Taking a Break

If it wasn't apparent from my last update, I've been up to other things the past few months - fatherhood, moving, background reading for grad. school, etc. I'm having a hard time finding the purpose in the seemingly selfish act of blogging - I don't find myself that interesting for starters - and I would love to continue in some communal version if anyone is interested. Until then, or some bhodi-tree moment where I find my opinion worth airing, I'll be silent for a while. Later,
Johnson

Roots and Limbs

So I've been meaning to write a review of Radiohead's new album The King of Limbs for almost a week now, and now any thing original I could have said has been written.  I used to rush to buy new albums of my favorite bands after school on tuesdays when i was in high school, yet very few bands still ellicit the kind of excitement in me that these elf-helmed spinsters of aural webs do.  My first impression of the album was that I was missing a piece, the 8 songs being only a chunk of a larger whole.  Theories have already popped up that the rest of the album will be released in May (for those of us that bought the box set, this would explain the fact that we will be receiving 2 vinyl records), and that the last track Separator alludes to this in the last lines where Yorke repeats, "If you think this is over then you're wrong."  Or perhaps my boyish fantasies have allowed me to get swept up in hopes for more of Radiohead's material than any 1 person should digest at a time.  A friend said that the album is a sort of combination of Thom Yorke's solo material and Jonny Greenwood's sountrack to There Will Be Blood, betraying the reality that Limbs is not the immediately accessible album that In Rainbows had been for the uninitiated listener.  Drums, percussion, and beats cycle into and over one another, horns (that were tuned only slightly since Life in a Glass House) layer under and around Yorke's wafting vocals, and emotional landscapes that somehow bridge despair and climax remind the listener of a time both past and future where we required more from songwriters than formulaic progressions and bombastic choruses.  The depth of Limbs requires work on the part of the audience, and many will give up before they find the inherent pleasure in uncovering layer after layer of sonic emotions that defy easy description.  Perhaps that says something about our culture's need for immediate gratification and accessibility... or perhaps I'm pretentious.  But it's most likely some combination of the two.

The Divinity of Man and the Spirit of Invention

I finished chewing through "The Religion of Technology" today, a surprisingly meaty book written by historian David F. Noble.  I don't normally spend this much time enjoying a book, but I felt that Noble's research deserved a slow, methodical read.  His thesis - that scientific enterprises have gained authority and increased dominion through the use of religious mythology - is not a new one.  Yet his thorough study of the history of science and technology, shows a surprisingly apocalyptic tone that has pervaded leading scientists' rhetoric within 1000 years scientific advance.  The myth that we will return "mankind" to a prelapsarian state of perfection, immortality, and dominion through practical science betrays the masculine and monastic roots of the technological arts.  As a student of both the humanities and history of religion, I found the book enlightening in both its thesis and cursory introduction to many fields, but I have read a few reviews that felt as if Noble was wholly critical of the scientific enterprise.  My take is that Noble was criticizing the wedding of science and religion (specifically apocalyptic christianity) that was evident in the work of a many of history's great scientists and explorers, a practice that we could do with a bit less in science and technology.  Much of the modern technological enterprises still betray their Cartesian glorification of the mind at the expense of the body, yet we must remind ourselves that we live in a physical world that offers a potentially holistic existence if we can perhaps sacrifice some of our religious desire for transcendence.  The idea that our technology promises redemption from being human is an idea which smacks of both intellectual hubris and a desire to make prescriptive the objectively descriptive job of scientists.  An friend recently pointed out to me that the peer-reviewed methodology within the sciences tends to limit the amount of storytelling and myth-making that can happen, and Noble likewise cautions us with what has happened when the scientific community has not operated in this manner by buying the stories that they were selling.  Noble is a bit dated (revising last in 1999), and it seems to me that changes in light of the new scientific intelligentsia would probably be warranted.  It seems to this author, that in our current climate (read both weather and culture)it is not the scientists that need to change, but the wider society.  We tend to ignore the sciences unless they can be sensationalized, mythologized and then commodified for our consumption, and all too often it is reason and accountability that suffer.  Explanations like "you can't explain that," despite their hilarity, win out because they are delivered with pageantry, instead of objectivity.  There's more to say, but I'd like to let a few thought simmer for a while.

We Robot

I came across a fascinating article today on BBC.  It seems that we are creating an internet-like interface for future robots to access.  It's a quick read, so I won't say much here, besides to say that EU scientists are trying to share and standardize knowledge for autonomous robots to access.  And quicker than you can say Skynet, we have the robot equivalent of wikipedia.  But apocalyptic naysayers aside, I find it profound that we are already modeling the learning of the next generation of (likely domestic) robotics after human knowledge compendiums.  I can't help think of the creation myths of numerous cultures whose portrayal of human origins are as made in God's or gods' images.  I suppose my first question is are we fashioning servants, equals, or demigods?

The Devil in Mr. Hawking

Perhaps motivated by a desire for a good argument, or more likely I have some time to fill while others are watching the Super Bowl, but I wanted to jot down some ideas on the whole theism/agnosticism or God vs. science debacle.  I plan on reconciling the two sides perfectly and conclusively proving the existence of God and the immutability of the scientific method, so I hope you're all prepared to accept Jesus into your heart and read a book on quasars when I'm finished.  But I digress, let me lay out some problems with both sides, why I think the debate is ultimately fruitless, and perhaps finally offer some tentative solutions.  Religious people feel free to pick and choose what you read, and scientists feel free to discard everything I've said because I'm open to the existence of God.

     The Problem with Religion, God, and Mythology

I won't be the first to point out any of this, but let me start with saying you cannot prove God's existence to anyone. (I lied earlier)  Whether your religious beliefs are intuitive, based in a holy book and historical figure, or a gang bang of superstitions and traditions, they are not exactly a scientifc enterprise.  You can scream till your blue in the face that God literally created the world in seven days, but the Bible never claimed to be a scientific manual, so stop treating it that way in the modern world.  As far as I'm considered, the first 2 chapters of Genesis have as much scientific merit as the Egyptian myth where the god Atum masturbates the world into existence.  The multiple centuries of trying to make the Christian Bible scientific are increasingly ridiculous, perhaps epitomized by the folks at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, KY.  And as much as I would've liked to take a bumpy ride on a triceratops, the lack of real science in these endeavors is comical at best and likely damaging in the long run.  The point of mythology, religious or otherwise, is not to tell us the "What" of the universe but the Why and in some cases the Who.  Using the Christian account (because I'm most familiar with it), the creation story tells us the following: (1. God created for no other reason than that's what God does - create stuff, (2. women and men were created equal and they're responsible for taking care of the earth, and most importantly in my estimation 3. humans were created in God's image, to be like God in the world.  Now regardless of the likely mythic status of this story (sorry), the methodical outline of the story is not meant to imply the method of origins.  We see organization (e.g. 7 days) and we read back in a scientific journal process.  Just stop doing this.  Seriously, it's a waste everyone's time.

Perhaps more pertinent to a modern existence where at least the educated don't need their holy books to be biology textbooks, enters the question of the purpose of religions.  Religion does not exactly have a consistent track record for promoting human life, allowing critical thinking, or being okay with those who are different.  Agnostics, scientists, and much of the educated world sees religions and gods as systems and symbols of control, devoid of any real benefit.  Inquisitions and crusades, biblically sanctioned racism, sexism, colonialism and a multitude of other-isms are still very much in the cultural imaginations of human societies.  And all of this happens while many hold a false perception that they are enduring persecution for their beliefs.  Please, for every Mother Teresa, there are 5 religious nut-jobs who blow up a building, hold up a "God Hates Fags" sign at a funeral, or actively work to crush the spirit of someone who doesn't fit within their community.  For my part, I agree with the sentiment of many atheists that most religions need to shut their mouths for a while and prove their worth to their communities with their actions.

     The Problem with Science and Technology

Science, or in its most practical form - Technology - gets a pass too often.  And since I railed on the faults of religions for a while, it seems they're next up to bat.  First, let us not fool ourselves into thinking science is pure objective reality.  Science, in both the academy and the popular imagination, is a mythic ordering of reality.  Whether it's the "Epic of Scientific Progress" proclaimed throughout the Enlightenment and Industrial Age, or the "Technology as Pinnacle of Human Evolution" purported in our post-modern milieu, both are prescriptive stories often devoid of internal consistency and objectivity.  In their attempts to sway the minds of the "archaic and naive religious folk," the scientific machine had to narrate their supposedly cumulative progression into modern cultures.  Their dependence on either the military industrial complex for financing, or increasingly within the tech. world their dual-loyalty to both corporation as meaning makers and community as product testers, betrays an insidious reality - pure science doesn't really exist... it is usually the indentured servant to a feudal lord with financial and less-than-benign intentions.  For every Galileo who relishes the discovery, there is an Edison who relishes the power brought by the discovery (no pun intended).

Don't take me as being anti-science, I just think that not seeing the underlying religious imagery within the story of Science and Technology allows it power over us that we were supposedly using science to dispel.  While we blame religion for its tendency to relegate difference to the sidelines (or at worst to damnation), scientific development was a cooperative (if not at times driving) force in colonialization, war, and vast environmental destruction.  Under the auspices of progress, we have become adept at killing each other, altering our bodies in damaging ways, and trying to solve the problems of the past while creating worse problems for future generations.  We embrace technology as the epitome of achievement, yet lack the ability to communicate gooder and with kindness and humanity across new social networks.  We envision our bodies as future repositories for new tech, augmenting reality to dispel the reality that soul, flavor, and deep concentration are being sacrificed for multi-tasking, efficiency, and consistency.  Perhaps science has been telling stories for too long.

     More Questions, Fewer Answers

I have been considering the problem of joining together my oft-dormant theism and an entirely naturalistic worldview for quite a while, a wedding that started when reading a book by Christian physicist Hugh Ross back in high school.  Now I'm not exactly a big fan of religious folk who want to empirically prove God's existence, because it's often quasi-science and bad theology in a distorted melange of half-truths, but the book certainly kick-started something within me.  Most attempts at reconciliation are like losing your virginity, it lasts much shorter than you would like, and usually only one side is happy with the results.  An atheist friend-of-a-friend recently said, "If you're telling people you can fly, it's not I who has to prove my disbelief, it's you who has to show that you can actually fly." He was both right and wrong in my estimation.  Right in the fact that debates over God's existence cannot be solved by some divine equation, and wrong that religious beliefs have to be justified rationally.  The concept of a god or gods is non-rational - it cannot be obtained through reason or observational methodology; this is not irrational though, or opposed to reason, it is just reached at through other means.  It seems to me, most scientists make bad theologians and vice-versa, because they're dealing with entirely different realms.  The problem is, both want to be dominant over our whole lives, and neither deserves that place.  Now I'm starting to pontificate, time for me to be quiet for a bit.  Any thoughts?

Do Posthumans Dream of Biological Sheep?

 

I've been reading a ridiculous amount of research lately, in preparation for phD applications, and I must say it has been one of the most mentally invigorating times in recent memory.  Joel Dinerstein, David Noble, Carolyn de la Peña, Fred Turner, Colin Milburn, and E. Anthony Rotundo are just some of the authors I've been reading lately and I'd recommend to anyone interested in liquid cultural landscape and human interaction with technology.  I keep asking the same question from different angles - what is the relationship between the biological and technological?  Strides in the fields of genetics, robotics, information technologies and nanotechnology promise the much lauded singularity where everything that occurred prior to that event will be considered human and everything after will be a technological utopia outside of our wildest imagination.  And while I love science fiction, are we doomed to a Matrix or Terminator-stylized future where the machines and human battle for supremacy?  Will we all coalesce into a hive mind stored on the cloud where we must plug electrodes into pleasure centers of our brains in order to masturbate?  And will we still experience embarrassment as everyone else watches us?  Am I only my mind - and can the concept of "mind" be distilled into primarily computational as the analogies seem to be suggesting?  We talk about building processors that rival the computational power of the human brain as if that is all this mess of synapses, grey matter, nerves, and chemicals can be boiled down to.  As many have started to argue, the posthuman utopia neglects broad strokes of what it means to be human.  Are we just re-cycling the modernist myth of progress and cumulative knowledge, while neglecting the "Creole" side of human existence as Dinerstein would argue?  In what ways is our techno-driven future just silencing the diverse sexualities, ethnicities, and cultures that make up the strange, yet interesting Gumbo of the pan-human experience.  I have more questions than anything, yet a future that seems quick to abandon the lessons of the past, seems doomed to create more problems than answers.  I would love to hear what others think if anyone has the time to comment!

What can we do against so much hate?

     

     There's so much hatred in the world that it feels daunting at times to even address it.  Civility, tolerance, liberty from oppression - these are all concepts our world is lacking despite claims to the contrary.  I've been deeply saddened by the slew of anti-gay rhetoric and violence that doesn't seem to be abating.  Not to mention the ways that even mainstream media and politics treats members of the LGBT community as second-class citizens.  These are our neighbors, family members, friends - human beings who are mistreated by their own communities for no good reason.  Many of us are appalled by how the homosexual community has been treated, we are just drowned out by a vocal minority who are hateful and profoundly unhappy.  I am ashamed that I haven't done more to address this human rights issue, so let me start with this: for all ways in which I have been complicit in our culture of hate and intolerance, I am profoundly sorry.  

     A couple things worth checking out if you want to stop the work of those working against the LGBT community.  Check out whiteknot.org if you want to learn how to support the equal right to marry, or GLAAD if you want to donate to support the work of those stemming the tide of anti-gay images and words in the media. For those struggling with their own sexual identities, you are not alone and despite the vitriole, there is a huge community of people who love and support you.  I'll leave you with this statement from a Christian rally in Florida that happened 2 days ago: "Too many times, religion has been used to demonize and persecute LGBT people, just as religion has and continues to be used to justify oppression of other communities. But we’re not standing for this and we’re not staying silent. The Gospel of Jesus Christ calls us to work for justice, inclusion and right relationship for all people, and all means all."

The Mechanization of Me

Haven't been blogging lately, due in part to my long weekend in Los Angeles.  I love the pastoral landscape of Northern California, where I now live, but nothing beats the vibrance and electricity of Los Angeles.  I've returned with a strong desire to push myself mentally beyond what I've been comfortable with in the past.  Been thinking through a lot of stuff lately, most of it slowly congealing around books I've been reading. Currently opened in my lap is a book by Carolyn de la Peña entitled The Body Electric.  Not too far in at the moment - halfway or so - but the author is exploring questions which have plagued my underdeveloped frontal lobe in the past month or two. The author examines the slow but inevitable explanation of "the body as a system of interlocking parts, each of which depended on the others for growth and sustainability." (23)  This mechanization of the body in our cultural psyche, along with the industrial age's desire to make the "machines" bigger, better, and more efficient led to a variety of strange invigorating technologies in the modern world.  Perhaps what is most enjoyable to me, is reading someone who doesn't feel the need to be prescriptive every step of the way.  Questions of the immanence of technology in human culture, the supposed benevolence of machines, and our evolutionary telos arise, but de la Peña shows an attention to history and its resulting trajectory that offers no easy answer.  And for those of us surrounded by so much ignorance and misinformation, it's a breath of fresh air.  I'm sure I'll have more to say later, but I have a book to enjoy at the moment.

Irreverent and Religious in the 21st century

     For some reason, I'm finding christian subculture hilarious today.  Perhaps it was a posting on failblog.org that I noticed last night, or just my general irreverent demeanor lately.  Everywhere I look I'm reminded of how absolutely ridiculous our ways of reconciling culture and religion look to anyone with a little common sense.  
Now don't take me for an atheist, because nothing could be farther from the truth.  Let's just say I'm a lover of mythology and religion, any more and you'll have to buy me dinner.  But the degree to which we take ourselves seriously makes me laugh.  I'm reminded of the South Park episode entitled: Christian Rock Hard, where Cartman starts a christian band called Faith + 1.  Now, I'm not the biggest fan of the show, but occasionally it is ridiculously spot-on.  In the show, for those who haven't seen it, they attempt to get a platinum record (or "myrrh" in the christian industry) by writing songs about being "in love" with Jesus...physically.



     The episode is beyond funny because it highlights one of the essential problems with a religious subculture - it claims to be different from "the world" or secular society, yet it uses the same apparatus to transmit its message.  Now, I grew up in a Baptist household so I'm particularly well-versed in the Christian alternatives to the big, bad secular options(e.g. Petra, the Christian option for Van Halen-style, guitar-driven hair bands) but I see this problem in basically every religiously conservative system around today.  Postmodern fundamentalisms are not afraid to use the system to spread their sectarian messages: twittering absurd thoughts to the faithful, calling media conferences to announce book-burnings, and injecting vitriole into social networks.  This is not your father's fundamentalism; this is a particularly postmodern enigma.  The irony is that this is the way so much of the world works today.  We are sorely lacking reason and consistency, favoring whatever hodgepodge of religion, technology, and culture that gets us through the day.  And I have no problem with it, as long as they understand that I'm going to mock them - and blog about mocking them.  
Here's one last stab at the ridiculous, sorry if you had Jesus painted or digitally added into your family portrait, but you earned this one:

You can't spell "Treason" without Reason

     So I normally avoid politics...as if I'd catch some communicable ideology that would undoubtedly spread to others.  Come to think of it, it's the same reason I don't attend most sporting events...but that's for another blog.  Years ago, I took a class to learn how to be a bartender...thought it'd help me pay the bills through grad school while meeting interesting people.  The one thing my "teacher" said is that good bartenders avoid talking about religion and politics, in order to help keep the peace amongst the patrons.  And while I never shied away from religion and its requisite hilarity, I really took the politics advice to heart.   But what seemed sense to avoid whilst in a room of inebriated provocateurs no longer seems the right thing to do on my own blog.  In fact, voices that speak with civility and forethought are sorely needed to balance out so much of the propagandized reporting and veritas-deficient opinion pieces out there.
     Chances are I'll end up spewing the same vitriole and nonsense as everyone else, but at least I had a humble opening paragraph to make myself sound less partisan.  As a teenager, I used to love politics, perhaps because it was one thing my dad and I could talk about.  I even used to listen to Rush Limbaugh's radio show (ouch, I know) and talk to friends about our country's alleged Christian roots.  I believed wholeheartedly "in the republic for which it stands" and before going to college would undoubtedly have supported draconian measures to ensure the immutability of (certain) American ideals.  I was infatuated with my nation-state, although lacking a substantive understanding of what it is.
     The pendulum swung, as it tends to do in college, and while I voted for George W. (the first time around) I questioned myself.  I proceeded to switch parties, and vote against Bush in the next election, and yet I couldn't shake the feeling that I hadn't really done anything differently.  The twofold reason I showed up on the following presidential election day and voted for Obama is (1.) I wanted to be part of the historic moment where an African American was voted president and (2.) I felt it necessary to support the right to marry by opposing Prop. 8.  In truth, I no longer cared about political parties, liberal and conservative tags, and even voting (I know, I'm a terrible human being).  Wow, as I proofread before saving, I'm surprised at how confessional this posting is.
     I struggled for a while to decipher why I had such lasting apathy towards our political system, and I'm only starting to have some tentative explanations.  The first one everyone knows...there are few real differences between either political party...yet seems to ignore.  Despite the extreme rhetoric that emanates from both sides of the aisle, major political parties avoid issues which might ostracize the majority, and end up, by necessity, sounding more and more alike.  If a segment of the population has an issue that's going to ostracize the Democrat or Republican voter base, you will see a bi-partisan effort to declare it anathema (e.g. Prop 19 and marijuana legalization).   On the other hand, if an ideology can be brought into the fold and re-branded - as many neo-conservatives have done with the Tea Party movement - it is quick to be labeled "gospel."  Call Obama socialist all you like, but realistically there's no one brave enough to run for political office as a true 21st-century socialist.  And despite the similarities between each other, we draw Hitler mustaches on Obama (or Bush) as if they are carrying on some grand Nazi design behind our backs.  (FYI: Hitler was a fascist, not a socialist)  I'm surprised at the lack of civility and reason between 2 parties that offer very little difference in this writer's humble opinion.
     My second reason for such political indifference is due to an overwhelming frustration with the category of "nation-state."  Must I bear loyalty to a landmass because it is where I was born?  Must other people die because they disagree with our ideologies and patterns of consumption?  Don't get me wrong, I believe in self-defense and survival, but I'm confronted with the stark reality that one must oft be a patriot at the expense of the rest of the human race.  It seems to me that the nation-state is only 1 step of many in our social evolution, much like tribal or feudal categories before it.  Does that mean we're off to be a 1-world government where all of us share equal roles in a virtual utopia?  I highly doubt it, and yet I long for something new, something better than this system of artificial allegiance.  Unfortunately - due to a combination of human selfishness and fear, ethnic and religious difference, and anxious-for-armageddon evangelicals and other religious extremists who view the U.N. (or anything different) as a disembodied antichrist - no one seems particularly interested in moving beyond what we have or at least thinking outside the familiar.  That's all I have at the moment, a few musings and a lot of hot air, and a fervent hope that there are others in this world who think there is more to life than Republican, Democrat, or even America.

Lapsed Intellectual

I had a realization this morning...i'm too goddamn apathetic to be a good academic.  The amount of work it takes to keep up on the latest film/music/news/(insert topic here)/science/philosophy is just exhausting.  I feel as though I have the option of either being a pedantic fool who has a cursory knowledge of everything, or the traditional doctor of philosophy who can't function in society outside of her study of Dostoevsky's "use of the indefinite article."  I'm sitting in my childhood home, staring at a bookshelf full of Tom Clancy and Chuck Swindoll hegemony, and wondering what one man can do against such a barrage of ideological pornography.  And don't take this post to be biased against the conservative milieu, for I profess a rounded hatred for both the left and the right.  Both sides stuck in a circle-jerk to their fundamentals - one to tradition and another to tolerance.   Do I have the strength to play the games of the academy?  Am I content to simply rant to the disembodied online community?  I truly do not know, yet I'm grinning a toothy, self-congratulatory smile as I count the number of G.R.E. vocabulary words I used in this post.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Architect

     

     I'm not exactly a design expert, engineer, or architect, but I am a self-proclaimed tree-hugger and lover of aesthetically pleasing architecture.  I ran across this article recently that got my excited, instead of  depressed, about the future.  I always joke with my brother about wanting to live deep in the woods away from much of civilization but with a lightening-fast internet connection.  After living in L.A. for 7 years, the polluted, industrial, purchase-driven milieu starts to wear on you.  You end up fantasizing about "roughing it" in the wilderness, living off the land, or some similar romantic visage of the way we never were.  Truth is, there is a temptation to want to go back and capture something that was lost before the industrial revolution...a mystery or holiness ascribed to nature and the elements.  The forest, the desert, the sea - they all occupy iconic places in classical literature as places of magic, spirits, and the gods.  Before the modern era, they were untouchable and sacrosanct...wholly beyond our ability to understand or change.  And yet today they're something to be pitied...a monument to our failure to live in the garden without eating the fruit, cutting down the tree, and using the wood to refinish our souls.

     And yet, in the midst of my melodrama, there is hope to be found from a variety of sources.  A wise man once said to me "The way forward is not in the past," and I think I finally understand what he means.  We can't go back to a sun-energy alone society...for one that would require exterminating roughly 5 billion people.  And most people (including this writer) would be loathe to forego their Iphones, Youtube, and Wii's.  On a separate note, when will start with the "3rd person" devices like the She-max, He-flix, or It-pad?  Where was I?  Oh right, "the way forward is not the past;" don't take me to say that we have nothing to learn from the past, or that the great minds that have shaped our culture are lacking a goldmine of wisdom.  What I mean is that we need forward-thinkers, exploring new ways to integrate what it means to be human in the 21st century with our environment and our future.  Connecting our buildings to the land, using sustainable products, and approaching the field of design with a mind to simplicity and function are central concepts in this day and age.  And knowing there are those out there doing this and more excites me.

20 things I hate

I'm in a bad mood, so I thought I'd spread some negative feelings around.

I absolutely hate:

20. when people rant and rave about random crap
19. environmental disasters without new environmental policy
18. car registration, parking fines, and the DMV
17. blindly worshipping  __________________ (fill in the blank)
16. all the idiots who drive too slow and the maniacs who drive too fast
15. Washington Mutual
14. growing older, but not wiser
13. grading papers where students didn't even try
12. any movie written, produced, or acted in by the Wayans Brothers
11. holidays that were invented by hallmark
10. pretentious vocabulary
9. calling something "retarded"
8. Kate Perry's music
7. when someone tells someone else to "shut-up"
6. scotch hangovers
5. homogeneity
4. paying over 10 dollars to see a movie
3. holidays that celebrate war
2. politics
1. white guys with dreads

Buy More

I find my tech-desires get more ridiculous now that I no longer have a job.  Of course I need an upgraded 360, a new phone, or the Ipad...and why shouldn't I have one?  Possessing the latest and greatest seems so worthwhile as an end in itself - luckily my common sense (and limited bank account) quickly return to mind and I don't press "Check-Out Now."  The pursuit of possessions just doesn't fuel me anymore, and when I see a posting like this one from gizmodo it makes me smile.  Whether it's Steve Jobs, the prophet of hip, delivering some device in his all-black priestly garb to an excited cathedral of tech-junkies or the scientific "utopia" of the modernist project, it all seems so fleeting to me.  Yes, I'm sure one day we'll all live to be 500, with flawless skin, enormous penises, and robotic maids, but what does that have to do with living my life now?  Sometimes I think Technology has replaced Magic, Religion, and most recently Science as the seller of salvation.  And while I wouldn't mind a cold pint from the fountain of youth, I'm not planning on finding it on tap anytime soon.  I'm worried that our futurist outlook as a society keeps us from living in the present, experiencing connections around us, and celebrating the beauty and tragedy of life as is.  Then again, I really want a new phone.

Apocalypse How

       The End is Nigh!  Perhaps I have the book of Revelation on the brain, or maybe the fact that visions of doom are superfluous in our media maelstrom, but I've been dwelling on the concept of "the apocalypse" the last few days.  While the subject of our fascination with our own demise is a worthy topic for another day, I am more interested in what type of cataclysm we're speaking of.  Are we speaking of some God-ordained cleansing of the earth he once loved?  I guess I never much liked this option.  And it doesn't seem to fit with the oft-misquoted opus of Christian apocalyptic literature: the book of Revelation.  That book seems much more concerned with portraying a symbolic world of good and evil where its readers can be offered some camaraderie and hope through their persecution and ostracism at the hands of the Roman Empire.  So if God isn't behind the end of everything, the answer lies elsewhere.
       Perhaps in light of the BP oil catastrophe it's more likely that we will author our own demise.  Let's say we further advance climate change and thoroughly fuck up our planet beyond repair.  What real end will come of it?  The end of all biological life?  This I find highly unlikely, considering the tenacity of carbon-based life, and our planet's ability to give the finger over geological time to the creatures who attempt to master it.  Perhaps its the end of ourselves that we fear.  The end of sentient life,  the end of our systems of order and hierarchy, the end of a reality that was never quite real...it's all quite scary to beings that want to retain the illusory concept of "control" over our lives.  All good (and bad) things must come to an end, and perhaps letting go is something we (me specifically) need to do more often.  Letting go of the way we want things reminds me of the works of Norbert Kox.  We have this tendency to make a golden calf of a system, a way of living, or even our concept of the divine.  That's what I love about Kox's mash-up of Sallman's Head of Christ and Magritte's Ceci n'est pas une pipe: it's so irreverent to the idol.  I'm left wondering what things I have worshipped that were just the iconic Beast masked by a rosy exterior.  Technology?  Religion?  Music?  The Academy?  My particular vision of messiah?  As I transition to a new stage in life I feel as though i must hasten the apocalypse of those imaginary worlds and begin to start anew.  I must both mourn and celebrate the demise of my peculiar deities if I long for a new heaven and earth to emerge.

Bon Iver and the Modern Man

So I discovered "For Emma, Forever Ago" later than most.  And by later I mean 11pm last Sunday, almost 3 years after its release.  Is it profound or pathetic when a piece of music resonates with the spirit of a chunk of the population.  I'm gonna go with profound...although pathetic is never far off.  The chunk I'm referring to is the postmodern white, children of middle-class, 20-30 somethings whose souls have been eroded by the apathy and hegemony of "normal."  Are our thumbs in our assholes for stimulation or pacification?  Or are they one and the same?  When I started this blog 4 years ago I had intended for it to be a place where I could voice both my pretentious and populist interests with a bit of humor and cultural critique thrown in.  The truth I've discovered about myself is ironic considering this post's condemnation of apathy and normalcy.  First, I was just a little too indifferent about my interests and second, I was worried about being considered "out there."  The post-Bon Iver writer says, "Fuck that!" while wondering if anyone will actually read these rants.  This album opened a spot inside of me, a spot that wants to both mourn the death of passion in the modern man, and burn down the false monuments to our culturally normative past.  In this writer's opinion "For Emma, Forever Ago," and the desires of our compartmentalized hearts, might deserve another listen.

Album of the Week

MUSE

Black Holes and Revelations

Muse returns with the perfect blend of pop hooks, raunchy guitars, and experimental electronics. The vocals on their latest album dance a fine line between Rufus Wainwright and Queen, a line no one knew existed. Personal highlights are the raucuous, post-house "Map of the Problematique" and eerie, yet operatic, "Exo-Politics."

The Christening of Electric Johnson

Thus begins my journey into the world of blogging. For too long i have sat idly back, viewing blogs from afar. "Nevermore," quoth the lonely fowl, and a boisterous "amen," says i. I plan for this blog to be a place where nothing is tabboo, where all opinions (save mine) are listened to equally. I'm a lover of the arts, the humanities, and all things in between. Hopefully as i explore my own opinions, and publish them for the world (or some random lonely kid in Ohio) to read, lines can be smudged and holiness can be muddied a bit. I'm wrong quite a bit, but i'm honest, and that has to count for something. So enter one and all, leave your gloves at the door, and be prepared to get a bit messy.