Our Culture: Investing in Money

I believe there is such a thing as a perfect economy. This would be an economy running smoothly enough to be incapable of further growth, and not inclined to diminish.

A perfect economy implies that there be full market share of all businesses, especially banks. Banks are particularly important, because they fund new ideas (represented by entrepreneurs), and a full market share in this area implies no new ideas are currently available.

Full market share for businesses also means that business operations are sustainable. This means, among other things, that profits come from robust, sustainable growth. By robust, here, I mean that profits come from genuine market share, and not from, for instance, slashing costs and burning through third-world labor. Such cost-cutting techniques do not produce robust nor sustainable profits. Robust growth comes from opening new markets and increasing shares in old markets.

Now what I'm saying basically rests on what I consider to be a robust assumption: that it is possible to gain a maximum market share. I think not only that this is possible, but also that a lot of companies have already achieved this given today's economy.

Another implication has to do with the value of money. Money, itself being a commodity, also has a maximum share of market. It also must be managed in sustainable ways promoting robust growth. This sustainable growth responsibility lies with all of us, from ordinary consumers to Exxon-Mobil.But this is not to say that we need to be overly concerned with income inequality. Barking about income inequality is largely barking up the wrong tree, because the nature of new ideas is that they tend to concentrate wealth for their creators. However, if income inequality is produced by burning through labor resources by exploiting the poor, your wealth is not robust. I can handle inequality, provided the poor are not exploited. Inequality must be based on the production of new, valuable ideas.

Now all this is not to say that infinite growth is impossible, or that society must be stratified between rich and poor. On the contrary, infinite growth is definitely possible, but it must be robust, and rooted in such things as the continued evolution of the human mind and body, not in exciting, new opportunities, of which there are probably a finite number at any given moment. As for stratification, there will always be motion in markets, which implies liquidity in assets, including human ones. And anyway, I think we owe it to ourselves as human beings to offer the opportunity to all of us to live either simply or complexly, as we choose.

Thoughts about Anonymous's Project V

This is a clarification of Anonymous's new project, "Project V." This came on the heels of their "Operation V," the goal of which was apparently to take over the United States government.

I've noticed, just looking around at society today, that there are thugs involved in my government and perhaps corporations and so forth, taking things over and not really doing positive actions or behaving in an awake manner. So I'm not at all surprised that there is a movement to try to take over the government, or to protest the government. I support a lot of what these people do.

The reason I support many of the people who fight government and corporations and so forth is because of the thuggishness I've seen. The thuggishness itself is the first part. The second part is the fact that thuggishness is not merely the natural, human sort — an understandable sort which you can expect to be some part of any society — but something which is slowly becoming law. We cannot have "thug law." Thug law, in this case, involves people in office, and running corporations, who don't care about listening to other people, especially the people they affect. Thug law involves things being created for their own purpose, to multiply like viruses, such as cash or even money, or such as government regulations, or psychiatric harm.

A commodity is produced in a factory not for its own sake, but in order to be sold to someone else. However, it seems an awful lot like many of the people running these corporations would be satisfied if the product is produced for its own sake. In other words, the attitude is that it's about the product itself, and promoting the product itself, rather than about listening to what the consumer wants.

This doesn't happen everywhere, but it does happen in the case of food, for instance. Food today is produced for the purpose of food being produced and sold, not for the purpose of feeding people. There is an important difference between the two, and we need to start rethinking the way we do things to promote feeding people instead of producing and selling food. Similarly, transportation seems to be about producing and selling gasoline, not about transporting people. Energy production seems to be about producing and selling raw materials, not making energy. Our corporations are sick.

Now that I've talked a bit about what I agree with about Anonymous, I'd like to share what I disagree with.

Consider the idea of a revolution. What is a revolution? The idea is that you're getting rid of a society, and replacing it with a new one. But if you examine it closely, the idea becomes less and less clear. What do you want to revolutionize? Just the executive government? We do that every eight or so years. What about the law? Are we trying to change the law? Well, perhaps we are, but we can change the law in a couple of ways: by changing the letter of the law, or changing how it's enforced. If we change the letter of the law, then we get into the problem of semantics, which means we may have changed nothing unless we change how it's enforced. If we change how it's enforced, though, we have a problem there, too. Who enforces? Who enforces law against the enforcers? In a sense, the people enforcing the law are embodiments of the law. But are we changing just the people themselves? How do we control against merely switching out one corrupt judge or peace officer for another? Either we have to use the law to control this, in which case we're going in circles again, or we have to change the underlying society which educates and produces the judges.

But how do we change society? Are we changing the actual minds of the people themselves? Are we giving them more education? Education of what? What do they already know? What don't they know? Is it really about what they think they know, or how they behave? How do we change the way people behave? And are we changing a group of people, or changing people one-on-one? And where do we stop? Should we just switch out everyone we don't like and throw the old people in jail? If so, what makes us any better than the oppressors? Or should we let everyone be as they are and work out their own problems? If it is this, how is our movement a revolution?

I don't think we need a revolution. I think we need loyal opposition parties, and we need perhaps a simplification of our culture. But you can't have a loyal opposition party and a revolution at the same time. And a simplification of something doesn't involve the introduction of new elements. That's what you do when you want to make things more complex. What we need is to go back to our roots, and instead of wildly thrashing about and making more new ideas and stuff, we need to be satisfied with a simple understanding of how things work. Instead of choosing more stuff, choose the right stuff. This sounds like an economic idea, but really it applies to government as well. We should be more conservative about how we run our government. We should be conservative about how we run our churches as well. The only thing we shouldn't be conservative about is helping other people. But remember: help doesn't come in the form of money. I am not a socialist. As soon as you start thinking that help comes in the form of money, you begin producing money for the sake of producing money, which is exactly the kind of problem which I see today that needs to change. We need to help people live. In every sector of our society. That's what we need to do. And a lot of what the resistance people in our society are doing is just that. But I don't think they see it that way, and they really should.

A Few Thoughts on Bitcoin

Bitcoin is a very interesting and complex phenomenon. It is having trouble gaining ground, but that is not because of problems inherent in the system, but rather because money is a complex and difficult subject which is hard to understand. I am a firm believer in the value of bitcoins, and am very excited about the phenomenon. I can't wait to get involved, and I intend to get involved. But the main obstacle to people getting involved in bitcoin is that people don't see its value because they don't understand it. This is because money itself is hard to understand.

Money is not a medium of exchange. It's more complex than that. Imagine a circle. The circle represents value. You can cut the circle up like a pie, and each section of the pie represents some kind of value. The angle of the cuts represents the current measure of which we value that value at the moment, and the points on the circumference of the circle represent the actual commodity which we value. The circle is a perfect circle, undistorted. The circle is what I would call a coin. If you have a circle of a large size, it means that you can fit more points on the circumference, and therefore buy more things. If it's smaller, you can buy less things. This is the definition of money.

Notice that it is a unit of value, in all the complexity of the term. It is not, and I repeat, it is NOT a medium of exchange. Here is what a medium of exchange is. Suppose I pick a few pieces from the circumference of the circle — things that I value. But I don't value them as much as someone else might. And I happen to know of a person who does value these things, but this person has a certain set of things on the circumference of the circle which he doesn't value as much as I do. My circle is currently oblong, with a little bump on one end, and so is his. It just so happens that if we trade these inconvenient items we don't really want for each other, we will have more of what we want and less of what we don't want. Then the bumps on the circle will be more evened out and the situation more fair. This is a trade.

The coin itself is not a medium of exchange. If you really think about it, you'll notice that the coin is simply a measurement of the value of our society at the moment, including all the various things that we value. The coin, in the case of the example above, has lost a little bit of value because of the overabundance of things we don't want in the cases of two parties. The exchange itself has the function of increasing the value of all things involved, including the coin. It is the exchange, therefore, that gives value to the coin, not the coin that gives value to the exchange. In other words, the coin doesn't mediate the exchange, cutting costs and increasing value. If the coin did that, it would increase the value of the exchange, and be a true medium for the exchange. But instead, the coin is one of the things benefited by the exchange. Therefore it cannot mediate the exchange.

The reason why people say the coin is a medium of exchange is because dollars and coins are nice ad-hoc ways of mediating exchange. We can say, thing X is worth $10 per item, while thing Y is worth $5 per item, therefore it would be fair and even if you gave me two of Y for my one of X. But you don't need money to regulate an exchange like this. All you need is some placeholder to measure value. The placeholder measures the relative angles of the two pieces of pie cut into the coin for both things X and Y, but it is not the whole coin itself. It is closely related to the coin, because without the coin you wouldn't be able to cut pieces into it, but it is not the coin itself.

So what is the actual medium of exchange? It is all the things which allow a line to be drawn between one slice in the pie and another. The New York Stock Exchange as an institution is a medium of exchange. It mediates the exchange between things of value. That complex and difficult concept we call the "open market" or the "free market" is a medium of exchange. But neither of these things are actual money, though they do indeed have value.

What this all has to do with the bitcoin is this. The bitcoin is actual money, not a security or anything else, as some people claim. Bitcoin is currency. You can imagine a coin similar to the one I envisioned above representing the coin in relation to the bitcoin economy, with little pieces of the pie cut up for things that bitcoin holders / users value. And, the coin itself has value, just like money. So why should we use bitcoins instead of dollars? The answer is fairly simple, though I will explain in the next post. The actual thing coined into physical currency that we are using as money is different. Dollars are made of paper. Gold coins are made of gold. Bitcoins are made of data and algorithms.

These physical / pseudophysical substances have inherent differences, which mean each one is better at certain things and worse at certain things in relation to each other. Bitcoin is better at certain things than the dollar is, and worse than certain things than the dollar is. Similar things can be said for every kind of thing that is used as currency. The reason why certain kinds of people should start using bitcoins is because the constellation of value relationships of the coinage itself for bitcoin happens to be inherently better suited to skilled artisans, shopkeepers, small business owners, etc. which make up the real substance of the middle class, whereas the constellation of value relationships of the coinage for the dollar is better suited for the upper and lower classes. I will outline what I believe to be the main differences in the following post.

a remix and / or edit of the words of "The Goddess"

I'm going to have another shouting session. I'll try real hard not to piss anybody off this time. So you'd better f-ing listen.

HEY. Last night, I was asking Mother Earth Herself to reach up with water, dirt, wind, fire, microbes, dioxyribonucleic acid, weird quantum shit, and so forth, and start yanking around who is hurting Her the WORST—setting up these fucking impossible rules and laws exactly 0x0002 feet high with only twenty minutes to read, IF you are lucky enough to KNOW about it... and it LOOKS LIKE the doors are open for business, BUT, guess you need a secret handshake for that. Anyway, I think it'd be funny when SHE starts reaching up and yanking those who have thought "G, let's put a pipeline over a natural well of water to pump oil across the exact fucking place where most of the foods are grown."

Since WHEN is that EVER a good idea? >__<

<end of line>

I'm going to have another shouting session. I'll try real hard not to piss anybody off this time. So you'd better f-ing listen.

HEY. Last night, I was asking Mother Earth Herself to reach up with water, dirt, wind, fire, microbes, dioxyribonucleic acid, weird quantum shit, and so forth, and start yanking around who is hurting Her the WORST—setting up these fucking impossible rules and laws exactly ten feet high with only twenty minutes to read, IF you are lucky enough to KNOW about it... and it LOOKS LIKE the doors are open for business, BUT, guess you need a secret handshake for that. Anyway, I think it'd be funny when SHE starts reaching up and yanking those who have thought "G, let's put a pipeline over a natural well of water to pump oil across the exact fucking place where most of the foods are grown."

Since WHEN is that EVER a good idea? >__<

<end of line>

I'm going to have another shouting session. I'll try real hard not to piss anybody off this time. So you'd better f-ing listen.

HEY. Last night, I was asking Mother Earth Herself to reach up with water, dirt, wind, fire, microbes, dioxyribonucleic acid, weird quantum shit, and so forth, and start yanking around who is hurting Her the WORST—setting up these fucking impossible rules and laws exactly 10^2 feet high with only twenty minutes to read, IF you are lucky enough to KNOW about it... and it LOOKS LIKE the doors are open for business, BUT, guess you need a secret handshake for that. Anyway, I think it'd be funny when SHE starts reaching up and yanking those who have thought "G, let's put a pipeline over a natural well of water to pump oil across the exact fucking place where most of the foods are grown."

Since WHEN is that EVER a good idea? >__<

<end of line>

Why Everyone should Study the Occult

I define an occult object as a cultural (or personal) artifact which carries a great deal of power. We don't need to get into talking about "magic" or "energy" or anything superstitious like that. We also don't need to examine secret societies, such as the Freemasons, and their secret initiation rites. Secret knowledge is not necessarily occult, and the occult is not necessarily secret. (A better term for this kind of thing is "esoteric.") It suffices to simply state the truth: that certain objects carry a great deal of psychological power. The power in these objects derives, I think, from the extent to which they reflect something about ourselves, and the depth to which they reflect it.

The most obvious occult object is a word. A word, of course, immediately conjures up an experience or thought, without our even thinking about it. This experience or thought is something inside us, reflected by the communication inherent in a word. Words, therefore, are occult objects.

The problem, though, with occult objects is that the meaning they express with regards to their reflection of what's in our minds is not necessarily accurate. For example. Usually, growing up, I've always sided with political liberals. And as a lot of people know, I'm definitely very anti-psychiatry. So, naturally, I was quite confused to discover that most liberals favor increased psychiatric treatment of the mentally ill, while conservatives are perfectly content to leave treatment to the birds. Being fundamentally opposed to psychiatric treatment of any kind, I found this state of affairs very frustrating. However, there is a definite cause. The cause, I think, can be traced back to the occult.

This is the unexamined liberal philosophy regarding psychiatry: "We need to favor psychiatric treatment of mental illness because it tends to reduce symptoms." Let's unpack it a little more: "We need to favor a scientific, behaviorism based treatment of mental illness which involves third-person empirical studies of the human mind as reflected by human behaviors, because the results of such treatment reduce the behaviors of the mentally ill which frighten us." If a liberal were to really examine this statement, he would come to the conclusion that it logically implies the following: "Let's scramble up the brains of the mentally ill with a knife and turn them into drooling idiots because at least then they don't shout as much." Wait... where did we go wrong? That's obviously horrifying. There must be a mistake somewhere. However, according to the liberal philosophy, mistakes of this sort aren't really a problem. I've actually heard a hospital nurse make this remark, "They made a lot of mistakes, back then, but they didn't really know any better."

It baffles me that anyone could reasonably believe that scrambling up a person's brain with a knife, in full, scientific knowledge of exactly what the brain actually does, could possibly be a morally justified act. In any occasion. In order to understand why a liberal could come to such a monstrous conclusion, it took, for me anyway, a great deal of meditation on liberal philosophy. But I'm fairly convinced the reason can be traced reliably back to the occult, and to illustrate how, it may be best to start with the occult objects involved.

One form of political liberal moral philosophy (in this country anyway) involves the following analogy. A correct moral choice is like choosing the exact midpoint between two polar extremes—one being good, the other being bad. The bad extreme is analogous to the color black. The good extreme is analogous to the color white. (Naturally it's not necessarily as simple as that, but for the purposes of this argument, the image is relevant.) Thus, the occult object representing a liberal's moral decision-making in this context is the following image:

Another logical deduction from this image comes from psychology. Psychology tells us that the "grey area" between white and black is not easily identifiable, and that you cannot tell the difference between subtlely different shades of grey. Only when you hold up two different shades right next to one another can you easily tell the difference. Thus it follows, using our analogy, that the correct moral choice is never easily identifiable. Two possible courses of action can only be distinguished in hindsight, when we are able to see them side by side. Because of this, the correct moral choice for the psychiatrist is to distinguish what is obviously wrong (euthanizing all the mentally ill), what is obviously ideal (completely curing them of all undesirable behaviors), and proceeding to make an ad hoc choice of some grey area in the middle (scrambling their brains with a scalpel).

The conservative position derives from different ideas, originating in Christianity. To a conservative, the soul is the final authority. You must always stand for what is right, and what is right is distinct from what is wrong. There is no grey area between polar extremes: there is simply what is right, which involves the sanctity of the human soul and the responsibility for self-care which goes along with it, and what is wrong (pretty much everything else).

In this case, the conservatives essentially get it right. Right and wrong is not a middle way between two polar extremes. Rather, it is a positive choice arising from even-handed deliberation and impartial consideration of all options. If you can identify a polar extreme, naturally, both extremes are almost certainly wrong. However, it does not follow that the "grey area" in the middle is necessarily right. The correct choice is a positive and clear choice, which usually indeed happens to reside somewhere "in the middle," but only for the somewhat dubious reason that both extremes are wrong. The occult artifact cited above probably derives from the heady over-obsession the ancient Greeks had with mathematics, and the ape-like biological instinct to avoid dark places. It does not in any way derive from honest investigation, meditation, or deliberation. It's simply an image we've carried down through generations, but which doesn't really reflect the truth.

Now not all moral failures stem from occult sources. Also, not all occult objects originate moral failures. Moral mistakes are simply what they are: mistaking one thing for another. People often mistake women for sex objects. But it does not follow from this that either women or sex objects are occult objects. (Though sometimes, they are.) However, it is possible for occult sources such as the above to account for many moral failures. For instance, it also accounts for the moral failure of sacrificing freedom for security. Or, choosing a presidential candidate based on "electability." It also accounts for the moral failure of heedlessly donating a percentage of money to established charities, like the Susan G. Komen foundation and others (a phenomenon derisively called, I think, "serial activism"), rather than taking responsibility for your own community and making a positive contribution through individual authenticity. Again, not all occult objects cause damage. (Obama's logo, and campaign slogans, for instance, have done a lot of good.) But this particular one does in fact cause damage.

I think we can clearly conclude, then, that we should all take at least a modest casual interest in the occult, as defined above. We should become acquainted with or create powerful objects, and examine why they have the impact they do on our minds. Naturally, it isn't always important to everybody. Some of it can actually be rather psychologically dangerous. However, certain moral failings in our culture will never be uncovered until a good number of people seriously examine the occult, and a great number have at least a modest casual understanding. It isn't enough to simply look at occult objects, either. We have to understand how the occult works, why it works, and where the potentialities for moral failure lie. Naturally, through serious investigation, it is also possible to uncover the potentiality for positive and wholesome good. Again, not all decisions directly involve the occult. Some moral decisions, in fact, require purposefully ignoring the occult. But the fact that sometimes morality does involve the occult implies that, though it seems to be an area which our culture has (for understandable reasons) somewhat neglected, it is an important aspect of a good education.

The Era of Great Pain

It is possible that we are entering an era of great pain. This is an era where:

• Every concert is a "recreational activity."
• Every day of work is a "job."
• Every formal learning experience is an "education."
• Every animal is a "pet."
• Every blog post is "self-expression."
• Every tennis match is a "hobby."
• Every computer is a "computer."
• Every piece of food is "food."

Every hallelujah is cold and broken. Every experience is psychological. Every activity is a behavior. And every dissenter is "mentally ill."

Look. Concerts are NOT "recreational activities." They are LIFE. In short, everything is pain. And "living in the moment" has lost all meaning apart from forgetting everything, as though the phrase holds little more promise than recreational drug use.

Work is not a "job." It is LIFE.

Learning experiences are not "education." They are LIFE.

Animals are not "pets." They are LIFE.

Blog posts are not "self-expression." They are LIFE.

Tennis matches are not "hobbies." They are LIFE.

Computers are not "computers." They are LIFE.

Food is not "food." It is LIFE.

We cannot go on as though everything is meaningless. We simply can't continue as a species if everything is trivial and forgettable. NO. Every experience should be profound and meaningful. We MUST take every form of being, doing, experience, and so forth AS SERIOUSLY AS THOUGH OUR LIVES AND THE ETERNAL SALVATION OF OUR SOULS DEPENDED ON IT. When we feel upset, or when we need a little pick-me-up, we cannot simply say, "Recreational activities help pick me up. I should choose a recreational activity that will pick me up. I think I'll go to a concert."

I can't think of any more meaningless thing we could possibly ever think. It is absolutely cynical and wrong. We should NEVER think like that. We should go to a concert because it will ROCK OUR WORLD, or we shouldn't go at all. We should get a job because it will FUNDAMENTALLY IMPACT EVERYTHING, or we shouldn't get a job at all. We should eat food because it will ALLOW US TO COMPLETELY REJUVENATE THE WORLD, or we should eat red-hot balls of iron. There is no excuse. Either you're part of the solution, or you're part of the problem.

If you're part of the problem, you're part of the Great Pain. You'll do nothing but cause everyone around you great pain. If you can't enjoy life, GTFO.

The evil of the machine thrives on insecurity. We feel we have to be "hip enough to be square." But there is NOTHING that makes life more beautiful than insecurity. And if we can't recognize that, then we should demolish all the Universities. We should set fire to all the schools and libraries. We should forbid all scientific and academic inquiry. Because all it will do is make the human race more cynical, more painful, and more evil.

Science is for risk-takers. Knowledge is for risk-takers. Comfort is for risk-takers. Otherwise it is the purest form of curse. And I believe our society is currently cursing itself. I wish EVERYONE would take a moment to LIVE IN THE MOMENT—which, properly understood, means NOT forgetting everything, but THROWING AWAY scientific knowledge, security, money, food, computers, "recreational activities," "jobs," "education," as UTTERLY MEANINGLESS, and living completely in the state where it is possible that the world will DISAPPEAR. That everything you've trained for will DISAPPEAR. That everything you've worked for and earned will DISAPPEAR. And you should live the rest of your life that way.

Ironically, if you don't do that, it would be better if it DID disappear, because all it will cause is Great Pain.

Blueprint for a Just and Creative Society: Part 1

I like Coke. It is important for me to have brand loyalty to Coke. In 50 years, I can't imagine drinking Pepsi for the life of me. Whether or not I drink Coke or Pepsi is essential to my identity as a person.

Whether I vote Republican or Democrat in the next election, however, is not at all essential to my identity. I could switch sides between Republican and Democrat as the wind blows with no remorse. In fact, the very idea of becoming loyal to the Republicans or Democrats in principle sickens me. I don't think I would be doing my duty to America if I picked sides in that debate.

Now you may think all of the above absurd, but there are very important reasons for these things, which are essential to building a just and creative society. Since the second paragraph is probably more controversial than the first, I'll speak to it first.

There is a man in Idaho by the name of Tom Trail. He's a Republican State congressman in the House representing Latah County, and he's been reelected year after year without fail. Now you may think that, for Idaho, this is to be expected. And condemned. After all, Republicans are consistently wrong on just about every issue. And on many issues, they are so off the deep end in the "wrong" territory that voting for any Republican in any election must be seen as morally reproachable. For the most part, I agree. I wouldn't have voted for Romney if my life depended on it.

But Tom Trail is different. He is a truly compassionate man. He voted against all of the anti-woman legislation, and all of the anti-education legislation. When I was working for my college newspaper, I found him to be the most approachable legislator in Idaho. It may put things in perspective to know that Latah county is, for Idaho, a heavily Democratic county. Obama carried Latah county in the 2008 election. Many of our state congresspeople are Democrats. The fact that a Republican keeps getting elected in a Democratic county year after year is significant.

Our district also elected Walt Whitman to the United States House. He's a Democrat. Now he voted along the party line on every single issue during Obama's first term, when voting along party lines was actually important. The only problem was, he voted along the Republican party line, and against the Democrats. On Every. Single. Issue.

Naturally, it would make me as sick to my stomach to vote for Walt Whitman again as it would to not vote for Tom Trail. Of course, you would probably say that these particular people are the exception and not the rule. You'd be right. But what I'm getting at is this. The fact that Walt Whitman is a member of the Democratic party, or that Tom Trail is a Republican, is a completely ephemeral thing that does not, and should not, carry any significance. I know, there are systemic problems with the Republican party. But even so, there is a possibility that the Republicans will get things right on an issue or two. And that the Democrats will get things wrong. In these instances, it would be immoral to vote Democrat, and moral to vote Republican. In these instances, party loyalty should be instantly ditched.

Why is this so? Because political parties, by their very nature, do stuff that is important. (Or, at least, they should.) This is a key point. On any issue that is important, we must always try to take the position that is ethically right. Loyalty, in this case, must be ephemeral. If we see an issue as fundamentally important, like whether or not women in Pakistan should get an education, getting the issue right is more important than loyalty. Thus, if my friends start to believe that women are inferior and should be ordered around by the government, I should ditch my friends, not my position on the issue.

Contrast this to the Pepsi / Coke debate. It is not at all important that I get my position in issues correct. For instance, if Coke, for whatever reason, decides to add a lemony flavor, my position on the lemon vs. straight Coke debate is ephemeral.

But it goes even deeper than that. I would argue that just as it is our duty to America not to take sides in the Republican / Democrat debate, it is our duty to America to definitely pick sides in the Pepsi / Coke debate. It is our duty to decide whether we will drink Pepsi or Coke, and stick with that decision, probably for the rest of our lives! Besides the obvious issue of the morality of the company, there is a caveat of course: if the cola debate isn't important to us, then there is no need to pick sides. But I will nevertheless argue that we should pick sides in some similar debate, such as debates among the various sporting teams (not my cup of tea), or the Apple / Google debate (though we should ditch Microsoft, for moral reasons), and so on.

I'm not just saying this to be weird; there is a reason for this. And it gets to the topic of this post. Brand loyalty among unimportant things is important, because it is essentially creative. Developing sincere (though not excessively violent) conflict over things that aren't important gives our society the groundwork necessary to build a better future.

Conflict can act as a scrying tool to figure out what is important. I like Coke, as I've said before, because it is a cultural ambassador of America around the world, and because of the connection with Andy Warhol. There may be other legitimate reasons to like Pepsi, but this is why I've chosen Coke. Now if I get in a heated shouting match with someone who likes Pepsi (an experience I truly wish to have someday), I'm sure these reasons will come to light. And because of the shouting match, and because this shouting match is heated, we will do serious cultural work determining what values are important to us as Americans. Coke supports the troops (or says they do). Pepsi may, one day, decide to support the Dalai Lama, who is against all war. In this hypothetical shouting match, the Pepsi guy will probably say, "You goddamned lousy hypocrite, you're a Tibetan Buddhist but you're buying Coke when Pepsi gives money to the Dalai Lama, and Coke funds military people?? Whose side are you on?" At which point I'd hang my head in shame and donate a few bucks to the Tibetan Government in Exile. Then buy another Coke.

See, just because I've taken sides in the Coke / Pepsi debate doesn't mean I have to forget about every other debate. If Pepsi comes out with a solemn, principled stance that they will absolutely not support the Republican anti-woman agenda, and will even give money to reverse it, I will solemnly salute the Pepsi guy as one culture warrior to another and go home to lick my wounds. In fact, that issue is so important to me that I may even buy a Pepsi out of respect. But as long as Coke does not decide to take a morally reprehensible political stance in an issue of importance, I see no principled reason to switch to Pepsi. I can always donate a couple extra bucks to women's groups, or whatever. And then I could write a letter to Coke, or start an online petition. But I'll be drinking Coke while I do it.

The principle at play here is the one of generative conflict (or generative violence if you wish). Every unimportant brand has a constellation of qualities that, if you look deeply at them, present a concrete vision of morality. Other brands have other constellations of other qualities involving the issues of importance. The act of picking a side represents a moral act, because what you are doing is declaring the important things to be important. On the other hand, the act of not picking a side, or rejecting both, is an immoral act, because you are rejecting the idea that these things are important at all. The act of picking both sides doesn't help things, because the identity of you as a person cannot coalesce around something that isn't cohesive.

Let me explain that last point. We as humans are really not multi-taskers. We cannot do two things at once, because we have a single body. And we shouldn't give our body up, because having a cohesive identity allows us to relate to others, which is important should something bad happen. In the West we like to say that when someone is badly hurt, it hurts all of us. In a sense, this is true. However, I tend to think that this isn't exactly the right way of looking at it. It is much worse when something bad happens to someone else if it doesn't hurt us than if it hurts all of us. If it hurts all of us, there is necessarily no one to help us. And if there is no one to help us, we have no responsibility to try and fix the situation. We might as well just let it go. But if it hurts someone else and doesn't hurt us, we have a grave responsibility to act. Conversely, the other person has the responsibility to get help. In this way, there is a possibility that things will get better for everyone.

If nothing bad happens, then we still may as well retain our cohesive identity. We can just go on merrily drinking Coke or Pepsi for the rest of our days without worry. There's no problem at all. And when a bad thing happens to someone, then we're prepared to help.

I'm not saying that we should cling to our identities. We don't want to become high school jocks, always talking about what sport is best, then beating up people who don't think sports are important. We should all have a sense of camaraderie about these things. But I don't think it's a bad thing to have an identity, and to define our identity in such a way as I've described. And in so doing, having some healthy conflict about it is definitely beneficial. There is a difference between fighting and debating, even if the debate is impassioned.

Coke and Pepsi, as brands, offer us a way to form an identity. When we talk about important things, on the other hand, it's better not to form an identity. It's better to just be a good human being and do the right thing. Thus it is precisely because the choice between Coke and Pepsi is not important that actually making the choice is important. The Coke / Pepsi debate, and others like it, are therefore the only debates worth taking sides in.

Peace with an Edge

A lot of time is spent in Buddhism talking about taking reality as it is. This is one of the most wise thoughts a person can think, but in the West, I think there may be a couple problems we should address.

See, we Westerners are used to a work-a-day lifestyle where everything is one thing after another. Everything is so hectic now with fast cars, cell phones, computers, iPads, iPods, and all this money going everywhere at once and seeming to get us nowhere.

And a lot of people complain about commercialism and television and how people spend their lives glued to the television and, now, addicted to Facebook and Twitter et al. One of the great things about American culture is that we hold being critical of our culture as a cultural value. However, I tend to think that people indoctrinated into this self-critical approach end up hating America by default for no reason.

Okay, let's talk about advertising. The word itself seems to evoke cynical manipulation by immoral puppet-masters. But if that's the case, then why is it that advertising is so increasingly consumer-oriented? Why does advertising bend over backwards to make the consumer feel good about him- or herself?

And not all of it is a lie, either. I actually do like to drink Coca Cola. I really do see the benefit in Apple computers. I really believe in the philosophy evoked by the three-word phrase: "Just do it." And what of the advertisers themselves? Immoral puppet masters?

Actually, from my experience, Advertisers are some of the most positive, wholesome, and genuinely decent people you'd want to meet. And I'm not alone in thinking this: Luke Sullivan, author of advertising bible Hey Whipple, Squeeze This! agrees with me: "One of the great things about this business is that you’ll be surrounded by vibrant, interesting, and genuinely nice people," he writes. "I don’t know why the industry attracts them, it just does."

A lot of people blame advertising in part for our hectic lifestyles today, because we're always pushed to want more and more. We see this as such a problem. But I have a radical idea:

How about we just take it as it is?

Unfortunately, when we're told to "take it as it is," I sense that what we really are thinking is "take it with some reservations." Take it like a strung-out, unhappy mother with a disobedient child who's too exhausted to correct him. Take it, but disagree with it, and simply not bother to fight it anymore.

But really, why is the American lifestyle such a problem? Okay, exploitation of the third world is a problem. Monsanto ripping off poor farmers with bad seeds is perhaps the biggest moral failing the world has ever seen. But I'm not talking about that; I'm talking about the lifestyle. Drinking Coke. Watching television. Listening to iTunes. Driving down the street in a BMW yelling at someone over the phone because you and your client(s) want it just perfect.

I actually like getting yelled at sometimes. I like yelling at people, too. It makes me feel like I'm accomplishing something. I'm not a bully: I don't like making people feel bad about themselves, and I'll work 110% to make sure that doesn't happen. But the point is, if we just sit around being peaceful all the time, we'll never get anything done.

I hear all the critics now: "What's so important about getting things done? Why can't we just be happy with what we have?" Sometimes, that's okay. It's important to be happy with what you have, and never lose sight of that. But Bodhisattvas must always be trying to make our gurus and precious sentient beings happier. Just sitting around being blissful doesn't get the job done.

America is an immensely active culture. But I think this is one of its strengths, not necessarily a weakness. This is why, in my humble opinion, we don't just need peace: we need peace with an edge. We should be peaceful deep inside, but also edgy and challenging. We should be active and vibrant. We should make people feel happy about themselves and their choices, not by just sitting there, but by engaging them with shining and intense eyes. Like a good advertisement.

Art and Business

In my filing cabinet at home, I have a dollar bill.

It is a special dollar bill. I had it when I was in the mental hospital years ago. When I was in that place, I had only a couple of dollars to my name. And every couple of days the hospital would send around a cart and allow you to give them your money for whatever they had for sale. I decided early on that while I would buy perhaps a couple of items, I would save exactly one dollar and never spend it. The mental hospital took away everything important to me—it took away my freedom, my dreams, my artistic capabilities. I was spiritually broke. I was NOT going to let them make me financially broke as well. So I saved that one dollar bill, and still have it to this day.

A lot of people do things similar to what I did. Businesses everywhere take the first dollar they earn, have it framed, and hang it on their walls. I think we're doing something very interesting when we do this.

See, when I took that dollar and decided not to spend it, I grew the United States economy by exactly one dollar. And now, to me, that dollar bill is worth more than $1. I would not sell it for $1 (or something worth $1)—if I ever do sell it, it will be for more than a dollar.

For me, personally, that dollar has increased my wealth. I can put a measurement on it: Say I'm not willing to let go of the dollar and all it means to me for less than $50. If that's the case, I have increased my personal wealth by exactly $49. And I would have grown the economy. See, when I bought the dollar bill for $1, I grew the economy by $1. The number on my bank account is decreased by $1. When I put the dollar back into circulation, I diminish the economy by $1. But when the other person buys it for $50, it grows the economy by $50, causing a net growth of $49.

Of course, so far, I've talked only about my personal wealth. I, personally, am not willing to sell that dollar for less than $50 (we're assuming). However, the real question is of course whether or not someone else agrees with me. Otherwise, it's ridiculous to say I've grown the economy. I may have grown my own psychological economy, but I haven't grown the U.S. economy. Getting others to agree is a work of art.

By saving this particular dollar, I am making an artistic statement brimming with social commentary. That dollar is fine art. It tells a story involving one man and the mental health system. It gives a moral lesson of patience and frugality. It criticizes systemic exploitation in the psychiatric establishment. It has a happy ending: I left the hospital victorious because I didn't spend it. And it improves the value of the person who buys it: They can hang it on their wall now and share in my triumph against the system. (If they buy my story about it, that is.)

This is why I am somewhat confused that our economy isn't an art-based economy. In fact, people often claim, falsely, that we need to be less "artistic" about our economy and produce more physical things in factories. I can't think of anything more Marxist and further from the truth. When you produce physical things, you're stealing wealth from the Mother Earth and selling it for hardly any more value than it was worth in the first place. This is what China does: the Communist Party extracts wealth from their banks, who extract wealth from the workers, who extract wealth from the Earth. There's no growth, regardless of what the numbers say: it's just exploitation. When you make art, however, whatever you do is nothing but pure added value. If you're an artist, the materials you work with, whatever they are, are worth hardly anything compared to the worth of the final piece of art. China's Communist Party could never allow this, because it gives so much wealth and power to individual artists, when they want all the wealth and power for themselves. So why on Earth is our economy so eager to profit off of stuff other than art while almost completely ignoring this treasure trove of business opportunity?

For whatever reason, we have not developed the infrastructure necessary for an art-based economy. Certain art forms have taken some steps, of course—Western music is based on the accumulation of hundreds of years of deep meditation and hard work. The twelve-tone musical system and our system of musical notation have allowed for extremely complex and rich musical ideas unmatched by any other culture. In music from other cultures, it's rare to find even basic harmony, let alone key changes, because in their musical systems such concepts don't make any sense. They have spent less time developing their musical infrastructure.

Fashion has had a similar experience. (Well, women's fashion at least. Which is why I wear women's clothes so often. Shh.) Before Louis IV, people wore traditional dress which remained unchanged for years. But to increase the glory of the kingdom, I suppose, they began to think of ways to change the fashion of the time. Now, as a result of developments in the fashion art's artistic infrastructure, we have a kind of fashion grammar rich with all kinds of innovative concepts (collars, collar stands, a-line forms, shifts, hour-glass forms, etc.) This rich array of elements in the art's infrastructure is what allows our fashion to be so complex, exciting, and ever-changing.

So in a couple of art forms, some basic infrastructure has been developed. The business infrastructure may also be developed to some extent, but, I would argue, not enough.

Think of the things investors look at before they invest in a business. They look at the psychological characteristics of the CEO. Are they a leader? Do they have drive? Are they motivated? Excited? Do they work well with others? The answers to these questions determine whether or not the company will succeed. They look at the product. Is it something people want? Does it satisfy a need? If they put it on a shelf, will it move? They look at history. Has this person ran successful businesses in the past? Have products like this sold well in the past? They look at the research. Is there concrete, empirical evidence that the product will sell? They also look at the intent. Does the company have a solid plan moving forward? Does this plan take into account incomes and costs? When investors look into these things, in depth, they can gauge how much they and the economy will benefit.

See, when we think of artists, we have this notion that you just go out into the world and be yourself and somehow, unexplainably, end up being brilliant and make tons of money. I think this is nonsense. What is someone buying when they buy your art? If you can't answer that question, I'm sorry, but you shouldn't become an artist. Imagine if we treated businesses this way. "I'm going to be a businessman. I'm going to go out in the world, be myself, and make a business that's brilliant in some unexplainable way, and people will be inspired for some unexplainable reason, and I'll make tons of money." I wouldn't invest in this person, would you?

People don't buy art just because you're so awesome they can't stand not spending their money on you. But I think people tend to think this is how it works. So what we need to do, then, is think less about what art says about the artist, and more about what it says about the person who spends money on it. This means that instead of being subjective, we must be objective. I know... that sounds sacrilegious. But it's true. I make movies as well as music. But I invest more in my movies than my music. Why? Because the people who listen to music want to have a shared experience with their friends and their communities, which usually implies a live performance. And I can't perform my music live. So I know no matter how good the music is, it's never going to sell. The only way it would sell is if it were so popular that a shared experience would be implied regardless of whether or not it's live.

Movies, on the other hand, play a slightly different cultural role. If people wanted a shared experience of film and video, there would've never been such a thing as television, and people wouldn't sit alone in dark rooms at night trancing out in front of it. Yes, I know, there is also radio. But how do people listen to music on the radio? In their cars, with the windows rolled down, and as loud as possible! They obviously want to share their experience! But people who watch television, on the other hand, don't do it with the curtains self-consciously drawn. So I've made a business decision: I'm going to invest in film more than music.

And another thing: I'm not going to even think of distributing my films with a distributor without some kind of business sense about whether or not the stuff would sell. Otherwise, I'm wasting everybody's time.

This is how we artists need to think. We need to think of art as a business, objectively, with detailed numerical measurements of potential for making money. If we do this, we can grow ourselves and the economy. And, by the way, we won't in any way diminish our creativity or value as an artist. Creativity is not measured by how "true to ourselves" we are. It is measured by how inspired the work is. And how inspired the work is is measured by how inspired people are by looking at it. How inspired we are is merely a convenient way of gauging whether it will inspire others. And, by the way, if it inspires others, it'll sell. We need to think about this. If we don't, we're wasting everybody's time.

Artistic Complexity

If you're an artist trying to strive for complexity, there's a couple of directions you can take. You can have surface complexity, which is simply just a lot of stuff going on. The IDM genre is like this, and I think it's why that genre isn't very popular. It's only complex on the surface. An analogy to rock would be having a drum beat which breaks to do a fill every other measure. After a while it gets old.

Another type of surface complexity is when you do something unique which no one else had thought of before, which requires lots of equipment, or "creativity," or virtuosity. For example, coming up with a new synth hit that has a lot of nuance. Again, I classify this as surface complexity because it's not very interesting. It's just a gimmick. So you've come up with a new thing nobody has done before. Yeah, but is it interesting?

So instead of surface complexity, you could decide to do deep complexity. This is where you inspire complex and interesting thoughts in the art consumer. In music, this requires coming up with an emotional and resonant hook, or chord progression. Unfortunately, however, there are only a few possible chord progressions. And you have to also exclude the chord progressions which are (currently) ineffective at communicating any sort of message.

Deep complexity is more difficult to achieve than surface complexity. And, ironically, deep complexity also goes by another name: "simplicity." Miles Davis required extreme simplicity of his band members. But really, his music is incredibly complex, because it inspires complex emotions and makes a complex musical statement.

Deep complexity is really the last frontier for musicians. It's difficult to achieve, and artists can be satisfied that they will have the opportunity to refine the required skills for the rest of their lives and beyond.

Madonna's New Album

I don't know what happened to Madonna. I was just listening to tracks off her new album MDNA (probably the coolest album name I've heard in a long time, by the way) and it strikes me that she just doesn't get it. She doesn't get Rave music. Or worse: she's just trying to capitalize off it without adding anything.

I mean, don't get me wrong. It's not bad music. I'd rather listen to it than a lot of music out there. But it's just not great. And what gets me is, Madonna used to be great. Her song "Material Girl" is one of my favorite songs of all time. "Vogue"—same thing: positive message, edgy, complex, confidence-building, interesting, entertaining, etc. And her album, Erotica, is not only brilliant music, but brilliant literature. It's great poetry that can stand up to just about anyone in the English literary canon. And I should know: I've studied the stuff seriously.

But MDNA is just not that great. Same thing with the past several of her albums. MDNA features a couple cameos from an artist I really respect: M.I.A. The cameos were stupid and vapid. So how come I still respect M.I.A. but not Madonna? Because M.I.A. makes sense to me. I understand her. She is one of the few pop artists out there who can legitimately say "I just want to put a cap in your ass and take your money." A lot of artists claim they come from the ghetto and are bad boys or bad girls. But M.I.A. came from an INDIAN ghetto. She was a war refugee. Her father was a Tamil Tiger. When M.I.A. does a stupid collaboration (and she does a lot of them) it's not because she's stupid. It's because she's a gangsta popping a cap in the ass of the music industry and taking their money. She's a musical warlord. She makes sense.

But I don't get Madonna. Maybe there's something I'm missing. I feel somewhere along the line she lost it somehow. And I wish she would just find a way to do the brilliant, amazing music that I know she can do. Whether it's because of greed, or if she's in a dark place right now, I don't know. But I don't understand. I wish she would just... come back.

A Galaxy of Stars

One night Jacob was lying in bed with his elven lover, Lilly. After laying still for some time, Lilly said, "Look at the ceiling with your head cocked like this — the dark in the corner forms a triangle with the other two points on the ceiling. It's a natural occurrence. It's beautiful — like a star."

Jacob responded, "You're so... alive."

"So 'alive?'"

"I almost said 'human,' but that would've been species-centric. How do you come up with things like that anyway?"

"Like the triangle?"

"Like it being like a star."

"It's the same as everything else. Every commodity you make is another star in your universe."

"What about bad commodities, or derivative commodities?"

"Okay, correction. Every new commodity is another star."