Cosby Sentenced to 3-10 Years (On Art/Artist and the Receiving/Understanding of Art (On Free-Will vs. Determinism/Absolute Relativism))
Disgraced Philly Comedian Will be Behind Bars by the End of the Day
9/25/18, 4:36 pm EDT (edited 9/26/18 2:58 pm EDT)
“It is time for justice. Mr. Cosby, this has all circled back to you.
“The time has come.”
Those were the words of Judge Steven O’Neill of Norristown, PA after disgraced comedian Bill Cosby was sentenced to 3 to 10 years in state prison for his 2004 assault of Andrea Constand. It is currently unknown if Cosby will appeal the conviction (though: he likely will), but, if the conviction stands, the mostly blind monster-from-hell shit-for-morals from the land where Catholic priests must hail from will serve at least 3 years.
Outside of logistics, the Cosby revelations of the past few years will likely take decades to fully hit on a subconscious, mainstream scale (as would those of any beloved artist convicted of such horrible crimes). I mean this in reference to facts beyond the obvious ones surrounding the #MeToo movement (unrelated: is it okay to just say ‘Me Too’? Without the #Hashtag? ##Hashtag#Hashtags#sAreJuvenile), and the fact that Cosby is the first major celebrity to be indicted since the movement began about a year ago. For the record: this is obviously a good thing–’punishment’ as a concept is irrelevant when it comes to sexual assault (meaning: there should be some ‘punishment' for a crime that blatantly power-fueled/drunken (drunken here used in the traditional ‘drunken state’ sense, not scientifically))–and I do not mean to take any credence away from the importance of this event in that regard. I only mean to make a point which I don’t see many others making, and which I find to perhaps be almost as important (PERHAPS) as the recent revelations regarding the ME TOO movement (it’s called taking it SERIOUSLY, guys (this is a joke on a number of levels)).
Like Cosby, I went to Philly’s Temple University (for a year in ‘09 :/).
Despite allegations against Cosby stretching back decades, the halls and the legacy of Temple University held multiple references to Cosby’s alumni there. They loved him, and no matter what anybody said: that would never change. This was because they loved what he did, not who he was; they loved his art, and beyond that there simply was no other thought /> his art told them something about ‘life’– not ‘Cosby’s life’, but life in general, as that’s what creative art does. We can argue morals regarding any personal admission to having done this, and in-so-doing bring up one of the most important debates humans have ever held:
As far as perception is concerned (general-perception, not Absolute or relative), which comes first (epistemologically (for knowledge (understanding/creation (/slash: important))): the art/the artist, or the person receiving the art and as such potentially infinitely influencing all future (and abstractly: past) art? (Hint: the answer is in the question.)
Ever since the days of Plato (oh, such great times before now), people have been arguing over where perception ‘comes from’, and ‘where it goes’ (perception-in-time)– or, in less nerdy terms: whether there is such a thing as free-will (I add the -dash because I’m a nerd (*Hint-to-the-hint^). Essentially: If there are a potentially infinite number of factors determining human action before any conscious human ‘decision’ can be made (like time, place, DNA, history, etc.), how could one reasonably claim any possible existence of any true ‘free-will’? How could that ‘decision’ possibly be anything other than the simple product of the forces beyond me, while those forces are infinite, and I am finite (like: I will die) (though I would say: I am ‘focused’; the ‘infinite’ being everything while I am the in-time singularity which translates that into something conscious (or: existent)).
Free-will I define as Man’s ability to make her own conscious decisions (while the decision itself is not taken as Absolutely either willed nor determined), and I will further refer to the more subconscious ‘fully-willed’ free-will as ‘Absolute free-will’ (which doesn’t exist, as it presupposes an Absolute relativity, which is an oxymoron) to further differentiate the simple act of committing any ‘free-willed’ act/decision (or: thinking you’ve made a decision) versus the ideal that perception is based 100% on this idea ‘Absolute free-will’, as the determinate for human action in general that the opposing ‘determinism’ (the idea that all decisions are subconsciously ‘pre-ordained’) fails to deify though equally can through the indoctrination that the oxymoron is inevitable.
‘Possibility’ is always the key word. The idea that all decisions are pre-ordained cannot be disputed: ‘I’ am one of an infinite amount of events or things, all of which have influenced at least on some minute level all of ‘my’ decisions, though some more than others (like the fact: ‘I’ grew up in the 1990’s and first drank chocolate milk at age 3, and the fact that some random grew up in the 1200’s and never had had the opportunity to taste chocolate milk (poor guy)). But the situation becomes more complicated once I am inserted as another–while still an inevitable part of the system–conscious element. My consciousness might be preordained, but whether that ‘consciousness’ (Absolute-ideal), can possibly be ‘preordained’ without the out-of-time perspective only possible outside of the focus necessary for in-time existence has yet to be determined, as far as modern science and philosophy can tell us (no pun intended).
If all of conscious existence is preordained by other forces than me, ‘I’, as the creator of any artistic product, am only following the preordained order when ‘I’ create that art. However, as any psychologist will likely tell you (I am not a psychologist): that art is a product of my personal history just as much as, if not more than, that ‘collective history’ more directly implied (for conscious perception) by that ‘preordained order’. Following the logical steps: any receiver of that art, being more a part of the ‘collective’ than the artist could ever possibly be (in relation to her art), would be more implicit in any future potential art (different than ‘actual’ in that ‘potential art’ is abstract and is more a conceptual term, and ‘actual art’ is like, you know, actual art (something tangible)) created than the person who cerated that art, because without that ‘infinity’, the artist has nothing to put into focus.
In other words: more people will critique any work of art than will have tangibly made it; and if a potentially infinite amount of people can critique this article I’m writing right now (for example), versus me being the only one creating the thing, the reactions of those many people have much more to do with what the art ‘is’ in the future (given that I’m going to die someday), and how it interacts with reality/perception (assuming time as consistently moving forward), than I do– right? All I’m doing is writing my thoughts down, which were influenced by everything outside of me in the first place (as I’m a product of my environment), and then trying to tell you that I’m smarter than you are because I can differentiate ‘Bill Cosby the piece of shit’ from ‘Bill Cosby the comedy “legend” who’s influenced arguably more comedians than any other comedian in history’ (arguably).
But it is precisely this act of writing this down which constitutes my right to tear myself away from myself in this moment (though still conscious of the context through which it happens (time) in-time), and so establish a free-will in the place I now take in moving-time, a time and place necessarily ignorant of my place in it as an actor/perceiver given that it is moving (and so: more abstract than tangible), and so establishing the same Absolute possibility for any understanding of that ‘Absolute free-will’ as for the aforementioned ‘determinism’ relegating all of conscious reality to that of one void of any conscious interacting actor /> thus producing a paradox in how humans, living in a world potentially realistically understood as run both ‘Absolutely determinist’ or through ‘Absolute free-will’, and assuming a ‘point of view’ from one OR the other, and never possibly both simultaneously (which is impossible without that^ oxymoron).
As I’m writing it down now, all that has brought me to this moment and to these conclusions is what is being written down; I have no conscious decision in the intellectual process (if that ‘intellect is the subterfuge of objective/subjective perception), but I am, still, writing this down, and choosing (through some process of consciousness) to press the publish button when I’m done (haters). Whatever reasons the entirety of the rest of all of time and space may have made the act inevitable, I think I made the decision myself; and without that conscious ‘back-and-forth’ between the infinity of forces beyond my control and the focus that is possible only if I make a focus of it, no ‘art’, and therefore no consciousness, could be perceived by the intellect).
Marx defined labor as “a process in which both man and nature participate, and in which man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material reactions between himself and nature” (Capital Vol. 1). This is established across the board; albeit with different endgames, Austrian economist Ludwig Von Mises said that, “the natural conditions determining man’s life and effort are such that the division of labor increases output per unit of labor expended”. Adam Smith said, “labour… is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities.” Nature and conscious man being two inherently different things, however connected through mutual obedience (conscious man is natural; and nature (or at least some part of it) evolves into conscious man), the transition involving any amount of objective plausibility is outside of both, and what went into making any act/work possible is irrelevant once an event/product has been made, as the decision to make or finish any thing (or do anything)–and so put it up for external evaluation, consciously or not as that’s necessarily only relevant to the side which may be conscious–renders the subsequent process started after the event a different one than the one which went into making it in the first place.
Call it the ‘singularity’ if you will, the ‘event horizon’, or ‘private property’ (;D); once that product has been made, it is inherently differentiated from the process by which it was made, or else it could not be a ‘new’ ‘thing’ (subsequently, between man and nature), classically defined.
Which all makes the ludicrous idea that ‘Cosby the piece of shit’ renders his art Absolutely inadmissible and morally incompatible with the way reality works, if we’re pretending that the only reason we’re doing that is strictly moral (morally (or: from a strictly moral standpoint), it is justifiable, but what we’re really doing is rendering ‘Absolute determinism’ more in-time than ‘Absolute free-will’, both potentially, while the reality is that both are equal grounds for perception, a perception liberated into infinity (and so beyond any of us) through the labor-process and the potential for artistic product).
So maybe his show shouldn’t be airing on primetime TV Land anymore. Maybe reissues of his albums and the DVDs of movies he was in should be left to happening every ten years instead of two. Maybe the public shaming happening to him is the most possible moral way to go about understanding justice in this specific circumstance, but there’s so much rhetoric going on right now about how people need to be punished for the wrongs they’ve made (i.e. thinking about what the punishment should be, rather than what the crime was, or why someone would do such a thing beyond simplicity), and which must include the TOTAL wiping all of their work from the face of the earth for all eternity, that the excess could come off as a little much. I’m all for wiping their ‘names’ (because names don’t really mean that much anyway (from any point of view not primarily political, scientific, or identitarian)), but I’m not sure how we do that without rendering the art less than it was before the artist was found to be a shit-head, which, again, doesn’t mesh with the reality that there is an inherent difference between her and the shit she made.
Perhaps this is because of the misunderstanding just described (an ignorance of the paradox that is arguing determinism or Absolute free-will)? I guess if one considers ‘humanity’, or: ‘Man’, to be higher than any individual consternation…
But that also brings this around a little too full-circle, so if we could just ignore that I wrote this: that would be greeeat (my apologies) (guess I just won’t put a #Hashtag on it #Hashtag##HashtagHashtag#Hashtag#######Hashtag##).