philosophizing at 6am

Walking home this morning, I found myself reluctantly agreeing with Ivan Karamazov (from Fyodor Dostoyevsky's novel, The Brothers Karamazov) that it's more difficult to love another human being face-to-face than in the abstract: that our immediate perceptions and prejudices make any kind of truly 'Christlike' love difficult, if not impossible; whereas it's easier to idealize humanity and love them from a distance, in the abstract, because people can be so annoying, brutish, cruel, stupid, ugly, etc. And any expression of this so-called Christlike love is more likely just a type of 'self-laceration' we inflict upon ourselves as a form of charity imposed by duty as penance. (If so, penance for what?) This then reminded me of something I recently read about the dilemma faced by the Freudian socialists who wondered (and perhaps still do) whether the aggressive instinct, which Freud thought rooted in/part of the death drive or Thanatos, was part of our nature. Eros, love, libido, or whatever you want to call it, was seen by Freud as a constructive and binding force (an idealized form being Ivan's conception of Christlike love); and building on this innate drive, a socialist society (or, in an idealized form, the kingdom of God on earth) can, at least theoretically, arise. But throw the death drive into the mix, with its aggressive and self-destructive tendencies, and now you have a contradictory force that opposes and even undermines this constructive and binding force (which is like the torturous cruelty that Ivan uses to question the reality of truly Christlike love). A Hegelian or Marxist might see these two conflicting forces in the context of a dialectical relationship, which can be seen as a mechanism for change and progression in both the individual as well as society (and even a socialist society would have contradictions that'd be resolved), neither giving either force an absolute existence nor denying them completely; but Ivan seems to take the existence of the latter to refute the possibility of the former. Of course, since he's dealing with Christlike love and not Freud's libido, it's easily to see why he'd do this since it's the love of an immortal God, which is something that lies far beyond the range of his Euclidean (i.e., earthly) mind, he's juxtaposing to the material reality (and suffering) he's experiencing. From one point of view, this isn't unlike a literary/psychoanalytic version of the theoretical conflict between utopian and scientific socialism being played out in the form of an abstract, internal dialogue. Then again, I'm not sure any of this makes any sense since I've been awake for 24 hrs and I don't know a damn thing about Freudian psychoanalysis.

yeah, we're probably fucked...

Sigh, yet another doom-and-gloom scenario linked to climate change and our collective impact on the environment, this time courtesy of the BBC in the form of an article, "World's oceans in 'shocking' decline." The gist of it is, a 'panel of expert scientists' have concluded that if we don't change our behaviour right now, our oceans are basically fucked.

Personally, I agree that we need to change our behaviour, particularly the ways we produce our means of subsistence, but I doubt that we're going to in time to prevent our actions from doing even more irreparable harm to the planet. Capitalism has become the dominate economic system worldwide, and with it, rampant consumerism, depletion of natural resources and industrial pollution on a global scale. The market itself is designed to give people what they want, regardless of the consequences, and it's unsustainable.

Sure, historically speaking, capitalism and the technological advancements it's fostered have arguably provided a greater standard of living for a large portion of the population in what amounts to the blink of an eye; but the system is amoral (if not immoral), and it's basically turned us into a bunch of greedy parasites intent on killing our host. Barring a radical shift in human consciousness and/or a socio-political revolution on an epic scale, I'm pretty sure we are fucked.

give evolution a chance

To be honest, I'm a bit surprised by the number of people who still deny the validity of evolution. At this point, Darwin's theory of evolution is fairly well-proven; it's basically a fact. And despite what critics may say, all the evidence thus far (e.g., DNA, fossil, observations of evolution, etc.) supports it 100%. It'd only take one 'Precambrian rabbit' to turn the theory of evolution on its head; but so far, not a single piece of evidence has been found to contradict and/or disprove it.

Moreover, most of the arguments I've seen against evolution are based on completely specious grounds, such as Chuck Missler's argument (which conflates evolution with abiogenesis, by the way) that, apart from God's direct intervention, life from non-life is impossible. However, there are other logical, and more importantly, demonstrable, explanations for the beginning of life on Earth than God, and there are numerous models of abiogenesis currently being explored by scientists.

Don't get me wrong, if someone wants to believe that life on this planet began as an act of God, that's fine with me; but it certainly hasn't been proven that (1) organic molecules can't form via natural chemical reactions (which the Miller–Urey experiment has done), or that (2) those molecules can't form a protocell. It's true that a protocell has yet to be synthesized, but it's still a relatively new field and scientists all over the world are currently working on it, so I think it's a bit early to count them out just yet.

I know that this is a touchy subject in that it starts to encroach upon people's religious beliefs, and I'm not trying to convince anyone that God doesn't exist via evolution (and, by extension, trying to use evolution as a unified theory against theistic or creationist accounts); but at the same time, I don't want people's belief in God to blind them to the very real evidence of how life evolved, and possibly even began.

Science isn't perfect, and it certainly doesn't have all the answers, but that shouldn't stop us from considering the enormous amount of knowledge that science has already given us, even if it happens to challenge our deepest-held beliefs.

I'm not trying to promote scientism here, but saying things like the Earth is 6,000-10,000 years old when geological and radiometric evidence strongly suggests otherwise, that evolution doesn't take place when DNA evidence, fossil records and direct observations strongly suggest otherwise, or that organic molecules can't possibly form via natural chemical reactions when experiments strongly suggests otherwise, simply because that's what a certain set of religious beliefs with absolutely no supporting evidence say is hard for me to understand, let alone defend.

Now, it can certainly be argued that there's some kind of divine intelligence at work here, a type of cosmic architect that we call God determining the laws of nature so that we were destined to be here from the very beginning of the Big Bang; but at the same time, these things can also have purely natural causes and don't necessarily need a creator or architect. More importantly, regardless of whether or not an all-powerful being is behind these natural processes, we can, and should, observe these processes at work in the universe and learn what we can about them.

lost cause

Today, someone posted this popular quote from Thomas Jefferson as their Facebook status: "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of the moneyed corporations, which dare already challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

I can't say I disagree with the sentiment. Unfortunately, any attempt to do so within the context of the capitalist system itself is almost assuredly doomed to failure, as history has shown. Even the likes of Thomas Jefferson couldn't stop the ascendancy of the 'aristocracy of the moneyed corporations' and their takeover of the American political system, especially those of private financial institutions.

As for the 'laws of our country,' the legal superstructure is built decidedly in their favour—always has been considering that the Founding Fathers themselves were mainly wealthy, ruling class elites, and the 'aristocracy of the moneyed corporations' was simply the next evolutionary step in a long line of wealthy, ruling class elites.

Like most forms of government centred around private property rights, the basic principle behind the establishment of our form of representative democracy had more to do with the ruling elites wanting to protect the small minority of property owners (including themselves) from the majority of the propertyless than anything else. As James Madison put it in Federalist No. 10, "… the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society."

The only real distinction is that the Founders were holders of landed property while corporations are holders of capital, which for all intents and purposes are the same thing (i.e., both are property). What people like Jefferson seem to fail to realize is that having a political-economic system centred on private property rights, which are considered sacrosanct, actually protects and even promotes the rise of this new kind of aristocracy.

Liberalism links private property to liberty, and through private property rights, secures the liberty of the propertied. Consequently, the greater one's property, the greater one's means of self-determination. We can do our best to enact reforms and try to limit their power and the damage done by their 'enlightened self-interest,' but it's essentially a lost cause seeing as how corporations themselves are now considered 'natural persons' and have managed to acquire certain constitutionally protected rights.

Basically, all this is really saying is that the game is rigged. To fix these problems, we need to change the rules; and to change the rules, we need to change the system.

born this way

I'll admit it, I'm a Lady Gaga fan. I mean, what's not to like? I like her style, her outspokenness and the fact that she uses her fame to promote things like gay rights and support working-class issues. (And I really love the fact that Slavoj Zizek analyzes her theoretical contributions to cultural theory, as well as her "actual theoretical project.") I'm not quite 'monster' status or anything, but I definitely like to dance around the house to "Bad Romance" once in a while. Her music is one of my guilty pleasures.

So it was lucky for me that my girlfriend decided to sign up for Amazon's Cloud Drive the day Lady Gaga's new album, Born This Way, was released, meaning that I got the entire album for only $0.99 via Amazon's Gold Box Deal of the Day. Quite possibly the best dollar she's ever spent. I love it. And I think it's funny that the main thing people seem to be criticizing about it — i.e., its late '80s/early '90s sound, replete with a generous helping of pulsating dance beats throughout — is precisely what I love about it. There's no accounting for taste, I suppose.

Overall, I think it's a great album, and you can really hear the wide range of influences in her music, from disco and glam, to ’80s synth-pop and techno. And of course there's Madonna. For example, I noticed (and I'm sure I'm not the only one) that the title track, "Born This Way," sounds an awful lot like Madonna's "Express Yourself." I know that Lady Gaga often downplays Madonna's influence on her music for the simple fact that everyone inevitably makes that comparison, but it's pretty obvious here. Compare:



vs.



It could be a tribute to Madonna, since they say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but I half wonder if Lady Gaga is trolling critics who accuse her of being completely unoriginal and simply ripping off Madonna by making "Born This Way" sound just like "Express Yourself." Personally, I don't really care if it's simply a coincidence or intentional that they sound alike because I like the song regardless; but I think it'd be cool if she made them sound similar intentionally, whether as a tribute or a troll, but especially the latter, mainly because I like to think of it as a musical middle finger to her critics. If so, it's a pretty awesome troll; but even if it's not, I'll still give Lady Gaga props for putting out a damn good album.

'secret' patriot act?

Just read this article from Wired:

"There's a Secret Patriot Act, Senator Says"

You know, the Patriot Act should be renamed the We Can Legally Abuse Our Powers and There's Not a Damn Thing You Can Do About It, Especially Because You Don't Know We're Doing It Act. But the, I guess WCLAOPTNDTYCDAI doesn't make for a very good acronym.

And we should all thank the Tea Party for replacing Russ Feingold, the ONLY Senator who actually voted against this piece of legislation, with Ron Johnson, who, as an opponent of 'big government' supports the Patriot Act.

why the rich love high unemployment

This article reads like Marxism 101, albeit through a liberal/social democratic lens. Capitalism, by its very nature, requires what Marx termed the "reserve army of labour" (i.e., the unemployed), which is one of the tools it uses to create and increase the profit it extracts from the labourer and the commodities their labour produces. What the article calls "labor-market flexibility" is the capitalists wet dream, i.e., an insecure labour pool that can be hired and fired at will, at whatever wage the employer deigns to give. And as the article points out, the mechanisms that the ruling class use to help 'fix' the economy ultimately end up benefiting big capital and the wealthy, not the workers (who make up the majority of the population). Which is, of course, counterproductive when you have a consumer-based economy and very few of the consumers can afford much beyond their basic means of subsistence. However, in the context of a global, capitalist economy, capital can invest elsewhere (whether abroad in foreign markets or in stocks and bonds) and still increase their profits and those of their shareholders, while the average worker is left struggling. The whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. How anyone can find such a system moral, or simply preferable to something which is less exploitative, is beyond me. /rant