iMedia: The Genius of the Crowd

I have chosen to share with you something that has sparked a lot of curiousity in me, the reading of a poem by Charles Bukowski, "The Genius of the Crowd".

The first time I listened to this reading I was in awe of its ability to shake me. The first time I heard it I was mainly focused on the reader's deep, serious tone, but after listening to it a few time the language written by Bukowski became more clear, more meaningful; more powerful.

In a lot of ways this poem reminds me of my last blog entry that examined the idea of human nature, the idea of whether humans are naturally "good" or "bad". Through this poem Charles Bukowski communicated his belief that humans are, by nature, filled with hatred and treachery. What shook me was the fact that he placed all humans in the same category,

"There is enough treachery, hatred, violence, absurdity in the average human being to supply any given army on any given day".

While the word crowd is included in the title of this poem, its not representing the idea that when all humans are together we become haneous, but that even seperately we are all filled with hate. Through the use of contrasting and almost paradoxical statements he seems to be exculding no one from this opinion,

"beware those who either detest poverty
or are proud of it
beware those quick to praise
for they need praise in return
beware those who are quick to censor
they are afraid of what they do not know
beware those who seek constant crowds for
they are nothing alone."

Bukowski states an entire list of types of people and what they are characterized by, and then what their actual intentions or motivations are. These statements suggest that the "average man" is in every man. This makes me wonder, is Bukowski really suggesting we are all creatures of hate, because the only exception he seems to allow would be a man that closely resembles a Jesus figure among men. He leaves me wondering, does that type of person exist?

Another thing that stuck out to me after listening to this poem was the idea of people not accepting that which is different from what they are used to. Bukowski writes,

"not wanting solitude
not understanding solitude
they will attempt to destroy anything
that differs from their own
not being able to create art
they will not understand art
they will consider their failure as creators
only as a failure of the world."

In my mind this description screamed "PHILISTINE!" the term that we learned about in humanities earlier this year. Is Bukowski really saying we are all philistines in one way or another? Also, it seemed to me that a lot of Bukowski's personal experience shined through in this verse. The concept of people not being able to create are or understand are made me wonder if this was included in the poem due to Bukowski's experience with people who did not or chose not to understand his art.

The last verse in Bukowski's poem was even more dark and disturbing than the rest.

"and their hatred will be perfect

like a shining diamond
like a knife
like a mountain
like a tiger
like hemlock

their finest art."

Bukowski suggests that our biggest talent, "our" being all of mankind, is hatred. That's a scary thought. We like to think we're full of love and acceptance, but when you think about it are you really an open and understanding person? or are you just putting up a facade so that others are lead to misread you? Are you the warrior that preaches peace? The hater that preaches love? Are you the hypocrisy?

An Inconvenient Truth: Underlying Human Nature

Okay, so I've thought about this idea on numerous occasions and, in this case, I often end up irked by the perceptions that others hold. I'm usually very good at empathizing and doing my best to understand others perspectives when it comes to philosophical ideas because there is often no definite or provable answer, but my beliefs on this subject in particular lead me to firmly back my opinion when the subject is brought up.

The idea that has often bugged me is the concept of of human morality. The idea that humans are naturally "good" or "bad". First off, I become seriously frustrated with the fact that people often fail to explain what defines a human as "good" or "bad" in the first place. I believe that this initial mistake creates a hole in many people's logic.

In my opinion it is foolish to believe that human nature defines us as either "good" or "bad". In fact, I see us as more of a neutral figure just as any other animal on this planet. For example, when a lion kills a gazelle to feed it's not because it's a bad lion. It's not because lions, by nature, are evil creatures out to cause the suffering of other organisms. It's simply an animal instinct; an act supporting every creatures biological need to survive. Why then do we label our own drives as greedy and selfish, and therefore "bad". Like any other animal we do what we feel necessary to survive and even prosper. Maybe that makes us selfish, but if we are simply doing what we were programmed to do how can that make us "bad"?

I'm not saying that there is no such thing as a good or bad person. Our intelligence as humans gives us the opportunity to act on a level that other animals are not capable of. There are certainly those who have taken that ability to extremes on either side of the spectrum. I am simply saying that I do not believe that humans were born, as a whole, either good or bad, which is what some people imply is factual.

I also do not think it is logical to protest that humans are "good" by nature. I personally do not believe in selfless acts. There is motivation behind every action, just as there is a reward behind every action whether intentional or not. For example, one may say charity is an act of selflessness, and sure it's a very nice thing to do, but that certainly doesn't mean the giver doesn't also benefit from giving. Even if it's not a tangible, people receive a mental reward from such acts of "selflessness", and therefore, it is not an act of selflessness, or a marker "good". In fact, I think that one could even go as far to say that because every decision indeed has some personal benefits attached to it, that every action is a selfish one, and if this were true then one could therefore claim that donating is a selfish act, and because many have defined selfish as "bad" donating would also be considered "bad" as well. Does that make any sense?

I get that there are many factors that come into play, a big one being religion, so I understand why one might feel inclined to believe that humans are "good" or "bad" by nature, but I feel that if you take the time to think about what I've explained you may at least be able to understand my opinion as well, or at least where I'm coming from, and that's all I ask.

Blogging Around

The third blog I chose to read was Jenny's piece called "Captured thought: keeping up". I was really fascinated by what she had to say about the importance of keeping ourselves informed. Not only of family and school details, but those concerning outside world events as well. I shared my take on why I agreed with her sentiment.

Comment:
"I agree Jenny. Falling behind in what's going on in the world is one thing, but when you fail to keep up with what's going on in your own life you put not only your own future at risk, but your relationships with others as well. As far as world events go, I agree that many of us fall into the trap of ignoring them because we aren't there to witness them firsthand. If we were to let this become a routine we would end up becoming half the person we could potentially become. An understanding of our surroundings is what keeps up on our feet an in an aware and responsible state of mind. Therefore, it is essential that we all make an effort to absorb what knowledge we are privy to."

The last blog I read and was driven to comment on was Kathryn's blog "Best of the week: Do you mind?!". I completely agree with what she had to say about her initial opinion of the activity and how it changed is she got used to the process. I also shared my own opinion of how the do you mind questions have affected me.

Comment:
"I really enjoyed this post Kathryn. I agree that at first I saw the questions as simply something to get through and waste a couple of minutes on, but once I started to take the time to actually ponder them I realized how enjoyable it was to attempt to answer them, and in doing so, take a deeper look at myself as a person. The Do you mind questions have forced me to take the time, if only for a couple of minutes every day, to think about the things that wouldn't often cross my mind. They give me a break from the stressful thoughts that usually occupy my mind, and put me in a more calm and clear state. I even begin to realize how meaningless some of my worries are, and that there are so many more important things to think about."