The Occupy movement is at the cusp of something truly contemporary, in the sense that I do not think a phenomenon like this has been seen before. Has there ever been a movement in history that actually went against the financial and corporate powers on a GLOBAL unified scale? As far as I know, there hasn't been. As Paul Mason of the BBC succinctly puts it, "Their mere existence shows that people are determined to "think globally" about routes out of this crisis at a time when economics is driving politicians down the route of national solutions... in 1931, as the remnants of Globalisation 1.0 collapsed, there were no mass international protests against austerity. There were only plenty of national, and indeed nationalist ones." This is certainly telling of the world's current aggregate social mind-state and temperament. A quick survey of world news articles demonstrates the global village effect and the holistic ramifications of this crisis. For instance, although Canada has a more firm economic footing than our southern neighbour, the income gap between the rich and the poor is widening at a speed faster than the U.S., and the entirety of the middle class is deteriorating. Every nation, from the superpowers, to the powers, to the subpowers, to the vassal states, are suffering "economically" in an increasingly global marketplace. It seems there's nowhere to hide and the fact that no country can stand as an island in a fundamentally, pragmatically interrelated planet is making itself known. Now, in the global economic paradigm where 1% of the world's population controls 40% of its wealth, it is to be expected that eventually, people would get pissed the fuck off.
It was troubling however, that although unified in their acrimony (and rightfully so), how scattered and directionless the masses were at St. James Park Toronto in terms of who to blame for, and how to rectify, these social inequities. There were chants denouncing the evil bankers and government lobbyists. Some demanded more government interference, while others demanded less of it. Still, some simply declared the solution as the ambiguously defined ideal of going back to, as if we ever really had one, "a real democracy" (which, as an aside, without some benchmark of "constitutional rights" that sets agreed upon limits, is in its purest form, forty white men hanging a black man). Scattered ubiquitously throughout the park were also tarps and signs painted with comforting yet inconsequential slogans like "all we need is love" and "sharing is caring," which, although are all very admirable in a gestural sense, are devoid of any real methodical solutions related to any sort of tangible plans or suggestions. These cornucopia of differing viewpoints were all of course unified under one singular consolidating blaming imperative: "We are the 99%." In that inherently divisive statement, an invisible line has been drawn and a target has thoroughly been pointed out. The antagonist, the ones to blame, the de facto "villains" in this stage of history, are apparently the 1%. There were calls to impeach C.E.O. this or President That. There were flyers handed out providing histories of the polluting and environmentally negligent behaviour of corporations. Quite almost instantaneously, several mental images are impulsively evoked: the Wall Street trader, the hedgefund manager, the government lobbyist, the amoral corporation, etc. And the unsaid assumption is that if all of these bad, extremely greedy and malevolent people were taken care of, then the problems would simply go away. However, this begs the question: if these abhorrent personalities are indeed the determinants of the problem, what were the determinants of the determinants?
It is somewhat ironic as I walked amongst them, as indeed one of them, to see the crowd's oblivious support for the same corporations and financial powers that they apparently so vilify and abhor. People were toting Nikon cameras, Ipads, Sony headphones, and the like. They were wearing brand named clothing, unobservant of the fact that even as they waved signposts against "corporate fat cats," they were effectively signposts themselves for Nike and Adidas. These "evil corporations" are actually (perhaps uncomfortably to some of these protesters) the circumstantial backbone of modern Western society. They are the providers of the products we are now seemingly irreversibly tied to. They are the providers of services and amenities. And ironically, they are the ones themselves that have enabled the worldwide Occupy movement via the provision of social networking services, computers and cellphone technology.
It is in that same breath however, that for as much as they have provided, they have consequentially taken away. Individuality has been relegated to the variety of different brands you can buy. Freedom of choice is reduced to the essential question: "Coke or Pepsi?" But of course, this isn't avoidable (in our economic paradigm). Not because of some fixed human nature, but because the free-market capitalist system needs, and therefore, systematically propagates, the behaviour. Paul Mazur, a Wall Street banker was quoted in the Harvard Business Review of 1927 stating precisely this: "We must shift America from a needs to a desires culture. People must be trained to desire. To want new things even before the old have been entirely consumed. We must shape a new mentality in America." Our economy's success is based on growth, turn-over and profit, and thus necessitates a need for constant consumption (buying of goods). People need to want-to-buy-things in order for G.N.P. to increase, and thus, "grow" the economy. This is no secret. As a student of psychology, it is obvious to me that these needed artificial 'wants' can be manufactured by employing conditioning techniques. Operant conditioning (through reinforcement) for example, via advertisements, create a social reinforcing agent of perceived inequity depending on such arbitrary variables such as the type of bag you use or the type of hat you wear, creating neuroses and longing that would not have existed otherwise. Consequently, we all want stuff. So why is it such an outrage and surprise that those who can GET said stuff, hoard as much of it as possible? It seems to me that "greed" is simply this shared (manufactured) desire acted upon. It is the reinforced mentality.
And of course, when talking about greed, the topic of profit is not far behind. It's no secret that the modus operandi of the free-market capitalism paradigm is the profit motive. For all the relative progress that it has created, the sole imperative of this economic system (as denoted freely in any economic textbook) is completely devoid of any forethought of DIRECT equity and equality consideration, instead built on the goal of self maximization, assuming that this will somehow bring equality and fairness ("The Invisible Hand" concept). There is very little to nothing else considered. After all, by and large, the standardized indicator of a nation's progress and well being is not any statistic on mortality rate, psychological measure of contentment or public health. Instead, it is the measure of a country's G.N.P./G.D.P. or "economic growth." Everything else is an assumed correlation.
Keeping this in mind, are the "1%" really at fault? If one thinks about it, the Wall Street investor who deals in derivatives doesn't do it to intentionally collapse the economy in a bubble of fraud. That wasn't his goal, it was simply a side effect brought about by the initial imperative to increase income. Continuing with this thought exercise, the car manufacturing plant that lays off thousands of factory workers to replace them with automated manufacturing systems doesn't do this to maliciously lower the standard of living for thousands of people. By automating, it is simply lowering building costs, thus offering a more affordable product to consumers, and by extension increasing their gains in profit and reducing costs. Similarly, when a corporation lobbies for certain legislation that would benefit them and not the public, they're not doing so with an intent to torment the middle and lower class while twirling their mustaches menacingly and rubbing their hands together. They're simply doing what they can do, and what the economic system absolutely allows for, to maximize profits and minimize costs in some way. If you think about it, the 1% are simply the best players in the game. Similarly, if the protesters at St. James Park were in similar positions of fiscal prominence as the "villainous" 1%, one wonders if they could say with certainty that they would not do the exact same things.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Saturday, October 15, 2011
writing because i can't sleep
The rain poured thick that night; as if to remind anybody down below that their existence was marginal at best. Pitter-patter-pitter-patter. It was a gloomy sky above a gloomy Earth. A sky that was crying out; uncaring as to whom its tears would drown.
Pitter-patter-pitter-patter.
Pitter-patter-pitter-patter.
The pelting at his windshield was enough to jolt the sleeping driver. The difference between his a moment ago restless half-sleep (that somewhat rejuvenating but-never-quite-enough-anymore kind of sleep) to his present state of wakefulness was almost indistinguishable. He looked around, eyes burning with every saccade movement, temples feeling pinched from the inside out. By now this was normality. Inhaling deep, his hand groggily reached for the lever to raise his reclined car-seat back upright. He now faced the dashboard, staring blankly straight ahead.
Past the protective barrier of his windshield, still the rain poured down all around him, sounding like a hail of bullets against the body of the beat-up, half dilapidated car he now called home.
“Well...” he murmured as he stared out into the baron, empty stretch of land that spread out into all foreseeable directions.
“Some fucking vacation.”
Sunday, September 12, 2010
man's sickness
The moment a man begins to question the meaning and value of life, he is sick, since objectively, neither exist. Questions imply the presence of an underlying problem. However, the act of questioning in itself is merely symptomatic, not problematic. The questioning of nonexistent things points to an even more troubling condition: life is inherently valueless and meaningless. To question the empiricism of these nonexistent aspects of one’s life is a symptom of a deeper underlying disease.
Questioning is not a sickness in itself. It is a symptom of the sickness, and somewhat paradoxically, part of the cure. When someone develops a common illness such as the flu, it is common to have a fever. The fever itself is not the illness. Rather it indicates that the body is malfunctioning, and tries to combat the sickness by raising the temperature. To question what one has never before questioned, is to become aware of a flaw. Questioning reveals the flaw in its entirety and allows for a proper solution to be administered. During Kierkegaard’s transitions, the aesthetic begins to question his lifestyle because he no longer derives any pleasure from it. Through the process of systematic questioning, the aesthetic reasons that his lack of pleasure stems from his lack of ethics, and so becomes an ethical person. Symptoms do not arise without an underlying cause, similarly, healthy men do not question what does not exist.
'Value,' defined by the North American Encarta Dictionary, is “the worth, importance, or usefulness of something to somebody.” This cannot be ascribed to life since it is exhaustible and non-transferable. Value exists only in things that are permanent, and if temporary, can be exchanged for something of equal or greater value. Diamonds are forever; their permanence renders them their value since they can be transported through time and space without diminishing. Individual lives are born, grow, shrink, and then die. It cannot sustain itself without damage as it moves through space and time. Oil renders its value from the energy released when it is consumed. When life is consumed, it ceases to exist. All value exists because of a valuer who attributes value to an object. Value does not exist independently of those who value it. Although the consumption of life can be of value to one man, the consumption of his own life is without value to him. The living person assigns value to many objects, actions, and situations. These things are only valuable within the lifespan of a valuer. A life in its entirety has no objective value (assuming that the valuer and the possessor of the life in question are one and the same). It is neither everlasting, nor can it be exchanged for something else, since it would rob the valuer of his life. If the valuer has no life, there is no one to assign the object in question value. Therefore life is lacking in value. Consequently questioning the value of life is like questioning a ghost: insane.
Life is also devoid of meaning. “The meaning of life” is a mere nonsensical string of words. Meaning exists in those things that have a message to convey. Since life is a result of natural processes, there is no one trying to communicate, depriving life of meaning. Even if life is indeed a result of a god(s): life could have any one of an infinite number of meanings. Trying to decipher that meaning would be like a pixel trying to imagine the image to which it belongs. Furthermore, by nature, every message is bound to be interpreted differently by every observer and every perspective. Living is a passive act where a person performs actions in reaction to his environment, never unstimulated. Actions have no objective meaning, only transient idiosyncratic "purposes," given by individual interpretation. The meaning of an action, even an active purposeful action, is completely relative. By nature, every message is bound to be interpreted differently by every observer and every perspective. As a result, the meaning of life, or anything for that matter, is entirely subjective. For these reasons, questioning the meaning of life is questioning something which either does not exist or is relative, which in each case, is clearly irrational.
Notwithstanding the non-existence of meaning and the relativity of the value of life, questioning it is still cause for concern. When an object is working properly, that is, fulfilling its purpose without flaw, it is not self aware. Consciousness becomes aware of itself by questioning the ideas it operates on. According to Alan Watts, “when the eye is fulfilling its purpose, it is not aware of itself, it does not see itself. When the eye sees itself, it is faulty; it has developed cataracts or glaucoma. When the ear hears itself, [the] ringing, it is defective.” Similarly, the mind becomes aware of its operations when they are not being carried out properly. “When someone thinks, the stream of thought flows”, but “when you begin to think about thinking, it gets in the way [of thinking]”. One only begins to think about thinking if the stream of thought is not fulfilling its purpose. Watts calls this a “blocking mechanism”. When a man is healthy, he lives without noticing. When he begins to question, “[he] gets in the way of living” since the questions block the normal 'flow' of life. When a lifestyle works, its possessor has no reason to question. Most people’s lifestyles and worldviews are based on a philosophy which incorporates some implicit unobjective meaning and value to life. These theories of life, however intangible, allow people to exist without difficulty. One only begins to question life if it ceases to work. One will only begin to question the value and meaning of life if his implicit existing notions of value and meaning no longer fit his desires. When one is no longer fulfilling his desires, he is no longer being reinforced, and in turn, becomes depressed. This depression is the real sickness.
A sickness is the abnormal operation of a normal function. Normally, humans do not question the basic ideals on which they operate. Questioning, although not a sickness, is a symptom of one, especially when nonexistent things are being questioned. Through the process of thought, the thinker becomes aware of all that has been said above and stops questioning.
Questioning is not a sickness in itself. It is a symptom of the sickness, and somewhat paradoxically, part of the cure. When someone develops a common illness such as the flu, it is common to have a fever. The fever itself is not the illness. Rather it indicates that the body is malfunctioning, and tries to combat the sickness by raising the temperature. To question what one has never before questioned, is to become aware of a flaw. Questioning reveals the flaw in its entirety and allows for a proper solution to be administered. During Kierkegaard’s transitions, the aesthetic begins to question his lifestyle because he no longer derives any pleasure from it. Through the process of systematic questioning, the aesthetic reasons that his lack of pleasure stems from his lack of ethics, and so becomes an ethical person. Symptoms do not arise without an underlying cause, similarly, healthy men do not question what does not exist.
'Value,' defined by the North American Encarta Dictionary, is “the worth, importance, or usefulness of something to somebody.” This cannot be ascribed to life since it is exhaustible and non-transferable. Value exists only in things that are permanent, and if temporary, can be exchanged for something of equal or greater value. Diamonds are forever; their permanence renders them their value since they can be transported through time and space without diminishing. Individual lives are born, grow, shrink, and then die. It cannot sustain itself without damage as it moves through space and time. Oil renders its value from the energy released when it is consumed. When life is consumed, it ceases to exist. All value exists because of a valuer who attributes value to an object. Value does not exist independently of those who value it. Although the consumption of life can be of value to one man, the consumption of his own life is without value to him. The living person assigns value to many objects, actions, and situations. These things are only valuable within the lifespan of a valuer. A life in its entirety has no objective value (assuming that the valuer and the possessor of the life in question are one and the same). It is neither everlasting, nor can it be exchanged for something else, since it would rob the valuer of his life. If the valuer has no life, there is no one to assign the object in question value. Therefore life is lacking in value. Consequently questioning the value of life is like questioning a ghost: insane.
Life is also devoid of meaning. “The meaning of life” is a mere nonsensical string of words. Meaning exists in those things that have a message to convey. Since life is a result of natural processes, there is no one trying to communicate, depriving life of meaning. Even if life is indeed a result of a god(s): life could have any one of an infinite number of meanings. Trying to decipher that meaning would be like a pixel trying to imagine the image to which it belongs. Furthermore, by nature, every message is bound to be interpreted differently by every observer and every perspective. Living is a passive act where a person performs actions in reaction to his environment, never unstimulated. Actions have no objective meaning, only transient idiosyncratic "purposes," given by individual interpretation. The meaning of an action, even an active purposeful action, is completely relative. By nature, every message is bound to be interpreted differently by every observer and every perspective. As a result, the meaning of life, or anything for that matter, is entirely subjective. For these reasons, questioning the meaning of life is questioning something which either does not exist or is relative, which in each case, is clearly irrational.
Notwithstanding the non-existence of meaning and the relativity of the value of life, questioning it is still cause for concern. When an object is working properly, that is, fulfilling its purpose without flaw, it is not self aware. Consciousness becomes aware of itself by questioning the ideas it operates on. According to Alan Watts, “when the eye is fulfilling its purpose, it is not aware of itself, it does not see itself. When the eye sees itself, it is faulty; it has developed cataracts or glaucoma. When the ear hears itself, [the] ringing, it is defective.” Similarly, the mind becomes aware of its operations when they are not being carried out properly. “When someone thinks, the stream of thought flows”, but “when you begin to think about thinking, it gets in the way [of thinking]”. One only begins to think about thinking if the stream of thought is not fulfilling its purpose. Watts calls this a “blocking mechanism”. When a man is healthy, he lives without noticing. When he begins to question, “[he] gets in the way of living” since the questions block the normal 'flow' of life. When a lifestyle works, its possessor has no reason to question. Most people’s lifestyles and worldviews are based on a philosophy which incorporates some implicit unobjective meaning and value to life. These theories of life, however intangible, allow people to exist without difficulty. One only begins to question life if it ceases to work. One will only begin to question the value and meaning of life if his implicit existing notions of value and meaning no longer fit his desires. When one is no longer fulfilling his desires, he is no longer being reinforced, and in turn, becomes depressed. This depression is the real sickness.
A sickness is the abnormal operation of a normal function. Normally, humans do not question the basic ideals on which they operate. Questioning, although not a sickness, is a symptom of one, especially when nonexistent things are being questioned. Through the process of thought, the thinker becomes aware of all that has been said above and stops questioning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
