Fuck intellectualism

Sometimes I reflect on university, or I see someone prattling about something social-science related, and it makes me feel a great deal of rage towards "intellectualism".

The smoke and mirrors of intellectualism are twofold. First you invent a vocabulary that is inaccessible to the untrained (“big school words” to replace “normal people words” as Ricky would say in TPB). Second, you surround yourself with others who like using inaccessible words to sound smart in order to reinforce your freshly fabricated reality.

I distinctly remember a first year course reading a book by professor Gilles Pacquet, and having not the foggiest clue what any of the chapters were about. They were talking about “wicked problems” and solving these with “meso forums”. In the end I suspect his point - which is a mainstay of all kinds of theorists, conclusions, writers etc - is that people should communicate more effectively. Was the mesoforum really necessary? nope.

But that's the thing... it isn’t cool as an intellectual to make your thinking accessible. See Foucault, Neitzsche, Gramsci and pretty much anyone else they ask you to read in political science (Michael Walzer notwithstanding) for further examples of inaccessible and unnecessarily convoluted writing.

Let me take the first quote from Foucault that I find when I google his name:

“Panopticism is one of the characteristic traits of our society. It's a type of power that is applied to individuals in the form of continuous individual supervision, in the form of control, punishment and compensation, and in the form of correction, that is, the molding and transformation of individuals in terms of certain norms. This threefold aspect of panopticism - supervision, control, correction - seems to be a fundamental and characteristic dimension of the power relations that exist in our society.”

What does this say in normal people words?

People are always being supervised.

Firstly, I wouldn’t go so far as to say “always”, but otherwise no shit? We call this law and order in most places. The alternative would be? No supervision? No police? No authority?

But if you’re a university student this is some of the most amazing clever stuff you’ve ever seen. PANOPTICISM! WOW! “The molding and transformation of individuals in terms of certain norms” WOW! It’s like we’re being controlled to behave a certain way! Holy shit! It’s almost like there’s some kind of supreme body that makes like… rules or something… and then we have to follow those rules… and like if we do we do okay but if we don’t we get punished… it’s so deep.

Which is to say “intellectualism” is (lets say 9 times out of 10) nothing more than dressing common sense up with inaccessible and confusing language.

Because you can’t get grants or a lecture circuit for saying that society involves a government that makes and enforces rules (policies, laws) that become norms of behaviour (unless everyone wants to sit in jail). But if you say PANOPTICISM... well now you’re cookin.

Warren Kinsella is a turd

Watching CTV newsnet with a feature between the strategists (?) for the liberals, NDP, and conservatives.

Ok Tim Powers is on for the Tories. Usually tim isn't too bad when I see him. He's certainly a million times better than ezra the worst guest in the universe levant. For the libs its warren kinsella. For some reason I was under the impression this person was an intellectual of some sorts - ENNNNNNTTTT try again. This guy is the biggest douche on the TV. For the NDP some guy who's name I forget (sigh, tis the fate of NDP) but he's a 1 trick pony too.

Now part of this is that these 3 people aren't that bright (well, I don't think I could really say that about tim powers he seems smart enough), but part of it is just stupid fucking politics.

The liberal kinsella has 1 role here. To accuse the NDP of "propping up the tories" or "being in bed with the tories" or whatever else he can come up with. It's as ridiculous and disingenious as when the conservatives were accusing the liberals (are they still?) of "being in bed with the socialists and the separatists". Like I don't need to be a historian to tell you that in the history of minority governments in this country each party has supported that minority at some point or another. So technically everyone's in bed with everyone else? hmmm.

The NDP dude is like "we want to get $1B to unemployed workers" and just repeats that pretty much for the whole interview. It's not a terrible line to use but to just repeat it over and over again is boring.

But then yeah, Kinsella actually starts saying "blah blah blah" when one of the other guys is speaking. Seriously? Is this grade 2? He's the ezra levant of the libs I guess. He then responds to one question by saying he doesn't like either of the other guests very much (Tim or NDPer). Really? No professional courtesy?

What a turd.

Some quick thoughts on politics right now in this country:

1. Elizabeth May sold out the greens. Way to become NDP2 and welcome to failure. Get your 1 seat and become a footnote to history, yay!

2. Why does stephen harper have to be at any conference to listen to someone's speech? They invented this thing called a tape recorder, it rules.

3. When spending money as government, its either too slow or else it is unaccountable. In either case opposition will claim it should be fast and accountable as though red tape doesn't add any delay... durr durr.

4. All cooperation is terrible for politics. You cannot ever say anybody else is doing anything good for the country because you will be in bed with them and you wouldn't want to seem promiscuous.

5. All politics shows should be cancelled immediately since they are completely devoid of content.

6. More money should be spent on donut innovation as this is what truly matters to Canadians (I remember a time without timbits). Frankly Timmies quality on donuts has been spiralling down for years so something's gotta change.

The biology of spirit – a question of responsibility

I figure I probably suffer from at least three undiagnosed mental disorders. At the rate things are going, by the time I’m thirty-five that number will probably rise to ten or so. I figure it is only a matter of time before all unpleasant thoughts are clinical. Depending on how things shape up at that point, we might start diagnosing the good ones too. Clinical happiness – tragic.

People used to be stupid, or bad, or crazy. Now they have attention deficit disorders and obedience defiance disorders. Separating the individual from their brain chemistry, ingenious, except that this is all we ultimately are. Every thought I have, every trigger for every action, is my brain chemistry. If I am not these chemical reactions what am I?

I have a bad memory, I have trouble focusing, I have sometimes depressing thoughts about life, the universe, and everything. Is this me or is this just my brain chemistry? Maybe underneath these “problems” lies my perfect self, the one uncompromised by the erroneous inflections in my deoxyribonucleic acid. I never liked any discipline that connects behaviour to chemistry/biology. Not because it isn’t a valid discipline that produces results, but because of what it means. If behaviour becomes chemistry it displaces responsibility and we become victims of our own brains rather than being those brains.

The paradox and irony is how I view civilization and environment by comparison. In this I loathe the idea of human exceptionalism. I feel like by thinking we’re somehow more than our biology and ecological niche we are justifying living beyond our means. It’s a perspective I’d imagine most true environmentalists come around to eventually. Until you get that the human race is a flash in the evolutionary pan, and that we are an animal amongst animals, dependent on the same basic conditions for life as most other species, it is way too easy to displace yourself from the natural environment; to think only in terms of Oprah and cars and paychecks.

It strikes me as somewhat illogical to do this. To say on one hand, we are something more than chemical reactions and on the other that we are nothing more than a brief moment in evolution of no greater significance than an ant or a walrus. The only common thread I can see in these otherwise opposite stances is the emphasis on responsibility. That in the former case we cannot accept chemical explanations because they free us from responsibility for our social behaviour, and in the latter that we cannot believe ourselves something outside of nature because it frees us from responsibility for our environmental behaviour.

I know this was always my biggest beef with hippies and socialists – the displacement of responsibility. Whatever you don’t have or whatever isn’t working is capitalism’s fault. My favourite comparison is native communities to Amish communities. The Amish (or is it Mennonites?) don’t get $100K per capita per year in state support, yet they somehow manage to cultivate land, pay property taxes, and live a traditional lifestyle. So they prove it is completely feasible to do so if one is willing to put one’s shoulder to the wheel. Then, these people don’t have the luxury of passing the buck and blaming history or another civilization for stealing from them so there is less inertia towards putting said shoulder to said wheel.

Then it is likely that my predisposition towards individual responsibility is a mental disorder. Some chemicals what didn’t form properly in my cerebral cavity churning out these thoughts. So technically its not my fault I think this, its just my brain chemistry (or perhaps society).