how liberals, conservatives and torturers get it wrong
I've been harping on about this difference between conceptual and empirical questions for a while now, and have recently been stumbling on a related point of analysis regarding the intrinsic and the instrumental.
When posing hypotheticals, asking questions, or doing whatever philosophy in general, it's important to separate out intrinsic reasoning and instrumental reasoning. This is indeed similar to the conceptual and empiric analysis, in so far as methodology (you debate logic on one side, and you debate facts on the other) is concerned, and that it also provides for some clearing up of the conceptual brush that tends to infest and bog down so many debates.
To illustrate with a first case: torture. Now, you can be intrinsically in support of torture, in that you are a welfare or utility or hedonic or whatever maximiser and believe that using torture to obtain information that increases those good things and decreases bad things are (whatever they may be).
However, you can also be against torture instrumentally, in that torture has been shown repeatedly to be a relatively ineffectual method of actually obtaining high-value, actionable and verifiable information. (there's something to be said about related ill-effects, like the fact that you're reducing someone's utility by torturing them, the side-effects of radicalisation, the consistently poor approach of excessive and inappropriate torture, etc etc) There's nothing inconsistent or incoherent about these positions; it's perfectly reasonable to do so.
Now, what that case illustrates is that it's not we're against torture per se; we're against actions or objects that reduce our overall utility, and for actions that do the opposite. A couple of other cases I can think of is the love of 'tradition' within many conservative ideologies, and the love of 'diversity' among liberal ones. A third case is of 'democracy', which is beloved by pretty much all political stripes.
Many conservatives value 'tradition' (by which I mean something like continuity in cultural customs, practices and social attitudes) as somehow being sacred and valuable in its own right. But that doesn't make any sense; after all, racism and slavery have both had long and storied histories. What we value in 'tradition' is that there are certain cultural customs, practices, and social attitudes that are useful in certain ways (mostly because we think they increase utility or whatever) and we want to preserve those, and discard the ones that are damaging. This love of 'the way things were', regardless of what those actual things were, is missing the point: the distinction is that 'tradition' is primarily instrumentally useful, and not intrinsically so.
In a similar parallel, many liberals think to value 'diversity' (meaning something like political participants who have identifiable in backgrounds and lifestyles) in a comparable manner, as though it is a aim to be achieved for in its own right. It is not; it just so happens that instrumentally, 'diversity' serves us enormously well, in that you achieve more equitable outcomes, less fractious and more harmonious societies, greater welfare, and so on.
I'll go on with one more case, just to drive the point home: democracy. Everyone seems to love democracy, and I find increasingly that people have no idea or are just plain wrong on why they love democracy. Remember: "Democracy is the worst kind of government, except for the all other ones we've tried." Our belief and support of democracy come from instrumental means, not intrinsic ones; this means that democracies can, and often do, make decisions that are stupid or wrong-headed or insane (At the risk of Godwinning myself, Hitler was elected by a democracy). It's just that, in so far as we know, democracy is the least worst option of government - there may be a time in the future when we find a better one.
So, all these cases are making a point: whenever you do philosophy, figure out what your instrumental goals are, and what your intrinsic goals are, and adjust accordingly.
P.S. There's way more to be said about these 'intrinsic' goods/goals are, but that's much more a 'turtles all the way down' sort of proposition. For the record, I think i'm some kind of welfarist. More on this at some point, maybe.
P.P.S. I'm not going to post links or argue over the empirical points i've raised here; i'm too tired to do so, and I might do it later. For now, if you don't believe these points already, treat them entirely as hypotheticals - the general argument still makes sense.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Seriously
I mean, seriously, come on
I've just did my long-overdue laundry, and feeling all stressed out. But i'm at that stage in life where you understand that feeling stressed out and shitty is all legitimate and shit, but come on: there are people starvin', folks a sufferin' and you're concerned about 30 dollars and credit cards and the goddamn fucking laundry powder (that somebody left out in the rain)? Get a fucking grip.
Anyway, i'll post something on philosophical analysis, some quick backlog stuff, and something on metacognition that sorta relates to the point I was making above.
I looked at some beautiful things today, while thinking about you
I've just did my long-overdue laundry, and feeling all stressed out. But i'm at that stage in life where you understand that feeling stressed out and shitty is all legitimate and shit, but come on: there are people starvin', folks a sufferin' and you're concerned about 30 dollars and credit cards and the goddamn fucking laundry powder (that somebody left out in the rain)? Get a fucking grip.
Anyway, i'll post something on philosophical analysis, some quick backlog stuff, and something on metacognition that sorta relates to the point I was making above.
I looked at some beautiful things today, while thinking about you
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Moderation and placebos
Bus No. 1985: You need less shit.
When is a placebo a placebo, and when is it not?
Pour example, placebo buttons. There's an intersection near my house: There's a pedestrian crossing button there, which sometimes 'works' and sometimes doesn't. By works, I mean that if you push it, it stops traffic and changes the little red man to a little green man when the time to cross rolls around. Depending on the time of day and levels of traffic, however, it doesn't actually change the traffic light timing; it merely changes the little red man to a little green man when the time rolls around. That first clause is important; depending on the time of day and level of traffic. If you push the button late at night or early in the morning or really, any other period of time when traffic is light, then it actively changes the traffic light and changes the little red man to a little green man within seconds. Push the same button when traffic is heavy, and prepare to wait. So, is this a placebo button or not? Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't.
That's example one. Second example is about pharmacological placebos. I'm thinking of a case whereby it's possible to prime or boost the effectiveness of placebos through pseudo-homeopathic means Imagine a case whereby patients are divided into three groups to trial out a new drug. One group is given a traditional placebo, one group is given the drug, and one group is given something in between; they are given the drug, but not enough of it i.e. the dosages they are given are too small to be effective. I'm wondering what the results would look like, and whether this is too spookily homeopathic to try.
Gettier placebos? Functionalist placebos? What else could you do?
When is a placebo a placebo, and when is it not?
Pour example, placebo buttons. There's an intersection near my house: There's a pedestrian crossing button there, which sometimes 'works' and sometimes doesn't. By works, I mean that if you push it, it stops traffic and changes the little red man to a little green man when the time to cross rolls around. Depending on the time of day and levels of traffic, however, it doesn't actually change the traffic light timing; it merely changes the little red man to a little green man when the time rolls around. That first clause is important; depending on the time of day and level of traffic. If you push the button late at night or early in the morning or really, any other period of time when traffic is light, then it actively changes the traffic light and changes the little red man to a little green man within seconds. Push the same button when traffic is heavy, and prepare to wait. So, is this a placebo button or not? Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't.
That's example one. Second example is about pharmacological placebos. I'm thinking of a case whereby it's possible to prime or boost the effectiveness of placebos through pseudo-homeopathic means Imagine a case whereby patients are divided into three groups to trial out a new drug. One group is given a traditional placebo, one group is given the drug, and one group is given something in between; they are given the drug, but not enough of it i.e. the dosages they are given are too small to be effective. I'm wondering what the results would look like, and whether this is too spookily homeopathic to try.
Gettier placebos? Functionalist placebos? What else could you do?
Monday, February 08, 2010
Watch what you say
and watch where it goes
"Too many philosophers...are content to simply invent the facts when they need factual claims to buttress their philosophical arguments." (Stephen Stich, pg 178, A Very Bad Wizard)
"Findings in experimental philosophy undermine a major methodology that philosophers have been using for a very long time...It's the method of supporting philosophical theories using intuitions." (Ibid, 179)
"For centuries, philosophers have been basing their theories on intuition without ever having asked why that's a legitimate thing to do." (Ibid, pg 181)
Too true, if somewhat (possibly totally) overstated. Firstly, there has been a substantial shift in philosophical methods that he's underestimating. It may be still be the case that philosophers use intuition to, err, intuit philosophical theories/concepts/structures; but
a) they admit that it's intuitive and subjective and such;
b) far far fewer (atleast credible) philosophers are willing to push the line that their intuition is universal. Many MANY philosophers are leery of intuitions altogether - it's viewed in many circles as being intellectual suspect, especially among the younger generation. Intuition head-butting is more common than Stitch supposes.
(sidenote: my intuition head-butting: internalism and externalism in moral motivation. I've always been a weak quasi-Humean externalist; my only support for this is that I can intuit a mentally coherent someone who can both see and understand the morality of an action, and yet be completely unmotivated to perform that action. Timothy Scriven, on the other hand, cannot conceive of this; he thinks that such a person is necessarily mentally incoherent. We have no real way around this; this is an intuitional impasse that I cannot see a way around.)
How this relates to the continental-analytic 'divide':
Continentals MAKE SHIT UP (short version).
Long version: Continental and analytics both make shit up. However, what analytics try to or should do or what the mission statement should be is: let us start with the facts. What we know for sure. What can establish clearly and correctly. Analytics try to build up: let us take what we know for sure, then attach further claims on top. What us analytics (us right-thinking, non-craven analytics) are afraid of is that continentals make empirical claims, without, well, the empirical justification. Don't get me wrong, us analytics aren't much better at it; our making-up-shit tendencies are just as fully developed as any other academic field. But that doesn't get the continentals off the hook.
A little bit more: there's also a pretty common metalogical rule that comes into play here, namely the whole 'you can't disprove a negative' business. If you have a claim, you have to have evidence for it; otherwise you can't advance that claim. Which is why most analytics tend to say less rather than more, and why they are skeptical of the kinds of claims continentals make. You need to point out as clear as possible the mechanisms for how certain claims support certain conclusions; the onus in the claimant to do so.
I realise i'm repeating myself a lot, but you know, trying to make a point here.
"Too many philosophers...are content to simply invent the facts when they need factual claims to buttress their philosophical arguments." (Stephen Stich, pg 178, A Very Bad Wizard)
"Findings in experimental philosophy undermine a major methodology that philosophers have been using for a very long time...It's the method of supporting philosophical theories using intuitions." (Ibid, 179)
"For centuries, philosophers have been basing their theories on intuition without ever having asked why that's a legitimate thing to do." (Ibid, pg 181)
Too true, if somewhat (possibly totally) overstated. Firstly, there has been a substantial shift in philosophical methods that he's underestimating. It may be still be the case that philosophers use intuition to, err, intuit philosophical theories/concepts/structures; but
a) they admit that it's intuitive and subjective and such;
b) far far fewer (atleast credible) philosophers are willing to push the line that their intuition is universal. Many MANY philosophers are leery of intuitions altogether - it's viewed in many circles as being intellectual suspect, especially among the younger generation. Intuition head-butting is more common than Stitch supposes.
(sidenote: my intuition head-butting: internalism and externalism in moral motivation. I've always been a weak quasi-Humean externalist; my only support for this is that I can intuit a mentally coherent someone who can both see and understand the morality of an action, and yet be completely unmotivated to perform that action. Timothy Scriven, on the other hand, cannot conceive of this; he thinks that such a person is necessarily mentally incoherent. We have no real way around this; this is an intuitional impasse that I cannot see a way around.)
How this relates to the continental-analytic 'divide':
Continentals MAKE SHIT UP (short version).
Long version: Continental and analytics both make shit up. However, what analytics try to or should do or what the mission statement should be is: let us start with the facts. What we know for sure. What can establish clearly and correctly. Analytics try to build up: let us take what we know for sure, then attach further claims on top. What us analytics (us right-thinking, non-craven analytics) are afraid of is that continentals make empirical claims, without, well, the empirical justification. Don't get me wrong, us analytics aren't much better at it; our making-up-shit tendencies are just as fully developed as any other academic field. But that doesn't get the continentals off the hook.
A little bit more: there's also a pretty common metalogical rule that comes into play here, namely the whole 'you can't disprove a negative' business. If you have a claim, you have to have evidence for it; otherwise you can't advance that claim. Which is why most analytics tend to say less rather than more, and why they are skeptical of the kinds of claims continentals make. You need to point out as clear as possible the mechanisms for how certain claims support certain conclusions; the onus in the claimant to do so.
I realise i'm repeating myself a lot, but you know, trying to make a point here.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Doin' Philosophy
And doing it right
This is a quick and dirty shortlist/summary of various aspect of doing philosophy well as I see it, academic and/or otherwise.
1) Hypotheticals: crucial, and frequently will be outlandish. Learn to love them, respect them, pay attention to them; they are important in pointing out inconsistencies, illustrating key points, stating cases effectively.
2) Outcomes/Conclusions - more often than not, you will come to crazy/unusual or just plain old disgusting conclusions. This is normal; learn to accept them. Try not to tailor your arguments to pre-concieved conclusions.
2a) Disgustingness - Get used to it. Reject emotional responses to disgust - philosophy sometimes starts, and sometimes ends, with disgusting/unpleasant ideas.
3) Questioning - Question everything, including very deeply held beliefs. Do not dismiss questions that seem absurd/unusual/unpleasant/disgusting unless they are unwarranted or irrelevant; even so, they may point you towards something interesting.
4) Methodology - How arguments are constructed, the nature of claims, distinguishing premises from conclusions, using conclusions for further building blocks, consistency, and especially conceptual analysis.
4a) Logical skills - you will need them, or need to develop them fast. Refers to both symbolic/quantitative/abstract logical skills (truth conditions i. e. disjuncts, conjuncts, validity and to a lesser extent, soundness) and argumentative logical skills (pointing out logical fallacies such as ad hominems, hypocrises, strawmen, necessary and sufficient conditions) The former isn't as important if you don't plan to study much symbolic logic, but is useful anyway. The latter I find invaluable pretty much anywhere.
4b) Conceptual analysis - upon further reflection, this is ridiculously useful, useful enough to warrant its own entry. It can take many forms (necessary & sufficient conditions, term definitions, empirical/conceptual claims as outlined below, and many other ways i'm sure) but the important thing is that it's hugely helpful.
4c) Distinguishing conceptual and empirical claims - this is really part of the conceptual analysis aspect above, but I find it so useful that it really should be emphasised. Methodologically, it's one of the best tools philosophy has. Basically, we can prove things right in two ways: conceptually, and empirically. Separating these two out greatly reduces and solves many many headaches and arguments. More on this coming. It's not particularly a massively difficult or radical idea, just one that seems to be underapplied, in my opinion.
This is what I can think of the top of my head, and i'm sure there's more. And yes, this is specifically written with 'analytic' philosophy in mind, because you continentalscan go take a hike over to Cultural Studies you hacks have a different way of doing things, but I think a lot of this stuff applies. Feel free to add!
EDIT: slight additions, reordering in response to Markey's comment. TY BREN-DAN
This is a quick and dirty shortlist/summary of various aspect of doing philosophy well as I see it, academic and/or otherwise.
1) Hypotheticals: crucial, and frequently will be outlandish. Learn to love them, respect them, pay attention to them; they are important in pointing out inconsistencies, illustrating key points, stating cases effectively.
2) Outcomes/Conclusions - more often than not, you will come to crazy/unusual or just plain old disgusting conclusions. This is normal; learn to accept them. Try not to tailor your arguments to pre-concieved conclusions.
2a) Disgustingness - Get used to it. Reject emotional responses to disgust - philosophy sometimes starts, and sometimes ends, with disgusting/unpleasant ideas.
3) Questioning - Question everything, including very deeply held beliefs. Do not dismiss questions that seem absurd/unusual/unpleasant/disgusting unless they are unwarranted or irrelevant; even so, they may point you towards something interesting.
4) Methodology - How arguments are constructed, the nature of claims, distinguishing premises from conclusions, using conclusions for further building blocks, consistency, and especially conceptual analysis.
4a) Logical skills - you will need them, or need to develop them fast. Refers to both symbolic/quantitative/abstract logical skills (truth conditions i. e. disjuncts, conjuncts, validity and to a lesser extent, soundness) and argumentative logical skills (pointing out logical fallacies such as ad hominems, hypocrises, strawmen, necessary and sufficient conditions) The former isn't as important if you don't plan to study much symbolic logic, but is useful anyway. The latter I find invaluable pretty much anywhere.
4b) Conceptual analysis - upon further reflection, this is ridiculously useful, useful enough to warrant its own entry. It can take many forms (necessary & sufficient conditions, term definitions, empirical/conceptual claims as outlined below, and many other ways i'm sure) but the important thing is that it's hugely helpful.
4c) Distinguishing conceptual and empirical claims - this is really part of the conceptual analysis aspect above, but I find it so useful that it really should be emphasised. Methodologically, it's one of the best tools philosophy has. Basically, we can prove things right in two ways: conceptually, and empirically. Separating these two out greatly reduces and solves many many headaches and arguments. More on this coming. It's not particularly a massively difficult or radical idea, just one that seems to be underapplied, in my opinion.
This is what I can think of the top of my head, and i'm sure there's more. And yes, this is specifically written with 'analytic' philosophy in mind, because you continentals
EDIT: slight additions, reordering in response to Markey's comment. TY BREN-DAN
Thursday, January 07, 2010
The perils of doubt
A primer on informed agnosticism
Cynicism - why the bad rap?
Cynicism gets lumped with these labels of do-nothingness, laziness or with pessimism altogether. And I don't think that's fair or true. You can be a cynic, and wholeheartedly idealist; I want to try and rescue cynicism from these do-nothingness/laziness/pessimism labels that it's been attached with.
Cynicism is basically a form of informed agnosticism: it's not saying as the pessimist does, 'the world is never going to get better' or as the optimist does, 'the world is always going to get better'; it does not seek to ask or answer that question. You can be a cynic, and still give a full-faith effort to try things out.
Cynicism - why the bad rap?
Cynicism gets lumped with these labels of do-nothingness, laziness or with pessimism altogether. And I don't think that's fair or true. You can be a cynic, and wholeheartedly idealist; I want to try and rescue cynicism from these do-nothingness/laziness/pessimism labels that it's been attached with.
Cynicism is basically a form of informed agnosticism: it's not saying as the pessimist does, 'the world is never going to get better' or as the optimist does, 'the world is always going to get better'; it does not seek to ask or answer that question. You can be a cynic, and still give a full-faith effort to try things out.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Last year was a hard year
Until it wasn't
I got namechecked in an interesting way today, one i'm not entirely positive to characterise in any given manner. I mean, it was cool, and a little bit unexpected, in the way that unexpected eavesdropping, but you know, what to say about it? It certainly was a way though. It's like, you need the grain of sand to form the pearl; or it could end up being an infectious, festering wound. But you know, thems = the breaks.
I find that I read nowadays not with the express purpose of actually enjoying what i'm reading or to gain new knowledge or whatever straightforward purpose that is generally intimated, but moreso on how defensible a position I can take spending the time and effort required to read said subject matter. This doesn't mean I stick to only those unquestionably solid standards that dot the various landscapes of writing, but rather that whenever I pick something up, i'll think about how well I can do a job of making the case that this was a worthwhile read. It's harder than you expect, and kinda fun. Ref: White Noise.
The new year approaches, and along with, rhapsodisation. Plans are made to ignore it. I may have to excommunicate myself in a big way.
I got namechecked in an interesting way today, one i'm not entirely positive to characterise in any given manner. I mean, it was cool, and a little bit unexpected, in the way that unexpected eavesdropping, but you know, what to say about it? It certainly was a way though. It's like, you need the grain of sand to form the pearl; or it could end up being an infectious, festering wound. But you know, thems = the breaks.
I find that I read nowadays not with the express purpose of actually enjoying what i'm reading or to gain new knowledge or whatever straightforward purpose that is generally intimated, but moreso on how defensible a position I can take spending the time and effort required to read said subject matter. This doesn't mean I stick to only those unquestionably solid standards that dot the various landscapes of writing, but rather that whenever I pick something up, i'll think about how well I can do a job of making the case that this was a worthwhile read. It's harder than you expect, and kinda fun. Ref: White Noise.
The new year approaches, and along with, rhapsodisation. Plans are made to ignore it. I may have to excommunicate myself in a big way.
Friday, November 27, 2009
The inherent quality analogue argument
Editor's note: Hey, whaddya know, I wrote this, and it's been sitting in my drafts for 7 months ETERNITY, in internet times. Cleaned, edited, and bits added. Clearing out those cobwebs!
Line of thought that comes up:
The institution of slavery is such that there is no particular application or version such that any particular version or application is morally right, not inherently degrading and so on and so on. One of the more popular anti-abolitionist arguments of the time was that it wasn't the case that slavery was an inherently morally bad institution; it was that there were a 'few bad apples' that were giving a bad name to what was overall a fine system. This argument was rejected on the basis that this was impossible; there was no particular application that could possibly be fair or morally good or even morally neutral.
Chomsky makes a similar argument regarding corporations (presumably large, public, profit-seeking transnationals); the institution of corporateship is such that it leads to inequitability and social and environmental degradation and so on. We reject this argument on the basis that it is genuinely possible to imagine and institute a system of capital ownership and distribution such that it doesn't create or contribute to those moral bads.
Copyright these days gets much a similar rap. The idea that modern methods of distribution and creation of content these days lends itself strongly to draconian and unfair methods of copyright enforcement, and for that reason, we should abolish copyright. This is wrong because it ignores the differences between copyright and copyright enforcement: those are separate and distinct issues to be dealt with disparately.
I'm going to call this the inherent quality analogue, in that it tries to illustrate to that there exists certain inherent and basically immutable qualities in certain objects, and that these relevant qualities exist in the target of the analogue. Though, really it's more like meta-qualities, namely the qualities possess these properties, without being these qualities themselves.
Topics for further discussion: where else does this argument hold, where else is it employed, anything else I can think of, Bueller, Bueller, Bueller...
Chomsky makes a similar argument regarding corporations (presumably large, public, profit-seeking transnationals); the institution of corporateship is such that it leads to inequitability and social and environmental degradation and so on. We reject this argument on the basis that it is genuinely possible to imagine and institute a system of capital ownership and distribution such that it doesn't create or contribute to those moral bads.
Copyright these days gets much a similar rap. The idea that modern methods of distribution and creation of content these days lends itself strongly to draconian and unfair methods of copyright enforcement, and for that reason, we should abolish copyright. This is wrong because it ignores the differences between copyright and copyright enforcement: those are separate and distinct issues to be dealt with disparately.
I'm going to call this the inherent quality analogue, in that it tries to illustrate to that there exists certain inherent and basically immutable qualities in certain objects, and that these relevant qualities exist in the target of the analogue. Though, really it's more like meta-qualities, namely the qualities possess these properties, without being these qualities themselves.
Topics for further discussion: where else does this argument hold, where else is it employed, anything else I can think of, Bueller, Bueller, Bueller...
Absurd
This is the story of Zeitoun.
The story of Zeitoun is set in the the complete clusterfuck that was the federal emergency relief effort of Hurricane Katrina. Like all clusterfucks, there are many factors to blame: levees that were ignored and improperly maintained; grandstanding by too many political officials to even begin counting, in nearly every position in the chain of command; a complete lack of co-ordination or even basic understanding of how the relief effort should proceed. It is in this backdrop that our hero Zeitoun, paddling about in his canoe goes about rescuing trapped victims, feeding stranded dogs, and generally being an all-round cool dude. What does he get for his efforts?
He is arrested, imprisoned, detained without charge, starved, denied medical attention, and refused phonecalls to both his wife and to a lawyer. All this, thanks to the wonderful wonderful relief efforts by
the good people at FEMA.
Eggers shows once again that he's a consummate and conscientious biographer (following on from the soul- and gut-wrenching What is the What). This is a supremely easy read; written simply, with ease and precision. Eggers also employs that trick whereby after the two main characters lose contact, he focuses on one, leaving a feverish cliffhanger on what the hell just happened to the other character.
Conceptual side-note: If there is anything that illustrated the 'near' and 'far' modes of thinking distinction, this is it. The DHS prepared for and imagined a scenario whereby al-Qaeda or the Taliban would stage an attack on the city of New Orleans in the chaos of Hurricane Katrina; and on the basis of this outrageous scenario proceeded to arrest Zeitoun and his companions. Instead of focusing on the 'near' and very real problems of the lack of sanitation, medical supplies, clean water, incompetent/insufficiently informed and trained officials, they focus on the Jack Bauer style 'far' problems of terrorism and civil war. Of course, it's more complicated than that (the use of mercenary third-parties i.e. Blackwater, the untrammeled use of deputisation, etc, etc), but when is it not complicated?
In short, this is a book about the very real effects of institutional failure, especially how those institutions fail in a time of severe crisis. There are very few silver linings in this: by the end, you're grateful and glad that our protagonist is alive and reunited with his loved ones. Compensation, justice, redress is discussed, but inevitably, little comes to fruition. An eloquently written, moving memoir of when the system fails, and what happens to those caught in it.
He is arrested, imprisoned, detained without charge, starved, denied medical attention, and refused phonecalls to both his wife and to a lawyer. All this, thanks to the wonderful wonderful relief efforts by
the good people at FEMA.
Eggers shows once again that he's a consummate and conscientious biographer (following on from the soul- and gut-wrenching What is the What). This is a supremely easy read; written simply, with ease and precision. Eggers also employs that trick whereby after the two main characters lose contact, he focuses on one, leaving a feverish cliffhanger on what the hell just happened to the other character.
Conceptual side-note: If there is anything that illustrated the 'near' and 'far' modes of thinking distinction, this is it. The DHS prepared for and imagined a scenario whereby al-Qaeda or the Taliban would stage an attack on the city of New Orleans in the chaos of Hurricane Katrina; and on the basis of this outrageous scenario proceeded to arrest Zeitoun and his companions. Instead of focusing on the 'near' and very real problems of the lack of sanitation, medical supplies, clean water, incompetent/insufficiently informed and trained officials, they focus on the Jack Bauer style 'far' problems of terrorism and civil war. Of course, it's more complicated than that (the use of mercenary third-parties i.e. Blackwater, the untrammeled use of deputisation, etc, etc), but when is it not complicated?
In short, this is a book about the very real effects of institutional failure, especially how those institutions fail in a time of severe crisis. There are very few silver linings in this: by the end, you're grateful and glad that our protagonist is alive and reunited with his loved ones. Compensation, justice, redress is discussed, but inevitably, little comes to fruition. An eloquently written, moving memoir of when the system fails, and what happens to those caught in it.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Get this, motherfuckers:
we own you now, and you owe us.
You know how there's that hoary old cliche of pseudo-and actual intellectuals complaining of how modern/finance/late-capitalism has resulted in certain groups of people - namely those in the finance and banking sector - have culturally and regulatorily captured governing structures, in order to maximise their profits and minimise their losses?
No? Me either. Well, i'm taking about this phrase: 'socialise the losses and privatise the gains', of which we've been seeing a whole lot of recently.
Now, what this phrase is meant to point out is the unfairness that certain industries and entities play by in the vagaries of modern commerce. The supposedly 'sensible' reaction by modern, right-thinking types (even if you're a leftie pinko, though not commie, which i'll come to soon) is to create a symmetry of non-intervention between those conjunctions: gubmint should privatise the losses and privatise the gains.
Well, here's where the commie bolshie in me kicks in. Let's have the symmetry run the other way. Let's socialise the losses, sure, but we sure as hell are gonna socialise those gains too. You made a lot of money this year? Well, hooray! Begin sharing. In a practical sense, what would this mean? High rates of progressive taxation, profit-sharing agreements, and one method quite close to the populist heart, windfall taxes. So, whiling away the time in this realm of bullshit-theorising, it's quite surprising to come across this:
Who da thunk it? Anyway, i've had this sitting for a little while now, and was partly inspired reading this New York article about the ongoing feud between AIG's Robert Benmosche and Kenneth Feinberg, the so-called 'pay czar' appointed by the Obama administration. It's...it's difficult to describe in words the sheer, unmitigated gall of the assholes. Bile-rising, rictus-inducing, finger-twitchingly infuriating stuff.
You know how there's that hoary old cliche of pseudo-and actual intellectuals complaining of how modern/finance/late-capitalism has resulted in certain groups of people - namely those in the finance and banking sector - have culturally and regulatorily captured governing structures, in order to maximise their profits and minimise their losses?
No? Me either. Well, i'm taking about this phrase: 'socialise the losses and privatise the gains', of which we've been seeing a whole lot of recently.
Now, what this phrase is meant to point out is the unfairness that certain industries and entities play by in the vagaries of modern commerce. The supposedly 'sensible' reaction by modern, right-thinking types (even if you're a leftie pinko, though not commie, which i'll come to soon) is to create a symmetry of non-intervention between those conjunctions: gubmint should privatise the losses and privatise the gains.
Well, here's where the commie bolshie in me kicks in. Let's have the symmetry run the other way. Let's socialise the losses, sure, but we sure as hell are gonna socialise those gains too. You made a lot of money this year? Well, hooray! Begin sharing. In a practical sense, what would this mean? High rates of progressive taxation, profit-sharing agreements, and one method quite close to the populist heart, windfall taxes. So, whiling away the time in this realm of bullshit-theorising, it's quite surprising to come across this:
Windfall taxes are a ghastly idea. They are a sop to prejudice, a burden on risk-taking and a form of arbitrary confiscation. No sensible person should support them. So why do I now find the idea of a windfall tax on banks so appealing? Well, this time, it really does look different.From Martin Wolf, in the Financial Times, no less (!) Continuing:
The rest of the article is rigmarole about the incentive effects of windfall taxes, and where they should be applied (Wolf argues that it should be placed on the bonus pools of the employees of the institutions involved, mostly convincing), concluding with some mild boosterism for (carefully placed) populism.Fifth, it is hard to argue in favour of exceptional interventions to bail out the financial sector at times of crisis, and also against exceptional interventions to recoup costs when the crisis is past. “Windfall” support should be matched by windfall taxes.
Finally, these are genuine windfalls. They are, as George Soros has said, “hidden gifts” from the state. What the state gives, the state is entitled to take back, if it is not used for the state’s purposes.
Who da thunk it? Anyway, i've had this sitting for a little while now, and was partly inspired reading this New York article about the ongoing feud between AIG's Robert Benmosche and Kenneth Feinberg, the so-called 'pay czar' appointed by the Obama administration. It's...it's difficult to describe in words the sheer, unmitigated gall of the assholes. Bile-rising, rictus-inducing, finger-twitchingly infuriating stuff.
Golub, the chairman, was particularly angry at Feinberg’s decision to limit corporate perks—country-club memberships, private jets, sales retreats—to $25,000.I've never wanted to choke somebody so badly in my life.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Recasting copyright
EDITORS NOTE: This is something I wrote on copyright 7 months ago now? I've gone through this with people, but it seems like my notes are complete than I thought. I've even left in my very rough plan, which is the big blocked off bit that has DELETE surrounding it. And this is how I procrastinate, productively...
An approach concerning artistic control
Roughly: Commercial publication rights and commercial derivative-works rights. Commercial publication rights are just that: they are a copy-right, a right to copy that is legally restricted and legally enforceable (how long should this last? I have no idea, but not comparatively long. Estimates range anywhere between 7 to infinity, but i'm banking on somewhere between 17-20 years.
Economists could chip in here and compute some optimal period based on sales and social welfare and all that jazz.)
Commercial derivative rights on the other hand last for the life of the artist. Non-commercial derivative works are exempt...completely. If someone uses some Radiohead track for the background music for their funny cat video on youtube (though gods knows why, and I don't really want to find out), I seriously don't think this is worthy of moral consideration to the artist. If someone creates some kind of mashup between works in copyright (say, between Jay-Z and Radiohead, and proceeds to call it Jaydiohead [link]) and proceeds to release it non-commercially, that strikes me as okay as well.
However: if said derivative work is released in a commercial sense, then original rights-holders can take action. If the derivative work itself is used in a commercial fashion (say, in an advertisement or related some such), then the author of the derivative work can take action.
CONUNDRUM: What happens if some particular derivative work is used in a commercial sense, and the derivative rights holder actually agrees and licenses his derivative work? Is he liable to the original artwork authors? Is he required to obtain permission from the original artwork authors? I feel not, but something feels uneasy about that.
What's up with that: how come book authors maintain and own copyright, and yet bands/musicians routinely give it up? Book authors effectively license their commercial publication rights to publishing houses, while maintaining their own copyright. Why do bands give up their commercial publication rights and their commercial derivation rights to major publishing houses?
You can roughly equate non-commercial derivative works with fair-use, fair-dealing, etc etc.
Pour example of all this: Take Radiohead's (look, I like Radiohead) seminal masterpiece Ok Computer. Released in 1998, it has so far been in MGM's copyright for approx. 10 years. Ideally, i'd rather Radiohead own the copyright, and licenses out the commercial publication rights to them for 20 years or whatever.
After a 20 year commercial publication period, i.e. from 2018 onwards, the original record can be published and distributed without royalties having to be paid to copyright holders (you can stick the damn thing online if you like). However, if someone wants to create some kind of commercial derivative work using Ok Computer, then they have to get in contact with commercial derivation rights holders (ideally Radiohead, but possibly MGM if that ended up being the case) and figure out a licensing deal or pro bono or whatever.
The issue of versions: doesn't matter. If 10 years after the release of OK Computer, they come out with some re-mastered super-deluxe version, that is okay. The original work will go into (semi)public domain, and the new version will begin the 20 year cycle.
The main difference between this system and current systems of copyright and public domain and so forth is that currently, copyright encompasses both commercial publication rights and commercial derivation rights for a long, long time. When the work passes into the public domain, no authors have to contacted in order to assess commercial derivation or commercial publication issues. This separates that into two different domains.
Commercial derivation rights and commercial publishing rights dissolves when the original copyright holder cannot be reasonably located within a reasonable period of time and effort [Don't even begin to tell me how weaselly that sounds.]. If a band breaks up, commercial derivation rights gone. Author dead, commercial derivation rights gone, and so on.
Obviously all the above does not in any way remove attribution rights. You can't go around claiming some particular work of art as your own if it in fact isn't. This can apply even long after the original author is dead and the works in the public domain. Shakespeare et al. I'm even willing to apply criminal charges to add some teeth to this, though ideally, i'd rather not.
Many many issues: Problems arise with multiple creators (even with straightforward multiple authors, does copyright expire when one but not the other author dies?). Corporate owned copyright (perhaps make it illegal or impossible for corporations to own copyright? But obviously, issues: what about films, albums, even advertising that require collaboration between large teams, related to first point.)
DELETE
Artists given fuller control of their copyright. Copyright reconstituted or reconsidered at least through not the financial incentive of exclusive distributive rights (given that changes in modern distribution make creation and duplication trivial), but rather through the lens of creative controls: artists don't care about the money they make (they do, but not primarily, atleast within this view), but they do care about who or what is being done with their work. Essentially, this comes down to a massive expansion and improvement of fair-use (or fair dealings, or whatever; they're all synonymical for the sake of this argument) rights for non-commercial derivative works. In this view, copyright would exist for the length of the owners' life, shorter than today, but certainly longer than many people advocate.
DELETE
An approach concerning artistic control
Roughly: Commercial publication rights and commercial derivative-works rights. Commercial publication rights are just that: they are a copy-right, a right to copy that is legally restricted and legally enforceable (how long should this last? I have no idea, but not comparatively long. Estimates range anywhere between 7 to infinity, but i'm banking on somewhere between 17-20 years.
Economists could chip in here and compute some optimal period based on sales and social welfare and all that jazz.)
Commercial derivative rights on the other hand last for the life of the artist. Non-commercial derivative works are exempt...completely. If someone uses some Radiohead track for the background music for their funny cat video on youtube (though gods knows why, and I don't really want to find out), I seriously don't think this is worthy of moral consideration to the artist. If someone creates some kind of mashup between works in copyright (say, between Jay-Z and Radiohead, and proceeds to call it Jaydiohead [link]) and proceeds to release it non-commercially, that strikes me as okay as well.
However: if said derivative work is released in a commercial sense, then original rights-holders can take action. If the derivative work itself is used in a commercial fashion (say, in an advertisement or related some such), then the author of the derivative work can take action.
CONUNDRUM: What happens if some particular derivative work is used in a commercial sense, and the derivative rights holder actually agrees and licenses his derivative work? Is he liable to the original artwork authors? Is he required to obtain permission from the original artwork authors? I feel not, but something feels uneasy about that.
What's up with that: how come book authors maintain and own copyright, and yet bands/musicians routinely give it up? Book authors effectively license their commercial publication rights to publishing houses, while maintaining their own copyright. Why do bands give up their commercial publication rights and their commercial derivation rights to major publishing houses?
You can roughly equate non-commercial derivative works with fair-use, fair-dealing, etc etc.
Pour example of all this: Take Radiohead's (look, I like Radiohead) seminal masterpiece Ok Computer. Released in 1998, it has so far been in MGM's copyright for approx. 10 years. Ideally, i'd rather Radiohead own the copyright, and licenses out the commercial publication rights to them for 20 years or whatever.
After a 20 year commercial publication period, i.e. from 2018 onwards, the original record can be published and distributed without royalties having to be paid to copyright holders (you can stick the damn thing online if you like). However, if someone wants to create some kind of commercial derivative work using Ok Computer, then they have to get in contact with commercial derivation rights holders (ideally Radiohead, but possibly MGM if that ended up being the case) and figure out a licensing deal or pro bono or whatever.
The issue of versions: doesn't matter. If 10 years after the release of OK Computer, they come out with some re-mastered super-deluxe version, that is okay. The original work will go into (semi)public domain, and the new version will begin the 20 year cycle.
The main difference between this system and current systems of copyright and public domain and so forth is that currently, copyright encompasses both commercial publication rights and commercial derivation rights for a long, long time. When the work passes into the public domain, no authors have to contacted in order to assess commercial derivation or commercial publication issues. This separates that into two different domains.
Commercial derivation rights and commercial publishing rights dissolves when the original copyright holder cannot be reasonably located within a reasonable period of time and effort [Don't even begin to tell me how weaselly that sounds.]. If a band breaks up, commercial derivation rights gone. Author dead, commercial derivation rights gone, and so on.
Obviously all the above does not in any way remove attribution rights. You can't go around claiming some particular work of art as your own if it in fact isn't. This can apply even long after the original author is dead and the works in the public domain. Shakespeare et al. I'm even willing to apply criminal charges to add some teeth to this, though ideally, i'd rather not.
Many many issues: Problems arise with multiple creators (even with straightforward multiple authors, does copyright expire when one but not the other author dies?). Corporate owned copyright (perhaps make it illegal or impossible for corporations to own copyright? But obviously, issues: what about films, albums, even advertising that require collaboration between large teams, related to first point.)
DELETE
Artists given fuller control of their copyright. Copyright reconstituted or reconsidered at least through not the financial incentive of exclusive distributive rights (given that changes in modern distribution make creation and duplication trivial), but rather through the lens of creative controls: artists don't care about the money they make (they do, but not primarily, atleast within this view), but they do care about who or what is being done with their work. Essentially, this comes down to a massive expansion and improvement of fair-use (or fair dealings, or whatever; they're all synonymical for the sake of this argument) rights for non-commercial derivative works. In this view, copyright would exist for the length of the owners' life, shorter than today, but certainly longer than many people advocate.
DELETE
Friday, October 30, 2009
On CMG being the greatest music review site to date
Cranky, adorable young men
If you're smart, and hip, and indie and whatever other epithets appended to the youth of to-day, you're already/should be reading Cokemachineglow. I've taken the fact of CMG being balls-out great as self-evident for a while now, but a) never really understood why they didn't have a wider readership, influence or market share, despite being so perfectly on point with their reviews, and b) they don't even make money from this! They have this gorgeous site and a wonderful stable of talented writers and it's all charity, what the fuck! and c) oh wait, I know why they don't have a wider readership, influence or market share.
They're incredibly fucking idiosyncratic.
As patient and avid followers of CMG may have noticed, they have a blag of sorts going now. And much like how many blags turn into self-indulgent community notice boards, CMG has done something similar; one of their latest posts is effectively a rant by David M. Goldstein's on the 2009 World Series. Their latest post? The ever-favourite pastime of Liam Gallagher baiting.
Here's the thing: The Goldstein post is actually pretty fascinating, if you're looking into a virtual spittle-flecked insight into what a Mets fan feels like. And CMG is caustic! Mounting a campaign devoted to building a better world by "castigating one smug fuck at a time" can seem pretty bitter.
But here's the other thing: it is fucking hilarious. The CMG writers are much too funny and much too talented as music reviewers/writers to let themselves down. It's not just technical abilities (seriously, how many writers do you know are even aware of the word 'copacetic'?), but their general melange of urban, urbane angry ironic hipsterdom, which manages to strike that appropriate balance of self- and other-directed anger...and then slides off way into the other-directed anger. Especially at Liam Gallagher (which to be fair, he brought on himself. By being Liam. Gallagher.)
Oh CMG. Please never stop, now or forever.
If you're smart, and hip, and indie and whatever other epithets appended to the youth of to-day, you're already/should be reading Cokemachineglow. I've taken the fact of CMG being balls-out great as self-evident for a while now, but a) never really understood why they didn't have a wider readership, influence or market share, despite being so perfectly on point with their reviews, and b) they don't even make money from this! They have this gorgeous site and a wonderful stable of talented writers and it's all charity, what the fuck! and c) oh wait, I know why they don't have a wider readership, influence or market share.
They're incredibly fucking idiosyncratic.
As patient and avid followers of CMG may have noticed, they have a blag of sorts going now. And much like how many blags turn into self-indulgent community notice boards, CMG has done something similar; one of their latest posts is effectively a rant by David M. Goldstein's on the 2009 World Series. Their latest post? The ever-favourite pastime of Liam Gallagher baiting.
Here's the thing: The Goldstein post is actually pretty fascinating, if you're looking into a virtual spittle-flecked insight into what a Mets fan feels like. And CMG is caustic! Mounting a campaign devoted to building a better world by "castigating one smug fuck at a time" can seem pretty bitter.
But here's the other thing: it is fucking hilarious. The CMG writers are much too funny and much too talented as music reviewers/writers to let themselves down. It's not just technical abilities (seriously, how many writers do you know are even aware of the word 'copacetic'?), but their general melange of urban, urbane angry ironic hipsterdom, which manages to strike that appropriate balance of self- and other-directed anger...and then slides off way into the other-directed anger. Especially at Liam Gallagher (which to be fair, he brought on himself. By being Liam. Gallagher.)
Oh CMG. Please never stop, now or forever.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
It's a pittance, to be sure
But you've sold me!
I wrote this watching the guilty article in question while flying from Dulles to LAX, and have only just remembered that I finished editing it, sort of. I sent to Simon, who has rightly been pestering me about it for a while now, and realised it would be greatfiller material for the blagoblag! Especially given in the light of the recommendations by some people *cough* *cough*
17 Again
It really is hard to describe how terribly bad this movie is. From its insipid scripting to the incredibly vapid acting to outright offensiveness, the movie plumbs the depth of what it is to prostitute yourself to focus groups. The overall thematic is that of a 17-year-old wise beyond his years/has a conscience kinda thing. It doesn’t help that Efron is a crappy, crappy actor for the job, and the scripting is terribly terribly boring.
Witness the witless dialogue (“I’m a lot closer to them than you think.” GROAN. “Why is that new kid waving at me?” “I don’t know, but if he were an apple, he’d be delicious.” BARF) Totally charmless direction (what is this person’s idea of humour? Or characterisation? Or directorial vision?) Scoring that tries to oh so hard to be cinematic; note to who ever is scoring this, quit trying to be John Williams. Painfully clichéd camera/montage work, which climaxes ever so wretchedly with a contrived lightsaber scene.
Zac. Efron. Cannot. Act. He is waaaaay out of his league on this one. He’s a kid, who’s pretending to be a middle-aged guy, who has to pretend to be a kid? He can barely manage ‘kid’. He’s not even very good at basketball! Worse, he’s not even convincing pretending to be good at basketball!
A notable and worthwhile mention to Matthew Perry; he’s a little typecast these days as “Chandler” i.e. bitter, satirical, wittyish one-liner deliveryman, but it’s a role that suits him well, and a role that he plays well. The interaction between Perry and rest of cast is enjoyable, if a little formulaic. Thomas Lennon is also quite good, but I have a feeling that this is only because of contrast with how uncomfortably amateurish Ze Efron is.
So, obviously, though Perry is by far the better actor, they substitute the easy on the eyes (and hopefully easy in all the other ways that matter as well) Efron for the bulk of the movie. There is a lot, a lot, of screentime for him. Yeah, too much. Unless he shows more skin (and it better be egregious amounts of skin), I’m going to keep imagining punching him in his smug, self-satisfied face. NB: the malice may be going a bit far, but fuck it, he’s irritating. I guess I should be charitable in some way, and say that he’s quite good at the physical stuff; stick to the singing and dancing, kid.
What the hell was the point of that opening dance sequence? What the hell is this movie doing? And oh my god do you have to pound the principal idea of the goddamn title into our heads over and over again? We get it, he missed out on being 17.
Incredibly predictable sub-plot about his kid wanting to go out with head cheerleader, complete with jock-bully antagonist who’s fraternizing with the daughter? Check. Oh add a secondary sub-plot with klutzy, kookie sidekick trying to kindle lost romance in irritatingly kitschy ways? Also check. Ironically, Thomas Lennon’s acting and delivery is actually not half-bad, given what he has to work with.
I never, ever, want Zac Efron to ever say the word psychiatrist or bravado ever again. In any context.
Waxing jokes? Really?
Wha…I…No one…You…let…Zac…monologue in the health class scene. What can I possibly say? What’s probably even more horrifying is that this is only the first of many. Many. *shudder*
Aaand then they make fun of geeks. And then gays. How many stereotypes are you going set up and knock down? Do you think that this gives your more interesting? Is this what you think 'diversity' is?
I haven’t finished watching this movie, and nobody needs to. It’s hard to find a reason to see this movie, much less like it; a hackneyed clichéd effort that’s a waste of celluloid and a waste of time. I’m not going to bother cataloging all the its many and severely aggravating sins, or documenting the many many ways this movie is deplorable. Unluckily for me, I was a captive in a pressurized metal tube. Don’t make the same mistake.
ENJOY! It was amusing writing this while sitting next to christian dude from Colorado, who actually seemed to be enjoying the movie. Certainly made him squirm uncomfortably in his seat.
I wrote this watching the guilty article in question while flying from Dulles to LAX, and have only just remembered that I finished editing it, sort of. I sent to Simon, who has rightly been pestering me about it for a while now, and realised it would be great
17 Again
It really is hard to describe how terribly bad this movie is. From its insipid scripting to the incredibly vapid acting to outright offensiveness, the movie plumbs the depth of what it is to prostitute yourself to focus groups. The overall thematic is that of a 17-year-old wise beyond his years/has a conscience kinda thing. It doesn’t help that Efron is a crappy, crappy actor for the job, and the scripting is terribly terribly boring.
Witness the witless dialogue (“I’m a lot closer to them than you think.” GROAN. “Why is that new kid waving at me?” “I don’t know, but if he were an apple, he’d be delicious.” BARF) Totally charmless direction (what is this person’s idea of humour? Or characterisation? Or directorial vision?) Scoring that tries to oh so hard to be cinematic; note to who ever is scoring this, quit trying to be John Williams. Painfully clichéd camera/montage work, which climaxes ever so wretchedly with a contrived lightsaber scene.
Zac. Efron. Cannot. Act. He is waaaaay out of his league on this one. He’s a kid, who’s pretending to be a middle-aged guy, who has to pretend to be a kid? He can barely manage ‘kid’. He’s not even very good at basketball! Worse, he’s not even convincing pretending to be good at basketball!
A notable and worthwhile mention to Matthew Perry; he’s a little typecast these days as “Chandler” i.e. bitter, satirical, wittyish one-liner deliveryman, but it’s a role that suits him well, and a role that he plays well. The interaction between Perry and rest of cast is enjoyable, if a little formulaic. Thomas Lennon is also quite good, but I have a feeling that this is only because of contrast with how uncomfortably amateurish Ze Efron is.
So, obviously, though Perry is by far the better actor, they substitute the easy on the eyes (and hopefully easy in all the other ways that matter as well) Efron for the bulk of the movie. There is a lot, a lot, of screentime for him. Yeah, too much. Unless he shows more skin (and it better be egregious amounts of skin), I’m going to keep imagining punching him in his smug, self-satisfied face. NB: the malice may be going a bit far, but fuck it, he’s irritating. I guess I should be charitable in some way, and say that he’s quite good at the physical stuff; stick to the singing and dancing, kid.
What the hell was the point of that opening dance sequence? What the hell is this movie doing? And oh my god do you have to pound the principal idea of the goddamn title into our heads over and over again? We get it, he missed out on being 17.
Incredibly predictable sub-plot about his kid wanting to go out with head cheerleader, complete with jock-bully antagonist who’s fraternizing with the daughter? Check. Oh add a secondary sub-plot with klutzy, kookie sidekick trying to kindle lost romance in irritatingly kitschy ways? Also check. Ironically, Thomas Lennon’s acting and delivery is actually not half-bad, given what he has to work with.
I never, ever, want Zac Efron to ever say the word psychiatrist or bravado ever again. In any context.
Waxing jokes? Really?
Wha…I…No one…You…let…Zac…monologue in the health class scene. What can I possibly say? What’s probably even more horrifying is that this is only the first of many. Many. *shudder*
Aaand then they make fun of geeks. And then gays. How many stereotypes are you going set up and knock down? Do you think that this gives your more interesting? Is this what you think 'diversity' is?
I haven’t finished watching this movie, and nobody needs to. It’s hard to find a reason to see this movie, much less like it; a hackneyed clichéd effort that’s a waste of celluloid and a waste of time. I’m not going to bother cataloging all the its many and severely aggravating sins, or documenting the many many ways this movie is deplorable. Unluckily for me, I was a captive in a pressurized metal tube. Don’t make the same mistake.
ENJOY! It was amusing writing this while sitting next to christian dude from Colorado, who actually seemed to be enjoying the movie. Certainly made him squirm uncomfortably in his seat.
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
It is happening, again
It is happening, again
Over coffee and delicious breakfast foods consumed at Single Origin, talk happened, and I want to talk more about emergence. So here, i'll wend through some stuff about emergence and consciousness and climatology and how they relate (sort of).
Simply put, emergence is how complexity could arise out of simplicity: how complex systems and patterns can arise through a series of relatively simple inter/intrasystem actions. One example of this could be consciousness.
Human consciousness as emergence - consciousness as a byproduct of the homo sapien brain, which has certain evolved features and traits i.e. highly plastic, massively modular, relative large sizes of neo-cortices, composed of various systems and sub-systems regulating various functions (hippocampus, limbic systems. frontal/rear lobes, amygdalas, etc etc). This is a relatively non-controversial position - In the same way that one ant on its own is stupid, one neuron is stupid, but many (interacting neurons) are not. While we don't understand the workings of the brain overall, we have (some) decentish ideas about what parts of the brains can do: neo-cortex responsible for social relations, hippocampus for short term memory, brain stem for regulating bodily functions, etc etc. What we don't we know much at all is the interactions between various systems (and in some cases, even within systems); we have a vagueish idea of what the underlying processes are (in some cases), but no idea of how all this makes consciousness, or the brain work the way it does. However, one feasible method of simulating consciousness could be through building networks upon networks of 'dumb' neurons; the play and interplay between the networks could possibly give rise to some form of 'consciousness'.
Climatology (specifically in relation to climate change, cf. global warming) could work in the same way. We understand some of the underlying processes, albeit in some limited way: we know albedo does...shit, we have a vague idea of hydrological systems, sunspot activites, volcanic eruptions, etc etc. But we have no idea, not even really the faintestest clue, on how all these various processes interact. We don't even know whether we know all the processes that affect climate (which is actually a pretty serious dent in the whole emergence idea of climate). Even so, we may be able to make rudimentary guesses; through inputting huge amounts of statistical data (ice cores, temperature histories, carbon histories, etc etc) in teh GIANT COMPUTORS (like this NEC one) we can hope to simulate, even if don't understand per se, what the hell is going on.
Btw, this is all me, bullshit-theorising. This wiki article does a pretty decent job w/r/t the whole attribution of climate change business, if you're looking something specific. Otherwise, wiki/google anything and everything you want to find out more on.
Over coffee and delicious breakfast foods consumed at Single Origin, talk happened, and I want to talk more about emergence. So here, i'll wend through some stuff about emergence and consciousness and climatology and how they relate (sort of).
Simply put, emergence is how complexity could arise out of simplicity: how complex systems and patterns can arise through a series of relatively simple inter/intrasystem actions. One example of this could be consciousness.
Human consciousness as emergence - consciousness as a byproduct of the homo sapien brain, which has certain evolved features and traits i.e. highly plastic, massively modular, relative large sizes of neo-cortices, composed of various systems and sub-systems regulating various functions (hippocampus, limbic systems. frontal/rear lobes, amygdalas, etc etc). This is a relatively non-controversial position - In the same way that one ant on its own is stupid, one neuron is stupid, but many (interacting neurons) are not. While we don't understand the workings of the brain overall, we have (some) decentish ideas about what parts of the brains can do: neo-cortex responsible for social relations, hippocampus for short term memory, brain stem for regulating bodily functions, etc etc. What we don't we know much at all is the interactions between various systems (and in some cases, even within systems); we have a vagueish idea of what the underlying processes are (in some cases), but no idea of how all this makes consciousness, or the brain work the way it does. However, one feasible method of simulating consciousness could be through building networks upon networks of 'dumb' neurons; the play and interplay between the networks could possibly give rise to some form of 'consciousness'.
Climatology (specifically in relation to climate change, cf. global warming) could work in the same way. We understand some of the underlying processes, albeit in some limited way: we know albedo does...shit, we have a vague idea of hydrological systems, sunspot activites, volcanic eruptions, etc etc. But we have no idea, not even really the faintestest clue, on how all these various processes interact. We don't even know whether we know all the processes that affect climate (which is actually a pretty serious dent in the whole emergence idea of climate). Even so, we may be able to make rudimentary guesses; through inputting huge amounts of statistical data (ice cores, temperature histories, carbon histories, etc etc) in teh GIANT COMPUTORS (like this NEC one) we can hope to simulate, even if don't understand per se, what the hell is going on.
Btw, this is all me, bullshit-theorising. This wiki article does a pretty decent job w/r/t the whole attribution of climate change business, if you're looking something specific. Otherwise, wiki/google anything and everything you want to find out more on.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Apparently, I like sad religiousy music
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
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)