Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts

Wednesday, 15 February 2012

Movie of your life

I had a near-death experience the other week. Not in the true sense of the word, as I wasn't actually floating through the peaceful passageway usually mentioned by people who were clinically death for a while. I didn't see the blinding white lights, nor was I weightlessly hovering towards an eternity of rice pudding in golden bowls with matching spoons (which never appealed to me anyway: I'd rather settle for more copious portions of food, even if these are served in dog bowls and meant to be eaten with my hands tied behind the back). 

So what happened? I wanted to cross the street, one of these streets that doesn't have a traffic light telling you when to go, but for some strange reason my brain told me not to do so. Luckily enough, because the next thing I knew a crazy bad-ass wanna-be rally-driving nutcase raced past my nose. Leaving me gasping, and wondering what could have been no longer. This wasn't the first time something like this happened to me, and the same interesting question crossed my mind: exactly which part of the brain is it, that does this useful trick? I don't know the answer to this riddle (intuition? pre-historic instincts?), but I do know that I felt happy to (still) be alive. Because despite the fact that I am looking forward to seeing the movie of my life (Who will play me? What genre will it be?), I'm not ready for it yet. 

The incident also made me wonder: what did people expect to see when they passed away before the advent of moving images? The play of their life? Just imagine watching the story of your life in a Shakespearian version. Or as a traditional Indian Sanskrit drama performance - the horror... Nothing against drama obviously, but I'd prefer to be able to press pause every once in a while (getting more beer from the fridge, cutting more cheese cubes, going for a little wee), or skip certain passages forward. And backwards, for that matter. 

At least this explains why people claiming that eternal life awaits after we die, are actually right: after all, we will end up watching ourselves, watching ourselves. Ad infinitum. 

Monday, 6 February 2012

Twitter and God


Judging from the fact that most of you came to this particular page through Facebook, I’m guessing  most of us are no stranger to the social media anymore. Or are you? Today I saw a picture being shared furiously on the aforementioned social network, which explained eight different social media in a funny way. What was less funny to me was the fact that I had never heard of five of them: foursquare, Instagram, Pinterest, Last.fm and G+ are total strangers to me. (Okay, I know G+ stands for Google+ but I have no idea how it works).

So that’s five out of eight, but which three are missing? Obviously the most popular ones, since even I know them. There’s Facebook, duh. YouTube, that’s another one. And finally there’s Twitter – which only last week was in the news.

The occasion was that recently the first major study was concluded as to the relevance of Twitter. As you probably know, this rapidly growing microblogging service enables its users to send and read text-based posts of up to 140 characters. Some use it for personal reasons, as a kind of online version of cell-phone text messages (sms), while others follow or write tweets in a more professional context, like the political media or cultural scene. The conclusion of the study was that a good tweet is relatively rare. It seems only 36% percent of them are experienced by the users as ‘interesting’.

Of course this is a difficult criterion. Suppose I asked you to rate your current email inbox. What percentage would you rate as ‘interesting’? Moreover, if a certain account you follow on Twitter is not interesting anymore, you can easily unfollow it. Indeed, whereas with Facebook you need permission to follow someone’s account, with Twitter you can instantly follow anyone you want. Personally, for instance, I follow @BarackObama, @ParisHilton and even @jesus. The sky is the limit, pardon the pun.

Which brings me to the following. To give you a small sample of how Twitter works, I thought I’d give you a selection of Ricky Gervais’ tweets. Besides an outrageously funny comic, he’s an animal rights activist, a humanitarian and a convinced atheist. Above all, Ricky Gervais is not afraid to speak his mind about what he believes in.

About God and religion, for instance. A while ago Gervais got caught up in a discussion about religious matters. I don’t know exactly when it started, but it seemed to speed up after this tweet:

@rickygervais And this photo is NOT me a dressed as Jesus. It's from The Invention Of Lying. And even if it was, so fucking what? http://pic.twitter.com/DhOD7lF1
20 Jan

What followed was a veritable bombardment of Gervais on Twitter by people who tried to convince him to believe in this or that God or religion. Here’s some of the funnier ones (in quotes “ ”), most of the  time with Gervais’ answers immediately following:

@rickygervais “@HerNameIsDawn: @rickygervais What do you think happens to the mind after you die?” The same as what happens to your voice
24 Jan

@rickygervais “@ckleass: do you have any friends who r Christian?” Yes. & Jewish & Muslim. I've also friends who love GLEE. We don't have to always agree
25 Jan

@rickygervais Ask yourself why you don't believe in all the other gods. Your answer, is why I don't believe in yours. This endeth the religious tweets.
25 Jan

@rickygervais “@jskrew: I believe in Santa Claus and the Easter bunny- what religion is that?" As valid as any other.
29 Jan

@rickygervais “@LeoDukes: Here's a thought! I'm a fan who enjoys your works, but Im sick of you going on about religion. Should I stop following?” Yes
1 Feb

@rickygervais “@ChallonGoodeRVC: @lewisdent @billybasset1 there's heaps of proof of Gods existence!” Go on...?
3 Feb

@rickygervais “@Graeme289: oh man give it a rest about god .....” Sorry for tweeting you all the time Graeme I...oh hold on, YOU'RE following ME. #gorp
3 Feb

Now who said comedy and philosophy couldn’t go together?

Ricky, if we had one, we would award you the 2012 Fred and Fred prize!

Wednesday, 1 February 2012

LinkedIn: TED (The Surprising Science of Happiness)

For various reasons I have been studying cognitive literary theory over the last few months. And although I find it fascinating, I'm not going to bore you with it. However, it did remind me to get you Fredians acquainted with one of my favourite websites: www.ted.com.

TED, which stands for Technology Entertainment Design and which uses the subtitle Ideas Worth Spreading, is a nonprofit devoted to just that: its website is full of passionate talks by the world's most inspired thinkers. And although the three domains seems somewhat limited, there's really no end to the variety of subjects and speakers. From performance artists over business men to mathematics professors.

But I'm dragging on and I wanted (have to!) keep it short today. So here's the reason I was reminded of cognitive literary theory. One of the talks featured is called The Surprising Science of Happiness and is delivered by cognitive researcher Nancy Etcoff.

It's fascinating stuff. Not only does it show how profound the impact of cognitive research is, but also (and much more importantly) it is the most intelligent thing I've ever heard anyone say about the most difficult topic out there: happiness.

So if you can spare 14 minutes and 22 seconds, you won't regret it...

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/nancy_etcoff_on_happiness_and_why_we_want_it.html 


Friday, 13 January 2012

Paraskevidekatriaphobia

Okay, okay, call me lazy, call me a fraud, I'll admit it straight away. I owe everything in today's short piece to Wikipedia, but I just couldn't resist it. Why? Well, it's a slightly anachronistic thing to say, but today I stumbled upon a Wikipedia page that so closely resembles a Fred and Fred blogpost that I just had to use it.

The page in question is the one on Friday the 13th. So why is it just our cup of tea?

Well, for starters it's about a popular notion that is interesting to think through. It tells you that the superstition revolving around Friday the 13th is in fact a rather modern thing, as there is no written evidence for it before the 19th century. Or that in Spanish-speaking countries and in Greece, instead of Friday, Tuesday the 13th is considered a day of bad luck.

What's more it even includes both Freds' very peculiar interests.

Fred #1 will be interested to know that there is a mathematical paper on the astonishing fact that the 13th day of the month is actually slightly more likely to be a Friday than any other day of the week!

Fred #2, on the other hand, will revel in the fact that the fear of Friday the 13th is called friggatriskaidekaphobia (Frigga being the name of the Norse goddess after whom "Friday" is named and triskaidekaphobia meaning fear of the number thirteen), or - with a Greek term - paraskevidekatriaphobia, which is a concatenation of the words Paraskeví (Παρασκευή, meaning "Friday"), and dekatreís (δεκατρείς, meaning "thirteen") attached to phobía (φοβία, from phóbos, φόβος, meaning "fear").

And the both of us will be surprised to know that according to a study from 2008 fewer accidents and reports of fire and theft occur on Friday the 13th, because people are preventatively more careful or just stay home. Or that the famous rapper Tupac Shakur was pronounced dead on Friday, September 13, 1996.

Oh goody!

So, I guess I'll stop the plagiarizing and refer you, with mucho gusto, to the excellent and very 'Fredian' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friday_the_13th.

Enjoy!

Wednesday, 11 January 2012

Scatologics?

After Fred's lovely post on modern physics from yesterday, this short blurb might look a bit trivial, especially because I will file this post as 'toilet philosophy'. In my defence, however, the transition from quantum theory to any other subject is a step down the conversational ladder - unless you really want me to elaborate on hyperbolic functions and their connections with universal parabolic constants, quoi.

And so I might as well start from the fairly simple observation I made today; one of my roomies bought new toilet paper the other day, and clearly has different preferences than I have. Unlike me, choosing the environmentally friendly version (trying to ignore my brain having second thoughts whenever it starts mentally digesting the somehow confusing sentence "no trees were harmed in the making of this toilet tissue"), he or she has bought a somehow more commercial brand of toilet paper. Nothing wrong with that, don't get me wrong, but what struck me was the design on the toilet roll. It was adorned with pictures of feathers. And so I started wondering: why is that?

Would we really feel less comfortable if we were to wipe our asses with toilet paper bearing pictures of barbwire and sharp pointy objects? I can only speak for myself, but my arse is as blind as a mole. Also, has there ever been a meeting between the CEO of the toilet paper factory and his team of designers, during which they tried to convince him of the fact that feathers are a better choice than koala bears? And prior to this: have they actually tested what felt better for wiping?

One day, I'm going to design my own toilet roll. The testing phase is on...

Tuesday, 10 January 2012

Quantum of doubt

When I was a teenager, I hated physics. And I sucked at it too. I remember one time having to calculate the amount of air pressure within a sealed water bottle. Triumphantly I quickly wrote down: 0. Because, I reckoned, since there is a cap on the bottle, that prevents the pressure from the outside air getting into the bottle. Of course, I was wrong. But I remember sharply - yes, with all the sharpness you can expect from a 14-year-old boy who was publicly laughed at by his alcoholic physics teacher for that answer - that no one bothered to explain why I was wrong. I just sucked at physics (like I sucked at geography or musical education) and that was that.

Today I know that I didn’t hate physics because I sucked at it, but because nothing we were ever taught in high school physics was interesting enough for me to want to try and be better at it. Indeed, for our class (that got only one hour of physics a week) the most interesting chapters were dropped with the message ‘You guys won’t understand this anyway’. And so physics became a kind of applied mathematics. All I remember us doing was calculating things like how quickly a drop of water falling from a cloud would hit the ground (remember Fz?). For someone like me, who was basically only interested in stories and therefore forever looking for the why behind everything, it was torture. Because no one ever talked about the whys. Physics, from the Greek word for ‘the things of nature’, should be about explaining how and why our physical world behaves the way it does. But we never heard anything about that. I guess if you asked our teachers they would have said that that was way too difficult for us.

Yet one year ago, probably almost to the day in fact, I was waiting with Fred for a Japanese train to arrive (Japanese trains are never late, so we must have been early) and I was listening to him explaining Einstein’s relativity theory and I realised that, when properly explained, even the most fundamental physics are not difficult at all. With ever growing eyes and ears and even brain, it seemed, I suddenly understood why distance and time are ultimately relative. I still rank that very moment firmly within the top five of interesting insights I’ve ever had. For one, because Einstein’s discovery is mind-blowing, but also because I realised then and there that physics can be interesting. In fact, it’s probably the most interesting thing there is.

Now yesterday evening I had another ‘physical’ experience, so to say, while watching the BBC documentary ‘A Night with the Stars’ (watch it here on YouTube). In the program, Manchester University physics professor Brian Cox explained the rudimentary elements of quantum theory which accounts for just about everything, so it seems. It answers questions like why it is that even though atoms consist of more than 99,9% empty space, you don’t fall through your chair while reading this. Or why it is when I rub my hands, every atom in the universe instantly changes ever so slightly (something to do with energy levels of electrons). Or why you can put something in a box, preferably a rather small one, wait a while (okay, a rather long while) and have a reasonable chance that whatever you put in the box will not be there anymore when you open it. Fascinating stuff, really, discovered by mostly young researchers who must have had a brain running on kerosene.

In fact, the longer I watched the documentary, the more I started thinking about these geniuses of quantum theory, people like Max Planck, Wolfgang Pauli or Werner Heisenberg, and the amazing discoveries they made. And I must confess that suddenly I was insanely jealous of them.

Indeed, being in academic research myself (but about literature for God’s sake!) I suddenly felt like an imposter. Really, I asked myself, has any scholar in the humanities ever produced anything as staggeringly true as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (pun not intended)?

\Delta x\, \Delta p \ge \frac{\hbar}{2}

I mean, just look at it. Even if you don’t understand it (like me), you have to realise one thing. This is a mathematical formula, which means that it is universally true: always and everywhere, for every fucking particle in the whole Goddamn universe!

Indeed, nothing we scholars in the humanities will ever put down about anything, no matter how hard we research it and how much we think about it, will be able to boast a fraction of the value Heisenberg’s discovery. And that’s a bit of a blow. Especially since no one in humanities and particularly in my small field seems to care very much about this.

Sure, we can’t all be Nobel Prize winners and research in the humanities is fundamentally different to physics, but what annoys me is that lately it seems no one around me is truly trying to push the boundaries of what we know anymore. Academic research should be about formulating, testing and refining hypotheses in an open, but ever critical environment. Yet lately, it seems that a lot of what I see in my small field boils down to formulating clichés, testing the limits of everyone’s patience, refining the art of looking smart in a self-important, but ever empty environment.

After all, we might have been the people who invented the names ‘alpha’ and ‘beta sciences’, but after yesterday, I’m having real doubts about the value judgement seemingly implied in this alphabetical order. Because I seriously ask myself: is what I’m doing as good (for lack of a better term) as what a physicist does?

Truth be told: I’m not so sure anymore…

Thursday, 22 December 2011

Fred and Fred For Life

Unless you’ve been living under a very big rock this week – something the size of Mont Saint-Michel – you have not been able to escape Studio Brussels’ annual charity radio show called Music For Life. In fact, Music For Life is the Belgian counterpart of a Dutch initiative called Serious Request, a radio project organised to collect money for projects of the Red Cross, which has been picked up in Switzerland, Sweden and Kenya too. During the project, three DJs live in a house of glass for six days without eating anything, instead drinking special juice to stay fit.

Organised consistently to fix attention on one of the many forgotten humanitarian issues in the world (like malaria or clean drinking water), this year’s edition focuses on diarrhoea as one of the main causes of death in children worldwide. Indeed, Wikipedia tells me that ‘(i)n 2009 diarrhea was estimated to have caused 1.1 million deaths in people aged 5 and over and 1.5 million deaths in children under the age of 5’. And since Music For Life was first organised in Belgium in 2006, the show has grown immensely in popularity, which is also clear from the financial results of the project. Last year, for instance, Studio Brussels was able to amass a whopping € 5.020.747 to help the Red Cross in its struggle against AIDS.

So far, so good you would say, but alas, things are not that simple. Especially in more leftist-intellectual circles Music For Life is seriously frowned upon. In fact, I cannot tell you how many people have spontaneously told me over the last few days how much they’re annoyed by the ‘whole business with the Glass House’. And to be frank, I used to be one of them, but then I started thinking about the initiative.

To start, many people are sceptical of the way the money collected will be spent. How much does Studio Brussels keep to organise all this? How much will actually reach these poor people? Who are we supporting? Now these are valid questions, but still. The organisation involved with Serious Request is the Red Cross, founded in 1863 to protect human life and health, and an international humanitarian movement with approximately 97 million volunteers, members and staff worldwide. A trustworthy organisation if ever there was any, wouldn’t you agree? Sure, there will be some money that doesn’t reach the Red Cross or that the Red Cross will not manage to get into the right hands, but that’s an issue with all humanitarian help.

Furthermore, I notice that people find fault in the way Music For Life draws away attention from other organisations such as Oxfam, Médecins Sans Frontières or, more importantly, a huge amount of small but worthy NGOs that struggle to get any public attention and financial support. Again, there is some truth in this. But to use this argument to be against Music For Life is illogical. It’s like saying we shouldn’t focus our main medical research on cancer, because there are thousands of other diseases that need curing. It’s deplorable that we can’t support all causes, but does that mean we should stop supporting the Red Cross?

However, the biggest criticism against Music For Life is something more philosophical. Many people take issue with the ‘fun’ aspect of the show. Without really knowing why, they get annoyed by the insane popularity of the DJs (“I hate that Siska!”), the tacky Christmas atmosphere the Glass House oozes (“Those ugly red hats people wear!”) and the jolly-jumpy attitude of the people in front of the house (“Half of them are drunk!”). For some reason such behaviour seems unbefitting for the situation. Now why is that?

What really bothers people in this is the hypocrisy they perceive in the situation. And they are right: with an highly mediatised event like this – follow them on the radio, TV, webcams, Twitter, Facebook, etc.! – you quickly notice that the show is as much about the popularity of the DJs, about the artists playing support gigs and about the people coming along with donations, than about the cause the show is supporting. A good illustration of this is the reactions of people afterwards who are angry because in spite of collecting x-amount of Euros with their school, organisation, etc. they didn’t even get mentioned on the radio! Or the text messages of people you see on the screen: “Pff, this is my tenth SMS and I haven’t got through once!”.

Ergo: it’s more about everyone else than about the problem of diarrhoea.

However, if this is your reason not to support Music For Life, consider this. The famous French philosopher Jacques Derrida has a theory which is called l’aporie du don. It says that it is actually impossible to give a true gift. Indeed, a true gift should be unselfish, but still every gift to someone else is at the same time a gift to yourself. Think about it: when we give someone a gift, we want to make them happy. Now re-read the sentence: ‘we want to make them happy’. Giving a gift is always also about making yourself happy, and therefore every gift is, in a way, selfish. In fact, the happiness derived from giving a gift is even parasitical to the other person’s happiness. Indeed, we are only happy when the gift has succeeded in making the other party happy. So in essence, giving a gift implies stealing some of the happiness from the person who received the gift.

Hmm. Now that’s a buzz-killer, ain’t it? So much for the spirit of the season! Still, if Derrida teaches us anything, it’s that we shouldn't worry about such an aporie, because it’s inevitable. It’s not because we will never be able to be one hundred percent altruistic in giving a gift, that we should not give one.

Ergo: I see no reason not to support Music For Life and accordingly I will support it. So here’s my solemn vow: for every comment (just type SUPPORT) to this blog, Fred and Fred will donate €1 to Music For Life. So keep those comments coming!

Friday, 9 December 2011

Les autres

Today I was at the baker’s at exactly 11:39 am. It might seem a pretty random or average time, but when you know the area I live in, it’s not. You see, it’s a pretty bad idea to go to the baker’s or the grocery store here between the hours of 12 and 1 pm, and between 4 and 5 pm. The reason is that I live pretty close to several schools and at those times these shops are swamped with children getting sandwiches, potato chips, sodas, etcetera.

So imagine my surprise when I found that today at 11:39 the baker’s was already swamped with cackling teenage girls and boasty schoolboys. Crap. I knew they would all be ordering those very time-consuming baguettes with chicken-curry spread and stuff like that, but on the other hand I needed to eat too, didn't I? So there was nothing for it. I had to wait. About 15 minutes to be exact.

Which, of course, is not a disaster. After all, this is supposed to be my day off. Still, I was pretty annoyed. I kept wondering where those kids came from. I mean, when we were young, school wasn’t out until about 12 (11.50, I think), so what were they doing here? However, with some of them, I couldn’t tell whether they might be university students or not. I mean, nowadays (oh yes, grandpa Fred is back!) I can’t honestly tell whether some of these girls are 15 or 20.

So anyway, while I was waiting at the baker’s, I began to think about being annoyed by other people, as it had happened to me a few times the previous days. Last Friday evening, for instance, while I was in my car (carpooling with a friend, mind you) on the ring road where traffic was just awful, I had the same feeling. Or two days later, when I made the very bad decision of checking out the Fnac store on a ‘shopping Sunday’, which was just swarming with people.

At times like that I find myself quite honestly wondering: “What are all these people doing here?” Really, sometimes I want to go up to them and ask them: “What are you doing here? What possible, good reason can you have for being here? Are you sure you’re not here just to annoy me?” As Sartre said: L’enfer c’est les autres.

Of course I’m being a self-centred ass here, but I’m fairly certain most of us feel like this once in a while. Other people can be so annoying. And the strange, even scary, part is that we’re not annoyed because of what these people do (although that doesn’t always help either!). We are annoyed because of the basic fact that they’re there.

Which is not that surprising. Indeed, to a certain extent it's impossible for anyone to come loose from the way we experience reality, which is always opposed to the way everybody else experiences reality. I mean: I’m me, and I may wonder what it’s like to be someone else, but I’ll never know for sure. (When I was a child I sometimes played with the thought that the whole world was an elaborate conspiracy and that only I was real and other people robots or aliens acting the part of people. I was a strange child, mind you).

But the thing is: this is a dangerous emotion, and what’s more (so I thought waiting for yet another kid specifying his order: ‘egg, but no cucumber and carrots instead of lettuce on my spicy-tuna-brown bread baguette please’): it’s illogical. Indeed, if I am an ego, then so is everybody else. And if I divide the world into ‘me’ and ‘other people’, then other people do the same. And in their view, I am other people.

By then it was my turn at the baker’s. I politely asked for a brown loaf and one with raisins (love those). But as I was walking out and passed the school children sitting outside enjoying their sandwiches and baguettes, I was still thinking about my paradoxical conclusion of me being other people. Logic then dictated that if hell is other people, than hell is me too. Or in the words of a T-shirt the biggest bully in our old neighbourhood used to wear: ‘Save the world, kill yourself’. And only then I realise how ironic it is that I often secretly wished he would follow his own advice.


Tuesday, 22 November 2011

Panopticon

When Fred wrote a piece about Isis’ album Panopticon yesterday, I thought for sure he was going to explain what exactly a panopticon is. He does know, I’m sure of it, because we talked about it some time ago. Anyway, I guess his prediction that it wouldn’t be the last time for the word to be used in a blog, will come true even more quickly than he thought!

The Panopticon (from the Greek πᾶν ὀπτικόν, ‘all visible’) was originally a type of building designed by the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832). Think of it like this. Imagine you need to make a prison for a thousand people but can’t afford more than one prison guard. How can you control that many people with that small amount of man power?

Bentham came up with the following solution to create an incredibly a cheap prison system. Build a prison with a circular structure and an ‘inspection house’ in the middle from which the one prison guard is able to watch the inmates who live in cells around the perimeter of the building. Like this:



Now make sure that the guard can watch the prisoners at all times and that the prisoners do not know when they are watched. You could do this, for instance, with one way glass - you know, the mirror/glass in the interrogation room in movies (Bentham’s nineteenth-century method was slightly different, but never mind). Now, in this way no prisoner of the Panopticon would ever try to escape, because they would never be sure whether the guard was watching them or not. In this way, one man could guard a thousand prisoners, and more. Moreover, he wouldn’t even have to work all the time. There would be no way for the prisoners to tell if he was on duty or not. In fact, if you think about it, you wouldn’t even need a guard at all. No prisoner would ever be the wiser. Indeed, the Panopticon leaves the watching to the watched, so to say, and thus operates by ‘power of mind over mind’, as Bentham put it, rather than by physically guarding people.

Over time (and largely thanks to the analysis of this concept by Michel Foucault) the panopticon came to stand metaphorically for the hierarchical social structure of modern society and its increasing tendency to observe and control people. Indeed, nowadays ‘they’ can see you in the street with CCTV, they can locate you with satellite imaging, they can listen to your cell phone conversations, they can see the websites you’ve visited, what you bought with your credit card and so forth. So I guess you could say we effectively live in a panopticon today.

However, I’m always slightly annoyed when people then turn paranoid (and even more when they use paranoia as an adjective talking about it) and start shouting Big Brother is watching you! There is, in my mind, one important difference in our case. The panopticon aims to keep prisoners from escaping, or generally stated to keep people from doing what’s illegal. So if you are not trying to do anything illegal, what does it matter if you might be watched? You don’t even know for sure if you’re ever really watched or who does the watching for that matter.

Think of it like this. Suppose there is a chance – but it’s not a certainty – that at some point someone – but you won’t know who – could see you in the shower – but you won’t know when it happens, provided it does. Would you then be afraid to take a shower? I don’t believe I would, actually.

So I’m not too crazy about all the shouting in the media that our privacy is being invaded. Come to think of it, I’m glad someone’s watching my streets, my credit card or the internet our children visit. So watch me all you want, Mr Big Brother, thou lonely guard of the Panopticon, I couldn’t care less.

But apparently the sludge metal band Isis did mind and that’s why they called their third album Panopticon, because it deals with ‘the proliferation of surveillance technologies throughout modern society and the government’s role in that spread’.

Such cry babies those metal heads...

Tuesday, 18 October 2011

The glass is...

Recently I was struck by how very different we can feel. You know what they say, some days the glass is half-full, some days it's half-empty. And since I don't really know what kind of day you're having, I thought I might give you the option today:

...half-empty

Some days you'll wake up to an annoying song on your clock radio, throw your underwear on a massive pile of dirty laundry before getting into the shower, spill coffee powder all over the side of the machine and think: "Goddammit, how on earth am I going to get through this day?". Half an hour later, you'll be staring blankly into the morning air on the train platform, until all of a sudden one of your fellow commuters will pass you by so closely, as some of them do, that you can actually see inside their ear. And you'll think: "Goddammit, I hate other people". In the afternoon your boss will tell you to work on a random Saturday in December and you'll check your agenda and see it's the only one in November you had made plans for. And you'll think: "Goddammit, I hate my job". In the evening, you'll get home, try to make yourself feel better by getting some take-away or fries perhaps. But after wolfing them down, you'll only think: "Goddammit, I feel disgusted". And before you go to sleep, you'll be tossing and turning, and kicking yourself for that stupid comment you made over lunch to someone and you'll think, over and over again: "Goddammit, I'm a wanker". And all you can do is trust, with everything you’ve got in you, that tomorrow …



…half-full

Some days you’ll wake up humming along with your clock radio, get into your shower and laugh out loud when you find yourself making a mohawk in your shampooed hair. You’ll think of the smell of coffee that’ll hit your nostrils in a few minutes and you think: “God, I feel alive.”. Half an hour later, you’ll be waiting on the train platform, not even caring that there’s a twenty minute delay, because the sun is out and even though it’s autumn, it feels warm on your face. You’ll see an eighty-year old on a bench doing the same and you’ll think: “God, I love people.” In the afternoon your boss will tell you to work on a random Saturday in December, because frankly he really wants you there because this is an important issue. And you’ll think: “Goddammit, I’m good at my job.” In the evening, you’ll get a machine-full of dirty laundry going, go for a five-mile run and afterwards fix yourself a salad with tuna and chickpeas. And you’ll think: “God I feel healthy.” And before you go to sleep, you’ll be reading that book you’ve always wanted to read and you’ll get a text message from someone. It’ll say: “Hey, I was just thinking about you…” And you’ll suddenly understand, with everything you’ve got in you, that no matter what…


… everything is going to be alright.

Tuesday, 11 October 2011

Gym poetics

You may recall that a while ago I talked about the tendency in literary theory to ‘be difficult’. Today’s topic is something related: the ubiquitous use of the word poetics. Bear with me for a moment, if you will.

We all know poetics as ‘the rules of poetry’. However, nowadays it has become bon ton to use it in all sorts of contexts. Poetics of ageing, poetics of resistance, poetics of transactivated space, you name it. People who do so, were probably inspired by American critic Stephen Greenblatt (° 1943), whose theory of cultural poetics of Renaissance society is very famous. However, Greenblatt’s cultural poetics is more than mere jargon. By using this expression instead of just culture, Greenblatt wants to recuperate the double meaning of poetics. I mean: in poetry, we can say that its system of rules (its poetics) not only influences the way people write, but is itself also influenced by the way people write. And the same is true for culture. Culture is both shaped by people’s behaviour and shapes their behaviour. Hence cultural poetics.

But why am I telling you this?

Well, I was thinking about all this yesterday when I was in the gym on the treadmill (yes, I am a strange man). And while I was running along at exactly 10.5 km/h for exactly 15:00 min. (the machine is very clear about such things), it dawned on me that actually the gym is a pretty good illustration of the aforementioned concept of poetics. Indeed, in every gym there is a certain set of unpronounced, but very real rules, which determine your behaviour, but were also created by the users of the gym. A gym poetics, if you want.

Let me explain.

A first rule that seems in place, but is only there because of people’s behaviour, is the following. In general, there are only three kinds of people visit the gym: those who look like they need it (59,5%), those who look like they don’t need it (39,5%) and those who are in-between (1%). Just to be clear, I’m part of the one percent. In fact, in my gym, I am the one percent, running on the treadmill with a fat dude on one side and an aspiring supermodel on the other.

Secondly, gym visitors seem to have created a rule concerning one’s workout kit, ‘What (not) to wear’ for the gym. Apart from oddities, such as ‘extremely short and tight shorts are allowed’, the main rule concerns men’s T-shirts. Apparently, you can only wear sleeveless T-shirts or a wife beater if your arms look like a young Arnold Schwarzenegger’s. If you do wear such an item of clothing without the proper guns to show off, you will be stared at by the rightful wearers. An additional rule is that only the sleeveless people may enter the Pure Strength part of the gym, you know, the one with the dumbbells and the mirror to look into while you lift weights.

Thirdly, it seems to be taboo in the gym which setting you use on the workout machines. It took me a while before figuring this one out, but eventually I got it. When I first started going to the gym, I was always surprised to sit down at a machine and find its setting to be way too hard for me. A biceps machine would have settings ranging from 5 to 50 kgs, and I found the setting it was on, usually 40 or 45 kgs, far too heavy. After a while, however, I noticed that it is apparently a part of the gym poetics to put the setting to 40 or 45 kgs after you’ve finished, no matter what weight you yourself pull. As to the reason for this, one can only guess.

Yet perhaps most puzzlingly, gym poetics involve a certain degree bisexuality, which apparently only applies to the male members of the gym. Indeed, on the one hand it is very accepted to marvel at each other’s bulky biceps, tough triceps or quivering quadriceps. Hell, yesterday I even saw two guys feeling each other’s biceps and making what appeared to be laudatory comments about it. Still, I had no choice but to interpret this as a curious form of bisexuality, because not a moment later, when the aforementioned supermodel walked in, the very same guys all of a sudden had some business on a machine closeby and began walking towards her as if they had a vuvuzela between their legs.

Perhaps I should go over to them one day and applaud them for their openness regarding their sexuality?

Assholes.

Friday, 30 September 2011

The Ig Nobel Prizes

You might have read about them in the paper today, but obviously there is only one source that you can trust on a topic like this: your faithful Fred and Fred. If ever something was right up our alley, it’s the Ig Nobel Prizes.

In case you missed it: the Ig Nobel Prizes (a pun on ignoble and Nobel) are awarded each year in October for ten unusual or trivial achievements in scientific research. The stated aim of the prizes is to ‘first make people laugh, and then make them think’.

Yesterday the 21st award ceremony took place at Harvard University, and a Leuven professor was on the receiving end. Indeed, Luk Warlop, together with a number of colleagues, received the prize for demonstrating that people make better decisions about some kinds of things – but worse decisions about other kinds of things – when they have a strong urge to urinate.

Funny, innit? And it gets even better if you remember that the Ig Nobel Prizes are almost always presented (by genuine Nobel laureates, by the way!) to actual researchers who have been labouring for years on extraordinarily difficult, but seemingly trivial or absurd topics. Just imagine what some academics apply themselves to. Here’s a small sample of the prizes over the years:

  • Literature (1995): David B. Busch and James R. Starling, for their research report, ‘Rectal Foreign Bodies: Case Reports and a Comprehensive Review of the World’s Literature’. The citations include reports of, among other items: seven light bulbs; a knife sharpener; two flashlights; a wire spring; a snuff box; an oil can with potato stopper; eleven different forms of fruits, vegetables and other foodstuffs; a jeweller’s saw; a frozen pig's tail; a tin cup; a beer glass; and one patient's remarkable ensemble collection consisting of spectacles, a suitcase key, a tobacco pouch and a magazine.
  • Chemistry (1998): Jacques Benveniste, for his homeopathic discovery that not only does water have memory, but that the information can be transmitted over telephone lines and the Internet.
  • Physics (2000): Andre Geim and Michael Berry, for using magnets to levitate a frog. Geim later shared the 2010 Nobel Prize in physics for his research on graphene, the first time anyone has been awarded both the Ig Nobel and (real) Nobel Prizes.
  • Physics (2001): David Schmidt, for his partial explanation of the shower-curtain effect: a shower curtain tends to billow inwards while a shower is being taken.
  • Biology (2003): C.W. Moeliker, for documenting the first scientifically recorded case of homosexual necrophilia in the mallard duck.
  • Economics (2005): Gauri Nanda, for inventing Clocky, an alarm clock that runs away and hides, repeatedly, thus ensuring that people get out of bed, and thus theoretically adding many productive hours to the workday.
  • Mathematics (2006): Nic Svenson and Piers Barnes, for calculating the number of photographs that must be taken to (almost) ensure that nobody in a group photo will have their eyes closed.
  • Medicine (2010): Simon Rietveld, for discovering that symptoms of asthma can be treated with a roller coaster ride.

Now say for yourself: surely it’s any academics dream to receive an Ig Nobel Prize one day? Therefore we from Fred and Fred are already hard at work for next year’s edition. Just imagine the possibilities…

  • Cosmology (2012): Fred and Fred, for proving the possibility that parallel universes exist in which even numbers cannot be divided by 2.
  • Linguistics (2012): Fred and Fred, for their study ‘Fly, Feel and Fall’, a list of 1,000 words which become very funny when pronounced with a Japanese accent (which turns every f into an h and every l into an r).
  • Marketing (2012): Fred and Fred, for definitively disproving that cleaning products which feature animals (ducks, frogs, bears, etcetera) clean better than those which do not.
  • Philosophy (2012): Fred and Fred, for (the title of) their paper ‘Does Existentialism Really Exist?’.
  • Sports Science (2012): Fred and Fred, for discovering the constant h, representing the relation between the size of the ball and the size of the hole (basketball, snooker, golf, …).
  • Medicine (2012): Fred and Fred, for their decennia-long research ‘Is it really impossible to lick your own elbow?’.
  • Communication (2012): Fred and Fred, for talking for a whole night about the infinite monkey theorem, which states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type the complete works of William Shakespeare.


Fingers crossed!


Thursday, 29 September 2011

PhD peculiarities

Last Sunday Fred came over to my place and we had a healthy discussion about stuff only Freds can have discussions about. The matter at hand was Latin alliteration and assonance and its relation to independent and conditional probability. But rest assured, I won’t bother you with the details…

However, at some point in the conversation a strange fait divers came up, which I am sad to say I can’t recall anymore. What I do remember is that I could proudly refer Fred to the passage in my PhD thesis where said fait divers was mentioned. Which reminded me how much strange stuff there actually is in my PhD! For a thesis about one year (1598) of a humanist's correspondence, there sure is a lot of unexpected information in there. Only recently, for instance, I told my friend E. about the fact the Romans collected taxes on pee (the urinae vectigal) as it could be used in the leather industry…

Indeed, this is only one titbit of the gazillion strange little pieces of information contained in the 911 pages of PhD I worked on from 2003 to 2009 (yes, I had no life then, thank you). As I was able to do so by your hard-earned tax-euros, I thought it only fair to give you a small sample of such PhD peculiarities.

My PhD will inform you about:

  1. The precise name of the Roman gladiator who fought wearing a helmet without any openings for the eyes and who therefore competed completely blind (Andabata).
  2. The way the 1598 peace talks between the Spanish and the French at Vervins almost didn’t start because of a row about the exact formation in which the different diplomats would be seated during the negotiations.
  3. The different sources and opinions about the life span of the Phoenix, the mythical bird that rises from its own ashes (500 or 1000 years depending on whether you believe the Greek or the Roman tradition).
  4. The title of a book in which you can check what the weather was like in the Low Countries (Belgium and The Netherlands) from 1000 AD to the year 2000 (J. Buisman, Duizend jaar weer, wind en water in de Lage Landen, Franeker, 2000).
  5. The fact that the Greeks seem to have been more afraid of the sea than the Romans. (If you don't believe me, see De Saint-Denis, Le Rôle de la Mer dans la Poésie Latine, pp. 300-302).
  6. The differential diagnosis (yes you know this term from House MD) for an oedema (which can be caused by anything from small bruises to serious infections, heart failure, nefrotic syndrome (kidney failure) or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (cancer of the lymphatic system).
  7. The fact that Spa water was already sold in bottles in 1598.
  8. The mathematical problem of the quadratura circuli, the challenge of constructing a square with the same area as a given circle by using only a finite number of steps with compass and straightedge (it took people until 1882 to realise that it’s actually impossible).
  9. Who brought the tulip to Europe, who popularized its cultivation, and when the Dutch tulpomania reached its zenith (Augerius Busbecquius, Carolus Clusius and the 1630s)
  10. The phrase: “Can I have another gin-tonic?” in Modern Greek (και άλλο τζιν τόνικ)
  11. A lengthy discussion of the correct surname of Thomas Rhediger (Rhedigerus, Redingerus, Rehdiger, Rudinger, Rudiger, Rüdiger, Rediger, Redinger or Rehdiger?)
  12. The fact that horridula virtus (‘the hard virtue’) is a strange expression because the adjective horridulus is usually employed in Latin in connection with nipples.
  13. That Pliny the Elder knows a plant that will give you difficulties peeing, which is strangely called chamaeleon (see Plin., hist. nat., 22, 18, 21)
  14. Some considerations on why the Persian imperial messengers called Peichi (Peykān-i Hāsṣṣa) could have carried a small axe and a flask of perfume with them (perhaps the perfume was a gift, emergency payment or just good manners when they had travelled for miles on end to deliver the message?)
  15. That the 41st abbot of the Benedictine monastery of Liessies near Avesnes was a naughty man because he drank and partied at the monastery.

Phew! And still the papers are saying that university education in Belgium needs to be of ‘more general’ interest.
Of course, this wouldn’t be a blog on Fred and Fred if there weren’t a little twist to it. Of the aforementioned fifteen peculiarities, one is not really mentioned in my PhD. Can you spot which one ? It’s number -1000+8371-7359 (just a calculation as a spoiler alert…). But mind you that’s only because I struck it out at the last minute. It’s still the God honest truth!

PS: if ever you would feel the need to learn more about which plants cause difficulties peeing or about Latin adjectives usually associated with boobies, you can read the full version of my PhD through this link. Enjoy!

Tuesday, 20 September 2011

In the unlikely event of...

  • ... having to buy a laptop for a one-armed man, buy a Mac.
He might want to avoid Ctr+Alt+Del.
  • ... bumping into a giant squirrel, wearing fancy head phones and enthousiastically nodding its head, ask him what he's listening to.
You might want to check that record out.
  • ... facing someone who is telling you not to run away from your problems, ask him the following question:
“What if my problem is that I can't leave things behind?”
  • ... seeing a Chinese man with the word 'friend' or 'love' tatooed on his arm in stylish Times New Roman, ask him whether he knows what it means.
He might have been drunk.
  • ... waking up as a cartoon character, don't start running straight ahead when a tree is falling in your direction.
Step aside.
  • ... meeting someone asking you whether you sometimes feel the urge to answer questions with unfinished sentences, tell him you don't.
He might be confused.
  • ... sitting next to a polar bear on the airplane, ask him whether he enjoys watching television series.
He might have seen LOST too.
  • ... dropping a hamster on the floor, tread lightly.
He may have the colour of your carpet.
  • ... falling, face upwards.
You may still see the stars.

Wednesday, 31 August 2011

Just being difficult?

Lately I have been engaged in studying Jonathan Culler’s Structuralist Poetics, a fascinating survey of the potential and problems of structuralist literary criticism. Structurawhat? Well, literary research conducted from the structuralist perspective aims to be, as Culler explains, ‘a poetics which strives to define the conditions of meaning’ (p. xiv), so that ‘the study of literature (…) would become an attempt to understand the conventions which make literature possible’ (p. xv).

See what I have to deal with to earn a living? Poor Fred…

Actually, it’s really not that bad. While Culler’s definitions of structuralism are not meant for a four year old, they’re not exactly inscrutable gobbledygook either. In fact, the man is a champion at explaining difficult thinking in simple words. Quite unlike many of his colleagues in literary theory who excel in using obscure language, sometimes malignantly to conceal poor thinking. Indeed, Culler even devoted a book to the subject, under the title Just being difficult? Academic Writing in the Public Arena, where he deals with branches of the academe which tend to indulge in an academic style that has once been described as ‘terrorist obscurantism’. Wikipedia mentions a famous example from the work of the feminist author Judith Butler, who in 1998 got a prize in a Bad Writing Competition for this sentence:

The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.
Yaiks. That’s bad.

So bad, it can even get funny; which is exactly what inspired the boys from this site http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/. They decided to develop a software program called The Postmodernism Generator which randomly generates complete essays on postmodern issues, complete with quotations and footnotes. Each time you visit the site a different essay pops up. Five minutes ago, its title was ‘Debordist situation and postcapitalist cultural theory’ and the first paragraph read:

If one examines precultural narrative, one is faced with a choice: either reject postcapitalist cultural theory or conclude that art may be used to entrench capitalism. Derrida promotes the use of Debordist situation to challenge class divisions. Thus, an abundance of desituationisms concerning the modernist paradigm of reality may be discovered.
So for all you students out there, next time you need an essay quickly, you know where to look. And I’m very curious to find out whether your teacher will see through the hoax…

Thursday, 25 August 2011

Anthropology for commuters

Many of these blogs are conceived on a train. Belgian trains have the tendency to run late, as I’m sure many of you know, so they offer ample opportunity to think about the odd blog entry. Moreover, travelling by train provides you with a steady flow of strange events, strange people and strange conversations. This blog is about all three of these elements.

I don’t know about other people, but once I set foot on a train, I turn into something of an anthropologist. Especially, when there’s a delay and especially when annoying people cross my path, I feel the urge to analyse the situation and the people in participant observation, as anthropologists do. Today, the ferrovian karma decided to punish me with both things: I had to take a one hour stop-train on a trip that usually only takes twenty minutes and I was in the company of three young girls who, much to the blatant frustration of the other commuters, said out loud (very loud) whatever came into their heads.

So I put on my anthropologist’s cap, or hat, or whatever it is anthropologists wear, and decided to study these girls as if they were an undiscovered tribe whose language I now finally understood. Here’s a transcript of the notes I made. (FYI: I’m not kidding, I took out my laptop and just started typing away):

Observation log, entry 1.0: Have spotted three members of said tribe engaged in conversation. All three are young females; probably between the age of 16 and 19n judging by a) the fact that all three smoke (they are nervously fidgeting lighters); b) the fact that all three wear heavy make-up and highly sexualized items of clothing; c) the fact that one of them got a call from an unemployment agency. Still, I’m unsure if any of the three facts really falsifies the hypothesis that they could be under sixteen…

Observation log, entry 2.0: The tribe seem not to mind my presence. After a preliminary study of their behavioural and communicational strategies, I have established the basic social matrix of this group of females. The brunette is obviously the alpha-female; the others look at her, not at each other, when telling a tale and spy for signs of approval (mostly an annoying sound which I presume is laughter). The Asian girl, who could be her stepsister (I will have to double check my transcript of the conversation), is the prettiest one and the brunette’s best friend. The social exchange happens mostly between these two and when they talk, the third one does not disrupt the conversation. She only addresses the brunette directly, or so it has seemed during the span of my observation period. One might conjecture that she feels threatened by the Asian girl’s looks and her close relationship with the alpha-female. Still, the third one is clearly the smart one, but does a good job of hiding it vis-à-vis the others.

Observation log, entry 2.1: Indeed, stupidity seems the pivotal sociocultural dynamic in this pack. On several occasions the females have given proof of this fact, including the previously-dubbed ‘smart one’, who has just claimed that not only Ethiopia, but also ‘Utopia’ is an African country. ‘Honestly’, she said, ‘I have heard that name before’. On the other hand, though, the three seem very fond of the Harry Potter-movies - paradoxically a tale of a slightly nerdy character, sprung from a bookish background with pseudo-Latinized spells and such. They seem quite intimate with the movie’s details. At one time the alpha-female and the Asian girl even produce black magic wands and start doing some of the Harry Potter-spells. They know quite a few of them by heart. Still, this Harry Potter-cultureme seems only a subtext in the general sociocultural repertoire of stupidity, as the conversation about Harry Potter climaxes in an argument about whether they had once spent a ‘whole day long’ or ‘twelve hours straight’ watching the movies…

Observation log, entry 2.2: I’m fairly convinced now that stupidity is the main typology of this tribe’s sociocultural code. Another cultureme that fits into this hypothesis is rude corporeal behaviour. However, there is special social capital involved here, as this behaviour seems largely reserved for the alpha-female. In the last hour she has burped loudly several times, stated angrily that her face is covered in zits (which is true, this observer might add, yet the other two females would not acknowledge it), and she has complained that her arse is sweaty and itchy. In a surprising turn of events, the Asian girl then tried to match the alpha-female’s behaviour by coarsely stating that her titties (sic) are getting too big for her shirt and rudely shaking them up and down to demonstrate her claim. However, neither the alpha-female nor the third one met this behaviour with approving acclamations or gestures. As to the reason of this lack of success for this equally rude corporeal behaviour, this researcher can only speculate…

One of the advantages of being a nerd with a lot of imagination is that it kills time. And keeps you from laughing out loud when you actually start listening to the conversations some people have. But today, it was a close one...


Wednesday, 10 August 2011

What can I do?

Unless you’ve been living under a rock the last few weeks or do not own a TV set, you’ve seen it. I allude to that sepia-toned movie clip in which 1212 (official name: Belgisch Consortium voor Noodhulpsituaties) asks the Belgian people for donations to battle the current famine in Somalia and the Horn of Africa. Children with white tubes up their nose, sinewy hands groping for food, shoulder blades protruding from backs like the wings on a drowning butterfly. You’ve seen it.

But have you really seen it? I mean, have you actually watched it from start to finish? I haven’t. I’m ashamed to admit it, but I guess it’s normal. It hurts to watch this kind of thing with honest eyes, and besides, these movie clips are designed to make you tear up and feel guilty. But while their hard colours and that sad piano in the background might be orchestrated by a clever director, the message that goes out from such a movie clip is nothing if not real. In fact, its moral appeal can be quite a shock. Here you are in your couch, perhaps enjoying a glass of wine or even a snack, and suddenly you realise that the lives of 12 million people are threatened by drought. That should keep you from complaining about the Belgian summer for a while…

Now this moral appeal has always fascinated me. I consider it one of the most beautiful (tragic, but beautiful) human emotions. Seeing the face of the other and understanding its appeal as something that transcends us, sharply defines our own existence. The words are not mine, but are the metaphors used by Emmanuel Levinas (1906-1995), whose whole philosophy consists of an ethics of the other. But besides fascinating, the feeling of a moral appeal is at the same time extremely bothersome. If you really attend to it, it bugs you, it gnaws at you, and it questions your actions. And almost inevitably the crushing weight of responsibility you feel, will prompt the age-old question: “What can I do?”. And indeed, I don’t mean to be cynical, but ask yourself honestly: What can I do about the 2011 famine in the East of Africa?

I’ll tell you what I did. I donated 100 Euros to 1212.

But I didn’t feel better for it. Not in the least. Even now when I type it, it seems so easy and so little. One hundred Euros, what difference does that make? Another cynical question.

So I started honestly thinking the matter over. Seriously, what can I do?

  • Could I perhaps give more? Two hundred Euros? Five hundred? A thousand? Would I really miss that money? But money cannot be a miracle cure, can it?
  • Should I try to do something more substantial? Like supporting Oxfam or Doctors Without Borders every month? But I already do, and surely I need to do something more than the usual this time…
  • Should I try to raise awareness? Like writing letters to the European Union or blogging about the problem? But I’m doing just that, and I can’t say I feel tons better now. Besides, what an armchair-solution to famine is that?
The more I think of it, the guiltier I feel. Only actually packing my stuff and going to Somalia to help could probably make me feel truly helpful. (And even then, how much good could a professional Latinist do in a refugee camp?) Otherwise, I doubt if I will ever be able to look at those images of starving people and feel I am doing enough…

And then it hit me. What’s the real problem here? The famine in Somalia? Or the fact that I will always feel frustrated, no matter what I do, that injustice and poverty still exist?

That’s right…

So, what can we do? That’s for everyone to decide for himself/herself. But whatever we do, we shouldn’t expect to feel any better about human misery because of what we do to fight it. In fact, I’m glad it never gets any better to watch those images of dying children. So, please do what you can for Africa and 1212. (The press recently pointed out that Belgium is preposterously behind other countries in this matter.) And if you want a clean conscience: do not give because you need to. Give because someone else needs it. Badly.

(Donations for the Horn of Africa can be made through BE 19 0000 0000 1212. Click here for more information.)

Tuesday, 28 June 2011

Happy Manta!

One of the most exclusive things you can order from the sushi menu in an upper scale Japanese restaurant is shirako. You may have a liking for raw tuna and salmon, but hold your seahorses: when you order shirako, you will be served a bowl of frothy, spiral-shaped white objects, exuding an unmistakable deep-sea odour. Sadly enough, this is the euphemistic description, as shirako is nothing but a bunch of sperm-filled reproductive glands of male cods. Yups.


Look, with more than 171,476 entries for words in current use, it is pretty obvious that the Second Edition of the 20-volume Oxford English Dictionary contains more than one combination of words that isn't such a good match. But if you'd ask me: 'sperm' and 'food' are definitely in the top 10 of the list of most unconventional word combinations.

This could be the scientist in me taking control of the keyboard, but when I read about things like this – fish's penises being served as food – I always find myself wondering: why and how? There might be something wrong with my imagination here, but tell me: can you picture a fish tank filled with horny cods who are trained to almost ejaculate upon command? I can't.

Which is why I devoted two whole weeks to this captivating riddle. Two nerve-wracking weeks, to be more precise, since few things are more frightening than having a partner who is eyeballing you from across the dinner table, ready to fire the Mother of all Ugly Questions in your direction.

“What exactly are you thinking about?”

Because I am pretty sure that 'how to breed horny cods?' is not just a weird question, it's also a very weird answer... In the end, I found my answer where my chubby neighbour found his wife: on the World Wide Web. This time, the cliché turned out to be true: the explanation was there, right in front of me. Porn.

“Porn? For animals?”, I hear you asking?

Let me remind you that this would not be the first time: in 2006, zoologists at the Chiang Mai Zoo in Thailand have let their sluggish giant panda bears watch panda porno, in order to promote sexual arousal and boost their mating efforts. Somewhat inspired by this fact, I got convinced that before you can serve your daring clientele a non-standard portion of proteins in the form of shirako, you have to feed their soon-to-be-meal porn. Fish porn, that is.

My only problem is that I do have a few moral objections against this idea. I mean, just imagine you are a male fish, watching a porn movie. You are horny as hell and you have a huge erection. Not the worst of situations, right? Until you realize that your fins are too fucking short to masturbate! Now thàt is what they call tantalizing.

On the other hand, it does explain why the Manta ray is happily flapping its way through the ocean. After all, it's the only creature in the deep blue that can spank the monkey...



Wednesday, 22 June 2011

Quotes from the book (3)

As I spent a lot of time on trains the last few days, I had a chance to finish Roland Barthes' Mythologies which describes itself in the introduction as 'a corrosive, insolent, strange, cold, and yet witty book'. Having read it, I guess this description is accurate (if a little negative), but still it lacks one very important qualification, in my opinion, which is 'wildly interesting'.

What Roland Barthes - a French cultural critic (1915-1980) - meant to do in this book is make a semiological analysis of contemporary cultural myths. Now before you stop reading this, let me rephrase that in normal language. Barthes' approach is simple. He investigates elements of French culture, like soap-powder and detergents, toys, wrestling matches, news pieces and other, apparently ordinary cultural trivia and reads them like myths, i.e. he explores how they represent a deeper cultural disposition. In doing so, he is able to make some extraordinary analyses of how French culture (mind you, it's French culture from the 1950s!) represents its values.

If all this still sounds too hoity-toity for your taste, let me give an example. Barthes takes Jules Verne's story Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea (1870) about a man exploring the deep sea in a submarine (science fiction at the time!), and uses it to analyse a very common cultural idea which we all share: the enjoyment of being enclosed. It's true, we all love being in a small space where we are the supreme master. It's why children love huts and tents, why adults like driving a car: you may be shut up in a small place, but within it you have everything under control. Yet there is one extra element: it's the combination of inwardness (being closed in) with the outside that we like. Indeed, you might be stuck in wooden (hut) or a steel (car) box, but from it, you can see the whole world. And that's what appeals to us.

If you think about it, this 'myth' returns in many elements of our culture. Watching TV when it's raining outside, surfing the internet, riding glass elevators in tall buildings, having an apartment with a terrace, sunbathing on a towel on a beach, and perhaps the best example of all: reading on the toilet. They're all examples of combining unbroken inwardness with the vagueness of the outside, to use Barthes' words. And all of these situations give us a hugely pleasant sensation. It makes us feel safe and in command at the same time.

And that's why Barthes' Mythologies is a wildly interesting book. It takes very familiar things and situations and explains what the cultural motivations behind them are. Like no other book it takes the ordinary out of the ordinary. And to be frank, humbly trying to piece together a piece of cultural criticism myself once in a while, I'm insanely jealous of Barthes' talent for doing just this.

To finish it off, just one quote which struck me as very relevant even today. Something Vic Van Aelst should keep in mind next time he criticizes Di Rupo's or Milquet's Dutch:

Whatever the degree of guilt of the accused, there is also the spectacle of a terror which threatens us all, that of being judged by a power which wants to hear only the language it lends us. (...) To rob a man of his language in the very name of language: this is the first step in all legal murders

Friday, 17 June 2011

Does my ass look big in this (car)?

This week, Fred and I are both going for a visit to what I fondly call The Far West, the West of Flanders that is. Since per chance we both planned to leave by Sunday noon and to return on Monday evening, and since I was going to drive over there anyway, we’ll be carpooling, obviously. But today Fred sent me an e-mail in which he - and I quote - ‘demanded’ to give me gas money for the ride…

Now this reminded me of something which I have been meaning to bring up. When people say (or write) things, they can basically do two things. One is: make a statement. This constative language, like ‘It’s raining outside’. It’s a statement, it’s information. The other thing is: do something. This is performative language, like when you told your mom ‘I promise I won’t hit my brother again’. It’s not giving information, it’s doing something, namely making a promise. We call that a speech act, doing something through language. By saying ‘I promise’, you do what you say, you promise. To put it succinctly: in constative language we say what we say, in performative language we do what we say.

But if you look closely at language, there’s performance and speech acts everywhere. The same sentence ‘It’s raining outside’ which was purely constative when mentioned above, can also be performative. For instance, when you use this sentence as an answer to someone asking you how you are doing. In the dialogue ‘Fred: ‘How are you, Fred?’ - Fred: ‘It’s raining outside’ Fred is not really giving information in his answer. Instead he is performing a bluesy feeling. He is suggesting he’s feeling a bit down. This too, is a speech act.

Of course, I didn’t think of this myself. If I did, I wouldn’t be wondering once in a while what I’m going to do with my life - or better yet, how I’m going to afford my life - when I run out of a job in 2013. Instead it was the British philosopher J.L. Austin came up with it in his book How to Do Things with Words?

Now it’s fun and really interesting to consider the performative dimension of what we say or what people say to us, as it might clarify some puzzling situations. For instance, if you visit someone and they ask you if you’d like a cup of coffee, you might respond ‘Please don’t bother!’. In this case, you are saying no, but your speech act is rather different. Your speech act is actually saying you might like some coffee, but feel socially awkward that the person in question should have to go and brew a pot on your behalf. Most people, however, are intuitively aware of this performance in ‘Please don’t bother!’ and will insist ‘I was just going to make a pot anyway!’. The performance in their insistence tells you to get over your awkward feeling. Net result: a nice cup of coffee.

But make no mistake, the performative dimension of language can also be a big problem between people, even between best friends or married couples. For instance, when breaking up, people will say ‘It’s not you, it’s me’ - which most of the time isn’t true, but the speech act is: ‘I know I’m hurting you. Please try not to take it out on yourself’. However, most of the times, we do not hear this speech act. It gets lost in the communicational distrust that tends to arise when people hit a rough spot in their relationship.

And the queen of all problems in speech act theory can be summed up in the famous, but dreaded seven words ‘Does my ass look big in this?’ to which there is no answer no matter which speech act you take into consideration. Answering ‘No’ (considering a speech act of uncertainty) only gets you ‘You’re only saying that because you know that’s what I want to hear’. Answering ‘Yes’, even as a joke, or in pure performative desperation, is no option either. Obviously.

So when Fred sent me the e-mail with the demand to pay for the gas, I first felt a little bit annoyed. We’re good friends, I thought, it shouldn’t matter whether I drive or not. I’m not asking to pay when we’re having drinks at his place. Does that make me a bad person? And then it hit me: Fred’s insistence to pay for gas money, is actually a performance of his social awkwardness over the fact that I have a car and he should benefit from it. Of course, I’m fine with him coming along on the boring ride, and he probably knows it, but still he cannot help himself from saying ‘I insist I pay for gas’. But in a way, this a good thing because it means that his speech act is really his way to say thank you for the other times he rode with me.

So I’ll try to respond to your mail with your speech act in mind, Fred: ‘Sure, you can give me gas money. And no problem for all the other times. You’re welcome to ride with me any day!’.