... Although it's dirty and usually full of other strange human beings unnatural close to one another, the London Underground is one of my favourite places to be.
It's not just that we are travelling through a magical maze of underground tunnels that tickles my fancy, but there is also something quite homely about a tube train and I often like to think of it as some kind of public sitting room.
It is also the place where I usually feel most rebellious.
I don't know if it's because there is such a strict social code of conduct (don't look at anyone and don't smile or show any kind of emotion) or if it's to do with a kind of paradoxical sense of feeling at home and feeling anonymous at the same time, but I often find myself wanting to do things on underground trains like bop my head or dance to the music I'm listening to, or write subversive messages in free newspapers then leave them on the train for someone else to pick up, or smile and wave to people on the platform as we pull away on the train.
Recently however, my most rebellious behaviour has been sitting on the train without any distractions.
Usually, when I take the underground my immediate response is to either take out my phone and play a game, read a book or compulsively reading the adverts above the seats. (I'm not interested in downloading the latest bollocks we're all meant to be believing in so I decline to pick up the free newspapers unless I want to write said subversive messages.) However, I've made an interesting observation that's made me stop doing this.
A friend of mine posted a meme on Facebook recently about how the brain seems to decide that bedtime is the best time to dissect the meaning of life, write essays or come up with political solutions to the worlds problems. I liked this post and added that I too suffered from this problem as well. It then occurred to me that if people are making memes about this issue then must be a common problem and I wondered whether this was an age old problem or a new one. Then I remembered that lots of friends seemed to be suffering from insomnia at the moment and were reporting about this relentless thinking at night.
The idea suddenly popped into my head that perhaps the brain needs to process information and it is only getting a chance to do this at night - when we;ve stopped distracting ourselves.
We are now in a position where we can constantly be distracted and entertained. Out little computers mean that any spare moment that the brain could have to digest information and, more importantly - problem solve, is now being used up either to gain more information or being distracted with games or 'socialising'.
Our brain just doesn't get a chance to really have a good think. 'I think all the time' I hear you say, but I would argue that there is a profound difference in the endless chatter of the mind to really contemplating and problem solving.
For example, one evening my brain, at about 11pm when I had a 6am start, decided
that this was a great time to start to wonder about the differences
between intelligence, wisdom and knowledge. It was an interesting
question but not something I wanted to think about right there and then so I promised my
brain that we would think about it tomorrow on the train. This seemed
to keep it happy and I fell asleep.
The next day as I sat down on the tube, instead of pulling out my book, I began to think. What is intelligence? What is the difference between intelligence and wisdom? What is the difference between knowledge and wisdom and information? As I deconstructed all these words and concepts my brain got its daily fix of digesting and both of us felt full and satisfied. That night I managed to fall asleep almost instantly.
Whether there is a group of evil people rubbing their hands together in glee, or it's just a result of a primitive species dealing with new and shiny technological advances, unless you're involved in an academic pursuit, we spend a lot of time collecting information but don't seem to spend much time any more really thinking...
Saturday, 27 February 2016
Wednesday, 24 February 2016
24th of February 2016
... This caught my eye on the tube today. I actually stopped and laughed out loud as the thought in my head was 'ha the robot dinosaurs are doing their best to put us off going back to the forest'. I hovered and thought about taking a picture for posterity but then remembered I'd find it online easy peasy, which, as you can see, I did.
My following thought as I wandered down the platform was that, rather than influence any adults, it would more likely effect the younger generations perception of 'the forest', especially those who haven't had much contact with them. Perhaps every generation since we left the forests have had this kind of propaganda (my generation had The Blair Witch Project) to remind them just how safe and cozy we all are in our giant cement/cardboard boxes.
I thought that most people won't even see the film and all they will see are these scary posters telling them that forests are full of scary hands that will drag you down, down into the soil and that that is all that matters and we're subliminally having negative notions implanted into our brain by the system!
Then I though I was thinking too deeply about it and it's most likely just a shit film playing on our natural fear of wild places the make a quick buck.
It a shame though. These kind of ideas along with stupid docu-soaps about groups of people being left to fend for themselves in the woods only to end up eating cold worms and mud, play into Mother Cultures industrilised narrative very well - Go back to sleep, don't worry, progress lies with the robot dinosaurs, you'd never survive without us....
My following thought as I wandered down the platform was that, rather than influence any adults, it would more likely effect the younger generations perception of 'the forest', especially those who haven't had much contact with them. Perhaps every generation since we left the forests have had this kind of propaganda (my generation had The Blair Witch Project) to remind them just how safe and cozy we all are in our giant cement/cardboard boxes.
I thought that most people won't even see the film and all they will see are these scary posters telling them that forests are full of scary hands that will drag you down, down into the soil and that that is all that matters and we're subliminally having negative notions implanted into our brain by the system!
Then I though I was thinking too deeply about it and it's most likely just a shit film playing on our natural fear of wild places the make a quick buck.
It a shame though. These kind of ideas along with stupid docu-soaps about groups of people being left to fend for themselves in the woods only to end up eating cold worms and mud, play into Mother Cultures industrilised narrative very well - Go back to sleep, don't worry, progress lies with the robot dinosaurs, you'd never survive without us....
Monday, 22 February 2016
22nd of February 2016
... I almost forgot...
The biggest thing to come out of the late 2000s truth movement was the fact that our society was, and still is, built on debt.
Of course, this knowledge is centuries old. Since the first bankers reared their ugly heads and offered us tokens in exchange for our gold or loaned out riches they didn't have people have been trying to warn us - especially the 18th century founding fathers of America.
The difference now is that we have the internet. Ideas can spread like wild fire and we have the ability to put two and two together, and watch informative You Tube videos until our eyes crust over. No wonder certain people want to put controls on it.
One cold night in March 2008 I headed to a lecture hall in central London to listen to a guy talk about Money as Debt. In Zeitgeist, The Movie part three talks exclusively about the federal reserve system and how it is owned by a private company, rather than any national governmental body. Apparently our whole economic system is based on debt so that a very few amount of people (that pesky 1%) can make money from the interest, even in the UK. Rumour has it that these private banks actually bought the UK about two hundred years ago after the Napoleonic wars, so this is a pretty big deal.
When we pay our taxes what we're actually paying off is our national debt, which, in the UK very recently reached 1 trillion.
After watching a complicated film that explained the situation we were asked to form groups to discuss the issue further. Put off by small discussion groups I decided to pipe up and suggested that perhaps it would be better to stick to a whole group discussion as there were only about 30 or 40 of us. A woman behind me agreed and so began a great discussion, not only on the issue at hand but also a discussion about all of the confusion and mystery that had exposed itself in the last few years. It felt great to be surrounded by a room full of people who were on the same mission to discover and expose the 'truth'. I can see now why divide and conquer is so vital to keep us small and unsure. When one finds oneself in a group of people who are all thinking and asking the same questions it is truly a powerful experience.
After the discussion I hung around afterwards to hand out some Culture Jammers R Us cards and ended up talking with three other people about what had happened that evening. The person who sticks out in my mind the most was a guy in his late 60's who described himself as a sovereign state. In fact he was so sovereign that he defied social convention by doing huge fart while we were all talking. No one commented; that's how powerful his sovereign state was.
I find it interesting that no one seems to talk very much about the banking system any more. There were a few grumbles about the Royal Bank of Scotland in the UK being bailed out, but apart from that we seem to have shifted our attention back to the theatre of politics rather than the shadows standing in the wings whispering instructions.
A few years ago a great little animation came out that explained the money system very well. If you've got a spare half an hour it's worth a watch...
The biggest thing to come out of the late 2000s truth movement was the fact that our society was, and still is, built on debt.
Of course, this knowledge is centuries old. Since the first bankers reared their ugly heads and offered us tokens in exchange for our gold or loaned out riches they didn't have people have been trying to warn us - especially the 18th century founding fathers of America.
The difference now is that we have the internet. Ideas can spread like wild fire and we have the ability to put two and two together, and watch informative You Tube videos until our eyes crust over. No wonder certain people want to put controls on it.
One cold night in March 2008 I headed to a lecture hall in central London to listen to a guy talk about Money as Debt. In Zeitgeist, The Movie part three talks exclusively about the federal reserve system and how it is owned by a private company, rather than any national governmental body. Apparently our whole economic system is based on debt so that a very few amount of people (that pesky 1%) can make money from the interest, even in the UK. Rumour has it that these private banks actually bought the UK about two hundred years ago after the Napoleonic wars, so this is a pretty big deal.
When we pay our taxes what we're actually paying off is our national debt, which, in the UK very recently reached 1 trillion.
After watching a complicated film that explained the situation we were asked to form groups to discuss the issue further. Put off by small discussion groups I decided to pipe up and suggested that perhaps it would be better to stick to a whole group discussion as there were only about 30 or 40 of us. A woman behind me agreed and so began a great discussion, not only on the issue at hand but also a discussion about all of the confusion and mystery that had exposed itself in the last few years. It felt great to be surrounded by a room full of people who were on the same mission to discover and expose the 'truth'. I can see now why divide and conquer is so vital to keep us small and unsure. When one finds oneself in a group of people who are all thinking and asking the same questions it is truly a powerful experience.
After the discussion I hung around afterwards to hand out some Culture Jammers R Us cards and ended up talking with three other people about what had happened that evening. The person who sticks out in my mind the most was a guy in his late 60's who described himself as a sovereign state. In fact he was so sovereign that he defied social convention by doing huge fart while we were all talking. No one commented; that's how powerful his sovereign state was.
I find it interesting that no one seems to talk very much about the banking system any more. There were a few grumbles about the Royal Bank of Scotland in the UK being bailed out, but apart from that we seem to have shifted our attention back to the theatre of politics rather than the shadows standing in the wings whispering instructions.
A few years ago a great little animation came out that explained the money system very well. If you've got a spare half an hour it's worth a watch...
Sunday, 21 February 2016
21st of February 2016
...One thing that stands out on my 'subvert' is the profound sense of fear.
'Waking up' and realising that there were sinister forces at work, that may or may not be some kind of reptile based shape-shifting alien, was understandably disturbing. Believing that governments, the very people we elect to keep us safe, could allow or even orchestrate full blown terrorist attacks was absolutely terrifying.
Yet... as a good friend pointed out after watching a screening of Zeitgeist: "This is still fear mongering propaganda - it's just for a different cause." She was right. Why does Zeitgeist have a series of flashing images showing traumatic things such as war and dead people at the start of their film? Haven't they read Naomi Kleins 'The Shock Doctrine' that explains traumatic images numb the brain to critical thinking and so are useful to show if you want an audience to take information in unguarded?
Is there ever a reason to use shock inducing traumatic images even if it is for the higher good?
It certainly makes people pay attention - we're hard wired to pay attention to anything that's trying to kill us - but if it also cuts off the critical thinking part of our brain then surely we're not really progressing - just replacing one set of beliefs with another?
At this point cracks started appearing in my unshakable belief that what I was being told was the entire truth, and that perhaps the conspiracy movement was just another way to keep the masses in a state of fear and impotence.
There are some conspiracies, in the true sense of the word, that I still regard as very likely.
I'm suspicious, for example, when a government feels the need to publish an 'official' account of an event that reads like a trashy novel. It makes me wonder what they are actually trying to convince us of (the other time the US published an 'official account' was when JFK was shot).
I'd see some sense in it if, after decades of rumours and accusations, the government officials got fed up and decided that it was time to tell their side of the story, but it came out just 3 years later, reading - did I mention - like a trashy novel and claiming to provide 'a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks'. I don't want to get all Derrida on these people but I couldn't provide a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding my breakfast, let alone a complex and large scale attack on two buildings by foreign agencies. Did I mention that it reads like a trashy novel?
At the time, in 2008, I was certain. Now, in 2016, I'm unsure. Yet, conspiracy is not a dirty word for me. I wouldn't put it past the power hungry mob in charge of world politics and economics to see the deaths of a few thousand people as expendable units in the march of progress...
'Waking up' and realising that there were sinister forces at work, that may or may not be some kind of reptile based shape-shifting alien, was understandably disturbing. Believing that governments, the very people we elect to keep us safe, could allow or even orchestrate full blown terrorist attacks was absolutely terrifying.
Yet... as a good friend pointed out after watching a screening of Zeitgeist: "This is still fear mongering propaganda - it's just for a different cause." She was right. Why does Zeitgeist have a series of flashing images showing traumatic things such as war and dead people at the start of their film? Haven't they read Naomi Kleins 'The Shock Doctrine' that explains traumatic images numb the brain to critical thinking and so are useful to show if you want an audience to take information in unguarded?
Is there ever a reason to use shock inducing traumatic images even if it is for the higher good?
It certainly makes people pay attention - we're hard wired to pay attention to anything that's trying to kill us - but if it also cuts off the critical thinking part of our brain then surely we're not really progressing - just replacing one set of beliefs with another?
At this point cracks started appearing in my unshakable belief that what I was being told was the entire truth, and that perhaps the conspiracy movement was just another way to keep the masses in a state of fear and impotence.
There are some conspiracies, in the true sense of the word, that I still regard as very likely.
I'm suspicious, for example, when a government feels the need to publish an 'official' account of an event that reads like a trashy novel. It makes me wonder what they are actually trying to convince us of (the other time the US published an 'official account' was when JFK was shot).
I'd see some sense in it if, after decades of rumours and accusations, the government officials got fed up and decided that it was time to tell their side of the story, but it came out just 3 years later, reading - did I mention - like a trashy novel and claiming to provide 'a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks'. I don't want to get all Derrida on these people but I couldn't provide a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding my breakfast, let alone a complex and large scale attack on two buildings by foreign agencies. Did I mention that it reads like a trashy novel?
At the time, in 2008, I was certain. Now, in 2016, I'm unsure. Yet, conspiracy is not a dirty word for me. I wouldn't put it past the power hungry mob in charge of world politics and economics to see the deaths of a few thousand people as expendable units in the march of progress...
Saturday, 20 February 2016
20th of February 2016
...One of the culture jamming ideas I had was to replace underground advertising with my own 'subverts'. The pieces of cardboard proved to be easily removed and one quiet afternoon I broke social convention, stood up and took out an advert to use as a size template and took it home.
Below is a picture of my subvert - a two page plea for the people of London to wake up and smell the conspiracy. I still have it at home because sadly, or gratefully, I didn't complete this idea.
Reading this again I admire my passion and the second page especially still rings true, I do ultimately believe in the power of humanity to rise above our oppressors and find some balance and inner peace worthy of our spirits.
However, I did cringe a little as well. I'm not saying that anything I said is not true. The fact that we walk around with personal recording devices (AKA smartphones) monitoring everything from our snapchat updates to the way we sleep, or that money is slowly being phased out and replaced with easy-to-use contactless cards, is proof that although we haven't had chips inserted into our brains we simply carry them around in our pockets instead.*
The part about entire continents needing to rise up is also not so far off the mark either. To submit a petition to the European Commission one needs a committee of 7 people from 7 different countries, gain a million signatures, with each country needing to reach their own quota of signatures, within a year and then create a plausible legal case. Oh and that's only if they deem it appropriate to grace their desks in the first place. Although I prefer the UK in the EU (that human rights court does come in handy) these hoops are a mammoth ask for most mortals to even consider.
The part where I say that we are all constantly being entertained to stop us from actually thinking is also spot on. Nowadays however, instead of mass media doing this job we self-distract, taking any spare moment to compulsively flick through our phones or read a shitty free newspaper.
The part that made me cringe was my certainty. The older I get the less certain I become. Living in a post-modern era - where everyone's opinion is valid - I would hesitate to present this information so bluntly. Nowadays I'd offer hypothesis', and muse over possibilities. Is this a good thing though? Ultimately nothing is certain yet, as Alan Watts puts it when discussing philosophy:
"In all my writing and lecturing I exaggerate. Because if I don’t exaggerate no one will listen. Because all philosophers who take a moderate tone of voice and say 'on the one hand this and on the one hand that, and after all we should realise that all points of view should be taken into consideration', one reveres them for their calmness and their fair-mindedness but after you’ve listened to it all have they stimulated you? Have they given you a new idea? No. Therefore to teach philosophy in any way you have to make outrageous statements but with the warning to your listeners that you’re only doing this for effect, to get a point across, to provoke thought.”
Alan Watts, Time in the Future Lecture,
*Its interesting that the government gave up on bringing in ID cards. Was this around the same time that smartphones came on the market?...
Below is a picture of my subvert - a two page plea for the people of London to wake up and smell the conspiracy. I still have it at home because sadly, or gratefully, I didn't complete this idea.
Reading this again I admire my passion and the second page especially still rings true, I do ultimately believe in the power of humanity to rise above our oppressors and find some balance and inner peace worthy of our spirits.
However, I did cringe a little as well. I'm not saying that anything I said is not true. The fact that we walk around with personal recording devices (AKA smartphones) monitoring everything from our snapchat updates to the way we sleep, or that money is slowly being phased out and replaced with easy-to-use contactless cards, is proof that although we haven't had chips inserted into our brains we simply carry them around in our pockets instead.*
The part about entire continents needing to rise up is also not so far off the mark either. To submit a petition to the European Commission one needs a committee of 7 people from 7 different countries, gain a million signatures, with each country needing to reach their own quota of signatures, within a year and then create a plausible legal case. Oh and that's only if they deem it appropriate to grace their desks in the first place. Although I prefer the UK in the EU (that human rights court does come in handy) these hoops are a mammoth ask for most mortals to even consider.
The part where I say that we are all constantly being entertained to stop us from actually thinking is also spot on. Nowadays however, instead of mass media doing this job we self-distract, taking any spare moment to compulsively flick through our phones or read a shitty free newspaper.
The part that made me cringe was my certainty. The older I get the less certain I become. Living in a post-modern era - where everyone's opinion is valid - I would hesitate to present this information so bluntly. Nowadays I'd offer hypothesis', and muse over possibilities. Is this a good thing though? Ultimately nothing is certain yet, as Alan Watts puts it when discussing philosophy:
"In all my writing and lecturing I exaggerate. Because if I don’t exaggerate no one will listen. Because all philosophers who take a moderate tone of voice and say 'on the one hand this and on the one hand that, and after all we should realise that all points of view should be taken into consideration', one reveres them for their calmness and their fair-mindedness but after you’ve listened to it all have they stimulated you? Have they given you a new idea? No. Therefore to teach philosophy in any way you have to make outrageous statements but with the warning to your listeners that you’re only doing this for effect, to get a point across, to provoke thought.”
Alan Watts, Time in the Future Lecture,
*Its interesting that the government gave up on bringing in ID cards. Was this around the same time that smartphones came on the market?...
Wednesday, 3 February 2016
3rd of February 2016
...sometimes, after a long day at work, when I'm sitting on the tube, staring at my own scary looking reflection in the blacked out window, I wonder if that pale faced, red lipped creature was me...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)