Another Constellation

1. Debris Culture

The word "debris" comes from the french word "débris," which is, itself, "dé" + "bris."

of that which has been broken off

And the internet is full of it.

Anything uploaded or posted, and I hesitate to call it "information," becomes debris. To call it "information" feels slightly disingenuous. The word connotates utilization, instruction. The idea of the internet as an information superhighway makes me feel cheated, because it's not exactly that. 

Most people would consider Wikipedia an information provider. And this consideration conveniently forgets that nothing on Wikipedia is formed, complete, finished. Anyone and everyone has an opportunity to change/add anything to any subject. Wikipedia does not contain information. It contains debris. Debris from the physical thing itself, the thing in the world. Debris might be informative but it is not information.

semantics, shemantics,
mind bending antics.
a rose. 

by any other name is still 

a rose. &. ke ke. 

is information 

always physical?

I don't want to arc. Rather, I'd like to point to the swirling debris that is the internet. Youtube. Facebook. Twitter. Reddit. Digg. Debris that can be broken down, referenced, recycled, reassembled, repackaged, commoditized, etc. etc.

* * *

2. Related

The above ramble, is obviously influenced by my reading of Convergence Culture by Henry Jenkins. It was an excellent read; especially after Adorno's sobering essays on the culture industry. It is a positive (and rightly so) outlook on the participatory and collaborative nature of new media and the consequences of the convergence of new and old media. 

&

really made me want to read Pierre Lévy
& continue looking at  the euze of Deleuze.

In the mean time, I've started on Illuminations: Essays and Reflections by Walter Benjamin (introduction by the ever-so-lovely Hannah Arendt).

Since I'm on Benjamin's essay, The Task of the Translator, I'll end with an excerpt from Stephane Mallarme's Crisis in Poetry, translated into English by Mary Ann Caws. (Note, it is tangentially related to my thoughts on "debris." I found it here. I would like to read the full essay though.)

      ". . . Each soul is a melody which must be picked up again, and the flute or the viola 

       of everyone exists for that.

       Late in coming, it seems to me, is the true condition or the possibility not just of 

       expressing oneself but of modulating oneself as one chooses.

       Languages are imperfect in that although there are many, the supreme one is lacking: 

       thinking is to write without accessories, or whispering, but since the immortal word is 

       still tacit, the diversity of tongues on the earth keeps everyone from uttering the word 

       which would be otherwise in one unique rendering, truth itself in its substance . . . 

       Only, we must realize, poetry would not exist; philosophically, verse makes up for 

       what languages lack, completely superior as it is."

Gawk @this & Mo' Haterade

I've reached a lull; a loll, an almost ...lol

The past two weeks have been an up and down roller-coasting to a flat line. I have been reading more so than in the past year thanks to my new Sony ereader, catching up on more Adorno, Bukowski, Ashberry, & periodicals. But while I'm catching up on literature, I am amazed at the written crappage all over the internets.

Take, for example, Gawker. Go to their website. Do it now (in another tab). Read an article (or post) and ask yourself, what makes this writing good? Let's take a look at the first post, "Body by Jesus." Embedded in the post is a video. Then you proceed to a horrible posturing introduction leading into... surprise! a QUOTE from the source of the video in question. And finally, a one liner conclusion which isn't even funny. What is this crap? A fifty word post devoid of any synthesis; a two second time waster.

Every post is a posturing. "Look at this!" with an ironic eyebrow raise; "look at me, I'm witty! I'm pointing to this 'news'!" That's it. Don't think! We don't need to think anymore! Just point and approve or disapprove, like or dislike.

I understand that Gawker or any of Gawker Media's subsidiary sites aren't supposed to be representative of good writing. These are blog posts meant to incite, meant to generate page views and links. The written words themselves should have no deeper meaning. They are functional and should only be evaluated on as such; whether or not the words are effective at procuring attention for the content (usually a commodity).

**GASP!!**

But maybe this is the way that language actually is and we have only been mislead into thinking that language is more than use (with winks to Witt). Are we witnessing a commoditization of language or the disentanglement of language from nonsense?

Sigh. Does anyone outside of the ivory towers care?

In terms of good writing, I want to point to an excellent review titled The Believer written by Ian Buruma in The New York Review of Books on Christopher Hitchen's Hitch-22 that gave my ab muscles a good work out. It is an example of what I term effective haterade.

I would like to end this blog post with a poem from Charles Bukowski's Betting on the Muse, titled "the sheep." (page 124-125)

"the sheep

in centuries past

audiences at symphony concerts

were not afraid to act out their

displeasure at works which

offended

them.

in our time

I have either attended or

listened to

hundreds of concerts

and never have I heard an

audience

express even the mildest displeasure

with any

work.

have our musical artists improved

to such an

extent?

or is it the decay of courage,

the inability of the

mass mind to

reach its own

decisions?

not only in the world of

music

but in the other

world?

the next time you hear

a symphony concert

note

the obedient applause,

the death of the bluebird,

the shading of the sun;

the hooves of the horses from

hell

pounding on the barren

ground

of the human

spirit."

Look at the fifth stanza

and gawk.