Point of Discussion #69: Rockism and Poptimism - Music

Wombi

I want to start by saying that I don't think there's a simple answer to something as complex as this and that comparing it to 2+2=4 is not helpful even if you were exaggerating to make a point. It's something I'm still trying to figure out about myself and about everyone else so whatever I'm saying is not said under the delusion that I have the definitive answer. I'm merely working with what I understand to be true to my life right now. I think certainty in anything is dangerous and dogmatic and you've borderded on that a few times in your response but I trust that that was just the natural reaction of your passion for the issue. I'm also trying to work out why you brought that quote and this topic up out of nowhere to create this discussion but thinking on it has been fun and interesting so thank you. Anyway:

Quote:

The definition of improvement is definitely not relative.

Then why are we having this discussion? Hitler would have seen the removal of jews as improvement, no?

Quote:

"You can't improve upon your existence" may sound deep and meaningful to uninitiated ear

I'm going to cite this as the first example of your need to separate yourself as different or better than some invisible sector of society . So you obviously see yourself as 'initiated'.

Quote:

When Karl Landsteiner was born there was every chance that he may become Hitler, a tv entertainer, a shoemaker or die when still an infant. What Karl Landsteiner became was a direct result of his decisions as well as external conditions. He tried to learn about biology and become a physician.

And yet determinism would argue otherwise. It’s impossible to argue that you got to where you are because of decisions you made.

Quote:

this intellectual discovered blood types and a s a result have saved according to estimates about 1 billion lives.

So anyone vaguely scientific is an intellectual? We're arguing on different definitions of what it means then. To me it's not to do with education or interests. It's entirely to do with how someone chooses to understand the world and where they choose to seek their worth from and how they choose to separate themselves from others. By deeming yourself or others as intellectual you're automatically separating, once again, an invisible sector of society as being not intellectual. I would not describe every scientist or 'thinker' as an intellectual. Necessarily. I value intelligence (and everyone has it) not intellectualism which is just glorified hot air.

Quote:

He, like everybody else, had the potential to become someone like Hitler. He steered his life in another direction and saved millions of lives through his discoveries. Landsteiner over Hitler: I'd call that improvement.

Once again in Hitler's (and Nazi’s) eyes the removal of Jews would be an improvement. If there was some globally accepted terms of morality, culture and life purpose then you might have some leg to stand on here but that doesn't exist in reality - only in philosophy. The country I live in was founded on the massacre and marginalisation of a race who had been here for what is believed to be approx 70000 years. The invasion of this land only happened less than 300 years ago. Now most people would agree that that was a pretty horrific and destructive thing to happen, however, if it had not happened then I would not exist. Most of the people I know and love would not exist. So through horrific circumstances something else was able to happen. Many Aboriginal people still see the society we have and the 'advances' we claim (including medical ones) as being abhorrent. But a lot of westerners see improvement. Why? Because improvement is entirely relative. Many people still see the abolishment of society and a move to a simpler existence as we once were - living off the land - as an improvement from our ‘schizophrenic’ way of living right now. And others would see that as going backward. This all seems to me to indicate that improvement - both personal and societal - is relative.

Quote:

Your objection will be what I'm going to address next and that is:

I think my objection was different in the end.

Quote:

They will become dust so what? Try telling that to people who are trying to set a record in Fruit Ninja. It doesn't make any difference. You can't take someone's all life experience and say that it cannot be any different no matter what you do.

Now this is where you're misunderstanding or misrepresenting my position. I never said your life experience can't be different based on your choices. Of course it can be different but we don't measure 'difference' the same way we measure 'improvement'. It's not on a scale seen as positive on one end and negative on the other. It's often with judgement removed. 'Different' is just an observation of changed state - not a comment on the value in something increasing or decreasing.

Quote:

How do you determine that Van Gogh's life was not better because of all the beautiful works he did. You can't base your ideas based on observations inside people's brains.

It probably was, I’d say it certainly was. But his choice to make them was clearly not based upon how much they would impact society at large (which is why I used him as an example) – which is what you seemed to be basing your argument on initially. He painted to paint – he had no vision of success in mind. He clearly wanted to hone his skills as he got older but that again is a skill being improved not a person. Was Van Gogh a better person when he could paint better? I don’t believe so. I admittedly am not sure what you’re getting at with the second sentence.

Quote:

You can't go there and the minute you (Osho) base your shallow ideas on that ground I'm gonna call bullshit.

I need to make it abundantly clear here that my words were merely an interpretation of Osho’s and not necessarily exactly what he means. My views don’t represent his and his not mine but you can keep trying to represent me as some mindless follower if you like.

Quote:

Also when you don't address the logical conclusions that arise from your propositions then I'm gonna call double bullshit. If you say "all these things that may be seen as 'improvement'" don't "improve" your life and that "it doesn't matter", what one logical continuation might be is that "What Landsteiner did, didn't improve his life experience compared to that of Hitler because in both cases it doesn't matter. See how much bullshit that is?

I’m not sure if you’re confused here or I am but I’m starting to lose your point. We may be arguing 2 different ideas here. What Osho was arguing was merely that the pursuit of fighting to become some idea of someone you’re not is futile. If you follow the logical continuation, from the idea that you seem to agree with, that everyone is inherently equally valued then this idea of improvement of yourself becomes impossible. As soon as the idea of improvement comes into the equation it becomes a competition between humans – something that generally creates more ugliness than beauty in my opinion. The idea of ‘betterment’ creates a hierarchy of superiority and inferiority and once again there is no global criteria of what that betterment looks like. In some societies that betterment is more wealth in others more beauty in others more knowledge in others good deeds and in others fulfilment of religious duty and so on. The removal of the idea of improving yourself does not mean you become stagnant and stop doing anything or experiencing life – in fact it actually becomes (subjectively) sweeter (I’m aware this is entirely anecdotal evidence only based upon my experience – but then that’s most of what we’re arguing here) and it certainly doesn’t mean you stop wanting to do things to help others (in fact as I tried to illustrate with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs it actually tends to lead towards a selflessness). However I do think a lot of our disagreement here probably comes from the difference in a perspective on nature vs nurture.

Quote:

A more important criticism though is that who gives a shit? You bring Landsteiner and Hitler to a meeting and they're both dying and you tell them both that what they did with their life in the name of improvement or purpose doesn't matter to their actual life. Do you know what they both will say? They will be like "Who gives a shit?" I think Landsteiner would be completely justified in not giving a shit that the fact that he saved millions means that he lost many opportunities of enjoying his summers in spa resorts.

This is a pretty pointless hypothetical .

Quote:

Okay; there's so much wrong here that I can't decide which one I should make bold. This Mr. Osho and consequentially you are making a huge confusion between improvement and achievement on one side and inherent value on another side.

What?? You’re confusing the issue and then attributing said confusion to Osho’s quote? I will once again break down my interpretation of the original quote you brought up and hopefully you can work out what it is that's not making sense: “Drop the idea of becoming someone, because you are already a masterpiece. You cannot be improved. You have only to come to it, to know it, to realize it.” Not once does he say drop the idea of doing acts you perceive as good – which is what your very first snarky uninformed post was attempting to allude to. He is merely saying forget the idea that you can make your self, your being, better than it already is and always has been.
The idea that someone would do good works or discover something game changing merely because they think it will make them a better person is not only a little grotesque it’s also highly unlikely that they’re going to do so since they would be so caught up in their perception of themselves. However I admit there is no way you or I can prove the true motives behind that laundry list of innovators you supplied.

Quote:

This is a trivial point to see but it makes a lot of difference (one reason people like Osho talk shit about so-called intellectuals is that intellectuals are some time intelligent people who can sniff bullshit from a hundred miles.

Aside from his disdain for those he considered ‘intellectuals’ (meaning merely those who chose to understand the universe from an always aging knowledge base as opposed to experiencing the ever changing world) from most people he himself would probably be considered an intellectual since he lectured in philosophy. Once again you position yourself as a bullshit sniffer and yet you continue to throw out bullshit –like comparing something as subjective as the concept of improving the self to 2+2=4. I’m starting to get the feeling that you brought up this quote merely because you identify yourself as an intellectual and were offended by the other quote I posted.

Quote:

Hitler achieved killing 6 million people and Landsteiner achieved discovery of Blood Groups. Now we have standards to determine which achievement is better.

And there is every possibility that we could have been living in a world where Hitler won and our standards would reflect an entirely different set of criteria. This is where I find the biggest flaw in your argument because any idea of a set of standards that apply objectively will always crumble when subjected to hard logic. Each society has had different sets of standards as long as they could communicate and they have constantly changed which is why trying to argue that they exist is like arguing that any social construct actually exists. The death penalty, for instance, once upon a time would have been seen as an inarguable and a reasonable solution and regular standard and yet now a very large percent of people question it.

Quote:

Landsteiner's achievement fulfilled his evolutionary urges and as a by-product saved millions of lives. Now when he dies all the pride and evolutionary urge that he had will be buried with him. Was the world better off with him busting his ass to discover that? Yes. Was he better off doing that? Yes. Is it an achievement? Yes. Is it an improvement over a possible scenario that Landsteiner died when he was 7? Yes. Would his life be of less value if he died when he was 7? No. Because value and improvement are two very different stuff.

So are you disagreeing that a lot of people don’t entangle the ideas of value and improvement and even see a correlation between the two? If not about other people than certainly about themselves. They believe that when they achieve something they are a better person for it and their worth and value is dependent on it and so when they fail they destroy themselves. This is the foolishness that Osho is speaking of, I believe. He is not talking about the way society views your actions – that is entirely irrelevant – he is purely talking about how you perceive your achievements and if you base your self worth on becoming an ideal of something that does not exist. Once again you entangled the idea of good deeds and that equating to self improvement in the quote.

Quote:

Without depression, yearning for betterment and mental problems this world would be a much worse world because those stuff are the spurs that run human creativity and inventiveness.

Absolutely not. From my own experience when I was depressed I was entirely unproductive. I have done more creative work and completed more since I have become happier and more accepting of myself as I am – and more accepting of the world as well. Not productive in the hopes of becoming someone better – because that’s an illusory concept - but productive because I enjoy making the things I make and doing the things I do.

Quote:

Now you might see people who are depressed because they didn't get better SAT results and ended up in worse college and you may say to yourself that's not needed. Well yes, I'd like for that person not to be depressed. But many of his peers were anxious that they may end up like that (for whatever reason, some more selfish than others) and tried more and suffered more to get better results. Some of these guys are probably very interested in what they do and want to get better at it so they try more and get into MIT. There they can work in better environment that may help them realize their ideas and they may come up with this idea of WWW. That improves the world and that is the route they choose for their life to achieve sth that they set out for because that's what is in their genes.

And then some of those people look back on their life wondering they really lived it or whether they spent their whole time trying to become somebody. See I can produce irrelevant and unhelpful hypotheticals too. As for the WWW making the world better – there are always arguments as to why it’s done just the opposite of that once again negating this idea of objective improvement.

Quote:

Now if this Mr. Osho wants people to transcend their genes and at the same time for humanity to improve then he should come up with better bullshit than this.

Hey, it’s not for you – that’s cool. But you should know that all of his teachings are based in Buddha’s just modernised (well as far as the 70s and 80s) for the modern man. Not just bullshit he pulled out of his ass.

So I guess at this point we still think each other is spouting bullshit :/

Quote:

5am??? Sleepless night huh? Didn't I tell you not try too hard and let it go sometimes.

Heh, it was only an hour before that we started this discussion so don’t flatter yourself. As for the rest of your post I think Sp4cetiger confronted it much better than I would have so I won’t bother with that part since I’ve written so many words already. But yeah accusing others of dogmatism whilst saying that seeing the world in any other way but the way you see it as delusion is pretty strange.

I'm certain my point got jumbled up in that jungle of words but I will once again repeat that I don't think I know the answer with 100% certainty. And as everything constantly changes my perspective on this matter developed whilst I was arguing it - so once again thanks for bringing it up out of the blue. I'll also clarify that I don't agree with everything Osho says and as much as you tried to cheaply paint me as some kind of mindless fanatic in your post that's just not accurate. I simply like how he articulates certain things - that's why I quoted him in my earlier post and have cited him as an influence before (as there are many influences on my life). Also I'm not sure If I'd even respond to a response from you on this (if you could even be bothered Laughing

- I know I had to force myself to respond to yours). Not because I don't respect you but merely given how we've argued so far I see it going pretty cyclical and ultimately nowhere given how strong our views on it are and the fact that I see all societal constructs as subjective and ultimately 'meaningless' is not going to change any time soon.

Gigantic

Location: [color=green]Christmas Island[/color]

I just wanna say Godwin's Law and now I'm gone.
_________________
~❅ ❄ ❆ hµM△₪ FESTIVE †®å§h ❆ ❄ ❅~

add me on FESTIVE msn messanger

festive signature! ho ho ho!

⛄⛄⛄

Muslim-Bigfoot

Gender: Male
Age: 33
Location: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch

Hey I read your posts but like you say responding wouldn't be wise because we can get caught in a catch-22 situation where I respond and it's longer than your response and you respond and it's longer and so on. Just wanted to say that when I use words like "bullshit", "stupid", "idiot" it's mostly exclusively in debate-like atmospheres where I use rhetorical language. They're just more interesting ways of trying to say that my opinion is true and yours is false.

Also the funny thing is that I have no opinions about the stuff I wrote. I can't make up my mind that easily but it doesn't mean when I start arguing sth I'm not gonna go all the way. For example about the objectivity stuff; I really don't have an opinion. My mind is in blank state when I think about that kind of stuff. I try to figure it out sometimes but it doesn't get anywhere.

Also I think someone of your opinions about human nature shouldn't get offended because of the stuff that are said about your opinions. One of the few opinions I have that I take as a kind of principle is that opinions are not a part of personality so by saying anything about them one cannot insult the person that has them.

Also about intellectual thing maybe I'm wrong but I consider every academic an intellectual. I, like everyone else, have pet peeves and one of them is spiritual leaders so my first post was just a jab at that. The other stuff that ensue were just attempts at rationalizing my initial jab but I'd like you to know that I'm one of the most uncertain people in the world. I really find it difficult to have firm opinions about anything. Maybe it's my fault, but I see arguments as game-like situations where I can just work under the new terms as a new person somehow. Whatever. I'm just trying to say no hard feelings.

P.S. Godwin's law is about comparing people to Nazis to silence opposition. Using extreme stuff (Holocaust, Nazis) in examples is a very different thing and is meant to put the spotlight on the bare point of the example (cf. Ideal Gas, Ideal Lever, Turing Machine).
_________________
"I feel like for the last two years there’s been sort of a sonic evolution happening and I’ve been experimenting more and more."

Wombi

Definitely no hard feelings, man. I agree with what you said about opinions not being part of personality. The rhetoric of my post was much more full of fury than I actually felt. Probably for the same reason as you - If I'm going to argue something I'll go all out. And I totally understand your feelings about 'spiritual leaders'.

Mies

I think the last question would be: could be there some objective principle regarding the human experience?
That is a complex question which I have no answer for.
Anyway, I agree with Jhereko that the idea of "improvement" is subjective, but I don't like either the message coming from the initial Osho's quote which started all this. If that's about accecting ourselves, I'm all for that, but put down like that sounds more like an attempt to remove all ambitions from us.
I mean, I can be pretty satisfied of what I am now, but still it would be a good thing to be someone better in future, and try that. Now you can say the idea of "good" or "better" is subjective, and i'll say yes, it's subjective, still it would be ok if i'd like to improve myself for the idea of "improvement" I have myself. Until that doesn't break other people's freedom or make other people extraordinarily uncomfortable (see holocaust). (You can argue that some religions don't even allow blood transfusion, f.e., so that'd be bad for them, but it's ok, since they have the right to not do them, so it doesn't apply to them directly.)
Also, I hate competition, too, but I disagree that it always leads to bad things, like put us one against each other... it depends on how you take it. I've seen many people doing things helped by competitions, and being satisfied of those things and even more satisfied with themselves, and without feeling really against someone, and without really hurting anyone.

Ps: Sorry for keeping this alive but i liked very much the discussion and wanted to say my opinion. You can ignore my post if you are so tired of this. Laughing

Applerill
Autistic Princess <3

Gender: Female
Age: 30
Location: Chicago

Hey guys, I don't mean to revive this super-long thread, but I saw an interesting article today that could bring up some discussion here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertain...story.html
TLDR: Poptimism apparently creates its own closed-off echo chamber by silencing people that don't like 1989 or Beyonce's new album.

This article has a lot of good points, but I think it's not as much poptimism "going too far" as it is not going far enough. If we're only embracing these critical darlings in pop while ignoring the Pitbulls and Jason Derulos and Avril Lavigne's, we really are just putting makeup on rockism.

The new Taylor Swift album is a great example. It's great that all these hipsters are finally appreciating T-Swizzle (though for one of her weaker albums IMO), but it really saddens me how her new fans still balk at her early work. It's like they can only appreciate pop music if it's "cool" and fashionable.

Satie

i agree. i always saw poptimism as a line of defense against the haters for weird anime theme song fodder; off-beat, unsexy synth pop; bedroom folk made by people who don't write lyrics like Rivers Cuomo; auto-tune jacked rappers; etc., not as some kind of self-righteous defense of agreement with Billboard once in awhile