History is taught without being in accordance with the cultural and philosophical trends of the last century and more. If it weren't, then it would enclose the relativity dimension. Not all things seemingly universally agreed upon become true. The older events were recorded by the winners, not always (or never?) accurately. The newer events are not even clear they are completely accurately reported throughout the world from their moment of existence, and so on.
In an absurd attempt of connecting the dots (from the point of view of classic history), one could sum up the humanity's history in a few huge, power driven and weird lines. A long relay race has been ravaging the earth, having for participants the great conquerors, power-driven nations, very harsh, very masculine dwellers: Mesopotamia, then Egypt, the Greeks (or more like the conquering-of-the-world-obsessed Alexander the Great), the very creepy Romans, then the Asian, Arabic and Northern conquerors, the Empires to be who took over from the Ex-Roman Empire and its conquerors: Spanish, English, Russian... their new partners and descendants the Americans... whatever "great" power could the history teacher name, it shared a common point with a similar predecessor power or its philosophy, it claimed a continuance. All "civilization bringers", all gatherers of treasures, abstract treasures like jewels or gold (which cannot be eaten), all having slaves, all inventors of various abstract things, pushing forward the limits and the cruelties of the human race.
This long line can arouse all sorts of questions, thousands of "why?"-s and "what for?"-s. And we are not even beginning to follow the same old trend in the modern and contemporary history. Maybe the unified answer would be stupid or amazing. We would never know because the history was invented and is still being taught as a set of fixed facts, chosen to be presented in a certain way and repeated until they infuse the collective mind of the people as such. not really a matter of questioning and being curious. Although, in time, some different facts have pushed through the official set of historical landmarks. The truth has a certain way of being imperishable. It's just that the human life is short and a generation cannot wait forever to understand the real "why"-s and "what for"-s and "who"-s in its history...
The meaning is a bit more than the truth.It implies the ability of synthesizing the truth, once it is at one's disposal. The humans are driven towards the meaning. But without the important lines of the truth, it all gets lost into irrelevant directions and into a sea of not so meaningful facts. Of course, all is important in the life of this great organism called humanity. But not in its big picture. The repetitive pattern are a way of underlining some important parts. But it gives us no clue in the direction of good or bad. Is the obsession for symbols, or for gold good, truthful for the humans, or not? Are those artificial elements? Clearly we can't eat symbols or gold, they do not serve to the simple needs of the creatures we are. Is there a "but" here, or not?
Sunday, 17 February 2013
Wednesday, 13 February 2013
Dick van Dyke Show, Mary Tyler Moore Show and the modern sitcoms
Having watched at least partially some older sitcoms like the ones mentioned in the title, besides their old-fashioned charm, it seems obvious (to come back to an older theme, where I discussed the resemblance between older and modern actors) that the jokes and plots are often to be found in the newer sitcoms, like Seinfeld and Friends, aka newer and famous sitcoms.
I suppose it all comes from the old tradition of Borscht Belt entertainment, and that type of humor just gets updated with time. Or that it gets harder and harder to be original nowadays. The modern humor, nevertheless likable, is more a result of a mending process that of a creation process. It figures, since life gets somehow sadder and more monotonous by decade. With all the politically correctness obsession, the tolerance and the "being good and unoffensive" dogmas, the original humor has a hard life in our times...
Examples: the gag with one character having a bath and the others coming in on his relaxing moment and turning it into an embarrassing, funny one - in MTM season 7 and in Friends; the idea of a character who finally writes down his memoirs/ life and they actually become the sitcom we are watching - in DvD Show and in Seinfeld; the presence of a witty character which "zings" the other with his sharp and mean observations and who suffers when he must pause this habit - MTM Show (Murray and Ted) and Friends (Chandler and his New Year Resolution). The connections are frequent and punctual. Often one can exclaim: "just like in X or Y series!". They are hard to remember once a lot are gathered, that it why they pass into the "movie world subconscious".
This is a term I made up in order to denominate that area in our thoughts were all the movie experiences, all the empathic impressions we gather from the cinematographic experience, all the preconceptions related to some facial type or other resulting from a certain casting stereotype that we resent from seeing this or that movie gather and form a base we are hardly aware of, but which acts in the way that we suddenly feel attracted of repulsed by some places, ideas or people without having had any real previous experience on which those reactions would be based. We are in fact reacting to a false experience gathered from the cinematographic culture we have been exposed to.
I suppose it all comes from the old tradition of Borscht Belt entertainment, and that type of humor just gets updated with time. Or that it gets harder and harder to be original nowadays. The modern humor, nevertheless likable, is more a result of a mending process that of a creation process. It figures, since life gets somehow sadder and more monotonous by decade. With all the politically correctness obsession, the tolerance and the "being good and unoffensive" dogmas, the original humor has a hard life in our times...
Examples: the gag with one character having a bath and the others coming in on his relaxing moment and turning it into an embarrassing, funny one - in MTM season 7 and in Friends; the idea of a character who finally writes down his memoirs/ life and they actually become the sitcom we are watching - in DvD Show and in Seinfeld; the presence of a witty character which "zings" the other with his sharp and mean observations and who suffers when he must pause this habit - MTM Show (Murray and Ted) and Friends (Chandler and his New Year Resolution). The connections are frequent and punctual. Often one can exclaim: "just like in X or Y series!". They are hard to remember once a lot are gathered, that it why they pass into the "movie world subconscious".
This is a term I made up in order to denominate that area in our thoughts were all the movie experiences, all the empathic impressions we gather from the cinematographic experience, all the preconceptions related to some facial type or other resulting from a certain casting stereotype that we resent from seeing this or that movie gather and form a base we are hardly aware of, but which acts in the way that we suddenly feel attracted of repulsed by some places, ideas or people without having had any real previous experience on which those reactions would be based. We are in fact reacting to a false experience gathered from the cinematographic culture we have been exposed to.
Sunday, 10 February 2013
Is silence stupid or golden?
This is a dilemma quickly dismissed by - to quote the previous post- our best toy from these days. Silence is horrible for the digital medium, no comments, no blogs, vlogs and other daily displays of show-off-ism, no posts, no feedback... the lack of passivity is a necessary act in the commercial go around of modern society. "Express yourself" is a slogan pushed to its limits, emptied of almost all its valuable content.
The silents therefore are maybe poor (aka have no access to the worldwide communication), maybe stupid (have nothing to say), maybe just feeling alien to this huge huge world full of people who are crowding the wires or the wireless in order to express themselves.
Looking for meaning in a culture which has broken this notion into pieces... tough. No one personality, no one talent, instead the power of the many "heterogeneous" voices. The meaning is pumped up, lobbied for, publicized, until we're not sure anymore if it means something important or not.Almost everything one may think of has been thought or done, previously or simultaneously, in another part of the world. Big sigh.
Yet this is parallel to life. In nature no flower is identical to another. A second can turn worlds around. The false meaningless, the false noise, the been there-done it all is just an illusion. I may chat with someone from the other side of the globe, yet I do not feel how he or she is, what life that person has, I cannot smell the air from out there... this would be the open paradox.
The sad and closed paradox is when, having a person face to face, you feel the need to close the chat window. When all you get are just clichés, phrases copied, false ideas, wishful thinking. When the air of the encounter wreaks of... digital.
Silence is sometimes needed to protect us from the truth that so many people are astray and will not even admit it. From hearing the same old stuff, from seeing the deceit as clear as an oil painting, standing on the wall between us.
Then we talk, just because it has been repeated to us that is is socially polite and normal and healthy to talk, chatter, gossip, fill the gap, blabber, express ourselves, create, debate, stand up for some idea, make others feel comfortable, seem adequate and intelligent...
The silents therefore are maybe poor (aka have no access to the worldwide communication), maybe stupid (have nothing to say), maybe just feeling alien to this huge huge world full of people who are crowding the wires or the wireless in order to express themselves.
Looking for meaning in a culture which has broken this notion into pieces... tough. No one personality, no one talent, instead the power of the many "heterogeneous" voices. The meaning is pumped up, lobbied for, publicized, until we're not sure anymore if it means something important or not.Almost everything one may think of has been thought or done, previously or simultaneously, in another part of the world. Big sigh.
Yet this is parallel to life. In nature no flower is identical to another. A second can turn worlds around. The false meaningless, the false noise, the been there-done it all is just an illusion. I may chat with someone from the other side of the globe, yet I do not feel how he or she is, what life that person has, I cannot smell the air from out there... this would be the open paradox.
The sad and closed paradox is when, having a person face to face, you feel the need to close the chat window. When all you get are just clichés, phrases copied, false ideas, wishful thinking. When the air of the encounter wreaks of... digital.
Silence is sometimes needed to protect us from the truth that so many people are astray and will not even admit it. From hearing the same old stuff, from seeing the deceit as clear as an oil painting, standing on the wall between us.
Then we talk, just because it has been repeated to us that is is socially polite and normal and healthy to talk, chatter, gossip, fill the gap, blabber, express ourselves, create, debate, stand up for some idea, make others feel comfortable, seem adequate and intelligent...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)