Here's my amateurish design for my next amateurish book.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54810392?fbclid=IwAR2tklcPMbc-vvpnWsxdEUco8Ik_xS9O4BV_PXZ337IG9KobkE8uwHohnnI
Not a nice person by any means, but he was supremely talented. RIP.
https://www.goodreads.com/user/year_in_books/2020/5993530?fbclid=IwAR0Vc5cemmbllcmJWwvgpYNZjHfgKgwFs2yuX707i2hfUW-_CmPCi-vnytY
Hardly got any reading done this past year unfortunately, but this is what I read.
Some ideas are so egregious that you look at them and you think to yourself – ‘how on earth can people believe in stuff like this?’ Two of them come to mind – ‘cultural appropriation’ and ‘planned economies.’
Many of the best writers, composers and filmmakers draw from other cultures. The whole culture would be so drab and colourless if it didn’t. How is it insensitive to write from the perspective of a Chinese man or an African woman? It is politically correct madness, but the worst thing about is its narrow-mindedness and how limiting it is. Composers like Harry Partch integrated ancient Persian scales, ancient Greek scales and Chinese melodies into their work and enriches the classical canon. Filmmakers like Werner Herzog are always interested in aboriginal cultures that have perished. If anything, a lot of English literature is really parochial – i.e. it is often about balls and aristocratic people with plummy voices mingling. Surely it is much more exciting to venture out further afield and look at other cultures?
Planned economies comes with a caveat. A lot of these ideas were around in the 1930s and they were a reaction against the laissez-faire that had brought about mass unemployment and the Great Depression. Indeed, people spoke about ‘planning for freedom’ and as a way to save capitalism from collapsing.
But when people talk about ‘planning the economy’ now, they just say that stuff because they’re boring doctrinaire socialists. (i.e. bores like Ken Loach). For one thing, it is authoritarian – you are telling businesses what to do. It assumes that society is a single organism with a single purpose, when society is comprised of millions of people with different values. Also, planned economies have produced famines and millions of deaths. Think of it – a central planning board would have to produce and ration all of the products in the economy. In a market economy, you get multiple companies producing stuff all the time, which means that we have shelves flowing with products at low prices, which means less poverty and more prosperity. I quite like having fifteen different types of ice cream to purchase and I prefer having that than having to cue in front of a shop with a ration card.
If anything, people believe in stupid shit like this because they want to be part of something. People believe in stupid ideas like cultural appropriation because they want to be ‘woke’ and they want to be part of some silly movement. People believe in planned economies because they want to be boring doctrinaire socialists who attend dreary meetings and they want to go to some god-awful demonstration and wave a dreary placard.
In liberal democracies, values often conflict. People say that values like liberty and equality conflict and that individualism and solidarity conflict. There's a famous quote from Issiah Berlin about it.
As regards the latter, I'd definitely opt for individualism. It's tiresome and boring how often you see those op-eds saying that 'individualism is bad bla bla bla.'
There's a good quote from Oscar Wilde that captures why it's a good thing: 'Individualism is a disturbing and disintegrating force. There lies its immense value. For what it seeks is to disturb monotony of type, slavery of custom, tyranny of habit, and the reduction of man to the level of a machine. It seeks to show new perspectives and other choices. It is a way to help expand and liberate the consciousness; our experiences, understandings, imaginings, options and thereby our lives.'
Michael Sandel writes about 'the unencumbered self' - i.e. a self that is unencumbered by ties to others and is asocial. He thinks that this is a bad thing. Well, in my view, if you do not have any ties to others and you are not hurting others, what is the problem? If anything, a highly asocial person who does not have strong connections to others, but he spends all his free time, say, reading about particle physics, reading Borges and reading about history would, in my view, a lead much fuller and enlightened life than a highly social person who doesn't do any of those things. The social person might have strong ties to his local community, but he might not try to ever improve himself. But then, it'd be better to be neutral about it and say that, as long as you are not harming anyone and you are responsible, work, pay taxes, then both the intellectually curious unencumbered self and the incurious social person are both entitled to lead their lives as they individually see fit.
If anything, political cant is extremely depressing and boring. I deleted my twitter account because I grew increasingly tired with tedious tweets such as 'solidarity with Jeremy Corbyn,' 'solidarity with the working class,' 'comrades,' 'nationalise,' etc. etc. These ideologues are depressing because they always repeat ideological mantras. They are actively hostile to free thought, which they regard as 'individualistic.' They repeat the same stale slogans and mantras. If anything, they'd be a lot better off by becoming a lot more individualistic so as to disrupt their monotony of type and their tyranny of habit. I actually find the prospect of an unencumbered self highly exciting - to set the individual free so that he can think whatever he wants.
My complete works. 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=bXw_phbUI2g&fbclid=IwAR2xzmV6PquHPcHyVfMY0uMJ2cu6RKVWRTKQIsWX9TFn9N02VTZI91La6qA
This is sooooooooo good.
In particle physics, fermions are particles which have ‘half-integer amount of spin’ whilst bosons are particles with an ‘integer amount of spin’ (bear with me here, I hardly understand this stuff, but I’m going somewhere with this). Electrons and neutrinos fall into the former category and so do the subatomic particles which make up particles proper, quarks. Meanwhile, photons fall into the latter category.
Anyway, fermions tend to float about rather independently. Fermions, apparently, can’t ‘occupy the same quantum state.’ However, bosons can indeed ‘occupy the same quantum state.’ They cluster together.
This leads me onto a grand generalisation – society itself is made up of ‘fermions’ and ‘bosons’. Fermions are entities that float about rather independently whilst ‘bosons’ tend to form groups and are more social. You might say that this is a generalisation, but we already have similar vast categories, such as ‘working class’ and ‘middle class.’
(And then you get those tiresome opinion pieces saying that ‘atomised individualism is bad. We need to value the common life.’ Tell me, what’s the point of writing an opinion piece if there are a thousand other opinion pieces saying the exact same thing? And when the point of these opinion pieces is so fucking boring? Also, many atoms behave collectivistically anyway, but the communitarians who write these boring op-eds are not inclined to read introductions to particle physics. They are more inclined to attend dreary community centres and dreary committees.)
I am a fermion, which are a minority. Fermions are more independent and solitary whilst bosons are more group-oriented. However, it is not intrinsically better to be a fermion or a boson. Indeed, being a fermion or a boson is simply an intrinsic part of your personality. Being a fermion or a boson does not make us any better than each other – it is just who we are.
However, fermions tend to break new ground more often. This is because they are more independent-minded and tend to think in an unorthodox, rather than a doctrinaire, manner. For instance, Galileo was a fermion, as he was challenging the orthodoxy that the bosons had been following for centuries – that is, he claimed that the earth revolved around the sun, not the other way around. Bosons, by their very nature, tend to value convention, tradition and orthodoxy, so this is why they opposed Galileo. Similarly, Socrates was another fermion, as he tried to clarify concepts and tried to show the other Athenians realise how little they knew. This made the bosons claim that he was ‘corrupting the youth of Athens,' so they made him drink hemlock. Indeed, at their very worst, bosons can be predisposed to the ‘tyranny of the majority.’ Thankfully, we live in much more tolerant and pluralistic times.
As I said earlier, being a fermion or a boson does not make you an intrinsically better human being. Indeed, bosons are often compassionate and selfless. However, fermions do tend to be more agile, original and lateral-minded.
New acquisitions. I fetishise commodities and adore my personal property - I am a bourgeois consumer. (I just ostentatiously threw about 50% of all the Marx that I already knew at you.)
Four of these discs are side-projects by members of Mr. Bungle. Fantomas is a band by Mike Patton, which is heavily influenced by Naked City by John Zorn. I've been listening to these albums for ages, but I like owning stuff that I enjoy (because I am a bourgeois consumer), so I decided to buy them. It's their self-titled album and their album 'Suspended Animation.' It's experimental heavy metal; it is comprised of snappy, manic, semi-psychotic songs.
One of these discs is by Trevor Dunn, Mr. Bungle's bassist. It mixes avant-garde jazz with heavy metal, something that I would have been inclined to do if I were a musician (unfortunately, although I appreciate music, I am a bit crap in that department).
Secret Chiefs 3 is a band by Trey Spruance, Mr. Bungle's guitarist. He is very musically literate, as he knows about ancient Persian scales and he can play many different instruments. This album, 'Book of Horizons,' is particularly good.
I bought a disc by Derek Bailey, a Sheffield-born free improvisor and avant-garde guitarist. I could never really get into his music back in the day, but I've seen some of his videos and I appreciate it a lot more now. I can appreciate the technique and it is clear to me that he is not just running his hands across the fretboard. This disc, 'Pieces for Guitar,' is a bit different from most of his other albums, though.
I love a series of German films called 'Heimat' and I am currently writing a very long essay about it. The second series focuses a lot more on music and, indeed, several actors in the film are classically trained musicians. The music in these three discs is astonishing and a lot of it is composed by a Greek composer called Nikos Mamangakis. A lot of the film focuses of modern classical music, so a lot of the music has that vibe to it.
Incidentally, although Greece is not especially renowned for producing classical composers, I bought two more discs by another Greek composer called Iannis Xenakis. I've been checking a lot of his percussive works and, indeed, one of these discs is comprised of his pieces for percussion. On the other hand, the other disc is made up of works for orchestra and chamber pieces. They're both great.
Self-obsessed/narcissistic Facebook post #40000865 (I try to avoid this kind of thing like the plague, but I can't help myself sometimes... But then, narcissism is, ironically, healthier than political/divisive posts):
Audio material that I've been consuming today (alongside a juicy bottle of wine):
Lumpy Gravy - Frank Zappa (Vinyl)
Dreams - Otomo Yoshihide (CD)
Harpsichord Music - J. S. Bach (Record)
Symphony No. 9 - Ludwig van Beethoven (CD)
Philosophy and Politics - A Discussion about political liberalism between Bryan Magee and Ronald Dworkin (You Tube video)
1 comment:
I wish you wouldn't put yourself down. You are a unique talent.
Post a Comment