Through reading Roger Housden’s extraordinary “Ten Poems…” anthologies (starting with Ten Poems to Change Your Life) I have become aware of the poems of Mary Oliver. (OK, I’m slow… Google shows over 52,000 hits for her name. At least I got there eventually.) My first impression was of an impatient Walt Whitman: a combination of transcendent vision with a fierce and uncompromising urgency. These are Emergency Broadcast System messages to one’s inner heart: save the only life you can: your own. Consider the opening of The Journey:
One day you finally knew
what you had to do, and began,
though the voices around you
kept shouting
their bad advice–
though the whole house
began to tremble
and you felt the old tug
at your ankles.
But the message is not always a call to action: here are the opening lines of her Mockingbirds:
This morning
two mockingbirds
in the green field
were spinning and tossing
the white ribbons
of their songs
into the air.
I had nothing
better to do
than listen.
I mean this
seriously.
As I read more of Mary Oliver, I have come to reallize that those first few poems that I encountered in no way define or constrain her. There are many sides to Oliver’s work: romantic, visionary, organic, mimetic, mythic; above all grounded in nature. And yet I find myself particularly drawn to these direct, imperative pieces: Journey, the shocking West Wind 2, the absolution of Wild Geese, or the exhortation of Have You Ever Tried To Enter The Long Black Branches?, with its blunt question:
Listen, are you breathing just a little, and calling it a life?
Well? Are you?
Author: geoff
Vulcan at work
Google censored?
Search Google images for abu ghraib, and you get 136 hits, with no explicit scenes of torture or humiliation.
Search Yahoo! Images for abu ghraib, and you get 4,035 hits, including the most notorious shots of abuse, torture, and dead prisoners.
What’s going on here? Perhaps we should abandon Google if we can’t trust it any more….
(Via Slashdot, where it was reported that google.co.uk doesn’t have these problems. Well, I just checked, and it does now.)
UPDATE: It now appears that the explanation is quite simple: Google is incompetent at indexing images. Even more reason to dump them.
On reading philosophy and "Three Card Monte"
As I noted earlier, I’m reading David Chalmers’ “The Conscious Mind”. Early on, Chalmers lays his cards on the table: “In this book I reach conclusions that some people may think of as ‘antiscientific’: I argue that reductive explanation of consciousness is impossible, and I even argue for a form of dualism.” He acknowledges that “Temperamentally, I am strongly inclined toward materialist reductive explanation […] I hoped for a materialist theory; when I gave up on this hope, it was quite reluctantly.”
Like Chalmers, I too am temperamentally inclined towards a materialist account of consciousness. As I read the book (and I’m still finishing chapter 2 on Supervenience and Explanation), I find myself watching closely to see whether or not he smuggles in some dichotomous assumptions which might affect his eventual conclusions. It feels a bit like watching a game of Three-Card Monte to see if and when a card gets creased or a misdirection occurs. There is plenty of exceptionalism flying around. For instance he concedes that “Almost everything is logically supervenient on the physical.[…] Conscious experience is almost unique in its failure to supervene logically.” It’ll be interesting to see how he justifies this.
So far, the only troubling section (p.75) has been the way in which he asserts that “…the facts about the external world do not supervene logically on the facts about our experience.” One would expect him to treat this as a big deal: after all, as he continues, “Idealists, positivists, and others have argued controversially that they do. Note that if these views are accepted the skeptical problem [due to Hume] falls away.” And so, I think, does Chalmers’ case that there is a “deep problem” here. But then with one bound our hero is free, Indiana Jones style: “In any case, I am bypassing this sort of skeptical problem by giving myself the physical world for free.” Well, maybe – but note that he explicitly means “the external world”, and the internal/external dichotomy remains. I have a suspicion that this may be at the root of the eventual dualism, but I’ll have to read on and find out.
Carnivals Galore!
Now here’s an interesting trend: blog carnivals. Here’s the intro from one of them: the Philosophers’ Carnival: “This site is the homepage for the Philosophers’ Carnival project, which aims to provide a forum to showcase philosophical posts from a wide range of weblogs. We are modelled upon Carnival of the Vanities and Tangled Bank. (See also Carnivalesque, a new carnival about the ‘early modern’ period in history.) Unlike those other carnivals, however, this one is restricted to philosophy-related blog posts.” The rest of the page describes the process of creating a carnival, and provides links to the previous Philosophers’ Carnivals, each of which was hosted by a different blog. There have been four so far; the fifth is in preparation. It looks like a promising collaboration model which avoids the usual dependence on one overworked editor.
Sullivan on Chomsky
Apropos of Chomsky, Andrew Sullivan pointed his readers to this piece by Antichomskyite. My response to Sullivan follows.
Continue reading “Sullivan on Chomsky”
Sullivan on Maher
I just watched the season finale of Bill Maher‘s Real Time on HBO. Normally I forget to watch it, and have to catch up via video-on-demand, but since Andrew Sullivan had blogged that he was flying out to take part I wanted to see if he’d say the same stuff on TV that he’s been blogging.
It was a weird show in some respects – Bill Maher was obviously still pretty angry underneath his bravado – but I was particularly struck by three things that Andrew Sullivan said.
(1) He attacked Bill Maher for losing the election for the Democrats by making jokes about people of religious faith that demeaned them. “If you demean them, how do you expect them to vote for you?” Say what? Look, I’m perfectly willing to concede that there are religious folk in the red states (and elsewhere) who are turned off by what they see as ungodly attitudes and actions from people in the blue states. But it’s been that way for years, just as there are secular people in the blue states (and elsewhere) who are turned off by Bible-based thinking and homophobia. For some people on both sides, these attitudes are deeply ingrained, and cleaning up Bill Maher’s jokes or Pat Robertson’s sermons isn’t going to have any effect. Each group offends the other simply by existing, by being themselves, and to argue that they should change seems to contradict Sullivan’s pleas for a return to tolerance through federalism.
(2) Why does Sullivan (and many others) froth at the mouth when anyone mentions “America” and “war crimes” in the same sentence? And why do they always argue how much better America’s actions are than those of Saddam? Is that the standard by which America should judge itself? From someone like Sullivan who argued so eloquently just a few days ago about the collective amnesia concerning Abu Ghraib, such jingoism seems inapposite.
(3) It is possible that Sullivan’s excitability was occasioned by the appearance on the program of Noam Chomsky, whom Sullivan accused of “making millions running around the world denigrating the United States”. (I may have got the exact words wrong: he certainly said “millions”, which caused a few eyebrows to be raised.) But why the outrage? Numerous legal bodies, including the International Commission of Jurists, have declared that the invasion of Iraq and many of the consequent actions of the USA and its allies violate international law. Logically Sullivan would seem to have only three options: refute the charges, accept them and agree that the USA should take responsibility for its actions, or declare that the USA is somehow above the law. Lashing out at an academic for exercising his freedom of speech, and saying that his views don’t deserve to be heard, does Sullivan no credit. (Whatever happened to Evelyn Beatrice Hall’s immortal dictum “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”?)
Of the other speakers on the show, ex-Senator Alan Simpson seemed determined to take offence, especially at the antics of Maher’s unruly audience. (They should fix that – it’s actually an embarrassment.) Susan Sarandon was frustrated and exhausted after all her campaigning in Ohio and Pennysylvania, and was a bit too paranoid about voter fraud (though I can sympathize with her). Comedian D. L. Hughley was OK but forgettable, and Pat Schroeder was as forthright as ever.
Despite Sullivan’s plaintive “God help me” about tonight’s show, he appeared to enjoy himself. His reactions to Bill Maher’s New Rules segment seemed to attract the camera like a magnet. I wonder how he’ll blog about his perspective?
Follow the bouncing ball
Dollar at record low against euro: “It seems now that the longer-term investors like pension funds and perhaps monetary authorities are either hedging their dollar risk or moving assets out of the United States. It looks like the dollar has further to fall…”
You can check out the historical data using Oanda’s FXGraph applet: choose “from USD“, “to EUR“, “since 6 Nov 1996“. Note the trend over the last four years, and extrapolate….
What will this mean for the US economy? Unless the budget and current account deficits are slashed, the probable consequences are rising interest rates, rising inflation, a depressed housing market, and recession. We’ve seen this before: it’s called stagflation. Welcome to the 1970s. Even the oil prices look familiar….
(Via the BBC.)
"Talk more, shoot less"? What a quaint idea….
Iraqis Say U.S. Should Talk More, Shoot Less: Iraq’s Deputy Foreign Minister Hamid al-Bayati said the insurgency was partly due to mistakes Bush made earlier. “Using force that kills civilians on a large scale is a mistake. The logic of occupation must end. Bush’s main mistake was not to let an Iraqi provisional government take power after Saddam was toppled,” he said. “The resistance operations were seen coming as soon as the United States kept acting as an occupier.”
(Via Yahoo!.)
Culture war?
From Andrew Sullivan: “A MANDATE FOR CULTURE WAR: That’s Bill Bennett’s conclusion. He won’t be the only one. What we’re seeing, I think, is a huge fundamentalist Christian revival in this country, a religious movement that is now explicitly political as well. […] But the intensity of the passion, and the inherently totalist nature of religiously motivated politics means deep social conflict if we are not careful. Our safety valve must be federalism. We have to live and let live. As blue states become more secular, and red states become less so, the only alternative to a national religious war is to allow different states to pursue different options.”
UPDATE: Amy Sullivan has a different take on this: “the “huge fundamentalist Christian revival” took place about thirty years ago, not last month, and it has always been explictly political”. Worth reading, but flawed. Yes, the revival took place years ago, and Reagan and Bush Snr. courted the religious right and then ignored them. Dubya did pretty much the same in 2000. This is the first time that religious wedge issues have been so nakedly and cynically exploited as part of a GOTV effort, and it coincides with (1) the election of a new crop of Republican congressmen who are as rabid as Newt’s crowd were but are explicitly religious in their allegiance, and (2) the likely opening of 2-4 Supreme slots. I think that it is going to be different this time.