Some recent thoughts in correspondence, and the trickling matriculation of a tickly conundrum

 I notice more and more, on my daily walks through the city, that many people seem absorbed in fascination of their shoes as they walk, so much so that my presence to them is unbeknownst, entirely absent. Young and old alike are inclined, these days, to stare at their feet or phones or ipods and whatnot, rather than to meet ones gaze, let alone offer some acknowledgement – preferring to short-sightedly mind their step instead of their surroundings. What is this about? My thought goes along the lines, that if you’re looking at your feet you won’t step in any dog shit.

This situations inverts abruptly however when one veers off the street and onto a greener path; pretty much anywhere with something of the country about it, to include some parks but only the larger, more remote ones, people begin to see you suddenly. They look ahead, acknowledge you, offer greetings and occasional pleasantries. But why, when there is infinitely more dog shit and things upon which to trip or stumble on these paths, do people feel able to look up now? The only conclusion I can see is that this inner-city foot-staring is not an attempt to mind ones step, but in fact, an isolation and self-absorption derived from a fear of other people. It isn’t so much the physical dog shit they are wary to avoid, but the metaphorical.

Thinking about how this has come to be, leads up from the habitual mundane, to far higher areas. In a lecture at the University of Oxford in 1958, Isaiah Berlin delivered a thesis called Two Concepts of Liberty, later published in his book Four Essay on Liberty. In it he described a dichotomy of societal freedom, between Positive liberty and Negative liberty. Positive liberty is the freedom which strives toward a goal, the freedom that comes with the knowledge that you are right, virtuous and good. In societies of this kind, Berlin says, atrocities will inevitably be committed, because they are seen to serve the greater good and can therefore be justified.

Negative liberty on the other hand, is the freedom which is derived from not stepping on one another’s toes. In it, you are free to behave as you like as long as it doesn’t prevent another from behaving as they like, but it is ultimately without purpose, without a goal. This is the type of liberty we westerners have – at least theoretically. The problem with this is that there is nothing at all to promote moral or ethical behaviour, and so we see a rise of superficiality, selfishness and disregard for wider concerns.

In America, it was Leo Strauss who theorised that the prevention of this moral decay lay in the creation of a great, overarching purpose, in which the people could believe and regain their solidarity, whether it was true or not. The Neo-nazi-Conservatives saw this too and acted on Strauss’ ideas by deliberately falsifying, and grossly enlarging, the offensive capabilities of first communists during the cold war, then terrorists more currently. They turned these groups into demonic enemies, incredibly powerful inhuman images of badness, once described as ‘sick little dwarf people,' who must be stopped at any cost. In this way they created the mythology that they sought, that America had a unique destiny, and duty, to battle evil across the globe. Undoubtedly this has instilled some sense of commonality, if not community, in Americans, but in doing so many atrocities have been committed, and there is still a vast abundance of selfishness and amorality; the worst of both concepts, perhaps.

It is uniquely shameful this endemic fear, that people are so cocooned in, of thinking and acting in new and divergent ways – ways which come in so naturally and easily to the mind of man. This suppressive, solitary and amoral, Negative liberty of free-market capitalism is widely criticised and debased, but there have been no genuinely new alternatives offered to it. So it seems that Truth has been usurped, Value taken to the pawnshop, and the Self has culled the collective – none of which is particularly encouraging or useful. Yet somehow I don’t believe that we’re really that hopeless.

There is an apparently uncomplicated way out, for me, through the simple act of quality control on a personal level. To act with excellence and impunity, to behave morally and with didactic dexterity, is eminently worthy of it’s continued struggle. And with it comes an opportunity to export and expound these values.

Anyway, and before I ossify too swiftly, I wanted to raise a question. I wanted to discuss how this individualistic mentality relates to our Black Swan Collective and it’s working ethos. What is the profitability of such a thing? Although ostensibly a group, it’s works appear only through individuals (even in proposed group exhibition,) and therefore fragmentary, jigsaw-like and much disputed. So what is it that binds us professionally? Is it really just safety in numbers? Or similarities in assimilating ideas? Or perhaps, dare I say it, some mutual purpose?

There are many things which I long to work on, and toward, with you all - because I truly respect and admire each of you, in your own fashion. But without common ground this is a pure fiction, and just a group of friends talking, while working for themselves and staring at their feet.

Pardon me for such a long essay, but I felt it necessary. Please, please, give me your thoughts.

In hope,

Your friend,

(Guess who)

P.S. Now I promise that’s my last blog cock.