This is going to be disappointing...

Alright, a quick post just so I can say I didn't take this weekend off.

First and foremost, not only thank you for your post, Jana, but also - thanks for leading me right into where I wanted to take this topic...what is up with the government bailout?  How does this even make sense?  Why should tax payers have to pay for a multinational corporation's screw up?  How is that our responsibility and how would them going out of business fatally wound our crippled economy?  Ever think maybe our economy is sinking faster than the Titanic because our national debt has nearly doubled in the past 10 years?  Or we're now apparently encouraging failure and rewarding incompetence?  Hopefully by next weekend, I'll have read a bit more on the bailout and come back better informed, but in the meantime, take a look at TMQ's take on the subject here and here.

I agree completely that it seems that the current generation stepping into power is better at pointing the finger of blame than actually solving any problems and that doesn't bode well for the future.

I have a lot more to add, but my mind isn't focusing as of this moment.  My apologies.  Hopefully I'll be more concious later.  Ta.

seven, eight, nine...then seven, eight, ten

I'll respond to that. I don't know that I would use the term dumbing down. It seems like it is more of a complacency. Children these days aren't taught respect because people tell them that they are smart and capable and don't need to listen to their elders. They therefore never learn the value of what has come before them. 

I have experienced this first hand. I have watched a group of capable, intelligent people completely ruin something that was working just fine before they got there. Nothing changed about the setting and the group other than the people making it up. And yet, when it came time to be in charge these people spent more time blaming each other than trying to deal with the problems before them and fix things.

So I don't know what to call it but there is a self-destruction going on within society. Hopefully I'll be back to respond to this again later.

Idiocricy

Good evening all. Short post this evening, and my apologies for taking this past weekend off.  So my quick question tonight, which hopefully sparks a bit of conversation - are we, as a society, dumbing down?  And if so, can we take any consolation in the knowledge of this fact?  As if conciously reducing our intelligence, as a society, somehow cancels out the negative aspect of this concept.  Discuss.

Night.

Kensey - you'll be sorely missed, you were one of the good ones...

Good evening everybody.

In today's edition I hope to touch on, among other things...love and attraction (probably the first of a series here) and a return to horror movies.

First and foremost, let's throw out a good quote to get things rolling; “When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” - Sinclair Lewis

Second, my list of approved horror movies. I am planning on going more in depth with all of these over the course of the next couple of posts (I have to rent a few of them to jog my memory a bit). These are presented in chronological order, although I don't know if I'll elaborate on them in this order.

1. Strangers on a Train (1951)
2. Psycho (1960) - see also: Silence of the Lambs (1991)
3. Last House on the Left (1972)
4. Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)
5. Jaws (1975)
6. Carrie (1976)
7. Suspiria (1977)
8. Halloween (1978)
9. Friday the 13th (1980)
10. The Shining (1980)
11. Children of the Corn (1984)
12. Scream (1996)
13. The Blair Witch Project (1999)
14. House of 1000 Corpses (2003)
15. Saw (2003)

Honorable Mentions:
1. The Exorcist (1973)
2. Child's Play (1988)
3. The Sixth Sense (1999) - see also: The Village (2004)

So there you have it - 15 arguments for horror movies. As I mentioned, I'll get down and dirty in the details at a later date.

Moving on...what attracts us to another human being? And how does that attraction eventually translate into love? For instance, when you first look at someone, while I'm never one to believe in "love in first sight", as it were, but with some people there is that definite immediate attraction that is undeniable. And from that point we can ask ourselves - is it purely physical or subconsciously can we read something deeper? I think the root of all attraction is based in values, and I think part of us can see that in other people, whether it be how they carry themselves or how they speak or their mannerisms, to even how they stylize themselves (hair, clothing, accessories). Therefore, is the sensation of "love at first sight" the result of a spot read or am I looking too far into it and it really is just all physical? I ask this because there are some girls who I look at and think to myself, "that is an attractive person." However, on the flip side, that I look at some and think to myself, "I'm attracted to this person." What's the difference? What makes that difference? Is it a simple matter of realizing societies expectations of what is attractive/unattractive in a female versus my own personal physical preferences (I can actually tell you the precise features I find most attractive, if anyone cares)? How does this initial attraction or lack thereof play into the concept of love?

Also, I have a continued thought on the previous post which I think I left open...Gary said, "...(The prisoners dilemma is a great example of how being selfish will catch you out. )" - now he put this merely as an afterthought, then I ignored it completely, but I think this is an important point that needs to be made upon reevaluation. As Michael mentioned, it is the responsibility of the government, in Rand's capitalist society, to protect against monopolies created through force or coercion. This policy would also trickle down to the individual level and criminals. Stealing is a method of physical force which would need to be stopped. I believe that Gary is taking 'selfish' in the literal sense to have no regard for other's...this is a common misconception. To be selfish is not necessarily to have little or no thoughts for others, but rather, act on what is best for one's self in the aspect of what is most beneficial to you without resorting to violence or 'bullying' techniques, as these would be more harmful to society than beneficial. At the moment, I'm not exactly sure of the words I'm searching for, so I'll leave it at that. My apologies for my lack of wordiness at the moment.

That's what I have for you folks tonight - discuss and respond, all input is appreciated...I'm starting to feel like a crazy person again, always talking to myself. Cheers.

My Reply

This is my response to the conversation found here - Cheaters. Enjoy.

"The trouble I have always found (prepare yourself for a socialist paragraph) is that parents never have time to sit down and play with their kids – like board games. When both the parents have to go out & work full time to pay the bills, it’s not as if they can come home and spend time with the children. Even if they do have the evening free, all they want to do is flop down on the sofa and watch TV. In this, I reckon that you were very luckily to spend time with your family as a child playing board games – that’s what I really like about the US, is that people have a good attitude toward the family – I kind of got that vibe from Boogieman and other southerners that were in our tribe in RIP. In Britain, not much emphasis is put on bringing up children – probably another ailment of an increasingly secular society. "

I wouldn't get off the mark thinking family is the major asset of the American cultural landscape. More often than not, our lifestyles are dictated by our jobs first and foremost, and like you mentioned - adults get home and crash on the couch to watch TV. I'm attempting to get out of that habit (although the computer is my vice, not the TV), trying to walk the dogs more, etc...but it's not easy. Society as a whole has started to promote group, physical activity - or at least doing something other than sitting and watching passively, but I've seen little to no difference in the lifestyles of those around me. The fact that I was able to sit around with my brothers' and play board games as a youngster was probably more a telling of the times than anything else. We didn't have a Nintendo yet or anything, so really, on rainy days - what options were there but to play board games? I've just kind of carried that fondness and excitement with me because I'm nostalgic and somewhat childlike, so it says nothing of our society as a whole.

"I have to say that personally I have a very low regard for the virulent, unscrupulous, and sometimes violent multinational companies that seek to force their ‘freedom’ upon us. This links into my hatred of ‘free’ markets, contractualist ethics, and rampant individualism. =)

"In this, I have little or no sympathy for western capitalism and democracy, depending on my mood. "

First and foremost, I think you're confusing yourself a bit in that you are somewhat arguing for contractual ethics, in that the governed are of course willing participants in any government intervention whereas in a truly free society, such intervention would be non-existent...at least to my understanding of it. Also, I'm in no way encouraging the bullying techniques of some of the world's largest companies...I'd say it is without doubt, the responsibility of the world's governments to protect companies from each other. However, the only time that intervention would be necessary is if, indeed, unfair play is suspected. It is not the responsibility of the government to balance the scales, however, if one company is just plan better than it's opposition - innovate, expand, improve...those are the keys of success, not begging the government to help you. Lobbyists are a direct result of the government's interference within the economic landscape and those people are just parasites on this world.

"I’ll explain my point of view of what the government should be, which may help to explain my view. I regard the government as a doctor, sent in to cure society’s illnesses. There is no place for ‘managerial’ government, where the government seeks to administrate the markets, and to solve disputes, making sure that all stick to a social contract. My ideal government would be in the business of leadership, giving society a series of projects that all aspire to achieve – and it’s not to ban smoking in public places!! (Done a couple of years ago here). The Atlee government of 1945-49 is a good example of the kind of government that should be in power. Pity they got voted out by a selfish and ignorant British public. The government should also be a cultural elite, not the richest candidate."

I agree with a lot of points you made here, in particular that the government's duty is to help an ailing society, not necessarily run it. People, more often than not, can be pretty impressive when left to their own devices and should be allowed to do so as often as possible. However, when you get into the government project direction, we start to differ. Societies have a way of righting their own ship when heading down a bumpy road, for instance the increased awareness of environmentalism in the workplace. The United States government has done very little in terms of setting any sort of plan or even legislation encouraging companies to clean up, despite many scientists globally, behind those sentiments. However, we've been seeing a recent run of companies aggressively cleaning up their operations. This is simple economics - it's cheaper to produce less waste, that makes perfect sense, but it applies to pollution as well. All pollution is just that...waste, the more you eliminate, the more efficient your work processes.

Then you have the dieing American car companies (GM and Ford). Foreign cars are doing much better in the market because of their insistence on good gas mileage and less emissions. This follows that same concept - for the consumer, it's more cost efficient because they can go further while buying less gas, and for the company because they are selling more cars this way. They are generally, also cheaper up front (both to make and to the consumer), so it's a win all around for these car companies. Ford and GM and now scrounging to catch up with this seemingly obvious advance in the industry. My biggest issue, after reading up on the Labor Party and the Atlee Government, is that a nationalizing industries was considered good practice. This leads me to my picture perfect government...

While it may be different in the UK, our government is extremely inefficient. Everything goes through four or five agencies, it's all bureaucratic time wastes, but necessary because they are indeed the government. So I think the government should be in charge of the non-profitable needs of society - namely police, firemen, limited education and health care. The government should also operate entities who watch the other industries to protect society as a whole, not individual companies. Things like roads and prisons can be operated by private companies, with lower costs and more overhead than the present systems in place, all while under the watchful eye of a government protector. Education should be viewed as a business, from the standpoint of administration. The best schools should get the most money, because they provide the best end product - currently, in America, there is a system of giving the most money to the public schools that struggle the most. This is encouraging failure! This is supporting a system that is leaving our children behind. If a company had a department that failed to meet any of their targets, they wouldn't get more money to help them through this tough time - the whole team would be sacked instantly and replaced! Health care should be provided, free of charge, to everyone. That being said, I think that private practices must still be encouraged to operate. If one goes entirely free, than a hospital overload (see Canada) is likely. On the converse, if one goes entirely private - most citizens can no longer afford to be healthy. Therefore, standard medical treatment should be available to all members of society, regardless of social standing, but at the same time - those who can afford it, may go into the private sector and find their own care. This is by no means a perfect system, especially when discussing health care, but it's a work in progress...I'll alter that as I think more and more about it.

"As for individualism as a theory, I believe it’s inherently flawed. It believes that all have free will, and are able to float about with nothing but self interest, determining their action. Its ignores the important point that humans are not individuals, but are social beings – they live in groups, they always have, and always will. Humans are like ants – one is absolutely useless, but taken as a whole, are a strong being. Humans are not like cats, which are indeed creatures that relay on themselves, and only on themselves. In this, it can be said that humans that are selfish are dysfunctional humans – for they are not contributing anything to the group, and thus everyone, including themselves, will suffer. (The prisoners dilemma is a great example of how being selfish will catch you out. )"

I could not agree less with this statement. I believe that all individuals have complete free will and all actions do stem directly from self interest. While humans are indeed social beings, we are in the end - individual beings. A person is perfectly capable of surviving on their own as they are in a society. We do not require one another to survive and require only one person of the opposite gender in order to procreate and continue society (although any further generations would obviously need more participation). An ant, on it's own, will likely survive a day or two, because it will find food and water, but will ultimately die without the protection and shelter offered by their hill. Humans, on the other hand, can survive alone in the wilderness indefinitely - we are capable of producing our own shelter, defending ourselves, foraging for food and water, and probably would even find some downtime to improve our primitive ways of life. That being said, I don't think there's any doubt that humans have much more potential of wealthy survival in the constructs of modern society, that society was a result of individuals realizing the potential of specialization ages ago and utilizing it. 

I'm going to use Tribal Wars a metaphor here, if you don't mind. A single village is like a person, give or take, and to start...this is a mixed village. It has to defend itself, so it produces defensive troops. In order for continued survival, however, expansion is necessary - so one needs to produce offensive troops as well. This is a decent system - this village, an a network of village designed in a similar way, would do well...for awhile. However, if the villages specialize (after the first one, this is a necessary side step, unfortunately) - one can defend both, while the other insures continue growth and expansion by producing only offensive troops. This exponentially improves the potential both village have of success. Therefore, it is in the best interest of village A, to produce defense while it is in the best interest of village B, to produce offense. It is also in the best interest of society. To kind of conclude this point - what is best for the individual, is also best for society as a whole.

It's important, however, to put the individual first in this statement though because without the individual's full, 100% willingness to participate, the society will not benefit. Society cannot demand the individual to follow what society deems is in societies (and therefore the individual's) best interest, the individual has to come freely and willingly or the final product will be compromised. To make this point even more clear is who is "society" - who has the right to deem what is right for society as a whole? Who has that authority? No individual, or council, or committee, or even general election could actually capture what is "best" for society - this is why it is vital for individuals to go only for personal gain, which in turn will benefit society, assuming fair business practice.

------------------------

Also, another topic that I think got lost in the larger debate going on here - global currency...discuss.

Ta.

A Quick One While He's Away

Google Chrome

Good evening - real quick, Google has released their own version of the web browser (see link above, if you Windows XP or Vista)

Also - what are thoughts on open-source programming versus proprietary software?

Another quiet Saturday night (or so it seems...), so expect a good post then.  Ta.

Ahoy! Another nautical expression!

Good evening everyone, per tradition - we made it to the weekend and thus, you all get a nice post from me. I try my best to post something during the week, but I'm just far too busy, unfortunately. Also, I start school this week, so the likelihood of posts during the week, and even possibly, weekly posts, is somewhat diminished based on that schedule.

Also, I would like to thank Michael M. for his very informative comments on my conversation with Gary. Those can be found here...Cheaters - Comments. Unfortunately, Michael didn't leave an email address or anything, so I'm unable to add him as an author - so I'm guessing we won't be seeing his participation in our discussions anymore.

That being said, I would like to reply directly to those comments, just to kind of keep the conversation going. Again, I would like to thank Michael for increasing my general understanding of Rand's philosophies and objectivism as a whole. I've never claimed to be an expert, and I attempted to make it clear in my conversation with Gary (although I'm not sure if that part got moved over here), that my views are kind of a distorted version of objectivism to kind of match my own life. My only true issue with the monopolies argument, is once a monopoly arises due to course 3), how is society supposed to be protected from these monopolies from abusing their control over the market? I'm all for a company coming out and completely dominating the competition, and those companies should definitely be rewarded for their efforts. However, in a situation where they have no remaining competition due to either buyouts or bankruptcy, than there is no reason to continue innovations and the market becomes stagnant and overpriced. In markets where the upstart cost would far outweigh any potential gain from possible success, this industry standstill would continue until some kind of interference. Yes, there is some argument that consumers would stop purchasing an outdated or overpriced product at some point, but where is that line? This is my only concern regarding completely unregulated monopolies.

I think that responds somewhat to those comments, although I would very much like to continue the discussion with someone so obviously wiser than myself, so Michael - should you stumble upon this again, please leave your e-mail address in a comment (or you can e-mail me directly if you prefer) so that I may add you as an author.

I still have not prepared a well thought out response to Gary's last, although I'm foreseeing a quiet night so perhaps I shall put something together tonight yet.

Moving on to Gary's response in regards to horror movies. First and foremost, I would like to note that most horror movies released since...let's say, circa early 80s, with few exceptions have been formulaic and empty. This could actually be said about most of Hollywood's releases these days, but since we are focusing on horror - the window is much larger, unfortunately. That being said, that is no reason to write off horror as a genre entirely. Some horrors do indeed aspire to something more, like you mention with Southern Comfort (although, I've never scene that one myself, I will make it a point to keep an eye out for it).

Now the worst movies, mostly of the main stream crop, have all of the flaws that Gary mentioned - mindless characters, plots designed around further bloodshed, played out story lines and far-fetched endings. I'm not going to argue that these are a waste of time, but again - we cannot write off an entire genre based on mainstream misinterpretations.

As for the argument that we are being desensitized to violence, in many ways I agree, and yet - I am able to distinguish between fiction and reality. I find it hard to understand that others have a difficult time with this distinction. In no way would my copious hours of viewing mass amounts of bloody murders in anyway take away from the effect of an actual murder happening right in front of me. I am comfortable with horror movies because I know that the people being stabbed, shot, tortured, etc...are actually just fine. I mean, I am capable of drinking and spending time with people without violent tendencies, which you mention as an issue, but I see more going on culturally, than just an obsession with violence. Blaming modern media, while probably at least to some degree - a factor, I see it as more of a cop out more than anything. Modern media is, in theory, a representation of our society - so a society obsessed with violence will produce a violence-center medium, which in turn would likely create a more violence obsessed culture...in which case, this is an endless cycle. My biggest issue with this argument is that it takes the blame off the individual again, and places it on society. As if one person's burden, one person's inability to control their own impulses is everyone's problem. Responsibility of one's self should be reserved for...one's self, not society or culture on a whole.

Prior to my next post (which may, or may not be tonight yet - no promises), I shall attempt to comprise a list of good horror films that may, or may not be bloodfests, but truly embody the spirit I feel horror is trying to convey. To pigeonhole such a diverse genre because of it's mainstream appearance would be judging a book by it's cover.

Damn flawed system respecting the record companies' right to distribute music as they see fit...
So anyways, tonight's list was SUPPOSED to include -

Song of the Moment: The Stills - Without Feathers (album). I wanted to include highlights "In the Beginning" (that one I found!) and "Helicopters" (that one didn't happen...). First and foremost, everyone should check out their debut album, Logic Will Break Your Heart, although if plan on checking out Without Feathers as well, prepare for a bit of a culture shock. LWBYH was a very keyboard driven album (think Joy Division) whereas WF took on a more guitar approach, with a bit of experimentation with various degrees of success. While LWBYH is likely more consistent, the highs on WF are higher (the lows are also lower, unfortunately), but I always make it a point to applaud experimentation within a formula band, so this is good. Check them out (I have mp3s and Google Talk if you would like me to send you some samples)...

Song That Makes Me Feel...Nostalgic (again): Harvey Danger - Old Hat (off of Where Have All The Merrymakers Gone). Key lyric - "I forget what my friends look like / and they forget why they like me / but that's old hat / I'm so happy / how do you write about that?" This song works in the same vein as Greetings in Braille, in that as we grow older and further apart from our childhoods (and subsequently, childhood friends), we find ourselves regrettably missing those relationships (platonic and romantic) - however, in 'Old Hat', we find our singer pleading "Call me freaky, call me childish, call me Ishmale. / Just call me back, call me back, call me back and I'll / Follow you around" indicating that those feelings have gone beyond simple nostalgia and taken a proactive precedence in his mindset...or I'm reading into it wrong - how do you take it? Lyrics.

BONUS Songs of the Moment: Harvey Danger - Wrecking Ball AND Problems and Bigger Ones.

The former is all about running away...running from nowhere, unfortunately, as nowhere always catches up. Key line - "Burn down the house / make sure the family is inside / Nothing more to tether you / also no one there to catch you crying" Lyrics. This song also works intentionally against the formerly established childhood yearnings previously indicated on the album (this is track nine - nostalgia come up as a common theme in both 'Old Hat' (track 7) and 'Private Helicopter' (track 4)) in the line "Don't let a childhood linger..."

The latter is all about a failing relationship...this is moreso just a good song, not necessarily a reflection of my present life (so don't try to read into anything). Lyrics.

Again, mp3s available to those interested...good songs, maybe in my next batch I'll have some I can actually add to the playlist.

Bonus Topic - Alice in Wonderland, in all it's variations...discuss.

Bonus Quote - "Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can’t be taken on its own merits."
- Dan Barker...discuss

Night.

The horror of horror!!

**Current track, Gorlliaz - Sound Check** It's my first listening of this track, so as of yet, I cannot pass any judgement on it. =/

Picking up on Nathens' post on horror films:

I am in the main, appalled by modern horror films. The endless blood-letting, the mindless characters, unimaginative stories, the unrealistic situations all contribute to me avoiding them at all costs... accept one.

The film in question is called 'Southern Comfort' and is easily one of the best films I have ever seen. The film revolves around a group of National Guard soldiers on exercises in the swamps of Louisiana. They are armed with the standard M16A1 rifles, backed up with a squad machine gun (sorry, I don't know my MG's - looks like a browning though) all loaded with blank rounds.

They set off into the swamp, following a route on the map, but come across a river that has changed course. They 'borrow' some of the natives' boats to cross the river, and leave a note. However, half way across the river, the owners of the boats come back, and start shouting at them in French. Trouble is, no one speaks French, and as a joke, MG man fires off a burst of blank rounds at the natives. The natives panic, and fire back with rifles, killing the Captain of the men.

So begins a game of cat & mouse with the locals, fighting a war that sees the men hounded and eventually killed off.

What makes this film so much better than more recent films, is that the characters act like the characters they would play in real life - the brave sergeant trying to hold the squad together as one unit, yet failing to the stronger & louder voiced men; the weapons acting as the real life weapons would - ie there are no super human efforts were a man in a bandana firing wildly from the hip is able to shoot hundreds of enemies with one 30 round clip.

The film even has a critical, political undertone - ie Vietnam - now name me one modern horror film that seeks to do that!!

Anyway, enough on the art, that is the film Southern Comfort.

Another point I have on modern horror movies is that they are desensitizing many people to violence. See the often brutal and common beatings that result from a Saturday night drinking in the town - and it’s not just young men - its women as well. Over here they call it 'Ladette culture'. Personally, I see it as a new equality between the sexes.

But I digress - the point is, is that a society that is desensitized to violence is a bad society indeed - and here’s the next clichéd sentence: someone think of the children!!

What kind of example is it setting to them!?

In conclusion: treating humans as mere objects, for cutting up, for sex, or for your own monetary gain is wrong, and the morality of this should, and in my opinion, needs to be questioned in our 'modern' society.

((By the way - notice that the characters in Southern Comfort are not treated as objects - they are treated like ordinary people put into extraordinary situations, though their vices, and also though their virtues, they got into this situation)

Cheaters

So Gary and I have been cheating on you all by having an intelligent conversation behind your backs. We're sorry. Here's what I've got thus far...

Nathan - As for technology, I think I'm a little jaded by my youth in that I've only really seen the Internet explosion, home PCs were somewhat common for most of my youth and while I didn't get my own until I bought one in high school, my family had one since I was a wee little lad. Heading into the future though, I don't know how anyone couldn't be excited about things to come. With the advances in nano-technology and flash storage, we're entering a whole new realm of computing, we're going to see a lot of exciting things, very soon.

I've actually never thought of myself as being dragged down by the machine, because it's typically those systems that help me think outside of the box, or however you want to look at it. I've known for sometime that ideas and theories can only carry you so far. I've always been a world-view kind of guy though, always looking and trying to understand everything that's around me and how it all interacts, that's probably one of the elements that draws me to TW.

Gary - I have found that having a world-view is very inadequate to explain ones’ opinions – it does not allow one to have an imagination & to think outside of the box – for example, my world- view used to be that of a socialist – I ended up ignoring it after a while, as I found that it did not reflect my true opinions, and no amount of flag waving could make up for that.

One of the most important of my opinions is that I believe in a social elite, however, by very definition, socialism disregards that, and seeks to rid society of the social élite. (Or the ‘bourgeoisie’). I think when it comes to this kind of thing (world –views), I am also influenced by a passage from a Haruki Murakami book, Kafka on the shore.

(I am sorry, but I have been waiting to bounce this passage off of someone, but no one has ever shown any interest – so you are going to be the unwilling victim of my digression!! =D )

[quote] “that’s it,” Oshima say. He taps his temple with the rubber end of the pencil. “But there’s one thing I want you to remember, Kafka. Those are precisely the kind of people who murdered Miss Saeki’s’ childhood sweetheart [murdered by a student union in their ‘revolution’] . Narrow mind devoid of imagination. Intolerance theories cut off from reality, empty terminology usurped ideals, inflexible systems. Those are the things that really frighten me. What I absolutely fear & loathe. Of course it’s important to know what’s right and wrong. Individual errors in judgement can usually be corrected. As long as you have the courage to admit mistakes, things can be turned around. But intolerant, narrow minds with no imagination are like parasites that transform the host, change the form and continue to thrive. They’re a lost cause, and I don’t want anyone like that coming in here”.

Oshima points at the stacks [of books] with the tip of his pencil. What he really means, of course, is the entire library.

“I wish I could just laugh off people like that, but I can’t.”[/quote]

I interpret what you said in your last mail ( [quote] I've always been a world-view kind of guy though, always looking and trying to understand everything that's around me and how it all interacts, that's probably one of the elements that draws me to TW.[/quote]) as on of those people that’ll probably agree with what I say here – what’s your opinion??

Nathan - As far as that passage goes, please, I'm sure I'll be dropping quotes on you eventually, so hammer away at me as much as you please. I did enjoy the passage though and I do indeed agree with what it's saying, for the most part. Systems need to be fluid and thoughts malleable as we live in an ever evolving world and what worked yesterday, probably won't work tomorrow...the whole theory of entropy, etc...

However, I do somewhat disagree with your socialist aspect. I'm actually an objectivist, to some degree...altered to fit my own life and situation, but the philosophy more or less, is the same. While I agree that the trouble with inheritance and simplicity of life for those in the social elite versus those in the gutter is quite drastic and gives an unfair advantage to those who start out ahead, in an ideal society - hard work would be paid off appropriately. That is my biggest qualm with socialism, that one is rewarded the same for giving 100% and giving 10%. I hate to say it but it's just human nature to take what they can get and give nothing more if they don't have to.

Probably the two most influential things in my personal philosophy was my childhood psychologist and Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged." As I already mentioned, I'm an objectivist to a degree, which is where AS comes in, but I think it was my psychologist who set me down that path with a very simple metaphor - "Why does a father run into a burning building to save his son?" "Because the pain and guilt of losing his son would hurt much more than any fire could do to him" - it was that statement that made me realize, everyone is self-serving, to some degree. Every action can be traced to some self benefiting result, whether it be conscious, or not. I don't know if that makes sense, I still haven't really been able to articulate my actual philosophy into words, but I'm getting closer it seems.

Gary - As I said before, I am most defiantly not a Socialist – but I disagree with what you say – Marx actually commented that one should be rewarded proportional to the amount of work done. I am not exactly sure how, but that was the upshot of the very same discussion in my politics class once.

I read a bit about the book on Wikipedia, and it seems to me that Rand was just trying to justify Western Capitalism & individualism… Perhaps this book should be added to my reading list. =)

Quick digression – you had a childhood psychologist?? If you don’t mind me asking – why?? (Just ignore this bit if you don’t want to answer ^^ )

I don’t like the idea that all action is motivated by self interest. For example – why does a father run into a burning building to save his son?? Answer – because he loves him & does not want to see him hurt.

I give you that there are simply selfish actions, like if I take my sisters sweets without telling her, for example. But, it’s all in moderation – if one is too concerned about oneself, then one is selfish; however if one cares too little about oneself, then one is selfless, which is a vice as well.

If you’d like me to dig out my philosophy teachers’ theory of action, I’ll send it over for you to have a look at.

Nathan - Remind me later in Weekend Philosophers to bring up the benefits of a global currency. Also, I was wondering if it would be alright with you if I took our ongoing conversation regarding societal policies, and edited into straight conversation form and posted it on WP, hoping to strum up some dialog that way. I understand most people don’t have the hour or so it takes to write up my ridiculous posts, but I’m trying to encourage people to write a little bit, at least on a somewhat regular basis, if nothing else.

I’ve heard good things regarding Chekov, although my own personal reading hasn’t taken me that direction as of yet. Right now I’m drifting towards the utopian writings, like Paradise Lost, and such. I’ve always been interested in the concept of a Utopia, not as an actual goal to aim for, but the fatal flaws of attempting to develop a perfect system. I enjoy discovering the cracks in a societies veneer…somewhat justifies the corruption and weaknesses I note in our own government systems.

When speaking specifically of socialism, I’m not speaking directly of Marx’s theory, per se, as in theory – it’s an excellent work of art. However, the implementation of it is, and has been, difficult at best. China gets away with it through a Big Brother-esque military system keeping their people in line and that’s the only reason they have a thriving communist economy. Most everything is somewhat fictionalized, at least to my understanding, and how can man be as productive as to his potential when he doesn’t even know what’s real or not. Rand does indeed encourage a western capitalist system – she grew up in communist Russia before fleeing to the US, and that has obviously greatly influenced her. She encourages a system that more or less, has never existed in that there would be no government influence whatsoever. While I disagree slightly with this aspect, as we cannot allow monopolies to go around and the place thus some regulation is required, however – as of right now, the government in all parts of the world have too many fingers in the economy, and this only leads to further forms of corruption. This is in stark contradiction with Rand’s concept in which hard work and innovated business practices lead to economic success whereas mooching off others or looting the latest trends, will eventually lead to failure. Rand’s other well known novel, “The Fountainhead” is a brilliant piece of work in its own right, focusing on the power of the individual, and the potential of man as a whole – it’s really more person based rather than society, like “Atlas Shrugged.”

As for the argument as to the motives behind anybody’s actions, it’s an impossible argument one way or another – there are always two sides to the coin, one can say the father is risking his life for personal gain (or avoidance of personal loss) and another could argue just as strongly that he is risking his life for another whom he loves. However, because it’s impossible to have any insight as to what motivates this action, we’ll never know. In all honesty, do we know why we do most things we do? Do we know our own true motivations? How much of it is subconsciously influenced in ways we can’t even comprehend at this point? Rand promoted “rational selfishness” which was more based – not on whims, like stealing candy, but rather on well thought out and executed plans. Basically, she’s asking us to not be guided by God or society, but by our own internal compass.

Gary - A global currency… hmmm. I reckon that the economics behind that would be really complicated… sure would make things easier though. The only example I can think of is the Euro, introduced back in the day in the EU (we didn’t join in though, *insert bitching about British mentality of being an island, here*) the countries with strong currencies such as Germany & France lost out ( I am not too sure of the economics behind it) where as it was much in the benefit of countries like Italy, who had a weak currency. What I am saying is, is that at the moment Britons do very well, when we buy online from other countries – see previous example for details – I sometimes make a point of buying books from the US, because the exchange rate makes it stupidly cheap for me… I am not sure if I would like to give that up.

It’s interesting to hear your taste in literature is more for the utopian. I figure that some of the best art is set in these, and in dystopias. I am still finding my taste in Literature at the moment –it is mostly inspired by role models I have. I don’t think I’ll know exactly what I like until a couple of years worth of reading down the line. After all, literature is not like music – it takes longer, and is more expensive to get hold of. That and, one needs a certain amount of cultural capital in order to hear of it – kind of like Classical music – one needs someone to tell you about it, as it is not in the mainstream of everyday life. In conclusion, I guess one has to look for art that is good, not wait passively for it to come to you on the back of a massive corporate campaign, or hear of it on TV, when watching something that has nothing to do with Art.

The trouble I have always found (prepare yourself for a socialist paragraph) is that parents never have time to sit down and play with their kids – like board games. When both the parents have to go out & work full time to pay the bills, it’s not as if they can come home and spend time with the children. Even if they do have the evening free, all they want to do is flop down on the sofa and watch TV. In this, I reckon that you were very luckily to spend time with your family as a child playing board games – that’s what I really like about the US, is that people have a good attitude toward the family – I kind of got that vibe from Boogieman and other southerners that were in our tribe in RIP. In Britain, not much emphasis is put on bringing up children – probably another ailment of an increasingly secular society.

I have to say that personally I have a very low regard for the virulent, unscrupulous, and sometimes violent multinational companies that seek to force their ‘freedom’ upon us. This links into my hatred of ‘free’ markets, contractualist ethics, and rampant individualism. =)

In this, I have little or no sympathy for western capitalism and democracy, depending on my mood.

I’ll explain my point of view of what the government should be, which may help to explain my view. I regard the government as a doctor, sent in to cure society’s illnesses. There is no place for ‘managerial’ government, where the government seeks to administrate the markets, and to solve disputes, making sure that all stick to a social contract. My ideal government would be in the business of leadership, giving society a series of projects that all aspire to achieve – and it’s not to ban smoking in public places!! (Done a couple of years ago here). The Atlee government of 1945-49 is a good example of the kind of government that should be in power. Pity they got voted out by a selfish and ignorant British public. The government should also be a cultural elite, not the richest candidate.

As for individualism as a theory, I believe it’s inherently flawed. It believes that all have free will, and are able to float about with nothing but self interest, determining their action. Its ignores the important point that humans are not individuals, but are social beings – they live in groups, they always have, and always will. Humans are like ants – one is absolutely useless, but taken as a whole, are a strong being. Humans are not like cats, which are indeed creatures that relay on themselves, and only on themselves. In this, it can be said that humans that are selfish are dysfunctional humans – for they are not contributing anything to the group, and thus everyone, including themselves, will suffer. (The prisoners dilemma is a great example of how being selfish will catch you out. )

So now you know my opinion on current society – I hope I am not too muddled on it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So that's where that stands, I am yet to reply as I am forming my rebuttal. For anyone wondering - this is exactly how I foresee conversations going here, as time rolls on. So there you have the set up - take it from there, and I'll try to narrate this conversation once Gary loses Internet (we are going to use snail mail).

Cheers.

Subject lines please, no matter how meaningless they are...

To answer your questions directly - no I have never seen the show Big Love on Showtime, although I've heard good things about it. Perhaps I will rent the first season some weekend and have a marathon.

The answer to your second question is yes - it can go in any direction deemed necessary, gender is negligible.

Here's my logic (albeit, I'm still very busy, so this is abridged yet) - view the modern family: man, wife, 2 kids for the sake of argument. What is the greatest stress on this dynamic? I'm almost willing to bet in most, it comes down to money (or infidelity...). Now add in a third person, regardless of gender, that both already present adult members of the family can equally "love" - all of a sudden we have a person who can take on a third job, providing a third income without greatly increasing the cost of living for the clan...or this person can take up the homemaker position and have a more proactive role raising the kids...or free up one of the fellow members to do the same. I'm not viewing this as one man married to women (or vice verse), I'm viewing this as a true three-way marriage, where it is a mutually understood relationship between all three. This setup has the added benefit of assisting in covering the flaws of your partners, allows for more romance as there is more freedom as all members are flexible to take on multiple roles in the household.

I think I'm rambling and I've lost the plot...that's a good start though, I think. Ask more questions and I'll flesh out from there this weekend. Cheers...I mean, ta.

Big Love

Have you watched the show Big Love on Showtime?

does this polygamy go both ways? multiples of men or multiples of women?

I think dealing with one significant other at a time is all i can handle.

Thoughts on Horror, part 1 - isolation

Good Evening. So I just concluded watching The Ruins, which was not too bad...and made me think about a topic that's very...let's say fascinating to me, although "close to my heart" was a close second - horror movies.

So basically, the plot is...well, four friends get into somewhat of a tight spot while on vacation and get killed off one by one in a foreign land, by a mysterious killer. Man, we've heard that one before - right? So anyways, I say this one wasn't too bad because they played it straight. The "mysterious killer" was something natural, and didn't seem forced and they didn't try to hide it until the end for some crap twist ending. There were obviously some things they could have done a lot better...one scene in particular, could have taken a nod from their predecessors, but unfortunately - in today's horror film industry, the general consensus is that blood sells.

So the basic fear point of this film is isolation - the concept of being alone and facing an unknown danger. There are many ways to approach the isolation horror film, however the most common is to put your group of protagonists in a foreign land (see The Ruins, Hostel). This is a simple plot tool simply because it's universal - what's more frightening than being surrounded by people and not being to ask for help?

~~Unfortunately tonight, I don't have too much elaboration in me...again. Maybe my problem is that I have a million ideas that just don't go very deep...maybe that's why I want you to people, to flesh out my thoughts for me. Anyways, back on topic.~~

Now, my personal favorite (and I doubt I'd find many who disagree) isolation film is easily Jaws. This is a true isolation movie - 3 guys and a boat versus a big ass shark, who at one point you really have to ask yourself...is this shark just fucking with these guys? The true beauty of the isolation technique isn't the killed itself, but rather, the mental anguish the protagonists go through. This is because, at a certain point you realize, either you or your friend are next. You're constantly looking for a means of escape, you're constantly holding in that panic button (although too many characters in the horror movies, fail at this concept), you're constantly looking for a way out or a bargaining chip. Basically, you are forced to go through the five stages of loss on repeat until...well, you die. And then think of the mental anguish if you survive! Would you want to be that sole surviving member in the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre? That's years and years of therapy and even then, I'd be hard pressed to find a well functioning adult after that tragedy.

All in all, isolation is a tricky method to use in causing fear. When in the right hands (Mr. Spielberg), it can be a useful device in not only creating that panic in the audience, but also instantly make your characters personable and they sympathize with their plight. In the wrong hands, however, isolation is just plain boring and/or sinks into the mindless void of slasher films.

I apologize for the poorly written essay, I shall take this core and clean it up a bit, I think...I'll repost when I'm done. Input?

Night.