Morning. Still winter, it is dark and cold, and I am reluctant to get up, even though I have no reason not to face the day. Some people can't bear the thought of going to work. I have no objections, but I always feel as though half of my body is under water, and is perfectly content to stay there. The cat ensures that I don't indulge in the luxury, though he ends up taking the brunt of my grumbling and complaining. He never minds, as long as he gets fed. His memory is short.
I step outside to feed the cats that live in my root cellar. The walkways are icy, so I throw down some ice melt. I wonder if it's good that I hear a hissing sound as it starts to work. It sounds like pop rocks, and is probably as good for the ground and walkways as actual pop rocks are for your stomach. Not much to be done about it now. I open the iron doors of the cellar, and set the food down in front of the two cats. I can't help but notice that Whiskers has doubled in size since winter started.
Opening my e-mail, I see a Yahoo article--"Tiger Woods--I Was Unfaithful." No shit. I had no idea.
At work, I pop on Pandora Internet Radio for background. I have come to the realization that I hate "ambient" music that has actual words. I also recall that I stopped using Pandora because I spent more time fast-forwarding through their choices than actually listening to music. And the more I mark items as things I don't want to hear, the more of them I end up hearing, somehow. I have to wonder how they develop an alogrithm that chooses what you supposedly will want to hear based on initially searching a particular song or artist. It seems to me that everything they choose sounds nothing like the song or artist I've chosen. Online bookstores and library catalogs have a fair amount of metadata to work with to match you up with logical "if you like this, you may also like this" choices. I don't know what sites like Pandora are using--how do you write metadata for feelings or atmospheres created by music? Maybe that's the next challenge. I don't think it's feasible, though. Such things don't fit into neatly labeled keyword categories.
Categories. I've spent a career putting things into categories, only to find myself betrayed. I have difficulty marketing my stories because they don't fit neatly into any category. Some are "literary", but some are "genre", though I'm hard pressed to tell you exactly what genre they are. I've heard of the term "slipstream", which represents works that cross genres, but when I look at slipstream markets, none of them seem right. I feel like a really tall person with bizarre proportions trying to find a pair of trousers that fit properly. Very little of my writing fits into a mainstream literary category. But then what is it? Science fiction? Not exactly. Erotica? Some of it, though that's not really the focus of the story. Fantasy? Horror? No, not really--merely disturbing and thought provoking isn't really one of those. "Dark", maybe. "Psychological", maybe. But try finding any markets that are really looking for those kinds of stories. And yet I know I'm not the only one who produces this kind of work.
This difficulty has made me contemplate finishing my collection and looking for a press to publish the collection, instead of trying to market individual stories. I might even consider self-publishing and marketing. I haven't decided yet. In an age where individuals have more control over their content, I find that I have to get over the old mentality that there is only one way to do things. I just want to choose the way that's going to expand my options in the long run, not limit them.
Do categories represent limits or boundaries? One has to focus somewhere, but perhaps we can over-focus. In academia, one must start with a focus; research papers and theses need to have a specific thesis statement. But creative work can be starved by focus. Sure, one can do a writing exercise that focuses on a particular topic. And publishers and presses are looking to market to a particular audience. Readers tend to be fans of certain genres. I just have a hard time with the limitations on genre, and the "snobbery" of the literary category. Why does every story have to be laden with the task of carrying the zeitgeist with it? Can't you just tell a good story for its own sake? I've heard various answers to that question, but I still think that if a story is compelling enough to draw you in and elicit an emotion (or several emotions), it's worth telling. I've read a lot that's considered "literary" that leaves me cold. And yet, I'm not particuarly a genre fan, unless you count ghost stories, which is no longer a genre in the 21st century. At least it doesn't appear to be a genre; I'm hard pressed to walk into a bookstore and find a good collection of ghost stories that is not horror or science fiction. That type of writing seems to have died by the middle of the 20th century.
I suppose my complaint comes down to the same complaint I have about scary movies. They're more about blood and gore, not about those unknown anamolies and disturbances that can keep you awake at night wondering. There's nothing left to wonder about--the monsters are all created for you, with no room for interpretation. They play purely on fear and action-movie type suspense.
Home from work, I take a sip from the top of a still-cascading Guinness, and start chopping some red potatoes and herbs in preparation for dinner. A friend is visiting my house tomorrow who has never seen it, so I need to straighten things up. The last burst of orange from the setting sun spreads across the kitchen while my shadowy cat snakes his way around my feet, wanting my attention. I turn on the living room lamps, and their stained glass patterns shoot across the walls. All wood and wine and dusty literature.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Evaluating The Unmeasurable
It's understood that the notion of true "objectivity" is difficult, if not impossible. Still, we like to measure reality by as much reason and rationality as we possibly can. It's also understood that there are many things not easily explained through the methodologies of reason and rationality. You can take the reliance on such methodologies to an extreme (i.e., logical positivism). The stock responses to things that are not easily explained are coincidence, hoax, or delusion.
I would submit that such a cut and dried response is flat out wrong at worst, and unsatisfactory at best. I suspect that a lot of dismissal of unexplained things has its roots in fear, namely the fear of uncertainty. The mind has a predisposition to putting things into neat categories. When something doesn't fit, we want to believe it somehow isn't "real".
When it comes to the shadowy and uncertain world of the mind, many attempt to explain away things by citing mental illness or delusion. In the realm of the psychic, much is dismissed as a hoax. I've heard it said by scientists that in all of the years of such supposed phenomena, not once has anyone been able to prove that it happens. But what is proof? As I've said before, anything presented that is empirical--a recording, a photograph, a video--is immediately dismissed as not conclusive enough, as a possible or probable hoax, or a misinterpretation of data as a result of "matrixing". The bottom line being that there is no real way to test such things. They're not orderly by nature, and they don't perform on cue. Therefore, there is no lab experiment that can be designed that hardcore skeptics would ever accept as providing real evidence of anything.
What is interesting about this very narrow scientific perspective is that certain branches of science are showing us that the nature of reality is very different from what we've taken for granted. At the very least, you would think science would take a second look at such phenomena in the light of new theories and discoveries about the nature of matter and the universe.
Most of us probably don't think much about these things on a day to day basis; after all, they are out of the "ordinary" to some degree. But what interests me are the things that DO happen every day that we frequently ignore, or are taught to ignore. To a certain degree, I would bet that most people have some kind of intuitive foreshadowing of events in their life, or "coincidences" that seem meaningful in some way. How does one evaluate those things? On the one hand, you could simply ignore it as "imagination", but you may be ignoring cues from your own psyche about issues you've managed to sublimate, and are not dealing with effectively. On the other hand, it's probably not prudent to read everything as a "sign" of something else--some measure of validation should take place. But what should it be?
Let me give some examples from my own experience. First--I find myself planning my travel (given how expensive it is) around John Foxx events. Between now and the end of June, three major family events are occurring, two of them out of state. I found myself getting a bit nervous, because I didn't know if I should commit to any or all of these events. As I was looking at the invitations, suddenly I heard inside my own head, "The first two are okay--but don't go to the last. You'll be in London." The last family event takes place on June 5. A week later, I got the announcement that John Foxx would be playing the Roundhouse in London on...June 5.
So, how do I evaluate this? First of all, there had to be a verification--if I had the thought and nothing came of it, then it's just a thought. Second, one should consider the chance of coincidence--out of 3 possible dates, I had a 33.3% chance that there might be a Foxx event on one of those dates. Of course, there is the broader context of 365 days in a year (or however many are left for 2010), and the probability that an event would fall on that one date out of all the possible ones in the year. But I wasn't exactly making a "guess". Where did that information come from? And how did I know I'd be in London, and not somewhere else?
In my own world view, I tend to think that we're all connected in some unconscious way, so that if we just listen to ourselves, the information is already there. Our connections to some people are stronger than others at times, for whatever reason. I don't think there's anything "supernatural" about it. But--a skeptic would suggest that this is a coincidence. My subjective worldview is meaningless in that light. But what variables would make it meaningful to a skeptic? Aside from what I've mentioned, it doesn't follow any "testable" pattern, and any definite conclusions based on that evidence would be unsatisfactory.
Let's take something more complicated--a string of related events. There are a couple of levels of "meaningful coincidence". One might consist of thinking about a person and suddenly seeing or hearing that person's name everywhere--perhaps mentioned in conversation, on a social network, or in a news article. One could argue that this is a sort of "mind matrixing"--you're thinking of the person, so your brain is more sensitive to picking out that bit of information. Easy enough to explain. But what about someone you've not thought of in years, and then suddenly you see their name everywhere--and later get a piece of important news about that person?
I would suggest that those are two of a kind--a series of "symbols" points you to someone, whether it's because you're thinking about them, or because something intense may be happening to them. But there is another level of meaningful coincidence that is more puzzling. Here is my own puzzling example:
I have a Facebook friend who I didn't know personally when I friended them, but met them later on. About a month before I met them (and I didn't know I was going to meet them), I was puttering around my house when suddenly I had a vivid image of talking to this person--I was sitting in a room on a windowsill, and there was a bright light behind me. This person made a very specific statement (which I won't repeat here). The image then faded. I thought it was weird, took a mental note of it, and moved on.
The day I met this person, I expected it to be a short and quick meeting, but it ended up being longer, and we talked for quite a bit. About 3 hours into our conversation, this person suddenly made the specific statement I'd heard in my waking vision--and as it turns out, I was sitting on a windowsill with a bright light behind me. I had that moment of deja vu, which stunned me for a moment, but I didn't say anything.
Two months later, I had e-mailed this same person about something, I had a question that needed an answer. A month went by, and I heard nothing. I had a dream one night that I was walking with my guru, and in our conversation, I mentioned that I hadn't heard from this person. She replied, "Oh, don't worry--you'll have a message waiting tomorrow morning." I then had a strange vision of this person at home, in an angry mood. There was a woman there, who spoke to me about it. I later recognized the woman when I met relatives of this friend. I had never seen her before. And, by the way--I did have an e-mail from this person when I woke up.
Fast forward a few months--I had another dream about this person, that they had posted something to a message board, and it was 2 lines--almost like a poem. I don't remember the exact words, but it had to do with not realizing what could go wrong when things were quiet. As I was waking up, I said to myself, "Oh, I didn't realize that _______ had broken up with their significant other," and "I didn't realize they were still upset over their parents' divorce." I had no reason to believe that either of these things were true, but later that week, I had verification that both things were true--unsolicited verification.
I find this kind of chain of events puzzling. I like the person in question well enough, but they are not a "significant other" of mine, nor are they particularly close to me. Why would my psyche home in on events happening in that person's life? I don't have any valid reason for knowing why this is the case. Yet, it all seems much less coincidental, because I'm getting very specific information, and I'm not necessarily even thinking about this person. To what end, I don't know. Does there have to be an end? Am I trying to impose order on something that may not make a whole lot of sense? I am inclined to feel that some sense to the whole thing will eventually show itself. But again, that's just a feeling. How do I evaluate this highly irrational but nonetheless strange series of events?
In the end, there's not much you can do with such things but observe them and see where they "take" you, if anywhere. But my point is that not everything can be neatly explained and put into labeled packages--and that doesn't mean it's a figment of one's imagination. Neil deGrasse Tyson had made the comment that other "universes" are not obliged to follow our laws of physics, logic, or anything else. It seems that there are things in our own universe that don't follow our own "laws" of logic and rationality. But to my mind, it's further proof that reason and logic only go so far, just as feelings and experiences only go so far. You need both to give you a picture of the universe you are creating.
I would submit that such a cut and dried response is flat out wrong at worst, and unsatisfactory at best. I suspect that a lot of dismissal of unexplained things has its roots in fear, namely the fear of uncertainty. The mind has a predisposition to putting things into neat categories. When something doesn't fit, we want to believe it somehow isn't "real".
When it comes to the shadowy and uncertain world of the mind, many attempt to explain away things by citing mental illness or delusion. In the realm of the psychic, much is dismissed as a hoax. I've heard it said by scientists that in all of the years of such supposed phenomena, not once has anyone been able to prove that it happens. But what is proof? As I've said before, anything presented that is empirical--a recording, a photograph, a video--is immediately dismissed as not conclusive enough, as a possible or probable hoax, or a misinterpretation of data as a result of "matrixing". The bottom line being that there is no real way to test such things. They're not orderly by nature, and they don't perform on cue. Therefore, there is no lab experiment that can be designed that hardcore skeptics would ever accept as providing real evidence of anything.
What is interesting about this very narrow scientific perspective is that certain branches of science are showing us that the nature of reality is very different from what we've taken for granted. At the very least, you would think science would take a second look at such phenomena in the light of new theories and discoveries about the nature of matter and the universe.
Most of us probably don't think much about these things on a day to day basis; after all, they are out of the "ordinary" to some degree. But what interests me are the things that DO happen every day that we frequently ignore, or are taught to ignore. To a certain degree, I would bet that most people have some kind of intuitive foreshadowing of events in their life, or "coincidences" that seem meaningful in some way. How does one evaluate those things? On the one hand, you could simply ignore it as "imagination", but you may be ignoring cues from your own psyche about issues you've managed to sublimate, and are not dealing with effectively. On the other hand, it's probably not prudent to read everything as a "sign" of something else--some measure of validation should take place. But what should it be?
Let me give some examples from my own experience. First--I find myself planning my travel (given how expensive it is) around John Foxx events. Between now and the end of June, three major family events are occurring, two of them out of state. I found myself getting a bit nervous, because I didn't know if I should commit to any or all of these events. As I was looking at the invitations, suddenly I heard inside my own head, "The first two are okay--but don't go to the last. You'll be in London." The last family event takes place on June 5. A week later, I got the announcement that John Foxx would be playing the Roundhouse in London on...June 5.
So, how do I evaluate this? First of all, there had to be a verification--if I had the thought and nothing came of it, then it's just a thought. Second, one should consider the chance of coincidence--out of 3 possible dates, I had a 33.3% chance that there might be a Foxx event on one of those dates. Of course, there is the broader context of 365 days in a year (or however many are left for 2010), and the probability that an event would fall on that one date out of all the possible ones in the year. But I wasn't exactly making a "guess". Where did that information come from? And how did I know I'd be in London, and not somewhere else?
In my own world view, I tend to think that we're all connected in some unconscious way, so that if we just listen to ourselves, the information is already there. Our connections to some people are stronger than others at times, for whatever reason. I don't think there's anything "supernatural" about it. But--a skeptic would suggest that this is a coincidence. My subjective worldview is meaningless in that light. But what variables would make it meaningful to a skeptic? Aside from what I've mentioned, it doesn't follow any "testable" pattern, and any definite conclusions based on that evidence would be unsatisfactory.
Let's take something more complicated--a string of related events. There are a couple of levels of "meaningful coincidence". One might consist of thinking about a person and suddenly seeing or hearing that person's name everywhere--perhaps mentioned in conversation, on a social network, or in a news article. One could argue that this is a sort of "mind matrixing"--you're thinking of the person, so your brain is more sensitive to picking out that bit of information. Easy enough to explain. But what about someone you've not thought of in years, and then suddenly you see their name everywhere--and later get a piece of important news about that person?
I would suggest that those are two of a kind--a series of "symbols" points you to someone, whether it's because you're thinking about them, or because something intense may be happening to them. But there is another level of meaningful coincidence that is more puzzling. Here is my own puzzling example:
I have a Facebook friend who I didn't know personally when I friended them, but met them later on. About a month before I met them (and I didn't know I was going to meet them), I was puttering around my house when suddenly I had a vivid image of talking to this person--I was sitting in a room on a windowsill, and there was a bright light behind me. This person made a very specific statement (which I won't repeat here). The image then faded. I thought it was weird, took a mental note of it, and moved on.
The day I met this person, I expected it to be a short and quick meeting, but it ended up being longer, and we talked for quite a bit. About 3 hours into our conversation, this person suddenly made the specific statement I'd heard in my waking vision--and as it turns out, I was sitting on a windowsill with a bright light behind me. I had that moment of deja vu, which stunned me for a moment, but I didn't say anything.
Two months later, I had e-mailed this same person about something, I had a question that needed an answer. A month went by, and I heard nothing. I had a dream one night that I was walking with my guru, and in our conversation, I mentioned that I hadn't heard from this person. She replied, "Oh, don't worry--you'll have a message waiting tomorrow morning." I then had a strange vision of this person at home, in an angry mood. There was a woman there, who spoke to me about it. I later recognized the woman when I met relatives of this friend. I had never seen her before. And, by the way--I did have an e-mail from this person when I woke up.
Fast forward a few months--I had another dream about this person, that they had posted something to a message board, and it was 2 lines--almost like a poem. I don't remember the exact words, but it had to do with not realizing what could go wrong when things were quiet. As I was waking up, I said to myself, "Oh, I didn't realize that _______ had broken up with their significant other," and "I didn't realize they were still upset over their parents' divorce." I had no reason to believe that either of these things were true, but later that week, I had verification that both things were true--unsolicited verification.
I find this kind of chain of events puzzling. I like the person in question well enough, but they are not a "significant other" of mine, nor are they particularly close to me. Why would my psyche home in on events happening in that person's life? I don't have any valid reason for knowing why this is the case. Yet, it all seems much less coincidental, because I'm getting very specific information, and I'm not necessarily even thinking about this person. To what end, I don't know. Does there have to be an end? Am I trying to impose order on something that may not make a whole lot of sense? I am inclined to feel that some sense to the whole thing will eventually show itself. But again, that's just a feeling. How do I evaluate this highly irrational but nonetheless strange series of events?
In the end, there's not much you can do with such things but observe them and see where they "take" you, if anywhere. But my point is that not everything can be neatly explained and put into labeled packages--and that doesn't mean it's a figment of one's imagination. Neil deGrasse Tyson had made the comment that other "universes" are not obliged to follow our laws of physics, logic, or anything else. It seems that there are things in our own universe that don't follow our own "laws" of logic and rationality. But to my mind, it's further proof that reason and logic only go so far, just as feelings and experiences only go so far. You need both to give you a picture of the universe you are creating.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Weirdness
I've been off for 3 days now, and I'm convinced that I should be getting up and going to work tomorrow. I'd probably get into less trouble if I did. When I'm home I tend to develop two bad habits: thinking weird and illogical thoughts, and cooking too much food. This time is no exception. Fortunately I will be heading out tomorrow and Sunday.
I see my reflection in the window in front of me. I'm making a rather sour face, and anyone who came to visit right now might think I'm angry or in a bad mood. In fact, I have one of those headaches that localizes right over the left eye, and down to the neck, which is causing me to make some pretty awful faces right now. I'd take medicine, but it probably won't help.
Of course, my screwed up sleep schedule doesn't help. Last night was Mahashivaratri, the Hindu festival of Lord Shiva. The myth is that the Ocean of Compassion (karuna sagara) was poisoned by a demon, and Shiva saved the world from the poison by drinking it up himself. The gods stayed up all night with him to be sure the poison did not harm him. Hence, on Mahashivaratri, devotees stay up all night, usually attending abhishekams (pouring of libations and giving offerings to the Shiva Lingam) or doing Shiva puja. I went to a friend's house for puja, and then stayed up until about 4:00 in the morning. Which wasn't too bad, given that I usually end up falling asleep around 1 am. I always take the next day off, as I know I'm not going to be able to work after a few hours of sleep.
I'm sure all of this contributes to the weirdness of today. So, in honor of today's weirdness, here are a few weird things:
First--apparently it is possible to be bored to death:
Bored To Death?
I have to agree with the findings. Nothing spoils the brain like an overdose of ennui. I imagine this is why lottery winners end up going back to work. Eventually the novelty wears off and you get bored, and have to find something to do to keep you from drooling and imagining your neighbors are conspiring against you.
In honor of Valentine's Day this Sunday, Found Footage Festival has put together their own guide to finding "that special anyone":
How to Find That Special Anyone
If you have a special someone, you might question your readiness for marriage. Mystery Science Theater 3000 provides you with the answer (in 2 parts):
Part 2:
Recently the Republicans had another "Tea Party" convention in Nashville, which is a "grass roots" movement protecting American "liberty", allegedly in the same spirit as the colonial rebels against the British tea tax. From what I can tell, it's more of a convention of old people who listen to country music protecting their right to use taxpayer dollars to build country clubs (no relation to country music), and not waste it on things like healthcare for the poor. Or something like that. In any case, it apparently cost about $350 a person to attend, and they had Sarah Palin as their speaker. I need say nothing more about this, because Stephen Colbert already has:
I'm a sucker for stupid cat videos. I can't resist sharing this one. I'm sorry. I tried.
OK, enough for now. I promise to do better when I have less of a headache.
I see my reflection in the window in front of me. I'm making a rather sour face, and anyone who came to visit right now might think I'm angry or in a bad mood. In fact, I have one of those headaches that localizes right over the left eye, and down to the neck, which is causing me to make some pretty awful faces right now. I'd take medicine, but it probably won't help.
Of course, my screwed up sleep schedule doesn't help. Last night was Mahashivaratri, the Hindu festival of Lord Shiva. The myth is that the Ocean of Compassion (karuna sagara) was poisoned by a demon, and Shiva saved the world from the poison by drinking it up himself. The gods stayed up all night with him to be sure the poison did not harm him. Hence, on Mahashivaratri, devotees stay up all night, usually attending abhishekams (pouring of libations and giving offerings to the Shiva Lingam) or doing Shiva puja. I went to a friend's house for puja, and then stayed up until about 4:00 in the morning. Which wasn't too bad, given that I usually end up falling asleep around 1 am. I always take the next day off, as I know I'm not going to be able to work after a few hours of sleep.
I'm sure all of this contributes to the weirdness of today. So, in honor of today's weirdness, here are a few weird things:
First--apparently it is possible to be bored to death:
Bored To Death?
I have to agree with the findings. Nothing spoils the brain like an overdose of ennui. I imagine this is why lottery winners end up going back to work. Eventually the novelty wears off and you get bored, and have to find something to do to keep you from drooling and imagining your neighbors are conspiring against you.
In honor of Valentine's Day this Sunday, Found Footage Festival has put together their own guide to finding "that special anyone":
How to Find That Special Anyone
If you have a special someone, you might question your readiness for marriage. Mystery Science Theater 3000 provides you with the answer (in 2 parts):
Part 2:
Recently the Republicans had another "Tea Party" convention in Nashville, which is a "grass roots" movement protecting American "liberty", allegedly in the same spirit as the colonial rebels against the British tea tax. From what I can tell, it's more of a convention of old people who listen to country music protecting their right to use taxpayer dollars to build country clubs (no relation to country music), and not waste it on things like healthcare for the poor. Or something like that. In any case, it apparently cost about $350 a person to attend, and they had Sarah Palin as their speaker. I need say nothing more about this, because Stephen Colbert already has:
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Sarah Palin Uses a Hand-O-Prompter | ||||
| ||||
I'm a sucker for stupid cat videos. I can't resist sharing this one. I'm sorry. I tried.
OK, enough for now. I promise to do better when I have less of a headache.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Reflections on Amityville Part 2--Psychopathology
Well, we had the promised blizzard yesterday. I've put my back out shoveling a foot of wet, heavy snow. They closed my office again today, and I already had Friday off, so my weekend has begun early. I also got some good news today--John Foxx is doing a "30th anniversary of Metamatic" show in London in June, and I bought my ticket this morning. A nice start to a long weekend, shoveling casualties notwithstanding.
Today I want to finish up my remarks on the Amityville case, and take a break from the "paranormal" topics for a bit. One of the specials aired by Biography Channel this past weekend was a recent interview with Ronald DeFeo Jr., the man convicted of murdering his entire family in the Amityville house, before the Lutz's "horror" began. DeFeo was 55 years old in this interview, which would place it around 2006 or 2007--he was 23 when he was convicted of the murders.
DeFeo was interviewed by a forensic psychiatrist. I saw an earlier "City Confidential" episode on the DeFeo case, and Ronnie was clearly a troubled child. He was shooting heroin, and in constant trouble with the law. He dropped out of high school, and had difficulty keeping a job. He ended up working in his father's car dealership in Brooklyn, and his father gave him money and cars to support his lifestyle. Lest one think his bad behavior started in Amityville, there was an account from at least one Brooklyn schoolmate who said he was a bully--everyone was afraid of him. To be fair to DeFeo, he had an excessively dysfunctional family life. One woman gave an account of how his father smacked his son's head against a folding chair when he was crying at one and a half years of age. Abuse was common in the DeFeo household; there was an account of Ronald DeFeo Sr. punching his wife in the face as she came up the stairs with the laundry, sending her tumbling down the stairs. He then closed the door and walked away as if it were nothing. On another occasion, Ronnie dropped his napkin at the dinner table, and bent down to pick it up. When he sat up again, his father asked why he left the table. Ronnie said he hadn't, he'd just bent down to pick up his napkin. His father then grabbed him and beat the hell out of him for several minutes until he was bleeding, and then sat down at the table and ate again like nothing had happened. This was par for the course in the household, and it was known that the two older children, Ronnie and Dawn, hated their father enough to want to kill him.
DeFeo has now changed his story in prison, claiming he'd made up his mind to kill his father after he broke a pool stick over his head on the 4th of November 1974, but said he never meant to kill his whole family. He also claims his sister Dawn killed their two younger siblings, not himself, and that he hadn't really meant to kill his parents at that time--just to scare them. He supposedly killed Dawn after a struggle ensuing when he found their younger siblings dead. Psychiatrists and judges don't buy this new version of the murders; it seems more like a way of reasoning himself out of killing his younger siblings, who he apparently cared about on some level.
The forensic psychiatrist that interviewed DeFeo gave him a diagnosis of Anti-Social Personality Disorder. He probably didn't go so far as to label DeFeo a sociopath because of his violently abusive upbringing. DeFeo has no remorse about the killings, calling them "self-defense", and his manner of speaking suggests that he is a master manipulator. Again, because of his upbringing, it's not difficult to understand how he ended up developing that as a survival tactic. However, he doesn't seem to be entirely without conscience, which would be the case if he were a sociopath. But, he's still one of those people better off in jail, because he doesn't know how to appropriately deal with life on the outside, even if that isn't entirely his fault. He's still responsible for what happened.
One of the supposed stories that went around was that DeFeo was home the night of the murders, watching a show on TV, when suddenly a pair of black hands appeared and handed him the rifle he used to kill the family, and the idea came to him to do so at that moment. I don't really buy that story; it seems more like a fabrication of William Weber's to try to say his client wasn't responsible for his actions, and trying to piggyback on the Lutz's strange events. Indeed, Ronnie never even mentions the idea of a "force" in the house until 1979, well after the events, and around the time the first Amityville movie came out. He hated his father, wanted to kill him, and ended up killing everyone, whether that was his original intention or not. And there was nothing "demonic" about it, except that he was overtaken by his own inner demons (and there were clearly many of them) at that moment. Clearly there was already a motive and an explosive environment for those murders to occur; introducing the paranormal into the equation is unlikely and unnecessary.
So, enough talk of murder--tonight is Mahashivaratri, and though I won't be going to the temple for abhishekam, I will be visiting a friend for puja, and staying up all night as is customary. Om Namah Shivaya.
Today I want to finish up my remarks on the Amityville case, and take a break from the "paranormal" topics for a bit. One of the specials aired by Biography Channel this past weekend was a recent interview with Ronald DeFeo Jr., the man convicted of murdering his entire family in the Amityville house, before the Lutz's "horror" began. DeFeo was 55 years old in this interview, which would place it around 2006 or 2007--he was 23 when he was convicted of the murders.
DeFeo was interviewed by a forensic psychiatrist. I saw an earlier "City Confidential" episode on the DeFeo case, and Ronnie was clearly a troubled child. He was shooting heroin, and in constant trouble with the law. He dropped out of high school, and had difficulty keeping a job. He ended up working in his father's car dealership in Brooklyn, and his father gave him money and cars to support his lifestyle. Lest one think his bad behavior started in Amityville, there was an account from at least one Brooklyn schoolmate who said he was a bully--everyone was afraid of him. To be fair to DeFeo, he had an excessively dysfunctional family life. One woman gave an account of how his father smacked his son's head against a folding chair when he was crying at one and a half years of age. Abuse was common in the DeFeo household; there was an account of Ronald DeFeo Sr. punching his wife in the face as she came up the stairs with the laundry, sending her tumbling down the stairs. He then closed the door and walked away as if it were nothing. On another occasion, Ronnie dropped his napkin at the dinner table, and bent down to pick it up. When he sat up again, his father asked why he left the table. Ronnie said he hadn't, he'd just bent down to pick up his napkin. His father then grabbed him and beat the hell out of him for several minutes until he was bleeding, and then sat down at the table and ate again like nothing had happened. This was par for the course in the household, and it was known that the two older children, Ronnie and Dawn, hated their father enough to want to kill him.
DeFeo has now changed his story in prison, claiming he'd made up his mind to kill his father after he broke a pool stick over his head on the 4th of November 1974, but said he never meant to kill his whole family. He also claims his sister Dawn killed their two younger siblings, not himself, and that he hadn't really meant to kill his parents at that time--just to scare them. He supposedly killed Dawn after a struggle ensuing when he found their younger siblings dead. Psychiatrists and judges don't buy this new version of the murders; it seems more like a way of reasoning himself out of killing his younger siblings, who he apparently cared about on some level.
The forensic psychiatrist that interviewed DeFeo gave him a diagnosis of Anti-Social Personality Disorder. He probably didn't go so far as to label DeFeo a sociopath because of his violently abusive upbringing. DeFeo has no remorse about the killings, calling them "self-defense", and his manner of speaking suggests that he is a master manipulator. Again, because of his upbringing, it's not difficult to understand how he ended up developing that as a survival tactic. However, he doesn't seem to be entirely without conscience, which would be the case if he were a sociopath. But, he's still one of those people better off in jail, because he doesn't know how to appropriately deal with life on the outside, even if that isn't entirely his fault. He's still responsible for what happened.
One of the supposed stories that went around was that DeFeo was home the night of the murders, watching a show on TV, when suddenly a pair of black hands appeared and handed him the rifle he used to kill the family, and the idea came to him to do so at that moment. I don't really buy that story; it seems more like a fabrication of William Weber's to try to say his client wasn't responsible for his actions, and trying to piggyback on the Lutz's strange events. Indeed, Ronnie never even mentions the idea of a "force" in the house until 1979, well after the events, and around the time the first Amityville movie came out. He hated his father, wanted to kill him, and ended up killing everyone, whether that was his original intention or not. And there was nothing "demonic" about it, except that he was overtaken by his own inner demons (and there were clearly many of them) at that moment. Clearly there was already a motive and an explosive environment for those murders to occur; introducing the paranormal into the equation is unlikely and unnecessary.
So, enough talk of murder--tonight is Mahashivaratri, and though I won't be going to the temple for abhishekam, I will be visiting a friend for puja, and staying up all night as is customary. Om Namah Shivaya.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Reflections on Amityville, Part 1--Parnormal Aspects
It's the eve of what is supposed to be a huge snowstorm, and I have been ridiculously tired and hungry all day. Given the wintry feel of things, an amaryllis that I received as a Christmas gift from a co-worker has suddenly and ironically started blooming with beautiful pink flowers. My Christmas cactus has also started blooming, though one might forgive it for believing it's Christmastime right now. My office has already announced that it's closed tomorrow, so it just remains for me to distract myself and not turn into a glutton over the next 24 hours.
Yesterday I promised the first part of a discussion of the Amityville case, the "paranormal" part of the story. The whole story is very confusing, as it is more difficult than usual to separate fact from fiction.
First, the story in a nutshell: in November 1974, Ronald DeFeo Jr. murdered his entire family--his parents, two brothers, and two sisters, in a Dutch colonial house on Ocean Avenue in Amityville, New York. DeFeo's defense attorney, William Weber, tried a number of tactics to get Ronald off the hook with just a few years by entering an insanity plea. It didn't work--he was found guilty and sentenced to six consecutive life sentences in prison. There were a lot of intense dynamics in the DeFeo family, which I will talk about in Part 2 of my discussion. But for now, the basic story is sufficient.
Thirteen months later the house on Ocean Avenue was purchased by George and Kathy Lutz, who were newlyweds. Kathy had 3 children from a previous marriage, and the family moved into the house in December 1975. 28 days later they fled, leaving all of their personal possessions behind, never to return. They claimed the house was possessed by something evil, that got worse and worse as the days wore on. Attempts at blessing the house seemed to help escalate events. You can read the details of the haunting here.
Once they moved out of the house, things immediately became confusing--I imagine that was even more of a horror than what they lived through, if that was possible. The Lutzes contacted William Weber first, who was interested in what happened as he believed that proving a demonic possession of the house might be able to get his client (Ronald DeFeo) a re-trial. They also contacted investigator Stephen Kaplan to investigate the house. Both Kaplan and Weber disavowed the events described by the Lutzes, claiming it was a hoax. A bestselling book on the event, based on tapes the Lutzes made after moving out of the house, fueled claims that they were trying to make money off the DeFeo murders. As it turns out, the Lutzes never saw any money in connection with "The Amityville Horror" book, and their account was declared a hoax after they had a falling out with both Weber and Kaplan. To complicate things further, demonologists Ed and Lorraine Warren investigated the house and claimed it was brimming over with demonic activity. Another psychic who was brought in on the case, Alberta Riley, was apparently so shaken up by what she saw in a deep trance that she never did any work with the paranormal again after that. She said, "I don't want to know anymore." One of the creepiest things that came out of the investigation was this time-lapse video. It is possible it was faked, though I've never heard any confirmation of that one way or the other. In any case, it's creepy:
George and Kathy Lutz are both dead--one died in 2004, the other in 2005--but right up until the end they swore the whole thing wasn't a hoax. However, what makes it questionable is that fact that nothing could really be verified. Subsequent owners of the house experienced no activity. Ed Warren claimed that someone from St. Joseph's Shrine blessed the house when the DeFeos lived there due to frightening activity, but the Shrine has officially stated that no one ever went to bless that house from there. There was talk of a Shinnecock Indian curse on the property, but the Shinnecock tribe says that this is false. Famous ghost investigator Hans Holzer was also on the case, and he believed that there might be a haunting based on past property history, but nothing about that history could be verified.
What hasn't really been addressed is the idea that the area was considered to be some kind of "power spot" by the Indian tribes, even if not necessarily "cursed". Whether this is enough with a combination of other emotional factors to trigger that level of activity is hard to say. My sense is that something DID really happen there, but it's really difficult to separate fact from fiction when there has been so much politics surrounding the case, and so many manipulations and claims by people who had ulterior motives for doing so. But why just the Lutzes? I don't really think the DeFeos were affected by the same phenomena. Kathy Lutz once said that she and George had been practicing Transcendental Meditation at the time, and that this opened them up to the activity, but that's a lot of bunk. While there are a lot of questionable things about TM organizations, it's nothing more than reciting a mantra to focus on a daily basis as a practice. There had to be something else going on in one or more of the family members to draw that kind of activity in. The house may have just been the right conductor for the activity at the right time, if it IS a "power spot" (highly electro- or geo-magnetic), plus the residue of the horrible tragedy that occurred, plus anything going on with any of the Lutzes that acted as a gateway to that activity. A lot of the activity centered around the previous DeFeo murders (family sleeping in the same position as the murdered family, etc.), which could mean they were being affected by the residual energy of that event.
I suppose no one will ever know. But if we give the Lutzes the benefit of the doubt that SOMETHING frightening occurred, I would still suggest it was psychological in origin, released externally under the right environmental conditions. The fact that the activity ceased when they moved--and that they still reported some problems after moving--suggests that it centers around them ultimately, and not the house. An analogy would be a lightning storm--the house could have all the right conditions to be a target/electrical conductor, but doesn't necessarily get hit.
Yesterday I promised the first part of a discussion of the Amityville case, the "paranormal" part of the story. The whole story is very confusing, as it is more difficult than usual to separate fact from fiction.
First, the story in a nutshell: in November 1974, Ronald DeFeo Jr. murdered his entire family--his parents, two brothers, and two sisters, in a Dutch colonial house on Ocean Avenue in Amityville, New York. DeFeo's defense attorney, William Weber, tried a number of tactics to get Ronald off the hook with just a few years by entering an insanity plea. It didn't work--he was found guilty and sentenced to six consecutive life sentences in prison. There were a lot of intense dynamics in the DeFeo family, which I will talk about in Part 2 of my discussion. But for now, the basic story is sufficient.
Thirteen months later the house on Ocean Avenue was purchased by George and Kathy Lutz, who were newlyweds. Kathy had 3 children from a previous marriage, and the family moved into the house in December 1975. 28 days later they fled, leaving all of their personal possessions behind, never to return. They claimed the house was possessed by something evil, that got worse and worse as the days wore on. Attempts at blessing the house seemed to help escalate events. You can read the details of the haunting here.
Once they moved out of the house, things immediately became confusing--I imagine that was even more of a horror than what they lived through, if that was possible. The Lutzes contacted William Weber first, who was interested in what happened as he believed that proving a demonic possession of the house might be able to get his client (Ronald DeFeo) a re-trial. They also contacted investigator Stephen Kaplan to investigate the house. Both Kaplan and Weber disavowed the events described by the Lutzes, claiming it was a hoax. A bestselling book on the event, based on tapes the Lutzes made after moving out of the house, fueled claims that they were trying to make money off the DeFeo murders. As it turns out, the Lutzes never saw any money in connection with "The Amityville Horror" book, and their account was declared a hoax after they had a falling out with both Weber and Kaplan. To complicate things further, demonologists Ed and Lorraine Warren investigated the house and claimed it was brimming over with demonic activity. Another psychic who was brought in on the case, Alberta Riley, was apparently so shaken up by what she saw in a deep trance that she never did any work with the paranormal again after that. She said, "I don't want to know anymore." One of the creepiest things that came out of the investigation was this time-lapse video. It is possible it was faked, though I've never heard any confirmation of that one way or the other. In any case, it's creepy:
George and Kathy Lutz are both dead--one died in 2004, the other in 2005--but right up until the end they swore the whole thing wasn't a hoax. However, what makes it questionable is that fact that nothing could really be verified. Subsequent owners of the house experienced no activity. Ed Warren claimed that someone from St. Joseph's Shrine blessed the house when the DeFeos lived there due to frightening activity, but the Shrine has officially stated that no one ever went to bless that house from there. There was talk of a Shinnecock Indian curse on the property, but the Shinnecock tribe says that this is false. Famous ghost investigator Hans Holzer was also on the case, and he believed that there might be a haunting based on past property history, but nothing about that history could be verified.
What hasn't really been addressed is the idea that the area was considered to be some kind of "power spot" by the Indian tribes, even if not necessarily "cursed". Whether this is enough with a combination of other emotional factors to trigger that level of activity is hard to say. My sense is that something DID really happen there, but it's really difficult to separate fact from fiction when there has been so much politics surrounding the case, and so many manipulations and claims by people who had ulterior motives for doing so. But why just the Lutzes? I don't really think the DeFeos were affected by the same phenomena. Kathy Lutz once said that she and George had been practicing Transcendental Meditation at the time, and that this opened them up to the activity, but that's a lot of bunk. While there are a lot of questionable things about TM organizations, it's nothing more than reciting a mantra to focus on a daily basis as a practice. There had to be something else going on in one or more of the family members to draw that kind of activity in. The house may have just been the right conductor for the activity at the right time, if it IS a "power spot" (highly electro- or geo-magnetic), plus the residue of the horrible tragedy that occurred, plus anything going on with any of the Lutzes that acted as a gateway to that activity. A lot of the activity centered around the previous DeFeo murders (family sleeping in the same position as the murdered family, etc.), which could mean they were being affected by the residual energy of that event.
I suppose no one will ever know. But if we give the Lutzes the benefit of the doubt that SOMETHING frightening occurred, I would still suggest it was psychological in origin, released externally under the right environmental conditions. The fact that the activity ceased when they moved--and that they still reported some problems after moving--suggests that it centers around them ultimately, and not the house. An analogy would be a lightning storm--the house could have all the right conditions to be a target/electrical conductor, but doesn't necessarily get hit.
Monday, February 08, 2010
Paranormal Weekends
Weekends are surreal, and Mondays become a representation of order after chaos. From the minute I get home on a Friday afternoon from work, it’s as though I’ve stepped across a boundary where normal rules do not apply. While I always have certain tasks I must attend to, I sort of drift in and out of these activities, as I become restless and drop an activity just as soon as I’ve picked it up. “As long as the required stuff is done before Monday” becomes my mantra.
I am also ridiculously partial to the cat. If I have to wash my bedroom floors, I will refrain from doing so if the cat is sleeping on my bed and looks cute enough. If he’s annoying me, I’ll put on the vacuum just for spite, but most of the time he’s curled up in some obscenely perplexing yoga-like posture and snoring away with little kitty snores. He has me firmly convinced that if I disturb him, I will be struck dead by a vengeful god for daring to mar such apparent innocence. Hence, I look at him and say, “Well, as long as I get the floors done by Monday...”
I’ve been going out a lot less on the weekends because I’ve been cash-poor, and saving my excursions out for visits with friends. While at home, I’m doing a lot more reading and occasionally even watching television, something I hardly ever do anymore. This past weekend I was flipping through the TV listings, and saw that the Biography Channel was having 3 back-to-back episodes on the Amityville Horror case—the murders that took place there, and the supposed paranormal/demonic events that took place afterwards.
I read Jay Anson’s book, “The Amityville Horror” when I was still in high school, and I have to say the book scared the crap out of me. I wasn’t impressed by the James Brolin/Margot Kidder movie that came out based on the book—it was nothing like the book, and the sequels to the movie aren’t even worth mentioning. The book raised a huge controversy, and most people consider it to be a hoax, especially because subsequent owners of the offending house have had absolutely no problems while living there.
I’ve always been on the fence about the idea that the whole thing was a hoax. The Lutz family never claimed it was a hoax. Having Ed and Lorraine Warren investigate the house was probably not a good idea, as they tended to find demons lurking in the corner of every house, at least at that stage of their ghost hunting careers. (Lorraine Warren seems to have gotten over that tendency, or at least it seems that way from her Paranormal State appearances). It didn’t give the case much credibility.
On the other hand, I can’t give much credibility to skeptics who simply dismiss the whole thing outright. I agree that not every strange occurrence can be deemed paranormal, and that questions need to be asked, but one can’t simply dismiss things that don’t fall neatly into categories as “hoaxes” or simply as non-existent. Biases can be at either extreme of the spectrum. At least 95% of so called paranormal or demonic activity can probably be explained by natural causes and/or psychological disorders, but there is that other 5% that defies explanation. It is possible that one day there will be an explanation, but until there is, it falls into the “paranormal” category. As I’ve said before, “paranormal” just means “beyond the normal”. It doesn’t prove the existence of a soul, or life after death. Of course, in the scientific world view, nothing will ever prove that. Any hard data produced is immediately assumed to be faked.
Anyway, I wanted to share thoughts on this case over two blog postings, one on the paranormal aspects of the case, and one on the psychopathology of Ronald DeFeo Jr., the young man who murdered his entire family in the Amityville house. I will post Part 1 tomorrow.
What I will say for now is this—the line between the “demonic” and the “psychological” is often blurry. I’ve listened to skeptics dismiss certain activity as “the product of imagination”, but they really undersell the functioning of the human mind. Yes, it IS in your mind. And your mind is powerful in a very scary way that you often can’t control. You’re just riding along in your boat on the ocean, and are encouraged to stay in safe waters by your society and your religion (if you have one). You have to be pretty skilled in self-discipline and have a lot of real self-confidence (not arrogance) to successfully navigate the deeper, darker waters.
I am also ridiculously partial to the cat. If I have to wash my bedroom floors, I will refrain from doing so if the cat is sleeping on my bed and looks cute enough. If he’s annoying me, I’ll put on the vacuum just for spite, but most of the time he’s curled up in some obscenely perplexing yoga-like posture and snoring away with little kitty snores. He has me firmly convinced that if I disturb him, I will be struck dead by a vengeful god for daring to mar such apparent innocence. Hence, I look at him and say, “Well, as long as I get the floors done by Monday...”
I’ve been going out a lot less on the weekends because I’ve been cash-poor, and saving my excursions out for visits with friends. While at home, I’m doing a lot more reading and occasionally even watching television, something I hardly ever do anymore. This past weekend I was flipping through the TV listings, and saw that the Biography Channel was having 3 back-to-back episodes on the Amityville Horror case—the murders that took place there, and the supposed paranormal/demonic events that took place afterwards.
I read Jay Anson’s book, “The Amityville Horror” when I was still in high school, and I have to say the book scared the crap out of me. I wasn’t impressed by the James Brolin/Margot Kidder movie that came out based on the book—it was nothing like the book, and the sequels to the movie aren’t even worth mentioning. The book raised a huge controversy, and most people consider it to be a hoax, especially because subsequent owners of the offending house have had absolutely no problems while living there.
I’ve always been on the fence about the idea that the whole thing was a hoax. The Lutz family never claimed it was a hoax. Having Ed and Lorraine Warren investigate the house was probably not a good idea, as they tended to find demons lurking in the corner of every house, at least at that stage of their ghost hunting careers. (Lorraine Warren seems to have gotten over that tendency, or at least it seems that way from her Paranormal State appearances). It didn’t give the case much credibility.
On the other hand, I can’t give much credibility to skeptics who simply dismiss the whole thing outright. I agree that not every strange occurrence can be deemed paranormal, and that questions need to be asked, but one can’t simply dismiss things that don’t fall neatly into categories as “hoaxes” or simply as non-existent. Biases can be at either extreme of the spectrum. At least 95% of so called paranormal or demonic activity can probably be explained by natural causes and/or psychological disorders, but there is that other 5% that defies explanation. It is possible that one day there will be an explanation, but until there is, it falls into the “paranormal” category. As I’ve said before, “paranormal” just means “beyond the normal”. It doesn’t prove the existence of a soul, or life after death. Of course, in the scientific world view, nothing will ever prove that. Any hard data produced is immediately assumed to be faked.
Anyway, I wanted to share thoughts on this case over two blog postings, one on the paranormal aspects of the case, and one on the psychopathology of Ronald DeFeo Jr., the young man who murdered his entire family in the Amityville house. I will post Part 1 tomorrow.
What I will say for now is this—the line between the “demonic” and the “psychological” is often blurry. I’ve listened to skeptics dismiss certain activity as “the product of imagination”, but they really undersell the functioning of the human mind. Yes, it IS in your mind. And your mind is powerful in a very scary way that you often can’t control. You’re just riding along in your boat on the ocean, and are encouraged to stay in safe waters by your society and your religion (if you have one). You have to be pretty skilled in self-discipline and have a lot of real self-confidence (not arrogance) to successfully navigate the deeper, darker waters.
Saturday, February 06, 2010
Snow Day Randomness 2010 Version
It's been awhile since I've had a "snow day randomness" post. In fact, I'm not sure I had one last year. But--it's snowing pretty hard outside, and I'm in an extremely random frame of mind (read as: indecisive), so, when you put those things together, it's a bit of a no-brainer. I am glad that I am doing this in February, and not March--March snow just pisses me off, especially when it's around the start of Spring. Winter gets far too much of the year, even here in a temperate zone, so it seriously needs to be evicted once Spring starts. Enough is enough.
So, to let the randomness begin:
After writing my previous post on the "Jersey Shore" reality show, Yahoo posted an article about Jersey Shore "guido" fashion making a comeback among teens OK, teens--listen to your old Auntie Brigid who lived through guido fashion the first time--DON'T. Really. It's like getting tattoos in certain places, or of certain things--one day you will look back and say, "why didn't my parents just opt for the lobotomy instead of letting me walk around like that?" As a teen I never succumbed to guido fashion, though I did almost succumb to the big hair look, which I didn't really succeed at because Nature was kind enough to step in and stop that from happening. My hair simply rebelled; if it could talk, it would have said, "You're crazy if you think we're going to stand up like THAT. And you need counseling or something if you actually want us to stand up like that." My hair still looked pretty awful in the eighties, but it could have been worse. And people wonder why I believe in divine intervention.
The Rumpus recently posted some of Carlo Farneti’s illustrations for a 1935 edition of Baudelaire’s Les Fleurs du Mal. These are absolutely amazing.
Looks like Pope Benedict has more trouble. Last year Benedict created a stir when he made Gerhard Maria Wagner auxiliary bishop of Linz. Wagner has the unfortunate distinction of having much in common with Pat Robertson--he seems to think that major catastrophes like Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, and now the Haiti earthquake, as the residents' own fault, because they are "sinful". Wagner did resign as Bishop, but his recent comments on Haiti have just re-kindled a firestorm of criticism against the Pope, who is now accused of bringing the Church "back into the Dark Ages", with Wagner's appointment being the "tip of the iceberg". The latter statement was made by the head of the Catholic lay-initiative, Herbert Kohlmaier. He feels the Church is now more of a "sect" (a term used to describe a group that radically departs from orthodox theology), and people are leaving in droves.
I have to say that I'd regained some respect for the Vatican under John Paul II, who seemed to be very willing in at least some significant respects to be more "inclusivist" than the Church has been historically. (This is not to be confused with "pluralistic"--I doubt the Church will ever be pluralistic, but inclusivist is at least a step in the right direction). Looking at Benedict's track record so far, it's hard to disagree with Kohlmaier. Between Wagner, and Williamson (the Holocaust denier who was reinstated after ex-communication), his questionable statements against Muslims and Jews, his investigation of American nuns (who are the only ones left to give the Church in America a good face after all the priestly pedophilia), and the real kicker--inviting Anglican priests and bishops to "come over to our side" during a major Anglican conference, which was debating the ordination of homosexuals. Benedict may be well versed in theology, but in terms of the world in general, he obviously has been living with his head up his ass. The previous Pope and the Cardinals should have listened to him when he said he just wanted to retire quietly and write a book. He and the world would have been better off. Pope is not a job for everyone, regardless of theological credentials. I think many of these high-ranking officials spend more time writing and reading books than working with people. In the world of libraries--our analogy is the administrator who graduated with his or her M.L.S. and went straight into administration for a large institution, never doing any actual librarian work. Librarians tend to be at odds with such administrators, because they make decisions with no regard for how things really work in their institution. The Church is getting to be the same way (again).
The snow has stopped. It looks like we've only got 3-4 inches of snow, tops. Which means I could probably be out of the house and on the road by noon if I wanted. I shouldn't complain about the snow this year--it's as though Nature is striving to be inoffensive, snowing only at night and early morning, only a few inches at a time, as to provide as little inconvenience as possible--but significant enough to let me sleep in a bit. Of course, my friends in Philadelphia and DC are not singing the same tune at this moment--they had about 2 feet of snow and it's still coming down. Usually the South fares better than the North in the winter--they've gotten the "sh*t end of the stick" this year.
Speaking of the South--one of my fave guitarists who now works for NPR, Carrie Brownstein, recently drove up to New York from DC, and got stuck in...South Jersey. On the Turnpike. Here is her account of that adventure. Just goes to show you that South Jersey is an entirely different animal from North Jersey.
And, speaking of South Jersey again--and animals (sort of)--I understand that next week's "Paranormal State" season finale is a Jersey Devil episode. I hope it's good. "Scariest Places on Earth" had gone to the Pine Barrens with a group of Devil-hunters, and supposedly they saw something, though Weird NJ later reported that the implications of the episode were "misleading" at best. If you have never heard of the Jersey Devil, here is some background. And here is Weird NJ's take on the Jersey Devil.
Lastly--here is a post on "Dangerous Things Kids Should Do". The fact that Mental Floss even has such a post--and that one could seriously ask, "should you let your kids do mildly risky things?" is mind-blowing. Kids today seem to be fenced in and kept on a leash. Part of it is because parents have been fed this extraordinary bullsh*t about how "much more dangerous" it is in the world today, and part of it is because parents are now much more liable according to child "protection" laws than they ever were previously. So, it's hard to blame parents. But you're not protecting the kids from anything--you're basically keeping them from growing up and being functioning adults. Walking out the door every morning is a risk--get over it and just do it. And always be wary of laws passed in the name of "safety" and "protection" of the citizens. They usually don't protect anything--they just take away your ability to freely do something.
I will leave you on that happy note as I go out to shovel some snow...and the phrase, "Sarah Palin's people". Don't think about that for too long.
So, to let the randomness begin:
After writing my previous post on the "Jersey Shore" reality show, Yahoo posted an article about Jersey Shore "guido" fashion making a comeback among teens OK, teens--listen to your old Auntie Brigid who lived through guido fashion the first time--DON'T. Really. It's like getting tattoos in certain places, or of certain things--one day you will look back and say, "why didn't my parents just opt for the lobotomy instead of letting me walk around like that?" As a teen I never succumbed to guido fashion, though I did almost succumb to the big hair look, which I didn't really succeed at because Nature was kind enough to step in and stop that from happening. My hair simply rebelled; if it could talk, it would have said, "You're crazy if you think we're going to stand up like THAT. And you need counseling or something if you actually want us to stand up like that." My hair still looked pretty awful in the eighties, but it could have been worse. And people wonder why I believe in divine intervention.
The Rumpus recently posted some of Carlo Farneti’s illustrations for a 1935 edition of Baudelaire’s Les Fleurs du Mal. These are absolutely amazing.
Looks like Pope Benedict has more trouble. Last year Benedict created a stir when he made Gerhard Maria Wagner auxiliary bishop of Linz. Wagner has the unfortunate distinction of having much in common with Pat Robertson--he seems to think that major catastrophes like Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, and now the Haiti earthquake, as the residents' own fault, because they are "sinful". Wagner did resign as Bishop, but his recent comments on Haiti have just re-kindled a firestorm of criticism against the Pope, who is now accused of bringing the Church "back into the Dark Ages", with Wagner's appointment being the "tip of the iceberg". The latter statement was made by the head of the Catholic lay-initiative, Herbert Kohlmaier. He feels the Church is now more of a "sect" (a term used to describe a group that radically departs from orthodox theology), and people are leaving in droves.
I have to say that I'd regained some respect for the Vatican under John Paul II, who seemed to be very willing in at least some significant respects to be more "inclusivist" than the Church has been historically. (This is not to be confused with "pluralistic"--I doubt the Church will ever be pluralistic, but inclusivist is at least a step in the right direction). Looking at Benedict's track record so far, it's hard to disagree with Kohlmaier. Between Wagner, and Williamson (the Holocaust denier who was reinstated after ex-communication), his questionable statements against Muslims and Jews, his investigation of American nuns (who are the only ones left to give the Church in America a good face after all the priestly pedophilia), and the real kicker--inviting Anglican priests and bishops to "come over to our side" during a major Anglican conference, which was debating the ordination of homosexuals. Benedict may be well versed in theology, but in terms of the world in general, he obviously has been living with his head up his ass. The previous Pope and the Cardinals should have listened to him when he said he just wanted to retire quietly and write a book. He and the world would have been better off. Pope is not a job for everyone, regardless of theological credentials. I think many of these high-ranking officials spend more time writing and reading books than working with people. In the world of libraries--our analogy is the administrator who graduated with his or her M.L.S. and went straight into administration for a large institution, never doing any actual librarian work. Librarians tend to be at odds with such administrators, because they make decisions with no regard for how things really work in their institution. The Church is getting to be the same way (again).
The snow has stopped. It looks like we've only got 3-4 inches of snow, tops. Which means I could probably be out of the house and on the road by noon if I wanted. I shouldn't complain about the snow this year--it's as though Nature is striving to be inoffensive, snowing only at night and early morning, only a few inches at a time, as to provide as little inconvenience as possible--but significant enough to let me sleep in a bit. Of course, my friends in Philadelphia and DC are not singing the same tune at this moment--they had about 2 feet of snow and it's still coming down. Usually the South fares better than the North in the winter--they've gotten the "sh*t end of the stick" this year.
Speaking of the South--one of my fave guitarists who now works for NPR, Carrie Brownstein, recently drove up to New York from DC, and got stuck in...South Jersey. On the Turnpike. Here is her account of that adventure. Just goes to show you that South Jersey is an entirely different animal from North Jersey.
And, speaking of South Jersey again--and animals (sort of)--I understand that next week's "Paranormal State" season finale is a Jersey Devil episode. I hope it's good. "Scariest Places on Earth" had gone to the Pine Barrens with a group of Devil-hunters, and supposedly they saw something, though Weird NJ later reported that the implications of the episode were "misleading" at best. If you have never heard of the Jersey Devil, here is some background. And here is Weird NJ's take on the Jersey Devil.
Lastly--here is a post on "Dangerous Things Kids Should Do". The fact that Mental Floss even has such a post--and that one could seriously ask, "should you let your kids do mildly risky things?" is mind-blowing. Kids today seem to be fenced in and kept on a leash. Part of it is because parents have been fed this extraordinary bullsh*t about how "much more dangerous" it is in the world today, and part of it is because parents are now much more liable according to child "protection" laws than they ever were previously. So, it's hard to blame parents. But you're not protecting the kids from anything--you're basically keeping them from growing up and being functioning adults. Walking out the door every morning is a risk--get over it and just do it. And always be wary of laws passed in the name of "safety" and "protection" of the citizens. They usually don't protect anything--they just take away your ability to freely do something.
I will leave you on that happy note as I go out to shovel some snow...and the phrase, "Sarah Palin's people". Don't think about that for too long.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Jersey Shore?
I’ve been asked more frequently than I would expect about the reality TV show that’s going into a second season, “Jersey Shore”. People ask me about it because—follow me closely here—I’m from New Jersey. Unlike the entire cast of the show, except for one person.
I have to confess that I’ve never seen Jersey Shore. The clips and descriptions I’ve seen of the show thus far would probably give me acid-like flashbacks to my teenage years at the Seaside Heights boardwalk. These would be decidedly unpleasant flashbacks. From what I can see, the so-called “guido/guidette” culture has only changed in the sense that the girls now have flat hair. Just add the “Heat Miser” look, and you could have had this show in 1985.
Seaside Heights itself has always been a bit of a sleaze pit, even though families frequently bring their kids to the boardwalk there to play games and go on the rides. We went there almost every summer when I was a kid. We didn’t stay in Seaside Heights—we stayed in nearby Lavallette—but at least one or two nights during the vacation week were spent at Seaside. The whole guido/guidette culture sprung up sometime in the mid-Eighties; before that, the boardwalk was populated by young men who looked like they were trying out for the Charles Manson lookalike contest. Whether the later development is an improvement or not is debatable.
Let’s talk for a minute about that culture. Apparently there are many Italian Americans who are irate over the rather non-PC term “guido”, annoyed not only at the term, but at the people associated with it. It’s hard to blame them. I’ve seen Italian men and women from Italy, and they are usually so outrageously attractive, there should be an international law against being allowed to be that attractive. The “guido/guidette” look is not attractive. It involves bad hair, fake orange tans, too much gold jewelry, ridiculous clothes, and day-glo nails for the ladies. The personalities and attitudes of “guidos” tends to be more in line with the commonly held notion of “douchebags”. It’s a very chauvinistic attitude.
I think I’m more surprised that Italian Americans are now irate about the whole “guido” idea. It’s not like it’s exactly a new thing—it’s been around for at least 25 years. And—many “guidos” are not even Italian. Asking a show to be taken off the air for the stereotype—well, like anything forbidden, that will likely only create more demand. Personally, I’m more annoyed that this is a look and attitude associated with New Jersey. NEW JERSEY PEOPLE DO NOT LOOK LIKE THIS. There are some areas and towns where this look is popular, but it’s hardly a Jersey-only phenomenon. Similarly, people tend to think of New Jersey as a toxic waste dump, based on their experience of landing in Newark Airport. NEWARK IS ALSO NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF NEW JERSEY. (Also, Newark Airport is not representative of Newark.) In fact, the industria of East Jersey is hardly representative of the state as a whole. It may surprise you to know that most of the state is farmland and forests. I live out in the Northwest, and I get to see cows, goats, and horses on my commute to work. New Jersey becomes more industrial as it approaches both New York City and Philadelphia, and the north and central parts of the state are very suburban, as they are popular places to live within commuting distance of the city.
But Seaside Heights is not all “guido”, either, though that does seem to be a popular hangout for that crowd. There is an equally large goth population, biker population, and...just average families. Even in recent years I’ve been down to visit Seaside Heights, but usually during the day; the night life is more than I can stomach. Of course, now that this show is so popular, I’m betting that there will be many more tourists to Seaside Heights. While this is good for local business there, it’s not very good for me—I don’t find those kinds of crowds enjoyable. I think I’m going to start visiting Cape May instead.
I have to confess that I’ve never seen Jersey Shore. The clips and descriptions I’ve seen of the show thus far would probably give me acid-like flashbacks to my teenage years at the Seaside Heights boardwalk. These would be decidedly unpleasant flashbacks. From what I can see, the so-called “guido/guidette” culture has only changed in the sense that the girls now have flat hair. Just add the “Heat Miser” look, and you could have had this show in 1985.
Seaside Heights itself has always been a bit of a sleaze pit, even though families frequently bring their kids to the boardwalk there to play games and go on the rides. We went there almost every summer when I was a kid. We didn’t stay in Seaside Heights—we stayed in nearby Lavallette—but at least one or two nights during the vacation week were spent at Seaside. The whole guido/guidette culture sprung up sometime in the mid-Eighties; before that, the boardwalk was populated by young men who looked like they were trying out for the Charles Manson lookalike contest. Whether the later development is an improvement or not is debatable.
Let’s talk for a minute about that culture. Apparently there are many Italian Americans who are irate over the rather non-PC term “guido”, annoyed not only at the term, but at the people associated with it. It’s hard to blame them. I’ve seen Italian men and women from Italy, and they are usually so outrageously attractive, there should be an international law against being allowed to be that attractive. The “guido/guidette” look is not attractive. It involves bad hair, fake orange tans, too much gold jewelry, ridiculous clothes, and day-glo nails for the ladies. The personalities and attitudes of “guidos” tends to be more in line with the commonly held notion of “douchebags”. It’s a very chauvinistic attitude.
I think I’m more surprised that Italian Americans are now irate about the whole “guido” idea. It’s not like it’s exactly a new thing—it’s been around for at least 25 years. And—many “guidos” are not even Italian. Asking a show to be taken off the air for the stereotype—well, like anything forbidden, that will likely only create more demand. Personally, I’m more annoyed that this is a look and attitude associated with New Jersey. NEW JERSEY PEOPLE DO NOT LOOK LIKE THIS. There are some areas and towns where this look is popular, but it’s hardly a Jersey-only phenomenon. Similarly, people tend to think of New Jersey as a toxic waste dump, based on their experience of landing in Newark Airport. NEWARK IS ALSO NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF NEW JERSEY. (Also, Newark Airport is not representative of Newark.) In fact, the industria of East Jersey is hardly representative of the state as a whole. It may surprise you to know that most of the state is farmland and forests. I live out in the Northwest, and I get to see cows, goats, and horses on my commute to work. New Jersey becomes more industrial as it approaches both New York City and Philadelphia, and the north and central parts of the state are very suburban, as they are popular places to live within commuting distance of the city.
But Seaside Heights is not all “guido”, either, though that does seem to be a popular hangout for that crowd. There is an equally large goth population, biker population, and...just average families. Even in recent years I’ve been down to visit Seaside Heights, but usually during the day; the night life is more than I can stomach. Of course, now that this show is so popular, I’m betting that there will be many more tourists to Seaside Heights. While this is good for local business there, it’s not very good for me—I don’t find those kinds of crowds enjoyable. I think I’m going to start visiting Cape May instead.
Monday, February 01, 2010
Old VHS Find
Last night I was going through some old VHS tapes. For whatever reason, I wouldn’t label anything after taping it. Alternately, I would label it, and then tape over it, and not change the label. I’ve taped some really weird things over the years—I even had about 30 Betamax tapes, but I’ve lost the ability to play those, so they went into the trash. I ultimately want to separate my VHS stuff into “worth keeping”, “worth tossing”, and “worth sending to Found Footage Festival”. You never know.
Anyway, I came across this documentary film made in 1976 called “The Amazing World of Psychic Phenomena”, hosted by Raymond Burr. It wasn’t half bad all things considered. The portion of the show dedicated to taping EVPs (Electronic Voice Phenomena) was a hoot. I think the EVPs they played were probably a hoax—it sounds like someone whispering into a microphone, and there’s no way you would get sound quality like that with an old Panasonic tape recorder—especially if you’re taping in a cemetery.
But what really got me about this episode was the one haunted house clip they showed. It’s debatable whether or not the house was really “haunted” in the traditional sense of the term. A woman, named as Mrs. Linda Clark, re-enacts a scary thing that happened in her home, while she was home playing board games with her son, and her husband was working late. While they sat playing in the living room, they suddenly heard a strange growl from the basement. Their dog stood up and started barking furiously at the door. She was a little freaked out, but tried to ignore it. Then the sound came again. She got up the nerve to go to the basement door and open it. Seeing nothing, she quickly shut it and went back to the living room. Suddenly it came back again, louder, and it was as though the door was breathing—there was a loud growling and straining against the door. The lights suddenly go out in the house, and she rushes to the phone to call...someone (911? Her husband?). We don’t know who. And that’s it. You can see the clip in this segment of the documentary here:
I found a review of this documentary online where the reviewer expresses the same frustration that I had with that scene. So what happened? Did the door ever open? Did they ever find out what made that sound? Did it ever happen again? I can tell you if I’d been in that house, I’d have grabbed the kid and the dog and fled. It was extremely creepy. But there is no follow-up info whatsoever; it’s as though the director expected us to be satisfied with that.
I tried to find out some more follow-up info on the data in this documentary, but I’ve turned up nothing so far. Pretty much everything in the documentary was a famous case documented elsewhere, so I figure something HAS to be out there somewhere, but I don’t have enough information to find it. I’m just surprised that’s the ONLY clip they had of what is labeled haunted house phenomena, and that they couldn’t document it better than that in a DOCUMENTARY, for chrissakes.
So, if you’re one of my librarian friends, and happen to be reading this post, I would not be troubled at all if you had a slow day on the reference desk and did some research on this one. All the info I know about it is posted above. Seriously. I will give you a prize if you figure this out.
Speaking of creepy and disturbing, I found a couple of weird spider-related things on the web (no pun intended) recently, so I’ll share them with you. Don’t watch the first one if you have a spider phobia. Pleasant dreams.
Anyway, I came across this documentary film made in 1976 called “The Amazing World of Psychic Phenomena”, hosted by Raymond Burr. It wasn’t half bad all things considered. The portion of the show dedicated to taping EVPs (Electronic Voice Phenomena) was a hoot. I think the EVPs they played were probably a hoax—it sounds like someone whispering into a microphone, and there’s no way you would get sound quality like that with an old Panasonic tape recorder—especially if you’re taping in a cemetery.
But what really got me about this episode was the one haunted house clip they showed. It’s debatable whether or not the house was really “haunted” in the traditional sense of the term. A woman, named as Mrs. Linda Clark, re-enacts a scary thing that happened in her home, while she was home playing board games with her son, and her husband was working late. While they sat playing in the living room, they suddenly heard a strange growl from the basement. Their dog stood up and started barking furiously at the door. She was a little freaked out, but tried to ignore it. Then the sound came again. She got up the nerve to go to the basement door and open it. Seeing nothing, she quickly shut it and went back to the living room. Suddenly it came back again, louder, and it was as though the door was breathing—there was a loud growling and straining against the door. The lights suddenly go out in the house, and she rushes to the phone to call...someone (911? Her husband?). We don’t know who. And that’s it. You can see the clip in this segment of the documentary here:
I found a review of this documentary online where the reviewer expresses the same frustration that I had with that scene. So what happened? Did the door ever open? Did they ever find out what made that sound? Did it ever happen again? I can tell you if I’d been in that house, I’d have grabbed the kid and the dog and fled. It was extremely creepy. But there is no follow-up info whatsoever; it’s as though the director expected us to be satisfied with that.
I tried to find out some more follow-up info on the data in this documentary, but I’ve turned up nothing so far. Pretty much everything in the documentary was a famous case documented elsewhere, so I figure something HAS to be out there somewhere, but I don’t have enough information to find it. I’m just surprised that’s the ONLY clip they had of what is labeled haunted house phenomena, and that they couldn’t document it better than that in a DOCUMENTARY, for chrissakes.
So, if you’re one of my librarian friends, and happen to be reading this post, I would not be troubled at all if you had a slow day on the reference desk and did some research on this one. All the info I know about it is posted above. Seriously. I will give you a prize if you figure this out.
Speaking of creepy and disturbing, I found a couple of weird spider-related things on the web (no pun intended) recently, so I’ll share them with you. Don’t watch the first one if you have a spider phobia. Pleasant dreams.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
January Snapshot
The afternoon temperatures attempt to make it to the freezing mark. Compared to the last few days, it feels warm outside. I have just returned from a visit with a friend. She has severe endometriosis; a full hysterectomy will be required. She is a single Mom with 2 kids. I ask her when the surgery is scheduled. I will certainly be taking her for the surgery and waiting with her children; she doesn't have anyone else here, after all. Her family is in another country. I don't mind doing what's needed for her; I just hope that the surgery will solve her issues.
I arrive at home, and find my cat snoring away on the sofa. I mutter to myself, "the cat is asleep". He suddenly pops his eyes open and gives an inquisitive meow, looking at me as if he's heard, as if to say, "Nope, I'm awake!" I have re-stocked the wine rack. I never buy wine that is more than 10 dollars a bottle. If this sounds very plebian, I assure you that I've bought expensive wines before, and most of them taste like shoe polish. At best, they are no better taste-wise than some of the cheaper wines I've purchased. I do prefer French wine, Bordeauxs more than Merdocs. Italian reds are delicious but give me terrible headaches. American reds are my second favorite, particularly cabs. Cracked.com recently did a list of the biggest bullshit jobs out there--wine taster was one of them. They pointed to a test, where wine tasters were asked to taste what was actually the same cheap wine, but one had the regular label, and one had the label of a much more expensive vintage. They all rated the "expensive" wine much higher than the "cheaper" wine. Someone told me once that you had to put a higher price tag on things for Americans, or they wouldn't think it had any value. This is certainly evidence in favor of that notion.
I went to put on some John Foxx CDs today, and found I couldn't listen to them. Not because there's anything wrong with them, but because I've realized that there have been no John Foxx events for almost 2 months. I really can't afford for John to have an event before April, truth be told. But it makes me discontent, because hearing the music reminds me of the person, and then I want to see the person...well, in person. John has often spoken about the "ghosts" created by hearing a song on the radio, or seeing a person on TV, or YouTube, or whatever. For me, it's less of a ghost than it is a pointer--just like religious symbolism is not the actually reality, but points you to something greater, so music is the same way for me. Hearing a particular song can remind me of a time, a place, a conversation, a person--even just a feeling of happiness, or sadness, or loneliness, or discomfort. Some songs remind me of particular years in my life, even if they were not recorded in that year. Evoking the feeling when all it will do is create discontent is problematic for me. I'm a deeply emotional person, and need to be in the right frame of mind. So, I distract myself with other things, and save those CDs for a different time.
Last week I had dinner and drinks with a friend I hadn't spoken to in a long time. We talked about the different interpretations of Aleister Crowley. It's almost a universal thing that people with a "Satanic" opinion of Crowley have never read any of his works. However, that does need to be taken back a bit--some of Crowley's works DO imply a black magic, or seem to condone that practice. Crowley never really condoned black magic; he assumed his readership would be able to see the meaning beyond his words, to understand that it shouldn't be taken at face value. Why else would he go to court and sue someone for slander for referring to him as a "black magician"? (A bid he lost, by the way, because he tended to refer to himself as the "Great Beast 666". While he was referring to the overthrow of the tyranny of Christian institutions of that time, it's hard to blame anyone for making that deduction).
The conversation got me thinking about something I term "literary matrixing", though it's probably not so original or special. It refers to the notion that we take out of texts the things that we want and discard the rest. "Matrixing" as a psychological phenomenon involves the mind organizing imperfections on a surface into an image--pareidolia (seeing the face of Jesus or Mary in various objects) is an example of matrixing. If words are symbols for ideas, why can't the phenomenon occur with those as well? I say that it is not special, however, because everything we read, every object we view, is interpreted in terms of our own experiences. It's not a new idea.
(Why does rigati take longer to cook than ziti? Do those ridges in the pasta really take that much longer to cook?)
I have been reading a lot of M.R. James lately. I have one book of his short stories, and then found another for a couple of dollars at a used bookstore I like to visit. The owner of the store looked at the book when I bought it. "M.R. James! Do you get nightmares from reading this stuff before bedtime? I know I do." I told him no, but now I'm not sure. James writes about demonic creatures that are often awakened by opening certain books, or renovating churches, or what have you. I dreamt last night that such a creature fell out of the ceiling and into my room. I was looking for the most expedient way to kill it. So, maybe it does give me nightmares. But I like James--he was a librarian, and knew a lot about my favorite occupation, cataloguing. Cataloguers often figure into his stories. He's also a medievalist, well-versed in Latin, and an obvious expert on Church architecture. All that in a ghost story. What's not to like?
Speaking of ghosts...I was looking at a photo on a Twitter feed, and one of the comments referred to former Ghost Hunters team member Donna LaCroix. I'd talked about that team in a previous post, so I don't want to repeat myself too much. But there were two articles about Donna, who is no longer on any Ghost Hunters show. She apparently was on a radio talk show with two investigators who call themselves the "Ghost Divas". On the show, she proceeded to rip apart the Ghost Hunters operation, claimed there was some fakery, and blasted the production company. She said that she, Andy Andrews, and Brian Harnois got crappy contracts with the spin-off show Ghost Hunters International, and that all three of them had gotten screwed. She then retracted a large amount of it in a second statement. You can read the first post here and the second post here.
First of all, from what I know from seeing posts elsewhere from Donna, this doesn't surprise me at all. I'm sorry that she's made out so badly from all of this, but two things occur to me. One is that of COURSE Ghost Hunters has faked things. Do I really believe that the scenarios of Jason and Grant at their day jobs, or someone walking into the TAPS office to talk to Donna aren't re-enacted and scripted? Of course not. And I've complained about the overly-slick production in recent shows. I would hope that the evidence caught is not faked, even if it's hyped to a certain degree. She does not claim the evidence is faked. There is going to be a certain amount of hype, but that doesn't discount all findings on the show. The other thing that occurs to me is that Donna and Andy in particular were not stellar additions to the team. Yes, Andy is a great debunker, but he didn't really have the personality for TV. Donna was a great case manager, but I'm sorry, she's just not a good investigator. Maybe on private investigations she's better, but on TV, she tended to make me roll my eyes. I can't say much about Brian--I think he provided great entertainment value--but certainly he and Jason didn't see eye to eye, ultimately. And if they don't get along, maybe he should work with another team. He's not a bad investigator. In short, though--the production company and the network will make the decisions that they feel will make them the most money. Sometimes that's good, sometimes it's bad, sometimes it's outright unfair. But it's nothing new. And I agree with the blogger who reported the stories--Brian, Donna, and Andy apparently had a crappy entertainment lawyer. Again, that's too bad, but it's not anyone else's problem. I've had bad lawyers too--and I've learned to read over my own contracts and do as much as I can myself. Hopefully they've learned that, too.
I receive an e-mail from a friend about my 20-year high school reunion. I have to RSVP by tomorrow if I intend to go. It wouldn't be such a big deal, but I'm balking at the $95 per ticket price tag. Yes, I know it's not cheap to have these things, but is it worth it to pay $95? For one thing, I wasn't all that close with anyone in high school. The friends that I did have I already keep in touch with. Other friends from high school aren't in my graduating class. Basically, it would be a hundred-dollar exercise in curiosity, nothing else. Many of my classmates are married with kids, and while that's great for them, I find the married-with-kids lifestyle hard to get excited about. I'm not so excited by people's photos of little junior. Similarly, they may not be able to relate to my lifestyle. So, I might be setting myself up for an evening of awkward conversations. Something I'd be more inclined to do if it cost less. In any case, I need to get off the fence by tomorrow.
Tomorrow! February 1! Where does the time go?...
I arrive at home, and find my cat snoring away on the sofa. I mutter to myself, "the cat is asleep". He suddenly pops his eyes open and gives an inquisitive meow, looking at me as if he's heard, as if to say, "Nope, I'm awake!" I have re-stocked the wine rack. I never buy wine that is more than 10 dollars a bottle. If this sounds very plebian, I assure you that I've bought expensive wines before, and most of them taste like shoe polish. At best, they are no better taste-wise than some of the cheaper wines I've purchased. I do prefer French wine, Bordeauxs more than Merdocs. Italian reds are delicious but give me terrible headaches. American reds are my second favorite, particularly cabs. Cracked.com recently did a list of the biggest bullshit jobs out there--wine taster was one of them. They pointed to a test, where wine tasters were asked to taste what was actually the same cheap wine, but one had the regular label, and one had the label of a much more expensive vintage. They all rated the "expensive" wine much higher than the "cheaper" wine. Someone told me once that you had to put a higher price tag on things for Americans, or they wouldn't think it had any value. This is certainly evidence in favor of that notion.
I went to put on some John Foxx CDs today, and found I couldn't listen to them. Not because there's anything wrong with them, but because I've realized that there have been no John Foxx events for almost 2 months. I really can't afford for John to have an event before April, truth be told. But it makes me discontent, because hearing the music reminds me of the person, and then I want to see the person...well, in person. John has often spoken about the "ghosts" created by hearing a song on the radio, or seeing a person on TV, or YouTube, or whatever. For me, it's less of a ghost than it is a pointer--just like religious symbolism is not the actually reality, but points you to something greater, so music is the same way for me. Hearing a particular song can remind me of a time, a place, a conversation, a person--even just a feeling of happiness, or sadness, or loneliness, or discomfort. Some songs remind me of particular years in my life, even if they were not recorded in that year. Evoking the feeling when all it will do is create discontent is problematic for me. I'm a deeply emotional person, and need to be in the right frame of mind. So, I distract myself with other things, and save those CDs for a different time.
Last week I had dinner and drinks with a friend I hadn't spoken to in a long time. We talked about the different interpretations of Aleister Crowley. It's almost a universal thing that people with a "Satanic" opinion of Crowley have never read any of his works. However, that does need to be taken back a bit--some of Crowley's works DO imply a black magic, or seem to condone that practice. Crowley never really condoned black magic; he assumed his readership would be able to see the meaning beyond his words, to understand that it shouldn't be taken at face value. Why else would he go to court and sue someone for slander for referring to him as a "black magician"? (A bid he lost, by the way, because he tended to refer to himself as the "Great Beast 666". While he was referring to the overthrow of the tyranny of Christian institutions of that time, it's hard to blame anyone for making that deduction).
The conversation got me thinking about something I term "literary matrixing", though it's probably not so original or special. It refers to the notion that we take out of texts the things that we want and discard the rest. "Matrixing" as a psychological phenomenon involves the mind organizing imperfections on a surface into an image--pareidolia (seeing the face of Jesus or Mary in various objects) is an example of matrixing. If words are symbols for ideas, why can't the phenomenon occur with those as well? I say that it is not special, however, because everything we read, every object we view, is interpreted in terms of our own experiences. It's not a new idea.
(Why does rigati take longer to cook than ziti? Do those ridges in the pasta really take that much longer to cook?)
I have been reading a lot of M.R. James lately. I have one book of his short stories, and then found another for a couple of dollars at a used bookstore I like to visit. The owner of the store looked at the book when I bought it. "M.R. James! Do you get nightmares from reading this stuff before bedtime? I know I do." I told him no, but now I'm not sure. James writes about demonic creatures that are often awakened by opening certain books, or renovating churches, or what have you. I dreamt last night that such a creature fell out of the ceiling and into my room. I was looking for the most expedient way to kill it. So, maybe it does give me nightmares. But I like James--he was a librarian, and knew a lot about my favorite occupation, cataloguing. Cataloguers often figure into his stories. He's also a medievalist, well-versed in Latin, and an obvious expert on Church architecture. All that in a ghost story. What's not to like?
Speaking of ghosts...I was looking at a photo on a Twitter feed, and one of the comments referred to former Ghost Hunters team member Donna LaCroix. I'd talked about that team in a previous post, so I don't want to repeat myself too much. But there were two articles about Donna, who is no longer on any Ghost Hunters show. She apparently was on a radio talk show with two investigators who call themselves the "Ghost Divas". On the show, she proceeded to rip apart the Ghost Hunters operation, claimed there was some fakery, and blasted the production company. She said that she, Andy Andrews, and Brian Harnois got crappy contracts with the spin-off show Ghost Hunters International, and that all three of them had gotten screwed. She then retracted a large amount of it in a second statement. You can read the first post here and the second post here.
First of all, from what I know from seeing posts elsewhere from Donna, this doesn't surprise me at all. I'm sorry that she's made out so badly from all of this, but two things occur to me. One is that of COURSE Ghost Hunters has faked things. Do I really believe that the scenarios of Jason and Grant at their day jobs, or someone walking into the TAPS office to talk to Donna aren't re-enacted and scripted? Of course not. And I've complained about the overly-slick production in recent shows. I would hope that the evidence caught is not faked, even if it's hyped to a certain degree. She does not claim the evidence is faked. There is going to be a certain amount of hype, but that doesn't discount all findings on the show. The other thing that occurs to me is that Donna and Andy in particular were not stellar additions to the team. Yes, Andy is a great debunker, but he didn't really have the personality for TV. Donna was a great case manager, but I'm sorry, she's just not a good investigator. Maybe on private investigations she's better, but on TV, she tended to make me roll my eyes. I can't say much about Brian--I think he provided great entertainment value--but certainly he and Jason didn't see eye to eye, ultimately. And if they don't get along, maybe he should work with another team. He's not a bad investigator. In short, though--the production company and the network will make the decisions that they feel will make them the most money. Sometimes that's good, sometimes it's bad, sometimes it's outright unfair. But it's nothing new. And I agree with the blogger who reported the stories--Brian, Donna, and Andy apparently had a crappy entertainment lawyer. Again, that's too bad, but it's not anyone else's problem. I've had bad lawyers too--and I've learned to read over my own contracts and do as much as I can myself. Hopefully they've learned that, too.
I receive an e-mail from a friend about my 20-year high school reunion. I have to RSVP by tomorrow if I intend to go. It wouldn't be such a big deal, but I'm balking at the $95 per ticket price tag. Yes, I know it's not cheap to have these things, but is it worth it to pay $95? For one thing, I wasn't all that close with anyone in high school. The friends that I did have I already keep in touch with. Other friends from high school aren't in my graduating class. Basically, it would be a hundred-dollar exercise in curiosity, nothing else. Many of my classmates are married with kids, and while that's great for them, I find the married-with-kids lifestyle hard to get excited about. I'm not so excited by people's photos of little junior. Similarly, they may not be able to relate to my lifestyle. So, I might be setting myself up for an evening of awkward conversations. Something I'd be more inclined to do if it cost less. In any case, I need to get off the fence by tomorrow.
Tomorrow! February 1! Where does the time go?...
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Stephen Colbert Interviews Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson at Montclair Kimberly Academy, January 29, 2010
Around Christmastime, my friend Ann dropped me a note asking if I wanted to hear Stephen Colbert (amazing comedian and host of the Colbert Report) interview Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson (Director of NYC's Hayden Planetarium, highly influential in American science--best known as the guy who "demoted" Pluto as a planet, though it wasn't just him) at the Montclair Kimberly Academy. The event was free, Montclair is the town of my undergrad alma mater, Montclair State University (where I sometimes teach), and I'm a fan of both Colbert and Tyson, so I was game. The event was actually held yesterday (January 29).
On Wednesday, Ann e-mailed to ask if I was still going. I had totally forgotten about it; fortunately, I was off on Friday and had made no other plans yet. The only difficulty was the weather--it was bone-chilling cold outside (about 18 degrees Fahrenheit, not including wind chill--that's about -9 or -10 degrees Celsius). I ended up wearing 4 layers of woolen clothes to the event, and probably needed 5. After having dinner at a nearby Irish pub, we lined up to get into the event. The doors weren't supposed to open until 7, but fortunately they took pity on us and let us in about 15 minutes earlier. Ann and I had excellent seats. The event itself was amazing--Colbert is a very funny and engaging interviewer, and Dr. Tyson is impassioned about his answers. Stephen's questions to Dr. Tyson revolved around philosophy, science, Tyson's own background, and scientific literacy.
My friend Ann writes for the Colbert fan site, The No Fact Zone. You can read her excellent take on this interview here. What follows is my own memory of the event. It's not very chronological, as I got home from the event and jotted down what I could remember in the order I remembered it. For what it's worth, here is my take:
Stephen asks--is it better to know or not know? Tyson says yes, always. Stephen brings up Oedipus Rex--was it better for Oedipus to know the truth? The guy put his eyes out when he found out the truth. Tyson continues to insist that it is better to have the information. People can choose ignorance, but then they give up the chance to participate in new discoveries.
Scientists make discoveries by taking what has already been learned to apply it to new things or (in the case of Newton) invent a whole system (differential and integral calculus) to explain what they discover.
One should not accept something at face value or reject it out of hand--both are equally lazy. One should ask questions, get particulars about how something works. This is what keeps us from becoming victims of charlatans. It also allows voters to make informed decisions about science policy. He gave the example of someone handing you 2 crystals and saying they will cure you. He said it is equally lazy to accept that they will cure you and to reject it as nonsense without any inquiry. You need to ask questions, at which point the claim is likely to break down. Stephen replied, "Look Neil, if you don't like the crystals I gave you, just say so."
Colbert asked about the notion of beauty in truth, and what beauty Tyson saw in science--what was the most beautiful scientific concept? He said without hesitation, "E=mc2", because it explained so many complexities of the universe, and yet was so simple. Tyson's definition of beauty in science had to do with simplicity--anything overly complicated, so complicated that he couldn't explain it to you--was a problem. The idea that we are made up of the same stuff as the stars is another simple idea that is staggering to think about.
Tyson talked about the notion that physics, especially particle physics and quantum mechanics, are questioned for their relevance to things that are important now--why are we looking out there rather than right here? He points out that things that don't look so important now can have a huge impact later. He gives the example of Farraday, and how he could pass his hand over a wire and move the needle on a meter (electrical response). When asked by Parliament what use this toy could possibly have for the British Empire, he said, "I don't know yet. But in 50 years, the government will tax it." Of course, Farraday pioneered our modern use of electricity.
Colbert questioned the Higgs Boson, and asked why it even had to exist--if you have 2 houses built side by side, why do you need to join them? Tyson replied that historically the link has always proven to be there. He gave the example of neutrinos and electromagnetism (electricity and magnetism used to be considered separate things).
Stephen asked about how Tyson got interested in astrophysics. He mentioned being a kid in the Bronx, where one could see about twelve stars at night, and then taking a trip to the Hayden Planetarium. He thought the vision of the sky was pure fiction, until he looked at the sky in Western Pennsylvania. And, in true city-kid fashion, he thought, "Wow, that looks just like the Hayden Planetarium." He felt destined to work in astrophysics after that, once he realized there was such a thing.
Colbert asked about science fiction, and whether or not Tyson enjoyed it, or was too busy poking holes in the science to enjoy it. Tyson replied that he could enjoy science fiction as long as it didn't claim to be "scientifically accurate". As long as it had some basis in science, he didn't care if they made up the rest. The movie Titanic really pissed him off, because it claimed to be scientifically accurate. The layout of the ship and the details involved couldn't be proven by anyone but those who had seen the submerged ship through a camera. But when Kate Winslet is on the plank looking at the night sky--not only is it the wrong sky, but it's actually a mirror image of the same sky. This annoyed Tyson, because it was a simple thing to verify in a movie that claimed to be accurate. He brought it up to James Cameron twice--the first time he mentioned it as a "post-production" thing, the second time he mentioned how much the movie grossed, and said, "Think how much more it would have grossed if I had the right sky." Nonetheless, when an anniversary edition of Titanic was being put together with new footage, Tyson got a call from Cameron's post-production manager, saying, "I hear you have a sky for me." He then stood up and did a victory dance.
One girl asked in the Q&A if it was possible to tunnel through a black hole via quantum mechanics. Tyson replied he that he needed to know if she planned to get somewhere or was satisfied being dead. When she said the latter was fine, he spoke about the memory of black holes--they retain the memory of everything they've ingested. Using Stephen as an example--if a black hole swallowed up Stephen and nothing else, if two particles came together out of that black hole (via E=mc2), they could pull out and reconstruct correctly every particle that was Stephen--and the black hole would evaporate. Tyson found that to be "spooky."
He was asked about recent scientific discoveries that he thought were important, and he mentioned finding water on the moon, and finding methane on Mars. The latter was more important because it suggested the presence of bacteria that didn't rely on oxygen, and hence, some kind of life. Methane, other than laboratory production, can only be produced under very special circumstances (usually in the guts of farm animals). This prompted Stephen's remark, "So you're saying that there are farts happening on Mars? Isn't that what you really want to say?"
He was asked about what he felt needed to be done to promote scientific literacy, specifically with an eye to policy making. He mentioned a two-fold approach. The first was at home--allowing kids to be curious and messy. His remark, "you had the kids, now clean up after them!" was well received by the audience. Keeping them from certain kinds of play because they might make a mess was hindering their curiosity. He felt that schools needed to encourage this as well, and not measure achievement so much in terms of rote facts--while memorizing facts can be important, it is more important to know how to figure things out. From a policy standpoint--he felt that NASA should not have to go to the government with its hat in its hand. Using the example of Farraday speaking to Parliament, he pointed out that much that can be gained from scientific study will be in the future, not in the next economic quarter or election cycle, and we needed to think beyond that when considering funding. He also pointed out that we are not throwing all our tax money into the space program--only 6/10 of a penny of every tax dollar goes into space exploration and related ventures.
Someone asked about the notion of a "brown dwarf" headed towards the Earth, alluding to one of the 2012 catastrophe theories about a "Planet X" heading for collision with the Earth. His response was that no such planet existed--all gravitational sources in the solar system were known and accounted for.
Stephen had asked about negative perceptions of science--creating the atom bomb, or, in fiction, creating viruses or making bizarre mutations of creatures--the notion of the "evil" scientist "tampering in God's domain" in popular culture. Tyson replied that behind every scientist creating something harmful is a politician funding that project. Science is neither good nor evil--how it's applied depends on the society. He drew a parallel to the iron age--should men of that time NOT forged iron into weapons and other things just because one might get cut with the weapon?
A woman in the audience asked about Tyson's "demotion" of Pluto as a planet, and whether or not, as an ice planet, it would eventually evaporate out of existence. Tyson pointed out that he wasn' t the only one who made the decision on Pluto, and to "not shoot the messenger" (though it was mildly amusing that Tyson once referred to 9 planets, and then quickly retracted and said 8)--and that Pluto was not demoted per se, but merely reclassified--it fit in better with other ice planets like itself. Stephen made a remark I didn't entirely catch about him sending Pluto "upstate to the farm, so you can be with others like you". Tyson then said, in answer to the question, that no, Pluto would not disappear, as it was much too far from the Sun to ever have its icy surface melt away.
He spoke about things in science, particularly quantum mechanics, that are hard to swallow because they don't "make sense". He pointed out that they don't make sense because we're not living in that quantum world on those terms--if we were, it would make sense, and the world we live in now wouldn't. Nature "is under no obligation" to follow our laws of logic. They only refer to the world we experience.
Someone asked about parallel universes. He said probably not, as the idea of the multiverse was gaining prevalence. He noted that it was another step away from the notion that "we are the only ones" or are the center of things--first realized we're not the only planet in the solar system, then we discovered we weren't the only galaxy--so why should we be in the only universe? However, in different multiverses, the laws of physics work differently, so if you were to enter one, you don't know how your atoms, attuned to the laws of physics in this universe, would behave--you might implode or grow three heads, for instance.
Stephen's last question to Tyson was the old Modern Philosophy exam question, "How do you make something out of nothing?" and asked him to respond in 10 words or less. Tyson managed to do it--I don't remember the exact words--but it was something to the effect of, "Some questions contain words but are not questions at all."
On Wednesday, Ann e-mailed to ask if I was still going. I had totally forgotten about it; fortunately, I was off on Friday and had made no other plans yet. The only difficulty was the weather--it was bone-chilling cold outside (about 18 degrees Fahrenheit, not including wind chill--that's about -9 or -10 degrees Celsius). I ended up wearing 4 layers of woolen clothes to the event, and probably needed 5. After having dinner at a nearby Irish pub, we lined up to get into the event. The doors weren't supposed to open until 7, but fortunately they took pity on us and let us in about 15 minutes earlier. Ann and I had excellent seats. The event itself was amazing--Colbert is a very funny and engaging interviewer, and Dr. Tyson is impassioned about his answers. Stephen's questions to Dr. Tyson revolved around philosophy, science, Tyson's own background, and scientific literacy.
My friend Ann writes for the Colbert fan site, The No Fact Zone. You can read her excellent take on this interview here. What follows is my own memory of the event. It's not very chronological, as I got home from the event and jotted down what I could remember in the order I remembered it. For what it's worth, here is my take:
Stephen asks--is it better to know or not know? Tyson says yes, always. Stephen brings up Oedipus Rex--was it better for Oedipus to know the truth? The guy put his eyes out when he found out the truth. Tyson continues to insist that it is better to have the information. People can choose ignorance, but then they give up the chance to participate in new discoveries.
Scientists make discoveries by taking what has already been learned to apply it to new things or (in the case of Newton) invent a whole system (differential and integral calculus) to explain what they discover.
One should not accept something at face value or reject it out of hand--both are equally lazy. One should ask questions, get particulars about how something works. This is what keeps us from becoming victims of charlatans. It also allows voters to make informed decisions about science policy. He gave the example of someone handing you 2 crystals and saying they will cure you. He said it is equally lazy to accept that they will cure you and to reject it as nonsense without any inquiry. You need to ask questions, at which point the claim is likely to break down. Stephen replied, "Look Neil, if you don't like the crystals I gave you, just say so."
Colbert asked about the notion of beauty in truth, and what beauty Tyson saw in science--what was the most beautiful scientific concept? He said without hesitation, "E=mc2", because it explained so many complexities of the universe, and yet was so simple. Tyson's definition of beauty in science had to do with simplicity--anything overly complicated, so complicated that he couldn't explain it to you--was a problem. The idea that we are made up of the same stuff as the stars is another simple idea that is staggering to think about.
Tyson talked about the notion that physics, especially particle physics and quantum mechanics, are questioned for their relevance to things that are important now--why are we looking out there rather than right here? He points out that things that don't look so important now can have a huge impact later. He gives the example of Farraday, and how he could pass his hand over a wire and move the needle on a meter (electrical response). When asked by Parliament what use this toy could possibly have for the British Empire, he said, "I don't know yet. But in 50 years, the government will tax it." Of course, Farraday pioneered our modern use of electricity.
Colbert questioned the Higgs Boson, and asked why it even had to exist--if you have 2 houses built side by side, why do you need to join them? Tyson replied that historically the link has always proven to be there. He gave the example of neutrinos and electromagnetism (electricity and magnetism used to be considered separate things).
Stephen asked about how Tyson got interested in astrophysics. He mentioned being a kid in the Bronx, where one could see about twelve stars at night, and then taking a trip to the Hayden Planetarium. He thought the vision of the sky was pure fiction, until he looked at the sky in Western Pennsylvania. And, in true city-kid fashion, he thought, "Wow, that looks just like the Hayden Planetarium." He felt destined to work in astrophysics after that, once he realized there was such a thing.
Colbert asked about science fiction, and whether or not Tyson enjoyed it, or was too busy poking holes in the science to enjoy it. Tyson replied that he could enjoy science fiction as long as it didn't claim to be "scientifically accurate". As long as it had some basis in science, he didn't care if they made up the rest. The movie Titanic really pissed him off, because it claimed to be scientifically accurate. The layout of the ship and the details involved couldn't be proven by anyone but those who had seen the submerged ship through a camera. But when Kate Winslet is on the plank looking at the night sky--not only is it the wrong sky, but it's actually a mirror image of the same sky. This annoyed Tyson, because it was a simple thing to verify in a movie that claimed to be accurate. He brought it up to James Cameron twice--the first time he mentioned it as a "post-production" thing, the second time he mentioned how much the movie grossed, and said, "Think how much more it would have grossed if I had the right sky." Nonetheless, when an anniversary edition of Titanic was being put together with new footage, Tyson got a call from Cameron's post-production manager, saying, "I hear you have a sky for me." He then stood up and did a victory dance.
One girl asked in the Q&A if it was possible to tunnel through a black hole via quantum mechanics. Tyson replied he that he needed to know if she planned to get somewhere or was satisfied being dead. When she said the latter was fine, he spoke about the memory of black holes--they retain the memory of everything they've ingested. Using Stephen as an example--if a black hole swallowed up Stephen and nothing else, if two particles came together out of that black hole (via E=mc2), they could pull out and reconstruct correctly every particle that was Stephen--and the black hole would evaporate. Tyson found that to be "spooky."
He was asked about recent scientific discoveries that he thought were important, and he mentioned finding water on the moon, and finding methane on Mars. The latter was more important because it suggested the presence of bacteria that didn't rely on oxygen, and hence, some kind of life. Methane, other than laboratory production, can only be produced under very special circumstances (usually in the guts of farm animals). This prompted Stephen's remark, "So you're saying that there are farts happening on Mars? Isn't that what you really want to say?"
He was asked about what he felt needed to be done to promote scientific literacy, specifically with an eye to policy making. He mentioned a two-fold approach. The first was at home--allowing kids to be curious and messy. His remark, "you had the kids, now clean up after them!" was well received by the audience. Keeping them from certain kinds of play because they might make a mess was hindering their curiosity. He felt that schools needed to encourage this as well, and not measure achievement so much in terms of rote facts--while memorizing facts can be important, it is more important to know how to figure things out. From a policy standpoint--he felt that NASA should not have to go to the government with its hat in its hand. Using the example of Farraday speaking to Parliament, he pointed out that much that can be gained from scientific study will be in the future, not in the next economic quarter or election cycle, and we needed to think beyond that when considering funding. He also pointed out that we are not throwing all our tax money into the space program--only 6/10 of a penny of every tax dollar goes into space exploration and related ventures.
Someone asked about the notion of a "brown dwarf" headed towards the Earth, alluding to one of the 2012 catastrophe theories about a "Planet X" heading for collision with the Earth. His response was that no such planet existed--all gravitational sources in the solar system were known and accounted for.
Stephen had asked about negative perceptions of science--creating the atom bomb, or, in fiction, creating viruses or making bizarre mutations of creatures--the notion of the "evil" scientist "tampering in God's domain" in popular culture. Tyson replied that behind every scientist creating something harmful is a politician funding that project. Science is neither good nor evil--how it's applied depends on the society. He drew a parallel to the iron age--should men of that time NOT forged iron into weapons and other things just because one might get cut with the weapon?
A woman in the audience asked about Tyson's "demotion" of Pluto as a planet, and whether or not, as an ice planet, it would eventually evaporate out of existence. Tyson pointed out that he wasn' t the only one who made the decision on Pluto, and to "not shoot the messenger" (though it was mildly amusing that Tyson once referred to 9 planets, and then quickly retracted and said 8)--and that Pluto was not demoted per se, but merely reclassified--it fit in better with other ice planets like itself. Stephen made a remark I didn't entirely catch about him sending Pluto "upstate to the farm, so you can be with others like you". Tyson then said, in answer to the question, that no, Pluto would not disappear, as it was much too far from the Sun to ever have its icy surface melt away.
He spoke about things in science, particularly quantum mechanics, that are hard to swallow because they don't "make sense". He pointed out that they don't make sense because we're not living in that quantum world on those terms--if we were, it would make sense, and the world we live in now wouldn't. Nature "is under no obligation" to follow our laws of logic. They only refer to the world we experience.
Someone asked about parallel universes. He said probably not, as the idea of the multiverse was gaining prevalence. He noted that it was another step away from the notion that "we are the only ones" or are the center of things--first realized we're not the only planet in the solar system, then we discovered we weren't the only galaxy--so why should we be in the only universe? However, in different multiverses, the laws of physics work differently, so if you were to enter one, you don't know how your atoms, attuned to the laws of physics in this universe, would behave--you might implode or grow three heads, for instance.
Stephen's last question to Tyson was the old Modern Philosophy exam question, "How do you make something out of nothing?" and asked him to respond in 10 words or less. Tyson managed to do it--I don't remember the exact words--but it was something to the effect of, "Some questions contain words but are not questions at all."
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Politics As Usual
I feel sorry for Barack Obama.
To a certain extent, I feel sorry for all politicians. Even a little bit for George W. Bush. Why, you may ask? Because politics is the ultimate Mephistopheles deal--promises of having real power, being able to enact significant change. And then one gets into office and that illusion disappears like a puff of smoke, and some little demon is laughing somewhere. Trying to enact changes and get legislation passed is about as easy as going for a long swim in drying cement. On the other hand, someone has to do it--it's one of the inevitabilities of democracy. So, our leaders are more like human sacrifices.
I particularly feel sorry for Obama, because whether you like the man or not, you can't deny that he came into office with the earnestness of youth. He wanted to change things, and he really meant it. He really does want what's best for America. You may or may not agree that he knows what that is, but you're dead wrong if you think he doesn't want it. Some politicians lie to get into office, and then exclusively serve special interests rather than the people. Obama may turn out that way as well, who knows. But the reason I voted for him in the end was that he really did want to make things better, and he might get off to a running start, accomplishing a few things before that cement dried.
People who are disgusted with Obama and the Democrats for not bringing about swift change are people who are naive to the ways of politics. Not totally naive, I am sure, as most of us get the idea that there's a lot of shady dealing involved. And we know that both political parties have their faults--we really do need a balance in Congress, so that the worst traits of both parties can be kept at bay. I always believed I understood politics until I got a political job. By the time I (barely) escaped with my sanity, I realized that it was much more complicated and much worse than I ever could have imagined.
In my case, it was not an elected position, but a highly visible job--I was responsible for a system migration for 37 municipalities. It was a highly controversial appointment--I actually wrote a soap opera about the whole thing at the time, that I don't dare ever publish for fear of being sued. This is laughably small potatoes compared to the Presidency of the United States, but it certainly presents a microcosm of all the forces at work. This is what they are:
1. Public Opinion and Media Spin: These two things go hand in hand. "Media" could be as simple as word of mouth between institutions, or as big as the actual national media. If general public opinion is that you know what you're doing and can get the job done, you will be able to accomplish your work much more smoothly. But never is there 100% agreement on this, and those who believe that you're the wrong person for the job will do everything that can to spin this message to the people, making them doubt your abilities. Some will stick by you, others will be plunged into doubt, especially as factor #3 in this list comes into play.
2. Who You Know: Do you remember being in the sixth grade, and kids you used to play with in your K-5 school suddenly started forming cliques? Do you remember how you would be labeled as part of a group, and if you were part of one group, you couldn't be friends with someone in another group, unless they had something you wanted/needed, in which case you pretended to be nice but stabbed them in the back? When you became an adult, did you think that was finally all over? If so, you've never worked in a political job. Who you are friends with and how much power (i.e., popularity) they have makes all the difference in the world. Your actual ability to do your job does not. In the bipartisan world, a member of either political party could find a cure for cancer, bring peace to the Middle East, and bring back a booming economy, and members of the opposition party would still find a reason to label them incompetent.
This also means that you don't piss off your allies. They can turn on you as well. Hence the reason many "decisive" politicians may be hesitant to act.
3.Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt, or the FUD Factor: This is especially a problem in technical jobs, but it's really a problem everywhere. Things descend into firestorms and chaos because things get chaotic, and people want things to be orderly, and become desperately afraid to hinge their hopes on the person elected to put things in order. As much as they disliked what came before, it was "the devil they knew." So, panic ensues, as every little thing the elected person tries to do is brought under scrutiny. The elected person's opposition will use this opportunity to increase distrust in this person, to such a degree that nothing can get done as everyone becomes filled with doubt about what constitutes right action. Even your allies may start to turn against you, because no matter what you do, it's wrong to somebody.
4. The Past is a Cancelled Check: Most major problems are inherited. That doesn't matter. If you're the person front and center now, you're the target if things are screwed up. Don't bring up bad decisions made by past administrators. Somehow everything is your fault. Your predecessor could be Hitler, and somehow they would find something favorable to say about him compared to you.
5. Every Man (or Woman) for Himself (Herself): No one cares if a change will help the majority of the people. If they think it won't help them personally, then it's bad and must be stopped. If it doesn't fit into their particular worldview, or suit their particular organization, than it shouldn't happen, period.
This, sadly, is politics as usual. None of it may be surprising, but the force with which a vocal minority can take someone down for no rational reason is so absurd we just can't believe it really happens among thinking people. But it really is a bit like we fool people into getting elected so that we can get our rocks and start stoning them in the name of democracy. I'm all for dissenting opinions and debate--that's the cornerstone of good democracy--but more often that not it's just a savage brawl with a cacophony of voices.
I try to think about why this is, but then I stop. Human nature is what it is, and group dynamics can often be frightening. As sleazy as politicians can be, they're really just fighting to stay alive in this arena. As for me, I'm happier being a worker bee and actually accomplishing something--I'm pleased to leave high administration to someone else. Politics rarely leaves one feeling accomplished.
To a certain extent, I feel sorry for all politicians. Even a little bit for George W. Bush. Why, you may ask? Because politics is the ultimate Mephistopheles deal--promises of having real power, being able to enact significant change. And then one gets into office and that illusion disappears like a puff of smoke, and some little demon is laughing somewhere. Trying to enact changes and get legislation passed is about as easy as going for a long swim in drying cement. On the other hand, someone has to do it--it's one of the inevitabilities of democracy. So, our leaders are more like human sacrifices.
I particularly feel sorry for Obama, because whether you like the man or not, you can't deny that he came into office with the earnestness of youth. He wanted to change things, and he really meant it. He really does want what's best for America. You may or may not agree that he knows what that is, but you're dead wrong if you think he doesn't want it. Some politicians lie to get into office, and then exclusively serve special interests rather than the people. Obama may turn out that way as well, who knows. But the reason I voted for him in the end was that he really did want to make things better, and he might get off to a running start, accomplishing a few things before that cement dried.
People who are disgusted with Obama and the Democrats for not bringing about swift change are people who are naive to the ways of politics. Not totally naive, I am sure, as most of us get the idea that there's a lot of shady dealing involved. And we know that both political parties have their faults--we really do need a balance in Congress, so that the worst traits of both parties can be kept at bay. I always believed I understood politics until I got a political job. By the time I (barely) escaped with my sanity, I realized that it was much more complicated and much worse than I ever could have imagined.
In my case, it was not an elected position, but a highly visible job--I was responsible for a system migration for 37 municipalities. It was a highly controversial appointment--I actually wrote a soap opera about the whole thing at the time, that I don't dare ever publish for fear of being sued. This is laughably small potatoes compared to the Presidency of the United States, but it certainly presents a microcosm of all the forces at work. This is what they are:
1. Public Opinion and Media Spin: These two things go hand in hand. "Media" could be as simple as word of mouth between institutions, or as big as the actual national media. If general public opinion is that you know what you're doing and can get the job done, you will be able to accomplish your work much more smoothly. But never is there 100% agreement on this, and those who believe that you're the wrong person for the job will do everything that can to spin this message to the people, making them doubt your abilities. Some will stick by you, others will be plunged into doubt, especially as factor #3 in this list comes into play.
2. Who You Know: Do you remember being in the sixth grade, and kids you used to play with in your K-5 school suddenly started forming cliques? Do you remember how you would be labeled as part of a group, and if you were part of one group, you couldn't be friends with someone in another group, unless they had something you wanted/needed, in which case you pretended to be nice but stabbed them in the back? When you became an adult, did you think that was finally all over? If so, you've never worked in a political job. Who you are friends with and how much power (i.e., popularity) they have makes all the difference in the world. Your actual ability to do your job does not. In the bipartisan world, a member of either political party could find a cure for cancer, bring peace to the Middle East, and bring back a booming economy, and members of the opposition party would still find a reason to label them incompetent.
This also means that you don't piss off your allies. They can turn on you as well. Hence the reason many "decisive" politicians may be hesitant to act.
3.Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt, or the FUD Factor: This is especially a problem in technical jobs, but it's really a problem everywhere. Things descend into firestorms and chaos because things get chaotic, and people want things to be orderly, and become desperately afraid to hinge their hopes on the person elected to put things in order. As much as they disliked what came before, it was "the devil they knew." So, panic ensues, as every little thing the elected person tries to do is brought under scrutiny. The elected person's opposition will use this opportunity to increase distrust in this person, to such a degree that nothing can get done as everyone becomes filled with doubt about what constitutes right action. Even your allies may start to turn against you, because no matter what you do, it's wrong to somebody.
4. The Past is a Cancelled Check: Most major problems are inherited. That doesn't matter. If you're the person front and center now, you're the target if things are screwed up. Don't bring up bad decisions made by past administrators. Somehow everything is your fault. Your predecessor could be Hitler, and somehow they would find something favorable to say about him compared to you.
5. Every Man (or Woman) for Himself (Herself): No one cares if a change will help the majority of the people. If they think it won't help them personally, then it's bad and must be stopped. If it doesn't fit into their particular worldview, or suit their particular organization, than it shouldn't happen, period.
This, sadly, is politics as usual. None of it may be surprising, but the force with which a vocal minority can take someone down for no rational reason is so absurd we just can't believe it really happens among thinking people. But it really is a bit like we fool people into getting elected so that we can get our rocks and start stoning them in the name of democracy. I'm all for dissenting opinions and debate--that's the cornerstone of good democracy--but more often that not it's just a savage brawl with a cacophony of voices.
I try to think about why this is, but then I stop. Human nature is what it is, and group dynamics can often be frightening. As sleazy as politicians can be, they're really just fighting to stay alive in this arena. As for me, I'm happier being a worker bee and actually accomplishing something--I'm pleased to leave high administration to someone else. Politics rarely leaves one feeling accomplished.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Un-Imagined
2:30 in the morning. I am awake for no good reason, and now the cat is awake, too. This is bad, because it means the 2 hours of sleep I’m still entitled to will be constantly disrupted by a 15-pound feline circling my head, pulling at my hair and clothes, and knocking things off my nightstand, like my alarm clock. Cats are beyond time. They just believe that when you wake up it is obviously time to feed them, and they don’t need to know anything else.
I manage to stay in bed until 4:30, but I feel like half of me is still in bed, and half is getting ready for work. Naturally this happens on a day when I have many things to take care of before work, so I end up running late. As I drive in, I notice how bright it is outside. Tuesday is Brigid’s Day—the goddess or the saint, whichever you prefer. Aside from Brigid being my namesake, it also marks the middle of winter. I like the periods of gradual increase or decrease of light. Winter light doesn’t last long enough, and tries to convince my body that it needs to go to bed at 5:00 pm. On the other hand, summer days are so long, I find myself looking at the sun at 8:00 at night and thinking, “Isn’t it past your bedtime?”
There has been a lot of discourse on the imaginary as of late—on my blog and other blogs. But if something can be imagined, can it also be un-imagined? If imaginary things have a reality of their own, can that existence also be taken away with a thought?
A few weeks ago, there was a Paranormal State episode called “Dead Legends”. It featured a hotel that appeared to be haunted by a tragic woman in white, and a man who looked like a chef, who liked to throw knives in the kitchen. They brought in psychic Chip Coffey, who had no knowledge of the hotel, but picked up on the presence of the woman in white and the man chef—he also picked up on their temperaments. But here was the kicker—in researching the hotel’s history, the legends surrounding these 2 ghostly figures could not be proven—in fact, it was proven that they never happened. So, what was going on?
Ryan Buell came up with the theory that the legends had been re-told and believed so many times that they took on a life of their own (kind of like the thoughtform idea). The owners of the hotel liked the lady in white, but the knife-throwing chef clearly made them nervous. So, Ryan suggested that they will him out of existence—for the group of them to come together and formally state that he no longer existed. They did not do the same with the lady in white. Follow-up reports showed that the man had stopped appearing, but the lady did still appear from time to time. So, it appears they were successful.
This seems to suggest that you can stop believing in something, and it will stop existing. That may be well and good with ghosts, but what about more embedded ideas? Dan mentioned ideas like the Economy, or the Will of the People in his blog posting. And what about God? And—if existence is totally illusory—what about other solid living human beings?
I heard the sound of his voice on the phone from 300 miles away. “Do you ever think about me?” he asked. “No,” I replied. “Though I do have nightmares from time to time that you’re still here. Does that count?”
I am teetering dangerously at a philosophical precipice—to ask such questions is to ask what existence is, and if we’re still debating it after hundreds of years, it’s likely that we really haven’t pinned it down. A friend posted this great clip from Robert Anton Wilson the other day—if you can get to the end, you can hear his point clearly:
Robert Anton Wilson on “What Is Quantum Physics?”
I have forgotten people. Does that mean they don’t exist? I’m sure there are people who have forgotten me. Does that mean I don’t exist? Well, not to them perhaps, and that is the crux of the matter, I think. Immortality is predicated on being remembered. (And, “remembering” is just what it sounds like—re-membering. Putting the dismembered back together). Being forgotten is a form of death in a universe within a multiverse. Living people are dying in this way all the time.
I manage to stay in bed until 4:30, but I feel like half of me is still in bed, and half is getting ready for work. Naturally this happens on a day when I have many things to take care of before work, so I end up running late. As I drive in, I notice how bright it is outside. Tuesday is Brigid’s Day—the goddess or the saint, whichever you prefer. Aside from Brigid being my namesake, it also marks the middle of winter. I like the periods of gradual increase or decrease of light. Winter light doesn’t last long enough, and tries to convince my body that it needs to go to bed at 5:00 pm. On the other hand, summer days are so long, I find myself looking at the sun at 8:00 at night and thinking, “Isn’t it past your bedtime?”
There has been a lot of discourse on the imaginary as of late—on my blog and other blogs. But if something can be imagined, can it also be un-imagined? If imaginary things have a reality of their own, can that existence also be taken away with a thought?
A few weeks ago, there was a Paranormal State episode called “Dead Legends”. It featured a hotel that appeared to be haunted by a tragic woman in white, and a man who looked like a chef, who liked to throw knives in the kitchen. They brought in psychic Chip Coffey, who had no knowledge of the hotel, but picked up on the presence of the woman in white and the man chef—he also picked up on their temperaments. But here was the kicker—in researching the hotel’s history, the legends surrounding these 2 ghostly figures could not be proven—in fact, it was proven that they never happened. So, what was going on?
Ryan Buell came up with the theory that the legends had been re-told and believed so many times that they took on a life of their own (kind of like the thoughtform idea). The owners of the hotel liked the lady in white, but the knife-throwing chef clearly made them nervous. So, Ryan suggested that they will him out of existence—for the group of them to come together and formally state that he no longer existed. They did not do the same with the lady in white. Follow-up reports showed that the man had stopped appearing, but the lady did still appear from time to time. So, it appears they were successful.
This seems to suggest that you can stop believing in something, and it will stop existing. That may be well and good with ghosts, but what about more embedded ideas? Dan mentioned ideas like the Economy, or the Will of the People in his blog posting. And what about God? And—if existence is totally illusory—what about other solid living human beings?
I heard the sound of his voice on the phone from 300 miles away. “Do you ever think about me?” he asked. “No,” I replied. “Though I do have nightmares from time to time that you’re still here. Does that count?”
I am teetering dangerously at a philosophical precipice—to ask such questions is to ask what existence is, and if we’re still debating it after hundreds of years, it’s likely that we really haven’t pinned it down. A friend posted this great clip from Robert Anton Wilson the other day—if you can get to the end, you can hear his point clearly:
Robert Anton Wilson on “What Is Quantum Physics?”
I have forgotten people. Does that mean they don’t exist? I’m sure there are people who have forgotten me. Does that mean I don’t exist? Well, not to them perhaps, and that is the crux of the matter, I think. Immortality is predicated on being remembered. (And, “remembering” is just what it sounds like—re-membering. Putting the dismembered back together). Being forgotten is a form of death in a universe within a multiverse. Living people are dying in this way all the time.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Clever
“You really are going nowhere.
I wish I was going with you.”
(Gary Snyder)
There is a certain insincerity in cleverness. In writing, in interactions with others, in public presentations—we always want to be “clever”, we want people to be astounded by our wit, wisdom, and overall sophistication. The more education you have, the worse it gets. Standing in a room with lots of educated people becomes an intellectual pissing contest. Everyone wants to look smarter than everyone else. Because everyone is so insecure about where they fall on the “smartness” scale, they lie. Or maybe “lie” is too strong—they “exaggerate” how much they actually know.
Socrates was put to death for exposing the “clever”. Ask enough questions about someone’s alleged knowledge of something, and they’ll eventually be revealed for what they are—full of shit, or at least not as all-knowing as they claim. The reason for his death sentence was “corruption of the youth”. Honesty is a social liability. We all claim to want honesty, especially from our elected officials. We act horrified when we realize they’re not honest. As if we didn’t know.
Lest this turn into a rant against the socially dishonest, I would point out that everyone does it without even realizing it—myself included. The unconscious urge to be part of society, to be accepted by a group, is usually stronger than the urge to be honest, especially about ourselves. Ironically, we look for group acceptance by asserting how individual we think we are. We want to be part of the crowd, but also stand out from it. The urge towards conformity is directly proportional to our own feelings of self-confidence and insecurity. The more insecure we feel, the more desperately we need to fit in.
Honest people are often viewed as simpletons or idiots. Playing poker and showing everyone your hand. Walking around the streets naked. No one wants to expose what lies underneath their persona. We consider our hopes, dreams, fantasies, feelings as precious cargo. If we expose them to others, we risk them getting damaged or torn apart. That poor art student at the Met that nearly destroyed a Picasso is an apt metaphor. She got too close to something valuable, and almost destroyed it, though it was accidental. Most people hurt us accidentally, not willfully. And we think that if we let others get too close to what we value, we’ll lose it forever and have nothing.
So, being clever is one of many social tradeoffs that we make to protect ourselves. “A defense mechanism”, to use psychoanalytic lingo. It seems to be perfectly natural, but what’s odd is that our “inner” being is probably much stronger and more desirable than the image we present to others. The most interesting and desirable people are the ones that act naturally without pretense. Pretense is about as attractive as a Tammy Faye Baker makeup job. But we fool ourselves into thinking we look good with it.
I am bored with cleverness and clever pretenses, especially my own. Mine are incredibly artificial, as I am frequently no better at being clever than I am at doing Calculus. But maybe my act isn’t so bad, as no one seems to be able to figure me out. Or, they can’t figure me out because they’re not used to anyone laying it out for them honestly. They think that I can’t be telling the truth, because no one does, but my lies are not contained in what I say, they’re contained in what I don’t say. A friend once told me that omitting details does not constitute lying. That’s pure bullshit, but I like to believe it anyway.
The other part of my trouble with cleverness has to do with respect. If you’re too concerned about how you appear to other people, you’re not giving the other people enough credit. They may not think the way you do, and it’s not likely they view you the way you view yourself. People will either accept you or reject you based on how you fit in to their own perception of the world and themselves; it really has nothing to do with you at all. And I’ve noticed that people like you best if you don’t shove your own worldview on them. It is possible to respect someone even if you don’t agree with them, or even necessarily like them all that much. But if they don’t like you, that’s nothing to worry about either. We can’t like everyone, and not everyone is going to like us. If that is your goal, it will be a frustrating one at best.
The social reality is that many of us hope to “get somewhere”, to be noticed. But, like everything else, there’s nowhere to really go. You move from one imaginary position to another, and you’re never satisfied with where you end up.
I think I prefer to go nowhere. There isn’t anywhere else, after all.
I wish I was going with you.”
(Gary Snyder)
There is a certain insincerity in cleverness. In writing, in interactions with others, in public presentations—we always want to be “clever”, we want people to be astounded by our wit, wisdom, and overall sophistication. The more education you have, the worse it gets. Standing in a room with lots of educated people becomes an intellectual pissing contest. Everyone wants to look smarter than everyone else. Because everyone is so insecure about where they fall on the “smartness” scale, they lie. Or maybe “lie” is too strong—they “exaggerate” how much they actually know.
Socrates was put to death for exposing the “clever”. Ask enough questions about someone’s alleged knowledge of something, and they’ll eventually be revealed for what they are—full of shit, or at least not as all-knowing as they claim. The reason for his death sentence was “corruption of the youth”. Honesty is a social liability. We all claim to want honesty, especially from our elected officials. We act horrified when we realize they’re not honest. As if we didn’t know.
Lest this turn into a rant against the socially dishonest, I would point out that everyone does it without even realizing it—myself included. The unconscious urge to be part of society, to be accepted by a group, is usually stronger than the urge to be honest, especially about ourselves. Ironically, we look for group acceptance by asserting how individual we think we are. We want to be part of the crowd, but also stand out from it. The urge towards conformity is directly proportional to our own feelings of self-confidence and insecurity. The more insecure we feel, the more desperately we need to fit in.
Honest people are often viewed as simpletons or idiots. Playing poker and showing everyone your hand. Walking around the streets naked. No one wants to expose what lies underneath their persona. We consider our hopes, dreams, fantasies, feelings as precious cargo. If we expose them to others, we risk them getting damaged or torn apart. That poor art student at the Met that nearly destroyed a Picasso is an apt metaphor. She got too close to something valuable, and almost destroyed it, though it was accidental. Most people hurt us accidentally, not willfully. And we think that if we let others get too close to what we value, we’ll lose it forever and have nothing.
So, being clever is one of many social tradeoffs that we make to protect ourselves. “A defense mechanism”, to use psychoanalytic lingo. It seems to be perfectly natural, but what’s odd is that our “inner” being is probably much stronger and more desirable than the image we present to others. The most interesting and desirable people are the ones that act naturally without pretense. Pretense is about as attractive as a Tammy Faye Baker makeup job. But we fool ourselves into thinking we look good with it.
I am bored with cleverness and clever pretenses, especially my own. Mine are incredibly artificial, as I am frequently no better at being clever than I am at doing Calculus. But maybe my act isn’t so bad, as no one seems to be able to figure me out. Or, they can’t figure me out because they’re not used to anyone laying it out for them honestly. They think that I can’t be telling the truth, because no one does, but my lies are not contained in what I say, they’re contained in what I don’t say. A friend once told me that omitting details does not constitute lying. That’s pure bullshit, but I like to believe it anyway.
The other part of my trouble with cleverness has to do with respect. If you’re too concerned about how you appear to other people, you’re not giving the other people enough credit. They may not think the way you do, and it’s not likely they view you the way you view yourself. People will either accept you or reject you based on how you fit in to their own perception of the world and themselves; it really has nothing to do with you at all. And I’ve noticed that people like you best if you don’t shove your own worldview on them. It is possible to respect someone even if you don’t agree with them, or even necessarily like them all that much. But if they don’t like you, that’s nothing to worry about either. We can’t like everyone, and not everyone is going to like us. If that is your goal, it will be a frustrating one at best.
The social reality is that many of us hope to “get somewhere”, to be noticed. But, like everything else, there’s nowhere to really go. You move from one imaginary position to another, and you’re never satisfied with where you end up.
I think I prefer to go nowhere. There isn’t anywhere else, after all.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Mirage Divine and The Rumpus's One Year Later Event
Sunday morning. Massive storms are due later today. I'm even hearing about thunderstorms. Who ever heard of a thunderstorm in January?
I am excited about a new blog that has come out, written by my friend Dan:
Mirage Divine
Dan is one of the smartest people I know, and I love spending time in conversation with him and his wife. His most recent post, "Imaginary People" reminds me of a conversation the three of us were having at St. James Gate just before Christmas. We were discussing some of my previous blog posts, as well as some of John Foxx's ideas about the real vs. the illusory, especially in the context of the media (i.e., the "media ghosts" idea). Dan argued that these "ghosts" are just as "real" as any other part of a person's identity, and the fact that a person has grown older, or changed paths doesn't mean that image of them becomes a falsehood. When I read the above post, I realized that this makes a lot of sense. You should read it, too.
On another note, Annalemma Magazine posted a review of The Rumpus One Year Later party in Manhattan on Thursday night. I was at this party, though I couldn't stay past the intermission. I left at 9, made it back to Penn Station by 9:30, and caught the train back to NJ--getting to my stop takes about an hour. Then it takes another 40 minutes to drive home. Which means--leaving at 9--I don't get home until almost midnight, if I catch the right train. When I think about how relatively close I live to Manhattan, this seems idiotic. But the alternative is driving, and that's more expensive and just as time consuming. So, it's the price I pay for living out West.
I enjoyed the party--I arrived early, as I had a meeting downtown, stopped for dinner, and then headed over. I was waiting in the bar, which was downstairs, for things to start. Stephen Elliott came over and introduced himself when he came in. I'd also met him last June at another Rumpus/McSweeney's event, but it's not likely he'd remember me from that. Seating was odd--Broadway East is more of a restaurant than a proper "venue", so there were lots of round booths, and a few tables in the middle. Lots of people ended up sitting on the floor. I wound up sharing a booth with 5 men I'd never met before--mostly aspiring writers, a couple of NYU students as well. Everyone was very nice, though one man I was talking to apparently thought that having a conversation constituted interest on my part, and was forward enough to send me a blog comment suggesting that we either were dating or going to date (I can't quite remember--I just remember being stunned by the comment). And that was AFTER he'd read my post for the romantically perplexed, which apparently wasn't clear enough. A little tip--if I chat with you but don't give you any real contact info, I may think you're a nice person, but I'm not looking to date, thanks. I do resent not being able to go out by myself without people assuming I'm looking to date or hook up or whatever if I talk to them. At the same time, the ugly fact is that this is the general assumption of the culture, so it's hard to blame anyone for thinking it.
I only saw the first half of the event, which was great. There were readings by Justin Taylor, Tao Lin, and Stephen Elliott, and music by Diane Louvel. All of the readings were excellent--Tao Lin seemed the most uncomfortable at the mike, but it was obvious that he had something going on--cold, sore throat, sinus, don't know--that was affecting his reading. It didn't affect my enjoyment of the work though--after hearing him read, I'm definitely going to buy his new book, "Richard Yates" (He's also written "Shoplifting From American Apparel"). Justin and Stephen's works also were intriguing, and will likely invest in those as well (the titles are "Everything Here Is the Best Thing Ever" and "The Adderall Diaries", respectively).
I love readings. Frequently I walk into a bookstore and develop instant commitment-phobia. Books are like people--you never really know what they're like until you meet them face to face. Reviews are no better than your friends or family telling you, "I met this great guy who's single, you'd just love him." They might be right, but there's a good chance that they're not right, at least not for you. Author interviews are a bit like what I imagine online dating to be like--they're marketing what they consider to be the best assets of their work, as the work itself can't "talk" to you, sell you on its worthiness. Readings are better because it's like meeting with no pressure of involvement--you just enjoy the work for what it is, or you're bored senseless and glad you don't have to be further involved. Yes, you could also look at the book in the library, or look at some of the pages on Amazon if they're available, but that requires a time commitment, which can be more expensive than a money commitment. It's a matter of individual taste, but the fact is that readings sell me on more previously unknown books than anything else.
Speaking of--I would like to spend the afternoon reading. Which means I have to spend this morning finishing domestic things. And we know that according to relativity theory, weekends are shorter than weekdays, so I'd best get cracking...
I am excited about a new blog that has come out, written by my friend Dan:
Mirage Divine
Dan is one of the smartest people I know, and I love spending time in conversation with him and his wife. His most recent post, "Imaginary People" reminds me of a conversation the three of us were having at St. James Gate just before Christmas. We were discussing some of my previous blog posts, as well as some of John Foxx's ideas about the real vs. the illusory, especially in the context of the media (i.e., the "media ghosts" idea). Dan argued that these "ghosts" are just as "real" as any other part of a person's identity, and the fact that a person has grown older, or changed paths doesn't mean that image of them becomes a falsehood. When I read the above post, I realized that this makes a lot of sense. You should read it, too.
On another note, Annalemma Magazine posted a review of The Rumpus One Year Later party in Manhattan on Thursday night. I was at this party, though I couldn't stay past the intermission. I left at 9, made it back to Penn Station by 9:30, and caught the train back to NJ--getting to my stop takes about an hour. Then it takes another 40 minutes to drive home. Which means--leaving at 9--I don't get home until almost midnight, if I catch the right train. When I think about how relatively close I live to Manhattan, this seems idiotic. But the alternative is driving, and that's more expensive and just as time consuming. So, it's the price I pay for living out West.
I enjoyed the party--I arrived early, as I had a meeting downtown, stopped for dinner, and then headed over. I was waiting in the bar, which was downstairs, for things to start. Stephen Elliott came over and introduced himself when he came in. I'd also met him last June at another Rumpus/McSweeney's event, but it's not likely he'd remember me from that. Seating was odd--Broadway East is more of a restaurant than a proper "venue", so there were lots of round booths, and a few tables in the middle. Lots of people ended up sitting on the floor. I wound up sharing a booth with 5 men I'd never met before--mostly aspiring writers, a couple of NYU students as well. Everyone was very nice, though one man I was talking to apparently thought that having a conversation constituted interest on my part, and was forward enough to send me a blog comment suggesting that we either were dating or going to date (I can't quite remember--I just remember being stunned by the comment). And that was AFTER he'd read my post for the romantically perplexed, which apparently wasn't clear enough. A little tip--if I chat with you but don't give you any real contact info, I may think you're a nice person, but I'm not looking to date, thanks. I do resent not being able to go out by myself without people assuming I'm looking to date or hook up or whatever if I talk to them. At the same time, the ugly fact is that this is the general assumption of the culture, so it's hard to blame anyone for thinking it.
I only saw the first half of the event, which was great. There were readings by Justin Taylor, Tao Lin, and Stephen Elliott, and music by Diane Louvel. All of the readings were excellent--Tao Lin seemed the most uncomfortable at the mike, but it was obvious that he had something going on--cold, sore throat, sinus, don't know--that was affecting his reading. It didn't affect my enjoyment of the work though--after hearing him read, I'm definitely going to buy his new book, "Richard Yates" (He's also written "Shoplifting From American Apparel"). Justin and Stephen's works also were intriguing, and will likely invest in those as well (the titles are "Everything Here Is the Best Thing Ever" and "The Adderall Diaries", respectively).
I love readings. Frequently I walk into a bookstore and develop instant commitment-phobia. Books are like people--you never really know what they're like until you meet them face to face. Reviews are no better than your friends or family telling you, "I met this great guy who's single, you'd just love him." They might be right, but there's a good chance that they're not right, at least not for you. Author interviews are a bit like what I imagine online dating to be like--they're marketing what they consider to be the best assets of their work, as the work itself can't "talk" to you, sell you on its worthiness. Readings are better because it's like meeting with no pressure of involvement--you just enjoy the work for what it is, or you're bored senseless and glad you don't have to be further involved. Yes, you could also look at the book in the library, or look at some of the pages on Amazon if they're available, but that requires a time commitment, which can be more expensive than a money commitment. It's a matter of individual taste, but the fact is that readings sell me on more previously unknown books than anything else.
Speaking of--I would like to spend the afternoon reading. Which means I have to spend this morning finishing domestic things. And we know that according to relativity theory, weekends are shorter than weekdays, so I'd best get cracking...
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Snippets from an Aries Moon
I’ve noticed that often when people talk, others don’t listen. I’ve also noticed that often when people write messages, others don’t read them. This should not be an epiphany.
I go to Yahoo to open my e-mail, and see a featured article on “How not to feel humiliated when dining alone.” Whoever wrote the article should be humiliated. “Tip #2—Try the bar.” Sitting at the bar sends a message, namely, “I’m looking to hook up with somebody here.” And tip #1, “Be bookish (i.e., bring a book)” doesn’t stop anyone from talking to you at the bar. And you don’t “people watch” at a restaurant the way you might sitting on a park bench—that’s just creepy. The whole article is patronizing. It says in a pitying way, “you like to be alone, and that’s different, but being different is OK!” in that cheery fake tone that makes you want to strangle the person speaking. If you’re so insecure about going out without having a babysitter everywhere you go, that’s your problem.
I recall a 4-hour conversation with a friend on Monday. One of the things we talked about was class distinction in the UK. As an American, I’ve never “gotten” the idea that how much money you make or what kind of job your parents held should have something to do with your worth in society. It shouldn’t matter if someone is the Queen or if they’re waiting tables somewhere, they’re still people and worthy of respect. Apparently, though, class distinction still holds weight in British consciousness. I mentioned this to my hairdresser the other day, and he probably said it best: “Some people buy a thousand dollar pair of shoes like some of us buy a pack of gum. And they hang out with other people who do the same, because that’s normal for them. I get that. I what I don’t get is how having that much money gives you the right to disrespect anyone else.”
There are days when I can ignore patronizing behavior successfully, even though talking to a patronizing person makes me feel like I’ve just taken a bath in the sewer. I’m thinking today is not one of those days. In general, I have a hard time keeping my mouth shut when I’m in the face of that kind of fake nice behavior. I must have been an archer in a previous life, because when I see the target set up, my reaction is to shoot at it.
“Supposed to” is one of the most despicable phrases in the English language. There is respectful social behavior, and then there’s just ridiculously stupid convention that betrays anything resembling honesty and integrity. Carl Jung talks about the Shadow archetype. One explanation of the Shadow is that it is all of our repressed thoughts and feelings. Typically, whatever one “thinks” they are, they are also the opposite, and that can make one deeply ashamed. I’ve often thought about my Shadow. I flip flop back and forth between thoughts, feelings and self-concepts so many times, sometimes in a single day, that I start to think I’m a hypocrite. But then I remember that everyone, by virtue of being human, feels both ways about everything. I like to think I’m more honest about it. Still, I’m sure my Shadow will trip me up one of these days. Or my cat, who thinks he’s my shadow.
I go to Yahoo to open my e-mail, and see a featured article on “How not to feel humiliated when dining alone.” Whoever wrote the article should be humiliated. “Tip #2—Try the bar.” Sitting at the bar sends a message, namely, “I’m looking to hook up with somebody here.” And tip #1, “Be bookish (i.e., bring a book)” doesn’t stop anyone from talking to you at the bar. And you don’t “people watch” at a restaurant the way you might sitting on a park bench—that’s just creepy. The whole article is patronizing. It says in a pitying way, “you like to be alone, and that’s different, but being different is OK!” in that cheery fake tone that makes you want to strangle the person speaking. If you’re so insecure about going out without having a babysitter everywhere you go, that’s your problem.
I recall a 4-hour conversation with a friend on Monday. One of the things we talked about was class distinction in the UK. As an American, I’ve never “gotten” the idea that how much money you make or what kind of job your parents held should have something to do with your worth in society. It shouldn’t matter if someone is the Queen or if they’re waiting tables somewhere, they’re still people and worthy of respect. Apparently, though, class distinction still holds weight in British consciousness. I mentioned this to my hairdresser the other day, and he probably said it best: “Some people buy a thousand dollar pair of shoes like some of us buy a pack of gum. And they hang out with other people who do the same, because that’s normal for them. I get that. I what I don’t get is how having that much money gives you the right to disrespect anyone else.”
There are days when I can ignore patronizing behavior successfully, even though talking to a patronizing person makes me feel like I’ve just taken a bath in the sewer. I’m thinking today is not one of those days. In general, I have a hard time keeping my mouth shut when I’m in the face of that kind of fake nice behavior. I must have been an archer in a previous life, because when I see the target set up, my reaction is to shoot at it.
“Supposed to” is one of the most despicable phrases in the English language. There is respectful social behavior, and then there’s just ridiculously stupid convention that betrays anything resembling honesty and integrity. Carl Jung talks about the Shadow archetype. One explanation of the Shadow is that it is all of our repressed thoughts and feelings. Typically, whatever one “thinks” they are, they are also the opposite, and that can make one deeply ashamed. I’ve often thought about my Shadow. I flip flop back and forth between thoughts, feelings and self-concepts so many times, sometimes in a single day, that I start to think I’m a hypocrite. But then I remember that everyone, by virtue of being human, feels both ways about everything. I like to think I’m more honest about it. Still, I’m sure my Shadow will trip me up one of these days. Or my cat, who thinks he’s my shadow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)