Showing posts with label books. Show all posts
Showing posts with label books. Show all posts
26 April 2007
12 April 2007
29 January 2007
do you know what "nemesis" means?
...a righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent. Personified in this case by an 'orrible cunt... me.
Henry Holt publishers mailed me an advance reader's edition of Chalmers Johnson's soon-to-be released book Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic. Hopefully I can fit it in amidst my otra required reading in order to offer up a quick review or what not.
Johnson's book is the final chapter in his three-part American Empire series. First came the prescient work Blowback, which was originally released before the events of 9/11. Then Sorrows of Empire which I read three years ago upon its release. Now the final chapter, which from its title, sounds a wee bit apocalyptic.
Tags:
07 July 2006
a weekend for short stories
I have a very short attention span when it comes to art, music, literature, et. al. Call it idea ADD. Lately I've been unable to finish a novel. I have numerous books lying around the house bookmarked about3/5 the way through. It's better I consume my idea meals in smalleasily digestible doses.
After having visited the pirate gear shoppe at 826 Valencia last month, it's more fulfulling browsing through Dave Eggers' collection of short stories. I actually understand the anti-Captain Rick propaganda.
The Vonnegut is just for fun. And I can thank the Serrach for introducing me to Bukowski and his drunken LA exploits.
23 May 2006
smart went crazy
"When alienated from inner vitality we mistake intensity for wakefulness"
-- Christina Feldman, The Buddhist Path to Simplicity
does this make sense? I'm trying to wrap my head around it...
and by the way I bought this book off the sale rack at Barnes and Noble for six bucks. occasionally you can find some pretty good deals on decent books round there Read more...
19 April 2006
the power of myth
I've been wanting to explore Joseph Campbell's work for a few years now. I finally picked up The Power of Myth last week. It is a good introduction to Campbell's work on mythology and comparative religion. The book consists of interviews--more like hearty discussions--between Campbell and journalist Bill Moyers that took place for a PBS documentary.
Here are some excerpts from the book. Campbell on Christianity:
You see, religion is really a kind of second womb. It’s designed to bring this extremely complicated thing, which is a human being, to maturity, which means to be self-motivating, self-acting. But the idea of sin puts you in a servile condition throughout your life.
...
I once heard a lecture by a wonderful old Zen philosopher, Dr. D. T. Suzuki. He stood up with his hands slowly rubbing his sides and said, “God against man. Man against God. Man against nature. Nature against man. Nature against God. God against nature—very funny religion!”
...
Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stick to its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble.
Here Campbell dissects the Genesis story of the Garden of Eden and the Fall:
That amounts to a refusal to affirm life. In the biblical tradition we have inherited, life is corrupt, and every natural impulse is sinful unless it has been circumcised or baptized. The serpent was the one who brought sin into the world. And the woman was the one who handed the apple to man. This identification of the woman with sin, of the serpent with sin, and thus of life with sin, is the twist that has been given to the whole story in the biblical myth and doctrine of the Fall.
The Genesis story forms the foundation of the Western worldview. It has been used to justify man's conquest of nature as well as man's conquest of woman. Remember it was the woman's fault that we had to leave the garden. (I've mentioned this previously).
The Genesis story is also factually incorrect. God did not create the universe. We all know that it was Chuck Norris who initiated Creation.
24 March 2006
unprecedented capitulation into the open arms of life
In Tropic of Cancer, Henry Miller comes across as a man with a supreme lust for life. Here are some great passages from this book which I am currently reading. Anything I say would just spoil the pure emotion of these passages, so here they are free of my drivel...
She rises up out of a sea of faces and embraces me, embraces me passionately—a thousand eyes, noses, fingers, bottles, windows, purses, saucers all glaring at us and we in each other’s arm oblivious. I sit down beside her and she talks—a flood of talk. Wild consumptive notes of hysteria, perversion, leprosy. I hear not a word because she is beautiful and I love her and now I am happy and willing to die. (19)
Walking along the Champs-Elysees I keep thinking of my really superb health. When I say “health” I mean optimism, to be truthful. Incurably optimistic!...
My eye, but I’ve been all over that ground—year and years ago. I’ve lived out my melancholy youth. I don’t give fuck any more what’s behind me, or what’s ahead of me. I’m healthy. Incurably healthy. No sorrows, no regrets. No past, no future. The present is enough for me. Day by day. Today! Le bel aujourd’hui. (49-50)
And my favorite bit so far:
For a hundred years or more the world, our world, has been dying. And not one man, in these last hundred years or so, has been crazy enough to put a bomb up the asshole of creation and set it off. The world is rotting away, dying piecemeal. But it needs the coup de grace, it needs to be blown to smithereens. (26)
18 March 2006
be like a clown
Joy is like a river, it flows ceaselessly. It seems to me that this is the message which the clown is trying to convey to us: that we should participate through ceaseless flow and movement, that we should not stop to reflect, compare, analyse, possess, but flow on through endlessly like music. This is the gift of surrender and the clown makes it symbolically. It is for us to make it real. At no time in the history of man has the world been so full of pain and anguish. Here and there however we meet with individuals who are untouched, unsullied by the common grief. They are not heartless individuals - far from it. They are emancipated beings. For them the world is not what it seems to us. They see with other eyes. We say of them that they have died to the world. They live in the moment fully, and the radiance which emanates from them is perpetual song of Joy.
-- Henry Miller
. . .
Ok. Now I just have to overcome my deep seated coulrophobia, and I'll be set on the path to enlightenment and truth and all that good stuff.
11 March 2006
what would jesus not do
I finished my sixth book of the year right on schedule in accordance with my 2006 goal.
Addiction, lunacy and freedom from social definitions are the three top themes that come to mind just after finishing this book. The main character, Victor Mancini, a hopeless sex addict lives by the motto “What Would Jesus Not Do”. I recommend the book. It's a fun read. But instead of a boring review I'd like to present some of my favorite passages.
As in Fight Club, Palahniuk launches an assault on America’s love of consumption:
They should let some people into the library by prescription only. For serious, books about architecture are Denny’s pornography. Yeah, first it’s a few rocks. Then it’s fan-tracery vaulting. My point is, this is America. You start out with hand jobs and progress to orgies. You smoke dope and then, then H. This is our whole culture of bigger, better, stronger, faster. The key word is progress.
There is always a desire for the "new and improved”, the version 2.0, the monstrous transportation vehicle. We are never satisfied. Happiness is always somewhere in the horizon. We are always trying to grasp it but never fully catch it.
His anarchic id shines through in the ethos of Ida Mancini, Victor’s deranged mother:
The laws that keep us safe, these same laws condemn us to boredom. Without access to true chaos, we’ll never have true peace. Unless everything can get worse, it won’t get any better. This is all stuff the Mommy used to tell him. She used to say “The only frontier you have left is the world of intangibles. Everything else is sewn up too tight. “ Caged inside too many laws.
By intangibles, she meant the Internet, movies, music, stories, art, rumors, computer programs, anything that isn’t real. Virtual realities. Make-believe stuff. The culture.
The unreal is more powerful than the real. Because nothing is as perfect as you can imagine it. Because it’s only intangible ideas, concepts, beliefs, fantasies that last. Stone crumbles. Wood rots. People, well, they die.
Then Palahnuik channels the Situationists, with a little of Jean Baudrillard’s philosophy thrown in just for fun:
“We don’t live in the real world anymore,” she said. “We live in a world of symbols”.
I dig this writer.
05 February 2006
on good and evil
from the introduction of Jean Baudrillard's The Intelligence of Evil:
At the level of the philosophy of history, 'evil', understood in this way, plays its part in a radically anti-Hegelian vision that draws on dualism, the agonism of the original symbolic exchange paradigm. Whereas for Hegel and Hegelianism, despite surface conflict and contradiction, everything coheres towards unity and a higher synthesis (the List der Vernunft is a principle of good; the real is rational), for Baudrillard the massive, but superficial, unifying drive towards ever-greater commercial, communicational and moral-political unity in globalization, virtualization and humanitarianism is held in check by an underlying agonistic dualism: the self-moving non-unification that is 'evil', all the singular forms (not necessarily violent or terroristic) that are irreducible to this empire of the good, the process whereby power produces its own 'retroversion' and in which 'meaning destroys itself'.
The important thing to remember is that Baudrillard is not discussing good and evil in the moral sense. Nietzsche taught us that we can move beyond those categories. Good and evil are terms used in reference to the system.
The system--the empire of good--continually plants the seeds of its own destruction. I'm not sure if it does this purposefully, but an evil response is the unintended consequence of the actions of the system.
For instance, did the CIA and the Reagan administration ever think that Osama bin Laden and the Afghan muhajadeen would turn on the United States? Probably not.
One could blame this on shortsighted foreign policy which through its power creates the enemies of tomorrow. Hence, the system (good) lives on by spawning its own nemesis (evil).
More to come on this book...
23 January 2006
frenchman comes to america, writes book
The French have a knack for deep philosophical analysis. Being a "thinker" is a big deal in France. The French public practically deify their intellectuals whereas we Americans demonize ours.
Bernard-Henri Levy has added to the long tradition of French writers who analyze the American way of life with tomorrow's release American Vertigo. I would guarantee he's closer to Tocqueville in style than he is to Baudrillard's postmodern treatise on American hyper-reality (one of my favorites).
The LA Times made the Levy's new release sound rather appealing:
LÉVY has no patience for anti-Americanism. His book blasts President Bush but paints often-sympathetic portraits of neoconservative Washington intellectuals, Air Force cadets, Border Patrol agents and other figures whom foreigners tend to demonize. Although Lévy's friends and political soul mates are mainly on the left, he scolds much of the "progressive" intellectual elite for being "in a profound coma."
"I tried to deconstruct clichés fed by France about America but also by America about itself," he said. "Sometimes, talking to the intellectuals of the East Coast, I was stunned by their blindness toward their own country…. This idea that America is on the verge of fascism, for example. I think there are fascists in America, there are bad guys. There is a right-wing America, but America is not on the verge of fascism."
Yeah, I wouldn't call it fascism. That's such a loaded word. Orwell argues that the word fascism has no inherent specific meaning other than it implies something that is not desirable, and I would agree.
I'm fond of Levy's analysis of Los Angeles:
As much as the disciple of Tocqueville admires America, however, the affection falters in Los Angeles. He does not get Los Angeles. He calls the city "illegible and unintelligible."
"The definition of a monster according to Aristotle is too much substance and not enough form," Lévy said. "That's exactly the case of Los Angeles. It may be a European point of view. I say it with all the prudence of someone perhaps with a traditional idea of a city…. I don't say I hated it, but I was lost. 'Lost in Translation.' Perhaps it's the city of the future. But without me."
I'll have to add this to my long, long list of books I want to read.
Read more...11 January 2006
I finished book #2 this morning: Noam Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival.
. . .
hegemony n. dominance, originally of one Greek city-state over others, the term has been extended to refer to the dominance of one nation over others, and, following Gramsci, of one class over others. Conflict over hegemony fills history from the war between Athens and Sparta to the Napoleonic wars, World Wars I and II, and the Cold War. Gramsci’s use of the concept extends it beyond international relations to class structure and even to culture.
survival n. the act or process of surviving; the fact of having survived; something, such as an ancient custom or belief, that has survived.
. . .
The title describes his main argument--that U.S. hegemony threatens the survival of the world. So, let's just take away U.S. hegemony and the world will be peaceful, easy and free. Ah-ha! If only it was that simple...
Ok, I take it back. Noam Chomsky is a radical leftist, and not merely an anti-statist. He identifies globalization and privatization as the major threats against the working class struggle. When he goes all Marxie he loses me a bit.
But, he makes a lot of valid points that our leaders ignore and the majority of the American people would benefit from if they considered his arguments. He has a unique way of weaving unrelated facts into a cohesive theory to explain U.S. foreign policy. He gives loads of examples how the United States is the #1 supporter of state-sponsored terrorism, international terrorism, and tyrannical regimes throughout the world.
His writing style is somewhat cold and bland. It's one of those books that you read faster and faster as you proceed in hopes of finishing sooner. About half of the book consists of quotes from other sources. Chomsky likes weaving quotes of political leaders and journalists into his own sentences. Yeah, it got boring.
Substance
Chomsky argues that the imperial ambitions of the United States are nothing new. They began in the late 1800s and were allowed to blossom at the end of World War II. September 11 didn't change anything accept that foreign policy adventures and domestic repression could get more brazen and in your face. Umm, yeah, I knew that already.
Now, his facts are correct. But they portray such a negative picture of the world that it is rather depressing. As demonstrated by the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, the United States was willing to annihilate the human race with nuclear weapons simply to maintain its control over the rules of the game. U.S. policies stem from a heartless logic that any means will justify the end of maintaining superpower status.
The United States is a self-serving actor on the world stage that behaves like a mad director on a violent film set. Democracy building and humanitarianism are ideological justification for foreign policy adventures. One could summarize Chomsky's main argument by saying this.
Chomsky the Icon
Chomsky does get a bad rap from the Right. If he is simply a liar or a crazy hatemonger then why aren't NeoCon pundits and scholars lining up to debate him? It should be easy to disprove the arguments of a liar, right?
I personally would love to see a televised hour-long debate between Paul Wolfowitz and Chomsky, for instance. But the Right is afraid of Chomsky, probably because they know that they couldn't defeat him in a head-to-head contest of wits, intellect and knowledge.
U.S. Hegemony
I guess I have mixed feelings. Perhaps cognitive dissonance is the cause of my ambivalence. I don't like knowing that my tax dollars have been indirectly used to provide Israel with bulldozers that crush wheelchair-bound Palestinians. I don't like knowing that my parents and grandparents' tax dollars were indirectly funneled to support murderous tyrants such as Mobutu, Pinochet and Suharto. Actually it makes me angry. So I rather push it out of my mind, because after all, what I can do to change this madness.
So, if one removed U.S. hegemony then one is left with an apolar world that would experience far more conflict than the present. Maybe the world needs a hegemon. We're better off having Uncle Sam play that part than Chairman Mao or some EU technocrat.
More info at The American Empire Project
. . .
next I'll be reading George Orwell's Why I Write. Then it's off to some lighter fare. I'm tired of reading rants by the nattering nabobs of negativism.
07 January 2006
imperial grand strategy
Or perhaps I should call it Imperial Grand Strategery?
I'm on to Book #2 of the year, Noam Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival. I've never read a Chomsky book before, although I've listened to several of his audiobooks and speeches.
It follows in the Empire theme which I've been exploring. Last year I read Michael Mann's Incoherent Empire, for which this category is named. So far, Chomsky comes off more as an anarchist or an anti-statist, not a crazy left-winger that the Right makes him out to be.
He describes the NeoCon vision for America as a mix of Wilsonian idealism and intentional ignorance. After all, they were the ones that said (paraphrasing) "we are an empire now and we create our own reality".
Chomsky quotes Andrew Bacevich:
The principle is "America as historical vanguard": "History has a discernable direction and destination. Uniquely amoug all the nations in the world, the United States comprehends and manifests history's purpose...
Sounds like the NeoCon version of Marx's dialectical materialism. It is our destiny to conquer the world! America is a world historical force to be reckoned with!
I found Chomsky's discussion of what is "anti-American" to be particularly salient:
The term anti-American and its variants ("hating America", and the like) are regularly employed to defame critics of state policy who may admire and respect the country, its culture, its achievments, indeed think it is the greatest place on Earth...
Hmm, sounds like a perfect description of yours truly. Chomsky continues:
...This usage is drawn directly from the lexicon of totalitarianism. In the former Russian empire, dissidents were guilty of "anti-Sovietism". Perhaps critics of Brazil's military dictatorship were labeled "anti-Brazilian".
This plays a critical functional role in bolstering state power by stifling rational dissent and labeling it hate speech. It's perfectly natural to hate the state--something which is an artificial social construct--but confusing anti-statism with hatred of a people is a devious device.
Stay tuned for more on this book. I'm off to make dinner.
06 January 2006
1776, a review
Over New Year's weekend I read David McCullough's 1776. I'm counting it as my first book of 2006 per my latest 26 books per year goal. So, I thought I'd write a short review.
1776: What a Year
After reading this book it would seem that the colonists defeated the British by dumb luck alone. Ok, maybe not dumb luck, but the gods (especially Zeus and Mars) were definitely helping the Americans.
1776 was a difficult year. Faced with lost battles, morale among American soldiers couldn’t have been lower. The colonists were outnumbered by both British forces and Hessian mercenaries who had superior weapons. By a stroke of luck, the colonists, or as McCullough terms them “the rebels”, prevailed.
Remember, they were rebels. Hell, the Sons of Liberty would be considered terrorists today. George Washington was an insurgent leader! Luckily, Washington was blessed with devoted and brave commanders like Nathaniel Green and Henry Knox.
I don’t understand why the British acted with such restraint. It’s as if William Howe thought the rebels would quit, so he didn’t pursue their armies, rather, allowing them to retreat and gather strength. (Those Americans who were captured by the British were either bayoneted on the spot by Hessians or sent to die in prison ships.)
Howe completely underestimated the perseverant and indelible spirit of the rebels.
Britain Going To War
The book begins with King George III riding in his carriage through crowds of excited Londoners ready to address Parliament regarding the rebels in America:
“The rebellious war...is manifestly carried on for the purpose of establishing an independent empire.”
How prescient that statement was. Madison spoke of an empire of liberty, but I don’t think the Founding Fathers ever intended on becoming an actual empire. Funny how that’s turned out. They wanted a republic. I don’t think they ever dreamed of being the world’s sole superpower—the virtual equivalent of the British Empire of the 1800s.
McCullough describes the debate in parliament between Tories and. Whigs. Edmund Burke, the father of conservatism, was against the war. Burke’s protégé Charles James Fox accused King George of losing “a whole continent”. Parliament voted to go to war and crush the rebellion, with those in favor 2 to 1, much like the U.S. Congressional October 2002 Iraq war vote.
Battles
McCullough gives a detailed description of military battles beginning with the American siege of Boston and the loss of New York City to the British. I could imagine the awe an American soldier felt seeing 400 gun ships of the Royal Navy sailing into New York Harbor. That would send a shiver down my spine.
Cunningly, Washington used the night to conceal his troop movements—something that is impossible in modern warfare due to satellite technology. For instance, the nighttime crossing of the Delaware helped lead to victories in the Battle of Trenton and the Battle of Princeton.
All in all, it’s a good read which only took me three days to finish. McCullough gets you into the minds of the generals on both sides of the war through letters and journal entries. It’s gripping and reads more like a suspense novel than a history text.
I read wanted to know what would happen next.
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)
