In regards to the past entry I made that echoes my occasional plea for inte=
llectual rigor, I was out for the evening and thought a little bit about wh=
at I had said regarding cranks. What I had said had a lot of levels to it,=
had some anger from getting some pretty undeserved derision earlier (if no=
one else is expected to be perfect, why should I?), had to do with what ar=
e probably romantic reminiscences, as well as some frustration.

What I've come to is to understand that Rhizome changes over time with its =
constituents. There used to be many more individuals who were interested i=
n critical discussion in the past, and in a way, I feel like that veil blin=
ding me to the obvious change in this community over years has dissipated. =
Rhizome is far less homogenous than it used to be, which sometimes overjoy=
s and pains me. It fulfills the diversity of thought ideal, and for that i=
t should be applauded.

Another thought is that in light of this, one's personal standards absolute=
ly are that - local in scope and not applicable to anyone else in such an e=
nvironment. What's good for me isn't necessarily good for you, or what I l=
ike isn't necessarily good and pleasing to you. And, considering the chang=
es in this community to one full of people who are not necessarily, by and =
large, interested in maintaining a dense, theoretical discussion going at a=
ll times (and who would want to? yeesh.) that there would be a lot of peopl=
e who don't like to take a certain approach to discussion, and I can't faul=
t them for that; it's just the way they deal with the subject. In thsi cas=
e, the dinosaur is forced to evolve.

From a personal standpoint, there are certain things I really enjoy in disc=
ussion that I can't expect others to, that's not bad, good or such, it's ju=
st different. There's a certain school of thought that I came up under, an=
d it created some of my lens through which I liek to phrase things. The pe=
ople whom I learned the most from (informally, as I am largely autodidactic=
) were incredibly brilliant people that to speak with was like watching a w=
onderfully intricate clock spinning away the miracles of reality. I loved =
that, and wanted to have that kind of mental acuity.

So, I went off in that direction, and when my brain isn't mush from persona=
l crises like illness or the latest news about cancer-laden parents, I like=
to pick things apart in a very academic way. However, I am not an academi=
c, I only chose to think that way.

Doesn't mean it's right for you. I realize now that I inferred that it had=
to be, and for that, I'm sorry.

My only argument is that I do not understand when the word 'intellectual' c=
omes up, people raise their hands and make farting noises like that's a dir=
ty word. Almost like in American pop culture that being smart isn't cool. =
Like in American mainstream culture, the US is pro-education, but anti-int=
ellectual. You need aneducation for your job, but don't get too smart; we =
can't control you then. My wife gets pissed off because even though she's =
a PhD, I can spell rings and do applied math like no one's biz (when you se=
e the typos, that's mainly due to medical reasons - partial blindness, poss=
ible neurological disorders that are showing themselves).

The point is that I like to think that it's good to have the maximum set of=
information and tools at one's disposal, as knowledge is power, and the wi=
sdom gained from reflecting on that information breeds temperance (hopefull=
y). I can't claim to have wither, but I aspire to these things, as if I eve=
r get them, I can have the incredible privilege of choosing whether I want =
to use them or not.

Once again, doesn't mean it's right for you.

The other thing that's interesting is that knowing one online has nothing t=
o do with them in person. TIm Whid isn't as hard edged, J. Nechtaval is re=
ally laid back and easygoing in person, and so on, Max is great to yak with=
over the phone (whenever it's at a decent hour - I won't let you live down=
the garage band incident), and Joseph's a pretty normal guy in conversatio=
n, although he had no idea he was talking to me. I'm very laid back and de=
finitely not as authoritarian as I am online. I communicate online a lot h=
ow I write, and how I do a lot of my art.

But then I ask you to take a look at my latest video piece, 8 Bits or Less,=
voyd.com/8bol.htm and then consider whether I'm the stuck-up serious prig =
I'm sometimes made out to be. If that doesn't work I'll post pictures of m=
e in full Klingon drag or jumping around in a Wookiee costume, or let you i=
n on how I was mercilessly teasing people at the College Art Assciation abo=
ut wanting to take pictures of a Judy Pfaff piece from convention center ca=
twalks clad in rubber pants and carrying a bowling ball (it was a tubular m=
esh, and reminded me of one of those cat toys with a little golf ball in th=
e middle).

There are a couple more points I'd like to make, not saying that they;re ri=
ght for you, but just for your consideration. One's about civil society, a=
nd one's about my level of self-importance.

I'd like to think that in a civil society. The ideal of civilization also =
links etymologically with that of civility. And that social quid pro quo =
is in most of the major spiritual traditions from Christianity on down. I =
know I slipped here, and I apologize for that; I got angry. But when there=
's nothing at stake except for a decent discussion, what is the use of name=
-calling and demeaning others except for some pretty basic motives? Trying=
to treat others well because you'd like it yourself has a lot of benefits.=
I just think it's a good idea.

Doesn't mean it's right for you. (yes, there's a little anger in that turn =
of phrase…)

Lastly there's the matter of Lichty the Great! Puh-leeze. There are the po=
les of noting one's accomplishments in public, which is occasionally necess=
ary from a very pragmatic matter of making things happen, to listing how on=
e helps promote the genre in an attempt to sound like Mother Teresa.

Both are caricatures of the truth. The reality is that I'm just a person w=
ho likes to try to do certain types of work, the ones I show under the 'Pat=
rick Lichty' persona are pretty academic, and to help other artists through=
advocacy, and a lot of advocacy. If I were Lichty the Great, I'd have a d=
ecent income, be jetting internationally, and endlessly going on about how =
great I was instead of talking about anyone else and worrying about whether=
my wife and I might lose our home in the next year (entirely possible). My=
dad's got a lot of gray hair because of me and my various projects, but he=
deals with it. If mom was still cogent, she'd be proud, but then she's bi=
ased.

But in short, (too late), I apologize if anyone percieved that I was trying=
to lay down some High Church of Culture doctrine that everyone had to go w=
orship. I probably did, but I understand when I'm dealing globally with is=
sues that should be more individually localized. But then, I also don't ha=
ve to like schoolyard pissing matches because of a thing called freedom of =
speech, (unless it's just theatrics, and that's another matter).

So, if you've gotten this far - thanks. You give enough of a damn about me=
to come this far. Sorry if I got a little high handed, my personal standar=
ds shouldn't be yours. If there's a way I can help with your work now or i=
n the future, let me know.

I hope I've articulated myslef better this time.

Best,
Pat Lichty

Civil society