Friday, January 29, 2010
Awkweird
Strangely enough, one of my favorite zones. There's something soothing about events at the nexus of awkward and weird - it's like the two forces of awkwardness and weirdness cancel out, and in the eye of this hurricane lies something new and forceful, temporarily revealed and at rest.
Gone Fishin' to the Bay Area
Visiting my good friends Brian and Julianne in Santa Cruz, while I explore relocating myself to the Bay Area.
And you know, it really is better here. Even if it's just the same sort of hassles and tasks, it just feels so much better. I went to a DMV this morning, of all places, and compared to a Los Angeles DMV it was somehow a pleasant easy experience. It's not even like the workers were any technically better - it just didn't suck somehow.
Perhaps it's just that the DMV's in Santa Cruz and Los Angeles, are located around views like this:
Santa Cruz.
Los Angeles.
And you know, it really is better here. Even if it's just the same sort of hassles and tasks, it just feels so much better. I went to a DMV this morning, of all places, and compared to a Los Angeles DMV it was somehow a pleasant easy experience. It's not even like the workers were any technically better - it just didn't suck somehow.
Perhaps it's just that the DMV's in Santa Cruz and Los Angeles, are located around views like this:
Santa Cruz.
 |
| From Starred Photos |
Los Angeles.
 |
| From Starred Photos |
This Way to the E Trance
I'd like to thank the California DMV for the graphic to my next Psychedelic Trance album. I haven't made one yet, but it's great to have the cover already out of the way.
When I took this picture, some people inside the DMV actually came out and made me stop. I took pictures with my iPhone also, which I deleted in front of them. Somehow taking pictures of signs on the exterior of a building aids possible terrorist activity, apparently.
Which has some others living in such fear, that the terrorists have already defeated them. Thankfully, not me - I'm still using my free mind to sort reasonable concerns from irrational fear-based BS.
When I took this picture, some people inside the DMV actually came out and made me stop. I took pictures with my iPhone also, which I deleted in front of them. Somehow taking pictures of signs on the exterior of a building aids possible terrorist activity, apparently.
Which has some others living in such fear, that the terrorists have already defeated them. Thankfully, not me - I'm still using my free mind to sort reasonable concerns from irrational fear-based BS.
 |
| From Starred Photos |
Monday, January 25, 2010
Ideadhesion: the Stickiness of Ideas
My diet is extremely simple. I'm avoiding one thing - wheat. Now, wheat is in an incredible amount of things. Not just breads, pizza, all cakes, all pastries, and pasta - but in gravies, sauces, sometimes French Fries and even frickin' soy sauce. But it's still a simple diet - avoid all of those things.
I do this because I have a wheat "allergy". It's in what Jon Stewart calls "dick quotes" because eating wheat won't land me in the emergency room with an unexpected bill that costs more than a round trip to Paris with a two-week stay in a 5-star hotel. My wheat "allergy" will give me zits.
But if I eat wheat often over a period of time, my skin gradually gets worse and worse until I'm covered with zits. Which is a problem. At the same time, I love breads for the carbohydrate sirens that they are. This leads me to play with fire and eat bread on special occasions, the key word being "occasionally".
Explaining this to my friends and family can be strangely difficult. I find myself constantly having to restate the reasons for my diet for people who've known of this for years. And to be fair, I'm not being consistent. But they've seen the way my skin was, for years before I eliminated wheat. They see how clear my skin is now.
Further, they know cigarettes are bad, and alcohol, and junk food, and reruns of Robocop II for that matter; yet indulges in those directions don't cause them to question whether those items might actually be healthy. But when I break with what's good for me and succumb to sweet, sweet starchness, they seem to wonder whether they're remembering my diet correctly at all.
I think this lack of memory occurs because avoiding wheat doesn't fit with their worldview. Wheat is good and healthy for everyone, according to all forms of mainstream public opinion and American culture. Thus the default network of other ideas that give context to new ones, just doesn't have a place for my contrary information to fit - and so the idea just doesn't stick.
Where I'm going with this, besides just bitching about my friends, is the larger world this illustrates. As humans we don't tend to think about new ideas on their own merits. We see how the new ideas fit in with our current ideas on similar subjects, and accept or reject the new idea accordingly. So to get people used to a particular idea, sometimes you have to either find a good set of accepted ideas that it will adhere to, create a whole new set of ideas that's so enticing they'll take the bunch - or utterly destroy the current network of ideas with a blunt and shocking reality. *
Perhaps somewhere there's a black magic book of marketing which describes this process in far more exacting and diabolical detail. A way to measure the stickiness of concepts, word-shapes and comfortability-matrices. Methods that other warlocks of language use intuitively when they create names for pharmaceutical industry, companies, or the latest Warner Disney Virgin-slut master-jailbait chickiepoo. (It's war out there, people!)
This whole phenomenon of idea adhesion, as observed in my friends and extrapolated to other less strange humans, makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. It's far more beneficial for us to think in larger patterns and look for wholes, than to deal with individual distinct events or items. It's also how the software of our language-based consciousness works: we create concepts which deal with sets of ideas, because it enables us to organize and assimilate large amounts of information.
It's just freakin' annoying when I'd rather reach for that bagel of a flavor I haven't had in years, and I'd rather not catch an earful. But, maybe that's not a bad thing either. It's not automatically terrible to be consistent.
I do this because I have a wheat "allergy". It's in what Jon Stewart calls "dick quotes" because eating wheat won't land me in the emergency room with an unexpected bill that costs more than a round trip to Paris with a two-week stay in a 5-star hotel. My wheat "allergy" will give me zits.
But if I eat wheat often over a period of time, my skin gradually gets worse and worse until I'm covered with zits. Which is a problem. At the same time, I love breads for the carbohydrate sirens that they are. This leads me to play with fire and eat bread on special occasions, the key word being "occasionally".
Explaining this to my friends and family can be strangely difficult. I find myself constantly having to restate the reasons for my diet for people who've known of this for years. And to be fair, I'm not being consistent. But they've seen the way my skin was, for years before I eliminated wheat. They see how clear my skin is now.
Further, they know cigarettes are bad, and alcohol, and junk food, and reruns of Robocop II for that matter; yet indulges in those directions don't cause them to question whether those items might actually be healthy. But when I break with what's good for me and succumb to sweet, sweet starchness, they seem to wonder whether they're remembering my diet correctly at all.
I think this lack of memory occurs because avoiding wheat doesn't fit with their worldview. Wheat is good and healthy for everyone, according to all forms of mainstream public opinion and American culture. Thus the default network of other ideas that give context to new ones, just doesn't have a place for my contrary information to fit - and so the idea just doesn't stick.
Where I'm going with this, besides just bitching about my friends, is the larger world this illustrates. As humans we don't tend to think about new ideas on their own merits. We see how the new ideas fit in with our current ideas on similar subjects, and accept or reject the new idea accordingly. So to get people used to a particular idea, sometimes you have to either find a good set of accepted ideas that it will adhere to, create a whole new set of ideas that's so enticing they'll take the bunch - or utterly destroy the current network of ideas with a blunt and shocking reality. *
Perhaps somewhere there's a black magic book of marketing which describes this process in far more exacting and diabolical detail. A way to measure the stickiness of concepts, word-shapes and comfortability-matrices. Methods that other warlocks of language use intuitively when they create names for pharmaceutical industry, companies, or the latest Warner Disney Virgin-slut master-jailbait chickiepoo. (It's war out there, people!)
This whole phenomenon of idea adhesion, as observed in my friends and extrapolated to other less strange humans, makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. It's far more beneficial for us to think in larger patterns and look for wholes, than to deal with individual distinct events or items. It's also how the software of our language-based consciousness works: we create concepts which deal with sets of ideas, because it enables us to organize and assimilate large amounts of information.
It's just freakin' annoying when I'd rather reach for that bagel of a flavor I haven't had in years, and I'd rather not catch an earful. But, maybe that's not a bad thing either. It's not automatically terrible to be consistent.
Friday, January 22, 2010
GetOuttaMyFacebook
Internet Gods, I have sinned: I hate facebook.
I've tried to like it, just as with MySpace, and Friendster, and Tribes before that.
I just don't want random people randomly in my face. Even if I like them. Maybe especially if I like them. Then I feel extra guilty and stupid for not interacting, when at the same time I just don't feel like spending the time and energy it takes. At it's core, I just don't want to respond to a bunch of other people's stuff at a pace that's not my own. I just want to go online, do what I have to do, and go elsewhere. I don't want to have to keep up with a bunch of social crap I don't give a crap about.
Is that wrong of me? Or, more pragmatically, is that the most useful way for me to live? Maybe what I resent is being kicked out of my ADD trance and being forced to focus on someone else. Maybe I should open up more. But isn't anonymity - aka anyone-imity - one of the greatest things about the Internet? It takes out so many dance steps that are required in the meat world. We can get and give as much information as we want, without having to deal with boundaries of identity, swamps of personality, obstacles of social chores and blockades of people in groups.
Has there been a Christian version yet, a Faithbook? If not, it would probably be a winner to start one. For someone else. I can't even stand the secular version, so clearly it's not for me.
But, I'll be on Facebook again, never fear. Probably even tonight. Dealing with friends and such. Social networking is efficient, is good, and is even usually good for the soul. It just gets on my nerves. There's a way to approach it that's better, that doesn't push my real button: my awareness of my need to stay on track.
Nevertheless. Right now, I hate Facebook.
I've tried to like it, just as with MySpace, and Friendster, and Tribes before that.
I just don't want random people randomly in my face. Even if I like them. Maybe especially if I like them. Then I feel extra guilty and stupid for not interacting, when at the same time I just don't feel like spending the time and energy it takes. At it's core, I just don't want to respond to a bunch of other people's stuff at a pace that's not my own. I just want to go online, do what I have to do, and go elsewhere. I don't want to have to keep up with a bunch of social crap I don't give a crap about.
Is that wrong of me? Or, more pragmatically, is that the most useful way for me to live? Maybe what I resent is being kicked out of my ADD trance and being forced to focus on someone else. Maybe I should open up more. But isn't anonymity - aka anyone-imity - one of the greatest things about the Internet? It takes out so many dance steps that are required in the meat world. We can get and give as much information as we want, without having to deal with boundaries of identity, swamps of personality, obstacles of social chores and blockades of people in groups.
Has there been a Christian version yet, a Faithbook? If not, it would probably be a winner to start one. For someone else. I can't even stand the secular version, so clearly it's not for me.
But, I'll be on Facebook again, never fear. Probably even tonight. Dealing with friends and such. Social networking is efficient, is good, and is even usually good for the soul. It just gets on my nerves. There's a way to approach it that's better, that doesn't push my real button: my awareness of my need to stay on track.
Nevertheless. Right now, I hate Facebook.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Kafkafornia
So I had a crazy past 6 months. At the end of a 5-day hospital stay caused by an undiagnosed allergy to presciption antiobotics that nearly made my skin fall off, I went home for Christmas and had a great time.
Then I came back to work early to finish out the last days of 2009 - and was laid off on December 31st.
At which point I attempted to file for unemployment, and entered into Kafkafornia. Kind of like the Twilight Zone, but sunnier and more vapid.
I wanted to talk with someone before I filed, so I could make sure I filed at the right time, and do everything properly. There's a phone help line - that tells you to go the website and then hangs up on you. There was no office I could find that had a single human being available to talk with you.
So I filed online, and then looked around some more. There had to be someone somewhere, I figured. Finally I found a strange sort of satellite office located in the upstairs floor of a train station. I called and asked if I'd be able to speak with someone if I came there. They said yes.
So I showed up, waited in line at the desk, and finally got to the desk. I told the clerk I wanted to talk with someone about unemployment. He said I should just file and see. I told him again I wanted to talk with someone. He then handed me a slip of paper with a 3-digit number on it.
To paraphrase, he then said "There's a phone behind you with a direct connection to the unemployment office."
"The same number as on the website?" I said in disbelief.
"Yes. But this time, when you hear 'Welcome', enter this number. If you don't get through, try again. You should reach someone in 4 or 5 tries."
I looked over at the phone. There were 10 guys ahead of me, waiting. Figuring at least 5 minutes to get someone on the line, and at least another 5 minutes for their question, that's 100 minutes.
So I went home, filed, and watched some TV.
The worst thing about this is, on the surface this looks like bureaucracy grown out of control. But in fact it's exactly the opposite: it's cost-cutting gone wild. Rather than hiring people to help the populace, California has cut corners in every way possible to still barely serve the public.
And so it goes.
Boy, California and America in general better get it together. I can't honestly blame Schwarzenegger, at least not alone; the budget's been a mess since Enron days, and it's only continued it's slide. But it's not going to last much longer.
As for America, I think Obama has misread the public, and is delivering a Bill Clinton-style administration when what the country needs is FDR. In defense of Obama, FDR inherited a far worse crisis which enabled him to have far more leeway. But the change Obama promised is unlikely to be delivered with compromise.
I don't think they realize how close the seemingly sleepy public is to pitchforks and torches. One day, it's going to be one corporate bonus or cozy bank deal too much. I'm shocked it hasn't been already. But I guess we're all hope fiends right now.
Then I came back to work early to finish out the last days of 2009 - and was laid off on December 31st.
At which point I attempted to file for unemployment, and entered into Kafkafornia. Kind of like the Twilight Zone, but sunnier and more vapid.
I wanted to talk with someone before I filed, so I could make sure I filed at the right time, and do everything properly. There's a phone help line - that tells you to go the website and then hangs up on you. There was no office I could find that had a single human being available to talk with you.
So I filed online, and then looked around some more. There had to be someone somewhere, I figured. Finally I found a strange sort of satellite office located in the upstairs floor of a train station. I called and asked if I'd be able to speak with someone if I came there. They said yes.
So I showed up, waited in line at the desk, and finally got to the desk. I told the clerk I wanted to talk with someone about unemployment. He said I should just file and see. I told him again I wanted to talk with someone. He then handed me a slip of paper with a 3-digit number on it.
To paraphrase, he then said "There's a phone behind you with a direct connection to the unemployment office."
"The same number as on the website?" I said in disbelief.
"Yes. But this time, when you hear 'Welcome', enter this number. If you don't get through, try again. You should reach someone in 4 or 5 tries."
I looked over at the phone. There were 10 guys ahead of me, waiting. Figuring at least 5 minutes to get someone on the line, and at least another 5 minutes for their question, that's 100 minutes.
So I went home, filed, and watched some TV.
The worst thing about this is, on the surface this looks like bureaucracy grown out of control. But in fact it's exactly the opposite: it's cost-cutting gone wild. Rather than hiring people to help the populace, California has cut corners in every way possible to still barely serve the public.
And so it goes.
Boy, California and America in general better get it together. I can't honestly blame Schwarzenegger, at least not alone; the budget's been a mess since Enron days, and it's only continued it's slide. But it's not going to last much longer.
As for America, I think Obama has misread the public, and is delivering a Bill Clinton-style administration when what the country needs is FDR. In defense of Obama, FDR inherited a far worse crisis which enabled him to have far more leeway. But the change Obama promised is unlikely to be delivered with compromise.
I don't think they realize how close the seemingly sleepy public is to pitchforks and torches. One day, it's going to be one corporate bonus or cozy bank deal too much. I'm shocked it hasn't been already. But I guess we're all hope fiends right now.
The Emperor's Psyche's Wack
I wrote this in an email chain a few days ago. May I ever meet George Lucas, I hope he understands. Or, if he's going to hire me, this page may just go on sabbatical a while.
But, dammit Lucas! It's been years now, and I still can't get over it. Why did you do this to me? Why did you release 3 *terrible* movies that utterly cannibalized my childhood?
The why seems clear: he's de-evolved. He's willingly allowed himself to walk down the past of lazy storytelling for dollars. I came to this conclusion when seeing him interviewed on The Daily Show, pushing his own book on making blockbusters. He actually defended the newest-created Star Wars films, by saying they "appeal to different generations". Because pre-schoolers apparently like the newer ones, you see, they're really just as good.
The problem: the old films appealed to young and old. The new ones appeal only to the very youngest.
Jon Stewart, ever the agreeable host, said his preschoolers love the newer Star Wars, including the Clone Wars cartoon series. Of course, all the pretty stuff that explodes looks awesome, and the plot may work all right for pre-schoolers. Hey, maybe Clone Wars is even good. I just can't bring myself to even try to watch them. I've been burned too bad. But also, George Lucas isn't writing the Clone Wars. Seems like he's the background Gene Roddenberry of that scene, if even that...
Which is the crux of the problem. Lucas is not a 3d artist, or a set designer, or a costumer, so he has to hire experts. And they have to impress him. But when he comes up with an idea for a script, who does he have to impress? Emperor Jack of squat. (Or perhaps Simple Jack, which would explain any screentime for the loathsome and borderline racist Jar-Jar). So he can just roll with the lamest idea off the top of his head.
It's just being creatively out-of-shape, developing into the condition of being a middle-aged 600-pound man.
This de-evolution is painfully obvious when looking at Lucas' work. It has steadily gotten less and less mature. He starts with the genuine, raw unsettling genius of THX-1138, then the adult, insightful nostalgia of American Graffiti, then the teen fun of Star Wars ending in a pre-adolescent marketing-emasculated Return of the Jedi (Ewoks!1!! He could have had a planet of ass-kicking wookies and he went with freaking Ewoks????), to the abortive half-heartedness of Willow, to....this bunch of preschool shit with maybe 3 good fight scenes.
What's next, Boba Fetal??
Maybe Lucas really didn't know what he was doing in the beginning, but had to do something. And was supported by people with good instincts. And now that the story is all him, and he isn't facing bankruptcy, he's completely divorced from common (story) sense on the outside and his own unconscious from within.
I can hope one day he'll get it back, because it will be great. In the meantime, it's not a tragedy in the grand scheme. But metaphysically, it's a freakin' shame.
But, dammit Lucas! It's been years now, and I still can't get over it. Why did you do this to me? Why did you release 3 *terrible* movies that utterly cannibalized my childhood?
The why seems clear: he's de-evolved. He's willingly allowed himself to walk down the past of lazy storytelling for dollars. I came to this conclusion when seeing him interviewed on The Daily Show, pushing his own book on making blockbusters. He actually defended the newest-created Star Wars films, by saying they "appeal to different generations". Because pre-schoolers apparently like the newer ones, you see, they're really just as good.
The problem: the old films appealed to young and old. The new ones appeal only to the very youngest.
Jon Stewart, ever the agreeable host, said his preschoolers love the newer Star Wars, including the Clone Wars cartoon series. Of course, all the pretty stuff that explodes looks awesome, and the plot may work all right for pre-schoolers. Hey, maybe Clone Wars is even good. I just can't bring myself to even try to watch them. I've been burned too bad. But also, George Lucas isn't writing the Clone Wars. Seems like he's the background Gene Roddenberry of that scene, if even that...
Which is the crux of the problem. Lucas is not a 3d artist, or a set designer, or a costumer, so he has to hire experts. And they have to impress him. But when he comes up with an idea for a script, who does he have to impress? Emperor Jack of squat. (Or perhaps Simple Jack, which would explain any screentime for the loathsome and borderline racist Jar-Jar). So he can just roll with the lamest idea off the top of his head.
It's just being creatively out-of-shape, developing into the condition of being a middle-aged 600-pound man.
This de-evolution is painfully obvious when looking at Lucas' work. It has steadily gotten less and less mature. He starts with the genuine, raw unsettling genius of THX-1138, then the adult, insightful nostalgia of American Graffiti, then the teen fun of Star Wars ending in a pre-adolescent marketing-emasculated Return of the Jedi (Ewoks!1!! He could have had a planet of ass-kicking wookies and he went with freaking Ewoks????), to the abortive half-heartedness of Willow, to....this bunch of preschool shit with maybe 3 good fight scenes.
What's next, Boba Fetal??
Maybe Lucas really didn't know what he was doing in the beginning, but had to do something. And was supported by people with good instincts. And now that the story is all him, and he isn't facing bankruptcy, he's completely divorced from common (story) sense on the outside and his own unconscious from within.
I can hope one day he'll get it back, because it will be great. In the meantime, it's not a tragedy in the grand scheme. But metaphysically, it's a freakin' shame.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)