've fucked up so bad in the past that you can't be surprised that nobody wants to hire you.
The beauty of that narrative is that it eliminates any systemic criticism. That is to say, if you're screwed, it's because you screwed yourself. We will call this the "Masterbation theory."
Okay and why do these people hate liberal ideas of, say, systemic racism? Well to their mindset not only does it excuse personal failure (and let's be honest, sometimes it's used that way) it suggests that the very concept of "America" as they understand it is flawed.
And but so... What exactly is the liberal argument?
This is the problem. It really hasn't been well articulated. The Left needs a better narrative. Usually it's reactionary - "Well I mean he would have gotten a promotion but the system is racist, or she should have gotten promoted by the system is sexist." And so forth. And while I personally agree that both of these happen very, very often, it's a negative critique, i.e., it suggests what's wrong with the system in place; it doesn't suggest an alternative. (I'm being unfair to liberals here, but it's for a larger point)
So.... Liberals, and by liberal I personally mean people who believe that Capitalism should attempt to grant opportunities across the board in hopes of producing a better citizenry; people who believe that we have to have certain regulations in place to make sure that people are given similar opportunities to access the "American Dream" as dreamy as it probably is; people who believe that Corporations are not excluded from the same ethical framework we would apply to people; people who believe that difference is not simply a "Political Correct" notion, but a notion that allows a democracy to be fucking awesome and so forth, must give a positive idea of why their values are valuable. We have to embrace statements like "Of course I'm liberal, why wouldn't anybody be?" As opposed to "Well I mean I'm liberal, but I'm not like a crazy person or anything."
Essentially, what I see is that poles are suggesting the population is moving left of both parties while the parties are moving right because of an obvious income imbalance between the rich and the poor, i.e., people have no money these days compared to the wealthy who run the planet. And politicians and policy makers obviously want their jobs to continue. So, the wealthy control legislation. This, of course, is the pickle.
I would personally be for using the word "sycophant" more often. Often I see people who just want to be rich - it's a sort of wet-dream-republicanism. Let's call them out on that. I'd also suggest pointing out that the exact dichotomy I'm painting is too simple. I always claim the term "Left" but never "Democrat." As far as I can tell Democrats are basically just Republican Light who talk nicer in terms of Social Issues but rarely do much to better social standings.
And but so, I don't know how to end this. I'm frustrated and often left feeling helpless. But I think most people I know, as evidenced by strong support for Gay Marriage, which I know via Facebook, are far more open than the television suggests. I just hope the Left can make a narrative that's both honest and non-reactionary. More to come.
So why do people who, say, work for the state or are lower middle-class to working poor, but religious in a usually evangelical way dislike liberal economic policies?
There have been numerous books and studies and I guess it'd be more effective to just say read "What's the Matter with Kansas," or my personal favorite "Deer Hunting with Jesus," but I know most people who disagree with my position wouldn't do that. Which to be fair, I'm probably not going to read a 70 page monologue by Ayn Rand. (Though I did read Anthem and a bunch of pages from one of her Objectivist books)
Okay so here goes: what sustains us as a people - not just us, any people - is narrative. And the conservative narrative is much more pleasant. That narrative suggests that freeloaders get in the way, unskilled, lazy people are the problem with wages, and if you can't get a job, it's because either 1) you don't want a job or 2) you've fucked up so bad in the past that you can't be surprised that nobody wants to hire you.
The beauty of that narrative is that it eliminates any systemic criticism. That is to say, if you're screwed, it's because you screwed yourself. We will call this the "Masterbation theory."
Okay and why do these people hate liberal ideas of, say, systemic racism? Well to their mindset not only does it excuse personal failure (and let's be honest, sometimes it's used that way) it suggests that the very concept of "America" as they understand it is flawed.
And but so... What exactly is the liberal argument?
This is the problem. It really hasn't been well articulated. The Left needs a better narrative. Usually it's reactionary - "Well I mean he would have gotten a promotion but the system is racist, or she should have gotten promoted by the system is sexist." And so forth. And while I personally agree that both of these happen very, very often, it's a negative critique, i.e., it suggests what's wrong with the system in place; it doesn't suggest an alternative. (I'm being unfair to liberals here, but it's for a larger point)
So.... Liberals, and by liberal I personally mean people who believe that Capitalism should attempt to grant opportunities across the board in hopes of producing a better citizenry; people who believe that we have to have certain regulations in place to make sure that people are given similar opportunities to access the "American Dream" as dreamy as it probably is; people who believe that Corporations are not excluded from the same ethical framework we would apply to people; people who believe that difference is not simply a "Political Correct" notion, but a notion that allows a democracy to be fucking awesome and so forth, must give a positive idea of why their values are valuable. We have to embrace statements like "Of course I'm liberal, why wouldn't anybody be?" As opposed to "Well I mean I'm liberal, but I'm not like a crazy person or anything."
Essentially, what I see is that poles are suggesting the population is moving left of both parties while the parties are moving right because of an obvious income imbalance between the rich and the poor, i.e., people have no money these days compared to the wealthy who run the planet. And politicians and policy makers obviously want their jobs to continue. So, the wealthy control legislation. This, of course, is the pickle.
I would personally be for using the word "sycophant" more often. Often I see people who just want to be rich - it's a sort of wet-dream-republicanism. Let's call them out on that. I'd also suggest pointing out that the exact dichotomy I'm painting is too simple. I always claim the term "Left" but never "Democrat." As far as I can tell Democrats are basically just Republican Light who talk nicer in terms of Social Issues but rarely do much to better social standings.
And but so, I don't know how to end this. I'm frustrated and often left feeling helpless. But I think most people I know, as evidenced by strong support for Gay Marriage, which I know via Facebook, are far more open than the television suggests. I just hope the Left can make a narrative that's both honest and non-reactionary. More to come.
Monday, January 28, 2013
On Moods
I have realized many days that I have completely stopped (obviously until now) keeping this whole blog thing going. It's weird - all of a sudden, I just didn't have much to say. Or, rather, I had stuff to say but nothing felt important/interesting/funny enough to write down. So today that is what I'm thinking about: that weird phenomenon that happens when all of a sudden we just stop doing something we had previously done religiously - sometimes religion is one of those things.
For example, there were summers when I was about 16 where my friend Lee and I went fishing everyday - and I mean that damn-near literally. We were on a first-name basis with local bait and tackle shop owners, we had complex and sometimes misguided theories of how to catch what. (We were particularly bad at catching catfish and also getting catfish back in the water when we were actually successful) Then one day - I don't remember when - I just lost interest in it. There's a whole slew of current friends that would be surprised that I ever cared so much about fishing.
I guess my point is that moods come over us, we get swept up, and then sometimes we move on. Sometimes it comes full circle - sometimes you're just finished with whatever you had gotten caught up with in the first place. I'm thinking of Chris Cooper's character in Adaptation explaining that he loves the ocean but no longer sets foot in the ocean and explaining: "That's how much fuck fish."
So hopefully today will begin a new period of strange musings. Even as I'm typing now, I can feel the loss of rhythm I had accumulated over about a year of pretty solid postings. Well, all that being said. Cheers to everyone who has stuck around reading this thing.
For example, there were summers when I was about 16 where my friend Lee and I went fishing everyday - and I mean that damn-near literally. We were on a first-name basis with local bait and tackle shop owners, we had complex and sometimes misguided theories of how to catch what. (We were particularly bad at catching catfish and also getting catfish back in the water when we were actually successful) Then one day - I don't remember when - I just lost interest in it. There's a whole slew of current friends that would be surprised that I ever cared so much about fishing.
I guess my point is that moods come over us, we get swept up, and then sometimes we move on. Sometimes it comes full circle - sometimes you're just finished with whatever you had gotten caught up with in the first place. I'm thinking of Chris Cooper's character in Adaptation explaining that he loves the ocean but no longer sets foot in the ocean and explaining: "That's how much fuck fish."
So hopefully today will begin a new period of strange musings. Even as I'm typing now, I can feel the loss of rhythm I had accumulated over about a year of pretty solid postings. Well, all that being said. Cheers to everyone who has stuck around reading this thing.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Joy and Pleasure
Reading Facebook posts tonight and I'm struck, again, by the wave of posters with captions. Who started this shit and can we make it stop? Probably not.
Well, okay. Here's what I'm noticing. At least from my Facebook friends, most of the posts are bitter, mean, sarcastic, devoid of joy and boring. Most of them suggest that our current political situation sucks. Now, to be fair, the one's that say that opposite are equally annoying.
Now, what annoys me - the cause for this post - isn't that I agree or disagree with any of them in particular. It's the utter lack of joy in so many of the posts. They seem to want to paint the world as one big pain in the ass - one evil place to live where only politicians get their way.
Okay - so they're kind of right. The rich do win. Politicians are bought and constantly lie. All this is true, but yet I'm left with a sorrow that goes beyond the political situation. Are people not experiencing joy anymore? I mean even when we were in huge - literally - World Wars - there was joy in the literature. I mean read the existentialists carefully. Kafka is hilarious - Camus is always affirmative. Beckett - well, okay - I don't know, but fuck it I love the guy.
But when I look at these posts tonight - I don't care about the political side - what I'm sad about is an utter lack of joy. The world IS. We need Nietzsche in these times. Whatever it is - say YES. Hate politicians - fine - hate the president - fine - but please find some moment for joy and pleasure. The world gives. The world is illuminated. The world is also a totally fucked-up place - but let's not forget the former because of the latter. (And this is not some statement about "balance." I mean something far simpler.)
Well, okay. Here's what I'm noticing. At least from my Facebook friends, most of the posts are bitter, mean, sarcastic, devoid of joy and boring. Most of them suggest that our current political situation sucks. Now, to be fair, the one's that say that opposite are equally annoying.
Now, what annoys me - the cause for this post - isn't that I agree or disagree with any of them in particular. It's the utter lack of joy in so many of the posts. They seem to want to paint the world as one big pain in the ass - one evil place to live where only politicians get their way.
Okay - so they're kind of right. The rich do win. Politicians are bought and constantly lie. All this is true, but yet I'm left with a sorrow that goes beyond the political situation. Are people not experiencing joy anymore? I mean even when we were in huge - literally - World Wars - there was joy in the literature. I mean read the existentialists carefully. Kafka is hilarious - Camus is always affirmative. Beckett - well, okay - I don't know, but fuck it I love the guy.
But when I look at these posts tonight - I don't care about the political side - what I'm sad about is an utter lack of joy. The world IS. We need Nietzsche in these times. Whatever it is - say YES. Hate politicians - fine - hate the president - fine - but please find some moment for joy and pleasure. The world gives. The world is illuminated. The world is also a totally fucked-up place - but let's not forget the former because of the latter. (And this is not some statement about "balance." I mean something far simpler.)
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Jerry McGuire and Truth
So the wonderfully cute kid in Jerry McGuire utters three truths: the human head weighs 8 lbs, bees and dogs smell fear, and my neighbor has three rabbits.
What's interesting about this, to me anyways, is that they are all true but true in really different ways. The first statement is true by way of average. Maybe nobody's head has ever weighed 8lbs, but the average of all human heads is 8 lbs. And then there's other interesting questions about who's head counts as human. I would guess that figure does not count infants' heads as heads. But we get what is meant - the statement works.
The next claim is basically universal. We assume ALL dogs and bees smell fear. Of course there are always outliers, but ostensibly they are so small as to be explained - like people who can't see colors. Though, there's a huge and really interesting assumption about fear being something you can smell. What a bizarre and extremely cool idea. I can smell your fear, literally.
Finally, my neighbor has three rabbits. This is by far my favorite of the three. Not just because it's the funniest. Well here's the thing: it's the funniest because it's local. So the idea, what makes it humorous, is that we think Truth should not be local. However, this proves the opposite point - Truth is more exact exactly when it's local. So while my neighbor might not have three rabbits - in fact they don't - they have a litter of loud, hellspawn kids who embrace life in a way that is beautiful despite my dislike for their kind.
So Truth is complicated.
The little kids declarations are the most interesting part of this movie, which has one of my least favorite ideas of love: you complete me. Disgusting. I want to date people who are already whole. It's sweet; it's sentimental. But I don't agree with it. However, I love that kid explaining Truth.
What's interesting about this, to me anyways, is that they are all true but true in really different ways. The first statement is true by way of average. Maybe nobody's head has ever weighed 8lbs, but the average of all human heads is 8 lbs. And then there's other interesting questions about who's head counts as human. I would guess that figure does not count infants' heads as heads. But we get what is meant - the statement works.
The next claim is basically universal. We assume ALL dogs and bees smell fear. Of course there are always outliers, but ostensibly they are so small as to be explained - like people who can't see colors. Though, there's a huge and really interesting assumption about fear being something you can smell. What a bizarre and extremely cool idea. I can smell your fear, literally.
Finally, my neighbor has three rabbits. This is by far my favorite of the three. Not just because it's the funniest. Well here's the thing: it's the funniest because it's local. So the idea, what makes it humorous, is that we think Truth should not be local. However, this proves the opposite point - Truth is more exact exactly when it's local. So while my neighbor might not have three rabbits - in fact they don't - they have a litter of loud, hellspawn kids who embrace life in a way that is beautiful despite my dislike for their kind.
So Truth is complicated.
The little kids declarations are the most interesting part of this movie, which has one of my least favorite ideas of love: you complete me. Disgusting. I want to date people who are already whole. It's sweet; it's sentimental. But I don't agree with it. However, I love that kid explaining Truth.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Ideology
Ideology is the death of thinking. One of the great ironies is that one of the most ideological philosophies is Marxism - which, of course, is based on materialism. In fact, more often than not, I find most of the ideological critiques to be based on a sort of crank-turning nihilism that is always moving-towards-death.
This is basically in response to Coffeen's post about the manner in which someone should critique. Being in academia is an existence that fluctuates between utter boredom and sublime enthrallment. I love when I hear critiques that make something old look new - something familiar look weird. What I hate, despise is critiques that squash difference. "Hey look how this is about my theory too." Now, to be fair, I've done this too. For quite a number of years, everything I saw was proof that Heidegger was correct. But I think, I hope, I've grown out of that.
Perhaps the problem is that academia thinks it's job is about changing something - fixing the evil capitalist, racist, sexist ideologies that exist. Now - to be fair - we have helped that, a little, maybe, I think. But what we should be about is making texts exciting - making people want to read these texts that make us think and rethink. There's no reason to tell a person what a text must mean - but there is nothing more beautiful than showing someone how a text can mean - how it can go and hopefully how it can go in many different ways simultaneously.
This is basically in response to Coffeen's post about the manner in which someone should critique. Being in academia is an existence that fluctuates between utter boredom and sublime enthrallment. I love when I hear critiques that make something old look new - something familiar look weird. What I hate, despise is critiques that squash difference. "Hey look how this is about my theory too." Now, to be fair, I've done this too. For quite a number of years, everything I saw was proof that Heidegger was correct. But I think, I hope, I've grown out of that.
Perhaps the problem is that academia thinks it's job is about changing something - fixing the evil capitalist, racist, sexist ideologies that exist. Now - to be fair - we have helped that, a little, maybe, I think. But what we should be about is making texts exciting - making people want to read these texts that make us think and rethink. There's no reason to tell a person what a text must mean - but there is nothing more beautiful than showing someone how a text can mean - how it can go and hopefully how it can go in many different ways simultaneously.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)