Muslim reactions, Mormons and the Youtube trailer.

While I've always sympathized with Muslims in the Middle East, it has been with mixed emotions. Like many people, I find it difficult to understand their extreme sensitivity to any perceived disrespect of their religion by The West. It's as if they are looking for something to upset them and even the smallest provocation sends thousands into the streets for protest. But recently I had what felt like a breakthrough in being able to understand their actions. It was sparked by the remarks comparing the infamous youtube trailer mocking Mohammed and the Book of Mormon musical. If you have not heard this mentioned, the two strains of comments are: If it is okay to mock the Mormons in the Book of Mormon Musical, then it is equally okay to mock Mohammed and Middle Easterners are entirely unjustified in their outrage. Or: if it is offensive and unacceptable to ridicule Islam, then it is equally unacceptable to make fun of Mormons and the Book of Mormon Musical should be seen in the same light as the 'Innocence of Muslims' trailer. I think it is important for rules to be fair, so it seemed like a good and reasonable comparison, but it didn't sit right with me in a way that I couldn't put my finger on. I pondered this until it occurred to me that when mocking or criticizing someone, it makes a big difference what your status is compared to theirs. If a person who is poor and struggling makes a video critical of politicians, perhaps even slanderous, it is a reasonable act of protest and opposition. But if a rich, successful person made a video that was critical and slandering of a poor, struggling, single mom, it would just seem like bullying. Mormons as people, do fairly well for themselves and are generally accepted by mainstream America, even if the religion itself is seen as wacky or heretical. And of course, a Mormon is running for president of the conservative Republican party, the group that would most likely be their enemy. So when a musical is produced poking fun of Mormons, it comes across as the light hearted ribbing it is. Equals satirizing equals. No big deal. Middle Eastern Muslims however, aren't doing so well. They are poor, have little power in the world and for many Muslims, the war in Iraq and Afganistan was not simply against those two countries but a war on Islam as a whole. For people in their position, who already feel beaten down by the most powerful nation in the world, to have a video or cartoon appear in western media that is disrespectful to their beloved prophet, the main source of hope and inspiration in their lives, from a country where one of the the worst possible things a presidential candidite could be is a Muslim, to the point where even having a Muslim sounding name has been a point of concern for some. A country where a sizable minority would genuinely like to see Muslim culture destroyed, these scornful depictions would seem to confirm their belief that The West hates Islam and their presence in the Middle East is as an oppressor trying to displace their culture, even if that may not actually be true. It would feel like bullying. The helpless feeling of being antagonized by a force so much stronger that you know you could never hurt them. Being bullied makes people behave in ways that are not always rational and even counter productive but very understandable. This doesn't mean I think people should be prevented from criticizing, or mocking Islam, or even that it is necessarily wrong to do so. It also doesn't mean that I think killing people is a proper response to feeling bullied by a larger country. But it does help me see that, like always, situations are complex and when looking at a person or groups behavior from their perspective it usually makes their actions understandable and even sympathetic (in the 'deserving of sympathy' sense of the word).

A theory in which the broad outlines of Mormon Theology seems plausible.

This is transhumanist theory I thought of recently. Although I wasn't thinking it at the time, in retrospect I realized it has a rather Mormonish character.

I don't necessarily believe it is true or even likely, but it seems plausible. I suspect the idea not unique, and has probably even been posted it on the Internet, but I've not personally encountered it.

Here it is:

In the distant future, well after the singularity where humans use computer technology to enhance their mental abilities (which has already been done in rudimentary ways with rats. Boffins have not only implanted a memory in a rat but they have replaced a damaged part of a rat's brain with computer hardware) and our intelligence increases in ways we cannot know imagine, we will undoubtably alter our genetic code so any child born will have a large array of senses we currently do not have (like birds ability to use quantum entangled electrons to see the Earths Magnetic field or many animals ability to sense a being by their electricity or have dogs awesome power of smell etc etc) and powers or abilities like levitating objects with your mind or
Teleportation or things we can no better imagine than the Vikings could imagine Facebook.

Anyone born into this world, despite their incredible powers, would lack the experience and wisdom to properly control themselves and not be serious danger to the safety of other beings and perhaps even the entire world.

To allow children a chance to gain wisdom without being a threat to humanity, everyone could be required to spend their earliest times in a simulated environment where they have less power in order to learn the ability of co-existing with other beings. In this environment, children would learn how empathize with people so thoroughly that not destroying the world is something freely chosen, since no other means would exist to prevent such a thing. In this world, it would be as if everyone, from the time they were a baby, had access to a button that launches all the world's nuclear bombs.

So our world, their past, is that simulation. One would enter at various stages in a simulated recreation of human history, starting from the beginning.
Each individual runs through a full cycle of the simulation where, like re-incarnation, they experience being a human throughout all the stages of history and every station of life, from a tribal chief 20,000 years ago to homeless murder victim to douche bag murderer homeless people.

Basically, as an individual one must go through the thousands and thousands of years of biological and cultural growth that the human race went through as a whole, up until the point in time that, for these future beings, is the present. In this scenario the only way for an individual to have the proper maturity needed for handling the powers humanity has slowly developed, is to experience the same course of progression humanity itself required to develop and control these abilities. There is no short cut.

However, because it is a simulation, the experience of time may be manipulated and what feels like thousands of years may only take a few weeks in 'real' time outside the simulation.
Since these future beings fit most all the criteria of 'God', It is like the concept of 'Eternal Progression' and 'Exaltation' within Mormonism. The Gods, ( future beings) birthed us in, what for us would be the pre-existence, sent us to Earth, (the Simulation) so we can learn how to live in their presence again without destroying all of existence. So we continually progress until we become like them. Those who, for whatever reason never gain the maturity needed, to be one of the Gods must, for the sake of humanity, be cast out. Perhaps put in a simulated world with others like themselves where they can live destructively in an otherwise enjoyable realm without the risk of non virtual damage.
You could even work prayer into
this. Perhaps the parents of the child in the simulation could observe them and their feelings and be allowed to, in subtle ways, manipulate the simulation to better accommodate the needs of their child.

Old people.

I wonder if one reason why old people were treated with so much more respect in earlier times is because technology and culture changed and evolved so slowly that by the time you had become a geezer, you had experienced most all there was to experience in life. Plus, since it was so much easier to die before modern medicine, the difficulty of making it to old age, weeded out the foolish along with the unlucky.

By the time you had a long wizard beard you would wellspring of knowledge and wisdom about living in the world.
Whereas today, the opposite is almost true. The way we live our lives and interact with the world changes so rapidly that by the time one becomes an old person, the world is almost an entirely different place than the one they were born and came of age in. Eventually, one is almost like a child, knowing close to nothing about the basic tools people use every day. Calling someone a 'grandma' or a 'grandpa' means they don't understand something that is entirely familiar to most everyone else.
Of course there are caveats and exceptions and one certainly does gain wisdom with age, they just lose relevance.
Which is unfortunate. Some part of me enjoys the idea of there being a segment of society that has already experienced all there is to experience and thus being a source of wisdom.

Perhaps eventually, when we've figured out everything there is to figure out, societal changes will plateau and we will go back to our former attitude towards old age. Although by then people will probably be living forever. If not physically than in some sort of of computer database.

Will

Whenever I am in a bad mood and acting grumpy, it reinforces to me my lack of belief in free will. Because try as I might, I cannot stop acting grumpily.

Beards

The weird thing about having a beard is that it means my face is covered with pubes. Especially now that my beard is is over an inch long (i've been growing it since January 1st with plans to continue it until at least this upcoming Jan 1st) there is no difference that I can tell between a pube hair and a beard hair.

Best way to get revelation.

As I grew up, my impression was always that this reflected the general attitude of the Church towards science:

Every discovery in science and art, that is really true and useful to mankind, has been given by direct revelation from God, though but few acknowledge it. It has been given with a view to prepare the way for the ultimate triumph of truth, and the redemption of the earth from the power of sin and Satan. We should take advantage of all these great discoveries, the accumulated wisdom of ages, and give to our children the benefit of every branch of useful knowledge, to prepare them to step forward and efficiently do their part in the great work. [Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, pg. 369, 31Aug 1862].

I'm not sure if I ever heard this particular quote, but I often heard the sentiment.

If scientific discovery is revelation, it is interesting then to note that since Joseph Smith's time the overwhelming majority of revelation has come through scientists rather than prophets, since very little actual revelations have happened since that time but an enormous amount of scientific discovery has.

The irony is, about 60% of scientists are atheist or agnostic. But not all scientists are created equal. Most scientific breakthroughs come from the relatively few great scientists at the top of their feild. The National Academy of Sciences (Nas) represents the cream of the crop. About ten percent of their members have earned a nobel prize and there are few greater honors a scientist can receive than to be elected to the Academy. So these are the people who, according the views expressed in the quote above, are most in tune to with inspiration, more than anyone else they recieve 'direct revelation from God'. So the irony is increased when considering that, among members of the NAS only 7% actually believe in God. A few more are agnostic, about 20% and the rest disbelieve entirely. Does that mean according to Lds standards that believing in God is actually a hindrance to revelation? At the very least, not believing in God doesn't stop one from revelation and even revieving more than Church leadership itself.

Why are women more easily grossed out?

I think a fair generalization to make is that women tend to be grossed out easier than men. (one exception to this is Marissa. Sometimes she makes jokes that gross even me out and I think I have a pretty high gross tolerance.) There is a reason why 'guy' movies tend to include gross stuff and chick flicks rarely do. Like anything related to humans, there are many who deviate from this, but it doesn't it is not generally accurate.


I was trying to think of why this might be so and while I have no idea if my idea is true or not, I think it seems plausible.

Historically, duties that were normally filled by men, such as hunter or warrior, involve a lot of gross stuff and a person who is easily grossed out would be at a disadvantage and and less likely to reproduce, either because they would be more likely to die or lower status as a failure would allow for less mating opportunities.

On the other hand, responsibilities that usually fell on women, such as cooking and child rearing, benefit from a sensitivity to grossness. Typically things are gross because they are bad for us and can make us sick, Repulsion is our bodies evolved method of making sure we steer clear of things like poo poo (poop) and throw-up without having to understand germ theory or even causality. To be sure, culture can influence what in particular is seen as gross, but the underlying mechanism is biological and certain things are more or less universally gross (feces, rotten meat, incest etc.). Probably the most important area to avoid grossness is anything related to our food and second, keeping gross stuff from anywhere near children, since they get sick more easily and their disgust system has not yet been developed and learned. Considering this, it would be no wonder women tend to be more sensitive to gross things. It is a big advantage in two crucial areas.

Sleep positions

One thing I envy about 4 legged-animals (aside from how walking on four legs instead of two seems overall much more comfortable. No back strain. Walking upright evolved fairly recently and our backs still haven't totally adapted.) is the variety of positions they can comfortably sleep in. I can pretty much sleep comfortably on my side or to a lesser degree on my back. But my cat and dog on the other hand! They sleep on their backs and stomachs and every variation of laying on one's side and curled up in a ball and stretched out long and in a weird u-shape, with their heads up or down or to the side, with their legs under them or beside them and every possible variation of these positions. The one I most envy is being curled up in a ball. Or in other terms, the cat croissant. It seems very comfortable.

Favorite thing, self sufficiency and interdependence.

One of my favorite things is when a simple comment or question totally changes my perspective, because it challenges or questions something I hadn't even considered could be challenged or questioned. Like when I hold a belief that strikes me as so obviously correct that I never even considered the opposing view because it hadn't occurred to me there even WAS an opposing view. Just realizing that there is something else to consider is a paradigm shift.

For example, because of the culture and religion I was raised in, (plus my having read several Ayn Rand and Henry David Thoreau books as a teenager), I believed self-sufficiency to be of great value in and of itself. I saw being entirely self-sufficient an ultimate goal.
I think I was 21 when I was made a comment about living in the woods, growing my own food, having a windmill and how it would be cool being entirely self-sufficient, when I friend responded with something like 'What's so great about being self-sufficient?'

That comment was a revelation to me. Up until that point self-sufficiency had seemed like such an obvious good, on par with the golden rule or not crapping in someone's mouth while they sleep, that I had honestly never considered: A) why was it a value in and of itself? and B) that there was an opposing side to the issue.

It isn't that my mind was suddenly changed by that comment, I think it took a few years of gradual progression in my thought process, but I can definitely look back to that moment as the seed to my believing their is greater value in community and interdependence than self-sufficiency.
If someone takes satisfaction from doing everything by themselves, that is fine, I have no problem with it. But I don't believe it need be something people in genreal need to work towards. How impoverished would we be if all we had was ourselves or even just our families? All my ideas and values and thoughts are ultimately the product of my interactions with other people. And of course all my possessions, even the things I have made myself. And far from being a bad thing, I think this is great and beautiful. If I only had myself to rely on it would be an incredible disadvantage. We are all hopelessly intertwined and dependent upon one another and by and large I think we are better because of it. (not to mention all of us being entirely dependent upon God or Nature for our very being and survival).

(The first part of this post is what I intended to write about. Although it ended up being a set-up into me talking about inter-dependence, the last paragraph is just an expanded footnote of the example I used for the point I initially set out to make)

mindstein

I wonder if Einstein is really the super genius we have made him out to be, or just a regular genius who came around at the right time, with an interest in the right subject. Because surely if he had died young, his theories would have been figured out eventually and it probably wouldn't have been much later. His work built directly on his predecessors and might even be seen as the logical next step to the existing theories. By no means was he operating in a vacuum. So I guess the question would be, would one individual have discovered all the stuff Einstein did, or would it have been a bunch people, like quantum mechanics?

Writing versus art.

One thing I realized lately that has allowed me to feel more content with my decision to pursue a career in art is that even though I would rather be a successful writer than a successful artist, I would much rather be an 'unsuccessful' artist than an 'unsuccessful' writer. And by unsuccessful I mean, not able to make a career from only writing or only art making, so having to supplement it through teaching. Basically, I would rather teach ceramics at a college or University than teach something like writing or english.
Since I will most likely not be a successful writer or successful artist, I figure I should base my plans on what I would rather be unsuccessful at.

In a sense, I am planning my life based on assumed 'failure'. (Which seems kind of funny that art is my safe plan, when art is normally people's idealistic dream and something like graphic design or business would be the safe plan.) But through pursuing art educationally, I don't feel as if I am closing any doors on writing. I will continue writing, working on my book (which I recently re-started and I feel much more confident about it) and trying my half-hearted best to find somewhere willing to publish something I write. And if that never pans out, which it probably won't, then I will still get to be an art professor, which seems like a dream job.

Plus, for whatever reason, I do not enjoy studying writing. Not at all. I very much look forward to the next two years studying ceramics at Saic, but imaging if instead it were in a writing program fills me with the opposite of excitement.

And even if I did somehow become a professional writer, I think I would still like to be an art professor. That may just be my romantic notion of how it will be and after I actually teaching for awhile I could feel differently, but for now I think that is true.

Also, if anyone reading is a publisher or editor of some sort, will you publish my writing please?

More blogging

One thing that keeps me from blogging much: I tend to feel a need to address every possible angle I can think of whenever I write about something. Usually this leads to posts that may be too long, but more importantly it often leads to no posts at all. Lately I often don't have the time or motivation to write a post that addresses everything I can think of about a subject, so I instead just post something brief on facebook. But I want to blog more, so I plan to make more of the short, not-thorough posts like I have done recently, with a few long, thorough posts in between.