Everybody, wake up!
The National Service Administration has designated today to temporarily lift the moratorium on looking about. Please enjoy your surroundings until they are taken away again.
Comments on the Excerpt Below
This is a blurb I read on ESPN, and I wanted to share it because it really crystallized how I think about sports, which, admittedly embarrassing, does in fact get a moderate share of my thoughts.
This is the story of a special game. It's between the New York Knicks and the Houston Rockets, and it happens right after the two teams have made a trade. Because of this, the game really becomes an evaluation of that trade, and thus of the two teams' organizational department. Because while this hinges on the play of the sportsmen, yes, it is also assumed that the players had an objective "playing ability," and that it is possible, if skilled, to propose swaps that bring more "playing ability," if not plain more players, to the team.
The game doesn't matter anymore. The implications of the nature of sports organizations, and their distinct presence in our society, amount to total slavery. Think about starting a basketball team, and especially try to think about what it would be like if basketball were a big part of your life, too. These are your best friends, maybe. Neighborhood kids, who you can trust. To not take advantage of (for show), and to assist you when you find yourself overextended. "Teammate" is only a sports term now, but it has different origins.
From dictionary.com:
"Origin:
This is the story of a special game. It's between the New York Knicks and the Houston Rockets, and it happens right after the two teams have made a trade. Because of this, the game really becomes an evaluation of that trade, and thus of the two teams' organizational department. Because while this hinges on the play of the sportsmen, yes, it is also assumed that the players had an objective "playing ability," and that it is possible, if skilled, to propose swaps that bring more "playing ability," if not plain more players, to the team.
The game doesn't matter anymore. The implications of the nature of sports organizations, and their distinct presence in our society, amount to total slavery. Think about starting a basketball team, and especially try to think about what it would be like if basketball were a big part of your life, too. These are your best friends, maybe. Neighborhood kids, who you can trust. To not take advantage of (for show), and to assist you when you find yourself overextended. "Teammate" is only a sports term now, but it has different origins.
From dictionary.com:
"Origin:
bef. 900; ME teme (n.), OE tēam child-bearing, brood, offspring, set of draft beasts; c. D toom bridle, reins, G Zaum, ON taumr"
First of all, to think that we learn the words of a small group of white men in Britain is mind-blowing to me. We all learn it, why? Because it's beautiful? Becsuse it gives us a sense of pride? Or because it's the easiest to talk to authority figures with?
A team was an adjective for a woman. "team woman" meant one who was childbearing. And 'team' was also a noun, meaning a set of children, or animals. The word 'team,' then, stands for things which were important to men's lives when they were created, pets and women. Fellow creatures. Maybe this term is patriarchal, but our history is our history.
Later on a variation of the word appears in German, 'Zaum." T-Z and ea-au have other occurances in in english and german words: the english 'two' is equivalent to the german "zwei," and the german "traum" corresponds to the english "dream." Seriously. D-T-Z is big shit in linguistics. And that german word means "bridle." Now the earlier situation, where both a sense of detachment and communication of feelings were generated by having a word for one's companions, is changed to a term charged with authority, with the ability to hold a bridle and thus steer whatever was bridled.
Sports teams no longer choose with whom they play. Only the very successful ones, like Lebron James or Kobe Bryant, are able to use their position also to craft their own identity; the vast majority of players remaining important mostly as imperfect machines. Producers of statistics. It's all so scienced up now that you know it's nothing like a family- the players don't have the ability to represent themselves anymore, except through flashiness, the courting of your attention.
First of all, to think that we learn the words of a small group of white men in Britain is mind-blowing to me. We all learn it, why? Because it's beautiful? Becsuse it gives us a sense of pride? Or because it's the easiest to talk to authority figures with?
A team was an adjective for a woman. "team woman" meant one who was childbearing. And 'team' was also a noun, meaning a set of children, or animals. The word 'team,' then, stands for things which were important to men's lives when they were created, pets and women. Fellow creatures. Maybe this term is patriarchal, but our history is our history.
Later on a variation of the word appears in German, 'Zaum." T-Z and ea-au have other occurances in in english and german words: the english 'two' is equivalent to the german "zwei," and the german "traum" corresponds to the english "dream." Seriously. D-T-Z is big shit in linguistics. And that german word means "bridle." Now the earlier situation, where both a sense of detachment and communication of feelings were generated by having a word for one's companions, is changed to a term charged with authority, with the ability to hold a bridle and thus steer whatever was bridled.
Sports teams no longer choose with whom they play. Only the very successful ones, like Lebron James or Kobe Bryant, are able to use their position also to craft their own identity; the vast majority of players remaining important mostly as imperfect machines. Producers of statistics. It's all so scienced up now that you know it's nothing like a family- the players don't have the ability to represent themselves anymore, except through flashiness, the courting of your attention.
2. Ex-Knicks Hill and Jeffries Come Up Big
By Chris Sheridan
ESPN.com
ESPN.com
NEW YORK -- For the first 12 minutes, Tracy McGrady was back in superstar form. But the rest of the afternoon, McGrady's alumni game against his former team was impacted more by the two players the New York Knicks sent to the Houston Rockets in order to acquire McGrady and his mammoth expiring contract.
Jordan Hill, labeled a "bad rookie" by Knicks coach Mike D'Antoni is a particularly harsh pre-game comment, played the final 16:04 and scored 13 of the Rockets' 52 bench points as Houston stayed on the cusp of the Western Conference playoff race by rallying past New York 116-112 Sunday.
Jared Jeffries played all but five seconds of the fourth quarter, drawing three charges and blocking two shots in the final period as coach Rick Adelman went with his subs for most of the final quarter. Houston, ninth in the West, won for the fifth time in six games to move within five games of Portland and 5 1/2 games of seventh-place San Antonio pending the outcome of the Spurs' and Blazers' games later Sunday.
Hill claimed to feel no heightened sense of redemption in helping defeat the team that drafted him No. 8 overall last June, but his feelings might have been different if he were aware what his former coach had said about him 90 minutes before tipoff.
"I don't like to play bad rookies. I like to play good rookies," D'Antoni said, explaining that Hill was not showing enough in practice to warrant playing time ahead of the Knicks' more established frontcourt players. "I do like Jordan. I think he'll be a nice player in the league, but that's as far as it goes."
That comment was relayed afterward to Hill, who was rendered momentarily speechless.
"Didn't hear that, but what can I say? That's him," Hill said. "He's entitled to his own opinion, so if that's the way he feels, that's how he feels. I'm not trying to make a point. I'm just trying to play basketball. I just want to go out there and have fun and play my game."
We're so past all this.
We're postmodern, postgender, postfeminist, postrace,
postcolonialism, postrealism, postidealism, posthaste.
postrock, poststructuralism, postproduction, post-war,
postmortem, postapocalyptic, postpartum, posthardcore.
We are past what our ancestors were, now not just quantitatively, but qualitatively.
But, we have history. And if the knowledge of something exists, that thing exists, and so our
ancestors haunt us with their great struggles and successes. They pass into the realm of myth and imaginary.
But, of course, every generation is past the one that came before. You can't step through the same river twice, and nor can a culture truly stagnate. But it's that sense that we have to do things the way our parents did that really messes up our society, I think.
Perhaps the biggest -ism in our society is ageism.
We're postmodern, postgender, postfeminist, postrace,
postcolonialism, postrealism, postidealism, posthaste.
postrock, poststructuralism, postproduction, post-war,
postmortem, postapocalyptic, postpartum, posthardcore.
We are past what our ancestors were, now not just quantitatively, but qualitatively.
But, we have history. And if the knowledge of something exists, that thing exists, and so our
ancestors haunt us with their great struggles and successes. They pass into the realm of myth and imaginary.
But, of course, every generation is past the one that came before. You can't step through the same river twice, and nor can a culture truly stagnate. But it's that sense that we have to do things the way our parents did that really messes up our society, I think.
Perhaps the biggest -ism in our society is ageism.
We are all Cain and Abel.
You have been authorized to read this post.
What does that mean?
Author. Author-ity. Author-ize. We see these words are connected. I was thinking about this connection and had some interesting thoughts.
Authority and power go together. At least, if you have power, you get to pretend that you are an authority. But if you're an authority, you don't always have power. If you are sticking a gun in my face, I'll say that yes, you're right, 2+2=5. But just because you know more than I do about something doesn't mean I'll listen to you, and there's no way you can make me. Dig?
So what's this authority thing all about? Well, I think it's about creation. It's a little known fact that we all create our own worlds. Not interpret objective reality differently, because there is no such thing as objective reality, but create reality through our perception. "there are no facts, only interpretations." But sometimes, people have different interpretations! What happens then? Well, the one with more "authority" imposes their interpretation on the other. What's happening here is that a world is being destroyed (The world the nonauthority used to live in), and a person is being forcibly moved into the world of the authority. Another hallmark of authority is that it doesn't strive to create more authorities, but wants to keep its own. So soldiers are sent to Iraq, but not consulted on strategy or whether they should stop fighting. Or, I am told things by my professors, but I'm not allowed to stray too far away from what they say, or I will fail.
Authorities are therefore authors. They write us into stories. What kind of story doesn't matter, and this is the secret of authority. Authority, and reactions to it, are what get remembered, and transcribed as relationships of power, by the authors, the authorities, of history. Of course they'll write themselves as having "power," and being in control, since the whole charm of authority is seeming authoritarian. In actual fact the entirety of authority lies in the writing of history, since history contextualizes the present, and influences our actions. Those who tell us of America's great history want us to connect our current country to its past, which no longer exists, or perhaps only ever existed as words on a page. So authorites get credit/blame for things that happen. Hitler is to blame for 16 Million deaths (ludicrous), and Ronald Reagan is given credit for deregulation.
Authority is tautological because it defies logic because it doesn't exist. I have made a little phrase: "Authority is what seems like authority."
[X] is what seems like [X]
X = pornography, racism, homosexuality, a tree.
What must be grasped is that none of these concepts apply to reality. They are only part of a so-far useful construction, called language, that allows us to link thoughts to words. Language took a loong fucking time to develop, I bet. We say our ancestors were all dumb and shit but can you imagine being one of the first people to speak a language, or someone who helped? And they did all of this by accident. The most important things are never expressions of anyone's will, and this is what the illusion of authority tries to hide.
Situations. Authorities write situations. By this I mean that they supply the setting, plot, and characters for a play-like thing that they unfold before the audience/ actors. The secret of authority is that although authorities seem to get s to follow them, they are actually also following us. We go in circles around a field. Authority is a simulation of agency through situation construction.
Happiness is finding a situation you are in to be aesthetically pleasing.
Authorities are the descendants of Cain. They create his sign and have it placed on them. They are the one's asserting themselves destructively, through the destruction of worlds, in an unbalanced world. And Abel, the one who gets killed but is thought fondly of for being virtuous, that is who we are. Of course, there is no authority, and we are everything and nothing as well.
What does that mean?
Author. Author-ity. Author-ize. We see these words are connected. I was thinking about this connection and had some interesting thoughts.
Authority and power go together. At least, if you have power, you get to pretend that you are an authority. But if you're an authority, you don't always have power. If you are sticking a gun in my face, I'll say that yes, you're right, 2+2=5. But just because you know more than I do about something doesn't mean I'll listen to you, and there's no way you can make me. Dig?
So what's this authority thing all about? Well, I think it's about creation. It's a little known fact that we all create our own worlds. Not interpret objective reality differently, because there is no such thing as objective reality, but create reality through our perception. "there are no facts, only interpretations." But sometimes, people have different interpretations! What happens then? Well, the one with more "authority" imposes their interpretation on the other. What's happening here is that a world is being destroyed (The world the nonauthority used to live in), and a person is being forcibly moved into the world of the authority. Another hallmark of authority is that it doesn't strive to create more authorities, but wants to keep its own. So soldiers are sent to Iraq, but not consulted on strategy or whether they should stop fighting. Or, I am told things by my professors, but I'm not allowed to stray too far away from what they say, or I will fail.
Authorities are therefore authors. They write us into stories. What kind of story doesn't matter, and this is the secret of authority. Authority, and reactions to it, are what get remembered, and transcribed as relationships of power, by the authors, the authorities, of history. Of course they'll write themselves as having "power," and being in control, since the whole charm of authority is seeming authoritarian. In actual fact the entirety of authority lies in the writing of history, since history contextualizes the present, and influences our actions. Those who tell us of America's great history want us to connect our current country to its past, which no longer exists, or perhaps only ever existed as words on a page. So authorites get credit/blame for things that happen. Hitler is to blame for 16 Million deaths (ludicrous), and Ronald Reagan is given credit for deregulation.
Authority is tautological because it defies logic because it doesn't exist. I have made a little phrase: "Authority is what seems like authority."
[X] is what seems like [X]
X = pornography, racism, homosexuality, a tree.
What must be grasped is that none of these concepts apply to reality. They are only part of a so-far useful construction, called language, that allows us to link thoughts to words. Language took a loong fucking time to develop, I bet. We say our ancestors were all dumb and shit but can you imagine being one of the first people to speak a language, or someone who helped? And they did all of this by accident. The most important things are never expressions of anyone's will, and this is what the illusion of authority tries to hide.
Situations. Authorities write situations. By this I mean that they supply the setting, plot, and characters for a play-like thing that they unfold before the audience/ actors. The secret of authority is that although authorities seem to get s to follow them, they are actually also following us. We go in circles around a field. Authority is a simulation of agency through situation construction.
Happiness is finding a situation you are in to be aesthetically pleasing.
Authorities are the descendants of Cain. They create his sign and have it placed on them. They are the one's asserting themselves destructively, through the destruction of worlds, in an unbalanced world. And Abel, the one who gets killed but is thought fondly of for being virtuous, that is who we are. Of course, there is no authority, and we are everything and nothing as well.
I had an interested German class today.
First of all, I was high. And then, I borrowed a pencil from someone I didn't know, and then my teacher told us about how Germany is kinder to "Others" these days because they legally forbid "hateful"/ offensive speech. Isn't this kinda like abortion? If you make it illegal, it only becomes more dangerous. I didn't understand his point. And then, I learned that "Alles" is a simple noun, with an article "das." It's like saying, "the everything." Except it sounds a lot better. There's also "das All," which I think is something like universe, but I'm not sure.
Then I found out we have to write a love story in German for Monday. Professor Huff said "You can make it about whatever you want. A frog that falls in love with a pig. Entertain me." So I'm going to write an essay about a professor named Stephen Huff who reads a paper by Adam Wadley and falls in love with it and gives it an A+. And then I'm going to see what he gives me! Making life part of my art. I like this idea alot.
I realized how big the world is today! There's so much empty space that things feel unnaturally close. But try looking at the world like you're in a 3D video game! It's sick.
First of all, I was high. And then, I borrowed a pencil from someone I didn't know, and then my teacher told us about how Germany is kinder to "Others" these days because they legally forbid "hateful"/ offensive speech. Isn't this kinda like abortion? If you make it illegal, it only becomes more dangerous. I didn't understand his point. And then, I learned that "Alles" is a simple noun, with an article "das." It's like saying, "the everything." Except it sounds a lot better. There's also "das All," which I think is something like universe, but I'm not sure.
Then I found out we have to write a love story in German for Monday. Professor Huff said "You can make it about whatever you want. A frog that falls in love with a pig. Entertain me." So I'm going to write an essay about a professor named Stephen Huff who reads a paper by Adam Wadley and falls in love with it and gives it an A+. And then I'm going to see what he gives me! Making life part of my art. I like this idea alot.
I realized how big the world is today! There's so much empty space that things feel unnaturally close. But try looking at the world like you're in a 3D video game! It's sick.
so i set myself a task:
learn how not to ask
about the way authority
imposed itself onto me
was an 'I'
am now a "We"
gone is my humanity.
teacher says, it's alright dear,
your thoughts, you see, are just too queer,
"What's that, dear?"
can only fear
as we blink away a single tear.
I found myself getting biled up at finding myself.
We found ourselves getting riled up at finding ourselves.
learn how not to ask
about the way authority
imposed itself onto me
was an 'I'
am now a "We"
gone is my humanity.
teacher says, it's alright dear,
your thoughts, you see, are just too queer,
"What's that, dear?"
can only fear
as we blink away a single tear.
I found myself getting biled up at finding myself.
We found ourselves getting riled up at finding ourselves.
Poetry sandbox:
aloft, askew:
see-through.
adorned, forlorn:
the warned.
polyglots, who plot:
robots.
"This is a phrase" said the sayer, saying, "This is a phrase."
Perhaps the gaps between our minds are not incontrovertible;
If not, however, I believe they do remain subvertable.
Gals galore, a free rapport,
with the hostess and her better half,
have a laugh
and talk it over:
they just might teach you not to bore.
see-through.
adorned, forlorn:
the warned.
polyglots, who plot:
robots.
"This is a phrase" said the sayer, saying, "This is a phrase."
Perhaps the gaps between our minds are not incontrovertible;
If not, however, I believe they do remain subvertable.
Gals galore, a free rapport,
with the hostess and her better half,
have a laugh
and talk it over:
they just might teach you not to bore.
Jefferson Poem
This is a repost of a poem I wrote a year ago. It was inspired by Bob dylan's "talking blues songs," like Talkin' World War Three Blues," "John Birch Society Paranoid Schizophrenic Blues," and "Talkin' New York." All of these are great songs and I recommend them. (Youtube them!)
Thomas Jefferson visited me in a poem:
I almost didn't know'm.
He asked me how things were these days,
But I couldn't think of the right words to say,
So I decided to just show'm.
After all, since we're in a poem,
Travels are just turns of phrase.
We walked down a road, and saw a vet'ran
Finding a meal in a garbage bin.
We traveled to the once great plains
And to the Mississippi's now dark veins.
We flew high above our greatest cities
And inside tumors, itty-bitty,
And they looked the fucking same.
We sat on my couch and watched TV
After a while he said to me
You know, in my day, I fucked some slaves
But nothing then was this depraved.
I asked if he'd like to see a show,
And he checked his sun dial said, you know
It's really time for me to go.
So he clicked his heels and off he flew
Saying you know, I pity you.
"We hold these truths to be self evident..."
I sit and wonder where those words went.
Thomas Jefferson visited me in a poem:
I almost didn't know'm.
He asked me how things were these days,
But I couldn't think of the right words to say,
So I decided to just show'm.
After all, since we're in a poem,
Travels are just turns of phrase.
We walked down a road, and saw a vet'ran
Finding a meal in a garbage bin.
We traveled to the once great plains
And to the Mississippi's now dark veins.
We flew high above our greatest cities
And inside tumors, itty-bitty,
And they looked the fucking same.
We sat on my couch and watched TV
After a while he said to me
You know, in my day, I fucked some slaves
But nothing then was this depraved.
I asked if he'd like to see a show,
And he checked his sun dial said, you know
It's really time for me to go.
So he clicked his heels and off he flew
Saying you know, I pity you.
"We hold these truths to be self evident..."
I sit and wonder where those words went.
I'm going to comment on a piece I read on ESPN.com now.
This is a great descriptor of sports, I think. The players are paid to be slaves: to the system, to the coach, to the point that they don't choose who they play with, where they play, or what the rules of the game are. It's like a five person rock band that gives over its group membership, location selection (and are forced to live wherever their "home arena" is!), and the tunings on the instruments they play. At the same time, "stars" in sports get special rules, from foul and travel calls and noncalls to steroids in baseball to the Tom Brady rule.
Also, if you don't know what I'm referencing:
- In the NBA, star players are players who score a lot of points. This is the flashiest part of basketball. The dunks, the 3-Pointers, the contested shots. The showmanship aspect of basketball is well rewarded: players perceived as better are treated more leniently by the referees; more fouls are called on players guarding them (allowing them to shoot two free shots, further boosting their scoring totals. (the logical extreme of this type of player is Dwayne Wade, who in the 2008-2009 season made, on average, 10.8 of his total 30.2 points per game from free throws, over 33%)).
Additionally, good dunkers are allowed to violate the league's traveling rule, which states that a player may take no more steps after he has stopped dribbling. A player is only allowed to "pivot," that is, stay planted on one foot while moving the other. However, dunks look better when the player picks up his ball before he leaps up, when still in motion. Actually, the rule was forgotten as the NBA progressed, written in the original rulebook, for some reason, and then applied regressively over the league's early history.
- Steroids are big in the baseball world. Or, rather, sterroids scandals are big in the baseball world. Finally, maybe it is best put this way: steroid nonscandals are a big deal in the baseball world.
In 1994 the league had a strike, and a season was cut off halfway. There was no World Series. As a generational theater, this was a bad move. The public went away from baseball and on to football and basketball, catapulting the standing of those leagues in the lives of the people of America. What could solve this problem? (Since the league can follow only its own interests)
Steroids! Here comes Mark MacGwire, I hear he hit a ball 500 feet! No, wait, here's Sammy Sosa, I hear he cleans his yard with a baseball bat! (Aw shit that's racist) No wait, here's Barry Bonds, he's our black version of a mythical white figure! (that's Babe Ruth, the founding celebrity of mediated baseball)
And then baseball went nuts. It became totally cutthroat, or perhaps only more openly so: the potential revenues skyrocketed as some of the population became very rich, and luxury boxes began to appear in stadiums. Nowadays, stadiums derive much more revenue from the more expensive seats than they did before. Instead of having first-to-come-first-served, democratic seating system, sports arenas have boxes, like old-timey theaters, for privileged patrons to watch from (and lose the humanity of the experience).
So the "baseball fans" were really just strung along by this group of money bastards who saw the whole thing as an enterprise, a system of investment and recouperation (and what recouperation! stadiums are often subsidized by local taxpayers!).
- Some rules stuff: in football, a player called the quarterback at one point steps back into an open field that some of his teammates, in a line, are defending from the opposing team's "rushers." He is looking for another one of his own teammates to throw the ball to, and his team will gain the amount of distance to where the second ball carrier can carry the ball. If one of the opposing "rushers" breaks through his team's "line," and tackles the quarterback when the quarterback has the ball, after which the quarterback drops the ball, one of two things could happen, and they are dictated by this rule:
So, if the Quarterback has already pulled his arm back, and has begun the forward motion of a pass, then the ball will not be recoverable by the opposing team, since an "incomplete pass" is not recoverable by the opposing team once it has hit the ground.
On the other hand, the last line of the rule says that if the Quarterback has tucked the ball before getting hit, then it will count as fumbled if dropped and that therefore the opposing team can recover the ball.
Now, the favortism:
In one of the plays in the 2002 AFC Divisional Playoff game, Tom Brady was hit in the pocket by Charles Woodson. He dropped the ball. Raiders player Greg Biekert jumped on it to recover it, and the ball was ruled fumbled, and recovered by the Raiders. At this point in the game there were less than two minutes left to play, and the Raiders led 13-10. If they had recovered the ball, they would have won. Now let me hit you with this: Charles Woodson is black, and Tom Brady is white.
Some people respond to that by saying that Quarterbacks are just predominantly white and linebackers are usually black.
To which I respond: exactly!
So here's what happened next: the call went up for "official review." In the NFL, calls (evaluations of rule infractions) can be challenged by the coaches. [they have to throw red flags on the field, it's hilarious] This was not such a situation. The "officials" of the game decided that the call needed to be inspected more closely.
It is not normal in sports to have someone reviewing a video recording of a play to analyze minute movements in the action, especially to decide such a thing as the SuperBowl. These "officials" are probably porxies for the owners of the teams and the league. The money in sports came after sports. Sports are like a shell for their hermit crabs of owners. The owner is no longer associated with the franchise, and the team is kind of autonomous, a collection of people (players, coaches, staff, maintenance workers, fans) all trying to do something together who need a lot of money to give it a purpose.
Q: What are some of the issues you see facing the Redskins' transition from a 4-3 to a 3-4, and how do you feel about Jim Haslett? It seems like it could be a hard transition because the Redskins have run a 4-3 for so long. What do you think?
Zach in Frederickburg, Va.
A: Haslett is a good defensive coach, and he brings a lot of the zone-blitzing schemes to Washington that he learned when he was with the Steelers. The biggest transition is involving Albert Haynesworth. He loves being a defensive tackle in a 4-3. He might not take to being a nose tackle or a defensive end who is forced to two-gap. Haslett's biggest challenge is having Haynesworth buy into the scheme and using him effectively. With the Redskins last season and with the Titans the rest of his career, Haynesworth was double-teamed, but he was allowed to worry about only one gap. There will be an adjustment at cornerback too, because there will be more zone defensive plays. In a perfect world, the Redskins would find a veteran nose tackle to handle the dirty work and let Haynesworth destroy things from the defensive end position.
- John Clayton "mailbag" column.
This is a great descriptor of sports, I think. The players are paid to be slaves: to the system, to the coach, to the point that they don't choose who they play with, where they play, or what the rules of the game are. It's like a five person rock band that gives over its group membership, location selection (and are forced to live wherever their "home arena" is!), and the tunings on the instruments they play. At the same time, "stars" in sports get special rules, from foul and travel calls and noncalls to steroids in baseball to the Tom Brady rule.
Also, if you don't know what I'm referencing:
- In the NBA, star players are players who score a lot of points. This is the flashiest part of basketball. The dunks, the 3-Pointers, the contested shots. The showmanship aspect of basketball is well rewarded: players perceived as better are treated more leniently by the referees; more fouls are called on players guarding them (allowing them to shoot two free shots, further boosting their scoring totals. (the logical extreme of this type of player is Dwayne Wade, who in the 2008-2009 season made, on average, 10.8 of his total 30.2 points per game from free throws, over 33%)).
Additionally, good dunkers are allowed to violate the league's traveling rule, which states that a player may take no more steps after he has stopped dribbling. A player is only allowed to "pivot," that is, stay planted on one foot while moving the other. However, dunks look better when the player picks up his ball before he leaps up, when still in motion. Actually, the rule was forgotten as the NBA progressed, written in the original rulebook, for some reason, and then applied regressively over the league's early history.
- Steroids are big in the baseball world. Or, rather, sterroids scandals are big in the baseball world. Finally, maybe it is best put this way: steroid nonscandals are a big deal in the baseball world.
In 1994 the league had a strike, and a season was cut off halfway. There was no World Series. As a generational theater, this was a bad move. The public went away from baseball and on to football and basketball, catapulting the standing of those leagues in the lives of the people of America. What could solve this problem? (Since the league can follow only its own interests)
Steroids! Here comes Mark MacGwire, I hear he hit a ball 500 feet! No, wait, here's Sammy Sosa, I hear he cleans his yard with a baseball bat! (Aw shit that's racist) No wait, here's Barry Bonds, he's our black version of a mythical white figure! (that's Babe Ruth, the founding celebrity of mediated baseball)
And then baseball went nuts. It became totally cutthroat, or perhaps only more openly so: the potential revenues skyrocketed as some of the population became very rich, and luxury boxes began to appear in stadiums. Nowadays, stadiums derive much more revenue from the more expensive seats than they did before. Instead of having first-to-come-first-served, democratic seating system, sports arenas have boxes, like old-timey theaters, for privileged patrons to watch from (and lose the humanity of the experience).
So the "baseball fans" were really just strung along by this group of money bastards who saw the whole thing as an enterprise, a system of investment and recouperation (and what recouperation! stadiums are often subsidized by local taxpayers!).
- Some rules stuff: in football, a player called the quarterback at one point steps back into an open field that some of his teammates, in a line, are defending from the opposing team's "rushers." He is looking for another one of his own teammates to throw the ball to, and his team will gain the amount of distance to where the second ball carrier can carry the ball. If one of the opposing "rushers" breaks through his team's "line," and tackles the quarterback when the quarterback has the ball, after which the quarterback drops the ball, one of two things could happen, and they are dictated by this rule:
NFL Rule 3, Section 21, Article 2, Note 2. When [an offensive] player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his arm starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body. Also, if the player has tucked the ball into his body and then loses possession, it is a fumble.[4]
So, if the Quarterback has already pulled his arm back, and has begun the forward motion of a pass, then the ball will not be recoverable by the opposing team, since an "incomplete pass" is not recoverable by the opposing team once it has hit the ground.
On the other hand, the last line of the rule says that if the Quarterback has tucked the ball before getting hit, then it will count as fumbled if dropped and that therefore the opposing team can recover the ball.
Now, the favortism:
In one of the plays in the 2002 AFC Divisional Playoff game, Tom Brady was hit in the pocket by Charles Woodson. He dropped the ball. Raiders player Greg Biekert jumped on it to recover it, and the ball was ruled fumbled, and recovered by the Raiders. At this point in the game there were less than two minutes left to play, and the Raiders led 13-10. If they had recovered the ball, they would have won. Now let me hit you with this: Charles Woodson is black, and Tom Brady is white.
Some people respond to that by saying that Quarterbacks are just predominantly white and linebackers are usually black.
To which I respond: exactly!
So here's what happened next: the call went up for "official review." In the NFL, calls (evaluations of rule infractions) can be challenged by the coaches. [they have to throw red flags on the field, it's hilarious] This was not such a situation. The "officials" of the game decided that the call needed to be inspected more closely.
It is not normal in sports to have someone reviewing a video recording of a play to analyze minute movements in the action, especially to decide such a thing as the SuperBowl. These "officials" are probably porxies for the owners of the teams and the league. The money in sports came after sports. Sports are like a shell for their hermit crabs of owners. The owner is no longer associated with the franchise, and the team is kind of autonomous, a collection of people (players, coaches, staff, maintenance workers, fans) all trying to do something together who need a lot of money to give it a purpose.
The Western concept of love is contradictory and needs to be replaced, since it has no meaning.
This is how I see love presented: sometimes you love people, sometimes you don't. it just happens, you don't try or get better at making it happen, except in very superficial ways (he's just not that into you, miss congeniality). Love is an outside force, present only sometimes.
This doesn't make any sense. Way create a concept we can never understand?
If some acts are loving and some things are not loving, who decided what was and was not love? Why can radically other configurations not be possible? In the Bible, God monopolizes love. Satan hates love. How can we say some people are incapable, or do not feel love? Having a narrow definition of such a central concept in the understanding of human life makes a part of humanity exclusive. Agreeing love sometimes happens means thinking that some, or all people, do not know how to love, or what love is. And if they do it, they do it by accident. Only some lovers are agents. Really?
I propose, in opposition, that both everything and nothing is love. And everything in between, too. Love is its own existence, as a concept, phenomenon, experience, field of study, topic of poetry, songs, theater, movies, paintings, sculptures, drawings, pornography, religion, and endless other things; the smallest gestures can be love, perhaps all gestures. At the same time, this pleasure exists only because it is agreed upon. Like any other aspect of society, it is negotiated and not a simple "active/passive" dichotomy.
"I love you" is really a terrible expression, since it implies that there is a subject and object of love. I propose in contra that love creates a higher creature, the living thing that is the relationship. Animal Magnetism. We have no way of expressing the idea I'm trying to, so use your imagination. Something is brought into existence that doesn't exist, the thoughts of the other person when they're not around, the polymerization of perspectives that occurs, similarly but differently in each person. This adds up to a much more mysterious conception of love, one which is like a ghost which haunts us, always present but only visible sometimes, when it sends a shiver up our spine.
This is how I see love presented: sometimes you love people, sometimes you don't. it just happens, you don't try or get better at making it happen, except in very superficial ways (he's just not that into you, miss congeniality). Love is an outside force, present only sometimes.
This doesn't make any sense. Way create a concept we can never understand?
If some acts are loving and some things are not loving, who decided what was and was not love? Why can radically other configurations not be possible? In the Bible, God monopolizes love. Satan hates love. How can we say some people are incapable, or do not feel love? Having a narrow definition of such a central concept in the understanding of human life makes a part of humanity exclusive. Agreeing love sometimes happens means thinking that some, or all people, do not know how to love, or what love is. And if they do it, they do it by accident. Only some lovers are agents. Really?
I propose, in opposition, that both everything and nothing is love. And everything in between, too. Love is its own existence, as a concept, phenomenon, experience, field of study, topic of poetry, songs, theater, movies, paintings, sculptures, drawings, pornography, religion, and endless other things; the smallest gestures can be love, perhaps all gestures. At the same time, this pleasure exists only because it is agreed upon. Like any other aspect of society, it is negotiated and not a simple "active/passive" dichotomy.
"I love you" is really a terrible expression, since it implies that there is a subject and object of love. I propose in contra that love creates a higher creature, the living thing that is the relationship. Animal Magnetism. We have no way of expressing the idea I'm trying to, so use your imagination. Something is brought into existence that doesn't exist, the thoughts of the other person when they're not around, the polymerization of perspectives that occurs, similarly but differently in each person. This adds up to a much more mysterious conception of love, one which is like a ghost which haunts us, always present but only visible sometimes, when it sends a shiver up our spine.
Metaphor on Hierarchy
the conception of hierarchy is one of an institutionalized power structure, sort of like a pyramid scheme, in which one's quality of life is measured by how many people are below some quantitative measurement of that society's values, like holiness, literacy, intelligence, wealth.
this is a seductive idea. but i'm skeptical of it.
i believe that we recreate our bodily structures on the scale of our lives, assuming one role in a complex communal body. these are the "systems" of the body recognized by science
(read: wikipedia). i will give the societal approximation (keep in mind that any conception, as a comparison, metaphor for the world, is only an approximation):
maybe you noticed a big one missing. the one that holds everything together. the one we privilege over the others, in our conceptions, which isn't odd, considering the nervous system is what does the conceiving anyway.
the possibility of hierarchy comes down to this, for me: can our brain be said to control our bodies? if not, no society can control people, since our fundamental method of intracommunication is insufficient to support such a system.
say that our brain really can make the body do whatever it wants to. still, it is bound by what the body can do, while its own conceptions show it how lacking those capabilies are, leading to the meaninglessness of life (and remember, this is the best case scenario!).
this is a seductive idea. but i'm skeptical of it.
i believe that we recreate our bodily structures on the scale of our lives, assuming one role in a complex communal body. these are the "systems" of the body recognized by science
(read: wikipedia). i will give the societal approximation (keep in mind that any conception, as a comparison, metaphor for the world, is only an approximation):
- Circulatory system: pumping and channeling blood to and from the body and lungs with heart, blood and blood vessels. societal equivalent: circulation of goods within a society- the transportation system
- Digestive system: digestion and processing food with salivary glands, esophagus, stomach, liver, gallbladder, pancreas, intestines, rectum and anus. societal equivalent: the production of useful products out of raw material from outside out bodies
- Endocrine system: communication within the body using hormones made by endocrine glands such as the hypothalamus, pituitary or pituitary gland, pineal body or pineal gland, thyroid, parathyroids and adrenals, i.e., adrenal glands. societal equivalent:information relay, the media. this is regulation of emotion
- Integumentary system: skin, hair, fat, and nails. societal equivalent:border control, and also the parts of us that are dead, like the homeless and infirm, who exist only so we can take care of them.
- Lymphatic system: structures involved in the transfer of lymph between tissues and the blood stream, the lymph and the nodes and vessels that transport it including the Immune system: defending against disease-causing agents with leukocytes, tonsils, adenoids, thymus and spleen. societal equivalent: all caring for well-being, as far as being healthy is concerned. doctors! parents! and all regulation. the people who get upset when you're sick.
- Muscular system: movement with muscles. societal equivalent:movement of society through the world: expansion, colonization, nomads. based on internal dissemination (circulation), of course, but all these systems are mutually dependent.
- Reproductive system: the sex organs, such as ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus, vagina, mammary glands, testes, vas deferens, seminal vesicles, prostate and penis. societal equivalent:respiratory politics. masters fucking slaves. rape after war. finding new members of the clan and taking advantage of their bodies/ DNA.
- Respiratory system: the organs used for breathing, the pharynx, larynx, trachea, bronchi, lungs and diaphragm. societal equivalent:i'm going to say energy extraction, like wood, oil, fat. what gets moved about by the circulation system.
- Skeletal system: structural support and protection with bones, cartilage, ligaments and tendons. societal equivalent: government? tradition? the foundation, tenets, core, of a society.
- Urinary system: kidneys, ureters, bladder and urethra involved in fluid balance, electrolyte balance and excretion of urine. societal equivalent: recycling and garbage. keep anything we can use, get rid of all else. maybe someone else can?
- Endocannabinoid system: neuromodulatory lipids and receptors involved in a variety of physiological processes including appetite, pain-sensation, mood, motor learning, synaptic plasticity, and memory. societal equivalent: education. the part that cultivates passions in people, in order to serve society. all advertisement, all carrots, all sticks. all art. all these things teach us what it means to be a human in our society.
maybe you noticed a big one missing. the one that holds everything together. the one we privilege over the others, in our conceptions, which isn't odd, considering the nervous system is what does the conceiving anyway.
the possibility of hierarchy comes down to this, for me: can our brain be said to control our bodies? if not, no society can control people, since our fundamental method of intracommunication is insufficient to support such a system.
say that our brain really can make the body do whatever it wants to. still, it is bound by what the body can do, while its own conceptions show it how lacking those capabilies are, leading to the meaninglessness of life (and remember, this is the best case scenario!).
Some well-known Uncle Toms
- any artist who has been subsidized/ patronized, or fucking all of them: any renaissance shit you want to bring up, mark rothko, fuckin' everyone ever. the beatles, dylan, beethoven, mozart. entering into society to do art is a classic uncle tom maneuver; whether you're getting paid by the king or the comp'ny ain't nothin' but a G thang. the risk of persuasion is here represented by "selling out." ya know?
- it's an easy one, but have you heard of a "wigger"? same old prejudice.
- a prospective revolutionary. our first alliance is always with ourselves. when we compromise our views to enter an organization, we're taking a risk, that we wind up being in the group because it helps us do what we want to, and are not exploited by only being able to strive for what is "possible" given the structure of the group, and our place in it.
- it's an easy one, but have you heard of a "wigger"? same old prejudice.
- a prospective revolutionary. our first alliance is always with ourselves. when we compromise our views to enter an organization, we're taking a risk, that we wind up being in the group because it helps us do what we want to, and are not exploited by only being able to strive for what is "possible" given the structure of the group, and our place in it.
from one uncle tom to another: we should choose different names! like "progressives"
people take shits on uncle toms all the time.
i see it kind of like affirmative action, in that it was begun with good intentions and good results and then failed to adapt to changing times. it must be noted that slave in cahoots with the master is likely to be treated better than one who is obviously against him (house negros versus field negros). aside from this, it can also be interpreted as a sign of agency among slaves, and their attempts to escape captivity.
but think about it. everyone hates uncle toms. uncle toms were treated as "race traitors" by both blacks and whites. a domesticated native shows two things:
1) foreign peoples can be dominated, showing that their capacity for knowledge was not limited by their bodies,
2) there was never anything intrinsic about the white man's ability to perform his duties in the world. the meaning of his existence did not turn out to be particular about him, and exposing that all he was capable was only an expression of a general human capability, thus killing his ability to see himself as a god.
the leaders of peoples used to be considered gods! on another plane, unreachable. emperors are a watered-down version of this, although they can be backed up by a strong religious conviction (exhibit I: the vatican). monarchs are a little further down, since it starts to matter who your family is, as opposed to pharaoh dominating their family life. that's evolutionary power. 2,000 wives? hello?? Let's call this what it is: someone using power explicitly to have as many children as possible. Or to act out satisfying the craving of fucking tons of virgins, without realizing that his was acting dialectically.
that's what power is. reproduction. that's a big secret but it's soo true. check it: "i am the state." no politician can claim that today, and if they can, it's a big secret. no one accepts total domination point blank anymore. which makes power more insidious, because it becomes more fluid. another effect is that any one person on the planet today cannot wield as much power (whatever that means) over another as was possible in the past. we have gotten more social. it's what we evolved to do and goddamnit, we're doing it.
i believe "uncle toms," domesticated slaves (t can't believe I have to use that word in basic history. slave? what the FUCK, CATHOLICISM. you make me think about slavehood, i should never have had to know such a thing could ever exist. my life is beset by the contradictions i perceive, and is motivated only by a militaristic need to stand by my fellow man, and be strong in their face.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rNPooTVM3Q
clearly, this is not a human aspect that's particular to slaves. everyone feels the things a slave feels. our brains are wired to feel them, no matter what our stimula, for the regulation of our bodies! enhanced emotion is a higher evolutionary function, people!),
were the plot of a revolutionary movement of slaves. we don't usually think of slaves as being capable of planning things, down to deliberately not explaining government policy to citizens. down to sterilizing people of color. but all these things are the same "racism." slaves were just as smart as we are. maybe smarter (i'm trying to sneak my way into goldman sachs but it's not going too well).
the reason a revolutionary organization would want to create uncle toms is to facilitate the infiltration of the masters house and find out more about him. that's the first thing you would need to do, as a prisoner. try to see if you should be trying to fight or make friends. as more is learned, that benefit starts to go down. If you learn the language, you can try to trick them into giving you information about them if you're nice, which might help you get better conditions or find out how to escape. thinks the slave: show me the riverroad. so the infiltration method is only the first step of a larger process.
the only thing that can keep you from getting to the second step is:
- Persuasion.
yep, just one. as long as you don't go over to the other side, you remain part of the group and resist their reality. but this exposes itself as a general approach to reality (which requires the internal/external divide):
as long as you stay inside yourself, inside conceptions of what's happening in your body, regulating your emotions as your first priority, you are yourself. when you choose to allow the outside world into your thought process, and don't think about what comes in to see if it makes sense of not, given your experience, you give yourself over to an authority. author-ity. get it? within this metaphor (these are all but signs), it is up to you to write your own story of the world.
so the slaves have created a community amongst themselves. they are aware of different personalities among their members, remember complex emotional histories, and construct projections of what consequences their actions can have. when they leave that history, they join the other group.
but in fact, every person is a group. you can be as literally biologically as you want, but even as far as ideas are made up of many voices. all the variety of human expression can only begin to express the plurality and infinite of human emotion. today i am happy adam and tomorrow i am sad adam. where is "adam"? and yeah, organs? cells? ribosomes? where is the "individual"? this is but an image of humanity- if you squint, you can't see it anymore. so here's the news:
ALL SOCIETY IS SLAVERY.
ALL COMMUNITY IS SOCIETY.
ALL COMMUNICATION IS COMMUNITY.
ALL MEANING IS COMMUNICATION.
ALL INFORMATION IS MEANING.
ALL PERCEPTION IS INFORMATION.
ALL IS PERCEPTION.
in that vein, working with the idea that there's some slavery of each group of people to the others, here's one of the central ideas behind the "savage"/ "noble savage" idea:
(by the way, what a fucking stupid idea.
actually, consider this: colonizers were also noble savages. clearly they were winning people from the other clan. that's all it is: getting followers to have your group win in case of a war, which happens when there's too many people and resources are scarce. the only difference now is that in business, the leader is not personally connected to his workers, but ideologically. the same leaders ride the companies over the sea of the economy (and this is one of the purest metaphors for the economy that exists, along with ripples on a pond and vibrations of a string), and all the sailors fancy themselves as pirates, and can't wait to become a captain and do their thing.The threat of an other is that they will win over members of your own sect. a "noble slave" is thus hated by both the masters and the slaves, because they tread the no-man's land between the two groups' competing interests. by doing what is best for the individual, community with others is destroyed for the noble savage, and everyone else.
as far as moralizing goes, there are a couple pressing questions. the most important of these is:
were other societies of slaves hierarchical? and what does that say about humanity as a whole, and both the races as members of that existence?
which leads to another deciding question: were other slave societies inclusive?
we hear about the killings of twins, of cannibalism. but could ancient societies truly have been respectful to everyone? "maybe with fewer people..." we think. but maybe that emotion was an evolutionary signal to start wars and curb population growth? why are we so sure the past was not in harmony, and the present is? what is that special property of the present that makes it special to us? it seems controllable, we can do something about this. the past is the past is the passed.
when an other is created, the domestic is defined. the boundaries tell us what we think of ourselves, where we choose to end our sense of familiarity. we now become acquainted with tens of thousands of people in our lifetimes, ethnic cabdrivers, to fellow banished smokers at a bar. think about how any people we have to become, the ways our identity is fractured. every picture, every product of human presence. this is not home. this is a frighteningly partially engineered environment.
so for an individual labeled an uncle tom while not actually having been persuaded by the masters to renounce his former history, the experience is quite complex. "loyalty" is a word simply thrown around, but here the double slave has three perspectives: their own, that of their slave collective, and that of the masters. on top of that, every level has its own politics. as fluid as we are, so are our environments and fellow people. "active" and "passive" are arbitrary designations, defined by "power," an extremely nebulous concept.
being persuaded to the master's point of view (rejection of self and clan) or not (either embracing clan membership as a voluntary extension of self or rejecting self and embracing the clan's ideology (Weltanschauung)) is an equally imaginary binary. Is it wrong to see the master as a human being? does this betray the revolutionary movement? And how do you deal with being an effective actor? you become a double agent, a triple agent, a quadruple agent, trying to convince everybody, and getting confused about whom you're convincing under pretext and whom you're convincing because you really identify with them. no to mention being frustrated because what if there are no communities you want to join?
what would you do if you had to watch tv and there was nothing on you wanted to watch?
this is the life of a slave, of everyone.
i'm trying to show that "uncle toms" are what we all are, caught in a place with many authorities who want us to join their society. the thing is, though, that we are all our own gods. our bodies mean something. we're not in an ether, swimming with everyone else.
YOU ARE YOU AND NO ONE ELSE IS YOU.
i see it kind of like affirmative action, in that it was begun with good intentions and good results and then failed to adapt to changing times. it must be noted that slave in cahoots with the master is likely to be treated better than one who is obviously against him (house negros versus field negros). aside from this, it can also be interpreted as a sign of agency among slaves, and their attempts to escape captivity.
but think about it. everyone hates uncle toms. uncle toms were treated as "race traitors" by both blacks and whites. a domesticated native shows two things:
1) foreign peoples can be dominated, showing that their capacity for knowledge was not limited by their bodies,
2) there was never anything intrinsic about the white man's ability to perform his duties in the world. the meaning of his existence did not turn out to be particular about him, and exposing that all he was capable was only an expression of a general human capability, thus killing his ability to see himself as a god.
the leaders of peoples used to be considered gods! on another plane, unreachable. emperors are a watered-down version of this, although they can be backed up by a strong religious conviction (exhibit I: the vatican). monarchs are a little further down, since it starts to matter who your family is, as opposed to pharaoh dominating their family life. that's evolutionary power. 2,000 wives? hello?? Let's call this what it is: someone using power explicitly to have as many children as possible. Or to act out satisfying the craving of fucking tons of virgins, without realizing that his was acting dialectically.
that's what power is. reproduction. that's a big secret but it's soo true. check it: "i am the state." no politician can claim that today, and if they can, it's a big secret. no one accepts total domination point blank anymore. which makes power more insidious, because it becomes more fluid. another effect is that any one person on the planet today cannot wield as much power (whatever that means) over another as was possible in the past. we have gotten more social. it's what we evolved to do and goddamnit, we're doing it.
i believe "uncle toms," domesticated slaves (t can't believe I have to use that word in basic history. slave? what the FUCK, CATHOLICISM. you make me think about slavehood, i should never have had to know such a thing could ever exist. my life is beset by the contradictions i perceive, and is motivated only by a militaristic need to stand by my fellow man, and be strong in their face.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rNPooTVM3Q
clearly, this is not a human aspect that's particular to slaves. everyone feels the things a slave feels. our brains are wired to feel them, no matter what our stimula, for the regulation of our bodies! enhanced emotion is a higher evolutionary function, people!),
were the plot of a revolutionary movement of slaves. we don't usually think of slaves as being capable of planning things, down to deliberately not explaining government policy to citizens. down to sterilizing people of color. but all these things are the same "racism." slaves were just as smart as we are. maybe smarter (i'm trying to sneak my way into goldman sachs but it's not going too well).
the reason a revolutionary organization would want to create uncle toms is to facilitate the infiltration of the masters house and find out more about him. that's the first thing you would need to do, as a prisoner. try to see if you should be trying to fight or make friends. as more is learned, that benefit starts to go down. If you learn the language, you can try to trick them into giving you information about them if you're nice, which might help you get better conditions or find out how to escape. thinks the slave: show me the riverroad. so the infiltration method is only the first step of a larger process.
the only thing that can keep you from getting to the second step is:
- Persuasion.
yep, just one. as long as you don't go over to the other side, you remain part of the group and resist their reality. but this exposes itself as a general approach to reality (which requires the internal/external divide):
as long as you stay inside yourself, inside conceptions of what's happening in your body, regulating your emotions as your first priority, you are yourself. when you choose to allow the outside world into your thought process, and don't think about what comes in to see if it makes sense of not, given your experience, you give yourself over to an authority. author-ity. get it? within this metaphor (these are all but signs), it is up to you to write your own story of the world.
so the slaves have created a community amongst themselves. they are aware of different personalities among their members, remember complex emotional histories, and construct projections of what consequences their actions can have. when they leave that history, they join the other group.
but in fact, every person is a group. you can be as literally biologically as you want, but even as far as ideas are made up of many voices. all the variety of human expression can only begin to express the plurality and infinite of human emotion. today i am happy adam and tomorrow i am sad adam. where is "adam"? and yeah, organs? cells? ribosomes? where is the "individual"? this is but an image of humanity- if you squint, you can't see it anymore. so here's the news:
ALL SOCIETY IS SLAVERY.
ALL COMMUNITY IS SOCIETY.
ALL COMMUNICATION IS COMMUNITY.
ALL MEANING IS COMMUNICATION.
ALL INFORMATION IS MEANING.
ALL PERCEPTION IS INFORMATION.
ALL IS PERCEPTION.
in that vein, working with the idea that there's some slavery of each group of people to the others, here's one of the central ideas behind the "savage"/ "noble savage" idea:
(by the way, what a fucking stupid idea.
actually, consider this: colonizers were also noble savages. clearly they were winning people from the other clan. that's all it is: getting followers to have your group win in case of a war, which happens when there's too many people and resources are scarce. the only difference now is that in business, the leader is not personally connected to his workers, but ideologically. the same leaders ride the companies over the sea of the economy (and this is one of the purest metaphors for the economy that exists, along with ripples on a pond and vibrations of a string), and all the sailors fancy themselves as pirates, and can't wait to become a captain and do their thing.The threat of an other is that they will win over members of your own sect. a "noble slave" is thus hated by both the masters and the slaves, because they tread the no-man's land between the two groups' competing interests. by doing what is best for the individual, community with others is destroyed for the noble savage, and everyone else.
as far as moralizing goes, there are a couple pressing questions. the most important of these is:
were other societies of slaves hierarchical? and what does that say about humanity as a whole, and both the races as members of that existence?
which leads to another deciding question: were other slave societies inclusive?
we hear about the killings of twins, of cannibalism. but could ancient societies truly have been respectful to everyone? "maybe with fewer people..." we think. but maybe that emotion was an evolutionary signal to start wars and curb population growth? why are we so sure the past was not in harmony, and the present is? what is that special property of the present that makes it special to us? it seems controllable, we can do something about this. the past is the past is the passed.
when an other is created, the domestic is defined. the boundaries tell us what we think of ourselves, where we choose to end our sense of familiarity. we now become acquainted with tens of thousands of people in our lifetimes, ethnic cabdrivers, to fellow banished smokers at a bar. think about how any people we have to become, the ways our identity is fractured. every picture, every product of human presence. this is not home. this is a frighteningly partially engineered environment.
so for an individual labeled an uncle tom while not actually having been persuaded by the masters to renounce his former history, the experience is quite complex. "loyalty" is a word simply thrown around, but here the double slave has three perspectives: their own, that of their slave collective, and that of the masters. on top of that, every level has its own politics. as fluid as we are, so are our environments and fellow people. "active" and "passive" are arbitrary designations, defined by "power," an extremely nebulous concept.
being persuaded to the master's point of view (rejection of self and clan) or not (either embracing clan membership as a voluntary extension of self or rejecting self and embracing the clan's ideology (Weltanschauung)) is an equally imaginary binary. Is it wrong to see the master as a human being? does this betray the revolutionary movement? And how do you deal with being an effective actor? you become a double agent, a triple agent, a quadruple agent, trying to convince everybody, and getting confused about whom you're convincing under pretext and whom you're convincing because you really identify with them. no to mention being frustrated because what if there are no communities you want to join?
what would you do if you had to watch tv and there was nothing on you wanted to watch?
this is the life of a slave, of everyone.
i'm trying to show that "uncle toms" are what we all are, caught in a place with many authorities who want us to join their society. the thing is, though, that we are all our own gods. our bodies mean something. we're not in an ether, swimming with everyone else.
YOU ARE YOU AND NO ONE ELSE IS YOU.
Word/ Wake Up!
- A Private College Student's Take on what Ails Us as a People
The oppression of the police can be easily summed up in the following way: the police do not follow the laws more often than the rest of the population- on the contrary, less so.
The idea of having a sector of society, who have both more effective means and looser codes of conduct than other sectors' with regard to the treatment of other human beings, not only tolerated but venerated sickens me. I know that many find it unappealing to talk about things on an abstract level, but listen a moment.
It is supposed to be the case that the police and the people had an equal degree of secrecy: both try to keep as much from each other as possible. Civilians working with the police is a direct influx of capital into politics. Here, this is one of the spigots of water filling the tub faster than it can drain, and here we are, drowning.
Isn't it weird how much the police oversee? Can you imagine the villagers of Washington's time standing for a foreign owned security force? The subjugation of land inevitably leads to the expansion of the perceived "domestic" and the perceived "foreign," as more territory is subsumed, but ever more is discovered and the subjugation process repeats itself. Simultaneously the system gets more complex on the inside, so that more power can be contained in a smaller geographic space (I'm talking about industrialization, the formation of concentration camps, or cities, for people to dedicate their work to the state in).
Regardless, in strict social terms, the people we know are not the only important people in our lives, or even the most important. If Uncle Sam drafts me into the Vietnam war, maybe I die at nineteen. Where is my mother when I am on the field of battle? My father is there.
The entirety of the United States government has ZERO seats in congress or the senate. Political parties violate the spirit of our government because they create a bureaucratic hierarchy of political discourse. The faults of this nation were not all created when the Constitution was written; it was a progressive document when it was written, and we should not forget or scorn our history as progressives. What I mean to do is point out that our country does not have to be the way it is, based on our constitution. Think about all the other laws that were written after that, all the drug bannings, antisuffrage and pro-slave moments
(pro-slave? Are you fucking kidding me? Try talking about how you're uncomfortable with your body in 1857 when it turns out the government literally wants to enslave people and doesn't even try to hide it. Cheese and Crackers! Are you also having trouble imagining how hard it must have been to live in those times? Let's cut the founding fathers some slack. Think of progressiveness over time as a kind of inflation: no matter how progressive you are (how cheep coke used to be), after a certain amount of time you become an asshole (it takes more dough to get some! It's great that you have nickels from 1957, but this Coke's from 2010). We're all going to be assholes in the future, let's be honest. Unless we create a different environment now! Don't let people create scapegoats in the ghosts of our past. We are people, one.),
that were ratified by the politicians and their children to whom we gave (or: who took) the power of government when this country was formed, and are not inherent to the document itself. Then again, if you want to see it was the document that only represented a generally brutal and bloodthirsty folks, which I can also get behind. I guess it just comes down to how you judge statements like this:
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. "
Do you think Jefferson is more implying:
1) that democracy is a foolhardy idea, and that he thinks tyrannical impositions must be made on such a system, or
2) does he think that the idea of democracy is just the best idea we've had so far?
This is what it means to be radical. To know that none of us has succeeded yet, because as long as some are under domination, all are under domination. This is intrinsically true of all social activity. If you're visiting a couple and the wife is bossing the husband around and not letting him get any words in (or vice-verse), and you don't say or do anything, you are also being dominated. Since it's established that the "kingdom of god" has not been established, nowhere, and that no idea has "changed the world" in and of its own accord, and that there is no "ideology" as such, until we learn to trust our own judgment in terms of what we personally believe, and not based on the best available group or club, we, friends, will not be human agents. People in the future are going to be blaming us for all the shit that's happening now. Doesn't that seem unfair, since the government is so fucked up now? Well here's the news: it's always been fucked up. All proletarians have always denied agency when it comes to their collective history! And we follow in those footsteps. This is the sense in which the founding fathers are our ancestors. They mixed shit up. Were they corrupt? Sure, but so are we. There is nothing special about the present.
So stop living that way!
Adam Wadley
The oppression of the police can be easily summed up in the following way: the police do not follow the laws more often than the rest of the population- on the contrary, less so.
The idea of having a sector of society, who have both more effective means and looser codes of conduct than other sectors' with regard to the treatment of other human beings, not only tolerated but venerated sickens me. I know that many find it unappealing to talk about things on an abstract level, but listen a moment.
It is supposed to be the case that the police and the people had an equal degree of secrecy: both try to keep as much from each other as possible. Civilians working with the police is a direct influx of capital into politics. Here, this is one of the spigots of water filling the tub faster than it can drain, and here we are, drowning.
Isn't it weird how much the police oversee? Can you imagine the villagers of Washington's time standing for a foreign owned security force? The subjugation of land inevitably leads to the expansion of the perceived "domestic" and the perceived "foreign," as more territory is subsumed, but ever more is discovered and the subjugation process repeats itself. Simultaneously the system gets more complex on the inside, so that more power can be contained in a smaller geographic space (I'm talking about industrialization, the formation of concentration camps, or cities, for people to dedicate their work to the state in).
Regardless, in strict social terms, the people we know are not the only important people in our lives, or even the most important. If Uncle Sam drafts me into the Vietnam war, maybe I die at nineteen. Where is my mother when I am on the field of battle? My father is there.
The entirety of the United States government has ZERO seats in congress or the senate. Political parties violate the spirit of our government because they create a bureaucratic hierarchy of political discourse. The faults of this nation were not all created when the Constitution was written; it was a progressive document when it was written, and we should not forget or scorn our history as progressives. What I mean to do is point out that our country does not have to be the way it is, based on our constitution. Think about all the other laws that were written after that, all the drug bannings, antisuffrage and pro-slave moments
(pro-slave? Are you fucking kidding me? Try talking about how you're uncomfortable with your body in 1857 when it turns out the government literally wants to enslave people and doesn't even try to hide it. Cheese and Crackers! Are you also having trouble imagining how hard it must have been to live in those times? Let's cut the founding fathers some slack. Think of progressiveness over time as a kind of inflation: no matter how progressive you are (how cheep coke used to be), after a certain amount of time you become an asshole (it takes more dough to get some! It's great that you have nickels from 1957, but this Coke's from 2010). We're all going to be assholes in the future, let's be honest. Unless we create a different environment now! Don't let people create scapegoats in the ghosts of our past. We are people, one.),
that were ratified by the politicians and their children to whom we gave (or: who took) the power of government when this country was formed, and are not inherent to the document itself. Then again, if you want to see it was the document that only represented a generally brutal and bloodthirsty folks, which I can also get behind. I guess it just comes down to how you judge statements like this:
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. "
Do you think Jefferson is more implying:
1) that democracy is a foolhardy idea, and that he thinks tyrannical impositions must be made on such a system, or
2) does he think that the idea of democracy is just the best idea we've had so far?
This is what it means to be radical. To know that none of us has succeeded yet, because as long as some are under domination, all are under domination. This is intrinsically true of all social activity. If you're visiting a couple and the wife is bossing the husband around and not letting him get any words in (or vice-verse), and you don't say or do anything, you are also being dominated. Since it's established that the "kingdom of god" has not been established, nowhere, and that no idea has "changed the world" in and of its own accord, and that there is no "ideology" as such, until we learn to trust our own judgment in terms of what we personally believe, and not based on the best available group or club, we, friends, will not be human agents.
Bringing it all Back Home is a huge breakup with the listener.
The first half, rollicking, is the demonstration of the new Dylan, the one we wish hadn't come along. The one that really spoiled the whole messiah vibe he had going for him. This was the death of a celebrity with a soul (or what we thought showed a soul). Maybe he we showing us that that image was soulless, and that this was soul, or maybe he was saying it was impossible to ever convey soul through music, and that he wasn't even trying. Or maybe his martyrdom was that he was trying, so we that we wouldn't have to.
And you know what? You can't help but love it. That sharp guitar in Subterranean Homesick Blues, that voice that vibrates to your soul? The harmonica- for what reason, exactly? Coddling? And the didactic lyric, Dylan showing us what he thinks of us, our capability for meaning for existence. "Don't follow leaders, a-watch your parkin' meters." "Twenty years of schoolin' and they put you on the day shift." He's describing an industrial dystopia. And it's awesome.
And now we've got sort of a soundtrack-to-your-mind Dylan song. It's supposed to lead succession of images in the listener's mind (like a lot of his songs), and the music reinforces that mood in an understanding way, a coddling way, that Dylan doesn't often bring out (Just Like a Woman, Like a Rolling Stone). A way that makes us feel good for listening to it, because the universe it creates is sympathetic for the song's existence. Desolation Row was a cab ride. Come on. This is heartbreak! This is transcendence!
So now we get a protest song, and it becomes clear: Dylan is parading out his former selves. We got a "funny-cool-deep" song (Talking World War Three Blues, Motorpsycho Nightmare), an "emotional song with resonance" (Don't think Twice, It's Alright, It ain't Me, Babe), and an "anti-establishment in a biting and funny way" song (I Shall be Free & I Shall be Free no. 10, John Birch Society Paranoid Blues).This is horrible. He knows what we're thinking. The lack of a real "Blowin' in the Wind" type song speaks to Dylan's ability to take the distilled essense of that distinctive quality about the song and dilute it into all his songs, making us get closer to them to feel the same way. Sucking us in.
And here's a horror of a song. For two minutes, this is the most adorable, heartwarming song. Yet it still totally insults the listener: we're the ones "drawing conclusions on the walls" and "talking of situations." We're the pawns holding grudges. He's doting on someone on his level, someone who understands what he says. They're laughing at this song. But then the last verse, he trows that under the bus. It's like he's undercutting everyone under them in order to make her seem great, and then we at least see soul in that, but then he undercuts even her! Is he a solipsist? or what?!
Now here comes the real new Dylan. He shows us that ^ is what he's been doing. "Ain't it hard to stumble and fall into some lagoon." And he "won't hang no picture," or even a frame. He might look like the assassin of soul, of humanity, he says no, I am the Hero of this story. He then goes on to aspouse his virtues.
On the Road Again is Dylan telling us why he has to move on from our town, our reality. We're the ones asking why he doesn't want to live here, with us. Here's what he says: he's in the bed with our women, and our fathers don't like it and wear "Napoleon Bonaparte" masks. He goes on to aspouse the banality of our lives. Can you believe what he put to tape for millions of people to hear? I mean, do you really think his thinking only gets as far as broadcasting to a mass? He's selling music to an atomized crowd. And he knows it.
Bob Dylan's 115th Dream is one of the artist's finest works, in my opinion. It begins with a false take, Dylan solo with guitar, only he can't do it and cracks up. How hilarious, that Dylan should want to do an acoustic song? What the fuck do those people think I am? Dylan doesn't think of the folk genre as something he's expanding; he's exploding it, transcending it. And goodbye to anyone who thinks he telling you anything different that what you are. In this song Dylan brings up the major parts of industrial life: the police, money, etiquette, funeral homes, banks, collateral, Columbus, France, homeless protests, trucks, poverty, hunger, the American Flag, Jesus (a great line about him), irony and humour, absurdity, Moby Dick, cabs, "fab", "advertising Brotherhood," Bowling balls, pay phones, etc. And all the verses are the same! Set up sitiuation, introduce quirk, then in the last four lines blow it all to hell and proffer commentary. The music shows this too, with that "twilight zone" tone toward the end of each verse. He's travelling through our universe, where he used to live, and showing us its riduculousness. He's returning to the cave to show the shadows of our shadow world, what is possible when you realize it's all only a dream.
Mr. Tamborine man is the biggest coddle job on the whole disc. It's the idyllic Dylan, here again. He is arisen! It only took the picking up and flipping of the record. That side was the other, this is the familar, the true. Any number of daulistic metaphors could be made here. But all this is only the background of the songs text. It is the context for his message. Dylan speaks through our voice for the last time here, and our song is directed at him. He is the Tamborine Man. The song is our plea to go with him, to take him with us as he travels on some other mystical plane, and suddenly Dylan is implying that what we just left behind was ourselves, our level. What we can understand. Suddenly it's no longer about anything between Dylan and me. He's saying I can't understand it. I feel he then drops the heavy shit on us.
Gates of Eden is one of the richest songs I've heard. Fuck, man. rich? Class struggle, class struggle. I guess it's got what you'd call soul, but maybe that's just a structure of Class power, too. Whom does not lying serve, anyway? The authorities. Anyway, the plurality of possible derivations of meaning from this song is amazing, a true masterpiece of structuralism, almost a Gordian knot of a song- you know the key is Eden, but what next? And in between, it's all like "this is you. no, this is you. or is this them? or is that them? or those other ones, with the bread crumb sins? huh? me? you? soup?"
Then It's Alright Ma, (I'm only bleeding) is kind of ridiculous. How much more explicit could he be in downright manipulation? Like, it's a fuckin' bandsaw of a song, if you let it be. It's resonated with me to the core. But then you see what it is, image rap. Bam, Bam, Bam. Short story after short story, until it all sort of runs together as a sort of lecture. A slam poetry-rollickin'-beat-masterpiece-transmission of the human soul lecture. Maybe he's saying "these are the basic emotions. learn these, and then we can talk." Except not even really, because he's not going to meet millions of us. We're not all going to be able to make this guy a part of our lives. It's folly, it's idolatry. And this, somehow, is part of the lecture. And it's so in character! But think: where, in the real world, would you see a song like this performed? Nowhere? Someone we'd think was depressed and weird? It's the imposition of an other, or, if the listener's already on his level, or thinks he is, he sees the song as a great list of things to think about. This is how I thought about it for a long time.
Let him spell it out for you: It's All Over Now. That "Baby Blue" kind of softens that blow, doesn't it? This is him saying, alright, I've gotta go now, you only get this from me. Affirmation isn't on this record.
My interpretation is very theoretical, and I wish more music reviews were. Think about it: it's the discourse on the most beloved media transmissions of all time. It can build our consciousness of them, unless we let the media themselves do it. But then, reviews are media, yadayada. But anyway, more personal reviews yeah!!!
I am inspired by the idea that music artists know their music will be heard by the itemized and alienated masses, and write music for each individual listener to relate to in a totally different way. Maybe we show our love the same way (the same dance move, the same quotation and incorporation into our lives), but its origins can be vary multiduniously in each person who views these media. This excites me because I think reaction to media can become an art form in its own right, the next logical step in the semblence of truth in media.
The first half, rollicking, is the demonstration of the new Dylan, the one we wish hadn't come along. The one that really spoiled the whole messiah vibe he had going for him. This was the death of a celebrity with a soul (or what we thought showed a soul). Maybe he we showing us that that image was soulless, and that this was soul, or maybe he was saying it was impossible to ever convey soul through music, and that he wasn't even trying. Or maybe his martyrdom was that he was trying, so we that we wouldn't have to.
And you know what? You can't help but love it. That sharp guitar in Subterranean Homesick Blues, that voice that vibrates to your soul? The harmonica- for what reason, exactly? Coddling? And the didactic lyric, Dylan showing us what he thinks of us, our capability for meaning for existence. "Don't follow leaders, a-watch your parkin' meters." "Twenty years of schoolin' and they put you on the day shift." He's describing an industrial dystopia. And it's awesome.
And now we've got sort of a soundtrack-to-your-mind Dylan song. It's supposed to lead succession of images in the listener's mind (like a lot of his songs), and the music reinforces that mood in an understanding way, a coddling way, that Dylan doesn't often bring out (Just Like a Woman, Like a Rolling Stone). A way that makes us feel good for listening to it, because the universe it creates is sympathetic for the song's existence. Desolation Row was a cab ride. Come on. This is heartbreak! This is transcendence!
So now we get a protest song, and it becomes clear: Dylan is parading out his former selves. We got a "funny-cool-deep" song (Talking World War Three Blues, Motorpsycho Nightmare), an "emotional song with resonance" (Don't think Twice, It's Alright, It ain't Me, Babe), and an "anti-establishment in a biting and funny way" song (I Shall be Free & I Shall be Free no. 10, John Birch Society Paranoid Blues).This is horrible. He knows what we're thinking. The lack of a real "Blowin' in the Wind" type song speaks to Dylan's ability to take the distilled essense of that distinctive quality about the song and dilute it into all his songs, making us get closer to them to feel the same way. Sucking us in.
And here's a horror of a song. For two minutes, this is the most adorable, heartwarming song. Yet it still totally insults the listener: we're the ones "drawing conclusions on the walls" and "talking of situations." We're the pawns holding grudges. He's doting on someone on his level, someone who understands what he says. They're laughing at this song. But then the last verse, he trows that under the bus. It's like he's undercutting everyone under them in order to make her seem great, and then we at least see soul in that, but then he undercuts even her! Is he a solipsist? or what?!
Now here comes the real new Dylan. He shows us that ^ is what he's been doing. "Ain't it hard to stumble and fall into some lagoon." And he "won't hang no picture," or even a frame. He might look like the assassin of soul, of humanity, he says no, I am the Hero of this story. He then goes on to aspouse his virtues.
On the Road Again is Dylan telling us why he has to move on from our town, our reality. We're the ones asking why he doesn't want to live here, with us. Here's what he says: he's in the bed with our women, and our fathers don't like it and wear "Napoleon Bonaparte" masks. He goes on to aspouse the banality of our lives. Can you believe what he put to tape for millions of people to hear? I mean, do you really think his thinking only gets as far as broadcasting to a mass? He's selling music to an atomized crowd. And he knows it.
Bob Dylan's 115th Dream is one of the artist's finest works, in my opinion. It begins with a false take, Dylan solo with guitar, only he can't do it and cracks up. How hilarious, that Dylan should want to do an acoustic song? What the fuck do those people think I am? Dylan doesn't think of the folk genre as something he's expanding; he's exploding it, transcending it. And goodbye to anyone who thinks he telling you anything different that what you are. In this song Dylan brings up the major parts of industrial life: the police, money, etiquette, funeral homes, banks, collateral, Columbus, France, homeless protests, trucks, poverty, hunger, the American Flag, Jesus (a great line about him), irony and humour, absurdity, Moby Dick, cabs, "fab", "advertising Brotherhood," Bowling balls, pay phones, etc. And all the verses are the same! Set up sitiuation, introduce quirk, then in the last four lines blow it all to hell and proffer commentary. The music shows this too, with that "twilight zone" tone toward the end of each verse. He's travelling through our universe, where he used to live, and showing us its riduculousness. He's returning to the cave to show the shadows of our shadow world, what is possible when you realize it's all only a dream.
Mr. Tamborine man is the biggest coddle job on the whole disc. It's the idyllic Dylan, here again. He is arisen! It only took the picking up and flipping of the record. That side was the other, this is the familar, the true. Any number of daulistic metaphors could be made here. But all this is only the background of the songs text. It is the context for his message. Dylan speaks through our voice for the last time here, and our song is directed at him. He is the Tamborine Man. The song is our plea to go with him, to take him with us as he travels on some other mystical plane, and suddenly Dylan is implying that what we just left behind was ourselves, our level. What we can understand. Suddenly it's no longer about anything between Dylan and me. He's saying I can't understand it. I feel he then drops the heavy shit on us.
Gates of Eden is one of the richest songs I've heard. Fuck, man. rich? Class struggle, class struggle. I guess it's got what you'd call soul, but maybe that's just a structure of Class power, too. Whom does not lying serve, anyway? The authorities. Anyway, the plurality of possible derivations of meaning from this song is amazing, a true masterpiece of structuralism, almost a Gordian knot of a song- you know the key is Eden, but what next? And in between, it's all like "this is you. no, this is you. or is this them? or is that them? or those other ones, with the bread crumb sins? huh? me? you? soup?"
Then It's Alright Ma, (I'm only bleeding) is kind of ridiculous. How much more explicit could he be in downright manipulation? Like, it's a fuckin' bandsaw of a song, if you let it be. It's resonated with me to the core. But then you see what it is, image rap. Bam, Bam, Bam. Short story after short story, until it all sort of runs together as a sort of lecture. A slam poetry-rollickin'-beat-masterpiece-transmission of the human soul lecture. Maybe he's saying "these are the basic emotions. learn these, and then we can talk." Except not even really, because he's not going to meet millions of us. We're not all going to be able to make this guy a part of our lives. It's folly, it's idolatry. And this, somehow, is part of the lecture. And it's so in character! But think: where, in the real world, would you see a song like this performed? Nowhere? Someone we'd think was depressed and weird? It's the imposition of an other, or, if the listener's already on his level, or thinks he is, he sees the song as a great list of things to think about. This is how I thought about it for a long time.
Let him spell it out for you: It's All Over Now. That "Baby Blue" kind of softens that blow, doesn't it? This is him saying, alright, I've gotta go now, you only get this from me. Affirmation isn't on this record.
My interpretation is very theoretical, and I wish more music reviews were. Think about it: it's the discourse on the most beloved media transmissions of all time. It can build our consciousness of them, unless we let the media themselves do it. But then, reviews are media, yadayada. But anyway, more personal reviews yeah!!!
I am inspired by the idea that music artists know their music will be heard by the itemized and alienated masses, and write music for each individual listener to relate to in a totally different way. Maybe we show our love the same way (the same dance move, the same quotation and incorporation into our lives), but its origins can be vary multiduniously in each person who views these media. This excites me because I think reaction to media can become an art form in its own right, the next logical step in the semblence of truth in media.
guy debord kicks my complit class's ASS.
we learned about "structuralism" in class today, and how the europeans call what we call structuralism AND what we call post-structuralism structuralism. anyway, here's what guy has to say:
"In order to understand "structuralist" categories, one must keep in mind, as with every historical social science, that the categories express forms as well as conditions of existence. ust as one cannot appraise the value of a man in terms of the conception he has of himself, on cannot appraise- and admire- this particular society by taking as indisputably true the language it speaks to itself; "...we cannot judge such epochs of transformation by their own consciousness; on the contrary, this consciousness must rather be explained in the light of the contradictions of material life..." Structure is the daughter of the present power. Structuralism is the thought guaranteeed by the state which regards the present conditions of spectacular "communication" as an absolute. Its method of studying the code of messages is itself nothing but the product, and the acknowledgement, of a society where communication exists in the form of a casecade of hierarchic signals. Consequently it is not structuralism which serves to prove the transhistorical validity of the society of the spectacle; it is on the contrary the society of the spectacle which serves to prove the cold dream of structuralism."
Snap!
we learned about "structuralism" in class today, and how the europeans call what we call structuralism AND what we call post-structuralism structuralism. anyway, here's what guy has to say:
"In order to understand "structuralist" categories, one must keep in mind, as with every historical social science, that the categories express forms as well as conditions of existence. ust as one cannot appraise the value of a man in terms of the conception he has of himself, on cannot appraise- and admire- this particular society by taking as indisputably true the language it speaks to itself; "...we cannot judge such epochs of transformation by their own consciousness; on the contrary, this consciousness must rather be explained in the light of the contradictions of material life..." Structure is the daughter of the present power. Structuralism is the thought guaranteeed by the state which regards the present conditions of spectacular "communication" as an absolute. Its method of studying the code of messages is itself nothing but the product, and the acknowledgement, of a society where communication exists in the form of a casecade of hierarchic signals. Consequently it is not structuralism which serves to prove the transhistorical validity of the society of the spectacle; it is on the contrary the society of the spectacle which serves to prove the cold dream of structuralism."
Snap!
my biggest problem right now is this:
if:
1) the universe operates dialectically, and
2) everything is meaningless and equivalent,
how does the dialectic proceed? it's all about keeping the good parts of the thesis and antithesis and getting rid of the bad parts, leading to a stronger hypothesis. like in evolution.
eureka!
what i advocate is the circumstantial dialectic. the process of dialectics itself operates dialectically, as does this process, and on and on and on... :D this is great! all is fluid, the structures are fluid, the mechanisms are fluid, to the point that one could almost say there's no dialectic at all. but what of it?
if:
1) the universe operates dialectically, and
2) everything is meaningless and equivalent,
how does the dialectic proceed? it's all about keeping the good parts of the thesis and antithesis and getting rid of the bad parts, leading to a stronger hypothesis. like in evolution.
eureka!
what i advocate is the circumstantial dialectic. the process of dialectics itself operates dialectically, as does this process, and on and on and on... :D this is great! all is fluid, the structures are fluid, the mechanisms are fluid, to the point that one could almost say there's no dialectic at all. but what of it?
a person holds an ice cube, and doesn't want it to melt, though it must.
he blows on it to cool it down, but even his breath is too warm. the process of evaporation, and his knowledge of this interaction, slows the melting some, but all the while he holds it, and his nature destroys the ice cube's.
it starts to hurt. his hand gets cold, his peripheral being is wounded. but how can he let go?
in a while the ice cube is gone, forgotten. its puddle evaporates and can no longer even be consumed.
he blows on it to cool it down, but even his breath is too warm. the process of evaporation, and his knowledge of this interaction, slows the melting some, but all the while he holds it, and his nature destroys the ice cube's.
it starts to hurt. his hand gets cold, his peripheral being is wounded. but how can he let go?
in a while the ice cube is gone, forgotten. its puddle evaporates and can no longer even be consumed.
i think i'm more conscious than my peers and even my professors. when they try to teach me i feel like they're pleading with me not to move beyond them, so they can stay the same and not feel left behind. sentimental nonsense.
today people were talking about there being no biological basis for race. that's idiotic. variations in physical characteristics are indicative of separate evolution and adaptation to different environments. also, physical attributes don't necessarily point to internal characteristics, but who is to say that the "psychology," or inner organic machinery of people from different sects has not also evolved separately?
it's just foolhardy to deny that when people are apart, they evolve differently. this is not to say that what we have in common is not more important; as long as we can breed with other animals, i feel that cannot be the case. we're sort of like the twins, separated at birth, except that all of humanity is just a branch off the same tree that contains all other things. we exist because the dialectical process of the universe has made us this way.
people think: appearances are everything. no facts, only interpretation. anything, though, is in conflict between it's existing and the inevitability of its nonexistence. "truth" does not apply to "there are no facts, only interpretations" because that statement itself is only an interpretation. when we think of expressions of people as just the transmission of what is inside their head to ours, or that as the "ideal" method of interpretation, with the end result being love, the unification of two individuals, whose charm lies in its inexplicability, its inability to be proven.
consciousness of alienation = freedom? maybe. people feel like just because they're talking about ideology, they must be doing it critically. that just saying certain words proves your credibility because "the man" doesn't want you to talk about your dick, or what racism is, or how the superbowl is stupid. but that's just the thing: this mindset makes one's identity a matter of simple social interaction, which is how we want to see everything because that's what gets us through our days. just as bad as talking about mainstream concepts, though, is developing a mainstream alternality, that doesn't want to listen. such subsets of society only serve to recreate the ideological movements of society (the world, the universe, all possible universes) in a transformed and distilled way, a process which is the essence of what domination is all about. people think they can approach "truth," or at least gain knowledge that is "more true" by sitting in a college classroom, when the whole point is to realize and feel that no knowledge is more true than any other knowledge.
heisenberg:
you can know
1) where something is, or
2) what its change is like.
"truth" is the attempt to define #1, and asserts that #2 is part of #1. it privileges the present, in that it defines something's change as the modification of its characteristics. in other words, it says "the dialectic is true" in that it is acknowledged by perceivers as such, and can only be one thing at one time. "truth" serves to define the present through the past, and considers the future to be a distant past.
the dialectic is the attempt to define #2, and asserts that #1 is part of #2. it labels the present meaningless, since what exists at any moment does not exist the next, and something's present characteristics is only a point, dimensionless, on the curve of its history. thus it says "the truth is dialectic" in that what is true changes, etc. "dialectic" serves to define the present through the future, and considers the past to be a traveled past future.
both perspectives deny a contradiction despite the either/or nature of the supposition. realizing their unity in this aspect, however, is a dialectical act. realizing that can then be labeled "truth."
there is no difference between where something is and how it is changing. dialectic truth and the true dialectic, as concepts, are united. they imply a telescopic infinite pro- and regression like the infinite reflections of a mirror, and are equivalent because our idea of the progression of time is arbitrary- why could we not be going back in time? this is the aspect of my thought which i believe transcends humanism, because i assert that the world is not the sum of its appearances.
"the simulacrum is the truth which hides the fact that there is none."
today people were talking about there being no biological basis for race. that's idiotic. variations in physical characteristics are indicative of separate evolution and adaptation to different environments. also, physical attributes don't necessarily point to internal characteristics, but who is to say that the "psychology," or inner organic machinery of people from different sects has not also evolved separately?
it's just foolhardy to deny that when people are apart, they evolve differently. this is not to say that what we have in common is not more important; as long as we can breed with other animals, i feel that cannot be the case. we're sort of like the twins, separated at birth, except that all of humanity is just a branch off the same tree that contains all other things. we exist because the dialectical process of the universe has made us this way.
people think: appearances are everything. no facts, only interpretation. anything, though, is in conflict between it's existing and the inevitability of its nonexistence. "truth" does not apply to "there are no facts, only interpretations" because that statement itself is only an interpretation. when we think of expressions of people as just the transmission of what is inside their head to ours, or that as the "ideal" method of interpretation, with the end result being love, the unification of two individuals, whose charm lies in its inexplicability, its inability to be proven.
consciousness of alienation = freedom? maybe. people feel like just because they're talking about ideology, they must be doing it critically. that just saying certain words proves your credibility because "the man" doesn't want you to talk about your dick, or what racism is, or how the superbowl is stupid. but that's just the thing: this mindset makes one's identity a matter of simple social interaction, which is how we want to see everything because that's what gets us through our days. just as bad as talking about mainstream concepts, though, is developing a mainstream alternality, that doesn't want to listen. such subsets of society only serve to recreate the ideological movements of society (the world, the universe, all possible universes) in a transformed and distilled way, a process which is the essence of what domination is all about. people think they can approach "truth," or at least gain knowledge that is "more true" by sitting in a college classroom, when the whole point is to realize and feel that no knowledge is more true than any other knowledge.
heisenberg:
you can know
1) where something is, or
2) what its change is like.
"truth" is the attempt to define #1, and asserts that #2 is part of #1. it privileges the present, in that it defines something's change as the modification of its characteristics. in other words, it says "the dialectic is true" in that it is acknowledged by perceivers as such, and can only be one thing at one time. "truth" serves to define the present through the past, and considers the future to be a distant past.
the dialectic is the attempt to define #2, and asserts that #1 is part of #2. it labels the present meaningless, since what exists at any moment does not exist the next, and something's present characteristics is only a point, dimensionless, on the curve of its history. thus it says "the truth is dialectic" in that what is true changes, etc. "dialectic" serves to define the present through the future, and considers the past to be a traveled past future.
both perspectives deny a contradiction despite the either/or nature of the supposition. realizing their unity in this aspect, however, is a dialectical act. realizing that can then be labeled "truth."
there is no difference between where something is and how it is changing. dialectic truth and the true dialectic, as concepts, are united. they imply a telescopic infinite pro- and regression like the infinite reflections of a mirror, and are equivalent because our idea of the progression of time is arbitrary- why could we not be going back in time? this is the aspect of my thought which i believe transcends humanism, because i assert that the world is not the sum of its appearances.
"the simulacrum is the truth which hides the fact that there is none."
everyone is perfect already. that's the secret.
everything is what you make of it, and wonderful. people are suffering, but they don't have to. the things you do only have meaning as far as other people are concerned. in the end though, no dice.
why think about anything other than what it feels like to kiss someone for the first time? to wake up with the sun shining on your face? to pee after you've had to for a long long time? it's all we are, and it's wonderful. our illusions hold us back, but if you recognize them as illusions, it doesn't matter. we aren't ever conscious.
i plan to work for what i perceive as the embetterment of my life. my idea of what my life is changes, but i know others are involved, and i know that there is nothing special about me other than that i'm always following myself around. i know i fall into traps a lot, having to do with how i have been taught to do things, say things. sometimes these things hurt others. i wish they didn't, but right now there's nothing i can do about that. and even if there is, i'm not doing it, which is the same thing.
there is no choice. you can only watch what's on. there's never anything good on, but sometimes there is. remember what it's like to turn on the tv and realize that what happens to be on is just what you wanted to be on, but didn't know it? well, another person just turned on the tv, too, and they couldn't bear to watch what you'd love to. maybe there's nothing on tv they want to watch. oh well.
even the worst things aren't bad. if someone wanted to torture me for the rest of my life, i would let them. i'm not going to go looking for them, but if someone barged in with a gimp suit i would go with them. except that i don't think anyone's better of for murder, or rape. it really doesn't matter. at the end of the day, there you are, thinking about what you've done, and every feeling is worth the same. there are regrets and hopes for all of us, and even though we experiene different things, we're the same. it's sad, in a way, that people are sad. but in another way, it doesn't matter, because it's all just existence anyway. life is not sacred, love is not special. it just feels that way because we are what we are. we can't help that, and we should embrace it, but then again, it's possible to be other things. this is evidenced by the fact that there are other things. a lot of other things. the horsehead nebula doesn't give a rat's ass about me, and that's okay, because neither do i, and that's okay, too. because of to whom i was born, my life has a certain starting place and ending place. i have no more or less choice than anyone else. because it's not just that i have a different perspective than other people: i live in a different world. what's beautiful with when, for a limited amount of time, my world intersects with another person's. but even if that never happened, it would be beautiful that my world ever existed at all.
you've just got to be ready to die. if you're ready to die, no one can do anything to you. the kingdom of god is at hand. it doesn't matter if you're a bad public speaker, if there's nothing you feel is special about you. i feel the same way. we all just do what we have to, and for me, right now, that's typing this. and, in a moment, it'll be hitting "publish post" and then going back to what i was doing, which is watching men in black and waiting until three am so i can text my girlfriend who lives in california "i'll see you tomorrow! :)" because on monday i'm flying out to see her, and i want to wait until it's true for her, too. that's all there is for me, right now. tomorrow there will be other things, and maybe i'll even get mad tomorrow. but then i'll think about what i'm writing and have been writing now, and i'll know: there is no truth. and hey, that's a paradox. and that's okay, because there's no reason why it shouldn't be. everything's a paradox. and that's okay. why expect meaning? or happiness? or that anyone will ever read this?
everything is what you make of it, and wonderful. people are suffering, but they don't have to. the things you do only have meaning as far as other people are concerned. in the end though, no dice.
why think about anything other than what it feels like to kiss someone for the first time? to wake up with the sun shining on your face? to pee after you've had to for a long long time? it's all we are, and it's wonderful. our illusions hold us back, but if you recognize them as illusions, it doesn't matter. we aren't ever conscious.
i plan to work for what i perceive as the embetterment of my life. my idea of what my life is changes, but i know others are involved, and i know that there is nothing special about me other than that i'm always following myself around. i know i fall into traps a lot, having to do with how i have been taught to do things, say things. sometimes these things hurt others. i wish they didn't, but right now there's nothing i can do about that. and even if there is, i'm not doing it, which is the same thing.
there is no choice. you can only watch what's on. there's never anything good on, but sometimes there is. remember what it's like to turn on the tv and realize that what happens to be on is just what you wanted to be on, but didn't know it? well, another person just turned on the tv, too, and they couldn't bear to watch what you'd love to. maybe there's nothing on tv they want to watch. oh well.
even the worst things aren't bad. if someone wanted to torture me for the rest of my life, i would let them. i'm not going to go looking for them, but if someone barged in with a gimp suit i would go with them. except that i don't think anyone's better of for murder, or rape. it really doesn't matter. at the end of the day, there you are, thinking about what you've done, and every feeling is worth the same. there are regrets and hopes for all of us, and even though we experiene different things, we're the same. it's sad, in a way, that people are sad. but in another way, it doesn't matter, because it's all just existence anyway. life is not sacred, love is not special. it just feels that way because we are what we are. we can't help that, and we should embrace it, but then again, it's possible to be other things. this is evidenced by the fact that there are other things. a lot of other things. the horsehead nebula doesn't give a rat's ass about me, and that's okay, because neither do i, and that's okay, too. because of to whom i was born, my life has a certain starting place and ending place. i have no more or less choice than anyone else. because it's not just that i have a different perspective than other people: i live in a different world. what's beautiful with when, for a limited amount of time, my world intersects with another person's. but even if that never happened, it would be beautiful that my world ever existed at all.
you've just got to be ready to die. if you're ready to die, no one can do anything to you. the kingdom of god is at hand. it doesn't matter if you're a bad public speaker, if there's nothing you feel is special about you. i feel the same way. we all just do what we have to, and for me, right now, that's typing this. and, in a moment, it'll be hitting "publish post" and then going back to what i was doing, which is watching men in black and waiting until three am so i can text my girlfriend who lives in california "i'll see you tomorrow! :)" because on monday i'm flying out to see her, and i want to wait until it's true for her, too. that's all there is for me, right now. tomorrow there will be other things, and maybe i'll even get mad tomorrow. but then i'll think about what i'm writing and have been writing now, and i'll know: there is no truth. and hey, that's a paradox. and that's okay, because there's no reason why it shouldn't be. everything's a paradox. and that's okay. why expect meaning? or happiness? or that anyone will ever read this?
Everything is meaningless (even this sentence).
Right now I am hitting keys on a keyboard, creating characters on the screen that make up the words that you read individually which, in turn, create phrases, clauses, and sentences and "meaning" in your mind. But what if my definitions of all those words are different than yours? and I just told you to go fuck your grandmothers corpse in the eye socket? Or, if you are female, be fucked in the eye-socket after your death by your grandson? This is trust: I didn't mean that, and you knew that. So in an age where people talk about not trusting anyone, we trust each other more than ever, in terms of the flow of information. This is horrible because you shouldn't trust anyone. But that's beside the point because it doesn't matter. In fact, even my point doesn't matter. If you get anything out of this message, it's that you didn't get anything out of this message.
Right now I am hitting keys on a keyboard, creating characters on the screen that make up the words that you read individually which, in turn, create phrases, clauses, and sentences and "meaning" in your mind. But what if my definitions of all those words are different than yours? and I just told you to go fuck your grandmothers corpse in the eye socket? Or, if you are female, be fucked in the eye-socket after your death by your grandson? This is trust: I didn't mean that, and you knew that. So in an age where people talk about not trusting anyone, we trust each other more than ever, in terms of the flow of information. This is horrible because you shouldn't trust anyone. But that's beside the point because it doesn't matter. In fact, even my point doesn't matter. If you get anything out of this message, it's that you didn't get anything out of this message.
Humans undergo evolution in thought that isn't present in other animals. This is what culture is: an animal adaptation that allows for larger groups.
But we've forgotten that culture has a purpose larger than any individual, so we become obsessed with making it serve our interests. This detaches culture from history. It's like the difference between sex and masturbation. We been wanking for thousands of years.
Truth? That shit doesn't exist. Everyone who's ever thought about it have been wasting a lot of time. You can't access reality, you can only make a map that's an approximation.
But we've forgotten that culture has a purpose larger than any individual, so we become obsessed with making it serve our interests. This detaches culture from history. It's like the difference between sex and masturbation. We been wanking for thousands of years.
Truth? That shit doesn't exist. Everyone who's ever thought about it have been wasting a lot of time. You can't access reality, you can only make a map that's an approximation.
Having fun is really really important. Taking shit seriously is how war happens. Nothing matters. Revel in meaninglessness. People being mean for no reason is the only thing wrong with the world. Oh, and people not knowing anything.
So:
1. Know that you know nothing.
2. Have as much fun as possible.
Everything's ridiculous.
So:
1. Know that you know nothing.
2. Have as much fun as possible.
Everything's ridiculous.
Interest is fucking bullshit, and I think it might be the original sin.
When I lend someone money, I don't charge fucking interest when they pay me back. Know why? It's a dick move, that's why. Having that be the norm in banking makes the atmosphere automatically one of non-friendship. Why would anyone ever choose money over friendship? Banks fucking suck and every banker should be shot. As it is, that's unlikely.
I think interest was originally willingly given. Sometimes when I lend money I think about paying back more than I took, as a gesture of gratitude. So I think proto-bankers took advantage of the fact that people appreciate other people helping them out, and made it mandatory to pay interest so that they could turn the whole world into a pyramid scheme, serving themselves. It's fucked up nonsense, and at the same time it's totally laughable. We're all gonna be dirt in the end, morons. Take all the fucking money, I don't give a shit. Shoot me, torture me, make me work for you for forty years. I don't give a shit. Life is meaningless. And so are you. When I see idiots in suits I want to laugh, but it's such a shame that they would never understand how ridiculous they are, and how much they deserve to be laughed at.
Men fear being laughed at. Everything they do is to avoid it. Everything. Even Hitler was afraid of it, and he was successful. Nobody fuckin' laughs about the holocaust. Why not? That was a fucking ridiculous idea! And yeah, people died, but they were going to die anyway, and all it led to was a bunch of dead Germans and dead Hitler, too. We can't all take people seriously just because they take themselves seriously. That's what power is. Once you've learned to laugh with a gun barrel in your face, you'll know what freedom is.
Gandhi said some shit like "they can hurt me until they die, and then they can have my corpse." ladies and gentlemen and Queers, this man got it. It doesn't matter when you die; it doesn't matter whom you love; it doesn't matter who your mom is. You caring about these things is what lets others exploit you. This is the dreamworld you live in. This is all the proxies of maleness that you're not allowed to laugh at for no reason. Who the fuck is barack obama? Who the fuck is the head of the cia? This are ridiculous morons, and the fact that we take what they say seriously is the travesty. It does not matter what they say; it all means the same thing: take me seriously! When obama gets a standing ovation: fuck him, he's a fucking moron who knows nothing about anything and is a puppet for more mysterious forces.
There is nobody in control. Nobody is making sure things don't fall apart. Think about your dad. Someone like him, probably dumber than him, is in every major position of power in the world. These are not respobsible men, these are fucking fools. children. And we let them rule us. What reality are we living in? Certainly not ours. I don't give a fuck about unemployment, or the war in iraq or same-sex marriage. None of this shit matters.
When I lend someone money, I don't charge fucking interest when they pay me back. Know why? It's a dick move, that's why. Having that be the norm in banking makes the atmosphere automatically one of non-friendship. Why would anyone ever choose money over friendship? Banks fucking suck and every banker should be shot. As it is, that's unlikely.
I think interest was originally willingly given. Sometimes when I lend money I think about paying back more than I took, as a gesture of gratitude. So I think proto-bankers took advantage of the fact that people appreciate other people helping them out, and made it mandatory to pay interest so that they could turn the whole world into a pyramid scheme, serving themselves. It's fucked up nonsense, and at the same time it's totally laughable. We're all gonna be dirt in the end, morons. Take all the fucking money, I don't give a shit. Shoot me, torture me, make me work for you for forty years. I don't give a shit. Life is meaningless. And so are you. When I see idiots in suits I want to laugh, but it's such a shame that they would never understand how ridiculous they are, and how much they deserve to be laughed at.
Men fear being laughed at. Everything they do is to avoid it. Everything. Even Hitler was afraid of it, and he was successful. Nobody fuckin' laughs about the holocaust. Why not? That was a fucking ridiculous idea! And yeah, people died, but they were going to die anyway, and all it led to was a bunch of dead Germans and dead Hitler, too. We can't all take people seriously just because they take themselves seriously. That's what power is. Once you've learned to laugh with a gun barrel in your face, you'll know what freedom is.
Gandhi said some shit like "they can hurt me until they die, and then they can have my corpse." ladies and gentlemen and Queers, this man got it. It doesn't matter when you die; it doesn't matter whom you love; it doesn't matter who your mom is. You caring about these things is what lets others exploit you. This is the dreamworld you live in. This is all the proxies of maleness that you're not allowed to laugh at for no reason. Who the fuck is barack obama? Who the fuck is the head of the cia? This are ridiculous morons, and the fact that we take what they say seriously is the travesty. It does not matter what they say; it all means the same thing: take me seriously! When obama gets a standing ovation: fuck him, he's a fucking moron who knows nothing about anything and is a puppet for more mysterious forces.
There is nobody in control. Nobody is making sure things don't fall apart. Think about your dad. Someone like him, probably dumber than him, is in every major position of power in the world. These are not respobsible men, these are fucking fools. children. And we let them rule us. What reality are we living in? Certainly not ours. I don't give a fuck about unemployment, or the war in iraq or same-sex marriage. None of this shit matters.
There's a lot of information out there. This makes it impossible to be rational. (Dialectic)
A lot of the time, we accept what authorities tell us, because we figure we would say the same thing in their place, or we trust that they know what they're talking about. So, in effect, we allow the media to do thinking for us. Problem is, we forget how to think dialectically, although we started out doing so. Because we want to have as much information as possible, in order to be able to make the best possible decision, but all too often what we're deciding is which information to access next. We're preparing for a choice we're never going to make. And so the dialectic is turned against itself.
The good part, though, is that every single fucking person is going to be fucking dead in the future, and the universe will be clear of the ridiculous blot we're currently imposing on it. (WE SUCK)
A lot of the time, we accept what authorities tell us, because we figure we would say the same thing in their place, or we trust that they know what they're talking about. So, in effect, we allow the media to do thinking for us. Problem is, we forget how to think dialectically, although we started out doing so. Because we want to have as much information as possible, in order to be able to make the best possible decision, but all too often what we're deciding is which information to access next. We're preparing for a choice we're never going to make. And so the dialectic is turned against itself.
The good part, though, is that every single fucking person is going to be fucking dead in the future, and the universe will be clear of the ridiculous blot we're currently imposing on it. (WE SUCK)
The State of Sports, by a Casual Sports Fan.
I agree with Chuck Klosterman when he says that the most important part of liking sports is hating sports. The general respect for sports in society reflects the wish to be perceived as athletic, and it is this crucial break between reality and myth that I think tells us a lot about what our myths are, as a people of these United States. As I believe there exists a degree of consciousness in each casual sports fan, and hopefully, the capacity to understand in those unversed in sports), I'm going to try and write so anyone understands.
My first example is the sport of basketball, played in the National Basketball Association (NBA) between five-man teams.
In the NBA, the perception is that players who score many points by shooting the ball through the basket whether from a two-point range, a three-point range, and a one-point "free throw" that occurs when a referee deems a foul has been committed against a player while that player was in the process of attempting to score one of the aforementioned two shots. In fact, many of the players who were stars on very successful franchises, like Bill Russel with the Boston Celtics teams in the 60s, Kareem Abdul-Jabbarr with 1980s Los Angeles Lakers teams and Michael Jordan with the Chicago Bulls franchise in the 1990s. These are players who are the elite players because they win the most games, and they take home the most trophies.
Then comes a two-pronged deception: sports don't actually measure athletic ability. They are, fundamentally, a show of athletic ability, and therefore the perception is more important than the reality. When a team wins a championship, it can reasonably say that it is a great team, but all the other teams have to jockey for position in other ways, always only definitively submissive to the most recent champion, and to a team that had recently beaten them. It is the players who are not elite who score many points that the system unfairly favors. The importance of efficiency in scoring, and seemingly auxileury skills like rebounding and turnover aversion is mightily undervalued by the people who watch sports, and therefore by the corporations that pay the players. Points! Points! Points! in the media. Points! Points! Points! in the mind.
So a player's incentive is to become a good scorer, whether it helps the team (and the rest of its players) succeed or not (rising tide etc.). Whether that mean withholding practice techniques or other "tips of the trade" to his less successful teammates, or adopting any consideration of them whatsoever, he attempts to create the perception that he is a good player, because as long as it is perceived by customers that certain players are better, they will be treated as such by the owners. Sports therefore become the competition of attempting to be perceived as althetic.
This is the obligatory "persona adoptoion." All legendary sports stars have "personas," created and supported by the press, allegedly revealing their inner feelings about being a legendary sports star. It's like he's Jesus all of a sudden and has got all these disciples to "bring tha word" to the folks back home about how they, too, can advance in this pyramid scheme, and what it's like and how nice it is to be at the top. Lesser players have personas, too, and the medicore scorers wind up being like those really loud small dogs. When players don't win, they lack credibility and don't get paid as much. Players who are lucky early in their careers, the rookies-of-the-year and early peakers, gain credibility at that time that they often turn into respect over their whole career, earning more later on, when they had tanked, than they deserved. Tracy MacGrady, Allen Iverson. At the end of the day, though, all players are the same, only at different levels of the hierarchy demanded by the game's rules.
"Catch that quote from Canada's foremost free agent-to-be? "I haven't been this encouraged in a while," Bosh said. And that was before Hedo's clutch drive and FTs pulled out a one-point win over the Lakers. " - ESPN.com
(http://espn.com/nba/powerrankings?year=2010&week=13)Okay, let's do this line by line, word by word. "Catch that quote?" It's like this message just something you're supposed to have heard already just because it historically happened and they have been talking about it. It's a judgment, saying "if you didn't know this already, you're not following sports well enough. Around a competition to be perceived as having athletic ability revolves a competition to be see as connected to the world of manliest men. Instead of really coming from a love of sport that creates an emotional need to follow them, however, it's about the perception of being in tune with that data stream, and emotionally connected to it, to themselves and also to others. This in an age where the overwhelming majority of the viewers of sports are not in the stadiums they're held at, so what they're watching is a group of people watching a game the way people used to watch games.
"from Canada's formost free agent-to-be?"
This tells the casual basketball fan that this message refers to a player who plays for the Toronto Raptors, the only National Basketball Association (NBA) team in Canada. Casual sports fans also know that the only other Canadian franchise they care about at all is the Toronto Blue Jays, especially because they play in the same division of teams as the New York Yankees, a very popular franchise, in Major League Baseball (MLB). The National Football League (NFL) has no canadian franchises, and indeed very few foreign players at all. Hmm...
Part of the reason that the NFL is so popular in the United States is that most of its employees are United States citizens. Citizens are seen as being worth at least respect, at worst fear, and at best, admiration. The Central- and South American and European players who have begun to become more important in Baseball, and Basketball, respectively. Hockey has always had many Candian players, but hockey is not a respected sport among casual- or team specific sports fans, whom I assert make up the vast majority of sports fans. I mean, if you go to Hockey games, you see your team's guy fight the other team's guy. You get into it, it's barbaric. And that leads to team-specificty. The casual sports fan, however, never goes to Hockey games, so they never think about the existence of all the Canadian (or any other, really, except Wayne Gretzky) hockey players. So, by clinging to Football, Americans can express nationalism.
The central deception of sports is that they mean anything. Any critically minded person could tell you that sports are part of the entertainment sector of the economy, the fantasy-realm. Sports are exposed as one of the myths of our time, the practical polytheism demanded by consumption of entertainment. This is the realm of the celebrity-god, the pinnacle of success as an entertainer, presenter, forger of mythical identity. At the same time, the casually critically-minded casual sports fan will also consider that sports are meaningless, and that this individual is very lucky to be in his very wealthy position (as luck and wealth are directly correlated). The phrase "free agent-to-be" fuses references to the player's status as a "free agent" and the phrase "bride-to-be" and similar phrases. The player being designated a "free agent" refers to the fact that this player's contract with his current team will expire at the end of the season. Players sign with a team for a set amount of seasons, the last of which becomes the player's "free agent" season. The "bride-to-be" reference connects the player's situation to that of the mythical young girl, finally coming into the world and taking her place as a lovely wife, living nowhere but in our heads. So banal is too the player's situation, part of a cycle of spectacle's that keep sports interesting. If ever game were the same, people wouldn't watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)