Hello all and welcome back to my blog.
I was having a brief thought this morning which I believe should be shared amongst all of the film community in and out of Cape Town, as well as everywhere else. As we all know, the film industry is a difficult one to enter because of the high costs involved in film production. And right now, these costs are the barrier to a lot of aspiring filmmakers. This is a problem - effectively, those not rich enough to make their own films are being silenced.
And I think I know why.
You see, when I was in Film Production class at UCT, our generation seemed to be obsessed - and I literally do mean obsessed with production values. Production values ostensibly refer to quality, but I think they actually refer to how 'polished' a product looks. What that means is that when we see a feature film created by Hollywood, we're often seeing something that has been shot on actual film, scanned onto a computer, edited and printed back on to film. That gives their pictures a visual quality we long to match.. which is something that can't be done without shitloads of money. Everyone knows I have my issues with Hollywood, but surely I can't be bashing films that look nice?
Well, I'm not doing that either. It's wonderful that we have visual masterpieces on film. Two of my favourite films ever, Sin City and Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow are on my favourites list mostly because of the production design elements, which look the way they do because of expensive equipment (although I would like to point out that Sin City was shot in HD and not on film).
So here we have a new generation of young filmmakers, most of them without large cash deposits longing for their films to look like those, and in the process scorning films with so-called 'low' production values. THAT's where the problem lies. So concerned with production values were we as a class that most groups, for our final graduation project, refused to shoot with a Sony NX5 (1920x1080 at 24 Mbps, this is full HD at three megabytes per SECOND, so a 10-minute film weighs in at 1,8 GB), despite the fact that we could get hold of this camera for free. Instead, we went with the Canon 5D Mark II, which shoots at 38 Mbps. For this we paid R400 per DAY - at a 90% discounted rate (the original rate being R4000/day - all this for the camera BODY, with no lens).
The problem, again, is not that we are making films that look beautiful, but that we are continuing a trend in which visual quality is more important than content. This is likely to hurt freelancers with older equipment especially - they will not be hired because they haven't yet saved up the R100 000 necessary to buy all the latest stuff. And we are feeding a capitalist industry that just loves to tell us how bad Standard Definition is.
When I uploaded the aforementioned film, Nje Ngathi to Vimeo, their specifications for the upload were 640x360 at 2 Mbps. And rightfully so... imagine how long it would take people with South Africa's shitty internet to buffer it in full HD? The point is, here I am uploading a version that is 1/19th of the original's quality - and that's just OK. It still looks good enough.
So the point, then, is not to stop recording movies in HD - after all, we do need technology to continue to expand, become cheaper and more accessible. What I'm suggesting is that production values, which are not limited to picture quality, but in fact cover many aspects of video production, scale in diminishing return - the more you spend on making them right, the less output you get for each rand you spend. And if you have little or no money but still want to make a film, you'll be derided for not matching the production companies' standards. That is how they stay in power and keep you out of it.
What we need is a realisation that glossy finishes do not make good films. That content is more important than visuals. The next time you see an independently produced film in SD, don't shy away from it just because its visuals aren't as impressive as Avatar. Remember that over 2 billion rand was spent on that film - then the fact that it's visual quality is only 20 times better than an SD film produced for less than R1000 starts to put it in perspective for you.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
The Neurotypical Emulator
The following post is based strongly off a conversation I had with a good friend. You know who you are.. thanks man.
Understanding of this article will be quite strongly biased in favour of those who have a decent understanding of computers and programming at their most basic levels. If you struggle to understand the terms I use, it would really be better to look them up as I can't predict in advance how many terms I'm going to have to define for different members of my audience. Of course, you can always just ask me what I mean, too.
Hypothetically, aspies run different operating systems to neurotypical people. Not necessarily better or worse, just different. And there are many more NTs (neutorypicals) in the world than aspies, so NTs by default are running different variations, but with mostly similar source code operating systems. Aspies have a different system. Neither should change their native OS, because their native one is the most efficient type of system for their neurochemistry. (This is far from suggesting neither should IMPROVE their OS or use different examples as a way of learning), but that the building-block source code does not necessarily need a vendor change.
As Linux (an open-source OS) has Wine (an emulator designed to run Windows applications), aspies need a sort of emulator, or virtual machine to run NT apps. Exactly which applications constitute NT status are very disputed, and I will not attempt to list them in this post. That is a story for another occasion. What I would like you to remember though, is that the more tired the particular aspie is, the more bugs will be present in his/her NT emulator and the less effective that aspie will be in communcation. When the NT emulator crashes, the term 'meltdown' is used to explain the condition.
That is all, as I have to run.
Understanding of this article will be quite strongly biased in favour of those who have a decent understanding of computers and programming at their most basic levels. If you struggle to understand the terms I use, it would really be better to look them up as I can't predict in advance how many terms I'm going to have to define for different members of my audience. Of course, you can always just ask me what I mean, too.
Hypothetically, aspies run different operating systems to neurotypical people. Not necessarily better or worse, just different. And there are many more NTs (neutorypicals) in the world than aspies, so NTs by default are running different variations, but with mostly similar source code operating systems. Aspies have a different system. Neither should change their native OS, because their native one is the most efficient type of system for their neurochemistry. (This is far from suggesting neither should IMPROVE their OS or use different examples as a way of learning), but that the building-block source code does not necessarily need a vendor change.
As Linux (an open-source OS) has Wine (an emulator designed to run Windows applications), aspies need a sort of emulator, or virtual machine to run NT apps. Exactly which applications constitute NT status are very disputed, and I will not attempt to list them in this post. That is a story for another occasion. What I would like you to remember though, is that the more tired the particular aspie is, the more bugs will be present in his/her NT emulator and the less effective that aspie will be in communcation. When the NT emulator crashes, the term 'meltdown' is used to explain the condition.
That is all, as I have to run.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Humanity
I've met many people over the course of a lifetime who, oddly enough, seem to have humanity all figured out. I usually ask such wise people to share their insight with me, and am most often met with a result suspicously similar to one of the following.
-People suck
-People are cruel
-You shouldn't care too much about people because they will always disappoint you in the end
When I ask for proof of such assertions, I typically get answers such as Nazi Germany, Russian communists and Internet trolls. Basically, their thesis is that because there are this many shitty people in the world, that shittiness itself is the lowest common denominator following humanity itself.
The simple truth is that yes, while there are extreme examples of human cruelty and inaction in the face of extreme violence, there are also extreme examples of selflessness and goodness that all too often go unnoticed because they are performed by everyday people. As such, they are not 'newsworthy' and slip under the radar.
No extreme examples are going to tell us very much about human nature, anyway. They are outliers. And it is my belief that humans are in fact inherently good, but can be easily corrupted. Most people WANT to be good, they just don't know how.
Why don't they know this? I think you can see where this is going. Goodness is easy to corrupt. If you make people believe that if they are good, they will be walked all over and bullied (which is easy to do if you are one of the bullies) but convince them that if they look out solely for their self-interest (which all too often ends up being the interest of the upper-classes) they will be OK, then perhaps they'll try it. And in the beginning they may even appear to succeed. For they arent being bullied anymore, which negatively reinforces their behaviour of supporting the man. It doesnt matter if the man was the one bullying them in the first place.
See, people really WANT to do the right thing, but are corrupted into doing less because they believe it is the only way they will see results of their actions. Wake up. The system was not created for your benefit. If you want to do the right thing, then do this: Spread this information. Wake other people up. Educate. Be a leader. Save that person from the bullies. Intervene. You may just save their life, and then that person could one day become someone influential that saves the world.
Because the world needs to be saved. There is too much preventable unhappiness in the world at the moment, and we have all been conditioned to accept this state of affairs, lest it be us suffering like that.
It doesnt need to be this way.
-People suck
-People are cruel
-You shouldn't care too much about people because they will always disappoint you in the end
When I ask for proof of such assertions, I typically get answers such as Nazi Germany, Russian communists and Internet trolls. Basically, their thesis is that because there are this many shitty people in the world, that shittiness itself is the lowest common denominator following humanity itself.
The simple truth is that yes, while there are extreme examples of human cruelty and inaction in the face of extreme violence, there are also extreme examples of selflessness and goodness that all too often go unnoticed because they are performed by everyday people. As such, they are not 'newsworthy' and slip under the radar.
No extreme examples are going to tell us very much about human nature, anyway. They are outliers. And it is my belief that humans are in fact inherently good, but can be easily corrupted. Most people WANT to be good, they just don't know how.
Why don't they know this? I think you can see where this is going. Goodness is easy to corrupt. If you make people believe that if they are good, they will be walked all over and bullied (which is easy to do if you are one of the bullies) but convince them that if they look out solely for their self-interest (which all too often ends up being the interest of the upper-classes) they will be OK, then perhaps they'll try it. And in the beginning they may even appear to succeed. For they arent being bullied anymore, which negatively reinforces their behaviour of supporting the man. It doesnt matter if the man was the one bullying them in the first place.
See, people really WANT to do the right thing, but are corrupted into doing less because they believe it is the only way they will see results of their actions. Wake up. The system was not created for your benefit. If you want to do the right thing, then do this: Spread this information. Wake other people up. Educate. Be a leader. Save that person from the bullies. Intervene. You may just save their life, and then that person could one day become someone influential that saves the world.
Because the world needs to be saved. There is too much preventable unhappiness in the world at the moment, and we have all been conditioned to accept this state of affairs, lest it be us suffering like that.
It doesnt need to be this way.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Dynamism (hey is that the correct term?)
I've just looked up both the words Dynamism and Dynamicism to figure out which may be the better word for what I'm about to describe. My lookup didn't help, and I have an article to write, so I figured fuck getting the title right.
This is a quick one, and this article asks the question of you: Where do YOU think this could go? What are YOUR ideas? The simple truth is, I don't have those answers. But we can build them if we have good suggestions and brainstorms.
The startting idea is, as humans, we need structures. Please don't get me wrong, I am NOT saying we need hierarchies, or at least how such things typically play out. But we need ORGANISATION. It is because of organisation that we have engineers, scientists, system administrators, educators and many many people that are working a lot of the time to make our lives easier. Organisation is very clearly an important ability to possess.
I believe very possibly that humans can collectively build not so much a Utopia as much as a Dynamic Mutual Society whose very founding principle is that it is dynamic. It embraces change and new learning. And to build such a society, we are going to need ridiculous amounts of organisation. Think of space shuttles and the number of engineering variables that need to be taken into account when you send humans into motherfucking space. Fourteen people are dead as a result of minor things that went wrong on space shuttle missions. While this, quite frankly sucks, it proves the point of the necessity of organisation when complex systems are being dealt with. Sociologists study the way humans create societies, and they will explain that human societies are quite as complicated and intricate as advanced engineering. Or you could ask neurologists, most of whom believe that the human brain is the most complicated and intricate 'machine' that science has ever discovered.
The point of all of this is that societies not only can, but SHOULD be engineered. And I don't mean engineered by shady corporate interests. I mean built, quite literally from nothing but intellect and great organisation and the participation of everyone who chooses, out of their free will, to join the society contstruction project. For example, The Venus Project. Please note that by including this, I am not suggesting this as the ONLY or CORRECT solution - just an example of people who decided to start thinking seriously about reconstructing society and why such a thing is necessary. Even if you hate people like Jacque Fresco and Peter Joseph with a passion, if you honestly believe that you wouldn't learn something new from reading their drafted manifesto, which is available from the previous link, then you are one seriously ignorant person. Always remember that you determine your own level of involvement here. I think that Fresco and Joseph do a very good job of explaining these important ideas for us all. One thing they are certain to mention is how they understand that they are not looking for utopia, but rather a society that is always under maintenance, constantly being improved wherever possible in the name of efficiency and greater achievement. In the end, we're all after the same things. Happiness, reached potential. Success at the cost of nothing but well-used effort.
Things to aspire to, in my opinion. And to build such a society, we have to learn to think dynamically. That means, embracing change - understanding that change is not only inevitable, the only way to make change good for us is to seek constant improvement. That is the essence of dynami(ci)sm. If you remember nothing from my message except this, then remember this: EMBRACE CHANGE.
This is probably not an original idea, but I don't give a fuck, so: Why not call our society Dynamitopia?
As I said in the beginning, I don't really know how any of this could play out and therefore seek constructive conversation about it.
Good night.
This is a quick one, and this article asks the question of you: Where do YOU think this could go? What are YOUR ideas? The simple truth is, I don't have those answers. But we can build them if we have good suggestions and brainstorms.
The startting idea is, as humans, we need structures. Please don't get me wrong, I am NOT saying we need hierarchies, or at least how such things typically play out. But we need ORGANISATION. It is because of organisation that we have engineers, scientists, system administrators, educators and many many people that are working a lot of the time to make our lives easier. Organisation is very clearly an important ability to possess.
I believe very possibly that humans can collectively build not so much a Utopia as much as a Dynamic Mutual Society whose very founding principle is that it is dynamic. It embraces change and new learning. And to build such a society, we are going to need ridiculous amounts of organisation. Think of space shuttles and the number of engineering variables that need to be taken into account when you send humans into motherfucking space. Fourteen people are dead as a result of minor things that went wrong on space shuttle missions. While this, quite frankly sucks, it proves the point of the necessity of organisation when complex systems are being dealt with. Sociologists study the way humans create societies, and they will explain that human societies are quite as complicated and intricate as advanced engineering. Or you could ask neurologists, most of whom believe that the human brain is the most complicated and intricate 'machine' that science has ever discovered.
The point of all of this is that societies not only can, but SHOULD be engineered. And I don't mean engineered by shady corporate interests. I mean built, quite literally from nothing but intellect and great organisation and the participation of everyone who chooses, out of their free will, to join the society contstruction project. For example, The Venus Project. Please note that by including this, I am not suggesting this as the ONLY or CORRECT solution - just an example of people who decided to start thinking seriously about reconstructing society and why such a thing is necessary. Even if you hate people like Jacque Fresco and Peter Joseph with a passion, if you honestly believe that you wouldn't learn something new from reading their drafted manifesto, which is available from the previous link, then you are one seriously ignorant person. Always remember that you determine your own level of involvement here. I think that Fresco and Joseph do a very good job of explaining these important ideas for us all. One thing they are certain to mention is how they understand that they are not looking for utopia, but rather a society that is always under maintenance, constantly being improved wherever possible in the name of efficiency and greater achievement. In the end, we're all after the same things. Happiness, reached potential. Success at the cost of nothing but well-used effort.
Things to aspire to, in my opinion. And to build such a society, we have to learn to think dynamically. That means, embracing change - understanding that change is not only inevitable, the only way to make change good for us is to seek constant improvement. That is the essence of dynami(ci)sm. If you remember nothing from my message except this, then remember this: EMBRACE CHANGE.
This is probably not an original idea, but I don't give a fuck, so: Why not call our society Dynamitopia?
As I said in the beginning, I don't really know how any of this could play out and therefore seek constructive conversation about it.
Good night.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Starting at the middle
Okay, so I just graduated recently. Know what that means?
I'm now legally unemployed. That's not so good. It means that I need to take responsibility for something I'm not entirely sure I know how to, and something I am entirely sure I don't want to.
Everyone knows how much I hate the capitalist system. This should be no surprise to anyone. I'm sure many of you have also heard my defiant opposition to 'starting at the bottom' of the film industry, or whatever that means. The idea is that, after graduating, the natural path is to go work for some assholes by making them coffee whenever they ask. And somehow, this is supposed to signify that you are a competent individual - because you can follow orders, or something.
Well, I think that's total crap.
I think the employment/company system does this to people because they consent to their oppression. They consent to have their experience and knowledge devalued, because the entire capitalist system has been doing this to them their whole lives. The system has convinced them that their skills and talents - those they spent 3+ years learning in university - are worthless and that all that counts is 'who' you know and to meet these people, you must consent to being a cog in their machines for an indefinite amount of time.
I also think that's total crap.
These assumptions are implicit throughout university. In a way, it's a masochistic, self-destructive backlash. The thinking is "So why the fuck did I just spend R 100 000 and three years on a degree that won't even get me a decent job?" and the only way one's brain deals with this cognitive dissonance (look if up if you don't know) is said self-destructive behaviour.
I have a slightly different plan. I don't think that anyone should ever 'start at the bottom'. This is inefficient. Don't believe me? Then try it, and see how much of your potential is wasted. However, in this disgusting capitalist system, education is rationed off to the highest bidders. So if you are in a lucky enough position to have a good education, don't go and waste it by spending 8 hours a day fetching stuff for assholes. Instead, work at something else and do indie projects on the side. Try and become known in the community as someone who values the input of both yourself and others, to the point that hierarchies cannot be adhered to. For hierarchies limit creative potential by giving ideas by certain people guaranteed primacy. Think about it. This cannot be right.
So, to my readers: I'd like to work on building some sort of indie film collective - a not-for-profit group that does film on the side while working for yourself on something that does generate income. This way, we are assured of finding collaborators when we need them. All we have are each other, our work, inspiration, motivation. We are the ones who can do something about this 'hierarchical film industry' nonsense.
To end off, think about this. If you could have it your way, would you STILL start at the bottom? Or would you look somewhere in the middle?
I'm now legally unemployed. That's not so good. It means that I need to take responsibility for something I'm not entirely sure I know how to, and something I am entirely sure I don't want to.
Everyone knows how much I hate the capitalist system. This should be no surprise to anyone. I'm sure many of you have also heard my defiant opposition to 'starting at the bottom' of the film industry, or whatever that means. The idea is that, after graduating, the natural path is to go work for some assholes by making them coffee whenever they ask. And somehow, this is supposed to signify that you are a competent individual - because you can follow orders, or something.
Well, I think that's total crap.
I think the employment/company system does this to people because they consent to their oppression. They consent to have their experience and knowledge devalued, because the entire capitalist system has been doing this to them their whole lives. The system has convinced them that their skills and talents - those they spent 3+ years learning in university - are worthless and that all that counts is 'who' you know and to meet these people, you must consent to being a cog in their machines for an indefinite amount of time.
I also think that's total crap.
These assumptions are implicit throughout university. In a way, it's a masochistic, self-destructive backlash. The thinking is "So why the fuck did I just spend R 100 000 and three years on a degree that won't even get me a decent job?" and the only way one's brain deals with this cognitive dissonance (look if up if you don't know) is said self-destructive behaviour.
I have a slightly different plan. I don't think that anyone should ever 'start at the bottom'. This is inefficient. Don't believe me? Then try it, and see how much of your potential is wasted. However, in this disgusting capitalist system, education is rationed off to the highest bidders. So if you are in a lucky enough position to have a good education, don't go and waste it by spending 8 hours a day fetching stuff for assholes. Instead, work at something else and do indie projects on the side. Try and become known in the community as someone who values the input of both yourself and others, to the point that hierarchies cannot be adhered to. For hierarchies limit creative potential by giving ideas by certain people guaranteed primacy. Think about it. This cannot be right.
So, to my readers: I'd like to work on building some sort of indie film collective - a not-for-profit group that does film on the side while working for yourself on something that does generate income. This way, we are assured of finding collaborators when we need them. All we have are each other, our work, inspiration, motivation. We are the ones who can do something about this 'hierarchical film industry' nonsense.
To end off, think about this. If you could have it your way, would you STILL start at the bottom? Or would you look somewhere in the middle?
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
How to make lives better
Okay, I'm back. I'm feeling inspired again.
Last night I was bored, so I decided to watch a documentary on my computer called What the Bleep do we Know [sic]. I failed to understand which of its theses it was advocating primacy over, which did nothing to unify its message. I did however glean that perhaps this was not the point - that instead I, as the audience memeber, had the responsibility to absorb whichever message I chose to, for my mind constructed my entire interpretation of it. I took from it two main points.
1. We really really do construct our worlds entirely from our own minds. Thoughts are physical and have mass. The experiments spoken about have performed less well on scientific testing than portrayed, yet I do not feel this has done anything to disprove it either. Psychologists cannot explain the placebo effect or somatosensory disorders, which all prove that thoughts can alter chemistry. This means they have energy, and can therefore affect mass.
2. Our emotions are addictive. Through much discussion with a friend as well as this movie, lately I've begun to understand that EMOTIONS ARE DRUGS. Does this make sense? Emotions release neurotransmitters, which work the exact same way drugs do. Our brains then become addicted to experiencing the emotions. So we create much drama in life. We drive fast, construct ridiculous rules in society about sex and relationships and shout and yell over them because the rush is addictive. All emotions are based off exactly the same chemical reaction. It is only your brain that creates context and therefore decides which emotion is the 'correct' one.
This brings me to my overall point. Our lives, then, are for us to make how we want. Our thoughts construct reality, not the other way round. The reality we see around us is nothing but collective imagination. There are as many universes as there are quantum possibilities. As humans we are agents of consciousness. Right now I feel our consciousness is at war with itself and highly self-destructive. The consciousness is ever-evolving, and we are manifests of it.Think of your body as the engine of this consciousness. Emotions, then, are neither good nor bad, the same way drugs are. They can be used for purposes of good or evil. Morality is simply a balance system by the game designer brain of the collective consciousness. However, WE ARE AGENTS, inasmuch as we can affect the programmming of the game.
By living lives that consist of making everyone happy, and the world collectively a happier place, we reinforce happiness. And if we do the opposite and fight wars verbal and military, we reinforce sadness. This is crucial. The consciousness is something that works on principles of inertia and momentum. The more collectively happy the consciousness is, the more it will be like gravitational force -accelarating closer and closer to the target. However, if the consciousness is damaged by sadness, it will be the same, only replace 'the target' with 'destruction'. We are the ones that can see this and therefore change it.
Strive to make as many people happy as possible. Use efficiency principles. That, I believe, is how we will elevate our consciousness and fulfill our destinies. By elevation of consciousness, one day we will be able to answer the questions to the mysteries of why we exist.
That's how you win the game.
Last night I was bored, so I decided to watch a documentary on my computer called What the Bleep do we Know [sic]. I failed to understand which of its theses it was advocating primacy over, which did nothing to unify its message. I did however glean that perhaps this was not the point - that instead I, as the audience memeber, had the responsibility to absorb whichever message I chose to, for my mind constructed my entire interpretation of it. I took from it two main points.
1. We really really do construct our worlds entirely from our own minds. Thoughts are physical and have mass. The experiments spoken about have performed less well on scientific testing than portrayed, yet I do not feel this has done anything to disprove it either. Psychologists cannot explain the placebo effect or somatosensory disorders, which all prove that thoughts can alter chemistry. This means they have energy, and can therefore affect mass.
2. Our emotions are addictive. Through much discussion with a friend as well as this movie, lately I've begun to understand that EMOTIONS ARE DRUGS. Does this make sense? Emotions release neurotransmitters, which work the exact same way drugs do. Our brains then become addicted to experiencing the emotions. So we create much drama in life. We drive fast, construct ridiculous rules in society about sex and relationships and shout and yell over them because the rush is addictive. All emotions are based off exactly the same chemical reaction. It is only your brain that creates context and therefore decides which emotion is the 'correct' one.
This brings me to my overall point. Our lives, then, are for us to make how we want. Our thoughts construct reality, not the other way round. The reality we see around us is nothing but collective imagination. There are as many universes as there are quantum possibilities. As humans we are agents of consciousness. Right now I feel our consciousness is at war with itself and highly self-destructive. The consciousness is ever-evolving, and we are manifests of it.Think of your body as the engine of this consciousness. Emotions, then, are neither good nor bad, the same way drugs are. They can be used for purposes of good or evil. Morality is simply a balance system by the game designer brain of the collective consciousness. However, WE ARE AGENTS, inasmuch as we can affect the programmming of the game.
By living lives that consist of making everyone happy, and the world collectively a happier place, we reinforce happiness. And if we do the opposite and fight wars verbal and military, we reinforce sadness. This is crucial. The consciousness is something that works on principles of inertia and momentum. The more collectively happy the consciousness is, the more it will be like gravitational force -accelarating closer and closer to the target. However, if the consciousness is damaged by sadness, it will be the same, only replace 'the target' with 'destruction'. We are the ones that can see this and therefore change it.
Strive to make as many people happy as possible. Use efficiency principles. That, I believe, is how we will elevate our consciousness and fulfill our destinies. By elevation of consciousness, one day we will be able to answer the questions to the mysteries of why we exist.
That's how you win the game.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Why I belive the things I do
Now this particular post is one I've been intending to make for QUITE a while. Longer than a month, actually. Every time I think about writing about this I usually end up distracting myself with something else - a terrible vice of mine.
Anyway, here goes:
In a world of good sense, it is entirely necessary to justify explain and criticise one's own beliefs. To question them. To question everything, really. I am introducing a concept here - that of critical thinking. Critical thinking means evaluating ideas, propositions, theories, ideologies and systems in detail, with as much neutrality as possible (i.e. not taking sides) to find out the hidden motivations, structure and power behind what appears simple on the surface, In short, critical thinking asks "why" and doesn't stop until every avenue has been explored and the root causes and motivations are discovered.
Critical thinking is not some fancy thing university kids do. Critical thinking is for you, and anyone that ever wonders WHY things work (or don't) the way they do. Sure, it takes a bit more effort than merely stating what appears obvious, but this effort is worth the greater understanding that it affords you.
If you cannot justify your beliefs, I have no reason to accept them. For if you can't justify it, it means it did not originate through your own effortsn which rather negates holding the belief in the first place. For example, I certainly did not come up with the concept of critical thought myself. However, I have outlined the reasons I support it, therefore justifying my position. Curiosity is a vital instinct for human survival, and should be celebrated.
Atheism
I am an atheist because I have found no evidence whatsoever for the proof of a being named God, who (which) by his (its) very definition is unfalsifiable. 100% of events that have occured in my life can be explained by completely natural phenomena (as opposed to supernatural). Furthermore, even events that cannot be explained by today's understanding of science do not prove religious miracles - all they prove is that science needs to do some more investigating. Religious miracles are invalid scientific hypotheses, not as a direct result of being religious, but rather because they are unprovable to begin with. For individuals that claim they have had a conversation with (God), there are plenty of natural, scientific explanations that suggest how the individual might have experienced such a conversation that do not require the intervention of an unfalsifiable, supernatural being. Furthermore, most religions advocate faith, which I see not as something useful, for this reason: Faith, quite simply, is the tendency to believe an assertion despite a complete lack of a method of ever testing that assertion. Faith is irreconcilable with science, which requires that assertions be tested and thrown out if they cannot be proven. Faith might go undefeated by logic - because it ignores logic entirely. This is not a strength of the concept, it is a weakness. That some people might be happier entertaining beliefs of (God) through faith does not make the existence of (God) any more or less probable. Finally, I have no need of (God) or a belief system to behave morally - I instead think that one can arrive at a perfectly good system of ethics and morals through intelligent debate, critical thought and scientific reasoning.
Bisexuality
This one shouldn't require much elaboration. Quite simply, I am attracted to both sexes. That's all there is to it. My justification for being attracted to both sexes is my own sensory perception, which I will never attempt to impose upon anyone else. Despite claims to the contrary, bisexuality is as diverse as any other sexuality. Some bisexuals favour one sex over the other (this does not mean that they are less attracted to either, but that experience of their 'preferred' sex has resulted in more feelings of attraction over a lifetime, statistically speaking, when compared with their 'less preferred' sex). I consider myself as having a preference for females, if only because I feel I can relate to them better. There are other bisexuals that have strong preferences for one sex (often termed bicurious) and there are those that have a preference for neither, being equally attracted to both. In the end, what does it matter? The belief that bisexuals are really just gay people in disguise is an idiotic one - if even one person in the world can experience attraction to both sexes for even a single minute in his/her lifetime, that alone would be proof of bisexuality's existence. What the world needs is to stop taking a prescriptivist approach to sexuality, instead exploring it for whatever they want it to be.
A possible reason that bisexuality might worry certain monogamists is the cold, hard realisation that should their partner indeed be bisexual, they can never fulfill their partner's entire epectrum of sexual desires alone, owing to being only one sex themself. My rebuttal to that is that any person that truly believes that they, and they alone can satisfy the entire spectrum of sexual desire of another person, bisexual or not, is delusional and arrogant.
Anarchy
Everyone that reads this blog has probably picked up on it by now - I'm an anarchist.
First of all, this does not mean i advocate chaos and disorganisation of society. The association of anarchy with chaos is a linguistic error. I believe that organisation is an important ability of humans and is entirely necessary to achieve functionality in society.
Anarchy, then, actually means that I oppose statehood and any of its associated power structures. I instead believe that decisions should and must be taken only by those proven qualified to take them. Where these decisions affect other people, the others will be given a say in how they are implemented. I oppose hierarchies on the basis of a hierarchy being a very inefficient method of organisation. Hierarchies limit creativity, define some humans as being worth 'more' or 'less' than others and are all too often imposed on people unwillingly and without any merit. Defining people in terms of being 'less' is abusive, as it is a personal attack on that individual's identity, compentence and autonomy. So what I advocate is the abolition of all that divides people into categories of 'better' or 'worse'. This also includes the abolition of the concept of criminality. My point is simple. If even one person suffers from a faulty 'justice' system, THE SYSTEM IS FLAWED AND NEEDS IMPROVEMENT. Consider this: which is more important, laws or people?
As a further point, I am often asked why I oppose capitalism if it indeed creates a free-market and promotes egalitarian trade. The truth is that it does NEITHER OF THOSE THINGS. Capitalism is NOT egalitarian - it favours the established over the newcomer by affording more resources to those that already have them. Corporations are becoming more and more powerful and find ever more ways to influence lawmaking in their favour, while small businesses and individuals continue to suffer as they simply do not have the resources to compete. 'Market factors' are typically understood as being events that affect the economy. No one really creates market factors by themselves - it seems to be something that just happens. So let me get this straight - we can't enjoy ourselves like we used to, because there is a recession? Who the fuck exactly decided that there was going to be a 'recession', and how dare they interfere?
You might say, yeah, but the recession is no-one's fault, money just devalues over time, shit happens.
But I have two quick points of rebuttal to that.
1) This in istelf proves the unfairness of capitalism (and as per my previous point, if a system is unfair or flawed, it MUST be fixed as a humanist imperative). You can run a business on perfectly sound, ethical practices, be completely savvy about the world around you and quite honestly market your shit like a baws, and still end up getting completely screwed owing to factors beyond your control. And by get screwed I mean end up having no money to pay for health, education and food. You know, things we don't really need.
2) There is also the fact that not everyone loses out from a recession.
Oh, fuck, you mean somebody might actually be doing better as a direct result of many others doing worse?
No shit. Take banks, for example. They can fuck around as much as they like with people's money (such as by lending out up to nine times their actual assets) and the economy, but what happens when people have less money to give to the banks? Oh, that's allright, the government will write a nice cheque for them.
From your taxes. Which if you don't pay, you will be kidnapped legally by the government and tortured mentally and physically every single day for up to 10 years.
Oh, but there's more.
Did you know that the capitalist system owes more money than it has?
Isn't that funny? That means that all these debts everyone seems to owe each other can never and will never be repaid. Logic dictates that value cannot arise out of nothing - it takes value to create value. Labour is one such transaction. We can call it the Law of Conservation of Value - the sum of the value around the world in the economic system will always equal 0 (or x). It works in the exact same way as the Law of Conservation of Energy.
Except now, thanks to this unpayable debt, capitalism expects us to believe in a negative figure of value. What nonsense!
If this was something that resulted only in a few rich men in suits having arguments, it wouldnt be a problem.
Except, Third World countries owe debts to the First World that they cannot pay. Colonialism is unneccessary, and quite frankly, too much effort. Why not just subjugate them by imposing debts on people that cannot pay them? Who cares if 1 billion people are starving? It must be their own fault.
Make sense now? This all comes back to a belief based on an obsevation of mine. That is that power, by its very nature corrupts. But further, that corruption, by its very nature, empowers.
When no one person has any power over any other person again, we will witness the end of corruption.
Recreational drug use
I recognise the dangers that recreational drug use, like any kind of drug use, may pose. I even admit that there is plenty I do not know about drugs. However, I consider it my human right to use whatever substances I please. I never agreed with my state or any state's rule on banning any drugs. I do not and never have recognised the legitimacy of such rules. If you, government, are reading this, my statement is clear. You do not have the right to impose these laws on me, or anyone else.
Please note that this does NOT extend to behaviours while on drugs that may harm people, animals or other beings, such as drinking and driving, a behaviour i do not by any means support. My point, rather, is thus: My sensory perception is mine to experiment with in whichever way I see fit. If you know of a person that 'takes drugs' (never forget of course that alcohol is a drug, and most often a recreational one at that) and then becomes abusive, then what is problematic is the abusive behaviour. If the person cannot maintain his/her behaviour while on a drug, then it is that person's responsibility not to take the fucking drug, not the law's responsibility to ban it for everyone else. Banning recreational drugs is the same as censorhip - entirely baseless and applied on spurious evidence. Indeed, "it's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't eat steak", in the words of Robert Heinlein.
Polyamory
I've saved the best, and most controversial, one for last.
(Drumroll, please)
That is, polyamory, the belief that a human may indeed love, or even hold attraction for more than one other human simultaneously. A person who practices this belief is called a polyamorist - see also Ethical Slut.I have argued this point against people time and time again, and it never seems to stick. So perhaps I should start with first principles.
In an earlier paragraph, I stated that I do not believe that the full spectrum of an individual's sexual desire can ever be fulfilled by a single person. Sexual freedom is a human right. It is up to each person to decide how important the fulfillment of their sexuality is. To attempt to decide this for someone else is abusive. Any person that convinces you that their sexual needs are more important than yours, or even, that your sexual desires are not as important as something else (i.e. patriarchy, religion) is not to be trusted. My personal belief is that sexuality is nothing short of divine - not in terms of being granted by (God) or by a powerful being, but in terms of something to be respected and valued. As such, you have no right to interfere with the sexuality of another person. My own sexuality desires nothing short of a kaleidoscopic plethora of varied experiences. (I think my references to colours, light and waves when talking about sexuality is a result of my occasional synaesthesia).
As such, I see the very idea of commiting exclusively to one person indefinitely to be a rejection of one's own sexuality. Because one person cannot satisfy the entire spectrum,what this says is thus: My sexuality is not so important. I'd rather have the security of a monogamous relationship that both my partner and I are emotionally blackmailed to stay in.
The reason I think these relationships invariably result in emotional blackmail is that sexuality is hard to suppress. It wants to be free. If you are capable of feeling attraction to someone (i.e. not asexual) then how can you not feel attraction for someone else? I have never been convinced of a legitimate case of a person's entire sexuality consisting of one person over a liftetime. A married couple may be legitimately and sincerely in love, later divorce, and both partners should retain the ability to feel attraction for other people, as evidenced by them dating others after the divorce. I think that they had this ability even while attracted to and professing love for each other, but they suprressed the ability to be attracted to others in the vain hope that perhaps they could engineer theirs and their partners' sexuality to respond only to each other.
See, I had a discussion with some friends a few days ago. It amounted: "If one partner in a relationship experiences attraction for another person, doesn't act on it but merely experiences it (because attraction is not a choice), they will immediately start feling guilty. The guilt is self-imposed. Furthermore, upon expressing this to the partner, what will most likely happen in a conventional relationship is that the partner will condemn the other's sexuality and express anger and jealousy. To add insult to injury, the jealousy is blamed on the other partner, and this is somehow sanctioned as fair behaviour. When I suggested that the feelings of anger and jealousy are the responsibility of the jealous partner to fix, not the other partner, I got the response "so then you must take care to suppress your own sexuality for the sake of your partner, because you hope they'll do the same for you".
I could go on about this for pages and pages. The point is, sexuality is something to be valued, not restricted. Restricting your own sexuality for the sake of others is, in my view, allowing them to manipulate you.
One final note: Do not respond with
"omg your polyamory is dangerous and you're going to get STD's". I am not advocating having unprotected sex with people indiscriminately. In the interest of pragmatism, that would be a very bad idea.What I do advocate is caution, honesty and full disclosure, all guided by the principle of caring for other people.
"your idea of casual sex is against the ideals of committed, loving sex". Not if the point of sex is for pleasure. What I am actually telling you is that the only person's sexuality you are allowed to determine is your own, NEVER that of your partner, children or members of the community that you may influence.
"tl, dr". Then fuck off and go read someone else's blog.
Critical, well-thought out replies are absolutely welcome, even if they disagree with everything I have posted above.
Thanks for hanging in there. Good night :)
Anyway, here goes:
In a world of good sense, it is entirely necessary to justify explain and criticise one's own beliefs. To question them. To question everything, really. I am introducing a concept here - that of critical thinking. Critical thinking means evaluating ideas, propositions, theories, ideologies and systems in detail, with as much neutrality as possible (i.e. not taking sides) to find out the hidden motivations, structure and power behind what appears simple on the surface, In short, critical thinking asks "why" and doesn't stop until every avenue has been explored and the root causes and motivations are discovered.
Critical thinking is not some fancy thing university kids do. Critical thinking is for you, and anyone that ever wonders WHY things work (or don't) the way they do. Sure, it takes a bit more effort than merely stating what appears obvious, but this effort is worth the greater understanding that it affords you.
If you cannot justify your beliefs, I have no reason to accept them. For if you can't justify it, it means it did not originate through your own effortsn which rather negates holding the belief in the first place. For example, I certainly did not come up with the concept of critical thought myself. However, I have outlined the reasons I support it, therefore justifying my position. Curiosity is a vital instinct for human survival, and should be celebrated.
Atheism
I am an atheist because I have found no evidence whatsoever for the proof of a being named God, who (which) by his (its) very definition is unfalsifiable. 100% of events that have occured in my life can be explained by completely natural phenomena (as opposed to supernatural). Furthermore, even events that cannot be explained by today's understanding of science do not prove religious miracles - all they prove is that science needs to do some more investigating. Religious miracles are invalid scientific hypotheses, not as a direct result of being religious, but rather because they are unprovable to begin with. For individuals that claim they have had a conversation with (God), there are plenty of natural, scientific explanations that suggest how the individual might have experienced such a conversation that do not require the intervention of an unfalsifiable, supernatural being. Furthermore, most religions advocate faith, which I see not as something useful, for this reason: Faith, quite simply, is the tendency to believe an assertion despite a complete lack of a method of ever testing that assertion. Faith is irreconcilable with science, which requires that assertions be tested and thrown out if they cannot be proven. Faith might go undefeated by logic - because it ignores logic entirely. This is not a strength of the concept, it is a weakness. That some people might be happier entertaining beliefs of (God) through faith does not make the existence of (God) any more or less probable. Finally, I have no need of (God) or a belief system to behave morally - I instead think that one can arrive at a perfectly good system of ethics and morals through intelligent debate, critical thought and scientific reasoning.
Bisexuality
This one shouldn't require much elaboration. Quite simply, I am attracted to both sexes. That's all there is to it. My justification for being attracted to both sexes is my own sensory perception, which I will never attempt to impose upon anyone else. Despite claims to the contrary, bisexuality is as diverse as any other sexuality. Some bisexuals favour one sex over the other (this does not mean that they are less attracted to either, but that experience of their 'preferred' sex has resulted in more feelings of attraction over a lifetime, statistically speaking, when compared with their 'less preferred' sex). I consider myself as having a preference for females, if only because I feel I can relate to them better. There are other bisexuals that have strong preferences for one sex (often termed bicurious) and there are those that have a preference for neither, being equally attracted to both. In the end, what does it matter? The belief that bisexuals are really just gay people in disguise is an idiotic one - if even one person in the world can experience attraction to both sexes for even a single minute in his/her lifetime, that alone would be proof of bisexuality's existence. What the world needs is to stop taking a prescriptivist approach to sexuality, instead exploring it for whatever they want it to be.
A possible reason that bisexuality might worry certain monogamists is the cold, hard realisation that should their partner indeed be bisexual, they can never fulfill their partner's entire epectrum of sexual desires alone, owing to being only one sex themself. My rebuttal to that is that any person that truly believes that they, and they alone can satisfy the entire spectrum of sexual desire of another person, bisexual or not, is delusional and arrogant.
Anarchy
Everyone that reads this blog has probably picked up on it by now - I'm an anarchist.
First of all, this does not mean i advocate chaos and disorganisation of society. The association of anarchy with chaos is a linguistic error. I believe that organisation is an important ability of humans and is entirely necessary to achieve functionality in society.
Anarchy, then, actually means that I oppose statehood and any of its associated power structures. I instead believe that decisions should and must be taken only by those proven qualified to take them. Where these decisions affect other people, the others will be given a say in how they are implemented. I oppose hierarchies on the basis of a hierarchy being a very inefficient method of organisation. Hierarchies limit creativity, define some humans as being worth 'more' or 'less' than others and are all too often imposed on people unwillingly and without any merit. Defining people in terms of being 'less' is abusive, as it is a personal attack on that individual's identity, compentence and autonomy. So what I advocate is the abolition of all that divides people into categories of 'better' or 'worse'. This also includes the abolition of the concept of criminality. My point is simple. If even one person suffers from a faulty 'justice' system, THE SYSTEM IS FLAWED AND NEEDS IMPROVEMENT. Consider this: which is more important, laws or people?
As a further point, I am often asked why I oppose capitalism if it indeed creates a free-market and promotes egalitarian trade. The truth is that it does NEITHER OF THOSE THINGS. Capitalism is NOT egalitarian - it favours the established over the newcomer by affording more resources to those that already have them. Corporations are becoming more and more powerful and find ever more ways to influence lawmaking in their favour, while small businesses and individuals continue to suffer as they simply do not have the resources to compete. 'Market factors' are typically understood as being events that affect the economy. No one really creates market factors by themselves - it seems to be something that just happens. So let me get this straight - we can't enjoy ourselves like we used to, because there is a recession? Who the fuck exactly decided that there was going to be a 'recession', and how dare they interfere?
You might say, yeah, but the recession is no-one's fault, money just devalues over time, shit happens.
But I have two quick points of rebuttal to that.
1) This in istelf proves the unfairness of capitalism (and as per my previous point, if a system is unfair or flawed, it MUST be fixed as a humanist imperative). You can run a business on perfectly sound, ethical practices, be completely savvy about the world around you and quite honestly market your shit like a baws, and still end up getting completely screwed owing to factors beyond your control. And by get screwed I mean end up having no money to pay for health, education and food. You know, things we don't really need.
2) There is also the fact that not everyone loses out from a recession.
Oh, fuck, you mean somebody might actually be doing better as a direct result of many others doing worse?
No shit. Take banks, for example. They can fuck around as much as they like with people's money (such as by lending out up to nine times their actual assets) and the economy, but what happens when people have less money to give to the banks? Oh, that's allright, the government will write a nice cheque for them.
From your taxes. Which if you don't pay, you will be kidnapped legally by the government and tortured mentally and physically every single day for up to 10 years.
Oh, but there's more.
Did you know that the capitalist system owes more money than it has?
Isn't that funny? That means that all these debts everyone seems to owe each other can never and will never be repaid. Logic dictates that value cannot arise out of nothing - it takes value to create value. Labour is one such transaction. We can call it the Law of Conservation of Value - the sum of the value around the world in the economic system will always equal 0 (or x). It works in the exact same way as the Law of Conservation of Energy.
Except now, thanks to this unpayable debt, capitalism expects us to believe in a negative figure of value. What nonsense!
If this was something that resulted only in a few rich men in suits having arguments, it wouldnt be a problem.
Except, Third World countries owe debts to the First World that they cannot pay. Colonialism is unneccessary, and quite frankly, too much effort. Why not just subjugate them by imposing debts on people that cannot pay them? Who cares if 1 billion people are starving? It must be their own fault.
Make sense now? This all comes back to a belief based on an obsevation of mine. That is that power, by its very nature corrupts. But further, that corruption, by its very nature, empowers.
When no one person has any power over any other person again, we will witness the end of corruption.
Recreational drug use
I recognise the dangers that recreational drug use, like any kind of drug use, may pose. I even admit that there is plenty I do not know about drugs. However, I consider it my human right to use whatever substances I please. I never agreed with my state or any state's rule on banning any drugs. I do not and never have recognised the legitimacy of such rules. If you, government, are reading this, my statement is clear. You do not have the right to impose these laws on me, or anyone else.
Please note that this does NOT extend to behaviours while on drugs that may harm people, animals or other beings, such as drinking and driving, a behaviour i do not by any means support. My point, rather, is thus: My sensory perception is mine to experiment with in whichever way I see fit. If you know of a person that 'takes drugs' (never forget of course that alcohol is a drug, and most often a recreational one at that) and then becomes abusive, then what is problematic is the abusive behaviour. If the person cannot maintain his/her behaviour while on a drug, then it is that person's responsibility not to take the fucking drug, not the law's responsibility to ban it for everyone else. Banning recreational drugs is the same as censorhip - entirely baseless and applied on spurious evidence. Indeed, "it's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't eat steak", in the words of Robert Heinlein.
Polyamory
I've saved the best, and most controversial, one for last.
(Drumroll, please)
That is, polyamory, the belief that a human may indeed love, or even hold attraction for more than one other human simultaneously. A person who practices this belief is called a polyamorist - see also Ethical Slut.I have argued this point against people time and time again, and it never seems to stick. So perhaps I should start with first principles.
In an earlier paragraph, I stated that I do not believe that the full spectrum of an individual's sexual desire can ever be fulfilled by a single person. Sexual freedom is a human right. It is up to each person to decide how important the fulfillment of their sexuality is. To attempt to decide this for someone else is abusive. Any person that convinces you that their sexual needs are more important than yours, or even, that your sexual desires are not as important as something else (i.e. patriarchy, religion) is not to be trusted. My personal belief is that sexuality is nothing short of divine - not in terms of being granted by (God) or by a powerful being, but in terms of something to be respected and valued. As such, you have no right to interfere with the sexuality of another person. My own sexuality desires nothing short of a kaleidoscopic plethora of varied experiences. (I think my references to colours, light and waves when talking about sexuality is a result of my occasional synaesthesia).
As such, I see the very idea of commiting exclusively to one person indefinitely to be a rejection of one's own sexuality. Because one person cannot satisfy the entire spectrum,what this says is thus: My sexuality is not so important. I'd rather have the security of a monogamous relationship that both my partner and I are emotionally blackmailed to stay in.
The reason I think these relationships invariably result in emotional blackmail is that sexuality is hard to suppress. It wants to be free. If you are capable of feeling attraction to someone (i.e. not asexual) then how can you not feel attraction for someone else? I have never been convinced of a legitimate case of a person's entire sexuality consisting of one person over a liftetime. A married couple may be legitimately and sincerely in love, later divorce, and both partners should retain the ability to feel attraction for other people, as evidenced by them dating others after the divorce. I think that they had this ability even while attracted to and professing love for each other, but they suprressed the ability to be attracted to others in the vain hope that perhaps they could engineer theirs and their partners' sexuality to respond only to each other.
See, I had a discussion with some friends a few days ago. It amounted: "If one partner in a relationship experiences attraction for another person, doesn't act on it but merely experiences it (because attraction is not a choice), they will immediately start feling guilty. The guilt is self-imposed. Furthermore, upon expressing this to the partner, what will most likely happen in a conventional relationship is that the partner will condemn the other's sexuality and express anger and jealousy. To add insult to injury, the jealousy is blamed on the other partner, and this is somehow sanctioned as fair behaviour. When I suggested that the feelings of anger and jealousy are the responsibility of the jealous partner to fix, not the other partner, I got the response "so then you must take care to suppress your own sexuality for the sake of your partner, because you hope they'll do the same for you".
I could go on about this for pages and pages. The point is, sexuality is something to be valued, not restricted. Restricting your own sexuality for the sake of others is, in my view, allowing them to manipulate you.
One final note: Do not respond with
"omg your polyamory is dangerous and you're going to get STD's". I am not advocating having unprotected sex with people indiscriminately. In the interest of pragmatism, that would be a very bad idea.What I do advocate is caution, honesty and full disclosure, all guided by the principle of caring for other people.
"your idea of casual sex is against the ideals of committed, loving sex". Not if the point of sex is for pleasure. What I am actually telling you is that the only person's sexuality you are allowed to determine is your own, NEVER that of your partner, children or members of the community that you may influence.
"tl, dr". Then fuck off and go read someone else's blog.
Critical, well-thought out replies are absolutely welcome, even if they disagree with everything I have posted above.
Thanks for hanging in there. Good night :)
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
The Risk-Free Zone
I'm going to plagiarise pretty mercilessly from David Icke in my following piece, but I found the following applicable and would like to share it with you.
A friend recently suggested I include more photos and diagrams in my blogs as it would make them more reader-friendly. I shall follow this with an illustration from Paint about the next statement of mine.
In our modern [Occidental] society, more allowances have been made for individual freedom than ever before (such as in the eras of slavery and feudalism). Liberty, while not as expressly granted as desired by a constitution, is at least seen as an ideal by enough people that they should do something to protect that liberty.
The trouble is that the 1% - or those in charge of those in charge - cannot allow too much individual liberty and choice. It threatens their power base. The weakness of the 1% is that all it would take to defeat them is freedom and power distributed to a critical mass. George Orwell, in Nineteen Eighty-Four postulates a slightly different system, one less polarised by figures, because even the Inner Party were suppressed by today's societal standards. In the manual for anarchy within the book, the secret 'Brotherhood' manual written by 'Emmanuel Goldstein', we are given a history lesson about the hierarchies present in most societies, called by many different names but essentially meaning the same as what effectively came down to this - three groups, given as the High (the richest 2%) the Middle (the 13% inbetween the rich and the poor) and the Low (the other 85%) vying for control. The needs of each of the groups are incompatible with the needs of the other two. In the end, the Middle would end up enlisting the help of the Low to usurp the High, but would always end up using corruption and would screw the Low over. In Orwell's anti-Marxist work, the Low could not start an uprising, being too disempowered.
Now, to Icke's conception. The High or the 1-2% cannot allow the 98-99% to gain power. If they ( the Middle/Low) did, they could potentially unseat members of the elite. But they (the High) cannot openly enslave everyone - they can only do it covertly to a small group of people. For the rest of us, they have to rely on other devices. Similarly, they cannot imprison everyone, as they will destroy their own power base. They have to rely on people policing themselves, to a large extent. So we have the prison system and unemployment to keep people in line, but there is another, largely invisible (unless you know where to look) apparatus used to keep control, or at least the illusion of control, which they need.
That is, the Risk-Free Zone. Step out of this zone, and you will be punished - not necessarily by the police and prison, but often enough by your peers. The ostracism that will come your way for transgressing custom means that you are leaving the Risk-Free Zone, which the 1% have convinced us is morally incorrect because this is what they need.
To see a brilliant explanation of this concept, please watch this video. It's amazing. A Perfect Circle - Counting Bodies Like Sheep to the Rhythm of the War Drums. The sheep that cross the line are impaled. It has to be seen for oneself.
For a less artistic version of this, here is my diagram. I am focusing on South African, as influenced by Western culture here, and notice these are generalisations, not absolute categories.
Just to be clear, by including these I am not giving my personal judgement of these activities, merely explaining how sanctioned I believe these activities are by society in terms of Risk-Free zones. Notice the overlap. As a general rule, I support columns 2 through 5, see column 1 as overly conformist, recognise the grey area of 'victimless crimes' of column 6 and oppose column 7. The diagram is an illustration of my analysis of the matter. I would welcome any questions and arguments.
Good night.
And watch the damn video.
A friend recently suggested I include more photos and diagrams in my blogs as it would make them more reader-friendly. I shall follow this with an illustration from Paint about the next statement of mine.
In our modern [Occidental] society, more allowances have been made for individual freedom than ever before (such as in the eras of slavery and feudalism). Liberty, while not as expressly granted as desired by a constitution, is at least seen as an ideal by enough people that they should do something to protect that liberty.
The trouble is that the 1% - or those in charge of those in charge - cannot allow too much individual liberty and choice. It threatens their power base. The weakness of the 1% is that all it would take to defeat them is freedom and power distributed to a critical mass. George Orwell, in Nineteen Eighty-Four postulates a slightly different system, one less polarised by figures, because even the Inner Party were suppressed by today's societal standards. In the manual for anarchy within the book, the secret 'Brotherhood' manual written by 'Emmanuel Goldstein', we are given a history lesson about the hierarchies present in most societies, called by many different names but essentially meaning the same as what effectively came down to this - three groups, given as the High (the richest 2%) the Middle (the 13% inbetween the rich and the poor) and the Low (the other 85%) vying for control. The needs of each of the groups are incompatible with the needs of the other two. In the end, the Middle would end up enlisting the help of the Low to usurp the High, but would always end up using corruption and would screw the Low over. In Orwell's anti-Marxist work, the Low could not start an uprising, being too disempowered.
Now, to Icke's conception. The High or the 1-2% cannot allow the 98-99% to gain power. If they ( the Middle/Low) did, they could potentially unseat members of the elite. But they (the High) cannot openly enslave everyone - they can only do it covertly to a small group of people. For the rest of us, they have to rely on other devices. Similarly, they cannot imprison everyone, as they will destroy their own power base. They have to rely on people policing themselves, to a large extent. So we have the prison system and unemployment to keep people in line, but there is another, largely invisible (unless you know where to look) apparatus used to keep control, or at least the illusion of control, which they need.
That is, the Risk-Free Zone. Step out of this zone, and you will be punished - not necessarily by the police and prison, but often enough by your peers. The ostracism that will come your way for transgressing custom means that you are leaving the Risk-Free Zone, which the 1% have convinced us is morally incorrect because this is what they need.
To see a brilliant explanation of this concept, please watch this video. It's amazing. A Perfect Circle - Counting Bodies Like Sheep to the Rhythm of the War Drums. The sheep that cross the line are impaled. It has to be seen for oneself.
For a less artistic version of this, here is my diagram. I am focusing on South African, as influenced by Western culture here, and notice these are generalisations, not absolute categories.
Good night.
And watch the damn video.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
I'm back, bitches!
And, I dare say, it feels good to be back.
I have had many posts stored and partially stored in my head over the last few days. But I've written exams and managed to convince myself that writing here would be procrastination. (Shame on me!)
But here I am with some more quasi-controversial stuff for my readers.
Let us begin by making a reference to perhaps the best known psychologist ever. No, not the one who played with rats in cages. Yes, the one for whom the unconscious id was capable of mainly two types of thinking - sexual or violent. And surely the first one is better known. The reason I mention our friend Sigmund is because, when you read this, I want you to think like he might have when you read the next paragraph.
Imagine that there were a device that someone could somehow persuade you to wear or use that made your sexuality their exclusive property?
Oh shit, wait, those do exist anyway. They have for a while and most of them are not very pleasant.
But let's say you were opposed to such forcible treatment of people. After all, this should be voluntary. Just difficult to remove in case one had reservations about something like this. Something that you were convinced had great value and therefore should not be trifled with.
And there exists something like this as well! They're so common that almost all people in Western culture want one. Most end up getting one too.
Perhaps I'm going about this the wrong way. Maybe I should just state it more plainly. My question to you is, what do you think the connotations of a wedding ring are in relation to sexual bondage and ownership?
I have had many posts stored and partially stored in my head over the last few days. But I've written exams and managed to convince myself that writing here would be procrastination. (Shame on me!)
But here I am with some more quasi-controversial stuff for my readers.
Let us begin by making a reference to perhaps the best known psychologist ever. No, not the one who played with rats in cages. Yes, the one for whom the unconscious id was capable of mainly two types of thinking - sexual or violent. And surely the first one is better known. The reason I mention our friend Sigmund is because, when you read this, I want you to think like he might have when you read the next paragraph.
Imagine that there were a device that someone could somehow persuade you to wear or use that made your sexuality their exclusive property?
Oh shit, wait, those do exist anyway. They have for a while and most of them are not very pleasant.
But let's say you were opposed to such forcible treatment of people. After all, this should be voluntary. Just difficult to remove in case one had reservations about something like this. Something that you were convinced had great value and therefore should not be trifled with.
And there exists something like this as well! They're so common that almost all people in Western culture want one. Most end up getting one too.
Perhaps I'm going about this the wrong way. Maybe I should just state it more plainly. My question to you is, what do you think the connotations of a wedding ring are in relation to sexual bondage and ownership?
Sunday, September 25, 2011
The night-walks through suburbia
...tend to produce interesting conversations. I met the Monkey somewhere around 8pm. It was dark, but we had a business deal to conduct. The transaction lasted an hour under minimal light, and all I was wearing was a t-shirt and shorts, but I wasn't even remotely cold.
For, my dearest audience, we are philosophers.
An unusual kind, mind you. But the following was reasoned:
Essays suck. They distract you from more life-enriching experiences. Blogging is better. You can do it at your own pace.
Our personal narratives can be altered with relative ease. When said narratives are entwined, intervention can be interesting (if experimental). It must just be pointed out that the intervener would need to possess a strong code of ethics for any of this to be morally permissible. It is known that I argue more for moral relativity, which is why I cannot truly claim another's behaviour as wrong if I do not have certain proof that said behaviour is causing inefficiency in the human project. In the end, we are story-tellers masquerading as journalists (or philosophers even, perhaps?), the Raoul Dukes of the twenty-eleven counterculture project.
In case you're wondering why I say essays suck and then apparently write myself one, this is what I am studying for something claiming itself to be an academic essasy. It's an excerpt from my dear friend Thomas Elsaesser,
After having argued that the New German Cinema, despite its allegiance to the Autorenfilm, did not function according to an ideology of self-expression, this chapter will try to show that it did: that self-expression as self-representation profoundly marked many of the films themselves, making them allegories of their own problematic existence, endlessly examining the question of what is cinema, and what can films produced in such a context, be 'about' except the conditions of their own impossibility?... Nothing is more consistent than the parables one finds of the subsidy system, the direct thematisations and indirect representations of its impact and paradoxes.
...w t f? I know I am given to sesquipedalian loquaciousness (see http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SesquipedalianLoquaciousness) at times, but This, dearest audience, is a mouthful I can barely understand. And now I have to study it. FML.
One more thing: I don't pay That much attention to politics, compared to some, but I would like to say, quite laconically (a new style for me perhaps? We'll see) that as a performer, Julius is perfectly within his rights to sing songs and I do wish that right had not been taken from him, for this dealt a blow to freedom of speech. Even if I disagree with the content of his songs (which I most assuredly do) I just see the problem: Now it is up to judges to decide, subjectively, what hate speech is. And they have a stupidly large amount of power to decide that, given their clearly subjective views! So now there is going to be trouble. I urge people to write discursive message and disseminate them widely in order to educate people on the nuances of the system. For only then can they ever learn to promote efficiency in the best way possible, given the proliferation of the system.
Even if you don't agree that my approach of achieving increased efficiency is the best one, you should surely concede that efficiency is what the human race deserves.
And if you don't, you are free to disagree with me. That is your right.
For, my dearest audience, we are philosophers.
An unusual kind, mind you. But the following was reasoned:
Essays suck. They distract you from more life-enriching experiences. Blogging is better. You can do it at your own pace.
Our personal narratives can be altered with relative ease. When said narratives are entwined, intervention can be interesting (if experimental). It must just be pointed out that the intervener would need to possess a strong code of ethics for any of this to be morally permissible. It is known that I argue more for moral relativity, which is why I cannot truly claim another's behaviour as wrong if I do not have certain proof that said behaviour is causing inefficiency in the human project. In the end, we are story-tellers masquerading as journalists (or philosophers even, perhaps?), the Raoul Dukes of the twenty-eleven counterculture project.
In case you're wondering why I say essays suck and then apparently write myself one, this is what I am studying for something claiming itself to be an academic essasy. It's an excerpt from my dear friend Thomas Elsaesser,
After having argued that the New German Cinema, despite its allegiance to the Autorenfilm, did not function according to an ideology of self-expression, this chapter will try to show that it did: that self-expression as self-representation profoundly marked many of the films themselves, making them allegories of their own problematic existence, endlessly examining the question of what is cinema, and what can films produced in such a context, be 'about' except the conditions of their own impossibility?... Nothing is more consistent than the parables one finds of the subsidy system, the direct thematisations and indirect representations of its impact and paradoxes.
...w t f? I know I am given to sesquipedalian loquaciousness (see http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SesquipedalianLoquaciousness) at times, but This, dearest audience, is a mouthful I can barely understand. And now I have to study it. FML.
One more thing: I don't pay That much attention to politics, compared to some, but I would like to say, quite laconically (a new style for me perhaps? We'll see) that as a performer, Julius is perfectly within his rights to sing songs and I do wish that right had not been taken from him, for this dealt a blow to freedom of speech. Even if I disagree with the content of his songs (which I most assuredly do) I just see the problem: Now it is up to judges to decide, subjectively, what hate speech is. And they have a stupidly large amount of power to decide that, given their clearly subjective views! So now there is going to be trouble. I urge people to write discursive message and disseminate them widely in order to educate people on the nuances of the system. For only then can they ever learn to promote efficiency in the best way possible, given the proliferation of the system.
Even if you don't agree that my approach of achieving increased efficiency is the best one, you should surely concede that efficiency is what the human race deserves.
And if you don't, you are free to disagree with me. That is your right.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Pure randomness
As I sit in the Mendi Labs (or more colloquially, the Dungeon) this morning, with nothing currently else to do (can you believe that) I've decided to make a couple of rather laconic, random points about my observations.
Hard drive space is relative. When we get a new hard drive we never think we'll use up all of it, but we do. It's because we think in terms of how much space we have available and tend to use compression, especially lossless and also pure formats, and create an entire catalogue if we wish, with double redundancy. That's how I manage to use up about 75% of my 4.5 TB. In fact 75% is a reasonably stable point at which you start thinking about space.
Not mine but apparently the best predictor of pro-weed opinions is pro-premarital sex opinions.
You can find inspiration in anything if you know where to look.
Write.
The world is a pretty ridiculous place. Gone are the illusions of childhood in which the world is orderly and contained, a closed-loop as it were. The place is completely dysfunctional.
Aspiehood brings a surprising sense of egotism. how can we make this a good thing? I only started noticing the world around me at about 13 or 14, as in becoming really cognisant of its multiplicitous, hypercomplex nature.
The internet would always emerge, given sufficient advancement in technology. The military would never be able to suppress it (or indeed any technology) forever. The internet will continue expanding as long as computers exist. For then there will be hard drive space (secondary storage) and someone else, somehow, somewhere, will be able to access it in virtual form, but that delivers, in effect, a perfect digital copy to the receiver. The internet will always be rebuilt.
And that is awesome.
EDIT:
I've been thinking about technology a lot lately, and how systems often seem to be let down thanks to bottlenecking somewhere. That leads me to think about bandwidth limits on broadband networks.
<30 minutes pass>
I've just spent the last half hour trying to find out UCT's bandwidth backbone. The best I have managed to infer is that it is currently 1 Gbps and that it may be updated at the end of the year. Some campuses are subdivided, I think Hiddingh is allowed 20 Mbps for example. But with four thousand plus connection nodes, and given that perhaps 60% of nodes could theoretically be using it simultaneously, you have, say, 2400 users. The resulting bandwidth is still 833 Kbps, not bad at all for peak usage of a connection in THIS goddamn country.
I love how everything is a metagame inside my head.
I'm very interested in days and their length and sunlight hours and equinoxes and other weather intricacies like the midnight sun, and how large a degree is in which part of the world.
It links to my love of temporal systems and understanding them.. how long does an ant live? Is its time of life related to how long it sleeps? As humans, we may sleep 8 hours at a time, given a standard life of 72 years, that's 631 152 hours, so each sleep might be 1/78894th of your life (0.00001%). A male ant lives, say, 3 weeks. For it then, each sleep would last 18 seconds, and their idea of a day would be 54 seconds, and a single calendar day would feel like 3 and a half years to us.
Speaking of which, I think I'm going to celebrate New Years 2012 on 1 January 2012 at 18:00 - that is only when 2012 actually begins. Because a year is actually 365.25 days.
INTERSPERSED EDIT (or META-EDIT): Another thing spoken about is the true realisation of what capitalism is really doing. My contention is such: The World Bank, IMF and WTO have well and truly fucked Africa up. Truly and absolutely. Consider this for a moment: How can the financial system, the capitalist system have ANY legitimacy if IT OWES MORE MONEY THAN IT HAS??? Please for the love of god can someone actually fucking realise that this is solid proof that the capitalist system has NO basis in real money and value, BECAUSE OWING MORE THAN WHAT EXISTS violates the zero sum game required for economics to have ANY parity whatsoever! Now, back to Africa. I hold the extremely firm contention that Africa will NEVER be OK under the capitalist system, and indeed will only get worse. And I say that Africa is a good place to start the revolution. We are less indoctrinated in capitalism. (That said, we will have to work hard to explain that we are not proposing communism or state socialism either, as those are just as bad). If you think about it, the only more monstrous thing that the colonial powers could do than massacre millions of Africans is reduce hundreds of millions to starvation and suffering for generations to come. People knew this was going to happen since the mid 1800s if not earlier. YOU FUCKING ECONOMY-IMPOSING PIGS. If anyone deserves hell, it's the likes of you.
Now imagine talking about all of this in the space of half an hour on a spring afternoon.
ADHD indeed.
Hard drive space is relative. When we get a new hard drive we never think we'll use up all of it, but we do. It's because we think in terms of how much space we have available and tend to use compression, especially lossless and also pure formats, and create an entire catalogue if we wish, with double redundancy. That's how I manage to use up about 75% of my 4.5 TB. In fact 75% is a reasonably stable point at which you start thinking about space.
Not mine but apparently the best predictor of pro-weed opinions is pro-premarital sex opinions.
You can find inspiration in anything if you know where to look.
Write.
The world is a pretty ridiculous place. Gone are the illusions of childhood in which the world is orderly and contained, a closed-loop as it were. The place is completely dysfunctional.
Aspiehood brings a surprising sense of egotism. how can we make this a good thing? I only started noticing the world around me at about 13 or 14, as in becoming really cognisant of its multiplicitous, hypercomplex nature.
The internet would always emerge, given sufficient advancement in technology. The military would never be able to suppress it (or indeed any technology) forever. The internet will continue expanding as long as computers exist. For then there will be hard drive space (secondary storage) and someone else, somehow, somewhere, will be able to access it in virtual form, but that delivers, in effect, a perfect digital copy to the receiver. The internet will always be rebuilt.
And that is awesome.
EDIT:
I've been thinking about technology a lot lately, and how systems often seem to be let down thanks to bottlenecking somewhere. That leads me to think about bandwidth limits on broadband networks.
<30 minutes pass>
I've just spent the last half hour trying to find out UCT's bandwidth backbone. The best I have managed to infer is that it is currently 1 Gbps and that it may be updated at the end of the year. Some campuses are subdivided, I think Hiddingh is allowed 20 Mbps for example. But with four thousand plus connection nodes, and given that perhaps 60% of nodes could theoretically be using it simultaneously, you have, say, 2400 users. The resulting bandwidth is still 833 Kbps, not bad at all for peak usage of a connection in THIS goddamn country.
I love how everything is a metagame inside my head.
I'm very interested in days and their length and sunlight hours and equinoxes and other weather intricacies like the midnight sun, and how large a degree is in which part of the world.
It links to my love of temporal systems and understanding them.. how long does an ant live? Is its time of life related to how long it sleeps? As humans, we may sleep 8 hours at a time, given a standard life of 72 years, that's 631 152 hours, so each sleep might be 1/78894th of your life (0.00001%). A male ant lives, say, 3 weeks. For it then, each sleep would last 18 seconds, and their idea of a day would be 54 seconds, and a single calendar day would feel like 3 and a half years to us.
Speaking of which, I think I'm going to celebrate New Years 2012 on 1 January 2012 at 18:00 - that is only when 2012 actually begins. Because a year is actually 365.25 days.
INTERSPERSED EDIT (or META-EDIT): Another thing spoken about is the true realisation of what capitalism is really doing. My contention is such: The World Bank, IMF and WTO have well and truly fucked Africa up. Truly and absolutely. Consider this for a moment: How can the financial system, the capitalist system have ANY legitimacy if IT OWES MORE MONEY THAN IT HAS??? Please for the love of god can someone actually fucking realise that this is solid proof that the capitalist system has NO basis in real money and value, BECAUSE OWING MORE THAN WHAT EXISTS violates the zero sum game required for economics to have ANY parity whatsoever! Now, back to Africa. I hold the extremely firm contention that Africa will NEVER be OK under the capitalist system, and indeed will only get worse. And I say that Africa is a good place to start the revolution. We are less indoctrinated in capitalism. (That said, we will have to work hard to explain that we are not proposing communism or state socialism either, as those are just as bad). If you think about it, the only more monstrous thing that the colonial powers could do than massacre millions of Africans is reduce hundreds of millions to starvation and suffering for generations to come. People knew this was going to happen since the mid 1800s if not earlier. YOU FUCKING ECONOMY-IMPOSING PIGS. If anyone deserves hell, it's the likes of you.
Now imagine talking about all of this in the space of half an hour on a spring afternoon.
ADHD indeed.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
I want to be a part of it
But the question is, do you need to?
Yes, that's right, I started a blog without an introduction. Whatever. Here's the lowdown: While I copy 108 GB of data from the laboratory computer to the external hard drive, I have a question for all of you. Why would you try, so hard, to be a part of something, anything, when the actual truth is that you are already a part of everything?
Here's how I see it. Human beings around are always trying to plug into some sort of collective: their country (patriotism), their race, their sexual orientation, their gender, their sports team, their occupation. The problem with all of these systems is that they are divisive: they, by definitition, include some and exclude others. Now do you see why this is ridiculous? To want to belong to a collective in order to EXCLUDE? The whole point of humanity is to INCLUDE, to realise that you are an autonomous, unique, beautiful expression of a whole that encompasses all of consciousness! Of a singular being that lives through us all.
This is a reason power has to go. No people deserve the power to make decisions for other people. Everyone deserves to be educated to a level in which they truly can make decisions for THEMSELVES. That would be our human rights fulfilled.
So the simple truth is that you are ALREADY a part of it all. The greater cosmic simulacrum would not be the same without you.
So make it count.
Yes, that's right, I started a blog without an introduction. Whatever. Here's the lowdown: While I copy 108 GB of data from the laboratory computer to the external hard drive, I have a question for all of you. Why would you try, so hard, to be a part of something, anything, when the actual truth is that you are already a part of everything?
Here's how I see it. Human beings around are always trying to plug into some sort of collective: their country (patriotism), their race, their sexual orientation, their gender, their sports team, their occupation. The problem with all of these systems is that they are divisive: they, by definitition, include some and exclude others. Now do you see why this is ridiculous? To want to belong to a collective in order to EXCLUDE? The whole point of humanity is to INCLUDE, to realise that you are an autonomous, unique, beautiful expression of a whole that encompasses all of consciousness! Of a singular being that lives through us all.
This is a reason power has to go. No people deserve the power to make decisions for other people. Everyone deserves to be educated to a level in which they truly can make decisions for THEMSELVES. That would be our human rights fulfilled.
So the simple truth is that you are ALREADY a part of it all. The greater cosmic simulacrum would not be the same without you.
So make it count.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)