CUT THE WORLD was recorded live on September 2nd and 3rd, 2011 at the DK Concert Hall in Copenhagen, DK and represents Antony's continued meditation on light, nature & femininity. Antony discusses his ideas on the track "Future Feminism", a speech he made during one of the concerts. Addressing the affects of patriarchy on the global ecology, Antony explores the possibility of shifting towards feminine systems of governance in a gesture to restore our world.
"Today I am among a group of artists from NYC (some of whom are performing at this Meltdown Festival) who reject patriarchy in its myriad virulent and apocalyptic manifestations, and who advocate for a fundamental shift towards the feminine in all our systems and structures of governance. We have named this approach Future Feminism."
The Enlightenment of the late eighteenth century had caused all of England and Europe to decide where to let their lives lead them in terms of faith; either towards Christianity, or towards Protestantism....
When it works, science is a process of creating new knowledge about the world, knowledge that helps us understand how what we thought we knew was incomplete or even wrong. This picture of success doesn’t mean, however, that we should reasonably expect that most scientific results are unreliable or invalid at the moment they are published. What it means, instead, is that the results of research — however imperfect — are reliable in the context of the existing state of knowledge, and are thus a definite step toward a better understanding of our world and a solid foundation for further research. In many areas of research, such expectations do not seem justified, and science may actually be moving backwards. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of , :
The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.
Understandably, some students of Ibsen have fallen into the temptationof drawing a parallel between life and art, and see this work as a mercilessself-denunciation. Once again, isby no means auto-biographical. Rubek's relationship with the writer hasto be sought on a deeper level - in the conflicts that Ibsen, toward theend of his life, saw as a general and essential human problem.
This undoubtedly touches upon something essential in Ibsen's demandsto dramatic art: it should as realistically as possible unify three elements:the psychological, the ideological and the social. At its best, the organicsynthesis of these three elements is at the heart of Ibsen's drama. Perhapshe only succeeds completely in a few of his plays, such as ,, and .Interestingly, he considered his major work to be (1873), contrary to everyone else. This could indicatehow much emphasis he put on ideology, not overt, but as a conflict betweenopposing views toward life. Ibsen believed that he had created a fully"realistic" rendering of the inner conflict in the abandonedJulian. The truth is, however, that Julian is too marked by the dramatist'sown thoughts - what he calls his "positive philosophy of life."Ibsen first succeeded as a theatrical writer when he seriously took anotherapproach - the one he described in connection with "Hedda Gabler"(1890):
It was in the 1870s that Ibsen oriented himself toward his "European"point of view. Even though he lived abroad, he continually chose a Norwegiansetting for his contemporary dramas. As a rule, we find ourselves in asmall Norwegian coastal town, the kind Ibsen knew so well from his childhoodin Skien and his youth in Grimstad. The background of the young Ibsen certainlygave him a sharp eye for social forces and conflicts arising from differingviewpoints. In small societies, such as the typical Norwegian coastal town,these social and ideological conflicts are more exposed than they wouldbe in a larger city.
Americans lionize the scientist as head-in-the-clouds genius (the Einstein hero) and the inventor as misfit-in-the-garage genius (the Steve Jobs or Bill Gates hero). The discomfiting reality, however, is that much of today’s technological world exists because of DOD’s role in catalyzing and steering science and technology. This was industrial policy, and it worked because it brought all of the players in the innovation game together, disciplined them by providing strategic, long-term focus for their activities, and shielded them from the market rationality that would have doomed almost every crazy, over-expensive idea that today makes the world go round. The great accomplishments of the military-industrial complex did not result from allowing scientists to pursue “subjects of their own choice, in the manner dictated by their curiosity,” but by channeling that curiosity toward the solution of problems that DOD wanted to solve.
One cumulative result of these converging stresses (a result that Price did not anticipate) is a well-recognized pervasive bias that infects every corner of the basic research enterprise — a bias toward the new result. Bias is an inescapable attribute of human intellectual endeavor, and it creeps into science in many different ways, from bad statistical practices to poor experimental or model design to mere wishful thinking. If biases are random then they should more or less balance each other out through multiple studies. But as of the scientific literature have shown, there are powerful sources of bias that push in one direction: come up with a positive result, show something new, different, eye-catching, transformational, something that announces you as part of the elite.
Antony: People can more easily imagine the collapse of the ecology than we can imagine a shift in our systems of governance, like a shift away from capitalism... a shift towards more feminine systems of governance.