I had been waiting for it since my last "discussion" at the "Embodyment Research Group" meeting, but it apparently took them an entire week to decide to eject me. It may sound rather fatalistic to expect to be ejected from a group, but there you have it.
On the second meeting that I attended for this group, they were apparently talking about "What Is Real" and had come, somehow, to the conclusion that nothing is, in fact, real per se but only if your mind perceived it as real. Now, bear with me as I mentioned that this research group is composed in its majority by university professors.
Allegedly, they are studying "Embodyment" in Second Life. I say allegedly because there is very little Research going on, but what does go on ad nauseam is a great deal of Sharing. For a university research group, they have a very poor methodology: They seem to be very reluctant in creating a definition of "cognition" to work from, they fervently avoid answering questions such as "What is that which we identify as 'self'?", and -perhaps the most important question for this group- "How do we identify an 'embodied' self?" The reason why these questions are important is because you cannot identify the characteristic of an entity (in this case, Self) if you do not know by what traits and properties may one identify said entity. How can you even begin to analyze "Embodyment" if you do not even know what is it that "Embodies" itself?
If you don't know what the Moon is, you don't know what it looks like, where it "hangs out" and when can one see it, you are not going to know the Moon as such when it comes out. Much less will you be able to identify the Moon's reflection on the water as a reflection belonging to the Moon. You'll know it is a reflection and you will see the object that originates it ... but what is it exactly? You aren't quite sure. And you won't be until you decide to study the Moon itself.
In the realm of physical phenomena, you can observe the object directly and gain at least a rudimentary level of understanding through observation and analysis... but in the realm of ideology, philosophy, epistemology? You cannot understand something if you simply refuse to think about it. If you are so afraid of concretization that you flee from definitions, and you seek to invalidate the means by which you can gain understanding (Reason, Mind, Definitions,) then your so-called "research" has no foot to stand on: without definition, without argument, without anything resembling an analytical approach, your discussion is reduced to uttering bromides, talking "From your gut", saying "What you feel" and engaging in "Sharing" more appropriate for a New Age Drum Circle than for a Research group. Which is precisely what this group is doing.
When I intervened in the conversation, I began to ask these very questions, to probe what theoretical platform they were starting from. The result was rather frightening:
- Dr. Leslie H. Jarmon, Ph.D. , Senior Lecturer from The University of Texas at Austin, who in Second Life goes under the name of Bluewave Ogee began an undignified game of semantic nullification- by which she sought to destroy any possible meaning conveyed through the human language and tried to argue that words could be meant to mean anything one wanted them to, and sought to challenge the meaning of words to the very point of articles and pronouns. One can only imagine what sort of lectures Dr. Jarmon conducts at the University. Perhaps she recites a series of unconnected words- or even better, absolute gibberish- to her students, and then she steps down satisfied that her students got something from the lecture because they managed to imbue her utterings with whatever meaning they wanted to.
- Joe Sanchez, a Ph.D. Student teaching two courses at the University of Texas at the Austin School of Information, under the Second Life pseudonym of North Lamar made the argument that, as he was an ethnic minority in America, he could tell me that there wasn't an objective reality. I fail to understand how the concepts of race and an observable, objective, immutable reality are in any way, shape or form related. Unless I am mistaken, being of a certain race does not immediately disqualify one from perceiving and interacting with reality; Foolishness is very democratic and it makes no racial distinctions. One must ask the question... if there is no such thing as an objective reality, then why is Mr. Sanchez teaching at all in the field of information? A reality that is not objective is in a constant state of flux, malleable and changeable; in this sort of reality, the transference of information is impossible since there is no objective medium by which one may convey this information (uttered words will transform themselves into something else, as the very sound waves that are emitted by the mouth are malleable; Writing would keep changing, etc) and the information itself would not be transferable because both the information AND the object/person/event to which it refers will be in constant flux (a murder will occur, but then it will have never occured; a plane would have crashed in a city, but then it will turn into a luxury liner, etc). As you can see, the subject of information and teaching itself become pointless without an objective reality.
- Magellan Egoyan, (presumably) Geoffrey Edwards, Canada Research Chair in "cognitive geomatics" (Upon prodding, I discovered that it is merely an overly complicated name for "feeling good about the space you occupy") of the Université Laval fiercely avoided my questions. "Magellan," I asked, seeking to find the core of this strange group, "A is A, correct?"
The question I asked him is direct enough: Are things what they are? Can we know that A is A? In short: Does reality exist and can it be interacted with, or is A not A and, reality is but an amorphous flux, and nothing can be known for certain?
His reply was very telling: "I'm not terribly interested in the answer, and I'm not sure i agree with the question (...) I think the term "reality" is a euphemism for something else."
You will notice that these three professors, alleged paladins of knowledge, science and discovery, oppose the very means by which discovery is possible. How can you not be interested in the answer to a question that addresses the possibility of acquiring knowledge and understanding that knowledge?
There should be no surprise that they cannot understand the difference between an Objective Reality- a reality that exists independent of perceptions- and Accurate and Inaccurate Perception Of Reality. To them, Perception is Reality. In their standards, a Monochromat's lack of perception of color creates a color-less reality at the same time that your perception of color creates a colorful reality. These subjectivists masquerading as scholars would have you believe that both realities are the same, valid and absolute in their non-absoluteness, instead of addressing the point that one is a disability ("lack of ability or capacity") that impedes an individual from perceiving one characteristic of reality (the color spectrum) and the other one is a more complete biological perception of that characteristic.
When you intentionally flee from acknowledging the existence of reality and the means of identifying it and interacting with it, you are left with nothing but pure subjectivity. This may be fine for flights of fancy, the creation of fairy-tales, the incurably insane, but it is hardly appropriate for an academic and scientific endeavor.
In short, this isn't a Research Group- a group that seeks to uncover something- this is merely a Cover Up Group: A group that does much show of waving their hands around and stroking their beards, saying that their focus of study is the fauna and flora of the Amazon while making sure they conduct their research on the moon. And just think: your taxes are paying for their tenure.
There is very little to wonder that I would ejected from their group. In the words of Magellan, "We are certainly not used to such a contentious style", we are not accustomed to dealing with reality.
~Another page from the SLNNewshound!
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- A 12-year-old Afghan boy starring in the upcoming film "The Kite Runner" fears he and his family could be ostracized or even attacked because of a rape scene that he says he reluctantly acted in -- a sequence the family wants cut.
ReplyDeleteAhmad Khan Mahmidzada plays a boy who is raped by a bully in "The Kite Runner."
Ahmad Khan Mahmidzada plays the role of young Hassan, who is raped by a bully in a pivotal part of the best-selling novel, on which the movie is based. His family says the scene will offend Afghans.
"In Afghanistan, rape is not acceptable at all. This is against Afghan dignity. This is against Afghan culture," the boy's father, Ahmad Jaan Mahmidzada, told The Associated Press. "When we argued, they said 'We will cut this part of the film. We will take it out of the script. This part will not be in the film."'
The film's producers, Bennett Walsh and Rebecca Yeldham, said they were surprised by the father's comments "about not being comfortable with the difficult scene" and that they "have the utmost concern for the welfare" of the boys who were in the film.
In an e-mail to The Associated Press, they did not respond to a question about whether they would leave the scene in or take it out.
"When we visited with all the actors and their families in Kabul earlier this year, the families addressed their concerns directly with us and said they were fine with the content of the scene, as long as we portrayed it in a sensitive manner," Walsh and Yeldham told the AP. "We made this a priority and followed their specific instructions." The visit earlier this year came after the scene was filmed in 2006.
"The Kite Runner," based on the 2003 novel by Afghan-American writer Khaled Hosseini, tells the story of two boys and how their relationship is transformed by the act of violence. The story's main character, Amir, witnesses the rape of friend Hassan but does nothing to stop it.
The film is scheduled for U.S. release in late November. Hosseini's second best-selling novel, "A Thousand Splendid Suns," came out earlier this year.
Ahmad Khan was paid $10,000 to portray Hassan -- a hefty sum in Afghanistan, where teachers earn only about $70 per month. But the boy with an endearing, crooked smile said he would never have taken the role had he known Hassan is raped. The family said they found out about the scene only days before it was shot.
"They didn't give me the script. They didn't give me the story of 'The Kite Runner.' If I knew about the story, I wouldn't have participated as an actor in this film," he told the AP.
The father and son, backed by other Afghans on the set's location in China, argued with the filmmakers, and the boy refused to act out the scene.
Mahmidzada said the director told him: "'The film will be a mess without this part.' "
"But I told him 'I'm not thinking about your film. I'm thinking about myself,' " he said. "We are Afghan, and this is not acceptable to us at all."
When the filmmakers wanted his son to take off his pants for the shooting, Mahmidzada refused to let him do it. The scene was instead shot with Ahmad Khan wearing his pants.
The parents are concerned that Afghans will harass Ahmad Khan if they find out his character is raped.
"The people of Afghanistan do not understand that it's only acting or playing a role in a film. They think it has actually happened," Mahmidzada said.
Ahmad Khan worried that his schoolmates will make fun of him.
"It's not one or two people that I have to explain to," he said. "It's all of Afghanistan. How do I make them understand?"
If the film is screened in Afghanistan, Ahmad Khan said his family will lose its dignity. "We won't be able to walk in our neighborhood or in Afghanistan at all," the boy said.
Mahmidzada worries the story will stir ethnic tensions because it plays on stereotypes of Afghan ethnic groups, pitting a Pashtun bully against a lower-class Hazara boy.
Pashtuns, Afghanistan's largest ethnic group, and the Hazara minorities were among several ethnic-based factions that fought bitterly during the country's post-Soviet era civil war. Thousands of Hazaras were slain as the predominantly Pashtun Taliban seized power in the mid-1990s.
Ethnic violence has generally subsided since the fall of the Taliban in 2001, but Afghans fear any trigger that could revive tensions. Many Afghans were angered by the 2006 Indian film "Kabul Express," which portrays Hazara militants as brutal and thuggish.
"There are ethnic problems in Afghanistan -- between Hazara, Pashtun, Tajik and other ethnic groups," Mahmidzada said. "We don't want any problem between any ethnic group in Afghanistan. We want unity among all ethnic groups in Afghanistan."
Manizha Naderi, an Afghan-American working in Kabul, said that if the film gets a lot of publicity, the family has reason for concern.
"If people don't see it, then nobody knows, but if people see it, then ... they'll blame the family and say, 'You're giving Afghans a bad name,' " Naderi said.
Mahmidzada said the company has promised to take care of his family if anything happens to them as a result of the film.
"I'm afraid for the security of my son, and for the security of my family," he said. "I'm not only concerned about threats from my neighbors or relatives. I'm concerned about threats from all Afghan people."
Although he did not particularly like playing the rape scene, Ahmad Khan enjoyed shooting the film and wants to act more.
His suggestion to the film company? "They should take us out of Afghanistan."
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday challenged a university audience to look into "who was truly involved" in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, defended his right to question established Holocaust history and denied there were gay Iranians.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks Monday at Columbia University in New York.
1 of 3 When pressed about the harsh treatment of women, homosexuals and academics who challenge Iran's government, Ahmadinejad painted a rosy picture, saying, "Women in Iran enjoy the highest levels of freedom," he said.
He elicited laughter and boos from the audience at Columbia University when he said, "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals, like in your country."
His remarks, which lasted about an hour, made several general references to God, religion and science. He portrayed himself as an academic, misunderstood and unfairly criticized in the United States.
Ahmadinejad is in New York to address the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday. He spoke at the invitation of Columbia's president, Lee Bollinger, who in his introduction excoriated the leader by saying he "exhibit[s] all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator."
Blaming his schedule, Ahmadinejad left Columbia after his speech before answering many questions posed to him, Bollinger said.
Hundreds gathered to protest Ahmadinejad's appearance, incensed that a leader who has publicly denied the Holocaust and called for the destruction of the state of Israel was given a prestigious forum to espouse his beliefs.
Don't Miss
A new arms race in the Middle East
Ahmadinejad won't press ground zero visit
Ahmadinejad eager to teach Americans about world
Iran says it's not building A-bomb
Christine C. Quinn, speaker of the New York City Council, said Columbia should not be giving Ahmadinejad a platform. "All he will do on that stage ... is spew more hatred and more venom out there to the world," she said.
Hamid Dabasi, a professor of Iranian studies at Columbia called the whole forum "misguided."
Refusing to back off of his stance on Israel, Ahmadinejad again questioned whether the Holocaust happened.
"If the Holocaust is a reality of our time, a history that occurred, why is there not sufficient research that can approach the topic from different perspectives?" he asked.
The Iranian leader has made statements in the past suggesting Israel be politically "wiped off the map," though he insists that can be accomplished without violence. See some of Ahmadinejad's controversial remarks »
While he would not respond with a "yes" or "no" when asked Monday if he sought the destruction of Israel, he said the status of Israel should be determined by a free election.
"Let the people of Palestine freely choose what they want for their future," he said.
Ahmadinejad has drawn fire for defying international demands that Iran halt production of enriched uranium.
At Columbia, he said Iran is a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the world's central nuclear technology governing body, and has submitted many times to IAEA inspections. "Over and over again the agency's reports indicate that Iran's activities are peaceful, that they have not detected a deviation," he said.
Washington and other nations accuse Tehran of trying to create a nuclear weapons program. Watch reaction to Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia University »
Ahmadinejad said Iran questions "the way the world is being run and managed today."
But he said Iran would hold talks with the U.S. government "under fair and just circumstances."
U.S. officials have said Iranian explosives and weapons are making their way to Shiite Muslim militias in Iraq's sectarian conflict and have been used against U.S. troops in the four-year-old war. U.S. commanders have said they have captured Iranian agents involved in supplying those weapons to the militias, some of which have longstanding ties to Iran.
On this point, Ahmadinejad employed a tactic he used often Monday -- answering questions with more questions.
Bollinger asked, "Why is your government providing aid to terrorists? Will you stop doing so and permit international monitoring to certify that you have stopped?"
Through a translator, Ahmadinejad replied, "Well, I want to pose a question here to you. If someone comes and explodes bombs around you, threatens your president, members of the administration, kills the members of the Senate or Congress, how would you treat them? Would you reward them or would you name them a terrorist group? Well, it's clear. You would call them a terrorist."
Earlier Ahmadinejad had said he wanted to visit ground zero in New York to "pay his respects" to those who died in the attack on the twin towers at the World Trade Center. Several groups were outraged. Security became an issue and the visit was canceled. Asked what he hoped to accomplish there, the Iranian president said it was unfair he could not extend his sympathies to victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Addressing the press directly, he seemed to make a connection between the "root causes" of the September 11, 2001 attacks and a solution in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"If the root causes of 9/11 are examined properly -- why it happened, what caused it, what were the conditions that led to it, who truly was involved, who was really involved -- and put it all together to understand how to prevent the crisis in Iraq, fix the problem in Afghanistan and Iraq combined."
He stressed repeatedly that Iran wants to negotiate with the United States and other nations, several times describing Iran as a "cultured" and "civilized" nation.
"I think that if the U.S. administration, if the U.S. government puts aside some of its old behaviors, it can actually be a good friend for the Iranian people, for the Iranian nation," he said. "For 28 years, they've consistently threatened us, insulted us, prevented our scientific development, every day, under one pretext or another."
As he ended his talk at Columbia, he invited faculty and students to visit any university in Iran they choose.
"We'll give you the platform. We'll respect you 100 percent. We will have our students sit there and listen to you, speak with you, hear what you have to say," he assured.
Earlier Monday, in a question-and-answer videoconference with the National Press Club, Ahmadinejad said the Middle East can govern itself without interference from the United States and other Western nations.
Speaking from New York to the luncheon in Washington, Ahmadinejad said Iran wanted to see "an independent powerful Iraq ... which will benefit the entire region."
"We are two nations interconnected," he said of Iran and Iraq. "We are brothers and friends."
But he said the region didn't need U.S. help.
"We oppose the way the U.S. government tries to manage the world. ... We propose more humane methods of establishing peace," he said