Monthly Archives: April 2008

I guess I missed a lot in February.

BookTV/C-SPAN2 is great. For a lot of reasons. And despite the fact that Susan Jacoby frightens me when she focuses directly on the camera and Rick Gillespie’s hair is strangely and imminently more illustrious than mine.

But, watching the two of them somewhat sloppily debate leads me to desperately try to categorize their platforms and run the risk of oversimplification. Gillespie – Cultural Radical (meaning, the bridge between highbrow and low – kitsch); Jacoby – Old-School Academic. I like both. I like to think I am both. So, the question I pulled was, Do I have to choose one? Can I ever be both, or will one eventually submit to the other? But, I’ve no intention of answering it here.

If Jacoby argues against anti-rationalism and anti-intellectualism and sources the proponents of culture (video) as degenerate agents, then obviously she means business in squelching low culture. (She was reverently opposed to Friday the 13th during the interview, and somewhat covertly linked it to school violence, which was smooth, kudos Susan). Or so people have interpreted her argument, and that would explain throwing the Cultural Radical in the ring to battle it out with the Old-School Academic over a wobbly coffee table.

Actually, that may be the lot of her argument. But what she doesn’t fully elucidate is what drives technology’s content, not just the use or the very existence of technology. Specifically, what drives technology to perpetuate entertainment, or what drives America, democracy, capitalism to provide this ameliorating source to our difficult production-based lives.

Technology aside, she attacks the schools. The state of which is explained by their institutional nature, and not entirely unaffected by public policy, leading back to government.

I’m all for old-school academics, obviously, and I don’t eschew historical/international/obscure/classic texts in favor of a purely digital culture? age. Jacoby is peeling back the first layer but she doesn’t dissect as deeply as needs be to resolve the multi-generational degeneration of intellect/rationale.

That’s the problem with blaming the messenger and the receiver; instead, question the message and the sender to reveal why the uneducated masses persist with defiance. And why they are given that defiance – afforded intellectual complacency. Worker class, bourgeoisie, &etc.

The issue is the inability to critically think, conceptualize and analyze beyond initial acceptance of given material, which I do believe Jacoby addresses.

And I’d go on and on about Jimmy Wales’ response to Jacoby’s Washington Post article, but it seems too easy. Summary: he misses the point completely, and that only reifies her point. Anyway, rather old news, but I thought I’d have a go.

Also, is Denmark some kind of untapped utopia? First Mr. Environmental Studies Director references it during our interview, and now Jacoby. I feel stupid, but not anti-rational; there’s hope yet!

The Flobots; because violinists dominate

I can ride my bike with no handlebars
No handlebars
No handlebars

I can ride my bike with no handlebars
No handlebars
No handlebars

Look at me, look at me
hands in the air like it’s good to be
ALIVE
and I’m a famous rapper
even when the paths’re all crookedy
I can show you how to do-si-do
I can show you how to scratch a record
I can take apart the remote control
And I can almost put it back together
I can tie a knot in a cherry stem
I can tell you about Leif Ericson
I know all the words to “De Colores”
And “I’m Proud to be an American”
Me and my friend saw a platypus
Me and my friend made a comic book
And guess how long it took
I can do anything that I want cuz, look:

I can keep rhythm with no metronome
No metronome
No metronome

I can see your face on the telephone
On the telephone
On the telephone

Look at me
Look at me
Just called to say that it’s good to be
ALIVE
In such a small world
All curled up with a book to read
I can make money open up a thrift store
I can make a living off a magazine
I can design an engine sixty four
Miles to a gallon of gasoline
I can make new antibiotics
I can make computers survive aquatic conditions
I know how to run a business
And I can make you wanna buy a product
Movers shakers and producers
Me and my friends understand the future
I see the strings that control the systems
I can do anything with no assistance
I can lead a nation with a microphone
With a microphone
With a microphone
I can split the atoms of a molecule
Of a molecule
Of a molecule

Look at me
Look at me
Driving and I won’t stop
And it feels so good to be
Alive and on top
My reach is global
My tower secure
My cause is noble
My power is pure
I can hand out a million vaccinations
Or let’em all die in exasperation
Have’em all grilled leavin lacerations
Have’em all killed by assassination
I can make anybody go to prison
Just because I don’t like’em and
I can do anything with no permission
I have it all under my command
I can guide a missile by satellite
By satellite
By satellite
and I can hit a target through a telescope
Through a telescope
Through a telescope
and I can end the planet in a holocaust
In a holocaust
In a holocaust
In a holocaust
In a holocaust
In a holocaust
In a holocaust

I can ride my bike with no handlebars
No handle bars
No handlebars

I can ride my bike with no handlebars
No handlebars
No handlebars

handlebars.flobots

I’m afraid our entire lives’ main preoccupation will be with alleviating cognitive dissonance. The equilibrium (Nirvana? but not so easily defined) we strive toward is to bring all these competing/evolving domains to a peak wherein we speak, act, exist with no sense of the external. (I’ve no idea where to place desire, besides the aforementioned being the greatest, most genuine desire).

Facilitating mind-orbs, an ultimate liberation: is this technology? Is this where we choose to end up, anyway? The great advancement is a means for great stasis.

CD trifold and back cover mockup; InDesign; pdf screenshots with markups; yes I even made the barcode

I.  Cover photo was taken in a field behind Willow Hill Elementary School 2006  II. III. & IV. Photos from the old mental hospital in TC 2006, lyrics from Andrew Bird

Actual.  Decent except for the shit cut job up top, which is my fault entirely and not that of the kind young gentleman who offered to cut not only one, but two mockup drafts for me.  I kind of hate straight razors.  But I like being mistaken for an art student.

I. RADIOHEAD II. Today III. Ryan McGinley, BMX, 2000; Beautiful Losers: Contemporary Art and Street Culture IV. Des oeufs, parfait

Spontaneity led me to the two-hour theological lecture carousal, during which thunder literally damned the earth. Beautiful orchestration.

When postulating on religious tolerance and centering on Christianity as the main talking point (and being an atheist), it’s advisable to…edit. Meaning, don’t admit you are unsure about the logical clarity of the paper you are presenting as well as developing into a book, especially to a roomful of scholars, especially after the fact.

There are facets to my disenchantment, and they aren’t entirely his fault. Perhaps I felt the arguments were simplistic and exhausted because I’ve read and thought along his entire linear path before, and it’s similarly ingrained to the point in which I no longer notice novel variances in theological analysis. Disparity in Christian theory and practice have always been at odds, and that fact has never eluded me traveling through academic and nonacademic spheres. So, I don’t have the patience to listen to said facts piecemealed by Pascal and Spinoza quotations (and their autobiographical accounts upheld as debate fodder, which I can’t help but connect to recent reading of Barthes’s postmodernist Death of the Author) and revealed through Augustine, reiterated in no clearer terms.

I mean, reframing the ancient agnostic quandary under the title “The Persecutor’s Angle”? Really? Pascal’s probability quoted there. The carousal included rejecting obvious doctrines like infinite rewards and punishments, Christian exclusivism and Calvinistic predestination. The bishop-doctrine-rejection anecdote was interesting though; I’d like to see an interview with him by, say, Richard Dawkins.

Speaking solely on theological liberalism was also a poor choice, as a random professor sitting in front of me pointed out. And that’s when thunder struck and he profusely apologized to that which he adamantly disacknowledges.

But I’m addressing politics of his speech, and the point is, everyone there agreed with the desire of “tacit autonomy;” it was just the harmonic dualism of religious affiliation and tolerance that was forced into question. Which will stay a question.

Decidedly, only a slight distaste remains for the literary minds circumnavigating ivory towers, this, after what can only be described as a great neuron leap, enlightenment, awakening, for I finally realize, it is stringently worded and delivered with absolutely no ironic nod to its roots because it is a concept that can only be described exactly, exactly as it is.   It is the result of years upon years of constant striving toward a distant point in their minds, a point established by consensus of the participants, but still a point only attainable by the acknowledgment of their colleagues and, more importantly, their superiors, their mentors, their future wisdom they will not only overtake but graciously allude to in referencing influences, but never on their own work, influences in a sense that does not touch their mind, their originality or any other integral working-path to the product of their cerebral children.  Of course, not only that, but the concept itself can only be communicated that way because it is produced that way, as the process got in the way of the end ambition in reverse conceptualizing, if I can say that.

I am just turned off by the manufacturing of precisely the same personitude, the untouched but the deeply knowledgeable, the rejection of certain movements ideas objects attitudes expression, only to embrace others for criticism’s sake, for a playground of conceptual debate to build upon, destroy and reconsider – compare and respect again.  I am reminded of purpose but reminded of the importance of none, as in, the importance of not-purpose but to happen upon one, and this serves well for all, so give them that.

It satisfies me to conceptualize on the level above-roles, so it seems I was not as far off as I’d thought.  Joy.  No-one is what they seem no-one was what they believed.  Perception draws and shoots its blanks again.

Yes, I realize I’m at mental/reality odds again, but I have my reasons.  They make no more sense than if I didn’t, so.