Apr 19
“Hypocrite, Opportunist, don’t infect me with your poison.”
-Thom Yorke, from Punch up at a Wedding
In his indictment of society’s collective dyslexia, Nick brings up the important topic of fallacious arguments. “Name Calling”, a classic case of the Ad Hominem fallacy is perhaps the most rampant in all societies. One only needs to open a newspaper or any other form of popular media to be inundated with instances of it.
Currently, meaningless one-liners like “axis of evil” or “rogue state” seem to be particularly popular examples. Worryingly, these and other such nonsense are often propogated by what is foolishly considered to be the ‘Intelligentsia’….a distinguished graduate of Harvard Business School in the above examples.
Of course, this sensationalist garbage gets lapped up by millions of undiscerning media-consumers who need only a handful of trite catch-phrases upon which to base their entire philosophies on life. Proponents of insightful writing and journalism, take heed: The seemingly endless ‘spectacle’ that Nick refers to is in its golden age.
As I pondered this topic last night, I came to appreciate the fact that only a minute minority have the chance to learn basic epistemology or linguistics and thereby familiarize themselves with such pitfalls of language. It would probably take a Herculean leap in global education standards even to get the average college graduate to know and understand the meanings of the two words. So, in the mean time, we should perhaps just try to teach people to be civil.
According to a body of research documented at the following website, empathy-inducing drugs would help.
http://www.biopsychiatry.com
Apr 15
Two nights ago, I tried to compose something coherent to be posted on this ol’ Blog. Unfortunately, what came spewing forth from my keyboard was complete and utter crap. I had no sense of direction, purpose or clarity in my writing. Not only was it unintelligible, but I was vainly attempting to criticize poor writing on the Internet. How ironic that my feeble attempts resulted in a feeble effort on my part.
Was it simply writer’s block? That, in my opinion, is much like stepping into the bright sunlight after being holed underground in a dank and dark cave. Blinded momentarily, you have a vague idea of what’s out there, some piddling idea of what you mean to write, the proverbial “on the tip of your tongue.” The best way to overcome this feeling of inadequacy is to simply step back. In my case, I turned on the television.
Expecting some sort of inspiration, I was instead struck by images of sheer stupidity. No, it wasn’t Spike TV’s “Most Extreme Elimination” (an amusing show by the way, an English-dubbed 1980’s Japanese version of American Gladiators). Rather, it was the leader of that country south of mine, George W. Bush.
Following a rare press conference, in an even rarer question and answer period, Bush stuttered numerous times as he tried to answer specifics about 9/11, Iraq, Oil and what not. (I’ll leave an analysis of WHAT he actually said to Prashant perhaps, or visit http://slate.msn.com/id/2098810/). Bush’s stumbling speech was reminiscent of Porky Pig signing off an episode of Looney Tunes.
Which brings me full circle to my original thought. If you can’t say it properly, you have 2 options: a) learn how to speak or b) don’t say it at all. The same applies for writing, and for a prime example, visit any message board or Usenet newsgroup on the Internet. You have your capable posters, who argue their point coherently. You also have your literary jackasses, often resorting to name calling, illogical sentences or just plain poor writing.
I am in full support of free speech, as that is exactly what I’m doing here. I know Bush isn’t eloquent. I know I can do little about educating the masses online. But the question still remains: how much longer must this spectacle go on?
Apr 08
Our readers appear to have spoken. Thanks. As for the culture industry debate, I have the following to contribute:
Those who believe that artists can and will ever be exempt from a well-defined microeconomic model are living in a fool’s paradise. The heavily biased ‘buffet’ of mainstream music today, otherwise known as a collusive oligopoly, is just a skewed model that mostly rewards adherence to identified ‘trends’. These ‘trends’ or ‘scenes’ are often artificially manufactured and may or may not have a basis in the actual existence of a localized community movement. There are notable exceptions though, as evidenced by my review of a few days ago.
Fairer distribution models that encourage originality are emerging but are still very much on the fringes. In the mean time, select parts of the buffet offer us a glimpse into what the undiscovered eclectic kitchen has on offer.
A major factor that will determine whether or not real musical movements will enter the public eye is consumer apathy. As Nick astutely points out: “The incessant need of the blind audience to be satisfied with the familiar has driven the industry to continue generating carbon copies of past acts.” He then argues that it’s the consumer’s responsibility to make a conscious choice. But can we really expect the minimally educated public to do so? If not, has artistically integritous music been eternally condemned to exist on the fringes?
Older Entries Newer Entries
