It's a pleasure to have Ray back as an active participant on the list. I'm
sorry you pulled your back, but if it frees you up to lend us your
insights, it enriches my perspective. We immigrants to / invaders of this
country have so few roots to the land and its inhabitants that it's no
wonder that we have come to see the planet as simply a pool of resources to
exploit, without any intrinsic value. We desperately need to listen to
Aboriginal people who have not forgotten, or been forcibly cut off, from
their attachment to the land, to gain some sense of the consequences of our
actions -- and some insight into the absurdity of most of what we do.
All my relations
David
At 10:36 PM 02/06/98 -0700, Ray E. Harrell wrote:
>> Gee, I have the same sort of feeling about most TV, most
>advertising,
>>most 'new' products,....
>>
>
>Hey, I never thought of that! Maybe they knew more about us than I
>thought,
>and saw us coming!
>
>Ed Weick
>
>
>Or else it's all in the family. As a Native American standing on the
>outside, it often feels that way when the "Supreme Duality" gets to
>working. Socialism!@!! NO Capitalism!@!! NO Socialism N000000!@!!
>
>It would be wonderful to see the kitschiness of most Western
>expressivity "owned" and "admitted." One could start by admitting the
>familial relationships between the various groups that makes their
>kitschiness acceptable and even admired.
>
>For example the incredible cheapness of the wealthy Americans sitting
>around plotting how they can get the most mileage out of a charitable
>donation is very little different from the local Communist bureaucrat
>plotting how he can get a couple of days longer at the Dacha instead of
>being available to get the job done. Or consider the practitioners of
>"valuable effort" lamenting the defeat of a "Public Good" like
>education, public health or the arts because everyone wants to get a
>free ride and yet when it collapses blames it on the "Good" for not
>being "popular" enough with the consumers to get it produced.
>
>Of course how do you get that vaunted "popularity" with the consumers?
>You advertise! That is how you let the consumers know of the quality
>that you offer. Have you ever gone to a swimming pool in middle America
>and noticed how the predominant obesity resembles those terrible
>commercials that made fun of Russian State fashions with the fat
>"Svetlana" parading back and forth in her military uniform? (Those
>were not the beautiful Bolshoi opera singers that I saw at that
>fundraiser in Manhattan two weeks ago. Only the elder had that
>stereotypical body and she carried it with great power and she WAS old.
>These Americans are the parents of infants and they weigh above 300 lbs.
>each.)
>
>So if the advertisement was inaccurate then what was its purpose? To
>enlighten? To announce a new higher value? Would the product have sold
>without it? Was the product itself as shoddy as the advertisement's
>message? What was (as the computernik physicists say) the
>"compressibility" of the message? In other words, was the message as
>simple-minded as the audience? Has the incredible "cheapness" of these
>societies finally created a consumer unable to comprehend his own
>health, education and cultural identity?
>
>I apologize for the polemic but I am a person recovering from a pulled
>back. Like Tom Walker, at this point it is hard to equate vain bragging
>or flattery with positive reinforcement and psychological support for
>the current market. It is hard to escape the feeling that the reality
>of the current diversity of structures and systems, that lie outside of
>the Supreme Duality model, spell a danger of eminent collapse. If not a
>market vulnerability than one that lies deeper. A truth that the
>problem of complexity lies not in externals but within the minds of
>those who are observing the situation. That the current words and
>models that are comprehensible are just not up to the task of dealing
>with the diversity.
>
>Again and again we hear the words "it just can't be that hard" or "this
>is just too complicated." I would suggest that the only model that is
>worth anything is one that covers all of the "bases" with a human
>generosity and an efficiency of effort.
>
>The architect Mies van der Rohe used to say "less is more." Too little
>is however inadequate and the right amount is the right amount and
>Mies's spareness doesn't weather all that well in the long run. I have
>a piece of his Seagram building that just dropped off leaving a
>noticeable hole. There are more than two sides to these issues and
>for that we should be thankful. So my point about the Russians is
>still the same and has nothing to do with romance. They are better than
>we are at certain things. And we are better than them at others.
>Neither of those two things are enough to make a society and Russia's
>collapsed as a result. I believe we are in danger of the same and for
>basically the same reason. Regards REH
>
