There's a piece missing. That seems to be the problem.

Anyone in the world who can find the "audio in" jack on their soundcard can record, edit, and upload their songs to the internet. Any fool with a video camera and i-movie can make a video. Anyone with a library card has access to a word processor, and the internet.

Welcome to 2008. No flying cars yet, but much of the known world can access the media created by anyone else in the world.

The part that is missing is in-between. Now people have access to all the media in the multiverse, but it seems like a lot of people don't know what to listen to, what to watch, what to read...

...because they don't know what they like...

...because they don't know what other people are watching, reading and listening to.

Stupid, right? Well, there's people who like songs because they like them, and there's people who like songs because other people like them.

You might have heard the term "Pop" before, it's actually short for "Popular", like the cute, blonde girl in your school who is always picked for things: Homecoming Queen, Student Council, 'Most Likely to Succeed', and of course, 'Most Popular'. There's people who like her because they actually know her and think she is a likable person, and there's people who like her because other people like her, because it is the popular and accepted opinion to like her, because it would make you an unpopular minority if you chose Not to like her.

TV shows? Movies? Music? Books? Religion? Politics? Same thing.

The difference is that some people actually have some facts to base their opinion on. There are people who take perceptive observations before coming to a judgement, and there's sheeple who need to check with everyone else before making their decision.

Which brings me back to my point: with all the media in the world a few mouse-clicks away, what do you listen to? What do you watch? What do you read? There used to be a 'man' who was more than happy to decide for you what was popular, in the form of your local papers, radio and TV stations: The Man. The Reference.

But that Reference is gone, and there are far too many sources scrambling to replace it. So do we go by Myspace friends or Facebook? Amazon or Rolling Stone?

There's a piece missing. That seems to be the problem.

Or, is it?

Art Is Resistance
-Zero

Labels: Cultural Observation, Culture, Philosophy

It's easy to quickly pass Judgement; on matters especially that of aesthetics; most notably what is or is not Beautiful or Ugly, Good, or Evil. Of course, no one is ever objectively Right or Wrong about these things, because the very concepts are synthetic, man-made.

With that in mind, I've tried to review several new bands, books and movies with what my Philosophy teacher called a "charitable interpretation". Having helped make several movies, songs and with a very-nearly completed book on the way, I am giving other works of art the same kind of review I would like to receive. Which means I try to work past the first impression. I will give bands three songs before I say I like or don't like them. I will read 20 or so pages of a book instead of 20 or so words, before deciding whether I want to keep reading or not, and I will try to maintain my maniacal laughter when looking at poor quality artwork on CD/DVD inserts.

Take this movie for example: A Perfect Creature.

Check out the cover for it. Awful. And comparing your lame-ass vampire move to 'Children of Men' on the cover? Wow, the Audacity. I didn't like the movie right there on the shelf at Hollywood Video, and I didn't even know what it was about...

...First Impressions, heh. Like I was sayin', let's try to move past those, shall we? So I actually took the DVD case down and flipped it over. The synopsis was interesting, a completely different take on the entire vampire mythos. Good, because the one we got could use some "completely different"-ing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm pleased as punch that Anne Rice recovered the Vampire from a B-Movie bloodsucking machine back into the sophisticated evil anti-hero I think Bram Stoker intended when he wrote Dracula. But is this all we got? Cause if no one has anything new, then it's time we packed up and moved on. I might have mentioned this before.

Anyway, I'm glad I moved through my initial perception of this and rented "A Perfect Creature", because it was an extremely good movie.

First off, despite the very very Very poor quality graphics on the DVD case, the movie was, in fact, Not Independent as I initially thought. It has the 20th Century Fox brand on it, although the handful of production companies sound as dodgy as a used car salesman's last day at work.

Second, it wasn't just the plot that was good. The whole alternate-reality mythos created by Glen Standring (an Archaeologist!!!) is amazing and well thought out. Humans and vampires get along in a completely mutually beneficial, sacred, and peaceful relationship! Wow, wrap your mind around that one, then add in the fact that the movie was given a grayish 60-s feel, especially regarding technology.

Aside from these things, it uses a pretty standard good-guy/bad-guy action adventure plot, that moves along just quick enough. The movie had decent scoring, and Excellent art direction, esp. some great angular shots that added to the strangeness of this alternate universe.

After seeing it, I would have to agree that A Perfect Creature is a reasonable cross between Children of Men, 28 Days Later, and of all things "The Chronicles of Riddick" No, really!

Anyway, the lesson is to not judge a book, DVD or local band by their covers.

KTHXBYE,
-CZ

Labels: movie reviews, Philosophy

Every now and again, there are albums that I have to play. HAVE to. Must. After a while, the pain of Not playing them becomes unbearable. If my spirit was a plant, these recordings would be sunlight and water. If my spirit were an addict, these recordings would be Audio Crystal Meth:

Marillion - Brave (1994)
Marillion - Misplaced Childhood (1985)
Marillion - marillion.com (1999)
Nine Inch Nails - The Downward Spiral (1994)
Nine Inch Nails - Pretty Hate Machine (1989)
Nirvana - Nevermind (1991)
Marilyn Manson - Antichrist Superstar (1996)
Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon (1973)
Pink Floyd - Animals (1977)
Pink Floyd - The Wall (1979)
Pink Floyd - The Final Cut (1983)
Dire Straits - Brothers In Arms (1985)
Neil Young - Unplugged (just the first half...) (1993)
Robert Plant - Now and Zen (1988)
REM - Document (1987)
Days of the New (1997)
Bob Mould - Bob Mould (1996)
Nixon Pupils - Helldozer (mid 1990s)
Johnny Jones - Small Sacrifices (mid 1990s)

Notice how none of these albums was made after the year 2000? I'm trying to figure out why. With access to damn near every single band in the world available through myspace.com, you would think I would still be finding music that I simply can't live without, but that's not the case.

Is it because newer music is fundamentally different in some way? Looking at Billboard's top 10 I only recognize two of them, one being Korn, and the other (I'm ashamed to say) is Fergie. Yes, I've listened to the entire Dutchess album, and already forgotten what that was like. Is the 'click' gone from current music? Are newer songwriters and bands less talented than they were in the 80s or 90s?

Perhaps the problem is me. Have I fundamentally changed? Most certainly, I'm not remotely the person I was in the 90s. But I still listen to music, and I love music so much I play it all the time. The world just seems empty without it, like watching an epic adventure movie without a soundtrack or score.

Perhaps it is a little of both? Is it because at that point in my life the music clicked with me, and current music doesn't? I don't think so, I have a car-full of CDs that click with me right now, but I can't say I'll be dying to hear Velvet Revolver, Kamelot, or Black Label Society years from now.

Oh well, something for my Inner Philosopher to think about when he gets back from vacation.

Now notice that there isn't a single album in that list with a female lead singer...

KTHXBYE,
-CZ

Labels: Culture, Inner Philosopher, music, Philosophy

It would be an interesting test to see how much marketing and advertising affects product sales:

What would happen to sales of Coca Cola if they completely STOPPED advertising? Continue making the product, continue selling the product, but no more commercials. No more ads. No more endorsements.

If you are a marketing exec, you want to believe deep down in your ...well, the place where normal people have a soul, (but since you are a marketing exec, you don't, so I suppose ...deep down in that place where a soul belongs,) you believe that everyone would stop buying the product.

But would they?

Same for bands - imagine if, at the height of their career, the Beatles hid underground and never let another picture of themselves grace the outside world. No contact with the public. No e-mails. No web presence. No updates except the albums themselves. They could still tour wearing masks or gorilla outfits, or behind a curtain. Would this change their music? Of course not. Would it change their music sales, if all you had was the music and album cover art?

After all, how many of you know what Pablo Picasso looks like? Or Howard Shore? Or James Cameron?

How come music fans and industry alike demand to know who you are, and what you look like, and where you are from? If an old, balding Jewish guy wrote a song that was simply the Hit of the summer, would people Not buy it?

I think they would.

I think they did.

KTHXBYE,
-CZ

Labels: consumerism, Cultural Observation, music, Philosophy

Wikipedia has a List of Horror Film Killers, and looking through it, there are not as many different horror protagonists as you might think. (In horror film, anyways.)

They tend to fall into the following genre categories
-Aliens
-Monsters
-Deranged Humans (Jason, Michael Meyers, etc...)
-Serial Killers (Hannibal, Zodiac, etc...)
-Undead/Zombies
-Inanimate Articles (Cars, Houses, Videotapes, Dolls...)
-Clowns
-Vampires

I was wondering why the Least frightening item on the list is the most popular.

Vampires are not that scary. I think they are scarcely worthy of Horror genre. They are Gothic for sure, and that's why I still enjoy the movies like Underworld or Blade.I try to understand the interest (more like Craze) that found it's Rennaisance with Anne Rice's novels (sorry, never read them), and Buffy The Vampire Slayer (never seen them, but I'm not sorry about it).
I will say it again, so there is no misunderstanding.

Vampires are Pussies. Lame-O. Horror-Lite.

...and I mean that in the derogatory sense. Which would you rather meet in a dark alley, a vampire, or one of the creatures from the movie Alien?

Horror genre should be horrifying! Terrifying! It literally should make your skin crawl! It doesn't have to be a gore-fest, because gross is not the same thing as horror, and it doesn't have to be a shock-fest because shock is not the same thing as horror, but it also not Anita Blake. My only explanation is that people want to have that little thrill rush which only being scared provides,but they can't handle the real thing, so they settle for Diet-Horror, or Horror-Lite.

Scare on,
-CZ

Labels: Cultural Observation, Philosophy

My step-grandmother passed away recently, and the funeral was yesterday. My step-grandfather is a member of the Ojibwe tribe in Hinkley, MN and therefore, part of the funeral ritual was conducted by a Medicine Man, which included 'smudging' all of us with sage, and 'passing the pipe'.

It was a much more moving ceremony than the traditional pastor-in-the-pulpit, rambling on some jibber-jabber that sounded more like a lecture, and even more like it was written out in advance, all the blanks filled in with the appropriate names.

Instead of an hours worth of rhetoric, the medicine man told us about a dream he had. It was not only short, but also meaningful and memorable. I don't think I will ever forget it, and I can quote it to you here.

Life is a like a path through the woods. The path is long, and sometimes people want to take a shortcut. But those who try to take a shortcut get lost, and have to go back, and start over. Those who take the long way get to the end first.

At the end of the path, you meet the Creator. He looks at some and says, 'You are ready to come with me, your work here is done.' To others he says, 'I am leaving you behind, because you still have something here to do.'

So if your're reading this, I guess you still have some work to do. And I bet it's not reading this lame-ass blog.

Blog on,
-CZ

Labels: A Day In The Life, Philosophy

[The following is an Open Letter to the Open Source Believers out there...]

There was a time when many people thought we could all just live together in Harmony with the world, like Thee Olden Dayse of Yore. Someone would farm, someone would bake the bread, someone would herd the sheep (Since there would be no need for a King, I would be the Hangman...) and we would All Just Get Along Together. I do believe this theory (Communist, Socialist, Whateverist-you-wantist-to-call-it-ist) would work, just as long as everyone actually puts in, and everyone gets what they give. Of couse, we have never seen this work in government, because no government has ever done it. (Although some small, isolated communities in Micronesia might be doing this. And I would even bet *they* use the Metric system, unlike SOME COUNTRIES WE MIGHT NAME...but I digress...)

I have heard people who agree with this philosophy called TreeHuggers.

I see this same paradigm in software today. There are those who think we can just All Program Along Together, Also known as The Open Source Movement. If everyone applies their collective brainpower and coding ability to a problem, it will easily get solved. Even those who are merely end users can contribute by providing constructive feedback, thinking up features, and beta testing. Bam, we all win.

I suggest the word BitHugger be used for individuals who believe that software can be developed this way. I don't mean for this to be a derogatory term, it just seems to fit nicely, and makes some intuitive sense.

I surprised myself to discover that I don't really think that software can be maintained this way for long. Projects like Linux and OpenOffice are phenomenal, and prove that it Can be done, but right now, there is the pervasive "Microsoft Is Evil" philosophy that fuels the online community to work hard at "Sticking it to the Man!" Dude! It's the new Revolution! Make a program just like Windows, and give it away for FREE! HA HA HA! BLOW ME BILL GATES!!! HAHAHAHAHAH....

But what happens once The Man is gone? What happens when Microsoft is bought out and disbanded by Google, and Bill Gates has to fall back on his mad skillz (whatever those are?) What happens once some new bug is discovered in OpenOffice, and now there is NO ALTERNATIVE? Some 13-year-old Hacker in Seattle figures out the fix, and sits there with her finger on the [Submit to CVS] button...and realizes...

"Why should I send this to the world for free?"

Of course, she quickly offers the patch (for a reasonable price) and becomes "THE MAN".

Here in The United States of A-more-ica, we work for a purpose. Always. Coding may be entertainment for some sick individuals, but at some point, you need a continued motivation to continue working. Once the "stick it to the man" fuel runs out, and you aren't getting paid to fix bugs, what are you working for? Prestige? The Golden Code Award?

The only thing for certain is that Americans will not work for free, which is why I believe that the BitHugger philosophy will be short lived.

Blog on,
-CZ

Labels: New Word, Open Letter, Philosophy, Programming, Technology

I like surveys. They are like a test that you always score 100% no matter what you answer. So I was taking a survey for the University about leadership when I tripped over this question:

'Being seen as a person of integrity is important to me.'

and the accompanying bubbles to click on, indicating that I strongly agree or disagree on a scale of one to five.

I instinctively clicked Strongly Disagree, because I truly could give a shit what anyone thinks about me. But for some reason, I could not move on until my Inner Philosopher could get a question answered: 'What does that answer mean?'

When I looked at my answer, it seemed strange, as though this were a question I was in very real danger of getting wrong. My Inner Philosopher piped up again, 'Does this mean you don't *care* if you are non-integral person?'

The problem is whether the question was related to *being* a person of integrity, or *being seen* as a person of integrity. Assuming the second, my answer was simple.

'Of course I do, I just don't care if you see it or not.'

That shut my Inner Philosopher up right quick. I don't care what he thinks about me either. Nosy bastard.

Blog on,
-CZ

Labels: Inner Philosopher, Philosophy

OK, I knew there was something wrong with the prevailing theories, and now the truth is revealed. The world was, in fact, created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Further Useful Info from the website:


You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s.


The author requests, nay Demands that the FSM theory be taught in schools alongside the the other popular creation theories.

[UPDATE]
You know when Wikipedia lists it, it's gospel.

And, here is a link to the game (Warning: Popups)


Blog on,
-CZ

Labels: Cool Website, Funny, Philosophy, Religion, Ubercool

Z4,

I was just doing research on a book I'm writing (a fictional work on Demonology) and I hit on your website, and had to tell you I really enjoyed it! Plenty of reference links, and you clearly know your subject, and aren't just flaming to be heard. Your layout is well structured, and I really enjoyed your sense of humor.(fluffbunnies?)

Furthermore, I agreed with every word. (Well, as much as I read of it anyways, which was quite a lot...)

My belief (of course, each e-mail you get has to include at least a hint at the sender's belief system, right?) as far as religion is concerned is that we have two choices:

1 - We can choose to fit ourselves into an existing religion. This requires changing any of your beliefs that don't agree with that religion, unless it happens to exactly match your beliefs. I would say that those are some LONG odds that you find a religion that matches what you believe. (if this did in fact happen for many
people, it might hint at a higher truth OR religious belief built into our genetic code OR alien conspiracy theory...)

I don't like this option, as it seems like being untrue to yourself, but the nice thing about it is you have people to eat pancakes with on Sunday.

2 - We can incorporate the parts that 'agree' with our belief systems, and 'roll our own'. So if people want to incorporate Faerie Worship and Aromatherapy into their personal religion, that's fine. (Mostly) I would point out that there is a danger of ending up with what I would call an 'imbalanced' or 'incomplete' religion. By this, I mean deciding to worship the God and ignore the Goddess (or vice-versa) and let's not dwell on what kind of problems might manifest from this belief system, but hopefully people will see/know the parts lacking, and seek to fill in the empty spaces. Consider this to be a neverending process, resulting in a personal religion that grows with the person, and NEVER considers itself to be 'finished' or 'complete'. (Is this a bad thing?)

I prefer this option, although it probably easier to follow the Option 1, and pick your belief system off the shelf, than it is to soul-search and ask yourself questions like, "How do I Really feel about Abortion/Faeries/5-Fold Kisses/Pancakes/Etc...?"

It is unfortunate that many people who want to rebel against the religion forced upon them at birth turn to Pagan/Wiccan beliefs half-heartedly, or with just enough knowledge about the subject to make them annoying. Hopefully your website helps the world in that regard.

For what it's worth,
Conrad Zero

Labels: Philosophy, Religion

Posted by Zero10:42 PM

 

A liberal arts education was once considered the rule at the university. A student entering college could be expected to know something beyond their major—they had to be exposed to history, literature, mathematics, and science. They had to have a basic understanding of rhetoric and be able to communicate what they’ve learned through a variety of methods. Now, as universities have become focused on student's career needs, the model of a liberal arts education has begun to dwindle in the face of undergraduate business schools, specialized trade schools, and the growth of specialized cultural studies departments that supplement the notion of a “life-long scholar.”

Keynote speaker Raimond Gaita, a philosopher at King's College London, kicked off the conference with an anecdote about a gathering of leading philosophers at Leeds early in the Thatcher years, when universities felt under siege from the market-oriented conservative government. If a university eliminated its philosophy department, they told a junior government minister they had invited, it couldn't be called a university. "That's OK," the minister replied. "We'll call it something else."

But for Gaita, it's not just budget-cutting conservatives who must be defended against. He reserves a special scorn for academic leaders who have "debased" the academy by pretending that fields like Hospitality and Gaming Studies have a place at a university. A true liberal education, he says one in which learning is pursued for its own sake, and is based on the idea that broad literacy prepares students to act as educated, enlightened citizens requires a "community of scholars" who are not worried about job-placement rates, or the relevance of their work to government officials, and who view a life of scholarship "as a vocation," not simply a career. "We couldn't well imagine Socrates taking early retirement," Gaita said.[…]

A university's job, said [technologist Nicholas Negroponte, founder and chairman of the Media Lab at MIT], is to "promote creativity." Traditional academics delude themselves when they say that they must be cut off from practical fields like engineering and the business world to do the best work. Corporations come to places like MIT's Media Lab to encourage "high risk" work, and that's where universities have the potential to make real breakthroughs. Negroponte argued that all universities should abolish traditional departments, group scholars together, and require industry collaboration.

But not all scientists at the meeting were as blithely unconcerned. Vernon Rosario, who teaches psychiatry at the University of California at Los Angeles, said he worries that the next generation in his field is far too narrow, interested only in neuroscience and not the many other factors that go into psychiatry. He now assumes, he said, that his new residents in psychiatry have never read Freud.

Indeed, while an undergraduate degree in business can get you a job in middle management, it is almost impossible to enter into a M.B.A. program with a Bachelor of Business degree: most of the respected M.B.A. programs consider you “ruined.”

(Written by: christopher)

Related...

[SuicideGirls: News Wire]

Labels: Culture, Philosophy

Buddhism, the short version, for when the version on Wikipedia is too long to read...

-C

Labels: Philosophy, Religion