*Internetism replacing postmodernism? Substance, replacing superficial money schemes?* (Wednesday, August 12th, 2020)

A new domain name! — —

seanoconnordiary.blog

Why did I do it? I wanted my blog’s exterior identity to align more precisely with what it is or what I strive for it to be. Before, the blog was just a hub for my miscellaneous “literature” or “creative writings.” Now, it is more specific and more niche (and ironically, as well as pleasantly, clearer as to its “generalist” or holistic point of view).  

Some debate exists over the ending of a domain name. Should you stick with the .COM or should you with .SOMETHINGELSE? In general, based on my readings, “.com” is more widely recommended, if only because more people are more used to it than any other ending. On the other hand, if the ending can directly speak to some specific foundational element of your website’s content, especially if either something hyper niche or purposely “outside the box” then doing something other than the .com may be wise.

Thought: when feeling overly concerned or zealously desirous for more money, turn immediately to something else you want with immense zeal if only to curb the potentially corruptive power money can cast upon a person as it pushes her or him away from other values.

In other words, try not to let anything be most fundamentally about the money otherwise the greater value that could or ought to be the motivation for giving or taking it has a more compassionate premise and purpose driving the trade/exchange…? (Similarly, perhaps let the same thing be the case for a desire for recognition, whether in the form of attracting friendships, fame, sex, influence, et cetera, as to again, protect the sincerity of one’s motivations and drives.)

I remember hearing Steve Jobs in some video clip remark that in his view t’was when he lost his focus on Apple product QUALITY that Apple profits suffered one of its worst losses; this makes sense to me in that on occasion I recall my motives being corrupted. One example: my applications for graduate school. A “double whammy” of corrupted motives:

A) I was not true to my own aesthetics, the critics (and in that case, grad school admissions folk) (how was I not true to my aesthetics? I put too much time into conforming as perfectly as possible to what I believed would be most wanted or expected of me as a writer. In losing myself so deeply into the abyss of assumed expectations, I took no risks in establishing for myself what I actually agreed with and disagreed with in terms of what makes good or bad writing and standing by my convictions. Part of this shortcoming consisted of being so lost in expectations of writers lucky enough to have jobs as professors and have power over other writers who want their jobs or to have jobs with them – or my own self-made notion of this as I can’t actually prove the extent to which this notion might really be the case—that I did not spend so much time simply focusing on the wide array of my possible options as a creative writer…not just the “options” that other writers who, being avant-garde now make it conventionally permissible to do it this way or that way, but the options in my own imagination.

B) Frankly, I wanted a graduate/teaching assistantship position and I wanted it so bad (for the money; the tuition waiver and stipend) that when I didn’t get an assistantship position or funding I gave up, for a time, my wish to write as I was writing. I had succumbed to bad intentions or intentions that were simply not close enough to “authentic” – to return to yesterday’s remarks on authenticity… [1]https://seanoconnorpoetry.com/2020/08/11/dreams-literally-and-figuratively-tuesday-august-11th-2020/

So what do I want roughly about as deeply as I want more money, recognition, et cetera?

First and foremost, to commit to my diary blog. Absolutely! Simply to commit! As I’ve written about so many times before. I want to write an entry every day without fail. I would rather write an entry that I came to regret but could correct and explain than falter and lose sight of my vision of the day to day record of a person’s most pressing thoughts.

As I mentioned yesterday, I want more dogs. At home, for now, just another dog or two but also, I want more dogs in my daily life away from home. Whether that means getting a job working for some animal rescue/pet care servicer or volunteering someplace. And along these lines I want to make progress with training Yago. He still does not always “come” when I ask him to. And of course, we need him to get on better with other dogs. This may ultimately require assistance from an expert/professional.

A sturdier (but not inflexible) routine (daily, weekly, monthly).

Two questions concerning routine which, or late, trouble me, include:

1) how to best determine, when, throughout a day’s course, should I reserve time specifically to be social—connect with family, catch up with friends, explore on social media (especially since social distancing results in much less than usual social interaction).

to be better socially (this also ties to routine in that I struggle with figuring out how much time in a day to reserve specifically for talking to others in a leisurely context)

2 ) A less chaotic reading plan! This aspiration tends to cause me significant anxiety! I do believe, at least, that I’ve established half of a plan—i.e., I’ve designated three categories of reading lists:

A ) the books and reading requiring the greatest amount of study (the diaries I’m studying from my favorite diarists: Witold Gombrowicz, Robert Musil, Thomas Mann, Virgina Woolf, Anais Nin, Susan Sontag, Ralph Waldo Emerson,  Cesar Pavese, and Andre Gide ((interestingly, I owe Susan Sontag a considerable debt for leading me to Gombrowicz, Pavese, and Gide and while I discovered Mann right around the same I discovered her and so do not owe her fundamentally for my discovery of Mann, she held a special place in her mind for him and this does add a degree of importance or almost royalty to the place Mann in my mind…  )

B ) Books specifically for research/information…books or articles, essays, et cetera, that I confer with simply because I want to find out about x, y, z….

C ) Miscellaneous literature for the purpose of culturing my consciousness: poetry, fiction, non-fiction. It’s actually here that I often get most tripped up. The two other reading lists just develop naturally. Overall, I simply go from diarist to diarist, not chaotically, but…this one, then that one, and go down the list of diaries I have, each day or so reading a little from one or the other or the other yet. The research books, also, when I have a question, I seek out the information.

But what about this final book list? Furthermore, this book list is daunting! Literature in my queue include finishing up Thomas Mann’s The Magic Mountain, Musil’s second volume of The Man Without Qualities, more Proust, more Dostoevsky, more David Foster Wallance, on and on I can go…and it wouldn’t hurt to keep an eye on what’s new in fiction (and poetry, and non-fiction) and that’s excluding some of the poetry and non-fiction I still wish to read.

The great news is that with such a long list, I need not feel as though “there’s nothing left” for me in this world. Rather, with such a massive trail of books to cover, I find reason for insatiable motivation to get up every morning. The hard part is figuring out what seems most important here and now as opposed to when I’m in my forties of sixties, et cetera.

There is just one more thing I wanted to jot down today.

A development in my thoughts on that which succeeds “postmodernism.” I propose…or…as of now, my working theory is…. “internetism” as the appropriate term for our current socio-cultural consciousness “period” or “movement.”

Movements and periods—I’ve been contemplating this concept since I discovered it back in 2004-2005 and I was reading from writers of the “Beat movement,” the “Romantic” and the “French Decadents.” And a few years later in philosophy class, learning about postmodernism, than a course on “modernism” and then a course on experimental literature somewhere between the postmodern and what may lay ahead of it, I’ve played with a few different ways to understand how socio-cultural consciousness may be evolving.

Though I wouldn’t have used this wording then, I went through a period of heavy “list poem” writing and believed this would be as revolutionary to the humanities as the beat poems were. Then for many years I was beside myself. Then, in the midst of my personal renaissance as a creative writer which occurred in the spring of 2017, if I am not mistaken, when my studies of the creative writing field intensified,

a few things about the postmodern trends stuck out to me as now moot or no longer serving to advance thought constructively (no coincidence that part of postmodernity is “deconstruction”).

1 ) a lot of postmodern writing comes across to me as purposefully unclear (some modern writing too but I also note that the finest modern writing—especially European—tends to be clearly confronting the lack of clarity that so troubles us…that is to say, their writing in of itself appears to make wonderful sense to me….thus my attraction…. But it is the reality they project that seems not to make sense)… some of this lacking clarity in postmodernism has what I call a mystical or mystifying quality…

*take Bob Dylan lyrics for example. On their face you can’t say with much confidence what his songs necessarily mean. (You can take them at their words, but this is an entirely different conversation)And yet, he gives us just enough to go on as to feel there’s some beautiful evocations. Some postmodernist work is utter bullshit and is conscious of this and even markets itself as bullshit. I think I read from an interesting David Foster Wallace on this issue…more specifically he pointed out how artists would almost over defensively identify as not to be taken so seriously. In so doing, Wallace argued, it was like an attempt at not being held accountable for what one does or for being open to a scrupulous critique or interpretation. As a result, leading the generation of more and more lack of seriousness. (Indeed, I often have felt I was alone in the seriousness with which I took my own aesthetics. But that may have been my own pretentiousness, lack of self-esteem, and shortage in exposure to those like me). A friend and colleague of mine wrote her thesis on how this “not taking seriously” and yet trying to sound, nonetheless, clever, for a lack of better description, was getting in the way of basic writing composition instruction for college students. Furthermore on this point, postmodernism, at its worst, is dogmatically cynical, dismissive, nihilistic, and does not permit much useful MEANING from which to CONSTRUCT a better world.

2 )   Isolationism! And it’s ironic!

There is this embrace of being so hyper-focused on one’s own uniqueness and thus “niche” way of being, writing, thinking, et cetera, that it necessarily leads to exclusiveness among the niche cliques. This, for example, can  even be the case in industries or work place. The professors pitted against the administrators. The nurses versus the doctors versus the medical assistants. The poets versus the fiction writers and the essayists. The horror fiction versus the magical realists versus the steam-punk, and so on. Postmodernity often opposes universality, rejects it. This means it can only be reduced either to extreme isolation as in the hermit type who says “fuck the system” in a mantra style (been there and done that by the way) or, as I said, cliques and niches that are based not on objectivity and unity but arbitrary, subjective thoughts that a group wants to cling to as to serve for an identity and political or economic pull…or… “power claims” (despite their own objectives stemming from concern over power claims).

3 ) hyper concrete and/or superficial.

When I read through anthologies specifically of literature—which reflects perhaps some semblance of broader socio-cultural consciousness, no?—much of it seems specifically opposed to explicit philosophy serving any purpose and instead over reliance on flamboyant, fuck-the-system gimmick cleverness (TRUMP! He is not so “clever” but clever enough to brainwash enough people as to get away with crime and destroying our government’s administrative efficacy or even usefulness at times) (Look at this little weird attribute my thing has that others will never have. I did it first. I’m great) or…just superficial/concrete. Writings that rely only on vivid concrete sensory description with little to no abstraction! (and I’ve been criticized for not going along with this always, for being too “heady” or “cerebral” or “intellectual;” or “abstract” or… too embedded in older writings. And so I go back to that fuck the system thing—it’s as if there is so much animosity (much of it reasonable, mind you) felt towards the power grabs and lies of the past, that even much of the masterpieces of those days are cast aside. Really, the two best examples I can give you—the lack of appreciation, in my observations, for the incredible value provided by Dostoevsky, Proust, Musil, and Mann. In my view, someone lacking at least a tiny exposure to these four names, is to be deprived of the most eloquent articulations on the conflict between striving to reason despite our inevitability to fail much of then time but at least hope for constructiveness—or, in more artistic terms, a way of thinking that CHALLENGES the “system” but does not say “fuck” the system. (Does that make any sense?)

And how do I tie all of this to INTERNETISM? Let us first consider the internet in its concrete form—global communication integrated for the purpose of bringing an equity in information, productive space, and exploration that is upheld as much by each individual website and internet application—let us say—as it is by its integrated NETWORK.

In the abstract… we have moved away from saying “cock” and “cunt” because we weren’t allowed to. We have moved away from needing pure representation of the individual or the group for there respective political purposes. We have moved away, in a word, from these nationalistic tribalisms or… to be more academic…social binaries! We are that third space in flux, indefinite in its totality YET capable of enough approximation to send a spaceship to the moon or cure Covid. We must both rebel against being told WHO AND WHAT we are “supposed to be” and we must rebel against excessively religious individualism.

We are all humans. We are a NETWORK of humans. We are each inherently different and yet bound. We are, to the best, I think, of our collective consciousness today, the internet period in our evolution. Furthermore, we are dependent on internetism both cognitively (if we want to properly synthesize facts and view points) and more literally (especially in light of the covid pandemic and social distancing. Without the internet many of us would be out of work.

Internetism seems to be the most defining thing we all have in common by way of consciousness as we break away from the “postmodern”

Leave a Reply