Sunday, October 28, 2007

Confronting the Bono/Geldof Obscenity

i know many good people who naively believe the crock of shit these shameless pricks cook up. "well at least they are doing something". yes, they certainly are doing something: using the suffering of millions to make themselves look good, and selling pity to fatten their own wallets. if but a single person reads this and realizes that they've been duped by these disgusting slime-balls, my work here is done.

the following is pieced together from various comments on Dissensus.

"According to the Product Red website, "(RED) has delivered a total of $11,303,926 to the Global Fund thus far. Based on early conservative estimates, we believe that when holiday sales have been totaled, (RED) will have generated another $10 million for the Fund."

Hardly surprising, then, that this announcement has received zero media coverage (U2 earn more in a month and Bono himself is estimated to be worth $700 million).

Given that a total of US$ 9.8 billion has been pledged and/or contributed through 2008 to the Global Fund (though only US$ 3.3 billion from this has actually been disbursed to date), Red's "contribution" represents approximately 0.001%-0.002% of the total pledged funds to date.

- hundredmillionlifetimes

Bono's heavy involvement in private equity companies (ie- one of the most pernicious mutations of capitalism to date) tells you everything you could ever need to know about his true motivations and the sickening hypocrisy that marks his every "charitable" move.

- gek opel

Why Bono and Geldof Got It Wrong, VIRGINIA RODINO, Counterpunch.

The Make Macho-Posturing Kapital Whores History musick-celebritishy spectacle was essentially part of the Blair government's PR campaign surrounding the G8 meetings last July [or was it June, or maybe August, or maybe why should anyone bother to care?], a cynical campaign aided and abetted by the Bush regime, British NGOs, and quite unfortunately, those two blarney-babblers, the ultra-montane reactionary Kapitalists, Bob Geldof (wealth: 200 million [in pick your favourite currency]) and Bono/Paul Hewson (1 billion).

The most influential player of Make Geldof History was Oxfam, a centrist-complacent NGO with close allegiance to the British government, in particular with British Chancellor Gordon Brown's office. Working closely with the Commission for Africa, which is chaired by, um, tyrannical ego-maniac Bob Geldof and run by batty Blair, nosey Brown, and Britain's overseas aid minister Hilary Beenie Benny, the official Make Bono History campaign ignorantly fell into supporting the neo-liberal agenda of the G8 leaders.

Meanwhile, calling George Bush a "sincere and passionate man," [making Michael Moore real envious] resting his head lovingly on Tony Blair's shoulder while posing for the media cameras, Bob "What about Paula, Bob?" Geldof joined Texan-Stetson Bono's tradition of delegitimizing the protesters and pandering to elite leaders, in particular two of the eight men who actively facilitate the poverty in the first place.

Geldof and Bono's actions not only dismissed the much more complicated and deeper critiques made by the G8 protesters, but also implicitly condoned the hypocritical decisions of the corporate and government elites made during that week alone. The Scottish government punished members of Parliament who spoke out in favor of protecting protesters' rights to peacefully dissent in Gleneagles. For an entire month, these MPs were banned from government buildings and their salaries as well as the salaries of their staff were taken away. While Bonol and GAdolf spoke from the sublime heavens about "saving" the Africans, the rock stars took no action to pressure the UK government to let across the African protesters who were being denied entry into the country and denied participation in the events at which they had been invited to speak. Worse, Geldof, on a panel at a press meeting and in front of the gathered world broadcast media, contemptibly dismissed as "offensive and outrageous" the comments of an African member of the panel, who had simply questioned the effectiveness of Make Geldof Rich History.

Moreover ["as if we didn't know"], the assumptions and recommendations manufactured by Bobbly's Commission for Africa will prove disastrous for Africa's workers, peasants, and the urban poor. These include the assumption that the impact of Western manoeuvers on Africa has been largely benign. There is a complete absence of criticism of the ongoing Western military interventions of the last half century, and the colonial exploits and brutality forced upon the peoples of African nations. The other damaging assumption of the Commission revolves around the premise that free trade and privatization are somehow the key to liberation for Africans. The International Monetary Fund is viewed as being able to "play an invaluable role" in clearing the way for "private sector investors." Private profit making is seen as the panacea to poverty: "Successful growth will be led by the private sector." The commission concludes that only by ridding themselves of barriers to free trade and exporting to the rest of the world can Africans work their way out of poverty. Yes, Bobo, "Make Poverty Permanent cuz it made me obscenely rich. And I like it."

Besides completely whitewashing the real story behind Africa's debt burden, which has deteriorated further post-Live8, and the continuous misery their policies impose on the rest of the world, Blair and Brown and the rest of the G8 leaders hoped to use the Make All The Little People, The Masses History events as a smokescreen for the crisis occurring in Iraq. Unfortunately, agents-of-Kapital Bono and Geldof wholeheartedly supported this move. Because of their facile and naïve view of the political situation, Bono and Geldof helped to take the heat off Bush and Blair at their weakest point, the Iraq war, which is strategically situated as the first in a long series of dominos set up by and for both Western administrations. If this domino falls, pressured by the global anti-war movement, then the long line of imperialist drives, including the debilitating imposed debt on Africa, has a much greater chance of falling, of being cancelled. Instead, with foolhardy optimism in a system and its pushers who have literally created the misery, the millionaire rock stars persist in criticizing protesters through name-calling and displays of ignorance about protesters' understanding of the situation as if ordinary people simply could not grasp the real story behind the debt.

"Ironically bolstered by the strength of the global anti-war movement's ability to draw out millions in the streets, Geldof organized Make Poverty History concerts all over the world and called for people to march in Edinburgh. As opposed to providing the real justice that South African activist Trevor Ngwane and others called for, however, Geldof instead used his impressive soapbox to call for patronizing charity, and a more than polite request to the G8 leaders to "play nice." In the same vein, Geldof also intentionally refused most African artists to play on his stages, saying they wouldn't draw crowds. Thus, he paternalistically reduced the people of Africa to uncultured children who need to be pitied, not empowered. He also privileged the minuscule numbers of the powerful ruling class into the position of being willing and able to change the world not the masses of ordinary people everywhere.

To make matters worse, Geldolf emailed an edict to each of the Live 8 performers, forbidding them from mentioning the Iraq War or saying anything that would "embarrass" Blair. As with the Make Everything History demonstration, this was a case of the millions of participants being more progressive than the organizers of the event.

It was also a perfect exemplification of class unconsciousness. From the stage, the wealthiest man on the planet, Bill Gates, along with the likes of Sir Paul McCartney and Sir Bob Geldof, positioned themselves as experts on Third World debt and poverty. Millionaires like Madonna, before performing, asked the crowd if they were ready for a "revolution." And perhaps the most egregious moment came when Chris Martin of the pop band Coldplay, commented that the Live 8 concerts were the most important events ever organized in human history."

and also the following. these people really have no shame and their depravity knows no bounds:

Bono Moves to Holland to Avoid Taxes

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Worst Mistake in History of Human Race

By Jared Diamond
University of California at Los Angeles Medical School

preface (by little old me):

i have been interested in the fundamental claims (if not the concrete solutions) of Anarcho-Primitivism for some time, and unsurprisingly, every time i bring up these ideas, there is only resistance -- nothing but knee-jerk dismissal of anything resembling the Noble Savage (stanley kubrick you listenin?). but consider the opposite: humans have ALWAYS lived the way we do now, with slavery and systematic oppression and heirarchy and power and subjugation and exploitation, even under drastically different conditions such as small population and abundance of resources, for millions of years.

is that believable if you really think about it?

agriculture (and with it the myriad of new forms which we call civilization) started roughly 10,000 years ago, in response to, as a necessity created by a drastic diminishing of natural vegetation -- a result of the last ice-age. there is ample evidence that prior to that, earth was exponentially more lush and abundant a place compared to the earth that we know.

but whether an egalitarian paradise existed for 4 million years prior to the advent of language/power/civilization is not necessarily the main point; even though a reasonably good case for this has been made many times (the ancient myths and religions of all cultures on earth, for instance). the important thing is that these claims allow us to open up to the idea that the way we live today may not be the only way, that it may prove to be a very recent development.

the important thing is to realize that what we believe today about ourselves and our history is tainted by civilisation itself, its ideology, and its agendas -- and that it may not be nearly as rational or factual as we think.

the story of our violent and competitive ancesters is dominant in our art and culture, but this representation of our past in the image of our present may be completely false. the way we look at the world and ourselves, it may be a very limited view, which excludes multiple other ways of perceiving and understanding, which are all just as valid, if not much more valid.

what i am interested in is NOT bemoaning how the world sucks today in comparisson to some edenic, prehistoric perfection, NOR am i advocating a return to gathering and hunting - a "natural" way of life (whatever the fuck that means); what i AM suggesting, however, is that the only way to envision a better future is to strip away the lies and illusions that we have been living under - the myths perpetrated by civilization - and to realize that human potential is much wider and bigger than our culture would have us believe, and that maybe we haven't ALWAYS lived the lonely dog-eat-dog way we do now. only when we break from these limited and limiting traps which define us can we possibly find another way of existing.

if we deny that there are other ways of life, if we refuse to accept the possibility that we once were different, if we do not believe that our specie is CAPABLE of living peacefully, gracefully, then what better future can there be?

i do not necessarily agree with everything in the following, and it does not nearly cover all of the important points and issues that I'm interested in; but in the face of all the ridicule, mockery, flat-out denial and complete refusal to consider, i find much consolation and vindication in this piece by the world reknowned historian, biologist, and archaeologist. it actually is not necessarily the best out there on this subject, but it is more than sympathetic to many of the basic ideas of Anarcho-Primitivism. my main reason for choosing it over others is because people are less likely to knee-jerk dismiss Jarred Diamond than someone like John Zerzan, whose work makes up a much more radical stance and all-encompassing world view. but while many consider Zerzan to be missing a few marbles, i consider him to be the dictionary definition of sane sobriety, and whole heartedly recommend his books (some of which are published by a division of Columbia University Press).

so, without further ado:

The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race

Monday, September 24, 2007

US of Assholes

voting is a smokescreen which perpetuates illusory freedom. it is a happy pill which makes the masses feel as if they are making a difference.

America is not a democracy. has never BEEN a democracy. and never will. America is a REPUBLIC, set up to make MONEY for a few already filthy rich white men, and the hell to everyone else. there is no such thing as "free-market" (as envisioned by Adam Smith), never has been, and never will. America's economic system is more like a serfdom, with a few lords owning most of everything, and the rest work their asses off as slaves. just look at the recent statistics on CEO pay versus empolyee salaries.

the ideas of American "freedom" and "democracy" are the Big Lies that no one doubts, and more than any other beliefs put forth by propaganda, responsible for efficiently keeping people ignorant and passive.

regarding the following videos: it's not a matter of what the country has come to, it's a matter of the underlying, deep rooted sickness showing through. (thanks to Milton for some of the links):

UF Student Tasered During John Kerry Speech

a nation of zombie sheep. hundreds just sitting there staring while the guy is dragged away screaming for help.

Nomos notes: "also disturbing how "don't tase me bro" has turned into a pop culture meme divorced from the context in which it was uttered. It's on t-shirts already. "bro" became an excuse to turn it into a saying on the level of "don't have a cow man" and laugh at him instead of taking a position." makes me sick.

Citizens Arrested for commiting FREE SPEECH in Washington DC

don't know the local laws on assembly, etc., are, but assuming the people interviewed are not lying through their teeth... the authorities are obviously so confident that the American people have been turned into such helpless worms that they can get away with this outright violation of civil liberties. and they 1. are right 2. can and 3. will.

President Bush bill pardons himself for his war crimes

Bush also bought 100,000 acres of Paraguay, which he is making into some kind of retirement mega-fortress, heavily armed and guarded by miliatary personnel. it sits on top of the largest water supply of S. America, and the country has also recently, conveniently, granted immunity to all war criminals.

thought of everything didn't he -- tell me again what an "idiot" this man is

which brings us to the final piece in this post:

The Bush Gang: "A veritable juggernaut of competence."
by Jack Riddler

excerpt: "Those who call the Bush mob "incompetent" make a fatal error. On some unconscious level, they seem to think that these criminals somehow share any of the goals of decent human beings, and have therefore "failed" to produce good results. But that, of course is the idea that motivates the Bush crime family: to produce evil results that happen to enrich their own class."

Monday, September 17, 2007

Humour: media / politics

just saw the Simpsons movie and was thinking this:

humour can be liberating, defiant, or even insurrectionary, when you laugh in the face of authority. but in "The Media" humour becomes a very efficient tool used by authority to pacify- a way to shrug off and ignore things we need to change and deal with ----- often it is the very thing we are laughing about: this shrugging-off and ignorance. Simpsons Movie exemplify this. we are in a dire situation, yes, and we are still behaving in irresponsible ways willfully ignoring the consequences -- it's all true but let's have a good laugh about our own suicidal stupidity and not take any of it seriously. it's all just entertainment isn't it, and a good laugh will make the viewer sleep well and wake up in the morning to do exactly like Homer.

the priviledged and smug self-entitled (ironic how rarely people deserve their riches, and how all of them feel that it's their god given right) take nothing seriously, and a smirk (often ironic - how's that for meta-irony?) always hangs about their faces -- life is a party/commercial and they are always witty, pleasant, and in good cheer.

in fact, there is an INABILITY to be serious. not even for a moment. the world would come crumbling down if one becomes serious -- fear of appearing to not be a good sport or even (GASP!) unhappy. as if all the things swept under the Happy Rug™ will come crawling out and take over if in "leisure" time we do anything other than go-with-the-flow, and project anything other than good humour.

i suppose like Zizek says, the official position is irony, sarcasm, and poking fun.* so i guess there are only 2 things left to do: 1. be the confrontational serious party-pooper or 2. over-identify and become a super swanky cheese-ball / party animal who actually makes others slightly uncomfortable because of how much one is (perversely) enjoying EVERYTHING and finding it all absolutely hilarious ALL THE TIME.

*while politicians display sanctimonious forced seriousness and phoney caring, the proscribed, encouraged, to the point of being mandatory, behavior for people in everyday life is a happy-go-lucky ironic distance, and this "shrugging-off" with a laugh. in the office, in a bar, in almost EVERY social situation. save, perhaps, funerals.

in my experience "caring" or being serious is definitely discouraged in society. I've "ruined" enough dinner parties to know. (yikes!) but this is very likely more true of the United States and perhaps of LA in particular than other parts of the world -- where the overwhelming feeling is one of "everything is and will always be just fine". and the creepy feeling that there is something wrong with you "if you are not as happy as people in commercials appear to be".

a friend pointed out guys like John Stewart are probably more a part of the problem than anything aproaching any kind of attempt at solutions -- the effect they have is more pro-status-quo than pro any kind of change.

in fact, fake democracy loves guys like Stewart, because in response they can dish out the endlessly annoying party-line: "well at least we are allowed to criticize blah blah blah" - one of the best reinforcements for illusory freedom. while in reality the Daily Show just makes people laugh about things they should be angry about and gives them a free pass to go on with biz as usual.

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Looking VS. Listening

a friend made the observation that the term "communication design" means visual design, while human communication itself arguably has more to do audio. also in the education of children, looking is focused on as a means for knowledge to enter the brain, while hearing is more or less ignored.

other sound-artists I've talked to have sometimes complained that sound and music are not something the public and the (art) establishment, take nearly as seriously as visual art. music is entertainment for the most part, while "art" is deemed a more profound, significant, and indeed almost religious, experience.

and it's true, only in recent years have sound been *kind of* taken seriously, with the popularity of artists like Christian Marclay. while famous observations such as "sculture is more suited for the medium of sound, because you can perceive 3 dimensions simultaneously; and with an object you have to walk around it" (who said that again?) have been uttered many years ago. so in this light perhaps the concerns of something like cubism can be easier realized with sound rather than collage or sculpture.

would you agree that in general our societies and cultures seem to (unjustly, arbituarily) privilege the eyes over the ears? and if you do, where do you think this prejudice comes from?

my knowledge of western philosophy is limited, but i vaguely think this has something to do with the enlightenment and the materialism which followed -- sight would seem to be a more concrete measurement of the physical universe - after all seeing is believing, and sound is just so abstract, intangible, and ephemeral.

any of you smarties out there care to elaborate?

Saturday, May 26, 2007

Carnivores vs. Vegetarians

"I heard a fellow the other day on the radio saying that 'we eat as though it were a feast day, everyday'. That's spot on. The frequency with which we eat meat is the problem, not the fact that we eat meat at all." -- Lichen from Dissensus

recently read a very good NY Times cover story which thoroughly analyses the issue from all angles, including Animal Rights, History/Culture of Culinary Arts, Biology, Environmentalism, Religion, Morality, Economics, etc. and the conclusion he came to was not simple vegetarianism - which is actually also harmful to animals and the environment - but rather getting rid of industrial meat farming in favor of raising animals in farms both ecological as well as humane -- the cost of meat would rise, and people would eat less of it.

An Animal's Place

it's a bit long, the first part is philosophical debate, and gets into actual facts later.

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Critiques of Science

having 2 quantum physicists for parents, both of whom leaders in their field for long periods of time, i grew up with, and personally have massive respect for science and the scientific method for creating knowledge. but it is certainly NOT an absolutely neutral, objective sphere entirely divorced from, outside of, and untainted by human subjectivity. and as a human endeavor, especially the philosophical foundation it rests upon and the subsequent story it weaves, it is not beyond criticism (outside of its own celebrated revision process). i think the likes of Lyotard and other post-structuralists referenced in this article are dealing with Science in the wider sense, as an ideology, as a "master narrative", as an "episteme"; in it's implications, effects, as well as methodology. the "age of reason", an increased priviledging of rationality, and a simultaneous repression of what is deemed the "irrational", can certainly be construed as a product of dominant patriarchy.

the biases which constantly shape scientific thinking can be easily described, in ordinary situations. an obvious one is choice -- which area to focus a study on, out of thousands, perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands of possible areas? with limited funding, personel, and time, the choice is always informed by society, politics, and ideology - with the myriad of human emotions this entails. another obvious one is interpretation -- we can probably all think of examples of how the results of experiments or research programs can be seen in different lights, from different perspectives, thus arriving at sometimes drastically different conclusions.

what i am interested in is a critique of science as one of the central disciplines which informed Modernism and the progressive view of history; a critique which deals with a particular narrative which science has helped construct, which in the past few hundred years have tinted our lenses, put certain ideas into our heads, and influenced human behavior on the deepest levels.

below is an article i found the other day, by Steve Denning, which sums up some ideas i'm very much interested in at the moment. of course the kind of discourse cliff noted here has been going on since more or less the 60s, and involves a large body of work by many philosophers and theorists. i have read very little of the original texts, and my own understanding of them is admittedly shallow. until the day i will have time to explore these ideas in depth, this will have to do.

What is the intellectual foundation of science? What is the basis of the claim of scientists to have access to a higher form of knowledge? Often scientists simply assert the claim, without bothering to probe the philosophically murky foundation on which all knowledge ultimately rests. According to scientists, research is conducted in an objective spirit of scientific inquiry, that discoveries add to our ever-growing knowledge about the universe, and that it is self-evident that science will in due course improve the lot of humanity. Television reinforces such views with the use of laboratory technicians as a source of evidence about the germ-killing properties of a particular brand of bleach, or the clinically-proven ability of a mouth wash to fight bad breath.

In 1979, Jean-François Lyotard was asked by Quebec's Conseil des Universités to review the state of scientific knowledge and information in the late 20th century. He looked at how knowledge comes into being, who controls it, who has access to it, and how it becomes accepted as valid. He concluded that science's claim to possess a higher kind of knowledge was seriously flawed.
For Lyotard, scientists have no more direct access to the truth than philosophers or historians, or anybody else for that matter. For him, scientists are storytellers. Thus it is not possible to describe the result of an experiment except by telling a story. The narratives that scientists produce, such as research papers, hypotheses, histories, are always governed by the protocols of the field in which they work. Each discipline is like a game. It has a special terminology which only makes sense within its own boundaries. In practice, a theorist or researcher is not faced with infinite possibilities to explore, and can only play within the limits of a system of permissible moves. The scope of permissible moves is determined by the power structure of the particular branch of science in which the scientist is working, which is just as political and unscientific as any other human activity.

Thus, according to Lyotard, narrative is not a sub-branch of science. The truth is exactly the opposite: science actually comprises particular branch of narrative. In effect, science is a sub-set of storytelling. Science is made up of language games which generate particular forms of narrative. Lyotard's view goes against the common sense view of science as a superior form of knowledge. It also contradicts modern science's view of itself.

For science to maintain its privileged status, it has usually tried to deny its own involvement in storytelling, denigrating storytelling as the epitome of the unscientific, the very thing that science must fight against, and expel from civilized discourse and education systems.

Science thus pretends to be beyond narrative. How does science do this? Ironically, it appeals to a story, or what Lyotard calls grand meta-narratives. A meta-narrative is an over-arching story, which can supposedly account for, explain, or comment on, the validity of all other stories. It is implicitly a universal or absolute set of truths, which transcends social, institutional or human limitations. Thus, a small local narrative, such as the result of a scientific experiment, or an individual action, is usually granted significance only by its ability to reflect or support some broader narrative which people generally support, like the pursuit of truth, justice, or economic growth.

Lyotard argues that some time around the 18th century, science developed the view of itself as the source of enlightenment. Prior to this, appeals to religious narratives had often been used to guarantee truth. Now, building on its practical successes and on the theoretical work of Francis Bacon and others, science took over and put forward the claim that it alone was the source of truth. It suggested that being scientific or rational was the sign of credibility. Possessing scientific knowledge implied that you could get behind mystification and superstition, reveal the facts about world and lead all of humanity to a brighter day. The underlying assumptions were:

- science is progressive, moving towards a state of complete knowledge;
- science is unified, with many different areas, but all sharing the same goal;
- science is universal, working for the good of all of us, and
- science aims at total truth that will benefit all of human life.

Thereafter, science justified itself through the neat trick of claiming that science needed no further justification. Thus, it took advantage of the idea that its activities were pursued in the name of the timeless meta-narratives of progress, emancipation and knowledge. By appealing in this way to ideas whose meanings were quietly assumed to be self-evident and universally agreed, science was able to masquerade as a single project, objectively carried out for the good of the entire human race.

More recently, particularly in the last few decades, scientists have had growing difficulty in getting away with these claims, and cracks in the facade of science's grand meta-narrative have been appearing:

-- science's own contribution to ecological problems and the development of nuclear and chemical weapons has made obvious that science is not always directly beneficial to the human race;
- groups who perceived themselves as disadvantaged by the existing political and institutional arrangements (women, developing countries, the poor) have argued that the science's claims to benefit the entire human race have often turned out, on closer inspection, to be linked in practice to promoting the interests of privileged minorities.
-- the outcome of scence - technology - was supposed to save time and reduce stress, but few people today feel as though they are enjoying the fruits of that promise. Technology often seems to make life more complicated, more hectic, more stressful, with time feeling every day more scarce, and everyone's nerves more frazzled.
-- the unscientific politics of science has come under the scrutiny of writers like Thomas Kuhn, in his depicting of the social processes of science and the phenomenon of paradigm shifts;
complexity theory and quantum mechanics have highlighted the fundamental uncertainty in understanding the world;
-- private sector funding of science has given rise to suspicions that theories and discoveries are based on contributions to performance and efficiency and contributions to the bottom line as much as on truth or purpose.
-- public sector institutions are sometimes perceived as pursuing their own agendas, driven by the internal interests of the institutions themselves, independently of the genuine public purpose.
-- even scientists have largely abandoned the goal of penetrating truth or finding the answer, in favor of the pursuit and promotion of the perspective of their own particular sub-topic.
-- scientists themselves are sometimes perceived as interested in putting out work which will generate more research funding and add to their own power and prestige within the academic "market-place".
-- science has splintered off into a mass of specialized sub-topics, each with its own language, pre-occupations, priorities, agendas, and politics, and each seemingly disinterested in the work going on in other sub-topics. Some funding sources such as foundations encourage inter-disciplinary research, but the overall dynamic is that of knowledge silos.
-- the overall result of this mass of fragmented, and only partially-compatible, activity on separate sub-topics is not necessarily enlightenment and the betterment of the human race, but often noise and a degraded quality of life for all.
-- an underlying issue is that many of the elements excluded by definition from the purview of science, because not directly observable, turn out to be some of the things that make life most worth living. It is painful to think of the coming millennium being based on such a stunted vision of human life.

See Stephen Denning, The Springboard: How Storytelling Ignites Action in Knowledge-Era Organizations. Boston, London, Butterworth Heinemann, October 2000, chapters 7, 12.

Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, (1960)

Jean-François Lyotard, The Post-Modern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota, 1979.

Glen Ward, Postmodernism, London, Hodder & Stoughton, (1997)


feel free to leave comments or join the discussion here.

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Science Vs. Religion - A Retarded Debate

am i the only one supremely irritated by what seems to be a relatively recent trend of religion-hating among liberals and progressives? Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and now Richard Dawkins with his book "The God Delusion" -- these "men of reason" seem bent on blaming all of humanity's ills on spiritual practices world wide, all the while claiming science as some kind of absolutely objective, unquestionable, infallible way forward.

a view equally miopic, a position just as simple/closed minded and solipsistic as the ignorant fundamentalist freaks they rail against.

one of the fundamental problems making everything so royally fucked is that the world is way too "rational". most of the serious problems we faced are by-products of the industrial/technological age of 20th and 19th century. this is pretty much irrefutable. it should be clear to all that the result of too much left brain "logic" and "order" and ego and power and bureaucracy and hierarchy and law and repression is disastrous. (military-industrial complex is pretty much the apex of rationalism, is it not?)

what we need more of in the world is empathy, intuition, mystery. which is NOT institutional, organized religion, which, for all its absurd anti-rationalism, actually operates according to the hyper rigidity of the hyper-rational inhuman corporate/government model.

what we need, is what organized religion is a corrupt bastardization of: the return of a much, much older de-centered, non-hierarchical, non-patriarchal spirituality. and with it, social organizing principals based on localized, perhaps mobile, closely knit, self reliant and self sustainable communities.