The Abscondo Weblog

Fear of authority

It is foolish to always trust authority.  It is equally foolish to always resist all forms of authority.  So, the question must be asked, when is it healthy to fear and resist authority?  Alternatively, when does a fear of authority represent nothing more than paranoia? 

It is first necessary to consider the purpose of authority.  In a democratic society, authority is given to government functions by the citizens (and is, theoretically, not imposed upon them).  Perhaps the most legitimate purpose for authority is in keeping us safe from others.  If someone else is pointing a gun at me, I want that individual restricted and the gun taken away.  If someone is actively building a bomb, I want the materials confiscated and the individuals involved arrested.  If someone is driving drunk, I want that person punished in order to keep me safe.  And if it should be the case that my actions are threatening the safety of others, I also accept that the authorities have every right to restrict me or punish me.

However, what I see more of these days is another kind of authority altogether.  I see airport security questioning people about where they traveled and why, I see people being arrested for smoking marijuana (doing no harm to others), I see people being turned away from night-clubs for the crime of being 20 years old.  Much worse yet, I see profit-hungry corporations taking over the authority of democratically-elected governments in order to maximize profits by dropping more bombs, making more fighter-jets, or filling more (for-profit) prisons.  I see a government that spies on citizens with no reasonable cause.  I see cameras spying on us in every public space.  I see a government telling gay people they can't marry, immigration officials telling human beings they can't work without documentation, and I see scared people taking their shoes off to pass through metal detectors just to enter a government building or get on a flight.  What I don't see is probable cause for how any of these behaviors are examples of people threatening harm to others.

Authority has pushed too far. As individuals, we do not have the power to resist illegitimate authority in every case.  To do so would be self-defeating and foolish.  However, it is our shared responsibility to recognize illegitimate authority where we see it, to make no justifications of it, to detest it, and to push back on it whenever and wherever some small battle can be won.

Michael Jackson's death: an American metaphor

The death of Michael Jackson is a perfect symbol for America in 2009.  Like America itself, he was a man who lived a lavish, yet tasteless lifestyle while taking on massive debt.  Despite pissing away all the fame and fortune one could possibly hope for, he didn't even have much fun in the process. 

He was, indeed, one of the great Americans -- clearly a product of the culture which produced him.  Like Michael Jackson, America too will one day choke on its own pain-killers while TV personalities tell us how nobody could have seen it coming.  But we all saw it coming and, deep down, we all know why.

I'm sad that the man who clearly possessed so much beauty in his heart, and was able to (at times) let us all see it...allowed the ugliness of shallow materialism and the corporate control of his life to ultimately end it. 

Can small be the new big?

When Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova gave their now-famous acceptance speeches for Best Original Song at the Academy Awards, I (like so many others) enjoyed the moment fully with a joyful tear in my eye.  It was a moment of purity and goodness.

Through their humble words of encouragement, they spoke for me and millions of other independent, relatively unknown musicians and artists out here.  Yet days later, I realized that something bothered me about their message.  It might be a bit misguided of me to analyze such a thing too much, but it occurred to me that their message was, essentially, to "keep making art and one day maybe you too can be in a room like this and be rewarded like us."  That bothers me a little because it perpetuates the underlying problem.

My message would have been quite different.  My message would have been to keep making art regardless of whether you ever become recognized or ever entered such a room.  Let me explain.  I became familiar with Glen Hansard's music long before the Oscars.  It was passed on to me from a very good friend, and I passed it on to others since.  But I suspect millions of others were not open to their music in this way and, instead, had to wait until the Oscars before they ever heard of Glen Hansard.  That's the problem.  At some level, most people still believe that the best music, the best films, the best art will eventually "filter up" to gain the recognition it deserves.  But the reality is that for every Glen Hansard, there are literally hundreds or thousands of others just as talented who will never reach much of an audience at all.  And so people give up on making their art because they feel unsuccessful.  And so we live in a world void of so much potential beauty, for the simple reasons that both artists and fans place far too much value on the idea of "making it big".

So can small be the new big?  The technology to completely revolutionize things is now in place, but the collective mindset hasn't changed much over the years.  Most people still aren't paying attention.  Most of us think that if it is on TV, it must be good.  In fact, it is on TV, in the mainstream press, and on the radio simply because somebody put forth the necessary amount of money to get it there.  They create an illusion, and we consumers mostly accept the illusion without much thought.  Worse yet, we shut out that which does not conform to the illusion.

But what if we started appreciating that which is authentic over that which is polished?  What if we took seriously those sparks of inspiration that might be happening right next door or even across the world?  Once we could only choose among that which was offered by a few powerful corporations, but today we can choose amongst that which is created solely by living-and-breathing people and has been left completely unfiltered as it passes into your mind.

I'll leave you with an example.  If you appreciate music, first put on your headphones or turn on your good speakers.  Now go to www.jamendo.com and spend a few moments listening.  Download something if you like it.  Try to look at it for what it is...not for what it is in relation to that which is currently on MTV.  There are countless other sites like it or even better. 

Forget about what they are telling you to care about so that you can discover what you actually do care about.

How money and success destroy art

Eddie Vetter of Pearl Jam has said that his music was originally fueled by anger, and that it was challenging for him when that anger went away and was replace by happiness and contentedness.  Even the style of his music, itself, was originally a product of the angst and frustrations of a common life.  What meaning could it possibly have within the context of overwhelming success and riches? 

Did Eddie's success choke his ability to create the kind of meaningful music we knew and loved?  Consider his early song Jeremy in relation to the following lyrics from a recent song, Big Wave:

I scream in affirmation
Of connecting dislocations
And exceeding limitation
By achieving levitation

Got me a big wave, ride me a big wave, got me a big wave.
Got me a big wave, ride me a big wave, got me a big wave

OK that's just embarrassing.  You have to hear the song, set to the angst-ridden sounds of grunge music (a sound, by the way, that he hasn't bothered to evolve so that it might more accurately reflect his daily reality) in order to get the full picture of how badly this song misses the mark.

We see the same thing happen in Rap music all the time.   The art form itself is a reflection of the brutal realities of inner-city life.  Throw some money at it and what starts out as meaningful, anger-fueled and angst-ridden lyrics so quickly turn to boasting of cars and brands. 

Meaningful art has to arise from the life and experience of the artist.  One might expect the successful rocker or rapper to experiment with new, happier or more blissful sounds.  But in the case of both the rapper and the grunge-rocker, their style of music cannot be allowed to change so that it might more accurately reflect their new lives.  To do so would be to risk losing the very foundation of that success...the support of fans who originally loved them for who they once were.

And so it is, with overwhelming success and subsequent riches, art itself becomes inauthentic crap as the artist becomes a salesmen just trying to continue fueling an excessive lifestyle. 

Fame

Listening to Thom York interviewed as a guest DJ on NPR's All Songs Considered podcast, someone mentioned to me that to be famous must be the ultimate accomplishment in life, the ultimate way to live.  While I originally agreed with this sentiment, I later realized that there are two distinct types of fame. 

One type of fame, that of the Hollywood actor or international supermodel, arises out of a need to replace the metaphorical question mark on the cover of every magazine, the open spot for a cast-member of some film.  They come to be famous by fulfilling an archetype, doing exactly what has been done before and will be done again. 

Then there is the fame of Andy Warhol, Leonard Cohen, Thom York, Noam Chomsky, or Milan Kundera.  These people have, indeed, achieved the highest state possible in any human life.  Their fame was based on an ability to fully develop and contribute that which makes them unique and authentically themselves.  They aren't simply fulfilling a role set up by some corporation that is pushing a product (magazine, film, TV show, or Pop Idol album).  Instead, they offered up themselves...as a unique genetic mutation and as the sum of their experiences...to create "that thing" out of nothing.

That kind of fame is the only kind worth having.  More importantly, these are the only kinds of celebrity worth admiring.

To kiss under the mistletoe and not even know it

In Eastern Europe, the mistletoe plant can be seen on so many bare-branched trees this time of year.  The Christmas tradition of kissing under the mistletoe is of British origin and is mostly known only in English-speaking countries.

But it also occurred to me that Slovaks need no instruction on this matter.  As it is during any time of the year, so many young lovers, with nowhere else to go, meet outside if only to escape prying eyes for the very purpose of sharing a slow kiss in the dark.  So if these lovers happen to find themselves beneath such a tree, they might actually be perfecting a tradition which they know nothing of.

The first snowflake

Just minutes ago, I watched the cold rain turn to the season's first snow.  I thought I saw a single snowflake emerge from the rain to dance up toward my window, but couldn't be sure.  Only moments later, she was joined by thousands and maybe millions of fellow snowflakes to reassure me.

The wall of perception

The music.  It's begging, pleading, screaming, enticing us to feel better...to escape the cage of our worried minds which are filled with cries of loneliness, sick with too much information, swimming in fear and self-doubt.  The sights, sounds, tastes, sensations, ideas...all surrounding us at all moments...we lack nothing but the ability to perceive and receive.

Could anyone have imagined?  After we have torn down all the old walls...censorship, social pressures, national borders, taboos, traditions...we would find that one insurmountable wall remains: the invisible wall that surrounds each of us.  This isn't a wall that filters the garbage emanating from us, but filters all that comes toward is.  It is lack of perception...small-mindedness...failure to see and to hear.  It is the sound of the voices in our heads drowning out a world rich with sounds, colors, ideas, pleasures, and sensation.

We have achieved a world in which anything is possible but nothing really happens.  What is real exists only in our isolated minds...which is to say it doesn't exist at all.  Because, in reality, nothing can be real if we cannot allow ourselves to forget ourselves...to be tickled by that which comes from another!  Everybody is talking but nobody's listening.  It is the last wall standing...the great bottleneck.

And why?  Because we all want attention.  We want to receive the gift, not give it!  We reach out to the world selfishly, with such a loud and obnoxious tone like "LOOK AT ME!!!!"  And in so doing, we forget that we all want the same thing.

So the language of attention-seeking needs to become the language of perception.  We need to reach out to others in a way that satisfies their needs...to write songs and books not about how great I am, but about what you feel...to walk down the street not hoping somebody smiles at me, but to smile at another...to say that which we all feel but have never said.

It is also important to realize that to be perceived is not necessarily to be heard, noticed, understood.  To feel perceived is also to hear a song that speaks to you, to read a novel that says what you've always felt, to see a painting which reminds you of your childhood, a beautiful woman who reminds you of your dreams, a smile which reminds you we're all the same.  Perception is two-way and cannot be any other way. 

So listen to people, get some new music, read a new novel or poet or philosopher, go to that obscure art exhibit, find stuff that speaks to you and soak it up in silence.  But don't waste your time with the language of attention-seeking (mainstream music, TV, preachers, and ideologues).  You will only remain frustrated and alone.

How can you be perceived if nobody is listening?  How can you expect perception if you aren't listening?

 

Virtual relationships

How are on-line (virtual) relationships (email, chat, MySpace, etc.) different from real-life relationships?  How are they different from the imaginary relationship one might have with characters in a Soap Opera or Film?  All relationships, imaginary or real, affect our thinking and our behavior.  They are a critical part of not just fulfilling our human needs, but a key element for us to grow and thrive. 

But is there really a difference between e-mail / chat relationships and in-person relationships?  Isn't it really all the same thing?  Would you really put TV-watching within the same realm as human relationships?  I think there are some important distinctions to be made.

Those imaginary relationships of TV, film, novels...well they do shape our thinking and influence us in the same way that real relationships do...but they are far less influencial than the universe that can be created between two people.  Relationships between real people have the element of interaction.  Interactive relationships are simply more real and carry a range of added dimensions: loyalty, sensitivity, complexity, attraction, and real consequences...whereas imaginary ones are kept neat and artificially simple...lacking these elements. 

Relationships we have with real people (in person or virtual) are healthier because they are authentic and exist outside of corporate / media influence.  These relationships allow us to grow and change.  Oftentimes, society tends to frown on (or at least fail to encourage) these relationships because today's society is controlled primarily by corporations and religions -- both institutions fighting for our attention and loyalty.  When, instead, our attention, loyalty, and energy goes directly to other human beings, the influence which these institutions have on our lives is weakened...so their incentive to guide us away from authentic relationships is clear.

Institutional relationships (such as those one might have with religions, brands, TV characters, etc.) leave us weak, undeveloped, and unfulfilled.  Those who depend upon such relationships tend to look to prayer, shopping, soap operas, or pornography to fulfill deeper needs which remain unmet.  So why can't we simply awknowlage this and decide that it is ok to have deep, authentic, one-to-one relationships instead?  Unfortunately, those around us...loved ones, family, acquantances...unknowingly judge us by the rule laid down by the institutions.  When we fail to follow these socially-accaptable rules, we are punished.  Unfortunately, there is little room for, and also not much time for, many deep, authentic relationships in our lives.

It should also be noted that virtual relationships are sometimes destructive and oftentimes addictive (probably like anything that makes us feel alive).  All addictions have consequences...making everything else around us dull and encouraging us to neglect the people and things right in front of us, in our real lives. 

So, in the end, the choice whether to develop virtual relationships comes down to a personal choice.  All choices involve consequences, and I suppose it is the likely consequences of a situation, within the context of an individuals real life, that should be weighed.

Fill the gaps

If we can just be honest with ourselves and consistent with reality for a moment, there is something quite obvious that needs to be said.  The paradigm under which we live is currently fucked and on its last legs.  It is the end of an era and, sigh, it is about time.  Our fundamental assumptions about ...well, everything...are now quaint and laughable.

Fuck Adam Smith and fuck economics.  Economics are the modern day equivalent of 1 + 1.  Yeah, it equals 2, but so what?  Let's move on.  OK I lost you with that.  I only wanted to open a crack in your mind on this dark corner of cyberspace in which you, yourself, are surprised you ended up and are already becoming suspicious about. 

Greater material wealth -- economic growth -- does not equal happiness and is obviously not the goal, nor the answer.  We need to adopt a paradigm for our own lives that says: fill the gaps.  In which area is your life lacking?  Are you lacking friends?  Make some.  Are you lacking sex?  Get some.  Lacking time?  Make some.  Are you lacking art?  Go to a museum.  Are you lacking money?  Make some.  Are you lacking good food?  Cook some.  Get it?  It's so simple and yet we have become so lobotomized.  Don't have any decent clothes?  Buy some.  Don't have a comfortable place to live?  Work toward it.  That's balance.

Economics says we can find happiness through more money and more stuff.  But the simple and obvious fact is: anybody with so much money and so much stuff that they don't know what to do with isn't any happier.  They still have gaps.

More stuff means more pain in the ass.  I have to figure out how to use it or where to put it.   I have to throw away the packaging.  It's a pain in the ass.  And more money, at this point, adds more pressure with respect to where to invest it.  So, over the past few years, I've been more focused on the gaps in my life: friendship, romance, art, sleep, doing absolutely nothing on a Monday morning.  By filling those gaps I have climbed the ladder of happiness.  I could have made more money than I do.  I certainly could have bought more than I have.  But I don't want it.

So let's extend this to the macro.  What we, the human race, need is certainly not the effects of more economic growth.  We need to start conceptualizing the idea of balance (but not in a fluffy liberal way).  We need to selfishly start filling the obvious gaps.  The good news is: you know what they are.