HotPotato, a social networking startup, has been bought by Facebook with the purpose of shutting the company down. They have "moved to Facebook" but have deleted all their data. The HotPotato company writes that this "was a difficult decision."
I doubt it. They started with 1.2 million in investments and will sell for 10 million. This is all in one year--a good return. What is difficult is the emergence of "extortion companies", companies that introduce a competitive parallel technology and threaten a major company's market so the major company simply takes the upstart over and doesn't use it or its technology. Or it may develop an advantagous innovation which creates a problem for competitors but is not worth the cost of adoption.
A tenet in free economies is the willingness of the economic community to test itself and each other, to allow innovation to force change upon established leaders--or to disrupt them.--so that products and processes improve. The creation of companies for the sole purpose of annoying existing successful entities or buying emerging companies with an advantage for the sole purpose of dismantling them is a perversion of both sides of the competitive equation.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Aka Akhenaton
I have always thought that Obama looked like Amenhotep IV aka Akhenaton. Of course his statues change with his reign --and, I think, his religious vision --but the long, long face is pretty consistent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GD-EG-Caire-Mus%C3%A9e061.JPG
Amenhotep has always been fascinating. He was unknown to history until his temples were uncovered in el-Amarna in the 19th century and gradually quite a story emerged. He was the son of Amenhotep III and assumed the throne--either singly or as co regent for a short time--in about 1350. He seemed to be an interactive, concerned leader as he dealt with the problems of empire, particularly the growth and incursion of the Hittite Empire. But his main contribution to Egypt was his startling attempt to reverse, indeed revolutionize, Egyptian culture. He was Egypt's--perhaps the world's--first monotheist. (This observation was expanded into a whole thesis by Freud who argued in Moses and Monotheism that Moses was an Egyptian and had learned monotheism from the Aten cult). The current god was Amen. He gradually began to dismantle the pantheon of myriad gods and goddesses ruled over by Amen and substituted the single god Aten--really a re emphasis of the old sun god Ra-- in their place. He also established himself as the intermediary between Aten and the world, thus bypassing the priest caste. This may have been a difficult process against the priests and tradition but perhaps it was a cult of the upper class with the lower classes clinging to the old gods and ways; none the less the images and charms of the older gods seem to have continued unchanged. Amenhotep IV eventually changed his name to Akhenaten, moved the capital to a new site, Amarna, dedicated to the new god, and destroyed and desecrated the old Amen statues and religious sites.
There are so many interesting and unique aspects of this man. He changed art; representations of the pharaoh became softer and more personal. His family became prominent (his first wife was the elegant Nefertiti) and for the first time statues became less rigid, more life-like . Temples were bright, airy and filled with representations of family and community scenes.
Things ended badly. He died--or was overthrown--and his family began rule.But soon Horemheb took the throne and all evidence of Akhenaten, his family and his new god was erased from monuments and records. Indeed Horemheb is recorded as directly following Amenhotep III. Amarna was abandoned; Akhenaten was anathma. Amen and his priests were back.
Amenhotep has always been fascinating. He was unknown to history until his temples were uncovered in el-Amarna in the 19th century and gradually quite a story emerged. He was the son of Amenhotep III and assumed the throne--either singly or as co regent for a short time--in about 1350. He seemed to be an interactive, concerned leader as he dealt with the problems of empire, particularly the growth and incursion of the Hittite Empire. But his main contribution to Egypt was his startling attempt to reverse, indeed revolutionize, Egyptian culture. He was Egypt's--perhaps the world's--first monotheist. (This observation was expanded into a whole thesis by Freud who argued in Moses and Monotheism that Moses was an Egyptian and had learned monotheism from the Aten cult). The current god was Amen. He gradually began to dismantle the pantheon of myriad gods and goddesses ruled over by Amen and substituted the single god Aten--really a re emphasis of the old sun god Ra-- in their place. He also established himself as the intermediary between Aten and the world, thus bypassing the priest caste. This may have been a difficult process against the priests and tradition but perhaps it was a cult of the upper class with the lower classes clinging to the old gods and ways; none the less the images and charms of the older gods seem to have continued unchanged. Amenhotep IV eventually changed his name to Akhenaten, moved the capital to a new site, Amarna, dedicated to the new god, and destroyed and desecrated the old Amen statues and religious sites.
There are so many interesting and unique aspects of this man. He changed art; representations of the pharaoh became softer and more personal. His family became prominent (his first wife was the elegant Nefertiti) and for the first time statues became less rigid, more life-like . Temples were bright, airy and filled with representations of family and community scenes.
Things ended badly. He died--or was overthrown--and his family began rule.But soon Horemheb took the throne and all evidence of Akhenaten, his family and his new god was erased from monuments and records. Indeed Horemheb is recorded as directly following Amenhotep III. Amarna was abandoned; Akhenaten was anathma. Amen and his priests were back.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Bathetic and Bathoic
A question has been raised about my use of the word "bathoic" in reference to Blagojevich rather than "bathetic." Bathos comes from the Greek word for depth (e.g. bathysphere) and has been used in that context as the depth or bottom: Samuel Johnson called a poem "the very bathos of insipidity." Pope redefined it in his poem Peri Bathous, a satire on contemporary poetry that he felt trivialized important subjects accidentally,thus debasing the very things they attempted to elevate. (One of his examples was presenting God as a baker.) More than presenting this art as low in the artistic hierarchy, he meant to show a decline, a distance between the high quality of artistic ancestors and the low quality of the descendants and hence a loss. Hogarth followed with his final etching, The Bathos, which shows more than just failure, it shows failure set in the relief of expectation. http://www.victorianweb.org/painting/18c/hogarth/30.html
The phrase "sublime to the ridiculous" first appears in Thomas Paine's Age of Man as "one step above the sublime makes the ridiculous, and one step above the ridiculous makes the sublime again." This implies a continuity, a rising progression from one to the other. Bathos, on the other hand does not; it implies a discontinuous fall closer to "the decline of the sublime to the ridiculous." It is used most often satirically, as anticlimax. And "bathetic" has become "syrupy, sentimental."
This fall, this decline, is lost in Samuel Johnson's--and the more humorous modern--meaning and I wanted to preserve it. My particular interest is the change of American leaders and culture over the years, the change from Washington to Nixon, from the world of ideas to conjecture. So I looked at "bathoic"--and coined it. I also decided to coin "Bathoe" and "Bathoes", to signify the principles in this decline.
The phrase "sublime to the ridiculous" first appears in Thomas Paine's Age of Man as "one step above the sublime makes the ridiculous, and one step above the ridiculous makes the sublime again." This implies a continuity, a rising progression from one to the other. Bathos, on the other hand does not; it implies a discontinuous fall closer to "the decline of the sublime to the ridiculous." It is used most often satirically, as anticlimax. And "bathetic" has become "syrupy, sentimental."
This fall, this decline, is lost in Samuel Johnson's--and the more humorous modern--meaning and I wanted to preserve it. My particular interest is the change of American leaders and culture over the years, the change from Washington to Nixon, from the world of ideas to conjecture. So I looked at "bathoic"--and coined it. I also decided to coin "Bathoe" and "Bathoes", to signify the principles in this decline.
Monday, September 13, 2010
The Cafeteria of Vulgarity
Vulgarity is the offending of good taste, a subjective notion, at best. But its antonyms are instructive: "Cultivation", "refinement", and "tastefulness"--concepts that are harder to quarrel with. It is from the Latin meaning "mean folk". The Latin Vulgate Bible translated by St. Jerome is so called because it was to be "commonly used", not because it was demeaned.
Schopenhauer called vulgarity "will over intellect", maybe a bit harsh if one thinks of vulgarity as just careless. But if one looks at the music awards last night much was carefully planned and none was careless. Vulgarity has become a credo among some, a marketing tool by others. Not that it can not be entertaining or even profound. Shakespeare's lower classes usually had a very good understanding of entertainment and of life, but they were never the center of the play, they were the relief. And Eminem can be very powerful. But that is not the norm. Inexperienced poets start with free verse because it is less restraining; it is easier. And "refined" is harder than "unrefined".
Democracy is always suspicious of the charge of vulgarity. It smacks of elitism (although Baudelaire said that what was enjoyable about bad taste was "the aristocratic pleasure in giving offense.") Chesterton implies it is democracy's greatest risk: "To put it shortly, the evil I am trying to warn you of is not excessive democracy, it is not excessive ugliness, it is not excessive anarchy. It might be stated thus: It is standardization by a low standard." It is this "low standard"--and the eagerness to free it from judgment-- that is the point. It democratizes value. It makes all things of equal value and, if true, nothing is valued. Everything and nothing can be picked and chosen; decisions are nothing more than what please. That is more significant than lazy. That is a loss of aspirations and is no way for a society or an individual to live or to think.
Schopenhauer called vulgarity "will over intellect", maybe a bit harsh if one thinks of vulgarity as just careless. But if one looks at the music awards last night much was carefully planned and none was careless. Vulgarity has become a credo among some, a marketing tool by others. Not that it can not be entertaining or even profound. Shakespeare's lower classes usually had a very good understanding of entertainment and of life, but they were never the center of the play, they were the relief. And Eminem can be very powerful. But that is not the norm. Inexperienced poets start with free verse because it is less restraining; it is easier. And "refined" is harder than "unrefined".
Democracy is always suspicious of the charge of vulgarity. It smacks of elitism (although Baudelaire said that what was enjoyable about bad taste was "the aristocratic pleasure in giving offense.") Chesterton implies it is democracy's greatest risk: "To put it shortly, the evil I am trying to warn you of is not excessive democracy, it is not excessive ugliness, it is not excessive anarchy. It might be stated thus: It is standardization by a low standard." It is this "low standard"--and the eagerness to free it from judgment-- that is the point. It democratizes value. It makes all things of equal value and, if true, nothing is valued. Everything and nothing can be picked and chosen; decisions are nothing more than what please. That is more significant than lazy. That is a loss of aspirations and is no way for a society or an individual to live or to think.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Department of Extortion
If you don't give me a swimming pool in my home legislative district, I'll vote against your health bill.
If you don't soften your stance towards American casino ownership, we'll boycott your sugar production.
If you don't change your currency value, we'll impose tariffs on your products.
And the indirect approach: if you don't let us raise your taxes the economy will collapse, the social security system will collapse, the housing market will collapse.....on and on and..
And now..If you don't give up on your mosque, we'll burn your sacred books.
It seems the public has taken a new step in its effort to manage its problems: They have turned to their political experts for example. After years of observing governmental function--the horse-trading, threats and compromises--the people have taken extortion into their own hands.
So far it has been a messy experiment. A man with a religious community of fifty people has dominated the news and thinking, or as much thinking as extortion will allow. It seems that he--and the news observers--actually believe that this is a legitimate negotiating technique. And why not? We see it in other fields all the time. The union extorts the bosses with the threat of a strike. The bosses extort the union with the threat of bankruptcy or outsourcing. The politician extort the voter with the threat of more or less programs. Only the politician is relatively safe from extortion because, even if voted out, he has a plush retirement package to fall back on. And there is always "consulting".
One can worry, though, about the use of these new tools among the simple voting folk. Extortion, like a fast car or a weapon, should be kept out of the hands of children. Politicians have a lot of experience and can be relied upon to do this type of thing well. Perhaps the politicians should take control of this outbreak right away and regulate it, perhaps through a new Extortion Czar or cabinet position. Like the warnings on auto ads, these things should be left to experts; do not try this at home.
Note to wife: If I can't have spaghetti for dinner tonight, I'll kill the dog.
If you don't soften your stance towards American casino ownership, we'll boycott your sugar production.
If you don't change your currency value, we'll impose tariffs on your products.
And the indirect approach: if you don't let us raise your taxes the economy will collapse, the social security system will collapse, the housing market will collapse.....on and on and..
And now..If you don't give up on your mosque, we'll burn your sacred books.
It seems the public has taken a new step in its effort to manage its problems: They have turned to their political experts for example. After years of observing governmental function--the horse-trading, threats and compromises--the people have taken extortion into their own hands.
So far it has been a messy experiment. A man with a religious community of fifty people has dominated the news and thinking, or as much thinking as extortion will allow. It seems that he--and the news observers--actually believe that this is a legitimate negotiating technique. And why not? We see it in other fields all the time. The union extorts the bosses with the threat of a strike. The bosses extort the union with the threat of bankruptcy or outsourcing. The politician extort the voter with the threat of more or less programs. Only the politician is relatively safe from extortion because, even if voted out, he has a plush retirement package to fall back on. And there is always "consulting".
One can worry, though, about the use of these new tools among the simple voting folk. Extortion, like a fast car or a weapon, should be kept out of the hands of children. Politicians have a lot of experience and can be relied upon to do this type of thing well. Perhaps the politicians should take control of this outbreak right away and regulate it, perhaps through a new Extortion Czar or cabinet position. Like the warnings on auto ads, these things should be left to experts; do not try this at home.
Note to wife: If I can't have spaghetti for dinner tonight, I'll kill the dog.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Too Much Ado
When I was in college, a freshman seeking some attention invited the American Nazi, George Lincoln Rockwell, to speak at a small campus group created specifically for the event. In a day the campus went mad. Classes were cancelled, meetings held, some administrators tried to figure out how the school could abort the invitation. Eventually an entire week of the school calendar was changed to accommodate a week of impromptu seminars and lectures on Nazism. Table pounding, heartfelt angst was experienced by all. It was great fun. I am reminded of that time:
--A New York judge recently struck down a lawsuit by a guy contending that ladies' night at bars violated the equal protection clause---against men; it is the talk of the blogs.
--A self-proclaimed southern minister has made international headlines by announcing his plans to burn copies of the Koran this month; his congregation is around fifty souls. Mayor Bloomberg of New York and Angelina Jolie had an opinion on the proposed book burning.
--A small group wants to build a mosque near the site of the 9/11 attack in New York; it is an international story with angry debates.
It is easy to look at the above and blame a surfeit of lawyers or a shortage of creches. After all, August is a notoriously slow news month and Christmas will be coming. Yet there seems to be more--or maybe less--at work here. We simply have a lot of information available and little self-control. And we are easily driven to indignation. Everyone wants to be righteous. And everyone wants heard.
At one time in this country it was big enough and communications were limited enough that silly ideas and suggestions remained a local event--if a problem at all. Even after communications improved a wacko was seen as little more. Interesting moments in the country--the Symbionese Liberation Army, Timothy Leary, much of the activity of the ACLU--were all seen in context by an indulgent but confident culture. Even in my college Nazi experience, the tempest was quite content to be limited to the campus teapot. Now every crazy numerator stimulates its equally crazy denominator to cancel it out. Every opinion deserves a sound truck. Every notion, every behavior, every occurrence is seen as more than itself; it is seen as a validation of principles, either personal or national, when it may be nothing more than a quirk or a tick or simple exhibitionism.
Stupidity and bad taste are hard to legislate against but they can be combated. They are best scorned. But it requires some shared cultural beliefs, some respected social spokesmen and some equipoise, some assurance that the social footing is firm. And it requires a press that recognizes these needs.
Most important, it requires adults of good will. This is a culture desperate for grownups.
--A New York judge recently struck down a lawsuit by a guy contending that ladies' night at bars violated the equal protection clause---against men; it is the talk of the blogs.
--A self-proclaimed southern minister has made international headlines by announcing his plans to burn copies of the Koran this month; his congregation is around fifty souls. Mayor Bloomberg of New York and Angelina Jolie had an opinion on the proposed book burning.
--A small group wants to build a mosque near the site of the 9/11 attack in New York; it is an international story with angry debates.
It is easy to look at the above and blame a surfeit of lawyers or a shortage of creches. After all, August is a notoriously slow news month and Christmas will be coming. Yet there seems to be more--or maybe less--at work here. We simply have a lot of information available and little self-control. And we are easily driven to indignation. Everyone wants to be righteous. And everyone wants heard.
At one time in this country it was big enough and communications were limited enough that silly ideas and suggestions remained a local event--if a problem at all. Even after communications improved a wacko was seen as little more. Interesting moments in the country--the Symbionese Liberation Army, Timothy Leary, much of the activity of the ACLU--were all seen in context by an indulgent but confident culture. Even in my college Nazi experience, the tempest was quite content to be limited to the campus teapot. Now every crazy numerator stimulates its equally crazy denominator to cancel it out. Every opinion deserves a sound truck. Every notion, every behavior, every occurrence is seen as more than itself; it is seen as a validation of principles, either personal or national, when it may be nothing more than a quirk or a tick or simple exhibitionism.
Stupidity and bad taste are hard to legislate against but they can be combated. They are best scorned. But it requires some shared cultural beliefs, some respected social spokesmen and some equipoise, some assurance that the social footing is firm. And it requires a press that recognizes these needs.
Most important, it requires adults of good will. This is a culture desperate for grownups.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)