That's about it.
Blogged with the Flock Browser
06 March 2009
02 July 2007
Room 9, Green Metallic
After that crazy day at work yesterday, my sister and I went for a drive to just take in the sights and relax a little. We left in the morning, but not too early, and by mid-afternoon we had arrived somewhere in Florida. All things considered, this was excellent time, since even the Georgia-Florida border was at least 22 - 24 hours drive away under normal circumstances.
Given that we were now so far from home, and tired after our long yet improbably-much-shorter-than-could-have-been-expected drive, we looked immediately for a hotel. Needless to say, the odds were quite good that we would find a Holiday Inn first, and that is exactly what we did find. We parked vaguely somewhere in the parking lot and entered a lobby that looked familiar--not unlike the lobby of the Kingston Hilton on Knutsford Blvd in New Kingston, Jamaica. The desk clerk gave me a funny look--a forty-something man with a teenage girl (my sister had inexplicably grown about 25 years younger), until we showed ID demonstrating our familial connections. I cannot recall the price of the room, but we were given the key and sent on our way.
And what a long way it was, too! The Holiday Inn in Delray Beach (for that is where we found ourselves) was one of those early 21st century creations: an all-inclusive resort which covered hundreds of acres, spread decadently amongst well-tended grounds, encroaching upon a newly-celebrated 18-hole golf course, covered in large measure by an outrageously large swimming pool. The many paths, turns and buildings made finding our room a challenge, compounded by the lack of adequate direction, and the confusing label, "9 Green Metallic". Soon enough we came to a large, post-modern/neo-classical outrage that was the hotel block in which was located Room 9, Green Metallic.
At first glance the building from the outside appeared to be nearly circular, with unnecessary arches intended to make it look like a cross between the colosseum in Rome and one of those Star Trek backgrounds painted on glass. Inside, however, there was nothing which approximated the circular model in the layout of corridors, many of which proceeded in different directions from the entry point, containing rooms, kiosks, sitting areas, and washrooms. We still did not know at this point what significance "green metallic" had, but we would soon find out. After circling through a wide arc of hallway to the left, we came finally to a hallway which seemed to traverse the centre of this large circular edifice. Outside the door leading to the hallway was a sign pointing to "Room 9" and underneath was written "Green Metallic" in letters which were, of course, green metallic. We entered this somewhat small passageway, and open the first door on the lefthand side. This was a tiny room, barely large enough to contain the one bed. It was also in a state of disorder, with clothes and personal effects strewn everywhere. Upon further inspection, this was not, after all, Room 9.
Returning to the circular corridor and closing the door, we opened the door to a green metallic room immediately outside this passage. Inside we found no sign of squatters, but this was also clearly NOT our room. By this time, we were quite annoyed. Following the signs closely again, we finally realized our mistake and continued for a further 1/2 kilometre around the circle, to find that Room 9 Green Metallic was located at some distance away from all other rooms. We couldn't beging to imagine why. On entering, it was clear that the label "green metallic" extended beyond merely a naming scheme, but to an interior design scheme as well. All fixtures, appliances and artwork were, indeed, green metallic. A cleaning person appeared to have just lately finished a look through the room and we could clearly hear her on her cellphone buying flowers and having them shipped to our home. We dumped our stuff and continued to look around...
Why was my sister 16 and not 40? How did we get to Florida from Canada in 6 hours? Why were we together at all? And what on earth was I doing for a living--the day before had been confusing and bizarre? Other room themes existed, but the only other one I could remember was "Blue Rattan". And since when does Holiday Inn (or anyone) operate a huge All-Inclusive resort in Delray Beach?
Before I could answer any of these questions, I woke up.
Given that we were now so far from home, and tired after our long yet improbably-much-shorter-than-could-have-been-expected drive, we looked immediately for a hotel. Needless to say, the odds were quite good that we would find a Holiday Inn first, and that is exactly what we did find. We parked vaguely somewhere in the parking lot and entered a lobby that looked familiar--not unlike the lobby of the Kingston Hilton on Knutsford Blvd in New Kingston, Jamaica. The desk clerk gave me a funny look--a forty-something man with a teenage girl (my sister had inexplicably grown about 25 years younger), until we showed ID demonstrating our familial connections. I cannot recall the price of the room, but we were given the key and sent on our way.
And what a long way it was, too! The Holiday Inn in Delray Beach (for that is where we found ourselves) was one of those early 21st century creations: an all-inclusive resort which covered hundreds of acres, spread decadently amongst well-tended grounds, encroaching upon a newly-celebrated 18-hole golf course, covered in large measure by an outrageously large swimming pool. The many paths, turns and buildings made finding our room a challenge, compounded by the lack of adequate direction, and the confusing label, "9 Green Metallic". Soon enough we came to a large, post-modern/neo-classical outrage that was the hotel block in which was located Room 9, Green Metallic.
At first glance the building from the outside appeared to be nearly circular, with unnecessary arches intended to make it look like a cross between the colosseum in Rome and one of those Star Trek backgrounds painted on glass. Inside, however, there was nothing which approximated the circular model in the layout of corridors, many of which proceeded in different directions from the entry point, containing rooms, kiosks, sitting areas, and washrooms. We still did not know at this point what significance "green metallic" had, but we would soon find out. After circling through a wide arc of hallway to the left, we came finally to a hallway which seemed to traverse the centre of this large circular edifice. Outside the door leading to the hallway was a sign pointing to "Room 9" and underneath was written "Green Metallic" in letters which were, of course, green metallic. We entered this somewhat small passageway, and open the first door on the lefthand side. This was a tiny room, barely large enough to contain the one bed. It was also in a state of disorder, with clothes and personal effects strewn everywhere. Upon further inspection, this was not, after all, Room 9.
Returning to the circular corridor and closing the door, we opened the door to a green metallic room immediately outside this passage. Inside we found no sign of squatters, but this was also clearly NOT our room. By this time, we were quite annoyed. Following the signs closely again, we finally realized our mistake and continued for a further 1/2 kilometre around the circle, to find that Room 9 Green Metallic was located at some distance away from all other rooms. We couldn't beging to imagine why. On entering, it was clear that the label "green metallic" extended beyond merely a naming scheme, but to an interior design scheme as well. All fixtures, appliances and artwork were, indeed, green metallic. A cleaning person appeared to have just lately finished a look through the room and we could clearly hear her on her cellphone buying flowers and having them shipped to our home. We dumped our stuff and continued to look around...
Why was my sister 16 and not 40? How did we get to Florida from Canada in 6 hours? Why were we together at all? And what on earth was I doing for a living--the day before had been confusing and bizarre? Other room themes existed, but the only other one I could remember was "Blue Rattan". And since when does Holiday Inn (or anyone) operate a huge All-Inclusive resort in Delray Beach?
Before I could answer any of these questions, I woke up.
23 April 2007
Full Disclosure
There are times when I wonder just how "honest" we are with each other, with ourselves. In fact, I wonder just how honest we can be, given that "honesty" requires something like full disclosure, and it seems likely that we simply can't get "full disclosure" of all of our hopes, fears, habits, weaknesses and disabilities. It generally takes a crisis of some magnitude to surface and qualify the nature of some of our worst defects, or greatest strengths. Or both. In the meantime, we swim around the worlds we've created blissfully (as much as possible) unaware of how much of those worlds are of our own creation, and how much are beyond our ken. Or perhaps I'm generalizing from my own specific experience--reinforcing my point-of-view without truly "connecting". If we could "only connect" as Forster so adroitly put it. (Please read some E.M.Forster if you haven't already done so! I'd start with Where Angels Fear To Tread, A Room With A View, and Howard's End. In the interest of "full disclosure" I have included the link to Amazon.com for convenience, not as an endorsement.)
I wrote that in 2007. Gad. It sat in my blog post hall of crap because I was trapped by inertia. Again. And again. Oh well. I'm posting this in the interest of "full disclosure", but not because I necessarily feel it's uplifting or enlightening, or in any way useful, but simply because today, right now, I have the urge to do so.
I wrote that in 2007. Gad. It sat in my blog post hall of crap because I was trapped by inertia. Again. And again. Oh well. I'm posting this in the interest of "full disclosure", but not because I necessarily feel it's uplifting or enlightening, or in any way useful, but simply because today, right now, I have the urge to do so.
28 May 2006
Top Down, Bottom Up
Well, I suppose five months is a pretty long respite, especially when it's after a mere 4 blog entries of scant length, dubious merit and indeterminate impact. (Well, probably determinate and zero or close to it).
As days go by and we have long passed the five year anniversary of the Bush coup and my rather rude awakening to things I had been made aware of but ignored for so long, I can't help but try to make sense of what the hell's going on and why. And, to my mind, the problem can't devolve to the actions of a handful of persons... no it's much more deep-rooted and widespread. DailyKos today had a diary which mentioned the work of Jamison Foser on the atrophying of the free press. (Links here and here). But there's another level, the cultural level, the sociological level, perhaps even the psycho-historical level, if one likes to think Hari Seldon's discipline legitimate. The question, in my mind, is what historical chain of events created the conditions which made our current impasse possible (particularly considering that so much has gone wrong with the US, otherwise the most free and enlightened society (and no, I won't entertain arguments on that--it's too easy)), and what strategy must one pursue in order to bring us out of our own dark age?
If you're in the biz biz, then you've probably run across John Kotter's Leading Change at some point in the last 10 years. If not, download the article from HBS Review's website--it's worth the $6.00 USD--or buy the book. Kotter researched the experiences of a number of organizations in implementing change, and used his data (and anecdotal evidence) to derive a (somewhat arbitrary perhaps) list of 8 characteristics which seemed to be essential for significant (i.e. not gradual and incremental) change to not only occur, but to take root and become the established foundation of a 'new' organizational culture.
I'm not going to go into all the details at this point--the article (8 pp) is short enough and well written--but you have probably already experienced some of the impact it's had. For instance, factor number 1 is "a sense of urgency". Look at corporate change initiatives, heck, look at any significant corporate initiative (even the corporate takeover of the US and the invasion of Iraq) and you will see clear PR designed to create a sense of urgency around their desired goals. A perfect example in the US was Bush's attempt to deal with Social Security "reform" by trying to convince Americans that change was required immediately in order to avert a catastrophe. Only problem is that Karl Rove didn't read enough of what Kotter suggested. Kotter's point was not that all such initiatives had to be driven by anxiety, fear and uncertainty, but that they needed to be urgent enough to make everyone recognize the priority of dealing with them. Bush's "War on Terror" and invasion of Iraq made it difficult to convince anyone that Social Security reform was really more urgent. And now there are far too many catastrophes that have already taken place to convince anyone that nebulous potential catastrophes 50 years distant are even worth thinking about.
The point is, Kotter provides a blueprint for implementing, enabling and entrenching change. It is less a high-level strategy and more of a series of tactics. This makes it ideal for those "caught in the middle" who must help others to change while struggling to understand it themselves, as well as those who design change initiatives. It seems to me that this is an approach that those of us opposed to the powers that be need to consider, inasmuch as our success will emanate from the changed behaviour of millions of our neighbours, brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers, not from preaching to the choir. This can seem manipulative, but it really is no more than anything else. If we can't find a way to change the views of our neighbours about some pretty profound problems facing us, we won't have much left in the not-too-distant future.
And the last point (maybe the only point?) is this: these things can only happen when there is movement and support which comes from the top down, but also engagement and input which goes from the bottom up. Meaning, we need to change the political masters and the politically governed both if we hope to make significant changes in the way our society operates. While we lament the cynicism and corruption of so many in the political class, we often overlook the voters who ultimately help decide who holds the levers of power. Progressive politics can't succeed based only on it's own merits, and we can't change the political culture simply by working to elect different politicians. We need to take Mr. Kotter's prescription for change and figure out how to use it to convince our neighbours that change is needed. Then we need to look at entrenching the results in the new political culture to prevent the same scenario from happening again in our lifetimes at least.
As days go by and we have long passed the five year anniversary of the Bush coup and my rather rude awakening to things I had been made aware of but ignored for so long, I can't help but try to make sense of what the hell's going on and why. And, to my mind, the problem can't devolve to the actions of a handful of persons... no it's much more deep-rooted and widespread. DailyKos today had a diary which mentioned the work of Jamison Foser on the atrophying of the free press. (Links here and here). But there's another level, the cultural level, the sociological level, perhaps even the psycho-historical level, if one likes to think Hari Seldon's discipline legitimate. The question, in my mind, is what historical chain of events created the conditions which made our current impasse possible (particularly considering that so much has gone wrong with the US, otherwise the most free and enlightened society (and no, I won't entertain arguments on that--it's too easy)), and what strategy must one pursue in order to bring us out of our own dark age?
If you're in the biz biz, then you've probably run across John Kotter's Leading Change at some point in the last 10 years. If not, download the article from HBS Review's website--it's worth the $6.00 USD--or buy the book. Kotter researched the experiences of a number of organizations in implementing change, and used his data (and anecdotal evidence) to derive a (somewhat arbitrary perhaps) list of 8 characteristics which seemed to be essential for significant (i.e. not gradual and incremental) change to not only occur, but to take root and become the established foundation of a 'new' organizational culture.
I'm not going to go into all the details at this point--the article (8 pp) is short enough and well written--but you have probably already experienced some of the impact it's had. For instance, factor number 1 is "a sense of urgency". Look at corporate change initiatives, heck, look at any significant corporate initiative (even the corporate takeover of the US and the invasion of Iraq) and you will see clear PR designed to create a sense of urgency around their desired goals. A perfect example in the US was Bush's attempt to deal with Social Security "reform" by trying to convince Americans that change was required immediately in order to avert a catastrophe. Only problem is that Karl Rove didn't read enough of what Kotter suggested. Kotter's point was not that all such initiatives had to be driven by anxiety, fear and uncertainty, but that they needed to be urgent enough to make everyone recognize the priority of dealing with them. Bush's "War on Terror" and invasion of Iraq made it difficult to convince anyone that Social Security reform was really more urgent. And now there are far too many catastrophes that have already taken place to convince anyone that nebulous potential catastrophes 50 years distant are even worth thinking about.
The point is, Kotter provides a blueprint for implementing, enabling and entrenching change. It is less a high-level strategy and more of a series of tactics. This makes it ideal for those "caught in the middle" who must help others to change while struggling to understand it themselves, as well as those who design change initiatives. It seems to me that this is an approach that those of us opposed to the powers that be need to consider, inasmuch as our success will emanate from the changed behaviour of millions of our neighbours, brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers, not from preaching to the choir. This can seem manipulative, but it really is no more than anything else. If we can't find a way to change the views of our neighbours about some pretty profound problems facing us, we won't have much left in the not-too-distant future.
And the last point (maybe the only point?) is this: these things can only happen when there is movement and support which comes from the top down, but also engagement and input which goes from the bottom up. Meaning, we need to change the political masters and the politically governed both if we hope to make significant changes in the way our society operates. While we lament the cynicism and corruption of so many in the political class, we often overlook the voters who ultimately help decide who holds the levers of power. Progressive politics can't succeed based only on it's own merits, and we can't change the political culture simply by working to elect different politicians. We need to take Mr. Kotter's prescription for change and figure out how to use it to convince our neighbours that change is needed. Then we need to look at entrenching the results in the new political culture to prevent the same scenario from happening again in our lifetimes at least.
08 December 2005
How can you be in two places at once...
(...when you're not anywhere at all)Hmmm. I can't believe 25 years have gone by since John Lennon was killed in NYC. I was in grade 12 in Vancouver, and I wore a black armband for a few days (I think until I was told to remove it). I was 16 going on 17 and Lennon was one of my biggest heroes. He still is a hero, and I sometimes wonder whether his death was just one of the signs of how bad things were getting.
At the same time, it's a rare winter election here in Canada, and the convergence of the anniversary, the election and the absurdity of it all put me in mind of the Firesign Theatre. It's been a while since I gave them a serious listen, and even longer since I heard anyone mention their name in public. Another sign of how un-creative, yet more reactionary our social order has become. When I try to take a God's eye view and wonder what history will make of this era, I find myself almost lost. We really have entered the realm of the surreal, the Age of Absurdity.
And who is our Lennon today? Who is leading popular culture to re-examine itself, to ask tough questions, to follow wherever the trail leads? Much as I respect Bono, he demonstrates more how the corporate elite have managed to co-opt even their biggest detractors, more than what can be done to make the world a better place. He helped Paul Martin launch his leadership of the Liberal Party, but he hasn't succeeded in having him honour any promises. He is, apparently, crushed, but what's to be done? The genie is out of the bottle. Bono has played his cards and they didn't turn up Aces. His own song, God Part 2 pretty much admits his compromised position:
Don't believe in excessThis was a good 18 years ago. And to bring things full circle, the whole song is a tribute of sorts to J.L. and his own song God. But even a cursory listen to Plastic Ono Band demonstrates the sheer power and poetry that Lennon had at his command. I miss his voice.
Success is to give
Don't believe in riches
But you should see where I live.
I, I believe in love.
17 November 2005
End of the 'Power" meme
This is a quickie pointing to another thread I want to spend some time exploring: the counter argument to the "power" meme. What I mean here is the sort of Nietzche-ian notion that power is a good thing and end in itself, or more properly the distortion of that to the "power is everything" argument.
As an idea of where I'm going, I despise the "philosophy" of the American Neo-Cons, all aspects of it, from the elitist Straussian belief in privileged understanding to the need for primacy of American power. Still, despising it doesn't make it necessarily false, incoherent or illogical. But, it seems to me, there is an argument against the notion of a singular exercise of power.
I want to argue that power for it's own sake is ultimately self-defeating, inasmuch as the power emanates from the totality of a system, and therefore the system's own survival and success is essential to having the power. The abuse of power, much as say an addiction to a narcotic, compromises the system's ability to continue to survive. In other words, addictions tend to end badly, and so too will the exercise of autocratic power in a democratic society. It may take time, but eventually the social and political system will rebel against anything which takes their support and uses it for irrelevant or harrmful purposes.
This isn't fully fleshed out or coherent, but it's 3:15 a.m. so I'm begging off for now. I hope it's enough to get some interest piqued, and I promise I'll be writing a lot more about this, with related research.
As an idea of where I'm going, I despise the "philosophy" of the American Neo-Cons, all aspects of it, from the elitist Straussian belief in privileged understanding to the need for primacy of American power. Still, despising it doesn't make it necessarily false, incoherent or illogical. But, it seems to me, there is an argument against the notion of a singular exercise of power.
I want to argue that power for it's own sake is ultimately self-defeating, inasmuch as the power emanates from the totality of a system, and therefore the system's own survival and success is essential to having the power. The abuse of power, much as say an addiction to a narcotic, compromises the system's ability to continue to survive. In other words, addictions tend to end badly, and so too will the exercise of autocratic power in a democratic society. It may take time, but eventually the social and political system will rebel against anything which takes their support and uses it for irrelevant or harrmful purposes.
This isn't fully fleshed out or coherent, but it's 3:15 a.m. so I'm begging off for now. I hope it's enough to get some interest piqued, and I promise I'll be writing a lot more about this, with related research.
Infinite Diversity, Unique Balance
My latest take on why life sucks (and why it doesn't), or rather, what it's all about. All the great and wise philosophies (at least according to me) seem to include this notion, which includes not only a diversity of modes of being, but also the notion that some are in conflict with one another all the time. I suppose the clearest expression of this (again, according to me--if I can't be the ultimate arbiter on my own blog, I'll go back to lurking somewhere else) is in Taoism, where the balance of the Yin and Yang represents a multitude of forces in conflict.
Which means, reading between the lines, that this idea is not exactlly new. Nevertheless...
David Suzuki has a book out called The Sacred Balance, which is a book of short essays and photo-essays arguing for the importance of the global eco-system and environment. I prefer "unique" because I think it captures some of the same idea (it is a singular, "special" balance of diverse forces and actors) without the religious overtones.
It's late... More on this soon.
09 November 2005
Genesis
Fiat verbum!
So, while I have been meaning to post my insignificant utterances somewhere for about 4 years or more, this whole thing came to pass because my son said the Word, and the Word was "How do you make your own blog?" or something to that effect.
Well, it looks like we made it.
So "paradoxical intentions" reflects my take on the zeitgeist. I'm a liberal, but I prefer to deal simply with ideas and not political positions or parties. My sense of things in early 21st century North America is that we are pretty screwed; and we're getting screwed by all of the policies which are supposedly saving us. Some of it is due to deceit, pure and simple, but a large part of it is a failure of imagination. And what was not imagined in many cases were the unintended (but absolutely predictable) consequences of the choices we are making. I won't limit my critique to politicians, because while they may be the worst of a bad lot, we are all in this together, and all to blame. We may not like to face that fact, but if our culture has become dysfunctional, refusing to accept any personal responsibility for it won't get us too far.
How do you think it became dysfunctional, after all?
But this is not intended to be the sharp, incisive, hilarious, heartfelt and revealing sort of post, but merely a welcome aboard if you happened to stumble by (how else could you have got here?) and a VERY BROAD statement of... er... something or other, but not exactly principle.
I welcome all comments, and all commentators. But I don't care a great deal for abuse, and I don't let myself engage in abusive behaviour, so... be forewarned!
Howdy neighbour!
So, while I have been meaning to post my insignificant utterances somewhere for about 4 years or more, this whole thing came to pass because my son said the Word, and the Word was "How do you make your own blog?" or something to that effect.
Well, it looks like we made it.
So "paradoxical intentions" reflects my take on the zeitgeist. I'm a liberal, but I prefer to deal simply with ideas and not political positions or parties. My sense of things in early 21st century North America is that we are pretty screwed; and we're getting screwed by all of the policies which are supposedly saving us. Some of it is due to deceit, pure and simple, but a large part of it is a failure of imagination. And what was not imagined in many cases were the unintended (but absolutely predictable) consequences of the choices we are making. I won't limit my critique to politicians, because while they may be the worst of a bad lot, we are all in this together, and all to blame. We may not like to face that fact, but if our culture has become dysfunctional, refusing to accept any personal responsibility for it won't get us too far.
How do you think it became dysfunctional, after all?
But this is not intended to be the sharp, incisive, hilarious, heartfelt and revealing sort of post, but merely a welcome aboard if you happened to stumble by (how else could you have got here?) and a VERY BROAD statement of... er... something or other, but not exactly principle.
I welcome all comments, and all commentators. But I don't care a great deal for abuse, and I don't let myself engage in abusive behaviour, so... be forewarned!
Howdy neighbour!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)