The Modern Eclipse

It wasn't just any eclipse, was it?  I've never witnessed a total eclipse of the Sun, I admit.  So, however enthralling that experience may be, it hasn't been within my experience.  But I was alive when the last totality was visible in these United States, and even know of someone who witnessed it and spoke to him about it.  I saw media accounts of it as well.  But my recollection is that the accounts of that eclipse were not nearly as bewilderingly exclamatory and rhapsodic as the accounts I've seen of the one that took place yesterday.

Media accounts I saw addressed, live, such things as the reactions of those who gathered at a particular location in which totality could be observed to be married during the eclipse; the reactions of various animals in a zoo to the eclipse; the remarks made by people witnessing the eclipse when questioned; and even claims made by employes of Fox News that immigrants were donning black clothes and taking advantage of totality to illegally cross into our Great Republic unobserved, somehow, presumably during the approximately four minutes the totality lasted.  All who spoke agreed the eclipse was wonderful.  There can be no question of that.  But as much as this was emphasized, and repeated--and thus the reference to "rhapsodic" accounts--somehow, the descriptions made were uninspiring in the end.

The media representative assigned to witness the impact of the eclipse on people getting married during the eclipse unsurprisingly declared that doing so was a unique expression of love, and this declaration was confirmed repeatedly by those getting married.  Love was mentioned more than once during that broadcast.

At the zoo, we were told that birds were being noisy, a giraffe was being trailed by a zebra, an ostrich may or may not have laid an egg in the run up to totality, and flamingos and penguins began grouping together as they apparently do at night.  The ominous, and frankly silly, statements regarding immigrants dressing in black to take advantage of the totality on Fox News were made in a clip I saw.  Whether it occurred to them that the same could be done every night, and it was unnecessary and indeed foolish for anyone to await a solar eclipse and a four minute period of near darkness for this purpose, I don't know.

My guess is that most would know that temperature will drop during a total eclipse, at least if they thought about it, in addition to it growing dark, so remarks to that effect didn't strike me as newsworthy.  But I don't doubt that the eclipse itself was newsworthy, as a total eclipse isn't something visible regularly, nor do I doubt that witnessing one personally can be a remarkable and even spiritual experience.  What I do doubt, however, is that successive broadcasts taking place along the path of the eclipse, during which the same amazement was expressed, the same questions were asked,  the same responses were made and the same observations noted, were needed or interesting.  In fact, I think this rendered the eclipse mundane.

We're told that in ancient times in all cultures eclipses were wonderful, magical, supernatural, awe-inspiring and fear-inspiring events which profoundly influenced people and events.  Most of us no longer believe in magic, and know that eclipses are not supernatural.  But wonder and awe still seem appropriate reactions to a full solar eclipse.

Some remarks were made regarding the eclipse which indicated that certain people appreciated the event as reflecting the wondrous nature of the universe,  its sublime workings, its vastness and our small place in it although we are nonetheless part of it.  I think that's what would strike me if I had the good fortune to be present; that together with the acknowledgement that our disputes, conflicts and wars are petty, and our conceit boundless.

But in the main it was clear that coverage was the essential purpose of the media accounts of the event; coverage of everything. What took place, everywhere, over and over again; what was said over and over again; and what the feelings were of those who were witnesses.  The purpose was to describe the same event which took place over and over in different locations and to do so in much the same way in each case.

There's nothing wrong about doing this, but there's nothing significant about it either.  Nothing positive is achieved.  Curiously, this extensive and repetitive exposure diminishes an eclipse.  Our technology allows each of us to have a say about everything that takes place in the world, to express our feelings about them, and plainly most of us think it's important for us to speak and be heard.  Our society caters to this, as does the media.  Unfortunately, though, in most cases what we feel, and think, and say isn't remarkable or insightful or interesting.  

It seems that our media, if not our society or culture, is premised on the belief that what every person thinks or believes or says has equal significance, important and value, and should be known.  Our technology certainly encourages each of us to express our thoughts and feelings by ourselves, without the assistance of anyone else.  I'm uncertain, though, that this premise is useful, and suspect it deadens our appreciation of important things in life.

Social Media and the Roman Empire

 

It seems there is a trend, fostered for God knows what reasons by Social Media such as TikTok, by which women ask men how often they think of the Roman Empire.  Supposedly, the men have responded that they think of it quite often.  Just what these men consider the Roman Empire to be, or what it is about the Roman Empire they think about (there was a lot involved in it, after all) isn't clear.

Nor is it clear whether this trend actually exists, or how it arose if it exists, or the extent to which it exists.  These days, it seems possible that a woman may have asked a man about the Roman Empire one day and posted the response on Social Media, whereupon women all over the world having read of it began asking men about it or at least claimed they had done so.  Such things are possible in these unfortunate times, where it seems anyone may be an "influencer" or can claim to be one.  I can only say that I see the trend mentioned in posts and headlines.

The fact that there is a "trend" having been noted somewhere, sometime, somehow by someone, various and sundry pundits and pontificators have pondered why there is such a trend and, of course, what it means.  What it means to some is that men are vulnerable and confused about themselves, and apparently long for the good old days of Rome, where it is said the patriarchy reigned free and undisturbed, and women kept in their place.  Alternatively, men may just want to repress and dominate women and think fondly of an era and place where that took place with greater ease than it does now.

Our current fascination with sex and gender issues makes it unsurprising that speculations and conclusions of this nature abound.  But explanation of the fascination with Rome and its empire is found easily enough because its memory is everywhere, and in some respects and forms it still exists.  The Catholic Church is in many respects a ghost of the Empire.  Portions of Latin are used in discourse, and in the law, medicine and science, and of course the Romance languages are derivations of it.  Roman Ruins, still spectacular in many ways, lie throughout Europe, the U.K., North Africa, and large parts of Asia.

Its impact on law and government is immense in the West., and not merely in the continent of Europe.  The government of the U.S. was inspired by it and mimicked it.  Christianity was born and developed in the Empire, and its history and that of the Christian religion are intermixed.

Movies and books based on Roman history have been made and written for many years.  Roman architecture can be seen in many public buildings.  Nations are compared to it.  Its authors are still read and studied.  There's really no getting away from it, in the West.

This is not to mention the fact that, in the history of the West, there has been no other nation or form of  government which ruled over so many diverse peoples and regions so successfully and for so long in all of history.

It seems unlikely, then, that the popularity of the Roman Empire is due to feelings of sexual inadequacy or insecurity or urge to dominate being experienced by modern men.   It seems rather peculiar that there are those who come to this conclusion; it may say more about them than anything else.

Rome was a patriarchal society, no doubt.  It was military and imperialistic, cruel and hierarchical. It can be maintained, though, that this is the case regarding its successors as well, and it's unclear it was any worse than other empires and nations that came after it, even relative to the rights of women, who could not vote until recently, could not freely divorce until recently, and whose legal rights were minimal until recently.  Women were, in fact, less free and had less rights in many respects after the dissolution of the Empire than they had during the Empire.

Barking Mad

What better way to illustrate the smug, cruel, hectoring and thoughtless nature of the times then through this later sketch by Goya?  Surely you see someone you've seen before among those pictured, here?  Someone you've seen on TV or a computer monitor or smartphone, perhaps (where else do we see anyone or anything, anymore?).

I'm increasingly impressed by what I think are the limits of the human mind, made bare--certainly not glorious--by the vast information available to us and our sad reaction to it.  It must be true that there is more available, more to know if we were to make the effort, than ever before in our history.  But though that's clear it isn't possible to think that we're any the better for it.  We seem instead to be suffering from a collective form of attention deficit disorder.

A particular kind of collective ADD, however.  One in which our failure, or inability, to pay attention is paramount, particularly in connection with information which doesn't comfort us or comport with our preferences.  We seem unable to either process or accept such information.  In fact, more than that is involved.  We also actively doubt and even condemn such information.  It is "fake news" to use the unwittingly stupid parlance of the times.  It's something designed to mislead us, by enemies sometimes known, sometimes unknown, sometimes imagined.

As may be expected, this rejection of what doesn't accord with our beliefs and desires is matched by an unthinking, uncritical, acceptance of what does.  Words and sounds and images appear before us or are heard by us, and if we like them we believe them to be the way, the truth, and the light (there's something religious about the zeal with which we accept what we like, especially when it's transmitted via the technology we use every minute of the day, which increasingly becomes our reality).  So, we pass it along through social media as the truth, without verifying what is said or pictured.

In times when communication was much slower than it is now, someone, possibly P.T. Barnum, noted that a sucker is born every minute.  Now perhaps it's more accurate to say suckers are born always.  Why particularize, or qualify?    We live in the time, or kingdom, of the con artist.  Never before has it been easier to pass on and popularize untruth and exaggeration.  In an age where we come more and more to seek simple answers, an understandable result when a limited mind is subject to unlimited information, it may be the case as well that never before have we been more inclined to be conned.

Lately I've been thinking of the play Marat/Sade, and the movie inspired by it (actual title:  The Persecution and Assassination of Jean-Paul Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum of Charenton under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade).  I'd like to see it again.  It seems particularly pertinent given the upcoming election here in God's Favorite Country.  Perhaps we're in a madhouse of sorts, under the direction of other, more fortunate inmates, playing out scenes derived from a cherished past for the benefit of those who wish us to be amused and distracted while we do their bidding.

The Social Media is More than the Message

I'm having trouble understanding the interest and outrage generated by The Making of a Murderer, which is apparently something  which may be called a "docudrama," and the sympathy it has evoked for its unlikely "hero" if we may use the word, Steven Avery.

I suppose it's necessary to consider at the outset whether it is in fact a docudrama or a documentary.  A docudrama, it seems fair to say given the inclusion of "drama" in the word itself, though it relates nonfiction does so as part of a drama.  Merriam-Webster Online refers to a "docudrama" as something "dealing freely" with events, particularly those of a recent and controversial nature.  If "dealing freely" includes disregarding, and failing to mention, facts which could render a person less sympathetic, and a contention less convincing, then it would seem based on information which has been provided since the Netflix series has come out, absent from the series itself, that we are addressing a docudrama.

The failure of the makers of the docudrama to include such information in their series renders their assertions that they had no axe to grind, and didn't seek to convince anyone one way or another regarding whether justice was served, rather dubious, to say the least.  Their protestations that they left out certain evidence because they felt it was unimportant indicates that they made their own assessment of what was and was not pertinent to the determination of guilt or innocence, and sought to represent to their viewers that the evidence they included was all that was important and anything suggesting otherwise was not.  As has been noted elsewhere, this is simple manipulation of an audience.  But I don't intend to address the accuracy of the series or the motives of its makers.

What makes this bit of proselytizing remarkable is not the content of the series, but the manner in which it has been communicated, reacted to and remarked upon.  Its creators plainly desired to convince its viewers that an innocent man was framed in a most unsubtle manner and evidently have done that with considerable skill and success, despite the fact that the protagonist in this case is a not a particularly sympathetic or attractive figure.

He was unjustly convicted and incarcerated, at least for the first offence for which he was charged, that's clear.  But the same can be said, sadly, for many others.  He isn't a physically attractive or articulate person.  He isn't a member of a victimized minority, or punished because of his political or social views.  He wasn't a popular figure or a (very) public figure.  Nonetheless, he's now such a figure and, very suddenly, there are many people who not only believe him to be a victim of a corrupt system but are saying so frequently and loudly, all over the Internet.  Very oddly, it seems his attorneys at the time of his trial have become celebrities and, even more oddly, the romantic interests of some.

In the past, figures already popular or representative of certain victimized groups may have been the subject of adulation, and even treated as heroes, when unjustly accused or convicted and those who prosecuted them as villains.  In this case, however, the reaction is apparently due solely to the airing of the series itself, and the instantly expressed reaction of those who view it in media instantly and widely available to others, who then instantly express their reactions in the same media.

The reactions as expressed spread with great speed around the world and are remarked upon, but not necessarily in a thoughtful manner.  The media provides a forum for comment and response, but there need be no delay in commenting or responding nor does it appear there is any inclination to delay.  Something appears on a computer screen or smart phone or tablet and having been prompted we respond as soon as possible.  The media incite responses that are not thought out but instead reactive, motivated more by feeling than by thought, to claims which are accepted as true without qualification.  Thought takes time; we can feel, though, at the drop of a hat and feeling strongly react quickly.  What we express in the media is there forever, regardless of the quality of our expression.

What we're observing tells us that the media has a tremendous and largely uncontrolled power to influence and manipulate.  Because it has that power it's dangerous.  In the past there have been orators who were able to incite listeners to the point where they became mobs.  Since all us have access to the media the potential mob is now enormous, and its capacity for good or ill is without practical limit.  Since the media encourages thoughtless responses and reactions as it induces speedy expression its capacity for wrecking havoc is probably greater than its capacity to create any benefit.  The mob is potentially present and at the disposal of any person with access to the Internet and the various forms of social media.