Fight Club

Sep. 6th, 2010 09:06 pm
sathor: (Default)
[personal profile] sathor
Finished the book today, didn't actually take all that long.

I have to admit the movie does stick with the original story incredibly well. There's some differences, definitely, but the vast majority of them are minor. Such as Marla actually having cancer.

The biggest one is the ending, though - Tyler and our Narrator actually die. And I don't think you ever find out the narrator's real name. In the movie, the narrator still shoots himself in the mouth, but it results only in the death of Tyler...and we get a kind of closure with him and Marla watching the destruction of the building across the street. Most beautiful ending in all of Cinema, in my opinion. Depressing to see the original author didn't have that in mind. Maybe what's more depressing is the fact that I haven't seen any really "good" endings, so to speak, in anything I've read or seen for awhile. Ones that really leave a good feeling...like maybe there's hope after all, for love or for improvement in our world, either metaphorically or literally.

In my personal and professional life, I am losing hope with regards to most things. While I think I've had a good run, and I think if I stuck with music perhaps eventually...after a lot of investment financially and time-wise, there might be a chance to make a return...but really, I am seeing my professional life as rather hopeless. Personal life is nonexistent, for the most part. I can't see myself in a relationship anymore. I can barely tolerate myself - when I do start working it will be even harder to tolerate most things, as I'll be in a position financially and physically that will really, just absolutely suck for the most part. I don't like the idea of living on a pittance for hard work. But it seems that is the way of things, and it is unavoidable. I am so torn with regards to returning to college, that I'm not sure I'll ever have a concrete decision with regards to it. It's this huge system of indoctrination, I am aware of it. I am aware of how the liberal arts is, generally, a pyramid scheme. And I am so painfully aware of the hoop-jumping involved in basically all professional-level jobs, that I have no fucking interest anymore. It seems the whole world is bent on suppressing all creative ability, starting from kindergarten to the end of college. Write an essay, but it's going to be on this selection of topics. Be creative, but in this sliver of a spectrum. Perform the following mathematical functions.

I thought real hard, while I was reading fight club, during the scene while the mechanic drives the car, to obtain four human sacrifices. When the narrator says, "I wish I'd quit my job." in response to the question, "If you were to die right now, what would you want to have done that you didn't?" Well, what the fuck did I want to do in my life? I remember, from the start, I was a sketch artist - I had this ridiculous creative ability. That was starting around age 4 or 5. I stopped sketching when I started dating. I started music around the same time. Maybe it had something to do with the lack of emotional involvement with visible art. Maybe it had to deal with the time constraints a relationship brings to the table. I don't know.

Somewhere during middle school, I wanted to be a computer programmer. This continued for a long time, too. I studied Basic and C, C++. And at some point, I started thinking that living in a cubicle the rest of my fucking life, didn't seem like all that great of an idea. Writing lines of code. Somewhere along the line, I stumbled across projections like how the technological sector, while continue to grow, would have so much competition (too many people trained to do it) that it would be nearly impossible to get into it.

And then there was the whole Professor dream, of course, that fell to pieces pretty quickly. I don't really think it's all that valuable to be a professor of liberal arts. I think it's better when you're studying that stuff on your own, and drawing your own conclusions. And not needing to pander to some guy or girl's personal spin on particular works to earn good marks.

But I remember, very well. That in my mind, I always wanted to be an artist. That is it - that's all there ever was in my mind. Computer programming itself might've been a representation of that...but I'm sorry, there's not a whole lot of creativity going into programming for corporate interest, unless it's a gaming corporation. There's something dead about the idea, in my mind, something black, dark, evil about using creativity for corporate benefit. Maybe I've just been brainwashed by certain libertarian socialists, or anarchists...I don't know.

But the truth is, yeah, I'm just an artist and I think it's all I can ever be.

And I think I have to accept that my life, financially, is going to be very hard because of that. There's really no way around it. Becoming a professional and having 60+hrs/week sucked out of my life for a good paycheck isn't worth it when I'd rather be doing art, or reading books of my choice, or writing. This is the fundamental problem. That's why college has become so unappealing as well - because there's a lot of lost time there - and I don't care if you're one of those people who feels college is always more beneficial than anything else, because I don't think you are right. I think the fact is that college, for someone like me, could be very negative. Incredibly so. Not only will I be strained financially and time wise, because I'll have to work simultaneously, but I will be strained to get good marks, and strained to try and suck every moment out of it that I can, trying to make contacts that will be worthwhile, and trying to keep my happiness level balanced - which is another issue.

Happiness. It's always been hard for me to keep it stable. Almost impossible. I don't believe in using chemical alterations to my brain chemistry to fix it, because obviously there's underlying problems in my life that are not being solved, and I'd rather not just cover them up permanently with some psychiatrist-approved bullshit.

I am also conflicted spiritually at the moment. I wonder, often, this idea of fate or destiny...on one hand it is completely ridiculous. There are so many people on this planet, worse off than me - hey, I can work, I can survive easily, for sure. Even with some comforts. Without any real substantial higher education. I don't have to subsistence farm. I don't have to deal with violent regimes overthrowing my government. I don't have to worry about getting murdered in the street or in my home, at least not much.

At some point I was infected with this idea that I have something great to offer - that I have real talent that could take me far - but it's simply not been the case. In fact, my life has been pretty goddamn normal so far. When I worked, it was normal work. When I went to college, it was pretty normal...there wasn't much outstanding stuff that happened. And I have to imagine that this pattern will continue. There's no real reason to believe that it won't. And so maybe I shouldn't concern myself so much with trying to accomplish this or that thing, like getting a real album I'm happy with - maybe I should just continue to express myself, and try to work my life out financially, and get into a place where I am stable and secure, and then -maybe- then I can figure out something else. But I sure as hell can't solve everything at once. And if this is fate, it sure as hell is fucking ridiculous.

Date: 2010-09-08 03:25 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] chaos5023.livejournal.com
The market for competent programmers isn't competitive at all. The problem with analyses like the one you read is that they're by people who don't understand the difference between being taught to do a trained-monkey task and being taught to code. So what we've gotten out of the trends being analyzed there is a glut of credentialed programmers who can't program. This is a great annoyance to employers and introduces a confounding factor into the whole process of getting hired, but doesn't otherwise impact the market for actual programmers.

I'm not a big fan of corporate development or cubicles or lack of room for creativity, in fact I'm deadly sick of all of the above, but there is one point of view from which the role of the corporate developer is noble. If what you're working on is business systems, what you're essentially doing is automating the parts of a task that can be automated, which frees people up from doing stupid shit that a machine can do. If you're doing your job well, this essentially means that the people who use your systems spend more of their time being human than they would have otherwise. This is not a meaningless contribution to the world.

Date: 2010-09-08 10:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sathor.livejournal.com
Actually this is pretty interesting...My uncle and aunt worked as assembly programmers for decades for a rather large company locally (they sell clothing worldwide) and it just so happens a few years back the automated programs that they and the other programmers wrote over time pretty much made obsolete their work...and thus most of them were "laid off" permanently.

It's like what happened during the industrial revolution in a completely different industry. New technology means less workers to pay, but the same profit. Man, capitalists have to love that.

I mean, eventually won't it be necessary to have a welfare state just because technology does 99% of everything we -used- to do?

Date: 2010-09-08 11:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] chaos5023.livejournal.com
Wait, what? The programmers were made obsolete by their own code? The arrival of code that can write code is often considered to be the technological singularity point. :)

I know it's very anti-labor of me or whatever, but I guess I feel like if a machine can do it, it's actually wrong for it to be done by a human unless the human wants to do it for their own enjoyment. Which does suggest some kind of welfare state for the people who literally cannot or will not learn to do anything useful that a machine cannot do better. At least if we don't want to be brutal about it. Possibly Bob Black's ludic society is nearly the only humane place to end up.

Date: 2010-09-09 12:42 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sathor.livejournal.com
I totally agree, "cannot or will not learn to do anything with regards to upkeeping machines, programming machines, or innovating new machines" because at least according to kurzweil in the next 20 years or so we're not going to need to do much of anything...heheh...

He was spouting off about nanotechnology that could allow a person to hold their breath for tens of minutes...

Date: 2010-09-09 12:47 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] chaos5023.livejournal.com
Well, Kurzweil's a True Believer, but whatever, we'll see. I completely disagree with identifying "anything useful" with being a technologist, though. Creative work is the hardest thing to automate.

I still want to know whether you were saying the programmers themselves programmed themselves out of a job, and if so, how that happens.

Date: 2010-09-09 12:52 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sathor.livejournal.com
I think what actually happened was some new, more efficient programs showed up and knocked the assemblers out of a job. However there was some deal with my uncle where he improved a particular program so much that he was no longer needed to work with it or upkeep it...they only call him in on rare occasions so he can "fix" it, because he's the only person who knows how it works - i think it's the only remnant of assembly language in their entire company.

Date: 2010-09-09 01:10 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] chaos5023.livejournal.com
Okay. Hmm. I'm kind of the opinion that one is supposed to write high-quality programs that do not need you around just to keep them from exploding (as opposed to the "job security" types who make fragile systems so they stay indispensable), and employability is supposed to be about one's ability to continue making high-quality programs like that. (By programming work I mean programming work, not systems babysitting.) So I don't think I see anything wrong with the company's behavior; either they didn't think they needed a programmer any more -- which is retarded, good luck keeping up with the pace of innovation in any industry with that sort of thinking -- or they didn't think the programmer they had could keep them moving forward, which points up how programmers have to keep learning and keep up with technology just like everybody else.

Date: 2010-09-09 08:04 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sathor.livejournal.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLe_LZV9Uz0&feature=related

You might like these.

I've seen a similar speech by him previously but this is the most up-to-date.

Best part I've heard yet: Solar power is only at 1% of its potential growth right now, and once we start applying nanotech to it, it will grow exponentially. That could result in free energy for the entire planet in our lifetimes, easily. And realistically, that will do all sorts of crazy shit to our ideas of "wealth"

Date: 2010-09-12 06:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] chaos5023.livejournal.com
Yeah, if we're a post-scarcity society in 20 years, we will certainly not resemble today's society much. My linear intuition doesn't buy into it that much, though. And it's a little disturbing how our Ray repeatedly refers to what Brin and Page did with Internet links as "reverse engineering", in front of a technical audience no less.

Date: 2010-09-12 11:16 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sathor.livejournal.com
I am afraid for humanity if we aren't running on solar power almost 100% in twenty years, at the least...maybe not just solar, but hydro, and wind as well.

I am skeptical with some of the things he says, but in general I think he is probably right. However I think a big part of this exponential growth of technology has to do with the exponential growth of humanity. More minds means more possible large leaps in one generation. I guess that's one benefit of overpopulation.

Date: 2010-09-12 11:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sathor.livejournal.com
Although I suppose one could argue that overpopulation could have the exact opposite effect...if we instead spent all of our vast resources on a much smaller group of people, the effect on our advancement might be more pronounced.

Hey, maybe that's an argument for capitalism. Well shit. Or are there more overtones of eugenics...maybe a little bit of both.

Profile

sathor: (Default)
sathor

December 2016

S M T W T F S
    123
45678 910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829 30 31

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Feb. 11th, 2026 06:36 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios