Sophie's World mentioned, as did my AP Psychology textbook, the study of parapsychology. Which is a fancy word for a field of 'science' that investigates paranormal phenomena.
If my title didn't give you a hint, I consider it to be a bullshit field. Either Sophie's World or my Psych book1 mentioned James Randi's One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, in which all someone has to do to win one million dollars is provide the slightest proof of the smallest feat of the paranormal. It's been running since the 60's2, and of the hundreds of people to try, no one has ever won.
The basic idea is for people to stop going "HOLY SHIT! THAT GUY CAN TALK TO GHOSTS!," and to instead go "Neat trick. Now do it when science is watching." Most applicants do well in the first stage, where they can pull whatever tricks they want, but then proceed to fail once they have to follow guidelines and rules3.
My main reason for thinking parapsychology is a crock is the lack of evidence for psychic mumbo jumbo, and the sheer number of hoaxes. I think the whole of idea of believing in ghosts or psychics or remote viewings or Santa without proof is just stupid. We have sense organs and a brain to process information with, why not use it4?
---
1 I don't know, or care which one it was. One of them did it, and so now it is part of this blog.
2 I think. The idea for it might have started in the 60's while the Million Dollar challenge developed later. It's late and I don't care about such fine details.
3 Even better, the applicants get to help design the tests they'll be doing. Their failures are completely in their own hands.
4 Kierkegaard and his leap of faith can suck it...
Friday, November 18, 2011
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Sophie's World 7: He said there's a storm coming in.
Finally finished Sophie's World (good timing, given this is the last blog I have to do on the topic). I enjoyed that the story really started moving. I disliked that the author thought he needed absurdist teenage sex and car crashes to reach the climax1. I also disliked Alberto's explanation of why escaped2 fictional characters could pass through things: as beings of pure soul, they are more solid that everything else.
Being more solid doesn't reduce the solidity of other objects. The metaphor he used, about being able to walk through mist because we're more solid than it, is bullshit. We don't go through mist because we're more solid, we go through mist because it isn't solid.
Hell, with the exception of somethings being denser than others3, I don't think one solid can be more solid than another solid. There are thick liquids, which can be difficult to get through, but that doesn't make them solid. It makes them thick liquids (BTW, mist is a very not thick liquid, so we pass through it without noticing resistance).
Also, what was the deal with Sophie just barely interacting them Hilde? Did Major not notice being smacked in the face with a wrench because he was padded by rabbit fur? Or is Hilde just insane, and thinks Sophie exists, and imagined that a bug biting her was Sophie?
And how did Sophie and Alberto get the boat lose? They said the rope didn't budge, no matter how hard they tried, but evidently, it eventually budged enough for tight knots to come undone AND for the boat to have a little push-off speed. Jostein Gaarder needs to learn consistency.
---
1 Freud could have a field day with that...
2 Seeing as how what seems to be every fictional character ever lives somewhere in the world, why did Alberto and Sophie have to work so hard to "escape?"
3 The writer, maybe?
Being more solid doesn't reduce the solidity of other objects. The metaphor he used, about being able to walk through mist because we're more solid than it, is bullshit. We don't go through mist because we're more solid, we go through mist because it isn't solid.
Hell, with the exception of somethings being denser than others3, I don't think one solid can be more solid than another solid. There are thick liquids, which can be difficult to get through, but that doesn't make them solid. It makes them thick liquids (BTW, mist is a very not thick liquid, so we pass through it without noticing resistance).
Also, what was the deal with Sophie just barely interacting them Hilde? Did Major not notice being smacked in the face with a wrench because he was padded by rabbit fur? Or is Hilde just insane, and thinks Sophie exists, and imagined that a bug biting her was Sophie?
And how did Sophie and Alberto get the boat lose? They said the rope didn't budge, no matter how hard they tried, but evidently, it eventually budged enough for tight knots to come undone AND for the boat to have a little push-off speed. Jostein Gaarder needs to learn consistency.
---
1 Freud could have a field day with that...
2 Seeing as how what seems to be every fictional character ever lives somewhere in the world, why did Alberto and Sophie have to work so hard to "escape?"
3 The writer, maybe?
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Real World Connection 6: Freud
THIS IS LATE!
My bitching about Pandora acting up has been rewarded. I not only got a good song, on a station where it made sense, but the song will help me throw together this blog post. The song is Rebellion (Lies) by Arcade Fire, and it reminded me of Freud's stuff about dreams1.
The first thing that reminded me of Freud were the lyrics:
I was then reminded of how in Sophie's World, as an example of Victorian Era repressed sexuality, Alberto mentioned that parents would yell at kids who touched themselves. What reminded me was these lyircs:
As mentioned in the previous post, I'm kinda burnt on the whole blog deal, so I'm gonna end this before it turns into one of my rambling rambly things.
---
1 I'll admit, the Freud chapter in Sophie's World primed me to pay attention to stuff about dreams. I'll even admit that some of the lyrics of the song remind me of an example in Sophie's World. I won't however admit that this is a Sophie's World blog post.
My bitching about Pandora acting up has been rewarded. I not only got a good song, on a station where it made sense, but the song will help me throw together this blog post. The song is Rebellion (Lies) by Arcade Fire, and it reminded me of Freud's stuff about dreams1.
The first thing that reminded me of Freud were the lyrics:
"people say that your dreams are the only things that save ya. come on baby in our dreams, we can live our misbehaviour."This is reminded me of Freud because he said our dreams are when our suppressed thoughts spill out, and that repressing these thoughts is a bad thing, because instead of dealing with our problems, we bury them and let them fester. So dreaming about suppressed ideas is the first step in dealing with them.
I was then reminded of how in Sophie's World, as an example of Victorian Era repressed sexuality, Alberto mentioned that parents would yell at kids who touched themselves. What reminded me was these lyircs:
"people try and hide the night underneath the covers.Although the example Alberto gave ended with the parents making the kid sleep with their hands outside the covers, I was still reminded of how people not only face their problems in their dreams, but can also feel guilty about what they dream, and that they'll try to hide the dreams away.
people try and hide the light underneath the covers.
come on hide your lovers underneath the covers"
As mentioned in the previous post, I'm kinda burnt on the whole blog deal, so I'm gonna end this before it turns into one of my rambling rambly things.
---
1 I'll admit, the Freud chapter in Sophie's World primed me to pay attention to stuff about dreams. I'll even admit that some of the lyrics of the song remind me of an example in Sophie's World. I won't however admit that this is a Sophie's World blog post.
Sophie's World 6: *Insert Pun Later*
THIS IS LATE!
Okay. I think I found something in this book I understand. There is a coffee shop, and names I've actually heard of. And Sophie's World is in it1! There was also a giant goose. Who said it could travel through time.
Okay, it stopped making sense again. Now I'm mad at Jostein Gaarder again. This book started off like it was going to be really interesting. But, it just hasn't. I'm only reading it to keep up in class. Just like The Time Machine. I taught Ender's Game was pretty good. Jurassic Park was meh2.
I'm getting kind of burnt out on blogs, mostly because Sophie's World is providing less and less write about. Also the effort of writing as ridiculously as in my first post isn't worth the time. ALSO3 not helping the matter is the trimester almost being over. The fact that my grade can't shift very much now (and that I have a good grade) reduces the desire to work.
If Sophie's World doesn't have a badass conclusion, I'ma rage. Or, more likely, I'll be unimpressed, and go do work for another class (like AP Comp Sci, which, unlike Sophie's World, has an excuse to suck).
---
1 And we're at 3 layers. Philosoception.
2 The last 3 books I mentioned were read for SciFi. Just thought I should clear that up.
3 Sure is a lot of repetition in this post...
Okay. I think I found something in this book I understand. There is a coffee shop, and names I've actually heard of. And Sophie's World is in it1! There was also a giant goose. Who said it could travel through time.
Okay, it stopped making sense again. Now I'm mad at Jostein Gaarder again. This book started off like it was going to be really interesting. But, it just hasn't. I'm only reading it to keep up in class. Just like The Time Machine. I taught Ender's Game was pretty good. Jurassic Park was meh2.
I'm getting kind of burnt out on blogs, mostly because Sophie's World is providing less and less write about. Also the effort of writing as ridiculously as in my first post isn't worth the time. ALSO3 not helping the matter is the trimester almost being over. The fact that my grade can't shift very much now (and that I have a good grade) reduces the desire to work.
If Sophie's World doesn't have a badass conclusion, I'ma rage. Or, more likely, I'll be unimpressed, and go do work for another class (like AP Comp Sci, which, unlike Sophie's World, has an excuse to suck).
---
1 And we're at 3 layers. Philosoception.
2 The last 3 books I mentioned were read for SciFi. Just thought I should clear that up.
3 Sure is a lot of repetition in this post...
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Real World Connection 5: Absurdism
I taught the mention of absurdism in Sophie's World was pretty cool. I enjoy absurdism, because it basically tells anyone on the search for meaning in life "suuuuuuuuuuuucks1." Also, I enjoy Monty Python. Monty Python is the bigger reason. I actually only listed the first reason because it gave me an excuse to go suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucks.
Kingdom of Loathing is a pretty funny game. Mostly because everything written in the game is a mockery, parody, or tribute to something. Laughing that the references is actually more fun than playing the game. If someone tried to make a game of the same style, without the references, it would be awful. It's a text-based adventure game, except with stick-figure doodles as headings to any text-blocks. I think KoL can be thought of as the interactive embodiment of TV Tropes.
I should probably mention that I'm using the heading of absurdism to ramble even further off topic than I normally do, going off the logic that for all you know I could be talking about adsurdist/surreal humor, and thus this post is arguably more on topic than anything within the bounds of surreal humor2.
What's truly absurd to me though (because I don't really care about the study of the conflict of searching for something that might not exist, but that gains existence from what you do when you give up the search) is my Pandora stations. On my Classic Punk/New Wave station, I got Ring of Fire (by Johnny Cash). Pandora's reason for this song was that it had folk roots and country influences (I've yet to get Ring of Fire on my Folk Rock station!). And just a few minutes ago, I was getting 90's surf rock, on my Folk Rock station. Insanity!
EDIT: I found an xkcd comic that I guess relates to the actual topic of philosophical absurdism.
---
1 [to be you]
2 This is what happens when I have 60 pages of notes to do in AP Psych...
Kingdom of Loathing is a pretty funny game. Mostly because everything written in the game is a mockery, parody, or tribute to something. Laughing that the references is actually more fun than playing the game. If someone tried to make a game of the same style, without the references, it would be awful. It's a text-based adventure game, except with stick-figure doodles as headings to any text-blocks. I think KoL can be thought of as the interactive embodiment of TV Tropes.
I should probably mention that I'm using the heading of absurdism to ramble even further off topic than I normally do, going off the logic that for all you know I could be talking about adsurdist/surreal humor, and thus this post is arguably more on topic than anything within the bounds of surreal humor2.
What's truly absurd to me though (because I don't really care about the study of the conflict of searching for something that might not exist, but that gains existence from what you do when you give up the search) is my Pandora stations. On my Classic Punk/New Wave station, I got Ring of Fire (by Johnny Cash). Pandora's reason for this song was that it had folk roots and country influences (I've yet to get Ring of Fire on my Folk Rock station!). And just a few minutes ago, I was getting 90's surf rock, on my Folk Rock station. Insanity!
EDIT: I found an xkcd comic that I guess relates to the actual topic of philosophical absurdism.
 |
| http://xkcd.com/220/ |
---
1 [to be you]
2 This is what happens when I have 60 pages of notes to do in AP Psych...
Sophie's World 5: Vaguely Related Pun
So yeah. I don't know what I was supposed to read up to. Or when I'm supposed to have things read by.
But I can say this: the last couple chapters I've read have made no sense. The Alberto/Sophie vs. Albert arc confuses the shit out of me1. The last couple philosophers are too grounded AND too out there to be memorable. I can barely remember their names, and their ideas jumble to me. Yet I somehow felt confident on the last test. Thank god for multiple choice. AP Psych as some explanation about how multiple choice is easier than free response, but I'm not gonna dig that info out until I'm studying for finals.
I also think that Jostein Gaarder writing as Albert writing in random characters is just annoying. As is Alberto constantly saying Albert should be ashamed of himself. I honestly can't tell if it's a sign of Jostein Gaarder being a bad writer, or a sign that he is writing Albert as a bad writer. Regardless, it's bad writing. Repetition and motifs are one thing. Typing the same thing repeated so you don't have to reword anything is stupid2.
I think the part were this story fell apart on me was when it went from a textbook to a book-within-a-book. The textbook-disguised-as-a-novel was kind of boring, but at least it bothered to make sense. It's gone from sensical to spamming fictional characters for the sake of 'why not?'
Now I'm sure that is just some meta example of how philosophy has changed over the years (sciency to absurd). Which also works well, because the book starts with early philosophies of how the world was built, and at the start of the book I had no idea where anything was going or how the story would be shown. Now that I've rambled off some English teacher style depth diving, I suppose I should admit that Jostein Gaarder is really some great writer. After all, I found a way to make something deep; there is no way the depth was my own creation and not innate to the something.
---
1 Earlier today, I wrote a very angry SciFi blog, and the use of swearing is still appealing.
2 Ironic, since I enjoyed the descriptions of various world leaders in The Illuminatus! Trilogy...
But I can say this: the last couple chapters I've read have made no sense. The Alberto/Sophie vs. Albert arc confuses the shit out of me1. The last couple philosophers are too grounded AND too out there to be memorable. I can barely remember their names, and their ideas jumble to me. Yet I somehow felt confident on the last test. Thank god for multiple choice. AP Psych as some explanation about how multiple choice is easier than free response, but I'm not gonna dig that info out until I'm studying for finals.
I also think that Jostein Gaarder writing as Albert writing in random characters is just annoying. As is Alberto constantly saying Albert should be ashamed of himself. I honestly can't tell if it's a sign of Jostein Gaarder being a bad writer, or a sign that he is writing Albert as a bad writer. Regardless, it's bad writing. Repetition and motifs are one thing. Typing the same thing repeated so you don't have to reword anything is stupid2.
I think the part were this story fell apart on me was when it went from a textbook to a book-within-a-book. The textbook-disguised-as-a-novel was kind of boring, but at least it bothered to make sense. It's gone from sensical to spamming fictional characters for the sake of 'why not?'
Now I'm sure that is just some meta example of how philosophy has changed over the years (sciency to absurd). Which also works well, because the book starts with early philosophies of how the world was built, and at the start of the book I had no idea where anything was going or how the story would be shown. Now that I've rambled off some English teacher style depth diving, I suppose I should admit that Jostein Gaarder is really some great writer. After all, I found a way to make something deep; there is no way the depth was my own creation and not innate to the something.
---
1 Earlier today, I wrote a very angry SciFi blog, and the use of swearing is still appealing.
2 Ironic, since I enjoyed the descriptions of various world leaders in The Illuminatus! Trilogy...
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Blog 52 Response - The Rerambling.
Statement #3 - When we die, our essence or soul leaves our body - this divided the class like the 2nd statement, because some weren't sure whether or not we had a soul and wanted proof. Also, we discussed what was someone's essence? A memory held after the person was gone? His/her impact on others? Are we just renting our skin and bones while we're here (thanks, Switchfoot!)? Some classmates mentioned the impact of ghost-like experiences as well as religion that have helped them through this difficult question. Are we just worm food when we die or is there something more?
I'm choosing this one because of the Switchfoot reference (BTW Geoff, I'm now listening to Switchfoot. Thanks for showing me a new band). The bit about renting our bodies is a good place to start (for my mental ramblings. The ramblings I write here will be filtered, organized, and at least slightly refined):
"But I'm not sentimental
This skin and bones is a rental
And no one makes it out alive"
There was also a part later on that got my attention:
"This body's not my own
This world is not my own"
I don't know if we have a soul that we leave behind (or that leaves us behind) when we die. But I do know that current science shows us that we as we think of ourselves is most likely an interaction of electricity and chemicals in our neural tissue.
I don't think that sort of reaction will continue once we die (dying sorta causes our bodies to stop most chemical reactions), and as a result, I don't see how our mind could carry on after death (at least, not until we can make computers that can handle and process a human brain in real-time. But we're quite far from that. Last I heard, scientists have managed to simulate part of a rat brain, at like, a hundredth the speed found in nature).
But I also think it's possible there is something beyond neuro-electrical firings (science use to tell use the Earth was flat and was the center of the entire Universe. Those ideas were wrong, so why not this one about how thought works?).
There was an idea brought up in Sci-Fi, panpsychism, which raises the question: if our thoughts are just the result of chemical interaction, what's to say that everything (the air, rocks, planets, etc.) don't have stray chemical reactions that cause a basic, proto-thought (basic as in the same result of one or two brain cells triggering, not basic as in "I want food")?
I think that idea is ridiculous (mostly because it is saying that non-sentient things are, in a way thinking), but that implies that I think there is something more to thought than chemical reactions. But as I brought up in class yesterday, the reason people end up different is that, even with the same building blocks, the slight build differences, magnified across thousands of thousands of thousands of cells, add up, making all of us different.
So yeah, I really don't know where I stand on this idea. I think the idea that once someone dies, their spirit stays around, leaving raspy-voiced messages on tape cassettes is crap. But I don't think there is anything to say there can't be a spirit. BUT, I don't think there is anything to say there CAN be a spirit.
I think I'm going to take the easy (well, easier) way out, and go with agnosticism (screw religious debates. The word means "without knowledge"). We'll never know if we have souls; every conclusion on the issue is speculation. The only way to know is to die and see what's there (too bad relaying what you find is a little difficult once you're dead).
I'm also not sure if I want to have an essence once I die. If there isn't some kind of afterlife, I'd just be floating in space (or stuck on Earth) until whatever it is that made my soul died (God knows what would happen then...). That would suck. Eternity would be madness inducing. I'm not saying I want to die, but I don't want to live forever either.
I'm not sure I want to know the answer to this question! If we don't have souls, I'm faced with the knowledge that one of these days, my heart will stop, and play it's final beat (Geoff, I can reference songs too!). If we do have souls, and there is Heaven/Hell/Whatever, I wouldn't be able to not spend the rest of my life trying to avoid the worst option (in which case, I don't think I'd really be living). If we have souls, but there isn't an afterlife, then I have an entirety to look forward to, most of which couldn't be spent on anything but my thoughts (once my body dies, where goes my ability to interact with the physical world?). None of these options sound good. At least with some mystery to it, I can pretend I look forward to the answer...
Side note, 'Where I Belong' became my soundtrack as I wrote most of this.
I'm choosing this one because of the Switchfoot reference (BTW Geoff, I'm now listening to Switchfoot. Thanks for showing me a new band). The bit about renting our bodies is a good place to start (for my mental ramblings. The ramblings I write here will be filtered, organized, and at least slightly refined):
"But I'm not sentimental
This skin and bones is a rental
And no one makes it out alive"
There was also a part later on that got my attention:
"This body's not my own
This world is not my own"
I don't know if we have a soul that we leave behind (or that leaves us behind) when we die. But I do know that current science shows us that we as we think of ourselves is most likely an interaction of electricity and chemicals in our neural tissue.
I don't think that sort of reaction will continue once we die (dying sorta causes our bodies to stop most chemical reactions), and as a result, I don't see how our mind could carry on after death (at least, not until we can make computers that can handle and process a human brain in real-time. But we're quite far from that. Last I heard, scientists have managed to simulate part of a rat brain, at like, a hundredth the speed found in nature).
But I also think it's possible there is something beyond neuro-electrical firings (science use to tell use the Earth was flat and was the center of the entire Universe. Those ideas were wrong, so why not this one about how thought works?).
There was an idea brought up in Sci-Fi, panpsychism, which raises the question: if our thoughts are just the result of chemical interaction, what's to say that everything (the air, rocks, planets, etc.) don't have stray chemical reactions that cause a basic, proto-thought (basic as in the same result of one or two brain cells triggering, not basic as in "I want food")?
I think that idea is ridiculous (mostly because it is saying that non-sentient things are, in a way thinking), but that implies that I think there is something more to thought than chemical reactions. But as I brought up in class yesterday, the reason people end up different is that, even with the same building blocks, the slight build differences, magnified across thousands of thousands of thousands of cells, add up, making all of us different.
So yeah, I really don't know where I stand on this idea. I think the idea that once someone dies, their spirit stays around, leaving raspy-voiced messages on tape cassettes is crap. But I don't think there is anything to say there can't be a spirit. BUT, I don't think there is anything to say there CAN be a spirit.
I think I'm going to take the easy (well, easier) way out, and go with agnosticism (screw religious debates. The word means "without knowledge"). We'll never know if we have souls; every conclusion on the issue is speculation. The only way to know is to die and see what's there (too bad relaying what you find is a little difficult once you're dead).
I'm also not sure if I want to have an essence once I die. If there isn't some kind of afterlife, I'd just be floating in space (or stuck on Earth) until whatever it is that made my soul died (God knows what would happen then...). That would suck. Eternity would be madness inducing. I'm not saying I want to die, but I don't want to live forever either.
I'm not sure I want to know the answer to this question! If we don't have souls, I'm faced with the knowledge that one of these days, my heart will stop, and play it's final beat (Geoff, I can reference songs too!). If we do have souls, and there is Heaven/Hell/Whatever, I wouldn't be able to not spend the rest of my life trying to avoid the worst option (in which case, I don't think I'd really be living). If we have souls, but there isn't an afterlife, then I have an entirety to look forward to, most of which couldn't be spent on anything but my thoughts (once my body dies, where goes my ability to interact with the physical world?). None of these options sound good. At least with some mystery to it, I can pretend I look forward to the answer...
Side note, 'Where I Belong' became my soundtrack as I wrote most of this.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Real World Connection 4: DiCobbrio vs. Pontypool vs. Ash
I don't feel like going in depth on a single topic1. So instead I'ma talk about Inception, and some Canadian horror movie about English zombies. And then I'll wrap them together under an umbrella concept of infectious ideas.
First off, I think Inception is about DiCobbrio being insane, and Mal trying to pull him back into reality2. This goes off the fan-theory that Arlandria3(Ariadne) is DiCobbrio's therapist, trying to help him get over the suicide of Mal4 (or some other traumatic event5). My view on that theory is that regardless of what messed up DiCobbrio, Mal is his therapist (her, if it's really a she, name might not be Mal. But for simplicity, I will call this person either Therapist-Mal, or Real-Mal), and is trying to help him. She is trying to pull him back into reality, and out of his delusions. She sabotaged his jobs, because she didn't want him to settle down into a nice life in his lie (by making him fail, he remained on edge, and the presence of assassins made him want a more normal life. These laid the groundwork for dragging him out of his madness). But this plan failed, as over time DiCobbrio integrated Mal's presence into his fantasies. She became a personification of whatever trauma actually drove him into the dream world. She was, from his perspective, the only source of conflict in his world, so his mind pieced it together that she was a projection of his self-conflict. This created His-Mal (the one that was his wife, and killed herself after he accidentally destroyed her concept of reality). His-Mal was just how DiCobbrio viewed Real-Mal6.
DiCobbrio used catharsis to deal with his Mal problems. Other characters in the film mention that the best way for an inception to stick is by bundling the idea with positive emotions, and that catharsis was the best way to make positive emotions. By facing what he saw as his guilt, he convinced himself that His-Mal was gone. The catharsis of facing his "guilt" (confessing to, and apologizing for causing the madness inducing idea that His-Mal's world wasn't real) let him banish the unwanted idea. He got the idea that His-Mal was gone. This idea grew and took hold of his mind, like any idea implanted that deep in a subconscious. With this idea he had accidentally incepted into himself, he blocked all new evidence of her existence from his mind. After the confrontation in Limbo, Real-Mal was still trying to talk to DiCobbrio, trying to wake him up; he just didn't notice. By shutting out the only voice of truth in his world, he ended up with an all comsuming idea that his world wasn't fake. This idea that his world was true consumed him in the same way he thought His-Mal was consumed by the idea that their world was fake.
This scenario then raises the falling tree question: if DiCobbrio's world is fake, but there is absolutely no way for him to discover this, does it matter? His madness becomes his reality, and from his perspective, is the only reality. With Mal7 gone, how will Descartes' question ever be asked, let alone answered?
Now for something completely different: Pontypool. It's a zombie movie. But not in the living-dead variety. It's in the "horrible madness turns people into an endless hoard of killing machines" variety. But not in the madness-inducing bio-engineered super-plague variety (28 Whatevers Later, etc.). Or the madness-inducing gas variety either (Dead Air...). Oh no, this is of the madness-inducing lingually-spreading variety (Pontypool)! Somehow, the English language has come down with a sickness. It's spread by terms of endearment. It's Valentines Day8. It doesn't end well for the small Canadian town of Pontypool9. I find this movie fascinating, because it takes the idea of an infectious idea to the extreme, where saying an infected word causes the person to go into a madness mantra of infected words, which eventually drives them completely (and violently) mad10 11. I suppose a jibbering mess is what could happen to someone in the Inception universe if the wrong idea got planted. It was mentioned that an idea planted by inception would consume and become the person. When Cobb placed the idea of fake realities in Mal's head, she was never able to escape that feeling12. Imagine what an idea about recursive realizations of recursive realizations would do to a person. If it didn't turn them into a cannibalistic zombie, I think it could definitely destroy their grip on reality (imagine the fun philosophical ideas we'd get from someone like that, if they could still speak).
I think this post takes the cake for biggest ramble. It also possibly takes the award for most Facebook posts it inspired me to make. Inception is a mind virus that creates ideas about mind viruses that create ideas about mind viruses while shattering all steadiness in the reality of my reality...
---
1 I don't ever. But this time I'm mentioning it.
2 Out of boredom, I've started making a theory that most of DiCaprio's movies are a series about a man with a deeply troubled psyche. The differences in time periods and settings are the result of this dude viewing his life as separate, dramatic events1.
3 Once I noticed I was calling Cobb "DiCobbrio," I gave up on remembering the character names. Now I just write a name for them, and if I'm bothered, I look up the real name2.
4 Who I think deserves her actual name.
5 Such as almost drowning to death and washing up on the African coast during a blood diamond conflict.
6 I'm using Real- and His- like they're part of a name, not as titles. Real-Mal and His-Mal are different characters, but DiCobbrio thinks they're the same character.
7 In my theory, Mal is like Alberto. Except instead of showing DiCobbrio the true vastness of his world, she is ignored as DiCobbrio crawls into the Rabbit Hair3.
8 Or maybe, because it's Valentines Day, terms of endearment became the most common words, and the virus was able to latch on to them more easily.
9 Please note the facts that this town exists, and that they have the word 'typo' in their name.
10 The repetition in that sentence was meant to stir memories of the dream-within-a-dream repetition of Inception4.
11 To quote the book the movie is based on:
12 Yeah, I just abandoned my DiCobbrio theory for the sake of making my point easier to vocalize5.
---
1 I think I might get a giant tack board and some colored string. Just start weaving a web of convoluted bullshit1. I'd feel like such a detective.
2 On the bright side, I plan to be consistent with the names I give them. So it will, hopefully, only be a mild inconvenience2.
3 That metaphor makes Marion Cotillard a 50-year old man, and Leonardo DiCaprio a 15-year old girl. If this footnote wasn't somewhere between City- and Hotel- level depth, it would make my theory sound crazy.
4 As was that sentence3!
5 I'll take that as a sign that my labyrinthine theory was not incepted to me.
---
1 Err, web of convoluted "cinema analysis."
2 For other people. The only inconvenience for me is looking up the real names.
3 As we go deeper into my footnotes, less of the footnotes can carry on, as some must stay behind to keep the previous levels stable.
First off, I think Inception is about DiCobbrio being insane, and Mal trying to pull him back into reality2. This goes off the fan-theory that Arlandria3(Ariadne) is DiCobbrio's therapist, trying to help him get over the suicide of Mal4 (or some other traumatic event5). My view on that theory is that regardless of what messed up DiCobbrio, Mal is his therapist (her, if it's really a she, name might not be Mal. But for simplicity, I will call this person either Therapist-Mal, or Real-Mal), and is trying to help him. She is trying to pull him back into reality, and out of his delusions. She sabotaged his jobs, because she didn't want him to settle down into a nice life in his lie (by making him fail, he remained on edge, and the presence of assassins made him want a more normal life. These laid the groundwork for dragging him out of his madness). But this plan failed, as over time DiCobbrio integrated Mal's presence into his fantasies. She became a personification of whatever trauma actually drove him into the dream world. She was, from his perspective, the only source of conflict in his world, so his mind pieced it together that she was a projection of his self-conflict. This created His-Mal (the one that was his wife, and killed herself after he accidentally destroyed her concept of reality). His-Mal was just how DiCobbrio viewed Real-Mal6.
DiCobbrio used catharsis to deal with his Mal problems. Other characters in the film mention that the best way for an inception to stick is by bundling the idea with positive emotions, and that catharsis was the best way to make positive emotions. By facing what he saw as his guilt, he convinced himself that His-Mal was gone. The catharsis of facing his "guilt" (confessing to, and apologizing for causing the madness inducing idea that His-Mal's world wasn't real) let him banish the unwanted idea. He got the idea that His-Mal was gone. This idea grew and took hold of his mind, like any idea implanted that deep in a subconscious. With this idea he had accidentally incepted into himself, he blocked all new evidence of her existence from his mind. After the confrontation in Limbo, Real-Mal was still trying to talk to DiCobbrio, trying to wake him up; he just didn't notice. By shutting out the only voice of truth in his world, he ended up with an all comsuming idea that his world wasn't fake. This idea that his world was true consumed him in the same way he thought His-Mal was consumed by the idea that their world was fake.
This scenario then raises the falling tree question: if DiCobbrio's world is fake, but there is absolutely no way for him to discover this, does it matter? His madness becomes his reality, and from his perspective, is the only reality. With Mal7 gone, how will Descartes' question ever be asked, let alone answered?
Now for something completely different: Pontypool. It's a zombie movie. But not in the living-dead variety. It's in the "horrible madness turns people into an endless hoard of killing machines" variety. But not in the madness-inducing bio-engineered super-plague variety (28 Whatevers Later, etc.). Or the madness-inducing gas variety either (Dead Air...). Oh no, this is of the madness-inducing lingually-spreading variety (Pontypool)! Somehow, the English language has come down with a sickness. It's spread by terms of endearment. It's Valentines Day8. It doesn't end well for the small Canadian town of Pontypool9. I find this movie fascinating, because it takes the idea of an infectious idea to the extreme, where saying an infected word causes the person to go into a madness mantra of infected words, which eventually drives them completely (and violently) mad10 11. I suppose a jibbering mess is what could happen to someone in the Inception universe if the wrong idea got planted. It was mentioned that an idea planted by inception would consume and become the person. When Cobb placed the idea of fake realities in Mal's head, she was never able to escape that feeling12. Imagine what an idea about recursive realizations of recursive realizations would do to a person. If it didn't turn them into a cannibalistic zombie, I think it could definitely destroy their grip on reality (imagine the fun philosophical ideas we'd get from someone like that, if they could still speak).
I think this post takes the cake for biggest ramble. It also possibly takes the award for most Facebook posts it inspired me to make. Inception is a mind virus that creates ideas about mind viruses that create ideas about mind viruses while shattering all steadiness in the reality of my reality...
---
1 I don't ever. But this time I'm mentioning it.
2 Out of boredom, I've started making a theory that most of DiCaprio's movies are a series about a man with a deeply troubled psyche. The differences in time periods and settings are the result of this dude viewing his life as separate, dramatic events1.
3 Once I noticed I was calling Cobb "DiCobbrio," I gave up on remembering the character names. Now I just write a name for them, and if I'm bothered, I look up the real name2.
4 Who I think deserves her actual name.
5 Such as almost drowning to death and washing up on the African coast during a blood diamond conflict.
6 I'm using Real- and His- like they're part of a name, not as titles. Real-Mal and His-Mal are different characters, but DiCobbrio thinks they're the same character.
7 In my theory, Mal is like Alberto. Except instead of showing DiCobbrio the true vastness of his world, she is ignored as DiCobbrio crawls into the Rabbit Hair3.
8 Or maybe, because it's Valentines Day, terms of endearment became the most common words, and the virus was able to latch on to them more easily.
9 Please note the facts that this town exists, and that they have the word 'typo' in their name.
10 The repetition in that sentence was meant to stir memories of the dream-within-a-dream repetition of Inception4.
11 To quote the book the movie is based on:
"The plague first manifests itself in the infected person as a type of déjà vu, with an accompanying aphasia. Everything that happened presented itself as already happened. This infinitely complicated things. For as soon as the person adjusted, understanding that this sensation was merely a symptom of the plague, his or her understanding slipped backward into the already happened. Each realization had to be doubled against itself into becoming understood next: an impossible therapy to maintain. The present tense was a slippery slope to anyone in remission. The "now" became a deepening lesion, and from it rose the smell of this new sickness."
---
1 I think I might get a giant tack board and some colored string. Just start weaving a web of convoluted bullshit1. I'd feel like such a detective.
2 On the bright side, I plan to be consistent with the names I give them. So it will, hopefully, only be a mild inconvenience2.
3 That metaphor makes Marion Cotillard a 50-year old man, and Leonardo DiCaprio a 15-year old girl. If this footnote wasn't somewhere between City- and Hotel- level depth, it would make my theory sound crazy.
4 As was that sentence3!
5 I'll take that as a sign that my labyrinthine theory was not incepted to me.
---
1 Err, web of convoluted "cinema analysis."
2 For other people. The only inconvenience for me is looking up the real names.
3 As we go deeper into my footnotes, less of the footnotes can carry on, as some must stay behind to keep the previous levels stable.
Sophie's World 4: Things Fall Apart
So, the question of what kind of world Sophie lives in was promptly answered. She lives in a book. Within a book1.
Oops, spoiler alert, I guess2.
Sadly, the next couple of chapters after Sophie learns her life is a lie is nothing but recappings of the previous chapter (as Hilde reads through Sophie's World, up to the point we just ended at), and some insight into Hilde's life (she lives at the Bjerkely house, which is exactly like the painting called Bjerkely in the Major's Cabin; it is her birthday, and Sophie's life is her present; her dad can't be bothered to mail her postcards, so he works them into giant stories that he mails her; she quickly jumps to conclusions3).
After reading about Hilde reading about Sophie, we get the point that just as Berkeley said we're all part of God's mind, Sophie's World is all part of Albert's mind. I find this amusing, as that means that Sophie's World (by Albert) is a part of Hilde's World, which is what we're reading, and referring to as Sophie's World (by Gaarder). Let's pretend that raises the question of whether or not our world is the figment of some imagination4.
---
1 This, sadly, means she is only at the City level1.
2 Let's pretend my backspace key doesn't work. But really, I just can't be bothered to edit for spoiler-removal.
3 "My dad wrote a character I find interesting: this character must be real!"
4 Sophie's World seems like Inception and the Matrix. Layer upon layer of simulated reality.
---
1 Or arguable, the Apartment-with-the-fake-carpet level, because she is realizing her world is a lie, and in the City, no one know what was what unless they knew from the beginning.
Oops, spoiler alert, I guess2.
Sadly, the next couple of chapters after Sophie learns her life is a lie is nothing but recappings of the previous chapter (as Hilde reads through Sophie's World, up to the point we just ended at), and some insight into Hilde's life (she lives at the Bjerkely house, which is exactly like the painting called Bjerkely in the Major's Cabin; it is her birthday, and Sophie's life is her present; her dad can't be bothered to mail her postcards, so he works them into giant stories that he mails her; she quickly jumps to conclusions3).
After reading about Hilde reading about Sophie, we get the point that just as Berkeley said we're all part of God's mind, Sophie's World is all part of Albert's mind. I find this amusing, as that means that Sophie's World (by Albert) is a part of Hilde's World, which is what we're reading, and referring to as Sophie's World (by Gaarder). Let's pretend that raises the question of whether or not our world is the figment of some imagination4.
---
1 This, sadly, means she is only at the City level1.
2 Let's pretend my backspace key doesn't work. But really, I just can't be bothered to edit for spoiler-removal.
3 "My dad wrote a character I find interesting: this character must be real!"
4 Sophie's World seems like Inception and the Matrix. Layer upon layer of simulated reality.
---
1 Or arguable, the Apartment-with-the-fake-carpet level, because she is realizing her world is a lie, and in the City, no one know what was what unless they knew from the beginning.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Real World Connection 3: Humanism
Humanism is the idea that humans are awesome, and can pretty much do anything.
I think the Aperture Science fan page on Facebook has some quotes that really give an impression of human exceptionalism:
"How can you say that the 'sky is the limit?' The sky is most certainly NOT the limit. We've been to the sky. We've been PAST the sky. There are footprints on The Moon. Soon, we will have put footprints on more than just The Moon."
"The future of humanity is not on Earth. We've been here for the past 200,000 years. It about time we stop thinking about the "Why?" of our interplanetary future, but instead, the "Why not?" of our future, as a species. The moon; we were there from from 1961 to 1972. Why not establish permanence there? We've sent things to mars; nearly for 20 years. Why not people?"1
Now, there are examples of humanistic views besides the Facebook page of a fictional company, but tonight I'm incredibly tired, and have about 60 pages of reading to do for Sci-Fi2. So I figured I'd link to some pictures. Except then it turns out a Google Images search of "humanism" just gets you pictures of the "Happy Human" logo and stuff from Conservapedia3 and Christian sites warning about the End of Days. I decided I'd skip those.
I think humanism is pretty hard to dispute, except for that idea that people are inherently good4, 5. I side with Locke in that people are born blank slates. While our genes can guide what we might be good at or how we might generally react to things, who we are is mostly defined by our experiences. It isn't hard to teach someone to be good, but they do need to pick it up somewhere (it's like how even though our brains are made to use language, we still need to learn a language to use).
I'd think of someway to wrap this up, or tie all the above together, but I'd rather sleep. I also need to do my Sci-Fi reading.
So instead of a conclusion, here is a picture of a panda:
---
1 The Aperture Science page is quite the fan of space.
2 Technically, I also have 6 blogs and a paper to do for Sci-Fi. I have plenty of time to do those, so reading gets top-belly.
3 This and the Creation Wiki are hilarious. Excellent trolling tools.
4 Problematic, since that is a core part of humanism.
5 Beyond inherent good, you pretty much get into an argument of whether or not people can achieve greatness.
I think the Aperture Science fan page on Facebook has some quotes that really give an impression of human exceptionalism:
"How can you say that the 'sky is the limit?' The sky is most certainly NOT the limit. We've been to the sky. We've been PAST the sky. There are footprints on The Moon. Soon, we will have put footprints on more than just The Moon."
"The future of humanity is not on Earth. We've been here for the past 200,000 years. It about time we stop thinking about the "Why?" of our interplanetary future, but instead, the "Why not?" of our future, as a species. The moon; we were there from from 1961 to 1972. Why not establish permanence there? We've sent things to mars; nearly for 20 years. Why not people?"1
Now, there are examples of humanistic views besides the Facebook page of a fictional company, but tonight I'm incredibly tired, and have about 60 pages of reading to do for Sci-Fi2. So I figured I'd link to some pictures. Except then it turns out a Google Images search of "humanism" just gets you pictures of the "Happy Human" logo and stuff from Conservapedia3 and Christian sites warning about the End of Days. I decided I'd skip those.
I think humanism is pretty hard to dispute, except for that idea that people are inherently good4, 5. I side with Locke in that people are born blank slates. While our genes can guide what we might be good at or how we might generally react to things, who we are is mostly defined by our experiences. It isn't hard to teach someone to be good, but they do need to pick it up somewhere (it's like how even though our brains are made to use language, we still need to learn a language to use).
I'd think of someway to wrap this up, or tie all the above together, but I'd rather sleep. I also need to do my Sci-Fi reading.
So instead of a conclusion, here is a picture of a panda:
---
1 The Aperture Science page is quite the fan of space.
2 Technically, I also have 6 blogs and a paper to do for Sci-Fi. I have plenty of time to do those, so reading gets top-belly.
3 This and the Creation Wiki are hilarious. Excellent trolling tools.
4 Problematic, since that is a core part of humanism.
5 Beyond inherent good, you pretty much get into an argument of whether or not people can achieve greatness.
Sophie's World 3: The Search for Hilde
Before going anywhere with this, I should probably mention that I have no idea where I'm supposed to be in the book, but because I knew all the plot details we discussed in class the other day, I'm assuming I'm either in the right spot, or past it.
So, as I predicted, Alberto did not kidnap Sophie1.In other good news, someone finally showed signs of intelligence: Sophie's mom found out about Alberto, and insisted that she meet him2 if Sophie is to keep visiting him. This moment of crystalline beauty came to an end when she agreed that meeting him at Sophie's birthday party (which is weeks away) is good enough3...
On the matter of events I did not predict, I think two things stand out:
By combining the facts that Alberto (the Philosopher) has repeatedly grumbled about Albert (the Major) presenting himself as a god (leaving his postcards for Hilde everywhere4, making Alberto call Sophie Hilde, etc.), that Hildegard was a Christian and Hilde dropped her cross, and the similarities of the names Sophie and Hilde to Sophia and Hildegard, I think the comparison the author was going for is that Hilde is the Sophia of Sophie's World (she is along side Albert, who works as the masculine side of God) and that Sophie is the Hildegard of her own world (she receives visions from the feminine side of 'God')5.
The question now is what kind of world does Sophie live in? A computer simulation (like the chat-bot Alberto showed her)? A thought experiment (an example used to teach Hilde about philosophy6)? A story Albert is telling to Hilde? A delusional world (everything is normal, but Sophie is seeing things through a broken mind)? Hopefully the book explains this7.
---
1 Although, I did find another line that, without context, is very disturbing. I mostly noticed it because the person before me highlighted the odd part.
2 Something about how she doesn't feel safe having Sophie walk to the other side of town to meet an old man who lives in an attic.
3 Funny how she freaked out at the thought of Sophie doing drugs, but doesn't seem very concerned about her daughter walking the city streets just to see a strange old man.
4 On the street, in Sophie's homework, in the vocal cords of dogs, in bananas, etc.
5 Despite being called "Sophie's World," Sophie has no control over it. It's her world in the sense that she is the focus of it, not in the sense that she is the master of it.
6 Beyond covering the philosophy discussed between Sophie and Alberto, Albert could also use the fact that he is teaching his daughter about philosophy with a story of someone learning about philosophy to discuss meta concepts.
7 It's one thing to leave an ending open to interpretation. It's another to not bother making an ending.
So, as I predicted, Alberto did not kidnap Sophie1.In other good news, someone finally showed signs of intelligence: Sophie's mom found out about Alberto, and insisted that she meet him2 if Sophie is to keep visiting him. This moment of crystalline beauty came to an end when she agreed that meeting him at Sophie's birthday party (which is weeks away) is good enough3...
On the matter of events I did not predict, I think two things stand out:
- Alberto plays dress up.
- Alberto was randomly calling Sophie 'Hilde,' despite them not knowing just quite who she is.
By combining the facts that Alberto (the Philosopher) has repeatedly grumbled about Albert (the Major) presenting himself as a god (leaving his postcards for Hilde everywhere4, making Alberto call Sophie Hilde, etc.), that Hildegard was a Christian and Hilde dropped her cross, and the similarities of the names Sophie and Hilde to Sophia and Hildegard, I think the comparison the author was going for is that Hilde is the Sophia of Sophie's World (she is along side Albert, who works as the masculine side of God) and that Sophie is the Hildegard of her own world (she receives visions from the feminine side of 'God')5.
The question now is what kind of world does Sophie live in? A computer simulation (like the chat-bot Alberto showed her)? A thought experiment (an example used to teach Hilde about philosophy6)? A story Albert is telling to Hilde? A delusional world (everything is normal, but Sophie is seeing things through a broken mind)? Hopefully the book explains this7.
---
1 Although, I did find another line that, without context, is very disturbing. I mostly noticed it because the person before me highlighted the odd part.
2 Something about how she doesn't feel safe having Sophie walk to the other side of town to meet an old man who lives in an attic.
3 Funny how she freaked out at the thought of Sophie doing drugs, but doesn't seem very concerned about her daughter walking the city streets just to see a strange old man.
4 On the street, in Sophie's homework, in the vocal cords of dogs, in bananas, etc.
5 Despite being called "Sophie's World," Sophie has no control over it. It's her world in the sense that she is the focus of it, not in the sense that she is the master of it.
6 Beyond covering the philosophy discussed between Sophie and Alberto, Albert could also use the fact that he is teaching his daughter about philosophy with a story of someone learning about philosophy to discuss meta concepts.
7 It's one thing to leave an ending open to interpretation. It's another to not bother making an ending.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Real World Connection 2 - American Gods
--- American Gods, by Neil Gaiman, is so awesome, the title of this post doesn't get a reference or a pun. ---
--- It stands on it's own. ---
I'm not quite sure what philosophy we covered that American Gods relates to, but this morning I remembered how awesome the story was, so I felt the need to share. The basic idea is that all gods and mythological creatures exist, because people believe they do1. Their survival comes from people continuing to believe in them2. Even if some one kills a God, they come back as long as there is some belief in them (they just sort of show up again).
I feel like this loosely ties with the ideas Plato's Form Theory, and the idea that without observers, the universe would cease to be.
The connection to Plato is that, in the epilogue, the main character is in Iceland, and runs into Odin. Except, it wasn't the Odin he had met in America. They're the same basic thing (old man, intelligent, one eye), but they are still very easy to tell apart (American one was bitter and angry, Icelandic one was kind and had a sense of humor). It was sort of like the Norse mythos had an Ideal Odin, and that all the Odins we saw were just shadows of him. They all had aspects from the Ideal form, but weren't quite there. Meeting those two gave an idea of what the "real" Odin would be like. Much like how, according to Plato, seeing a bunch of horses gives you an impression of what an Ideal horse would be like.
As for the observation dependent existence, it's more that without observation, the Gods wither, and that as they wither they can't be as noticeable. As they become less noticeable, they are observed less, and thus wither more. At one point the main character is in the spirit world3, going through a room filled with statues of things so old, not a single person remembers them anymore. Basically, dead gods. Completely dead, because there are no writings about them, or stories passed on. No old monuments. All evidence that people believed in them is gone.
Then, there are the things older than that. Even their statues, which only seem to exist because at one point the thing they represent existed, are crumbling and unrecognizable. It's explained that they were the first concepts humans had as they evolved thought. They were what the earliest people thought were the causes behind fire and thunder. But as people went on to evolve more, and think of more complex stories, those ideas were left behind, and have just completely faded away.
It gives the impression that as fewer and fewer people know something, it sort of just fades away, waiting to be rediscovered, to be brought back. But that if something is gone too long, it can't be brought back. It goes without observation for too big a stretch. It becomes so obscure, it just stops existing. It breaks down. It's a tree that fell in a forest, where no animals heard, saw, or felt it, and there were no other plants to be affected by the change. It was so out there, it simply did not matter anymore.
I can't do this book justice, and I really wish I'd been thinking of stuff like this when I read it. I think I should reread it, just to see what this class adds to it.
---
1 The title comes from the fact that the book is set in America, and as a result, all the gods are based off American belief in them. As a result, Mother Earth is a hippie, and there is a god of News Casting. There are also shady MiBs, because apparently, everyone knows people like that have to be out there.
2 Unless they're a New God. Then people just wanting their internet to work, or wanting the weatherman to be right counts as prayer. I think the book has a bit of a negative view on what people consider important now-a-days.
3 Or something like that. There are parts in this book were you can't tell if he's having a vision, hallucinating, being tricked, in another dimension, or in some kind of middle ground between those options. I guess that works as a metaphor for the Cave. In fact, every little plot in this book works as an example of the Cave. I'd go into more detail on that, in the main post, except I wouldn't be able to explain that without spoiling every important detail of the book. I respect Neil Gaiman too much to pull that kind of stunt.
Sophie's World 2: The Quickening
Since my last post about Sophie's World, much has chanced. Sophie has changed from a confused girl with a crappy friend to a confused girl with a crappy friend who breaks into old cabins, steals mail, leaves, and then comes back with friends to steal more mail and a [magic] mirror.
There are also hints that a UN officer in Lebanon is controlling Sophie's life and is chasing her philosophy teacher around the barren winterlands of Norway.
Regardless of this suddenly1 darker plot, Sophie has continued to get philosophy work from the Philosopher (who is now the Hermit Formerly Known as Philosopher. Or Alberto, as his dog calls him). She has learned about cynics and saints, stoics and fallen empires, Jews and Buddhists. Summer and frost-giants2. She also learned that sneaking off at 6:45 in the morning to walk to an abandoned church, miles away, is a good idea.
Based on the facts that this class has done nothing but freak out Sophie, piss off and/or worry her mother, alienate Sophie from her friend3, and cause to Sophie to sneak out of her house/randomly break into buildings, I really need to question how good an idea it was for Sophie to get tangled in this course/world domination conflict. Her teacher just seems kind of off. In one letter, he scolds her looking out her window to see who has been leaving her anonymous letters (I'd say it's pretty normal to try and quickly solve that mystery) and says she must never disobey him,4 and later, on the phone says they suddenly have to meet in person. Now, I doubt he's gonna be some crazy kidnapper (that would completely destroy the atmosphere built in this book, and cause such a mood whiplash that the book might just end), but I have to wonder why Sophie doesn't get even slightly worried.5
Also, I was skimming through the book, trying to find my page, and found a page where Hermit is giving her drinks, and then there is mention of her vision changing. I don't have the context for that passage, but seriously. Why. Does. Sophie. Trust. Him? Unless this is some proto-Matrix red-pill/blue-pill kind of metaphor, I'm gonna be freaked out when I get to that part of the book.
So yeah, the book has actually drawn me in with those oddities. Despite the fact that the book has kind of turned into 20% novel, 80% condensed philosophy textbook, I'm still engaged, and hope the rest of the book is this interesting.6
---
1 Well, not suddenly. This happened over about a quarter of the book. As opposed to the previous post, which covered two chapters. I guess this actually a decent pace for the plot.
2 The fact that those last 2 sentences are true makes me love this book even more.
3 You might have noticed that I'm keeping that singular. I'm doing that because it has only been implied she has other friends. So far, the only people shown to exist are Sophie, Sophie's Mom, Joanna, a dog, a beret wearing hermit, and one of Sophie's school teachers. Norway seems like a very lonely place.
4 He criticizes her for being curious. He then goes on to talk about how living without exploring your world is a horrible way to live, and says she must be curious. I'm getting some very mixed messages from this guy...
5 I don't know when the term "stranger danger" first popped up, but even without mnemonics, it should be easy to tell that his guy could be trouble.
6 That statement is true, but also shows about a fifth the kind of mood whiplash I'd expect from this turning into a kidnapping story.
There are also hints that a UN officer in Lebanon is controlling Sophie's life and is chasing her philosophy teacher around the barren winterlands of Norway.
Regardless of this suddenly1 darker plot, Sophie has continued to get philosophy work from the Philosopher (who is now the Hermit Formerly Known as Philosopher. Or Alberto, as his dog calls him). She has learned about cynics and saints, stoics and fallen empires, Jews and Buddhists. Summer and frost-giants2. She also learned that sneaking off at 6:45 in the morning to walk to an abandoned church, miles away, is a good idea.
Based on the facts that this class has done nothing but freak out Sophie, piss off and/or worry her mother, alienate Sophie from her friend3, and cause to Sophie to sneak out of her house/randomly break into buildings, I really need to question how good an idea it was for Sophie to get tangled in this course/world domination conflict. Her teacher just seems kind of off. In one letter, he scolds her looking out her window to see who has been leaving her anonymous letters (I'd say it's pretty normal to try and quickly solve that mystery) and says she must never disobey him,4 and later, on the phone says they suddenly have to meet in person. Now, I doubt he's gonna be some crazy kidnapper (that would completely destroy the atmosphere built in this book, and cause such a mood whiplash that the book might just end), but I have to wonder why Sophie doesn't get even slightly worried.5
Also, I was skimming through the book, trying to find my page, and found a page where Hermit is giving her drinks, and then there is mention of her vision changing. I don't have the context for that passage, but seriously. Why. Does. Sophie. Trust. Him? Unless this is some proto-Matrix red-pill/blue-pill kind of metaphor, I'm gonna be freaked out when I get to that part of the book.
So yeah, the book has actually drawn me in with those oddities. Despite the fact that the book has kind of turned into 20% novel, 80% condensed philosophy textbook, I'm still engaged, and hope the rest of the book is this interesting.6
---
1 Well, not suddenly. This happened over about a quarter of the book. As opposed to the previous post, which covered two chapters. I guess this actually a decent pace for the plot.
2 The fact that those last 2 sentences are true makes me love this book even more.
3 You might have noticed that I'm keeping that singular. I'm doing that because it has only been implied she has other friends. So far, the only people shown to exist are Sophie, Sophie's Mom, Joanna, a dog, a beret wearing hermit, and one of Sophie's school teachers. Norway seems like a very lonely place.
4 He criticizes her for being curious. He then goes on to talk about how living without exploring your world is a horrible way to live, and says she must be curious. I'm getting some very mixed messages from this guy...
5 I don't know when the term "stranger danger" first popped up, but even without mnemonics, it should be easy to tell that his guy could be trouble.
6 That statement is true, but also shows about a fifth the kind of mood whiplash I'd expect from this turning into a kidnapping story.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Real World Connection 1: Lego Democritus: The Video Game
So a few days ago, when trying to see if the Aperture Science Facebook page had stolen a quote*, I found this gem:
The other connection I noticed was that Cummings mentions that he doesn't care what happens to his Soul. Democritus taught that the Soul was made of special atoms, which could only link with other Soul atoms. When the body carrying a Soul died, the Soul too would break apart, the atoms then wandering through the universe to build new Souls. Cummings didn't care what happened to his Soul, because regardless of what religion was right about what happens after death (Heaven, Hell, reincarnation, The Void) his molecules would keep going, and that in a way, he'd always have a presence.
He took solace in the fact that even when he was gone, his parts would carry on. Mauling this over, I was reminded of two things:
I think this is a good way to look at life. Even when we as we understand ourselves are gone, the things that made us carry on. They build new things, which in turn pass, giving their atoms back to build more. Even if we're gone, we make a contribution that carries on for eternity. I think that's an idea that is just ridiculously inspiring. "Nothing really dies. It just comes back in a new form."
---
On the advice of one of my friends, I'm going to try putting my longer parenthesis'd rambling down here with general notes about stuff. If I like this format, I'll stick with it.
*something about saying that "the sky is the limit" is stupid, cause we've gone past the sky, to the moon. It was pretty inspirational, and I might use it if I make a post about humanism
**Full text: "To me the honour is sufficient of belonging to the universe — such a great universe, and so grand a scheme of things. Not even Death can rob me of that honour. For nothing can alter the fact that I have lived; I have been I, if for ever so short a time. And when I am dead, the matter which composes my body is indestructible—and eternal, so that come what may to my 'Soul,' my dust will always be going on, each separate atom of me playing its separate part — I shall still have some sort of a finger in the pie. When I am dead, you can boil me, burn me, drown me, scatter me — but you cannot destroy me: my little atoms would merely deride such heavy vengeance. Death can do no more than kill you."
***While I'm not a fan of nom de plumes, I do think he chose a pretty rad pen name.
****At least, that's how I've always read that quote. The universe getting to the point were a part of itself looks down, and wonders, "were did all this come from?"
"And when I am dead, the matter which composes my body is indestructible—and eternal, so that come what may to my 'Soul,' my dust will always be going on, each separate atom of me playing its separate part — I shall still have some sort of a finger in the pie. When I am dead, you can boil me, burn me, drown me, scatter me — but you cannot destroy me: my little atoms would merely deride such heavy vengeance."**Bruce Frederick Cummings, under the nom de plumes "Wilhelm Nero Pilate Barbellion,***" said that in his diary/book The Journal of a Disappointed Man. After being rejected from the army, Cummings found out he had multiple sclerosis, and five years to live. His response was to think, philosophize, and write. I think the above quote, where he says that no matter what happens, the things that [literally] make him will keep going, that his death just gives matter to make new things, has Democritus' atom theory neatly interwoven. Democritus deduced that all things were made up of small, indestructable blocks called 'atoms' (the un-cuttable), and that these blocks linked together in infinite variety, to build the world around us. When something died, the atoms would separate, and join with other atoms to build new things. Cummings is saying that once he dies, his atoms will do just that: separate, and build new things!
The other connection I noticed was that Cummings mentions that he doesn't care what happens to his Soul. Democritus taught that the Soul was made of special atoms, which could only link with other Soul atoms. When the body carrying a Soul died, the Soul too would break apart, the atoms then wandering through the universe to build new Souls. Cummings didn't care what happened to his Soul, because regardless of what religion was right about what happens after death (Heaven, Hell, reincarnation, The Void) his molecules would keep going, and that in a way, he'd always have a presence.
He took solace in the fact that even when he was gone, his parts would carry on. Mauling this over, I was reminded of two things:
- An xkcd comic, where a man and his daughter are playing with Lego bricks, when the man stops and wonders 'what happens to what we build when we take it apart.' His daughter points out that the Lego bricks just go back in the bin (return to the universe, to be reused), but he counters by explaining that what was built isn't bound to those pieces; they can go on to build trucks, buildings, spacecraft, anything. The comic then shows the daughter, later in life, deciding to be an organ donor, working on the logic that just because our organs make us up, it doesn't mean they're bound to us. Once we die, they can be used to help others. Basically the recycled atom idea, but on a more visible scale.
- A Carl Sagan quote
"And we who embody the local eyes and ears and thoughts and feelings of the cosmos we've begun, at last, to wonder about our origins. Star stuff, contemplating the stars organized collections of 10 billion-billion-billion atoms contemplating the evolution of matter tracing that long path by which it arrived at consciousness here on the planet Earth and perhaps, throughout the cosmos."
What he was saying was that life was made of the molecules of broken down stars, and that over the eons, those old, recycled molecules found their way into making sentient beings, which then started wondering how they came to be. The star-stuff began wondering about the stars. The universe has, in a way, become self-aware****. The recycled atoms have looked around, and started trying to learn about how they happened.
I think this is a good way to look at life. Even when we as we understand ourselves are gone, the things that made us carry on. They build new things, which in turn pass, giving their atoms back to build more. Even if we're gone, we make a contribution that carries on for eternity. I think that's an idea that is just ridiculously inspiring. "Nothing really dies. It just comes back in a new form."
---
On the advice of one of my friends, I'm going to try putting my longer parenthesis'd rambling down here with general notes about stuff. If I like this format, I'll stick with it.
*something about saying that "the sky is the limit" is stupid, cause we've gone past the sky, to the moon. It was pretty inspirational, and I might use it if I make a post about humanism
**Full text: "To me the honour is sufficient of belonging to the universe — such a great universe, and so grand a scheme of things. Not even Death can rob me of that honour. For nothing can alter the fact that I have lived; I have been I, if for ever so short a time. And when I am dead, the matter which composes my body is indestructible—and eternal, so that come what may to my 'Soul,' my dust will always be going on, each separate atom of me playing its separate part — I shall still have some sort of a finger in the pie. When I am dead, you can boil me, burn me, drown me, scatter me — but you cannot destroy me: my little atoms would merely deride such heavy vengeance. Death can do no more than kill you."
***While I'm not a fan of nom de plumes, I do think he chose a pretty rad pen name.
****At least, that's how I've always read that quote. The universe getting to the point were a part of itself looks down, and wonders, "were did all this come from?"
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Sophie's World 1: The Phantom Menace's Birthday Card
M'kay, so the first chapter of Sophie's World (In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida. Or it might have been The Garden of Eden. I don't really remember the name. From now on, I'll just try to be close to the chapter names) raised two questions: "Who are you?" and "Where does the world come from?" It also introduced the Hilde arc (a mismailed birthday card! BIGGEST MYSTERY EVAR!), which will hopefully get explored later in the book. Otherwise it's just a dangling plot thread, and I'm wrong in calling it an arc. It would also mean this could be a book of Kudzu plots, which would suck.
The point of these questions is to launch Sophie into a philosophical spiral (she starts wondering if she'd been given a different name, would she have become a different person, and if everything must come from something, then the question of how everything came to be is a question that keeps looping back, because God wouldn't be able to create himself before he existed). That spiral then sends her into a loop of thinking about how great life is, which makes her think about how much death sucks, which made her think about how great life is, which makes her think about how much death sucks, repeat ad infinitum...
Once she snaps out of that endless thought train (okay, so she didn't quite repeated to infinity), she then figures that she has three problems to solve:
The next day (in Chapter 2, Rise of the Planet of the Top Hats), Sophie's friend Joanna gets actual dialog, which I think is a real shame. Apparently, Black Jack and badminton are just the bee's knees, and when Sophie disagrees, Joanna responds by getting angry and storming off to her house, leaving Sophie to wander home in the dangerous roads of Norway (according to the Pirate Bay, polar bears roam the streets of Sweden, attacking people. Norway borders on Sweden, so I assume there's some spill over. Unless the Norwegians have some awesome military unit that patrols the streets, killing any murderous polar bears. But I've never heard of such a unit, so I have to assume there is no such unit), all by herself. Despite the wishes of Joanna, the worst friend a person could ask for, Sophie makes it home safe, and finds another letter. This letter (which basically serves as an introduction to Philosophy) somehow knew that Sophie's philosophical spiral involved the existence of God and whether or not there was life after death, and declares that philosophers climb rabbit hair (so they might stare into the face of God) for a hobby. After reading this (and forgetting to breathe for a little while), she goes to check her mail box again. She finds another letter, which declares that housewives consider indoor flight to be quite improper, but don't mind the idea of men climbing rabbit hair so they might stare into the face of God whilst shouting that we're floating in space (which I'm sure could be tied to the idea that we're all just dust in the wind).
It turns out that this is a metaphor, and the whole of reality is not just some rabbit being pulled from a celestial top hat (anyone who has read some of Terry Pratchett's work knows that the Universe is actually just the contents of a leather bag carried by an old man as he journeys through space** ***). The idea of the metaphor is that when we're born, we're at the tip of the hairs, and everything is vast and new and wonderful. As we age, we climb down the hairs, nestling in the mess of hairs, getting comfy and complacent. Unless you're a philosopher! Then at some point you drag yourself out of that boring, humdrum life and reclimb the hairs, to stare a new at the vast and wonderful world [of stage magic].
So, through the ancient practices of reading and not breathing, Sophie learns how to piss off her mother, and thus realizes she has been saved from a comfy, complacent life.
:BLACKOUT:
---
*Sophie's logic is that if one weird thing happened around the same time as another weird thing, the two events must be related. Horrible logic, but it sets the plot ball in motion, so whatever.
**there is debate as to whether or not the leather bag and the old man are also inside the leather bag that carries the universe.
***also worth note that the world is carried on the backs of four elephants, who are standing on the back of a giant space turtle that journeys through space.
The point of these questions is to launch Sophie into a philosophical spiral (she starts wondering if she'd been given a different name, would she have become a different person, and if everything must come from something, then the question of how everything came to be is a question that keeps looping back, because God wouldn't be able to create himself before he existed). That spiral then sends her into a loop of thinking about how great life is, which makes her think about how much death sucks, which made her think about how great life is, which makes her think about how much death sucks, repeat ad infinitum...
Once she snaps out of that endless thought train (okay, so she didn't quite repeated to infinity), she then figures that she has three problems to solve:
- Who sent her the letters?
- What are the answers to the questions on her mind?
- Who is Hilde*?
The next day (in Chapter 2, Rise of the Planet of the Top Hats), Sophie's friend Joanna gets actual dialog, which I think is a real shame. Apparently, Black Jack and badminton are just the bee's knees, and when Sophie disagrees, Joanna responds by getting angry and storming off to her house, leaving Sophie to wander home in the dangerous roads of Norway (according to the Pirate Bay, polar bears roam the streets of Sweden, attacking people. Norway borders on Sweden, so I assume there's some spill over. Unless the Norwegians have some awesome military unit that patrols the streets, killing any murderous polar bears. But I've never heard of such a unit, so I have to assume there is no such unit), all by herself. Despite the wishes of Joanna, the worst friend a person could ask for, Sophie makes it home safe, and finds another letter. This letter (which basically serves as an introduction to Philosophy) somehow knew that Sophie's philosophical spiral involved the existence of God and whether or not there was life after death, and declares that philosophers climb rabbit hair (so they might stare into the face of God) for a hobby. After reading this (and forgetting to breathe for a little while), she goes to check her mail box again. She finds another letter, which declares that housewives consider indoor flight to be quite improper, but don't mind the idea of men climbing rabbit hair so they might stare into the face of God whilst shouting that we're floating in space (which I'm sure could be tied to the idea that we're all just dust in the wind).
It turns out that this is a metaphor, and the whole of reality is not just some rabbit being pulled from a celestial top hat (anyone who has read some of Terry Pratchett's work knows that the Universe is actually just the contents of a leather bag carried by an old man as he journeys through space** ***). The idea of the metaphor is that when we're born, we're at the tip of the hairs, and everything is vast and new and wonderful. As we age, we climb down the hairs, nestling in the mess of hairs, getting comfy and complacent. Unless you're a philosopher! Then at some point you drag yourself out of that boring, humdrum life and reclimb the hairs, to stare a new at the vast and wonderful world [of stage magic].
So, through the ancient practices of reading and not breathing, Sophie learns how to piss off her mother, and thus realizes she has been saved from a comfy, complacent life.
:BLACKOUT:
---
*Sophie's logic is that if one weird thing happened around the same time as another weird thing, the two events must be related. Horrible logic, but it sets the plot ball in motion, so whatever.
**there is debate as to whether or not the leather bag and the old man are also inside the leather bag that carries the universe.
***also worth note that the world is carried on the backs of four elephants, who are standing on the back of a giant space turtle that journeys through space.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)