Sunday, August 31, 2014

reified phantasmagoria


We hold truth in contempt as an absurd abstraction. We search for truth ceaselessly. We admire contradiction. We loathe paradox.

The reified phantasmagoria decenters through assimilable locution, subsisting in utterance despite the indeterminacy of the immutable signifier. The locator, thus, enunciates a specular dyad synchronous with the referent but not appropriated recursively through diachronic disjunction. The ineluctable yet verb-substantive /one/ delimits incantatory iteration, constituting a rebus or, at worst, contiguity.

Discovery, undefeated when matched against belief, delivers another blow to the ego. Decisions nurtured by humility lead to a more grounded perspective: “Beliefs must adapt to discoveries.”

Saturday, August 30, 2014

butt of all jokes



There is a man who is the butt of all jokes. He lives in Pennsylvania, as a singular being, and goes by the name of Harvey Kuputnik. He is 46 years old and works as a bank manager. He has been married to his wife, Katherine, for twelve years. They have two children, Gabe (7) and Katrina (4). The colonial where they live has five bedrooms, three on the second floor, one on the first, and one in the finished basement. An immigrant housekeeper comes three days a week to clean.

There is more to Harvey’s life, much more, but he has a separate life as well, one he does not experience as “his life.” He is unaware that this life exists and that this separate life is his eternal life. This man, Harvey Kuputnik, is merely a vessel for the eternal being of the butt of all jokes. This eternal form has taken up residence in a singular human being for as long as there have been human beings.

The first human being, if there was a first, consisted of all possible beings a man or woman could be. This being, by being the first child, was all following children, the form of which all children became. To take any other form but that of a child precludes one from being a child. If one is the form of an adult then all adults exist as particular manifestations of the first adult.

If ever there followed a joke that arose from a descendant of the first being then the butt of that joke necessarily originates from the first being … even if the first butt of that joke took the form of a great grandchild of the first being. What came into being within a relationship between human beings born indirectly from the first human being was the eventual manifestation of the possibility that existed within the first human being. If the name of the first butt of a joke was “Carol Curmudgeonly” we might identify her more specifically as “Carol Curmudgeonly, butt of the first joke developed over time from its origins within but not manifested by the first human being, Hooshy Dooshy, the great grandmother of Carol.”

Over time the essence of the butt of all jokes passed from one generation to the next by way of reincarnation, the death of one host for the butt of all jokes making way for the birth of a new host for the butt of all jokes. A few famous butts of all jokes include Adolf Hitler, Immanuel Kant, Saint Augustine, and the Buddha. Only the Buddha ever became aware of his eternal identity, although it’s possible some or even all butts of all jokes who lived and died anonymously were aware of their respective natures.

There are human beings who host numerous eternal essences. A woman living in South Carolina hosts the hearts of all prostitutes, the way of all wise men, and the grunt of shitting while believing she is merely a widow, retired dance instructor, cancer survivor, mother of two, and grandmother of seven. She does not believe that she is the heart of all prostitutes any more than she believes she once had sex with Kirk Douglas. But she is the heart of all prostitutes and she has had sex with Kirk Douglas (she was incredibly drunk and has no memory of even meeting him the night she ripped off his shirt and bit into his chest hair).

Mary Magdalene, surprisingly, never hosted the heart of all prostitutes. Nancy Reagan, however, did. There appears to be no rhyme or reason to why one host is chosen to embody the eternal this or the infinite that. It just happens.

It brings to mind a story a guy once told me, a story about how he sold paintings he’d created but that the personalized receipts he gave to customers were his art. Say a man bought a painting for $600.00. Well, the artist would take the cash and then hump the man’s leg. Another person might buy a painting for $3000.00 on another day and the receipt would be given in the form of a ten minute foot rub.

The guy kept ledgers of his receipts. If a customer came in to say that she was dissatisfied with the painting, that she wanted her money back, the artist would ask her for her receipt. If the woman said, “You didn’t give me a receipt, jackhole, you picked your nose and wiped your snot on my blouse!” then the artist would check his ledger. He might ask the woman, “Approximately when did you buy the painting? If you know the month and year that would be sufficient.” But he might as well not, as he mentioned he had sold few paintings over the years.

Nevertheless, when he found such a mark in his ledger, he invariably told the customer that in lieu of cash for the return of the painting he would provide a new receipt in the form of a blown kiss, a loud shriek, or perhaps a desperate plea for marriage. This new receipt was also recorded in a ledger, a separate ledger titled “Receipts of Returned Paintings.” The returned painting went back up for sale, the cash stayed in the register, and the new receipt was recorded. The customer, if dissatisfied with the new receipt, was told that “All receipts for returned paintings are final. I’m sorry but it’s always been the policy. The policy must be followed so that human error does not get in the way of the enactment of fairness in transactions involving the exchange of paintings for cash. The policy is known as the Economic Justice Policy. It’s a policy that has been capitalized and has been assigned a status of importance by the painter of the paintings as it is a policy that has proven to be effective in occupying the position of policy since its inception as policy. It has never wavered nor failed in that it has been a policy ever since it was first made a policy. By being first it holds the prestigious position of precedent. As a precedent, the policy is infallible and cannot be challenged because it is the a priori understanding of what the policy is! The significance of that cannot be challenged by sources independent of the policyholder without the consent of the policyholder. Again, I’m sorry, but that’s the way it is.”

Altruism

Altruism is often defined as willingly putting the needs of others before one’s own needs. But is this accurate? A more specific definition might be that altruism, as a practice, puts particular needs of others before particular needs of one’s own. In other words, not all needs of others are put before all of one’s own needs. Altruism, as an attitude, recognizes that the needs of others are as important as one’s own rather than more or less important than one’s own. In practicing altruism, the actor satisfies the needs inherent within the attitude of altruism. Thus, helping a woman who has fallen in the street even if it means being punished for being late for work satisfies the altruistic need. Helping the woman provides greater altruistic satisfaction than work-related punishment results in harmful dissatisfaction. In this choice, it is evident that greater value is placed on altruistic acts than on personal detriment.

A question that arises is whether altruism is a need. It must be within a particular attitude, but the arising of the attitude may have resulted from preference or conditioning. If from cultural conditioning, the question is whether altruism is truly satisfying to the individual and, thus, if it is an obligation even more than a duty. If there is a sense of duty then the element of choice may be involved, but the satisfaction may not be derived from the actual helping of the other but from a sense of fulfilling one’s duty. Is this, then, altruism at all? If obligation is involved it is questionable, at best, to claim that any action or attitude could be altruistic. Altruism cannot, according to its definition, be coerced. Choice must be involved if an action is willed. This, then, means that the decision to act altruistically must be conscious. There has to be an alternative, or many alternatives, to acting altruistically for an action to be altruistic. If conscious choice is involved and the attitude derived from awareness, then cultural conditioning has to be ruled out as a source for the arising of an altruistic attitude. Similarly, altruism cannot be a need if it is, in fact, a choice. For altruism to be a choice in attitude and action it must be a preference. A definition for altruism could then be stated as “Altruism is the attitudinal preference to act in such a way that one or many needs of others are given priority over one’s own need or needs in order to satisfy a preference that one has deemed to be of greater value than the fulfillment of one’s own need or needs.”

If there is any expectation of compensation, even in the form of a gesture of thanks, then the motivation for the act of helping another is not altruistic. In that case, the act was viewed by the individual helping as an unspoken transaction in which the party receiving help was expected to give something to acknowledge the act. Similarly, if there is an expectation of acknowledgment or compensation from third parties, that act is not altruistic. It is merely a more complex transaction. The only compensation or acknowledgment that can result from an altruistic act is internal, the satisfaction of acting on an altruistic preference. This preference has immense value for the altruistic person, so much so that not acting altruistically in a situation in which the individual could have acted altruistically results in emotional distress. This distress is evidence that the value of altruism is so immense that it is a significant component of the person’s ethical framework.

If the altruistic attitude is ethical then it is bound by rules of conduct. If this is the case, then the only way altruism can remain a choice is if one’s ethics are “living,” constantly changing through personal exploration and choice. An ethics that becomes stagnant is no more than an internalized law that cannot be broken by choice without harmful distress to the self. Altruism as an attitudinal preference cannot exist within this framework. However, an ethics and thus an altruism that is regulated by attentiveness rather than by thoughtlessly accepted rule is flexible, living, organic, and impossible to escape awareness. With such vigilance, each circumstance in which an altruistic opportunity arises is an opportunity to reassess and reassert the altruistic preference within one’s ever-evolving ethics. This suggests that altruistic attitudes are not singular in tenor but exist as unique constructions that adapt and change before, during, and after each altruistic opportunity and subsequent action.

It can probably not be argued that an ethics in which an altruistic attitude is preferred over alternative attitudes could have origins that are independent of cultural influence. However, even if the origins are culturally-bound, the ongoing development, if self-directed and explored, can be liberated from its origins, transformed in such a way that the resultant ethics and attitude no longer resemble the source from which they began their development. Ethics and attitudes are not genetically predisposed and, as such, are not likely bound by origins in the way eye color is. Because choice is a possibility origins do not predetermine outcomes. If decisions are not made consciously then origins likely predetermine outcomes to a greater degree but in such a scenario an altruistic preference cannot arise or if the preference does arise then it is rejected as a preference and remains an imposed obligation in which an individual acquiesces to adopt and perform. There is no satisfaction in this attitude or practice; in fact, what is most likely to arise is resentment and self-loathing, an individual who never develops into a thinking being acting according to his or her will.

Thursday, August 28, 2014

Self-portrait




This is me. This is me in a particular state at a particular time. Halloween. 2008. That's an honest statement. More than that would be gratuitous. Criminal. To the spirit of the moment. It was what it was. It is no more. But here it is. A snapshot in the time of a life. A story in itself. One that would prefer to tell itself through itself. A particular state. At a particular time. Wish it was video. But it's just an image. Of a man. In space. At a particular time.

Do you want there to be an accompanying story? Because I have stories to tell from that night. A wild night. A night filled with spontaneity and pleasure.

I smoked pot earlier in the day. I sobered up and drove to the bar. I parked. I walked from my car to the entrance. I opened the door and stepped inside. A short, exceptionally muscular black man looked at my ID and allowed me entry. There were some individuals I knew at the bar, but the place was mostly filled with individuals I did not know.

I sat next to a lesbian I had talked with many times previously. She was jovial. Short and rotund as well. A stout, middle-aged Native American lesbian completely drunk, high on cocaine, trying to use me to attract young women so she could hit on them. Really. She flagged down some 23-year-old vixen, introduced her to me, watched as we hit it off, me as Elvis Knievel and she approaching as a combination Little Bo Peep and Catwoman. As we danced, I sang, told tales of heroism, and enacted a one-man love scene between Cyrano de Bergerac and Pierre Gassendi; by doing so, I reconciled Epicurean atomism with Christianity. Well, until a schism developed moments later.

But the taut little vixen remained, eager to continue dancing, longing to play. I allowed Dionysus to make decisions throughout the night. Good decisions He made, if pleasure was the measure.

My costume said Liberace magic, a date with the construction worker from the Village People, and a meeting with the Pope. Still, women approached to dance, to look, to flirt, to touch. I gave of myself, gave to the mass of humanity clamoring for someone to be something more than anyone else was. I obliged. I pledged myself to the Importance of Me and became the Great Man Diva, the King and the Queen, Elvis and Elton, man and woman for all.

I was certainly not all there was to see, not on Halloween. I saw Naked Man with Chewbacca Head feeling up Little Miss Moffett while she ate her curds and whey. I watched Batman beat the hell out of the Riddler. There were no cartoon balloons with exclamations like "WHAMMO!" or "POW!" Still, it was good to see that Batman wins even in real life. Gave me hope that justice can still prevail in the cartoon world.

The height of the night was seeing Daddy Warbucks dragging Orphan Annie on a leash. He had a whip of confetti lashes and when he tickled her with it she belted out "The Sun'll come out, Tomorrow, you can bet your bottom dollar that Tomorrow--" Then, mercifully, he shoved a gag in her mouth and the entire bar cheered.

Politeness

Politeness seems too often to be interpreted as kindness. But politeness is not an attitude or act that is motivated to create connection or to result in the betterment of both giver and receiver. Politeness is an attitude that desires the same to remain the same and manifests in action in such a way that attempts to maintain sameness. Neither party engaging in politeness changes through the interaction except in the sense that disconnection from others in any substantive way becomes more entrenched as a way to engage with others. Politeness treats both self and others as objects that remain at distance and, in a way, obliterates the possibility of the development of personhood and social meaning. Politeness, as an attitude, is a shrinking of self into a tiny box in which little that could be recognized as human can exist. It pushes what could be conscious deeper into the subconscious and, if held as an unthinking demeanor could result in the atrophying of personality and most certainly of robust thought and creativity.

Built into politeness is an inherent fear of self as a being and other as a being. Politeness reduces self and other into caricatures of beings, two-dimensional cartoons meant to pass as something akin to well-developed and virtuous beings. An act of politeness may be felt as a low-frequency wave of goodness and the performance of an act of politeness may be experienced as an expansion of self. But this expansion is minuscule and short-lived as there is nothing substantive to sustain it as neither self nor other is significantly changed through the interaction. The belief that one has changed through the process is likely a distortion if not a delusion. This belief or interpretation is likely to put another brick in the wall separating the compartmentalized self from being and from other beings.

Politeness as an act has the deceptive characteristic of appearing to have positively interacted with another being. But a polite smile is a defense mechanism rather than an open and welcoming invitation to deepen connections between one being and another. It is defensive in the sense that it is an attempt to avoid confrontation and conflict. It has the effect of also preventing connections that come through openness, vulnerability, and humility. It is in these ways that politeness is an attitude and practice to maintain the same as the same. Change is an enemy, possibility is an enemy, uncertainty and unknowns are enemies. Spontaneity and creativity are impossibilities. Politeness practiced over time is a shrinking of thought, emotion, sense, perception, and action. The range of thought possible constantly shrinks, the breadth and intensity of emotions dwindle, the acuteness of sensation dulls, the depth of perception shortens, and actions become limited to a small variety of routines. Even though politeness aspires to maintain the same as the same the result, over time, is that the same shrinks into less than it had been previously. Thus, politeness does not maintain the same but shrinks the same into something less than what it was. This shrinkage is imperceptible to the polite but is experienced as a less and less fulfilling life. If this dwindling fulfillment is even noticed it comes from sources that the polite does not know or understand and the polite are not inclined to explore for there is, for them, a mysterious lurking anxiety that the same may change leaving them vulnerable to experiences that are unfamiliar and, because unfamiliar, terrifying.

The attitude and practice of politeness is the drying of a sponge that was once saturated with an abundance of water. Once the water has completely evaporated the ever-shrinking sponge begins to dry and harden, no longer malleable or capable of changing shape or form, no longer able to share water beyond itself let alone within itself. The sponge cracks and crumbles as it dries and the slightest touch has the potential to further its decay. The sponge is now truly vulnerable to being obliterated by interactions that a sponge saturated with water is not. An uber-politeness may develop from this condition, a terrified and terrifying politeness, a way of interacting that exceeds cartoonishness and descends into absurdity and madness, borders on becoming feverish and hostile, a politeness that demands an excruciatingly narrow interaction lest a mere change in the tone of voice or facial expression may cause internal hysteria, panic.

Politeness, then, is a precursor to thinking, emotional, and physical breakdown. The overall health of one’s being is at risk from excessive and prolonged politeness. Politeness is a symptom of much more serious problems within the development of selfhood and social adjustment. Healthy relationships are absolutely impossible as the self is too atrophied to be able to give or receive in life-giving ways. Because politeness is viewed as a socially acceptable behavior there is no conscious attempt to address such unhealthy attitudes and behaviors, there are no institutional means to treat one who is polite and help him or her develop skills and abilities that might allow connections with others that have meaning, lead to the fulfillment of needs and wants, and allow possibilities for self-development and, ultimately, autonomy (agency).