Pointless Controversy

Thankfully, Reverend Terry Jones (importantly not the same person as the legendary comedian and all around nice guy Terry Jones) has backed down from his plan to burn the Qu'ran.

Freedom is an iconic symbol of the USA. It is cemented into the mindset of the population, regardless of whether or not this freedom actually exists. I am guessing that this is the reason why there is such controversy over Terry Jones' now defunct plan to burn the Qu'ran on the anniversary of the September the 11th terrorist attack. After all, is it not the right of an American citizen to say whatever they want, do whatever they want and express whatever they feel?

If you want to create an anti-Islamic protest on the anniversary of a terrorist attack well that is the right of a free citizen, despite how astonishingly insensitive it is to both individual victims that have suffered and religions that have been blamed and suffered. It is very important to note the position of the United States government at this point. At no stage was the reverend threatened with arrest or censor for his actions. He would have been within his legal rights to burn the Qu'ran.

He would not, however, have been within his rights as a human being had he carried out his plan. The law may say it is alright to burn a sacred text, but why would you? Sarah Palin has likened the issue to that of the Islamic prayer centre that is due to be installed in New York city. I wonder how she could possibly have missed the very basic difference between these two acts. The building of a prayer centre is designed to foster understanding and repair bridges, the burning of the Qu'ran is an act of antagonism. One is constructive, the other is deeply destructive.

There is a difference between law and morality. The truly ignorant are those who choose to do everything they can within the law and claim that they are acting morally.

-The English Student

Consuming Consumption

Why do we try to get products and commodities physically inside of ourselves?

I have been mulling this idea over for a little while now and the more I think about it the more examples come to mind. When is the last time that you physically hugged an inanimate product? I have done it recently to a much-treasured new item that I bought and it did not strike me as strange. Absolutely, I was doing it mostly in jest to show people how much I appreciated the product: I hardly believed it was a real item. But the very manner of that hug is striking. Products do not actually get mentally or spiritually closer to you with a hug, as might happen with another living being. Instead, they just get closer to physically being inside you.

Another example is a common trope in narrative and also one that I noticed just last night. Instead of trying to 'ingest' commodities, we do the same thing with the money we would use to buy them. A friend of my jokingly kissed a coin last night, some celebrities are said to sleep in piles of money, while the influential Scrooge McDuck swam in it. If we were presented with a bowl of currency and spoon would we delve into it with relish?

Perhaps all of this is just a pose. It is possibly something that we do playfully and in the process, highlight the inanimate nature of the objects through the contrast with conscious beings. There does however seem to be something slightly more sinister in the pattern. It seems that to an extent, we apply sexual desire to commodities in order to prolong our ownership of them. In the same way that we continue our genes, we also continue our possession.

As usual this is just conjecture, yet I will embrace commodities with far more reserve in future.

-The English Student

Peeling Pictures

My posters and photographs have begun to give in to the forces of gravity.

I do enjoy covering walls and wardrobes with art work. There is a certain method to decorating these spaces that requires a bit of thought and taste to get just right. These posters give real character to a room and effectively make use of walls as blank canvas. You can also change things whenever the mood takes you and reconfigure the whole feeling of a room.

Gravity has a tendency to do this too. I have not bothered changing around the art work on my walls in quite a few years and the various pieces of blu-tack, cellotape, paper clips and electrical tape are starting to wear down. Photographs are curling from the walls, posters have gone dusty and paintings are slipping.

I may have noticed this more acutely because, like these works of art I too shall be leaving soon. Being surrounded by a canvas that you have created yourself allows you to project your personality into a medium that all can view. So is it better to repair the wear on these areas for the next person to view and remember or should I take the art with me and create another shelter in another place?

In either case, gravity is relentless and eventually my canvas will be permanently empty.

-The English Student

Bleeping Capitalism

This week I experienced a very practical and pure form of capitalism.

In this temporary job that I shall soon be leaving we had to do a stock take. I have experienced some forms of stocktaking in the past. These were mostly small time and did not involve a massive amount of organisation. In fact, the entire stock-taking system seemed fairly unintuitive and quite inaccurate based on my past experience. When a stock-take is done poorly, a retail outlet is run poorly and the poor management skills of the company are highlighted. My stock-taking experience this week was completely different and seemed to shed light on two aspects of capitalism.

The level of organisation this week was quite phenomenal. In a big company like this one it is very difficult to get every member working towards the same goal. By planning this stock-take weeks in advance the company was able to focus the entire workforce. This was most obvious during the actual count. Experienced workers from across the company were brought in bringing highly expensive and specialised equipment with them. Dozens of people filled a large room and in complete silence counted every piece of stock in the building. As a corporate machine we worked completely in tandem.

Secondly, the method of stock-taking shows basic elements of capitalism. Every piece of stock, every cultural element in the building and all the work that went into creating, producing, marketing and distributing them was summarised in a single "bleep" sound from the stock-taking machines. Everything was given a single value and this made it possible to count and compare them. More than this, us people counting became valuable based on how quickly and effectively we could count.

These patterns of unity are neither good or evil, just elements of the bleeping capitalism that we live in.

-The English Student

Schrödinger's Camera

A recent blockbuster has lead me to think about the power of film.

Many friends and colleagues know my poor knowledge of film and how I find it difficult to sacrifice large swathes of time to actually sit down and watch a film. I was however, convinced to make a rare trip to the cinema a few weeks ago to see the highly acclaimed and highly brilliant Inception. Without actually dwelling on the plot, giving a review or ruining the film for those that have not seen it, I would like to talk about a major question that the film poses about its own medium.

The major question at the end of the film relates to a "did it or did it not" ending that is open to interpretation. A person's own interpretation of this ending place the film in wildly different contexts. While the debate rages between "yes" and "no" amongst many people, my own take of the ending was slightly different. The film does not actually pose a definitive answer to the problem and is clearly deliberately ambiguous. With that in mind, I have to believe that drawing a conclusion either way would be incorrect.

A power of film that I have only just realised is that it can tell a story without any kind of conclusion. If we take the film as a self-enclosed world that has no narrative beginning or end (which is backed up by the cyclical nature of the film) then all endings are possible. In effect, "yes" and "no" to the mystery at the close (the end of our foray into the world of the film) are both true at the same time.

This was the first time that a film allowed me to hold two completely contradicting ideas in my mind at the same time.

-The English Student

Surrogate Death

"To reach inside a vault, whatever be the cost."

It was a hazy surrounding and a certain part of me knew that it was a dream. I made my way across the pavement near my house and saw, hobbling in front of me a mannequin that had begun to move. It had only one leg and was suspended on the other side by a crutch. Spinning in circles it drew closer and then moved away from me, before confronting me head on. It told me that it had great interest in biting me and this naturally disturbed me enough to wake me up.

The story of Cerpin Taxt has had similar effects one me. This album tracks the story of a man that intentionally poisons himself, falls into a coma and while unconscious travels through the depths of his own psyche. When he finally awakens, he is so distraught with the nature of reality that he finally resolves to kill himself. This second attempt is a successful one.

As I get closer to the inevitable ending that I face in a few weeks and the life change that I have been planning for months, I have began to wonder if this too is a surrogate form of death. It is the end of a life, it is an end that I have anticipated and yet it is an end that I have not yet fully understood. I may not be dying, but surely these thoughts of parallels to the thoughts of a dying person. We experiment with these death substitutes so that we can attempt an understanding of the ultimate mystery without actually sacrificing our conscious investigative tendencies.

Surrogate death is not real death and this may be the whole appeal of it.

-The English Student

Poisonous Debating Societies

The chances are that if you rose to prominence in a college debating society then you will become a politician.

I was a passive member of some of these societies and went along to view a debate or two on subjects that interested me. As anyone that has every gone to a college debate knows, it is a frankly bizarre situation. Practically everyone in the room will know each other and will already have rivalries and strategies for derailing an opponent. Added to the air of self-importance and complete lack of humour, this all equates to an unusual and fairly depressing environment.

The most bizarre thing for me however, is the format of the debates. A debating team will be given a position on a subject and have to argue it, regardless of their personal opinions. Why on earth should anyone want to argue a perspective that they do not believe? What sense of accomplishment can be achieved when you have successfully convinced someone of a point of view that you do not share?

The advantage of debating societies for potential politicians is obvious. They get a chance to network, form opinions and place themselves in the political mentality. However, it also conditions them for putting across opinions that they do not believe. This naturally creates a huge amount of insincerity in the budding politician. This is obvious in countless countries, where politicians hold a contrary view, not because of their believes, but because of their career.

If we want sincere politicians, we should train them in a sincere way.

-The English Student