Being right, and being interesting
Mar. 28th, 2008 08:10 amOn Wednesday I took the train to Schloss Wiesenburg, a 12th century castle about 90 minutes down the tracks from Berlin. The composer David Woodard is currently enjoying a residency there, writing a book about the failed utopia of Nueva Germania.

The schloss towers, literally, over a hamlet of 500 people -- quite the smallest community I've visited in some time. There are only two hostelries in town, and no taxi -- a fact which hit home when David and I managed to miss one, two, then three Berlin-bound trains from the tiny station. We ended up tramping up and down the muddy forest track that links the station to the castle most of the evening -- under shockingly bright stars sometimes, in snow blizzards the rest.

Finally, there was nothing for it: I spent the night in the Presidential Suite, overlooking the schloss' impressive gardens.

Conversation ranged from Demeter (Greek goddess of fertility) to the "sex guru" Osho. I managed to get back to Berlin on Thursday in time for a meeting with writer Ingo Niermann and his friend, the artist David Lieske. In Wohnzimmer we talked about people who want to be right, and people who want to be interesting, and how they're often at cross purposes. Ingo shocked me by saying he wanted to be both!

People who want to be right: Responsible, logical, consistent, Anglo-Saxon in their fear of contradiction and paradox and vagueness, people who want to be right will argue and fight, because what's right must win, of course. They're likely to claim that "objectivity" is on their side. They're unlikely to be relativists. They're interested in power. They think the ethical is more important than the aesthetic. They believe in justice, order, consensus, unity. While uninterested in statistics and methodologies, they remain convinced that things can be proven and quantified, and believe that this is important. Theirs is the realm of non-fiction.
People who want to be interesting: Irresponsible provocateurs, flamboyant intellectual dandies, artists, dreamers. For them, truth is strategic, contextual, conditional. For instance, if everyone believes one thing, it becomes important to challenge that belief and to assert the suppressed truth of the opposite point of view. The suppressed truth will have a temporary power precisely because it's been hidden from view. There will be a rushing "return of the repressed". But soon afterwards the status quo, the doxa, will reassert itself, and the people who want to be interesting will have to move on to new terrain, and look for new suppressed truths to express. Life, for them, is a constant quest to stave off boredom. They don't care whether they're right in any enduring sense (they don't even believe that's possible). What matters is to challenge, to arouse, to provoke, to entertain, to stimulate, to open up new vistas, new avenues of consideration -- even forbidden ones. Theirs is the realm of speculation, of fiction.

What's so interesting about Ingo -- co-founder of Redesigndeutschland, author of books like Umbauland: Ten German Visions, and a leading campaigner for the Great Necro-Pyramid -- is that his genre is speculative non-fiction, which combines an interest in the interesting with a quest for actuality, for rightness, for the making of fact. Perhaps nothing can be truly interesting unless it -- at the very least -- aspires to become right, real and true.

The schloss towers, literally, over a hamlet of 500 people -- quite the smallest community I've visited in some time. There are only two hostelries in town, and no taxi -- a fact which hit home when David and I managed to miss one, two, then three Berlin-bound trains from the tiny station. We ended up tramping up and down the muddy forest track that links the station to the castle most of the evening -- under shockingly bright stars sometimes, in snow blizzards the rest.

Finally, there was nothing for it: I spent the night in the Presidential Suite, overlooking the schloss' impressive gardens.

Conversation ranged from Demeter (Greek goddess of fertility) to the "sex guru" Osho. I managed to get back to Berlin on Thursday in time for a meeting with writer Ingo Niermann and his friend, the artist David Lieske. In Wohnzimmer we talked about people who want to be right, and people who want to be interesting, and how they're often at cross purposes. Ingo shocked me by saying he wanted to be both!

People who want to be right: Responsible, logical, consistent, Anglo-Saxon in their fear of contradiction and paradox and vagueness, people who want to be right will argue and fight, because what's right must win, of course. They're likely to claim that "objectivity" is on their side. They're unlikely to be relativists. They're interested in power. They think the ethical is more important than the aesthetic. They believe in justice, order, consensus, unity. While uninterested in statistics and methodologies, they remain convinced that things can be proven and quantified, and believe that this is important. Theirs is the realm of non-fiction.
People who want to be interesting: Irresponsible provocateurs, flamboyant intellectual dandies, artists, dreamers. For them, truth is strategic, contextual, conditional. For instance, if everyone believes one thing, it becomes important to challenge that belief and to assert the suppressed truth of the opposite point of view. The suppressed truth will have a temporary power precisely because it's been hidden from view. There will be a rushing "return of the repressed". But soon afterwards the status quo, the doxa, will reassert itself, and the people who want to be interesting will have to move on to new terrain, and look for new suppressed truths to express. Life, for them, is a constant quest to stave off boredom. They don't care whether they're right in any enduring sense (they don't even believe that's possible). What matters is to challenge, to arouse, to provoke, to entertain, to stimulate, to open up new vistas, new avenues of consideration -- even forbidden ones. Theirs is the realm of speculation, of fiction.

What's so interesting about Ingo -- co-founder of Redesigndeutschland, author of books like Umbauland: Ten German Visions, and a leading campaigner for the Great Necro-Pyramid -- is that his genre is speculative non-fiction, which combines an interest in the interesting with a quest for actuality, for rightness, for the making of fact. Perhaps nothing can be truly interesting unless it -- at the very least -- aspires to become right, real and true.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-28 07:59 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-28 09:05 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-03-28 12:19 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-28 09:52 am (UTC)der.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-28 10:12 am (UTC)Rather, I was qualifying or detailing how the Right would seek to use statistics. Glancingly, rather than deeply. Because the more deeply you go into statistics, into the methodology of statistics, the more you become a formalist and a relativist. And that's something those who wish to be Right hate. It pulls the carpet out from under their quest.
(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-03-28 10:18 am (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-03-28 10:21 am (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-03-28 12:10 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-28 09:54 am (UTC)The Texas Tosser
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-28 10:29 am (UTC)der.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-03-28 11:55 am (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-28 10:05 am (UTC)David Kamp was right!
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-28 10:18 am (UTC)"He calls David Kamp a snob for attending Long Island dinner parties, then ends the week in the Presidential Suite of a 12th century Schloss deep in the Brandenburg forests!"
But of course that would be a hypocrisy argument, and, as you probably guessed, I am readying an argument as we speak which will prove -- for now, if not once and for all -- that hypocrisy is the most shallow criticism known to man. It's just another word for "stimulating dialectical complexity".
(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-03-28 10:26 am (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From:Hypocrisy is the new vermilion.
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-28 10:15 am (UTC)no show
Date: 2008-03-28 10:36 am (UTC)Re: no show
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-03-28 12:13 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From:Sorry, this is too much fun
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-03-29 02:45 am (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-28 10:50 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-28 11:17 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-28 11:29 am (UTC)Go on, say something outrageous! You're not boring!
der.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-28 11:37 am (UTC)My focus couldn't be on anything integral, because I don't believe there is such a thing as "integrally interesting". Interestingness is a relationship. Now, this also relates to the pointless skirmishing that tends to happen in the Comments section. If it takes two to get some interestingness going, it also takes two to get some boringness going. What's more, exactly the same thing can strike some as interesting and others as boring. So it's pretty pointless for those bored by the kind of things I write and show here to keep trying to convince me of the error of my ways. It's not an error -- there is no such thing as error, there's just personal incompatibility. And there probably is a blog out there you'll enjoy because you're compatible with it.
Unless, of course, what you enjoy is precisely being incompatible with this blog?
(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-03-28 12:04 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-03-28 12:07 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-28 12:38 pm (UTC)True, your choice of subject matter can be quirky. But your attitude towards it is stodgily dependable. And the look-at-me subtext of everything gets very tedious. I mean, at least try a week without posting a photo of yourself! And do you really think people want to look at 100 of your holiday snaps? Blog-as-dinner-with-boring-relatives!
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-28 01:16 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-03-28 01:45 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-03-28 02:24 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-03-28 02:42 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-03-28 02:44 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-28 12:56 pm (UTC)der.
Re: Wandering Through the Mark Brandenburg
Date: 2008-03-28 01:55 pm (UTC)Re: Wandering Through the Mark Brandenburg
From:Wandering Through the Mark Brandenburg
Date: 2008-03-28 01:19 pm (UTC)http://www.schlossneuhardenberg.de/home.html?L=1
as far as being right or being interesting...my daily challenge is simply to remain interested.
william thirteen
http://www.squirm.com
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-28 01:29 pm (UTC)Also they are friends with this Texas Tosser.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-28 01:31 pm (UTC)But the mathematical ones. Not the Popular Culture ones.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-28 01:33 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-28 01:35 pm (UTC)Also you are boring a lot.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-28 01:37 pm (UTC)And maybe Ders and Tosser will go away if there are no statistics.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-28 01:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-28 01:57 pm (UTC)Well first of all creationism is purely for suckers. But instead of arguing you should spend more time understanding Momus, I'm being serious! heheh, He gives us an idea a day, sometimes its something I am not interested in and sometimes I it very stimulating.
I don't come here specifically to relate to his ideas, and I dont come here to argue with them. I read this blog to see things a certain way, the momus way. And noones saying its the best way. But its more interesting to me to try to rewire myself briefly. Certainly not to rewire Momus, as if you dont have anything better you could be doing.
Many of you seem articulate with good ideas and all, and I appreciate it, but some of you seem so fucking power hungry.
I understand that a blog in-directly invites that, but that doesn't make it ok, its a way to be a sucker.
Of course I can't just say that the stupider fifty percent should shut up, but I hope some of you question the significance of your little gestures here. thats all.
best
meeks
ps.
I really appreciate the list of boring attributes!
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-28 02:25 pm (UTC)Or, as Momus would say, boring.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-28 02:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-28 02:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-28 02:46 pm (UTC)And we will all go there. We promise.
ANONYMOMUS!
Date: 2008-03-28 03:07 pm (UTC)http://anonymomus.livejournal.com/
Re: ANONYMOMUS!
From:Re: ANONYMOMUS!
From:Question
Date: 2008-03-28 03:16 pm (UTC)Re: Question
Date: 2008-03-28 03:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-28 03:17 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-28 03:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-03-28 04:27 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-03-28 05:30 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:Whimsy's John Donne/Beau Brummell Dichotomy
From:Re: Whimsy's John Donne/Beau Brummell Dichotomy
From:where are all the fanboys?
Date: 2008-03-28 04:22 pm (UTC)Re: where are all the fanboys?
Date: 2008-03-28 04:53 pm (UTC)the sap begins to elevate and flow -- a thousand blossoms begin to glow
From:Re: where are all the fanboys?
From:Right interesting
Date: 2008-03-28 04:48 pm (UTC)Speculative non-fiction
Date: 2008-03-28 10:46 pm (UTC)Thanks for the post,
- ninen
Elmer Andropov's smoke and mirrors..
Date: 2008-03-29 03:05 am (UTC)It does on the surface seem innocuous but perhaps those nasty anons have an argument that pleasantry alone cannot rebuff.
If it is intended as a prelude to a proposed cogent post/essay on the nature of hypocrisy then so much to the good.
But recognise at least that your presidential suite hammock vis-a vis your recurrent post-materialist themes must thus be reconciled as a ratio of your preaching to your credibility.