doing and thinking

Doing changes the parameters of thinking. Imagine you are climbing a hill and the summit is invisible. This is because the slope is convex and gettlng less steep as you go higher. So actually the going is getting easier. But the summit is hidden by the bulge of the slope ahead. Only by keeping going can you get to the top. By stopping and thinking you may conclude 'it's not worth it' as the summit is invisible. Your thinking is limited by the experience of plodding ever upward and not seeing your goal. But once you are at the summit all kinds of different thoughts are possible, thoughts you could naver have had by imagining yourself at the summit. Doing has changed the parameters of thinking.

Lots of things seem impossible when you think about them because the parameters are inappropriate. But you cannot 'think' these obstructive parameters away. You have, instead, to get going and do something. By doing something you move ahead and the view changes. More things seem possible. The more things you do the more things seem possible.

technology and war

Technology has replaced war as the major disruptor of our lives. People forget that war, like technology (and of course one often hastens the other) has many benefits for some people - the 'war profiteers'. We have a small group of technology profiteers too, and the rest of us who buy into tech when it is in the nascent phase (one car on an empty road) and then realise we are stuck with it (living in a commuter suburb with no public transport and traffic jams all the time). Tech that makes things easier rather than harder (exercise machines, brain trainers) will inevitably allow more and more people to do that thing. This causes TRAFFIC. Traffic makes money for LAMPHREYS (people who hang on and bleed a moving entity dry) but causes a headache for everyone else. In the end we find new tech or a new form of SOCORG (social organisation) to deal with TRAFFIC. This might include the recluse lives of people in Cairo suburbs ('social life is over' one matter of fact resident told me about his new villa based existence in sixth of october city) replaced by the odd social event and a lot of time alone in a darkened room with a glowing computer screen. The main mode of Malthusian malcontent (4Ms!) is ever increasing traffic and the concommittent traffic jam. Immigration is of course excess traffic leading to the real traffic jams on the orbital roads of the city- eventually. 

War causes traffic through displacement driven by fear. Technology causes traffic through greed- easier, cheaper, faster- we want it now and we'll move to get it, and the second order benefits too. War causes traffic much faster than technology used to, but tech is speeding up and spreading everywhere much faster now and is embedded in influential cultural institutions it is hard to avoid such as schools and universities. The main casualties in war are physical, the main casualties of technology traffic are mental. Hence the mental health crisis.

Just as there are conscientious objectors to war there are people who increasingly distrust technology. The resistance to war happens when the concerns of the populace are basic- food and shelter. The resistance to technology starts when we reject increased traffic in every area. This happens when there are no more benefits to be had in the usual areas of increasing wealth and increasing possibility. When the zone of possibility increases in non-tech areas (learning foraging, learning how to make fire with a bow drill, making art, running, cooking) the vital attention of humans shifts. Technology ceases to attract the well rounded 'normal' person and becomes of interest only to those who over strongly desire power and money. Traffic makes money but it becomes a waste disposal problem. Traffic becomes a sewerage problem. The plan shifts from expanding the city to building the infrastructure to allow a certain kind of expansion. The profiteers work in reducing waste, finding betters ways to make waste disappear. In the end the big money is in the waste disposal industry.

Is there an end to war? Small wars persist but big wars no longer happen where technology is well entrenched and has disrupted social organisation to the extent of shattering tribal loyalties. Is there an end to tech invasions? Will everyone turn their back on tech?

wisdom

Wisdom is not a direct goal. You can't visualise it, it's almost impossible to describe in a way that satisfies for very long and what's more it's a word that has no positive referent for many modern people. Goals are static, whereas wisdom belongs to the range of things that occur in the dynamic of real rather than imagined life. Better to think of it as a byproduct of getting rid of the things that get in the way of wisdom.

judgement

Judgement requires courage but not as much as you might think.

Fame!

Do you know any famous people? If you have known them for a long time, since before they were famous, then you can probably have a half-good conversation with them…as long as you don’t ask for anything. It’s natural when someone you kicked around with hits the big time to want to cash in. After all, they owe you from earlier don’t they? Wrong. Once you are famous everyone wants a piece of you. That’s when you get the managers and agents to be the buffer. And it’s one reason why famous people like other famous people a) they aren’t after a piece you b) they understand the game and c)famous people are the biggest fans of other famous people.

David Giles’ book Illusions of Immortality is a good fame primer, another is Stephen Aronson’s Hype. Both miss the crucial connection between fame and attention. Since the western model of modern life leaves most people a bit starved of attention the hypertrophic solution – fame – is seen as a very attractive thing. But you only need a couple of aspirin to cure a headache- not a bottle full- and the analogy of the suicidal overdose is not out of place. Kurt Cobain and other famous suicides often kill themselves because they are nice people who feel they must reciprocate the attention bestowed on them. Think about it: in a tiny community of 150 people (the so called Dunbar number for the maximum number of ‘real’ relationships you can maintain) you can give back the attention you are getting. But when 150,000 are screaming your name you’ll feel nothing but revulsion- as Cobain did. Of course many successful pop stars are low empathy and see such adulation as their right and feel no compunction to give attention back.

If you need attention do something that gets it: wear jazzy (don’t check the etymology of Jazz though) clothes, look weird, talk loudly, do interesting stuff. And give attention- giving it is the usual way to get it back. Get involved with things- plays, businesses, art shows- as my good friend Ramsay Wood pointed out to me: involvement is the higher form of attention. Why do you think the arts council is so big these days on promoting community involvement in projects? - they know that people out there are not starved of artworks they are starved of attention.

Fame brings money. Fame brings attention. Fame brings people who want to suck up to you, help you, make you breakfast. Fame encourages idleness, and fame encourages people to only like a certain kind of non-abrasive interaction. Fame makes you weak, fame stops you from learning from others except on your own terms, so actually you don’t learn. One of the key ingredients of learning is abandoning your own terms. Sure, the money is nice, but you can earn money in lots of ways that are easier than becoming famous.

The worst part of being famous- from my observations of the few people I know who are- is that their time is taken from them in fending off people who don’t care about THEM. It’s a sad thing to see a celebrity being really nice and respectful to autograph/selfie hunters who don’t like or even know who the celeb is (I’ve been present three times where getting the autograph or selfie was a dare set to the person who least liked or didn’t even know the famous person involved). Now multiply that experience over days and years. You cease being able to deal with normal people. Every interaction is corroded by trancelike ‘niceness’ or paranoia. No wonder you want your private jet, your massive house, your park full of horses and quadbikes and other toys. Rod Stewart’s hobby is making model train dioramas, Beckham plays with lego. They have reverted back to childhood pleasures, it’s the only safe place to be.

I know only one famous person who had little interest in other famous people before achieving fame. Most idolise the famous from an early age. They're the ultimate fanboys. The method is secondary- music, acting, writing- to getting fame. It’s no surprise to me that failing at being a teenage rockstar is often the prelude to becoming prominent in some other field. If you are not that interested in other people as a reality rather than an image (famous people like to meet their idols yet keep them on pedestal at the same time) then being famous will be fairly easy. You can move like a sociopath through the world getting what you want. But let’s say you are normal and want to become a better and more evolved person, someone who strives to connect to the reality of the universe- then fame is your enemy.

I, like many writers, have done their own bit of striving in the fame game. And cursed my missed opportunities for ‘better exposure’. Now I revel in them, in every instance in which I have subverted becoming well known for one thing. This is the single best antidote to fame: do lots of things that confuse anyone trying to categorise. Oh, sure, make enough dough to pay the bills, maybe even court enough fame to be successful in a niche or a community, but actively subvert the fame process. Being able to interact normally with anyone you may meet can never be given back once you achieve a certain level of fame. It’s a one way street you don’t want to be stuck in. Lots of people like Cipher in the Matrix would probably say- no way- I want that experience- take the blue pill and live happy every after- but that will be at the expense of becoming a better human.

Will Self once opined on the difference between fame and success in your field. Success is a good thing, because the people who recognise it know what it entails, feel uplifted by association. Success in your field encourages others. But fame is crude. People don’t care about you or what you have done- they only care that you are famous. I think it’s essential to aim for some kind of success in what you are doing- but you can define that- taking a huge risk in an artistic venture that receives negative press can still be a success if you set out merely to take that risk. But to aim for fame is very silly. Find another way to get attention and money, and then cherish two extremely valuable gifts: the gift of owning your own time and the gift of being able to talk to anyone in a natural way so that you can learn from them. Paranoia and its opposite, trance niceness, blocks the super-subtle gifts of telepathy and near-telepathy we all can benefit from.

meaning based life

If you want to lead a meaning based life, break it up into meaning based units. I got this idea from prolific self-help guru Steve Pavlina and it struck me as very sensible. If you break your life into time based units they have no intrinsic meaning or value. So it becomes both boring and stressful (a lot of modern life if you aren't careful). But break your days into meaning units and it works a lot better. Instead of writing for five hours comeplete something that has meaning (a chapter, a certain number of words, an illustration). You'll be energised at the end instead of feeling stunned. Find out what is meaningful to you, divide up this meaningful task into meaning based units.

the 120 film I bought on ebay

Buying things on ebay is a cyclical process. Any period of three years or so will provide the DNA of my interests; and a man’s interests, or a woman’s, rather than their addictions, are supremely telling…in a way I would describe addiction as the condition of having insufficient real interests…and you could say life is the process of becoming interested and then losing that interest to find a new one…

These rolls of film were the beginning of a new phase that would culminate in many developments. I sensed as much as I tentatively went for a batch of 5 rather than a couple or even one. I was about to enter an INDUSTRIAL phase of art and photography and I needed supplies. Five seems pretty meagre when put like that but my thinking needed time to change, this was just the beginning.

HP5 has a long history. It’s a fast film – 400ASA- and is a competitor to Kodak Tri-X- and though like all films it’s changed since the film heyday of the 1960s and 70s (dyes have been added, silver content reduced, film thinned) it appears to have changed less that Tri-X has. Though you’ll find plenty of people to contradict that, film being, a very subjective thing and, in the hands of a capable darkroom technician, capable of being stretched to look like almost anything you want. Almost.

The main male perfumes, the cheap ones I knew from the 1970s, were Old Spice and Brut 33. Both contained substances that have now been banned. Both are still available but though bearing the same names and packaging are only a shadow whiff of their former selves…(after a long absence….[pause while I try to find some to buy- original ones on ebay- OK, found a gift pack of Old Spice from the 70s at £29.99, I put it on my WatchList. It seems that Old Spice stopped being old spice in 1990- or rather it was watered down by Proctor and Gamble who bought it. What’s odd is the internet is full of people saying the smell hasn’t changed when it very obviously has- A LOT. Original Old Spice was as pungent a waft as sea weed… ]

The parallel with film is obvious. When you look at and handle film from forty or fifty years ago it is more substantial and the blacks are blacker. It may have more range too and certainly was easier to fix if you over exposed it. But large companies like Proctor and Gamble step in and trim the costs to make even more money for their greedy selves. I have given a couple of talks to P&G executives and they were nice enough chaps etc. but their business is based on sucking up living brands and then extracting as much money from them as possible without a thought for giving people what they really want: value, the real thing, an honest transaction. There is a stench of ‘con’ about Gillette razors- priced way over the odds- I wonder if the hipster beard thing was an unconscious move against the corporate stranglehold on shaving…

Publishers, too, follow the P&G model. They buy up small publishers, liquidate the back list and keep the single bestselling author – often rebranding it a ‘Penguin Classic’ or some other guarantor of steady income. Of course they tell the publisher they will keep all their staff and books in print etc etc….Lies, all lies!

People need to know that big business is not on their side. Small business may well be, but a big business in the business of ‘brand management’ is simply in the business of extracting money from the mugs and the suckers- you and me. Is that too on the nose? Too broad and let’s face it, whine-ee? Is it the eternal whinge of the man with not enough cash and a chip on both shoulders? Shouldn’t we just accept the fact that big bizz is amoral and that it is our job to place our business with small bizz? Yes but by shifting the conversation as they say, to one where the default reading is that big bizz is NASTY, we may slowly cause it to wither away like Marx’s state, a topic I am sure I shall return to.

So, HP5, Ilford in 120 roll form for my 6x6 Mamiya C3 camera, a twin lens reflex camera made in 1964, the year of my birth. I am as old as my camera and it’s a very fine camera too- massively heavy as over 2kg, solid as hell but also not indestructible. On my previous birthday I had gone off to photograph a pillbox on Chesil Beach and the wind had blown the tripod over denting the side of the camera back. I was able to straighten it out but I fear the back isn’t exactly flat now. I’ve not produced many good photos from this camera – which I bought using part of the $600 I found in my paypal account in 2015- but the pictures have all been original in some way, low key, maybe even boring but still original- I’m thinking here of my rubber glove shots, the warehouse that looks like an American Barn of the Midwest and the shot of man who looks like a psycho in a college movie…just rereading that indicates what role photography plays in my life, how it allows me to explore the left brain, not entirely wholesome, mechanical, death impregnated side…the side that likes bunkers and abandoned cars and buildings. But art makes it sort of semi-legit, at least I think or hope it does.

120 roll film rather than the commoner 35mm in a cassette is my preferred sort of film to use. I get 12 pictures 6 cm square and these are big enough to print by contact rather than enlargement. The size means dust and micro hairs are less of an issue and I like the less fiddly aspect of moving them around. Anything that gets me away from the tyranny of digital. Anything that gets me away from a computer keyboard…

I know that the pictures I will take with this film will be different than previous ones as I have embarked recently on a stripped down and standardised attempt at photography. In the past I tried all kinds of films and developer chemicals, now I’m only using those that are very quick and easy to work with. I’m fed up of messing around in the darkroom with complicated chems but I still want that old school film experience.