Property.

I think that any-one still referring to themselves as a Communist or a Capitalist is living in the past. The increasing mechanisation of industry is making worker solidarity moribund. We can't all work in service industries, can we? So, what's left? Mass unemployment? That seems to be the road we're headed down.

I heard a man on the radio saying that it wasn't the state's responsibility to provide for the people. Oh? Who is it that enforces the system that allows ownership, and provides checks that are intended to see that no-one need starve (as long as they live with-in that states borders, at any rate)? What are states foe exactly? Defence and justice, surely.

The old systems seem ill equiped to cope with a world that will require only a small percentage of the population to toil fulltime (if this is what actually comes to pass) and I think most humans need to work in order to stay healthy.

We need new solutions.

Treatises on the back of a postcard. Tyrannies need not apply.

I think I'll explore the issue in a work of fiction. Yup, that'll be a hot item at Waterstones...

Compressed time, A.K.A. the overtime phenomena

I've been working a great deal of the time lately, doing the maximum overtime allowed. It's making me extremely jealous of the free time I do have; I want to spend my free time doing what I want to do, which is, as it turns out, writing letters in cafes and going to the pictures. Hugely imaginative. It's made me realize that the internet has taken up the position that T.V. had earlier in my life; eating up huge amounts of time, with dubious return.

I think an extended bout of ludditery is called for.

Writing on mindspace.

I've become acutely aware of the limations of my mind over the years. Often my opinions are formed on the basis of as little as one sample. I think that's how the mind works; we experience, we generalise; we hear a story, we generalise; it's not possible to research everything exhaustively, we have to extrapolate.

This can result in us thinking that we know a lot more than we, in fact, know. A few times now my girlfriend has reliably informed me on points of Swedish law (she's a native Swede and I'm not) and later been contradicted by experience, literature or the relevant government authority. I frequently relate something I've read or heard via the media and am met with disbelief. Perhaps we require a greater degree of certainty than is usually possible in order to function, I don't know.

The upshot is, what information we do get becomes very important; we extrapolate it into a whole world. Friends, the media, governments, friends, books, school...

Russia wants Sweden to curtail media reports on Chechnya
(here), Californian college professors may have to start being very carefull what they say (here), we swim in a sea of advertising with but one aim, to sell, etc., etc.

So, what do you know?

Intellectual property.

A weird notion. That a person/entity can own an idea, and can leave it to their children. In America, Sonny, of Sonny and Cher fame, tried to have copyright extended eternally. Disney would always own Mickey Mouse. Presumably somebody would own The Three Musketeers, The Merchant of Venice and... the Bible! Cooool. Churches would have to pay if they wanted to do public performances. If they could prove lineage, which is, unfortunately, about as likely as a man on the Sun next year. Could happen...

Could be interesting. All of those mathematical equations could suddenly become property. Every machine and computer programme that uses them would suddenly be liable to ransom. The D.N.A. maps could remain patented forever, scientists poised to pounce on the next mutation. I might have to pay Socrates's heirs every time I don't know something. The possibilities are limitless!

Yes, yes, I know patents and copyrights are not the same (although the term "patent" is becoming broader all of the time. Once upon a time, to be a patent you had to be a substantial technical innovation. Amazon are patenting or have patented the ability to infer from purchases). I was just having fun. I doubt think eternal copyright is really on the cards. Patents only last seventeen years, and involve publishing the intimate details of your innovation.

Intellectual property is supposed to encourage and protect innovation and creativity, finitely. That's it's upside. Monopoly on an innovation or idea can hinder it's progress and diffusion. That's it's downside. It's a balancing act.

Gestalt

I had my first experience of this phenomena when I first went to college (Milltown Institute of Theology and Philosophy). I studied philosophy. The gists of the courses were not new to me; I had already encountered just about every idea perpetuated in the field through my book-a-day science fiction habit. (True substance abuse). They had permeated through our culture, our politics.

It's an interesting phenomena. Not too many people have actually read the texts, even people who have studied them; (a lot of course revolve around second hand critique); how do they spread? Where is the mneumetic conversation taking place? It often precedes publication. Darwin published his treatise on evolution when he did because he knew some-one else was going to publish the same notions.

Be carefull what you say on the bus...

Spleen

I was saddened when Alexander the movie received criticism for featuring homosexuality. Besides being a neanderthalic prejudice, it distracted from the many valid reasons for criticism. This is a strong contender for worst movie ever made.

I will say first that this film has a marvelous cast. But it really doesn't help. Really.

It's almost totally ahistorical, but that's standard practice. It's irritating if you know something about Alexander's life and deeds (I studied him college), but the people I feel sorry for are the ones who walk away thinking they've been exposed to an educational experience. There is a small book in explaining how wrong this assumption is. It'd write it, but it would involve watching the movie again. But the rather liberal interpretation of the available information is a side issue in explaining why this is a strong contender for worst movie ever made.

The script is dreadful. Mind-bendingly dreadful. It's deficiencies take several forms. I shall enumerate them;

1) The dialogue is actually a series of monologues. Every-one is apparently reciting excerpts from their autobiographies, or treatises on whatever is at hand, letters to whomever they are talking to, letters to the editor, political speeches, self-help manuals... It's certainly not conversation.

2) It's portentous. I sometimes like portentousness, it can lend atmosphere. Here, it lends to the tedium. The tedium doesn't need adding to, it's already oversubscribed.

3) It never knows when to stop. Anthony Hopkins has a monologue at the end that goes on for several minutes. You keep thinking it'll end, hoping, praying it will end (this Anthony Hopkins! He could probably read the ingredients of soap and make it sound interesting), and it does, eventually, but by then you slipped even further into a coma and are in no fit condition to cheer. Colin Farrell seems to spend half the movie looking off into space and holding forth at length on, oh, whatever, but always passionately.

4) It's badly written. It's a bad series of portentous monologues that never know when to stop.

Aside from the script (perhaps) the film features other flaws that inhibit it from greatness. Such as?

Pointless time jumps. I have nothing against time jumps. Highlander, Once upon a time in America, Godfather part two, Once upon a time in the West, For a few dollars more, and probably other films that weren't by Sergio Leone... Many great films feature them. But usually they follow a rationale. Usually they aren't apparently random and unconnected. Here, it's like they put a couple of reels in the wrong order.

Sins of omission. While I said that the lack of adherence to historical accuracy was a side issue, not mentioning almost any episode that might actually have been exciting or interesting seems a dubious policy. Alexander, as the posters implied, was the stuff of legend made real. (I make no moral judgement here). Does it mention the phalanx? Any of the innovative ways that he overcame apparently unassailable fortresses by looking at the problems from another angle? The political methodology whereby he kept a grip on all of the peoples behind him? The Gordian Knot? Does it hell. It does feature a couple of battle scenes, the second of which is shot in a vivid and pretty colour scheme, and both of which illustrate that he fought at forefront of his army. So that's something.

The most laughable sex scene ever committed to film. Alexander wins over his bride by making kitty-cat claw gestures and noises. There's more, but that's definitely the stand-out feature.

I could go on, but this film has already eaten enough of my life. The only thing epic here is the ineptitude. It actually made me feel nauseous.