Repetition doesn't really exist. As far as your mind is concerned, nothing happens the same twice, even if in every technical sense, the thing is identical. Your perception is constantly shifting. It doesn't stay in one place."
-Brian Eno
I can only imagine the number of teenagers screaming, "YOU DON'T GET ME!" at the top of their lungs right now. Probably about 85% of these oh-so-original cries for help are directed at parents and teachers, the remaining 15% split up between BFFs, deflowerers, deflowerees and other assorted juvenile delinquents. The fact that this phenomenon is trans-cultural (why do Third World farm boys seek fame and fortune in the city, where others have so miserably failed?) and trans-generational (Luke 15:11 old enough for ya?) might lead to a certain understanding of its whys and wherefores, but as any clinical psychologist can tell you, the one thing people, especially those going through difficult stages of growth, will never accept, is that their experience is unoriginal.-Brian Eno
The reason that unoriginality is so hard to accept is because it doesn't exist. Every single moment is absolutely different from the one before, whether major changes occur, or everything remains the same save for the passing of time. Brian Eno, in a manner that could not be considered self serving, taking into account the wild variations in tonality and rhythm displayed by his music, makes an excellent point in denying the existence of repetition. Maybe an animal with no sense of the passage of time and a short term memory span equal in length to a single isolated stimulus applied to it consistently within a sensory deprivation environment could actually gauge the feeling of repetition. Brian Eno's music could be said stimulus, but I dare anyone to find a dog dumb enough to let itself be put into any room with nothing else but that annoying, endless beat. Maybe a few ravers could volunteer.
The lack of true repetition makes any sort of conservative thought rather moot. The impossibility of true conservative thought makes liberalism quite pointless. It could be argued that liberalism as an exercise is tied to the acceptance of changing circumstances, but since those are tied to the passing of time, and time couldn't really give a rat's ass who accepts it and who doesn't, liberalism turns out to be as profound as any political position advocating the acceptance of gravity.
Unsurprisingly, the two basic paradigms of political thought are based on pure bullshit. One wants to keep things as they are, regardless of the impossibility of that happening, and the other wants to take credit for changing things, when things will change no matter what. More important than politics is how constant change affects our social scales. Back to the misunderstood teenagers: how can they be misunderstood by their parents, if their parents were being misunderstood much in the same way a few decades before?
The children of baby boomers went through a massive wall of what seemed to be brutal hypocrisy in their teenage years. As if it wasn't enough that it has always been obvious to all but the most short-sighted of kids that their parents were at some point "normal" and reckless, baby boomers decided to gloat their 1960's free form all over the media, all the while supporting censorship (Tipper Gore) and prohibitionism (Just Say No). The argument? For the most part variations on "it was different back then".
It's true, it was different back then! Rather, it is different now, and it will be different tomorrow. In a constant state of no permanence which is inevitable, the very idea of rules loses its meaning. While an eye for an eye was an innovative government policy in the field of public safety a few thousand years ago, it probably wouldn't receive too much approval from voters these days. Well, maybe in Virginia it would, but that's not the point.
There are two types of regulations that betray the stupidity of those who promote them: those that can't be followed and those that won't be followed. Bureaucracy loves the former, mostly because they provide grounds for corruption and/or inactivity, the two mainstays of bureaucratic organization. Rules that won't be followed, on the other hand, are common elements of our day to day lives. Censorship and prohibitionism, again, are common forms of expression for this sort of senseless legislation, but in general laws are just the way the lowest form of human life expresses its hatred of the rest of humanity.
Socially, rules are more malleable, and they change with the times. Ever wonder why your grandmother talked so fondly about falling in love with a soldier 10 years older than her when she was 14, but your Aunt Trudy became an angry lesbian after being groped in the back of a senior's car after her freshman year mixer? To illustrate the point quite clearly: grandma fucked Pvt. Cartman's brains out, make no mistake about it. Her white wedding dress was as symbolic as the "peace" part in the Treaty of Versailles. What makes sex at a certain age healthy in one generation and unhealthy the next? What about drugs, alcohol, truancy or vandalism? Why is it cute to break a window in one neighborhood and a good enough reason for 3 years in juvie in the next?
Specific answers to those questions are expressed in each generation's pop art, but only specifically defined through the analysis of a completed experience. It's, as always, a matter of 20/20 hindsight. Sexually liberal teenagers in the 70's probably had a better experience with their sexuality than those of the 80's. Why? The specific circumstances of the times, of course. If you want specifics go write a thesis on evolving teenage sexuality, I certainly can't be bothered.
Adults these days start being adults much later in life than they did before. Why? Here's a pretty good theory. The real question is how to get those negatively affected by change to accept it and roll with the punches. Calling parents hypocrites tends to backfire, so what can produce trans-generational understanding? Is this conflict some sort of rite of passage that ensures the continuation of our culture?
The acceptance of generational conflict as a given seems like some sort of fluid conservativism, akin to the acceptance of the inevitability of war. Maybe smoother transitions between age groups could ease the social pressures that create the need for restrictive legislation. Fears might be calmed, the media could tone down on its use of youth as shock value, and contrasts and similarities in the process of growing up could be openly discussed at the dinner table.
Then again, we could all just tell daddy to go fuck himself, light up a joint, and see what happens next. It's what gramps would have wanted.
It's true, it was different back then! Rather, it is different now, and it will be different tomorrow. In a constant state of no permanence which is inevitable, the very idea of rules loses its meaning. While an eye for an eye was an innovative government policy in the field of public safety a few thousand years ago, it probably wouldn't receive too much approval from voters these days. Well, maybe in Virginia it would, but that's not the point.
There are two types of regulations that betray the stupidity of those who promote them: those that can't be followed and those that won't be followed. Bureaucracy loves the former, mostly because they provide grounds for corruption and/or inactivity, the two mainstays of bureaucratic organization. Rules that won't be followed, on the other hand, are common elements of our day to day lives. Censorship and prohibitionism, again, are common forms of expression for this sort of senseless legislation, but in general laws are just the way the lowest form of human life expresses its hatred of the rest of humanity.
Socially, rules are more malleable, and they change with the times. Ever wonder why your grandmother talked so fondly about falling in love with a soldier 10 years older than her when she was 14, but your Aunt Trudy became an angry lesbian after being groped in the back of a senior's car after her freshman year mixer? To illustrate the point quite clearly: grandma fucked Pvt. Cartman's brains out, make no mistake about it. Her white wedding dress was as symbolic as the "peace" part in the Treaty of Versailles. What makes sex at a certain age healthy in one generation and unhealthy the next? What about drugs, alcohol, truancy or vandalism? Why is it cute to break a window in one neighborhood and a good enough reason for 3 years in juvie in the next?
Specific answers to those questions are expressed in each generation's pop art, but only specifically defined through the analysis of a completed experience. It's, as always, a matter of 20/20 hindsight. Sexually liberal teenagers in the 70's probably had a better experience with their sexuality than those of the 80's. Why? The specific circumstances of the times, of course. If you want specifics go write a thesis on evolving teenage sexuality, I certainly can't be bothered.
Adults these days start being adults much later in life than they did before. Why? Here's a pretty good theory. The real question is how to get those negatively affected by change to accept it and roll with the punches. Calling parents hypocrites tends to backfire, so what can produce trans-generational understanding? Is this conflict some sort of rite of passage that ensures the continuation of our culture?
The acceptance of generational conflict as a given seems like some sort of fluid conservativism, akin to the acceptance of the inevitability of war. Maybe smoother transitions between age groups could ease the social pressures that create the need for restrictive legislation. Fears might be calmed, the media could tone down on its use of youth as shock value, and contrasts and similarities in the process of growing up could be openly discussed at the dinner table.
Then again, we could all just tell daddy to go fuck himself, light up a joint, and see what happens next. It's what gramps would have wanted.
0 comments:
Post a Comment