Rational Autonomy

The Evil of the LOST Premise

2010-05-24T17:50:00.000-07:00

"Evil" may be a bit strong. But it sounded good for a title, so be it.

First, some methodological considerations. Clearly, this will be a critical analysis (I found the series, including the final episode to be very entertaining, but also evil), and doing such, especially early, always has its dangers. But, it is a TV show, so I'll take the associated risks. Second, the show has a plethora of unsolved mysteries. There are many reasons to leave mysteries unsolved (inability to solve them while remaining entertaining; they were meant to be left to the viewer's imagination; they were merely devices to move the plot; etc.). Yet, in spite of these various possibilities, I take it that a theory that explains more mysteries is to be preferred, all things considered, to one that explains fewer. Third, though I have done a bit of research before writing this, I surely have done less than I could have. Finally, I state the obvious in certain places precisely because there seems to be confusions over the obvious when it comes to LOST.

Christian Shephard nearly-clearly explains much of the show's meaning at the end. The Island was real, everything that happened on it was real, and everyone on it was real. The side-verse (the alternate timeline we received throughout the final season) was not real. It was purgatory. And, the show ends with them heading to Heaven. This we all know pretty much for sure.

Now, there's two possible stances we can take on this Heaven ending (which is reminiscent of BSG): either it was a deux ex machina used to wrap everything up in a Pollyanna sort of way to make everyone happy (while at the same time allowing them to come off as a serious show that was willing to kill off major characters who no one wanted to see die), or it was planned all along and fits with the major themes of the show.

I think it is too easy to conclude the former; the latter is in fact correct.

So, here's the less important bit: the true meaning of the central plot element. The energy source in the middle of the island is not merely a MacGuffin. It is the energy source that powers the path from Earth to Heaven (or just Heaven -- I believe it is the former, but I'll discuss it as the latter for sake of ease). I'm fairly confident about this.

So, why think it? Because all signs point to the idea that extinguishing the energy source would lead to unspeakable evil being unleashed throughout the world. But this doesn't yet make sense. Suppose we let the energy source that powers Heaven die out. Why would that unleash evil? Wouldn't the power source for Hell make more sense here?

You would think so, but that would be to miss the two more important bits: the show is in the end, and always has been, about free will and faith. I might be wrong about the power source for Heaven bit, but I'm not wrong about the free will and faith bits (and I conclude this about both, even though only free will seems to be openly discussed amongst the makers of the show).

The latter two help explain the Heaven part. The reason we can see that the source powers Heaven is because (a) the Island is clearly intended to be a positive thing; and (b) it fits with the narrative that it is nearly impossible for humans to freely choose goodness unless they have faith in their salvation. Thus, were the energy source for Heaven to be squelched, there would be no salvation, no faith, and no goodness (so the show writers would want us to believe).

Thus, Jacob's tests are explained (Jacob is the Man in White, who it turns out was once just a regular boy, but who became the protector of the island, which led to superpowers of sorts and a lifespan that lasts several hundred years at least), as are the constant failures. The entire point of Jacob's tests is to discover a person (or group) that was morally pure. But, this moral purity is not one of doing good acts purely for the sake of goodness. No, it clearly is a purity that is found in belief in a higher power without question or reasoning. Jacob required blind faith all along.

This point is a reoccurring theme throughout the show, even long before we meet Jacob. But certainly in his every episode as well. The Man in Black (MiB) actually was quite reasonable (though it turned out he was lying): he provided explanations for his views, and reasoned with each candidate for why they should join him in what seems like a perfectly sane task that all could agree with -- leaving the Island.

Jacob on the other hand consistently (merely) insisted that others do as he told them to. Even as Ben is about to kill him, he merely tells Ben not to. But MiB actually reasons with Ben, and provides further evidence, such as in his appearance as Ben's daughter. MiB represents (here and elsewhere through the show) reasoned and evidenced based modes of persuasion. Jacob represents blind faith. Sure, MiB is lying. And sure, that's clearly important. But, how can anyone know that? Well, like in every previous season, they can only know by relying on their deep feelings and instincts (such as when Ben, in every previous season made demands that ran contrary to demands made by ghosts, the real Locke, and others who likewise provided neither reasons nor evidence).

And, in fact, the characters who turn out to be right, amongst the candidates, are the ones who allow themselves to be guided only by their instincts: Locke and Hurley are right about the Island and their views from the beginning -- though it is not at all clear why they should be (they never had evidence for their optimism and reliance on the Island's magic). The characters whose thinking is more reason and science based (Jack and Sawyer) turn out to be completely wrong -- until the very moment when Jack finally comes around and lets go... of SCIENCE and REASONING. And then it is Sawyer who refuses to merely trust Jack and gets Jin and Sun killed.

Thus, one cannot fully understand the show by concentrating on free will alone. Free will makes the most intuitive sense when it is coupled by options -- and those options are made most concrete when at least one is made substantial through the representation of a correct path. In this show, what makes the options concrete is faith, as backed by intuition. One chooses well when one chooses to believe blindly in those who one intuits are good.

Sawyer should have listened to Jack.
Jack finally listened to Jacob.
Locke and Hurley listened to the Island all along.

Everyone who listened to MiB's reasoning, and acted based on his provided evidence, failed. Just as Michael ended up killing Ana Lucia and Libby, simply because he believed the wrong people (and he, therefore, is undeserving of salvation in Heaven, and must forever suffer -- though Sayid the torturer is allowed in). They chose their reason over blind faith and intuition -- and they paid the price.

Thus, it turns out that the right decision was to save the energy source. Why? None of the characters are ever told -- they cannot be. The mysteries cannot be solved for them; if they were solved, they wouldn't be believing on blind faith alone. They are merely told enough to be able to obey. If they don't obey, they lose Heaven for everyone. And with the loss of Heaven, we would all lose faith, and we would necessarily turn to evil. But, in the end, even the man of "science" turns over to faith, and the Island is saved. Thus, they can all go to Heaven.

So, why does God put the energy source for Heaven in an Island on Earth? Because humans as a whole wouldn't deserve Heaven if none of them were able to protect it based on their faith in those who are giving them orders to do so, without any basis in reason or evidence.

The Island is the test that proves our worthiness of Heaven -- and Heaven is the precondition of our ability to be good. Thus, all goodness derives from a gift that we earn by ignoring our rationality.

So, in the end, I think the show was evil. Well, maybe "evil" is too strong, like I said. But, this entire idea -- that pure morality is based on ignoring reason and going with your faith, which tells you to follow orders from people that you intuit are good -- is clearly a good source of evil. It is, in fact, a necessary ingredient for all the great evils in the history of our race, give or take a massacre here and there. So, in supporting this premise throughout the show, I suppose that does in fact make the show evil.

Someday I shall blog again...

2008-11-22T14:05:00.000-08:00

Apparently being an assistant professor is as busy as writing a dissertation. And after working on the interpretation of Bohemian Rhapsody for several weeks, I just haven't gotten around to returning to the whole blogging thing.

But, I do have a new webpage. It's www.RationalAutonomy.Com. Visit me there and let me know what you think!

BTYL,
James

Bohemian Rhapsody Interpretation

2006-06-21T11:33:00.000-07:00

Bohemian Rhapsody is perhaps the greatest song ever written. It is not my favorite song. That's either Randy Newman's God's Song or Barnes & Barnes' Fish Heads. But there's something so admirable about Bo Rap that I just have to see it as the greatest song that's ever written. I've seen a few interpretations of it on the internet, but I feel they try to hard to do the impossible (arguing it is about AIDS years before AIDS existed) or to treat Freddie Mercury as if he is not to be treated as a literary genius. Here's my humble attempt to treat him more like that:

Here's the beginning of the song:

Is this the real life-
Is this just fantasy-
Caught in a landslide-
No escape from reality-
Open your eyes
Look up to the skies and see-

My interpretation of the song as a whole is simple: Freddy feels that if he becomes gay, he will die in the eyes of his mother, but he realizes a part of him is already gay, so there's a part of him that is already dead: whether the gay side or the side that loves his mother, a part of him is dead already, and it is at most his choice which side dies, but he can never be a whole person: both gay and the son of his mother. The song is his cry for help about being forced to choose who he is when he cannot simply remain himself.

In the opening, we see the setup for the horrible tragedy of the choice throughout: If only this were simply a fantasy, but it is not, it is reality, and it is down a landslide he is headed...no escape from reality, as much as he would like to close his eyes and pretend it is a fantasy, he must open them and see...Look up to the sky is not a positive claim here, but instead connects to the line three above: he is the one falling down the landslide...

I'm just a poor boy,i need no sympathy-
Because I'm easy come,easy go,
A little high,little low,
Anyway the wind blows,doesn't really matter to me,
To me

It is of course very important that Freddie is not a poor boy. In fact, he grew up in India, but also England, and had a childhood that he actually said he quite enjoyed ("My time at boarding school was very enjoyable...") So, what does he mean by calling himself a poor boy?

There are of course two Freddie's in this discussion: one the poor (gay) boy, who is a little low, and another, the family boy, who is not poor at all, but is a little high.

I think this stanza, early on, establishes the dual nature of the song: the family boy easily comes in and is welcomed, but the poor boy is easily sent out and shunned.

Mama,just killed a man,
Put a gun against his head,
Pulled my trigger,now he's dead,
Mama,life had just begun,
But now I've gone and thrown it all away-
Mama ooo,
Didn't mean to make you cry-
If I'm not back again this time tomorrow-
Carry on,carry on,as if nothing really matters-

This is in some sense the true beginning of the song. In most shortened versions, this is how the song begins, "Mama, just killed a man."

Of course, that man is himself. Or his family-loved, childhood self.

But the gay self has put a gun against his head, pulled the trigger, now he's dead.

Mama, life had just begun.

He was 14 when he had his first homosexual affair. He's gone and thrown it all away.

He's made his mama cry.

If I'm not back again this time tomorrow-

Carry on,carry on,as if nothing really matters-

In a surface reading of this song, it is the person who pulled the gun who won't be back tomorrow.

But I think it is the family-loved, childhood self who won't be back tomorrow. Won't ever be back.

But, his family will carry on, carry on, as if nothing really matters ...

This is a paradigm mark of depression. All depressed people wonder whether things will carry on, carry on without them. The world will. We all know that. Will everyone else? Will your friends? Will your family? Will your mother? These are the questions of every depressed person contemplating the end. Contemplating whether they really matter, or if, as they believe, nothing really matters.

Here's the stanza we are currently on:

Too late,my time has come,
Sends shivers down my spine-
Body's aching all the time,
Goodbye everybody-I've got to go-
Gotta leave you all behind and face the truth-
Mama ooo- (any way the wind blows)
I don't want to die,
I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all-

There's nothing here that requires any additional explanation given the theory at hand.

Too late,my time has come,

His time has come...to come out of the closet.

It is too late to go back.

Goodbye everybody-I've got to go-

Who's got to go? The Freddie that his family loved.

Gotta leave you all behind and face the truth-

But, that one has got to leave you all behind and face the truth -- that the other one -- the one out of the closet -- is the true Freddie.

And of course, the song is addressed to the same person throughout: Mama ooo-

But, there's this fake optimism that comes along, in the background, not through the lead singer, if I am right (any way the wind blows). It is common through the song. It represents two things: the dual nature of the entire song: one of them is strong; strongly moving on with his life as the family's son is dying, the other accepts his place kicked out of the family. It also represents though that there's something false about this acceptance -- he cannot really accept that his family does not accept him, but he, in his mask, pretends he can, but really....

I don't want to die,

We immediately get back to the person who wants to be both selves -- both gay and accepted by his family...

I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all-

And, the stanza, like the last one, ends with a strong bit of depression. The acceptance of his fate, the acceptance of the blowing of the wind, was, as told previously here, always a false mask.

Here's the next bit:

I see a little silhouetto of a man,
Scaramouche,scaramouche will you do the fandango-
Thunderbolt and lightning-very very frightening me-

We start with a sense of smallness in the distance. There's a little silhouetto of a man. It's not a big man. It is not even a man. It is a little silhouetto of a man. It is one of the two Freddie's -- and I think it is obvious which one, but if not, the rest will make it clear.

Here's the Wikipedia entry on Scaramouche:

Scaramouche is a historical novel by Rafael Sabatini, originally published in 1921 and subsequently adapted into a play by Barbara Field and into feature films in 1923 starring Ramón Novarro and 1952 with Stewart Granger. It is a romantic adventure and tells the story of a young aristocrat during the French Revolution. In the course of his adventures he at one point becomes an actor portraying "Scaramouche" (also called Scaramuccia, a roguish buffoon character in the commedia dell'arte). He also becomes in the course of the novel a lawyer, politician, and lover, confounding his enemies with his elegant orations and precision swordsmanship. The later film version includes one of the longest, and many believe, best swashbuckling sword-fighting scenes ever filmed.

The novel has a memorable start: (BOOK I: THE ROBE, CHAPTER I, 'THE REPUBLICAN') "He was born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad. And that was all his patrimony. His very paternity was obscure, although the village of Gavrillacs had long since dispelled the cloud of mystery that hung about it."

The man who is merely a little silhouetto of a man is also a Scaramouche. I wonder whether Freddie had read the novel. I bet he read this beginning. It is of course possible that he meant it to be a reference to the stock characther, Scaramuccia, from Italian plays, but it is also possible that he read the novel, and those opening lines. It is a reference to someone born with the gift of laughter in a world that was mad, but with obscure paternity, and who, through the novel, comes on to play many roles to define who he is and win his love.

It's not at all mysterious given this reading. He is a little silhouetto of a man who must pretend to be someone else to be free and find his love. His paternity is obscure, but not because there is a mystery about who his parents are, but because it is not clear they are any longer his parents.

If as the website says, this opening is famous, then it is sufficient that Freddie knew about it to make the points above.

Then, of course, my favorite line for my interpretation:

Thunderbolt and lightning-very very frightening: me.

It is very important that contrary to the way many do the syntax of this line, there is a stop after "frightening." There are thunderbolts and lightening, as if to mark a change in the play. This is quite common in plays of the sort that Scaramouche would be. When characters undergo drastic transformation, the scene lights up with lightning and the stage roars with the sounds of thunderbolts. Then comes out the new person, the new changed person, such as inthe old Conan show at Universal Studies, when he goes from being a skinny boy to a buff man.

Thus, the me suggests a new me that wasn't there before this line.

The old " me" was the family-boy who was loved by his parents. But that boy can no longer be. That boy must put on a mask to the world and leave his parents behind. That boy must become like Scaramouche -- he must change who he is so that he can be loved by someone else -- his parents won't love him.

So, post-thunderbolts and lightning, the new "me" is the gay singer, who invited the old me to do the fandango, but it is too late, there is now only one Freddie remaining.

Galileo,galileo,
Galileo galileo
Galileo figaro-magnifico-

There are lots of rumors that Galileo is gay, but I can't find anything on the internet about it, so I want to hold back on that. After all, there's the following argument:

Everything is on the internet.
Galileo being gay is not on the internet.
:. It is not true.

But, by the same premises, I think the conclusion also follows that it is not false since by "Everything" I think we can mean everything that is both true and false, and so, Galileo being gay must be incoherent, but that too would be on the internet, so I don't know what to make of it.

Instead, I think it should be more properly linked to the previous line, immediately prior to Galileo:
Thunderbolt & Lightening. Very Very Frightening: Me.

What Galileo is of course known for is two things: a) discover of the center of the solar system; and b) an outcast.

In this sense, I don't think it matters whether he was gay: he was outcasted because he discovered something (that Earth is not the center of the universe) that went against religious teaching -- just as Freddie has discovered something (that he's gay) that goes against religious teachings. Galileo is a hero for his discovery now, and Freddie calls out to him upon being re-born in the previous line. Just as Galileo fought against religious teachings and was killed, Freddie's previous self -- the one loved by his parents -- has made a discovery and was killed -- earlier in the song. Now, Freddie wants to go on and be a hero for being a new person, one who made a giant discovery that changed the way religion should look at the world.

What we should expect if this interpretation is right is that there's a religious reference later in the song. And of course, that's what we get..."Bismillah!" The first word of the Koran. Thus, his discovery is meant to change the way religions ought to think, and he is later in the song suggesting that religion must start over and accept homosexuality (though religion, as we will see, will refuse, "No! We will not let you go!" is their response to Bismillah. No restart. No acceptance...but of course, this is exactly what they did to Galileo as well. And look where he is now: mentioned in probably the finest song ever written...).

Figaro is the lead character in the Barber of Seville, an opera made famous by Alfalfa, who is pictured here.

Figaro is just a poor boy from a poor family, but he too was a bit of an innovation on the world stage -- somewhat an innovation that not only changed religion, but also the world. You could even say, he was magnifico.

Figaro's character, in the Barber of Seville, is the first servant in an opera to stand as an intellectual equal to his master. Like we are accustomed today, he plays the wiley servant who outsmarts not only his master's enemy, but also does so at a rate that his master cannot keep up with. It is something we are accustomed to today, but Figaro is the first.

It is the second play of the trilogy though that stands out as revolutionary, the Marriage of Figaro. Louis the XVI banned this play, and Mozart rewrote it to take out the best parts. I assume Freddie would have been aware of this operatic history.

For example, here is a speech of Figaro's, which I believe is lost in the Mozart version that you can see performed today:

"Because you are a great nobleman," he says to the Count, "you think you are a great genius. Nobility, fortune, rank, position! How proud they make a man feel! What have you done to deserve such advantages? Put yourself to the trouble of being born - nothing more! For the rest - a very ordinary man. Whereas I, lost among the obscure crowd, have had to deploy more knowledge, more calculation and skill merely to survive than has sufficed to rule all the provinces of Spain for a century."

Or this exchange:

the Count complains that "the servants in this house take longer to dress than their masters" to which Figaro replies, "Because they have no servants to assist them."

The play was a big hit, and perhaps led to the French Revolution, which began about five years after the release of the play, which played for 100 days. You can read more about it here.

There's a clear change within six lines of the song between two individuals:

A silhouette of a man/Scaramouch
Galileo/Figaro

There's two Freddie's as well: the one who fits along with the two members of 1, who is now dead, and the new Freddie, who attempts to be like Galileo and Figaro: a discover of a new path that changes the world.

Thus, this is the crucial climax of the song. There's a soft, slow moving struggle between the two up to here, and we are now warming up to a heated fight...The old Freddie is dead, but there's a new one here now, ready to blaze a new path -- a path of self-discovery, and a path that will change the world... a path that is magnifico...

But I'm just a poor boy and nobody loves me-
He's just a poor boy from a poor family-
Spare him his life from this monstrosity-
Easy come easy go-,will you let me go-

I've covered much of this one before, but I think the point is just that he's poor in love -- from a family that's poor in love.

It is not clear what the "monstrosity" is.

Is it his homosexuality, or is it his mother?
Or, is it the combination of the the two that costs him his mother's love?
I take it it is that one since no where in the song does he attack his homosexuality, and it is unclear if he ever straightforwardly attacks his mother.

It is also an important shift in the song -- both in the lyrics and the music. It draws you back to the beginning of the song after the major change to a different type of song.

The "But" is very significant then -- it signals that he's not ready for the huge change that the thunderbolt and lightening brought out. He's not as ready to go on his own voyage of discovery, ala Galileo. There's a holding back. He's not a discover -- he's a poor boy from a poor family.
Something's holding him back -- the other him.
This suggests a new meaning for the line:

Spare him his life from this monstrosity-
Maybe the one who wants saving is the old Freddie -- the one who we thought was murdered, but as happens in operas such as this one, maybe not -- just as the new one is experiencing his birth -- the old one is attempting to hold on.

And hold on he does, by refusing to grow into the new Freddie -- by refusing to accept "this monstrosity."

But the new Freddie still wants out -- he wants to be let go, by his family, by his old self -- into the new world where he can be his true self, and be happy with it, but something's holding on, so he has to ask:

Easy come easy go-,will you let me go-
Bismillah! no-,we will not let you go-let him go-
Bismillah! we will not let you go-let him go
Bismillah! we will not let you go-let me go
Will not let you go-let me go
Will not let you go let me go
No,no,no,no,no,no,no-

Notice, the first word of the first three lines is always "Bismillah!" The first word of the Koran -- suggesting an attempt to start over -- start over with the acceptance of God (and his mother and his old self), but no, he does not get that acceptance...he can only start over without acceptance, which we will see in the last two lines...

Mama mia,mama mia,mama mia let me go-
Beelzebub has a devil put aside for me,for me,for me-

The first line here is obvious for the interpretation given so far. Everything's leading up to it. He's transitioned to his new/gay self. He's only looking for his mother's accpetance. Will she let him go (be himself)? Of course, we know the answer is no.

But if the answer is no, then we have a dual meaning for the next line.

On one meaning (the surface one), I think Beelzebub is be taken as something bad:
the standard take is that the devil has put a devil aside for him.
This is not a crazy reading. He's forced into a new life; a rather scary life to be starting on; and his mother will not be there to guide/protect him, as mothers are known to do. His best hope is that a devil will guide him, but that is of course a confused hope since the Devil is the one who has put forth the devil for him. He's being led into a dangerous life, and his only guide is a devil sent by the Devil.
As he has gone against his parents, and he has gone against his religion, he can expect no Angel to guide him.
The "No" in this case is coming from both his mother and his religion: Neither will "mama mia" let him go, nor will his restart of religion, ala "Bismillah."

But I don't think that's the best interpretation of the song as a whole. The thunderbolt and lightning, as they always do in an epic performance such as this one, signify a peaking change. They are immediately followed by a pulling back -- it's the peak of a moutain, not a cliff. He's struggled to this point, he's finally turning it around and accepting himself. So, I don't see this line as being a bad thing, but a mixed message.

So, I don't take it as a sign that it is Satan or the Lord of the Flies that is keeping a devil put aside for him. No, he's on a new start, and in spite of it being a start that leaves back his mother and his old self, it is a start that is positive.

So, who is Beelzebub?

Two things to say. And of course, we don't know what Freddie knew, so it's always hard to guess at these things.

But we can think he would be familiar with the bible. The passage where Jesus is accused of working for Beelzebul is quite odd:

Jesus and the Ruler of Demons
(Matthew 12.22-32; Luke 11.14-23; 12.10)
20 Jesus went back home,
w 3.20 went back home: Or "entered a house" (perhaps the home of Simon Peter).
and once again such a large crowd gathered that there was no chance even to eat. 21 When Jesus' family heard what he was doing, they thought he was crazy and went to get him under control.

22 3.22 Mt 9.34; 10.25.
Some teachers of the Law of Moses came from Jerusalem and said, "This man is under the power of Beelzebul, the ruler of demons! He is even forcing out demons with the help of Beelzebul."
23 Jesus told the people to gather around him. Then he spoke to them in riddles and said:
How can Satan force himself out? 24 A nation whose people fight each other won't last very long. 25 And a family that fights won't last long either. 26 So if Satan fights against himself, that will be the end of him.
27 How can anyone break into the house of a strong man and steal his things, unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can take everything.
28 I promise you that any of the sinful things you say or do can be forgiven, no matter how terrible those things are.
29 3.29 Lk 12.10.
But if you speak against the Holy Spirit, you can never be forgiven. That sin will be held against you forever.
30 Jesus said this because the people were saying that he had an evil spirit in him.

You can notice right away that Jesus never denies that he works for Beelzebub. It's a little less clear in the other texts (Matthey and Luke), but he never denies it. There are two interpretations of the text, one more dangerous than the other, but not if you don't worry about these sorts of things: 1 is that Jesus is denying he works for Beelzebub because the latter is Satan; 2 is that Jesus is denying that Beelzebub ought to be associated with Satan, but ought to be associated with the Holy Spirit.

So, who is Beelzebub? Or Baal?

Well, he's a Semitic God. It's actually a title that can be used for any semitic God. But, then it is not that bad of a thing, is it? Jesus is semitic, so it makes sense that Baal is a title that could be used for his God as well.

In fact, we can think of Beelzebub as a name for any god.

But, if this is meant to be a positive thing, why should Beelzebub put aside a devil for him?

On the surface reading, it is a devil put aside because he's done wrong.

But, no this reading, it is a devil put aside because he's about to enter the fight of his life.

If right, we'd expect the next lines to show a strong, fighting Freddie, whose ready for what the world has for him because he's getting help. Not help from a standard deity, but help from a new deity who accepts him for who he truly is. If right, the next lines should be about strength in the face of acceptance of adversity...

So you think you can stone me and spit in my eye-
So you think you can love me and leave me to die-
Oh baby-can't do this to me baby-
Just gotta get out-just gotta get right outta here-

Nothing really matters,
Anyone can see,

Nothing really matters-,nothing really matters to me,

Any way the wind blows....

Nothing really matters-,nothing really matters to me,

Any way the wind blows....

The ending of the song, unfortunately requires little more work than the rest did. It sums up the argument I've been making just as in PCU when Gene Hackman and Michael Caine appear in the same movie.

I think most readings of the song will suffer at this point. How do we make sense of the sudden change in music and lyrics unless we think of a rebirth -- a bringing about of a new Freddie? One where the devil is not out to get him, but out to protect him? And from whom?
Mama.
He's just killed a guy, we learn at the beginning of the song, what right could he possibly have to be so defiant now? What right could he have to be on the defensive? And he's not on the defensive in a weak way. The lyrics alone don't tell us that, but the music does. He's changed. He's a new guy. Why? Because the guy he killed was the weak version of himself. The weakness is dead now. The devil is there to carry along and help out this new Freddie, who you cannot treat like crap like the old Freddie.

So, he's getting out of here. You can't do this to him, baby, because he's out. He's out of his old life as weak Freddie, he's into his new life as strong Freddie. It is all over for anyone who thinks you can spit in his eye.

It is all over for his mother thinking she can determine who he is.

His identity is no longer a product of what his mother wants it to be.

Strong Freddie's identity is up to Strong Freddie.

Now, when we hear this openness to change, this openness to go with the wind, it is not empty. It is not weak Freddie who wanted to be open to accepting what the world laid out for him, but could not. It is strong Freddie, who really is going to go any way the wind blows... but with a devil put aside to help him along...

Fini

Thanks Mona for all your help and for putting up with my haphazard pace of doing this...

George Hincapie

2006-06-21T09:22:00.000-07:00

I've decided, contrary to what I'd like to believe, that Hincapie can't win le Tour.

Just like Michael Rasmussen can't win, Hincapie can't.

There's something so deceptive about the tour: you can't rely on some positive past results as positive indicators. How well Hincapie did on the hardest stage last year (winning it, of course) is an indicator that he can't win, not that he can.

In cycling, there are always these reversed indicators. The problem is that people tend to do well for reasons that have to do much more with the psychology of the other riders than their own skills. Last year, the leaders of the race let Hincapie win the hardest stage because they knew he wasn't allowed to do more than that. He was, by definition, no threat to them. This year, he's a big threat, and so no one will let him get away with a win like that.

Just like Rasmussen last year rode in second place for so long because no one gave a crap what he did. If they had, he would never have been allowed to attack as much as he did.

This race really comes down to Basso, Ullrich, Vino (if he's allowed in), and Valverde (if he can finish). I'd like to root for an Anglo, but I don't think Landis, Evans, or Leipheimer can win the whole thing.

I'm saying Ullrich over Basso for two reasons, one conditional: Basso won the Giro, which has to count against him, and Vino will give Basso headaches. Of course, Vinokourov's team might get suspended for doping, and that will cost Ullrich, I think. I think Ullrich's strategy will be to stay on Basso's wheel in the mountains and beat him in the huge amount of time travels. That won't work unless Basso breaks due to being tired from the Giro or Vino attacks relentlessly (does he attack any other way?) and Basso's team (CSC) can't decide how to deal with him, thus giving Ullrich a chance in the confusion.

Of course, we'll know who is going to win by July 19. If Basso doesn't have 2 minutes more on Ullrich after that day's mountain finish and the July 18 Alpe d'Huez, then he's in big trouble.

Lacking Bias is a Bias

2006-06-15T08:43:00.000-07:00

Here's a recent Post of "Ask Yahoo"

Dear Yahoo!:

Are there more males or females in the world?

Anna-Marie
Troy, Michigan

Dear Anna-Marie:

As kids, we were told women outnumber men. After looking up the actual stats, we're confident that's just something moms tell their sons to scare them.

According to GeoHive.com, a site specializing in population statistics, there are around 3,248,080,000 males on the planet and around 3,214,983,000 females. That translates to men accounting for 50.25% of the population.

Interestingly, ratios vary from country to country. For example, the United States has around 4.8 million more females than males. However, in China, males outnumber females by nearly 36 million. In Cuba, the number of males and females is about equal, give or take a few thousand.

---End Quote---

Now, anyone who has read their Amartya Sen knows the horrible bias this article has in it. But, you need not have read any nobel prize winning economist to know that there's a bias here. Look at the numbers above. The country given as an example of having more males than females is a country that's infamous for having citizens who take drastic measures for keeping their male population higher than female. The fact that the world has a higher number of males is not an unbiased fact, but a statement of a tragedy in disguise. Sen's argument in his influential work on this subject is that women outnumber men whenever there are no significant disadvantages in a country based on gender, whether they be medical, literacy rates, or otherwise. The fact that as a world we have more men means we are doing something wrong, on average.

Why am I writing to disagree with Yahoo?

I don't know.

But I think it is important that "you can't be neutral on a moving train," to quote Howard Zinn. Just to quote a statistic without bias is to already have a bias. That's kinda neat.

Tired of Victims Making Arguments

2006-06-09T08:14:00.000-07:00

Ann Coulter recently said on O'Reilly's radio show that she's, "tired of victims making arguments." Now, it is a radio show, so I'm paraphrasing, but I am certain I heard the last three words, and something sufficiently resembling "tired" to be confident of the quote.

So, why, in a day when she is saying so many precious things about these witches/harpies, who we all know are enjoying their husbands' deaths, especially since those husbands were probably going to divorce them for their incessant witchcraft anyway.

But, I think this quote is probably the most important. She's tired of victims making arguments, and I want to throw in my hat on this one, and say, so am I!

I mean, people, you've got to come to see the division of labor in our society. In the end, there can be only one Decider. But, there can be only a few more people allowed to make arguments, while the rest of us can only sit back and take in their conclusions.

That's what true democracy is all about. And that's because arguments work best when they are never debated.
For, if we allow debate, we'll allow different opinions, and if we allow that, then we'll get more options, and then we'll make it much harder to make decisions, which will all end up making life harder for the Decider!

So, on this one quote degrading 9/11 victims, I will have to agree with Ann Coulter.
It is in fact important that one does not become either a decider or an acceptable argument maker by merely becoming a victim.

Instead, you should star in action films, and then you can go ahead and make arguments, and, if you are lucky, maybe even a decision or two.

Isn't a limited number of people who can acceptably make arguments while the media tells us what to think what democracy is all about?

The Non-Binding Nature of the Self-Contract

2006-05-12T14:12:00.000-07:00

Herein lies the Definitive Proof for the Presentist View of Self-Identity

Who am I?
I've already established I'm not Gmail, but who am I?

There's one view, called "the Presentist Self-Identity View" that claims I am who I am in whatever time-slice I currently am in, at the present.

I am me-in-my-present-time-slice.

I am me-right-now.

I am Present-Me.

At least I believe there could be such a view.

I also could have just made it up.

But it fits well enough with things I remember that I doubt I made it up.

Though I likely made up its name, since the present me is too lazy to look something like this up.
Well, you might wonder whether there has been any definitive proof of the Presentist Self-Identity View. (I'm actually wondering the same thing since I never looked it up!)

Well, here is the proof (and my apologies to anyone who already made such a proof. Apparently the me that was here twenty seconds ago is too "lazy" to have looked it up).

I am generally pretty good at keeping my promises.
If I make a promise to a person, I almost always keep it.
What can prevent me from keeping a promise?
Well, like most people, I must admit there are some people I don't wholly respect.
Okay, no good example is coming to mind (but if one did, I certainly would publish it in a blog!).
But, if there was someone I didn't wholly respect, I might be more tempted to not keep my promises.
In fact, we can consider it an argument from my failure to keep promises with someone that I didn't wholly respect them.
As a matter of fact, there is one guy that I almost never keep promises with!
That guy is future-me!
Just last Thursday, I told future-me that if present-me was allowed to work into the night to finish a paper for my upcoming presentation, then future-me could exercise that weekend to make up for the missed Thursday exercise.
Well, it's now Tuesday? Did weekend-me exercise?
Hell no! I'm not wasting good weekend time on exercise!
So, what happened?
Perhaps the best explanation is that I don't respect future-me.
I hardly took my promise to future-me's seriously at all.
I did feel a little guilt, but I never attempted to get out and exercise.
And, this is the sort of thing I do all the time.
Sometimes I tell future-me that I will skip dessert Tuesday if I could gladly have it today.
But then Tuesday comes around, and there I am having dessert, yet again.
I don't think I respect future-me!
But I certainly do respect present-me: look at all the sweets and excuses to avoid exercise I give him with my deceitful promises to future-me!
I cheat future-me in order to benefit present me.
:. Future-me and Present-me are different people.
:. The Presentist View of Self-Identity is proven true.

Damn, that feels good.

I'm going to go have some dessert to celebrate.

But I promise to exercise later, and even not to have dessert later, so it's okay to have a little celebration now.

The Usurpation of Me

2006-05-10T09:22:00.000-07:00

Who is this "Me" that keeps emailing me?

Each email is vaguely familiar when I receive it.

And, this person tends to email me quite often right after I've emailed myself.

Is the "Me" that keeps emailing me, me?

I'm not quite sure.

You see, I'm not within my computer, nor within my computer internet software, nor within my emailing program. There's no "me" in there.

But "Me" keeps emailing me.

Why doesn't the email say it is from, "You," where you is not you, but me, but as being spoken to by my emailing program.

I use Gmail, personally.

Gmail is not me.

It has no actual domain over me.

Gmail can refer to me as, "You" or even, "James."

I'm okay with being on a first name basis with Gmail, or with Gmail letting me know that I emailed myself.

But I'm not sure if Gmail can tell me that "Me" has emailed me.

Because, I'm not Gmail.

You see?

Signed,
Me

Philosophy of Race

2006-05-02T09:21:00.000-07:00

Philosophy 150 (Society and Morals) this Summer Session C at UCLA will be Philosophy of Race.

Much of the thinking in the philosophy of race field starts with a simple empirical fact: there's no such thing as race. Now, philosophers are quite well known for picking at statements for no good reason. "Of course," one would annoyingly say, "there's such a thing as race, it's a politically/socially constructed concept used to identify groups, often for the subjugation of some and the uplifting of the privilege of others."

Well, in that sense, maybe there is such a thing as race, but there's no biologically defined category of race that we might use to determine other factors about people due to their racial membership. There's no biological way to determine whether someone is intelligent or good at basketball based on their race. There's no such thing as race, in that sense.

But, race is clearly a thing in a socially-constructed sense, and philosophy of race attempts to figure out what that means and how it affects us.

In Philosophy 150, coming this summer to a UCLA near you, we will be attempting to answer this question. Specifically, we will be looking at the ways in which a socially constructed concept
deeply affects our identity. Each of us, whether we like it, or whether we like it some of the time and for some things, identifies with our race. Society would not allow us to do otherwise. Even people who adamantly attempt to opt out ("I don't see races, only people" type of people), have too much of their identity socially formed to actually opt out. And, it might be that the "I don't see races, only people" type of people have something right (that's one of the things we'll be trying to figure out), but they just can't choose to opt out, even in the most fundamental sense of how race affects their very own identity.

But what does this mean? How can I not be in charge of forming my identity? What's this "identity" thing anyway? If you think it is socially constructed, shouldn't we refer to it more like a social-dentity, since you don't even think I get to do it by myself? And, if so, maybe I will just stop caring about "social-dentities."

Dang! Hold up! Don't get so excited. This will be one of the issues we'll tackle in Philosophy 150 (coming this Summer Session C to a UCLA near you!). What is identity and how can it be partially out of my control how it gets formed? What if I don't want race in there, why does it have to be? And, doesn't it just make it worse that it's not a biological concept, and is a misleading socially constructed concept to begin with? And, what's the reason we care about identity in the first place?

Again with all the questions! Well, the short answer is: we care about identity because it is so wrapped up with autonomy. ... Wait, before you start off with the questions again, let me say that what autonomy is, why we care about that, how it ties into our identities and our moral behavior, and any other such question you might have about autonomy are all things that will be discussed (and settled definitively so no philosopher need ever worry about them again) this summer, in Philosophy 150, coming to a UCLA near you...