Quantcast
 

On Pop Quiz: Edith Wharton? Or "Girls" Review?

@wawl ps. hipsterdom also has it's share of lack of "real women" (meaning ladies who aren't dependent on others for approval/validation) and psycho dudes. But the mess that is relationships that I see is nuanced and filled with all kinds of shit but one important distinction that makes a hipster is an understanding that we're all figuring this shit out, and not using old rulebooks that sucked the crap out of life. we're in a post-wharton world, thanks cheezus.

Posted on April 16, 2012 at 5:14 pm 0

On Pop Quiz: Edith Wharton? Or "Girls" Review?

I haven't seen this yet, so I'm going to feel free to comment away, anyway!

I did see Tiny Furniture after a friend I respect described it as "not terrible for what it is." I did NOT finish it... so very very many semi-interesting indie movies, so little time.

I admired her honesty, I think that's pretty awesome and brave.

However, she contextualizes that honesty in a very crappy framework that's disappointing, and I think maybe deserves critique rather than celebration. I like to think that the hipster contingent watching her is shaking their heads about how, no, she doesn't get it. Being a lass in nyc is not to be perpetually on the wrong end of gender dynamics (no real men to be found/women all psycho). Is there an element of that? Hells to the yes. Is that the message we want to thematically focus on?

Not like a drumbeat for the antidepressant-dependent masses. It's not biochemistry that's at fault, it's shitty social constructs in a vast majority of the time. We're environmentally dependent and responsive creatures.

I'd really much rather be inspired by honesty than mired in a narrow facet of it. That's not truth, and it's not art, and it's not incisive or witty or sharp. And it's not in the same class as ms. wharton, who didn't just depict but revealed. Film is just as potent a medium as literature.

I hope that Lena can dig in a little more with this great opportunity, and get truly excellent writers (suggestion?), to show the theme of what's truly hip and happening in the world of lastest-gen mores to push the conversation forward, not just sink to the bottom of the barrel of ennui. Showing shitty things really helps if you are enlightening, but it's lazy if you're just regurgitating.

I think that's what she'll *need* to do if she wants this show to be successful.

And my takeaway about being from the latest generations today is that there is so much more breathing space, especially as a woman, but also definitely as a guy.

And as we head down a track that can go either in an impressive problem-solving solution oriented way, or turn into a depressing inertia driven epic failure to apply our intelligence, I think you really do need to choose a side to invest your energies.

Posted on April 16, 2012 at 5:07 pm 1

On What's Invisible At Harvard: A Conversation

Inspiration = antidote to lazy.

So thanks for the fun/interesting/provocative article (perhaps even... inspiring, in it's honesty, inspiring others to share their viewpoints & think)! Sometimes making a positive contribution is organic and fun, not "work-work" but just the natural flow of your being (alive).

Posted on July 23, 2011 at 4:15 pm 0

On What's Invisible At Harvard: A Conversation

There's an opportunity here that was hard-earned and hard won. And there's inspiration in going forward.

And the nice thing is, it's so possible. Theoretically. So good luck working on it! (Or, have fun killing bambi's mother, if that's your thing, I guess. Disney-metaphorically-speaking -- such perversity those anthropomorphisms and moralality tales!)

Posted on July 23, 2011 at 3:19 pm 0

On What's Invisible At Harvard: A Conversation

Or should I say, immersed in the challenge. (Damn, that class was hard!)

But was it fun?

It was... real. And a trip.

Posted on July 23, 2011 at 2:54 pm 0

On What's Invisible At Harvard: A Conversation

Intelligence is the salient extraction and organization of information. In a vast pantheon of stimuli/data there are two choices available... adapt to the environment, or adapt the environment.

One uses one's intelligence for these two tasks but the overarching choice of which to choose depends upon one's intelligent/accurate/keen gathering & processing of information.

As we are collective creatures, this task is disbursed and aggregated.

That said, one may find it worthy to be as selective and impactful in one's choice of how to frame the decision (and thus it's subsequent outcomes).

In other words, it may be wise not to spend one's attention on retread or on not incisively (and saliently) apprehending a)which choice to make and b)how to accomplish the task -of adapting one's self, or one's environment. (There can be(/inherently is (/is there a separation between self & not-self(/are we really here?))) interplay between the two).

When it comes to social constructs, a significant environmental factor/factoid,

the decision of whether to adapt one's self to the situation or the situation to one's self becomes somewhat more personally endemic to one's sense of self (and so even more fraught than the usual difficulties of acquiring knowledge).

Gathering/elucidating information is a key step, however

processing that information is a bit more difficult/challenging (perhaps one may also say interesting).

What I mean to say, is that pointing out the obvious may call attention to a situation that may be adapted to too readily/automatically, in other words "it was so obvious, I didn't see it" OR it may not add much to the conversation, alternatively.

I would argue for both cases. This is one reason I like Gawker's illegitimate spawn. But, I would also strongly urge the step forward into making use of deconstructed information. I would put forth the construct that yes we are all different and yes we are all the same and the more that we understand this the better off we are. How one frames a dialectic (the essentialist dialectic being of selfish bastardism vs "love" cool peoples-ism... if one argues that at some crucial point there is the juncture at which the child moves from recoiling from bambi's mothers death to participating in order to partake in the warm bath of collectivism lest be ostracised... does one not simply absorb cultural transgressivenesses rather is there a decision made NOT to deviate... make the selection of the first choice of adapting self and not environment after weighing in the risks - a not altogether unintelligent choice).

This sort of sums up higher education, an institution that has an internal conflict between "education" and stratification/self-interested bastardism. Is there a (nother/subsequent) point, at which these two merge? Is it possible that framed most cogently, there is NO dialectic (and the "universal" truth is revealed).

In other words, maybe we have been looking at this wrong. When you peel the onion, perhaps there is nothing there "except now" and now can contain intelligence rather than confusion.

PERSONALLY, I did not go to Harvard, or higher education, because it was abundantly clear that what I considered important to learn was not offered in the curriculum [to my chagrin]. But when one strips oneself, and realizes the barriers to one's healthy interaction with the world is not reliant upon clothing but upon honesty. And, the truth is, we are not scared-ass horrible creatures who conform rather than be cast out and henceforth are horribly warped by a collective consciousness gone amok. That's one potential truth.

As for the gnarly issue of class (/survival/buffer from the elements) when parsed completely, the issue is no different from the base dialectic which precedes class, and from which class arises. No matter where you are on the spectrum, that's ultimately irrelevant except inasmuch as it offers you perspective... perspectives which are then added up to make a whole. And the whole is not that we are selfish bastards. That's the default baring intelligence. But if you deconstruct the thing fully (if you learn from the class and do the work and put the effort in) it is my contention that we are not in fact fucking assholes (holier than tho or not). All evidence to the contrary not withstanding. Even if we are really fucking stupid (slow learners, not that quick on the uptake).

Posted on July 23, 2011 at 2:44 pm 0

On Some Awesome Things To Say To A Cancer Patient

@zidaane That is such a beautiful story........ YOU ARE RIGHT there are some folks working in those areas (hospitals too) who totally are saints on this earth in many true ways. That's so funny, you're gallows humor... This is I think a great example for how to deal with this part of life... so hard, but your story is so touching and funny and hopeful in the face of what we must face with grace in the end... And from which we must try to draw the strength and inspiration for living all the more vigorously, knowing that our time here is not infinite... although who knows what comes after? No religion, no atheist, and the agnostics just bow out of the question with WTF, how should I know?

Posted on April 27, 2011 at 12:30 am 0

On Some Awesome Things To Say To A Cancer Patient

If you get on the internet to say that this isn't funny, please get off of the internet. <--This

I think it's clear this is a piece of SATIRE not the exact verbatim literal list explicating the author's attitude about this matter.

It's great that it sparked genuine dialogue about what's really kind of hard to deal with... So, it's just good that we can talk about it. And some of that was pretty funny and a sharp, poignant reminder that when people are going thru a lot, it's good to try to be sensitive to that, and realize people need to vent a little bit, and laugh too... And that they might not be telling you everything they're feeling, but try to reach out a little bit, if you can. 'Cause they're going thru a lot to deal with.

Posted on April 27, 2011 at 12:20 am 2