Self. A word for the elusive but ever-present enigma that is supposedly at the very core of our being. It is difficult, near impossible, to define, and yet few educated citizens of Western civilization would argue against the self's existence (unless they are a fan of Nietzsche). With this seemingly unanimous, universal belief in the concept, it must simply be accepted that the self is necessary and permanent aspect of each individual in society.
However, this is only partially true. Yes, the self is necessary to our capitalist society, creating the necessary competitive drive to keep the gears of our economic machine churning. However, the self is not necessary, and often detrimental to other systems and situations. Think of the French Revolution, it was an enlightened revolution against an absolutist regime. It marked the self-realization of the masses of Bourgeois who came to the conclusion that, as individuals, they were not getting all they could out of their current economic situation, whereas the aristocracy and the clergy were living the high-life. While the result of the revolution could be argued beneficial, it is clear that the concept of self is detrimental to absolutism. In fact, during this time, the sense of self in the Bourgeois proved to be the most destructive and subversive weapon against the Bourbon dynasty.
Also, the self is not a permanent facet of the individual, in fact, the individual and its subsequent self has historically been in flux most recently coming into existence at the end of the Dark Ages, with the advent of philosophy and early capitalism. Before the Renaissance, the masses of serfs were content to be just that, serfs. They did not consider that life could be better for themselves, because the closest thing they had to a sense of self was a sense of role, as an impoverished labourer. This shows a more universal concept which dominated society, not as a collective of individuals, but a single unit, operating as one with smaller parts. The same can be said of the former Soviet Union. With all Marx's talk of self-realization through labour, communism, at least in its impure "dictatorship-by-the-proletariat" form, proved to nearly eliminate the sense of self in labourers.
Let us ponder the state of the self in our technology-driven capitalist society. Some would argue that the self has come and passed, and remains only as an illusion in our society. Marx would claim that as slaves of the "God Money" we confuse our role in our society for our true self. That would make me an unemployed student. More and more when trying to define the self, we run into problems, attaching our roles in our society, our families, our friend groups, etc. to aspects of our self. In doing this we are defining our place in a greater community and in turn defying our individualism and the very concept of the self. Therefore, it must be argued that either, we once had a self and we have once again lost it (to technology?), or that the self never existed except as maybe an illusion.
If we don't have a self, does that make us slaves? Our government gives us freedom, but our state of being, existence, or whatever it boils down to, takes it away. It can be argued that we live in a constant state of slavery, under a fascist regime that ironically gives us absolute freedom. Few among us truly understand their self, and still fewer embrace their freedom. Maybe the only way to be a true individual is to defy all your roles in society.
Disclaimer: Defying your role in society can lead to infidelity, STDs, physical harm, incarceration, suicide-by-cop, etc. This blog does not condone illegal actions in the name of discovering one's "self". Really it is hardly worth it.
Related Blog: Along with self-based and community-based societies comes the idea of isolationism and Unitarianism. This is a good argument for why the latter is a fundamental and necessary part of society: Why Nietzsche Was Wrong.
Anna Chapman (assuming that is her real name, not a pseudonym) is one of the 11 suspects recently captured by American authorities in connection with a spy ring in the suburbs of North-eastern United States. The radiantly ravishing Russian red-head, living in New York, described herself as 28 years old, divorced and the daughter of a Russian diplomat. Her and the 11 others were groomed to infiltrate policy-making circles in the United States and report information back to Russian authorities through hidden text in photographs.
So what does this sexy spy mean for American and Russian relations? Well Russian President Medvedev just finished meeting with American President Obama and the two nations praised thawing relations at an all time high since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Little did they know that Ms. Anna Chapman would heat things up even more. Will this mean renewed distrust amongst the two powers? It's hardly news that the two are keeping an eye on each other (these 11 probably representing only a tiny fraction of the much larger espionage going on in the United States) but with the case so close to the public eye, it could mean disaster for the renewed ties between the two countries.
Regardless of the outcome, Ms. Anna Chapman represents the new face of espionage. A sexy, tech-savvy, suburbanite, she seems extraordinarily ordinary. Entrepreneur by day, sexy Soviet spy by night, only a lonely middle-aged comic-book writer could have done it better. How can we be sure that our neighbours are who they say they are?
I'm trying to get back into blogging, like I once was, addicted. But relapsing is very difficult, so I'm going to take bigger hits. Not write an essay or something. But more impacting hits. I'm going to take it in and send it packing straight to the addiction center of my brain. I'm going to meditate on that shit. It's going to be wild. Anyone reading this thinks I'm heavy into drugs now, but I'm not into them at all. Taking bigger hits was just a suggestion from a friend.
What has been on my mind today is Plato's Allegory of the Cave. I wrote a couple posts (and months) back about how environmental alarmists fucked the cause with their doomsday talk, and I just realized the relevance of the Cave. We all live in blissful ignorance inside the cave, looking at shadowy figures, left-overs or doubles of the truth. Then when we ascend into the world we are blinded by the light of the truth, we see the true origin of the shadows, we see reality, and we long to be in the cave again, where we return, no longer ignorant, but indifferent. That is what happens with environmental alarm-ism. We don't like what we see, we can't handle it, we ignore it.
You can't unknow something, but you can ignore it.
This flag is not meant to directly offend anyone. It does not necessarily reflect the current or past state of the British or United States governments, but only a single possible, and not necessarily likely, future on the current trajectory.
Recently, I watched the film V for Vendetta, a sci-fi thriller about a near-future fascist Britain. This image, which apparently original to the film, was present in the basement of one of the characters, a relic of a time of unfettered freedom of speech (today). The caption read, "The Coalition of the Willing, To Power." I was instantly attracted to this image, as it is just that perfect level of controversy that has the capability of getting one thinking. It was an interesting political statement, saying that with the War on Terror and the War in Iraq the governments of the United States, Britain, Canada, etc. took on more characteristically fascist measures in the name of national security.
I rooted around and found the image in one place: Raincoaster's Blog. I found it interesting the discussion they had about this image and the comparative state of freedom in the United States and Britain. Presumably from Britain they all agreed that the United States, with its habit of wire-tapping in the post-9/11 era, is less free than Britain.
Personally, I disagree, Britain is equally, if not less free than the United States. To me this is evident by the fact that Britain has the most surveillance cameras per capita in the world with over 4 million Closed Circuit Television cameras installed nationwide, compared to a few thousand systems in the United States. In Britain all major city and town centres have Closed Circuit Television. According to studies there is little indication that these systems actually prevent crime, so really, they just provide a window for the government to look into the lives of citizens. This must be considered at least an equal rights violation to the United States wire-tapping.
With these cameras potential for Britain to become an autocratic state is clear. We must ask ourselves, before allowing a government to put in place measures to watch us and "protect" us from ourselves, do they have good intentions. No one wants to believe that their government will hurt them we'd much rather believe that our fellow citizens will hurt us, but at the expense of national security and the prosperity of the masses, they will take away our rights. It is not enough to simply know of past evil, history WILL repeat itself if we don't understand it and if don't act to prevent it.
R
ush, Canada's greatest band, and arguably one of the world's legendary bands. Praised as having forged a genre of their own over 40 years and 20 albums, they are truly revolutionary. It's about time this band had a Rockumentary. Rush: Beyond The Lighted Stage, stealing its name from their world-renowned song Limelight, was unveiled at Toronto's Hot Docs Film Festival last Thursday. The film is said to boast a complete history of the band from its early days playing high school gigs (It's noteworthy that Rush apparently played my high school back in the day) to its latest album Snakes and Arrows.
For a band that has not experienced a lot of drama or tragedy, but a steady stream of success since its early days, some, including Geddy Lee himself, worried that there was no story to tell; however the directors are being praised for successfully and intelligently portraying the history of a great band. As their style has changed and developed over the years Rush has remained the same group of nerdy outcasts they were from Day 1, without too much upset. Despite the seeming lack of drama in the band the director's supposedly went to great lengths to dig up the whole story. The film leaves no subject untouched as it explains the grim history of Lee's parents (Holocaust survivors) and Peart's personal tragedy with the loss of his wife and daughter.
The documentary will be released as Rush prepares to do a summer tour of North America. They will be performing a long anticipated set of their pivotal album Moving Pictures in full, with such songs as Red Barchetta, Limelight, YYZ and Tom Sawyer at four Canadian venues and many more American venues. Personally I'm looking forward to seeing them in all their glory at the Molson Amphitheater on July 13th.
And Al Gore killed it. He killed it along with 100s of millions of people in the low-lying coastal regions of the world. How? Just like that. In saying the words, "100s of millions of refugees," he sealed their fate. Its not a new idea, many top environmentalists rail against environmental alarmism. The fact is, the masses, can't take it. It will shock us, and move us but at best we'll unplug our cell-phone charger, at worst we'll become jaded by the sheer scale of death, destruction and the seemingly minuscule possibility of salvation. So if education is not the answer, what is?
Its all about media, and granted Al Gore has started to catch on to the new way, slowly. The only way to start a massive social movement, is to make it cool. Look at the 60s for example. There were a few die-hard activists, rebels, "revolutionaries." Some people will claim that the true hippies, in blowing up banks, did not shy away from violence as a method for social change. If only a few people were truly active then why is it that an entire generation of youth was branded that way? They seemed to protest the Vietnam war. They weren't all radicals, or rebels, they were all followers who served the radical cause just as they served the conformist cause in the 50s. Why? Because it was cool.
Nothing sounds better than free love, peace, truth, beauty and individuality. It was marketed incredibly easily. The masses respond to these words because they are strong. Granted Al Gore's words, death, flood, global climate change, refugees, extinction, etc, are strong words which demand response. Unfortunately the masses choose the wrong response, run for cover, continue hiding behind their consumer products, the threat is just too heavy. The only way most people will think twice about climate change is if they are buying a new "green" product from Wal-Mart.
However, the "green" consumer revolution is the ultimately WRONG response to Al Gore's words. The fear of the unknown in people leads them to consume, and corporations found the ultimate way to make them feel better about themselves, provide a product they can hide behind that will effectively remove their fear and guilt. With "green" dish-washing soap, I can continue to use disposable razors, drive an SUV and throw out half my dinner every single night, without having to hide from the wrath of the world's prominent environmental alarmists or worry that my children will blame me for destroying the world.
Regardless, this same marketing technique is what is needed to shake people into movement. No one will protest because "millions of people will die" but thousands will protest because "they love polar bears" or "they are proud to be human." The masses respond to the positive and shy away from the negative, however it may affect them. The same model that made Obama president, "Yes We Can" rather than the Republicans, "but but but, he's a socialist" is what is needed to make people demand environmental action. The vast majority of us are sheep, following a leader. Machiavelli would turn over in his grave, but in the modern world, it is better to be loved, and to preach love, than to preach fear.
The same goes for any cause really. If you want to create passion for a cause, or just the illusion of passion, it is crucial to spin it positively. Through film, television, print, the internet, etc, people can become inspired and awed by the sheer beauty and preciousness of our planet. At this point, it must be said that this extraordinary beauty is fragile, and we must be responsible for its salvation. With this information and passion in hand, the masses can be motivated, moved and not afraid to take action. So relax Al, and you too reader, when you see someone who claims to be an activist but acts contradictorily, don't call them out, include them in your action, encourage and nurture their activism, make them a part of a greater movement. Then environmentalism will be cool, and they will have no choice but to listen.
Don't fear the future, be proud of being human, learn about the world and love your planet.
