Ultra Media DDU manifesto:
I've been doing a lot of posting about politics, but something I want to talk about here is more important than what's going on in washington d.c., which - as I can attest, isn't the most friendly of towns.
It's funny, I met an 'old friend' who happened to be a chicano-american ex girlfriend of mine, who now happens to work as a vocation under a new york liberal politician - and I met her for coffee...
Her view of emotional resonance seemed to me to be either lacking in authenticity, derisively dismissive, or altogether a promenade of posturings and posings all too characteristic, unfortunately, of the elite liberal establishment hack job 'infadatista'.
But saying that, I'm already getting contemptuous and angry- so let's address this anger...
I put out a mix recently that said something to the effect of 'you've got to get angry, you've got to say - 'I'm a human being god damnit, my life has meaning!' right at the start - advertised it as a guy fawkes day special edition, and didn't give any more thought to it.
But let's start with that basic emotion... anger.
When we feel angry, do we see red?
When someone slights us, is our almost immediate aversive reaction to their 'slight' justified? Does it matter whether or not anger is a 'hardwired' instinct in a Jamesian Behaviorist sense? Is any talk about 'anger' as such even allowed at all, as 'anger' is a negative emotion and we shouldn't talk about it - I could even laughingly continue, because it robs it of it's 'beauty'?
Well, according to recent opinion polls from wherever non-existent imaginary kind of polling places showing stats and graphs indicate - a lot of people are very angry.
A lot of people have a right to be angry.
A lot of people have more or less righteousness or less or more indignation, both collectively and individually.
But, and I think this is a more salient question than 'why', what are people 'really', that is really with quotes and all the connotations that somehow extend beyond webster, angry 'about'?
Are they angry about their lot in life?
Are they angry about their country?
Are they angry at themselves?
Know one really knows, but the surge of anger, perhaps in many instances, more 'warranted' (SOLOMON) than not, in our country is hot enough to say, boil an egg on.
One can say, "I know that I am angry, and I know why I'm angry, so don't go telling me what to do." and know that one is incorrect.
But contrast that with the man who doesn't even know he is angry, but he "knows" he is VERY angry, and he intends to do something about it.
IS there any way, he could be more in touch with what I'll call 'Emotional Resonance' than his therapist?
I only want to venture it as a point - a fairly mundane populistic point, and one that I'm sure- is easily put down.
But to say that 'anger' is altogether wrong, or that the motives for anger count more than the empirico-ethical basis for his anger, should be tempered with a kind of look in the eye of one's own anger, and perhaps resentment, towards those who have no intention of showing any of our claims even slightest interest.
But maybe we're angry at ourselves, a point ventured by numerous Dimosioans, who have advanced theories including but not limited to 'war with oneself' and 'war with our demons, but censored and medicated'.
I say that in jest, and most of the time as I'm not using reference material, I'll simply 'quote' something out of a kind of rabbit like laziness.
Anger, we all feel it, we all act on it, and it's not always bad.
But of course we're all aware of instances, where anger can go wrong.
Where anger isn't warranted, where anger 'doesn't get it right' -
The instances of these are so disreptuable, it's no surprise that even the most vicious un-repentent murderer on death row feels something like 'remorse'.
But to end on a happy note, I saw a gentelman at the old club jump up and down evangelistically -and boy, didn't that ever not-not-not-not-not-not-not make me mad.
DDU ULTRA_MEDIA "EMOTIONAL RESONANCE"