Submitted by stunet on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 09:08
Here's a list that gladdens. What Youth and "7 books you will psyche on and should totally read."
I often bemoan the fact that good writing is a dying art. It ain't necessarily true but it sometimes feels that way. The yoof, it always seemed to me, could buy a Canikon for a couple hunge, flood the 'net with images, and call 'emselves artists - easy! But unlike photography there's no shortcut to good writing: no autofocus, no colour correcting software - it's hard fucken work. And the first step toward it is to read lots and lots of great writers. So yeah, glad to see the yoof - What Yoof! - spruiking seven good books. Bit limited in scope and style but a good list nonetheless.
"The age of the Anthropocene announces that the human and natural worlds are interlinked as * NEVER * before.
Now that * WE * have a hand on the scales, we can no longer rely on nature or ecology to balance what we take from nature with what we give back."
Hmmm. More haste, less speed?
"And the thinking is downhill from there..."
How can humanity and nature be interlinked in any fashion other than intrinsically irrespective of the age ? There is no new ,old or unprecedented connection, only the eternal and immutable connection of one being entirely of the other.
“To balance what we take from nature” ....see the separation the author is describing ? Humanity could only take from nature if the two were seperate . The separation is non existent and always has been.
The premise is that we are removed from nature and it’s a false concept.
Another quick point - There is no such state as imbalance in nature. Nature is in a perpetual state of perfection. Any perceived imbalance is that which is viewed from a perspective as either advantageous or disadvantageous to one particular species or another.
Nature cannot be subtracted from or added to as it is all and it is perpetual and it is eternally perfect.
Blowin, for me there has been a profound change in our relationship with nature in recent decades. This has two aspects the first is related to Debord's views and it is that, on the whole, individuals are much less engaged with nature than in previous times. We are focused more and more on the "spectacle" this refers to the images of the world that we have created. It began with photos and movies but now, with smart devices and the Internet has become hugely distracting from the real world or nature or reality, whatever term you prefer. A classic example of this was Robert Fisk's observation that most soldiers and journalists in the war zones he reported on acted as if they were in a movie and so couldn't be killed because they were the hero.
At the same time as this trend, due to population growth and technological development we have obtained the power to influence the global systems that stabilise our environment. The consequence of these changes is that, just when people need to be focusing on nature, they are looking the other way. This will play out over the next decades and long in to the future
Ha ha! Let me hazard a guess, Blowin. You don't know what the purported 'Age of the Anthropocene' is, and you didn't even bother to give it a look.
Didn't stop you giving your opinion though.
Right! Got it! Good on you!
Anyway, for others:
The Age of the Anthropocene:
"Defining Earth’s most recent geological epoch in which human actions have started to provoke biophysical changes on a planetary scale, the word was coined in the 1980s by American biologist Eugene F. Stoermer and popularized in the early 2000s by Paul Crutzen, the Dutch atmospheric scientist and winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1995. The scientists noticed that these changes were leading the Earth system away from the relative equilibrium it had known since the beginning of the Holocene, 11,700 years ago."
In tea-spoon fed short:
The Age of the Anthropocene is characterized as the time in which the collective activities of human beings (Homo sapiens) began to substantially alter Earth’s surface, atmosphere, oceans, and systems of nutrient cycling.
From the same link above:
Why are we refusing to see this? There could be a number of reasons: a blind faith in progress and development – in other words, in a system which increases available wealth indefinitely – and a belief in the capacity of science and technology to solve all problems and negative externalities (like pollution, for example); powerful interests that benefit from this process and carry out intense lobbying; the media takeover of the minds of consumers, creating a hunger for individual consumption, as much for comfort as to set oneself apart and be recognized.
It is surprising that the human and social sciences have avoided this issue for so long, given that it will determine the future of humanity. Besides being anthropocentric by definition, these disciplines believe that the field belongs to the natural sciences, par excellence. The emergence of the concept of the Anthropocene confers upon them the responsibility of explaining how human societies have been able to provoke changes of such magnitude to the modus operandi of the planet, and what differentiated impacts they will have on the world map.
The social sciences and humanities should be developing and acquiring new subjects and knowledge to respond to the questions raised by this new epoch – including natural disasters, renewable energy, the depletion of natural resources, desertification, ecocide, widespread pollution, migration, social and environmental injustice."
This is where McKenzie Wark comes in!
And where I initially started.
Cool , so you either don’t understand my point or you dont want to.
Ha ha! What??
Let me try and get this straight.
I mention something; you take a piece of it, misread it, willfully or not (who knows?! including yourself!), and go off on a tangent; I clarify and widen the original point; you ignore, again, and then come up with some gobbledygook that is a sloppy admixture of the obfuscatory and the bleedin' obvious, and - ta da! - that's that!
Jeez, you could've at least just said anthropogenic climate change is crap or something?!
It's all cool! & carry on!
Ha ha! It's a carry on, alright, Blowin!
Carry on up the Khyber!
What I’m saying has nothing to do with either the age of the anthropocene or the resultant effect on the Earth’s climate.
What I’m saying is that the article is written by someone that deals exclusively in ideas and language and that she was sloppy with both in the article you provided.
She is incorrect on a philosophical level with her references to humanity AND nature as though they’re seperate. You may think that’s bleeding obvious, as do I , but that’s what she’s saying.
I’m not explaining it again , you can reread my posts if you want . You seemed to miss their point before.
Anyway , good luck.
Mate, you're not a reader are you?
Who's the 'she'??
There is no 'she' writing in the original post (which is from a review), that you've ignored for the most part, and cherry-picked, and interpreted fallaciously anyway.
TL:DR still? Maybe I've got to learn not to bother posting links on these threads. Ever.
But even spoon-feeding doesn't seem to work at all.
That article is by a man. Mark Rappolt. McKenzie Wark is a man. Guy Debord is a man.
The one article that has a female author is the later UNESCO article, which you're NOT referring to. It is also jointly written...with a man.
You're NOT reading and it is confusing yourself, your ideas, and is, frankly, a bit embarrassing.
And a waste of time.
Good night and good luck.*
*that's a reference of sorts too!
Sorry , I didn’t read the link.
Was a bit hasty of me , it’s just that the titbit you cut and pasted was full of such wank riddled , utter drivel that I couldn’t bear to expose myself to any more of it.
So yes , I did fail to realise that it was a review of a potentially decent work . My fault. It was the incorrect statements from the reviewer that I mistook for incorrect statements from a learned person. Again , my mistake.
Still , it was this maturbatory prose that got you so damp in the crotch - “ whew , heady stuff ! - so I was right anyway when I disparaged it.
TL : DR - It doesn’t matter who wrote it , it was still drivel. The book might be fine , the review was high camp garbage.
You keep digging a deeper hole.
It's making you seem a bit immature at best, idiotic at worst.
"Still , it was this maturbatory prose that got you so damp in the crotch - “ whew , heady stuff ! - so I was right anyway when I disparaged it."
Oh dear, dear, dear...
Again, you haven't read ANYTHING have you?
Let alone digested and processed?
This seems to be a pattern of yours evident in other threads.
I can see that it accounts for the reactions to your postings from the likes of Crypto Knight for example.
Very funny, biting responses from him, but absolutely no respect shown to you as well, which must be jarring personally I suspect, Blowin, but then again, what do you expect when you leave yourself so pitifully open to it?
Reading stuff might be a starting point towards some kind of redemption and respect.
Talking about reading stuff, here's a great little book that's just been delivered across my desk. Into its 4th edition. Definitely handy for some, if not all.
Deluxe book. Being read more and more around the globe.
No doubt the swillnut klan would love to add a higher education based chapter or ten!!!
WORDY SAID IT, SO BAD LUCK!!
Herman Hesse, Paulo Coelho Joyce Thomas and Queen of the sun was an enlightening read. Those little western novels.
My latest order. One for me, one for my auld boy. An interesting Seppo take.
A go-er, Blind Boy?
And there's more! Allied to some of the discussion above re: Debord.
How to Make Trouble and Influence People: Pranks, Protests, Graffiti & Political Mischief-Making from across Australia by Iain McIntyre.
“I noticed clear back on my first visit in ’83 that radical Aussies fighting back seem to be far more tenacious and creative than most Americans—Roxby Downs, that damned Franklin dam in Tasmania, Operation Titstorm, etc. A far better way to heat up the planet than your lovely mining companies. So keep up the good work! A prank a day keeps the dog leash away.”
— Jello Biafra
The author has got some other cool books too.
What’s Jello Biafra talking about ?
Isn’t he aware that better minds than ours have proven , beyond a thread of doubt , that there exists no such beast as an Australian ?
Sorry , in case you’re questioning the reference, it’s from this little snippet you wrote recently-
“What is a "proud Australian"? Greater minds than ours have tried to come up with what "Australia" is and what it means to be "Australian",
Yeah , I know . I had a chuckle about it at the time too.
PS Rather than overthinking it , if in future you’re ever in doubt as to who is or isn’t Australian, then here’s a simple test : If the person in question self describe themselves as being from any of the world’s 194 countries that AREN’T Australia, then you can pretty much assume that they are Australian.
Not so hard , huh ?
As an old tongue-twisting mate used to say, "you cease to amaze me".
You REALLY don't read, do you?
For an experiment, just re-read your own post above, and have a think - not an over-think, or an under-think - just a good read of what's actually in there, a slow think, and get back to us, you "proud Australian" you.
Don't concern yourself at this stage with say, Donald Horne, Russel Ward, Raewyn Connell, Bryan Turner or Craig McGregor (just off the top of my head), just start with actually reading your above comment.
* actually, Craig McGregor, apart from being the author of a great book Class in Australia (among many exploring what Australia is, it's cultural meaning, Australian identity etc), has a very strong surfing connection. Nat Young and Phil Jarratt can attest to that.
Slip of the keystroke ol ‘ mate. Easily fixed.
Thanks for the heads up.
Still , point remains. You’ve busted a gut attempting to establish that there’s no such thing as an Australian, that we’ve no discernible identity and particularly none that we should be proud of .
Then you’re patting yourself on the back and posting a quote that disproves your vapid theorising and saving me the slight chore of doing it.
"Then you’re patting yourself on the back and posting a quote that disproves your vapid theorising and saving me the slight chore of doing it."
...bears what relation in your fevered mind with this?
“What is a "proud Australian"? Greater minds than ours have tried to come up with what "Australia" is and what it means to be "Australian."
"Vapid theorisers", hey? Like say, Donald Horne, Russel Ward, Raewyn Connell, Bryan Turner or Craig McGregor (just off the top of my head), among many exploring what Australia is, it's cultural meaning, Australian identity etc.
By the way, you didn't answer absolutely anything, did you? Too much of a slight chore?
And if we scroll up the page, we can see you repeating this well-worn pattern of NOT reading. Again.
Here's my "slight chore" response from previously. It still fits.
"You keep digging a deeper hole.
Reading stuff might be a starting point towards some kind of redemption and respect."
Some light reading for our right wingers
Dark Money Jane Mayer
The truth about the US plutocracy
Correction, Blind Boy: Right whingers.
I’m pretty sure the only true right winger is Blob , BB.
The rest of us are just in disagreement with what the left we felt a part of has become .
Read the book Blowin. It is cheap on Kindle.
Alright. You're on a desert island, you can bring five books. Which five do you take?
I gotta read five books?
Okay, only one. [George takes a long time to answer] Come on!
Ah! I got it. The Three Musketeers.
You've read that?
No. I'm saving it for the island.
Here's six of the seven!
Well that's that then. " The End". Six volumes of tortured autobiographical fiction later, I can finally say goodbye to Karl Ove Knausgaard. I can't help but admire his courage and think that, by going so completely over the top, he has absolutely nailed shut the coffin on autobiographical literary fiction by middle aged white men and, in the process, has created a work of literature that puts him up there with Proust and Joyce.
There have been numerous reviews if you are interested, so I will keep this brief. The main point being that nothing I have read does him justice. His critics, in my judgement, have only revealed their own inadequate readings. Yes his obsession with the ordinary can get boring but it is there for a purpose and serves that purpose well. The only criticism, if you can call it such, is that to finish on "..... and they all lived happily ever after." hides the obvious conclusion that he has had enough, that the risks to the well being of all involved had become too great. Instant classic. Start at Book One!
Not a book but worth a readhttps://www.newyorker.com/culture/personal-history/a-surfers-perspective...
That was very good , BB.