Simon says. . .

2008-03-18T00:01:00.010Z

A Life Recalled...

"Memory is the diary that we all carry about with us" - Oscar Wilde

Dali - The Persistence of Memory

Memory is something both peculiar and paradoxical. It can be the cause of ineffable pain at past sorrows, personal failures, lost loved ones and relationships, etc. and as such might be seen as an unbearable weight upon our shoulders. But it is also absolutely necessary in order for our actions and experiences to have any meaning or purpose. A life without memories would be like a white board with inkless pens – you may write whatever you like at any given time, but no marks will be left for you or anyone else to read or recall. Every moment will merely and immediately evaporate without a trace.

At certain times recently I have thought about how this kind of existence sans memory might feel. What would it be like to have every moment exist and be experienced purely in and of itself, with no reference to the past or future? This is a kind of ‘pointillist’ conception of time, whereby one just lives out a succession of episodic, discontinuous and unique points of time, unfolding one after the other yet all the time bearing no relation to those either preceding or following. However, this form of temporal existence runs into problems of self-defeatism, in much the same way as attempts at hedonist lifestyles, for both wind up forever chasing horizons, tripping over themselves in the process. It’s pretty exhausting and unfulfilling, all that non-stop moment-chasing! Of course, if one had no functional memory then there is also the danger that one will end up living out some Sisyphean fate of merely repeating the same activity over and over again until death. This is where the infantile idea of ‘ignorance is bliss’ tends to prove unsatisfactory for homo sapiens.

The point is that, as human beings, we need memories. They provide us with mental signposts, narrative benchmarks and meaningful dividers, with which we arrange and rearrange our life stories. I would even go so far as to say that we live for memories. I think it is not too farfetched to propose that many people today – particularly in the ‘blogosphere’ I might add – simultaneously narrate their lives while living them. Photo opportunities are set up, poses are struck and captions are conjured up; all in the name of producing and preserving a memory of a moment that has yet to even pass.

In a similar vein, one could ask, Of what would an experience consist were it not possible to recall it at some point in the future? Would such an experience cease to exist? The fear that the latter question yields an affirmative response has given much food for thought for many existentialist thinkers over the decades, for it places such a premium on our ability to remember and accurately recollect important events. The result of this heightened awareness of the mind’s importance makes it all the more difficult to accept that one day we will all have to rely on the memories of others (those who knew us or knew of us) to recall and retell the key moments of our lives. In this sense, while many people fear suffering some kind of accident whereby physical abilities become impaired or heavily reduced, I personally fear the dissolution of my mind and memory above anything else. Without the cognitive capacities necessary to create, maintain and communicate memories, to what extent can one truly be said to be living a human life? It is, after all, (self-) consciousness that separates humans from beasts, and the life of a beast is a life without memory.

The great Danish philosopher, Søren Kierkegaard, wrote eloquently of both the perils and delights of experiences and their recollection:

“For me nothing is more dangerous than recollection. Once I have recalled some life-situation it ceases to exist. People say that separation helps to revive love. That is quite true, but it revives it in a purely poetic way. A life in recollection is the most perfect imaginable; memory gives you your fill more abundantly than all of reality and has a security which no reality possesses. A life-situation recalled has already passed into eternity and has no more temporal interest”

I guess that even though the capacity to remember is the primary cause of angst and unhappiness (say, at the loss of a loved one, a relationship or one’s youth), the fact that one can recall times past – both good and bad – and learn from such recollection, signals a more humane and open future; a future that provides a meaningful and fertile ground in which to plant the seeds of new experiences, connected narratives and moving life stories. While there can be no such thing as a ‘pure’ memory – given that they are susceptible to change within different contexts – so long as people maintain the ability to communicate their memories to others, no one need be resigned to live a Sisyphean life of repetition without meaning, purpose or lasting significance. This, I believe, marks both the true strength and absolute necessity of memory. And I wouldn’t give up mine for ‘all the farms in Cuba!’ (brownie points for anyone who picks up on that reference!)

2008-01-25T20:16:00.000Z

I Drink Therefore I Am

Let me start out by openly admitting that I quite like partaking in the consumption of alcoholic beverages on occasion. Such occurrences even became semi-frequent during my undergraduate years (2002-2005). However, what makes alcohol enjoyable is not reducible to its intoxicating qualities. Indeed, there is little I abhor more than waking up to self-induced nausea. For me, the attraction to alcohol is to be found in its wide variety and depth of flavours, its capability for instigating ‘social lubrication’ and interaction, or as it is often said, ‘bringing people out of their shell’. Now, of course, there are thousands (if not millions) of people who really should, for the benefit of our universe(s), remain well and truly entombed in their respective casing. Others still appear completely oblivious to the existence of such shells, having never properly or fully fashioned one for their own being. I fear that, for such creatures, drinking is something that must be approached with extreme caution and unwavering respect.

Recent research has shown that the rate of alcohol-related deaths has almost doubled between 1991 and 2006. What is more, this data is based on medical conditions pertaining to alcohol intake and therefore does not even begin to account for the thousands of drink-driving injuries, accidents and deaths. In the US, according to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2005 the number of people killed in alcohol-related accidents was 16,885 (that’s an average of near enough one every 30 minutes). These deaths accounted for approximately 39 per cent of the 43,443 total traffic fatalities in the same year.

Clearly, prohibition is no kind of solution; for it will merely create an underground or ‘black’ market for alcohol (given that the vast majority of us have a taste for it already). Furthermore, it has been shown that regular consumption of a small number of alcoholic units is more conducive to a longer life expectancy than tee-totalling! However, there are some practical and pragmatic steps that can and should be considered:

(1) A marked increase in awareness of the potentially devastating effects of drinking.

(2) A clamp down on irresponsible retailers (including outrageous drinks promotions that actively condone binge drinking and recklessness) and bar staff (who continue to serve people who are already intoxicated).

(3) Legislation on alcoholic advertising (we don’t have smoking advertisements anymore do we?).

(4) Perhaps a kind of ‘valet’ style system whereby patrons hand over their car keys upon entry to a bar/club and retrieve them (if sufficiently sober of course) upon exiting.

Of course, on the ‘macro’ level (that’s sociological speak for ‘social’, in contradistinction to the ‘micro’ or ‘individual’ level), I hope that generations down the line the social world will have transformed and progressed to one from which its inhabitants no longer feel a recurrent need to ‘escape’ or wantonly discard their sobriety on a weekly basis. True, there will always be some people who embody and channel (self-) destructive tendencies, regardless of the quality of their living conditions – our much loved/loathed Amy Winehouse springs to mind. But to dismiss or reduce mass alcohol (over) consumption to an epiphenomenon of mere individual passions and vices is to seriously overlook the societal factors, pressures, promotions and rewards that go hand-in-hand with a land of boozers and club-cruisers.

Until such a time when socio-political conditions are ‘free’ (or at the least less unfree than at present), I would urge everyone to not only ‘drink responsibly’ – as the almost invisible government labels pronounce – but also to cultivate one’s taste for intoxication in activities that do damage neither to mind, body nor soul. To achieve intoxication at the wonder of Nature, the majesty of a Beethoven symphony, the genuine mimetic experience of a work of art, the joy of engrossing oneself in a great novel or film, the serendipity of a relationship between yourself and another human being with whom you can share your innermost thoughts and feelings, and whatever else you may find that rekindles your Being and affirms your existence. Who but the chronically short-sighted really needs that much alcohol?

A reasonably well-known dramatist once penned: “O God, that men should put an enemy in their mouths to steal away their brains! That we should with joy, pleasance, revel, and applause transform ourselves into beasts!” (Cassio, in Othello, Act II, Scene III, Shakespeare)

2008-01-03T04:53:00.000Z

Responsibility, Consumerism and Catastrophe

"What men want to learn from nature is how to use it in order wholly to dominate it and other men. That is the only aim"
-- Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer (1944).

Now, anyone who knows me will probably tell you that one of my recurrent topics of discussion (or, perhaps more accurately put, 'rant') is unrelenting consumerism and its damaging effects on people both in 'developing' - that is, poor, deprived, excluded and exploited - countries and in 'lower socio-economic groups' - that is, again, the deprived, excluded and exploited.

Over recent months and years, as the issues of climate change and global warming have become more prominent in the political agendas of the West, I have often found myself feeling somewhat skeptical of certain piecemeal and often pathetic responses to the unprecedented threats that such changes contain.

For example, I am skeptical about so-called 'ethical consumerism' and the proliferation of 'fair trade alternatives', for these merely appear to allow those already in posession of greater disposable income to 'pay their way out' of any guilt that may (or perhaps even should) otherwise be felt when engaging in the endless cycle of purchasing, consuming, disposing and purchasing once more. Not only is 'ethical consumerism' (a term which, to begin with, is oxymoronic in my opinion) yet another form of 'cultural capital' (as Pierre Bourdieu would say) - that is, a way of conveying membership to a certain 'elite' group at the exclusion of those 'below' or 'outside' - but it also allows an individual to perpetually and narcissistically offload one's responsibility, complicity and guilt. In this process, ethical consumer goods are presented, promoted and sold as individual solutions to social and global problems.

Now, politically, I am not usually one to argue for substantial state intervention in people's daily practices. However, when certain conditions and man-made catastrophes start to present themselves, I don't think it is too much to ask for leading governments and heads of state to 'grow a pair' and start introducing measures that will ensure the necessary changes take place. The much-lauded but ultimately mythical 'invisible hand' of the (neo)liberal free market will not stop environmental disaster, for it cares neither for nature nor human beings but only capital. Under the forced conditions and demands of universal exchange and capital, the vast majority of individuals (consumers) will not be able to afford to make the necessary changes - people cannot just stop travelling to work or buying cheaper, 'ethically questionable' foods.

It is therefore up to those with the power to dare to go against the market forces and globally omnipotent corporations and CEOs, and actually make people change the way they act, consume and dispose of goods. Individuals should be made to recycle and calculate (and offset) their carbon emissions, with penalties for those who do not comply. Industry should be forced to be transparent with regard to their environmental impact and incentivised to reduce the impact as rapidly as possible. Heavier vehicle excise duty could be brought in for unnecessarily high-powered vehicles, with rebates going to hybrid or 'smart' car owners.

Both individuals and corporations alike, if not willing to change their ways and realize the reality and extent of the threats their activities have brought about and to a head, will both react to financial incentivisation. Tell people they will be charged if they do not comply and rewarded if they do . . . and just watch 'em go green in a jiffy! While I hate the sentiment behind this kind of positive-negative reinforcement - primarily for the reason that it does not recognize the inherent good but rather only does good in the name of an instrumental end - in a time where only 'money talks' (and, to paraphrase Ben Folds Five, lately has been screaming in our ears!) it is perhaps the best way to get the rapid and significant changes required in order to allow future generations to enjoy the fortuitous gift of existence that we have all received.

The late, great French philosopher, Jacques Derrida, wrote frequently on the infinity of responsibility, and it comes to mind here. For Derrida, one can never say 'I have been responsible' or 'I acted responsibly there', for responsibility always exceeds any definitions we may ascribe to it. Responsibility must be infinite. If it were not infinitely necessary, then it loses its meaning. It would become the mere following of a rule - if x then just do y. Yet in reality every singular choice, decision or action we take entails a responsibility towards the other (autrui); that is, to those whom we - by virtue of the very nature of choice - must exclude. As Derrida puts it,

"If I conduct myself particularly well with regard to someone, I know that it is to the detriment of an other; of one nation to the detriment of another nation, of one family to the detriment of another family, of my friends to the detriment of other friends or non-friends, etc. This is the infinitude that inscribes itself within responsibility" (1996).

I would therefore urge that no-one ever feel content or satisfied that they have sufficiently met the demands of responsibility, for such demands have no end . . . nor should they.

This piece by Chris Jordan is entitled 'Toothpicks' - it depicts 8 million toothpicks, equal to the number of trees harvested in the USA every month to make the paper for mail order catalogues.
See http://www.chrisjordan.com/ for more of his provocative work.

2008-01-01T23:01:00.000Z

And so it begins...

Another new year is upon us and, drawing much inspiration from the blogging manifold which presents itself to me on a regular basis, I have decided to set up a site where I can post my random thoughts, ideas, stories, reactions, reviews, etc. as and when the mood takes me.

I will not be using this as a kind of online journal, for I expect that the extent to which people want to read about the invariably mundane routines and habits of a PhD student in East Sussex is equal to my desire to recall and communicate such occurrences. If anything interesting or bizarre should happen during my daily practices of reading, writing, piano playing, grocery shopping, TV watching, video game playing, travelling, cooking, eating, drinking, and so on and so forth, then I will endeavour to retell it on here.

Hmm... That 'Hmm...' there is not actually a written portrayal of contemplation but is rather a crafty linguistic vehicle deployed in order to move this next 'I' along a bit. The reason for this being that 'I' don't like starting consecutive paragraphs with the first-person singular pronoun. Many psychologists will often argue that multiple usage of 'I' starting sentences denotes an inflated and (potentially) narcissistic concern with the self. Having duly noted this, we are now in a position to commence with the present post.

I think it is always a nice idea to promote interaction through one's blog (yes, I said 'one' in that semi-annoying way that posh people do - the Queen, in particular). To that end, I would happily welcome suggestions or questions from anyone who is willing and able to provide them, and will try to respond in a timely and (hopefully) entertaining manner.

This blogging malarkey is still relatively new to me, and HTML retains its look of a (very) foreign language, so forgive me if I fail to impress with the graphics side of things because, despite my rough and hairy facial exterior, I am still very much a 'blog baby'.

Anyway, that will be all for now save wishing you all a healthy, love-filled and wonderful 2008!