"Now you can’t tell me that that leaf doesn’t know where the sun is going to be. … That’s a form of consciousness."
-
Careful With That Axe, Eugene
I was watching Bill Moyer’s interview with Joseph Campbell in the first part of The Power of Myth yesterday. Campbell was expounding on his "Hero With a Thousand Faces" theory – the fact that many of the motifs in mythology are recurrent, and may have had a common source. Good stuff.At one point he was describing the motion of a flowering vine as it wound up his porch in Hawaii. And then he said something that made me sit up bolt upright:Erm, well I think it’s heliotropism, Professor Campbell. And if we’re going to redefine that as consciousness, then I reckon I’m going to have to call the thermostat on my central heating system conscious as well. Sometimes, you can have such an open mind that your brain falls out… -
There Will Be Blood
Heavens, it is already scoring 9/10 on the IMDb web site. Since I adored Magnolia, this definitely looks like one to see.Leave a comment
-
Send In The Apostrophe Squad
In the ultimate scale of things, a missing apostrophe is not really important, but whenever I see bad grammar, I mentally want to rip the intestines out of its still-living perpetrator. Overreaction? Yes, I know, but I just can’t help it.The latest example comes from Fujitsu-Siemens extolling the benefits of their Windows Home Server Scaleo:…And having access to them whenever you need a home, or over the Internet when youre out of the house.…Even when youre away from home…Aarggh! And what’s with the American accent for a product that is being released in the European market? Death to the Fujitsu-Siemens Marketing Department, say I!Leave a comment
-
A Plea For Violence
When I read things like this, I realise that some people’s thinking is completely alien to me, and that I am not a cultural relativist.Leave a comment
-
Mavis on the Web
I have never learned to touch type. My style is not quite hunt and peck, but I do need to look at the keyboard almost continuously. I was always very jealous of a colleague (hi, Harvey!) who was an excellent touch-typist. Over the years I’ve tried to improve. I’ve bought various incarnations of Mavis Beacon, all with little result. Now there’s a web-based training programme. Perhaps I should give this a whirl, but I fear it is a tale of old dogs, new tricks yet again.Leave a comment
-
Duelity
A wry take on the duel between science and religion. For best results, go to the Duelity web site, choose Watch, and then Duelity to see the two views unfold in parallel…(hat tip to Dangerous Intersection for the link)Leave a comment
-
The Edge Question for 2008
After you’ve read the Richard Dawkins essay that I referred to a couple of days ago, I hope that you will go to the Edge to read the answers from the rest of the 163 contributors to this year’s question: What have you changed your mind about? Why?Leave a comment
-
The Banality of Evil?
It’s become almost a mantra these days to believe that anyone, given the right circumstances, is capable of committing evil acts. After all, look at the experiments of Milgram and Zimbardo. In the light of this, it’s interesting to come across this article in The Psychologist that questions that view of "the banality of evil". The traditional view is that:…psychologists and historians have agreed that ordinary people commit evil when, under the influence of leaders and groups, they become blind to the consequences of their actions. This consensus has become so strong that it is repeated, almost as a mantra, in psychology textbooks and in society at large.But the alternative view might be:People do great wrong, not because they are unaware of what they are doing but because they consider it to be right. This is possible because they actively identify with groups whose ideology justifies and condones the oppression and destruction of others.As the authors say, this raises a whole set of new questions that perhaps should be pursued.Leave a comment
-
Changing One’s Mind
Richard Dawkins has a terrific essay on why good scientists will change their minds if the evidence is strong enough to persuade them. Worth reading.Leave a comment
-
Lord of Light
I’ve just finished re-reading Roger Zelazny’s Lord of Light. This is a very fine SF novel, which won the 1968 Hugo Award for best novel. It is effectively based on Arthur C. Clarke’s Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. The "magic" in this case being elements and characters based on Hinduism and its pantheon of gods. More background and a plot synopsis can be found on the page in Wikipedia devoted to the book. Definitely worth (re)reading.The book begins (after a couple of quotes from religious texts, one real and one imagined) with a paragraph that, the first time I read it, guaranteed that I would settle down and immerse myself totally in Zelazny’s masterwork:"His followers called him Mahasamatman and said he was a god. He preferred to drop the Maha- and the -atman, however, and called himself Sam. He never claimed to be a god, but then he never claimed not to be a god. Circumstances being what they were, neither admission could be of any benefit. Silence, though, could."Leave a comment
-
He’s Baaack!
Dylan Evans, I mean. I’ve mentioned him before, as he does seem to write an awful lot of what strikes me as the purest codswallop. He’s popped up again in today’s Guardian. This time his thesis is that the boisterous play that was once an accepted feature of boys’ behaviour is now ruthlessly curbed by a feminist-inspired thought police. Cough. As one of the female commentors on his piece so aptly says:Oh for goodness sake – when will boys get over the fear that we’re going to chop their willies off!Quite.Leave a comment
-
Bankrupt Moral Capital
I see that yesterday’s Observer carried a piece by Richard Harries (ex-Bishop of Oxford, and now Lord Harries of Pentregarth) defending his friend, Richard Dawkins, against those who claim that morality is not possible without religion. He summarises some of the arguments that Dawkins has given to state that it is possible to be moral without God. Naturally, Harries, as a believer, then makes the sideways move of stating that:…all of us, whatever we believe or do not believe, have been created in the image of God and this means we have an ability not only to think, but to have some insight into what is right and what is wrong.A case of "heads I win, tails you lose", it seems to me.But then he goes on to use another argument that I had not come across before (I lead a sheltered life): the argument of moral capital. He says:First, many people who have strong moral commitments without any religious foundation were shaped by parents or grandparents for whom morality and religion were fundamentally bound up. Moreover, many of those in the forefront of progressive political change, who have abandoned religion, have been driven by a humanism that has been essentially built up by our Christian heritage as Charles Taylor has recently brought out in his magisterial study, A Secular Age. How far are we living on moral capital?This does strike me as a rather shaky proposition. I am reminded of a somewhat similar argument used by those who are not in favour of same-sex marriage, because it will destroy traditional marriage. It’s as though they think there is only a fixed amount of love to go round… Moral capital seems to be an equally dubious idea. The philosopher Stephen Law examines the concept further here and here, and comes to the conclusion that:…the most serious difficulty with this move is that it’s simply unjustified. Why suppose all these ethically committed atheists are living off the religious capital built up by previous generations, and that this capital must inevitably run out, with disastrous consequences? What’s the evidence for this claim? We are offered none. Except of course for some vague hand-waving in the direction of the moral malaise. But as it’s precisely the moral malaise argument that morality can’t be sustained without religion that this “religious capital” claim is supposed to salvage, the moral malaise argument can’t then be used to support the religious capital claim. That would be circular reasoning.2 responses to “Bankrupt Moral Capital”
-
My personal take, and one I’ve discussed with other believers who, not knowing me, immediately took it to mean I must be an atheist is this: That ‘morality’ does not need God. It needs only early human societies that relied on each member for its survival. Any behaviour which threatened harmony, or food, or safety, or caused discord, and therefore threatened the well being of the group would be censured, leading to certain ‘good’ behaviours being accepted and ‘bad’ behaviours being discouraged. All you need for ‘morals’ to develop. Right?
-
Right. Now, you will get some folks claiming that this doesn’t explain how morality extends to outside the group. E.g., in crude terms, whilst the Vikings may have had a moral code within their group, it didn’t extend to other groups, which they quite happily murdered, raped and pillaged… So I think that moral codes do certainly develop, and now can encompass the "other", but I still don’t believe that it needs God, or even necessarily religion per se.
Leave a comment
-
-
Plus Ça Change…
I see that my old colleagues in Shell IT are faced with yet more major changes. I don’t envy them one little bit.Leave a comment
-
The Infinite O.Z.
Interesting "infinite" zoom picture inspired by an American TV series, which may, or may not, be worth a look as well…Leave a comment
-
So It Goes… II
Double damn. John Moore was present at Benazir Bhutto’s last moments. Tragic and terrifying, but also the moment to affirm that those responsible shall not prevail.Leave a comment
-
Tim Meets Sweeney
Matthew Cheney, over at Mumpsimus, gives his thoughts on Tim Burton’s adaptation of Sweeney Todd. It rachets up my anticipation. This is a film I want to see.Leave a comment
-
Winter Solstice At Newgrange
Here’s a fascinating post about the tomb at Newgrange in Ireland, where the rays of the rising sun on the winter solstice strike inside the tomb chamber. There’s also a live webcast of the winter solstice at Newgrange in 2007. As typical for our modern civilisation, the people chosen to be in the chamber when the rising sun strikes inside the chamber were selected by lottery.Leave a comment
-
Voyage of the Damned
Well, I, along with apparently most of the population of the UK, watched the Doctor Who Special on Christmas Day. To be honest, I wasn’t all that impressed. Too many bangs and crashes and creaky plot devices, I thought. This interpretation by Cavalorn hits the mark, I think.3 responses to “Voyage of the Damned”
-
Personally I think Dr. Who has lost a lot in its updating.
-
Only 56 here 😦
-
…Dr. Who has lost a lot in its updating… No, I don’t agree. Episodes such as Blink, School Reunion and the Family of Blood have been truly excellent…
Leave a comment
-
-
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
When the film adaptation of The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy was released, there were some real stinkers of reviews; mostly, but not all, from die-hard fans. As I quoted at the time:
"The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy movie is bad. Really bad. You just won’t believe how vastly, staggeringly, jaw-droppingly bad it is. I mean, you might think that The Phantom Menace was a hopelessly misguided attempt to reinvent a much-loved franchise by people who, though well-intentioned, completely failed to understand what made the original popular – but that’s just peanuts to the Hitchhiker’s movie. Listen.
And so on…"
So when the Beeb showed it as one of the films for Christmas the other night, I decided I had to see for myself whether it really was as bad as some people made out. And, at the end of it, I give it a 7/10 score. It’s not perfect, but it’s certainly not the stinker that some have claimed.
Yes, there are some odd missteps in it, for example of Ford Prefect turning up with a shopping trolley full of beer at the beginning – why on earth would he have done that, when they then go off to the pub for the six pints?
Another misstep is the excision of some of Douglas Adams’ great lines. For example, the unforgivable castration of the great riff on the display of the council plans. The original was:
"`…You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anyone or anything.’
`But the plans were on display…’
`On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.’
`That’s the display department.’
`With a torch.’
`Ah, well the lights had probably gone.’
`So had the stairs.’
`But look you found the notice didn’t you?’
`Yes,’ said Arthur, `yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of The Leopard".’"In the film, this is unaccountably replaced with:
"’These plans have been on display at the planning office for a year.’
‘On display? I had to go down to a cellar.’"Not quite the same impact, it seems to me.
I was also none too impressed with some of the casting choices, which seemed to me to reflect more on Hollywood’s whims rather than what Adams would have wanted for what is quintessentially British humour. So Mos Def, Sam Rockwell and Zooey Deschanel did not really work for me. On the other hand, Martin Freeman was a good choice for Arthur Dent, while Stephen Fry and Bill Nighy fitted the roles of the Guide and Slartibartfast to perfection. I felt less certain about Alan Rickman as Marvin; he seemed to bring an edge of unnecessary sarcasm to a character who, it seems to me, is a genuine zoophobic depressive.
Some reviewers have poured scorn on the Humma Kavula character, played by John Malkovich, on the grounds that the character did not appear in the original material. But apparently, Douglas Adams himself wrote the character in especially for the film. Given that Adams was an atheist, his portrayal of Kavula as a "semi-insane missionary" seems rather fitting, and Malkovich is genuinely creepy in the role.
The look of the film was genuinely good, in particular the Vogons, their architecture and their bureacracy. There were strong echoes of Terry Gilliam’s Brazil here, I thought. The chief Vogon, Commander Kwaltz (nicely voiced by Ian McNeice), reminded me strongly of Sir Patrick Moore; almost to the point where I wonder if that was the intention… And the Magrathean factory floor was stunning (particularly after the humour of the rickety "ghost train" start).
The graphics used in the Guide have been somewhat updated from those created for the BBC TV series, but they have recognisably the same style, which is a good thing.
And there were some nice touches. For example, giving Simon Jones (who played the original Arthur Dent) a cameo role as the Magrathean recording, and the appearance of the Marvin android from the BBC TV series as an extra in one scene. Many more exist, as described in the IMDb’s Trivia page for the film.
All in all, I enjoyed the film.
Leave a comment

Leave a comment