Ian Haight's blog

Why God Doesn't have a Ph.D.

A little random fun...:

1)  He had only one major publication.
2)  It was in Hebrew.
3)  It had no references.
4)  It wasn't published in a referreed journal.
5)  Some even doubt he wrote it by himself.
6)  It may be true that he created the world, but what has he done since then?
7)  His cooperative efforts have been quite limited.
8)  The scientific community has had a hard time replicating his results.
9)  He never applied to the ethics board for permission to use human subjects.
10) When one experiment went awry he tried to cover it up by drowning his 
    subjects.
11) When subjects didn't behave as predicted, he deleted them from the sample.
12) Some say he had his son teach the class.
13) He expelled his first two students for learning.
14) He rarely came to class, and he just told students to read the book.
15) Although there were only 10 requirements, most of his students failed his 
    tests.
16) His office hours were infrequent and usually held on a mountaintop.

Garth Hallberg/Why Write Novels at All?

Last spring I wrote about what seems to be the inevitable demise of the literary novel--at least as we know the novel to be now. The novel simply can't compete with where technology is taking the human race. This is a problem more with the written language than anything else; I envision a world where written communication is no longer necessary, and we're at the formative curvatures of that wave. In that past post, I come to some different conclusions about the role of the writer and reader in this "no written word" scenario, and so in my mind, the novel will follow technology and evolve into a new kind of artform.  It's not really ending; the novel will change into something that potentially lives more fully in our imaginations.

In a recent NY Times article, it seems forgone that the novel is on its way out of human culture. Garth Hallberg, the author of the article, questions how well the contemporary novel is telling us about the inner world of the people around us, and names this as one of the reasons why the novel is losing relevancy as a genre.  I don't see the loss of the novel as a negative, just as I don't see the loss of the written word as a negative. Rather I see the time of no written language as an era of less boundaries between human beings--a possible answer to the problems Hallberg raises.  In my view, the novel in this world without written language still has a place for authorship, though I think eventually technology will make authorship an ambiguous, if not meaningless, concept.

Permaculture/The Science behind Political Mindsets

I found this article about how differences in political mindsets may actually be something inborn; so, for example, if someone denies the science behind global climate change (a familiar political platform of conservative republicans) it may be genetic. Isn't this a few steps from saying certain ethnic groups have genetic defects in the area of intelligence? Of course, science doesn't mean republicans are genetically defective; it simply means republicans are predispositioned to ignore the factual evidence presented by science on certain political issues. The world continues to turn.

On that note, here's a fascinating set of videos on permaculture. If you haven't heard about it yet, permaculture is an alternative way of gardening (not farming) that is very low maintenance but high yield--much higher yields than conventional farms, which in this day and age mean fossil fuel driven farms. Permaculture can be carried out using hand tools, and about 10-11 days of labor a year/per couple of acres of land. Otherwise, according to the gardeners who are practicing it, permaculture requires about a day/week, and that's mostly for harvesting. I've been thinking, as have most of the powers that be (I believe) that the answer to our global pollution/environmental problems is in urbanization (reducing energy expenditures and increasing efficiency as well as land use efficiency by having everyone move to cities--Korea is becoming a case study for this). Following is a fairly convincing case for the move to a rural way of life--at least for a large segment of the human population. And it's interesting to think about all the extra time...what does one do with so much time on one's hands? I can think of so many things....

Here's the video, part 5 of the 5 part series.

 

Hunter S. Thompson: 1958 Cover Letter for the Vancouver Sun

Today a bit of levity and briefness. Here's a delectable quote from a cover letter by Hunter S. Thompson, applying for a job at the Vancouver Sun:

"Most of my experience has been in sports writing, but I can write everything from warmongering propaganda to learned book reviews."

At least Thompson was self aware about what he was saying, his life and decisions typically a parody of the absurdity in our world. The full letter is here.

Vegetarianism, Methane, Climate Change

Despite my angst of late there is evidence the trend for meat consumption in America is on the decline--a steady decline in fact for the past six years. I had an interesting talk with a person I hold dear a couple days ago. Let's call this person "Person A." Comments in parantheses are my thoughts, not what I said.

Person A: "So did you hear about all the methane being released from the permafrost in Russia?"

Me: "Yes" (About 10 years ago it was predicted to be a problem, so far as I know. I've known it was happening for a couple years now. Couldn't tell you about it, however, because of our different thoughts on politics. Hmmm, where is this conversation going?)

Person A: "Well now they're saying methane could be a greater factor than man-made Carbon Dioxide when it comes to global warming."

Me: "Uh huh." (And it stays in the atmosphere for a shorter amount of time than CO2, so if we want to really take on global climate change in the immediacy we need to deal with methane. I darenot say the next step in this argument train so let's see what Person A says next.)

Person A: "So the jury has reached its verdict: global warming is completely natural and not man made. There's just about nothing we can do about it because it's coming from the permafrost."

Me: "Yeah, it's a problem." (I knew this was too good to be true. Person A, I love you (and damn me Dr. Phil should you so choose for me saying "but" in the same breath as "I love you"), BUT what do you suppose caused that permafrost to melt in the first place? And where do you suppose the majority of the man-made methane in our atmosphere is coming from? Answer key: man-made global warming/climate change; the meat industry. I'll admit that as things stand now, once this permafrost and other clathrates get kicking there won't be much we can do about how mightily this natural methane affects global climate change, but the evidence seems to indicate (check the Washington Post link above) we have a little window of time to try to slow things down--if we can.)

NPR ran a story today about why people refuse to accept scientific evidence that climate change is caused by human driven global warming. It was hardly a scientific examination of demographics or a sociological study of what makes a community refuse to accept science, although some buzzwords were spoken by the skeptic being interviewed. Religion caught my ears, as in a comparison between the evolution vs. creationism controversy. Confusion was another word, as in too much data and not a definitive refutation or clashing of specific claims and evidence.

The NASA climatalogist in the story said, "We'll just keep trying to get the information out there." I'm paraphrasing here but the tone was certainly this: "What else can we do?"

Personally, forget about global climate change and a possible link to the meat industry if you can't buy that. The health statistics make a strong enough case: a meat diet is unhealthy. Go veg.

Anxious and Paralyzed: Juliana Spahr Review in The Nation

Juliana Spahr was my thesis advisor at Goddard College, where I did my MFA. The Nation has a review of her latest book, Well There Then Now, in their most recent issue (Jan. 23, 2012). It's a good review that takes notice of an over-arching theme in several books, including Spahr's: the havoc human beings have wreaked and continue to wreak upon the natural world.

We poets often write of the suffering of the world; sort of a self-anointed aesthetic duty, for what it's worth. A duty--be it nature or nurture driven--that begets our writing. Creative paralysis has been my mantra of late. I can't say this is entirely true, but it has been difficult in the face of recent events to face forward and continue "the duty--for what it's worth."

Here are excerpts of an interview with GC Waldrep that appeared in the Fall/Winter edition of Hayden's Ferry:

Why do you think surrealism—and not to contextualize that term in any way with the historical context of Breton and so on—has made such a resurgence in literature in the past few decades?

(Waldrep): For the same reasons which produced it in the early 1920s: political exigency, combined with aesthetic and emotional exhaustion.

What is your approach to the political? I'm thinking of Trakl or Celan, whose approach to politics was one of feeling, or to be more precise, the expression of a particular feeling of what it was to be in that time in contrast to an explicit statement on politics, such as Yeats did in his middle years.

(Waldrep): To choose to live, in faith or in art—to make an intentional, sustained choice—is a political act. The life is a statement, and the work is a statement: twinned sides of a coin, or a moon.
As for "explicit," I am living and writing as explicitly as I know how.

How we live and the choices we make are political acts that have to do very much with the art we create. There's the old saw that the life of the artist has nothing to do with the art. In some cases that's true but if we're making art about saving the planet, can we in the same breath commit wanton acts that contribute to making life difficult for the human race on our planet? The usual issues: vegetarianism vs. the impact of the animal/meat industries, exploitation of every kind, and a general intention of believing human beings are the only thing on this planet that matter. In truth, is our planet going to die because of what we humans do to it? No, it will keep on spinning in the universe and life at some level--however low on the food chain--will continue whether human beings are here for the next 100 years, 1,000 years, or not.

What does this have to do with writing? Besides the paralysis issues, the aesthetic--the surrealism Waldrep mentions as a response to or "acting out" of a refusal. I mean the refusal or inability of our centers of power to deal honestly with our planetary problems. We find this expressed in surrealist aesthetics, or the styles of writing utilized by Juliana Spahr.

True, political rhetoric moves in and out of honesty depending on what's at stake and why. I suppose, if our contemporary art is any kind of barometer, there's a lot of dishonesty, lack of political will, and dis/misinformation leading human beings and our culture. Here are some clips from Burning Man 2011, a place that perhaps as a community response to creative paralysis is a perfect expression of the sublime surreal...Oh the places you'll go...oh the things you will see.....