Two Quick

points I want to bring to the public’s attention (because this blog is so widely read).

1. Saying “after the jump” is very unnecessary when you have a link, and it’s also corny and unoriginal in a way that no one should ever aspire to be. I’m looking at you Juxtapoz.com.

2. Punctuation INSIDE the quotation marks. I don’t know who suddenly started putting commas outside of quotations (i.e. “This is a quotation”, he said.” But it’s not correct and no one should emulate this error. It’s an endemic lately.

Sorry I don’t have anything more important to say.

UNLV Adagia pt. I

Poetry is self negation. As soon as you write one line, you negate it with the next. As soon as you write one poem, you un-write it–you are on to something else.

Poetry is the fundamental dimension of mind always pushing the boundaries of language.

Poets must invent their own language in order to give meaning to their experiences.

To be a poet is to be an anarchist.

A poet must work to be a better net–to receive what is rushing through. A poet reads to become a tighter net.

Self (in three parts)

Part I

The fact of the matter is I’m officially in Las Vegas. The last place I would have ever expected to end up. If I intentionally reflect on my current position, I’m only at a loss for words to account for it. It is almost incomprehensible that I am here, and not only that, but to write poetry of all things.

As I’ve met a few other new Las Vegans, I noticed they threw the word “simulacra” around a lot. In reference to Baudrillard, presumably.

I’m not sure that I care very much about this point. The city of Las Vegas may be simulacra, and that may be Truth, but all I can think about here, so far, is the absence of real people. This point is not exclusive to Las Vegas, though. Vegas is different from every other major city; it is also very much the same.

Perhaps it is the fact that I am really alone in a new place. This is the first time I’ve ever felt that there was not a true friend within, at the very least, 250 miles. And the distance is much greater to someone whom I actually believe knows the present me. That is not to say I am lonely, just alone, which should be conceived as valuelessly as possible.

Real Lion?

My poems have become a separate entity from me; have become both a means and an end. I feel as though I am coat tailing someone into this opportunity to study poetry in an MFA program at UNLV. But I can only say that I am coat tailing myself. Better yet, I am following my poems into the program. I am a shadow of that to which they aspire.

If I reserve the term “poetic” to refer to the specific language of the best attempt at articulated truth, and “poetry” as the truth to be articulated then must say my primary concern is not my present poetic, but the poetic to come, and above even that, the poet himself.

This is how I know I am not my poetic and as such all things that offend my poetic will not necessarily offend me (and all things my poetic offends, I do not necessarily offend) :

Poetic is simulacrum.

Simulacrum is moot.

The poet is never moot.

Therefore, poet and the poetic are separate entities.

I have coat-tailed my poetic to Vegas, in hopes of developing my poet.

Back to the Strip.

Part II

Every photograph seems to me to be an assertion of the Self. Art is made by selves. Without the Self there is no art. The photographer may not have the ability to change what is, but can change how it is perceived by translating the Self–his Self, specifically. Likewise with literature, visual art, music, culinary arts, and any intimacy whatsoever. Humans adore the ability to create and alter experience and perception. This is the will to art, a form of will to power. Art is the cure for impotency. This is why artists are so often stereotyped as scorned/star-crossed lovers, as socially conscious, as idealistic, as spontaneous. The last stereotype may be true, but no artist will tolerate a loss of control in his/her art. As much as an artist may credit divine inspiration, or mystical experience, the art is always created under control. Even the messiest, most fortunate, and spontaneous works are controlled pieces. Otherwise the artist is useless. And no artist will tolerate his/her own uselessness. When the painter can’t make the one he loves love him back. When the poet knows there is no means (violent or otherwise) by which she can overthrow an oppressive system. When the musician hears sounds in his head and struggles to make them audible to others. They turn to the realm in which “possible” and “impossible” become null. Where all things are.  Where “effective” and “ineffective” are voided terms.  Where all that is shareable exists.

Art is an assertion of the Self and, as such, is an act of power. In quotidian life, the individual rarely, if ever, is able to assert his/her Self. This is ultimate impotency. When the individual can no longer tolerate the outside suppression of the Self, he/she turns to artistic expression. This is, after all, what is intended by the phrase “express yourself,” isn’t it?

When the individual is without the opportunity to create art, all that’s left is Self-destruction and violence. For these things are not true forms of power, but desperate responses to one’s own impotency. In other words, “If I can’t assert my existence sufficiently, then I will cease whatever is left of me,” or “If I can’t assert my existence sufficiently, then I will make sure no one else is able to either.” As such, art is a solution for the Other (all that which is not located within one’s Self). It is a means through which to relate and respond to the Other without desperation and without malice. Furthermore, I would argue that anything made in the name of Self-destruction or Other-destruction, is not art. Meaning that art is not measured in genius or technical ability, but in its loving-sincerity in regard for the Other in attempts of asserting the Self. For a proper relationship with the Other is the only real way Self assertion can happen. Which is the highest and simplest need of a the human psyche. This may be termed Self-actualization only if taken literally. It does not mean the tendency to actualize, as much as possible, the organism’s individual capacities. Rather, it is the tendency to actualize, as much as possible, the Self.

Part III

Whitman wrote, “Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself; (I am large– I contain multitudes.)” I believe he is saying, in other words, that Truth (which is, by definition, incapable of self-contradiction) and the Self are separate things. He is capable of contradicting himself because his Self is not Truth (or some may wish to say instead of “Truth,” “God”, depending on your definition of that word).

In our western thinking we may be inclined to pose the question this way: What is the truth?

But when Pontius Pilate posed the question to Jesus he asked: “What is truth?”

My answer, and what I believe Whitman’s answer is, is that Truth is many things.

The next phrase we are acquainted with in the West (and perhaps other regions I am not qualified to speak on) is this: Seeking Truth. That is, one finds Truth, not defines it. One may wish to know what Truth is, and thereby wants to locate Truth. Where is Truth?

The location of Truth is easier to pinpoint than comprehending Truth, because, again, the Truth is multitudinous.

As far as I can reason, the only possible location for Truth is the Self. As such, the Self can be contradictory, and yet still contain within it the multitudes of Truth, which is not self-contradictory. Meaning not that Truth can contradict the Self, but  Truth cannot contradict Truth.

I also think this suggests if Truth exists objectively at all it is within the boundary lines of the subjective Self, and thus, is only knowable through subjective means. Dare I say, Truth is not universal, even if objective.

However, if Truth is located in the Other, then it is unknowable and moot. If it is located in Self & Other, then we can only know the Truth within the Self, still rendering whatever Truth exists in the Other, moot. All that would be required in that case would be to recognize its location in the Other, because if it exists in the Other and is not recognized, I fear that lack of recognition could lead to monsterrous, pornographic behavior. In fact, if I could alter the definition of one word, I would alter the word “pornography” to designate anything created without loving-sincerity in regard to the Other in  attempts to assert the Self. Essentially, the antonym of “art.” This, hopefully, would redraw the lines such that much of what we may consider in the realm of art becomes, appropriately, pornography, and much of what was considered pornographic is embraced in the realm of art.

What all this says of the importance of the Self compared to the importance of Truth, I have not yet determined.

Every Man’s Pontius Pilate

This will be an abridged edition of my thoughts on a characther who I think is among the most enigmatic figures of the Bible: Pontius Pilate. Hopefully at the end I can qualify what significance Pilate’s actions have on modern man, and not just for theists, but agnostic, and atheist free-thinkers as well. I don’t believe Pilate is a simple character. His presence and behavior in each of the four canonical gospels is incredibly nuanced. Since this nuance comes from the biases of each author, I also want to know why Pilate is nuanced as he is in each account. I am not a biblical scholar, nor do I aspire to be one. I am approaching this as a lay-person with a brain and, admittedly, from a post-christian perspective. This post will be biased, but since I am genuinely interested in Pilate, historically and theologically, anyone who can offer any insights is more than welcome to do so. Equally, anyone who thinks I have overlooked something (which is inevitable) or believes I am failing to take something into account, please point it out to me. I’m interested in the dialogue as always.

First I’m just going to use Google to find the first, quickest and easiest references of the historical Pontius Pilate. Let’s begin where all great research projects begin, Wikipedia.

Pilate was a prefect, like a governor. He is best known as the judge at Jesus of Nazareth’s trial and the man who authorized his crucifixion. Unlike many events and miracles of Jesus’ life, the trial before Pilate appears in all four of the gospels.

“In Matthew, Pilate washes his hands of Jesus and reluctantly sends him to his death. Mark, depicting Jesus as innocent of plotting against Rome, portrays Pilate as extremely reluctant to execute Jesus, blaming the Jewish priestly hierarchy for his death. In Luke, Pilate not only agrees that Jesus did not conspire against Rome, but Herod Antipas, the tetrarch, also finds nothing treasonable in Jesus’ actions. In John, Jesus’ claims to be the Son of Man or the Messiah to Pilate and the Sanhedrin is not portrayed at all.”

This will be a brief overview of my thoughts on who I think is among the most enigmatic figures of the Bible: Pontius Pilate. Hopefully at the end I can qualify what significance Pilate’s actions have on modern man, and not just for theists, but agnostic, and atheist free-thinkers as well. I don’t believe Pilate is a simple character. His presence and behavior in each of the four canonical gospels is incredibly nuanced. Since this nuance comes from the biases of each author, I also want to know why Pilate is nuanced as he is in each account. I am not a biblical scholar, nor do I aspire to be one. I am approaching this as a lay-person with a brain and, admittedly, from a post-christian perspective. This post will be biased, but since I am genuinely interested in Pilate, historically and theologically, anyone who can offer any insights is more than welcome to do so. Equally, anyone who thinks I have overlooked something (which is inevitable) or believes I am failing to take something into account, please point it out to me. I’m interested in the dialogue as always.

First I’m just going to use Google to find the first, quickest and easiest references of the historical Pontius Pilate. Let’s begin where all great research projects begin, Wikipedia.

Pilate was a prefect, like a governor. He is best known as the judge at Jesus of Nazareth’s trial and the man who authorized his crucifixion. Unlike many events and miracles of Jesus’ life, the trial before Pilate appears in all four of the gospels.

“In Matthew, Pilate washes his hands of Jesus and reluctantly sends him to his death. Mark, depicting Jesus as innocent of plotting against Rome, portrays Pilate as extremely reluctant to execute Jesus, blaming the Jewish priestly hierarchy for his death. In Luke, Pilate not only agrees that Jesus did not conspire against Rome, but Herod Antipas, the tetrarch, also finds nothing treasonable in Jesus’ actions. In John, Jesus’ claims to be the Son of Man or the Messiah to Pilate and the Sanhedrin is not portrayed at all.”

We’ll come back to Wikipedia, since it’s an open-sourced conglomeration of information. But first I want to look at a couple other websites. From newadvent.org, a Catholic resource, “Pilate is a type of worldly man, knowing what is right and anxious to act on it unless it can be done without personal sacrifice. He would gladly have acquitted Christ, and even made serious efforts in that direction, but gave way when his own position was threatened.”

From bible-history.com, apparently the non-canonical gospels like the Gospel of Peter hold Pilate in positive terms. “Jesus is condemned not by Pilate but by Herod Antipas. Tertullian asserted that Pilate was a Christian at heart and that he wrote a letter to Tiberius to explain what had happened at Jesus’ trial.”Pilate was even canonized by the Coptic and Ethiopic churches.

Are these sources legit? Haha, I’d be surprised if they were. Real historical research would have to be done, at least in a library, at best at graduate school. You’ll be hard pressed to find a website discussing religious matters that doesn’t have a huge bias. However, I would suspect on the subject of Pontius Pilate you would run into less of a slant, as in all my Christian years he was rarely mentioned and seems to be an inconsequential coward, a politician not worth discussing when Jesus had so many more caustic encounters with just about everyone else. Compared to the Sanhedrin and the Pharisees and Judas, Pilate could easily be considered a friend of Christ. And yet because his inaction helped lead to Jesus’ death, he could be considered an enemy of the Christ as much as Judas or the Pharisees are. Or perhaps his behavior plays an allegorical role somehow, and his historical existence is incidental and irrelevant to understanding the message of the Christ, which seems to be the perspective most contemporary American Christians hold.

It is now impossible for any serious scholar, or thinking modern man to read the Gospels, canonical or otherwise, as if they had not been written with some agenda behind them. We know from today’s media, that the story always changes depending on who’s telling it. In one story perhaps the Jews were intolerant bigoted hateful sinners, and from the Jewish perspective perhaps Jesus was just an ungrateful, hippy, who was accosting God and their deeply held traditions, and deserved what he got, miracles or not. We know the horrendous acts a people group can resort to in order to protect its identity. Likewise, the depiction of Pilate in any gospel account is subject to the same biases.

Now I’ll head to the Bible itself. On the one hand it is essential to keep in mind the historical contexts of these writings. On the other, the contexts aren’t always so important. If the Pilate presented in the Gospels is actually a fictitious Pilate, then his mention could only be incidental. That just happened to be the governing official at the time, and he might as well have been named Humpty Dumpty, fifth prefect of Rome. In other words, if the account of his actions and what he said is made up to fulfill whatever agenda the particular gospel writer had, then we don’t need to know anything about the historical Pilate because he does not appear in the account of Jesus’ trial. This is the assumption, however poor of one some readers may believe it to be, heading into each of the four trial accounts. I will simply be looking at how the each Pilate; that of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is portrayed. How are they alike, how are they different? What real consequence does each serve, and what is most obvious lesson to be learned from including him in the account. As John writes, it is impossible to include every little detail of every conversation Jesus had, but the gospel writers chose to give Pilate lines, so to speak, so we should ask why? What does this add to the message of the story?

Summary and analysis of Matthew 27:11-26 (NIV, other translations as needed.)

Jesus is brought before Pilate at which point Pilate asks direct questions and Jesus gives but one direct answer. This question is “Are you king of the Jews?” Jesus simple answer, “Yes, it is as you say.” It says that Jesus only answered Pilate this question. When the priests asked him he refused to answer. Was Pilate special like Peter and could handle knowing this little tidbit? Or did Jesus believe it didn’t matter since Pilate was a pagan and didn’t even understand what he was asking? Presumably, claiming to be king of the Jews, so long as you weren’t claiming to be king of Rome, was tolerable, right? As long as Jesus wasn’t trying to take over the kingdom or start a riot, what does Pilate care? Or maybe Jesus said it as though to say “Right, so this doesn’t concern you, Roman.”

Jesus refused to answer Pilate again after this, despite Pilate’s reminder of the priests’ charges. I always took this to be out of Jesus’ indignation at being the Messiah and having to suffer the embarrassment of trial. Jesus seems prideful here. Supposedly Pilate was amazed at this behavior. However I’m surprised that Pilate would be amazed at an accused criminal’s refusal to answer him. Pilate had presumably arrested rabble rousers before who surely would have refused to answer charges, who would have liked only to spit in Pilate’s face. Jesus is disrespecting and undermining Pilate’s authority. Since it was the Jews themselves who handed over this Jewish anarchist basically, Pilate could conclude with relative ease that this Jesus had no power and no popularity among the people. Matthew says that they handed him over out of envy. Pilate thought they were just trying to teach Jesus a lesson out of spite. Surely the Jews would rather deal with this hooligan than deal with a murderer! So Pilate offers to free either Jesus or Barabbas and the crowd picks Barabbas. Pilate backed himself into the corner. At just the right time, his wife writes him a note saying telling him he must let Jesus go because he’s innocent. As if the anxiety of the situation hadn’t already been enough. Now Pilate is stuck punishing an innocent man. But how is he stuck? He is the governor, doesn’t he have the power to just say “go free Jesus?”
Well, not exactly. These people are furious and a crowd can be powerful, if not successful, when they are denied what they want. Pilate could let Jesus go and be a hero (or not, more on that in a bit) or punish one innocent guy in the name of maintaining the public order. We know what Pilate chose obviously, but what if Pilate had let Jesus go? It’s silly because we know he didn’t, but if he did, would Jesus have not been crucified? Would he have not died for the sins of humanity? Or would the Jews have just stoned Jesus and Pilate would be truly innocent. Or was Pilate supposed to put Jesus in witness protection? If Pilate doesn’t give the go ahead on crucifying Jesus, there’s no crucifix, there’s no symbol of Christianity, maybe not as glorious of a resurrection. Pilate could have ruined the whole thing! Unless you firmly uphold God’s sovereignty and believe Pilate could not have chosen differently, at which point, he is off the hook.

So continuing with Matthew, Pilate does try to let Jesus go, pleading with the crowds to change their mind and just leave Jesus alone. Because the crowd was going to Jesus anyway, and then probably start a riot, Pilate’s hands were tied. Jesus was condemned before he even stood before Pilate. I think this is the real reason Jesus doesn’t answer Pilate. If we assume Jesus knows his fate is determined at this point, there is no point in answering anymore questions. Pilate is not anymore free to decide if Jesus dies or not than I am to choose to be 6’5” and play in the NBA. Sure, Jesus’ silence is also a subversion and major disrespect to the governor too. All the more reason to not say anything.

In some circles Pilate is seen as a coward for the actions that follow. He takes a bowl of water and washes his hands and says “I am innocent of this man’s blood.” To which the Jews eagerly reply, basically, “Fine we’ll take the blame just kill him already!” The Jews are blood thirsty and the Roman governor is a naïve angel. I can’t understand this account to be portraying Pilate as a coward, or anything negative for that matter. He was an uninterested party, a mere tool for the Jews to execute their murderous plot.

Mark 15:1-15

After the Sanhedrin (the governing council of the Jews) decided they wanted Jesus dead they took him to Pilate. Again Pilate asks a direct question and Jesus gives him one direct answer and nothing more. “Are you king of the Jews?” “Yes, it is as you say.” Nothing more. Pilate reminds him of the accusations, Jesus is silent.
The story follows Matthew almost verbatim except with some thrown in “the priests stirred up the crowd” as though the crowd were not entirely guilty of the crime either, but specifically the priests. This time there is no note from his wife, but still Pilate, simply wanting to appease the crowd, orders the crucifixion. I have to say the presentation of Pilate is the same here as it is in Matthew in my opinion. He’s a role-player. The Jews can’t execute someone unless the Roman state will turn a blind eye to it. And Jesus being a mere Jew who is bound to turn up dead anyway, okays the murder, especially if it will prevent a riot, which was all too common around Passover anyway.

Luke 22:66 – 23:25

This is a much longer account of the trial, which includes a second trial, to further show Pilate’s desperation to not deal with the innocent man the people are so upset about.

The priests and crowd again bring Jesus to Pilate and this time we get to see the accusations brought against him, which were merely glossed over in the previous two gospels. 1.) Jesus is subverting the nation. 2.) He refuses to pay taxes. 3.) He claims to be the Messiah, a king. Pilate takes this accusations under consideration, but obviously doesn’t take them seriously because he asks on question of Jesus again, and again Jesus gives one answer. You know how it goes, “you a king?” “yep.” Immediately Pilate says “Okay, well I don’t care.” Then the priests slip up and mention that he is from the region of Galilee which Pilate is delighted to hear because now he can pass the buck onto to Herod. So far, Pilate seems less concerned of the innocence of the Jesus and more just doesn’t want to deal with the paperwork. So Jesus is taken to Herod and Herod questions him and Jesus stays silent and the priests yell how pissed they are at Jesus and Herod is not amused so he sends him back to Pilate. Luke then tells us Pilate and Herod become friends after this. Some kind of mutual respect thing where Pilate acknowledges Herod’s authority I suppose. So Herod and Pilate both say there’s no reason for Jesus to die. Pilate tries a compromise and offers to just punish Jesus, but the priests really really want this crucifixion thing. I don’t know, maybe they had already sold tickets or something. Pilate is backed into a corner and pleads with the priests and people again, but they are insistent and demand that Barabbas the murderer be released. Pilate gives the okay on the execution. Again Pilate isn’t really guilty and he isn’t really innocent. He authorizes the murder, but he does beg the crowds to have a change of heart. Despite his position and his political power, he is overpowered here by the threat of greater violence. This, my friends, is an area of moral grayscale in the Bible. Pilate is just an impotent role-player. The religious elite, the old-school moral majority is portrayed as the heartless group.

John (here’s where things get all existential)

This time Pilate comes out to the priests to discuss Jesus as opposed to the priests bringing Jesus into Pilate’s palace. Pilate asks them what charges they have against Jesus and they are smart asses and say “He’s a criminal.” So Pilate says “Take care of it yourself, you have laws.” So the Jews say, “Yeah but we want to kill him and we need your approval.” Pilate goes back into the palace and summons Jesus to ask him some questions in private. (This also makes Jesus unclean for the Passover celebration, but Jesus doesn’t complain). Now, previously Jesus was brief with his answers to Pilate, but John shares the whole conversation with us. Pilate asks his famous “are you the king of the Jews?” question, but this time Jesus is a little bit more of a smart ass than before and says “did you think of that all by yourself?” Caustic. Pilate returns volley and says, “Am I Jew? I don’t give a shit if you are or aren’t, but your own people want to kill you, so if you don’t want to cooperate then I don’t care. I don’t have time for this shit.” Jesus gets serious and explains, “He is a king but of a non-earthly kingdom. If his kingdom were of the earth then his servants would have protected him from being arrested, but it’s not so that’s why he couldn’t avoid being arrested.” Which seems like a weird answer because if God wanted Jesus to be arrested, like supposedly was the plan, then why would his servants have prevented it in any kingdom, earthly or otherwise? To me, it seems like Jesus is mixing up his stories here. Seems like he should have just said his kingdom was from heaven and that all this was meant to happen. Instead he says “Oh man, you don’t even know! If my peeps were here, you’d be in so much trouble!” Pilate tries to get to the crux of the matter (pardon the pun) and says “So you are a king! of some sort kinda…” Jesus comes back with really vague language, so vague it probably wasn’t worth saying to Pilate who already doesn’t care about this trial and probably isn’t going to share the wisdom with anyone (and yet somehow it’s in the Bible in red letters hmm.)

Anyway, Jesus says, “Right. I am a king. I came to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” I’m not sure if this was a threat or an invitation, but either way Pilate responds, quite intelligently and it SEEMS to be the first time Jesus is outsmarted in the Bible. Pilate asks “what is truth.” Now whether Jesus had a chance to answer or not is unclear, but it says that Pilate immediately went back out to the priests and declared Jesus innocent. Jesus was rude, but not worth killing. So Pilate does the Barabbas or Jesus offer again and the crowd chooses Jesus and it’s off to the flogging and crucifixion gig again.

In John Pilate also appears after Jesus is sent off to be flogged. He brings Jesus back out in the robe after his beating. He tries to get the crowd to change their mind, then he tries to just let them kill him so he doesn’t have to do it. They insist he be crucified properly by a Roman soldier though.

Suddenly Pilate goes from not caring about this trial to being afraid. He asks Jesus in private again “Where do you come from?” Jesus gives him the silent treatment now. Pilate becomes frustrated as the situation spirals out of control and now even Jesus is silent. Pilate says, “Don’t you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?” I’m not sure Pilate believes this though. He knows this Jesus is dead either way. He has to know. This seems like a stupid thing to say at this point. I think Pilate is coping precisely with the fact that he DOESN’T have the power to free him. Jesus seems to understand this and reassures Pilate that God is in control ultimately and that the priests are guilty of a greater sin. I’m not sure what sin Pilate is guilty of if he doesn’t even have the ability to let Jesus go. Pilate is just collateral.

Pilate who was afraid before suddenly gets brash again and brings Jesus out and mocks the crowd saying “Here is your king.” Of course he realizes they brought him to die specifically because they don’t believe he is their king, so Pilate is just making his own situation worse. He then has a sign made that says “king of the Jews” and has it hung above Jesus on the cross. The Jews say he should have written “this man claimed to be king” not that he was king. But Pilate obstinate says “what I have written, I have written.” Presumably Pilate has not converted to Christianity and is only insisting on leaving the sign as it is out of spite of the Jews. Something of a middle finger to them, since they are annoying troublemakers for him.

Summation

Pilate appears to be a role-player, collateral, incidental, innocent in all four accounts. Each gospel makes clear that the priests are ultimately the ones responsible for Jesus’ death and that Pilate was just a means of accomplishing the goal. It would be an injustice to say Pilate was at fault even a little bit. He simply did not have the power to stop Jesus’ death, even if he had the power to stop the crucifixion. Even if he COULD stop Jesus’ death, he would be thwarting God’s plan for salvation as it is taught in the bible, thereby making it quite clear that he could not because God cannot be frustrated.

The allegorical implications I see in all this are numerous. Pilate is in the same position in regards to God’s plan for salvation as any free thinking atheist is. 1.) Anyone who asks “what is truth?” when presented with a vague spiritual claim is not necessarily condemned. 2.) Pilate’s position demonstrates a moral and ethical gray area that some conservatives are not willing to accept. To see this gray scale play out, put yourself in Pilate’s sandals and ask what you would have done. Then think through the logical implications of that action (disclaimer: you will need a brain and basic reasoning abilities for that exercise.) 3.) Pilate did not think Jesus had subverting the nation, because he declared Jesus innocent on that charge. The Roman state did not crucify Jesus, according to the Bible for anything other than that’s what the Jews asked them to do. Rome had no problem with Jesus, at least in the gospels.

If I may quote Nietzsche here as a possible interpretation of the Pilate accounts. The same Nietzsche who said “God is dead.” This is from his book Anti-Christ: The pure soul is a lie . . . So long as the priest, that professional denier, calumniator and poisoner of life, is accepted as higher variety of man, there can be no answer to the question, What is truth? Truth has already been stood on its head when the obvious attorney of mere emptiness is mistaken for its representative.”

Digression and Expansion

If I may expand even further. I want to suggest that modern western humanity is in Pilate’s position. This man (think of it in the neuter sense) is presented with what seem like many options, from social work, to political activism (include voting), to consumer choices. But essentially, deep down, he knows he has no choice. He is Pilate standing before an HDTV and an iphone 4 and saying “Don’t you know I have the power to buy one of your or the other.” But that power is given to him by the culture and advertising. Modern man did not decide he wanted a phone on which he can check his email. He was told he wanted it and so agreed. A demand is created and then supplied much to the detriment of humanity, because the demand created is not for a sustainable supply.

Modern American man is told to vote, but sees only senators bought by lobbyists and presidents with no real power to change anything.
The Modern man can chain himself to a tree to stop it from being bulldozed only to be arrested and it be destroyed anyway. He can choose to give up using a car, and support sustainable initiatives only to see big businesses continue to destroy the environment as if how he lived and died meant nothing at all.

Pilate is the precursor to individual among modern humanity, which is just collateral damage like the Earth is just collateral damage. Humans are powerless in the face of their own greed and exploitation. When they stop exploiting themselves they can stop exploiting others and the Earth.

Modern man feels impotent. Entirely powerless, and deludes himself into thinking he makes his own decisions by indulging in self destructive behaviors. Man must feel in control of himself. This is all he wants. All a human being wants is to be in control, even if it’s just of him/herself.

Nietzsche called this the Will to Power, and that all living things are driven by it. Well modern humanity, by its own unchecked greed, frustrated itself into becoming a powerless consumer.

But I don’t believe modern man is entirely impotent yet. It’s a matter of choosing not to be chosen for. It’s looking at the debate over who is savior and saying “I don’t give a shit. Let the religious crucify the religious, no one will think for me. What is truth? The truth is many things.”

There are many more things I would like to touch on, like the abolition of guilt as slavery, to give an example. I’m currently expanding my ideas on the modern or post-modern or post-postmodern, if you like, impotency of the individual human being. These are each ideas I can articulate in about five seconds and yet its implications run deep, deep into the modern western psyche. I don’t know how many more posts I’ll have like this. These are all too long for someone to sit and read online anyway. Consider then notes for something more coherent and hopefully enlightening to come in the next few years. Do I smell a book? Who knows, but I feel I’m onto something here. Which means usually I’m just thinking something someone else has already thought. Oh well. I’ll take it as far as I can.

Finally, an excerpt from the current poetry project I’m working on. I felt it would be appropriate:

Exits—Much afforded.

Delivers each to each.

Interested parties
w/ no interest.

Blameless in
anxiety and accident.

The greatest burden is

treading water.
No kind of precision.

“Fine.”

Primal utterance—
You have to.

It is necessary—

You feel saved.

You forget. Then

you are saved.

Doser Loser

This blog is a product review.

Before we get into anything, let me vent a little. That’s how blog shit works, after all. There seems to be a new trend where I post a video or a link to a website I found through viral means and decide to share it on a friend’s Facebook page or in a forum, what have you, and someone needs to comment about how they’ve already posted it or seen it before. Let me be entirely clear: I do not care in the least if you found something on the internet before me. People frequent different websites, and no one with a life can be on the cutting edge of every single viral media on the web. SO if I happen to post an interesting video or website link on one of your friends’ walls and OMG you totally posted that two weeks ago!, there is no need to point that out. I am not going to go through pages of one person’s wall post just to see if someone posted it already. This is how viral materials work. Sometimes you catch it twice or a hundred more times. And no, I don’t think you’re “like totally awesome” for seeing it before me. Perhaps this pet peeve is unique to me, but I am absolutely tired of people telling me “I saw that two weeks ago!” or “Yeah that’s old news.” I’m not impressed. Who the fuck are you?

So, regarding the product I’m about to review, if you heard about this 3 hours ago and it’s old news by your definition, then shove it. I don’t care. If you prefer the binge and purge style of browsing the internet, then just move along.

Now for the product review. It’s called I-Doser. The verb form being “I-dosing.” You can watch the extreme over reaction from an Oklahoman news broadcast here.

Yes, that’s right. Digital drugs. Sound waves that alter your brain state.

Don’t believe it? Me neither, so here’s my test run.

I managed to obtain a user guide and some sample sound files through a source. I don’t want to clarify what/who that source is, because I can assure you I didn’t pay for it.

Let’s start with the background and claims made by the company itself.

The opening disclaimer is as follows: I-Doser makes no medical, psychological, physical, or otherwise, claims to the effectiveness of the I-Doser Application, Simulation CDs and MP3s, it’s included or purchased doses. The use of the I-Doser Application, Simulation CDs and MP3, and included purchased doses, should be used for entertainment purposes only. I-Doser Application, Simulation CDs and MP3s, and included or purchased doses, may impair your ability to drive a car or operate machinery.

I will save my commentary until the end. I just want to provide the same background the company provides to start things off.

Another warning it provides is: Hallucinogens and other ways to alter perception, as well as the placebo effect, and the effects that the I-Doser line of products can have on some people, is not something that should be done carelessly.

According to I-Doser’s information, the materials were created by a one Nick Ashton. The idea is that the sound files when played are meant to alter one’s brainwaves and simulate drug experiences. The idea was not invented by Ashton.

The creator also, for some reason, shares the following bit of information: I admit to questioning my sanity.

So he sounds like a druggy weirdo with some programming know-how. This reminds me of people who claim euphoric experiences while listening to Pink Floyd. Except those people also probably get high on real drugs. I will admit that listening to one of my favorite songs, when in the right mood, can create a moment of euphoria, but I don’t think that’s due to the song altering my brain waves in the same way that Ashton is claiming.

He further makes the comparison of our brains to radios. If you can tune them into a certain frequency you can create different experiences and emotions etc.

Ashton continues to pass himself off as some kind of scientist conducting research and organizing data and “designing” these sound sequences.  He also claims he never intended to start a company. These things just sort of happen, don’t they? On their site you can buy CDs and packs of MP3s for anywhere from 16 to 20 bucks.  At least we know it’s been “refined with years of research and development.”

More from the user guide:

A binaural beat is created in the brain when you put on a set of headphones and listen to a recording where tones of slightly differing frequencies are played in each ear. The fact that each ear is hearing a different frequency creates a “binaural beat” in the brain which just happens to beat at the rate which is the difference in frequencies between what each ear is hearing.

Let’s say we play a tone of 400 hertz into the left ear and a tone of 410 hertz into the right ear. The brain will perceive a new tone that pulsates at 10 hertz. the new tone that the brain perceives is a tone that is the “average” of the tones played into each ear. So in our example, the brain will perceive a 405 hertz tone pulsating at 10 beats per second.

Other claims are that it can enhance concentration, learning, and even induce sleep or simulate an experience. This is nothing new though. Music has had all these claims made about it for a while. I remember being told to listen to classical music while I study, because it will help me focus. Obviously listening to a slow rhythmic pattern when you’re trying to fall asleep can be helpful too, as anyone who has listened to a really boring song knows.

Here’s the how-to breakdown.

They recommend playing the file off your computer, CD player, iPod, whatever. Use good headphones. Be comfortable, use an eye mask.

Worth noting is that this is basically how a hypnotist works. Reduce the distractions to get people to zero in on one thing and then lull them into a certain action or belief using their own willingness to suggestion. In other words. It can only work if you want it too, and if you’re not overly cynical.

You must finish the entire “dose” without distraction for it to work. Essentially stay calm and meditate throughout the dose.

I-doser also claims to be safe, they just recommend you don’t try to drive or operate heavy machinery.

Okay, let’s get down to business. I originally planned to do three test runs, you’ll see why I didn’t follow through on that. First let me point out that I’ve been drunk, high, smoke cigs (filtered and self-rolled), and I drink coffee. I’ve experienced chemically altered states of mind. Nothing “hard,” but the “binaural” shit isn’t supposed to simulate heroin, it’s supposed to make you euphoric. We’ll see how it compares.

Trial 1 “Alcohol”: The dose is 35 minutes long. First of all, anyone in this day and age who can find 35 minutes  without interruption is already ahead of the game. I’m not even working right now and I can barely find 35 uninterrupted minutes.

The I-doser.com description of the “Alcohol” does is as follows: I downloaded the application and I will first be trying the dose called Alcohol. It’s 35 minutes long! let’s see if I can be that patient. The description is as follows “Liquore. Spirits. Beer. Wine. Alcoho is one of the most common strong psychoactives used by humans. It has a long history of use and its intoxicating effects are well studied and documented: relaxation, mood lift, happiness, giddiness, talkativeness, lowered inhibitions, reduced social anxiety, and analgesia. Our alcohol dose is like shot gunning five glasses of gin, in force. The effects come on strong, but mellow fast, and ease into a condition of relaxation flightiness and overexcitement. Some have even experienced pure drunkenness from a single dose. Best of all, no hangover.

Uh huh.

I minimized distractions as much as possible. I lay in my bed with a blindfold and put the file on. My hand fell asleep at one point and I had an itch I needed to scratch on my ear. Also someone was mowing their lawn outside. I could barely make that out over my headphones turned up quite loud (not full-blast on account of me not wanting to go deaf from this cacophony). But I think the conditions under which I performed the test are pretty accurate to what most people would be able to re-produce in their homes.

At the end of the 35 minutes I took the headphones off and didn’t feel anything. Shocking.  The description said I’d feel like I had shot-gun 5 glasses of gin (never mind that I don’t know what “shot-gunning” a glass of gin means…). I felt like I had just listened to noise for 35 minutes.

I also made plans to test “Orgasm” and “Marijuana.” But both of those samples were longer than 35 minutes, and I had no interest in wasting another half hour to an hour of my life (at least on this). So, please forgive me if you want to argue I didn’t give it a fair chance.

Just to be sure I didn’t experience a sensation of drunkenness I drank a Guinness and a Great Lakes Dortmunder with dinner and copped a solid buzz. Definitely no comparison.

My verdict:

But you probably saw that coming. The experience of listening to these sound files doesn’t come anywhere near just doing drugs or getting drunk. And quite honestly, how could anything compare to a real orgasm?

I can’t totally discount the experiences of all the 15 year olds who swear they experienced something from I-doser audio files. But I feel confident that I can discount the cause of their experiences.

It’s called the power of suggestion. There’s a really fascinating TED talk on it actually. See here.

This entirely works on the same principals as a hypnotist. During my undergraduate term at a private college in Ohio, we were privy to college entertainer named Frederick Winters. He is a hypnotist, and to be quite honest, his shows are hilarious and very entertaining. He explained a few things about hypnotism. First is that it isn’t magic, it revolves around the idea of the power of suggestion. He also said quite plainly that it doesn’t work on everyone. And this doesn’t mean you’re smarter than everyone on whom it does work. However I roll my eyes at that claim. One must be willing to fall for it. One’s mind must be susceptible to suggestion for it to work.

Another thing that Winter’s used to help him pull of the hypnotism . . . large speakers playing rhythmic tones!

The idea is to lure one’s mind into a sense of security and levity such that one becomes very vulnerable to suggestion. Winters also did a mini FAQ session that was pretty interesting. One question was “do people know what they are doing while hypnotized?” And he said YES! You are aware of what you’re doing, but you just don’t care because you are so relaxed. And he can’t make you do anything you absolutely do not want to do. He can’t make you take your clothes off or kill your brother while hypnotized. It must be an action you’re already okay with doing. He just kind of frees you from inhibition absolutely. I guess then it’s possible you hypnotize someone who is willing to kill another human being and then tell them to do so . . .

Anyway, I-doser works the same way. The tones illicit an extremely relaxed state IF you allow it too. If you want to lulled into that state of mind. Then either one of two things happens. 1. You know what it feels like to be drunk and your mind recreates that experience similar to if you were hypnotized and Winters said “you are now totally inebriated.” You would behave and may even believe yourself to be drunk. Or 2. You have never been drunk and your brain makes the best guess at the experience and when all is said and done, you don’t actually know if you were drunk or not.

It is all the power of suggestion. Seriously. Watch that TED talk above if you don’t believe in this. Another thing to point out is the “placebo effect,” which was mentioned in the disclaimer. This IS the power of suggestion. Someone believes they are receiving a real medicine but is actually taking an innocuous substance like sugar water. They seem to get better because their brain believes the body is getting better. It’s a mind over matter situation. This has been documented time and again as being a real phenomenon. Some even liken it to prayer, but I don’t need to get into that right now. Suffice it to say that the placebo effect is a real thing. It’s not just a myth.

When I-doser adds claims like “don’t drive a car or operate heavy machinery,” they are adding to the suggestion part. If you BELIEVE the “dose” can really impair your abilities to drive a car then IT WILL. For that reason I must commend I-doser for including that warning. Whether you’re drunk or you are just experiencing a virtual drunkenness you shouldn’t be driving.

So I say I-doser is mostly bunk. It’s no different than a hypnotist. BUT it probably can illicit realistic experiences for people who would be affected by a hypnotist, and this is more people than you might think. You may even be one such person. There’s no shame in it, so long as you’re using it responsibly. I don’t care what gets you drunk or high. If walking around barefoot for an hour makes you drunk, then don’t drive after walking around barefoot.

This doesn’t work on me, and I will credit that to me being too cynical, too aware of myself and my environment. Not to say I’m fucking Sherlock Holmes with my observational and memory abilities, but I’m too aware of the hypnotizing as it’s happening to truly allow myself to lose myself in the experience, which is what is required. Hell, I have a hard time sometimes really getting high off some kush weed if I’m thinking about it too much.

The brain is a powerful piece of technology. Whether you think it’s a product of God or a product of evolution, it really is amazing. And whether you call it the placebo effect or faith or hypnotism, some people will be affected by this stuff in a very real way, as in it’s real to them so it’s real even though it’s not real to observers. It’s relativism at it’s simplest. Reality is in the eye of the beholder. I’m not saying no absolute truth exists, but simply that personal experience is extremely subjective. More so than a lot of us are comfortable thinking about.

I-doser.com isn’t magic. And it’s not equivalent to just getting high or getting a blow job, but if you’re 14 years old, vulnerable to suggestion, and can’t get someone to buy alcohol for you, it may be better than nothing.

If I were a parent, I couldn’t care less. This has no real health effect on the user unless they are listening to a “Cancer” sound dose.  The only risk I would be concerned about is what happens when my hypothetical 14 year old realizes it’s not a real high and decides to start using real drugs? Personally, I’d be fine, but kids need to be taught how to use alcohol and other substances responsibly at an early age. It’s too late to explain how to drink in moderation to your teenager after they’ve already been to one or too raging parties.

I’ve got more opinions on all of this obviously, but I’ll save it. I’m still buzzing from the beer earlier.

Thanks for reading. If there are any other new drugs or products that are legal and reasonably priced that you want me to test, let me know in any of the comments sections on any post, and I will likely do a post about it.

Peace.

P.S. Sorry for typos. I’m unprofessional.

Mi Lorca

I know everyone translates Federico García Lorca, but all the more reason to try my hand at it. If you can’t be original, do it better. And vice versa. Anyway, I think they are good translations, so enjoy.

—

Gacela of Dark Death

I want to sleep the sleep of apples,
withdraw from the commotion of cemeteries.
I want to sleep the sleep of that boy
who wanted to cut his heart on the high seas.

I don’t want anyone to remind me that the dead do not lose blood;
that the putrid mouth goes on begging for water.
I don’t want anyone to enlighten me to the martyrdom of grass,
nor to the moon with a snake’s mouth
which toils before the dawn.

I want to sleep for a bit—
a bit, a minute, a century;
but all should know that I’ve not died;
that I am the little friend of the West wind;
I am the unbounded shadow of my tears.

Cover me by dawn with a veil,
because it will throw fistfuls of ants at me.
and wet my shoes with hard water,
in order that the scorpion’s pincers slide.

For I want to sleep the sleep of apples,
to learn a sorrow that will purge me of the earth.
for I want to live with that dark boy
who wanted to cut his heart on the high seas.

—-

Gacela of Desperate Love

The night does not want to come,
in order that you cannot come,
nor can I go.

But I will go,
although a sun scorpion may eat my temple lobe.

But you will come,
with a tongue burned by salt rain.

The day does not wish to come
in order that you cannot come,
nor can I go.

But I will go,
surrendering to toads my chewed pink carnation.

But you will come,
by the turbid sewers of darkness.

Neither night nor day want to come.
lest I must die for you
and you must die for me.

—-

Song of the Withered Orange Tree

Woodchopper,
Cut away my shadow.
Free me from the torment
of seeing my fruitlessness.

Why was I born among mirrors?
The day advances around me,
and, by all her stars,
the night mocks me.

I want to live without seeing myself.
And ants and thistledown,
I will dream are my
leaves and my birds.

Woodchopper,
Cut away my shadow.
Free me from the torment
of seeing my fruitlessness.

—

Suicide

(Maybe it was because of his not
knowing geometry)

The youngster, negligent,
at ten in the morning.

His heart filling with
plastic flowers and broken wings,

and noticing, how, in his mouth,
but one word remained,

removed his gloves and
soft ash—fell—from his hands.

From the balcony he saw a tower.
He supposed himself both balcony and tower.

He saw the stopped clock in its casing,
no doubt—how it had been looking at him.

He saw his shadow, lying out, still,
on the white, silken divan.

And the youth, rigid, geometric,
broke the mirror with an axe.

As it shattered, a great flow of shadow
flooded  the chimerical bedchamber.

—-

Gracias. Te Amo.

Damned If You Do(n’t).

I don’t know if you have looked at the news at all lately, but you’re about to.

I wish there was a way to gauge the American public’s attitude towards things like the BP spill, the advent of new disappointing technologies like the iPhone 4, the economy, or the Twilight craze. This afternoon I was sitting on my ass on my couch as many an American is wont to do, and a number of different puzzle pieces, so to speak, were presented. These are pieces of a grander picture of our time, that hopefully presented from a single perspective can give some glimpse into the particular zeitgeist of my personal context. This post, this entire blog, is an act of frustration.

There’s an adage that goes “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” Nowadays one might reduce that to simply “we’re fucked.” It seems to me that Americans are beyond debating whether or not they are damned (well, except for the conservative religious right . . .) The question now is what are the ramifications of this. Now, obviously this is hard to accept. America has been so profitable, despite deviating from its terrorist roots and fundamental skepticism of big governments. It’s hard for my generation of young Americans to think that it could end. The idea that our well being and our futures are as assured as a pile of leaves in a wind storm is almost incomprehensible. America has been there for our parents and grandparents, why wouldn’t it be there for us? The following is not a list of reasons why I feel a constant impending doom, but it is a list of my observations as an American on a single afternoon in the summer of 2010. Nota bene: I do not refer to myself as an American out of nationalist pride. I only do so to recognize my context and legal citizenship status. As much as I disagree with elements of American culture, I can not deny they have fundamentally shaped me and influenced who I am today, therefore, for better or worse, I am an American.

1. “Police arrest more than 500 at Toronto summit” – News article referring to a large group of anarchists at the Toronto G20 convention. Pictures from the article also reminded me of protests in Greece over the last three years. Burning police cars, police firing into crowds, tear gas, riot control, police brutality &c. Protests and riots are nothing new to humanity, but I think what might be new is the sometimes overwhelming sense of their ineffectiveness.

Collateral?

While you may get even hundreds of thousands of citizens to show up in protest of their governments’ policies, it is a scarce thing to find a government that has even a little fear of its people anymore. My guess is that when riots occur or protests become violent it is reactionary. I have a hard time thinking that modern persons believe burning police cars at an international economic summit is going to be headed as a warning or demonstration of anything other than frustration. I believe the people of the “new world” as it was once heralded, are this above all things: frustrated.  It’s the equivalent of a teenage girl not being granted her request of her parents and so going in her room slamming the door and screaming into her pillow. It accomplishes nothing, but some are nearly compelled to release their anger and frustration. Is it good or evil? I’m not concerned with the question, because whatever it is seems to be necessary. And necessity precedes morality.

Just an ass or a modern man coping?

2. French youth protested (peacefully) against their government’s recent austerity measure to raise the retirement age two years, from 60 to 62 (provided one starts paying into a pension at 20- excuse me while I laugh along with the rest of the French youth). Realistically the retirement age in France is now more like 69 or 70, because one must pay into the pension for 42 years before collecting. With higher and higher education being required in order to get a job with a pension, young people are more likely to have to wait until their late 20′s to find such a job. Hence the banners which read “27+42=69″. In the States, many people in recent years have begun to wonder if they’ll be able to retire at all.

Obviously their protests are going to fall on deaf ears, because it’s France and they’re youth. That’s what French youth does. Personally, I understand their frustration but question what they are hoping to accomplish in protesting. Forty-two years is a long time. Given the crisis of peak oil (which I’ll get to shortly), how could anyone who is currently in their 20′s think there will be any sort of pension left.

I think we may have to go back to the good old days, before social security and retirement programs where people did this weird thing called saving money instead of digging the deepest possible hole of debt they can get away with. I also think it’d be good if youth made more of a commitment to caring for the elderly. Americans, for example, should be less prone to stick their parents in a nursing home and more apt to caring for them themselves. Of course it’s a burden, but old people are people too, more than that they usually have spent a great deal of their life caring in some capacity for others. I’m talking about the virtue of veneration of elders. Only when it is not possible to care for one’s older family members should the elderly be put into a care home. I just wonder if this isn’t too often a first choice rather than a last resort for fear that the elderly will become too burdensome.

What does including a picture like this even accomplish in a post like this?

3. Boycotting BP Oil- For some reason many Americans still have this idea that boycotting a product is an effective measure to combat corporate corruption. I honestly don’t know where this comes from. A boycott is something only a simple mind would predict effective. Nevertheless, some people still think they can affect a corporate agenda with a boycott. More often than not, a boycott hurts small business owners and does little to change corporate policy (though certainly may change corporate PR tactics). An excerpt from a news article today: As more Americans shun BP gasoline as a form of protest over the Gulf oil spill, station owners are insisting BP do more to help them convince motorists that such boycotts mostly hurt independently owned businesses, not the British oil giant.

Frustrating indeed. Well why don’t these small gas station owners just buy gas from a different company that isn’t polluting the environment suffering from bad press. The article explains: Station owners are locked into contracts that can last seven to 10 years in some cases. So, switching to a competing brand if BP refuses to help may not be an option.

Oh my.

So gas station owners think if gas is dirt cheap then essentially the American public will sell out and say “eh, fuck the environment, I’m getting a deal.” Why, as an American, I have to say I’m a little bit offended at that gesture. However, it saddens me to say, I believe it would work. When it comes to the bottom line, everyone has a price, and especially for people not living in the Gulf area, it’s sometimes hard, even with 24 hr news broadcasts, to keep disasters like the oil spill at the forefront of one’s mind when making a simple decision about which gas station to pull into.

This boycott hurts small business which hurts hardworking Americans. But, is that just collateral? These hard working Americans did open a gas station and do help BP make money. Yes, they are just trying to get buy and make a living, and I’m not suggesting anyone vilify a BP station owner, mostly because that doesn’t help anything. But I am suggesting that maybe they don’t deserve to be in business if that’s what their business is. Fisherman on the gulf coast have lost their entire livelihoods, and gas station owners who sell gas from the company that is to blame for the spill feel entitled to stay in business, whatever the cost.

But back to the boycott aspect. The article continues:  The boycott’s impact on BP is limited. The company makes most of its money exploring and producing oil in places such as Angola, Egypt, the North Sea and the Gulf of Mexico.

“The corner store is the face of BP, but by no means how BP gets its money,” Lenard said.

And even if drivers opt to fill up at an Exxon or 7-Eleven, they still may buy BP gasoline. Because of the way gas is refined and marketed, BP fuel gets supplied to stations other than those with BP brands.

The boycott’s impact is felt less in rural areas, where people know the owners personally. And it helps to sell other necessities.

Dacia Radabaugh, who manages a BP station owned by her parents in Williamstown, W.Va., thinks the station is as popular as ever because it sells liquor and cigarettes to a regular crowd.

And of course some drivers are just more pragmatic.

“Gas is gas, buddy,” said Danny Sullivan, making no apologies for filling up at a Little General BP station in Charleston, W.Va. “It don’t matter where it comes from.”

Gas is gas indeed. I scoff at BP, gas station owners, and those who boycott buying gas from a particular chain of gas stations. I’m not concerned with guilt, though there is plenty to spread around. I’m more interested in real solutions. Not just conscience placating reactionary boycotts and burning police cars or whatever the reaction is. But I understand that people do these things because they feel hopeless and want to do something, anything at all.

Modern humanity’s biggest burden is the frustration of power. Nietzsche said the strongest force in life is the Will to Power, and our society has evolved such that individual power is diminished and continuing to diminish. There is literally almost nothing (I’m being optimistic with that) we can do about things like recessions, and oil spills, and 9 year wars with no end in sight. Don’t worry, I won’t even touch that can of worms. Not right now at least.

4. Peak oil- Perhaps you’ve heard of this. Essentially it is the economic principle of what happens when we run out half our oil. Yes only half. The idea essentially outlines the fall of modern civilization as we know it, resulting in generations of economic depression, huge population drop offs, and well, definitely no pension plans for French people at 60, 62, or 70 years old. Nor Americans for that matter.

I think BP’s website has it worded the best: We depend on energy (read: oil). It fuels our lives and our businesses. The demand for energy grows and supplies get harder to find. We aim to make every well deeper. And we strive to make every refinery we build more efficient, and every tank of petrol we sell even cleaner.

First of all, there is no such thing as clean petrol. But the emphasis added above is mine, and should tell you something if BP is explaining the basic principle of peak oil right on their website. Sure it’s not on the front page, but that’s kind of full of information about all the oil they leaked out into the Gulf of Mexico currently.

My point was simply this. Oil demands grow and supplies diminish. This is a recipe for disaster. Our lifetime or, at best, our children’s and grandchildren’s lifetime.

This afternoon I’m feeling a sense of doom, sure, but even if I felt all was utterly hopeless, I wouldn’t wallow in it. Wars will continue and even increase as resources become scarce. There may even be no sense in learning to grow my own food, because if things get really bad, what little food I could grow for myself would probably be taken away through violence and desperation anyway. Maybe this sounds crazy to some. It even sounds silly to me. I mean, I sit here on a couch in suburbia watching my mother pulling weeds in the yard. My dad sits eating a doughnut at the kitchen table. Tomorrow they will both go to work. In a month I will be starting a graduate program on the west coast. How could I have such a negative outlook? Everything’s fine.

I feel almost like it’s necessary for me to learn to grow my own food and start preparing myself in whatever way imaginable to cope with the fall of civilization. What would I even do if it came to that? What would I do without oil and a global economy? I need to get away from oil, not for environmental reasons, but for my own survival as human beings. It’s not merely personal death that should concern me about the future, but the death of generations, the death of a future, quite possibly even of a planet.

It’s stupid to assume that, because nothing has happened yet, something won’t happen at all. When it does happen no one will know how bad it will be, but most experts agree it will be bad. The future doesn’t look very bright. Anyone thinking of having kids may seriously want to ask themselves if they are prepared and willing to bring another soul into this mess.

We are consuming way too much, way too fast. But that’s not even the sad part. The sad part is that we all know it, and don’t have a real solution. We can look back and say “should have done this,” and “shouldn’t have done that,” but the past is unchangeable.

Act or forget.

Americans who are obsessed with celebrities or pop culture (read: Justin Bieber, American Idol, Twilight, reality TV, iPhones and Android phones &c.) are distracted, delusional, escapist, what have you, but what is the alternative? As much as I hate a lot of things in pop culture, can I blame people for their devil may care attitude sometimes? Not fully. How much of our lives is consumed with coping mechanisms? Be they entertainment, pursuit of money, sex, drugs, politics, prayer.  Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die. That’s the hedonist’s motto, but it could just as easily be “pray, practice charity, ask forgiveness, for tomorrow we die” from the religious person, if it amounts to the same thing. Of course, I realize that for the religious person they believe it doesn’t amount to the same thing, and that certain behaviors will be rewarded over others in another life despite their equal ineffectiveness. I also think this is due to a sense of frustrated justice which is corollary to the great tragedy.

Anyway, tomorrow we do die. People that run around getting others to sign petitions, or even the more zealous who set cop cars on fire are essentially just having a different reaction to the same problem.

Be us ideological activists, devotees to religion and personal piety, entertainment pigs/whores, selfish money grubbing corrupt corporate CEOs, &c. We’re all responding to the same tragedy, and I’m not sure it can be confined to modernity (ignoring post-modernity since it only exists in academic papers), or let’s say “contemporary” society.

So I return. “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t”: the greatest tragedy.

The human condition is this– Impotency of the Individual.

Almost like poetry, on the couch I still sit in the heart of suburbia, as an ominous, dark cloud settles in above. It’s dark as night in my living room now. I hear the thunder.

A hard rain’s a-gonna fall.

Sin City

I just returned from Las Vegas. I’m moving there, so I was looking for an apartment. Good news: I found one not far from UNLV and the Strip. This is also the first time I’ve ever been to Vegas.

As friends and family found out I was moving to Vegas I heard a number of concerns and jokes; most having something to do with prostitutes or gambling of course. I’m going to try to include some posts in the future about what I learn about living in Las Vegas and how it differs from visiting on vacation. So far, I can say this: what you think you know about Vegas, while probably true, has little to nothing to do with living there.

For now alls I have is some pictures.

Post any further inquiries in the comments  ;-)

In other lesser news:

I just got Rosetta Stone program for French. Officially going to start working on that.

Finally going to read Hamlet. I know everyone else and their mother has already read it–everyone except me that is. I’m excited.

A “mall” on the strip

Library at UNLV

A bench

UNLV student union

The building in which I’ll be learning and teaching

Another angle of the library

Existentialist Sticker Pack

We are children each playing with our own sheet of stickers. Each sticker represents a different event or observation made by the self. Everything we come to believe about the world is composed of our stickers. The responsibility to arrange these stickers ultimately falls on the individual, though oftentimes friends, family, teachers, politicians, preachers, enemies, influence the arrangement. Nothing is random or unconnected, but does that yield meaning necessarily? Of course not. In fact, the connectedness of the relationship and experiences in one’s life has no ultimate meaning. The stickers easily could have been arranged in another order and meant as much.

What happens when one realizes this and decides he/she doesn’t like the arrangement? Well the stickers can be moved and rearranged, but upon doing so one is accepting the responsibility for the new arrangement. One is free. One is accountable only to oneself. But the stickers lose their stickiness. One lays them down, but they don’t adhere as convincingly. Perhaps one decides to pile up the stickers altogether, as though to avoid arranging them at all.  Or maybe one sprinkles the newly un-adhesive pieces of paper upon the page, laughing about the arbitrariness of the entire process.

But what is the page in this analogy? What is it we stick the stickers to? It’s not God, because God is a sticker too. Reality? Reality. Sure, perhaps the page represents reality, the ultimate most basic truth. If so, it’s important to remember that the page is blank.

“Important”? hmm.

Is it all connected? Is that the great mystery?

Well of course everything is connected. Call it mysterious, mystical, spiritual, whatever you want.

What does it mean?

Why SHOULD it mean anything?

Some questions are absurd.

An ex-addendum: a transcript.

M- God is disconnected and meaningful.

X- God. I don’t know God. No God for me. The word in itself is just as useless as anything else I say.

M- It is. But you can be all melancholy and French about it or you can embrace it and turn angst into relief. I think it’s a stretch to say “joy.”

X- Relief and joy mean nothing to me.

M-No burden except burdenlessness, which is itself a huge burden. The burden of lifting burdens off others, even if the burden is oneself, or the burden of letting them suffocate underneath. Maybe anguish and melancholy are called for.