Thursday 27 August 2015

Ahoy Facebook!

A lot of the writing I send out into the web-sphere is now on Facebook. The thing with that inordinately self-important, narcissistic, inane and self-absorbed social network is that is more interactive. People respond to what you write and you can often start some pretty lively discussions. Blogger is less interactive in that sense. I definitely, definitely 100% prefer Blogger. You can write discursively and have your own column. You might get a lot of visits, but there ain't as much interaction.

Facebook is a sad little place, really. Big place, rather. Very big place. The biggest place in the world, even if it's virtual. Everyone takes an interest in each other's petty little lives. A few people even taken an interest in mine. I don't write about myself though, I write little micro opinion pieces. I say 'micro,' when they're actually some of the longest statuses out there. (Insert rant as to how culture is decadent and dumbed down here.) But it does generate mild interest from some people, mind you.

I have written about some of the topics on this blog here. If haven't, it means that I intend to write about them here time soon. Therefore, it's perfectly reasonable to post these little bits and bobs here.

*******************

The free market is competitive. In fact, that's all it is - competition. The free market also says: if you end up with the best job, earn millions, have a swanky car in your green lawn, you have WON. You have MERIT. You are better than a person living in some shack. The free market is like nature, a constant tug-of-war to be the best. A weakling/weirdo cannot compete because he lacks the confidence and stamina. If you are such a person, you think to yourself - 'fuck it, this is stupid.' You cut off all ties with the other competitors. You go a cabin in the woods to write strange novels and abstruse essays. It might not seem like it but, if you follow their terminology, you have won. Their quest for competition is ephemeral. You, on the other hand, have accomplished what western civilisation has venerated since ancient antiquity: the desire to create an isolated object which might potentially last. It probably won't, but you might as well have a stab at something far nobler than competition: posterity.


*******************

Something I find disturbing about a lot of hard leftists is the way they seem to deflect blame from foreign tyrants and despots. Yes, I do agree that US foreign policy SHOULD be severely criticised. Yes, the war against Iraq DID create a failed state in Iraq whereby Isis could make a lot of ground. But does that in any way absolve Isis' heinous behaviour? And I don't see how EU foreign policy is overly connected with Putin's annexation of Crimea and sending military support to Russian rebels. Yes, perhaps sanctions are not the best strategy. But does that make Putin any less of a repressive despot? Can't we recognise this? Can't we have a more nuanced view of the world whereby we recognise war crimes committed by foreign despots as well as those committed by the US and Europe?

*******************

What pisses me off about contemporary secular humanists is that they assume that science is a force that can provide meaning. It never can and it never will. Science can explain causality, but it can't explain the meaning of causality. Science is now displacing religion and philosophy. If you have psychological problems, you don't turn to a priest nor to a therapist. You turn to a scientist. If you want to know about morality, you turn to a neuroscientist who gives you some bogus statistics saying 'this is morality.' If you want a 'scientific society' with over-inflated claims about what science can do, you only need to take a cursory glance at Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

*******************


An injustice: as a teenager you have all the time in the world to write and read when your efforts are sophomoric and immature and you don't have much knowledge. When you're older you mature your style and content, and you broaden your knowledge and interests, but you have no time to exert any of it as you have to work or study!

*******************


Last night I dreamed that I found a book called 'Space, Time and Infinity' in an underground cellar without gravity. I searched for the title online and it so transpires that a book with that title really exists. It's a collection of essays on sci-fi and fantastic literature whereas the title that appeared in my dream was a philosophy book:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3141720-space-time-and-infinity?from_search=true&search_version=service

*******************

Ornette Coleman, alto saxophonist and pioneer of free jazz, passed away yesterday. I remember when I was about 14/15 I only had about 20 records I cared about and I spent most of my time listening to them. 'The Shape of Jazz to Come' was among them (alongside Zappa, Miles Davis, Beefheart and a couple of other artists!). I've always loved Ornette's idiosyncratic style on the sax - it is quirky, peculiar and highly expressive. There's a lot more melody than people recognise in all of his records (even 'Free Jazz') and, by the standards of later freestyle jazz, he sounds quite conservative. Sometimes you scratch your head and think - why did some guy smash his saxophone in disgust? Why did he create such an uproar? This stuff's great! 'Lonely Woman' might well be my favourite jazz tune. RIP.


*******************

Idea for a utopian society: all labour, all industry and all aspects of the economy are completed by machines/robots. This creates capital which is evenly distributed to all citizens. All citizens have seminars/discussions on philosophy, the arts, political theory and the sciences. Without the burden of labour, the average individual is free to pursue creative/intellectual inquiry and his individual interests. Everything I wrote above is masturbatory nonsense. Why? Because humans, despite economic and political changes, remain the same - imperfect.

*******************


Political correctness is often desirable. I don't think black people should be called 'niggers,' I don't think gay people should be called 'fags,' I don't think Pakistani people should be called 'pakis' and I don't think think that women should be called 'bitches.' But there are limits. Can't we play around ironically with these stereotypes within fictional or satirical contexts? As soon as any of the words above are uttered, a witch-hunt often ensues. What's more, I don't think anyone should be turned into persona non grata for holding any of these views. (I'm thinking of the scientist who made those 'sexist' remarks and was stripped of his academic role.) If you disagree with him, you should engage in a discussion as to why you find those views repellent. In a democracy, you have discussion. What we have now, in many ways, is a new form of liberal authoritarianism.

*******************
Apparently Jeremy Corbyn is a 'radical leftist.' This just goes to show what a really topsy-turvy world we live in now. None of his policies would have been an iota controversial 35 years ago. Renationalise the railways? Not at all controversial 35 years ago. (In fact, the railways were under public ownership until not so long ago...) Nuclear disarmament? Perfectly normal position to take 35 years ago. Anti-austerity? Again, perfectly normal 35 years ago. I tremble to think what the press would say if any of the rabid socialists and unionists from 1979's winter of discontent were around today. The world has really take a 180 degree turn. The worse thing is that these 'radical leftist' beliefs are shared by rather large proportion of the population.
*******************
John Gray has written that Margaret Thatcher, through her economic policies, would create a truly conservative society that harked back to the 1950s. He writes that she, in fact, did the opposite - she destroyed deference and helped foster irresponsible/loutish behaviour, market individualism and social liberalism. I would go further. What the Conservatives feel so nostalgic about - Gray recognises this, actually - is post-war Labour collectivism. The Conservatives are actually the ones who have done the least for conservatism. The whole feel of that era - prosperity, prim and proper behaviour, the nuclear family - was thanks to social democracy. The people who did the most for conservatism in this country were British socialists.

*******************
Cuando era chico era lector ávido de la historieta 'Barrabases.' Básicamente involucraba los cuentos más absurdos en el mundo: Chile le gana a todos los equipos fácilmente. Chile históricamente ha generalmente sido un equipo tan penoso que a muchos niños les consolaba leer esos comics. Ahora, con esta gran generación, ha transcurrido un partido que podría haber sido un episodio de Barrabases: Chile, de manera aguerrida y heroica, le gana a Argentina en la final de la Copa América. Un sueño.

*******************
Camille Paglia makes for a thoroughly entertaining thinker. Yes, her conclusions a lot of the time are reactionary and simplistic. And yes, her rhetoric is shrill and hyperbolic. But I still have more time for her than most feminist thinkers. This is because 1) she acknowledges basic truths about male sexuality - that it's aggressive and that men inevitably tend to objectify the female form + 2) rejects the silly-assed post-modern idea that there's no difference between gender, which goes against common sense and biology. Still, she can go off the boil when she argues that 1) men historically have enjoyed more privileges because they are 'stronger' and hence get top notch positions for that reason and 2) argues that women shouldn't feel victimised when they get raped once having blatantly flaunted their sexuality. Negative point no.2 is obviously very contentious and somewhat attention-seeking. Nonetheless, it is good to entertain shocking ideas rather than rejecting them on the grounds of 'moral outrage.'


*******************

This typewriter was my birthday present. It finally arrived. Typewriters are sexy but cumbersome things, so I'm unsure if I'll use it that much. The idea for the gift germinated after I mentioned an idea for a PHD thesis. It's just an idea that I'm entertaining, but I that I hope don't get too serious about. The PHD title would be 'The Typewriter as an Agent of Literary Creativity in Film.' I would use David Cronenberg's 'Naked Lunch' and the Coen Brothers' 'Barton Fink' as examples. This would allow me to research and analyse literature as well as film. I would also get to write to write about William Burroughs and, to a lesser extent, William Faulkner (only a minor character in 'Barton Fink'). The reasons why I wouldn't do the PHD are: 1) Most academics and PHD students are a lot more intelligent and knowledgeable than me. That intidimadates me. 2) I don't think that my academic acumen is that, that sky-rocketingly high to do a PHD. 3) It would be stressful and a fuck-load of work. 4) Embarking on this for 3/4 + years mean that I wouldn't get to read all of the books I'm really keen to read nor write my little creative literary projects. However, good reasons to do it are: 1) Most jobs are fucking shit and they do your head in. 2) I'm waaaaaaay too weak to compete in this dog-eat-dog free market economy. 3) I like the idea of being a perpetual student and a perpetual teenager who doesn't have to engage with the real world.

*******************

Very, very encouraged by the election of Tim Farron for the Liberal Democrats and the possible election of Jeremy Corbyn for the Labour party. I have always being stuck by the utter vacuity of arguments given by modernisers. What's the point in mimicking the Conservatives just so as to get elected? What difference does that even make? The election of Blair might well have just been a historical freak. Also, think about it logically. If the electorate are presented with option A which really means what it says and an insincere + ingratiating option B that doesn't mean what it says, then the electorate is going to vote for option A. They're going to vote for the real thing. All political parties should remain true to their principles and to their founding ethos. Otherwise, political discourse degenerates into nothing more than bland sameness.

*******************


I was watching the last minute or so of one of the many Labour leadership debates on the telly. Each candidate finished by summarising their main campaign strategy. Andy Burnham predictably said 'Westminster is an isolated elite common people feel isolated from. Politics is the game of a privileged elite. Yada-yada-yada.' Ok, it's perfectly fine to say that as a general comment. It's nothing earth-shattering. It's a bit banal. It's even a bit of a truism. But how does that amount to a campaign strategy, you stupid idiot?! The more I read and hear about Burnham, the less I find. I think that I may even go for Yvette Cooper as my second choice and I have NEVER liked Yvette Cooper.

*******************
Mark E. Smith's lyrics are usually so cryptic and arcane that when he comes up with something really quite direct, it surprises you. These songs are usually his most moving. (The song 'Bill is Dead' simply has the line 'These are the best days of my life.') What I like about this song is that Smith is acknowledging the fact that most people find him incomprehensible and cranky: 'Trying to get stuff out you is like getting blood out of a stone.' This is like James Joyce in his death bed who, before dying, was heard to say 'does anyone understand me?'


*******************

Arthouse cinemas aren't making as much money because of internet and other digital media. What has their response being? To gentrify them. To go to an arthouse is now like going to the opera house or the theatre. Before you go in, you pay for £10 for a bottle of wine. They charge £10 for the ticket itself. The seats are deluxe with plenty of leg room. What the heck?! This is catering both to the hipster market and to toffs. This is the 'Curzon' aesthetic. Hipsters like these cinemas because they think that they are 'cool' (and they usually have a lot of money). Toffs like them because they are effete and sophisticated. Riff-raff/losers like me, who are obsessed with these films, can't get in all the time because losers by their very nature can't make money. The aesthetic of an arthouse cinema has always being to screen these obscure international films and classics in abandoned warehouses, to project them on a wall with plaster peeling off. Gentrification and money-making enterprises are never a good thing.

*******************


I have a new terrorist project in my mind for people with so-called 'sophisticated' musical taste: 'Avant-Garde Musical Terrorism.' It's just simply a case of frustration and retaliation. I have had enough of being subjected to horrendous synthetic pop. Anywhere I go it is there - very loudly. If we people like us are subjected to this all the time, can't we let other people at least know, fleetingly, how we feel? So, in clothe shops that play horrible music, in clubs that play horrible music, maybe even concerts of horrible music, we send talented musicians there. So, a trombonist marauds into a club and starts playing a dissonant bar of Schoenberg. A cellist starts playing some Webern in a café blaring out some horrid pop whilst we people of supposedly 'good' taste are trying to have conversations or reading the newspaper. In a horrid music concert, a jazz player interrupts the concert by improvising atonally. (This may going a bit too far seeing that we wouldn't usually go to those concerts in the first place.) Enough is enough. Avant-garde music lovers of the world unite!
*******************


What I really think is a positive outcome of the whole 'Corbynmania' thing is that it is making younger people familiar with Labour's history and what they have traditionally stood for. All they really know about is Blair. I really think that if Miliband had articulated some of his arguments more clearly and made more of an effort to get it out to people, that a lot of SNP, Green and even UKIP voters would have voted Labour. I have always voted Labour and I really think that it is the only realistic way for a party of government to effect change and to push for more progressive policies and causes. Corbyn might be a Bennite, and might well represent the most radical faction in the party, but I really think that he has made an effort to attenuate the crazy things about Bennism. Benn called for mass nationalisation. Corbyn's pitch - renationalise the railways and some public utilities, high taxes on the upper crust and big business, more robust market regulation - isn't crazily radical and a lot of normal folk, not crazy lefties, have been calling for these things for a long time.
*******************


I like to read and hear Roger Scruton talk because he will purposefully write a column in a left-of-centre publication to piss off someone like me (i.e. lefty political views and a strong predilection for modernistic art). In many ways, I could be considered the ideal reader he wants to target and say 'everything you believe in is based on a mistake.' I like the fact that we have in public discourse someone who has spent most of his life sequestered in university libraries and who is deeply familiar with philosophy and the classics. I like the fact that he often holds crude reactionary views and uses these as bait against progressives. I also like the fact - and here is where our interests really align - that although he is an analytic philosopher he his drawn to the German idealists and holds their view of their world to be more truthful than the staid worldviews of people like Russell, Ayer, etc. I first encountered him when I bought his fab 'A Very Short Introduction to Kant.'

*******************

Mike Patton's immense popularity in Chile has always bemused somewhat. He is mainstream over there. A lot of people even take an interest in his niche avant-garde projects. At age 16, the height of my obsession with his music, I was thunderstruck to wander the streets of Santiago and to see all these shops selling Fantomas and Mr. Bungle CDs. How many countries in the world have both Mike Patton and Marcelo Bielsa as national treasures?

*******************

Peter Wilby in his little column in the New Statesman more than adequately expresses my feelings about Blair/Blairism: 'Blair's strength, according to John Rentoul, a sympathetic biographer, was his ability to "to pick up and reflect the banality of the majority." David Cameron does that perfectly well. Tony Blair and his supporters have nothing else to offer, and they should shut up.'

No comments: