Archive for June, 2009

Michael Jackson vs. Jesus

Monday, June 29th, 2009

jacksonEverybody is talking about it, it’s all over the news and many would rather already stop hearing about it. The whole net went ballistic, twitter went down for it, wikipedia had a bitter war about it and speculations about the conditions run rampant like no tomorrow. Yeah, the death of MJ. I’m not going to talk about the king of pop though, but rather the interesting phenomenon of fandom and idols.

It’s not unlike religion.

In both people are looking up for something bigger than themselves, something to believe in. In the religious form it’s usually something pure and spotless, but the rock-version can easily be tarnished and rotten as long as there is some suffering involved. Just today it read in the news that Michael Jackson had finally moved to the category of suffering idols. “He’s been through hell!” This could be said about Jesus or Michael Jackson. To us there seems to be something quite interesting and noble about the suffering of an idol.

The word idol originates not as a popstar, but as a substitute for God. In fact the second commandment in the Christian Bible says “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them…” Now ofc the word has a much lighter meaning today, but still if someone is an idol for someone else, the fan can be seen as a devout and a worshipper. The word “fan” on the other hand is derived from the word “fanatic”. That word has also suffered some inflation in the modern language, but the roots are interesting.

R&B star Akon said: “Just to be in the same room [with him], I felt everything I wanted to accomplish in life has been achieved….That aura … that’s how incredible that aura is….The way he thinks….some artists think regional, some think national, I was thinking international. He thinks planets! It’s on another level!” Some other random fan quotes: “He lives forever, he’s not dead”, “He brings meaning to my life”, “He is my everything”. These were said about MJ, but we could aswell replace the target as God. I bet if we were to do a brainscan, the same areas would show activity for both religious people and some other type of devotees.

Naturally there are many different levels of fandom, as there are many different levels of religious commitment aswell. Not all fans and religious devotees are fanatics. Still, the mechanic works just the same. We try to look up for something that is bigger than ourselves, larger than life, and mysterious. We need these higher beings or ideals as points, from where we hang on, to where we anchor ourselves. We cannot attach to something thats our size, or it wouldn’t hold us; the “ground” has to have enough mass. We must be unable to move it. Why that is, I don’t know, we just seem to be built in a way that we cannot exist alone by ourselves. We cannot be gods ourselves.

As for the idol itself, in the end, a human being cannot bear a god-status. He knows that he’s not perfect and the pressures from outside grows unbearable. The idols persona gets separated from the actual person, and ascends as a glorified, mystified and shining icon to heavens. An inner discrepancy forms between this icon and the real self and any number of conditions can follow. In many cases it leads to drugs, as we have seen. (Not to argue, that it’s the only reason for stars to take drugs, mind you)

This blog entry is not here to make any moral judgements about idolhood or fandom. Bible tells us we should not have substitute gods, but i think we all have common sense as to what that means. Most of the idols we have in this life are more like role models and not really competing against God. But interestingly, the mechanic is the same in both and that’s why I can easily understand why Bible tells us not to have these substitutes. We have it in us, that we seek a higher force and thus we should seek it in the right place.

Moderation and justice

Monday, June 22nd, 2009

riaaThis week in the federal jury in Minneapolis ruled that a Minnesota woman Jammie Thomas violated several music copyrights, and gave this poor mother of two children a “fine” of 1,92 million dollars – for sharing 24 songs in the net. That makes 80.000 dollars per song.

Idiots.

Many can probably agree, that the restitution sums in the States have been quite big, but this is just madness. Seems the sense of justice of that court has gone out to run a better business licking RIAA’s boots. The fine equals around 80.000 downloads per song from iTunes. Naturally if you share a song in the net, any number of people can download it from you, but fining someone 80.000 times of the worth of the item is just not in the galaxy of right proportions. Even big music makers and artists like Moby see this as a total lack of reason from the court and RIAA.

Moderation would be the key word here. I would argue, that it is the single most important virtue of a court. Without it, real justice isn’t being achieved. But the case shows, that the court in case has descended from the level of moderate justice to the level of lustful revenge. Being a small scale artist, that hopes to publish something in the future I’m all for the artist. But as Moby sees as well, this kinda greedy drysucking the record industry does by no means benefit the artist, but rather the company behind it.

Times have changed, and the industry needs to change with them. Hanging into these kind of judgements is grasping into straws when you’re drowning.

The “supporting thoughts” -category

Sunday, June 14th, 2009

supportJust the other day I was traveling by train and happened to overhear a conversation this fancy finely dressed lady was having over the phone. She was  quite extensive in her defending of a position she had taken in an issue they talked about. One particular statement she said caught my interest: “It is like this ecology and recycling, they are kinda nice things as long as they don’t concern me.”

She was honest.

Obviously she was for something else than ecology. Some people are not interested in advocating anything, but most of us have at least one bigger thing we want to drive forward. However, one can be a real activist in his / her life in only one or two things. We really don’t have the power nor the interest to advocate many different things – not particularily passionately that is. Hence we have this other category I call the “supporting thoughts” category. It comprises of every cause we kinda like and kinda support, but don’t really have the power or interest to do anything about.

And its not like we lie or anything. We might really view ourselves as supporting some cause, somewhere in the background. Its a feeling we have, we kinda “take part” in a cause in a thoughty, smiley sorta way. The category adds to our self-image. Not only is it supporting because we support the causes, but also, because those things support our self-image and give it some structure and variance. Some might say that it’s like taking the “hot spicy” food in McDonalds, which ain’t that spicy at all and thinking that youre into spiced food, but its more than that. We do draw from that category from time to time in discussions and when provoked by others. However, It’s not pro-active. We fall back to these thoughts only when we get an outside motivation to do so.

I would hope that ecology would come away from the “causes list” completely and join some other lists we do normally without any second thought. But we are not there yet and I have to admit, it’s still more in my supporting category. What is your core cause and what items belong into your supporting thoughts -basket?

Can we be right?

Monday, June 8th, 2009

Just tonight I watched the euro-election results with my friends from the tv. There was this one populist guy, who got an enormous amount of votes. One striking thing about his performance in tv (and everywhere else for that matter, for he is a good speaker), is that he is very confident and he dares to be right. (whether or not that really is the case in truth) Altough i would never vote for him, he has this one thing many of us have lost – he dares to be right.

Seems our society and our beliefs have stumbled on a relativistic wave and cannot get out. Even the church is right along there, churning out statements, which end up moving nobody. We hear these speeches about soft values and all those nice things, but its really too nice to have any effect. To get soft values into people you need to press hard to be right.

And this is all quite understandable, since we don’t live in a well integrated standard culture anymore. We need to understand other cultures and values aswell, and in doing so we tend to put all those different cultures in the same category and study them. It affects our belief-systems too, as we begin to compare our thoughts with the other competing thoughts and end up having some sort of a “live and let live” attitude on every religious thought. Which is all fine and all, but as the end result, we tend to lose our right to be right somewhere along the lines.

But whoever said, that every culture, value or religion should be valued the same?

Those would be the ones, that extend “the humanity” to every value they we people spawn. Now I am not advocating any hostility nor any sort bad-whatever to any culture or people. I am merely stating, that our philosophical and our religious thoughts themselves do not have the same existential value than we do as people. Naturally we need to have the freedom of thought and speech, but that is a different issue. We should not think, that just because some thought or habit IS, it should be valued the same that everything else in the same category. Not every thought is as smart as the other, nor is every habit. I do not think, that a culture for example, is an absolute value in itself. They come and go. They are important, but not something we should never let go. Besides, cultures change all the time, so it would be a null point to actually try to pinpoint the actual point in time which should be preserved. (The Amish have tried that)

Obviously just mocking everything else is bad aswell, we cannot afford to stick our head to the sand and pretend everybody else with different thoughts are idiots (the religious right in the states have tried that) or not sincere enough. We should always try to understand other cultures and religions as well as we can – and honestly. But we should never lose our right to be right in the process. Christianity for example is an exlusive religion that holds some deep thoughts about what is the truth and what is right. It closes out other thoughts and religions and says people that think otherwise are wrong. Those truths are not there to be “maybe but maybe”. They are what they are, because God said so. The day we lose that thought, we lose the core of our belief. To someone, who do not belief the christian way that may sound harsh and blatant. But all the better, get your own beliefs ready and lets discuss them in an open way!

So whatever you believe, debate on what is right and dare to stand behind your beliefs. Do it open mindedly, but firmly.

Dare to be right.