Potential

Do I even know how to push myself?

Have I ever placed myself in such a position

to pain me, make me grow, and trudge through my suffering?

Yes. I have. In my head I fight infectious

ideas and insecurities put there by common thieves

It took me 21 years to really see how bored everyone is

how boring I can be. I detest busyness and the go culture

My understanding of this has dug deeper

and is exposing wells of potential. It's not the activity

but the purpose. Wasted lives begetting wasted energy.

You could give these people all the potential of the sun

and they would still squander it to fulfill some joe job expectation

constantly busying themselves in the hope of one day finding leisure

why not stop the act, stop trying to just keep your head above water

in hopes of reaching the shore. Dive deeper, explore uncharted waters

I wonder if I write this stuff to myself or to you

I need to produce more, to risk more, to live more

take the abuse, take the corruption and spit it back

use it as fuel to topple cities. Let the games begin.

Its so lame to be clever anymore or to be ironic.

Isn't it better to be straight, to be articulate and passionate?

To really dance, to really scream, and to really fight

why use the back door when there's greater access out front?

Cleverness only gets you so far, conviction is boundless.

Its not about the words anymore but the actions

this is a lesson I needed years ago.

Fuck nihilism and the petty minds it swallows up.

It's time to be alive.

Headspace

The ones who don't do anything are always the ones who try to put you down

-Henry Rollins

I'm worried, i'm afraid

that what i'm doing, what I believe in

will not only be wrong

but leave me lost and broken

I've researched and bullshitted

and hoped and worked to find

others that could prove that there is something

bigger than what's expected of me

I hate mundane repetition

I hate buying shit, being bored

and belittling myself so others will

smile at me. Human connection is wonderful

only if its true, deep, and naked

I open myself, i try and pry the doors apart

and let some light out, to show people

what's really inside

and its fucking hard

its tough to be honest, its painful to tell the truth

There's always the suspicion that the advice

I'm given is passive aggressive manipulation

sugar coated and sealed with a kiss

to hide others own shortcomings

and fears. I'm tired of agreeing with people

just for the sake of commerce

so I can go about my day.

Its nauseating to smile at people I call my friends

and agree with their bigotry, their insecurities

to not scream at the top of my lungs

tell the goddamn truth

if you do not like me, i'd be happy to

recoil into my room. At least i'm myself here

How can a motherfucker grow with so

little headspace and everyone trying to

turn the lights off?

Half-Note

Hear the saxophones playing

screaming from the clubhouse doors

mourning the dead beats and cool shades

of yesterday

the buildings rocket into the sky

and herds of businessmen and saints

drudge down the sidewalks going nowhere

deaf to the sounds of God blaring through the doors

They bath their unconscious worries in showers

of barley and hops, letting its golden chill

calm their restless mind

never once looking to the milky sky dripping

through its expansion awaiting their thirst

to drink down its secrets

they fret for the inevitable while trying to ignore their eternity

the concrete and facades are painted with cries of acceptance

while the men cloak their selves in beards and 10 dollar bills

The churches remain empty and the people emptier

at their search for salvation turns towards blank statements

and welfare checks

The great poets await their work to be read and recited in the

halls of the very people they are running from

to become an entry online

and get their name downloaded as if its their soul

we meditate on the wind and always distract ourselves from

the outside world

The teachers keep reciting their clichés while the students

recite them incorrectly in the bars and in their hearts

the beat thumps on and the lights change from red to green

allowing the sleepy pilgrims a chance to rest their heads

so they may make it home safe to their Mecca on the 12th floor

As the steam rises from the sewers the merchants purchase their

freedom from the corner store

releasing them from the confines of routine

so to have a night of bliss and fleshly comfort

the piano plays on notes that rain onto the blossoming

conscience of the couples gazing upon nirvana

and so I weep for the bums and sneer at the gods

sitting in their carpeted penthouses

poorer and nude as the lazy sinners they

skin to make their couches

The Existentialism of Rhio O' Connor

There have been moments in my life that have put me face to face with death, or at least dangled the actual possibility of becoming more acquainted than I would like to have experienced. The feeling is at once terrifying and calming. My experiences were mostly instantaneous close calls rather than a prolonged knowledge of my final day, though they remain powerful lessons to the value of my life and reality of my mortality. I've often contemplated which is worse, an instant death without the ability to say goodbye to loved ones or a longer death as with cancer where you must watch others suffer over you. Each pulls a wrenching string on the heart. However, considering the case of Rhio his will, and infectious passion for life you begin to get a real sense of what we have control over. I've always believed that this life is what you make of it, Rhio's story added depth and a powerful example by showing that we have more power over our death than we're led to believe.

Any mention of the word "cancer" makes one shiver. To most it is a death wish and as crippling to the mind as it is to the body. However, when the body remains weak, the mind may grow stronger. One is only defeated when he throws up his arms to fate and does not exercise the freedom of will which makes him human. It is when mankind is faced with the impossible or inevitable that he shines brightest and overcomes the highest peaks.

Death is a reality in which we all must face at some point and which the possibility dwells constantly on our lives. From Buddhism to Existentialism, philosophies of death bring about a greater understanding of life. It would be impossible for me to accurately say how I would react given the same diagnosis as Rhio. I could pose hypothetical situations and ways I would deal with it, and hope I would be as strong as he was. However, I have not been faced with such a prolonged reality. As mentioned above I have brushed against death and escaped only to recall the chill of its touch. Whenever considering my own death I find it to be instantly life altering. My time becomes more important; how I spend it, with whom, and the quality therein. In the Buddhist sense we're all dying and scientifically speaking we begin to die by age 28. The difference between Rhio and the rest of us is the immediacy of his condition and the acceptance of its consequences. He accepted his mortality while the rest of us ignore it. This acceptance is where the true change begins. I find it more profound to consider Rhio and myself on the same plain, because we will both reach the same end. Death is death; there is no difference in its definition. However, life is indefinable in both how we live it and its value to us. Some of us squander it away, not realizing how little time we have or really deciding on what we should be doing with our time. Philosophers have been debating what makes life worth living for millennia, but it is up to each of us to decide what it is that makes us get out of bed in the morning. Let us for the sake of the argument consider what it would be like if I did have mesothelioma, as it is quite plausible there lies dormant cancer within my cells.

If I were diagnosed with an incurable disease I feel it would intensify my life. Every meal would taste as if it were my last, every human contact would be at full depth, and I would pay no mind to social norms or restrictions of character for the sake of commerce. Again, I must emphasize that there is no reason one should not live as such, as we are all dying. However, with the diagnoses acting as a social catalyst for more authentic interaction I believe people would open up more because their consciousness of my limited time. There would be no time for beating around the bush or small talk. I would first have to decide if my life would be worth preserving. This seems an absurd question, though I believe it is the most vital. Albert Camus in his work The Myth of Sisyphus states that the most important philosophical problem is suicide or whether life is or is not worth living. This becomes even more imperative when cancer symptoms and the heightened suffering therein are considered. Is life still worth living in the face of this? Can life still be beautiful and full of happiness? If you asked Rhio I believe he would have reply with a big Yes. This Yes-saying is essential to the terminally ill as it is to us all. We all suffer, it is not suffering that makes us miserable but the inability to cope with its effects. Friedrich Nietzsche went so far as to embrace his suffering so he may grow stronger by overcoming it. I see this Nietzschean spirit in Rhio, the ability to make use of his suffering and say yes even in the face of his demise. If what doesn't kill you make you stronger than what will kill you makes you unstoppable. If I were diagnosed "incurable" I would delve into life with an insatiable passion. As I sit here now I stare into the expansion of my life with fire in my heart and a lust for embracing all that the world has to offer. To be given less time only heightens my thirst for more! The most essential task one can perform is to inspire. One's immediate actions only physically affect so much. However, their influence to inspire and motivate can move mountains and change lives for millennia.

Rhio also demonstrates the motivating power of death to innovate what was formerly deemed impossible. By creating his own form of therapy he enabled himself to customize a system that worked for his own needs. Through rigorous studying and unbreakable spirit he was able to build for himself a proactive solution. Instead of relying on experts he took the wheel and discovered uncharted territory that led to his prolonged life. This speaks volumes about his character and the potential of the human spirit. Many people find it difficult to achieve greatness with an entire lifetime of opportunity while this man was able to vitally prove himself in the final years of his life. For someone like myself with a passion for both Psychology and Philosophy Rhio provides real evidence of how one can shape themselves into something larger than life. My goal is to become a therapist who doesn't cure psychological ailments but helps individuals reach their full potential. Rhio's story will definitely help to elevate spirits of those who feel helpless.

I may have never known Rhio O' Connor, but his story lightens my soul and remains a shining beacon in an abysmal world. I see so many pitying the sick and the dying as well as people pitying their own circumstances. This causes a deep despair, sense of helplessness, and is an insult to life; however much we have of our lives still remains precious, though only as precious as we deem it! A man like Rhio sets a standard for all who suffer and must face their own mortality; to not go quietly into the night. Instead of feeling sorry for yourself, it is better to find the strength necessary to overcome your situation, whatever it may be. What makes someone an inspiration is that they have risen above their expectations and soared on wings of their own creation. These are the souls who enjoy the greatest paradise on earth and who smell the sweet scents of existence with a greater appreciation than any other living being. I'd like to end with a Victor Frankl quote that chimes true, "Each man is questioned by life; and he can only answer to life by answering to his own life. To life he can only respond by being responsible."

Essay on Marxism: Material Fetishism and Its Relation to the Ego

Society was set up for individuals to benefit each other to a greater degree than possible on their own. It allowed more advanced forms of production to develop, such as farming and craftsmanship. When society had reached the point is has now, where we are in constant competition with one another it is antithetical to the point of society. This is almost straight from Marx's mouth. Furthermore, by placing all against all as in capitalism the goal of consumption is more efficiently propagated. That is, capitalism is founded by the base need for individuals to consume commodities. Once these are given value in the form of fetishism or applied to the identity of the individual, they become far more important to the individual than their material worth. This explains why products of very little use-value or are labor intensive to obtain (such as diamonds) still maintain high prices and social value. For instance, collector's items or rare kitsch products such as records share this value. If one wants an original print Beatles album, they will have to pay a great deal of money to obtain it. However, it is not the music that it worth so much, but rather the commodity of the rare physical product and the social worth placed on it. One can claim to be a "bigger fan" and thus add merit to their personality as one who appreciates the Beatles more than others. This is of course superficial because it is not the music placed in high esteem, rather their ability to obtain Beatles merchandise.

This type of reification of products onto the self of the individual is what makes capitalism so difficult to overcome. It spiritualizes products as well as the means to achieve them. Thus the only way to perpetuate capitalism is to keep others against each other, constantly competing to obtain these "holy" objects that are somehow marketed as rarities. If a product is not rare or valuable in some way, it will artificially be made so. It is no coincidence limited sets of products are released at absurd prices. This raises their value. Even if an object is of no worth, once its monetary value is specified, it takes on a higher form of value. The Beatles record for instance may have only been a dime upon its initial release, but now one may pay thousands of dollars for it. It functions and sounds the same as a newly printed record and arguable CD. Even if it doesn't function as well as a new pressing, it is elevated by psychological attachment; by metaphysical value. This infects all forms of value and quality of authentic lifestyles in the modern world. The phenomenon of giving cards for example. The mere expression of gratitude is not as worthwhile as if one spent money on a card, which is prewritten to express whatever emotion the consumer wishes to portray. It is a form of personal marketing, placing a colorful and flashy item in front of another to drive home the point visually. What is inside is transformed into a personal sentiment to the recipient, although there are millions like it received by others. Again, the expression of gratitude, joy, or whatever sentiment intended is not authentic unless accompanied by a product.

This infection has spread further into the morals and values of society. How one spends their time can be understood using the same approach. If one does not have a financial or useful commodity to accompany their action, than the action is viewed with little worth. Playing music in front of several hundred people is worth more or less based on the pay rate of the musicians or the effectiveness of the performance to promote the band and sell records. It is not the value of the performance as such, the energy and expression of music as life fulfilling and psychologically transcendent, but rather if the performance will equate into any tangible gain. Philosophy suffers the same; if one does not become famous, and fortunate, than their philosophy isn't worth their time. Both illustrate the vast superficiality of two human creations that have immeasurable importance and potential on the value of existence. This is a squandering of all that is good for the sake of utility. This is capitalism.

I've heard arguments that capitalism promotes the best products, motivates people to aim higher and achieve greater. I ask you, look around at those companies, celebrities, artists, musicians, etc. that are most financially successful and tell me if they are what you would consider the cream of the crop? It's laughable. McDonalds and Lady GaGa are not only the top grossers but are also the grossest. Talent and worth cannot be determined financially or through utility. The wrench, hammer and screwdriver may be the most useful of modern tools, yet cost only a few dollars. Books contain information that can positively shape the consciousness and reality of countless individuals, yet are worth less than a PS3, which does the opposite. A great deal of labor and time has been put into the production of both, yet one is financially valued more than the other.

Houses are merely mud and wood, and televisions are copper and glass. Move on, get over it. We need to stop the transposition of value onto these material items. What has happened in our country is a secularized version of what has occurred in civilizations since the advent of Christianity.. Higher values are made out to be lower while the weaker are made to look stronger. That is, what is noble and really more valuable to humanity is being demonized while less valuable ideals are being touted not only as more important, but eternal and essential to existence. An example of this is the emphasis placed on security. Countless companies and advertising campaigns promote the idea of comfort and security, playing on your biggest fears and insecurities. "What if" is hung over our heads and the grim uncertainty of life is blown up to make us clench our possessions and lighten our wallets. The solutions are often absurd means to achieving security if not all together futile. Identity theft protection won't do shit if someone really wants to use your name. Home alarm systems and car alarms have become so hap-hazardous no one takes them seriously. They never tell you how to really protect yourself or to purchase a gun. Real strength is never encouraged, only the sublimation of real power into forms that not only weaken the individual but the community as well. Regardless of what you are told, one weak person brings down the whole just like one strong human being can encourage it to strive for something higher. Products are nothing more than the material they are composed of and the value we place on them.

The most precious of all commodities, and most irreplaceable is time. We are all only allotted a certain amount of time to exist. We try and buy more with modern scientific and medical breakthroughs, but even than one is trading quality for quantity. It is extremely imperative to evaluate how one spends their time, and what we as a society value as proper and worthwhile. The production and acquisition of meaningless products, status items, and frivolous activities is not what we should be putting so much time and effort into; both in doing and promoting such. It is not rare to hear one say "appreciate the little things" or "money can't buy happiness" but it still remains true. I'm not saying find God, live a more spiritual live, drop out and tune in, or anything of the sort. I'm not trying to sell you anything. I am asking you as a human being to look around and look inside your mind as ask "is this it?" It is this how we are going to spend our lives? Are these the people we are going to look up to? For what? Why? and how did this all happen? There has to be a transition, which will no doubt be gradual, towards a more vital way of living. There is no need to make enemies of others based on what they have. There is no need for cut throat capitalism. This is not what Adam Smith had in mind.

Authenticity and Trends

After my friend Kevin had written an article for my online publication, "Atonal Magazine," about his irritation towards the "indie" trend my girlfriend had raised a series of very interesting and important question about trends. A lot of her questions were in reference to the authenticity of "indie" and those who are described as such, and the question as to why people have a problem with trends overall. It is important to clarify what exactly it is about these social occurrences that make people so distraught. This is especially true when those criticizing feel they are "honest" and authentic, thus putting them in the position for criticism. Let us explore the phenomena of tends while focusing on authenticity and value in reference to them.

If you are unaware of what an "indie" person is, or what the trend amounts to, its particularities are irrelevant. Rather, if you are familiar with any trend, from emo kids to beatniks, the same reasoning and criticism will apply. I will try to use a number of different examples to illustrate the points so not to confuse anybody. For the sake of example we will use hippies as a way to illustrate my first point; this being the inherent problem with trends. Trends are a collection of actions, style, aesthetics, fashion, outlook, and taste that a group of people adopt. This is either out of the desire for originality, or simply because of marketing. Either way, a large group of people cling on to a similar lifestyle. Hippies, for example, share anti-authoritarian political views, do not prescribe to mainstream grooming norms, share an "alternative" practice of various forms of spirituality, and dress in colorful loose fitting clothing. These are the qualities associated with hippies, and individuals are recognized as such if a number of these qualities coincide.

This trend started off, like most, as an authentic way to rebel against social norms and expectations. The Baby Boomer generation found these qualities to be opposite and more desirable than what was offered to them at the time. Each of these qualities had their own significance within themselves and only evolved the others through personal taste. More and more people began to adopt the ideas and dress and at some point the whole image began to become associated with rebellion. This is a pivotal point in any trend. Once the trend is viewed as a form of originality or rebellion, it is adopted by those seeking to give off the same image. The higher the number of adherents becomes, the less authentic the values and attributes of the trend. At some point, all the trend remains is a fashion, often supported and touted by those who represent the antithesis of the initial adherents. An example of this is blue jeans. Blue jeans were adopted by hippies and hipsters of the 50's and 60's because of their working class symbolism, durability, and low price. Now there are blue jeans that are no longer durable and are absurdly priced, defeating their original purpose and value.

It is at this point that the trend becomes a marketing technique, devoid of any idealism or rebellion except for a shallow facade of such by the new adherents. The same thing can be seen within the punk community and the emergence of Hot Topic, which sells overpriced clothing with punk aesthetics. Punk kids are now known by their style of dress rather than business practices or morality. It becomes another role one plays, a character they act out their life as. This is distinct from one who enjoys what they do for their own reasons.

So you see, trends become destructive by their very nature. The more it grows, the less it means. This is because it is exposed to a wider variety of people whom often do not understand or are unaware of the principles it was founded on. On the other side, those who do understand and practice these principles but not the fashion are not recognized as members of that trend. Furthermore, individuals are not members of the trend unless they recognize it themselves. If they believe in the core principles and practices of, say, punk rock or hippies, and recognize that they are doing such they are still trendy. This is as inauthentic as the fashion, just on another level. Straight edge is a trend in morality and fashion, and on both levels it is following a dogmatic set of lifestyle parameters.

There is also a third dimension to trends. There is the individual who seems to fit into the trend, but does not. They are labeled as such from the outside, but do not recognize it internally. This is not denial, which still falls into the categories described above. Rather, they simply enjoy acting and dressing as they do. Even if they are aware that it is "trendy" they don't allow the parameters or mandates of that trend to dictate their behavior. Someone who enjoys tie dye, is a vegetarian, and practices Buddhism may share hippie like qualities. However, if they enjoy them for their own sake, and practice them for their own reasons, there is no inauthentic behavior. It is merely a coincidence, or mistake in judgment by others that they appear to be a hippie. It is not until a label is placed on the individual and they recognize it as some sort of law that inauthentic or personally dishonest behavior can arise.

Another example would be one who describes art or music as their life. If this is stated as law, then they bear the burden of proof. As soon as they proclaim this, to themselves or others, as their supreme value for living then they must bear proof. The phrase itself, which is ambiguous, is open to interpretation and judgment. What makes music one's life may not be the same for two different people. If one loves music, it preoccupies most of their thought, finance, and time but do not recognize it or state it as the supreme value for existence than they run no risk for grounded criticism on this basis. Their value may be on "positive experience" which they associate with music, or simply on "creation." Either way, they are not following a personal dogma, or an explicit lifestyle that they must live up to. They are existing free of standards other than what occurs to them in different situations. If one comments "so-and-so's life is music" than that is completely different. This is one individual's opinion and can only be denied or affirmed by the subject being judged.

So, when considering "indie" kids, the same parameters as laid out above still apply. The reasoning is still valid, but what we have not explored is why this angers people. For someone who considers themselves authentic and truly believes in the principles, morals, and values placed on something such as music or fashion, than another who belittles or misunderstands these can be interpreted as offensive. Indie kids claim to be original and "independent" when clearly their adherence to a trend contradicts this fact. Their appreciation of music that is carbon copied and unoriginal within its genre, while claiming it to be the opposite is upsetting. Contradictions are aggravating. This is especially true when someone claims that they don't exist and hold themselves up as the shining beacon of honesty and independence.

The burden of proof lies on the one who is making the judgment as well. If one criticizes another as behaving in an inauthentic manner, then they are claiming to know the reasoning behind their actions. If they are wrong, then the accuser must face the consequences of looking like an asshole. A lot of judgment is based on a brief encounter with another and an equally swift decision on their appearance. Although it may seem justifiable because of their similar appearance to a number of other, this is not a sound basis for an accurate evaluation. More often than not, people are upset with others' trendiness out of spite or insecurity with their own individuality.

Overall, there is a great deal more involved in the assessment of trends. It's safer to assume the larger the trend the less it has to offer, and a route to true authentic expression is a more favorable route. However, the evolution of ideas, art, music, and fashion do not occur in a vacuum and there will always be borrowing and copying. It's more about the result and its meaning to the individuals that matters, especially when a philosophy and lifestyle are adopted. How one lives their life is an important matter to the individual, and I do not believe anyone would want their existence marginalized. It's a matter of misconception, faulty reasoning, ignorance, or denial that leads to inauthentic living. The solution is in the mind of the beholder.

Thoughts

There is an insatiable desire I have to keep throwing out a seemingly endless amount of thought and expression that I try to keep at bay in fear of over saturation to whomever it may be that is reading my work. What I mean is, I try not to do too much, or am afraid to, because I don't want to overwhelm people. I don't want to just write to write, and end up with shit. At this moment, I am writing to write because I feel I need to. I don't do it enough. I often feel like I write about a lot of the same subjects over and over. The American work ethic, neurotic busyness, and authenticity have always been big topics with me. However, I don't feel these have been expressed quite the way intended. There is a strange gaseous blob of thought and emotion that floats around in my head. Its understanding lies in a distinct feeling, an overall sense of "understanding" within my being that is often difficult, if not impossible, to express. When wanting to express myself this articulation of the inarticulate causes a great deal of personal frustration. I only run into this problem with writing, too. Whenever I play music live, sing, or perform in any way there are several different levels of expression that exist outside the realms of written thought. When I am on stage and feel frustrated or angry at the performance or audience I can portray this physically. I can cringe, jump around, squeal ugly notes, knock shit over, and break equipment to emphasize this. This is where the true expression lies.

However, with writing, there is a lack of physicality. All I have are poetic and literary devices such as metaphor, allusion, etc and style. The structure of writing really expresses an outlook imbedded within the writer that transcends the writing itself. When reading Nietzsche or Lester Bangs, each individual's style opens a window to the reader allowing a deeper look within the writer's mind. This is what I feel I lack; the luster of style. I blame this partially on the school system. I was not formally trained in music, and had a higher quality of control over my style. If I would have taken more lessons on guitar in a formal setting than I wouldn't have had the freedom to experiment with atonal ugliness and style with as much freedom as I did without it. Sure, I could have said "fuck it" within the system and paved a different, possibly better musical path. However, there is a certain charm to self creation rather than administrated creation. The same works for my writing. I feel if I wouldn't have been as formally trained in writing that I could have a much more interesting style. There always remains the possibility of unlearning or altering within the mainframe, like with music; however it will still be missing something. Even now as I write, the embedded framework and guidelines of grammar, structure, and rationality dictates my writing. For me to let it go remains difficult. It would remain unfocused experimentation. Although, I do like the appeal of this, I still feel ensnared by the rules that have been conditioned into me.

let us for a moment begin the experimentation. Lets WOrk with the PossiBILities of diffent visual

aspects

and forms of structure

within this very essay. And let us hope they do not take away from the work itself. E.E. Cummings experimented with this, and reinvented poetry and our take on it as an art form. He was like the other brilliant writers, musicians, and artists of the 20th century who begin and work outside the bounds of established rules and mandates formerly associated with art and creativity. His work embodies the same spirit as Cecil Taylor, or Jackson Pollock. They began toying with chaos while continuing to push its limits. We all carry the burden of ciphering through it all so to conclude what is worthwhile-and such is the point. This was referred to as Modernism.

What we are faced with now is a world of Postmodernist mediocrity, with artists and writers in a state of disarray, unable to replicate the genius and originality of their Modernist predecessors. The standards have been broken, and rather than modifying their placement we simply go on as if there ought to be no standards at all. This leads to the mediocrity, this leads to the shameful display of "art", "music", and "literature" we have today. It has become cultural nihilism. Many are too afraid to point fingers and make judgments in fear of falling into dogmatism. All may pass as creative, even the rubbish. What was mocked as Kitsch became high art with the Postmodernists. Their art lies in the resentment of their predecessors, possibly because of the inability to replicate something with as much depth. Instead they become critics and art philosophers rather than true artists. This remains their only claim; to create art as criticism. However, the Modernists also had a philosophy, far superior to the Postmodernists. Their philosophy and art was more profound and relevant than the mere reactionary efforts of their counterparts. They pushed boundaries, but not without purpose. The work they created was also beautiful in itself, while Postmodern art is only relevant or beautiful when considering its references and critique. For example, a Kitsch item of a golden elephant placed within the gallery walls becomes art due to context. Much like a jack hammer must be treated and assessed as music in an orchestra hall. However, a Pollock style piece whether on a guitar or within a gallery stills holds some aesthetic significance.

The intellectual output of our modern times is diminishing. Even this evaluation that I am writing may be of a shallower depth than if assessed by a mind of the 19th or 18th century. One does not know what do with classic or ancient texts and art. We have lost the capacity for understanding the true humanity within it. Those who do know a great deal about ancient or classical art/lit/music often wear a pompous mask, which begs the question of how deep their understanding is rooted. For instance, one who understands "punk" as a modern philosophical/musical/lifestyle phenomenon may be quite surprised when considering the ancient equivalents. Socrates was the Greek equivalent of the Sex Pistols. He voiced his outrage at the modern state of Athens and life as practiced by the Greeks in his time. However, rather than putting pins through his nose or painting his hair, he used Elenchus. Here we see much more sophisticated form of criticism and method of change than the modern punk executes. Socrates, I believe, was not without an agenda. He understood something most philosophers, critics, and scholars are somehow blind to. His confrontation of others who were "experts" in their field exposed their ignorance and thus disintegrated their power (psychologically). Elenchus brought people down (or up) to his level and forced them to deal with issues and concerns logically and thus democratically. Any strings pulled or methods of manipulation used by those within his council could be logically assessed and diminished through the Socratic Method.

Now, the methods used by those who are seen as the "rebels" of modern day are more rash, emotional, and one dimensional in comparison. We no longer have Philosophers. Note the capital "P". What passes as philosophers are really scholars and windbags. Who we do have that are worth their weigth are comedians. The modern Philosopher is the comic, and their humor the new method of Elenchus. Quick wit, blunt truths, and experiential consideration are the new forms of philosophical thought. They point out the inconsistencies lightheartedly, allowing it to sink deeper into the minds of the audience. It has to be this way; otherwise people would not give the considerations the time of day. People are too busy these days. They don't have time for Elenchus and do not even possess the capacity to see beyond opinion to reasonable truths. So what is used instead is fast food philosophy; quick, concise, cheap, processed, and catchy. People need things advertised to them in order to buy it anymore. It has to look good, feel good, and within a relatively short amount of time. Long, drawn out truths aren't efficient enough. This is what comedy provides today. This is why more "intelligent" people can only stand to watch Comedy Central, because comedy is as deep and profound as we'll allow on television.

The philosopher as he exists today is too thick to see through their own inconsistency. This is a flaw of philosophers of all time, and a limitation caused by the ego and consciousness on whole. However, the philosopher of today is guilty of the inconsideration of a great deal of phenomena now understood as scientific fact. For instance, philosophers today fall into pseudo-spiritualism based on a misunderstanding of the old Cartesian Duality. They believe consciousness to be something greater than the physical world, yet are unable to give the whereabouts or means of the existence of consciousness outside of physicality. This is because "existence" by its very essence is determined by its occurrence within or depends on its physicality. Rather, their assessment is based on a fear of absurdity and inability to cope with/understand the lack of reason within the universe. Nietzsche would call these "Shadows of God." It is a spiritual incapacity that leads to their valuation of consciousness rather than courageous reasoning.