Or as the press is now saying "lucid dreaming". It doesn't exist. It's bogus. There's the night-time dream, which everybody understands as a true dream; and there's the daydream, which everybody understands as fantasy.
The Tucson shooter of course referred to it as "conscience dreaming". I read that in the early articles as "conscious dreaming", initially presuming it was a misspelling, then perhaps thinking it was a creative bit of thought on the shooter's part, trying to believe that the violence of his daydreams were actually an expression of a superior consciousness and superior moral perception. I think this later idea is correct, he wasn't so much an illiterate fellow as a destroyed intellect; this kind of thing would make sense to him. But now I learn that "lucid dreaming" is actually a subject of study (somewhere, apparently) as if it's a physiological expression of the brain, and not a disorder of the mind. This indicates a moral disorder on the part of those who would insist there is such a subject.
I am very opposed to liquid dreaming, I am very opposed to lucid dreaming, I am for that matter, quite strongly opposed to very much ordinary daydreaming, because very much of it becomes a dishonesty: you are not going to fulfill very many of your daydreams, you are not going to fulfill any of them by daydreaming. You can visit the daydream on occasion as an aspiration. That can actually be a good thing, aspirations should be vivid to the mind. As long as it's recognized as aspiration, and not fulfillment, it can be wholesome. But if you regard it as fulfillment, or reality, you can destroy yourself, --as had the shooter, proven when he acted out his fantasy and destroyed so many others.
I don't like the careless use of the term, as if it's something other than a pathology, but I've seen it used little so far, so perhaps it is understood as pathological though in the articles I've read not clearly stated as such.
Note: my severe disparagement of very much daydreaming doesn't extend to kids or young men in love. Both are a once in a lifetime experience, lack of experience is an excuse.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Tucson, One Week After
This will be a boring post, there is nothing to figure out, but I think I want to put down my personal response.
I first heard about it on talk radio perhaps an hour after it happened. I was driving to Walgreens to get tobacco. Short drive. I now only listen to talk radio while driving, takes too much time, so, short drive, I listened little.
I was immediately heartened. There had been a fusillade, perhaps eight to ten seconds, and then the citizenry had reacted and the gunman was disarmed and pinned to the ground. I had no details at that point, other than that a congress woman had been shot along with many others, and my heart went pitter-pat: this wasn't VA Tech, people didn't sit like lambs and wait for slaughter, they reacted and won, or won anyway as well as you can when 19 have already been shot. But it was clearly a nut job --mass killings in America are always nut jobs-- and the only defense against that kind of thing possible, citizen reaction, had taken place. I would far have preferred that someone pulled their own gun and shot the bastard dead, but it was a very small group, nearly everyone there took a bullet, perhaps someone armed just didn't have time to react before being shot, perhaps in such a small group there was no one armed. But the assailant had been disarmed, an excellent result. --I noticed that this very liberal talk show was really straining at the bit to find "facts" by which they could blame the shooting on conservatives.
That was what I knew for some hours, and then later that night read more and found... they were blaming it on conservatives! Specifically Sarah Palin and the Tea Party and the "climate of hate". This was nuts. The guy was clearly a nut. Any American at all who follows the news would automatically associate this with Columbine or VA Tech and not Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma bombing. To try to ascribe political motivation to a clear nut meant you had to be a nut yourself, and yet this was what the left was doing, and this was my only puzzlement: Did they not understand they were coming across as nuts? Were they that out of touch that they couldn't see that's how they would be perceived? Or were they just that dumb? Or that much in their own bubble? Dumb/bubble/nuts, that was the question, and it's the only interesting thing about this whole last week.
I think the MSM simply doesn't realize that they've lost the ability to determine the narrative. They simply aren't trusted anymore. It doesn't matter how consistent or loud their message might be, no one in America listens anymore. It's recognized they have "a viewpoint". Okay, some people share that viewpoint, but no one not already convinced of the narrative finds that their story line has any moral force. The great mass of Americans now think for themselves, --and of course, there are other sources of news.
The logic behind the MSMs attempted smear was clear: They fear the Tea Party because they fear an independent public, especially one voting Republican. It's clearly accepted by everyone that inflamed rhetoric inflames passions. Clearly, inflamed passions, a Democrat shot, the Tea Party did it. But the guy was a nut. The simple, obvious, immediately known fact, that the guy had shot many people, indicated he was a nut. Americans knew that, the MSM knew that, but they still thought they could spin it. I ascribe the whole silliness to their simply not knowing yet how far they have fallen. Stupidity is good, when it's in the other guys. Never over estimate the intelligence of the present elites. In reference to media influence, America is a better place now that it was just a week ago. The liberal press is several percentage points more bozo than it was even before. This is good.
The genuine hatred the left has for the right? I mean the real hatred, and not just the low IQ policy attempt to affix blame? It is real. That's because you can't be a leftist without hatred in your heart for other groups. That's because leftism, with the state as the moral center, can have no self-identification other than that given by the state, that means they function as a group, and any group in opposition to the interest (or presumed interests) of the state is hated. Conservatives hate evil, it's a matter of God given standards. They might see more of that evil in one group than in another, but still it's the evil they hate, not the group. Liberals just hate men, which is why they can so easily run roughshod over rights, lives, and sensitivities.
And that's what I take away from this week. Apparently, in Obama reading the tea leaves and so stating in his memorial address that it was not inflamed rhetoric that caused the shooting, the left has taken it's cue and so has dropped the meme as well. Individuals certainly don't want to do that, they do genuinely hate conservatives, but presumably all "respectable" spokesman will let the story line lie. They won't retract, they won't apologize, they won't introspect, but they will go on to something else.
Score a point for freedom. --And Sarah has gone up a few points too.
I first heard about it on talk radio perhaps an hour after it happened. I was driving to Walgreens to get tobacco. Short drive. I now only listen to talk radio while driving, takes too much time, so, short drive, I listened little.
I was immediately heartened. There had been a fusillade, perhaps eight to ten seconds, and then the citizenry had reacted and the gunman was disarmed and pinned to the ground. I had no details at that point, other than that a congress woman had been shot along with many others, and my heart went pitter-pat: this wasn't VA Tech, people didn't sit like lambs and wait for slaughter, they reacted and won, or won anyway as well as you can when 19 have already been shot. But it was clearly a nut job --mass killings in America are always nut jobs-- and the only defense against that kind of thing possible, citizen reaction, had taken place. I would far have preferred that someone pulled their own gun and shot the bastard dead, but it was a very small group, nearly everyone there took a bullet, perhaps someone armed just didn't have time to react before being shot, perhaps in such a small group there was no one armed. But the assailant had been disarmed, an excellent result. --I noticed that this very liberal talk show was really straining at the bit to find "facts" by which they could blame the shooting on conservatives.
That was what I knew for some hours, and then later that night read more and found... they were blaming it on conservatives! Specifically Sarah Palin and the Tea Party and the "climate of hate". This was nuts. The guy was clearly a nut. Any American at all who follows the news would automatically associate this with Columbine or VA Tech and not Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma bombing. To try to ascribe political motivation to a clear nut meant you had to be a nut yourself, and yet this was what the left was doing, and this was my only puzzlement: Did they not understand they were coming across as nuts? Were they that out of touch that they couldn't see that's how they would be perceived? Or were they just that dumb? Or that much in their own bubble? Dumb/bubble/nuts, that was the question, and it's the only interesting thing about this whole last week.
I think the MSM simply doesn't realize that they've lost the ability to determine the narrative. They simply aren't trusted anymore. It doesn't matter how consistent or loud their message might be, no one in America listens anymore. It's recognized they have "a viewpoint". Okay, some people share that viewpoint, but no one not already convinced of the narrative finds that their story line has any moral force. The great mass of Americans now think for themselves, --and of course, there are other sources of news.
The logic behind the MSMs attempted smear was clear: They fear the Tea Party because they fear an independent public, especially one voting Republican. It's clearly accepted by everyone that inflamed rhetoric inflames passions. Clearly, inflamed passions, a Democrat shot, the Tea Party did it. But the guy was a nut. The simple, obvious, immediately known fact, that the guy had shot many people, indicated he was a nut. Americans knew that, the MSM knew that, but they still thought they could spin it. I ascribe the whole silliness to their simply not knowing yet how far they have fallen. Stupidity is good, when it's in the other guys. Never over estimate the intelligence of the present elites. In reference to media influence, America is a better place now that it was just a week ago. The liberal press is several percentage points more bozo than it was even before. This is good.
The genuine hatred the left has for the right? I mean the real hatred, and not just the low IQ policy attempt to affix blame? It is real. That's because you can't be a leftist without hatred in your heart for other groups. That's because leftism, with the state as the moral center, can have no self-identification other than that given by the state, that means they function as a group, and any group in opposition to the interest (or presumed interests) of the state is hated. Conservatives hate evil, it's a matter of God given standards. They might see more of that evil in one group than in another, but still it's the evil they hate, not the group. Liberals just hate men, which is why they can so easily run roughshod over rights, lives, and sensitivities.
And that's what I take away from this week. Apparently, in Obama reading the tea leaves and so stating in his memorial address that it was not inflamed rhetoric that caused the shooting, the left has taken it's cue and so has dropped the meme as well. Individuals certainly don't want to do that, they do genuinely hate conservatives, but presumably all "respectable" spokesman will let the story line lie. They won't retract, they won't apologize, they won't introspect, but they will go on to something else.
Score a point for freedom. --And Sarah has gone up a few points too.
Fallen Then The Smitten Hand...
Think I'll put down three poems as a post. Not doing no writing at all. I should discipline myself to do one month of blogging, just to be doing something. One month would be enough. I don't want to do a lot, it's hard work, but I would like to get off mental dead center and at least feel like I was breathing in and out.
I don't understand this odd orientation that produces poems. I don't work at these things, they just appear. Sometimes they appear in final form, sometimes over the course of hours ideas come and words are changed. But I never work at it, I'm always doing other things. It's always something subterranean that's doing the work, I only write words down.
May later write my own reflections on Tucson. It would only be a personal statement, nothing more can be added.
Note: I've closed access to Three Day Post. If I do start linking again I'll get a few readers. I don't want to have to explain an involuntary-memory love affair. Too weird. Weird yet even though I've now passed through it.
I took the road less traveled by.
No choice;
Not straight, but straightly forced;
From youth, in all its brambled turning,
No other way;
Behind, the path clear-cut,
Ahead, no path at all.
Unwavering mystery.
Forward!
Another bramble hewn.
Fifty years in the garbage bin
--It's not intent, it's knowing--
Everybody's dead.
Why pine? Nostalgia?
What's remembered? No one's there.
With no one there there's nothing.
Gone.
Back to the woods, a boy,
My dog and I,
to roam and watch and be.
We two are real.
From someplace something comes;
What once had come is gone;
We'll try it twice.
I want at least to touch,
To touch, and know I've touched
once more;
Fallen then the smitten hand
That parsed creation.
I would I lived there.
It's not for men,
It's a reach only --ever.
I don't understand this odd orientation that produces poems. I don't work at these things, they just appear. Sometimes they appear in final form, sometimes over the course of hours ideas come and words are changed. But I never work at it, I'm always doing other things. It's always something subterranean that's doing the work, I only write words down.
May later write my own reflections on Tucson. It would only be a personal statement, nothing more can be added.
Note: I've closed access to Three Day Post. If I do start linking again I'll get a few readers. I don't want to have to explain an involuntary-memory love affair. Too weird. Weird yet even though I've now passed through it.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Sing Song Sans Sense
What a rotten mental day, sing-song verses never stopping, rapping, rapping, rapping, never stopping-- inside my noggin and driving me nuts. Yuck.
Actually, it wasn't such a bad day most of the day. I got up, lit my pipe, had coffee, found my feet, stood poised over my notebook... Nothing. Okay, so it's going to be a blob day. Such days happen. I read a lot, did diddle work that needed to be diddled done, and in the evening went out for my walk along the river. I had missed several days. Fall had advanced. It was splendid. Walking back to my truck in the dark this line came to mind: "The rough Fall foliage / of mild late Autumn". Not bad. No poem behind it, but not a bad line. Then this:
Moral: Verse is not poetry. Poetry is perception, expressed in verse, in some form. Or as I've otherwise written: "Poetry is perception, a thing perceived in such a way as not to be expressible in any way other than as a poem. --Strong feeling, given gift, will finally be a poem."
Always the impulse has to be feeling, never meter, sound, or some intended form. I wonder if anything good can come from the sing-song impulse? I might write down one of the ones I did, later, and see if anything can be made of it. --Still have that sing-song'y sense in my brain. Yuck.
========
A number of ideas came to mind while I was feeding my mice. I sketched on them: many lines, many bad. I may for the first time be "constructing" a poem, --what I talked of yesterday. If it works out I'll put it down. Tomorrow. Not at all good yet; the concept is good.
Actually, it wasn't such a bad day most of the day. I got up, lit my pipe, had coffee, found my feet, stood poised over my notebook... Nothing. Okay, so it's going to be a blob day. Such days happen. I read a lot, did diddle work that needed to be diddled done, and in the evening went out for my walk along the river. I had missed several days. Fall had advanced. It was splendid. Walking back to my truck in the dark this line came to mind: "The rough Fall foliage / of mild late Autumn". Not bad. No poem behind it, but not a bad line. Then this:
Of immense value, this reawakened life:Not bad. It might in fact be something that could be connected to the first line. Conceptually the idea would be that the new life was coming in the Fall, just as life was dying, rather than in the Spring, when new life would be forming. The oddity of that backwards imaging would create an automatic tension... Whatever. I got in my truck and drove home. That's when I read an odd letter from a friend who had excitedly just discovered that government can make money by severely taxing the rich. He seemed to be bouncing. That's when I wrote my own odd reply:
New blood, new heart, in time new mind...
But of what nature and continuance uncertain.
My, you sure do have the envious heart of the thief. Every thief is pure in heart, you understand, their motives only the best. They rather love themselves, you understand, they take only from those who have more than they need... But break into a home, tax the rich... a thief is a thief is a thief.And that's when I realized the sing-song had hit. It continued about two hours, and man, did I write a lot of really really bad verse.
Moral: Verse is not poetry. Poetry is perception, expressed in verse, in some form. Or as I've otherwise written: "Poetry is perception, a thing perceived in such a way as not to be expressible in any way other than as a poem. --Strong feeling, given gift, will finally be a poem."
Always the impulse has to be feeling, never meter, sound, or some intended form. I wonder if anything good can come from the sing-song impulse? I might write down one of the ones I did, later, and see if anything can be made of it. --Still have that sing-song'y sense in my brain. Yuck.
========
A number of ideas came to mind while I was feeding my mice. I sketched on them: many lines, many bad. I may for the first time be "constructing" a poem, --what I talked of yesterday. If it works out I'll put it down. Tomorrow. Not at all good yet; the concept is good.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
To Construct a Poem
Just wrote this one straight out a few minutes ago:
========
The poem was written "correctly", that is, in terms of how I think I particularly do poems. I was pacing, began thinking of matters of loss, thought particularly of this early loss, felt the pain keenly, and so started to write. The exceptionally prosaic first two lines should indicate that at first I had no sense of the poetry of the thing, though I did recognize I was going to put it in poetic form. I had no sense of its structure. But then I wrote it straight out and it was fundamentally okay just as I put it down. I suppose the structure was simply the story, it's not as if I haven't been through this moment a billion times. And the language was rhythmic because that's the way I think when the sense of poetry is on me. So I guess it really was written the way I seem to write all my poems: the first line, and everything else following. The poem was "there" right from the first, I just didn't have any sense of it being there because it hadn't just been discovered by my brain, it's been there most of my life. --So not much to be learned as to construction as a willed manufacture.
My sense of rhythm? I have it, I don't know what it is. I know it's informed from all the prose I write, and in prose I have only one rule: b follows a. That is, the second half of the line must balance with the first, and the second line with the line preceding. It's only a felt matter of what's appropriate, but in prose that's certainly enough, because in prose, rhythm (and sound) is certainly far secondary to sense. Sense always is of most importance, but in poetry rhythm and sound take on far more importance. I seem to have a reasonable sense of what works, I don't have any conscious set of rules. --And no set of rules seems to be forming. I will pay attention, and see if something sometime comes to mind.
On construction. What I had thought I would be doing was something akin to writing a tune. I wrote tunes only one summer once in my life. I developed a procedure. I would walk, thinking about things. I would soon be thinking pretty much of only one thing. A mood would form. I would be humming and singing sounds to myself. Pretty soon a tune would form that would accord to the mood, then I would simply write words as lyrics that expressed the subject and fit the tune. Worked pretty well. Only time I had an annoying problem was once when I had a cold and couldn't sing, so just imagined the tune in my head. I did get a pretty good tune ( and pretty extensive and complex); but when my voice came back I discovered it was way beyond my register, both top and bottom.
This is somewhat the way I thought would do this poem. I would have a general sense and feeling (emotion) about what I wanted to do; I would "hum to myself" many words, sketching here and there; and pretty soon would have a poem expressive of the mood, which I would then tighten a bit and cut to create some sense of flow. That still may be a legitimate way to do a poem.
I still have no clear sense of what I intend as structure. I note I seem never to have more than four beats to a line. I do seem to establish a pattern for a few lines, then break it.
========
The first beauty I ever lostI had a fairly strong feeling, but no sense of a structured poem. I had intended to rework it on the blog, showing the various versions, and commenting as I thought I found insight as to how this kind of construction happens. Oddly, having typed it out, it seems okay the way it is... I will make some comments later.
was the beauty of my Grandparents farm.
They sold it.
I couldn't believe it.
Twelve years old.
A little wooded valley, perfect,
high hills on every side, except
the side of deepest woods
that on and on for miles
along the river went.
My dog and I and rifle
walked those woods.
At eight we first began our hunts,
at eight we brought game home,
and everyday we found new lands
and built America.
They sold it.
Gramp's arm was gone.
In winter up the winding drive
a quarter mile to road, too much
scooping for that age'd arm.
They sold it.
I was last to join the
car that last drive out
--upon the hill and out of sight
they honked the horn. --I,
yet in the woods below,
shot seven shots across the water;
why seven I don't know-- and somber
with my dog went up to them.
Those seven shots... For many times
those seven years I've not forgot, and
many times I've dreamed...
A rail line passing through,
a village built...
It's my woods. Lost.
Lost woods, lost youth, lost permanence.
========
The poem was written "correctly", that is, in terms of how I think I particularly do poems. I was pacing, began thinking of matters of loss, thought particularly of this early loss, felt the pain keenly, and so started to write. The exceptionally prosaic first two lines should indicate that at first I had no sense of the poetry of the thing, though I did recognize I was going to put it in poetic form. I had no sense of its structure. But then I wrote it straight out and it was fundamentally okay just as I put it down. I suppose the structure was simply the story, it's not as if I haven't been through this moment a billion times. And the language was rhythmic because that's the way I think when the sense of poetry is on me. So I guess it really was written the way I seem to write all my poems: the first line, and everything else following. The poem was "there" right from the first, I just didn't have any sense of it being there because it hadn't just been discovered by my brain, it's been there most of my life. --So not much to be learned as to construction as a willed manufacture.
My sense of rhythm? I have it, I don't know what it is. I know it's informed from all the prose I write, and in prose I have only one rule: b follows a. That is, the second half of the line must balance with the first, and the second line with the line preceding. It's only a felt matter of what's appropriate, but in prose that's certainly enough, because in prose, rhythm (and sound) is certainly far secondary to sense. Sense always is of most importance, but in poetry rhythm and sound take on far more importance. I seem to have a reasonable sense of what works, I don't have any conscious set of rules. --And no set of rules seems to be forming. I will pay attention, and see if something sometime comes to mind.
On construction. What I had thought I would be doing was something akin to writing a tune. I wrote tunes only one summer once in my life. I developed a procedure. I would walk, thinking about things. I would soon be thinking pretty much of only one thing. A mood would form. I would be humming and singing sounds to myself. Pretty soon a tune would form that would accord to the mood, then I would simply write words as lyrics that expressed the subject and fit the tune. Worked pretty well. Only time I had an annoying problem was once when I had a cold and couldn't sing, so just imagined the tune in my head. I did get a pretty good tune ( and pretty extensive and complex); but when my voice came back I discovered it was way beyond my register, both top and bottom.
This is somewhat the way I thought would do this poem. I would have a general sense and feeling (emotion) about what I wanted to do; I would "hum to myself" many words, sketching here and there; and pretty soon would have a poem expressive of the mood, which I would then tighten a bit and cut to create some sense of flow. That still may be a legitimate way to do a poem.
I still have no clear sense of what I intend as structure. I note I seem never to have more than four beats to a line. I do seem to establish a pattern for a few lines, then break it.
========
Damn! She's racking up more points.========
She's got the most by far already.
Torment! Damn!
Why won't she write!?
Tea Party to a Microbiologist
Dear J,
"I just have never done well with politics, perhaps because of my Irish irrationality..." You have never done well with politics because you have never studied politics, and because you're surrounded by academics, who have never studied politics either but who are very convinced of their own opinions.
"I wonder if some of the people in the Tea Party movement are interesting to talk with." No, they won't like you; that's because you've never studied politics (or Shakespeare) but are very certain of your own opinions.
I love the Tea Party movement. It's a movement of intelligent, informed, honest, freedom loving people against unintelligent, uninformed, dishonest, totalitarian people, all of whom are very certain of their own opinions, who have not read Shakespeare, and who want to boss other people around.
You might begin to see that I'm developing a theme. The elites have become disgusting. I mean all colleges and universities, the scientific community, Hollywood, the media, bureaucrats, philanthropic organizations, and almost all politicians. In reference to the scientific community --I've pointed this out to you again and again-- their failure to argue that the science behind climate change is bogus makes them laughingstocks. They are corrupt. There is no way they can any longer expect respect from any honest man (not as institutions or organizations, and certainly not the leadership.) They've been corrupted by dollars. They no longer do science, they do grants. You get your money from the government, you think what the government tells you to think... and then since you're an academic you persuade yourself that what you believe is because you are so very wise. Honest people have had enough. That's why there's a Tea Party movement.
I don't think you have any idea how corrupt our universities have become (and everything elite in general). I don't think you have any idea how easily the average citizen recognizes that corruption. I bet you even think the average citizen is wrong. All academics think the average citizen is wrong. They have no self-awareness of how far they have fallen.
I repeat the same thing to you a thousand times. I don't think there's any chance you're ever going to understand, but this is a hopeful time. A great contempt has developed, and that's just very very good, because the elites have made themselves contemptible. For an absolute certainty this contempt is good for the individual, because it's an accurate perception. Whether the contempt will be enough to destroy the universities as they now exist I don't know, but hopefully there will be movement. Sixty years ago the universities were not as foul as they are now; and it's only in the last ten that the sciences have caught up with the corruption of the arts. People do get sick of stink, even in universities. There might be some cleansing, and some of it might be internal.
And as I've said, I've repeated this again and again and you aren't going to understand.
For myself, I've never been more optimistic about America, and it's not something I foresaw at all. I had thought America could only gain excellence again if excellent ideas were taught, but that's very hard. It seemed impossible. I've spent a lifetime trying to get an education, and I'm having difficulty, and I want an education. How do you educate some dope at a university who doesn't want an education but is just very content with being very certain of his own opinions? Well of course, you can't. But you can just dismiss them as insignificant, and eventually replace them with others. That may happen. That contempt might create something vital by destroying something moribund is what I hadn't foreseen.
Anyway, it's a hopeful time. The probability is that the Republicans will come in in great numbers. Then they will "compromise" (after all, the leaders are present members of the elite, and are just as corrupt as any other elite). And then there may be a third party and a vast political shake-up. There could be state successions. Things could become violent, touching on civil war. Could be. We haven't had a good internal war in a long time. Maybe it's time to give it a try again. --Oh, and there will never again be a black President, and the new racial separation will probably never close.
See you, --M
PS,
I might put this in my blog because it's a theme I've been hammering. --Of course this up-swelling of contempt has all been stimulated by the debt and the exceptionally bad recent governance, but the contempt for rotten culture and scientific malfeasance --the general contempts-- have always been there, it's just that now those contempts have been inflamed and so everything contemptible may feel the effects.
"I just have never done well with politics, perhaps because of my Irish irrationality..." You have never done well with politics because you have never studied politics, and because you're surrounded by academics, who have never studied politics either but who are very convinced of their own opinions.
"I wonder if some of the people in the Tea Party movement are interesting to talk with." No, they won't like you; that's because you've never studied politics (or Shakespeare) but are very certain of your own opinions.
I love the Tea Party movement. It's a movement of intelligent, informed, honest, freedom loving people against unintelligent, uninformed, dishonest, totalitarian people, all of whom are very certain of their own opinions, who have not read Shakespeare, and who want to boss other people around.
You might begin to see that I'm developing a theme. The elites have become disgusting. I mean all colleges and universities, the scientific community, Hollywood, the media, bureaucrats, philanthropic organizations, and almost all politicians. In reference to the scientific community --I've pointed this out to you again and again-- their failure to argue that the science behind climate change is bogus makes them laughingstocks. They are corrupt. There is no way they can any longer expect respect from any honest man (not as institutions or organizations, and certainly not the leadership.) They've been corrupted by dollars. They no longer do science, they do grants. You get your money from the government, you think what the government tells you to think... and then since you're an academic you persuade yourself that what you believe is because you are so very wise. Honest people have had enough. That's why there's a Tea Party movement.
I don't think you have any idea how corrupt our universities have become (and everything elite in general). I don't think you have any idea how easily the average citizen recognizes that corruption. I bet you even think the average citizen is wrong. All academics think the average citizen is wrong. They have no self-awareness of how far they have fallen.
I repeat the same thing to you a thousand times. I don't think there's any chance you're ever going to understand, but this is a hopeful time. A great contempt has developed, and that's just very very good, because the elites have made themselves contemptible. For an absolute certainty this contempt is good for the individual, because it's an accurate perception. Whether the contempt will be enough to destroy the universities as they now exist I don't know, but hopefully there will be movement. Sixty years ago the universities were not as foul as they are now; and it's only in the last ten that the sciences have caught up with the corruption of the arts. People do get sick of stink, even in universities. There might be some cleansing, and some of it might be internal.
And as I've said, I've repeated this again and again and you aren't going to understand.
For myself, I've never been more optimistic about America, and it's not something I foresaw at all. I had thought America could only gain excellence again if excellent ideas were taught, but that's very hard. It seemed impossible. I've spent a lifetime trying to get an education, and I'm having difficulty, and I want an education. How do you educate some dope at a university who doesn't want an education but is just very content with being very certain of his own opinions? Well of course, you can't. But you can just dismiss them as insignificant, and eventually replace them with others. That may happen. That contempt might create something vital by destroying something moribund is what I hadn't foreseen.
Anyway, it's a hopeful time. The probability is that the Republicans will come in in great numbers. Then they will "compromise" (after all, the leaders are present members of the elite, and are just as corrupt as any other elite). And then there may be a third party and a vast political shake-up. There could be state successions. Things could become violent, touching on civil war. Could be. We haven't had a good internal war in a long time. Maybe it's time to give it a try again. --Oh, and there will never again be a black President, and the new racial separation will probably never close.
See you, --M
PS,
I might put this in my blog because it's a theme I've been hammering. --Of course this up-swelling of contempt has all been stimulated by the debt and the exceptionally bad recent governance, but the contempt for rotten culture and scientific malfeasance --the general contempts-- have always been there, it's just that now those contempts have been inflamed and so everything contemptible may feel the effects.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
How Many Writers to Pop a Revolution?
I make the argument that this last dead century is a pit, not a descent; that if the reigning culture can be destroyed, tradition can resume; we can have good writers again. I don't consider our daily, living, American culture unwholesome, I consider our cultural elites diseased. If the elites can be destroyed, health will return, and I believe those elites can be destroyed just by the public breaking out in a laugh. Everything done by our "serious set" is self-evidently crap. There is no following, except among the "serious set". If they become laughing stocks, how long will they desire to be laughed at? What if the funding drys up? It's funding that supports crap, funding through government and private institutions. Government programs can be defunded by an enraged public; private institutions can be made to have second thoughts, if enough of the public makes clear their contempt.
This is an argument I've made my entire adult life, that there is nothing good out there among the "serious set" (though a lot of genre is good); that everything from the "serious set" is meant only to offend; that offense is considered excellence (the only possible way these people can be excellent); and that it's all possible as dominant only because of dominant funding; that it all starts with the universities (supported by their graduates, who have never read Shakespeare and anyway couldn't begin to appreciate him); and that the only reason it continues is because it is so massive and pervasive that it is able to lock out all antagonistic input.
Right now I make this only as an observation, rather than as an extended argument. It certainly is true that there's nothing good out there. The questions are:
--Can the elites effectively be mocked?
--Can their lock be broken?
--Are there men out there who can write?
--Is there a public that can appreciate?
And I suppose the most important question is: What in ethos is necessary to produce good literature? It does seem to necessitate all three; elites, writers, public. It's only the elites that for sure are crap, I expect that there are writers, and there would quickly be a ready public. Tea Party Tea Party. I have such hopes, because this is a rising up of contempt, and contempt is the only proper appreciation of our present high culture.
How many good colleges and universities are there out there? Hillsdale College seems fine. There must be two or three more. That's not going to constitute a very large population. Universities and colleges, fundamentally all of them, are government structures; without government funding they collapse. But there is tenure. With tenure they're fossils, they can not be changed. Can government be changed? Can government simply defund? To simply defund, to tie funding to tuition; that is, to the market place, would certainly change the nature of what is taught. With parents as the market place it's impossible that educational quality wouldn't improve. --But this is a bit long term in terms of simply getting some good novels out there.
Conservative non-fiction does very well. Why should not a conservative novel, one expressive of traditional values, also not do well? It would not do well among critics, it should do well among the public. Who reads novels? With "serious novels" only the "serious set", because nobody else will read stink, but those people don't define who reads novels, they only define who reads present novels. If a serious, traditional novel were written with a Tom Clancy capacity for story, if it were published and pushed by a number of people, it could be successful; elite condemning opinion would be ignored, simply because the elites are coming to be ignored.
So, how many people to make a revolution? If Fox can succeed, a serious decent novel can succeed. There's not much money in it, but it can succeed. It can succeed because the gate-keepers have lost their ability to snottily shame. In the present climate it would not take many men to make a revolution, just a number who have decided it's time. Tea Party Tea party. It could happen. --Make it twelve.
(Note: I'm not considering the ethos that can create great literature, only the ethos that can support good literature. --The gate-keepers have to be by-passed.) (Art has been rotten longer than literature, literature rotten longer than film. They all have reached rotten.)
This is an argument I've made my entire adult life, that there is nothing good out there among the "serious set" (though a lot of genre is good); that everything from the "serious set" is meant only to offend; that offense is considered excellence (the only possible way these people can be excellent); and that it's all possible as dominant only because of dominant funding; that it all starts with the universities (supported by their graduates, who have never read Shakespeare and anyway couldn't begin to appreciate him); and that the only reason it continues is because it is so massive and pervasive that it is able to lock out all antagonistic input.
Right now I make this only as an observation, rather than as an extended argument. It certainly is true that there's nothing good out there. The questions are:
--Can the elites effectively be mocked?
--Can their lock be broken?
--Are there men out there who can write?
--Is there a public that can appreciate?
And I suppose the most important question is: What in ethos is necessary to produce good literature? It does seem to necessitate all three; elites, writers, public. It's only the elites that for sure are crap, I expect that there are writers, and there would quickly be a ready public. Tea Party Tea Party. I have such hopes, because this is a rising up of contempt, and contempt is the only proper appreciation of our present high culture.
How many good colleges and universities are there out there? Hillsdale College seems fine. There must be two or three more. That's not going to constitute a very large population. Universities and colleges, fundamentally all of them, are government structures; without government funding they collapse. But there is tenure. With tenure they're fossils, they can not be changed. Can government be changed? Can government simply defund? To simply defund, to tie funding to tuition; that is, to the market place, would certainly change the nature of what is taught. With parents as the market place it's impossible that educational quality wouldn't improve. --But this is a bit long term in terms of simply getting some good novels out there.
Conservative non-fiction does very well. Why should not a conservative novel, one expressive of traditional values, also not do well? It would not do well among critics, it should do well among the public. Who reads novels? With "serious novels" only the "serious set", because nobody else will read stink, but those people don't define who reads novels, they only define who reads present novels. If a serious, traditional novel were written with a Tom Clancy capacity for story, if it were published and pushed by a number of people, it could be successful; elite condemning opinion would be ignored, simply because the elites are coming to be ignored.
So, how many people to make a revolution? If Fox can succeed, a serious decent novel can succeed. There's not much money in it, but it can succeed. It can succeed because the gate-keepers have lost their ability to snottily shame. In the present climate it would not take many men to make a revolution, just a number who have decided it's time. Tea Party Tea party. It could happen. --Make it twelve.
(Note: I'm not considering the ethos that can create great literature, only the ethos that can support good literature. --The gate-keepers have to be by-passed.) (Art has been rotten longer than literature, literature rotten longer than film. They all have reached rotten.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)