Aesthetic Materialism

  Like many of the great works of the 20th century, Pop art is essentially a joke.  Pop art, at its best, is a witty articulation of the paradoxical - indeed, contradictory - conditions of the commodification of art.  For instance, there's the work by the MSCHF art collective in which they bought an original Andy Warhol drawing for $20,000, then drew 999 high-quality forgeries of it, shuffled them together, and sold them for $250 a pop.  Or, for that matter, Maurizzio Cattelan's famous banana duct-taped to a wall, sold for $120,000.  Or Salvatore's invisible statue, "Io Sono," which sold for $18,000 .  Of course, that's not a new idea: Yves Klein's "the Void," (1958) - an empty space - recently sold for a million dollars .  Or what Andy Warhol's own pranks, from his prints of Campbell's Soup cans to his art that he didn't touch, manufactured in his factory by unnamed underlings, to his "oxidation" paintings (1977) - blocks o

Psychoanalysis, in my opinion, can be best understood as a set of tactics, within rhetoric. Persuasion is a beautiful thing.  When people disagree, they can fight, and one of them can defeat the other physically.  Or, they can try to persuade each other of their own worldview.  If this is successful, they will learn to understand each other, the two worldviews will come into harmony, and they will, at least in some sense, agree.  Sometimes the best way to persuade another person is through a straightforward logical argument, with a thesis statement, supporting evidence and reason, and so on.  But sometimes this is not the most effective tactic. In the late 19th century, people were diagnosed with something called hysteria- something that is now no longer generally recognized as a legitimate medical diagnosis.  It was mostly women who were diagnosed with hysteria, and in fact the term has the same etymological root as "uterus."  Ancient Egyptians and Greeks had believed that h

People say "Everything is political."  That's true, in a way - or, as I prefer to put it, everything can be interpreted politically.  That's one way of interpreting things, and with sufficient mental gymnastics, it can be applied to just about anything.  A person who is addicted to politics is likely to see politics everywhere. Similarly, you might say, everything is gambling.  That is, everything can be interpreted as a kind of gambling.  Walking across the street is gambling - you're betting your life that you will make it across without being run over.  Breathing is gambling - you're betting that you won't inhale the pathogen of a fatal disease.  Everything involves risk, and all risk has an element of randomness.  Thus everything that humans do could be looked at as gambling, just as easily as we can see everything that humans do as political. Or you might interpret everything - everything that humans do - as a kind of addiction.  That seems to be how

I've made the point many times that the problem with Marxism is that it isn't scientific enough. How can we make Marxism more scientific?  This is a huge project, and there are many directions to pursue in the process of attaining this extremely difficult goal.  But there is one aspect of the problem that absolutely must come first: The first thing that Marxists must learn, if they are going to get anywhere at all, is this: Marxists must learn to live with other Marxists. Emo Philips joke:  'Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!”  He said, “But nobody loves me.”  I said, “God loves you.  Do you believe in God?”  He said, “Yes.”  I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?”  He said, “A Christian.”  I said, “Me, too!  Protestant or Catholic?”  He said, “Protestant.”  I said, “Me, too!  What denomination?”  He said, “Baptist.”  I said, “Me, too!  Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?”  He said, “Northern Baptist.”  I said, “Me, too!  Northern C

  "Free Will" vs. "Determinism" What does it mean to have "solved" a philosophical problem?  This is, in itself, a philosophical problem.  I don't feel comfortable saying I've solved any philosophical problems, but what if I propose a notion of having "minimally solved" a problem - that is, not necessary coming up with the right answer, let alone an answer that will end the debate for everyone, but coming up with the general shape or framework (perhaps missing some important specifics) of an answer that satisfies me , at least to the point where the problem doesn't endlessly torture me and keep me up at night?  If, by "solved," we mean "minimally solved," then I think I have solved the problem that is usually called the debate between "free will" and "determinism".  Not that my answer is particularly original.  Actually, not I, but modern neuroscience solved this puzzle.  And all I mean is tha