I wrap your “real world” in soft pink magick pony shit.
I had a professor in college who hosted an informal philosophy discussion group. It was fun undergrad bullshit. I was a real stupid ass then. It’s fun to be the ass. But some of the things the professor said have stuck with me over the years. A few of his ideas ring like maxims in my mind. I don’t know if I agree with them, but they reoccur in my thoughts over and over and find myself using them as signposts when considering new things. Here goes:
1 - “I don’t want a Wal-Mart built off that highway exit simply on aesthetic grounds. Purely on aesthetic grounds, I prefer it remain a field and that is enough of a reason.” Being immersed in art history studies at the time, this is the one that resonated with me the most. That some public policy decisions could be based on aesthetic criteria alone might strike some as progressive, if not dunderheaded, idea, yet the notion is a common one throughout American history. Pre-contemporary eco-consciouness Theodore Roosevelt’s creation of National Parks could interpreted as a national aesthetic endeavor. Consider too the innumerable efforts to preserve public landmarks, though, of course, these often fail. An interesting aspect of the professor’s opinion was that he had an entire arsenal of economic ammunition as to why a Wal-Mart would be bad for his community. First and foremost though were the aesthetic considerations. A field is far more beautiful than a Wal-Mart. Again, a field is far more beautiful than a Wal-Mart.
2 - “I believe in reason. I am old fashioned in that I believe reason can be used to find the best solution to problems.” At the time, I would have said I did not believe in reason. I was eating a lot mushrooms then. Now, reluctantly, I will admit that reason has it’s place, much like asphalt, coffee, and rubber. Reason gets the job done often. Things get tingly (much like coming up on shrooms) when persons come to opposed views with both parties claiming reason led them to their respective positions. I know many folks would shout that rejecting a Wal-Mart on aesthetic grounds alone is not reasonable. Of course, Herr Professor would then have to mount a philosophical defense of aesthetics. Oh sweet pagan muse - you nail me. The aforementioned examples are actually why I would have said I rejected reason at the time. Who defines what reason is? Who defines its methods, its goals? Does anyone, even the practitioners themselves, think the philosophy of aesthetics represents any sort of objective reality? Hence reason, not so sharp after all. Hence reason, not so big and tall. Hence reason, freakish and small like the little person that would not get out of my roommate’s car after taking a near suicidal dose of Datura. If we strictly define reason and its methods we may find the “best” solution to a problem if there is a correspondingly strict criteria for what is best. Categorically, I reject this so-called “best” on aesthetic grounds. Like a good slut, I know my role. Would older silver haired men like my professor admit it if the use of a strictly defined reason reached a different conclusion than their original position? Think about USA politics - admitting that you are wrong is political suicide. We all know it is reasonable to commit suicide. We stay alive on aesthetic grounds. It would appear none of the political decisions made by our elected representatives were made based on conclusions drawn from reason. So let’s look outside of the two party perspective. I listened to a live stream of Chomsky (there is only one Chomsky you assholes) giving a speech on Earth Day. It was entirely unreasonable and filled with vague formless platitudes. People clapped. It was like church. One of the students in the audience was brave enough to ask Chomskbomber if he could name one positive thing that was happening in the world geopolitically. He could not. Reason is suicide.
3 - “Those in power will destroy themselves and those around them in their attempts to keep their power.” This came up in a debate about “alternative” energy sources to fossil fuels. My argument was that those whose controlled the means of production and distribution of fossil fuels would want a smooth transition to different energy sources as to preserve their stranglehold on a critical market and therefore retain power. The professor disagreed. He said those in power would destroy themselves and those around them to keep their power. He said he had seen it again and again in his own life time. I am forced to admit that he was right. I was naive. Examples: A war for oil. A war for personal vendetta. A revenge war against an amorphous enemy with no decisive offensive goals or exit strategy. Wall Street melt down and subsequent frauds. Continuing industrial disasters at the cost human life without significant reform of practice. Fraudulent healthcare model. Patent competition impeding implementation energy, health, and technology solutions which would foster global transformation. Pat Tillman. Somehow this all relates back to number two but my mind can’t connect the dots anymore. Or if it did, the result would be violence.
So I’m not sure I agree with all the professors assertions, but they recur to me again and again. Was this the professor’s goal with his discussion group? I hope so. I hope I was duped in to learning. I hope he intentionally planted these maxim-like assertions in my mind like tools for me to apply later. A crowbar is a very useful tool. It can pry a door open. It can crack a skull. I really wanted to work in the phrase “I wrap your ‘real world’ in soft pink magick pony shit” somewhere in my response to number two but I couldn’t find a nice place to put it.
The professor was a runner too. Since those years so long ago running has provided me with countless hours of transformational pleasure. Thank you professor.
