All my questions regarding both religion and slavery were answered by Microsoft's PowerPoint.
Just go to "View" --> "Master", and you shall be enlightened, too.
Just go to "View" --> "Master", and you shall be enlightened, too.
Back again at Mairi's place in Tallinn, Estonia.
Back to good old Susan Sontag, who (as we all know) once said:
"A large part of the popularity and persuasiveness of psychology comes from its being a sublimated spiritualism: a secular, ostensibly scientific way of affirming the primacy of 'spirit' over matter."
I fully agree on that one, even though it's just a complicated way to say that we're all afraid of death and with it the disappearance of our existence (which to my mind is pretty much all there is to say about any form of spiritualism - it's fear-driven, and I'm not sorry if that hurts the feelings of any religious folks, because they can feel free to criticize my atheism, and I'm pretty sure it won't hurt my feelings).
This fear of death is the reason why we have an urge to 'affirm the supremacy of spirit over matter', and that's what connects psychology with religion (then again that's nothing necessarily bad about psychology, since it's still your own personal weakness that would lead you to 'religionize' psychology. Entirely your fault if you do it, and you can do it with everything: You can turn everything into a religion if you want, even your girl- or boyfriend, or your dog, or your car, or beer).
By the way, Susan also said:
"To photograph is to appropriate the thing photographed. It means putting oneself into a certain relation to the world that feels like knowledge—and, therefore, like power. A now notorious first fall into alienation, habituating people to abstract the world into printed words, is supposed to have engendered that surplus of Faustian energy and psychic damage needed to build modern organic societies. But print seems a less treacherous form of leaching out the world, of turning it into a mental object, than photographic images, which now provide most of the knowledge people have about the look of the past and the reach of the present. What is written about a person or an event is frankly an interpretation, as are handmade visual statements, like paintings and drawings. Photographed images do not seem to be statements about the world so much as pieces of it, miniatures of reality that anyone can make or acquire."
Obviously that was in a world before Photoshop existed, and photography has lost the guaranteed realism that at least most of it used to have (of course there has been image editing and falsification starting from the earliest days of photography, but at least a vast majority of photography will certainly have been naturalistic displays of reality).
Two facts important in this context:
a) The democratization of photography of the last decades, first with well-priced micro cameras, now with easy-to-use "WYSIWYG" digital cameras. Makes a vast difference, creates an overload of photos, and is a threat for many even professional photographers because our eye gets used to mediocre images, and for some of us those might indeed be enough. An urge for professional photographic aesthetics isn't always present, and even if, it's often not treated with any priority, since we all have some friends who take 'decent' pictures, and every one of us has the lucky shot once in a while, say, a holiday photo that more or less accidentally turns out to look brilliant, even if taken with a cheap digital camera. Democratization, hm: That basically means that gradually, the purpose of photography moves away from "this has happened" or "this exists" or "this is beauty" or "this came to my mind and I wanted to express it" - towards a rather plain and flat "I have seen this". Meaning: The image loses some of its importance, and in turn, the person taking the picture conquers the leading role, as the picture becomes a proof of this person's existence and this person's "having seen something", rather than an actual means of expression or (personality-unrelated) documentation.
b) The fact that Susan's comparison of the printed word (as more likely to be abstract/treacherous) and photography (as more likely to display reality as it is) remains historically short-sighted. Sure she has a point (and a long one, as usual). Yet if we were to mistrust the printed word because of this, or if we were to reject the printed word as too 'abstract', we would be left without much history and knowledge. Particularly judging the look of the past by photos is dangerous, because us humans necessarily tend to make judgment based on our own (near-past to current) experiences. We will therefore interpret what we see on an old photo through the 'reality filter' that our more contemporary reality forces upon us, and be wrong with our interpretations frequently, usually without noticing. As a replacement for printed word or even historic understanding, photography is to my mind not suitable. As an extension, it certainly is suitable, yet it should be consumed with the same suspicious distance as any other medium, and ideally (as always) in the company of other media. Printed word plus photography sounds pretty good. Add sound, add video, and you might really get a rather exact view on a past reality. We'll find more we can add to that list within the nearest decades, anyway.
"A large part of the popularity and persuasiveness of psychology comes from its being a sublimated spiritualism: a secular, ostensibly scientific way of affirming the primacy of 'spirit' over matter."
I fully agree on that one, even though it's just a complicated way to say that we're all afraid of death and with it the disappearance of our existence (which to my mind is pretty much all there is to say about any form of spiritualism - it's fear-driven, and I'm not sorry if that hurts the feelings of any religious folks, because they can feel free to criticize my atheism, and I'm pretty sure it won't hurt my feelings).
This fear of death is the reason why we have an urge to 'affirm the supremacy of spirit over matter', and that's what connects psychology with religion (then again that's nothing necessarily bad about psychology, since it's still your own personal weakness that would lead you to 'religionize' psychology. Entirely your fault if you do it, and you can do it with everything: You can turn everything into a religion if you want, even your girl- or boyfriend, or your dog, or your car, or beer).
By the way, Susan also said:
"To photograph is to appropriate the thing photographed. It means putting oneself into a certain relation to the world that feels like knowledge—and, therefore, like power. A now notorious first fall into alienation, habituating people to abstract the world into printed words, is supposed to have engendered that surplus of Faustian energy and psychic damage needed to build modern organic societies. But print seems a less treacherous form of leaching out the world, of turning it into a mental object, than photographic images, which now provide most of the knowledge people have about the look of the past and the reach of the present. What is written about a person or an event is frankly an interpretation, as are handmade visual statements, like paintings and drawings. Photographed images do not seem to be statements about the world so much as pieces of it, miniatures of reality that anyone can make or acquire."
Obviously that was in a world before Photoshop existed, and photography has lost the guaranteed realism that at least most of it used to have (of course there has been image editing and falsification starting from the earliest days of photography, but at least a vast majority of photography will certainly have been naturalistic displays of reality).
Two facts important in this context:
a) The democratization of photography of the last decades, first with well-priced micro cameras, now with easy-to-use "WYSIWYG" digital cameras. Makes a vast difference, creates an overload of photos, and is a threat for many even professional photographers because our eye gets used to mediocre images, and for some of us those might indeed be enough. An urge for professional photographic aesthetics isn't always present, and even if, it's often not treated with any priority, since we all have some friends who take 'decent' pictures, and every one of us has the lucky shot once in a while, say, a holiday photo that more or less accidentally turns out to look brilliant, even if taken with a cheap digital camera. Democratization, hm: That basically means that gradually, the purpose of photography moves away from "this has happened" or "this exists" or "this is beauty" or "this came to my mind and I wanted to express it" - towards a rather plain and flat "I have seen this". Meaning: The image loses some of its importance, and in turn, the person taking the picture conquers the leading role, as the picture becomes a proof of this person's existence and this person's "having seen something", rather than an actual means of expression or (personality-unrelated) documentation.
b) The fact that Susan's comparison of the printed word (as more likely to be abstract/treacherous) and photography (as more likely to display reality as it is) remains historically short-sighted. Sure she has a point (and a long one, as usual). Yet if we were to mistrust the printed word because of this, or if we were to reject the printed word as too 'abstract', we would be left without much history and knowledge. Particularly judging the look of the past by photos is dangerous, because us humans necessarily tend to make judgment based on our own (near-past to current) experiences. We will therefore interpret what we see on an old photo through the 'reality filter' that our more contemporary reality forces upon us, and be wrong with our interpretations frequently, usually without noticing. As a replacement for printed word or even historic understanding, photography is to my mind not suitable. As an extension, it certainly is suitable, yet it should be consumed with the same suspicious distance as any other medium, and ideally (as always) in the company of other media. Printed word plus photography sounds pretty good. Add sound, add video, and you might really get a rather exact view on a past reality. We'll find more we can add to that list within the nearest decades, anyway.
You can say against capitalism whatever you want, but by my best knowledge, it still remains the only "political philosophy" that has a realistic view on mankind, and accepts the facts that humans will only work to improve a status quo (or product, or service, ...) if they are forced to do so. In this case, forced to do so by competition.
A form of back-to-the-roots agriculture-based anarchy (or simply a minimalistic agricultural no-tech society that only strives to survive by feeding itself) is somewhere close, but obviously lacks the element of constant improvement. You might argue that in such society, improvement would not be the goal, and you might be right from a point of view that takes the whole global society into consideration: Improvement is not necessary, as in such a society, mankind wouldn't just die or disappear. It wouldn't prosper, it wouldn't develop much further. It would either stagnate, and individual groups would die (we'd be sad about that, were there any mass media, wouldn't we). Which from a global perspective is irrelevant, of course - but go tell that to the individuals in question.
Anyhow more likely: Such society in most parts of the world would occasionally indeed have outside forces (climate, seasons, problems with seeds or ground, storms, earthquakes, growing population numbers, whatever) that would lead to a need for improvements - as most probably it did thousands of years ago. Ironically, though, this will sooner or later lead to what you could call a competition between tribes or groups, and we would be back to the starting point of capitalism, wouldn't we. It's human nature.
And yes, it has its downsides (as most probably any other human organizational philosophy); but I think it's the organization form which human beings as a mass will inevitably end up with if you let nature go its way. You could avoid capitalism by consciously avoiding it and consciously choosing another form of organization, and that again would force you to lead a constant struggle against human nature (you would of course end up trying to change human nature - which sounds like a pretty naive and dumb thing to try to my mind). But if you believe that freedom of individual as well as group decision and action is important, such as I do, you will end up with a more or less capitalist society. Even in the hypothetical case that there wouldn't be any capital (unlikely, though, since with growing specialization and growing population numbers, barter just won't be enough, and you have to start bartering indirectly, for instance by the use of currency).
A form of back-to-the-roots agriculture-based anarchy (or simply a minimalistic agricultural no-tech society that only strives to survive by feeding itself) is somewhere close, but obviously lacks the element of constant improvement. You might argue that in such society, improvement would not be the goal, and you might be right from a point of view that takes the whole global society into consideration: Improvement is not necessary, as in such a society, mankind wouldn't just die or disappear. It wouldn't prosper, it wouldn't develop much further. It would either stagnate, and individual groups would die (we'd be sad about that, were there any mass media, wouldn't we). Which from a global perspective is irrelevant, of course - but go tell that to the individuals in question.
Anyhow more likely: Such society in most parts of the world would occasionally indeed have outside forces (climate, seasons, problems with seeds or ground, storms, earthquakes, growing population numbers, whatever) that would lead to a need for improvements - as most probably it did thousands of years ago. Ironically, though, this will sooner or later lead to what you could call a competition between tribes or groups, and we would be back to the starting point of capitalism, wouldn't we. It's human nature.
And yes, it has its downsides (as most probably any other human organizational philosophy); but I think it's the organization form which human beings as a mass will inevitably end up with if you let nature go its way. You could avoid capitalism by consciously avoiding it and consciously choosing another form of organization, and that again would force you to lead a constant struggle against human nature (you would of course end up trying to change human nature - which sounds like a pretty naive and dumb thing to try to my mind). But if you believe that freedom of individual as well as group decision and action is important, such as I do, you will end up with a more or less capitalist society. Even in the hypothetical case that there wouldn't be any capital (unlikely, though, since with growing specialization and growing population numbers, barter just won't be enough, and you have to start bartering indirectly, for instance by the use of currency).
Part of an e-mail conversation of today:
Someone: "What are those photos on your website all about? Are they pictures of something that has happened in the previous week, or of something related to the next week?"
Me: "They're usually about something that has happened in the previous week. For technical reasons, we are unable to show anything related to next week."
Someone: "What technical reasons? Confidentiality?"
Me: "No. The technical reason that usually by Monday, the week hasn't yet reached the moment in time in which we are capable of reviewing it."
Someone: "What are those photos on your website all about? Are they pictures of something that has happened in the previous week, or of something related to the next week?"
Me: "They're usually about something that has happened in the previous week. For technical reasons, we are unable to show anything related to next week."
Someone: "What technical reasons? Confidentiality?"
Me: "No. The technical reason that usually by Monday, the week hasn't yet reached the moment in time in which we are capable of reviewing it."
Paris is a place where you can get three bottles of reasonably good wine in a store for the same price that you pay for 0,5 litres of beer in the bar next door.
Paris is a place where people aren't as unfriendly as other French keep telling you that they are; but they're also not as friendly as the image of the city of love would make you wish they were.
Paris is a place where you can truly walk for ages without getting bored.
Paris is a place where romance meets dense traffic, noise, big city bustle, and huge numbers of tourists; a meeting that romance usually loses, as it's the most quiet force involved.
Paris is a place where even in the main touristic places, you meet surprisingly big numbers of locals.
Paris is a place where tourism and public transport are so well organized that you wouldn't actually need a map at all.
Paris is a place where you can only spend more than a few days if you're madly in love; writing a book; looking for a job; or you're an alcoholic.
Paris is a place where the sky looks better with a few clouds - and with it the city.
Paris is a place where the outside world is of rather little emotional or conscious relevance.
Paris is a place where the bread tastes better than most of the food in mid-level restaurants - contrary to common belief.
Paris is a place where so many architectural sights crowd your eye that you start not noticing them anymore after a short while.
Paris is a place where I'm always happy to go, and I'm always happy to leave, and usually I'm even happy to be there. That's what it has in common with beach holidays, night-trains, toilets, cute small cities, London, class reunions, and smoking rooms at airports.
Paris is a place where people aren't as unfriendly as other French keep telling you that they are; but they're also not as friendly as the image of the city of love would make you wish they were.
Paris is a place where you can truly walk for ages without getting bored.
Paris is a place where romance meets dense traffic, noise, big city bustle, and huge numbers of tourists; a meeting that romance usually loses, as it's the most quiet force involved.
Paris is a place where even in the main touristic places, you meet surprisingly big numbers of locals.
Paris is a place where tourism and public transport are so well organized that you wouldn't actually need a map at all.
Paris is a place where you can only spend more than a few days if you're madly in love; writing a book; looking for a job; or you're an alcoholic.
Paris is a place where the sky looks better with a few clouds - and with it the city.
Paris is a place where the outside world is of rather little emotional or conscious relevance.
Paris is a place where the bread tastes better than most of the food in mid-level restaurants - contrary to common belief.
Paris is a place where so many architectural sights crowd your eye that you start not noticing them anymore after a short while.
Paris is a place where I'm always happy to go, and I'm always happy to leave, and usually I'm even happy to be there. That's what it has in common with beach holidays, night-trains, toilets, cute small cities, London, class reunions, and smoking rooms at airports.
"For security reasons, smoking is not permitted in this railway station."
Those are either very personal health-related security reasons, or it's just a really cute piece of bull crap. I'd love to see how someone manages to set Berlin's new main station afire with a carelessly thrown away cigarette.
Those are either very personal health-related security reasons, or it's just a really cute piece of bull crap. I'd love to see how someone manages to set Berlin's new main station afire with a carelessly thrown away cigarette.
In the night train from Paris to Berlin.
It's not that I'm seriously collecting. But I happen to come across some quotes. Sometimes. When people say stuff, or I read some. Here are a couple of my current favorites - updated once in a while (including the time stamp).
It's Paris. It's still Paris. It doesn't really change that much, even though my last visit is probably 6 or 7 or maybe 8 years ago (hell, I'm old!). We're here, and that's about all there really is to say. Being here is purpose enough, it contains long walks, nice wine, baguettes, evening pick-nicks in different places, and interesting stuff in strange little shops. Et cetera. Et cetera. I even can't help this feeling that I'm learning some stuff, and once I find out what it is I'm learning, I'll sure let myself know. Not necessarily you, though, sorry.
Older items