Seminal Thought

Two reasons why I started a youtube channel that shows my face (and why you might want to, too)

noreply@blogger.com (Seminal Thought) — Tue, 21 May 2024 00:27:00 +0000

There are two reasons why I, and perhaps you, should start a YouTube Channel:

1) To Improve Your Public Speaking

and

2) Public and Private Articulation

I mean, I know a lot of us have thought about it at some point but just never took the plunge. Well, I'm right there with you.

I actually do have a YouTube channel, but it's one of those faceless ones. It's doing okay, but I’ve always wanted to start one where I show my face and share my thoughts more personally.

I've always been kind of camera shy. If you’re anything like me, you might feel the same way. As a side note, I also have a podcast. It's faceless too and doing quite well on Spotify and alright on YouTube. When I started the podcast, I was super awkward on the mic. Honestly, I'm probably still awkward now because it's just weird talking to yourself, right? There's no one around to nod along or react, just me staring at my phone and hoping someone will see this video in their algorithm.

So, why should you start a YouTube channel? Here are my two main reasons restated below:

1. To Improve My Public Speaking

2. Improve Articulation

Some people join Toastmasters where they meet with like-minded individuals who also want to get bette at public speaking. This is great but YouTube offers a more convenient way to practice, and any time that you want!

The biggest reason I started one is to get over the fear of speaking into a camera and looking at mysel. It was the same with my audo-only podcast. It felt super unnatural at first to talk to myself, but it got easier with time. I’m hoping the same thing will happen with my YouTube channel.

The other imporant reason...which is really related to the first... is to get better at articulating my thoughts, both publicly AND privately. Public speaking is a skill that comes in handy in so many areas of life. When you’re on camera, you can easily stumble over your words because, let's face it, it’s nerve-wracking! But with practice, you get better at it. But I believe that getting better at articulation to the public will help your thoughts become more articulate even privately. Like writing, it is a way to organize your thoughts. But with writing, you have time to mull over your thoughts and edit how you sound...as I am doing at this very moment.

But you can't do that in real time when speaking. A lot of people don't get practice with this unless they have someone to talk with about anything. I, unfortunately, do not due to my circumstances... So to get better at not only articulating to others, but to myself, YouTube can be a vital resource! I am helping it will make me a better thinker.

So, yeah, those are my main reasons for starting my channel. I believe that getting comfortable on camera and better at articulating ideas will be very beneficial, not just for my budding YouTube career (haha), but for life in general.

What do you think? Do you have a YouTube channel? Share your channel in the comments and I'll check it out!

Here is my original first vlog on this topic --> Why you should start a YouTube Channel (my first crap YouTube vlog)

The Lost Art of Internalization

noreply@blogger.com (Seminal Thought) — Tue, 23 May 2017 15:51:00 +0000

In this age of Google and instant information we humans are beginning to lose the art of internalization. I don't even know if I should call it an art. Maybe "the art of" phrase is overused. Oh well, I'm not changing the title.

What I mean is that not only do we not remember things as well, which many lament over or express concern about the information age, but we are lacking more and more skills that our ancestors once had thanks to technological automation and work specification. All of this combined, and we are left with nothing but a vacuous shell, here on this planet to consume, consume, consume. Like in Wall-e.

But why should we internalize? I suppose it must come down to ego, really.

I mean, if you think about it, that's what technology and specialization is for -- to enable humans to do less. To free up time we would otherwise be using to do the stuff that is either unnecessary or not to our personal taste.

So we don't have to sew or knit, we buy our clothes. So we don't have to cook, we buy our food pre-made. So we don't have to learn how to ride a horse, we learn how to drive a car, and pretty soon that will be done for us by self-driving cars.

But where is the line? Where is the balance? And how did this come to be?

I'll start with its origins.

Our place in time had a lot to do with it. Where learning a horse might be a fun hobby for a few, for the most of us living in modern societies, it is a surplus sport, dwindled down to a paltry frequency of activity. When once learning how to write neatly (e.g. calligraphy) was a necessary skill, now typing has taken its place, and most likely typing will soon seem archaic once brain-computer interface technology is developed further and launched.

So what we decide to internalize is likely contributed to environmental factors such as time and place. Place being, if you live in the country side or on a farm you are more likely to engage in horseback riding, and perhaps gun sports like hunting, for instance. And of course the social circle one finds themselves in plays a heavy role. If your friends like something you are more likely to like it.

Then there is the choice we have of choosing activities that interest us, which are in a large part determined by those previously mentioned environmental factors. Surrounding influences aside, we can choose to learn how to play chess, how to tell a joke, get better at public speaking, better at riding, absorb books and poems, etc. And whatever we choose to learn will thereby become a part of us. Become internalized, so to speak. Yet it seems more and more these hobbies and interests are getting less and less due to the technology and entertainment that surrounds us.

The internet is making sure it provides us with information when we want it, atrophying our ability to recall information with our own mental faculties. Constant stimulation via entertainment also ensures we don't recall whatever media we have consumed. And books, the slow-cooking method of consuming a story is being lost to instant gratification of TV shows, movies, and videos. This type of most-consumed media is direct to our basic senses of sight and sound, not allowing our mind to create the story or interact with the text. I think you get the point.

So where is the line and balance one can achieve in this day in age? What shall we relegate and what shall we absorb? I guess that is the decision we all must make for ourselves. And an utmost desire and effort is necessary for internalization to occur. We can't just decide to remember a passage of a book, recall a quote on whim, speak a language, learn how to skateboard, tell a funny joke, remember historical events. Action is key. Repetition is key. And again, a vivid desire to obtain such internalization is necessary.

The reason why I said in the beginning why we should internalize comes down to ego is because we have no other reason to internalize something unless we plan to use it. And we don't plan to use it only for us. The phrase "no man is an island" applies here, too. It not only applies to how no person can live on his own, but also no man does anything only for himself. No matter whatever personal interest you may have that you may think is irrelevant of other people, in the end it is for other people and thus our own egos.

People tell funny jokes so people many laugh. People play sports so that players can be beat. People learn languages so that communication with other people is achieved. People read books so that the content can transform them, or so that they can utilize the information for some end, or make our minds open so that we are better people....all...for other people. So let us internalize with great effort what we truly desire and be without illusion that it is for our egos.

Though ego may be a driving factor, I think people should invest more in internalization because it can make us happier people by absorbing our true desires so that they are manifest as a part of us. Our efforts to achieve become us. In this small way, though it may be illusory as well, we can drive ourselves down the destiny we wish. Although we cannot control the events of our lives, we can somewhat steer what resides in us by a concerted effort to learn, remember, and rehearse.

Omega (poem)

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 23 May 2017 13:34:00 +0000

This is a poem I came up with 11 years ago,and was inspired by…you guessed it, Revelations. I must have been in quite the terrible mood when I wrote this. Nonetheless, it is interesting to reread this poem and see how influenced I was by Christianity at this time in my life. Before I even got into Christianity, Genesis and Revelations were the only two books in the Bible I had read, which both equally fascinated me. With Revelations, the vivid imagery of the final scenes of mankind made the story compelling and memorable.

Omega

Caustic vermin lurking in shadow’s light,
Quintessent labyrinth spoils our might,
Feeble creatures we bestow the land,
With gifts of indiscretion and reprimand,

Tiresome earth shall rebuke our acts,
Through misery and malady there’ll be no relax,
Earthquake, tornado, tidal wave, and flood,
There will be no refuge, the sky will rain down blood,

Bellowing barbarism will take hold of man,
Brother against brother no nation shall stand,
An echoing siren will ring long and loud,
Humanities hope: the mushroom cloud,

Famine, plague, murder and rape,
These are the rewards for humanity’s faith,
Callous virulence in everyman’s heart,
Blasphemy of God, we sunder apart,

Recalcitrant pigs, do ye not know the stakes?
Do ye prefer to slither as vile snakes?
Pompous and hubris is your pretentious display,
You creepith around in hidden dismay,

Dominion of deceit is your final abode,
Transgression and sin has made your soul erode
Loathsome heathens you live in your own wretchedness,
Indulging in hedonism because your powerless,

While the devil sleeps and lies in wait,
He’ll beckon your soul to become irate,
And just before the final release,
You’ll find in yourself the Mark of the Beast.

The Poor Argument About The Poor Being Relatively Rich

noreply@blogger.com (Seminal Thought) — Fri, 05 May 2017 16:08:00 +0000

Poverty in America! Ha! They have 50″ plasma TV screens, iphones, the internet, air-conditioning, and most have such an abundance of food that they’re obese!”

This is more-or-less the argument I’ve heard occasionally concerning poor people in America. Often this argument is made by conservatives or libertarians, and they typically mean no harm. In fact, I don’t find it offensive at all. I don’t think poor people should either. They simply mean it to come across that while it might be true that there are plenty of people relatively poor in America, comparing to abject poverty (also called absolute poverty) that one would find in Indian, Africa, etc., American poor people don’t have it so bad.

And their statements are absolutely true. Poor people in America are rich, relatively speaking. The icon of the burger-toting poor American is familiar to us all (as illustrated in the comic below). Whereas the starving fly-covered Ethiopian boy remains the antithetical trope.

As pointed out by Robert Rector, a prominent authority of poverty, welfare programs and immigration in America , these”poor” Americans have it quite good for the following reasons:

“Consider these facts taken from various government reports:

Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, at the beginning of the War on Poverty, only about 12 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Nearly three-quarters have a car or truck; 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.[20]
Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite television.
Half have a personal computer; one in seven has two or more computers.
More than half of poor families with children have a video game system such as an Xbox or PlayStation.
Forty-three percent have Internet access.
Forty percent have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.
A quarter have a digital video recorder system such as a TIVO.”

These are the living conditions which show that compared to the poor in third world countries, Americans are not so poor after all.

Sometimes the comparison isn’t just lateral between nations. Often people compare time periods. They say things like “we have never had it better than we do today”. And it seems to be true. The GDP per capita of all nations has been on the rise throughout the decades.

An inventor/futurist, Ray Kurzweil, has been famously quoted as saying “A kid in Africa has access to more information than the president of the United States did 15 years ago.” (CNN). And knowledge is power, right?

This compare the-present-to-the-past method is also very true. Scale the time period that your comparing back even further and you have more stark results (e.g. 1800s to 2000s). Indeed, we’ve never had it better.

Though unoffensive to my ears, this position is a poor one to take when the logic is put under the lens. Both the lateral example and chronological example, while true, are unconvincing. I’ll explain why.

Lets get the chronological comparison argument out of the way first.

We Will Always Never Have it Better

Assuming humanity doesn’t wipe itself out or nuke itself back to the Bronze Age, as technology progresses the present will always be the best time to live in. It has always been so. And as mentioned above, the greater the distance between two time periods, the more extreme the relative quality of life appears. Some might say, well wait, what about comparing World War I or II Europe, or even medieval Europe when the bubonic plague was rampant to, lets say, a more peaceful period like the Pax Romana era. Isn’t the past sometimes easier on the average person? Perhaps that is the case when comparing certain time periods and regions. But I think the overall trend is that it is getting easier on the average person.

This is due to technology and the ever increasing accumulation of knowledge, called the Ratchet Effect, as discussed in a previous post- Dual Inheritance Theory: Cultural and Biological Evolution Combined. All new knowledge is technology.

One could imagine that even a generational difference of a Neolithic tribe could have produced meaningful technological differences that aids the newer generations. Think of a new mushroom that a young girls discovers upon foraging that ever after the tribe now consumes. Although a small technological feat, the know-how to identify said mushroom (etc. physical features, location, etc.) is potential enough to make the tribe sustain itself more easily. This knowledge passed on ensures future generations will benefit as well, adding another food source to the cornucopia. Thus a newer generation can have it better than the last from mere fungi.

As long as humans have been intelligent enough for the Ratchet Effect to take place, this has always been so. New technology will always ease up the load on succeeding generations.

So it makes no sense to compare with the past. Of course it appears we have it better now. And if one does want to compare, what is the appropriate time gap? 5 years? 15 years? 30 years? 1000 years?

2. Happiness is Relative to Those Around You

But what about comparing laterally in the same time period? Isn’t it fair to compare poor people in Kenya with Canada in 2016?

Well, if it seems odd to compare poor with today and poor with 100 years ago, shouldn’t the same hold for different countries?

Just as deciding what’s the appropriate chronological distance to compare lifestyle quality of the poor/rich class is difficult, so too is deciding what countries to compare. Is it fairer to compare poor people of industrialized countries with each other? Separately, we could compare developing countries?

This approach is favorable, however even comparing countries of the same economic or industrial bracket has its problems. Different cultures (e.g. USA vs. UAE), different economic systems (e.g. USA versus Denmark), and different histories between nations all make a high potential to skew the results.

The only solution seems to be comparing poor within a nation. And even then–regions, cities, and provinces/states, with their own cost of living, cultures, and average salaries could have differing standards of living. For instance, take making $10 an hour in Missouri to making $10 in California. Obviously, though getting paid the same, the hourly rate gets you farther in Missouri.

The problem with comparing poverty (relative or absolute) is that human psychology works in a way that we only truly care about those around us.

What if I told you that there is an alien race called the Pleiadians which enjoy advanced technology that we can’t imagine which puts their entire existence on another much higher plane? Their lifestyle makes us look like poor scrounging rats. Would you care? Unlikely, though we’d be curious about said technology and culture.

How about a more realistic scenario. Johnny Depp reportedly made 30 million dollars to make The Pirates of the Carribbean. Do we care? Not a chance because for most people Hollywood actors are in another world.

Now lets say that three of your closest friends have just reached phenomenal success. One became a University Professor at Cambridge, the other played the stocks and made 3 million dollars in two days, and the last friend’s newly published book just reached the New York Time’s Best Seller list. Meanwhile you are stuck at your menial job pushing papers or something. Would you care? Most likely, yes. While most people would likely be happy for their friends, there would most certainly at least be a tinge of jealousy. Even if you were completely comfortable with your lifestyle and making more than enough to live on, the people in your life, with their newfound success, gives you a feelingof relative poverty.

Human psychology works in a way that people don’t give a shit about Hollywood stars making millions of dollars, but if oour friend or family member happened to make a million bucks, we would care. Proximity of wealth comparisons is the key. People in our immediate surroundings or network will be measured against oneself.

That is why most don’t care or react much to abject poverty, war, and disasters that happen in far away places.

This is a useful evolutionary adaptation if you think about it. Does caring more about a distant people who either are wealthy or poor do you individually any good?

3. Equilibrium of Happiness

Yuval Noah Harari, author of Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, makes a cogent argument about how hard it is to measure wealth’s effect on human happiness, and happiness itself, for that matter. I’ll try to summarize. (And if you’d like more details, check out Harari’s article here or check out the book.)

Essentially, what he argues (as it pertains to this discussion), is that although wealth and humanity’s overall standard of living is increasing, it may not have any real bearing on humanity’s level of happiness. This is because all humans’ experience of happy moments or contentedness eventually returns to a base equilibrium once the happy moment has passed. As anyone knows after getting a promotion or receiving some present, we are happy but for a fleeting moment until our base neutral level state of mind returns.

Thus any achievement of human “prosperity” that has ever occurred, either macro or micro, human beings’ state of mind goes back to its base and is the reason for our insatiability of always wanting more.

The controversially question then is whether this applies to those who are in abject poverty. When basic needs are not being met, does the “happiness meter” fluctuate the same?

I believe it does. Imagine that the whole world had the living standards of the worst third world conditions you can think of. Would humans not have the same pendulum movement of happiness that we do now. Just as being rich doesn’t give you everlasting happiness, neither would having poor living conditions give you everlasting unhappiness. Just as in ages past infanticide and a short life expectancy was commonplace and thought of as matter-of-fact, so too would any vile living conditions we could think of be considered as matter-of-course.

Now add in a neighbor that is visibly living easier and you have a problem. The jealousy of perceived betterment is the real issue.

4. Conclusion

Thus the reason its a poor argument to compare fat Americans that have a car, cable TV, the internet, and an Xbox to fly-ridden, starving Ethiopian that lives in a straw hut is because it doesn’t take into account the homeostasis of happiness and our psychology to measure our self-worth with those closest to us.

What it ultimately comes down to is ‘dignity’. If the poor of America or Africa feels that they lack dignity in their communities, then tensions will arise. And this is what ought to be compared, albeit certainly a challenge to measure.

Interestingly, in Europe a term is used which does address dignity, called social exclusion.

Levitas et al. in their report The Multi-dimensional Analysis of Social Exclusion define social exclusion as such:

“Social exclusion is a complex and multi-dimensional process. It involves the lack or denial of resources, rights, goods and services, and the inability to participate in the normal relationships and activities, available to the majority of people in a society, whether in economic, social, cultural or political arenas. It affects both the quality of life of individuals and the equity and cohesion of society as a whole.”

However social exclusion could be measured, or accurately determined, in any set community ought to be what addressed in the poverty debate.

BUT, and this is a big BUT, this is changing due to greater inter-connectivity. Due to greater ability to travel and the internet, humans are increasingly able to compare themselves with each other over vast distances. Although just hearing or reading about inequality does little to move the masses, if personal relationships form between the haves and the have-nots (or especially if national borders were to cease to exist one day), it seems likely that comparing poor between third world and first world countries would rise and perhaps become a more legitimate argument. Still, technology would have to get to the point where we could not only experience reality (via VR or something) in another community, but also allow for seamless social and business interactions to flourish to the same extent that the physical community around currently does. Only then would comparing our virtual community with our own living conditions make any sense. Though that future may not be too far away.

Unseen (poetry)

noreply@blogger.com (Seminal Thought) — Fri, 05 May 2017 13:59:00 +0000

Here is a poem that I came up with back in September, 2005. I was 20 years-old at the time and in the midst of relationship angst. I was also swaying toward Christianity at the time as you’ll notice when I use the pronoun “Him”.

I had Sum 41’s “pieces” stuck in my head as I was writing it so it kinda goes along with it.

Unseen

Crouching and hiding

I search and I’m finding
That I’m alone in this cruel world.

Recourse has no power,
I shrink and I cower,
Of all the things I see unseen.

I’m paranoid of what could be,
This distance is killing me,
I wish I could be right by her side,
And share all the times of glee.

Contorted and disillusioned is my soul,
Never expected it’d be such a toll,
Can we please ignore the lust,
I yearn so bad just to trust.

My rock is a pebble
Brought up as a rebel
I turn my back away from Him

My vision is shattered,
I fall ‘till I splatter,
“Anything goes” is the mode I’m in.

I can’t believe what I can’t see,
Its hard enough to trust in me.
Please don’t leave me in your heart,
We won’t always be apart.

Growing Accustomed to Something Trumps Learning

noreply@blogger.com (Seminal Thought) — Wed, 20 May 2015 20:25:00 +0000

One blogger notes of this self-transformation and how once the blog bug had bitten him, he no longer had writers block to worry about, instead words and ideas flowing from him with ease. He and, similarly, other bloggers' reason for creation in the first place is to help writing skills. And of course, when one writes in general, and especially if focused on a specific niche, we tend to teach ourselves in the process of teaching others.

That is my goal- By providing ideas, research, and practical solutions to language education, I hope that this blog will become of great value to myself through self-education, and as a byproduct, I hope it will residually rub off on others.

And so, I will try to provide as much value as I can with the research and thoughts that I have. I want this website to not only be a passing fancy for readers, but a site that will be bookmarked for its insightful content. I think its safe to say most authors, or creators of any sort, would prefer permanency rather than ephemeralness when it comes to their work.

So without further ado, I will impart my lofty wisdom..! :-P

What is better than learning

My personal motto when it comes to language learning is from a Japanese proverb which I learned when I was in Japan teaching English. It is "narau yori narero" (which can be seen above in Japanese script), and it roughly translates to "Getting used to something is better than learning something".

But how can this be? How does getting used to something trump learning? After all, isn't this whole site dedicated to education, thus learning?

Yes and no.

No, because I think on one hand we need to reframe what it means to "learn", and by using this frame of "getting used to something", it adequately describes the process of true learning.

However, yes, because as just stated, I believe learning happens when we get used to whatever target information or skill we are aiming to learn. And so, this page is dedicated to learning in that sense.

Afterall, how many mathematical formulas or history dates have you "learned" in school? How many of them do you still remember without prompting. Even with prompting, I doubt many remember very much unless they were keenly in to such-and-such subject and studied it intensely.

The Memory/Fluency Connection

Some will say, "well, this is an issue of memory, then," and that is true. However, the way languages work is that you need a constant dormant and active memory of vocabulary, their meanings (to some extent), the way they are used, pronunciations, as well as a more ingrained memory of common grammatical structures to be considered fluent.

And so you can study all you want and even memorize a bunch of word lists, grammar structures, etc. But at the end of the day, as any second-language speaker knows, this superficial memorization of the elements of a particular language even ISN'T ENOUGH.

What is left that is needed to become fluent in a language is to be able to be used to listening, speaking, reading, and writing in a language. When you can do those four parts of language with ease, you know you are fluent in a language. But you can't do it just by learning it. Because you will forget it.

Of course to some extent we do forget words or how to say something we want to express, even in our first language. But during those brain-fart or word on the tip-of-the-tongue moments, we would never say that person isn't fluent in his/her language. Why? Because for the most part they can communicate effectively in that language despite any blunders. And that is the message I want to drive home -- learning a language is a skill. Professional athletes might have an "off-day" like the rest of us, but they are still considered damn-good at their sport.

If we can look at language learning in this lense, I think we can tackle the details of language education much more effectively.

The Ball Costs Both 5 Cents and 10 Cents

noreply@blogger.com (Seminal Thought) — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 12:16:00 +0000

A riddle that stumps most people when first attempted is the baseball-bat problem.

Here it is:

"A bat and ball cost $1.10.The bat costs one dollar more than the ball.
How much does the ball cost?"

Of course, if you are familiar already with this brain-twister, then you'll know the answer is 5 cents. Or is it?

The reasons for it being 5 cents are as follows:

If the bat is 1 dollar more than the ball and the total of both is $1.10, then 1 dollar more would be $1.05 because $1.05-$.05= exactly 1 dollar more.

But then why do so many people get it wrong? In fact, it has been stated that 50% of Harvard, Princeton, and MIT students get this question wrong (Theblaze.com).

In that same article^, Daniel Kanehman gives his explanation as to why people intuitively choose the incorrect 10 cents.

" ...many people are overconfident, prone to place too much faith in their intuitions. They apparently find cognitive effort at least mildly unpleasant and avoid it as much as possible." (Thinking Fast and Slow)"

However, I have another explanation: Semantics.

Almost every word in a language is polysemous. Polysemy means that there are more than one meaning embedded in a word.

Take for example the word "man".

Man

The human species (i.e., man vs. animal)
Males of the human species (i.e., man vs. woman)
Adult males of the human species (i.e., man vs. boy) (Wikipedia: Polysemy)

Or even the preposition"through"

Through

In between (ie. go through the bushes)
Go inside and outside (ie. go through a tunnel
Finished/over

And each of the sub-meanings of "through" can even have either spatial or motion characteristics. (ie. The rods go through the ceiling vs. the train went through the tunnel).

So, with polysemy in mind, what is the word in question in this riddle?

That's right - "more"!

"More" has several polysemous definitions, as well.

Don't believe me? Look it up in a dictionary.

Here is from dictionary.com:

adjective, compar. of much or many with most as superl.

in greater quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number:

I need more money.

additional or further:

Do you need more time? More discussion seems pointless.

noun

an additional quantity, amount, or number:

I would give you more if I had it. He likes her all the more. When I could take no more of such nonsense, I left.

a greater quantity, amount, or degree:

More is expected of him. The price is more than I thought.

something of greater importance:

His report is more than a survey.

(used with a plural verb) a greater number of a class specified, or the greater number of persons:

More will attend this year than ever before.

adverb, compar. of much with most as superl.

in or to a greater extent or degree (in this senseoften used before adjectives and adverbs, andregularly before those of more than two syllables,to form comparative phrases having the sameforce and effect as the comparative degreeformed by the termination -er):

more interesting; more slowly.

in addition; further; longer; again:

Let's talk more another time. We couldn't standit any more.

moreover.

FurtherMORE, the phrase "more than" also breaks down to several meanings. Since dictionaries don't normally allow phrase searching, type this one into your thesaurus.

Here is from thesaurus.com:

in distinction tostar

So, what is the confusion in this question? I will break down the common interpreted meanings of the same question that lead to the two different answers $.05 and $.10.

"A bat and ball cost $1.10.The bat costs one dollar more than the ball. (=the bat is an extra dollar of the cost of the ball)
How much does the ball cost?"

"A bat and ball cost $1.10.The bat costs one dollar more than the ball. (=the bat is supplementary/besides the ball 1 dollar)
How much does the ball cost?"

As you can probably tell, the meaning changes slightly depending on the way you interpret "more".

In the first example, the commonly accepted answer is correct when considered that the bat is an extra dollar of the cost of the ball.

However, if "more than" is interpreted as "supplementary" or "besides" as the phrase "more than" often is interpreted (i.e. "You need more than a windbreaker if you want to live in Scandinavia") , then you will get the answer for the ball = $.10.

Look again:

"A bat and ball cost $1.10.
The bat costs one dollar in supplement to the ball.

(The bat costs one dollar besides the ball.)

How much does the ball cost?"
This radically changes the equation, doesn't it?

Rather than an "extra" meaning in which you would add $1.05 to $.05 to get the one dollar more that is the crux of the solution, now we have the meaning of supplement or besides.

So if the ball is 10 cents, then a supplementary (or besides) amount of one dollar would come out to ($.10 ball besides $1.00 bat)

Bat (1 dollar) Besides cost of ball ($.10)

And this is the reason why the ball costs both $.05 and $.10 and why so many people are tricked by this question.

So again, it all comes down to semantics and how we interpret the words we read. While Kahneman's point might still hold true, in that we go towards the easiest answer, what he failed to mention was the semantic ambiguity which allows people to make the easy choice.

So don't feel bad, whoever got it wrong! :-)

Dual Inheritance Theory: Cultural and Biological Evolution Combined

noreply@blogger.com (Seminal Thought) — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 13:27:00 +0000

After writing my last post about An Exposé on the Evolution of Women's Body Hair, I gotta thinkin'...

Much of the whole debate of that topic, and any topic relating to how humans behave, comes down to the argument of cultural vs. biological evolution.

Humans have a convenient capacity to store and transmit culture to each other and successive generations, which other animals don't appear to be able to do.

Michael Tomasello uses the ratchet effect as a metaphor of how human knowledge is cumulative and thus when new information or technology is passed down, the ratchet goes up a notch.

The problem of this peculiarity of humans is that it makes it a hard feat to determine what human behavior is cultural and what is biological.

And finding a culture-less human is near impossible, lest you run into a feral child raised by wolves. But even then, would they perhaps pick up the "culture" of the wolves themselves?

I guess we can ask Princess Mononoke

Or Mowgli?

Perhaps it is a biological imperative that humans adopt the culture that surrounds them.
It seems there is no way to untie the intertwining threads of culture and biology when it comes to humans.

Well, apparently there is a theory that attempts to reconcile these two types of evolution, and that is the dual inheritance theory.

Dual Inheritance Theory (DIT)

Dual inheritance theory claims that humans unique ability to acquire and pass on culture is in itself a biological adaptation. It is presumed that at some point in our biological evolution (before our human ancestors had what we would consider a "culture") social learning which lead to cumulative cultural evolution became biologically advantageous. The ones who could, for example, communicate with each other about the saber-toothed tiger which comes every late evening from the forest near the lake, perhaps were better fit to survive.

Those humanoids (I say humanoids instead of humans because it is unclear when this cumulative culture ability first arose, Homo sapien?, Homo erectus?, Homo hablis?), who had this capability had higher chances of survival, and thus could pass on this information as well as whatever genes were necessary for this kind of social learning mechanism. This social learning process gave rise to cultural evolution, running in tandem with bio-evolution.

In essence, they are inextricably linked, having a continued effect on each other.

While culture can constrain our biological imperatives, it does not override it completely. If someone has a faulty gene that will give that person a higher chance of becoming an alcoholic, in the right prudent environment such a tendency may be impeded. Nevertheless, that person would still have a higher chance of becoming an alcoholic than a person without such a faulty gene, given certain circumstances (being surrounded by drinkers) were to befall them both.

Likewise, our biological makeup in some instances can be affected by our cultural evolution. As humans started to raise cattle for meat, we also started to indulge in their milk. Originally, humans were not fit to drink cow's milk, and in fact there is still a great proportion of humans who are lactose intolerant. A gene-cultural evolution (mostly taking place originally in Northern parts of Europe) is suspected for this adaptation.

But there are also suspected maladaptations which occurs during this interacting mix of genes and culture. For example, eating disorders, and indeed the previously mentioned alcoholism tendencies, can both be considered maladaptations. However, Dual Inheritance Theorists posit that there are no real maladaptations, rather the person(s) are simply not suited for that environment. To these theorists, any maladaptation is a potential beneficial adaptation, given the right environment. In fact, it has been suspected that this alcohol gene became more prevalent among isolated groups of people who were subject to harsh conditions such as famine and malnutrition. For example the Irish have been known to be put under tremendous pressure by famine and lack of native meat sources. At the time, this gene helped the Irish absorb more iron. That plus constant subjugation by the English made some Irish who had these mutated genes better fit to survive. The fact that Ireland and all industrialized nations no longer have such food shortages in the modern era, and the fact that alcoholism is debilitating and looked down on, is what makes this gene "maladaptive".

So, DIT does really nothing to unravel the entwined inheritance systems, but shows in the case of humans, the untying can not be done. The reconciliation that can be found here is that it is impossible to pinpoint (in many cases) which evolutionary changes are due to culture and which to bio-genetics.

SOURCES: wikipedia.org, evolutionwiki.org, ScienceDaily, NCBI, AmericanHS.org,http://gradworks.umi.com/

An Exposé on the Evolution of Women's Body Hair

noreply@blogger.com (Seminal Thought) — Tue, 05 Aug 2014 13:27:00 +0000

A hate to do it. I really do. This is not even a subject I feel that passionately about. Well, okay...I guess passionate enough to write a blog post about...but certainly not enough to even suggest that I care about telling women what they should or should not do with their bodies.

What I will be discussing here, and perhaps revealing to some, is about women's body hair. It's a heavily debated topic, one I wasn't sure if I should get into. In fact, I hadn't known how vehement this topic could get until I debated about it with some classmate female friends a couple months ago. Here's how it all got started. I traveled with some friends to a conference in Lithuania. During one of the evenings we were walking to a bar for some drinks after dinner. There were four men, including myself, and the two women I mentioned. As we were walking we past by a store which had mannequins in the window. One of my female friends, lets call her Lacy, mentions how American Apparel apparently has started putting pubic hair on their mannequins.

Here are some picture to see for yourself...

Here is an article with more pictures.

To my shock of hearing this news, and perhaps due to the slight buzz from the few beers I had drunk just prior, I tactlessly said something to the effect of "Whaat?, no one wants to see that."

Also I was quite unaware of my two female friend's feminist inclinations when it came to women's body hair. Both Lacy and, let's say...Mary, were appalled by my response. I then began to explain my self, backpedaling my rudeness, but staying firm to my side of the debate.

From there, all hell started to slowly unravel and break loose.

One of the other men accompanying us joined in on my side, while the other two remaining guys kept mostly quiet, chiming in once in a while. However they were for the most part neutral in this debate. So it ended up being a 2 vs. 2 melee.

I will from this point on explain what I argued that night. In doing so, I will provide evidence supporting my claim. I am always interested in counter evidence and a civil debate. After having this discussion with my friends on this topic, it opened my eyes not only to my (and Western/American culture) bias, but it also served to help me understand where they, and other women who feel the same, are coming from. And understanding is always good.

With that said, here was my argument that night.

My argument summarized: Adult women have attempted to appear younger and sexually fertile to compete for mate selection . This has been, and still is today, a viable evolutionary strategy for procreation and allows women to have a wider range of choice in mate selection. This mating strategy developed due to men's (natural) inclination to seek out mates for procreation that have certain qualities that demonstrate high reproductive fitness -- pubescent qualities such as little hair, smooth skin, along with other neotenous features (some which may be particular to race or culture).

(Shit, this is sounding like a thesis paper...!)
So let's delve in a little more to these mating strategies of female homo-sapiens. ;-)
Sexual Arousal and Neoteny

Mating strategies is (or was) the reason many women painstakingly take great lengths to ensure they have a youthful appearance by way of makeup.

YouTube sensation Jenna Marbles parodied this drastic change that can be had (and is expected in Western modern society) in her video "How to Trick People Into Thinking You're Good Looking".

Makeup, however, not only is used to make women look younger, but it is also used to highlight features that would only otherwise be apparent during sexual arousal. That being, to even the complexion, a blushed face, and enlarged or darkened eyes and pupil dilation.

I think I'm getting a peak shift right now..

These are the signs that women also display during the ovulation period. So it would make sense that women have found ways to exaggerate it to get choice mate selection.

This is ties in with the "peak shift effect" which has been displayed in humans to be 'taken in', so-to-speak, by exaggerations. Experiments with mice have shown, for example, a mouse being conditioned to choose the path in a maze that displayed a rectangle (with the goal some sort of food, of course). Once the conditioning was established the experimenters displayed rectangles on more than one of the paths, and one of the rectangles was more exaggerated than the others (i.e. wider, narrower). The mice tended to take the path with the exaggerated rectangle. The reason for the "peak" is that when the exaggeration becomes too crazy, it loses its power.

I hope people don't find this attractive...

That is why for most men I believe, the photo above exceeds the peak shift principle and is no longer attractive.

Given, this photo is from the Victorian era where such clothing that greatly exaggerated busts and bottom were the fashion of the time, so of course culture plays a vital role in determining where the scale of attractiveness lies. Further, each individual person has their own scale of where their particular scale of attractiveness resides (influenced by one's culture).

Any woman reading this that may be insecure about their bodies for lack of ginormous T&A, which unlike exaggerating sexual features of the face cannot be altered via makeup, please do not worry. While each man has their own spectrum of attractiveness, overall for most men it is more about waist-hip ratio and balance throughout the whole body.

As mentioned before, one part of sexual attractiveness that women also aim to exaggerate (or fabricate) is signs of youthfulness.

This is called neoteny, which is a creature's tendency to remain youthful even as an adult. According to J.B.S. Haldane calls it "greater prolongation of childhood and retardation of maturity." which he calls a major [human] evolutionary trend ( ). This is not only present in women, but men as well. However in most cultures it is more prevalent among women.

I talk about neoteny and how Japanese culture epitomizes this this evolutionary trend in one of my previous posts Most Neotenous in the World: Japan.

If this dolled up makeup is not enough, in Japan they have photo booths called "PURI-KURA" that enhances and makes your eyes even more bigger and scarier.

Evolutionary psychologist and professor at the University of Göttingen, Dr. Bernhard Fink, who specializes in human mate preferences says, “The maintenance of youthful features and the exaggeration of female typical traits can be found in almost every culture,” . In essence, makeup makes women more appealing because it exaggerates natural signs of youth, fertility, and sexual availability. (Makeup Science)

And not only makeup, but shaving as well. Today, many women tend to get rid of unwanted body hair (i.e. upper lip, chin, armpits, legs, and arms) in attempt to appear more youthful.

What's going on here? Don't women already have a lot less hair typically than the average male? And if puberty brings with it the advent of body hair, doesn't shaving eliminate a natural sign of sexual readiness?

The answers lie in human evolution.

Human's evolutionary, historical and present-day evidence of hair regression.

A question that has always boggled anthropologists and bio-evolution scientists is 'Why did humans lose their hair?' Of course, we didn't lose it all, but compared to the other Great Apes, we seem like hairless mutants.

While aren't we full of hair like our closest cousins, the bonobos and the chimpanzees?

Well, the cause of this change is actually that we are hairless mutants - in that every creation is a product of mutation and natural selection. But what spurred this on?

The leading theory points to where humans originally came from, East Africa, and its hot climate. Evidence suggests that East Africa was just as hot at least 4 million years ago as it is now (Why Humans Have No Fur - Explained). Therefore the humanoids living in that region best suited to survive such extreme conditions were the ones who could stay cooler - the ones with less hair. Also humanoids with less hair that had sweat glands could benefit by staying cool and exhausting its prey through endurance-hunting, thus leading to a higher chance of survivability. Generation after generation of hairy humanoids dying and their less hairy brethren surviving and passing on their genes paved the way for humanity's infinity with hairlessness.

Why aren't wookies hairless?
More trees on Kashyyyk to protect from UV rays?

Some speculate humans going bipedal also may have contributed to this loss, as hair on our ancient ancestor's bodies became less exposed to harmful UV rays from the sun they needed less protection on their bodies, though it beat down relentlessly on their heads and shoulders (explaining why we still have lush and long growing scalp hair). But the androgenic hair, the hair that is on our arms, legs, pelvis, and more commonly for men also on the face, chest, back, and stomach, still somehow remains. But in different proportions. This is due to the hormone androgen, a natural steroid, which the most common being testosterone, the male hormone.

Androgenic hair distribution on females and males. (wikipedia)

It's still debatable which gender was most responsible for natural selection. One side claims men were with their stronger physical bodies and aggressive tendencies chose and fought over their mate selection (like Chimpanzees). Others, claim that women were the ones in charge, using female charm,wit, and certain sexual fitness strategies (like makeup and shaving) as ways to woo the men of their desires in bed. Likely, it was a great deal of both parties participating in this mating game to various degrees throughout human history.

But the fact remains that there is a sexual dimorphism among humans - a difference between sexes: women being smaller, having less muscle mass, pronounced breasts, wider hips, different brain structure, hormones, and behavior, and YES, less body hair.

Sexual dimorphism exists in varying degrees, with Gorilla males being twice the size as females, and Gibbon males and females being roughly the same size. Human males have a modest dimorphism when it comes to body size - only 10-20% bigger and heavier than females. But the dimorphsm exists nonetheless and the other dimorphic traits (as listed in the previous paragraph), are prominent and noticeable.

It might not be politically correct to say, but it was men's taste that created this difference...and men's insecurities of paternity.

Men are shallow & insecure SOB's.

It sucks for women, I am sure...but a great deal of men are looks-oriented when it comes to attraction. Sure, personality and chemistry are important, too, but they are often pushed to the wayside, and at the very least usually secondary important qualities. Certainly, when it comes to initial attraction, looks matter a lot.

Tell 'em, Aladdin!

(And look at Aladdin's body! Not a single body hair drawn on him. Have you ever seen a hairless Persian man? I haven't. Goes to show how some neotenous features are affecting the male body images in modern times, too.)

But wait, aren't women just as into looks when it comes to attraction? I mean sure, women can be into a guy for other things as well, like if he is funny, rich, or overall likes their personality; but more and more women these days seem to be expressing their carnal desires and have no shame in doing so.
So one might consider that women may have the same type of attraction that men do to women.

Interestingly, women do claim to be just as turned on by looks, but fMRI studies paint a different picture. In a study at Emory University, participants from both sexes were presented erotic images and during these sessions their brains were looked at. Most of the female sexual images presented to the males showed the men's brains lighting up in amygdala and hypothalamus regions of the brain. Whereas the women, even when reporting greater sexual arousal, showed much less activation in those regions. These findings point to that when men viewed the images they experienced arousal and appetitive desire, (i.e. "I like that and I want to have that"). But with women, the response (though varied on the spectrum) was predominately arousal ("I like that"). So the "I like that" and "I want that" brain response are separated whereas in men they are one and the same. (Men and women differ in amygdala response to visual sexual stimuli)

So interestingly,it appears that when it comes to physical attraction, men have a stronger urge to have (sex with) what they find arousing.

And men's inclinations to be more physical-appearance oriented when it comes to mate selection has been one of the primary driving forces for human evolution when it comes to standards of beauty and sexual dimorphism.

It also makes sense that men would be more interested in a female that displays physical traits that differ from one's own gender (like less hair).

Men have also historically been attracted to women who are just post-pubescent, or perhaps even pre-pubescent, since women were often married by the time they were 14 years old. This was another mating strategy before DNA tests were available, which would ensure that the man's offspring would be their own. So to appear younger by way of shaving one's body hair could also be looked at as a evolutionary remnant that still exists today (although culture's have practiced this to varying degrees, and some not at all).

Furthermore, shaving also acts as an aesthetic strategy (remember peak-shift effect from before?) to exaggerate youthful features just as makeup does.

So are all men pedophiliacs for liking shaved legs (and more recently in America shaved vaginal areas)?

In some respects, no. For males to be attracted to neotenous features is natural to the animal world and signals to potential mates sexual availability or preparedness.

But in some respects, yes. What is determined as neotenous, or displaying a sexual readiness is culturally determined. In some cultures, women's body hair is considered natural and a sign of sexual maturity (ready to mate!) For those cultures and those women who are sick and tired of patriarchal society determining the standards of female beauty, this kind of neotenization is bizarre, creepy, and unnecessary. Fortunately, or unfortunately, however you want to look at it, there is this ongoing neotenization of the female body (thanks in large part to Western media's and pornography's influence).

But cultures change...

And with it, the standards of beauty. What once served an evolutionary purpose, with today's modern culture, technology, and social progress, it no longer need serve the same function. There are other ways to show reproductive fitness to each other. As gender roles change and more women are doing the same kinds of jobs as men, along with the rise of feminism in industrialized modern countries, we are seeing a small shift in what is considered beautiful. Men are beginning to shown signs of desiring traits other than primitive youthful appearances for their mate selection. However, the change will likely take a long time to satisfy the goals of full body hair and no makeup feminists. It is a evolutionary instinct to desire neotenous features in women that has been passed down to mankind for millennia, but one that can be mediated by culture.

By the end of our debate, we kind of all agreed to disagree, although I think she could see my point. She thought, as I think as well, that we do not need to be bound by our ancient past. Overall, I am glad that I got into that discussion with them. Before then, I hadn't realized the unfairness of the situation. "Why do women HAVE to shave to be accepted by society and be attractive for men? Men have the choice of whether to shave or not and is not taboo either way. For women, it is a different story." This sentiment that Lucy and Mary shared with me has stuck with me. While men are also in this process of cultural neotenization (i.e. male models and Disney characters with no body hair), the pressure is definitely not to the extent that women are under.

To wrap up...

I hope this blog post was not offensive to women, but if it was, feel free to comment below and state your case. I, personally, have no qualms with how women want to groom themselves. I personally am attracted to either shaved or unshaved. To me, it's not that big of a deal. Every person has their own preferences and if they are like me, I don't think they care as much about arm, leg, and vaginal hair as one might think (given there are other features about you they find attractive). Indeed, it is probably more healthy and hygienic to keep all body hair, as it does serve some protective function. Overall, I think a general cleanly appearance is what is most physically attractive to both sexes... whatever two people can agree on "clean" meaning.

Anaximander, the Boundless Philosopher

noreply@blogger.com (Seminal Thought) — Tue, 29 Jul 2014 21:12:00 +0000

Know A Philosopher: Anaximander, The Boundless

(610BCE to 546BCE)

This is the second part in the Know A Philosopher series. The first part you can reach here--> Thales, The Water Philosopher.

The second ancient philosopher I will summarize for you is the successor of the great Thales, father of Western philosophy, Anaximander. Also hailing from Miletus, this philosopher is unlike most philosophers in that he is believed to have written down his own works.

I'm looking at you, Socrates..

Although it is debated whether or not Anaximander was directly taught by Thales, it is certain he was influenced by his philosophy. Like Thales, Anaximander also searched for the source of everything. However he rejected Thale's claim that this arche is water, rather came up with his own idea of what the source could be - the apeiron.

No, not that apron!

Apeiron, as it was called, was described to be the "infinite", or "boundless". Although contrary to Thale's claim of the arche being water, both this new idea of apeiron and water share similar qualities. Especially when considering vast stretches of seas, which Greece had plenty of, both are perceivably endless, shapeless, and boundless. Indeed, although these naturalist philosophers are supposed to be the founders of science, their philosophical ontological roots stem from mythical lore. The creation stories of the Near East also, such as the Babylonian story which states the earliest stage of the universe was a watery chaos, and the Hindu cosmology in which the universe is born from an egg in a watery abyss (or sometimes Golden Womb). Also Homer was known to use the term apeiron which was spatial, though indefinite. And of course there is the biblical passage from Genesis 1:,

" In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

So although Anixamander rejected the arche being an element such as water, the qualities of water (at least how humans experience it when viewing a sea) were abstracted to this notion of apeiron. However, as opposed to other notions of arche, meaning the "source" or "beginning", to Anixamander, apeiron was not referring to a single point in time, rather imbued apeiron with qualities of infinite boundlessness and creative potential. Though he did claims that this Boundless was originally floating around in a cosmic vortex which was interrupted by some accident. His cosmological theory aligns well with the modern Big Bang Theory as well as the Oscillating or Pulsating Universe Theories (also considered by Albert Einstein), which state that the universe goes through cycles of big bang and big crunch.

Energy=Me+Crunchbar squared

One of his remaining passages goes as far as describing this waning and waxing of the universe as a form of cosmic justice:

"And from what source things arise, to that they return of necessity when they are destroyed, for they suffer punishment and make reparation to one another for their injustice according to the order of time."

It is unclear how to interpret this passage, a) the judgement occurring as a type of divine punishment for some sort of sin the universe (or its creatures commit) or b) as a flowery way to describe the necessary harmony of creation and destruction of the universe. The first interpretation a certain degree of Mythos, which may have been inescapable in the ancient Greek language, which is why I would presume the latter interpretation, that such way of talking about things was impossible at the time. The shift from Ancient Greece's mythological or religious psyche to a focus on science and logic could not happen over night, or even a generation. While the Pre-Socratics such as Thales, Anaximander, and the others I'll discuss more later, did help a great deal in this paramount shift, they still carried the baggage of the Greek language and culture surrounding them.

In Anaximander's cosmology, he also made a guess at how the earth fits into the universe, as philosophers were privy on doing back then. What did he think? Well of course, the earth is in the center of the universe.

As you can see by the diagram, the earth lays in the center, with the stars, the Moon, and the Sun as surrounding the earth in concentric layers. Interesting;y and groundbreakingly, he claimed the earth floated in the center, rather than being supported by anything, thus celestial bodies were for the first time thought to pass under the earth. Although he erroneously thought the earth was cylindrical shaped....and simply consisting of the known world for Greeks at the time (which makes sense I suppose).

The image of Earth, according to Anaximander.

Anaximander also believed in an infinite number of worlds (different dimensions?), and further bolstered science by claiming thunder and lightning were not caused by the gods but by elements interacting.

As you can see, Anaximander, like Thales, broke new ground as he shed the old Mythos of the gods being in control for more scientific reasoning and speculation, even if not all of his theories held up to scrutiny. It is fascinating for me today to see how some of his theories, some plus 2500 years old have some scientific backing today. For that, he is a worthy contributor to philosophy and modern science.

Sources: Wikipedia; Looking at Philosophy (David Palmer)

Inattentional Blindness and Cultural Selective Attention

noreply@blogger.com (Seminal Thought) — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 22:26:00 +0000

It is common knowledge that we all have a limited capacity or ability to pay attention. After all, we cannot notice everything in our surroundings nor even notice every particular feature of any given object. A classic example of missing something in your surroundings, and something we perhaps have all been guilty of at one time or another, is not seeing a waving friend as you scan the movie theater for a place to sit. Your puzzled friend, upon meeting you the next time, may dejectedly say "Hey, I waved to you at the movie theater, and even shouted your name, but you still didn't notice me". Similarly when viewing an object, let's say an orange, attentional resources may be on the shape, in this case the roundness of the orange, or the color of the orange, and perhaps even the texture and thin wrinkles of the orange (and here we are only dealing with the visual sense!). But it is unlikely that you process all available information simultaneously, rather at separate moments of time bring awareness to each part. Furthermore, there are countless degrees of each feature that may or may not go unnoticed (i.e. shape (slight oblong-ness or indentations); color (specs of green, white, and brown), textures (a missed scratch), etc.).

This lack of attention appears to be a part of our modality systems (i.e. sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell) and perhaps even a primary intrinsic trait of consciousness itself. This limited cognizant ability was looked into via a series of experiments dealing with what is called inattentional blindness, where we miss objects and change blindness, where we miss changes to objects and scenes. The poster boy (poster simian?) of these attentional studies is none other than our distant cousin, the gorilla.

Watch the video here

In a humorous (and oft frustrating if you're tricked like I was) task experiment, observers were asked to watch a video of six young adults (three wearing white shirts and three wearing black shirts) passing a basketball around and were instructed to count how many times the ball was passed. At the end of the task, participants were asked how many passes were there total (along with bounces in a harder task), and then were asked if they saw the gorilla. Wait, what gorilla?! In fact, during the visual task, a person in a gorilla suit walks in the middle of the circle of basketball-passing people and then walks out). About half of all participants miss the ape-suited passerby (D.J. Simons. & C.F. Chabris 1999).

They showed two versions, one where the white shirt members were passing the ball, and another where the black shirt members passed the ball. Interestingly, and perhaps also counter-intuitively, the gorilla was noticed more when attending to the black shirt team passing the ball than the white team. In the study's results, it infers from this finding that

"....observers are more likely to notice an unexpected event that shares basic visual features - in this case color-with the events they are attending to. In a sense, this effect is the opposite of the traditional 'pop-out' phenomenon in visual search tasks, which occurs when an item that differs in basic visual features from the rest of the display is easier to notice and identify."(D.J. Simons. & C.F. Chabris 1999, page 1069).

However it is here, and the above quote's line of reasoning I find particular odd. They say the 'pop-out' phenomenon is not in play here; but they did the same experiment with a woman walking in the middle of the basketball passing group holding an open umbrella, in which larger portion noticed (65%). So why did more observers spot the umbrella wielding woman more than the chest pounding ape, where in the case of the gorilla among the White team the gorilla was more frequently missed?

My guess is as follows. In the case of the black gorilla among the Black team, he was spotted more because the participants directed attention was towards the black shirted members. So any anomaly among a group of members that observers are attending to would be spotted more easily. Were the gorilla to be white and observers attending the Black team, this 'oddball' phenomenon would not occur, and the gorilla probably as unnoticeable as the black. Whereas in the case of the open umbrella, the observers can more readily spot something conspicuous among basketball passing members, especially since the umbrella's relative location is above everyone's head, thus supporting the 'pop-out' theory. If something that would normally stand out blends in via visual feature with the objects being attended to, it becomes more salient, but if...

But the fact of the matter is, despite any shared visual features, we often miss a great deal of things when attending to something. That's probably where the phrase "pay attention" stems from. For sure,we have to pay with our cognizant resources, focusing on various features and recording them to short-term memory, which takes a toll on the brain, uses energy, and takes away attention from other things.

Without a doubt we are all inattentionally blind every moment of every day. We only have the capacity to attend to one, perhaps two (in vision: via peripheral ), things at once. And whats more is that our predilections for attention aren't all the same either.

Attention: is Culturally Dependent?

There have been studies comparing the way Asians and Westerners think, and it turns out that there are some major differences, one of these being attentional tendencies. As can be seen in both Eastern and Western philosophies, and realized in social interactions of the respective societies, Asians tend to be more group-oriented whereas Westerners tend to have more individualistic tendencies. Of course, this is an overarching stereotype that in reality has a myriad of degrees depending on the country, location in that country, and personal inclinations. But despite the generalizations, there have been notable differences found in task experiments, one concerning an equal number of Americans and Japanese. Both groups were shown short animated videos of an underwater scene and then later asked what they say. The results are as follows:

"Americans referred mainly to features of focal ﬁsh (large, foregrounded, rapidly moving, brightly colored), whereas Japanese referred more to context and to relationships between focal objects and context (background objects and location of objects in relation to one another)"( Nisbett, Richard E.)

Even more striking was the first sentence used by Japanese "I saw a pond" versus American's "There was a big fish, maybe a trout..."(Nisbett, Richard E.)

Other tests were done as well, showing quite varying degrees of attention to a scene. In one, Japanese and Americans were shown two scenes in which participants had to spot out the anomaly from the second picture, or what had changed. And as it turns out, Japanese were much better able to notice the differences to the background, while Americans quickly caught differences to the foreground.

These experiments (and more) show just how attention is not only cultural, but we can surmise that attention comes down to the individual level as well. With the world as large and complex as it is, there are some natural constraints (physical modalities) as well as cultural constraints (language, society, era, etc. ) that help us steer our attention towards specific things at any given moment. This means that, surely to no one's big surprise, everyone experiences the world differently and that we are all inattentional blind. The concept of attention has many interesting features, especially when it comes to ways in which attention can be steered by others (i.e. any form of media or discourse). It seems like recognizing and knowing the ways in which attention can be manipulated can be a valuable tool and something worth exploring further.
Also, some guys made a newer version called 'selective attention task 2.0'. It's a fun rendition for sure. ;-)

References

D.J. Simons. & C.F. Chabris (1999). "Gorillas in Our Midst"

Richard Nisbett, The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently ... and Why New York: Free Press, 2003, ISBN 978-0-7432-1646-3

Tao: The Way of Water

noreply@blogger.com (Seminal Thought) — Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:36:00 +0000

This is an article submission I wrote for Parabola over 5 years ago, when the theme was "Water", but I was not accepted. Thought I might as well post it here...

“The highest form of goodness is like water”(1) wrote Lao Tzu, author of the Tao Te Ching. This and many other verses concerning water are pertinent to understand Taoism. Indeed no other symbol, other than the yin-yang, is more attributed to Taoism than water. While the yin-yang represents the metaphysical philosophy of Taoism, in its portrayal of the unity of polarities, water, on the other hand, represents the way into which we should live. One does not need to contemplate too hard on the nature of water to realize its multifaceted essence. The fact that the nature of water is so adaptable is what makes it the exemplar of how to live. However, it is not enough for the analogy of water to be understood, becoming lost in the marsh of intellectual apprehension. It must be experienced; you must become water.

Along with water’s trait of being adaptable, it is also known for its nourishment, flexibility, strength, cleansing power, and pervasiveness throughout the world. As water nourishes the earth, through the ocean which is its heart, and rivers that permeate the land like arteries and veins, it too nourishes all life on this planet, and without it we would not exist. In this way water is that “highest good” that Lao Tzu wrote of, “knowing how to nourish all things without striving with them.”(1) Before delving into the other attributes of water, it is import to notice here the foundation that Lao Tzu lays out here. The first principle of water is its purpose as nourishment. Without this acknowledgment, it can be surmised that water serves many functions, even including death through drowning, flood, or tsunami. It can be used as a means of transportation or recreation. It can even be used to power man-made machines like hydraulics and the steam engine. However, in its primordial state, water serves no higher purpose than its main basic function, which is to nourish. Everything else water can be used for cannot be achieved without first sustaining life. With this kept in mind, we know the aim of water, and thus we know what the purpose of our actions should be.

Paradoxically our actions are best achieved with non-action. This does not mean doing nothing. Rather, as Tzu said, action is best achieved “without striving”, that is to do it naturally. As the earth revolves around the sun, as a tree grows to the sky, and how a waterfall pours into the stream, these natural observances occur without effort, and so we should learn from these that what is natural is harmonious. In Taoism, this is known as wu-wei. Wu-wei is the opposite of Darwin’s tenet that “life is struggle”; rather once wu-wei is implemented there is no struggle, strife, or discord. You simply let things be, and accept life for what it is. This does not mean standing idly by while you let injustice incur or while you are walked on, but that whatever action you take is not beyond your limits, and more importantly that it comes natural and is actually fun.

As water does not strain to fill up the shapes it finds itself in, the power of wu-wei comes from its flexibility. “Nothing in the world is as soft and yielding as water. Yet for dissolving the hard and inflexible, nothing can surpass it.”(1) Just as the Grand Canyon was carved by the forces of water, which so subtly erode the sedimentary rock, we too can “move mountains” through this type of disposition. The martial arts, particularly jujitsu and judo utilizes this technique in their fighting style, using the own person’s weight and strength against himself. It is through this flexibility and looseness that a man much weaker and smaller can bring a larger, stronger man to his knees. Another illustration of wu-wei comes from a story in which Zhuangzi, Lao Tzu’s disciple, speaks of an archer who shot his arrows joyfully and blissfully, but when asked by his master to see if he could do it on top of a cliff, the archer climbed and walked to the precipice of the cliff, but then fell prostrated, scared out of his wits. His master replied, “The Perfect man looks up to the azure sky above, or dives down to the yellow springs beneath, or soars away to the eight ends of the universe, without any change coming over his spirit or his breath. But now the trepidation of your mind appears in your dazed eyes; your inward feeling of peril is extreme!”(2) Essentially, the archer got in the way of himself, allowing his mind and body to freeze by the obstacle he placed in front of himself. Wu-wei is not hindered by anything, but it is a calm, relaxed, and joyous state-of-being. Had the archer been as flexible as water then, he would have shot as well as he did before. By being flexible and adaptable, we do not strive, and everything is easier for it. Just as water does not strive against the course of a stream or river, or against freezing, precipitation, or evaporation, we too can make life easier and simpler by not fighting the forms we find ourselves in through knowing what it is natural for us.

Go with the flow man. And remember to bring a newspaper.

Another attribute of water is its cleansing ability. Not only is water the perfect substance to wash the dirt from our skin and hair, but it has been used throughout the ages, and among all of the great world traditions, for a type of spiritual cleansing. There is no purer feeling, after all, after bath or shower. As all of the grime from your body is washed away, so too does it feel that your soul is somehow cleansed through a divine ablution. I have not seen nor experienced a greater testimony to the relationship between body and spirit than the spiritual act of ablution. While the world religions all seem to point to water to cleanse the body and spirit of dirt, the problem often arises of how to maintain this purity. Taoism offers a solution using, once again, water as its model. Lao Tzu describes the manifestation of the Tao in man, “Pure in heart, like uncut jade, he cleared the muddy water by leaving it alone. By remaining calm and active, the need for renewing is reduced.”(1) And so through wu-wei, we can return to a simpler state. It’s a return to childhood, in a sense. When we are children, we may make mistakes and sin, but we hardly ever feel the need to renew ourselves, because we are still constantly finding ourselves. It is in this joyous innocence that we remain pure. And when we are clear-minded and clear-spirited we can affect the world all the better.

One final attribute of water must be examined, which is what makes this element the unequivocal model of Taoism, that being its pervasiveness. We know that the majority of the earth is covered by water, and that without it no life would be sustainable on the planet. Being everywhere, and supporting all life, it is the cause of all, like the Tao itself: “The Tao is to the world what a great river or ocean is to the streams and brooks”(1). The interconnectedness of water is seen even more when a city’s pollution travels miles, sometimes crossing a whole sea, to rain down acid on another town or village. Likewise, if people are toxic, the more likely those around them will be affected negatively. However, if we are pure and free of mud, uninhibited to flow smoothly, we can positively impact others just the same.

As mentioned before, it is not sufficient to understand the nature of water, or wu-wei. It must be experienced firsthand. Perhaps we all remember a time when we have felt this joy randomly, when just from life itself we were enraptured in joy and harmony, and everything seemed right in the world. This state of being is obtainable, so long as we give up obtaining it. As soon as we let go, we can become like water and flow jubilantly. Taoism teaches that if we embody this kind of spirit, as water already embodies than 70% of our physical being and our planet, we can become attuned to the Tao.

Bibliography

1) Tzu, Lao. Tao Te Ching. Boston: Shambhala Publications, 1961.

2) Watson, Burton. Zhuangzi: Basic Writings. Columbia University Press, 2003.

Biographical Information:

Why It's Hard to be Friends with a Christian

noreply@blogger.com (Seminal Thought) — Sat, 08 Feb 2014 23:21:00 +0000

I gotta' thinking the other day...Why don't I have any Christian friends? I mean, surely I have some who are Christian in name only or else the biannual-obligatory-Easter/Christmas church goer types. But what I mean are the real Christians, or maybe traditional is the right word...Well, who I mean the ones who wholeheartedly believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God, that Christ will come again, and all of the believers will be taken away to Heaven (known as the Rapture) and that some will go to Heaven and others made to suffer the tribulations on earth and finally when dead sent to Hell. And then it struck me. That's why it is hard to be friends with a Christian- Because they believe I am going to hell!

Forget if they believe the Book of Revelations will really happen, forget what they believe about the Book of Genesis or any creationism ideas they may hold to be true, forget any loony prejudices they may or may not have about gays or traditional marriage. What it all boils down to for me is their beliefs about the afterlife.

I mean...Is it just me or there something fundamentally disturbing to think your friend believes that you and other non-believers are destined to an everlasting fiery punishment of torment and gnashing of teeth?

Sorry bro, we're just on diverging paths.

I don't know....maybe it's just me.

But for sure it is true, that traditionalist Christians believe that if a person does not accept Jesus Christ's into their life,or Christ's salvation, they are literally damned to hell. There is no figurative sense of hell for these type of believers; which if there was , I wouldn't give a damn. And speaking of 'damn', there's another more succinct name for that type of belief: it's called Damnationism. And that's the belief that is really bothersome.

If you are a literalist reader of the Bible, or even if you simply take certain parts referring to hell as literally true, such as:

"Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels ..." (Matthew 25:41NKJV)

"And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 13:50 KJV)

If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It's better to enter eternal life with only one hand than to go into the unquenchable fires of hell with two hands. (Mark 9:43 NLT)

...and many more, than it simply is not easy being with you. And I fathom that other non-Christians must have similar thoughts. No one likes to be perceived as having an eternal destiny of swimming in a lake of fire and brimstone.

Yeaah! Skinny dipping in the lake of fire!

Surely, there are many traditionalist Christians who will claim that they don't think you will go to hell. Here is there usual rationale-- "No man knows another man's fate. Only God knows and only He decides whether you are allowed in the Kingdom of Heaven." That defense, or some similar notion of that defense, is always used to exonerate themselves for their own volitional belief. But it doesn't hold up. Here's why...

Christians can surely use that excuse, but if they also believe that Christians will be chosen for Heaven, and nonbelievers for Hell, then it self-contradicts. And if they claim that God's Grace can save anyone whom he chooses, a believer or not, then it kind of takes away the importance of being Christian. If God can save any unbeliever according to His will, then what point is there of being a Christian? The answer, they say, is that you increase your chances of being saved if you become a Christian. Surely, God can save anyone, but if you are a baptized Christian then despite whatever vile sins you may commit in your life time, you can bet the horse and farm that one you die, you shall be saved.

This particular argument is reminiscent of Pascal's Wager, of considering afterlife's prospects as a sort of gamble. If an eternal Heaven and Hell are false, then you will have had a finite loss of material wealth, gain, or pleasure, that you may have had in your lifetime if you were to succumb to a life of money, sex, drugs, or even lesser of those worldly pleasures. But, if you are wrong, then you will have a infinite loss, since most notions of Heaven and Hell are considered eternal. So, argues Pascal, it is better to take the finite loss if you are wrong than the infinite loss. And vice versa, better the infinite reward than the finite reward.

And so I have heard Christians make this 'gamble argument' many times in the past. And for me, it's not enough to persuade me. If God does exist, then his love or grace or whatever should not be dependent on a gamble of the right religion to pick, since there are hundreds or more to choose from on this earth. I could, however, relent that if there were an eternal heaven and hell, that it should depend on a gamble of how one lives their life. So if you are psycho-serial killer, I could see how people who fathom that this person would be sent to dimension of everlasting torment. Although I am not saying I hold those beliefs, but that idea makes sense to me. But for that argument to work, than it would naturally impoverish Christianity's exclusivistic claim as the right religion or way.

No, either literalist believers reject Christian Particularism, where some (most likely Christians) are bound for Heaven and others (most likely non-Chrisitians) are doomed to Hell and adopt more Universalist principles...or... they just admit to their non-Christian friends, family, or acquaintances, that "Hey, I like you a lot. We can be good friends in this life. But, what I really believe deep down inside is that one day I will most likely be saved and go to an eternal Heaven to join God and the angels because I am a Christian, and one day you will most likely be sent to an eternal fiery place of unquenchable thirst and gnashing of teeth."

But for me, the unfortunate truth is that it is very hard for me to be friends with someone who believes that in the end I'm going to, or have a high probability of going to hell.

The Relationship and Function of Image-Schemas and Frames

noreply@blogger.com (Seminal Thought) — Thu, 06 Feb 2014 10:27:00 +0000

The Relationship Between Image-Schemas and Frames

The similarities between image-schema and frames are that they both derive from experience and are construed “on-line”, and both consist of ways to construct the two visually, which gives us viable tools for concept mapping. And the relationship between the two is one of scale and complexity. While image-schema are concepts which arise from embodied experience, frames are the larger network from which the image-schema reside. In other words, frames contain image-schemas. As an illustration of how the two relate, let's look at an example of the word RADIUS, which cannot be understood without understanding the word CIRCLE. So, RADIUS is a part of the CIRCLE frame (or cluster), which includes other words like DIAMATER, CIRCUMFERENCE, ROUND, etc. CIRLCLE itself is a part of a concept derived from our embodied experience with two dimensional SPACE (Evans and Greens 2006). And so, among the various networks of meaning in the frame system, there exists a countless multitude of image schema that we are able to derive meaning from thanks to the experiences our body and senses have given us. So the difference between image-schema and frames is that frames provide a way of analyzing a network system of meaning and their inter-relationships, while schemas tell us the relationship between words and concepts afforded by our immediate bodily experiences. In a sense, there exists a hierarchical relationship of complexity between the two. Concepts within a given complex frame can be simplified until a domain has nothing left to presuppose except the raw experience. For example, KNUCKLE is placed high in the hierarchical ladder, where more complex frames (or domains) go, and under it would be FINGER->HAND->ARM->BODY, and then finally SPACE. Similarly, if I said “I am gravitating toward eating this whole pizza”, the concept of GRAVITATING could be extracted vertically down (more simplified) to ATTRACTION ->FORCE ( and perhaps also BODY->SPACE). At the same time GRAVITATING could be related horizontally to other aspects such as GRAVITY, PLANETS,

WEIGHT, OVERHYPED MOVIE,etc., which would all be networked out to other frames. So, in one sentence summing up their relationship with each other: Schemas abstract our senses intovconcepts while frames rein them in.

In previous posts we have looked at what image-schemas and frames are, and in this posthow they relate to each other. Now, in this finally section, we will take a look at the role they have in human cognition and why all of this matters.

The Function of Image Schemas and Frames

Previously, we explored a little of the cognitive differences of image-schemas between speakers of different languages (i.e.the Korean example). Let us re-explore that. It is beyond any doubt that depending on the language you speak or think in, you will be accessing different image-schemas than a native speaker of another language. To clarify again, it is not that we have different schemas, but rather we have different network structures whereby nodes of access are organized differently in each language, or in other words, we have different frames. I would venture a guess that the closer the languages are historically related, the more overlap of organization of this network there is. A wonderful frame analogy was given by Charles J. Fillmore, one of the founders of Frame Semantics, was the comparison to an anthropologist visiting a foreign culture who might ask, “What categories of experience are encoded by members of this speech community through the linguistic choices they make when they talk?”(1982). It might also be helpful (or maybe only to the tech-geeks out there) to think of this difference of structure as kind of software, like an operating system (and indeed, operating systems are written in computer language) . Like the well known OSes Windows, Apple, and Linux, they all have different organizational internal structures encoded in the software. However, when it comes down to it, all computers containing any well-built OS can do almost the same tasks.

...with some occasional errors.

Likewise, humans, while having different conceptual frames have the potential, for all intents and purposes, to perform the same tasks. A speaker of any language, with the right education, can do math, memorize, speak, write, read, perform an array of body movements, etc. However, there is some interesting disscussions concerning whether some languages can afford tasks better than others. For example, Malcom Gladwell in his famous bestseller “Outliers” (2008) suggested that the Asian languages are better structured to handle the task of mathematics.

This, however is debated. But I would not be surprised if some languages were better suited to do different tasks. Language, after all, is a set of tools, and each culture has their own particular needed uses of sometimes different tools. For example, in Japanese there is a well known untranslatable phrase “yoroshiku onegaishimasu”. This phrase is used only in the Japanese culture frame, and cannot be really translated into any other frame. It's literal translation means something like “Please be good to me” and is often used as a formal greeting expression, or when entrusting some task to another individual or group. However, it is often translated in English to “How are you?” or some other common greeting phrase in English dubbed or subtitled movies. But of course, as with many culture-specific untranslatable words, it loses something in the translation and instead only takes the role of a greeting phrase. And so, where in one culture (Japan), you need this particular tool in everyday life, it is not needed in other cultures. Similarly, even with words that do translate without the loss of some vital element (like the larger frame in which the word must reside to make full sense), there are words which are interconnected differently in languages. Take for example hantai in Japanese, which would mean “opposite”, “against” , “vise versa” or “upside down”, whereas in English we have the four separate words which have different nuanced implications. On the other hand, as discussed before, an English word like “wear” or “put on” has many different translation verbs in Japanese, all depending on the body part. So as you can probably imagine, Japanese and English are two OSes that have some pretty different cognitive organization of frames due to the stark dissimilarity of linguistic origin. There have been studies done as well which have compared and compiled evidences of these differences of framing tendencies among English, Chinese, and Japanese (Spring, R. & Horie, K. 2013).

We just live in difference worlds!

What this is an indication of is how, through a cognitive feedback mechanism, our image-schemas are being attached to different words, and thus different concepts, via the language we think or speak in. And so, image-schemas may transform to different conceptual metaphors depending on the network of associated words within the frame. Our everyday lives are full of these interactions with image-schemas (and the frames that structure them). Studies claim “over two dozen different image-schemas and their transformations appear regularly in people's everyday thinking, reasoning, and imagination” (Gibbs & Colston 1995). An example of this transformation: the image-schema of BALANCE, which can be metaphorically transformed to abstract experiences such as psychological states, legal relationships, etc. show how there is a basic point with which our abstract concepts can extract meaning from our sensuous experience (Gibbs & Colston 1995). However, those usages of the word “balance” by metaphorical extension, while may be logical to extend to the sphere of psychological states or legal relationships, is very much language specific, since for each word, a specific aspect of the image-schema is applied to any particular metaphor. So, when one says “I just can't stand it anymore”, the relationship of this usage of “stand”, in this case meaning “bear/endure”, to the overall STAND image-schema is language-specific and frame-specific. In other words, “I can't stand it” may not make any sense when literally translated to another language and could be confused with actual bodily STAND or some other derived STAND metaphorical extension. So, the way in which we use words then loops back to our cognitive processes and thereby fortifies our understanding of the words and helps make specific connections between image-schema throughout our framed networks.

We must also take into account the attentive aspect of language too, and how that shapes our cognitive processes. Through the way we organize our internal monologues or dialogues, manner of speaking, and writing style, we elicit certain parts of the scene we are focusing on. This is also called active zones. Consider the following examples:

“a. The footballer headed the ball.

b. The footballer kicked the ball.

c. The footballer frowned at the referee.

d. The footballer waved at the crowd.”(Evans & Greens 2006)

In each of these examples above, while the subject and tense remains the same, the verb and object change produces a different scene in our mind of where the activation is taking place. In (a) our focus is on the head of the footballer; in (b) the attention is on the foot; in (c) we have a wider lens focus on both the footballer's face and some part of the referee; and finally (d) focuses on the footballer's arm and hand as well as the crowd. As you can see, the active zone makes only certain parts of the scene relevant to imagine.

The attention of the scene may be guided by the grammatical structure of the sentence, too. Take for example:

“a. The shop assistant sold the champagne to George.

b. George bought the champagne from the shop assistant.” (Evans and Greens 2006)

Both (a) and (b) are in among the COMMERCIAL EVENT frame, however the attention in sentence (a) is on the seller, while the attention in sentence (b) is on the buyer. As you can imagine, this attentional aspect of frames can come very handy when trying to persuade someone. This is also the reason why some history texts tends to try and not persuade its readers by using the passive voice and taking an objective tone, rather than the more biased active voice. Compare “The Confederacy was defeated by the Union” and “The Union defeated the Confederacy.” However with other literary works (except perhaps scientific journals), active voice is appropriate (i.e. Jokes: “Why did the chicken cross the road?”, not “Why was the road crossed by the chicken?”).

Framing in politics.

The applications for understanding image-schema and frames are abundant. For example,they can be useful in speech writing, marketing, comedy writing, literature, translation and interpretation, psychology, day-to-day social interacting, and politics. George Lackoff (2004) even prescribes a method of how to utilize frames successfully in the ugly world of politics to make sure a political position's message is delivered in the most effective and emotion-pulling way possible. He suggests that proper framing, rather than raw truth, is pertinent to win in an election. And by framing properly and using that frame's language, you can build a better case and scene in the voter's mind. This is what the Republican Party in the U.S. does in American politics by eliciting the STRICT FATHER frame every election, and Lackoff makes his suggesstion to Progressives and the Democrat Party to tell their own story in order to enact their own frame in the process of trying to win votes.

Cruse and Croft (2004) explain poignantly the use of frames in another very common politically debated issue – abortion. The use of “FETUS vs. UNBORN BABY: “terms used by opposing sides of the debate on abortion. FETUS proﬁles the entity in question against a more general MAMMAL frame: any mammal’s unborn progeny may be called a fetus . This frame makes abortion appear less morally repugnant, since it is widely accepted in society that animals can be killed for certain purposes. The complex phrase UNBORN BABY exploits two frames. BABY proﬁles the same entity against the more speciﬁc HUMAN frame: we prototypically use baby only for human offspring. Both BABY and UNBORN proﬁle the entity against its projected later life stage, namely after birth. These frames make abortion appear more repugnant, since killing humans is accepted under only quite restricted circumstances birth. These frames make abortion appear more repugnant, since killing humans is accepted only under quite restricted circumstances (e.g.war and self-defense), and all agree that once a fetus is born, it is a human being.” The framing of the topic is all that matters in getting people's emotion's tweaked or riled. By eliciting the frame you desire, you can evoke different reactions from people, and thus framing is a powerful tool to use, and most importantly, to be aware of.

How Frames Are Formed

noreply@blogger.com (Seminal Thought) — Wed, 05 Feb 2014 08:59:00 +0000

Frames have been defined by Charles Fillmore as “detailed knowledge structures or schemas emerging from everyday experience”(Evans & greens 2006). Being a rich and complex network of meaning, they are what constrains our encyclopedic knowledge of words. And in fact, each word contains a frame in which other words or expressions are associated. This theory was developed to tackle the challenge of extracting word meaning correctly. The problem with simply defining a word by having a list of definitions as is done by dictionaries was deemed inadequate since they do not cover every instance or usage of a word, or when the word should not be used. Take for example the word bachelor, which is usually defined as an unmarried man. However, the pope would not be considered a bachelor by an means since the term bachelor has cultural and nuanced implications of a single man who is regularly engaged in the act of finding a mate (Evans and Green 2006). The pope is clearly not (although I cannot say the same for sure about Catholic priests). However, the pope very well could be considered to be “married to his job”, in which case the word “marry” takes on a metaphorically extended meaning of being dedicated or committed to his work. So, here too, the word “married” may take on a different meaning, depending on the expression and context, than which might usually found in a dictionary. And therein lies the problem with having a dictionary view of words, and so proponents of frame theory suggest taking on the encyclopedic view.

Our knowledge of everything is encyclopedic, although our access to various interconnected meanings may not be as rich or accurate as referencing a Britannica Encyclopedia volume. Wait, who uses Britannica nowadays anyways??

The encyclopedic view holds that we should take into account all usages of a word by way of forming a rich network of meaning (Cruse & Croft 2004). This encyclopedic take on language should therefore be interconnecting and pervasive. Frames, or domains, as they are also sometimes called, holds within it a vast network of links between words and related meaning. So if you think of the word “bird”, what might be elicited in the mind are as follows: a prototypical bird including types such as “robin”, “sparrow”, atypical varieties such as “penguins” and “ostriches”, compounds including the word “bird” such as “birdhouse”, “birdbath”, metonymic words like “feather”, “beak”, other words associated with birds “seed”, “tree”, “fly”, “sky”, rhymes of the word “bird”, like “heard”, “word”, famous birds like “Big Bird” and “The Roadrunner”, and so on. However, it would seem that this encyclopedic view of meaning making would be an exhausting affair for the brain since there are countless other words and meaning to be packed into one word, and for each other networked word countless more other words connected. However, the mechanism of how this frame system works, proposed by Ronald W. Langacker, is that each linguistic unit acts as an access node to the network which branches out to other nodes, much like an internet network or perhaps even how the synapses in our brains work. Langacker also suggests thinking of frames as groups of associated meaning together, called clusters. He gives the example of the word “mother” and points out several models of meaning when referring to the word “mother” (Cruse and Croft 2004):

BIRTH: the person giving birth is the mother

GENETIC: the female who contributed the genetic material is the mother

NURTURANCE: the female adult who nurtures and raises a child is the mother

of that child

MARITAL: the wife of the father is the mother

GENEALOGICAL: the closest female ancestor is the mother

And he also points out how different compounds or adjectives attached to “mother” can change the meaning to one of the different models, such as “stepmother” (NURTURANCE and MARITAL), “foster mother” (NURTURANCE), “birth mother” (BIRTH), “genetic mother” (GENETIC), “unwed mother” (MARITAL).

So, each of these models of meaning would thus branch out from the word “mother” and consist of it's own cluster of other words, which branch further yet. So, instead of taxing our brain when we think of any one particular word and getting dizzy like trying to solve an advanced sudoku puzzle, our brains access the node and nearby branches of whichever applies to the immediate situation based on context. Thus meaning is a “result of an online integration of minimal linguistic cues provided by the input spaces and frames delivered by the context in which the expression actually occurs” (Bundgaard, P. et al.). The key point here is “minimal linguistic cue”. So, for instance, when you hear the sentence, “She's not your real mother” (which I hope you don't), we are automatically inclined to think we are referring to the genetic mother aspect of MOTHER by linguistic cues such as “real”, plus the situation in which one is found, and of course including any cultural background that may be necessary to take into account.

Frames can also be seen as a word which evokes a situation, or scene (Petruck,M.R.L.; Fillmore, C. 1982). The scenes that are evoked are framed in by the stereotypical and relevant aspects of a scene. And the scenes which are evoked by a particular word or sentence are determined by what information the receiver has been repeatedly exposed to, or that which had some emotional significance and therefore stuck. And so words like “buy”, “sell” , “pay”, “spend”, “cost”, and “charge”, which are all semantically related verbs, would belong to the Commercial Transaction Frame (Petruck, M.RL). Likewise, words like “driver, fuel, transmission, wheels, etc. would belong to the Automobile Frame. (An illustration of a part of the Automobile Frame from Evans and Greens 2006) is shown BELOW.)

Frames can be applied to aspects of grammar and speech as well, in which case, special attention would be placed on those respective aspects of the frame. Aspects such as grammatical construction would usher in a whole separate framework from which to work with, depending on grammatical rules, and supplied otherwise by usage. For example, “He went to the store” versus “He'd gone to store”,in which the latter implying, via English grammar, that the attention is on an later future event. And the reason I say it could also be supplied by usage, is that often grammatical rules, much to internet grammar nazi's dismay, are ignored yet meaning can still can be ascertained (i.e. “I laid on the bed” is technically incorrect). Speech frames contain stylistic aspects, like a speaker starting his speech with “Once upon a time...”, evokes a fairy tale frame, which then bring in further frames into the finicky fray. Alliteration is also a stylistic aspect to be aware of.

But where does this all leave image-schema? Where do frames fit exactly with image-schema? Next, let us take a look at how frames and image-schema are similar, how they differ, and the relationship they have with one another.

"On" Image Schema

noreply@blogger.com (Seminal Thought) — Thu, 19 Sep 2013 13:35:00 +0000

The purpose of this post is to turn you on to Cognitive Semiotics.

My first week of grad school is over and with it a ton of fascinating things to think about. I am very pleased with the degree I've chosen: Cognitive Semiotics, and is the topic I originally designed this blog to largely encompass. It is such an amazing and interesting subject, which can span and overlap across a myriad of various fields. My mind is not quite back into 'uni gear', but it is getting there. And that was one of the main purposes of starting this blog in the first place, to give my thoughts a place to live and reflect upon while resuscitating whatever writing skills I inadvertently abandoned after my undergrad.

This week, one of the more fascinating topics we discussed was image schema. Image schema is basically a linguistic unit (word) which relates to our physiological perception of the world, but it can also relate to our historical and linguistically experiences as well . Here is a great example of a bunch of schema all together and illustrated by a mere daily morning ritual such as brushing one's teeth: (from The Body in the Mind by Mark Johnson)

"You wake out of a deep sleep and peer out from beenath the covers into your room. You gradually emerge out of your stupor, pull yourself out from under the covers, climb into your robe, stretch out your limbs, and walk in a daze out of the bedroom and into the bathroom . You look in the mirror and see your face staring back out at you. You reach into the medicine cabinet, take out the toothpaste, squeeze out some toothpaste, put the toothbrush into your mouth, brush your teeth in a hurry, and rinse out your mouth."

And here, as is obviously shown deals with the two opposite schemas of "in" and "out", which are schemas of containment.

This man is obvious engaged in the activity.

A drawing of the CONTAINMENT schema

So, a schema is type of concept that is relatable to what our human bodies can experience directly.

And there are a plethora of other schemas, after all, physical experiences range far and wide. (up,down, front-back, left-right, near, far,etc.), locomotion (momentum, source-path-goal), balance (equilibrium, axis balance), force (compulsion, blockage, counterforce, diversion,etc.), unity/multiplicity (merging, collection, splitting, link etc.), identity (matching, superimposition), existence (removal, bounded space,cycle, object, process), and much more. In this way, schemas can be looked as the foundation of higher and abstract concepts.

Often, we use schemas in everyday expressions without realizing it, too:

"I stood up for my friend."
"Congress blocked the bill."
"The companies merged together"
"He went all-in"
"She finally snapped out of it."
"The man took off the sticker"
"The staw that broke the camel's back"
"She went on a date."

And that last schema "on" is what I would like to discuss more in depth about.

Last week in class we had an activity related to schema which asked to analyze the following three sentences.
a) The guard is on duty
b) The blouse is on sale
c) We're on red alert.

And then the exercise asked: Why do we use the word "on" and not "in" in those three sentences? What does this reveal about the relationship between experience and conceptual structure?

When doing this activity, after some deliberation I wrote down that each case of "on" denoted a state of preparation and control, while "in" represented the schema of 'containment', as we had already talked about in class. I took my answer as such a matter-of-fact that I didn't really build my case or know how to articulate my idea well when class time came around. And so, when we went over this exercise in class, I told my opinion and shoddily explained my reasoning.

However, much to my surprise, the professors and a few of the students disagreed with me. Some students backed me up though, and supported my case, which I was especially grateful for since I lacked the necessary verbal skills at the time to reposte.

The answer that my professors were looking for was that "on" denoted a schema of TEMPORALITY (schema are capitalized from henceforth), rather than CONTROL, which was what I was claiming. And while I tried to explain my argument further, it was abruptly shot down by Professor Peer for overusing the word "control" during my explanation. His words: "You've already used the word 18 times, you only have two more left." It was a shock to have a professor so quickly bat down my opinion, especially since they both later openly entertained many loonier ideas in the later exercise from several students. However, he did it with humor, and for that reason I wasn't miffed.

So back to my case... While I agree that "on" can represent "TEMPORARLITY", for instance:

"He sat on the rock." (He won't always be on the rock)
"She put on the television" (The TV is on only temporarily, one hopes)
"The program is on at six" (obviously dealing with the temporality of time, just like "on Wednesday")
And even back to an example from the exercise:
"The guard is on duty" (He won't always be on duty)

....I still think that the schema of 'TEMPORALITY' is insufficient to denote to the word "on". I say this because "in" can also denote TEMPORALITY:

"He went in the room" (He won't be in the room forever)
"The shark ran into dolphin." (Happened for a temporary moment)
"My mom's birthday is in December." (inferring you will be out of December at some point, which
"Let's eat in" (Again, not a permanent endeavor.)

Of course, some of these "in" examples are also very obviously schemas of CONTAINMENT. Indeed, I think any action which goes through space and time have the subset schema of temporality.

However, with my theory of the word "on" having the schema of CONTROL (or POWER), I tried to make my case by pointing out the following about the exercise examples (put in parenthesis below):
a) The guard is on duty (the guard can always get off duty, thereby either he (or the boss) has control of him being "on")
b) The blouse is on sale (someone decides when the blouse is on and isn't on sale)
c) We're on red alert. (someone decides to caution everyone involved in the situation)

So, then some people argued the point of who has agency in these cases. I replied that it didn't matter and that someone has control of the situation in any case. This was about the point that Professor Peer snapped from having heard the word "control" spouted too many times in a single defense.

Again, the answer Prof. Peer and Prof. Sven were looking for was TEMPORALITY, however I still think there is a strong case for CONTROL (or POWER).

In the most obvious image schema of "on", it refers to the physical nature of something being located on the surface of something else. (ie. The ball is on the ground.)
Now, surely, the ball being on the ground, and then later being picked up by someone refers to the temporality of the ball being located on the surface, however, as stated before, this can easily be applied to other schema (ie. I blocked the punch; The mouse went into the house). So, in the same manner, I don't agree that "on" refers to TEMPORALITY exclusively.

And the reason why I believe that "on" often refers to a schema of CONTROL is because: when an object naturally is on the surface of another, we usually think nothing of it. (ie. the snow fell on the ground) Here, there is typically no consideration of CONTROL (unless you believe God or some snow deity was responsible), and instead we take it as a natural physical causality. However, if something unnatural (man-made or out-of-place) were to be on the surface of something, (ie. A chair is on the grass), then we naturally wonder who put the chair there (unless we already know or assume). SO, the correlation of "on" and CONTROL comes about when there is an unnatural or unexpected causality of something being on the surface of another, in which case we ascribe agency to someone or something. Whereas other schema such as CONTAINMENT for "in" and "out" does not necessarily have a schema of CONTROL (ie. "He was in love", or "He was in the zone", which are often viewed as an uncontrollable events, and "There is a lot of fiber in cereal, which is viewed simply as a state of being).

In fact, looking back at my point about objects being naturally on the surface of another... it is interesting how primitive humans (and many people still do to this day) associate natural phenomenon with some god or deity (an entity which has CONTROL of the causality). I believe this points to some inherent tendency for humans to ascribe agency to any form of causality, even to phenomenon not well understood .

I think humans learn the association of "on" and CONTROL early on. As infants or children, when we see the cup being placed on the table, we immediately see the person having control over that cup's placement, and hearing the associated word of "on" to describe it, where it comes to rest. When the wind blows the leaves off the roof, using on's antonym, we also ascribe agency to the wind (or wind gods) which had control over the leaves leaving the surface of the roof.

So "on" has to do with placement. When we say there is a rock on the ground, that insinuates that yes, it is temporal, and with that knowledge we automatically know that it could be removed off the ground. So despite whether the rock is naturally there in our minds, the potentiality of it's removal refers to scheme of CONTROL.

In conclusion, I think that "on", as well as containing the subset feature of TEMPORALITY, refers mainly to the image schema of CONTROL. When the meeting is on Sunday, it means someone had control of its placement. When we turn the TV on using a remote control, we are controlling the electrical current of the TV's operational function. When I continue to ramble on and on, as I've been doing in this blog, I have been exerting my control and own will to do so. And now I'll stop. :-)

Most Neotenous in the World: Japan

noreply@blogger.com (Seminal Thought) — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 04:51:00 +0000

Maeda Atsuko, the former number 1 member of AKB48, along with rest of the members, epitomizes Japanese neotenous features.

Damn your infernal cuteness, Pikachu!

Recently I have been getting interested in a subject that all too few seem to know about. It is called Neoteny. And even I, until recently, wasn't aware of the term, which is ironic since it especially surrounds me everywhere in Japan. I used to think it was just kawaii-ness (or cuteness). But now I've realized it's far beyond that, and that I am living in the most neotenous place on Earth.

Background of Neoteny

The word neoteny, from Greek, can be broken up into two words," neo", meaning young or new, and teinen, meaning "tend to", which really fits the Japanese stereotype, since they do tend to be younger. Or at least Japanese people appear that way.

But neoteny can be applied to much more than the aesthetic taste of Japanese culture and their seemingly vampiric-like never aging semblance. In fact, the human race itself is quite neotenous compared to other species. Meaning, we tend to remain young, or in other words, the features that are prominent in babies and children seem to continue into adulthood for all of us. Just compare the bone structure and facial features of our closest ancestor, the chimpanzee.

With that glout look they develop in adulthood comes the strength of 10 men.

Humans, on the other hand, as we reach adulthood, will continue to exude child-like qualities, such as little body hair and a flatter face. Also, our cranial shape undergoes little change.

Other neotenous creatures (those whose physical features change little as they age) are the panda...

Panda's are so cute, in fact, that Tokyo's Ueno Zoo spends around US$950,000 a year to rent them from China.

...and the less famous, but perhaps cutest creature ever to walk and swim the earth, one of the species of the axolotl salamander.

Salamance, go!

Although the puffer fish was a close contender.

Even cuter when they get angry

Some propose that human evolution has been and is continuing to head toward evermore neotenization. And compared to the rest of our ancestral family, it does certainly appear that way.

We have certainly gotten a lot less hairier and better looking over the years.

In fact, just recently there has been this popular article floating around on the net called "How The Human Face Might Look In 100,000 Years". And it shows a chilling view of an artist's depiction of what humans could look like if this trend continues. Seriously, this is the stuff nightmares are made of. It is also said that Google Glass-like eyewear that humans will inevitably use will also contribute to our eyes becoming tremendously big. So apparently Google will eventually make us "goggle-eyed".

Will we become anime characters or aliens? Are aliens really us in the future who have traveled back in time to visit the present us?! So many questions..!

Neotenization is a phenomenon not only seen among humans and other various species, but it is seen within our human race extremely amplified when we look at ~~Japan.~~ Wait, I mean women. I'll get to Japan soon, I promise.

Neoteny in Women

Ashley Montagu, an anthropologists who was an expert on gender and sex, notes the following neotenous traits in women relative to men: "more delicate skeleton, smoother ligament attachments, smaller mastoid processes, reduced brow ridges, more forward tilt of the head, narrower joints, less hairy, retention of fetal body hair, smaller body size, more backward tilt of pelvis, greater longevity, lower basal metabolism, faster heartbeat, greater extension of development periods, higher pitched voice and larger tear ducts."(1)

And if that wasn't enough...which evidently in most societies, it is not...there is make up and grooming which helps women appear even younger.

Oscar Wilde once wrote, "A man's face is his autobiography. A woman's face is her work of fiction.". While this may be true to some degree, given the free rein of options there are for a women to experiment and design their own creative look (I'm looking at you, Lady Gaga)...Really what women are doing when they shave or wax their legs (and sometimes arms), pluck their eyebrows, do their nails, meticulously groom their hair, and add blush, mascara, and eyeshadow, is preserving their youth. Why do women take so much time to preserve their youth? Is it just for health? Clearly not, since if it were, then the majority of women would be sufficiently satisfied to go towards the lengths that men do to groom themselves. Unfortunately, some are.

But hey, to each their own, right?

Obviously, most women go further than men to try and appear young. So the reason women do this is because their chief value, to the woe of many feminists, is procreation. Youth signifies to a man that a woman is healthy and in peak condition to conceive and bear a child. This value, which is strictly a biological value, has been relegated by men throughout human history to be woman's main utility and worth.

Through documented cross-cultural studies, where races rated the level of attractiveness of women, it has been proven that men are more attracted to women who have a higher degree of neoteny than those whom do not. (2)

However, in the study, it was noticed that Asians tended not be as concerned with sexual maturity as Blacks, Whites, and Hispanics. This probably has to do with Asians overall being more neotenized than other human races.

Golden Bomber, a visual kei rock band, famous for their song "Memeshikute" (effeminate/unmanly) parodizes some Japanese men's trend towards an increasingly feminine demeanor.

Neoteny in Asia and Japan

Asians are stereotypically known to have less body hair, fewer sweat glands, be shorter , have stockier legs, and a flatter face. By chance, these are all traditionally neotenous characteristics in humans. Or is it by chance?

There has been some conjecture to as of how this came about with Asian people. One such explanation was of the cultivation of rice, which allowed for greater population density, and thus people could live much closer together. Usually among mammals, when a species reaches maturity, they tend to live in not-so-close quarters. Juvenile mammals, however, can live together without any problems. Eureka! So there's the solution!

Living close together required a great necessity of harmony and cooperation, and so it is speculated that perhaps Asians inadvertently bred themselves, in a sense, to acquire more juvenile features, ergo less aggressive features, for the good of society.

Toy poodle, feeds off human's "awwww!"'s.

Just as adorable dogs have been able to be bred in a relatively short period of time, it is speculated that Asians naturally have chosen mates that would produce "cute" offspring, as to keep social harmony, which evolved over time to create the more neotenic look of Asian people.

And with Japan being an island nation, along with its long history of seclusion, this perhaps happened on a greater scale here, in almost complete isolation of intermixing with other people.

A large population getting along successfully on a small island also meant that the culture, too, would need to carry some neotenic inclinations. This is perhaps how the kawaii-culture was formed.

Neoteny Spotted within Japanese History

Even before anime and manga, there is some hint that Japanese had a inclination toward neoteny. Even as far back as the Jomon period, archeologists have unearthed Japan's version of the "venus figurine", called the Doguu (below), with its characteristic buggy goggle-eyes. Is it possible that Japan has apparently done a 360 as far as character art is concerned, from Doguu to Anime.

The Doguu（土偶)- Some conspiracy theorists claim that these clay figures figure represent beings in space suits. Humans from the future, perhaps?!!

Or maybe Lord Nibbler from Futurama?

The Western Venus figurines however no signs of cuteness in the face...nor even a face for that matter.

The haniwa clay figures during the later Kofun period (3rd to 6th century B.C.) also display rather cute features.

Buddhism may have had a role in Japan's fondness in cute things, as well. As we can all imagine the fat Laughing Buddha (Hotei/Maitreya) being all jolly and full of smiles with a big belly, some Japanese sculptures depicted his disciples in a similar fashion.

8th Century Rakan statues of Otagi Nenbutsu-ji, at a Buddhist temple near Kyoto.

Indeed even Buddhist monks represent a child in many respects, with their bald head and ego-less child-like minds. This type of child-mind has been instilled in many manga and anime heroes today, too.

Admittedly, not all Japanese art reflected kawaii-ness. A lot of art depicted more realistic looking characters.

And by the middle ages (Edo/Tokugawa period), bushido samurai culture was born, and became the pinnacle of Japanese manliness. This culture is revered still by many in Japan as what a man should be: silent, loyal, just, carry a strong sense of shame, self-sacrifice, have refined manners, martial spirit, and honor. Traditionalist men often lament that those manly days are gone and men have become feminized over the recent decades.

Now I am not saying that Japanese culture has been and is even today wholly neotenous. I am only suggesting that there may have been some latent potential for it throughout history which may have been part of the reason this kawaiiness and neotinzation has taken off like it has in the past several decades.

America's Contribution Toward the Kawaii Trend

Betty Boop not only helped spawn
our typical notion of Japanese manga
characters,
but also was the first to "kanchou"

After WWII and with the economic rise that Japan underwent, kawaiiness crept its way up to the forefront of Japanese culture through anime. Large and part due to the influence of American animation. Betty Boop perhaps the most neotenous American cartoon human, and Disney, whose early characters displayed a kawaii countenance with its big bright eyes and small mouth.

Bambi was even the influence for Osamu Tezuka , who is best known for creating Astro Boy and Kimba, and is considered the father of manga and Godfather of anime.

And as Japan entered the economic bubble later in the 70's, the kawaii bubble expanded right along with it.

And with Hello Kitty, Japan was ushered into a new world of kawaii, the likes of which no one had known before. (More recently, in fact, this type of yurukyrara, a simply drawn character, has been created for each prefecture in Japan, and many cities as well, to act as a local representative.)

To whereas now we are at the point that we can see kawaii-ness in everyday things. From traffic monkey road barriers, to abunai (danger) signs, to cute convenient store and even police mascots (below).

Criminals beware.

Fake Cute-ing

Have you ever wondered where Japanese girl's cute poses came from? I know I have...

I'm not sure what to call this pose...The star-trek-puffy-face-open-my-left-eye pose?

The culprit who started the"girls should behave cutely" craze has been identified. Her name is Seiko Matsuda.

"Atashi?" (Me?)

This pop singer and songwriter idol set a new precedence for kawaii in the 80's and popularized a cute way of acting, known as burikko (ぶりっ子). This pretend cute-playing is often accompanied with an air of innocence and stupidity as well.

This way of acting has not gone away and is ever more pervasive today. Many girls do this in front of men, and some to a very extreme extent, because they believe it is what many Japanese men find attractive (and many do).

This is not strictly a Japanese phenomenon mind you. The American "California valley girl" voice and behavior, for example, is similar. Although I would argue the Japanese burikko may have it beat.

I would even argue that the "standard" way of talking and behaving within customer service for most Japanese people has a degree of burikko. Just listen to the difference of pitch when Japanese people talk to a friend versus when they take a business phone call. Here's basically what happens when they're in customer service mode...

ALVIN!!!

Given, I think most people, despite nationality, raise the pitch of their voice when talking with a stranger or customer; however I feel like its leagues different from the extremity of difference you will hear in Japan, especially among women. While I don't think many Japanese people would recognize a higher voice as burikko, I believe it has the same overall purpose, to neotenize. That being, to come across as less intimating by imitating children's high voice.

Neoteny in Men

Neoteny is not only pervasive among children, women, government, and local or company mascots. Nowadays, this trend has even started to reach the men in Japan, too. Neotenized behavior can be seen with Japan's notorious soushoku dansei (herbivore men), who do not fit in the traditional male stereotype of being competitive, and/or lack interest in sex and money.

You can also find a cosmetics section in many stores now that cater specifically to men. Morever, some Japanese men shave their arms and legs. And perhaps most humorous (and harmless) of them all, are grown men's inclination to janken (rock, paper, scissors) to make a decision.

How salary men get things done.

Danger of Scientific Racism

A danger of this concept of neoteny is that it can be used for a scientific backing of either racial superiority or inferiority.

After Japan's defeat in WWII, General Douglas MacArthur once famously said "Japan is a nation of 12-year olds". Way to kick Japan when they were already down, MacArthur. And so non-Asians may use this evidence of neotinzation as proof of Asian's stunted growth and thus inferior status.

On the other hand, as some anthropologists theorize, neoteny is what human evolution has been heading towards. To preserve one's youth, both in and out of the body, is what mankind has been striving to do for millennia. So, in that respect, Asians and Japanese could be seen as at the top of the tier, as more evolutionary advanced, and thus superior. Biologically, Asian's longer youthful appearance and higher lifetime expectancy could also be used to support this position.

Both views are dangerous to adopt and I think it behooves us all to be critical when analyzing the evidence and drawing any conclusions.

Neoteny in Everyone

Japan aside, it is a fact that all human beings possess an inherent neoteny that many other species do not have. Our youth, no matter the race, is something we can keep throughout the aging process, and not only with products or clothes that make us look younger. Where other animals by-and-large lose the sense of 'play' that they once have, humans have the ability to keep it for life. This youthful sense of play is what drives humans to be curious about the world, to take courageous steps toward the unknown, and thereby make many great discoveries and enable us to explore the universe. Were we stagnant when we reached adulthood, our humanity would be at a loss.

I think by looking at Japan, we can get a good look of how neoteny interplays in a society, since its so noticeably everywhere here. I think, in many ways neoteny is very healthy, and may be lacking in other societies.

At the same time, there may be a point where neotenous features are a bit too much.

All Are Saved? Universalism vs. Damnationism

noreply@blogger.com (Seminal Thought) — Sat, 01 Jun 2013 06:59:00 +0000

Going up?

The big news that a lot of Catholics, Christians, and even non-Christians alike are all talking about is Pope Francis's declaration that "all are redeemed". Or wait, did he really say that? And what does he actually mean by it if he did? Here is the translation of what he said:

Did I just say that?

(I've highlighted the parts of his speech that are of most importance. )

“On the contrary, the Lord has created us in His image and likeness, and has given us this commandment in our heart: Do good and do not do evil. The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, what about the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us first class children of God! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, with everyone doing his own part; if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of meeting: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good! We shall meet there.”

We shall meet WHERE?

What many Catholics and Christians will readily point out is that Pope Francis hasn't said anything new here. All of the contention comes merely from his wording. Especially with the, "we shall meet there" part at the end. Some have interpreted that to mean "we will meet in heaven', when most people think he was referring to the meeting place he mentioned just prior when he said "make that culture of meeting" and "We must meet one another doing good". So meeting "there" probably isn't referring to heaven, but rather a meeting place of good between Christians and Atheists.

Not a rendezvous of redemption. Only a confluence of good will.

Sorry non-believers, you're not getting past the pearly gates that easily.

Or are you?

He did say "all are redeemed". What does he mean by this, then?

Without a doubt, all Christians agree that Jesus Christ dying on the cross opened the door to both Jew and Gentile. Is this all that Pope Francis meant? That "all of us" and "everyone" now have the potential of everlasting life? Does this gift from God come with a stipulation? Must we accept the gift?

Going waaay back, even since the early days of the Christian Church, universalism, the stance that all will eventually enter Heaven, existed and was written about. Do not confuse this with Unitarian Universalists who believe Jesus is but one way path to Heaven. Here, I am speaking of Christian Universalism, which rejects an everlasting tormenting Hell. (Some will agree to a finite Hell, though)

Most notably the scholar Origen(185-254 AD) wrote extensively about universalism, who was later declared anathema (or denounced), but not for his universalist ideas, but mainly for putting Jesus in subordination to God, the Father. Jesus not sharing equal status with God was later put to rest in the decision by the first ecumenical council, the Council of Nicaea (325 AD). There was also the bishop, Gregory of Nyssa (335 – c. 395), who dispite him supporting universalism,, was made a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church, Catholicism,
and some Protestant churches.

Biblical Support for Universalism

The debate stems from the fact that in the New Testament, Jesus and Paul speak of "all being saved" many times over.

The places where they mention it are too numerous to list in one blog, so I'll include a few quotes and the rest I leave to you to search on your own if you're interested. I encourage you to not only search for quotes spread throughout the Bible, but to read it in context.

"Having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself, by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven." (Colossians 1:20).

"the times of restitution of all things" (Acts 3:21).

"I make all things new" (Revelation 21:4-5).

"And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation"(2 Corinthians 5:18-19).

"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." (John 12:32)

"Who then can be saved?" Jesus said to them "With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible" (Mark 10:26-27).

"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:3-4).

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is long suffering to us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (2 Pet. 3:9).

So one can see where all the confusion may come from now.

Biblical Support for Damnationism

But of course, for as many lines in the Bible that supports Universalism, there seem to be as many supporting Damnationism. Here are some verses (surely not all) which support that some are indeed damned to hell (or perhaps annihilation). Again, I encourage you to not only search for quotes spread throughout the Bible, but to read it in context.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)

"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3:36).

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." (Matthew 25:31-46)

"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." (Matt. 25:46 )

"Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" .(Mark 3:28-29)

"And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." (Rev. 20:10)

So Christ, without a doubt, according to the Bible, died for all people, Jew and Gentile. The question remains, did he do it so they may have eternal life or so that they will have eternal life. Of course free will comes into play here as well.

One of my old professors explained it simply enough in a parable. He explained it like this. Imagine you are drowning in a lake, Jesus throws you the life saver, or extends a hand (like when Jesus walked on water to save Peter in Mattew 14:22-23). However, it is your choice to accept his help or not. I think most mainstream Christians would agree with this parable, and the idea of "salvation for all" merely means an offer of salvation.

Only Jesus and Running Lizard have the faith to traverse atop water.

But let's be honest here, there is support for both ideas in Scripture. I cannot reiterate enough,if interested in this topic, I encourage everyone to read the Bible and figure out yourself which of the two ideas has more support and merit.

Annihilationist View

There is a third view which should be mentioned, called Annihilationism (which leans on the Damnationism side, but rejects eternal Hell). Annihilationists purport that there is no eternal hell ,though perhaps a temporary one, and that all who are damned in the Final Judgement will be destroyed.

“Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;” (2 Thessalonians 1:9)

"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28)

"Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death." (Rev 20:14)

Lake of Fire is pretty strict. Only burning allowed.

Hearing What We Want

Recently, one of my friend's quoted a verse to me concerning this topic, which is from 2 Timothy 4:3-4,

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."

Basically, what this verse is saying is that people hear what they want to hear. It's an message of the end times but it also relates to today, or any era for that matter.

But this can be applied both ways. Those who want there to be Universalism may read the Bible and get from it that Jesus's death on the cross will save everyone, and that all will eventually return to him and be in Heaven, even if there is a temporary Hell.

Those who want there to be a literal eternal Hell may also read the Bible and find what they want to hear.

For Christians and non-Christians alike, there have been ample accusations of cherrypicking.

Another example of cherrypicking: Thomas Jefferson, known to be a Deist more than a Christian, cut out portions portions from Bible that were supernatural and spoke of Christ's divinity and kept the moral teachings of Jesus.

Bible Itself Not Enough

Unfortunately, all too often when trying to figure out big theological issues like eschatology, reading soley the Bible is not enough. Even reading a Bible with copious amounts of footnotes explaining passages or words still lends itself to misinterpretation and holds the biases of the authors. And biases are unavoidable, although the best Biblical scholars do their best to remain objective. But they are inescapable nonetheless.

And unless you are a scholar yourself, and are fluent in Hebrew and Koine (ancient Greek), and can read the original sources first hand, it is often hard to know for certain whether the translations hold up to scrutiny. One such example and argument, which also has fair points on both sides, is of the words "aion"(noun) and "aionios"(adjective) which are often translated to "eternal","everlasting" or "something without beginning or end". But some usages these words can also mean "age" or "for a period". And others still argue that this word is metaphorical, and means "with no end in sight" (that's not to necessarily say that there would be no end)

Another fair argument is that even if Jesus was using these words to mean "everlasting", that he was well known to use hyperbole in his parables throughout the Gospels anyways. For example when Jesus said,"I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. I tell you the truth, it's easier for a camel to pass through he eye I a needle than it is for a rich man to enter Heaven." (Matthew 19:23-24). Or when he said "If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14) or again "But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, " (Matt 6) or "And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell."(Matthew 18:9)

People have to admit that Jesus did use some pretty extreme language and examples to get his point across. The questions we must ask is what of those did he literally mean and what did he say in hyperbole to simply jar the arrogant Jews of his day. We must be aware of finding what we want to see here, as well.

Implications

Putting what Scripture says aside...What are the implications of believing one or the other?

For Christians and those they wish to proselytize, this is a very important issue to resolve because this can greatly affect the Gospel's message and also the very nature of God.

Here is a list of some of the effects that a Christian having Damnationist view can lead to:
(This taken from truth.org)
A false image or understanding of God may:
-Cause confusion
-Be an intellectual stumbling block to progressing in the truth
-Create fear instead of building faith
-Be the cause of deep distress and worry for ourselves and our loved ones.
-Cause our teaching to repel others from God and the truth
-Cause us to be harsh, judgmental or something else, if we live in the likeness of the false image we have of God.
-Cause our relationship with Him to suffer.

Yet here, too, is a pretty cogent list of reasons why Universalism should not be ascribed to:
A false image or understanding of God may:
- Do injustice to the wrath of God since God’s wrath is seen as part of God’s glory
- To say that God’s love and grace will supersede his judgment and wrath is to establish priorities in the attributes of God that Scripture does not support.
-It mitigates Christ sacrifice on the cross.
-Cause our relationship with God to become lackadaisical.
-Cause our teaching to have no weight or merit.
-Give people an excuse to sin in life, since they'll be forgiven one day anyways.
-Provides zero incentive to becoming a Christian since everyone will go to Heaven one day.

The question remains, for any Christian, to decide which view rings true to your mind and heart. Compare the two ideologies and try to understand the whole message. Universalists nor Damnationists should take for granted the message of the Bible. It is a long chronicled set of stories, prophecies, and poems spanning over a thousand years and it is as mysterious as it is complicated. I hope this post has interested some to ruminate on this topic more and to give the Bible a good read and do some research on the matter.

The Arbitrariness of Signs?

noreply@blogger.com (Seminal Thought) — Fri, 24 May 2013 04:17:00 +0000

One of the most memorable moments of the first and only linguistics class I ever took in University was when I got into a debate in front of the class with the professor. Being a religion and philosopher major, I was quite keen on challenging my professors whenever I deemed it appropriate...that either being when something the teacher said rubbed me the wrong way, or when it just looked like fun to argue. In this case, it was a little bit of both.
What the professor began to talk about was how language, and the words we use, are arbitrary.

To use his exact example, besides being from separate languages, there is no real difference between the English word "table" and the Spanish word "mesa".

The meaning of "table", that hard construction we use to put things on, have no direct intrinsic relationship to the sounds of the words nor the spelling themselves. The words "table" and "mesa" are merely conventional.

To a degree I agreed immediately with his point...but something was still bothering me about this idea.

So that's why we call it an arboretum!

This idea was promoted most famously by Swiss linguist and semiotician, Ferdinand de Saussure. He claimed a linguistic unit is a double entity, which is basically a sign which unites a concept with a sound-image. He calls the concept the "signified" and the sound-image the "signifier". So, the Latin word "arbor" would be the signifier, and concept of "tree" the signified.

Unfortunately for Saussure, his mustache nowadays signfies either the cutthroat demeanor of Stalin or that he enjoys giving mustache rides.

My professor gave of some examples where signs could be considered not so arbitrary, that being in the case of onomatopoeia. Here, the sound-image of the word is iconic.

For example, the word for "meow" in Finnish is "miau" and essentially sounds the same. Here, we can clearly see the direct relation between sound-image and concept (or signified and signifier). However, even words directly linked to the sound have a degree of arbitrariness. Our "meow" in English is "nyan" in Japanese, "naiou" in Greek, "yaong" in Korean , and so on. However, the professor did admit this is the one case where the image-sound is not entirely arbitrary.

Arbitrariness in onomatopoeia is evident even more with more sophisticated forms. For example,"crash" or "slam" and the Japanese "batan". So as you can see, you can probably imagine "BATAN" to be a crash or a slamming of the door, and goes to show that the sound's phonetic interpretation up is relevant to the listener.

And getting back to our feline friend, the cat. As the graphic below shows, there are a myriad of words humans have created, many not so related to others, that stand for the same type of animal.

The concept of "cat" could have as well have been denoted by the sound of "dog".

After I questioned my professor and explained I didn't think words were arbitrary and that I thought that the words themselves may be packed with meaning, stemming from the word itself. The professor explained some of these ideas to me, and it had appeared he had me at check-mate. And speaking of chess, Saussure also used the chess board as fitting analogy of how any piece can replace another and the game would work exactly the same. You can use a coin, a checker piece, or even have a whole set of shot glasses. As long as you know the rules and what each replacement piece represents, you can still play.

Interestingly, in this version when you get towards the end-game, the pieces tend to multiply.

However, using the same example of the shot-chess game, as you can imagine, the meaning behind each piece weighs a little differently than would normal pieces. And this is exactly due to the changing of the representative piece.

Given, if we replaced the pieces with, for example, this Harry Potter chess set (right), then pieces will operate with a slightly different nuance, even though the moves of each piece are identical to their original counterparts. As you play the game, you might reminisce about the books or movies, and you may even imagine the pieces slaying each other.

So, the problem I had with my professor's statement was that it didn't seem to take into account the interconnected system that language finds itself in, and therefore the subtle nuance differences that each word can carry.

I'll use the comparison between a word in Japanese and English. I can say "I'm tired" in English and 疲れた (tsukareta) in Japanese and on the surface they mean the same. But "tired" rhymes with "fired" and "mired", and the spelling looks like a "car tire", and has two syllables, and can be alliterated in the sentence "a tired tiny turtle". Whereas 疲れた（tsukareta） can be rhymed with hanareta(to be distant, to leave/separate) , the root of the word can be used in the expression otsukare-sama deshita (good job,thank you,etc.), and you can pun the word by saying otsukaree raisu ( otsu- curry rice). Also, in English "tired" can also mean "sleepy", but in Japanese there is a separate word (nemui).

These kinds of differences between words can be seen with just about any word concerning any two languages.

Words have history and they evolve. I think to say that "table" and "mesa" are arbitrary signifiers of the concept of a "flat construction to put things on" is overlooking the complexity and evolution of language. Each specific word of any language carries with it a unique evolutionary history and all of that comes with it: degrees of nuances, possible allowed combinations with other words, alliterations, rhymes, degrees of meanings, expressions/proverbs its used in, spelling, and so on and so forth. Therefore, while a linguistic unit may appear arbitrary, it stems from a long complex history as well as from the interpretation of the creator of the word.

In the SW U.S. and Mexico, the term "mesa" has come to signify a type of plateau.

Of course, while "table" and "mesa" may surely share the same function in both English and Spanish, they also contain many various nuances that accompany each word that sometimes overlap between languages, and sometimes do not.

Words are indeed arbitrary, IF you remove them from the system. By itself, all signs are arbitrary and I could just as easily make up a word and call a table an"inparibum"and if this word spread to enough people, then tables would function just as "inparibums". And in such a case, so what? Almost anything is arbitrary when taken away from its system. However if a word is not removed, language - being the interconnected and evolving system that it is, makes sure that each word is riddled and packed with iconic meanings...even if many of those meanings are lost today.

At some point in our ancient history, someone had to look at a tree, an animal and even our fellow humans and chose to name it something. Someone had to see and experience the thing or creature, and by its inherent characteristics, or by how it fit in to the lives of those humans who named it, with a little bit of creativity, it was thus named.

So I wish that I had this all thought out and could explain to my professor better than I did then. But I am glad that we had that little discussion anyways, because it made me reflect on the nature of signs considerably to and I've come to realize that the world around us is filled with iconic meaning.

The Ruins and the Three Lenses

noreply@blogger.com (Seminal Thought) — Tue, 21 May 2013 14:49:00 +0000

The other day I thought of a kind of thought-experiment. Well, more of an anecdote or parable, if you will. It goes as follows:

Imagine a ruins of some sort. It could be the ruins of a castle, a home, or some other structure. Now imagine three people there at the ruins: a child, an adult, and an old man/woman. With all three of them being at the site of the ruins, what do you think each of them would think about the ruins? Rather, what would they all see?

I think the child would see a playground, the adult would see a possible business venture, and the old person would see all of the memories he has had at the ruins or what it means in relation to history.

So, in other words,

The old man sees the past.

The adults sees the future.

The child sees the present.

And it is evident to our minds that this is often the case in life, and throughout the process of one's life, to have a proclivity to view things through one of the lenses. At any given moment when we view an object, we are subjecting it to one of the three modalities. For instance, if I look at this pen, which is in front of me, I can rightly see the past, being where I bought it, where it comes from and so forth. Or I can see it as it is now, without any real thought about the pen except that it is there and that I can use it. Or I can pick it up and think about what I will write with it, the future things I can fathom to create.

While all three states are natural and we incline towards one more than the others throughout our lives, I feel the most at risk is the adult. While the child's brain is not fully developed, I doubt a kid could really incorporate present and future in any great manner into his way of thinking, and assume to do so would be rather unnatural. Rather as a child grows up, he slowly learns how to see out of the future lens and even slower the past lens. For the old man, the same applies. It is natural for an old person to reminisce on the past which brings solace and comfort during the last of his years. However, the adult, which can sometimes get entrapped in future-thinking is in the most danger of neither reflecting nor being in the present enough, which can make for a very unhealthy mind. All three modalities should be properly exercised in the appropriate situations. And perhaps past and present lenses should be purposely scheduled into our lives....like taking a hike (experiencing the present) or mindfully reflecting/reading about history (one's own as well).

For if we, like the adult who sees the ruins in the future lens, and sees ONLY what it can become and how he can profit from it, we are taken by just what something can do for us to benefit us. We would become utilitarian in thought and lesser for it!

However, it is not as though we are always in just one modality as we think. The previous pen is an interesting and good example, since it can be used to show how all three modalities can sort of intertwine in the same activity, such as writing. As one writes, all three ways of thinking are used. The present is used to recall the words and stories or personal anecdotes or expressions you heard from the past. The future is used in consideration of where you want the story or essay to go and the style and words you want to use. And of course in the process itself the present is inscrutably used.

And there are many other activities besides writing which use the three lenses in a similar fashion. Any of the creative arts can accomplish this...which attests to the power and health that creative pursuits can have for our minds. Art is the beautiful triple helix of life in the form of creative expression.

Kannon's One Thousand Arms

noreply@blogger.com (Seminal Thought) — Wed, 15 May 2013 15:48:00 +0000

Wish you had more arms to get work done faster? How about one thousand?

Besides multitasking on chores, work, cooking, playing games on your smartphone, and giving yourself a full body massage, what function could a thousand arms serve? Well, to one god-buddha-man-woman (I know, a confusing description...), these arms were given to serve us...to save mankind.

Kannon-sama (観音様), in Japanese, or Guanyin ( 觀音), in Chinese, is a Bodhisattva (a being of enlightenment), who is often venerated as a god in Eastern Asia.

Kannon-sama's Chinese character reading are broken up to meaning "look/perceive" and "sound", which is transliterated to mean The One Who Perceives Lamentations. So, she is a god who hears our cries and sufferings, and aids us with one of her many hands.

But is it a "she"? Originally, the Chinese version, Gyanyin was known to sport a mustache and beard and revealed his chest. Here's one such example.

Did Gyan'yin undergo a sex operation and change his name?

Of course, as any good feminist-minded male, I will concede that perhaps that he is neither male nor female, and as many gods are, androgynous.

Originally, the name was different, too. She-he was known as Avalokiteśvara in India. And as you can see by the picture below, His-her physical qualities, including the countless arms, are in much resemblance to other gods in the Hindu pantheon.

Avalokiteśvara

Vishnu and his Avatars. Some believe Krishna and Jesus are incarnations (avatars) of Vishnu.

The Chinese story tells the story that she vowed to never rest until all beings were free from samsara (cycle of birth and death). Being a true workaholic, Gyuanyin tried tirelessly to save the people of earth. She was so troubled by all remaining people in need of salvation that she couldn't take it anymore and her heard split into eleven pieces. Thankfully Amitabha Buddha, the Buddha worshiped in the Pure Land Sect, fixed her up, and gave her eleven heads, thereby helping her see and hear more people in need. Amitabha Buddha also noticed her arms shattered, and so bestowed upon her a countless number of arms to help her get the job done.

There is actually a wonderful video I would recommend watching called the "Thousand Hand Guanyin", made by Zhang Jigang, a choreographer, and apparently a Lt. General in China's army. He also co-directed the breathtaking 2008 Beijing Olympics Opening Ceremony which blew the world away at the time. He used 21 hearing impaired dancers to make this spectacular performance. Check it out below.

Also notice how Guan'yin's arms appear to be like rays of light from the Sun. Although I haven't found any information explicitly linking the Sun and Guan'yin, one can certainly see the similarities, not only in physical attributes, but also with the "warmth", "compassion", and "life giving" properties that they both hold.

Ironically, the Japanese version, whose name I used originally, and some Chinese versions, lost the thousand arms somehow and instead is seen praying, or holding something, like a ball, baby, and/or some container.

Kannon-sama, in Sendai, Japan, where I've resided for four years.

Some people believe that Kannon also has the ability to help bring filial children into the world, and thus sometimes you will see the baby carrying Kannon/Guanyin versions. Some have noted the stark similarities to Mary holding baby Jesus.

But in any case, whether there a thousand arms, or just two, this enlightened being/god represents the same thing, the Bodhisattva of Compassion. Each and every culture seems to this archetype of a person or god. This compassionate side of human nature is something, I believe, to be innate, or else we wouldn't see embodied in so many forms and cultures. And this last depiction of Kannon, as the caring mother, represents that which pervades not only humanity, but across the animal kingdom as well. The compassion animals naturally show their kin is proof, I think, of the inborn compassion inside us all.

Kannon, Guan'yin, Avalokiteśvara, or whatever you call her/him, uses her head (or heads) and hands to unselfishly serve people. I think its image beckons us to do the same. For if we have only one head and even one hand, we are in due position to help another.

I'll leave you with a quote from Zhang Jigang, the choreographer of the "Thousand Hand" performance I spoke of above:

As long as you are kind and there is love in your heart
A thousand hands will naturally come to your aid
As long as you are kind and there is love in your heart
You will reach out with a thousand hands to help others

Note: There are many interesting stories about Kannon/Guan'yin/Avalokiteśvara that I have not even come close to exhausting. For brevity's sake, I wrote what interested me the most for this blog post.

Prophecy's Plight Part 2: Obession with the End

noreply@blogger.com (Seminal Thought) — Tue, 14 May 2013 08:18:00 +0000

Sorry it's been so long since my last post. I've been a busy camper....or just plain lazy...It's sometimes a fine line.

Doomsdayers, never to be swayed by facts, search endlessly for other interpretations and aim to find the connections, no matter how flimsy, between prophecy and reality. As for Malachy's Prophecy of the Pope's and the final tribulation 112th pope Petrus Romanus (Peter the Roman), with Pope Francis getting the position, it seems like the prophecy failed to come true. After all, his real name is Jorge Mario Bergoglio, not Peter, as is the real name of Cardinal Turkson, the black Ghanaian cardinal mentioned in the previous post who was a pope contender. But some people are determined to find a connection, and here are what some people have been saying.

Franics, named for Saint Francis of Assisi=Meteorite = Rock= Peter!
One of the most ludicrous connections some people are making, that I've read on several websites and youtube channels is the connection between Pope Francis and a meteor. So, Jorge Bergoglio chose Francis because he admired St. Francis of Assisi, and apparently, well...Assisi is also the name of a meteor which fell to earth in 1886 in Umbria, Italy. Umbria is a historical town assosciated with Saint Francis of Assisi. So , since Meteor Assisi is, by nature, a rock...that must mean Saint Francis is the rock...And although he was born in Buenos Aries, he is of Italian decent, thus.... Petrus Romanus!!!

The Buenos Aries Connection

One Youtuber suggested the connection lay with name of Buenos Aries, the city Pope Francis was born in. He claims the city was named after Lady of Bonaria, Patroness Saint of Sardinia, calling it "The City of Our Lady Saint Mary of the Fair Winds", Whose expedition was led by....and here's the rub, Pedro de Mendoza. Pedro, meaning Peter, and Mendoza, meaning "cold mountain"...which is connected to when Jesus said to Peter, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church..."(Matthew 16:18) AND...it gets better. Since Buenos Aries was established in 1536 and Pope Francis was born in 1936, there is a 400 year difference! It's just too much of a coincidence, don't you think?

Jesuit Connection

Others point out that this is the first Jesuit pope, and that the leaders of the Jesuits is known to
be the Black Pope, and the . Although I don't know what this has to do with St. Malachy's prediction since he never mentioned a black pope. Some sources online are stating that Malachy does mention a black Pope (which they originally wanted to peg on Cardinal Turkson for being, well, black), but I've found no credible sources that show that he did. He simply mentions Peter the Roman, being the last Pope, seven hills, destruction, and judgement. The Jesuit connection is absolute rubbish.

What Makes Us Obsessed with the End?

What's apparent is the incredible lengths that people will go to stretch evidence to support their ideas. This happens all of the time with people, when supporting their heartfelt ideas or unshakable opinions, whether it be about politics, religion, or Armageddon. People tend to make whatever proof they can find to try and fit the shape and mold of their own ideas. This is self-evident in observing almost any argument or debate.

But what really fascinates me is how terribly interested humans are with the end of the world. What makes us so compelled to believe these prophecies? And I am no exception here...I am definitely not implying that. I've, on one too many occasions, fell victim to the ideas of impending doom lurking around the corner. And I guess I always thought and supported my beliefs in this by thinking "with the world going the way it is, with all of the build up of military, and all of the nuclear weapons out there, the end is just bound to happen soon!" And I never had any religious implications when thinking about the end. No rapture...and no complete end...just a 80% or so decrease in human population. I always have given humans (and other organisms) the benefit of the doubt that they could still survive even among the worst nuclear fallout conditions.

The Cleanse

Anyone know the lyrical reference of this map?

And I think the reasoning of this obsession with the end is that many of us desire a cleanse. We have seen the earth getting more and more polluted and damaged, the people more and more superficial and corrupt....many of us secretly desire for it all to be reset. We want to start fresh. We think their is no turning back, no maintaining vitality and sustenance from this point on. We think paradise awaits for us around this bend. And this secret (or not so secret) desire for a world cleanse is a symbol of the cleanse inside ourselves that we wish to attain. I think the most optimistic people about the earth's future probably have the least personal troubles in their own lives. Whereas the doomsayers are probably suffering themselves from a myriad of personal issues. Of course, I am not certain on this. Only a guess. Perhaps someone should do a study. But I do firmly believe that what people project on the world, is just that-a projection. And that projection must have a source.

Prophecy's Plight Part 1: St. Malachy's Prophecy DODGED?!

noreply@blogger.com (Seminal Thought) — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 03:29:00 +0000

St. Malachy (left) and the new pope, Pope Francis (right)

Well, it seems we may have just dodged a bullet. With the new Pope Francis having been elected over a week ago, it appears there is no further fear from the impending doomsday prophecy of St. Malachy that was looming over us all.

What? Not familiar with the prophecy? You can search in Google for more information if you would like, but I'll give you the rundown.

Basically, St. Malachy was a Medieval Irish Archbishop (of Armagh, in modern day Northern Ireland) who was known primarily now for his soothsaying of subsequent Popes-to-be. Too bad he couldn't cash in on such foresight like Biff did in Back to the Future II.

Doc Brown: Correct. They were in the time machine because Malachy was in the time machine...with the Pope almanac!

Later, after his death, he was canonized by Pope Clement the III, and thus became a Saint. He was associated with several miracles, but the one which applies to modern times is his Prophecy of the Popes.

From his time onward, he predicted that there would be 112 more Popes, with the final 112th being the last one, and the one specifically whom will usher in doomsday as prophesied in the Book of Revelations.　　And guess which Pope we were up to by the last pope, Pope Benedict XVI? - 111th. So, as you can imagine, many people were buzzing on the web when news got out that he was resigning and that a new Pope would replace him in March, 2013. Although, surprisingly, not that many big news outlets were not talking about it, which made it stand out to me as being more suspicious.

So many people were speculating who the new Pope would be and waiting for that final Pope that St. Malachy wrote would be called Saint Peter II. He would be the last Pope.

Here's what his prophecy said, which was suspiciously published 1595, 447 years later after St. Malachy died:

"Peter the Roman, who will nourish the sheep in many tribulations; when they are finished, the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the dreadful judge will judge his people. The end."

And it's just what we needed now, right? Another Armageddon prophecy... as if the Mayan prophecy wasn't enough!

The Catholic Church, however, has discredited Malachy's prophecy and does not approve it's forecast. And why would it? The Catholic Church wants to continue its existence, not end after this last pope, right? And it wouldn't want to make people panic, either. But that didn't stop people....

The Evil Black Pope Prophecy

So, then the internet was buzzing with the idea that the new pope would be a Ghanaian black pope. His name is Cardinal Turkson, who was actually a solid candidate to become Pople, and whose birth name happened to be...dun dun dun!... Peter.

Some thought that if the Catholic Church were to name a black pope, it would open its doors more widely to Africans and African descents all across the world, as well as showing everyone that the church is not such a conservative fuddy duddy. So of course, many racists or anti-black-pope people were talking how THIS would be the pope to usher in the end times talked about in the Book of Revelations. Even though the bible doesn't mention anything about the papacy, nor could anything be construed to be mentioning the Pople in Revelations, somehow the idea of there being a Pope Turkson turned into this "he'll be the last pope! A black evil pope that will actually be the Anti-Christ...the beast!" type of conspiracy.

"I will swallow your sooouul!!!" - Cardinal Turkson (Actually it's from the Shebitch from Army of Darkness)

Actually it's not even good enough to call it a theory. It's just a mishmash of two end times prophecies with a dash of fear, and two heaping servings of stupidity and racism. Although I will say this about a black pope...If anyone were to be a black pope, I say we get Samuel L. Jackson to do it. He seems to be able to memorize Scripture well and is able to delivery it with vehement enthusiasm.

"And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you!"

Doomsday Avoided?

So with the Argentinian, and safely white, Cardinal Francis being selected as the new pope, and since his birth name isn't Peter, have we effectively avoided St. Malachy's prophecy?

Not quite...

Some people out there are still holding on to this prediction and firmly believe St. Francis is the final, 112th pope that Malachy was talking about.

(To Be Continued)

Mormon Encounter and the Sin of Certainty

noreply@blogger.com (Seminal Thought) — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 16:54:00 +0000

So today as I was eating my tonkatsu (fried pork cutlet) and curry and rice lunch, a group of four Mormons sat down next to me (one Asian girl and guy and a white guy and girl). At first, I couldn't tell they were Mormons'...although I probably should have due to their neat haircuts and white shirt and tie getup. When they sat down, one of them looked at me and smiled, so I gave him the "gaijin nod" (a nod foreigners sometimes make to each other to acknowledge each other's existence). As I continued to eat my lunch and after they ordered their food, the Asian guy (the leader) started to ask about me. It started out as the usual foreigner conversation:

"How long have you been in Japan?"

"Almost four years"

"Four years...wow! You're Japanese must be good"

"No, not really..."

But I quickly wanted to get out of that old routine so I inquired about them. Then the leader told me that they were Mormon. I must have shifted uncomfortably in my chair when I heard that. I was a bit surprised, I guess, to have a direct encounter with them like this, especially in Japan. I knew the conversation was going to get religious fast, as it always does...and soon did.

I have had encounters with Mormons before though, as I also relayed to my tonkatsu eating neighbors. Only once in Japan, when a pair of Mormons were on their bikes and I was on my bike as I passed them. They saw that I was a foreigner, and yelled out "Hey!" and I quickly peddled on forward.

When I see this (above), I do this (below)

For any inspiring cyclist that wants to add some serious speed to their training. Just imagine Mormons chasing you.

And a couple of times in America a pair of Mormons would come visit my house. This is when I was studying religion in school and I had recently gotten out of believing in Christianity. And because of my majo and my leftover feelings from my Christian experience, I was inclined to get into some religious debates with them back in the day. Now, not so much. But I did end up debating with them a bit. But not about specifics of their religion, which I know little about and often proves fruitless anyways. Nor did I talk about Christianity in general or get into debating scripture, as I had done in college. This time I ended up making an argument about 'certainty'.

The Lure of Self-Righteousness

When I was going through my Christian period, I was heavily influenced by what I was reading in the bible. Scripture, as well as what I was being fed by my ministers and other congregation members was having a huge impact on how I saw the world and where I stood on controversial issues such as abortion, gays, etc. In fact, now that I reflect back, it was probably everyone else's conviction of what they believed that had the biggest impact on how I thought. Their certainty about Jesus, the Trinity, Communion, and all of the Bible stories and their meanings, really made me more certain that it was all true.

And why? Because certainty gives us a feeling of security. We all feel comfortable in the idea that our beliefs are good and true. And we feel safe in the knowledge that our fellow companions or friends all share the same truth. It's a type of self-supporting or criss-cross foundation that relies on each other for support. It's kind of akin to the circle of trust sitting game.

Like this circle sitting, everyone relies on each other for their security to not fall down. (Hey! Why did they leave out that lady in the pink?!)

But this doesn't necessarily mean that this type of security is a false security. Indeed, people need such support from one another in team sports, at a company, a class, religion, family, and much more. So it is definitely a necessary human construction. That being said, there is a HUGE danger as well...And that is when certainty leads to self-righteousness.

Where Certainty gets Dangerous:

This transition from being certain in your beliefs to being self-righteous is a sneaky one, and it often evades the detection of the person it's happening to. You can be certain of your beliefs without feeling the necessity of making other people believe the same thing as you do, however you do need the validation of others to hold on to your own beliefs. By spreading ones ideas and getting more individuals to accept it, we naturally feel more validated in believing in something, unless it can be proven empirically, in which science can simply answer the question.
All too often this certainty, when applied to religion or morality, can give people and sense of righteousness. And righteousness, the feeling of being morally good or justifiable, is a slippery slope to self-righteousness. Indeed, the line between the two is so blurred and vague, that usually only one can tell self-righteousness apart from righteousness by outward disdain or criticism. The distinction between the two is a subject for another post perhaps, but I feel as though the line between the two is very thin and easily crossed.

But is there another place from where the desire to spread one's beliefs come from? What is the driving force behind missionaries? Certainly, the bible speaks of spreading the word of God, and that is the reason most missionaries use. So, undoubtedly, there is the biblical requisition. That and, I'll quote one of the lady Mormons who answered this question for me, "If you found something so good, wouldn't you want to share it with others?", she asked. She also explained that the more you shared it, the better it became. It works like an infinite loop, I imagine, since the better the feeling becomes, the more encouraging it probably gives them to spread the word. Mormons and other Christian missionary groups feed off of converts. It is a large part of their sustenance. Whether it for self-validation or for the honest act of believing you are giving someone a gift by spreading one's own beliefs, both acts I deem innocent. Any person, even secular people, at times are known at times of insisting one's own beliefs upon another, be it in the form of giving relationship advice, trying to convince others to buy a cool product, or among a debate in which you want to win. Indeed, I admit, the latter desire, to prove my point or spread my idea, is likely the reason I decided to participate in the conversation.
What bothers me about the Mormons, or that way of proselytizing in general, is the seemingly brainless way they discuss the matter. They don't seem to have a single shred of their own thinking or questioning within them. They often just quote Scripture and spew out their own scripted material when you try to get into the details of religion. Especially when you start to probe them more about the details of their religion, they are quick-draw ready (at least the elder member of the pair) to answer you with some memorized verse from the Bible. They are like zombies, in way, brainless and seeking the brains of others to devour and consequently make the person into one of them.

Bring'em Young...BRAAAAINS!

The Value of Remaining Open

So as the leader of the pack of Mormons tried his best to inquire into my thoughts on God, I decided to take the conversation down a different path. The end of the conversation went something like this:
The leader asked after learning that my major in college was religious studies, "So, what do you think about God?" (as if I God is some Junior High School girl who has a crush on me and is too embarrassed to directly ask me and so went through this Mormon)
"Well....what do you mean by God?" I asked. "Many people have different definitions about God."
"Well, what do you think He is?" (I swear I could hear "he" somehow being capitalized as he said that sentence!)
"I...don't think we can define God like that." I responded, "I don't think its good to put God in any box. Even calling it "God", or "he" or "she". I guess you could said I am agnostic...in that, I believe in the possibility of there being a God, the Ultimate, a Force, an Absolute being or what-have-you." (I had run out of New Age words for "God" at that moment.)
"I see, so you are afraid to define God?" (I liked how he used the word "afraid" in this moment, as if to goad me.)
I was about to say I wasn't afraid...but then I thought about some more before responding. "Yes, I am afraid....I think." And then I paused as his eyes lit up, his head tilting ever so slightly in curious interest, thinking he may have gotten to me. "I am afraid of being so certain. I'm afraid of closing myself off to other minds, other ways of thinking. Thus, the idea of picking and choosing a God or a religion scares me. I know religion can do a lot of good....as it does bad. And when it does bad, it's due to one side shutting themselves off and not understanding the other. I am afraid of knowing for certain anything. I actually prefer the mystery of life...of it all! I think by keeping yourself open to life's mysteries, including any ideas of God or the afterlife, you not only are in a better position to understand the mind or perspective or others, but it creates a profound sense of awe and excitement within me when confronted with the mystery."
At this point, I realized that I was rambling a tad, so I redirected a question at him. "Don't you think it is better to keep your mind open to new ideas so you better understand your fellow man?"
He didn't know how to respond at that moment. But I could see his eyes darting left and right, like some robot, scanning the archives of Scripture for an answer to give him. I didn't wait to hear his response, and I was done eating anyways. I felt like it would be better for him, along with his cohorts, to mull upon that idea for a bit. As I got up and excused myself, the leader handed me a card with a picture of the Mormon cathedral on it and information on the back side.
"Well, it was good to speak with you. If there are any questions that we couldn't answer today, please feel free to contact someone at that number or e-mail."
"Well, that is the point isn't it...that it's a question that shouldn't be answered" I replied with a smiled, but took the card anyways out of politeness, and left the tonkatsu place.

Kao-nashi,or "No-face", from Spirited Away, aka...GOD!

I will now, ironically, quote scripture, from back in the day, when God was more enigmatic and stuff....
"And he [The Lord] said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live"--Exodus 33:20

Discrimination in Japan? Underestimated or Overblown?

noreply@blogger.com (Seminal Thought) — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 08:57:00 +0000

Recently, there has been a video on YouTube that has been catching a lot of flak. While I usually don't do reviews of controversial YouTube videos, this one struck home since I am currently living in Japan. Also, I believe the controversy surrounding this video is due large in part to a language issue. No, not a problem in translation from one language to another...but I do believe the word "discrimination" itself has been lost in its own translation.

Before you continue , here is a link to the video, called Racism in Japan, and here is the Washington Post's story on it. American teacher in Japan under fire for lessons on Japan’s history of discrimination.

So, here is the problem and some of the criticisms I am reading from the side of those who believe that what Miki Dezaki said, creator of the video, is overblown or exaggerated.

Racism or Discrimination in America

When you mention discrimination or racism when talking about America, here is what people often think of (and which has been or often is the case):

Ku-Klux-Klan

Neo-Nazis

Suffrage

Treyvon Martin, killed by a white man because he was deemed a threat, wearing a hooded sweatshirt.

Lynching

Racism or Discrimination in Japan

And when you mention discrimination or racism when talking about Japan, here is what people often think of (and which has been or often is the case):

Sign above moves "No Foreigners Allowed"

Some groups are sometimes refused by apartment landowners

Japan's biggest target for discrimination are against Koreans and Chinese, their closest genetic relatives.

Uyoku Dantai, notorious for their black vans often ride around cities and shout nationalistic propaganda and often blame foreigners for the country's problems.

Rarely, taxi cabs will pull away or whiz by foreigners instead of taking them for a lift (more common in Okinawa).

Discriminating 'Discrimination'

So there is the main problem. We are using the same word, yet the experience of discrimination in either country is quite different. In America, the experience is one that is often coupled together with violence, hate, subjugation or aggressiveness. In Japan, however, the discrimination is often polite, civil, or just the drunken spouting belligerence of a drunken man. Both types of discrimination are due to ignorance or fear. In Japan, that ignorance and fear transforms into "Go away please, you are scary or annoying". In America, that ignorance and fear often transforms into "Go away or I'll fucking kill you!"

So may I propose we have a subdivision of discrimination? The more aggressive type being Overt-Hostile Discrimination, and the less aggressive type being the Subtle-Civil Discrimination. Or you can use Strong or Weak or whatever. The point is, there needs to be some distinction about discrimination. In other words, we have to be discriminate with 'discrimination' itself!

Another Interesting Language Issue

I recall taking a law class in college, and the teacher (who was also a judge) asked a girl in the class what kind of boy she liked. She gave the usual answer, "tall, dark, and handsome". "So", he replied, "there are some guys you would date, and other types you would not." "That's right" she said. He then explained to the class that her (and anyone's) particular preference for choosing a mate is also"discrimination". At the time I, as did the class, thought he was diluting the meaning of the word, but in fact that is what discrimination means -- discerning or differentiating Yet the class and I were all taken aback at the fact that he was calling that discrimination. If that were the case, then any chose we made was discrimination, from choosing an ice cream flavor to buying your favorite brand of clothes.

She's only eyeing the vanilla. Racist.

The problem is that these words now have so much weight behind them, that they often are considered offensive, because it strikes a chord that you are an "intolerant, ignorant fool" when"prejudice" or "discrimination" are used, rather than what the words originally meant.

So, I think when we use these words (and I am assuming they may have the same nuance in Japanese), it is like we are attacking that person for being so stupid and close-minded. And so, many Japanese people are in turn offended by idea that they have such habits.

Innocent Discrimination

When Dezaki asked the class of High Schoolers who thought there was "discrimination" in Japan, hardly anyone raised their hand. Part of this reason is because what Japanese do as discriminatory they don't see as discrimination. Some of them think that as long as you fit into the culture well and can speak the language adequately well, they wouldn't treat any foreigner as any different. This is quite true, as it happens to be, even born-and-raised-in-Japan Japanese can often be discriminated against once they've done a long trip abroad. Those Japanese who've experienced another culture for a long time and were able to assimilate well often struggle when they come back to Japan to 'fit in' to the society at large. Their personalities and habits often change when abroad and its hard for those who never left the islands to accept them as fully Japanese after that sometimes.

外人だ！Gaijin da! (It's a foreigner!)

Another part is that Japanese people feel like presumptions or stereotypes they hold about foreigners or groups shouldn't be classified as discrimination. For example, many automatically assume foreigners can't use chopsticks, speak Japanese, or they assume that they're noisy and don't know the culture well. Is this discrimination? Well, yes, according the definition, it surely is. But as discussed above, there are many levels and gradients of discrimination that exist. The type that we see in Japan is often an innocent type of discrimination. They just don't know any better...and that is primarily because they aren't used to interacting or seeing foreigners. In America, on the other hand, a country which has a long history of inter-racial and inter-religious immigrants assimilating into the culture, knows fully well...or should know fully well, of our multi-cultured neighbors. Berating Japan for its discrimination is much akin to yelling at a child for pointing and making a rude comment at a foreigner.

My Conclusion: Discrimination? Yes. Overblown? Perhaps. Need to be Discussed? Yes.

Most foreigners don't care about any level of discrimination unless it affects them negatively. If they aren't allowed to rent an apartment because they are a foreigner, or not allowed into a bar, or while calling a cab and the vehicle flies by, then they care....and it matters. I am not saying discrimination doesn't exist in Japan. It surely does...but its of another form...a less aggressive, more innocent form, in most cases.... However, if you are Chinese or Korean...it's a whole other story!

The biggest and scariest form of discrimination I've experienced yet in Japan has been towards Koreans and Chinese. And this is largely due to historical and political reasons, which the Japanese media, of course, is not helping. And because of the modern-day island debacle, the situation has not gotten much better. But, I think even most Japanese people accept Koreans or Chinese living in Japan, so long as they fit into their culture and don't make a disturbance (or show outward zeal towards their own nation's politics). But the hateful and verbally aggressive type of discrimination that is already here towards Japan's closest neighbors, is a warning sign and a potential seed that could grow up to be disastrous.

The death threats that the loony nationalists are sending Dezaki provides us with a glimpse of some insane minds that live here in Japan. I believe Dezaki, as anyone, has a right to express their opinion. And he brings up some excellent points....and things that Japanese people should recognize and be aware of. Discrimination, while perceived to be overblown by the way Dezaki showed it, is still an issue (albeit rather small compared to America or other heterogeneous countries) that needs to be addressed before it becomes worse.

Nip it in the bud, Japan.

Note: I purposely did not go into any racism or discrimination that occurred during WW2 or before, because war brings out the beast in every man and dehumanizing your enemy is an essential strategy used by all nations during wartime. Every nation that has been to war has discriminated against the other side in often obscene and horrible ways. Furthermore, I feel it brings nothing to the table as far as discrimination in Japan today goes.