...Deception.

"Now I believe I can hear the philosophers protesting that it can only be misery to live in folly, illusion, deception and ignorance, but it isn't -it's human." -Erasmus of Rotterdam

(Note: I do take liberties within this discourse, out of need stylistically, to leave out other variables. I will however answer any and all reasonably argued questions that appear in comments as this work is just a piece of a much larger whole)

Man thinks himself at the forefront of evolutionary promise, the metaphorical end-all to the evolutionary process; or otherwise man believes himself superior to "Animal" or even his fellow man; or otherwise he denies his innate superiority to procure within social strata his own superiority as "humble"; or etc. Likewise, the phrase "survival of the fittest" tends to be thrown around in reference to this human "nationalism", the human species being the "nation". And not only this, but all natural selection brought about by the process haphazardly described as "survival of the fittest" is attributed progressive positivism, leading us from the needlessly complex to the simplistic perfection of future evolution. But what of deception? What of the inherent, naturally human, element of discourse that linguistically and psychologically plays a part in our everyday interaction? It's easy for one to state that humanity is in itself "animal", a part of the naturalistic process whereby humans seem to dominate. But I argue that humanity inherently nullifies the process of progressive positivism akin to "survival of the fittest" by including deception. What do I mean by deception, though? I simply mean the ability of a being of higher intelligence, through action or implicit wording, to manipulate another being of intelligence into procreation without the use of positive attributes to lure acceptable mating (a man, by all accounts with no positive attribute but intelligent wording or action, who lures in a woman of many positive genetic attributes or vice versa). These persons of the latter variety are, for all intents and purposes, "normal", whereas the persons in the former variety, though of intelligence enough to make a case for procreation on the grounds of deception (e.g. stating one is different to ones appearance, or that ones wealth will make up for ones faults, etc.), "stupid". By "stupid" I mean not those persons whose "inherent", "visible", "verifiable", intelligence is lesser to my own, but I mean rather those subsets of persons whose reactive substance has yet to grasp the flood of information which occurs in the so called "Information Age", thereby reflexively dimming the "inherent" intelligence of those persons. These subsets are at their most basic of two varieties: 1) those persons who have yet to assimilate to the fast-paced influx of information and then allow themselves to be ignorant of common theoretical, scientific, political, etc. progress and therefore tout obscure or out of date - nullified, in a sense - views (i.e. people of lower class, usually [in American terminology], or otherwise those of a higher class without time to spare [business persons, etc.)making themselves retroactively out to be labelled "stupid" (though it must always be taken as "misinformed"); these are usually those of a former generation as well, without proper access to information or access to too much information; and 2) those persons, usually of the generation current, who have assimilated to this "flood", but in a way which leaves them to only pick bits and pieces of what is relevant to them (in terms of information) and accept (but in general ignore, out of impatience or inattention) other ideological views, but take them as irrelevant to their immediacy making themselves retroactively to seem tunnel-visioned and pig-headed ("stupid", "misinformed", etc.). This second subset is that of the young entertainment addict, the existence of which reminds me of a story I once wanted to write about a man living in an old flat with a roommate. These two become great friends over the course of their stay, but something within the flat doesn't seem quite right. It turns out to be that the flat is haunted by a friendly spirit who attaches itself to the man, who (i.e. the man) is hesitant at first but quickly discovers the ghost is the greatest possible friend he could have, with a wealth of information, ability to access or bring any part of the world into existence before this man's very eyes. The man becomes obsessed and refuses to leave the house, quickly leading the roommate to move out. The metaphor is obvious, and rather cheesy, which is why it was never ultimately written, but it seems apropos to the situation at hand. Entertainment has become a literal specter invading the lives of any first world citizen. But what of deception here is even visible? The deception here is that of the entertainment, the comfort by which procreation can even be possible; but here procreation is metaphorical, the procreation at hand is the procreation of even positive thoughts, progressive thoughts which come from initiative, or even thought at all. And it is through this subset of entertainment addict that we see the most viable nullification of the natural selection principle. These persons, for whom entertainment has become their only modus operandi, are experienceless. A posteriori learning, in vein of Kant, is nonexistent in the ethereal world, not because no experience comes of it (indeed there is much to be learned from entertainment, especially via internet) but rather because there is so much experience available that TEMPORAL experience (i.e. experience outside the area one is accustomed to living) becomes superfluous. Here deception takes the guise of ignorance and misinformation simply because so much information is available, so much contradictory information that each thought has a counter-thought which destroys the others possibility of universal truth. So how can one defy the methodological deception that becomes an inherent part of modern living? Now more than ever we must instill a notion not of tolerance but of strict personal ideologico-political suspension in order to rid ourselves of deceptive influence. By this I mean the ideologico-political ideas which construct themselves in the forms of individualism. We must become a part of no system, not even the herd system of individuality, in order to nullify the lack-of-temporal-experience extant via deception. Even altruism, an act so violently tied to our minds, is deception at work. And this is precisely active in the modern political environment. In a recent YouTube video by the activist organization known only as "Anonymous", the org. highlighted a political bill: 112th Congress (2011 -- 2012) | S.1867 | Latest Title: National Defense Authorization Act for. This bill will effectively, according to the masked figure (signature of the Anonymous) presenting the video, turn the United States of America into a war zone allowing the government to detain without trial anyone they consider to be in line with terrorism. Here the deception takes the guise of altruism. The government wishes to "altruistically" give the American people the security they wished for out of fear after the 9/11 attacks. The procreation this inhibits is, likewise to the former guise, metaphorical: the procreation of freedom of revolutionary action. As any mildly intelligent person in America knows, there is a major difference between terrorism and wishing democratically for a better government (i.e. revolutionary action along the lines of anti-totalitarianism), but this bill will allow for the government (Federal) to blur the lines between and destroy the rights of freedom of speech and the right to due process. The question presents itself though: will the American people "take the bait" of deceptive influence and state that "our need for security outweighs our need for freedom"? Firstly, I might respond with a quote by Benjamin Franklin, "Any nation willing to sacrifice a modicum of freedom for a modicum of security deserves neither and will lose both.", but this adage does not state one way or another the American opinion, but rather my own. Secondly, I might respond by referencing the work of German and UK neuroscienctists on the possibility of negative events happening in the future:

"[They] designed a fairly complex psychological test to determine how people planned for negative events in the future. First, they asked the about the likelihood of 80 different disturbing events happening, such as contracting a fatal disease or being attacked. After they'd recorded people's responses, researchers told each subject the actual, statistical likelihood of such events happening. In some cases, people had overestimated the likelihood and in some cases they'd underestimated it. Then, after some time had passed, the researchers asked subjects again about the likelihood of these events happening to them. Interestingly, they found that people had a much harder time adjusting their expectations if the real-world statistical likelihood was higher than what they had first guessed. They had little trouble adjusting expectations for a more favorable outcome. It was as if people were selectively remembering the likelihoods of future events — forgetting the bad odds but not the good ones."

So it would seem, based on the research, that the American public is going to react to this with mixed emotion and general positivism, which (if you click the youtube link at the end of this passage and read some of the comments to the video) is seemingly what is happening. An outcry from some, yes, but from most it is all talk and zero action. So a new question presents itself: how long before people actually stand up and take notice? How long before people are again willing to die for a cause?


Works Cited:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrXyLrTRXso&feature=share

http://io9.com/5848857/your-brain-wont-allow-you-to-believe-the-apocalypse-could-actually-happen%3Ftag%3Dneuroscience

...shame, and anger.

http://unicornbooty.com/blog/2011/11/22/pregnant-occupy-protestor-miscarries-after-being-beaten-pepper-sprayed-by-police/ Note: the video included in this link is distrubing, viewer discretion is advised.

This story is the prime example of why the OWS protest needed too occur, and needs to continue until the goals it has set forth too accomplish are reached. This blatant display of brute force by the police, and therefore the government, is proof that change needs to occur in this country. We cannot go on allowing our Great Nation too be run by cowards, fools, and power hungry despots, and the only way too stop that is too stop Congress and the Senate from keeping the power that they have. They have perverted the values which this Glorious Union was founded upon, and they need too be stopped. If you still think this is a government by and for the people then rise up with your voice and speak out against the atrocities committed by the administration, not just the Obama administration but the entire bureaucratic machine as a whole. Scoff at retribution, and do not allow fear too stifle your voice. It is the last, and most powerful weapon we have, and it can never be taken away. I am a man that loves my country, and a citizen of the United States of America and my voice will be heard, come hell or high water I will not be silenced and neither should you!

-Mike

...Men in the Media. (Part 1)

Plight of a Modern Man

There have been countless studies done on how the media affects body image, of women. However very little research has been done in the way it affects men. People seem to just assume women are the only ones who can be dissatisfied with how they look, and if men are dissatisfied, well heck they can just go to the gym and burn off a few pounds working out. What people seem to not realize is that the media, has an affect on the personal body image of men, as well as women, and that it is detrimental to them, just as it is to women. Although the researchers on this topic are few and far between the works of Jonasen, Krcmar, and Sohn, as well as the works of Agliata and Tantleff-Dunn help shed some light on the problem.

Not only does the media make men feel worse about their bodies, it also makes making fun of them for their weight a perfectly accepted practice. In, Why It’s ok to Laugh at Fat Guys?, Catherine Lawson discusses this problem. Lawson discusses Mckeen’s article titled A Man’s Guide to Slimming Couture and how it makes light of fat men with its tone, and blunt writing style. Then the most important question that could be asked dawns upon her, “Would I be laughing if these were fashion tips for women?” (Lawson, 83) Would you, would any of you? If these jokes were insulting the plight of overweight women, their would be an uproar of activists and rights organizations, Mckeen would have to publicly apologize or face horrible crippling publicity. Thankfully though, he was only making fun of fat men.

However the media doesn’t do it’s part to even the playing field between fat men and fat women. The overweight men on T.V. such as Peter Griffin from Family Guy, or Kevin James from The King of Queens, never have a problem keeping the “hot” skinny wife. However the minute, you see a woman on T.V. with even a few extra pounds she’s always single, until she sheds the pounds and becomes pretty. Ok it’s not exactly fair for women either, however that doesn’t make it any more fair for men.

In the media, women may always have to be skinny to be popular, or pretty, or even to have a boyfriend, but whether or not the men don’t have to change, they’re still ridiculed for their weight. Whether it’s the carefully veiled insult, represented by what and/or how much he eats, or the flat out fat jokes from his wife, and friends, the jolly T.V. fat man is the butt of all them. The problems aren’t even limited to only T.V.,

The same Kevin James does even better in the 2005 movie Hitch, when he hires “date doctor” Will Smith to help him win the heart of Amber Valetta. Not once does Hitch say the obvious “You’re short and dumpy and you want a supermodel. Are you nuts?” instead we get his soothing philosophy, “Any man has the chance to sweep any woman off her feet.” (84)

Whether or not he got the girl in the end, and the prevailing philosophy throughout the film that any man can get any woman, James’s character was still made to look like a fool, and clearly had self esteem problems brought on by his weight, and the only thing that made him able to finally get the girl was the help of a silky suave “date doctor.” The simple fact that Mckeen’s article elicited no outrage from the people, just helps to show how content we have all become in the idea that it’s perfectly alright to laugh at fat men.

“I called Scott Mckeen to ask if there had been any complaints about his article when it ran in the Edmonton Journal. “Not a one,” he said.” (84)

In Brandon Keim’s article The Media Assault on Male Image Keim discusses the consequences of men having a negative male body image.

In the Movie Fight Club, the character Tyler Durden, played by Brad Pitt, boards a bus and is confronted by an advertisement depicting a model’s perfectly muscled, fantasy male body sculpted by pathological obsession and posed as if natural. “Is that what a real man is supposed to look like?” he asks (Keim 45)

Well that’s the million dollar question isn‘t it, are these “beautiful,” sculpted, roman god caricatures really what men are supposed to look like? For so long the media has objectified women, the research on the effects of this objectification on the common woman is nearly endless. Lately though, changes have occurred that close the gap between the genders. Gone are the fat, flabby husbands with their beautiful skinny fit wives. Now everywhere you turn your barraged with an unending torrent of the “image of the perfect man,” the perfectly fit, athletic bronzed god. Albeit they are an attractive idea of what men should like. They have “perfect” bodies, and they’re pretty boys, however that still leaves the all important question hanging in the air, is that really what men should look like? Keim seems to disagree, he looks into the research side, and finds that men do actually have body image issues. He finds that the constant exposure to these images, is detrimental to men. Problems like, sweat, hair, or body odor, are worsened tenfold. In the media these things are taken out of the equation, men are shaved, or their body hair is photo shopped out, the sweat is replaced with “glisten,” and as Keim so eloquently puts it “…, and you can’t smell someone through a magazine.” (46)

The small flaws that a man has, neigh that anyone would honestly have, are brought out into the light because of these kinds of advertisement and other forms of media. The smallest bit of a gut, or unshaped bicep, any trace body odor not immediately hidden by deodorant, and drowned in cologne, are dragged kicking and screaming to the front, and displayed like a badge of dishonor to any and all onlookers.

...Is Common Sense Still Common?

"Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason." -Thomas Paine, Common Sense (Introduction)

In light of the recent "tumult" of the OWS protests and the reproach of the American middle class of the greed, and oppressive denial thereof, of the top 1% (economically speaking), this opening to one of the founding seminal works of American political philosophy greatly parallels this modern politico-philosophical awakening. Although we can be certain Paine was speaking of the then revolutionary idea of American sovereignty, it's easy to take this opening to its metaphorical extreme to be understood as ANY "revolutionary" idea of sovereignty, and at that any sovereignty at all. This includes the individual as sovereign. Sovereign of the oppression of any power which deems itself above the will of the majority, especially in a "democratic" society (which, because of the voicelessness of the general election, does not exist in America; what we have in place, rather, is the Federalist Republic envisioned by Hamilton and Madison). But, the will of this majority effectively superseded by private interest, in public sight and with a scarily confident flaunting thereof, American citizens utilize this very same corrupted "democratic" system of election and lawmaking to deface the system they're attempting to ratify. They concede to work within the realm of peaceful assembly (which as Rowden has shown below is not quite as peaceful [in the sense of being angrily dispersed]) and peaceful protest or election of new, pre-determinedly Democratic or Republican, delegates to change an unmanageably corrupted system. This all makes me wish to ask "where has the common sense, so idyllically American, gone?" But this is ultimately the wrong question to ask. I should rather be tempted to say: "when will the common sense, converted, brought by time, finally get here?" Because we started out exactly how politicians wanted it to be, with private interest and greed at the forefront, we must MAKE the time of true democratic, revolutionary conversion come, not just play around with the system like cats at that old ball of yarn. When I say we, I mean the American citizenry, that very same citizenry supposedly founded on ultimate freedoms. But can we pull it off? Have we gone too far into corruption, so far as to desire our own subjugation? Or are we yet salvageable, through the individualization Deleuze and Guattari envisioned their "body without organs" to possess? Free from the fascistic machinations of everyday living, internal and external, and fighting for the sovereignty we once thought we deserved? The answer, as Paine himself seemed to know painfully clearly, only time will tell.

...Police Brutality "A Ramble by Mike."

Recently a news article was posted on Yahoo.com about the Occupy Wall Street Movement. For those who know nothing about the movement, Occupy Wall Street is a series of demonstrations which hope too take the corporate influence out of government, and too end the current unemployment issue. But I digress, the article was written on the subject of the movement finally having an iconic image too focus on, that of 20 year old Brandon Watts. The young man "supposedly" threw a battery at NYPD officer who were in the process of erecting a barricade, and then grabbed one of the officers hats. After viciously hurling him too the ground and "arresting" him, he sustained a gash too his forehead and his blood covered face was plastered across the news sphere. It seems that OWS finally has it's iconic image. Maybe I'm sheltered in some way, but I find that the amount of force police exert on protesters on a regular basis is far beyond that which is necessary. The people assembled protest peacefully, and then are brutally retaliated against with "non-lethal" weapons such as rubber bullets, pepper spray, and tear gas. I've read about, and researched the effects of such deterrents. Rubber bullets are not harmless in the least bit, they leave massive, and I mean soft ball sized, welts on their victims, and can kill if used in the wrong way, which they are often enough. Pepper spray and tear gas are anything but non-lethal and have been known too kill as well. Don't even get me started on tasers. When did police brutality become ok, was it the Vietnam protests, or Korea? When did officers sworn too "serve and protect" become the brutish bully boys who strike fear into the hearts of those who see them? When did the friendly neighborhood Officer Johnson die off? In a country founded on open rebellion, civil disobedience, and riots the irony of an over zealous and brutal police force does not escape me.

...I Guess I'm Privileged.

*I owe this line of thinking to conversation with my fellow administrator and good friend Mike.

As I sit here in my gaudy kitchen, surrounded by a seemingly infinite amount of food and drink (so long as my family keeps having me here to stay when I'm at University) I am persistently reminded of the idea of "privilege". As a young American male who grew up in the 90's, the only real threat (and not quite so directly as family has insisted) to my meager existence is the threat of terrorism. Never have I had to worry about "crushing poverty", etc., the likes of which our Middle Eastern brothers and sisters have had. And even then, when I said brothers and sisters, I'm sure anyone Conservative-minded reading this said/thought to his or her self: "This kid is just a Democrat who thinks he's saying the right thing by being tolerant." Or otherwise they said nothing and moved on (it's pompous to presuppose readers when this is my first post, anyway). But let's get it out in the open: I am Democratic in most my views, Libertarian often, Socialist sometimes, even, but these transcriptions, these transitive ideological labels which are thrust down our throats these days are just parameters which attempt to quantify the parenthetically infinite ability of human thought, which although within the American bubble society we live in is viable, it is in actuality such a subjective thing to be quantified so as to be nullified by its very vastness. (In England, for instance, I would be called a Conservative.) But so, and in spite of it all, I am to American society a Democrat. But don't misunderstand me when I naively try to objectively empathize and be "tolerant" by saying things like "counterparts" or "brothers, sisters". If anything this is just my inability, in a Wittgenstein-esque philosophical parse, to express my thought fully, i.e. I am guided by the imperfect and metaphorical English language. But even here I am plagued by the idea "privilege": my well-read (albeit scatterbrained) interpretation of the idea of privilege, my ability to access an internet database to support, reiterate, elaborate this idea and spread it over a social entity (which is what the internet has elaborated its own self into, in a Hegelian Spiritual by-production [i.e. the internet as entity has become the by-product outcome of internet's inception proper]), etc. But what in relation to this "privilege" makes itself so? "Privilege" seems, by this parse, to be just as subjective as anything else. By this we can only make the basic assumption that someone (to utilize the definition of privilege as having more) in the world, somewhere, is lesser to the extent of viable living status that has thus temporally existed for me throughout my life. I can only assume this level of living (nice house, backyard, computers, t.v., food every day, etc.) is not universal but contingently tangential to the capitalist productivity system; my parents work within capitalism and so are able to afford what they have and allow me to use. And so, if we take on assumption and informational precedence to the idea (i.e. that knowledge has so been spread so as to make it "truth") that I am "privileged" beyond that of an Middle Eastern lay-family, it becomes inherent that it is so. Now if we take this inherent, and now proven true, idea and reverse it to be the reference point for a Middle Eastern Muslim family living in a broken home - the very living and tangible idea of "poverty" in relation to my "privilege" - then it's easy to see why famed Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek can claim that the main reason the Middle Eastern Muslim community can lash out so fervently at the US is out of "envy" for the very privilege I seem to embody. But this is such an easy mistake to make. What Zizek falls victim to here is what I like to call the "European Fallacy": the very contrast which I've outlined, the difference between "privilege" and "poverty" is misdirected, misunderstood, fallaciously made to seem as if it is a matter of "living standard" (the status quo inherently visible in the idea of the European Union and globalization) when it is really a matter of "choice standard". Middle Easterners are in a state of "poverty of choice" which they take as a given and attempt to make the best of through prayer and other religious outlets; having thus appropriated their "poverty", the inverse relation becomes apparent: the "privilege of choice" that they see as inherent in the American politico-ideological system of Democracy. They, the Middle Easterners, fall fate to having no "insider" knowledge of America. They assume that we, as a Democratic representational system, have an exact say in what our government does, equated as: 1 vote = 1 part of the decision whole = government action. They do not see, as Americans can plainly see, that the government itself is responsible for the full amount of decisions made and only allows us to think we are making a difference, exemplified by the horribly insulting mask of the "electoral college as representative of the general election's outcome", when truthfully it is the electoral college which is the representation of its OWN outcome, retroactively becoming itself in an attempt to appear as something else. What we Americans really live under is a Republic, selected by officials to benefit officials, and the Arab world is blind to this inner ruse. So it is out of envy, certainly, but an envy directed entirely elsewhere, much like a child who sees his brother picked up and lashes out at, to the adult, seemingly nothing when really all he wants is to be picked up as well, whereas the true intention of the adult (the governing state) is seemingly impenetrable to EITHER child, until one of them is informed, directly or indirectly (the guise of the electoral college, failing economy, lies about "discussions" over petitions, etc.). The intention of the adult, within the adult, is not to favor this child over the other, but rather is always to benefit the adult in some subjective way. But, and this translates easily into reality, the will of the adult in favor of the adult ALWAYS damages both children: the brother see's his brother's suffering, while the other see's favoritism. So I guess I'm "privileged", but privilege itself comes as a double-edged sword, and at that a sword long enough to cut off all our heads.