If You Open Your Mind Too Much Your Brain Will Fall Out - Tim Minchin
]
Tim Minchin - If You Open Your Mind Too Much Your Brain Will Fall Out
These are the lyrics for anyone who doesn't want to watch the video, or who simply wants to read over them for any other reason (I attempted to put them behind a cut, but for reasons beyond my understanding it kept messing with the video, so forgive my space-consumption):
If anyone can show me one example in the history of the world of a single Psychic who has been able to prove under reasonable experimental conditions that they are able to read minds...
And if anyone can show me one example in the history of the world of a single Astrologer who has been able to prove under reasonable experimental conditions that they can predict future events by interpreting celestial signs...
And if anyone can show me one example in the history of the world of a single Homeopathic Practitioner who has been able to prove under reasonable experimental conditions that solutions made of infinitely tiny particles of good stuff dissolved repeatedly into relatively huge quantities of water has a consistently higher medicinal value than a similarly administered placebo...
And if anyone can show me one example in the entire history of the world of a single Spiritual or religious person who has been able to show either empirically or logically the existence of a higher power with any consciousness or interest in the human race, or ability to punish or reward humans for there moral choices, or that there is any reason - other than fear - to believe in any version of an afterlife...
I’ll give you, my piano... One of my legs... And my wife.
Speaking as an avid supporter of the televisual arts, myself and many like me have begun to feel the sting of the Screen Writers' Strike currently taking place in the US, which has halted the production of such beloved shows as The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, The Colbert Report, Late Night with Conan O'Brien, and a few other shows that I refuse to admit I watch. It is also only a matter of weeks before we start to feel its effects on shows such as House MD, and my beloved Heroes.
It is a time of confusion, anger, and crippling sadness for many of us, so I felt it would be appropriate to promote some media explaining precisely why this strike is being (and must be) held. Given that the strike largely concerns the lack of privileges screenwriters get regarding online video media, I hope the irony of this isn't lost on any of you.
I find it truly remarkable that I live in a place and time, where it is widely seen as wrong to make assumptions about a person based on the place of their birth, but it is generally acceptable to make such assumptions based on the time of their birth.
Fuck Astrology, and the idiots it rode in on. Tim.
I watched Princess Mononoke recently, and thought I'd share my thoughts on the film. I can omit a few points I was going to make about this movie, since, as a Studio Gibli movie, most of what I might want to say can simply be inferred (i.e. spirits don't exists, mystics are not a reliable source of information, conservation of mass is important, etc.). That said, I genuinely enjoyed the movie. It was fast-paced, smoothly animated, and contained entirely too much violence for a film that could be mistaken for a children's movie.
The climax of the film is what genuinely stuck with me the most. It was immensely disappointing, not because the protagonists lost (they didn't), not because the film's message wasn't delivered (it was), but because as a matter of principle, those who struck me as far more deserving of the title 'the bad guys', won. The animals. The Deer God is depicted as being a terrifyingly powerful and unpredictable creature, seemingly randomly giving life to, and taking life from, those around it at will. The people from the ironworks launched a campaign into the forest to assault this frightening monster, after being met by a barrage of literally hundred of pride-drunk, kamekaze-boars. When then reached the clearing in which it dwelt, they were able to shoot the head off the Deer God, and seal it away in a big iron container. Then it hits the fan. The giant, black, oozing spectral form of the Deer God now goes stumbling around the forest, secreting a life-stealing sludge over everything it encounters, hunting for it's head. It only has until sunrise to re-obtain it, or it will die, and everything it has just now killed (much of the forest) will remain dead. I should take this opportunity to point out that this would be fantastic for the ironworks people. Thousands of dead, easy to clear trees for fuel, allowing easy access to the land underneath for iron-smelting, with no more forest-monsters to pester them, and an outstanding magical gift to win the favour of the Emperor. However. After stomping around the forest, and killing just about everything in it, in addition to destroying most of the nearby ironworks, the sun is nearly up, and the men running away with its well-contained head are going to make it. Enter the protagonist and the 'princess', each of whom need the fickle help of the Deer God to cure them of a curse that would otherwise end their (really quite short and miserable) lives. At the last possible moment, they recover the head, return it to the tyrannical Deer God (who heals them for it), who then brings the trees back to life, and 'disappears', apparently too frightened of its near-death to return any time soon.
Al Gore would usually have me side with the environment, but this was a time in which the rapid development of industry was just beginning, and could've ushered in an interesting and prosperous future if these cutting-edge metal workers had not been robbed of their livelihoods. Thus the movie ends, so close to achieving a great deal by insuring the death of a monster, but failing to do so.
Perhaps this disapproval is just favouritism on my behalf. Humans are, after all, my favourite animals of all time. 4/5 stars? Tim.
The Creation of Man - The Scarlett Pimpernel Soundtrack
]
Fictitious journalist and children's action hero Tintin, was once criticised for being excessively brutal and a poor role-model for children, when an early version of his Tintin in the Congo adventure contained a sequence (pg. 56) in which Tintin killed a rampaging rhinoceros by leaping onto its back, drilling (with an actual drill) a hole in its back, and inserting a lit stick of dynamite.
... And yet, Tintin was more of a hero to me during those frames, than ever before, and ever since. I salute you, you dog-obsessed man-child. Tim.
I recall recently saying that a discussion I had on the Livejournal of paradox_dragon, increased my confidence in the efficacy of reason. I can't help but wonder if I spoke too soon, given another discussion that I have just concluded (in fact, may still be having) on the same Livejournal, with a different person, this time going by the name color_blue. It begins here for anyone's curiousity, though I would caution you that both they and I speak with many, many more words than we need to. Just to clear up on one point, I am not a racist, and color_blue is. There, I said it. Needless to say it has ended (or so it would seem) on a particularly disappointing note, and I need something to sooth my 'soul'.
So, how about some Big Train?
Eases the pain... (I was going to say 'eases the irritation', but then it would sound like I have a rash.) Tim.
That terrible Unweaving the Rainbow album... *weeps openly*
]
As you, my loyal (presumably) confidants, are likely aware, I am a feminist. Which is to say, of course, that I do not willfully practice, nor in any way endorse nor approve of, sexism. As you likely also know (if you read any of the inaccessibly long thinking-into-my-keyboard that I do on this LiveJournal), I am known to take issue with a particular definition of sexism that has been floating around the public discourse for some time. Recently, out of interest regarding a recent scandal in the world of Fanfiction, Belinda and I stumbled across a Livejournal in which the author was commenting on the scandal in question, including the apparent sexism involved, and in doing so had evoked my old arch nemesis, the Prejudice + Power definition of Sexism. For the past you days, I have been engaged in discussion with the author of the Livejournal, who goes by the name of paradox_dragon, on the matter of whether or not this definition is one that should be used or not, and if not, what should be used in it's place?
I mention this for but one reason: It was the best, most civilised, most reasonable discussion I have ever had with a total stranger on the Internet. It really made my day(s), particularly today, when she and I essentially reached a conclusion that there is a far better 'formula' that could be employed to describe the role of power/privilege in the discussion of prejudice, which is- Oppression = -'ism + Power
With postmodernism being what it is, I would honestly be surprised if no one else had come up with this particular formulaic explanation before. But if that is the case, and given the (what I think is) self-evident utility of this definition, I can't help but wonder why I've never seen it tossed around before as a competitor to the old Prejudice + Power bit. C'est la guerre.
I don't so much want to claim this as a personal victory (which would be arrogant of me indeed), but rather claim that this is a victory for reasonable discourse itself! You can read the discussion yourself, if you so desire, here. I post in a few more places in that sea of comments, most notably here, but the discussion with paradox_dragon herself was the fun part. Today has been a good day for discussion. Tim.
In the words of the delightful Conan O'brien, imitating the ever-disappointing Jay Leno, 'Hiya Folks!', Two things to mention, for the greater good: Last week I gave a seminar on the explanatory power of the Evolutionary Psychology paradigm in the study of Personality Psychology. It seemed to go very well, partly because I own Evolutionary Psychology (I bought it from Steven Pinker, it wasn't cheap), and partly because of some charming art I got to display in my presentation. My good pal Robert, as per my request, whipped up a couple of great pictures for me, surprisingly quickly at that. I of course, spoke at some length about the human brain-
As per the topic, I payed specific attention of the evolutionary development of the brain into discrete modules, adapted to the processing of specific stimuli, pertinent to particular survival or reproductive demands. In essence, emphasising the conception of the brain as a set of survival tools-
Punchline! Isn't that great? ... Well, I think it is, but if this sort of thing isn't your cup of tea, fear not. I bring other great news, for those of you who are yet to discover it yourselves. Everyone loves a good Internet meme, and some of the more popular ones are 'LolCats'. My friends, in the true spirit of 'Web 2.0' and user-input (what Kristofer Straub calls 'Web You.0'), today I came across a website know simply as "LolCat Builder". For the semantically ill-tuned, it is an interface that allows one to generate their own LolCat ('Lol'-anything, really) images, even more easily than it already was (which is quite). My first adventure into LolCat creation was one of conventions, I attempted to use one of their already uploaded images to make.. well, precisely what you would expect of a LolCat image-
... Needless to say, it just wasn't me. So I asked myself, what is me? (Which is to say, what is indicative of my ways and interests, not what could only be described as 'moronic existentialism' with a sentence like 'What is me?') How about-
I am a fellow who is interested in, concerned about, and in my own way have commented on, issues of contemporary sexism. As such it should be no surprise that I enjoy reading the blog, Girls Read Comics (And They're Pissed), on occasion. On occasion, not because it updates infrequently, or because it is only sometimes enjoyable (both of these are untrue), but rather because I often find myself forgetting that it's still there. I am.. easily distracted. When I was reading there today, and Karen (the common author) made mention to "familiarity with the principles and theories of feminism", I found myself struck with a kind of paranoia that a feminist blogger who I admire and enjoy reading from may, just may, subscribe to the definitions of feminism that I have spoken out against in this very journal. Did she and I fundamentally disagree on what was OK in the battle for gender equality, and I simply hadn't noticed? I followed a link she recommended to a Feminism 101 Blog, with intent to find precisely what kind of feminist she was (there are, of course, several kinds), and was genuinely delighted to find that she (and they at the blog) are my kind of feminists. More delightful still was a reference to the 'power-based' feminist theory that I loath so much, which described them as "simply dismissive and condescending" in regard to the sensitivity of gender-issues. That made me smile.
In other news, I spent over two hours today 'supervising' (for lack of a better word) my mother's viewing of The Secret. I took it upon myself to pause the film for my mother, and point out to her any point in which the film contained blatant logical inconsistencies or clear scientific misinformation (which is to say, lies). I was only permitted to interject like this once per problem/lie, but it was still enough quick corrections overall to turn a one and a half hour movie into an over two hours long exercise in exasperation. I can think of fewer pure examples than The Secret of what Sam Harris describes as 'life-destroying gibberish'. It's not so much that I don't trust my mother to make a reliable and informed decision herself, based on the facts. I simply know better than to assume that my mother has the empirical background to know when she is simply being lied to. Tim.
Some of the most fun (though 'fun' could easily be substituted with 'angry typing') my good friend Robert and I have had in the week preceding this one (this one was devoured almost entirely by his and my respective ancient-greek videogames, God of War II and Titan Quest), was a debate he and I (initially only he) were involved in on RichardDawkins.net. I have been known to colourfully (colourfully can be substituted for 'unwisely') refer to RichardDawkins.net as "the mecca of atheists", but doing so is wrong not only because it conjurs the incorrect conception of atheism as a 'religion', but because there are actually a noticable (not exactly large) number of theists making their way around the comment-pages. Robert and I concern ourselves almost entirely with the discussions that take place in the comments at the feet of posted articles, as to actually wade into the topical forums of the website is to enter a no-man's-land of the most confrontational and showboating of theists, clashing 'intellects' with an upsetting majority of overzealous teenage atheists who are (as I understand it) essentially responsible for the tragic public conception of atheists as irate 'rebels' moreso than independent thinkers. This is not to say we don't therefore encounter any regrettable remarks, but they are a tolerable minority and do not force our hands into days worth of unrewarding, corrective counter-arguments.
What was odd wasn't that devolved could not defend his position. It was, after all, empirically and rationally incorrect. What was odd, was that within a couple of days time, in the comments of other, newer articles elsewhere in RichardDawkins.net, devolved appeared once again. He appeared fresh, anew, almost phoenix-like, making similar (if not identical) claims to those he made in the comments for the previous article. He was unphased by the mountains of evidence and reasoning we had launched at him, and other atheists began politely disagreeing with him, unaware of the ultimate direction it would take... Now, I said that this behaviour was odd, not surprising. Obviously, I have had experiences ('run-ins', if you want to be dramatic) with theists before, wherein I presented a (by all accounts) superior case, often had their point of view apparently regress with admissions of arbitrarity or irrationality, only to find them a short time later, just like devolved, acting as if nothing had happened. The best example of this would be my friend, and Robert's better friend, Michael Ockert, also referred to colourfully as 'The Reverend' or sometimes 'Doc Ock' for his love of medicine (and perhaps a snide reference to his firm belief in faith-healing). I can recall at least two separate occassions in which a conversation with Michael that moved into our respective beliefs, progressed as far as I can ever get it, several admissions of shaky foundations, followed by an almost alarming degradation into bible-quoting. But in both the cases of devolved and Michael (as well as others whose discourse follows similar lines), they have been presented with information and arguments that by all rights should be transformative, convincing, and impossible to deny. To quote one of my heroes, Sam Harris (the star of the new userpic that Robert made), "Reasons are contagious", and "In the end, reason just has to win". It is the Kantian categorical imperative that there is no subjective denying of that which makes sense! So how does it happen? How do these people walk away from ideologically scathing encounters such as those Robert, myself, and secularists like us provide, and come back with their beliefs untouched? This is not the case all the time, as many moderate theists have 'converted' to agnosticism or atheism after being presented with potent arguments, but this rejection of good reasoning happens often enough for me to attempt to coin a name for it.
It is what I like to call, Evangelical Amnesia. I do not for a second think that those indoctrinated by dogma possess 'immunities' to the process of rational realisation that the rest of us are subject to, nor (given the highly lingual nature of subjective thought) do I credit the theory that these theists possess various strong arguments inside their heads, that are in real-time rebutting our claims, which they are simply unable to articulate to others. Rather, I find it a more realistic conceptualisation that these people are in fact seeded with doubts, the kinds of doubts that are shameful to admit in their paradigms, and following the encounter in question engage in a retrospective process of self-reindoctrination. I use the word 'Evangelical' not only to allude to the evangelical christians who commonly display this behaviour, but also to imply that there is a directed zeal involved in this process of forgetting. That these people must work hard to prevent the arguments from being transformative, by re-framing the arguments they heard, in retrospect, as being less certain, less convincing, less right than they truly were. As such, it would be a matter of cognitive dissonance. The preserving factor, I theorise, is the very lifestyles they lead, which for the most part would centre heavily on the dogma with which they are affiliated. If, let's say, Michael, were to listen to Robert and I tomorrow, and become an atheist, it would be not only a radical ideological change for him, but would mean many lifestyle changes too. His family, his peers, his not-really-faith-healed girlfriend, they not only know him as a religious man, but many of them share in his religion with him. With no more tithing and no more praying, he simply would not be the Michael we know anymore (though he would certainly be a Michael I'd welcome just the same). Psychologically, when we are confronted with a situation (or potential situation), in which we realise that our beliefs and intentions (in a word, our thoughts) do not match our actions and selected circumstances, we are left with a very simple choice. Change the actions, or change the thoughts. Cognitive dissonance theory refers specifically to the motivational power of such realisations, and how this motivation can be channelled surprisingly effectively into the distortion of perceptions and beliefs in order to conform to a difficult reality (Stockholms Syndrome is a well-known example).
I would like to raise awareness of this issue, and encourage everyone I know who encounters Evangelical Amnesia (in all its forms) to identify it as such. After all, as Soren Kierkegaard famously said, "Once you label me, you negate me", referring to the dismissive and pre-adaptive power of labels and identifiers to stigmatise and inhibit. In this case, I think it would prove a valiant example of 'telling it like it is', and serve to raise consciousness on this issue of often overlooked hypocrisy. Tim.
In case anyone has missed it, I kind of have a toothpick up my nose (figurative) about modern (almost post-modern, I would say) conceptions of racism and sexism, and the specific problem that I have with the essential racism of applying different standards of interactions (and ethics!) to people of different races, owing to some presume 'race-culture fusion', as I call it. I am a man who opposes cultural relativism in all of its forms, and that's when we're talking about 'culture' in isolation. When you add cultural relativism to race-culture fusion, you have a recipe for Tim's Outrage-Fondue, and I don't think there's enough bread cubes in the country to eat it all. Then add to this, however, liberal doses of brutal sexism, fostered by the aforementioned Outrage-Fondue, and...
Before the Virginia Tech shooting becomes too far gone for me to say anything about it without committing a morbid faux pas, I simply have to make a comment on one facet of the events. You could call it a 'pet peeve' of mine, when people attempt to milk tragedy and genuine human suffering to push an agenda. This can sometimes (and I emphasize the 'sometimes') be acceptable when this agenda is a reaction to the tragedy, and is geared towards the prevention of further suffering in the future (for example, some of the anti-firearms protesters following shootings). However, in times like this we always see people pushing difficult-to-connect political agendas, and thankfully, it's usually met with disgust and outrage from all but that position's most avid of supporters. A very common exception to this, though, is religion. In times of tragedy, it is hard to find a religious speaker who will not comment theologically on the incident. There tends to be a continuum amongst them, some being those seeking simply to offer comfort, others seeking only lay a tenuous blame to support their own religious framework, and very many with a liberal mix of the two. But my issue is (regarding even those seeking only to insist that "These things happen for a reason") why is this specially condoned at all? One can only speculate on intention, but why is telling someone that something horrific to them is ultimately part of something good any less insulting than telling them that the loss of a friend or loved one is 'a perfect example of why students should be allowed to conceal-carry firearms'? Regardless, the openness many people have to public religious commentaries on incidents like these provoked people like Dinesh D'Souza to launch disparaging comments against atheists (that's right, my people), pointing out what he calls a 'weakness' in atheism with comments such as 'Where is Atheism when bad things happen?'. As an answer to this question, I would like to quote my favourite comment made by anyone I've read of commenting on the Virginia Tech shooting, made by an atheist professor there.
"I feel humbled by the sense of composure, of a family who lost someone on Monday. I will not insult that dignity by pretending there is sense to be made of this senselessness, or that there is some greater consolation to be found int he loss of a husband or son."
Gather around children, and lets all bask in another CreationWise comic! In a quick browse of the comics, I couldn't find a more plain and simple example than this, of Creationists presenting a conversation that most of us would assume was a case against Creationism, until they throw in a line at the end, betraying that they had long-since settled their conclusion before the conversation began.
*Tim leans into the final frame* "Maybe you should've trusted for first intuition on the matter, and regarded this as 'just fiction'?"
You may recall that some time ago I posted a YouTube video of a delightful (yet fantastically sickening and terrible) song, where a jovial but intolerant bearded man leads a group of children in a highly convincing(?) song about how the biblical monster Behemoth was, in fact, a dinosaur (a sauropod, I'm told). Now, to be honest, I had some doubts about this. Firstly, it proposes a contradictory account of geological time to all reputable cosmology, geology, and evolutionary biology in the past 300 years. Not to mention how it draws its information entirely from a text that is ancient, unverified, and unverifiable, which also makes many claims that are impossible. Plus it takes very liberal interpretations of said text in order to fit a meaning to it that, if it is genuine, was cryptic enough to go undiscovered until the documented discovery of dinosaur fossils in the past few centuries. But, I'm not a man to let an inquiry just end there.
As is often the case in my relentless search for knowledge, on this matter I ultimately ended up turning to webcomics, and I'm glad I did. Following a mention pertaining to the strip's general lack of humour (it's true!), PZ Meyers of the outstanding biological-sciences blog Pharyngula, offered a link to CreationWise. In my readings (they're more of a curiousity than entertainment) tonight, I came across this gem:
Now, I've encountered, and generated, arguments against the 'Behemoth is a Dinosaur' before. Quite a few, really, apparently it's ridiculous. Most of them have run along the lines of scientific implausabilities, "Humans, modern animals, and dinosaurs, couldn't physiologically co-exist in a single ecosystem", "Fossil evidence for the age of dinosaurs is insurmountably consistent", "No dinosaurs had grass-eating teeth, and grass had not evolved yet in their time period", etc., but some try to meet religious-types in the middle and argue from word of the bible itself, including "Behemoth is mentioned as a singular, spectacular beast, not an example of an ubiquitous species or genus", "It was not uncommon for texts in that context to refer to animals' genitals as 'tails', making the statement a vulgar nod to the impressive penises of large quadrupeds", and of course, the above mentioned "It is likely a slightly misguided reference to a rarely spotted, massive animal, such as an elephant or a hippopotamus". These arguments are all well and good for counteracting the 'behemoth-dinosaur' claim, but all of the bible-based ones seem to come in with the assumption that there is genuinely an interpretation to be reasonably opposed here. But the comic above has shown me the single greatest argument against the 'behemoth is a dinosaur' case that I have ever seen, and in doing so exposed how taken in by the base-claims of the Creationist propagandists I was.
And that argument is:
The bible quote creationists use to make their dinosaur-sized claim is shown in the comic above. "tail like a cedar" it goes, which is, as also mentioned in the comic above, taken from Job 40:15-17, specifically the line "He moveth his tail like a cedar". Wait, hold on! Did you spot it? One more time. "He moveth his tail like a cedar" (emphasis my own, imagine me angry while saying it) What kind of ludicrous selective-quoting is that?! This sentence, while maintaining perhaps the most miniscule sliver of ambiguity, has a clear and intuitive interpretation when shown in its entirety (which, I suppose, facilitates the selective quoting). It is a simile, describing how this supposed creature was moving its tail. You know, swaying it, like a cedar tree sways in the wind. (I should mention that while the trunks of cedars are quite rigid, leading some other biblical references to cite cedars as examples of this, they are in fact a common tree with swaying branches, and it would be foolish to think that the Israelites wouldn't have noticed this) How do they keep a straight face when quoting this? Is it a unique property of the bible that it is so true, that any subsections of quotes, out of context, will also always turn out to be true? If so, these very passages contain proof that behemoth was not, in fact, a dinosaur, but an ox. After all, one can select out from "he eateth grass as an ox", a phrase with which you could claim behemoth does things "as an ox". A cedar-tree-tailed ox?
This kind of selective quoting is so bad, it has driven me to employ it to definitively demonstrate its capacity to generate fantastic lies. For example, I recently commented to Francis that Robert, when excitedly rushing around in the style of a Shinobido ninja, "Runs like the wind". Suppose I were a very trustworthy type (I would say I am, by why would you believe me?), and you decided to hold this phrase as definitely true. Interesting side note! Did you know that Robert is, in fact, a purely gaseous phantasm, whose movement is generated by convection currents and who, over long distances, is subject to the coriolis effect. He also elevates kites. Why would I say such a thing, you ask? Because I have proof right here, from a source you yourself (play along) accepted as true! Robert is, and I quote, "like the wind". This isn't rocket-surgery!
My polite indignation knows no bounds! I can only wonder what other bare-faced lies generated by creationists are slipping past our very first level of criticism (getting the words right) every day, given how natural an assumption it is for us to think "They probably know the bible in much greater detail than I do". Rest-assured, as if to atone for my recent vandalism, I have added this small observation to the Wikipedia entry on Behemoth. Can I be forgiven? Tim.
Ok, earlier tonight my good buddy Francis ran an idea by me that I simply found too delicious to pass up.
For the record: I do not in anyway endorse the vandalisation of Wikipedia, even for the most hilarious and clever of reasons, as it is one of the finest free information resources we have. That said:
I vandalised Wikipedia tonight. Not vandalised in any significant way, and certainly not in any way that would distort valuable information for people who may need it. On the Wikipedia page for the word "Madness", I added a redirection line, suggesting that they may also be looking for the ancient greek city-state "Sparta". After all, I have often hear people correcting others on the claim that something is 'madness', with the more assertive claim that said thing, is, in fact, 'Sparta'. You see what I did there? It was Francis's idea... This in itself is no great achievement. After all, people vandalise Wikipedia with little jokes every day. What amazed me, was the speed with which things change on the Internet.
I refreshed the 'madness' page just a few moments after changing it, anticipating a swift correction of my little joke, but found quite the opposite. Already, some anonymous fellow from somewhere else in the online world, had already stumbled across my change, and enhanced it. No longer did it say that one looking for "Madness" may be looking for "Sparta", but it said one looking for "Blasphemy, Madness!" may be looking for "Sparta". And I smiled a massive smile.
I do hope that days from now, when this no longer amuses me, responsible people will correct this page and make it, once again, sensible. But I also hope a lot of people get a little chuckle out of this in the mean time. I also hope that the Wikipedia people don't track me down... Tim.
Update: This matter is now entirely out of my hands. In the past hour I've seen the joke removed by sensible people, replaced by someone who wasn't me, and just now I've noticed that the information itself has been changed (something I do not support) to add an additional meaning that 'madness' may be referring to, which simply states "Sparta, a city in southern Greece". I hope this doesn't turn into one of those things that leads one to exclaim "What have I done?" One more update: And now the gods of Wikipedia have writed any wrongdoings by my hand. It seems like there is a rich history of vandalism on the Madness page, and in retrospect I frankly feel guilty for being a part of it. I hope you can forgive me, Wikipedia!
Howdy folks. Last night I watched a movie called 'Crash', which I'm told (its safer to trust other people's interpretations on these things, I once thought Catwoman was about misogyny) is about racism. I really enjoyed it (the movie, that is, not the racism), I found it to be thought provoking and highly illustrative of the insidious negative cycles which keep racism alive today. Every movie has its detractors (kind of like how Iranian people don't seem to like 300), and Crash is no different. Despite its popularity (nominated for 6 academy awards, of which it won 3), and praise in the public eye for its addressing of racism as an issue, there are those who criticise the film on this very facet.
You will recall (failing that, click here) that my last Livejournal post addressed a phenomenon I had only recently encountered, regarding a progressive new definition of racism (and by extension, sexism also), which I criticised for destroying not only the intuitive and widespread application of these words, but also their utility in describing anything meaningful in issues of race or gender conflict. I also pointed out the mind-blowingly ironic prejudice of restricting the application of a 'very serious' pejorative term to particular racial and gender groups. But, that's me...
For any of you (who actually read it, that is) who thought my assessments of the new definition of 'racism' (as pejorative, defeatist, and more defined by the 'lack of a solution' than the 'presence of a problem') were perhaps a bit too hasty, or not likely to reflect real-world opinions, I submit this review of the movie Crash:
This is not a parody, nor would I be capable of constructing a parody that would better illustrate the problems of applying this particular definition of racism. Here are some quotes from the review itself, to wet the beaks of anyone who happens to be interested in this issue but might not think the review worth reading:
-"Crash" is a white-supremacist movie. -Its faux humanism and simplistic message of tolerance directs attention away from a white-supremacist system and undermines white accountability for the maintenance of that system. (Tim: Yeah, seriously folks, tolerance is for jackasses) -The first step in putting white people back on the hook is pressing the case that the United States in 2006 is a white-supremacist society. Even with the elimination of formal apartheid and the lessening of the worst of the overt racism of the past, the term is still appropriate, in ideological and material terms. -The characters and plot lines are complex and often intriguing. But "Crash" remains a white-supremacist movie because of what it refuses to bring into the discussion. (Tim: !!!) -Today, polite white folks renounce such claims of superiority. But scratch below that surface politeness and the multicultural rhetoric of most white people, and one finds that the assumptions about the superiority of the art, music, culture, politics, and philosophy rooted in white Europe are still very much alive.
-"Crash" paints a multi-colored picture of race, and in a multi-racial society recognizing that diversity is important. Let's just not forget that the color of racism is white.
I adore how it so clearly describes this astonishing (to me) and ubiquitous worldview, where people modularise their understanding of the world to such a degree that they will understand and embrace rational and empirical scientific standards, but only in very selecting and non-personal domains. As if evidential and logical standards are ever a bad idea...
The article had a close competitor for my highest esteems of the day, in the form of this piece:
For the record, I have often wondered... Why do so many people say that "Communism works well on paper, but not in real life"? In what way, shape, or form does a social structure which relies entirely on the organised labour of the population, while simultaneously guaranteeing that there is absolutely no contingent reinforcement for working, work? Tim.
Welcome, to the world of tomorrow! Your dictionary will (apparently) be useless. Earlier today Belinda and I were looking over a post that she'd happened across, on a Livejournal Community called simply feminist . The post itself was in essence the personal incredulity of a woman who learned in a Social Psychology class that partner-abuse, contrary to popular belief, was surprisingly equal between men and women, both in incidence and in harm done. Her 'counter' to this was that there are necessarily oppressive power-dynamics involved whenever a man abuses a woman that cannot necessarily be the case when women are abusing men, because... Well, 'women don't do that', would be her answer. This was a community called 'feminist' after all, so I thought to myself "All right, bit cheeky", and prepared a reply for her post intended to draw attention to some of the fallacious implications of such assumptions, particularly in regard to 'potential harm' vs. 'harm done'. I found, however, that posting in feminist was a 'friends (members) only' privilege, so in my momentary zeal I readied myself to join this community. "After all," I thought to myself, "I am strongly in favour of gender-equality myself, what could it hurt?" Belinda drew my attention to an extensive list of membership rules that this community insisted members observe, lest they receive warnings, bannings, and so-on, so being the contract-loving fellow that I am, I began to read them over. It was here that I learned something, my friends, something that I apparently should've learned some time ago, being an almost educated sort.
There were new definitions of both 'Racism' and 'Sexism' that I'd never heard of before.
Their new definition of racism (which extends through subject and prefix substitution into sexism) focusses extensively on the concept of oppression, and intends to make the framework of oppression the central issue of racism (or sexism). Historical racial (and genderal) biases, and their modern consequences, are of course undeniable in their injustice, their impact on people's lives, and their resistance to change due to conservative mindsets. The identification of this was no doubt a great step in the right direction for addressing both racial and sexual issues. What concerns me, however, is how upon its discovery, it wasn't given a unique term (I myself think that the dichotomous phrases 'Racial Privilege' and 'Racial Oppression' would cover all of it nicely), it was instead roped, in its entirety, into the core-concept of Racism. This was presumably due to the way in which issues of racism and sexism get discussed in the modern discourse. As the literal 'isms' by their intuitive meanings became less and less common in our (Western) society, the focus of such discussions naturally shifted in focus to the remaining issues, which would in essence be the residual effects of past (and covert contemporary) prejudices on socio-economic structure and cultural attitudes. Those who discussed racism, in the media in which they discussed racism, where now (for the sake of relevance) discussing something that wasn't encompassed in the intuitive definition of racism, so the wise thing to do would seem to be to broaden your definition to both stay on topic, and add the power of your previous works to your current ones. What could go wrong with that?
What has gone wrong with that is plain to see in the comments of the post I mentioned above. The evolution of this new definition, from these origins, is approaching something both dysfunctional and ignoble. This new definition, according to its users, is now the definition for their money, and part of this vicious affirmation is the exclusion of the original (need I remind you, intuitive) definition from it. This attempted retcon of the very words 'Racism' and 'Sexism' lead to discussions characterised by this form of exchange:
Person 1: This claim is racist. Person 2: That is not racism, racism is playing into the social acceptance of white supremacy, willfully or not. What you're describing is 'prejudice'. Person 1: Yeah.. prejudice, on the criteria of race. Also known as 'racism'. Person 2: NO! Your conception is ignorant and insulting to the suffering of people of colour! Racism is Prejudice + Power, so someone without social privilege and power cannot be racist! Person 1: But I'm talking about discrimination against Africans in Asian communities. Person 2: Social privilege belongs to white people in the west. Asian people henceforth can't be racist here, they can only be prejudice. Person 1: But prejudice against other races? Person 2: Yeah. Person 1: ...
I put it to you (and you know who you are), that these 'new' definitions are implicitly pejorative, unintuitive, non-constructive, and destroy the utility of the words in their original meanings (which remain common, rightfully so, today). Does anyone else think these terms need to be 'taken back' from the likes of feminist ?Or do we need to now invent entirely new words to represent 'racial prejudice' and 'gender prejudice' instead? Tim.
Greetings, True-Believers (in the Stan Lee sense, of course, not theistically).
One of my guilty pleasures (and I use the term loosely, as it is sometimes quite distressing) is watching YouTube videos and reading blog-posts/articles, which are in favour of fundamentalist religions, creationism, or (as is often the case) both. I said ‘religions’ in the place of the predictable ‘Christianity’ because a number of videos that I have seen are actually the creationist ventures of Muslims, pessimistic accounts of biological and cosmological processes that strike one as being distinctly Christian until they begin quoting the Qur’an for corroboration.
With the way the current political winds have been blowing (I say ‘political’ in the place of ‘scientific’, simply because this has never been an issue in actual science and never will be), many, or rather, all of you, will have had some exposure to the concept of so-called ‘Intelligent Design’, or ‘ID’. It is, of course, the most modern spin on the ancient ‘god of the gaps’ methodology, where the supernaturally-minded seek to wedge their baseless assumptions about invisible entities into the not-yet-fully-explained ‘gaps’ in the scientific account of nature, often reaching conservationist heights in attempting to stall scientific inquiry so as to preserve these gap-environments, and thus the presumed supernatural-species that inhabit them. Based on the entirely subjective claim of ‘irreducible complexity’, ID teaches us that personal incredulity on the origins of a structure from natural processes demonstrates that it must be intelligently designed with a purpose in mind, while conveniently omitting any accounts or predictions as to the identity or nature of this designer, their motivations, and indeed, the speculative origins of such a designer. < Feel free to insert your religion here.
This argument is old, literally centuries old, to the point where its yet most illustrative analogies were penned over 200 years ago. As such, a great deal of modern reasoning and promotional material (I will avoid saying ‘propaganda’ as a show of good form. Oh wait…) still use such analogies to get their message across to the young and mentally young (ignorant) alike. The most famous of which is William Paley’s ‘Watchmaker Analogy’.
The logic that the existence of a watch demands the existence of a single watchmaker, and the apparent intuitiveness of this conclusion, was all Paley needed to apply the same logic to the biological world. Where there is complexity that seems incapable of arising from natural processes and circumstances, the only conclusion one is left with is to assume it was intelligently designed by a maker, for the purpose of it achieving whatever this thing happens to achieve. Ergo, there must be a god who designed and made all the structures of every organism with some overarching purpose. Straightforward, no?
No. Now, I have encountered many arguments against the Watchmaker Analogy, the common ones pointing out Paley’s lack of knowledge of the process of natural selection, the lack of characteristically ‘organismic’ self-oriented purpose in a watch, just generally arguments that demonstrate that while the logic at hand may be applicable to an artifact such as a watch, it takes vital oversights to generalise this principle into biology. Detractors of the Watchmaker Analogy are right to tender these criticisms, there is a rift of applicability between generational organisms and what is essentially a complex tool. Some even go so far as to question why Paley can so easily dismiss a rock, given how easy it would be to make fallacious assumptions about the origins of any particular stone on the ground.
My issue, however, lies with the acceptance that this logic works, even on the level of assuming a watchmaker from the existence of a watch. I would argue that the parameters and reasonable point of termination of this logic are orchestrated simply to allow for a parallel to divine creation of the universe by a god. Let us pretend of a moment that I am not one to immediately criticise an argument on its logical syntax or some level of meta-applicability (in reality this is about all I do, to the point where if I were a masked wrestler, ‘getting into meta-communication’ would be my signature-move). Today, for a little bit of fun, I’m going to put myself if Paley’s hypothetical shoes, and see how my reasoning may differ from his within the original paradigm:
To recap the case above for all you wise people who elected not to read my lengthy fictitious heath-trek, it was essentially an exercise in demonstrating that if Paley were to think about the implications of his musings in detail, he would have encountered the need to consider the evolution-like cultural history that went into the watch he so conveniently explained by postulating a single watchmaker. While it would perhaps not be of much use to him for biological comparisons, as he was pre-Darwinian and would struggle to conceive biological development over time in terms of accumulated apparent-design via natural selection, it would have at least led him to the question that anyone postulating a ‘design as indicated by irreducible complexity’ argument should be asking themselves: “If my very inquiry is based on the core assumption that complexity cannot be simply accepted due to its natural improbability, and demands an explanation, where is the explanation for the necessarily more complex creator?” After all, given the common ‘understanding’ of many deities as being ‘mysterious’ and ‘beyond comprehension’ (which, given the humanoid properties prescribed to most of them, seems like an odd claim), what is a god if not a watchmaker who lacks any explanation as to how it would know how to build a watch, or for that matter, why it would want to?
After performing the exercise above, I have come to discover that in its 200 year history, the Watchmaker Analogy has been similarly criticised before for its ‘infinite regression’ style of argument. This being the case, it blows my mind more than ever as to why it is still used as a ‘powerful’ analogy for the Intelligent Design perspective. Other criticisms seem to have run embarrassingly like my own, but one particular gem I’ve discovered has tickled me so much, I can’t resist quoting it here:
*In regard to the point that any given watchmaker is only able to design and build watches because of their rich cultural and technological inheritance* "It is not even a case of the watchmaker standing on the shoulders of giants. Developing the art of watchmaking is moreso a case of midgets standing on the shoulders of a vast pyramid of other midgets."
I would say that my fondest wish for the contemporary 'battleground' between evolutionary biologists and young-Earth creationists, would be for more evolutionary biologists to refute the semantically-evasive demands of creationists for "evidence of the creation of unique, new, real information through genetic mutation" by simply hammering home the reality that information is not an independent and 'real' thing at all. It is a speculative property of the organisation of matter, which is 'created' just as much by the interpretive paradigm in which its received as it is by the 'data' itself. Have you ever tried opening a Microsoft Word '.doc' file in the program Notepad? If not, creationists, do. And while you're at it, take a glance at the Duck-Rabbit (used by Wittgenstein to demonstrate paradigm-laden observation) following perceptual priming for either animal. Then tell me that the 'message' in information is fundamental and intrinsic, as well as preserved regardless of what 'language' its communicated in and 'who's ears are hearing it', you dogma-sucking troglodytes! Sheesh... Tim.
I enjoy this short series of Mitchell & Webb sketches. Some good, quick laughs on the topic of farming, only coming to about 2 minutes all together: The First
The Second
The Third
The Fourth
Because it IS a scam, when you think about it... Tim.
Now, there was quite a bit of talk to be had about the last video I posted, essentially oriented around my hyping of it as possibly the greatest cartoon ever. That said, I am dedicated to not making the same mistake again, so today I present to you, my friends, a video that is definitely the best of something. I dare not declare exactly what genre it tops, as this could well vary from person to person, but I can assure you, you'll consider it the best of something. It's very funny.
Anyone who has visited my house for any great length of time in the past.. year, or so, I guess, will have no doubt be exposed to a show I enjoy very much, entitled Peep Show, created by delightful British comedy duo, Mitchell & Webb. Those two also have a sketch comedy show, many of the routines of which are available on YouTube, given the right search phrasing. Below is a sketch from that very show, where Mitchell & Webb play the parts of two middle-class young socialites planning a party, debating on whether or not to invite the mystery-solving teens of a certain cartoon popularised in the 70s. See if you can figure out who (there's a clue in the subject of this very entry):
If you didn't like Adventure Time, you're bound to like this, as it's in many ways more grounded in its satire! And if you did like Adventure Time, you'd going to like it even more! Because you're not some uptight kill-joy! Tim.
The last question of this little (little?) meme-test, which I just took on Francis's Livejournal, asked if I would re-post this so he could fill it out. Can you guess what I said? Either way, I'd be neat to hear some information about folks who may read this, so fill it out, if you can both a) be bothered, and b) weren't fatigued by taking it on someone else's LJ
1. Can you cook?
2. What would you do if you were stuck in an elevator?
Many people have said that Grave of the Fireflies is a tragic and touching movie. It was kind of sad, I guess.. but I mean, aren't we all over looking one vital fact here that should mitigate on our sympathies?
If they didn't want to die in brutal and isolated poverty, maybe, just maybe, those poor orphans shouldn't have bombed Pearl Harbour! Poor Ben Affleck... Take a class man. Tim.
Playing the Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney games of late (I bought a Nintendo DS that Belinda and I share) has manufactured a new argumentative paradigm in my mind. I now find myself closely monitoring what my peers say, tempted to at any given point yell "HOLD IT!" and press them for more information on any given remark. More strikingly, I now hunt for contradictions in the statements of others, just waiting to call "OBJECTION!" and present either intellectual or physical evidence that illustrates the problem. I suppose I've just become enamoured with that court-room context, where rather than presenting points against a defensive and agenda-laden opponent, one argues in a more 'matter of fact' sense, with only the strength of observation and evidence, to an essentially objective third-party judge. Turns out in real life there is no judge most of the time, necessitating a far less assertive, 'pointing' approach, as personal interests are on the line. But even if I can't go ficticious-attorney style in my day to day discussions, at least I now have a new well of video-game references that I may draw pure joy from. For example, when next I never need to send someone a Valentine, this will be it: Thanks, Phoenix Wright! Tim.
Some of you may have recently noticed on my MSN personal message, the claim "Have found the coolest cartoon ever", or something to that effect. This was no jest, nor some obscure Bill Cosby quotation (as can often be found in my personal messages), I really have stumbled across an outstandingly good cartoon, which while it may not be the best cartoon ever made.. literally, it's certainly the best one I can thing of just now, particularly on the scale of 'cartoonishness'. I thoroughly recommend it to all of you who never remembered to remove me from your friends lists in these last few years! Set in a land of fantastic adventures, we follow a boy named Pen and his magical dog, Jake. It's called... Adventure Time!
If you don't find the very beginning very funny, please stick with it. It just keeps getting funnier. Tim.
One of my heroes, Richard Dawkins (who is a scientist), has a lot to say about the impact of religion on science and society. Two of his observations are as follows:
- Indoctrination of children (who are naturally trusting, do not know any better, and in a sense 'cannot defend themselves), into religious world-views (particularly those which are damaging to rational senses, threatening and stressful, and fostering of intolerance), is quite literally a form of child abuse.
- Many great works of art, literature, and entertainment have been historically inspired (or even commissioned) by religious beliefs and believers, but not believing in the religion itself does not diminish our ability to enjoy these things. Enjoying a work of fiction or fantasy does not require belief in the story to be appreciated (we don't need to think Dr. House is a real doctor to marvel at his exploits).
I agree with both of these observations (as I have coincidentally agreed with almost everything Dr. Dawkins has said since around 1990), but currently find myself in somewhat of a grey area. Suppose I have discovered a religiously motivated piece of work, a song, which I find catchy, fun, and almost charming in its blatant agenda. I would like to think that the fact that it is religious won't stop me from enjoying it, and puzzling people with my recitation of it. However, I am also not a fan of child abuse... Am I, in fact, obliged not to therefore enjoy the song 'Behemoth Was A Dinosaur', as documented in the video below (3 minutes and 10 seconds into it), on principle?
I can't stop singing the theme to the cartoon 'Ninja Robots'
]
To many of you who know me well, what I'm about to say won't come as a surprise. I like Spider-man. ..I mean I, like like Spider-man, in a manner as close to a 'man-crush' as a person can have to a fictitious, radioactive fellow. A great character, with great abilities, and (usually) a great personality, free of many of classically ill-conceived problems associated with superheroes (such as having an entirely over-powered character that requires a specific exploitable 'weakness' in order to manufacture thrills in a storyline. I'm looking at you, Superman!). But one symptomatically 'comicy' downfall of the character of Spider-man (and he is certainly not alone in this) is his rich to the point of convolution history. Originally conceived in a time when it was believed that radiation could do anything, Spider-man's very existence now has to come to terms with the fact that it, in fact, can not. Between multiple retellings of obscured pasts, it is no longer clear whether the Parker parents were spies to the Nazis, research scientists, or random plebeians selected by native-american destiny. What were the exact circumstances of Uncle Ben's death? There were so many contributing background elements, all we can say is that one of his attempted shooters was likely murdered by Jack Ruby. And how does he stick to walls again? Spider-like clinging barbs from his skin? A totemistically granted self-telekinesis from the spirit of spiders? Some Spider-woman-esque electrostatic cling? It's honestly hard to say. And this doesn't even address the issues of how awkward it is to consolidate Spider-man and his origins, with the various other accounts of reality simultaneously coexisting in the Marvel universe.
Different people deal with Spidey's long, inaccessible, and partly nonsensical history in different ways. The clear majority simply elect to 'grow the hell up' and let sleeping spider-dogs lie. Others initiate lengthy literature-trawls, and like biblical scholars, use little more than their own desires for what they wish to be true, to shade conflicting accounts with differential degrees of canonity. There is now (as of 5 or 6 years ago) a third option, however, which Marvel (and to a lesser extent Wizard comics in regard to DC franchises) has started employing extensively to their more popular franchises. It's called the 'Ultimate' formula.
Recreating a story as an 'ultimate' version, is essentially an attempt to form a new continuity for a set of popular characters, which while preserving the tried-and-true stronger elements of the story, discards most of the superfluities and historical conflicts of the continuity, creating instead a shorter, simpler, more modernly-inspired continuity. Much like the formation of Captain Planet from the planeteers' 5 crude ring-elements, an Ultimate story is a composite of all of the high-points of an existing story, combined and magnified into something shiny and heroic. Ultimate stories also possess various 'conventions', as is, which usually involve making characters younger, sexier, and often more troubled. They also tend to be made with important cross-over potentials in mind, with common origins across many sets being.. well, common. To use Spider-man as an example, 'Ultimate Spider-man' takes Spidey back to his origins, and the ripe-old age of 15(!). Much like in the Spider-man films, genetic engineering is the new explanation for Spidey's inheritance of spider-like abilities (I wonder if in the future, we'll look back on contemporary understandings of genetic engineering as being comparably ridiculous to the 1960s' understanding of the effects of radiation...), he also has immediate ties with all the people who will be significant to him later in life (as opposed to his original round-about acquisition of a string of colleagues and girlfriends), and forges near-instant relationships with all the other Ultimate Marvel hero teams. No fuss, no muss, I suppose.
Now, while re-conceptualising a piece using the Ultimate formula is far from perfect (one need only look at the 'ultimate' version of 'Gah Lak Tus' to see how things can go horrible awry), the simple appeal of doing away with the unpleasant ghosts of the past, to cut some kind of refined montage of all things good into juicier narrative.. it's simply too much to resist! So I am hereby declaring my intention to retcon (<- industry term for rewriting historical continuity) my own life into the far superior... Ultimate Tim.
In Ultimate Tim, everyone who is currently of pivotal importance to my life, has been ever since the beginning of it in a number of contrived and Mary-Sue-esque coincidences. For example, did you know that my good buddies Robert and Francis.. were all born in the same delivery room as me? At the same time?! On a jet-plane?!? We have, as such, always been friends, eliminating the need for the long string of other friends I had in traditional canon to get to this point. Also, my girlfriend Belinda, who is in reality 9 months younger than me, is in Ultimate Tim 9 months younger than me because I caused her conception on the date of my birth with my latent psychic abilities (partially magical, the result of a genetic arms race, to be revealed in issue #78). She is not only the only girlfriend I've ever had, but was the first woman I ever saw owing to a several years long stint of infant-blindness which enhanced my other senses to near superhuman levels (only to be lost to an over-chlorinated pool in issue #15). Interestingly, many people in my life whose origins simply take too long to explain, are now explained as being modified clones of myself (clones include most of my graduating grade from high school, that guy runs the sandwich shop, and as of the time-rift in issue #33, actor Hugo Weaving). Furthermore, everything I now believe, like, and am interested in, will no longer be the result of a life-long series of growth and transitions, but will instead simply be the way I always was! A staunch atheist from birth and wunderkind child-detective, I am still in my now-popularised position of a Macquarie University Psychology Honours student, despite the fact that owing to this being an Ultimate version, I am now 14 years old and a 'wise-cracker'.
Original Tim (now to be referred to as Tim-616) will still be available as a parallel continuity, but I'm intending to phase him out after the conclusion of my 'civil war' arc. I highly recommend creating an Ultimate version of your own identity, but be warned, I have now set the standard in this continuity, so if you want to contradict me, please clearly indicate that you exist in a parallel universe. (Ultimate) Tim.
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
evil_mr_tim's journal
grateful
contemplative
annoyed
disappointed
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small}
enthralled