while shitting out okra i ate last night
i read oprah magazine
i read this:
i read this:
oprah magazine is smarter than 95% of book reviews, the new york times, and 99% of literary blogs[...] problems arise when comparing mind is the only mode of perception we access. [...] Will I "win" in this situation, or will someone else turn out to be [...] better?
This way of thinking is absurd, because outside the realm of human perception, the concept of better is meaningless. Here's a challenge for you: Go outside and find the best possible stick. Why aren't you going? Perhaps because the request is ridiculous. What do I mean by "the best possible stick"? For doing what? Digging? Toasting marshmallows? Poking a weasel? A stick that's ideal for one purpose might be useless for another.
16 Comments:
Not this again, Tao.
First of all, "better" or "good" as concepts DO have application outside of a human context. Herd of WaterBuffalo being chased by lions must determine the safest direction in which to run, hence one direction is safer than another, some directions in which to run are better than others.
You can do this excerice in making hypothetical choices between better or worse alternatives with every species on the planet.
Only for non-organic objects is the notion of better or worse absurd.
At any rate, if you are human, you are an animal, and as an animal, you must make determinations between better or worse, good and bad, every minute of your life.
I like you so much "better" when you don't resist the obvious, and allow yourself to be human.
chief,
before when i've argued against the use of the word 'better' i've always argued against its use for ART
for ART there is no better until you define a context and a goal
you are talking about survival of buffalo
so there is a context and a goal
in the case you gave the context was FOR THE HERD OF BUFFALO
the goal was TO STAY ALIVE
for a book, and for book reviewers, etc. they don't give a goal
they don't first preface their reveiws saying, 'the goal of ART is to BE SAFE FROM LIONS,' or whatever
therefore the use of 'better' in that book review, and they always use that word or some form of it, is meaningless
as a human i differentiate between 'better' or 'worse,' yeah
but i do it with a context and a goal within that context
do you understand?
i think i make sense
why that tone... 'not this again, tao,' as if i'm a 4-year old
i said 'book reviewers, the new york times, and literary bloggers'
the new york times does not give a context and a goal when it says '100 best books ever,' or whatever it did
without context and goal 'best' is meaningless
'BEST' 'FOR WHAT? and FOR WHO? and IN WHAT CONTEXT? FOR WHAT GOAL?'
i make sense right now
Yeah, Rich/Tao, that makes perfect sense.
However, you can't deny that you've tried to extend that "no goal/no context" to the entire universe in the past. It's your schtick.
There's no point to any of this therefore, you can post Sampsell's emails: there's no point to any of this, therefore you can submit the same story to as many magazines as you want.
I can dredge up at least 20 posts of yours in which you've claimed, in one form or another, that you don't believe in the concept of "good", or "better", or even having goals.
You are capable of saying really smart things, and making really smart observations--I'd like to encourage you to continue doing so.
Smart, in the context in which I'm using it, refers to observations that you've made which (A) I probably wouldn't have made on my own and (B) that I can make use of in my own life.
I'm really not against you. Maybe my tone leaves something to be desired--maybe I can work out a way to make my objections sound less unpalatable--but, in the meantime, please be assured that I don't mean you any harm.
"This way of thinking is absurd, because outside the realm of human perception, the concept of better is meaningless."
--To me this sounds like the same-old same-old trite dogmatic absolute unproven illogical statements I think most people make. Where's the author's proof that "outside the realm of human perception, the concept of better is meaningless"? Unless the author--a human, I'm assuming--has existed "outside human perception," the author most likely cannot know what the universe seems like "outside human perception."
Where's the author's access to the realm "outside human perception"? If the author's human, as far as is known by humans about seemingly all corporeal beings on earth, the author cannot physically step outside that human brain, the author is limited by always having a human-perception filter to observe through. In my opinion, the other species make comparative choices too, i.e., among foods to eat, mates to fuck, etc. My two dogs each sniff treats I offer them by hand. They seemingly have different tastes: one will refuse something, the other won't. How the fuck can any human know what my dogs are thinking without those humans using their human perception--and how can they use my dogs' perception only? Maybe my dogs are thinking "that's better, that's worse, so I want that, I don't want this" in their own doggie-perception way. I think all animals may do that in their own ways, both across species and within species. And we can't get inside each other's heads and exist as only the other so can only maybe speculate as to what the other is thinking--and that includes from one human to another too. We probably can't swap brains.
If you've quoted this segment accurately, the author's saying, "Go outside and find the best possible stick" and then providing those examples--I think that proves nothing about that sentence or about the first paragraph you quoted. Actually, I think the second paragraph SUPPORTS the first paragraph's being FALSE.
The statement "Go outside and find the best possible stick" is not comparing anything in specific. It is an assumption that a best possible stick exists, and it's also a declaration and an order; saying that statement's ridiculous doesn't support/prove "problems arise when comparing mind is the only mode of perception we access" because that go-outside statement really makes no comparison between things and doesn't show whether the author using it is in a comparing mode or is just saying it to the person he's talking to because the author believes THAT person is in a comparing mode. And then when the author goes on to say: "A stick that's ideal for one purpose might be useless for another"--that IS making a comparison, between ideal and useless and whether something is either! Um, the author is seemingly in a "comparing mind mode" there and is trying to use that comparing-mind-mode sentence to prove that being in the comparing mind mode is ridiculous. And the implication behind "ideal" is usually "the best" or "the best suited"--that's a fucking implied comparison too. Not to mention, most people have always got to add cruelty-to-animals when they write, like with the weasel example--this is a trite, typical, dumb practice, in my opinion at least, and it renders the paragraph trite, typical and dumb.
I think the author's writing makes him sound like a moralist who sees the universe in absolutes; to me, sweepingly declaring the concept of better as meaningless gives away the moralist dogmatist's mindset.
And I disagree overall with the statements you quoted because I think problems more often arise when people DON'T compare, when they declare instead of looking at things relatively, instead of both looking at things uniquely for what they seem to be individually but also looking at them beside each other, in relation to each other. Using the word "better" isn't the same as using the word's "best" and "worst"--the latter are more likely to be problematic because probably all things in specific categories cannot be examined by an observer, so declaring something "the best" or "the worst" becomes inaccurate and I think stupid (I think all observations are probably relative). But saying one thing is better than another thing and defining reasons why--that could go on and on among many things and doesn't necessarily imply the total set of possibilities.
For example, a person says, "I think Book A is better than Book B." Another person says, "I think Book A is the best book." As long as the first person has read both books, that's that person's perspective, which is fine. The second person has also spoken from his perspective; however, he is more likely making a statement from ignorance unless he has read every single book. Saying something's "the best"/"the worst" is usually a stronger statement than saying one thing is better than another. I think the author of the stuff you quoted sounds like the second person; the author used "ideal" which is a strong absolute-sounding word--and the author didn't even put quotes around it or anything. There may be no such thing as an ideal stick for whatever purpose; there may be more than one equally useful shaped and sized stick, some sticks may be more useful than others, and still others may be pretty useless, and there may be no such thing as a useless stick for whatever purpose.
I agree that people should give a context when they make comparisons--but they're not required to do so. It would just make what they're saying clearer. But their not providing a context doesn't necessarily make their comparative statements "meaningless." I think "meaningless" is another absolutist-word. Meaningless to who? Just because you (impersonal) declare something meaningless doesn't necessarily mean it IS meaningless in an objective sense. Many things may have multiple meanings to multiple viewers and because of multiple viewers--I think that's probably the case. "Meaningless" has become another overused word in English...which has probably diluted meaningless's meaning (hehe). I've overused it at times too.
But I think some of those best-of lists DO have a context. The implied, and sometimes stated context is: the books listed contain the best writing. Now what "the best writing" is and how it's defined--that's usually subjective. People define it differently, and, yeah, the listers don't often give technical reasons for why they think those books are the best, which is why those lists are ultimately ridiculous. I can't stand them. I saw the latest NYT's one I think you're referring to, and that's what prompted my recent post at my place about publishing cliques. Don't even get me started in specific on how fucking ridiculous I think that particular list is. But in general how ridiculous those lists may seem depends because, for example, if the listers state a list is of the best books IN THEIR OPINION, that context is okay. I think you're using the word "context" too narrowly. When something is presented as an opinion, as a personal perspective--that's a context. It may not be the context you want, but I think it still is a context.
"for ART there is no better until you define a context and a goal"
--That's your opinion. My opinion is that I use the word better when referring to artwork, usually because of my specific reasons for why I think one artwork is better than another, and I usually state those reasons, which are often related to a work's content. Goals aren't directly involved for me. I think people are entitled to reveal they have perspectives without revealing if they have have goals and what they may be.
One more thing: when I said the second quoted paragraph supports the first paragraph's being false, I meant because the author used this "A stick that's ideal for one purpose might be useless for another" supposedly to show this "Go outside and find the best possible stick" is ridiculous. And when using this, "A stick that's ideal for one purpose might be useless for another," which is making a idealness-usefullness comparison, to solve a problem, the author is seemingly only in a comparing mind there and is using a comparison, doing which (unintentionally on the author's part) shows that the author's making a comparison actually illuminated that the go-outside sentence is problematic, yet the author first declared that "problems arise when comparing mind is the only mode of perception we access." The second paragraph's not a total disproof of the first paragraph's first sentence, but it comes close enough to look stupid on the author's part. But as I said, the author couldn't even do that second-paragraph's comparison well enough, at least in my opinion....
http://www.oprah.com/spiritself/omag/ss_omag_200508_mbeck.jhtml
...Omigod, what a fucking moronic article. From the stereotypical sexist opening with females (of course!) comparing appearances, to this lovely gem:
"We have advantages baboons do not, though. We can notice when we've stumbled into monkey mind, and we can think our way out...Try doing a few simple things your inner baboon would never even consider."
--More unproven speciesistic assumptions, more hierarchical thinking, more humans-are-an-intellectually-and-behaviorally-superior species...and more "comparing mind"! The author criticizes humans for comparing themselves to other humans and then short-changing either other humans or themselves, but the author has no problem comparing humans to other animals and then short-changing those other animals.
"Tanya, Marie, Alice are baboons, social primates who share around 95 percent of our DNA and a lot of our psychological traits"
--But of course self-awareness and intelligence isn't among those shared traits--it never is to the speciesists.
That fucking moronic article has reminded me why I don't watch fucking moronic TV.
...Another one more thing: I just read through a few of that author's other articles. In my opinion, one is full of dumb stereotypes that she has the audacity and stupidity to label as "facts."
She's supposedly a "life coach." What the fuck is a "life coach"? Who the fuck's so grounded enough in their own lives that they're gonna regularly instruct other people on how to live and better theirs? Who the fuck is so fucking expert on life? This guy I worked with once had previously been a social worker, and he told me that all the psychiatrists and psychologists he had ever met all had psychiatrists and psychologists themselves; they too were all fucked up just like their patients, though, to be fair, maybe listening to other fucked up people all day long made the mental health workers get fucked up moreso than they had been before.
I can't stand when people tell other people to "expect the best." I'd like for those you-should-expect-the-besters to be instantly transported into Iraq and be repeatedly told to "expect the best" while enduring that madness. Then I want to see how often they wind up "expecting the best."
Telling other people to "expect the best" may be fairly easy when your own life's been going well. Most people seemingly do not have that my-life's-been-going-well luxury.
I think people are entitled to their pain and their negativity and their pessimism, just as they're entitled to experiencing anything else. Who's the authority on which experiences are better for each person? Sometimes simply telling feeling-bad people they shouldn't feel bad MAKES them feel bad and even more alone--do Pollyanna moralists ever stop Pollyannaing long enough to see that?
Some people should clean up their own insides before they start regularly "coaching" others on theirs.
FRAN
there are at least 25 oprah magazines in my house. im embarrassed.
Man!
Now I'm really sorry! I didn't mean to unleash Fran's wrath on you.
Fran, you should start a blog called "I am the Anti-Oprah GRRRR!!!"
i don't know
an orca sees oprah
oprah is eating okra
the orca eats oprah
the orca has okra inside of it
...I didn't unleash anything toward Tao...at least not this time! I just addressed/criticized/picked apart the stuff he quoted here and that author's writing. My writing style is often very passionate and very sarcastic. I think people tend to mistake that for an attack on the person I'm talking to. I also think Tao was probably being half-sarcastic when he lauded the stuff he quoted (the shitting-out-okra bit kind of gave that sarcasm away).
I have no overall feelings about Oprah one way or the other. Sometimes she's irritating, sometimes she isn't. I think she's a good actor, the book part of her show was a great idea, but I can't stand her show's materialism-bent. And I think the overall content is mostly pablum.
This was a good post. I would say it is "better" than many other posts.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Yes I agree, that is a good book you discuessed. I read a book about Charlotte North Carolina Real Estate
I found it very useful, and I know you will to. Please feel free to contact me if you have any other questions regarding Charlotte North Carolina Real Estate
Post a Comment
<< Home