The secret value of censorship.

When writers, singers and artists cannot directly address a subject like sex, even loving marital relations, they must find metaphors or even a sub-language to address any forbidden subjects. For example in the King James Bible, Genesis, male/female intercourse is written "he went into her". Now it seems today in poetry, song, or fiction people can write anything without it being censored or banned by society because we have this thingy called free speech. Unfortunately free speech has a desensitizing effect of dumbing-down popular culture. in the Victorian - era or earlier you could reference sex or other taboos but you had to insinuate it, be oblique, use metaphor. Since writers and talkers might be using a metaphor, pun, or subversion to reveal their true meaning, or a hidden meaning behind their remarks, readers and listeners had to be alert. All this sub-text creates fantastic amounts of sophistication, which we have a total lack of today. I am not for bringing censorship back or against free speech, but it is naive to say that this change in our culture has no effect, or is all good. Also, since sub-text and metaphor have lost a daily- regular or practical function, its function now is just aesthetic. And this aestheticism is a label that says, I wrote this, this way to sound pretty. Which is weak. So this enforced a way of writing that makes metaphors and sub-text seem functional, for example Period writing.

-shakabusatsu

The Power of Simulacra.

The most volatile part of Baudrillard's idea(s) about simulacra, is that we live in a simulacrum. Not actually fourth-order "pure simulacra" but on the third-order. This is where our consciousness resides. Let me explain. Let's assume there is a basic wide spread reality. When we look at it with our eyes, we sense an image. Now this image is a projection on our retinas, upside down and backwards. This masks or replaces the reality, which are actual physical objects. This image is transmitted via electrical nerve impulses to our brains. At our brain the signals are then compared, and information about depth is constructed along with the two images being almost seamlessly patched together. It's then sent, or fed into, or compared with our memory, and our consciousness.

Our consciousness resides here on this third level/order of simulation. Where an absence of a basic reality is masked. Therefore we can't tell, our sense of reality, through our normal senses. It may prove interesting to consider if the mind malfunctions, and creates images from memory or other senses. When memory is fresh, this now fourth order simulation (pure simulacra), with no connection to reality, maybe hard to detect. As it becomes apparent a persons conciousness is now relying on fourth-order simulation, we recognize this as madness or insanity. Also consider, when we dream. Usually, to my experience, it is only through examination of the circumstances, that I recognize a dream. Only then, when I compare it to a normal third order experience, through examination of circumstances, that I recognize a dream. Only when I compare fourth order to third order (PINCH ME!) am I convinced that this dream does not exist, or is not connected to reality.

Guerilla Girls Part II

The other day a girl in a workshop heard me talking about the Guerilla Girls post and thought I was against equal pay between gender and racial lines; which I am for equal pay across all lines. So I explained it all and she asked, "So the manager or CEO would make as much as a janitor?"
"Yes"
"But that doesn't make any sense"
"No, it makes perfect sense, everybody works all week, everybody gets paid."
"But there would be no motivation, to do more work, to be better"
"So you think the artists who make a lot of money, more than you or I ; have more motivation and passion?
"Oh, so this is just in an Artist context, from your view?"
"No, I want that for everybody."
"Who did you vote for?"
"Actually, I really regret who I voted for, I should have voted for... see I voted for Nader and the Green Party the last two elections.
"You didn't vote for Bush did y..."
"No. I voted for the other guy, Kerry. But I should voted for Nader, I mean he wasn't on the ballot, I should have written him in. Because the Democrats, and their sect of pundity movie/rock/television star voices were saying some really awful things. Saying he's old, he's crazy, lost all respect for not standing down. That is not how you treat someone who fought the system in court and won consumer rights for all of us. And the Democrats should be ashamed, ashamed (it's cheesy I know to repeat it like that but, It's like a little speech I've repeated more than once), especially the people who spouted that disrespect" (some heads nod)

That there was proof the Democrat party had become exactly what Greens, Libertarians, and Independents hate about the two party system. They together have become the party of Big Business only they don't really want you to know that. The both just want to win, they both lack vision. And therefore lack any real solutions to the problems barreling down on this country. So we talked further about our dissatisfaction at the current administration, and one person offers up that he wishes all the old people would die, and this world would change tomorrow. And it's a little true. Wife thinks that the longer lifespans of politicians, means that while society and the world is changing faster and faster, our government is changing slower and slower, and while I don't want to disrespect the wisdom of our elders, I don't want up to hold up the folly of our elders either. Anyways I say, "I want the whole eutopic Star Trek vision of a unified earth. I don't know if that's possible in my lifetime, but I think there are three things we have to change. We have to 1. Control population growth. And we have to RID ourselves of 2. Religion, and 3. Nationalism."

Now I just met these other classmates a few weeks ago. I don't even know one dude's name. I'm 29 and these people are early twenties. Here are their responses in order:

1. nods all around
2. unanimously "yeah"
3. hmmm, Nationalism I don't know if we can get rid of that, you think? I don't know.

I don't know how to explain what joy it gave me to hear those answers. Answer #2 ,as an atheist, is especially reassuring. And #3, They think (rightly) that government is too powerful to easily rid ourselves of. All I could say in response was "It's one planet, we have to start thinking that way."

My own parents would likely laugh at me for such notions, (which is funny because I have no problem seeing their point of view) although they would have no answer as to a unified vision for planet earth (probably everybody should serve in the military).

Later,

shakabusatsu

Mass is not the stuff of the universe.

(This is an old journal entry, but so nessecary, to understand alot of arguments I will be making in the future. So enjoy!)

The conventional model of the universe is that all bodies are made up of stuff. That stuff is matter and all this stuff (matter) is floating about in a shitload of space. It's important that there be plenty of space for matter to float about in, so the universe is presently expanding. Let me start by saying that the conventions about the universe (if you can call it that) are at best incomplete, but probably total guesswork. From my observations I can make totally differrent conclusions about physical reality (because that's what it really is, not a silly word like universe with all its erroneous conotations). To begin.

The conventional idea of space, is just that. It's a bunch of nothing for something to float about in. I would conclude from the scientific endevors and evidence published around the world that it is precisely the opposite. It is the stuff of the "universe", and that matter is just abubble, a pocket of nothing. Blackholes are not singularities, or anomalies. You get enough matter together it will start to condense, just like a gas suspended in a liquid, in a foam. Foam is the equilivelent to what we commonly think of as matter. Some bubbles when squeezed together will condense and form a larger bubble of pure gas. Think of blackholes. Theoretically and semi~observationally they are big holes, in the universe created by a super ( but not infinite) concentration of matter. Scientists call them singularities, because they don't exist, or don't conform to the regular laws of the universe. But this hole of nothing is caused by stuff inside of it. In side where? The black hole literally doesn't exist within the laws of this reality. But as more mass falls into the hole and the event-horizon gets larger. The black hole, and ultimately the question or problem of gravity is this. How does mass or matter bend space? This is the craziest of proposals since space does not in present scienticfic measure ment exist. Its the vacuum. The idea of space bending in its mathematical accuracy or its abity to explain observations, shows the weakness of our present assumptions on the nature of physicall reality.

A response to "Guerilla Girls on Tour"

I've been going to lectures on Tuesday nights while my wife is in class. The weird thing is that the older I get, the more I disagree with everything, even stuff I would normally agree with. ( Once I was told that my "liberal notions" were just part of being "young", and that I will become more "conservative" as I get older... Well maybe that line works on babyboomers who just get stupider and more selfish year after year, while I have just watched everything get shitty-er and shitty-er. Sorry, that I just get more angry as I get older and realize this whole Cold War was a gigantic bullshit story for the benefit US and Russian arms suppliers and the respective politicians who played along. )

For instance two weeks ago I went and saw "Guerilla Girls on Tour." Let start by saying these are not the original Guerilla Girls. This is a separate group of theatre professionals who go on tour "changing the world, one sexist city at a time." This was a show by two "Guerilla Girls" who instead of wearing the trademark anonymous gorilla mask, substituted blond wigs and ape-ish face-pieces that covered the eyes and nose. Plus they wore white T-shirts and boardshorts to dress "Hawaiian", the effect was of a beach blanket troglodytes movie. They acknowledged how Honolulu, happened to disprove there statistical arguments. The one calling herself Julia Child did the WORST impression, making Ms. Child sound like a drunken Foghorn Leghorn. But also, the writing was sooo bad, that they themselves exemplify the false argument/notion that women aren't good playwrights. The audience was funnier than the performers! The flier for this had a headline, "Feminism Is Funny." No. It wasn't. Lastly, during the highlight of the audience participation portion of the show, they ask, "Who here believes in equal pay for equal work?" And everyone raises their hands. "You are all feminists!" Well... I disagree.

No one in that room believes in equal pay for equal work. I doubt most reading this would either. Why else do you go to college (except for lofty notions of education and knowledge) but so that your 40 hours a week gets you 40k + salary instead of the 18k you might make at minimum wage? Huh? Maybe we like to humor the illusion that our desk job is actually more work than following behind a garbage truck, selling fast food, or cold calling customer after customer, but it's not true. Most people don't want those jobs because it is a great deal more work for little pay. So Feminists and ACLU members what are you fighting for? For your own piece of an inherently flawed system. It's a system based on discrimination. Everyone of us get discriminated everyday. By our appearance, our language, our economic status. Whose outlawing that? No one is trying to get rid of the "buddy" system, or tipping. I don't see anyone saying fashion is immoral. In most states you can't hire or fire people based on gender, race or religion, but you can on almost any other reason you can think of. So what's the point? If we the discriminated, discriminate the discriminations we are subjected to, we'll fix the system? It may just be me, but I don't think it's going work. It takes something more revolutionary. And Guerilla Girls, you aren't it.

TTFN,

-shakabusatsu

Welcome to my spanking new blog.

I will be posting images, and journal entries (new and old) on this, my first blog. Once upon a time, I was posting my writing and pictures on my own website, but this whole auto-magic blog service stuff seems too convenient. I write short critical essay-ish rants about science, society, and religion with the occasional daydream thrown in. I am little busy tonight, so instead of some thing new I'll give those who might stumble across here an old journal entry. (from a couple years ago)

Sometimes this whole notion of "why I write" is to do something with all the thoughts I have. I have career choices to make. What to do with one's life is such a troubling notion. My whole life has been a double-life; one in thought and one in practice. I've desperately wanted something in which the twain shall meet. But some of me thinks this is a vain search. Further more, despite myself, my experience with parents, friends, and others, I'm not sure anyone wants to hear my thoughts. I am intelligent, but otherwise unremarkable. My thoughts are remarkable, but maybe only to me. That truly is a disparaging feeling. And yet it's the kind of loneliness I've known my whole life.