Princess Mononoke // Nausicaa.net: "Set during the Muromachi Period (1333-1568) of Japan, Mononoke Hime is a story about a mystic fight between the Animal Gods of the forest and humans."
This doesn't really do this delightful film justice. Then again, neither did the voicing on the dubbed over American release.
This is an epic heroic fantasy story by writer/director Hayao Miyazaki. His signature plot complexity and visual wierdness delight many but is offputting to some. The story is thematically strong but unusually ambiguous.
Ashitaka is the hero, nobly born, who is mortally wounded defending his remote village from a demon of the forest. He is exiled, not unkindly, by the village elders according to the law of the clan, and Ashitaka goes without complaint into the west to meet his doom, riding his faithful red elk Yakkul.
Ashitaka is told that his cursed wound will certainly kill him, but that he might at least face his fate with courage in the west.
To make a long story short, he comes across "Iron Town", a human stronghold run by the strong and confident Lady Eboshi. There is a long-running struggle between the town and the spirits of the forest: Eboshi wants to cut down the forest and mine the ore of the mountain, and the forest spirits don't want their home destroyed. Complicating matters is the existance of one "Princess Mononoke" who has been raised by the wolf-god and who is not quite all human herself. Ashitaka immediately falls in love with her, and despite a difficult courtship that involves death threats from Mononoke, she ends up feeling the same way.
Ashitaka is a warrior, and, although very reluctant to do so, is able to kick some serious ass. He is fearless, generous, strong, and seems to have a good sense of perspective on things. A good role-model, I think.
Movie Review: Casino Royale (2006)
I find myself not wanting to dwell on this movie any longer than necessary. It haswell-crafted action, but the move towards realism disturbs me. Bond films are always dangerous because they present a hero with extreme positive and negative attributes. My problem is not with the unrealistic action or technology, but with the character construction itself. The movie holds up this man as a hero, imbuing him with impeccable manners and taste in clothing, extraordinary daring, confidence, and fighting ability. They even have him fighting to protect the innocent from harm.
What's there not to like? I find it impossible to believe that a casual killer could remain "good" for long. (It's kind of like in "Lord of the Rings" where to use the One Ring would essentially turn it's wielder into another Sauron.) To associate so many positive qualities with so many negative ones is confusing - is James Bond a role-model or not? The Astin-Martins, impeccable clothing, rich life-style, and beautiful women ensure that audiences will err on the side of "James Bond *is* a role-model". I find that unfortunate.
But this is a man who kills a *lot* of people. Some of them in cold blood. When did assasins and spies - professional liars and killers - become role models?
Previous Bond films (not to mention countless other films in the same vein, especially the Bourne series) all had this same issue. But they also were so over-the-top that it was easy to accept as a cartoon. This latest installment, for the very reasons that the critics seem to laud, blurs that line and becomes more dangerous.
In many other respects the movie shines. Eva Green (of "The Dreamers" fame) is really gorgeous and exudes both with and smoldering sensuality. The action is shot with great skill - especially the opening "Precinct 13" inspired foot chase through a Madagascar construction site.
There is no doubt this will be a big hit. I just hope that people get entertained and think "I'm glad I don't have to be James Bond!" rather than "I really want to be James Bond!"
What's there not to like? I find it impossible to believe that a casual killer could remain "good" for long. (It's kind of like in "Lord of the Rings" where to use the One Ring would essentially turn it's wielder into another Sauron.) To associate so many positive qualities with so many negative ones is confusing - is James Bond a role-model or not? The Astin-Martins, impeccable clothing, rich life-style, and beautiful women ensure that audiences will err on the side of "James Bond *is* a role-model". I find that unfortunate.
But this is a man who kills a *lot* of people. Some of them in cold blood. When did assasins and spies - professional liars and killers - become role models?
Previous Bond films (not to mention countless other films in the same vein, especially the Bourne series) all had this same issue. But they also were so over-the-top that it was easy to accept as a cartoon. This latest installment, for the very reasons that the critics seem to laud, blurs that line and becomes more dangerous.
In many other respects the movie shines. Eva Green (of "The Dreamers" fame) is really gorgeous and exudes both with and smoldering sensuality. The action is shot with great skill - especially the opening "Precinct 13" inspired foot chase through a Madagascar construction site.
There is no doubt this will be a big hit. I just hope that people get entertained and think "I'm glad I don't have to be James Bond!" rather than "I really want to be James Bond!"
Capitalism's good side
Okay, I think it's pretty cool that a golf company paid to have a cosmonaught smack a golf ball from the International Space Station. I mean, why not?
Let's avoid giving too much credit to Iraqi hoodlums
When I read articles like this one I shake my head. "Coordinated attack by insurgents" makes it sound like these peddlers of senseless violence are more than ignorant thugs. I am against using words like "assault" and saying that the "timing is significant". These people are filled with ignorance and hatred and the timing is dictated by the ebb and flow of emotion more likely than not.
The preemptive invasion of Iraq was wrong, but the reaction of the Iraqi people to the overthrow of Saddam has been even more foolish. Instead of accepting billions of dollars of aid (handed to them on a platter curtesy of we American taxpayers) and a helping hand to freedom, they decide that now that daddy's out of the house it's time to play that same game that's held the region back for centuries, but has only recently been given the "American Idol" treatment. The game is called "kill my muslim brother" and now it's done not just for personal hatred, but for kicks and a desire to be famous. The arab world may not embrace western values in general, but they sure have embraced the whole "stardom" thing.
There is no sense in the violence going on; not even bad sense. Iraqis could have made the best out of a bad situation, accepted huge gifts from America (yes, even with some strings), and instead have abandoned all self-restraint to indulge in an orgy of atrocious violence.
Grow up, Iraq. Mohammad would be ashamed of you all.
The preemptive invasion of Iraq was wrong, but the reaction of the Iraqi people to the overthrow of Saddam has been even more foolish. Instead of accepting billions of dollars of aid (handed to them on a platter curtesy of we American taxpayers) and a helping hand to freedom, they decide that now that daddy's out of the house it's time to play that same game that's held the region back for centuries, but has only recently been given the "American Idol" treatment. The game is called "kill my muslim brother" and now it's done not just for personal hatred, but for kicks and a desire to be famous. The arab world may not embrace western values in general, but they sure have embraced the whole "stardom" thing.
There is no sense in the violence going on; not even bad sense. Iraqis could have made the best out of a bad situation, accepted huge gifts from America (yes, even with some strings), and instead have abandoned all self-restraint to indulge in an orgy of atrocious violence.
Grow up, Iraq. Mohammad would be ashamed of you all.
Surveillance, privacy rights, and the 4th Amendment
"Why do you care if we watch you if you have nothing to hide?" This is a tough question to answer, but it's not even clear if this is the right question, or a fair one.
Privacy rights are not mentioned in the Constitution, but it's hard not to take that as the gist of the 4th Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
I think it has something to do with not setting up an antagonistic relationship between the state and the individual. There is a tacit agreement that perfect enforcement of the law is not always desirable. This is, at least in part, the point of Orwell's _1984_. Enforcement should require effort on the part of the state. (This is why I don't like cameras at intersections and why the public would never allow speed monitors on cars (which would automatically deduct cash from your bank account when you cross the speed limit).)
It's not that I think that speeding laws are bad, or even that I shouldn't follow the law. It's just that I am human and I know that means I will make mistakes. The requirement that another fallable human being must be there to pursue 'justice' is a good one - there is a certain balance. It also means that I don't have to live up to a machine's (impossible) standards.
(Interestingly, I would be more in favor of speed-limited cars than automatic fines. At least you're not given the rope to hang yourself with. It would be draconian and wrong, but automatic fines are sneakily evil. It's the state saying "we know you will mess up, and when you do we will profit from your weakness.")
The wiki article on privacy is a good one, but it doesn't specifically address the annoying pro-invasion-of-privacy argument above. The closest it comes is when it says that "information is power, and so information can be used to dominate the individual." But it's not clear in what way.
I need to think some more about this. Ah, here is another article, written in 1890, that is quite lucid. I find it interesting that the technology of concern of that period was the photograph and the newspaper!
Privacy rights are not mentioned in the Constitution, but it's hard not to take that as the gist of the 4th Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
I think it has something to do with not setting up an antagonistic relationship between the state and the individual. There is a tacit agreement that perfect enforcement of the law is not always desirable. This is, at least in part, the point of Orwell's _1984_. Enforcement should require effort on the part of the state. (This is why I don't like cameras at intersections and why the public would never allow speed monitors on cars (which would automatically deduct cash from your bank account when you cross the speed limit).)
It's not that I think that speeding laws are bad, or even that I shouldn't follow the law. It's just that I am human and I know that means I will make mistakes. The requirement that another fallable human being must be there to pursue 'justice' is a good one - there is a certain balance. It also means that I don't have to live up to a machine's (impossible) standards.
(Interestingly, I would be more in favor of speed-limited cars than automatic fines. At least you're not given the rope to hang yourself with. It would be draconian and wrong, but automatic fines are sneakily evil. It's the state saying "we know you will mess up, and when you do we will profit from your weakness.")
The wiki article on privacy is a good one, but it doesn't specifically address the annoying pro-invasion-of-privacy argument above. The closest it comes is when it says that "information is power, and so information can be used to dominate the individual." But it's not clear in what way.
I need to think some more about this. Ah, here is another article, written in 1890, that is quite lucid. I find it interesting that the technology of concern of that period was the photograph and the newspaper!
Zune and the triumph of the Biased Product Review
Zune really isn't that interesting to me: I own an iPod and am fairly happy with it. (It could stand to drive my Sennheiser headphones a bit better, though).
What is interesting is the oppurtunity this affords a biased media, and the revelation that, frankly, the readership doesn't care one way or the other.
Here's a comment about the iLounge Review: "You can call [the review] biased if you want, but like it or not, Jeremy nailed the reality of the current situation right squarely on the head. Great article."
So really, iPod advocates like "lancetx" don't really care about bias as long as they agree with it.
I am bothered more by this irresponsible attitude than any specific position on any specific topic, be they political or technical. Bias is not acceptible whether you agree with it or not. Indeed, agreeable bias should be unacceptable because eventually it weakens an otherwise sound position.
What is interesting is the oppurtunity this affords a biased media, and the revelation that, frankly, the readership doesn't care one way or the other.
Here's a comment about the iLounge Review: "You can call [the review] biased if you want, but like it or not, Jeremy nailed the reality of the current situation right squarely on the head. Great article."
So really, iPod advocates like "lancetx" don't really care about bias as long as they agree with it.
I am bothered more by this irresponsible attitude than any specific position on any specific topic, be they political or technical. Bias is not acceptible whether you agree with it or not. Indeed, agreeable bias should be unacceptable because eventually it weakens an otherwise sound position.
Movie Review: Primer (2004)
Thumbs down for Primer (2004), a science-fiction time travel film. This might suprise people who know me (as it suprised me) as this film has lots of attributes I normally like: hard sf, cerebral, independantly made.
It's been a while since I've seen this film, and I've avoided a review because I couldn't quite figure out why I didn't like it (I'm waiting to review "Borat!" for the same reason). Fundamentally it's because I didn't like the characters. They are too mumbly-clever. They are not circumspect enough. They are embedded in this gedanken-experiment and never look up from the problems assigned to them in their cubicles. They are walking, talking corporate cogs (there's that word again) set to spin in a different sort of box.
This image is reenforced by the omnipresent shirts and ties. That, although friends, the two principle characters are primarily related through commercial relationship. Is it any wonder that this incredible device rips through their already thread-bare relationship and pokes holes in their paper-thin personalities?
I listend to some of the director's commentary to get a better handle on what was intended with this film. Shane Carruth wrote (and directed) this picture to explore how special circumstances can occastion the disintegration of trust between friends. I don't know why he picked garage-inventors, people who, to be frank, don't have a great reputation for trusting others to begin with, and who's motivation is even more greed-based than most. Good heavens, you could strain that sort of relationship by raising the price of gas and have one partner feel resentful that the lab isn't in *his* garage.
I suppose too that there is a lack of range-of-emotion that matches the flat colors of the picture. Cerebral tension and anxiety displace any oppurtunity to display warmer emotion. One of the main characters, Aaron, has a wife and kid who we see once. We never see the effect of increasing strain and anxiety on that relationship.
There is a strong message here, though, and that is: Leave well enough alone! Even if you have the power to do something, sometimes the best thing to do is nothing.
It's been a while since I've seen this film, and I've avoided a review because I couldn't quite figure out why I didn't like it (I'm waiting to review "Borat!" for the same reason). Fundamentally it's because I didn't like the characters. They are too mumbly-clever. They are not circumspect enough. They are embedded in this gedanken-experiment and never look up from the problems assigned to them in their cubicles. They are walking, talking corporate cogs (there's that word again) set to spin in a different sort of box.
This image is reenforced by the omnipresent shirts and ties. That, although friends, the two principle characters are primarily related through commercial relationship. Is it any wonder that this incredible device rips through their already thread-bare relationship and pokes holes in their paper-thin personalities?
I listend to some of the director's commentary to get a better handle on what was intended with this film. Shane Carruth wrote (and directed) this picture to explore how special circumstances can occastion the disintegration of trust between friends. I don't know why he picked garage-inventors, people who, to be frank, don't have a great reputation for trusting others to begin with, and who's motivation is even more greed-based than most. Good heavens, you could strain that sort of relationship by raising the price of gas and have one partner feel resentful that the lab isn't in *his* garage.
I suppose too that there is a lack of range-of-emotion that matches the flat colors of the picture. Cerebral tension and anxiety displace any oppurtunity to display warmer emotion. One of the main characters, Aaron, has a wife and kid who we see once. We never see the effect of increasing strain and anxiety on that relationship.
There is a strong message here, though, and that is: Leave well enough alone! Even if you have the power to do something, sometimes the best thing to do is nothing.
Movie Review: Constantine (2005)
(this review contains spoilers)
Constantine (2005) was quite entertaining, and I found myself really touched by two performances in particular: Tilda Swinton playing Gabriel-gone-awry, and Peter Stormare in a wonderful Satan role. (Keanu Reeves does his normal thing, and Rachael Weisz, looking as gorgeous as usual, phones it in). The rest of the movie is predictable super-natural action.
Stormare's Satan has about 2 minutes of screen time, but he captures the essence of Satan in that one moment when he looks at God. The sadness and loss is palpable on his face. The story of Satan is the ultimate cautionary tale, that of an angel who has badly lost his way, who is so wracked with terrible cravings and emotion that he is forever driven away from the peace and harmony of God. In that one moment when Satan lifts his red-rimmed eyes (due to all-night partying, no doubt) to the Light, Satan as the ultmate evil-doer ultimately deserves our pity.
I've liked Swinton since her turn in the otherwise poor "The Beach". Here, she paints a subtly *wrong* angel Gabriel - and that wrongness is rooted firmly in hubris. It turns out that Gabriel *wants* hell-on-earth because "only when faced with horror does mankind show his nobility." So this is an example of the "we had to destroy the villiage to save it" sort of reasoning. (As an aside, Gabriel is absolutely wrong as nobility can be shown, or not shown, in any circumstance. Hopefully real angels, if they exist, are better thinkers than the script-writers of this movie.)
Swinton exudes a variety of emotion in her too-brief screen time: arrogance, jealousy, a kind of do-gooder superior snideness. She portrays the kind of person (or angel) who is far to certain that they are right, and who suffers for it in the end. (Although, to be fair, it is only the conceit of the storyteller that things end up for the best when Gabriel is thwarted. The author would be within their rights to claim that Gabriel's plan was a good one, one requiring daring and great confidence, and that if successful mankind would indeed be better off spiritually if not materially. I guess my only retort is that such a conceit would *suck*.)
Constantine (2005) was quite entertaining, and I found myself really touched by two performances in particular: Tilda Swinton playing Gabriel-gone-awry, and Peter Stormare in a wonderful Satan role. (Keanu Reeves does his normal thing, and Rachael Weisz, looking as gorgeous as usual, phones it in). The rest of the movie is predictable super-natural action.
Stormare's Satan has about 2 minutes of screen time, but he captures the essence of Satan in that one moment when he looks at God. The sadness and loss is palpable on his face. The story of Satan is the ultimate cautionary tale, that of an angel who has badly lost his way, who is so wracked with terrible cravings and emotion that he is forever driven away from the peace and harmony of God. In that one moment when Satan lifts his red-rimmed eyes (due to all-night partying, no doubt) to the Light, Satan as the ultmate evil-doer ultimately deserves our pity.
I've liked Swinton since her turn in the otherwise poor "The Beach". Here, she paints a subtly *wrong* angel Gabriel - and that wrongness is rooted firmly in hubris. It turns out that Gabriel *wants* hell-on-earth because "only when faced with horror does mankind show his nobility." So this is an example of the "we had to destroy the villiage to save it" sort of reasoning. (As an aside, Gabriel is absolutely wrong as nobility can be shown, or not shown, in any circumstance. Hopefully real angels, if they exist, are better thinkers than the script-writers of this movie.)
Swinton exudes a variety of emotion in her too-brief screen time: arrogance, jealousy, a kind of do-gooder superior snideness. She portrays the kind of person (or angel) who is far to certain that they are right, and who suffers for it in the end. (Although, to be fair, it is only the conceit of the storyteller that things end up for the best when Gabriel is thwarted. The author would be within their rights to claim that Gabriel's plan was a good one, one requiring daring and great confidence, and that if successful mankind would indeed be better off spiritually if not materially. I guess my only retort is that such a conceit would *suck*.)
Monarch of the Glen (painting) - connecting an aristocratic past with a corporate present
Monarch of the Glen is a gorgeous painting. Perhaps watching "The Corporation" leaves me sensitive to such issues, but the fact that this painting is being used as a logo for both Glenfiddich (alchohol) and Hartford Financial Services Group (insurance) strikes me as somehow disturbing.Perhaps I don't understand Landseer's purpose with this piece. It was commissioned to depict "subjects connected with the chase". If I was a landed gentry sipping brandy in the House of Lords gazing on this piece, how on Earth would it inspire me to go out and kill a stag of my own? "My word, what a majestic beast; shall we go out and kill one of our own?" "Old boy, what a capital idea. I shall have my man make the arrangements."
I think the disturbing thing is that it's use as corporate logo fits quite neatly with how *I* see the piece: it is an example of certain fine qualities: strength, vigor, majesty, with perhaps a touch of arrogance but guided by a certain deep wisdom. In addition, the painting is percieved today as quite traditional with strong undertones of conservativism, stability, and reliability.
(Glenfiddich using this princely beast as a logo disturbs me less than Citibank using the Rolling Stones "I'm Free" to sell consumer credit or Cadillac using Led Zeppelin ("Misty Mountain Hop"?) to sell cars.
What's up with those classic rocker sellouts anyway? Gee whiz, it's one thing to have 99% of baby boomer hippies turn Republican, but it's quite another when even their iconic standard bearers sell out to The Man. When Joni Mitchell's "Pave paradise" is used non-ironically in an Caterpillar ad, my disappointment will be complete.)
Note to self: evaluate this product
Servoy - smart technology for smart clients
This was an ad that came up in gmail while I was reading a message about Ruby/Rails. The site certainly looks nice, but I want to evaluate the product, too.
This was an ad that came up in gmail while I was reading a message about Ruby/Rails. The site certainly looks nice, but I want to evaluate the product, too.
Movie Review: The Corporation (2003)
The Corporation is a thought-provoking documentary that brings many disturbing facts to light about the history of the modern corporation, especially corporate abuse of public welfare via "externalities" (side effects of a business transaction that affect people not directly involved; things like pollution).
This was shocking, and I think more people should know this information. However, I disagree with the documentary's assertion that the proper way to deal with this is by using government institutions to exert greater control over corporations.
The way to solve the problem, I think, is to have a perfectly informed customer. In this way, the customer can decide what is important to them. Another good solution is to provide customers with ways to aggregate their concerns: frankly, I think companies would act a lot better if there were more class-action suits.
I have a lot more to say about this movie, especially the irony I felt watching it on my IBM laptop having ordered it through Netflix, and knowing that a "corporation" provided virtually all of Noam Chomsky's wardrobe, the movie cameras, and every technical aspect of the filming. How is it that a man (or woman) who sees a need and creates a product or service to meet that need is not evil and yet when that person creates an organization it becomes evil? Why is the freelance masseuse advertising on craigslist any better than GM or BMW? (In short, they are not: it's just that they are less of a risk; they weild less power and therefore even if they make immoral decisions they will have little effect. Furthermore, they are criminally liable for their 'companies' acts, although it still doesn't address the "externalities" problem. Good heavens, that masseuse is, like, totally polluting when they drive their VW bug to your house, not to mention that VW was Hitler's creation.)
The bottom line: good cautionary info, but bad conclusions. The government is not a magical entity is just like normal people but smarter, more moral, or more effective. It's an organization just like the corporation and in many ways even worse: after being funded, a government has NO accountability, not even to "shareholders".
This was shocking, and I think more people should know this information. However, I disagree with the documentary's assertion that the proper way to deal with this is by using government institutions to exert greater control over corporations.
The way to solve the problem, I think, is to have a perfectly informed customer. In this way, the customer can decide what is important to them. Another good solution is to provide customers with ways to aggregate their concerns: frankly, I think companies would act a lot better if there were more class-action suits.
I have a lot more to say about this movie, especially the irony I felt watching it on my IBM laptop having ordered it through Netflix, and knowing that a "corporation" provided virtually all of Noam Chomsky's wardrobe, the movie cameras, and every technical aspect of the filming. How is it that a man (or woman) who sees a need and creates a product or service to meet that need is not evil and yet when that person creates an organization it becomes evil? Why is the freelance masseuse advertising on craigslist any better than GM or BMW? (In short, they are not: it's just that they are less of a risk; they weild less power and therefore even if they make immoral decisions they will have little effect. Furthermore, they are criminally liable for their 'companies' acts, although it still doesn't address the "externalities" problem. Good heavens, that masseuse is, like, totally polluting when they drive their VW bug to your house, not to mention that VW was Hitler's creation.)
The bottom line: good cautionary info, but bad conclusions. The government is not a magical entity is just like normal people but smarter, more moral, or more effective. It's an organization just like the corporation and in many ways even worse: after being funded, a government has NO accountability, not even to "shareholders".
The definition of magic
What is magic? This question is not just idle speculation, but rests at the heart of understanding our own attitudes towards people who believe (or do not believe) in what is normally considered magical phenomena. This is particularly important for me since I tend to be very anti-magic and have a barely concealed disdain for believers which I am not proud of and endeavor to leave behind. It is not that I think I'm wrong to think that magic is silly, it is that negative emotional reaction that is undignified (not to mention ineffective when trying to persuade others).
This usenet discussion inspired this new tack on an old subject. My approach is motivated by a desire to be more effective rather than some pedantic need to be right, so I would give more emphasis to social aspects.
In my view, the assertion that something is magical implies certain intellectual immobility on the part of the speaker. (It could also asserted for entertainment, but we are limiting ourselves to credulous assertions). They are asserting that the phenomena cannot be explained further, and refuse to even try. This immobility can be caused by laziness or ignorance.
There are plenty of things that science cannot explain: the interior structure of an electron, high-temperature superconductivity, how gravity works at the microscopic level, etc. But there is no scientist worth his salt who would ever say, "this phenomena cannot be probed further, that we have reached the limit of what is knowable". There is immobility at the limits of science, too, but the scientist has the strong intention to push past it, and that makes all the difference.
What sorts of ignorance can sap the drive to know and turn magical? The nature of the ignorance is dependant on the nature of the belief. Perhaps the belief represents some wanted view that gives comfort. Perhaps the belief is held out of fear that one will be harmed if it is not held. I'm sure that you can think of many examples of these sorts of beliefs in the fields of religion, holistic healthcare, and others.
What is interesting (and unique, as far as I know) is that the actual belief doesn't matter: it's the intention behind the belief. One can have a scientific belief in the healing power of crystals, or one can have a magical belief in the healing power of crystals. The former thinks the phenomena is real, can be measured, and probably has some explanation which is consistent with the rest of science. That latter believes the phenomena is "real", but does not think it can be measured or explained (and indeed would probably prefer if it didn't).
There is a very subtle argument in favor of magical belief, which is that such beliefs can have real positive impact. For example, if you believe that a talisman has some protective power over you, and this helps you to ride a motorcycle with confidence. It is well known that confident riders are less likely to crash. So what's the problem with this belief?
Honestly, there is no big problem with it. There are potentially small problems: perhaps the person has unjustified confidence, perhpas they loose the talisman, etc. But such a belief is harmless and in fact might do some good.
What about the case of a healing crystal? Someone with a magical belief in the crystal my find it helpful to have an external reminder of positive emotions that are well-known to be actually healing. The difference here is that some disease is going on, and the crystal will have a positive mental effect on the believer, but the disease will remain mostly unaffected (good spirits boosting the immune system aside). There is a great possibility of harm here.
What about the case of the devout Christian? He has the magical belief that Jesus died for his sins, and that if he doesn't accept Jesus as the savior that he will spend eternity in hell. Again, in and of itself there is no great harm here. But there is harm when this devout Christian seeks to force others to share his belief "for their own good".
What about the case of the snake oil merchant? He himself does not have a magical or scientific belief in the efficacy of his wares, but knows that his customers do. He realizes that in order to be effective (and profitable) he must decieve his customers and tell them that this oil has certain properties. The positive mental attitude kicks in, and some of his claims become true simply because he made the claim and was believed. Where is the harm here?
Deception is wrong, of course, but that's just the beginning of the harm. The simple fact is there is a limit to how much healing one person can affect via positive mental attitude. This places a strict limit on the snake oil merchant's claims. So as long as he stays within that limit, there is little harm. Once he makes outlandish claims that are easily checked, he runs into trouble.
The mechanism that complicates this is that the salesman might claim that it didn't work because of some failing of the customer. Or that they need to buy more of the oil, and believe harder. In the end, this helps the snake oil salesman make a living off of the sick yet credulous people of his community. This is, of course, despicable, and it's why the meeting place between spirituality and commerce is such a tricky place.
I believe there is magic in the world. We do magic every day when we create intricate machines that actually work, and when we organize our thoughts and create artwork. That I can concieve of something and then create it, using an understanding of the laws of nature and working with them patiently and persistently: how is this not magical? We live in a world which is elegant and beautiful in every respect. To work with it, shape it, understand it is to unveil ever more intricate magic. I think if more people understood this remarkable universe they would be too busy getting excited and poking around nature to have time to visit the snake oil salesman. Well, perhaps they would go to him and ask him if he'd like to participate in a clinical trial, at which point he would almost certainly move on to another town. :)
This usenet discussion inspired this new tack on an old subject. My approach is motivated by a desire to be more effective rather than some pedantic need to be right, so I would give more emphasis to social aspects.
In my view, the assertion that something is magical implies certain intellectual immobility on the part of the speaker. (It could also asserted for entertainment, but we are limiting ourselves to credulous assertions). They are asserting that the phenomena cannot be explained further, and refuse to even try. This immobility can be caused by laziness or ignorance.
There are plenty of things that science cannot explain: the interior structure of an electron, high-temperature superconductivity, how gravity works at the microscopic level, etc. But there is no scientist worth his salt who would ever say, "this phenomena cannot be probed further, that we have reached the limit of what is knowable". There is immobility at the limits of science, too, but the scientist has the strong intention to push past it, and that makes all the difference.
What sorts of ignorance can sap the drive to know and turn magical? The nature of the ignorance is dependant on the nature of the belief. Perhaps the belief represents some wanted view that gives comfort. Perhaps the belief is held out of fear that one will be harmed if it is not held. I'm sure that you can think of many examples of these sorts of beliefs in the fields of religion, holistic healthcare, and others.
What is interesting (and unique, as far as I know) is that the actual belief doesn't matter: it's the intention behind the belief. One can have a scientific belief in the healing power of crystals, or one can have a magical belief in the healing power of crystals. The former thinks the phenomena is real, can be measured, and probably has some explanation which is consistent with the rest of science. That latter believes the phenomena is "real", but does not think it can be measured or explained (and indeed would probably prefer if it didn't).
There is a very subtle argument in favor of magical belief, which is that such beliefs can have real positive impact. For example, if you believe that a talisman has some protective power over you, and this helps you to ride a motorcycle with confidence. It is well known that confident riders are less likely to crash. So what's the problem with this belief?
Honestly, there is no big problem with it. There are potentially small problems: perhaps the person has unjustified confidence, perhpas they loose the talisman, etc. But such a belief is harmless and in fact might do some good.
What about the case of a healing crystal? Someone with a magical belief in the crystal my find it helpful to have an external reminder of positive emotions that are well-known to be actually healing. The difference here is that some disease is going on, and the crystal will have a positive mental effect on the believer, but the disease will remain mostly unaffected (good spirits boosting the immune system aside). There is a great possibility of harm here.
What about the case of the devout Christian? He has the magical belief that Jesus died for his sins, and that if he doesn't accept Jesus as the savior that he will spend eternity in hell. Again, in and of itself there is no great harm here. But there is harm when this devout Christian seeks to force others to share his belief "for their own good".
What about the case of the snake oil merchant? He himself does not have a magical or scientific belief in the efficacy of his wares, but knows that his customers do. He realizes that in order to be effective (and profitable) he must decieve his customers and tell them that this oil has certain properties. The positive mental attitude kicks in, and some of his claims become true simply because he made the claim and was believed. Where is the harm here?
Deception is wrong, of course, but that's just the beginning of the harm. The simple fact is there is a limit to how much healing one person can affect via positive mental attitude. This places a strict limit on the snake oil merchant's claims. So as long as he stays within that limit, there is little harm. Once he makes outlandish claims that are easily checked, he runs into trouble.
The mechanism that complicates this is that the salesman might claim that it didn't work because of some failing of the customer. Or that they need to buy more of the oil, and believe harder. In the end, this helps the snake oil salesman make a living off of the sick yet credulous people of his community. This is, of course, despicable, and it's why the meeting place between spirituality and commerce is such a tricky place.
I believe there is magic in the world. We do magic every day when we create intricate machines that actually work, and when we organize our thoughts and create artwork. That I can concieve of something and then create it, using an understanding of the laws of nature and working with them patiently and persistently: how is this not magical? We live in a world which is elegant and beautiful in every respect. To work with it, shape it, understand it is to unveil ever more intricate magic. I think if more people understood this remarkable universe they would be too busy getting excited and poking around nature to have time to visit the snake oil salesman. Well, perhaps they would go to him and ask him if he'd like to participate in a clinical trial, at which point he would almost certainly move on to another town. :)
Costco SanDisk 1GB Ultra II Secure Digital PLUS USB 2.0 Flash Drive
Costco SanDisk 1GB Ultra II Secure Digital PLUS USB 2.0 Flash Drive: "combines USB and SD functionality in a single card" via a hinged lid.
This is handy for digital cameras (being able to download anywhere) and for ultraportables with only SD slots, like my X41 - this is an ideal "sneakernet" device. It's better than a thumb drive for the simple fact that it doesn't "stick out" and could stay in the computer until needed.
This is handy for digital cameras (being able to download anywhere) and for ultraportables with only SD slots, like my X41 - this is an ideal "sneakernet" device. It's better than a thumb drive for the simple fact that it doesn't "stick out" and could stay in the computer until needed.
2GB Stainless Steel USB Watch Drive
This is a cool product. The Edge™ 2GB Stainless Steel USB Watch Drive is a sharp looking watch with a secret: there's a USB drive in there. One could store things like private keys, important documents, or software that is useful to have (perhaps a bootable knoppix image?)
Voice of the Beehive "Honey Lingers"
I forgot about this album Honey Lingers: Music: Voice of the Beehive from 1991 but it has influenced my ear for pop. It is quite listenable, if a bit sweet for my tastes these days. The instrumentation definitely makes me smile. (I ran into a bootleg recording while mastering some old cassette tapes. I had completely forgotten that this band exists.)
Hard to believe it's been 15 years since this albums release.
Hard to believe it's been 15 years since this albums release.
Of mornings
This morning it struck me how like to birth the morning is. Perhaps that is why people are so friendly in the morning - the night has washed away a layer of memory, early dew has perhaps washed away a layer of grime. The day is young, unformed, full of promise, waiting to be shaped.
A corallary to the simile is that the evening is like to death. I feel a reluctance to draw this parallel because death has some very negative associations with evil in this culture. But honesty compels me to do so; and perhaps some of the positive aspects of death can be explored. "Cessation" is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. Consider the cessation of pain, or the disappation of a toxic spill.
Indeed, one could say that the little oblivion that the night and sleep provide is the basis of early morning joy. "Ignorance is bliss" is often said ironically, but there is a hint of truth to it. A good rest gives a particular kind of wholesome "ignorance" - the ability to ignore our desires and fears to see the past for what it is, a useful store of information which is static and passive.
To claim that the morning is better than the evening seems silly when you understand their interdependancy. What does this imply about birth and death?
A corallary to the simile is that the evening is like to death. I feel a reluctance to draw this parallel because death has some very negative associations with evil in this culture. But honesty compels me to do so; and perhaps some of the positive aspects of death can be explored. "Cessation" is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. Consider the cessation of pain, or the disappation of a toxic spill.
Indeed, one could say that the little oblivion that the night and sleep provide is the basis of early morning joy. "Ignorance is bliss" is often said ironically, but there is a hint of truth to it. A good rest gives a particular kind of wholesome "ignorance" - the ability to ignore our desires and fears to see the past for what it is, a useful store of information which is static and passive.
To claim that the morning is better than the evening seems silly when you understand their interdependancy. What does this imply about birth and death?
Kerry Please just Go Away Now
Kerry Apologizes for Iraq Remark - New York Times: "At the rally, Mr. Kerry said: 'You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.'"
A bit steamed
I'm a bit steamed after being told I failed a screening test on the Java language. The employer shall remain nameless. But I wanted to recount some interesting thoughts about this.
First, getting steamed is never the right move. It might be understandable, even expected, but it's wrong. At the very least it makes life momentarily unpleasent for the irritated person.
I got steamed because I was told I had to do "a little better" before I would be considered for the position. In other words, I failed. It never feels good to fail, and I think I was partly angry over that simple fact. But...
This test was extremely odd. It tested very edge-casey aspects of the Java language and Java Virtual Machine. It tested wierd stuff that I've never had reason to look at. Interesting stuff.
Interesting yes, but useful in picking out "senior Java developers?" I have my doubts, and that's another reason why I got steamed - thatI failed a test that didn't measure what the position actually requires.
Of course, that is the folly of the employer, not me. So why should I be steamed?
Really, it's because I don't like to fail, because I don't want to see myself as a failure. I am attached to my image as a senior Java developer, and if someone says that's not what I am, then I get angry at that someone and suggest there is something wrong with *them*.
This is not uncommon, or unusual, but it is unhealthy. Let's say that they are wrong: it does much less good to point out a flaw in anger than to point out a flaw with a genuine spirit of helpfulness and dare I say, humility.
What I would like is for a developer from that employer to contact me and explain how the knowledge tested is applicable in a real-world situation. That would be very useful to me, because, astonishingly, there might be real gaps in my knowledge that might impact the quality of my work. And if there is no such explaination (which I strongly suspect!) then I know that there is something amiss with the nameless employer, and not with me. In any event there is no occasion for anger.
Lessons learned: it hurts to be humble, it takes control, but do it anyway. Humility is especially powerful when you are right. Anger, even (especially?) rightous anger, is never useful. It blinds you to oppurtunities in an otherwise unwanted situation.
First, getting steamed is never the right move. It might be understandable, even expected, but it's wrong. At the very least it makes life momentarily unpleasent for the irritated person.
I got steamed because I was told I had to do "a little better" before I would be considered for the position. In other words, I failed. It never feels good to fail, and I think I was partly angry over that simple fact. But...
This test was extremely odd. It tested very edge-casey aspects of the Java language and Java Virtual Machine. It tested wierd stuff that I've never had reason to look at. Interesting stuff.
Interesting yes, but useful in picking out "senior Java developers?" I have my doubts, and that's another reason why I got steamed - thatI failed a test that didn't measure what the position actually requires.
Of course, that is the folly of the employer, not me. So why should I be steamed?
Really, it's because I don't like to fail, because I don't want to see myself as a failure. I am attached to my image as a senior Java developer, and if someone says that's not what I am, then I get angry at that someone and suggest there is something wrong with *them*.
This is not uncommon, or unusual, but it is unhealthy. Let's say that they are wrong: it does much less good to point out a flaw in anger than to point out a flaw with a genuine spirit of helpfulness and dare I say, humility.
What I would like is for a developer from that employer to contact me and explain how the knowledge tested is applicable in a real-world situation. That would be very useful to me, because, astonishingly, there might be real gaps in my knowledge that might impact the quality of my work. And if there is no such explaination (which I strongly suspect!) then I know that there is something amiss with the nameless employer, and not with me. In any event there is no occasion for anger.
Lessons learned: it hurts to be humble, it takes control, but do it anyway. Humility is especially powerful when you are right. Anger, even (especially?) rightous anger, is never useful. It blinds you to oppurtunities in an otherwise unwanted situation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)