Tuesday, September 27, 2005

My revolutionary reading list

Sometimes its hard to explain the whole enchilada when it comes to my revolution. So what i'll do here is create a reading list of about 20 books so you can do your homework on what i think. With this i'll explain what the book is about and why i'm recomending it. So i'll be adding and subtracting a few, here goes:

Warriors At Work: by Mustafah Dhada. It's a book about the revolution in Guinea Bissau enactd by the PAIGC back when they ousted the Portugese from their country. The book is comprehensive in that it covers the war itself, and in a separate section the social-economic programs that the PAIGC orchestrated during the war.

The Art of War by Sun Tzu it's a classic, what more can i say?

The Tao Te Ching,
another classic, more mystical than the first. If read from the right angle, i heard it was one of the first treatises on systems thinking.

Natural Capitalism by Hawken, Lovins and Lovins this book explains how to create a sustainable economy. Devoid of pleas and morality, this book goes into the nitty-gritty of how companies have been making environmentally better products and profits in business using sustainable strategies (architecture, carpet making) as well as some governmental concerns and examples.

The Nature of Economies by Jane Jacobs The activist that saved New York from becoming one big project. . . she hits us off with a book explaining how the economy is just like evolution. Through a series of conversations from characters in the book she explains the nuts and bolts of economic development, stagnation and how economists and politicians can grow a green thumb for the greenbacks. Apparently, money doesn't grow on trees, but the economy evolves like an ecosystem.

Metu Neter Vol. 2 by Ra Un Nefer Amen volume one is a dense doozy. Volume two i like and recommend because it contains an explanation of different kinds of thinking, abstract and concrete, analytic and synthetic etc., and that in itself helps to clarify my thinking, and hopefully yours, about how to approach problems. Many times problems don't get solved not because they're intractable or incorrigible, but because we haven't found the flaws in our thinking on how to assess and approach the problem.

Two books by George Lakoff: Don't think of an Elephant (read first) and Moral Politics (rsecond) these books examine the political spectrum from the view of cognitive science. He shows in these books why the 'liberal' and 'conservative' frameworks are consistent and why they are what they are. Part of his grind is to show the 'liberal' establishment (or lack therof) why the conservatives have had this slow but steady rise to power in the last couple decades.

That's all for now. Happy reading
Bookmark and Share

My recomended reading list

So I've read a lot. A blog from someone who doesn't read a lot better be from an artist or a conisseur or something, otherwise it'll be mindless drivel. So here's my recomended reading list:

Spirituality:
The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success by Deepak Chopra
Tree of Life Meditation System by Ra Un Nefer Amen
The Metu Neter by Ra Un Never Amen
Angels Fear by Gregory and Mary Catherine Bateson

Philosophy:
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirisig
Objectivism:The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand

Novels:
Lion's Blood; Firedance (both series) by Steve Barnes
Parable of the Sower (series) by Octavia Butler
Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

Self-Development/Psychology:
The Structure of Delight by Nelson Zink (gotta find it used)
The Craft of the Warrior by Robert Spence (gotta find it used)
Using Your Brain For a Change by Richard Bandler
Change Your Mind by Connirae and Steve Andreas
Transforming Your Self by Steve Andreas
***In this order, you can skip the first though

Thinking and Cognition in General
Metaphors We Live By by Lakoff and Johnson
Frames of Mind by Howard Gardner
Social Mindscapes by Eviatar Zerubavel
How the Mind Works by Steve Pinker

On Becoming a Warrior:
The Tao of Jeet Kun Do by Bruce Lee
www.rmax.tv
http://www.clubbell.tv/index2.html


History:
Many Thousands Gone by Ira Berlin
Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond
DK Atlas of Wold History
The Wealth and Poverty of Nations by David Landes
Civilizations by Felipe Fernandez-Armesto

Economics/Business
The Nature of Economies by Jane Jacobs
Natural Capitalism by Hawken, Lovins and Lovins
The Mystery of Capital by Hernando De Soto
Beyond Reengineering by Michael Hammer
The Pentagon's New May by Thomas Barnett

General Science:
Lila by Robert Pirisig
Mind and Nature by Gregory Bateson
Art and Physics by Leonard Shlain
The Ingenious Mind of Nature by George Hall
Consilience by Edward O. Wilson

Building a Movement/Revolution
The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People by Steven Covey
The Power Principle by Blaine Lee
Never Eat Alone by Keith Ferazzi
Linked by Albert Laszlo Barabasi
Changing Minds by Howard Gardner
The Hidden Power of Social Networks Rob Cross

and yes smarty pants, i have read all of these (except one-its on my to do list)
Bookmark and Share

apparently, some people know what they're talking about

So i'm a teacher. I'm new at this game. I thought teachers did things to complicate my life. You know, little things like lesson plans, write out how projects should be turned in by students. . . you know, the various paper work that teachers do. But today i realized, that i get up in the front of the class room, and i have just a little idea of what i'll be doing during the class. Sometimes i don't have any idea. Then it hit me. I had a lesson planned!

So, when i say people know what they're talking about, i'm talking about the self-help gurus and people who say "plan your work, and work your plan" and its catchy and non-catchy versions. When you have a plan, you don't have to wing it. When i wing it, i'm asking myself am i doing it right more than i'm paying attention to what i'm doing or saying. Sometimes it isn't practice makes perfect, which i thought was how people became better teachers. Rather its knowing pretty much what you're going to do on a moment-to-moment basis.

So all of this planning and scheduling, its really an awareness exercise. When you have the big picture sorted out, you can hammer at the details of it. Lemme find out some people know what they're talking about?!
Bookmark and Share

Monday, September 26, 2005

Hip-Hop "vs." Gangsta Rap

I was talking to my brother and a friend of his about a month or two ago and finally made public my opinion on why the 'battle' between 'hip-hop' and 'gangsta-rap' is utterly futile. That is to say that 'hip-hop' will never win this battle, or the war.

To understand what i mean, i have to take you into the fields of linguistics and semantics, the study of language and meaning, respectively. In the little book "metaphors we live by" semanticists Lakoff and Johnson propose the theory that everyday metaphors such as "good is up" and "bad is down" (ex, stock market, feelings, boxers etc.) have more of an influence in our lives than we thought.

These fellas took to task the metaphor "argument is war" by flushing out aspects of this metaphor we find in everyday language: " Your claims are indefensible. He attacked every weak point in my argument. His criticisms were right on target. I demolished his argument. I've never won an argument with him." These point to that we understand argument through the metaphor of war. Correspondingly, since this is a very well-developed metaphor, many of our conversations and 'heated discussions' devolve into pitche battles over who is right and who is wrong, sound familiar?

If that doesn't convince you of the subtle and powerful nature of metaphors, what about our notions of "love"? Many people understand, explain and express love in different ways. Think of a couple who have differing notions of love: one thinks "love is blind" while the other thinks "love is hurtful". What about either of them in a different relationship with someone thinking that "love is a collaborative work of art?" Do you think they'd get along? Even at first glance your gut tells you that these two (in any combination) won't make for a happy couple. Sure there'd be happy moments, but a happy couple? Nope. That's because you understand how powerful the notion of love is to a relationship, and how one understands what love 'is' has an influence on how they think and act, whether they're in or out of love.

So now what? Metaphors influence the way we think, and act. What's that got to do with the battle between 'hip-hop' and 'gangsta rap'? Look closely, is it really a 'battle'? Do conscious rappers come out and say bad things about thugs, and vice versa? Is it a overt battle, or is it more subtle and nuanced? Heard of player haters? Heard of hater players?

Why hip-hop will never win the battle or war against gangsta rap is that gansta rap has a monopoly on violence. There are options to undermine this 'battle' and 'war'.

The first is revolution, armed revolution (of which i'm not an advocate). What's happening in the communities that breed gangsta rappers and consume gangsta rap is violence. Plain and simple. Whether it's inner city shootings, or rural beat downs, or vice versa, violence is happening. The biggest kid on the block pretty much runs things. These kings-of-the-hill walk around with a veneer of moral authority to use violence. They use violence to protect their person, their people, their rep and their hood. That's understandable.

In a revolutionary situation, armed or not, the moral authority of violence lay not with the individual protecting his own, but with a force protecting the good of the community. In an ideal situation, that would be the police. But we don't trust them. So, the revolutionary nature of the situation would be a self-policing of the community by the community. Something real critical would have to shift both inside and outside the black community for the revolutionaries to gain the moral authority for violence: internal policing based on the good of the village or community, not its individuals. In the sixties, this took the form of the Black Panthers and like-minded organizations.

Now let's move on to a more likely and palatable option: Hip-hoppers get a new metaphor- competition and/or dance. Early 'battle rap'. . . Early competitive rap was a test of who could brag the most and the flyest. Emcees outclassed and outmaneuvered each other with lyrical wit, sometimes using threats of violence, threats of stealing the others girl(s) and outright disrespecting their opponent. It was the ability of the emcees to avoid taking things personally inside the cipher that both bolstered their own reputation (he can take a pounding as well as give it out) and prevented violence from breaking out. Unfortunately, some people didn't have this mental-emotional armor, and got sensitive. They brought the beef down to a physical level.

Brinksmanship. "don't push me cuz i'm close to the edge, i'm trying not to lose my head". Early emcees pushed the envelope to get each other's goat as well as put up the aura that they were invincible or at least flexible enough to laugh at themselves, thereby gaining rep for being a 'good sport'.

So we need an alternative metaphor, one that can replace the metaphor 'battle' to understand, experience, explain and express what goes on in a exchange of lyrics. The closest metaphors i can think of are competition and dance. Why i chose those is becaue they are both dynamic in nature. I also chose them because they are relatively developed metaphors. Unfortunately, we have no extensive vocabulary for either.

Why would the hip-hoppers need a new metaphor? Because of the collapse of reality and illusion. The battle is a game played where each participant portrays his or her own invincibility and power. When that illusion bubble is popped and the portrayal remains, people take things personally. Then comes the beat down. To prevent this violence from happening, a subtle but powerful shift must be created where the operating metaphor keeps the intensity of 'battles' but eliminates the overt threats of violence.

Okay, so i never promised that i would have well-thought out essays. Deal with it.
Bookmark and Share

man this is hard

I remember searching used to be easy. I'm trying to boost a couple pictures off the web to add some visuals to my blog. . . but i'm just coming up with squat!!! I remember when i used to see random pictures, put them on my hard drive and just lollygag and love the pictures. Unfortunately having to upgrade computers i have the good stuff on old computers. Nowadays you can upload pictures and things. I'm not sure how all that works. I have a friendster profile and a yahoo thinggy, but just having pictures on the web? Well, i did get one of those "hello" accounts that blogger has, and i guess picasa to boot? But i haven't figured those out yet.

I would say that i'm going to stick to words, but that's not gonna happen.

Why do i have multiple blogs? And why am i blogging about blogging? Because i'm a weird dude, that's why. What's this blog about? The little things that aren't so thematic. The daily grind. How my bum itches occasionally. What i think about that's not in the realm of the other blogs. I'm going to try to be redundant, so if i put stuff that's marginally related to politics, in on of these blogs, i might go on a more serious rant on the political blog i have, same for spiritual and so forth.

I think of blogging as more expressing my thoughts and helping me to sort them out than to communicate. If i wanted to communicate with you, i'd write a book or seven (which i'm doing also-you gotta wait for that though).

Anyhoo. . .
Bookmark and Share

Sunday, September 25, 2005

Revolution eh? what kinds?

Well, my Favorite revolutionary is Amilcar Cabral. The best book on him is Warriors at Work by Mustafah Dhada. It is literally a big-picture blueprint for creating a balanced nation under external stress. During his ousting of the Portuguese, he created a mobile hospital system, created schools for rural masses, got a trade-and-barter network going, and increased the productivity of the agriculture in Guinea Bissau. All this was done while waging a war with the Portuguese, who had helicopters, flew sorties and manned forts. Unfortunately he was 'accidentally killed' when taken by the Portugese Army by one of his former enemies.

There are many dimensions to this revolution of mine. The First purpose is that the ultimate goal in a person's life being inner peace. Everything after that is negotiable based on circumstance.

I am talking of an economic revolution. People for years have been beating the statistics of how many black dollars are spent per year. I'm flapping my lips and thinking about how much black businesses make each year, how many (and how well) they employ people and whether they are in 'critical industries.'

There will be more to come. I just created this blog along with about three or four others. I'll be peicemealing this into something big.

oh yeah, if you use one of my ideas, i demand a reference. i'm about to trademark all of this.
Bookmark and Share

Strategy Games . . . are you serious?

I love history, reading the books and stuff. Once my father and grandfather had a ten minute long argument about a house in some backroad in virginia . . . whether it was before this particular hill or after it. I was blown away. The detail-orientedness and spatial memory these guys have is phenomenal . . . my older brother got it, but not me. . . anyway . . . These were the two minds that got me interested in History

The problem with books is that they're static. The wonderful thing about strategy games is that they're dynamic. Strategy games are the war games that are on the computer and not PS2's and so forth. In strategy games you wage wars on multiple fronts. In addition to that, you build up the civilization that creates the warriors. What this has me realize is that 'war' cannot happen without an economy. In the preface to The Art of War (i think the Cleary translation) there's a admonition that says the great doctor heals a patient before the patient know he is sick. In terms of war and economy, you must undermine another country's economy to beat it militarily. Think America vs. USSR (inherent weakeness of socialism aside).

So I think all people should have to become expert strategy-games players. Why? Because they're the best way to learn how history and the current world operates. Imagine wanting to change a light-buld and knowing nothing of electricity running through circuts. How much success do you think you'll have? Not much, right. Imagine trying to change the world, and not knowing how it works . . . get the point?

Strategy Games are the way to go. They show you, metaphorically of course, in entertainment-time/density how the world works. What's entertainment time and entertainment density? Great question. Entertainment time is the pace by which a person is comfortable ingesting information. Any faster its a blur, any slower its a bore. Entertainment density is kinda the same, they delete some of the not-so-important variables and nuances enough so you're not overloaded with information, but retain enough important to keep it realistic and interesting.

What strategy games do i recommend? I say start of with the old Age of Empires, and upgrade to Rise of Nations. I have both of those, and haven't played any others. Of course if i had more free time i'd get to thrash-level at RON but i don't. I would also suggest Sim City and perhaps one of those 'tycoon' games. Why those? Because it's cool to understand the whole civilization/nation view, but we also need an awareness of local economy, issues and politics, which Sim City provides. Why a Tycoon game? Because you gotta know how to run a business.

Games:
Rise Of Nations
One of the Tycoon Games
Sim City (new versions)
Bookmark and Share

I love revolution

I love revolution. I hate revolutionaries. That could be a contradiction. I just don't think that the revolution will happen via someone's personality. X got slaughtered. King got popped. Cabral got executed. So the revolution, not only will it not be televised. It won't even be centered in one man.

"Network-centric warfare". Ever heard that phrase? Well, that's what i like. But not in the blood-and-guts prisoners of war sense. But in the economic sense. I've been playing acouple strategy games on the computer. I love history. So i propose that i know a thing or two about how the world works. Here is where i tell it not like it is, but how its gonna be.
Bookmark and Share

Chillin out. . . see the light halo? not an effect. Posted by Picasa
Bookmark and Share

The New Black Revolution?

"Get money", heralded as a theme of gnagsta hip-hop seems to be the theme of the middle-upper class black people also. The "get rich or die trying" that we see and complain about as prevelant in poo, impoverished r and working-class Blacks is just as prevalent in the middle and upper class. However there are two main differences i see. Though both are remarkably materialistic, and both aim at gaining power, these two differences create a wide disparity.

The first difference is that the working-class 'get mone'y ethic stems from a nihilism and reaction against poverty, while in the middle-upper class the 'get money' ethic flows from a recognition that though the rights and opportunities fought for in the sixities (actually, since landing in this country) didn't correspond with a commanding power. Though while in the university halls and a few conglomerate boardrooms the black educated class (educlass) has a sense that the 'struggle' ain't over until they have control for and of themselves. At the same time, the hungry desparation of residents of the ghettoes (urban, suburban and rural) of America chant the same song out of a desparation for some way from the shakles of the ghettoes.

The second difference is in the nature of the power weilded for the rich and hood rich. The relative scope of power to which these communities aspire split too. The hood rich afficianados with kitted-up cars and platinum chains see wealth as and end in itself while the rich see it as a means to an end. We can simplify this contrast between 'power over' and 'power to do'. The 'power to do' operates with a sense of hard struggle and greuling aspirations where middle-upper class blacks understand that their money is a tool to enhance their personal and communal cohesion and control over what they can and cannot do. This may take the form of outings with like-minded people, trips to fanciful places where they can wash away the pain of racism at in-pool bars in foreign countries. The 'power over' hood rich folk are caught up in a vicious cirlce of ever smaller decisions to both keep and further control over their centers of influence.

This contrast between 'power over' and 'power to do' camps can be explained by referring to the difference between a hierarchy and a network. In a hierarchy, there is only on god. In a network, there are many gods. Of course, the social scene really floats back and forth between these two poles, but the stabilizing point in each social scene tends to either side. The 'power over', of course in the hierarchy camp while the power to do sits in the 'power to do' camp.

The overt and subtle power-struggles and nuanced king-of-the-hill-games of who has what plays out differently in each camp. In the 'power over' camp hierarchy riegns supreme. So the king of the power games more-or-less dictates what happens in and around the lower levels of his or her minions. In the 'power to do' networks, there is no single leader. What exists is a more subtle group of dominant figures who influence but do not dictate what happens in the rest of the group.

So what? We have nihilism vs not-enoughism and 'power over' vs 'power to do'. What next? I don't know. i just thought this was a good way to analyze a couple people.

B
Bookmark and Share

Friday, September 23, 2005

who am i to write a blog?

Nobody. To put it simply. But everyone else is doing it. And i've always wanted a place to store my thoughts for others to see, edit, attack, steal, give away and whatever else they want to do. Bill Clinton said that everyone over the age of 50 should write their autobiography. Thomas Jefferson said that nobody should write a biography within 50 years of a person's death. Who's right? neither, both. Whatever the case, why should 'journalists' get to be the ones hogging the spotlight? Now its our turn.
Bookmark and Share