Idiocracy
29 Jun. 2009
I'm glad I'm not the only person who detested this movie.
Scratchpad
Help!
26 Apr. 2009
I've been thinking recently about a study I heard about a few years back that basically observed that, if people were in a situation of complete equality, they were unhappy. Given a small degree of inequality, people were generally happy. Given a great degree of inequality, people became unhappy again. I think I heard this study detailed on NPR, but don't hold me to that.
I'm currently tooling around the etherwebs to try and find this piece, but if either of my two readers happens to know of it offhand, please let me know.
Update:
Good lord, I just Google Scholared "+inequality +happiness" and got a crapton of papers about this very topic. I guess no need to find the one that originally sparked my query when I have 100 others to wade through.
Functionalism
10 Apr. 2009
Accused (condescendingly) of being a functionalist. Looked it up. HUGE difference—functionalism suggests that a society is in equilibrium when all social norms are met and society is stable. I think the total opposite. When all norms and expectations are met, the society becomes more extreme (group dynamic theory of isolation). Equilibrium exists only when there is a strong pull between opposing systems, causing the overall group to tend towards the middle. Equilibrium only exists when there is disagreement, low-level conflict. Besides, since when in the fuck was it ever human nature to be in balance/peace/agreement? Absurd. Totally abnormal scenario, not equilibrium AT ALL. Equilibrium met by equal balance of opposites.
On Seeing the Matrix
9 Apr. 2009
I am currently visiting the University of Chicago in the hopes that I might join the ranks of its students next year and correct my gross ignorance of the world by actually learning a thing or two. Part of this invariably involves making nice with other prospective students and current faculty, shaking a few hands, pretending to be generally erudite, and otherwise giving the impression that I don't actually need to come here and correct my gross ignorance, but that it would merely be nice to come here and add to my already vast stores of knowledge.
In order to pull off this ridiculous farce, I found myself visiting the local coffeeshop to refill my system with charm juice. Upon walking in the door I found myself unexpectedly taken aback by how very studied the bohemian, rebel air of the whole place was. Each student had a very consciously tousled, punky look, with their clothes just so, their look of bored indifference...well...boring in its exact likeness to the look of bored indifference on each other "unique" and "alternative" face. The furniture was expensively decrepit. The coffee stains on the carpet just like all the coffee stains on all the carpets of all the underground coffee shops I have ever been in. Terrible memories of my pretentious youth came flooding back, and which point I practically threw my change at the disapproving barista and beat a very hasty retreat.
As I walked out with my cup of coffee in hand, I suddenly realized (why is it that all my stories about sudden realizations start with the phrase, "cup of coffee in hand?") how farcical the whole thing was. By definition, the whole idea of the "rebel" is that one is unlike others. Unique. Indifferent to their outsider status. The archetype is defined by the rebel's very inability to be defined based on normal social types. And yet, in absolute contradiction to that definition, here were many rebels all defined very precisely by one another and also by their perceived opposition to the normal (whatever that is), obviously caring very much to fit this existing story and role. The rebel was codified.
The rebel is not a rebel, I realized. Certainly I have heard this before, but I admit I have never really been struck by it quite as forcefully as I was this afternoon. The rebel is a story we have concocted. A fantasy. Those who look at rebels and sneer that they ain't nothin' but a bunch of self-important little bitches and they aren't all that rebellious have hit the truth of the matter, and it pained me to realize that I was just a boring old fart that could now count myself among their ranks.
And yet...And yet. The rebel, as the story goes, provides a corrective to society by acting in opposition to its most taken for granted values. And I suppose I wouldn't disagree with this entirely—by defining itself as the direct opposite of whatever the current norm happens to be, the rebel does, in fact, keep society from veering to far in one direction. An old maxim of group dynamics is that the more isolated a group is, the more extreme it becomes. By putting itself on the opposite side of normalcy, then, the rebel forces the norm to stay exactly where it is, rather than slowly veering off to its most extreme form.
But the only way the rebel could accomplish this is by actually believing they are rebellious. The moment a rebel suspects they are just the pathetic imitator the normal sees them for, they lose the ability to become rebellious. In other words, the rebel is correct to say that they are rebellious, but only as long as they tell themselves they are. And, likewise, those who say the rebel is nothing of the sort are also completely correct. It is not the act of being rebellious, nor the trappings of rebellion, nor even the theory of rebellion that makes this so. It is the story told of rebellion. As long as the story remains believed, rebellion happens. But as soon as the story is seen for what it is—a story—rebellion becomes impossible.
The rebel is not a truth, it is an idea. And ideas, unlike truth, work only so long as the mind lends credence to them.
Chicaaaaagoooooo
3 Apr. 2009
Well, I have to send off the official letter of acceptance, but it seems likely that I'll be going to University of Chicago next year! Excellent.
Ongoing list of faculty to potentially study with (ie, list of crap I need to read between now and then). This is currently scribbled on a note on my desk, which means I am about 95% certain to lose it if I don't copy it here:
- Linda Zerilli
- Penny Visser
- Nathan Tarcov
- Hans Joas
- Ralph Lerner
- Candace Vogler
Rant on Badass Writing
26 Mar. 2009
I've just started digging into Inventing Temperature by Hasok Chang. I previously read this after my last visit to U Chicago a couple years ago, but I'm rereading it. What a fucking badass book. I love this book. Did I mention I love this book?
Putting aside the actual arguments presented in the book (which are also badass), I have to jot down some notes on the methodology and presentation. Chang starts out with historical story time about the intellectual battles and scientific difficulties involved in even figuring out how to calculate the temperature of something in the first place. What does 98° mean, and why is it 98° and not 52°? What does 98° mean in comparison to 12°? Once the story's dispatched he moves on to analysis.
And who gives a shit about the story behind it? Ah, now, this is why I love this stuff. It reminds me of Errol Morris' 'Which Came First' article on the photograph of the canonballs. I'll probably never forget this article as long as I live. I don't give a shit about canonballs. I don't give a shit about the Crimean War. I do sort of give a shit on the implications of photographers tarting up their photos for entertainment's sake. And yet, in spite of my overall disinterest about his subject, I will not actually ever forget the article because it was a damn good story. It was exciting. It made sense. And, most of all, it gave everything he was discussing a context that I could latch onto and, thus, remember. It matched with things I know from my own life, created a picture, fell into place. Whistles whistled and wheels turned and parts clicked.
And I'll be damned if I can ever find academic writing that does this. Why, Lord? Why? Civilizations have been sharing stories since the dawn of time. Some civilizations have even thrived and grown while seeing fit to favor storytelling for sense-making over traditional Western logic, and, goddammit, it's served them just fine. People relate to people, to things they recognize from their own lives, things that move them. And behind all of those reactions there are stories. So what possible sense could it make to throw that out the door completely? It works fer cryin' out loud. Chang's book works because he gives a context for his analysis. He describes what happened in a memorable way that readers can latch on to, and then when he moves to his analysis, regardless of whether or not you agree with it, you can appreciate what he's talking about and why. He creates context, in other words, so that all the readers can come in on the same page and, god forbid, draw their own conclusions and make their own evaluation of the subject.
Ach, jesus. I want to say that again, because it is filling my mouth with joy to turn those words over...sabroso. Storytelling—historical context, for the academically minded—lets readers draw their own conclusions. Given that, it has the potential to undermine one's own ability to hammer home a point, but what a fucking fantastic gift to those with whom you are conversing. What honor and respect to give them insight into how you drew your own conclusions and to give them that same opportunity.
Defining Ideology, Take 2
22 Feb. 2009
Just struck me in the shower that Terry Eagleton's claim that my own definition of ideology (anything which is not a physical, indisputable fact...anything which requires abstraction to conclude...Sontag's "introspection will never get you these results") has no teeth rests on the assertion that it is politically useless. In other words, it might be the most accurate definition, but you can't do anything with it because it encompasses too large a set of things. [previous post]
But, this doesn't matter for my goal. My goal is not political clout—if anything, my goal is the precise opposite. I am looking for a way to be in the world that actually wields no clout at all, precisely as a way to circumvent the danger inherent in having too much power to wield over others. Part of the theory I've been developing hinges on the notion that exerting control over others (as opposed to influence, which is different) is both dangerous and, to some extent, immoral because it impinges on their freedom. Now, I recognize that anarchy is an impossible system so I am certainly not recommending this. Rather, I, personally, am looking for a coherent structure that will allow me alone to act well in the world even as I accept that it is not possible for everyone to do this (yes, we are all implicitly guilty in such a system, ala Ursula K. LeGuin's "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas." That's life. Suck it up.). To that end, Eagleton's accusation that my definition of ideology is politically limp actually suggests that it is precisely the definition I ought to be using.
Susan Sontag: Reborn
19 Feb. 2009
Just finished up the first set of Sontag's journals (1947-1963, age 15-30).
journal is narcissistic + speech is social + erotic + has more incentive in the feared
Also, interaction has more opportunity to alter thought? Public vs. private decision making. Similar to C. Sunstein or JS Mill ideas on the public commons, social as a corrective, truth will out, etc. This, of course, assumes the Platonic view that there is some sort of absolute truth that can be attained, no?
One must distinguish "the truth" from "the truth about." It is true that 1) it was snowing and 2) Aaron Nolan put milk in the coffee he brought me. But the truth about, e.g., I.'s and my relationship is not an inventory of what has happened, what was said, done. It is an interpretation, an insight.
...There are degrees of "truth about."
and
The Platonic view of Kant is right. I saw this in my Descartes lecture at SLC this morning.
Truth as correspondence to the facts means that the model of truth is conceived of as information.
It is true that:
"It is raining outside."
""Kabul is the capital of Afghanistan."
+ these statements are true statements because it is, Kabul is the capital of Afghanistan. Introspection will never get you these results. [emp. mine]
So truth is physical and cannot be known through thinking...only experiencing (ie - you would not discover the thing that is Kabul through thought). Everything else is idea/abstraction. Logic, therefore, cannot discover truth. Philosophy cannot discover truth.
Also, her fluctuations on doing academia or doing human interaction were heartbreaking. I've already been struggling with this. If she could not figure out how to balance doing those two things at once, I do not possibly see how I can.
Balancing independence and community
18 Feb. 2009
Decisions, Decisions: What people can learn from how social animals make collective decisions, Economist, Feb 13, 2009.
Decisions are best made when multiple viewpoints are provided and individuals follow up independently to verify claims.
See "jury theorem" of Nicolas de Condorcet
Christian List, London School of Economics (bee behavior)
José Halloy, Free University of Brussels (cockroach behavior)
Nigel Franks, University of Bristol (ant behavior)
Freedom House
10 Feb. 2009
Came across the website for Freedom House today [via the MESH (Middle East Strategy and Harvard) blog]. The mission statement for the group is as follows:
Freedom House is an independent nongovernmental organization that supports the expansion of freedom in the world. Freedom is possible only in democratic political systems in which the governments are accountable to their own people; the rule of law prevails; and freedoms of expression, association, and belief, as well as respect for the rights of minorities and women, are guaranteed.
Freedom ultimately depends on the actions of committed and courageous men and women. We support nonviolent civic initiatives in societies where freedom is denied or under threat and we stand in opposition to ideas and forces that challenge the right of all people to be free. Freedom House functions as a catalyst for freedom, democracy and the rule of law through its analysis, advocacy and action. [emphasis mine]
Now, those that know my current interests know that, first and foremost, I'm fascinated by certainty and ideology and what it leads people to do, but what I don't make as explicit is my very closely intertwined interest of freedom. Specifically, how does certainty and ideology lead people to affect the freedom of others? Organizations like Freedom House are endlessly fascinating to me, because, in essence, what they are saying is, "We believe all people must have freedom, to the extent that we will fight vigorously to make sure they get it even if they do not want it!" This is, grossly, how I interpret the logical conclusion of the phrase I highlighted above ("freedom is possible only in democratic systems").
Is that really true, though? Is freedom really only possible in democratic systems? I have my doubts, but I admit that my understanding of political systems is still very, very weak and I could well be swayed as I learn more. But, even so, is it not a paradox to say "we will fight to bring freedom to others?" Wouldn't the definition of freedom require that others fight to earn it for themselves, through their own choices and desires? I always understood the "beacon on the hill" metaphor to draw its strength from this inherent quality of freedom — that it cannot force anything on a person, even if it perceives that they are making a mistake.