2011 - mar - tablazine

8/7/2019 2011 - Mar - Tablazine

1/16

www.subverbum.com / 28.3.2011 2.4.2011

OnKitschHerbs

www.ehow.com

are we being dragged back to darwinism?

history as epigenetics

why we are only taxpayers

how my computer committed treasonits all about domestic politics stupid

* polonomics

* cultucopia

* meme

arch / 2011 / no. 1

8/7/2019 2011 - Mar - Tablazine

2/16


CONTENTS

* subverbum / 2

* polonomics

why we are only taxpayers / 3

its all about domestic politics stupid / 5

are we being dragged back to darwinism? / 7

* cultucopia

how my computer committed treason / 10

on kitsch herbs / 12

* meme

history as epigenetics / 13

try leaving philosophy alone / 14

1

8/7/2019 2011 - Mar - Tablazine

3/16


* subverbum

Expression is critical in a world where theold guard insist on maintaining the economicand social status quo. Fear for jobs andwages means that there is a ground swell, ahunger, amongst those of the post-modernage to take political progress into their ownhands. But there is no need to be bound bythe old rules, the old messages and the oldinterests that dominate society. Bymustering political, cultural and philosophical

tools the premise of this status quo can beprised open to uncover new realities andpossibilities. Looking for the sub verbum or reading between the lines - is a key wayto progress over the status quo.

But the political landscape is presently

congested. The post-modern world sees somany different views vie for our attention inso many ways. Ideas are bound up with self-interest, compromising their authenticity andjeopardising trust in the humbleness ofthought. Personal ego is takingprecedence over the substance ofthinking, but ideas should not be aboutcelebrity or the career progression.Individual thought is key but it should besubsumed in a broader societal debate.

Subverbum offers a space where thoseunsatisfied with the status quo can fight thecorner of progress. It is a place where frankand intelligent ideas on politics, culture and

philosophy are posted and disseminated.Subverbum thrusts the thoughts of thesubaltern species into a broader domain ofideas as well as amongst likeminded spirits.

Ideas on subverbum are channelled intothree different sections. Politics gives spaceto thought on issues from the failures ofgovernment to international conflict. Fromtravel write-ups to literary criticism, Cultureopens up a critical exchange on mattersrelated to the arts. Meme breeds exchangeon philosophical ideas as applied to life hereand now.

Subverbum is not a place for egoism.Substance and anonymity is central: noidea on subverbum is attributed to anysingle author. All of subverbums writerspublish for the sanctity of the humble ideaand the conviction that alternative ways of

seeing the world contribute to the generalgood. Writers are approachedfor subverbum on the condition that theespoused ideas say something new and theauthor is willing to remain anonymous.

www.subverbum.com

[email protected]

humble.

subaltern.

debate.

2

8/7/2019 2011 - Mar - Tablazine

4/16


taxpayers.

frugal.

citizenshi .

* polonomicswww.subverbum.com

Why We

Are

OnlyTaxpayers

auctionjournal.co.uk

3

8/7/2019 2011 - Mar - Tablazine

5/16


politics is

a thing of

the past

I am above all else a taxpayer. I pay taxesand this defines my citizenship. I pay for mycitizenship on the back of my daily labour.My individual political views are irrelevanthere, for I have been subsumed into the

mass. Seeking refuge in the conglomerationof other taxpayers, all of our politicaldecisions are rationalised in terms ofmonetary considerations. The yardstick bywhich we judge the actions of ourpoliticians is whether or not they canspend money in terms we accept. Wetaxpayers do not like frivolity but ratherfrugality, and, yes, lower taxes.

We fully reject the notion that the

government should waste money on socialservices when the money could be saved forthat rainy day when we will have to salvagethose institutions that have crumbled partlyon the back of our own irresponsibility. Itwas my right as a taxpayer to indulge ineasy credit and ambitious loans, for it is ourcomfort that needs satisfying above all else.In any case, it will be taxpayers money thatwill right this wrong.

You see, politics is now a thing of the past.We were once told that debate mattered andthat we had to fight hard to claim our rights.When we look back at history it is almost

laughable at how much energy was exertedto secure universal suffrage. There used to

be a time when the emphasis was placed onresponsibility rather than rights. Citizenshipwas a far more complicated business inthe past.

That is why we have it so much better today.The social contract we and the governmenthave negotiated is ingenious. We decide topay our taxes and not bother ourselves withall that politics and debate, and instead letthe government get on with it. But dont thinkfor a minute that the government is free todo what it wants, oh no, for the system isinherently democratic. The government hasto consult us taxpayers before it embarkson any course of action and it does this

through regular mention of us taxpayers inthe media. What more proof do younaysayers want?

Sure, the cynics might say that thetaxpayer is an abstract construct and youmay well ask the question: what say do youhave over how your taxes are spent? Buthere you would be wide of the mark. As wehave already illustrated the governmentdecides how the money is spent it alonehas full discretion. But, you may then retort,this does not give you much direct say overthe economic management of your country,and surely citizenship should not be definedonly in fiscal terms? Is there not more topolitical life than simply being a passivefiscal agent?

Bla, bla, bla... You may harp on with suchquestions but you would do well to get with

the programme - the new social contract ishere to stay. Our government is not going togo around frittering away our hard earnedmoney on silly indulgent things likeeducation. We even have control over theforeign policy of our government, so thatwhen a conflict risks wasting our money wecan stop the government in its tracks... ohwait... that last point is not quite true is it.

4

8/7/2019 2011 - Mar - Tablazine

6/16



its all about

domestic

politicsstu id

domestic politics.

intervention.what next?

gardeners tips.co.uk

5

8/7/2019 2011 - Mar - Tablazine

7/16


qatari

warplanes are

barely thelegitimising

voice of the

arab world

Let us not glide over the point. Domesticpolitics in many European countries ishaving an impact on the actions of statesintervening in Libya. This will become aspotent an explanatory factor in the goodhistory books to be written as the pressuresof high international oil prices and anyhumanitarian rationale.

David Cameron wants to take the sting outof the coalitions cuts with an appeal to theBritish national interest and thehumanitarian situation; Nicolas theenergumen Sarkozy is bent on stirring uppatriotism through highly moralisedlanguage with an eye on the looming Frenchpresidential elections; and there is no waythat Angela Merkel could justify interventionwith German troops given the publics

historical antipathy towards the use of forceand, again, looming elections.

True, we know that Gaddafi has got it wrongbut he is acting no differently than any otherdespot in history. And no one has decided tocall time on all of those persons on the rollcall of distasteful leaders who havecommitted abuses against civilians:Mugabe, Bashir, Kim Jong-Il, etc... the usuallist goes on. While this should not give

Gaddafi a pass, it is clear that if thehumanitarian imperative had been strong

enough as the Brits and French claim then this would have led to earlier, evenpossibly unilateral, action against Gaddafiand all such leaders.

And why did Western leaders not heed thehesitations of Robert Gates or other prudentvoices? The poor defence secretary canbarely disguise his disdain for this wholeadventure, just watch any televisioninterview. Intervention has so manyunintended consequences too manyunknown unknowns, as Rumsfeld wouldhave it that one rarely knows where it isheaded. Support and even silence on thepart of states such as Russia is falling apart,

Qatari warplanes are barely thelegitimising voice of the Arab world and itis impossible to tell what type of war this willbecome.

Should Gaddafi die would the interveningforces work their way down the family tree?Or, in the face of public pressure back homeand US hesitancy, will Cameron andSarkozy then have the embarrassing task ofhaving to deal with Saif for a diplomaticsettlement? And what would this look likegiven their moralising? Furthermore,whatdo Messrs Cameron and Sarkozy thenintend to do with all Gaddafis civiliansupporters?

Political leaders have an annoying habit oflooking for foreign policy excuses to numbdomestic concerns. What will be interestingto see is how the current crop of political

leaders will deal with the Libyan situationonce the humanitarian imperative becomesbelaboured. Sarkozy, as one example, mayfind that this adventure may actually backfireand become the final nail in his politicalcoffin.

6

8/7/2019 2011 - Mar - Tablazine

8/16



are we

beingdragged

backto

darwinism? subverbum

darwinism.

austerity.

social competition.

7

8/7/2019 2011 - Mar - Tablazine

9/16


individual

brilliance is

forged when itrings with the

needs of

societ

We should all know Charles Darwinsdangerous idea. Only those organismsbest suited to their environment will survive,but they can only survive by competing withother organisms for control of this

environment and its resources. Darwins1871 The Descent of Manspecificallyapplied this theory to the human species,and the debate since this book has aimed attempering the degree to which humankindfollows Darwins theorising.

Seen in the present period of austerity andbudget cuts to social services in manycountries in the West, plus the concomitantpush for greater competition among

business and individuals in society, have weignored the central problem raised byDarwins idea: namely, survival equalscompetition? We will now have to beconscious of the fact that in the West neweconomic realities underpinned byideological convictions may raise thespectre of more social competition.

Darwin was not of a bellicose disposition,and his works clearly do not suggest thatwarfare amongst humans is somethingnatural. Those of a more Randian orHayekian disposition will of course holdDarwins modesty with a certain degree ofdisgruntlement. Darwin was at pains tostress that the human species interacteddifferently with its natural environment thanother species. Humankind could master itsenvironment whereas other animals couldnot, and they could work together to manage

this mastery.

Darwin could also not fathom how anynatural environment characterised by hugefinancial expenditure on military equipment,or one where the ablest members of societywere sent-off to die in battle, could bebeneficial to humanity this was contrary tohis belief that the best evolve. Darwinsideas, however, had the misfortune of beingco-opted by other theorists for their own

visions of societal utopia.

Darwins ideas would be adopted by zealotssuch as Herbert Spencer and ThomasHenry Huxley as justification for, and proofof, the necessity of a society that wouldensure the survival of the fittest throughcompetition. Spencer and Huxley co-optedDarwins natural order to push for theextension of free-markets and free-trade onthe predication that competition betweenhumans was something natural.

By 1879 terms such as survival of thefittest coined by Spencer - and naturalselection would become household words.By 1879 Social Darwinism that is, theapplication of Darwins theories to society was being used as an explanation andremedy for the social ills of the period. Such

explanations included the Malthusianargument about population growth and thestrain this placed on society; and fears thatharmfulorganisms such as the mentally illand disabled in society would infectthe rest,as postulated by Francis Galtons eugenics.

But are we so sure that hostile competitionis the best way forward to the properadvancement of our societies? Sure, onemay take refuge in ones own natural

abilities but these individual skills meanlittle if not defined in relation to the whole

8

8/7/2019 2011 - Mar - Tablazine

10/16


there is a

great neednow for

society to

evolve intosomething

other than

another

descent

intodarwinism.

society. No single painting would beappreciated in this world if viewersapproached the canvas with competition intheir eyes. Individual brilliance is forgedwhen it rings with societys needs. While

competition will exist between humans,there is no automatic reason why it shouldbecome the dominating political canon.

The present political class have so far beencautious in attempting to endorse all-outcompetition to meet present economicneeds: if anything, the emphasis has been inputting forward austerity as a social burdenfor all. This is the root of the British BigSociety initiative. But in conservative

approaches to balancing the books socialsolidarity is built on weak foundations andhostile competition between individuals isburied dormant at its core. Austeritymeasures will and do hurt individuals insociety differently, this is the basis forcompetition not solidarity.

In Europe competition between individuals isdangerously translating into competitionbetween states. The economic crisis of 2008should have been a test of Europessolidarity, and while various mechanismshave arisen for the sake of appeasing themarkets, at base the member states haveslowly drifted apart in political terms. Narrowgains, as in the personal domain, canonly reap short-term goals: the life ofindividuals and states should be more thansuspicion of ones neighbours.

Unfortunately the general thrust of Darwinsidea will remain as the key reference pointfor those seeking to foist zealouscompetition onto societies everywhere asthe central rationale and organisingprinciple. But as with capitalism, unfetteredcompetition can have dire consequenceschief amongst which is erosion in social andpolitical trust. There is a great need now forsociety to evolve into something other thananother descent into Darwinism.

9

8/7/2019 2011 - Mar - Tablazine

11/16


* cultucopiawww.subverbum.com

how

mycomputer

committedtreason

treason.

computers.

the system.

www.1st-art-gallery.com

10

8/7/2019 2011 - Mar - Tablazine

12/16


mycomputer

has gone

from a basicset of tools

to a fully-

fledgedartistic

director

It has been coming for a long time. Is thereany point in resisting? It seems that fordecades we have all become moredependent on those complex machines wecall PCs, laptops, note books, etc... From

writing up a report to designing a website, allcreative powers lay with the computer. Andwhat creative options are on offer? Are theysimply not the options some computerengineer has deemed useful ornecessary for our mediocre creativepursuits?

Computer programmes are but thereflection of the limits of artistic license,that is, the limits of human artisticlicense fed into computers. They areleading to thought myopia where creativity is

allowed only within the confines of electronicbarbed-wire 30 foot high walls. It is not thatcomputers represent a whole new genre ofmedia, but rather they are setting the limitsto whatever artistic genres might be createdin the future.

Indeed, if you want to paint a portrait pictureyou would not pickup a pen and a notebookeven if you could depict your subject insome form. You would be far better-off

grasping at your brush and oil colours,before getting down to the business ofrendering your own distinctive interpretation.It seems almost treasonous against freedomof expression that my computer has gonefrom a basic set of tools to a fully-fledgedartistic director.

And has great treason not be performedwhen todays onus has been placed oncomputer rendered films or animations.Whole categories at film awards are givenover to this genre. It would of course betreasonous to argue for the complete doingaway with the blasted electronic beasts, butthere surely has to be some middle ground ifonly for the human mind to find newmediums by which expression can be found.

Dont be entirely fooled. You can switch offyour machine and try to be creative in

other ways. And the computers are on to usyou know! The increasingly sleek and sexydesigns of these machines are aimed atenthralling us.

There are of course limits to this plea. I triedwriting this piece on paper, and the intentionwas to send it via carrier pigeon to all thoseof you currently at your computer. This planfailed, if anything for the lack of pigeons athand. In further defence of my point, I have

been forced to fight the system somehowfrom within it. Now thats treason.

1

8/7/2019 2011 - Mar - Tablazine

13/16


* cultucopiawww.subverbum.com

So were all agreed, coriander tastes like soap. Ah, the retort comes, but put it in a madrasand the taste then has something to it other than inducing a glycerinic shock. This is theherb conglomeration argument: the right mix can be classy and memorable. But is thisfamiliarity not the root of the problem: should food ever be classy? In the noise andconfusion created by the finished dish is lost the specific traits of individualingredients which should be open to interrogation. Lets be honest for one moment. In

raw form coriander is given to that over-commercialised commodity designed to clean theskin rather than the glee it should induce in ones gut.

Perhaps coriander is the wrong target here. If the real measure of kitsch is self-indulgencerather than familiarity then surely thyme should attract ones ire (or pity). But this does not sitright at all. No, thyme is the boring herb. It bubbles away in the broth without a momentshesitation, accepting its fate without even the pretence of its feeling the injustice of beingboiled away with that clove stabbed onion. If anything, thyme deserves our hatred for failingto live up to its existential obligations. Only the lowly bay competes in this regard.

Enter basil from stage right. Look at this rather pretentious specimen, parading in its sleekand glowing verdant outer coat. Its confidence rooted in the self-assurance that can onlyaccompany herbs co-opted for Italian cuisine. But oh the self-indulgence, oh the familiarity!Watch any desperate cooking programme and basil is hailed as the saviour of supposedlyotherwise dull fare. The shows host breathing in the waft given-off by a whole basil bush, asif the now pungent oxygen in its stratosphere is enough to ever sustain great art.

No, I think Ill take the chicken without any herbs whatsoever. No added ingredients, no fluffaround the edges, just give me the substance. Herbs cloud the horizon, they blur thepicture. They are kitsch, no doubt. The whole damned lot of them. No amount of perfumedpersonality individually or collectively as part of a dish is ever enough to have lasting

meaning. Give proper foodstuffs such as the parsnips and beetroots of this world the chanceto speak for themselves.

on

kitschherbs

kitsch

herbs.

great

www.ehow.com

12

8/7/2019 2011 - Mar - Tablazine

14/16


* memewww.subverbum.com

history

as

epigeneticshistory.

epigenetics.

dna.

The word in science is that its all about epigenetics. No longer is cell evolution attributableonly to internal changes to phenotypes or DNA structures, but rather external structuralfactors are also at play. Getting cancer, so the theory goes, is not only reliant on inheritedgenetic coding but also the environment around us, with smoking and air pollutionweighing-in on genetic changes. But this is not to say that all these external factors canalter the genetic code in one single generation, but spanned over time structural factorscan play a role in evolution.

But can this Haeckelian world of interaction between humankind and the environment helpus in our quest to understand historical evolution? What if, instead of privileging a singlecausal factor in politics and economics, it is possible for the human mind to make the giantleap forward in contextualising every single situation in history? What is called for is a viewmoving beyond the historical genetic coding rhetoric and moralising to a proper

appreciation of all those factors in wider structures such as economic interests.

There are great advantages to be had from a historio-epigenetic approach. Chiefly wouldbe the demand of political leaders and analysts to move beyond short-term fixes toproblems. Indeed, this approach would at least put the burden of thought on theunintended consequences of actions over the longer-term. If a longer-term perspective ofthe historical genetic structure is brought forth in the mind, incremental damage throughshort-term actions may be avoided.

More importantly, and finally, historio-epigenetics may help one understand that eachindividual is intrinsically part of the historical DNA coding. We are all, here and now, acting

in ways that can either greatly help the evolution of society or indeed cause lasting damageto the organism. We are all part of historical progress, but we are not acting as if this is thecase.

www.leighh.com

3

8/7/2019 2011 - Mar - Tablazine

15/16


* memewww.subverbum.com

try

leavingphilosophy

alone

green is gre

wittgenstei

mysticism.

Lets begin with a brain twister: what do you think green is green means? Should it mean anything, oris it some ludicrous plot to induce perplexity? Try analysing the constituent parts of the puzzle. Green,as in the colour, is, as in the verb, green, again, as in the colour. Have you got to the stage yetwhere you are pondering the following response: simple, its just a description of what is green? Butpush yourself a bit further. What does the sentence describe or explain? What does the word greenever mean or explain?

If you think this whole exercise is a waste of time you would probably be right, at least, from the

perspective of accumulating philosophical brownie points, you would be in the same school of thinkingas Ludwig Wittgenstein. Not only did this intense Austrian provide us with the conundrum green isgreen, but he also told us to forget trying to answer it. Just leave it be, go and make some tea orsomething. But wait, thats not philosophy, is it? Wasnt uncovering the truth the whole point? Not forWittgenstein.

Thats the problem with propositions 6.54 and 7. Just how can we find it in our reasoning to letphilosophical concepts go? Can we ever say nothing of that which cannot be said? This leaves usin the barren wilderness of the natural sciences, does it not, where propositions are tested againstunquestionable fact? Wittgenstein may have put his finger on the problem in philosophy, but did hecounsel correctly by what method we are supposed to engage with it?

Perhaps he was a better than all of us. It certainly takes courage to leave an idea alone, to move awayfrom thoughts for fear of an eternitys grappling with them. He was certainly right that words such aslove should not necessarily be analysed, simply experienced and enjoyed, and herein lays themystical strength of his postulations. Experience and not analysis is the key to philosophy. Let the flyout of the fly bottle, but help it to freedom and do not even contemplate swatting it.

But one wonders if the human mind can simply ever leave philosophy alone. As the world growsmore and more complex, will the general attitude to thought be one of passive resistance or of passingit over? Complexity should surely induce humbleness in ones own opinions of the philosophicalscaffolding around us, but instead this post-post-post-everything world baits one to have their say.

Perhaps there is some merit in a more mystical interaction with the world, especially if it lowered thechances of conflict between two equally ill thought-out positions.

www.acidcow.com

4

8/7/2019 2011 - Mar - Tablazine

16/16

subscribe/

unsubscri

subverbum

subverb at

www.subverbum.c

e

@gmail.com

m / 28.3.2011 2.4.2011

2011 - mar - tablazine

Documents