September 17th, 2014
There are so many things that are actually the opposite of what they seem… and it causes so many life problems. For instance … the usual way people tend to think about making something happen in life is that you should make a huge effort, and the opposite is that is to laze around and do nothing. So “struggle” is associated with “effort” which is associated with “doing things”, and “relaxation” is associated with “not doing anything”. I.e.:
STRUGGLE <-> EFFORT <-> FOCUS <-> DOING STUFF
RELAXATION <-> BEING LAZY <-> FUZZINESS <-> STAGNATION
But, this is not right, at all. This ignores context, scope, spaciousness. That is, if you’re making an effort, struggling, and “doing stuff” but it is all towards some “goal” that is itself conceived of a narrow or limited perception, in fact you may just be reinforcing the same habits and thoughts and world view that got you into whatever dead end you might find yourself in in the first place. Struggling without insight, without spaciousness, is a great way to keep things exactly the same as they always have been.
There’s another way, of course: relaxation, but not a vague, fuzzed-out, foggy relaxation — but instead an alert, present, open spaciousness — that can open you up to possibilities far, far beyond your habits. Relaxing can be hyper-present and aware and offer the possibility of revolutionary change, and mindless, reactive struggle can be just another way of embedding yourself in the same traps. Allow me to suggest an alternate schema:
STRUGGLE <-> NARROWNESS <-> REACTIVITY <-> STAGNATION
RELAXATION <-> FOCUS <-> SPACIOUSNESS <-> REVOLUTION
| 0 comments
July 10th, 2014
Most things, as you progress along, you can see you’re getting steadily closer to the goal, step by step. But with coding, quite often, you can work for hours and hours, or days and days, on something and you imagine that you may never get to the point it is totally working. Everything seems hopeless… until, suddenly, impossibly, everything works perfectly and you feel like a genius. Again. And in your mind, the problem that just seemed like a dark jungle of twisted complexity appears to be “trivial.” Everything always seems trivial when you get it working.
But then, you voluntarily decide to jump into the darkness again.
After a while, you learn that no matter how dark it seems, the light of beautiful function is hovering on the unseen horizon. But even with that accumulated experience, in the back of your mind, you still have that nagging feeling… maybe THIS time is the time I NEVER figure it out…
The best programmers are the ones who manage to push that thought deep into their pile of repressed fears, and charge ahead once more into the unknown.
| 0 comments
May 19th, 2014
I was walking with Heather and Jungmin today and we were talking about this and that, and in the context of our conversation, Heather asked, “Why do we die?” She meant it in a biological sense — why do organisms die, rather than just live forever?
I said “I don’t know, but let’s think about this a bit… one hint might be that most species engage in sexual reproduction, which allows for a variety of different genetic possibilities to be tried. Dying is part of this, because the species can only explore different genetic possibilities if previous generations die out to make room for the newer generations. But then the question arises — how would this evolve?” I paused for a second to think about this a bit more deeply. “Consider two species, one which had individuals which never died of old age, and another which explored different genetic possibilities through sexual reproduction and death. Clearly, the second species would explore a lot more possibilities, genetically, than the first, over the same time period, giving the second species a huge adaptive advantage over the first.” We talked about this idea some more and Heather pointed out that, in some sense, while we all are often assholes to each other, and are often selfish, we are also all engaged in a highly cooperative activity, as well; by living, reproducing, and dying to make room for future generations, we’re collectively helping our species adapt and evolve.
The most dramatic and meaningful stories and events always seem to have to do with the boundaries of life: reproduction (love and sex), and death. Somehow we’re all subconsciously aware of this.
| 0 comments
February 8th, 2014
It’s really a wonderful world. Being. It’s quiet and seems like everything is still. Yet it includes all movement. All movement is actually stillness and vice versa. It strips away fake importance and in its place is real meaning. It is difficult to hide there. Maybe that’s one of the scariest things about it.
Instead of coercive needs, it has acceptance. But the acceptance can have desire and affection and love in it. The most intense and scary things are right there alongside the everyday and familiar. but the everyday and familiar takes on a different, initially unfamiliar cast. Exactly like going through the looking glass. Everything on the other side is still there, but it’s a vastly wonderous strange world.
It seems frightening and disorienting at first. Like giving up everything. But then it turns out everyone and everything is really still there. In being. Running away from it is like running away from ourselves and everything we love. It’s a strange and funny and beautiful paradox.
| 2 comments
January 25th, 2014
Years ago I was riding in a car with Sue and she was driving and I was sleeping. We were driving through the mountains. I woke up just as we were headed almost off the road into the chasm below when Sue must have nodded off for a second, just in time for me to yell “HEY!”. I often think that we actually died together, tragically, two young people in love, off the side of a mountain, but since everything that can happen, does, in some universe, this is one of the thin threads of improbability that comprise us surviving and everyone and everything that has happened since then is like the fever dream in Jacob’s Ladder except not nightmarish but sort of fun yet a little tragic and sad and filled with weird interesting characters and people I got to know, like you.
| 1 comment
September 8th, 2013
A young couple goes to a Zen monk to ask him to write a blessing on the occasion of the birth of their child. He contemplates this for a moment and then writes, in beautiful calligraphy, the words “Grandfather die, father die, son die.” The couple is horrified: “You haven’t written us a blessing, you’ve written us a curse!” The Zen monk responds: “Would you have it any other way?”
| 0 comments
March 15th, 2013
There’s been an increasing brouhaha in blogs and on Twitter over “digital dualism”; Whitney Boesel summarizes it adroitly here (while also pointing out an asymmetry in citations of female theorists in the debates). There seems to be a bit of confusion going on in the debate, however; even Jurgenson, who initiated this discussion with his blog post The IRL Fetish, seems to tacitly admit that there’s a meaningful distinction to be made between the digital and material worlds. But I think even that distinction is severely flawed: in fact, it makes perfect sense to think of the physical world itself in information terms; that is, rather than using a metaphor of billiard balls, so to speak, it is more apropos to think of the so-called physical universe in information theory terms, particularly in light of quantum mechanics. This perspective is sometimes called information physics.
This isn’t to say that the introduction of computers and networks has made no difference in our lives, or doesn’t represent a very important change; obviously it does. The change is not ontological, however. The physical world itself is “made of” information, as I noted above. Furthermore, all of human culture has involved sending and receiving signs using varied media, from speech to graphemes to paintings and poetry; even the human body itself can be seen as flows of information. Now information flow uses new systems which are far faster, which enable much more rapid copying and dissemination across vast physical distances which do not require owning broadcast media towers or printing presses. That is, of course, a change of a very important kind, but it’s not an ontological change, it’s not a creation of a new and separate world.
The world isn’t divided into the “real” and “virtual” any more than the introduction of radio or television divided the world into “real” and “on the air”. It’s introduced new channels for flows of information, and these flows have interesting, even radically new properties, but the existence of new flows doesn’t create a separate reality. We haven’t lived with these patterns of flows for very long, so they feel strange to us, and like every change they induce an instinctive counter-reaction; nostalgia for a past we are more familiar with, and a not entirely irrational fear that the change may introduce social, cultural, or physical phenomena into our lives which negatively impact our lives or destroy cherished features of the world we are replacing.
Bruce Sterling pointed this out quite poignantly in his always-funny and always trenchant SXSW closing talk: even as we change the world, even if in sometimes positive ways, we are simultaneously destroying parts of it. The internet hasn’t created a separate world but it has changed the world. Newspapers and bookstores are on their way out. Even things that came into being with the internet are getting paved over by later iterations of it, as the closing of Google Reader illustrates. The internet has facilitated and accelerated change, and it’s not always just for the better: what comes next rises over the ashes of what we’ve replaced. It’s worth thinking about what we might be losing as we move on, but the world hasn’t bifurcated, and there’s no “going back” to the “real” world — this is already the real world.
This reminds me of a story about my cousin Midori when she was a young girl, maybe 3 years old, visiting with my aunt and uncle. We were hiking in Tecolote canyon in San Diego, and she was throwing rocks into the stream. My aunt said, “don’t throw rocks into the stream, let natural process take care of it!” My cousin said, “But I am part of natural process!” “Natural” doesn’t always mean good or better, however. Denying digital dualism doesn’t foreclose paying attention to the features of change, for the better, the worse, or, as is usually the case, both.
| 1 comment
November 5th, 2012
Buddhism is a peculiar tradition in that, unlike most spiritual or religious traditions, it emphasizes not only the emptiness of objects and things, but even the emptiness of its own teleology, in a certain wonderful self-referential way. That is to say, not only does it say the world of apparent things, events, space, and time, and so on are not what they appear to be and are empty of inherent existence (which isn’t to say they have no existence at all — it just means they’re not solid, self-existing “things” that exist on their own, without relation to perception), but it also denies the simple story that “enlightenment” (which is usually seen to be the “goal” of Buddhism in more simple presentations) is itself not in fact a goal, a result of a process in time that unfolds to reach “Buddhahood” as the final limit.
It’s a peculiar tension, because, despite this, Buddhism does talk a lot about realization, enlightenment, and so on. From one point of view, it appears that they’re referring to a process in time, something you build up to and eventually attain (they even use a word which translates to “attainment”.) Yet, it’s not attainment in the ordinary sense, the result or product of ordinary effort in time, because that would be a self-contradiction. The resolution of this seeming contradiction is a central koan, so to speak.
I’ve been attending a meditation retreat, and I came across this book, “Buddhahood Without Meditation”, and flipped open randomly to two pages which seemed quite poignant to me, related to these topics. In the first passage, a mysterious teacher has appeared, and is giving instruction:
“…all sentient beings… are confused because they become fixated, investing apparent phenomena with truth, even though they are in fact like the unfolding of dream images—they cannot be established to be more than mere appearances, empty and without objective existence.
“If you thus come to a definitive conclusion regarding the apparent phenomena that arise from confusion, realizing that they lack true existence, are empty and do not exist objectively, you will have dredged the pit of cyclic existence from its depths. By arriving at the decision that buddhahood is none other than your own inherent ground of being, and by gaining this confidence within yourself, you will actually attain what is referred to as the ‘natural freedom of the many buddhas.’
“Ah, powerful lord of space, omnipresent vajra, you must come to the definitive conclusion that none of the phenomena of samsara and nirvana exist but that all are empty, and you must realize their inherent nature to be that of nonexistence.”
Saying this, he vanished from sight.
Then I flipped to another page, at random, discussing various points one should master:
1) Collapsing the false cave of investing buddhahood and its attendant pure realms with true existence, as objects of hope
Even ”buddhahood” and the various phenomena associated with it do not have real existence and should not be wished for as something one hopes for in the future, as the future result of an ordinary process in time.
a) Negating fixation on conceiving of buddhahood and its attendant pure realms as some final limit
They warn against thinking of “buddhahood” as a limit case of a process or series.
b) To that end, examining the five senses and their attendant objects and refuting the exaggeration of ascribing true existence to these
To begin to realize this, they recommend starting with understanding the constructed, contingent nature of objects of ordinary perception.
2) Collapsing the false cave of investing the states of cyclic existence and their attendant pleasures and pain with true existence, as objects of fear
At the same time, this could potentially lead to the opposite extreme, i.e., thinking of samsara, apparent “reality”, with its pain and pleasure, as something one ought to be afraid of, avoid, attempt to “escape”. In other words, they’re warning against both problematics: setting up “buddhahood” as the limit case of a process in time, or, alternately, seeing “samsara” as a problematic, something one ought to be afraid of, escape, fear. One of the most famous Mahayana sayings is “samsara = nirvana, nirvana = samsara” — not two distinct realms or modes, but two aspects of one unified reality. Yet at the same time, this doesn’t mean there’s no issue — just that the way to work with this tension isn’t via ordinary effort in ordinary time, but rather via an opening to something which is always already the case.
| 1 comment
November 4th, 2012
From the NonsenseNYC art event email list:
NOTE: There are so many ways to help in the wake of the storm. We’ve collected several that require your actual labor — not your donations or your clicks. The most important thing to understanding what’s going on is to actually go to the areas that need attention. People who need help will not always ask for it, or be able to ask for it. This is a do-it-yourself guide: call or internet if you can, but ultimately just go. Also, we’re running regular event listings below the volunteer opportunities, not because we’re trying to pretend that everything is fine — like certain fucking marathons — but because after you’ve spent the day washing out muck water or running up stairs, dancing feels double good.
* Red Hook: Volunteers needed today at to cook food and coordinate aid. 767 Hicks Street, Brooklyn. Come anytime from 10a-10p and bring something to share. Contact: Paulie Anne Duke: paulieanneduke]at]gmail.com. Also: Norton Records needs helps. This is an indoor job, pulling records out of wet boxes, etc. If anyone has a vehicle of any sort to assist in getting wet boxes from the Red Hook warehouse to HQ in Prospect Heights, please call. No reception in Red Hook. Email is best bet at nortonrec]at]aol.com. Billy’s cell 917 671 7185 and the office landline 718 789 4438. Don’t leave a message. We are working from 11a until 11p every day.
* Coney Island: Coney Island USA’s flooded building needs help. They’re looking for people with dehumidifiers, fans, squeegees, mops, mop buckets, household heavy duty rubber gloves, respirators, paper towels, cleaning cloths, brooms, bleach, disinfectant. They’ll be accepting donations from noon-6p Friday and Saturday. They also need people to help with the clean up. Coney Island USA, 1208 Surf Avenue, corner of West 12th Street, Brooklyn. @ConeyIslandFun
* The Rockaways: Help the clean up effort in Rockaway, where houses were completely devastated by Sandy. Contact: Zack Tucker: 201 320 0226. Today: Veggie Island, 95-19 Rockaway Beach Boulevard, Queens, near Beach 96th Street. Clean and serve food. Contact: Bobby at 718 772 3803. House of Yes is also taking volunteers and supplies: boringincorporated [at] gmail.com
* Williamsburg: Donate blood. 10,000 pints of blood were lost in NYC as a result of cancelled blood drives. Donate blood on Saturday at the Williamsburg Church, 231 Ainslie Street, off the Graham stop on the L train from 10a-4p.
* Lower East Side: Rosie Mendez’s office is doing a check-on-neighborhoods bridged today from 9a-5p. 237 1st Avenue, at 14th Street. Also: The Henry Street Settlement has received an 18-wheeler of meals and donations. They need vehicles, bikes, and humans to help distribute: 265 Henry Street. Also: Some volunteers are going to set up an aid station at ABC No Rio (food and a portable generator for people to charge cell phones) today starting at 10a. 156 Rivington Street between Clinton and Suffolk. Also: GOLES needs help: 169 Avenue B, between 10th and 11th streets, goles.org.
* Chinatown: A strong community effort is happening over at CAAAV, a Chinatown-based community organizing group located at 46 Hester Street, between Essex and Ludlow. They are looking for volunteers. 212 473 6485
* Citywide: The Red Cross needs volunteers who are able to lift 50 pounds and are comfortable working in stressful situations. Contact: staffing (at) nyredcross.org. Also: New York City Public Advocate’s Office needs volunteers. Sign up here to help: bit.ly/nycpaohelp
* More hands-on ways to help:
| 1 comment
October 21st, 2012
My friend Jenny Cool posted this on Facebook yesterday:
Can people be woken up by the same entertain me ideology that has replaced deliberative discourse with all bumper stickers and cutsey memes all the time?
Here’s the new online video from the Jewish Council for Education & Research, a liberal super PAC that has had some success in the viral political ad field befo…See More
She further commented in the discussion that followed:
What you point to as a “humor advantage” I experience as the disadvantage of being earnest. In my experience, earnestness (about anything but especially big, political things) tends to be censured (via informal social means like mockery, ostracism, just being ignored) MORE in lefty circles than in righty. Who has time for democracy? Apparently not the scores of people who rushed to Photoshop before the “debate” (a word that has lost most of it’s literal meaning thanks to US Presidential runs) was over to make ironic little picture to share and click.
Does the prevalence of popular memes in the social and political sphere disadvantage sincere discourse, or cover it over? Or can they coexist? Many people have pointed out that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are among the most trenchant commentators on current events in the culture, yet their popularity rests largely on the fact that they (rather skillfully) dress their commentary in humor. Of course, sincerity has always been either dangerous (if you were sincerely criticizing the wrong — i.e., powerful — people) or marginalized… but in the era of the Internet we have both an increased reach and breadth of the spread of words, ideas, and images and a simultaneous dumbing-down of serious discourse in some ways — the filter bubble making it less necessary to seriously confront ideas at variance with your own, and perhaps the flood of information making it more difficult for anything but popular memes to break through and be noticed.
| 1 comment