Palin Agonistes 13.1: …seeping from the mouth of madness…

Rather than dwell on the obvious truth that inconsequentiality tends to breed inconsequentiality, I rationalized that my fascination with the aforementioned revelations by focusing my thoughts on two salient points:

            1.) Who, in their right mind (pardon the vernacular) wants to hear the thoughts of a 19 year-old?

            2.) Who is the greater criminal: the speaker who demands exorbitant fees for broadcasting treacle or the event organizers who willingly meet said demand?

While neither of the questions have easy answers, heuristic inquiry reveals a particularly frightening image: we are devolving as a nation at a rate that resembles the hitherto allusion to the late Roman Empire. It has been written that England in the 17^th and 18^th centuries played Greece to the United States’ Rome of the 19^th and 20^th. The elephant in the corner quotes Louis XV as regards the present state of our culture: Après moi, le déluge.

A popular television show (even I have my occasional vices) once made the claim that teenagers are essentially indistinguishable from sociopaths. While I am willing to concede that some 19 year-olds throughout history have accomplished amazing feats and evinced unmistakable signs of greatness at so young an age, these examples are either few and far between or inflated to the realm of hyperbole. Nevertheless, perhaps a comparison of achievements is in order:

1.) At the age of 19, Dr. Balamurali Ambati had completed an ophthalmology residency at Harvard University. At the age of 19, Bristol Palin had carried a child to term.

2.) At the age of 19, C. F. Gauss had invented modular arithmetic and claimed the first proof of quadriatic reciprocity. At the age of 19, Bristol Palin had been a high school graduate for over a year.

3.) At the age of 19, Georges Bizet Had won the Prix-de-Rome for musical composition. At the age of 19, Bristol Palin is still related to Sarah Palin.

One tends to doubt that any of the three contrasting examples were able to garner $30,000 to talk about their “outlook on life” for an hour. Ironically, I would have actually paid to hear any of the three speak.

As to the second point, it must be made clear that I take no issue with the generalized concept of a capitalist economy: if someone names a price for their good or service, that is their decision; if I choose not to meet their price, the decision is mine alone. My incredulity towards the Palin situation stems from the perceived value of the service being provided. To be honest, this is an exceptionally rare situation in which I find myself: to view things from a value-derived sense of labor equity smacks of Marxism in all its profanely imagined glory. As such, I tend to question pricing only when the number itself sets off an internal warning beacon. For example, consider the following pricings that would turn my head in awe:

1.) $600 dollars for a pair of sunglasses.

2.) Greater than $1.25 for two tickets to a Broadway musical.

3.) $30,000 for an hour of Bristol Palin speaking.

Palin Agonistes 13.0: An ideologically bereft political landscape…

I readily admit that years of disdaining the political process have left me absent of any inclination towards engagement; quite to the contrary, I typically view those who describe themselves as “political junkies” as little more intelligent than the average toaster-oven and far less useful. During the latest Presidential campaign, I found myself uninterested in the process itself (being thoroughly disgusted by both candidates), but singularly amused by the sheer vehemence with which partisan affiliates of both major parties would attack the opposite candidate (note that I specifically did not say they would defend “their” candidate with same assiduousness).

As I tried to discern the rationale for these words and actions, I arrived at a conclusion: people attacked other candidates because they could not find much of anything tangibly positive as regards their choice of charlatan. This of course begs another question: to what end did they select a candidate to champion in the first place? The easiest answer is fairly obvious: most people are morons. I confess that this was my initial assumption. To back this assertion, I offer the following quotes regarding politics in the 21^st century:

            1.) “I don’t know anything about politics, but I know I hate George W. Bush!”

            2.) “The liberal Dems are responsible for everything that has gone wrong in this country for the past fifty years. Wake up, America!

            3.) “It’s a fact that all Repukes hate Black people.”

            4.) “Liberal commies won’t be happy until we’re all gay!”

Suffice it to say, I have rarely had to back down from said initial assumption. Yet, if it is neither an affinity for a given political figure nor an intellectual imperative for the average person to engage in the politics of the day, we are left inquiring as to what constitutes the draw and fascination.  

Today I learned the answer: pure spectacle. I suppose the parallel between the United States and Rome around the year 400 CE is fairly obvious. I arrived at this particular conclusion after careful consideration of the past several months. Admittedly, today’s discovery was the ne plus ultra of confirmatory indications. It appears that a 19 year-old single mother who graduated high school last year and is currently locked in an ugly custody battle while pursuing her career as a medical receptionist has decided on a new line of work: she wil become a public speaker (I refuse to use the ‘orator’), embracing such topics as “abstinence, her parenting approach, and her outlook on life, while collecting fees ranging from 15,000 to 30,000 dollars (depending on how much “prep work” is needed).

Granted, her public profile assists her bargaining position; after all, she has the fortune (?) to be related by birth to a likewise inexplicably famous person. The young lady in question is none other than Bristol Palin. Before the slings and arrows of outrageous political indignation bare their capped fangs (the mixed metaphor is duly noted), allow me to state for the record that I am entirely ambivalent as concerns Maitre Sarah Palin: I find her neither more nor less disappointing than the average person. Likewise, I do not feel she is any more or less qualified for a position of political leadership than the typical view-skewed, unprincipled, semi-literate, nominally bearable rake who passes him/herself off as a “viable candidate.” Idiocy knows neither cultural nor political bounds.

The critical function 12.2: To reach an understanding…

On the darker side of the house, the critical snob typically possesses neither taste nor a discriminating ear, but more than his or her fair share of ill-informed opinions. This type of critic is not in the business of “guiding the listener;” instead, the sole object of interest is the degradation of his or her artistic superiors. For this critic, no recording (for example) is ever quite clean enough, no artist talented enough, no conductor of sufficient standing to penetrate the hazy ether of his or her personal predilections. He or she will rarely elucidate the criteria by which art is judged, but will simply assume that everyone who knows anything about the particular genre is of like opinion. While somewhat more menacing than the good shepherd mentioned earlier, the gaseous eructation of these second-rate minds is usually easy to dismiss as a worthless torrent of catch-phrases and buzzwords designed to fog the brain and obscure any dissent.

The existence of persons engaged in critical function usage as a means of delineating aesthetic boundaries is troublesome in and of itself: how can so nebular a set of metrics be convincingly defined by non-specialists? Likewise, given the propensity of new listeners to follow the “advice” of those professionally employed by the classical music industry, is it not reasonable to ask critics that they make specific note of the variety of tastes involved in aesthetic judgment while maintaining personal objectivity? Granted, this is not an easy undertaking, but examples exist in the critical literature. In some cases, writers have specifically noted the variance in interpretive approaches and commented no further on the subject (i.e. “his dynamic coloring was rather static as may or may not befit the character of the movement…”). I suppose it could be argued that the function of a critic is to serve as a knowing guide through the rarefied landscape of fine art; I prefer to believe that human beings, left to their own devices and natural curiosity, will arrive at an informed decision as concerns personal taste at some point. While this sentiment may be somewhat outside the realm of my normally cynical viewpoints, it leads to a greater question: how does one define “great” art? Unfortunately, that question will have to wait until the next middle-of-the-night posting…

Borrowing a page from Mr. Gump (whose unique philosophy and fractured take on contemporary social paradigms have formed the greater part of my present Weltanschauung), allow me to posit that “music is as music does;” it requires neither a self-appointed guide nor a written critique. The aural pleasure derived from sensory immersion in a new world of sound and thought needs only an inquisitive spirit and an open mind; absent these key ingredients, the nonsensical banter of half-hearted aesthetes is nothing more than empty chatter with which to fill the void in between Facebook updates and “tweets.” Our critical faculties may require development and careful application, yet they are a uniquely definable personal trait; to argue that they are totally meaningless without the addition of authoritative opinion (I shudder when I realize the syntactical implications of the phrase) is to deny our humanity on the grounds of insufficient independent confirmation.

The critical function 12.1: A matter of taste?

Cliburn and Konrashin manage this in a manner that will likely never be equaled. While I put little stock in public perceptions of art, the fact that this album was the first to record sales that put it firmly into the category of platinum albums (triple platinum, as of this writing) leads me to a horrifying conclusion: the public got it right and the “professional” missed the mark. As if this were not galling enough to an afficianodo’s sense of propriety, the basic elements of critical aesthetic judgment were lacking: decrying the amazing representation of everything anyone who has made the least effort to understand the composer would quantify as essential to a true representative effort, the review instead refers the reader to Stephen Hough’s lamentably popular recording: taking the tempos much too fast for his technical abilities, it is an exercise in a slipshod, solely virtuosic take on a concerto that has quite a bit more depth than is commonly acknowledged. Ironically, the review notes that Hough’s playing is preferable because it “has the quality of flowing water;” exactly: it is an undisciplined mess of fluid with little drive or point.

Jan Sibelius, who was a victim of more than his share of scathing critical reviews, once wrote to a critic that he was “sitting in the smallest room of (his) house with the review in front of (him), but it would soon be behind (him).” One word: touché. It does beg the question, however, why so universally acknowledge a composer would deign to respond to the nonsensical ravings of arbitrarily designated artistic guru. While one is tempted to cynically assert that critics are the organic phenomenon that occurs when an erstwhile aspiring musician fails to make a impact (thus he or she then searches for some other means of connecting with an audience), I believe that the reality behind their existence is much darker. The critic essentially appears in one of two forms: benevolent, patronizing snob or haughty, self-inflated snob; for the life of me, I cannot decide which type is more insidious.

The “good-natured” variety is invariably an insufferable bore: the shallow-read pseudo-intellect whose appearance at dinner parties is cause for indigestion. We have all met the type; having read a book or two on a given subject, he or she assumes “expert” status and loudly trumpets such a dubious achievement by the spouting of irrelevant facts or correcting the minor flaws in the commentary of others. Do you have the image of such a person in mind? Now apply it to the musical world: the critic acts as a sort of older brother figure who feels charged with explaining to you what’s “cool” and what isn’t. Unfortunately, as music is an extremely subjective art-form, this type of assistance is rarely warranted. In truth, for novice listeners, it can provide lasting damage in that it presents the world of classical music as inordinately complex with multiple rules and customs one must “learn” before being admitted into the inner sanctum. The patronizing critic, however well meaning, is nonetheless a pedantic busybody whose attempts to “improve” the listening audience quite often have the very opposite effect. Perhaps a walk on the “wild side” is merited…

The critical function 12.0: Inane ramblings do not equal insight.

Having presently finished reading a review of Van Cliburn’s recording of the Tchaikovsky 1^st piano concerto, I was struck by a singular thought: the writer of this tripe is possessed of an inadequate ear whose ineffable lack of insight is matched only by the sheer magnitude of the writer’s inconsequentiality. The review was not only misguided, it suffered from both a dearth of musical comprehension and a plethora of pithy remarks used to convey a false sense of authority. While I recognize that the reviewer (who shall remain nameless as his recognition is solely predicated on familiarity and I have no intention of furthering his cause) is English, which (in the musical world, at least) tends to lead to a false sense of entitlement despite the appalling lack, relatively speaking, of worthwhile native musicians, I was dumbfounded by the sheer assumed precociousness of his tone.

By what authority does this gentleman speak? Is he a famed pianist searching for a bit of extra income? Perhaps an out-of-work composer who is trying to make ends meet by any means (no matter how base) necessary? He is simply a man whose opinion has been artificially inflated to the point of universally assumed cognizance as regards a subject with which he has an admittedly deep association yet little to true understanding thereof. To what end, then, is the point of his employment: to guide wary listeners through a sea of classical music recordings such that they may experience the best available? Or, lacking the ability to produce a work of art himself, to denigrate the efforts of others? I suspect the latter bears much more truth than the former; one is tempted to think of the vociferous parents whose frustrated dreams are projected onto their children in some ridiculous pursuit of  a perfected past that neither existed nor was plausible at the time.

To comment on the review in particular, his words revealed the same sort of xenophobic ignorance that appears to be rather typical of any given critic: as good as a performance might have been, it was nonetheless done by a foreigner, and thus not up to par. While I recognize that this may seem slightly ingratiating considering Van Cliburn and I share a national identity that differs from the reviewer, it is necessary to note that I consider the performance to be “one for the ages” in large part due to the happy talents of the conductor, Kirill Konrashin (a Russian national). His ability to extract the maximum amount of emotional content from his players is estimable; this particular concerto is over-wrought, anxious, inappropriately exuberant, irreverent, and exasperating. In a word, it is the distilled essence of Tchaikovsky; to understand this work is to understand the composer. More to follow…

Rampant apophenia in contemporary discourse 11.2: Parry of the rationals…

A few key traits of apophenic arguments…

1.) Non-sequiturs: These are rather easy to identify, but the weight given to them is what may be used to distinguish the truly apophenic argument/opinion from a mild logical mistake. Rather than an awkward bump in the road to logical illumination, said non-sequiturs are used to “prove” the validity of the opinion- usually accompanied by a knowing smile and a sagacious nod.

2.) A priori suppositions: these are presented in a pathetic attempt at attacking the baseline knowledge of the listener. Assuming that their opinion represents transcendental truth known to all intelligent persons, empirical evidence is thus not required. When pressed, however, the user will typically respond with random factoids. While this is obviously inimical to the definition of a priori knowledge, the very attempt at inclusion proves the inefficacy of the speaker.

3.) Specious numerical validation: Perhaps the very essence of an apophenic argument, the use of numbers and statistics is a dicey proposition at best. As mentioned in earlier posts, numerical data is appropriate only when the source is verifiable. Likewise, the application of these values is normally flawed in the apophenic argument.

An example…

Snob: President X is quite obviously the best president we’ve had in one hundred years! (random opinion tossed into the wind for public consumption)

Elitist: That seems rather presumptive- he’s only been in office for two years.

Snob: Well, the world sees us as a new nation, you know? (Non-sequitur)

Elitist: What does that have to do with your statement that he’s the best president we’ve had in the past one hundred years?

Snob: Look, any intelligent person knows that the improvements and changes he’s made have had a significant impact on the quality of life in this country. (A priori supposition)

Elitist: What are the specific changes and improvements to which you refer? More to the point, what empirical data do you have to support your contention- or I am to such a nebulous statement obviously devoid of data as a universal truth?

Snob: Well, his current approval rating is 52%. (Specious numerical validation)

Elitist: Therefore, based on the fact that slightly more than half of the minute fraction of the population who had nothing better to do during random times of the day than respond to an obnoxious telephone have indicated that they are “generally pleased” with the president’s “performance,” you have deduced that he is therefore “quite obviously the best president we’ve had in one hundred years.” Is that your contention?

Snob: Well, er, everybody knows…

Elitist: I see. Please go away.

It is essential to remember that a typical snob is concerned only with socially validated opinion (note that this validation is conferred by whatever cognoscenti sub-group to which her or she belongs) rather than the truly rational. Recognizing this mental feebleness is merely the beginning; a categorical imperative for any Elitist worth his or her Bordeaux is to give such an opinion exactly the amount of respect it so richly deserves: none whatsoever.

Rampant apophenia in contemporary discourse 11.1: Attack of the insensates…

Having noted the snob’s reluctance to defer to others (save the currently acceptable icon of intellect- typically a burned-out activist type who has published some “challenging” novels…whatever that means), he or she will resort to any method, no matter how base or irrational to defend his or her assertions. In this area, a snob has a distinct advantage over an elitist: he or she has most likely developed several rationalizations (one hesitates to besmirch the word for just this sort of confrontation. While the speaker may attempt to affect a patronizing tone and revert to the standard sobriquets (well, I think you’re over-simplifying the issue here or I think you’re being a bit naïve) when engaging a listener of dubious intellect, this approach is rarely used vis-à-vis a confirmed elitist. Hazarding an educated guess, perhaps this tendency stems from the visceral feeling as to exactly how an elitist would respond to such provocations: a small smile and a serene expression that serve to confirm victory without a single word uttered.

To return to the central issue at hand, the snob will edge towards apophenia in order to provide the “logical” foundations of his or her opinions. Unfortunately, this is a tendency that the typical elitist will find intolerable; given that one of the standard aforementioned principles is that of logical rigor and rational derivation, the reaction is quite understandable. Having noted that the speaker is on less-than-sure intellectual footing, yet making an odious attempt to appear quite to the contrary, an attack is normally imminent.

Apophenia is best defined as the predilection for drawing conclusions based on random or meaningless data. In the view of the present author, its use is more damning than ad hominem attacks or straw-man employment: rather than make an appearance as the fallback position of the weak-minded, its usage implies that the speaker finds the listener sufficiently dim-witted as to swallow such tripe without comment. Apophenia is therefore logically fallacious (thereby negating its place in meaningful discourse) and personally insulting. As such, it deserves no quarter; neither does its user.

How, then, to recognize an apophenic argument and then parry it in such a manner as to reduce its user to a gibbering mass of inadequacy? I shall provide a few key traits of such an argument, and then present a hypothetical exchange that utilizes said characteristics, replete with the appropriate responses…in the next installment…

Rampant apophenia in contemporary discourse 11.0: Reality held in abeyance…

Whereas the hoi polloi may evidence “pet peeves,” the true elitist is at his or her vituperative best when a deeply held principle has been violated. Unfortunately (for the recipients of the ensuing stream of abuse), the typical elitist has a veritable plethora of non-elucidated principles. One of the darker alleys in which to meet the enlightened few is that of the “informed opinion.” As I have written on this subject in previous installments, I see no reason to affect the reprint of a lengthy diatribe. Suffice it to say, there are entirely too many opinions out there, trumpeted loudly by the minstrels of idiocy to an otherwise tone-deaf audience. There is a specific occurrence in these brief interludes of idiocy, however, that I find particularly vile: apophenia.

A slight digression is needed at this point. As further evidence of the intellectual chasm that separates the elitist from the snob, it is useful to consider how each views the concept of personal opinion: while the elitist will accept any opinion that is proffered with strong reasoning and a solid foundation of logic, the snob merely concerns himself with whether or not the opinion is “right” in accordance with the current vogue. As a result, the most belligerent clashes of opinion often occur between the two; what the elitist values in the intellectual prowess of a given speaker is typically ignored by the snob, in favor of the degree of concentricity with their personal pop-culture hero.

To be fair, I take no issue with the unspoken opinions of others; however, if one airs said opinion it becomes part of the public realm. I suppose my question to those who feel hurt and abused when their opinions are attacked (no matter how gently) would be: why did you open your mouth? If one has no intention of drawing commentary, then two what end is opinion-based oratory? If it’s “just something you needed to get off (your) chest,” then please do not be surprised when I appear to be ignoring you. Absent some sort of emotional connection between the two of us, I find no social contract requiring that I reply to words merely tossed in the air without due regard.

Granted, the masses tend to defend their opinions only so far as the limits of their underlying knowledge take them. At such a point, the conversation typically devolves into pat phrases such as well, that’s just my opinion and everyone’s opinion counts (I have addressed the obvious fallacies of this statement in earlier installments). The snob never genuflects in such a manner- to do so would imply that other opinions are valid as well, regardless of their deviation from the “approved” opinion.

More to follow…

Of words and speakers 10.2: Part three.

        The comedian Dennis Leary provided a successful riposte to the charge that his generation was media-obsessed: “We watched Lee Harvey Oswald get shot, live on national television- we were afraid to change the channel for the next thirty years.” While the sad events in Dallas do not excuse the continued unchecked excesses of what passes for contemporary journalism, they nevertheless give a frame of reference. With said method of reaching the many, the few aired their consciences and thrust their beliefs on the unwitting many. While some expressed themselves with colorful (to say the least) language and wild accusations, others appeared in a much more seductive form: rational, well-spoken, and confident to a point only mildly short of self-righteous.

        Regardless of its origin, the net effect was simple: it was no longer sufficient to be endowed with a natural right to one’s opinion; a medium for self-expression became a derived right. As a matter of note, the present author is neither against the self-expression of others nor the proper role of the media. Unfortunately, the combination of an ignorant populace and an instilled sense of false entitlement has lead directly to the present deplorable condition of contemporary society. The “evening news,” long a stalwart of untainted information presented for the digestion of an informed and educated public, has devolved into a mix of canned banalities and “human interest” vignettes. As an example, one need only consider the effects of a major speech by a political figure: how much time is devoted to reporting on what was said vice the reaction to the speech by either an analyst (one uses the term loosely) or an average citizen (which roughly translates as whomever the field reporter found most provocative or most in line with his or her opinion).

        It is little wonder, therefore, that the public finds itself bereft of hard information, finding in its stead a soft, overly massaged reaction to events. Absent a healthy dose of skepticism, yet replete with an almost child-like sense of curiosity, the “informed” viewer now takes to the cyber-sphere, ready to astound the forums with their new-found erudition. Finding similarly ill-equipped fellow posters, the misshapen information is further melded through the bickering and insults of second-rate minds into an amorphous blob of half-truth, conjecture, and opinion. The scant few hard facts of the initial issue are usually buried by the time a score or two of people have posted; left to their own devices, these threads typically spiral into political discussion, the gist of which seems to insults leveled at “repukes” or “dumb-o-crats.”

        If this were simply the end of it, it would bode ill on its own. However, a much more nefarious result may be noted: the legacy of a people inundated with “information” yet precious little ability to filter it into manageable portions or process it on more than the most superficial of levels. These are the men and women of the 21^st century. They are loud, intrusive, illogical, but creative in a certain way: rather than read source documents or bona-fide textbooks, they have derived their sense of history from the internet- and they are determined to share it with others.

Of words and speakers 10.1: Part two…

        At the dawning of the twentieth century, the face of education differed greatly from current models: looked upon in many circles as a luxury, its content was rigorous, its presentation methods coarse (by modern standards), and its results were undeniable. Precious little room was made for questioning either the teacher or the content in the early stages of one’s educational continuum. The rationale for this was elegantly simple: having no knowledge of a subject, how then could one question its validity or applicability? One is tempted to smugly remember the disconsolate wails of fellow students bemoaning the “fact” that algebra was of little use in daily life- and then be taken by surprise in financial arrangements whose terms were clearly spelled out in the impenetrable language of numbers.

         In the upper echelons of learning, the very reverse could be found: convocations of students engaged in fierce battles of intellect with their respective professors, never to be given answers outright, but rather to be led, little by little, to their own arrival at philosophical truth. Such students exited the universities to begin their careers with a bipartite foundation: knowledge and reason. Not only did they know the “facts” of the day, they could arrive at logical conclusions largely on their own when problems arose that were outside of their personal intellectual spheres. Having used the phrase, spheres of intellect could hardly be referenced in the specialist terms so often utilized today. While one may be a doctor of medicine, it was expected that one knew something of the arts, social graces, literature, history, and religion.

         Unfortunately, for reasons both political and social, such broad-based knowledge is rarely encountered. Perhaps a more clear statement could be made: socially-driven politics have destroyed the art of learning for the sake of learning. As a result, the interminable drive towards generalized ignorance has bequeathed a neurotic, over-specialized populace that has learned not to question its own motives- but to question everything else. At the risk of offense, this trend most likely began in the tumultuous decade of the 1960s.

         Recalling his own early education, the present author remembers a statement made by a history teacher that (while generalized and obviously metaphorical) in the year 1969, the United States of America was on the verge of a nervous breakdown. Such a verbal painting surely suffices to represent a nation suffering both domestically and abroad, the reverberations of which were felt worldwide. To mend a few fences, it is necessary to note that many advances were made in the 1960s (the civil rights movement, women’s liberation, space exploration, etc.). However, something changed in the national conscience that has rarely been explained to the satisfaction of many. Suffice to say, the argument could be made that given a measure of social and political tolerance largely absent in previous decades, some of the younger generation (perhaps with the prodding of older fringe elements) turned such largesse into a vehicle for the advancing of radical social change.

         Granted, many of the items on the change agenda (for want of a better phrase) were poorly elucidated and sufficiently vapid to the point of inanity. However, “change” was the mantra of the day (distant echoes of the present, perhaps?). To this end, some form of validation was needed to said demands for alteration of the status quo in order that they reach the ears of those not in the vanguard of the progressives- the so-called silent majority of the era. Without their support (or at least tacit non-intervention), little of the more radical ideas would have ever seen the light of day, let alone still haunt the national conscious nearly half a century later. Therefore, unelected tribunes of “the people” began to bray at the masses through an unprecedented upsurge in media penetration.