When we imagine "the scientist," what exactly do we call to mind? No doubt there are lab coats and spectacles involved, but I'm wondering here about the nature of the person we picture, his character, his personality - and I wonder, all nonsense of lab coats aside, whether there is in reality - that is, outside our imagination - a True Scientist.
Well, the question brings us back to the first one, namely what we would imagine this True Scientist to be. Science itself is a way of knowing things; therefore, in order to understand this Scientist we must understand his way of knowing the world. Scientific knowledge at its purest and simplest is an attempt at universal knowledge; i.e. facts which are recognizable as "true" at any time or place, who don't owe their truth to chance circumstances or subjective considerations. A purely scientific mind would know all aspects of his world in this way; it would perceive objects, masses, forces and all other things in their relation to the sum total of objects, masses, etc. At bottom, we seem to be looking for a man who perceives reality without giving preferential treatment to any of its parts, a man without predilections, affinities, peculiarities or fancies - in short, a man without taste.
Now of course we can only imagine such a man, for as a pure archetype he is very unlikely to exist (although I'm sure we all know at least one person like him). The archetype itself sounds not very different from a man suffering from severe schizophrenia or borderline personality disorder, whose inability to experience pleasure affords him no inclination to favor one thing over another. All experience would enter the purely scientific mind democratically, each part being equal and carrying just as much weight as all other parts. Each experience would be discretely labelled - "Fact #00103472," for example - and placed in its proper (and observable) relation to all the others, regardless of its color, weight, ethnicity or political bent. Indeed, the space we're seeing is absolutely devoid of aesthetic considerations: facts of religious import are strung together with and determined by summer acidity levels in the tropics, while Stacey's opinions on abortion are linked inextricably with her mother's inability to properly digest gluten. The only important connections to be made here are the observable factual links between informations, and all are made with absolute adherence to the rules of logic - in other words, the end result of these connections, the "ultimate Idea" of the True Scientist, is completely and perfectly determined by the World. The man himself is passivity incarnate - he is a receptacle (a very well-built one), and nothing more.
But we know that such a man cannot exist, and if he does, he is certainly not a scientist; for in reality, there is no man without opinion, without belief, without taste and affinity and a preference for one thing over another. Each of us, be ye a secretary or a military strategist, has choices to make at all times, and each of us makes our decisions based on a little reason and a lot of desire. To exclude the scientist from the human condition is absurd, for it would mean that scientists existed in the vacuum described above - and yet popular mythology represents scientists as pure, detached, impartial and disinterested. We, however, know better: we know the scientist as artist.
We know the scientist whose eyes prefer green to blue, whose ears prefer music to noise and whose noses prefer lilies to shit. We know the scientist who prefers logic, not because he has to, but because he chooses to - because logic is beautiful. We know the scientist who arranges nature according to reason, rather than letting reason be rent asunder by the chaos inherent in nature. We know this man, because we know the work of this man: the theory, the hypothesis, the system, the paradigm. We know these products as products of the imagination, as products of creativity, as products of spontaneity - we know these products as works of Art. And like works of Art, we admire the theory and the paradigm, and we learn from them - and then we improve upon them.
If science were nothing more than the cold, disinterested collecting of facts, then science would be nothing more than an incoherent maze of unintelligible information - it would, quite literally, mirror reality. But science no more mirrors reality than Art does, and we know this because we have different words for all three - science is not reality, art is not reality, and reality is not on MTV. The more we fool ourselves into thinking that science equivocates truth, or that observation necessarily trumps meditation, the more we will view science as the world once viewed religion: absolutely.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Eulogy One
Dear Murfreesboro Musicians,
I would first like to thank you all for Friday night: the Music was exquisite, and really, isn't that why we all came out to the bar? Surely we all left our houses around nine o'clock with only one intention: to be seen with - I mean, to see - that is, TO LISTEN TO - some great bands. It was our enthusiasm for the Music that led us to shower, and some of us to do our hair; it motivated many of us to trim our mustaches before donning some of our best thrift-store threads (for how can one honestly listen to good music when they're wearing something from the Gap, or worse - Old Navy?). And finally - why else would the Murfreesboro elite have bothered to mount their seven-foot-tall bicycles without helmets - if not for their passion for the Music? Our community's enthusiasm is like the spring-board from which the rich musical culture of Murfressboro has launched itself into the highest realms of artistic integrity.
Indeed, it is the artistry of our Music that keeps the city of Murfreesboro alive. We enjoy a purely aesthetic form of art, that has arisen from a recognition of the difference between superficial style and profound substance. Our musicians have boldly opted for the latter, and this is evidenced by their artistic selflessness. We see this selflessness manifest in the way they slavishly dress up for us: while their clothes and gleaming guitars vie for our attention, it's obvious that, in their hearts, they don't give a damn. Their attitude clearly shows us that the clothes are just part of the surface - and that their real concern lies in the Music itself. It is indeed unfortunate that the spectators must be drawn in by flashy garments and vintage hats; but then, let's not be too hard on them - the spectators have their own role to play.
We would be missing the point if we dwelt too long on the musicians themselves, for in our town, it's the audience that counts. These are the people who actually hear the music, and this they do very well - how else could we explain their ability to talk about the band and listen to it at the same time? Simon and Garfunkle describe this phenomenon as "people hearing without listening" - but I beg to differ. I myself can only be humbled by such a magnificent gift as they have, which itself bestows such respect upon the performers in question. Even the most attentive Nashville audience cannot compare to the way in which a typical Murfreesboro crowd can simultaneously process the Music and carry on a serious discussion with their neighbor about the magnificent quality of the band. And you can quote me on this: if that is not respect, then John Lennon was never on drugs.
So now we know: it is enthusiasm, selflessness and respect that have made the Music of Murfreesboro what it is today. And while I thank these musicians for all that they have done for me, I must also apologize to them. I was not as enthusiastic about the show as I could have been; I did not even shower beforehand, and, God forgive me, I showed up at the bar wearing Old Navy. Nor was I as respectful as the rest of your audience - but for this you will have to excuse God, for I was not blessed with that awesome ability of auditory multitasking that would have allowed me to sing your praises while you sang for me the wise words of Stevie Nicks. But if you will only accept my gratitude and forgive me my shortcomings, you will be more than repaid for all of your diligence and hard work - for my gratitude itself is indeed immense. Without you, our clothes would be nothing but clothes, our mustaches mere facial hair - and where would we all be then? So I thank you with all my heart for the Music - and for one more excuse to go to the bar.
Indeed, it is the artistry of our Music that keeps the city of Murfreesboro alive. We enjoy a purely aesthetic form of art, that has arisen from a recognition of the difference between superficial style and profound substance. Our musicians have boldly opted for the latter, and this is evidenced by their artistic selflessness. We see this selflessness manifest in the way they slavishly dress up for us: while their clothes and gleaming guitars vie for our attention, it's obvious that, in their hearts, they don't give a damn. Their attitude clearly shows us that the clothes are just part of the surface - and that their real concern lies in the Music itself. It is indeed unfortunate that the spectators must be drawn in by flashy garments and vintage hats; but then, let's not be too hard on them - the spectators have their own role to play.
We would be missing the point if we dwelt too long on the musicians themselves, for in our town, it's the audience that counts. These are the people who actually hear the music, and this they do very well - how else could we explain their ability to talk about the band and listen to it at the same time? Simon and Garfunkle describe this phenomenon as "people hearing without listening" - but I beg to differ. I myself can only be humbled by such a magnificent gift as they have, which itself bestows such respect upon the performers in question. Even the most attentive Nashville audience cannot compare to the way in which a typical Murfreesboro crowd can simultaneously process the Music and carry on a serious discussion with their neighbor about the magnificent quality of the band. And you can quote me on this: if that is not respect, then John Lennon was never on drugs.
So now we know: it is enthusiasm, selflessness and respect that have made the Music of Murfreesboro what it is today. And while I thank these musicians for all that they have done for me, I must also apologize to them. I was not as enthusiastic about the show as I could have been; I did not even shower beforehand, and, God forgive me, I showed up at the bar wearing Old Navy. Nor was I as respectful as the rest of your audience - but for this you will have to excuse God, for I was not blessed with that awesome ability of auditory multitasking that would have allowed me to sing your praises while you sang for me the wise words of Stevie Nicks. But if you will only accept my gratitude and forgive me my shortcomings, you will be more than repaid for all of your diligence and hard work - for my gratitude itself is indeed immense. Without you, our clothes would be nothing but clothes, our mustaches mere facial hair - and where would we all be then? So I thank you with all my heart for the Music - and for one more excuse to go to the bar.
Liberalism - A Critique (?)
I started this blog as an arena in which I could vent frustrations - frustrations in my personal life, with politics, with religion and with society at large. It seemed that I was spending too much time (and far too much money) discussing these matters in the bar; and of course, I was pushing away a number of friends by doing so. So I decided to air my consciousness online, away from the distractions inherent in social situations and through a medium that might actually reach more people.
So far I've done very little blogging. I wrote a few pieces on the nature of faith and its relationship to reason; I published a couple of numbers on the "politics" of sexuality; and I certainly spilled my emotions here and there. But throughout all this probing and digging, I've been missing the root of a number of problems that affect my day-to-day life. After a very enlightening experience I had last night, I think myself able to dig up that root.
I watched a documentary by Adam Curtis called "The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear." It was an extremely interesting exposé on the Neo-Conservative movement in America, as well as the radical Islamic movement in the Middle East. It traced the philosophical growth of both movements and their political implementations from the middle of the 20th century up until just a few years ago. The main thrust of the argument (and very well made it was) is that both movements employed very much the same means to achieve (or fail to achieve) their goals, and that both movements grew out of the same philosophical assumptions. It is the philosophical assumptions, discussed but not explored in the film, that I wish to explore here.
Leo Strauss and Sayyid Qutb - an German-American academic and an Egyptian civil servant, respectively - are the originators of the political philosophies that have grown into American Neo-Conservativism and radical Islam (again, respectively). Both of these men were avid critics of American society during the post-war period, and both established a cause and root for the problems they perceived: it was Liberalism.
Now let's make one thing clear here: by "Liberalism," I do not mean, and they did not mean, "leftist politics." That is a very contemporary definition of the word, and a very bad one at that. By "Liberalism," I am (and they were) referring to "Classical Liberalism" - the unquestionable freedom of the individual, the worship of democracy, the belief in equality and the critique of traditional values. They believed that Liberalism had led to a veritable decomposition of society: a relativistic, morally decaying heap of self-centered individuals, all of whom were constantly engaged in selfish, superficial, unproductive activities. I ask you to momentarily consider the "sins" with which radical Islam has charged America, and the "sins" with which the Religious Right has charged America - they are almost identical, and can be summed up in a few words: Jersey Shore, Toddlers and Tiaras, midget wrestling, daytime television, "Forever Lazy," Brittany Spears, O.J. Simpson, ready-to-eat bacon - etc, etc, etc. It was believed by these men that Liberalism, in its classical formulations, was the real and hidden sickness of which these few examples were mere symptoms.
This is the point in our exploration where I am going to go further than Curtis's documentary (again, it was superb and should be watched) - for I am going to join the two aforementioned men for a moment and dig up that root that's been evading me for so long. I wish to criticize, for just a bloody second, the concept and logical conclusion of Classical Liberalism itself; because, though we as a society still wholeheartedly embrace the concept, we refuse to admit that we are living in its logical conclusion.
Though Wikipedia will tell you that Classical Liberalism was developed in the 19th century, one must look back another three hundred years to find its earliest formulations - we see them in the writings of Sir Francis Bacon, René Descartes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, David Hume and Adam Smith, to name only the most famous authors. And while Descartes believed in freedom of the mind, whereas Locke promoted freedom of action - there are a number of such discrepancies - one can read the entire catalogue of the Enlightenment philosophers (and their progeny) as a vast break with the dogmatic tradition of the Middle Ages in favor of a more modern, individualistic perspective.
There are three tenets on which Classical Liberalism rests, and they are all developed in the philosophical movement (called "Modern Philosophy") that stems from the Enlightenment. Reason - that which Descartes claimed is the most common trait shared among men - is first and foremost, and is praised at the expense of Faith; Science is its logical outcome, and is increasingly viewed as a more "reasonable" replacement for Religion; and Democracy, finally, steps in to replace the age-old concept of God.
Let me take a minute and explain the last of these three, for it seems odd to compare a political ideology to the most sacred word in the history of Western society. Let us take as our first instance the concept of "truth." In the philosophy of the Middle Ages and Antiquity, "truth" carried many of the same connotations it does today: it suggests a bundle of ideas, including "irrefutable fact," "that which is known certainly," "that which is right and not wrong," etc. The difference between "truth" in the Liberal sense and "truth" in the pre-Enlightenment sense is the source from whence truth comes: in olden days, Truth came from God; today, Truth comes from the Majority. How many times have you seen an argument settled by Wikipedia; how many times have you seen a poll of x-number of individuals cited as a credible source? And how many times - this is a hard question, because it will make you uncomfortable - how many times have you seen the beliefs and principles of men change, in favor of the beliefs and principles of the Majority?
One last digression on Democracy as God, and we'll get back to the critique of Liberalism. In old-timey politics, a king or queen was respected as such because they were believed to receive their power from God himself. In today's democratic societies, a President or Prime Minister is respected as such because he is believed to receive his power directly from - the Majority vote. With respect to the art of yesteryears, an artist was thought to receive his talent from God; in today's world, an artist is talented based on the sole fact that he is popular. I leave it to you to think more about this matter - my digression is becoming lengthy.
So throughout the past five hundred years, we have the three tenets of Classical Liberalism - Reason, Science and Democracy - growing to fill the roles once filled by Faith, Religion and God, respectively. And if we wanted one word to describe the very human trait that Classical Liberalism sought to eradicate, we would be quite right in saying that Reason, Science and Democracy are three grand steps on the road to eradicating piety.
This thing, this "piety," was something the Enlightenment philosophers rightfully viewed as dangerous: an overly pious society could be easily subjected and ruthlessly taken advantage of - for "piety," of course, is another word for "respect." Plato describes piety as a self-serving, self-aggrandizing mode of thought and behavior: to think piously did nothing more than to make one more pious; to act piously made one more likely to commit pious acts. Karen Armstrong describes religion as a thought process as well as a practice, the one reinforcing the other and making one stronger in one's faith. Finally, South Park suggests (from the mouth of an otter) that perhaps the mere belief in God makes God exist. These are all different descriptions of the same phenomenon, namely that one's having respect for something reinforces one's respect for that something - a positive feedback loop in its most simple manifestation.
Both Leo Strauss and Sayyid Qutb were distressed by American society, and their distress stemmed from this observation: they saw that Americans had almost no sense of piety or respect. But this is where these men were wrong. It is true that Americans don't have any piety or respect for traditional, pre-Enlightenment values - Liberalism saw to it that piety of that sort was eliminated. But the goal of the Enlightenment philosophers - to eradicate piety itself - was not achieved by any means. For what we have today is Faith in Reason; Science as Religion; and Democracy as God. Strauss and Qutb made the mistake of believing that Liberalism's original intention of destroying piety had been achieved; but what has actually been achieved is a momentary displacement of piety from the mystical to the rational.
It is my contention that piety, in moderation and in harmony with a sense of individual freedom, is not at all a danger - it is, in fact, an extremely healthy mode of operation. Neither is a healthy respect for the mystical and the unknown, with an equal respect for the concrete and the known - both form parts of the human condition without which we cannot function. What is dangerous - what the Enlightenment philosophers knew and saw as dangerous - is too much piety, unchecked by freedom of thought and originality. But what is even more dangerous - what I see as dangerous today - is the pious belief that piety itself is poisonous. When men put their Faith in Reason, and then turn around to decry Faith; when men follow Science religiously, and decry Religion in all shapes and forms; when men follow the edicts of the Majority as though they were the edicts of God, and scream at the top of their lungs that God does not exist - well, then these men have become hypocrites.
Liberalism has redirected our sense of respect from the sphere of the divine to the sphere of the human. And this would be quite alright if you would all realize that we are all mere humans - all too human.
So far I've done very little blogging. I wrote a few pieces on the nature of faith and its relationship to reason; I published a couple of numbers on the "politics" of sexuality; and I certainly spilled my emotions here and there. But throughout all this probing and digging, I've been missing the root of a number of problems that affect my day-to-day life. After a very enlightening experience I had last night, I think myself able to dig up that root.
I watched a documentary by Adam Curtis called "The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear." It was an extremely interesting exposé on the Neo-Conservative movement in America, as well as the radical Islamic movement in the Middle East. It traced the philosophical growth of both movements and their political implementations from the middle of the 20th century up until just a few years ago. The main thrust of the argument (and very well made it was) is that both movements employed very much the same means to achieve (or fail to achieve) their goals, and that both movements grew out of the same philosophical assumptions. It is the philosophical assumptions, discussed but not explored in the film, that I wish to explore here.
Leo Strauss and Sayyid Qutb - an German-American academic and an Egyptian civil servant, respectively - are the originators of the political philosophies that have grown into American Neo-Conservativism and radical Islam (again, respectively). Both of these men were avid critics of American society during the post-war period, and both established a cause and root for the problems they perceived: it was Liberalism.
Now let's make one thing clear here: by "Liberalism," I do not mean, and they did not mean, "leftist politics." That is a very contemporary definition of the word, and a very bad one at that. By "Liberalism," I am (and they were) referring to "Classical Liberalism" - the unquestionable freedom of the individual, the worship of democracy, the belief in equality and the critique of traditional values. They believed that Liberalism had led to a veritable decomposition of society: a relativistic, morally decaying heap of self-centered individuals, all of whom were constantly engaged in selfish, superficial, unproductive activities. I ask you to momentarily consider the "sins" with which radical Islam has charged America, and the "sins" with which the Religious Right has charged America - they are almost identical, and can be summed up in a few words: Jersey Shore, Toddlers and Tiaras, midget wrestling, daytime television, "Forever Lazy," Brittany Spears, O.J. Simpson, ready-to-eat bacon - etc, etc, etc. It was believed by these men that Liberalism, in its classical formulations, was the real and hidden sickness of which these few examples were mere symptoms.
This is the point in our exploration where I am going to go further than Curtis's documentary (again, it was superb and should be watched) - for I am going to join the two aforementioned men for a moment and dig up that root that's been evading me for so long. I wish to criticize, for just a bloody second, the concept and logical conclusion of Classical Liberalism itself; because, though we as a society still wholeheartedly embrace the concept, we refuse to admit that we are living in its logical conclusion.
Though Wikipedia will tell you that Classical Liberalism was developed in the 19th century, one must look back another three hundred years to find its earliest formulations - we see them in the writings of Sir Francis Bacon, René Descartes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, David Hume and Adam Smith, to name only the most famous authors. And while Descartes believed in freedom of the mind, whereas Locke promoted freedom of action - there are a number of such discrepancies - one can read the entire catalogue of the Enlightenment philosophers (and their progeny) as a vast break with the dogmatic tradition of the Middle Ages in favor of a more modern, individualistic perspective.
There are three tenets on which Classical Liberalism rests, and they are all developed in the philosophical movement (called "Modern Philosophy") that stems from the Enlightenment. Reason - that which Descartes claimed is the most common trait shared among men - is first and foremost, and is praised at the expense of Faith; Science is its logical outcome, and is increasingly viewed as a more "reasonable" replacement for Religion; and Democracy, finally, steps in to replace the age-old concept of God.
Let me take a minute and explain the last of these three, for it seems odd to compare a political ideology to the most sacred word in the history of Western society. Let us take as our first instance the concept of "truth." In the philosophy of the Middle Ages and Antiquity, "truth" carried many of the same connotations it does today: it suggests a bundle of ideas, including "irrefutable fact," "that which is known certainly," "that which is right and not wrong," etc. The difference between "truth" in the Liberal sense and "truth" in the pre-Enlightenment sense is the source from whence truth comes: in olden days, Truth came from God; today, Truth comes from the Majority. How many times have you seen an argument settled by Wikipedia; how many times have you seen a poll of x-number of individuals cited as a credible source? And how many times - this is a hard question, because it will make you uncomfortable - how many times have you seen the beliefs and principles of men change, in favor of the beliefs and principles of the Majority?
One last digression on Democracy as God, and we'll get back to the critique of Liberalism. In old-timey politics, a king or queen was respected as such because they were believed to receive their power from God himself. In today's democratic societies, a President or Prime Minister is respected as such because he is believed to receive his power directly from - the Majority vote. With respect to the art of yesteryears, an artist was thought to receive his talent from God; in today's world, an artist is talented based on the sole fact that he is popular. I leave it to you to think more about this matter - my digression is becoming lengthy.
So throughout the past five hundred years, we have the three tenets of Classical Liberalism - Reason, Science and Democracy - growing to fill the roles once filled by Faith, Religion and God, respectively. And if we wanted one word to describe the very human trait that Classical Liberalism sought to eradicate, we would be quite right in saying that Reason, Science and Democracy are three grand steps on the road to eradicating piety.
This thing, this "piety," was something the Enlightenment philosophers rightfully viewed as dangerous: an overly pious society could be easily subjected and ruthlessly taken advantage of - for "piety," of course, is another word for "respect." Plato describes piety as a self-serving, self-aggrandizing mode of thought and behavior: to think piously did nothing more than to make one more pious; to act piously made one more likely to commit pious acts. Karen Armstrong describes religion as a thought process as well as a practice, the one reinforcing the other and making one stronger in one's faith. Finally, South Park suggests (from the mouth of an otter) that perhaps the mere belief in God makes God exist. These are all different descriptions of the same phenomenon, namely that one's having respect for something reinforces one's respect for that something - a positive feedback loop in its most simple manifestation.
Both Leo Strauss and Sayyid Qutb were distressed by American society, and their distress stemmed from this observation: they saw that Americans had almost no sense of piety or respect. But this is where these men were wrong. It is true that Americans don't have any piety or respect for traditional, pre-Enlightenment values - Liberalism saw to it that piety of that sort was eliminated. But the goal of the Enlightenment philosophers - to eradicate piety itself - was not achieved by any means. For what we have today is Faith in Reason; Science as Religion; and Democracy as God. Strauss and Qutb made the mistake of believing that Liberalism's original intention of destroying piety had been achieved; but what has actually been achieved is a momentary displacement of piety from the mystical to the rational.
It is my contention that piety, in moderation and in harmony with a sense of individual freedom, is not at all a danger - it is, in fact, an extremely healthy mode of operation. Neither is a healthy respect for the mystical and the unknown, with an equal respect for the concrete and the known - both form parts of the human condition without which we cannot function. What is dangerous - what the Enlightenment philosophers knew and saw as dangerous - is too much piety, unchecked by freedom of thought and originality. But what is even more dangerous - what I see as dangerous today - is the pious belief that piety itself is poisonous. When men put their Faith in Reason, and then turn around to decry Faith; when men follow Science religiously, and decry Religion in all shapes and forms; when men follow the edicts of the Majority as though they were the edicts of God, and scream at the top of their lungs that God does not exist - well, then these men have become hypocrites.
Liberalism has redirected our sense of respect from the sphere of the divine to the sphere of the human. And this would be quite alright if you would all realize that we are all mere humans - all too human.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Ignorant Savants
For all the benefits that come with our living in the Age of Information, human beings have yet to step beyond the great hindrance that is our personal bias. For over a century now we've lived with daily updates concerning our communities, our nations and our world as a whole - and yet we still cannot believe, standing upon the Great Inauguration of the 21st century, that the "world" we know through the media is any closer to reality than the one described a hundred years ago; and this, for the very simple reason that reporters have always preferred certain truths.
It's very easy for an individual to believe that the media is simply lying to us: all that person has to do is shut his ears and disregard everything reported. But for those with more refined tastes and intellects, the job is much harder: we have the job of digging, sifting and sorting, i.e. of interpreting the information we receive. The source from whence it comes, the audience for which it's intended, the form through which it is transmitted and the minuteness of its detail - all of these factors and more must be brought to bear upon the fact being considered, until it appears within and alongside the web and tissue of relations with other facts, points of view and situations, as "science," "journalism" or "propaganda" - in one word, until we get the fact situated in its proper context.
In short, a person who wants to really live in the world presented to him, who wants to go beyond the statistical abstraction and dry facticity that make up the landscape of the "global picture" - such a person must undo and thereby escape the influence of precisely that which got him access to the information in the first place: the purely individual bias that led someone to pluck it out of context and report it to the world at large. Not able to flat-out refuse the information received, unable to erase the existence of a fact experienced, he must nevertheless place it "in suspense" - and carry on about his day.
Indeed, the only drawback to the plethora of information today is that too many of us are so partisan with our use of it. We accept what we accept, reject what we reject, and then stand in full-fledged self-righteousness to praise or condemn that which we really know nothing about. The facts pile up beneath us, dry and gray, and the more we have the higher the soapbox on which we can stand - and still our lives are as dry and gray as the mountains from which we preach. We have lost the art of interpretation, the slow and ponderous skills required to transform empty assertions into colors, sounds and impressions - we have, my friends, lost most of the art of Living.
It's very easy for an individual to believe that the media is simply lying to us: all that person has to do is shut his ears and disregard everything reported. But for those with more refined tastes and intellects, the job is much harder: we have the job of digging, sifting and sorting, i.e. of interpreting the information we receive. The source from whence it comes, the audience for which it's intended, the form through which it is transmitted and the minuteness of its detail - all of these factors and more must be brought to bear upon the fact being considered, until it appears within and alongside the web and tissue of relations with other facts, points of view and situations, as "science," "journalism" or "propaganda" - in one word, until we get the fact situated in its proper context.
In short, a person who wants to really live in the world presented to him, who wants to go beyond the statistical abstraction and dry facticity that make up the landscape of the "global picture" - such a person must undo and thereby escape the influence of precisely that which got him access to the information in the first place: the purely individual bias that led someone to pluck it out of context and report it to the world at large. Not able to flat-out refuse the information received, unable to erase the existence of a fact experienced, he must nevertheless place it "in suspense" - and carry on about his day.
Indeed, the only drawback to the plethora of information today is that too many of us are so partisan with our use of it. We accept what we accept, reject what we reject, and then stand in full-fledged self-righteousness to praise or condemn that which we really know nothing about. The facts pile up beneath us, dry and gray, and the more we have the higher the soapbox on which we can stand - and still our lives are as dry and gray as the mountains from which we preach. We have lost the art of interpretation, the slow and ponderous skills required to transform empty assertions into colors, sounds and impressions - we have, my friends, lost most of the art of Living.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
If you Americans want to use the word "democracy" as much as you do, you should probably know a few things about it.
"Democracy" was first brought into theory by the Greeks. The Greek theorists were familiar with, and put into words on many occasions, the idea that the majority of people were not capable of "running things" - but they were also familiar with the fact that the majority of people are prone to violent revolution when they feel they are being overtly manipulated (this being a matter of pride). So the most idealist Greeks came up with this idea of "democracy": a system in which a "bunch" of people - landowning Athenian males of reputable standing - established the laws that were to apply to "all" the people. It practically implemented the cherished idea of the Just Mean, and at the same time gave comfort and security (i.e. complacency) to those whose voices were not heard - because surely their opinion would be shared with someone in the aforementioned "bunch." Surely someone would represent their voice.
And here I have to stand up, my fellow Americans, and reiterate this tedious fact once again: that "democracy" is just as much an idealism as socialism or Marxism, despite what the British would have to say; that it was devised, and exists today, as a fig leaf under which can safely and undetectedly operate the mechanisms of despotism and unnatural aristocracy; and finally (and most importantly), that it promises equality where there is none, so that us individuals will fight against ourselves rather than take responsibility for the state of our Union.
This, my fellow Americans, is the state of the Union: you're all riled up and scared shitless. And you probably have "democracy" to blame.
"Democracy" was first brought into theory by the Greeks. The Greek theorists were familiar with, and put into words on many occasions, the idea that the majority of people were not capable of "running things" - but they were also familiar with the fact that the majority of people are prone to violent revolution when they feel they are being overtly manipulated (this being a matter of pride). So the most idealist Greeks came up with this idea of "democracy": a system in which a "bunch" of people - landowning Athenian males of reputable standing - established the laws that were to apply to "all" the people. It practically implemented the cherished idea of the Just Mean, and at the same time gave comfort and security (i.e. complacency) to those whose voices were not heard - because surely their opinion would be shared with someone in the aforementioned "bunch." Surely someone would represent their voice.
And here I have to stand up, my fellow Americans, and reiterate this tedious fact once again: that "democracy" is just as much an idealism as socialism or Marxism, despite what the British would have to say; that it was devised, and exists today, as a fig leaf under which can safely and undetectedly operate the mechanisms of despotism and unnatural aristocracy; and finally (and most importantly), that it promises equality where there is none, so that us individuals will fight against ourselves rather than take responsibility for the state of our Union.
This, my fellow Americans, is the state of the Union: you're all riled up and scared shitless. And you probably have "democracy" to blame.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Sodomy à la mode
You know, as a gay guy I've never really had a problem with fucking someone in the ass. It's often a really enjoyable experience - sometimes on both ends - and "anti-sodomy" people have quite frankly become a joke in recent years. What's so wrong with fucking someone in the ass?
Oh - oh dearest, cock-handling me, and excuses all around. I forgot about the goddamned Liberals. We all know these guys are sensitive people, and we wouldn't want to offend their sensibilities. Let's see what those sensibilities are, because God knows that Liberals can get nasty when Liberals get offended.
For starters, there's things like Enron, or Wall Street. Those are bad words, because they mean a bunch of rich people fucking a bunch of not-so-rich people in their not-so-rich asses. I can understand the case against sodomy there, although I think we have better things to worry about. But let's take Catholics - Catholics is another bad word, because a flock of frocked middle-agers decided that little boys were easy prey - and by "prey" I mean, "fuck-in-the-buttable" - by little boys, I mean "Damn, they're only thirteen." - by "frocked middle-agers" I mean a bunch of weird guys, blessed with dicks that God "told" them never to use. No wonder they took the easy prey...
But now I'm sidetracking, and probably offending the Liberals (are the Conservatives queasy yet?). The point is, if an Enron or a priest or a babysitter fucks someone in the ass, it's wrong and against the law. If a man like myself - with all my own dirty little quirks and quinks and quibbles - if a man like myself actually fucks a person in the ass, it's really cool. It's actually awesome. It's protected by laws and lobbyists and pressure groups. Feminists jump around us and tell us how spectacular we are for doing it. The President himself comes down from his world-rearing perch and kisses us on the cheek - and all I can think is "Fuck. that. shit."
If you want to tell me that having a cock, or a carrot, or a cucumber rammed up your asshole is a pleasurable experience, well hell, I'll listen to what you have to say. I bet it is, and I'd try it if not for my hemorrhoids. But if anyone with a virgin asshole - and by that I mean "anyone who has never been fucked in the ass by a cock or a carrot or cucumber" - if any of them tries to tell me that being fucked in the ass is a horrible thing metaphorically, and a human right when actually done physically (with cock, carrot or cucumber) - well damn. That kind of person has no idea what the hell he's talking about, and shouldn't be talking.
Fucking is part of Life. Being fucked is also part of Life. The ramming of something up somebody's somepart has been an established human practice for millions of years, and our primate predecessors still do it today. But this new thing, this "legislation" - for or against anyone fucking anybody - is stupid, and boring, and pointless: because people will keep fucking each other in the pooper, regardless.
So I have an idea (we'll call it an alternative): let's take all those good intentions and stick them up our asses - or better yet, since I have hemorrhoids, let's stick them up the Liberals' asses, and we'll at least spare me the pain (sorry if you're a Liberal with hemorrhoids). Take your laws against sodomy, and stuff 'em right up. Take your pressure groups in favor of, lube 'em up all slick, and slide 'em right on in. Because the truth of the matter is, people are going to fuck people - in the ass - and they're not going to feel any better or worse about it because of You Self-Righteous Pricks.
And if anyone was wondering, I will fuck you in the ass to prove my point. If you buy me dinner. And snuggle afterwards.
Oh - oh dearest, cock-handling me, and excuses all around. I forgot about the goddamned Liberals. We all know these guys are sensitive people, and we wouldn't want to offend their sensibilities. Let's see what those sensibilities are, because God knows that Liberals can get nasty when Liberals get offended.
For starters, there's things like Enron, or Wall Street. Those are bad words, because they mean a bunch of rich people fucking a bunch of not-so-rich people in their not-so-rich asses. I can understand the case against sodomy there, although I think we have better things to worry about. But let's take Catholics - Catholics is another bad word, because a flock of frocked middle-agers decided that little boys were easy prey - and by "prey" I mean, "fuck-in-the-buttable" - by little boys, I mean "Damn, they're only thirteen." - by "frocked middle-agers" I mean a bunch of weird guys, blessed with dicks that God "told" them never to use. No wonder they took the easy prey...
But now I'm sidetracking, and probably offending the Liberals (are the Conservatives queasy yet?). The point is, if an Enron or a priest or a babysitter fucks someone in the ass, it's wrong and against the law. If a man like myself - with all my own dirty little quirks and quinks and quibbles - if a man like myself actually fucks a person in the ass, it's really cool. It's actually awesome. It's protected by laws and lobbyists and pressure groups. Feminists jump around us and tell us how spectacular we are for doing it. The President himself comes down from his world-rearing perch and kisses us on the cheek - and all I can think is "Fuck. that. shit."
If you want to tell me that having a cock, or a carrot, or a cucumber rammed up your asshole is a pleasurable experience, well hell, I'll listen to what you have to say. I bet it is, and I'd try it if not for my hemorrhoids. But if anyone with a virgin asshole - and by that I mean "anyone who has never been fucked in the ass by a cock or a carrot or cucumber" - if any of them tries to tell me that being fucked in the ass is a horrible thing metaphorically, and a human right when actually done physically (with cock, carrot or cucumber) - well damn. That kind of person has no idea what the hell he's talking about, and shouldn't be talking.
Fucking is part of Life. Being fucked is also part of Life. The ramming of something up somebody's somepart has been an established human practice for millions of years, and our primate predecessors still do it today. But this new thing, this "legislation" - for or against anyone fucking anybody - is stupid, and boring, and pointless: because people will keep fucking each other in the pooper, regardless.
So I have an idea (we'll call it an alternative): let's take all those good intentions and stick them up our asses - or better yet, since I have hemorrhoids, let's stick them up the Liberals' asses, and we'll at least spare me the pain (sorry if you're a Liberal with hemorrhoids). Take your laws against sodomy, and stuff 'em right up. Take your pressure groups in favor of, lube 'em up all slick, and slide 'em right on in. Because the truth of the matter is, people are going to fuck people - in the ass - and they're not going to feel any better or worse about it because of You Self-Righteous Pricks.
And if anyone was wondering, I will fuck you in the ass to prove my point. If you buy me dinner. And snuggle afterwards.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Hey, boy. Hey.
I'm scared to say that I love you. I'm scared of all the little things that could go wrong, and the things I could lose. I'm scared of the things I could gain - but mostly I'm scared of being embarrassed. In fact -
I'm embarrassed.
Let's be honest: I'm just all-around inside/outside embarrassed. I'm embarrassed of the way my heart moves, or that part of my brain I like to call "my heart" - it's way down in the bottom and way up at the top, and it leaks around the sides and gets gooey in the cracks. I'm embarrassed of the little nosey-snuggle things it wants me to do to you, and the stubbornness, and the silly way it laughs. I'm embarrassed, because it thinks you think that I think too much. Too little.
I'm embarrassed.
I'm not even sure you could handle that part of me. I think it's too fat, too sweaty, too fuzzy and sticky. It's got too many tongues, not enough fingers, and two big, rosy cheeks that would smother a cute little face like yours. I think it probably wants to smother your face. It wants to lick you, and tickle you, and poke at your belly. It wants to walk up behind you while you're eating your breakfast and put its head on your shoulder, so it can see what you're eating. Maybe you'll feed it some yogurt. I think it really hopes you will.
It probably doesn't want to hold your hand in public, although it might. It definitely doesn't want to go down on you in a movie theater.
I'm embarrassed.
I have a part that doesn't get to see daylight very much. It could be my own fault, and it could be yours - do you have to be so intimidating? It keeps trying to come out and play, but it's scared of the big boys and the bullies - it thinks you might be one. It's scared of "No," and "Maybe," and "I don't think so." It's scared of rejection.
I don't know all the things it would do if it got out. It might go shopping, but I don't think so. It would probably snuggle up with you and watch a movie, but I don't think you would let it. It would certainly stare at strangers from across the room, and forget to file its tax returns, and eat its own boogers. On Saturdays it would dress up as Charlie Chaplin and dance with jiggaboos in local Irish pubs, and on Sunday it would go to church as Hitler so it wouldn't have to shave. It would keep both costumes clean and pressed. Shoulder pads on Sunday.
I'm embarrassed.
It wants you to know all these things and more, but it can't seem to make me tell you. It wants you to love, and be loved, and it's jealous enough to want me to be the loved and the lover - but I'm scared of it. I'm scared of it, I'm scared of my sticky-fluffy part - and that's why I'm embarrassed.
But I do think you'd like him. And he'd like you.
I'm embarrassed.
Let's be honest: I'm just all-around inside/outside embarrassed. I'm embarrassed of the way my heart moves, or that part of my brain I like to call "my heart" - it's way down in the bottom and way up at the top, and it leaks around the sides and gets gooey in the cracks. I'm embarrassed of the little nosey-snuggle things it wants me to do to you, and the stubbornness, and the silly way it laughs. I'm embarrassed, because it thinks you think that I think too much. Too little.
I'm embarrassed.
I'm not even sure you could handle that part of me. I think it's too fat, too sweaty, too fuzzy and sticky. It's got too many tongues, not enough fingers, and two big, rosy cheeks that would smother a cute little face like yours. I think it probably wants to smother your face. It wants to lick you, and tickle you, and poke at your belly. It wants to walk up behind you while you're eating your breakfast and put its head on your shoulder, so it can see what you're eating. Maybe you'll feed it some yogurt. I think it really hopes you will.
It probably doesn't want to hold your hand in public, although it might. It definitely doesn't want to go down on you in a movie theater.
I'm embarrassed.
I have a part that doesn't get to see daylight very much. It could be my own fault, and it could be yours - do you have to be so intimidating? It keeps trying to come out and play, but it's scared of the big boys and the bullies - it thinks you might be one. It's scared of "No," and "Maybe," and "I don't think so." It's scared of rejection.
I don't know all the things it would do if it got out. It might go shopping, but I don't think so. It would probably snuggle up with you and watch a movie, but I don't think you would let it. It would certainly stare at strangers from across the room, and forget to file its tax returns, and eat its own boogers. On Saturdays it would dress up as Charlie Chaplin and dance with jiggaboos in local Irish pubs, and on Sunday it would go to church as Hitler so it wouldn't have to shave. It would keep both costumes clean and pressed. Shoulder pads on Sunday.
I'm embarrassed.
It wants you to know all these things and more, but it can't seem to make me tell you. It wants you to love, and be loved, and it's jealous enough to want me to be the loved and the lover - but I'm scared of it. I'm scared of it, I'm scared of my sticky-fluffy part - and that's why I'm embarrassed.
But I do think you'd like him. And he'd like you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)