Gibson, John: Hating America - A New World Sport
Sebold, Alice: The Lovely Bones
Dostoyevsky, Fyodor: The House of the Dead
Maas, Peter: Serpico
Williams, Tad: Shadowmarch
Dick, Philip K: Valis
Cain, Postlewait and Thomson: Emergency Sex
Herr, Michael: Dispatches
Baxter, John: De Niro, A Biography
Steinbeck, John: Cannery Row
Thomson, David: Rosedbud - The Story of Orson Welles
Aulier, Dan: Hitchcock's Secret Diaries
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Monday, December 18, 2006
Card, Orson Scott: Capitol
Published in 1978*, Orson Scott Card's debut novel hits the ground running. Like the galaxy the book describes, this is the humble, but brilliant foundation, of one of the science fiction's leading authors. Science fiction has always had a relatively bad reputation with the general public. Few books make it into the literary halls of fame, and even fewer will, as things stand, make it to the list of eternal classics. However, there remains a collective bouyant with the beauty found in science fiction. And thankfully, this keeps the genre alive.
Capitol starts with a foreword from the author directing the reader in how the book should be approached (basically from page one until the end!). After reading the book, however, I realise how important this is. The novel is a collection of interrelated stories operating in the same 'empire/galaxy'. To group stories just by the mere fact that they operate within the same galaxy may seem presumptuous, but the essential fact is that society in this book is described with an appendage that makes all the stories distinct from anything else - immortality.
Many books have been written about immortality and its side-effects, but OSC explores a number of different perspectives. Somec, the sleep-inducing drug that allows people to be 'alive' only for a few months in every few years, allows people to stretch their lifespans to the fullest. Not immortality, as such, but as near as is required to get the point across. Somec is not available to everyone and this is a salient point in every story.
The book is laid out almost like a manual to immortality, each short story illustrates a pertinent side-effect of immortality. This is not to say that the progression of the book is linear, indeed quite the opposite, we see a gradiated rise and fall of the empire akin to the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire in 300-odd pages (anyone who has read the book may find a note of irony in that sentence!). The stories are bold and quickly lay the groundwork for the involving episodes that unfurl. There are no complex plot points, but plenty of places to stop, look away from the page and think. We get glimpses into the mythology, ecology, astronomy, history and politics of the empire revolving around Capitol, without getting bogged down. In the liberal vein of much of science ficiton, pheonomena such a telepathy and strange beasts are introduced without the hinderance associated with most other genres, and all play a central role in illustrating their individual story. Too frequently are such concepts bandied around in Science Fiction and Fantasy in the oft fruitless attempt at making stories more colourful. OSC, however, uses them in the most commendable fashion; as metaphor for abstract social and psychological concepts.
The stories are excellent. They could exist by themselves, but holistically they make up a body of work that gives the feeling that a whole galaxy of muses could have been appended. The first and last stories stand out as the important ones, foundations to the others. There's an Orwellian gloom to the work, in particular the story entitled A Thousand Deaths, which gives the story even more credibility and shows the depth of knowledge and understanding that OSC has. I read the book faster than most books, not because I wanted to turn the page to continue the story, rather I wanted to peel back another layer from Capitol. Steeped with philosophy, Capitol allows us to step back and examine life and humanity from a different viewpoint, but a viewpoint that nonetheless looks at us. Nobody will ever compare this book to the great philosophers of the 21st Century, but it is just as valuable.
*from hatrack.com, OSC's official site, only my copy states 1979. But who's arguing!
Capitol starts with a foreword from the author directing the reader in how the book should be approached (basically from page one until the end!). After reading the book, however, I realise how important this is. The novel is a collection of interrelated stories operating in the same 'empire/galaxy'. To group stories just by the mere fact that they operate within the same galaxy may seem presumptuous, but the essential fact is that society in this book is described with an appendage that makes all the stories distinct from anything else - immortality.
Many books have been written about immortality and its side-effects, but OSC explores a number of different perspectives. Somec, the sleep-inducing drug that allows people to be 'alive' only for a few months in every few years, allows people to stretch their lifespans to the fullest. Not immortality, as such, but as near as is required to get the point across. Somec is not available to everyone and this is a salient point in every story.
The book is laid out almost like a manual to immortality, each short story illustrates a pertinent side-effect of immortality. This is not to say that the progression of the book is linear, indeed quite the opposite, we see a gradiated rise and fall of the empire akin to the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire in 300-odd pages (anyone who has read the book may find a note of irony in that sentence!). The stories are bold and quickly lay the groundwork for the involving episodes that unfurl. There are no complex plot points, but plenty of places to stop, look away from the page and think. We get glimpses into the mythology, ecology, astronomy, history and politics of the empire revolving around Capitol, without getting bogged down. In the liberal vein of much of science ficiton, pheonomena such a telepathy and strange beasts are introduced without the hinderance associated with most other genres, and all play a central role in illustrating their individual story. Too frequently are such concepts bandied around in Science Fiction and Fantasy in the oft fruitless attempt at making stories more colourful. OSC, however, uses them in the most commendable fashion; as metaphor for abstract social and psychological concepts.
The stories are excellent. They could exist by themselves, but holistically they make up a body of work that gives the feeling that a whole galaxy of muses could have been appended. The first and last stories stand out as the important ones, foundations to the others. There's an Orwellian gloom to the work, in particular the story entitled A Thousand Deaths, which gives the story even more credibility and shows the depth of knowledge and understanding that OSC has. I read the book faster than most books, not because I wanted to turn the page to continue the story, rather I wanted to peel back another layer from Capitol. Steeped with philosophy, Capitol allows us to step back and examine life and humanity from a different viewpoint, but a viewpoint that nonetheless looks at us. Nobody will ever compare this book to the great philosophers of the 21st Century, but it is just as valuable.
*from hatrack.com, OSC's official site, only my copy states 1979. But who's arguing!
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Opportunity
From the corner of my eye, I watched as Saladin took his seat. My mind quaked with the thought that I was the only man to lay eyes on him in almost a millennium. Few men root themselves so deeply in history. I sat, hundreds of years and hundreds of miles gulfed our communications. He whispered something to a companion.
I longed to simply meet his eyes, to occupy a moment of his consideration, though had no desire for a swift death in the face of ignorance. I bowed my head as his gaze swept the room. Did he see?
I longed to simply meet his eyes, to occupy a moment of his consideration, though had no desire for a swift death in the face of ignorance. I bowed my head as his gaze swept the room. Did he see?
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
The Other Man.
The man watched; his face whiter than his teeth, his teeth whiter than his eyes. The other man felt his gaze, but sat perfectly still.
“How are we today?” asked the man with the white face.
The other man declined to answer. He stepped around the cold, ivory room, his eyes always watching the other man.
“Feeling well?”
The other man sat frozen as ice, his gaze at the white wall flinched a little. The man with the white face ticked a box on a printed sheet of white paper on his clipboard, turned, and left. The other man smiled.
(100 Words)
“How are we today?” asked the man with the white face.
The other man declined to answer. He stepped around the cold, ivory room, his eyes always watching the other man.
“Feeling well?”
The other man sat frozen as ice, his gaze at the white wall flinched a little. The man with the white face ticked a box on a printed sheet of white paper on his clipboard, turned, and left. The other man smiled.
(100 Words)
My First.
She watches over my shoulder as I type. I sense her expression, curious with a dusting of annoyance. I smile to myself, and click ‘post’.
“That’s it?” she demands, almost instantly.
I nod, and close the lid of my laptop with a satisfying click. I sit back for a moment’s celebration. The background noise dies down as the machine switches off. All is at rest, well almost. I turn to look at her
“It’s not exactly an epic.”
“It’s a drabble,” I reply. “My first.”
She screws up her face and looks at me as though I’m mad.
“I’ll say.”
(100 words)
“That’s it?” she demands, almost instantly.
I nod, and close the lid of my laptop with a satisfying click. I sit back for a moment’s celebration. The background noise dies down as the machine switches off. All is at rest, well almost. I turn to look at her
“It’s not exactly an epic.”
“It’s a drabble,” I reply. “My first.”
She screws up her face and looks at me as though I’m mad.
“I’ll say.”
(100 words)
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Freedom of Speech...again...
Yesterday, David Irving, the 'historian' was jailed for three years, for denying the holocaust. Initially, I was shocked. Shocked not that someone had denied the holocaust - Anti-semetists do this all the time - rather shocked that he was sentenced for offering his opinion. At least that's how I judged the case from the BBC news. However, I delved deeper. It turns out Irving, gave the first speech in Austria in 1989. Following this, and in accordance with Austria's strict laws surrounding the holocaust, a warrant was issued for Irving's arrest, along with refused reentry to Austria. Some time late, he returned to Austria, to give a similar speech. This is where my sympathy waned. Yes, Austria is a European (read Western) state and such restrictions of freedom of speech may see a little Draconian, but with such a history where speech has incited racism of phenomonal magnitude it is at least understandable. But Irving decided to go back.
But still, does that justify it? Well, yes - the law was violated. To what extent he violated the law is not something I am authorised to comment on, but I imagine it crossed the line into anti-semetism, perhaps in the guise of history - I make the assumption it was harmful. There is of course the issue of the accuracy of what Irving asserts, but, although it is a weak argument on my part, I'm confident we have substantial evidence supporting the atrocities of the holocaust.
But my important point here is that Irving was jailed, effectively, for inciting racial hatred, specifically against the Jewish people. Which draws parallels to the blasphemous cartoons. And I am finding it difficult to find any distinctions. We cannot use the race card, as the Jews are an ethno-religious group, which, to some extent, blurs this boundary. So the other direction is to understand the hate-level of the cartoons. Although, not perhaps as blatant, the cartoons are still hateful (the notion of parody may have held some sway initially, but not now). Furthermore, the cartoons had a much wider circulation; a little bit of hate spread widely may be much more effective than a lot of hate spread thinnly.
Should the cartoonists/publishers be jailed? No, it is not in their particular constitutions. Should they be condemmned? That's the reader's decision. Either way, swap the Jews for the muslims, or swap blacks for muslims, and we get a totally different picture. We are justifiably cautious and censored over negativity toward ethnicity and ethno-religiousness, but not yet to religiousness - not fully at least. It may just be a matter of time.
But still, does that justify it? Well, yes - the law was violated. To what extent he violated the law is not something I am authorised to comment on, but I imagine it crossed the line into anti-semetism, perhaps in the guise of history - I make the assumption it was harmful. There is of course the issue of the accuracy of what Irving asserts, but, although it is a weak argument on my part, I'm confident we have substantial evidence supporting the atrocities of the holocaust.
But my important point here is that Irving was jailed, effectively, for inciting racial hatred, specifically against the Jewish people. Which draws parallels to the blasphemous cartoons. And I am finding it difficult to find any distinctions. We cannot use the race card, as the Jews are an ethno-religious group, which, to some extent, blurs this boundary. So the other direction is to understand the hate-level of the cartoons. Although, not perhaps as blatant, the cartoons are still hateful (the notion of parody may have held some sway initially, but not now). Furthermore, the cartoons had a much wider circulation; a little bit of hate spread widely may be much more effective than a lot of hate spread thinnly.
Should the cartoonists/publishers be jailed? No, it is not in their particular constitutions. Should they be condemmned? That's the reader's decision. Either way, swap the Jews for the muslims, or swap blacks for muslims, and we get a totally different picture. We are justifiably cautious and censored over negativity toward ethnicity and ethno-religiousness, but not yet to religiousness - not fully at least. It may just be a matter of time.
Monday, February 06, 2006
Freedom of Speech.
I've been watching the conflict caused by the publication of a series of cartoons published in the Danish press (and others) quite closely. My understanding may be slightly inaccurate, but it appears that a Danish newspaper produced a series of cartoons depicting how Islam is viewed by the cartoons' producers. Unfortunately, some of the cartoons appear misguided, islamaphobic and blasphemous. Or at least that's how many see them. The artists may have been attempting irony or humour, I'm not sure, but the most offensive cartoon, that I saw, depicted Islam's prophet Mohammed with a bomb on his head instead of a turban. Although I'm not a Muslim, I can understand how this is offensive, and see no humour there whatsoever.
The conflict is a textbook example of a number of issues within today's society. I will attempt to address some of them below.
The Social Responsibility of the Media
The cartoons mentioned above were drawn, I assume, by individuals; the bomb-turban cartoon was an individual's opinion on Islam, or perhaps their view on how people see Islam - either way it was their interpretation. When the papers reproduced that cartoon, they were perpetuating it. The cartoon may have been aligned with the views of the editorial staff of the paper, or perhaps the paper was being liberal and offering all opinions - the Freedom of Speech. This is not relevant to this part of my discussion. The fact is they, along with a number of other papers, published the cartoons.
The question is: should the media have published these images at all? Do they have a responsibility to act appropriately toward their readers for the good of society? At this point, I don't think freedom of speech enters the debate. They may have a right to show the images (I'll look at this later) but should they?
The newspapers in question have a fairly wide circulation. As such, they are fairly influential. Though there is no law defining their position, the papers as a collective of biased reporters (biased in the sense of having an opinion, not in the sense of being left or right) have a direct effect on public opinion. The public may 'believe' the media. Anyone with such power has an obvious moral obligation to use it appropriately. Now where morality lies in a post-modern debate is a different kettle of fish, but to a reasonable level we can expect the papers to act morally, in the broadest sense of the word. Of course, with that established (although not argued too pursuasively), the question becomes 'Did the paper act morally?' or perhaps a less frothy question would be 'Was the paper justified in its action, or inaction?'
The difficulty with this conflict is that on the one hand, the paper has a responsibility (as outlined above) to promote and propogate free speech, on the other it has the responsibility to refrain from segregating minorities and insulting religious groups. Which is right? Individual freedom over a religious attack? A Western government with no religious affiliation would likely argue that Freedom of Speech is of a higher importance, a religious state may argue either way. To be more precise, Denmark would argue that Freedom of Speech is of utmost concern, Islamic states would argue that attacks on the state's religion are more important than total Freedom of Speech (where defamatory to Islam). Hence the fundamental conflict of agreement. In a Western, non-Islamic state such as Denmark, where a core ethic is to uphold freedom of speech, the media have a responsibility to promote and reflect this. But, as I will explain later, it is not that simple.
Position of the State
To consider the postion of freedom of speech may seem straight-forward at first glance, and indeed it is, in a fully Westernised society. This is, at least metaphorically if not literally, a part of the constitution. However, the notion of a fully Westernised society is a myth, indeed an oxymoron. Multicultural society cannot be fully Westernised; it ceases to exist outside multiculturality. Recently, in the UK, we have seen a slight restriction of the freedom of speech - coincedentally just as this conflict ignited - namely restriction where religious or racial hatred is incited. This in itself has been a flash point for confrontation. This serves to highlight to volatility and sensitivity of this issue. It is a political merge point where East meets West. Both groups have to be satisfied. In a perfect world, the regulation would not be required - people would not say such hateful or misdirected cartoons. Unfortunately, a minority, for example the BNP, have a tendency to see minorities in a less favourable light than most others. That is why these restrictions exist. To protect minorities, so that their liberty is not prohibited by some else liberty. It's a sore point, admittedly, and nobody likes to have their liberty compromised. But if the compromise is in the face of hatred and bigotry, then it is less distasteful. One can consider that those who should wish to incite hatred may have a point, or a feasible argument, but in Western Democratic society that is not tolerated. Only the future will tell whether we were right or wrong, but society's current modus operandi is attempting to head toward equality.
So where does the Danish goevernement stand in this conflict? The protesters are requesting a public apology from the Danish Government. But the Danish government did not print the images, a privately-run newspaper did. However, if the newspaper is not going to act responsibly toward the Danish people, the government will step in. This is not to suggest that a nanny-state is acceptable, rather the safety and security of the country needs to be prioritised. In this case, against the paper and to some extent against freedom of speech. There is nothing to stop the paper reprinting the cartoons or offending Muslims again. But were they to do that, the government would again have to make the call as to whether their action was for the best regarding Danish society, indeed the world. Emancipation may be restricted, but it is nothing more than damage limitation. What is not illegal, is not always allowable.
Is it right for the government to apologise for the people of its country? In a word, yes. Denmark is a democratic state. The people elected the government to speak on its behalf. Democracy is not perfect, but it has been a step in the right direction. If the government deem it appropriate for the people, by the powers of democracy, it is appropriate for the people. This may be one of the flaws of democracy, but again; that is where society is.
The state also has the responsibility as educator, and in this guise is responsible for educating people against discrimintation. This does not amount to teaching Islam or Christianity or any other denomination, rather education toward integration. Indeed this is not just localised to the area of education, but can be incorporated throughout the government's domain. With such procedures in place, conflicts are less likely to occur. It is less likely that blasphemous cartoons would be created or printed and their potency to those whom it may influence negatively would be reduced. This may appear overly naive or idealistic, but the reality is in the reduction not the removal.
Freedom of Speech
The Danish paper has the right to free speech, to say what it wants about most matters. But to have a right, does no mean one should exploit it. Up until a few years ago, a case of marital rape would not stand up in court. It was a man's right to sexual intercourse with his wife. Admittedly, things have changed. But the point is, many would feel it wrong to forcefully indulge in intercourse, irrespective of the marital commitment. The same is true here, the paper had the right, but exploited it. There was no valid reason for publication; the cons far outweighed the pros. It was not an exercise in free speech, it was a disregard for minorities. Something especially sensitive in Europe, where Islamaphobia often runs deep. This exploitation has been perpetuated by other newspapers, who have printed the cartoons under the guise of freedom of speech.
Such opportunities to test the limits of free speech come about only under such circumstances. How can one test the limits with entering the realm of controversy? The argument here is, why test it?
Race versus Religion
A number of people have decoupled race and religion as separated by choice of membership. Races are protected as there exists no choice over affiliation. This is a fair point, indeed mechanisms are in place for this. Faith is a tricky subject, how useful or 'free' choice is when choosing religion is debatable, but the salient point here is that irrespective of the choice, one should have the right to not be discriminated against because of them choices (again, mechanisms exist to stop those choices being exploited). Take for example Transvestites, this is a matter of choice, but to discriminate against transvestites would be frowned upon. Choice is not a boundary against anti-discrimination, rather it is a reason for anti-discrimination.
Comparisons with other Religions
The problem is not just in the realm of the papers, a number of protestors are also causing significant concern. This is relegated to the realm of extremists, but is still a big problem. And increases Islamaphobia. It is inevitable that every time Muslims rebel people will say 'Christians wouldn't do that'. This may be partially true; there is a great deal of hate in some of the protesting; 'Behead those who Mock Islam' and suchlike. Whether this exists to provoke a response, or is a true emotion may only be investigated on a per-person basis. Either way, this is again relegated to the fringes of Islam. The majority of Christians and Muslims alike feel offended by blasphomy against their religions, some may protest. One may argue that such 'harmful' fringe groups don't exist within other religious groups. This is not strictly true. Fundamentalism exists outside Islam, only in different forms, a lot of which can be traced to the scriptures upon which their religions are based. The religions are different; the spliter groups formed from it will be different. This leaves the notion of how they are different. The most prominent example being terrorism. Few will deny that Terrorism is a hideous act, and has caused some of the worst attrocities in history. Extermists validate it through religion, and in the post-modern, non-religious world this is illegitimate. But compare this to the number of Catholic Africans who have died, or will die, from AIDS, under the instruction that contraception is sinful. One can argue that those killed by terrorism were innocent bystanders, who had no choice over their death, but the same can be said for those dying of AIDS, with little education or real desire to not contract AIDS. When hearing of the number of Africans dying of AIDS, does one think "It's their own fault?" No, we sympathise. This by no means validates terrorism, and by no means validates Catholicism's position on contraception (which incidentally, is not so clear cut in most Christian denominations). No, this detaches religious disparities from 'harmful' outcomes. It is problem that is intrinsic to most religions.
Another comparison, and justification, people often make is with programs such as South Park or Jerry Springer the Opera, wherein protest is much less firey (as of writing five Afghan's have been killed as a direct result of the cartoons). But again, it is a different situation, it is more integral and accepted within society. This does not mean that Christians are more accepting or less easily offended, indeed many people are equally offended. It may just be that Christians are less likely to get a reaction from those who are causing the offense; the protest against Jerry Springer the Opera gained very little. Furthermore, Christians in the west do not feel like a minority in the same way that muslims do. The connections between Islam and society are much closer than between Christianity and society.
The history and evolution of religions have to be considered. Christianity went through a series of upheavels; the reformation, the crusades. Not too long ago in the history of Christianity blasphemy was punishable by death - the death of Christ being a pertinent example. Why then should we expect Islam to be different. Such conflicts should not be looked at from Western eyes, as Western society is deeply influenced by Christianity, other perspective need to be viewed. Islam is not Christianity, it has different views, different ideals. It is wrong for Western society to judge Islam, and deem it uncivilised or the society less developed. It is just different. Perhaps in 500 years' time it will be more liberal - only time will tell. This does not make it wrong.
The difficulty here comes when one tries to rectify the problem by changing the religion. If one alters religion to better fit society, then there is a bias toward the interpretation. This is even more prominent when the restrictions are relaxed, such as contraception; which may promote promiscuity; it certainly did in the 50's/60's with the introduction of the birth control pill. But this is perhaps a different issue.
A balance between the different ideals is created through the law, muslims living in the UK, have to abide by the laws here. That is not at issue. Some muslims break the law in the name of religion, but this is a minority of individuals who have interpreted Islam with certain differences. The Islamic majority will attest to that. Either way, the law restricts the 'harmful' acts.
The problems with Islam, as compared to the problems of other religions should not be assessed as an Islamic problem, it all revolves around perverted interpretations of religious texts.
Conclusion
The 20th Century saw a number of incompatibilities in society, each has been and is being confronted; racism, sexism, homophobia. What society is dealing with now is a battle against religious discrimination, whether it is society's constant need for segregation, or the battle against each area of discrimination is another topic, either way discrimination is still rife in society, and needs addressing. Is it worth jeopardising freedom of speech for it? Well, that depends on who and how the freedom is utilised, but generally yes. Liberty, that when exploited, can segregate and discriminate is not a liberty that should be offered lightly. Emancipation is vital to societal progression, but emancipation should bear emanicpation, not discrimination.
The conflict is a textbook example of a number of issues within today's society. I will attempt to address some of them below.
The Social Responsibility of the Media
The cartoons mentioned above were drawn, I assume, by individuals; the bomb-turban cartoon was an individual's opinion on Islam, or perhaps their view on how people see Islam - either way it was their interpretation. When the papers reproduced that cartoon, they were perpetuating it. The cartoon may have been aligned with the views of the editorial staff of the paper, or perhaps the paper was being liberal and offering all opinions - the Freedom of Speech. This is not relevant to this part of my discussion. The fact is they, along with a number of other papers, published the cartoons.
The question is: should the media have published these images at all? Do they have a responsibility to act appropriately toward their readers for the good of society? At this point, I don't think freedom of speech enters the debate. They may have a right to show the images (I'll look at this later) but should they?
The newspapers in question have a fairly wide circulation. As such, they are fairly influential. Though there is no law defining their position, the papers as a collective of biased reporters (biased in the sense of having an opinion, not in the sense of being left or right) have a direct effect on public opinion. The public may 'believe' the media. Anyone with such power has an obvious moral obligation to use it appropriately. Now where morality lies in a post-modern debate is a different kettle of fish, but to a reasonable level we can expect the papers to act morally, in the broadest sense of the word. Of course, with that established (although not argued too pursuasively), the question becomes 'Did the paper act morally?' or perhaps a less frothy question would be 'Was the paper justified in its action, or inaction?'
The difficulty with this conflict is that on the one hand, the paper has a responsibility (as outlined above) to promote and propogate free speech, on the other it has the responsibility to refrain from segregating minorities and insulting religious groups. Which is right? Individual freedom over a religious attack? A Western government with no religious affiliation would likely argue that Freedom of Speech is of a higher importance, a religious state may argue either way. To be more precise, Denmark would argue that Freedom of Speech is of utmost concern, Islamic states would argue that attacks on the state's religion are more important than total Freedom of Speech (where defamatory to Islam). Hence the fundamental conflict of agreement. In a Western, non-Islamic state such as Denmark, where a core ethic is to uphold freedom of speech, the media have a responsibility to promote and reflect this. But, as I will explain later, it is not that simple.
Position of the State
To consider the postion of freedom of speech may seem straight-forward at first glance, and indeed it is, in a fully Westernised society. This is, at least metaphorically if not literally, a part of the constitution. However, the notion of a fully Westernised society is a myth, indeed an oxymoron. Multicultural society cannot be fully Westernised; it ceases to exist outside multiculturality. Recently, in the UK, we have seen a slight restriction of the freedom of speech - coincedentally just as this conflict ignited - namely restriction where religious or racial hatred is incited. This in itself has been a flash point for confrontation. This serves to highlight to volatility and sensitivity of this issue. It is a political merge point where East meets West. Both groups have to be satisfied. In a perfect world, the regulation would not be required - people would not say such hateful or misdirected cartoons. Unfortunately, a minority, for example the BNP, have a tendency to see minorities in a less favourable light than most others. That is why these restrictions exist. To protect minorities, so that their liberty is not prohibited by some else liberty. It's a sore point, admittedly, and nobody likes to have their liberty compromised. But if the compromise is in the face of hatred and bigotry, then it is less distasteful. One can consider that those who should wish to incite hatred may have a point, or a feasible argument, but in Western Democratic society that is not tolerated. Only the future will tell whether we were right or wrong, but society's current modus operandi is attempting to head toward equality.
So where does the Danish goevernement stand in this conflict? The protesters are requesting a public apology from the Danish Government. But the Danish government did not print the images, a privately-run newspaper did. However, if the newspaper is not going to act responsibly toward the Danish people, the government will step in. This is not to suggest that a nanny-state is acceptable, rather the safety and security of the country needs to be prioritised. In this case, against the paper and to some extent against freedom of speech. There is nothing to stop the paper reprinting the cartoons or offending Muslims again. But were they to do that, the government would again have to make the call as to whether their action was for the best regarding Danish society, indeed the world. Emancipation may be restricted, but it is nothing more than damage limitation. What is not illegal, is not always allowable.
Is it right for the government to apologise for the people of its country? In a word, yes. Denmark is a democratic state. The people elected the government to speak on its behalf. Democracy is not perfect, but it has been a step in the right direction. If the government deem it appropriate for the people, by the powers of democracy, it is appropriate for the people. This may be one of the flaws of democracy, but again; that is where society is.
The state also has the responsibility as educator, and in this guise is responsible for educating people against discrimintation. This does not amount to teaching Islam or Christianity or any other denomination, rather education toward integration. Indeed this is not just localised to the area of education, but can be incorporated throughout the government's domain. With such procedures in place, conflicts are less likely to occur. It is less likely that blasphemous cartoons would be created or printed and their potency to those whom it may influence negatively would be reduced. This may appear overly naive or idealistic, but the reality is in the reduction not the removal.
Freedom of Speech
The Danish paper has the right to free speech, to say what it wants about most matters. But to have a right, does no mean one should exploit it. Up until a few years ago, a case of marital rape would not stand up in court. It was a man's right to sexual intercourse with his wife. Admittedly, things have changed. But the point is, many would feel it wrong to forcefully indulge in intercourse, irrespective of the marital commitment. The same is true here, the paper had the right, but exploited it. There was no valid reason for publication; the cons far outweighed the pros. It was not an exercise in free speech, it was a disregard for minorities. Something especially sensitive in Europe, where Islamaphobia often runs deep. This exploitation has been perpetuated by other newspapers, who have printed the cartoons under the guise of freedom of speech.
Such opportunities to test the limits of free speech come about only under such circumstances. How can one test the limits with entering the realm of controversy? The argument here is, why test it?
Race versus Religion
A number of people have decoupled race and religion as separated by choice of membership. Races are protected as there exists no choice over affiliation. This is a fair point, indeed mechanisms are in place for this. Faith is a tricky subject, how useful or 'free' choice is when choosing religion is debatable, but the salient point here is that irrespective of the choice, one should have the right to not be discriminated against because of them choices (again, mechanisms exist to stop those choices being exploited). Take for example Transvestites, this is a matter of choice, but to discriminate against transvestites would be frowned upon. Choice is not a boundary against anti-discrimination, rather it is a reason for anti-discrimination.
Comparisons with other Religions
The problem is not just in the realm of the papers, a number of protestors are also causing significant concern. This is relegated to the realm of extremists, but is still a big problem. And increases Islamaphobia. It is inevitable that every time Muslims rebel people will say 'Christians wouldn't do that'. This may be partially true; there is a great deal of hate in some of the protesting; 'Behead those who Mock Islam' and suchlike. Whether this exists to provoke a response, or is a true emotion may only be investigated on a per-person basis. Either way, this is again relegated to the fringes of Islam. The majority of Christians and Muslims alike feel offended by blasphomy against their religions, some may protest. One may argue that such 'harmful' fringe groups don't exist within other religious groups. This is not strictly true. Fundamentalism exists outside Islam, only in different forms, a lot of which can be traced to the scriptures upon which their religions are based. The religions are different; the spliter groups formed from it will be different. This leaves the notion of how they are different. The most prominent example being terrorism. Few will deny that Terrorism is a hideous act, and has caused some of the worst attrocities in history. Extermists validate it through religion, and in the post-modern, non-religious world this is illegitimate. But compare this to the number of Catholic Africans who have died, or will die, from AIDS, under the instruction that contraception is sinful. One can argue that those killed by terrorism were innocent bystanders, who had no choice over their death, but the same can be said for those dying of AIDS, with little education or real desire to not contract AIDS. When hearing of the number of Africans dying of AIDS, does one think "It's their own fault?" No, we sympathise. This by no means validates terrorism, and by no means validates Catholicism's position on contraception (which incidentally, is not so clear cut in most Christian denominations). No, this detaches religious disparities from 'harmful' outcomes. It is problem that is intrinsic to most religions.
Another comparison, and justification, people often make is with programs such as South Park or Jerry Springer the Opera, wherein protest is much less firey (as of writing five Afghan's have been killed as a direct result of the cartoons). But again, it is a different situation, it is more integral and accepted within society. This does not mean that Christians are more accepting or less easily offended, indeed many people are equally offended. It may just be that Christians are less likely to get a reaction from those who are causing the offense; the protest against Jerry Springer the Opera gained very little. Furthermore, Christians in the west do not feel like a minority in the same way that muslims do. The connections between Islam and society are much closer than between Christianity and society.
The history and evolution of religions have to be considered. Christianity went through a series of upheavels; the reformation, the crusades. Not too long ago in the history of Christianity blasphemy was punishable by death - the death of Christ being a pertinent example. Why then should we expect Islam to be different. Such conflicts should not be looked at from Western eyes, as Western society is deeply influenced by Christianity, other perspective need to be viewed. Islam is not Christianity, it has different views, different ideals. It is wrong for Western society to judge Islam, and deem it uncivilised or the society less developed. It is just different. Perhaps in 500 years' time it will be more liberal - only time will tell. This does not make it wrong.
The difficulty here comes when one tries to rectify the problem by changing the religion. If one alters religion to better fit society, then there is a bias toward the interpretation. This is even more prominent when the restrictions are relaxed, such as contraception; which may promote promiscuity; it certainly did in the 50's/60's with the introduction of the birth control pill. But this is perhaps a different issue.
A balance between the different ideals is created through the law, muslims living in the UK, have to abide by the laws here. That is not at issue. Some muslims break the law in the name of religion, but this is a minority of individuals who have interpreted Islam with certain differences. The Islamic majority will attest to that. Either way, the law restricts the 'harmful' acts.
The problems with Islam, as compared to the problems of other religions should not be assessed as an Islamic problem, it all revolves around perverted interpretations of religious texts.
Conclusion
The 20th Century saw a number of incompatibilities in society, each has been and is being confronted; racism, sexism, homophobia. What society is dealing with now is a battle against religious discrimination, whether it is society's constant need for segregation, or the battle against each area of discrimination is another topic, either way discrimination is still rife in society, and needs addressing. Is it worth jeopardising freedom of speech for it? Well, that depends on who and how the freedom is utilised, but generally yes. Liberty, that when exploited, can segregate and discriminate is not a liberty that should be offered lightly. Emancipation is vital to societal progression, but emancipation should bear emanicpation, not discrimination.
Monday, January 16, 2006
The Root of all Evil
I wasn't expecting a theme to surface on this blog, but it appears that the plight of science is of increasing annoyance to me. As I write this I'm watching Richard Dawkins' two-part series the Root of all Evil, a reasoned attack against religion. I wanted to work on my novel, but I couldn't turn this off. It's infuriating me, but I still watch it. Why? I guess to ignore counter-arguments is a little narrow minded - however much counter-argument one can find in this almost propagandist program remains to be seen.
It's quite refreshing to see religion berated for being the cause of the world's evil. I guess to some extent I agree with this; evil is defined by religion, without religion we may not know what is evil. But religion only categorises it, gives it a name (The Devil?) - Evil exists outside religion.
Dawkins continues to claim that science has disproved many of religion's "superstitions", but this is just a logical position overriding a contemporary-culture influenced interpretation, the "superstitions" mean different things to different people. Also, this makes the assumption that science is correct, which even scientists cannot proclaim, the paradox of causality denies that. Furthermore, this just amounts to logic and reason disproving faith. A non-starter, it's like equating fish with spanners; it can't be done. Science, where it believes it has disproved religion, has done so only in the boundaries of its own knowledge.
His use of children to support his argument is sickening; it's sinking low to help prove his reasoning. Religion has it's problems, and I'm in agreement that children need to find their own way, but if you have faith, how can you not wish that on your children; you'd wish to instill morality on them, but faith holds a deeper grip. Throughout the program, Dawkins relies on exterme (or rather eccentric) views on religion, in almost the same way racists support attacks on muslims. His choice of religious representation is narrow and chosen for shock factor.
There is also Dawkins' hollistic view of religion, which cannot be sustained. Religions vary widely, and the atrocities caused by religion frequently amount to fanaticism and extremism, and never can be attributed to the religious whole. It's like grouping all muslims as being in agreement with Bin Laden, which we know to be ludicrous.
Religion may have caused the wars, but science has exploded them. WWII, forged through idealism, globalised through technology. War is a human trait, religion and science are the medium via which it is manifest. If one believes that God, to some extent, controls the world through war, the above still holds true, as it is humanity's darker side that is manipulated.
Again, like I mentioned previously, I don't want a common theme here, but once again Dawkins has shown that sometimes science won't think outside the box; past it's own rules. I don't want to create this theme, because it's not a theme, it's an anti-theme, it doesn't really give me much. Belief by the negation of contrasting views doesn't really strengthen one's views, it just gives the effect of power. Comparing the requirements of man to the requirements of God is again bringing oneself to the same level as God. Religion may always have a catch-all - that God is not man, and that God and His will cannot be judged - but there's little you can do about that.
Religion is not the root of all evil, mankind is. It's mankind's weakness in the face of choice the creates evil.
It's quite refreshing to see religion berated for being the cause of the world's evil. I guess to some extent I agree with this; evil is defined by religion, without religion we may not know what is evil. But religion only categorises it, gives it a name (The Devil?) - Evil exists outside religion.
Dawkins continues to claim that science has disproved many of religion's "superstitions", but this is just a logical position overriding a contemporary-culture influenced interpretation, the "superstitions" mean different things to different people. Also, this makes the assumption that science is correct, which even scientists cannot proclaim, the paradox of causality denies that. Furthermore, this just amounts to logic and reason disproving faith. A non-starter, it's like equating fish with spanners; it can't be done. Science, where it believes it has disproved religion, has done so only in the boundaries of its own knowledge.
His use of children to support his argument is sickening; it's sinking low to help prove his reasoning. Religion has it's problems, and I'm in agreement that children need to find their own way, but if you have faith, how can you not wish that on your children; you'd wish to instill morality on them, but faith holds a deeper grip. Throughout the program, Dawkins relies on exterme (or rather eccentric) views on religion, in almost the same way racists support attacks on muslims. His choice of religious representation is narrow and chosen for shock factor.
There is also Dawkins' hollistic view of religion, which cannot be sustained. Religions vary widely, and the atrocities caused by religion frequently amount to fanaticism and extremism, and never can be attributed to the religious whole. It's like grouping all muslims as being in agreement with Bin Laden, which we know to be ludicrous.
Religion may have caused the wars, but science has exploded them. WWII, forged through idealism, globalised through technology. War is a human trait, religion and science are the medium via which it is manifest. If one believes that God, to some extent, controls the world through war, the above still holds true, as it is humanity's darker side that is manipulated.
Again, like I mentioned previously, I don't want a common theme here, but once again Dawkins has shown that sometimes science won't think outside the box; past it's own rules. I don't want to create this theme, because it's not a theme, it's an anti-theme, it doesn't really give me much. Belief by the negation of contrasting views doesn't really strengthen one's views, it just gives the effect of power. Comparing the requirements of man to the requirements of God is again bringing oneself to the same level as God. Religion may always have a catch-all - that God is not man, and that God and His will cannot be judged - but there's little you can do about that.
Religion is not the root of all evil, mankind is. It's mankind's weakness in the face of choice the creates evil.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Omnipotence
I was reading an article the other day, which poised an age old paradox about omnipotence.
"Could an omnipotent being create a rock too heavy for the omnipotent being to lift?"
The implication is that the above paradox disproves omnipotence. This is of course logically sound. And therein lies the key. Omnipotence transcends logic, indeed transcends any kind of rules.
I looked a little deeper into this subject, and it would seem two opposing groups exist (a logic rules all group and a logic rules man group); the Cartesian view was that logic is not an issue to an omnipotent being. The converse of this is that it is a human issue, which got me thinking.
1. Logic is a mechanism by which mankind legitimises itself and its position in the universe.
2. Mankind cannot transcend logic, and thus for all the trying in the world cannot find absolute truths.
Now this may seem a little grim, but there is a light at the end of the tunnel; a pathway to personal emancipation; a mechanism that doesn't allow mankind to transcend logic, rather it is an instance of a mechanism that allows mankind a single opportunity to gain the results that logic transcended allows. It is of course faith.
I'm not preaching here, rather faith is mechanism that anybody can use for a number of purposes - not just a belief in an omnipotent being*, in one swoop it accomplishes everything that logic never could. But it's only one way, a single-use. If logic overpowers faith, then it's not faith; it's still logic.
Think about how useful faith can be.
*I choose this phrase carefully and leave it open to interpretation, but there is only one possible option if you think about.
"Could an omnipotent being create a rock too heavy for the omnipotent being to lift?"
The implication is that the above paradox disproves omnipotence. This is of course logically sound. And therein lies the key. Omnipotence transcends logic, indeed transcends any kind of rules.
I looked a little deeper into this subject, and it would seem two opposing groups exist (a logic rules all group and a logic rules man group); the Cartesian view was that logic is not an issue to an omnipotent being. The converse of this is that it is a human issue, which got me thinking.
1. Logic is a mechanism by which mankind legitimises itself and its position in the universe.
2. Mankind cannot transcend logic, and thus for all the trying in the world cannot find absolute truths.
Now this may seem a little grim, but there is a light at the end of the tunnel; a pathway to personal emancipation; a mechanism that doesn't allow mankind to transcend logic, rather it is an instance of a mechanism that allows mankind a single opportunity to gain the results that logic transcended allows. It is of course faith.
I'm not preaching here, rather faith is mechanism that anybody can use for a number of purposes - not just a belief in an omnipotent being*, in one swoop it accomplishes everything that logic never could. But it's only one way, a single-use. If logic overpowers faith, then it's not faith; it's still logic.
Think about how useful faith can be.
*I choose this phrase carefully and leave it open to interpretation, but there is only one possible option if you think about.
Schroedinger's Cat
I saw a T-shirt the other day with the logo "Schroedinger's Cat is Dead" emblazoned on it. I didn't understand. My initial thought was that it was a reference to some geek-sheik US Cartoon or 70's sitcom, but I couldn't envision a long-running joke that would satisfy that, and Shroedinger is too complicated a name for US entertainment. Wikipedia assured me of the ill-founded nature of my reasoning; it was Schroedinger the physicist, an Einstein peer who formulated some major parts of Quantum Mechanics.
So how is this of interest to this blog? In what way does it add to the mapped history of this rhetoric? Well, it made me think about Quantum Mechanics, but some of my thoughts on science resurfaced. The paradox, or dilemma Schroedinger's cat poses is thus;
"A Cat is placed in a sealed box, a mechanism triggered upon the decay of a nucleus, terminates the cat. The chance of the nucleus decaying is 50%."
Without getting into detail, the point-for-thought is based around the concept of a 'superposition' (which, I believe, Schroedinger proposed); the notion that where a wavefunction will hit a certain surface cannot be predicted, only presumed; the presumption is indicated by a 'chance of hitting a certain place', and before that the wavefunction is in a multiplicity of states. Thus, the chance of the cat being alive when the box is opened is 50%, but most importantly, before the box is opened the cat is seen as in a superposition - both dead and alive (I would've presumed the cat dead; in my experience, putting cats in sealed boxes almost seals their fate).
My initial thought wasn't on the concept of superposition, or on the workarounds quantum physics has offered. Rather, it highlighted the ludicrousness (ludicrousity?) of a system whereby the result is only determined upon observation. It's the atomic version of 'if a tree falls in the woods, with nobody there, does it make a sound'? This reminded me of Hawking's 'Brief History', especially sections on dark matter. Astrophysicists account for some ridiculous amount of the universe's mass by dark matter, which is only observed via its bending of timespace (I think). Which is fine. But it gives me the impression of a placeholder; it balances the equations, it keeps everything in check. But that doesn't mean it's correct.
My thought here is not concerned with a lack of constant and valid progress produced by science; place holders need to be created, and invalid work is as useful as valid work. Indeed, few would argue against the impressive progression science has made. It's just important to remember that science isn't always right. Especially so with the macro- and micro- scale sciences of astrophysics and quantum mechanics. But not only is it sometimes wrong, it is also sometimes (always?) unfinished. Like a chocolate cake without icing, it may look nice, but don't assume it to be finished. Superpositions do not necessarily exist, they may do, probably do, but we can't be sure. Not to mention Hume's grim thoughts about causality!
Interesting article about the macrorealistic implications: http://www.amherst.edu/~jrfriedman/NYTimes/071100sci-quantum-mechanics.html
So how is this of interest to this blog? In what way does it add to the mapped history of this rhetoric? Well, it made me think about Quantum Mechanics, but some of my thoughts on science resurfaced. The paradox, or dilemma Schroedinger's cat poses is thus;
"A Cat is placed in a sealed box, a mechanism triggered upon the decay of a nucleus, terminates the cat. The chance of the nucleus decaying is 50%."
Without getting into detail, the point-for-thought is based around the concept of a 'superposition' (which, I believe, Schroedinger proposed); the notion that where a wavefunction will hit a certain surface cannot be predicted, only presumed; the presumption is indicated by a 'chance of hitting a certain place', and before that the wavefunction is in a multiplicity of states. Thus, the chance of the cat being alive when the box is opened is 50%, but most importantly, before the box is opened the cat is seen as in a superposition - both dead and alive (I would've presumed the cat dead; in my experience, putting cats in sealed boxes almost seals their fate).
My initial thought wasn't on the concept of superposition, or on the workarounds quantum physics has offered. Rather, it highlighted the ludicrousness (ludicrousity?) of a system whereby the result is only determined upon observation. It's the atomic version of 'if a tree falls in the woods, with nobody there, does it make a sound'? This reminded me of Hawking's 'Brief History', especially sections on dark matter. Astrophysicists account for some ridiculous amount of the universe's mass by dark matter, which is only observed via its bending of timespace (I think). Which is fine. But it gives me the impression of a placeholder; it balances the equations, it keeps everything in check. But that doesn't mean it's correct.
My thought here is not concerned with a lack of constant and valid progress produced by science; place holders need to be created, and invalid work is as useful as valid work. Indeed, few would argue against the impressive progression science has made. It's just important to remember that science isn't always right. Especially so with the macro- and micro- scale sciences of astrophysics and quantum mechanics. But not only is it sometimes wrong, it is also sometimes (always?) unfinished. Like a chocolate cake without icing, it may look nice, but don't assume it to be finished. Superpositions do not necessarily exist, they may do, probably do, but we can't be sure. Not to mention Hume's grim thoughts about causality!
Interesting article about the macrorealistic implications: http://www.amherst.edu/~jrfriedman/NYTimes/071100sci-quantum-mechanics.html
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Steinbeck, John: Cannery Row
What a delight to return to Steinbeck's California, and where better than the warm, but ultimately wizzened Monterey. Cannery row is a story about a place and life therein, a place not necessarily like home, but with a familiar intimacy nontheless.
At the Western frontier of the world, in one of the gloomier sectors of America's history, is Cannery Row. No imagery can do better justice to Cannery Row than Steinbeck's own tidepool analogue. It is a tightly-packed microcosm of symbiotic relationships, where each character is as distinct as the lifeforms that populate a tidepool. Each with average characteristics, mundane outlooks and flatlined prospects. But alongside the darkness and solitude, lives beauty, life and balance. The story is about that equilibirum that keeps the community anchored and the inter-dependencies between the struggling creatures that populate the Row. How they rely on one another for life outside existence. Mack and the boys, with their bare-bones lifestyle, stripped of complexities, luxuries and constrictions, Doc with his fine-tuned life-in-statis, and the girls at the whore house with their patchwork quilt. Each esentially lacking the basic glue that binds mankind in intimate relationships, instead binding themselves to the community. Economy figures highly in the daily events, but is carefully tamed and controlled. Simplicity, the very essence of Cannery Row, dictates one input and one output. Shopping away from Lee's store (a wonder in itself, stocking all a Cannery Row inhabitant could desire) is as unfamiliar and undesirable as working in the Canneries. Instead the inhabitants rely on the tidepools.
Perhaps my favourite concept in Cannery Row is the inclusion of a series of interchapters; tiny stories lived in Cannery Row, inconsequential to the plot. These wonderful little sculptures, just momentarily, give you time to blink and see the tidepool from a different perspective. The most significant of these is the story of the gopher, and his doomed paradise - a stark outline of reality against fantasy which stimulates an empathy localised to Steinbeck's tales. The bleak acceptance that the characters have of life within their own world is quite typical of Steinbeck's work; the paralysis of the American Dream; a time when dreams had lost their currency. Though the depression was only transient, it lasted long enough that people had to build a life within it. Perhaps Cannery row is America through a macro lens. A simple story with isolated, grayscale characters brought into technicolor by basic human emotion, resulting in an blurred montage of stunted ideology. Community is a sense quite frequently alien today, perhaps due to a requirement for it that is equally diminished. Steinbeck captures a nook of history and community and lets us wade in it, just for a while. Then we slip off our waders and forget the uneventful, inconsequential life that was Cannery Row as the high tide comes and sweeps it away.
At the Western frontier of the world, in one of the gloomier sectors of America's history, is Cannery Row. No imagery can do better justice to Cannery Row than Steinbeck's own tidepool analogue. It is a tightly-packed microcosm of symbiotic relationships, where each character is as distinct as the lifeforms that populate a tidepool. Each with average characteristics, mundane outlooks and flatlined prospects. But alongside the darkness and solitude, lives beauty, life and balance. The story is about that equilibirum that keeps the community anchored and the inter-dependencies between the struggling creatures that populate the Row. How they rely on one another for life outside existence. Mack and the boys, with their bare-bones lifestyle, stripped of complexities, luxuries and constrictions, Doc with his fine-tuned life-in-statis, and the girls at the whore house with their patchwork quilt. Each esentially lacking the basic glue that binds mankind in intimate relationships, instead binding themselves to the community. Economy figures highly in the daily events, but is carefully tamed and controlled. Simplicity, the very essence of Cannery Row, dictates one input and one output. Shopping away from Lee's store (a wonder in itself, stocking all a Cannery Row inhabitant could desire) is as unfamiliar and undesirable as working in the Canneries. Instead the inhabitants rely on the tidepools.
Perhaps my favourite concept in Cannery Row is the inclusion of a series of interchapters; tiny stories lived in Cannery Row, inconsequential to the plot. These wonderful little sculptures, just momentarily, give you time to blink and see the tidepool from a different perspective. The most significant of these is the story of the gopher, and his doomed paradise - a stark outline of reality against fantasy which stimulates an empathy localised to Steinbeck's tales. The bleak acceptance that the characters have of life within their own world is quite typical of Steinbeck's work; the paralysis of the American Dream; a time when dreams had lost their currency. Though the depression was only transient, it lasted long enough that people had to build a life within it. Perhaps Cannery row is America through a macro lens. A simple story with isolated, grayscale characters brought into technicolor by basic human emotion, resulting in an blurred montage of stunted ideology. Community is a sense quite frequently alien today, perhaps due to a requirement for it that is equally diminished. Steinbeck captures a nook of history and community and lets us wade in it, just for a while. Then we slip off our waders and forget the uneventful, inconsequential life that was Cannery Row as the high tide comes and sweeps it away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)