Open Hatch

The early bird saves a penny, which is pretty much worthless now because of inflation. Which reminds me, a penny earned is a penny saved, which is also pretty much worthless. A penny saved can buy a worm, which is also pretty much worthless. And also pretty gross. And if you teach a man to fish with that worm, you’re just teaching him to eat gross fish his whole life. Unless you like fish, but then you’re probably one of those people who save pennies.

Last night I saw myself in a big movie, speaking lines with big actors, thus enlarging the size of my head. At least, my head was really big on a big screen.

I enjoyed the film a lot. I thought there were a lot of very funny scenes, that it was a riot on the whole, and also that it held together while being poigniant, which is a very difficult thing for a comedy to do.

Afterwards a friend asked if it was weird to see myself on the screen. Yes, it was disorienting - the shots for my scene were assembled with a timing and sequence different from what I imagined, and the improvised lines weren’t used. I was so distracted wondering about the cause it took me a long while to suspend disbelief again.

Good shots and lines can be taken out of films if they break editorial continuity - not matching other shots, etc. It can be painful but better the film.

I’ll look forward to seeing the official Utah premiere without my distractions, on the 7th.

I was thinking this morning that when you’re a kid, you have imaginary friends. But as you grow up, you figure out how to disagree. So that by the time you are an adult, instead of having imaginary friends, you have imaginary enemies. Take blogging. I argue with people I’ve never met - they can’t really exist, who would say such idiotic things? - they’re all just a part of this.. internet thingamabob that makes up words that I hate. And here I thought that I had lost all my imaginary friends, driven them all away with my petulance - but I’ve realized, with great gratitude, that they went into the internet! All my old imaginary friends turned into enemies! Here they are, me disagreeing with them all the time!

I’ve started reading a book for not finding what I really want - a history of philosophy by someone who at least admits the verities of philisophical absolutism.

This book I am reading is A History of Western Philosophy. Here we have a premise I find extremely interesting; to explore philosophy in light of how it both causes and is an effect of the collective actions of humanity in history.

I am reading the introduction, and Betrand Russell’s game becomes very clear.

Theology, on the other hand, induces a dogmatic belief that we have knowledge where in fact we have ignorance, and by doing so generates a kind of impertinent insolence towards the universe. Uncertainty, in the presence of vivid hopes and fears, is painful, but must be endured if we wish to live without the support of comforting fairy tales. It is not good either to forget the questions that philosophy asks, or to pursuade ourselves that we have found indubitable answers to them.

The first sentence I quote here asserts that theology actually generates insolence towards the universe. What conception of the universe? That of observed and infered fact? My theology holds the opposite of contempt for well-reasoned observations. Disagreements only arise from religious principle, but disagreement doesn’t amount to contempt. Second: Theologies are “fairy tales?” That is deeply insulting to the professed religious experience of uncounted billions of people. Was Bertrand Russell the one who coined that particular insult? I’ve heard it in many places. Third: Bertrand asserts that we have only pursuaded ourselves that we have found right answers, or in other words, that religion doesn’t have them. Further, Bertrand is saying it is good not to find answers, which amounts to an absolute statement that there are no absolutes, which doesn’t work.

I’m sure I’ll enjoy the ideas this book presents, though I’m watching them very, very carefully.

Clark (to whom I have previously blogged, later to argue with his guests) at libertypages.com draws my attention to an article by one Josh at melbournephilosopher.com. Someday I will understand the references Clark makes. I may also only half grasp what Josh is saying, but I’ll respond to what I grasp.

Clark conscisely summarizes Josh’s argument:
Read More »

Yesterday I saw an old man with a bludgeon, flogging a little boy. And it seemed like a really bad thing for that old man to do, but then I thought to myself, well, maybe the little boy did something really bad. It’s all about context, man.