“They saw their injured country's woe;
The flaming town, the wasted field;
Then rushed to meet the insulting foe;
They took the spear, - but left the shield.”
―Philip Freneau
.
And by a prudent flight and cunning save A life which valour could not, from the grave. A better buckler I can soon regain, But who can get another life again?
Archilochus
Monday, September 14, 2015
Light a Candle for Capitalism!
...or "Why the Chinese model will replace the European one?"
Mr. Pink’s Smart Alec bumptiousness and unwarranted, acutely exaggerated intensity is reminiscent of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. He may be smart, but his style evokes a degree of anxiety akin to being trapped in a room with a steadily decreasing supply of oxygen.
Why must people of Mr. Pink’s obnoxious ilk always feel compelled to shout –– to jump down the throat of each member of their audience –– and to jerk themselves around for all the world like a monkey on a stick?
His message may be worth sharing, but HE is absolutely the WRONG person to convey it.
In contrast your friend Slavoj Zizek may be guilty at times of extreme prolixity in the expression of maddeningly cryptic perceptions while speaking with a dreadful lateral lisp, BUT there is an aura of warmth and heartfelt sincerity about him that appeals, even as you wonder what the hell he could be driving at.
Zizek may not intentionally project this image, but he's rather like a dear old Teddy Bear given you by loving parents in childhood. Somehow, you instinctively want to hug him.
Mr. Pink and Mr. Jobs have all the appeal of large, hovering birds of prey.
I'd heard other's present the findings of these "detrimental profit motive" arguments before, but Pink was the first to offer clues as to "why" it mucks things up... a kind of "premature focusing" that occurs and narrows or precludes certain "possibilities"/ limits consideration of a broader set of available options (the box either full or emptied of tacks) in the solution of the problem.
And Mr. Job's argument as to "why" the need also exists to "narrow" the focus... in order to get things done. We can't "gaze at our navels" all day. At some point, a "profit" must be made... even if our resulting solution is later determined to be sub-optimal.
Both men stand at a "critical distance" to opposite ends of the same argument.... Ecclesiastes 3.
6 comments:
Mr. Pink’s Smart Alec bumptiousness and unwarranted, acutely exaggerated intensity is reminiscent of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. He may be smart, but his style evokes a degree of anxiety akin to being trapped in a room with a steadily decreasing supply of oxygen.
Why must people of Mr. Pink’s obnoxious ilk always feel compelled to shout –– to jump down the throat of each member of their audience –– and to jerk themselves around for all the world like a monkey on a stick?
His message may be worth sharing, but HE is absolutely the WRONG person to convey it.
The late Steve Jobs may have been a genius, but he was another exceedingly bumptious, hyper-aggressive type.
An undisguised, highly-inflated sense of Self-Importance and self-generated aura of Omnipotence never fails to alienate.
And look what happened to the Mighty Mr. Jobs –– dead at 56.
It's a tragedy for Civilization that people of this brash, uncouth, egomaniacal ilk took the lead un shaping our destiny.
In contrast your friend Slavoj Zizek may be guilty at times of extreme prolixity in the expression of maddeningly cryptic perceptions while speaking with a dreadful lateral lisp, BUT there is an aura of warmth and heartfelt sincerity about him that appeals, even as you wonder what the hell he could be driving at.
Zizek may not intentionally project this image, but he's rather like a dear old Teddy Bear given you by loving parents in childhood. Somehow, you instinctively want to hug him.
Mr. Pink and Mr. Jobs have all the appeal of large, hovering birds of prey.
I'd heard other's present the findings of these "detrimental profit motive" arguments before, but Pink was the first to offer clues as to "why" it mucks things up... a kind of "premature focusing" that occurs and narrows or precludes certain "possibilities"/ limits consideration of a broader set of available options (the box either full or emptied of tacks) in the solution of the problem.
And Mr. Job's argument as to "why" the need also exists to "narrow" the focus... in order to get things done. We can't "gaze at our navels" all day. At some point, a "profit" must be made... even if our resulting solution is later determined to be sub-optimal.
Both men stand at a "critical distance" to opposite ends of the same argument.... Ecclesiastes 3.
The messenger is at least as important as the message –– sometimes more so.
It may not be a good thing, but style has a great tendency to overshadow content particularly where the general public is involved.
Trump! Trump! Trump! ;)
Post a Comment