Gonzo journalism assignment: Bordon and Whitehill residents weren't seduced by the words of Damian Hinds.

The hall where the local conservative Mp for East Hampshire was about to hold a conference for the residents of Bordon and Whitehill was partially bare, with chairs only filling half of the hall. At the front there was a table and chair ready for the guest speaker, with a conservative campaign poster propped up against the table leg, other than that there was no conservative campaign posters to be seen. Placed on all of the chairs were leaflets, on one side depicting David Cameron and a quote, and on the other side five bullet points telling the reader what they intend to do. The residents attending the meeting were all greying, wrinkled and noticeably disgruntled. Damian Hinds entered the hall with a confident stride, shaking hands and introducing himself to every single person in the room, until he reached the table at the front of the room. A surprisingly youthful appearance was present on the Mp, with only a few traces of grey indicating his maturity; the formality of the meeting was shown through the sophisticated suit he wore. As he reached the front of the room he stared down perplexed at his watch and said: “let’s give it another five minutes, give others a chance”, despite this, ten minutes passed before he was forced to start the meeting. It was easy to detect the slight disappointment he felt at the number of people in the room, as in the minutes that were spent waiting for others to appear he mentioned that “at the meeting in Binstead there were not enough seats”, clearly he thought this would be the case today.
To re-establish the formality of the meeting Damian reintroduced himself with his political title included this time. Before he even started, he made a brief observation on the noise next door, as a constant thud could be heard, which was a blend of feet stamping on the floor and the prominent bass of music speakers, a woman shouting could also be heard during the intervals in the music. This prompted Damian to make a guess at the on going activity next door “it seems we are competing with an aerobics class next door” he added. To add structure and give a rough time guide of each segment of the talk he went on to outline the direction of the meeting stating that his approach was not to “waste time slagging off the labour party, which they seemed to be doing a lot of at the moment”. This joke to break the ice caused a wave of laughter through the room, melting the icy disposition of the meetings participants, transforming serious expressions into toothy grins, which after a minute or so transformed back into frosty stares. Through out this, he looked bold and enthusiastic, despite the grim faces of the local residents, who held his gaze unconcerned with his intimidating presence. However when he moved on to talk about the three key areas of the conservative manifesto his confidence seemed to falter, he was vague going into little detail and merely stating what they would change, but at no point did he mention how they would create these changes. Economic policy was the first thing he mentioned in which he said “We are opposed to the national insurance scheme that Labour is proposing” general nods of approval followed this comment. Then listing what they intended to change he stated “we will give help to small businesses, restrict child tax credits” he listed just a few points from the manifesto, with animated hand gestures, he did this for his topic on family, again listing what would be done. The final topic followed the same structure, but this time a sincere apology was embedded in the plans “we intend to restore people’s faith in politicians, and recover from the expenses scandal” he announced, to which he then added "that this will not happen again". A firm edge in his tone makes it clear that Damian is trying to distance not only himself, but others from being associated with the scandal. This seemed to increase the tension in the room, as this brief overview did not seem to inspire any confidence.
The main bulk of the meeting focused on the issue of turning Bordon and Whitehill into an Eco town. Damian started this topic off by stating that the armies plans to move out of the area provoked the plans and that the land was to be used for housing. This sparked outrage as the mutterings “not big enough” of the residents spread through the room, showing the general view was that the town was not big enough for this kind of development. The mention of a referendum by Damian helped to ease the distaste for the project as it offered some form of hope to those present that the plans may still fall through, to show his position on the matter he quickly announced, “I am in favour of a referendum”. However this offered no reassurance, an elderly gentlemen with thick rimmed glasses, a knitted green jumper that partially covered his brown trousers asked “what can you personally do about this”, to which Damian replied: “I personally can’t do anything about this, it is a decision made by the local council”. To try to settle the outbursts of droning “mmmm’s” he tried to reassure the less than impressed listeners with this statement “that only when the army moves out of Bordon and Whitehill will the Eco town be a possibility”.
Eyeing the clock at the back of the hall nervously his speech slowed, as he muttered in between his closing comments “I need to go”, to which he drew the meeting to a close before apologizing for his departure, thanking people as he power walked out of the hall to his next local meeting. The unsatisfied looks upon the faces of those vacating the building conveyed the impression that the promises made had not completely seduced them, and that doubts still remained surrounding the controversial issue of turning Bordon and Whitehill into an Eco town.

Wilhelm Reich's impact during the 60's and seventies on American culture

Unintentionally disturbing, some of the clinics patients enactments of their inner self's natural and baser instincts was rather comical, as they resembled that of a child playing monsters. The idea that by transforming yourself could result in a change in society and politics, is a plausible concept, because if you change yourself to become a more caring or less materialistic person, in order to better yourself, your political views may change from capitalist (materialistic and consumer driven) to communist as you have abandoned your old, more selfish character that embraced capitalism into someone who embraces equality. Now if this happened on a colossal scale it could lead to a dramatic change in society. However the idea that you can change or better yourself, by indulging in your less than respectable characteristics seems ludicrous to me, I prefer the German philosophical movement epistemology, which emphasizes that one must use experience to gain a sense of who they are, this it can be argued is a more positive method.
Another idea the documentary explored that I thought was a good plan, was the controlled confrontational group sessions between racist people, as this gives people the chance to voice their opinions, expel any negativity and resolve their problems. The fact that these sessions proved unsuccessful shocked me, because it gives people a chance to work through their differences in a safe environment, but I guess it didn't offer a method to undo prejudice. Perhaps I underestimated the power of hate?

Wilhelm Reich

How refreshing. After a semester in which Freud's theories dominated the course it was a welcoming change to learn the views of Wilhelm Reich, which countered those of Freud's. However the idea that the orgasm is the universal principle, which explains everything, is a view I strongly disagree with, I agree that the orgasm does propel most people's behaviour, but not everything can be reduced to this simple formula, for example how can you explain or reduce the September the eleventh terrorist attacks to this principle. It is my view that people are more complex than the way we are portrayed by Reich, with conflicting issues and uncertainty driving our actions rather than just desire, this gives a very primitive impression. In addition I found the debate about whether we should release our repression and unconscious, causing a division within my own mind, as both arguments are valid. I agree with the fact that we should rid ourselves of any inner turmoil as it regulates our well being, however, Freud's theory of the dangers of acting on our unconscious I agree with too, because if people acted on every impulse it could lead to random and constant acts of selfishness, which cannot be the dominant factor within a society, which is dependent on charity and compliance.
Finally the pairing of repression with a brief mention of dictatorship was a logical compliment to the topic, because it is the device used to establish control, and if you consider it the Nazis even used sexuality and child birth to create fear and control families, for instance the Nuremberg laws dictated who it was appropriate to marry and have relations with.

The Ascent by Larisa Shepitko

Once again due to the delights of food poisoning I missed the lecture and the screening, now trying to watch The Ascent online with subtitles was proving difficult, so my own observations of the film based on what I have read will have to suffice. The obvious connection I spotted was the biblical parallel which is shown when Rybak betrays Sotnikov and then tries to hang himself, because of the overwhelming guilt he feels at betraying his comrade, this to me mirrors the story of the last supper in The Gospel of Matthew, in which Jesus is betrayed by Judas of Iscariot who then commits suicide by hanging himself. This I thought was done to show the frailty of comradeship and loyalty, and the natural human instinct to do whatever is necessary to save ones self, this also reminded me of the issues brought up in Space Odyssey, which also looks at the things (war and violence) we resort to in order to preserve our own existence. I also thought the theme of betrayal, which I liked, was very unique in a World War two set film, as most portray an image of unfaltering loyalty between comrades.
A differing view on the biblical reference made in the film is that of Dave Kehr who states that it works on many deeper levels, but there is the presence of a redemption through suffering theme. This I do agree with, but because of the betrayal of a comrade is so out of place in a film like this I believe that this is the dominant reference, because it is almost like Shepitko wants it to deliberately stand out.

Counter culture and exsistentialism

Due to my erratic health I was unable to attend this lecture, however I will attempt to discuss the topic of the lecture to the best of my ability. First of all the subject of counter culture I found to be an easily understandable concept as there are examples of it in our own culture, for example the racial gangs in particular in London that fight for territory and hierarchy in terms of organised crime, this represents youth culture that goes against the established order of the labour party and shows more of liberal individualism.
I thought linking this concept to the sixties was a good example of this, as every aspect of the sixties represented this, for instance the anti Vietnam war protests went against America's capitalist image, as the protests in a way encouraged Communism and its right to be established, so that peace may be maintained. Finally the frequent drug use and hippy movement went against the American cultural ideal of the 'American Dream', as it encouraged people to be unproductive and lazy, stopping them from achieving great things with hard work and ambition.

Existentialism works with counter culture as it encourages people to follow their own path and break the established culture if necessary. I am not sure whether this was touched on, but does the philosophy also acknowledge the repercussions of people doing whatever they want to? As it seems to me that counter culture and existentialism could be quite destructive, by encouraging people to act selfishly and not consider others could lead to break downs in society, the home, workplace etc. Therefore although this is a rather pleasant philosophy on a selfish scale it cannot work on a wide scale level, as it works against the needs of the majority.

Space Odssey

Probably one of the most complex films I have ever watched, with messages and ideas embedded in every scene, making it hard to watch it for entertainment value, instead I found myself analyzing it constantly. Two scenes in particular left a rather strong impression upon me. The first being the scene where Dave is disengaging H-A-L who has betrayed them by murdering Frank and boycotting the mission, this leads Dave to shut H-A-L down and in the process he is shown to be dismantling human logic, by destroying the computer built by man comprised of human knowledge. Now this struck me as mirroring the first scene, as man is having to start from the beginning and develop alone without the aid of technology, is this commenting on technologies overwhelming grip over the human race? Or is the film saying that we don't need technology in order to advance? Either way I couldn't help but feel that this film was slightly opposed to technology, because it eventually showed it betraying man, also by featuring food in paste form, new age toilets etc it conveyed technology as being responsible for creating a bland and sterile existence.

The second scene is the apes discovery of the bone as a weapon; which results in their progression and the act of war. This I thought was a very truthful representation of how we as humans have progressed, which is what I feel the film was trying to show, in particular how we use acts of war to get what we want and define our progression, for example the Iraq war which in my opinion was a war created to obtain their oil, and enable the continuation of our own progression .The use of an obelisk I found also to be very interesting as the obelisk symbolizes in Egypt the beginning, where the first rays of light shone on the earth, this is significant as its appearance at the beginning and later on in the film poses the question: are we really advancing? Or are we just constantly rebuilding after failed attempts to progress?

The compatibility of art and science

A brilliant opening debate for the first lecture and something which I have often thought about myself, however I would say that the lecture has caused my view to change and consider that there can in fact be no unity between science and art. To simplify, based on the notes I have reviewed this incompatibility seems to me to be present because science sticks rigidly to rules and principles, which outlines its theories, whereas art is about breaking boundaries in order to explore new possibilities of beauty. In addition the artists themselves often pursue lives that satisfy every spontaneous whim often breaking rules which people are bound by. Just a few examples of how I came to this conclusion include: Kant's idea that the common people should be bound by morality, except artists, leaders and creative people who should make their own rules. Also the mention of religion and beliefs causing tension between the two spheres further shows the incompatibility between the two, as the artists with their Buddhist or like Schopenhauer Hinduism beliefs, are looked down upon by the traditional christian scientists.

I would just like to comment on Kant's view of equality before I conclude, the view that artists are not bound by morality is something which I strongly disagree with as I understand that it is necessary to explore new domains to create and understand beauty, but I don't see how ones profession raises them to the status of a god, as that it can be inferred one becomes if they are not bound by the laws and conscious ties of most people, like all things there should be boundaries which should not be crossed by anyone. For example the poem 'The Laboratory' by Robert Browning is about murder out of revenge, does this mean that artists should embrace murder to better understand it?