Breaking "Bonds"?

Shout-out to Paul & Jack.

Here is an article on an NYU student who killed himself earlier in the month by leaping from the tenth floor of a library.

If you read through the comments (where the news is really @ these days), there's this gem:

"Suicide is a natural part of society. More resources for the rest of us. Sad the dude offed himself though cause he looked like the George lazenby James bond"

To which somebody else replies, "I thought he offed himself BECAUSE he looked like George Lazenby. However, I still think Timothy Dalton was the worst bond."

Fortunately someone with a Hello Kitty avatar managed to offer some more compassionate commentary, but shit-damn.

Ok, but just to get it out of the way, who was the worst Bond?

I was not a fan of the Pierce Brosnan Bond, although I did like Tomorrow Never Dies. That last one, though, sucked ass. Despite its celebrity appeal.

Here are a few topics I'm hoping to explore (seriously) over the coming week:

1. Are we "Generation Suicide"?

2. Is there a link between bowling and depression? (corollary: the disney channel)

3. Are Internet people mean?

4. Is our generation "on Daniel Craig Bond's nuts"?

Kirby and the Crystal Shards, or, The Silently Autistic Generation

Hello everyone, glad to be able to join a stimulating discussion addressing serious questions. On to the debate. While I appreciate the force of Mr. Princen’s critiques of Kirby, I have an intuition that Mr. Princen is not quite receiving the full thrust of Kirby’s massive assertion.

Let us firstly soak in Kirby’s writing, his method, his empirical insight. Bush, Blair, Bin Laden, he says, embody pseudo-modernism’s typical intellectual states of ignorance, fanaticism and anxiety. Yes! Kirby’s prose uncovers the hidden connections between the three most important world leaders of 2009-2010, and his dry yet sensuous lyricism transcends any quibbles we might have about post hoc hypothesizing.

But now to the heart of Kirby. “To a degree, pseudo modernism is no more than a technologically motivated shift to the cultural centre of something which has already existed.” When people text message vacuous stupidities like, “I’m on the bus,” they don’t realize that people have always communicated things like “I’m on the bus,” they just didn’t have mobile phones, so they did it with letters and telegraphs, which were better because, they were already shifting in the general direction of the cultural centre of something, or something like that.

Even if we are unable to keep up with the soaring abstractions of Kirby’s logic, we surely must concede him his point - if only for the manically generous mass of words he a gives us at the end of each sentence. It is not Kirby’s intention to choose words with care and accuracy, to point us exactly towards anything like a cognizable, or even coherent, idea. No. This is too narrow a vision of truth. To adapt Kirby’s method and see through his eyes is to become the eyes of the world-spirit.

Take these marvels of adjectivizing: free, autonomous, inventive, expressive, dynamic, empowered, independent, unique, raised, heard, elitist, dull, distant, droning. Did I mention all 14 of those were in one sentence? Has anything ever been clearer than whatever Kirby just described 14 times? One hesitates to describe the exhilaration felt upon reading Kirby’s text as anything other than the discovery of a new, radically original, radically anti-intellectual, radically thesaurus dependent, doctrine of truth.

---

Here comes that old bus, it reminds me of the historical social hegemony. Its dilapidation is the objectification of something in the centre of the pseudo modern world. I wish I could convey the depth of my thought; here are 11 adjectives: violent, pornographic, unreal, trite, vapid, conformist, consumerist, meaningless, brainless, overpowering, and monopolistic. Look at that girl sitting there texting, she looks like such a mute retard[1]. I take a seat in the middle of the bus, and look out the window. I’m so old, and so sad. – A. Kirby

---

[1] Kirby, Death of Postmodernism and Beyond. Last paragraph, “pseudo-modernism takes the world away, by creating a new weightless nowhere of silent autism.”

Post-postmodernism

One more thing about Kirby's article, and then I'll leave it alone.

Yes, I believe his idea of pseudo-modernism does not adequately describe our generation. But to be fair, I don't think he was trying to define our generation. As I see it, he was attempting to describe a cultural phenomenon that cannot be described by postmodernism and is therefore part of a newer movement. While the phenomenon does indeed exist -- I agree that there is a new importance being placed on the recipient of information, and with technology, the recipient interacts with that information in a way never done before -- it is only a small part of the new movement. Saying that pseudo-modernism is the new movement is like saying that postmodern art is the entirety of the postmodern movement. Pseudo-modernism can apply to the internet, and to certain TV shows, but it does not apply to all aspects of the new cultural movement. There are new approaches to music, art, belief, politics, public health, environmentalism, that are distinct from any past movement but cannot be defined by pseudo-modernism. While it may be a legitimate idea, pseudo-modernism does not encompass the same amount of cultural production that postmodernism encompassed. It is not post-postmodernism.

So... what is post-postmodernism? To subtly dodge that question and simultaneously promote the goal of this blog, I'll say that post-postmodernism is the philosophy and cultural influence of our generation... which we're currently attempting to define.

One idea: If postmodernism tried to tear down the dogmatic pillars that held up the worldviews of each and every individual, then post-postmodernism is the attempt to rebuild our beliefs with the acceptance that we can never fully avoid dogmatic assumptions, though we can and must question each and every one of them. This questioning process, this process of defining our beliefs, is an individual pursuit (as postmodernism would prescribe) but also the pursuit of groups, families, communities, nations, and the human race as a whole. Postmodernism says that we will only ever have our own beliefs, that there is no external or inherent truth. Post-postmodernism says that despite the subjectivity of belief, we can still agree on some issues. Some issues, some problems, transcend differences of belief, and these are problems that are the most pressing, and the ones we need to solve soon. Philosophy, and blogs, are for the those fortunate enough to have material and temporal wealth. Surely we can ignore the differences of philosophy and come together to give all humans their basic needs, and leave future generations with a healthy planet to inhabit. This is my take on post-postmodernism.

Word is born.

(I hope each and every one of you tried to figure out how the picture connects to the post)

The apocalypse, or, why 2012?

Um, we here at End Times don't necessarily know why the apocalypse. The Mayans? Maybe there was a History Channel special on it.

But, this is the reason we even have trending topics on Twitter. Zeitgeist. Graphs pointing upwards.

I personally think cultural myths are fascinating and illustrative. And, as some of my friends were so kind as to point out, just as Y2K acted as a signpost of our increasing reliance on computers (and concomitant unease about them running our bank accounts), the 2012 apocalpyse and its associated end-of-the-world cult is yet another way to express our discomfort with the acceleration of modernity.

Here is a list of some things:

1. 9/11
2. The Millenium Force, arguably the dopest roller-coaster at Cedar Point
3. Iraq(/Afghanistan)
4. Abu Ghraib
5. Global warming
6. Hurricane Katrina
7. Food deserts
8. Sitcoms based on Twitter feeds
9. Kanye/Lady Gaga tour cancelled
10. Glenn Beck's 9/12 project
11. The state of the auto industry, generally

These things are likely to cause the apocalypse.

Also, I happen to get that young diploma in 2012. Just sayin'.

Pseudo-modernism is a terrible idea

Check out the Alan Kirby article that was posted earlier. It is the exact antithesis of what I hope this blog will be. Kirby, someone who is presumably over the age of 20, describes our generation (or at least the philosophy that governs our generation) from an outside perspective. For a moment disregard the content of Kirby's article (which I'll address later) and consider his perspective:

I am unsure as to when he was born, but there are several obvious indications that he is not a member of the current younger generation. Note his fixation on technology. Grownups tend to assume that, because today's youth has grown up with computers, the internets, video games, etc., and because we tend to have a certain aptitude using electronic devices, these are the only things that are important in our lives. They assume that technology defines our generation, when anyone within generation can easily explain that although technology plays an important role in our lives, and surely a more important role than past generations, there is much more to who we are and what we hope to accomplish.

This generation, or at least some of us, sees technology as a means to a variety of different ends. Pseudo-intellectualism is apparent in all generations, not just ours. It's a matter of ignoring the shitty TV shows, the superficiality of internet communication, and using the technology we have to do something real. There are a lot of problems that technology can help to solve. Take your pick.

Kirby suggests that technology is promotes superficiality and, in essence, stupidity. I agree, technology has plenty of negative effects on our behavior. But to say that it must have negative effects is an overstatement. Kirby doesn't have our perspective. He doesn't see that technology is only one part of our generation's definition. And there are people within this generation who can see the positive side of our relationship with technology, and will use it as part of a larger philosophy to hopefully come to a better end.

I'll talk more about that philosophy later.

According to wikipedia I'm part of Generation Y or Z. Terrible names. If this blog accomplishes only one thing, it will be to come up with a decent name for our generation. I believe my co-author has already provided some good suggestions. In addition, I'll throw out Generation Obama (nah, self-veto...) or maybe Generation "Word." As in, "Yo dude, Stanford just fucked up USC on their home field," and I'm like, "Word." (If necessary, feel free to substitute the sports teams of your choice in order to give the meaning of "Word" sufficient depth).

But as long as we're suggesting names, we may as well also attempt to figure out what exactly defines our generation.

How? To begin, we could describe what we're not, what general philosophies we follow, what basic assumptions we hold, what actions we are currently taking, what actions we must take in the future, what problems we face, what moves us, what we find repulsive, and nearly anything else that pops into our heads.

Granted, the authors of this blog will only be able to offer two limited perspectives on the matter, and if there are any professional qualifications necessary for defining generations, we don't have them. But that's beside the point. The point of the blog is not to come to some brilliant conclusion -- definitive statements are so passé. The point is to have a conversation about our generation. And other than this basic premise, there should be very few rules for our discussion. Presumably, as members of our generation, anything we say is in some way characteristic of our generation, and therefore we can say pretty much whatever we want. Within reason.

Of course, one may ask: who do we consider members of this generation? I won't answer that now. Maybe my co-author has more to say about that. I'll write more later.

Peace.

Is the Internet raping our brains?

This is an article in a philosophy magazine that I found via Wikipedia.

This bro, Alan Kirby, essentially refers to the time before the 80's as a "golden age of intelligence, creativity, rebellion and authenticity." He thinks contemporary culture is "drivel." He also takes a huge shit all over Wikipedia, which is ironic considering that's where I found his article.

I think his construction of what he dubs the "pseudo-modern" and its relationship to the postmodern is problematic, particularly because the elements of postmodernism that he mentions (fetishization of authorial power, abdication of Absolute Knowledge in favor of subjectivity, questioning truth) necessarily gave way to so-called pseudomodernity. First of all, postmodernism called notions such as Truth, Beauty, Knowledge into question. Then, as Kirby notes, postmodernity fetishized the Author, not because he or she knew the truth, or had skills, but just because. Essentially, the Author is a badass because he or she is in possession of the (creative) means of production--printing press, TV screen, etc.. Thus, wouldn't the necessary next step be the attempted "democratization" of these forms? Postmodernism sets up elites while simultaneously chipping away at structures of superiority. Questioning those elites, and setting ourselves up as "just as good" is inevitable. (Alternatively, reality TV must attempt a retreat to the idea of "real skills"--as evidenced by competition shows such as ANTM, Project Runway, and Top Chef, which reinforce pre-postmodern ideas of "real" ability at modeling, fashion, and cooking respectively. Considering the caliber of experts willing to participate in reality television, these standards cannot help but be somewhat reactionary.)

To put it another way, reality television as a postmodern spectacle would be unwatchable. Unless the authority over the "characters" is placed within the viewer's hands, reality TV becomes just another example of a meaninglessly selective social group, such as the Marriage announcements in the NY Times, whom we as members of the social underclasses are forced to observe. Which, unless one is delusional, tends to make one feel insignificant. TV shows must therefore justify their selection of who gets to be watched by making it clear that these fools trapped in a big house do not have the real power, even though their images are broadcast across the world. That real power belongs with us, the people/spectators, through our votes, in a supposedly democratic system. Of course, this comparison with democracy itself manages to reveal some troubling truths: "American Idol" potentially offers us the same amount as, if not more choice than, today's electoral college. Our political votes are marginal; we choose between a few candidates who have been essentially pre-selected by a party system founded on an inequitable economic order. Much was made of Mitt Romney's multi-millionaire status in the Republican primaries two years ago, but this status is not terribly anomalous--in fact, it would seem to be normal. How about the Kennedys? The Bushes? Theresa Heinz Kerry, the ketchup heiress? Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger, both weathy actors? This is just to name a few.

Our generation has trouble with insignificance. Indeed, everybody does. But we, specifically, were born into a culture (and a set of theorists--I'm looking at you, Baudrillard) that made us aware of our own economic and political disempowerment. "There's so much suffering/pollution/windshield wipers/homeless bros/Crocs/Doritos/mega malls/racism/prison-industrial complex/riding mowers, but too bad the world is so big and I am just 1 small bro." It makes sense, therefore, that as subjects of an economic order that is increasingly disempowering, we would seek solace elsewhere. Specifically, in a retreat to our own subjectivity, our own value systems, in which we are still imbued with power as viewer-creators, as raters, as cultural participants rather than economic subjects.

More on this later.

generation "dance like nobody's watching"?

Eyo,

So my goal for this blog is to AVOID talking like Carles. This blog, which may be written by Tao Lin, is extremely popular and my brother's cool-ass friends all cream themselves over it and sometimes I lol also. But that's not what we're doing here.

Right here we're talking about what it's like to be a teenager/tweenager/twentysomething. In the USA.

No doubt.

Some people are seeking a name for the generation that is currently adolescing. Being 19, I'm pulling for a dope name like "generation XXX" or "ziggy stardust and the spiders from mars."

I don't know what our generation "is." I am one, specific, middle-class, halfie AZN teenager. Therefore I have a limited outlook. Obvi. Yet, if, as gets argued on the internet/daytime television erryday, our generation was raised by TV/the internet, don't I basically know everything I need to know? I mean, shit, I got On Demand.

A lot of times when I'm talking about generational differences, my buddies are like, "that's not meaningful/relevant rhetorically." But I'm pretty sure they are the misguided ones. We were born into certain things. Here is a list of some phrases and ideas:

1. Sincerity.

2. Authenticity.

3. Having experiences.

4. Memoirs that are bestsellers.

5. Keeping it real.

6. The death of all values.

7. Capitalism (and brands/trends/trendspotting/brand therapy/PBS docudramas about Naomi Klein/that one show on AMC/the society of the spectacle)

8. Post-post-modernism.

9. Post-Secret.

10. Being "numb to all the suffering in the world."

11. Being able to "make a difference" [via changing your subjectivity]. (Damn, I am trying so fucking hard to avoid imitating Carles.)

I think you will agree that that shit is mad real.

My goal for this blog is to create a sort of list of resources and sounding board for ideas about this generation, the apocalypse, post-post-modernity, bourgeois atomized individuals, and other stupid buzzwords that I and other college sophomores find meaningful. I'll try to figure out where we are or where we're going, but never both at the same time.