A Requiem for Hope

Requiem for a Dream is one of those movies, that, when it is over, you are stuck in a trance. It lacks the humor that is found in its oft compared brothers Fear and Loathing and Spun. About an hour after you are released from the temporary catatonic state. Which is nice because you can escape from the dark depression the film brings on. This is only a temporary reprieve because once you leave the emotional state the film induces, your mind is free to ponder what just happened.

Though it is often portrayed as a “look at the horrors of drugs” movie, it is much more. The first thing to notice is that the characters that use drugs end up on them both on purpose and on accident. The two story lines weave together. As the director noted, this is not an “illegal” drug movie, but a movie about addiction and anyone can be addicted to anything. Inevitably we all become addicted to something that gets in the way of our dreams (hence the film’s title).

I find the film much darker. No one has just one dream. The pursuit of one dream/goal will interfere with the pursuit of another. Slavish dedication to one dream will rule out all others and leave the dreamer unhappy in achievement. Life is suffering and try as Americans do to avoid suffering- it cannot be done. That is the paradox: suffering precludes happiness and the removal of suffering also removes happiness.

Society Circles

Let me begin by noting how much I despise end notes. Why must I flip forward three hundred pages and then back as much just to get a little information? Make it a footnote and end the misanthropy. Now let us (or me, as it is my pen making the markings) move on.

It has been my theory that societies operate as circles. Societies are groups of people (countries, business, friends, etc) that operate (live) within a demarcated area. When a society forms it is a “circle” of individuals with a similar enough set of beliefs that allow them to live (and hopefully) prosper together. Over time, however, the circle gets smaller as the beliefs of the individuals become less compatible. For example, the split into factions we could call “Democrats” and “Republicans.” Eventually the circle gets so small that there are significantly more people outside the circle than in. It is at this point that the process needs to start again.

Recently, though, I realized that this theory was too narrow, or maybe, two dimensional. Unexpectedly, this revelation was born from the movie SPUN. If you haven’t seen the movie it is a three day speed experience following a meth addict (Ross) acting as a chauffeur for a cook (someone who “cooks
up the methamphetamines). My first thought was that this is a sub culture, a sub-circle, existing within or under the main circle that is America. Everyone in the meth circle interacts and influences people outside the circle. There are the cooks (and smurfs) who increase pseudoephedrine sales. There are also users who interactive with an effect non-users.

This makes me think that instead of a circle, a society is a series of interconnected rings.

Momentum

Momentum. There is no getting anywhere without it. The Vikings and Broncos didn’t win because they were better teams. They won because their opponents were unable to muster up any momentum. Starting is easy. Anyone can call up a blank screen or make his way to the start of a long trail. It’s the next step that can be a bummer. You need a spark to drive the soul to some momentum.

That’s what I have been lacking. No spark to turn the one paragraph into a two page paper. No momentum to make the workplace better. The spark is escaping me and preventing me from worthwhile accomplishment. Some loss of strength is inevitably caused by the deteriorating condition of the American intellect. It may very well doom us all. A country where Sarah Palin is respected as a national figure by anyone is probably not a country for me. No amount of philosophical or practical wisdom may be able to dig us out of the pit we have fallen into it. In the absence of momentum I close with words of manufactured wisdom.

“Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. … More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives.” (V for Vendetta, 2006)

Masochism and Jesters

As much as I am a bleeding heart liberal and a Jesus lover, I am also an ornery, sarcastic bastard. I am also sick and, apparently, feeling somewhat masochistic. I get the feeling that it is time to turn on Fox News, or whatever appropriate pseudonym you use for it, and comment on whatever idiocracy I thus encounter. Doctors would probably note that getting yourself into a rage would have little benefit on your health. I wouldn’t disagree, but maybe there is some greater telos in this experiment.

I turned on Fox News to find Huckabee interviewing two former Presidential Press Secretaries; nothing interesting here.

About a week later I consider revising this experiment, but fearing Fox news I consider examining the top story on their website. I am spurred on by a quote from Hitler: “… the one means that wins the easiest victory over reason: terror and force.” (Mein Kampf, Volume I Chapter 2) I am not, as some might assume, comparing Fox News to Hitler. This quote was in reference to his adversaries, so if I am comparing anyone to Hitler it would be MSNBC. Fox News is clearly victorious over reason in some parts and terror and fear are the tools that they use. So, it seems that on this one point the devil was right. The devil is usually wise and will inevitably be right on some points. Surely a moron couldn’t trick a nation into genocide.

Times are different now and it seems that the devil’s knowledge has eroded over the eras. The genocidal seem to have almost faded away and the Fear mongers stand in their stead. The devil en vogue has the passion but lacks the reason. He is a Fool and a Jester who juggles imaginary balls that he uses to deceive a good many.

If a wise man fools someone, he will inevitably feed some reason in his attempts to overcome it. The same cannot be said for the Jester. He can cry and rant and read snuff cans, but no quantity of reason will be passed to his audience. The man fooled by the wise man is thus left with a chance to escape and turn reason around. The Jester’s fools have no such hope. Res ipsa loquitur.

Heidegger's Worlds and Existential Responsibility

Heidegger comments that we all inhabit various worlds. They may be the worlds of students, teachers, businesswomen, artists, or whatever else. We are able to move comfortably in whichever of these worlds we inhabit and will find ourselves awkward in whichever we don't inhabit. For example, Teachers will move comfortably in classrooms, but not in boardrooms.

In addition to feeling comfortable in these worlds, we also help define them. As I blog, I move in the world of bloggers and when I hit 'publish' I will further define/refine what it is to be a blogger. Every world is in a state of existential metamorphoses. This leaves the actors in worlds with some existential responsibility. As the actors actions mold their respective worlds, they have a responsibility to those worlds.

Each of us, then, must make sure that we are being responsible to the worlds we inhabit.

What is a 'thing'?

Only Heidegger can make me think about what a 'thing' is. All information that we get about things is from our senses, so we only have our perceptions. However, I do not want to say that essence is perception. I have typically gone with a Kantian view that all we have is our perceptions; however, there is a 'thing' there that is causing those perceptions. Heidegger points out, however, that what we first see (or hear/feel/etc) is the 'thing-in-itself' and not our perceptions.

The real question seems to be is why (how) we group these perceptions or does the 'thing' come before our perceptions?

Thoughts on the "other sex"

It has occurred to me that the etymology of the ‘other sex’ is always as a part or lesser simulacra of Adam. Adam is the ideal of which the other falls short; after all, Adam is one bite short of God. Whatever such word is used to identify the ‘other sex’ serves largely to delineate it from the status quo of humanity or consciousness or however else you will define this self-awareness. More than delineate it from the status quo, it serves to make it subservient. The ‘other sex’ has no existence on its own as it is etymologically dependent on Adam. As our ability to think is limited by our language, it seems that it is time for a new word to signify this ‘other sex’ as a part of the whole with Adam.