I wish I could paint. I want to draw because words are obscure, the worst kind of medium;
our saliva adhesive gluing phrases together - we mutter cliches absentmindedly, unaware of what they really mean.
Words are counter productive, they are hopelessly abstract while
Images are organic and reliable.
I get the feeling when I look at a wholehearted picture, a classic visage, that description is irrelevant. Having described the sunset I forgot how it looked, I only remember how it sounded - for all my pale representations of ailing tokens I've presented very little in the way of any discernible experience. Feeling through the dark, every writer is trying to thumb her way along the light switch, constructing a weak imagining of what it looks like from how it feels in the dark.
Although I still love language, over and over again I'm finding its limitations.
Always in the face of something larger; always mediating between some truth and the rest.
Peace,
from the warzone,
Jesse Paul Borg.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Sunday, April 19, 2009
On Thinking About "One Size Fits All"
One size fits all - I like the feel of this phrase.
Sometimes I simply like to evaluate these North American sayings. Eventually we'll stop creating proverbs or even cliches; we'll just have commercials. Lingo. Jargon.
It's maddening to think about the endless inconsistencies that trouble any philosophy. Perhaps it is merely a product of being an undergraduate, struggling to grasp the weight of hundreds of years of thinking - how every idea comes from other splintered ideas, all native to different times and spaces. Scholarship, or at least my experience with it, is chocked full of disconnected ideas. We seem to break things apart to better understand them. You'll hear about some thing's political relevance, or its social relevance, its relevance to the environment or to economics, rarely do you discuss an idea as such. Perhaps we do this in philosophy. Philosophy seems to be the only discipline capable of getting down to brass tacks and committing itself to the honest toil of human thought.
I'm going somewhere with this: I think we've taken this 'one size fits all' attitude and mapped it all over ourselves. It seeps into all our institutions and habits.
I'm getting a 'one size fits all' education.
I write 'one size fits all' songs.
At a time when we are allegedly expanding our borders and constantly coming face to face with new realities, we are boiling everything down to a lowest common denominator, cause' we're lazy. All of our sub-dividing makes real consideration impossible. If I look at a group of people and gather up a series of characteristics they all seem to share I marginalize them and my own knowledge. It's bigger than stereotyping - it's in everything. We are incapable of seeing the big picture.
It's those fucking microwaves. Maybe I'm not as lazy cause I never had one. But we can get anything warmed up in a couple minutes. The Internet - we can watch or buy or listen to whatever we want in a couple minutes, which is fine. However, when we can't figure something out in a couple minutes - when we stare into the vast abyss of all our unsolved problems we cower, searching frantically for a way to speed up our enlightenment, which seems inherently counter productive.
I hope I'm not turning myself into some kind of moch-guru-blog-guy. You know, the kind of person who clutters the Internet with "wisdom" - I'm just thinking out loud here. 'One size fits all' is an interesting concept, especially when you look at it not just as a slogan or a manufacturing tool, but in its relation to everything it touches.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Everything wrong with Earth Week
Let me start by confronting the obvious constraints here: Earth Week and the like are not evil concepts, they generally operate out of a desire to do some good. Also, I have little time to commit to this argument. However, amidst all my facebook invitations to earth balls, and earth parties, I feel the need to expound on the few troubling aspects of this new earth friendly sentiment we're all adopting.
Relax.
I am not a raving fatalist - some religious fanatic who believes that climate change is judgment day, and is thus inevitable. Neither am I some conservative freak who treats science like a movie based on true events. I understand climate change to some degree. I am university educated, and I'm told that counts for something. However, I think that what we're doing to solve climate change is micro-managing. Micro managing rarely works in the business world, I don't expect it to work for the world-world. We are being told, by and large, that we all have to 'do our part' to solve this 'environment problem', which, although being true, puts us in a position to slight climate change, but hardly takes the problem seriously enough to stop it. Essentially, we are being duped. These commercials, funded by the government and some private corporations, put the burden squarely on the shoulders of the voters and consumers. I guess that's what we should expect. Our notion of I, informed by hundreds of years of capitalist methodology, turns us into solipsists. Our ideas on success and responsibility have morphed - I think a good analogy of these warped ideas comes from the world of sport.
Prof. Mark Kingwell, in his book Practical Judgements, discusses how capitalism and modern political theory in North America has infiltrated sport. Only a short time ago, when the media asked professional athletes about losing they were, for the most part graceful. They responded with common, rehearsed maxims like " it's not all about winning", or "I thought we played well, we've learned a lot from this loss". The climate has changed now (aha), the doctrine has shifted and losing is far less acceptable. The new maxims are "I will be better", and "losing is not an option" - we live in an era where winning is everything. Also, in the new sportworld, or at least its media face, is admittedly less team oriented. There is more emphasis on the abilities of a few key players. Quite simply, we live in a time where when Cleavland and L.A play this NBA finals (which they will), it will be Lebron v. Koby. The media will divide two whole teams by their best players - they will simplify the playing field. This is what we are doing with climate change.
The environment has been weighed down with the debris of centuries of industrial empire all over the globe. Although the consumer has been careless and wasteful, we've impacted the total environment much less than the natural resource industries, or companies that drop waste in the ocean, which has resulted in a trash island the size of Texas. We've lost the team mentality. We're being told that we, the star players, should be better and we should not accept failure, we must take responsibility for the group's mistakes and pick up the proverbial slack. Ultimately, this is laziness on the part of the public and private sector, who can, by pushing this burden on the consumer, maintain the status quot.
Why do people like these kinds of theories?
It is easier to put in place a system that, in theory, allows for individual citizens to succeed in whatever goal, with prime efficiency, and when they fail, we can say it's their fault exclusively. Large scale planning, however, insures that the system that is put in place benefits the most people, although perhaps to a lesser extent. For a problem like the entire environment though, large-scale plans have the necessary capacity to make significant gains. Consolidation and sacrifices made by those who have the greatest, most detrimental effect on the environment will make for better handling of climate change. In the face of these real attempts to stop what is virtually the end of the world, earth parties seem kind of laughable.
Peace,
from the war zone,
Jesse.
Relax.
I am not a raving fatalist - some religious fanatic who believes that climate change is judgment day, and is thus inevitable. Neither am I some conservative freak who treats science like a movie based on true events. I understand climate change to some degree. I am university educated, and I'm told that counts for something. However, I think that what we're doing to solve climate change is micro-managing. Micro managing rarely works in the business world, I don't expect it to work for the world-world. We are being told, by and large, that we all have to 'do our part' to solve this 'environment problem', which, although being true, puts us in a position to slight climate change, but hardly takes the problem seriously enough to stop it. Essentially, we are being duped. These commercials, funded by the government and some private corporations, put the burden squarely on the shoulders of the voters and consumers. I guess that's what we should expect. Our notion of I, informed by hundreds of years of capitalist methodology, turns us into solipsists. Our ideas on success and responsibility have morphed - I think a good analogy of these warped ideas comes from the world of sport.
Prof. Mark Kingwell, in his book Practical Judgements, discusses how capitalism and modern political theory in North America has infiltrated sport. Only a short time ago, when the media asked professional athletes about losing they were, for the most part graceful. They responded with common, rehearsed maxims like " it's not all about winning", or "I thought we played well, we've learned a lot from this loss". The climate has changed now (aha), the doctrine has shifted and losing is far less acceptable. The new maxims are "I will be better", and "losing is not an option" - we live in an era where winning is everything. Also, in the new sportworld, or at least its media face, is admittedly less team oriented. There is more emphasis on the abilities of a few key players. Quite simply, we live in a time where when Cleavland and L.A play this NBA finals (which they will), it will be Lebron v. Koby. The media will divide two whole teams by their best players - they will simplify the playing field. This is what we are doing with climate change.
The environment has been weighed down with the debris of centuries of industrial empire all over the globe. Although the consumer has been careless and wasteful, we've impacted the total environment much less than the natural resource industries, or companies that drop waste in the ocean, which has resulted in a trash island the size of Texas. We've lost the team mentality. We're being told that we, the star players, should be better and we should not accept failure, we must take responsibility for the group's mistakes and pick up the proverbial slack. Ultimately, this is laziness on the part of the public and private sector, who can, by pushing this burden on the consumer, maintain the status quot.
Why do people like these kinds of theories?
It is easier to put in place a system that, in theory, allows for individual citizens to succeed in whatever goal, with prime efficiency, and when they fail, we can say it's their fault exclusively. Large scale planning, however, insures that the system that is put in place benefits the most people, although perhaps to a lesser extent. For a problem like the entire environment though, large-scale plans have the necessary capacity to make significant gains. Consolidation and sacrifices made by those who have the greatest, most detrimental effect on the environment will make for better handling of climate change. In the face of these real attempts to stop what is virtually the end of the world, earth parties seem kind of laughable.
Peace,
from the war zone,
Jesse.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Retrieved From Flood Water
I can't find the edited re-draft of this, but I remember it was better.
Contemplating Mercy
Abstract:
This is experimental justice-
words in the furnace - ones
that prodded and nagged - we
upheld out relationship to the flag.
He whose stripes were earned in spades-
stars and crests, the texture of freedom,
woven with stiff, blackened fingers.
We sung songs in graveyards with
men still living.
Then, the dead sound at morning, we logged our findings then.
We made maps, again and again. The stubborn reshaping globe allows a good man
no rest.
Baba Yaga was a kind old woman,
who upheld all our sacred maxims,
she lived in secrecy and silence
and kept young children for company,
whom she scared - to show them the
importance of suspicion and the resolve
only fear can allow.
Intermittent resolution:
one day i will remove all our quotations
and dismantle our disclaimers,
in some heroic search for a modern truth-
one day i will awake in the sunlight
and wade through the crowds and
be unafraid of my father's name-
the world will be harmonious-
i will say you and talk about me and
you will understand - Brave steps towards
an end I saw in a dream:
thalidomide soldiers and cocaine intellectuals
striving together to resurrect the vigilant past.
on my condition:
im driving with wet breaks
wincing and hoping for the best
im enjoying scenery obscured
by metal grates and looking up-
there's something in seeing only half
i find temporarily amusing
i like the sound of words like
justice mercy cajole catch and release
Coco Rico
I heard the rooster cry out, but the
Smell – once again – eluded me.
Waiting for the song to beat along
The rocks and bracing for the rush of
Sudden pressure, I was watching the cows
Lying on their sides and all the other omens.
I waited for the rain. I longed for the flood,
And wanted to hear the song along the
Gravel pits – slamming on the curb, they go
A-trickling, down, down into the sewer.
My mother’s morbid streak allowed me
To imagine myself parched– sticking
My feet into the sand and sweating ash until
I could name the smell that spelt the end of my
Desire – suddenly my father said: “Be rational”.
In the humid summer the kids are getting along,
Keeping up, till’ rain and nights are gone.
Jesse Borg, 2009
Peace,
from the warzone,
jesse.
(i didn't have time to edit - sorry. maybe i will later)
Contemplating Mercy
Abstract:
This is experimental justice-
words in the furnace - ones
that prodded and nagged - we
upheld out relationship to the flag.
He whose stripes were earned in spades-
stars and crests, the texture of freedom,
woven with stiff, blackened fingers.
We sung songs in graveyards with
men still living.
Then, the dead sound at morning, we logged our findings then.
We made maps, again and again. The stubborn reshaping globe allows a good man
no rest.
Baba Yaga was a kind old woman,
who upheld all our sacred maxims,
she lived in secrecy and silence
and kept young children for company,
whom she scared - to show them the
importance of suspicion and the resolve
only fear can allow.
Intermittent resolution:
one day i will remove all our quotations
and dismantle our disclaimers,
in some heroic search for a modern truth-
one day i will awake in the sunlight
and wade through the crowds and
be unafraid of my father's name-
the world will be harmonious-
i will say you and talk about me and
you will understand - Brave steps towards
an end I saw in a dream:
thalidomide soldiers and cocaine intellectuals
striving together to resurrect the vigilant past.
on my condition:
im driving with wet breaks
wincing and hoping for the best
im enjoying scenery obscured
by metal grates and looking up-
there's something in seeing only half
i find temporarily amusing
i like the sound of words like
justice mercy cajole catch and release
Coco Rico
I heard the rooster cry out, but the
Smell – once again – eluded me.
Waiting for the song to beat along
The rocks and bracing for the rush of
Sudden pressure, I was watching the cows
Lying on their sides and all the other omens.
I waited for the rain. I longed for the flood,
And wanted to hear the song along the
Gravel pits – slamming on the curb, they go
A-trickling, down, down into the sewer.
My mother’s morbid streak allowed me
To imagine myself parched– sticking
My feet into the sand and sweating ash until
I could name the smell that spelt the end of my
Desire – suddenly my father said: “Be rational”.
In the humid summer the kids are getting along,
Keeping up, till’ rain and nights are gone.
Jesse Borg, 2009
Peace,
from the warzone,
jesse.
(i didn't have time to edit - sorry. maybe i will later)
21st Century Internet Users: A Culture of Cathartic Stupidity
Freud referred to the moment of release after a long and arduous therapy session as catharsis. Much of Freud's work, as is often common-ish knowledge, revolved around the idea that humans inherently repress their urges, due to internalized public notions of what is and is not acceptable. I'm starting with Freud because I think the Internet, in some distinctly new ways, allows the common person the ability to live out their formerly repressed urges/ideas. We now have a massive blanket of protective anonymity.
How else does one explain the phenomenon of massified fetish porn, the vicious comments left on blogs and YouTube videos, and the behavior in chat rooms? We jumped on this vessel when we realized it allowed us to say whatever we wanted - it allows us to splinter our personalities, to take on whatever persona we desire.
I don't think it's unreasonable to think these desires were always there - they have not been manufactured by the Internet. Sexual fetishes have always existed, as have industries that profit from them - that isn't new. Racism, sexism - these are not new shortcomings either - and the release allowed by anonymity is not as strong as slavery or theocratic societies have permitted. The new feature of these ID-releases is that they are unextraordinary, pedestrian and everywhere.
This implies nothing significantly groundbreaking about human nature, not anything that Freud didn't postulate a century ago. It does speak volumes to his criticizers though. It is becoming increasingly clear that there are SOME urges we are repressing, and they are beginning to shake loose. Our obsession with the absurdities of the commonplace - with reality TV, or embarrassing YouTube videos - is startling. Our appetite for entertainment has mutated us into a culture of exhibitionists and voyeurs.
It is not these facets of Internet culture, however, that worry me. I want to confront the underbelly of this cultural practice, so i can understand our perverse Internet transactions. Essentially, I think the motivations and actions of the exhibitionists are, for the most part, easier to understand - the audience is more interesting. I invite you to surf through YouTube videos and blogs (which you already do, all the time) and read the comments critically, as if they were just as meticulously constructed as the submissions. I want you to be privy to the arguments that break out over the Internet and the seeming passion with which they are pursued.
This isn't normal. These occurrences should stir in you some important questions concerning this emerging e-populace: Why do we feel comfortable saying things on the Internet we would never say otherwise? Are our public reservations that weak? How will these outbursts continue to evolve - and can they achieve something worthwhile?
Our fascination with Internet information alone is obscene. A blog is at best an unsupported argument, and at worst an inane rant. However the blogworld is eclipsing legitimate journalism. We seem to value information less now - which we mask with vague statements about this being the age of information, which is absurd in light of the fall of objectivity. This is the age of disinformation (campy, I know). The effort towards learning is gone - the reverence for intelligence is following, and at a time when information about the world is commonplace, we seem to care less. The Internet could be gateway towards endless knowledge, but let's be honest; we use it to watch people fuck up on a massive scale on YouTube - and to steal shit.
I'm engaging with this now, on my first post, because I want to know where I fit in amongst all the e-bullshit. I want to know whether or not I am just another exhibitionist, providing new smut for the hungry voyeurs? In the face of the enormity of the world-online, I am scrambling to understand its changing features. In response to those semi-cathartic releases we are engaging in, I think they might be useful, especially for Canadians. Perhaps politeness is old-guard. I'm not talking about please and thank yous, and I'm not talking about holding back from your tendency towards inarticulate rage (please, continue to stave that off). However, I think we may need to say what we think more often. If we had been doing that all along, we would never have resorted to these large scale angry releases.
Peace,
from the war-zone.
Jesse.
How else does one explain the phenomenon of massified fetish porn, the vicious comments left on blogs and YouTube videos, and the behavior in chat rooms? We jumped on this vessel when we realized it allowed us to say whatever we wanted - it allows us to splinter our personalities, to take on whatever persona we desire.
I don't think it's unreasonable to think these desires were always there - they have not been manufactured by the Internet. Sexual fetishes have always existed, as have industries that profit from them - that isn't new. Racism, sexism - these are not new shortcomings either - and the release allowed by anonymity is not as strong as slavery or theocratic societies have permitted. The new feature of these ID-releases is that they are unextraordinary, pedestrian and everywhere.
This implies nothing significantly groundbreaking about human nature, not anything that Freud didn't postulate a century ago. It does speak volumes to his criticizers though. It is becoming increasingly clear that there are SOME urges we are repressing, and they are beginning to shake loose. Our obsession with the absurdities of the commonplace - with reality TV, or embarrassing YouTube videos - is startling. Our appetite for entertainment has mutated us into a culture of exhibitionists and voyeurs.
It is not these facets of Internet culture, however, that worry me. I want to confront the underbelly of this cultural practice, so i can understand our perverse Internet transactions. Essentially, I think the motivations and actions of the exhibitionists are, for the most part, easier to understand - the audience is more interesting. I invite you to surf through YouTube videos and blogs (which you already do, all the time) and read the comments critically, as if they were just as meticulously constructed as the submissions. I want you to be privy to the arguments that break out over the Internet and the seeming passion with which they are pursued.
This isn't normal. These occurrences should stir in you some important questions concerning this emerging e-populace: Why do we feel comfortable saying things on the Internet we would never say otherwise? Are our public reservations that weak? How will these outbursts continue to evolve - and can they achieve something worthwhile?
Our fascination with Internet information alone is obscene. A blog is at best an unsupported argument, and at worst an inane rant. However the blogworld is eclipsing legitimate journalism. We seem to value information less now - which we mask with vague statements about this being the age of information, which is absurd in light of the fall of objectivity. This is the age of disinformation (campy, I know). The effort towards learning is gone - the reverence for intelligence is following, and at a time when information about the world is commonplace, we seem to care less. The Internet could be gateway towards endless knowledge, but let's be honest; we use it to watch people fuck up on a massive scale on YouTube - and to steal shit.
I'm engaging with this now, on my first post, because I want to know where I fit in amongst all the e-bullshit. I want to know whether or not I am just another exhibitionist, providing new smut for the hungry voyeurs? In the face of the enormity of the world-online, I am scrambling to understand its changing features. In response to those semi-cathartic releases we are engaging in, I think they might be useful, especially for Canadians. Perhaps politeness is old-guard. I'm not talking about please and thank yous, and I'm not talking about holding back from your tendency towards inarticulate rage (please, continue to stave that off). However, I think we may need to say what we think more often. If we had been doing that all along, we would never have resorted to these large scale angry releases.
Peace,
from the war-zone.
Jesse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
