jstan
climber
|
|
|
Mar 14, 2013 - 11:54pm PT
|
Computers are great because they generally do what you tell them to do.
People never do what you tell them to do.
There is an oxymoron somewhere in these internet arguments. Maybe we confuse the media with the message.
|
|
Bruce Kay
Gym climber
BC
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2013 - 07:33am PT
|
This sounds like a hoot. Anybody checking this out?
I guess Survivor producer Mark Burnett tipped his hand when he made that Sarah Palin reality show, not to mention his continuing association with ass clown Donald Trump. Surely he's a maverick, a Tea Partier, a birther, a red state kind of guy. And as the Palin show also suggests, his politics seem to inform his artistic choices. So perhaps we should not be surprised at his latest project: The Bible, a five-part miniseries that attempts to condense the Good Book into 10 hours of Good TV. It's already a smash hit for the History Channel -- the most-watched cable TV show in the U.S. this year (airing on Sunday nights, natch). Burnett told The Daily Mail: "The hand of God was on this."
Far be it from me to suggest that the hand of God could use some time in film school. But as dramatic misfires go The Bible could rank with the Star Wars Holiday Special.
Cramming the Bible into 10 hours requires more trimming than a yak on prom night. Nonetheless there's a lot of dross to be eliminated. No one wants to see the detailed genealogies of Moses, or the laws concerning mildew. And the filmmakers wisely omit tales like the deaths of Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Moses' brother Aaron. The two lads present an offering to the Lord but do it wrong, and like a displeased and omnipotent five-year-old at a birthday party, the Lord incinerates them. Savvy filmmakers know that sort of psychopathic behaviour alienates your audience. Even Tony Soprano didn't do that sh#t. But keeping the audience onside is a challenge with this material, and Burnett and company don't always play it straight. This is not exactly your patriarch's Bible.
MacNoah
The Bible opens on the storm-tossed Ark as an apparently Scottish Noah editorializes about what brought the Flood ("Wrong choices! Wrong decisions!") and tells his lucky passengers the tale of Creation and the Garden of Eden, all while being knocked around by the waves and trying to avoid bumping into a couple of giraffes in a surprisingly empty ship. (No dinosaurs, which explains a lot.) Adam and Eve are white supermodels, but other races will be dutifully trotted out thanks to arbitrary casting decisions, a practice which extends to the dramatizations of familiar Biblical tales. For example, the angels of the Lord who visit Sodom turn out to be martial arts sword masters, dispatching the unholy with wicked ninja moves. Thus continues a long, proud tradition of Biblical interpretation.
Think of a typical TV episode recap ("Previously on Downton Abbey...") and you'll understand the sort of depth and complexity offered by The Bible's pell-mell rush through the Book of Genesis. Abraham the patriarch exhorts his people to do all sorts of things because, well, God spoke to him. Particularly curt is the horrifying tale of Abraham's near-sacrifice of his son Isaac. "What's the matter?" asks Abraham's wife, Sarah. "God wants a sacrifice," Abraham answers blandly. "My boy, come with me."
Since these filmmakers, like many before them, have decided that a visual portrayal of God is a step too far, we simply see Abraham squinting at the sky and talking to himself. This makes Abraham look very much how a man who claims to hear messages from God would look today if encountered at Main and Broadway. Probably not what was intended. At least Moses gets a burning bush to chat with.
Slaughterfest
It's not so much the supernatural aspects of the tale that make it tough to dramatize -- modern audiences are accustomed to that via The Avengers, Harry Potter, et al. It's more the point of view. Abraham and other warriors shout "Trust in God!" and then proceed to slaughter their enemies without mercy. Cinematically this works when the enemy are Imperial stormtroopers, and for believers the scenes might work the same way. But when Joshua shouts "Israel!" before massacring the terrified inhabitants of Jericho, it takes a very partisan observer not to wish he could be hauled before the Ancient International Court in The Hague. Later, after Samson brings down the temple on the Philistines, the narrator notes approvingly: "Samson's sacrifice killed thousands." The ancestor of the modern suicide bomber?
The tale of Samson also shows how The Bible's creators occasionally fudge the Biblical viewpoint to gain sympathy. "Our people should never mix," an onscreen Philistine grandee snarls when the Israelite Samson marries into their tribe. Yet in the Old Testament it is not so much the Philistines as Samson's people who object to the marriage -- and we are told that Samson's intermarriage is simply the Lord's way of bringing destruction upon those people whose name entered our language as a synonym for the uncultured (a historical injustice reinforced by years of Biblical education. Archaeology has uncovered evidence of connections between Philistine and Greek culture and suggests that in some ways ancient Philistinian civilization may have been more advanced than the Hebrew).
In fact one selling point of this series is the opportunity to grab a Bible and follow along (preferably with a modern translation) to see where Burnett and co. are playing fast and loose with the source material. Hopefully it's an approach that will be pursued by at least some of the Sunday school teachers who are sure to use this series as a teaching tool.
Stay tuned
And yet even with the reverent and thoroughly uncritical approach taken by the makers of the History Channel Bible, they can't drain all the fascination, horror, and humanity out of the King James Bible. There's just so much to work with. And things finally get interesting when Saul and David appear on screen. The storytelling is still crude and rushed but here at least are tales in which God is far less important than politics, paranoia, power, sex and treachery. (Vancouver viewers will also note that God cuts David more slack than Alex Edler gets from Alain Vigneault.)
Watching this long narrative of triumphalism and divine destiny, I was often reminded of the Israeli backpacker I recently met in India. He cut short an incipient discussion of Mid-East politics by proclaiming, "God gave our land to Abraham. That is all I need to know."
He'll love this series -- at least the first half. But The Bible's point of view is going to turn on him pretty soon. History Channel keeps reminding impatient Christian viewers of this with promos featuring Jesus (Diego Morgado) reaching toward the camera and saying, "I am coming soon!"
After all, History Channel didn't pull in over 13 million American viewers by pandering to minority groups.
I've had some peripheral experience with Mark Burnett and never noted any particular political or religious tendencies but his most obvious characteristic was phenomenal ambition and opportunism along with a keen understanding for pop culture psychology.
Which I suppose when you think of it, makes him a perfect purveyor of religion
|
|
Bruce Kay
Gym climber
BC
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2013 - 08:11am PT
|
I just thought of something. Some psych major should think of doing a bio of Mark Burnett's professional history for a thesis subject. Here is the premiss:
MB started early with a fascination for spectacle and human drama, initially with a stint in the British special forces (or whatever its called) then taking part in the first "Adventure" Races, the Raid Galoise. His ferocious ambition drove him to holliwood and ultimately to develop his own backwoods soap operas in the Eco Challenge Adventure Race series which he sold broadcast rights to. From out of this fertile muck sprang the origins of Reality TV, Which discarded all the anoying expense and risk of the races while nurturing the gratuitous machavelian intrigues that formed the real success of the whole shebang.
Problem is, its sustainability relies on fresh spectacle as it is firmly anchored in the realities of the here and now. Mark spent the past decade milking this theme with nothing resulting better than some Sarah Palin or Trump idiocy or Survivor add nauseum.
How better to exploit the basic needs of his audience?
Well, What did other successful snake oil salesmen do?
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2013 - 08:34pm PT
|
Although i was raised in the church, my personal orientation of interests has always been dedicated to the sciences...the assumption being that the sciences were rising above the superstitions and bigotry of the past.
As i gained experience in life, i also collected experiences that were not readily explained by my studies of the sciences, but i kept faith that all would be explained with further studies.
This thread has inspired me to do a lot of further reading and re-examine some of my basic assumptions.
It seems that the more we learn and the farther reaching our instruments, the bigger and more extensive are the unanswered questions.
So far my personal results have been coming to an understanding that the sciences have certainly served to expand our knowledge and awareness of many things...but some in the community of scientists are no less opinionated, bigoted, taboo ridden, and myopic than other recognizably superstitious societies...
It seems the sciences have been co-opted as the new religion to control and limit the thoughts of the human community.
However many of the basic assumptions of the sciences are probably wrong...as discovered by dedicated scientists doing research and verification of the basic 'laws of science.'
Unfortunately, open-minded scientists who are not so crippled by sanctioned opinions, and who become interested in unusual phenomena tend to keep their interests quiet in order to avoid the scorn and ridicule of their colleagues. That has to change...and is changing...
We have much to learn, and some opinionated scientific bigots are heading for a severe reality adjustment.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2013 - 09:12pm PT
|
I just came across a series of three interesting and easy to read articles about what is known and not known now in high energy physics.
The God Particle: Six big consequences of the Higgs boson discovery.
Beyond the Higgs Boson: Five More elusive particles.
Life after Higgs boson: What's next for the world's largest atom smasher?
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science
As for Tom's comments, yes I too have learned that scientists can be bigoted and use science like a religion.
However, I don't think scientists are any more a danger to society than religious believers. It's the power and money hungry among both groups and especially those who act in their name, who are the problem. Empire builders have no conscience, whatever their affiliation.
Speaking of which, one of the first results of sequestration, is that all four branches of the military have cut all tuition assistance for higher education. Military sports teams are still being flown around the world and we spend more on military bands than the entire State Dept. budget. Who needs an inquisition to quiet the masses when you can control them with money?
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2013 - 09:18pm PT
|
"I'm made of stone," says the stone,
"and must therefore keep a straight face."
from Conversation With a Stone by Wisława Szymborska
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2013 - 09:48pm PT
|
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2013 - 10:36pm PT
|
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2013/03/16/cern-now-certain-it-has-discovered-the-higgs-boson/
CERN Now Certain It Has Discovered The Higgs Boson
Last July, scientists at CERN announced that, using the Large Hadron Collider, it had discovered a particle that was consistent with the properties they’d expect to find in Higgs boson. A Higgs boson is the particle that the current model of physics describes as giving mass to all particles in the universe.
Despite the excitement of that discovery, the scientists at CERN were hesitant to say that they had made a definitive discovery. Instead, they described the particle as a “Higgs-like boson” – even after their findings were accepted in peer-reviewed publications. That’s because there were still more tests to be run in order to confirm what had been found.
How Much Does It Cost To Find A Higgs Boson? Alex Knapp Alex Knapp Forbes Staff
Scientists Set The Higgs Boson To Music Alex Knapp Alex Knapp Forbes Staff
On Thursday, however, CERN stopped hesitating. They’ve announced that the the particle described in July 2012 was, in fact, a Higgs Boson.
“The preliminary results with the full 2012 data set are magnificent and to me it is clear that we are dealing with a Higgs boson though we still have a long way to go to know what kind of Higgs boson it is,” spokesperson Joe Incandela said in a statement.
To make this final determination, the dataset was analyzed to see if the quantum properties of the boson discovered in July matched the properties that are currently predicted by physics. After tests in two different detectors, it was confirmed that the particle possessed those properties.
“The beautiful new results represent a huge effort by many dedicated people. They point to the new particle having the spin-parity of a Higgs boson as in the Standard Model,” spokesperson Dave Charlton said in a statement.
This is hardly the end of the road for Higgs study, though. It’s only the beginning. Scientists at CERN and elsewhere have years of work ahead of them learning more about this particle, more about its properties, and what its implications are for physics. This may be a landmark discovery, but it’s a landmark on the coast of a continent that we’ve only caught glimpses of here and there.
We still have lots of exploring to do.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2013 - 11:52pm PT
|
Tom: It seems that the more we learn and the farther reaching our instruments, the bigger and more extensive are the unanswered questions.
Last time I checked, that's exactly how science works and is suppose to work. And, in fact, that's the best aspect of science - that we learn to ask better and better questions. And it's the quality of our questions, far more so than that of our answers, which defines us.
So far my personal results have been coming to an understanding that the sciences have certainly served to expand our knowledge and awareness of many things...but some in the community of scientists are no less opinionated, bigoted, taboo ridden, and myopic than other recognizably superstitious societies...
Nonsense.
It seems the sciences have been co-opted as the new religion to control and limit the thoughts of the human community.
Paranoid nonsense.
However many of the basic assumptions of the sciences are probably wrong...as discovered by dedicated scientists doing research and verification of the basic 'laws of science.'
That's also how science works - the sometimes wholesale overturning of earlier understandings as the quality of our questions and methods of inquiry evolve.
Unfortunately, open-minded scientists who are not so crippled by sanctioned opinions...
Casting the [foundational] peer review process as resulting in crippling "sanctioned opinions" is to project hobgoblins where none exist. And it's hard to interpret such opinions as anything but a desperate plea to lower the bar of science such that any unsupportable imaginings and personal fantasies - which otherwise can't survive the peer review process - be elevated to the same level as methods and data which do survive it. For all intents and purposes it's a plea to roll back the clock to times when the world was ruled by exclusively by superstition and fear.
...and who become interested in unusual phenomena tend to keep their interests quiet in order to avoid the scorn and ridicule of their colleagues. That has to change...and is changing...
You mean like the Sasquatch folks who manufactured both their data and the 'scientific' journal they published their 'study' in; the latter because no real, peer-reviewed journal would ever consider touching it.
We have much to learn, and some opinionated scientific bigots are heading for a severe reality adjustment.
What really drives and expands the horizon of science is not what we do know, it's our ability to learn and understand what we don't know which in turn drives inquiry. Of course we have much to learn - we've only broken the surface of all there is to potentially learn, know, and understand.
But there are no shortcuts in science, no magic wands. And if your hypothesis, methods, and data can't survive a legitimate peer review process, then what are you really asking? A world where the work of legitimate scientists is indistinguishable from the DeNovo's? A world where the study of inter-dimensional Sasquatch is celebrated as 'science'? Is that really what you want?
In a word: poppycock. And the only "reality adjustment" in the offing is the one science delivers every day to fantacists, charlatans, the delusional, the overly optimistic, and the incompetent seeking shortcuts.
|
|
Bruce Kay
Gym climber
BC
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2013 - 08:35am PT
|
Well put. I am continuously puzzled at the assertions just put forth by Tom and others on the "other side". My understanding of science is that there is no "other side", only that which is yet unexplained and unknown, for which explanation is continuously sought not ignored or scorned as a matter of some ideological imperative. The accusations such as this:
but some in the community of scientists are no less opinionated, bigoted, taboo ridden, and myopic than other recognizably superstitious societies...
is patently untrue, unless you are talking about these interesting characters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornwall_Alliance
The only basis for which I could see some truth in your statements such as the above would be if there is in fact a process of explanation for our natural world that is not recognizable through the scientific process. The other basis is that the "spiritual world" is not a part of our natural world, a parallel universe in other words. In these cases material evidence, or lack thereof, may be moot. But if not material what other evidence exists?
Which indicates prejudice on the part of science? Science works like building a house works and thus it is reasonable to follow the processes that are known for building a house, which hardly indoctrinates one into an inability to consider other means of habitation. So far however, the only ones seemingly capable of gaining habitation out of thin air might be the yogis up in the Gangotri but i understand there may be some explanation for that based in our understandings of physiology and psychology. I don't know but I bet Jan could elaborate on what is known about this.
Either way the fact remains. The scientist is not certain and the strength of his / her belief is based upon the strength of supportive evidence, which can change as knowledge evolves. That hardly requires prejudice as an ethic.
The spiritualist is certain and the strength of his / her belief is based upon faith and typically exists unchanged in the face of conflicting evidence. Prejudice is a required ethic. Just take a look at the teachings of werner Braun.
Anyway, even if its just societal outcomes that concerns you, vote for that which does the least damage.
|
|
Dr. F.
Big Wall climber
SoCal
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 17, 2013 - 08:39am PT
|
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2013 - 08:47am PT
|
[Those] who become interested in unusual phenomena tend to keep their interests quiet in order to avoid the scorn and ridicule of their colleagues.
thanks for the immediate confirmation of my assertions...
homework assignments:
The Road to Reality, A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe - Roger Penrose
Dark Energy, Does it really exist? - Scientific American April 2009
The Trouble with Physics, The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next - Lee Smolin
I Am a Strange Loop - Douglas Hofstadter
Science and Psychic Phenomena, The Fall of the House of Skeptics - Chris Carter
Entangled Minds, Extrasensory Experiences in a Quantum Reality - Dean Radin
The Science Delusion - Rupert Sheldrake
Spirit of the Rock - Ron Kauk
i rest my case
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2013 - 08:49am PT
|
The 50th Anniversary edition of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions has just come out. Here's part of the description.
With The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn challenged long-standing linear notions of scientific progress, arguing that transformative ideas don’t arise from the day-to-day, gradual process of experimentation and data accumulation but that the revolutions in science, those breakthrough moments that disrupt accepted thinking and offer unanticipated ideas, occur outside of “normal science,” as he called it. Though Kuhn was writing when physics ruled the sciences, his ideas on how scientific revolutions bring order to the anomalies that amass over time in research experiments are still instructive in our biotech age.
Plate tectonics was one such paradigm shift but there are many others.
At one point in the book, he even says that for new paradigms to be accepted, it is sometimes necessary for enough funerals of senior scientists to occur.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2013 - 09:37am PT
|
Bruce K -- "The spiritualist is certain and the strength of his / her belief is based upon faith ..."
Quit making up words and projecting them onto real spiritual knowledge.
It's based on "Science" not faith.
Faith is only there until it's established by the scientific process.
I told you before ..... "you have very poor understanding of the subject matter" ......
|
|
Bruce Kay
Gym climber
BC
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2013 - 10:11am PT
|
I told you before ..... "you have very poor understanding of the subject matter" ......
Yes I know you have told me before but you continue to apply your typical charm and astoundingly effective communication skills with not much to show for it. I assume your climbing skills are a bit more expert otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2013 - 10:21am PT
|
My climbing skills are completely useless in this conversation.
Just see again your poor understanding of the subject matter .....
|
|
Bruce Kay
Gym climber
BC
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2013 - 10:35am PT
|
That was an analogy. Your response indicates your capacity for perception mirrors your communication skills. If you look at it again you will see that my statement about your climbing skills had little to do with your climbing skills and was a clear reference to your communication skills.
Anyway enough of that. Can you explain the validity of this statement?
Faith is only there until it's established by the scientific process.
Perhaps someone other than Werner can offer some critique regarding my observations on ethics and the role of faith in establishing fact?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2013 - 02:48pm PT
|
Tom: Rupert Sheldrake
I've thrown out Sheldrake several times now and you completely ignored it. So all of a sudden Sheldrake is in fact on the table. Fine, then are you saying you buy into his overall proposition?
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2013 - 03:22pm PT
|
The Road to Reality, A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe - Roger Penrose
You've read this cover to cover, Tom? Wow, I'm impressed!
I go to my copy occasionally as a reference work. Reminds me a little of Wolfram's A New Kind of Science that came out some time ago. But Wolfram's book pushed his focus on cellular automata, which got a little old a short way in. I never heard of anyone who actually read the entire book. Penrose's book is more readable and more an explanation rather than a tome pushing a certain agenda. But the size (and some of the content) is intimidating, to say the least.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2013 - 04:02pm PT
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mst3fOl5vH0
One of the most counterintuitive parts of the whole "spiritual" adventure thing - which is another word for adventures in perceptions and reality, including nothing-at-all - has to do with what is "real."
In short, people, places and things "out there," beyond the bubble of our own subjective awareness, are not inherently real, because what is "out there" is undifferentiated and boundless, and becomes a "thing," or something real only when our minds reify (map/quantify) it as such.
Ed said two telling things. One, the "maps" are real, and two, the relationship of the map to the territory is provisional.
In this sense, the "territory" is not a constant, changeless form existing separate from the mind, enduring exactly as it is mentally perceived and represented. What does exist separate from the territory are the maps, though we need our minds to create/discover and perceive said maps.
Put differently, our minds do not create the territory, which does exist, undiferentiated and limitless, "out there." But what we recognize as discrete and real "things" are simply our minds reifying the territory relative to the essential specs of our minds and our sense aperati.
In the Zen tradition the reifying process is made real for someone by (among other ways) meditating on the Koan, "What is the reality of the moving flag?" Somewhere in there you become witness to your mind waving the flag, that what we see is a mental representation, an ephemeral reflection of the moon, so to speak, in a bucket of rain.
David Boehm, an old teacher of mine, talked about this his own way in the clip above.
JL
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!