Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Monday, June 13, 2011
Garden
A hammock barely manages to stay buoyant, adrift in the garden, grass sprays licking crests over its gunnels. If you are so inclined to recline, you will find, leeward of the sun, a giant monkey puzzle tree. It's a veritable kraken, with green scaled tentacles doming out a space behind the grassy wash. Its dizzying parabolas mesh with a worn apple tree, barely yet wheezing fruit. Under them both is a secret place, a heartening refuge which offers security as much by the knowledge that it is there, as by actually being entered. In the hotter months, I'm intending to spread hay throughout to help coax people out of the heat. A neighbour and I plan to play chess there one day.
Beyond the monkey maze, a yellow plum tree elbows over the hedge, and snarls of blackberry burst through to mug you. Here is a huddle of chairs and our fire-creche, the off-centered axle for our house's social wheel. And begins the strawberry patch. Garlic reeds and chives, parsley, baby potatoes, errant carrots, soon-to-be cilantro, courgettes, pumpkins and squash. Peas, broccoli, kale and maybe a lettuce. These all line the back of the yard, closing with our herbs and compost.
In this joyous, oxygenerative ver-dance, when the nearby traffic is muffled, are bumbling buzzes of bees and plump flies; bright birdsong from even tinier secret canopy holes; our hedge-cat HuckleBetty, who confers his confidences shyly, but with love, popping out from the under/over growth to say hello. Hummingbirds perch on the marshaled phalanx of bamboo, while crows hurl insults down from almost anywhere. I like to stand or sit or lie here until my edges and boundaries are massaged down and folded into the garden's batter.
But all here is not life, death still acts as ballast. A moribund stub of apple tree crouches at the prow of the hammock. Harrowed and harassed by the years, it droops the ferryman's lantern into the nights. A fir, once the garden's pride and ad hoc sundial, now creaks weathered and scorched above us. Opposite it, next to the ancient, ivy-clad bones of a fallen cherry tree, an enthusiastic young eucalyptus rustles desiccated leaves through the breeze. A sad lullabyebye.
But it's beautiful, this garden. When we dug the fire-pit, we hit a vein of old horse manure hearkening back to when the second building was a coach-house. Remnants of tenants past poke out at odd angles, and like horticultural archaeology, we can only guess as to how the snow-drops migrated, and who founded the birdbath corroded beyond repair, how the gnarled rosemary can persist after so many years of torture from the pestilential morning glory. It's a font of love, for me, this garden, a well-spring of inspiration and relaxation. This town would feel quite alien without it.
Friday, June 10, 2011
A of H [pt. 3] - Moral Hygiene
So, back to 'conspiracy'. If you would accept that it would mean to breathe in harmony, then there is no greater conspiracy than government. And that set of mighty lungs needs ribs of iron to cage the occasional wayward gust. An aside: I find breathing an interesting metaphor, as it is regulated by the autonomic nervous system, yet can be controlled by conscious thought.
Just like any government that wigs out over socialism (there are inherent traces of socialist tendencies within any form of government, some recipients just being more select than others), a government that complains about 'conspiracy theories' just highlights its opacity and inability to supply its people with information. After all, really, why does any noble government have to hide its breathing cycles?
One such screen of opacity has been the television. It has crafted psychological space for decades now, and the results are literally terrifying. It is the same one-to-many format that the religions use (access your spiritually only within sanctioned, sanctified space), and those who watch it report on it as reality. It's drugging effects do not stop there, under-publicized research (ie. you won't have watched the report on TV) indicate that your brain undergoes RADICAL effects. Hemispherical dominance shifts from left hemisphere (in general, the 'critical' side) to the right ('emotional')... which ain't so bad, other than the fact that we're watching REALITY here. Further, brain waves splutter into sluggish alpha rhythm, 8 to 12hz, which if intended to happen, can be brilliant for your health. But because it's not, isn't. The adage is that people in comas experience greater brain activity than someone in front of the TV.
This was the new morality we were supposed to accept. Even genius shows like the Simpsons, which critiqued this form of representation by getting a cartoon TV family to feedback to real TV families, couldn't bust that mold. Again, please witness McLuhan's 'medium is the message' to 'medium is the massage' (to 'tedium is the masses'?)
But what's wrong with the one-to-many system? Well, at best it's representative democracy, which is closest to an elected oligarchy. And cogni-neurologically speaking, there's Dunbar's number to account for politician's dissociation from their constituency and association with each other. Even the most valiantly discerning, critically purposed politician will represent their culture - which is exactly how their morality was obtained. The worst thing we can do is allow these people to be in the same room as each other! By some abstract distillation process, these people will BE the country or nation under who's banner they collect.
The one-to-many has been GREAT for the hegemony. Prior to TV, there was the pisser of having Gutenberg's press permit widespread education outside of the strictures of authority (church). Divine authority and hereditary rule suffered a blow.. the dissembling of the priest caste gave rise to that of the merchant - corporations began in the shape of shipping and trade consortiums. But that just rearranged the matter of distribution, really, as geographical and temporal constraints still remained. Information was available, but what could be done with it?
Enter the internet! This is the lauded many-to-many representation. Categorically created to circumvent censorship and lies ('errors', or nodal corruption are rerouted and corrected). The old tricks of TV geo-politics begin to fail, as everyone is now a pirate broadcaster. Morality - or representational truth - has irrefutably changed, and what's amazing about this, is that people are generally ok. The 9/11 cover up by the wackiest conspiracy theory ever told (19 suicide hijackers, 5 of whom are still alive etc.) - it is now touted as the first mass-marketed failure of TV to successfully implant reality.
Consumer devices, such as self-phones and digital cameras have also contributed to the civilian production of DIY media. With the distributive powers of the internet, it's a perfect storm for the beaches of sanctioned reality.
And so, the hegemony has been astounded and indignant that people are shaping their own realities. This idea simply cannot be understood by them, as it corrupts the belief that props them up. Sophistry is trotted out, and diversionary (and divisive) tactics locked and loaded. The economies have been purposefully detonated so as to best reign in all possible alternatives available to the middle class. Brute authority has swaggered back in, 'for our protection'.
But why would they collapse the very system of illusion that gave them dominance? Mainly because the many-to-many model now allows for DIRECT governance. A democracy no longer dictated by spatial constraint.. people can circumvent the power-matrix and are able to vote directly, without any cause for delay, without any need for 4 year terms of governance, without any use for false party dichotomies, without political representation by someone who will only get assimilated. Every single bill or referendum can be examined by the population, and voted on BY them. This is the true revolution, and it's being deferred for as long as possible, so that the hegemony can raise as many swords to drop if things go poorly for them (which they will).
Accountability will be actualized.
Phew! Glad to have THAT off my chest, I can breathe freely!
A web translation for 'No cow too sacred' gave me this: nullus vacca nimium augustus. Assuming its veracity, it's a bit too lumpy for a heraldic crest... but I'll chew the cud and perhaps it'll prove digestible.
Just like any government that wigs out over socialism (there are inherent traces of socialist tendencies within any form of government, some recipients just being more select than others), a government that complains about 'conspiracy theories' just highlights its opacity and inability to supply its people with information. After all, really, why does any noble government have to hide its breathing cycles?
One such screen of opacity has been the television. It has crafted psychological space for decades now, and the results are literally terrifying. It is the same one-to-many format that the religions use (access your spiritually only within sanctioned, sanctified space), and those who watch it report on it as reality. It's drugging effects do not stop there, under-publicized research (ie. you won't have watched the report on TV) indicate that your brain undergoes RADICAL effects. Hemispherical dominance shifts from left hemisphere (in general, the 'critical' side) to the right ('emotional')... which ain't so bad, other than the fact that we're watching REALITY here. Further, brain waves splutter into sluggish alpha rhythm, 8 to 12hz, which if intended to happen, can be brilliant for your health. But because it's not, isn't. The adage is that people in comas experience greater brain activity than someone in front of the TV.
This was the new morality we were supposed to accept. Even genius shows like the Simpsons, which critiqued this form of representation by getting a cartoon TV family to feedback to real TV families, couldn't bust that mold. Again, please witness McLuhan's 'medium is the message' to 'medium is the massage' (to 'tedium is the masses'?)
But what's wrong with the one-to-many system? Well, at best it's representative democracy, which is closest to an elected oligarchy. And cogni-neurologically speaking, there's Dunbar's number to account for politician's dissociation from their constituency and association with each other. Even the most valiantly discerning, critically purposed politician will represent their culture - which is exactly how their morality was obtained. The worst thing we can do is allow these people to be in the same room as each other! By some abstract distillation process, these people will BE the country or nation under who's banner they collect.
The one-to-many has been GREAT for the hegemony. Prior to TV, there was the pisser of having Gutenberg's press permit widespread education outside of the strictures of authority (church). Divine authority and hereditary rule suffered a blow.. the dissembling of the priest caste gave rise to that of the merchant - corporations began in the shape of shipping and trade consortiums. But that just rearranged the matter of distribution, really, as geographical and temporal constraints still remained. Information was available, but what could be done with it?
Enter the internet! This is the lauded many-to-many representation. Categorically created to circumvent censorship and lies ('errors', or nodal corruption are rerouted and corrected). The old tricks of TV geo-politics begin to fail, as everyone is now a pirate broadcaster. Morality - or representational truth - has irrefutably changed, and what's amazing about this, is that people are generally ok. The 9/11 cover up by the wackiest conspiracy theory ever told (19 suicide hijackers, 5 of whom are still alive etc.) - it is now touted as the first mass-marketed failure of TV to successfully implant reality.
Consumer devices, such as self-phones and digital cameras have also contributed to the civilian production of DIY media. With the distributive powers of the internet, it's a perfect storm for the beaches of sanctioned reality.
And so, the hegemony has been astounded and indignant that people are shaping their own realities. This idea simply cannot be understood by them, as it corrupts the belief that props them up. Sophistry is trotted out, and diversionary (and divisive) tactics locked and loaded. The economies have been purposefully detonated so as to best reign in all possible alternatives available to the middle class. Brute authority has swaggered back in, 'for our protection'.
But why would they collapse the very system of illusion that gave them dominance? Mainly because the many-to-many model now allows for DIRECT governance. A democracy no longer dictated by spatial constraint.. people can circumvent the power-matrix and are able to vote directly, without any cause for delay, without any need for 4 year terms of governance, without any use for false party dichotomies, without political representation by someone who will only get assimilated. Every single bill or referendum can be examined by the population, and voted on BY them. This is the true revolution, and it's being deferred for as long as possible, so that the hegemony can raise as many swords to drop if things go poorly for them (which they will).
Accountability will be actualized.
Phew! Glad to have THAT off my chest, I can breathe freely!
A web translation for 'No cow too sacred' gave me this: nullus vacca nimium augustus. Assuming its veracity, it's a bit too lumpy for a heraldic crest... but I'll chew the cud and perhaps it'll prove digestible.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
A of H [pt. 2] - Mechanisms of Authority
That we should yet be privileging religion is something at which I often wonder. Though atheism is quite a conceited POV, it does by no means curtail spiritualism and awe in the scintillating universe. As an atheist, I choose to operate outside of theistic explanation. God is a useful parameter, perhaps, but is still too much of a human caprice. The closest I can come to belief of such an idea is within the notion that we are instead becoming god. Our communication networks emulate our own neurology, and as we spread across the planet, we are learning to unify under certain laws. But who is writing these laws?
The 3 central occidental religions were born pastoral. That is to say, they apply techniques of animal husbandry to human governance. The one-to-many rule of shepherd to sheep is recapitulated by their edicts. "One god and he likes it this way - and so will you" worked then, and has been used to frame nearly everything since - so much so that we can barely glimpse outside the framework. Even now it's embedded in our language and social currencies. Guilt, sin, soul, 'chosenness', obeisance, monopoly etc. are all signature tropes that are still very much in play today.
But still, these gods, though each the 'sole' Being for their adherents, must still line up next to each other in the Pantheon. Applying the idea that we are entwining our nervous systems around the globe, thus creating the one collective consciousness (as a sort of meta-human), could not these religions be akin to the squabbling designers of competing Operating Systems? Would that make Steve Jobs the new messiah? Poppycock.
Though this could hypothetically be allowed as the reflexive case, the dogmatism of each religion will likely not permit this as a visible possibility. As far as information theory goes, religion tends to shut down viable alternative realities that run in parallel. However, one such power coursing within them all is MONEY.
Money, or more specifically, debt, has supplanted guilt. Original sin is now national deficit. Historically, money was invented for imperialism and trade. Otherwise, all tariffs, taxes and tributes were collateralized in the form of bartered goods. Food, animals, skills and labour - this last category a euphemism for varying degrees of slavery - all could be represented by money. And representation begets reality.
Again, mechanically, much as it worked with guilt and mortal sin, those in debt are rendered pliable to those they have to pay. They will take fewer risks, find their rights more precarious, be more obliging to their shitty bosses, and tow the party lines.
Another big thing: people are very unlikely to admit that they are mistaken. I know I have a tough time doing so, and I've seen this in every single human I have ever met. We will experience the entire gamut of emotions before volunteering that our reality was skewed. Probably this is because it radicalizes every other meaning in our life. Armed with this information, you can get people to do the most ridiculous things (through argumentum ad populum, emotional appeal, patriotism, hysteria, terror) you can commit them to the wrong premise and then overdub their reality with yours.
This confirmation bias is an avarice responsible for untold amounts of problems, and also forces us to dance to the drums of others. Those who best benefit from this, know this, and use it to write the rules of their authority.
Again, I'm jumping around the topics, a sign I must pause. Anyone know the Latin for 'There is no cow too sacred'?
The 3 central occidental religions were born pastoral. That is to say, they apply techniques of animal husbandry to human governance. The one-to-many rule of shepherd to sheep is recapitulated by their edicts. "One god and he likes it this way - and so will you" worked then, and has been used to frame nearly everything since - so much so that we can barely glimpse outside the framework. Even now it's embedded in our language and social currencies. Guilt, sin, soul, 'chosenness', obeisance, monopoly etc. are all signature tropes that are still very much in play today.
But still, these gods, though each the 'sole' Being for their adherents, must still line up next to each other in the Pantheon. Applying the idea that we are entwining our nervous systems around the globe, thus creating the one collective consciousness (as a sort of meta-human), could not these religions be akin to the squabbling designers of competing Operating Systems? Would that make Steve Jobs the new messiah? Poppycock.
Though this could hypothetically be allowed as the reflexive case, the dogmatism of each religion will likely not permit this as a visible possibility. As far as information theory goes, religion tends to shut down viable alternative realities that run in parallel. However, one such power coursing within them all is MONEY.
Money, or more specifically, debt, has supplanted guilt. Original sin is now national deficit. Historically, money was invented for imperialism and trade. Otherwise, all tariffs, taxes and tributes were collateralized in the form of bartered goods. Food, animals, skills and labour - this last category a euphemism for varying degrees of slavery - all could be represented by money. And representation begets reality.
Again, mechanically, much as it worked with guilt and mortal sin, those in debt are rendered pliable to those they have to pay. They will take fewer risks, find their rights more precarious, be more obliging to their shitty bosses, and tow the party lines.
Another big thing: people are very unlikely to admit that they are mistaken. I know I have a tough time doing so, and I've seen this in every single human I have ever met. We will experience the entire gamut of emotions before volunteering that our reality was skewed. Probably this is because it radicalizes every other meaning in our life. Armed with this information, you can get people to do the most ridiculous things (through argumentum ad populum, emotional appeal, patriotism, hysteria, terror) you can commit them to the wrong premise and then overdub their reality with yours.
This confirmation bias is an avarice responsible for untold amounts of problems, and also forces us to dance to the drums of others. Those who best benefit from this, know this, and use it to write the rules of their authority.
Again, I'm jumping around the topics, a sign I must pause. Anyone know the Latin for 'There is no cow too sacred'?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)