February 24, 2012

  • The Word You Wield!

    (I initially wrote this as a comment re: someone’s update titled “stfu.”)

    I hear this often from certain people. “Both sides are as bad as the other.” “So-and-so group is as big a Fundie as the worst religious extremist.” “*Insert minority* need to stop being so sensitive to *insert brand of casual bigotry.*” Whilst these folks like to think of themselves as champions of equality, freedom of speech, and all that jazz I find this line of debate rather shallow and cliched. It’s a tiresome argument I like to call “Privilege Bitching.”

    Over the past 100 years in the Western World we have seen society reach the stage where it is OK to be a woman and vote, to be Black and vote, to inter-marry among races, for sexual harassment and domestic violence to be taken seriously as crimes, to be Atheist, Agnostic, Gay/Bi/Transgender, etc. without being imprisoned, socially-ostracised or beaten to death. But these are very recent developments, historically-speaking. And in parts of the world you can still be executed for being gay. In parts of the world not adhering to the tenants of the dominant religion can get you put in hospital. In parts of the world declaring you don’t believe in God can lose you your family and so-called ‘friends.’ When we speak of certain minorities what we are talking about are folks who, for most of human history, could be ridiculed, exiled, harassed, attacked and beaten to death for being who they are or not believing the same thing as the majority. What we are talking about are folks who still can be ridiculed, exiled, harassed, attacked and beaten to death for being who they are or not believing the same thing as the majority, depending on where they live. 

    Yet it doesn’t take 5 minutes for the privileged majority to start whining and moaning about how “Atheists/Agnostics are just as bad as Fundies” the minute someone says “believing in God is stupid” or to bitch on about “freedom of speech” when an LGBT group starts campaigning for people to stop using “gay” as a synonym for anything undesirable or contemptuous. They are almost always people who have never been part of an ostracised minority and have never truly experienced actual oppression, actual rights violations in their run-of-the-mill little lives. The problem with this Privileged Majority is that they are so used to being catered to, so used to having things their way, so used to the wheels of society turning with them and not against them, they conveniently overlook, downplay or fail to appreciate centuries of abuses towards the group they’re not part of, the groups they now like to hysterically and ignorantly compare to groups with long and documented histories of oppression. The minute someone says something minutely unpleasant, perhaps slightly out-of-line to them, they bitch and whine and cry bloody murder, insisting they’re being “persecuted as much as an *insert actually persecuted minority.” What’s more simply because a minority is asking for a little consideration, a little respect, a little equality, after centuries of inequality, because that act rocks the little boat of Majority Privilege, because in their righteous indignation and frustration some minority-group campaigners do so in a somewhat vindictive and poorly-expressed fashion, these things do not instantly make them comparable to the bigoted, persecuting, murderous, oppressive, lynch-mobbing and hateful history of The Tyranny Of The Majority

     

    I do not, and would not, approve or condone bullying or disrespectful language towards any group for simply holding an opinion or belief different to mine. But I get really tired of seeing this “both sides are as bad as each other” cliche rolled out time and time again when the record of human history in no way shows that both sides are as bad. The dominant race (white,) gender (male,) religion (Christianity) and sexual orientation (heterosexual) of any given nation (in my example, Western Nations) has enjoyed exceptional privileges for centuries, privileges which extend to persecuting brutally those who were different to them, those who now may criticise them. And maybe they criticise them in a rather unpleasant, ungracious and hypocritical fashion at times. But “Lynch-mobbed And Beaten To Death For Being Gay” VS “Some Atheist Being A Bit Of A Douche About Christianity.” They’re hardly comparable. Neither are attitudes to be encouraged. Neither are attitudes to be tolerated. But if you see them being of equal severity, of being “just as bad as each other,” then your values need a serious, serious rethink.

    X

November 6, 2011

  • Thoughts Of A Dying Atheist!

    I’m not dying. Well, I am, in the sense my body is slowly decaying and will, at some undisclosed point in the future, shut down and end my stay on this mortal coil. But it’s the only song title I have with ‘Atheist’ in it and I like to stick with my ‘Post Title = Vaguely Referencing The Subject-Song Title’ hook.

    This is not about attacking people’s beliefs as much as it is about exercising my own. It’s about being willing to address people’s questions regarding my own position on Theism/Atheism, an opportunity to learn what Theists want to ask or query of Atheists and to respond. These are a set of questions I came across on a discussions forum and answered, though I generally use ‘Naturalistic Pantheist’ to describe myself more than ‘Atheist’ (I’m an Atheist who sees the universe and existence with a somewhat romanticised, emotional eye, taking an abstract, personal sense of ‘spirituality’ from it all.) Either way I felt I should give the questions a look. Since Xanga is always a hot-bed of Religion VS Atheism I thought I’d post them again, with some more detailed, thought-out answers from me. Not that anyone really reads my blog but therein lies part of my motivation to put up something that encourages discussion. Or just as something interesting to post that will never be read or responded to. Whichever.


    10 Questions For Atheists


    1. If there is no God, why is there anything at all?

    This question is loaded with baseless assumption. How, and by what standard and what proof, has the idea that existence requires a ‘why’ been settled? Or, for that matter, of a “God” being the only explanation for existence? Why should we take an as-yet unproven hypothesis (God) and treat it as though it needs disproving despite it being utterly unproven itself? To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens any idea that can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. It’s ultimately a non-sequitor given that an idea which only speculates a reason based upon little more than human conjecture and provides no concrete incentive to take that reason seriously must be assumed to be the only reason. I could just as easy say “if there is no Poseidon why is there sea?”

    The need for a ‘why’ is a natural, if rather juvenile, human tendency. If there is a God and he is ‘why’ we exist ‘why’ is there a God in the first place? I could go on and on like an annoying 5 year old asking ‘why’ ad infinitum but the fact is the laws of causality are not so cut and dry and our understanding of them is not so conclusive as to be able to state requiring ‘why’ unwaveringly as a prerequisite. ‘Why’ is an endless paradox. There comes a point where one must simply state “it just is” invalidating the ‘why’ question as a necessary prerequisite entirely. Infinite regress. ‘How’ is, in fact, a more relevant and mature question.

    2. Where is the evidence that life could have begun without intelligent interference?

    More assumptions. Where is the evidence that life needs intelligent interference to begin? If you are going to ask for proof against your supposition your supposition must first be proven or justified objectively. This question, like the last, assumes a requirement where no such requirement exists. “Intelligence” infers a conscious actor and it is the species-centric conceit of humanity that assumes this sentience has to be behind any action. Simply because we humans create via inspiration rooted in our intellect does not mean that intellect (or something akin to it – albeit greatly more advanced) is the ultimate force for creation in the universe. Our intelligence, our conscious, our sentience, may well simply be the net result of our component parts, of a brain capable of processing information at various degrees of sophistication. “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts” kinda deal. Or at least it appears to be. All living things with brains are self-aware, the level to which they are is the variable and it is human beings, with the most developed cerebrums of all known life, that concordantly possess the greatest sense of self-awareness and thus the ability to question and speculate over our own existence and purpose.

    Conscious starts out with a net result in mind, generally. The human bias in assigning this to our own existence is that we must have been ‘preconceived’ and built into what we are in line with this precondition owing to how ‘sophisticated’ a piece of engineering we are. But our very conscious is not necessarily the result of an intent to create conscious, rather a level of awareness evolved from a functioning brain no different fundamentally to any other life-form but is just sophisticated enough to question its own existence. As such we vainly believe this condition is somehow ‘special’ and must be intentional due to how complex and unlikely it seems to us. It is retroactive reasoning; a form of choice-supportive fallacy (though technically an eventuality, not a ‘choice.’ Never the less the fallacious rational remains the same.) Or, as Douglas Adams illustrates via “Puddle Thinking”;

    “… imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

    In addition the puddle might think, as he considers his shape and the little dint in the ground he rests in, how wondrously fortuitous it was that this dint in the ground matches his exact shape. How it too must have been made to have him in it. He does not consider the idea that, maybe, it is his shape that evolved in accordance with the dint, not the dint which was made with his shape in mind.

    3. How can evolution explain features of irreducible complexity apart from intelligent intervention?

    Another question that force-feeds us the desired answer without offering any kind of proof this “intelligent intervention” is necessary to achieve the ends in question. And again present is that same conceit of humanity that assumes a human-like intelligence is the only causative capable of all creation and existence. Irreducible complexity is fallacious in that all analogies used refer to objects made with a known, preexisting intent (watches, Boeing 747s, etc.) When a Boeing 747 is built the designer already knows what they are building, since there is no such proven, preexisting intent in biology why should we assume one is needed? Evolution has been shown as a process of trial and error, in which the beneficial elements are retained and the useless fazed out over millions of years, not a “bam, I make this thing instantly workable!” See again Douglas Adams’ Puddle Analogy (above) which applies to this as well as it does the equally fallacious Fine Tuned Universe concept.

    4. How can the evolutionary model be true since the fossil record clearly shows most major groups emerging at the same time?

    This just shows a gross misunderstanding of the fossil records. It slays me how these arm-chair observers can make enormous leaps based on a slight anomaly or mystery in mostly concise and current data and somehow, with far, far less supportive data to prove their idea, reach that idea without anything like the levels of scrutiny they subject to the idea they dislike. I’m no biology expert and neither, clearly, are the people who field these questions. The difference between us is I do not use my ignorance to attempt to fill the holes in the works of more knowledgeable people with my own unfalsifiable, personal beliefs. Anyway, my far more biology-savvy friend, C(anadian)Alex, offers a couple of reasons as to why major groups might emerge at the same time: “radical climate changes creating new niches, or a mass extinction event creating new voids to fill in the ecosystem.”

    There is a constant fallacy in these kind of questions, the Confirmation Bias. Those seeking to disprove evolution or whatever else do so out of their desire to ‘save faith.’ They have a vested and personal interest in ridding the world of anything that contradicts their beliefs. What we have, in evolution, is a universally accepted theory that has as good as been proven fact. I live in Japan. Here the majority of people are culturally Shinto or Buddhist. It is a secular society and thus nothing in their personal beliefs stands in the way of evolution being accepted. And it is because, lacking any personal bias against it, find nothing amiss with the scientific evidence in evolution’s favour. Japanese told that many Americans reject evolution look at me with disbelief. They even featured the idea on a ‘strange but true’ style general interest TV show at some point with the panel being equally as bemused by the idea that accepted science could be rejected by a supposedly developed nation. If the ‘science’ against evolution held any sense of integrity it would stand on its own merits, regardless of one’s faith, or lack there of. People would look at the idea of Creationism, or a Young Earth, and say, “well, you know I’m not Christian but the evidence does seem pretty good for what they’re saying.” But that does not happen. It does not happen at all in Japan and I’d wager not at all in any country where there isn’t an ignorant but vocal religious majority taking issue with scientific fact. The only people who find any credibility with these counter-arguments are the religious and, as established, they have a serious case of Confirmation Bias going on. If non-religious, in reasonable numbers, also found the evidence against evolution or other scientific theories convincing then the Creationists and Young Earth-ists might have something. But such a thing is all but unheard of because only those biased by personal belief happen to find such ‘evidence’ convincing. They readily admit how much they rely on their faith yet they think they can look at faith-threatening ideas with an objective eye? Science has no vested interest in proving one thing over another. It is simply about learning what we can, in the integrity of how we prove something. If the scientists got something wrong and the evidence is irrefutable, they change their ideas. Sure, individual scientists are fallible and may become enamoured with their own ideas but that is why they have peer review and why only that which passes constant and ever-challenging scrutiny and attempted falsification is ever accepted as fact. There is no ultimate gain in proving one idea for the entirety of the world’s scientists other than the prize of knowledge itself, unlike a religious belief which is, by the admission of its own advocates, something they are deeply and personally invested in having be ‘right.’

    5. If there is no objective standard of right or wrong, how can anything be wrong?

    This question is based upon a Wishful Thinking Bias: another logical fallacy. Just because the idea of an objective standard of right and wrong feels more comfortable/easy to understand to our minds does not validate the notion as a necessity in any way. Does there need to be an ‘objective standard?’ Humanity’s immaturity requires an ‘objective standard’ lest we be faced with the horrifying idea of self-determination and personal responsibility. Right and wrong are concepts created by man but the most basic relate back to notions largely universal to humanity. Being killed creates a negative knock-on effect, thus there are laws in almost all societies governing killing. Being stolen from creates a negative knock-on effect therefore there are laws in almost all societies governing stealing. Evolutionarily speaking our psychology has come to identify concepts of ‘good behaviour’ and ‘bad behaviour’ beneficial to our survival and coexistence which have formed over time into morals and ethics. The mere existence of the concept of right and wrong proves it is innately part of our nature to perceive certain acts in such a way, objective or not objective. God or no God. If God were disproved tomorrow (though such a thing is, and will always be, impossible) we would still be the same people, the same race, with the same ideas of right and wrong. It is immaturity which requires someone to set these rules up for us and judge us based on them, rather like a child needs a parent to scold and reward them for their respective behaviours as they have not yet developed the responsibility to self-govern.

    But right and wrong are not, and should not be, hard-wired notions that remain absolute. We use our ever-developing sense of reason and rationale to understand, to keep right and wrong shifting, working the kinks out as we go (like evolution.) It is childish, simplistic reasoning to require a black-and-white objective standard. Now, there are some things which we will always reason to be wrong, I am sure. But with the application of reason we may differentiate between human prejudice and universal ‘wrong-doing,’ though it may take time and effort. Again, invoking ‘God’ is a quick-fix and serves only to limit our understanding and capacity to engage issues critically and circumstantially.

    Some religious folks will argue that God is good by mere definition. His actions are always good whether we understand them or not. If God is by definition “right” then there is no truly objective notion of “right” either. God is just ‘good’ arbitrarily, regardless of his actual actions. In other words there is no notion of ‘right’ to which God adheres, he just decides what is and isn’t, which is a subjective notion, not objective. God could say murder is wrong and it is wrong. If this is an objective standard of ‘wrong’ then it will always be the case. It is inalienable and even God cannot alter that. But if God is by definition ‘good’ by simply being the only authority on the matter rather than ‘good’ existing as an objective, inalienable standard independent of even God then God could say murder is right and it suddenly becomes ‘right’ by default. That is not an objective standard of ‘right,’ it’s a subjectively mutable, totalitarian dogma of ‘right.’

    6. So which is the logically defensible position?—that matter eternally existed (or came into existence by itself for no reason), and then by itself arranged itself into extraordinarily complex living systems including not only mechanisms but huge amounts of information needed for life to function against everything observed in real science? Or that an eternal self existing being with infinite intelligence, created life and the information systems necessary for life to exist, agreeing with real science?

    First off the questioner clearly has no real idea of what is “real science.” And again, we are subjected to this fallacious idea that intention must be behind action. But anyway, where is there any evidence for an “eternal self existing being with infinite intelligence?” How in any way, shape or form is that a plausible explanation? It’s self-defeating reasoning for a start;

    1) Matter existing eternally is illogical and thus redundant.
    2) For it to exist it requires a ‘force’; in this case ‘God.’
    3) God is eternally existing
    4) Eternal existence is illogical and thus redundant, negating God.

    If something eternally existing is so logically unsound then does God, who they go on to claim as doing just that, not also qualify as logically unsound? If reason and cause are so important and so necessary a prerequisite for something to ‘be’ then how did God come to be? If God has always been then why the trouble conceiving the same of the universe? If one is willing to believe that God always existed, or just popped into being, then why not believe the same of the universe? Since both hypotheses require something to just “be” it is more logical to apply Occam’s Razor and take the simpler notion, that there is no God and things just ‘are’ as they appear to be. The addition of a ‘God’ may seek to explain the universe but it only throws up more questions about ‘God’ and the nature of something that exists immaterially and independent of time and matter (undefinable) yet has also been assigned personal (definable) characteristics. Either way, never mind that God invoked in this manner is a Skyhook Fallacy. It is a speculative hypothesis made by ancient man. Why should it be leant such automatic credibility as a possibility when, again, there is nothing to support it but personal testimony, speculation and imagination?

    The retort here is usually that ‘matter’; that which is observable in this universe, cannot exist eternally as it has been shown to change and degrade over time. But God can and we cannot say otherwise for we are not able to test the nature of God. Assigning one set of rules for the universe and using God to explain them, then exempting God from those rules is not sound logic in any way, shape or form. It is an argument from Exceptionalism. It reminds me of the common playground tactic employed by kids when playing war games or some such:

    : (shoots friend) “Bang, you’re dead!”
    : “Naaaah, Am not. Cos, like, I’ve got bullet-proof armour….!
    : “My bullets are armour-piercing!”
    : “Well, mine’s, like, special new armour that was developed to repel armour-piercing bullets and lasers and rocket launchers and…!”
    : ……… (knob!)

    The joy of the imagination is it obeys no rules other than those it assigns itself. Metaphysical arguments, be they theological or philosophical, are much the same. One can say, make up, argue, whatever conditions one likes but within the realms of the metaphysical, where anything is possible, there is no standard of reason. There is no accountability or burden of proof. The repeated moving of ‘God’ out of any realm where he/she/it may be defined or quantified absolves the theologian of the responsibility of presenting anything. Arguing from Exceptionalism in effect requires God’s none-existence to facilitate itself. If God existed then the possibility of definition would also exist. Anything that exists, in some way, shape or form, can be defined in some way, shape or form, no matter how epic or vast they may be. The only way to protect something from definition (and with it limitations) is to keep it purely metaphysical. In other words, for it to be totally made up!

    If Causality is so important then what ’caused’ God? If God does not need a ’cause’ then why does the universe?

    7. How can natural selection produce something that is a prerequisite for natural selection to operate?

    The questioner will need to be more specific in what he/she is talking about. I differ again to Calex, who takes a shot at guessing what this extremely vague question is attempting to ask:

    “I assume this is in reference to self-replication. I don’t want to get too technical, and many books have been written on the subject, so I will keep it general: By chance proteins and amino acids just flowing around in a liquid, at varying temperatures, with various other elements, combining, recombining, etc… on a huge scale, over millions of years, various organisms were generated, some would eventually, through a chemical process that is well-known today, would be able to split (i.e. replicate).”

    8. If scientists almost totally accept that a signal from outer space containing information that could be interpreted as a string of prime numbers would be proof of extraterrestrial intelligence, why would they not accept that the information coding in the nucleus of the simplest cells dna which is equivalent to the information in a full set of encyclopedia Britannica was the result of intelligence?

    Perhaps because a ‘signal’ and ‘a nucleus’ are two very different things? A signal would imply it was broadcast and done so with a specific purpose in mind, with intention and direction. A nucleus on the other hand is part of the natural building blocks of the universe, unlike ‘signals,’ (though we really need to more accurately define what is meant by ‘signal’ in this scenario.) Again the author is using a continuing tautology: that complex information must be the result of a conscious, anthropomorphic intelligence, when no such proven requirement exists. Directed signals of information do not seem to occur in nature. Genetic coding does and is the result of billions of years of growth and entropy.

    Either way I am not a scientist. If you want to know why scientists think what they do about this ask a scientist. All atheists are not, by default, scientists. What we do do is trust in a system which has proven itself time and time again with objective, tangible results and that scores of individuals committed to this system will rigorously test and attempt to falsify any claim until it stands up to the full brunt of this onslaught on the weight of its own objective truth (small T.) Nevertheless this is the one question here that at least resembles a coherent argument, though it still makes assumptions and draws a somewhat inappropriate analogy. But, like I say, since the question relates to a professional scientist’s analysis of phenomena they are well-versed in and as I am not a professional scientist I cannot answer as soundly as I would like. But then the author is clearly not well-versed in the science here either so the question is not as sound as I would like either. Some more thoughts from Calex here that get the point across better than I can, I feel:

    “Now, I am no astrophysicist, but in the same way, if there was a long string of prime numbers broadcast in a signal, it would strongly support the idea of sentient life. However, what we are seeing is more like a constant stream of numbers, the “primes” being out of order and separated by random strings of up to 400 random other numbers. one would have to be desperate to see anything but randomness.”

    9. What if God is real as described in the bible and you have to stand before him and give an account for your life? Do you have a list of reasons for why you never accepted Him? Under close scrutiny, will those reasons betray the fact that you don’t want to believe and will stick with anything that sounds good rather than look into it too seriously.

    First off the author should stop trying to set up straw-men with loaded questions that try to answer themselves. Secondly it is laughable that one should talk about “looking into things seriously” in the context of secular belief. The rejection of a hypothesis, assumed as true by the majority throughout pre-Enlightenment history, that has yet to be seriously given any evidential, tangible weight (God) is precisely due to people “looking into it seriously.” Many very smart people have devoted their time to doing just that on both sides. Theologians and philosophers may tend to still believe but, as I have mentioned, their work resides entirely in the realms of the metaphysical. They deal in concepts, abstractions and ideas. Important things to wrack our brains over, no doubt. But when looking for an objective sense of “is it or isn’t it/yes or no” speculating over purely metaphysical matters gets us nowhere. Only hard, serious evidence can do that and those devoted to that method of study; the biologists, cosmologists and physicists, are staggeringly majority Atheist. So I’d check your straw-men before you put them up cos they may just catch fire and topple over, burning down your own barn!

    But to answer the question, yes, I have a number of reasons not to believe, reasons which would take forever to get into so I’ll stick with the basics. Why I should believe the testimony of one religion over another when none can give me hard and convincing reasons to believe them? Why should I trust one specific religious text, written over several centuries by different authors, portraying varying accounts of the nature of ‘God,’ and that’s only claim to truth is their own claim to truth?  Even within one religion why should I then trust any of the massively varied and divergent interpretations of that holy text, all of which insist on being the correct and accurate interpretation? Why should seeking to appease, and focusing my  energies on loving, an omnipotent and transcendent deity come before focusing my life on loving those around me who actually need my love, and on being a decent and altruistic human being? If worshipping him is more important than said altruism how can such a jealous, selfish and egocentric being claim to be a force for, and the path to, goodness and love? I’m assuming time won’t be an issue which is a good thing as I will be doing a lot of arguing and questioning and so will a lot of other people.

    But how about I ask you the same question with “Allah” inserted over “God?” Or “Odin?” Or “Brahma?” Or “Quezacotl?” Or “Zeus?” “Lord Xenu?” Or “Graknar The Iridescent: Lord of Infinite Energies?” Or… well, the list could go on…. Why don’t you want to believe in Allah and will you hold yourself accountable before him if Allah, as described in the Qu’ran, exists?

    10. If I answered all your objections to your satisfaction, would you submit your life to Jesus or recognize God as your creator?

    This question answers itself. Which is the mark of a very bad question. But we’ve kinda established the weak nature of these questions by now. If those objections were answered ‘to my satisfaction’ that would imply I had no reason to object anymore. If I still had reason to object I would not have received satisfactory answers and thus it is not relevant to this line of highly guided, highly closed questioning. Put it his way, if I were told to drink, I dunno… blood from a cat’s face… but all my objections were answered to my satisfaction I would drink it. After all why would I not if I have no more objections?

    : You there. Drink this blood from a cat’s face.
    : No.
    : Why?
    : Cos it’s gross and full of diseases, maybe…
    : It’s not. Here are the lab tests that say it is clean and healthy. Also every last person who has tasted it says it’s awesome and here’s the documented evidence of such (shows results and backs them up with reliable sources.)
    : OK, but what’s the point?
    : It’ll make you a bad-ass. And here’s a test that shows that everyone who drank it experienced a 70% increase in bad-assery (shows results and backs them up with reliable sources.)
    : OK, my objections have been satisfied. I now have no reason not to drink the blood from a cat’s face!
    : Yay!

    Ultimately my answer is “yes.” If someone could answer all my questions regarding God, his/her/its existence and role in our creation to my complete satisfaction of course I would acknowledge God has my creator. Would I submit to Jesus? Again, if my objections to the idea of submission and areas of his philosophy were answered to my satisfaction I suppose I would. This is, as I have said, a closed-ended question.

    But let’s take a step back from the poorly written questions and get to the meat of it. “Could I be convinced of the existence of God?” is really what the question is trying to get at. “Yes, I could” is my answer. That is the nature of having a reasoning and rational mind. You do not take stances (as tempting as they may be) based upon your own biases and prejudices or whatever biases or prejudices the faith or culture you were raised in forces upon you. You acknowledge evidence, proof and arguments. You attempt as best you can to observe things objectively and avoid sophistry. You work on reaching a consensus by sharing information and learning from various sources and positions. You can, as Aristotle said, “entertain an idea without accepting it.” Most importantly you are able to admit when you are wrong and can adjust your views when your position fails. A position reached by careful consideration and education will always be mutable, given the right counter-evidence. Any belief that cannot be changed, no matter what the evidence, is not ‘belief’ at all. It’s fanaticism.

    With that in mind what would it take to convince you there was no deity? Could it be done?

    * * *

    In closing, just a couple more things to say. Each and every one of these questions contains, to varying degrees of blatancy, the “Begging The Question” Fallacy. These questions take the usual act of assuming God is a reasonable answer to all these questions, despite possessing no prior or accepted proof that God is a reasonable answer and proceed to quiz you as though that were the case. But let’s, for arguments sake, say we were stumped on the issue and that a deity was the only reasonable explanation. It would require a whole mass of further evidence to prove this being as the Christian God, or Allah, or Yahweh of the Old Test., or any other culturally specific divine entity. Even when the theistic arguments do seem sound (which is rare) they only allude to Deism; ‘a god,’ not a personal, specific God. The author would be writing this about Allah had he/she been born in Egypt, it is little but cultural bias that assumes that proving the idea of god equates to proving “My God.”

    Believe in whatever you believe in, people. But quit wasting your time trying to claim legitimacy for the unfalsifiable. Objective Truth requires Objective Proof.

    “Nothing from nowhere, I’m no one at all. Radiate, recognize one silent call. As we all form one dark flame…”  X

June 24, 2011

  • Borrowed Heaven!

    Lately I’ve been re-watching my all-time favourite TV show(s) and a staple of my must-watch viewing (back when I watched TV) from my teens and early 20s, namely Buffy The Vampire Slayer and its spin-off show, Angel. I thought both shows were awesome when I was viewing them the first time round and now I’m a little older, a little wiser and a lot more educated I’m finding myself loving them all over again but also noticing just how deep they run, thematically.

    I’m not really updating to wax-poetic about my favourite TV shows. I’m updating to ask a question that ‘Angel’ raised at the end of its 4th and penultimate season. The existential, moral and ethical dilemma was not lost on me back when I viewed this show for the first time but, hey, I didn’t have an online blog then. I just kinda wanted to pose this to my… errmm…. “many readers…”

    Towards the end of the season the Big Bad finally emerges from behind the scenes. In the “Buffyverse” (that’s the general term for the fictionalised version of reality that Joss Whedon’s Buffy-related works exist) the concept of divinity is left very vague, but it certainly exists. These forces are referred to informally as “The Powers That Be” (occasionally abbreviated to “The Powers” or “The PTB!”) The being that appears towards the end of Angel’s 4th season is a “Fallen Power,” appearing as a graceful, elegant and ubiquitously adored woman named Jasmine. Her physical presence casts an instant glamour on all who see her, causing all to become besotted with her to the literal point of worship. The glamour can only be broken by those whose blood becomes mixed with her own. They see her for what her physical form truly is: decayed and horrific, and lose all sense of devotion and bliss that her power casts over them.

    Basically the city of L.A. (where ‘Angel’ is set, for obvious reasons) falls under her thrall and the world is threatened to follow. The thing is under her thrall people are blissfully happy and at peace. Everyone feels loved, valued, special and all crime, all violence, all suffering, comes to an end. The price is that people are no longer under their own free will. They are forcefully enraptured by this being, she is a living god in their midst. Oh, that and the fact that she consumes between 6 to 12 people a day to maintain herself. As in she devours their life-force, killing them.

    The thing is when the good guys eventually take her down they end World Peace. Under her thrall everyone was blissfully happy. And, although she happily devoured a handful of people a day, she is never portrayed as being insincere in her desire to give humanity love, peace and happiness. She truly wants that for “her people” and, in her own way, genuinely seems to love humanity. She simply expresses her belief that Free Will does nothing for mankind but cause misery. Under her humanity knew no pain. During the arc itself the eerie bliss, obvious brain-washing and sinister undertones leave us with little doubt she is evil and needs to be stopped. But once the finale rolls round she doesn’t drop her loving persona. She doesn’t reveal how it was all a ruse to rule people. She states till the end how all she wants is for humanity to find peace and what does submission to her really mean compared to complete happiness? Even the handful of people she devours a day, what are they compared to the millions of lives that are saved across the world in her utopic vision? As she states, without her help “humanity is doomed to drown in it’s own blood.” Once she is gone the question is raised, unsettling the heroes and the viewer: did they do the right thing? Would the world have been better off left under her rule?

    I remember feeling a really uncomfortable sense of ‘greyness’ when I watched it for the first time. Deep down we all want to identify right and wrong, good and evil, black and white. It’s unsettling to realise that we can’t always make that call. The good guys assert that surrendering free will, being held in emotional and mental bondage, is no way to exist, not to mention that the murders of even a handful of people are too high a price to pay. As is usually the case with these shows I love I find myself on the same general ethical and moral page as the creators (and thus the heroes.) But not without some serious food for thought.

    If there was such a choice; if you could surrender free will in exchange for pure happiness, pure bliss and a complete end to world suffering and pain and the only cost, other than your right to self-determination, was the daily deaths of a handful of random people (bearing in mind they could be people you know and love… or not, and many, many more lives would be saved through this choice) would you take it? Would such a world be ‘right?’

    X

May 30, 2011

  • This Ain’t A Scene, It’s An Arms Race!

     
    Or: How Scenes Work

    So the world is full of animals, right? Cats and dogs and herons and badgers and duck-billed platypi and what-not. Everyone is doing their thing. Now imagine a ‘scene’ emerges amongst the cats. A few cats decide that it’s kinda cool to have a little place they can go and play with bits of string, claw furniture, sleep on baby’s faces, listen to kitty music about hating water, possibly some common thread in their style of dress develops, like little lavender hoodies as seen on Hipster Kitty here. Either way the important thing is the cats are just being cats, they just like to express their kittiness in a certain way and share it with people who feel similarly about their feline existence.

    But then the ‘Cat Scene’ suddenly becomes ‘cool.’ Not just amongst cats but amongst other animals too. Why? Who knows? Can any of us really say what causes the twoing and frowing of the zeitgeist? But this underground movement of ‘Cats’ just digging being cats suddenly gets infiltrated by a dogs, horses, pigs, a few chickens, some bears and the occasional ostrich. Whatever. Being a ‘Cat’ is now cool and everyone wants in. So the dogs now insist on playing with string, the horses sleep on baby’s faces (to disastrous results) and some wild boar figure they’ll start living with humans cos “that’s what Real Cats do.” Everyone now gets hold of those trendy lavender Cat Hoodies and, soon enough, these faux-cats outnumber the actual cats. They even start wearing little cat ears and tails, like annoying anime fan-girls. Not only this but the trends grow more and more irrelevant to the genuine cats and become increasingly more the focus of this superficial bunch of animals than the actual genuine kittiness of the original Scene.

    The media, now aware of the Cat Scene due to its sudden popularity, decide to get involved. But being the media and not really knowing anything about anything that can’t be put into a sound-bite they just start terming anything in this Scene “Cat.” Those not into the scene become annoyed and irritated with these posers and their stupid fake ears and uniform lavender hoodies and start hating on ‘Cats.’ But they don’t really know what ‘Cat’ means because, by now, the term has become so misappropriated it is used almost exclusively in reference not to “four-legged feline mammals” but “anything faking being a four-legged feline mammal.” When a real cat is encountered, minus fake ears and tail or any of the extraneous elements initiated by the superficial crowd, people look bemused at their proclamation that they’re a cat. “But…. a ‘Cat’ is a total faker and a knob. You seem cool so you’re not a ‘Cat.’” (Kitty makes a WTF-Face.)

    Behold the absurdity. But that is more or less every Scene ever.

    The thing is elements of Scenes can, and do, get superficial and annoying and utterly worthy of derision. But one cannot fake being something unless that something actually exists to fake in the first place. There are genuine articles out there. Not all people involved in a Scene are shallow fakers. The genuine articles are the ones for whom that Scene still truly means something. They exist, albeit probably far less prominent and noticeable than the fakers for whom it is entirely an image-thing. But they are the ones who deserve the Scene. And the whole Scene does not deserve to be lumped in with the more populace, yet completely vapid, posers for whom it’s all about look and ‘being cool.’ Especially when those posers move the Scene so far away from everything relevant that it causes an ignorant public and media to completely lose sight of the absurdity that comes with calling a Burmese python wearing a tabby-striped jump-suit “a Cat.”

    X

March 21, 2011

  • The Emologian’s Cafe

    Zebras. Black with white stripes or white with black stripes?

     

    Picture.

    Some people think they’re black with white stripes. Others subscribe to the idea that they are white with black stripes.

    Also the Bible says things.

    What do you think? Do zebras have white stripes on black body-fuzz or are they in fact black-striped white horse-type things?

    (Now bring forth my 50-billion comments and e-props, my xanga-bitches!)

March 4, 2011

  • Pain!

    What is the source of your greatest pain?

    I’m something of a contradiction in many ways. Growing up I was pretty independent and did my own thing. I didn’t cling to my parents or go with the crowd. And yet, at the same time, I have been accused of erring on the side of the familiar. I could be considered someone who resists routine and structure and yet, at the same time, I seem to crave stability and hate being uprooted.

    This week has been the single longest week of my working life. On Tuesday I found out, by accident, that I would not be returning to 3 of my 4 schools next year. 2 of those schools I have been at for all 3 years I have lived and worked here in Ena. It was never my intention to stay here forever but I had hoped to do my planned 4 or 5 years here in mostly the same schools. Especially the junior high school and its elementary school. But the junior high is being switched out of my contract from April, it seems, and I’m beyond gutted! Teaching at both the junior high and elementary in a small rural community in Japan basically means you know every kid in the area from 6 to 15. And after you’ve been there for 3 years, as I have, that grows to include former students up to 17 or 18 and, through being relatively active in extra-curricular activities, you become pretty well-known in the town at large.

    All this turmoil has also made me extra concerned for my position beyond which schools I go to. The ALT World is cut-throat: we are often hired on annual contracts which come up for review this time every year. Within weeks of the start of the next school year you can potentially find yourself dropped and replaced! It’s a nerve-wracking period and, when you love your position as I do, it drives you crazy with worry. To be honest outside of the unwelcome news of schools being reshuffled nothing is proceeding out of the ordinary. It’s not been any different any other year. But I happened to see my position being advertised by another agency on GaijinPot shortly after I received the news about my schools. I later spoke to my supervisor who assured me this was not unusual: companies often employ this rather deceitful method of “jumping the gun” on contracts they have yet to secure so they can rope in candidates and offer them up to the boards of education. After all trying to win a contract minus a person to do the job is kinda difficult! But, in my temper-heightened state, this made me think my time here was up. 3 years, secure and happy and generally thought to be good at my job, gone. A week ago I’d thought I was good for another year at least. I’d been given every indication I was, even told as much. Then, in just 2 days, it all came crashing down and I was faced with the heart-breaking prospect of not only losing the schools I had honestly come to love but my entire life here too.

    I myself may have emotionally jumped the gun. The jury is still out on my contract but that is no different to any other year at this juncture in time. If I am re-contracted I am almost certainly losing the schools I was told I was losing… and that sucks beyond expression for me. But I’ve put it in perspective some. I will still get to go to the elementary, maintaining ties with the area and allowing me to still see my old students there. And, perhaps the disconnect is for the best. I never intended to stay here forever and, whilst I would still prefer to see my time out with another year or 2, ending things on a positive as opposed to a rather abrupt and emotionally-stunned exit in 3 weeks, maybe a year where I’m at something of a distance to the kids and school I unintentionally fell in love with will be better for me. Regardless of schools I had been planning to start job-hunting again this coming fiscal year. Other stuff in Japan outside of ALTing. Jobs back home in the UK. Stuff in Australia, even. There are silver linings to this cloud. I would still prefer a clear sky, though.

    But, as is always the case when I go through something emotionally trying, it’s pushed me into a lot of introspection. Almost 11 years ago now I fell into a deep depression that had me almost fade from existence for 3 years. I was due to head for university to start my Japanese studies in earnest. I would either be heading to Oxford Brookes or UCLan and I was pretty nervous, but also excited. Then, one night, May 20th 2000 to be exact, I was heading to the cinema to see ‘Gladiator’ with 2 of my closest friends and something hit me. A wave of sorrow and anxiety I’d never really felt before. I realised I would be leaving this life and it… did something to me. Something I fought against but couldn’t recover from. I couldn’t vocalise it or explain it. Anyone I told just said I was nervous about going to uni but it wasn’t just that. These feelings didn’t rise and fall either. They stayed with me from that point on. Whatever it was seemed to have caused a severe existential crisis of sorts. I’ve heard it said that depression occurs when 2 different parts of your ego, your innate personality, come into conflict. Since recovering from that depression and putting things back on track by re-enrolling at UCLan, seeing it through, via NUFS, and getting my degree bringing me to Japan again and where I am now, I’ve learnt to identify my depressive tendencies and take steps to deal with them. But they are part of me and, through this recent emotional upheaval, I’ve identified the root of what causes me such anxiety. The source of my pain, if you will.

    Loyalty. Strange that may sound but the common factor has always been loyalty. I seem to possess an unreasonable sense of loyalty, one that extends beyond the bounds of regular social norms. It was my sense of loyalty to my close-knit friendship group that caused me to feel so much angst back in 2000. It was my fierce attachment and love for what we had at NUFS that caused me to be torn apart by leaving. And it is my love, my sense of loyalty and commitment to my schools and kids here that makes the idea of losing them so painful. To many I may appear somewhat aloof and passive in my relationships, that is because I tend to resist allowing myself to become attached to people as I know I will inevitably come to need them far more than they do me. Because my sense of loyalty is beyond reason. These feelings of attachment can strike utterly unexpectedly. Loyalty to my friends. Loyalty to my students and schools. I am aware of how destructive this side of me can be as most reasonable people don’t hold to such excessive standards of loyalty. Nor do I hold them to such standards, unless I have been given every reason to believe they too believe in them. But I know that most people will never share my admittedly idealised and romantic sense of loyalty and I try to deal with that. I know my students, as much as they may like me, will know many teachers in their lives and I will not necessarily stand out. I know my school has had, and will have, other ALTs and my role will not necessarily be distinct. But whatever other people feel about loyalty is not as important as what I feel about it. I cannot help but live to my own standards. I have become far more open with forming relationships, I try to temper myself and my extreme attachments, but I still prefer to keep my close friendships to a minimum, so as to avoid conflicting loyalties. I wanted to remain at my current schools so I wouldn’t have my loyalties torn; diluting the memory of my junior high by leaving it to go to another. I hate the idea of my affections and loyalties being changeable. I want to feel the profoundness of my experiences, the power of my feelings when I do feel that connect, and never have it replaced or usurped by another. In a nutshell I feel loyalty for any powerful bonds I forge the way most people reserve for their romantic partner.

    I fall in love with everything.

February 19, 2011

  • Episode IV!

    (And the rest.)

    So I’m gonna talk about Star Wars. It’s possibly the biggest pop-culture phenomenon in living memory and to say it played a big role in the whole NUFS experience would be to severely underestimate its power! But when I say I’m a Star Wars fan I mean “I am a Star Wars fan.” I, personally, enjoy the complete saga; all 6 movies. It’s generally fashionable to praise the Original Trilogy and denounce the Prequel Trilogy. I do not subscribe to this chain of thought and, since it’s such a major topic for most Star Wars fans, I’m gonna weigh in here. Up first, I’m gonna concisely review the 6 movies from my own perspective then present my arguments for a complete acknowledgement of the entire series.

                                         Episode 1: The Phantom Menace                                      


    Pros: Qui Gon Jinn; a majorly cool Jedi. Darth Maul; an awesome, bad-ass Sith. Incredible lightsaber combat scenes. Great visuals.

    Cons: The annoyingly kiddie-centric, slapstick and plot-irrelevant Jar Jar Binks. Unnecessarily cutesy child Anakin, not played as a believable “young Darth Vader.” Unnecessarily long pod-racing scene that does nothing to advance the plot. Weak acting and dialogue.

    Generally felt to be the weakest Star Wars movie and I don’t disagree with that assessment. But neither do I think it a bad movie. It gives us a wider view of the Star Wars universe, presented in a new light. Seeing familiar characters come to life and have their back-story explored is something I’d defy any fan to not get excited over, even if it doesn’t match up with your own personal vision. Liam Neeson is great as Qui Gon and Darth Maul is a striking, though massively underutilised, antagonist. As ever Ian McDiarmid’s Palpatine is played nicely, a subtle contrast to the awesomely over-the-top villain he later becomes. Jar Jar is truly annoying and, when looking at the overall plot, contributes nothing but slap-stick humour only small kids find amusing. His antics frequently undermine more important plot elements and are context-inappropriate. The child Anakin is played largely as a generic “cute kid.” Though the intention is to show an innocent and uncorrupted Vader, before his fall, it seems largely unbelievable and, I feel, a somewhat more solemn and moody performance would have been more appropriate, whilst still maintaining the essential kindness of the character. The pod-racing scene is needlessly long and mainly about George Lucas’ love of Nascar than actual plot or character development.

    My rating: 5/10

    Episode 2: Attack of the Clones

    Pros: Actually shows us a Fett in action. Count Dooku/Darth Tyranus, an intelligent and interesting character and Sith Lord. Some excellent action sequences. Great visuals. Yoda fighting!

    Cons: Whiney and wooden Anakin. Truly horrible ‘romantic’ sub-plot and dialogue.

    The cons number few for me here…. but they are pretty major and jarring cons. Hayden Christensen’s Anakin is not all bad and the angsty teenager approach isn’t inappropriate but where he should have been brooding, moody and troubled the lack of decent dialogue and the rather stunted, awkward portrayal made him seem like a self-deluding, whining, spoilt-brat moron of an adolescent. The ‘romance’ dialogue and scenes are so badly written it’s cringe-worthy and it’s no wonder neither Christensen or Portman could give much to them. But we are given some beautiful and high-energy action sequences from the very first scene and some more snap-shots of the cool Star Wars universe. Jango Fett is suitably cool and shows us the legendary Fett proficiency that, for all his fan-boy followers, Boba Fett never once showed in the OT (unless getting hit in the rocket pack by a blinded Han Solo only to fly screaming into the maw of the Sarlacc makes you ‘cool?’) We also get a very different but still awesome Sith in Christopher Lee’s Darth Tyranus, or Count Dooku; a suave, dashing and intelligent fallen idealist. Oh, and a massive Jedi battle!

    My rating: 6.5/10

    Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith

    Pros: Easily the ‘darkest’ and most weighty Star Wars movie. More lightsaber fights than any other movie, several of them epic! The climactic Fall of Anakin Skywalker. Palpatine/Darth Sidious is AWESOME! Some of the best acting in all 6 movies. Emotive and intense. Great visuals.

    Cons: Watering down of potentially powerful plot elements. Some bad dialogue.

    This is my personal favourite of the whole saga. Yes, one of the PT is my favourite. I rather enjoy Christensen’s Anakin in this installment. Whilst still not the most dynamic of performances he finally delivers the appropriate brooding, moody and troubled Anakin Skywalker one would expect of the noble and innately good young man destined to become Darth Vader. We get a grand total of 5 lightsaber duels (though the Obi Wan VS Grievous battle only just qualifies) of which 2 (Vader VS Kenobi and Yoda VS Sidious) are pretty epic! The acting is an improvement over many of the other movies, the Opera Scene between Palpatine and Anakin is easily the finest piece of acting in all 6 movies. Speaking of Palpatine Ian McDiarmid totally owns the movie, turning in a fantastically over-the-top villainous performance as Darth Sidious; the Sith who would be Emperor. He takes his already definitive performance from Return of the Jedi and turns the volume up double! There are still some weak moments (Anakin and Padme telling each other they love each other more than the other one loves them is pretty bad) and the movie fails to deliver some of the darker moments in true (the Massacre of the Jedi Temple, being the main example.) But I feel there is just such a powerful and tragic gravitas to this movie, neatly encapsulated in moments that truly move me, such as Padme breaking down and the newly christened Darth Vader’s blink-and-you’ll-miss-it teary face as he silently tries to justify all he’s doing on Mustafar. Even the often-parodied dialogue between Vader, Padme and Obi Wan prior to the last epic battle still holds a genuine intensity for me. In spite of its flaws this movie really does tie the PT story up nicely and with power and intensity.

    My rating: 8/10

    Episode 4: A New Hope

    Pros: The original Star Wars that changed the face of cinema! A classic “Lost Prince” adventure story. Visuals were groundbreaking and still stand the test of time. Some great banter.

    Cons: 1 weak lightsaber battle. Some bad dialogue and weak acting. Whiny Luke.

    The original and, I’m sure for many, the best. For me it’s a great movie but not my favourite by a long shot. It is definitely a classic; the time-honoured tale of a young man who feels strangely out of place in his everyday life, constantly staring off into the horizon dreaming of a life beyond his own tiny piece of the universe (and an iconic meme for INFPs everywhere!) He is then, by apparent chance, whisked off on an adventure where he discovers his remarkable origins and potential. What isn’t awesome and relatable about that for any slightly misfit kid out there? We are given action and adventure, set to the never-failing backdrop of a small band of good guys combatting the oppressive tyranny of a seemingly unbeatable foe. Star Wars has barely aged and the characters remain as distinctive as ever. It’s not without its flaws, though. Lucas’ writing verges of hackneyed at times (“I should have recognised your foul stench when I came on board”) and Luke is at least as whiny as Episode 2 Anakin. For me David Prowse in the Darth Vader outfit occasionally shows his lack of acting experience even without his voice (thankfully not used. There are few accents more inappropriate for Darth Vader than a West Country accent!) His movements are sometimes forced and deliberate making Vader look a little goofy. Nevertheless many of the flaws add to the charm (a gesture not extended to the PT by hypocritical hard-core fan-boys) and A New Hope still remains a cinema classic.

    My rating: 7/10

    Episode 5: The Empire Strikes Back

    Pros: Everything apart from the rubbish, generic-voiced monkey-Emperor in the original release.

    Cons: The rubbish generic-voiced monkey-Emperor in the original release.

    Revenge of the Sith may be my personal favourite but Empire follows not far behind… and is, objectively speaking, probably the superior movie. I really can’t find much to fault about it. The acting and dialogue have improved since A New Hope and the banter and chemistry between the characters is unmatched by any other Star Wars movie. The quality of the combat has improved, as evidenced by Luke and Vader’s climactic confrontation that, whilst lacking the kinetic intensity of the PT, often feels more urgent and atmospheric. Vader is at his best in this movie; Prowse’s physical performance is much better than before and James Earl Jones’ vocals are much more menacing. Simple scenes, such as seeing Vader’s scarred head partially exposed in his life support chamber, and his merciless Force Choking of inept Imperial Officers are iconic and contribute hugely to his character. Han and Leia are on top form as they bicker through their mutual attraction and the classic “I love you. I know” line sums them up brilliantly. Luke is no longer whiny and has matured into a pretty cool hero; still something of the idealistic dreamer but resolute, determined and loyal. His inability to leave his friends in danger and impetuous, emotional reactions resonate with me strongly and set the redemption theme into motion. We get to see much more of the Star Wars universe, form the slimy mud-hole of Dagobah to the always distinctive Cloud City on Bespin. This movie gives us Yoda and his sagely (if sanctimonious) wisdom and of course the enduring “I am you father” scene. This movie is awesome! My only gripe is the briefly-seen lame-ass Emperor; created via superimposing chimpanzee eyes onto an old woman’s face and given a generic English accent. None of the distinctiveness of the true McDiarmid Emperor is found here and I cannot watch the original theatrical release anymore due to this weak mock-up of what would become one of Star Wars’ most iconic characters. Not all the re-edits were bad, fan-boys! There’s no way this crappy Emperor is preferable to McDiarmid’s classic performance!

    My rating: 9/10

    Episode 6: Return Of The Jedi

    Pros: The first 45 mins of the movie. The Emperor. The grand finale. Cool set pieces.

    Cons: EWOKS! A somewhat subdued climax, given that the entire saga builds to this point.

    I’m torn with this movie more than any other. On one hand we have an excellent opening adventure, with Leia, Chewie, Lando and Luke all attempting to rescue Han from Jabba’s clutches. We see Luke in full-on Jedi Mode and Jabba and his palace of weirdos is another compelling flash of the greater Star Wars universe. The action scene above the Sarlacc, as the rescue plan is finally put into operation, is one of my favourite scenes in all the movies (and both are examples of bad re-edits. The song and dance number from Sly Snootles is unnecessary and purely a “look what we can do with CG characters” moment. The Sarlacc was far more menacing without the beak…. and don’t even mention the stupid ‘burp’ after it swallows Boba Fett. Urgh….) Ian McDiarmid’s Palpatine makes his first chronological appearance in Jedi and creates a classic villain rarely bettered in terms of pure, vindictive malice and out-and-out bastardry. The scenes between Luke and Vader are compelling, as the menacing Darth Vader begins to show signs of his former identity when faced with the potential loss of his son leading to the final climactic battle and redemption. But those goddamn ewoks! How I loath them. I hate them more than Jar Jar, honestly, because at least Jar Jar, for all his annoying buffoonery, played no major role in the defet of a previously invincible-seeming Empire. It is utterly unbelievable, given the power we have been led to believe the Empire possesses, that a band of primitive sentient teddy bears could tip the scales in favour of the Rebellion. It undermines the entire plot and, for me, is possibly the worst thing about all 6 movies, alongside the romance dialogue and Jar Jar. The idea that the original concept was for it to be Kashyyyk, and Wookiees, is even more irritating as Wookiees would have made a suitable enemy. The cutesy whimsy of the Ewoks jars with the dark and profound finale as Luke confronts Palpatine and helps his father realise his destiny. Other than them, a good movie, though I might also say the final battles (both Luke VS Vader and The Battle of Endor) feel a little too tame and not quite frantic enough for a finale.

    My rating: 6.5/10

    Prequel Trilogy Average Score: 6.5/10    Original Trilogy Average Score: 8/10

    So, in rounding up, I would objectively state the OT is a better body of work than the PT. However it is not such a massive gulf in quality as the resentful Lucas-bashing fan-boys try to state. I have personally concluded that the polarising reactions towards the 2 trilogies are a result of these factors:

    George Lucas’ status
    It is well known that Harrison Ford told Lucas something to the effect of “George. You can write this shit but you sure as hell can’t say it.” Lucas does not seem to be a great writer. Rather I see him as a visionary, a conceptual master. He likes to imagine and create but he’s not that adept at the human side; characterisation and dialogue. When Lucas made the OT he was not a big name and the actors are said to have improvised much of their performances. When the PT was made he was a big name. He was George Lucas, creator of Star Wars. Few probably argued with him and he probably felt more assured in his own methodology. For this reason I think the PT suffer to a degree; less creative control outside of Lucas himself. Also it is worth noting that Empire and Jedi were not directed by Lucas. Hope and the PT were. Lucas himself has stated he is somewhat impatient and does not enjoy the directing side as much as he does the production, the putting things together, away from the lights, the actors and the lines. Reports from actors on all 6 movies suggest they were very difficult to work on and the likes of Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher have been just as critical of the movies as Ewan McGregor and Liam Neeson.

    Expectations
    No one expected anything from Star Wars when it was first released. It shocked and awed and brought something new and vibrant to the screen. When Phantom Menace was released everyone expected so much (and, no doubt, entirely different things) that it was almost bound to be panned. You don’t have to have Jedi foresight to have seen that coming and anyone who slates the movie without first looking at it objectively and not through the lens of their own expectations is pretty dim-witted. Star Wars had 20 years to build a following and everyone in that time would have devise their own ideas on how things had gone prior to the events of A New Hope. Everyone had their own idea of how Obi Wan and Anakin met, how the Clone Wars began and went, how Yoda would have fought, how Anakin fell to the Darkside, ad infinitum. People were bound to bitch and whine that the events that played out didn’t fit their own personal visions and that is just tough. Lucas devised it, it’s his story and it goes how he says. I may disagree with him on certain issues (Ewoks) but I don’t swear off the movies or hate on their creator just because I disagree with certain creative stances. If you hate so much about Star Wars then stop calling yourself a fan and go do something else.

    Nostalgia and Bias
    Perhaps the biggest factor, I feel, is this last one. Most of the harshest critics of the PT were people who saw the OT as kids. One views a movie in a much different light as a child. It is much easier to have your imagination stirred, to suspend your disbelief, to get lost in the story and you don’t find things annoying, you find them funny! The 10 year old who saw Star Wars on its 1977 release would have seen the Phantom Menace’s release, in 1999, at the age of 32. There’s a big difference in viewing experiences right there. To consider that you’re 10-year-old viewing of A New Hope was as balanced and objective as your 32-year-old viewing of The Phantom Menace is ridiculous. Anyone who first saw the OT as a child and later viewed the PT after the age of 14 or so cannot make such a claim. Even as an adult a Star Wars fan will still be able to exercise a form of cognitive dissonance when viewing the OT, allowing the lens of nostalgia to slip and finding themselves able to overlook the flaws present in those films. But as a conceited adult, assured of their own intellectual superiority, they were far more likely to be critical about the PT thus their opinions on the 2 trilogies are entirely biased and unbalanced. When the generation that viewed the prequels as young children grows up maybe we can ask them which they prefer and they will say the Prequels, lacking the nostalgia for the OT our generation feels but possessing it for the PT. Or there are always the opinions of people as yet unexposed to Star Wars but who can view them all as a full 6 part saga. I would bet money that those people would not understand the huge fuss over the perceived ‘quality gap’ between PT and OT.

    So those are my thoughts on the Star Wars movies. In the end I love Star Wars and, whilst I can acknowledge the flaws in the whole saga, I enjoy what is, overall, a time-honoured tale of light and dark, fall and redemption, a reflection of the very essence of humanity, a modern mythos portraying universal themes set against a rich and vivid universe. Whilst I do believe the OT edges the PT in overall quality I have no respect for the unreasoned and reactionary opinions that the PT is terrible. I would encourage anyone who cares about Star Wars to watch all the movies as though it were their first time, paying no heed to the biases of personal nostalgia and fashionable opinion. Star Wars is flawed but awesome. In many ways, regardless of the technical proficiency with which the films are pulled off, it is Star Wars as a symbol, as a mythology, that ultimately draws us in and that can be enjoyed throughout the saga, if we only let ourselves.

    X

February 5, 2011

  • Built To Last!

    I’m seized by the urge to write something but I don’t know what. It’s ironic that I have several unpublished updates on the go but don’t feel quite like rounding them off just yet so here I am with plenty being written but unable to think of anything to write right now. I guess I’ll just go with some thoughts I’ve had lately and a bit of news.


    Thoughts on suicide: I’ve seen a couple of posts about suicide lately. They often go the whole “suicide is selfish and cowardly” route and this pisses me off. Look, suicide is in no way a good thing. It’s sad, terrible and tragic and we should do whatever we can do to prevent it from happening. But this sanctimonious emotional blackmail really irritates me. People depressed and disillusioned enough to actively feel able to circumvent the most potent of human instincts (survival) and end their own life are clearly in a fragile and broken state of mind. The last thing they need is for some un-empathic asshole coming along and making them feel even worse about being the person they are than they already do. This, in my mind, is the worst kind of hypocrisy and self-righteousness. The person in question rarely is willing to put in the work to actually help and encourage the depressed party back to a healthy mindset. No, they are usually taking the “get over it” approach I addressed in my previous update. “Social norms dictate I disapprove of your course of action but I’m in no way willing to sacrifice my own selfish interests to help. Instead I’ll hand you some sanctimonious platitude that does no one any good in a shallow attempt to guilt you out of doing something socially unacceptable.” The way I see it if you have the time to chip in with your opinion you should be willing to follow through and back it up with real action. “It is easier to point the finger than lend a helping hand,” as the proverb goes. If you don’t think it’s your responsibility to aid this person then neither is it your responsibility to offer your opinion. Put up or shut up.


    Thoughts on multiculturalism: I’m very much an advocate of multiculturalism. Living in Japan many foreigners, particularly from the big Western powers, express frustration at Japan’s at best naively uninformed, at worst ignorantly xenophobic, approach to the outside world and the forced conformity and homogeneity of its people. Diversity and multiculturalism are not expressly embraced in Japan, rather this casually racist ivory-tower sense of “being Japanese” is lauded over the nation. It’s getting much better but there is still a long way to go. However, in conversation with some friends the other night, we questioned if this is really what we want to see from Japan. Part of what attracts many foreigners to Japan is its fiercely maintained sense of culture. Its oasis of distinct “Japaneseness” amidst an increasingly globalised world. In some way we gaikoku no hito are as fanatically pro-isolationist as some of the most right-wing Japanese. It gets to the level where we get all territorial when seeing an unknown foreigner on the streets, the hairs on our back standing on end like a cat seeing another cat in its backyard. In light of the multiculturalisation of Western nations like the UK, the US, Canada and Australia (OK, Australia’s not geographically ‘western’ but you know what I mean) it’s hard not to argue that multiculturalism does dilute existing cultures, their uniqueness dissolving into the melting pot often to be replaced with a none-distinct, generic, modernist form of ad-hoc ‘culture.’ But at the same time culture is never meant to be immutable. Is wanting to preserve another nation’s culture for our own whimsical interest not just a rather patronising form of anthropological reasoning? Is it not better to promote equality, exchanges of ideas and understanding over the essentially indulgent interests of culture and tradition? Are multiculturalism and culture mutually exclusive? Can a balance not be struck in which we strip down the prejudices and willful ignorances of isolationism but also maintain a country’s cultures and traditions for all to enjoy? Any thoughts?

     

    And now the news. My car came off the road 2 weeks ago. I’d resolved not to make that information public (so no Facebook) but barely anyone reads this thing anyway so what the hell. I had gone to the gym (who says exercise is good for your health?) after work and was coming back at around 7 pm. My base school (where I was at that day) is up in the mountains and it gets seriously cold during the winter months. We’d had a lot of snowfall lately but the roads seemed ok that night. There is one stretch of road, however, that winds across several mountain sides and goes over a dam above a reservoir. It’s pretty windy and goes through a couple of tunnels. I had just exited the first tunnel and took a sharp left. Something seemed ‘up’ with the car as I came out of the turn, like the steering wheel wasn’t working. The road, it turned out, was covered in a layer of ice and the car was sliding. I kinda wrestled with the car, using the Force to keep it under control (by which I mean turning into the spins and easing down the brake) and generally trying to curb the loss of control. The car kinda pin-balled about the road a bit, span round and slammed into the mountain-side barrier, flipped 180 degrees and facing the way I’d come. All very exciting! Fortunately no other drivers were involved and the car still seemed to be in working order. When the traffic (and adrenalin) had died down I 3-point turned to try and get the car off the road. It then became evident I had a puncture in my front-right tyre and the car once again slid like a hockey puck into the road side, coming to a halt in the same position it had been in prior, facing the opposite direction, only further up the road. This is where I thought “fuck this” and got out. The car was still largely undamaged; the impact had been absorbed entirely by the front-right wheel which was totalled! Of course this had to be during a week where the phone company had graciously cut my mobile for some trifling matter of a missed payment for December so I had little choice but to try and flag down a passer-by and ask them to call the police. This being Japan few people are willing to put their neck out for another unless some culturally enforced social convention dictates they must do so. However I was fortunate in that many of the teachers from my school were coming home at this time. Slowing down as he passed I caught the eye of the Social Studies teacher. He registered it was me and stopped to lend a hand. Later he was joined by the kyomushunin (I’m not sure how to translate that. It’s a uniquely Japanese position, the 3rd in charge at the school. The guy who sets the timetables and stuff.) They both received cakes from me last week by way of my appreciation. Another guy, who accidentally bumped my car as he was passing, also stopped to help. He even bought me apology cakes later on, despite the fact both of our cars were merely scuffed from the slight impact. Anyway our evening was spent in the freezing cold coordinating traffic, dealing with the police, getting the spare tyre on the car and pulling it off the road. Since then the car has been refitted with a new tyre and is working fine. I was none the worse for wear for my little accident, though would have happily accepted serious injury on the condition of being rebuilt with cybernetic enhancements, like Ninja Raiden in Metal Gear Solid 4.

     X “Let it bleed, let it freeze and fall apart in front of me…”

January 7, 2011

  • Bend And Not Break!

    “Sounds like me.”

    This is what I said when I first heard an archetypical ‘emo kid’ described. I was 24 at the time and that was where it all started. Being a few months shy of 31 now the idea of being ‘emo’ is balked at by most. Hell, whatever your age it gets a negative reaction. I’m not gonna go into another one of my lengthy diatribes on how the term ‘emo’ is misappropriated but simply put I kinda have an ‘emo personality.’ What I mean by that is all those attributes people assign to ‘emo kids’ (hyper-sensitivity/emotionality, excessive introspection, depressive tendencies, brooding, somewhat ‘weird,’ low self-esteem, taking things too personally/seriously, etc.) are a pretty distinct part of me. They were there long before ‘emo’ became the latest teen fashion statement and will be there long after it fades to black. That’s my point; some people genuinely possess those traits. It’s not an act, it’s not a fake display to fit some ‘scene.’ It’s not some teenage faze. It’s just who you are. So, for me, finding the Emo Scene was cathartic; finally something that essentially embraced all those characteristics I’d been trying to hide. A place where people thought and felt along the same lines as I did and enjoyed music for the same reasons I did. The fashion was always an after-thought for me, something I embraced as a ‘look’ if I liked it and didn’t if I didn’t. After all, if ‘emo kids’ are meant to be “deep and introspective” and largely about a certain approach to, and enjoyment of, music surely the superficialities of fashion would be a relatively small, voluntary extra within the scene, right…? Yeah, that’s not how it’s viewed these days, I know. ‘Emo’ became a look, a fashion, and thus the antithesis of its inherent meaning.

    As usual, I digress. My point is that some people are ‘emo.’ Actually ‘emo.’ Not fakers or phonies trying to be cool. Not fly-by-night teenagers getting sucked into the latest fad only to ditch it in a few years for the next. There are people who possess those oft. maligned traits that people think of as ‘emo.’ I’m pretty much one of those people. Naturally (I feel) I ended up gravitating towards ‘emo music’ (again, a term misapplied these days based off of ‘a look.’ I’m talking bands rooted in punk, hardcore and/or alternative rock who eschew the macho bullshit traditionally associated with rock music in favour of poetic, heart-on-sleeve, intensely introspective content with unabashed vulnerability.) As such I felt at home thinking of myself as ‘emo,’ though it has become increasingly frustrating for me to have to explain why I do so to everyone who’s awareness of ‘emo’ has been coloured entirely by MTV and fashion trends. I’m a grown-up with a full-time job, a car, an apartment. I pay bills, I do all that stuff grown-ups do. But I am who I am, inside. That ain’t gonna change. I guess what I’m trying to say here is this; I am not one of these poser-ass kids. I know myself and have lived long enough to know what is the real me and what is just a fad. Age irrespective, I still embrace ‘emo’ with 2/3rds genuine attachment to a meaningful interpretation of the term, before it was butchered by mainstream media and hordes of shallow teens, and 1/3rd ironic self-mockery.

    As usual, I digress, even after acknowledging I was digressing in the previous paragraph. What I really wanna get at is two-fold. First, I generally feel the need to heavily restrain my ‘emo tendencies’ for the sake of others. But it is in my nature to get pretty damn moody, sad, withdrawn, self-pitying and highly introspective at times and those moods will take me at times. Which brings me to my second point. Think about why people hate ‘emo kids.’ I’ve already documented the dislike of fakers, which I too share. These are not ‘emo kids’ anyway, but simply posers. But whether they fake it or are genuine the dislike often springs from a contempt for the self-pity and bleak wallowing ‘emos’ indulge in when they are perceived to possess no real problems in their lives. If the person is genuinely ‘emo’ they will often be beset by feelings and emotions in a way others aren’t and that, coupled with their introverted, introspective nature, results in what, to the outside observer, looks like maudlin self-pity which people loose patience with. No one likes negativity, after all.

    But this attitude, I feel, is not entirely fair. Society these days seems to be under the grip of a kinda deliberate insensitivity. The “get over it” era. As is often the case this is an unthinking, unreasoned reaction against a prior movement, in this case the ‘touchy-feely’ sensitivity-training, even-dogs-have-therapists movement of the late 90s/early 00s. It tends to happen. A problem in society is addressed, a group of fair-minded, intelligent people start to put together an action plan to combat it. But people, arrogantly and conceitedly clinging to their prejudices and intolerances and hating to be told to reconsider the way they think and act, eventually start to react against what they perceive as a form of ‘thought control’ in some infantile attempt at rebellion, much as a 2 year old screams “NO” at any request or suggestion from its parents. Don’t get me wrong; I am aware the Politically Correct folks also have a tendency to stop rationalising and start being moronic; wrapping society up in cotton wool and bubble-wrap cos, God forbid, anyone experience anything that might infringe on their delicate sensibilities. But the appropriate response to extreme silliness is not a knee-jerk reaction toward opposing extreme silliness. Back to the ‘emo’ thing. Some people are just very sensitive, emotionally volatile, prone to internalising and being dark and moody and all that jazz. It’s just how some people are. I am in no way saying that society should indulge and treat with kid gloves every poor soul that does cry over split milk. But, as with anything, the opposite reaction is equally as moronic. Slinging around “get over it” essentially means “I don’t care about anyone’s issues but my own and I don’t wanna know or help.” A kind of “Emotional Conservatism/Republicanism.” The ‘Not In My Back Yard’ approach to human relations.

    The sad fact with most people is they want things quick and easy. They don’t like to think or spend time on stuff. When it comes to emotional or psychological issues people just want it dealt with instantly and, more specifically, without it bothering them personally. Go watch an episode of Dr. Phil or something and see when he gets the biggest cheer. I guarantee it’ll be when he dolls out some ‘straight-shooting’ TV-friendly soundbite rather than when he gets down to some serious psychiatry. But real life is not quick and real answers rarely come in soundbites. We all have our breaking points. I’m in no way saying these people don’t need to help themselves. They most certainly do and my sympathy is also short for people who never take responsibility for their own lives. But no man is an island either and there is only so much a person can take. That may vary from person to person, depending on what their particular triggers are. In such instances people may need to cry, to vent, to make whiny blog posts or woeful Facebook statuses or whatever. They may need a bit of empathy and understanding. As I’ve said I try to keep that stuff to a minimum; I know negativity is not the most appealing of traits. I certainly don’t mean to be negative or drag others down. I frequently feel guilty for the outbursts and woeful venting my closer friends must sometimes endure and I deeply regret how much I’ve worried them in the past with my more extreme self-destructive behaviour. But we all need catharsis and empathy sometimes. People suffer through things, but it’s not really for us to judge what is and isn’t ‘worthy of sadness’ for other people. We are all different and are affected by different things in different ways. Some of us have depressive personalities, are genetically predisposed towards melancholy in a way that may be beguiling to others. For those of us that this is a genuine issue for we do fight hard to overcome it and check ourselves frequently to avoid being the self-absorbed emo stereotype we know people often can’t stand. But at the same time a person can’t just ignore and bury their feelings just cos it might be bothersome for those around us. You can’t always rise above and put on a happy face just to spare those around from a potential buzz-kill. Constant, unchecked self-pity isn’t good and shouldn’t be indulged. But to react with impatience, intolerance or to outright ignore/avoid helping another with their hurts is just as bad.

    Here’s one of my favourite Simpsons episodes which kinda illustrates what I’m saying.

    The Simpson 106 – Moaning Lisa – Watch more Videos at Vodpod.

    So spare some patience for us Real Life Emos who aren’t all attention-seeking melodrama and teenage posturing. We’re just wired that way. X

     

January 2, 2011

  • The Wonderful Future!

    New year, new update. I don’t like to make resolutions in the sense of compiling a list to which I endeavor to hold my self accountable to but never do. But I do like to have goals. One for this year could be to update my xanga more and care about other people’s xangas less. Especially the front page and the Featured Content. But just for shits and giggles lets take a look, shall we?

    Creating Fake Xanga Sites

    This one’s from Dan. You know, Dan. Yes, Dan. You see I don’t know him or anything and have only briefly engaged his person on the occasional visits to his page but calling him Dan makes me feel like I’m part of the xanga elite and may even get me hits from people searching for Dan and talking about Dan. Dan. Dan. Dan. Dan. Dan. 

    Dan! 

     

    (Alan Partridge. Yes.)

     

    Oh.. yeah. People make xangas? Do they? OK.

    Our New Years Eve Break… something, something..

    Low-Born wrote this one. Change the channel.

    My Xanga Crush

    A xanga crush…? Sounds awesome and fascinating. Actually it doesn’t. 

    Do You Believe Numbers Have Meanings?

    Yeah. 1 means…. one. 2 means two. And so on. Seriously, though. No, I don’t. I believe humans, in our anthropo-centricity (I makeupwords.com. It’s not a real website. I made that up too) try to assign intent and meaning to every vague coincidence and overtly favourable or unfavourable occurrence because we arrogantly assume that only the very human process of thought-intent-action can be responsible for every process that occurs in the universe. Processes which, often, only become retroactively meaningful based on how directly they affect us personally.

    OK, that resolution hasn’t started yet. Now it has. So, kinda a weird start to the New Year for me. I have not seen or spoken to another human being in person for the whole of 2011 so far. I have not left my apartment, have been sleeping weird hours and spend most of my time in my pyjamas. The deal right now is that there’s no one around. Matt and Dani upped and moved from Toki to Kamiyashiro, close to their work at NUFS. Matt then gets a role in this little indie movie filming in Nagoya and is scheduled to be on set every day due to the film’s four-week shooting time! Most of the peeps around here have upped and left for travels or are newlyweds (I don’t need to elaborate there) and everyone else I love is in another prefecture or country. Contrary to expectations and experience I’m not down, though. I’ve been on a bit of a mental workout. Firstly I signed up for Lumosity‘s free trial. It’s a ridiculously addictive brain-training site with a bunch of simple but challenging IQ-testy type games designed to get your cerebral faculties working. When I can drag myself away from the brain-games I’ve been getting some writing done, over on my other, secret, “creative space” xanga. (It’s not really secret. It’s just no one ever goes there so it feels secret.) Been getting more of my story underway and some of my typically bleak, amateurish poetry written. Usually I’ll have some music on for the writing; currently listening to Texas Is The Reason, Thrice, Get Up Kids, New Found Glory and 30 Seconds To Mars in no particular order. I’ve been eating relatively little and in small, mouthful sized meals and kicking back to some Star Wars: Clone Wars (despite my prior low expectations and disappointment with the pilot movie the TV series is actually pretty good!) whilst I eat, which also inspires my story as it is, after all, a Star Wars fan-fic. based on the RPG Sarv, Holly, Calex and I played back at NUFS five years ago.

    Five years ago… Jeez….

    A lot of thoughts and feelings flying about my internal self, as ever. All very deep and broody and existential, I assure you. But now’s not the time. Although I do need to remind myself that this online journalling thing is for me rather than about entertaining others. Another hindrance to regular writing. Clock that reminder up as a tentative resolution, if I’m making them.

    One more; get back to signing off with meaning-ambiguous song lyrics, like I used to. Done.

    X “Hey now. You can’t keep saying endlessly, “my darling.” How long until this affects me..?