Marvel vs DC

I will watch Jerry Seinfeld's Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee with President Obama eventually.  

I dread it, I have to be in a v good cheerful and forgiving mood to see it and come to it with a more neutral disposition, somehow temporarily deactivating my prejudice about politicians making lobster salad of the office ppl gave them the legitimacy to occupy, especially if they're going to behave like they're celebrities instead of civil servants. 

Y'knowhat I expect at the moment when I think of it?  For Jerry to be too pally with Obama and for Obama to erroneously interpret that as a good thing. It's not a good thing.  A president is not supposed to be 'pals' with anyone in public.  But I realize this makes my butt look like an archeological finding.

And pluswhich that train has long sailed since President Obama in his 2nd mandate played friendly basketball with Batman and Spiderman -- or should I say Bruce Wayne and Peter Parker? -- in a fundraiser for the Democratic Party.  

It's better than taking money from corporations, but by comparison with how Bernie Sanders' campaign is being funded ? It's a joke -- or should I say Joker? --  since Sanders has so far collected more money from individual donors only, averaging $30 each (as of 23, 24 or 26, I can't quite remember which, December, 2015 according to MSNBBCNN), than Obama did in his last campaign, even accepting corporate 'packages' (previously known on 24 as bribes). 

There is one thing that still gives me reason to suspend judgment:  Obama is, after all, a professional politician, so even if Jerry Seinfeld behaves like they're formal equals, the truth is Obama will most likely be 411 steps ahead.   Not that I think Jerry would be out to 'catch' Obama in anything since it is an entertainment show.  

Yet this is precisely the problem.  The informal quality of such 'interviews' tends to give bad ideas to the less astute politician.  Relax?  And all Hell hits Pandora's fan mailbox. 

Be that as it may, sooner or later I'll bite the 30 pieces of SilverBulletSpoons I wasn't born with, slay this vampiric dragon hanging over all our mixed metaphoric heads once and for all time, and kiss this episode of CCgC & of historic shame on the cheek before the cock crows thrice.  

Then I'll sit down and write a truly bombastic paragraph about it.

Given the superhero smorgasbord above, it could reasonably start:

"Once upon a time, a Marvel comic walked into a White House and saw a professional DC comic..."

My generation is so sad.  My generation has no link, no connection to what went on before it; we're loose bits of rocket released in the vacuum of space, without even knowing we were once part of the rocket.  We've no intellectual home, no emotional link to our predecessors; no idea or ethos binds us together as a group or in opposition to another group.  The generations which come later are even worse.  No will to LIVE, no incentive; no goal has been identified, no philosophy has come out of it, and these are the yrs when vigorous rebellion is easiest, when hormones and unapologetic arrogance not yet earned are at its peak.

Technology has never been more advanced -- (btw, what kind of stupid phrase is this anyway? Of COURSE technology can only become more and more advanced as a linear conception of time follows its course! but I digress) -- and ppl have seldom been this illiterate.  

Not even in a traditional way. 

Ppl know other forms of knowledge and literacy to the ones I knew at, say, age 20. But the problem is the lack of connection with everything else.

How is one to measure progress if the body of work produced by Man so far is no longer acknowledged -- not even known!

Are we about to witness 3, 4 generations studying like mad only to reinvent the wheel? Out of sheer ignorance?

What ARE they studying?  Theyre not reading the classics, theyre not studying political or economic theory; theyre not studying philosophy or fine arts.  They've no clue how language and History connect, no idea about the extent to which language itself influences ALL disciplines and how theyre formulated, posited, and directed.  And if *I* am saying this the problem is grave, friends, because I'm hardly a polymath.

Were I Dictator of the Polyverse, my first decree would be that an introduction to metalinguistics be made compulsory in formal education at age FIFTEEN.  "These are the tools used in order to steer ppl's thoughts THAT way instead of any other way it could have gone."  In all disciplines!  From scientific discourse all the way down to softer disciplines which teach ppl v little (i.e. pedagogy).

Reductionist views of the human person and what s/he can accomplish, why, and how, effectively removes the infinite potential we all have in us to create or rearrange what already exists.  This does come from a sloppy and misguided conception of language and how it shapes thought.  

The idea that something is only real and true once it has been proven by science, using the scientific method as it is today, is so destructive even of science that I am perplexed flabbergasted incandescent, plus which baffled as well as fascinated by the fact ppl don't see it, don't discuss it, and scientists themselves do not address it.

Because if the v nature and foundation of the scientific method is by definition an endless process whereby epistemology is a work in eternal progress (with perhaps the exception of some elements of biology and physics), then why should A Scientific Discovery be considered as a more final, solid, reliable truth than any other got via another epistemological field?  

If science is never done, if the scientific inquiry itself is always being perfected and its accepted truths challenged (necessarily), then surely it is AS reliable as any other type of knowledge.

But everything is not about science and how some of its tenets have been misapplied and misinterpreted.

The problem is a lot more serious.  I see these 20somethings walking around as if they've already died, not unlike the zombies they spend so much time attempting to kill in videogames.  There is no joy on their faces, no understanding of the beauty lying there, created by countless generations before them.  They know technology intimately, and think that because their grandparents couldn't operate a computer or a videogame, they were less intelligent, less capable, more naive.  In reality it is the v opposite.  

When one opens a BOOK, a dictionary, one doesn't only learn what one was looking for. When one looks for one word in the dictionary, one ends up seeing many others, and learning what those other words mean, too.  

Analog absorption of knowledge is more complete, more thorough, more vast, if yes slower.

But learning by analogy, identifying analogous elements in the world is far more important than knowing WHERE to click on a computer screen.

In my own circle, I have noticed how more and more ppl have difficulty identifying rather unimpressive, common, symbols, which anyone who grew up in a certain culture ought to be able to discern; ppl can't speak metaphorically anymore.  

The paradoxical element of metaphorical language is that because of its seeming vagueness and potential for misunderstanding, ppl apply their intellectual ability a lot more!  When an idea is conveyed in non-metaphorical language, the words used to convey it had better be pretty well-chosen, pretty accurate, for the interlocutor will not think twice. And this is tragic when linguistic knowledge has either not been ingested or has been poorly digested.

Metaphors HELP us think.  They help us think more, and better, and in different ways.

Symbols do, too.

But these elements are scarcer & scarcer in daily speech and, worse, in literature & in art!! The v womb of metaphors&symbols. This womb is now an inhospitable one, to match the general sterility of the average 20-something, plucked and clean, straight and falsely serious.  No! They're not even serious! I'm wrong!  They're DULL.

Instead of metaphors and symbols we get avatars and txt msg lingo.  At the HEIGHT of freedom, we choose to put ourselves in a prison of ignorance.  At a time when we could have the most knowledge about any and everything that's already been created, we choose instead to make our "knowledge" narrower and narrower, about things which are finite, and whose application is limited, and in the service and for the benefit of those whose interest is to keep us ignorant and disconnected, atomized, lost, depressed, drugged, surrounded by machines and meaningless objects, buying, buying, more&more, to dull the senses, distract the mind, lose focus; anything but see that we're running around in squares.  Yes squares!  My God 20somethings these days are square in the worst possible way!  Get married quickquick, have kids, get mortgage oweowe bucketsful of money to banks, to schools, quickquick, indebted youth has no time to think, they have to workwork get job makepayment every month!

This entry's organization is a reflection of the topic treated here.

I trust Mankind's potential.  I believe curiosity will prevail, even if at times it looks unlikely.

Today's young... the younger they look the older and more hopeless they are inside.  I wish that they,  like me, may become younger, the older they look.

Distorted Perceptions

For many years, I've believed the way geography is taught in schools is not only counter-productive but actively misleading.

It is true that learning how the world is politically divided, how its borders came about, and what a topographical account looks like, it is as important to show the real size of different countries, once one has integrated and accepted this concept (of "countries") in the first place.

The only ways in which this can be done, according to me, is with numbers (area) or with maps.

I doubt many of us have any real idea of how big 30,000 square kilometers is in reality. I can't even be trusted to judge the dimensions of my windows in an accurate manner...

So maps become the best way to give us a glimpse of reality, inasmuch as that can happen when the subject is so vast and difficult to imagine.

Maps can be beautiful, too.  There are so many versions of a single account of an area, and that provides hours & hours of critical thought, and not only about geography, but about perception as a whole, how the same thing can be portrayed, and what could possibly be the motivation to show something in a specific way, and not in another.

Geography fascinates me because it can open the door to several topics of huge significance in the world.  Its apparent neutrality is also a positive, not only negative, feature of this discipline.  One doesn't feel like one is being indoctrinated or preached to when learning geography--- this can be dangerous, but because of its scientific properties (measurements etc), one can find out or demonstrate other points of view in an easier and less traumatic way, with fewer dogmatic obstacles, and end up reaching a far clearer understanding of the problems which exist in the world today-- political, with regards to population, natural resources, and relative importance each country may have on the chessboard of the various institutions with vague and long acronyms & abbreviations. I believe SCALE helps enormously when it comes to maps. I love them all, but when I look at a standard planisphere, it leaves me with the impression something is missing.

Today, my fav example of how one's point of view can shift and one's understanding expand in 5 seconds is this:

Since the African continent is so so SO often the topic of discussion about population, poverty, starvation, I should like to point out that the population of Africa is 1 billion ppl (2010), fewer than China alone, and with more natural resources.  This immediately makes me think its main problem, then, is not one of overpopulation.  Why aren't we told numbers like population density instead? 

So I go on and start looking for what might be the real problem(s)...

Geography is a v good starting point. One can end up anywhere from it.

 Paris, France

Love it.  Friday, or Saturday, I don't know when exactly, I lost my debit card. I agonized about it for ages Sunday morning when I found out I didn't have the card.  I cancelled it, had a shower, worried about how many things could have been bought on the internet by then on my card, got dressed, went out to retrace my steps and hope to find it.  Getting downstairs, I checked my mailbox.  The card was in it.  

Hate it.  Having cancelled the card Sunday morning, I had to go to the bank today to put in a request for a new one.  I get there, the branch is closed.  It closes on Mondays.  

Love it.  France, to everyone's surprise, voted YES for Palestine to join UNESCO today.  Now, this alone makes me love living in this country, especially when everyone and his brother thought France would either abstain or vote NO.  "Be realistic, demand the impossible."  Yes.  Sometimes, someone just has to take a chance and do what seems impossible.   

Hate it.  On the way to the bank, I was walking down one of the poshest avenues in this city, Avenue de Breteuil, when I felt something falling on my right arm.  It was a puddle of spit.  Someone spat out of the window of a building anyone would label as "chic".

The many faces of La Douce France, Marianne

Oh, Pleeeeeea!

 a rant




Mike McDermott: "...and please don't splash the pot."
Teddy KGB:  "... in my club I vill splash de pwot venever de fahk I pliz."

When will it be possible anymore to have a conversation or a heated debate about anything important if:

a) we must constantly start any discussion by reassuring our interlocutor we're aware of ethical, legal, moral, and politically correct considerations, therefore ensuring s/he knows we're not Hitler, or any of the "lesser" dictators; 

b) we must present as many easily verifiable facts as possible;

c) we must not make the conversation personal in any way;

d) we must not have any emotional reaction to a topic/point;

e) we must 'let go' as soon as it becomes apparent that "it is making ppl uncomfortable"

When did it become a faux-pas to make a point? to be passionate about it? to have convictions?  When did ppl start behaving as though they're on MSNBBCNN?  Why this endless need for consensus, for blandness?  What is wrong with a hint of chili in chocolate?   Are mashed potatoes always preferable to something that needs chewing?  Babies like mushy peas.  But that's because they haven't got teeth yet.  As soon as toddlers get teeth, they want crunchy things, hard candy.  Picture tigers only having smoothies.

Then ppl complain they're bored.  Well, of course they are.  Fascinating though an earthquake or a volcano eruption might be, there is only so much that can be said about these natural phenomena, unless they're turned into a metaphor in a bigger, more cunning, more difficult, stupendous, mega-fascinating, point.  Or a joke.  Or a euphemism.  You get where I'm going with this.

So you make the points you find need making (all these tiny points, screaming in your head, saying 'pick me! pick me!' - like 6yo orphans no one wants, desperate for attention, yearning for warm arms to embrace them and make them feel they matter-) only to be told 'oh but you see, we can't run the risk these ideas will take over because the moral consensus has always been that..---' and on.  As if it'd be okay if the conversation would only happen between you two, but it can't be discussed with others, lest ppl who aren't v mature or intellectually prepared for these ideas should be exposed to them. All very hushush.  "Oh I know John, you and I know this, but imagine if ppl like Gareth put their hands on it; we'll all be doomed."  Yah? Guess what, that's not the case. Ppl like Gareth can also hear about it, because ideas aren't the boogey man.

Picture someone saying that to Robespierre or George Washington or Nelson Mandela?  'Sorry, Nelson, we just can't have you saying these things; they're dangerous and plus which ppl might adopt these ideas and then what?'  Gandhi?  'Oh Mr. Mahatma, do stop sulking and have a bite out of this er plate of mushy peas.  Here's the salt.'

Then the skies open up and suddenly the sun shines on your face and obliterates even the most moronic and boring, relentless droplet of drizzle, the climatic equivalent of a whine. 

Every now and then someone will say something that makes you feel alive, because you couldn't agree or disagree more. The important thing is that it stirs a strong response in you, even if it is short-lived.  Isn't that a wonderful moment?  Isn't that why we live?  OK, one of the reasons why we live.  Otherwise, it'd be a situation where "I may not agree with what you think but I'll die to defend your right to say bluebells bloom in spring."  

This is probably why I find TV is so pernicious; it ends up BPermeating our unconscious mind and downloading onto our hardrive reactions which aren't normally ours, a kind of corporate takeover of the mind, much like these multinationals make every single city in the world look the same, so that you can be in Buenos Aires or New Delhi and buy the exact same products from the same shops with the same automatons who mistake bad taste for subversion.  

Now we can also talk to ppl from all over the world, of all ages, socioeconomic backgrounds, and education, and be almost sure they'll tell us exactly what we'll hear if we turn the tele on.  

Well, to this, I say an overweight NO. ¡No pasarán!

I prefer the slightly insane but thinking person to the reasonable consensual parrot, telling me how smoking will give me cancer, and betacarotene is good for tanning, and how donkey rides on Greek islands are giga-chic.  

On the relationship between music and violence

For the past few days I've been thinking about a possible link between music and violence.  Observing people I know and remembering people I knew and their idiosyncrasies, mannerisms, personalities, etc, I've noticed something that interests me very much.  I hope I don't disappoint anyone who might read this: this isn't about any correlations between rap&violence, punk&violence, sexism, gansta rap, etc etc. None of that in this post, so if you were hoping for it, you might as well stop reading now.

Starting from a cursory reflection about my own likes and dislikes, I'm tempted to make a few claims:

• Music cuts through all the "white noise" which exists in our daily lives;
• Musical affinity makes other types of understanding easier and quicker, like between two people who speak a foreign language that isn't their first one (i.e. a Spanish speaker and an Arabic speaker meet and must find a 3rd language in common if neither speaks the other's language);
• People with acute sensibility to music have less patience for the mundane and those who take pleasure in mundane activities. If my opinion on this is at all well-founded, this is the most important part of the argument, because it informs one's reactions to the world;
• Once music is on (and here the necessary presupposition is music which pleases the individual) one has no choice but to experience whatever feeling that piece of music will bring the listener.

I think this is what lies behind that hitherto incomprehesible (to me) practice authoritarian/totalitarian regimes had/have (esp USSR) of sending composers and musicians to camps or banning pieces of music without lyrics (!)---

These censors realized how music cuts through all the white noise, so to speak, how certain pieces have the power to awaken in some a most powerful, usually subconscious understanding of how so much that goes on around us is utterly meaningless.

Bureaucracy is the enemy of sublimation and beauty;  music as art, therefore, can act as a metaphysical experience, which removes us from our immediate physical "reality" -- and here I put reality in inverted commas precisely to highlight how it isn't an absolute but a temporary, physical reality, and not the essential reality of one's own intimate thoughts, feelings, and experiences, or even the reality of one's imagination and hopes for the future, which are necessarily of a better quality than one's present.  The clear inference is the present isn't good enough.

Claims about how "a certain type of music" alienates and "distracts" from The (insert your favorite one here) Struggle, then, begin to make sense to me, when viewed through this prism.

The violence with which the musical experience invades our being, that is, leaving absolutely no choice to the listener as to whether s/he wants to feel it or not, is seldom matched by other experiences, because it isn't painful as such.   It can be the vehicle or agent which brings other painful experiences to the foreground of one's immediate present, but it is done with sublimated violence; indeed, pleasurable violence.  Its effects are the opposite of those achieved with vulgar violence in that the "victim" is happier, more complete, more himself after having suffered music's brutality.

This sublimation is precisely what's lacking in the mundane, where objects/experiences are more similar to a billboard when compared to music, that's to say, in spite of their tangible aspect, they lack the depth and the power to transmit the v special feeling the idea of infinity gives us.  One looks at a billboard and knows, even if it is an expertly crafted one like trompe l'oeil can be, that there is nothing behind it, no depth, no 3rd dimension, much less a 4th one to be imagined or momentarily inhabited.  

So the very fact music is intangible makes it MORE three- or four-dimensional than any physical manifestation of the imagination and any interpretation of the real.  I'm willing to claim this quality is present in music and religious experiences, nowhere else.  Nothing else can produce this ambiguity between suffering and ecstasy, not even sex-- it lacks the sublime quality music and religion share.

Hence: music & religion are totalitarians' favorite bêtes noires.

Hilariously, I understand now how music can be more threatening to any power structure than a novel, than words.  Naturally I'm talking about music here, not lyrics; indeed, I am only talking about music without lyrics.

The violence contained in how music injects itself into a person is infinitely higher and more powerful than any other type of violence, because there is no resistance possible.  External, physical violence is the weapon of the impotent.