Thursday, July 20, 2006

Written Previously, not posted

Perhaps political organizing has come full circle. At some point, the choices in a highly mediated society fragmented experience (and opinion) to such a degree to require direct intervention on behalf of political change. If the channels can always be changed, then the effectiveness of TV ads diminishes. If other websites can be read, the power of internet based campaigning similarly diminishes. The proliferation of choice demands a style of political activism that disrupts the limiting channels of personalized transportation, entertainment, and living. This mode of political speech operates under capillary forms of distribution, and addressing one artery doesn’t guarantee that there can or will be a disruption of the overall bloodstream. In extending the metaphor further, the best method for change may rely on disconnecting people from the stream by direct action and organizing that focuses on spatial relationships as much as individual political choices.

Duncan

Dear Democratic Party of the USA

There are several clear signs that should help you on the way to choosing canidates for office. One very important one includes who else wants them in office. If those people include Rupert Murdoch or 'The Republican Party' (consult inane cartoon for a stylized example), you should be very very wary of supporting that canidate.

Thank you, that is all for now.

Duncan

Thursday, July 06, 2006

Lo, Lola, Lolita

I find the aesthetics of Lolita particularly enchanting. Beyond the immediate lucidity and cascading intricacies of his prose, the whole work creates questions that I find compelling. In my mind, the exceptional beauty of the prose is a linguistic ploy that draws you in to questioning the role of beauty and ethics. The words themselves, separated from their role, leave you reeling (sometimes, like now, I think the words in this book somehow transcribe the world in clearer terms than I see them myself, perhaps because they also address in a particular way the spirit and poetic function of experience in a way that regular revelations cannot. Perhaps this describes the luxury and distinguishing marks of a unique talent: knowing and deploying images and experience in a constellation that shows more than stars.) but the role leaves you repulsed. The somewhat irredeemable Humpbert animates the words, and you can’t help but wish they were still again, because enjoying them almost hurts. So then, you have to ask: ‘what makes something aesthetically pleasing?’ Is it possible (or acceptable) to divorce purpose from method? Essentially, the question of why I enjoy books, words, and life keeps getting raised at moments I don’t expect.

Duncan

Sunday, July 02, 2006

The danger of new psychosis

For a while I have been thinking about the reasons why health (and, political) problems increasingly become framed in a biological and chemical context. The creepy articles about ‘resiliance’ and the treatment of depression by drugs both initiated this internal search. I think a particularly important catalyst, is of course the capacity to uncover these ‘causes’ through genetic analysis, blood samples and large scale studies under the scientific method. These alone however cannot explain the exploding industry surrounding psycotropic drugs, cancer medication, mental health, genetic tendancies for alcoholism or other addictions, and neonatal screening.

My problem in developing a theory to explain this arose when I kept searching for solutions that focused on the types of inputs and rationale for finding problems, when in fact the issue was in the rationale of solutions. Transitions in the framing of health problems link to economic and technological developments somewhat out of the hands of individual people. Cost benefit analysis drives the processes that develop this framework. My experience in the general age of human development we share is stratified by a diffuse sense of dislocation and separation from other people. I feel drawn out and fragmented by the multiple spaces I live in, separated and isolated by technologies that gratify a particular form of individualism that physically hides other people, and drawn apart by social norms privileging interactions on a model picked up on television. I feel all of these things drawing me forth toward something that can be called depression, attention deficits, irritable bowel syndrome, or any number of other ills and abnormalities. The cost of treating these causes cannot be charged to any one bill or person, and if they could, overwhelm those at fault. The benefits can only be measured in the accumulation of small joys, too small or poorly suited to ever show up as assets to ‘society.’ The costs then benefits those offering solutions that adapt to the situations at the root. These solutions also offer new opportunities for profit that produce willing problem solvers looking to capitalize.

Equally dangerous perhaps is the gradual adoption of what we now know as the disease for the norm. A new psychology of pleasure based around the technologies of disaffection poses a danger with equal magnitude. Of course, why not melancholy and individualism? Why not divide ourselves from our selves? Any of these could be adopted as the norm, making pathologies out of love and diseases out of humanity.

Duncan