what the hell does that even mean
Heard this on the end of the episodes on Season 2 Deadwood, and went out and got it through the magic of interwebs. Now can't stop listening to it. Blog deserves more attention, which I'm hoping to remedy beginning with this
Madeleine Peyroux - A Prayer
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Monday, August 17, 2009
Oh he's one of those
yeah he's of those alright
While I look over this whole healthcare business and ponder whether I want to write some kind of thing about things, I came across this guy. He's one of those sickening intelligent people who come from sickeningly intelligent families who consistently write sickeningly smart, insightful things about their areas of expertise, in his case being public health (reminds me of the Huxleys and the Darwins, actually). Seriously, if you want a decent grip on a lot of healthcare issues, just read his New Yorker stuff. Obama reportedly ordered The Cost Conundrum to become required reading in The White House; his excellent piece of how heathcare reform was passed in various places in the world is engrossing with all sorts of historical tidbits; and as for horror, one either has the abstract (his piece on on how extended solitary confinement could be constituted as cruel and inhuman punishment, or even outright torture) or the visceral, to wit on itching. No kidding. Some seriously fucked up horror movie shit in there:
While I look over this whole healthcare business and ponder whether I want to write some kind of thing about things, I came across this guy. He's one of those sickening intelligent people who come from sickeningly intelligent families who consistently write sickeningly smart, insightful things about their areas of expertise, in his case being public health (reminds me of the Huxleys and the Darwins, actually). Seriously, if you want a decent grip on a lot of healthcare issues, just read his New Yorker stuff. Obama reportedly ordered The Cost Conundrum to become required reading in The White House; his excellent piece of how heathcare reform was passed in various places in the world is engrossing with all sorts of historical tidbits; and as for horror, one either has the abstract (his piece on on how extended solitary confinement could be constituted as cruel and inhuman punishment, or even outright torture) or the visceral, to wit on itching. No kidding. Some seriously fucked up horror movie shit in there:
One morning, after she was awakened by her bedside alarm, she sat up and, she recalled, “this fluid came down my face, this greenish liquid.” She pressed a square of gauze to her head and went to see her doctor again. M. showed the doctor the fluid on the dressing. The doctor looked closely at the wound. She shined a light on it and in M.’s eyes. Then she walked out of the room and called an ambulance. Only in the Emergency Department at Massachusetts General Hospital, after the doctors started swarming, and one told her she needed surgery now, did M. learn what had happened. She had scratched through her skull during the night—and all the way into her brain.Now try going to sleep.
...
“The guy next to you?” I asked. He had had shingles on his neck, she explained, and also developed a persistent itch. “Every night, they would wrap up his hands and wrap up mine.” She spoke more softly now. “But I heard he ended up dying from it, because he scratched into his carotid artery.”
Sunday, August 09, 2009
Comeex
how many alternate spellings are there
A quick mini-review of Understanding Comics: it's good and you should probably read it, if you're interested in these whole pictures and words business. It's pretty straightforward stuff (atleast to me, and I figure to anyone moderately intelligent and interested in the medium), and pretty well set out in terms of being a comic talking about comics. He's making a case, and not stating 'facts' per se, and there's plenty to argue and cuss and debate over. Actually, some of the most interesting material of the book is the historical analysis of comics, of the evolution and what factors (economic, social, technological, etc) ended up shaping comics into what they are today. The material on iconography, art history, styles of comic creation are also quite good as well. Plus, well-written and a breeze to read.
Feel free to disagree as vociferously as you wish regarding the Six Steps business.
Anyway, I'm going to be much more blase, and offer two what are really quite superficial observations regarding the whole reading/understanding comics criticism, especially in relation to storytelling.
Comics allow two useful improvements in storytelling:
1. The shortcutting or fast-tracking of storytelling. Basically, this is a general variation of the idea that 'a picture is worth a thousand words'. Why tell when you can show? Words are cumbersome and laborious to read and process; pictures provide a much more primal method of understanding and greatly simplify the storytelling process. Note: I'm not saying here that you're going to get some kind of perfect one to one correspondence between what you want to say and what the reader understands using pictures, but that rather, the scope for communication is sped up, if only a little bit.
2. The amplification or expansion of storytelling. By using pictures, storytellers can spend far less time setting the scene, and use the readers precious attention span and mental energy involved in what they want the reader to pay attention to. The use of pictures allows for expanding the imaginative frame that storytellers wish to express and explore. Changes in plot, scene, dialogue or other technical aspects of storytelling that would be disorientating in novels or prose can be portrayed without confusing or frustrating the reader (obviously, within limits).
A quick note about abstract concepts in comics: abstract concepts are much harder to represent within comics, precisely because they are abstract (duh). We can all (well, almost all) readily form mental images of specific, concrete concepts such as 'tree' or 'car' or 'door', though obviously our exact representations of those concepts will differ. But what about 'justice' or 'beauty' or 'deconstructionism'? Obviously, there's a shared cultural symbology that can be represented, such as Lady Justice, or Michangelo's David or Derrida. But we're not going to say that that is justice itself, or that is beauty itself or deconstructionism itself (though I feel that some may disagree with me on the latter). This is a basic problem why there's a general lack of comics that tackle abstract concepts all that much (however, big mentions should be made with regards to both Scott McClouds efforts, and the entire Introducing/For Beginners series of books. Again, there's a caveat, in that both those works are quite word-heavy, and very tightly written.)
Now, i'll end this here, lest the vampire hordes of Platonists/neo-Platonists/Postmodernists/Baudrillardians attack me for my sloppy, sloppy reasoning (and tell me that all representation is futile or something along those lines). Although you'd think they'd like that kind of reasoning...(ho ho, I jest. But seriously, some of your ilk is giving you guys a bad rap. I'd look into it.)
A quick mini-review of Understanding Comics: it's good and you should probably read it, if you're interested in these whole pictures and words business. It's pretty straightforward stuff (atleast to me, and I figure to anyone moderately intelligent and interested in the medium), and pretty well set out in terms of being a comic talking about comics. He's making a case, and not stating 'facts' per se, and there's plenty to argue and cuss and debate over. Actually, some of the most interesting material of the book is the historical analysis of comics, of the evolution and what factors (economic, social, technological, etc) ended up shaping comics into what they are today. The material on iconography, art history, styles of comic creation are also quite good as well. Plus, well-written and a breeze to read.
Feel free to disagree as vociferously as you wish regarding the Six Steps business.
Anyway, I'm going to be much more blase, and offer two what are really quite superficial observations regarding the whole reading/understanding comics criticism, especially in relation to storytelling.
Comics allow two useful improvements in storytelling:
1. The shortcutting or fast-tracking of storytelling. Basically, this is a general variation of the idea that 'a picture is worth a thousand words'. Why tell when you can show? Words are cumbersome and laborious to read and process; pictures provide a much more primal method of understanding and greatly simplify the storytelling process. Note: I'm not saying here that you're going to get some kind of perfect one to one correspondence between what you want to say and what the reader understands using pictures, but that rather, the scope for communication is sped up, if only a little bit.
2. The amplification or expansion of storytelling. By using pictures, storytellers can spend far less time setting the scene, and use the readers precious attention span and mental energy involved in what they want the reader to pay attention to. The use of pictures allows for expanding the imaginative frame that storytellers wish to express and explore. Changes in plot, scene, dialogue or other technical aspects of storytelling that would be disorientating in novels or prose can be portrayed without confusing or frustrating the reader (obviously, within limits).
A quick note about abstract concepts in comics: abstract concepts are much harder to represent within comics, precisely because they are abstract (duh). We can all (well, almost all) readily form mental images of specific, concrete concepts such as 'tree' or 'car' or 'door', though obviously our exact representations of those concepts will differ. But what about 'justice' or 'beauty' or 'deconstructionism'? Obviously, there's a shared cultural symbology that can be represented, such as Lady Justice, or Michangelo's David or Derrida. But we're not going to say that that is justice itself, or that is beauty itself or deconstructionism itself (though I feel that some may disagree with me on the latter). This is a basic problem why there's a general lack of comics that tackle abstract concepts all that much (however, big mentions should be made with regards to both Scott McClouds efforts, and the entire Introducing/For Beginners series of books. Again, there's a caveat, in that both those works are quite word-heavy, and very tightly written.)
Now, i'll end this here, lest the vampire hordes of Platonists/neo-Platonists/Postmodernists/Baudrillardians attack me for my sloppy, sloppy reasoning (and tell me that all representation is futile or something along those lines). Although you'd think they'd like that kind of reasoning...(ho ho, I jest. But seriously, some of your ilk is giving you guys a bad rap. I'd look into it.)
This is probably not exactly what I should be doing
far too seriously
I've had barely 4 days to decompress and process an aptly self-described epic journey across the United States, and yet here I am already looking at gigs that are happening in the short-term future. So with apparently the foolish intention that I wish to supplant A Reminder, here's a quick perfunctory gigroll of interesting acts coming up:
In what looks to be a great double-billing (if you like the bands involved, and there is quite a bit of overlap in these two) The Lucksmiths are playing their final farewell show with Darren Hanlon on the 21st of August at The Factory. With tickets $22ish, this looks to be a very good deal, and most likely going to sell out. Advise to buy now.
Rather oddly, The Sydney Symphony is playing the music of Star Trek, along with clips of highlights from all eleven Star Trek movies. At the Opera House, for two nights only, on the 4th and the 5th of September.
You should all know by now that Malkmus is playing on the 22nd of September at the Metro.
Good news: Metric are coming to Australia for their first time. Bad news: It's at Parklife, and they are no announced sideshows. This is going to be one of those quandrys that i'm going to be slowly gnawed by frustration over, as Parklife actually has a decentish line-up this year: Empire of the Sun, Metric, Junior Boys, The Rapture, Lady Sov, and a few decent second-tier acts, MSTRKRFT, Crystal Castles, etc. But unfortunately, Parklife also tends towards a preponderance of irritatingly stupid pill-popping douchebags with oversized sunglasses and way too much fluoro (which by the way, any quantity more than zero is too much). Tickets are also pricey, as they've always been. Sidenote: Have web designers learned by now not to fucking autoplay music when you enter a site? And compound the problem by not having an easy way to turn it off? I have my own music to listen to, douchebag, and if I wanted to listen to yours, i'd turn it on. Now, you've just gone and pissed me off and close your website altogether. So DON'T DO IT
With what looks to be one of the most hyped unannounced gigs ever, Animal Collective are coming back to Australia. With over a hundred people attending a gig that theoretically does not exist yet, this does look to be a "massive hipstergasm". 11th December, at the Enmore Theatre, if last.fm is to be believed.
The music festival you should go to atleast once: Meredith is back for its 19th year. The first round ballot is now open to existing subscribers, with later ballots, online presales and what is dubbed enigmatically, "Aunty's last chance". What's surprising about Meredith, and argubly attests to its popularity, is that Meredith has not announced a single act in its lineup (Animal Collective are strongly rumoured to show up, despite the fact that they're rumoured to be playing a gig in Sydney on the first night of the festival). In one of those rare instances, its popularity may in fact be justified by quality; in addition to post solidly entertaining line-ups (past performers have included Final Fantasy, Augie March, The Avalanches and The Shins), they have lots of fun attractions (YURTS) and sensible policies (you can bring your own liquor!) From 11-13th of December, Meredith. Ticket prices have not been announced yet, but are most likely going to be quite dear.
It is too damn cold at 5.30 in the morning. This post took me over an hour to compile which is far too long. My sleep cycles are being completely fucked up by too much drinking, too much late-night staying up, not enough sleep, never enough coffee and weird-ass jetlag. I'll post something on comics soon, being inspired by both Scott McCloud and my drunken (embarrasingly one-sided, I suspect) ramblings with Matt.
I've had barely 4 days to decompress and process an aptly self-described epic journey across the United States, and yet here I am already looking at gigs that are happening in the short-term future. So with apparently the foolish intention that I wish to supplant A Reminder, here's a quick perfunctory gigroll of interesting acts coming up:
In what looks to be a great double-billing (if you like the bands involved, and there is quite a bit of overlap in these two) The Lucksmiths are playing their final farewell show with Darren Hanlon on the 21st of August at The Factory. With tickets $22ish, this looks to be a very good deal, and most likely going to sell out. Advise to buy now.
Rather oddly, The Sydney Symphony is playing the music of Star Trek, along with clips of highlights from all eleven Star Trek movies. At the Opera House, for two nights only, on the 4th and the 5th of September.
You should all know by now that Malkmus is playing on the 22nd of September at the Metro.
Good news: Metric are coming to Australia for their first time. Bad news: It's at Parklife, and they are no announced sideshows. This is going to be one of those quandrys that i'm going to be slowly gnawed by frustration over, as Parklife actually has a decentish line-up this year: Empire of the Sun, Metric, Junior Boys, The Rapture, Lady Sov, and a few decent second-tier acts, MSTRKRFT, Crystal Castles, etc. But unfortunately, Parklife also tends towards a preponderance of irritatingly stupid pill-popping douchebags with oversized sunglasses and way too much fluoro (which by the way, any quantity more than zero is too much). Tickets are also pricey, as they've always been. Sidenote: Have web designers learned by now not to fucking autoplay music when you enter a site? And compound the problem by not having an easy way to turn it off? I have my own music to listen to, douchebag, and if I wanted to listen to yours, i'd turn it on. Now, you've just gone and pissed me off and close your website altogether. So DON'T DO IT
With what looks to be one of the most hyped unannounced gigs ever, Animal Collective are coming back to Australia. With over a hundred people attending a gig that theoretically does not exist yet, this does look to be a "massive hipstergasm". 11th December, at the Enmore Theatre, if last.fm is to be believed.
The music festival you should go to atleast once: Meredith is back for its 19th year. The first round ballot is now open to existing subscribers, with later ballots, online presales and what is dubbed enigmatically, "Aunty's last chance". What's surprising about Meredith, and argubly attests to its popularity, is that Meredith has not announced a single act in its lineup (Animal Collective are strongly rumoured to show up, despite the fact that they're rumoured to be playing a gig in Sydney on the first night of the festival). In one of those rare instances, its popularity may in fact be justified by quality; in addition to post solidly entertaining line-ups (past performers have included Final Fantasy, Augie March, The Avalanches and The Shins), they have lots of fun attractions (YURTS) and sensible policies (you can bring your own liquor!) From 11-13th of December, Meredith. Ticket prices have not been announced yet, but are most likely going to be quite dear.
It is too damn cold at 5.30 in the morning. This post took me over an hour to compile which is far too long. My sleep cycles are being completely fucked up by too much drinking, too much late-night staying up, not enough sleep, never enough coffee and weird-ass jetlag. I'll post something on comics soon, being inspired by both Scott McCloud and my drunken (embarrasingly one-sided, I suspect) ramblings with Matt.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Your country needs you!
To help me decide my consumption decisions
So, cause I have decided to buy some comics, you can help! Given that these comics will probably reach you at some point in the future, it's advisable to help. I've got a shortlist of sorts, but feel free to add anything you think might be great. Arguments for and against will also be taken into consideration. Here's my what I can think of the top of my head shortlist:
Earth X
Final Crisis
Blankets
Astonishing X-Men (the Joss Whedon run, namely)
Obviously, i'm leaning towards complete works/complete collections of works, but i'm amenable to other things if they are suitably awesome. If no one helps, I will be vewy sad :(
And no one gets anything. It's like an ultimatum...game. Or not. Go nuts! Reader participation is gr-r-reat. For the record: Frosty Flakes - not that great.
So, cause I have decided to buy some comics, you can help! Given that these comics will probably reach you at some point in the future, it's advisable to help. I've got a shortlist of sorts, but feel free to add anything you think might be great. Arguments for and against will also be taken into consideration. Here's my what I can think of the top of my head shortlist:
Earth X
Final Crisis
Blankets
Astonishing X-Men (the Joss Whedon run, namely)
Obviously, i'm leaning towards complete works/complete collections of works, but i'm amenable to other things if they are suitably awesome. If no one helps, I will be vewy sad :(
And no one gets anything. It's like an ultimatum...game. Or not. Go nuts! Reader participation is gr-r-reat. For the record: Frosty Flakes - not that great.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Visions of tunnels and scenes from caves, etc
meditations, etc
As you may have already deduced, i've semi/kinda/sorta decided on not giving you a strictly chronological travelogue diary type thing, and doing the whole random thoughts on a topic thing. So basically, i'm going to keep doing exactly what i've been doing on this blog the entire time, except with more seed thoughts in the form of traveling that i'm doing. With that disclosed, consider this:
You know when you've lost control of your Greader? When you see updates and feeds that you have no idea what they're about. You can't remember when you subscribed to them or what they are or why you subscribed to it. It's official, I can't even control my Greader binges.
My name is Rishi, and I'm a greadaholic.
As you may have already deduced, i've semi/kinda/sorta decided on not giving you a strictly chronological travelogue diary type thing, and doing the whole random thoughts on a topic thing. So basically, i'm going to keep doing exactly what i've been doing on this blog the entire time, except with more seed thoughts in the form of traveling that i'm doing. With that disclosed, consider this:
You know when you've lost control of your Greader? When you see updates and feeds that you have no idea what they're about. You can't remember when you subscribed to them or what they are or why you subscribed to it. It's official, I can't even control my Greader binges.
My name is Rishi, and I'm a greadaholic.
Look at this face
Can you tell I am excited?
Because I am. Oh so excited.
Actually, enough of whatever the hell emotion that is. I am actually extremely extremely excited. Seriously!
I'm going to be back home soon (next week folks! Ready the standard celebratory hookers and blow), I just received a bunch of books from Amazon which I am extremely excited to read and slaver over, L.A. looks to have to stupidly amazing shit happening (fo' free! What the fuck!) , my cousin is looking to hook me up with getting into Conan (connections, natch) and I am currently looking to go to this place, because have I mentioned how freaking much I love lotus root? Taro is great too. Plus, i'm going to see if I can hit up this Kogi truck business.
This is what money can do for you: put an aquarium in a library. With sharks. And obviously, the internets. This is where I am now. It's a pretty swanktacular library. It's almost distressing how good their comic collection is, which is as adequate a segue as I can manage now.
I'm reading Understanding Comics. I don't think I really need to justify that in any way, cause uh, comics are awesome. There's a lot of interesting and cool historical stuff about representation and icon and, well comics. Definitely worth reading, even if I haven't finished reading it.
In a related piece of travelogue trivia, my interest in comics was further sparked by having a very long and involved conversation with a dude who works at this comic store in Toronto (by the way, it's a fantastic comic store, both in range and prices). I was wondering what comics I wanted to buy and created a shortlist, which I presented to the dude in question, who then proceeded to tell me that my selections were crappy/incomplete. Well, not exactly those words, but I got the gist. But it was okay, cause he wasn't like a douche or anything about it. He was in fact quite awesome in recommending me lots and lots of different comics I would enjoy. So woo dude to whom I am very sorry because I cannot remember your name. He had a cast on his leg, so ask for that! Also, as you can see from the picture, it is a lovely little tiny tiny hole in the wall. More on this at some point? We'll see.
So anyway, enough typing, I have to go be sad about missing out on Regina Spektor's sold out concert. Seriously, her concerts all over the freaking country are selling out incredibly quickly. Is she far behind? Tune in at eleven to find out!
Because I am. Oh so excited.
Actually, enough of whatever the hell emotion that is. I am actually extremely extremely excited. Seriously!
I'm going to be back home soon (next week folks! Ready the standard celebratory hookers and blow), I just received a bunch of books from Amazon which I am extremely excited to read and slaver over, L.A. looks to have to stupidly amazing shit happening (fo' free! What the fuck!) , my cousin is looking to hook me up with getting into Conan (connections, natch) and I am currently looking to go to this place, because have I mentioned how freaking much I love lotus root? Taro is great too. Plus, i'm going to see if I can hit up this Kogi truck business.
This is what money can do for you: put an aquarium in a library. With sharks. And obviously, the internets. This is where I am now. It's a pretty swanktacular library. It's almost distressing how good their comic collection is, which is as adequate a segue as I can manage now.
I'm reading Understanding Comics. I don't think I really need to justify that in any way, cause uh, comics are awesome. There's a lot of interesting and cool historical stuff about representation and icon and, well comics. Definitely worth reading, even if I haven't finished reading it.
In a related piece of travelogue trivia, my interest in comics was further sparked by having a very long and involved conversation with a dude who works at this comic store in Toronto (by the way, it's a fantastic comic store, both in range and prices). I was wondering what comics I wanted to buy and created a shortlist, which I presented to the dude in question, who then proceeded to tell me that my selections were crappy/incomplete. Well, not exactly those words, but I got the gist. But it was okay, cause he wasn't like a douche or anything about it. He was in fact quite awesome in recommending me lots and lots of different comics I would enjoy. So woo dude to whom I am very sorry because I cannot remember your name. He had a cast on his leg, so ask for that! Also, as you can see from the picture, it is a lovely little tiny tiny hole in the wall. More on this at some point? We'll see.
So anyway, enough typing, I have to go be sad about missing out on Regina Spektor's sold out concert. Seriously, her concerts all over the freaking country are selling out incredibly quickly. Is she far behind? Tune in at eleven to find out!
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Who'da thunk it
in which I give myself a lot of rope, and hope not to hang
I just opened up a bottle of Harbourfest wine ("Red"), and what with its shitty cork and bland mediocrity, while actually-not-bad-an-opening-kinda-like-a-softer-version-of-a-old-school-cabernet-sauvignon which unfortunately contrasts with a finish that's mediciney and 'bleh'. Look, given that i've still got cheap liquor and various cannobinols and bad caffiene and high fructose corn syrup (which is really fucking rank vile stuff, and it deserves heapings, nay, verily shovelfuls and bulldozer-capable quantities of scorn and oppobrium piled deep and high upon it) and whatever other endoc(h)ronological disruptors i've got percolating through me, I'm entitled to describe a wine as 'bleh'.
So right now, i've got to deal with a beautiful imperious purring cat, who feels that her perfect place of repose is where perchance I wish to lay and rest my not particularly weary head, who looks up at me with baleful and cynical catseyes, and gets twitchy and nervous with jealousy at this clanking clack-clack-clack that so distracts my hands from rubbing her fluffy little cheeks.
This calls for icecream.
Harbourfest? Cats? Icecream? More to come, in the next instalment:
wherein I continue merrily merrily merrily on this Joycean stream, and also use that other Joycean phenom of claiming to have a productive day, when only two lines were written. Inbetween, I hope that I try to leave David Foster Wallace's body a recognisable mess, after I am done thoroughly (and I mean thoroughly) raping it.
I just opened up a bottle of Harbourfest wine ("Red"), and what with its shitty cork and bland mediocrity, while actually-not-bad-an-opening-kinda-like-a-softer-version-of-a-old-school-cabernet-sauvignon which unfortunately contrasts with a finish that's mediciney and 'bleh'. Look, given that i've still got cheap liquor and various cannobinols and bad caffiene and high fructose corn syrup (which is really fucking rank vile stuff, and it deserves heapings, nay, verily shovelfuls and bulldozer-capable quantities of scorn and oppobrium piled deep and high upon it) and whatever other endoc(h)ronological disruptors i've got percolating through me, I'm entitled to describe a wine as 'bleh'.
So right now, i've got to deal with a beautiful imperious purring cat, who feels that her perfect place of repose is where perchance I wish to lay and rest my not particularly weary head, who looks up at me with baleful and cynical catseyes, and gets twitchy and nervous with jealousy at this clanking clack-clack-clack that so distracts my hands from rubbing her fluffy little cheeks.
This calls for icecream.
Harbourfest? Cats? Icecream? More to come, in the next instalment:
wherein I continue merrily merrily merrily on this Joycean stream, and also use that other Joycean phenom of claiming to have a productive day, when only two lines were written. Inbetween, I hope that I try to leave David Foster Wallace's body a recognisable mess, after I am done thoroughly (and I mean thoroughly) raping it.
Who would have thought it
Pretty nearly everyone really
I had an interesting and fun day today. To further explain this would require a lot of backstory and context and necessary and unnecessary justification on my part, which I'm not entirely sure i'm entirely prepared to do at this hour and place and mentality and so on. I'll dispense with the double-doubles (which is another story in itself, albeit definitely shorter and much more delicious, both metaphorically and descriptively) and post what I like most days, which is other peoples' conversation.
This is all to say, I overheard something.
Passing this risque artwork in the National Sculpture Garden, 10-year-old kid runs up to it: Hey look at me!
Parental figure: C'mon Jimmy, stand over there and we'll take your picture. We can pretend that you're a gynecologist!
(I start laughing very awkwardly [both because I was laughing right in the middle of a group of people, and did that guy just crack a vagina joke to a 10-year-old!?] into a jacket sleeve, everyone looks at me and starts laughing)
I had an interesting and fun day today. To further explain this would require a lot of backstory and context and necessary and unnecessary justification on my part, which I'm not entirely sure i'm entirely prepared to do at this hour and place and mentality and so on. I'll dispense with the double-doubles (which is another story in itself, albeit definitely shorter and much more delicious, both metaphorically and descriptively) and post what I like most days, which is other peoples' conversation.
This is all to say, I overheard something.
Passing this risque artwork in the National Sculpture Garden, 10-year-old kid runs up to it: Hey look at me!
Parental figure: C'mon Jimmy, stand over there and we'll take your picture. We can pretend that you're a gynecologist!
(I start laughing very awkwardly [both because I was laughing right in the middle of a group of people, and did that guy just crack a vagina joke to a 10-year-old!?] into a jacket sleeve, everyone looks at me and starts laughing)
Friday, July 24, 2009
On the one hand
but on the other hand
I'm helping! I reversed a wiki troll. I do not believe that Harvard University is infact known as:
I don't care how many times i've linked it before, but this is still awesome. Infringe that copyright!
I'm helping! I reversed a wiki troll. I do not believe that Harvard University is infact known as:
Harvard Racist Charging University (incorporated as The President and Fellows of Harvard College)Or that it is widely asserted to be a:
a left wing liberal nest and reverse racist - private university located in Cambridge, MassachusettsThough, perhaps out of charity, I should have marked it with a "citation needed".
I don't care how many times i've linked it before, but this is still awesome. Infringe that copyright!
Monday, July 20, 2009
A cat curled up and a warm bed
keys to happiness
I've been searching for a while to say things that might be appropriate to say about New York City, but it's difficult, given the subject matter at hand, my own inadequacies as a writer, and the fact that I don't want to end up looking like adouchebag 'brilliant' thinker, albeit with an Antipodean twist. Besides, I think other, more abler authors have better captured some of the spirit and flavour of NYC.
I could go through the numbers and point out the exceptionalism which is captured in these slices of data, but you can read the featured and very good wiki article yourself. A couple of things that stand out: population density (more than 5 times Sydneys', Manhattans' density is over 12 times that of Sydney) the number of households that don't have a car (more than half, and more than 3/4 in Manhattan) how incredibly environmentally friendly it is (gasoline consumption hasn't changed since the 1920s, water so clean it doesn't even need to be purified; the stats of carbon output are similarly impressive) and a subway system so large and so well-known it's available on umbrellas.
I think one of the most sensible, non-retarded things you can say about NYC is how it tends to resist generalisations of it (mine notwithstanding). But a) that's a total cop out and b) it's such a trivially simple truism that it lacks worth mentioning; pablum, in a word. It might be still be necessary, given the breath, depth and scope of diversity that NYC has.
Instead, i'll end with this:
New York City is the cities' city. It is the ultimate and quintessential realisation of what cities can be and the potential of cities as expressions of human endeavour; it is, in short, an urbanists' (wet) dream.
I've been searching for a while to say things that might be appropriate to say about New York City, but it's difficult, given the subject matter at hand, my own inadequacies as a writer, and the fact that I don't want to end up looking like a
I could go through the numbers and point out the exceptionalism which is captured in these slices of data, but you can read the featured and very good wiki article yourself. A couple of things that stand out: population density (more than 5 times Sydneys', Manhattans' density is over 12 times that of Sydney) the number of households that don't have a car (more than half, and more than 3/4 in Manhattan) how incredibly environmentally friendly it is (gasoline consumption hasn't changed since the 1920s, water so clean it doesn't even need to be purified; the stats of carbon output are similarly impressive) and a subway system so large and so well-known it's available on umbrellas.
I think one of the most sensible, non-retarded things you can say about NYC is how it tends to resist generalisations of it (mine notwithstanding). But a) that's a total cop out and b) it's such a trivially simple truism that it lacks worth mentioning; pablum, in a word. It might be still be necessary, given the breath, depth and scope of diversity that NYC has.
Instead, i'll end with this:
New York City is the cities' city. It is the ultimate and quintessential realisation of what cities can be and the potential of cities as expressions of human endeavour; it is, in short, an urbanists' (wet) dream.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Changed my mind
That happens...or does it?
I was going to write something about something most likely re: this holiday thing I am on, but i've changed my mind and do a plug for the upcoming Evolution, Emotions and Metaethics workshop, hosted by Richard Joyce (who has a very slick personal page, and is specialised in fields that I love so much that I have no idea why I haven't heard of him till now. He will now be pestered to death.)
Those of you on the SydPhil should already be aware, and I've been excited since it was initially announced way back in March or so. I'll be back the day before it starts (I think, if my calculations are accurate), so i'll probably be very tired and very jetlagged.
But whatever!
I was going to write something about something most likely re: this holiday thing I am on, but i've changed my mind and do a plug for the upcoming Evolution, Emotions and Metaethics workshop, hosted by Richard Joyce (who has a very slick personal page, and is specialised in fields that I love so much that I have no idea why I haven't heard of him till now. He will now be pestered to death.)
Those of you on the SydPhil should already be aware, and I've been excited since it was initially announced way back in March or so. I'll be back the day before it starts (I think, if my calculations are accurate), so i'll probably be very tired and very jetlagged.
But whatever!
Friday, July 17, 2009
This would be funny
Actually, this is pretty funny.
So, a slightish confession. I've been getting pretty damn stoned with my cousins and assorted friends while i've been staying with my aunt in Oswego. In fact, i'm on the tail end of a buzz now, so forgive me if I uh...get, like...totally...rad.
I mean, if I get a little distracted.
The 'getting solidly blazed' thing (see? i'm picking up the lingo) can wait for and really deserves better treatment, in the way of a fuller post that i'll do later. Seriously, small towns and drugs are an interestin' soc-sci project unto itself.
Right now, I just wanted to talk about shit that makes no fucking sense when stoned (which is seriously most everything) and more specifically, infomercials.
Oh but there's more! Spanish infomercials. Though accurately, this should be infomercials in Spanish.
I'm semi-channel surfing, flipping through bombings in Jakarta, Nancy Grace's expose on Michael Jackson (pepsi commerical burned his scalp?!) when suddenly, lo and behold, infomercial. But not just any infomercials, but infomercials dubbed in Spanish.
Now, it's late at night, I'm pretty nicely out of it, and what the fuck? Badly dubbed informercial selling a fucking infrared oven? This would make little sense if I were sober. And oh dear god Spanish is spoken fast during these sorts of things. I was in this great little Brooklyn taqueria, listening to a Brooklyn chica talk in rapidfire Spanglish, telling her friends about how she shot down this one guy ("Oh yeah motherfucker why don't you come over here and say it") and lordy she was fast. Is it even comprehensible when you talk Spanish that fast?
As propagators and continuers of the stoner genre Bill and Ted would say, this is totally bogus. And I am getting tired, and going to sleep. Night!
So, a slightish confession. I've been getting pretty damn stoned with my cousins and assorted friends while i've been staying with my aunt in Oswego. In fact, i'm on the tail end of a buzz now, so forgive me if I uh...get, like...totally...rad.
I mean, if I get a little distracted.
The 'getting solidly blazed' thing (see? i'm picking up the lingo) can wait for and really deserves better treatment, in the way of a fuller post that i'll do later. Seriously, small towns and drugs are an interestin' soc-sci project unto itself.
Right now, I just wanted to talk about shit that makes no fucking sense when stoned (which is seriously most everything) and more specifically, infomercials.
Oh but there's more! Spanish infomercials. Though accurately, this should be infomercials in Spanish.
I'm semi-channel surfing, flipping through bombings in Jakarta, Nancy Grace's expose on Michael Jackson (pepsi commerical burned his scalp?!) when suddenly, lo and behold, infomercial. But not just any infomercials, but infomercials dubbed in Spanish.
Now, it's late at night, I'm pretty nicely out of it, and what the fuck? Badly dubbed informercial selling a fucking infrared oven? This would make little sense if I were sober. And oh dear god Spanish is spoken fast during these sorts of things. I was in this great little Brooklyn taqueria, listening to a Brooklyn chica talk in rapidfire Spanglish, telling her friends about how she shot down this one guy ("Oh yeah motherfucker why don't you come over here and say it") and lordy she was fast. Is it even comprehensible when you talk Spanish that fast?
As propagators and continuers of the stoner genre Bill and Ted would say, this is totally bogus. And I am getting tired, and going to sleep. Night!
This is what passes for food these days
Sometime lateish at night in Washington, I wanted to get some icecream. Not really knowing where anything was, I ran into a snack truck offering icecream and other snack food products! Huzzah right? After much humming and froing between an ice-cream sandwich or a 'chocolate eclair', coinflip decides to get the 'chocolate eclair'. This is what that contained:
"Cake Coated
Artificially Flavored
Vanilla Light Ice Cream and
Chocolate Flavoured Fudge
Center Artificial Flavour Added
*Not a Light Food"
All that being said, given time, place, and craving, it was very nom nom nom. It ranked highly on the nomosity scale. Cherish and savour, another little anecdote.
"Cake Coated
Artificially Flavored
Vanilla Light Ice Cream and
Chocolate Flavoured Fudge
Center Artificial Flavour Added
*Not a Light Food"
All that being said, given time, place, and craving, it was very nom nom nom. It ranked highly on the nomosity scale. Cherish and savour, another little anecdote.
Monday, July 13, 2009
With malice toward none, with charity for all
Lincoln's greatest speech.
I'm on a bus heading up to NYC, after spending 4 great days in Washington D.C. The bus comes with free wifi, among many other conveniences, the foremost of which that it is very very cheap. But surprisingly comfortable. And you really can't beat the free wifi.
Rishi the Tour Guide note: If you want travel anywhere in Northeast/Eastern Seaboard North America, your best bet is bus travel. There's quite a few low cost bus services that all utilise yield management systems, with fares starting at $1(!!), if you book early enough. It's more likely your fare will cost 19-25, but that's still a really great price on these sorts of things. There's no hassle of customs, you can use a phone, most come with free wifi, you can get up and walk around, and they have toilets. And the scenery is much better than a plane.
Though, rail isn't a bad idea either. It's usually more expensive than bus, but less than flying. I've ridden on Amtrak a few times, and it's very romantic. Usually, you're going through picturesque countryside, and there are actual snack cars available on most trains, and some even come with full dining (and beds even!) cars. And the operators and conductors are almost always bound to be fun people, who seem to love announcing things in that great old-timey singsong announcement voice, and being generally funny people. Example:
"We're coming to Albany now, and we're going to have short 20min break to change crews. If you want to get and stretch your legs or grab a bite to eat, feel free to do so. Those of you participating in the smoking olympics should also use this opportunity to do so, as this is our last stop before New York City."
So, now you know.
Anyway, back to NYC. Having come from Washington, where politics is big (seriously, everybody talks about it, and as commonplace as 'what are we having for lunch' talk), i've been fascinated by this State Senate crisis that's apparently just been resolved. New York has had a bit of tumultuous political period in its recent history, what with the Eliot Spitzer scandal and Paterson's abysmal approval ratings and Democrats getting a hold of the State Senate for the first time in four decades and Bloomberg spending $36 million of his personal wealth (so far) into trying to secure a third term as mayor, among other things. It's classic backroom dealings and machinations and manuvering, and totally engrossing stuff.
I'm genuinely missing you guys, which is actually a little weird given that I usually don't give a shit. Love, all.
EDIT: I got new shoes. They are teal/aquarmarine and ZANY. Oh so zany.
I'm on a bus heading up to NYC, after spending 4 great days in Washington D.C. The bus comes with free wifi, among many other conveniences, the foremost of which that it is very very cheap. But surprisingly comfortable. And you really can't beat the free wifi.
Rishi the Tour Guide note: If you want travel anywhere in Northeast/Eastern Seaboard North America, your best bet is bus travel. There's quite a few low cost bus services that all utilise yield management systems, with fares starting at $1(!!), if you book early enough. It's more likely your fare will cost 19-25, but that's still a really great price on these sorts of things. There's no hassle of customs, you can use a phone, most come with free wifi, you can get up and walk around, and they have toilets. And the scenery is much better than a plane.
Though, rail isn't a bad idea either. It's usually more expensive than bus, but less than flying. I've ridden on Amtrak a few times, and it's very romantic. Usually, you're going through picturesque countryside, and there are actual snack cars available on most trains, and some even come with full dining (and beds even!) cars. And the operators and conductors are almost always bound to be fun people, who seem to love announcing things in that great old-timey singsong announcement voice, and being generally funny people. Example:
"We're coming to Albany now, and we're going to have short 20min break to change crews. If you want to get and stretch your legs or grab a bite to eat, feel free to do so. Those of you participating in the smoking olympics should also use this opportunity to do so, as this is our last stop before New York City."
So, now you know.
Anyway, back to NYC. Having come from Washington, where politics is big (seriously, everybody talks about it, and as commonplace as 'what are we having for lunch' talk), i've been fascinated by this State Senate crisis that's apparently just been resolved. New York has had a bit of tumultuous political period in its recent history, what with the Eliot Spitzer scandal and Paterson's abysmal approval ratings and Democrats getting a hold of the State Senate for the first time in four decades and Bloomberg spending $36 million of his personal wealth (so far) into trying to secure a third term as mayor, among other things. It's classic backroom dealings and machinations and manuvering, and totally engrossing stuff.
I'm genuinely missing you guys, which is actually a little weird given that I usually don't give a shit. Love, all.
EDIT: I got new shoes. They are teal/aquarmarine and ZANY. Oh so zany.
Monday, July 06, 2009
In the throes
lust, deprivation and other stories
posts so good we never get to read them!To snark on the snark, I think it's appropriate to further that quote by the metaphor of indie bands, given that I have just come back from Canada, home and birthplace of all indie darlings, now and forever:
-sam moginie
The best kind of indie bands are the ones you never hear; the more obscure a band, the better. I suspect that it follows some kind of logarithmic distribution, but more research is needed.
My 5 nights and 4 and a halfish days in the T.O. were some of the best in my life. I'm waxing sentimental from the sleep-deprivation and the excitement and various other pretty young things, but something will happen soon. Something, that may not be enough.
On a lighter note: Deadwood is a good show! I watched the first two episodes, and HBO do their we-are-so-edgy-and-gritty-and-make/produce/bankroll-edgy-gritty-shows thang quite well. Watch it, if blood and guts and murder set in Western times rocks your lox or sox.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Really, it's not what you're thinking
I've just been a lazy, lazy person.
So by my reckoning, i've now been overseas nearly 4 weeks, and I haven't posted anything yet. This despite the fact that i've been basically completely free for the past two weeks or so after leaving NYC. There are multiple reasons to which this can be attributed:
1) I am lazy, regarding editing/filling out my posts;
2) Hulu is freaking amazing;
3) There are have other...*cough* 'activities' *cough* that sap my motivation to do shit that I should do, like blag. Clearly, activities that make me cough (literally).
There should probably be a sub-reason in there somewhere, because sometimes I do do shit that I need to do, like researching transportation and accommodation for various places I want to stay. Pour example, I've booked my D.C. trip! Spending 4 days in D.C, but I haven't booked a return trip outta Foggy Bottom. And i'm wondering whether I want do a day (or more) to Bodymore (the answer is YES, HELLS YES I DO) or go to NYC and spend a couple of days there (ALSO YES) or go straight back to Syracuse. Also researching how to get to and stay in Toronto, and maybe Montreal. We'll see.
Actual blogging is happening I swear. I want these travel posts to be good, very good even, so i'm sweating over them quite a bit.
So by my reckoning, i've now been overseas nearly 4 weeks, and I haven't posted anything yet. This despite the fact that i've been basically completely free for the past two weeks or so after leaving NYC. There are multiple reasons to which this can be attributed:
1) I am lazy, regarding editing/filling out my posts;
2) Hulu is freaking amazing;
3) There are have other...*cough* 'activities' *cough* that sap my motivation to do shit that I should do, like blag. Clearly, activities that make me cough (literally).
There should probably be a sub-reason in there somewhere, because sometimes I do do shit that I need to do, like researching transportation and accommodation for various places I want to stay. Pour example, I've booked my D.C. trip! Spending 4 days in D.C, but I haven't booked a return trip outta Foggy Bottom. And i'm wondering whether I want do a day (or more) to Bodymore (the answer is YES, HELLS YES I DO) or go to NYC and spend a couple of days there (ALSO YES) or go straight back to Syracuse. Also researching how to get to and stay in Toronto, and maybe Montreal. We'll see.
Actual blogging is happening I swear. I want these travel posts to be good, very good even, so i'm sweating over them quite a bit.
Saturday, June 06, 2009
We're just gonna have to taxi around till we find a gate
God that is irritating.
Hey guys! Sorry for teh lack of updation, i've had intermittent access to the interwebs while i've been here. I actually have a huge post that i've written regarding flights and L.A. and what i've done and all that crap, but have noticed that i've loaded it down with way too much minutae. I need to edit, but I can't as i'm just about to leave for Philly!
A tasty tasty morsel of things to come:
On my flight from L.A. to Newark, near landing, flight attendant perks up:
"If you look out to your left, you will see the skyline of New York City. And if you look out to your extreme right, you will see absolutely nothing."
Blog soon I promise!
Hey guys! Sorry for teh lack of updation, i've had intermittent access to the interwebs while i've been here. I actually have a huge post that i've written regarding flights and L.A. and what i've done and all that crap, but have noticed that i've loaded it down with way too much minutae. I need to edit, but I can't as i'm just about to leave for Philly!
A tasty tasty morsel of things to come:
On my flight from L.A. to Newark, near landing, flight attendant perks up:
"If you look out to your left, you will see the skyline of New York City. And if you look out to your extreme right, you will see absolutely nothing."
Blog soon I promise!
Thursday, May 28, 2009
I've heard people like eating these days
In this post in the Atlantic Business Channel, Daniel Indiviglio argues that people being underemployed is going to stunt economic growth:
People have begun watering down their résumés to seem more appealing to jobs below their experience level. This is bad news for job seekers, but it's also bad news for the U.S. economy.
A few responses to this: People like, you know, eating. And showering. And all those other little goods and services that modern living provides often in exchange for labour. It'd be great if everyone could get employed in the position of their choice that fully maximises their output to the economy, but with the economy in the doldrums as it is, it's not like they have that much of a choice. Besides, it doesn't seem like people get all in a tizzy when we hear stories of overqualified migrants driving taxis or working in restaurants or some such.
Secondly, what do you propose people do, Mr. Indiviglio? Are you saying that people should be honest in their resumes? Cause that's gonna work real swell, according to you:
I was talking to a friend just yesterday considering résumés for an entry-level position. My friend received a six-page résumé from a candidate so overqualified, she won't even be considered.He also argues that this underemployment will also be detrimental to workers:
That is, of course, if their résumé is not tarnished permanently by spending several years in a position that is a step back on their career path.Right, because being unemployed for god-knows-how-long is going to look just super on your résumé.
Again, it'd all be well and good if we could get everyone the job they want and are qualified for, but sometimes, underemployment is the best of a bad lot.
I'm only posting this so that no one reads my substandard response to Brendan's 'thing', but I realise that most of you have some kind of RSS reader, which completely foils my dastardly plan. Dang.
ASIDE: I'm quoting Indiviglio who's quoting Yahoo who's quoting the Wall Street Journal. Now, I just need the WSJ to quote me and the news cycle of life will be complete. It's true, and you're right, the internets have turned into a house of echoey horrors.
Inappropriate intrusions on emotions
Someone from the internets made criticised me, and you know how important it is to go after people who say things on the Interwebs. The answer: Very Important.
In his opening salvo, Mr Wojit has made some claims regarding the appropriateness of emotion in moral frameworks, namely utilitarianism. I'd like to respond to some of those claims, as well as defend myself against any crude caricatures made of me. I'll place all the substantative claims up the top of this and append any other nitpicks that I have at the bottom of this, if you so wish to peruse them.
The general argument that I'm running is this: Emotions qua emotions are not inherently damaging. I'll admit that emotions do play a fairly strong and probabilistic role in motivating action, but I think what this does is that it changes the question from a logical one to an empirical one, in ways that that'll be detailed below.
Imagine some person spends all day thinking of terrible horrifying fantasies of murder and pain and general gruesomeness. Said person derives a lot of pleasure from this activity, more so than any other activity available to her. If a utilitarian wants to maximise pleasure, than I can't see any reason why they would object to this persons' emotions/actions.
Another example: say I think, 'man, it'd be great if I went and firebombed an abortion clinic.' But I never go through with said action, because of material/time/knowledge constraints etc etc (building a firebomb is a PITA). But I have this thought nevertheless, and harbor positive emotions and feelings towards this thought. Now, let's assume I never express this thought in any public and keep it purely within myself. If it gives me pleasure, and doesn't hurt anyone else in any way, I don't see any reasons to evaluate it in any way.
The quasi-Humean motivational 'objection': So imagine the case whereby I harbor a great unjust antipathy to certain other people of the human race, namely distinguished by the colour of their skin i.e. white people. Now, I can imagine a case whereby I maintain these very antagonistic emotions towards them, without ever acting on those emotions; they may inspire detestment or hatred or some other negative emotion but I never act on them, due to various reasons, be it fear of consequences or a general understanding that emotions should not play a part in motivating my actions or some other reason all together. My actions look exactly the same as a non-racist person; I hold doors open for them, I tip my hat and say 'hullo' when I meet them, I don't discriminate against them socially or financially or otherwise. Furthermore, these emotions do make me happy in some way, in that they provide me with some comfort in the privacy of my mind. This is again a place where I don't utilitarians can relevantly object to me having these emotions, as repugnant as they may be.
Rules are too broad: with the case of the angry person throwing a punch, we can modify the rule. We can and should say, 'Don't throw punches at people without justification' or something along those lines, rather than 'throwing punches because you are angry is bad'. Hell, we could even be a more parsimonious and bracket out the anger bit, and say something like 'Throwing punches [because you are angry] is bad'. Again, this has to do with my general skepticism of judgment of motivation. As someone who leans consequentialist, I'd much rather have good things happen, than be overly concerned about how those good came about.
The problem of appropriate response: One of the severe problems that virtue ethics faces is what constitutes appropriate virtues, and I think that problem extends here. What can we consider appropriate emotional responses to an act or state of affairs? Turn the other cheek or eye for an eye? Even reasonable persons can have completely differing and polarised emotional responses to the same situation e.g. abortion. I certainly don't want to say that your emotional responses on those cases are wrong or inappropriate per se; if they proceed to act on those emotions i.e. either commit some kind of property or personable damages or base some kind of justificatory argument on those painful emotions, then I would claim those actions are misjudged in that they are based on bad premises. But those emotions qua emotions are not in themselves damaging.
Consider the example of videogames. They often inspire very strongly felt emotions in its subjects, very frequently emotions we would rightly condemn outside of those spheres. But this doesn't necessarily mean that gaming subject act on those emotions; we don't see people gunning down people and beating up hookers for money (well, we do, but we can be pretty sure that it's not the game that motivated them to behave in that manner). Again, emotions are not in and of themselves damaging, and as such shouldn't be subject to moral scrutiny or censure. NB: I'm not ruling out other types of scrutiny or censure.
I'll also make an argument from parsimony, based of a metaethical tripartite division of intentions, acts and effects/outcomes (Told you there was going to be metaphysical baggage). Moral frameworks should be as simple as possible, but no simpler. Utilitarianism, especially, should focus more effects/outcomes, and to a lesser extent, acts. Intentions should be given minimal, if not negligible, concern. The example I am primarily thinking of is the ill-gotten charity example: imagine a person giving to charity not because of charitable intentions but rather of trying to cultivate good will and personal reputation. Utilitarians shouldn't care about the intentions (which are 'bad') and care more about the act (good, in this case, though it is obviously possible to have bad acts that produce good outcomes) and care most about the outcomes (good, in this case as it alleviates suffering/produces more pleasure). To critique emotions/intentions/thoughts in this case would be detrimental to the utilitarians' case of increasing the amount of pleasure in the world.
What the argument from parsimony and the videogame example should point out is that we are much better at acting on with outcomes and acts, then we are at dealing with intentions and emotions (In fact a point that you make later in the post).
A consequentialist would care more about the outcome than how the outcome was caused (but that doesn't mean she doesn't care at all about the causes, it just means she cares less). In this case, the case over appropriate emotions becomes an empirical one: how much did the emotion matter in contributing to the outcome? Answering this question would have to be done on a case-by-case basis, as the examples above clearly show cases of emotions that have no net negative effects. In some cases, sure the emotion played a major contributive/motivating factor. But in many other cases, it has no effects on the outcomes of that case.
What a lot of this boils down is my general anti-paternalist tendencies: I value autonomy, especially autonomy over your mind and thoughts as being especially paramount. I don't mind being told what to do, especially if you can convince me in a rational manner. But being told what to feel is another matter altogether; not only is it often a unbidden, non-rational response, it's a deeply primal and often integral part of human imagination and experience. In other words, you can lead a horse to water and even convince him to drink it; but that doesn't mean he's obligated to feel nice towards you.
OPTIONAL NITPICKS
Nitpick the first: I'd add to the whole, "loving the murderer who killed your loved one means that the victim wasn't really a loved one", to me it doesn't strike me that you could in honesty and in good faith love someone who just killed your loved one. Love, by definition, to me precludes this, but i'm more than willing to say that is possible that there is someone out there who is capable of such psychological gymnastics.
Semantic/Linguistic Nitpick:
You say:
In his opening salvo, Mr Wojit has made some claims regarding the appropriateness of emotion in moral frameworks, namely utilitarianism. I'd like to respond to some of those claims, as well as defend myself against any crude caricatures made of me. I'll place all the substantative claims up the top of this and append any other nitpicks that I have at the bottom of this, if you so wish to peruse them.
The general argument that I'm running is this: Emotions qua emotions are not inherently damaging. I'll admit that emotions do play a fairly strong and probabilistic role in motivating action, but I think what this does is that it changes the question from a logical one to an empirical one, in ways that that'll be detailed below.
Imagine some person spends all day thinking of terrible horrifying fantasies of murder and pain and general gruesomeness. Said person derives a lot of pleasure from this activity, more so than any other activity available to her. If a utilitarian wants to maximise pleasure, than I can't see any reason why they would object to this persons' emotions/actions.
Another example: say I think, 'man, it'd be great if I went and firebombed an abortion clinic.' But I never go through with said action, because of material/time/knowledge constraints etc etc (building a firebomb is a PITA). But I have this thought nevertheless, and harbor positive emotions and feelings towards this thought. Now, let's assume I never express this thought in any public and keep it purely within myself. If it gives me pleasure, and doesn't hurt anyone else in any way, I don't see any reasons to evaluate it in any way.
The quasi-Humean motivational 'objection': So imagine the case whereby I harbor a great unjust antipathy to certain other people of the human race, namely distinguished by the colour of their skin i.e. white people. Now, I can imagine a case whereby I maintain these very antagonistic emotions towards them, without ever acting on those emotions; they may inspire detestment or hatred or some other negative emotion but I never act on them, due to various reasons, be it fear of consequences or a general understanding that emotions should not play a part in motivating my actions or some other reason all together. My actions look exactly the same as a non-racist person; I hold doors open for them, I tip my hat and say 'hullo' when I meet them, I don't discriminate against them socially or financially or otherwise. Furthermore, these emotions do make me happy in some way, in that they provide me with some comfort in the privacy of my mind. This is again a place where I don't utilitarians can relevantly object to me having these emotions, as repugnant as they may be.
Rules are too broad: with the case of the angry person throwing a punch, we can modify the rule. We can and should say, 'Don't throw punches at people without justification' or something along those lines, rather than 'throwing punches because you are angry is bad'. Hell, we could even be a more parsimonious and bracket out the anger bit, and say something like 'Throwing punches [because you are angry] is bad'. Again, this has to do with my general skepticism of judgment of motivation. As someone who leans consequentialist, I'd much rather have good things happen, than be overly concerned about how those good came about.
The problem of appropriate response: One of the severe problems that virtue ethics faces is what constitutes appropriate virtues, and I think that problem extends here. What can we consider appropriate emotional responses to an act or state of affairs? Turn the other cheek or eye for an eye? Even reasonable persons can have completely differing and polarised emotional responses to the same situation e.g. abortion. I certainly don't want to say that your emotional responses on those cases are wrong or inappropriate per se; if they proceed to act on those emotions i.e. either commit some kind of property or personable damages or base some kind of justificatory argument on those painful emotions, then I would claim those actions are misjudged in that they are based on bad premises. But those emotions qua emotions are not in themselves damaging.
Consider the example of videogames. They often inspire very strongly felt emotions in its subjects, very frequently emotions we would rightly condemn outside of those spheres. But this doesn't necessarily mean that gaming subject act on those emotions; we don't see people gunning down people and beating up hookers for money (well, we do, but we can be pretty sure that it's not the game that motivated them to behave in that manner). Again, emotions are not in and of themselves damaging, and as such shouldn't be subject to moral scrutiny or censure. NB: I'm not ruling out other types of scrutiny or censure.
I'll also make an argument from parsimony, based of a metaethical tripartite division of intentions, acts and effects/outcomes (Told you there was going to be metaphysical baggage). Moral frameworks should be as simple as possible, but no simpler. Utilitarianism, especially, should focus more effects/outcomes, and to a lesser extent, acts. Intentions should be given minimal, if not negligible, concern. The example I am primarily thinking of is the ill-gotten charity example: imagine a person giving to charity not because of charitable intentions but rather of trying to cultivate good will and personal reputation. Utilitarians shouldn't care about the intentions (which are 'bad') and care more about the act (good, in this case, though it is obviously possible to have bad acts that produce good outcomes) and care most about the outcomes (good, in this case as it alleviates suffering/produces more pleasure). To critique emotions/intentions/thoughts in this case would be detrimental to the utilitarians' case of increasing the amount of pleasure in the world.
What the argument from parsimony and the videogame example should point out is that we are much better at acting on with outcomes and acts, then we are at dealing with intentions and emotions (In fact a point that you make later in the post).
A consequentialist would care more about the outcome than how the outcome was caused (but that doesn't mean she doesn't care at all about the causes, it just means she cares less). In this case, the case over appropriate emotions becomes an empirical one: how much did the emotion matter in contributing to the outcome? Answering this question would have to be done on a case-by-case basis, as the examples above clearly show cases of emotions that have no net negative effects. In some cases, sure the emotion played a major contributive/motivating factor. But in many other cases, it has no effects on the outcomes of that case.
What a lot of this boils down is my general anti-paternalist tendencies: I value autonomy, especially autonomy over your mind and thoughts as being especially paramount. I don't mind being told what to do, especially if you can convince me in a rational manner. But being told what to feel is another matter altogether; not only is it often a unbidden, non-rational response, it's a deeply primal and often integral part of human imagination and experience. In other words, you can lead a horse to water and even convince him to drink it; but that doesn't mean he's obligated to feel nice towards you.
OPTIONAL NITPICKS
Nitpick the first: I'd add to the whole, "loving the murderer who killed your loved one means that the victim wasn't really a loved one", to me it doesn't strike me that you could in honesty and in good faith love someone who just killed your loved one. Love, by definition, to me precludes this, but i'm more than willing to say that is possible that there is someone out there who is capable of such psychological gymnastics.
Semantic/Linguistic Nitpick:
You say:
That is to say something like: there is a strong probabilistic link between the emotion, anger, and the action, violence. [emphasis added]But then next sentence:
So unless there is some other, more direct & effective way to reduce instances of punch-throwing without having to go through emotional proscription, then it seems we have perfectly good reasons to morally worry about, judge, and critique emotions. [emphasis added]I'm not quite sure whether I want to equate perfectly and probabilistic. I'd rather change the second sentence to probabilisitic good reasons to etc etc, but this is some pretty minor hairsplitting/handwaving.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)