Saturday, June 26, 2004
Talking dirty
Have you ever wondered why there are so many slang words/terms that refer to excretory functions, sexual acts, and the body parts involved? WHY do we as a species feel the need to have so many ways to refer to such things? (The other 2 examples of "many slang words for one thing" that I can think of are eating and $; makes you think, doesn't it?) What does it say about us that we have one word each to refer to art, music and science, but DOZENS of words to refer to sexual intercourse?
Why are SOME of the words that refer to our private parts and acts called "dirty," while others are not? The clinical terms aren't seen as dirty, although they make many people uncomfortable... but you won't hear them used on kids' shows, even though it's considered ok for kids to SAY them (which is the basis for the "boys have a penis, girls have a vagina" joke in "Kindergarten Cop"). There are "baby talk" versions for the words that refer to excretory functions, the rear end and the male organ (but NOT for female genitals, interestingly), by which I mean repetitive terms like "poo-poo," and cutesie words like "tushie"; we're all comfortable saying and hearing them, and they can be used even in programming for little kids. There are polite terms, like "use the powder room" and "go to bed with," that are also sayable everywhere and comfortable for everyone to use and hear. There are many other slang terms that are usable almost everywhere, such as "take a dump" and "get it on."
And then, there are the so-called "dirty words," the ones whose use counts as "cursing" and "swearing," the ones that are still limited as to if and when they can be used on TV and radio, the ones that can affect the rating of a movie... the ones that we can't say at the office, or in front of our grandparents, and that children are punished for using. How did those specific words get chosen from the many that refer to these intimate things as the ones that would be singled out as "foul language"? Why is hearing those words shocking and upsetting to some people, when other words that describe the exact same things are ok? Why are the words considered "bad," when a word is just a group of sounds and can't actually BE good or bad? Why are we so worked up about this issue that we've actually made a hierarchy of "dirtiness," such that a couple of the formerly forbidden words can now be used on even daytime TV, but most still cannot... and ONE is seen as so dirty that it has a special euphemism to refer to it ("the f-word")? Why are some of us offended if we see one of these words in print, but if we see it in an altered form, such as "sh*t," that's magically ok, even though we know exactly which word is being portrayed?
Why are children not permitted to use these words? We normally forbid things to kids, such as smoking and drinking, to protect them from harm, but there's no possible harm from saying the words... why this exception to the rule? Where did the idea that some words should be for adult use only come from? You can make a TINY case for not wanting them to use certain sexual words, but why can they not use some of the words that apply to the parts of their body and their excretory functions?
Why is it that "talking dirty" is arousing, but substituting the clinical, baby-talk or polite terms would NOT be arousing, even though they mean exactly the same thing?
What's in a name? Apparently... everything.
Why are SOME of the words that refer to our private parts and acts called "dirty," while others are not? The clinical terms aren't seen as dirty, although they make many people uncomfortable... but you won't hear them used on kids' shows, even though it's considered ok for kids to SAY them (which is the basis for the "boys have a penis, girls have a vagina" joke in "Kindergarten Cop"). There are "baby talk" versions for the words that refer to excretory functions, the rear end and the male organ (but NOT for female genitals, interestingly), by which I mean repetitive terms like "poo-poo," and cutesie words like "tushie"; we're all comfortable saying and hearing them, and they can be used even in programming for little kids. There are polite terms, like "use the powder room" and "go to bed with," that are also sayable everywhere and comfortable for everyone to use and hear. There are many other slang terms that are usable almost everywhere, such as "take a dump" and "get it on."
And then, there are the so-called "dirty words," the ones whose use counts as "cursing" and "swearing," the ones that are still limited as to if and when they can be used on TV and radio, the ones that can affect the rating of a movie... the ones that we can't say at the office, or in front of our grandparents, and that children are punished for using. How did those specific words get chosen from the many that refer to these intimate things as the ones that would be singled out as "foul language"? Why is hearing those words shocking and upsetting to some people, when other words that describe the exact same things are ok? Why are the words considered "bad," when a word is just a group of sounds and can't actually BE good or bad? Why are we so worked up about this issue that we've actually made a hierarchy of "dirtiness," such that a couple of the formerly forbidden words can now be used on even daytime TV, but most still cannot... and ONE is seen as so dirty that it has a special euphemism to refer to it ("the f-word")? Why are some of us offended if we see one of these words in print, but if we see it in an altered form, such as "sh*t," that's magically ok, even though we know exactly which word is being portrayed?
Why are children not permitted to use these words? We normally forbid things to kids, such as smoking and drinking, to protect them from harm, but there's no possible harm from saying the words... why this exception to the rule? Where did the idea that some words should be for adult use only come from? You can make a TINY case for not wanting them to use certain sexual words, but why can they not use some of the words that apply to the parts of their body and their excretory functions?
Why is it that "talking dirty" is arousing, but substituting the clinical, baby-talk or polite terms would NOT be arousing, even though they mean exactly the same thing?
What's in a name? Apparently... everything.
Friday, June 25, 2004
Blast from the past
Do you remember the old radio ads for The Gap that featured regular folks interacting with nerds, who they were trying to get to break from their nerd-dom by shopping at.... guess where? One ad has a male voice saying, "Hey girls, wanna see my Nehru jacket?" And a chorus of female voices replies, "AAAHHHH!! It's a nerd!!" I think there were some other exchanges of that nature, with a variety of nerdish comments from men, but I don't remember any of them. There was an another ad where a guy was talking about his fuzzy bunny slippers... and that's all I remember about that one. The all-time funniest one went something like this (the spellings are phonetic):
Woman: Do you know what you are?
Man: An assistant language lab instructor.
Woman, Yeah, but you're also a nerd.
Man: "Nerd," in Italian, "nurditsi."
The woman starts lecturing him on whatever it is she thinks he needs to buy at, guess where, and, ignoring her, he goes on:
Man: "... in Yiddish, "nuydvey," in German, "nurberger," in Spanish "nurdarita," in Chinese "nur-goo-gai-pan."
I think there may have been another language or 2 represented, and I also think she used his name, which may have been something like "Norbert"-I can't hear it clearly in my memory. I DO remember that I used to laugh out loud every time he got to "nur-goo-gai-pan" (just writing it is making me smile).
I dunno why all this came back to me and got stuck in my head today-those ads are about 25 years old, and I encountered no references to The Gap today (and no, I NEVER shop there-the clothes are too boring). I figured I'd share the memories in hopes of clearing them out of my mind... and maybe giving a couple of people a flash-back.
Woman: Do you know what you are?
Man: An assistant language lab instructor.
Woman, Yeah, but you're also a nerd.
Man: "Nerd," in Italian, "nurditsi."
The woman starts lecturing him on whatever it is she thinks he needs to buy at, guess where, and, ignoring her, he goes on:
Man: "... in Yiddish, "nuydvey," in German, "nurberger," in Spanish "nurdarita," in Chinese "nur-goo-gai-pan."
I think there may have been another language or 2 represented, and I also think she used his name, which may have been something like "Norbert"-I can't hear it clearly in my memory. I DO remember that I used to laugh out loud every time he got to "nur-goo-gai-pan" (just writing it is making me smile).
I dunno why all this came back to me and got stuck in my head today-those ads are about 25 years old, and I encountered no references to The Gap today (and no, I NEVER shop there-the clothes are too boring). I figured I'd share the memories in hopes of clearing them out of my mind... and maybe giving a couple of people a flash-back.
Thursday, June 24, 2004
Do all human lives have the same value?
Do you value your own life more than you value other people's lives? What if someone wanted to kill you, and you'd have to either kill him in self defense or BE killed; would you let him kill you, flip a coin to decide what to do, or waste his ass? What if it was a friend or family member he was menacing... are THEIR lives worth more than the would-be killer's? How about if it was a stranger he was trying to kill? Is the killer's life automatically worth less than the victim's? In general, is the killer's life worth ANYTHING compared to the lives of the innocent?
What if, instead of a killer, we have some other sort of criminal, such as a rapist or thief; is his life just as valuable as the life of a law-abiding citizen... or the life of your friend... or your mother... or your own life?
What if the comparison is to one of those homeless folks who shuffle around mumbling to themselves? If you think no one would value a human life less than a "regular person's" because of homelessness or mental illness... I used to think so, too, until I learned that cops often use the code "NHI" to describe crimes committed against homeless people (and hookers)-it means "No Humans Involved."
What about the lives of regular folks compared to your life, and the lives of your loved ones? If both a stranger and a loved one were drowning, is there ANY chance you'd try to help the stranger first? If you were at a club, and there was a fire, would you hang back and let everyone else get out, or would you make a beeline for the door?
What about the life of someone of your religion compared to the life of someone of another religion? You probably don't see a difference there, but I'm betting you're aware that there ARE people to whom people of other religions are about on a level with pond scum.
What about the life of a person in another country? What if we're at war with that country? What if that other person is a member of that country's military, and is dedicated to killing your fellow-citizens, and maybe even your loved ones... and maybe even YOU? How much is that person's life worth to you, compared to your own life and the lives of those you love? How many of the "enemy" would it take to make up the same value of your life or that of a loved one? How many of the "enemy" would it take to make up the value of you and ALL your loved ones... and all your fellow citizens? You've probably never even imagined such a calculation... but our military leaders HAVE. And so have the military leaders of other countries. If you've ever wondered how they, or WE, can unleash weapons of mass destruction... now you know.
What if, instead of a killer, we have some other sort of criminal, such as a rapist or thief; is his life just as valuable as the life of a law-abiding citizen... or the life of your friend... or your mother... or your own life?
What if the comparison is to one of those homeless folks who shuffle around mumbling to themselves? If you think no one would value a human life less than a "regular person's" because of homelessness or mental illness... I used to think so, too, until I learned that cops often use the code "NHI" to describe crimes committed against homeless people (and hookers)-it means "No Humans Involved."
What about the lives of regular folks compared to your life, and the lives of your loved ones? If both a stranger and a loved one were drowning, is there ANY chance you'd try to help the stranger first? If you were at a club, and there was a fire, would you hang back and let everyone else get out, or would you make a beeline for the door?
What about the life of someone of your religion compared to the life of someone of another religion? You probably don't see a difference there, but I'm betting you're aware that there ARE people to whom people of other religions are about on a level with pond scum.
What about the life of a person in another country? What if we're at war with that country? What if that other person is a member of that country's military, and is dedicated to killing your fellow-citizens, and maybe even your loved ones... and maybe even YOU? How much is that person's life worth to you, compared to your own life and the lives of those you love? How many of the "enemy" would it take to make up the same value of your life or that of a loved one? How many of the "enemy" would it take to make up the value of you and ALL your loved ones... and all your fellow citizens? You've probably never even imagined such a calculation... but our military leaders HAVE. And so have the military leaders of other countries. If you've ever wondered how they, or WE, can unleash weapons of mass destruction... now you know.
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
How should we meet potential mates?
I saw a few minutes of some random movie today; 2 businesswomen were talking, and one reacted in HORROR upon hearing that the other had signed up for an executive dating service.
HUH?!!
We accept, as a culture, that people will meet potential mates at bars, clubs, and parties, where it's usually dark, people are drunk, and alot of them are just there to lie their way into someone's bed, and we think that's ok, but signing up for a service, that allows us to clear-headedly analyze people, and to select only those who meet our needs and standards to spend our precious time on, THAT'S somehow BAD?
It never ceases to amaze me that, when we all know so many people who either have no relationship, or cling to a relationship they aren't happy with because they see so little chance of finding new one, we'd turn our noses up at ANY way of meeting people, much less one with so much more chance of finding a worthwhile person, and so much higher of a level of safety, than meeting people at a bar, or in the produce section, or while your dogs are peeing on the same tree.
One of the many ways that the online world has improved people's lives is that, with so many of us spending so much of our time here, it's been a natural extension for us to meet people here, often at websites for that purpose, and now no one blinks when a couple says that they met online, even if it was on a dating site. Do you suppose that maybe folks will grasp someday soon that signing up for a dating service OFFline is no more "shameful" than going to a singles message board, or eHarmony.com? Wouldn't it be nice if the many lonely people in America felt ok about doing it, and so had a better chance at finding their other half?
HUH?!!
We accept, as a culture, that people will meet potential mates at bars, clubs, and parties, where it's usually dark, people are drunk, and alot of them are just there to lie their way into someone's bed, and we think that's ok, but signing up for a service, that allows us to clear-headedly analyze people, and to select only those who meet our needs and standards to spend our precious time on, THAT'S somehow BAD?
It never ceases to amaze me that, when we all know so many people who either have no relationship, or cling to a relationship they aren't happy with because they see so little chance of finding new one, we'd turn our noses up at ANY way of meeting people, much less one with so much more chance of finding a worthwhile person, and so much higher of a level of safety, than meeting people at a bar, or in the produce section, or while your dogs are peeing on the same tree.
One of the many ways that the online world has improved people's lives is that, with so many of us spending so much of our time here, it's been a natural extension for us to meet people here, often at websites for that purpose, and now no one blinks when a couple says that they met online, even if it was on a dating site. Do you suppose that maybe folks will grasp someday soon that signing up for a dating service OFFline is no more "shameful" than going to a singles message board, or eHarmony.com? Wouldn't it be nice if the many lonely people in America felt ok about doing it, and so had a better chance at finding their other half?
Tuesday, June 22, 2004
Get-a-life.com
There isn't actually a website by that name, but there SHOULD be... that way, we could all offer the URL to people who clearly come online because they have nothing else to do.
Today, on just one blog, I saw people take the time out of their lives to post complaining about the subject under discussion, the "tone" of the blog, and the length of the comments-apparently, just moving along to a blog more to their liking was too simple.
Then, on the SAME blog, some dickless wonder showed up and started expressing his disagreement with the politely-worded posts of others with nasty personal attacks... and yes, he WAS a blithering idiot, naturally.
In addition, I've seen several nice blogs go belly-up within the past few weeks because of jerks who got their jollies from logging on and posting abusive rants.
Imagine how much better online life would be if people had to pass a test proving that they had an OFFLINE life before they could post anywhere...
Today, on just one blog, I saw people take the time out of their lives to post complaining about the subject under discussion, the "tone" of the blog, and the length of the comments-apparently, just moving along to a blog more to their liking was too simple.
Then, on the SAME blog, some dickless wonder showed up and started expressing his disagreement with the politely-worded posts of others with nasty personal attacks... and yes, he WAS a blithering idiot, naturally.
In addition, I've seen several nice blogs go belly-up within the past few weeks because of jerks who got their jollies from logging on and posting abusive rants.
Imagine how much better online life would be if people had to pass a test proving that they had an OFFLINE life before they could post anywhere...
Monday, June 21, 2004
Could an android have a soul?
Tonight I saw "Bicentennial Man," a terrific movie based on the wonderful short story by Isaac Asimov; the central theme is the struggles of a self-aware android to become a human being. The concept of a created creature wanting to become "alive," "real," or something similar is a familiar one to all of us, from children's stories like "Pinocchio" and "The Velveteen Rabbit" as well as from a wide variety of scifi sources, and it poses an interesting question; although nothing short of magic can turn an artificial body into a biological one, could an android, robot or computer, if it became sufficiently sophisticated to actually THINK, and especially if it could also FEEL, develop a soul?
I believe that souls are made of the energy of thought and feelings, as Occam's Razor makes it logical that there's only ONE unknown form of energy involved in these phenomena rather than several... but, would non-organic thoughts and feelings, or, if we manage to create a computer brain with biological components, semi-organic thoughts and feelings, create that same energy? If so, would that energy coalesce into a soul, or does a soul only form around a living organism, a living brain?
If thoughts and/or feelings lead inexorably to a soul, that would mean that anything we create that can think and/or feel will have a soul, and therefore will be a sentient being, NOT just a machine... and that, if we treat them as property, as it seems inevitable that we would, because they'd be manufactured objects that someone paid for, we'd have sentient beings who would be owned-SLAVES, in other words. Could any decent person support the willful creation of a race of slaves?
If a soul requires a living body, though, that would mean that, if we created thinking/feeling androids, we'd have humanoid creatures among us that, much as we'd inevitably anthropomorphize them, would NOT be sentient beings, and so would be soulless... mechanical sociopaths, in other words, and let's not forget that nearly all killers are sociopaths. Even if they could be created with Asimov's laws of robotics, which would prevent them from harming us, would you want to be anywhere near such creatures? If you're shrugging, think again; if the little bit of software or hardware or whatever that kept them from hurting you failed, you'd essentially be faced with a creature with reason to resent and dislike you and no qualms about killing you to be rid of you.
The real kicker is that, since we can't prove the existence of a soul in ANY creature, we won't KNOW whether our androids will have souls or not, and therefore whether they'd have to be seen as living creatures or not; this is the best possible argument for NOT creating anything that can think, much less feel, until we've learned to detect souls... and reached a FAR higher level of spiritual wisdom.
I believe that souls are made of the energy of thought and feelings, as Occam's Razor makes it logical that there's only ONE unknown form of energy involved in these phenomena rather than several... but, would non-organic thoughts and feelings, or, if we manage to create a computer brain with biological components, semi-organic thoughts and feelings, create that same energy? If so, would that energy coalesce into a soul, or does a soul only form around a living organism, a living brain?
If thoughts and/or feelings lead inexorably to a soul, that would mean that anything we create that can think and/or feel will have a soul, and therefore will be a sentient being, NOT just a machine... and that, if we treat them as property, as it seems inevitable that we would, because they'd be manufactured objects that someone paid for, we'd have sentient beings who would be owned-SLAVES, in other words. Could any decent person support the willful creation of a race of slaves?
If a soul requires a living body, though, that would mean that, if we created thinking/feeling androids, we'd have humanoid creatures among us that, much as we'd inevitably anthropomorphize them, would NOT be sentient beings, and so would be soulless... mechanical sociopaths, in other words, and let's not forget that nearly all killers are sociopaths. Even if they could be created with Asimov's laws of robotics, which would prevent them from harming us, would you want to be anywhere near such creatures? If you're shrugging, think again; if the little bit of software or hardware or whatever that kept them from hurting you failed, you'd essentially be faced with a creature with reason to resent and dislike you and no qualms about killing you to be rid of you.
The real kicker is that, since we can't prove the existence of a soul in ANY creature, we won't KNOW whether our androids will have souls or not, and therefore whether they'd have to be seen as living creatures or not; this is the best possible argument for NOT creating anything that can think, much less feel, until we've learned to detect souls... and reached a FAR higher level of spiritual wisdom.
Sunday, June 20, 2004
Psychometry
Remember the scene in "Vibes" where the Jeff Goldblum character touches a table and "sees" that people had sex on it a few hours ago? That's psychometry, the ability to pick up impressions from objects about their owner(s) or whoever has handled them. I did a little research on the topic today, and discovered some interesting things:
The term "psychometry" was coined by Joseph R. Buchanan, a professor of physiology, in 1842; he based it on the Greek words "psyche," meaning "soul," and "metron," meaning "measure." The idea of objects having a soul, or rather some of the energy from which souls are made, is part of the concept of animism, which in turn is part of the overarching theory of karma... interesting how all of these ideas keep tying into each other, isn't it?
Gustav Pagenstecher, a British doctor, studied psychometry early in the 20th century; his theory was that a psychometrist could tune in to the "experiential vibrations" condensed in the object, in other words, as I'VE said many times, that every action, thought and feeling produces energy that can only change form, not be destroyed, and that that energy has to keep existing, somewhere... why not in objects that were present when things took place, and soaked up the energy like a sponge soaks up any liquid that it's exposed to?
Michael Talbot expands upon this concept in his book "The Holographic Universe"; he suggests that, since all matter exists essentially as "vibrations," in other words bits of energy in constant motion, at the subatomic level, consciousness and reality exist in a kind of hologram that contains a record of the past, present and future, and that psychometrics may be able to tap into that record.... sure sounds like my idea of the tapestry of karma, doesn't it? Talbot bases his ideas on the work of University of London physicist David Bohm, a former protege of Einstein's and one of the world's most respected quantum physicists, and Stanford neurophysiologist Karl Pribram, one of the architects of our modern understanding of the brain; once again, there's a tie-in between quantum physics and psychic phenomena, and that an expert in the workings of the brain sees these connections as well is particularly exciting.
Another view of psychometry is that we leave micro-bits of our aura, soul, whatever name you want to use, on whatever we touch, just like our physical body leaves behind fingerprints, and that these bits can be perceived, and information about their "owners" obtained from them. Yet another view is that the objects being handled just help psychic power to focus and point in the right direction, rather than giving the information to the psychometrist directly.
IS it possible to get psychic info from handling an object? I've never done it, or seen it being done, so I can't say for sure; I'm just grateful that my research into this particular dark corner has led me to some new scientists who see the connection between science, the unknown and the human race.
The term "psychometry" was coined by Joseph R. Buchanan, a professor of physiology, in 1842; he based it on the Greek words "psyche," meaning "soul," and "metron," meaning "measure." The idea of objects having a soul, or rather some of the energy from which souls are made, is part of the concept of animism, which in turn is part of the overarching theory of karma... interesting how all of these ideas keep tying into each other, isn't it?
Gustav Pagenstecher, a British doctor, studied psychometry early in the 20th century; his theory was that a psychometrist could tune in to the "experiential vibrations" condensed in the object, in other words, as I'VE said many times, that every action, thought and feeling produces energy that can only change form, not be destroyed, and that that energy has to keep existing, somewhere... why not in objects that were present when things took place, and soaked up the energy like a sponge soaks up any liquid that it's exposed to?
Michael Talbot expands upon this concept in his book "The Holographic Universe"; he suggests that, since all matter exists essentially as "vibrations," in other words bits of energy in constant motion, at the subatomic level, consciousness and reality exist in a kind of hologram that contains a record of the past, present and future, and that psychometrics may be able to tap into that record.... sure sounds like my idea of the tapestry of karma, doesn't it? Talbot bases his ideas on the work of University of London physicist David Bohm, a former protege of Einstein's and one of the world's most respected quantum physicists, and Stanford neurophysiologist Karl Pribram, one of the architects of our modern understanding of the brain; once again, there's a tie-in between quantum physics and psychic phenomena, and that an expert in the workings of the brain sees these connections as well is particularly exciting.
Another view of psychometry is that we leave micro-bits of our aura, soul, whatever name you want to use, on whatever we touch, just like our physical body leaves behind fingerprints, and that these bits can be perceived, and information about their "owners" obtained from them. Yet another view is that the objects being handled just help psychic power to focus and point in the right direction, rather than giving the information to the psychometrist directly.
IS it possible to get psychic info from handling an object? I've never done it, or seen it being done, so I can't say for sure; I'm just grateful that my research into this particular dark corner has led me to some new scientists who see the connection between science, the unknown and the human race.
