NickelEye stands alone

Nikolai is the guy in the back. He can't help but looking alone...

These days, it seems like everyone in the Strokes is diong a solo project. This is a recent facebook conversation my friend Alex and I had about Nikolai Fraiture's solo project, NickelEye (seriously, it's called that) which you should check out at www.myspace.com/officialnickeleye (these posts are taken verbatim, so "Fraiture" was spelled wrong in all of them. However, all other names were spelled correctly the first time). :

Walter:
Did you know Nikolai Frature started a solo project (just like everyone in the Strokes)? It sounds just like you would expect him to: alone, and copying the Strokes. http://www.myspace.com/officialnickeleye

Alex:
His other songs are just him playing the bass lines to Strokes songs on his very own bass that he bought with the money he saved up from his paper route.

Nick Valensi had previously bought him all his other basses.

Walter:
Yeah, but one time Nick Valensi lost his sunglasses and had to wear a pair that Nikolai had bought him for his birthday and he hadn't had time to throw away yet, so they're even.

Alex:
It's like the time Albert Hammond, Jr. borrowed one of Nikolai's shirts because he thought it looked like it was from a thrift store and therefore ironic.

Turns out, it was just one of Nikolai's shirts.

Walter:
Or the time that Julian Cassablancas said "Hey Fab, how's it going?" to Nikolai, because Julian is a confused drunkard. Nikolai wept because he was overcome with emotion. He wept alone and fell asleep alone.

It's the reason he's still trying.

Alex:
That's reminds me of the time that Nikolai tagged along with Fab and Drew Barrymore and then when Fab left to go to the bathroom Nikolai pretended HE was dating Drew Barrymore.

It's the simple pleasures in life you have to appreciate.

Walter:
Did you hear about how Nikolai Frature created a fake Rolling Stone cover using Microsoft paint in his free time, depicting the Strokes, without him, and the tagline "The NEW Fab Four!", and he showed it to the rest of the band and they didn't understand what was supposed to be wrong with it? But just before he went home, Albert Hammond, Jr., said "Thanks for grabbing that coffee, page!" (That's the band's special nickname for for Nikolai).

It feels good to be appreciated for the things you do.

Shakespeare and MTV

(Pop) pop. (Popular) pop-culture philosophy. That's what I'm calling it. What does it mean?

Example: In a literature class reading Shakespeare, the professor asked that we address a quote from Alexander Pushkin about Shakespeare, "Shakespeare felt for all humanity, and he was the creator of an entire humanity. After God, Shakespeare is the greatest creator of living beings." To break this down is no easy task - famed literary critic Harold Bloom has written an expansive work titled Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human, which deeply explored that very theme. Is it that Shakespeare was able to create real people in writing? Or that his characters were so recognizeable that they were human? Or that before his writing, no one took such an introspective approach to the human emotion and motivation, and so (as the author of the article linked to above, as well as here, suggests is Bloom's final conclusion) has re-created the way that we see the world, and by that means re-inventing humanity?

I suggested they look at an essay from the book Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs discussing the implications of MTV's "The Real World". The author makes the point that the first season of "The Real World" was the most real, becuase there had never been anything like this on television, at all, and the characters didn't know how to act in front of the camera. By the third season, however, the show's cast members would settle into a role, rather than just be themselves. He discusses how stereotypes such as "the militant black guy" or "the virginal southern girl" became the singular dimension of the cast member's personality. It wasn't long after that, though, that he also noticed that even the people he met every day slipped into one of the stereotypes. He ceased to meet multi-faceted, dynamic personalities. He would meet a "Julie" or "a Kevin" or "a Puck", or what have you (read the book -the guy is a certifiable expert). People became one-dimensional. In that way, for his generation (and perhaps mine as well), "The Real World" began to create humanity.*

When I introduced that passage to the class, my thinking was that this was what happened in Victorian times - English men suddenly found themselves meeting "a Falstaff" or "a Cassius", or themselves slipping into those roles. Even today we call a romantic a "Romeo". One other guy in the class seemed to get it, but not everyone bit. The professor himself tried to politely talk the discussion away from that example. Obviously, the idea of comparing the greatest playwright, and perhaps greatest student of human nature (and, in his time, a (pop) pop poet) with something as vulgar as anything on MTV is more than any lover of literature should expect to be asked to condescend to entertain during what should be a serious discussion of the bard's works. However, it should be relevant to any discussion of culture's place in and effect on modern life, so that we can understand what culture does to us, for better or worse.

The author of Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs is named Chuck Klosterman, the poster boy of the (pop) pop mindset. He has constructed the image of "Generation X", which may forever be remembered as the transitional pop-culture generation, by largely writing about the way he feels when taking part in the most banal of activities. The introspective aspect of his discourse is, to a large extent, what keeps it (pop), rather than truly academic. But this is also what makes it an apt means of advancing the study of pop culture: it is reflective of, and part of, what it discusses.

Suggesting that "The Real World" has created humanity is disturbing because it signals a fundamental change in how existence is viewed. But the proliferation of cameras, recording devices, and electronic communications--often sold for their ability to help you "create"--have put a premium on "capturing" rather than creating. Of course, this questions what it means to create, what it means to be "an individual" in so many senses of the word (are you an individual because you have a witty facebook page? Or because you don't have a facebook page? Does facebook allow you to express your individuality, or does it reinforce that you are only a part in society?). And more than this, it takes away the exclusivity of "genius". What once meant the ability to write a book about a man with a great personality, or express and interpret from written words that man with a great personality, now only requires having a great personality. Being the character has become more important, and in the name of equality and respect and individualism more adequate, than creating the character. Performance has been reduced to nothing but spectacle, where it is not interpretation that is on display, but only what draws attention. This is why I say Shakespeare was (pop) pop, because didn't he say that "all the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players"?

But now I feel stuck in a corner, because I've suggested that by writing about myself, I'm not creating, not even eligible to touch genius. Which is true, mostly. But that is what (pop) pop is. It's us telling us what's wrong with us.


*NOTE: The distinction that needs to be made for the sake of Bardolators and the like is that his writing ability is beside the point in this argument. That simple fact - that he is a creator, not only an observer - will forever distinguish him from, really, anyone to whom he is compared. So leave that behind; it is safe. It is only made safer by the medium - dramas must be re-performed over and over, while the nature of the camera is capture. That is, something that seems spontaneous when done by a character in a play must be written, crafted, remembered, and thoroughly rehearsed in order to be reproduced. If caught by a camera, though, it is a happy accident. Which is really what most of "TRW" is, a series of happy accidents. Because what has been suggested that "The Real World" has done on accident (or its cast members have done on purpose for often disturbing motivations), Shakespeare did somewhat on purpose--and that is creating characters that do not reflect the world, but are reflected by the world--what Shakespeare did was in so many ways greater.

The purpose of life

"We are the witness through which the universe becomes conscious of its own glory."

I'm not sure if this is Alan Watts' exact phrasing, because I've never read Alan Watts. But this is how the line is quoted in Werner Herzog's documentary about Antarctica, Encounters at the End of the World. The documentary is really more about those who choose to live in Antarctica, and the utterer of the quote is introduced as only a heavy machinery operator, working a Cat payloader. The film's shallower questions - about how an individual defines himself, or is defined, or what they do, or their relationship with nature - I will ignore, in favor of the deeper question of man's definition and roles and relationships.

Watts' words are beautiful in terms of the Universe as a rational series of particles and energies, and the found footage that Herzog shows, of the otherworldly environments beneath the Antarctic floes, and the space-age sounds that seals use to communicate with each other, only heightens the connection to what we think of as "outer" space. Hubble space telescope images are only a small cognitive step away.

However, they are almost more applicable in terms of a classic Christian interpretation of God - though it shatters some of the faith's most precious, unchanging tenants. In the Eastern Orthodox church, the priest is required to say prayers as he removes his vestments. It is common that an altar boy will read the prayers for him. As a former altar boy, I had done this a fair share. One of the lines thanks the lord "for allowing me to witness the beauty of your mysteries" or something of that nature. But the word "witness" is there. In the framework of Watts' quote, we have the answer to the question that I believe most people would ask God, given the chance: "Why are we here?" To see how good God is at making planets.

Imagine God is - whether alone, or one of many celestial beings - qutie insecure. He creates Angels to serve him, but he knows they only praise him because they have to. So he creates a world and peoples it, then sends envoys and prophets to prove his existence and get people to pray to him, thanking him for the gifts he has given, and otherwise inflating his ego. The large amount of prophets throughout history is probably a sign that God really is new at this game, or, like so many self-concious people, he's never satisfied. The first time he tried to directly influence humans, Adam and Eve only had to say "Ok, we won't eat the fruit. Now go away so we can go forth and multiply", and they could disobey him. Ever since, human life has been defined by punishments for disobeying God's will, and demand for various prayers and sacrifices to give God his oh-so-sought after validation.

"But," you may ask, "isn't God perfect? And all-powerful? And all knowing? Does he really need all this praise? Doesn't he have a plan for us, beyond just demanding blind praise?"

Is God perfect? My answer would be no. But also yes. Any God of this sort is, as far as humans can understand, perfect and all powerful. He had the power to create us, so why not make us just dumb enough and unaware enough to not be able to discern His shortcomings. He's in the back of the limo and we're the drivers. He leaves the partition down just long enough to see the hottie back there with him take off her dress, but then he puts it up and he won't answer the phone. So we don't see when he cries over his E.D. (I mean, think about it. He insisted that one of his most popular prophets was billed as his "son", finally proving his virility). He is greater than us, and can choose what we see. It doesn't make him perfect.

As I may have said before, the Creation story we are given attributes all of humanity's woes on its quest for knowledge (and on women). It was when we ate from the tree of knowledge that sin began, and it is through the advance of knowledge that it continues (which may explain the distrust of intellectualism among evangelicals). The closer we get to truly understanding God and the mysteries of the Universe, the less we depend on him, and the less we are impressed by him. So perhaps there is a built-in failsafe here. The more we "advance", the closer we get to annihilating ourselves ("we" being all mankind - also, see my previous post on the LHC). Then we, assumedly, all go to hell to suffer because God is frustrated with us trying to become actualized without his help, or we get reincarnated in another universe and we are all more reverent because we don't want punished again. Or we get 72 virgins, I'm not sure.

And so we are the eyes through which the universe sees itself. Should we not learn? I'm not sure. Does learning lead to knowing, or for a yearning to know more? I feel only yearning, and I'm not sure I will ever stop. But I also try not to forget to just look, and appreciate the world that I am part of and is therefore made of me.

Theories of existence and the Large Hadron Collider

Apparently, there are twelve different types of particles in the universe. I’d only remembered there being atoms. Or at the most, protons, neutrons, and electrons. Or ions, maybe (which I learned about from TIE-fighters). But I guess there’s also neutrinos (or was it Neutrin-O!s?) and proteons, and these are actually just different types of quarks (I think), and if I try to go beyond that I’m going to have to start making things up. And this isn’t really that kind of piece (unlike every solution to the airplane-treadmill question).
What kind of piece is this? Well, I recently completed Brett Easton Ellis’ seminal novel Less Than Zer0 (note: I bet that Brett felt stupid about that “0” later, or at least mad at his publisher) and it left me, as it no doubt will or at least has at one time left you (that time being at least the first time you read it) with a feeling of meaninglessness, like nothing before had ever filled you with meaninglessness. Part of this is because it has no beginning, no end (does that count as a spoiler alert?) but is simply a randomly chosen time frame.
So then what kind of piece is Less Than Zer0? In the novel "The End of The Affair," Graham Greene doesn’t exactly have a beginning, although he does have an introduction. His introduction notes that a story doesn’t really have a beginning or an end, but simply the point at which we choose to begin telling, and the point at which we choose to end telling (and if I hadn’t given away my copy of this book after the first time I’d read it, I could properly quote the master). Of course, Greene chose to end his book in a very tidy manner that, despite also leaving you feeling meaningless, was at least somewhat contextual with itself. The chosen beginning and end points correspond directly with events in the story.
Ellis’ book, on the other hand, begins and ends with points of time that exist no matter what the characters do – it will end here, whether anything has been achieved or not. Which is really, I suppose, how life is. You’re born at a pretty randomly chosen point, if you think about it, and it is very possible your life will end before its events have really come to a suitable conclusion – even if (perhaps especially if) you choose the moment of ending. And so what if you have wrapped things up? “Life” as a concept goes on. You may have finished that novel, but human existence still seems to build to nothing. Your own life was just a randomly chosen spot to begin and then end the telling of a story that doesn’t have any boundaries, and the only thing unique to your part of it is your viewpoint.
Which is why I’m excited about the Large Hadron Collider, the giant proton-collider that will produce many of those twelve particles that haven’t really ben around that much since the Big Bang. People have raised fears that the thing could get out of control, and create a black hole that would suck the earth into it, and that creating conditions like the Big Bang is dangerous because, well, we just tend to be nervous around big bangs (like Debbie Gibson!).
It’s possible that I’m able to look at this concern with excitement because it has largely been discredited by experts in the field, and even the worrywarts don’t think it’s that likely. But it’s also that this could be it. If this thing does what it is allegedly capable of, this could be the reason that humans were put on earth – or, from a Darwinist point of view, the pinnacle of the evolutionary process. We are put on Earth (or in the Universe) to end it.
It seems pretty morbid when you consider genocide, and war, and global warming, and Gas Prices, and The Hills. But consider this: the Large Hadron Collider creates a black hole, surrounded by particles almost completely absent since the big bang. This black hole for some reason is super-strong, and as it quickly swallows the Earth, thereby gaining gravitational pull, it pulls in the Moon, then Mars, and so on, and rapidly (relative to the Universe, that is – we’re all dead, our time doesn’t matter) sucks all matter and antimatter into itself, and the pure density swallows in on itself until the entire thing gets down to the size of a pin, and the one last particle that is left in the entire universe that wasn’t sucked in collides with this tiny thing and, boom. Big Bang. It all starts again.
To put it another way, according to legends from Pandora’s Box to Eve’s apple, to some other less Judaeo-Christian, Western-centric tales, Man’s real journey from beast to what he is began with the desire for knowledge. And now, some of us (the height of our species evolution?) have discovered the knowledge needed to end - and possibly, ironically, create - the Universe; Gods in our own image, we have learned all that we need to know.