For all I know, the Harry Potter books are the greatest books ever written. If they are, it’ll be my loss, because I’m not gonna read them. Here’s why:
(1)I saw the first movie, and it sucked. Big Time. I know you can’t judge a book from the movie, but the general consensus is the people who liked the books also like the movies. I also read one and a half of those crappy books by Phillip Pullman, about a little brat with a soul manifested as her pet, which people compare to Harry Potter.
(2)I am highly skeptical of anything the masses enjoy. I have learned that my sense of aesthetic does not jive with the Average Joe. I assume the people who read these books are the same people who like crap like U2, Pink Floyd, Animal House, The Lord of the Rings, Wonder Bread, ketchup, Thomas Kinkade and People magazine. I also assume the people who read these books don’t know who James Joyce, Derek Bailey, Eric Dolphy, Charles Ives, Paul Klee or Andrei Tarkovsky are.
(3)There are about 50 books that I actually want to read. I am still trying to get through Don Quixote. The allegories are pertinent, perhaps especially in the George W. Bush era, and I think several chapters are a must-read for everyone, but I’ll admit it is a tedious read. I also haven’t read any Bukowski or Philip K. Dick, which I hope to remedy soon. Other books I really want to read include Finnegan’s Wake, Frannie and Zooey, Billy Budd, some Douglas Adams besides the Hitchhiker series and some more Ferlinghetti.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Monday, August 20, 2007
Portland Drivers
I live in Portland, Oregon. Some would call the average Portlander courteous. I call them pansies. Their general fear of offending anyone manifests itself in their passivity and indecisiveness. This is particularly evident in their driving.
The number one most irritating driving habit of Portlanders is their predilection to come to a complete stop at an intersection if there is another vehicle, bicycle or pedestrian within 100 feet of the same intersection. This is irregardless of whether they have a green light or the right of way, even if they are turning right. I have been stopped in my car at a stop sign countless times in which the cross traffic with no stop sign comes to a complete stop from both directions to let me go. When turning left, it is commonplace for the vehicle in the oncoming lane to come to a stop to let you turn in front of them instead of just assuming you will do it yourself when there is a clearing in the oncoming traffic. Consequently, traffic jams are constantly being created where there are not that many vehicles.
This same passivity prevents Portlanders from being able to merge. I have almost been killed on at least two occasions when the car in front of me comes to the end of an on-ramp to an interstate and suddenly brakes to a complete stop- while I am going 50 mph two seconds behind them. I have heard many Portlanders actually complain when the drivers on the interstate don’t slow up to let them merge instead of speeding up to the flow of traffic to let themselves in. Traffic comes to a stop on the interstates every time it approaches an onramp, then speeds up to the speed limit until it reaches the next onramp.
I will admit it is sometimes humorous. One of my favorite pastimes in this town is watching people try to Parallel Park. But my normal response to these idiots has become to flip them off and scream curses at them until they give up trying to be polite to me and just follow the rules of the road.
The number one most irritating driving habit of Portlanders is their predilection to come to a complete stop at an intersection if there is another vehicle, bicycle or pedestrian within 100 feet of the same intersection. This is irregardless of whether they have a green light or the right of way, even if they are turning right. I have been stopped in my car at a stop sign countless times in which the cross traffic with no stop sign comes to a complete stop from both directions to let me go. When turning left, it is commonplace for the vehicle in the oncoming lane to come to a stop to let you turn in front of them instead of just assuming you will do it yourself when there is a clearing in the oncoming traffic. Consequently, traffic jams are constantly being created where there are not that many vehicles.
This same passivity prevents Portlanders from being able to merge. I have almost been killed on at least two occasions when the car in front of me comes to the end of an on-ramp to an interstate and suddenly brakes to a complete stop- while I am going 50 mph two seconds behind them. I have heard many Portlanders actually complain when the drivers on the interstate don’t slow up to let them merge instead of speeding up to the flow of traffic to let themselves in. Traffic comes to a stop on the interstates every time it approaches an onramp, then speeds up to the speed limit until it reaches the next onramp.
I will admit it is sometimes humorous. One of my favorite pastimes in this town is watching people try to Parallel Park. But my normal response to these idiots has become to flip them off and scream curses at them until they give up trying to be polite to me and just follow the rules of the road.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Functions of Religion
As I see it, there are two major functions of religion. One is to provide a means by which people can cope with things out of their control, and the other is to provide a society a means to justify its own rules.
(1)Humans generally survive by organizing data and utilizing whatever data is at their disposal to find solutions. Humans have a hard time with the incomprehensible, as it is incompatible with our main method of survival. In order for us to process information, we are programmed to seek justification, reason and logic. All that is not directly informative, including the random and the unknown, cannot be processed by us, and can only be dealt with through emergency back-up coping mechanisms such as humor, ecstasy, fear and rage. Failure to cope results in shock, in which our system shuts down and we cannot function. In order to prevent chaos and confusion from destroying us, we have learned to invent justification, reason and logic where none exists. Religion, morality and science are all means by which we provide explanations for the inexplicable, which we can than use as data for making decisions.
For instance, natural disasters pose a threat to humans because of their unpredictability and uncontrollability. Religion assures that natural disasters are controlled by forces which we can communicate with, giving us a perceived say in their occurrence. In religion, those forces are always logical or acting out in humor, ecstasy, fear or rage (we create gods in our own image), giving reason for their occurrence.
(2)In order for groups of people to cohabitate, rules for cohabitation must be established. Otherwise, chaos would prevent prolonged cohabitation. Before rules can be established, justification for the rules must be found. Religion provides that justification. Religion always echoes the values of its society.
For instance, polytheistic societies value the importance of the skills unique to various members of that society, and those societies are arranged in an attempt to utilize the varied strengths of its members. Monotheistic societies value the importance of leadership, and those societies are arranged to give power to and support its leaders. In reality, most religions efficiently utilize elements of both polytheism and monotheism, echoing the hierarchy of power in their respective societies. A society faithful to and trusting in its religion will be one faithful to and trusting in its rules.
(1)Humans generally survive by organizing data and utilizing whatever data is at their disposal to find solutions. Humans have a hard time with the incomprehensible, as it is incompatible with our main method of survival. In order for us to process information, we are programmed to seek justification, reason and logic. All that is not directly informative, including the random and the unknown, cannot be processed by us, and can only be dealt with through emergency back-up coping mechanisms such as humor, ecstasy, fear and rage. Failure to cope results in shock, in which our system shuts down and we cannot function. In order to prevent chaos and confusion from destroying us, we have learned to invent justification, reason and logic where none exists. Religion, morality and science are all means by which we provide explanations for the inexplicable, which we can than use as data for making decisions.
For instance, natural disasters pose a threat to humans because of their unpredictability and uncontrollability. Religion assures that natural disasters are controlled by forces which we can communicate with, giving us a perceived say in their occurrence. In religion, those forces are always logical or acting out in humor, ecstasy, fear or rage (we create gods in our own image), giving reason for their occurrence.
(2)In order for groups of people to cohabitate, rules for cohabitation must be established. Otherwise, chaos would prevent prolonged cohabitation. Before rules can be established, justification for the rules must be found. Religion provides that justification. Religion always echoes the values of its society.
For instance, polytheistic societies value the importance of the skills unique to various members of that society, and those societies are arranged in an attempt to utilize the varied strengths of its members. Monotheistic societies value the importance of leadership, and those societies are arranged to give power to and support its leaders. In reality, most religions efficiently utilize elements of both polytheism and monotheism, echoing the hierarchy of power in their respective societies. A society faithful to and trusting in its religion will be one faithful to and trusting in its rules.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Introduction
Often, expressing ourselves brings to light how little we know ourselves. Our intention is always to wow another with our expressive prowess, but often ends in a humbling realization that we are ill-equipped to share ourselves. I blame not the mediums used as much as the simple fact that it is impossible to express that which we do not understand. For the most part, we do not and cannot understand that ephemeral “I.” Perhaps it is no surprise then that it is often easier to play devil’s advocate and defend what you don’t believe than it is to actually say what you (think you) believe. Attempting to communicate what I believe gives me a fresh perspective on myself. In times where the communication comes easily, it is a reinforcement of my understanding of those opinions and values. In times of frustration at my inability to communicate, it is a reminder that I don’t fully grasp that which I’m trying to communicate or that those beliefs are being held with little or no justification. In attempting to state a belief, I have often been chagrined to discover I don’t even hold that belief anymore.
My intention in this blog will be to express my opinions, with the simultaneous goals of forcing myself to question me and encouraging others to question themselves. Extrapolating from that which I’ve just expressed, there is no better way to allow others to question themselves than by allowing them to attempt to express who they are.
My intention in this blog will be to express my opinions, with the simultaneous goals of forcing myself to question me and encouraging others to question themselves. Extrapolating from that which I’ve just expressed, there is no better way to allow others to question themselves than by allowing them to attempt to express who they are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)