Actually have a much longer post ready to go, but it's in four pieces and so I did this short piece as sort of an intro. I understand that this writing comes across as pseudo psycho anthropology but if you can imagine this I am trying to write on two sides of a mobius band at the same time. Or I'm writing on two sides of an inflated balloon at the same time - not the inside and the outside , but rather the side facing you and the other side.
How's that for clarification :-) ???
The dilemma is "I don't want to write a what I had for lunch blog" eg facebook nor do I want to write a "how to assemble a dirigible" blog ( which is how one allegedly monetarises) because my mind doesn't work that way. More to the point I make this as incomprehensible as possible because I don't want your body or your money - I want to know if there's anybody else out there that thinks like me. Er, in a nutshell
I've been doing this since 95 and have had virtually no success. That must be some kind of record at least. Heh
here's the more to the point introduction
------------------------------
Pertaining to another article I'm in the midst of writing it hit me that there was an underlying premise that lay beneath some of the changes in attitude and action in the US and that this could be seen over the entire period of the second half of the twentieth century.
There's a little bit of a paradox, or obfuscation though.
As well I wouldn't suggest that other countries have experienced similar things.
The paradox is that as we seek to claim rationalistic justifications, the competition of best solutions and what have you the population is increasingly distrustful of anything smacking of science. It's like we wish to retain the magical even in the face of common sense. I can understand it - it's the fear of the unknown - but it's still not always a real good thing . (And for people who are merely "smart" it's a bummer, because as the hierarchical systems break down one needs an increasingly broad set of skills to get ahead.)
What ties the events together is a disbelief in the scientific method. It is not readily apparent because neoliberalism, free market doctrine and the entire idea of competition being the arbitrator of success sounds at least very much like the scientific method.
As the expression goes, "They shall be tested and some shall come forth as gold."
Suffice to say the accuracy or reliability of the so called new free markets to deliver the best results - and even what those best results are, are both open to interpretation - but we can let that pass for the moment.
One begins to wonder if ever have ideologies been so suspect?
After the second world war the need to prove the efficacy of science was hardly a factor in any estimation. In psychology the belief both in the curative aspects as well the ability of psychology to influence the sane mind was never so strong.
The rise of religious fundamentalism seemed tailor made to counter that. The question is "Why?"
In recent times I've tended to see events through the lens of economics. For instance the American Civil War was perhaps not so much about freeing people from slavery as it was a way of deciding the future direction of the nation. This reasoning holds true in the question of whether the US will be an Urbanized or rural nation.
The ramifications are, er, interesting, but I don't want to get into a political mash up here.
Actually events of the past twenty years have hardened many of us. Academia and science may cherish open and shared information but business regards such concepts with contempt.
I've been thinking of this stuff in terms of toys. What little boy works well with others and shares his toys and who doesn't? I've known both types.
I'll explain this in terms of dilemmas. The first one is one is particularly applicable to the world of media. Businesses in entertainment tend to follow flocking behavior and therefor it is crucial that one be as far forward up the development chain as possible.
I might add that the recent flood of musical product from the past decades points this out emphatically. Great recordings were made and disregarded merely because the market had passed them by. Media is to some degree a special case in that it has ties to fashions and as well those ties are related to current events.
This is too say if they're wearing Nehru jackets and love beads around the pool better get yours fast, because it won't last.
We tend to take a tolerant view of the adoption of others styles. There are however cases that go over the line to outright thievery. The classic case, and it's been done to me and it's been done to nearly everyone, is you send in a script, a song, or something "on spec" and quite often get the quick replay that it's no good and can't be used and then six months later it comes out with minor modifications undersome one elses name.
Even that though,is not the worst. At least it tells you you're on the right track. As Hans Zimmer says, "There aren't that many talented people that anyone can afford to waste them."
The worst case scenarios are the cases where a guy spends years developing a piece of software, he finally gets a market, get the thing goin and then Apple announces a new OS that coincidentally favors the large companies who can put a few dozen people on the task of rewriting the program. That hoits.
Growing up I knew two major inventors in electronics personally. (Pickering, who designed audio pickups and Middlemark who invented rabbits ears antenna for TVs) Both had good educations, both had one big invention and dozens of little patents and to put it mildly were beyond the reach of the wolf at the door. I'm not sure I can see that happening nowadays.
In a way this situation mirrors the entire globalization paradigm which shovels all the rewards upwards. Microsoft may have been relentless but Gates was not stingy. (Some of these other companies are a joke - although I hasten to add I am not really up on such things.)
So that dillemma is something I have to deal with. I expected someone in some "Drug store of the mind" to come along and say "You're brilliant! Tell us what to do, who to hire and how to spend our money!"
Strange to say that did not happen;many of the tasks I prepared for were never faced and those required
I never got around to.
Non disclosure agreements anyone?
I mention them because realistically I often wonder if not the wrong people are signing them. Let's say, for arguments sake, I was world class at the requisite procedures. In an otherwise balanced conversation the odds are good that the other person, were they capable of understanding what I was saying would come away having gained more knowledge then I had.
In this case it does not make sense for me to play the interview game - unless the person is so dumb they don't understand what I'm saying- but in which case I'm wasting my time anyway.
The irony (and there is always an irony) is that the better I get at penning these missives the less I seem to require external help to face the tasks at hand. It's like getting married - you finally get to the point where chicks don't mess your head up and what do you do? You settle down with one and have to start all over.
But Mon Chers et Mon Frers let me spell it out for you. I write long convoluted rants complaining and wishing and then complaining some more and then, if you can, you reply, in more or less the same language and complexity - anything else is booshwah counter revolutionary partialism.
You friend from the other side of the Mobius Divide
Glenn
No comments:
Post a Comment