Listening to beautifully consonant orchestral melodies, glancing through portraits of exotic lands and peoples and being moved by their brilliance, imagining a world far away where reality melts like chocolate to heat and a symphony of stars and galaxies twinkle against the inky blackness of an infinite universe.. This is the time when the intense urge to run away and lose myself in life severed from any constraints and obligations and deadlines and sadness overwhelms and impedes me from doing anything productive or necessary. I just want to lay down on a sandy beach under the gaze of a resplendent night sky with the wind softly brushing against my cheek and the ocean kissing my toes and picture a world far removed from the one in which my life has unsuspectingly drowned itself in. Need to escape. Need to forget. Need to runaway.

Those of you who know me know that my favourite news source is the BBC. They provide, in my opinion, the most balanced view of current events of all the other popular news sources out there.

This morning I stumbled upon one more reason to love the BBC – there is apparently a BBC Ethical Man (how this escaped my attention is beyond me, or an indication of the fact that I am not the world’s most observant person)! The focus of this year’s ethical dilemma is, no surprise, climate change.

As part of the ethical challenge, him and his family spent a year trying to cut their carbon emissions and in today’s article he writes about how cutting out meat from our diets is something many of us believe that we should do but never get around to actually doing. See link to his article below.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ethicalman/2009/12/think_before_you_carve.html

He points out several important issues in support of becoming vegetarian (or at the minimum substantially cutting down on the amount of meat in your diet), not least of which is the global food crisis. I’m not sure whether the average person is aware, but the global food crisis stems not from an inability on the earth’s part to grow enough food to feed the global population, but rather from the fact that so much of the food that is produced is not actually consumed by humans but are used to fatten up the animals that we feed on.

As a recent vegetarian convert (but one who has debated the issue for years), I myself wonder why something that should be relatively simple (as long as we are still eating something we won’t starve) is something that so many people have a moral/ethical dilemma with?

Of course, I understand that meat can be delicious, but really so are vegetables and fruits. And plain laziness is just not a good excuse. So what else is stopping us?

On my own part, I guess I thought that switching from an omnivore to a herbivore was against human nature, but really when I think about it, humans, just like every other animal are constantly evolving so just because our ancestors survived on one strategy doesn’t mean that that is the currently most fit strategy. In fact, if remaining omnivorous leads to climate change and the ultimate demise of the planet, then this is actually an evolutionary dead-end!

For others, it might be a cultural thing. But again, cultural shifts are both natural and expected. Furthermore, if all of us reduced our meat intake, then we could still retain those special holidays for feasting on special meat fare.

It’s funny because I’ve found that many people seem concerned for my health when I tell them that I have recently gone vegetarian. Frankly, as long as you are conscious of what foods you need to replace the protein and other nutrients normally found in meat its perfectly fine. In fact, I really haven’t found it to be so difficult at all!

I dig my toes into the sand
The ocean looks like
A thousand diamonds
Strewn across a blue blanket.
I lean against the wind
Pretend that I am weightless
And in this moment
I am happy.
Happy.
- Incubus, I Wish You Were Here

Just talked to K online. Heard a totally different story from what certain people had been telling me. I don’t know how true it is or who to trust anymore. All I know now is that I am terribly sorry for hurting you, if I did at all.

This years winner of the Holberg Prize (established to increase awareness of the value of academic scholarship) – Ian Hacking – a Professor of Philosophy at U of T – wrote a very interesting article entitled Curious about Curiosity.

As humans, we are all innately curious but where does that curiosity stem from? In essence why does it serve only to perpetuate itself such that the discovery of one thing leads to questions about something else?

He sites an excerpt from a children’s book called Me! by William Saroyan – the premise being that in the beginning there was only one word “me”, and people went around saying “me me me” and nothing else until they discovered “you” and because there was now two, there could be more, and the people started finding out more.

Hacking then goes on to argue that we had to find out how to find out – in other words the emergence and expansion of curiosity has had the single biggest impact on the planet than anything else we have ever done! I concur.

In this day and age of exponential information growth the problem to me now seems to be how we manage this knowledge so that we continue to channel positivity from our curiosity.

A discouraging example would be the recent exposure of “suspect” emails about climate change from the University of East Anglia. While this likely stemmed from someone’s simple curiosity it has led to a Pandora’s Box like explosion of a media frenzy and has led some less informed members of the general public/political circle to doubt the FACT of global warming. Just because information is novel does not mean that it should automatically override years of well formulated facts.

In other words it is easy to be curious but what is not easily resolved is how we make use of the knowledge we garner from our curiosity. This is where I think it is important to have what Hacking’s terms “curiosity about curiosity itself”. In order to tackle this issue we must have a basic understanding of two things:

1)the cultural and sociological tools developed over time to use to assist in our discovery of ourselves and the world/phenomena around us

2) the nature of our curiosity, for good or for evil, for the individual or for the people?

Only then will we be able to perpetuate curiosity in a noble light.

See below for a copy of the original article by Ian Hacking:

P.S. I tried to find a copy of Me! on the internet but failed – I really would like to read the whole thing

Dr.Seuss

Snow! There’s snow! There’s lots of snow!

Lots and lots of snow to throw!

You can throw it if you’re cold,

You can throw it if you’re old,

You can throw it if you’re young,

You can throw it with your tongue!

You can throw it on The Green,

You can throw it at your dean!

If in the BEMA you get lost,

Throw your snow at Robert Frost!

At midnight there will be a fight!

A snowball fight this very night!

Come jump and shout and sing and dance!

Come put snow down someone’s pants!

Come and throw some snow with me,

You will like it, you will see!

This song summarizes my sentiments at the moment.

I think I might have a problem currently with wanting to do too many completely different things at once  but I can’t help it – I am who I say I am and tomorrow someone else entirely – props to anyone who knows which book that quote is from.

Here is some more trivia,this time from a song:

“I wish I had two paths to follow, I’d write the ending without any sorrow”.

Anyways, I realize that this is starting to sound a bit depressing but really I am quite cheerful =). Because busy me = cheerful me and judging from the amount of scribble in my agenda, and the number of minutes I’ve spent idle, cheerfulness levels are actually at an all time high!?!

The blogosphere is all abuzz about Davide Cantoni’s recent paper, titled ‘The Economic Effects of the Protestant Reformation: Testing the Weberian Hypothesis in the German Lands’ (Tyler Cowen and James Kwak weigh in). I haven’t quite had the time to read the entire paper in detail- and I doubt I will, with finals well upon me- but I did skim through it at reasonable length. Here’s the abstract :

Many theories, most famously Max Weber ’s essay on the “Protestant ethic,” have hypothesized that Protestantism should have favored economic development. With their considerable religious heterogeneity and stability of denominational affiliations until the 19th century, the German Lands of the Holy Roman Empire present an ideal testing ground for this hypothesis. Using population figures in a dataset comprising 272 cities in the years 1300–1900, I find no effects of Protestantism on economic growth. The finding is robust to the inclusion of a variety of controls, and does not appear to depend on data selection or small sample size. In addition, Protestantism has no effect when interacted with other likely determinants of economic development. I also analyze the endogeneity of religious choice; instrumental variables estimates of the effects of Protestantism are similar to the OLS results.

The study is interesting for social theorists and economists alike. As Cowen remarks, this is by far the most comprehensive statistical test conducted on Weber’s hypothesis. This point should be clarified though, since I think it attributes far too much coherence to The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. How exactly do we understand Weber’s hypothesis in that seminal essay? The short version often seems to have Weber saying that the protestant ethic facilitated capitalistic development in a crucial, causal manner. That is, the work ethic and its emphasis on striving onwards in the sphere of material production, furthered capitalism.

Is this Cantoni’s understanding of the Weberian hypothesis though? As the abstract above indicates, Cantoni begins with a much milder version of Weber’s story, with protestantism merely “favoring” capitalistic economic development. However, this early nuance aside, it does seem clear that Cantoni is attributing a definite causal process to the Weberian story, with the protestant ethic in some way causing economic development (understood as capitalism). Thus, on the very first page, Cantoni remarks that his project is to specifically assess the causal link between protestantism and economic growth. Two principal premises are worth noting here:

1. Weber is said to have attributed a causal connection between protestantism and capitalistic, economic growth (running from the former to the latter).
2. If said causal impact cannot be found, the Weberian hypothesis- that protestantism had an effect on economic growth- will have been refuted.

I think my problem with Cantoni’s piece lies in his understanding of the Weberian story. While a superficial reading of The Protestant Ethic does seem to indicate a causal process, Weber’s argument is a little more complex than that; he isn’t saying that protestantism caused capitalism, or vice versa. Rather, there was an accidental impact of religious developments felt in the economic sphere. Said accidental impact was contingent and unintentional. Indeed, the notion of causality is twisted all around in Weber, there, yet not quite there at the same time. The takeaway point here is that Cantoni is not really refuting Weber so much as rejecting a very narrow- and flawed- reading of him. From a cursory reading, the stats appear solid and Cantoni’s argument is convincing enough…I just don’t think he’s telling the story that he claims to be doing. Thus, premise 1 is incorrect, rendering premise 2 slightly flawed as well; when the connection between protestantism and economic growth cannot quite be established, how can we claim to have refuted it? Weber attempts to explicate how accidental developments in the religious sphere were manifested in the economic one, without making a claim to link the two in a coherent, causal fashion. Weber’s famous quote on the iron cage goes:

The Puritan wanted to work in a calling; we are forced to do so. For when asceticism was carried out of monastic cells into everyday life, and began to dominate worldly morality, it did its part in building the tremendous cosmos of the modern economic order. … In Baxter’s view the care for external goods should only lie on the shoulders of the ’saint like a light cloak, which can be thrown aside at any moment.’ But fate decreed that the cloak should become an iron cage.

James Kwak follows this up by asking if we could have gotten the spirit of capitalism without the protestant ethic. My own understanding of Weber is: yes, we certainly could have. While the protestant ethic did ‘its part’ in building the ‘tremendous cosmos of the modern economic order’, Weber is not arguing for a critical causal process. The “accidental”, “contingent” aspects of the protestant ethic’s impact is important in understanding this. Furthermore, there is an underlying ambiguity present at the end of The Protestant Ethic, with the iron cage coming up against an understanding of history as open (I’ve misplaced my copy of The Protestant Ethic, but I promise to update this post with the relevant quote). Weber acknowledges that a charismatic authority may arise, with the reemergence of traditionalism remaining a possibility as well. While readings of Weber often gloss over this ambiguity- choosing to focus on the (intrinsically nebulous) link between protestantism and the spirit of capitalism- it is important, in so far as it highlights the incoherence present in Weber’s story at times. Ultimately, the accidental, manifested understanding of the relation between protestantism and economic growth helps clarify the ambiguity surrounding the iron cage.

Um frame do video

Ohoy there!
Finalmente no ar a versão mixada que fiz para a Oração de São Francisco! Muito Rock´n´Soul. Descobri que esta oração é atribuída a São Francisco, mas que na verdade apareceu num folhetim furreco da Itália à época da 1ª Guerra Mundial. Não importa a autoria, importa apenas que minha alma muito precisa destas palavras postas em vivência e prática do dia-a-dia.
Sinto que ler as matérias dos jornais cheias de maldade, sangue, loucuras é deprimente e funciona como uma dose diária de hipnose coletiva. Já foi o tempo que funcionava, se é que um dia funcionou, como catarse,ler sobre homicídios estúpidos, violência doméstica, etc.

Se somarmos a isto as notícias sobre degradação ambiental, extinção das expécies, vemos como foi e é exemplo para nós a vida de Francisco de Assis, voltada para o amor ao próximo e à todos os seres vivos, para o perdão e a caridade.

Para mim foi gratificante criar esta versão, cantar, tocar e ainda contar com músicos maravilhosos como Kau Loppes e Franklin Vilaça. Na verdade ia fazer um videozinho paradão, daí resolvi desenhar uma imagem singela do Chico balançando a cabeça, como que curtindo a música. Em comparação com Bebendo à Luz da Lua pode parecer um retrocesso no quesito animação, mas preferi que as pessoas se focassem na letra e absorvessem apenas céu e luz.

Como nada é perfeito, no refrão adicionei um pouco da dificuldade que é implantar este reino de Amor nos nossos corações. A pomba voa, mas com dificuldade.

Espero que curtam.

By Amateur Philosopher Penny Ham

I have a friend who thinks that analyzing has its limits. He told me that I analyze things to a degree that is unnecessary. Yeah, that’s just not possible! I analyzed the possibility of over-analyzing things and, yeah, I’m pretty sure that’s just not possible!

I stated back to my friend that the concept of over-analyzation is ridiculous! It is impossible to pick things apart too much. However, I did tell him that I should learn to control what I say outloud as I analyze things (that he or anyone else would consider unnecessary analyzation). I suppose severe levels of analytical thought are ok as long as one does not do this among fellow hominads who do not enjoy this activity.

Someone once said that things lose their beauty once you begin to apply theories to them. That person clearly has no interest in thinking! I must admit, things are beautiful by first impression but things are also as beautiful or more when you theoretically explain or understand them. Of course, I could make the claim that first impressions are theory-laden, that is, you can’t have first impressions without having theoretical concepts attached to them. But, boy would that claim be annoying to someone who didn’t want to think about it!

I would like someone to point out to me where analyzing becomes unnecessary. Unfortunately, if they did that, then they’d be analyzing to a degree that would annoy even them. How self-defeating! The only instances where I can think of analyzation becoming unnecessary is in fun situations that involves group activity.

Also, there are situations where analyzation becomes a problem when it is irrelevant to the task at hand. If you are solving a problem in physics, and you are analyzing an object in terms of its genetics or non-genetics, rather than trying to, say, determine the velocity of the object, then your analysis is irrelevant to the problem at hand. Perhaps this is fundamentally why people get bothered when people overanalyze. They are annoyed by those who analyze objects or concepts that are irrelevant to their own goals of understanding. Oh well!

I suppose I should rethink everything I just wrote. I am definitely right given what I currently think but I could prove myself wrong later. Probably will. Well, whatever the answer is, I’ll definitely be right about it once I determine it!

Arte do saudoso Jack Kirby

Tsunamis no pacífico, enchentes no sul, 2012, von Däniken e Jack Kirby.
Pronto! Cheguei ao caldo mágico necessário para escrever ao delicioso Pôr do Sol.

Desde que Erik von Däniken cogitou a possibilidade dos antigos deuses serem visitantes interplanetários, que a mente de muita gente fervilhou nos anos 70. Stan Lee e Jack Kirby (1917–1994), um dos maiores desenhistas em quadrinhos norte americano do pós guerra, desenvolveram a HQ dos ETERNOS.

Na sinopse, Lee e Kirby uniriam a civilização  maia, grega à visita de entidades interplanetárias gigantescas prontas para julgar a humanidade, e dependendo do veredicto, destruí-la completamente, pois teria sido uma experiência mal sucedida uma vez que seríamos fruto de uma experiência de tais entidades. Ufa! Maravilhoso, não?
Cresci com estas deliciosas imagens de Kirby!

Para os Maias, homens como Cortez representaram o apocalipse real.

Agora, longe dos anos 70 do século XX, estamos nos aproximando de 2012 e novo fim do mundo se aproxima. Mel Gibson, em Apocalipto, tentou passar uma mensagem que, no fundo, se assemelha à de Lee/Kirby. Presenciamos no filme de Gibson o fim de uma civilização decadente com a chegada, nas últimas cenas, dos navios espanhóis. Gibson não precisou ir além. Todos sabemos no que deu.

Agora, aguardamos a chegada do dono do mundo para julgar-nos. Seja na vestimenta dos ETERNOS, ou na de Jesus Cristo, ou como ALIENS…
Tal aproximação seria precedida por tsunamis e catástrofes, além de guerras e cizânias… Não estamos muito longe, afinal, dos decadentes maias encontrados por Cortéz. Resta aguardar.

Cogito conecta estudantes de todo o mundo através de programas, entrevistas, links muito interessantes, notícias, fórums e eventos pelo mundo. Desenvolvido e mantido pela Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth o site desperta a curiosidade de jovens para temas atuais das Ciências e da Matemática. O nome “Cogito” vem do latim e significa “penso”. Lembram do Descartes “cogito ergo sum“? Com uma busca muito apurada, o site é uma ótima referência para conteúdos instigantes.

Artigos Relacionados

• Johns Hopkins University Will Serve As Set For Facebook Movie, “The Social Network” (allfacebook.com)
• New Web Site Launched for Students Keen on Math, Science, ( Johns Hopkins University)
• Cogito.org Wins Parents’ Choice Foundation’s Gold Award ( Johns Hopkins University)
• Math Club Comes Up With Winning Formula For Its Skills (JHU Gazette)

I first started reading Nicholas Kristof’s column due to his stance on education as the frontier to opportunity – a view that I strongly believe in. Sadly, I have passed the eligible age of being able to apply for the Win a Trip with Nicholas Kristof contest.

Nicholas’ latest Op-Ed column tells the story of a Zimbabwean women who recently earned her PhD degree after triumphing against poverty, an abusive husband (who she nonetheless nursed in his final days of battling AIDS), and almost no early education. Oh, and she also brought up 5 children.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/opinion/15kristof.html?_r=1

I wasn’t quite sure what to make of the statement “talent is universal, opportunity is not” at first – only because the definition of talent, and my personal view of it, has always been something possessed by relatively few people. But of course, I often forget that talent is multifaceted and therefore, everyone is talented in their own unique aspects. But I digress.

Why is it that it is so universally admirable to see someone triumph over adversity? And why, when we know that it is never impossible to achieve the “impossible”, do so many of us still choose not to triumph – especially those at the opposite end of the spectrum, who possess both talent and opportunity but who choose not to employ either? Is it because we “couldn’t care less” or is it because it is the easy way out?

I cannot fathom an answer to this one yet – but it strikes me that it is because fortitude is not an innate quality. So then, how can we go about cultivating fortitude? More importantly, is it possible to learn to face things with fortitude without having been placed in a difficult position in the first place? Which reminds me of the fact that i’ve always hated the saying “at least you’ll come out of it stronger” because it implicitly states that in order for anyone to achieve something positive, we must have the negative.

Anyways, I have thought about this for a long time and am still trapped within a labyrinth of confusion.

On a lighter note, I also still have not figured out what I am talented at yet – although I have a sneaking suspicion that it might be weight-lifting.

Sapien e sua mãozinha me tiraram do filme

Estava assistindo a Hellboy II quando percebi que todos aqueles sons estavam me incomodando, mais precisamente quando Sapien desgruda a mão da porta de vidro do banheiro onde está a garota do Hellboy. A partir de então, passei a prestar atenção aos sons mais absurdos possíveis do filme, alguns interessantes como o do Elemental (o deus da Floresta), outros nem tanto. Como gosto da vida de rato de estúdio de gravação, sei como eles são produzidos, e na maioria das vezes, não têm nada a ver com o que vemos na tela.

Vittorio e o cenário pós-guerra.

Pois bem, há cerca de um mês atrás assisti a Ladrôes de Bicicleta de Vittorio de Sica. Belíssimas atuações no subúrbio proletário de Roma, destaque para o filho do personagem principal, Bruno Ricci. Enquanto a Itália amargava um lento ressurrgimento das cinzas do fascismo, a Rússia retratada em Girassóis da Rússia, do mesmo diretor, andava a pleno vapor. Ainda estou deslumbrado com o filme. Vittorio troca o neorealismo e torna-se mais poético e sensível à medida que os anos o distanciam da segunda guerra mundial. Este filme, de 1970, tem a guerra como tema central e responsável pela separação do casal de protagonistas, mas é infinitamente mais doce e belo. É algo de sobrenatural quando vemos Mastroianni e Loren reencontrando-se afinal na escuridão, ou ainda, um pouco antes, quando ela prepara-se como uma menina para esperar o amante após, sei lá, duas décadas (o filme não deixa muito claro quanto tempo se passou, afinal). Só quem ama ou já amou sabe o que representam aquelas cenas. E tudo isto feito de forma econômica, porém intensa. Desde a primeira cena com Sophia, percebi que nunca soube, de fato, como ela era uma boa atriz. Havia visto El CId, A Queda do Império Romano, e mais recentemente, uma comédia com Walter Matthaw… Mas nenhuma destas atuações revelaram a Sophia de De Sica. O que fica, além da sensação de ter visto um filme de verdade, é que o cinema poderia voltar a ser grande com menos, e quem sabe, falar mais de vida e menos de números de bilheteria. Por falar em bilheteria, não vi, nestes dois Filmes maravilhosos de De Sica, este consumismo desenfreado que pauta a vida contemporânea. Se em Ladrões, adquirir uma bicicleta representa continuar vivendo, em Girassóis da Rússia, apesar do tabagismo explícito de um ex-combatente, os personagens lutam por viver e sobretudo amar.

Primeiro trabalho com a tablet, ainda inspirado em Topsy Turvy

Com os trabalhos devidamente abertos, quero primeiramente dizer que estou encantado com a minha tablet! Lendo assim parece coisa de fresco, mas é a mais pura verdade. Não a questão do fresco em si, obviamente, mas percebo todo um panorama novo que descortina-se com esta ferramenta do desenho e da pintura do início do século XXI.
Quem me conhece sabe que sou metido a filósofo, além de assíduo estudante da história das artes. Portanto, quero antes considerar alguns fatores para compreendermos melhor algo sobre a influência da revolução tecnológica na maneira de fazer e pensar arte, seja a grande arte, ou  suas derivações.
Creio que o último grande momento da pintura como acontecimento social deu-se na segunda metade do século XIX, na França, mais precisamente na década de 80. Os grande salões eram verdadeiros acontecimentos midiáticos, semelhantes ao Carnaval do Rio. Sei que num primeiro momento parece um exagero, mas não é. Alguns de vocês já devem ter ouvido falar que nossos avós diziam que um grande acontecimento era comentado durante meses, ou do caso Carlinhos na década de 70, o caso de um menino desaparecido que impressionou as famílias brasileiras, ou do roubo do trem pagador por Ronald Biggs, refugiado nas plagas de cá. O tempo, como é extremamente variável na percepção humana (existirá tempo fora dela?), era dilatado, de modo que uma mostra no salão do D´Orsay, ou do Louvre era de fato “a happenning”. Ainda não havia TV, cinema ou celular, Graham Bell havia recém patenteado o telefone; energia elétrica nas residências ainda era artigo de luxo; a fotografia dava ainda passos de mocidade, tutelada pela pintura.
O que havia então para entreter os olhos dos eternos voyeurs que somos? Quadros! Para cenas animadas, havia o teatro e a ópera, esta sim, com imagem e música juntos pelo preço de um! Sei que pode ser um pouco complicado a princípio imaginar a cena de um mundo sem a atual e onipresente parafernália eletrônica, mas peço a gentileza de um esforço, pois para melhor compreendermos o nosso momentum, nada melhor do que voltarmos nossos olhos ao passado para criarmos parâmetros e referências.
Fato é que, com o advento da eletricidade e de todas as novidades advindas desta e de tantas outras descobertas do período em questão, a pintura foi perdendo a força como expressão catalizadora social a partir da segunda metade do século XIX. A aura mística-sacerdotal do pintor já havia sido sepultada com o realismo e o naturalismo e antes, ainda, com a contra-reforma.
Com o advento do cinema, o foco migrou para a imagem em movimento. Mesmo os pintores que revolucionaram o período entre-guerras, como também o pós-guerra, aventuraram-se nesta midia como Pablo Picasso e Salvador Dali. Dali fez vários videos e animações, chegando a contar com Orson Welles como narrador neste filme bizarro intitulado “Soft Self-Portrait”.

Obviamente que, tendo formação clássica em pintura e desenho, sou uma alma ressentida pela total falta de status do pintor neste século XXI. Creio que atualmente somente Lucien Freud goza deste status de imortal ainda vivo o que, talvez, deva-se pelo seu desinteresse do mundo das midias, além de sua genialidade e trabalho, é claro.
Desencantamentos e desencanamentos à parte, quando diz-se que a “pintura morreu”, morreu mesmo. Não morreu o momento eterno, a fagulha cósmica que certas obras contêm, exalam, mas morreu em nós a capacidade de entendermos este tempo imortal, no afã descontrolado por suscessivas imagens sem profundidade. Morreu nossa capacidade de mergulho em águas profundas. Lembro aqui o diz Gaston Bachelard:
“Estar diante da imagem no momento da imagem.”

Creio que isto acabou. Em pouco tempo não saberemos mais decifrar as imagens da eternidade. Somos como aquele povo daquele delicioso conto sci-fi que se esqueceu que construiu as máquinas que os mantêm vivos, e, não sabendo mais como construí-las, estão fadados à extinção.
É o tempo da besta apocalíptica, ou, menos tragicamente falando, da voz da massa, dos desejos da massa quando, reverberando e amplificando esta voz, encontramos as mídias e as empresas a fazer suas vontades.
Bem, diante deste simulacro de realidade em que vivemos encontro-me às voltas com um produto Wacom. Fantástico! Pincéis de todos os tipos, logo no primeiro dia encontrei um Monet. Agora posso pintar como Monet. A diferença é que, se o céu cair sobre nossas cabeças, por Tutatis, continuarei pintando como Monet, mesmo sem energia elétrica.

Os intestinos de uma opereta

Em tempo, Topsy-Turvy é um filme chato, mas maravilhoso como poucos. Trata-se da volta por cima da dupla Gilbert & Sullivan, que na Londres do final século XIX eram os reis do pop: Faziam operetas com temas fantasiosos. Após uma crise criativa, a dupla inspira-se na cultura oriental, mais precisamente Japonesa, para sair da mesmice. Um ponto interessantíssimo do filme, além de ser minucioso na reconstituição da época, é o de mostrar os bastidores da criação, passo a passo, da concepção à apresentação do espetáculo pasando pelos ensaios de orquestra, testes de idumentária e vaidades mil. Imperdível para quem ama ou trabalha em alguma área afim, basta um pouco de saco e pipocas.

This post acts as a sequel to last week’s note on rational choice. As part of my Data Analysis class, we were required to read Milton Friedman’s seminal piece, The Methodology of Positive Economics; it is illuminating in certain regards. Specifically, it highlights some issues with the rational choice, positivist approach largely entrenched in economics today.

The additional confounding effects associated with the social sciences- as opposed to the natural sciences- are inadvertently illustrated in Friedman’s piece. Consider, for instance, the example of an entire batch of faulty telescopes, which could be corrected for measurement error (analogous to perception error in the case of human actors), thereby surmounting the problem entailed by the error. However, one could hardly abstract this into the social sciences and assume, analogously, that all human beings think in the same way and can thus be considered as a homogenous amalgam[1]. Yet, this is precisely the approach adopted by Friedman and numerous positive economists when they eschew an investigation of causal processes (Friedman, p. 21). Following the assumption of uniform perception/cognitive processes/errors, Friedman is able to make the logical leap from the individual to the firm: ‘it is only a short step to the economic hypothesis that under a wide range of circumstances individual firms behave as if they were seeking rationally to maximize their expected returns and had full knowledge of the data needed to succeed in this attempt as if, that is, they knew the relevant cost and demand functions’ (Friedman, p. 21). Friedman refutes objections to the tune that assumptions made in economic theory are too far removed from reality; however, he seems to be misapprehending the problem in doing so. The real issue seems to be the universal applicability of assumptions inherent to Friedman’s construct: thus, while the logical leap from a perfect market to a real, imperfect one is not erroneous, the assumption that all human beings would react to the perfect market in logically homogenous ways is[2].

An example might serve to make this point more clearly: consider a Disney cartoon of a princess. While no one would argue that Princess Jasmine accurately represents the average female form, she is a reasonably good approximation within the context of the cartoon. That is to say, when we view Princess Jasmine, we are put in mind of an abstract conception of what the female human being looks like. Friedman’s rebuttal is clearly operational here: while one would grant that Princess Jasmine is quite removed from realistic portrayals of women, she represents an acceptable approximation for the purposes of the cartoon Aladdin. My point is that the real issue is not how accurately the cartoon approximates real human beings, but rather, the acceptability of adopting this approximation as a basis upon which predictions can be made. Although the Arabian sun shines off of Jasmine’s hair, one cannot infer that the same would be true of a real human being under the real Arabian sun. Similarly, while Jasmine’s eyes approximate genuine human eyes, one would not recommend that an optometrist use the cartoon in an anatomical study.

One can abstract from the behavior of a single electron to that of every electron within a system fairly easily; the same cannot be said of perceptive, cognitive human beings, as I noted last week. While these are merely preliminary thoughts on the matter, further inquiry would seek to establish the degree to which theories on individuals could be abstracted into prescriptive theories about larger social entities. Such is the burden of the social scientist and in particular, one seeking to adopt a rational choice perspective.

Do skim through the Friedman piece; his lucid style makes for a quick read.

[2] It should be noted here that Friedman would certainly acknowledge that human actors have differing ends; the issue here is with the causal mechanisms by way of which human beings determine the means to attain those ends, the investigation of which Friedman consciously eschews.

OK, I know I just should keep my hands to myself, and take a cold shower, BUT. Cogito Ergo Sum, he’s so stupid, and I just can’t stoooooop reaaaaaaaaaading.

(Let me assure you that I checked several times whether he wasn’t a 13-year-old boy pretending to be an adult. This is because I don’t get my kicks out of laughing at little kiddies. BUT HE WASN’T.)

Uh-huh. The trainwreck begins as Cogito Ergo Sum shares his thoughts on gay people with the rest of the class:

This post is in response to a fellow blogger who reported on a Bishop of Church of England. It is not the intention of this post to mock or criticize or insult the homosexual community. But frankly I don’t understand why this tension exists between the Church and the community.

See, he’s a nice guy. He won’t mock!

(Is this because he couldn’t tell mockery if it was stuffed down his throat, and later had the bears maul him?)

He starts with a strong case:

If you want to be a part of the religion then you have to accept its doctrines. Or else you’re simply not a part of the religion. Mutilating a faith and its doctrines just so you can be accepted serves no purpose other than to force a social group to embrace you for your sexuality. This is a sort of emotional, political and social blackmail.

Strong case of intergalactic flu and Baby Dropped on Their Head Syndrome. Because, like most Christians, Cogito has never read the Bible, and even if he did, his reading comprehension skills are so severely lacking, he has to believe that even allowing teh gays into churches “mutilates” his “faith”. The education is that way!

Even the Devil believes in God, right?

No idea. Have you tried asking him? I must be worse than devil, though, because I don’t. Come to think of it, I don’t believe in the devil, either.

I don’t get what the homosexual communities issue is. If you aim to change the religion then you’d might as well abandon it or create your own occult practice, because that is just as good as changing the one that is there. I’m sorry that you feel unaccepted by them, but if that is the case then that is the case. It is what it is (emphasis mine — Sara).

OH MY DARWIN YES! He did say it!

For those who failed to catch up: there are other people who “aimed to change the religion”. Just to name a few, let’s maybe start with Jesus. Then, Paul (the epistolary guy), then some lesser known figures, like Luther or Calvin. Note how Cogito just called their religions “occult practice”. AHAHAHAHAHA.

Accept the religion for what it is or don’t accept it at all… why the religious intolerance? Is that not hypocritical of you? You criticize the religion for a lack of tolerance for you, but you fail to tolerate the religion for what it stands for.

Funny that you should say that, Cogito. Have you read the Bible yet? Is that not hypocritical of you? You criticise the gays for lack of tolerance for you, but you fail to inform yourself as to what your holy book actually stands for.

What are you accomplishing by mutilating a religion and its beliefs just so that you can be accepted into it? Would that help to validate you? Would it help you to feel better and sleep better at night?

We, gay people, don’t sleep that well at night. This is because we’re busy having sex.

Gay sex.

With each other.

Gayly!

Does it alleviate your own guilt for being gay? Would religious acceptance make you feel less of a sinner? I imagine it does work like that.

To alleviate my own guilt for making this drivel known to people whom I like and respect, I will put “have moar gay sex this month” into my Gay Agenda Magical Pink Sparkly Memo Pad.

You might be able to force societies and laws to change, but you cannot force a religion.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. This is why Catholic priests are still allowed to marry, and we’ve been constantly having crusades in Europe since the Middle Ages. Also, the pope is a die-hard monarchist*.

A religion is by definition spiritual, transcendental in nature. At least, anyone who would want to be a part of the church would validate the fact that religions purport to be associated with spiritual matters.

I might be mistaken, but I hardly call the religious peoples’ interest in what I might do with a pink sparkly dildo in my free time transcendental. Or even spiritual.

God has spoken, right?

But have you read the Bible yet? And I don’t mean the abridged picture version.

The law-setter?

I don’t know. In my country, it’s usually the Parliament that does the wacky stuff with the law.

No amount of petitioning will change Gods mind about homosexuality.

If you don’t accept that then you don’t believe in the faith. What more is there for you to do?

Point and laugh. Crochet. Have moar coffee. Lots of things!

A rose by any other name is still a rose. No matter how offensive an adjective or a lifestyle may be, a sinner is a sinner.

OK. Is the adjective that offends you “gay”? Gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay “>gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay ^__^***.

Also: no matter how offensive an adjective or a lifestyle may be, an ignorant homophobic fuckwad is still an ignorant homophobic fuckwad.

Also: SHAKESPEARE QUOTE HOW MEAAAAAAAAAAAAAN.

You can still believe in God and believe you’re going to hell at the same time, right?

Oh, those loving Xians, oh! You  make me feel soooo good about myself. Because, no matter what I do, I still won’t be able to beat that, right?

In fact, that sort of self-doubt is humble and virtuous, quite unlike the guilty Christians who confidently believe they are going to be sitting right next to Christ during every dinner, overly confident that they have earned a place in heaven, lower their guard and let sin set in.

What matters though is: do they let it in anally?

Surprise!

But was it surprise buttsex?

Don’t you think that you should be appeasing the church, instead of the state, in matters of religion?

Oh, I simply love this guy. “Appease”. I don’t think it means what you think it means! Look it up!

As a religious and spiritual construct, marriage is what you seek to achieve. As a social and legal construct, the notion of civil unity is far less meaningful and is less to the end of what you seek.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. “Marriage”, my dear demented fuckwad, is entirely a social construct. Have you any idea what it looks like, or what it looked like in other cultures? No, of course not, why would you? Why would you even be interested, when you can remain blissfully ignorant forever instead?

(Do we need a gigantic series of “Marriage in (insert period/place)” posts to show people how limited and biased their own ideas of marriage are?)

Personally, I think that you suffer a delusional false belief that forcing a church, a body of men, to recognize you; that somehow God will as well.

Here, have some charming rapey gay imagery, what with “forcing the body of men”. Coincidence? NO WAI.

I think that it is a form of perversion to actively undermine a religion, not unlike atheists, under the false premise of virtuosity.

Um, so we had a false premise where we DIDN’T outright say we wanted to undermine religion? Guys, you need to update my forwarding address for the Atheist Agenda memos, I moved!

I’m also afraid “virtuosity” doesn’t really mean what you think it means. Look it up!

The churches believe that you lack moral fortification.

My pillow fort doesn’t count? Damn. Or, did you perhaps mean “moral fortitude”?

It seems true from my perspective in light of these realizations.

This is the last sentence. It doesn’t make any sense. His entire fapping essay makes no sense, but this makes even less. Charming!

(Dear homophobes: yes, this is what you look like. This is how stupid one has to be in order to become one of you.)

* Who knows, he might be. B16 is, just like his predecessor, completely batshit.

**  Please don’t. You’re too entertaining.

*** Daily passive-aggressive smiley quota filled! ERFOLG****!

**** FOREIGN LANGUAGE HOW MEAN.

Hah. So, Dan at Camels with Hammers has an awesome series of posts about gay gay gay gay gayness*, which you should check out if you’re interested in gay gayness and/or  religion 1 * 2 * 3 * 4 * 5 * 6 * . You can also read my very gay post about Leviticus.

(I simply love Leviticus. Whenever I’ve nothing better to do, and whenever I’m down, I just read it and think “well, at least it won’t ever get as bad as that, LOL”**)

However, the hilarity of the day is in the post about the wacky Anglican bishop, with whom we will not concern ourselves, as he’s a typically homophobic specimen of Xian clergy, and therefore, boriiiiiing. What is awesome, is the poor oppressed Christian in the comments:

Why is this so offensive to the homosexual community? If you want to be a part of the religion then you have to accept its doctrines. Or else youre simply not a part of the religion. Even the Devil believes in God, right? I dont get what the homosexual communities issue is. If you aim to change the religion then you’d might as well abandon it or create your own occult practice, because that is just as good as changing the one that is there. Im sorry that you feel unaccepted. But it is what it is. Accept the religion for what it is or dont accept it at all… why the religious intolerance? Is that not hypocritical of you? What are you accomplishing by mutilating a religion and its beliefs just so that you can be accepted into it? Would that help to validate you? Would it help you to feel better and sleep better at night? You might be able to force societies and laws to change, but you cannot force a religion. A religion is by definition spiritual, transcendental. God has spoken, right? The law-setter. No amount of petitioning will change Gods mind. If you dont accept that then you dont believe in the faith. What more is there for you to do?

Predictably, and hilariously enough, the guy’s nickname is Cogito Ergo Sum (BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA).

(Perhaps, this is why he hasn’t been posting on his blog — with whose mockery we will proceed below — recently. The not-thinking finally caught up with him and, puff, no more Cogito?)

(What is it with pretentious and dumb people, mostly wingnuts, who chose pretentious and ironically inaccurate nicknames like that? There’s a Polish wingnut online bookstore that’s called Księgarnia Ludzi Myślących, which means “The Bookstore of Thinking People” or some such. They sell stuff like this*** and this and this****. Haha, no)

Anyway, predictably enough, Dan swiftly mauled Cogito, and three months later I couldn’t help but dance a little triumphantly on his several-months old battered carcass.

(I have no idea how Dan manages to be so civil, though. I can’t. Wanted to add a couple of “you fuckwads” for a good measure, but there was no place. Damn. Maybe next time.)

(Note to self: also add more passive-aggressive smileys)

But I digress. The thing is, I’m always on the lookout for interesting blogs and websites that are worthy of my time. It stands to reason then that I would check out Cogito’s blog.

I wasn’t disappointed!

Oh, the hilarity!

First, we have a post about those mean people who use big words. How mean!

It often annoys me to hear people use big words that I don’t know. I know, I know… not to self-deprecate or anything, and certainly not to sound arrogant; I just have issues with people who choose to or habitually use larger words than commonly known.

Wellllllllll. I don’t think “deprecate” really means what you think it means (well, it is a possibility). Look it up! Also, “self-deprecating” is normally an adjective. Also, note how between the first sentence and second sentence “the words I don’t know” become “larger words than commonly known”. Haha, no.

(Also, his English is very awkward. I thought at first he was an ESL learner and wanted to lay off mocking him, but it seems from his posts he’s USian)

Then, right in the second paragraph:

I have a fairly descent vocabulary, myself; a rather large one in fact.

Um, did you mean “decent”? Look it up! Well, anyway, I thought it was a bit arseholish to laugh at people’s spelling, maybe he didn’t have the time, maybe he’s dysgraphic. But then, two lines further:

Further, I write with a much higher vocabulary than I speak. I’m pretty sure that most people are like me in this regard. If you’ve read any of my articles online, you would know the depth of the vocabulary I use.

HAHAHAHAHA PLEASE WRITE ME MOAR. And I’d sort of like to hear him speaking, now.

(Also, WordPress and most other blogging platforms have a nice little tool called “spellcheck”. This is not a big word for you, Cogito, I’d certainly hope.)

A few paragraphs down, we can read about the existential angst Cogito experiences every time some mean person uses a word he doesn’t understand.

When people use large words that I don’t understand I wonder to myself,

• “Is this person testing my vocabulary? My intellect?”
• “Is this person testing my pride and seeing if I will ask what the word means?”
• “Are they trying to sound smarter than they are?”
• “Does this person actually not think anything of it?”

Narf, narf. Personally, I’d go with option 4. My internet therapist credentials allow me to state a diagnosis of “look, jerk, this is what happens when you’re stupid, full of yourself, and paranoid about people proving you wrong”.

(Incidentally, what a normal****  gay person, like Sara*****, asks herself when she doesn’t understand a word is:

• Where is my dictionary?*****)

Normally, people don’t spend that much time thinking whether their interlocutor will understand every word they say or not. They just speak the way they’re used to, duh*******. Also, how are you supposed to gauge what your interlocutor can or can’t understand when you don’t try to talk to them first? Are you supposed to think that every person without a formal education is just a nincompoop bum who doesn’t read books and so on? Are you supposed to think that every person wearing a certain sort of clothes is uneducated? Why? That’s classist, and also ignorant stereotyping.

Next,  we have this piece of utter and thorough brilliance that shines like the Sun (or the gospels):

Its my understanding that, for all intent and purpose, the Qu’ran is just another Book, another Word, and yet another “denominational” offshoot of Christianity.  Islam is as valid as, say, Judaism or Protestantism are; each have their place and association with Orthodox Catholicism.

Historically speaking, Islam came about several centuries after Christ and the birth of Catholicism.

OH WOW. First, why do you hate apostrophes? Second, it’s “for all intents and purposes”. Third, Judaism an offshoot of Christianity? Dude, Judaism had been around since long before Xianity wore a nappy and gurgled.

Not to mention? Catholicism is a concept much younger than Christianity itself, oops. Not to mention, trust me, Muhammad knew shit about Catholic dogmas when he wrote the Quran.

Anyway, what follows is a masterpiece of complete and utter ignorance. I had a laugh over it with my fourth and fifth coffee.

Let’s not mock him, though! He’s only bigoted when it comes to the gay gay gay gay gayyyyyyyys.

I am not well versed in the Qu’ran, but after the September 11th disaster and all the anti-Islamic chain mail floating around the internet, I felt compelled to purchase a copy of the Qu’ran.  I was a bit of an amateur theologian even then, but my immediate intention was to verify all of the atheist-writ, Christian-writ, and war-monger-write quotes that supported the bitterness and resentment of the Sep 11 attacks.  I also have a copy of the prophesies of Nostradamus for the same reasons.  I enjoy comparing religions, and if you are a ready of mine you would have read some of what I have to say, and you will likely read a lot more to come.

*Snort*. Amateur indeed. A hint: when you know nothing about something, just say so, instead of using, well, weasel words like  “an amateur (insert profession)”. It’s not cute. It’s just stupid.

I realize that Islam isn’t regarded as a denomination of Christianity. Both the Islamic and the Christian people essentially agree to that.  However, I have found that in  the Qu’ran there are many references to Christ, Christians, and the One True God – and they are spoken of in a positive light.  For all intent and purpose, the Christian God and Allah are one and the same god.  Its basically a proper pronoun, and we can expect some linguistic differences.

Um, not really. Or it depends,. As it happens, Jesus is a prophet in Quran, not god, so. SO MAYBE NOT. The stuff about Islam being a denomination of Xianity though, I sort of can’t make up my mind whether it’s more stupid or more offensive (HULLO, CULTURAL APPROPRIATION).

OK, it’s more offensive:

But the point is simple. The Qu’ran validates Christianity.  It is not an opposing religion, not in the slightest, its not really even a separate religion.  At least, not as the Islamic see it.

YEAH RIGHT.

And again, this is my interpretation based on my own first-hand observations.

Also known as “bullshit” and “anecdotal evidence”.

Anyone who wishes to contradict or disprove this, I welcome the evidence as I always do.  I welcome theologically-based evidence, in this case, since historical accounts and fanaticism never count as proof to anything of a theological nature.

This means actually “only what I say counts as evidence, counts, and I only say that the stuff I agree with counts, so there”.

What I mean is, anyone who is in a position to refute would have at least read the Qu’ran, or the necessary passages to support their claims, and therefore isn’t speaking from a bigoted heart.

Just like he admits that he didn’t finish reading Quran a few paragraphs before, but that doesn’t stop him from writing bullshit about it. SHINE ON YOU DARLING JUST SHINE ON.

There is no legitimate reason why Christians, in particular, should be afraid of Islam or see it as a separate entity.  In many ways, as I see it, Islam should be adopted into Christianity as a denomination.  In fact, I would even argue that the Qu’ran should be adopted as yet another Book, to be integrated into the Biblical scriptures in much the same way that the Apocrypha or Dead Sea Scrolls should be.

YOUR BIOLOGICAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL THEOLOGICAL DISTINCTIVENESS WILL BE ADDED TO OUR OWN. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE, RESISTANCE IS FUTILE. Thus spoke the Christian Borg!

Awesome!

From his post about education, one can gather that his political views are privileged-whiney-arsehollerism:

You say that education costs money. I must disagree wholeheartedly. If I truly cared about my education, and just my education, I could pop into the public library day in and day out for the rest of my life. I can literally acquire an education equal to if not surpassing that of any doctorate level graduate – for free – simply by researching in books freely offered by the county, or the internet that is also offered freely at the library.

Yeah, only not. What you’re talking about, Cogito, is called “personal improvement”. I do realise that because of your deep vocabulary issues, you might not know what it means. Therefore, I’ll explicate it to you while being only slightly condescending.

Yes, you can read all sorts of books in your library, and you can learn all sorts of things there. However, education is not just reading books and learning. It’s also interacting with other learning people, a process which is really really fun and rewarding, if you do it right, and which helps you figure out what you’re doing well and what you should improve still. More importantly, no matter how many books you read, this isn’t something you can put into your CV and expect it to help you find a better job as much as putting “PhD, Molecular Biology” will.  Verstanden?

When I was younger I was foolish. I actually spent cold hard cash attending college, getting an education in the subjects that mattered to me… I truly attended college for the education and not for the degree… because I had that same mentality then. Unfortunately, though, I spent a lot of money taking a lot of classes that didnt even pertain to my degree path. And why? Because I wanted to learn those topics… and I did so quite well.

Cackle, cackle, snort. 100 to 1 he simply couldn’t pass his finals. Bitter much?

But while my classmates came and went, many graduated quicker than I, I came to realize that I was wasting my money on an education. An education I was already passionate enough about to learn for free on my own time, anyway. If you want to learn subjects that interest you, do it for free at the library… your passion is already there and so learning on your own accord is not a burden. I learned then that I could get the same education in the same subjects I appreciated at no cost via the library or the internet at home.

Yeah, I gathered how educated you are from your posts. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

In short, my message to Cogito Ergo Sum would be: PLEASE WRITE SOME MOAR. WE NEED ALL THE HILARITY WE CAN GET. THANK YOU <3

* Every time you say “gay”, a fundamentalist theist of some sort froths at the mouth. Let’s see how many times we can say “gay”, shall we?

** It’s sort of sad, but I really do think “LOL”.

*** This one fetishizes Spanish genocide.

**** This one fetishizes Near Eastern genocide.

**** But then, it’s most likely only because I’m gay. I said “gay”!

***** Meeeeeeeeeeeeee.

***** I then look the word up. Then I memorise it, and use it in conversation, especially if I come across a sensitive snoflake with deep vocabulary, such as Cogito Ergo Sum.

We, big-word-using-people, even have our secret handshake! You know, si augur augurem*******.

******* Or should I say “accustomed to”? *Cackles*

******* LATIN HOW MEAAAAAAAAAAAN.