Post-Post Modernism: A Proposed Theory

I was discussing the idea of generational modernism, post modernism, and post-post modernism with my lovely lady this evening. In our discussion, she informed me of the analogy typically used to describe modernism and post modernism. In response, I proposed a fitting yet unique analogy for post-post modernism.

Allow me to share.

As my lady explained, many viewed modernism as a whole vase.

Modernists viewed the vase as many pieces making the beautiful whole. To them, philosophically, each piece is meaningless when not part of the beautiful whole.

Post modernists view the vase, however, as broken.

The individual pieces are beautiful and NOT meaningless. The vase, as a whole, was unnecessary to appreciate the beauty of the individual pieces.

My suggestion for the post-post modern, to play along with the proposed analogy, is that there is, in fact, no vase at all. There is nothing. Which, in itself, speaks volumes about the post-post modern view of things. In addition to there being nothing, there is, inversely, a broken iPod to play off the post-modernist analogy.

While I still maintain that there is nothing, there is also an iPod, broken. The individual songs that are contained within are beautiful, but the motley collection of music, as a whole, is meaningless.

Intriguing, no?

So that is to say that the theory is that post-post modernists believe that there is nothing, but that this nothing is then filled with meaningless digital minutia.

Hmm...

Obsoletion Societal Overhaul

Let's discuss obsoletion. Obsoletion is the act of becoming or condition of being obsolete. Being obsolete, for the stupid, means that someone or something is either no longer in use or no longer useful.

From the standpoint of a fairly young 20-something living in America, it seems to me that a lot of things are rapidly becoming obsolete.

However, not all of these things rapidly losing their usefulness SHOULD be losing their usefulness. Here is the breakdown from my perspective.

Cash
Tangible dollars and coins are rapidly going to the wayside in favor of electronic funds and debit cards. People would much rather carry around a single card represents all of their accumulated wealth instead of, well, their accumulated wealth. It's gotten to the point where going into a store that only accepts cash is a severe inconvenience to most individuals.

This isn't necessarily a good thing. It isn't necessarily a bad thing either. What I mean is that cashless money is both convenient and quick. As long as someone keeps track of their money and their card, a trip to the bank is never needed. However, if one were to lose that card (as I've done many times in my past), one suddenly finds themselves cut off entirely from their own money until a replacement arrives. This proves quite inconvenient oftentimes.

Whether the switch to cashless money is a good or bad thing is truly up to the reader. I, personally, am on the fence about this. I don't carry cash myself in most cases and use my debit card in pretty much all circumstances, but I can recognize the flaws in the system.

Cash in and of itself is a flawed concept considering that we're putting value into, essentially, bits of paper and scraps of metal. However, that's a discussion for another day.

School System
I actually had a brief discussion about this topic just this morning with a coworker. The school systems were designed, from what I understand, to work within the standards of a post-industrial society. The structure in which we organize our education systems and curriculums are as little as 60 years old and as much as over 100 years old, depending on the grade level.

One would think that, after a period of time as great as 60 years, that they'd change some things fundamentally. I say this because, as I've stated many times previously in my articles, that society is an ever-changing thing that requires that the various aspects of it also change to accomodate and adapt for better integration.

The school system, specifically the grade schools, haven't changed at all, for over half a century, as far as structure is concerned. The effects are becoming more and more prevalent as it seems the children become more and more bored or distracted with school to do the work. And this is having a FURTHER effect of producing students of poorer learning.

Colleges are under their own weight of useless at this point. This is not because of a poorly structured, outdated system, but rather the fact that someone has to spend thousands of dollars on a "higher" education with no guarantee of a career or even a good job after their graduation. I have a friend that graduated college to be a teacher. What she does now? She works at a 7-11. Terrible.

Books
Now, I won't discuss this much. I've already commented a great deal about the travesty of the digital book. All I'll say is that this is one of the format changes that I entirely disagree with.

Fax Machines
I'm fairly certain that the wildly unfunny Carlos Mencia made a joke about this. For those of you that have never seen Carlos Mencia or, for some reason, didn't read the first sentence in this paragraph, the joke wasn't funny.

However, he made a good point. For some inexplicable reason people are still using fax machines. In an age of scanners and email and instant transference of data, I have such a difficult time wrapping my head around why anyone would choose to use a machine that sounds like its murdering and raping R2-D2.

It seems wasteful, annoying, time-consuming considering that we have much faster means of sending the information and storing them. Why are we even using paper documents anymore? Why am I getting a fucking paper memo from my manager about some new fucking policy or update? Why can't you tell me in an email?!

I know this one seems rather trivial, but in this wondrous age of technology that we find ourselves in, it seems that the fax machine should've gone the way of the beeper and HASN'T yet.


So, what are we to do about these problems (I'm sure there are more examples but these are the most prevalent)? Well, I believe society is suffering whilst being caught in either the in-between stages of transition from one format to another, such as with money, or is suffering from being still caught in the past, such as with the schools.

I believe a nationwide reform is in order. And I know such a thing isn't going to happen (or, as some would say, not possible) because of things like time, money, effort, etc etc. but for godssake people, look at the shit we accomplished in the past! We integrated school systems! We fixed our economy! We did all of these things within a set period of years! Have we lost our ability to plan and fix things in the long-term? Does everything have to be right here and right now? I know that would be nice....but seriously?

Seriously?

Honest Assessment and Analysis

Now, I'll be the first to admit that I'm no expert on anything. I consider myself more of a jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none kind of guy. That's just the unfortunate circumstance in which I live.

That being said, there's a LOT of things that I have above-average (above-average meaning a higher level than an average person) skill in. Computers, auto repair, writing, carpentry, acting, whatever. If I had more time on my hands, I'd probably attempt to refine these skills into something more...usable, but the daily grind of life tends to prevent such efforts.

Case in point, I downloaded Rosetta Stone and several languages several months ago (prior to beginning my current job) and I was able to learn a few basic Tagalog phrases before being forced to shelve the lessons due to lack of time (and energy, because I'm lazy).

That's one of my more prevalent flaws: I have the desire to improve myself but I lack the discipline to follow-through.

In my personal library, I have, off the top of my head, four maybe five "Dummies" books. One is to learn the guitar, two more are to learn French and Arabic (now rendered useless due to Rosetta Stone), another is for cooking, and I can't recall what the last one covered. However, the point is clear that I have a strong STRONG desire to learn new things and improve myself. Oftentimes, however, I'm held back by my ownlaziness, manifested in the form of excuses as to why I can't continue my lessons.

Why am I writing this deep and telling article? Well, I believe it's good exercise for the psyche to lay out your falws, admit them, tell others. I believe doing so may be the first step toward correcting and improving upon them. I hope within a few weeks time, with the forthcoming change in residence, that my outlook and attitude will be emboldened and I'll put more of an effort in.

Now, in my defense, part of the problem is a lack of...supplies necessary to do a lot of these things.
For example, the cooking book keeps mentioning various pots, pans, ingredients, etc. that I would need to progress through the lessons. However, I possess none of the ones listed. Now, I'm certain a skilled chef could look at the required equipment and say "Hey, we could substitute (this) for (this) and it would work just fine." But I'm not a skilled chef. Thus, the "Dummies" book.

But, I digress.

That reasoning doesn't extend to a good portion of the other teaching methods I own, so I can't use that as an excuse (as previously stated before, that I use to wheedle out of work).

Is it human nature (or American nature, actually) to find the path of least resistance and take it every time? To cut corners? To short-change one's self out of self-improvement because we're "tired"?

Possibly.

It has been shown numerous times that America is one of, if not the most, obese nations in the world. This takes me back to my earlier discussion on our ever-increasing digital existence. Americans, on average, have fairl accomodating existences. Has such convenience made us sedentary to the point that we refuse to improve ourselves beyond the point of necessity?

Example: a car mechanic may initially put in the effort to learn how to work on the basic car design. All cars, fundamentally, work the same. However, if he starts working at a garage and that garage were to suddenly start specializing in, say, Toyotas, the mechanic would put in the minimal effort to learn enough about Toyotas to keep his job.

This is, of course, barring the automobile enthusiasts that read about cars in their spare time, but every discussion like this has countless variables.

So, I suppose I'll end this article with a resolution. With the coming change in residence, and thus a big change in my life, I'm resolved to put in a legitimate effort to learn. Learn what? Something practical. And, hopefully, if I get myself into a disciplined routine, I'll learn something else after that. And something else after that.

And so on.

Warrior's Dance

Down.
Up. Swing.
Right. Thrust.
Slide. Duck. Left.
Swing.
Down. Duck.
Right. Up. Up. Left.
Up. Thrust. Slide. Swing.
Duck. Thrust. Down. Thrust.
Swing. Swing. Swing. Swing. Left.
Back.
Duck. Thrust. Down. Swing. Down. Left. Right. Up. Slide. Swing.

Done.

Loss of Analog, Loss of Soul

We live in a technological wonderland. The incredible leaps and advances within the last 30 years alone can boggle the average mind when viewed from the perspective of beginning and end products.

The average American owns a cell phone. 95% of Americans have an email address. Rapidly, paper mail and paper money become more and more obsolete. Eventually, everything will be handled through transactions of information rather than through tangibility.

But one has to wonder if this is a good change.

To begin my argument on the matter, I shall use a recent addition to the technological market: the digital book. I'm not certain that I could list all of the products on the market right now that are specifically designed to or are capable of being utilized as a digital book. The Nook, the Kindle, the iPad...all of these allow it. And, I do admit, that it is an interesting and much-sought-after idea to have the contents of an entire library inside something the size of only ONE book.

However, despite the practicality and innovation of such devices, something seems to be lost in the transition from analog to digital, from tangible to intangible. Holding an actual book, an object made of paper and ink, being able to smell the pages and feel the texture of the cover, these things create within a person a certain sense of...comfort. Maybe not comfort, but the word eludes me, partially because the feeling itself is difficult to describe and partially because my brain won't bring the word to surface. However, there is a certain sensory pleasure that coincides with handling an actual, paper-and-ink piece of literature.

When one handles a digial book device, one loses that sensory pleasure. When you get right down to it, you're essentially handling a watered-down laptop with very specific functions. There's nothing charming about it. You're not flipping a page, you're flicking the touch screen. You aren't closing the book to put it away, you're closing the file. Granted, one gets all the same content of War and Peace digitally as they would with a paperback, but there is something fundamentally MISSING.

I'll cite music as another example, though I fear I'll end up sounding like one of those purists that people often joke about. Anyone I can think of off the top of my head owns an MP3 player or iPod. With online download sites like iTunes and Amazon (not to mention the illegal ones like Limewire, Kazaa, and Napster), digital versions of essentially any song desired are at anyone's fingertips. 30 years ago, it was oftentimes difficult to find a whole album, let alone a specific song (seeing as how a consumer would have to scour music stores to find the one they sought). Now, you not only don't have to purchase an entire album for that one song you wanted, you don't even have to pay for that one song if you choose to be dishonest.

The point I'm making is that, back in the 60s-80s, having that record or that cassette or whatever the medium was for the time, it meant something to the owner. They couldn't just pick and choose what songs they wanted, accumulating a library of mismatching music to mold to their tastes. Their tastes were MOLDED by the albums they bought, not the other way around. Additionally, in an age of digital enhancement and audio alteration, most songs are "pitch perfect" with many of the older songs having their audio tracks "cleaned up". I personally don't view this as an improvement seeing as I view a lot of these imperfections as providing deeper levels of character to the songs they accompany.

But I guess that's just me.

And this brings me to the point of this article. Many people talk about the degenerative nature of society in the past several decades; each generation being worst than the last, as many say.

However, I implore you readers to view it like this: the degradation of society over the past several decades seems directly associated with our cultures shift toward digital mediums. I'm not saying our slow shift into a completely digital paradigm is the cause for our societal problems but the realization that, since the 50s, there has been a slow decline in respect and values while an incline in techlogical advance begs the question if there is truly a "loss of soul" with our loss of analog.

Are we, in our pursuit of faster and smaller gadgets with greater and greater capacity, slowly destroying that which makes us decent humans? Is our insistence on making anything and everything desired a few keystrokes from our grasp destoying our concept of a hard day's work?

I cannot count the number of times that I have walked into my work's breakroom to find coworkers and other employees sitting at the tables, not conversing with each other, but rather playing on their phones, their ears plugged with earbuds. It pains me to see the days of legitimate social interaction dying at the hands of digital networking. I honestly am not trying to say that these advances in networking and technology and communications are a BAD thing, but I AM saying that they're a bad thing if it means the loss of our ability to act like normal human beings.

I can imagine a world, maybe a century from now, where we won't even speak to each other anymore. All communication will be done either telepathically or with little LCD monitors with our thoughts scrolling across for all to see. No longer would we use our voices for such primitive means of communication when everything can be much more easily exchanged with technology.

Just wait and see.

Boycotting Hollywood (Mostly...)

The date is currently August 23, 2011.

I am currently taking a look at the listings for a nearby movie theater.

I am not pleased with what I see.

Now, this isn't the first time I haven't been pleased with a movie line-up. As a matter of fact, I oftentimes look on with passive hate when I see a month's coming attractions. Hollywood, in this day and age, churns out more bile and shit than ever before.

Seriously! Look at the movies playing right now!


30 Minutes or Less
Honestly, anything with Nick Swardson as a lead is destined to be terrible. I've only ever seen this guy on episodes of Reno 911! and in Blades of Glory. I've never seen his stand-up, I've never watched his Comedy Central show (thank god...), and I've never caught any other movies he's been in. Other than that, the movie has a smattering of other "actors" that haven't had any real roles other than the Social Network kid. Whoop-dee-fucking-doo.

Captain America: The First Avenger
Now, I haven't seen this yet. And, honestly, I was looking forward to this movie all summer. I still have high hopes that this movie would be another step toward the serious superhero movie that The Dark Knight began. Now, that may be the case. It may not. However, there's a greater evil at work behind the scenes of this summer blockbuster: Hollywood greedily cashing in on any and every marketable superhero franchise they can get their hands on. We're at the forefront of this movement. In the coming years, I can guarantee that Hollywood will eventually start ringing the superhero teet for some of the most bottom-of-the-barrel heroes they can find until every usable resource has been tapped. Sucktastic.

Conan the Barbarian
Ah, Hollywood's OTHER source of cheap income: the remake. Anything that was made prior to a certain date (let's just go with....1992) is in danger of being remade in such a fashion. The original concept, with as much likability, character, and charm that it originally possessed, will oftentimes be put through the Hollywood ringer. What's left is a lifeless, like-less husk of the original product, all of the charm removed in favor of better graphics and "cooler" stunts. The Conan remake is no exception. I haven't seen this movie and I don't want to because I'd like to honor the memory of our esteemed Governator and the role HE originally played.

Cowboys and Aliens
This is an example of a fun premise being pushed too far by Hollywood. Cowboy & Aliens was going to be an effects-driven film centered around the heavy-hitter duo of Harrison "Han-Fucking-Solo" Ford and Daniel "I'm-James-Bond-Bitch" Craig. Now, with talent like Ford and Craig, along with the unique and quirky premise, one would expect an exciting cinematic romp. However, Hollywood somehow fucked it up and the whole thing turns out mediocre. Again, I haven't seen this film myself to comment on where it fell short, but I probably will at some point in the near future. For shame, Hollywood. First Morning Glory and now this? You're trying to kill Han Solo's career.

Final Destination 5
Y'know what I love about this movie line-up? It covers pretty much all of the general problems with Hollywood today. We've had the unfunny 3rd rate comedies, the milking a concept/franchise til it's dead, the unoriginal and constant remaking of EVERYTHING, and the effects driven, star-studded blockbuster of mediocrity. And, now, we have the overdone, oversequeled horror series. The Final Destination series is known, primarily, for its creative death scenes. That's pretty much the gimmick behind it: to see how clever the writers could be in the first couple of films. Now, audiences groan as they see just how far writers have to stretch before even the dumbest audiences' suspension of disbelief breaks.

Fright Night
Here's another example of shameless remaking. Even with the addition of the AMAZING David Tennant to the cast, I'm still shaky on how good/bad/awful this will be. It's a remake, however, which leaves a bad taste in my mouth to begin with. If I had to make a prediction, I'd go ahead and assume I'll hate everything about this movie EXCEPT Mr. Tennant. I mean, c'mon...you can't hate the Doctor.

Glee the 3D Concert Movie
Now, I'll be a man and admit that I watch Glee. Religiously. I download every episode after its premiere, have a few of their songs on my MP3 player, and ever teared up at an episode or two. However, I have NO desire to see a concert in a movie theater. And don't get me STARTED with the 3D aspect (3D is another rant entirely...). It basically boils down to this: if I want to see a concert, I'll go see a concert. Live. I have NO desire to see a rock concert in a movie theater (though I have been interested in seeing those operas that some theaters offer). The point is that I find that a concert in a movie theater lacks the atmosphere and character that a live concert possesses, and that's Hollywood's fault for doing it.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2
Ah, yes. Harry Potter. How many years has it been since you first made your on-screen debut? Too long, in my opinion. I stopped watching the HP series of movies after Goblet of Fire. Why? Not because the movies suck. No, because of the ravenous fanbase. I HATE Potter fans. They are, to date, some of the most ridiculous, fanatic, obsessed fans I have ever witnessed (outside of well-known sci-fi circles, of course). This is another product of Hollywood, what I like to call the Twilight effect (though it wasn't the first, it is the most mock-able). Basically Hollywood takes an already mildly popular franchise and explodes the FUCK out of it all over everything. This irritates me because it creates these monsters (both the franchises and the fans) that normal people look upon with fear and disdain. Thankfully, this is the last HP movie to grace the screens. Thankfully.

The Help
I have no idea what this movie is about beyond African-American servants and that it's a period piece. This may very well be a good movie. However, I can still find fault with Hollywood concerning this one: the advertising. The only reason I didn't look at this movie and go completely "Huh?" is because I saw some minor advertising on some video sites I frequent. Like I already stated, this movie could be fantastic. However, the potentially fantastic movie isn't going to get the box office numbers it should get because of Hollywood's reluctance to advertise it over other, more popular, and more shitty films. It pains me to see potentially great movies get thrown to the wayside because the studios are aware that the public would rather see fart jokes and explosions than memorable characters and good writing.

One Day
Oh, look! The romantic dramedy! I was wondering where this one was. Well, here it is. It's another of those "they're two different people that are friends and finally discover they love each other" stories. That falls into romantic movie cliche number #385473. And is there ever any tension about the two getting together in the end? NO. And why is that? Because no studio is going to put out a romantic comedy where the two characters DON'T get together because they're cowardly sheep that refuse to break the mold and try anything new. That's why I like movies like Lost in Translation (the two mains DIDN'T get together in the end), Sin City (love interests often ended up dead), and, yes, The Notebook (the characters ended up together but it was bittersweet). I can't STAND romantic movies where everything is wrapped up in a nice, neat bow. It fucking sucks.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes
This is kind of an off-shoot of the remake, but worse. This is the reimagining/add-on. Oh yes, somewhere some Hollywood idiot said to him/herself "Planet of the Apes was a great movie...but I bet people would love to see what happened BEFORE that." And y'know what? No. No one wanted to know what happened before that. We were all perfectly content with the amazing original Planet of the Apes and the shitty remake. And you'd think Hollywood would've learned its lesson with that godawful remake, but no. No, they didn't. God I hate all of them over there.

The Smurfs
WHY?! WHY DID THIS NEED TO BE MADE?!  WHAT POSSIBLE REASON WOULD ANYONE HAVE HAD FOR MAKING THIS?!?! WHY DID NEIL PATRICK HARRIS AGREE TO BE IN THIS?!?! THERE IS NO GOD!!!!!!

Spy Kids: All the Time in the World 4D
Wha...huh...y'know what? I give up.

The point of this exercise was to show how, on any average week in the theaters, Hollywood not only screws up, but FLAUNTS its flaws in all of their variety and shamelessness.

And the worse part about all of this?

We're to blame.

That's right, faithful readers, we're to blame for all of this. Not just us, but the movie-watching masses as a whole. We're the ones that pay to see crap like The Smurfs and 30 Minutes or Less. It's OUR ticket sales that let those movie executives know that we're cattle, easily led to the next big, dumb blockbuster. For every Epic Movie and The Happening we go to see, a Munich falls through the cracks. For every awful remake and sequel we encourage the studios to make through our ticket sales that is green-lighted, a GOOD script goes into the dumpster.

THAT is the reason why our films suck. Us.

That is why I'm boycotting going to the movies. I'm boycotting buying any DVDs. I'm doing my very minor part in fighting against Hollywood to show them that they can't promise us steak and give us raw ground beef. If there's anything I want to watch, I'll acquire it some other way to watch. For now, however, they won't get one more cent from me until the quality of cinema improves.