Wednesday's Words - Week 2

Second installment of Wednesdays Words and I already find myself running behind! Its barely still Wednesday, and I have no post on the go. I shall blame this on the pitiful quotes to choose from (“Buildings should be good neighbours” – Paul Thiry; really? Should cars be pen pals as well?).

Anyhow, I have found one worthy quote from the list that I will do my best to write a quick spiel on before the p.m. moves to a.m.

“Newspapers are the second hand of history. This hand, however, is usually not only of inferior metal to the other hands, it also seldom works properly.” - Arthur Schopenhauer

Meet Arthur Schopenhauer. For those of you who don’t know him, he is the pessimistic philosopher who gave us such gems as “Only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex”, “ If we were not all so interested in ourselves, life would be so uninteresting that none of us would be able to endure it”, and "Almost all of our sorrows spring out of our relations with other people".
But as grim and sexist as some of his thoughts may be, the man did have a keen mind when it was employed in more rationale pursuits, and his philosophical writing (though over 152 years old), is refreshingly easy to read. Especially for a philosopher.

His above quote I like good enough as it is, but I also think the thought behind it would go well updated a bit for our modern era.
Newspapers, though they aren’t dead yet, have definitely been overtaken in terms of currency as a source of projecting the news of the day. Indeed, its no longer sufficient to have our news delivered daily, we need it hourly, by the minute, or updated by the second. This is the age of Twitter after all, and if you lumber behind, saving your well thought out articles for 24 hour increments, you are sure to be scooped.

Perhaps the quote is best altered by a quick reallocation of positions. Lets call newspapers the minute hand of history; slow enough to appear immobile at times, yet quick enough to notice as events move on. Perhaps the hour hand would be symbolised by more permanent and steadfast forms of the written word; by books.
So now we find the second hand of history moving much closer in sync with the flow of time in the real world; where news can be read pretty much as it happens. Whether it be the instant dissemination of recent deaths, the ability to run revolutions on the ground, or even the inadvertent tweeting of significant world events; we don't wait to hear about things the next day.

But this rapid news hand of the metaphorical clock has its faults still, and as Schopenhauer mentioned, its metal is hardly the metal of its fellow hands. As the ability to report things moves into the hands of everyday people, its quality is likewise diluted (if you don't believe me, just look at the blog you are reading; written by a man with no discernible qualifications).
Sometimes I cant help but feel that the tendency of news and events to form a self perpetuating loop these days is all the more increased as the spread of information becomes easier, and more wide-spread. News is news simply because it is news. The more people report on speculation, the more weight that the speculation seems to have. It is a worry when things can become so distorted, where news and information can spread so fast and unverified, whilst our mindsets are still set in days where we put stock in such things.
How often do you hear of Twitter and 'social media' being quoted on the news, or of the number of hits a YouTube video received, without any proper context being given (is a million hits really lending credibility here?).
The new second hand of history moves so fast and so erratically that people confuse it with the more steady motions of the minute hand. But at the end of the day, I am still much more entertained by the history this clock reveals, that I was before it developed.


Anyhow, this post didn't really have much of a point, nor much of an end; I just thought it an interesting concept.
Good night all.
MM

Censorship Rumblings in the World’s Biggest Democracy

Worrying and disappointing news from the sub-continent today.

It appears that a court in New Delhi has given 22 internet based companies (including heavyweights such as Google, Facebook, YouTube and Blogspot) two weeks to present plans for policing their various networks for photographs, videos or text that they deem to be “anti-religious or anti-social”.

Google India already began their cull of sites on Monday, not citing any specific examples of what was taken down, but asserting that it would be “willing to go after anything that violated local law or its own standards”.

India has always been a somewhat conservative country, so it isn't surprising to see its official’s religious views finding their way into their professional duties. But for a country that is hoping to use the information technology boon to help raise the living standards of its 1.2 billion strong population, such conservative religious views are invariably going to become a hindrance.

But it isn’t just the idea of censorship that gets me worried when reading about this latest development, but rather the odd rationale those in support of it employ and the dangerous arguments that are used to justify it.

Rationale such as this:

“Indian political leaders in support of the new rules say that their socially-conservative country has a long history of religious division and that publishing offensive material online presents a public danger.”

Now hang on here. Surely the greater public danger is the fact that such ‘religious division’ can be so readily counted upon as a source for reliable future violence. You shouldn’t seek to combat violent religious retaliations toward freedom of expression by halting the expression; you do it by countering those who not only silence people by force and the threat of violence, but who also seek to forestall anything that may offend their religious sensibilities from ever seeing the light of day.

This is the kind of dangerous argument and rationale that I am referring to; focusing not on the cause of the problem, but on seeking to avoid the problem by placating those who so readily turn to violence.

It’s like telling your kid not to behave a certain way, because then bullies will pick on them. No. You behave how you want to (provided it doesn’t hurt others), and be damned the consequences! It is the bullies who need to be confronted, and their way of behaving changed.

Unfortunately for us, the bullies in this real life example won’t change, and their claim to injury is purely in their minds. Injuries like this can be as capricious as they like, because they cause no real tangible harm, and they have no way of being quantified, so that those who claim to suffer for it, can do so with impunity and vigour.

Such claims should not only not be taken seriously, but also put under scrutiny as their origin is generally a hidden motivation, and not just a response to outside influence (as real injuries are).

Internet access in India is relatively uncensored, especially in contrast to its northern neighbour China. But the Indian Communications Minister Sachin Pilot, displayed a worrying understanding of what censorship entails when he sought to assure people that "there is no question of any censorship" relating to this new court decision, but that at any rate all internet companies “have to operate within the laws of the country”.

So there is no question of censorship, you just have to obey the laws that detail what you can, and cannot display on the internet in that country. So while the internet is relatively uncensored, the groundwork is being laid for a form of censorship to be enacted.

Further justifying the new rulings, the Communications Minister said “Anyone hurt by online content should be able to seek legal redress”. Really?

The idea of being hurt by online content sounds remarkably like a category mistake to me. The form of hurt he refers to here is simply that of sensibilities, and isn’t something that the state need to be in charge of policing.

The government however further claims that it has evidence regarding 21 sites it plans on prosecuting for the rather dubious offenses of “promoting enmity between classes and causing prejudice to national integration”.

Again, they are treating the wrong thing here when they focus on sites that promote enmity between classes, but in this case they should be looking at why class warfare in India remains at the state it is in.

"We must stop people being offended by this caste problem. Perhaps if we censor the sign......."  - Faulty rationale

One wonders what this same style of online censorship would yield in Australia. Perhaps if I took enough offense, I wouldn't have to see Facebook pages exclaiming “Refugees go Home”, or other such xenophobic nonsense. Though I don’t think I would be so lucky, as no doubt the conservative religious forces in Australia would outdo me in their ability to be offended by things that don’t affect them directly (like perhaps gay people being married or the ridicule of mythical Bible characters).

Ouch! Can you feel the hurt that this offensive images exudes?

In case you were wondering what (beyond the mere possibility of offending sensitive people) has spurred on this recent move by the Indian Government, take a look at the examples that were recently brought to its attention.

The Associated Press reported that “Indian officials have been incensed by material insulting to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, ruling Congress party leader Sonia Gandhi and religious groups, including illustrations showing Singh and Gandhi in compromising positions and pigs running through Mecca, Islam's holiest city”.

Shocking stuff indeed! Insulting politicians; how dare they.

The thought bubble octopus really makes me wish I read Hindi.

We should be worried when those in the public eye, in particular elected individuals, seek to be excised as a target for public satire, criticism and ridicule. But then again this same tactic was used for centuries to ensure that religions, in particular their adherents and their earthly institutions, were rendered immune to criticism; so perhaps we should not be so surprised.


These new capitulations by the government of India to those who seek offense (and I say seek, because offense seldom forces your participation) are already being capitalised upon by some Indian Muslims, who show the lengths they are willing to go to in order to try and stifle any opposition to their authoritarian worldview. Take a look at this quote from the same article mentioned above:

“Prosecutors, who sued on behalf of a Muslim religious leader who accused companies of hosting pages that disparage Islam, said they would provide the companies with all relevant documents. The court gave the companies 15 more days to report back”

So not only are the sites offensive, but those hosting them will find themselves squarely in the crosshairs of intolerance. This form of multilevel oppression is not uncommon from fundamentalist Muslims who find offense in the most banal of places. Just look at the furore that surroundedthe release of Salmon Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses in 1988, not only was the author himself threatened (and driven underground for years), but so to were “all those involved in its publication”. In the end this resulted in the murder of the book's Japanese translator and the near-deaths of another translator and one publisher.

For a more contemporary example, witness the anger that accompanied the printing of cartoons involving Mohammed in an obscure Danish newspaper, way back in 2005; you will see that thought the times change, the mindsets of those stuck in the Middle Ages remain steadfast.

Commenting on Islam’s prohibition of picturing Mohammed in their art, and their abstinence of things like pork, alcohol and in some cases music and dancing, Christopher Hitchens remarked “Very well then, let a good Muslim abstain rigorously from all these. But if he claims the right to make me abstain as well, he offers the clearest possible warning and proof of an aggressive intent.”

The Hitch may be dead, but his awesome words remain.

Surrendering to the possible offense of others isn’t just a slippery slope; it is an invitation for further advance. After all how can you be certain to remove all possible offensive actions? The only way to make certain that you will not offend others is to become what they want you to be. The only way to not offend a fundamentalist Christian is to believe in their version of the Bible, and attest as they do. The only human that would not offend a fundamentalist Muslim is one that adheres to their faith, and follows the rules they believe.

There is a simple solution to those who are offended by things they see on the internet, and it isn’t to sue the individuals who put it there, nor is it to block the apparently offensive materials, or kill those responsible.
It is to simply not look at it.

Your offense, as I have mentioned in previous posts, is your own personal thing to deal with. It’s not something people have to surrender to without recourse to rational debate.

Sure there might be examples of things we want to ban from the internet without it necessarily turning into censorship. We should do all we can to eliminate the perfusion of child porn on the internet for instance.

But to ban things from the internet just because they might cause offense to others goes one step too far. It concedes a fight with the very people we should be glad to fight against. It is a step back against the forces of intolerance that will never reciprocate for us any form of concession on their behalf.

Rant complete, let me know what you think in the comments below.

MM

No Weakening on the New Atheism Front

I have been following the development over at Russell Blackford's blog Metamagician and the Hellfire Club (easily one of the best blog names I have come across) of an argument taking places at various places across the net about how the 'New Atheists' present themselves, specifically how they are thought of as shrill, strident and unwavering.
In particular today I was directed towards this particular article in the Daily Mail online.
Reading over the article by this George Pitcher guy, I can’t help but notice the same mistakes in reasoning that are made so often by people that are tackling atheists, but don’t seem to understand them.
I am going to go through this article with my objections as they appear in the order they are presented, as there seem to be a few I have noticed upon a quick scan of the piece.
Let the rant begin!

“Just before he died, Christopher Hitchens expressed some generous sympathy for the Christian worldview, much to the evident frustration of his interlocutor Richard Dawkins.”

First of all, let's dispel anything akin to a deathbed confession right now. He did not express this form of sentiment, nor did Dawkins express a sense of frustration. This one is just a downright lie, as Hitchens himself was not only an atheist, but a proud anti-theist; not to mention that Dawkins refuted his supposed frustration on his own website.
Next Pitcher mentions the recently prominent views of philosopher Alain de Botton who he says “had his own transfiguration moment the other day when he proposed a "temple to atheism", because (I think) he acknowledges a human capacity for transcendance.”
De Botton is copping a lot of flak due to his recent calls for a ‘religion of Atheism’, or as he calls it, Atheism 2.0. I seen his book in a shop today, titled Religion for Atheists, and was tempted to buy it, were it not for the $35 price tag. Usually this wouldn’t deter me from a book I want, though in this case as my desire stems not from wanting to read it, but rather wanting to disagree with it; I decided to keep my money for the time being.

His next book, 'Sex Positions for the Celibate'.

I could rant about this guy’s ideas for ages, but I will try and give a quick digest in order to thin this post a bit. Basically de Botton seems to think that us atheists shouldn’t dismiss the virtues of religions, but rather that we need to adopt the better of them in order to fit our atheism. This is why he suggests the creation of an atheist temple, and atheist rituals; as he believes that such congregations and pointless ceremonies are an undeniable human need, or have benefits that override their downfalls. I on the other hand think that us godless few can handle a bit of socialising on our own accords and prefer my secular ‘rituals’ to be a by-product of my personality, rather than any pre-scripted nonsense.

A simple ritual, but I am quite devout in this sense.

But beyond my disagreements with de Botton’s religious atheism, I also don’t like the way that his views are presented in the article I am discussing.
Pitcher seems to suggest that he is acknowledging something that is inherent to theism, or at any rate antithetical to atheism, when he says that “he [de Botton] acknowledges a human capacity for transcendance”. Not only is this an ill-defined term, but it is something which if looked at from an atheists point of view, can be explained rationally without recourse for supernatural beings, or platitudes towards religions seemingly inexplicable ‘ownership’ of transcendence.
I think, as is often the case, that our vocabulary is filled with many religious sounding terms that can easily be related to secular counterparts, without the godlessness losing any of its validity.
For instance I can use the word soul in conversation without needing to concede that this falls from the purview of an atheists worldview. I can say that in my soul I know something, or that someone else has a gentle soul, and still sit firmly in the material world, describing purely naturalistic phenomena.
So I don’t see why someone accepting the human capacity for transcendence in is any way a kowtow to religion. Indeed Sam Harris is quite the proponent of transcendence, or spirituality, whilst remaining a strident atheist. Even Hitchens himself speaks of the numinous without it retaining any theistic flair.

"If we could find a way of enforcing the distinction between the numinous and the superstitious, we would be doing something culturally quite important." 

Moving on.
The article then turns to Sir David Attenborough, who was recently quoted as saying that “I don't think an understanding and an acceptance of the four billion-year-long history of life is any way inconsistent with a belief in a supreme being”. A statement which I agree with, but only on the grounds of the words being used in specific circumstances. The author however takes things a few steps further, in suggesting that by this admission he is conceding that “that there might, after all, be a God”. There is even a caption of the venerable naturalist which reads: “broadcaster David Attenborough told Kirsty Young that a belief in evolution is not incompatible with religion”.
Now my problem with this sloppy bit of reasoning is that it makes unwarranted leaps from supreme beings, to God (note the capital ‘G’ there), and then from there on to religion.
To say that the acceptance of the four billion-year-long history of life isn’t inconsistent with a belief in a supreme being is not a direct reference to religion, nor is it speaking of the Christian God. I would agree that there are forms of religion out there that can easily fit the current model of evolution as we know it, but they are hardly the main stream brand. For instance Attenborough only applies this compatibility with a supreme being; he doesn’t state what supreme being, or what properties they have.
For instance, the history of evolution as we know it today could be explained by a creator god who started life of billions of years ago, and just let things be. A deist god if you will. But this would seemingly be inconsistent with a personal god, who loves people, and abhors suffering; as this way of life is precisely what the natural world excels in (“Nature, red in tooth and claw” - Tennyson).
For a better understanding of how Attenborough feels when people posit the idea of a loving god, I would refer to this quote of his:

“I often get letters, quite frequently, from people who say how they like the programmes a lot, but I never give credit to the almighty power that created nature. To which I reply and say, "Well, it's funny that the people, when they say that this is evidence of the Almighty, always quote beautiful things. They always quote orchids and hummingbirds and butterflies and roses." But I always have to think too of a little boy sitting on the banks of a river in west Africa who has a worm boring through his eyeball, turning him blind before he's five years old. And I reply and say, "Well, presumably the God you speak about created the worm as well," and now, I find that baffling to credit a merciful God with that action. And therefore it seems to me safer to show things that I know to be truth, truthful and factual, and allow people to make up their own minds about the moralities of this thing, or indeed the theology of this thing.”

Bam!

This over liberal linkage of supreme being, God and religion is a sign of a very sloppy understanding of the debates atheists face every day. An atheist doesn't simply face down a religion, or one particular god (in this case, the capital ‘G’ one). Rather we have to deal with every religion, and every god, we have to have arguments that explain why we don’t believe in the Christian god who created the earth 6000 years ago, but also why we lack belief in the Christian god whose hand merely guided evolution to bring us about. We have to deal with concepts of supreme beings, omniscient beings, and more importantly for this example, omni-benevolent beings; of which Attenborough clearly believes is inconsistent with the past four billion years of life on earth.

“Those of us of religious faith need to concede that atheists might be right, however much we believe that they are not. And, by the same token, unbelievers, such as Attenborough and de Botton, need to affirm that we might be right - and they variously and increasingly are, by their words and deeds”

This paragraph highlights an interesting point that needs to be understood by those entering the theism/atheism debate. Namely the degrees of certainty that people claim to have. I am an agnostic-atheist, because as suggested above; I don’t know that there is no god, but I don’t believe there is. Likewise there are gnostic-atheists, who claim to ‘know’ there is no god; gnostic-theists, who ‘know’ there is one; and agnostic-theists, who don’t know for certain, but believe there is (as Pitcher seems to be). However in the article he seems to be suggesting that until now, atheists like Dawkins, with their ‘militant’ brand of 'in-your-face atheism', have been somehow driving forward the view that gnostic-atheism is the only way to go.
Anyone who had actually read Dawkins book on atheism would know that he doesn’t claim to know that there is no god, and is himself a form of agnostic-atheist (he even delineated a scale asserting such in the book). Indeed I would wager that any atheist worth their salt, or of a scientific or philosophical background, would attest similar.
Just because we need to concede that theists ‘might’ be right, does not mean that we need to declare the fact ad nauseum. After all if we needed to argue in such a way about other things we believed, we would need to accept the possibility that man didn’t land on the moon, that JFK was killed by a time travelling version of himself (thank you Red Dwarf), that the world is flat, et cetrera. After all, these claims cant be known to a 100% certainty if we are to accept the possibilities that things like inference aren’t reliable, and our senses cant be trusted.
We could do all this, but then we would hardly find the time to argue anything.

“The narrow and rather meaningless argument to which Dawkins confines himself is the incessant charge that there is no "evidence" for God. And evidence, of course, is defined only within the strictures of his own empirical scientism. The problem is that faith isn't primarily evidential, as he demands it to be, but revelatory - and we would claim no less true for all that in explaining the human condition.”

I had a nice rant in store for this, but then I decided to save some space by putting this somewhat ironic quote from Nietzsche instead:

“A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.” - Friedrich Nietzsche

Pitcher closes off his article with what I assume he thinks is a positive note, as he welcomes the supposed emergence of a 'New Atheists Lite'.

“The shrill voice of Dawkins is gradually being marginalised by those of no more faith than him, but who nevertheless perceive mystery in humanity and, while not accepting the presence of God in the world, are prepared to face in the same direction as the rest of us and stand in awe and wonder.”

I often wonder if the religious people who deride Dawkins for his ‘shrill’ demeanour have ever heard the man talk at length, or read his books. He is after all quite a gentle sounding man, who goes out of his way to be polite to those who generally don’t extend the same courtesy his way. Indeed I think if you applied his way of arguing against religion to other topics, would would see how much people want to afford their faith a higher standing than other topics on offer.

At the end of the day I think that though atheism has a much more public image than it did in previous decades, it nevertheless remains quite misunderstood by those who seek to combat it. There is a difference between arguing your atheism adamantly, and asserting its truth. I am an atheist, and will talk your ear off for ages if you let me about why this is, why I think religions are wrong, and hurtful or whatever. But I am not claiming that I know for certain these things are true, any more than I claim to know anything with 100% certainty. Indeed all I can claim in this regard are my beliefs, which is why I feel secure calling myself an atheist, and not trying to hide behind the label of agnostic.

Anyhow, it is getting well into the morning here, and i need to cut this rant off before it consumes too much of my sleep time.
I hope it was somewhat enjoyable.
Good night.
MM

Junk Food, Kids and Junk TV

I read an article at Lifehacker recently about a Cancer Council website which ranks the shows on television using a 'junk meter' that purports to categorise how much junk food is advertised in association with these shows.
Here is a screengrab of the worst contenders:

I don't know the methodology behind the 'Junk Rating', but surely they could have gone up to ten?

I must say I am not surprised at the way this looks. I asked my wife to have a guess at what the worst ones were, and she guessed correctly that reality shows would make a decent showing on the list, along with sports. Its not really shocking to note that kids movies also fare about the same (Kung Fu Panda and The Simpsons Movie are the ones mentioned up there^).
One thing that did surprise me a little (or at least would have if I wasn't already suspicious of their motivations), was Sunrise's inclusion in the worst offenders group. Sunrise which so often positions itself as a respectful commenter on such issues as childhood obesity, or undesirable things happening in our society. David Koch and Melissa Doyle like to hold themselves up pretty high as crusaders against the more nefarious and undesirable things out there at work against their idea of a more wholesome lifestyle. Yet here we see that given their prominent placing in the time-slot likely to catch kids on their way to school, they are far from living up to this ideal.
One would also think that the kids watching Sunrise are also a somewhat begrudging audience, having to put up with this at the imposition of their parents. I too remember similar forced news consumption as a kid; but at least back then it was news, and not whatever it is you call these morning shows.
Anyhow, that mini-rant aside, I actually like the idea behind this site; to help raise awareness of junk food advertising is I think a good thing. But I worry that doing so justifies the view that junk food advertising is one of the main problems associated with childhood obesity, when surely the parents letting their kids have junk food should be cited as a major contributing factor. At the end of the day, you are responsible for what your kid eats.

I was going to add an amusing picture of an obese child here, until I realised that I couldn't find such a thing, only tragic ones.

The site for instance says that if junk food advertising wasn't bombarding our kids during their favourite shows then "A trip to the supermarket wouldn’t be a battle between parents and kids who want the latest snack or the free toy that was advertised during their favourite show". And then there is this slightly dubious claim; "Parents have the right to know what TV is feeding their kids so that they can make the best decisions for their family". I mean I get it, but this kind of a tool would only really be useful for the kind of parent who lets their children be the primary provider of their own sustenance. And lets face it, if you cant override your child in the supermarket, then what choice do you have overriding them in what television shows they watch?

Though if the did do their own shopping, it would be pretty cute...

Then purpose of the guide is given as: "So you can [...] find out what your kids are consuming on TV and make healthier viewing choices". Again, I can see good intentions, and benefits in the site, but I think it is being presented in the wrong manner. You shouldn't use this information to just make people watch a different show, but in order to affect changes in the programming more directly, whether it be through government regulation or some other (nicer) means. But to just try and get your kids to watch different shows, when you cant even stop them from haranguing you at the supermarket, seems a bit futile.

That website again was: http://www.fatfreetv.com.au/

Wednesday's Words - Week 1

Welcome to the first installment of my hopefully weekly Wednesdays Words. The basic aim here is to spur me on in my blogging with a weekly commitment, based around my thoughts of one of the weeks daily quotes supplied dutifully by my trusty desk calendar.
So then, here goes......

“When the time is right, the answers will come” – P.K. Shaw

I chose this inaugural quote out of the seven available to me this week not because I agree with it, but because of the rant which it inspired.
I am not a fan of this quote, as I don’t like mysterious agents being invoked that ensure everything will be ‘just fine’. To say that answers will come at some mystically appointed right time doesn’t gel with me as I don’t believe there is any all powerful being at work putting our lives together. To believe such a thing raises some seriously disturbing questions regarding people whose lives were lived in less than desirable circumstances.

Destiny either isn't real, or its indifferent

But I do see the benefits in getting people to be positive about the future, particularly when it comes to the uneasy fact that it is full of unknowns. However rather than invoking some predestined path set out for you in an uncertain future, I prefer to look at the possibilities inherent in this seemingly random future.
The late founder of Apple, Steve Jobs, once gave a commencement speech to a group of students beginning their tenure at university which I previously blogged on here. In it he goes over a similar concept to that which I have been discussing (unknown paths leading into the future), that I think really hits the nail on the head.
First a little background.
After officially dropping out of his university course, the young Steve Jobs decided to hang around campus for a bit and take part in things that he was previously unable to, due to course commitments. Reed College apparently had the best calligraphy instruction available in the United States at the time, and the beautifully scripted labels and posters around the college grounds piqued Jobs’ interest. He enrolled in the class and developed an appreciation for the importance of typography in graphical representation. His early exposure to things like font families, serif versus sans-serif and proportional spacing was something that Jobs would later draw upon when developing the early Apple computers, which were among the first personal computers to display text in anything other than a monospaced, generic font.

Yes that's right, its an apple.....

Jobs mentioned this in his address to those students’ years ago to help highlight the uncertainty of our future, but also the importance of what we are doing, and of not disregarding where we are just because we don’t know where it will take us. He summed up the crux of his argument in the closing statement of this portion of his speech.

“Of course it was impossible to connect the dots looking forward when I was in college, but it was very, very clear looking backwards 10 years later. Again, you can't connect the dots looking forward. You can only connect them looking backwards, so you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something--your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever--because believing that the dots will connect down the road will give you the confidence to follow your heart, even when it leads you off the well-worn path, and that will make all the difference.”

You need to trust in something, not because there is something out there working for you (as in karma, destiny, gods, or whatever), but because in trusting that there is something out there for you, you are implicitly trusting in yourself. Jobs mentioned it himself when he says that such trust in the future gives you confidence, regardless of what you ground it in. I would go a step further and say it is better to place your trust in yourself, and your own faculties, rather than in some possibly existent third party.
Don’t just trust in the future because you believe it has been laid out before you; trust in yourself because you are the one who will actually do it!
If the future were fixed, if there was some destiny out there with Mathew James Morton written on it, I am not so sure I would want it. If there was something out there withholding the answers from me until the right time came along, I don’t think I would cheerfully take them when said time did arrive.
The enlightenment taught us that human agency was where we should place our bets, not on some higher power, whatever form it may take. Trusting in foreordained events and personal destinies was so widely believed in the past that in the event of a shipwreck, people would clamber over whomever stood between them and safety, believing that God had already decided who lived and who died.
Accepting human agency as the driving force in our lives means we don’t sit around waiting for answers; we go out and find them. We don’t wait to see where our path in life takes us; we walk boldly ahead in the unknown knowing that though our path isn’t part of some divine plan, it is nevertheless our path to make, and our privilege to forge it.
I am going to close this post with a quote which I may have already recently mentioned (though I can’t remember), but which all the same seems to fit well with the topic.

“Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.” – Soren Kierkegaard

I hope that you enjoyed this first installment of Wednesdays Words. I think it went quite well, but I have the niggling thought at the back of my mind that this is a somewhat lame attempt at regularity.
Please let me know what you think in the comments; I crave your approval!
MM

A Thoughts from the Antipodes weekly institution

I was recently inspired by my sisters installation of a themed weekly blog post (check out her Tuesdays Treasures over at Picklebug Designs), and decided to instigate my own attempt over here.

At first I wasn’t sure what I could hope to achieve on a weekly basis given that my blog platform isn’t really specialised in any one direction, nor do I consider myself having any form of expertise which might be called upon for weekly retrospection. So whatever I decided to post about, it had to be based on some quotidian thing from my life, and something I wasn’t likely to run out of material for.

In the end the answer was right in front of me, or to be specific, slightly to the right of me; my work calendar.

I have hinted in a couple of previous posts about the daily work calendar on my desk that endows my morning with a new quote, or thought for the day. Sometimes they are interesting, and prompt some (hopefully) entertaining ruminations, others are a bit less inspiring, and make me question whoever is in control of these things. Nevertheless, they help furnish my day with something to think about. The number of dull mornings where I have looked to my calendar for some form of motivation or inspiration, and gingerly lifted the previous day’s page in trepidation of what lies beneath, cannot be counted.

So with a theme decided upon, I then faced the formidable question of what to call my weekly musings.

Notable Quotables?

Wordsworthy Wednesdays?

Thoughtful Thoughts Thursdays?

Friday QuoteDay?

These were the first attempts that I came up with, and I wasn’t really happy with any of them. Rhyming failed me, alliteration offered little improvement, and my last attempt with the clunky ‘Friday Quote Day’ was just plain awful. Clearly I needed help.

I finally settled on the simpler ‘Wednesdays Words’. I was going to add ‘...of Wisdom’, but thought it might be more prudent of me to leave of this little descriptive, lest I don’t live up to the label.

As it is not yet the right day of the week to get the ball rolling on this endeavour, I would like to spend the rest of this post sharing with you some previous quotes that gave me enough pause, for various reasons, to actually write down some thoughts on the matter.

The outcome of these daily quotes are generally pretty foreseeable. It can be uplifting, at other times annoying, and every now and then it is just plain bland. I got a nice surprise the other day though when I noticed what I would like to think is a semi-hidden joke on the part of the calendars designer. I had previously lamented the lack of thought by the person compiling these quotes when they included a quote from a Christian Scientist nutjob; but this next pair of quotes gave me hope.

The first quote was an old classic:

“What is the sound of one hand clapping?” – Tibetan saying

We have all heard it before, and some of us have pondered the rhetorical question at some philosophical length (even though Bart Simpson clearly answered it years ago). So it wasn’t anything new and after reading it I thought nothing further of it.

And then I found this cute Tibetan Terrier picture

However the following day when I peeled the previous entry away and revealed the current days quote, I was taken aback at what I am pretty sure was a deliberate topical reference.

Here is what I found:

“There is no sound of one hand clapping” – Chinese proverb

Is it what I think it is? Is it a cheeky juxtaposition of a Chinese authoritarian quote after a Tibetan one, in order to show the oppressive nature of these two cultures relationship? I mean I might be mistaken here, but it seems pretty to the point. Though yes, I get the validity of the Chinese saying on its own, and how it is worth noting that cooperation has virtues worth extolling as a national maxim. However, given it was put right after the Tibetan quote dealing with the same exact topic, I would be willing to wager it was an intentional gag.

Perhaps gag wasn't the right word...

The second quote I will bring to your attention is this:

“A hedge between keeps friendships keen.” – German Proverb

You will often find sayings, adages or proverbs scattered throughout such ‘thought of the day’ lists which are attributed not to individuals, but rather larger groups of humanity be it nations, civilisations, religions or ethnicities. When this is the case it always makes me wonder whether the quote is at all reflective of the group identity from which it sprung, or whether it was merely a nifty saying that was happened upon by someone of arbitrary descent, but nevertheless latched onto by the group.

So in the above example, I question if the saying is representative of German people (though from what era it originated, I do not know), or just something that was first propagated in Germany (though its handy rhyming when translated into English makes me wonder...).

Growing up as we do in a society saturated with a multitude of media influences, sometimes one can’t help but link the nation of Germany, or indeed simply the word German, with the Second World War; in particular with the Nazi’s.

The scale of these past crimes mean that such mental connections aren’t surprising, though considering that the nation of Germany has a very diverse history, as well as an impressive contemporary culture, it is still rather unfortunate. Nevertheless due to Germany’s central role in both the major conflicts of the modern era, the Germans exemplify the ‘bad guys’ of the 20^th century.

We can see this re-enforced in many facets of our lives, whether it be their lingering presence in war movies, the endless documentaries on the History channel detailing those horrible days, or finding them sitting squarely in the crosshairs of a plethora of video game titles.

So when the quote of the day came up, and it was labelled as a German proverb, I couldn't help it if my conditioned mind finds some kind of ironic link between an ostensibly innocent quote, and the darker hours of the German civilisation (though I admit, it is a stretch).

“A hedge between keeps friendships keen. A panzer division causes a friendship schism.”

Then there are quotes that make me think, and then think a bit further. Perhaps a bit further than a quote of the day calendar warrants, but those of you who know me know I am wont to exactly that form of overanalyses. Like my previous post about Samuel Johnson's ‘Language is the dress of thought’ quote, I often follow one train of thought, only to quickly turn around and see it from a completely different perspective. And I hope this second perspective is all the more astute because of this.

Take this last quote for instance:

“I can do something else besides stuff a ball through a hoop. My biggest resource is my mind” – Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

At first glance I thought it a good quote. It is nice to see an athlete praising the gifts of the mind, above those of their athletic prowess. After all one is more likely to be beneficial and attainable to the everyman than the other. By which I mean we can’t all earn a living as athletes no matter how hard we practise, but the fruits of the mind are available to all, and generally bring with them an increase in one’s personal standard of living.

Plus the man fought Bruce Lee!

But then (and perhaps this isn’t really a rethink, as it is a sign of my own innate cynicism) I can’t help but note that it is handy when one of your other resources, like stuffing a ball through a hoop, is able to placate you with millions of dollars while your precious brain can remain roughly underutilised.

But I must end this before I get too carried away. Tomorrow is Wednesday, and I shall hopefully have my first weekly post ready for you to read over.

Until then dear reader, have a good night!

MM

2012: A good film but a shit doomsday

Yesterday, my wife and I rewatched the 2009 disaster film 2012.

Witty caption pending

Though generally this film was lambasted by critics, I cant help but take the line of US film critic Roger Ebert who at least seems to get these kinds of films, without trying to pretend that they are an exemplary example of what all films should be (which I feel is a problem with many critics out there).
Check out his review here, or just read this quote:

"This is fun. "2012" delivers what it promises, and since no sentient being will buy a ticket expecting anything else, it will be, for its audiences, one of the most satisfactory films of the year. It even has real actors in it. Like all the best disaster movies, it's funniest at its most hysterical. You think you've seen end-of-the-world movies? This one ends the world, stomps on it, grinds it up and spits it out."

Like the man suggests, unless you missed out on Independence Day, Godzilla and The Day After Tomorrow, you should know what a Rolland Emmerich film has in store for you. Leave your brain at the door, and just enjoy yourself. These films aren't looking for realism, they are just looking to entertain; and at the end of the day there isn't anything wrong with that. Not every film needs to be a masterpiece; not every character needs an arc.
I think of films like this as the equivalent of MacDonalds, or one of those microwavable pizzas; its not a great meal, and you wouldn't want to subsist on this for the rest of your life. But every now and then you just want a quick, easy, and tasty meal.
Sometimes its best to just think of these films as set in an alternate reality, where things are different, people always beat the odds, and so on. That way at least you can let a lot of things slide and just enjoy the ride (hey that rhymes).
That all being said, I still cant help but cringe at a few points in the film.
Like the opening montage of shots set in space, showing the alignment of the planets. Now I can look past the whole 'alignment of the planets causing catastrophic problems for earth' theory, but the fact that the solar systems planets are either shown as being much more massive, or else much close to each other, than they effectively are ruins the moment for me (especially when the films plot relies so little on this fact).
Then, right near the start of the film again, we have an astrophysicist talking about neutrinos, and studyting them in a subeterranean laboratory. This had its promise, because I know this is exactly what they do. But then we hear some nice 'sciency' buzz words, as we are informed that these nuclear particles are behaving strangely, and are interacting with matter in a way that they usually dont. The astrophysicists explanation: they are mutating.
Nuclear particles, mutating.
Why not just say they are degrading into other particles, or transforming, or something like that. Anything but mutating, a term which should sit firmly in biology, and not physics.

As you can see, this evidence clearly shows these neutrinos are going through puberty.

I could go on all day about the scientific inaccuracies in the film, but I don't want to give the impression that all of this bothers me too much. As I said, brains at the door fun. Its just that these little things could easily have been avoided or changed without altering the film pretty much at all. I can let the objections to tsunamis making waves in the middle of the ocean big enough to knock over ships, and the improbability of a limousine being able to drive through a building as it collapses, fly out the window; because this is the entertaining stuff I wanted from this kind of movie, and it wouldnt be the same without it. But the  astrophysicist could have just said something more sensible, and the planets aligning could have been shown to look more like stars, than actual planets in the near distance.
On to the next cringe worthy moment, and this time it was due to technical buzz words, as opposed to scientific ones.
In every scene that he is in, much like his role in Zombieland (also released in 2009); Woody Harrelson steals the show. This was a great year for fans of Woody (that doesnt sound right), one of which I happen to be ever since growing up in the 90's when he taught me that in fact white men can jump.

Two prime examples of how not to wear a cap so as to keep the sun out of your eyes

Anyhow, childhood references aside, Woody Harrelson plays Charlie Frost, a deranged conspiracy theorist who turns out to be pretty much right about everything in the end. The thing that bugs me here is only a minor point, but it irked me on re-watching nevertheless.
When Charlie is trying to inform the protagonist of the worlds impending doom, he tells him to 'download my blog', to which John Cusack clicks a few buttons on a laptop, and ends up watching a nice little flash animation outlining the films basic disaster plot.
'Download my blog'? Is that really how we talk about it? Perhaps I am being picky, perhaps I am wrong, or perhaps this was just meant to be the crazy characters quirky way of talking; yet I cant help but be annoyed that he didnt at least say 'look at my blog', or 'watch this video', or something that makes a bit more sense. It really just seems like someone who isnt savvy with todays technology trying to write some dialogue. [p.s. I know Woddy's character to be computer literate as he made the animations himself].

"Stand back; I'm about to do some internets"

My last gripe with this movie involves the President of the United States character played by Danny Glover.
After he gallantly decides to remain with the American public as their nation comes to an end, rather than flee with the other main notable actors to the ships in China, he delivers his stirring last address, and utters this little line:

"We are a nation of many religions, but I believe these words reflect the spirit of all of our faiths: The Lord is my shepherd, I shall..." [dramatic cut-off]

This is what he was quoting, Psalm 23 from the Bible. Tell me, how does that reflect the spirit of all faiths? Also, what about the 30 million atheists in the United States? Do they not warrant a mention here? I know past American presidents have shown a less than accommodating stance toward us unbelievers ("I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God" - George Bush Snr.), but at least Obama's inaugural speech mentioned them on equal footing with other citizens ("We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and non-believers." - Obama).
I mean it isnt really a big deal, but like everything else in this rant; it bugs me all the same. How does such a quote reflect the spirit of Buddhism for instance? They arent really fans of the whole 'Lord is our shepherd' thing. Nor are Hindus, or Sikhs, or to a degree Muslims. And what about the poor Scientologists?

"I'm too old for this comparative religion shit" President Murtaugh

Something I also noticed on the news the other day is this report on the suns solar activity, which is at its highest peak since 2005. Spooky huh? After all, it is 2012, the year the Mayans famously predicted the end of the world.
Except for it isn't. The Mayan long count calendar ends in December 2012, but then again so does the calendar on my desk at work. When that time comes, I wont be cowering with the ones I love, converting into a dodgy Christian and appealing to my shepherd to look after me; I'll just order another calendar.
Note that this is also what happens with the true Mayan calendar. 2012 doesn't signal the end of the world, but rather just the start of a new long count calendar.
So like most end of the world scares, this too is quickly dispersed with a healthy dose of logic. NASA has a great article debunking the whole 2012 over here.


Rant complete.
MM