Recently, my local university library switched cataloguing system, from our local Swedish SAB system to the Dewey decimal system. However, the transition was not made all at once, but rather is done sections at a time. New books are entered into the new system, while old books remain as they are, with some migration from old to new according to rules mostly inscrutable to us students and patrons.
This means that there are two sections for every subject, one old and one new. Interestingly enough, the difference between the two is distinct enough to tell a tale of its own. The old sections mainly contain classics, postmodernism and cyberoptimism. The new sections are, as you might expect, up to date.
Walking from the old sections to the new is akin to walking from the past to the future. However, the future is a very particular future, with a very particular set of events that shaped how things came to pass. We know these events, as we lived through them and have them in living memory. We remember what we did on 11/9 when we heard the news about the twin towers; we remember the aftermath. These things are reflected in the titles of the new shelves, as well they should be.
The old shelves, however, tell a different story. The classics are timeless, and point towards some universal truth or other. The postmodernists do their darnedest to deconstruct settled notions of universality and truth, so as to open up the space to actualizing new universals and new truths - those of our own making, as it were, rather than those we happened to inherit. The cyberoptimists are all enthused about the coming of the computers, and what it could, would, should mean in terms of a better future.
The future was up for grabs, and it was up to people like you and me to make the effort to make it a place worth living.
I suspect the library at some point will complete the transition from the old system to the new one, and that this inadvertent contrast between what was, what could be and what is will become but a memory. But for a little while longer, it will remain possible to observe the difference by physically moving around. Future history, juxtaposed.
It behooves us to notice these things.
Tuesday, January 24, 2017
Monday, January 23, 2017
Rationally debating nazis is bad
During the course of the discussions surrounding the punching or non-punching of nazis, many references have been made to the notion of rational debate. Words are stronger than fists, as it were, and it is better to use words whenever possible. Especially when considered in the long term - sticks and stones ain't got nothing on the longevity of words.
I do not think the proponents of rational debate understand what it is they are proposing.
To put it in its most brutal form: waking up to a world where parliament is engaged in rational debate regarding the extermination of the Jews would be a nightmare. Especially if they applied all the tools of rationality - weighing the benefits to the costs, comparing different methods of achieving the goal, searching the remaining nazi records for useful information on practical implementation.
These are not things you want to see rationally debated. You want them as far away from the range of available topics of conversation as possible. Ideally, you want the topic so fat removed from consideration that even thinking about it becomes an exercise in speculative fiction. It is not a topic for discussion.
Imagine, however, that it was a topic for discussion. Every day. All the time. To such a degree that when you try to go about your business, you are approached by someone who very politely asks if you have considered exterminating the Jews today. They have a pamphlet, you see, and a book of reasons why today is the day to start thinking that, yeah, maybe there are too many Jews around. Maybe they actually are a problem that needs to be solved, once and for all. After all, you've been hearing about it for so long, there might just be something to it.
If you at this point think to yourself that there is no set of circumstances which would make you consider the extermination of Jews to be a good idea on rational grounds, then you have fully understood why rational debate is not an option. The notion of rational debate assumes that the topic at hand is in the best interest of those who participate in the discussion, and if it is in your best interest to see Jews exterminated -
Well then, my friend, I have some bad news for you.
I do not think the proponents of rational debate understand what it is they are proposing.
To put it in its most brutal form: waking up to a world where parliament is engaged in rational debate regarding the extermination of the Jews would be a nightmare. Especially if they applied all the tools of rationality - weighing the benefits to the costs, comparing different methods of achieving the goal, searching the remaining nazi records for useful information on practical implementation.
These are not things you want to see rationally debated. You want them as far away from the range of available topics of conversation as possible. Ideally, you want the topic so fat removed from consideration that even thinking about it becomes an exercise in speculative fiction. It is not a topic for discussion.
Imagine, however, that it was a topic for discussion. Every day. All the time. To such a degree that when you try to go about your business, you are approached by someone who very politely asks if you have considered exterminating the Jews today. They have a pamphlet, you see, and a book of reasons why today is the day to start thinking that, yeah, maybe there are too many Jews around. Maybe they actually are a problem that needs to be solved, once and for all. After all, you've been hearing about it for so long, there might just be something to it.
If you at this point think to yourself that there is no set of circumstances which would make you consider the extermination of Jews to be a good idea on rational grounds, then you have fully understood why rational debate is not an option. The notion of rational debate assumes that the topic at hand is in the best interest of those who participate in the discussion, and if it is in your best interest to see Jews exterminated -
Well then, my friend, I have some bad news for you.
Sunday, January 22, 2017
Punching nazis is good
A strange discussion is taking place at the moment. An anonymous gentleman punch a very public nazi, and the altercation was captured on tape. The video subsequently went viral, and a great many opponents of nazism celebrated the event. Moreover, they encouraged people to do more of it. To, in no uncertain terms, punch more nazis.
Make no mistake. Punching nazis is good. Do more of it.
This part is not strange. Up to this point, things are rather straightforward. Punch, video, viral. This needs no explanation. However, it needs to be mentioned in order to cement your understanding of the strange part.
The strange part is that there seems to be a not insubstantial number of individuals who disagree with the sentiment that punching nazis is a public good that should be encouraged. Who, upon encountering statements in support of further punching, instantly and with vigor, object that violence is not an acceptable response to the situation. Following from this, they object that it is equally not acceptable to encourage enthusiastic punching of additional nazis that happen to be within reach.
Why this sudden urge to defend the nazis? What gives?
The short answer is that decent people oppose violence, and thus do not want to encourage it. Punching a nazi is an act of violence, and thus they do not want to encourage such actions. It is a simple principle, and they act on it. It is, in short, the decent thing to do.
Thing is. The very existence of organized nazis who act in public is an act of violence in and of itself. Nazism as an ideology has a very clearly defined goal, and that goal is to make the lives of inferior races a living hell up until the point where state policies can be enacted to systematically eradicate these races. This is the explicit goal, and every ounce of influence accumulated by those who follow this ideology will be used to further this goal. The inferior races are to be purged, to create living space for the master race. Compromise is not an option.
This is what they want. This is what they say they want. This is why they put pictures of literally Hitler on their propaganda material. This is not in any way a hidden secret.
Allowing nazis to go about their business undisturbed has the unintended consequence of allowing them to go about their business. They can hold meetings, distribute propaganda material and recruit more followers. They can go through all the steps required to get from here to their goal, undisturbed. Left to their own devices, they can get shit done.
It might be argued that it would be more prudent to try to reason with them. That words are better than fists. That reasoned debate still has a role to play in this.
My counterargument is that history happened, and we recorded it. It is very possible to find out what the nazis did. The cultural production of whole generations went into hammering in the importance of never allowing what they did happen again. Books, movies, monuments, essays, plays, songs, poems - those who want to know have it within their reach to find out. There is no excuse for not knowing.
Those who, in spite of this, come across the nazi point of view and think it agreeable, have already discarded the lessons of history. They know what they are doing, but they are doing it anyway. Telling them what they already know will not change their minds.
Punching them, however, has the effect of stopping what they are doing. It's hard to organize the second Holocaust when being punched.
And that is the point.
Make no mistake. Punching nazis is good. Do more of it.
This part is not strange. Up to this point, things are rather straightforward. Punch, video, viral. This needs no explanation. However, it needs to be mentioned in order to cement your understanding of the strange part.
The strange part is that there seems to be a not insubstantial number of individuals who disagree with the sentiment that punching nazis is a public good that should be encouraged. Who, upon encountering statements in support of further punching, instantly and with vigor, object that violence is not an acceptable response to the situation. Following from this, they object that it is equally not acceptable to encourage enthusiastic punching of additional nazis that happen to be within reach.
Why this sudden urge to defend the nazis? What gives?
The short answer is that decent people oppose violence, and thus do not want to encourage it. Punching a nazi is an act of violence, and thus they do not want to encourage such actions. It is a simple principle, and they act on it. It is, in short, the decent thing to do.
Thing is. The very existence of organized nazis who act in public is an act of violence in and of itself. Nazism as an ideology has a very clearly defined goal, and that goal is to make the lives of inferior races a living hell up until the point where state policies can be enacted to systematically eradicate these races. This is the explicit goal, and every ounce of influence accumulated by those who follow this ideology will be used to further this goal. The inferior races are to be purged, to create living space for the master race. Compromise is not an option.
This is what they want. This is what they say they want. This is why they put pictures of literally Hitler on their propaganda material. This is not in any way a hidden secret.
Allowing nazis to go about their business undisturbed has the unintended consequence of allowing them to go about their business. They can hold meetings, distribute propaganda material and recruit more followers. They can go through all the steps required to get from here to their goal, undisturbed. Left to their own devices, they can get shit done.
It might be argued that it would be more prudent to try to reason with them. That words are better than fists. That reasoned debate still has a role to play in this.
My counterargument is that history happened, and we recorded it. It is very possible to find out what the nazis did. The cultural production of whole generations went into hammering in the importance of never allowing what they did happen again. Books, movies, monuments, essays, plays, songs, poems - those who want to know have it within their reach to find out. There is no excuse for not knowing.
Those who, in spite of this, come across the nazi point of view and think it agreeable, have already discarded the lessons of history. They know what they are doing, but they are doing it anyway. Telling them what they already know will not change their minds.
Punching them, however, has the effect of stopping what they are doing. It's hard to organize the second Holocaust when being punched.
And that is the point.
Monday, January 9, 2017
The proper amount of attention
You know those local artists who dedicate their lives to their art? Who work ceaselessly on their projects, utilizing all the time and resources at their disposal in a single-minded pursuit of doing the work. Who, at the end of the day, look back on what they have accomplished and deep within their souls know that the world needs more of it. Who live and breathe art as surely as everyone else breathes air.
You know the kind. Those who never actually succeed in getting anywhere, and at most impact the most immediate neighbors. Those who get chosen when the producers of local television scrapes the barrel for what to feature next, and whose daytime programs have audiences counted in double digits.
You have seen those shows. Right before you zap over to another channel, because who cares, right?
I want you to have this category of people as a template. They work hard, are earnest in their efforts, and get absolutely no recognition for it. They are, for all intents and purposes, literal nobodies.
This is the template for how to treat neo-nazis (and their alt right alter egos). This is the proper amount of attention to give them. This is the baseline.
If you are in tune with the current zeitgeist, you might instinctively think that there is some element of free speech at play here. Resist this instinct - the biggest problem with neo-nazis is not that people have not heard their arguments. To the contrary: an entire generation of a whole continent got to hear it point blank, and wrote extensively about why that particular ideology is a bad idea all around. The message has been heard; spreading it even further would not bring any additional insight into the present condition.
Ask instead why the issue of free speech actualized at the mention of neo-nazis rather than the ineffectual local artist. Examine the assumptions at work in that line of thinking, and put some critical distance between it and yourself.
Then go find one of those local artists. Chances are they actually do have useful insights into the present condition, in wait of someone to notice them. -
You know the kind. Those who never actually succeed in getting anywhere, and at most impact the most immediate neighbors. Those who get chosen when the producers of local television scrapes the barrel for what to feature next, and whose daytime programs have audiences counted in double digits.
You have seen those shows. Right before you zap over to another channel, because who cares, right?
I want you to have this category of people as a template. They work hard, are earnest in their efforts, and get absolutely no recognition for it. They are, for all intents and purposes, literal nobodies.
This is the template for how to treat neo-nazis (and their alt right alter egos). This is the proper amount of attention to give them. This is the baseline.
If you are in tune with the current zeitgeist, you might instinctively think that there is some element of free speech at play here. Resist this instinct - the biggest problem with neo-nazis is not that people have not heard their arguments. To the contrary: an entire generation of a whole continent got to hear it point blank, and wrote extensively about why that particular ideology is a bad idea all around. The message has been heard; spreading it even further would not bring any additional insight into the present condition.
Ask instead why the issue of free speech actualized at the mention of neo-nazis rather than the ineffectual local artist. Examine the assumptions at work in that line of thinking, and put some critical distance between it and yourself.
Then go find one of those local artists. Chances are they actually do have useful insights into the present condition, in wait of someone to notice them. -
Tuesday, December 27, 2016
Making translations work
There are certain advantages to having English as a second language (aside from the ever present point that no one has English as their first language). One of them is that you have access to a whole realm of non-English thoughts and traditions, and can escape into it from the goings-on of the international realm. When the going gets rough, the locals go local.
And, of course, you have a brutally efficient means of encryption at the ready at all times. Just don't bother to translate, och ditt budskap blir obegripligt utan att du behöver anstränga dig alls. Very handy, very convenient.
One counter-intuitive advantage of belonging to a non-English language area is that books are translated into your language. To be sure, given sufficient fluency, it doesn't matter one way or the other whether a certain text is translated or not. It's still the same text, after all. Except for one subtle difference: the introductions.
It takes time and effort to translate a text, even if you are only mechanically flipping the words from one language to another. It takes even more time and effort to translate a text in such a way that context, intent, nuance, references and allusions find their way across. Most of that extra effort takes the form of someone who knows the subject matter being paid for their labor, meaning that the decision to translate something is both a matter of wanting the text to be translated, and being able to justify the expense of doing it.
Now, Swedish is not a huge language on the world stage, as you might imagine. Even more so since most swedes know English anyway, and can just as easily pick up the original version for the same reading experience. The market of monolingual swedes is not large enough to support just-because translations. Which actualizes the justification of expense mentioned above: why do the work if it's all the same?
The Swedish answer has been to establish a long tradition of writing introductions to translated works. Long and comprehensive introductions, which touch upon most of the things a reader might or ought to know before heading into the text proper. When reading a translated work, you do not only get the work in and of itself - you also get yourself a proper grounding as to what kind of work lies before you. You are, for all intents and purposes, introduced. More so than those who read the original, untranslated work.
This is what marketing people call a selling point.
It is also something that those of you who are monolingual will never find out unless someone tells you about it. So, thus. See a need, fill a need. -
And, of course, you have a brutally efficient means of encryption at the ready at all times. Just don't bother to translate, och ditt budskap blir obegripligt utan att du behöver anstränga dig alls. Very handy, very convenient.
One counter-intuitive advantage of belonging to a non-English language area is that books are translated into your language. To be sure, given sufficient fluency, it doesn't matter one way or the other whether a certain text is translated or not. It's still the same text, after all. Except for one subtle difference: the introductions.
It takes time and effort to translate a text, even if you are only mechanically flipping the words from one language to another. It takes even more time and effort to translate a text in such a way that context, intent, nuance, references and allusions find their way across. Most of that extra effort takes the form of someone who knows the subject matter being paid for their labor, meaning that the decision to translate something is both a matter of wanting the text to be translated, and being able to justify the expense of doing it.
Now, Swedish is not a huge language on the world stage, as you might imagine. Even more so since most swedes know English anyway, and can just as easily pick up the original version for the same reading experience. The market of monolingual swedes is not large enough to support just-because translations. Which actualizes the justification of expense mentioned above: why do the work if it's all the same?
The Swedish answer has been to establish a long tradition of writing introductions to translated works. Long and comprehensive introductions, which touch upon most of the things a reader might or ought to know before heading into the text proper. When reading a translated work, you do not only get the work in and of itself - you also get yourself a proper grounding as to what kind of work lies before you. You are, for all intents and purposes, introduced. More so than those who read the original, untranslated work.
This is what marketing people call a selling point.
It is also something that those of you who are monolingual will never find out unless someone tells you about it. So, thus. See a need, fill a need. -
Thursday, December 22, 2016
Dress for the future you want, not the one you foresee
An understated aspect of my Discursive Anomalies is that they are not one-off affairs. I carry them with me, and try them out on things I encounter. They are, in a way, a toolbox. The nature of these tools or what situations they are meant to improve is as of yet unknown, and that is part of the point. When the time comes, the tools will be there.
Lately, I have been thinking back on the post about Jonathon Green's depiction of the 60s counterculture of Great Britain. It accomplishes something it really ought not to accomplish: by describing many contemporary constituent parts of a time period, without really piecing them together, it conveys a better sense of the times than a more integrated approach would. It is all nows: one now after another, juxtaposed in such a manner as to bring context through sheer numbers. It is not a point of view, but you end up with one nevertheless.
It is all very backwards, and all very straightforward. Integrated and holistic points of view are artifacts of hindsight, not readily available to those living in the moment. In the moment, there are only constituent parts, who disappear when we find ourselves with something more interesting to do.
I wonder what a similar depiction of our time would look like. What the distinguishing characteristics and vital constituent parts will turn out to be.
I suspect it would be a mixture of things we take for granted and things we cannot see due to being too close to them. The Trump election would most likely warrant a mention, alongside some massive landslide of a long-term change that happens on the other side of the world we have yet to see the ramifications of. The rattling of sabers on both sides of the old Cold War will probably be discussed as an ambient factor, but the real background tune of the future has every probability of being recorded in a suburb of an African town whose name we will never know. Perhaps meme culture will be a thing; perhaps it turns out a revived ancient tribal practice performs the same functions with far greater efficiency, sneaking in from the periphery.
History has a way of becoming those things that happened alongside those other things we paid attention to.
This state of things is a hopeful one. It implies that the world is not limited to what can be seen in the news. It also implies, through the same logic, that there are still surprises left in the world, ready to strike from so far out of left field that they cannot but be discursively anomalous.
It implies that we could be the one causing these unforeseen consequences, by engaging in some fit of passion that in hindsight turned out to be more important than we could have imagined.
That is a good future. We should prepare for it. -
Lately, I have been thinking back on the post about Jonathon Green's depiction of the 60s counterculture of Great Britain. It accomplishes something it really ought not to accomplish: by describing many contemporary constituent parts of a time period, without really piecing them together, it conveys a better sense of the times than a more integrated approach would. It is all nows: one now after another, juxtaposed in such a manner as to bring context through sheer numbers. It is not a point of view, but you end up with one nevertheless.
It is all very backwards, and all very straightforward. Integrated and holistic points of view are artifacts of hindsight, not readily available to those living in the moment. In the moment, there are only constituent parts, who disappear when we find ourselves with something more interesting to do.
I wonder what a similar depiction of our time would look like. What the distinguishing characteristics and vital constituent parts will turn out to be.
I suspect it would be a mixture of things we take for granted and things we cannot see due to being too close to them. The Trump election would most likely warrant a mention, alongside some massive landslide of a long-term change that happens on the other side of the world we have yet to see the ramifications of. The rattling of sabers on both sides of the old Cold War will probably be discussed as an ambient factor, but the real background tune of the future has every probability of being recorded in a suburb of an African town whose name we will never know. Perhaps meme culture will be a thing; perhaps it turns out a revived ancient tribal practice performs the same functions with far greater efficiency, sneaking in from the periphery.
History has a way of becoming those things that happened alongside those other things we paid attention to.
This state of things is a hopeful one. It implies that the world is not limited to what can be seen in the news. It also implies, through the same logic, that there are still surprises left in the world, ready to strike from so far out of left field that they cannot but be discursively anomalous.
It implies that we could be the one causing these unforeseen consequences, by engaging in some fit of passion that in hindsight turned out to be more important than we could have imagined.
That is a good future. We should prepare for it. -
Tuesday, December 6, 2016
If you can't beat them, beat them by joining them
The administration of the president-elect of the United States is in something of a hurry. Apparently, they didn't foresee the eventuality of actually becoming the administration of the president-elect of the United States, and thus didn't bother with the formality of specifying exactly who is in the administration of the president-elect of the United States.
That is over 4000 job positions, to be filled by early January. Or, to put it in a more manageable number: a hundred appointments to be made a day until the next presidency begins.
This is something of a pickle, to be sure. The usual way to go about these things is to begin months in advance to make sure the best people are placed in the right positions, with any number of checks and balances and procedures to facilitate the process. It isn't something that happens overnight, and being in the position to very soon have to literally make it happen overnight is not something to envy.
As you might imagine, this means that things have to be done faster than usual. If you can't imagine, try counting to a hundred, and then read a hundred names out loud. It takes a while just to enumerate the positions and the names that go with them, and the work has to be done at breakneck speed. There is bound to be something of a drop in quality of the process, and due to this, less than optimal choices will inevitably be made.
This means that being considered for a position is a very good thing to be these days. The speed at which the whole ordeal has to be completed brings with it the temptation to just pick a name from the pile of available names and make it official. Speed is of the essence, and the positions must be filled before the next presidency begins.
Fortunately for you - if you are a US citizen of somewhat good standing - it is very possible to apply for jobs in the next administration. And given the sped-up process described above, now might very well be the best possible moment to just send in an application and hope it sticks.
Just like a certain president elect-did.
If you find yourself thinking that you are not qualified for a cushy top government job - do not worry too much about it. You have a grasp of basic science and are a somewhat decent human being, which means that whoever you displace is a worse choice than you are. If we work on the principle of doing no harm, you will most definitely do less harm than someone who believes that the bible is literal truth and that climate change is a myth perpetuated to weaken the bargaining position of western nations. You have what it takes.
Also, I hear the healthcare benefits are to die for.
The application form can be found here. Make yourself known.
That is over 4000 job positions, to be filled by early January. Or, to put it in a more manageable number: a hundred appointments to be made a day until the next presidency begins.
This is something of a pickle, to be sure. The usual way to go about these things is to begin months in advance to make sure the best people are placed in the right positions, with any number of checks and balances and procedures to facilitate the process. It isn't something that happens overnight, and being in the position to very soon have to literally make it happen overnight is not something to envy.
As you might imagine, this means that things have to be done faster than usual. If you can't imagine, try counting to a hundred, and then read a hundred names out loud. It takes a while just to enumerate the positions and the names that go with them, and the work has to be done at breakneck speed. There is bound to be something of a drop in quality of the process, and due to this, less than optimal choices will inevitably be made.
This means that being considered for a position is a very good thing to be these days. The speed at which the whole ordeal has to be completed brings with it the temptation to just pick a name from the pile of available names and make it official. Speed is of the essence, and the positions must be filled before the next presidency begins.
Fortunately for you - if you are a US citizen of somewhat good standing - it is very possible to apply for jobs in the next administration. And given the sped-up process described above, now might very well be the best possible moment to just send in an application and hope it sticks.
Just like a certain president elect-did.
If you find yourself thinking that you are not qualified for a cushy top government job - do not worry too much about it. You have a grasp of basic science and are a somewhat decent human being, which means that whoever you displace is a worse choice than you are. If we work on the principle of doing no harm, you will most definitely do less harm than someone who believes that the bible is literal truth and that climate change is a myth perpetuated to weaken the bargaining position of western nations. You have what it takes.
Also, I hear the healthcare benefits are to die for.
The application form can be found here. Make yourself known.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)