Recent Comments
RSS feed
‘You’re pretty fat!’
August 28, 2008 — xanthippaOut of the mouths of babes!
Recently, I spent some time with my ‘old friend’ and her delightfully honest daughter. She (the young daughter) informed me that my hair was shiny and looked pretty, that she liked my dress, and that I was ‘pretty fat’.
I thanked her for her compliments.
It seems strange to me how many people negate young children’s honest observations, and attempt to devalue them!
OK, ‘years ago’, my friend and I were both quite pretty. Yet, as we had kids, I had turned into a ‘mama bear’ while my friend had grown into a ‘foxy mama’! Yes, we have words for women like that!
Yet, that is not my point.
My point is how we treat ‘honesty’ – especially the type of honesty which comes from the mouths of babes. My friend’s daughter is pre-school aged, yet her mom looked uncomfortable when her daughter had made a true – even if ‘touchy’ – observation! Yes, she was relieved I was not hurt or offended – but how could I possibly be hurt or offended by the honesty of a child?
To my friend’s credit – she may have looked ‘uncomfortable’, yet she did not try to stop her daughter from speakng her mind. I applaud all parents who let their kids speak the truth – even if it is ‘socially uncomfortable’! Yet, among parents, she in the minority…
Has our society fallen so much that a child saying ‘The Emperor has no clothes’ would be shushed and shut up by it’s ‘politically correct’ parents?
If so, that is a truly sad state of things…for if a child dare not speak the truth, who will?
If a tree falls in the forest….
August 27, 2008 — xanthippaHaving spent time in such serene surroundings like this:
Canada has magnificent trees.
…is it not surprising that my mind had taken a break from the ‘everyday’ and slipped into a bit of philosophising?
If a tree falls in the forest, and no-one is there to hear it, would it make a sound?
In the past, when discussing this with my kids and husband, we have invariably fallen into the pitfalls like, for example, trying to define what does ‘sound’ mean: is it simply the movement of air molecules in a particular way, or does it have to be ‘perceived’ by human ears? (If it is recorded, then the sound we hear is made by the recorder, not the tree…and endless possibilities along these chains of thoughts.)
This year, I began so see it from a different perspective…
Richard Feynman is perhaps my favourite genius of the 20th century – and I am convinced he is an ‘Aspie’ to boot! ( Just reading his most awesome book, ‘Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!’, is an excellent lesson in how an ‘Aspie’ mind organizes thoughts and commits them onto paper – plus it is fun and curiously comforting to read). In his Lectures (available as podcasts, and ideal for relaxing with while ‘away from it all’), specifically, in the ‘Quantum Mechanics’ lecture, he also visits this question about the proverbial tree falling in the forest…
Dr. Feynman gives some very specific qualifications regarding this issue: he would not be a physicist had he not done that. He states that in the real world, even if there is no observer when the tree falls, there are still unmistakable physical signgs that it had, indeed, made a sound. These signs, perhaps as minute as little scratches from vibrating leaves/needles as the sound energy is transferred to them, could then be observed after the event itself and the presence of such sound would be conclusively demonstrated. Thus, he concludes that ‘in a real world, of course, a tree falling in a forest makes a sound‘.
He is, of course, absolutely correct – given the qualifications he does.
Yet, listening to him made me think that perhaps his ‘after the fact observer’ – as our familial discussions from the past – were really missing the whole point of the question!
Whether during the act of the tree falling, or afterwards; directly or through recording devices of some sort (even leaves and needles) – this introduces an observer. And the fact remains that if an observer is present, and the original condition (or, rather, its intent) is breeched.
Yes, I’ll gladly concede that in the real world, it might be impossible to have a ‘no observer’ scenario – but that is not the point. The question asks us about a hypothetical situation, where no observation (during or after the event) occurred (even had it been possible).
Let us imagine an observer who makes a direct observation that 999 trees, as they fell, indeed did make a sound. Then the observer leaves, and our proverbial tree falls. No observation as to the sound of any kind had been made during the event. The scene has since been altered so much that no additional evidence can be gathered. How can we answer the question now? Did our proverbial tree make a sound, or not?
And this, in my never-humble-opinion, is the crux, the core, of this principle: one can only say that one does not know.
It would be reasonable to predict that it is highly likely that the tree had made a sound, based on previous observations. But one would not know !
This is the difference between direct observation and a guess. Perhaps it might be an ‘educated guess’ (based on the previous 999 observations) , but it is still only a guess. And that is the whole point: to get us to stop and think, to learn to recognize that difference between what we know and what we are making educated guesses about (or a semi-educated guess about).
One of my sons thought this simply reduced the question to the ‘Schrodinger’s Cat’ scenario, but I think there is a difference. This is not about probability curves and their collapses, this is about learning to recognize the blinders we all wear which let us treat guesses (whether ors or those of others) as equally valid to observed facts.
And it is about time that some of these blinders statred coming off!
After all, guesses, even educated ones, are not facts – and we must not fall into the easy trap of treating them as such. Especially in cases where the guess is not based on 999 direct observations of this very event…or not on even one such event having ever happened!
Which leads me to the next question: If the global temperatures change by 0.6 of a degree, and no well-financed lobby group is there to use it as a pretext to organize a scare-mongering, funds-transfering campaign, would anyone notice?
Perspective - we all need it!
Not ‘Photoshopped’!
August 23, 2008 — xanthippaReally! Yet, I do admit, the colours look ‘unnatural’. My defence has to be my ignorance: even if I wanted to, I would have no idea HOW to tweak the photo to achieve something like this!
Charles Roka could have painted THESE skies!
Question about ‘Hippies’
August 1, 2008 — xanthippaAll right, we all know what the Hippies stood for: peace and love and removing socially repressive barriers imposed by mainstream culture. Sort of modern-day Dionysians, except with LDS and marijuana instead of wine…
They self-describe as being peaceful, accepting, laid-back… When one hears the word, we think of open-air music festivals, free love, the ‘peace’ movement, bad hair and ‘punch-Buggies’ painted in psychadelic colours and other similar cultural icons of the 60’s era.
Here is my question:
What can we conclude about the Hippie counterculture from the fact that they self-branded with the only car whose distinctive ‘look’ was designed by Adolf Hitler?
‘Ezra’s cartoon fate’
July 23, 2008 — xanthippaIt seems rather ironic…
First, I wrote about how Yemen and Iran are subverting their legal systems to impose death penalties on the bloggers whom they dissaprove of.
Then, I explained how others try to stifle free speech…even in the shape of ‘little’ blogs.
You could say that protecting free speech in all forms is one of those defining issues for me. Yes, I have kids – and I teach my kids well!
So, even my young son could not remain unaware of the ‘free speech/Human Rignts Commissions’ controversy brewing in our fair homeland of Canada. Perhaps the most visible (certainly the most colourful) free speech advocate in Canada right now – in my never-humble-opinion, is Mr. Ezra Levant. I admit, I have become fascinated with the ‘gray dungeon’ Mr. Levant was interrogated in by the Alberta HRC Inquisitoress in, seeing its ‘grayness’ with the painting of the ‘sunny, free outdoors’ as somehow symbolic of the whole proces… I have gone as far as to paint my ‘impression’ of the dungeon, in hopes of – sometimes soon – donating it to an auction benefiting the ‘free speech’ defense fund.
Please, consider the ‘interrogation chamber’ vs. my very imperfect impression of it:
Interrogation Chamber:
…and my ‘impression’ of it:
'Ezra's dungeon'
Yes, it is not a ‘perfect’ copy, the colours are brighter (on purpose), the shapes are not the same – but this is simply my ‘impression’ of the ‘promise of bright freedom’ – only as an illusion, a projection on the wall of this dank, gray, cave of a dungeon… please put it down to ‘artistic licence’!
Well, the funny thing is…the day before I wrote about the death-threat Mr. Levant had received, and the day of the benefit for a comic who is being dragged in front of the thought police for sayin ‘unfunny jokes’, my young son had drawn a series of cartoons, capturing an innocent 9-year-old’s perceptions of our struggle for the freedom of speech!
(Yes, the seating positions of Ezra and the Inquisitor (or, is it Inqisitrix?) are mirrored in the comic….please excuse that detail – but note that it has been carried throughout the comic strip. Also, note the beautifully-rendered, iconographic painting on the wall, which clearly identifies the setting!)
Ezra Levant is being 'told off' by the HRC Inquisitor
The hammer (gavel?) comes down! It knocks poor Ezra through the ceiling.
The hammer hits the table so hard, it goes right through!
As Ezra frees himself, the hammer rebounds, crashes through the wall behind the Inquisitor...
...and the hammer hits the neighbour!
...mid-air collision between Ezra and the Inquisitor...
....the rough landing, as the neighbour grasps the hammer...
The angry neighbour throwns the hammer back, clever Ezra ducks!
As the KO'd Inquisitor gets stuck in the table, Ezra is free!
And the moral of the story?
If you bring the hammer down on someone who does not deserve it, it might just rebound onto you!
Tarek Fatah’s most brilliant comment!!!
June 10, 2008 — xanthippaIt seems that people all over the world are observing Canada’s shame…
This week, the British Columbia’s Human Rights Tribunal (thier Provincial flavour of the Canadian Human Rights’ Commission) held hearings of the complaint against the respected Canadian mainstream news magazine, Macleans, and one of its writers, Mark Steyn. So, what was their crime?
An article Mr. Steyn wrote (actually, an excerpt from his book, America Alone), and Macleans magazine published, was deemed to be potentially harmful, because it quoted a Norwegian Imam who proudly boasted that ‘[Muslims] multiply like mosquitos’. This, of course, could possibly cast Muslims in a negative light….so, REGARDLESS OF ITS VERACITY, it ‘ought’ never have been published!
According to whom? Several extremist Islamists….and, by coincidence, 3 of them are just-graduating law students trying to make a name for themselves in the legal profession…. By the way, none of the complainants, or defendants, lives/has head office in BC – which makes this choice of jurisdiction somewhat curious, to say the least.
There are many wonderful bloggers, some of whom have been ‘live blogging’ from the hearings. You can find some of them here.
One place through which I was attempting to follow the events of Friday, 6th of June, 2008 was the day of ‘final arguments’ (now that I think of it, it is a little funny that it fell onto D-day!) was Macleans’ own blog. There, I came across a MOST BRILLIANT comment posted by the past president of the Muslim Canadian Congress, Mr. Tarek Fatah.
This man knows his stuff!
Just linking to the page itself, the comment might get lost among the veritable sea of outrage, common sense, and – well – human nature. Therefore, with Mr. Fatah’s permission, I am posting the whole of his comment. It speaks for itself!
Dear ‘Just Living,’
Try living a full and free life instead of hiding behind a cyber-burka and a name that tells all, viz., Just Living.
To label all people on this forum as ‘bigots,’ is not surprising as it is the only tool employed by Islamists hell-bent on upholding the jihadi doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood in Canada.
I know it is difficult, but is it possible that the only people contributing to Islamophobia in Canada are the mulla-elmasry duo?
What did these twits achieve other than to embarrass all Muslim Canadians, who appear to held hostage by the blackmail of community patriotism?
Last night one of these imams came on the Michael Coren Show to discuss polygamy and made such an ass of himself, waving the Quran at the host, mocking Christianity on a Christian TV station and then claiming there was Islamophobia in this country! When I defended my faith by explaining that polygamy was a medieval Bedouin tradition meant to take care of war widows, the Imam started reading from the Quran, screaming, “My religion allows me to marry four wives…Tarek Fatah knows nothing about Islam,” then he sneered at me with ugly facial gestures, waving hands and feminine accent, “Tarek Fatah is modern … moddderrrnnn Muslim…He is not a Muslim,” as if modernity itself was his enemy!
Dear ‘Just Living’, start living and while you are at it, if you are looking for bigots, chances are you will find them in Elmasry’s mosque or Dr. Habib’s clinic, definitely not on this Macleans forum. Sarcasm? May be. Anger? Yes and justifiably so. Islamophiobia? Not a shred of it in five days of discussion.
Dear ‘Just Living,’ the notion that the US or Canada are anti-Muslim does not withstand scrutiny. The number one selling author in both countries for over two years is a Muslim: Dr. Khalid Hossieni whose novel ‘Kite Runner’ has made so many Canucks shed tears on Go Trains and in their solitudes as they embraced the young poor boys of Kabul as their very own family. There is more.
The most sold poet in all of North America is the medieval Muslim poet Rumi. Why would Americans choose to read Maulana Rumi if they hate Muslims?
The most popular sportsman in US for decades is Muhammad Ali Clay. This mischievous boxer who titillated and entertained all of us with his sly smile and political wit. And who still stings like butterfly and floats like a bee! If Americans and the US hate Muslims, why do they love Muhammad Ali, Rumi and read the Kite Runner?
Why does CNN give Ali Velshi so much airtime prominence if it is anti-Muslim? Why, if the West hates Islam, is Farid Zakaria the editor of Newsweek magazine and why is permitted to host his own show on PBS and CNN?
Right in the heart of Vancouver where the boy-band is spewing hate against Canada and its free press, lives Senator Mobina Jaffer. Does her appointment to the senate reflect an anti-Muslim bias in the West or Canada? How doe we end up electing a young Muslim lawyer from Ottawa Centre if Canaucks are anti-Islam? And if your anger is directed at the Conservative flank of Canadian political spectrum, why them would the Reform Party, then the Alliance and later the Conservatives elect Rahim Jaffer as an MP since 1993. Or do you discount him to be a good Muslim simply because he is smart, good looking, dates a lovely MP and wears stylish suits, and heavens forbid, has sense of humour that borders impish naughtiness, a trait that would help such cry babies as Khurrum Awan and Faisal ‘Joseph’ to grow up and stop sucking on their thumbs as they utter drivel.
Dear ‘Just Living,’ please start living.
Mr. Fatah could not be more correct!
One lie comes out to light!
June 5, 2008 — xanthippaAs I wrote yesterday: a lie repeated often enough eventually becomes perceived as the truth (because of the mechanisms our brain uses to process its input), I had no idea one frequently repeated – and widely accepted as true – statement would be proven to be a big, fat lie!!!
Perhaps only Canadians are following the circus happening in the Star Chambers of the British Columbia HRC . (The commission sometimes has tribunals – but as they are the same people, the names get confusing…officially, they call themselves tribunal in BC- usually they say commission/tribunal. I think they are just trying to confuse us.)
What is happening there?
The BC HRC(/T) is dragging a mainstream news magazine, Macleans, and a writer, Mark Steyn, ‘onto the carpet’ for having the audacity to quote a Norwegian Imam. Apparently, his words could cause prejudice or hate against Muslims in BC, and so they should not be allowed to print them. The fact that the statement was quoted truly and accurately – and in context – is no defence. It is the fact that the statement could be perceived as ‘hateful’ or ‘demeaning’ . Not was, just could be. So, no need to go through that pesky business of proving any actual damages….
What is perhaps most frightening is that TRUTH IS NO DEFENSE!!!
The complainants live in Ontario. The magazine is headquartered in Toronto, Ontario. The writer lives in the USA. Yet, the complaint is brought forward in BC….among other places (yes, double or tripple jeopardy do not apply).
One of the key pillars of their position, the thing that demonstrated how ‘unreasonable’ the magazine’s behaviour was, was the complainant’s insistence that MacLeans refused their suggestion that they publish an impartial article on that topic, written by a mutually acceptable writer.
Today, the truth comes out! This was NEVER part of their demands!
They never asked for a ‘more neutral’ article to be published, to be written by a mutually acceptable – or agreed upon (one variation wording of the LIE) writer. Never. One of the complainants admitted this, today, under oath, while questioned by a lawyed for Macleans who was actually present at that meeting where this alleged request took place.
Liar, liar, pants on fire!
Thanks for Blazing Catfur for the tip!
More Mind Games
June 4, 2008 — xanthippaYesterday, I had a fun post on how easily our perceptions can play mind games on us – looking at optical illusons. Of course, optical illusions, at least of the ‘fun’ type, are just the tip of the iceberg!
The post showed, I hope, just how easy it is for our eyes to be tricked.
Our brains are wonderful, comples structures. They take the information from our eyes, and process it. It is this processing of information which ‘tricks’ our mind. Why? Because our brains have developed some mightily useful ways of ‘figuring things out’ without telling us. At least, without telling that conscious part of our thoughts we often think of as ‘us’.
Yes, it is a form of subconscious ‘prejudice’ system – but it is precisely through this type of ‘pre-judgements’ that let humans anticipate what is likely to happen next, so as to react in the best, most advantageour (to survival) way. {Aside: it is precisely because so many of our bad prejudices are also rooted this very deeply, among other survival tools, that we have a hard time recognizing our own ones… and why it is healthy for us to see other people’s ‘obvious’ prejudice openly, so we may learn to recognize our own bad/destructive/unreasonable prejucices and guard against acting on them. But, that is for another day…}
When our brain gets some input, it matches this input to ‘past experiences’, compares patterns, looks for similarities. It then interprets this new inputas best as it can – with respect to all the stored past experiences! And it does so quickly, without us even noticing it is doing it…
That is why we find it so hard to ‘wrap our brains’ around something completely new and outside of our experiences: our brain has nothing to match it to, and would be just as happy ‘not noticing it’…
The immortal Douglas Adams was quite fascinated by this phenomenon. And, as was his way, he used humour to get his point across… Please, indulge me (highly paraphrased):
The story went something like this: A guy had a bet with some people about erecting an invisibility field on the mountain that blocked his view… It was no easy thing, and in the end, the nay-sayers had lost, because even though the mountain could no longer be seen, there was now a suspicious new moon in low orbit, just about the size of that mountain… Douglas Adams said that trying to generate an ‘invisibility field’ was silly, that is just so very troublesome. It would have been much easier to simply paint the mountain pink during the nighttime and erect an S.E.P. field on it.
What is an S.E.P. field? It simply means ‘Somebody Else’s Problem’ – anything that is ‘unusual’ or appears’ unexpected, and has this S.E.P. field on it – will be less than invisible! People will look straight through it and not see it! Their brain will just process it as ‘somebody else’s problem’ and refuse to acknowledge its existence…
Seems to me that this is one take on the whole ‘mind tricks’ phenomenon I am trying to get at. Can’t relate to it – it’s not there.
But, there are way more sinister uses of this ability we, people have, to interpret what we see according to familiar patterns. This can be seriously abused by people with very particular – and not always honourable – aims.
Just like we can be tricked by a simple optical illusion, we can be tricked into seeing ‘things’ that never happened. And once people ‘see things for themselves’, they accept them as true… and belieave them.
All our actions are based on what we perceive. Not on facts – only on what we think are the acts. Not on truth, because we have no way of separating truth from our very distorted – and sometimes intentionally tricked – perceptions of the truth, on what we think the truth is.
A lie repeated often enough will eventually appear to us as the truth (it’s precisely this ‘previously encountered pattern’ matching thing in our subconsciousness that does this!).
Conversly, a truth never heard of, will never be considered when one makes decisions. After all, we can only decide on our best understanding of the truth…
Perhaps it is time we took a moment and re-evaluated just how easy it is for our brains to become victims of ‘mind games’…
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 