I don’t know a single person, from the heretics to the messianists and all the in-betweens, who think that the Judaic State is functional today. People with different degrees of attachments or detachments, the geeks absorbed in the Talmudic abstractions, the utopian dreamers living in the projected past, the rebels and the swindlers, no one can stare at the present without averting his or her eyes.
How would one define a contemporary post-Judaism or post-Orthodoxy? The two most significant ideologies of the last centuries – Marxism and Freudism represent a post-Judaic eruption, except they don’t brand themselves as Judaism anymore. Similarly Christianity and Islam are the plagiarized branches of Judaism, even after they severed their ties with the trunk. The Jewish history itself is replete with what I call the source code hacks, indeed Chassidism itself was a post-orthodox eruption, so was Kabbalah, etc. Is the evolution possible today?
Speaking about the future is futile; you never know when a “black swan” will glide in unexpectedly. We are constructed to see the world in a rear view mirror. Sometimes we can master the heroism to glimpse the present, but never the future.
Contemporaneously I observe two main groups of people in various stages of the Judaic rejection. First are the tiny minority who managed to escape relatively unscathed. You can literally count them on one hand. The second group is the vast majority. I call it nominally the Chulent Brigade, these are the people who reject or more likely were rejected by the religious communities. They feel that the secular world doesn’t understand them, the religious world doesn’t accept them, so they live in the in-between, the intergalactic void. A friend compared them to the Eastern European dissidents – “the commies are evil but the West doesn’t get us”.
Psychologically people who were subjected to the various flavors of orthodox indoctrination can be compared to the victims of a sexual abuse. The survivors of the abuse are forever torn between the hate towards the abusers and the longing, even love. This very confusion is the lethal and unrelenting legacy of a sexual abuse, and blasphemously speaking, the confusion of is the staple of a ideological or religious indoctrination. I just don’t meet many people who can break from this.
In America this predicament is only worse. There is the unprecedented chasm with the secular society. And then there is the cruelty of the mass produced indoctrination. What was traditionally, by and large, a private religious instruction, turned into the factory-like school system, where an ego and dissent are crushed by the debilitating group-think. The proud graduates are measured, rewarded and awarded a Stockholm syndrome degree. Is a post-abuse, a post-Stockholm syndrome possible for a post-human? Not even God can ask that much from a mere mortal.
Illustrations by Hugh MacLeod
Hugh quotes one of his old posts:
“I was on the phone to an old friend of mine, a guy in his late forties, who was born and bred in Michigan, and is living there now. He was telling me about his uncle, who, about four decades ago, got his highschool sweetheart pregnant. So instead of going off to college, he found himself with a new wife, a child on the way, and an assembly-line job at General Motors. But even though this situation clipped his wings considerably, he still ended up having a nice life in the end, with a home, a big yard, two cars, a steady paycheck, weekends fishing or hunting deer, and vacations in Hawaii every year or so. “The days where a blue collar guy like my uncle could have a nice life without doing much,” my friend said, “those days are gone. Gone forever. And in the back of my mind, I’m thinking the same is starting to happen to white collar guys more and more, as well. But it’s not quite out in the open yet. Society’s not quite ready to have that conversation.”
Naturally this McLuhanian rear view mirror realization is bubbling up because it already long a fait accompli. The Amercian manufacturing have bee destroyed by the late 70s. What followed were the decades of gimmicks, a transitory respite to the middle white and blue class. The dotcom, the financial services, the housing bubble (the later temporary occupied some of the blue color labor). The globalization is complete and the American white and blue middle class is no longer required. They are spoiled, expensive and generally just a headache. Maybe the globally rich can buy themselves another decade till the inevitable social unrest makes them uncomfortable in their outsorced country. The rich will run as they always do, the masses will crave for a strong leader and eagerly give up their freedom in exchange for bread. Provided the Chinese would not enslave the American masses before the revolt and move all the factories back to America.
Andrea asked me to write about selling. I am just an observer of this space, I don’t claim the expertise.
An art is a mixture of myth attached to an object [see my post about myth and books]. Myth sells the object but the ratio varies. Sometimes an inspired myth follows a benign object and sometimes an outstanding object can’t find its myth. In the past an art required an unquestionable skill and art preceded the myth. Today the ratio is trending towards the myth and myth alone.
In the past art and books were created by and for the literate gentry, so there was the sophistication and culture that could recognize object almost independent of a myth. Mass forms of expression like radio, TV and film superseded the traditional art as an artistic outlet of the post industrial middle class. So not only art appreciation is a challenge but the myth mongers of the modern art criticism deliberately advanced the idea that any art is just a myth. Tom Wolfe wrote a definitive small book about it – The Painted Word. The unintended expression of the Jewish tradition claims art is an abstractly defined mythology. Bunch of Jewish art critics anointed as the high priests of modernism decided who is rich and famous depending on a prophetic dream. As it became more difficult to get noticed the shock value of an object has increased. One needs to shock to get noticed. Of course the carpet image bombing desensitized people, even to most shocking “art”.
The ubiquitous innovation of the online world is that you can get noticed without an intermediary but there is a catch. People who started blogging ten years ago indeed could get noticed, but the blogosphere is so saturated now that we are back to the dominance of the retched middle man, even online. Someone with authority must link it, even above the noise of the social media.
There is also a perception that you don’t need that many fans to sell, the advance of the hyper-local blogging and the notion that as long as you have even a narrow base you can sell to it. I am not sure about this. Hugh says you don’t need that many fans, but he is really a copywriter that creates catchy jungles attached to simple illustrations. His art is all myth propelled by the early adopter status. I don’t think it’s impossible to get noticed online, but most people don’t realize how much work it requires, especially today, perhaps always.
I know this is not much of the a practical advice. But I believe in these truths. People create art because it is how they think and experience the world. True artists do this because they can’t help themselves, this is an unstoppable force and addiction with unexpected reward. A true artist is ahead of his or her time by the McLuhanian definition. Be patient, preserver online and do go to all the parties. The purveyor of luck will have no choice but to smile upon you.
Classic Elton John in the Central Park, September 1980, few moths before John Lennon was shot. I need add this to my white piano songs collection. Hugh wrote in his book that Bob Dylan had no voice and couldn’t play guitar, so he wrote amazing lyrics, to compensate for the former. Oh John, the song and the lyrics, he actually wrote these words, how remarkable. ►►►read more
Sir Christopher Wren, The Monument Design, London
The more talented somebody is, the less they need the props is one of the chapters of Hugh’s new book Ignore Everybody. Hugh calls this a “Pillar Management”. The chapter resonates with me so strongly:
“Meeting a person who wrote a masterpiece on the back of a deli menu would not surprise me. Meeting a person who wrote a masterpiece with a silver Cartier fountain pen on an antique writing table in an airy SoHo loft would SERIOUSLY surprise me.
Abraham Lincoln wrote The Gettysberg Address on the back of his paper lunch bag, sitting on a park bench.
James Joyce wrote with a simple pencil and notebook. Somebody else did the typing.
Van Gough never started a painting with more than six colors on his palette…”
And this poetic marvel brings me to the illustrative post in Entrepreneurs: Beware the curse of the new building by a former startup CEO Steve Blank. He describes that moving into a new fancy building was detrimental to his startup. Steve first outlines the reasons for the move:
“Engineers were packed in cubicles or desks right on top of each other? Now every engineer can have their own office.
We can’t bring customers to this rundown building. The new building needs to reflect that we’re a successful and established company.
The lobby of the last building didn’t “represent” the company in a professional manner. Lets “do it right” and have a lobby and reception area that projects a professional image.
We had used, crummy and uncomfortable furniture. Lets get comfortable chairs and great new desks for everyone. None of this used stuff.
The last building has stained carpets and walls that haven’t been painted in years. Now we can pick out carpets that look good and feel good and we can have clean walls with great artwork and murals.
We didn’t have enough conference rooms. Lets make sure that we have plenty of conference rooms.
Everyone left the building for lunch. We need our own cafeteria so employees don’t have to leave the building.”
And then Steve list cultural problems brought about by the new building, this is your classic “pillar” problem:
“While offices for everyone sound good on paper, moving everyone out of cubicles destroyed a culture of tight-knit interaction and communication. Individuals within departments were isolated, and the size and scale of the building isolated departments from each other.
The new building telegraphed to our employees, “We’ve arrived. We’re no longer a small struggling startup. You can stop working like a startup and start working like a big company.”
We started to believe that the new building was a reflection of the company’s (and our own) success. We took our eye off the business. We thought that since we in such a fine building, we were geniuses, and the business would take care of itself.”
As this subject is somehow close my expertise I would say that there are two failures here, one is the “pillar problem” but another is the failure of the process of design and architecture that is irrevocably broken. Imagine if Apple would design and custom iPhone for every customer? The engineers would meet with a client and follow precise customer instruction in creating a tailored device. Everyone understands that not only it would be a monumental waste of time but the devices itself would be a disaster, the client doesn’t even know what he wants, can’t imagine the unexplored possibly of a new invention. In fact often architectural clients are griped by fear of making “cast in stone decisions” and they deliberately guide architects backwards. They don’t have mental tools to design an iPhone or a building. You get what you pay for and then you pay for what you get. So part of what failed Steve was the “pillar problem” but bigger part is the process of design. In fact if there was a mass produced modular “startup building” that people bought like they buy an iPhone, a sleek contemporary, efficient building, than most of the problems Steve Blank describes would go away and the transition to such a building would have been justified and smooth.
Royal Academy Diploma Work given by Sir Frank Brangwyn, The Market Stall, 1919
Hugh MacLeod tweeted yesterday: “Three things worth doing in life: Breeding, loving and learning. Everything else is filler…” I will take this aphorism for a spin.
- Breeding – Offspring and fertility. A woman’s life long obsession with being attractive, the confidence of being able to arouse a man. A man’s sense of self worth depending on his ability to meet the challenge.
- Loving – the intoxication and the yearning. The “loving” is never complete if unrequited. “Speed” Levitch said it must be reciprocal. Love is about being loved, about validation of what you are. Loving includes being respected, the accolades and appreciation. If you love a man or a god and they don’t love you back, you can’t put a check mark here.
- Learning – Trying to understand your place in the universe, an opportunity to satisfy the natural thirst, an opening to quench the curiosity. The desire to travel and see the world. By no means is this a textual manipulation.
I have never met a person who had all three in the bag. If you imagine the world as a puzzle and the goal of the game to line up all three, the jackpot is theoretical. The vast majority of people manage only one of the three life essentials. There are a small number of the lucky bastards who lined up two of those. But the fascinating human condition is that even if a single goal is at bay out of the three, humans are in a state of constant agony, like a chronic plain, the realization that a defining component of life is missing. They constantly think about it and if you are a friend you have the privilege of always hearing about it. Perhaps the wisdom is the recognition of the bargain, and if you managed to score two of the three, acceptance of your luck. Just like at the end of his remarkable speech Alain de Botton says that “every vision of success has to admit what it is loosing out on”.
When people say “money is not important” they mean it isn’t amongst the three essential goals of life but no one ever argued that money indeed can facilitate all three. Or on a more nuanced level the traditional “bazaar” is treated in the Middle Eastern cultures as an elaborate ruse to cover up the transactions in the intangibles, the ritual of pretending to trade in physical objects. Pay respect to haggling, a breeding dance with love and knowledge.
P.S. I was thinking where creativity fits into the scheme. I have to say that creativity is a part of learning. People dance, paint, write code, do scientific research, play ball, all in order to think. These are the rosary beads of learning. As McLuhan said an artist confronts “present as his material because it is the area of challenge to the whole sensory life.” This is the process of learning and occasionally there is a byproduct, a breakthrough of discovery.
Image licensed courtesy of Picture Library of the Royal Academy of Arts
The tweetup with @gapingvoid showed up at the rooftop of 230 5th. They wouldn’t let Hugh in because he was wearing shorts. All the waitresses there had plenty of leg. Perhaps the murky Lebanese joint at the bottom of the canyon, where we moved, was more appropriate. ►►►read more
I have been writing about this numerous times. And finally there is a scientific basis for Hugh MacLeod’s motto and his book title – Ignore Everybody. The experiment by Prof. Gregory Berns of Emory University involved financial decisions, I am certain this applies to any kind of advice. It appears that listening to an expert has an effect of turning off precisely the areas of brain responsible for making the right choices. I am sure this broadly is the mechanics of a guidance or indoctrination. Alon Nir writes on Dan Ariely’s blog Predictably Irrational – The value of advice:
“Berns recorded his subjects’ brain activity with an fMRI machine while they made simulated financial decisions. Each round subjects had to choose between receiving a risk-free payment and trying their chances at a lottery. In some rounds they were presented with an advice from an “expert economist” as to which alternative they consider to be better.
The results are surprising. Expert advice attenuated activity in areas of the brain that correlate with valuation and probability weighting. Simply put, the advice made the brain switch off (at least to a great extent) processes required for financial decision-making. This response, supported by subjects’ actual decisions in the task, are troublesome, perhaps even frightening. The expert advice given in the experiment was suboptimal – meaning the subjects could have done better had they weighted their options themselves.”
A momentous moment!
To follow up on my several posts in anticipation of the book, what can I say about a book that has a surprisingly profound list of the forty chapters? The individual chapters of the book grew out of Hugh’s posts. This is strength and a weakness. It’s strength because every chapter stands on its own like a book. It’s somewhat of weakness because there is little connection in the flow of the book. Similarly the classic cartoons are amazing, and Hugh is proud to publish them, but often there is little context between the chosen cartoons and the text.
There is a certain grimness to the book and I happen to like. It’s a highly personal tale about the urban loneliness and dislocation, the cruelty of the corporate game, the struggle for your own voice, art as the last frontier of the battle for purpose, sovereignty and meaning. All chapters resonated with me strongly and I wish there was a book club where we could talk about one chapter at a time, something like comments to a post. It feels that the quotable cartoonish power is just an opening to a life defining conversations.
There was one note missing for me from the book. Hugh describes unforgiving corporate grind but he never writes about the innate social skills. This seems such a big part of that game.
This is a kind of book you wish you read when you were twenty, but alas so is out fate, we don’t understand any of that before we absorb all the bumps and the bruises we are now advised to avoid. It’s a cliché to say that we live in a rapidly changing world. There is certain appetite on the street for the new ethos. We feel that traditional old preaching didn’t work at best or was actually outright deceiving. There is an insatiable market for the new contrarian voices and I can’t think of better book to satiate this hunger and still remain intimately focused on you.
To my friends at the 7fatcow.com
- Anonymity is the plague of the frum word. Web sites where anonymity prevails, quickly turn into a depository of the cow pies instead of content.
- Multiple bloggers personality disorder. If you change names you can’t develop a character (even an anonymous character) and people can’t relate. Remember it’s all about who is writing not what is being written.
- People who grow up frum can’t even think of creating a new sentence (everything important was already said), so they post exclusively either but quoting (stealing) or linking. 7FC is the prime example of that wretched culture.
- Excessive use of Yinglish and Yeshivish.
- There is no attempt to built a community beyond the inside shtible.
- Just like the abuse victims, the group that nominally escaped the abuse can only speak and think about the culture of the abusers.
- Juvenile humor is not a substitute to being vulnerable.
Credits: Toyota Cowrolla via afrigadget; illustration by Hugh MacLeod
