“All our lauded technological progress—our very civilization—is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal.”
~Albert Einstein
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Dedicated to Caged Victims
The following video (and I warn you, I've cried both times watching this..) is the reason I started my search for a neglected, abused budgie to adopt. Our little girl, Chloe, is currently snuggled asleep in her flight-allowing, entertainment and yumminess equipped cage. When she is more settled and less anxious, we'll begin letting her out to fly around the room.
Please take a few minutes to watch this video and learn from it; the immense reward and joy you can get from an abused or impounded animal you choose to adopt instead of purchasing from a pet shop. For information on how you can help ease the plight of the caged, email binkys_cause@hotmail.co.uk
The video below is an example of the immense joy that can be gained from rescuing an animal; PLEASE consider adoption.
Please take a few minutes to watch this video and learn from it; the immense reward and joy you can get from an abused or impounded animal you choose to adopt instead of purchasing from a pet shop. For information on how you can help ease the plight of the caged, email binkys_cause@hotmail.co.uk
The video below is an example of the immense joy that can be gained from rescuing an animal; PLEASE consider adoption.
Mental Stuffs
It's been a while since I've updated this. I have no excuse aside from uni and sheer laziness. Perhaps also somewhat lack of inspiration.. which is rather silly since every day I see and experience things that cause me to question the world, and people in it. A lot.
I've been happy recently getting back into some animal 'stuff'. I've taken an interest lately (or should I say, refuelled my somewhat neglected interest) in mistreated / abused / neglected animals, and the mental states of the people who commit such atrocities. Watching a few cases on RSPCA Animal Rescue, I am truly horrified to know that some people could actually have the capability to do such things; to realise they are inflicting harm on a living creature. My question is: what leads people to such states? I realise not all these people realise what they are doing; but then there are some people so apparently sadistic that they really do see their actions, and the consequences, amusing.
Only days ago a woman was caught on camera putting a cat into a bin. Thankfully the general public's reaction to this showed that we are, in general, a society that loves animals; whether many of our actions prove that or not, at least the presence of that compassion is positive.. especially as this woman was later reported to say 'it's just a cat'. Indeed, that struck a sore cord in me.
Something a little happier, or at least less saddening, I've been contemplating as a result of this and something someone said to me (or something along these lines); Are we who we say we are, or are we how other people see us? I believe this relates to mental states and some potentially resulting problems, might they be inflicting cruelty on humans or non-human animals. Is it our actions that dictate our true state of mind, or might our actions be a more complex facade or outlet for expressing a complicated web of thoughts and emotions we have trouble understanding? It's all very well telling someone to think differently, or do something they may have mental barriers about (i.e. fears), but without knowing the exact build up of emotions and thoughts an individual experiences, it is nearly impossible to decipher their reasons for doing something. Even the most in-depth experiment cannot obtain absolutely conclusive answers as any one individual may have a slightly different reaction that would render a result at least partially invalid.
It feels strange that I'm trying to see the other side of the mind; from the abuser's perspective. Just to clarify; I am in NO way defending anyone's actions; I believe any harm inflicted on human or animal is inexcusable, unjustifiable.. I am simply contemplating, in a very general way, what drives people to act in any way, and what it is that makes up one's 'person', 'identity'.. who they are.
I maintain that the mind is an extremely powerful tool.
I've been happy recently getting back into some animal 'stuff'. I've taken an interest lately (or should I say, refuelled my somewhat neglected interest) in mistreated / abused / neglected animals, and the mental states of the people who commit such atrocities. Watching a few cases on RSPCA Animal Rescue, I am truly horrified to know that some people could actually have the capability to do such things; to realise they are inflicting harm on a living creature. My question is: what leads people to such states? I realise not all these people realise what they are doing; but then there are some people so apparently sadistic that they really do see their actions, and the consequences, amusing.
Only days ago a woman was caught on camera putting a cat into a bin. Thankfully the general public's reaction to this showed that we are, in general, a society that loves animals; whether many of our actions prove that or not, at least the presence of that compassion is positive.. especially as this woman was later reported to say 'it's just a cat'. Indeed, that struck a sore cord in me.
Something a little happier, or at least less saddening, I've been contemplating as a result of this and something someone said to me (or something along these lines); Are we who we say we are, or are we how other people see us? I believe this relates to mental states and some potentially resulting problems, might they be inflicting cruelty on humans or non-human animals. Is it our actions that dictate our true state of mind, or might our actions be a more complex facade or outlet for expressing a complicated web of thoughts and emotions we have trouble understanding? It's all very well telling someone to think differently, or do something they may have mental barriers about (i.e. fears), but without knowing the exact build up of emotions and thoughts an individual experiences, it is nearly impossible to decipher their reasons for doing something. Even the most in-depth experiment cannot obtain absolutely conclusive answers as any one individual may have a slightly different reaction that would render a result at least partially invalid.
It feels strange that I'm trying to see the other side of the mind; from the abuser's perspective. Just to clarify; I am in NO way defending anyone's actions; I believe any harm inflicted on human or animal is inexcusable, unjustifiable.. I am simply contemplating, in a very general way, what drives people to act in any way, and what it is that makes up one's 'person', 'identity'.. who they are.
I maintain that the mind is an extremely powerful tool.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
A Philosophical Ramble
A quote by Aristotle: “We are what we repeatedly do.”
This rings true in so many ways. One problem I can see is that we generally perceive only actions that differ to our normal activities as ones which may have more negative consequences; that is, these are our experimental actions. Those rituals that are deeply embedded in what each of us does everyday seem to be overlooked; a blind spot in humanity’s eyes since they have no obvious further consequence than our neutral existence.
Plato once said, “We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.”
‘Light’, in this case, is obviously symbolic. Might it represent truth? Perhaps an alternate version of something that challenges the individual’s prior belief/s?
Herein lies the difficulty: in my opinion, the biggest irony that we know today is that ‘fact’ in itself is false. If nought is fact, then lessons are largely based on opinion and perspective; in education systems, majority rules, or government dictates.
This brings me to an important question put forward by Socrates: “What is good and what is evil?” If societies do, in fact, participate in war for the sake of protecting what is ‘good’, and defeating what is ‘evil’, is this not merely a difference in perspective, each person fighting the image of themself in a distorted mirror?
I was fascinated to learn about part of Socrates method for building the perfect utopia; a complete and harmonious world – that children are only allowed to hear heroic and uplifting tales. To me, this leads to greater challenges. As suggested by the idea that happiness cannot be fully known without sadness, perhaps real ‘good’ can only be known by the experience of ‘evil’. Given the two are fundamentally linked – one can’t know ‘happiness’ without knowing ‘good’, it seems logical to conclude that, in a perfect utopia, neutrality would persist.
This rings true in so many ways. One problem I can see is that we generally perceive only actions that differ to our normal activities as ones which may have more negative consequences; that is, these are our experimental actions. Those rituals that are deeply embedded in what each of us does everyday seem to be overlooked; a blind spot in humanity’s eyes since they have no obvious further consequence than our neutral existence.
Plato once said, “We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.”
‘Light’, in this case, is obviously symbolic. Might it represent truth? Perhaps an alternate version of something that challenges the individual’s prior belief/s?
Herein lies the difficulty: in my opinion, the biggest irony that we know today is that ‘fact’ in itself is false. If nought is fact, then lessons are largely based on opinion and perspective; in education systems, majority rules, or government dictates.
This brings me to an important question put forward by Socrates: “What is good and what is evil?” If societies do, in fact, participate in war for the sake of protecting what is ‘good’, and defeating what is ‘evil’, is this not merely a difference in perspective, each person fighting the image of themself in a distorted mirror?
I was fascinated to learn about part of Socrates method for building the perfect utopia; a complete and harmonious world – that children are only allowed to hear heroic and uplifting tales. To me, this leads to greater challenges. As suggested by the idea that happiness cannot be fully known without sadness, perhaps real ‘good’ can only be known by the experience of ‘evil’. Given the two are fundamentally linked – one can’t know ‘happiness’ without knowing ‘good’, it seems logical to conclude that, in a perfect utopia, neutrality would persist.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Lang-u-widge
Where does language come from?
Yes, it is a rhetorical question; but that’s only because I’ve asked it many times before, and have always been given similar answers that address languages coming from different cultures and whatnot, but not its core origin.
So, what did I do? I went on a search for myself, and found this, by Dr. C. George Boeree:
“There are many theories about the origins of language. Many of these have traditional amusing names (invented by Max Müller and George Romanes a century ago), and I will create a couple more where needed.
1. The mama theory. Language began with the easiest syllables attached to the most significant objects.
2. The ta-ta theory. Sir Richard Paget, influenced by Darwin, believed that body movement preceded language. Language began as an unconscious vocal imitation of these movements -- like the way a child’s mouth will move when they use scissors, or my tongue sticks out when I try to play the guitar. This evolved into the popular idea that language may have derived from gestures.
3. The bow-wow theory. Language began as imitations of natural sounds -- moo, choo-choo, crash, clang, buzz, bang, meow... This is more technically refered to as onomatopoeia or echoism.
4. The pooh-pooh theory. Language began with interjections, instinctive emotive cries such as oh! for surprise and ouch! for pain.
5. The ding-dong theory. Some people, including the famous linguist Max Muller, have pointed out that there is a rather mysterious correspondence between sounds and meanings. Small, sharp, high things tend to have words with high front vowels in many languages, while big, round, low things tend to have round back vowels! Compare itsy bitsy teeny weeny with moon, for example. This is often referred to as sound symbolism.
6. The yo-he-ho theory. Language began as rhythmic chants, perhaps ultimately from the grunts of heavy work (heave-ho!). The linguist A. S. Diamond suggests that these were perhaps calls for assistance or cooperation accompanied by appropriate gestures. This may relate yo-he-ho to the ding-dong theory, as in such words as cut, break, crush, strike...
7. The sing-song theory. Danish linguist Jesperson suggested that language comes out of play, laughter, cooing, courtship, emotional mutterings and the like. He even suggests that, contrary to other theories, perhaps some of our first words were actually long and musical, rather than the short grunts many assume we started with.
8. The hey you! theory. A linguist by the name of Revesz suggested that we have always needed interpersonal contact, and that language began as sounds to signal both identity (here I am!) and belonging (I’m with you!). We may also cry out in fear, anger, or hurt (help me!). This is more commonly called the contact theory.
9. The hocus pocus theory. My own contribution to these is the idea that language may have had some roots in a sort of magical or religious aspect of our ancestors' lives. Perhaps we began by calling out to game animals with magical sounds, which became their names.
10. The eureka! theory. And finally, perhaps language was consciously invented. Perhaps some ancestor had the idea of assigning arbitrary sounds to mean certain things. Clearly, once the idea was had, it would catch on like wild-fire!” (C. George Boeree, 2003)
However, even this new insight into language invention, I still wonder, and find it fascinating, how people originally connected some words with their objects, and even more so, how words were prescribed a meaning, or vice-versa; how terms were appointed to various descriptions.
Did someone one day pick up a carrot and decide it should be called a carrot? What does ‘carrot’ even mean? The miraculous thing that comes out of this ‘naming’ is that now, whenever anyone mentions a ‘carrot’ for whatever reason, most people will know what they’re talking about. But, how, in any other way, does the word ‘carrot’ seem related to the long, pointy, orange vegetable?
To philosophers and to people in general, it is generally accepted knowledge, ironically, that ‘fact’ doesn’t exist. Nothing is certain; humans simply observe, analyse and label things to attempt to understand them. The names and descriptions we prescribe to these things is simply our method of understanding them.
So, in saying that language is a product of how we perceive and understand the world around us, and given that different cultures have different words for the same name (which, again, could be considered an entirely different word?? It’s just another way of identifying the same object in a more relevant way for a different society), doesn’t this mean that, as words and definitions are only a product of human ‘labeling’, and therefore changeable, other human-created ideas and concepts are just as changeable? Perhaps, due to the limits of our understanding, beyond this things are even more vulnerable to change or destruction.
Then again, if what I suggest has any truth, and language bares little truth bar what we make of it, perhaps this is fake! ... Fortunately, it seems that what we make of things is the most important thing.
Yes, it is a rhetorical question; but that’s only because I’ve asked it many times before, and have always been given similar answers that address languages coming from different cultures and whatnot, but not its core origin.
So, what did I do? I went on a search for myself, and found this, by Dr. C. George Boeree:
“There are many theories about the origins of language. Many of these have traditional amusing names (invented by Max Müller and George Romanes a century ago), and I will create a couple more where needed.
1. The mama theory. Language began with the easiest syllables attached to the most significant objects.
2. The ta-ta theory. Sir Richard Paget, influenced by Darwin, believed that body movement preceded language. Language began as an unconscious vocal imitation of these movements -- like the way a child’s mouth will move when they use scissors, or my tongue sticks out when I try to play the guitar. This evolved into the popular idea that language may have derived from gestures.
3. The bow-wow theory. Language began as imitations of natural sounds -- moo, choo-choo, crash, clang, buzz, bang, meow... This is more technically refered to as onomatopoeia or echoism.
4. The pooh-pooh theory. Language began with interjections, instinctive emotive cries such as oh! for surprise and ouch! for pain.
5. The ding-dong theory. Some people, including the famous linguist Max Muller, have pointed out that there is a rather mysterious correspondence between sounds and meanings. Small, sharp, high things tend to have words with high front vowels in many languages, while big, round, low things tend to have round back vowels! Compare itsy bitsy teeny weeny with moon, for example. This is often referred to as sound symbolism.
6. The yo-he-ho theory. Language began as rhythmic chants, perhaps ultimately from the grunts of heavy work (heave-ho!). The linguist A. S. Diamond suggests that these were perhaps calls for assistance or cooperation accompanied by appropriate gestures. This may relate yo-he-ho to the ding-dong theory, as in such words as cut, break, crush, strike...
7. The sing-song theory. Danish linguist Jesperson suggested that language comes out of play, laughter, cooing, courtship, emotional mutterings and the like. He even suggests that, contrary to other theories, perhaps some of our first words were actually long and musical, rather than the short grunts many assume we started with.
8. The hey you! theory. A linguist by the name of Revesz suggested that we have always needed interpersonal contact, and that language began as sounds to signal both identity (here I am!) and belonging (I’m with you!). We may also cry out in fear, anger, or hurt (help me!). This is more commonly called the contact theory.
9. The hocus pocus theory. My own contribution to these is the idea that language may have had some roots in a sort of magical or religious aspect of our ancestors' lives. Perhaps we began by calling out to game animals with magical sounds, which became their names.
10. The eureka! theory. And finally, perhaps language was consciously invented. Perhaps some ancestor had the idea of assigning arbitrary sounds to mean certain things. Clearly, once the idea was had, it would catch on like wild-fire!” (C. George Boeree, 2003)
However, even this new insight into language invention, I still wonder, and find it fascinating, how people originally connected some words with their objects, and even more so, how words were prescribed a meaning, or vice-versa; how terms were appointed to various descriptions.
Did someone one day pick up a carrot and decide it should be called a carrot? What does ‘carrot’ even mean? The miraculous thing that comes out of this ‘naming’ is that now, whenever anyone mentions a ‘carrot’ for whatever reason, most people will know what they’re talking about. But, how, in any other way, does the word ‘carrot’ seem related to the long, pointy, orange vegetable?
To philosophers and to people in general, it is generally accepted knowledge, ironically, that ‘fact’ doesn’t exist. Nothing is certain; humans simply observe, analyse and label things to attempt to understand them. The names and descriptions we prescribe to these things is simply our method of understanding them.
So, in saying that language is a product of how we perceive and understand the world around us, and given that different cultures have different words for the same name (which, again, could be considered an entirely different word?? It’s just another way of identifying the same object in a more relevant way for a different society), doesn’t this mean that, as words and definitions are only a product of human ‘labeling’, and therefore changeable, other human-created ideas and concepts are just as changeable? Perhaps, due to the limits of our understanding, beyond this things are even more vulnerable to change or destruction.
Then again, if what I suggest has any truth, and language bares little truth bar what we make of it, perhaps this is fake! ... Fortunately, it seems that what we make of things is the most important thing.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Passion and Action Beyond Belief
This blog came to me in the half hour after I awoke from a brilliant dream, as I reflected on the depression I felt that a certain part (the only part I initially remembered) of the dream was, in fact, a figment of my subconsciousness, before I gradually remembered the rest of the dream, and was somewhat shocked by its contents. The thing is, no matter what a dream is, in whatever terms, what really matters is its contents; what story it tells you; what it reveals about you that, perhaps, you didn’t know, or had forgotten, about yourself.
My dream – the summary of important parts – I saved a tiny baby goat from the slaughter (the little thing was too cute!) and then seemed to be a spectator to the rest of the sheep slaughter process (well, something about dipping the sheep in water which I didn’t quite understand, but nonetheless...). Finally, I was nearly strangled by a rope tied around a tiger as it was led by its trainer, as it seemed I was in the grounds of a circus training facility of some sort.
The point – I am a big supporter of animal welfare and ethics. Supporter; yes, but the amount I have done about it in the previous couple of years; bordering on zilch. That was not the first dream I’ve had (in recent months) about animals suffering, and I think it’s telling me something ... perhaps not, but that’s what I feel I should take from it. And a lot of the time when it comes down to it, the importance of meaning is not in the actual meaning, but the meaning the spectator makes of it. The meaning (well, one of many that I won’t go into) I am taking from this dream is – I may say I support something and am even passionate about it, but passion does not in any way translate to action if there is no, well, action, involved!
Unfortunately, when it comes to causes people support, our own wavering focus and increasing distraction due to the general chaos of life does not by any account mean other people are paying the cause any more attention, or the people or animals suffering are enduring any less pain. All it means is we, the general population, go on living our own lives increasingly able to forget or ignore.
Of course, a huge credit should go to those people who do work so tirelessly, and many voluntary, to help humans, animals and environments in need.
The question I really seek an answer to, is: How are we supposed to get a message across effectively enough to stimulate action in the wider community, when people are constantly divided over its truth? An added difficulty here lies not in the simple, supportable ‘I believe or disbelieve this theory’, but in the fact that many people will choose their side based on bias, convenience or desire, or in the case that they believe that there is a wrongdoing, something that needs to be changed, will deny that anything can be done on the same bases.
As I was discussing with someone today, the only thing that seems to be progressing in the world is technology; not humanity.
My dream – the summary of important parts – I saved a tiny baby goat from the slaughter (the little thing was too cute!) and then seemed to be a spectator to the rest of the sheep slaughter process (well, something about dipping the sheep in water which I didn’t quite understand, but nonetheless...). Finally, I was nearly strangled by a rope tied around a tiger as it was led by its trainer, as it seemed I was in the grounds of a circus training facility of some sort.
The point – I am a big supporter of animal welfare and ethics. Supporter; yes, but the amount I have done about it in the previous couple of years; bordering on zilch. That was not the first dream I’ve had (in recent months) about animals suffering, and I think it’s telling me something ... perhaps not, but that’s what I feel I should take from it. And a lot of the time when it comes down to it, the importance of meaning is not in the actual meaning, but the meaning the spectator makes of it. The meaning (well, one of many that I won’t go into) I am taking from this dream is – I may say I support something and am even passionate about it, but passion does not in any way translate to action if there is no, well, action, involved!
Unfortunately, when it comes to causes people support, our own wavering focus and increasing distraction due to the general chaos of life does not by any account mean other people are paying the cause any more attention, or the people or animals suffering are enduring any less pain. All it means is we, the general population, go on living our own lives increasingly able to forget or ignore.
Of course, a huge credit should go to those people who do work so tirelessly, and many voluntary, to help humans, animals and environments in need.
The question I really seek an answer to, is: How are we supposed to get a message across effectively enough to stimulate action in the wider community, when people are constantly divided over its truth? An added difficulty here lies not in the simple, supportable ‘I believe or disbelieve this theory’, but in the fact that many people will choose their side based on bias, convenience or desire, or in the case that they believe that there is a wrongdoing, something that needs to be changed, will deny that anything can be done on the same bases.
As I was discussing with someone today, the only thing that seems to be progressing in the world is technology; not humanity.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Boundaries, Barriers and Beliefs
Is it not ironic that in a free and subjective world, each of us is victim to judgment?
How is it that any one person can make a choice or choose a perspective completely of their own when they are constantly enduring the fear of judgment from behind the spectacles of society?
Yes, these are deep statements, but I feel they are important questions to consider. How is true, healthy progress to be made on a global scale when each person’s, or group’s, definition of perfection or a desirable state differs to the point where we all exist on an equal plane with unfulfilled goals, and the people in charge represent not the progress of a state or nation, but the facade which wishes to be seen or believed?
I have recently studied Hard Times by Charles Dickens, and Dickens raises an extremely valid point through this story; we are each, as individuals, not prepared by education to tackle the real world; we are instead molded into beings capable of operating the mechanics of the constructed world. This is not to say that education is a bad thing; to the contrary, I think it is a great thing which shouldn’t be taken for granted. It cannot be denied however, that education authorities often selectively exclude certain theories from their programs, such as religion.
We all deserve the chance to discover for ourselves what is right and wrong or, in the case of many grey areas, at least form our own opinion. Who has the right to say what is and what isn’t, what is real and what is not, when the only sure thing is that nothing can be proven or disproven?
How is it that any one person can make a choice or choose a perspective completely of their own when they are constantly enduring the fear of judgment from behind the spectacles of society?
Yes, these are deep statements, but I feel they are important questions to consider. How is true, healthy progress to be made on a global scale when each person’s, or group’s, definition of perfection or a desirable state differs to the point where we all exist on an equal plane with unfulfilled goals, and the people in charge represent not the progress of a state or nation, but the facade which wishes to be seen or believed?
I have recently studied Hard Times by Charles Dickens, and Dickens raises an extremely valid point through this story; we are each, as individuals, not prepared by education to tackle the real world; we are instead molded into beings capable of operating the mechanics of the constructed world. This is not to say that education is a bad thing; to the contrary, I think it is a great thing which shouldn’t be taken for granted. It cannot be denied however, that education authorities often selectively exclude certain theories from their programs, such as religion.
We all deserve the chance to discover for ourselves what is right and wrong or, in the case of many grey areas, at least form our own opinion. Who has the right to say what is and what isn’t, what is real and what is not, when the only sure thing is that nothing can be proven or disproven?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)