Links and Comments: The Universe; Narratives and Conservatives; PW reviews; the Right-Wing Myth

Catching up from the past week.

First, refining the Provisional Conclusions, I’ve switched the order of the first two, and of the last two. This shifts the entire list to a more positive, rather than negative, spin, I think.

\\

Re: The Universe is Vast

Vox: 40 maps that explain outer space

The most interesting ones to me are those that reveal scale, e.g. 31 and 36.

\\

Quote, from Louis Brandies: “Sunlight is the greatest disinfectant”. The sunlight is what those exampled in Provisional Conclusion #7 try to block.

\\

I see more and more essays on various relatively mainstream sites (well Salon is left of mainstream, but nothing like AddictingInfo or ThinkProgress or Alternet; actually Salon seems devoting more to rabble-rousing as much as any particular ideology) about political differences in terms of ‘narratives’, just as I’ve been doing here. No doubt this is confirmation bias.

Salon: The twisted morality of climate denial: How religion and American exceptionalism are undermining our future

The general principle here is one I’ve already captured: narratives, especially the cultural narratives enshrined in religions, are so powerful that most of their adherents will go to any lengths to deflect evidence about the real world that conflicts with those narratives. (To put it another way: religions are the *best* stories humanity has ever told about itself!) That is, PC’s 7 and 8.

Key points of this essay:

Climate change challenges people’s traditional beliefs about God
…Sen. Inhofe is probably speaking for a significant number of Americans when he declares himself unwilling to accept this: “God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.”

Climate change contradicts America’s heroic image of itself
The most enduring account of ourselves as an American people, which extends nearly twice as far back in time as the founding of our nation, is that we are continually, inexorably becoming more prosperous. This mind-set seems to be how most Americans measure personal success, and what they wish for themselves and for their children. Climate change brings our ethos of continual growth up against a definitive and rather claustrophobic limit. …

Challenging the narratives. Here’s another one, a radio interview heard Sunday afternoon (while driving on the 580), about how the ‘narrative’ of Alcoholics Anonymous is mostly fiction; which is to say, the program doesn’t actually work very often. But film and TV depictions reinforce the narrative. America, the commentator says, loves the redemption narrative…

On the Media: My Name Is Hollywood And I Have A Problem

\\

This brings us to: How to Become a Conservative in Four Embarrassing Steps. His four points:

  1. Ignore facts
  2. Make up your own facts
  3. Display no empathy for others
  4. Shout down your opponents

With many linked examples.

\\

On a more conciliatory note, here’s another Salon essay, which like many, is an excerpt from a book.

My atheist search for God: We’re debating science and religion all wrong

Subtitle: I’m not interested in believing in God. My God has to exist, like matter and gravity. Here’s what I found

The book is A God That Could Be Real: Spirituality, Science, and the Future of Our Planet, to be published tomorrow.

I have not read this entire piece, but I like the last paragraph:

What I have learned is this: Having no spiritual life at all is like never really falling in love. Developing a spiritual bond with a fantasy is like falling in love with someone who will never love you back. But developing a spiritual bond with the real universe is like falling in love with someone who is already in love with you. That’s where God is.

Reality, yes, that’s what I’m interested in. But which religions are not.

\\

I’ve mentioned before how browsing the weekly reviews at Publishers Weekly provides a great insight into what people, er, culture, er, people who write books, are writing about. Most likely I will never read these books, but the reviews themselves are informative.

Here’s a review of a book called What We Think About When We Try Not to Think About Global Warming: Toward a New Psychology of Climate Action, by Per Espen Stoknes, to be published April 3rd. A Norwegian analyzing the American cultural debate about climate change.

Stoknes puts a cognitive-psychological spin on the matter at hand and differentiates among climate “skeptics,” “contrarians,” and “deniers,” distinguishing active and passive forms of denial. He also looks at evolutionary self-interest and the ways in which people can use social networks to further their goals. People like to believe their actions matter, he notes, and a solution is more likely to be implemented “when people want it, like it, love it,” not when they are guilted or shamed into it.

And then there’s a new book by Leonard Mlodinow: The Upright Thinkers: The Human Journey from Living in Trees to Understanding the Cosmos, which will be published May 5th, and which PW gives a starred review [i.e. especially recommended].

Mlodinow’s point has been made before, but rarely so well: the quality that best distinguishes—and honors—humankind is not an ability to answer questions, but that “after millennia of effort,” nothing stops us from asking them.

\\

And back to examination of right-wing thinking. Here’s Dan Savage responding to President Obama’s speech in Selma, this past weekend, which some are saying is “the best speech he’s ever given”. Savage:

The right-wing myth is this: Progress is impossible. It’s too risky—it’s always too risky. According to conservatives, the country and the American family are too fragile to allow women to vote, to end segregation, to treat LGBT people as equals. We are the greatest country on earth, the most powerful country on earth, a country uniquely blessed by God… but somehow we are “always one public library book away from total collapse.” The civil rights movement, the labor movement, the women’s movement, the LGBT movement—whatever the movement, social conservatives are always running in circles with their hair on fire predicting total collapse. And they’re always wrong. Social conservatives have predicted collapse every time there was a demand for social justice, and they were always wrong. We ended segregation (which did not end racism) and the country did not collapse. The vote was granted to women (which did not end sexism) and the family did not collapse. Same-sex marriage came to 37 states (which did not end homophobia) and people didn’t start marrying their dogs.

He also describes a left-wing myth, that “There has been no progress, nothing has changed, the country is as racist, sexist, and homophobic as it ever was.” And debunks that too. (I disavow this on the basis of my PC #5.)

And finally one more, just browsed this past hour, another example of what numerous bloggers ironically tag as ‘Christian love’.

“Christian” Pastor At Mega-Chruch Calls On Gays To Be “Put To Death”

In Tennessee.

Posted in Astronomy, Culture, Narrative | Comments Off on Links and Comments: The Universe; Narratives and Conservatives; PW reviews; the Right-Wing Myth

Links and Comments: Perceiving Reality; Controlling the Narrative

Several key posts from last week, that I want to capture before I’m on the road for another couple days.

First, the viral dress thing is possibly the most widely circulated example ever of how you can’t always believe what you see. (Cf. provisional conclusion #3.) Among many other links, here’s one at Vox.

(I thought it was obviously blue and black, and have no idea what’s going on the minds of those who see white and gold.)

\\

Next, a couple links that seem to be about different things, but are related, in my mind.

First, an essay in The Week about how the religious right will *never* accept same-sex marriage, because … well:

The story Christians have been telling for 2,000 years goes something like this: The God who made the Universe is also, by his very nature, Love, and he made human beings with a very lofty vocation. Humans are meant to reflect His glory in the world; to be like God, that is to say, to be lovers and creators. Everything in the Universe has been put here to be used by God’s children to reflect his loving glory — and to teach them about God’s love. This is particularly true, or so the story goes, of the unique sexual complementarity between men and women. The sexual act is meant to reflect God’s love by fostering a union at once bodily and spiritual — and creates new life. The complementarity of the persons in a marriage reflects the complementarity of the Persons of the Trinity, and the bliss of marital union is an inkling of the bliss of the union of the Persons of the Trinity. The fruitfulness of the marriage act reflects that God is a creator and has charged man to be an agent of his ongoing work of creation. And, finally, if God’s love means total self-giving unto death on a Cross, then man and wife must give themselves to each other totally — no pettiness, no adultery, no polygamy, no divorce, and no nonmarital sexual acts. According to the story that Christianity has been telling for 2,000 years, Christianity’s view of sexuality isn’t some encrusted holdover from a socially conditioned patriarchal era on its way out, but is instead deeply connected to its understanding of who God is and what human beings exist for.

But the point is clear: From the start, Christians embodied a different way of life. From the start, they understood a particular sexual ethic to be a keystone of this way of life. And they understood the logic of this ethic as prohibiting (among other things) homosexual acts.

This strikes me as deeply mystical [in the sense of impugning a significant meaning onto something that is actually quite simple] and more than a little creepy.

Still, I have no problem with anyone believing anything that someone else might consider pure malarkey; my issue is why anyone, but especially, it seems Christians of this kind of mindset, are so intent on denying *other* options for living to everyone else.

Actually, I think I do understand.

Next item, an essay at Salon about The right’s fear of education.

If you want to keep people from questioning dogma, do everything possible to avoid exposing them to rival ideas. [My bold]

Before college, I voted conservative, hated gay people, loved America and served my country in the armed services.  I’ve changed because of many factors, but I know that college and graduate school made a difference. I met people unlike myself and was forced to defend sometimes ugly political positions.  The Tea Party thrives on blue-collar “common sense” that is composed of a combination of ignorance, superstition and fear. A literate and educated populace is an existential threat to the kind of thoughtless rage that has consumed the right over the past few years.

Some people on the right are very educated. Rick Santorum holds an MBA and a JD (with honors, no less), and his vehement hatred of college seems to stem from his kooky take on religion.  Modern politics is drawing bizarre new battle lines between “family values” and a halfway decent education.  American Christians may dislike “Islam,” but they share a lot of opinions with the radical Islamic group “Boko Haram,” a name that itself translates into “education is forbidden.” In our own country, we have a massive and growing group of people who would rather have illiterate children than let their kids learn anything that contradicts their most extreme religious views.

Both of these are about *controlling the narrative*. (Cf. provisional conclusion #7.) Deny education to keep people from questioning dogma. And deny legal recognition of other kinds of people, because their existence in society is another threat to the religious dogma that fundamentalists would instill upon their children. Any recognition of a reality aside from dogma is perceived as a threat to tribal mores and a way of life. The antithesis of progress, and understanding of reality.

Posted in Culture, Psychology, Religion | Comments Off on Links and Comments: Perceiving Reality; Controlling the Narrative

More about SF/F/H

The distinctions I suggested yesterday aren’t prescriptions; they’re characterizations or descriptions. In the broad field of SF and fantasy literature, there are deep-seated conventions about whether a given story is SF or fantasy (or horror), depending on its topic. Many topics are obvious: Witches? Fantasy. Space travel? SF. Of course there are gray areas (and sometimes they are most interesting stories), but the vast majority of published novels and stories are easily categorizable.

Most of the items I list as ‘supernatural phenomena’, were they to be subjects of a story in the sf/f genres, would automatically classify their stories as fantasy. Ghosts, angels, witches, demons, gods. There are crossovers; SF that imagines ‘gods’ as non-supernatural beings; even SF that tries to justify ideas like souls or telepathy. And there’s fantasy that is rigorous, in a scientific manner, about how ‘rules of fantasy’ e.g. are manifest.

(I gather however that there various flavors of Christian fiction, and no doubt analogous traditions of literature in other cultures, that assume that guardian angels and demons, not to mention Jesus and God, are in fact real, but let’s not go there just now. Such genres have no overlap with the speculative genres of SF, fantasy, and horror.)

Again, not every ‘supernatural’ phenomenon in my list is automatically fantasy. SF has a long history of taking various ‘pseudo-scientific’ phenomena, such as telepathy and telekinesis, more or less seriously. The hardest of hard SF magazines in the 1950s, Astounding (renamed Analog in the 1960s), gained a rather perverse reputation for taking such notions very seriously, both in fiction and in ‘fact articles’. (Dianetics was one such hobbyhorse of editor John W. Campbell for some years, before L. Ron Hubbard re-named it scientology.)

And to this day, a certain strain of SF, especially movie and TV SF, routinely depicts various extrasensory powers, from Spock’s “mind meld” to Star Wars’ “force” [which it must be said is so flagrantly supernatural it qualifies the movies as fantasy], as givens in their futuristic settings.

Whether particular SF stories take such notions seriously might be a marker between ‘hard SF’ and more credulous ‘space opera’ strains (like Star Trek). There are many flavors of space opera, from those that are routine adventures translated into space, from those that are more rigorous yet presume the existence of, say, faster-than-light space travel, despite there currently being no plausible justification given our understanding of physics.

It would be interesting to collect some hard data, e.g. subjects of stories in anthologies explicitly labeled science fiction or fantasy, as evidence about what the community thinks is possible, or not.

Posted in science fiction, Thinking | Comments Off on More about SF/F/H

Musings about Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror

I keep thinking about my Provisional Conclusions, how they might be streamlined or crystallized, and how they relate (as I’ve alluded more than once in this blog) to the insights provided by the fields of fantastic fiction — science fiction, fantasy, and horror. At first glance it might seem a stretch to apply any kind of general worldview onto a set of literary genres. But it’s been an underlying thesis of this blog — and perhaps a central, distinctive, theme of whatever book I might write — that these genres do in fact reflect the range of human reactions to living in a big scary universe that does not necessarily reflect human values.

The two core provisional conclusions are the first two: all supernatural phenomena (gods, ghosts, messiahs, sin, etc etc) are projections of human nature on an indifferent, inanimate universe; and that the *real* universe is vast in ways almost incomprehensible to human beings, for reasons quite understandable given that human beings have emerged via biological natural selection, given to subjective interpretations of reality that are advantageous to survival, and not necessarily for perception of reality.

So: what is science fiction? Science Fiction is about the exploration of reality, of changes in science and technology that affect human existence, of alternatives to reality that challenge humanity’s assumptions of what is real. What is fantasy? Fantasy, in converse to SF, is about imagining worlds in which the priorities of human nature are *magnified*. And horror is a weird hybrid, a sort of flip of SF, in which the perception of the real world in some way threatens human existence, either personally (the serial killer) or existentially (Lovecraftian dread).

These are very first-drafty thoughts. I need to revisit the many definitions and discussion of these genres, in my many resources, and continue to refine.

Posted in science fiction, Thinking | Comments Off on Musings about Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror

Link and Comment: Language Creationists?

Vox is an interesting relatively new site that I discovered a couple months ago; one of the editors/principal writers is Matthew Yglesias, who left Slate to help create this site, with Ezra Klein. One thing I admire about the site is the way it uses the format of the web to create pieces that would be impractical to print — a general principle I kept in mind when I first developed Locus Online, and explained at length in a couple of early blog posts – IIRC I described three principles: immediacy, that you can post things right away, and more frequently than you can do in a print publication, even a daily one; accumulativeness, that compilations of data can be continuously updated, as with indexes and encyclopedia, rendering print editions of those things obsolete (Wikipedia! Sfadb.com!); and something else, which is probably now so obvious to everyone I don’t recall it offhand. I’ll look it up.

So here’s a cool Vox post, a set of maps that describe the history of the English language, how changes in the language spread, where changes happened, and so on.

25 Maps that Explain English

This triggers a thought I’ve had that I don’t think I’ve mentioned here: I wonder if there are language creationists?

Who believe that existing languages were ‘created’ (maybe last Tuesday?) as they exist today, who dismiss evidence of historical relationships (e.g. the many European languages derived from Latin) as atheistic malarkey, and so on? After all, *were you there?* Ken Ham would make his phony distinction between real science and historical science, since conclusions about the historical development of languages would rely on indirect evidence about things that happened when no one living today was alive.

I’m guessing not, because the guttural resistance to the evidence of biological evolution has to do some peoples’ need to feel special, chosen by God, apart from mere animals, despite all the massive evidence otherwise. The same factors don’t come into play with languages.

But I am seriously curious to what extent evolution of languages is analogous to biological natural selection; I haven’t seen this spelled out anywhere, so am speculating here myself. Languages become distinct through geographic isolation; they become distinct [as do species] when they are mutually unintelligible [cannot interbreed]; and so on. And languages keep changing, especially by the creation of new slang by groups precisely in order to demarcate themselves from other groups and from the broader population, with such new words sometimes filtering outward anyway [I saw some article recently on this very subject, that ‘gangs’ and various subcultures invent slang precisely to help distinguish those who are in-group from everyone else… but of course can’t find the article just now.] …. Just as random genetic changes in populations provide the grist for natural selection…

Follow-on: 16mar15: Yes I know about the Biblical parable about the Tower of Babel. But do Biblical literalists therefore think that languages have not changed since then? Surely the Tower of Babel was thousands of years ago…

And another aside I’ll explore sometime: languages change constantly, especially at the in-group level, where gangs or esoteric societies adopt new usages for common words *precisely* because new meanings are needed, or simply to enforce the designation of who is in-group and who is out-group. Some of these changes filter out in common society, some don’t. But no language remains static.

Posted in Culture, Evolution | Comments Off on Link and Comment: Language Creationists?

Link and Comment: the Fed

I read three daily newspapers now — the New York Times and the San Francisco Chronicle, which I have delivered by paper to my home in Oakland — and still the Los Angeles Times, via a web browser subscription that my partner maintains for his family in SoCal. (Coverage of the arts and the movie industry is primary there.)

Obviously, I don’t read every word in every paper. (Does anyone?) I skim. I read the first few words of each article, to get an idea of what’s going on in the world, or scan it to get the idea of the piece and see if it fits into my interests.

Here’s one from Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, on a subject that wasn’t obviously relevant to me, but which was fascinating, and eventually, quite relevant to my current worldview…

Adam Davidson: In Greenbacks We Trust

It’s about the Federal Reserve, what is it, how it came to be (the San Francisco earthquake!), how much influence it has over the world. The writer discusses how the 2008 financial collapse challenged his faith in the bedrock of this system.

For me and many others who watch the markets, the collapse was not just a horrible financial and economic disaster. It was also a psychological and existential blow. It brought on a painful recognition that there is nothing truly solid at the center of our economic lives. There are only the stories we tell one another, the promises we make, the shared views we have about the future. It’s something like the challenge so many writers faced in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when they confronted a world without a knowable God providing absolute structure. Or the work by Einstein and Heisenberg that shattered the predictable world of Newton and showed that there will always be uncertainty, that there are fundamental limits to our understanding.

Posted in Economics, Links | Comments Off on Link and Comment: the Fed

Links and Comments: Star Trek and Humanism; John Cleese

A couple more links noticed in recent days, before I lose or forget them; my daily routine, as we settle and unpack in our new home in Oakland, will be a while getting back to have time for more considered comments.

Slate appeals to Quora to ask, What Is the Philosophical Perspective of Star Trek?. The answer is, Humanism (considering primarily the original series, and how this philosophy changed in the later series).

This is fascinating to me because, while I was obsessive about Star Trek from its original broadcast years (beginning when I was 11), and then especially during syndicated reruns in the early ’70s, I stopped watching the various incarnations of the show once ‘Next Generation’ finished, and haven’t thought about it much in the past couple decades; while my interest in more fundamental philosophical issues, science vs religion and concepts like humanism, has only emerged, or crystallized, in the past decade. So to see these concepts retroactively applied to experiences of my adolescence and young-adulthood is almost revelatory.

Humanism? Well, yes. You didn’t see Trek appealing to religion or gods much, except to debunk them. (I know the Original Series episodes well enough to remember one (“Balance of Terror”) with a couple scenes in a non-denominational chapel, about the closest Trek got to recognizing formal religion; and another (“Who Mourns for Adonais?”) in which the Enterprise encounters a superior alien being whose compatriots had visited Earth centuries before and been taken for the Greek gods… and in this episode, IIRC, Kirk comments that they no longer believe in “gods”; “we find the one quite sufficient”. So while undermining primitive concepts of gods (who were actually alien beings), there were some token nods to conventional monotheistic religious belief.

The Slate essay comments that Gene Roddenberry wanted to envision a future in which humanity had actually improved, in the sense that they had overcome religious superstitions and the cultural conflicts that are typical of most wars and conflicts around the world to this day.

Through Star Trek he wanted to show a future where we had grown up and were reaching our potential. This view provided the optimism and inspiration that cemented the show into the hearts of so many viewers. But it made it a challenging show for the writers and actors. Roddenberry’s view that we would be better people in the time of Star Trek in effect changed human nature and removed many of the natural sources of conflict for the stories the shows told.

Thinking back, I was not explicitly aware of this policy, except to have read some accounts from script-writers (e.g. Harlan Ellison), who resented the policy that prohibited conflicts among crew members (in his original draft of “The City on the Edge of Forever”).

But I suppose, in retrospect, the idealistic nature of Star Trek must have influenced my early thinking, and the undermining (as so much of science fiction has done) of conventional religious belief, the casual assumptions that one’s own culture is the center of all existence.

\\

Via today’s Morning Heresy post, a quote from the autobiography of John Cleese (the Monty Python guy):

Yes, I know it’s easy to make fun of the organised churches, but has it occurred to anyone to wonder why it’s so easy? … All the vital questions have been dumped in favour of half-baked, po-faced rituals which are basically a form of middle-class rain dance.

Posted in Humanism, Personal history, Philosophy, Religion | Comments Off on Links and Comments: Star Trek and Humanism; John Cleese

Links and Comments: Oliver Sacks; A Pious American against Trains; Offending Religion

Another link-dump, for now, i.e. some links and quick comments, without the more considered comments I might do under normal circumstances… after another busy week of moving-in and unpacking.

The great author Oliver Sacks has this moving NYT op-ed about how he deals with the fact that he has terminal cancer, without resort to fantasies of heaven’s eternal reward.

I cannot pretend I am without fear. But my predominant feeling is one of gratitude. I have loved and been loved; I have been given much and I have given something in return; I have read and traveled and thought and written. I have had an intercourse with the world, the special intercourse of writers and readers.

Above all, I have been a sentient being, a thinking animal, on this beautiful planet, and that in itself has been an enormous privilege and adventure.

\\\

In every era there are people who welcome change and advance, and those who resist it (usually on religious grounds). He’s a precious example: In 1830, One Pious American Railed Against Trains and Their Breakneck 20-MPH Speeds

I go for beasts of burthen [sic]: it is more primitive and scriptural, and suits a moral and religious people better.

\\\

A few commentators are willing to call a spade and spade, inlcuding Jeffrey Tayler at The Atlantic and Salon:

We must offend religion more: Islam, Christianity and our tolerance for ancient myths, harmful ideas.

Not in this piece, but somewhere else that I read: the reason you publish cartoons offensive to Muslims is because if you don’t, you are *submitting* to their fundamentalist worldview. Fundamentalist Muslims do not have license to control what everyone else finds humorous or offensive. No one should be forced to submit to anyone else’s worldview. Live your own lives however you want to, but don’t force others to submit to yours.

Posted in Culture, Religion | Comments Off on Links and Comments: Oliver Sacks; A Pious American against Trains; Offending Religion

Boyhood

I need to say something about the film Boyhood, before it does, or more likely does not (given the current prognosticators), win the Oscar for Best Picture on Sunday. I didn’t see it in the theater, but watched the DVD when it came out in January, and have watched it at least three times through, and various pieces more times than that.

It’s a film that has affected me in a way no other film has done, ever, except (in an extremely different sense) 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Because it strikes me at a very particular stage of my life, a stage when one thinks back to consider what might have been, the things that didn’t seem the least plausible, given my circumstances and age, but which recently has seemed possible after all. Though not practical, given that we’ve cashed out various reserves to finance our move to the Bay Area.

So Boyhood is for me a vicarious experience about raising a son, which I wish I could have done. As the years grow old, the regrets grow stronger.

Posted in Children, Films, Personal history | Comments Off on Boyhood

Links and Comments: Quotes; GOP and Evolution; Skeptics; Oklahoma history

During a busy week, this is a quick post to capture various quotes and links I’ve found in the past few days. Resources.

Quote: Charles Bukowski: “The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.”

//

Quote: H.G. Wells: Civilization is in a race between education and catastrophe.

//

Salon: GOP still party of stupid: Scott Walker, Fox News and why 2016 hopefuls must appease wingnut base on evolution

Again, the key word should not be ‘believe’, but ‘accept’. Or ‘understand’. I have another quote about the latter. Quote from this:

After all, it’s not really religion that holds the GOP base together, it’s a sense of victimization. And this thesis weaves a number of important strands into a colorful if ahistorical tapestry.

//

On the definition of ‘skeptic’; there’s a recent pushback among science-folks about the use of this word by those they would describe as science *deniers*. ‘Skeptic’ has a specific meaning, that is very much within the tradition of real science.

Ross Pomeroy at RealClearScience:

A true skeptic never dismisses an idea out of hand. A true skeptic is willing to be wrong, and recognizes an echelon of evidence that will change their mindset. And most importantly, a true skeptic doesn’t only question the beliefs of others, he also questions his own. Because skepticism isn’t just about doubting things you disagree with, it’s about keeping yourself honest, open, thoughtful, and true. 

//

Much in the news in the past couple days is about the Oklahoma legislature voting to ban AP courses in history… because the real history of the US involves so many episodes that question our country’s presumed exceptionalism. Narrative is so much more important than reality! Think Progress.

Posted in Culture, Religion, Science | Comments Off on Links and Comments: Quotes; GOP and Evolution; Skeptics; Oklahoma history