In the same vein as my last post, where I partially recanted earlier statements that could have been read as supporting 'personal truths' instead of (communal) truth, I'd like to quote from an interview with Stephen Colbert:
Truthiness is tearing apart our country, and I don't mean the argument over who came up with the word. I don't know whether it's a new thing, but it's certainly a current thing, in that it doesn't seem to matter what facts are. It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. But that's not the case anymore. Facts matter not at all. Perception is everything. It's certainty. People love the president because he's certain of his choices as a leader, even if the facts that back him up don't seem to exist. It's the fact that he's certain that is very appealing to a certain section of the country. I really feel a dichotomy in the American populace. What is important? What you want to be true, or what is true?
Posts may become less frequent in the coming weeks as I'm beginning a month long thesis writing intesive tomorrow. With some luck—and a lot of hard work—I will have a first draft finished by the end of February.
Ev
Monday, January 30, 2006
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
On Idiocy
I'm inclined to backtrack a little from my previous post in which I complained about a writer naming his column "Top Ten Conservative Idiots of the Week". In that post I wrote, "I can certainly agree that much of what they say and do is idiotic, in the sense that their words and deeds reveal a great ignorance to the truth of my values and views, but I don't really think they are incapable of ordinary acts of reasoning. " The part I don't like about that statement is, "a great ignorance to the truth of my values and views." While I may uphold vaguely post-modern views of indeterminacy (or non-existence) in some contexts, this is not the place. I will not accept some form of relative truth, where though I may have "my own truth", I am willing to recognize the 'truth' of the other person's position (I was not, am not, willing to do so, but my statement tended towards that sort of position). We then no longer have truth and our arguments rest on the shaky foundations of mere belief. I still think the title is stupid as, like I said before, its purpose is nothing more than a sort of communal ?????? among like-minded lefties. (Okay, I didn't say that, but now I have—and I did say something expressing a similar idea).
take a guess...
What might I likely post about while writing my thesis? Musings on self, or lack thereof, you say? Why yes.
I'm reading (skimming) a book by Anthony Kerby, Narrative and the Self. Unsurprisingly, Kerby takes the position that the referent of I or me we commonly regard as ourself is nothing more than a narrative construction. Language thus occupies a central position in our lives: "language is viewed not simply as a tool for communicating or mirroring back what we otherwise discover in our reality but is itself an important formative part of that reality, part of its very texture." (2) Or, as Hans-Georg Gadamer, a student of Heidegger's, put it "being that can be understood is language." (2)
Kerby concludes:
Self-narration, I have argued, is what first raises our temporal existence our of the closets of memorial traces and routine and unthematic activity, constituting thereby a self as its implied subject. This self is, then, the implied subject of a narrated history. Stated another way, in order to be we must be as something or someone, and this someone that we take ourselves to be is the character delineated in our personal narratives. (109)
Kerby goes on to resolve the mind-body problem by saying there is no such thing as mind. I haven't read that part, but I'm guessing that he'll argue that, though we certainly have a physical organ we call 'mind'—a part of our body—it does not constitute "me" (or "I", "you", [as a matter of fact, I've just 'constituted' 'you' by including you in my narrative, and 'you' are now probably split between some sense of identification with the 2nd person pronoun that you've just read, and with the implied subject ('I') of my authorial voice, with which you typically identify to some extent when reading narratives. or not.]). What creates "me" is nothing more than the narration of experience by consciousness.
Okay, here's what Kerby says:
"The self is essentially a meaning construct deriving from language and conversation generally, where language must be seen as essentially "material," that is, as an extention of the sphere of activity of the human body. On the other hand, the human body is alive with expression, with signification. Such a body of gestures we call a person [his emphasis]. It would be artificial (or at best hypothetical) to introduce into this unity a strict substantial division of body and mind, or body and self. Accordingly, I have defined subjectivity as the possibility of expression, but this is not to make of subjectivity some sort of res cogitas or thinking power. Subjectivity is nothing but an honorary appellation we give to a being that has the expressive-linguistic capabilities commonly found in persons. (112)
hmmm.
I'm reading (skimming) a book by Anthony Kerby, Narrative and the Self. Unsurprisingly, Kerby takes the position that the referent of I or me we commonly regard as ourself is nothing more than a narrative construction. Language thus occupies a central position in our lives: "language is viewed not simply as a tool for communicating or mirroring back what we otherwise discover in our reality but is itself an important formative part of that reality, part of its very texture." (2) Or, as Hans-Georg Gadamer, a student of Heidegger's, put it "being that can be understood is language." (2)
Kerby concludes:
Self-narration, I have argued, is what first raises our temporal existence our of the closets of memorial traces and routine and unthematic activity, constituting thereby a self as its implied subject. This self is, then, the implied subject of a narrated history. Stated another way, in order to be we must be as something or someone, and this someone that we take ourselves to be is the character delineated in our personal narratives. (109)
Kerby goes on to resolve the mind-body problem by saying there is no such thing as mind. I haven't read that part, but I'm guessing that he'll argue that, though we certainly have a physical organ we call 'mind'—a part of our body—it does not constitute "me" (or "I", "you", [as a matter of fact, I've just 'constituted' 'you' by including you in my narrative, and 'you' are now probably split between some sense of identification with the 2nd person pronoun that you've just read, and with the implied subject ('I') of my authorial voice, with which you typically identify to some extent when reading narratives. or not.]). What creates "me" is nothing more than the narration of experience by consciousness.
Okay, here's what Kerby says:
"The self is essentially a meaning construct deriving from language and conversation generally, where language must be seen as essentially "material," that is, as an extention of the sphere of activity of the human body. On the other hand, the human body is alive with expression, with signification. Such a body of gestures we call a person [his emphasis]. It would be artificial (or at best hypothetical) to introduce into this unity a strict substantial division of body and mind, or body and self. Accordingly, I have defined subjectivity as the possibility of expression, but this is not to make of subjectivity some sort of res cogitas or thinking power. Subjectivity is nothing but an honorary appellation we give to a being that has the expressive-linguistic capabilities commonly found in persons. (112)
hmmm.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Meaning
" 'Meaning' is a harlot among words; it is a temptress who can seduce the writer or speaker from the path of intellectual chastity. There are many like her. Our language is filled with such words of easy virtue; words like 'true,' 'value,' 'instinct,' 'entity.' These are everyday words, and their ambiguity is such that high–sounding statements may easily be made, having little content.'
Why don't people write like this anymore?
"...most words do not stand in such unique relationship with simple things...,nouns such as 'democracy,' 'civilization,' 'education,' have different significance to different conditions and classes of men; nouns like 'freedom' and 'happiness' are interpreted differently by almost every individual. Indeed, with continued use a good many words have lost their significance and no longer act as symbols of specific things, or even of specific ideas. Some have become verbal emortive stimulants, arousing passion without reason, bemusing or stiffening the hearer into attitudes. Words such as 'Fascist,' 'Communist,' 'nigger,' 'bitch,' " and I might add 'idiot,' "are bandied aboutas mere terms of abuse, without thought to their formal significance."
Frankfurt might refer to the latter as 'bullshit,' the use of words without regard for the truth, though instances of such words may often lack an 'intent to deceive'.
The above two quotes are from the chapter "On Signs, Language and Communication" in Colin Cherry's book On Human Communication (MIT, 1966) that I am reading for my Thinking through literature class.
side-note: There's been much excitement of late surrounding the possibility that telecommunications companies may some day introduce tiered internet speeds for content providers. This could lead to, for example, finding yourself more inclined to use MSN as a search engine than Google because Microsoft has ponied up for faster service. Opponents of such a possibility are lobbying the American Congress to add a 'network neutrality' clause into the soon-to-be revamped Telecommunications act. AT&T and Bell, in particular, have responded that they need to introduce price discrimination in order to pay for network upgrades. It seems to me that there are two things that haven't been much talked about. We don't really have 'network neutrality' at present. Sure, big companies with big servers and good connections can provide content at roughly equivalent speeds—and this does create a situation where the merit of provided content is largely determinant of traffic, which is good—but if I put up my own widgets for sale site and, for lack of capital, can only serve it with a crappy little provider, even if I make spendiflerous widgets, I shall be limited in the amount of traffic I can receive. In fact, my web-site shall most surely go off-line at some point if the traffic gets too high and I have not ponied up some more cash. Second, could the telecommunication companies not return to charging end-users a network traffic rate? Or how about such a rate for content-providers? Indeed, I think such rates exist. AT&T and Bell have simply dug themselves a hole, probably by offering companies like Google and Yahoo far too much bandwidth for too little money, and probably failing to anticipate increases in bandwidth usage as more and more of us download videos and music. (The last sentence is entirely conjecture.)
Why don't people write like this anymore?
"...most words do not stand in such unique relationship with simple things...,nouns such as 'democracy,' 'civilization,' 'education,' have different significance to different conditions and classes of men; nouns like 'freedom' and 'happiness' are interpreted differently by almost every individual. Indeed, with continued use a good many words have lost their significance and no longer act as symbols of specific things, or even of specific ideas. Some have become verbal emortive stimulants, arousing passion without reason, bemusing or stiffening the hearer into attitudes. Words such as 'Fascist,' 'Communist,' 'nigger,' 'bitch,' " and I might add 'idiot,' "are bandied aboutas mere terms of abuse, without thought to their formal significance."
Frankfurt might refer to the latter as 'bullshit,' the use of words without regard for the truth, though instances of such words may often lack an 'intent to deceive'.
The above two quotes are from the chapter "On Signs, Language and Communication" in Colin Cherry's book On Human Communication (MIT, 1966) that I am reading for my Thinking through literature class.
side-note: There's been much excitement of late surrounding the possibility that telecommunications companies may some day introduce tiered internet speeds for content providers. This could lead to, for example, finding yourself more inclined to use MSN as a search engine than Google because Microsoft has ponied up for faster service. Opponents of such a possibility are lobbying the American Congress to add a 'network neutrality' clause into the soon-to-be revamped Telecommunications act. AT&T and Bell, in particular, have responded that they need to introduce price discrimination in order to pay for network upgrades. It seems to me that there are two things that haven't been much talked about. We don't really have 'network neutrality' at present. Sure, big companies with big servers and good connections can provide content at roughly equivalent speeds—and this does create a situation where the merit of provided content is largely determinant of traffic, which is good—but if I put up my own widgets for sale site and, for lack of capital, can only serve it with a crappy little provider, even if I make spendiflerous widgets, I shall be limited in the amount of traffic I can receive. In fact, my web-site shall most surely go off-line at some point if the traffic gets too high and I have not ponied up some more cash. Second, could the telecommunication companies not return to charging end-users a network traffic rate? Or how about such a rate for content-providers? Indeed, I think such rates exist. AT&T and Bell have simply dug themselves a hole, probably by offering companies like Google and Yahoo far too much bandwidth for too little money, and probably failing to anticipate increases in bandwidth usage as more and more of us download videos and music. (The last sentence is entirely conjecture.)
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Grandma's Wisdom
How To Succeed and Survive Without a Struggle
Set aside daily or twice a week some quiet time. Organize your agenda for the next few days. Write down appointments — phone calls to make — errands that need doing.
Sort and organize — your clothes — mail — papers — magazines. Discard things not needed. Locate special bulletins, letters to keep.
Consider having a file — so there is a place to put items to keep or refer to. Just six folders in a file box can be a big help, these are current files.
Decide on priorities — and do them! Result — a feeling of being in control, of accomplishment — and a chance to do some creative thinking.
As you follow this plan it becomes a habit. You will find yourself thinking ahead — new ideas sort of float into your awareness.
Your time and energy are precious and valuable. With a focus they become super productive — and can produce a sort of joyous feeling.
Watch and listen to other people around you. Take their good ideas and make them yours. Learning isn't confined to schools — it is around us all the time.
Keep a record of employment — dates, employer, etc. Many times later you will need this information. There are endless forms to fill out, as we go along life's way.
Have a calendar in your files to help in record keeping, and organizing. A medical record is most useful.
Set aside daily or twice a week some quiet time. Organize your agenda for the next few days. Write down appointments — phone calls to make — errands that need doing.
Sort and organize — your clothes — mail — papers — magazines. Discard things not needed. Locate special bulletins, letters to keep.
Consider having a file — so there is a place to put items to keep or refer to. Just six folders in a file box can be a big help, these are current files.
Decide on priorities — and do them! Result — a feeling of being in control, of accomplishment — and a chance to do some creative thinking.
As you follow this plan it becomes a habit. You will find yourself thinking ahead — new ideas sort of float into your awareness.
Your time and energy are precious and valuable. With a focus they become super productive — and can produce a sort of joyous feeling.
Watch and listen to other people around you. Take their good ideas and make them yours. Learning isn't confined to schools — it is around us all the time.
Keep a record of employment — dates, employer, etc. Many times later you will need this information. There are endless forms to fill out, as we go along life's way.
Have a calendar in your files to help in record keeping, and organizing. A medical record is most useful.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Late nights
It's been a long time since I've been camping. There's something wonderful about it that makes the food you eat taste that much better. Perhaps because it's a bit harder to prepare, it just taste that much better (the grammatical mistake forces you to stop and savour the taste). The flavours stand out a little more.
It's rather late and I'm now back at home listening to "Aminal Magic" by Bonobo. I had a fairly productive day today. I think I have the beginnings of a thesis outline. This may seem rather odd to those of you who know I've already written a first chapter, but, as might be expected, my first chapter revealed more of my ignorance than it did my genius. Sort of unfortunate that way. One day I shall be genius. Until then I'll write about it.
You know, I wonder what sort of tone you imagine I'm writing this with. Considering that I've now asked the question, it is somewhat obvious. And yet.
My outline is of course the new and improved outline. Version 2.0, due to be revised next year with Version 3.0 following fast upon it's tail.
The japanese master of moody down–tempo has arrived. It's like someone ??????.
Anyways, my outline may be something like:
1. La déception du voyage
2. La sensation–commune
3. Art & the literary life
I think those are right.
I hope you're all well.
Love Ev
Sicilian pizza with avocado. Pink lemonade Gatorade. Out of this world.
Fu–Yu says the moody japanese man.
It's rather late and I'm now back at home listening to "Aminal Magic" by Bonobo. I had a fairly productive day today. I think I have the beginnings of a thesis outline. This may seem rather odd to those of you who know I've already written a first chapter, but, as might be expected, my first chapter revealed more of my ignorance than it did my genius. Sort of unfortunate that way. One day I shall be genius. Until then I'll write about it.
You know, I wonder what sort of tone you imagine I'm writing this with. Considering that I've now asked the question, it is somewhat obvious. And yet.
My outline is of course the new and improved outline. Version 2.0, due to be revised next year with Version 3.0 following fast upon it's tail.
The japanese master of moody down–tempo has arrived. It's like someone ??????.
Anyways, my outline may be something like:
1. La déception du voyage
2. La sensation–commune
3. Art & the literary life
I think those are right.
I hope you're all well.
Love Ev
Sicilian pizza with avocado. Pink lemonade Gatorade. Out of this world.
Fu–Yu says the moody japanese man.
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Idiots? Really?
A friend of my recently suggested I check out the Democratic Underground, in particular for a weekly column called The Top Ten Conservative Idiots. I appreciate (and aspire to) semantic precision, and so I was already annoyed by the column's title. Does the writer really believe that all of his weekly "conservative idiots" are genuine idiots. I can certainly agree that much of what they say and do is idiotic, in the sense that their words and deeds reveal a great ignorance to the truth of my values and views, but I don't really think they are incapable of ordinary acts of reasoning. The list of idiots this week includes Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay, the Bush administration, George Bush, Pat Robertson and Lonnie Latham. Mr. Latham, whom I know nothing about, excepted, the only person on this list who I might label an idiot is Pat Robertson. Certainly, most everything he says is idiotic. And yet, the man has his own TV station and he is at present in talks with the Israeli government about creating a religious theme park in Jerusalem. The principal market would be American evangelicals. Though I find it abhorrent, I must also admit that it is a rather good idea. As for Abramoff, Delay, Bush and his administration, I think it is disingenuous, and more importantly, intellectually lazy, to call them idiots. Oh, and I think it's ineffectual. If the ability to put a cogent sentence together is a good proxy for intelligence, Bush is certainly not the smartest cookie, but the members of his administration, though perhaps morally bankrupt, are (mostly) far from being idiots. Same too for Abramoff and Delay.
Even if I still dislike the presentation, I did enjoy parts of Top Ten Conservative Idiots of the Week. I had the same thoughts as the writer when I first saw pictures of Ambramoff in his black trench coat and fedora (is he trying to look like a mobster?). Perhaps it says something about the amount of news I read that only about a quarter of what was presented was new to me, which is probably part of why I didn't find the article engaging enough to be certain that I'll make it part of my weekly reading, but it may have also had something to do with the lame "HA HA HA" interjections in the piece about Delay.
My dislike of the article centres on the question of partisan confrontational politics versus some sort of more idealized, issues and values based politics. For me, which one you choose depends on how you conceive of the fight. If the goal is to win power by trouncing the opponent, then partisan mongering is perhaps the way to go. But it seems like we still mostly live in a democracy and that we must eventually win power by convincing people to vote for the Democrats. I just don't think "HA HA HA" wins any votes. That said, I have nothing against having a few laughs at the expense of the other side, as long as we keep our entertainment separate from our message (though I should perhaps remember Jon Stewart's pleading "you're hurting America" during his second apperance on Crossfire). Maybe I'm too naive, perhaps we in the US really do live under a junta—one could say that Bush seized power with the help of the Supreme Court and he is, by virtue of his position, a military officer, but I don't think we've reached the horrors of a latin-american dictatorship, which is what the word 'junta' connotes to me. (I might also add that if the Bush administration is a junta, then there is little reason not to apply the label to Hugo Chavez' government. Chavez's "Bolivarian revolution" may be good for his country's much abused poor in the short term, but his tenure will have a pernicious effect on his country over the long-term.) I just don't find statements like this, from an article (also from the Democratic Underground) by Daniel Patick Welch entitled "Pants on Fire: The Liars of the Bush Administration will take the world down in flames if we let them"compelling:
"Sam Alito is merely the latest liar on the block for Bush's full spectrum dominance agenda. But the show-trial hearings on whether this proto-fascist ideologue should be allowed to shape US social and political development for a generation provide some nuggets of insight into how the corrupt junta's pathological liars actually work.
The first order of amazement is that the process can actually take place. Shouldn't precedence be given to hearings on impeaching and imprisoning the corporate cronies who lied us into war? Business As Usual, is, as usual, the most effective weapon in the arsenal of the criminal cabal that has seized control of the US."
The rest of the article is actually quite good. It contains many good points and the writing isn't bad, but its power to convince readers who don't already agree is entirely squandered by the adolescent bombast of the introduction and lines like the following that are peppered throughout, "when Baby Doc Bush tried to appoint his own lawyer, his christofascist paymasters seethed with rage and responded with one voice: "You shut up, and remember why we put you in office in the first place." The swaggering phony cowboy obediently caved, and Harriet Myers made way for Sam Alito." I used to write with that kind of grandiose rhetoric in highschool when I was fighting the global capitalist conspiracy to destroy the earth and its inhabitants. Now, I'm not actually saying his analysis is entirely wrong (I think he's partly right but tends to oversimplify issues), but his rhetoric, though sometimes entertaining, is ineffectual.
Even if I still dislike the presentation, I did enjoy parts of Top Ten Conservative Idiots of the Week. I had the same thoughts as the writer when I first saw pictures of Ambramoff in his black trench coat and fedora (is he trying to look like a mobster?). Perhaps it says something about the amount of news I read that only about a quarter of what was presented was new to me, which is probably part of why I didn't find the article engaging enough to be certain that I'll make it part of my weekly reading, but it may have also had something to do with the lame "HA HA HA" interjections in the piece about Delay.
My dislike of the article centres on the question of partisan confrontational politics versus some sort of more idealized, issues and values based politics. For me, which one you choose depends on how you conceive of the fight. If the goal is to win power by trouncing the opponent, then partisan mongering is perhaps the way to go. But it seems like we still mostly live in a democracy and that we must eventually win power by convincing people to vote for the Democrats. I just don't think "HA HA HA" wins any votes. That said, I have nothing against having a few laughs at the expense of the other side, as long as we keep our entertainment separate from our message (though I should perhaps remember Jon Stewart's pleading "you're hurting America" during his second apperance on Crossfire). Maybe I'm too naive, perhaps we in the US really do live under a junta—one could say that Bush seized power with the help of the Supreme Court and he is, by virtue of his position, a military officer, but I don't think we've reached the horrors of a latin-american dictatorship, which is what the word 'junta' connotes to me. (I might also add that if the Bush administration is a junta, then there is little reason not to apply the label to Hugo Chavez' government. Chavez's "Bolivarian revolution" may be good for his country's much abused poor in the short term, but his tenure will have a pernicious effect on his country over the long-term.) I just don't find statements like this, from an article (also from the Democratic Underground) by Daniel Patick Welch entitled "Pants on Fire: The Liars of the Bush Administration will take the world down in flames if we let them"compelling:
"Sam Alito is merely the latest liar on the block for Bush's full spectrum dominance agenda. But the show-trial hearings on whether this proto-fascist ideologue should be allowed to shape US social and political development for a generation provide some nuggets of insight into how the corrupt junta's pathological liars actually work.
The first order of amazement is that the process can actually take place. Shouldn't precedence be given to hearings on impeaching and imprisoning the corporate cronies who lied us into war? Business As Usual, is, as usual, the most effective weapon in the arsenal of the criminal cabal that has seized control of the US."
The rest of the article is actually quite good. It contains many good points and the writing isn't bad, but its power to convince readers who don't already agree is entirely squandered by the adolescent bombast of the introduction and lines like the following that are peppered throughout, "when Baby Doc Bush tried to appoint his own lawyer, his christofascist paymasters seethed with rage and responded with one voice: "You shut up, and remember why we put you in office in the first place." The swaggering phony cowboy obediently caved, and Harriet Myers made way for Sam Alito." I used to write with that kind of grandiose rhetoric in highschool when I was fighting the global capitalist conspiracy to destroy the earth and its inhabitants. Now, I'm not actually saying his analysis is entirely wrong (I think he's partly right but tends to oversimplify issues), but his rhetoric, though sometimes entertaining, is ineffectual.
Friday, January 06, 2006
That other Santorum makes the Economist
I had never heard of Rick Santorum until Dan Savage made his family name into a word for the mix of lube, cum and fecal matter that can follow anal sex. To this day, when I read the word "Santorum" in print, my immediate association is not to the fundamentalist christian Senator from Pennsylvania who may be unseated in the mid-terms this year. This little cultural tid-bid has at last been acknowledged in The Economist:
The fall of Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania's junior senator, is even more eagerly anticipated by the American left. Mr Santorum is one of America's most articulate opponents of all things permissive. His six children are home-schooled; he opposes stem-cell research; he feels that sodomy should be outlawed; he favours national service. James Dobson, the head of Focus on the Family, an evangelical group, praises his “integrity, vision and unwavering commitment to the principles and beliefs upon which the United States was founded”. Meanwhile, gay activists use his name to denote something indescribable in a family newspaper.
The fall of Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania's junior senator, is even more eagerly anticipated by the American left. Mr Santorum is one of America's most articulate opponents of all things permissive. His six children are home-schooled; he opposes stem-cell research; he feels that sodomy should be outlawed; he favours national service. James Dobson, the head of Focus on the Family, an evangelical group, praises his “integrity, vision and unwavering commitment to the principles and beliefs upon which the United States was founded”. Meanwhile, gay activists use his name to denote something indescribable in a family newspaper.
Monday, January 02, 2006
"in the process of learning to identify objects immediately, we collect groups of identifying labels that apply to general categories of objects or sensory perceptions. In the strictest sense, no two objects and no two impressions ever resemble each other exactly, and the names we apply to them can quickly becomes like worn-out metaphors that hide from us the specificity of this object or this impression. Names give us a false epistemological security; we need them in order to organize, communicate, and act on our experience in the world, but they encourage us to take what are really approximate analogies for exact knowledge of particular things.” (Leo Bersani, Marcel Proust: The Fictions of Art and Life, 206)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)