Notes: On Victims And Self Victimization

https://quillette.com/2018/12/07/take-it-from-someone-who-has-suffered-real-physical-abuse-words-arent-violence/

While I do grow tired of Quillett's excessively repetitious nature, every now and then there's an article worth reading which is why I continue keeping an eye on the site.  This article is an excellent one. It points out that the difference between being a lifelong victim and being a person who was once victimized lies in the way you see yourself afterwards.  The victim is for ever being victimized and can never escape, while the individual who was once a victim takes responsibility for their own healing and adaptation.

> Self-pity is an addictive drug; and students who come to campus looking for ways to avoid stress, instead of deal with it, will find dealers in every office and classroom.  We can’t force students to fight their demons. But at the very least, we shouldn’t be encouraging a policy of immediate surrender. <

Notes: Extremism And the Left

Quillette Is doing well this week! Here's another article I found compelling and interesting. The first point of the article makes it I found most in need of sharing Is that the extreme left is growing and, unless it is reigned in, will become as extreme and anti-intellectual as the extreme right.

>Those on the right once were the main enemies of evolutionary theory, but today, as Colin Wright argues, those on the extreme left are the “new evolution deniers.”<

And in answer to all those extremist you choose to throw science into the garbage can:

 > But science should be in the business of advancing knowledge of the world and its inhabitants rather than advancing certain groups or sides over others. Like any discipline of science, evolutionary psychology has not been untouched by prejudice and ridiculous theories. But most of them were either unfalsifiable and thus unscientific or were falsifiable and subsequently refuted by experimental tests. <

Notes: The Rise And Fall Of Mary Magdalen

An interesting article covering the Journey of Mary Magdalene from eminent  apostle to repentant whore.  >But what most drove the anti-sexual sexualizing of Mary Magdalene was the male need to dominate women. <
Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/who-was-mary-magdalene-119565482/#f70ziI9q5odmLQQ7.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

Not Guilty! OK, Maybe Partly Guilty

https://quillette.com/2019/04/01/prescriptive-racialism-and-racial-exclusion

While this article makes an interesting point, It also makes a grievous intellectual error. I'm reposting this article because of the following comment:

> The Islamic philosopher Al Ghazali did the same when he railed against the Greek pagan influence during the Islamic Golden Age, and in doing so he extinguished the brilliant flame of scientific thought of his era. The Middle East has been dark ever since. <

In fairness to the author of this article, it has been a common belief, almost a universal belief, among philosophic scholars that her statement is accurate. But a look at Al Ghazal's actual philosophy and his statements indicate  a somewhat contrary reality.

While his positions are very complex, on the issue of scripture verses objective reality he clearly stated that there can be no such contradiction. Reality is reality whether observed through a religious or an empirical lens.  When a contradiction does appear, he insists that objective reality must be accepted as real and that religious scholars must then acknowledge that the Koran cannot be taken literally on that particular issue, but must instead be interpreted as symbolically true, not literally accurate.

This is the declaration of an individual who strongly supports science and its empirical, objective base. A  fair-minded person must acknowledge that Al Ghazali is not only innocent of the supposed offense but in fact is an exemplar of  the opposite position.  But equally in fairness, we can not ignore the fact that Al Ghazali was a religious extremist who also caused a great deal of harm to his culture and society.

In other words, he's not single-handedly guilty of destroying Islamic science but he did support and increase religious extremism. Which is to say he was a very mixed bag, like so many other human beings who tend to be regarded as exemplars of one particular trait but who are actually complex characters displaying both good and bad sides.

So who can be accused of single-handedly bringing down his own civilization? While it is very popular in the Middle East to blame the Crusades, there's no question it was an internal rot, a form of intellectual and spiritual cancer, which caused the destruction of the most highly advanced technological civilization on the planet, leaving it a desperately poor Third World entity to this day.

No one person was actually guilty of this offense, but one of the greatest contributors was Nizam al-Mulk. As visier, He established a highly influential set of madrasahs which firmly established the Islamic position of higher education as one of extreme religious fundamentalism.

These two highly influential men, living at the same time, did cause a great deal of harm and damage to their own society and civilization.  Still, I feel compelled to point out that Al Ghazali did not rail against science. Although he did contribute to the dominance of religious extremism and fundamentalism which led to the fall of the Islamic empire, he most certainly did not do it single-handedly nor did he do so by attacking science or objective reality. 

 Let me now note that I have previously stated over a period of decades that the anti-science movement founded in American religious fundamentalism constitutes an existential danger to our society. China was destroyed by turning inward into religious fundamentalism and away from science and objectivity, as was the great Islamic empire, as we will be if we do not reign in it's extremist excesses.

Courts and Crosses

In regard to the controversy regarding the maintenance of the Bladensberg World War One memorial cross on public land, I made the following post:

Quite an interesting problem. I’ve long taken the position that America, in order to be a just government, must be a secular government neutral towards religion. Having said that, while this cross was obviously erected as a Christian symbol and the court so ordering otherwise cannot change this hard-core reality, this particular symbol has become an historical monument. While I would oppose the direction of a new monument on public land of this type, the fact that this monument was constructed at a time when this was considered acceptable should be taken into consideration. I believe it should be allowed to stand. That is not to say we should not have appropriate symbology added which indicates that this represents the national attitude of a long gone time.

Some will say, ”Well then, this must justify Confederate statuary”. It does not. While putting up the cross was supporting Christianity as a state supported, if not actually state sponsored, religion; maintaining Confederate statuary is the equivalent of the Germans putting up monuments to such as Hitler, Borman, and other Nazi leaders. Tolerating a past that lived in error is not the same thing as glorifying those who supported a vile and despicable cause.

Of Cats And Men Part 2

Once again tiny steps forward contrasted with big slides back mark my relationship with the cat who came to dinner, but all in all our relationship has improved.

He got to the point where he would not run away when he saw me, especially if I had his dinner in my hands, but instead would hover quite close. He also was not above loud complaining if I was late with this food. Clearly he had come to have certain expectations for me and expected me to fulfill them dutifully.
As time went on, he would maintain closer and closer proximity as I fed him. I was surprised one night when he actually came forward to sniff my fingers (as cat lovers know that's quite a big step in becoming friends with an animal). A few days later he actually allowed me to scratch his ears.

Of course, then he went right back to refusing to let me touch him and insisting that I had to go in the house and close the door before he would begin to eat.

Two nights ago he really shocked me. He not only let me scratch his ears, he let me pet him for a time. Naturally, all the while I was petting him he was busy complaining because he was afraid to eat until I went, yes, you guessed it, back in the house and closed the door. It's also interesting to note that just a moment, literally one or two seconds before he allowed me to pet him, he was hissing at me because he was so terrified that he was within touching range, but even as he was hissing, he didn't run away and did follow it up by letting me pet him.
I always knew we was conflicted and didn't know wheher to trust me or not, but I've decided now that he is, in fact, a case of multiple personality disorder.

I used to have interesting debates with my best friend (who was also our district Attendance and Child Welfare Officer and a licensed child psychologist) about the existence of multiple personality disorders. It was in the DSM, so he accepted it as real. I pointed out that the vast majority of psychologists and psychiatrists never encounter even a single case whereas one or two encounter many cases. I contended then and I contend now that the whole thing is a delusion imposed by the therapist on his patients. At least it is in humans. Apparently, it's very real in cats.

Sidenote to my daughter Racquell: OK, so I guess it needs a name. Lately other cats have been coming around and taking part in the great free feast of cat food I put out for him. I found I resent it because I'm not paying money I can't really afford to feed cats who have a home. I find myself thinking that they're stealing my cat's food.
So, considering that I know he has a very thick coat from petting him and of course he does in this winter, also because he's the cat who came to dinner (Google the movie The Man Who Came to Dinner and you'll understand the reference), And since the star of the American movie version of the play was named Wolley, for now I'll just call him Wooly. Happy now?

Final note: In case you haven't guessed, since that one time he let me pet him he has again reverted to not coming closer to me than a good yard. Thus proving that the mouse in the Merry Melodies cartoon Scaredy-cat had it right when he declared, "Pussycats is the cwaziest peoples!"

SifFi, Space, And Quantum Entanglement

A recent Facebook conversation.

ME: Bobby. Just finished watching an episode of The Orville for the first time. Apparently its a very popular show. I didn't like it.

It is listed as a comedy, so perhaps it's not surprising that as a drama it's a total failure. The characters display as much depth and rich color as a set of shadow puppets. Since this includes even the characters introduced as dramatic elements only for a single show, it's not simply a lack of character development. It's a lack of character.

As for comedy… I didn't find much. During the entire show I did smile very briefly at one moment. That's it.

As for the program's setting, it would work as a spoof of Star Trek since it's almost entirely an imitation thereof, right down to the color-coded tunics and replicators, but it manifests as nothing but a badly planned rip off.

Ever seen it? I'm curious as to your responses.

C: No and it doesn't sound like something I would want to see.

ME: C, I would say don't waste your time but there are an awful lot of people who think it's wonderful.

BOBBY: Glad to hear your opinion. I suspected a repelling incongruence between Seth MacFarlane's flippant cynnicism and the bright-eyed promise of progress I like to get from the Star Trek universe that I've avoided the show altogether.

ME: You and me both. But I decided I ought to give it a least one look.

BOBBY: Have you checked out Bandersnatch yet?

ME: That I haven't. Dark Mirror was just a bit too dark for me. Well-made shows, you understand, but I found them depressing so I don't generally watch. I'm willing to give Bandersnatch a try. Are you recommending it or just wondering?

ME: I saw the most amazing show on YouTube today. It was a lengthy discussion of quantum physics. The panel was emceed by Brian Green and included none other than Gerard t' Hooft!! I was really shocked to see him sitting there. (He had some really great insights but he did stand firmly in the "hidden variables" school.)
The show was interesting but what absolutely stunned me was when one of the panelists, for the first time I could ever even imagine such a thing, actually exlained his theory of how space itself is generated. I mean it isn't as if I haven't asked, "Where does space come from?" Who hasn't? But I never thought anyone would have an answer!

His explanation isn't one I want to try to dictate out right now, But it is based on the holographic principle as in the concept that three dimensional reality is actually projected by two dimensional Holographic images on the event horizon surrounding our universe.

He made it convincing.

Now if only someone would do the same thing for time.

ME: Hey, did you ever check out The Expanse?

A FEW DAYS LATER:

Found out more about this from an article. The theory does cover not only space, but also time, and even to some extent, gravity. It also has strong applications for black holes because a black hole would be the result of when the whole system just falls apart. Oddly enough the whole theory began with looking into quantum systems and how they self correct with hopes that it could be applied to quantum computing.