I came across some interesting imagery on my daily treck through the interweb today.
We don't need no water let the motha-***** burn...
Sun Go Boom
Sun Going Boom
Thank you Earth Observatory for providing the fodor for this update.
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
Thursday, October 23, 2003
New discussion board
Hey all. I figured since we have a tendency to get into discussions quite a bit, a message board might be a better forum than the "Shout Out" box after each post.
The board is at: http://daguys.proboards24.com/
Feel free to link to this after any of your posts. I will add it to my template so the link is automatically available.
You don't have to register to view or post, but it would be helpful to know who you are :)
See you there :)
The board is at: http://daguys.proboards24.com/
Feel free to link to this after any of your posts. I will add it to my template so the link is automatically available.
You don't have to register to view or post, but it would be helpful to know who you are :)
See you there :)
Tuesday, October 21, 2003
Thursday, October 09, 2003
Double-plus Goodread
I just finished reading 1984 today. Doubleplusgood book. Orwell is (was) a very smart man. I like how he managed to predict the cold war stalemate, and specifically nuclear arms proliferation--all before the book was published in 1949.
One of the major sources of conflict in the book is the dichotomy between two differing views of human nature. On one hand, you have "The Blank Slate." Put simply, this is the philosophy that contends that all humans are infinitely malleable; that who they are is entirely a product of their environment. This view is the one held by religious groups (stemming from a belief in the soul) and by the far left--generally borderline socialist and beyond, including many college students (stemming from the belief that culture is its own self contained entity). Due to the extremist movements of the 60s and 70s, this view is the one that is engrained in our culture and has had a profound effect on our public policy.
On the other hand, you have the sociobiologists. They purport that much of what makes up human nature is defined, at least in part, by genes. The characteristics that are at least partially heritable include: intelligence, propensity for violence, liberalism/conservatism, and several others. This view is held by many in the psychological and cognitive science fields, at least by those who don't fall under the liberal extremist category. It is also, interestingly, a view held somewhat instinctively by much of the population, even though they pay lip-service to the Blank Slate. Idiomatic expressions such as "He's a bad egg" and "Winners are born, not made" attest to this belief. (To get a detailed description of these two views and a defense of cognitive science, check out The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker.)
Now, in1984 , these two are set against each other. The Party believes that "human nature is infinitely malleable" and use this to control not only the actions but the thoughts of its citizens. The Party believes that "whoever controls the present controls the past; and whoever controls the past controls the future." Truth exists only in the mind, so if they control the mind, they control everything and will then be endowed with absolute power. The lead character, Winston, believes there is such a thing as absolute truth and that, some day, the proles--the unwashed masses--will rise up against their oppressors and once again be free. The Party is not completely naive, and realizes that maintaining absolute power over an entire nation of hundreds of millions of people will not occur through a simple "socialization." Torture, fear, and intimidation are necessary tools to keep the lower castes from revolting.
Now here is the question I pose to you:
First, ask yourself where you stand on the issue of the Blank Slate vs. sociobiology. Now, envision a 1984-like society and try to imagine the outcome. If the Blank Slate is correct, the population, in theory, should be able to be socialized into accepting complete domination by an all-encompassing power--they would never revolt. However, if sociobiology is correct, and all human beings inherently want to have "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," then given enough time, all oppressed peoples will eventually overthrow their oppressors. Based on your own experiences and perception of human nature, where do you fall on these issues? What conflicts (if any) arise from these beliefs? How do you justify them?
One of the major sources of conflict in the book is the dichotomy between two differing views of human nature. On one hand, you have "The Blank Slate." Put simply, this is the philosophy that contends that all humans are infinitely malleable; that who they are is entirely a product of their environment. This view is the one held by religious groups (stemming from a belief in the soul) and by the far left--generally borderline socialist and beyond, including many college students (stemming from the belief that culture is its own self contained entity). Due to the extremist movements of the 60s and 70s, this view is the one that is engrained in our culture and has had a profound effect on our public policy.
On the other hand, you have the sociobiologists. They purport that much of what makes up human nature is defined, at least in part, by genes. The characteristics that are at least partially heritable include: intelligence, propensity for violence, liberalism/conservatism, and several others. This view is held by many in the psychological and cognitive science fields, at least by those who don't fall under the liberal extremist category. It is also, interestingly, a view held somewhat instinctively by much of the population, even though they pay lip-service to the Blank Slate. Idiomatic expressions such as "He's a bad egg" and "Winners are born, not made" attest to this belief. (To get a detailed description of these two views and a defense of cognitive science, check out The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker.)
Now, in
Now here is the question I pose to you:
First, ask yourself where you stand on the issue of the Blank Slate vs. sociobiology. Now, envision a 1984-like society and try to imagine the outcome. If the Blank Slate is correct, the population, in theory, should be able to be socialized into accepting complete domination by an all-encompassing power--they would never revolt. However, if sociobiology is correct, and all human beings inherently want to have "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," then given enough time, all oppressed peoples will eventually overthrow their oppressors. Based on your own experiences and perception of human nature, where do you fall on these issues? What conflicts (if any) arise from these beliefs? How do you justify them?
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
Baking and Poetry
Red, Ripe and Round
Quite Sweet and Tasty
Delicious inside
A cinnamon Pastry
Put in the Oven
Bake at 350
Wait 15 minutes
Don't go too swiftly
When golden brown
Remove from the oven
And that's how you make
My rhymed Apple Muffins.
Quite Sweet and Tasty
Delicious inside
A cinnamon Pastry
Put in the Oven
Bake at 350
Wait 15 minutes
Don't go too swiftly
When golden brown
Remove from the oven
And that's how you make
My rhymed Apple Muffins.
Sunday, October 05, 2003
One of the most interesting things to watch...
Right now I'm watching some program about cartoons on VH1. Don't even get me started on the stupidity of having show about cartoons on a MUSIC station. Stupid TV execs. Anyhoo, on this program, they had a brief blurb on the Simpsons--the original prime-time cartoon that wasn't just for kids anymore. Just like Frosted Flakes. Mmm...Frosted Flakes... Ahem. During this blurb, they interviewed Hank Azaria, who is quite possibly one of the most amazing voice actors ever. In this interview he recapped almost every single one of his major characters on the show. He seamlessly transitioned between Moe, Apu, Chief Wiggum, Snake, Comic-Book Guy, and many more. Now it is difficult to describe the emotions one experiences while watching this impressive display of vocal acrobatics, but it is quite powerful. Perhaps this is more an indication of my character than of any over-arching quality of human nature, but one comes to develop a deep and real relationship with these characters. Homer, Bart, Maggie, Lisa, Marge, these are all real people within the confines of my mind. They can inspire, disappoint, confuse, entertain, provide all of the qualities of a real human relationship. I often share anecdotes from the Simpsons as if I experienced them first hand. Now, when you view the voice actor recreating these characters in front your very eyes, your mind gets caught in a very delicate situation: since you see all of these characters coming out of one mouth, either the characters are not real, or the voice actor is host to the whole lot of them. Now, we have established that the ink & paper are as real as the flesh & blood. Therefore, they share an equal portion of the knowledge base with which we measure other members of the human race. Consequently, the first choice is not an option. It has too much potential to upset your entire personal belief structure about human nature. This is the subtle step that moves the characters out of the silver screen and into the 3-D world. To sum up the emotional translation, it is akin to the experience giving birth. A new life is brought into the world and, as with all newborns, leaves its indelible mark on the world.
Keep in mind, that during the Renaissance, the great artists of the day created art for a living. They were every bit as commercial as today's creators of film, TV, music, and other forms of art. Only time will tell which of these ventures will be taught to the eager young minds of our great-great-grandchildren. I hope to god that they never hear of Jerry Bruckheimer.
On an interesting side note, when I ran spell check on this post, the suggested spelling for "Bruckheimer" was "brokenhearted." This is a very smart blog.
Keep in mind, that during the Renaissance, the great artists of the day created art for a living. They were every bit as commercial as today's creators of film, TV, music, and other forms of art. Only time will tell which of these ventures will be taught to the eager young minds of our great-great-grandchildren. I hope to god that they never hear of Jerry Bruckheimer.
On an interesting side note, when I ran spell check on this post, the suggested spelling for "Bruckheimer" was "brokenhearted." This is a very smart blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)