If there's any one sci-fi novel that'll make you think long after you've finished it, it is Arthur C. Clarke and Stephen Baxter's novel The Light of Other Days. I've talked about wormholes and privacy and whatnot in previous posts. This time, I want to bring up Clarke's The Songs of Distant Earth. The story takes place on an island archipelago on a planet far from Earth. The colony that has been sent there was chosen, as most colonists are, as the best genetic specimens of our species. With them was a computer database filled with the art and music and literature of mankind. What was left out of the collection was anything that had to do with religion, or mankind's prejudices. Which meant that many works of art had to be left out. Handel's Messiah, for instance. That little caveat, however, is not what I want to focus on. It really is a good book, which I would suggest reading.
We fly around on this ship we call Earth, and the amount of literature and music and art pile up, with fluff and useless pieces of garbage (see Transformers 2) being hailed as important (through people's wallets, anyway) while masterpieces of human creativity are quietly forgotten, to be lost to mankind. Maybe this is my hoarding genetics shining through, but I've always wanted the masterpieces to be kept in the public eye. There are books which I have read which are now out of print and will eventually be forgotten in the landfills of human materialism. Take Christopher by Richard M. Koff. Only kids book he wrote, only one of two period. But it was magnificent. And yet, I wonder how many copies are in Georgia, where I live. Forgotten on bookshelves and discarded from libraries because they haven't seen the light of day. How wonderful it would be to see these books brought to the top of the ocean's current, like an upwelling of water to see the sunlight. Or take Frank Bonham's The Missing Person's League. Yes, it's a little dated, but this 1970's sci-fi novel of environmental disaster and families disappearing was amazing when my 5th grade teacher read it to us some 20 years later. But now it's out of print, and who knows if it'll be reprinted.
In music, we do have some artists who see the brilliance of songwriters from past times and are trying to keep them afloat. In my last blog, I talked about Natalie Merchant's Leave your Sleep. And a few blogs ago, I reviewed David Gray's Thousand Miles Behind. Both of these albums are tributes to the poets and songwriters which came before these two singers. Gray covered tunes from Bob Dylan, Leonard Cohen, Tim Buckley, and others. So many wonderful songs that will simply sink to the bottom of the ocean of material that mankind has made these days. We have to keep those masterpieces alive. To give something to the future colonists so that they know more of the human race than songs by Lady Gaga.
***
On Fox News last week, Bill O'Riley ran a story about the anniversary of Youtube, and it got me to thinking. Youtube is our database on this ship. It's where we can all look and find supposedly forgotten pieces of our lives brought back to life. Television shows, songs, works of art, pieces of music. It's all there, for whatever purpose we should give it. And sure, some of it is junk. Some of it drives home the most vile of human qualities. The videoed school fights and the pieces showing how utterly despicable we can be, sure, those are on there. Our dirty laundry for the world to see, and we show it proudly, for some reason. It makes no sense. But the truth, as it is presented in such a twisted way, shows also how marvelous mankind can be when it wants to. The exalted are sat side by side with the depraved.
His poll, at the end of the story, was whether or not the viewer thought that Youtube was a good or bad influence on society. Now, of course you can't answer that with a simple yes or no, because it's both. But the positive aspects of the web site far outshine that of the negative. Youtube is, ultimately, a capitalist adventure. They show commercials and run adds just like any other website does. But they also are used heavily by promoters of movies, music, political races, etc... The flip side of Youtube is that, ultimately (and hopefully this won't change, but that's another subject), it's free. People can upload movies, for good or for ill, anytime they want into a public storagehouse for everything that goes on in the human world. It is a true melting pot for mankind. And while the ocean of information keeps growing (Youtube now hosts more space than all of the Internet in 2000, a mere 10 years ago.), the ability to easily find videos, which are linked by keyword to other videos, is amazing. Years from now, when archeologists dig up the remnants of this world, if they still have the Internet (or some equivalent), Youtube would be the greatest time capsule they could ever hope for. It would tell of the human condition, both good and bad, for the whole universe to see.
***
As an addendum to this blog, I wanted to include links to a couple of the Youtube videos I found. One is David Gray singing Tim Buckley's work "Song to the Siren," from the above mentioned album. The video is a picture with an mp3 file embedded, so it's not necessary to watch it. The second is a cover of Leonard Cohen's "Famous Blue Raincoat" by Jonathan Coulton. Again, just the lyrics with the mp3 backing. Which is good, because live concert clips don't have the best audio. Maybe not the best representatives of Youtube's millions of posts, but they are masterpiece songs that shouldn't disappear from mankind's database.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Reviews, Reviews! : Apologize; Natalie Merchant
Book Review: Apologize, Apologize! by Elizabeth Kelly
Call it a Tragi-comedy, a mixture of Shakespeare and Ferrol Sams, with elegant writing and bawdy actions to thrill lovers of Southern Literature and literature fanatics. It's like Pat Conroy, but on the shores of Boston's rich and secluded coast. It would be similar if one of the Kennedy's suddenly decided they didn't want to be a Kennedy anymore, but were powerless to do anything but be that.
Ultimately, it's the story of a family who lives under a rich and Paternal figure called "The Falcon," who dolls out money and keeps his daughter (the mother of the main characters) without need or wants...which of course she rebels against at every opportunity. She names her children after dogs... Collie and Bingo are her two sons, and the house bounds with dogs. Her husband is an Irish drunk, married because his hair was red. Imagine Conan O'Brian as an alcoholic. For the first half of the book, it's hard to eat and laugh at the same time (and since I read while I eat, it got difficult.)
In the end, however, it's about the two brothers trying to flee their overbearing and eccentric mother, their dysfunctional family, and the mountains of money that seems to follow them wherever they go. The amazing thing about the book is that, for sometime after it was over, I didn't understand some of the symbols of the book. Yes, there are symbols. The dogs, the racing pigeons... the animals in the book are constant reminders that, however hard you try to change yourself, to become something new and different, without fail, you will always come home. And as my grandmother says, "Home is where, when you come there, they have to take you in."
Music Review: Leave Your Sleep by Natalie Merchant.
How wonderful, in the day of Miley Cyrus and Lady Gaga, that there are musicians who take the world of music seriously, who apply the gift of music to something other than just making money, and turn music into a work of art.
What Natalie Merchant has done with this work, a culmination of several years of research, lovingly laborious, is take her experiences of raising a child and a family, taking the poetry and the music that appeals to children and make it appeal to everyone. Because there's a universal quality to the songs that she performs on this album. And no wonder that there is a mixture of jazz, bluegrass, folk, Chinese, and pop music, all present on this work. The words are taken from poems written by obscure, masterful poets from the 18th and 19th centuries. They are reprinted in an 80 page booklet along with short biographies of each of the writers. It is amazing that she has taken these poems, brought them out of the "yellowed pages" of forgotten books and into the American consciousness. It is my hope that Merchant will be known for this album, that it will become a landmark piece of American music. But you don't have to take my word for it. Below is an interview she gave, along with the music video of "Equestrienne," which is my favorite song on the album. Something about 3/4 (or 6/8) songs gets me hooked.
Call it a Tragi-comedy, a mixture of Shakespeare and Ferrol Sams, with elegant writing and bawdy actions to thrill lovers of Southern Literature and literature fanatics. It's like Pat Conroy, but on the shores of Boston's rich and secluded coast. It would be similar if one of the Kennedy's suddenly decided they didn't want to be a Kennedy anymore, but were powerless to do anything but be that.
Ultimately, it's the story of a family who lives under a rich and Paternal figure called "The Falcon," who dolls out money and keeps his daughter (the mother of the main characters) without need or wants...which of course she rebels against at every opportunity. She names her children after dogs... Collie and Bingo are her two sons, and the house bounds with dogs. Her husband is an Irish drunk, married because his hair was red. Imagine Conan O'Brian as an alcoholic. For the first half of the book, it's hard to eat and laugh at the same time (and since I read while I eat, it got difficult.)
In the end, however, it's about the two brothers trying to flee their overbearing and eccentric mother, their dysfunctional family, and the mountains of money that seems to follow them wherever they go. The amazing thing about the book is that, for sometime after it was over, I didn't understand some of the symbols of the book. Yes, there are symbols. The dogs, the racing pigeons... the animals in the book are constant reminders that, however hard you try to change yourself, to become something new and different, without fail, you will always come home. And as my grandmother says, "Home is where, when you come there, they have to take you in."
Music Review: Leave Your Sleep by Natalie Merchant.
How wonderful, in the day of Miley Cyrus and Lady Gaga, that there are musicians who take the world of music seriously, who apply the gift of music to something other than just making money, and turn music into a work of art.
What Natalie Merchant has done with this work, a culmination of several years of research, lovingly laborious, is take her experiences of raising a child and a family, taking the poetry and the music that appeals to children and make it appeal to everyone. Because there's a universal quality to the songs that she performs on this album. And no wonder that there is a mixture of jazz, bluegrass, folk, Chinese, and pop music, all present on this work. The words are taken from poems written by obscure, masterful poets from the 18th and 19th centuries. They are reprinted in an 80 page booklet along with short biographies of each of the writers. It is amazing that she has taken these poems, brought them out of the "yellowed pages" of forgotten books and into the American consciousness. It is my hope that Merchant will be known for this album, that it will become a landmark piece of American music. But you don't have to take my word for it. Below is an interview she gave, along with the music video of "Equestrienne," which is my favorite song on the album. Something about 3/4 (or 6/8) songs gets me hooked.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Pendulum, Part 2
A response to a question I had about my original post:
It's a confusing issue.... made as such because we've squeezed it down to a one dimensional way of looking at it (btw, I'm using IE right now, so spell check is off... I'll edit it later in Firefox). Let's take a look at the ideological spectrum (in other words, the path in which the pendulum travels) as seen by most people. There's the Left, and the Right. A line in which most Democrats are on one side, and most Republicans are on the other, with a smattering of Moderates in the middle. This look compresses what I'm really talking about, namely, that there is another axis on which the pendulum can move. While "beliefs" are on the X-axis, "control" is on the Y-axis. The amount of power that a government has, the control that it has over the lives of it's citizens. We can all keep our "beliefs" and be as vehement and as passionate about them as we want. We would cease to be human if we didn't. It's the involvement of the government in those beliefs that I want to talk about.
An example. Let's take the issue of same sex marriages (since the other viable option, Abortion, deals with the liberties of another being, which is an entirely different set of arguments.) When dealing with homosexuality, we have peoples' beliefs, be they the prominent Christian beliefs that it's a sin, or the more secular, biological notion that it's normal, possibly a way of nature to control population growth. There's the belief that love, in whatever form, is right, and is much more desirable than hate, which is displayed by bigotry and crimes against gay people. Okay. Wherever you fall on the ethical axis on this subject, you have to look at the Y-axis. Namely, control over the issue by the government. Do we move to one side of the spectrum and outlaw all homosexual relationships, including marriage, because the government has the right to control any aspect of it's citizen's lives? Or do we allow relationships of any kind, believing that the government has no right at all to control any aspect of people's lives? This, of course, legalizes pedophilia, polygamy...etc.... Again, these are simply the extremes on the spectrum. And it's much more complicated that this.
Let's pause for a moment and put some labels on this. Visualize the x/y axis chart. Everyone has their own beliefs, their own ideals about how government should work. Generally, however (and we are applying stereotypes here, for sake of making things simple), Republicans (especially those that would align themselves with what used to be the Moral Majority or Christian Right) have two positions on the Y axis. For issues dealing with finance and material things, they can be graphed on the Y as wanting little control (let's put No control on the bottom, and Total control on the Top). But on issues of ethics, such as that mentioned above, they would rather have more control, thus most conservatives would vote against same-sex marriages on the basis of their X-axis beliefs (I wish I could draw what I'm seeing in my head on these graphs, it would help). Democrats (especially those we could label Liberal or Progressive), would have the opposite marks. Little control on ethical issues like Same sex marriage, but more regulation on the financial and material aspects of society (such as the Environment, for example). I can see it all in my head, stretching and angling on the graph like rubber bands.
The Libertarian graph look much different. While they may be on either side of the X axis (being socially conservative or liberal), the main difference is on the Y. Libertarians believe that, no matter what the issue, the Government should not intervene in the lives of its citizens. Therefore, they are on the bottom of the Y axis. This brings up the Libertarian Paradox, as I call it. Because, if the government does not have control over its citizens, then who does? The answer is a staunch belief in individual freedom and individual responsibility. In other words, it is up to each of us to be self-disciplining as to how we live our lives. Makes sense, doesn't it? Except it can't always work that way. We have seen in the past couple of years how the financial markets, without government regulation, has suffered at the hands of investors who have manipulated and cheated the system. They took advantage of no regulations and profited improperly because of it. Reality says that people do not have the ability to self-govern. The government has to step in where the people won't. (This is also oppositely true, if you take a look at the Arizona immigration issue. The people have to step in when the Government won't, but that's another blog.) Therefore Libertarianism only works when a self-governing principle is inserted when the government's control is removed. This is why most Libertarians come across as nutcases, because either they want anarchy so they can do what they want, or they wrestle with the paradox so much that they say opposite things one after another, and therefore cannot be depended upon. If you wish, you can take a look at a previous blog of mine, on legalizing drugs, for more examples of this: http://denzilpugh.blogspot
So the answer to people having different opinions is this. We can disagree on our beliefs, and be as passionate about them as we want to be. It is up to us to discipline ourselves to live according to those beliefs. It's when we use the power of the government to control other peoples lives (especially when no other person's liberty or safety is involved) that we give a push to the pendulum, making it move further out. It's the Y axis we need to control, not the X. We have to separate "ethics" from "law." Bob Barr did this by voting against the Same Sex Marriage amendment to the Georgia Constitution. He realized that even though he disagreed with the idea of same sex marriage, he voted against the amendment because the government should not have the right to interfere in the personal lives of its citizens. He separated his beliefs from the Law. This separation is what the Constitution is based on, and it's what we have forgotten in our desire to place our beliefs on the lives of others. The government becomes a tool for secular humanism, or for Christian evangelicals. It should promote neither. Our relationship with other people, or with God, should be our own choice. The government should only step in when those actions interfere in other people's lives. The government is a protective power, not a proactive one. Thus the military should be given high priority, as well as the police and fire departments. But I'll not go into all of this, as that is another blog.
I haven't quite got it all worked out, as the Libertarian Paradox is something to be reckoned with. Libertarianism is a philosophy for an ideal society. We must strive for that ideal, while recognizing that reality must rely on a government that is less than perfect, as we are less than perfect. We should mirror the Federal Government after God Himself. God has the power to control every aspect of our lives. He could tell us what to eat, what to do, who to love, all according to His design. But He doesn't. He lets us make our own decisions, and we suffer consequences if they are the wrong ones. It doesn't mean that God is less powerful doing it that way, but rather, He chooses to be more a Clockmaker than a Micromanager. He realizes our individual sovereignty, as we are beings He created. After all, His kingdom is much stronger if His citizens voluntarily do as He commands than having simply robots. God wants people He can be proud of. Our government should do the same.
How do you keep the pendulum swinging - because it will have to swing...it's a pendulum - without some polarization? I understand that over divisiveness will only create trauma for all parties involved, but there comes a point when neither side can meet in the middle. How can anyone keep a part of themselves (true individuality) ... without sacrificing who they are or what they believe in - even if it helps the greater good? Are you stating that each party should lessen off of who they are?
It's a confusing issue.... made as such because we've squeezed it down to a one dimensional way of looking at it (btw, I'm using IE right now, so spell check is off... I'll edit it later in Firefox). Let's take a look at the ideological spectrum (in other words, the path in which the pendulum travels) as seen by most people. There's the Left, and the Right. A line in which most Democrats are on one side, and most Republicans are on the other, with a smattering of Moderates in the middle. This look compresses what I'm really talking about, namely, that there is another axis on which the pendulum can move. While "beliefs" are on the X-axis, "control" is on the Y-axis. The amount of power that a government has, the control that it has over the lives of it's citizens. We can all keep our "beliefs" and be as vehement and as passionate about them as we want. We would cease to be human if we didn't. It's the involvement of the government in those beliefs that I want to talk about.
An example. Let's take the issue of same sex marriages (since the other viable option, Abortion, deals with the liberties of another being, which is an entirely different set of arguments.) When dealing with homosexuality, we have peoples' beliefs, be they the prominent Christian beliefs that it's a sin, or the more secular, biological notion that it's normal, possibly a way of nature to control population growth. There's the belief that love, in whatever form, is right, and is much more desirable than hate, which is displayed by bigotry and crimes against gay people. Okay. Wherever you fall on the ethical axis on this subject, you have to look at the Y-axis. Namely, control over the issue by the government. Do we move to one side of the spectrum and outlaw all homosexual relationships, including marriage, because the government has the right to control any aspect of it's citizen's lives? Or do we allow relationships of any kind, believing that the government has no right at all to control any aspect of people's lives? This, of course, legalizes pedophilia, polygamy...etc.... Again, these are simply the extremes on the spectrum. And it's much more complicated that this.
Let's pause for a moment and put some labels on this. Visualize the x/y axis chart. Everyone has their own beliefs, their own ideals about how government should work. Generally, however (and we are applying stereotypes here, for sake of making things simple), Republicans (especially those that would align themselves with what used to be the Moral Majority or Christian Right) have two positions on the Y axis. For issues dealing with finance and material things, they can be graphed on the Y as wanting little control (let's put No control on the bottom, and Total control on the Top). But on issues of ethics, such as that mentioned above, they would rather have more control, thus most conservatives would vote against same-sex marriages on the basis of their X-axis beliefs (I wish I could draw what I'm seeing in my head on these graphs, it would help). Democrats (especially those we could label Liberal or Progressive), would have the opposite marks. Little control on ethical issues like Same sex marriage, but more regulation on the financial and material aspects of society (such as the Environment, for example). I can see it all in my head, stretching and angling on the graph like rubber bands.
The Libertarian graph look much different. While they may be on either side of the X axis (being socially conservative or liberal), the main difference is on the Y. Libertarians believe that, no matter what the issue, the Government should not intervene in the lives of its citizens. Therefore, they are on the bottom of the Y axis. This brings up the Libertarian Paradox, as I call it. Because, if the government does not have control over its citizens, then who does? The answer is a staunch belief in individual freedom and individual responsibility. In other words, it is up to each of us to be self-disciplining as to how we live our lives. Makes sense, doesn't it? Except it can't always work that way. We have seen in the past couple of years how the financial markets, without government regulation, has suffered at the hands of investors who have manipulated and cheated the system. They took advantage of no regulations and profited improperly because of it. Reality says that people do not have the ability to self-govern. The government has to step in where the people won't. (This is also oppositely true, if you take a look at the Arizona immigration issue. The people have to step in when the Government won't, but that's another blog.) Therefore Libertarianism only works when a self-governing principle is inserted when the government's control is removed. This is why most Libertarians come across as nutcases, because either they want anarchy so they can do what they want, or they wrestle with the paradox so much that they say opposite things one after another, and therefore cannot be depended upon. If you wish, you can take a look at a previous blog of mine, on legalizing drugs, for more examples of this: http://denzilpugh.blogspot
So the answer to people having different opinions is this. We can disagree on our beliefs, and be as passionate about them as we want to be. It is up to us to discipline ourselves to live according to those beliefs. It's when we use the power of the government to control other peoples lives (especially when no other person's liberty or safety is involved) that we give a push to the pendulum, making it move further out. It's the Y axis we need to control, not the X. We have to separate "ethics" from "law." Bob Barr did this by voting against the Same Sex Marriage amendment to the Georgia Constitution. He realized that even though he disagreed with the idea of same sex marriage, he voted against the amendment because the government should not have the right to interfere in the personal lives of its citizens. He separated his beliefs from the Law. This separation is what the Constitution is based on, and it's what we have forgotten in our desire to place our beliefs on the lives of others. The government becomes a tool for secular humanism, or for Christian evangelicals. It should promote neither. Our relationship with other people, or with God, should be our own choice. The government should only step in when those actions interfere in other people's lives. The government is a protective power, not a proactive one. Thus the military should be given high priority, as well as the police and fire departments. But I'll not go into all of this, as that is another blog.
I haven't quite got it all worked out, as the Libertarian Paradox is something to be reckoned with. Libertarianism is a philosophy for an ideal society. We must strive for that ideal, while recognizing that reality must rely on a government that is less than perfect, as we are less than perfect. We should mirror the Federal Government after God Himself. God has the power to control every aspect of our lives. He could tell us what to eat, what to do, who to love, all according to His design. But He doesn't. He lets us make our own decisions, and we suffer consequences if they are the wrong ones. It doesn't mean that God is less powerful doing it that way, but rather, He chooses to be more a Clockmaker than a Micromanager. He realizes our individual sovereignty, as we are beings He created. After all, His kingdom is much stronger if His citizens voluntarily do as He commands than having simply robots. God wants people He can be proud of. Our government should do the same.
Friday, May 14, 2010
The Pendulum, Yeats, and ObamaCare
The Pendulum Effect
Oklahoma City has a interactive, educational museum, one much like Fernbank here in Atlanta. In the Omniplex, there were machines with buttons to press, making holograms and activating wind tunnels and train whistles and boxes that emulated earthquakes. There were endlessly running marbles on a track that seemed to change with each descent. And high upon the ceiling was attached a pendulum, one that swung slowly around a circle, knocking over pins from time to time as the Earth moved around its orbit. A grand clock in which a year was its circumference. I never got to see it knock down a pin. But the idea of the pendulum has forever stuck with me, and it has been reiterated over and over throughout my studies.
The one most brought to mind is that of "The Second Coming" by William Butler Yeats. To quote:
These are more spirals than pendulums, but the idea is still the same. As the motion of the swinging bar goes further and further away from center, the more erratic it becomes. Yeats proposed a 2000 year pendulum swing from Classicism to Christianity, and back. I would hope that it would resolve more like Hegel's Synthesis between two opposite extremes, but there are many realistic examples where it falls apart all together. Sometimes after the extremities are reached, the center can no longer be reached, and the pendulum falls apart. But I get ahead of myself.
Whatever do I mean with all this? What brings us from the slowly moving pendulum that moves with the Earth to utter catastrophe? Certainly I could exhume environmental theories until I was blue in the face (Avatar pun intended). And perhaps the philosophical backing of anarchism supports the ideas of global warming nutcases. It is unclear what effect mankind has on the pendulum of the Earth. More than likely, it cannot be anything good, for any force that pushes on the pendulum will make it move more toward the extreme, and knock down more pins. Nothing good can come from this.
It's in the political arena that we are currently seeing this effect most dramatically. I didn't know at the time I was writing the first part of this, but the idea of the pendulum would be represented in the Republican Primary in Utah, where incumbent senator Bennett was booted out in favor of a more conservative member. Surely, his votes on the financial bailouts..etc... had something to do with this, as well as the support of the Tea party for the more conservative candidates. What we are seeing is the result of the pendulum swinging very far to the left with the election of Obama, Pelosi...etc... and then moving almost equally far to the right. While this is a common occurrence from each era of politics, from Democrat to Republican and back, it seems that each push either further right or left swings equally back the other direction. Carter begot Reagan/Bush, who begot Clinton, who begot Bush II, who begot Obama. All this is normal in the world of politics.
The problem with such a movement is that those things which are so protested against while one party is in power become matter of fact when the protesters become in charge. Jon Stewart easily showed this over and over again on The Daily Show, when dealing with the procedures of the Senate trying to pass the Health Care bill. Or, more importantly, on the little talked about extention of the Patriot Act to allow current Democratic party elected officials the same powers that the Republicans had during Bush II 's administration. The only difference is that, depending on the bias of the media, one supposed injustice is ranted on about, while the other is kept quiet.
Thus it is that the pendulum swings in both directions, and equally for both sides of the ideological spectrum. This is the most important aspect of examining the power of the government over the lives of its citizens. And once that power is given, it is very rarely taken away. Thus the power that the Republicans gave Bush during the 2000's is still being used (and expanded upon, see the Patriot Act measures) in the Obama administration. Any authority the Dems give themselves (such as being able to access anyone's health records by way of those citizens being a part of Nationalized Health Care (various sources on the web, none from primary sources, however)) will be used to the same extent when the Republicans take back the governmental reigns. It will happen. Eventually. And when it does, the governments control over health care will reflect Republican social values, which will mean anyone who believes other than conservative Christian beliefs will find themselves on the cold side of the law. (At this point, it's the rich and the successful that are being penalized).
The moral of the pendulum is to not give yourself power that you don't want your ideological opposites to have later. It simply polarizes everything, and pushes the pendulum farther out, making any action or decision more dangerous. At some point, the whole thing will break down.
The solution? Well, I'm in favor of the Hegelian principle of a Synthesis between two opposites. In other words, create something new out of the old arguments. To me, this is where Libertarian beliefs come into play. Don't ask me how that would actually work, because, honestly, I don't know. We need to do something to slow the pendulum down. Deflate the power, pressure, and contain the chaos that will certainly come if we don't, much like the beast in Yeats' poem.
Oklahoma City has a interactive, educational museum, one much like Fernbank here in Atlanta. In the Omniplex, there were machines with buttons to press, making holograms and activating wind tunnels and train whistles and boxes that emulated earthquakes. There were endlessly running marbles on a track that seemed to change with each descent. And high upon the ceiling was attached a pendulum, one that swung slowly around a circle, knocking over pins from time to time as the Earth moved around its orbit. A grand clock in which a year was its circumference. I never got to see it knock down a pin. But the idea of the pendulum has forever stuck with me, and it has been reiterated over and over throughout my studies.
The one most brought to mind is that of "The Second Coming" by William Butler Yeats. To quote:
Turning and turning the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
These are more spirals than pendulums, but the idea is still the same. As the motion of the swinging bar goes further and further away from center, the more erratic it becomes. Yeats proposed a 2000 year pendulum swing from Classicism to Christianity, and back. I would hope that it would resolve more like Hegel's Synthesis between two opposite extremes, but there are many realistic examples where it falls apart all together. Sometimes after the extremities are reached, the center can no longer be reached, and the pendulum falls apart. But I get ahead of myself.
Whatever do I mean with all this? What brings us from the slowly moving pendulum that moves with the Earth to utter catastrophe? Certainly I could exhume environmental theories until I was blue in the face (Avatar pun intended). And perhaps the philosophical backing of anarchism supports the ideas of global warming nutcases. It is unclear what effect mankind has on the pendulum of the Earth. More than likely, it cannot be anything good, for any force that pushes on the pendulum will make it move more toward the extreme, and knock down more pins. Nothing good can come from this.
It's in the political arena that we are currently seeing this effect most dramatically. I didn't know at the time I was writing the first part of this, but the idea of the pendulum would be represented in the Republican Primary in Utah, where incumbent senator Bennett was booted out in favor of a more conservative member. Surely, his votes on the financial bailouts..etc... had something to do with this, as well as the support of the Tea party for the more conservative candidates. What we are seeing is the result of the pendulum swinging very far to the left with the election of Obama, Pelosi...etc... and then moving almost equally far to the right. While this is a common occurrence from each era of politics, from Democrat to Republican and back, it seems that each push either further right or left swings equally back the other direction. Carter begot Reagan/Bush, who begot Clinton, who begot Bush II, who begot Obama. All this is normal in the world of politics.
The problem with such a movement is that those things which are so protested against while one party is in power become matter of fact when the protesters become in charge. Jon Stewart easily showed this over and over again on The Daily Show, when dealing with the procedures of the Senate trying to pass the Health Care bill. Or, more importantly, on the little talked about extention of the Patriot Act to allow current Democratic party elected officials the same powers that the Republicans had during Bush II 's administration. The only difference is that, depending on the bias of the media, one supposed injustice is ranted on about, while the other is kept quiet.
Thus it is that the pendulum swings in both directions, and equally for both sides of the ideological spectrum. This is the most important aspect of examining the power of the government over the lives of its citizens. And once that power is given, it is very rarely taken away. Thus the power that the Republicans gave Bush during the 2000's is still being used (and expanded upon, see the Patriot Act measures) in the Obama administration. Any authority the Dems give themselves (such as being able to access anyone's health records by way of those citizens being a part of Nationalized Health Care (various sources on the web, none from primary sources, however)) will be used to the same extent when the Republicans take back the governmental reigns. It will happen. Eventually. And when it does, the governments control over health care will reflect Republican social values, which will mean anyone who believes other than conservative Christian beliefs will find themselves on the cold side of the law. (At this point, it's the rich and the successful that are being penalized).
The moral of the pendulum is to not give yourself power that you don't want your ideological opposites to have later. It simply polarizes everything, and pushes the pendulum farther out, making any action or decision more dangerous. At some point, the whole thing will break down.
The solution? Well, I'm in favor of the Hegelian principle of a Synthesis between two opposites. In other words, create something new out of the old arguments. To me, this is where Libertarian beliefs come into play. Don't ask me how that would actually work, because, honestly, I don't know. We need to do something to slow the pendulum down. Deflate the power, pressure, and contain the chaos that will certainly come if we don't, much like the beast in Yeats' poem.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Trashing Justin Bieber and other Random Thoughts.
I Shall Call them "Mini-blogs"
I was flippin' through what television channels we have left (Comcast is slowly pulling channels to go all digital, which is a pain) and found Justin Bieber performing on the David Letterman Show. It was an array of complex dance moves by 20 dancers while Justin sang this hip-hop type song about a girl....which is what kid singers have been doing for ages. But Bieber takes cheesy songs, mediocre talent, and shameless commercialism to a whole new level. He has subjected himself to the wolves of the teen pop star industry, and, when they are done with him, he'll be spit out like yesterday's Jesse McCartney. The few seconds I saw of the performance was enough to make me nauseous. A person can only stand so much cheesy photoshopped goodness before it turns their stomach. And there is good cheesy pop, and then there is processed American plastic cheese. Aaron Carter had some talent, before he flushed his life down the toilet. Hanson was good, mature, sharp cheese (like Smoked Gouda). All I know is that Bieber better make his albums now, because in a few years, when the voice drops and the acne scars take ahold, there won't be anyone drooling after him. Try to find pictures of Leif Garrett, then and now, and you'll see what I mean.
***
I always see interesting things while driving to each of the schools delivering Teacher Appreciation Week fliers. Live Oak Elementary School, in Newton Co., used stimuli to soothe the children, and the teachers. They used the overhead speakers to pipe in soft jazz music in the hallways and the outside corridors. So relaxing. And in the office, they had potpourri candles lit up on some of the shelves with a sweet minty smell. Obviously, the principal had done some research on stimuli that relaxes stressful people. It works very well.
Also in Newton County, the DOT people have put up speed limit signs, each solar powered with a speed detector on them, reflecting what your speed is flashing below the sign. It's much like the flashing lights they used to have on the interstate ramps between 20 and 285. And they'd never stop flashing. I sometimes wanted to just stop, in the middle of the road, to see if they'd stop flashing. But what the speed detectors do is to activate the area of your brain that competes with itself. It's a goal oriented part that makes you want to match the number of your speed with the sign. It works marvelously, because everyone wants to reach a goal, match a target, whether it be at work (with Book Drive quotas, for instance), or on the road. It keeps you awake, competing with yourself. They should have these on all the major speed zones throughout the counties, as it would make people slow down, not out of fear, but of their own volition.
***
Book Review: The Lightning Thief by Rick Riordan.
A very good children's fantasy in the vein of Harry Potter. In fact, you could call it an imitation. But there are good imitations and bad ones. I have nothing against following an established plot line as long as it's done well. The characters were very well developed, sympathetic, with good dialogue and description. There were a couple of instances where Riordan says, of course it has to happen this way, it's a rule in the Greek God's world." and just introduces it when he feels the need to. It makes for some odd plot problems that, while very minor, just makes it feel like you've hit a small pothole. The plot twists were good, and I enjoyed reading it. Like I said, it's an imitation of the Harry Potter plotline, but a very good one. If you want to see a bad imitation, go pick up the first Charlie Bone book. So very awful.
One comment about the movie (which I haven't seen, yet.) It's easy to see why they cast Logan Lerman as the main character, with all the characters much older than the ones in the book. The producers wanted to appeal to the older Tween crowd. I think it takes a little bit out of the weakness of the children doing it that way, for instead of 6th graders, they looked like High Schoolers with more strength and determination. It might have done better with the kid audience if they had cast younger people. Just a thought.
***
I wish, in Conyers, that I would not get behind people that are practicing to drive in funeral procession. Short cuts aren't short cuts if we're driving behind an imaginary Hertz.
I was flippin' through what television channels we have left (Comcast is slowly pulling channels to go all digital, which is a pain) and found Justin Bieber performing on the David Letterman Show. It was an array of complex dance moves by 20 dancers while Justin sang this hip-hop type song about a girl....which is what kid singers have been doing for ages. But Bieber takes cheesy songs, mediocre talent, and shameless commercialism to a whole new level. He has subjected himself to the wolves of the teen pop star industry, and, when they are done with him, he'll be spit out like yesterday's Jesse McCartney. The few seconds I saw of the performance was enough to make me nauseous. A person can only stand so much cheesy photoshopped goodness before it turns their stomach. And there is good cheesy pop, and then there is processed American plastic cheese. Aaron Carter had some talent, before he flushed his life down the toilet. Hanson was good, mature, sharp cheese (like Smoked Gouda). All I know is that Bieber better make his albums now, because in a few years, when the voice drops and the acne scars take ahold, there won't be anyone drooling after him. Try to find pictures of Leif Garrett, then and now, and you'll see what I mean.
***
I always see interesting things while driving to each of the schools delivering Teacher Appreciation Week fliers. Live Oak Elementary School, in Newton Co., used stimuli to soothe the children, and the teachers. They used the overhead speakers to pipe in soft jazz music in the hallways and the outside corridors. So relaxing. And in the office, they had potpourri candles lit up on some of the shelves with a sweet minty smell. Obviously, the principal had done some research on stimuli that relaxes stressful people. It works very well.
Also in Newton County, the DOT people have put up speed limit signs, each solar powered with a speed detector on them, reflecting what your speed is flashing below the sign. It's much like the flashing lights they used to have on the interstate ramps between 20 and 285. And they'd never stop flashing. I sometimes wanted to just stop, in the middle of the road, to see if they'd stop flashing. But what the speed detectors do is to activate the area of your brain that competes with itself. It's a goal oriented part that makes you want to match the number of your speed with the sign. It works marvelously, because everyone wants to reach a goal, match a target, whether it be at work (with Book Drive quotas, for instance), or on the road. It keeps you awake, competing with yourself. They should have these on all the major speed zones throughout the counties, as it would make people slow down, not out of fear, but of their own volition.
***
Book Review: The Lightning Thief by Rick Riordan.
A very good children's fantasy in the vein of Harry Potter. In fact, you could call it an imitation. But there are good imitations and bad ones. I have nothing against following an established plot line as long as it's done well. The characters were very well developed, sympathetic, with good dialogue and description. There were a couple of instances where Riordan says, of course it has to happen this way, it's a rule in the Greek God's world." and just introduces it when he feels the need to. It makes for some odd plot problems that, while very minor, just makes it feel like you've hit a small pothole. The plot twists were good, and I enjoyed reading it. Like I said, it's an imitation of the Harry Potter plotline, but a very good one. If you want to see a bad imitation, go pick up the first Charlie Bone book. So very awful.
One comment about the movie (which I haven't seen, yet.) It's easy to see why they cast Logan Lerman as the main character, with all the characters much older than the ones in the book. The producers wanted to appeal to the older Tween crowd. I think it takes a little bit out of the weakness of the children doing it that way, for instead of 6th graders, they looked like High Schoolers with more strength and determination. It might have done better with the kid audience if they had cast younger people. Just a thought.
***
I wish, in Conyers, that I would not get behind people that are practicing to drive in funeral procession. Short cuts aren't short cuts if we're driving behind an imaginary Hertz.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Ode to a Home
If you ask me where I would want to live if the world ended, or if America dissolved into a civil war of Repubs. and Dems. with nobody winning, I think I found a place. I think it's a house the Howard Roark would find pleasing, and one that John Galt wouldn't mind living in. While I've been writing through the last two blog entries, I've had this house in mind, in that it conforms only to the needs of the people living there, and not to any standards by which the builders, whoever they were, thought about it looking like any other home on the market. I drove by new neighborhoods in Newton County a week or two ago and found that every house looked exactly the same, with no room between each of them, so you could probably walk between them, but that was about it. Why would anyone want to live in a house that looked like every single other house on the street? I'm reminded of the Monkees song, "Pleasant Valley Sunday,"
...Rows of houses that are all the same
And no one seems to care
See Mrs. Gray, she's proud today
because her roses are in bloom.
Mr. Greene he's so serene,
He's got a T.V. in every room
Another Pleasant Valley Sunday
Here in status symbol land
Mothers complain about how hard life is
And the kids just don't understand
Creature comfort goals
They only numb my soul
and make it hard for me to see
My thoughts all seem to stray,
to places far away
I need a change of scenery
If you notice the people in stanza two... their accomplishments are so small. And while roses are important, I guess, are far from raising a garden to provide sustenance for the family. The televisions are simply methods of escape from the mundane world outside, the one that "numbs my soul" in the last line. It's very obvious that the writers are nonplussed about the world of this neighborhood (which most young people in the 60's were. A shame that that energy was wasted in such a short time. But that's another blog that I'll probably never write.)
The house I'm referring to is located in Walton County, Georgia, just a little ways from Loganville. It's actually a house of a coworker, A., who has worked his whole life and has recently bought this house and is currently working on restoring it to its former splendor. I had to take him home one day, and he took me on a very detailed tour of the entire house. Turns out the architect is one who has made quite a living constructing Walmart buildings. He found this storage shed, with the land around it, and realized that it would make a great house. So he took the large barn-like structure, added a second floor and made it into a home. It's actually the reverse for what happened to Thoreau's home in Walden. After he moved out of the cabin, it was sold to a farmer to be a storage shed, and later had the roof removed, eventually to become a pig sty.
The single most impressive thing about the structure is the living room, which comprises of the storage building, built with a single raised roof, with angled ceilings and windows at odd places that would, for some, be absurd, but the light that the windows let in is amazing. Take a church sanctuary, for instance, with the giant windows and vaulted ceilings. What light should beam down upon the worshipers, letting the light from nature, the complexities that God has wrought in this universe, illuminate the hymnals and the words on the pastor's Bible. But unfortunately, churches seem to want colored glass windows, and drawn curtains, to keep the light out. A somber mood is not what a congregation should need for a Sunday church service. It would make one go to sleep, or view it as a funeral. Let it be a joyous time, and then when you get home, see again the light from the Sunday afternoons glowing through the windows, projecting off the dust in the air and affirming God's presence everywhere.
The openness of this house is what appeals to me. The center of the living room, which houses the sofas and the television, is surrounded by windows, doors opened to the kitchen and study, and above it, to one side, a balcony that is like a game room or study room that goes back to the bedrooms. It is warm and inviting, with only the bedrooms off to one side to afford privacy. As Thoreau said in Walden:
The location of the kids' bedroom is also worth noting, as it is off to the side, almost as in an alcove with large glass doors that open out to a patio, where a basketball goal should be, or where you would see girls using sidewalk chalk to make their favorite games. Then, beyond that, is constructed a large treehouse. And beyond that still are the trees and forests and the creek that lies at the bottom of the hills. What more wonderful things would children need? Paradise, I tell you. But A. told me that his children never play in the treehouse, they would much rather play on their Nintendo DS's. Children have forgotten how to create worlds of their own. They have lost the instincts built into them by God, to create realms and become lords over them. What better than the treehouse to survey your kingdom, to wield a stick as a sword and challenge all enemies lurking in the trees to overtake you? Or to travel over fields and streams to explore the world as Livingston or Louis and Clark had done in the past? Instead, they'd rather catch Pikachu and fight virtual battles in digital realms. It is a tragic loss when the outdoors remain silent because those who would seek its freedom find it rather in electronic gadgets made by corporations seeking to trap children and gain profit from it. Yet the ingenuity and imagination cultivated by romps in the outdoors would create minds sharp enough to solve the world's problems. The cerebral mind must have a physical body to go with it, lest atrophy and lethargy take over.
Yet the house is not finished, as the original designer left much undone, and it has fallen to A. to complete the task. If I had my house to redo, I would tear out so many walls and roofs. Bust through the prison walls that keep me inside. There is no greater joy than that of constructing your own home, nor any task more stressful to undertake. It is building shelter, much like the cavemen did to keep out of the rain and to protect themselves from predators and the like. Building our houses puts us in touch with one of the original motivators of man, an integral part of our subconsciousness. To quote Thoreau, again:
In The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand puts these feelings into words as Roark looks over the Monadnock Valley resort, or as he is stretched out on the ground outside the house he designed for Gail Wynand and Francon. The house on the hill, overlooking the wilderness that is material for the architect's hands to mold into works of beauty and utilitarian function. For the architect, the builder, the canvas on which he paints is the whole world. The rocks and the clay and the wood and the ground are the materials he uses to make a masterpiece. Sure, anyone can make a house out of these things. Anyone can take a cheap art class and come home with a painting of some trees and mountains. But the master can take those same materials and make stunning works of beauty. Houses are of the same mold. They can be mechanically built boxes meant for meager shelter and banality, or they can be just as organic and full of life and beauty as the people who built and live in them. The abodes mirror those who abide. Thoreau: "And when the farmer has got his house, he may not be the richer but the poorer for it, and it be the house that has got him." and "Most men appear never to have considered what a house is, and are actually though needlessly poor all their lives because they think that they must have such a one as their neighbors have."
If I must live in a house, given a choice, give me the fishing shack with one room, with as little an attempt at becoming like those houses in the Monkees' song, so that I may create the beauty out of the box in which I live. Or give me the materials to build the house, or to someone who has the foresight, like Roark, to create out of the soul of the Earth a structure I would be proud to call mine, to strive to live to the organic energy that pulses through the walls. I want a house that will make me a better person just for having lived in it. Give me a house that promotes freedom and openness, and not the imprisoned walls that provide shelter, but little else.
...Rows of houses that are all the same
And no one seems to care
See Mrs. Gray, she's proud today
because her roses are in bloom.
Mr. Greene he's so serene,
He's got a T.V. in every room
Another Pleasant Valley Sunday
Here in status symbol land
Mothers complain about how hard life is
And the kids just don't understand
Creature comfort goals
They only numb my soul
and make it hard for me to see
My thoughts all seem to stray,
to places far away
I need a change of scenery
If you notice the people in stanza two... their accomplishments are so small. And while roses are important, I guess, are far from raising a garden to provide sustenance for the family. The televisions are simply methods of escape from the mundane world outside, the one that "numbs my soul" in the last line. It's very obvious that the writers are nonplussed about the world of this neighborhood (which most young people in the 60's were. A shame that that energy was wasted in such a short time. But that's another blog that I'll probably never write.)
The house I'm referring to is located in Walton County, Georgia, just a little ways from Loganville. It's actually a house of a coworker, A., who has worked his whole life and has recently bought this house and is currently working on restoring it to its former splendor. I had to take him home one day, and he took me on a very detailed tour of the entire house. Turns out the architect is one who has made quite a living constructing Walmart buildings. He found this storage shed, with the land around it, and realized that it would make a great house. So he took the large barn-like structure, added a second floor and made it into a home. It's actually the reverse for what happened to Thoreau's home in Walden. After he moved out of the cabin, it was sold to a farmer to be a storage shed, and later had the roof removed, eventually to become a pig sty.
The single most impressive thing about the structure is the living room, which comprises of the storage building, built with a single raised roof, with angled ceilings and windows at odd places that would, for some, be absurd, but the light that the windows let in is amazing. Take a church sanctuary, for instance, with the giant windows and vaulted ceilings. What light should beam down upon the worshipers, letting the light from nature, the complexities that God has wrought in this universe, illuminate the hymnals and the words on the pastor's Bible. But unfortunately, churches seem to want colored glass windows, and drawn curtains, to keep the light out. A somber mood is not what a congregation should need for a Sunday church service. It would make one go to sleep, or view it as a funeral. Let it be a joyous time, and then when you get home, see again the light from the Sunday afternoons glowing through the windows, projecting off the dust in the air and affirming God's presence everywhere.
The openness of this house is what appeals to me. The center of the living room, which houses the sofas and the television, is surrounded by windows, doors opened to the kitchen and study, and above it, to one side, a balcony that is like a game room or study room that goes back to the bedrooms. It is warm and inviting, with only the bedrooms off to one side to afford privacy. As Thoreau said in Walden:
A house whose inside is as open and manifest as a bird's nest, and you cannot go in at the front door and out at the back without seeing some of its inhabitants; where to be a guest is to be presented with the freedom of the house, and not to be carefully excluded from seven eighths of it, shut up in a particular cell, and told to make yourself at home there -- in solitary confinement.
The location of the kids' bedroom is also worth noting, as it is off to the side, almost as in an alcove with large glass doors that open out to a patio, where a basketball goal should be, or where you would see girls using sidewalk chalk to make their favorite games. Then, beyond that, is constructed a large treehouse. And beyond that still are the trees and forests and the creek that lies at the bottom of the hills. What more wonderful things would children need? Paradise, I tell you. But A. told me that his children never play in the treehouse, they would much rather play on their Nintendo DS's. Children have forgotten how to create worlds of their own. They have lost the instincts built into them by God, to create realms and become lords over them. What better than the treehouse to survey your kingdom, to wield a stick as a sword and challenge all enemies lurking in the trees to overtake you? Or to travel over fields and streams to explore the world as Livingston or Louis and Clark had done in the past? Instead, they'd rather catch Pikachu and fight virtual battles in digital realms. It is a tragic loss when the outdoors remain silent because those who would seek its freedom find it rather in electronic gadgets made by corporations seeking to trap children and gain profit from it. Yet the ingenuity and imagination cultivated by romps in the outdoors would create minds sharp enough to solve the world's problems. The cerebral mind must have a physical body to go with it, lest atrophy and lethargy take over.
Yet the house is not finished, as the original designer left much undone, and it has fallen to A. to complete the task. If I had my house to redo, I would tear out so many walls and roofs. Bust through the prison walls that keep me inside. There is no greater joy than that of constructing your own home, nor any task more stressful to undertake. It is building shelter, much like the cavemen did to keep out of the rain and to protect themselves from predators and the like. Building our houses puts us in touch with one of the original motivators of man, an integral part of our subconsciousness. To quote Thoreau, again:
There is some of the same fitness in a man’s building his own house that there is in a bird’s building its own nest. Who knows but if men constructed their dwellings with their own hands, and provided food for themselves and families simply and honestly enough, the poetic faculty would be universally developed, as birds universally sing when they are so engaged? But alas! we do like cowbirds and cuckoos, which lay their eggs in nests which other birds have built, and cheer no traveler with their chattering and unmusical notes. Shall we forever resign the pleasure of construction to the carpenter? What does architecture amount to in the experience of the mass of men? I never in all my walks came across a man engaged in so simple and natural an occupation as building his house.
In The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand puts these feelings into words as Roark looks over the Monadnock Valley resort, or as he is stretched out on the ground outside the house he designed for Gail Wynand and Francon. The house on the hill, overlooking the wilderness that is material for the architect's hands to mold into works of beauty and utilitarian function. For the architect, the builder, the canvas on which he paints is the whole world. The rocks and the clay and the wood and the ground are the materials he uses to make a masterpiece. Sure, anyone can make a house out of these things. Anyone can take a cheap art class and come home with a painting of some trees and mountains. But the master can take those same materials and make stunning works of beauty. Houses are of the same mold. They can be mechanically built boxes meant for meager shelter and banality, or they can be just as organic and full of life and beauty as the people who built and live in them. The abodes mirror those who abide. Thoreau: "And when the farmer has got his house, he may not be the richer but the poorer for it, and it be the house that has got him." and "Most men appear never to have considered what a house is, and are actually though needlessly poor all their lives because they think that they must have such a one as their neighbors have."
If I must live in a house, given a choice, give me the fishing shack with one room, with as little an attempt at becoming like those houses in the Monkees' song, so that I may create the beauty out of the box in which I live. Or give me the materials to build the house, or to someone who has the foresight, like Roark, to create out of the soul of the Earth a structure I would be proud to call mine, to strive to live to the organic energy that pulses through the walls. I want a house that will make me a better person just for having lived in it. Give me a house that promotes freedom and openness, and not the imprisoned walls that provide shelter, but little else.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
"I know what we're going to do today!"
I ended the last blog talking about how children, after school, seem more interested in the virtual worlds of the internet and video games than the real world, a world that provided their parents and grandparents...etc... with as much excitement as World of Warcraft does the kids today. Oddly enough, it still shows in some of the television shows made today.
There is something so refreshing about watching Phineas and Ferb on the Disney Channel each day. Something that will make me laugh and feel refreshed even when I'm having a rotten day (like yesterday, for instance. Dealing with my bipolar car and my grandmother's taxes was not the way I wanted to spend my day off.) But as I was thinking about Architecture and rooms and whatnot, it occurred to me that bedrooms in television shows are of the utmost importance. Whether to show them, or not, what they symbolize in the show itself. Take the characters on P&F. The only time you will ever see Phineas in his bedroom is when he is in bed or waking up. Otherwise, he is eating in the kitchen, or outside making a rocketship to the stars (or giving a monkey a shower). On the other hand, Candice, who cares little for the imagination of her brothers, is always found in her bedroom talking on the phone and daydreaming (virtual worlds, and the like) about her boyfriend. In some episodes, she was seen forwarding youtube videos (of a guy rollerblading in his underpants and falling into a toilet) to all her friends, and non-friends. Exactly what indoor, Cyber-children do today. True, she does go outside on dates with Jeremy, or to "bust" her brothers, but she symbolizes the contemporary adolescent. While Phineas and Ferb symbolize what children could be, letting imagination and creativity run wild.
In a similar show, the creators of iCarly on Nickelodeon have never shown, to my knowledge, Carly or Spencer's bedrooms. They've been in Freddie's bedroom once, and never in Sam's. And while we're not talking about the outdoors here, it's the same principle. The world in which imagination and creativity run wild takes place in the studio where they create the iCarly webshow. For them, they take the tools of the internet and take them as far as they want, doing anything they want with them. It's just as liberating for them as the outdoors is for P&F. Unlike Neville, who is holded up in his bedroom on his many computers all day long.
It's the spirit of freedom that creates the best environment for children. The ability to be creative, to build tent cities in the living room, or treehouses and forts in the backyard, using them as spaceships or castles or army forts. It's the free range of the outdoors that develops the sense of pioneering reach, that children can do whatever they want, if only they are creative and free enough to do it. It builds self-esteem, makes them strive toward their goals, for if imagination can take them anywhere in the fantasy worlds, the real worlds shouldn't be that much harder. The children today should reach for the moon just as their parents and grandparents did, only with the tools they have now, they should go further. And yet, when the tools of Cyberspace are instead creating pseudo-worlds for them to inhabit, what's the point? When corporations earn millions of dollars on a video game, such as Final Fantasy, what motivation is there to invest that money on the real frontiers here in the real world. Let's fight the challenges of going into the unknown, instead of taking on dragons and whatnot that aren't even real. The possibilities are endless when that energy is expended on the right thing. Let's be more like Phineas and Ferb, and a little less like Neville. The world will be far better off that way.
There is something so refreshing about watching Phineas and Ferb on the Disney Channel each day. Something that will make me laugh and feel refreshed even when I'm having a rotten day (like yesterday, for instance. Dealing with my bipolar car and my grandmother's taxes was not the way I wanted to spend my day off.) But as I was thinking about Architecture and rooms and whatnot, it occurred to me that bedrooms in television shows are of the utmost importance. Whether to show them, or not, what they symbolize in the show itself. Take the characters on P&F. The only time you will ever see Phineas in his bedroom is when he is in bed or waking up. Otherwise, he is eating in the kitchen, or outside making a rocketship to the stars (or giving a monkey a shower). On the other hand, Candice, who cares little for the imagination of her brothers, is always found in her bedroom talking on the phone and daydreaming (virtual worlds, and the like) about her boyfriend. In some episodes, she was seen forwarding youtube videos (of a guy rollerblading in his underpants and falling into a toilet) to all her friends, and non-friends. Exactly what indoor, Cyber-children do today. True, she does go outside on dates with Jeremy, or to "bust" her brothers, but she symbolizes the contemporary adolescent. While Phineas and Ferb symbolize what children could be, letting imagination and creativity run wild.
In a similar show, the creators of iCarly on Nickelodeon have never shown, to my knowledge, Carly or Spencer's bedrooms. They've been in Freddie's bedroom once, and never in Sam's. And while we're not talking about the outdoors here, it's the same principle. The world in which imagination and creativity run wild takes place in the studio where they create the iCarly webshow. For them, they take the tools of the internet and take them as far as they want, doing anything they want with them. It's just as liberating for them as the outdoors is for P&F. Unlike Neville, who is holded up in his bedroom on his many computers all day long.
It's the spirit of freedom that creates the best environment for children. The ability to be creative, to build tent cities in the living room, or treehouses and forts in the backyard, using them as spaceships or castles or army forts. It's the free range of the outdoors that develops the sense of pioneering reach, that children can do whatever they want, if only they are creative and free enough to do it. It builds self-esteem, makes them strive toward their goals, for if imagination can take them anywhere in the fantasy worlds, the real worlds shouldn't be that much harder. The children today should reach for the moon just as their parents and grandparents did, only with the tools they have now, they should go further. And yet, when the tools of Cyberspace are instead creating pseudo-worlds for them to inhabit, what's the point? When corporations earn millions of dollars on a video game, such as Final Fantasy, what motivation is there to invest that money on the real frontiers here in the real world. Let's fight the challenges of going into the unknown, instead of taking on dragons and whatnot that aren't even real. The possibilities are endless when that energy is expended on the right thing. Let's be more like Phineas and Ferb, and a little less like Neville. The world will be far better off that way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
