F.W.Schadow: Die törichten und die klugen Jungfrauen

Matthäus 25:1 Dann wird es mit dem Himmelreich sein wie mit zehn Jungfrauen, die ihre Lampen nahmen und dem Bräutigam entgegengingen. 2 Fünf von ihnen waren töricht, und fünf waren klug. 3 Die törichten nahmen ihre Lampen mit, aber kein Öl, 4 die klugen aber nahmen außer den Lampen noch Öl in Krügen mit. 5 Als nun der Bräutigam lange nicht kam, wurden sie alle müde und schliefen ein. 6 Mitten in der Nacht aber hörte man plötzlich laute Rufe: Der Bräutigam kommt! Geht ihm entgegen! 7 Da standen die Jungfrauen alle auf und machten ihre Lampen zurecht. 8 Die törichten aber sagten zu den klugen: Gebt uns von eurem Öl, sonst gehen unsere Lampen aus. 9 Die klugen erwiderten ihnen: Dann reicht es weder für uns noch für euch; geht doch zu den Händlern und kauft, was ihr braucht. 10 Während sie noch unterwegs waren, um das Öl zu kaufen, kam der Bräutigam; die Jungfrauen, die bereit waren, gingen mit ihm in den Hochzeitssaal, und die Tür wurde zugeschlossen. 11 Später kamen auch die anderen Jungfrauen und riefen: Herr, Herr, mach uns auf! 12 Er aber antwortete ihnen: Amen, ich sage euch: Ich kenne euch nicht. 13 Seid also wachsam! Denn ihr wißt weder den Tag noch die Stunde. 

Lied von der rechten Anhaftung im Tode

Gary Marcus, Kluge: the Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind

Evolutionary psychologist Gary Marcus was one of a number of this year’s Singularity Summit speakers whose work ‘struck a chord,’ so to speak. The idea of reconstructing the human mind in order to grow current computer-based technologies is, well, a no-brainer. The latest scientific attempts to quantify what lies behind the human skull might seem like science fiction, but landmark programs like Switzerland’s Blue Brain Project show how our innate inquisitiveness along with some good-old-fashion pragmatism can open up a whole new world of research relevant to our own preservation.

“What makes the human mind a kluge is not the fact that we have two systems per se but the way in which the two systems interact… What we have instead is only partly responsive to the overall goals of the organism, and a deliberative system (built from in appropriate old parts, such as contextual memory) that can act in genuinely independent fashion only with great difficulty” (93).

“…We tend to pay more attention to stuff that fits in with our beliefs than stuff that might challenge them. Psychologists call this ‘confirmation bias.’ When we have embraced a theory, large or small, we tend to be better at noticing evidence that supports it than evidence that might run counter to it” (53).

: : : : : : : : : : :

I am currently reading J. D. Trout’s The Empathy Gap, which is (briefly) about our capacity to empathize with others who are suffering or are worse off in general, and why it is that relying on these feelings (and trusting in the charity they supposedly effect) makes for bad policy — not only are our emotions often short-lived, but we also possess an impressive (or depressing, depending on how you look at it) lineup of cognitive shortcomings that allow us to ignore or redirect our empathy, or occasionally to ignore empathy and “blame the victim.”  the best policy, he argues, would be transform the empathy we feel for our neighbors and for others around the world into concrete, consistent government programs that can create a safety net for others in order to reduce poverty and alleviate suffering around the world.  (not that the solutions are always easy to come by, but we need policies in place that will direct our better intentions into reliable, effective programs.)

anyway, Trout relies a lot on cognitive and psychological research, esp. lab experiments, much of which is very similar to what can be found in Gary Marcus’ Kluge, which I reviewed a few weeks ago (in fact, some of the same experiments in Marcus’ book illustrating some of these “kluge-y” features of our brain can be found in Trout’s).  to this can be added a new experiment discussed today over at Newsweek in which our ability (or tendency) to backtrack and adjust our thinking when we find ourselves with conflicting positions was measured using — what else? — fMRIs.

the researchers were trying to examine the brain activity engaged when participants experienced “cognitive dissonance” — the brain hurties felt when one holds two contradictory beliefs.  in short, they were looking at hypocrisy in the brain.  the experiment illustrated the activity of the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex when participants were asked to change their account of their experience in a claustrophobic fMRI for the benefit of other, more nervous participants or for a cash reward.

two things are of particular note.  first, in addition to having faulty memories and the far-from-perfect reasoning mechanisms (framing, anchoring, confirmation bias, etc.), we have a part of our brain that kicks in to help us handle the discomfort caused by the “cognitive dissonance.”  but instead of being alerted of a contradiction and being able to stick to our guns (abandoning one or other position), we re-reason and create stories that ultimately allow us to hold contradictory positions or — more illustrated in this experiment — forget our true feelings and adjust them according to what we want to believe.

second, those who adjusted their accounts for the sake of others (who were supposedly nervous) not only had more brain activity during the process, but also were more likely to report that they genuinely enjoyed the experience later (when in fact they had not, as they initially reported).  in short, in lying about (sugar-coating?) their experience to others, they fooled themselves. so our brains have the built-in capacity to alter our accounts (more powerful when for the benefit of others, I guess) and to then remove any traces of a contradiction so that we can forget how we felt (or what we thought) previously, all for the sake of avoiding the unpleasant “dissonance” caused by conflicting feelings (or thoughts).

as the author of the article writes, “The greater the cognitive dissonance a person feels, the more likely he is to change his beliefs to accord with his actions. How convenient.”

an excellent, well-written, persuasive case for considering the mind an evolutionary “kluge” — an inelegant solution to a problem.  Marcus details, with an illuminating and entertaining spread of clinical neuro/psychological research, along with some economics and mathematics thrown in, the ways in which our brains are less than perfect, framing the discussion within an accessible account of the evolutionary development of our minds.

although our brains are unrivaled in the natural world and were obviously a great advantage in human evolution, they were built from the ground up, so to speak, and the end result is a mind that is prone to any number of errors or faults — not to mention the tendency to occasionally break down entirely.  any architect working from scratch, he argues, would make a number of changes, especially integrating our “ancestral” and “deliberative” systems, as he calls them.  evolution, however, advances in small steps, and nature can only select from what is available and build on what has come before — it may reach a “peak” of sorts, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a higher, more impressive peak nearby (that is, a superior system with a different, or at least more integrated, foundation).

so the result is a kluge — an impressive one, to be sure, but a haphazard and undirected (read undesigned) kluge nonetheless.

in addition to enjoying this book in general, I appreciate his candid look at some of the less-than-ideal aspects of how our minds work — or don’t work.  and the case is really persuasive, not only in evolutionary terms (discussing which parts of our brain do what, what we share with other mammals, and what makes us unique), but also in terms of the (often funny) clinical studies done over the past decades that help us understand how we reason and make decisions.

I also enjoyed his few subtle pokes at intelligent design in the book — only addressed directly in the last part of the book, and still briefly — adding a more frank look at something often held somewhat sacrosanct (that is, the mind) to the list of other aspects of our physical bodies that also evolved from imperfect beginnings — my favorite ones being the spine, the vas deferens (also discussed in Your Inner Fish; see review below), and the “byzantine” structure of our DNA, as he puts it.  natural selection selects from what’s available, spreading and promoting what works, and it could take a much longer time than we’ve been around (if ever at all) to fine tune some of our more recent developments (such as the prefrontal cortex, which is a main focus of his).  so we’re stuck with imperfect memory, false memory, motivated reasoning, framing, “anchoring,” confirmation bias, and the whole litany of ways in which we refuse to think and behave rationally.  it’s no wonder people are so darn crazy.  (and stupid.)

Splendid. I’ve found a way to recycle those ridiculous chain emails that grace my inbox from time to time. Welcome to my new series, “Reply All.” The following is from the latest chain email, received September 29:

It is now more than 60 years after the Second World War in Europe ended This e-mail is  being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the six million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians and 1,900 Catholic priests who were murdered, massacred, raped, burned, starved and humiliated with the German and Russian Peoples looking the other way!

Now, more than ever, with Iraq, Iran and others, claiming the Holocaust to be ‘a myth,’ it’s imperative to make sure the world never forgets, because there are others who would like to do it again.

The message included several anecdotes, as well as a comic strip (below) to illustrate the importance of remembering the Holocaust. At the end of the email, I was instructed by the author to forward to as many people as possible. Funny how politics subsumes the most subtle of disguises. Is it just me or have chain emails gotten horribly out of control? My reply comes after the jump.

“With Iraq, Iran, and others claiming the Holocaust to be ‘a myth,’ it’s imperative to make sure the world never forgets.”

This message insinuates that all Iraqi and Iranian people believe the Holocaust to be a hoax. This, in my opinion, is far from true. It is true that Ahmadinejad has made the claim, but as history has undeniably shown this year, a formidable number of Iranians refuse to call him their president. We would be wise to recognize the words of a madman (strangely enough, Ahmadinejad does have some interesting views). It’s important to add that what I “know to be true” is largely constructed by corporate media; although the democratization of online communication and the alternative press calls for a more well-rounded view of world events, it is difficult for this interpellated 70s baby to break hard and fast from tradition. Let’s not forget that our own President Bush had us believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It was the perfect justification for entering an illegal war — a president’s blinding visions of economic gain fueled by a nation’s paranoia. This is an era I’m sure the American people would erase from history if given the chance. As if it were as simple as a ballot recount.

Circulating the aforementioned message, albeit with good intention, is irresponsible. It perpetuates the common (and misguided) notion that Muslims are, by nature, reprehensible — “the bad guys” — and that Jews are, by nature, without blame — “the good guys.” Given what is happening between Israel and Palestine 60 years after the Second World War, if hard-pressed, history might suggest a different characterization.

We know the Holocaust happened; there is no doubt. I am personally horrified by the atrocities committed during that time, horrified by the disregard for human life, by the moral lassitude of an entire species in the face of genocide (the U.S. entered the war with visions of economic gain, not compelled by nobility as history books might suggest). That said, I am not entirely convinced that the systematic extermination of the Jews was about faith. I believe the evil exhibited during WWII was more rooted in culture, ignited by a madman who used the broken dreams of a nation to achieve demigod status; to an impoverished Germany, Hitler symbolized a glorious future.

We also understand that history is written by the victor. There have been convenient omissions and exaggerations, no doubt. Far be it for me to speculate, given the year of my birth and my level of formal education (about to complete a masters degree, I have yet to pursue a PhD). Regardless, I am not immune to signs that fiercely flutter about these 50 states:

I hear racist words spew from Americans that won’t believe their President is American, simply because the color of his skin and the origin of his name accompany a mystique misunderstood by many. The Birthers were recently shot down in court and their leader in litigation, Orly Taitz, is proof enough that the movement was a sham. If you haven’t seen the misguided fervor of the Birthers, I suggest you take a look at this video. The outspoken woman furiously touting the American flag alongside her zip-locked birth certificate demands to have her country back. What can this possibly mean? And later, in a time of crisis, the incensed crowd stands in unison and pledges its allegiance to the flag… brainwashing patriotism ideology hard at work. Having read about lynchings in 50s and 60s America, the image of my president against a backdrop of the angry mob in this video is truly frightening. But change to a conservative is like garlic to a vampire.

I hear the conservative right’s xenophobic hate speech in my sleep; it insists that anyone with a different name or from a foreign culture isn’t to be trusted. I can’t say this surprises me. The colossal GOP failure during the 2008 election was largely due to the propensity of conservatism to exclude (liberalism is about inclusion, whereas conservatism is about exclusion). But at the end of the day fear dictates our choices; xenophobia wins out. It’s the reason why most Americans still absolve their government from any involvement whatsoever in the 9/11 massacre. “Conducting a simulation…” Those words still ring in my head.

And the same xenophobia that fuels Americans’ hatred of “terrorists” overseas, leads us to believe that every American has our sacred interests at heart.

Interesting I should receive this email about the Holocaust today, as I read the following quoted selection on the train, returning home from work. That chapter of our civilization’s history carries a profusion of cultural and religious inferences. Beliefs are peculiar things. Gary Marcus, author of Kluge: the haphazard construction of the human mind, says it best:

The capacity to hold explicit beliefs that we can talk about, evaluate, and reflect upon is, like language, a recently evolved innovation–ubiquitous in humans, rare or perhaps absent in most other species. And what is recent is rarely fully debugged. Instead of an objective machine for discovering and encoding Truth with a capital T, our human capacity for belief is haphazard, scarred by evolution and contaminated by emotions, moods, desires, goals, and simple self-interest–and surprisingly vulnerable to the idiosyncrasies of memory. Moreover, evolution has left us distinctly gullible, which smacks more of evolutionary shortcut than good engineering. All told, though the systems that underlie our capacity for belief are powerful, they are also subject to superstition, manipulation, and fallacy. This is not trivial stuff: beliefs, and the imperfect neural tools we use to evaluate them, can lead to family conflicts, religious disputes…even war.

Now tell me, why is that so hard to believe?

: : : : : : : : : : :

Por Flávia Ribas e Marina Sartori

O alemão Alexander Kluge é uma das figuras intelectuais mais ousadas e provocadoras do cenário televisivo atual. Suas obras, tanto escritas, quanto para a televisão e cinema – Kluge é um grande conhecedor do Primeiro Cinema, cinema anterior ao surgimento de Hollywood – são de difícil definição, pois não podem ser denominadas como obras de ficção e nem de informação (documentários, reportagens), por permitirem misturas. A qualquer momento, uma cena de ficção convencional pode ser interrompida pela inserção de material documental ou citações de outros filmes, relacionados ou não com a narrativa principal, assim como fazia Godard.

Atualmente, a obra de Kluge pode ser definida como “Televisão de qualidade”, ou seja, televisão destinada a públicos exigentes, bem informados, ou por aqueles que não se subestimam a serem tratados como meros receptores passivos, não dotados de inteligência. É desta forma que a televisão convencional, padronizada pela cultura industrial, costuma tratar seus telespectadores.

Apesar de Kluge ser de esquerda, seus programas são transmitidos pela rede privada de televisão alemã, pois a rede pública ainda é burocrática, inflexível, não viabilizando espaço para as criações do autor. Outro diferencial do seu trabalho são as entrevistas, feitas em cenários despadronizados, fugindo do modelo de “talk shows”. Kluge deixa o entrevistado à vontade, não costuma aparecer em cena, faz poucos cortes e permite que os depoimentos sejam interrompidos por longas pausas e silêncio para reflexão. Desta forma, as idéias podem emergir livremente e estimular o exercício do conhecimento.

Talvez a melhor forma de definir a obra de Kluge é a idéia de Ensaio Audiovisual, pois o ensaio vem da literatura como um conceito de subjetividade de enfoque dado ao texto, permitindo a liberdade de pensamento. Isto se aplica nas obras do alemão, que utiliza cenas ficcionais e não-ficcionais, porém o que realmente importa é que este material bruto se transforme em pensamento. Como Godard, Alexandre Kluge nos ensina a pensar com as imagens. Hoje em dia, os intelectuais não são aqueles que se escondem em escritórios, atrás de livros, mas são aqueles que vivem o mundo e são capazes de enxergá-lo através de uma pequena tela de televisão. A questão que fica é: Por que nós, brasileiros, resistimos tanto em ousar e fazer uma televisão de qualidade?

It took longer for me to read this than it took the Allies to take Paris.  That’s because it is an intense and extremely detailed account of the D-Day landings, the Normandy battles and the march to Paris.  It covers the action from four sides; the British under Monty (portrayed as a fool throughout by Beevor – he clearly has a thing against Monty), the Americans under Patton (The top dog in Beevor’s eyes),  the Germans under Hitler and Kluge and the French under De Gaul.

Actually, the D Day section is no more than quarter of the book.  The vast majority is dedicated to the battles in Normandy, and focusses heavily on the ultimate victory when the allies trapped the Germans in the Falaise Pocket.  His description of the feelings of the Allies landing on the beaches of Normandy are so vivid and visceral that it makes you flinch.

If you don’t like extreme detail this book will not be for you, but if you can deal with the unceasing map reading and referencing, and if understand your east from your west and your left flank from your right you may well love this.  The language is real and hugely engaging.  But the thing that really grips one in reading this account is the huge degree of human suffering, unneccessary death and the sheer scale of retribution, rape, murder and looting that went on on all sides.

The French play a big part in this book as both heroes (it would not have happened without The French Resistance) and villians (there was an incredible amount of both forced and willing prostitution going on all over France).

For me the single most engrossing aspect of the whole thing is Beevor’s description of The Bocage.  Thousands of tiny Normandy fields with huge hedgerow surrounding them that had to be taken on a field by field basis with German booby traps and dug in Panzers everywhere.  To say progress was slow and dangerous would be the understatement of the century.

Beevor’s skill is to turn the delivery of historic fact into a form of prose that grips one from start to finish.  He truly is a unique talent.  Stalingrad is equally compelling and I would not hesitate to recommend either of them.

To R.’s for a viewing of Marco Bellochio’s 1972 film Sbatti il mostro in prima pagina. This is very good indeed, an interesting parallel with Schlöndorff’s Lost Honour of Katerina Blum, only instead of leftist terrorists being vilified by the press, it is communist agitators being branded terrorists, even murderers, by an Italian newspaper which comes across as even more cynical and intriguing than its German counterpart. Some scenes available on Google Video.

I leave with a pile of Alexander Kluge to watch, including his Marx film (this will take time to do justice to) and an interview on Walter Benjamin. Stay tuned for reviews.

A kluge (rhymes with huge) is a clumsy solution to a problem (see photo below), and that pretty much describes the workings of the human mind, according to author and psychology professor Gary Marcus. Instinct vs. reason, instant vs. delayed gratification, perception vs. reality, objectivity vs. bias–we are the product of conflicting systems. It’s a wonder we do as well as we do!

Ever wonder why people tend to accept only things that support what they already believe? Why you can’t resist that piece of chocolate cake no matter how firm your decision to diet? And why within minutes do you forget you were going to stop at the store on your way home from work? It’s all part of that haphazardly thrown together mind of ours.

Marcus’ suggestions for overcoming our mental quirks are pretty much standard fare, but still good advice. Marcus has written an easily understood book on an interesting subject, with many relatable examples, and one that may caution you to be a little more analytic when making important decisions.

Forklifting a forklift

–cary

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF FILM STUDIES – CALL FOR PAPERS

CALL FOR PAPERS

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF FILM STUDIES

REVUE CANADIENNE D’ÉTUDES CINÉMATOGRAPHIQUES

http://www.filmstudies.ca

email: cjfsedit@filmstudies.ca

The editors of CJFS/RCEC – Charles Acland (Communication Studies) and Catherine Russell (Cinema Studies) at Concordia University, Montreal – seek submissions of manuscripts in film and moving image studies for the following special topics issues:

1. FILM PUBLICS RECONSIDERED:  Few concepts have been as influential to contemporary film studies as the concept of the public sphere, as theorized by Habermas, Negt and Kluge.  Especially as advanced in Miriam Hansen’s Babel and Babylon, the public sphere has been a central way in which film and media scholars have written about the relationship between text, space and the prospects for democratic life.  With this special issue, we are seeking work that reassesses the legacy of this framework. Papers may be exemplary applications of the concept of the public sphere (e.g. examining film festivals or non-theatrical exhibition) or may be theoretical surveys and evaluations.

Deadline for FILM PUBLICS RECONSIDERED – September 1, 2009

 2. STAR PERFORMANCE:  Film and media stars, by definition multi-media figures, evolve as a complex mix of individually embodied- and industrially-generated assemblages of gesture, expression and narrative.  This special issue seeks research that specifically addresses the intersection of performance and persona in star-making, and star-sustaining, enterprises.  Papers may investigate star performance styles, cross-media manifestations of star personas, and star labour in creative cultural industries.

Deadline for submission for STAR PERFORMANCE – December 1, 2009

3. EXPANDED SCREENS:  The site, situation and occasion of moving image culture is so varied that it can no longer be contained under Gene Youngblood’s groundbreaking category of “expanded cinema.”  Accordingly, this special issue will assemble research that explores the outermost boundaries of the implications and consequences of our broadening screen culture.  Future cinema, miniaturized formats, clip culture, game aesthetics, and digital moving image circulation are all possible areas of research attention for contributions to this issue.

Deadline for submission for EXPANDED SCREENS – March 1, 2010

As always, we continue to seek high quality research for general topic issues. The CJFS/RCEC is Canada’s leading scholarly venue for moving image studies, refereed using a double-blind review process.  We publish innovated research on all topics and formats related to moving image studies.  We also regularly publish book reviews.

Complete guidelines for contributors can be found in each issue of the journal, as well as on our website at: http://www.filmstudies.caSend queries and manuscripts to cjfsedit@filmstudies.ca.

Posted here by Glenn Rikowski

The Flow of Ideas: http://www.flowideas.co.uk

The Ockress: http://www.theockress.com

MySpace Profile: http://www.myspace.com/glennrikowski

1. Platéate hipótesis alternativas
2. Reformula la pregunta
3. La correlación no implica causalidad
4. Anticípate a tu propia impulsividad
5. Haz planes para prevenir cualquier eventualidad
6. No tomes decisiones importantes cuando estés cansado
7. Toma distancia de las cosas
8. Intenta ser racional
9. Prioriza
10. La Felicidad se encuentra en la sala de espera de la felicidad

A very enjoyable video about the Kluge letterpress used by Nick Sambrato at his print shop in Florida.

Via Uppercase.

DCTP

the past few days have been in their own league of productiveness.

I:

-finished the unbearable lightness of being and started steppenwolf
-finished a second draft of SECOND SKIN
-planned my film production schedule for next semester (1 feature, 1 short)
-planned my schedule, tentatively…
-finished another kapitel of my german textbook (halfway there!)
-booked medical appointments: dentist check-up, teeth-cleaning, AND full-body check-up!
- lost half a kilogram (w00t!)

I did not, however, WRITE MY PROPOSAL FOR THE KLUGE RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP! MUST GET IT IN TO PEÑA BY MONDAY! OH GAH! GAH!

panic.

p to the s:
dude. i love german!
i can understand this awesomeness:

Hast du etwas Zeit für mich
Dann singe ich ein Lied für dich
Von 99 Luftballons
Auf ihrem Weg zum Horizont