A Father's Advice

Found this beautiful gem of wisdom on the internets!  It was originally a facebook post from a father (Redditor: LiquidEyes) to a daughter.  The daughter was considering getting a tattoo and a strictly religious  friend of hers quoted Leviticus 19:28, which says basically, don't cut or mark your skin.  This is his response to both of them:

The observable universe, that's what we see when we look up at the night sky, is 98 billion light years across. The actual size of the universe is somewhat larger but the most distant light is yet to reach us. This means that if you were a photon of light emitted from the most distant star we can observe, it would take you 13.7 billion years, traveling at the speed of light, to reach here.
 
We know this because we know the speed of light, if we didn't things like mobile phones, the internet, your microwave oven, GPS systems, Wi-Fi and many, many more technological marvels that we take for granted, wouldn't work.
This means that the universe, that big old thing all around us, is unimaginably big, bigger than big, it is phenomenally, astronomically gargantuan beyond imagination.
 
Asides from the many issues this simple fact presents to those of a theological inclination, one being that a 6,000 year old earth in a 6,000 year old universe wouldn't have any stars shining in its night sky because the distance of the majority of the stars in the sky from us, doesn't allow enough time for their light to reach earth over 6,000 years, do you honestly believe an entity wielding the power to construct an object as majestic, mystifying and awe inspiring as the the universe would be truly concerned about pigments in skin?
 
You've yet to realize this, but you're both neck deep immersed in one of the biggest mind scams our race has ever conceived. Release your minds, rejoice in the majesty of your unique and special lives, follow your own hearts, laugh, cry, love and explore the infinite beauty of your fleetingly short existence, and even shorter childhoods, unencumbered. You are 21st century humans living in a modern, technological world and a 2,000 year old doctrine, written by people who had no concept of what it would be like to live in our world today, cannot and should not form the basis of how you decide to shape your experience of the short time you have here on earth. Make your own rules, live your own lives. Peace.

The only thing I would add to this is that except for the extremely fundamentally religious out there, I don't think the 6000 year chronological timeline set up by Archbishop Usher in the 17th century is used by many churches.  The intent of the message is still the same.  Morality is subjective and can not exist without deviance.  Deviance is subjective and changes over time.  An act by itself is not deviant, no matter how horrible you may think it is.  What makes it deviant is the societal response towards that act.  Don't believe me?  Consider: Rock n' Roll, Hip Hop,  Bikinis, Thongs, Shaved Faces, Smoking Pot, Drinking Alcohol, Slavery, Polygamy, any many many others.  All of these things were either considered deviant and now aren't, or were not and now are.

I still think that religions can offer some wisdom and guidance, but only if it is cherry picked, as has been the case.  People will extol upon the virtues of their holy books, but fail to recognize that much of it no longer applies to modern day living and much of it is downright wrong!  

Is there a non-religious argument against gay marriage?

So I have kind of been on a religious tangent over the last week or so, I recently found /r/atheism on www.reddit.com and I've just been pouring over the posts, watching astrophysicist lectures on youtube, and going over the bible.  I literally spent two hours the other night watching two lectures/Q&A things done by Neil Degrasse Tyson.  I took an intro course in anthropology last semester and it has basically reinforced a lot of the things I've been thinking/feeling for YEARS.  If you are my friend on facebook, you might also be aware that I spent 1/2 a day debating god and the purpose/usefulness of religion.  Although the people I was debating with were more or less in agreement with me, so that took all the fun out of it.  I was disappointed that some of my more religiously inclined friends/family didn't get involved and I'm curious why.  I thought my friend count might go down after it, but surprisingly I didn't lose a single one.

My original post was this:

It seems more likely to me that religion has evolved alongside man as an explanation to the unknowable. 

We KNOW that anatomically modern humans existed 160,000 years ago. They LOOKED LIKE US. Not hairy cavemen monkey things. 

We KNOW behaviorally modern humans created art, tools, dyed their clothing, traveled vast distances to barter and trade 40,000 years ago. We can presume.. they looked up at the moon, sun, and stars and asked what they were.

It seems more likely to me that those same humans passed down by oral tradition which stemmed from their unknowable, we did this for at least 35,000 years and then we started writing it down. As we have become more aware of our surroundings both microscopic and cosmic our religions have changed and evolved and have given way before the known.

Religion seems to me, to be a philosophy of willful ignorance. "That is to far beyond my ability to comprehend, so it must be God and I will not try to understand"

Once upon a time we attributed the rise of storms and earthquakes to vengeful spirits and jealous gods. Today we know what causes them and as such they no longer reside it the realm of the divine.

I feel that if ALL people could grasp the relatively monumental (compared to our lives, and even recorded history) amount of time human beings existed before EVERY RELIGION THAT EXISTS TODAY came about, we could move past this debate over whether or not a Monotheistic god exists and try to answer some of the REAL questions that matter in our universe.

And now to the real reason I am here today.  Last week a California court over turned a gay marriage ban.  My question is:

Is there an argument against gay marriage that does not stem from religion?

Why can't a gay/lesbian couple get married?  I know Christians who are in favor of equal rights for everyone, but I also know some who are adamantly anti-gay and honestly, I used to be as well.  Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are all against gay marriage.

I remember as a child, of maybe 13 or so, I was at Disney World and had been standing in line for what felt like an eternity to ride Space Mountain.  The two dudes in front of me started making out.  I felt disgusted.  I thought it was wrong, I had been indoctrinated to think that and so I gave up my spot in line and left.  In the almost 2 decades that have past since then I've come to realize how dense I was then.  I've had some very close, and very gay friends.  I've served in Iraq with gay soldiers.  I don't understand how the government can continue to oppress any group of people who are in pursuit of their happiness which does not infringe on any one else's rights.  It seems absolutely ridiculous to me today.

I would be tremendously glad if any of you reading this could respond with your ideas, oppositions, comments, or whatever!

WTF?! January is over?

Ok, where the hell did you go January?  I didn't get any snow, it barely dipped below freezing for a night... and it's been back to shorts and flip flops.

I haven't blogged in one month, but it's been a busy month.  Spring semester started and I'm taking all new classes.  Sociology, Computer Application, English Comp 2, and .... /shudder College Algebra.  So far I'm doing ok.  The two online classes (Sociology and Computer Apps) are WAY TO EASY to procrastinate and I am by nature a procrastinator.  Dangerous stuffs it is.

I feel like I've been neglecting twitter too, but I think I got that issue resolved tonight.  I was having issues connecting my facebook and my twitter accounts and I am WAY to lazy or just not inspired enough (Lazy!) to post the same shit to both social networking sites.  Hopefully this way I can keep in touch with the few friends who seemingly ONLY use Twitter (Yes, I am talking about you two!) AND the plethora of folks who I only keep in touch with on facebook.

I also stumbled across 9gag.com this month...  Translation: The black hole that is 9gag has started sucking me in.  It's hilarious.  Mostly.

I also decided to build a MAME Arcade Cabinet. ( I don't know why! Shut up and quit interrupting me)  MAME stands for Multi Arcade Machine Emulator and basically it simulates thousands of classic arcade games which you can then play on your computer.  I found out there was this whole community of people who refurbish old arcade cabinets and/or build their own and I was totally hooked on the idea.  So I bought a control panel, a coin door, some lumber, and recruited my handy man father to help me build the thing.  I painstakingly drafted blueprints for the thing, then left those at home when I started making cuts and screwing shit together.  I've posted a few pics on facebook, but I'll put up the full walkthrough here when we are done.  It should turn out pretty nice, even if all the original plans did go out the window.

Check out the links below if your interested in MAME and I'll see you later.  It's past my bedtime.

http://www.arcadecab.com/
http://mamedev.org/
http://www.mameroom.com/home.asp

2011 - My Year in Review

In the year 2011 I turned 28.  I feel a lot older than that on most days and I attribute that to several causes.  Their names are Aiden who turned 6, Ian and Evan who turned 2.  I wouldn’t trade them for anything though, they are awesome and I love giving everything I have to and for them.

In 2011 I completed eight years of military service.  The Army was a great experience for me and it exposed me to not only other people, but to other cultures out there in this wide world where all to often people forget their knowledge is limited by their experiences.  I got to see what poor really is (materially speaking), what suffering really is, and it has caused me to truly appreciate what I have and the country I live in.  

The Army also introduced me to stupid.  Don’t get me wrong, there are tons of smart, honest, hardworking, and dedicated people in the army.  That type of organization has to have them.  I think it is because of those people that the stupid ones stand out more.  In that way, through leaders both good and bad, the Army reinforced the values that were instilled in me by my parents.  I learned, grew, made mistakes, took responsibility, thrived, and suffered.  It has made me a better person and I will forever remember the people I met and the experiences I had.

In 2011 I also made the decision to go back to school.  I completed my first semester of college with a 3.0 GPA (A, A, B, ____. You can figure it out, I don’t want to talk about it. Lesson Learned!) Go Argos!  

I still don’t know what I want to be when I grow up, but the important thing is that I’m still learning, still growing, and still striving to become better than who I am.  Upon completion of my B.S.B.A. I will have 8+ years real experience working with, for, and managing people, property, and money along with the degree.

The final noteworthy thing I accomplished in 2011 was after 12 or so years of smoking about a pack of cigarettes a day, I quit.  I have not had a single cigarette since March 3, 2011.  While I still think about it every once in a while the urge to go out and buy a pack or bum a smoke is easily dismissed.  

I can never explain how truly grateful I am for the things that I have and for the wonderful people in my life. Thanks to my parents for raising me, instead of just letting me grow up.  Thanks to my wife, Emily, for being my best friend.  Thanks to Aiden, Ian, and Evan; you guys motivate me to be a better role model and therefor a better person.

In 2012 I would like to eat healthier, live better, exercise more, drink less, appreciate more, slow down, and have more patience with the people that matter.

Pancakes and Bacon!

Fried bacon drizzled over with pancake batter...  looks good huh?

This morning's meltdown

After 30 minutes of translating Whiny into English with the further impediment of a pacifier I finally discovered what Ian wanted: His blanket and pillow in the hallway.  Not on his bed, not on the couch, not on Mommy and Daddy's bed.....  the hallway.

On Individuality in A.I. Artificial Intelligence

Based on the short story “Super-Toys Last All Summer Long” (Aldiss) A.I. was  originally a twenty year ongoing project of Stanley Kubrick, who offered the story to Steven Spielberg. The film begins with gray waves crashing against each other while a narrator provides the  backdrop for our story. He explains that the polar ice caps have melted due to green house gases.  The disembodied voice tells about the millions of people who have been displaced and of the hundreds of millions starving in poorer countries.  In developed countries, legal sanctions were placed on pregnancy to control population and a “high degree of prosperity survived”.  We are informed of all of this to put into context the reason for the popularity of robots; who do not consume resources past their initial manufacture.  As the narration continues the scene transitions from gray waves to a human shaped silhouette in the rain.  The camera slowly tracks backwards as the silhouette remains in the background; a single, isolated figure left in the gloomy deluge while a meeting is conducted by men and woman indoors.  The silhouette foreshadows the films protagonist, David (Haley Joel Osment), who is the subject of the meeting.  David is, or rather at this point in the story will become, the prototype “mecha” who is programmed to love the parent or parents he imprints upon.  Through the analysis of mise-en-scene in the film I will endeavour to show how the director, Steven Spielberg, portrays the dystopian element: loss of individuality.  

The film itself, as a whole, suffers from a loss of individuality.  It seems to have an identity crisis and has two stories instead of one, each with their own ending (Huntley).  The first story is told from the perspective of the creator, Professor Hobby (William Hurt) and comes to a close when David fulfills his creator’s intent by dreaming and desiring outside of his original programming.  David finds his way “home” to the great joy of his creator.  The second story, similar to one of the inspirations for A.I., Pinocchio, involves David’s quest to become a real boy.  It begins when Monica (Frances O’Conner), David’s surrogate mother, activates his programming to love her and ends with Monica and David spending the day together and going to sleep forever with the words “I love you” hanging audibly in the air.  This duality is a reoccurring theme throughout the film and further supports the idea that individuality is precious and must be maintained.

David is a mechanical boy, or mecha for short.  He is first introduced in a scene that is back-lit to the extreme with white light, his image appears blurry and distorted, his movements are somewhat jerky.  The blurry silhouette he projects is almost identical to the statue seen from the conference room window mentioned earlier.  This is not the last time that the image of a faceless, vaguely human shape is used in the film.  In Ben Sampson’s “Visual Study of A.I. Artificial Intelligence” he points out several instances of layering faces.  The first example is the same scene just mentioned, where David is brought to his prospective new mommy for the first time as the intended replacement for Martin, the couple’s cryogenicly frozen biological child.  As Monica and Henry (Sam Robards) watch from around the corner David investigates their family photographs. His face is seen reflected in each photo, superimposed over the family he will belong to, yet can never become a part of.  A second example occurs during the Flesh Fair, a “Celebration of Life” where outmoded mecha’s are run through explosive circus acts reminiscent of a monster truck rally and gladiatorial combat.  During this scene David is locked in a cage after being captured with other free range and unlicensed mecha’s.  His face is layered over by the lead singer/guitarist of a band playing on the stage above him who wears a mask over his own face. Shortly after being discovered by a little girl who mistakes him for a real boy his face is scanned by an x-ray gun that displays both of his faces at once.  All of these instances of layering faces serve to show David, not as the unique individual that he is,  but rather they allude to his manufacturers intent to mass produce his model.  As such, they foreshadow the climax of this line of thought when David meets Professor Hobby, his inventor, and comes face to face with himself.  Not only a layered face (although that too happens), an exact duplicate.  Not only a single duplicate, but an entire product line of “David’s-in-a-box” being prepared for commercial use.  There is one more example of these layered faces of Ben Sampson’s, just prior to the final scenes with Monica and David.  Two thousand years after the movie’s first story ends, a team of robotic scientists discover David and reanimate him.  During this process the robots link together by way of touching one another and displayed on their faces are the images David had seen throughout his journey. The images of all the human faces stored in his memory become displayed on the “faces” of these futuristic robots whose form is reminiscent of that first statue and of David’s introduction to the film.  It is also important to note that each of these futuristic robots appears exactly the same, there is no variety in them and no individuality. The culmination of the thousands of years of evolution of man has resulted in an artificial being with no visible individuality.  Ironically, these robots are seeking out the meaning of existence and are attempting to do so through research into extinct human beings.

Another example the film uses can be seen in the fact that in the not-so-far future of A.I., humanity is dominated by white society (Komninou).  Contrary to what Komninou writes in the essay "AI: man, machines and love" there are a few exceptions to this rule and to point them out will highlight their intentional use as individuals in the film’s key points.  The very first scene a dark skinned woman counters Professor Hobby’s desires to build a robot capable of love with a moral question; “If a robot could genuinely love a person, what responsibility does that person hold towards that mecha in return”?  This question plays a pivotal role in the film and is the main motivation for the protagonist.  David’s journey to become a real boy is motivated by one thing only, his desire to be loved by his Mother.  It is fully an hour before another non-white individual is seen in the film and this time it is a mecha.  The scene is the Flesh Fair and David is locked in a cage while a mannequin like robot with dark brown plastic skin and the voice of Chris Rock is being carried past a large circular fan, a flaming hoop and eventually to the cannon that is aimed at those obstacles.  He is subsequently stuffed into and then projected out of the cannon, through the flaming hoop and into the whirling blades of the propeller. It is this event, as the mecha’s  head lodges between the bars of David’s cage directly in front of him, that he realises his extreme danger.  It is David’s fear that precipitates his friendship with Gigalo Joe by reaching up to hold his hand.  It is Joe’s carnal knowledge and experience that leads them to Dr. Know in Rouge City.  The Flesh Fair is also the first time in the movie where several instances of racial variety can be seen and it marks a turning point in the story. After one of the Flesh Fair employees tells David “you are one of a kind” he is dragged onto the center of the stage and a drop of acid provokes his begging to be saved.  His pleas rally the already volatile crowd and in the commotion he and new found friend, Gigalo Joe, escape to make their way towards Rouge City, the futuristic reincarnation of Pinocchio's Pleasure Island.  

Finally, through the use of doubling or pairing key individuals in the film we see a reoccurring theme where the individuality of the one character is taken away by shadowing or copying it with others.  This is almost entirely done between one mecha and one “orga” as some of the film’s characters refer to “real” humans.  We are first exposed to this pairing technique as the opening meeting breaks up and the female mecha that took place in the demonstration is seen touching up her make up.  In the very next scene Monica can be observed applying her make up in an eerily similar fashion.  “The match cut identifies them as doubles, reflections of each other” (Kreider).  As already mentioned, this technique was used with David and the statue outside Cybertronics headquarters building as well as with the futuristic robots at the end of the film.  David is also subjected to a pairing with Martin, Monica and Henry’s biological son.  A scene where David’s face is layered over Martin’s in the family photos further serves to bind the two characters together as well as both characters being frozen (Martin cryogenically, David due to glacial ice). Further enforcing this motif is when Gigalo Joe is dragged onto the center stage with David and holds him protectively during the flesh fair and in the following scene Professor Hobby is seen in photographs holding David, his son and model for the mecha boy, in a similar manner.  Tim Kreider takes the theory one step further and suggests that a pairing occurs between David and Gigalo Joe as well.  “He’s the “adult” version of David, fulfilling mommy’s other needs.” Kreider comments that “David is a kind of vibrator for the soul” and serves to fulfill the needs of grief stricken Monica much like Joe fulfills the needs of his customers.

Throughout the course of A.I. Artificial Intelligence there are many examples of individuality and of conformity and of individuality becoming conformity.  The two separate stories being woven into one.  General similar sounding terminology such as “mecha” and “orga” to refer masses instead of individuals.  The layering of faces on top of one another so that when one is viewed you can not help but see the other.  The rarity of ethnic variety and using it to portray key elements or pivotal points in the film.  Finally, the pairing of individuals so that even those characters that stood out from the others are not unique.  All of these elements point towards Steven Spielberg’s and possibly Stanley Kubrick’s views on humanity and the importance of individuality in society.

WORKS CITED

A.I. Artificial Intelligence. Dir. Steven Spielberg, Warner Bros. 2001. Film.
Aldiss, Brian “Super-Toys Last All Summer Long”  Harper’s Bazaar, December 1969.

Print

Huntley, Chris “A.I. Wars The Dueling Visions of Stanly Kubrick and Stephen Spielberg

in A.I. Artificial Intelligence”. Dramitica. Web. 30 November 2011

Komninou, E. "AI: man, machines and love. (Film)." Futures 35.7 (2003):

793+. General OneFile. Web. 30 Nov. 2011.

Kreider, Tim. “A.I.: Artificial Intelligence”  Film Quarterly, Vol 56. no. 2, December 2002.  

Print.

Sampson, Ben “A Visual Study of A.I. Artificial Intelligence”

filmstudiesforfree.blogspot.com 14 January 2010.  Web. 30 November 2011