Accidental Blogger

A general interest blog

  • Not much of a poetic outpouring, I have to say. But I wonder how long it took him to play around with the words until he had them lined up as a 224 word palindromic poem. Check it out. I did… for about four lines and sure enough, all the duckies are in a row. (thanks to Narayan for the pointer)

    "Dammit I'm Mad"

    Dammit I’m mad.
    Evil is a deed as I live.
    God, am I reviled? I rise, my bed on a sun, I melt.
    To be not one man emanating is sad. I piss.
    Alas, it is so late. Who stops to help?
    Man, it is hot. I’m in it. I tell.
    I am not a devil. I level “Mad Dog”.
    Ah, say burning is, as a deified gulp,
    In my halo of a mired rum tin.
    I erase many men. Oh, to be man, a sin.
    Is evil in a clam? In a trap?
    No. It is open. On it I was stuck.
    Rats peed on hope. Elsewhere dips a web.
    Be still if I fill its ebb.
    Ew, a spider… eh?
    We sleep. Oh no!
    Deep, stark cuts saw it in one position.
    Part animal, can I live? Sin is a name.
    Both, one… my names are in it.
    Murder? I’m a fool.
    A hymn I plug, deified as a sign in ruby ash,
    A Goddam level I lived at.
    On mail let it in. I’m it.
    Oh, sit in ample hot spots. Oh wet!
    A loss it is alas (sip). I’d assign it a name.
    Name not one bottle minus an ode by me:
    “Sir, I deliver. I’m a dog”
    Evil is a deed as I live.
    Dammit I’m mad.
  • I dislike film and most of what passes for popular culture. I think this may be why Ruchira tipped me off to this review of a film about the viability of popular philosophy. On reading it, I immediately reflected that our own M recently mentioned Camus in a comment to a post about Heidegger. I'd say Camus is pretty darn popular, and not all that intricate, elusive, or arduous. And what about Philosophy Talk, which plays in these parts on public radio? The movie seems misguided from the get-go, pursuing a question with a faulty assumption.

    Anyway, popular is a relative term. Maybe there are no philosophers whose books sell as widely as Richard Dawkins', but some of them sell far more than most poets'. Furthermore, Dawkins as popular writer isn't really even a popular science writer in the mold of, say, James Gleick. As a popular writer, he's a polemicist, an essayist or pamphleteer. The article quotes Stanley Cavell on the ambiguity of 'popularize.' Now that's a hoot. Cavell's work is pretty intricate and elusive, and yet he is not wholly unpopular.

    At bottom the film review seems to be concerned primarily with clarifying the definitions of disciplines, rather than genuinely wondering whether lots of people can enjoy and appreciate academic philosophy. Take, for example, the easy derision of Jacques Derrida. He was called a philosopher because he was trained as one and, for a time, he wrote about philosophers (Husserl, Heidegger, Nietzsche, etc.). Might as well call him one. But as his ambitions drifted toward amorphous, bastardized, parasitical literary studies, he grew dangerous to the discipline, precisely because he became too popular, in a rock star sort of way, and he purveyed wacky ideas in a ratcheted-up language that was a professional embarrassment to "real" philosophers. The pleasure and instruction I get—S&M allusion intended—from reading Derrida grew mostly out of his writing about literature, anyway, and a little out of the fun he had deliberately embarrassing philosophers.

    Oh, well. The disciplinary approach makes it easier to measure contributions and progress, I suppose, but it's also simply division of labor, a mode of controlling people that isn't entirely free of oppression. Stick to your job description, buddy, unless you have that certain je ne sais quoi that licenses you to venture out and away. Not entirely coincidentally, Ruchira has also just posted about, among other things, a slightly confessional account, appearing in the same online publication as the review, of the work of academic philosophy by an accomplished philosopher, Raymond Geuss, who addresses this very issue: "But our networks of institutionally anchored universal ratiocination are hard to escape. How in fact could one get out, assuming one wanted to?" Geuss doesn't consider charisma as one avenue, but that may be because one can't choose to be charismatic in the same way one can choose to be courageous. For better or worse, Derrida quite evidently had charisma, as did his now deeply unpopular colleague and friend, the comparative literature scholar Paul de Man. And it is fascinating that this recent discussion by Geuss about escaping his "mildly discreditable day job" was intimated long ago in a public—if not exactly popular—correspondence between Geuss and de Man in the pages of Critical Inquiry.

    De Man's surrebuttal to Geuss's criticism of de Man's article about Hegel begins by noting "the tenuous relationships between the disciplines of philosophy and literary theory." De Man celebrates this nascent interdisciplinary cross-pollination, but he also recognizes the anxiety caused by the decay of disciplinary borders. That may be why according to de Man, "Geuss's stance, throughout the commentary, is to shelter the canonical reading of what Hegel actually thought and proclaimed from readings which allow themselves, for whatever reason, to tamper with the canon." It is no surprise that a scholar devoted to sheltering the canon, as de Man perceived things, might experience his work as taking place in a "conformist, claustrophobic, and repressive verbal universe." I read the de Man-Geuss correspondence when it occurred, back in the early '80s, and I obviously haven't forgotten it. Only now does it strike me that it had all of the trappings for me of popular cultural spectacle, a sort of textual extreme fighting. I don't even care to proclaim a winner in the bout, but the pummeling each writer inflicted on the other was violence to savor.

    As for the review's concluding discussion of Socrates and excellence, and its prescription that excellence "should be our motto as we institute a new model for the humanities," evidently Jonny Thakkar is unaware of the late Bill Readings' University in Ruins. See Harvard UP's description, particularly the second half of the second paragraph. Oops.

  • Is Krugmania an emerging phenomenon like Friedmania was a decade or so ago? [link]

     http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f8/1827871374

    (Thanks to Narayan for the pointer)

  • If you remember having read an intelligent, interesting and informative blog post on any topic related to the arts or literature since February 21, 2009, please consider nominating it for a prize sponsored by 3 Quarks Daily. Please follow the link to find out about the rules of the contest and the deadlines for nominations and voting.

    3 QD arts Prize

  • Rhf Around the Thanksgiving break in last November, was one of the Feel-Good, Miraculous stories of the season: Rom Houben, a comatose Belgian who had been bedridden for over 23 years, was actually communicating with the use of helpers, even without the benefit of normal faculties like speech or much muscular effort. From the BBC article:

    "It was only in 2006 that a scan revealed Mr Houben's brain was in fact almost entirely functioning.

    He now communicates by using a special keyboard attached to his wheelchair."

    This 'miracle' of communication was 'facilitated' with the help of an aide who used Houben's hand to rapidly peck out messages and responses to queries made to him, some so rapid as to elicit doubt from viewers of the video footage- no human with that degree of muscular impairment could possibly tap out messages so fast. From Wired.com:

    "Rom Houben’s account of his ordeal, repeated in scores of news stories since appearing Saturday in Der Spiegel, appears to be delivered with assistance from an aide who helps guide his finger to letters on a flat computer keyboard. Called “facilitated communication,” that technique has been widely discredited, and is not considered scientifically valid.

    “If facilitated communication is part of this, and it appears to be, then I don’t trust it,” said Arthur Caplan, director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Bioethics. “I’m not saying the whole thing is a hoax, but somebody ought to be checking this in greater detail. Any time facilitated communication of any sort is involved, red flags fly.”

    Facilitated communication came to prominence in the late 1970s after an Australian teacher reportedly used it to communicate with 12 children rendered speechless by cerebral palsy and other disorders. Over the next two decades, it gained some adherents in patient and medical communities, but failed to produce consistent results in controlled, scientific settings."

    But never mind, the media were all over the marvellous message. It was only yesterday that a quiet article appeared, confirming that the doctor who treated Houben now acknowledged that the 'facilitated communication' was a hoax, and that Houben wasn't capable of any degree of communication at all.

    "Dr Laureys, a neurologist at Liege University Hospital in Belgium, had earlier established that Mr Houben, was more conscious than doctors had previously thought – and that is still thought to be the case.

    But he also believed that his interaction with the speech therapist was genuine. Following further study, however, Dr Laureys says the method does not work.

    He told the BBC that a series of tests on a group of coma patients, including Mr Houben, had concluded that the method was after all false. The results of the study were presented in London on Friday.

    Objects and words were shown to the patients in the absence of the facilitator who was then called back into the room. The patient was then asked to say what they had seen or heard"

    Why does this same miracle-mongering keep happening over and over again in the media, with insufficient prominence to the final evidence that it was bogus?

    I wonder if all the pundits who opined on the significance of the earlier news will now care to expound at length on its debunking.

  • Consider the following circumstances relating to this morning's plane crash in Austin,Texas.

    • a man deliberately flies a plane into an occupied building
    • the man was upset – he burnt his house down before flying out on the suicide mission
    • he left an angry online diatribe detailing various grievances against the US federal government's "injustices" towards citizens
    • he was particularly angry with the IRS and what he perceived as a flawed and unjust tax system
    • the building he flies into houses an IRS office
    • the man is now presumed dead 

    So, we are watching the aftermath of an attempt by a suicidal man with a beef against the US government indulging in a murderous act that he knew was going to kill him and possibly others. Sounds like terrorism to me. Yet I heard the Austin police and the Obama White House go to some lengths in insisting that the incident is merely a criminal act by an individual and NOT terrorism. Why? Haven't we seen individuals performing "criminal" acts of  terrorism before? Can it be that the distinction is being made merely because no Muslim is involved and the perpetrator Joseph Stack's angry manifesto may well have been inspired by the rantings of home grown patriots?

  • I have been meaning to write about the Tea Party of American politics for some time. But the ever escalating ridiculousness of the Tea Partiers' bald faced lies and innuendos is so maddening that it has kept me from composing a coherent post. Perhaps more on that later.

    Instead of High Noon at the GOP sponsored High Tea, let me look back at another time in another place. Here are some historic pictures of India that you might enjoy. Click on the thumbnails to see the enlarged images.

    India - Sepia- 1 A young girl from a princely family atop the panther she shot

    India-Sepia-2 A British man of the officer cadre getting a pedicure from his Indian servant

    India-Sepia-3 A stretch of the Grand Trunk Road, an ancient trade route from Calcutta to Kabul

    India-Sepia-4 A group of dancing girls or courtesans in their finery

    India-Sepia-5 Aerial view of the president's palace and the Parliament Building in New Delhi

    India-Sepia-6 A group of devotees from the Hindu Vaishnava sect

    India-Sepia-7 Aerial view of the Jama Masjid, the historic 17th century mosque in Delhi

    India-Sepia-8 Plane carrying passengers and mail from England to India refueling in Sharjah (UAE)

    (Thanks to Veena Kaul for the photographs) 
     

  • Frank_foster_lg Over at Jazz at Lincoln Center Radio, we've just finished a new show about legendary saxophonist and big band arranger Frank Foster's ambivalence about love.  If Valentine's Day left you with similarly mixed feelings, you might find the music a comfort.  It's a combination of modern "post-swing" big band writing along with some of the classic Basie sound that made Foster famous.  There are also two new compositions by 30-ish musicians Erica Von Kleist and Kurt Bacher.  It's all free:
    http://jalc.org/jazzcast/j_radio09.asp

  • H&H
    So Heidegger and a hippo stroll up to the Pearly Gates and Saint Peter says, "Listen, we've only got room for one more today. So whoever of the two of you gives me the best answer to the question 'What is the meaning of life?' gets to come in."

    And Heidegger says, "To think Being itself explicitly requires disregarding Being to the extent that it is only grounded and interpreted in terms of beings and for beings as their ground, as in all metaphysics."

    But before the hippo can grunt one word, Saint Peter says to him, "Today's your lucky day, Hippy!"

    Apparently that is a direct quote from Heidegger. Don't know how much it confused Saint Peter, but I too would have second thoughts about admitting into my home someone who is in the habit of speaking that way. Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein's book Heidegger And A Hippo Walk Through Those Pearly Gates  [H&H from here onwards] ends on that note.

    Cathcart and Klein, both Harvard philosophy grads, have written this book to explore some questions that have confounded humans through the ages. Patterned as an ongoing conversation between the authors and Daryl Frumkin, the neighborhood plumber, the book attempts to explain the meaning of life and death while drawing upon the wisdom of philosophers, folksy jokes, New Yorker cartoons and of course, Woody Allen.

    At the heart of our Life and Death anxiety lies the wishful thinking that author William Saroyan expressed in a letter written to his survivors: "Everybody has got to die, but I always believed an exception would be made in my case."  H&H takes readers through the much debated but hitherto mostly unanswered questions like the meaning of life, eternity, immortality, religious myths, spirituality, suicide, near death experiences, cloning, the reach and limits of bio-technology as a means of prolonging life and the inevitability of death. It is not surprising therefore that the first chapter of the book opens with the no-nonsense declaration, Dead! Whatcha Gonna Do About It?  Not much, it is clear by the end of the book, except to laugh occasionally and come to terms with life's grand finale, an outcome we try to keep at bay most of our lives but have no way of finally avoiding.  

    Whether readers more familiar with serious philosophy than I am will find a meaningful connection between formal philosophical thoughts and the supporting jokes, I do not know. But I found the humor refreshing for the most part. It reminded me of another book I read long ago. Humorist Leo Rosten took the same approach to explaining the subtle nuances of Yiddish words and expressions in his hilarious dictionary, The Joys of Yiddish. The New Yorker cartoons in H&H are particularly apt. Occasionally, the relentless light hearted banter is a bit jarring. I was initially somewhat irked by the authors' propensity for assigning flippant nick names to philosophers.

    Martin Heidegger: Marty, Heidi
    Aristotle: Ari
    Sigmund Freud: Siggy
    Arthur Schopenhauer: Schopey, Schopster, Artie, Schopmeister

    Woody Allen on the other hand, becomes Allen Stewart Konigsberg (his real name) for a brief period.

    Daryl Frumkin too on his side of the conversation, is given to repetitive and predictable incredulity. For example, after being informed of what an assortment of wise men have said about the milestones and mysteries of life, the plumber is prone to judging some of them as follows:

    Søren Kierkegaard: a few Danishes short of a coffee break
    Arthur Schopenhauer: a few breadcrumbs short of a schnitzel
    Plato: a few Doric columns short of a Parthenon

    You get the idea – a running gag you get used to after a while. I enjoyed reading H&H. But I find it hard to review the book in my customary, descriptive fashion. So I will leave it at that. You can check out what others have said on the Amazon page. Also, you can listen in on an interview with the authors on the Forum Network.  

    (Thanks to Rebecca Hunt, Associate Editor at Penguin Books, for sending me the book for review)

  • Brinjal Brinjals, or aubergines or eggplant, as they are variously called in different parts of the world, are the center of a major brouhaha over biotech crops and their introduction in India, one of the most lucrative markets for seeds in the world.

    Bowing to the pressure of numerous activists and at least 10 state governments, the Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh has declared a moratorium on the introduction of the Bt Brinjal into the Indian agroproduct market.

    Despite the concerns of the growing biotech industry in India, this moratorium is backed by no less a personage than Dr. M.Swaminatha one of the founding fathers of the 'Green Revolution' in India that did away with dependency on food imports. From The Hindu:

    "Agriculture scientist and Rajya Sabha member M.S. Swaminathan on
    Tuesday described the government’s moratorium on commercialisation of
    Mahyco’s Bt brinjal until independent studies established its safety,
    as “a wise and appropriate decision.”

    He said it was appropriate not to hurry and to look at the problems
    to the satisfaction of all. The government should utilise the time to
    put in place a credible, effective and transparent system for the
    benefit of the country and conduct tests in a manner that had public
    trust".

    Other voices had been earlier raised in protest against what was termed 'inadequate research' of the effects of Bt Brinjal consumption in animal models, prominent among them scientist Gilles-Eric Selarini.

    From the concluding lines in his report:

    "This Bt brinjal release in the environment includes major risks. It is
    not serious to give to billions of people and animals for their entire
    life a food / feed that has not been tested more than 3 months with
    blood analyses. We do not know the long term consequences of the
    genetic modification itself nor the effects of the modified insecticide
    toxin produced at very high levels. Moreover there were clear signs of
    hepatorenal toxicities, among other effects, shown within 90 days by
    significant differences in Mahyco's toxicological subchronic tests in
    mammals: goats, rats and rabbits. These are not clear proofs because
    the tests are too short, but preoccupying enough to forbid Bt brinjal
    release at this stage."

    While it's heartening that the Indian government is responsive enough to these concerns prior to full-blown introduction of the crop into the Indian ecosystem, it may have already made its way into existing varieties through improper isolation techniques for the test farms.

    If the experience with Bt cotton is any indicator, this may be a case of a genie that has already escaped the bottle.

    "When proper refugia standards are not followed, contamination can
    result from the cross-flow of pollen between Bt and non-Bt varieties.
    The result may be new genetic combinations that fail to express the Bt
    toxin enough for adequate protection from the bollworm
    .

    Preliminary analysis by CICR in Nagpur, which has monitored
    resistance to the Bt toxin for the past five years, shows that one in
    every 667 bollworms in north India, one in every 440 in central India
    and one in every 400 in south India is resistant to Bt toxin." (emphases mine)

    It will take a DNA battle of sorts between the existing varieties to determine the genetic victor of all the crosspollination and insect resistance evolution patterns. The results may not be anything we can predict.