I would say that Terrence describes a certain dissonance to technology and institutions. This should not necessarily be taken as negative, but if this is the only context that is possible, then so be it. To draw a parallel, I might be listening to a certain part of a song that is dissonant. I may only be able to describe it as "painful" "shocking" or "intense" in the particular moment, even though the entire piece of music is enjoyable, and worth listening to.
So what I am saying, is the negative aspects of institutions that Terrence is emphasizing, are only part of the story; and without a doubt in my mind, a part that is deserving more and more stress in our society. We need the effective Tritone, or the existential bitchslap; and we need those artistically and metaphysically conceited persons to express themselves. (Thats my opinion)
Hasn't TM also been known to praise the advents of technology? Im not sure, but wasn't he generally known as a techno-shaman internet guru type? I agree that if this was all that Terence had to say about technology and institutions, it would be rather hypocritical. But I don't think it is wrong to emphasize our lack of tact in the current moment. All Terence is saying, is that the individual and the artistic expression, precede the collective and the culture. So I do not think he is favoring the individual, or detracting from the collective. No more than it is necessary.
I am currently listening to the second video series that was posted, where he makes a comparison between technology/society with the hallucinogenic trip. He says that we are tripping harder and harder on technology, and this reflects itself in a hallucingenic culture. Coming from Terence the DMT man, isn't this a perfectly unbiased outlook?
Sure, there is much to say about the freedoms of the internet, a "library philosophy" of information exchange, rather than a "commercial". I think what we are doing right now is significant, and enlightening. I think internet forums are very useful for conducting a principled outlook on reality. Everything is recorded, written, but still fast paced and competitive.
Despite these merits, I also find it significant how easy it is to regress on this forum. The absurdity of the situation allows anyone to quite convincingly post a greamlin or graphic such as "The internet: serious buisness" and counter anything I have to say. Also, I have seen even the best posters around here scorn the learning or enlightening effects of the shroomery: "Its only the internet" after all. True knowledge is found at the university, or in books.
Generally, there is this prevalent idea that these fruits of our age are ridiculous. It is hard to praise the merits of our age, because these merits are things like the internet forum, information piracy, and wikipedia.
There is a certain truth to this. Wikipedia and bittorrent are not the end all source for enlightenment. But I think that the problem is largely exaggerated, and significantly reactionary, (notably in the university I goto.) It has more to do with copyrights and credit, even though it is typically made out to seem like it is the verity of this information.
Socrates was perhaps lucky that he only had to deal with the "sophists". At the shroomery, there is an even more absurdly fine line between the "masterdebater", and a true philosopher.
So yea, there are certainly merits of our age, such as wikipedia and internet philosophy, but it is hard to seriously describe them as revolutionary.
Now the "bad trip" of modern culture on the other hand, is easy to see and convincingly describe. Terence was speaking of confusing concepts with reality, but he hadn't even seen the actual medium that it has attained today. Its still the same linguistic confusion, but now it has attained a literal reality; we are confusing reality television with reality.
Perhaps you believe this is not relavent?
In a mirror image of this, the hallucinogenic (linguistic) response in politics, has recently reached epic proportions. There has always been the contextual manipulation of addressing issues as for instance "pro-life or pro-choice." That has been the art of politics for a while.
But since "The Patriot Act, political language has actually manifested its own medium. That is, in this language, "Patriot Act" is no longer a mere metaphor or contextual truth, but it has literally manifested a medium of patriotism that has nothing to do with the "act" itself (its action or function).
As a coherent, complete message, I believe that Terence is saying that the individual precedes the collective. Art and expression precedes culture. It is of course necessary to annihilate the illusions, before anything positive is attempted. So I do not think he should be mistaken as biased between the individual and the collective/institution. In our current context, yes it appears as a bias. But it is hard to praise the merits of our age, such as (wikipedia and internet forums) when they are constantly undermined by a bad faith in culture.
And yes, internet is serious business.
|