What the BLIP...?!

Don't get me wrong: I find excessive obsession with so called "privacy" ridiculous and only helpful as a possible aid to help you unmask your own deepest fears.

(Like, what EXACTLY do you fear would happen if somebody finds out certain of your personal facts or indulgences?
No, really: think about it! It would only matter if the "government" or whoever your pet foe is could actually do something that would impact your life negatively - i.e. something that would not be merely the consequence of your perception of your hypothetical Self in the hypothetical eyes of the Others.
If they could do it, then that usurped power is something you - and the Others - definitely should fight. If they couldn't - if it's all simply a matter of your comfortable perception of your Self as a public person - then the problem lies in you.)

Even more ridiculous is the apparent facility which many people disclose their sex life (real or fictitious) with - but God forbid they should be asked how much they earn! (At least it shows you what really matters to them...)

But who the blip would be as stupid as to broadcast what they are buying, and when, and how much it cost?

My guess is... many.
Wanna bet?

Tell the whole world what you're buying... and in real time, too!

The author of the article hyperlinked above "caught up with Kaplan" (the father of this Frankenstein's bride) "to talk about how Blippy could become a new form of advertising and why no purchase -- even revealing ones -- should be embarrassing to share."

And here's the purpose of the thingy, in a nutshell:

What's the point of Blippy?

Kaplan: Without getting too philosophical, I'll just start at the beginning. The big answer is: We don't know, which I think is funny but is also indicative of what we're trying to do.

Well, I agree: that wasn't too philosophical.
(Not even a little bit, for that matter.)

But the nasty thing about philosophy is that it tends to reveal itself, whether you intend it or not.

"Fun" is the name of the game.

It is true, however, that once you have lost everything (private)... you have nothing left to fear.
Or to lose.

Exhibitionism is the new spirituality.

Bread and games - and he ****** your granddaughter, too!

There is a terrible scandal(et) rocking BBC-bound Britain (and merry onlookers worldwide).
Its highest paid star said - yelled - a jocular comment about another radio star doing ungodly things to a beloved elderly actor's kin.

He said it - very ***** explicitly - on the phone.
And he said it on the air, for all to hear.

Just to be clear (because one is inevitably and unjustly judged on the basis of one's personal feelings towards those involved, rather than one's thoughts, however coherent or valid they may be), I hereby state that I actually like the person who uttered the offending blurp - very much so.

His offending blurp(s), however, I dislike - very much so.

But what I dislike most of all is the hypocritical outcry of those who decry the "hypocrisy" of the BBC (and of those members of the public who wrote in to complain about the incident), because said institution decided to punish the offender by suspending him. (The other offender, the radio star, resigned himself.)

What surprisingly many people don't seem to realise is that, if you let the standard of what is acceptable and what not slip, one day we will, once again, think that gladiator games are FUN.

As a matter of fact, we DO think they are fun - only, today they are not called "gladiator games".
They are called "reality TV".

It just shows how fragile human beings – most especially their »morals«, whatever its level or definition of the moment may be - are.

We all know – or should know – how much the society has changed since, say, the Roman empire or the so-called »Middle ages«.

We all know – or should know – how »entertainment« looked in the times of Nero, to pick just one example. People found it entertaining to see people kill each other, or fight wild animals with their bare hands and, most often, being devoured by them. (And these are just some of the more sedate »numbers« that were on offer.)

In the 20th century – and long before that (although not as long as you might think) – such behaviour came to be seen as ghastly, the absolute low point of human behaviour.
(Of course this was the same world that forbade the use of "explicit" terms, such as "menstruation", "sex", even "pregnant" - oh yes! - to be uttered in public media, such as TV.)

So, what happened?
What caused the change?

Do you think the human psyche really changes through the ages?
And if not, what do you think drives »history«?

Nothing in the human psyche itself has changed.
It's just that the imitative streak (»monkey does as monkey sees«) is – was, until recently - no longer fed blood and gore.

It was fed different moral standards, much more restrained - constrained - in matters of public conduct, especially regarding sexuality.

But hypocritical and often ridiculously prudish as it may have been, at least the ban against public obscenity gave some air, some breathing space to those who do not want to revel in the blood (literally or figuratively) of others.
(Voyeurism is not confined to sex, as I am sure you know; it feeds on everything that offers a glimpse of the terrifying face of life - Death, the frightening prospect of obliteration, the fragility of life - and that includes sex.)

The ancient Roman "games" came to an end suddenly – on January 1, 404.
By imperial decree, they were to be shown no more.

I can imagine how angry, even revolted people were, when their favourite show was taken »off the air«.
(I can practically hear them: »By Jove, it's not bad enough that we go hungry, toiling day after day - well, our slaves do, at any rate... now we are left without entertainment, the one thing that made our hearts glad?! Oh, how I wish somebody invented a little box that we could keep at home and would show us every little nasty thing other people do!«
OK, OK - the latter was a flight of fancy too far... -;))

As a matter of fact, we do know more or less exactly how revolted they were.
When a man - a monk called Telemachus - descended into the arena to plead with people to stop it, and admonish them for their lust for blood, they stoned him to death.

But the »show« was shown no more.
(In fact, it was precisely this event what prompted the abrupt end of the games.)

And in time – the new philosophy of humanity coming from the East undoubtedly had more than its fair share of influence in sensitising the masses – people forgot how to be »entertained« by such spectacles. In time – through long centuries – they became to be seen as gruesome as we see them today.

It is ironic that those long centuries, the times that came before us, that brought us here, are now widely regarded as »uptight«, oppressive and, in general, not a nice era to live in. For its lack of »freedom«, you know.

Which is true in many aspects.
But see where the »freedom« has brought us.

Yes, after all the false - or partial - dawns of the centuries past, it looks like a bright day of civil liberties, education and freedom for all (?), and all that.

The problem is, man obviously simply cannot handle too much »freedom«. He lacks the basic knowledge – of his own existential status: the purpose, if there is any, of his being here – to be the master of himself.

And exxistential ignorance breeds existential fear – and existential fear breeds greed, cruelty, selfishness.

Would you really want to trust LIFE, and everything that works towards preserving it, into the hands of someone who doesn't know its purpose and is only driven by his fear that he might lose his own?

We are still the same masses that screamed for bread and games – that screamed even louder when those games were taken away from them.

Those tender souls who are bleeding over the injustice perpetrated against the merry foulmouthed pranksters in the name of fighting »hypocrisy« are only decrying the games being taken away from them.
And it is certainly no coincidence that it all comes at a time when »bread« is being taken from many, much too many.

Let it pass; let the ante slip, tiny millimeter by tiny millimeter at a time.
(And public outrage IS the most reliable indicator of where the ante is, and whether the slip has been swift, whether it is »too much«, or not.)

And then one day, very soon, we'll have sexual intercourse on public TV.
(Oh right: it already happened, I am told. In one - or two - of them "reality shows".)

Next stop, the gladiator games.
(You don't think so? Just drive by any accident scene and count the masses gathering to observe the blood and gore.)

Human psychology does NOT change through the ages. Only the common standards of acceptability change.

Which is why reading the deluge of comments by all those self-complacent "tolerant" souls, bashing the BBC for its (far too mild!) decision, terrifies me far, FAR more than anything unfortunate Jonathan Ross might have said.

***

BONUS: Here is a tangentially relevant piece of writing (about the games in ancient Romes) that you might find interesting: Blood, Sweat, and Cheers.

Wanna be a cover girl?

No problem.
(Or should I say: no hay problema?)

Go here and choose your magazine cover:

REVISTATE

Don't be scared off by the Spanish language - there are only two buttons, and you'll definitely understand the first one.

Or, if you prefer to ponder on cover girls as a phenomenon - before becoming such a force of nature yourself ;) - here's something you may want to read:

The Girl on the Magazine Cover:

The Origins of Visual Stereotypes

 in American Mass Media