You're Not Original, but That's Ok...

This started as a comment on my brother's blog, but ballooned so quickly that I felt I might post it here. What intrigued me, aside from his profuse swearing, were the words about stealing or copying. This is something that’s driving me up a wall lately and I feel compelled to unleash a fury of repressed thoughts on the subject.

In short, I’m ever so tired of our culture’s obsession with “stealing ideas”. I can’t be sure how what follows would work outside the realm of art, but inside, the bullshit must stop. The idea that anyone’s ever had an idea uninfluenced by something or someone else is complete nonsense. Especially in our era, where artists are ever so connected with other across the globe. The internet is a wonderful thing, encouraging the exchange of our ideas, letting us rapidly iterate and evolve our approaches so that all of us become better more skillful artisans. Art as a whole is benefiting from this, allowing for wonderful cross pollination creating new blends of just about anything. Sure, we’re ever more aware of how average we all are and just how many insanely talented people are just around the corner but this is not something we should worry ourselves over. We especially needn’t be so damn sensitive over who did what first or who borrowed from who. Every single artist has borrowed/stolen a method/idea/etc at some point and continues to. In order not to would require isolation impossible in today’s world. Not to mention the mere volume of art online today means a highly increased chance of multiple people creating similar work even if they’ve not been influenced by one another.

Why am I really talking about this? Because where I work, we have a jackass team of lawyers analyzing every visual we make, trying to find an existing counterpart that shares even a shred of similarity what we’ve created. If such a connection is found (and one can make a connection with ANY visual) we’re immediately told we can’t use it. They don’t research into whether the connection is strong enough to be copyright infringement, because doing so would be an exhaustive task, and having a 6-figure salary means you shouldn’t have to exert any due diligence. The effect of this is obvious: visuals become more generic to avoid being sued, artists are beat down and trained to create mediocrity, their time is wasted in needless revisions and ultimately you have non-artists telling a professional what they can and can’t make. I’d wonder what they’d say if I started telling them how to be a better prick. No one likes a backseat driver.

Not only do we suffer as artists for the squeamish premature censorship of the fun police, but consumers too, who want entertaining products (we make video games) are left with an abhorrently homogenized product that doesn’t satisfy them. Meanwhile, consumers are treated to more remakes of movies/games that weren’t worth a damn in the first place and sequels upon sequels upon sequels upon sequels upon sequels upon sequels. So while we artists are making leaps and bounds personally through internet fellowship, art that reaches the masses is degrading at such a rate one can’t even fathom it. All of this of course, just to avoid being sued (by a person who’s original idea wasn’t very original to begin with) and save a buck.

So, I’m actually proposing something that maybe disastrous, but may be the only hope. I think we as artists must openly allow theft. Not in the sense of claiming other’s art as your own, but any element one wishes to borrow, iterate on or emulate should be allowed. We’ve got to realize at the end of the day, the enormous debt we already owe to whom came before and to our contemporaries. Remember copying master works to understand how they’re done? None our ideas are original, we must now develop a collective artistic depository of ideas and spread the wealth, baby. Then and only then, we just may start making revolutionary art again.

In closing, I hope all the lawyers from my company die a painful and horrible death. It’s a fair trade for them killing art.

And steal my ideas. Underground fa life!

Hooray for gays!

Last night, I watched the election coverage and felt a strange and unfamiliar emotion… pride. I admit it, as cynical and as jaded as I am, I couldn’t help it. I laid my head down with a good feeling about the direction of this county. That general feeling lasted until about 2 minutes ago when I saw that California is looking like it will pass a ban on gay marriage. Pardon my French, but what the fuck???

I’m so tired of this being an issue. There is no issue! There is no conceivable reason why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. In California? The gayest state per capita in the U.S.? How does this happen?

Well, I’ve heard all the usual arguments, all of them being beyond retarded. In fact, I shouldn’t use that word because calling these arguments retarded is an insult to the word retarded. I’d like to suggest a new word to describe asinine ideas of this magnitude:

Humongatarditude (huu-mon-ga-tard-i-tuud) noun
An attitude or belief that is so stupid, so unbelievably barren of any logic, reason or sense, that any sentient being cannot even fathom it.

However, just saying that these views are humongatarditudes won’t satisfy those who oppose same-sex marriages. So, let’s take some time to dispel some of arguments for this humongatarditude:

Note: These arguments are taken from here, may their god strike them down with lightning. Word!

---

Humongatarditude #1.

The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound. A recent article in the Weekly Standard described how the advent of legally sanctioned gay unions in Scandinavian countries has already destroyed the institution of marriage, where half of today's children are born out of wedlock.

Response:
That “logic” is astounding. People have been making babies out of wedlock since the beginning of time. Not to mention the number of heterosexual marriages that are the true disgrace to the sanctity of marriage. I also fail to see how gay marriage would affect the heterosexual’s attitude on whether to get married or not. That’s likely because there IS NONE!

---

Humongatarditude #2

The introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions.

Response:
Another slippery slope argument, which if you taken even a high school debate class, you know this how desperate people with no real evidence to support their claims. First off, although polygamy isn’t my bag and sounds like more trouble than fun, I’m not against it. I know this will likely have some people wagging their finger at me, but stop. If consenting adults want to have the headache that is a polygamous relationship, I’m certainly not going to tell them it’s wrong and I can’t see how it’s anyone’s business. Just like I’m not going to tell a Christian that they’re not allowed to be Christian.

---

Humongatarditude #3

An even greater objective of the homosexual movement is to end the state's compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriages have been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver's license or a hunting permit. With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments heretofore associated with it.

Response:
This is getting redundant. Divorce is already that way practically and it has nothing to do with whether or not Bill and Bob want to marry. Heterosexuals need to grow a pair and realize that THEY are the reason the institution of marriage is in the shitter. As a married person myself, I practically worship my wife and she me. My parents are similar. That is what marriage should be about but many if not most heterosexual people don’t take this approach. Men treat their wives like slaves or crazy bitches and women see their husbands as cheating pigs with brains in their penises. People have forgotten how to love and that blame is squarely directed at heterosexuals. Homosexuals, in my experience, when having a relationship they deem worthy of marriage, actually appreciate the union and their partners! That’s not to say gay people can’t be dicks, but the lack of opportunity for marriage seems make them take it more seriously. Gay marriage is an asset to fortifying the sanctity of marriage not a problem.

---

Humongatarditude #4

With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach that this perversion is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Textbooks, even in conservative states, will have to depict man/man and woman/woman relationships, and stories written for children as young as elementary school, or even kindergarten, will have to give equal space to homosexuals.

Response:
Again, I can’t see the trouble in teaching tolerance in public schools. We are all different and we all have to get along. Schools aren’t responsible for spreading your hate doctrine, you are. Teach your kids to hate gays at home if you want. Stop whining.

---

Humongatarditude #5

From that point forward, courts will not be able to favor a traditional family involving one man and one woman over a homosexual couple in matters of adoption. Children will be placed in homes with parents representing only one sex on an equal basis with those having a mom and a dad. The prospect of fatherless and motherless children will not be considered in the evaluation of eligibility. It will be the law.

Response:
I’m failing to see the problem. Not to mention that currently we are a nation of fatherless children and again none of that has to do with the homos. Heterosexual males are the ones leaving women to raise children on their own.

Furthermore, what about all those children who never get adopted, asshole? More gay marriages mean more adoptions and you can’t possibly argue that no parents are better than two parents of the same gender? I’d like to see you tell an orphan the reason they have to go without a family for the rest of their lives is because of your superficial hang-up on gay people.

---

Humongatarditude #6

Foster-care parents will be required to undergo "sensitivity training" to rid themselves of bias in favor of traditional marriage, and will have to affirm homosexuality in children and teens.

Response:
Bullshit. Absolute bullshit. Since they’ve not even bothered to support this claim with any evidence, I’ll just leave it at that. Bullshit.

---

Humongatarditude #7

How about the impact on Social Security if there are millions of new dependents that will be entitled to survivor benefits? It will amount to billions of dollars on an already overburdened system. And how about the cost to American businesses? Unproductive costs mean fewer jobs for those who need them. Are state and municipal governments to be required to raise taxes substantially to provide health insurance and other benefits to millions of new "spouses and other dependents"?

Response:
What if all of a sudden millions of more heterosexual people decided to marry? Even better, what if all those gays went straight (your wet dream) and had a traditional marriage? You’d have the same problem. Further, if you are entitled to those benefits, who are you to tell others they can’t? Currently homosexuals are being taxed so that YOUR dependants are entitled. Is that fair?

You gotta love these arguments because they are never the real reason people are against gay marriage. People come up with these arguments to support a pre-existing aversion to same sex marriages. Please, if we’re going to solve this issue, be honest. The only reasons you don’t want gays to marry is because it grosses you out or your religion tells you it’s wrong. Separation of church and state, bitches, end of problem.

---

Humongatarditude #8

Marriage among homosexuals will spread throughout the world, just as pornography did after the Nixon Commission declared obscene material "beneficial" to mankind.11 Almost instantly, the English-speaking countries liberalized their laws against smut. America continues to be the fountainhead of filth and immorality, and its influence is global.

Response:
This argument is funny because it’s not saying anything to justify a ban on gay marriage. It’s simply stating that it will spread. Maybe so, maybe not. That doesn’t make it wrong; it means people’s attitudes are changing. Give me a reason being gay is bad. I can’t think of any besides the garish fashion sense but then again, I wear a t-shirt and cargos everyday of my life. I’ll say it again; the slippery slope approach to debate is the lowest of the low. Cast is aside and give me a good argument. I dare you.

---

Humongatarditude #9

Perhaps most important, the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed. The family has been God's primary vehicle for evangelism since the beginning.

Response:
I couldn’t care less. Contrary to popular belief, we are not a Christian nation and laws should never been enacted on the basis of religious beliefs. We are a melting pot of diversity and culture. Get used to it.

At least they’re being honest here. This is why people hate gays. They read somewhere in some book that god hates them too. Well, if Jesus can hang out with lepers and prostitutes, you can stomach a homosexual. Then again, you don’t actually want to be like Jesus, you just want to wag your finger at everyone who is different from you. If you actually tried to be Christ-like, we wouldn’t be having this argument.

---

Humongatarditude #10

The culture war will be over, and I fear, the world may soon become "as it was in the days of Noah" (Matthew 24:37, NIV). This is the climactic moment in the battle to preserve the family, and future generations hang in the balance. This apocalyptic and pessimistic view of the institution of the family and its future will sound alarmist to many, but I think it will prove accurate unless-unless-God's people awaken and begin an even greater vigil of prayer for our nation. That's why Shirley and I are urgently seeking the Lord's favor and asking Him to hear the petitions of His people and heal our land. As of this time, however, large segments of the church appear to be unaware of the danger; its leaders are surprisingly silent about our peril (although we are tremendously thankful for the efforts of those who have spoken out on this issue). The lawless abandon occurring recently in California, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Washington and elsewhere should have shocked us out of our lethargy. So far, I'm alarmed to say, the concern and outrage of the American people have not translated into action. This reticence on behalf of Christians is deeply troubling. Marriage is a sacrament designed by God that serves as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and His Church. Tampering with His plan for the family is immoral and wrong. To violate the Lord's expressed will for humankind, especially in regard to behavior that He has prohibited, is to court disaster.

Response:
WTF? See my above response.

---

If you have any good arguments on why gay marriage should be banned in a society that recognizes separation of church and state, I certainly like to hear them. Please note that I’ll immediately rebut and make you look foolish.

It goes back to my creed, don’t mess with my shit and I’ll leave yours be. If we’re ever going to actually change for the better in this country, we need to honestly look at ourselves and our ideals to the core. Jesus said, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” I am not a Christian, but I think this one of the most profound and undervalued statements ever made. Jesus never hated a homo, he loved all members of creation equally and you’d be wise to follow his lead. Seriously, what would Jesus do?

More on that later.

Hooray for gays!

God is Your Nachos

Questions

• Does god or the big some-sort-of-a-something have a consciousness?
• What constitutes your body?
• When does a nacho become “you”?
• Are you really what you eat?
• Stop it, seriously.

So, today I’ll be discussing my emerging theory of what the totality of existence may be. Some like to call it god, but that word is so laden with baggage and implied meaning; I typically try to avoid it. Yet, it’s as good a term as any other so be aware that anytime I use it, unless stated, I’m not referring to a specific god or even a personal god. It’s a label for the unnameable.

After reading this theory of the big some-sort-of-a-something, you may have a few reactions. First, some will think me ridiculous. Others will think its sacrilege while still others will say, “No shit! It’s obvious.”

To me, however, this recent personal revelation is exciting. It seemed to be staring me in the face for the longest time without me knowing. I like these sorts of “eureka moments”, actually I live for them. I especially like them when they’ve been hiding in plain view because the moment of realization is similar to getting a joke. It’s hilarious and it makes me feel stupid.

Kneelers, Squares and Kooks

These days, it seems that people fall into approximately 3 groups, “religiously”. There are those that maintain an older view of god, be it Jehovah, Shiva or any other personal god. These folks imagine god as some kind of spirit-person, all-seeing and knowing, etc. For these sorts of people in America, typically, god has some definite opinions/rules on how to live life. He/She is involved directly in our day to day life and if you know what’s good for you, you’ll bow in worship. Let’s call these people the Kneelers.

Then there is the opposition to this view held by atheists. In their world, god doesn’t seem plausible – hell, it seems ridiculous. So, for them, the world is meaningless and we all die alone. For these guys, life is a big pool game with things crashing into each other and life is essentially mechanical in nature. Everything must be scientifically proven to be valid. Life is a dull torture from birth to death. I’ll call these peeps the Squares.

Finally, in my heavily generalized division of religious thought, there are what I’ll call the Kooks. The Kooks eat at the buffet table of religious thought. They mix and match appealing ideas from various metaphysical schools. They, more often, don’t belong to organized religion and they certainly don’t belong to the local established religion (perish the thought!). These are the “intellectual spiritualists” who often have a very nebulous idea of god. God is a some-sort-of-a-something.

Now, I’m certainly painting with broad strokes here and there are many mixes and facets not represented. For the purposes of what I’m talking about, it’ll have to do. An important thing to note is that each group looks down at the others in its own way. The Kneelers think the Squares are sinful and the Kooks are sacrilege. They wag their fingers in disapproval. The Squares view the Kneelers as delusional and the Kooks as hippies who need to grow up and get a job. They scowl at the opposition and turn up their noses. Finally, the Kooks stroke themselves by viewing the other groups as only having part of the picture. They laugh at the others, thus trivializing their views.

In an effort for full disclosure, I submit myself as a Kook. I admit that my way is no better than any other, but the mere fact that I’m on this path seems to indicate that I find it in someway superior. Granted, it’s only superior for “me” and this way may be perfectly useless for someone of a different disposition. Nonetheless, as much as I’d like to be all-accepting and all-encompassing of all beliefs, it seems out of my capacity.

So, why have I said all this? First, it helps to have contrasting views to show just how my view works. Also, I think it’s important to see how I view other views because it is in context that my view grows. Perhaps it will be easier to understand my line of thinking if one sees my preconceptions and prejudices. In other words, you need light to see darkness and we can’t deal with one without the other.

My Old View

Also, in order to contrast my new idea, I’ll submit my older view. I’ve not necessarily abandoned this idea of the grand some-sort-of-a-something, but before I was more hardnosed about it. These days, it’s still plausible to me, but so is the new idea.

In a nutshell, I believed in an impersonal god. I felt that given the ever so intricate ways in which all things are related and dependent on each other is a form of unity. This unity means that, in a way of thinking, I am the same as you and that plant and that rock.

When a biologist studies an organism, he/she cannot study it in isolation. It is only in context to its environment that one can fully understand how an organism works. Thus, he studies a field of pattern called an organism-environment. The environment doesn’t push the organism around and conversely the organism doesn’t push the environment around. They are symbiotic and one cannot exist without the other. There can be no predator without prey.

I felt and still feel this interconnectedness is profound and applicable to all life. You can’t even think about anything without an opposite to contrast it with. So, if all is connected and basically one happening, then we can conceive that whatever the marvelous some-sort-of-a-something is, that we are it. We are god, whatever that means. I still hold this belief.

What is currently up for debate in my noggin is what exactly IS the super some-sort-of-a-something? Quite some time ago I dropped the idea of this being conscious and self-aware. It seemed more plausible that it was some kind of indescribable happening; a sort of gooey energy that kept everything happening. I couldn’t conceive of a god that cared whether I was good or evil and that would create me with all these desires, only to forbid me to indulge in them. Such a god seems like a real dick, to be frank. An all-knowing and infinitely just god is being rather unreasonable if he has created me with sinful tendencies and will damn me forever if I act on them.

I still can’t get on with that idea of god but because I was repulsed by that idea originally, I also rejected the idea of a personal or conscious god all together. I threw the baby out with the bathwater. So, this new theory is the exploration of a consciousness at the top of life.

You are the Poo

So, before we get to my theory on god or whatever name you have for it, I’d like to share the foundations for this idea of the everything-that-is. First, let’s note that a Square would say there is no evidence for god. The Kneeler would say there is. The Kook might say there is no evidence to suggest that there is no god. Forever ambiguous…

I’d say that while, like anything else, there is no absolute proof of either view, there is “proof” of a possibility. We could devise inferences based on any number of local, observable phenomena. I’ll be using the human body this time around. So first, let’s get a grip on what we define as the human body.

Let’s think about what actually constitutes our bodies. Most people think that our body is sack of skin with bones muscles and organs – basically. We think that this is one thing, a unit – but if that unit requires other things to sustain that unit (the pattern of a living organism) is the mere flesh the extent of that unit? If you’re eating a plate of nachos, at what point does that nacho become you?

Let’s take the journey of a cheese covered nacho chip (with a nice green jalapeño on top!). First it’s on your plate – certainly it’s something other than you at this moment. Correct? I disagree, but let’s keep going.

You place it in your mouth and begin chewing, saliva is secreted and even now digestion begins. Your teeth are breaking down that delicious delectable into smaller bits and your saliva is beginning to break things down at a smaller level. Are we still separate chip and person? Most folks think about this scenario as a chip IN the mouth, but not the same unit (a chip-mouth or a chip-body). Really? Okay, I’ll play along.

Once sufficiently chewed, you swallow and down the esophagus it goes into the stomach. Here it swims in gastric acid and enzymes. Small molecules (for example alcohol, if this were beer and not a nacho) are absorbed in the stomach. Are we chip-person yet? I hear you saying that part of the chip is now us or perhaps you say that part of the chip has given us energy/fuel, as if our energy was separate from our body. But, the rest of the chip is still not us! Gosh, you’re meticulous aren’t you?

Our next stop is the small intestine, most of the digestion/absorption occurs here. Then the waste is pushed on to the large intestine and afterwards, you guessed it – POO! Well, you’ll prolly say that the poo was the part that isn’t and never was us, while the other parts became us at the moment of absorption. Or further still, some will say it gave the body fuel but is somehow still not the body.

This is because a lot of people view the body as analogous to a car. It’s some kind of contraption that you put food in one end and get poo on the other. Just as you put gas one end of a car and get exhaust from the other. Though the food/gas is the fuel needed for locomotion, it is not the mechanism itself. I think this is crazy talk, but then again, I’m a Kook. Bare with me.

Body as Pattern

Ultimately, I see what we call “things” as sustainable patterns. To borrow a metaphor, we call the flame of a candle a “thing”, but is the flame on a candle the same flame as was in that locale 10 minutes ago? Or even ten seconds? A flame is a chemical reaction releasing heat and light. It is an event, happening or a pattern. Yet this pattern keeps going for a time and thus becomes sort of a constant. I see all life as these kinds of patterns and the human body is no different.

There is a turnover of cells in your body happening all the time. From what I understand, the frequency of this turnover varies from tissue to tissue, the “longest living” of these happens in your brain. Regardless, the body is forever in a state of change. You are not the exact person you were yesterday. Your pattern is roughly the same and thus identifiable, but nonetheless “you” are not the same. It is this change that gives you life. You are a whirlpool or a cloud.

So, if we consider the body a pattern, we can think of anything that is required to keep the pattern going as part of the pattern. A flame needs a candle to keep flaming. A whirlpool needs water to keep whirling. A human needs food and many other things to keep humaning. Without food you would very quickly cease to be a human and soon be a corpse. So, food is a requirement for humaning. In this way, we can see that nacho on your plate as part of your pattern.

Now, we could extrapolate this indefinitely (humans need air, so the air is you, we need the earth, etc.) and reach some interesting thoughts. Let’s table these for now because it’s off the beaten path from where I’m going (though we should discuss this later in detail). What is important at this moment is that we can see that separate things can be a whole.

Let’s go back to our digestive system. Did you know you have animals living inside your belly? Bacteria in the intestines help break down food into bits “your body” can use. Were it not for these bacteria, you’d be screwed in a big way. The process of digestion is vitally dependent on them. Yet, we call them something “other” than the body. Isn’t that funny? We refer to it as a symbiotic relationship. We swallow food, which feeds the bacteria and the bacteria poop out stuff that we can eat. You don’t even eat your own food! How strange!

So, if we can’t sustain the human pattern without bacteria, I’m compelled to see them as part of me. Well, let’s go the other direction and take an example which we ordinarily think of as our body. White bloods cells are considered us in the ordinary way of thinking. They’re wonderful little guys. They’re like little knights fighting off bad bacteria, fungus, parasites and all that. But, do you tell them which one’s to battle? Well, not consciously at least. They just do their thing. They fight infection because that’s what white blood cells do. Well, everything in your body is, in a way of looking, doing just that. Your body is like a massive community of autonomous cells which have organized themselves in a marvelous way as to be your body.

Cosmic Conscious Intelligence

Now, what am I getting at? Well, think of your conscious attention, the portion of your process that you so closely identify with. It’s a very small part of what is going on. More importantly, it is only sustainable because of the autonomous actions of millions of itty bitty guys. Without your body there would be no mind. How does this relate to my budding personal theory on the big some-sort-of-something?

Well if a bunch of cells and bacteria, each serving its own ends, when combined grows a brain which grows an intelligence, who’s to say that if you could zoom out to the totality of existence, that all these galaxies and seemingly separate things don’t grow some kind of cosmic brain? I feel the need to restate that in some official kind of way:

If the body, being made of individual autonomous constituents, can result in an intelligence, then the entire scope of existence being also made of individual autonomous constituents, may also result in an intelligence.

Now, you’ll notice I’ve put a big “may” in there. As stated before, this is not proof of god, only proof of a possibility.

Time to Repent?

Now, before someone uses this to start hitting people over the heads with the good book, there are some significant notes to make. Let’s say for the sake argument, that this in fact true. The totality of existence has a consciousness. Some may think that means that god wants us to be good people and follow the ten commandments, etc. This is a broad and unwarranted jump.

Let’s go back to our bodies. As previously noted, you don’t consciously “will” your cells to do certain things. In fact most of what your body does eludes your conscious mind. You can observe the overall body, but you can’t wag your finger at a white blood cell if it stops performing its “duties”.

So, in the just the same way that we are not really aware of our little “disciples” there is a good chance that if there is a Cosmic Conscious Intelligence, it also doesn’t really “know” about us. That’s not to say that a CCI couldn’t know about us, either seems plausible. For whatever the great some-sort-of-something is or isn’t, at this juncture it is beyond our ability to comprehend it fully. All of our explanations are mere symbols pointing to a reality we seem unfit to fully grasp.

Forever ambiguous…

Jerry Springer’s Final Thought

Don’t turn your nose up at your poo,
For that dirty turd is in-fact you!
I’m sure it’s true, through and through,
Boo-dee boop dee boop-dee boo!