The Prometheus League
Breaking News and Updates
- Abolition Of Work
- Ai
- Alt-right
- Alternative Medicine
- Antifa
- Artificial General Intelligence
- Artificial Intelligence
- Artificial Super Intelligence
- Ascension
- Astronomy
- Atheism
- Atheist
- Atlas Shrugged
- Automation
- Ayn Rand
- Bahamas
- Bankruptcy
- Basic Income Guarantee
- Big Tech
- Bitcoin
- Black Lives Matter
- Blackjack
- Boca Chica Texas
- Brexit
- Caribbean
- Casino
- Casino Affiliate
- Cbd Oil
- Censorship
- Cf
- Chess Engines
- Childfree
- Cloning
- Cloud Computing
- Conscious Evolution
- Corona Virus
- Cosmic Heaven
- Covid-19
- Cryonics
- Cryptocurrency
- Cyberpunk
- Darwinism
- Democrat
- Designer Babies
- DNA
- Donald Trump
- Eczema
- Elon Musk
- Entheogens
- Ethical Egoism
- Eugenic Concepts
- Eugenics
- Euthanasia
- Evolution
- Extropian
- Extropianism
- Extropy
- Fake News
- Federalism
- Federalist
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Amendment
- Financial Independence
- First Amendment
- Fiscal Freedom
- Food Supplements
- Fourth Amendment
- Fourth Amendment
- Free Speech
- Freedom
- Freedom of Speech
- Futurism
- Futurist
- Gambling
- Gene Medicine
- Genetic Engineering
- Genome
- Germ Warfare
- Golden Rule
- Government Oppression
- Hedonism
- High Seas
- History
- Hubble Telescope
- Human Genetic Engineering
- Human Genetics
- Human Immortality
- Human Longevity
- Illuminati
- Immortality
- Immortality Medicine
- Intentional Communities
- Jacinda Ardern
- Jitsi
- Jordan Peterson
- Las Vegas
- Liberal
- Libertarian
- Libertarianism
- Liberty
- Life Extension
- Macau
- Marie Byrd Land
- Mars
- Mars Colonization
- Mars Colony
- Memetics
- Micronations
- Mind Uploading
- Minerva Reefs
- Modern Satanism
- Moon Colonization
- Nanotech
- National Vanguard
- NATO
- Neo-eugenics
- Neurohacking
- Neurotechnology
- New Utopia
- New Zealand
- Nihilism
- Nootropics
- NSA
- Oceania
- Offshore
- Olympics
- Online Casino
- Online Gambling
- Pantheism
- Personal Empowerment
- Poker
- Political Correctness
- Politically Incorrect
- Polygamy
- Populism
- Post Human
- Post Humanism
- Posthuman
- Posthumanism
- Private Islands
- Progress
- Proud Boys
- Psoriasis
- Psychedelics
- Putin
- Quantum Computing
- Quantum Physics
- Rationalism
- Republican
- Resource Based Economy
- Robotics
- Rockall
- Ron Paul
- Roulette
- Russia
- Sealand
- Seasteading
- Second Amendment
- Second Amendment
- Seychelles
- Singularitarianism
- Singularity
- Socio-economic Collapse
- Space Exploration
- Space Station
- Space Travel
- Spacex
- Sports Betting
- Sportsbook
- Superintelligence
- Survivalism
- Talmud
- Technology
- Teilhard De Charden
- Terraforming Mars
- The Singularity
- Tms
- Tor Browser
- Trance
- Transhuman
- Transhuman News
- Transhumanism
- Transhumanist
- Transtopian
- Transtopianism
- Ukraine
- Uncategorized
- Vaping
- Victimless Crimes
- Virtual Reality
- Wage Slavery
- War On Drugs
- Waveland
- Ww3
- Yahoo
- Zeitgeist Movement
-
Prometheism
-
Forbidden Fruit
-
The Evolutionary Perspective
Monthly Archives: September 2019
Johnson’s obscene behaviour this week confirms the arrival of Trumpian Britain – Prospect
Posted: September 28, 2019 at 3:45 am
Photo: House of Commons/PA Wire/PA Images
Sometimes political events prove so dangerous and shocking that we are compelled, almost through self-preservation, to focus on the immediate developments, and understand only much later how much has been irrecoverably broken and lost. This was such a week.
On Tuesday the highest court in the land found that the prime minister had abused his power, misled parliament, and broken the law. It upheld the earlier verdict of the Scottish judges, who found that the PM had effectively lied to the Queen. If Boris Johnson had a shred of decency, integrity or responsibility, he would have resigned on the spot. Such an act would have been expected and demanded ofany other PM in modern history even by their own party. Johnson is not such a man.
The PM did not apologise. He did not show humility. He instead doubled down. Johnsons Commons appearance on Wednesday evening delivered the most repulsive parliamentary spectacle this country has seen in our lifetimes.The prime minister wailedthat parliament was betraying the people. He declared it should stand aside. He used the phrase surrender act no fewer than 15 times. When one MP invoked the memory of her friend Jo Cox and pleaded with the PM, for her colleagues safety and her own, to moderate his language, he responded that her complaint was humbug. Indeed, he tumbled to a further nadir by opining that MPs could honour Coxs memory by getting Brexit done. It was a gleeful festival of cruelty. People left the chamber in tears. Here was a group of MPs begging our countrys leader to temper his rhetoric, not as a political opponent but as a human being, and he jeered in their faces.
This was nothing to do with trade, or free movement, or sovereignty. It wasnt about fishing quotas or the EU budget or the bureaucrats in the European Commission. Brexit was not supposed to be like this. Nobody voted for this. How, in the name of Britain, did we get here?
First we look at the language. History shows that before hardlinedemagogues take control of the peoples will, they must first take control of the peoples lexicon. Johnsons calm repetition of the word surrender was no mere attempt at ridicule. He didnt use it tomake a joke. It was, rather, a deliberate, concerted and explicit effort not simply to smear his opponents but to delegitimise them.
It is not really about the word itself, but the context in which it was used. Johnson is attempting to reframe language and normalise that reframing. Such an endeavour seeks toradicalise people, whipping up a righteous popular fury that we have somehow surrendered to our historic enemies and rivals across the Channel by attempting tosave jobs and medicinesupplies. The British government is implicitly likening MPs to traitors in an imaginary war with our closest allies.
This is not just aquestion of abstract morality but peoples safety.Johnsons language does not occur in a vacuum. It matters. It filters through. And it has consequences. Johnson must know this. He knows that Coxs murderer cried Britain first as he attacked her. He knows that MPs are receivingfloodsof threats and abuse. He knows that the words surrender and betrayal wave a match over a public stage doused with fuel. It is simply that he doesnt care.
It is here that Johnson and Dominic Cummings reveal themselves.The PMdeclared that the best way to ensure that every parliamentarian is properly safe is to get Brexit done. Cummings went a step further when an MP complained about a death threat and he simply told him to support a deal. Never mind that there is currently no Brexit deal to approve even if MPs wanted to. It is beyond all limits of obscenity that the prime minister and his chief of staff should use MPs personal safety as a tool of blackmail or bargaining chip.
But this is where we come to the figure of Johnson himself.SomeMPs genuinely care about what they do. Others are merely entertained by it. The ideathat our PM might work for anysense ofthe common goodis a fiction. A lifetime of profound entitlement has delivered him nothing but reward.Now, having attained his lifelong goal of becoming prime minister, he fixes his sights on the nationalistglory hefeels he deserves.
And yet Johnson could do none of this on his own. He depends entirely on his enablers. The Tory party unmaskeditself this week, finally and for all time. Hundreds of its MPsgathered in the Commons. They heard their leader traduce parliament, challenge the judiciary and defend law-breaking. They did not walk out in disgust. They gave him a sustainedround of applause.
The old Conservative Party, for all its faults, has withered and died. Like the US Republicans who have provided such key inspiration, the Tories have entirely remodelled themselves in the image of the demagogue who leads them. They have sacrificed theirhonour on thealtar of promised electoral success.Conservative MPsare either wholly committed to the zeitgeist of anarchist destruction or nodding supinely and looking the other way. This is the party of monarchy, dependable government and law and order, and the PM istrampling all of thembut nothing trumps the nebulous concept of party loyalty. All are culpable.
This week wewitnessed the next stepsof a very deliberate revolution. This is the end of civility and the end of playing by the rules. Language has no more limits and basic decency has no more value. This is Trumps Britain in ways we can only begin to compute. Our country, its institutions and its future are at stake, and the people charged with their protection are carefully crushing them.
In the end this is not about Brexit, but about who we are as a country, and as people. Something has died: something of ourcompassion, our care, our respect for one another. The sense of bereavement is real and justified. But we have not lost everything. The struggle for our political and civiclives now begins.
Read more from the original source:
Johnson's obscene behaviour this week confirms the arrival of Trumpian Britain - Prospect
Posted in Zeitgeist Movement
Comments Off on Johnson’s obscene behaviour this week confirms the arrival of Trumpian Britain – Prospect
Here’s Why People Hardly Ever Smiled in Old-Time Photographs – Fstoppers
Posted: at 3:45 am
Why does vintage photography gives some people "the willies? Whether or not you've noticed this, the portrait subjects in the oldest black and white images are almost always glaring sternly into the lens.
I love antiques and visiting vintage shops. In my years of browsing through those dusty old shelves (with their musty yet oddly satisfying odor), I've collected dozens of stereographs. These are side-by-side photographic prints of nearly identical images, which create a three-dimensional image when viewed through a stereoscopic viewer. Stereographys invention by Sir Charles Wheatstonef in 1838 only 22 years after the first primitive photograph is historically remarkable.
My fascination with stereography has produced a small library of vintage stereograph portraits ranging across a wide array of subjects. It includes images of proud or stoic Native Americans, high-collared aristocrats, even a U.S. president. But the subjects rarely have even a faint smile. Whats with all that grimness?
The most significant explanation for the glum faces in vintage portraits is a technical one: long exposure times. In late 19th to early 20th century, photographic film wasn't as sensitive to light as modern film (or camera sensors) and required exposure times of several seconds to several minutes. Those minutes-long exposures did become less common as advancements in film were made throughout the 1900s.
Since any movement during a long exposure could create "ghosting" aberrations and ruin the sharpness of a photo, subjects were instructed to sit absolutely still during portrait sessions. Smiling requires many facial muscles to work in unison, but those muscles don't have the stamina to sit stay fixed over the course of several minutes. Some past accounts describe children being harnessed to chairs to keep them still enough for a long exposure.
How hard is it (for someone not a professional model) to hold a long smile for a camera? An entertaining 2010 case of smiling angst led to the "Hide the Pain Harold" meme: a desperately grinning Hungarian fellow who became an internet sensation for his bizarre grimace in various photo sets, apparently due to facial fatigue from forcing a smile during long photo shoots.
Also theorized as contributing to the lack of cheery faces in old-time portraits is the fact that dental care wasn't as commonplace or advancedin the 19th century. The typical solution for decaying teeth was to pull them. No wonder people were reluctant to show their off their chompers.
Cultural factors also see to have contributed to the lack of smiling in those early photographic portraits. First, the then-popular genre of "post-mortem photography" influenced a deadly serious (as it were) demeanor even in photos of the living. The grisly act of posing the dead as animate beings didn't exactly popularize smiling photo portraits. That photographic fashion tapered off early in the 20th century. I don't see it making a comeback anytime soon.
Additionally, smiling was once seen by the elite as a sign of idiocy. And since photography used to be a luxury exclusively enjoyed by the wealthy, the culture of dignity and seriousness may have also impacted the demeanor of photographic subjects.
There are, however, exceptions to the aristocratic zeitgeist of photography from the late 19th and early 20th century. Although photographed smiles of this period were rare, they can be found. A Flickr group has been dedicated to finding and re-posting the elusive "Smiling Victorian."
Historians and sociologists have offered various explanations (beyond long exposure times) for the rarity of cheerful expressions in vintage photographs, but the larger picture might have had to do with something we still work with today: the shifting vicissitudes of individuals and culture.
Smiling always has cultural connotations. Smiling at a stranger in North America can make a different impression from state to state and city to city. Whereas a smiling stranger might be seen as welcome in a socially relaxed area, that stranger could be taken as naive or even suspicious in a more conservative place. Suspicion can also prevail in some big cities, where eye contact is commonly avoided as a method of self-preservation.
Are there examples of photography from that era that make you wonder what was behind their smile (or lack thereof)? Please share with us in the comments section.
Lead image/s via Wikimedia Commons, all are in the public domain.
More:
Here's Why People Hardly Ever Smiled in Old-Time Photographs - Fstoppers
Posted in Zeitgeist Movement
Comments Off on Here’s Why People Hardly Ever Smiled in Old-Time Photographs – Fstoppers
Chronomania: The 50-Year History of the Automatic Chronograph – Watchtime.com
Posted: at 3:45 am
Fifty years ago, the consortium of Heuer-Leonidas, Breitling, Buren-Hamilton and Dubois Dpraz vied with lone wolves Zenith and Seiko in the race to launch the worlds first automatic chronograph movement. How did these brands keep their developments secret? And how did the watch world change? We searched the past for clues.
In this picture from the 1970s, Jack Heuer (left) shows Formula 1 racing champions Niki Lauda (second from left) and Clay Regazzoni how their golden automatic chronograph is made.
While reading his daily newspaper on the morning of Jan. 10, 1969, Jack Heuer, general director of the Heuer watch brand, suffered such a shock that he almost dropped his coffee cup. A short article announced that Heuers competitor Zenith had developed the worlds first automatic chronograph and was already showing functional prototypes of El Primero. How could this be true? Jack Heuers company was part of a consortium that had been working on this very same task under tremendous time pressure and the strictest secrecy for the past three years. The launch of Caliber 11 was scheduled for March 3. How could Zenith have beaten them to the punch?
This story is one of the most fascinating narratives in the history of the modern watch industry. It took place in a year that, like the entire previous decade, was characterized by technical progress and profound social change, including the first manned landing on the moon, the maiden flight of the Boeing 747 jet and the flower power movement. The whole decade was supercharged by the economic boom, especially in the automotive industry, and by spectacular auto races, whose champions thrilled large crowds. The zeitgeist of new mobility and communication was omnipresent. The world was ticking to a steadily accelerating rhythm: more and more powerful cars rolled off the assembly lines and more and more people could afford to buy them.
Brand ambassador Steve McQueen with the Heuer Monaco, which encased the new Caliber 11.
The Swiss watch industry, which cultivated centuries-old traditions, tried to keep pace with the innovation of this new era: they knew that their industry had no choice but to renew itself if it hoped to keep up with the faster pace of the times, particularly with the looming specter of competition from the Far East. In retrospect, we can see that the Quartz Crisis, which would jeopardize the very survival of Switzerlands watchmaking industry a decade later, had already begun to cast its shadow toward the West. Faultfinders would later claim that technological progress had caught the Swiss napping. Developing a modern automatic chronograph became a kind of Holy Grail for big-name manufacturers in the elite world of short time measurement.
Considering the wide selection of self-winding chronographs available today, its difficult to imagine how great a challenge this threefold problem posed. Never before had anyone succeeded in coaxing the practicality of an automatic winding system and the popular functionality of a chronograph into the narrow confines of a wristwatchs case.
The first automatic chronograph in the world: Zenith premiered El Primero with great pride and pomp.
Gerd-Rdiger Lang, who was employed by Heuer at the time and would later found the Chronoswiss brand, recalls the situation. The automatic chronograph was the greatest horological invention of the 20th century, which had otherwise produced nothing genuinely groundbreaking in this field. Switzerlands chronograph manufacturers hoped it would give them access to new markets and serve them as an innovative and sales-boosting bestseller if they could launch it before Omega, which led the chronograph market at the time.
Jack Heuer, former general director of the Heuer Swiss watch brand, was one of the key players in the development of the automatic chronograph.
A Complex ConstructionChronograph fans had no choice but to wear hand-wound models because the thorny technical dilemma of a self-winding time writer remained unresolved. The first hurdle was to overcome the energy problem. When a chronograph is switched on, its seconds hand and its counters for the elapsing minutes and hours consume much more energy than a classic time display, so they demand much greater performance from the self-winding mechanism. Watchmakers also had to leap a high bar by devising a design that would intelligently combine the two complex mechanisms, deploy the various additional components (especially the rotor) in an optimally space-saving arrangement, and provide the necessary passageways to accommodate the numerous drive shafts. All of this, it should not be forgotten, had to be accomplished within the diminutive volume of a wristwatchs case. These ambitious goals occupied the brightest minds at R&D departments in the 1960s, where they pursued their quest for solutions while preserving the utmost secrecy.
We now know that the first company to begin developing a self-winding chronograph wristwatch was Zenith, which started the project in 1962 and planned to launch the worlds first automatic chronograph to coincide with the companys centennial in 1965. But this ambitiously early date could not be kept: four more years would come and go before the project could be completed and the first prototype could be made available.
The joint development of Caliber 11 was advanced under the aegis of Willy Breitling (left). The Breitling Navitimer Chrono-Matic from 1969 (right) had a bezel that was marked with the characteristic slide rule.
A Coalition of CompetitorsProject 99 was the code name under which some of the most important specialists in short-term measurement joined together: Breitling, Heuer-Leonidas and Hamilton-Buren. The establishment of this illustrious circle was preceded by a request from a highly specialized movement designer and true specialist of his era, Grald Dubois, who directed the technical department at Dpraz & Cie. Founded in 1901 and based at Le Lieu in the Valle de Joux, this company ranked among the biggest suppliers of chronographs and owed its reputation to numerous developments in the field, including the column-wheel mechanism and the first adjustable module chronograph (Caliber 48), which debuted in 1937. Grald Dubois was the grandson of the companys founder and had long been in favor of developing an automatic chronograph, but its realization required an investment that was too large for his company to finance on its own.
Grald Dubois contacted Willy Breitling in 1965. Breitling, who was head of the Grenchen-based watch brand, was immediately enthusiastic about the project. The duo asked Jack Heuer, general director of Heuer-Leonidas, to join them. Heuer agreed because he shared their belief that the future belonged to the automatic chronograph. The fourth member of the group was Buren, the movement manufacturer that was acquired by the American brand Hamilton in 1966. The same year, after the costs had been contractually allocated and the patent rights had been granted, the consortium kicked off the development, which took place in secret. Gerd-Rdiger Lang, who joined the Heuer company as a watchmaker in 1968, recalls that no one on the staff had the slightest inkling of the secret project.
This coalition of competitors marked the beginning of a unique collaboration among rival brands and suppliers. Their alliance bore fruit with the debut of Caliber 11 three years later. Breitling designated this movement as the Chrono-Matic. Heuers dials bore the same name, albeit with a slightly different spelling Chronomatic.
An Unexpected OpponentBut a Japanese giant was not asleep. Seiko, which had been in the premium segment with its Grand Seiko models since the early 1960s and now competed with Swiss manufacturers, also began a similar development in the mid-1960s. Seikos secret project was code named 6139. A year earlier, when the world was watching the Olympic Games in Tokyo, Seiko had presented its first chronograph wristwatch, which still relied on manual winding. Meanwhile, the brand had also begun developing a totally different technology: quartz. But that, as they say, is another story.
Three Different Technical ApproachesAll three competitors were striving to achieve the same goal, but each pursued its own technical approach. The magic number 36,000 came into play at Zenith. This figure needs no explanation among chronograph enthusiasts, who are well aware that it specifies the number of semi-oscillations completed per hour by the balance in automatic caliber El Primero. Its fast-paced balance vibrated at the previously unattainably speedy frequency of 10 beats per second, which enabled this automatic chronograph movement to accomplish the unprecedented feat of measuring elapsed time to the nearest 1/10th of a second. Another distinctive feature of this technology was the integrated architecture of the chronograph mechanism. El Primero was a self-contained ensemble with a ball-borne central rotor and a column wheel instead of a cam. An especially clever detail was that the movement needed neither a module nor an additional mechanism. And notwithstanding its high frequency, El Primero offered a remarkably long 50-hour power reserve and had been miniaturized so its innovative technology could fit into a space measuring just 6.5 mm by 29.33 mm. Each characteristic was a success and the entire ensemble was nothing short of spectacular. Moreover, El Primero was also aesthetically pleasing: the harmony embodied by the original construction, which still distinguishes El Primero calibers today, has raised the pulse rates of generations of chronograph fans.
The original El Primero had a tricompax dial and displayed the date between 4 and 5 oclock. This layout has remained unchanged.
Many large watch manufacturers subsequently equipped their chronograph wristwatches with Zeniths trailblazing masterpiece. Probably the best-known example is the Cosmograph Daytona: Rolex began encasing a modified version in its chronographs in 1987. This transformed the Daytona into a self-winding chronograph. The Daytona continued to encase Zeniths movement until the year 2000, albeit with a reduced oscillating frequency of only 28,800 hourly vibrations and a balance wheel equipped with Microstella adjusting screws. Other brands, including Bulgari, Daniel Roth and Ebel, also relied on El Primero. Ebel launched a perpetual calendar wristwatch based on Zeniths movement in 1989.
A Modular Construction with a Micro-rotorIn contrast to Zeniths integrated architecture, the Project 99 consortium pursued an approach based on a modular concept similar to one used in early pocketwatches with complications. The chronograph mechanism was mounted on a plate in Caliber 11 (the Chrono-Matic) with oscillating pinion coupling. Three screws affixed this independent unit to the bridge side of the movement. The oscillating pinion coupled the chronograph to the gear train. To provide sufficient space, the team abandoned the concept of a central winding rotor positioned above the movement and opted instead for a planetary rotor, which Buren had developed under the leadership of technical director Hans Kocher in 1954. One consequence of the movements architecture with its integrated micro-rotor was that the crown had to be positioned on the left side of the case. This feature was later marketed using the slogan: The chronograph that doesnt need winding. Simpler assembly and maintenance were the perceived advantages of the sandwich-style construction as an independent frame that can be easily removed and replaced. As at Heuer, this covert project was declared classified at Breitling. Everything related to the development of Caliber 11 was discussed in encrypted form during clandestine meetings in back rooms. Only a few confidants of watchmaker Marcel Robert and Willy Breitling were privy to the confidential endeavor.
The Heuer Monaco from 1969 not only set standards with Caliber 11, but was also one of the first square watches with a waterproof case.
Seiko chose a third path. The brand had secretly developed a watch that demonstrated Seikos high degree of technical sophistication and would prove its precision three years later when this timepiece with its yellow dial ticked on the wrist of American astronaut William R. Pogue in outer space. The 6139 also relied on an integrated construction with column wheel, central rotor and energy-efficient vertical coupling, as well as the magic lever, a specialty that Seiko had used since 1959 to increase the efficiency of the winding mechanism. Mounted directly on the rotor shaft, the magic lever tapped all the energy of the oscillating weight, regardless of the rotors direction of rotation. A date display and a day-of-the-week indicator with quick correction were also installed.
The Tension MountsLets go back to Jan. 10, 1969, the date on which Zeniths press release announced, The merit of this outstanding creation makes the entire Swiss watch industry shine on the worlds major markets, where the competition is growing increasingly fierce. Jack Heuer called a breakfast meeting to decide how to proceed. The partners agreed to stick with their plan of simultaneous press conferences in Geneva and New York on March 3, 1969. In the presence of Heuer, Willy Breitling and Hans Kocher, the Caliber 11 Chrono-Matic was presented with great ceremony to the worlds journalists. Judging by their enthusiastic response, the reporters apparently werent bothered by the fact that the consortium had crossed the finish line nearly two months after its arch rival. Grald F. Bauer, president of the Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry (FH), opened the event in Geneva at 5 p.m. local time. Praising the technical masterpiece, Bauer highlighted the team spirit that had made it possible to launch this new high-performance product for the Swiss watch industry. Heuer had prepared answers to questions about Zeniths El Primero, but was surprised that the journalists didnt ask any. The simultaneous press conference in Manhattan, which began at 11 a.m. Eastern Time, was also attended by high-ranking Swiss industry representatives, including the President of the U. S. Foreign Office of the Swiss watch industry and Switzerlands Consul General in New York. The international edition of the Journal suisse dhorlogerie et de bijouterie dedicated its front page and a 16-page supplement to the event. The magazines headline declared: Three Swiss companies worked behind closed doors and launched a watch that doesnt really exist: the automatic chronograph. Willy Breitling emphasized the importance of innovation for the industry in general and especially for the company that his grandfather had founded saying, Certain stages in the development of a brand are decisive for its future. Today we are witnessing an event of capital importance, and I am sure you realize that it is a source of great joy for us.
Heuer Caliber 11: Each company in the consortium encased the Chrono-Matic caliber in one of its best-selling watches.
Three PremieresEach member of Project 99 selected its best-selling watches to encase the Chrono-Matic. Breitling ensconced it in the Navitimer and Chronomat; the first collection also included a cushion-shaped model, a new interpretation of the square chronograph from 1966 and a tonneau with a divers bezel. Heuer put Calibre 11 inside the Carrera, the Autavia and the new Monaco. The Monaco blazed new trails not only with its modern self-winding movement but also with the worlds first water-resistant square case. Hamilton launched the elegant Hamilton Chrono-Matic with a legendary panda dial, which is available today in a nearly identical look. An unmistakable feature of all these models was the crown on the left side of the case, where it demonstrated that this automatic chronograph no longer needed manual winding.
Automatic Caliber 11 debuted inside Hamilton Chrono-Matic A from 1971, with a 37-mm stainless-steel case and a panda dial, which is enjoying popularity again today.
Silence Is GoldenAll brands in the consortium presented the innovation in March 1969 in Basel at the Mustermesse, the Sample Fair that would later become Baselworld. Jack Heuer received a compliment from an unexpected source: Shoji Hattori, Seikos president, visited Heuer at the stand and congratulated him on his technical breakthrough. Heuer said, Naturally, I was very flattered. But Mr. Hattori didnt divulge even the slightest hint that Seiko was showing its 6139 at the fair. Heuer subsequently expressed his admiration for Seikos rather clever product strategy. Before the international launch of a new watch, its maker typically tests it first on the domestic market to solve any remaining problems. As in the fable of the tortoise and the hare, Seikos apparent slowness ultimately paid off. According to Jack Heuer, the Japanese company brought sales of Heuers product almost to a standstill on the U.S. market a few years later, a disappointment that he also attributed to an unfavorable exchange rate. Heuer nevertheless ended the 1969 financial year with record-breaking results: the brand increased sales by 34 percent thanks to the Caliber 11 Chrono-Matic. The original caliber was manufactured until 1970 and afterward further developed into Caliber 12. Heuer continued producing the movement until 1985. The Autavia was the last model to encase Caliber 11. Breitling used it from the end of 1968 to 1978.
The Seiko 5 Speedtimer from 1969 was an integrated automatic column-wheel chronograph with vertical coupling and magic lever.
The PresentEl Primero is the only one of these pioneering movements from 1969 that has been uninterruptedly manufactured from its debut to the present day, except for a brief hiatus during the Quartz Crisis. El Primero received a boost after Zenith was acquired by the LVMH Group in 1999. The high-frequency movement served as the basis for a flurry of new developments. These included additional modules to support diverse displays, as well as modifications with a partially skeletonized base plate so the escapement could be viewed through an aperture in the dial. El Primero Caliber 4021 was introduced with an additional power-reserve display and even with a tourbillon. Caliber 4031 combined a minute repeater with chronograph, alarm and second time zone. El Primero Stratos Flyback Striking 10th kept time during an extraordinary adventure on Oct. 14, 2012, when Felix Baumgartner jumped from the stratospheric altitude of 39 kilometers with this watch strapped to his wrist. His plunge made him the first human being to outpace the speed of sound. Baumgartner and his timepiece survived the acceleration, altitude, pressure and temperature differences unscathed. The watch worked just as well after landing as it did on take off.
The stopwatch function and the time display each have their own escapement system in the Zenith El Primero 9004, which enables the Defy El Primero 21 to measure elapsed intervals to the nearest 1/100th of a second.
Half a century after its premiere, El Primero remains the worlds most accurate serially manufactured chronograph thanks to its ability to measure brief intervals to the nearest 1/10th of a second. It also has won more awards and commendations than any other chronograph. Zenith set another record in 2017 with the debut of the Defy El Primero 21 chronograph, which can clock elapsed intervals not merely to the nearest 1/10th, but to the nearest 1/100th of a second. This mechanical feat is made possible by El Primero 9004, in which the stopwatch function has its own movement with a separate escapement that oscillates at a frequency of 360,000 vibrations per hour (50 Hz).
Although the original Caliber 11 is no longer manufactured, the brands that participated in its development are still justifiably proud of their innovation. TAG Heuers Product Director Guy Bove said, TAG Heuer has presented numerous precise timepieces during the past 150 years, but probably none of them has left as an indelible a mark on watchmaking as the Chrono-Matic. The Monaco, which once encased Caliber 11, is currently in the limelight in its 50th anniversary year. A different limited-edition Monaco will be unveiled at each of several commemorative events taking place in Europe, the United States and Asia. The historical and technical highlights of this icon are chronicled in the new book Paradoxical Superstar, published in May 2019.
Monaco Calibre 11, the successor to the famous square timepiece that premiered in 2015, features automatic Sellita Caliber SW300 with a Dubois Dpraz module. Price: $5,900.
Grand Seikos Spring Drive Chronograph GMT SBGC231 in a titanium case is one of the Japanese manufacturers highlights this year. Price: $12,900.
Seikos Chairman and CEO Shoji Hattori says that the launch of the automatic chronograph movement was part of the success story that led to the development 30 years later of Spring-Drive technology, which plays a central role in the launch of new versions of the Grand Seiko in 2019.
The WinnerNow lets return to the conundrum of who, in fact, developed the first automatic chronograph. Which brand stands on which step of the winners podium cannot be answered unequivocally from todays vantage point. What is certain is that each brand achieved a success of its own. While the first prototype of El Primero was introduced at the beginning of 1969, Breitling, Hamilton and Heuer didnt unveil their development until three months later, but they were able to present the largest number of functioning prototypes at the Mustermesse in Basel. And Seiko premiered its first self-winding chronograph wristwatches in May of the same historic year. How it was possible for several manufacturers to present the most important watch innovation of the postwar era all in the same year remains puzzling even today. From a purely horological perspective, El Primero has been Number One for 50 years: It set standards not only in technical terms, but it was also a feast for the eyes, almost poetic in its beauty, said Gerd-Rdiger Lang.
This article was originally presented in the August 2019 issue of WatchTime.
Read the original post:
Chronomania: The 50-Year History of the Automatic Chronograph - Watchtime.com
Posted in Zeitgeist Movement
Comments Off on Chronomania: The 50-Year History of the Automatic Chronograph – Watchtime.com
Meet the Man Behind Nearly Every Iconic Watch Design of the 20th Century – Yahoo Lifestyle
Posted: at 3:45 am
Click here to read the full article.
Like Ernest Hemingway, Frank Lloyd-Wright and Andy Warhol, the product designer Grald Genta emerges from the 20th Century as a towering figure in his field. But unlike his fellow artists, few, outside of watchmaking circles, know his name. We may never see such dominance again from a designer, especially because in-house teams have largely ousted the freelance ringer. However, during the post-WWII decades when he was active, Europeans and Americans still championed the lone genius above all else, and Genta became a brand in his own right: a man sought out by the thriving luxury industry to titillate the jet-set with elite, forward-thinking products ranging from eyeglasses for Cartier to a long list of paradigm-shifting watches, most of which are thriving as current offerings today.
Born in Geneva in 1931, Genta earned his Swiss Federal Diploma as a jeweler and goldsmith in 1951 at age 20. By 23, Genta was designing watches for the storied watch house Universal Genve. Today, collectors herald his Universal Genve Polerouter of the 1950s and the Golden and White Shadows of the 1960s as classics of the early Mid-Century style, itself a revival of the Bauhaus Schools high-minimalism that the Nazis so bitterly interrupted. Gentas designs from this time resonate with the refreshed aesthetics and abundant optimism of the post-War era.
More from Robb Report
The Polerouter used an innovative micro-rotor to wind the watch, and despite a long-lasting patent dispute with Benrus, early models sported the clever device as part of the Caliber 215 movement, which could withstand the magnetic havoc of flying over the North Polea new challenge for pilots en route from Copenhagen to Los Angeles for SAS airlines. This unique movement started Gentas love affair with designing thin watches around thin movements. Universal Genve would riff on Gentas Polerouter for decades, making everything from dive watches to gold dress watches under the moniker.
The Polerouters dial was the template for 1959s Genta-designed Omega Constellation, which would angle the steel outer dial to become the now famous pie pan that showed up on more than a few Seamasters, and which continues to adorn modern Constellations. Gentas Constellation marks the end of distinct period for the designer, as he would soon turn to far more groundbreaking designs.
Genta came back to Universal Genve in the 1960s to design the Golden Shadow and White Shadow. The Shadows show Gentas new found fascination with ultra-thin elliptical cases, which again relied on ultra-thin movements with micro-rotos, and later Bulovas pre-quartz electronic Accutron movements. The Shadows were revolutionary in their technology and their design, and this caught the eye of Patek Philippe, who hired Genta to design 1968s Golden Ellipse.
Many consider The Golden Ellipse a masterpiece of Mid-Century watchmaking, if also Pateks first mimical design (there would be another in the Genta-designed Nautilus of 1976). The Golden Ellipse debuted in 1968 and has had a healthy run that peaked in the 1970s, tapered down to jewel-encrusted womens models during the 1990s, and eventually came back to its roots in recent decades. In 2008, Patek Philippe celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Golden Ellipse with a platinum reissue, and for the watchs 50th Anniversary in 2018 Patek released a modern sized gold version. True to the original, the 2018 Golden Ellipse runs on Pateks Caliber 240 with a micro-rotor that brings the watchs thickness below 6 mm.
The 1970s turned out to be Gentas decade of hits. He delivered classics for Bulgari, Audemars Piguet, Patek Philippe, and IWC. In 1975, Bulgari released the oddly named Bulgari Bulgari, a watch that defied all expectations one might have had for Gentas work. Genta used an ancient Roman coin as the inspiration for the Bulgari Bulgaris bezel, engraving it deeply with the brand name twice (thus the odd name), and he drew upon the columns of ancient Roman architecture as inspiration for the cylindrical case. The Bulgari Bulgari has been a running hit for the Italian brand for decades. Theyve since acquired Gerald Gentas own eponymous watch brand and have captured the imagination of watch fans with Gentas Octo Finisimo, which, in true Genta style, continually breaks thinness records.
In terms of overall impact within the watch industry, Gentas Royal Oak for Audemars Piguet is arguably his greatest achievement. This nautically inspired watchwhich Genta claims to have designed in one eveningcertainly transformed Audemars Piguet from a respected brand into an industry powerhouse, but the Royal Oak also created the entire luxury sports watch category. The Royal Oak came out in 1970, and it captured the emerging fashion zeitgeist, which breezily combined casual attire and high fashion; think designer jeans and leisure suits, and you get the gist. Few watches are as instantly recognizable, broadly loved, and shamelessly imitated.
It was Patek Philippe who imitated Audemars Piguet most blatantly by hiring Genta to design the now-classic Nautilus. Released in 1976, the Nautilus was Pateks first sports watch, and because of its similarity to the Royal Oak, it garnered mixed reviews from hardcore Patek fans. But the Nautilus had the desired effect of attracting the growing consumer base for elegant sports watches to Patek Philippe, a traditional brand that feared going out of vogue as the world rushed along at supersonic speeds. Today the Nautilus is perhaps more of a hit than it ever was, with waiting lists for steel models going on for years. Any misgivings over its imitative nature have been long forgiven and/or forgotten, and the Nautilus looks as hip today as it did in the 1970s.
IWC was another brand that needed a new look to keep pace with the fast-changing fashions of the 1970s, and in 1976 they introduced the Genta-designed Ingenieur as their entry into the luxury sports watch category. Though less celebrated than the Royal Oak or the Nautilus, the Ingenieur rounds out a trio of 70s hits from Genta. All three of these watches have been in continuous production since they first arrived on the scene.
In the 1980s, Genta went on to create his own eponymous brand (eventually acquired by Bulgari). Gentas company produced watches that get the chairs creaking in the auction houses as people crane their necks to witness the bids soar. And while Gentas own brand was filled with masterpieces, they were mostly made in small numbers for elite watch aficionados, and thus never gained the popularity a watch can achieve via big brand marketing.
But there was one more dressy sports watch for Genta to design for a famous brand, this time Cartier. The Pasha de Cartier had been around since the 1930s when Mr. Cartier designed an elegant yet waterproof watch specifically for the Pasha of Marrakech, who swam daily. In 1985, Cartieralways charmingly late to the gameupdated the Pasha as a luxury sports offering. With 100m of water resistance, Arabic numerals, and a round case, Gentas Pasha was pushing the boundaries of what a Cartier could be, but he counterbalanced these innovations by including Louis Cartiers own Vendome lugs and signature nipple crown topped with a blue sapphire.
The Pasha is not currently on offer from Cartier, but it opened the floodgates for Cartier to indulge in round watches. Today there are numerous round models within the Cartier catalog, and each of them carries Gentas touch.
Genta created all kinds of watches for brands like Timex, Benrus, Seiko, and Rolex (check out the Rolex King Midas for a truly unique piece). These watches were less celebrated than the icons above, yet they demonstrate, if only in sheer numbers, how broad-reaching Gentas influence was on watch design. Though we can account for the disappearance of the lone genius designer to various cultural, technological, and economic factors, perhaps we are closer to the truth in saying that Gerald Genta was one-in-a-million, and that the stars aligned to raise this ambitious young Swiss kid to his now legendary status among the great artists of the 20th Century.
Sign up for Robb Report's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
Here is the original post:
Meet the Man Behind Nearly Every Iconic Watch Design of the 20th Century - Yahoo Lifestyle
Posted in Zeitgeist Movement
Comments Off on Meet the Man Behind Nearly Every Iconic Watch Design of the 20th Century – Yahoo Lifestyle
Kids these days – Strand
Posted: at 3:45 am
The generation that is fighting for everythingalsocares about nothing. At least thats the impression youll getfrom many of the articles youll find on the subject ofGeneration Z,thelabelappliedto those,likeme,born around the end of the 90s and later.There is a consensus that our generation is facing (and will continue to face) a wholeplethoraof seemingly insurmountable challenges, from the looming threat of climate change to the resurgence of fascist and racist ideologiesall over the world.However,weare rising to these challenges,and championing those among us that are leading the charge against ignorance, hate, and false information. The names Malala Yousafzai, David Hogg, and,most recently,Greta Thunbergarefamiliar to much of our generation for their activist work in the fields of female education, gun reform, and climate change, respectively.These kids have earned celebritystatus precisely because they have stood up for what they believe in and have fought for it tooth and nail.
So why is it that so many of the think-pieces written about our generationscrutinizethe fact that we dont seem to care about anything?A recent Forbes article sought to explainWhy the Z in Gen ZMeansZombie,theNewYorker, in turn, haspublishedmany articlesexploring the darkeraspects of our cultural zeitgeist,fromour love ofmeaninglessTikTokstothe popularity ofthe death-centricmusic of BillieEilish. And while it is clear that these commentaries can in no way account entirely for themindsetof our generation,the truth that underlies them cannot be denied. We stand at a moment in history where we are fighting for our lives, but at the end of the day,many of us enjoy hanging up our hats, setting down our picket signs and cozying up to a hot cup of nihilism.
Gen Z nihilismis not that of generationspast. However, thinking about the meaninglessness of existencetends to beaccompanied by feelings of despair, but our generation actually seems to find some solace in thecollapseof meaning. As the meme aboveshows, rather thanbuckleunder the weight of a doom-and-gloom ideology, we,Gen Z,prefer to slap on some cool shades, give athumbs-up, and smile through it.Of course, anyone who adopts this attitude doesso with their tongue firmly incheek. If we were all truly asapathetic as we pretendto be on the internet, events like the March for Our Lives, a student-led gun reform rally that took place in the U.S. last year, would not haveyielded a turnoutin the millions and spurred a movement that is still going strong today.What we have then is a kind ofperformed,evenings-and-weekends relationship with not-caring that is used to counterbalance the rest of the time when we are forced to care deeplyabout anything and everything.
Its important to remember thatGen Zisstillyoung andtalk of them is much younger. TheaforementionedForbesarticle goes so far as to say that the archetypalGen Zkid doesnt even exist yet.The vast majority of Gen Z, it must be said, arent even old enough to vote yet, a fact which lends credence to the idea that most of us arent fully formed yet either. This way of thinking makes it a lot easier to dismiss our cultural tastes as being just a phase,and of all possible phases for an entire generation to go through, half-hearted, comic nihilism fits the teenage stereotype perfectly.This isnt the only narrative, though, and it fails to account for the precise moment that we as Gen Zare living and coming of age inareunique.
A few of the numerousthreats to our generation and the population at large have already beenlisted, but its worth consideringthe fact thatthose crises have forced us to grow up quickly. On top of the label ofGeneration Z, this generation has often been called theMass Shooting Generation, a label given to those in the United States born after the 1999 Columbine High School shootingwho have grown up with active shooter drills as a regular part of their school experience.Todays world is not a place where the youngest amongus can be sheltered from its harshest realities. If anything, theyoungest among us are being forced to confront themhead-on in a way that other generationshave not had to.
Maybethiscultural aversion to a meaningful existenceisnt a phase then, and maybe it isnt even a simple distraction.Instead, maybe its a defense mechanism.Insurmountable, overwhelming, and impossible are only some of the wordsused to describe our challenges, and while were taking the fight to them anyways, its a comfort to think that, should we fail, it never really mattered in the first place.Because if the world is truly coming to an end, which it very well might be, it would be so much easier to cope with if we could assume the cool nonchalance of the man in the meme below, and embrace our deaths with shrugged shoulders:
In the meantime, its probably best that we go about the business of fighting for our lives. In time, we might need to put our nihilism to better use, but for now, let the music we listen to, the memes we consume, and our twisted sense of humour confuse the older generations a bit longer.
Post Views: 19
Original post:
Posted in Zeitgeist Movement
Comments Off on Kids these days – Strand
The Problems with the DSM Mask a Dark Reality We’re All Complicit In – James Moore
Posted: at 3:45 am
The reductive, materialist approach to mental disorder is running on fumes. The idea that disorders are simple, empirical things, comprised of smaller empirical things (thoughts, beliefs, desires etc.) that can be differentiated and isolated, reduced and explained by physical causes is a tale that is losing credibility by the day. The core philosophy that our mental experience just is physical experience really and is, as such, entirely conducive to the scientific method is therefore, I argue, lost. For far too long we have been seduced and overwhelmed by these ideas, and the time is increasingly upon us to reject them and think again about what mental disorder is.
Although there are several studies or avenues to make the case I want to make in this regard, I will focus on a very recent paper by Allsopp et al (2019). This paper comes to the arguably alarming conclusion that the DSM is not only conceptually problematic but scientifically meaningless. The very fact that there is considerable overlap between disorders and that two people can (so the DSM says) have the same disorder but share none of the same symptoms, it is argued, contradicts the very purpose and relevance of a system that was based on discerning discrete disorders. And it must be noted that Allsopp et als paper is not a theoretical paper in a psychotherapy journal, but a study in a psychiatry journal. Being that the DSM essentially represents the culmination of decades of empirical research on the Psyche, and being that it also represents the very philosophy of minds, brains and experience described above as applied in the real world, then this is clearly no small deal.
Before getting into the weeds, however, I would like to first very briefly paint the broader picture here. While it is certainly exciting that these kinds of conclusions are finding expression though more formal, scientifically accredited avenues, the truth of the matter is that a large portion of people in the mental health field workers and service-users alike already knew that DSM-type thinking was deeply problematic, and (behind closed doors at least) did not employ its terms in any decisive, meaningful way. Indeed, there are decades-long strands of argument and opposition that reject this kind of thinking, since at least the anti-psychiatry movement of the 1960s and in psychoanalytic circles in some way since its inception. The general argument is that this kind of thinking is not only deeply problematic in its own terms as if we only need to start the empirical project of categorizing and predicting Psyche and its ailments again in a different way but that by its very nature it exactly misses human experience in all its complexity, and precisely because it aims to categorize psychological experience in this way.
While the anti-psychiatry movement went over similar ground as these kinds of studies (Thomas Szasz, as problematic as some of his opinions were, argued that there was no such thing as mental disorder on conceptual grounds, for example), that movement did not really survive in any efficacious way. These days it is mostly treated as an amusing historical anomaly of the supposedly nave, idealistic woo that that period has come to be characterized as producing. After a brief flash of influence, it quickly waned, and along with a lot of thought at that time was gobbled up by the behemoth of empirical science that promptly ensued cognitive science, neuroscience, genetic research, etc. Taking on its modern incarnation in the 1950s, the empirical project of the Psyche offered something that more complex, existentially and experientially accurate theories and accounts of mental distress could not: the tantalizing possibility of a scientific explanation of distress that we could all then locate the problem of suffering in, try to solve, and then breathe a collective sigh of relief.
But whereas in the 1960s one could convincingly argue the case against anti-psychiatry type criticisms and for a reductive approach to Psyche on the grounds that the science of mind was just getting started, this time the approach has unarguably had its day in the sun its shot, so to speak. And now, not only has our understanding arguably not progressed as a result of mass empirical projects like the DSM, it has arguably regressed.
So, lets dig into this. The entire DSM project was premised on the idea of discrete, differentiated and differentiatable mental disorders that people effectively had, much like one has a physical illness such as Parkinsons or heart disease. The core problem with this is that while you can empirically discover, identify and objectively treat Parkinsons or heart disease, this has never been achieved for a single mental disorder through the empirical investigation of the Psyche and its ailments. Ironically, this was Thomas Szaszs main argument in the 1960s, and it is still valid. The counter-argument was and still is that eventually science will discover the underlying physical explanation and cause(s), at which point the embarrassment will be over, and that we are effectively doing the best we can in the meantime. But unless there is a specific time limit, which there isnt, this is tantamount to an unfalsifiable claim. As falsifiability is supposedly a key criterion for considering something a science, this is not a scientific statement, but an argument based on faith.
The only thing that is not scientific about the science in this context is therefore, ironically, itself. And here we are half a century later and nothing has decisively been discovered. So even its faith has not gone rewarded. It must be a wonderful thing if you are of that persuasion to be able to fall back on, Well, we havent discovered the physical explanation that proves it, yet.
There are two specific problems of note with where the DSM has arrived without such evidence. Firstly, there is explicit and complicated overlap between most diagnoses in the DSM scheme; and, secondly, the related fact that two people can have the same diagnosis but share none of the same symptoms, both of which Allsopp et al focus on in their paper. We might also add to this the very notion of co-morbidity the reality, almost the rule, that people have multiples of these discrete disorders at the same time. Many people, of course, end up diagnosed with multiple, overlapping disorders, that are supposed to constitute the cause and explanation of their distress.
This sounds sort of reasonable if we think about people with multiple, complicated physical issues, but let the ramifications of this sink in when used as a description of mental distress. Does it seem rational to conclude that many cases of suffering are best explained as the result of a complex system of unique pathological agents inside someone somewhere, causing an illness like a virus does, when there is absolutely no empirical evidence to suggest this? When a person has had a very difficult childhood characterized by abuse or neglect, say, does it make sense to say that their symptoms are explained by the presence of an anxiety agent, a trauma agent, a depression agent and a psychotic agent that comes in and out of existence every now and again, working inside them and against them (which all then need to somehow be individually treated)? When it is put like this which it should be because this is the essential message it sounds more than a little psychotic. And this is not simply hyperbole we are all subject to the full gamut of disordered experience, experts included.
Irrespective of what one thinks about this, when the very raison detre of the DSM was to outline discrete disorders to be treated specifically, the admission (and indeed promotion) of such a complicated and confusing picture does not just undermine the project, it flatly contradicts it. So far as I am concerned, the notion of overlap and co-morbidity in this context (i.e. without empirical evidence in its favor) is just an ad hoc justification to force coherence to something that was incoherent in the first place. Im sure the not yet, but later argument would seem particularly tempting right now to defenders of the approach, but the fact remains that if there is (often considerable) overlap, then there is no discrete disorder. Likewise, if two people can be diagnosed with the same disorder but not share the same symptoms, again the premise is disproved, as the notion of it being discrete then has no meaning. Logic supposedly does not lie, and after all empirical science is supposed to be a logical enterprise.
But this isnt entirely lost on the DSM. Indeed, it is in some sense admitted. In sections away from the actual diagnoses, it is suggested that there is an essentially heuristic importance and relevance to the scheme employed. Fair enough; I do not disagree with that at all. If it was understood simply as a way of categorizing complex, contradictory, and overdetermined experiences, then great. There is no doubt, not only that this is useful but that some form of categorization is absolutely necessary in any institution of mental health treatment. But and this is a big but this is not how it is promoted, nor how it is customarily understood by the lay public. Indeed, despite the fact that they may caveat the approach in such ways, the very fact that these realities are presented as caveats, when the only logical conclusion is that they undermine the very efficacy and relevance of the entire project, supports the idea that there is something more than confusion going on here. Maybe we should conclude then that there is intent to push the agenda of categorical reduction despite the fact that the very reality of peoples experience as empirically recognized by the DSM itself contradicts the idea. Maybe I am now being a little paranoid, but what else can we conclude?
Allsopp et als paper comes to the following conclusions: there is far too much subjective discernment employed in the DSM diagnostic process to call it objective, the overlap of mental disorders shows that they do not always fit into one category, and there is and needs be a necessary pragmatism that undermines the project of discrete disorders. These appear to me to be a strain of, shall we say, restrained diplomacy for the above reasons. They simply do not go far enough. Rather, their paper and others like them do not just represent what are arguably fatal blows to the DSM. To my mind, they are actually demonstrating that the very notion that facets of Psyche thoughts, beliefs, emotions, identities, etc. are really specific, discrete things that can be located in the head, reduced to brains, or whatever else, is itself incoherent and the root problem, not whatever system is conjured up based on its premises. Rather, what is at stake, I argue, is the very empirical theory and project of Psyche itself, of which the DSM is simply an applied arm or leg. What these studies are in fact positively showing us is that we are complex, contradictory, multifaceted beings that cannot be readily categorized and therefore reduced that we are, the Psyche is, dare I say it, illogical.
The truth of the matter is that psychotic disorders, major depression or obsessive-compulsive disorder, for example, are only abstractions. And abstractions of complex, contradictory phenomena unsurprisingly end up in contradiction. Certainly, there are psychotic, depressive or obsessive-compulsive experiences, but that is a very different statement. We all have such experiences, all the time. If we admit this, if we give validity to these experiences only as experiences and not deviant empirical entities, the notion of disorder or pathology loses its basis and meaning in the context. This failure is not the failure of the DSM per se, but the failure of the philosophy of reducing complex trans-categorical experiences into simple categories itself. This conclusion was at the core of much of the anti-psychiatry movement of the 1960s and it is still just as valid, if not more so given that the empirical project has become increasingly less valid.
The real question is, then, why do we too not come to this conclusion, from this study and those like it? Why can we not conclude that we are indeed complex, dynamic, contradictory beings and be done with it? This is where we hit upon the deeper matrix of the issue that it is not so easy to digest.
It would be comforting to conclude that the people who are in charge of such projects as the DSM (indeed, those in charge of any given socio-political project) are perhaps a little sociopathic or deviously immoral. If that were the conclusion, then there is a simple solution: get them out and replace them with people that actually care about what suffering actually is and create a new system that better presents the logic of that suffering. But, ironically, this would only be to commit the very same thing that is being criticized to reduce the problem to something simple and pathologize the them that peddle it. Unfortunately, it is not and cannot be that simple. Rather, if we truly accept the reality that people and their experiences are complex, contradictory and non-reducible, then the very narrative of perpetrators and victims must be disarmed along with it.
In the most basic sense, to come to the conclusion that we are such beings would be to admit that minds and experiences are not empirical objects which is to say, not things that exist in some self-same (i.e. one thing and not another) way and endure as such over time. If we admit that then we are admitting not only that categories of disorders do not actually exist, but that categories of ordered experience do not either. This would mean that the enduring qualities, identities and roles that we all readily accept and unthinkingly employ on a daily basis become duly suspect too; for they are the other side of the contradiction that would be un-split. And this applies to the us as to the them equally.
If we really accepted this, we would have to then say that we are all not what we think we are and what we are actually doing is not what we think we are doing. And I do not mean this in the sense of there being unconscious motivations an idea that I would argue is actually complicit in the very same scheme and project, putting, as it does, the reality of psychic contradiction somewhere else (i.e. the unconscious) but in the sense of us being explicit, walking contradictions. We would be admitting that the very experiential worlds we dwell in are weaved out of the fabric of this contradiction and paradox. In other words, it would be to say that we are not really good or bad people that are doing whats right or wrong; that we are not good nor bad parents, healthy nor ill; that we are not feminists nor white supremacists, Democrats fighting the good fight nor ignorant Republicans. Well, we may well be those, but we are also, and at the same time, other things, other roles, other personas that contradict and undermine those things presently and over time, which again applies to the us as to the them equally.
It is this that makes it almost unthinkable to actually realize this conclusion, and there is no underestimating how large of a shift in consciousness would be required. Perhaps most disturbing to our self-concepts and societal esteem, it would make a mockery of any real notion of progressing, individually or on a societal level. For progress in the way it is customarily used at least necessitates the very same ethos of specification, exclusion and reduction as the empirical project in general does; they are, in fact, of a piece. It is only by identifying with a simple notion, idea, or concept (and therefore excluding and othering a plethora of others) that realizing a given ideology, whether personal or social, is rendered possible and meaningful. Political systems and social movements are split into ostensive binaries for a reason.
Complex, contradictory things or identities do not have impetus and are more conducive to stasis than progress. As such, they cannot form the basis of a movement, personal or social; or rather, they can, but they wont really go anywhere. There must be simple categories a me, a you, an us and a them in its most basic form for gravity, momentum and direction to be generated and disclosed. On a day-to-day level, in fact, this basic psychological logic is necessary for us all in making sense of our positions in the world and carving out our futures, something which applies across the life span at different times. Indeed, the very notion of individuation at the core of the entire Western project that we hold so dear is enmeshed with and utterly dependent on this logic and process becoming an individual with a self is coextensive with this kind of othering and not-me-ing. No small thing.
We would be forced to conclude, in truth, that the core identifications we take to be us, just like disorders, are abstractions also, which are good for thinking and actingbut not actually real ways of organizing around time but onlyat the expense of dissociating the complex, stifling actuality underneath. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would mean that it is not really possible to control or predict ourselves or others, as prediction and control also rests on categorization and reduction, on specific entities and identities that are self-same and endure through time. We would ultimately be confronted by the fact that we are radically out of control or rather, have been laboring under the illusion of control, and actually have been for quite some time. It is not just empirical science that has been seduced by the apparent omnipotence that the empirical, reductive project affords, it is the whole Western structuring of experience and its people. Again, no small thing.
But as dramatic and fantastical as this sounds, this is exactly what we already know to be true; it is only that we fumble around for coherent explanations and causes for the symptoms that we do see. We, in the West, live in a world where the fact of regular mass shootings, opioid epidemics, rocketing suicide rates, to name but a few all backgrounded by the brutal destruction of nature and serious geo-political uncertainty, of course is apparently the new normal. It is, therefore, such a big issue precisely because the problem we are addressing in mental health treatment is not an isolated error, not by any stretch of the imagination. It is really only a symbol of this grand zeitgeist, this cultural mood in which the preeminence of empirical science is unquestioned, that we have been seduced by for centuries. To reject this would mean to admit that we are all, as such, inextricably bound to, and therefore also complicit in, the problem we are attacking.
But we also know this on some level too, although at times only in a dim, inexplicable way. While we know that we have progressed if we deem material gain and wealth, longevity of individual life and the rise of the individual and their individual rights as the sole criteria, we have with equal certainty regressed when it comes to that whole order of existence described by such terms as the illogical or irrational, such as our Psyches and experiential worlds. It is clear as day to anyone who wants to see that our emotional, psychological, and spiritual well-being has rapidly deteriorated. This is clearly evidenced by the rotting truths of our society mentioned above, and in the rotting truths of our personalities and actions in the world that we shove down somewhere. And this makes just as much sense as our awareness that mental health has deteriorated as a result of DSM-style pathologizing. In all cases, the ethos of reduction and identification with simple categories has the disturbing consequence of dissociating the vital human actuality underneath, a vitality that in essence we, in fact,are.
Accepting this, furthermore, would mean accepting that our belief that we have somehow transcended the limitations of nature is, and has always been, an illusion, and a very dangerous and damaging one at that. It would mean that we have to acknowledge all of us, not just the they over there doing things to us thatour progress does not represent a transcendence of the worlds limitations, but has involvedgreat cost. It would mean opening our eyes to the ways that we have all only transferred various kinds of suffering to others, whether that be to people with mental disorders, to people working in vast, deplorable factories in the third world, or whether it be to all the animals in nature that we slaughter in putrid, unimaginably immoral ways. These are also all of a piece.
To accept that we are contradictory, paradoxical, dynamic beings, and therefore also that we have all been suffering an illusion of control, transcendence and progress and have gained from this illusion at the expense of others, is a monumental task. However, this is, I argue, what we are being shown here, and in truth weve been shown it over and over again but not had the right eyes to see it.
But the question is, can we afford not to address this, this time? We have been vividly awakening to the fact that this normality we live in is deeply pathological. If that word has meaning outside of physical medicine, it is in this context. And this is the difference between now and the 1960s a time of a renaissance of hope and possibility. We, by contrast, realize this in a helpless, impotent and frustrated way, a lot of the time related, no doubt, to the actual impotency of empirical science and its philosophy to solve all our problems. And this is important. We have now lived out the reductive, materialist ideology to an obsessive extreme, and its failure is particularly evident when we think about our Psyches, emotions and mental disorders that we all know about, more or less firsthand. We are now undeniably seeing, feeling indeed being overwhelmed by its horrors. There is no argument, no hope, no well, back to the drawing board, well work it out this time when it is increasingly evident that the very drawing board we have been writing on is itself a big part of the issue. This is a big difference from the 1960s.
To bring it back to the point and to the core argument I am making, if we are truly to ameliorate people suffering with complex emotional and psychological distress, and indeed ourselves, from the problems of reduction, we cannot do so in earnest without also at the same time admitting our own complicity and culpability as beings interwoven in, and benefiting from, the very same project. To actually de-reduce and de-pathologize the emotional experience of those suffering, we have to admit that while we do not reduce this or that particular person and negate their experience persons that we think about and empathize with, whatever our reasons we do, consciously or not, negate and reduce the experience of peoples and beings that we do not think about or do not empathize with, for whatever reason.
I am making the case, then, that there is a very good reason why this model persists despite the glaring issues: to resolve it would involve the withdrawal of some serious projections, from each and every one of us. But in order to alleviate and dispel the violence done to the people we do think about and empathize with, then we have to at the same time and in the same breath admit the violence we do, and have been doing for a long time, to all these others. This would be to admit that we are all complex, dynamic, contradictory people and also participating in the problems we attack. The former without the latter is only hypocrisy, and hypocritical action does not tend to bring any real, sustained progress, which is after all what we really want or is it?
Continued here:
The Problems with the DSM Mask a Dark Reality We're All Complicit In - James Moore
Posted in Zeitgeist Movement
Comments Off on The Problems with the DSM Mask a Dark Reality We’re All Complicit In – James Moore
Could our next president be a Libertarian? | TheHill – The Hill
Posted: at 3:44 am
As they look ahead to the 2020 election, few political pundits have considered the possibility that a Libertarian Party candidate could be elected president. Yes, I know it's a long shot, but not as long a shot as it might initially seem.
Because of the Electoral College system of voting, third-party candidates have a better chance of winning than most people think. If no candidate gets a majority of the electoral votes, the House of Representatives chooses the president from among the three candidates with the most electoral votes.
To be in the running, all that a third-party candidate must do is receive enough electoral votes to ensure that neither the Democratic nor Republican nominee wins an Electoral College majority, in which case the spoiler becomes a credible final contender. In a close race, the candidate might need to win just one state to send the election to the House of Representatives.
At that point, the third-party candidate would have to convince members of the House to vote for him or her rather than for the major-party candidates. It's unlikely, but not impossible. It depends on who's running.
Libertarian ideas on social policy appeal to Democrats, while libertarian ideas on economic policy appeal to Republicans, so a skillful pitch on those ideas might win over Representatives dissatisfied with their own partys candidates. Although the Libertarian Party is often perceived as a fringe party, libertarian ideas are about as widely held as consistent liberal or conservative views by the general public. Many Americans have views that are socially liberal and economically conservative.
Currently, its not a complete stretch to think that many Republicans might abandon their president to vote for a third-party candidate. President TrumpDonald John TrumpWhistleblower filed Trump complaint after going to CIA general counsel: report Trump campaign, GOP raise M after Pelosi announces impeachment inquiry New York Times Opinion hits Trump in Star Wars-themed video MORE is not that popular with House Republicans, judging by the significant numbers of GOP lawmakers who have announced they will not be seeking re-election. If the Democratic nominee is way outside the mainstream as is easy to picture given the partys current field of candidates then a coalition of Democrats might join with some Republicans to support the third-party candidate.
For a Libertarian to win the presidency, the first step is for the Libertarian Party to choose a candidate who appears more reasonable to Americans, and especially to members of the House of Representatives, than the major-party candidates.
The second step is to campaign in just a few key states. In a close election, a third-party candidate could win only Texas, for instance, and still prevent rivals from winning an electoral majority thus throwing the election to the House of Representatives. The candidate should publicly announce this strategy beforehand, so that voters can see that the candidate has a real chance of victory and that their Libertarian votes would not be wasted .
An attractive Libertarian candidate with only a few electoral votes would then have the same status before the House of Representatives as the major-party candidates and a coalition of disgruntled Democrats and Republicans could put a Libertarian in the White House.
Keep in mind Ross Perot. In 1992 he received 19 percent of the popular vote, but his support was spread throughout the country, so he didn't receive a single electoral vote. If he had concentrated his campaigning in a few states, however, he might have converted his popular support into enough Electoral College votes to pitch the contest to the House. And who knows what might have happened then.
Could something similar happen in 2020? It is unlikely. But if 2016 proved anything, its that we must not dismiss improbable-sounding electoral outcomes out of hand.
Randall G. Holcombe is a research fellow at the Independent Institute and DeVoe Moore Professor of Economics at Florida State University. His latest book is Liberty in Peril: Democracy and Power in American History (Independent Institute, 2019).
See the original post here:
Could our next president be a Libertarian? | TheHill - The Hill
Posted in Libertarian
Comments Off on Could our next president be a Libertarian? | TheHill – The Hill
Local government and the path of least resistance – Seymour Tribune
Posted: at 3:44 am
Leo Morris Submitted photo
Those of us with libertarian instincts who want less from government less spending, less growth, less meddling with the private sector are frustrated at every level. Weve all but given up on Washington, and even state capitals seem more interested in directing their citizens than in serving them.
That leaves the local level, where residents most directly feel the effects of government actions, and where officials have the best chance to lead by bold example.
But officeholders desiring re-election and that is almost always almost all of them seldom fail to find the path of least resistance. A couple of examples cropped up in Fort Wayne recently, both in the same news cycle.
In the first example, the bold option was proposed by three brave but foolish City Council members, and immediately rejected out of hand.
The city had awarded garbage-removal service to a company clearly not up to the task. After more than a year and a half of continued missed pickups, angrier and angrier feedback from residents and thousands of dollars in fines by the city, it seemed clear that the company might never get its act together.
Look, said the three councilmen, why should the city be involved in the first place? Lets just get out of the business and let residents make their own best deals with trash-removal companies that will compete with each other to offer the best price.
No, no, no, said the upholders of the status quo, there are too many uncertainties about such a drastic course. The uncertainties were never specified, but its easy to imagine visions of a beleaguered homeowner trying to negotiate with a rogue hauler while garbage piled up in the alley, or of that rogue company bypassing a landfill to dump his load in the Maumee River.
A less fretful imagination might have anticipated the possibility of neighborhood associations, strong in Fort Wayne, negotiating contracts for their residents that were both economical and workable.
But the city prefers known mistakes to potential ones, so it is left with three unappealing options: Make the fines much steeper, declare the contract in breach and start over, or limp along with a company that was, incredibly, given a seven-year deal.
So, limp along it will be.
In the second example, the bold solution was never even mentioned.
A local entrepreneur got approval to begin adding a 9,000-square-foot garage to a residential building. That was just a tad big for most residents automotive-parking needs, but perfectly acceptable under the citys zoning ordinance.
But it soon became obvious that the work being done was more suited for a commercial enterprise. At first, the builder said, it would be a restaurant. Then, perhaps, a shopping plaza with four units. In the end, who knows? But lots of money had been spent and the City Council was asked to please rezone the site from single-family dwelling to limited commercial, which, come on now, was the kind of zone already right next door.
Oh dear, oh dear.
Granting the rezoning, some said, would set the precedent of being able to ask the city for forgiveness rather than permission, mocking the whole zoning process. No, the mans supporters said, he has made all kinds of concessions to nearby residents, so the real precedent would be to tell developers to do things the right way or face restrictions that could cripple chances to make a profit.
Of course, the rezoning was granted, with no one quite realizing that no precedent at all had been set. The council was merely drifting along, as always, taking the easiest course in the least reflective way.
A more reflective response would have been to ask why the city was even involved. If the two zones are adjacent, as many competing interests are, why not let the private enterprise system sort it out? In fact, why have zones at all? Houston seems to have created a dynamic, thriving city without city planners fussing over where people can or cannot put their businesses.
But people capable of imagining rouge trash haulers despoiling our rivers can also easily envision someone throwing up a chicken coop or pig farm right next door to the citys fanciest restaurant. Got to keep the riffraff at bay, this aint the Beverly Hillbillies here.
It is true, unfortunately, that local governments are taking a less active role in how we live these days, but not in a good way. According to Governing magazine and the Tax Policy Center, federal funds now provide about a third of state budgets and about a quarter of city and county budgets. And that money comes with incentives and conditions lots and lots of strings.
Have you noticed a certain sameness about the direction of Indianas urban areas not just big ones like Indiana and Fort Wayne, but smaller ones as well? Lots going on in downtowns new amenities such as baseball stadiums, trendy shops in old industrial buildings, riverfront work, bicycle paths and on and on.
Thats where the money is. The Planners and they deserve the capitalization dont like the way they have spread ourselves out, so theyve decided to herd us back into downtown clusters. And our local elected officials well, the money is there for the taking. The path of least resistance wins again.
Not exactly a libertarians dream.
Leo Morris, columnist for The Indiana Policy Review, is winner of the Hoosier Press Associations award for Best Editorial Writer. Morris, as opinion editor of the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel, was named a finalist in editorial writing by the Pulitzer Prize committee. Contact him at leoedits@yahoo.com.
Read the original post:
Local government and the path of least resistance - Seymour Tribune
Posted in Libertarian
Comments Off on Local government and the path of least resistance – Seymour Tribune
Whether Trump Stays or Goes, We Need To Rein in Presidents and Congress – Reason
Posted: at 3:44 am
As the impeachment process gets underwayand grows more partisan and frenetic with every passing minuteit's important to keep our eyes on the big picture that actually affects all Americans. For decades, the presidency has been getting more and more imperial, with Oval Office occupants openly flouting constraints on their exercise of power and Congress abdicating its role in doing anything other than spending more money and acting out of partisan interests. This process didn't begin with President Donald Trump and it won't end even if he is removed from office. From this libertarian's perspective, impeachment is a distraction from the far more importantand dauntingproblem of a government that costs more of our money and controls more of our lives with every passing year.
Does Trump deserve to get the hook? There's no question that he has acted abrasively since taking office, always pushing the envelope of acceptable behavior, decorum, and policy, whether by issuing travel bans specifically (and illegally) targeting Muslims, staffing the White House with his manifestly unqualified children and their spouses, or redirecting money to build his idiotic fence against the phantom menace of Mexican hordes bum-rushing the southern border. Is any of that, or his actions regarding Ukraine, impeachable? As Gerald Ford said in 1970, an impeachable offense "is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." So we'll be finding out soon enough.
But except for sheer coarseness and vulgarity, none of this is new or shocking. Barack Obama was mostly polite and more presentable to the public, but he similarly evinced nothing but contempt for restraints on his desired aims. His signature policy accomplishment, Obamacare, was built on the novel idea that the government couldn't just regulate economic activity but could actually force individuals to buy something they didn't want. Given such a break with tradition, it's unsurprising that it was the first piece of major legislation in decades that was pushed through on the votes of a single party (a feat matched by the tax cuts passed in late 2017). Even then, it took the fecklessness and rewrite skills of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to make it constitutional. On other matters, Obama famously ruled with his "pen and phone," issuing executive orders and actions to implement policies for which he couldn't muster support from Congress. When it came to war and surveillance, he simply ignored constitutional limits on his whims or lied about his administration's commitment to transparency even as he was spying on virtually all Americans.
It's needless to say but always worth remembering that George W. Bush was not particularly different. Though Bush conjured bipartisan majorities for awful and budget-busting programs such as wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Medicare prescription drug plan, and No Child Left Behind, his administration also implemented secret torture programs overseas and mass surveillance programs domestically, all while being "pathological about secrecy," even to the point of urging federal agencies to slow down or deny Freedom of Information Act requests.
To such executive branch flexes we must add the brute reality that Congress has been mostly AWOL for all of the 21st century, apart from taking nakedly partisan jabs at chief executives from the other party. Democrats mostly went along (at least at first) with George W. Bush's big-ticket, disastrous foreign and domestic policy priorities. They only cared about limiting government when their guy wasn't sleeping at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. On the road to becoming the first female Speaker of the House after the 2006 elections, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) promised she would oversee federal budgets with "no new deficit spending," a pledge that lasted until she actually became Speaker of the House and pushed a budget-busting farm bill.
Republicans spent like drunken sailors and regulated the hell out of the economy when they controlled the purse strings and got to pick winners and losers in the economy. They only talk about cutting spending and limiting government when a Democrat is in charge. Back when Obama was president, GOP representatives and senators were constantly going on and on about "Article I projects" and the desperate need to revitalize the separation of powers and tame the presidency. That all ended the minute it became clear that Donald Trump had beaten Hillary Clinton.
This is the essential context for the impeachment of Donald Trump. The size, scope, and spending of the federal government won't change regardless of his fate. Like his predecessors, he has arrogated more power to himself while also driving up deficits and diminishing trust and confidence in the ability of government to perform basic functions. All of the Democratic candidates for president have pledged to spend trillions of dollars on an ever-proliferating series of new programs such as Medicare for All, free college tuition, the Green New Deal, a universal basic income, and more.
All of that is why I'm less concerned with the fate of Donald Trump per se than I am about the persistence of an expansive federal government whose spending is suppressing growth and whose programs are typically inefficient at best and counterproductive at worst. Without addressing the bigger picture, the battle over Trump's fate will be an exercise in futility, a partisan plot climax that will thrill one set of partisans for a while but give no relief or release to the plurality of Americans who identify as independents.
See the rest here:
Whether Trump Stays or Goes, We Need To Rein in Presidents and Congress - Reason
Posted in Libertarian
Comments Off on Whether Trump Stays or Goes, We Need To Rein in Presidents and Congress – Reason
Yes, There’s a "Pee Tape" and It’s Unclear If It’s a Deepfake – Futurism
Posted: September 27, 2019 at 7:50 am
PeeFake
There have long been rumors of a tape that shows Donald Trump, the 45th President of the United States, directing sex workers to urinate on each other, or possibly a mattress where predecessor Barack Obama once slept, in the presidential suite of Moscows Ritz-Carlton hotel.
Its slowly emerging that a video claiming to be the legendary pee tape surfaced in January. In it, a shadowy Trump-like figure sits in a chair as nude women cavort on the bed. After a torturous nine months of investigation, Slates Ashley Feinberg concluded that the tape is almost certainly a fake leaving fascinating questions, both political and technological, about how the video was created and why.
The (extremely not-safe-for-work) video has been posted and scrubbed from the internet several times since January, but as of this articles publication you can see it here. There are numerous problems with the video the dcor in the video doesnt match that of the hotel, for instance.
But one of the biggest remaining questions is whether the grainy videos elusive creator hired a Trump lookalike or used deepfake technology to edit his face onto someone elses body.
Deepfakes are getting pretty good, but theyre still not totally convincing. But its still unclear how this video was created, because the video itself appears to be a phone recording of a screen playing the actual video a sneaky trick that one forensics expert told Slate would be a clever way to make it harder to spot flaws in the clip.
With that much blur and the already inscrutable, uh, mood lighting, its all-but-impossible to tell whether were actually peering at Trumps face or that of an unfortunate actor.
READ MORE: The Pee Tape Is Real, but Its Fake [Slate]
More on Trump: Trump Tweet Accidentally Reveals Secrets About US Spy Satellites
Continue reading here:
Yes, There's a "Pee Tape" and It's Unclear If It's a Deepfake - Futurism
Posted in Futurist
Comments Off on Yes, There’s a "Pee Tape" and It’s Unclear If It’s a Deepfake – Futurism