Disclaimer: This post is a bunch of stuff I just thought up and is mostly about education. I did ok as a student, but know almost nothing about teaching. So the bullshit meter on this post is higher than usual. And I'm really just writing this as a way to put off doing taxes (as a side note, if Republicans wanted to destroy Democrats they'd move elections to mid April).
The build up to this post is the general concept of evaluating information, especially who to trust (school, scientists, religious leaders, parents, no one decide for self...). I'm going to try to skip past my giant set of rants on this topic, especially since I've touched on it in several posts. But the starting off point is that most of these sources often end up saying just trust me and then can't believe when people put their trust in an alternate source (school and science that includes you).
While school is not a perfect source of information, it is generally better than any of the others and is at least a good starting point. So I'd say that two things schools should aim for are showing why school should mostly (but not absolutely) be trusted and more generally teaching how to evaluate sources of information.
I think that science education is a logical starting point for teaching how to evaluate sources of information and demonstrating the validity of information from school. Especially since it is generally the only subject that has demonstrations of any kind (name another subject in which what is being taught is actually tested in any way, except maybe self consistency in mathematics but that's rather abstract). This means that science experiments are far more important as a piece of education as a whole than they might appear at first.
Problem is, I'd claim, that school science experiments are flawed. Let's say students are doing the time an object falling experiment. The hypothesis is something like "gravity accelerates objects near Earth's surface at approximately 9.81m/s^2" right? Wrong! Everyone knows that's correct and if the experiment proves it wrong the student doesn't get to publish an article in Nature, she/he gets to repeat the experiment again till the "hypothesis" is proved true. That's about as far from science as you can get. The real hypothesis is something along the lines of "what teachers tell me is generally correct and provides information about how the world works", and increasingly has the add on of "science/school is fun".
Well, if that's the hypothesis then doing the object drop experiment is still bad science. Why? Well, let's take another example. Someone on the street says the way to add two numbers is to just add 5 to the first number. Now to prove it try doing 6+5, ok how about 7+5. See the rule works, now trust me. The natural reaction should be, let me come up with a set of numbers to add to test this rule and it would quickly be proven false.
So doing a proscribed experiment doesn't go very far in answering the true hypothesis. The students need to design their own experiments. But the answer to any experiment most students would do is already well known and they'd still be expected to get the correct answer. It is a step in the right direction, but I'd claim that far better would be to ask a student to design something using the knowledge they've been given. When a student is able to use their knowledge to create something that works that is a powerful moment. It shows the knowledge they have works even when tested in the way the student chooses. It means that the student isn't just repeating whatever they do till they get a right answer. And I'd claim it is more fun (although that may just be my opinion).
Now there is a huge issue with building something. It very often won't work. If the project stops there then science is disproved, school is bullshit and it is time to start reading websites about how the moon landing was faked. However, if the student has to figure out why it didn't work and then redesign based on that info then the student is testing whatever science comes up rather than whatever was being taught that week. This becomes a much better test of the reliability of information taught in school. Additionally, many people don't consider science sufficiently "magical", and I think that finding unexpected issues and their causes can help demonstrate how mysterious and "magical" science can be.
Not to mention that if the design is sufficiently interesting the hypothesis can be adjusted to "what teachers tell me is generally correct and provides USEFUL information about how the world works".
In addition to increasing trust in school, now the student knows that some sources provide information that can be used in interactions with the world. Which means that other information sources can be tested for the same ability. Thus, giving the student a tool for evaluating sources of information in general.
Alright, I'll admit the argument doesn't hold together perfectly (not to mention being built on complete ignorance about teaching), but there it is. I guess I should also admit that it isn't surprising that I think the key to making people smarter (aka thinking more like me) is to get them to do more of what I do.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Saturday, March 07, 2009
The 5 Books of Moses
I finally finished the 5 Books of Moses in The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version.
First of all - I'm commenting on what I read. Not on modern Judaism or any other religion based on these books or the books that follow these.
Obviously I went into reading this with a reasonably strong bias. But even accounting for that as much as I can, I was quite surprised by what's actually in the Torah. First of all, I was expecting it to be somewhat boring, but just in an old stories are boring kind of way. I had no idea how many long lists of details there would be. I can sort of understand the detailed instructions for making an arc or how to diagnose and deal with leprosy, but long lists of names and ages of people who don't show up anywhere else or exactly what animal to sacrifice for a given event made reading the Torah very boring. Deuteronomy was also a bit odd since it was largely a recap of the previous books (as if it wasn't boring enough the first time), but some places it was consistent with the previous books and some places it wasn't.
Another bit of a shock was that prayer is barely mentioned. I sort of knew that prayer had replaced animal sacrifice. But since prayer is one of the biggest aspects of modern Judaism it seems like a bit of a disconnect. Especially since there are so many rules about who, when, where, how to pray. Which as far as I can tell the only aspect of that from the Torah is that it had a completely different very specific set of rules about who, when, where, how to sacrifice animals. It almost seems like the lesson taken from the Torah is that there should be lots of specific rules.
Once you screen out all the lists of details you're left with some stories and some declarations by The Lord. Stories are obviously open to interpretation so I'm willing to grant that even if some are disturbing and some seem to have really bad moral lessons and portray The Lord as jealous, vengeful, petty, short-tempered, and fallible, people can interpret them how they want. But the other big shock is the declarations by The Lord are very direct and while some of them have good morals, I'd claim that at a minimum the majority would be considered very immoral now. And The Lord is "loving" as long as you do exactly what he tells you and never doubt him, but stray a bit and he'll do horrible, horrible things to you. And sure you could claim that having it say a bunch of stuff forces the reader to sort out their own morals, but if that's all the Torah is, it could be replaced by a two page list of actions of varying degrees of good and bad. Although if the method for diagnosing leprosy is valid then you should also include that since up till very recently that could have been very useful (of course curing it by sacrificing animals could get left out).
I'm also a bit surprised by how not timeless it is. As Hitchens pointed out there is a whole lot of human history and the Torah really zeros in on a very specific place and period of time - at this point I'm sick of hearing The Lord go on and on about he delivered the people from Egypt - why not find something else to brag about, like creating the universe (not even to get into who put the people in Egypt to begin with).
I could go on and on, but I'll cut myself off here. Mostly because I know there is a huge amount of scholarship on understanding the Torah and I have made no effort to read any of it (and at this point don't plan to - I'm just so bored from reading the Torah I need to switch to a different topic). But I would encourage people to take a look and see what's really in there. And don't just look at Genesis and Exodus and figure the whole thing is a collection of stories. Get to Numbers and Deuteronomy where the lists of rules get into full swing.
I will say that people have questioned exactly what translation of the Torah is the right one to read. Obviously by reading one that is part of the bible I got different wording than a Jewish Torah would have. But I would claim that even if you picked up perfectly copied scrolls and read it in Hebrew you would be reading an interpretation. Because language changes a lot. Even if you just go back a few hundred years words and phrases have changed significantly, much less going back several thousand years. So I would claim that no one should be expecting to get the exact words or phrasing (or at least claim to know the exact meaning of those words). Although I will admit that it would have made more sense to get a Torah rather than just buy whatever they had at the book store.
First of all - I'm commenting on what I read. Not on modern Judaism or any other religion based on these books or the books that follow these.
Obviously I went into reading this with a reasonably strong bias. But even accounting for that as much as I can, I was quite surprised by what's actually in the Torah. First of all, I was expecting it to be somewhat boring, but just in an old stories are boring kind of way. I had no idea how many long lists of details there would be. I can sort of understand the detailed instructions for making an arc or how to diagnose and deal with leprosy, but long lists of names and ages of people who don't show up anywhere else or exactly what animal to sacrifice for a given event made reading the Torah very boring. Deuteronomy was also a bit odd since it was largely a recap of the previous books (as if it wasn't boring enough the first time), but some places it was consistent with the previous books and some places it wasn't.
Another bit of a shock was that prayer is barely mentioned. I sort of knew that prayer had replaced animal sacrifice. But since prayer is one of the biggest aspects of modern Judaism it seems like a bit of a disconnect. Especially since there are so many rules about who, when, where, how to pray. Which as far as I can tell the only aspect of that from the Torah is that it had a completely different very specific set of rules about who, when, where, how to sacrifice animals. It almost seems like the lesson taken from the Torah is that there should be lots of specific rules.
Once you screen out all the lists of details you're left with some stories and some declarations by The Lord. Stories are obviously open to interpretation so I'm willing to grant that even if some are disturbing and some seem to have really bad moral lessons and portray The Lord as jealous, vengeful, petty, short-tempered, and fallible, people can interpret them how they want. But the other big shock is the declarations by The Lord are very direct and while some of them have good morals, I'd claim that at a minimum the majority would be considered very immoral now. And The Lord is "loving" as long as you do exactly what he tells you and never doubt him, but stray a bit and he'll do horrible, horrible things to you. And sure you could claim that having it say a bunch of stuff forces the reader to sort out their own morals, but if that's all the Torah is, it could be replaced by a two page list of actions of varying degrees of good and bad. Although if the method for diagnosing leprosy is valid then you should also include that since up till very recently that could have been very useful (of course curing it by sacrificing animals could get left out).
I'm also a bit surprised by how not timeless it is. As Hitchens pointed out there is a whole lot of human history and the Torah really zeros in on a very specific place and period of time - at this point I'm sick of hearing The Lord go on and on about he delivered the people from Egypt - why not find something else to brag about, like creating the universe (not even to get into who put the people in Egypt to begin with).
I could go on and on, but I'll cut myself off here. Mostly because I know there is a huge amount of scholarship on understanding the Torah and I have made no effort to read any of it (and at this point don't plan to - I'm just so bored from reading the Torah I need to switch to a different topic). But I would encourage people to take a look and see what's really in there. And don't just look at Genesis and Exodus and figure the whole thing is a collection of stories. Get to Numbers and Deuteronomy where the lists of rules get into full swing.
I will say that people have questioned exactly what translation of the Torah is the right one to read. Obviously by reading one that is part of the bible I got different wording than a Jewish Torah would have. But I would claim that even if you picked up perfectly copied scrolls and read it in Hebrew you would be reading an interpretation. Because language changes a lot. Even if you just go back a few hundred years words and phrases have changed significantly, much less going back several thousand years. So I would claim that no one should be expecting to get the exact words or phrasing (or at least claim to know the exact meaning of those words). Although I will admit that it would have made more sense to get a Torah rather than just buy whatever they had at the book store.
Friday, February 27, 2009
One Strike And You're Out
The Jews have been wandering around the desert for a really long time and get to a place where there is no water and they're worried about dying from thirst. So God says to Moses and Aaron - get your rod, gather the people, and talk to this rock and it will give you water. Moses and Aaron get the rod, gather the people, and then Moses hits the rock with the rod twice. (Obviously I'm summarizing, but the real story isn't much longer.) Then because they didn't follow the Lord's instructions, which God interprets as them losing faith, Aaron dies soon after and Moses isn't allowed into Israel.
Growing up reform I heard a lot of: there are lots of mitzvahs, you can't do all of them all the time, but you do what you can.
What the Torah seems to actually say: even if you are one of the "best Jews" of all time, mess up once (even under some pretty serious pressure) and God might just kill you or your brother.
And what's with specifically telling Moses to bring his rod and then getting mad that he used it? And what did Aaron do wrong?
Growing up reform I heard a lot of: there are lots of mitzvahs, you can't do all of them all the time, but you do what you can.
What the Torah seems to actually say: even if you are one of the "best Jews" of all time, mess up once (even under some pretty serious pressure) and God might just kill you or your brother.
And what's with specifically telling Moses to bring his rod and then getting mad that he used it? And what did Aaron do wrong?
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Bestiality
A somewhat common line from people who oppose gay rights is "What's next, bestiality?". In addition to being absurd, it struck me as kind of out of nowhere. Well, turns out that when laying down the law on what sex acts get the death penalty, just after man lying with a man is man or woman lying with a beast. So I must scale back my incredulity to just finding the argument absurd, since the source is clearer than I'd expected.
Wow, the end of the section that describes all the sex acts that deserve death is "A man or a woman who is a medium or a wizard shall be put to death; they shall be stoned with stones, their blood shall be upon them". I learned about this writing technique in the satire class I took in high school. You present a list that gets increasingly absurd to point out the absurdity of the stuff at the beginning of the list.
It's interesting that Jews and Christians both closely follow certain parts of the Torah and completely ignore others, they just picked different parts. And I'm surprised by how much of what is considered fundamentalist Christian ideas come from the Torah.
If a man or woman lies with a beast not only is the person supposed to die, but so is the beast. Why does the beast have to die? That doesn't seem fair. Of course, killing a person for lighting a fire on Shabbat doesn't seem all that fair either, but at least there the person knowingly broke the rules.
So what happens to you if you don't follow God's commandments (other than the ones where he specifies that you'll be put to death)? Well, a list of bad stuff too long for me to bother to type (see Leviticus 26). And if after that you don't turn back to God he'll do a bunch more bad stuff to you including, "You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters". Whoa. That's twisted even by Law and Order SVU standards.
Oh and a bit of follow up from last time. The rules of kosher in the Torah are a bit more specific than I expected (although they have clearly been adjusted over time), heck which bugs are ok and not ok is even covered (if you keep kosher and you want to try grasshoppers you're good to go). And everyone knows that when Moses came down from the mountain the first time he broke the stone tablets in anger. What seems to get skipped over is that Moses also had three thousand people killed and then God unleashed a plague. But, whoa - tablet breaking - that's the part that shows how mad he was. Actually the commonly told story is Moses carved some stone tablets, got mad, broke them, had to carve new ones. Kind of a boring story. Seems like killing thousands of people helps add some zest to the story.
Wow, the end of the section that describes all the sex acts that deserve death is "A man or a woman who is a medium or a wizard shall be put to death; they shall be stoned with stones, their blood shall be upon them". I learned about this writing technique in the satire class I took in high school. You present a list that gets increasingly absurd to point out the absurdity of the stuff at the beginning of the list.
It's interesting that Jews and Christians both closely follow certain parts of the Torah and completely ignore others, they just picked different parts. And I'm surprised by how much of what is considered fundamentalist Christian ideas come from the Torah.
If a man or woman lies with a beast not only is the person supposed to die, but so is the beast. Why does the beast have to die? That doesn't seem fair. Of course, killing a person for lighting a fire on Shabbat doesn't seem all that fair either, but at least there the person knowingly broke the rules.
So what happens to you if you don't follow God's commandments (other than the ones where he specifies that you'll be put to death)? Well, a list of bad stuff too long for me to bother to type (see Leviticus 26). And if after that you don't turn back to God he'll do a bunch more bad stuff to you including, "You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters". Whoa. That's twisted even by Law and Order SVU standards.
Oh and a bit of follow up from last time. The rules of kosher in the Torah are a bit more specific than I expected (although they have clearly been adjusted over time), heck which bugs are ok and not ok is even covered (if you keep kosher and you want to try grasshoppers you're good to go). And everyone knows that when Moses came down from the mountain the first time he broke the stone tablets in anger. What seems to get skipped over is that Moses also had three thousand people killed and then God unleashed a plague. But, whoa - tablet breaking - that's the part that shows how mad he was. Actually the commonly told story is Moses carved some stone tablets, got mad, broke them, had to carve new ones. Kind of a boring story. Seems like killing thousands of people helps add some zest to the story.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
God supports the flat tax
Seriously it is in the torah:
I bet the IRS wishes it could threaten to give the plague to people who don't pay their taxes.
I would have expected God to be more on the side of a progressive tax, although maybe that's just his hippie son.
So people often make fun of sports players who attribute their success to God (or Jesus) by saying there's no way God is worrying about who wins a sports game. But let's face it God can go on for pages about how to make the curtains for an altar. That seems like the obsessive, detailed oriented characteristics of someone with extensive knowledge of baseball stats. And since he hasn't done much writing recently he probably has some time on his hands. I bet God isn't just swaying who wins the super bowl, but is adjusting ERAs of minor league players.
From what I understand the rules of keeping kosher were very roughly given in the Torah and then heavily expanded upon in other texts. The rules of animal sacrifice were clearly detailed in the Torah. Some people follow the largely man made Kosher rules to the letter of the law. No one performs animal sacrifices anymore. Discuss.
Actually, talk about reasons why God would be making final four brackets - he wants a bunch of animals killed for him on fancy alters, now he has a bunch of people who get together for an hour a week and say the exact same thing every time. He must be bored out of his mind.
Ok - now for a more serious question. Did God give Moses the torah? If not, when is it that God gave people the Torah (assuming it wasn't written by people...)? If so, what do you think Moses did when he was writing everything God said and they got to the part about Moses not getting into Israel as a punishment? And wouldn't he have been prepared for that whole rock thing? And when they got to the part about him needing to write the whole thing a second time do you think he kept writing or just faked the rest since he knew he'd have to do it again? Ok, I tried to be serious. But really - I want to know, because it didn't seem very clear - did God give the Torah to Moses, or was it given later, or is the orthodox view that sections came from God, but the overall compilation and some of the stories were put together by people later?
And what's with the whole section on how to handle owning Hebrew slaves just after the story of leaving Egypt? I thought the whole point of that story was don't have slaves. If you want to be a pain at a passover seder, at some point slip in Exodus 21. My favorite part:
The LORD said to Moses, "When you take the census of the people of Israel, then each shall give a ransom for himself to the LORD when you number them, that there be no plague among them when you number them. Each who is numbered in the census shall give this: half a shekel according to the shekel of the sanctuary, half a shekel as an offering to the LORD. Every one who is numbered in the census, from twenty years old and upward shall give the LORD's offering. The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less, than the half shekel, when you give the LORD's offering to make atonement for yourselves. And you shall take the atonement money from the people of Israel, and shall appoint it for the service of the tent of meeting; that it may bring the people of Israel to remembrance before the LORD, so as to make atonement for yourselves."
I bet the IRS wishes it could threaten to give the plague to people who don't pay their taxes.
I would have expected God to be more on the side of a progressive tax, although maybe that's just his hippie son.
So people often make fun of sports players who attribute their success to God (or Jesus) by saying there's no way God is worrying about who wins a sports game. But let's face it God can go on for pages about how to make the curtains for an altar. That seems like the obsessive, detailed oriented characteristics of someone with extensive knowledge of baseball stats. And since he hasn't done much writing recently he probably has some time on his hands. I bet God isn't just swaying who wins the super bowl, but is adjusting ERAs of minor league players.
From what I understand the rules of keeping kosher were very roughly given in the Torah and then heavily expanded upon in other texts. The rules of animal sacrifice were clearly detailed in the Torah. Some people follow the largely man made Kosher rules to the letter of the law. No one performs animal sacrifices anymore. Discuss.
Actually, talk about reasons why God would be making final four brackets - he wants a bunch of animals killed for him on fancy alters, now he has a bunch of people who get together for an hour a week and say the exact same thing every time. He must be bored out of his mind.
Ok - now for a more serious question. Did God give Moses the torah? If not, when is it that God gave people the Torah (assuming it wasn't written by people...)? If so, what do you think Moses did when he was writing everything God said and they got to the part about Moses not getting into Israel as a punishment? And wouldn't he have been prepared for that whole rock thing? And when they got to the part about him needing to write the whole thing a second time do you think he kept writing or just faked the rest since he knew he'd have to do it again? Ok, I tried to be serious. But really - I want to know, because it didn't seem very clear - did God give the Torah to Moses, or was it given later, or is the orthodox view that sections came from God, but the overall compilation and some of the stories were put together by people later?
And what's with the whole section on how to handle owning Hebrew slaves just after the story of leaving Egypt? I thought the whole point of that story was don't have slaves. If you want to be a pain at a passover seder, at some point slip in Exodus 21. My favorite part:
When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished for the slave is his money.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Sunday, November 16, 2008
No God but God
No, this post isn't about the book No god but God, I already covered that. It is about the book No God but God - notice the difference?
I picked this up somewhat by chance at the library, but it turned out to be exactly what I was looking for. It discusses the rise of Islam in Egypt from about 1970 to the late 1990s. It was released in 2000 so it doesn't cover the last eight years. But I tend not to trust anything written about Islam that came out from 2002 to around 2005 (I figure anything in that time period is going to be too reactionary) so it is hard to do better than a release date of 2000.
If you're not going to be in Egypt in a couple months not sure how interesting it would be, but I found it interesting so this post will probably end up way too long. The one downside of the book is it seems like the chapters were written separately so there is a bit of repetition of facts.
The main thing I learned is that the relationship between religion and the state in Egypt is in many ways inverted from other countries in the Middle East. The government is secular and has been fighting against the rising power of Islamist, such as banning niqabs and hijabs for students at various times as opposed to forcing women to wear them.
The other big message I took away is that there's not a clear good guy or bad guy (well, the militants are bad guys). The government is secular, "democratic", made peace with Israel and generally tries for good relations with the West. However, there is some serious corruption and obvious vote rigging. Since 1956 when Nasser took over the presidency (partially by putting the previous president under house arrest), there have been three presidents. Sadat took over when Nasser died of a heart attack and Mubarak took over after Sadat was killed by Islamic militants (notice how no one was ever voted out). The government also occasionally rounds up suspected Islamic militants, jails them, and often tortures them. It also some times passes laws to prevent Islamist from getting elected to lead unions and student groups. While the Islamic movement pushes for censorship that doesn't fit its morals, the secular government also uses censorship to protect itself. The government also works hard to look good in the West partially because America provides 10% of the Egyptian GDP in aid money. This can lead to over reactions and getting the wrong people to confess to crimes in order to maintain that image. And passing laws against female circumcision, but not enforcing them. It also helps to explain why the government is so protective of tourists (other than tourism being a major industry).
There is a militant portion of the Islamic movement. Although the majority of the movement has been peaceful for several decades. There is a push for women wearing a veil and for female circumcision. Although many women, even rich and well educated women, volunteer to wear the veil, even against the wishes of their husbands. The female circumcision is a bit odd because it is actually an African tradition, not Islamic, but has been incorporated into Islam in Egypt - well female circumcision is horrible, not odd, but its introduction to Islam is one of the odd things about it. Along the same lines, the requirement of women wearing a veil is also questionable. In the Koran it was only the Prophet's wives who had to have a sheet separating them from men, but since then has been interpreted as a requirement for all women to wear a veil. But on the other side, members of the Islamic movement who have been elected in unions and student groups have broad support, even among secularists and Coptic Christians, because they work hard to look after their member's economic and social situations, which the government has largely failed to do. Unlike in the US, the unions are also for middle class professions like engineers, doctors and lawyers. Many people in these middle class professions are displeased with the government because Nasser pushed to educate the country to fuel its economic growth (seems like a good idea), but when people came out of school with advanced degrees there were no jobs and they were making less money than taxi drivers.
The other pattern that was interesting is that when the government tried to suppress the Islamic movement, the movement got stronger and when Sadat supported the movement for a while it got stronger and eventually assassinated him. Although through all of this the militant side slowly lost support. And the militant side's last major act, the Luxor attack in 1997, caused it to lose almost all of its popular support.
The book also confirmed a lot of The Yacoubian Building and the Golden Chariot as realistic stories.
I guess the biggest message for me is in addition to avoiding taking a Menorah, I should also avoid taking a Qur'an on the trip (not that I was planning to take either, but you get the idea).
My last comment is - if a young man supports a movement, especially one that is uptight about sex, torturing him in jail and humiliating him sexually - probably is not the best policy for steering him away from violence. Just a guess.
I picked this up somewhat by chance at the library, but it turned out to be exactly what I was looking for. It discusses the rise of Islam in Egypt from about 1970 to the late 1990s. It was released in 2000 so it doesn't cover the last eight years. But I tend not to trust anything written about Islam that came out from 2002 to around 2005 (I figure anything in that time period is going to be too reactionary) so it is hard to do better than a release date of 2000.
If you're not going to be in Egypt in a couple months not sure how interesting it would be, but I found it interesting so this post will probably end up way too long. The one downside of the book is it seems like the chapters were written separately so there is a bit of repetition of facts.
The main thing I learned is that the relationship between religion and the state in Egypt is in many ways inverted from other countries in the Middle East. The government is secular and has been fighting against the rising power of Islamist, such as banning niqabs and hijabs for students at various times as opposed to forcing women to wear them.
The other big message I took away is that there's not a clear good guy or bad guy (well, the militants are bad guys). The government is secular, "democratic", made peace with Israel and generally tries for good relations with the West. However, there is some serious corruption and obvious vote rigging. Since 1956 when Nasser took over the presidency (partially by putting the previous president under house arrest), there have been three presidents. Sadat took over when Nasser died of a heart attack and Mubarak took over after Sadat was killed by Islamic militants (notice how no one was ever voted out). The government also occasionally rounds up suspected Islamic militants, jails them, and often tortures them. It also some times passes laws to prevent Islamist from getting elected to lead unions and student groups. While the Islamic movement pushes for censorship that doesn't fit its morals, the secular government also uses censorship to protect itself. The government also works hard to look good in the West partially because America provides 10% of the Egyptian GDP in aid money. This can lead to over reactions and getting the wrong people to confess to crimes in order to maintain that image. And passing laws against female circumcision, but not enforcing them. It also helps to explain why the government is so protective of tourists (other than tourism being a major industry).
There is a militant portion of the Islamic movement. Although the majority of the movement has been peaceful for several decades. There is a push for women wearing a veil and for female circumcision. Although many women, even rich and well educated women, volunteer to wear the veil, even against the wishes of their husbands. The female circumcision is a bit odd because it is actually an African tradition, not Islamic, but has been incorporated into Islam in Egypt - well female circumcision is horrible, not odd, but its introduction to Islam is one of the odd things about it. Along the same lines, the requirement of women wearing a veil is also questionable. In the Koran it was only the Prophet's wives who had to have a sheet separating them from men, but since then has been interpreted as a requirement for all women to wear a veil. But on the other side, members of the Islamic movement who have been elected in unions and student groups have broad support, even among secularists and Coptic Christians, because they work hard to look after their member's economic and social situations, which the government has largely failed to do. Unlike in the US, the unions are also for middle class professions like engineers, doctors and lawyers. Many people in these middle class professions are displeased with the government because Nasser pushed to educate the country to fuel its economic growth (seems like a good idea), but when people came out of school with advanced degrees there were no jobs and they were making less money than taxi drivers.
The other pattern that was interesting is that when the government tried to suppress the Islamic movement, the movement got stronger and when Sadat supported the movement for a while it got stronger and eventually assassinated him. Although through all of this the militant side slowly lost support. And the militant side's last major act, the Luxor attack in 1997, caused it to lose almost all of its popular support.
The book also confirmed a lot of The Yacoubian Building and the Golden Chariot as realistic stories.
I guess the biggest message for me is in addition to avoiding taking a Menorah, I should also avoid taking a Qur'an on the trip (not that I was planning to take either, but you get the idea).
My last comment is - if a young man supports a movement, especially one that is uptight about sex, torturing him in jail and humiliating him sexually - probably is not the best policy for steering him away from violence. Just a guess.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Pity
I feel like my posts yesterday got a bit preachy. I want to balance it out with a clever/funny post, but I started feeling sick today so I'm not up for clever/funny. Instead I'll just go for pity.
But I will leave you with a little bit of knowledge - the whole sex through a hole in a sheet thing - false.
But I will leave you with a little bit of knowledge - the whole sex through a hole in a sheet thing - false.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Stop twisting his words!
A while ago I bought a Bible (part for the New Testament and part for the Old (yes I realize the translations may not be the exact same)) and a Qur'an. I haven't made it very far through either of them, and probably never will, but I just saw the follow paragraph in the Qur'an (note that it is a recent translation so who knows how it is interpreted in other versions):
God: there is no god but Him, the Ever Living, the Ever Watchful.
Step by step, He has sent the Scripture down to you [Prophet] with the Truth, confirming what went before: He sent down the Torah and the Gospel earlier as a guide for people and He has sent down the distinction [between right and wrong]. Those who deny God's revelations will suffer severe torment: God is almighty and capable of retribution. Nothing on earth or in heaven is hidden from God: it is He who shapes you all in the womb as He pleases. There is no God but Him, the Mighty, the Wise: it is He who has sent this Scripture down to you [Prophet]. Some of its verses are definite in meaning - these are the cornerstone of the Scripture - and other are ambiguous. The perverse at heart eagerly pursue the ambiguities in their attempt to make trouble and to pin down a specific meaning of their own: only God knows the true meaning.
Wow! Those last two lines may just be the most reasonable thing I've ever read in a religious text. I fear people might think the title of this blog is aimed at Islam or Radical Islam, but it is equally aimed at all religions (Sarah Palin I'm looking at you).
God: there is no god but Him, the Ever Living, the Ever Watchful.
Step by step, He has sent the Scripture down to you [Prophet] with the Truth, confirming what went before: He sent down the Torah and the Gospel earlier as a guide for people and He has sent down the distinction [between right and wrong]. Those who deny God's revelations will suffer severe torment: God is almighty and capable of retribution. Nothing on earth or in heaven is hidden from God: it is He who shapes you all in the womb as He pleases. There is no God but Him, the Mighty, the Wise: it is He who has sent this Scripture down to you [Prophet]. Some of its verses are definite in meaning - these are the cornerstone of the Scripture - and other are ambiguous. The perverse at heart eagerly pursue the ambiguities in their attempt to make trouble and to pin down a specific meaning of their own: only God knows the true meaning.
Wow! Those last two lines may just be the most reasonable thing I've ever read in a religious text. I fear people might think the title of this blog is aimed at Islam or Radical Islam, but it is equally aimed at all religions (Sarah Palin I'm looking at you).
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Narnia and Harry Potter
The last post in a round about way reminded me about something. A few weeks ago I watched the two Narnia movies. While I remember nothing about the books from when I read them as a kid, except the title, I have to imagine there was a lot of story that was left out which may somewhat counter the point I'm about to make, but I don't think too much.
Spoiler alert on Narnia - although if you know the lion is Jesus then none of it should be much of a surprise.
Anyway, after watching Narnia I totally get what those Christians who were protesting Harry Potter were talking about (the ones complaining about how he solves problems by working with his friends - I already got the ones complaining about witchcraft). I totally disagree (with both types), but I get it now. The stories had reasonably similar build ups and magical worlds. In both the kids discover the world and build up their skills. In Harry Potter they use that knowledge and skills to deal with their enemies, but in Narnia it seems like they do a whole lot of stuff that doesn't get them anywhere or gets people killed and then end up just hoping the lion will show up and save their butts (and then act like they accomplished something). Now I see the general direction the protesters would have preferred - before I didn't really get what the alternative was. Hm, perhaps my own views colored the descriptions a bit.
Nothing that insightful or new, but the contrast really sunk in for me so I thought I'd share.
Oh and how true of a self sacrifice is it if you know you'll come back to life? And why wouldn't you tell people that you'll come back to life - does he just like making little girls cry (hm, guess I should specify I'm talking about the lion, not Jesus)? Maybe this is where the book fills in some of the details.
BTW this is post #300. If you've made it through all 300 of my ramblings you should get a prize or something (you don't, but you should).
Spoiler alert on Narnia - although if you know the lion is Jesus then none of it should be much of a surprise.
Anyway, after watching Narnia I totally get what those Christians who were protesting Harry Potter were talking about (the ones complaining about how he solves problems by working with his friends - I already got the ones complaining about witchcraft). I totally disagree (with both types), but I get it now. The stories had reasonably similar build ups and magical worlds. In both the kids discover the world and build up their skills. In Harry Potter they use that knowledge and skills to deal with their enemies, but in Narnia it seems like they do a whole lot of stuff that doesn't get them anywhere or gets people killed and then end up just hoping the lion will show up and save their butts (and then act like they accomplished something). Now I see the general direction the protesters would have preferred - before I didn't really get what the alternative was. Hm, perhaps my own views colored the descriptions a bit.
Nothing that insightful or new, but the contrast really sunk in for me so I thought I'd share.
Oh and how true of a self sacrifice is it if you know you'll come back to life? And why wouldn't you tell people that you'll come back to life - does he just like making little girls cry (hm, guess I should specify I'm talking about the lion, not Jesus)? Maybe this is where the book fills in some of the details.
BTW this is post #300. If you've made it through all 300 of my ramblings you should get a prize or something (you don't, but you should).
Egyptian Magic
I was wandering around the used book store in downtown mountain view and notice this book called Egyptian Magic and noticed that it is only $6 and said wow - I gotta get that.
I wouldn't really recommend the book since it goes through a lot of detail without as much overview and context as I'd want, although I think it assumes that the reader knows more about ancient egypt than mummies and pyramids.
What is interesting is seeing where a lot of what we now consider magic comes from. They were very into the power of words - both written and spoken and into items like amulets - I guess claiming that Harry Potter got its ideas from Lord of the Rings is missing the mark by about 6,000 years. They also invented horoscopes - you'd think every few thousands years people would come up with something new...
Their magic was very interleaved with their religion. There was a whole lot of effort that went into preparing the dead - although I guess a lot of people now go through all sorts of stuff to get into Heaven.
It is also interesting because it provides a lot of background for Judaism since it is basically what Jews were turning away from and informs a lot of how exodus played out. One thing I didn't realize is it is not that they thought statues were gods, but rather that they could put part of gods in statues and then use those gods' powers. Also interesting is that all of the gods were actually different aspects of one main god - Ra, the sun god - so actually a bit more monotheist than it would seem. Exodus makes more sense because all the stuff Moses did was very similar to Egyptian magic - the torah just claims he did it better - hence the Egyptians just being impressed how powerful Moses's god was. I always had the feeling that they should be impressed that he had a god doing magic acts at all, but apparently that was run of the mill in Egypt at the time. One example of the similarity to Egyptian magic is the Egyptians have an even older story about a magician parting a river in a similar manner.
I wouldn't really recommend the book since it goes through a lot of detail without as much overview and context as I'd want, although I think it assumes that the reader knows more about ancient egypt than mummies and pyramids.
What is interesting is seeing where a lot of what we now consider magic comes from. They were very into the power of words - both written and spoken and into items like amulets - I guess claiming that Harry Potter got its ideas from Lord of the Rings is missing the mark by about 6,000 years. They also invented horoscopes - you'd think every few thousands years people would come up with something new...
Their magic was very interleaved with their religion. There was a whole lot of effort that went into preparing the dead - although I guess a lot of people now go through all sorts of stuff to get into Heaven.
It is also interesting because it provides a lot of background for Judaism since it is basically what Jews were turning away from and informs a lot of how exodus played out. One thing I didn't realize is it is not that they thought statues were gods, but rather that they could put part of gods in statues and then use those gods' powers. Also interesting is that all of the gods were actually different aspects of one main god - Ra, the sun god - so actually a bit more monotheist than it would seem. Exodus makes more sense because all the stuff Moses did was very similar to Egyptian magic - the torah just claims he did it better - hence the Egyptians just being impressed how powerful Moses's god was. I always had the feeling that they should be impressed that he had a god doing magic acts at all, but apparently that was run of the mill in Egypt at the time. One example of the similarity to Egyptian magic is the Egyptians have an even older story about a magician parting a river in a similar manner.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
After After Life Take 2
Remember my post about the after after life?
Ok, now go watch the interview at the end of the Colbert Report from June 19.
Yeah, fine, not that similar, but he is explaining that the after life has two parts!
Ok, now go watch the interview at the end of the Colbert Report from June 19.
Yeah, fine, not that similar, but he is explaining that the after life has two parts!
Saturday, June 28, 2008
n^n
On the one hand it is cool to have an n^n birthday. But at the same time it is too bad that the first time you are old enough to realize your age is n^n is also the last time (well unless you're a super advanced 1 or 4 year old - 1 is actually the coolest since it is n^n for two values of n). Medical science is going to have to make some serious advancements and really fast if I'm going to make it to my next one. 11011 is a sort of cool age, although I guess I've got a few more years before I'm completely "on" (11111) and only a couple more till I get a prime. Why is it that all jokes involving binary are bad jokes? And why do I publish them on the internet anyway?
On a completely different topic: Having lived in 3 cities in CA over 3 years I'm fairly used to scientology centers and christian science reading rooms. However, protesters in front of a scientology center wearing V for Vendetta masks, holding protest signs and dancing to music is a new one for me.
On a completely different topic: Having lived in 3 cities in CA over 3 years I'm fairly used to scientology centers and christian science reading rooms. However, protesters in front of a scientology center wearing V for Vendetta masks, holding protest signs and dancing to music is a new one for me.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Wright bleeping
I have two comments on the whole Rev Wright thing.
First - I think it is great that the Daily Show is consistently pointing out the absurdity of how this is handled in the media (yes I'm about a week behind on Daily Show episodes).
Second - I just realized this - when the video is shown on TV you hear "bleep damn America". Um... really? God is the word that gets bleeped? So while I have my own thoughts on bad words only being bad because they have been declared such - for this post I will grant that some people don't want bad words on TV. I'll also temporarily grant that some words that are not bad by themselves can be combined to create bad words. But if God and damn are acceptable separately and are only bad in combination then fine only one has to be bleeped to make things ok again. But, but, but, really God is the one they pick? I guess that if you hear "God bleep America" you might not know what he's saying, but they wouldn't bleep God bless America - so this way any adult could figure it out, but it might actually hide the "bad word combo" from children. And really, how much worse is God damn America than Damn America? Based on this system you can't say "God damn painful shoes" on TV but you can say "Damn America". Heck, apparently it is ok to say "Damn America", but not "God damn the Sept 11 hijackers". I wonder if you can say "God should use his powers to move all Americans from Earth to a painful afterlife where they will burn forever"? Or how about "Omnipotent power, whose name cannot be said before the word damn on TV, damn America"? Don't get me wrong - I would not want censorship based on ideas, but it does seem to point out the absurdity of having censorship rules at all. I have heard this style of "bleep damn" before on the radio so it is not just this one incident (I think I also ranted about it then). Alright I guess any adult could have figured out where this is going after the first sentence or two so I'll stop now.
First - I think it is great that the Daily Show is consistently pointing out the absurdity of how this is handled in the media (yes I'm about a week behind on Daily Show episodes).
Second - I just realized this - when the video is shown on TV you hear "bleep damn America". Um... really? God is the word that gets bleeped? So while I have my own thoughts on bad words only being bad because they have been declared such - for this post I will grant that some people don't want bad words on TV. I'll also temporarily grant that some words that are not bad by themselves can be combined to create bad words. But if God and damn are acceptable separately and are only bad in combination then fine only one has to be bleeped to make things ok again. But, but, but, really God is the one they pick? I guess that if you hear "God bleep America" you might not know what he's saying, but they wouldn't bleep God bless America - so this way any adult could figure it out, but it might actually hide the "bad word combo" from children. And really, how much worse is God damn America than Damn America? Based on this system you can't say "God damn painful shoes" on TV but you can say "Damn America". Heck, apparently it is ok to say "Damn America", but not "God damn the Sept 11 hijackers". I wonder if you can say "God should use his powers to move all Americans from Earth to a painful afterlife where they will burn forever"? Or how about "Omnipotent power, whose name cannot be said before the word damn on TV, damn America"? Don't get me wrong - I would not want censorship based on ideas, but it does seem to point out the absurdity of having censorship rules at all. I have heard this style of "bleep damn" before on the radio so it is not just this one incident (I think I also ranted about it then). Alright I guess any adult could have figured out where this is going after the first sentence or two so I'll stop now.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
A New Earth
I read A New Earth based on a recommendation. I do think there were some interesting ideas in there, but I think that all of them come directly from Christianity and Buddhism. Let me summarize (very much in my own words) - if you are feeling frustrated, upset, worried... then stop, take a deep breath, relax, put the situation in perspective (good advice, but not exactly original).
I think I could write a book as long as A New Earth describing my issues with it - in fact kind of like the books talking about the science of star trek or harry potter, you could write a book explaining the science that he gets wrong or fails to account for. So I will merely list the types of issues I had with it. First off were numerous scientific inaccuracies which ranged from somewhat subtle to glaring to purely nonsensical. Next were internal inconsistencies of which there were at least a few and had to do with major points he was trying to make. I think he somewhat clearly claims to be a messiah. He talks about God and spirituality without ever really explaining what he means which is crucial since he is turning away from conventional religions. He uses the Emperor's New Clothes Argument - those who are ready to be awakened will be and those who aren't will dislike the book. Some of his advice is good, but some is bad even though it might sound good on the surface. And probably the most subtle and most infuriating is that a number of the things he tries to explain with his ideas are already explained by established science. There were portions of the book (especially where some of the contradictions occurred) where I wondered if he was writing a parody and actually read portions of the book that way so the mistakes wouldn't be as frustrating (or maybe it is genius and he purposefully made the book frustrating to give people a chance to practice relaxing).
Ok - must stop here before embarking on full rant. Although I will say I haven't read anything about being spiritual apart from traditional religion - so from an outside seeing what others are reading perspective it was interesting. If you are interested in any of the interesting ideas I recommend reading about Buddhism and meditation in particular.
I think I could write a book as long as A New Earth describing my issues with it - in fact kind of like the books talking about the science of star trek or harry potter, you could write a book explaining the science that he gets wrong or fails to account for. So I will merely list the types of issues I had with it. First off were numerous scientific inaccuracies which ranged from somewhat subtle to glaring to purely nonsensical. Next were internal inconsistencies of which there were at least a few and had to do with major points he was trying to make. I think he somewhat clearly claims to be a messiah. He talks about God and spirituality without ever really explaining what he means which is crucial since he is turning away from conventional religions. He uses the Emperor's New Clothes Argument - those who are ready to be awakened will be and those who aren't will dislike the book. Some of his advice is good, but some is bad even though it might sound good on the surface. And probably the most subtle and most infuriating is that a number of the things he tries to explain with his ideas are already explained by established science. There were portions of the book (especially where some of the contradictions occurred) where I wondered if he was writing a parody and actually read portions of the book that way so the mistakes wouldn't be as frustrating (or maybe it is genius and he purposefully made the book frustrating to give people a chance to practice relaxing).
Ok - must stop here before embarking on full rant. Although I will say I haven't read anything about being spiritual apart from traditional religion - so from an outside seeing what others are reading perspective it was interesting. If you are interested in any of the interesting ideas I recommend reading about Buddhism and meditation in particular.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Where did the sun go?, The Big U, and The God Delusion
I spent the past 5 days in Pittsburgh. It was great to get to see Eric and Jess. In addition to hanging out and getting a tour of Eric's lab, we went to an Obama speech. As excited as I am about Obama I was a little overwhelmed by the enthusiasm of others who were there. It was really interesting to see him in person rather than just watching on TV - especially how he keeps everyone going not just through a 30 second segment on TV, but through a more than one hour speech. There was a blog post I had kind of written in my head about Hillary's "it's 3 am ad" but never actually posted (its title was going to be it's 3 am and you lost my vote) - now I wish I had written it so I'd have proof that Obama's comments were almost exactly the same as mine. Thanks to Eric and Jess for being great hosts even while working, studying for classes and studying for the boards!
While I was in PA I read The Big U by Neal Stephenson and The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.
The Big U is a book Stephenson wrote in 1984 as a parody of American universities. It has the same style as Snowcrash, The Diamond Age, and Zodiac (fast paced, comedic action, starting absurd and working up to super absurd and the interweaving of many characters, and not really knowing where he's going with the story till near the very end). But it doesn't have the futuristic settings and predictions of Snowcrash or Diamond Age or the environmental message of Zodiac so I'd tend to read those first, but if you've made it through them and want more then definitely grab The Big U. While the story definitely is not set in Boston, I do think the big neon sign is a take off of the citgo sign. I'd say more, but it is really hard to describe without laying out the whole story.
The God Delusion was interesting. I think Dawkins had a lot of good points and in general I agree with him, but he took on such a huge topic that I sometimes felt like he sort of wondered from point to point. There obviously was some organization, but 400 pages clearly isn't enough room to disprove the existence of god (yes singular - I'll get back to that), explore the causes of religion, discuss how religion hurts and helps society, and discuss the importance of letting children keep their minds open. In addition it is written for a wide audience so he has to explain each concept (such as how evolution can build complexity from simplicity and the concept of memes). I almost feel like this book is designed as an introduction to the topic, which corresponds to the numerous places he recommends other books and websites that go into more detail on certain subjects. One thing he did to limit the subject is to keep to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (hence god as a singular).
There are a few points I found very interesting. The first was his proof that the existence of god is unlikely. Going into all the details gets to be long winded so I'll leave it to the book to explain this one. The second is discussing the concept that religion is need (or valuable) in defining morals. The interesting thing is that all three listed religions say some really good stuff, but also say some really really bad stuff (like stoning people to death for not observing the sabbath and that's not even close to the worst). Reasonable religious people choose not to follow the bad stuff, but the fact they are picking out the good from bad, shows they already have their own set of morals that lets them pick good vs bad, so why not just use those, instead of having religion as a middle man. He also makes a point that a child is raised by parents of a particular religion, but it should not be assumed that the child is of that religion until s/he is old enough to choose for him/herself.
I would recommend this book to everyone reading this blog (I think anyone who takes scripture as fact would get very offended very fast). Although it might be more interesting to read about more specific topics - like evolution (maybe the Ancestor's Tale) or memes and why people believe in god (maybe Breaking the Spell).
While I was in PA I read The Big U by Neal Stephenson and The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.
The Big U is a book Stephenson wrote in 1984 as a parody of American universities. It has the same style as Snowcrash, The Diamond Age, and Zodiac (fast paced, comedic action, starting absurd and working up to super absurd and the interweaving of many characters, and not really knowing where he's going with the story till near the very end). But it doesn't have the futuristic settings and predictions of Snowcrash or Diamond Age or the environmental message of Zodiac so I'd tend to read those first, but if you've made it through them and want more then definitely grab The Big U. While the story definitely is not set in Boston, I do think the big neon sign is a take off of the citgo sign. I'd say more, but it is really hard to describe without laying out the whole story.
The God Delusion was interesting. I think Dawkins had a lot of good points and in general I agree with him, but he took on such a huge topic that I sometimes felt like he sort of wondered from point to point. There obviously was some organization, but 400 pages clearly isn't enough room to disprove the existence of god (yes singular - I'll get back to that), explore the causes of religion, discuss how religion hurts and helps society, and discuss the importance of letting children keep their minds open. In addition it is written for a wide audience so he has to explain each concept (such as how evolution can build complexity from simplicity and the concept of memes). I almost feel like this book is designed as an introduction to the topic, which corresponds to the numerous places he recommends other books and websites that go into more detail on certain subjects. One thing he did to limit the subject is to keep to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (hence god as a singular).
There are a few points I found very interesting. The first was his proof that the existence of god is unlikely. Going into all the details gets to be long winded so I'll leave it to the book to explain this one. The second is discussing the concept that religion is need (or valuable) in defining morals. The interesting thing is that all three listed religions say some really good stuff, but also say some really really bad stuff (like stoning people to death for not observing the sabbath and that's not even close to the worst). Reasonable religious people choose not to follow the bad stuff, but the fact they are picking out the good from bad, shows they already have their own set of morals that lets them pick good vs bad, so why not just use those, instead of having religion as a middle man. He also makes a point that a child is raised by parents of a particular religion, but it should not be assumed that the child is of that religion until s/he is old enough to choose for him/herself.
I would recommend this book to everyone reading this blog (I think anyone who takes scripture as fact would get very offended very fast). Although it might be more interesting to read about more specific topics - like evolution (maybe the Ancestor's Tale) or memes and why people believe in god (maybe Breaking the Spell).
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Yom Kippur Hollywood Style
I am once again a proud owner of a passport - the chinese government gave it back without too much of a fight (although they did get $100 out of me). But now my passport has a picture of the great wall in it.
I took Friday off to get my passport. Once I got it back I had some time to kill. First I headed to Rodeo Drive. I'm sure it's exciting if you are looking to spend $100,000 on art or clothes or want to look at either of those. But just walking along the street was not as impressive as I expected. If I was going to walk around a fancy shopping area I would go to fashion island instead, although I don't usually walk around fancy shopping areas so not sure how much my opinion counts.
After that I still had some time so I went to the WB studio tour. That was fun. It was a bit weird because there was a group who drove up from dallas, a guy from philly, a girl from australia and I had just headed over to kill some time. When everyone else started taking pictures of everything I realized I probably should have brought a camera. I already realized that movies and TV are fake, but this really helped it sink in. When you look at the front of a house on TV the back of the house is probably the front of another house on the show. The NYC park where they play football in Friends is a tiny stretch of grass in a studio in LA. And of course practically everything is some setup in a sound stage. I did get to see Morpheus's car from the Matrix and the flying car from Harry Potter and I was sorted by the sorting hat (apparently there are 6 that they used, but the one that talks is all green just like a green screen), but I did not appreciate the house it put me in. In case you are curious, I think it is fairly obvious which house I think I should be in, and of course being in the same house as Harry would be good, and I actually don't mind going for pure power.
After the tour and through the next day it actually rained somewhat hard (ok everyone in Boston would laugh, but hard for LA). The craziest thing was over the course of Saturday I saw 9 cars broken down, some of them in the middle of the road. I have no idea why rain would cause cars to break down, it's not like they are special LA cars that aren't made for the rain. But it was way too many cars in one day to be a coincidence. I also got to see the LA river actually be a river (normally it is just a concrete thing that provides a good spot for filming car chases).
On Saturday I went to the Laugh Factory for services with Evan. This time we didn't show up ahead of time and ended up in the overflow room which was the first time I've ever watched the Rabbi on a giant flat screen. It was a bit silly watching on TV, although the room is setup as a lounge so it made for a much more comfortable services experience. Evan was fasting so I went with it. That was an experience I will not repeat soon (well, at least for another year). We were both so tired from not eating we spent the whole day watching TV (sometime someone is going to explain to me how not eating helps people concentrate on praying). For break the fast we went for a giant steak dinner. I was expecting to not be able to eat much, but I cleaned my plate.
I took Friday off to get my passport. Once I got it back I had some time to kill. First I headed to Rodeo Drive. I'm sure it's exciting if you are looking to spend $100,000 on art or clothes or want to look at either of those. But just walking along the street was not as impressive as I expected. If I was going to walk around a fancy shopping area I would go to fashion island instead, although I don't usually walk around fancy shopping areas so not sure how much my opinion counts.
After that I still had some time so I went to the WB studio tour. That was fun. It was a bit weird because there was a group who drove up from dallas, a guy from philly, a girl from australia and I had just headed over to kill some time. When everyone else started taking pictures of everything I realized I probably should have brought a camera. I already realized that movies and TV are fake, but this really helped it sink in. When you look at the front of a house on TV the back of the house is probably the front of another house on the show. The NYC park where they play football in Friends is a tiny stretch of grass in a studio in LA. And of course practically everything is some setup in a sound stage. I did get to see Morpheus's car from the Matrix and the flying car from Harry Potter and I was sorted by the sorting hat (apparently there are 6 that they used, but the one that talks is all green just like a green screen), but I did not appreciate the house it put me in. In case you are curious, I think it is fairly obvious which house I think I should be in, and of course being in the same house as Harry would be good, and I actually don't mind going for pure power.
After the tour and through the next day it actually rained somewhat hard (ok everyone in Boston would laugh, but hard for LA). The craziest thing was over the course of Saturday I saw 9 cars broken down, some of them in the middle of the road. I have no idea why rain would cause cars to break down, it's not like they are special LA cars that aren't made for the rain. But it was way too many cars in one day to be a coincidence. I also got to see the LA river actually be a river (normally it is just a concrete thing that provides a good spot for filming car chases).
On Saturday I went to the Laugh Factory for services with Evan. This time we didn't show up ahead of time and ended up in the overflow room which was the first time I've ever watched the Rabbi on a giant flat screen. It was a bit silly watching on TV, although the room is setup as a lounge so it made for a much more comfortable services experience. Evan was fasting so I went with it. That was an experience I will not repeat soon (well, at least for another year). We were both so tired from not eating we spent the whole day watching TV (sometime someone is going to explain to me how not eating helps people concentrate on praying). For break the fast we went for a giant steak dinner. I was expecting to not be able to eat much, but I cleaned my plate.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Rosh Hashanah Hollywood Style
On Rosh Hashanah I headed up to Hollywood to go to Rosh Hashanah services with Evan. Why Hollywood? Well, there is a free service at The Laugh Factory. I had no idea what to expect, but turned out to be a fairly standard service that just used the laugh factory as a room to hold it. I think it was the first time I had balcony seats for services. For the most part the crowd was what you would expect from services anywhere. Although no teenagers (I assume any family with kids around that age belong to a synagogue). Well, mostly what you would expect - the blond, plastic looking grandmother who sat next to me had a very large purse. After the purse made a sound she opened it for a moment and there was a small poodle in it. I was wondering if the service would include anything weird since it was in Hollywood. The only thing that was a bit different is the last song we sang was about peace and we sang it in both Hebrew and Arabic. They also had apples, honey and challah for everyone afterwards. Apparently someone sponsors the whole thing and requests that people in return make a charitable donation of their choosing.
After services we headed to the Chinese Consulate in downtown LA. I would describe it as somewhere between a post office and the DMV, but primarily in Chinese. When they finally called my number I handed the person my forms and passport, expecting her to look at them and give back the passport. She put a rubber band around them all, tossed them in a box, handed me a piece of paper and said come back Tuesday. So now the Chinese government has my passport until I drive back to LA (on a week day between 9 am and 3 pm with $100).
Next we headed to wait in the standby line for The Tonight Show. We got in, but sat in the very back next to the guy running the spot light. The guests were Terry Bradshaw, Marie Osmond, and Michael Buble. The show had some good jokes and it was interesting to see what happened off camera. The part I did not realize is that they go through in a single run and the breaks between segments are the same amount of time as commercial breaks. So while it is not actually live, it is taped like it is.
Probably the most unusual Rosh Hashanah I've ever had, although not nearly as odd as it could have been.
After services we headed to the Chinese Consulate in downtown LA. I would describe it as somewhere between a post office and the DMV, but primarily in Chinese. When they finally called my number I handed the person my forms and passport, expecting her to look at them and give back the passport. She put a rubber band around them all, tossed them in a box, handed me a piece of paper and said come back Tuesday. So now the Chinese government has my passport until I drive back to LA (on a week day between 9 am and 3 pm with $100).
Next we headed to wait in the standby line for The Tonight Show. We got in, but sat in the very back next to the guy running the spot light. The guests were Terry Bradshaw, Marie Osmond, and Michael Buble. The show had some good jokes and it was interesting to see what happened off camera. The part I did not realize is that they go through in a single run and the breaks between segments are the same amount of time as commercial breaks. So while it is not actually live, it is taped like it is.
Probably the most unusual Rosh Hashanah I've ever had, although not nearly as odd as it could have been.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
The after after life
For this blog post let's assume there is an after life. Then I wonder if people, souls, whatever, in the after life believe in an after after life and feel that they have to live their after life in a certain way to be rewarded in the after after life.
It might seem silly to think there would be an after after life since the after life lasts for eternity so what is this after after life to worry about. I'm thinking something along the lines that the number of seconds spent in the after life equals the number of integers (aleph_0), but the number of seconds in the after after life equals the number of real numbers (aleph_1). So you better be good during the after life because the after after life is infinitely longer.
Now you might argue that if the after life lasts an infinite amount of time how could there be something after it. Logically it doesn't work. Well, first of all, an after life doesn't work logically either (I can just hear someone saying "you can't prove there's nothing after eternity" and someone else groaning in frustration). Remember I'm only asking if people in the after life believe in an after after life, not if an after after life exists. Plus if there was an after life all of the believers would have really shown up the skeptics so people would probably be willing to believe just about anything. Every argument would be ended by "you said the same thing about the after life." Can you imagine hearing that line an infinite number of times?
Of course the logical extension is to ask about an after after after life, although that would require a lot of discussion of Godel and your choice of axioms (although people in the after after life who are into faith would love it because you truly could not prove it either way...). I figure I've got a while before I have to worry about the after after after life, so I'll stop here for now.
It might seem silly to think there would be an after after life since the after life lasts for eternity so what is this after after life to worry about. I'm thinking something along the lines that the number of seconds spent in the after life equals the number of integers (aleph_0), but the number of seconds in the after after life equals the number of real numbers (aleph_1). So you better be good during the after life because the after after life is infinitely longer.
Now you might argue that if the after life lasts an infinite amount of time how could there be something after it. Logically it doesn't work. Well, first of all, an after life doesn't work logically either (I can just hear someone saying "you can't prove there's nothing after eternity" and someone else groaning in frustration). Remember I'm only asking if people in the after life believe in an after after life, not if an after after life exists. Plus if there was an after life all of the believers would have really shown up the skeptics so people would probably be willing to believe just about anything. Every argument would be ended by "you said the same thing about the after life." Can you imagine hearing that line an infinite number of times?
Of course the logical extension is to ask about an after after after life, although that would require a lot of discussion of Godel and your choice of axioms (although people in the after after life who are into faith would love it because you truly could not prove it either way...). I figure I've got a while before I have to worry about the after after after life, so I'll stop here for now.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Taoism
Well, if you've been following my reading pattern it is probably no surprise to see that Taoism by Jennifer Oldstone-Moore was up next. First thing I learned - Taosim and Daoism are the same thing.
I was going to say something about Taoism being to Confucianism as Kabbalah is to Judaism, but then I realized that I actually know less about Kabbalah than Taoism. Anyway, Taoism and Confucianism have the same base of ideas, but Taoism goes more into mysticism.
The Tao is "the way" and is the force that brought the world into existence. It's not a god, but rather a force (there are plenty of other gods - I think somewhere between Confucianism and Shinto for number of types of gods). People are not supposed to go against the Tao. Yin-Yang and Qi (Chi) are both key concepts in Taoism. Feng-Shui is also involved in Taoism.
The more mystical side of Taoism is that it involves searching for immortality through several means, one of which is alchemy (it is interesting the alchemy in the Neal Stephenson series I just finished is much closer to that of Taoism than what I would normally think of alchemy). Apparently gun powder was discovered in Taoist pursuit of immortality as well as several other scientific advancements. Also if you need an exorcism a Taoist priest is the way to go.
I was going to say something about Taoism being to Confucianism as Kabbalah is to Judaism, but then I realized that I actually know less about Kabbalah than Taoism. Anyway, Taoism and Confucianism have the same base of ideas, but Taoism goes more into mysticism.
The Tao is "the way" and is the force that brought the world into existence. It's not a god, but rather a force (there are plenty of other gods - I think somewhere between Confucianism and Shinto for number of types of gods). People are not supposed to go against the Tao. Yin-Yang and Qi (Chi) are both key concepts in Taoism. Feng-Shui is also involved in Taoism.
The more mystical side of Taoism is that it involves searching for immortality through several means, one of which is alchemy (it is interesting the alchemy in the Neal Stephenson series I just finished is much closer to that of Taoism than what I would normally think of alchemy). Apparently gun powder was discovered in Taoist pursuit of immortality as well as several other scientific advancements. Also if you need an exorcism a Taoist priest is the way to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)