Please just hang in until the end:
So, throughout human history, people tend to act with short term self-interest, right? Apparently they prefer it.
However, acting for the long term is always a better idea, and eventually morein everyone's self-interest, right?
But it's harder to prefer this. Just like it's harder to prefer a tabloid headline to a dense essay----Immediate short term gratification is hard to resist and easy to hold onto and get behind.
And, is not short term self-interest at the center of conservative philosophy?
And, is not long term community interest at the center of liberal philosophy
And, is not conservative radio, like tabloids, much more profitable and harder to resist than well...the basically non-existent liberal radio?
Basically what I'm saying is that conservatism appeals more to base urges of humans and takes less intelligence to latch onto. It thinks more like someone on a coke binge, ignoring the inevitable come down as long as possible.
Max, anybody, plz tell me I'm wrong. I feel like an ignorant ass making these assertions, but, I also feel very logical.
________________________________
Rupert Murdoch's father succeeded in the newspaper industry by printing tabloid headlines in "real" newspapers. People couldn't resist. Murdoch himself said, "If it made money, I'd have a liberal TV station tomorrow."
The thing to note is, people like what is easy. Some say, give people what they want, if they want tabloids why not give it to them? Well, if you're a parent and your kid is exposed to heroin and wants more, are you going to give him/her more? No.
People don't always want what is good for them, they want what is easiest and most readily appealing.
Conservatism is easiest and most readily appealing. This does not mean it's good.
Am I overlooking anything major here?
(oh yeah, and, this basically all also applies to the "free market," just because it sells doesn't mean it's good...McDonald's, KFC, etc.--diabetes and obesity didn't exist in China before these places came in.)
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
2.) looking at community through Spain
Ok, so Spain does not elect a Man--a president--they elect a party, and that party comes with a president.
That is so symbolic.
I understand Barthe's Death of the Author so much better now. The USA is all about authorship, which really is about personal importance, not about authors of books, the idea that the individual is stronger than or an exception to his environment. For example, most stores here are just the name of what they sell "Cervezeria, Cafeteria, Paneria, Posteleria," etc. The name brand, the author of that store, is not so emphasized.
But damn, I'm American and I love those brands. Really. But I see how this can be detrimental. You can rally behind a name, treat the name as though it is responsible, the only one capable. It reduces the community and environment. It takes the credit. Is this necessarily wrong? I understand how it is argued that it is, but it definitely APPEARS that individuals can be quite powerful, however, that doesn't equal rising above the environment I suppose. As Clover says, we don't have free will, and, he makes a pretty convincing case for that.
What I'd like to think about further is what this says for "the meaning of life." For example, the meaning of life in the US seems to be 'to achieve and amass as much as you can.' So then in a place like spain would be be more along the lines of 'to live as happily as you can," ??
so, 'living' vs. 'accomplishing' ??
If things go smoothly in the world, there isn't as much need to 'achieve.' And what I mean by achieve is that drive to always be moving forward and progressing, versus enjoying the now, or something.
Although, do things ever go smootly? that's partly answered by your take on death. Should it be as big a deal for ONE person to die? Caring about each individual deaths makes things a lot harder...
So then is "no on should die," a common modern liberal idea pertaining to war, etc, then preventing progress towards a more "liberal" community oriented world?
It wants to take care of everyone, but when everyone is SOOO important, that's tough.
But people like feeling important. Just like they like being conservative...which'll be my next post.
That is so symbolic.
I understand Barthe's Death of the Author so much better now. The USA is all about authorship, which really is about personal importance, not about authors of books, the idea that the individual is stronger than or an exception to his environment. For example, most stores here are just the name of what they sell "Cervezeria, Cafeteria, Paneria, Posteleria," etc. The name brand, the author of that store, is not so emphasized.
But damn, I'm American and I love those brands. Really. But I see how this can be detrimental. You can rally behind a name, treat the name as though it is responsible, the only one capable. It reduces the community and environment. It takes the credit. Is this necessarily wrong? I understand how it is argued that it is, but it definitely APPEARS that individuals can be quite powerful, however, that doesn't equal rising above the environment I suppose. As Clover says, we don't have free will, and, he makes a pretty convincing case for that.
What I'd like to think about further is what this says for "the meaning of life." For example, the meaning of life in the US seems to be 'to achieve and amass as much as you can.' So then in a place like spain would be be more along the lines of 'to live as happily as you can," ??
so, 'living' vs. 'accomplishing' ??
If things go smoothly in the world, there isn't as much need to 'achieve.' And what I mean by achieve is that drive to always be moving forward and progressing, versus enjoying the now, or something.
Although, do things ever go smootly? that's partly answered by your take on death. Should it be as big a deal for ONE person to die? Caring about each individual deaths makes things a lot harder...
So then is "no on should die," a common modern liberal idea pertaining to war, etc, then preventing progress towards a more "liberal" community oriented world?
It wants to take care of everyone, but when everyone is SOOO important, that's tough.
But people like feeling important. Just like they like being conservative...which'll be my next post.
1.) Privacy
So, I had all these ideas about privacy. I was going through how when people are private everyone's more isolated, how no one knows what everyone's experiencing and how a norm is then super-imposed by media/business/government, How it's easier to exploit such a private people lacking a self-derived identity, and how this relates to culture, to socialism--
And then, I realized this was just Private Property. I had just stumbled upon the foundations of socialism through a different type of property: information.
Oh well.
At the very least, I think it goes to show how thoroughly an ethos infuses itself in a society; I see the lower emphasis on privacy, whether it be personal privacy or private property, almost everywhere in Spain. I would never have expected it to be so consistent. That's the next post though.
And then, I realized this was just Private Property. I had just stumbled upon the foundations of socialism through a different type of property: information.
Oh well.
At the very least, I think it goes to show how thoroughly an ethos infuses itself in a society; I see the lower emphasis on privacy, whether it be personal privacy or private property, almost everywhere in Spain. I would never have expected it to be so consistent. That's the next post though.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
epiphany of the moment
I'm told that in Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers it says that a person must generally do something for 10 years before being really good at it.
I've been rambling for almost 10 years now. I'm going to be a professional rambler.
I'm no poet, I can do alright with stories and essays, but MAN, I could be a damn prolific rambler.
Could I then forgo a PhD? or better yet, maybe I could get a PhD in rambling, and thus have hundreds of pages legitimizing my rambles.
I like this.
I've been rambling for almost 10 years now. I'm going to be a professional rambler.
I'm no poet, I can do alright with stories and essays, but MAN, I could be a damn prolific rambler.
Could I then forgo a PhD? or better yet, maybe I could get a PhD in rambling, and thus have hundreds of pages legitimizing my rambles.
I like this.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
theft at El Rastro
this morning I got off at La Latina and ordered a cafe con leche and a slice of cake at a cafe, and sat outside. I hoped that in the time I was eating, someone would call me to meet up and we could wander the market.
At the table next to me a mother started VERY loudly telling her daughter to be calm, repeating "it's replaceable honey, it's ok" although she didn't have a very reassuringly "it's ok" voice. The little girl, maybe 4 or 5 let out a little crying, but her older brother helped her be calm a little bit. The dad showed up and was less calm than anyone. He was pissed. Both parents would speak/yell very loudly to the daughter who's "favorite stuff" was in the stolen purse: "BE QUIET!"
Turned out that while they were sitting at the cafe someone came up to talk to them, and on the other side, their purse on the ground was taken. I overheard (it wasn't hard to overhear) the mom ask the dad if he thought they would drop the purse somewhere. I chimed in and told them it's common for them to leave purses in trashcans (I had heard that).
They eventually calmed down, the mom especially, who when coming back from looking in trash cans, told the whole family that it was all replaceable. The dad said something like "he's a horrible person" and the son said something with the word bitch in it (surprising for an 8 or so year old). The dad told him not to say that, hah.
ANYWAY, the part that struck me was how stereotypical it all was.
1. OF COURSE the young American family was the thief's target.
2. OF COURSE they were very upset, and the little girl wanted her things back.
3. OF COURSE they assert that the thief is a bad person.
It's exactly because it's all replaceable for them that the thief chose them. Yes, it ruined their day, maybe the next day too, but after that they will be fine. For the thief, this is acceptable. He knows they can afford it, and he doesn't care if it ruins their day because most of his days are probably just as miserable.
and so, I thought how interesting it is that people always blame it on the person being deranged or abnormal, when really, it's due to easily explainable circumstances. (I'm not saying I'm FOR stealing from individuals, I'd hate it if my stuff was stolen.) I started to think, "hey, people blame individuals because it's easier to think that it's the one individuals fault. What if we made it easier to blame the circumstances, the system, the situation? wouldn't that lead to some change! maybe people would try to change those systems!"
but then I realized that LOTS of people blame the system for EVERYTHING, to a ridiculous and annoying extent.
And so man, I don't know, why do dumb people have to dumb everything down and distract everyone from the real points. Dumb stuff just is way catchier.
And then I looked down in my coffee and there were two little seeds. I got up to leave, brought my plates/cup inside to put on a counter and pay for, but asked a manager looking guy "que es este?" pointing in my cup, and he wondered, then said "limon seeds" and I said "ok" then got out my wallet: "cuanto cuesta" but he said "no no, lo siento" and I said "gracias" and left without having to pay.
Nice.
At the table next to me a mother started VERY loudly telling her daughter to be calm, repeating "it's replaceable honey, it's ok" although she didn't have a very reassuringly "it's ok" voice. The little girl, maybe 4 or 5 let out a little crying, but her older brother helped her be calm a little bit. The dad showed up and was less calm than anyone. He was pissed. Both parents would speak/yell very loudly to the daughter who's "favorite stuff" was in the stolen purse: "BE QUIET!"
Turned out that while they were sitting at the cafe someone came up to talk to them, and on the other side, their purse on the ground was taken. I overheard (it wasn't hard to overhear) the mom ask the dad if he thought they would drop the purse somewhere. I chimed in and told them it's common for them to leave purses in trashcans (I had heard that).
They eventually calmed down, the mom especially, who when coming back from looking in trash cans, told the whole family that it was all replaceable. The dad said something like "he's a horrible person" and the son said something with the word bitch in it (surprising for an 8 or so year old). The dad told him not to say that, hah.
ANYWAY, the part that struck me was how stereotypical it all was.
1. OF COURSE the young American family was the thief's target.
2. OF COURSE they were very upset, and the little girl wanted her things back.
3. OF COURSE they assert that the thief is a bad person.
It's exactly because it's all replaceable for them that the thief chose them. Yes, it ruined their day, maybe the next day too, but after that they will be fine. For the thief, this is acceptable. He knows they can afford it, and he doesn't care if it ruins their day because most of his days are probably just as miserable.
and so, I thought how interesting it is that people always blame it on the person being deranged or abnormal, when really, it's due to easily explainable circumstances. (I'm not saying I'm FOR stealing from individuals, I'd hate it if my stuff was stolen.) I started to think, "hey, people blame individuals because it's easier to think that it's the one individuals fault. What if we made it easier to blame the circumstances, the system, the situation? wouldn't that lead to some change! maybe people would try to change those systems!"
but then I realized that LOTS of people blame the system for EVERYTHING, to a ridiculous and annoying extent.
And so man, I don't know, why do dumb people have to dumb everything down and distract everyone from the real points. Dumb stuff just is way catchier.
And then I looked down in my coffee and there were two little seeds. I got up to leave, brought my plates/cup inside to put on a counter and pay for, but asked a manager looking guy "que es este?" pointing in my cup, and he wondered, then said "limon seeds" and I said "ok" then got out my wallet: "cuanto cuesta" but he said "no no, lo siento" and I said "gracias" and left without having to pay.
Nice.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
questions about "Culture"
I'm trying to decide exactly what culture is. Maybe I should read a book on it, but for now I'm just thinking through what I have observed.
If you can add to, please do. I know very little about this.
:::::::
My first definition of culture was "that which can thrive without money" For example, very little in Orange County thrives without money.
Ok, beyond that, I'm thinking it is that which exists between ppl, is created by the interactions of ppl, then dictates the actions/behavior of those ppl. It requiers participation to exist, not money.
What controls culture? well, art comes from it but also directs it. it expresses sentiments of the culture, therefore increasing the memes of that aspect of culture.
Art is more important when culture is more important. Ppl look to it for direction, more or less. It won't feed them.
Ok, so, that's my basic premise of thought. Culture is then acting as a form for people to live and act in, like a government. Cultural rules can become very strong (tradition).
Can culture be controlled by a few?
----->Enter Commercialism:
Only that which makes money thrives. All sentiments, actions, thoughts reduced to money. It is a measurable, quantifiable, commodifiable, exportable culture. Money measures the will of the people.
Clear issue: all people have will, not all people have money.
----->Enter Violence:
To increase cultural memes, physically force it, or at least, physically punish those that disagree. Eventually the culture becomes what the strong decide it is.
Clear issue: violence hurts!
--->Enter Art?:
Make art that reflects your cultural ideals and hope people like it. If they do, the ideals will become more common (memes spread).
Clear issue?: not everyone is good at art?
---
Ok, so, culture eventually develops tradition.
Is this good?
Is it necessary? (or, unavoidable)
And isn't tradition just ideology and hegemony to the max?
In Spain, tradition/culture dictates actions. They work less, drink more(?), smoke more, eat fatty foods, disinfect less, but LIVE LONGER. It seems that the ability to relax and fall back on cultural drives(which don't cost money, and therefore don't need to be worked for) makes them live longer.
BUT:
Some traditions are bad. Some severely injure (bad pork) or maybe are bad for the Earth/sustainability.
So, when is tradition bad? Commercialism, like in the US, is very adaptive to new information, the latest research (although only if it can make money). Is commercialism the only adaptable social form?
I hope not. I think for the answer, I'm going to have to see how the form of the internet/internet culture could apply to "analog" culture.
oi.
If you can add to, please do. I know very little about this.
:::::::
My first definition of culture was "that which can thrive without money" For example, very little in Orange County thrives without money.
Ok, beyond that, I'm thinking it is that which exists between ppl, is created by the interactions of ppl, then dictates the actions/behavior of those ppl. It requiers participation to exist, not money.
What controls culture? well, art comes from it but also directs it. it expresses sentiments of the culture, therefore increasing the memes of that aspect of culture.
Art is more important when culture is more important. Ppl look to it for direction, more or less. It won't feed them.
Ok, so, that's my basic premise of thought. Culture is then acting as a form for people to live and act in, like a government. Cultural rules can become very strong (tradition).
Can culture be controlled by a few?
----->Enter Commercialism:
Only that which makes money thrives. All sentiments, actions, thoughts reduced to money. It is a measurable, quantifiable, commodifiable, exportable culture. Money measures the will of the people.
Clear issue: all people have will, not all people have money.
----->Enter Violence:
To increase cultural memes, physically force it, or at least, physically punish those that disagree. Eventually the culture becomes what the strong decide it is.
Clear issue: violence hurts!
--->Enter Art?:
Make art that reflects your cultural ideals and hope people like it. If they do, the ideals will become more common (memes spread).
Clear issue?: not everyone is good at art?
---
Ok, so, culture eventually develops tradition.
Is this good?
Is it necessary? (or, unavoidable)
And isn't tradition just ideology and hegemony to the max?
In Spain, tradition/culture dictates actions. They work less, drink more(?), smoke more, eat fatty foods, disinfect less, but LIVE LONGER. It seems that the ability to relax and fall back on cultural drives(which don't cost money, and therefore don't need to be worked for) makes them live longer.
BUT:
Some traditions are bad. Some severely injure (bad pork) or maybe are bad for the Earth/sustainability.
So, when is tradition bad? Commercialism, like in the US, is very adaptive to new information, the latest research (although only if it can make money). Is commercialism the only adaptable social form?
I hope not. I think for the answer, I'm going to have to see how the form of the internet/internet culture could apply to "analog" culture.
oi.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
*$
You can't just get tea everywhere here, let alone a non-generic black tea. So when I got off the metro and saw Starbucks (*$) I thought "goddamnit, I'm going to have to try it here at some point," and I knew they would have green tea so I got it.
Fricken 2.30 Euro. That's almost $3 for a tea bag and hot water. All I could think was, what are the other prices. Ok, so, at first the prices for lattes, etc. don't appear too outrageous with numbers like 2.70 for a small, but when you consider that a cafe con leche is the same thing as a latte, then its a little strange that starbucks charges 2.70 for a small and EVERY cafe I've been to is in the range of 1.10 - 1.80, it's irksome.
Does that mean starbucks presents themselves as a specialty coffee place here? At home I'd never buy a coffee product from Starbucks (I'll take it for free though). Their lattes taste like cheese. At least in the US, they charge the same price as every other place that serves lattes made by barista's who are trained to prioritize speed over quality.
Maybe the lattes here are excellent. I just don't know if I can get myself to waste the money on it, when I'm still searching for a decent place to order spanish style coffee here. Pretty much every place has been dissapointing, but at least with these local places I'm not knowingly paying a premium price for something I'm 99% sure is going to dissapoint.
_________
See this is the kind of post that makes me not want to keep a blog. If I rant this to friends, they know I'm not an irreconcilable snob. Man, but what if a non-friend reads this. I'm gonna feel so lame.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
