I have been on medication for my bipolar disorder for about six months. The medication has worked, I no longer am on the roller coaster of energy and emotion. Now that this is established I am feeling a very typical reaction. That is that my life is just way less interesting than it used to be. There is simply so much more to life when you have bipolar disorder, and mine was not of the most extreme sort. Each day is fine, anything I have to deal with is simply whatever problem there is in the environment, and when you have dealt with vast, unpredictable mood swings and the problems of the desperately poor and mentally ill, these environmental problems really don't seem that big of a deal.
I imagine for most people that sounds great. A life without really experiencing problems, so you can just do what you want to be happy. Who could ask for anything more? The reason why that doesn't work quite so well for me is that having had bipolar disorder I have had a vastly greater range of feelings than most people.
My bipolar disorder had two components, an emotional component and an energy component. Last year (my hardest mental health year in two decades), about once a month I would have four to five days in which I felt exhausted. To give you an idea of what that was like, before I was diagnosed I used to think I caught the flu all the time. The feeling was just like the exhaustion of the flu; a need to sleep fourteen or more hours a day, so little energy that climbing a flight of stairs was an act of will. However, about once every six weeks I would have about a day of unceasing energy, up at six am, exercise for several hours and still be walking at midnight to try and burn off the excess energy. This is a very unusual form of bipolar disorder, only diagnosed in the last decade or so. To be precise I have ultra-rapid cycling bipolar II.
With the emotional component last year I spent about a third of my time emotionally down. Most of those days I would work very hard to be positive, to have hope, to look for joy in the world. It was difficult to do so, and every day I would wonder to myself whether I should keep living. I didn't really come close to suicide, but I thought about a very large amount of the time. On the other hand, perhaps a month I would have an experience of the most sublime beauty. Now that I am well I realize how hard it is to try to explain the power of this feeling. It was like falling in love, watching the most beautiful sunset, riding a roller coaster, swimming through tropical waters, and feeling the applause of a crowd, all at the same time, and for hours at a time.
These different components would cycle at different rates, and at different intensities. Sometimes I would be exhausted and things would be beautiful. Sometimes I would have unlimited energy and be in the depths of despair (the worst times). Sometimes I would have enormous energy and feel beautiful. This last experience is so powerful that I felt such joy that it was almost a physical pain, a joy that seemed more than my body could contain. I have talked to my sister about this experience and she described it beautifully, she said that you felt so sad for other people that they would never understand how beautiful the world is. Even more than this, by May of last year the cycling was happening at such a rate that I would never have the same mood at the end of a week that I had at the beginning.
Whatever you can say about such an experience, and there's a reason I went to see a psychiatrist to get help, it is not dull or mundane. In contrast my present life is dull and mundane. It's the bit of a night at the movies where you are driving home from seeing an epic blockbuster in your grey sedan. There's nothing particularly wrong with it, but you aren't laughing and crying and jumping out of your seat anymore.
So, what is the normal bipolar reaction? It's the temptation to stop taking the medication. It's thinking that those sublime moments might be worth the rest of the pain. It's thinking that you have survived all of those years without the medication. It's asking yourself whether a richer but more painful life is better than a more pleasant, but poorer, life. Until last spring I always told myself it was, but then last spring was rich and painful to the point of howling.
Don't worry, I have no plans whatsoever to give into the temptation. But I am a little sad that my life will never again have the same poetry, richness, or moments more beautiful than most people will ever experience.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Plan Update
From looking through the posts on here I have realized that it has been a long time since I updated people about our plan. Since we started dating Christina and I have always planned for the future, with such choices as deciding that the mortgage on our first house would be small enough that if either of us lost our jobs the other could afford (just) to pay the mortgage. This worked out well since I was laid off on the day we received the keys for the house. We have also made sure we saved money on a regular basis, avoided credit card debt, bought only the car(s) we need, and made sure that we have generally done things that we wished to do (foreign trips, hot tub, flying to concerts and to see friends).
A little over three years ago Christina was informed that we could move to Houston or have no income. We spent a long time deciding which choice to make, and it was a difficult choice. We decided to move to Houston for a number of reasons, obviously the financial reason, secondly because of Christina's seasonal affective disorder, thirdly because of potential for advancement for Christina that would lead to being able to be financially secure pretty close to anywhere in the USA, and finally because living in Texas would be like living in a foreign country - an adventure.
The results on these four reasons are as follows:
1) Financially we have greater income than ever before and we have avoided the pain, worry, difficulty, and financial collapse experienced by many people during the recession. However, our house has probably declined somewhat in value, it is a difficult time to sell a house, and we have spent many thousands fixing problems with the house. To sell the house we will need to spend thousands more on landscaping, duct work, painting etc.. There has always seemed to be something that stops us from getting ahead (ahead of a very lucky position) and so Texas has been substantially more expensive for us than Portland was, but probably not more than it would have been to stay.
2) Christina's seasonal affective disorder has essentially disappeared in the sunshine. We still keep a close eye on the situation but there has been a dramatic difference. It is easy to forget how much of a good thing this is. It is a very good thing indeed. While my bipolar disorder got substantially worse just over a year ago and peaked in a very disturbing manner about nine months ago, thanks to the support of my wife and sister I have a medication that is working very well. This is also a very good thing.
3) Christina has not so much advanced as moved laterally in her profession. This means that while she hasn't become anyone's boss, she has an astonishingly broad range of skills that should stand her in good stead going forward. It has been (to me) surprising that her attempts to find other jobs have not succeeded as yet. Still, at some point the economy will improve, reducing the competition for jobs, we will be able to sell the house, and therefore have a realistic opportunity for Christina to find a decent job in a nice place.
4) We can now say we have lived in Texas. Texas sucks, but I still have moments, such as looking out at a palm tree waving in a balmy wind in January, that I am truly living abroad. Texas will be something we can tell stories about over the next forty years.
What is the plan going forward? It isn't really much different than it has been, other than delayed, less profitable, and more painful than we had imagined. What we need to do is save some money, which will take a year or two, in order to make the house presentable to sell and so that we don't have to be in it while that happens. Christina's work is in the process of a muddled downsizing/increased efficiency process/impending sale which means that there is some anxiety there. I have much more of this anxiety than Christina, which also makes me somewhat anxious. The work environment had been unbelievably atrocious, but Christina has moved to an untouchable, unassailable position - an absolutely vital one person department run more efficiently than ever before - and Christina is approaching zen master status. So, if the position remains intact over the next couple of years that will be fine, and there isn't a negligible chance that the incompetence elsewhere will result in a promotion.
I have tried a number of times to meet people, be social, play music etc.. It has all failed. The closest thing to a friend I have is a guy we meet in the bar on Thursdays, and a nice guy he is. However, I am basically at peace with living in a vacation home and talking to my wife. It's good enough and there isn't much I can do about it anyway. Adding everything up I have a much less exciting, fun, interesting life than I did in Portland, but I think I am now substantially more serene.
We still have our plan of living near a small college town in the Appalachians. At this point Christina should be able to run the energy needs for an entire county (yes, really) which would be about the most secure position I can imagine.
In the short term we'd like to go to our favorite place in Costa Rica but we have to find out when Christina's parents will be visiting since they are arriving at an unspecified time right around when we are planning to go. And we are going even if it gets us into debt for a bit because some things are just important. I had hoped to go to Portland for one last gig with the old band (since the "final" gig didn't materialize last summer) bu that seems to be beyond our resources at the moment. Mostly we'll be chilling by the pool, watching the palm trees in our little haven, surrounded by the horror beyond the gates.
A little over three years ago Christina was informed that we could move to Houston or have no income. We spent a long time deciding which choice to make, and it was a difficult choice. We decided to move to Houston for a number of reasons, obviously the financial reason, secondly because of Christina's seasonal affective disorder, thirdly because of potential for advancement for Christina that would lead to being able to be financially secure pretty close to anywhere in the USA, and finally because living in Texas would be like living in a foreign country - an adventure.
The results on these four reasons are as follows:
1) Financially we have greater income than ever before and we have avoided the pain, worry, difficulty, and financial collapse experienced by many people during the recession. However, our house has probably declined somewhat in value, it is a difficult time to sell a house, and we have spent many thousands fixing problems with the house. To sell the house we will need to spend thousands more on landscaping, duct work, painting etc.. There has always seemed to be something that stops us from getting ahead (ahead of a very lucky position) and so Texas has been substantially more expensive for us than Portland was, but probably not more than it would have been to stay.
2) Christina's seasonal affective disorder has essentially disappeared in the sunshine. We still keep a close eye on the situation but there has been a dramatic difference. It is easy to forget how much of a good thing this is. It is a very good thing indeed. While my bipolar disorder got substantially worse just over a year ago and peaked in a very disturbing manner about nine months ago, thanks to the support of my wife and sister I have a medication that is working very well. This is also a very good thing.
3) Christina has not so much advanced as moved laterally in her profession. This means that while she hasn't become anyone's boss, she has an astonishingly broad range of skills that should stand her in good stead going forward. It has been (to me) surprising that her attempts to find other jobs have not succeeded as yet. Still, at some point the economy will improve, reducing the competition for jobs, we will be able to sell the house, and therefore have a realistic opportunity for Christina to find a decent job in a nice place.
4) We can now say we have lived in Texas. Texas sucks, but I still have moments, such as looking out at a palm tree waving in a balmy wind in January, that I am truly living abroad. Texas will be something we can tell stories about over the next forty years.
What is the plan going forward? It isn't really much different than it has been, other than delayed, less profitable, and more painful than we had imagined. What we need to do is save some money, which will take a year or two, in order to make the house presentable to sell and so that we don't have to be in it while that happens. Christina's work is in the process of a muddled downsizing/increased efficiency process/impending sale which means that there is some anxiety there. I have much more of this anxiety than Christina, which also makes me somewhat anxious. The work environment had been unbelievably atrocious, but Christina has moved to an untouchable, unassailable position - an absolutely vital one person department run more efficiently than ever before - and Christina is approaching zen master status. So, if the position remains intact over the next couple of years that will be fine, and there isn't a negligible chance that the incompetence elsewhere will result in a promotion.
I have tried a number of times to meet people, be social, play music etc.. It has all failed. The closest thing to a friend I have is a guy we meet in the bar on Thursdays, and a nice guy he is. However, I am basically at peace with living in a vacation home and talking to my wife. It's good enough and there isn't much I can do about it anyway. Adding everything up I have a much less exciting, fun, interesting life than I did in Portland, but I think I am now substantially more serene.
We still have our plan of living near a small college town in the Appalachians. At this point Christina should be able to run the energy needs for an entire county (yes, really) which would be about the most secure position I can imagine.
In the short term we'd like to go to our favorite place in Costa Rica but we have to find out when Christina's parents will be visiting since they are arriving at an unspecified time right around when we are planning to go. And we are going even if it gets us into debt for a bit because some things are just important. I had hoped to go to Portland for one last gig with the old band (since the "final" gig didn't materialize last summer) bu that seems to be beyond our resources at the moment. Mostly we'll be chilling by the pool, watching the palm trees in our little haven, surrounded by the horror beyond the gates.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Natural
There is a an idea that there are some things that are natural and there are some things that are unnatural. There are also things that are man-made, which while not being natural are not considered unnatural. There is a sense in which natural things are considered better, purer, unspoiled, beautiful, even more moral. Unnatural is the opposite side of the coin to this perception, there is a sense of ugliness and wrongness to how we think about what is unnatural. Man-made is simply that, without any sense of rightness or wrongness.
What is actually natural, and what is not natural? Really, everything is natural. At the bottom the word doesn't even have a meaning. There is not one thing that has not been formed by nature. However, we do know what the word means, it means not altered by human beings. Where does this concept come from? It comes from the age-old concept that people are qualitatively different from everything else. It's the separation between humans and animals. It's the religious belief that we were made by God or gods, and that the rest of everything is ours to rule or use. What is natural then is everything that does not separate us from the rest of the universe.
Of course we know that there is not really such a separation. There are things that only humans do, but we are finding that these are fewer and fewer than we had previously thought. We are apes, genetically far more similar to other apes than different from them. The thought that speech, empathy, thinking, tool-use, culture etc. were all only human characteristics has been shown to be false. Rats free other rats from cages at a disadvantage to themselves. Dolphins protect other species from sharks. Killer whales around the world have different cultures. Gorillas can learn sign-language, the communication between wolves is quite advanced. Monkeys use tools in a multi-step process. Octopuses build structures. The difference between humans and other animals is largely a simple matter of degree.
This is still not how the word is used. "Natural" nowadays is used most often as a marketing device. If something is derived from natural ingredients then you can charge more money for it and people think it is better for themselves or the environment. This is regardless of what the ingredients might be. As an example, people use tobacco as a pesticide because it is a natural product. Tobacco has 28 carcinogens in it. If you bought a product in a plastic spray can with 28 carcinogens in it would you spray it around your garden? However, on the whole it might well be a good strategy to go for natural products over artificial products, my point is that people automatically assume that this is so. Somehow natural is better.
Whether something is natural or not is also used in moral decisions. Some of the arguments against certain behaviors (homosexuality, recreational drug use, performance enhancing drugs in sport, etc.) consist of these being "unnatural" as is to assume that all behaviors should be natural.
Finally there is the concern about the environment, that "destroying nature" is wrong. We must work to save every species we can, even at the cost to ourselves. We must ensure that through our activities we don't change the world around us.
To start, everything is natural, it comes about through natural laws. However, even in the colloquial sense of the word it doesn't make much sense. While animals do sometimes show sympathy for other animals this sympathy is pretty isolated, is always in direct proximity, and is quite limited with regard to species. There is no other animal in the world that thinks it is a bad thing that a plant species on a different continent becomes extinct. people think of the balance of nature, but really that balance comes about simply because the form of life that tries to kill other forms of life can only do so to a limited extent and survive. What is natural is to kill whatever is in front of you until satiety. In truth, caring about nature is unnatural, it is uniquely human.
My second and last point on nature is that for humans, nature really isn't that great. Imagine being a human that lives naturally, that is to only use the abilities that are shared by other animals. You are a hunter-gatherer who at best lives in a hut. Your life is nasty, brutish, and short. Not only that, but when humans arrived in North America and Australia there was an immediate vast extinction of large mammals. It is natural for humans to kill without caring about the consequences to the environment.
Caring about nature is really a method of arranging the world in a way to make humans happy. There is a reason why we cared about dolphins being trapped in tuna nets, but not tuna being trapped in tuna nets. We like dolphins more than tuna. This is a picture of an English country garden. It is beautiful, and almost no-one would think that it was unnatural.
However, the only thing in the picture that might be the same without humans are the trees in the very far background. England naturally would be almost entirely covered in old oak forest. The clearing is unnatural. The grass is unnatural. The foreground trees are unnatural. The flowers have even be genetically modified to be more beautiful to the human mind. Humans like diversity in their environment because omnivores prefer a wide variety of food sources, and so when we alter the environment to our needs we produce a startling diversity of species. My garden has a range of plants from palm tree to rose bush within fifteen yards. By far the greatest number of large mammals on Earth have been genetically "engineered" by humans to serve their needs. Cows, sheep, and dogs are all unnatural.
I care about what is natural or not. I don't like vast swathes of concrete. I want more trees, more flowers, clean air, clean streams, and abundance of life. I want there to be nature preserves for animals that I like. I want to be able to walk in nature. However, I want this for myself, because it makes me happy. I recognize that the concept of "nature" doesn't really make any sense. Just like every other animal we act in our own self-interest, and I think that's OK. I want to live in a world full of gardens, and parks, where plants and animals flourish but I don't want to do this because of a nebulous concept of nature. Such a world would be unnatural, a bizarre creation of humans. I think that's OK. I think it's OK for me to care whether snow leopards survive or become extinct while wishing fervently for the man-made extinction of mosquitoes.
I think human beings should use and alter nature in their own best interest (but really their own, long-term, sustainable interest) because that produces a better life for humans, and is actually natural.
What is actually natural, and what is not natural? Really, everything is natural. At the bottom the word doesn't even have a meaning. There is not one thing that has not been formed by nature. However, we do know what the word means, it means not altered by human beings. Where does this concept come from? It comes from the age-old concept that people are qualitatively different from everything else. It's the separation between humans and animals. It's the religious belief that we were made by God or gods, and that the rest of everything is ours to rule or use. What is natural then is everything that does not separate us from the rest of the universe.
Of course we know that there is not really such a separation. There are things that only humans do, but we are finding that these are fewer and fewer than we had previously thought. We are apes, genetically far more similar to other apes than different from them. The thought that speech, empathy, thinking, tool-use, culture etc. were all only human characteristics has been shown to be false. Rats free other rats from cages at a disadvantage to themselves. Dolphins protect other species from sharks. Killer whales around the world have different cultures. Gorillas can learn sign-language, the communication between wolves is quite advanced. Monkeys use tools in a multi-step process. Octopuses build structures. The difference between humans and other animals is largely a simple matter of degree.
This is still not how the word is used. "Natural" nowadays is used most often as a marketing device. If something is derived from natural ingredients then you can charge more money for it and people think it is better for themselves or the environment. This is regardless of what the ingredients might be. As an example, people use tobacco as a pesticide because it is a natural product. Tobacco has 28 carcinogens in it. If you bought a product in a plastic spray can with 28 carcinogens in it would you spray it around your garden? However, on the whole it might well be a good strategy to go for natural products over artificial products, my point is that people automatically assume that this is so. Somehow natural is better.
Whether something is natural or not is also used in moral decisions. Some of the arguments against certain behaviors (homosexuality, recreational drug use, performance enhancing drugs in sport, etc.) consist of these being "unnatural" as is to assume that all behaviors should be natural.
Finally there is the concern about the environment, that "destroying nature" is wrong. We must work to save every species we can, even at the cost to ourselves. We must ensure that through our activities we don't change the world around us.
To start, everything is natural, it comes about through natural laws. However, even in the colloquial sense of the word it doesn't make much sense. While animals do sometimes show sympathy for other animals this sympathy is pretty isolated, is always in direct proximity, and is quite limited with regard to species. There is no other animal in the world that thinks it is a bad thing that a plant species on a different continent becomes extinct. people think of the balance of nature, but really that balance comes about simply because the form of life that tries to kill other forms of life can only do so to a limited extent and survive. What is natural is to kill whatever is in front of you until satiety. In truth, caring about nature is unnatural, it is uniquely human.
My second and last point on nature is that for humans, nature really isn't that great. Imagine being a human that lives naturally, that is to only use the abilities that are shared by other animals. You are a hunter-gatherer who at best lives in a hut. Your life is nasty, brutish, and short. Not only that, but when humans arrived in North America and Australia there was an immediate vast extinction of large mammals. It is natural for humans to kill without caring about the consequences to the environment.
Caring about nature is really a method of arranging the world in a way to make humans happy. There is a reason why we cared about dolphins being trapped in tuna nets, but not tuna being trapped in tuna nets. We like dolphins more than tuna. This is a picture of an English country garden. It is beautiful, and almost no-one would think that it was unnatural.
However, the only thing in the picture that might be the same without humans are the trees in the very far background. England naturally would be almost entirely covered in old oak forest. The clearing is unnatural. The grass is unnatural. The foreground trees are unnatural. The flowers have even be genetically modified to be more beautiful to the human mind. Humans like diversity in their environment because omnivores prefer a wide variety of food sources, and so when we alter the environment to our needs we produce a startling diversity of species. My garden has a range of plants from palm tree to rose bush within fifteen yards. By far the greatest number of large mammals on Earth have been genetically "engineered" by humans to serve their needs. Cows, sheep, and dogs are all unnatural.
I care about what is natural or not. I don't like vast swathes of concrete. I want more trees, more flowers, clean air, clean streams, and abundance of life. I want there to be nature preserves for animals that I like. I want to be able to walk in nature. However, I want this for myself, because it makes me happy. I recognize that the concept of "nature" doesn't really make any sense. Just like every other animal we act in our own self-interest, and I think that's OK. I want to live in a world full of gardens, and parks, where plants and animals flourish but I don't want to do this because of a nebulous concept of nature. Such a world would be unnatural, a bizarre creation of humans. I think that's OK. I think it's OK for me to care whether snow leopards survive or become extinct while wishing fervently for the man-made extinction of mosquitoes.
I think human beings should use and alter nature in their own best interest (but really their own, long-term, sustainable interest) because that produces a better life for humans, and is actually natural.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Fulfillment
- Satisfaction or happiness as a result of fully developing one's abilities or character.
- The achievement of something desired, promised, or predicted: "winning the championship was the fulfillment of a childhood dream".
If you look at how the people we know live their lives, most of them right now, and probably all the time you have known them, are devoting a substantial amount of their time, effort and money towards some achievement in the future. It is assumed that the achievement of these goals will make them happy, will improve their lives.
This is taken for granted, a fact about human nature. However, this is taken as a fact only by western cultures, and only relatively recently. Throughout most of history in most of the world happiness has been equated largely with satisfaction with one's position. The religions of Buddhism, Taoism and Hinduism are about understanding and accepting how things are right now. The idea is that once you have fully achieved this you experience bliss, living entirely in the now without ego or desire. The largest state for most of recorded history, China, spent vast periods of time bent on ensuring the least amount of change possible. The people of Europe were told for more than a thousand years to serve God and their Lord, and thank them for their mercy.
It is only with the advent of substantial numbers of people wealthy enough, and with adequate education, to need to fill their time that this concept of working towards some goal in order to be happy has emerged. A peasant farmer doesn't think in terms of a long-term plan, perhaps a couple of years, in order to better himself so that he can feel good about himself. A peasant farmer works his arse off to provide for himself and his family and takes what pleasure he can in the company of friends and family, and in the land that surrounds him. it is only the otherwise idle rich who feel the need to fill their time, to justify themselves through some endeavor.
My point here is not to dismiss dreams, goals, plans, self-improvement etc. or to deny that having achieved a goal there is not great pleasure involved. Every achievement in history required a concerted effort to achieve something. My point is that the concept that such things are required for happiness is a cultural concept, a human invention, and a relatively recent one at that. In other words, if you think that you can't be happy without some effort to get somewhere, and then getting there, you only believe that because you have been taught that. It is not inherent in people, and some people think it to be highly detrimental to your happiness to believe it.
You don't have to better yourself to be happy. You don't have to try, or work hard, or learn something to be happy. If you didn't do anything today you have not necessarily wasted your time.
On the other hand what is the happiness that you get from the achievement of a goal? I have taught myself a number of sports, I have a degree, I have learned instruments and played them successfully in front of people. I have traveled to different places, operated in different languages, driven through mountains, climbed mountains. I have saved lives. All of these have made me feel good, even elated, satisfied with my effort and skills. All of the happiness was gone in a week or less. The happiness was in that moment, doing the thing that I had learned, rather than in having done it.
We tell ourselves that we need to achieve goals to be happy. We feel badly if we don't have goals, or we skip a bit off the path, or we delay the achievement. We feel guilty at wasting these precious lives. We don't have to do so if we don't want to. Sometimes we are taught things that we don't even know we have been taught, and those things aren't always true. Happiness is doing what you want when you want to, even if that thing is nothing at all.
There is nothing new in this from me, so why am I writing it? What is the point? Did you see that?
Still, I am writing this because I was told today in a lecture that we need to be reminded of true things. It isn't enough to learn useful things, we must keep those useful things in our minds to use them. I am reminding myself of this, firstly because I wish to do so, secondly because one of my goals is to keep thinking and saying what I think, and finally because I am getting bored with playing music by and to myself, and learning Spanish is becoming more of a chore.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Movie Review: Sherlock Holmes, A Game of Shadows
My darling wife had four days off in a row. While I much prefer these days to the ones in which she works, they do involve me doing a trifle more work myself (three meals a day instead of one, etc.). Also, while our home is the sort of place you would be very happy to find yourself while on vacation, even a vacation home is very much the same after a while. Therefore, last night we went to the Movie Tavern, ate dinner and watched a film.
The idea of the Movie Tavern I first encountered in Portland. Basically a few seats in a theater are taken out, replaced with small tables or shelves, and you get to eat pizza, or some other unhealthy delicacy and drink beer while watching a film. It is an excellent idea. My first experience was at the Bagdad, Willy Wonka, pizza and McMenamin's beer. It was a substantial reason why I moved to Portland as I figured that any place where such an event could take place was a good place.
The film we watched was Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. One of the reasons why I am reviewing this film is I am interested in the contrast between my take and my friend Dade, who also watched the film and reviewed it.
We expected this to be a silly, fun film, that required little intellectual or emotional investment. Our expectations were met. I also had steeled myself to attempt to completely ignore the concept of it being a Sherlock Holmes film as I was raised on Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes rather than Robert Downey Jr.. The Sherlock Holmes I knew was a detective who used deductive, logical reasoning to solve crimes rather than leap to the obvious, emotional conclusion. The films were rather slow paced, full of dialogue, and while a gun may have been fired Sherlock Holmes never broke into a run. From the trailers I knew that this film would be quite different and I wished to not have my pre-conceptions of the character destroy the film. I was not entirely able to do so.
I'll start with a basic summary, not of the plot because the plot is essentially irrelevant. Well, alright, here's the plot. There's a bad guy, with a vast bad plan, who must be stopped. Sherlock Holmes is the only one who can stop him. Shenanigans across Europe ensue. This film is not really a detective story. It does not give you the opportunity to work out what has happened and try to predict what will happen in advance. There aren't clues for the audience, and the bad guys are identified as soon as they are introduced. No, this is super-hero movie.
Sherlock Holmes is a super-hero. He can essentially see into the future and the past of a place simply by noticing everything. This isn't the deductive reasoning of a detective, this is an intuitive, superhuman skill. The movie is also an action film. Sherlock Holmes engages in multiple kung fu flick action fights in the film which require an intense amount of the suspension of disbelief. Sherlock Holmes can also withstand vast amounts of physical punishment and still ride a tiny pony from Paris to Switzerland in a day or two. The pace of the film is unrelenting, either there is action or there is humor, and the action is really a lot of action, and the humor really is quite funny. The action has the modern penchant for extreme speed (I find myself too old to even keep up with what is happening, it's just a blur) interspersed with slow motion sections for the really good bits. Personally I prefer Sean Connery as James Bond simply punching or shooting someone, but you certainly cannot look away from this sort of stuff.
The humor essentially is the funny guy and the straight man, Sherlock Holmes is wacky, Dr. Watson is a straight man, and other than the magnificent cameo of Steven Fry that's about it. Still, it is well delivered and of a good variety, there are chuckles aplenty in the film.
The sets and costume were clearly historically accurate, even with the liberal use of CGI, but the scale and lighting were definitely big-budget, epic story. There is very little sense of intimacy in the film. The views are high tracking shots of recognizable landmarks, viewed on a clear day. There is no rain, little cloud, none of the smog of victorian cities, the populace are clean and healthy. This is not the brooding shadows of a victorian detective story.
To sum up, this is a ridiculousbut fun film of the modern super-hero genre. It is grand in scale, small on plot and character, full of action to the point of being almost beyond the abilities of middle-aged humanity to comprehend, and witty. It is exactly what most people go to the cinema to view: larger than life personalities with larger than life abilities, fighting evil along with friends and sidekicks, cracking jokes along the way.
Within this genre I somewhat preferred the recently released Captain America, The First Avenger.
This is no Sherlock Holmes.
The idea of the Movie Tavern I first encountered in Portland. Basically a few seats in a theater are taken out, replaced with small tables or shelves, and you get to eat pizza, or some other unhealthy delicacy and drink beer while watching a film. It is an excellent idea. My first experience was at the Bagdad, Willy Wonka, pizza and McMenamin's beer. It was a substantial reason why I moved to Portland as I figured that any place where such an event could take place was a good place.
The film we watched was Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. One of the reasons why I am reviewing this film is I am interested in the contrast between my take and my friend Dade, who also watched the film and reviewed it.
We expected this to be a silly, fun film, that required little intellectual or emotional investment. Our expectations were met. I also had steeled myself to attempt to completely ignore the concept of it being a Sherlock Holmes film as I was raised on Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes rather than Robert Downey Jr.. The Sherlock Holmes I knew was a detective who used deductive, logical reasoning to solve crimes rather than leap to the obvious, emotional conclusion. The films were rather slow paced, full of dialogue, and while a gun may have been fired Sherlock Holmes never broke into a run. From the trailers I knew that this film would be quite different and I wished to not have my pre-conceptions of the character destroy the film. I was not entirely able to do so.
I'll start with a basic summary, not of the plot because the plot is essentially irrelevant. Well, alright, here's the plot. There's a bad guy, with a vast bad plan, who must be stopped. Sherlock Holmes is the only one who can stop him. Shenanigans across Europe ensue. This film is not really a detective story. It does not give you the opportunity to work out what has happened and try to predict what will happen in advance. There aren't clues for the audience, and the bad guys are identified as soon as they are introduced. No, this is super-hero movie.
Sherlock Holmes is a super-hero. He can essentially see into the future and the past of a place simply by noticing everything. This isn't the deductive reasoning of a detective, this is an intuitive, superhuman skill. The movie is also an action film. Sherlock Holmes engages in multiple kung fu flick action fights in the film which require an intense amount of the suspension of disbelief. Sherlock Holmes can also withstand vast amounts of physical punishment and still ride a tiny pony from Paris to Switzerland in a day or two. The pace of the film is unrelenting, either there is action or there is humor, and the action is really a lot of action, and the humor really is quite funny. The action has the modern penchant for extreme speed (I find myself too old to even keep up with what is happening, it's just a blur) interspersed with slow motion sections for the really good bits. Personally I prefer Sean Connery as James Bond simply punching or shooting someone, but you certainly cannot look away from this sort of stuff.
The humor essentially is the funny guy and the straight man, Sherlock Holmes is wacky, Dr. Watson is a straight man, and other than the magnificent cameo of Steven Fry that's about it. Still, it is well delivered and of a good variety, there are chuckles aplenty in the film.
The sets and costume were clearly historically accurate, even with the liberal use of CGI, but the scale and lighting were definitely big-budget, epic story. There is very little sense of intimacy in the film. The views are high tracking shots of recognizable landmarks, viewed on a clear day. There is no rain, little cloud, none of the smog of victorian cities, the populace are clean and healthy. This is not the brooding shadows of a victorian detective story.
To sum up, this is a ridiculousbut fun film of the modern super-hero genre. It is grand in scale, small on plot and character, full of action to the point of being almost beyond the abilities of middle-aged humanity to comprehend, and witty. It is exactly what most people go to the cinema to view: larger than life personalities with larger than life abilities, fighting evil along with friends and sidekicks, cracking jokes along the way.
Within this genre I somewhat preferred the recently released Captain America, The First Avenger.
This is no Sherlock Holmes.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Cars
Cars aren't weird. They are machines designed to transport small groups of people efficiently. The internal combustion engine has been around for more than a century, the arrangement of pedals and steering wheel has been omnipresent for not much less than a century. Cars are everywhere perhaps the most common machine in the world.
People and cars are weird. People name their cars. They think their cars have personality, like being willing. or stubborn, or wicked. People spend vast amounts of money on their cars, many times more than necessary to get essentially the same result. Status is attached to cars, personality traits assigned to the owners of certain cars (in the USA essentially everyone can tell you something about the owners of Subarus, Ford Mustangs, and the Hummer). People love or hate their cars with real emotional attachment. None of these things happen with washing machines, or stoves, or refrigerators.
What is the difference in these machines? The most obvious difference is that cars move, that there is something about movement that causes these effects in people. However, the last time you got on a bus, or a train, or a ferry, or a plane, did you feel emotionally attached to it? Did you feel like you wanted to name it? Not whether it had a name but rather did you want to name it? The pilots of planes and the captains of ships want to name their machines and feel attached to them. I think, therefore, that emotional attachment happens when a person controls a machine that moves.
We unconsciously think of things that can move as alive, as inherently having motivation and "thought." In the world in which we evolved, everything that was as big as our hands or bigger, and could move, was an animal. While we may not believe that animals think, we do believe they have motivation, and experience pain and pleasure. Our default setting is therefore that cars have the same qualities. Our minds are set up in such a manner as to be biased towards assigning the qualities of a mind to cars.
We also operate cars, and not just sometimes, but frequently. Most of us drive a car at least once a day. Our intentions are directly transferred into motion, in ways that are rare with other machines. No only does a car do what we want, but it moves us to where we want to go. How does the brain make a machine move? The same way it makes a body move, it identifies with the machine as "itself", internalizes routines for movement (you don't consciously think how you move your legs to walk, or how you drive a car), and then decides where to go.
The most important thing about that is identifying oneself with one's car. Think about when you operate a car in tight spaces. Do you constantly make measurements in your head as to where the edges of your car happen to be? Or do you actually "feel" where the edges of the car in the same manner as how you know right now where your right foot is even without looking at it?
Cars are special because they fit into an unconscious category of "alive" from their basic function of movement, and because in a very real sense we consistently identify our car as "us." That's why calling your 1981 Toyota "Gladys" isn't weird, or thinking she was a stubborn old bird who refused to lie down. It's why you can have a touch of sadness when your 1984 Honda Civic is passed on to other people. It's also why some people will spend $100,000 on a new Mercedes when a $2,000 used Nissan does essentially the same thing. How many people would spend fifty times as much on a better washing machine? Cars are special.
People and cars are weird. People name their cars. They think their cars have personality, like being willing. or stubborn, or wicked. People spend vast amounts of money on their cars, many times more than necessary to get essentially the same result. Status is attached to cars, personality traits assigned to the owners of certain cars (in the USA essentially everyone can tell you something about the owners of Subarus, Ford Mustangs, and the Hummer). People love or hate their cars with real emotional attachment. None of these things happen with washing machines, or stoves, or refrigerators.
What is the difference in these machines? The most obvious difference is that cars move, that there is something about movement that causes these effects in people. However, the last time you got on a bus, or a train, or a ferry, or a plane, did you feel emotionally attached to it? Did you feel like you wanted to name it? Not whether it had a name but rather did you want to name it? The pilots of planes and the captains of ships want to name their machines and feel attached to them. I think, therefore, that emotional attachment happens when a person controls a machine that moves.
We unconsciously think of things that can move as alive, as inherently having motivation and "thought." In the world in which we evolved, everything that was as big as our hands or bigger, and could move, was an animal. While we may not believe that animals think, we do believe they have motivation, and experience pain and pleasure. Our default setting is therefore that cars have the same qualities. Our minds are set up in such a manner as to be biased towards assigning the qualities of a mind to cars.
We also operate cars, and not just sometimes, but frequently. Most of us drive a car at least once a day. Our intentions are directly transferred into motion, in ways that are rare with other machines. No only does a car do what we want, but it moves us to where we want to go. How does the brain make a machine move? The same way it makes a body move, it identifies with the machine as "itself", internalizes routines for movement (you don't consciously think how you move your legs to walk, or how you drive a car), and then decides where to go.
The most important thing about that is identifying oneself with one's car. Think about when you operate a car in tight spaces. Do you constantly make measurements in your head as to where the edges of your car happen to be? Or do you actually "feel" where the edges of the car in the same manner as how you know right now where your right foot is even without looking at it?
Cars are special because they fit into an unconscious category of "alive" from their basic function of movement, and because in a very real sense we consistently identify our car as "us." That's why calling your 1981 Toyota "Gladys" isn't weird, or thinking she was a stubborn old bird who refused to lie down. It's why you can have a touch of sadness when your 1984 Honda Civic is passed on to other people. It's also why some people will spend $100,000 on a new Mercedes when a $2,000 used Nissan does essentially the same thing. How many people would spend fifty times as much on a better washing machine? Cars are special.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
See, I Was Right
I have made predictions and statements on this blog a great number of times. Both are nothing but idle fancy unless they are at some point confirmed or proved false (or mostly something in between). I have noticed a few things that suggest I have been right about some things. Now, I am fully aware that I am greatly predisposed to confirming my statements and predictions. I want to be smart, and I want people to think I'm smart. Still here are some things that I have seen that have, at least somewhat, confirmed what I have been saying.
The first I have already mentioned, my prediction that we will be able to download our brains into computers during my lifetime. In this post I have shown that scientists are well on the way, having constructed a functional portion of a rat's brain on a computer.
In another post I discussed questions that don't need to be asked. Specifically "why?" questions that aren't "how?" questions, "why?" meaning "what purpose?" but have no prior indication that there is a purpose. Ironically this was in response to a Sam Harris blog post, and Laurence Krauss, an eminent cosmologist, on the same blog had this to say, "Finally, it is the “how” question that is really most important, as I emphasize in the new book. Whenever we ask “why?” we generally mean “How?”, because why implies a sense of purpose that we have no reason to believe actually exists. When we ask “Why are there 8 planets orbiting the Sun?” we really mean “How are there 8 planets?”—namely how did the evolution of the solar system allow the formation and stable evolution of 8 large bodies orbiting the Sun. And thus, as I also emphasize, we may never be able to discern if there is actually some underlying universal purpose to the universe, although there is absolutely no scientific evidence of such purpose at this point,"
In Creeping Miracle I talked about the increasing wealth, health, and freedom in the world, in contrast to the pessimism that abounds. Over the last five years world life expectancy hasn't changed much (still going up and fastest for the poorest), GDP per capita is UP (yes UP) from 2005 by 5%. At the worst of the worldwide recession GDP per person was still higher than 2005. If you are pessimistic about the world please go here and move the bar at the bottom through time. Finally, although I didn't know it at the time, the Arab Spring was just beginning, toppling dictatorships throughout the Arab world. Even during this time of terrible crisis the world has been getting better, wealthier, healthier, and more free.
In December of 2008 I complained about some medical problems that hadn't been fixed yet. One of them was why can't they inject cartilage into joints? Sure enough, last year University of Pennsylvania scientists announced that they have discovered a way for people to grow cartilage in their joints using their own cells. This is good because I'm starting to feel my knees. Laboratory to procedure usually takes about ten years, I believe.
In September of 2008, in a post entitled Doom and Gloom, How Bad Could it Get? I commented upon the economic situation in the USA as the financial "collapse" started. In that post I discussed the worst possible scenario (a depression the size of the Great Depression) and what that would actually mean (only being as rich as in 1990). My last words were to "Buck up people, show a little gumption." I described the problem not as a question of wealth but as a problem of distribution of wealth and of social services. Here we are just over three years later and the US GDP is back to where it was. The US economy did not collapse, neither did the economy of any other country (although it was much worse in Greece, Italy and Spain). The worst consequences for the US have been high unemployment (still under 10%) which is now dropping as is usual after recessions, and a high government debt. What is the political problem of the moment? Income distribution.
I still have to see whether Obama is a "near perfect President." I would say the results are probably "No, but pretty good considering the circumstances." Another Bill Clinton, essentially. When he gets reelected I expect a similar result for his second term as was produced by Clinton.
What does all of this mean? It means that a fair amount of the time I get things more right than most people, at least in the big picture. Will this make people take what I say here more seriously? I seriously doubt it.
The first I have already mentioned, my prediction that we will be able to download our brains into computers during my lifetime. In this post I have shown that scientists are well on the way, having constructed a functional portion of a rat's brain on a computer.
In another post I discussed questions that don't need to be asked. Specifically "why?" questions that aren't "how?" questions, "why?" meaning "what purpose?" but have no prior indication that there is a purpose. Ironically this was in response to a Sam Harris blog post, and Laurence Krauss, an eminent cosmologist, on the same blog had this to say, "Finally, it is the “how” question that is really most important, as I emphasize in the new book. Whenever we ask “why?” we generally mean “How?”, because why implies a sense of purpose that we have no reason to believe actually exists. When we ask “Why are there 8 planets orbiting the Sun?” we really mean “How are there 8 planets?”—namely how did the evolution of the solar system allow the formation and stable evolution of 8 large bodies orbiting the Sun. And thus, as I also emphasize, we may never be able to discern if there is actually some underlying universal purpose to the universe, although there is absolutely no scientific evidence of such purpose at this point,"
In Creeping Miracle I talked about the increasing wealth, health, and freedom in the world, in contrast to the pessimism that abounds. Over the last five years world life expectancy hasn't changed much (still going up and fastest for the poorest), GDP per capita is UP (yes UP) from 2005 by 5%. At the worst of the worldwide recession GDP per person was still higher than 2005. If you are pessimistic about the world please go here and move the bar at the bottom through time. Finally, although I didn't know it at the time, the Arab Spring was just beginning, toppling dictatorships throughout the Arab world. Even during this time of terrible crisis the world has been getting better, wealthier, healthier, and more free.
In December of 2008 I complained about some medical problems that hadn't been fixed yet. One of them was why can't they inject cartilage into joints? Sure enough, last year University of Pennsylvania scientists announced that they have discovered a way for people to grow cartilage in their joints using their own cells. This is good because I'm starting to feel my knees. Laboratory to procedure usually takes about ten years, I believe.
In September of 2008, in a post entitled Doom and Gloom, How Bad Could it Get? I commented upon the economic situation in the USA as the financial "collapse" started. In that post I discussed the worst possible scenario (a depression the size of the Great Depression) and what that would actually mean (only being as rich as in 1990). My last words were to "Buck up people, show a little gumption." I described the problem not as a question of wealth but as a problem of distribution of wealth and of social services. Here we are just over three years later and the US GDP is back to where it was. The US economy did not collapse, neither did the economy of any other country (although it was much worse in Greece, Italy and Spain). The worst consequences for the US have been high unemployment (still under 10%) which is now dropping as is usual after recessions, and a high government debt. What is the political problem of the moment? Income distribution.
I still have to see whether Obama is a "near perfect President." I would say the results are probably "No, but pretty good considering the circumstances." Another Bill Clinton, essentially. When he gets reelected I expect a similar result for his second term as was produced by Clinton.
What does all of this mean? It means that a fair amount of the time I get things more right than most people, at least in the big picture. Will this make people take what I say here more seriously? I seriously doubt it.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
I Got To Say It Was A Good Day
I didn't even have to use my AK.
Is there anyone who follows this blog who will get that reference? Maybe Emily.
Anyway, it's 11:30 am, I have been out of bed for two hours, and today is a good day.
I haven't written a blog in a little while, not this month, but that's through gentle nothingness rather than a problem or success. Then yesterday I felt a little tired, like I had walked ten miles before waking up. This has been the first symptom of my times of exhaustion. No sickness, just being tired. It usually lasts four days, and the middle two days have previously been times of utter exhaustion. I also hurt my back, I do this twice a year or so after injuring it thirteen years ago, climbing in through the bathroom window after forgetting the keys to the house. So, I went into last night in pain, facing exhaustion.
This morning my darling wife took The Face of Evil to daycare. I got twelve hours of sleep and my back feels better. The expected exhaustion is not there. My back feels better, but most of all there is peace in the house. I am alone.
This may seem strange, that being alone is special. After all, don't I spend all day during the week alone? In terms of humans this is true, but in terms of a presence, a consciousness, a being that impinges on my awareness, I am almost never alone. I am either with my darling wife, or with The Face of Evil, and often with both. The Face of evil is without doubt a conscious being. It knows what it wants, it reacts to what I do, it communicates, it has plans, it can feel sad, rejected, unloved. It can also lie and scheme and pressure you to do what it wants.
The main reason why social work was so damaging to me was that I am completely incapable of switching off my attention to other people. I find it very difficult to sleep if other people are talking, or moving, because my mind has to pay attention. If someone says something to me it almost always stops my train of thought. If someone laughs, or cries, or exclaims in surprise, I must know why. I have seen people capable of doing this, my father-in-law being an astonishing example, and my wife isn't bad.
The Face of Evil is a pack animal. I am alpha male. It is vital in a pack animal that attention is paid to the alpha male. The alpha decides where to go, when to sleep, when to eat, who to befriend, who to attack. The beta has its wants and desires, but must filter all of these through the alpha. The methods used are begging, wheedling, being obvious, being sad, showing delight when it gets its way, etc.. Dogs have been interacting with humans for ten thousand years or more, and subject to the most rigorous selection pressure in evolution (breeding for domestication). As a result dogs are true experts at reading the emotions of humans, the only animals that can do so. The Face of Evil is a very smart dog indeed.
What we have then is a consciousness whose focus is overwhelmingly towards me, who can read how I am feeling, and manipulate those feelings for its own interest. it is only when I am alone in the house that I realize how omnipresent The Face of Evil truly is. I realize that with almost everything I do there is an automatic, unconscious check on how it will affect that infernal canine. Before I leave the house I often use the toilet. As such, whenever I go to the bathroom The Face of Evil appears expectantly, and if I don't leave the house obvious disappointment results. If I lie down, he lies down in the room. if I go upstairs he does too (in search of a treat). If I start doing anything he inspects it. In the evening, if I sit down, he stares at me with liquid brown eyes, often putting his face just on the edge of my personal space. His presence is omnipresent. He expects more than two hours a day out in the world, at certain times, specifically for his enjoyment. I imagine anyone who has had toddlers knows exactly what I am talking about, although my brain hasn't been altered by parental bonding.
All my life I have been someone who treasures time alone. From perhaps six years old I would go for solitary walks. I would read alone. Play alone. Alone I am at my most free, without that constant vigilance (which I believe I at least share with my sister Emily, perhaps other family members, it certainly was important to be constantly aware growing up in my family).
The Face of Evil has probably kept me from despair, from deep loneliness, here in Texas. He is the antithesis of alone. I spend most days around another conscious being for all twenty-four hours. When I don't, it is usually no less than twenty-two hours. Today I feel free, happy, joyful. A weight has been lifted. The Face of evil is like a vaccine against loneliness, but a vaccine given with a big needle every single day.
Who's a good boy then?
Is there anyone who follows this blog who will get that reference? Maybe Emily.
Anyway, it's 11:30 am, I have been out of bed for two hours, and today is a good day.
I haven't written a blog in a little while, not this month, but that's through gentle nothingness rather than a problem or success. Then yesterday I felt a little tired, like I had walked ten miles before waking up. This has been the first symptom of my times of exhaustion. No sickness, just being tired. It usually lasts four days, and the middle two days have previously been times of utter exhaustion. I also hurt my back, I do this twice a year or so after injuring it thirteen years ago, climbing in through the bathroom window after forgetting the keys to the house. So, I went into last night in pain, facing exhaustion.
This morning my darling wife took The Face of Evil to daycare. I got twelve hours of sleep and my back feels better. The expected exhaustion is not there. My back feels better, but most of all there is peace in the house. I am alone.
This may seem strange, that being alone is special. After all, don't I spend all day during the week alone? In terms of humans this is true, but in terms of a presence, a consciousness, a being that impinges on my awareness, I am almost never alone. I am either with my darling wife, or with The Face of Evil, and often with both. The Face of evil is without doubt a conscious being. It knows what it wants, it reacts to what I do, it communicates, it has plans, it can feel sad, rejected, unloved. It can also lie and scheme and pressure you to do what it wants.
The main reason why social work was so damaging to me was that I am completely incapable of switching off my attention to other people. I find it very difficult to sleep if other people are talking, or moving, because my mind has to pay attention. If someone says something to me it almost always stops my train of thought. If someone laughs, or cries, or exclaims in surprise, I must know why. I have seen people capable of doing this, my father-in-law being an astonishing example, and my wife isn't bad.
The Face of Evil is a pack animal. I am alpha male. It is vital in a pack animal that attention is paid to the alpha male. The alpha decides where to go, when to sleep, when to eat, who to befriend, who to attack. The beta has its wants and desires, but must filter all of these through the alpha. The methods used are begging, wheedling, being obvious, being sad, showing delight when it gets its way, etc.. Dogs have been interacting with humans for ten thousand years or more, and subject to the most rigorous selection pressure in evolution (breeding for domestication). As a result dogs are true experts at reading the emotions of humans, the only animals that can do so. The Face of Evil is a very smart dog indeed.
What we have then is a consciousness whose focus is overwhelmingly towards me, who can read how I am feeling, and manipulate those feelings for its own interest. it is only when I am alone in the house that I realize how omnipresent The Face of Evil truly is. I realize that with almost everything I do there is an automatic, unconscious check on how it will affect that infernal canine. Before I leave the house I often use the toilet. As such, whenever I go to the bathroom The Face of Evil appears expectantly, and if I don't leave the house obvious disappointment results. If I lie down, he lies down in the room. if I go upstairs he does too (in search of a treat). If I start doing anything he inspects it. In the evening, if I sit down, he stares at me with liquid brown eyes, often putting his face just on the edge of my personal space. His presence is omnipresent. He expects more than two hours a day out in the world, at certain times, specifically for his enjoyment. I imagine anyone who has had toddlers knows exactly what I am talking about, although my brain hasn't been altered by parental bonding.
All my life I have been someone who treasures time alone. From perhaps six years old I would go for solitary walks. I would read alone. Play alone. Alone I am at my most free, without that constant vigilance (which I believe I at least share with my sister Emily, perhaps other family members, it certainly was important to be constantly aware growing up in my family).
The Face of Evil has probably kept me from despair, from deep loneliness, here in Texas. He is the antithesis of alone. I spend most days around another conscious being for all twenty-four hours. When I don't, it is usually no less than twenty-two hours. Today I feel free, happy, joyful. A weight has been lifted. The Face of evil is like a vaccine against loneliness, but a vaccine given with a big needle every single day.
Who's a good boy then?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)