by Matt Melnicki.
This is the latest ongoing
installment of my journal entries. This
basically consists of workings on my next “big project”, a critique of
industrialism. As of late, my thought
has been self-classified as “ecological democratic post-industrialist”. I recently read a little about Green Anarchy
and notice the similarities, but I don’t believe in retro-primitivism. In the future I will be updating all of
this. This is the stuff I would most
desire feedback on.
[11-February-03]
What is going on in the world? There is
no doubt, the USA is hedging a bet that democracy will fall out. An organization as large, wealthy,
accountable, and contingent on policy must be presented with all the
facts. Any dispute over the environmental
scientists’ records comes out of ignorance, or as a part of a clever plan to
take advantage of the fall of democracy.
The world’s current valued resources have been found to be running dry,
are limited. Unfortunately, those in
command feel that to heed the warnings of this is too expensive, too
indeterminate for the state of the future:
wherever wealth has been built in the Industrial Age, pollution has been
accumulated and thus it would cost $ to clean up, once clean technologies come
in. The wealthy nations would have to
invest large amounts of money to do the research that is most likely not
patentable and will spread throughout the world (just as we have Hondas and
Suzukis, we may have African solar cells and Norwegian wind turbines). Those who have less toxics to clean up will
be able to run budgets more efficiently.
Democracy would thus survive, but the issue of clout would remain, yet
shift into other hands. The leaders at
the top currently would like to see clout develop into power, or more
conservatively, maintain their current clout.
This is seen to be possible by occluding the fact that resources are
limited and in a bad shape, squandering the final resource reserves by
declaring war on the frustrated that cannot govern without clout, and hope the
problems will go away for the time being.
While democracy does not permit certain ideals to take a universal
precedence, there can be no rationalization to supress truth, even if it is to
combat evil and serve justice. Our
pride is our arrogance; our pushiness is our crime. And last but not least, preemptive war is still war.
There is no possible way to understand how all the scientists worldwide agree on global climate change, toxics in water supplies, the threats from deforestation, erosion and pollution, and the closing of the book on fossil fuels, yet the US refutes the facts and demands more research, which they will not fund. It would be impossible for the world planners of the US to not have received the most accurate reporting unless they are defying the eternal force of nature by demanding to see results that reflect their dreams rather than the truth. By convincing the public there is nothing to worry about, they are committing the most immoral offense and clearly we are being deceived by secretive contrivances. The logic of fighting for our posterity is clear to be a fabrication; the US is not seeking sustainable economics, they are seeking unimpeded security for growth. Growth, the action of organization in this universe, is an act away from entropy. Everything that ever existed is subject to the second law of thermodynamics; everything is becoming disordered, colder, more confused, more equilibrated… In order for things to locally grow and self-organize, there must be a resultant counteracction. For instance, nothing that we know of in this solar system can be possible without the destructive pysical chemistry of our sun. In any event, to build up wealth and to construct a rigid society are not actions exempt from this entropy. There are destructive consequences on the periphery of both. Wealth comes from the exploitation of resources, but the least damage occurs from the exploitation of the resource that brought us here, the sun. And the construction of a rigid social system of justice and democracy includes in it losers who consequently are told that their way is incorrect, inefficient, insufficient, improper. There are less of these folks in a democracy than in a dictatorship, but this fact should discount the current notion of democracy as a utopian ideal. Perhaps Buckminster Fuller’s idea of a one-to-one direct democracy (AKA “participatory”) may hold the key to the future, but now we still have to account for losing groups and not just losing individuals (which there will always be).
[9-February-03]
Well I have been apathetic about writing. Much of this has been because San
Diego’s social sterility (for me at least) has left me quite opinionless. I am getting bogged down by the
trigger-happy preemptive war craze (I don’t understand it), I have a lack of
people to feed on ideas with, work has drained my excitement, and I have been
wasting my time in dreams of a happier life than this. It’s amazing that I never became depressed
here in San Diego, but I think that’s something I’m not largely capable of,
ever since Iselin and I created “the Smile Patrol”. It’s very easy to convince yourself you have nothing to worry
about and instead smile. It’s actually
something I learned from reading “Being Peace” by Thich Nhat Hanh, which Iselin
gave me. Besides, one might call it a
copout, but I think a good solution, rather than sitting through a depressing
situation in hopes of it magically relieving itself like a 6-day cold, is to
pick up and do something about it.
Thus, I am moving to Berkeley.
[Note: another reason I have not written much is because I am nervous of the publicity of this online journal. This is, in fact, my first “just-online” entry. As I’m trying to move, I’m trying to liberate myself of material possessions (finally remembered to spell that word right!). Oh yes, the publicity of this journal has made me wary of stating my plans to move, since I link most emails to my webpage, and this news of my unhappiness with SD has been somewhat of a secret. Now that the cat’s out of the bag and I’m definitely moving, who cares? I’m also in contemplation of pulling my pictures off my website so that potential employers cannot find out that I have dreadlocks and used to have a beard. But then I jump and realize that I am acting as a fearful TV-driven American that finds preemptive war as an inevitable solution to prevent terrorism (what?!).
My parents are baiting the thought that perhaps it is running away, and why wouldn’t I encounter the same problems all over again? Well let me explain my major reasons for wanting to move: (got to go to the farmer’s market to get my Cherimoya’s!!)
--The freeway system in SD makes it complicated to go anywhere on a bicycle.
--The public transit here stinks
--Despite all the biotech clustered here in La Jolla and Sorrento Valley, and despite my strong resume, I have not found any jobs that have me jumping up and down. I know I could have worked harder to find something, but I just became apathetic. I’m kind of glad I don’t have a nice job tying me down, or else this decision to move would have been more difficult.
--I have almost no friends here in SD, even when I’ve found certain individuals that think the same way as I do. I think it might be a Southern California thing (lots of flakes here, not excluding me), but I don’t want to generalize.
--while SD is more progressive than NJ, it is still very conservative and sterile and uncritical. Berkeley seems like a place “fancy” enough for me. There really is not much diversity here. The nicest people I’ve met are some of the older folks on the commuter train (gosh I’ll miss them and their smiles!) (note: train folks are exempt from characterization of people here, since they are, after all, on the train and not in their cars).
I will miss, however, my awesome place I’m living in. My roommate, Sara, is incredible. I hope to get some of her paintings online here for you all to see. I also hope to get a picture of the house up. We have a balcony that overlooks the bay and the airport (not noisy though), facing the sunset. It’s really a steal. I’m not prepared to pay much more in rent and then to not have a nice view and antiquey house to boot.
Alright, off to bed soon. Work will be a challenge tomorrow.
[23-January-03]
While my absentmindedness has led me to leave my book on the train, I have fallen
in love with targeting the conundrum of a Biotechnological society. Lke all prognostication, the anticipation of
a future reuled by the genetically “wealthy” is just a hypothesis. It is easy to say to the speculators that
our future will not be concerned with only genetics, for what about the old
industrialism on its way out? Certainly
there will remain feats of mechanical and inorganic engineering. It is
necessary to look at the machinery of an industrial society in order to devise
a role for biotechnology suitable to “postindustry”. Our plastics, our chemicals, our machineries & processings –
these must maintain macromolecular engineerings. We will not be able to maintain an economical capitalist society
to sustain itself by cutting off conventional technologies cold turkey – no one
should expect this, for how shall we fly our airplanes? What will become of metalworking? The open chasm of genetical possibilities limits
little, yet we will not be able to deal with a full-scale biological-based society
until we have stabilized civilization.
All needs must be met, with regards to sustenance, for all people. What is an issue, however, is the sociology
that will be impacted by the new creationary technologies. Who will make qualitative decisions? How can improvements on the species be
sociodemocratic?
[5-December-02]
I have lately been listening to classical music at work, not only because of
its stimulation to the mind which is enslaved to drudgery (aka involuntary
work), but also for its historical snapshot of the birth of Industrial
Capitalist society/civilization. I like
Beethoven the best, but to get an unbiased glimpse of the era, one must pay
attention to all the artists. It is
useless to listen to modern music to investigate the Industrialist mind; there have been hints of postindustrialism
since either the Great Wars, the Bomb, or the Depression. It is best to look at the era of the
inception of Industrial Capitalism >> people surely must have been asking
“what is with all this proliferation? Pollution? Imperialism? Decadent
upper-classism?” For that matter,
Socialist and Communist composers are all significant too, for although they
headed into Industrial (not “post-“ Socialism, this was ther answer to
Industrial Capitalism and Imperialism.
Unfortunately this idea was not a success because power was still
prevalent but today’s latent ecological democratic revolution is capable of
releashing the demon of capitalist industry and decadence. Perhaps a proper study is the classical and the
postindustrial musics in collaboration.
Musics to acquire: Loscil, Fontanelle, Yo La Tengo, Jackie-O Motherfucker, Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Philip Glass, Strauss, French Paddleboat, PG Six, Davis Redford Triad, Linus Pauling Quartet, Timonium, Jewelled Antler releases.
***
It is a lie that things are ordered, structured, truthful. There are infinite options for choice just as the universe is boundless. (Even if we understand the limits of the universe, we can never investigate them). There are no political utopias, there is no book of morals. Religions are only support groups and not guidebooks. There is no simple response to offensive actions, there is no such thing as elitism for there is no hierarchy. The beauty in classical music is just a formula, the same very order exists with atonal instrumentation. Fashion, colors, culture, beauty, art, creativity, communication, nutrition, medicine, justice, good vs. bad, right vs. wrong >> it is all subjective.
[4-December-02]
Last night at the Che Café, at an anarchist punk show, I read a pamphlet on
Green Anarchy. There were many points I
relished, particularly the strive for post-industrialism. However, there were know-it-all,
holier-than-thou, elitist, militant remarks that I was disgusted by. I will disclaim yet again that I do not know
everything; I am not the embodiment of
or seeker for truth – rather I seek progress.
Reversionary primitivism is both hypocritical and unlikely. A push should be for a smooth transition to
postindustry instead. Violence should
be demonized; although it is war, the
cycle will only perpetuate if we fight the “capitalists” violently. Yet revolt we still can. We must also realize that it is “politics”
or propaganda we are still dealing with, even if we denounce subjugation and
praise autonomy. We cannot denounce the
Greens and liberals and left for not “dropping out of society”. Yes, if we all rejected “civilization”, we
could create our post-civilizational anarchic communities, yet we must realize
that we can never benevolently rid ourselves of civiliational defects; we can, however, work together to replace
them.
[12-November-02]
While I may easily denounce materialism (for its ephemeral externalities and boundless
bounties of future trash heaps), a sterile, denuded, bare Zen life is stripped
of life. While mind (hence mindfulness)
& thought (hence dialogue and communication) are the pavements on which we
walk, traversing the forest also yields insight. Without art, color, beauty, sound, imagery, the subjective
contrafactual essays that unmake the mind, we shall be lost. For neither the intellectual nor the
metaphysical will ever be complete (ie – Cosmology, or existence-pondering, or
the basis of emotions – its ties to certain harmonies & colors). These are the two fields of mystery in the
world. Our efforts to be
comprehensivists should include both the tackling of the divine (the arts – the
children of the gods but not the gods themselves) and of the hard sciences (the
more likely path to find a god if there exists one). The softer sciences, inquiries of how we live (not why we live),
are more exact, in that there are more answers than questions. This path then includes more action than
typical scientific inquiry. Livingry
science is still valuable, but I would find it more challenging to be a
comprehensivist in one of these fields >> there are more answers to be
sorted through & thus a livingry scientist should be more familiar with the
variety of experiences these answers demand, before one makes conclusions in
their otherwise narrow field. All
fields, spectrumlike or weblike, are integrated into a large system of inquiry,
nameld “how do we live?” Rather, the
livingry science is weblike – questions about schooling also carry the
questions of governance, cultural values, religious values, even the questions
of knowledge’s nature (philosophy) itself.
Hard scientific research & discovery studies are spectrumlik, though
hardly hierarchical. There are numerous
levels of questioning a single phenomenon (what are its electrons doing? What is the sun doing? What is the pressure flow? What’s the weather like?) This spectrum
often can be grouped to microscopic/visual/physical levels of measurement. The livingry sciences have similar scopes
(what is a household doing? An individual? A town? A country? A continent? A
region?) but the flavors of the questions they raise within (or between) each
level are so vast that it all becomes interrelated. While ethnicity may affect social customs or economic habitats,
& advertising/commerce dwell on various sets of information at all levels,
in hard science it is important to recognize what occurs at each level but
often only one frame is sufficient (optimal) for study at a specific moment… //
Well, I am beginning to think none of this makes much sense. Science has the capacity to befuddle
everyone perhaps because it dwells on the unknown. It is difficult to classify (unoccultly) these inquiries of
nothing when no conclusions are made.
My point is, however, that we will perhaps never reach the point when
science is fully understood. Yet
philosophical probing such as this is valuable not only to exemplify the
futility of the endeavor (one could write volumes of such questioning on the
nature of science with the countless examples there are to draw on)… It is also
valuable to sort through our thoughts… While we will never be 100% correct
about any of our conclusions (for if we do not fully understand the nature of science
we cannot know the context of our conclusions)… we can begin to excise the
points where we are incorrect.
Evolution will NEVER yield an omnipotent species, just as scientific
inquiry will never build, through generations of knowledge, a perfect science.