Dylan Moran once jokingly said that you should be as alive as you can until you're totally dead, a sentiment that I agree with, and one that was poignantly apparent yesterday. I went to see someone I've known all my life (who will remain anonymous) who has just been diagnosed as having dementia; two weeks ago he was almost fine, last week he didn't remember who he was. Yesterday he seemed better, meaning that he could mostly keep a reasonable conversation, but he still wasn't great - he couldn't find his way across the hall to go to the toilet. However, he was enjoying humour that he wouldn't have found amusing before. What does that have to do with living life? He's virtually bedridden, can't remember how to comb his hair or shave his moustache and yet he is still trying to make a go for what ever he can. When you compare that with other people younger, fitter, smarter, more ambitious and healthier than him (read here us), he blows us out of the water with zest for life despite not being able to live nearly as much as we can and having a definite limit on his mental capacity.
This is not me proposing hedonism as a great way to go, this is me saying that we should enjoy life. When you look around at us today, we have everything we want right at our fingertips and this is the problem. All we seem to want is what we can get easily. To have to try to get anything is anathema to our societal stance. It inhibits our enjoyment. We have to be reminded that working for something increases our appreciation of it. All we want to do is, in the words of Voddie Baucham, get what we can, can what we get and sit on the can. No, what I want to put forward is what John Piper calls Christian Hedonism, the view that says that we should enjoy what God has given to us because 'he is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him'.
How's that for train of thought. But I'm not done. I want to also mention someone else I know (who will also remain anonymous) who has been virtually reduced to a anxious wreck from his job. He, despite being 30 years younger has had almost the polar opposite response. He has withdrawn and is depressed about almost everything. Now, I do know that anxiety and depression almost always go together, but when you compare the two responses, I'd much rather take the first response.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Victory
How do we win at things? I realised that my views on this subject may be different to others after watching the movie Donnie Darko the other night (which did not blow my mind as advertised). Shortly before the end of the movie I said that he won. This was greeted with confusion by the other people who were watching with me, primarily because in the process of doing this, he lost. But in this losing for himself he won in general. This I called a victory for Donnie. Why? I'll try to explain. (NB. Watch it and then judge for yourself, it is a brilliant movie)
The following contains spoilers.
In the action of his loss, he made the choice to lose, thus countermanding anything else that was going to happen later (which due to a temporal anomaly has already happened). In doing so, he died rather than living through all that was going to follow - crime (perpetrated by him), the loss of his sanity (so far as he and others could see) and the death of his girlfriend (who at the time he hadn't met). He decided that the loss of his own life was a price that he was willing to pay for this outcome. He cheated the destiny that he had foreseen for himself. He made the choice to avoid his destiny in an act of freewill that was beyond belief. As he himself discussed, the future is predetermined - he made the choice in the present to stop that from happening.
As for him winning, in the moment shortly before his death, he comes to the realisation that this is the only way to not let everything happen; his victory comes about through the loss of the other party - the destiny. For a victory to occur, you do not need to win, you merely need to not lose when your opposition has. This is the victory that he achieves.
The following contains spoilers.
In the action of his loss, he made the choice to lose, thus countermanding anything else that was going to happen later (which due to a temporal anomaly has already happened). In doing so, he died rather than living through all that was going to follow - crime (perpetrated by him), the loss of his sanity (so far as he and others could see) and the death of his girlfriend (who at the time he hadn't met). He decided that the loss of his own life was a price that he was willing to pay for this outcome. He cheated the destiny that he had foreseen for himself. He made the choice to avoid his destiny in an act of freewill that was beyond belief. As he himself discussed, the future is predetermined - he made the choice in the present to stop that from happening.
As for him winning, in the moment shortly before his death, he comes to the realisation that this is the only way to not let everything happen; his victory comes about through the loss of the other party - the destiny. For a victory to occur, you do not need to win, you merely need to not lose when your opposition has. This is the victory that he achieves.
Responses to daily occurances
The other day as I was walking into Sydney for uni, I was quite surprised at two responses to things that I did. The first happened as I was about to step out to cross the road. I looked around to see a car bearing down on the corner. So, not wanting to be hit by a 1.5 tonne piece of moving machinery, I stopped. The driver of the car seemed surprised and waved her gratitude to me; that was what surprised me, that she felt grateful to me for not making her hit me - what I thought was essentially self defence on my behalf. The other response, which worried me more came from a homeless woman who asked me for the time. She asked me just as I passed her so I had to turn around to tell her. When I did, she looked at the ground with an expression that I would have described as fear. Being a six foot bearded male who habitually wears sunglasses and hides his expressions while in public, this is something that I have seen before, but not from someone who initiated the contact. The question that I found myself asking as I walked along was why these responses were so surprising.
The first response I think stems from societies changing attitudes towards responsibility. Where your responsibility used to stem from your actions and position, society has tried to change so that in as far as is possible, you are not responsible for anything that you do, or that happens to you - especially if something goes wrong. This has lead to an increase of court cases that should be laughed out, but amazingly win, like the guy who sued the preschool for not looking after his child while the lawn was being mowed by a volunteer parent. His child was run over while running over to daddy, who happened to be mowing the lawn at the time (for more of these click here). This attempted decrease of responsibility has had a not too subtle effect on the way we think. We can always find someone to blame, can always point the finger, and almost always find a way to pass the buck. The driver of the car, didn't expect me to take responsibility for my stepping out into the path of her car and when I did, she showed her gratefulness through a wave which itself is surprising. Usually, in this circumstance, people will beep their horn at you, trying to tell you that you are at fault and that you should back away from imminent crushing - fair enough as a warning, but as anger, probably not.
The second response is a bit more puzzling. Why would someone who asked for the time appear scared when she received it? and why if she was going to respond that way did she ask in the first place? It may be that she wasn't expecting help and so her reaction was based on a surprising reaction. In that case, why, if she wasn't expecting anything, did she even ask? and why was she so worried when she did receive help? These I think come from the way that we have as a whole started to almost require a choice in everything we do. When she solicited my aid, she limited my choices. So when I turned to give her the time, she was worried about the outcome that didn't involve my actual response. So then why did she ask? My thoughts on this lead me to the conclusion that she wasn't expecting any response and she possibly didn't even want one. If she didn't get a response, she could at least say to herself that she had tried. This may not have been her motive, but thinking about it, to me it seems the clearest possibility. This desire for a lack of response has grown to be a curse upon our society. We fool ourself into thinking that if there was no reaction from a third party (or even a second party) then our responsibility in the matter ends there. In actuality, our responsibilities grow at this point as we then have to deal with what would have happened on our own, and this is too scary for many people these days.
On a different note (E flat to be precise), listen to the 1812 Overture by Tchaikovsky - Awesome in 15 and a half minutes of music.
The first response I think stems from societies changing attitudes towards responsibility. Where your responsibility used to stem from your actions and position, society has tried to change so that in as far as is possible, you are not responsible for anything that you do, or that happens to you - especially if something goes wrong. This has lead to an increase of court cases that should be laughed out, but amazingly win, like the guy who sued the preschool for not looking after his child while the lawn was being mowed by a volunteer parent. His child was run over while running over to daddy, who happened to be mowing the lawn at the time (for more of these click here). This attempted decrease of responsibility has had a not too subtle effect on the way we think. We can always find someone to blame, can always point the finger, and almost always find a way to pass the buck. The driver of the car, didn't expect me to take responsibility for my stepping out into the path of her car and when I did, she showed her gratefulness through a wave which itself is surprising. Usually, in this circumstance, people will beep their horn at you, trying to tell you that you are at fault and that you should back away from imminent crushing - fair enough as a warning, but as anger, probably not.
The second response is a bit more puzzling. Why would someone who asked for the time appear scared when she received it? and why if she was going to respond that way did she ask in the first place? It may be that she wasn't expecting help and so her reaction was based on a surprising reaction. In that case, why, if she wasn't expecting anything, did she even ask? and why was she so worried when she did receive help? These I think come from the way that we have as a whole started to almost require a choice in everything we do. When she solicited my aid, she limited my choices. So when I turned to give her the time, she was worried about the outcome that didn't involve my actual response. So then why did she ask? My thoughts on this lead me to the conclusion that she wasn't expecting any response and she possibly didn't even want one. If she didn't get a response, she could at least say to herself that she had tried. This may not have been her motive, but thinking about it, to me it seems the clearest possibility. This desire for a lack of response has grown to be a curse upon our society. We fool ourself into thinking that if there was no reaction from a third party (or even a second party) then our responsibility in the matter ends there. In actuality, our responsibilities grow at this point as we then have to deal with what would have happened on our own, and this is too scary for many people these days.
On a different note (E flat to be precise), listen to the 1812 Overture by Tchaikovsky - Awesome in 15 and a half minutes of music.
Friday, September 18, 2009
What is the nature of war.
A recent discussion I've had got me wondering about this. We in Australia are privileged to not have to worry about this in general - out of all the armed conflicts that our military are involved in, we have only had about ten fatalities in the last decade, and most of what we do is in peacekeeping and training rather than actual front line combat; we aren't directly threatened by any imminent fights on our soil; we are allied to many nations that are strong militarily and will protect us even if just to keep trade routes open - by and large, we're fairly safe here from open warfare. And yet, it is something that regularly finds it's way into our news bulletins and papers. It intrudes on our nation's consciousness. Probably our biggest national holiday is the 25 of April, ANZAC day, where we remember one of the most devastating armed conflicts in recent history and the Australians who were there. Out of the top 40 highest grossing movies of all time, 11 of them feature open warfare of some kind, whether it be massive galactic battles or fantasy style sword and shields with cavalry charges. It can't be because war is a good thing; Jimmy Carter said it this way, "No matter how necessary, war is always an evil, never a good". By my reckoning, the only real reason that humanity would spend so much time, money and effort on this base waste of life, is because either we enjoy it, or it is somehow part of the human psyche. I can't think of anyone who enjoys war (except for those so devoid of humanity that we call them sociopaths or psychopaths) so we are left with only doing it because it is part of our nature.
In a small way, you see wars all of the time in nature; predator kills prey being the obvious example, but nothing compared with the violence that humans visit upon one another for nothing more than an idea or an order. The most ruthless murderers are those who kill for their ideas and this is never seen more than in war; look at WWII, the most pitiless murderers were those who killed for the idea of the so-called master race, the Aryans. Now look at the other side of the coin, at the Allies; they often killed for no more than an order - the most lasting peace before armistice was the unofficial Christmas Day truce, where hundreds of thousands of troops on both sides of the war lay down arms for up to a week for no more reason than it was Christmas and they didn't want to fight. In many places they disregarded orders to keep fighting and talked with people who only hours previously had been shooting at them. This then would seem to mean that war is not part of the mind of a normal person. Why then do we persist? Is it just a part of our collective character or is it hardwired into our heads genetically?
We all know of the horrors of war, so I won't go into them. We all know that normal people don't enjoy war, so I won't discuss those who do, or why we don't. I'm going to finish with the words of Adam Roberts, someone not known for his knowledge of war, but for his satirical humour. he says that the end of war isn't peace, "For what is war but struggle? And the opposite of struggle is not peace, but death." His point is that struggle is an integral part of life, regardless of what we do with ourselves.
In a small way, you see wars all of the time in nature; predator kills prey being the obvious example, but nothing compared with the violence that humans visit upon one another for nothing more than an idea or an order. The most ruthless murderers are those who kill for their ideas and this is never seen more than in war; look at WWII, the most pitiless murderers were those who killed for the idea of the so-called master race, the Aryans. Now look at the other side of the coin, at the Allies; they often killed for no more than an order - the most lasting peace before armistice was the unofficial Christmas Day truce, where hundreds of thousands of troops on both sides of the war lay down arms for up to a week for no more reason than it was Christmas and they didn't want to fight. In many places they disregarded orders to keep fighting and talked with people who only hours previously had been shooting at them. This then would seem to mean that war is not part of the mind of a normal person. Why then do we persist? Is it just a part of our collective character or is it hardwired into our heads genetically?
We all know of the horrors of war, so I won't go into them. We all know that normal people don't enjoy war, so I won't discuss those who do, or why we don't. I'm going to finish with the words of Adam Roberts, someone not known for his knowledge of war, but for his satirical humour. he says that the end of war isn't peace, "For what is war but struggle? And the opposite of struggle is not peace, but death." His point is that struggle is an integral part of life, regardless of what we do with ourselves.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Ronin
Those of you who know me might know that I wear a chain. Most of you (and anyone who doesn't know me) will not know what is on it. I'm going to explain what it is and what it means. There are four Japanese characters on it, 四十七士, or forty seven ronin. The Story of the forty seven ronin is the most famous tale of bushido, the Japanese way of the warrior. It happened over the years 1701 and 1703 (as a comparison, more than 80 years before Australia existed as a colony of the UK). It involves a large group of samurai who are left dishonoured after their master is forced to perform Seppuku (ritual suicide) after assaulting a court official, and the way that they try and regain their honour. To do this, they hunted down the court official and killed him. The penalty for this (which they already knew) was death. The problem arose that they followed the rules of bushido by avenging their master (meaning that they had honour), but they broke the law to do it (meaning that they didn't). Court officials decided to allow them to perform seppuku and in doing so, they regained their honour. So the question now rises, why do I, a white man not in a situation anything like the one that they found themselves in, have this on a chain around my neck? There are 4 main reasons.
Before I give you these reasons, you must understand the situation that they were in. After the death of their master, they were dishonoured. This was a major thing for them. It meant that they were untrustworthy, they couldn't get a job as anything related to their experience as a samurai (they would have been able to hire as mercenaries or tradesmen otherwise they were fairly limited to being bandits) and they were all but reviled by everyone.
The first reason that I wear this is to remind myself that honour is an ideal to aspire to. In this tale, there are 47 men who decided that it was better to die for the purpose of gaining honour than to live without it. I mightn't go that far, due to my being able to regain it later through different means or in different circles. However, it is always something to aspire to have. It is probably easier understood as a good reputation, although, it is much stronger than that.
The second reason is to remind myself that patience is a virtue. These guys decided to wait almost two years for this. Those of you who have known me for a while probably know that in the past, I was aggressive with a quick temper. These guys, despite having more reason than I'll probably ever have to get angry waited long enough that their target decided that they weren't a threat and forgot about them. This is a lesson that I'm still trying to learn and probably will be for a long while yet.
The third reason is to remind myself that the needs of my companions may well be outweigh my needs. The leader of the bunch, Ōishi Kuranosuke Yoshio, had to dishonour himself further to cast off suspicion from the rest of the men. To do this, he acted completely unlike a samurai should have. He frequently got drunk and visited geisha houses, once to the extent that the next day he passed out and was completely unable do defend himself from a traveller who insulted him and kicked and spat on his face while he was unconscious. He also divorced his wife so that she wouldn't get in trouble over the affair. This shows an amazing commitment to the cause that he allowed himself to sink below anything that was really permissible in his society in order to let his compatriots to survive without suspicion
The fourth and final reason is to remind myself that there is something greater than myself. For these guys, it was two fold; their honour, and the honour of their master (which they gained by avenging him). For me, it is roughly the same; honour for my Lord and master.
Before I give you these reasons, you must understand the situation that they were in. After the death of their master, they were dishonoured. This was a major thing for them. It meant that they were untrustworthy, they couldn't get a job as anything related to their experience as a samurai (they would have been able to hire as mercenaries or tradesmen otherwise they were fairly limited to being bandits) and they were all but reviled by everyone.
The first reason that I wear this is to remind myself that honour is an ideal to aspire to. In this tale, there are 47 men who decided that it was better to die for the purpose of gaining honour than to live without it. I mightn't go that far, due to my being able to regain it later through different means or in different circles. However, it is always something to aspire to have. It is probably easier understood as a good reputation, although, it is much stronger than that.
The second reason is to remind myself that patience is a virtue. These guys decided to wait almost two years for this. Those of you who have known me for a while probably know that in the past, I was aggressive with a quick temper. These guys, despite having more reason than I'll probably ever have to get angry waited long enough that their target decided that they weren't a threat and forgot about them. This is a lesson that I'm still trying to learn and probably will be for a long while yet.
The third reason is to remind myself that the needs of my companions may well be outweigh my needs. The leader of the bunch, Ōishi Kuranosuke Yoshio, had to dishonour himself further to cast off suspicion from the rest of the men. To do this, he acted completely unlike a samurai should have. He frequently got drunk and visited geisha houses, once to the extent that the next day he passed out and was completely unable do defend himself from a traveller who insulted him and kicked and spat on his face while he was unconscious. He also divorced his wife so that she wouldn't get in trouble over the affair. This shows an amazing commitment to the cause that he allowed himself to sink below anything that was really permissible in his society in order to let his compatriots to survive without suspicion
The fourth and final reason is to remind myself that there is something greater than myself. For these guys, it was two fold; their honour, and the honour of their master (which they gained by avenging him). For me, it is roughly the same; honour for my Lord and master.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Should I get up in the Morning?
I'm not asking the question. I know that the answer is a definitive No without a good reason. I write this because it was a headline that I saw as part of what can be both one of the most amusing and one of the saddest sections of the newspaper - The Horoscope section. As someone who has never taken more than a passing interest in anything related to this I was shocked to find that in a recent study, 31% of Americans asked believed in Astrology and 39% believed it to be scientific. I have to ask the question of these people Why do you think this?
Astrology is the art (not science) of looking at the ghosts of dead stars that live, in the case of Alpha Centauri, 4.37 light years away. Even if it did happen to know something about what was happening tomorrow, we would only find out in approximatly 4 years, 4 months and a week - useless when you read it in the paper for today - and this is the closest star. Others will be telling us many hundreds of years in the future. You then align this with the positions of the planets in our own solar system and you can supposedly find out what is going to happen to all of the population of the world which at the time of writing is 6.95 billion people. This is then split up into groups based on an erroneous calendar system which has changed since all this has started, thus rendering the whole thing pointless any way, and telling us that these groups are going to experience the same sorts of things no matter where they are, what situation they are in and what they were going to be doing. That's a remarkable generality, 579 million people are going to have the same things happen to them within a 24 hour period.
Then you need to realise that the night sky changes over time. Stars shift and what is known today as Orion (the Hunter) may one day be known as one half of the turtle and one half of the duck.
It gets even more ludicrous when you look at different star signs. An example from today. Gemini (my star sign) for the 13th of September 2009 compared with Libra (chosen at random) for the same day.
Gemini: This is a very important work cycle peak, representing new jobs, new positions, new projects, and new goals developing in the surrounding month that will last for the next two years. What you accept, you're stuck with for that time, so choose well. Impact your options, then make your power moves with renewed vigor.
Libra: Knowing what you want and moving on to procure it is the opportunity of the day, and what you fall into now may be just the chance you've been waiting for. Sharing goals and deciding to mutually go for it will be the best of all possible worlds for everybody, with a minimum of conflict resulting later.
My interpretation of both of them: Make wise decisions today
This is very generalised and is good advice for anyone at any time. And this is standard procedure. Around the end of financial year time you see horoscopes saying that you should budget, around Christmas you see horoscopes saying that it's better to give than receive and the list goes on.
Another nail in the coffin comes when you look at different astrologists interpretations of the same pictures. Taurus from the same date taken from astrology.com.au (1) and astrology.com (2).
(1) Desires deceive and getting hold of what's wanted seems to be a continuing and elusive task. Watch out for illusions and delusions being sold as the real thing, and then snatched out of reach just before consummation. If you're unsure, don't invest time or money or you'll be perpetuating the situation.
(2) You are almost certain to hear some good news today -- and you've waited long enough for it! Make sure to express the right amount of gratitude when it starts to flow your way and all will be well.
Interesting that for the same person, the opposite things will happen.
I'd like to finish with my favourite horoscope happening. In order to find out how accurate they actually were, One scientist (name with held) found 1000 volunteers to rate a horoscope which he sent them for a week. All bar 10 said that they were happy with it and would like to keep on receiving them. He sent a letter back to them saying that it would be impossible as it had been specifically written for a person who had since died due to his being on death row, 3 years previously. Which means that what was written for a man in prison three years before still applied to 99% of average Joes from all 12 star signs.
Believable? Scientific? Nope.
Astrology is the art (not science) of looking at the ghosts of dead stars that live, in the case of Alpha Centauri, 4.37 light years away. Even if it did happen to know something about what was happening tomorrow, we would only find out in approximatly 4 years, 4 months and a week - useless when you read it in the paper for today - and this is the closest star. Others will be telling us many hundreds of years in the future. You then align this with the positions of the planets in our own solar system and you can supposedly find out what is going to happen to all of the population of the world which at the time of writing is 6.95 billion people. This is then split up into groups based on an erroneous calendar system which has changed since all this has started, thus rendering the whole thing pointless any way, and telling us that these groups are going to experience the same sorts of things no matter where they are, what situation they are in and what they were going to be doing. That's a remarkable generality, 579 million people are going to have the same things happen to them within a 24 hour period.
Then you need to realise that the night sky changes over time. Stars shift and what is known today as Orion (the Hunter) may one day be known as one half of the turtle and one half of the duck.
It gets even more ludicrous when you look at different star signs. An example from today. Gemini (my star sign) for the 13th of September 2009 compared with Libra (chosen at random) for the same day.
Gemini: This is a very important work cycle peak, representing new jobs, new positions, new projects, and new goals developing in the surrounding month that will last for the next two years. What you accept, you're stuck with for that time, so choose well. Impact your options, then make your power moves with renewed vigor.
Libra: Knowing what you want and moving on to procure it is the opportunity of the day, and what you fall into now may be just the chance you've been waiting for. Sharing goals and deciding to mutually go for it will be the best of all possible worlds for everybody, with a minimum of conflict resulting later.
My interpretation of both of them: Make wise decisions today
This is very generalised and is good advice for anyone at any time. And this is standard procedure. Around the end of financial year time you see horoscopes saying that you should budget, around Christmas you see horoscopes saying that it's better to give than receive and the list goes on.
Another nail in the coffin comes when you look at different astrologists interpretations of the same pictures. Taurus from the same date taken from astrology.com.au (1) and astrology.com (2).
(1) Desires deceive and getting hold of what's wanted seems to be a continuing and elusive task. Watch out for illusions and delusions being sold as the real thing, and then snatched out of reach just before consummation. If you're unsure, don't invest time or money or you'll be perpetuating the situation.
(2) You are almost certain to hear some good news today -- and you've waited long enough for it! Make sure to express the right amount of gratitude when it starts to flow your way and all will be well.
Interesting that for the same person, the opposite things will happen.
I'd like to finish with my favourite horoscope happening. In order to find out how accurate they actually were, One scientist (name with held) found 1000 volunteers to rate a horoscope which he sent them for a week. All bar 10 said that they were happy with it and would like to keep on receiving them. He sent a letter back to them saying that it would be impossible as it had been specifically written for a person who had since died due to his being on death row, 3 years previously. Which means that what was written for a man in prison three years before still applied to 99% of average Joes from all 12 star signs.
Believable? Scientific? Nope.
Music
As someone who has an interest in both music and psychology, I was interested to read an article in a recent Drum Media magazine (a free music magazine based in Sydney). You can check out a couple of write-ups for the study here or here. It appears that some research has been done into the effect that music has on monkeys. It seems that there is only one piece of music that does anything - there may be more, but they might not have checked these. They compared music written specifically based on the calls of the cotton-top tamarin with music written by a range of human composers. The list that they tried out is as follows.
Of Wolf and Man - Metallica
The Grudge - Tool
Adagio for Strings - Samuel Barber
an excerpt from The Fragile - Nine Inch Nails
Metallica reportedly calmed them down.
Apparently they are going to rethink animal husbandry guidelines based on the study. Animal husbandry might not be the issue, the issue might be with the so called common ancestor (still yet to be found since the Indonesian pygmys dubbed Hobbit or Piltdown Man). The only thing that the study has really shown is that monkeys and humans don't think in the same way. Yes the test was far from conclusive (according to what any Yr 7 Science student could tell you, you need a larger test sample) but there was a fair range of music chosen from Metallica's thrash metal style to Tool's almost progressive or heavier trance (in this song) style, all the way to string orchestra with Samuel Barber. With only 1 eliciting any response, statistically, there is almost no 'human' music that they react to and those that they do respond to, they respond to completely differently - I have yet to find anyone who has been relaxed by Metallica.
Just a thought.
Of Wolf and Man - Metallica
The Grudge - Tool
Adagio for Strings - Samuel Barber
an excerpt from The Fragile - Nine Inch Nails
Metallica reportedly calmed them down.
Apparently they are going to rethink animal husbandry guidelines based on the study. Animal husbandry might not be the issue, the issue might be with the so called common ancestor (still yet to be found since the Indonesian pygmys dubbed Hobbit or Piltdown Man). The only thing that the study has really shown is that monkeys and humans don't think in the same way. Yes the test was far from conclusive (according to what any Yr 7 Science student could tell you, you need a larger test sample) but there was a fair range of music chosen from Metallica's thrash metal style to Tool's almost progressive or heavier trance (in this song) style, all the way to string orchestra with Samuel Barber. With only 1 eliciting any response, statistically, there is almost no 'human' music that they react to and those that they do respond to, they respond to completely differently - I have yet to find anyone who has been relaxed by Metallica.
Just a thought.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Politics and Crime
I read a book recently (believe it or not). One of the things that it said was that there had never been "a proud moment in political history. Dictators have risen and fallen. Religious doctrines have ebbed and flowed. Political systems have come and gone." In many respects, I agree.
What is the high point of political history? Do we call it Democracy which is now being foisted onto nations who neither understand it nor need it, and has in fact made their life harder due to almost legitimate insurrections (like Afghanistan or Iraq)? Do I need to remind you of Germany where a man known as Adolf Hitler was appointed high chancellor after winning the vote? or the perversion of the democratic system in the 2000 US elections, where many people where disallowed the vote because they were either ex-convicts or in some cases, shared their name with their father, an ex-convict? or the countless countries that claim to be democratic only to prove that they aren't by either only allowing their citizens to vote one way, or declaring the whole vote void and exiling the leaders of the opposition party who had won (I refer here in particular to the recent Zimbabwean elections)?
Democracy has been called bludgeoning of the people, for the people and by the people, and in many cases it is. Karl Vonnegut once said that "There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president." and this is the other problem.
What about a benign dictatorship like Pakistan which was, between 1999 and 2008, controlled by the military who seized leadership from the government and then ruled better and fairer than the country had experienced before? A dictatorship, no matter how benign can become malignant at the drop of a hat because of the absolute control experienced by the top of the pile. If you disagree, you lose. Interestingly, many westerners will say that a dictatorship is wrong no matter the circumstances. however, in September 2007, BBC featured a Rwandan who was living in Cameroon who asked the question "Is peace and poverty under dictatorship better than bad democracy?" He said that for him, the answer was yes. Not having experienced life in a dictatorship, benign or otherwise, I can't comment on that but it makes sense, at least in my head.
What about a monarchy? A monarchy is essentially a self-perpetuating dictatorship and so the arguments above also refer to this.
What about socialism/communism? In theory, this would be the best system out of the lot - everyone is equal, the people are the actual government, and those who are in the larger demographic are in power, it has real potential for a true people's government. The downfall of this system is the baggage that it carries - all things belong to the state and are shared equally (albeit according to need). This carries with it problems in actuality. Man is inherently greedy and the ones in control, through manipulation of the masses gain power and control. Over time, when you compare them with other forms of government in a capitalist sphere you end up with a situation like the end of animal farm. The pigs started walking on their hind legs and over time, you could look "from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which." Theory and Reality are not siblings, but school friends at the end of their education; unless they work hard, they drift apart until they forget they ever knew each other.
The final major governmental system I would say is a Theocracy (state controlled by the church). This is fine when the god in charge of the system is immutably benign and universally unquestioned in it's power, but when you get a true theocracy this is rarely the case. The god in charge, through his/her clergy decides that it would be a good idea for him/her to gain absolute control of everything through his/her priesthood. This once again gets us back to a dictatorship, this time ruled by an unseen master through the hands of his flawed and often self appointed human agents, who don't always agree. Or, there rises a discontent revolution of people who think that they could do better. One Civil War later, no one is in control and everyone is worse off.
I have deliberately left out anarchy as this is by definition a lack of any government.
I would like to finish with words that apply to all forms of government everywhere. This is taken from the movie V for Vendetta.
What is the high point of political history? Do we call it Democracy which is now being foisted onto nations who neither understand it nor need it, and has in fact made their life harder due to almost legitimate insurrections (like Afghanistan or Iraq)? Do I need to remind you of Germany where a man known as Adolf Hitler was appointed high chancellor after winning the vote? or the perversion of the democratic system in the 2000 US elections, where many people where disallowed the vote because they were either ex-convicts or in some cases, shared their name with their father, an ex-convict? or the countless countries that claim to be democratic only to prove that they aren't by either only allowing their citizens to vote one way, or declaring the whole vote void and exiling the leaders of the opposition party who had won (I refer here in particular to the recent Zimbabwean elections)?
Democracy has been called bludgeoning of the people, for the people and by the people, and in many cases it is. Karl Vonnegut once said that "There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president." and this is the other problem.
What about a benign dictatorship like Pakistan which was, between 1999 and 2008, controlled by the military who seized leadership from the government and then ruled better and fairer than the country had experienced before? A dictatorship, no matter how benign can become malignant at the drop of a hat because of the absolute control experienced by the top of the pile. If you disagree, you lose. Interestingly, many westerners will say that a dictatorship is wrong no matter the circumstances. however, in September 2007, BBC featured a Rwandan who was living in Cameroon who asked the question "Is peace and poverty under dictatorship better than bad democracy?" He said that for him, the answer was yes. Not having experienced life in a dictatorship, benign or otherwise, I can't comment on that but it makes sense, at least in my head.
What about a monarchy? A monarchy is essentially a self-perpetuating dictatorship and so the arguments above also refer to this.
What about socialism/communism? In theory, this would be the best system out of the lot - everyone is equal, the people are the actual government, and those who are in the larger demographic are in power, it has real potential for a true people's government. The downfall of this system is the baggage that it carries - all things belong to the state and are shared equally (albeit according to need). This carries with it problems in actuality. Man is inherently greedy and the ones in control, through manipulation of the masses gain power and control. Over time, when you compare them with other forms of government in a capitalist sphere you end up with a situation like the end of animal farm. The pigs started walking on their hind legs and over time, you could look "from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which." Theory and Reality are not siblings, but school friends at the end of their education; unless they work hard, they drift apart until they forget they ever knew each other.
The final major governmental system I would say is a Theocracy (state controlled by the church). This is fine when the god in charge of the system is immutably benign and universally unquestioned in it's power, but when you get a true theocracy this is rarely the case. The god in charge, through his/her clergy decides that it would be a good idea for him/her to gain absolute control of everything through his/her priesthood. This once again gets us back to a dictatorship, this time ruled by an unseen master through the hands of his flawed and often self appointed human agents, who don't always agree. Or, there rises a discontent revolution of people who think that they could do better. One Civil War later, no one is in control and everyone is worse off.
I have deliberately left out anarchy as this is by definition a lack of any government.
I would like to finish with words that apply to all forms of government everywhere. This is taken from the movie V for Vendetta.
People should not be afraid of their governments.
Governments should be afraid of their people.
Governments should be afraid of their people.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
2 B R 0 2 B
Disclaimer: this post gets morbid
For those of you who are new or don't remember, a few weeks ago, I discussed a short story by Kurt Vonnegut called 2BR02B. I said that I would point out the flaws in this otherwise brilliant narrative. Looking at this short story again, I realised that the only major flaw in it was the premise (which I discussed previously) and so I decided to discuss another part of it - the conclusion that two of the focal characters come to. If you haven't read it, or would like to refresh yourself, here is a link directly to it.
I want to discuss the painter and the father. Both have an interesting response to the idea proposed. First the father. He is the unhappy father of triplets due to the situation I described previously. He says that he would like to keep all of his kids but without finding anyone to die in their place - a natural response. The doctors (although whether they can be called that due to a complete abandonment of the Hippocratic Oath - a creed that doctors are supposed to follow. If you really want to check it out you can do it either here or a modern version here) are sympathetic but stick to the rules brutally while trying to sound nice about it. Here is where the father's response gets interesting. He pulls a revolver out and shoots the two doctors and himself in order that his children may survive. You can approach this response from two angles - either he was being imminently irresponsible and cruel, leaving his children to grow up with no father and with the knowledge that he killed himself and two others so that they could live, or it was an act of both incredible love and anger, love for his children that he didn't want any of them to die and was therefore willing to die in their stead and anger at the system that not only allows such actions, but requires them. My personal way of thinking about his actions is to say that it was an incredible self sacrifice that was ill conceived, but probably not wrong (despite not being right). The problem with it is that there is such a grey area when you start messing with these sorts of things, in the end you have to ask the question 'Are you justified in taking life to save life?' and the answer to that has to be your answer to his situation.
Secondly the painter. He is an old man aged about 200 but looking only 35. He has been commissioned to redecorate the maternity waiting room as a memorial to a man who volunteered to die. He also has a very cynical view on life but doesn't particularly want to die. His personal view is that the splattered dropsheet that he is using is a more accurate picture of the world than the garden that he is painting. His reaction is, in my opinion, more interesting. He despises the whole system and is quite happy to say so. He figures that someday soon he will end it, but he'll do it in his way and in his time. He watches the whole scenario and doesn't say a word. After thinking about it for a while and the only answer to life that he can think of is war, plague and starvation (as an aside, three of the four horse riders of the apocalypse, the fourth being death). He also decides to kill himself there and then using the pistol that has just recently ended the lives of the other people in the room. But he lacks the nerve and ends up calling to make an appointment that day at the 'Sheepdip'. This is really the only logical response to the situation in a strictly humanistic sense. If the only purpose of life is to setup for the next generation, then what is the real purpose of life? Answer in this situation, to have kids and then die.
I think I will have to leave it there before this gets more grim and morbid than it already is. I'll leave you with the final words of the short story. Ask yourself if this is the right response to death.
For those of you who are new or don't remember, a few weeks ago, I discussed a short story by Kurt Vonnegut called 2BR02B. I said that I would point out the flaws in this otherwise brilliant narrative. Looking at this short story again, I realised that the only major flaw in it was the premise (which I discussed previously) and so I decided to discuss another part of it - the conclusion that two of the focal characters come to. If you haven't read it, or would like to refresh yourself, here is a link directly to it.
I want to discuss the painter and the father. Both have an interesting response to the idea proposed. First the father. He is the unhappy father of triplets due to the situation I described previously. He says that he would like to keep all of his kids but without finding anyone to die in their place - a natural response. The doctors (although whether they can be called that due to a complete abandonment of the Hippocratic Oath - a creed that doctors are supposed to follow. If you really want to check it out you can do it either here or a modern version here) are sympathetic but stick to the rules brutally while trying to sound nice about it. Here is where the father's response gets interesting. He pulls a revolver out and shoots the two doctors and himself in order that his children may survive. You can approach this response from two angles - either he was being imminently irresponsible and cruel, leaving his children to grow up with no father and with the knowledge that he killed himself and two others so that they could live, or it was an act of both incredible love and anger, love for his children that he didn't want any of them to die and was therefore willing to die in their stead and anger at the system that not only allows such actions, but requires them. My personal way of thinking about his actions is to say that it was an incredible self sacrifice that was ill conceived, but probably not wrong (despite not being right). The problem with it is that there is such a grey area when you start messing with these sorts of things, in the end you have to ask the question 'Are you justified in taking life to save life?' and the answer to that has to be your answer to his situation.
Secondly the painter. He is an old man aged about 200 but looking only 35. He has been commissioned to redecorate the maternity waiting room as a memorial to a man who volunteered to die. He also has a very cynical view on life but doesn't particularly want to die. His personal view is that the splattered dropsheet that he is using is a more accurate picture of the world than the garden that he is painting. His reaction is, in my opinion, more interesting. He despises the whole system and is quite happy to say so. He figures that someday soon he will end it, but he'll do it in his way and in his time. He watches the whole scenario and doesn't say a word. After thinking about it for a while and the only answer to life that he can think of is war, plague and starvation (as an aside, three of the four horse riders of the apocalypse, the fourth being death). He also decides to kill himself there and then using the pistol that has just recently ended the lives of the other people in the room. But he lacks the nerve and ends up calling to make an appointment that day at the 'Sheepdip'. This is really the only logical response to the situation in a strictly humanistic sense. If the only purpose of life is to setup for the next generation, then what is the real purpose of life? Answer in this situation, to have kids and then die.
I think I will have to leave it there before this gets more grim and morbid than it already is. I'll leave you with the final words of the short story. Ask yourself if this is the right response to death.
"Your city thanks you; your country thanks you; your planet thanks you. But the deepest thanks of all is from future generations."
THE END
Friday, September 4, 2009
Waiting on the world.
Not being someone who listens to the radio often, when I do hear it, I usually listen so I know whats happening with music (something in which I have a particular interest). Also being someone who completely missed the John Mayer boat, hearing one of his songs on the radio is a fairly rare occurrence for me. I heard one last night called Waiting on the World to Change. It was the most passive 'Anti-War' song I have ever heard. Even the title, waiting on the world to change, is more passive than anything that I've heard in the recent past. From there, it didn't get any better either. Yes it did point the finger at those John Mayer felt were most to blame, but then he goes on to say "It's hard to beat the system, when you're standing at a distance, so we keep waiting, waiting on the world to change" Yes, it is hard to beat the system when you're standing at a distance. This is because you're not actually in the fight; it's like trying to win a boxing match when you're not in the ring - impossible.
He also says that "one day our generation, is gonna rule the population". Every generation has said that, and every generation has let the same people back into power. We're currently seeing the so-called hippie generation coming into power, the people who grew up during the 60's and were all for peace, love and freedom - nothing has changed. One of the problems is that the people who run for power are often the people who want power in and of itself and the people who do want to change things usually don't want either the power or the rest of the responsibility that comes with power.
Gandhi said this about the same issue "We need to be the change we wish to see in the world". No successful change has come about by people saying "we need to see if the change we wish to see in the world will happen" because it doesn't invite change. Instead, it invites apathy and stupidity; I don't know which is worse.
Looking around I found a few comments about the song - most of them loved it. One however said essentially what I've said. He was immediately called an 'uneducated naysayer' and told he should stop 'simply hating America'. Critics don't seem to be that worried about being told that though with one calling it 'the most spineless social-justice song ever written', an impressive award when compared with other songs (like 'I still haven't found what I'm looking for' the social-justice song that doesn't promote social justice. It only really says that we haven't found it yet)
I will acknowledge that he has changed the words for a live concert that he did - Live Earth. He changed to words to "we're not waiting on the world to change", a nice touch but one that is useless without actually doing something about it.
He also says that "one day our generation, is gonna rule the population". Every generation has said that, and every generation has let the same people back into power. We're currently seeing the so-called hippie generation coming into power, the people who grew up during the 60's and were all for peace, love and freedom - nothing has changed. One of the problems is that the people who run for power are often the people who want power in and of itself and the people who do want to change things usually don't want either the power or the rest of the responsibility that comes with power.
Gandhi said this about the same issue "We need to be the change we wish to see in the world". No successful change has come about by people saying "we need to see if the change we wish to see in the world will happen" because it doesn't invite change. Instead, it invites apathy and stupidity; I don't know which is worse.
Looking around I found a few comments about the song - most of them loved it. One however said essentially what I've said. He was immediately called an 'uneducated naysayer' and told he should stop 'simply hating America'. Critics don't seem to be that worried about being told that though with one calling it 'the most spineless social-justice song ever written', an impressive award when compared with other songs (like 'I still haven't found what I'm looking for' the social-justice song that doesn't promote social justice. It only really says that we haven't found it yet)
I will acknowledge that he has changed the words for a live concert that he did - Live Earth. He changed to words to "we're not waiting on the world to change", a nice touch but one that is useless without actually doing something about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
