|
Ed. you said:
However, there was a lot of frustration, almost as
though firing off job applications left, right and center, should somehow have
fixed things up, but, dammit, it didn't, so what am I still doing
wrong? Individualism, not common cause. Not what is wrong with the
system, but what is wrong with me because I no longer seem to fit.
Ed, this is typical of the Arts as well. People make an assumption
that they didn't get it right and that is why their art wasn't
acknowledged or bring them a living.
When in reality a 98% creative glut creates many "rights" and the choice of
who gets bought is pure subjective luck. If it wasn't an issue
of a profession and an important one, one could make the case for it as an
addiction to gambling. But the distinction lies between a
Hamlet or an Angels in America and Survivor
which is an aleatory drama game show. The "survivor"
performers would never be tolerated in either Hamlet or
Angels. But which is Art and which is
entertainment?
I will give you a hint. Art has entertainment as an element but
is not the point. Entertainment is relaxation. Art
is rarely relaxing. It is just possible that this first aleatorical
television drama game show will turn out to be some type of artistic
statement. The very things you hate about it are likely
the ugliness you are willing to accept in society for the economic story
you believe. (I find it interesting that Harry enjoys the
vulgarity while you are offended by it.) Aleatorical art is always banal
even though it is chance based and it's ugliness is often one of the things that
makes it Art.i.e. it reaches through to a truth that is often covered in even
the best literary scripts. The Japanese with some of their
television have understood that better than the West. You can find
some their outrageous ideas on the Men's channel here. Vulgar it is
but it sometimes cuts to the bone just as other great artistic
insights. Now that doesn't mean that it will stand as
art. Most of this stuff ends up as fodder for some literary artist
like Kushner to turn into more organized theatrical works. That is
what I find so amazing about Ned Rorem. What seems perfectly
predictable and tonal turns out on execution to be something very
different. Rorem's intricacies find their fertility in the
improvisations that do not last and even in some commercial music that will also
disappear. Rorem reaches through the true to the graceful and makes
it seem easy, like Edward Hopper's paintings. Its only hard if you
try to perform it well. But the truth of contemporary art is almost
always offensive.
That was certainly true in the 1980s in Soho and the Crucified Coyote and
Elephant Dung Madonna in New York were so offensive that they were censored even
though the underlying intent was true. In both cases the
reality destroyed the art for the audience. It was a real coyote
pelt and the elephant dung was real as well. Even though chemistry
has been a part of art for a long time, excrement has had a different meaning in
the West than in Africa where the artist was from and so it translated as
the reverse of the artist's intent. That's a tough
one. Art need only be a unique mirror but if it is good art it
will also do it exceptionally well.
Aleatory, chance or reality art is difficult to get right because a
camera makes choices for non-artistic reason. The thing that
economists love about aleatory art such as the "found" art and poetry is
that it is usually cheap. Actors are expensive, but you can promise
a million dollar prize and get people lined up around the block
for what is much less than you would pay a single professional.
If we were more sophisticated about the human brain and its
development we would train our children better and we wouldn't train just part
of the brain but all of the perceptual skills. Only then would we
truly know whether good genetic breeding is important or not.
We are so hopelessly inept with words and the handling of perceptual data and
non-intellectual skills that genetic testing is, in my opinion,
useless. As I told the Rockefeller University
psycho-linguists in the 1980s, you can take all of the language tests in the
world on the average person and learn little. The variables are too
great. If you want to test voice or language you have to test the
very best trained you can find and then compare them. Only then can
you rule out the possibility that they are just poorly trained.
A good example is the old story about being tone
deaf. Tone deafness is a common phrase in
the West. But in actuality, if it exists at all, it is so rare
that I have never experienced anyone who was. It is obviously
rare because over a billion Chinese speak their language just fine and it
is based upon intricate pitch tunings for meanings of words. If
being tone deaf was as common as all of these poorly trained folks who
can't sing in the West, then Chinese would have never existed as a
tuned language But I've heard Chinese
professional singers sing in totally different keys than the orchestra is
playing because the Western Overtone harmonies are not a part of their
tunings. I even heard a Westerner impugn a tenor's musicianship for
such poly tonalities. I wondered if he had ever sung Bartok's Oet
Dal which begins with a polytonal melody for baritone and piano that is as hard
as the dickens to keep from going mono-tonal. If he had then
he would have been amazed rather than derogatory. Yes it was wrong
but how could that tenor sing so perfectly in tune with himself and in another
key from the orchestra? \
Ray Evans Harrell
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 2:44
PM
Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was Re:
[Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade
Good piece, Bob. What we seem to need is a
widely accepted sense of "entitlement" of some kind that galvanizes people
into political action. To get that, people would have to feel they have
a common cause and a gut-level sense of betrayal by the system. I don't
see that in wealthy democracies, where most people are concerned with
maintaining their status or moving up the ladder. There are special
interests and outlooks that make people adhere to one political
philosophy or another, but there is very little sense of injustice or
outrage.
A piece I posted earlier this morning dealt with how
people in the now bust high-tech sector are coping with
unemployment. In reading the article in the Ottawa Citizen, it seemed to
me that there was very little anger among the unemployed techies.
However, there was a lot of frustration, almost as though firing off job
applications left, right and center, should somehow have fixed things up, but,
dammit, it didn't, so what am I still doing wrong? Individualism,
not common cause. Not what is wrong with the system, but what is wrong
with me because I no longer seem to fit.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 9:57
AM
Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was Re:
[Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade
And in the interim the misery index would
increase - there might even be food riots, perhaps even home invasions for
food, rather than status consumables, - while we waited for the government
to take (re)action. Revolutionary conditions and the further
deligitimation of the system. Food banks are a blight on civil
society, almost unheard of before the neoconservative/neoliberal dismantling
of the social contract in the past two decades. I do not doubt it's a
thankless task begging for food donations from the greedy hegemons of our
society. When I made my seasonal donation, this week, to a homeless
shelter for youth, my donation was corporate-graded and I received an
Enbridge Gas gift in return. Somehow I was not amused that my
compassion was reconstructed as a market exchange. I reminded the
volunteers there was a time when compassion for the poor was considered a
communal responsibility - as it is in many other cultures, although even
there it is under attack from the neo-cons - and not charitable volunteerism
that looks good on a resume. Tithing has taken on a careerist overtone
based upon the number of power-dressed corporate employees I am meeting in
the malls. These are the same folks who bash the poor whenever
liberalization of social policy [and increased taxes] are
mentioned.
I don't agree, necessarily, Arthur, that
deprivation leads to co-operation (I wish!). History suggests
otherwise. I recall reading Ted Robert Gurr's book, "Why Men Rebel?"
and his book suggests that the answer is being deprived of a perceived
entitlement. Hungry people just might perceive food as an
entitlement, given its positioning on Maslow's hierarch of human
needs. Now rebellion hasn't happened - but I believe that is only
because the many people who are becoming increasingly marginalized in our
society are existing within a misery index that is at a tolerable level, or
directing their pain at themselves. (More the latter, I
suspect.) That can change as conditions change. Coalition
building is a great idea, but it is a middle class knowledge form, and
that's about a third of the population of our classed society. And we
ain't starving, in fact many of us are obese. Coalition
building presumes a level of political efficacy. Riots, on the
other hand, are an ugly, ugly, thing to behold, as I have.
Reconstructing a new vision of the social
safety net is an absolute must, in my opinion, given the direction of our
society. Clearly that is not happening in Dubya's America, and in
Canada I am fearful of where Paul Martin will take us in his efforts to
reduce the level of debt. If the precedent of Ontario politics is an
example, he will be a fiscal conservative who will govern as a neoliberal,
and keep the liberal rhetoric for managerial shuffling that is low
cost.
BB
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 12:52
AM
Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was
Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade
Thomas:
If I read you right Arthur, then shutting
down the food banks by volunteer groups would increase the misery index
and force government to address the problem in a different way?
That's not a bad idea as I'm sure the ongoing drudgery of running a
food bank must be a major pain in the
ass.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
----------
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Slightly extended (was Re:
[Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade
Date:
Mon, Dec 8, 2003, 12:02 PM
I agree
with your analysis, Ed.
Social change is ongoing and
new alliances will be formed---but out of necessity. The three
groups you mention don't have to work together or even acknowledge each
other as long as good hearted middle class folk are handing out free
food. Turn off the tap and you will see cooperation and shared
understanding aplenty.
arthur
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed
Weick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent:
Monday, December 8, 2003 11:17 AM
To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman
Trade vs. Modern Trade
Ed,
when the poor kick back politicians will
act.
I agree, and in some cases they
have on matters such as housing, for example. But they can't
seem to present any kind of unified front. The people I
described as using my food bank, older guys from the valley,
embarrassed young mothers with kids, and the young who graced us with
their presence really wanted to have very little to do with each
other. What we need is a unification of the poor and politicians
who pay attention to them, but we seem to have run out of people like
Tommy Douglas, Stanley Knowles and David Lewis and we now seem to have
a plethora of people like Peter MacKay, Stephen Harper and Paul
Martin, people who pay far more attention to the rich than the poor.
In the past few decades, the political drift has been rightward,
and the drift of society as a whole has been toward the establishment
of a middle class identity that sees poverty terms of personal flaw
and the poor as undeserving.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 10:37
AM
Subject: RE: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework]
David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade
Ed, when the poor kick
back politicians will act.
-----Original
Message-----
From: Ed Weick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent:
Monday, December 8, 2003 9:32 AM
To: Harry Pollard;
'Thomas Lunde'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework]
David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade
I'm not laughing, Harry. I've just accessed a
report by the Canadian Council on Social Development that shows
that poverty in urban areas, including poverty among the working
poor, increased in Canada between 1990 and 1995. It
has probably continued to increase since then. I'm not sure
of what can be done about it, but I would agree with Arthur that
foodbanks are not the answer. Neither is kicking the poor
harder, as politicians seem increasingly to want to
do.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Harry
Pollard <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 'Ed Weick' <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ;
'Thomas Lunde' <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 4:09
AM
Subject: RE: Slightly extended (was Re:
[Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern
Trade
Ed,
Not only to liberty and justice not taste too well, when
they aren't there to taste, you will be sure that ends will not
meet.
Two hundred years ago,
Ricardo postulated the "Iron Law of Wages" and about 125 years
ago George picked it up and ran with it. Of course that's all
Classical stuff - out-of-date for these complex modern
economies.
So, we have welfare
for people with full-time jobs who can't survive on what they
get. We even have a name for them - the working poor. We have a
law to force employers to pay a minimum wage, when in the
England of half a millennium or so ago - there was a law
to keep wages down (the Statute of
Laborers).
Why don't we laugh?
Even though it might sound a trifle
hollow.
So, in ten years, or
twenty, or a hundred, will we still be trying but failing to
provide something for an ever increasing number of the
poor?
On second thoughts, don't
laugh.
Harry
********************************************
Henry George School of Social
Science
of Los Angeles
Box 655 Tujunga CA
91042
Tel: 818 352-4141
-- Fax: 818 353-2242
http://haledward.home.comcast.net <http://haledward.home.comcast.net/>
********************************************
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Ed Weick
Sent: Thursday, December
04, 2003 6:08 AM
To: Thomas Lunde; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo,
Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade
Thomas, very good posting. Ontario has just
raised the minimum wage from peanuts to peanuts. Many of
the poor are working full time and even double time, but are
still unable to meet the rent or buy enough food, let alone get
their kids the kinds of in toys ("status goods") that are going
around. They can try eating freedom and justice, but they
don't taste very good when you can't make ends
meet.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From:
Thomas Lunde <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 3:36
AM
Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was Re:
[Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern
Trade
They don't need
money, Thomas. They need justice and the freedom to enjoy
it.
Harry
Thomas:
In a way, you are right. Being
poor and working with the poor as customers and neighbours
let's me see the many ways the poor are lacking justice.
A recent article in the paper made the outstanding
statement that 37% of workers in Canada are not covered by
the Labour Code and laws. When wages for the poor are
kept artificially low, then the only way to compensate to
maintain a survival standard is to work more. Of
course, there are about 4 to 5% who are mentally incapable,
or physically disabled or in the case of single mothers,
family challenged. However, the work more solution has
only produced the working poor, who still have to use food
banks and subsidized housing, if thet can get it. Not
only that, as you suggest, they do not even have the freedom
to enjoy what little they have. I would agree, that
justice and freedom would go a long way to compensating for
money - or as you might suggest, make the earning and
spending of money a by product of an effective system of
justice and the freedom and thereby create a surplus to
enjoy.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked
by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version:
6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date:
12/5/2003
|
