Sunday, June 22, 2008
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Proof
"In the fourth part of the Discourse, Descartes returns to the main thrust of his development of a philosophy. He starts with his methodical doubt: I doubt, or negate, everything that cannot be proven in a mathematical way, he says. So what can Descartes prove? Everything is taken to be false. But Descartes, the person, is doing this doubting. So one thing can be deduced as true: Descartes exists. Otherwise, he could not doubt. Thus, from the negation of everything, a proof is derived of the existence of the person doing the doubting. This is the most brilliant deduction in the history of Western thought."
--Amir D. Aczel, Descartes' Secret Notebook: A True Tale of Mathematics, Mysticism, and the Quest to Understand the Universe, 2005
--Amir D. Aczel, Descartes' Secret Notebook: A True Tale of Mathematics, Mysticism, and the Quest to Understand the Universe, 2005
Friday, June 06, 2008
Absinthe Drinker
"I can imagine you as a She-Hulk, naked and entreating and sitting on the damn table."
Thursday, June 05, 2008
The Forer Effect
"The Forer effect refers to the tendency of people to rate sets of statements as highly accurate for them personally even though the statements could apply to many people.
"Psychologist Bertram R. Forer found that people tend to accept vague and general personality descriptions as uniquely applicable to themselves without realizing that the same description could be applied to just about anyone. Consider the following as if it were given to you as an evaluation of your personality.
"You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You also pride yourself as an independent thinker; and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic.
"Forer gave a personality test to his students, ignored their answers, and gave each student the above evaluation. He asked them to evaluate the evaluation from 0 to 5, with '5' meaning the recipient felt the evaluation was an 'excellent' assessment and '4' meaning the assessment was 'good.' The class average evaluation was 4.26. That was in 1948. The test has been repeated hundreds of time with psychology students and the average is still around 4.2 out of 5, or 84% accurate."
--The Skeptic's Dictionary
"Psychologist Bertram R. Forer found that people tend to accept vague and general personality descriptions as uniquely applicable to themselves without realizing that the same description could be applied to just about anyone. Consider the following as if it were given to you as an evaluation of your personality.
"You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You also pride yourself as an independent thinker; and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic.
"Forer gave a personality test to his students, ignored their answers, and gave each student the above evaluation. He asked them to evaluate the evaluation from 0 to 5, with '5' meaning the recipient felt the evaluation was an 'excellent' assessment and '4' meaning the assessment was 'good.' The class average evaluation was 4.26. That was in 1948. The test has been repeated hundreds of time with psychology students and the average is still around 4.2 out of 5, or 84% accurate."
--The Skeptic's Dictionary
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
from the Mongolian Red Cross Society
"Let’s help people affected by earthquake in China.
"The 8.0 magnitude earthquake on 12 May devastated eight provinces; Sichuan, (the most severely affected), Gansu, Shaanxi, Chongqing, Yunnan, Shanxi, Guizhou and Hubei. In Sichuan, the total affected area measures 65,000 square kilometres, including Aba, Mianyang, Deyang, Chengdu, Guangyuan, Ya’an municipalities and prefectures. According to the State Council, the most severely damaged areas include 44 counties covering 1,061 townships. Over 10 million people are directly affected in Sichuan.
"The Mongolian Red Cross Society launched internal appeal, taking actions to help for people affected by the earthquake together with warm-hearted people in Mongolia, and the campaign to collect contribution for people in China will be finished on 15 June 2008.
"If you want to contribute for the appeal, you can contact our staff in Mongolian Red Cross Society main office.
"May his future efforts for humanity rise as a flame of hope in the shadowed lives of needy people the world over.
"Best Regards,
Suki
"Mr. Sukhragchaa Mijidsuren
International Relations Officer
Mongolian Red Cross Society
Tel/Fax: 976-11-320934
Mobile: 976-99234132
Email: redcross@magicnet.mn
Website: www.redcross.mn"
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
"It can only be the thought of verdure to come, which prompts us in the autumn to buy these dormant white lumps of vegetable matter covered by a brown papery skin, and lovingly to plant them and care for them. It is a marvel to me that under this cover they are labouring unseen at such a rate within to give us the sudden awesome beauty of spring flowering bulbs. While winter reigns the earth reposes but these colourless green ideas sleep furiously."
--C.M. Street
--C.M. Street
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Saturday, April 05, 2008
The Gates of Hell
“Dante is the figure sitting at the top of the gate contemplating the horrors of hell. This figure was later isolated and became Rodin's The Thinker.”
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Google is going to Mars
April 1 is celebrated in Mongolia just as it's celebrated in the West. I learned that yesterday. Why do Mongolians celebrate April Fools?
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Twenty-six tenses in English
In the American Cultural Center a couple weeks ago, picked up a copy of an “English Tenses Timeline Chart.” The chart lists 26 verb tenses.
“Past Perfect Simple Passive: The painting had been sold twice before it was destroyed.
“Future Perfect Continuous Active: She will have been working here for two years by the end of next month.”
“Past Perfect Simple Passive: The painting had been sold twice before it was destroyed.
“Future Perfect Continuous Active: She will have been working here for two years by the end of next month.”
Friday, March 21, 2008
reality for what it is
“Lautréamont forces his readers to stop taking their world for granted. He shatters the complacent acceptance of the reality proposed by their cultural traditions and makes them see that reality for what it is: an unreal nightmare all the more hair-raising because the sleeper believes he is awake.”
--Alex De Jonge
--Alex De Jonge
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Confessional State
“From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“A confessional state is the concept that a particular government would adhere to a specific creed. Prior to the 20th century, many nations were confessional states and enshrined in their respective constitutions or by decree of the monarch, that the state acknowledged one official religion, even if other religions were permitted to freely practice. In Europe, especially in the time of monarchs, confessional states were common. In the American colonies, prior to the Revolutionary War, most colonies were confessional states in that each colony had an official religion. Subsequently, even after the American Revolution, most of the newly-formed American states had official, tax-funded, state churches the last of which lingered until the 1840s. The confessional state is largely gone in the Western World, although in the Middle East, the confessional state, particularly in Islamic nations, is still quite common.”
“A confessional state is the concept that a particular government would adhere to a specific creed. Prior to the 20th century, many nations were confessional states and enshrined in their respective constitutions or by decree of the monarch, that the state acknowledged one official religion, even if other religions were permitted to freely practice. In Europe, especially in the time of monarchs, confessional states were common. In the American colonies, prior to the Revolutionary War, most colonies were confessional states in that each colony had an official religion. Subsequently, even after the American Revolution, most of the newly-formed American states had official, tax-funded, state churches the last of which lingered until the 1840s. The confessional state is largely gone in the Western World, although in the Middle East, the confessional state, particularly in Islamic nations, is still quite common.”
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Snowy UB, Tibet
A more recent photo: last week's snow, from Konchog.
Konchog is also posting items relevant to the current events in Tibet.
Konchog is also posting items relevant to the current events in Tibet.
Monday, March 17, 2008
In Your Own Time
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
“George Berkeley
“He was an idealist: everything that exists is either a mind or depends for its existence upon a mind. He was an immaterialist: matter does not exist. He accepted the seemingly outrageous position that ordinary physical objects are composed solely of ideas, which are inherently mental. He wrote on vision, mathematics, Newtonian mechanics, economics, and medicine as well as philosophy. In his own time, his most often-read works concerned the medicinal value of tar-water.”
“George Berkeley
“He was an idealist: everything that exists is either a mind or depends for its existence upon a mind. He was an immaterialist: matter does not exist. He accepted the seemingly outrageous position that ordinary physical objects are composed solely of ideas, which are inherently mental. He wrote on vision, mathematics, Newtonian mechanics, economics, and medicine as well as philosophy. In his own time, his most often-read works concerned the medicinal value of tar-water.”
Spam and “The Internet as a Solipsistic Phenomenon”
So I got some spam. But I registered the blog at their website. First in Mongolia.
“Radigan,
“Your blog Adventuria caught our attention. I'm the CEO of a recently launched startup for bloggers. We are searching the internet for the world's best blogs by geography, and we found yours for Mongolia. I would like to invite you to our site which plots the content of the internet on an interactive map of the world. VerveEarth is an entirely new way to surf the net. It shows spatial and geographic connections that a blog search engine could never reveal.
“The site is www.VerveEarth.com.
“Kind Regards,
Clayton
CEO VerveEarth.com”
VerveEarth automatically added to Blogger a sidebar widget: “Top 10000 Blog.” It doesn't look like VerveEarth has 10,000 blogs registered yet. But I think their widget with its sadly optimistic hit counter at the top of the sidebar contrasts nicely with the “This Page Is Applied Solipsism” link at the bottom of the sidebar:
“But solipsism is also a very dangerous idea. If one gets too indulged into it he might get carried away. If taken very serious and if you believe in it and think about it too much, the effects are just like other drugs.
“Sure, there are many who disagree with the idea of solipsism, and they have good arguments, too. But even if one plays a little with the idea but generally rejects it he has to agree that in everyday life there can occur solipsistic everyday effects. Again and again you might ask yourself: what is wrong here? . . .am I the only sentient being here? Are these people really existing? Does anything really exist? Am I the only one to notice something?
“And this is where the Internet comes into play. With so many dead links and wasted bandwidth, illogic, faulty search engines, general information overflow - no, information landslide - no one will notice you and your page no matter how nice, intelligent or wholesome it might (or might not) be. And, after all, nobody is really looking for your page, anyhow. So why did you put it up, then?
“The only logic answer to it is, frankly, that you put it up primarily for yourself. The only real visitor will be you. You are going to enjoy your pages, laugh at your jokes, find and fix a bug or check your links and advices. No one takes notice of it but you.
“You have to admit, whether you like it or not and no matter if you believe in solipsism or not, that your page therefore constitutes an actual occurrence of real, Applied Solipsism. Since you are the only person that notices your page, if it weren't for you noone would experience it and therefore it would not exist. The page exists only in your own solipsistic imagination, because if only you experience it who can tell if it really exists? . . .
“But this campaign and its ribbon might also fit you because of its enormous humoristic, absurd potential. Held to its own words, the campaign that ‘exterminates any and all other campaigns’ because it denies the very existence of any sentient outside world is completely useless and self-denying in itself, because where there is no audience, why should there be a campaign to convince it of its non-existence?”
“Radigan,
“Your blog Adventuria caught our attention. I'm the CEO of a recently launched startup for bloggers. We are searching the internet for the world's best blogs by geography, and we found yours for Mongolia. I would like to invite you to our site which plots the content of the internet on an interactive map of the world. VerveEarth is an entirely new way to surf the net. It shows spatial and geographic connections that a blog search engine could never reveal.
“The site is www.VerveEarth.com.
“Kind Regards,
Clayton
CEO VerveEarth.com”
VerveEarth automatically added to Blogger a sidebar widget: “Top 10000 Blog.” It doesn't look like VerveEarth has 10,000 blogs registered yet. But I think their widget with its sadly optimistic hit counter at the top of the sidebar contrasts nicely with the “This Page Is Applied Solipsism” link at the bottom of the sidebar:
“But solipsism is also a very dangerous idea. If one gets too indulged into it he might get carried away. If taken very serious and if you believe in it and think about it too much, the effects are just like other drugs.
“Sure, there are many who disagree with the idea of solipsism, and they have good arguments, too. But even if one plays a little with the idea but generally rejects it he has to agree that in everyday life there can occur solipsistic everyday effects. Again and again you might ask yourself: what is wrong here? . . .am I the only sentient being here? Are these people really existing? Does anything really exist? Am I the only one to notice something?
“And this is where the Internet comes into play. With so many dead links and wasted bandwidth, illogic, faulty search engines, general information overflow - no, information landslide - no one will notice you and your page no matter how nice, intelligent or wholesome it might (or might not) be. And, after all, nobody is really looking for your page, anyhow. So why did you put it up, then?
“The only logic answer to it is, frankly, that you put it up primarily for yourself. The only real visitor will be you. You are going to enjoy your pages, laugh at your jokes, find and fix a bug or check your links and advices. No one takes notice of it but you.
“You have to admit, whether you like it or not and no matter if you believe in solipsism or not, that your page therefore constitutes an actual occurrence of real, Applied Solipsism. Since you are the only person that notices your page, if it weren't for you noone would experience it and therefore it would not exist. The page exists only in your own solipsistic imagination, because if only you experience it who can tell if it really exists? . . .
“But this campaign and its ribbon might also fit you because of its enormous humoristic, absurd potential. Held to its own words, the campaign that ‘exterminates any and all other campaigns’ because it denies the very existence of any sentient outside world is completely useless and self-denying in itself, because where there is no audience, why should there be a campaign to convince it of its non-existence?”
stand on the utility sink
“His undershirt is wet; he can feel the sweat rolling from his underarms. He sits on the step with the empty glass in his hand and watches the shadows fill up the yard. He stretches, wipes his face. He listens to traffic on the highway and considers whether he should go to the basement, stand on the utility sink, and hang himself with his belt.”
--Raymond Carver, “Are These Actual Miles?,” 1972
--Raymond Carver, “Are These Actual Miles?,” 1972
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
how strange a thing
“We have almost forgotten how strange a thing it is that so huge and powerful and intelligent an animal as a horse should allow another, and far more feeble animal, to ride upon its back.”
--Peter Gray
--Peter Gray
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Mongol Shuudan
The logo of the Russian anarcho-punk rock band Mongol Shuudan.
In Mongolian, “Mongol Shuudan” means “Mongolian Postal Service.”
Their music is inspired by the history of the anarchist forces of Nestor Makhno (the “Black Army,” which fought against both the Whites and the Reds) in the Russian Civil War.
Their name was inspired by a postage stamp.
In Mongolian, “Mongol Shuudan” means “Mongolian Postal Service.”
Their music is inspired by the history of the anarchist forces of Nestor Makhno (the “Black Army,” which fought against both the Whites and the Reds) in the Russian Civil War.
Their name was inspired by a postage stamp.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
EXCO, the Experimental College of the Twin Cities
EXCO, "made up of two chapters, the first chapter based out of Macalester College (EXCO-Mac) that began in 2006 and a second one based out of the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities (EXCO-UMN) that began in 2007," offers free classes in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota.
List of classes:
http://www.excotc.org/?q=og
List of classes:
http://www.excotc.org/?q=og
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Unhair
Here's a literary post at Cracked:
10 Words and Phrases You Won't Believe Shakespeare Invented
“Shakespeare invented more words than most people even know. Seriously, there's at least 1,500 different words and phrases that don't appear anywhere prior to the Bard of Avon putting them on paper. When he got stuck trying to think up a word, the man just made his own....
“wormhole
Where We'd Be Without It:
Well, for one, we wouldn't have a handy phrase to describe what worms create when they burrow through moist earth. Also, we wouldn't be able to FLY FUCKING STARSHIPS THROUGH SPACE AND TIME.
Why It's Un-Fucking-Believable:
Mainly because it's from the goddamned future. When you invent a word that describes technology so far beyond your own time's that it makes the neutron bomb look like a guy clapping really hard, you can take the rest of the day off. The Starfleet Federation, producers of Sliders and future population of Tau Ceti IV Alpha Base thank you, William Shakespeare....
“household words
Where We'd Be Without It:
Unable to describe the entries in this list.
Why It's Un-Fucking-Believable:
Because so few people have the foresight to invent words to describe their own legacy. In fact, other than this phrase, we can only think of one person who invented a word that perfectly captures the sum of their impact on the planet. And even then, not everyone counts 'strategery' as a word.”
Also:
9 Words That Don't Mean What You Think
“irregardless
People think it means:
Regardless.
Actually means:
Not a damned thing.”
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Friday, February 08, 2008
nestled in the modern mind
"Greek thinkers in the classical period, though they set no bounds to the daring of their thought, and though their wild speculations could easily lead to thoroughgoing scepticism, were yet too healthy-minded to entertain seriously either the problem of the existence of the 'outside' world or its specialized version, the reality of other persons. It was Descartes, the 'father of modern philosophy', who neatly chopped the whole human person into a knowing subject and a known object, that sired the rogue twins.
"Doubt for Descartes was a methodological stance, but the thought that all of the world around us could conceivably be a delusion or a dream, which Descartes introduced simply as a thought experiment, nestled in the modern mind, so that there is hardly any major philosopher during the past four centuries who has not had to grapple with it."
--D.R. Khashaba, "Subjectivism and Solipsism"
"Doubt for Descartes was a methodological stance, but the thought that all of the world around us could conceivably be a delusion or a dream, which Descartes introduced simply as a thought experiment, nestled in the modern mind, so that there is hardly any major philosopher during the past four centuries who has not had to grapple with it."
--D.R. Khashaba, "Subjectivism and Solipsism"
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Mongolian competitors in historic electronic gaming event
“...19-year-old Lkhagvasuren Byambasuren aims to win glory... at the Second Asian Indoor Games (http://www.maigoc2007.com/), an international multi-event sporting competition that includes hockey, swimming and cycling.
“Byambasuren aims to win gold... through the popular video game ‘FIFA 2007.’ That's because this year, for the first time, the Games will include an ‘electronic sports’ category....
“His ambition will surprise nobody who's been to Game Arena, an Internet cafe in Mongolia's frigid capital city Ulaanbaatar. This is where the nation's best video game players tend to congregate. Among them are Mongolia's two other representatives for the Games: 18-year-old Ganzorig Batbold, who will compete in the car-racing game ‘Need for Speed: Most Wanted,’ and 23-year-old Bilguun Chimedregzen, who aims for glory at ‘NBA Live 07.’ All three emerged victorious in national competitions held to find the best players.
“This dream team will face formidable competition, though. Tsogt Sharavrentsen, the overseas manager of Mongolia's national e-sports program, is most concerned about competition from China and South Korea. Those players, he says, receive better training and are well-supported by both sponsors and their governments.
“‘In Mongolia it's very difficult because nobody understands e-sports,’ he says. ‘They think it's like a game.’
“The Olympic Council of Asia couldn't disagree more. A few years ago at a board meeting in Kuwait, it decided video games were serious enough to include in the event....
“Of course, video game contests are not uncommon -- especially in Asia. Channel-surf in Seoul, for example, and you'll likely stumble upon video game action, complete with breathless commentators, on-screen maneuvering and close-ups of players' intent faces.
“But it's rare for video games to be included as part of a multi-sport event -- Chau says it's the first time, as far as he knows -- and to be recognized by a sports governing body as weighty as the OCA. The council, recognized by the International Olympic Committee, includes the National Olympic Committees of 40-plus nations (http://www.olympic.org/uk/organisation/noc/index_assoc_noc_fede_uk.asp?id_assoc=7).
“So far, nine nations have signed up for the e-sports event. Others include India, Iran and Kyrgyzstan. (The Games are held October 26 to November 3.)
“The OCA decided that the video games chosen should be versions of real sports. This criteria -- and a marketing tie-up -- led to the choices being ‘FIFA 07,’ ‘NBA Live 07’ and ‘Need for Speed: Most Wanted.’ All the titles are from California-based game publisher Electronic Arts. The company's marketing muscle was a factor in the decision, Chau says, as was the popularity of the games themselves.
“More important, he says, is what the event means for video games. ‘This is a very important moment. We are witnessing the development of e-sports. Its development has reached a different level than being merely a game to play with.’”
--CNN.com, 2007 August 28
sometimes seem to
"I sometimes seem to myself to wander around the world merely accumulating material for future nostalgias."
--Vikram Seth, From Heaven Lake: Travels Through Sinkiang and Tibet, 1983
--Vikram Seth, From Heaven Lake: Travels Through Sinkiang and Tibet, 1983
Monday, February 04, 2008
The Story of the Weeping Camel
"so i was wondering if you've seen the film weeping camel and what you might have thought about it. i'm taking another filmmaking class and we're discussing it tomorrow. -lisa"
I saw "Weeping Camel" in Portland, Oregon, in 2004, as I was on my way back to Mongolia. The audience was stunned; the reaction was very positive. I know the film was popular in the politically liberal-minded markets of Europe and the coasts of the States. In Mongolia, it was a huge flop. I read one opinion (I think it was by the filmmaker) that posited that the fact that the film was a documentary turned off Mongolians, because they have ideas about documentaries, held over from Soviet times, as silly propagandizing films portraying the glory of the worker.
But I think "Camel" is just not that interesting to Mongolians. There's not much of a story to it. Many of the film's scenes are simply scenes from regular countryside life. One of the most shocking, humorous, incredible scenes for the Portland audience was when a five-year-old boy runs outside the ger and crawls up onto the back of a huge camel and then whips the camel until it stands up and then he rides away on it. But for a Mongolian, that scene has no novelty and can elicit no reaction; it's just another boring scene in which nothing really happens.
To think about it, would you want to watch a film of some average ol' Americans in Ohio or somewhere, just following them around in their ordinary routine, working and cooking and showering and whatever? Can you think of anything more boring? Anyway, "Weeping Camel" flopped in Mongolia.
I was uncertain about the people portrayed in "Camel." The film's style was of a documentary, but it seemed to me that the people were acting out predetermined roles, or perhaps they were self-conscious about having a camera on them.
I think of "Camel" as an example of a concept that I had read about in "Anthropology of Tourism" seminar: the commodification of culture--specifically, the commodification of so-called "indigenous" culture to be marketed to wealthy, liberal foreigners.
The only Mongolians I know who have seen "Camel" are ones who work in the tourism industry. Many tourists have come to Mongolia stating that their interest was piqued by that movie, so some Mongolians have viewed the movie just out of curiosity. In the main, "Weeping Camel" was ignored in Mongolia, and would be almost entirely unknown if the filmmaker had not received some international recognition through awards, which did make the papers in Ulaanbaatar.
So what do Mongolians watch? Melodramatic South Korean television serials and films. There are Mongolians making films for the Mongolian market, more of them, it seems, with each passing year. Many of these popular films seem to be set in Ulaanbaatar and are crime/gunfight/kick-'em-in-the-face flicks, which in the States might be described with the adjectives "cheesy" and "bad."
I read that the filmmaker's follow-up movie, "The Cave of the Yellow Dog," was very slightly more popular than "Weeping Camel" in Mongolia, perhaps because there was a stronger story to it. I haven't seen that film. In fact, I don't know anyone who has.
I saw "Weeping Camel" in Portland, Oregon, in 2004, as I was on my way back to Mongolia. The audience was stunned; the reaction was very positive. I know the film was popular in the politically liberal-minded markets of Europe and the coasts of the States. In Mongolia, it was a huge flop. I read one opinion (I think it was by the filmmaker) that posited that the fact that the film was a documentary turned off Mongolians, because they have ideas about documentaries, held over from Soviet times, as silly propagandizing films portraying the glory of the worker.
But I think "Camel" is just not that interesting to Mongolians. There's not much of a story to it. Many of the film's scenes are simply scenes from regular countryside life. One of the most shocking, humorous, incredible scenes for the Portland audience was when a five-year-old boy runs outside the ger and crawls up onto the back of a huge camel and then whips the camel until it stands up and then he rides away on it. But for a Mongolian, that scene has no novelty and can elicit no reaction; it's just another boring scene in which nothing really happens.
To think about it, would you want to watch a film of some average ol' Americans in Ohio or somewhere, just following them around in their ordinary routine, working and cooking and showering and whatever? Can you think of anything more boring? Anyway, "Weeping Camel" flopped in Mongolia.
I was uncertain about the people portrayed in "Camel." The film's style was of a documentary, but it seemed to me that the people were acting out predetermined roles, or perhaps they were self-conscious about having a camera on them.
I think of "Camel" as an example of a concept that I had read about in "Anthropology of Tourism" seminar: the commodification of culture--specifically, the commodification of so-called "indigenous" culture to be marketed to wealthy, liberal foreigners.
The only Mongolians I know who have seen "Camel" are ones who work in the tourism industry. Many tourists have come to Mongolia stating that their interest was piqued by that movie, so some Mongolians have viewed the movie just out of curiosity. In the main, "Weeping Camel" was ignored in Mongolia, and would be almost entirely unknown if the filmmaker had not received some international recognition through awards, which did make the papers in Ulaanbaatar.
So what do Mongolians watch? Melodramatic South Korean television serials and films. There are Mongolians making films for the Mongolian market, more of them, it seems, with each passing year. Many of these popular films seem to be set in Ulaanbaatar and are crime/gunfight/kick-'em-in-the-face flicks, which in the States might be described with the adjectives "cheesy" and "bad."
I read that the filmmaker's follow-up movie, "The Cave of the Yellow Dog," was very slightly more popular than "Weeping Camel" in Mongolia, perhaps because there was a stronger story to it. I haven't seen that film. In fact, I don't know anyone who has.
Friday, February 01, 2008
meaner than I want to
“You can go head and have the baby,” I say. “I give him my name.”
I say it meaner than I want to. She just look up at me and don’t say nothing. Then she say, “He ain’t yours.”
I say, “I know he ain’t mine. But don’t nobody else have to know. Even the baby. He don’t even never have to know.”
--Gayl Jones, “White Rat,” 1971
I say it meaner than I want to. She just look up at me and don’t say nothing. Then she say, “He ain’t yours.”
I say, “I know he ain’t mine. But don’t nobody else have to know. Even the baby. He don’t even never have to know.”
--Gayl Jones, “White Rat,” 1971
Thursday, January 31, 2008
The Appeal to Authority
Suppose that you suddenly meet God. You are whisked away from your saddle on your horse or from your seat at your desk where you were reading your books or painting your watercolors or plotting your revenge or doing your whatever, and (let’s imagine a traditional Christian scenario, familiar to many Westerners and, thanks to Hollywood film and television, familiar to many non-Westerners) you are now standing in a vast white cloudy space before an enormous ivory throne upon which giant male God lounges regally and erectly, wearing a long gleaming white robe and long white hair and a long white beard with white mustaches. (God is barefoot. We don’t care what skin pigmentation God has. If you prefer, say that his is the same as yours.)
God proceeds to tell you, without moving his lips, in his booming voice that seems to echo right inside your head, the true nature of existence. He tells you that you live in a physical universe with matter and minds and everything is as you perceive it to be. Do you then have certain knowledge that your senses perceive true reality? What if God tells you that the universe you perceive is an electronic simulation, that in fact your consciousness is the only consciousness that exists and that he himself is but a representative manifestation of the simulator? Do you then know for certain that you are the only consciousness in existence, that all other seemingly conscious entities are unthinking sprites? What if God tells you that you are bleeding to death in a bathtub, and that in the last instant of your life, you have imagined a whole alternate life for yourself, with years and years of imagined events and imagined people, a life that led to you riding on horseback before being whisked away to meet him, and that you are even now only imagining him? Are you then certain that your life is a dream?
Whatever the god tells you is irrelevant; all scenarios (a Boltzmann brain floating in space, a brain in a vat, an immaterial mind trapped by Descartes’ demon, an electronic mind in the virtual reality of a simulated universe, a housecat hallucinating as you starve to death in an abandoned house, a human dreaming in the instant your neck is breaking at the end of a rope, a figment of someone else’s dream, a butterfly’s dream, exactly as you currently believe yourself to be, something unthinkable) are equally uncertain, because the existence of the god himself is uncertain, even when confronted with sensory and extra-sensory perceptions of the god-creature. The entirety of what is knowable by your consciousness is that your consciousness exists in this present moment.
For an answer to the question of what is the nature of existence, there can be no appeal to authority, because the existence of any authority (any god, any oracle, any wise man, any philosopher, any theorist, any scientist, any prophet, any truth-possessor, any writer, any demon) is and can only be uncertain. The nature of existence, whatever it may be, is unknowable. This is acatalepsy, or knowledgelessness. This is the inescapable state of any consciousness:
God proceeds to tell you, without moving his lips, in his booming voice that seems to echo right inside your head, the true nature of existence. He tells you that you live in a physical universe with matter and minds and everything is as you perceive it to be. Do you then have certain knowledge that your senses perceive true reality? What if God tells you that the universe you perceive is an electronic simulation, that in fact your consciousness is the only consciousness that exists and that he himself is but a representative manifestation of the simulator? Do you then know for certain that you are the only consciousness in existence, that all other seemingly conscious entities are unthinking sprites? What if God tells you that you are bleeding to death in a bathtub, and that in the last instant of your life, you have imagined a whole alternate life for yourself, with years and years of imagined events and imagined people, a life that led to you riding on horseback before being whisked away to meet him, and that you are even now only imagining him? Are you then certain that your life is a dream?
Whatever the god tells you is irrelevant; all scenarios (a Boltzmann brain floating in space, a brain in a vat, an immaterial mind trapped by Descartes’ demon, an electronic mind in the virtual reality of a simulated universe, a housecat hallucinating as you starve to death in an abandoned house, a human dreaming in the instant your neck is breaking at the end of a rope, a figment of someone else’s dream, a butterfly’s dream, exactly as you currently believe yourself to be, something unthinkable) are equally uncertain, because the existence of the god himself is uncertain, even when confronted with sensory and extra-sensory perceptions of the god-creature. The entirety of what is knowable by your consciousness is that your consciousness exists in this present moment.
For an answer to the question of what is the nature of existence, there can be no appeal to authority, because the existence of any authority (any god, any oracle, any wise man, any philosopher, any theorist, any scientist, any prophet, any truth-possessor, any writer, any demon) is and can only be uncertain. The nature of existence, whatever it may be, is unknowable. This is acatalepsy, or knowledgelessness. This is the inescapable state of any consciousness:
Boltzmann Brain, the Baataristic Crisis, Skepticism, and the Bundle Theory
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15brain.html?em&ex=1200546000&en=3d0d451cc8672382&ei=5087%0A
This recent New York Times article and the cosmological debate it recounts touch upon humanity’s coming philosophical crises, the Baataristic Crisis, though I believe that the crises is less likely to be brought about by theoretical advances in cosmology than by the development of virtual reality that is indistinguishable from presently perceived reality.
If the writer was a brain floating in space and believing that it was a human named Dennis Overbye on earth, the floating brain’s thoughts would be identical to the thoughts of a human named Dennis Overbye on earth. How can any distinguishing be made between the two? None can be made. The writer believes that he is a human on earth (as he appears to himself to be), but there is no evidence to support this belief. It is possible that the writer is a brain floating in space. . . but that is not the point that I wish to make; that point was made by the cosmologists. The point that I wish to make is that the writer does not and cannot know whether he is a brain floating in space. Any insistence that he is a human on earth is only that: an unsubstantiated insistence, and a dismissal or incomprehension of the intractable problem of epistemological certainty. In exactly the same way, any insistence that he is a brain floating in space would be only that: an unsubstantiated insistence and dismissal or incomprehension of the problem of certainty. The facts that differing configurations of reality are theoretically possible, and that certain knowledge of any configuration of reality is impossible, form the foundations of Skepticism.
On the first page of the article, the writer uses the word “skepticism,” but in only a casual way, meaning “resistance to existential or philosophical challenge.” The philosophical school of Skepticism might identify the cosmologists’ theoretical scenarios as challenges to perceived reality. Creating and considering such challenges, as thought experiments and theoretical possibilities, fall under the classic purview of Skepticism.
The phrase “the cosmic equivalent of an egg unscrambling” may be implying that this is an absurd event, when rather, in fact, “eggs unscramble” regularly at microscopic levels. There is no arrow of time at microscopic levels, because microscopic elements arrange and re-arrange themselves constantly into repeating patterns. At microscopic levels, time moving forward and time moving backward are indistinguishable: the T-symmetry is symmetrical. Boltzmann correctly described a universe of infinite temporal existence: such a universe would exhibit time symmetry -- that is, eggs would regularly unscramble, just as they do at microscopic levels.
“If some atoms in another universe stick together briefly to look, talk and think exactly like you, is it really you?” As human technology advances, such challenges to personal identity accumulate, and humanity is led closer to Buddha’s No-Self view, which can also be called the Bundle Theory of Personhood. If (as rational and scientific thinkers are inclined to believe, because it de-necessitates traditional, non-rational notions of supernatural, divine, or spiritual essences) consciousnesses arise from particular configurations of physical matter, then the Bundle Theory has logical appeal. If any specific configuration of matter can be duplicated, and if “you” are a result of the configuration of matter that is your brain, then “you” can be duplicated. Would the duplicate be “really you”? It would be identical to you. So which one is “really you”? The Bundle Theory explains that there is no “you.” There is a bundle of thoughts and emotions that appear to be you, but there is nothing unique about this “you,” nothing about this “you” that cannot be duplicated. Further, as Derek Parfit has reported of neuro-psychological observations, it appears that “you” can be dismantled into your component pieces (component perceptions, component memories, component thoughts). If “you” can be dismantled, then where did “you” go? The Bundle Theory explains that “you” were never there in the first place. (Incidental to this discussion, if and how consciousness might arise from physical matter are concerns that become more relevant as human technology moves toward the creation of non-organic brains. David Chalmers has written in this area.)
The writer and the final interviewee quoted in the article seem to be using “reincarnation” with a sort of spiritual understanding, as if a future duplication of the arrangement of physical matter that once accounted for your consciousness would create a consciousness possessing some kind of supernatural connection to your previous self: here they seem to be betraying a belief in a unique “soul” or “spirit.” Rationally, there is no need for a spiritual or supernatural connection between any two consciousnesses arising from identical configurations of matter. The Bundle Theory, again, accounts for this by logically denying any connection between your current consciousness and any other consciousness, including your consciousness of ten years ago, a year ago, a thousand years ago, a multitude of universes ago, a moment ago, tomorrow, twenty years from now, a moment from now, or a multitude of universes from now.
The final sentence of the text in the graphic is flawed: if existence is a Boltzmann brain, then there is no “we” or “our past” -- if existence is a Boltzmann brain, then this universe is a perception/creation of only one consciousness. . .
This recent New York Times article and the cosmological debate it recounts touch upon humanity’s coming philosophical crises, the Baataristic Crisis, though I believe that the crises is less likely to be brought about by theoretical advances in cosmology than by the development of virtual reality that is indistinguishable from presently perceived reality.
If the writer was a brain floating in space and believing that it was a human named Dennis Overbye on earth, the floating brain’s thoughts would be identical to the thoughts of a human named Dennis Overbye on earth. How can any distinguishing be made between the two? None can be made. The writer believes that he is a human on earth (as he appears to himself to be), but there is no evidence to support this belief. It is possible that the writer is a brain floating in space. . . but that is not the point that I wish to make; that point was made by the cosmologists. The point that I wish to make is that the writer does not and cannot know whether he is a brain floating in space. Any insistence that he is a human on earth is only that: an unsubstantiated insistence, and a dismissal or incomprehension of the intractable problem of epistemological certainty. In exactly the same way, any insistence that he is a brain floating in space would be only that: an unsubstantiated insistence and dismissal or incomprehension of the problem of certainty. The facts that differing configurations of reality are theoretically possible, and that certain knowledge of any configuration of reality is impossible, form the foundations of Skepticism.
On the first page of the article, the writer uses the word “skepticism,” but in only a casual way, meaning “resistance to existential or philosophical challenge.” The philosophical school of Skepticism might identify the cosmologists’ theoretical scenarios as challenges to perceived reality. Creating and considering such challenges, as thought experiments and theoretical possibilities, fall under the classic purview of Skepticism.
The phrase “the cosmic equivalent of an egg unscrambling” may be implying that this is an absurd event, when rather, in fact, “eggs unscramble” regularly at microscopic levels. There is no arrow of time at microscopic levels, because microscopic elements arrange and re-arrange themselves constantly into repeating patterns. At microscopic levels, time moving forward and time moving backward are indistinguishable: the T-symmetry is symmetrical. Boltzmann correctly described a universe of infinite temporal existence: such a universe would exhibit time symmetry -- that is, eggs would regularly unscramble, just as they do at microscopic levels.
“If some atoms in another universe stick together briefly to look, talk and think exactly like you, is it really you?” As human technology advances, such challenges to personal identity accumulate, and humanity is led closer to Buddha’s No-Self view, which can also be called the Bundle Theory of Personhood. If (as rational and scientific thinkers are inclined to believe, because it de-necessitates traditional, non-rational notions of supernatural, divine, or spiritual essences) consciousnesses arise from particular configurations of physical matter, then the Bundle Theory has logical appeal. If any specific configuration of matter can be duplicated, and if “you” are a result of the configuration of matter that is your brain, then “you” can be duplicated. Would the duplicate be “really you”? It would be identical to you. So which one is “really you”? The Bundle Theory explains that there is no “you.” There is a bundle of thoughts and emotions that appear to be you, but there is nothing unique about this “you,” nothing about this “you” that cannot be duplicated. Further, as Derek Parfit has reported of neuro-psychological observations, it appears that “you” can be dismantled into your component pieces (component perceptions, component memories, component thoughts). If “you” can be dismantled, then where did “you” go? The Bundle Theory explains that “you” were never there in the first place. (Incidental to this discussion, if and how consciousness might arise from physical matter are concerns that become more relevant as human technology moves toward the creation of non-organic brains. David Chalmers has written in this area.)
The writer and the final interviewee quoted in the article seem to be using “reincarnation” with a sort of spiritual understanding, as if a future duplication of the arrangement of physical matter that once accounted for your consciousness would create a consciousness possessing some kind of supernatural connection to your previous self: here they seem to be betraying a belief in a unique “soul” or “spirit.” Rationally, there is no need for a spiritual or supernatural connection between any two consciousnesses arising from identical configurations of matter. The Bundle Theory, again, accounts for this by logically denying any connection between your current consciousness and any other consciousness, including your consciousness of ten years ago, a year ago, a thousand years ago, a multitude of universes ago, a moment ago, tomorrow, twenty years from now, a moment from now, or a multitude of universes from now.
The final sentence of the text in the graphic is flawed: if existence is a Boltzmann brain, then there is no “we” or “our past” -- if existence is a Boltzmann brain, then this universe is a perception/creation of only one consciousness. . .
To coin a useful word; to expand the scope of thought
pointlessness
hopelessness
fearlessness
restlessness
lifelessness
“Point,” “hope,” “fear,” “rest,” and “life”—none tangible things, all abstract ideas, “life” the most abstract of all, for its attributes cannot be identified except in the absence of those attributes.
“Knowledge”—also intangible, abstract. But has a writer coined a word if every reader, upon first encountering the freshly minted word, knows exactly what it means? Or, rather, is immediate comprehension a test of the value of a new word? If “knowledgelessness” is truly a new word, then dictionaries can begin listing it, and cite The Steppe (2007) as its first usage in print. But I feel that “knowledgelessness” is not much of a new word, for the fact that its construction (from an abstract noun joined to two suffixes in a standard grammatical manner) is routine and readily understood. (Homologs continue floating into my mind as I write this: mercilessness, recklessness, listlessness, worthlessness, facelessness, joylessness...)
“Acatalepsy” or “acatalepsia” might have sufficed in place of “knowledgelessness,” but those words carry connotations of formal and ancient philosophy, whereas “knowledgelessness” is serenely and attractively accessible to a casual reader. Further, and more importantly, “knowledgelessness” is more precise in its meaning than those old Greek words, and its meaning must be precise for its juxtaposition with “unknowability” to correlate properly with the mantra of Baatar/Baatarism: “I do not know, and I cannot know.”
(The entire preceding argument applies equally to “unknowability,” which, as a partner to “knowledgelessness,” also first appears in the aguulga of The Steppe, with likewise flowing homologs: unaccountability, uncontrollability, incontestability, inconceivability, indomitability, indemonstrability, incommutability, irresistibility, irreconcilability...)
More interesting to me than “knowledgelessness” or “unknowability” as new words introduced into English by The Steppe are the loan words from Mongolian, for instance “aguulga,” a loan word with particular value because it is used to mean not merely the “table of contents” of a book, but the “subject matter” of a book: what the book is about, what matters of life and thought the book deals with.
Most significant to the English language, and to philosophical thought in general, is The Steppe’s introduction/coining of “ukhaan,” which can be used a simple synonym for “consciousness,” but also (and these usages are beyond the word’s original usage) “the lone consciousness of certain existence,” as well as “the seemingly material universe composed of immaterial thoughts that exists within the consciousness,” and which is, in fact, “the only knowable universe.”
hopelessness
fearlessness
restlessness
lifelessness
“Point,” “hope,” “fear,” “rest,” and “life”—none tangible things, all abstract ideas, “life” the most abstract of all, for its attributes cannot be identified except in the absence of those attributes.
“Knowledge”—also intangible, abstract. But has a writer coined a word if every reader, upon first encountering the freshly minted word, knows exactly what it means? Or, rather, is immediate comprehension a test of the value of a new word? If “knowledgelessness” is truly a new word, then dictionaries can begin listing it, and cite The Steppe (2007) as its first usage in print. But I feel that “knowledgelessness” is not much of a new word, for the fact that its construction (from an abstract noun joined to two suffixes in a standard grammatical manner) is routine and readily understood. (Homologs continue floating into my mind as I write this: mercilessness, recklessness, listlessness, worthlessness, facelessness, joylessness...)
“Acatalepsy” or “acatalepsia” might have sufficed in place of “knowledgelessness,” but those words carry connotations of formal and ancient philosophy, whereas “knowledgelessness” is serenely and attractively accessible to a casual reader. Further, and more importantly, “knowledgelessness” is more precise in its meaning than those old Greek words, and its meaning must be precise for its juxtaposition with “unknowability” to correlate properly with the mantra of Baatar/Baatarism: “I do not know, and I cannot know.”
(The entire preceding argument applies equally to “unknowability,” which, as a partner to “knowledgelessness,” also first appears in the aguulga of The Steppe, with likewise flowing homologs: unaccountability, uncontrollability, incontestability, inconceivability, indomitability, indemonstrability, incommutability, irresistibility, irreconcilability...)
More interesting to me than “knowledgelessness” or “unknowability” as new words introduced into English by The Steppe are the loan words from Mongolian, for instance “aguulga,” a loan word with particular value because it is used to mean not merely the “table of contents” of a book, but the “subject matter” of a book: what the book is about, what matters of life and thought the book deals with.
Most significant to the English language, and to philosophical thought in general, is The Steppe’s introduction/coining of “ukhaan,” which can be used a simple synonym for “consciousness,” but also (and these usages are beyond the word’s original usage) “the lone consciousness of certain existence,” as well as “the seemingly material universe composed of immaterial thoughts that exists within the consciousness,” and which is, in fact, “the only knowable universe.”
impossibility of answers to any question whatsoever
"One of Melville's favorite devices is to argue a point effectively in one chapter, undercut it with an equally effective and opposite argument in the next, then to present other arguments at various points between. A related technique is his use of traditional systems for ordering knowledge - ostensibly to clarify, present information, or advance an argument - but actually as a means of demonstrating the limitations of the system and, by extension, the impossibility of mere earthly beings coming up with categorical answers to any question whatsoever. Ishmael's ability to exist within this limitation makes possible his salvation. Ahab's inability to do so destroys him."
—Who2 Biography: Herman Melville
—Who2 Biography: Herman Melville
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
