Are these words, these words as they appear to you, the syntax that echoes who I am? If my flesh (jacked flesh) is composed of complex proteins, then my soul is surely built of letters and prose… Or is it numbers now? In a way, these words form a fragment of my self, or in another’s opinion, an impressionistic portrait. To cut to the chase, my own desires to get a point across and do it in an entertaining manner, create an impression of me and yet not the ‘true’ me. In many ways, the hyperlink bands in the ‘favourite music’ category on my Facebook interests are an accurate summation of the breathing soulful (if I may say so) being at the keyboard. The blue clickability of the objects and terms profiled in various social network sites associate me to other people who happen to also enjoy Anata, cats, and Warren Ellis. It demographicizes me. But that is fine, because here I am, an intricate fingerprint on the tip of a snowflake, perfectly unique and profound… Right? Is it a horrifying prospect to conclude that the finely tuned order of interests we impart on our “about me’s” (for the sake of argument) are the extent of ourselves?
Of course, I also happen to have a strong appreciation for Kelly Clarkson’s latest disc, and yet this remains absent on my profile in fear of raining scorn. Surely that absent bit of information speaks to a truer and honest self behind the psychoses. To argue with myself (ironically), I would posit that Clarkson’s absence (due to public humiliation) would encompass a truer manifestation of my self than exhibiting a library’s worth of content that speak to who I am in syntactical methods. I am taking a very anti-transcendental approach here (over goddamn Facebook of all things), and partly feel that a majority of Western philosophy always seems to concern itself with the tangible reality outside while conveniently tiptoeing past the nature of our own finite mind. The dialectic proof that yes, we in fact exist (arguments of free will aside) are always first to be neatly solved with all the work shown… And yet on very specific terms. Bourgeoning psychology since the late 1800’s also seemed concerned with this hasty conjecture, delving naturalistically into the selves behind our selves. When asked to “be ourselves” or to “follow our hearts”, there is an assumption that we would seem to have an awareness of the true objective self that everyone else is not privy to. I find myself (that guy) saying, ‘I probably know myself only as well as any of you do, I just happen to be with him 24 hours a day.”
This all comes to the question of identity; as we communicate more than any society has communicated in the history of civilization, a majority of it is done impersonally. One’s online diction can paint them as boring or clumsy, while, in their room, they are probably reading The Fountainhead between messages. Is that then the true self at work, lols and grammar aside? Once again, it returns to the quandary that there is an objectively true way one would communicate under perfect circumstances. If the conversation were face to face, would there be more connection between conversing parties or less? Pesky body language, circumstance, and intonation also seem like factors that would pollute the connection between two kindred souls. And finally, of love and intimacy, surely when you look into the eyes under that gorgeous auburn hair imposed on the soft focus of an incense restaurant, there is a touching of souls… Again, incident arranges for intimacy, where even an offhand heartfelt text message would achieve the same stimuli in another human being. The intimacy, in sense, is mainly composed of circumstantial factors that are as binary as the compatibility between me and another edge kid’s livejournal in Singapore.
There are at least ten (if I am lucky) other human beings in this universe who are exactly like me, and I mean exactly. These questions are a decent foundation for Day 4, which will continue the question of identity in impersonal times. I promised I would discuss both topics in Day 3, but consider next entry the second half as it were. Again, I will use a case study in demographics using metal culture and elitism. Stay tuned for the answers.
To wrap this edition up, I will issue my update on what is going on with my Hearwax projects; Lye By Mistake’s Fea Jur, Converge’s Axe To Fall, Horse The Band’s Desperate Living, Cormorant’s Metazoa, Dying Fetus’ Descend Into Depravity, are all reviews that will be coming your way very soon. My special Beatles Remaster feature will also be a labour of love that will hit cyberspace as soon as I can produce it. Also, a special feature of the wealth of artistic endeavour to be found on the streets of Quebec should offer the first Hearwax travelogue. Finally, a new interview with legend in the making BULB is being organized and we all feel first-rate about one of Hearwax’s best friends coming back for another round of questions. To end off, I would like extend my stoked-ness towards our new writers Sean May, and Jesse Zuretti. I have been reading their words and opinions for almost four years, and believe me, their razor sharp wit and surgical writing acumen is perfect for this site. Welcome gents-
You may also dig: