I completely forgot to rant about 3D when I wrote about the Green Lantern movie. Part of the reason I did forget is that I didn’t see it in 3D.
Except for certain special cases — basically occasionally checking to see the state of the art — I will never willingly see any movie in 3D.
Number me, along with film critic Roger Ebert, as a hater of 3D.
In the Green Lantern post I mentioned “The Rocky Syndrome.” That’s what I call the common American trope where a single hero prevails after having the living crap beat out of him (or her) and being at the edge of defeat. (I’m going to assume you’re all familiar enough with the Rocky films to know what I’m talking about.)
A more modern example is one of the first (and greatest) action films of its kind: Die Hard. (Obviously, I’m talking about the first one. The others are… okay, but that first one is a classic. One of those films you can watch many times and still enjoy.)
In fact, that’s such a great film that one of these days I’ll have to write a post about it, but for now I want to talk about what I call, “The Boston Syndrome.”
Finally saw Green Lantern; thumbs definitely up. I’m no Green Lantern expert, but I’ve read enough to recognize a lot honor done to that comic. The Guardians and Oa seemed pretty on the money to me; so were Abin Sur, Tomar-Re, Kilowog and Sinestro. And I had no problem with Ryan Reynolds as Hal Jordan; no more so than Christian Bale as Batman or Toby Maguire as Spiderman. Or with Robert Downey Jr as Ironman, for that matter. (And I like them fine, in case you mistake me as being sarcastic.)
I also appreciated the way Hal used the ring: unusual, and yet appropriate, inventions to solve the problem at hand. That seemed very Green Lantern-ish. I’ve always considered slightly odd-ball combat and rescue tools as kind of a signature of the comic. For one example, lofting the oil tanker with a pair of bigass rams and then blowing it up with AA guns.
That was pure GL.
Last time I talked about opposing pairs: Yin and Yang, light and dark, north and south. I mentioned that some pairs are true opposites of each other (for example, north and south), whereas other pairs are actually a thing and the lack of that thing (for example, light and dark). Such pairs are only opposites in the sense that an empty cup is the opposite of a full cup.
However, in both cases, the opposites stand for opposing ideas; two poles of polarity, and it is polarization that I address today. Specifically, I want to discuss a way of thinking that helps avoid it.
It’s easy to divide the world into sides. Many sayings begin with, “There’s two kinds of…” It seems easier to break things down into opposing points of view than to consider a variety of views. It seems easier to compare features between two things than twenty. Our court system has two sides and so does our political system (despite many attempts to create a viable third party).
Have you noticed how blogs and emails are training us to read backwards? Or if you want to read forwards, you have to go to the bottom and read upwards?
Blogging sites post your most recent post first and the oldest (that fits on the page) at the bottom. If you come to a site for the first time and read posts from top to bottom, you’re reading backwards in the order of their posting.
If you wanted to read them in chronological order, you’d have to find the oldest and read upwards.
In my second post I raised the topic of mind versus brain. There is (or, perhaps more accurately, may be) a duality. I mentioned that there are two basic schools of thought: one holding that mind emerges from brain and the other holding that they are distinct, that mind is – somehow – not physical. For now, the duality of the brain/mind question is open.
But there is definitely a duality in the two schools: the two opposing points of view. In this post I want to focus on the idea of duality and the idea of ideas in opposition. This post is about Yin and Yang.
One last very important distinction: there’s a big difference between being ignorant and being stupid.
To be ignorant is to not know something.
We are all ignorant. In fact, given how much there is to know, we’re all far more ignorant than not. Granted, some more than others, and if there is any crime, it is in remaining willfully ignorant in the face of knowledge.
That’s stupid.
While we’re on the topic of important distinctions, let’s also try to draw a line between the idea of liking something and the idea that something is good.
Very often people conflate the two. For example, that a “good” movie is a movie they liked.
In fact, good and like are different measurements, and I wish more people understood the difference.
A bit of Haiku:
A Thing is rarely
The whole or the only Truth.
Most Things are that way.
It’s useful to break the connection between the idea of fact and the idea of truth. A fact is a datum that stands on its own regardless of opinion, belief or perception.
A truth does reflect the opinion, belief or perception of a person.
In my first post I mentioned René Descartes and his seminal statement, “Cogito ergo sum.” I think, therefore I am. Because this statement and the ideas that spring from it lie at the heart of my philosophy and interests, it is a fitting topic for my second post. I also mentioned beginnings; these beginning posts explore such core topics as form my core and inform my mind.
And mind is the topic at hand. “I think, therefore I am,” concerns one of the most central, most personal, most mysterious, most fantastic aspects of our existence. It concerns something each of us shares every waking moment, but which remains–thus far–completely unknown.
That every moment mystery is that we think and experience. Each of us has a voice inside their head; an «I» that is us. It’s the driver of the car that says, “I’m hungry,” or “I’m going to the library.”
Posts pertaining to programming!
Logos con carne 
You must be logged in to post a comment.