Sunday, July 19, 2009

Onan and the rest of us



I'll never forget the scene in Pleasantville where the mom reclines in the bath tub, starts breathing heavily as objects around her turn color, and eventually twitches her way to the shot of the tree exploding in the front yard.

(This was not too long after the scene where Reese Witherspoon tells her about sex and how she doesn't need dad to...you know)

My girlfriend at the time looked over and asked me what she was doing in the bathtub - 'what happened? I don't get it...'

This was the moment that being the first boyfriend of a private-schooled high school valedictorian english nerd really registered.

This Slate article and Saletan post offer more interesting fodder, and actually helped dislodged the above, decade-old memory.

I dig the tension between the natural order and the old testament.

Friday, July 17, 2009

Moonwalking Bird

Starts getting jiggy around 2:00 in.







Somebody needs to send this clip to these folks.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Paul Tillich & cyberpunk theology



I very often very consciously wish that Paul Tillich was still alive.

Tillich intellectually positioned himself on the boundaries of category, culture, and even epistemology in a way that cultural critics rarely do, let alone theologians.

He died in 1965.

Before the Internet.

If he were alive today, I think he'd be the thinker that could hammer out a working version of human spirituality in the Internet age.

From Tillich's The Courage to Be:
The anxiety of emptiness is aroused by the threat of nonbeing to the special contents of the spiritual life. A belief breaks down through external events or inner processes: one is cut off from creative participation in a sphere of culture, one feels frustrated about something which one had passionately affirmed, one is driven from devotion to one object of devotion to another and again on to another, because the meaning of each of them vanishes and the creative eros is transformed into indifference or aversion.
Tillich's ability to marry existentialism and transcendence would resonate with issues of alienation brought on by technology, especially the themes distilled in cyberpunk literature:
Classic cyberpunk characters were marginalized, alienated loners who lived on the edge of society in generally dystopic futures where daily life was impacted by rapid technological change, an ubiquitous datasphere of computerized information, and invasive modification of the human body.
Unlike this guy, I'm not sure about chalking up human spirituality to primitive thinking and completely dropping it.

I think it makes more sense for spirituality to modernize, for conceptions of God to modernize.

But for spirituality to modernize, we are gonna need thinkers that can stitch together a new working narrative of the spiritual (human) transcendence in a technical world.

I think we're gonna need cyberpunk theologians/cultural theorists in the vein of Paul Tillich to speak to human alienation in the age of the technium and resample it into new, generative culture.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Gandhi on self-purification

From here:
Identification with everything that lives is impossible without self-purification; without self-purification the observance of the law of Ahimsa must remain an empty dream; God can never be realized by one who is not pure of heart. Self-purification therefore must mean purification in all the walks of life. And purification being highly infectious, purification of oneself necessarily leads to the purification of one's surroundings.

But the path of self-purification is hard and steep. To attain to perfect purity one has to become absolutely passion-free in thought, speech and action; to rise above the opposing currents of love and hatred, attachment and repulsion. I know that I have not in me as yet that triple purity, in spite of constant ceaseless striving for it. That is why the world's praise fails to move me, indeed it very often stings me.

To conquer the subtle passions to me to be harder far than the physical conquest of the world by the force of arms. Ever since my return to India I have had experience of the dormant passions lying hidden with in me. The knowledge of them has made me feel humiliated though not defeated. The experiences and experiments have sustained me and given me great joy. But I know that I have still before me a difficult path to traverse.

I must reduce myself to zero. So long as a man does not of his own free will put himself last among his fellow creatures, there is no salvation for him. Ahimsa is the farthest limit of humility.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

The cultural morphology of fire



It is thought that humans/humanoids have had the capacity to control fire for at least 230,000 years, possibly more.

It is also thought that fire - which would have been useful for scaring away predators - enabled early humanoids to move down from trees and onto the flat earth.

I have wanted to blog about fire for a while and recently came across this paper, The Civilizing Process and the Domestication of Fire.

The writer asserts:
The domestication of fire has had far-reaching consequences, and it deserves to be ranked as the first great ecological transformation brought about by humans, followed very much later by two transformations of the same order: the emergence of agriculture and animal husbandry (agrarianization) some 10,000 years ago, and the rise of large-scale industrial production (industrialization) some two centuries ago.
I agree with this notion...

It would seem that harnessing fire as a tool for cooking, light, scaring away animals, and generating heat was just as monumental, if not more monumental than the introduction of agricultural and industrial production.

Once we could control fire, we could also cook, which according to some people had a dramatic impact on our evolutionary trajectory.

In his new book, Harvard prof Richard Wrangham talks about how cooking changed the course of the human project along many axes:
Our ancestors therefore responded to the advent of cooking by biologically adapting to cooked food. Cooking re-shaped our anatomy, physiology, ecology, life-history, psychology and society. Signals in our bodies indicate that this dependence arose not just some tens of thousands of years ago, or even a few hundred thousand, but right back at the beginning of our time on earth; at the start of human evolution, by the habiline that became Homo erectus...
---

Given the huge role that fire has played in our cultural and biological development, it's interesting to think about how it become ostensibly obsolete as a technology (in the sense we no longer directly use fire as a tool).

Due to the rise of electricity, interacting with open flames has been pushed into symbolic space (religious rituals, lighting candles at weddings, burning things as a purge) or into the experience of natural disaster (large forest fires burning out of control we see on tv kind of thing).

In any event, fire is no longer a part of daily life. Open flame is no longer necessary for survival.

Fire has been marginalized:
In modern society fire might be hidden from our view, tidied away in the basement boiler, trapped in the engine block of a car, or confined in the power-station that drives the electrical grid, but we are still completely dependent on it. A similar tie is found in every culture. To the hunting-and-gathering Andaman Islanders of India, fire is "the first thing they think of carrying when they go on a journey," "the center round which social life moves" and the possession that distinguishes humans from animals. Animals need food, water and shelter. We humans need all those things, but we need fire too.
---

For early humans, fire was a huge part of cultural and biological development.

So I am starting to see lack of contact with fire as further bewilderment for the ancient body in the modern world...and one possible reason why an experience like Burning Man might be such a profound/life changing experience.

It's a return to thousands of years of direct engagement with fire.

Fire: 230,000+ years

Electricity: ~140 years
(1870s: invention of light bulb, first public acces to applied electricity)

---

Starting to wonder if the primal blueprint should include regular contact with open flame...

Monday, July 13, 2009

Love as redemptive violence

Chris Rock on love:
If you haven't contemplated murder, you ain't been in love. If you haven't seriously thought about killing a motherfucker, you ain't been in love.

...If you haven't practiced your alibi in front of the mirror, you ain't been in love. And the only thing that's stopped you from killing this motherfucker was a episode of CSI: "Oh man, they thorough. I better make up. They might catch my ass.
Slavoj Žižek on love:
The underlying paradox is that what makes love angelic, what elevates it over mere unstable and pathetic sentimentality, is its cruelty itself, its link with violence – it is this link which raises it ‘over and beyond the natural limitations of man’ and thus transforms it into an unconditional drive (Violence, p 204).
Both Rock and Žižek portray love as authentic and meaningful only if it is linked to violence.

But Žižek takes things quite a bit further with his claim that violence raises love into a kind of transcendent cultural space.

---

The idea that violence is necessary to elevate love 'over and beyond the natural limitations of man' is pretty jarring and counter-intuitive.

But on some level, the logic is sound and powerful.

I find Žižek's framework surprisingly useful for understanding how love can facilitate the violent destruction of an old self or an old way of thinking which is no longer useful - possibly even detrimental.

Thursday, July 9, 2009

My new favorite youtube video

motion graphics + npr personalities + bruce = awesome





Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Is marriage too big to fail?


(pic from here)

Against the backdrop of the economic downturn, a very useful metaphor has emerged: zombie banks.

Unable to create value on their own, these banks are a financial suck.

Once they collapse, they depend on outside value - government money - to survive.

---

After reading this article, I'm wondering if marriage is the zombie institution of the cultural marketplace:
Why do we still insist on marriage? Sure, it made sense to agrarian families before 1900, when to farm the land, one needed two spouses, grandparents, and a raft of children. But now that we have white-collar work and washing machines, and our life expectancy has shot from 47 to 77, isn’t the idea of lifelong marriage obsolete?
While the article reads somewhat cathartic and effusive and personal, it does pose some compelling questions.

Is marriage an effective institution when it comes to investing the cultural assets of our lives? or does it set us up for failure?

I really dunno.

People haven't seemed to give up on the institution writ large.

Yet the scenario sounds familiar: in spite of systemic failure, an institution manages to subsist on the edge of sustainability, with many external costs.

If marriage is a zombie institution within the cultural marketplace, what exactly are the forces keeping marriage solvent anyways? (Other than people making a lot of money off weddings of course...)

And does zombie marriage back us into the possibility that we are in the middle of a cultural downturn?

---

It will be interesting to see if raising children becomes more decoupled from marriage and romantic relationships in general.

Came across this article in CNN which resonates.