Here's an article I wrote for the student newspaper of my uni. It will be surely cut down to a meaningless article, because that's what all our world has come down to nowadays : more and more information and less and less meaning. It is a clear Baudrillardian study of students elections, but it's adaptable to every elections. I've also been asked what I mean by Baudrillardian. Well Jean Baudrillard is a thinker who wrote about how hyperreal our world is becoming. To understand how our world is imploding, I'll advise anyone who can think critically to read " Simulacra and Simulation" by the same author.
Even the least engaging student would have noted the elections going around. Though I don't know to what extent I can call it an election. Of course I can, students are voting for a representative, I can assume the countdown won't be tricked and there is more than one candidate: all the ingredients for a fair election. But there are a few problems in sight. And they are not petty.
Well, the first thing to notice is that, probably like last year, the lack of interest of the students undermine the legitimacy of this election. Last year, only 10% of the students voted for a student representative. In some countries, it's not considered a valid election if it represent only a small proportion of those concerned. Coming from a country where voting is compulsory ( Belgium), I'll confess that I like to practice whenever I can my right not to vote. But I do need a reason not to vote, other than better things to do. I'm not saying that all the non-voting students share this position, I'm only saying that there is maybe a reason why the students aren't interested.
That's when the ridicule elements of these elections sank in me. I Make most of my observations at st. matts because that's where I study. But being a small campus, it might have been easier for me to approach some candidates and observe the different flyers - sorry, I meant “manifesto”- given around and the impressive amount of propaganda posters ( ask the candidates and they will all tell you they want a greener uni). I didn't find a poster that spoke to me. Most of the posters where common orders to vote for someone I didn't know. Some insulted me for not voting for someone I didn't know: I took this one as definite proof of the partisanship of political freedom.
The pictures on the posters were also interesting. They destroyed all sense of seriousness about this election. I've seen some posters with American Presidents on it. Was it aimed at the small American community of UWE, or did it signify that they thought like American Leaders. If I was on that road, I would have been more presumptuous and associate myself with Gandhi, or Stalin. Aren't these as much to the point as any other leader? I've also seen posters showing American flags, I'm assuming they're strong patriots in the wrong country, or poster that would show the mascot of the candidates. This last one is also an intriguing trend: a person needing a mascot. It's like Ronald being invented before McDonald's.
But I am being a bit superficial here. My problem is that there is not much to say about the content of this election. All the candidates in contention for the Student Representative President position formulate the same program, as they did last year : a more representative student union, better transport infrastructures, fighting for student rights ( god forbid actually stating said rights) against uni and “ more stuff to do” ... Some did add little things, but like a candidate said “if I say too much, I'll give promises I can't keep”. The candidates have only mentioned the problems most students have. Their solution is a promise to sort it out.
I don't know much about the power of the Student Union. I can only estimate that it doesn't give out much, except for the pecuniary compensation for the heavy duties, since no one wants to fight for it in the name of some real believes or values. What these students represent are the consensus. Our choice is to vote for the one we estimate would do the best job, as a technician, as Student Representative President, not the one who stands for our values. I couldn't see anyone expressing different values, anyone being exaggerated, there's no commie, no anarchist, no tory, no crazy, no labour, no one admitting they don't care, no religious fanatic, no sexual pervert, no snob, no intellectual elitist, no one different. I don't know, maybe I'm exaggerating, I hope I am, otherwise I'm just witnessing the slow death of democracy here at UWE.
Wednesday, 18 March 2009
Thursday, 5 March 2009
really short story
So as an introduction, here is a small text I wrote for fun, but inspired me on a long project. I'm sorry for how immature this text sounds. Another one, with the same subject, is on its way. Anyway, since this one is done, I thought I might put it on the blog. I'm open for all critic, though I'm pretty sure I've heard them all ( too much reference to masturbation ( or creation, i forgot ), maybe a bit too oral in style, but if you feel you have good constructed critics, please do go for it). Enjoy !
Creation is masturbation and vice versa.
Sunday, as we call it now. And I wonder what the fuck I have done. I should have planned the whole thing. Well, now I'm out of it, I might as well sit back and keep watching. I mean I did it so I wouldn't be as bored anymore. It is cool to be omniscient, in a way, but there's no more surprise. I liked the power, but fuck I didn't know there could be guilt coming with it. I won't do anything anymore. I quit. I might as well.
It started with a caprice. I was omniscient, but what good does it do in the void. I mean void means no space, therefor no time. It's easy to be omniscient of course, when you are the only thing that might move or change. Well it wasn't as easy as it sounds. I couldn't see anything. Well now I can use an expression like it was as dark as a camel's ass. I had nothing to do except touch myself. An eternity of masturbation. I got bored, so I said put the light on. And the light appeared. So instead of seeing nothing, I saw blank, white everywhere. I stayed there a while. Touched my-self for a few hours more. I used to touch myself in the dark, but that wasn't the same thing. I decided to put on some cloth, not too tight so I could still discreetly do it, just in case I was watched. You just never know. I'm still wondering if I'm being watched by times.
So a few hours later, or days, or years, I didn't know really since there was nothing to give me the time, I decided to have a desk. I don't remember well what I said. I think I said let there be expanses... I wanted a bit more space. An office of some sort, so I could maybe “work” privately, some private heaven. You know, I decided I'd have a room I wouldn't touch much, and another room where I could play some games. Like “ let there be...”, a cool godly game I had just discovered. I thought it was a fun game once starting it. I also let my beard and hair grow a bit. Make myself look serious. Don't know. Boys will be boys.
It's afterwards that it became tricky. I mean I knew more or less, until that moment, what I wanted or needed for my fun. I mean I had the word or concepts to do what I had done so far. I divided the water closet from the office and the water closet from the other room, that i've put under my heaven. The thing is that I wanted something different for my creation. I wanted to have fun. So what I did is while the water was as big as eternity in the heavens, I decided to concentrate all the water from under. I've put it all in one round thing, so I'd have to concentrate and aim when I'd pee from now on. I also tried to take a dump there once I created it. The dump floated. So I took a few more. I liked what I did. So I decided to baptise this dump. That's what artist do, no ? I called it Earth. But of course, it smelled like shit. So I decided to invent sprays machine. This one took me time. I went “let there be vegetation” but the smell stayed, I mean grass couldn't do much. So I went “ Let there be plants yielding seed, you know, fruit trees” and the smell got a bit better.
When I look back. From there on, I centred most of my work on a piece of shit. What good could come out of it I thought at the time ? I don't know. Still, it's funny because this gas spray, I was astonished how quick there could just run out. They weren't really sustainable. How the fuck should I know that they wouldn't live that long. Just the time to go back to the office and the smell would come back. It took me a while to understand that it's just that when I open the door, the light coming out of heaven would let the plants live. So on the fourth day, I said “ let there be lights, to the expanse of the heaven...” This was an ingenuous thing I did. I created lamps that floated between my office and my play room where earth is. Because at first I've put a lamp on earth, but it just heated the shit out of my shit. So with this moving lamp, earth could cool down a bit, and yet the plants had the light they needed. These lamps, which I called planets and stars, had a cool rhythm too. First time I realised what time was.
So when this problem was solved, I walked back to my office. And there I got shit scared. I was impotent, physicaly speaking. I checked my penis and testicules for any lump that could indicate cancer or anything weird. Nothing unusual down there. I turned off the light, maybe it was just seeing myself constantly, the shame of it maybe caught me. Still nothing hard. I had to find something. I mean before playing god, I jerked off for eternity, having nothing to do. And now, my favourite sport just vanished for me. I don't know. So I went down to earth to distract myself. I decided to add a bit of spices to the plants, let them flourish better by adding proteins for them. So I said : “ Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above earth across the expanse of the heaven...” I thought it'd be fun to have little flying thingys coming from earth to the office. I was walking back to the office, to show birds the way, when I thought of solving two problems with one stone. I said to the fishes and birds “ be fruitful and multiply” ! I had them reproducing, so I didn't have to worry anymore about recreating them all the time. But best of all, I've invented animal porn to my delight. I mean passionate sex like they had turned me on, for a while.
I didn't think about it, but birds and fishes couldn't have instruments ressembling mine. It's neither hydrodynamics or aerodynamics. So it was fun at the beginning. But at some point, I lost my identification with them, I mean they were pleasuring each other, but not like I would do it. So I went on with my game “ let there be...” and I had fun creating all sizes and shapes of animals, every time male and female, so I could have some more recreational time, if you know what i mean. There are now some creatures with huge things and some with small ones. It's just funny to see how they got on with each other. I tried at some point inter-species sex, but they were just too much damages, especially with elephants and other animals like that.
But I don't know how long you can have an erection on seeing animals humping, but I couldn't keep it, whatever the variety i watched. I mean I could watch horses going on once or twice, but afterwards it got monotonic, and that for all animals. So I created a guy like me, a bit younger, a bit more muscely than me, just like I'd like to be. And I made a hot girl. Then I gave them different command. But it was just not that fun. I mean it was interactive. Interaction had been a problem though with the first girl. I couldn't keep giving order without being mesmerized by the scene, i felt like intervening and she wasn't really properly suited for me really. It was a bit like the inter-speceis catastrophes, but on a worst scale. So I had to give these little fuckers free choice. Liberty to do whatever they wanted. And they did profit from it! The things that went through there mind, you wouldn't believe.
So it's Sabbath now and the mistakes I've done just start to sank in my mind. I mean I'm tired as hell. Just too much work and too much masturbation at the same time. I just keep watching from my window. And I see the great sex, which I''m getting jealous off. That's why I just don't answer any prayer. I mean could you imagine the guts they have “ god could you make this wish come true” and so on. I've shouted it once, I won't repeat myself : “ You get sex and I get frustrated, isn't that enough !”. I know I only have myself to blame for that. And I made them to my image. They are going to fuck up like me. Why did I do it ? I guess it was a stupid whim. Be careful what you wish for, fuck yeah. I don't know. It depresses me. But I can't stop watching.
Creation is masturbation and vice versa.
Sunday, as we call it now. And I wonder what the fuck I have done. I should have planned the whole thing. Well, now I'm out of it, I might as well sit back and keep watching. I mean I did it so I wouldn't be as bored anymore. It is cool to be omniscient, in a way, but there's no more surprise. I liked the power, but fuck I didn't know there could be guilt coming with it. I won't do anything anymore. I quit. I might as well.
It started with a caprice. I was omniscient, but what good does it do in the void. I mean void means no space, therefor no time. It's easy to be omniscient of course, when you are the only thing that might move or change. Well it wasn't as easy as it sounds. I couldn't see anything. Well now I can use an expression like it was as dark as a camel's ass. I had nothing to do except touch myself. An eternity of masturbation. I got bored, so I said put the light on. And the light appeared. So instead of seeing nothing, I saw blank, white everywhere. I stayed there a while. Touched my-self for a few hours more. I used to touch myself in the dark, but that wasn't the same thing. I decided to put on some cloth, not too tight so I could still discreetly do it, just in case I was watched. You just never know. I'm still wondering if I'm being watched by times.
So a few hours later, or days, or years, I didn't know really since there was nothing to give me the time, I decided to have a desk. I don't remember well what I said. I think I said let there be expanses... I wanted a bit more space. An office of some sort, so I could maybe “work” privately, some private heaven. You know, I decided I'd have a room I wouldn't touch much, and another room where I could play some games. Like “ let there be...”, a cool godly game I had just discovered. I thought it was a fun game once starting it. I also let my beard and hair grow a bit. Make myself look serious. Don't know. Boys will be boys.
It's afterwards that it became tricky. I mean I knew more or less, until that moment, what I wanted or needed for my fun. I mean I had the word or concepts to do what I had done so far. I divided the water closet from the office and the water closet from the other room, that i've put under my heaven. The thing is that I wanted something different for my creation. I wanted to have fun. So what I did is while the water was as big as eternity in the heavens, I decided to concentrate all the water from under. I've put it all in one round thing, so I'd have to concentrate and aim when I'd pee from now on. I also tried to take a dump there once I created it. The dump floated. So I took a few more. I liked what I did. So I decided to baptise this dump. That's what artist do, no ? I called it Earth. But of course, it smelled like shit. So I decided to invent sprays machine. This one took me time. I went “let there be vegetation” but the smell stayed, I mean grass couldn't do much. So I went “ Let there be plants yielding seed, you know, fruit trees” and the smell got a bit better.
When I look back. From there on, I centred most of my work on a piece of shit. What good could come out of it I thought at the time ? I don't know. Still, it's funny because this gas spray, I was astonished how quick there could just run out. They weren't really sustainable. How the fuck should I know that they wouldn't live that long. Just the time to go back to the office and the smell would come back. It took me a while to understand that it's just that when I open the door, the light coming out of heaven would let the plants live. So on the fourth day, I said “ let there be lights, to the expanse of the heaven...” This was an ingenuous thing I did. I created lamps that floated between my office and my play room where earth is. Because at first I've put a lamp on earth, but it just heated the shit out of my shit. So with this moving lamp, earth could cool down a bit, and yet the plants had the light they needed. These lamps, which I called planets and stars, had a cool rhythm too. First time I realised what time was.
So when this problem was solved, I walked back to my office. And there I got shit scared. I was impotent, physicaly speaking. I checked my penis and testicules for any lump that could indicate cancer or anything weird. Nothing unusual down there. I turned off the light, maybe it was just seeing myself constantly, the shame of it maybe caught me. Still nothing hard. I had to find something. I mean before playing god, I jerked off for eternity, having nothing to do. And now, my favourite sport just vanished for me. I don't know. So I went down to earth to distract myself. I decided to add a bit of spices to the plants, let them flourish better by adding proteins for them. So I said : “ Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above earth across the expanse of the heaven...” I thought it'd be fun to have little flying thingys coming from earth to the office. I was walking back to the office, to show birds the way, when I thought of solving two problems with one stone. I said to the fishes and birds “ be fruitful and multiply” ! I had them reproducing, so I didn't have to worry anymore about recreating them all the time. But best of all, I've invented animal porn to my delight. I mean passionate sex like they had turned me on, for a while.
I didn't think about it, but birds and fishes couldn't have instruments ressembling mine. It's neither hydrodynamics or aerodynamics. So it was fun at the beginning. But at some point, I lost my identification with them, I mean they were pleasuring each other, but not like I would do it. So I went on with my game “ let there be...” and I had fun creating all sizes and shapes of animals, every time male and female, so I could have some more recreational time, if you know what i mean. There are now some creatures with huge things and some with small ones. It's just funny to see how they got on with each other. I tried at some point inter-species sex, but they were just too much damages, especially with elephants and other animals like that.
But I don't know how long you can have an erection on seeing animals humping, but I couldn't keep it, whatever the variety i watched. I mean I could watch horses going on once or twice, but afterwards it got monotonic, and that for all animals. So I created a guy like me, a bit younger, a bit more muscely than me, just like I'd like to be. And I made a hot girl. Then I gave them different command. But it was just not that fun. I mean it was interactive. Interaction had been a problem though with the first girl. I couldn't keep giving order without being mesmerized by the scene, i felt like intervening and she wasn't really properly suited for me really. It was a bit like the inter-speceis catastrophes, but on a worst scale. So I had to give these little fuckers free choice. Liberty to do whatever they wanted. And they did profit from it! The things that went through there mind, you wouldn't believe.
So it's Sabbath now and the mistakes I've done just start to sank in my mind. I mean I'm tired as hell. Just too much work and too much masturbation at the same time. I just keep watching from my window. And I see the great sex, which I''m getting jealous off. That's why I just don't answer any prayer. I mean could you imagine the guts they have “ god could you make this wish come true” and so on. I've shouted it once, I won't repeat myself : “ You get sex and I get frustrated, isn't that enough !”. I know I only have myself to blame for that. And I made them to my image. They are going to fuck up like me. Why did I do it ? I guess it was a stupid whim. Be careful what you wish for, fuck yeah. I don't know. It depresses me. But I can't stop watching.
Sunday, 4 January 2009
Small question on my readers ( if i have any regulars)
One of my resolution is to be more open on my writings. I was wondering if anybody would mind short stories on this blog ?
Saturday, 3 January 2009
Small post on cultural studies and elitism
So this article is the result of a discussion with a french scholar and a french student for whom I both have esteem, and through our disagreements, I tend to develop certain ideas. This one is on our culture and the easy rejection sometimes made by the intellectuals of our world. It started with a television program on astrology. And jokes were made on the comment made by the astrologers on the show.
I was a bit uneasy at the jokes made, since the student and the scholars had both no knowledge of astrology. I wouldn't say I'm an expert on it either. But I am victim of this curiosity for every kind of knowledge and sciences made throughout the ages. That is where our disagreement started. The student had a problem with the term astrology I guessed. Since he does classical studies and philosophy, there was no apparent logos in this term, since it was based purely on invented concepts, and the facts were improperly studied. To which I retorted that metaphysics was more or less the same. But in his opinion, metaphysics are based on some facts. Something I yet need to see, if that's possible. His second argument was that just like alchemy, astrology was an outdated science for our world to still consider it relevant in any way. Which I thought was funny coming from a classical study student.
The scholar had a problem on the fact that astrology was a belief, therefore not being a subject of quality for a study. I proposed theology to that. And he explained me that most of the important scholars in this discipline would never believed in miracles, but would interpret the miracles in the bibles to explain concepts inside the religion.
I actually agreed on both these points, but I still wouldn't accept there objection of astrology. Astrology is actually one of the oldest science on earth. It has the interesting aspect of having existed in most of the important cultures on earth.
Though it is not a science since it's theory are hardly provable, it is too stupid to reject it. I'm not saying that we should believe in it. I'm not saying that every astrologers are worth listening to. I guess most of them are charlatans. But I would listen to someone who studied astrology, who would explained me the different concepts developed by astrologers throughout history, its evolution and the difference in the angle taken towards this belief in the different cultures.
But astrology is here only an example of this presumption of people to know what is worthy of knowledge or not. These people I had these arguments with are both guys I respect. They are not pragmatist as such. They do favour culture over practice I'd say. But it is the culture of the elite more that a widespread view on culture. It is in a way restrictive. I understand the fear of letting the unworthy culture, if such a thing exists really, enter the realm of the intellectuals. But I think that such a fear shouldn't really be. What should be feared is only the person pretending to be master of a certain culture, and be rejected for his knowledge of the culture for the sole fact it is not recognised as a valuable culture, instead of having qualified authorities in this certain culture that can properly judge each other, under a proper epistemological scrutiny.
In a way, every angle of our culture is worthy of being known, but there is a certain minimum to be known every time to be able to properly talk about it. I wouldn't reject an astrologers as long as he knows well his subject, nor would I reject a good alchemist, a good lawyer and so on. As Jet Li said in Fearless, as Huo Yuanjiia, “ Every martial art is good, it is the knowledge the fighter has of his martial art that would make him a suitable fighter or not”. And this is true for every aspect of our culture.
I was a bit uneasy at the jokes made, since the student and the scholars had both no knowledge of astrology. I wouldn't say I'm an expert on it either. But I am victim of this curiosity for every kind of knowledge and sciences made throughout the ages. That is where our disagreement started. The student had a problem with the term astrology I guessed. Since he does classical studies and philosophy, there was no apparent logos in this term, since it was based purely on invented concepts, and the facts were improperly studied. To which I retorted that metaphysics was more or less the same. But in his opinion, metaphysics are based on some facts. Something I yet need to see, if that's possible. His second argument was that just like alchemy, astrology was an outdated science for our world to still consider it relevant in any way. Which I thought was funny coming from a classical study student.
The scholar had a problem on the fact that astrology was a belief, therefore not being a subject of quality for a study. I proposed theology to that. And he explained me that most of the important scholars in this discipline would never believed in miracles, but would interpret the miracles in the bibles to explain concepts inside the religion.
I actually agreed on both these points, but I still wouldn't accept there objection of astrology. Astrology is actually one of the oldest science on earth. It has the interesting aspect of having existed in most of the important cultures on earth.
Though it is not a science since it's theory are hardly provable, it is too stupid to reject it. I'm not saying that we should believe in it. I'm not saying that every astrologers are worth listening to. I guess most of them are charlatans. But I would listen to someone who studied astrology, who would explained me the different concepts developed by astrologers throughout history, its evolution and the difference in the angle taken towards this belief in the different cultures.
But astrology is here only an example of this presumption of people to know what is worthy of knowledge or not. These people I had these arguments with are both guys I respect. They are not pragmatist as such. They do favour culture over practice I'd say. But it is the culture of the elite more that a widespread view on culture. It is in a way restrictive. I understand the fear of letting the unworthy culture, if such a thing exists really, enter the realm of the intellectuals. But I think that such a fear shouldn't really be. What should be feared is only the person pretending to be master of a certain culture, and be rejected for his knowledge of the culture for the sole fact it is not recognised as a valuable culture, instead of having qualified authorities in this certain culture that can properly judge each other, under a proper epistemological scrutiny.
In a way, every angle of our culture is worthy of being known, but there is a certain minimum to be known every time to be able to properly talk about it. I wouldn't reject an astrologers as long as he knows well his subject, nor would I reject a good alchemist, a good lawyer and so on. As Jet Li said in Fearless, as Huo Yuanjiia, “ Every martial art is good, it is the knowledge the fighter has of his martial art that would make him a suitable fighter or not”. And this is true for every aspect of our culture.
Friday, 5 December 2008
The too bearable lightness of being
God is dead and with him is our salvation for eternity. Eternity died, and the present is constantly in our life. Which hollywood star got drunk last night is more worth knowing about rather than what happened in Venezuela in 2002. With the disappearance of this quest for truth in the past, the use of the irrelevant truth today, a vision for the future is now considered the dreams of the fool. Yet, people like Huxley and Orwell did manage to present dystopia which are closer to reality than ever before. But isn't the dream of the future the essence of mankind, or are we running for the sake of running ?
With the industrial revolution came the idea that economic growth is the answer to our problems. The use constant calculation of the cost and profit of our actions is acting without purpose. It destroys slowly values defended by the great thinkers of our past. All the economy works on a negation of the past: forget that Nike used child labour to sell low cost shoes but be reminded they sponsor big sport teams and videogames, forget that McDonalds was just a practical fast-food, be reminded that it is now a family entertainment place.
We are asked to forget our past, how near it is, so we can't learn from our mistake, therefor not asking for a better future. This behaviour we get from the economic sphere influences the economic sphere too. If a government can't solve every problems society have in 6 month, we consider it unworthy of governance, though it is true it's never the best. But who cares about long-terms political programs ?
This negation of the mistakes of our past has also got some twisted logic which is dangerous for society. The news show today's human drama, humanity is denounced for its evil deeds. The result is that we forget where society is coming from. Social trust is in decline because we look at the state of society today, but because we don't consider how it was a century ago. If we consider that society is bad today, how can we hope it could be better tomorrow ? We get strangely give ourselve the salvation of our minds. Stating or knowing the horror like we see on t.v., we all consider that we are better human beings. We are good, the others are horrible, therefor why care about the others. In a way I appreciate the mission of the missionaries on a deontological point of view. i don't support the fact that they thought that their religion was the best, but their was a real interest in helping people you didn't know.
Our individualist society, the overvalued present and the fact that we all play along, and so is the economic and political orders, without making any critic, destroyed the possibility of presenting great designs for a harmonious society.
With the industrial revolution came the idea that economic growth is the answer to our problems. The use constant calculation of the cost and profit of our actions is acting without purpose. It destroys slowly values defended by the great thinkers of our past. All the economy works on a negation of the past: forget that Nike used child labour to sell low cost shoes but be reminded they sponsor big sport teams and videogames, forget that McDonalds was just a practical fast-food, be reminded that it is now a family entertainment place.
We are asked to forget our past, how near it is, so we can't learn from our mistake, therefor not asking for a better future. This behaviour we get from the economic sphere influences the economic sphere too. If a government can't solve every problems society have in 6 month, we consider it unworthy of governance, though it is true it's never the best. But who cares about long-terms political programs ?
This negation of the mistakes of our past has also got some twisted logic which is dangerous for society. The news show today's human drama, humanity is denounced for its evil deeds. The result is that we forget where society is coming from. Social trust is in decline because we look at the state of society today, but because we don't consider how it was a century ago. If we consider that society is bad today, how can we hope it could be better tomorrow ? We get strangely give ourselve the salvation of our minds. Stating or knowing the horror like we see on t.v., we all consider that we are better human beings. We are good, the others are horrible, therefor why care about the others. In a way I appreciate the mission of the missionaries on a deontological point of view. i don't support the fact that they thought that their religion was the best, but their was a real interest in helping people you didn't know.
Our individualist society, the overvalued present and the fact that we all play along, and so is the economic and political orders, without making any critic, destroyed the possibility of presenting great designs for a harmonious society.
Wednesday, 3 September 2008
The opium of our society
What about the general presentation of my thoughts on the way societies politics is seen nowadays.... I needed a retreat, away from everything, and my books and notebooks to understand the general picture. I tried to get the picture. Our world has evolved and it is what it is nowadays. US of A are is the country that has, from economics point of view, the best competitive country and yet, is one of the worst to live in. Yet, all the countries wish to have such an economy. The example I m always given is China, which has a great economic growth, to sustain a quasi-dictatorial country. And in this last sentence lies the infrastructure of the end of our society nowadays : Economic Growth. It is what all governments promise their inhabitants.
This is not going to be a small article, but I ask you to bear with me.
Economic growth is the calculation of the potential output in products and services of a country. To vulgarize the meaning, it is the augmentation of the cake that exist for a whole country. The biggest achievers for this growth are big companies, since they can produce more than an independent, that is why countries try to attract them. To achieve this growth, companies don't go 50 ways about it, they create a product, try to manifacture it the easy way, so it can be produced in large quantity, and don't try to vary it to much. We get loads of the same product, everywhere.
For this product to be economically rentable for companies, it has to have a demand, thus a creation for consumers for the companies. We are in a consumerist society, because without consumers, these companies can't survive. Companies create wishes from us, they advertise they product, or create, more viciously a wish for these products by making them unattainable for us, but only for a certain part of society ( the richer). Because it is in our nature to want what we can't have. And then they make it attainable, so we do get what we dreamt of having, to finally discover (or not if we are that blind) that it doesn't fulfill us as much as we thought it would.
Of course, this system creates also a simulution of production and services. Industries or businesses that have no sense ecept in our system e.g. advertising. Which our society still "needs" because these industries are creating output, therefor growth.
So where does that leads us.
Well companies are competing to get more clients. But countries are actualy the main competitors. SInce economic growth is what countries wish, they have to offer companies and corporations enough so these companies are willing to produce in their country. Countries have to compete to be the one that offers the more than the neighbouring country, whatever the cost, since it will give them the growth they want.
The other form of competition that exists is the competition of the workers in the system. Companies and corporation are seen as the first employers in this world, therefor we are to be fit to be engaged by these companies. Even a shopkeeper has to be competitive to another shopkeeper, not for it's client, but for it s retailers.
All in all, our standards have to be lower down as human or as a society, so corporations are willing to work with us.
Are corporation thus evil ?
No, it is a clear answer, corporations have no will to corrupt the world and make them theirs. BUT, corporations abide by only one rule, be profitable to attract shareholders, so they can invest more money to create more money for them, whatever the costs ! And this is where lies the evil, which cannot be blame on corporations, since they only do what they are meant to do. So shareholders are evil because they are too demanding ? No again, shareholders, just like corporations, are not people making choices. Shareholders nowadays are funds, investments of thousands and millions of people who want more money, not knowing exactly where and how it is invested. They just know that it is investements which are bringing money, so they can spend more. All in all, no one in this system makes an ethical choice, no one is actually guilty, everybody is suppose to do what they do, in this system.
So is society suffering from that system in the end ?
1) To be more competitive, countries have to take back rights to the workers, companies, to make more profit too. A recent example is the draw back on working hours in France. Because France want to augmnent it's growth, they decided to erase the law on the 35 hours work a week. They want people to work more, so companies can make more money. They make more money too, but they don't make time to spend that, if there is actualy a need to make time to spend money. If you look at the evolution of music for example, songs are getting shorter by the years. Our leisure time is shrinking, and so are our hobbies. Books are getting shorter. The production of popular art is not worked on, bands have to produces album every year to satisfy the production companies. Nothing takes time anymore, except work.... And have less time in our life to know what we want to be.
2) Education is getting more pragmatic. Our society asks today that education prepares us for work. Education use to be to bring knowledge to the people, but not anymore. The sole purpose of education nowadays is to prepare us to this system of competition. Knowledge is back at the rank of leisure. Education nowadays just represent a skill on paper so we can get a job later on. An example is the secondary school certificate in UK. A school kids have to select from 2 to 7 subjects at their end of secundary school to pass, so they are prepared to go to universities. I think the general choice is of four, practical, subjects. Which means that they have no general knowledge. I came across this years of english students who had no idea who the Tudors were, who didn't know that there prime minister wasn't directly elected, and such basics lacks. How can we have a democracy that doesn't bring an education that prepares to make civic choices ?
3) We are living beyong our basic needs, and even beyong our wishes of life, without knowing it...
4) Inequality in distributions and of chances. Since countries have to be competitivie, their can't ask as much from the companies, or from the people, to help for everybody in the society to developp. Countries have to invest in what is good for the companies, and cannot be asked to let people sustain other people as much. The companies profit from the competition, and lower the wages because people will compete on their wages too. So people which don't have the skill on paper will receive a lower wage, and cannot help to the education of their kids. Also, people with lot of money are the one receiving more money from their investment in the corportations, a sum of money which is not taxed as a revenue, so not as much. A clear example of this lack of social elevation is the US of A, which has the lowest rate of social elevation in the western world.
Education system getting privatised too, only rich people come out of the good universtities, and do donation so there kids are the only one to get into it...
All in all, we have today no time for self-development, self reflection, time for ourselves, the understanding of what is making time. Spirituality and philosophy are no use in this pragmatic society, so why spend time on them. And yet, we hide to ourselves, but we do need it.
What is the problem exactly then ?
I call it the Economic Growth Myth, the dogma on which our society is build on today. It is the infrastructure on which our society has created itself the last century. The corporations, the marketing system, the consumerist mind, are suprastructures, institutions which are reliant on this dogma. The worst part of this myth is while religions promised us heaven, this dogma doesn't give us any promess for the end. We want economic growth, without knowing where it leads us...
But is there some truth behind it ?
Just like religion has a truth behind itself, economic growth sustain some truth :
Production is a way for every human to self-fulfill itself. We do need to produce so we know we've lead a useful life, a life where we did something, where we created something. What the infrastuctures of this economic growth didn't give us is the individual choice to know what to produce, and in final, what we want to be.
Is there a solution ?
Well, there are some. A revision of our social system, try to promote social trust. If everybody is ready to understand that we can evolve as a society, not as an economy, we could give way to changes in our society. Promote social trust, so people would be ready to install a universal welfare system, so everybody has the same chances in life. Promote independent workers, real creators of productions, which are the substances of our culture. And give perspectives to our life to know what we want, need and should have, for everybody.
This is not going to be a small article, but I ask you to bear with me.
Economic growth is the calculation of the potential output in products and services of a country. To vulgarize the meaning, it is the augmentation of the cake that exist for a whole country. The biggest achievers for this growth are big companies, since they can produce more than an independent, that is why countries try to attract them. To achieve this growth, companies don't go 50 ways about it, they create a product, try to manifacture it the easy way, so it can be produced in large quantity, and don't try to vary it to much. We get loads of the same product, everywhere.
For this product to be economically rentable for companies, it has to have a demand, thus a creation for consumers for the companies. We are in a consumerist society, because without consumers, these companies can't survive. Companies create wishes from us, they advertise they product, or create, more viciously a wish for these products by making them unattainable for us, but only for a certain part of society ( the richer). Because it is in our nature to want what we can't have. And then they make it attainable, so we do get what we dreamt of having, to finally discover (or not if we are that blind) that it doesn't fulfill us as much as we thought it would.
Of course, this system creates also a simulution of production and services. Industries or businesses that have no sense ecept in our system e.g. advertising. Which our society still "needs" because these industries are creating output, therefor growth.
So where does that leads us.
Well companies are competing to get more clients. But countries are actualy the main competitors. SInce economic growth is what countries wish, they have to offer companies and corporations enough so these companies are willing to produce in their country. Countries have to compete to be the one that offers the more than the neighbouring country, whatever the cost, since it will give them the growth they want.
The other form of competition that exists is the competition of the workers in the system. Companies and corporation are seen as the first employers in this world, therefor we are to be fit to be engaged by these companies. Even a shopkeeper has to be competitive to another shopkeeper, not for it's client, but for it s retailers.
All in all, our standards have to be lower down as human or as a society, so corporations are willing to work with us.
Are corporation thus evil ?
No, it is a clear answer, corporations have no will to corrupt the world and make them theirs. BUT, corporations abide by only one rule, be profitable to attract shareholders, so they can invest more money to create more money for them, whatever the costs ! And this is where lies the evil, which cannot be blame on corporations, since they only do what they are meant to do. So shareholders are evil because they are too demanding ? No again, shareholders, just like corporations, are not people making choices. Shareholders nowadays are funds, investments of thousands and millions of people who want more money, not knowing exactly where and how it is invested. They just know that it is investements which are bringing money, so they can spend more. All in all, no one in this system makes an ethical choice, no one is actually guilty, everybody is suppose to do what they do, in this system.
So is society suffering from that system in the end ?
1) To be more competitive, countries have to take back rights to the workers, companies, to make more profit too. A recent example is the draw back on working hours in France. Because France want to augmnent it's growth, they decided to erase the law on the 35 hours work a week. They want people to work more, so companies can make more money. They make more money too, but they don't make time to spend that, if there is actualy a need to make time to spend money. If you look at the evolution of music for example, songs are getting shorter by the years. Our leisure time is shrinking, and so are our hobbies. Books are getting shorter. The production of popular art is not worked on, bands have to produces album every year to satisfy the production companies. Nothing takes time anymore, except work.... And have less time in our life to know what we want to be.
2) Education is getting more pragmatic. Our society asks today that education prepares us for work. Education use to be to bring knowledge to the people, but not anymore. The sole purpose of education nowadays is to prepare us to this system of competition. Knowledge is back at the rank of leisure. Education nowadays just represent a skill on paper so we can get a job later on. An example is the secondary school certificate in UK. A school kids have to select from 2 to 7 subjects at their end of secundary school to pass, so they are prepared to go to universities. I think the general choice is of four, practical, subjects. Which means that they have no general knowledge. I came across this years of english students who had no idea who the Tudors were, who didn't know that there prime minister wasn't directly elected, and such basics lacks. How can we have a democracy that doesn't bring an education that prepares to make civic choices ?
3) We are living beyong our basic needs, and even beyong our wishes of life, without knowing it...
4) Inequality in distributions and of chances. Since countries have to be competitivie, their can't ask as much from the companies, or from the people, to help for everybody in the society to developp. Countries have to invest in what is good for the companies, and cannot be asked to let people sustain other people as much. The companies profit from the competition, and lower the wages because people will compete on their wages too. So people which don't have the skill on paper will receive a lower wage, and cannot help to the education of their kids. Also, people with lot of money are the one receiving more money from their investment in the corportations, a sum of money which is not taxed as a revenue, so not as much. A clear example of this lack of social elevation is the US of A, which has the lowest rate of social elevation in the western world.
Education system getting privatised too, only rich people come out of the good universtities, and do donation so there kids are the only one to get into it...
All in all, we have today no time for self-development, self reflection, time for ourselves, the understanding of what is making time. Spirituality and philosophy are no use in this pragmatic society, so why spend time on them. And yet, we hide to ourselves, but we do need it.
What is the problem exactly then ?
I call it the Economic Growth Myth, the dogma on which our society is build on today. It is the infrastructure on which our society has created itself the last century. The corporations, the marketing system, the consumerist mind, are suprastructures, institutions which are reliant on this dogma. The worst part of this myth is while religions promised us heaven, this dogma doesn't give us any promess for the end. We want economic growth, without knowing where it leads us...
But is there some truth behind it ?
Just like religion has a truth behind itself, economic growth sustain some truth :
Production is a way for every human to self-fulfill itself. We do need to produce so we know we've lead a useful life, a life where we did something, where we created something. What the infrastuctures of this economic growth didn't give us is the individual choice to know what to produce, and in final, what we want to be.
Is there a solution ?
Well, there are some. A revision of our social system, try to promote social trust. If everybody is ready to understand that we can evolve as a society, not as an economy, we could give way to changes in our society. Promote social trust, so people would be ready to install a universal welfare system, so everybody has the same chances in life. Promote independent workers, real creators of productions, which are the substances of our culture. And give perspectives to our life to know what we want, need and should have, for everybody.
Monday, 2 June 2008
Gangster´s paradise, their friends the government and reality of Midsumner Murders - Utopia 3
This subject is actually a delicate one, so I’ll try to work on it gradually. An Austrian dad confined his daughter in a cellar and gave her kids that he confined too, gangs fight in the streets of Paris, teenagers get knifed by their school mates in English schools; those are the news given by daily newspapers. Crime is something that mesmerizes us, it is something that shocks us and we want to be protected from it. But I don’t know if the existence of criminality can ever be erased by fighting it.
To start with, we have to be concerned with the problems of criminality. The first one to my eyes is its representation through news media. Media will report any crime event if a press agency has a good article on it, and if the authorities PRs release enough information about it to make it interesting. This is why, in recent decades, the representation of crime has augmented, while the crime rate has fallen. Of course, we can’t blame it only on the authorities, the media corporations are guiltier. For example, the crimes reported have to be more and more violent, toward a common person and near our place. Media outlets will always try to make us identify with the victims, just like a Stephen King’s book. And the “Daily Mirror” sells more than any book of Stephen King, but it is a distorted mirror. The reality of the crimes is never objectively reported. We can never feel sorry for the criminal, who’s guilty before being proven so. We never hear the criminal’s story, we never know, and don’t want to admit that he is like us, with less chance and was given different choices.
I’m not saying we should automatically feel sorry for him (in the most common case reported, the offender is a young man whose “origins” will always be defined as the country of his grandparents, as if it was the reason of his misbehaviour). So yes, we do receive a bent reality, but mainly because we like to feel as victims of the wicked wrong-doer, it makes us feel like righteous saints.
I often heard the argument that criminality is decreasing, so we do something good enforcing the security of our places, having more C.C.T.V. ( we didn’t learn anything from “ 1984”), being noted that crime exists and is making us paranoid. Well it is true; if crime is decreasing, we must be doing something right. But this again is a simulacrum of reality. Criminality is a number created by the government and the authorities. For example, if crime varies in London, it depends on the chief inspector of Scotland Yard and his policies. If he does not consider soft drug users criminals, the numbers are going down. Another illusion of crime is that it is mainly a statistic that can be shown and used varying on the numbers applied. A right wing party will show that the numbers are really high and we are living in a dangerous society and that security should be one of our rights. But it is only a point of view, and security is only a right if crime exists... It is my next point and might sound weird, so please hang on.
Durkheim explained it before me, crime is vital for our system. Authorities, our modern day Machiavellian Prince, exist to protect us. But we only need to be protected if danger exists. If we postulate that we are wolfs against ourselves, of course we need protection against ourselves. But it is a hypothesis that serves mainly the people in power. And they do know it and use it, unconsciously probably, but it can be observed in history through prohibitions. Prohibitions appeared whenever a government wanted more power and so had to compose a danger within society. The sixties were a booming decade that didn’t have many problems, and then the general crash of the early 70’s caused smaller incomes, so a problem was created: heroin was declared illegal. Anyone going to the hospital before that who suffered was given an addictive substance like heroin, and could ask their doctor to continue to receive it, without it interfering with their daily life.
Once outlawing it, a new crime was running the street, and could be considered as the base for all problems. A dependent part of the population became the victims of an oppressive government and greedy crime syndicates, but they were society’s “enemy” during the eighties, because authorities had to exist to protect us from them. And we started to hear the dramas of heroin addicts, but heroin doesn’t kill; it is the result of greedy drug dealers who want to sell more and thus cut their products with dangerous substances. Authorities created problems to legitimate themselves. If we’d legalize and control what we now consider as criminal activities, wouldn’t we feel more secure and less paranoid?
But crime is not only ruled by organizations, there are thieves and rapists and other horrible persons committing acts that shouldn’t be justified. What I am going to say sounds naive, but every crime is justified. They are all created by our society, or our personal interactions. For example, thieves don’t exist in societies that don’t understand the concept of property, of course they don’t. It is a simple fact that shows perspectives. Thieves don’t exist because they need to steal to survive, we are not in the 17th century anymore, but they exist because self-realization is not our problem. Thieves exist because they are in need of consummation. The objects of robberies change with periods, only because our general consumerist conditioned minds will put more or less value on different objects. A society that would search for self-realization and not wealth wouldn’t have someone stealing.
I know that it is a dream, but theft exists because people think they need to possess to be. But that’s only because we think so too. A beautiful car gives me pleasure, why wouldn’t anyone be jealous of this pleasure, but he can steal it from me because it doesn’t bring me happiness ( first of all because I don’t have my driver’s licence, but also because it is only an induced pleasure). Just like the objectification of the woman kills our empathy towards her, and gives legitimacy to a rapist.
So what about murders? Well for that, I turn to Inspector Barnaby, Hercule Poirot and Sherlock Holmes who surely know that all real murders (not the induced murders that defined the young thug because he wants to be seen as such) are passionate and reveal secret stories. They are private matters and actually, in a way, positive. They show that we are capable of over-passion, we are more than animals. But against those, we can’t do anything, except find the murderer and make him understand his wrong-doing. That is why in my Utopia, I would have only inspectors with a great sense of deductions, and a civil service that would be here only to help and not to check our behaviour, have “Lead by example” as a motto and be educated to do so.
To start with, we have to be concerned with the problems of criminality. The first one to my eyes is its representation through news media. Media will report any crime event if a press agency has a good article on it, and if the authorities PRs release enough information about it to make it interesting. This is why, in recent decades, the representation of crime has augmented, while the crime rate has fallen. Of course, we can’t blame it only on the authorities, the media corporations are guiltier. For example, the crimes reported have to be more and more violent, toward a common person and near our place. Media outlets will always try to make us identify with the victims, just like a Stephen King’s book. And the “Daily Mirror” sells more than any book of Stephen King, but it is a distorted mirror. The reality of the crimes is never objectively reported. We can never feel sorry for the criminal, who’s guilty before being proven so. We never hear the criminal’s story, we never know, and don’t want to admit that he is like us, with less chance and was given different choices.
I’m not saying we should automatically feel sorry for him (in the most common case reported, the offender is a young man whose “origins” will always be defined as the country of his grandparents, as if it was the reason of his misbehaviour). So yes, we do receive a bent reality, but mainly because we like to feel as victims of the wicked wrong-doer, it makes us feel like righteous saints.
I often heard the argument that criminality is decreasing, so we do something good enforcing the security of our places, having more C.C.T.V. ( we didn’t learn anything from “ 1984”), being noted that crime exists and is making us paranoid. Well it is true; if crime is decreasing, we must be doing something right. But this again is a simulacrum of reality. Criminality is a number created by the government and the authorities. For example, if crime varies in London, it depends on the chief inspector of Scotland Yard and his policies. If he does not consider soft drug users criminals, the numbers are going down. Another illusion of crime is that it is mainly a statistic that can be shown and used varying on the numbers applied. A right wing party will show that the numbers are really high and we are living in a dangerous society and that security should be one of our rights. But it is only a point of view, and security is only a right if crime exists... It is my next point and might sound weird, so please hang on.
Durkheim explained it before me, crime is vital for our system. Authorities, our modern day Machiavellian Prince, exist to protect us. But we only need to be protected if danger exists. If we postulate that we are wolfs against ourselves, of course we need protection against ourselves. But it is a hypothesis that serves mainly the people in power. And they do know it and use it, unconsciously probably, but it can be observed in history through prohibitions. Prohibitions appeared whenever a government wanted more power and so had to compose a danger within society. The sixties were a booming decade that didn’t have many problems, and then the general crash of the early 70’s caused smaller incomes, so a problem was created: heroin was declared illegal. Anyone going to the hospital before that who suffered was given an addictive substance like heroin, and could ask their doctor to continue to receive it, without it interfering with their daily life.
Once outlawing it, a new crime was running the street, and could be considered as the base for all problems. A dependent part of the population became the victims of an oppressive government and greedy crime syndicates, but they were society’s “enemy” during the eighties, because authorities had to exist to protect us from them. And we started to hear the dramas of heroin addicts, but heroin doesn’t kill; it is the result of greedy drug dealers who want to sell more and thus cut their products with dangerous substances. Authorities created problems to legitimate themselves. If we’d legalize and control what we now consider as criminal activities, wouldn’t we feel more secure and less paranoid?
But crime is not only ruled by organizations, there are thieves and rapists and other horrible persons committing acts that shouldn’t be justified. What I am going to say sounds naive, but every crime is justified. They are all created by our society, or our personal interactions. For example, thieves don’t exist in societies that don’t understand the concept of property, of course they don’t. It is a simple fact that shows perspectives. Thieves don’t exist because they need to steal to survive, we are not in the 17th century anymore, but they exist because self-realization is not our problem. Thieves exist because they are in need of consummation. The objects of robberies change with periods, only because our general consumerist conditioned minds will put more or less value on different objects. A society that would search for self-realization and not wealth wouldn’t have someone stealing.
I know that it is a dream, but theft exists because people think they need to possess to be. But that’s only because we think so too. A beautiful car gives me pleasure, why wouldn’t anyone be jealous of this pleasure, but he can steal it from me because it doesn’t bring me happiness ( first of all because I don’t have my driver’s licence, but also because it is only an induced pleasure). Just like the objectification of the woman kills our empathy towards her, and gives legitimacy to a rapist.
So what about murders? Well for that, I turn to Inspector Barnaby, Hercule Poirot and Sherlock Holmes who surely know that all real murders (not the induced murders that defined the young thug because he wants to be seen as such) are passionate and reveal secret stories. They are private matters and actually, in a way, positive. They show that we are capable of over-passion, we are more than animals. But against those, we can’t do anything, except find the murderer and make him understand his wrong-doing. That is why in my Utopia, I would have only inspectors with a great sense of deductions, and a civil service that would be here only to help and not to check our behaviour, have “Lead by example” as a motto and be educated to do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)