tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-299432622024-03-07T15:15:31.972-08:00nonsenseDavidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15746675331837392096noreply@blogger.comBlogger274125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29943262.post-17573032046828398792009-07-30T21:56:00.000-07:002009-07-30T21:57:57.354-07:00new blog addressigiveup.tumblr.com<br />igiveup.tumblr.com<br />igiveup.tumblr.com<br />igiveup.tumblr.com<br /><br /><br />bookmark that.Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15746675331837392096noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29943262.post-12794938531682410162009-07-15T15:28:00.000-07:002009-07-15T16:10:01.374-07:00What do you want to be when you grow up?My desires, when it came to ideal professions, growing up were always fantastical. I assume that when I was young I had mostly typical, grandiose, and romantic ideas that I wouldn't really call "dreams" because I was too young to be aware of that concept. Every young heart is naive and fortunate enough that bloated and cute ambitions are incredibly pure because the gauntlet of reality hasn't set it's jaws in yet. I think in middle school I wanted to be a basketball player (I was too naive to realize the reality of my physical design made that ideal quixotic at best, downright ridiculous at worse. I was short and slow), I also had these ideas to be an architect, which was strange. My abilities in math were average, my ability to conceptualize and be creative weren't overwhelming. Ironically, considering my life now, that is still something I have a hard time with. I resented guidance councilors systematic exercises that were designed to set you on a path which followed your unique personality characteristics and drive all by asking generic, vague questions. By the time I was in college I was presented with a myriad of career paths, ALL of which sparked no desire in me. It's not that I didn't like college, nor was it a case of me being especially lazy, it just came down to the fact that I felt no urge strong enough that led me to pursue anything with passion. Thank God I took part in music, other wise, any profession I would've pursued would've have resulted in me "settling", and maybe I wouldn't have been aware of it at the time. Looking back now, I still have a hard time recognizing anything that really interests me, although there is one thing...how great would it be to be a writer! I spout my own opinions as if they are worth listening to all the time, so isn't writing that same desire manifested in a more dignified approach, which because of the great history of amazing writers, even pop culture writers can exist in this echelon of elevated intellectuals. Although, I shouldn't be blinded by history, there are so many amazing books in antiquity that were satires of their times and immediate surroundings that ended up being timeless. Of course, I am very reluctant to seriously approach the idea because I am cut off at the knees by Dostoevsky, Kundera, and Rand. Is it fear or respect that prohibits me? Or maybe they are excuses all around. Of course, the same question can be asked in relation to music and it's awe inspiring history. There is nothing new under the sun, only new generations. Perhaps the originality doesn't exist in the piece of art itself, but the one who experiences the art.<br /><br />Being in a band is a silly but infectious, albeit cliche, dream. I was constantly assaulted with what "could be", and thanks to the bands I did find identity, they proved that there were levels, or multiple definitions of success. There wasn't just U2, there was also Mineral and Sunny Day Real Estate. I wasn't bent on music my whole life, but once I found the community, it supported me in so many ways, it was logical that it could possibly support me in even more ways. I still wouldn't say that it is a rational decision then, and especially now, for one to take action on, but each circumstance is different. I don't regret my decision at all, because it wasn't a decision, it was the only thing that made sense to me. Passion and dreams are talked about so romantically, you rarely hear about the enslaving characteristics they can have. Being entrenched in ones dream is as bad as ignoring it. Ambition is a dangerous thing. I'm 28 and I am beginning to recognize aspects of my personality that have been there since I was young. I was never ambitious. I never had grand schemes, nor did I participate in the identifying of goals. I never said, "in 20 years, I hope to be here". I'm somewhere the idiocy of "there is only the present" and the boring "always be prepared".<br /><br />When I was growing up I didn't want to be anything. That mentality still haunts me.Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15746675331837392096noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29943262.post-78008582065645490542009-06-30T12:03:00.000-07:002009-06-30T13:47:54.317-07:00morality, when it is formal, devoursIt's coincidental that while I happen to be reading about rebellion, the Iranian people are engaged in an attempt at, what I understand to be, massive reform. Although, to run for president in Iran, the candidate has to be approved by the Guardian Council, so I'm personally curious as to what change would really unfold if the protesters succeeded, much like people's legitimate concern of validity of Obama's claim for change. I don't know much about Iranian history. For me growing up, Iran's history began in 1978 with the overthrow of the Shah. Although, what replaced the Shah? I read an article by Reese Erlich that included this excerpt.<br /><br />"From 1953-1979, the Shah of Iran brutally repressed his own people and aligned himself with the U.S. and Israel. After the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran brutally repressed its own people and broke its alliance with the U.S. and Israel. That apparently causes confusion for some on the left."<br /><br />I'm sure that those few sentences will certainly evoke some responses regarding the condition of the citizens of Iran, the question of oppression, political freedom, etc. Although, for me, these demonstrations, as much as they ignite my interest in the history of Iran's government, it also presents a very current opportunity to consider the question of rebellion in terms of Camus says about it. What does rebellion, in its broad sense, mean? What does it imply? And furthermore, when rebellion becomes the catalyst for revolution, what changes?<br /><br />"Rebellion is, by nature, limited in scope. It is no more than an incoherent pronouncement. Revolution, on the contrary, originates in the realm of ideas."<br /><br />Camus has alluded that revolution is an attempt at unity, and in that there is no unity, there has yet to be a successful revolution. And if a revolution is based on principle, it will only lead to the justification of injustice when trying to uphold the reason of the revolution. Reason, as it is the pride of man, is also the downfall of justice. I am not only referring to secular ideas of universal reason. <br /><br />"But a moment comes when faith, if it becomes dogmatic, erects its own altars and demands unconditional adoration"<br /><br />"The revolutionaries may well refer to the Gospel, but in fact they dealt a terrible blow to Christianity"<br /><br />God is absent from the public arena, and any claims for revolution, democracy, or tyranny based upon the foundations of Christianity can only be taken as a fraudulent and manipulative proclamation. God doesn't exist, only the abstract idea of God exists. The name of Christ, when applied to public policy which denies citizens rights or freedoms others enjoy, should be taken as a hi-jacking, if only for the reason that no one can understand God well enough to represent the will of God in the context of diversity. There are those who openly worship reason and the universal good, and there are those who substitute that terminology for the more western euphemism, Christ. Sarah Vowell made a good point in her book about the founding of the new world and the application of Christian morality in that movement. She pointed out that those who might humbly take upon themselves, the responsibility of leading a group of oppressed people into the hands of God and a new life become tyrannical in their brutally forced application of that morality amongst the people that followed him and his leadership. <br /><br />"To ensure the adoration of a theorem for any length of time, faith is not enough; a police force is needed."<br /><br />Revolutions, in so much as they do not succeed, merely perpetuate injustice. "Spartacus died as he wished, but at the hands of mercenaries, slaves like himself, who killed their own freedom with his." Once one succeeds in terminating the source of injustice, then what is left? Is he inevitably doomed to become the oppressor as he so desperately tries to apply his enlightened ideals through his new power? Do good intentions, whether they obey reason or God, only end up in what many would claim to be injustice? <br /><br />"But virtue, in that it has too much pride, is not wisdom"<br /><br />"But God is at least dematerialized and reduced to the theoretical existence of a moral principle. The bourgeoisie succeeded in reigning during the entire nineteenth century only by referring itself to abstract principles. Less worthy than Saint-Just, it simply made use of this frame of reference as an alibi, while employing, on all occasions, the opposite values."<br /><br />I find myself surprised that I can find reason in those who strive for the suspension of morality in the public sphere. What is to be made of personal morality? Can they exist in different realms? Rebellion is born from awareness of injustice, and it so quickly loses its sight and focus, and then it can certainly become destructive. This is not a protest of Christianity, but I am putting Christianity on the same plane as the god of reason in terms of it's function in the public sphere, and not because of the injustice of Christ, but because of the idea that to be in any position of power can not align itself with the ideals of Christ, especially if one perseveres in keeping that power. It's all an "abstract principle".<br /><br />"From the moment that eternal principles are put in doubt simultaneously with formal virtue, and when every value is discredited, reason will start to act without reference to anything but it's own success."Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15746675331837392096noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29943262.post-90365888288993151912009-06-21T06:40:00.000-07:002009-06-22T09:07:50.539-07:006/21Every once in a while I'll re-read parts of "The Grand Inquisitor" and remind myself why Dostoevsky is really really really good. If anyone wants to attempt some visual representation, or an image that is inspired by this piece of literature, please do so and send it to me so I can get it tattooed on my arm. Thank you!<br /><br />"Nothing is more seductive for man than his freedom of conscience, but nothing is a greater cause of suffering. And behold, instead of giving a firm foundation for setting the conscience of a man at rest forever, Thou didst choose all that is exceptional, vague and puzzling. Thou didst choose what was utterly beyond the strength of men, acting as though Thou didst not love them at all--Thou who didst come to give Thy life for them! Instead of possession of men's freedom, Thou didst increase it, and burdened the spiritual kingdom of mankind with its sufferings forever. Thou didst desire man's free love, that he should follow thee freely, enticed and taken captive by Thee. In place of the rigid ancient law, man must hereafter with free heart decide for himself what is good and what is evil, having only Thy image before him as his guide. But didst Thou not know he would at last reject even Thy image and Thy truth, if he is weighed down with the fearful burden of free choice? they will aloud at last that the truth is not in Thee, for they could not have been left in greater confusion and suffering than Thou has caused, laying upon them so many cares and unanswerable problems."<br /><br />Last night Jacob and Rob and I got into a discussion/debate, and for the sake of this post, the topic doesn't matter. Sometimes, these discussions are just internal debates that I am vocalizing to other people, bouncing off my opinion and seeing where it goes. And the worst thing that can happen in a situation like this, is to have moments of doubt myself, not in my ability to argue or debate, but when I wonder to myself, "why am I saying this, do I really believe this?"....and that reaction totally sucks. It's not as if anyone "wins" these discussions. For me, it provides a mirror, and I have to really wonder if I believe in what I'm saying, politically and spiritually. I do believe that if you claim yourself to be a follower of Christ, that excludes you from the business of America, and that was smacking me over the head over and over again last night. As I write this, I'm bringing into question my own rationale, or rather, looking directly at my irrationality. I read an interview with Aaron Weiss the other day, and when he was asked a question about the difficulties of staying "relevant" in the music world today (or something to that affect), he responded, "I'm increasingly content with irrelevancy and less and less concerned with 'expressing myself'".....everything is hard to swallow, as it should be whenever you are really seeing yourself. (When I say, "hard to swallow"...I mean that it can be crippling) And soon, if they care to look at all, everyone will see through me. I'm a human (all too human) who is fascinated with the fringe existence of Christ. Studying Christ as a cultural figure is insulting.Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15746675331837392096noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29943262.post-12446893197409603222009-06-09T13:33:00.000-07:002009-06-09T14:33:45.978-07:00an unmoving abstractionWhen I think of God in a historical context, it is interesting to me that, whether He is referenced as a concept or a physically existing figure, he will always represent something that gives way to so many paradoxes of rebellion. Right now, I'm reading a book called "The Rebel" which, as I said in my last blog, analyzes the concept of rebellion throughout the history of different socio-philosophical movements. What I am beginning to see more and more (which is probably a testament to the counter productive nature of philosophy) is that Christ is used, and even needed, in order to lay out one's ideas. The concept of Christ has so permeated history and culture that he often represents a central totem pole which these sensitive, complex and lost masters of thought dance, tethered in disdain or adoration, around the phenomenal idea of "Christ" which is always present. It's definitely a phenomenon. It's easily understood that Christ is needed to prop up a philosophy which promotes the ideals of his teaching, but I laugh at the fact he is also central to ideas that are trying in vain to eradicate His influence from modern thought. Paradoxically, and frustratingly enough for such authors and thinkers, the idea of Christ is necessary in so many ideas that hope to "enlighten" modern man beyond the chains of "exclusive and oppressive morality" which is based on something which is either "non existent" or "inconsequential". I should be clear, this post is not one which is trying to make an argument for the existence of Christ, it is merely to point out the paradox that finds the Christian God at the root of philosophies which try, not necessarily to prove his non existent, rather to nullify, negate and dismiss, His influence. What a controversial figure, an unmoving abstraction, which even in attempts to destroy God, He is ironically and paradoxically vindicated as a cultural influence and phenomenon so strong that schools of thought are constructed and developed time and time again as a reaction to His "existence". There have been many concepts, political and philosophical, which have given rise to movements that exist in direct reaction, although Christ is different I think, because so many times he is a point of reference in those movements as well. His influence is unmatched, a true phenomenon, which, while He is manipulated, transformed, abused and misappropriated, He remains a cornerstone for understanding. Marx, Kant, Neitzche, Kierkegaard, Plato, Hume, Heidegger, they all existed. God, in addition to being important parts of each of the aforementioned thinkers, has never been proven to exist. That being said, Greek mythology plays a large roll as well...that is so interesting to me. Myth dances in such a controversial and fruitful relationship with factual history and social/political movements. Very intriguing indeed. Christ is justification of everything we know of, He is justification of charity, love, evil, oppression, genocide, murder, racism, and how often He is misunderstood, maybe he has never been understood at all. The fracture in his influence is the same thing which makes Him a phenomenon. The fact that Faith is required is the one thing that leaves that door open for the ugliness of humanity to hi-jack His intent, yet Christ can not exist without Faith. If God was indeed a creation of man, then the man responsible is worthy of intense study and envy in regards to his genius creation and prophetic intuition. <br /><br />(Of course, Christ's influence is never understood across the span of history and culture as a unified idea, maybe Christ is created in certain minds, their own Christ, or their own understanding of Christ, and that personal definition is used to as a reference point in the construct of their world view. AGGHH, a phenomenon indeed.)Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15746675331837392096noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29943262.post-12528397014387991322009-06-03T15:47:00.000-07:002009-06-03T16:40:59.742-07:00june 3rdSitting here with nothing to say after starting to read "The Rebel" is anything but inspiring, so far the book is mostly just a pill for justified indolence, but I'm only a few pages in. So far, it has touched upon the acts of suicide and murder and questioned whether or not those acts can be justified from an "absurdist" prospective, and you will all but happy to know that it is not! Whew!<br /><br />I have read over my blogs recently, and I'm incredibly bored by them. They are not saying much of anything, so I've decided not to write about that kind of thing unless I have some reason to, and by "reason" I mean genuine newfound motivation, not some incited reaction to an inconsequent event or news story. It's becoming predictable and trite to protest anything having to do with the Church..blah blah.<br /><br />I just got off of a "national tour", and I did this great thing. I bought records in strategic locations. Instead of having to carry the records in the van the whole tour (which is risky because they can get bent or warped during the trip, but also, it takes up valuable space) I had my generous friends in those "strategic locations" hold on to the records for me and send them to me when I got home. So I am patiently waiting for the records to arrive. I bought a whole lot and I can't even remember them all...but let's try. <br /><br />Belle and Sebastian, NOFX, The Velvet Underground, Elvis Costello, Miles Davis, Chet Atkins, Patsy Cline...hmm, and I can't remember the rest...so obviously, I'm excited.<br /><br />Is anyone who reads my blog an expert on Michel Foucault? I have tried to read some of his books, but admittedly, I can't follow it. What is funny is that Foucault criticized the deconstructionism of Jacques Derrida for being too obscure, so I'm not going to crack a Derrida book until I can keep up with Foucault. My point is, since I can't read Foucault's own text, I thought I'd read a book about him. Maybe that will give me some information to help me along. I also read the story of David and Uriah today. Someone tell me why, when I'm reading my bible at a coffee shop or any place, someone always comes up and wants to talk to me about it. I know it's an innocent and good willed gesture, but I don't like to be interrupted. I'm not looking for conversation, or a impromptu bible study when I'm reading. Does that make me sound like a jerk? So be it :-)<br /><br />I've been listening to the new mewithoutyou album over and over again...ad nauseam. I am going to see them in Richmond on June 8th.Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15746675331837392096noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29943262.post-54276807252970145452009-05-22T19:34:00.000-07:002009-05-22T23:24:06.201-07:00devil's advocate 2the advocate of my inner demon is floating around my head during these long drives on crowded interstates. this makes it very hard for me to sleep peacefully, especially when he's saying things like this:<br /><br />it would be a blessing if the absurdity of christianity was brought to the forefront of the movement. the insulation has let complacency and arrogance be a force for too long. I think that christianity would be well served by a thorough raking of figurehead weeds, and a furious cleansing of the raucous parliaments of agenda prayer. I shouldn't write about christianity as though I'm on the inside. Are there people that are comfortable or even certain enough with their spirituality enough as to act as ambassadors to Christ? That question is a rhetorical one, because surely no one is. Christians should stop witnessing all together. They should keep their cluttered rolodex of tag lines to themselves. I would assume that God has a divine inclination which can tell Him where he would accomplish the most, and forgive me for assuming that middle to upper class suburban coffee shops aren't the most divinely inspired places. <br /><br />and after the torturous monologue, i'm immediately kicked in the head...because...hey, what do i know?Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15746675331837392096noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29943262.post-66554982323025473922009-05-15T01:11:00.000-07:002009-05-15T01:12:41.692-07:0005-13-09<br />i hate that i'll swim through thoughts while driving, never put them down and then just forget about them, or they just trip over each other while moving around in my head, slamming against the walls of my brain...ya know, it's nothing. it's parallel to my days traveling...just random images of passing country side. i can make believe every night of my life, put myself where ever I want to be and talk about as much or as little as I want. I've never created another identify for myself, that is no fun. But you're identity is always different when it's placed into different contexts. "I change by not changing at all"...<br />i could never write a book, i have no point A, nor do I have any point in my life that is a point worth talking about, but that is where the art of writing takes over. I lack imagination. i'm very reigned in and even fascinated by the cogs of a sober reality, so much so that i don't care to move beyond it. I do romanticize and idealize the infrastructure of cliches...blue collar, troubled, sensitive tragedies. <br /><br />it is all so completely underwhelming, boring even...everything from the past has been made into legend, i figure if i I was there in the moment, i would walk away, over to some bar and find something else from the past. <br /><br />how silly is it that i walk right by the best sellers shelf!Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15746675331837392096noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29943262.post-30574024600957336652009-05-12T12:39:00.000-07:002009-05-12T13:02:58.234-07:00suck it tom pettySo we all went skydiving yesterday and it would be silly to go through all of the cliches that could be used when describing the event. Needless to say I was nervous, needless to say that falling to earth that fast, dropping 10,000 feet in one minute or something like that is a phenomenal and indescribable experience. We got there pretty late and we were the last jump of the day, and I was the first one out of the plane in my group. My tandem partner was very good at keeping my mind at ease and off the face that I was jumping out of a plane from 12,000 feet or something. I want to go again, and I honestly can't believe I went at all. Here are some pictures.<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoYsQgAq3yVldkLdfHSpk5mYkmvrp7N8GX3jQ1aCc7CD0C6sOr8ChSBe0fZixA9VfsC8Zrn37nLgimEKummePnuJDw37_RTrPdTM0pXWGg_ACdUct78MMV-ze1UHlHqM6Wy_EH0Q/s1600-h/DSC00036.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 134px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoYsQgAq3yVldkLdfHSpk5mYkmvrp7N8GX3jQ1aCc7CD0C6sOr8ChSBe0fZixA9VfsC8Zrn37nLgimEKummePnuJDw37_RTrPdTM0pXWGg_ACdUct78MMV-ze1UHlHqM6Wy_EH0Q/s200/DSC00036.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5335028534567928674" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgathF7RV6_xaPzSDBpdHh2ZPa7LvQOesgfEzk01JsBmTdafQazos62oVQMNwlUUUDlZPsyCJI8Ab_VQgP4TdCOwCzAnyf4eWy69jdq5Bg6BZ51QXewNZPW3D_CAbbBktAQZ7anbQ/s1600-h/DSC00033.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 134px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgathF7RV6_xaPzSDBpdHh2ZPa7LvQOesgfEzk01JsBmTdafQazos62oVQMNwlUUUDlZPsyCJI8Ab_VQgP4TdCOwCzAnyf4eWy69jdq5Bg6BZ51QXewNZPW3D_CAbbBktAQZ7anbQ/s200/DSC00033.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5335028528080229394" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4p6qzYEwqTt5w9xvDI0dsZa2ajsvgS6vOdRu089iuuMZEopyQ9wu0AHLXCWLI_sE5ZBSS_Y9mDHhSuQw-IxpR__SAbL4ipWwIUP7HaDMCnbTCU-L0dzpjuqFAS8rWRJF3P4dyVA/s1600-h/DSC00029.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 134px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4p6qzYEwqTt5w9xvDI0dsZa2ajsvgS6vOdRu089iuuMZEopyQ9wu0AHLXCWLI_sE5ZBSS_Y9mDHhSuQw-IxpR__SAbL4ipWwIUP7HaDMCnbTCU-L0dzpjuqFAS8rWRJF3P4dyVA/s200/DSC00029.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5335028525138937762" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinVzBiUFhpnjYRSS6hXx2SPUkSZRkXp908Q0e5JnMomCOwR-DGJLzqHcs38GqPL5jhKdqeTjuGljBZ1iBNM9w52GtKSynW0cJ49TQwlmfFJqvTJPWmCTYS9MNfb3X8eySlaURUOw/s1600-h/DSC00019.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 134px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinVzBiUFhpnjYRSS6hXx2SPUkSZRkXp908Q0e5JnMomCOwR-DGJLzqHcs38GqPL5jhKdqeTjuGljBZ1iBNM9w52GtKSynW0cJ49TQwlmfFJqvTJPWmCTYS9MNfb3X8eySlaURUOw/s200/DSC00019.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5335028522027620802" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBK1mlxAHVbUBFBoAFhmvsPc5_iaTk_BrQ2FD3AFTAnvZ48avnnEwFs-pd9AwnxrvYmtXPsi9tFqwiMEPEaCh85Jy43RCPomPI_oUhGyp15saGFOru2cwVmAgcBb0dzFwpLDCDtQ/s1600-h/DSC00006.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 134px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBK1mlxAHVbUBFBoAFhmvsPc5_iaTk_BrQ2FD3AFTAnvZ48avnnEwFs-pd9AwnxrvYmtXPsi9tFqwiMEPEaCh85Jy43RCPomPI_oUhGyp15saGFOru2cwVmAgcBb0dzFwpLDCDtQ/s200/DSC00006.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5335028516939600914" /></a>Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15746675331837392096noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29943262.post-88855572323366583382009-05-09T11:48:00.000-07:002009-05-09T11:52:48.038-07:00san francisco today!!"art is born from extremes, and in fits of depression, agony, sadness, euphoria, lust and unfathomable love, a moment is created that all of the boring rote mechanics can identify with in passing, and for those who connect on a deeper level, it is crippling. visual, audio, literary..all of it. when then spirits of eternity find a conduit in some poor blue collar person who has a wandering or sensitive heart. the extremes are recorded and spewed into the middle to be understood, celebrated, undermined, marketed, dismissed or suffered."<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://sleevage.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/van_gogh_3.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 340px; height: 372px;" src="http://sleevage.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/van_gogh_3.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a>Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15746675331837392096noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29943262.post-73680073703680487952009-05-05T21:30:00.000-07:002009-05-05T21:34:15.246-07:00turn awayi have no motivation to write much and i don't really think i identify much with my own "generation."<br />i'm pretty sure there is some irony in what i just said.<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gKmxEJLcsIQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gKmxEJLcsIQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15746675331837392096noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29943262.post-43824081739571380682009-04-28T08:12:00.000-07:002009-04-28T08:33:46.328-07:00thanks for the effort brainI would love to be able to say that I "roamed the streets of Austin" last night, but I didn't, I roamed up and down 6th street a few times. All roaming was done within the span of a few blocks, but still, it was Austin and there was music, sushi, street musicians, tattoos and polaroids. Austin can never exist alone anymore, it will always be soaked in memories, which is fine. Whether it's saying goodbye to a friend in the back seat of a strangers car, a not so pleasant dinner at Kenichi, ACL festival or South Congress in general, the streets will always be grabbing at my ankles. I'm pretty sure I have memories in over 70% of the nation's cities at this point, but some are thicker and more humid than others. In some cities I can barely walk down the street without my mind constantly recreating events that happened years and years ago. I heard that the more foggy a memory, the more accurate it probably is, or maybe it's better to say that the more lucid a memory is, the more altered it is. Apparently, your brain will paint it's own picture of a memory as the years pass, so that one can end up with a pretty romanticized idea of an event that has mostly been forgotten. How sweet of our minds to try it's hardest not to let us forget about certain things.Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15746675331837392096noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29943262.post-3933049092110052592009-04-25T06:55:00.000-07:002009-04-25T07:26:29.656-07:00human spirit.I've never been to interested in reading any literature from "the beat generation". I've opened up a Ginsberg book, but I'm generally not a big fan of poems, there are some I get into, but not usually. It's kind of like theater, I can appreciate it, but ultimately, I have a hard time enjoying it. I could never go to poetry readings, watching people read their own poetry is awkward. I'll read their poems on my own so I can assuage the stretch for convictions which I feel like poets strive too hard for when reading their own poems. I bought "On The Road" recently and I'm starting to read it now, so far it seems fun. On the back of the book, where they usually place small quotes from praising reviews, I saw that they mention the phrase "human spirit" a few times, and I started to think about how one would identify the human spirit today, or even back then. When I think of human spirit, I think of it as something that is completely suppressed and buried under the will and necessity to succeed. So I immediately see that my ideas of human spirit and utility in today's society are at odds with each other. Human spirit shows itself in bursts of exception, or in displays of what could be considered irresponsibility. I feel like America has developed in such a way that the thirst for experiencing, or being infected with "human spirit" (in the romantic sense) is something that may actually be quenched through actions that compromise a security which perhaps you have worked for your whole life. Displaying "human spirit"...like it is depicted by "Into The Wild"...what a dramatic attempt to capture something that is so illusive. Today, I don't know what to consider the "human spirit", but I do feel like it's becoming a valuable thing to have, and hard to attain or hold onto, especially as one moves through life, although, thinking that way may expose my naivety in a way. Why is the notion of the "human spirit" restricted to youthful rebellion or even idealized nihilism, why is the human spirit connected to leaps of faith, or metaphoric intoxication. It's ideas like this that pose the threat of having a lonely life filled with people and experience that end up providing nothing but anecdotes, cinematic memories, and a poets idea of love. Why do I feel like the human spirit exists as an ideal that is juxtaposed with a sober discipline to "succeed" in today's America? I can only imagine that the years in which I have lived restrict and manipulate ideas which I am exposed to only through literature or movies. I wonder if "wisdom" is merely having a peace of mind with complacency and resignation, and supported by a few anecdotes.Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15746675331837392096noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29943262.post-54121457008803952282009-04-22T10:03:00.001-07:002009-04-22T10:05:46.996-07:00I'm busy latelyI'm on tour right now, so pleae forgive the scarcity of my posts lately. I'm in Orlando now and looking forward to hanging out with family and friends tonight. Although, earlier today I had some time to read more of "Practice in Christianity"..a later Kierkegaard book. I going to leave a quote. Thanks to all of you who have come out to the shows so far! If by any chance a person from Orlando reads this within the next 6 hours, come to the Social tonight!<br /><br />"And in truth, the eighteen hundred years have not contributed to a jot to demonstrating the truth of Christianity; on the contrary, with steadily increasing power they have contributed to abolishing Christianity. It is not at all the case, either, as one might logically assume when the demonstration of the eighteen hundred years is applauded, that now in the nineteenth century one is convinced of the truth of Christianity in a way totally different from the way people were in the first and second generations--it is indeed rather the case (and this really sounds somewhat satirical on the worshipers and adorers of that demonstration) that in proportion as the demonstration increased in power--fewer and fewer were convinced. But this is what happens when once and for all the crucial point in something is missed: frightful confusions can result that increase from generation to generation. Now, since it has been demonstrated, and on an enormous scale, that Christianity is the truth, now there is no one, almost no one, who is willing to make any sacrifice for its sake. When one--shall I say when one "only" believed its truth--then sacrificed life and blood. What a frightful delusion! If only, as that pagan who burned the libraries, one could push aside those eighteen hundred years--if one cannot do that, then Christianity is indeed abolished. If only it could be made evident to all those orators who demonstrate the truth of Christianity by eighteen hundred years and win people, if only it could be made evident to them, frightful as it is, that they are betraying, denying, abolishing, Christianity--if that cannot be done, then Christianity is abolished."Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15746675331837392096noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29943262.post-65197443332442793002009-04-09T09:07:00.000-07:002009-04-09T09:21:00.195-07:00AGGHHH!So, this is an interesting story and one that is rather Karmic and humorous. A long time ago I posted a very verbose, unfounded (in terms of the specific Book) "critique" of a book called "The Ethical Slut". The post was motivated by boredom and simply an exercise for me, something to have fun with. Well, in a display of irresponsibility, I titled the blog "The Ethical Slut" which would surely show up on search results if the author wanted to find reviews of the book, and of course, she did. <br /><br />While I definitely mentioned that I had not read the book and that the post should be taken "with a rock of salt", I still feel obliged to apologize to the author and to express to her my complete understanding of her reaction. I am not a columnist, I am not a book critic, and I am not a sociologist who specializes in sexuality. I am a bored person with and abundance opinions and a desire to create INTERNAL debates. I did not expect a blog of mine to find its to the author of the book which this post concerns, or actually, the posts concerns the summary, not the book. I bought the book today...so, while I clearly stated my lack of qualifications on the matter and mentioned a disclaimer which should effectively negate any opinions I have on the summary, I feel I should apologize either way. Wow! What a surprise, but I shouldn't expect anything else with the "internet"...sheesh.<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.karinandraoul.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/1-the-ethical-slut_d1.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 360px; height: 468px;" src="http://www.karinandraoul.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/1-the-ethical-slut_d1.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a>Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15746675331837392096noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29943262.post-37321352830730373462009-04-04T07:22:00.000-07:002009-04-04T07:33:15.406-07:00oh yeah.i wrote a short article about what we are doing this year for Enoch Magazine. You can visit the website at www.enochmagazine.com. It's a pretty cool thing they have going over there. I also posted the article down below.<br /><br />When I was younger, music provided something which I am finally beginning to see the value of now, over ten years later. In highschool, I was 15 years old and religiously listening to NOFX, The Descendents, ALL, Hot Water Music, and countless others. Taken at face value, the "movement" made sense within the context of social development during adolescence. It can be considered a phase, a predictable rebellion with which music, in many forms, over countless generations, is always the tool of expression. For many it is just that--a phase, or bridge that gaps an awkward and confusing time, although for many, the seeds are planted and they take a deeper root which evolves into an essential characteristic of one's world view. <br /><br />The culture of music became a defining role for me, as it is for many others. It wasn't merely the sonic element or the agression, nor was it the shelter it provided socially. The culture of underground music infected my infrastructure, illuminating an idea of community, as well as bringing light to an aspect of truth. That exposure (where ever one may find it) takes hold and becomes a catalyst which drives people to try and become a part of what fascinates them. I eventually did what so many other kids do, I joined a band. Fast forward 10 years and the desire, or "dream", has become a reality. As I've gotten older, I've become that cliche cynic, although it's important to ask where it comes from? The cynicism developed over the years because I am constantly reminded of the ideals, the community, the soul, and the beauty that is consistent, still providing the strong under current that keeps this passion so exigent with the passing of each generation. It plays out over and over again because of what it becomes in those who fall victim to it; the influence and spirit of community. Each generation grows, and in its wake leaves the products and artifacts of each revolution. Each generation takes part in the creation of the next.<br /><br />This brings me to the result. The band I'm in, Mae, has decided to give over all profits from digital downloads to humanitarian and charitable organizations that focus on education, art, global poverty, and the environment. The first organization is Habitat for Humanity. Mae is sponsoring a house that is being built for a single mother and her three children. We will continue to partner up with other organizations over the course of this year. We've been asked many times why we chose this approach for the year. The answer can be found in our desire to use our music in a way that benefits the community. The community of our fans, our local community, the international community, and the global community. The three of us in MAE have felt the impact of music first hand, over and over again since we can remember. The respect we have for what music can do is placing upon us the responsibility to use whatever influence we have to encourage our fans to engage in their community. One way to encourage our fans to engage in their community is to engage and actively participate in ours. We want to eradicate the barrier that can exist between fans and performers. We need to present a level playing field and get back to what made music so important--being a part of something together and making a change together, no matter how small or large the change may be. By inciting action in one community, and then from that one into another, the focus emerges and the rolls shift. What was started by one person with an idea now becomes it's own organism which spreads and influences change and new ideas. Our goal is ambitious, but it was born out of the simple recognition of the influence that can be built through the combination of music and community.Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15746675331837392096noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29943262.post-52743978351527051782009-04-02T11:07:00.000-07:002009-04-02T14:11:52.502-07:00fragmented jesus and self aware (loathing) christianityI haven't written anything lately. I'm reading a couple books right now...actually, I'm reading three books right now, and they aren't related in any way other than the fact they are all about God. All three texts are ultimately leading me to the same ideas, reinforced over and over again, and aside from the occasional new perspective, I really haven't felt motivated to write about something which I have already beat to death in my past posts. It's somewhat fulfilling that the problems I have focused on in the past are seemingly being reaffirmed as I continue to read and wonder, although, it is a bummer that I'm essentially reaffirming the impossibility of Christianity. The impossibility is not based on "lack of evidence" or anything boring or collegiate like that, it is simply an honest concern. Kierkegaard mentions that Christianity is an "eternal process of becoming", and I take that to mean a lot of things, one of them being the idea that one can never become a Christian, one can only try eternally, to become one. I think Christianity should be like voting, one can only decide to become one after they are completely self-willed and independent of any coercion. I was baptized when I was 7 years old, or maybe I was 11, either way, now I'm 27 and might as well be 4 years old in relation to spirituality. I've considered copying words from journal to this blog, but I'm not going to...they aren't written in any form that is aimed at being read. <br /><br />Honestly, my thoughts aren't organized (per usual) enough to make sense of what I want to say, nor are they very cohesive. Essentially, I've been milling over two things lately, they are only related through specific texts that in will not necessarily mean anything to anyone else. There is no soft way to mention this problem, essentially, I can't get away from the idea that self awareness in relation to God can never be completely bearable. At it's best, it is a nagging presence in your thought process, at it's worst, it's agonizing. (forgive my dramatic diction) I'll just say what I told a friend:<br /><br />" christianity, if taken seriously, creates this division of the self. The body and soul that God created is mourned because of the sinful nature of huamanity. So, as a christian we are told to eradicate our very self (Matthew 16:24), in order to have his will fill the void. But his will is so enigmatic that we ultimately end up rationalizing our shortfalls in understanding. We bridge the gaps with our own human intellect (an intellect which is frowned up on because of the pride and humanistic tendencies it can harbor) and ultimately worship a God that is a product of our own idea of perfection that has been a mix of conditioning, "culturalization", convenience and possiblity."<br /><br />So, that is a rough description of something I've been going over. The self aware christian can become a self loathing christian very quickly and it is completely understandable. I don't mean to point blame to "those" who are guilty of this. I believe we are all guilty of it. I feel inclined to continue on this topic, maybe try to make more sense of what I mean to those of you who might be reading, but I'm not going to. The "crisis" is self explanatory.<br /><br />I referenced Matthew in the previous paragraph...Oh! The bible! I chose to believe Mark's version of Jesus rather than Luke's (in relation to their differing accounts of the crucifixion). I would love to take comfort in the Jesus depicted in Luke, but I feel like Mark's version paints a more honest and vulnerable Jesus, overwhelmed by love and confusion. I used to be able to take solace in John 3:16 or Ephesians 2:8, but then I read James 2:26. Let the semantics begin!! Please, I'm encouraging everyone to assuage my scrutiny pertaining to the "inerrancy" of the Bible. (that is a trick) No, I don't believe the bible is inerrant. In Mark, Jesus says that the end is near and that "this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened", so if the bible is inerrant, Jesus was wrong. I'm shooting my mouth off. So, please, tell me again that I'm reading this verse wrong, please tell me that I'm not taking into account the context in which these things were written. Tell me that I am supposed to pleasantly swallow Paul's advice in Phillippians 1:15-18, which I don't agree with at all. Jesus is fragmented, accounts of his life differ from book to book of the New Testament. This does nothing to challenge my belief that Jesus existed, but it does nothing to confirm his assumed "divinity" either, that is something that only faith can provide. The centuries that have passed between the life of Jesus and the modern era have effectively placed a blinding and deafening buffer on the cultural outrage of the "reality" of Jesus, if we are indeed to take the stories from the bible at face value. History has silenced him, owned him, softened him, and turned his life into a heroic legend rather than a short, misunderstood, lowly tragedy. I remember seeing mewithouyou in DC and when Aaron (the singer, for those of you who don't know) mentioned Jesus Christ, the crowd cheered and he quickly silenced them and asked why they were cheering...that makes sense to me. <br /><br />How strange and difficult it is that humanity is God's most valued creation and at the same time his most vile offense. I am a valued creation and I am a vile offense.<br /><br />Anyway.....hmm, anyway.Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15746675331837392096noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29943262.post-16879848404618805132009-03-25T13:49:00.000-07:002009-03-25T14:34:20.878-07:00Time Machine!!!I dropped my good buddy Benj off at the airport today, and on the way home I decided to listen to Dusty Springfield. She reminds me of Kevin Arnold's mom from The Wonder Years. For some reason, whenever I listen to music from the 50's or 60's I become nostalgic, which is strange because nostalgia usually implies a longing for something in your past, and obviously the 60's is not a part of my past. So, maybe nostalgia is the wrong word. I have a very romanticized idea of that era, despite it's very tumultuous nature. The 50's was rampant with racism, McCarthyism, and numerous other cultural growing pains, and the 60's...well, it was the 60's-- exciting, culturally transforming and tragic in so many different ways. While drifting in my imagination I thought that I would totally be on board to take a trip back into time, although, thank goodness for "Back To The Future"! Without that movie, we probably wouldn't know what precautions to take while venturing into the world of time travel. My friends and I would have to make certain rules, and we would also have to be extremely secretive and very prudent in our employment of the device. As tempting as it would be, we would have to avoid traveling back to certain dates that were historically significant because that would increase the possibility of altering the future in any way, which is obviously something that we should stay away from. Also, it wouldn't be smart to use it too often, I figure 1-3 trips per week MAX!! If for any reason we decide to solicit time travel, we'd have to approach like the drug trade....with the utmost closure. We would have to use codewords and money laundering techniques, off shore accounts...ugh, I get dizzy just thinking about it. It would be so much fun!! Here is a list of events I would want to travel too, in no order of priority,,,<br /><br />1. The Doors performance at The Whiskey..the one where Jim Morrison goes on his Oedipus inspired rant during "The End"<br /><br />2. The Beatles at Shea, or the Cavern Club, or their last show on top of that building.<br /><br />3. I'd hang out with my dad in Germany, but obviously I'd have to be careful with this one.<br /><br />4. An Elliott Smith show in Portland.<br /><br />5. A Pearl Jam show at the Edge in Orlando, Fl.<br /><br />6. I'd find Kierkegaard in Denmark, Neitzsche in Germany, and C.S. Lewis in England.<br /><br />7. I'd get to know Christina Ricci before she was famous, but that might be creepy because she was famous at such a young age, and I don't think traveling back in time would make me younger.<br /><br />8. A Guns N' Roses show at the Troubadour in the 80's.<br /><br />9. Any week night on the sunset strip in the 60's, or an Andy Warhol party in NYC...actually, to hell with Warhol, I want to hang out with Nico.<br /><br />(disclaimer: I know this list is absent of certain historic events that are quite significant, but I'm just playing by the rules!)<br /><br />Ugh, there is too much to list! Anyway, here is a Dusty Springfield video.<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dp4339EbVn8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dp4339EbVn8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15746675331837392096noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29943262.post-12278878503637782642009-03-19T13:40:00.000-07:002009-03-20T07:29:30.121-07:00weekly kierkegaard excerptI'm slowly making my way through Kierkegaard's "Works of Love" and I am repeatedly blown away. In the excerpt below he is emphasizing the collision of Christian love and human love by way of listing the "madness" with which Jesus's life and love played out on earth.<br /><br />"One assumes that it was only ungodliness which had to collide with Christ. What a misunderstanding!.....<br /><br />He founded no kingdom on earth; neither did he sacrifice himself so the apostles could inherit the gains. No, it was--humanly speaking--madness: he sacrificed himself--in order to make the beloved as unhappy as himself. Was it really love--to gather a number of simple, poor men about himself, win their devotion and love as no one's love has ever been won, to let it seem to them for a time as if now the prospects of fulfilling their proudest dream were opening--only to reconsider suddenly and change the plan, only to plunge himself from these seductive heights into the abyss of all dangers without being stirred by their prayers, without taking the least regard for them, only to give himself without resistance into the power of his enemies, to be nailed to a cross like a criminal, amid mocker and scorn, while the world rejoiced! Was it really love to be separated from his decsiples in this way, to leave them abandoned in a world which for his sake might hate them, to toss them like lost sheep among ravenous wolves whose blood-thirst he himself had incited against them--was it really love? What then, did this man want, what did he want of these unwary, upright, even though provincial men whom he so horribly deceived? Why did he die without confessing that he deceived them? As it was, he died with the claim that it nevertheless was for love--alas, while the disciples with crushed hearts, yet with moving faith, did not presume to have any opinion about his conduct"<br /><br />"Unfortunately, one is tempted in so-called Christendom to imagine that one has faith, without having an impression of what this means, at least not enough to be noticeable."Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15746675331837392096noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29943262.post-7307782215480020002009-03-15T14:58:00.000-07:002009-03-15T15:06:52.136-07:00Socialism and ChristianityI enjoy some of the indignant reactions to the socialistic idea of "spreading the wealth", especially when those reactions come from those who call themselves christian.<br /><br />Acts 4:32-35<br />"All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need"<br /><br />(disclaimer: I think using a verse in this way is a sin. I've never denied being a hypocrite)Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15746675331837392096noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29943262.post-31739264544280414492009-03-12T11:10:00.000-07:002009-03-12T12:47:53.908-07:00I am not a Communist and Ayn Rand is not a prophet.When I was in college I had to read Ayn Rand's "Anthem". That started a love affair with her writing, and it also started a deeper look into the idea of capitalism, or as Ayn Rand put it, "The Virtue of Selfishness". All of her heroes--Hank Rearden, Dagny Taggert, Gail Wynand, Peter Roark, etc are idealized and romanticized as industrious, dedicated, fair, hard working, ethical champions of self made success. All of the characters tirelessly fighting against Government regulation and restrictions, fighting off legislation that would hijack the spoils of their genius and toil and redirect them to "better serve the society" as a whole, ultimately undermining well deserved personal reward and discouraging free thinking minds. Rand's writing is very engaging, although, she is writing novels based on her ideal society, just like Marx was. But, let's get a few things straight!<br /><br />First of all, Ayn Rand was brought up in Communist Russia, so immediately there emerges an environment which would influence anyone with a creative mind. Second, being that she is both a fictional writer and a philosopher, she manipulates the environment in which her characters exist, creating a setting that is very realistic in certain terms, it still avoids the complexities of human nature, which becomes very colorful in a sprawling society. Like any other political or philosophical ideal, it is perpetuated in a very presumptuous way, assuming that people will behave a certain way, according to conditioned stereo types that were tattooed on the writer or thinker over a number of years. Rand's ideas are definitely valid, and should always be considered in socio-political discussions involving labor, industry and economics, although, if one takes into account her ideas, then one must also take into account the ideas of Marx, Machiavelli, Adam Smith, Keynes, etc. I'm sure you get the idea.<br /><br />I'm only writing this because I saw some Fox news pundits, and other conservatives hailing Rand's ideas as a prophecy that has come to past with the emergence of "Socialism" being put in place by Obama. This is ridiculous. Haven't any of these people read even one copy of the International Socialist Review, or even one article on Zmag.org. But let's assume for the moment that Obama is a socialist, it is only being implemented as a reaction to the economic downturn we find ourselves in, which is a result (in one way or another) of the policies of deregulation that have been in place over the last 8 years, policies that were being played out under democratic AND republican guard. It is a necessary reaction. Ayn Rand's characters thrive in a FAIR environment, one in which corporate greed, the undermining of competition and manipulation of markets is not a reality. Her characters are ones of honesty and integrity, they are welcoming of new ideas, even if they threaten their own industry. Her worlds are created with out special interests, without corrupt lobbying, without Bernie Madoffs, without the marriage of business and politics. For the purpose of her message, she ignores aspects of reality. Basically, similar to any other political or philosophical idea, it is catered and edited. <br /><br />The overlying annoyance in this whole thing is that Obama is not a socialist, nor (under a normal climate) would he even be able to implement socialist policy. The only reason this is an issue is because the media is pathetic, the economic climate is so dire, and because Obama isn't the Gipper. The actions of the administration are set against an environment which evolved out of a deregulated era of industry, which allowed a wild, dangerous and careless behavior to thrive. I think it's funny that Capitalism is thought of as an idea that ultimately generates competition, in a way it does, but it is a competition that can exist at the expense of the consumer and the the laborers. Oh! how communistic I must sound!! Although, why do anti-trust laws have to exist? I was listening to NPR a while ago and a guest on one of their shows brought up a very good question--how do companies become "too big too fail?" Isn't that a failure of ideal capitalism and the free market? Or is ideal capitalism a system in which that phenomenon is encouraged...a system in which progress is made while climbing a ladder with rungs that are made up of small business, politicians, colleagues, working families, competing industries, etc?<br /><br />The point is this, Ayn Rand's philosophy, would never exist as she imagines because of that consistent interruption of humanity. Her world is based on good behavior, accountability, honesty and stoic, ethical self will...an idea that ALL NEW IDEAS are encouraged if they represent a more efficient model of production, and in turn, those new developments will play out in a way that benefits everyone, because it encourages everyone to keep pushing. Her ideal is based on the love of work and ingenuity, not the end goal of wealth. In her world, wealth is a coincidental result, and the ultimate drive for industry is personal creativity and love of that trade which gives them a sense of pride. <br /><br />In closing, I wish I was Peter Roark, although, I can't imagine his character being played by any one other than Conan O'Brian.Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15746675331837392096noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29943262.post-62881719766819207592009-03-07T09:15:00.001-08:002009-03-07T09:56:26.439-08:00Meg Ryan and KierkegaardThere is a scene in the movie "You've Got Mail" where Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan are walking together and discussing what the screen name of Meg Ryan's AOL crush could mean. The screen name being discussed is NY152. I'll spare the details of the context in which the scene is played out. The main thing is that Meg Ryan surmises, in her heavenly adorable way, that the "152" in the screen name could refer to 152 insights into her soul. Of course, this could be considered rather euphemistic...let's be honest....anyone who has that many insights into my soul would probably make me feel awkward. But whatever, that verbose intro is all to say that while I was reading the "Works of Love" by Kierkegaard this morning, he once again pointed out one of those things that constantly bothers me about myself. Although, before I get to what he wrote, I should say that I'm not completely convinced I'm guilty of this yet. I do not want to dismiss my constant scrutiny and reflection as passive avoidance of declaring a truth that would immediately employ my convictions. Also, this is ironical coming from Kierkegaard, he is extremely analytical. Never the less, when I read it, it was fantastic. <br /><br />"'What is love?' has ben asked out of curiosity, and frequently there has been an idle fellow who in answering has latched one to the curious fellow, and these two, curiosity and idleness, think so much of each other they almost never tire of each other or of asking and answering."<br /><br />"But Christianity, which does not relate itself to apprehension but to action, has the characteristic of answering and in the answer imprisoning everyone in the task. For that reason, it was dangerous for the Pharisees and the sophists and the hairsplitters and the daydreamers to ask questions of Jesus. Indeed, the questioner always got an answer, but in the answer he also got to know, in a certain sense, much too much; he received an imprisoning answer which did not ingeniously indulge in prolix conversation about the question, but with divine authority grasped the questioner and obliged him to act accordingly; whereas the questioner perhaps only desired to remain at the vast distance of curiosity or inquisitiveness or definition from himself and from doing the truth"Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15746675331837392096noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29943262.post-32218008104707497462009-03-04T09:38:00.000-08:002009-03-04T10:32:00.535-08:00Catholic sexism, Unitarian Universalism and Satanism...and Nada Surf.I loved reading Emerson and Thoreau when I was in college. Transcendentalism is a poetic approach to life, some nice serene and self-actualizing ideas that written in a way that leaves no choice but to imagine an Eden like dream sequence in which his the motion of his pen is paralleled only by some New England river in spring. Emerson's essay entitled "Circles" was this beautiful assessment of the connectivity of all things, and God's bottom up infusion in all of it, or maybe I'm confusing that essay with another one he wrote called, "The Over-Soul". Although, now I think that those writings are mere poetry. There is nothing all that defining in the message. They culminate in a beautifully fantastical, abstract, non point. Unitarian Universalism and "Satanism" are so unimpressively similar. I am always puzzled by the aggrandizing validation of an empty thought in terms of it being labeled a "philosophy" or "movement". Essentially, both ways of thinking are nothing more than the appropriation of generally well meaning humanistic inclinations into some system, or organization of thought which, I can only guess, would never be executed consistently in a society of people whose behavior will always be subject to environment and external influence.. I wrote something about an article I read a while ago, the post was entitled "The Ethical Slut"..and basically, it is the same type of reaction to the same type of unnecessary justification of human behavior that plays out in no surprising manner when you consider certain aspects of human nature and it's interaction in a functioning society. While some application of religious or social beliefs can be quite perverse, the application of UU or Satanism really changes nothing in the order or direction of humanity, it's useless! There is no internalization of any convictions, and those convictions come only from one's own formation of ideas, which are probably dictated by one's own convenience, a convenience disguised in interpretation of "higher being which is a general God". (This idea can extend to Christianity as well)...<br /><br />anyway, that was a big windbag of a rant...whatever.<br />--------------------------<br /><br />What about St. Thomas Acquinas's systematic approach to theology? It's kind of boring so far, but, I did find this gem of sexism when he was talking about the creation females. I'll just quote it...<br /><br />"perfect animals however possess the active power of reproduction in the male sex and the passive power of reproduction in the female sex"<br /><br />"Man, however, is directed towards a still nobler vital activity (said in relation to procreation) which is knowledge" <br /><br />"With respect to her particular nature, woman is somewhat deficient and misbegotten. For the active power in the male seed tends to produce a perfect male like itself, while when a female is produced, it is because of a weakness of active power or some material indisposition or some external change...."<br /><br />Ahh, medieval theology and science is humorous, although, at one time, it was considered the authority. It should cause us to put our own ideas today into question.<br />-------------------------------<br /><br />After all of this cyclical, dead end thought, i put this song on and relax some. Sorry about the language Mom and Dad!!!<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EXRLUeVXpMA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EXRLUeVXpMA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15746675331837392096noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29943262.post-59114040077337618062009-02-28T09:00:00.000-08:002009-02-28T09:22:48.245-08:00gratuitous<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nX6etUAIbRU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nX6etUAIbRU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br><br /><br />The game looks easy, that's why it sellsDavidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15746675331837392096noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29943262.post-8485021007610282922009-02-27T08:51:00.000-08:002009-02-27T08:53:22.367-08:00one more day!Hello friends. I'm writing to you from New Jersey to ask you to go to www.ideablob.com and vote for us if you haven't done so yet. We are very close to winning the $10,000 and it would be such an awesome thing to be able to use that money to help Rhonda's house be built. I know a lot of you have voted...thank you! But if you haven't please take a few minutes to do so. <br /><br />www.ideablob.com<br /><br />Thanks!!Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15746675331837392096noreply@blogger.com0