God's Little Masochist.
Inviting the crop
With defiance flirtatious
Bitten lips
Are folded hands
And red welts
Your beads.
So perfectly on your knees
As the crop snaps
Ejaculated from Her soft nimbus
Brenschluss at the gates of heaven
A bomb in plummet
A fire-feathered cloudburst
Tear-choked howl, this
Charred body, spent
In sexual release
A weeping hulk
Of cold sweat and tears
Morning Star,
Take your place in line
Behind the rest of us
Outside the "Find Love/Success/Enlightenment"
Weekend Seminar Circus
Like the throngs
Of spun out and huddled
bombed out fixxers
At the methadone clinic.
Fucking Mortality.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
The Future of the Protest Paradigm
"Any advert in public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It's yours to take, re-arrange and use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head."
--Banksy
A friend and I play disc golf at a local disc golf course. Neither of us have ever bought a disc. We have found them lodged in trees, abandoned in ditches, and lost over sides of cliffs. We have played with them. On two separate occasions, people have remarked that there are a number of names written on the disks, which indicates that we found them. We have been called thieves and been threatened with physical violence. These people have informed us that "the way it works" is if a disk is found, you put it in the lost and found bin. I have looked over the official rules of disc golf and there is no provision that if one finds a disk, that one is obliged to return it to its "owner." However, people continuously assert that these are "the rules." The result of these "rules" is that an entire bin of disks sits unused by the side of the road while some of us could be playing with them (instead of spending fifteen or twenty dollars on a new one). This whole scenario has struck me as somewhat absurd; the disks are of no use off the golf course, but concepts of private ownership keep me and those like me from using the disks that are otherwise sitting in a bin. Furthermore, the indignation of people has been staggering. The rate at which my friend and I have been villianized is alarming. One woman yelled rather offensively that I had no morals (and added that my mother was a bitch). I responded by asking if she had ever considered the role that her own concepts of private ownership played in the formation of her sense of morality. I don't think my point was very well-received, nor do I think that the fairway of a golf course was the optimal setting for such a conversation. Public opinion has been so strongly opposed to my position that at times I even felt guilt for defending it.
After discussing this with another friend, it was indicated that I could in some way acquire the lost-and-found bin of disks, sand off the names and phone numbers, and write on each one something like: "These disks belong to everyone. Put them back when you are done." In order to completely undermine the current sentiment of ownership and erode the necessity of buying new discs and the commodification of the pastime.
I now realize that this has indicated to me a larger strain of thought and action which makes that bin of discs seem a trivial target. What indicated this further development is the fact that that bin of discs is protected by NO law.
The last century has essentially handed us two diametrically opposed methods of dissent. On the one hand, armed struggle, traditional anarchism, and marxist revolt. On the other, civil disobedience and Gandhism. Both systems work within the premise of exhibiting social pressure from outside of legality (i.e. sitting on a lawn with a don't sit on the grass sign). However, the political has changed since the last century. The Patriot Act ensures security against such acts, no matter how benign. If an ELF activist vandalizes some Hummers, that is now considered terrorism, though terror is not a premeditated ingredient of any such act, nor plays an instrumental part.
It is by now well understood that the Patriot Act makes its appearance most often in two theaters: the war on drugs and protection of corporate property. Today, vandalizing some Hummers is a VERY dangerous proposition and is not advisable. Furthermore, given the community sentiment regarding such acts, the ensuing reaction makes this the least efficacious technique.
And so, in our Brave New World there is a necessity for a radicalism of legality. It should be attempted to apply social pressure to well-protected concepts, but (unlike our predecessors) from WITHIN the realm of legality. One immediately asks how effective such an approach would be. Certainly Nader's Raiders for Consumer Advocacy is a natural example. However, I am not interested in consumer advocacy, nor am I interested in lobbying or political action committees. I am interested in addressing "rules"-- challenging them without breaking them. I am interested in framing a rule in such a context, such a bizarre twist of logic, in which the rule loses meaning and coherence. I am interested in creating contexts in which a rule no longer makes sense, and as a result, suffers a deficit of authority. This might entail strictly following/enforcing a rule which obeys legality but undermines the intention of the rule.
As one of you has frequently mentioned to me, a consequence of the Skolem paradox is that once an axiom has been fixed, there is not a unique model to represent it. That is, for every rule there is conceivably a context which opposes the original intention of the rule while simultaneously satisfying every other rule in the system (i.e. not incurring a contradiction).
Such an act, if orchestrated properly, would be politically benign while simultaneously addressing the prevalent perception of a systematic rule or belief. Furthermore, such an act would necessarily transcend the realm of pure politics and enter a realm of socially relevant art. Such an act would attempt to instill certain intellectual and artistic concepts into certain, well-devised communities-- the planned, premeditated dispersion of perceptions regarding the role of such fields as linguistics, cognitive sciences, artificial intelligence, and game theory. We, as sojourners at the very lip of the future, are in a position to help direct the intellectual and artistic perceptions of this new century, to actively and calculatedly proliferate memes in the coming culture.
"Mindless vandalism takes a considerable amount of thought"
--Banksy
A friend and I play disc golf at a local disc golf course. Neither of us have ever bought a disc. We have found them lodged in trees, abandoned in ditches, and lost over sides of cliffs. We have played with them. On two separate occasions, people have remarked that there are a number of names written on the disks, which indicates that we found them. We have been called thieves and been threatened with physical violence. These people have informed us that "the way it works" is if a disk is found, you put it in the lost and found bin. I have looked over the official rules of disc golf and there is no provision that if one finds a disk, that one is obliged to return it to its "owner." However, people continuously assert that these are "the rules." The result of these "rules" is that an entire bin of disks sits unused by the side of the road while some of us could be playing with them (instead of spending fifteen or twenty dollars on a new one). This whole scenario has struck me as somewhat absurd; the disks are of no use off the golf course, but concepts of private ownership keep me and those like me from using the disks that are otherwise sitting in a bin. Furthermore, the indignation of people has been staggering. The rate at which my friend and I have been villianized is alarming. One woman yelled rather offensively that I had no morals (and added that my mother was a bitch). I responded by asking if she had ever considered the role that her own concepts of private ownership played in the formation of her sense of morality. I don't think my point was very well-received, nor do I think that the fairway of a golf course was the optimal setting for such a conversation. Public opinion has been so strongly opposed to my position that at times I even felt guilt for defending it.
After discussing this with another friend, it was indicated that I could in some way acquire the lost-and-found bin of disks, sand off the names and phone numbers, and write on each one something like: "These disks belong to everyone. Put them back when you are done." In order to completely undermine the current sentiment of ownership and erode the necessity of buying new discs and the commodification of the pastime.
I now realize that this has indicated to me a larger strain of thought and action which makes that bin of discs seem a trivial target. What indicated this further development is the fact that that bin of discs is protected by NO law.
The last century has essentially handed us two diametrically opposed methods of dissent. On the one hand, armed struggle, traditional anarchism, and marxist revolt. On the other, civil disobedience and Gandhism. Both systems work within the premise of exhibiting social pressure from outside of legality (i.e. sitting on a lawn with a don't sit on the grass sign). However, the political has changed since the last century. The Patriot Act ensures security against such acts, no matter how benign. If an ELF activist vandalizes some Hummers, that is now considered terrorism, though terror is not a premeditated ingredient of any such act, nor plays an instrumental part.
It is by now well understood that the Patriot Act makes its appearance most often in two theaters: the war on drugs and protection of corporate property. Today, vandalizing some Hummers is a VERY dangerous proposition and is not advisable. Furthermore, given the community sentiment regarding such acts, the ensuing reaction makes this the least efficacious technique.
And so, in our Brave New World there is a necessity for a radicalism of legality. It should be attempted to apply social pressure to well-protected concepts, but (unlike our predecessors) from WITHIN the realm of legality. One immediately asks how effective such an approach would be. Certainly Nader's Raiders for Consumer Advocacy is a natural example. However, I am not interested in consumer advocacy, nor am I interested in lobbying or political action committees. I am interested in addressing "rules"-- challenging them without breaking them. I am interested in framing a rule in such a context, such a bizarre twist of logic, in which the rule loses meaning and coherence. I am interested in creating contexts in which a rule no longer makes sense, and as a result, suffers a deficit of authority. This might entail strictly following/enforcing a rule which obeys legality but undermines the intention of the rule.
As one of you has frequently mentioned to me, a consequence of the Skolem paradox is that once an axiom has been fixed, there is not a unique model to represent it. That is, for every rule there is conceivably a context which opposes the original intention of the rule while simultaneously satisfying every other rule in the system (i.e. not incurring a contradiction).
Such an act, if orchestrated properly, would be politically benign while simultaneously addressing the prevalent perception of a systematic rule or belief. Furthermore, such an act would necessarily transcend the realm of pure politics and enter a realm of socially relevant art. Such an act would attempt to instill certain intellectual and artistic concepts into certain, well-devised communities-- the planned, premeditated dispersion of perceptions regarding the role of such fields as linguistics, cognitive sciences, artificial intelligence, and game theory. We, as sojourners at the very lip of the future, are in a position to help direct the intellectual and artistic perceptions of this new century, to actively and calculatedly proliferate memes in the coming culture.
"Mindless vandalism takes a considerable amount of thought"
A Conversation with Braniac
One of the most formidable foes of that Superman has ever encountered in the defense of the planet is an android named Brainiac. This android has travelled the galaxy for eons gathering information about life and civilization in the universe. He inhabits a planet-sized supercomputer, which is also his spacecraft. As he encounters new civilizations, he gathers and stores every detail of the history of the people and their planet. Once all of the information is gathered, he destroys the planet and its people. It is thought that Brainiac was in fact responsible for the destruction of Krypton, Superman's home planet.
I met Brainiac at one of Darkseid's big New Year's Eve to-do's last year. He had, of course, come alone and was standing by himself sipping what turned out to be a shaken amaretto and half-n-half. Certainly, the reputation of the great compiler precedes him, and I couldn't miss the opportunity to ask some questions that had been on my mind. This turned out to be much more exasperating than I had anticipated.
I gracefully made my way across the room, looking uninterested, saying hello to the Forager who was noticeably smashed, and finally sliding up next to the Brainiac, who seemed baffled when I introduced myself. I attempted to engage in some general batter, asking how he knew Darkseid.
"I have been aware of Darkseid since long before his conception."
"Uh... yeah, I met him through Green Lantern."
I offered to get him another one of the awful creamy cocktails he was drinking, which he refused, and then, "So listen, everyone knows that you have been around, and I have a bet going with a friend on how many life-forms there are in the universe. Do you think you could settle it for us?"
He stared at me for a long enough time to make me uncomfortable before saying, "I am aware of both physical and non-physical phenomena which is far beyond the scope of your experience. I have documented every instance of complex behavior known in the universe including everything from systems of configurations of celestial bodies to the oscillating recombination of molecular structure. I am unable to make the distinction between 'life' and 'not-life' as I have explored all of the realms of existence in this galaxy. If you would please delineate the question by specifying what you mean by the word 'life,' I would be better equipped to answer you question."
I thought about Brainiac's statement for a moment, and I thought about the tiny planet I come from in the Sol system. I thought about my experience of life on earth, and how I had come to have certain expectations about what life is, simply as a result of living there.
"Okay, okay. In order to have a proper definition of life, I would have to inspect anything that might remotely resemble my expectations of it. I see that you are saying that even then, such a huge inspection would actually undermine my ability to develop a universal definition, as it has for you. But you've been to earth and you've studied all the life-forms there. How many life-forms are there in the galaxy which resemble something on earth?"
At this point he seemed distracted, or maybe even bored, by the conversation. "I am totally unaware of your method of quantizing life. What do you mean by 'how many'? Even when I documented your species, I studied every macroscopic and microscopic detail. Not only is your body made up of a conglomeration of interdependent protein structures which act semi-independently, you yourself are a member of larger social structure which exhibits complex behavior in which you act semi-independently. Furthermore, you are an expression of the chemically encoded linguistic structures of your genome which compete and manifest semi-independently within some ecological theater. Before I can answer your question, you must be clear about your method of quantization."
At this point, I was bored and flustered and tried to extricate myself from the conversation by asking him where he had taken his last vacation. After an exchange of cards, we went separate ways.
Since then I have thought about that night and tried to reflect on that total deficit of communication. Knowing everything about the galaxy had made it totally impossible for Brainiac to have a cocktail conversation with me or with anyone else in the room. His galactic perspective had necessarily suffered such a complete lack of contextual perspective that language was ineffectual in portraying meaning.
Carl Sagan remarks in his novel that communication between civilizations of even a reasonable imbalance of technological and intellectual development is very nearly impossible and employs the analogy of humans trying to describe even their most basic daily experience to a group of ants. Our ideas must rely on an ambient context (which ants may not be aware of), and without this context, clear meaning is impossible and language becomes superficial.
Since Brainiac was simultaneously aware of all ambient contexts, he was confused by my questions, and in order to for me to reformulate them in a way that would be suitable for him to address, I needed to actually reformulate them as the answers. That is, the only suitable way for him to answer my question, was to understand my context. But to stipulate a context is, in some form, the same as answering the question itself. The only suitable response for Brainiac to give to a question like, "What is the meaning of life?" is to ask, "What is your meaning of life?" And by stipulating such a context, you have actually answered the question.
I met Brainiac at one of Darkseid's big New Year's Eve to-do's last year. He had, of course, come alone and was standing by himself sipping what turned out to be a shaken amaretto and half-n-half. Certainly, the reputation of the great compiler precedes him, and I couldn't miss the opportunity to ask some questions that had been on my mind. This turned out to be much more exasperating than I had anticipated.
I gracefully made my way across the room, looking uninterested, saying hello to the Forager who was noticeably smashed, and finally sliding up next to the Brainiac, who seemed baffled when I introduced myself. I attempted to engage in some general batter, asking how he knew Darkseid.
"I have been aware of Darkseid since long before his conception."
"Uh... yeah, I met him through Green Lantern."
I offered to get him another one of the awful creamy cocktails he was drinking, which he refused, and then, "So listen, everyone knows that you have been around, and I have a bet going with a friend on how many life-forms there are in the universe. Do you think you could settle it for us?"
He stared at me for a long enough time to make me uncomfortable before saying, "I am aware of both physical and non-physical phenomena which is far beyond the scope of your experience. I have documented every instance of complex behavior known in the universe including everything from systems of configurations of celestial bodies to the oscillating recombination of molecular structure. I am unable to make the distinction between 'life' and 'not-life' as I have explored all of the realms of existence in this galaxy. If you would please delineate the question by specifying what you mean by the word 'life,' I would be better equipped to answer you question."
I thought about Brainiac's statement for a moment, and I thought about the tiny planet I come from in the Sol system. I thought about my experience of life on earth, and how I had come to have certain expectations about what life is, simply as a result of living there.
"Okay, okay. In order to have a proper definition of life, I would have to inspect anything that might remotely resemble my expectations of it. I see that you are saying that even then, such a huge inspection would actually undermine my ability to develop a universal definition, as it has for you. But you've been to earth and you've studied all the life-forms there. How many life-forms are there in the galaxy which resemble something on earth?"
At this point he seemed distracted, or maybe even bored, by the conversation. "I am totally unaware of your method of quantizing life. What do you mean by 'how many'? Even when I documented your species, I studied every macroscopic and microscopic detail. Not only is your body made up of a conglomeration of interdependent protein structures which act semi-independently, you yourself are a member of larger social structure which exhibits complex behavior in which you act semi-independently. Furthermore, you are an expression of the chemically encoded linguistic structures of your genome which compete and manifest semi-independently within some ecological theater. Before I can answer your question, you must be clear about your method of quantization."
At this point, I was bored and flustered and tried to extricate myself from the conversation by asking him where he had taken his last vacation. After an exchange of cards, we went separate ways.
Since then I have thought about that night and tried to reflect on that total deficit of communication. Knowing everything about the galaxy had made it totally impossible for Brainiac to have a cocktail conversation with me or with anyone else in the room. His galactic perspective had necessarily suffered such a complete lack of contextual perspective that language was ineffectual in portraying meaning.
Carl Sagan remarks in his novel that communication between civilizations of even a reasonable imbalance of technological and intellectual development is very nearly impossible and employs the analogy of humans trying to describe even their most basic daily experience to a group of ants. Our ideas must rely on an ambient context (which ants may not be aware of), and without this context, clear meaning is impossible and language becomes superficial.
Since Brainiac was simultaneously aware of all ambient contexts, he was confused by my questions, and in order to for me to reformulate them in a way that would be suitable for him to address, I needed to actually reformulate them as the answers. That is, the only suitable way for him to answer my question, was to understand my context. But to stipulate a context is, in some form, the same as answering the question itself. The only suitable response for Brainiac to give to a question like, "What is the meaning of life?" is to ask, "What is your meaning of life?" And by stipulating such a context, you have actually answered the question.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Questions About the Illegality of Suicide
Last week, I had an interesting conversation about the illegality of suicide. The conversation revolved primarily around the function of law in this social setting. Any law against suicide is an exceptional one, because it only has an impact in the case of preventing suicides or addressing failed ones.
The reasoning of my comrade went as follows: In many situations, people make decisions founded on unstable and transitory emotional states-- sometimes irreversible ones such as suicide. Often, people can come to regret these decisions with more hindsight. If there were not a law against suicide, agents of the state (i.e. police officers, fire engineers, etc.) would be unable to forcibly enter a home and resuscitate the suicide, even if a potentially resuscitated person would be thankful for the interdiction.
Of course, my general suspicion and distrust for statism and legislative interdiction put me on one side of this issue while, of course, important subtleties called for a closer look. So I had to ask myself a few questions.
1. What is the legal difference between a well thought out and executed suicide and a suicide attempted in passion?
2. Does society general have an interest in distinguishing between the two? Does society general have a vested interest in preventing suicide great enough to eclipse personal rights?
3. Law is edict designed to ensure conformity in situations where social normalizations fail to do so; Is a law necessary?
4. A law against suicide is particularly unique due to its lack of enforceability. Its primary purpose is to allow the state to intervene (i.e. enter premises, detain attempters) as a matter of duty. These seems to presuppose that the state is the only line of prevention. What role do less formal social structures (e.g. family) play in intervention? Is there such a lack of such structures that the state is necessary?
Of course, all my considerations were being done in the abstract. How would I know how I would feel about the state's interventions if a suicide occurred close to home?
Later in the week, at a Christmas party, I was approached by someone with whom I had a common friend. This common friend was a student of mine when I assisted an undergraduate topology course. Earlier in the week this student had committed suicide. Let's say his name was Red. When he was alive, Red emailed me frequently about what grad schools to apply to, how such-and-such mathematical theory related to such-and-such, and what books to read and study. I was always forthcoming and often responded to his emails with multiple responses in the forms of long post-scripts.
I saw Red just a few weeks before he died, on the sidewalk while I was walking to dinner with a few friends. He seemed happy and asked me how I was doing and I asked him how is grad school application process was going.
The news of his suicide definitely changed the tone of the previous conversation on suicide. I was sad that he decided that he didn't want to live anymore. Could I still answer my questions? Ultimately, the answer was yes. If I could have prevented him from killing himself (though not his reasons for doing so), I don't think I would have. Maybe I would have liked to talk to him first.
If he had wanted to talk, he could have called or emailed me as he did so often in the past. He could have called any of us, or a hotline. He didn't. He had no desire to talk. So how can I intercede? I cannot justify any right to intervene with his wishes. I don't think I would have called the police. I guess I just would have hoped that he thought it out and knew what he was doing.
1. This hope constitutes the major difference which might necessitate some sort of intervention. Suicide attempted in passion is fundamentally different from a well-thought out choice.
2. If society is a contract to defend personal liberty, how could I deny one's right to suicide just to protect whatever marginal liberty gained by more social stability?
I want to point out that "more social stability" is the crux of the states push to encorporate and federate more power. Every totalitarian government has used this to sequester power, whether it be of the form "defending against terrorism" or "Getting rid of the greedy Jews."
3. No law was going to keep Red from taking his life. The only thing that could possibly offer a counterpoint was the expectations of his family and friends-- the local support that existed for him. This is all to say that existing social structure is the law in this case. It seems like laws regulating suicide are just candy coating over a humongous social normative structure.
4. Finally, if I would not have intervened myself, what is the role of peace officers (who ideally act as my advocate) in prevention? It might be the case that another citizen (Red's mother maybe) might want to physically intervene or have her representatives (peace officers) intervene. As we remarked above, is this not a transgression against a conscious adult's rights (the fascist totalitarianism of a mother, however well-meant).
I hope that Red made the right decision and I hope peace for his family.
The reasoning of my comrade went as follows: In many situations, people make decisions founded on unstable and transitory emotional states-- sometimes irreversible ones such as suicide. Often, people can come to regret these decisions with more hindsight. If there were not a law against suicide, agents of the state (i.e. police officers, fire engineers, etc.) would be unable to forcibly enter a home and resuscitate the suicide, even if a potentially resuscitated person would be thankful for the interdiction.
Of course, my general suspicion and distrust for statism and legislative interdiction put me on one side of this issue while, of course, important subtleties called for a closer look. So I had to ask myself a few questions.
1. What is the legal difference between a well thought out and executed suicide and a suicide attempted in passion?
2. Does society general have an interest in distinguishing between the two? Does society general have a vested interest in preventing suicide great enough to eclipse personal rights?
3. Law is edict designed to ensure conformity in situations where social normalizations fail to do so; Is a law necessary?
4. A law against suicide is particularly unique due to its lack of enforceability. Its primary purpose is to allow the state to intervene (i.e. enter premises, detain attempters) as a matter of duty. These seems to presuppose that the state is the only line of prevention. What role do less formal social structures (e.g. family) play in intervention? Is there such a lack of such structures that the state is necessary?
Of course, all my considerations were being done in the abstract. How would I know how I would feel about the state's interventions if a suicide occurred close to home?
Later in the week, at a Christmas party, I was approached by someone with whom I had a common friend. This common friend was a student of mine when I assisted an undergraduate topology course. Earlier in the week this student had committed suicide. Let's say his name was Red. When he was alive, Red emailed me frequently about what grad schools to apply to, how such-and-such mathematical theory related to such-and-such, and what books to read and study. I was always forthcoming and often responded to his emails with multiple responses in the forms of long post-scripts.
I saw Red just a few weeks before he died, on the sidewalk while I was walking to dinner with a few friends. He seemed happy and asked me how I was doing and I asked him how is grad school application process was going.
The news of his suicide definitely changed the tone of the previous conversation on suicide. I was sad that he decided that he didn't want to live anymore. Could I still answer my questions? Ultimately, the answer was yes. If I could have prevented him from killing himself (though not his reasons for doing so), I don't think I would have. Maybe I would have liked to talk to him first.
If he had wanted to talk, he could have called or emailed me as he did so often in the past. He could have called any of us, or a hotline. He didn't. He had no desire to talk. So how can I intercede? I cannot justify any right to intervene with his wishes. I don't think I would have called the police. I guess I just would have hoped that he thought it out and knew what he was doing.
1. This hope constitutes the major difference which might necessitate some sort of intervention. Suicide attempted in passion is fundamentally different from a well-thought out choice.
2. If society is a contract to defend personal liberty, how could I deny one's right to suicide just to protect whatever marginal liberty gained by more social stability?
I want to point out that "more social stability" is the crux of the states push to encorporate and federate more power. Every totalitarian government has used this to sequester power, whether it be of the form "defending against terrorism" or "Getting rid of the greedy Jews."
3. No law was going to keep Red from taking his life. The only thing that could possibly offer a counterpoint was the expectations of his family and friends-- the local support that existed for him. This is all to say that existing social structure is the law in this case. It seems like laws regulating suicide are just candy coating over a humongous social normative structure.
4. Finally, if I would not have intervened myself, what is the role of peace officers (who ideally act as my advocate) in prevention? It might be the case that another citizen (Red's mother maybe) might want to physically intervene or have her representatives (peace officers) intervene. As we remarked above, is this not a transgression against a conscious adult's rights (the fascist totalitarianism of a mother, however well-meant).
I hope that Red made the right decision and I hope peace for his family.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)