"All that we are is the result of all that we have thought. It is founded on thought. It is based on thought."
∴ Buddha, The Dhammapada
Anal Retentive Character: One fixed at the infantile level of psychosexual development, when the libido charges the anus with energy.
People who had problems during this stage later develop “anal” personality traits like orderliness, stubbornness, perfectionism, and an obsessive need for control.
Most of the neoclassically trained economists who have dominated global economic policy-making for the past few generations — from Alan Greenspan to Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers, Timothy Geithner, Ben Bernanke and now Janet Yellen—have been anal character types (to say nothing of the economic professors and policy analysts around the world). They obsess endlessly over interest rates, money supplies, micro and macro management and quantitative easing strategies — in other words, the ‘excremental’ flows of the global financial system — but to such a degree that they completely miss what’s really going on: namely that climate change is the biggest market failure the world has ever known.
An educational and promotional video, part of the Edinburgh University Students’ Association’s global citizenship project. The project is a non-profit studen…
For all earthlings out there, a video I made for EUSA Global’s ‘Global Citizenship’ project, promoting the interdependence of all people on this planet
For too long, I have been promised a wide array of things, of ideas, of possibilities, of futures, by those who see themselves as some sort of leader standing above the crowd. And for too long, have these promises, these inspirational speeches, these appeals to our emotions, our ethics, and logic, aroused our sympathy, our trust, and often ended up falling short of their goals.
Why is it that those we have voted for, those who typically seek to represent us, and furthermore provide us with what we as the people need, or with what they have often promised, often fail to deliver? Why is that those we call ‘civil servants’, do everything but serve ‘us’, the people, and end up representing the wishes of those other than the people, or worse, only themselves?
Democracy has proven itself to be a spectacle, a caricature of what it originally intended to stand for. Our leaders appear now as talking caricatures themselves, functioning as conduits rather than human beings. Our bodies—political, physical, social—do not correspond with what our hearts or our minds truly intend.
Perhaps the issue is that, once given the power or authority to represent or to speak on behalf of, those who hold the authority are then destined to get it wrong or simply lose focus. Perhaps the privilege granted comes with a degree of being complicit rather than accountable. Perhaps a conflict of interest is what characterizes the ins and outs of a ‘democracy’. Perhaps leading from the ‘top-down’ is doomed to fail, and perhaps the only and most practical form of leadership is from the 'bottom-up'. Perhaps we are to be the leaders, we the people, not the presidents, not the ministers, not the officers, not the legislators, not the grandiose speakers, not the representatives, not the CEOs, not the PR department, not those who hold their power above us, for it is not the bud or the branches that holds up the tree, but it is its roots, the infinite network, that connects us and holds us together indefinitely, and keeps the entire assemblage standing.
It is up to us, and only us. We cannot depend on others for our salvation, our sunlight. We cannot defer our responsibility and our duties onto others just because they may be more qualified or just because we may have more interesting endeavors at hand. If we wish to see growth, if we want change, we must draw upon the dirt, the mud, the water that trickles around us and nourishes our being, to grow upon it, for only then can we become full. It is we who must sustain ourselves, and in doing so we naturally become the teeming reservoirs capable of sustaining the entire whole.
"Truth is a thing of this world: it is produced only by virtue of multiple forms of constraint. And it induces regular effects of power. Each society has its regime of truth, its “general politics” of truth: that is, the types of discourse which it accepts and makes function as true; the mechanisms and instances which enable one to distinguish true and false statements, the means by which each is sanctioned; the techniques and procedures accorded value in the acquisition of truth; the status of those who are charged with saying what counts as true"
∴ Michel Foucault
"Where shall you seek beauty, and how shall you find her unless she herself be your way and your guide? Your daily life is your temple and your religion. Whenever you enter into it take with you your all."
∴ Kahlil Gibran
"The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude"
∴ George Orwell
In philosophy, panpsychism is the view that mind or soul (Greek: ψυχή) is a universal feature of all things, and the primordial feature from which all others are derived. The panpsychist sees him or herself as a mind in a world of minds.
The commodification of art as image, not product:
"A major crisis is currently occurring in the global art market. This crisis is precipitated by a global elite recognizing in the 1980s and 1990s that the acquisition of artworks, as tangible objects of value, can be used as an investment vehicle alongside other more traditional investments. This trend of investing in art at the top end of the market was in part fuelled by the global phenomenon of the art fair and the widening network of art biennales now stretching from Sao Paolo to Vladivostock…
…This is the 1% as described by Paul Krugman. Whether it is Hong Kong, Moscow, London or New York, the long arms of the oligarchy are reaching deeper and deeper into the global art market, driving up prices of a commodity that is, increasingly, produced for this specific clientele. This form of art trading has, in fact, become a spectacle in its very own right: the London art fair Frieze Art combined with Frieze Masters recently charged the exorbitant entrance fee of £50, or about $80, for the pleasure to bask in the presence of the global super rich…
…In this context it is important to specify that it is only the works of a few handful of artists represented by an even smaller number of galleries that are actively participating at the top end of the market. It usually excludes emerging artists, it excludes smaller galleries and it most likely excludes not-for-profit organizations. In that sense the art world is perfectly reflecting the economic conditions of the 1% as the art market too is only controlled by a small number of individuals, institutions and corporations. Recognizing this warped economic dynamic, in 2012 one of America’s foremost art critics, David Hickey, launched a fierce attack on contemporary art, arguing that it is made for extremely rich people for whom the critic acts as ‘intellectual head waiter’…
…Inasmuch the huge influx of money created a crisis of meaning in art at the top end of the market, the art produced by and for the 99% acts as an agent advocating social change. In the first instance, this art is not shared in galleries that are haemorrhaging the finances of the plutocracy, it does not constitute an ‘investment’ in the strict financial meaning of this term, nor is it exclusively visible to those who can buy it. Rather, this art of the moment is ubiquitously available via the Internet, it bears a resemblance with a meme in that it is widely shared and evokes ideas that help to explain the present condition. This art taps into the imagination of a generation who is frustrated about the present status quo yet who is equally optimistic about the future. This art does not simply represent the world that we live in, but rather, it provokes ideas about how this world can change for the better, how it can be more sustainable, how it can be more equal. Like a virus spreading rapidly across geographic, religious, political or ethnic boundaries, this art is powerful – it has the power to change people’s perception of the world and, as such, it has the power to change the perception of one’s position in this world. Such art usually bypasses considerations about authorship or about originality. The craft apparent in this art cannot be found in the eloquence of a brushstroke or the aesthetic composition of an image, but rather, the craft of this artwork can be found in the ‘beauty’ of the idea that it communicates. The more powerful the idea the more this art is shared amongst others. The cultural and social value of this art, as opposed to its financial value, lies in its ability to communicate, or, as the Latin origin of the word suggests, in its ability to relate to the common.”