Definition and what we're "shooting" for (pardon the pun)

I like that we are working towards a definition of "masturbatory". When you initially started using that word it was, in and of itself, somewhat masturbatory but if we can nail down a hard definition (there I go again) and then use it sparingly (to stop from going blind) I think we might have a new word for Oxford. In fact by Saturday lets do that, come up with a strict dictionary definition. I do some what take issue with your characterization of "masturbatory" referring to something that has no inherent purpose because I think we could all agree that that's not true. However I think I should not delve into this topic much further.

As far as it applies to what we're trying to do here, I think for sure to start this blog is masturbatory, however I think one of the central failings of the newspaper industry as they see blogging as solely masturbatory and see themselves in a much more serious context. I think we need to work hard to make sure this isn't only devoted to our wankery, because I do think we presume to have something to contribute. Whether that is true or not will clearly be borne out by what happens next and I think at least Zach and I do suffer from a certain level of self-importance that has at times been to our detriment. That said, I think that we are starting this in the era Klosterman and Gladwell, writers who think these larger pop-cultural phenomena tell us something central about who we are and I think that this is the conversation we're trying to be a part of. So I don't want to have to stick to hard to a structure if the conversation is moving. I really just want to make sure we're posting as much as possible and I think we could be surprised by where the conversation leads.

In fact, I have one more proposal, I think we don't necessarily have to cut off a conversation if it's evolving at the end of the week. I'm working on my larger piece now, but if we get involved in a conversation I'm sure whoever is working on the longer starting piece that week could save it until the conversation reaches some sort of conclusion. We'll see how it works.

edit-forget the first part of the post, I didn't realize it was already in the dictionary, from 1864 no less! (I am a presumptuous, self-important fool), although I think we could tweak this definition a touch:

Main Entry:
mas·tur·ba·to·ry
Pronunciation:
\ˈmas-tər-bə-ˌtȯr-ē\
Function:
adjective
Date:
1864
1 : of, relating to, or involving masturbation 2 : excessively self-absorbed or self-indulgent
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/masturbatory

Purpose?

During my professional life today I shirked my responsibilities and wrote down my post-to-be organically, aka, with a #2 pencil and a blank sheet of paper. Wild. So Zach wrote all of one paragraph before goading me into a debate about meaning and purpose, I must say, I like where this is going.

Purpose, eh? (I love parentheses as well, so stop stealing my identity Zach). Here is what I wrote while I should have been playing Chutes and Ladders with 5-year olds:

It seems as if, in this first of many responses, that I should answer the question "what is the purpose of this blog?" or "what is the purpose of blogging?" My electronic history is peppered with a host of different blogs, some more developed than others, some never maturing beyond a mildly clever title. What I have learned from my previous blogging episodes is this: 99% of blogs are purely masturbatory.

I find that people don't know exactly what I am getting at when I label something as "masturbatory." I simply mean that it, whatever "it" happens to be at the time, is a practice that has no inherent value, but serves as a pleasant pastime. The adjective is far more useful than calling something "vacuous" or "meaningless." Why? Because words similar to those most recently quoted tend to have a pejorative connotation which is nearly impossible to dissolve away when conversating with non-cynics. As such, I prefer to use the more positive, more puzzling, and more jarring term "masturbatory." (I am now struck by the thought that my use of the word "masturbatory" may, in fact, be masturbatory.)

There is more that I wrote today, but in light of Ben's post I don't find the rest necessary.

I am going to go ahead and AGREE with Zach that everything has a purpose. However, all purpose is constructed, actively or passively, by humans...there is no inherent value in anything. This blog has a purpose, yet at the same time this blog is completely devoid of meaning. Even so, what I want this blog to do for me, and for others, is to call the tenets of my belief structure into question. That is honestly the only time I feel that what I'm doing is important. Luckily, conversations between myself, Ben, and Zach generally lead me to question something about my beliefs. I guess that is my "introduction."

So I just reread my post and it is kind of all over the place, but you know what, that's fine. I wasn't sure if I was supposed to get into an ideological debate or simply introduce myself, or explain what I think the blog is supposed to be. Well, I'm Kyle. Meaning is a human construct and as humans will eventually all be dead all meaning will eventually be dead, if it was ever really alive. This blog is supposed to be the place where I attempt to achieve intellectual orgasm.

Can we get some sort of concrete issue to tango with? Going third in a who-knows-what-this-post-will-be-about series is whack.

Rebuttal #1 or Ben attacks the specifics of Zach's post without addressing the substance

First off let me say Zach that I appreciate your love of parentheticals. It may be a fairly played out literary device but nonetheless it does inspire a certain level of authenticity in regard to the blog being conversational.

Off the top let me address a handful of things that you did not mention. Since you did not address the structural aspects of the blog in your post I'd like to introduce a couple of those points into the public record. I think we can all agree that the best blogs are the blogs you return to, ideally, several times a day in the hopes of seeing a new post. Thus I think the idea of a larger topic on Monday, followed by rebuttal responses on Tuesday is an excellent idea.

I do think that it is remarkable that, we, being true to our braincell depleted procrastinary impulses have already messed up the proposed structure before it started, but that can be left aside for the time being.

On Wednesday, Thursday and Friday it will be free-for-all time with the three of us posting as often as we have something to say. I would put in the qualifier "interesting" to say but I think its possible I'm getting ahead of myself there. Since it is likely that we will OFTEN have something to say this should keep the conversation moving fairly rapidly. Now, Zach, I know you are busy educating the masses, and while I respect that your job may put limitations on your ability to engage in the middle of the day, and, theoretically, this should be true for me as well, I think you need to take a hard look at your priorities. Is it more important to participate in a self-serving conversation in which we presume that the rest of the world is interested in the things we have to say, or that you spend your time teaching the youth of New York City? In other words I'm saying I'd rather receive a fish from you every day then you teach the youth of America HOW to fish.

I have no idea how we'll do closing thoughts on Saturday I suspect that will take care of itself.

Now a few specific responses to your post.

First: I'm impressed you read Andrew Sullivan. The fact you quoted anyone who wrote a book called The Conservative Soul shows a level open-mindedness I hadn't expected from you.

Second: Bonbons? I feel we need more specificity in blog-posts. For instance if I had written that sentence it would read "... I take it back. I went to copy-paste that sentence but it was too damn-long. But instead of bon-bons I think I would have said "almond-encrusted foie-gras", or "shark-fin wrapped in swallows nest".

Third: You wrote, "All ideas have their purpose, and sometimes that purpose is making more genuine ideas seem less outlandish." This is among the most interesting an insightful things I have ever heard you say. Well, I guess I didn't hear you say it, but.... shit blogging is difficult. ANYWAY, my question is which one of us plays the role of introducing the more realistic less outlandish idea. I'm not sure that is a part of our DNA. I guess though, that if this blog causes people to say "I thought "X" idea was crazy and wouldn't work, but if those guys over at 'The Culture Counter' can live with making that ludicrous "X\/Y<->Z" argument then maybe I've been looking at this the wrong way", then it will be considered a success.

I'll let kyle address the "everything has a purpose" line as my philosophy muscles haven't been flexed in while.

Last but not least, I think it is incredibly arrogant of you to presuppose that this blog is not going to devolve in to celebrity gossip. The Obama girls were wearing J-Crew! AND I think there is a real debate to be had over whether Michelle Obama's fashion sense is WAY overrated! Come on Zach, this is where the money is.

All in all I think your post represents the kind of broad insight that we're aiming for and I'm looking forward to getting down to the nitty-gritty this week to see how it all plays out.

Inauguration (of our blog) Day

I have been trustingly, and perhaps unwisely, tasked with making the inaugural blog post on this, Inauguration [of three dudes starting their blog] Day. While I hesitate to make any large, universal claims with Kyle, our resident philosopher, following closely at my heels with his own post tonight or tomorrow, I feel comfortable saying this:

Everything has a purpose.

Okay, so I did that to provoke Kyle. I know he will vehemently disagree. But I do believe that everything has a purpose, and this blog is no different. In his article "Why I Blog" in the November 2008 issue of The Atlantic, Andrew Sullivan writes that blogging is "intoxicatingly free...like taking a narcotic." To which I say: blogging will never replace good, high-quality narcotics. This guy has either done too many, or none, and doesn't know what he's talking about. (Hey Mom--this is that sarcasm I was telling you about. I know, I know, it doesn't come across as well on paper. So, for you kids out there reading The Culture Counter, Say No To Drugs.)

Okay, seriously...hmm, that seems like a phrase I may have to use often, given my penchant for sarcasm. But, okay, seriously, Andrew Sullivan did write a fascinating article on blogs, and while the quote above is real, he wrote something else that I'd like to start with:

"[The blogger] is--more than any writer of the past--a node among other nodes, connected but unfinished without the links and the comments and the track-backs that make the blogosphere, at its best, a conversation, rather than a production" (Sullivan, The Atlantic, November 2008, p. 110).

This blog's purpose is exactly that: to be a conversation. It is only appropriate that this blog should be a conversation, because my fellow bloggers and I are some of the finest conversationalists I know. Upon returning from a New Year's romp in Montreal, where Kyle and I visited Ben and his fiancée Neko the dog (and their handler, Alli), I found myself calling Ben and Kyle several times each on that first day back. Why? Because for a brief but glorious three days, I had been reunited with two of the handful of people...oh hell...with two of the two people in this world who are interested in hearing--not to mention qualified to respond to--every idle thought that enters my head. I mean, every thought. Because once it enters my head, there is almost nothing that will keep it from coming out of my mouth. (Ask anyone I went to school with. Ever).

Not only that, but Ben and Kyle and I appreciate, more than most people, this idea of nodes, links, and track-backs and their importance not just in blog writing, but in our real-life conversations. Since its inception, Google has become, in many ways, the arbiter of our disagreements. Virtually any conversation in which the three of us are involved can inevitably lead to the kind of self-certainty that can only be justified by hasty internet research. Now, I can post all that barely-vetted internet research right here for all to see, so that no one can dispute how very right I am all of the time. (Shout out to Mike and Sam: if you guys were literate, I would totally have included you here. You guys and www.samcarter.com have been incredibly important to so many of our using-tenuous-internet-fact-checking-to-end-an-argument situations. Alas, you can't read. I will call you tonight and tell you about the shout out and then read my blog entry to you out loud, over the phone).

Given our love for conversation and the way that our in-the-flesh conversations so closely resemble the best parts of blogging, it is only appropriate that Ben, Kyle and myself will be conversating (suck it, Noah Webster) via this blog on a weekly basis. "The Culture Counter" (clever, eh?) will be three things simultaneously: a conversation among the three principal bloggers; a conversation between the bloggers and our readers, especially those who choose to comment; and a part of the larger conversation, the "blogosphere" that Sullivan so metaphysically refers to. My goal is for this blog to be a part of all of those conversations, and to be a conversation-starter among our readers in their in-the-flesh conversations as well. (Okay, I guess that makes four conversations). If nothing else, I would hope that our readers find this blog to be thought-provoking, even if the provocation seems, at times, overly cynical or optimistic, idealistic, even foolish in its scope or aim. All ideas have their purpose, and sometimes that purpose is making more genuine ideas seem less outlandish.

For example, I will often say to my friends, "Hey, wouldn't it be great if we lived in a Soviet-style Communist dictatorship?" Do I really want to live in such a country? Of course not, Department of Homeland Security. But my friends know that what I really mean is, "Hey, wouldn't it be great if we could regain a real sense of community in America, toss aside our Hollywood-romanced notions of the centrality and fierceness of individualism in American society, and live our lives according to the idea that social justice, economic equity, and ecological sustainability might actually be more important than one person's right to get filthy rich and eat bonbons all day?" The latter question is difficult for many people, especially the affluent, to ponder, but becomes way more palatable after I invoke the memory of Stalin. That is, if anyone is still listening or reading.

Part of the beauty of blogging is that--like e-mail, texting, voicemail, et al--it allows room for the raw, the unfiltered, the overemotional. And just like those other means of communication, if offers no takesie-backsies. (Yeah, that's right. Takesie-backsies. Yanowudimtalkinbout). As Sullivan says, blogging is a conversation, not a production. There are no top-down editors involved--only our readers. We will not be censoring each other, or our readers' comments, except to say that hate speech and advocating for the violent overthrow of the federal government will not be allowed, except on the fifth Thursday of alternating even-numbered months ending in the letter y. (Again, the sarcasm...not so much coming across. Or is it, Mom?)

Anyway, I look forward to this blog addressing a wide variety of topics, including but not limited to, and being both specific and general in nature, and in no particular order: sports; economics; philosophy; religion; social issues; education; music; film; television; pop culture; literature; and many, many more. Regrettably, I did not include "celebrity gossip" on that list, but then, if you were looking for celebrity gossip, you probably stopped reading after you couldn't sound out the word "philosopher" in my first sentence, so, God speed to you.