Dreams, Fit to Mold?

Meaningful experiences and deeply held desires are bent to fit the institutions of the larger society.  Many people who have a genuine interest in helping others (and who among us wouldn't) try to fit their education, creative projects, and professional identity into this institutional mold -- whether space exists or the likelihood of success outside society's institutions.

Chauvinists

People who know the world through their own dissonant experiences reject the search or reception of new indirect information.  Having a certain amount of social education (college-equivalent, say) and life experience (a lot), they disdain certain kinds of social learning.

While not all folks who have a chauvinistic worldview uphold the ultimate status of guns, religion, and family in their identities these three elements are crucial to the chauvinistic perspective.  Guns are how the powerful ultimately impose their will; religion is necessary to morally justify the constant threat, or act, of violence, and family provides a spiritual rational -- the family will carry the individual into the future, after death.

I would like to to see an explicit manifesto for conservative that establishes these connections -- exposing the inherent fascism.

On Recent Events

Robots are slowly learning to do everything

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/05/20/182593855/if-your-shrink-is-a-bot-how-do-you-respond

BBC World Update 6/20/12 - Pauper's Funerals on the increase in the UK ... the main reason: families are scattering and separating ... people are becoming more isolated

Racist American Police/Courts: The case of my friend, Andrew Thomas

My close friend Andrew Thomas was arrested in Arizona under blatantly discriminatory conditions, this is so wrong! How can we still be dealing with this kind of blatant racism in the US?! This is a smart, kind, hard working, honest Black man and he's feeling lucky he didn't get beaten.

Andrew lives in Philly and was visiting his family in AZ.  In fact he was visiting his brother, Bernie, (left on the picture), who has been incarcerated in federal prison in Arizona (since prisoners are often sent to facilities far from their families). The van they were driving was pulled over for having "a dim license plate light."  I should mention, this was at the end of the month, when officers are often pressured to make quota on traffic stops, fines, arrests, etc..  It's easier to fine/charge someone who would not have the means of fighting their charge in the legal system (and often people of color fit this description). After asking the officer some normal questions that any citizen is entitled to, my friend was asked to produce his ID (though he wasn't the driver). The whole family was made to sit on the curb and he could not because of his long standing back problems (I know about these first hand from times I've played sports with Drew). When he offered to kneel he was arrested, the police officer did not read him his rights and he was repeatedly told to shut up. He was held in prison on bail. When he asked to pay the bail with any of his 4 credit cards the prison claimed they only had 1 of 4 which was not authorized for such a payment and so processing was delayed by many hours. His cell phone was confiscated as "evidence" and he was not allowed to stay with his cousin who was now a "witness". Since then he has had to fly back to Arizona multiple times to dispute the matter in court ... otherwise he will be charged with a misdemeanor, which will stay with him for the rest of his life.

He just texted me to say that he was found guilty by the judge, but the judge couldn't say why; sounds to me like a small town judge way too cozy with the police.

Andrew is now hoping to appeal to a federal court and to sue the police department for unlawful arrest.

"worship" of power ... devine/innate perfection ... concept of christianity echoes larger narrative for  opening up questioning of powerful and dominant by using worship of powerful ... but conservative christianity shows this falls back to blind acceptance of powerful/dominant ... math/science education in america and "the prodigy" ... lack of social learning

Gel

Some themes I've addressed are beginning to gel for me.  I am thinking a lot about the tendency of "liberals" to seek esoteric/exotic ideas/people/things and "conservative" tendency to "go with the flow". This liberal/conservative dichomtomy is potentially confusing due to overlapping liberal/conservative labels within American politics ... though there is much agreement with these labels.  But where does "lazy" thinking fit into this puzzle.  For example, liberal thinkers are not seeking mathematics education en masse.  Has the establishment of a "liberal" identity complicated truly liberal thinking.  How does the "go with the flow" tendency fit with our primordial needs to run with the herd.  How does depression and schizophrenia fit in ... and entheogens?  Are liberals missing out on a huge element of our ecology?  How does this disconnect us from our world ... from "God". What would it mean to fully embrace liberal thinking and conservative values simultaneously?  Is it possible to develop a new identity of truly mutual respect and openness, where knowledge is shared and not used to assert strength?  How does that identity fit within the American political process.

Do Amish people vote?  I'm pretty sure they generally do.

I've been thinking a great deal about the way that our society conveniently demonizes those who are on the short end of the economic stick, through this omni-present and rather convenient judeo-christian judgementalism. It seems rather cruel and self-serving, as it justifies pervasive inequality and the bruatality doled out through our crimal justice system ... some folks face an enormous/unequal burden because of their powerless or exposure due to financial circumstances.

I'm starting another list of people vilified by this system:
-College dropouts (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/education/10graduate.html)
-Anyone convicted of a crime under weak evidence, that would have been cleared under better (more expensive) legal representation ... and vice versa for those trying to assert themselves through the courts.
-Anyone stopped by the police for something that they would ordinarily be able to do in private, but ended up doing in public because of lack of private transport, private living space, etc.

from: http://news.discovery.com/earth/nitrogen-pollution-impact-environment-farming-110411.html

The first European Nitrogen Assessment, the result of a five-year research program, found that the costs represented more than double the benefits for the continent's agriculture sector.

cliche, creativity

I write here what I am thinking, despite the cliche, and truly because of it. I am not alone when I affirm that all forms of art and creativity are crucial to our survival. Though I rarely create artifacts of creativity, I am fortunate to find other outlets. Creativity to me is about building relationships, playing games, thinking and most importantly, sharing those sparkling moments. Sometimes an inspiring experience can be recorded and shared. These recordings and designs literally echo through our lives -- resonating differently for each of us.

The market naturally harnesses such a crucial and commodifiable aspect our ourselves. When art enters the market, it takes on a new shape -- it becomes about advantage, about gimmick, about competition. Before the market, art could not be cliche. Yet, sometimes because of it, all we can see is cliche.

There are some wonderful recordings, institutions, and other creative artifacts that strongly resonate with me. I must accept that the market has used its own means to shape these tastes ... but I cannot give up on creativity because of it. Because these forms are in competition, we've become conditioned to a mode of critique. I think my own experience, of periodically debilitating cynicism towards most every art form, sport, institution, and intellectual pursuit is not uncommon. Through thoughtful critique we negotiate the market, but we must equally kindle the sparks of creativity that make life worth living.

***... need to add something about consuming versus creating .

Reframing

All of this restated another way: as our world becomes more polluted, as our population grows and land and natural resources become scarce, the only way forward is technological advancement and efficiency, driven and implemented by the market. These processes, on their own, drive us towards social inequality. It should be relatively easy to regulate industry, promote birth control, and take other actions which decrease the need for further technological implementation and efficiencies -- but recent history has show us otherwise. In this context, it is even more difficult to image taking action which would actually reverse our dependence on technology and the market. But can the actions of individuals or groups of like-minded people make enough of an impact?

Also, the things that many people say they'd like more of are not necessarily provided or enhanced by the market: leisure time, sleeping better, family life, love, health, etc.

Haiti a victim of urban-centric development policies

Heard today on NPR: Haiti suffers from a legacy of industrial export oriented development policies with neglect for development of broad based, rural oriented policies (which would have been focused on things such as universal education and agricultural development policies) ... echoes experiences in so many other countries, but with more overt neocolonial underpinnings

priviledge and radicalism

So many suicide bombers are coming from privileged backgrounds (Balawi, Abdulmutalla, etc.) ... living in W. Philly, can't help to notice a concentration of privilege especially within the most dogmatic anachist/radical circles ... what does this mean?

Urban Social Cohesion and Schizophrenia

wow ... nice to see science connecting up with these ideas:

• Putting Madness in Its Place: Can the Environment Explain Schizophrenia's Hereditary Patterns?: Scientific American

tail of the tape

This will be a running list of sub-optimal outcomes of market behavior (maybe absent information failure, which is itself a whole other topic):

• massive campaign spending ... almost entirely wasted
• "publish or perish" ethic in universities meshes with the profit driven (sound bite driven) media to produce meaningless conclusions of studies, which causes the public to be cynical about the outcomes of research and ultimately less scientifically conciencous


• see above on costs of nitrogen pollution on the environment outstripping the benefits to agriculture


• heavily polluting industries are located on city waterfronts, where the pollutants can most easily enter water and the ecosystem, because nobody wants these facilities in their "backyard"
• anti-ballistic missile systems
• vaccine resistant viral strains
• increasingly complex, mechanized, global food system causes food to become more dangerous (and wasteful and unhealthy) ... furthermore some of the money we save on cheap food will go to cover increased need for resources at the FDA
• the cost of childcare, health care, and education have skyrocketed because these efforts are no longer provided by individuals (for themselves), families, and communities. Result: people work all day to pay for the things they used to do themselves -- meanwhile children and the elderly are warehoused in substandard institutions.


• artistic expression distorted because of market incentives based on popular aesthetic tastes nurtured by artistic expression distorted by market incentives


• lack of decent transit because of lack of funding because of lack of ridership because of lack of decent transit


• invasive species due to global shipping and travel ... sometimes requiring entire species to be be genetically preserved/regenerated (see: emerald ash bore)

• expensive weddings cause marriages to fail "Opulent ceremonies cited as reason for falling marriage rates in Gulf state, as costs deter many from tying the knot." http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/03/2013325960553179.html
• Ticketmaster

I participated in an engaging conversation with some family members over dinner last Friday evening. Uncle George pointed out, in response to my broad statements about the dominance of markets over law, culture, and institutions, that "the market" was not a monolithic entity but rather the dynamic result of the ever changing needs and values of all market participants (i.e. everybody). He also posed a very good question, "what policy changes would I advocate as an alternative to our contemporary reality (i.e. the global urban market)?".

I was not able to carefully state my thoughts at the time of that discussion, but now while my brain is at ease, it is much easier to elaborate. The problem with the global urban market is that, by its own nature, it tends to break down ALL non-market institutions. That is because even self-interested (i.e. market friendly) community oriented behavior is subsumed by the atomizing force of the market. For example, consider how some musical genres have been shaped from their beginnings in market-weak urban centers (the ultimate breeding ground for non-market culture, for a prime example see New Orleans) to later stages of mass consumption. The effect of the breakdown in non-market institutions is not only that we loose a certain social aesthetic diversity, but more importantly, that the values that drive market demand ARE GENERATED AND MODIFIED BY THE MARKET ITSELF. Therefore the contemporary state is one of exponentially market oriented behavior (demand built upon decades of institutionally eroding market dominance).

So what "real" changes can I advocate to counter this situation? In general I will advocate for building and participating in non-market institutions (families, spiritual communities, ethics organizations, clubs, sports) ... and pressing for change where the market has intruded. This tends to involve spending as little money on participation, and making the institutional structure as informal as possible. This view informs my policy preferences as well.

"There was real affinity between people. It was like a great big family. Our society today is just people shoving each other, people exploiting each other. Only inside the group, we helped each other,"

-- Chinese pyramid scheme victim, after the scheme was uncovered heard on morning edition

It strikes me that most "thinking people" have affinities to bohemianism. It is curious that so many of us are materially comfortable people to the extent that we are in a position to disregard our material needs (relatively limited as they may be). We believe that materialism poses the greatest danger to our world, yet it is our material comfort that allows us to look at materialism from outside. This has provoked nagging judgments of hypocrisy from conservative critics, which are almost impossible to evade. That is not to say that the materialists are always materially uncomfortable, but (with the exception of some exceptionally creative people) non-materialism comes more naturally to the most materially comfortable (especially young people among this class, who do not associate their own comfort with the hardships endured by their parents and grandparents). This feature points Maslows hierarchy, tired as it may be, in another direction: while self-actualization may be a laudable place to find oneself, the self actualized person has little in common with the rest of the pyramid (and therefore looses the point of reference) unless there is some shared external factor.

Humans differ from other animals in the detachment we have from natural circumstances due to our social relationships. I do not need to gather food, I don't even need to have a relationship to the person who produces my food, I just have to pay for it. Our social systems, our market, is our "natural" source of survival and therefore materialism is just an extension of the animal obsession with survival. Obviously animals have other needs beyond survival, but for us these are also informed by our market participation. The point I am getting at is that the human for whom gaining social or material advantage is not a priority is the most unusual kind of animal.

Here are some more thoughts, but less of interest:

Where did the concept of "bohemian" come from? I understand that the term was popularized in the mid to late 1800's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemianism), but HOW did that lifestyle and identity emerge? This theme and its history has permeated both liberal lifestyles and how those lifestyles are interpreted.

I am sure that urbanization, migration, mass cosumption of art/culture, and the mechanization of labor all played a role in the emergence of Bohemianism, but for each to what extent?

My feeling is that while the first three factors where more important as the identity arose, while the third and fourth factors were key to its persistence through time. I will look further into the history of this theme.

How do we by pass judgement (a rural weakness) yet create community values (a rural strength and urban weekness) which permit non-market social behavior change?

A series of discussion over the past month on the theme of sexual attraction and race have long begged to be added to this blog. Here I will introduce the topic, as I've come to understand it.

Human sexuality and attraction is enormously affected by our own identities as well as our perceptions of others identities and sexuality. In short these are SOCIAL values. These values, like most others in an isolated urban modern capitalist state, are heavily influenced by mass media (in these discussions, we must always remember how different mass media is from other media ... it is mass produced with little marginal cost involved and also relatively uniform across individual units of production). This fact is often hard to reconcile, since more than any other preference or desire, matters of love are thought to come "from the heart" or even "from the soul."

In the midst of this context many friends and acquaintances have proudly expressed preference for a particular race or ethnicity, without exception bound up in the gender and sexuality associated with that group. Needless to say these expectations are based on perceptions in an isolated world and with mass media the authoritative and salient voice. Whenever I have brought this to the attention of my enthusiastically ignorant friends, they tend to resent my point of view. I am to be blamed in part for carelessly using the label "racist" which is of course a loaded term that should not be spoken lightly.

A striking article from the Washington Post lays the landscape for dating in the interracial context. Despite the high rate of premature death, incarceration, institutionalization, and general malaise among Black men, Black women are the least likely to date outside of their race. Even before taking to account incarceration, etc., there are 100 single black Women for every 70 single Black men. Yet Black men are the most likely male group to date outside of their race. Among Asian men and women, the EXACT OPPOSITE is true.

My conclusion: there is irrefutable evidence that sexual preferences are heavily informed by racial perception.

This is not a benign situation. I believe that the sexual preference given to men of a race which is "percieved to be more masculine" tends to produce misaligned relationship expectations for both the men and women in these relationships. I have only anecdotal evidence to this effect, with many of my Black male friends looking for a steady relationship and frustrated with women who see them as sexual objects without need for deeper consideration.

You may be thinking: "So am I supposed to ignored my desires and behave contrary to that which makes me passionate?" I do not advocate that anyone actively try to reorient themselves sexually (though a little less TV wouldn't hurt), I would just hope that everyone would be a little more humble and a little more considerate in expressing their race-oriented sexual preference.

in these posts i often rail against the stylized "urban" and "rural" ... it is clear that much of the heartache and isolation in urban life is attributable to a falling from rural communal values (though in many communities instead as a dissonance between their own communal values and that of the urban whole).

i don't yet understand what should be next to come ... i am drawn to the freedom and open-mindedness of urban society ... yet i yearn for the communal and spiritual groundedness of rural life. I have yet to see an example where these values have been seamlessly expressed -- I especially struggle against the racially or religiously homogeneous examples in the world, which may bubble to our minds in this discussion.

admittedly, I often question my own values. I have accepted other mildly contradictory paradigms in my life, why is my current state of mind so truthful? As this state of mind is quite oppositional to the contemporary human identity, it is sometimes difficult to not find myself struggling against the naturalizing tendencies of human society.

Yesterday I discovered a significant purpose of this mindset ... yet it is a purpose borne of necessity, hopefully not overstated: true anti-racism is achieved through destruction of the identity (as opposed to the ego per se).

Within this fast moving, cosmopolitan society we come in contact with many people who we expect to never interact with again -- or if we do, it would be at arms length. How are non-monetized conflicts to be resolved in this space? I would contend that the most common non-verbal and non-physical expressions of retribution is attribution of a wrong to a race, a gender, an age, a lifestyle ... whatever. People are grasping for ways to punish other people that they've judged (for evidence see the success of crime dramas, such as the 'Law and Order' production machine), when there is no formal monetary recourse, and legal recourse is far too cumbersome, the bad blood often falls to prejudice.

Loosing identity is a very painful experience ... blameful fingers are pointed towards urbanism and capitalism ... it is becoming clear that these sorts of neutral conditions cannot be scapegoated ... if deeper causes are to be identified, the "religion" of modernity, of knowledge, might be taken to task.

Extremism

... continuing to pick and choose our own realities as the world becomes more isolated, differentiated, polarized

Modern humans seek to either pollute their minds ("antisocial") or uphold an unexamined collective sense of reality... precious few have poked at reality yet avoided the idle traps of the normal world

These dangers expand to the extent that social nous is unrepresentative of individually held values and that such contradictions are broadcast and perceived

Weakened minds are easy fodder for this cold world

so you might be wondering, "the rural have been moving to urban centers in droves for over a hundred years now ... how do these people cope with their immersion in differentiation"?

i believe that rural to urban migrants over the past century have been able to take advantage of three phenomena key to their prosperity in new urban settings: a massive growth in marginal productivity among the least skilled workers, enclaves of the "rural" world, and sometimes legacies of urban culture. (I must mention the notable, yet not exclusive, example of the Jews and Chinese who have successfully adapted to thousands of years of urban life and immigration. These groups have successfully engaged "rural" collective values towards urban needs such as creating mutual credit organizations. They have also famously sought education, the ultimate act of differentiation, in their attempts to integrate to the urban society)

the industrial revolution ensured that massive amounts of new tools were provided to the "bare handed" and usually these tools were adapted to the "bare handed" by the desire among capitalists to turn laborers into commodities. "rural" enclaves have taken the shape of actual places (in the US usually in flood prone areas where land is undesirable) where property rights are non-existent or nearly so. most of these physical rural enclaves were eliminated after the drive to build levies during the eisenhower (?) administration. yet "rural" rural enclaves also took social manifestation. this social manifestation cuts both ways: on the one hand ethnic differences such as language often binded immigrant communities together, such that livelihoods often improved collectively. on the other hand "rural" values often run counter to urban ones -- protecting rural-urban migrants but also setting them against their own best interests according to the urban society. where racial differences were perceived, urban societies have had a tendency to affix these differences to race.

when the "tools ran out" and rural places were no longer to be found in the city, the rural-urban migrants fell back on their rural values -- but in the city, community and family values became exclusionary in nature. looking out for one's family and community also meant fighting against those who were perceived as not being in that community.

african americans came to the northern cities in the largest numbers when the "tools" were dwindling and other rural-urban groups were already established. this set the stage for persistant racism towards (and among) Black people in the US.

the rural world can be a place of reconnaissance. just as the urban world usurps land it does too with ideas and creativity. in this urban world an idea must always have an "inventor" or "discoverer" or "author" or whatever -- the creative economy is a cloak for a larger problem: having been immersed in our differentiated culture for so long, we are actually beginning to believe that we (and all the people we know) are much different from the famous songwriter or inventor ... so are we similiar to the people on tv? maybe just a weak comparison? this is a pretty depressing identity for ourselves that our "creative economy" is constructing for us. the truth is that we are all relatively similiar, but with different ideas of who we are and then these ideas actually do shape "who we are" by influencing what we consume and what we produce (which is the lens through which those in this society view eachother).

technology and "innovation" can be described under the more "neutral" heading of "differentiation."

as differentiation occurs and accelerates not only do people have additional trouble understanding each other and themselves (a fact that I've highlighted earlier), but economic output is driven to extreme poles.

i sometimes think of two farmers, equal in all respects, but with one inheriting some piece of agricultural machinery and the other with nothing but bare hands. of course the farmer working with bare hands must work much harder to match the level of production of the farmer with the piece of machinery. now consider that in a more realistic setting, these two farmers are only two people amidst a world of people. the farmers depend on a common market to supply anything that they need or want that they cannot produce themselves. in this setting, not only do they compete for food and goods, but even for the land itself. Introducing yet more realism, arable land close to urban markets is where farmers can actually make an income, that is becoming ever more scarce because of climate change and urban sprawl (try not to think of walmart for a moment and try to imagine the sprawling slums of the developing world). the situation quickly moves from being one of romatic competition in the face of hardship to being a dire struggle against impoverishment and landlessness.

yet this example is even too generous, for that market must satisfy the needs and desires of the entire world -- a world filled with people -- some filty rich and others wretchedly poor. one might object to the usurpation of resources, land in particular, given the marginal benefit to the poor being so much greater than to the rich. furthermore land is a contested resource within the framework of orthodox economics (or at least it should be), for it is not a commodity and cannot be re/produced. land is the original thing -- the original space -- before humans made tools or languages there was land -- before humans there was land. on the other hand, hernando de soto, on of the more popular proponents of property rights in the developing world, points out that there are benefits to accrued through property rights in poor countries. the productivity of land can change drastically upon the improvements made to it.

i agree with de soto that in the "urban" world strict and widespread property rights should be sought after and inforced. yet in the "rural" world, property rights can be just another differentiation used by urban folks or those in power to exclude the poorest from a decent life. this fact was widely seen in brazil in the early eighties when huge tracts of land were all but forgotten by absentee landholders, while the landless workers suffered from unstable food prices).

what i mean to say is that rural places can provide a buffer to differentiation, such buffers are needed in a world where the farmer with bare hands (in my simple analogy) is more likely to be a farmer with no land! these are maybe not the rural places that you know, though those places might give you some sense for what a "real" rural place might be like.

... i will shortly write something about the centralization of creativity ... thought and art ... how this drives and is driven by ego-centricity

The logic underlying the decision-making of the powerful is driven by their own exercise of judgment -- this may seem an obvious or moot point ... what I am getting at is the "modern" logic by which our society operates. On the international front this logic is applied by Israel and its allies towards the Palestinians ... certain Palestinians are acting (and perhaps the majority is thinking, as evidenced by the rise of Hamas) against Israel, often in violent ways. Since as far back as I can remember Israel has engaged the Palestinians in a "game" of logic -- according to the little I know of game theory (a "triumph" of modern thought) they are actually operating optimally ("tit-for-tat"), yet ... their actions are despicable (writing from the perspective of an American citizen, I feel that we are wholly culpable in this tragedy).

The Palestinians are equal to the Israelis, if not worse in their exercise of judgment ... the ill will built up over the years has brought nothing but bad faith to the bargaining table.

Some ingredient is missing from this picture: good faith. I mean, faith in your brother, your fellow man, over both tribe and nation. It was a principal taught by many of the great prophets of this holy land. How cruelly ironic that today there is so little good faith to go around.

The powerful loath to let the advantage fall to the powerless.

How fitting that the touchstone of contemporary politicians is to "put politics aside," when political parties (which are, as far as I know, still deeply involved in politics) are the engines of the national political arena. Just to give a sense for the influence of political parties over the federal government, here is the very short list of senators not re-elected in party primaries. Note the newest "member of the club" Sen. Lieberman, with whom I often disagree, is a perfect example of a senator politically breaking with the party.

from "Dethroned in Primaries" printed in the Washington Post on Sunday, April 13, 2008; Page A08

Senators defeated in party primaries since 1970:

· Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) defeated by Ned Lamont (2006).

· Bob Smith (R-N.H.) defeated by John E. Sununu (2002).

· Sheila Frahm (R-Kan.) defeated by Sam Brownback (1996).

· Alan Dixon (D-Ill.) defeated by Carol Moseley Braun (1992).

· Donald Stewart (D-Ala.) defeated by Jim Folsom Jr. (1980).

· Mike Gravel (D-Alaska) defeated by Clark S. Gruening (1980).

· Richard Stone (D-Fla.) defeated by Bill Gunter (1980).

· Jacob K. Javits (R-N.Y.) defeated by Alfonse M. D'Amato (1980).

· Maryon P. Allen (D-Ala.) defeated by Donald Stewart (1978).

· Paul Hatfield (D-Mont.) defeated by Max Baucus (1978).

· Clifford Case (R-N.J.) defeated by Jeff Bell (1978).

· William Fulbright (D-Ark.) defeated by Dale Bumpers (1974).

· Howard M. Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) defeated by John Glenn (1974).

· David Gambrell (D-Ga.) defeated by Sam Nunn (1972).

· B. Everett Jordan (D-N.C.) defeated by Nick Galifianakis (1972).

· Ralph Yarborough (D-Tex.) defeated by Lloyd Bentsen (1970).

opiate or ...

was just thinking about the nearly stale quote from marx about religion being the opiate of the masses relates to the history of facism (especially the mussolinist flavor) and to my thoughts about form and unity

Population Density, Industrial Agriculture, and Poverty

just thinking about population density for a minute: the population density of Bangladesh for example is tremendous, perhaps the "vent for surplus" theory has a larger parallel to equality and growth of industrial capitalism

also i heard a comment the other day ... i think it was a rural indigenous person in bolivia which was something like "we are rural people -- we do not need much -- we make what we need." i was thinking of something a day or two previously about the unending role of the city in driving consumption -- the cultural engines of the city in turn thrive of of it and drive it to further heights (and consider what that does to our urban centered world and our own understandings thereof!) -- investing in education and other things that boost marginal productivity through borrowing -- the rural way to mantain your own demands so that they do not surpass your own output. when production outpaces demand this surplus is expected to be used for investment and to make up for lean times.

Form and Unity

So salient are themes of form and unity in the modern setting, that by going unmentioned in so many connected discussions, highlight the acceptance which with they've been treated.

The repetitive discussion of "culture wars" within bounds of the "left/right:liberal/conservative debate" is just such a discussion, "clumsily" standing in for "deeper" conversations about the proliferation of form.

Latent trends of market and technological growth are responsible for much of the differentiation we are seeing. This shift has been widely been interpreted as a movement in the opposite direction. Yet, the market is implicitly based upon differentiation -- with technology but a tool of the market.

: how big could the market be if demands were simple? What if my desires could become reduced to food, shelter, and companionship. Furthermore, as scholars of command economies could confirm, the failure of the command economy is due to (besides the technological challenge of adjusting industrialized agriculture with differentiated growing conditions) the inability to create the many differentiated intermediate inputs going into modern scale economies.

let us be innocents

let us be innocents
unaware of doubt and envy ...
...facts and figures ...
...theories and laws ...
may the beauty of creation be our lone inspiration

Form and the Community

Communities, relationships ... these are the themes of form -- of differentiation. Form has come to exist in the human psyche, being the essential pyschological difference between man and other beings. The perception of form is intially difficult because it requires a shift in our thinking about the world by a degree of abstraction.

So its that nationalities, sports, religions, occupations, sexualities, languages, corporate brands come to dominate the landscape of the human psyche ... without these the human experience is without form ... without differentiation

It has been proven by the string of successful cosmopolitan societies making up human history, that a certain doubt of this form -- a progressive tolerance and even acceptance of other forms -- is related to appreciable gains.

There is, of course, reaction to the abuse of form -- something that was previously understood in common. Form is not just a common bond among people -- it is also a wall. That is why it is so difficult when one group of people declare independence from another -- it not only ends their common understanding, but also impedes future understanding. In a phrase: what is important -- important being understood not as 'important' but the essential elements that "cause" importance -- is form. A signficant bundle of forms is embedded in national identity -- thus disposal of this identity happens to be the exact recipricol of another's perception of form -- of their own sense of importance -- on their place in a differentiated world.

Back to the cosmpolitan pardigm, which in its first thrust proliferates differentiation. In this world, both brand and ethnicity are things to be desired. As desire for differentiation increases, the domain of "value added" becomes unending. Thus the cosmopolitan community becomes wealthy.

After a period of time , the cosmopolitan begins to question: what is this form (what is left of it) -- why should we believe in form at all.

Now for the question: what should we do when we've lost our faith in form?

Loosing Faith while Gaining Wisdom : A Poor Trade

The modern experience has been highlighted by gaining first-hand or even secondary knowledge of the world around us.

We respect those around us who have gained insight from movies, music, books, and university education -- even more so for insight gained by travel, military adventures, scuba diving.

Implicit in those experiences ... in "growing-up," is the loss of innocence ... even a loss of faith. In the end, the gaining of wisdom is not adequate to make up for the loss of faith.

Academic Weaknesses: Race

Academia is enamoured by discussion of race, and rightly so, the issue of race is a strong sociological factor which affects the lives of many. Yet race discussions are too often made under the pretext of one-way racism perpetrated by the dominant group. Though this tactic underlines vested institutional control by the dominant group, by doing so it sacrifices the potential for reconciliation with this group, instead taking a more confrontational stance. This footing is useful for attracting marginalized groups, who have historically been at odds with the university. Though this strategy allows the university to hopscotch through acceptable racial policy, this sort of inorganic intervention often ends up leaving bad blood with dominate groups, while serving such a thin layer of minorities to side step reconciliation with marginalized communities.

the tree of good and evil

"humans have always, mostly implicitly and unknowingly, understood themselves as a composition of their experiences. as experiences have become layered with the experiences of our ancestors -- imagine a stylized example, a university classroom, where in one sitting a student might hear the intellectual product of thousands, and those thousands which in turn owe their thoughts to many more -- so the individual's ego becomes both more complex, certain, indirect, unintended, and indifferent."

by trade, i am neither biblical scholar, anthropologist/archeologist, philosopher, nor linguist -- foolishly i will proceed

the story of adam introduces one overpowering nugget of truth -- knowledge as (hu)man's path away from "god/good" and towards "evil." true, knowledge is an indispensable element in modern life, and indeed without knowledge we often do more evil than with it.

i will describe the roundabout logic which justifies this seeming contradiction:

-(most of you might want to skip this first part) first, assume human beings undertake every action (or "take no action") with some consequence in mind, whether it be immediate or long-term. these consequences are necessarily based on perceived self interest/values. anything that i can do is something that i blindly or deliberately base on my self interest/values, to the extent of, say, burning my hand on a stove (i wouldn't do this because i don't want to hurt my hand, but might do it if i was cooking quickly because i valued my time over the perceived risk of injury. conversely, someone who wants to demonstrate pain to others, or enjoys pain, etc. might go ahead with it)

-resources, by their existence, distort human behavior, since they enhance perceived outcomes. it is often the fight over limited resources -- money, oil, mates, labor, etc. -- that we identify as the prime catalyst for our own evil. on the other hand, knowledge would seem most benign, for it is usually free or at least relatively cheap, and more importantly, limitless.

-however, it is resources that are the red herring in this mess. knowledge is evil. or more accurately, PERCIEVED KNOWLEDGE is evil. what event could have marked this descent? surely not the settling of the hunter-gatherer to become the agrarian -- as those who favor a resources paradigm might describe. but it is also hard to imagine it under my own logic (which may be evident throughout these writings) -- for humans have always fought, mostly over mates and food, just as other animals sometimes fight. maybe then it is best described by the old story of the tree of knowledge. as the story goes, once humans "ate" from this tree they COULD undertake evil for the first time. they could think, albeit simplistically, as they laid the foundations upon which we continue to build intellectual (or, hah, unintellectual) fortresses (... if it wasn't evident, i'm not a fan of fortresses). their thoughts first drove them to bury their dead, to mourn, to fear, and to question. quickly these thoughts lead to communal warfare, which cannot be fathomed without an understood positive group identity and a negative view of others.

people learnt language throughout time to express important events (in the most universal temporal sense, as in computer languages). first came pleasure, fear, and mourning which were expressed, as is now thought, through movements, mostly facial expressions. next came guttural sounds -- it is oft observed that no sound could be more universally gut wrenching than the mourning cry at the death of a beloved -- which is a testament to the early importance of the human mourning custom that proceeded the elaborate differentiated languages which were to come. next to be communicated were conflict, location, and history, by which time simple spoken language could be used. of course as man settled in fixed agrarian locations, language and social custom continued to develop side-by-side each becoming more ritualistic and complex. we began to make both complex observations about such things as beauty and simultaneously developing systems of ideas such as religion or medicine. throughout all of this both language and society has become more elaborate and ritualized. humans have always, mostly implicitly and unknowingly, understood themselves as a composition of their experiences. as experiences have become layered with the experiences of our ancestors -- imagine a stylized example, a university classroom, where in one sitting a student might hear the intellectual product of thousands, and those thousands which in turn owe their thoughts to many more -- so the individual's ego becomes both more complex, certain, indirect, unintended, and indifferent.

in our age of indirect, unintentional, and therefore thoughtless exposure to most everything, only a few lucky ones can claim the diversity of life experiences to even begin the task of self-introspection to an extent greater than any crash course in self help guides, biographies, romance novels, biblical texts, sappy movies, college texts, and assorted experts would suggest. evidently, the greatest power that anyone has to stop this maddening crush is to enroll themselves in the best educational opportunity which they can afford. unfortunately both the breadth and accuracy of perceived educational opportunities and the lessons learned depend on the early life decisions of innocents -- little idiots expected to understand the implication of their childish impulses on their future long-term position in a falsely, sickeningly, and self-congratulatory meritocratic society.

therefore our world has become one of certain indifference (though from perhaps something worse?) -- not necessarily in the color-inside-the-lines political sense, a perennially favored indicator of all-that-is-socially-important, more accurately a proxy for perceived individual and social economic change or lack-thereof -- but rather by what really matters: respect for ourselves and our communities as fragile mortal creatures living under the oppressive and unstoppable burden of knowledge.

judgementalism is the most powerful and destructive force with which our world is now faced. the silent masses look indifferently towards judgementalism, which easily becomes a continuous stream during a day filled with idiot drivers, idiot coworkers, idiot bosses, lazy minorities, yuppies, snobs, evil-doing foreign extremists etc. judgementalism creeps indifferently into the hands of the powerful few -- presidents with their axis of evil and terrorists with their great satan. almost unanimously, scholars of the religious traditions at hand describe this sort of extreme judgementalism as the expression of certain indifferent agreement of a dogma composed of a media focused on extremes of every shade. just as compatriot communities are loath to give up their brethren "terrorist" is america loath to "betray our leader in time of war." by the time such calculations are made no one is trying to understand why humans have such a hard time getting along on this paradise planet, but rather trying to hold together a story about why the enemy is generally at fault.

to live responsibly in this world means to live respectfully with knowledge. knowledge should not be a weapon to embarrass others, nor a wall with which to exclude oneself and strengthen the ego. therefore with transparency and openness we can live with knowledge, but we must wait until our time comes to return to the earth and throw away this fraudulent cloak.

so unlike what is said by capleton (an avowed and awful homophobic, but also a very insightful rastafarian) - "money, money, an a woman are the root of all evil" - perhaps more accurately, "knowledge, knowledge, and knowledge are the root of all evil"

sources: i think the bit about goal oriented human behavior from adam smith or david ricardo?, also development of human expressions and gestures: (http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9111472)