-
A TUMBLE-LOG of various PHILOSOPHICKAL REFLECTIONS: The Surprising Truth of How We're Being Motivated
In The Management Myth, Matthew Stewart recounts the slightly sordid history of management, beginning at the turn of the last century with Frederick Winslow Taylor’s efforts to improve the efficiency of steel workers. Taylor was an advocate of what he called scientific management, a doctrine…
-
"Orders whether intentionally or not, represent restriction and only seem to mould people into poor copies of their guru. Magic is not about being a follower or a spectator, let alone suckered into the latest personality cult. Hierarchical orders tend to self preservation through an artificial construction of secrets and the drip feed of complex sounding jargon dressed up as teaching. Human history is full of these pyramid schemes. Enough of this. We would like to see the individual brave enough to walk their own path, whilst recognising that they can learn from others and contribute to the evolving paths of those they touch on the Way."
http://theeyelessowl.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/if-the-land-is-being-poisoned-witchcraft-must-respond/Posted on February 9th, 2011, 2011 at 11:48 pm
-
Response to Mead’s “The Seductive Art of Paradigm Shifts”
The Seductive Art of Paradigm Shifts
My comment is currently stuck in moderation, and it might never see the light of day, so here it is:
Jonathan, I think some of your ideas are getting more sophisticated, however I think it’s important to note that the only type of person that you considered to be a ‘heretic’ are of the ‘fluffy self-help’ variety.
Isn’t it the people who are actually building products and real communities who are changing the paradigm?
All of these ideas are trickle down from decades continental philosophy, social psychology, occult studies, and cybernetic theory. Why get your information from pop-writers like Gladwell and Ferriss? That’s like getting relationship advice from Justin Bieber.
Posted on January 18th, 2011 at 6:18 pm
-
Inglorious Basterds: Laughing at the Holocaust
I must admit at first I did enjoy the film, however the social critique of the film makes it look nothing less than disguising:
In Inglourious Basterds, Tarantino indulges this taste for vengeful violence by—well, by turning Jews into Nazis. In history, Jews were repeatedly herded into buildings and burned alive (a barbarism on which the plot of another recent film, The Reader, hangs); in Inglourious Basterds, it’s the Jews who orchestrate this horror. In history, the Nazis and their local collaborators made sport of human suffering; here, it’s the Jews who take whacks at Nazi skulls with baseball bats, complete with mock sports-announcer commentary, turning murder into a parodic “game.” And in history, Nazis carved Stars of David into the chests of rabbis before killing them; here, the “basterds” carve swastikas into the foreheads of those victims whom they leave alive.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/212016
Essentially the film engages in subtle holocaust denial and suggests that Jewish people were just as ruthless and “evil” as the Nazis. This leads to some horrifying directions.In the movie we assume they hate the Nazis so much because of all of the terrible things they do, but there are no mentions of the holocaust except for in the first scene where they kill Jews through the floorboards. Yet all murders of Nazis were done in the open in gruesome detail. The Nazis were protected and humorous.
The hate perpetuated against the Nazis in the film functions almost exactly the same as the Nazis against the Jews in World War II. Why is the movie so entertaining? Because we feel like the Nazis deserve it somehow. But taken in the context of the movie, they really don’t, they aren’t depicted doing anything visibly evil. The hate directed against them is the very same genocidal racism that drove the Nazis in reality.
Since Inglorious Basterds functions in an obvious alternate reality, we could suppose that it was an alternate reality where the Allies simply hated Germans.Posted on March 7th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
