Coming Now: How Not To Be A Dick, Or Some Unsolicited Advice On Etiquette

Lately, I have been thinking a lot about etiquette and how it can be a helpful guideline in navigating awkward or uncomfortable situations, as well as a source of confusion and amusement, depending upon the source of advice. I have been toying with the idea of starting an etiquette column in the blog for a while now as I seem to be encountering more and more serious breaches of etiquette in my daily life as a student, waitress and human being. Obviously, as you are reading this, you can figure out that I have decided to go ahead and do it. However, I want to point out that I am not going to be discussing which fork to use or how to properly unfold a napkin. Although I can tell you those things, and will if people want me to, I don't feel as though they are the most important elements of etiquette and feel very strongly that an unnecessary focus on them takes the focus away from the truly important central idea behind etiquette. Basically, etiquette is all about kindness and furthering a sense of people respecting others as human beings. In other words it can be a helpful way to know how not to be a dick, which, as anyone who has ever been in public knows, can be a very tricky thing. On that note, I will be taking a few posts each month and focusing on a specific instance or set of instances where it seems as though many people struggle to understand how they should conduct themselves. If there are specific things which you want to know about, simply comment on a post and I will do my best to answer. I am a bit of a nut for these things and have collected a great many antique and modern books on the subject as well as having a great deal of experience working with the general public and observing behaviors. I am not an expert by any stretch, but my interest in the topic is one that makes it fun to research and gain understanding. So there you have it. Without further ado, the first addition will be posted above.

Are The Pixies Our Beatles? Or How One Band Might Be That Which Makes Us Look Good

There are, essentially, two kinds of people in this world: those who like music and those who LIKE MUSIC*. The first group is comprised mostly of those who will listen to whatever is available with interest and occasionally buy an album or attend a concert if the band or artist is catchy enough. These are the sorts of folks who make things like top 40 radio and easy listening possible. They want something that is catchy and fun and blends well into the background. Most of the American population is comprised of such people so, obviously, they are not the focus of this post. The second group, those who LOVE MUSIC with 10,000 exclamation marks, are the sorts of people you see twitching outside the record store at 10:59am on new release Tuesdays and overhear bragging about that totally sick super secret show they managed to see one time by accident. These people don't have favorite bands so much as obsessions which can be categorized, sub categorized and cataloged into top and bottom fives by theme, subject, genre, sub genre and key. I find those in the latter group to be fascinating and often quite pretty**, but that is also not what this post is about. This post is about the fact that for most music geeks, there are at least one or two bands that stick with them for their entire lifetime. Despite their fickle, new music seeking, nature, every music geek I know has some perennial obsessions which follow them everywhere.

For me, The Pixies are one of those bands. I can't even remember when I first became aware of them, but it seems as though they have always been there, rotating perpetually through my internal soundtrack and serving as a kind of musical reference point in my personal history. They have, at times, been a source of awe, a source of pleasure and a source of release. What they have never been, until this week, is a band that I have been successful at seeing live. My inability to attend a Pixies show was not for lack of desire or lack of trying, but it just never seemed to work out. Until, that is, a The Dead Guy mentioned to me in passing one night that he wished the Pixies would get back together and tour again (along with Primus and Tool). I laughed at the idea that night and was shocked the next morning to find an email from ticketmaster announcing that not only had The Pixies reformed for a tour, but that tickets for the local show were going on sale in 25 minutes. This news was red alert important to me. So much so that I bolted through the house in my underwear to secure a credit card with which to purchase tickets and purchase them I did.

In the weeks leading up to the show I became increasingly excited and concerned. What if they were too old to be good? What if my seats sucked? What if I was eaten by a dingo on the way to the show? Alas, none of those things happened and I was treated to what was probably one of the best shows of my life. I should point out, however, that they are indeed old, but they definitely do not suck. They don't jump around a lot of stage or engage in wild theatrics, but that's kind of what we all love the Pixies for anyway, right? I should also point out that none of the seats at the Tower are bad, famously so, and that ours were especially not bad. And finally, in the disclaimers section, I need to state that, as far as I know, there are no dingos in North America, so that was never really a true threat.

Anyway, so there I was, seated primly in my big girl seat in a grown up theater and commenting to my partner that I felt so sophisticated seeing a band in a place like that, when stage lit up and Salvador Dali's film Un Chien Andalou began to play at alternating speeds and resolutions as the house lights went down. After 10 minute or so of eye ball slicing and attempted molestations, the screen went blank, the room went quiet and then exploded and the Pixies were on stage. It was at this moment that I realized just how lucky I was to be there, seeing a band that I thought I would never get to see.

In keeping with tradition, I won't say much about the set, except that anyone seeing the tour can expect to hear more than just songs from Dolittle, despite the fact that the tour is billed as The Pixies Perform Doolittle. Instead, I will say that I had a pretty emotional reaction to the show. Basically, this all started two nights before, when I saw the Breeders and was sent into a spiral of gratitude at how far removed I have become from the insecure and overweight 13 year old girl I once was. With the Pixies, I could not help but think about how many times they provided a soundtrack for the adventures and experiences that have helped me to become who I am. They have been with me through prom night disasters, gonzo like explorations of the American highway system, squat house sleepovers and a million awkward, clumsy, and downright embarrassing moments. Their albums and singles have been played, discussed and argued about over beers, in bars, in the woods, at parties and over some elicit substances for nearly 20 years.

It's this kind of longevity that makes them true giants in the cluttered landscape of modern rock fandom. As our generation moves as awkwardly and clumsily through adulthood as we did through adolescence, I can not help but think that The Pixies are, perhaps, one of those bands that will end up like The Beatles or Jimi Hendrix to baby boomers in that they will always be on the radar of our consciousness and the consciousness of those generations which come after us. Our media is cluttered with articles and soundbites about the failure of generations X and Y to move forward, settle down, settle in and grow up. Perhaps, and I truly hope I am right here, we will one day look back on The Pixies*** as one of those bands which are so embedded into our culture that everyone grows up with some knowledge of them, however peripheral, because in a cultural climate which is full of disposable icons and dissipating fads, they deliver something which, I think, all human beings are hungry for: a musical reference point for that which is good about us when most of focus is on that which has failed.

-Shannon (Whose Manta Ray is Alright)

*There is, admittedly a small subset of this group which is comprised of people who claim not to like music at all. They are obviously robots and not to be trusted.

**I may or may not be referring to myself here.

***See Also: REM.

The Lack Of Vision In Conceptual Design

The art movement known as conceptual art is said, by most art historians, to have began in the 1960's. However, its roots can be traced back to the Dada Movement, which began in Zurich Switzerland during World War I, and its use of ready-made objects. The idea of conceptual art was born out of the contention that art should examine its own nature. Most art historians would point to works such as Marcel Duchamp's readymades, for instance: the Bicycle Wheel and Fountain, to be the epitome of the conceptual art movement. Duchamp remarked in interviews many times that his selection of his readymades came from a sensation of "visual indifference," and that "...it was always the idea that came first, not the visual example.” This idea was reinforced in 1967 by conceptual artist Sol LeWitt's “Paragraphs on conceptual art”, where he wrote: “In conceptual art, the idea or concept is the most important aspect of the work. When an artist uses a conceptual form of art, it means that all of the planning and decisions are made beforehand and the execution is a perfunctory affair. The idea becomes a machine that makes the art.” Joseph Kosuth later added in his 1969 essay, Art after Philosophy, that, "With the unassisted Ready-made, art changed its focus from the form of the language to what was being said. Which means that it changed the nature of art from a question of morphology to a question of function. This change – one from “appearance” to “conception” – was the beginning of “modern” art and the beginning of conceptual art. All art, after Duchamp, is conceptual in nature because art only exists conceptually.”

The problem with conceptual art is that it takes the idea of what is known as “anti-art” to absurd and extreme lengths. It allows it to become pretentious, tasteless, and most of all unoriginal. It has become a “dead art” that offers very little to its audience except for tired nihilistic, in-your-face, shock-and-awe tactics that lack artistic credibility. Nihilism has no place in the art world. Although I do believe that art should have no rules or boundaries, it should be a vehicle of communication used to express meaning, purpose, and intrinsic value. Art should be more than just a concept or idea. Historically, art has been something known to speak to the deepest level of human existence. As Alex Grey wrote in his book The Mission of Art, “When artists give form to revelation, their art can advance, deepen, and potentially transform the consciousness of their community.” Conceptual art, although at times quite intriguing, has the tendency to confuse rather than liberate the human psyche. As a result, it has become fraught with stoic nihilism, which has not furthered our community's ability to evolve. This is due to conceptual art’s tendency to overvalue the idea, or concept, allowing it to take precedence over the rest of the creative process. Consequently, conceptual art has failed humanity on an epic scale, for its lack of spiritual sustenance and artistic vision. This is a travesty. An audience needs more than just the initial idea from the artist. What the audience needs is to witness the evolution of the transcendental visions that are bestowed upon the artistic individual, or for the artist, at least, to capture and preserve it in their body of work. In other words, art should aid in promoting the celebration of life through the entire creative process, not just the concept. It is precisely this problem that collegiate art schools perpetuate when they teach students outdated and banal conceptual art theories. An idea that lacks vision and a lucid message is hollow and worthless to the community. It is because of this that conceptual art has become nothing more than, "aesthetic masturbation without communication".

Art was once an evolutionary process of artistic development which allowed an artist to develop and sharpen their techniques while learning how to utilize their aesthetic knowledge to communicate a personal or, sometimes trans personal, vision. These are the very ideals that collegiate institutions threw away with the inception of conceptual art theory. There is no point in having a vision in conceptual art since the concept is given precedent over the process, the outcome, and the final work. Hence, the reason why many conceptual art installations are not even constructed by the artists who conceive them, but rather hired hands, further contributing to the detachment of the artists to the audience. Terence McKenna once said, "Art's task is to save the soul of mankind…anything else is a dithering while Rome burns.” conceptual art has become precisely the “dithering” that McKenna forewarn us of. Consequently, conceptual art has lost touch with it's audience, leaving the viewer with nothing more than a contrived and undeveloped message, if one even exists at all, and more confused then when they entered the gallery, and likely never to return again, except to propagate a false image of being a civilized intellectual who “gets it”. A work of art should enlighten the viewer by challenging its audience to think differently. It must liberate the mind, not just confuse and shock it. As Keith Haring once said, “I don't think art is propaganda; it should be something that liberates the soul, provokes the imagination and encourages people to go further. It celebrates humanity instead of manipulating it.” conceptual art does not challenge its audience, but alienates it by mocking and confusing it's viewers with its intriguing, yet vague, and undeveloped ideas.

This may be the reason why the head of the Institute of Contemporary Arts, Ivan Massow, said that most conceptual art was, "pretentious, self-indulgent, craftless tat" that is, “all hype and no substance.” This honest insight led conceptual artist, and former Turner Prize nominee, Tracey Emin to call for his resignation. However, In defense of Massow, The Stuckist, a International group of painters, responded by also calling it “pretentious” plus, “unremarkable and boring" and even responded creatively by leaving a coffin outside the White Cube gallery, marked "The Death of conceptual art". The Stuckists have asserted that conceptual art was warranted by the work of Marcel Duchamp, but that Duchamp's work was "anti-art by intent and effect". The Stuckists feel that "Duchamp's work was a protest against the stale, unthinking artistic establishment of his day", while "the great, but wholly unintentional, irony of postmodernism is that it is a direct equivalent of the conformist, unoriginal, establishment that Duchamp attacked in the first place." This puts the art students at a disadvantage when it comes to questioning conceptual art theory, because they fear that if they question their professor, they will receive bad marks. As a result, some art students will either drop out, lose their passion by graduation, or develop an unquestioning allegiance to their Alma Mater while perpetuating the dogmatic elitist ideals of the institution. This is a dreadful problem since a true artist, as a rule, should never hold an allegiance to any institution, be it political or educational. It should be the mission, which even the Dadaists; who are responsible for conceptual art have shown, is to question authority unequivocally and the systems of control that govern it.

Teachers who solely teach conceptual art in art schools cheapen the learning experience, not allowing their students to fully develop and evolve an idea to completion naturally. As a result, a lot of the students get frustrated and stressed out by an overwhelming work load that becomes devoid of the passion they once possessed, while being forced to quickly come up with a concept that never has a chance to gain a vision and a concise message. As a result these students spirits are slowly drained of all passion, producing nothing but more conceptual artists who continually perpetuate a “dead” art form. Subsequently, this allows the learning experience tp becomes very narrow and systematic, as conceptual thinking becomes dominate and creative thinking becomes ephemeral. Art schools should be teaching what will become the future of art, not the past. conceptual art has been around for almost a century, and if art teachers believe that conceptual art is the future of art then art will inevitably have no future. It is important to point out that art schools do not solely teach conceptual art theory, but many teachers may have a tendency to encourage their students to think conceptually since it is the art form that dominates the landscape that the students are trying to assimilate into.

If there is a future for art that teachers should take notice of, and maybe even fear, it would probably be the visionary art movement, which, slowly but surely, is starting to gain momentum. Art galleries, such as the Museum of Modern Art, are beginning to take notice of the visionary art movement, which may offer its audience what they’ve been searching for; an art movement with a progressive spiritual message of unity and a interconnectedness with nature. The American visionary art Museum, for its own purposes, defines visionary art as, "art produced by self-taught individuals, usually without formal training, whose works arise from an innate personal vision that revels foremost in the creative act itself." This shift is taking place right now in the contemporary art world. One example of this is the sold out Tim Burton exhibit at the Museum of Modern Art. Tim Burton has been referred to as a “Visionary Director” a number of times because of his use of Gothic, surrealistic, themes and images. Also his movies include archetypes, a favorite theme of visionary artists, such as the outcast protagonist of Jack Skelington in A Nightmare Before Christmas. A complete retrospective of a visionary art director would have been unthinkable 10-20 years ago, with conceptual art's stranglehold on the Contemporary Art world.

Many artists feel they are dealing with a ever increasing audience of vicarious Philistines who do nothing but binge on fast-food and reality T.V. while basking in the enjoyment of other peoples suffering. Therefore, conceptual art may have inadvertently expressed the vicarious and nihilistic nature that has consumed our culture for the last 50 years, but it has never offered any insight into how to reverse this dehumanization. In contrast, visionary art provides the soul of mankind with the spiritual nourishment that it desires. It is inarguable that the world around us is undergoing monumental changes, both socially and environmentally, which some members of the visionary art movement see as an attempt to prepare humanity for our next evolutionary stage, whether it be physical, psychological or both. Symbolism, Surrealism and Psychedelic Art are considered to be direct precursors to contemporary visionary art. As a Result, visionary artist have been tremendously intrigued by new developments in the fields of psychology and neurology by scientists such a Vilayanur S. Ramachandran and Rick Strassman, who are examining the same uncharted territory of human consciousness and imagination practically parallel to the visionary art movement.

V.S. Ramachandran and William Hirstein began to explore this in their paper “The Science of Art: A Neurological Theory of Aesthetic Experience“, which presents what may be the, “first experiments ever designed to empirically investigate the question of how the brain responds to art.” It is possible that some artists may take offense to scientists trying to objectively examine the subjective nature of art, but the insight that has been provided by these experiments has given us a preliminary understanding of what may separate artists from the rest of the population neurologically. And how the brain physiologically responds to the aesthetics of form and color, which Kandinsky once proposed as the “two weapons” that “painting has at her disposal.” Their research has begun to provide actual answers to the age old philosophical question “What is Art?” by attempting to discover, “universal laws of art.” What Ramachandran came up with was what he calls the, “Eight laws of artistic experience”. In the essay Ramachandran remarked that, “Although we initially proposed these ‘laws’ in a playful spirit, we were persuaded that there is enough merit in them to warrant publication in a philosophical journal. If the essay succeeds in stimulating a dialogue between artists, visual physiologists and evolutionary biologists, it will have adequately served its purpose.” Ramachandran study of the human brain has also lead him to refute the idea of C.P Snow that the when it comes to the two cultures of the humanities and science “never the twain shall meet.” He demonstrated this at a recent Ted talk with his lecture entitled “The neurons that shaped civilization” where he demonstrated that, “within the human brain lies an interface” which can do precisely what Snow said should not be done. Ramachandran study of how the brain responds to art has even enhanced his own appreciation of visual art. The discoveries of these scientists has been fueling the fire of interest in minds all over the world. And what is being proposed within art and science is that understanding consciousness maybe the Holy Grail; to fully understand human culture and civilization. visionary art points us in that direction, which makes it more relevant and contemporary then conceptual art.

If we were to go back to the inception of conceptual art it would not have started during or after World War II, as most art historians contend, but prior. The ready-mades, which were made famous by artists such as Marcel Duchamp, date back to 1917 with Fountain. Therefore, An Art movement that has roots which can be traced back almost a century can hardly still be considered contemporary. This does not cheapen the importance of such artistic seers as Marcel Duchamp, but reinforces the artistic virtue of originality. As Josie Appleton wrote in his article conceptual art: What's the idea?, “What Duchamp did at least had the virtue of being original - up until that point, the issue of how we define art had not been questioned in such a dramatic way.” However, “Among those who followed him, this game of naming art objects became a little tired. Rather than explore ways of representing experiences or ideas, it became a matter of showing up the arbitrariness of systems of naming: presenting a plastic cup and calling it 'tree', for example.”

This age of Postmodernism and deconstructionism has totally baffled anyone trying to gain a deeper appreciation of art. To design a work with the wholly intention to offend the viewer is fundamentally different than designing a work of art that calls for a convention to be question. The difference of the matter lies solely with the action of intent. A conceptual artists who intended goal is solely to offend the viewer seems fundamentally pointless. It seems as though that the whole idea behind conceptual art is that the intent of a work is either secondary or even meaningless, and that the original idea, or concept, is the only thing that matters. The artist is a unique individual who is praised for their ability to question everything, especially conventions, but great artists, as a virtue, should try to evoke the same questioning in the viewer in order to evolve an idea within a society. If the idea is the only thing that matters, than any evolution of that idea would seem to be blasphemy to the conceptual artist. This presents a problem since most of the people who want to appreciate art are ridiculed by the conceptual artist for wanting to gain a transcendental shift in conciseness.

Conceptual art has lead humanity astray, and down a spiritually blind ally of nihilism and disenchantment. Offering us no glimpse of our collective future, and affording us no remedy to our dehumanization. In a lecture about creativity, Terrence Mckenna summarized the history of art, and the evolution from the archaic societies that first utilized it. Mckenna went on to point out the shamanic element of the artists who, much like the shaman, emerged himself in the visual realms of consciousness and brings back the artifacts of the imagination in the form of objects of art: painting, sculptures, clay pots ect. It is this mystical element, an alchemical experimentation with the irrational and unknown, as Mckenna stated, that has either been, “suppressed or forgotten.”. This fascination with the mystical has reared it head sporadically through art history since the Renaissance, first with the Romantics, and then again later on in the 20th century with Surrealism and Abstract Expressionism. Art, like music, may have may themes and stories running through it, but like music what is always present in the highest level of art is an emotional resonance that should spur an Apocalypse of one's soul. As we speak, the world is undergoing a psychological apocalypse that is resonating on the deepest level of humanity, the world soul. It seems as though the world is collapsing, because all of the things that have even been given value in our society are beginning to be exposed as mere concepts. Money, laws, rights and the human ego; these are nothing more that concepts of human imagination and therefore have no basis in the real world of nature. It seems inevitable that conceptual art be subject to the same observation and should be allowed to be questioned. It has accomplished what it could for art history, and should be celebrated as it is added to the annals of history, but not until it releases it's grip around the throat of the art world.

Visionary artists, such as Alex Grey, are now using universal religious symbols and themes in order to unify the world in a search for the similarities linking all world religions, in hopes of promoting religious open-mindedness. conceptual art offers no evolutionary spring board to catapult our species to where we should be at this stage in our evolution, no longer making it relevant to “intelligent civilized humans in the twenty first century”. Consequently, if the institution of the collegiate art school does not undergo a long overdue evolution of its own artistic ideals and virtue, it will inevitably crumble with the rest of the world. What art schools should be doing is encouraging their students to develop and pursue their own personal vision, and also encourage artists to work together to create a collective vision to liberate humanity from the clutches of convention. It seems disingenuous for art schools to encourage students to conform their art to whatever happens to be the most successful art movement at that time. This kind of thinking is what has made the art world so stagnate recently. Some art teachers must relies that they are doing the art world an incredible disservice when they elect to create successful artists instead of encouraging artists to be unique and novel. It seems as though some teachers are robing their students of the power to insight change that can transform the art world, by teaching them that this is how art world is, and there is nothing that you can do about it. It is a travesty that the art world has become more concerned with who you know and what school you went to then what you can actually do. The art school, much like all collegiate institutions, has become first a formerly a business, and like any other college you must convince perspective students and their parents, who are most likely footing the bill, that going to this particular school is a investment in the success of the student. Thus perpetuating the American ideal that success can only be measured in dollars.

One of the greatest skills of artists is to think creatively, and what I mean by that is artists are not afraid to try new things or make mistakes, therefore novelty is not only the essence of the creative process, but the essential provocation of the universe. Many artists in the past have felt a deep connection to the universe and that if you are doing the will of the universe you can do no wrong. The idea of a mistake is just another construct of the conceptual mind and should be thoroughly renounced by artists. The late great Jackson Pollock believed their were no such thing as mistakes, which made it possible for him to suspend any interest to "do things right". conceptual art elevates and worships the Ego of the individual artists, and disregards the tao of the universe which makes this all possible in the first place. Artists are the cosmonaut that we rely on to give us a deeper appreciation and understanding of the universe. they present the individual as a microcosm that will lead the way. V.S. Ramachandran had stated that, “it has been calculated that the number of permutations and combinations of brain activity exceeds the number of elementary particles in the universe.” I believe this makes exploration of the inner world just as important as exploration of the outer world of deep space, and that it is time for the artists to reclaim their birth right and unite with the universe in order to expose humanity to what it finds most difficult to confront, and that is exploring the Terra Incognito of the inner, unconscious worlds of the human mind. This is precisely the virtue which unites the visionary art world.

-The Dead Guy

Not As Lazy As Other RADIO

The other night, The Dead Guy and I were watching Pump Up The Volume when the idea struck to start a radio station. Tonight, 7/22/10, The Dead Guy will have the first official broadcast at 10pm EST. I have no idea what he's going to play, but I would imagine it will be very good, as long as he doesn't sing....

Tune in at: http://notaslazyasyouthink.listen2myradio.com/

And let us know what you think.

-Shannon (Who likes to kick out the jams motherfucker)

Is Consensus Reality A War Of Ideas And Concepts? Or How The Religious/Scientific Dogfight Is Perpetuating A False Dichotomy

What is consensus reality? Historically it has been the attempt by humanity, especially philosophers, to answer the question “what is real?”. Materialism is a philosophy that contends that the only thing that exists is matter, or more precisely the material world. Materialism had developed, seemingly simultaneously, in several geographical regions of Eurasia during the Axial Age (800B.C.E. – 200 B.C.E.). First, in India by philosophers such as Ajita Kesakambali and later in Greece with Democritus' theory of Atomism. Materialism began to gain ground in Greece amongst philosophers such as Thales, Parmenides, and Anaxagoras, but hit a wall when it was thoroughly rejected by the more esoteric ideas of Plato and Aristotle. Subsequently, 300 years later, materialism would seemingly be conquered by a Jewish rabbi in the Middle East who, “triumphed over death and had risen after three days in the tomb.” As a result of this “momentous occasion”, materialism would flutter during the Common Era, only popping up sporadically in places like Jayaraashi Bhatta's work Tattvopaplavasimha ("The Upsetting of All Principles"), or in the Middle East with Ibn Tufail's Philosophus Autodidactus. It wouldn't be until much later, say 1500 years to be exact, that materialism would finally be resurrected during the Renaissance. Fueled by the cultural and educational reforms of Humanism, and the scientific world's ability to combine Plato's deductive reasoning with the the empiricism of Aristotle, to give us the Scientific Method.

Since the subsequent Age of Reason, materialism has dominated science and the western idea of what we call “Consensus Reality”. Science has tirelessly tried to extrapolate every bit of empirical data out of the material world in order to provide humanity with a tidy and logical interpretation of reality. Most scientists are materialists who believe in the existence and the exploration of an “objective reality”. To achieve this, scientists follow the scientific method in order to be as objective as possible. More importantly one must also accept that there is an objective world, a world that exists in the absence of subjective experience and which is measurable and explainable. Anything that cannot be measured or explained empirically, for example: language, emotions, virtue, philosophy, faith or art, are not worthy of scientific exploration and should be left to the humanities department. This presents us with a metaphysical problem. First of all, even if there was an objective reality that exists independent of the mind which perceives it, we could never truly know of it. This is due to the fact that pure objectivity does not exist because all scientific methods and measurements are based on human tools and ideas. Scientific knowledge, according to Emanuel Kant, is systematic knowledge of the nature of things as they appear to us subjects rather than as they are in and of themselves. In other words, we could never experience pure objectivity because all human observation is subject to subjective prejudices. So inevitably what we are left with can be more accurately described as a collective subjectivity, or a consensus reality.

The rationalism of science seems to be obsessed with disproving or dismissing what they see as the irrationality of religion. Scientists make claims regarding the irrational impossibilities of religious texts. For instance that Noah's flood has never presented itself in any geological record, the immaculate conception is biologically unsound, and talking animals are just crazy. I agree that those who believe the bible to be the literal word of God fail to recognize not only the scientific inaccuracies, but also the contradictions within the texts which suggest that it is not the product of an infallible entity. These two extreme ways of thinking both overlook the real benefit of the allegories within all religious text. I have always firmly believed that it is not important whether a story is true or fictional, what is important is the quality of the message within the story. But I guess the reason science has such a problem with religious text is that some people, mainly fundamentalists, try to present them as nonfictional. You never hear of scientists pointing out the impossibilities within traditional fictional literature. That is why I also find it odd that you would find religious books like the Torah, New Testament and the Qur'an in the non fiction section of any public library.

Some scientists, such as Sam Harris, believe that religion serves no useful purpose to humanity. Overlooking the charitable good that religious organizations do for their community and focusing on how religious ideologies have impended the exploration of areas such as stem cell research, Harris also seems to overlook the discoveries in the fields of anthropology and sociology which indicate that without religion, and more importantly without cults, we would not have culture. Russell Kirk pointed this out in his essay “Civilization Without Religion?”, when he stated, “From what source did humankind’s many cultures arise? Why, from cults. A cult is a joining together for worship-that is, the attempt of people to commune with a transcendent power. It is from association in the cult, the body of worshippers, that human community grows. This basic truth has been expounded in recent decades by such eminent historians as Christopher Dawson, Eric Voegelin, and Arnold Toynbee.”
`
Science and Religion are both products of the human mind. They are expressions of how the two hemispheres of the brain differ in perceiving the world around us. And as a result they are also subjected to the limitations of humanity. This means that neither on their own, no matter how hard they try, can explain how the world or how the universe works. By demanding that we dwell in one side or the other, science and religion, are doing a great disservice to humanity. Science can examine and try to understand the nature of the external material world, but inevitably will offer no insight about how the external world influences our inner experiences. In other words, it has yet to offer us insight into how matter and consciousness interact. I think that Terence Mckenna's idea that the world is made of language is very profound and gives us more insight into how the consciousness of human beings differs in complexity from other animals in nature. On that line, one could posit that the development of language was the fueling factor in the development of culture and cultural organization, which inevitably began to express these two cultures of thought, the humanities and science, outwardly from the two hemispheres of the brain.

Scientists such as Harris lament that the religious proclamation of faith is dogmatic and irrational, but fail to see that areas of scientific inquiry, such as sub atomic particles and antimatter, to also be faith based since they cannot be measured or observed. It is much like when the pious exclaim that there is a god, in essence both parties are saying the same thing, “it's there. Take our word for it.”

In a debate on ABC, Harris told Deepak Chopra to “show more humility in what he may not understand.” I think this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Chopra went on to say that there are three ways of attaining knowledge. “One way is through empirical observation, what we call through the eyes of the flesh. Then, there is a deeper knowing, coming from the eye of the mind, for example, when I want to understand the theorem of Pythagoras, and then there is a deeper knowing, the eyes of the soul.” Deepak went on to quote William Blake by saying,

“We are led to believe a lie
When we see not thro' the eye,
Which was born in a night to perish in a night,
When the soul slept in beams of light”.

Chopra then indicated that this quote called for people to combine these three ways of attaining knowledge into what he called “a synthesis of knowing”. To which Harris responded, “That's why William Blake wasn't a great scientist.” Obviously, Harris was aware that William Blake, being a Romantic, was a poet known for his rebellion against the accepted norms by the Age of Enlightenment, and that the Romantics where a reaction against the scientific rationalization of nature. Chopra was actually making the point that historically speaking, as soon as science thinks they have, through empiricism and classification, explained the nature of the world, no sooner will nature present us with a scientific anomaly like the UFO, out of body experiences or the duck-billed Platypus. It's almost as if the cosmos was keeping humanity in check by doing what it could to throw a monkey wrench into the theory that science, on it's own, can explain the nature of the world. This is obviously flame throwing on Harris's part, but this time, it caused a great debater to go down in flames. Chopra ostensibly made the better argument by displaying humility (whether Harris believes it or not), and not being dismissive of what the other side was saying. Chopra made a concession earlier in the debate when Harris made a good point, but Harris was quick to be dismissive of anything Chopra had to say. Especially the idea that we could, and probably should have, a synthesis of knowledge. The Blake quote sealed the deal, because it was an open plea for humility in the scientific world. Chopra was looking for a understanding, or consensus, between the two schools of thought, while Harris seemed like all he was looking for another notch in his debate belt.

I agree that religion should not be held off the table of rational criticism, but I think we also owe it to our species to examine the possibility that religion could be an evolutionary adaptation. Or perhaps, as Carl Jung did so often, we could examine the universal reoccurring parables throughout the religious world. This approach may provide us with a deeper understanding of religious symbolism, the evolution of culture, of metaphor (especially within religious text) and the anthropomorphism of nature with deities. I myself find it quite easy to view the idea of God as a personification synonymous with nature. One will definitely make a better argument against a secular scientist by defining the term god to be synonymous with nature. I also think that within this debate that the individuals who take a more moderate stance, such as Chopra, stand to make the most progress for humanity by promoting a unification of thought, and thus transforming the debate into a more civilized discussion, rather then the my side vs. your side debate.

Noted Neurologist V.S Ramaschanran who has made leaps and bounds in the field neuroscience. Gave a presentation on mirror neurons at a TED talk, which had just been recently discovered by Giacomo Rizzolatti and his colleagues in Italy. Ramachandran explained that the biological development of a sophisticated mirror neuron system in humans gave us the ability to empathize, imitate and emulate complex social behaviors and may have laid the foundation for human civilization as we know it. Ramachandran concluded that “For the longest time people have regarded science and humanities as being distinct. C.P. Snow spoke of the two cultures: science on the one hand, humanities on the other; never the twain shall meet. What I'm saying is the mirror neuron system underlies the interface.”, which could possibly help in uniting both cultures. Ramachandran also is know for his research of split brain patients. In one study he asked each hemisphere the same question, “Do you believe in god?” the left hemisphere said no, while the right hemisphere said yes.

This scientific finding is mind boggling and presents us with a whole new set of religious and scientific inquiries. I think that it also suggests that science and religion should work together to dissolve this false dichotomy that has been erected between these two schools of thought and, hopefully, help in assisting the world as a whole to stop dismissing the claims of religion or science, and encourage people to hold the dogmatic doctrines within both fields up to scrutiny in an attempt to promote tolerance, understanding and further development. If modern atheists continue to perpetuate a crusade against religion under the flag of science, especially when religious figures like Chopra extend an olive branch, then we will inevitably be left with this shrill and interminable debate that will continue to get us nowhere.

-The Dead Guy

Olivia Munn's T & A Problem. Or How Feminist Bloggers and Commenters Have Shown Me That My Entire Personality Is A Sham.

I have a confession to make. I have been living a lie. Well, at least, I now know I have been living a lie. Thanks to the writers and commenters at Jezebel and other feminist sites, I am now aware of the fact that my previous self understanding was wrong and that I am not as dynamic as I once thought I was.
You see, until feminist blog Jezebel skewered The Daily Show over their choice of Olivia Munn as the next female correspondent, and the so called blogosphere lit up like a christmas tree, I thought that it was entirely possible for me to be sexy, funny, geeky and smart all at the same time.

For those of you who are unaware, The Daily Show has been hosting a search for their next female correspondent. In their search, they hired former Attack of The Show host and Playboy and Maxim cover girl Olivia Munn. This choice led Jezebel columnist Irin Carmon to publish an article titled “The Daily Show's Woman Problem”, in which she lambasted the show for hiring too few woman and interviewed former female employees of the show who indicated that host John Stewart is sexist and given to fits of rage. In response, the women who work for the show published an open letter proclaiming that Stewart is not, as he joked in reaction to the article “a sexist prick”, but a fair and decent boss. Fair enough, right?

Apparently not. Once the reaction to the initial article was published on the site, commenters quickly popped up to explain that the real problem is not that the Daily Show may be sexist in their hiring practices, but that Munn herself could not possibly be a good fit for a smartly funny TV show. The reason? Because she is sexy, and flaunts it. Munn's sex appeal, and her willingness to play it up on the covers of Maxim and Playboy as well as in her role on Attack of The Show, evidently, indicate that she is incapable of delivering smart and satirical comedy on late nite TV. She is especially not capable of doing so in a setting that is geared toward political and social satire and any claim she makes toward her own abilities, her own geekiness or her own sense of humor are lies which are in place to cover up the fact that she is nothing but boy bait.

Leaving aside the fact that this sort of characterization of a successful woman is totally counter to what I understood feminism to be after, this revelation, that being sexy means one cannot be anything but sexy, puts me in quite a personal bind. As I stated above, I was previously given to thinking of myself as being sexy, smart, geeky and funny. I obviously can't be all four, if you believe those feminist bloggers, so lets look at each one in turn and see how they all don't work together.

Sexy- I need to first say that I am in no way attempting to indicate that I am as sexy as Munn. No one from Playboy is banging down my door to get me in a bikini by any stretch of the imagination. However, in the real world, I am often told that I am sexy, and I often play that up as much as possible. I have never jumped into a cream pie in a maid outfit, but I have worn a pinup costume and reveled in the attention it brought. I have never eaten a hotdog on a string on live television, but I have been given to amusing myself and others with fellatio jokes. I think it is hilarious when my boobs jiggle and someone points them out, and I love to wiggle my ass. I do this because, frankly, it feels good to get attention. What I was previously unaware of is the fact that enjoying this attention means that any other attention I get is just bullshit. Fortunately, in explaining how Munn's physical assets cancel out her other ones, the sweet darlings of the feminist blog world have also shown me how they cancel out mine.

Sexy VS Smart- Prior to being enlightened, I assumed that, somewhere in her audition process, Munn would have had to read a Daily Show script in a manner that showed her intellectual prowess. Apparently, not so. To those who are attacking her, it is blindingly obvious that Munn's achievement (and becoming the second ever female correspondent is an achievement!) was delivered to her on a silver platter by a group of sex hungry men who wanted to inject some eye candy into their lives. It could not possibly be because she showed some proficiency or intelligence in an interview or audition. This makes me wonder if my high GPA, delivered by mostly male professors, was earned by wearing low cut blouses and very high heals. Well, if you follow the hidden logic of Jezebel et al, it obviously was. It's a shame that no one clued me in, because I would have spent a lot less nights in front of my computer screen working though papers and a lot more planning outfits. Not to worry though, this lesson has been learned. I don't need to be smart, because I am sexy.

Sexy VS Geeky- This is my favorite of the issues. You see, Munn often talks up her own geekiness, especially in the context of her prior G4 network show. This is unsurprising, since G4 is a video game themed channel and, I assume is watched by a lot of geeks. Munn also does things like attend comic conventions in costume. This seems pretty geeky to me. But wait! She attended one in a Princess Leia “slave costume”. You know, the infamous gold bikini from Return of The Jedi? Well, evidently, this costume is sexy. Too sexy for a geek. I suppose that, if Munn had gone in a long robe and was still dressed as Leia, she might not be called out on the carpet as a fake geek, but I can't be sure. As it stands, she was obviously just there, to paraphrase one commenter, to taunt the geeks, who must be sex starved, with her sexiness. Now, aside from the fact that I own a gold bikini, which I purchased because it reminded me of ROTJ, I have also done things like spend weeks researching and sewing a Poison Ivy costume. Why did I choose Ivy? Because she is the sexiest of the Batman villains and I wanted to look hot at a Halloween party. The fact that I chose this particular costume, and made it as boobilicious as possible, obviously cancels out any actual geekiness I might have. The comic collection? The sci-fi addiction? The gaming? They're all, on the feminist line, obviously just there to lure sex starved boy geeks into paying attention to me. So, if we, once again, follow the logic here, I should sell the comics and not bother with the movies, books or games anymore because I couldn't possibly have come to my own appreciation of them. Check. (Also, as a side note to any boy geeks who might be reading this, I am very sorry to inform you that you must be horribly open to manipulation by sexy women because you can't get one yourself.)

Sexy VS Funny- After the hubbub started, some well meaning yet clearly misinformed, and probably male, commenters came to Munn's defense by saying “oh hey, you know she might actually be really funny if she's given the chance.” Obviously, this is impossible. You see, Munn thinks boobs and farts are funny. She also thinks it's funny to jump into a giant cream pie. This splits into two issues for the aforementioned bloggers. On the one hand, Munn probably doesn't even really think this is funny. She probably just says that because she knows that men, who can never progress past 3rd grade in the humor department, like it. On the other, if Munn does think these things are funny, then it indicates that she cannot possibly grasp a more complex humor. This dichotomy confuses me as I imagine it would be quite fun to jump into a giant pie, and I love a good boob gag as much as the next guy. However, I also used to think I was pretty witty with the satire. I even once read Parker, and understood her, or so I thought. In fact, my 80 year old grandmother is often yelling at me for being funny, because boys don't like it. I never realized that she might be halfway right before, but now I see the light. I can not be funny if I am sexy, because “sexy” humor is sophomoric and silly, and that means that I can not grasp anything more complex. Lesson learned. Goodbye Parker, hello Peter Griffin.

So, readers, given what I have learned from all this controversy, I suppose I now have a choice to make. I must choose between sexy and everything else. Well, if Jezebel et al are correct, then being sexy means I really don't need to bother with anything else. Obviously, choosing sexy is the right thing to do. I mean, why would I want to put myself in position where I actually had to try? I suppose that if I wanted to hold on to my other assets, I could accept a demotion down to merely “cute”, as some commenters have posited is the case with the other Daily Show correspondent Sam Bee and other funny women such as Tina Fey, but why would I want to do that when being sexy makes things so much easier for me? In this case, I am opting for sexy. My life will be much more simple from here on out!

But wait! Won't that be boring? What is there was another way? What if Munn is funny and Fey and Bee are sexy? I know it may seem like a stretch, but maybe we can just pretend, for a while, that we live in a slightly evolved culture where a woman can have more than one asset. Say, one where women once fought for the right to be seen as something more than just one thing. If only such a reality existed, what a fun world it would be.


You can watch Munn's first solo correspondent clip here: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-july-8-2010/arizona-s-photo-radar.

-Shannon (Who Shakes It Like Polaroid Picture)

All We Have Is Now. Or How The Flaming Lips Offer A Massive Attitude Adjustment On The Nation's Birthday

This is not a review. At least, it's not a review in the traditional sense. There will be no set list, no critique of the band's musicianship, and no criticism at all, really. There are several reasons for this. First and foremost, The Flaming Lips are, for me, one of those bands who just can't do much wrong. I am so blinded by love for the band that anything I write about their performance on July 4th would be as skewed as if I was Wayne Coyne's mother and I was reviewing his second grade play. Secondly, part of the fun of seeing this band is that you never really know what they are going to do ahead of time, with the exception of a few common knowledge tropes. Knowing that, it would be mean to spoil all the surprises. Finally, for all of the showmanship that is evident at any Lips show, it never feels like you are sitting in a crowd, waiting to be entertained. It feels like you have been invited to the best surprise party you could imagine, only to show up and find out that the party is in your honor, and the people throwing it love you and want to see you live a great life. While reviewing such a party would be tacky and pointless, writing a heartfelt thank you letter never is. And, since I was raised with manners, what follows is a sort of love letter to the Flaming Lips in general and Wayne Coyne in particular.

For many people I have spoken to, seeing the Flaming Lips live is unlike anything else one could experience in their adult lives, and last night's show was no exception. For me, summer holidays have always reminded me of the best part of being a kid. In the summertime, the rules were looser, there was swimming and junk food and giggling and running around like maniacs in the heat and humidity of July nights with out a shred of the self conscious editing and posturing that would come with adolescence and adulthood. It seemed like every summer from ages to 5 to 12 was just one long giggling, singing, spinning freak out and I often miss those days intensely, as I'm sure most adults do. It often feels like every year that passes takes us further and further away from that feeling of freedom as we become more bitter, more aware and more tired. We try to recapture some of that every time we see a show, or meet with friends, or meditate or create, but it can be difficult tune out the interference of our adult consciousness and fully be in any given moment. Even on this July 4th, at the sea shore no less, the general sense in the air was not one of celebration and freedom. A sense of foreboding hung in the air around the boardwalk. The casinos and amusement piers seemed to house thousands of people who were just not smiling as they wandered from distraction to distraction. This was not the case inside the House of Blues.

Inside the venue last night, two floors above what was once a mecca of innocent summer excitement, the mood was more enthusiastic and carnival like than on any pier below as thousands of fans gathered to wait for the Flaming Lips to take the stage. People milled around in summer clothes and elaborate costumes, ranging from an angel with light up hair to Captain America in knee high boots. I shuffled nervously from foot to foot, hugged my boyfriend, grinned at him and squeaked with excitement. Around us, people were doing exactly the same. There was no uncomfortable pre-show posturing, or extensive shows of coolness. The mood was simply gleefull and anticipatory. It was a lot like waiting all those years ago for the neighborhood fireworks to begin.

Once the house lights finally went down, and the stage was filled with orange clad roadies and dancers, that buzz because something akin to a high pitched wail. Once the background film began to play and the band began to emerge, that wail took on what seemed like a life of it's own. Finally, once Wayne Coyne himself appeared, inside his famed hamster ball and counted to three before hurling himself off the stage and onto the crowd, there was an all out explosion of screams. The hamster ball is something I have experienced before, but, at 5'4, I have always been too short to really get near it. This time, however, there was one brief moment where I looked up and there he was, inside a giant bubble and laughing hysterically while looking down at me. This is the exact moment that I actually regressed several years into a screaming, jumping, giggling 12 year old. I would stay like this for the next 2 hours as it rained confetti on my head while The Lips played everything I wanted to hear.

Without giving away the set list or revealing too many of the surprises in the show, I will say that this band is a master of the roller coaster ride set. The songs go from mellow to wild, serious to silly and angry to gleeful over and over again. What is amazing about this is that the show never looses its air of whimsical excitement or frenzied happiness. Even when he is singing about death, Coyne makes you feel like you are celebrating life. And he does so by inviting you to relive the feeling of the best parts of life. In fact, if he gets the sense that the crowd is holding back for whatever reason, he will not hesitate to stop singing, jump up and down and laughingly implore the crowd with a hearty “come on motherfuckers, come on!” The effect of this is that one feels, while participating in the show, as though they really are partying with their closest friends, and that this party is exactly the sort of night one lives for.

This feeling of closeness is compounded by Coyne's speeches, which he sprinkles liberally throughout the set. Ranging in main topic from political hope to war torn sadness, to the beauty of “Mr. Tuna”'s costume, these speeches serve to remind us all that this band isn't just running through a prepackaged and overly rehearsed set and their elaborate props and lighting shows are not their to marginalize their fans. Quite the opposite is true. From inflatable robots to confetti filled balloons and giant hamster balls, the Flaming Lips use their props as if they were gifts to the crowd who then, as Coyne pointed out “act like they are magic balls...and diamonds shot from the ass of a dragon.” According to Coyne, this is what it is all about. An invitation to a silly party where everyone is finding the magic in everyday shit. A balloon is just a balloon and confetti is just shredded paper, but when 1,000 people all agree to get really excited about them, they become something much more than that. They, and all of the Lips live show, are a reminder that the world could end in a minute, death is imminent for everyone and things are totally fucked up everywhere, but we have the power to transcend our fears and anxieties, if only just for a while, and reclaim our freedom to freak out, have fun, squeal and giggle and sing along with strangers.

It is this sort of reminder, and the feeling of freedom that comes along with it, that everyone deserves on the 4th of July (or any day really). The reminder that ideological clashes and political strife may have removed us from the knowledge that we are free to pursue happiness, and that we may be older, more aware, and no longer so willing to just let go in the summertime heat, but that we can reclaim that on an individual basis. We have the freedom to all be rambunctious little freaks and when we do so, and invite others along with us, we are truly living in the face of death. That, motherfuckers, is the best kind of freedom of all, and I am eternally grateful to have experienced it.

-Shannon (Who Won't Let Those Robots Eat You)