BriAnarchy!

Doctor Strange by Del Toro and Gaiman

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:17:46 GMT

In news that will matter to, I believe, none of my friends, Guillermo del Toro, who directed Blade II and Hellboy has announced interest in making a Doctor Strange (2010) film.

He is taking it seriously enough that he has already spoken to Neil Gaiman, of Sandman fame, who also scripted Beowulf and Stardust.

Empire: Movie News - Exclusive: Del Toro To Make Dr Strange?

Liberals are smarter than Conservatives

Tue, 04 Mar 2008 16:35:44 GMT

Although, listening to 970WFLA lately, I'm sick of both sides!

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-politics10sep10,0,5982337.story

Participants were college students whose politics ranged from "very liberal" to "very conservative." They were instructed to tap a keyboard when an M appeared on a computer monitor and to refrain from tapping when they saw a W.

M appeared four times more frequently than W, conditioning participants to press a key in knee-jerk fashion whenever they saw a letter.

Each participant was wired to an electroencephalograph that recorded activity in the anterior cingulate cortex, the part of the brain that detects conflicts between a habitual tendency (pressing a key) and a more appropriate response (not pressing the key). Liberals had more brain activity and made fewer mistakes than conservatives when they saw a W, researchers said. Liberals and conservatives were equally accurate in recognizing M.

From the Los Angeles Times

Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brain

Even in humdrum nonpolitical decisions, liberals and conservatives literally think differently, researchers show.
By Denise Gellene
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

September 10, 2007

Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.

In a simple experiment reported todayin the journal Nature Neuroscience, scientists at New York University and UCLA show that political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information.

Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences. The latest study found those traits are not confined to political situations but also influence everyday decisions.

The results show "there are two cognitive styles -- a liberal style and a conservative style," said UCLA neurologist Dr. Marco Iacoboni, who was not connected to the latest research.

Participants were college students whose politics ranged from "very liberal" to "very conservative." They were instructed to tap a keyboard when an M appeared on a computer monitor and to refrain from tapping when they saw a W.

M appeared four times more frequently than W, conditioning participants to press a key in knee-jerk fashion whenever they saw a letter.

Each participant was wired to an electroencephalograph that recorded activity in the anterior cingulate cortex, the part of the brain that detects conflicts between a habitual tendency (pressing a key) and a more appropriate response (not pressing the key). Liberals had more brain activity and made fewer mistakes than conservatives when they saw a W, researchers said. Liberals and conservatives were equally accurate in recognizing M.

Researchers got the same results when they repeated the experiment in reverse, asking another set of participants to tap when a W appeared.

Frank J. Sulloway, a researcher at UC Berkeley's Institute of Personality and Social Research who was not connected to the study, said the results "provided an elegant demonstration that individual differences on a conservative-liberal dimension are strongly related to brain activity."

Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy.

Sulloway said the results could explain why President Bush demonstrated a single-minded commitment to the Iraq war and why some people perceived Sen. John F. Kerry, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat who opposed Bush in the 2004 presidential race, as a "flip-flopper" for changing his mind about the conflict.

Based on the results, he said, liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.

"There is ample data from the history of science showing that social and political liberals indeed do tend to support major revolutions in science," said Sulloway, who has written about the history of science and has studied behavioral differences between conservatives and liberals.

Lead author David Amodio, an assistant professor of psychology at New York University, cautioned that the study looked at a narrow range of human behavior and that it would be a mistake to conclude that one political orientation was better. The tendency of conservatives to block distracting information could be a good thing depending on the situation, he said.

Political orientation, he noted, occurs along a spectrum, and positions on specific issues, such as taxes, are influenced by many factors, including education and wealth. Some liberals oppose higher taxes and some conservatives favor abortion rights.

Still, he acknowledged that a meeting of the minds between conservatives and liberals looked difficult given the study results.

"Does this mean liberals and conservatives are never going to agree?" Amodio asked. "Maybe it suggests one reason why they tend not to get along."

--

denise.gellene@latimes.com

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2008/02/liberal-mind-vs-conservative-mind-is-it.html

Picture Survey

Sun, 02 Mar 2008 20:25:33 GMT

Picture Survey

Here's how it works:
1. Go to www.photobucket.com (don't sign in)
2. Type in your answer to the question in the "search" box

There are 21 simple questions about you.

On the off chance that your answer doesn’t come up at Photobucket, go to Google Images

3. Use only the first page of results to find your answer
4. Copy the html and paste for the answer.

1. What's your first name?

2. What is your favorite food?

3. What school did you go to?

4. What is your relationship status?

5. What is your favorite color?

6. Who is your celebrity crush?

7. What are you listening to right now?

8. What is your favorite movie?

9. Who is your favorite Disney Princess?

10. Favorite thing to drink?

11. Where is your dream vacation?

12. What is your favorite dessert?

13. What do you want to do when you grow up?

14. What do you love most in life?

15. One word to describe yourself?

16. Favorite t.v. show?

17. Favorite hobby?

18. Dogs or cats?

19.Favorite sun glasses?

20.Siblings?

21. What's your addiction?

This may be the saddest thing I've ever read...

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:14:35 GMT

Bride dies during first dance

Kim Sjostrom crumpled in her new husband's arms less than an hour after marrying.
»36 years old

The Questions Science Cannot Answer

Sat, 09 Feb 2008 20:27:52 GMT

An excellent article. Though, sadly, fifty years later and we still haven't learned a thing -

The Questions Science Cannot Answer

by Mortimer J. Adler, Ph.D.

Just as philosophy and science differ in their problems and methods, so do they correspondingly differ in the value or utility of the results they achieve. When, in the years I used to teach philosophy, a student would come up and say "This is all very interesting, but of what use is it?" I answered him by saying "Of no use at all -- in your sense of utility." I had learned from experience that the contemporary student has only one standard of utility in mind when he asks about the utility of knowledge -- that which is applicable to science, but not at all to philosophy.

The utility of science is technological or productive. It builds bridges and cures diseases. But scientific knowledge can also, of course, be used to bomb bridges and to scatter disease on the winds. Science gives us atomic or thermonuclear energy for constructive or destructive purposes, but it does not tell us whether to make peace or war, or how to govern a just and free society, or how men can become wise and happy after they have been made powerful and comfortable.

Philosophical knowledge produces absolutely nothing. But where science has a technological or productive utility, philosophy has a practical or moral utility. It cannot tell men how to make things, but it can direct them toward making a good rather than an evil use of them. It directs the conduct of the individual life and of society by the moral and political truths it is able to teach about war and peace, justice, liberty, and law, duty, virtue, and happiness.

When Bacon said "knowledge is power," he was thinking only of productive power, and hence only of scientific knowledge. Power without wisdom is a dangerous thing, since it can be used for good or evil; and the more power we have, the greater is the catastrophe we risk bringing upon ourselves by its misuse. That is our situation today, in a world dominated by science, from which philosophy has been effectively exiled.

The Questions Science Cannot Answer
The Questions Science Cannot Answer

by Mortimer J. Adler, Ph.D.

Any consideration of science and philosophy presupposes some difference between them. According to the way in which we understand that difference, we will draw a sharp or shadowy line between the two domains; we will take one or another view of the relation between science and philosophy; and we will place different values on the importance of the contribution each makes to our society and our culture. I would like to illustrate this by describing briefly three ways of making the distinction, which I regard as false.

In his last book, Some Problems of Philosophy, William James pictured the philosopher as working on the periphery of science. The domain of science is the whole area of well-established knowledge. There everything is seen in a clear light. But on the borders or outskirts of this realm, one finds problems which have not yet been solved by the method of the scientist. Here things are much less clear. As one moves from the bright lights of the city of knowledge to its dimly illuminated suburbs, one finds philosophers at work, speculating about but not solving the problems which scientists will later solve when the city grows and extends its periphery. When that happens, what used to be suburb will be incorporated into the city, and the philosopher will move further out into underdeveloped areas.

According to this view of the philosopher as pioneering in the suburbs or as living and working in the underdeveloped areas of knowledge, there is no difference between the scientist and the philosopher so far as their problems are concerned. The difference between them lies only in this: that the philosopher lacks and the scientist possesses a method of solving problems in a way that confers upon the solutions the status of established knowledge. The sign that solutions have such status is that they are agreed upon by all or by most who are competent to judge. That the philosopher is merely able to speculate or theorize but not to solve problems is indicated by the fact that the "solutions" each philosopher offers are his own, and are seldom if ever shared by his colleagues. Life in the suburbs cannot help being a war of each against all.

Sometimes philosophers tire of this endless quarreling and, forsaking their birthplace, move into the city to enjoy a little harmony and peace in their declining years. Sometimes scientists, especially after they have won Nobel Prizes or have been invited to become Gifford Lecturers, feel the lure of the suburbs, where one can live a less formal and more fanciful existence, and they decide to sojourn there for a summer or two, or to become regulars commuters. Some even decide to take up permanent residence there, returning to the city only on the occasion of the great association meetings, when they try to excite, if not edify, their less adventuresome colleagues by reports of their explorations beyond the city limits.

We are not concerned with where any individual chooses to live and labor, but with the conditions and character of the life and work that he engages in when he is a scientist or a philosopher. According to this view, all real advances in knowledge are made by the solid work of scientists, though philosophers may prepare for some of these advances by their forays on the periphery of science. The fact that the growing city tends progressively to engulf the adjacent suburbs bespeaks the continuity of science and philosophy.

Some who hold this view of the difference and the relation between the two areas emphasize the continuity by looking upon the ultimate problems of science at any time as its philosophical problems, and by treating the established facts on which philosophy builds its speculations as its scientific basis. Philosophy and science are thus not two distinct domains, as two sovereign states are. They are only two aspects of one and the same sphere of activity, difficult to distinguish in the borderline cases. The whole enterprise is properly described as an inquiry into the nature or shape of things, and we simply call one phase of the activity "scientific" and another phase "philosophical." According to the temperament of the man who does such name-calling, the words "scientific" and "philosophical" are respectively eulogistic and pejorative, or the reverse.

Science and Philosophy Discontinuous

A second view of the difference between science and philosophy can be expressed by employing the same imagery. Here, as before, the scientist has a method for solving problems in a way that permits his solutions to be shared by all competent workers in his field; whereas the philosopher deals with problems which he can never solve that way. His characteristic task is to speculate about the problems men must perennially face, even if they can never reach agreed-upon solutions of them.

According to this view, the problems of the philosopher are such that they cannot be solved by an improvement or extension of the methods of science. The spheres of science and philosophy are discontinuous rather than continuous. They deal with radically different kinds of problems, not with the same type of problem in different ways at different times. The philosopher is not a suburbanite, but a dweller in the wilderness, far removed from the city and, like the vastness of a mountain range, never in danger of being engulfed by it. Some men prefer the well-laid-out and gregarious life of cities, and call it "civilization"; some, the path-finding and solitary conquest of a mountain top, and regard the unshared view they finally achieve as more "soul-satisfying."

Whichever vocation their temperaments lead them to choose, the men who become scientists and those who become philosophers have almost no contact with one another. On the rare occasions when they meet, they find communication difficult. They hardly speak the same language, and each has so little taste or even tolerance for the activity of the other, that the sooner they part company again the better each feels.

Sovereignty of Science

Still a third view of the difference between science and philosophy can be briefly summarized by another modification of the metaphors I have been using. The whole earth is the territory of science. Its sovereignty is global. Different portions of the earth are the provinces of particular sciences, of which some are older, more firmly established, and better governed than others. There still remain some undeveloped or primitive areas which have not yet been claimed and cultivated, but the future holds only three possibilities: either (1) some new science will take them over, or (2) some old science will extend its sway over them, or (3) they may remain forever terra incognita, as the polar regions once were. But in any case there is no place for philosophy on earth, for that is wholly the domain of scientific knowledge, which includes the analytic truths of mathematics, mathematical logic, and logical semantics as well as the verified conclusions or measured probabilities of empirical research.

According to this view, philosophers are up in the air -- in the clouds, as it were, or above them. The atmosphere in which they are free to roam is a realm of airy opinion, not knowledge grounded in solid rock. Some who manage to get above the clouds may have a clear and unimpeded vision of the earth, but the shapes they see, how ever systematically arranged and edifying to behold, are nothing but mirages&endash;projections of their own imagination. But whether their vision is clear or cloudy, they are all seers, each with his own world view, for which he claims absolute and exclusive truth as a representation of all things on the earth below as well as in the heavens.

The scientists who rule the earth are willing to be tolerant of these dwellers in cloud-cuckoo land as long as they, in turn, are willing to remain there and play games of truth and consequences with each other. But, like flying saucers off their course, the philosophers too often come down to hover over the scientists on earth, and pretend to speak, from their superior vantage point, a deeper and more all-embracing truth about the nature of things.

The scientists would welcome them on earth if it were not for this pretension. After all, there is room for poets on earth, and even some pleasure to be derived from their insights in moments of relaxation from the serious business of science. But the philosophers are poets masquerading as scientists, and very superior scientists at that. They are seers who pretend to be sages, seeing much further and deeper into the reality of things than their earth bound brethren. The scientists cannot tolerate for long the irritating presence of such alien and competitive spirits. They wish there were only some way of permanently exiling them to the misty regions whence they come, or at least of passing some law to punish them for their fraudulent pretensions, which might even legalize burning the books they so frequently leave behind them to corrupt the youth and bemuse the whole community.

The Positivists

Strangely enough, their wish has been fulfilled by a group of earthbound men who, though calling themselves "philosophers" rather than scientists, also assume the name of "positivists" or "analysts" to separate themselves sharply from the airy, foggy ones whom they call "traditional philosophers." Starting as a little sect and revolutionary party, this group has become more and more numerous and its members have now established themselves as the leading official philosophers in our centers of learning, where they are accepted by the scientists as kindred rather than alien spirits, whose labors in the fields. of logic, semantics, and what is called the "philosophy of science" make them welcome as useful coworkers in the domain of science rather than merely enjoyable entertainers, as the self-confessed poets are.

The law exiling the traditional philosophers, to be enforced by punitive measures, including bookburning, was first drafted by David Hume in 1777. It was formulated as the closing paragraph of his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, in which he felt that he had established the validity of two and only two forms of inquiry -- (1) mathematics, which he described as "abstract reasoning concerning quantity and number," and (2) empirical science, which he described as "experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence." In contrast to these, he felt that he had shown that the inquiries of traditional theology and philosophy, which he lumped together under the heading of "divinity or school metaphysics," eventuated in mere opinion, the very opposite of the analytical truths of mathematics or logic and of the measured probabilities of empirical science. Therefore, he felt entitled to conclude as follows:

When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume -- of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance -- let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames; for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

Hume's positivistic proclamation did not at once become law. But since his day the legislative efforts of Auguste Comte, Ernst Mach, and Karl Pearson in the nineteenth century, and the much more precise formulations of the English analysts and the American positivists, the latter encouraged by the radical empiricists and pragmatists, have succeeded in enacting the ostracism of traditional philosophy that Hume called for.

In this country, the pragmatists furnished the oratory and eloquence for moving the learned world of scientists and scholars to adopt the law, and the positivists provided the enabling legislation for its enforcement. Instead of book burning as a punitive measure, they recommended something less incendiary but just as effective -- nonreading of the books of traditional philosophy, together with an undeclared ex-communication of those who still persisted, in philosophical journals or at philosophical meetings, in talking about the problems with which those books once dealt.

According to this view, which is today the most prevalent of the three contemporary views we have so far examined, traditional philosophy may have had problems that were distinct in character, from the problems with which modem science successfully copes. But they were not problems that could ever be solved by any method whatsoever in a fashion that would yield truth or probability. Only those problems that the methods of science are competent to solve yield solutions which have the status of valid or verifiable knowledge. The questions which the sciences -- natural, social, historical -- cannot answer by their methods either (1) cannot be answered at all, or (2) can be answered by nothing better than mere opinions having the status only of private or personal "truth" for the individual who asserts them without the support of public evidence.

The three views are alike in one essential respect. All of them affirm the foregoing characterization of the questions science cannot answer. They may differ with regard to the continuity or discontinuity of science and philosophy, or in their evaluation of philosophical speculation in relation to scientific research. But they agree in identifying the domain of science with the realm of knowledge, in the sense of ascertainable truth or probability; and in treating philosophy either as a disguised form of poetry or as the undisguised expression of merely personal opinions for which men may claim truth but for which they cannot offer certifying evidence open to the general inspection of inquiring minds.

The Support for Philosophy

Against these three views, which I said in the beginning I regard as false, I would like to offer a fourth, which I think is true. According to this fourth view, there are questions which science cannot answer but which, nevertheless, can be answered and can be answered by philosophical knowledge, capable of evidential support, rather than by unfounded personal opinion. The questions which philosophy can answer and science cannot are radically different in type from the questions science can answer and philosophy cannot; and this difference in the problems and objects of philosophical and scientific inquiry is correlated with the fundamental difference in their methods of inquiry. The methods of each are adapted to solving problems of a certain limited sort, and so long as science and philosophy are each characterized by their own distinctive methods, neither will ever be able by its methods to solve the problems amenable to the methods of the other, and neither will ever be able to advance knowledge beyond the limited competence of its own methods.

Yet the methods of both are methods of learning what is true or probable, and so the methods of both, properly applied, are able to increase the store of human knowledge, each with respect to its own objects and problems. Both, in short, are methodical pursuits of objective truth; and though the way in which each establishes its conclusions is as different as the way in which each conducts its inquiries, the conclusions are either true or false, more probable or less probable, by the same ultimate criterion, namely, by the measure of their accord with existent realities or facts.

Apart from the distinction between science and philosophy, we are all acquainted with analogous distinctions among separate disciplines. The method of history is different from the method of natural science. The kind of questions the historian tries to answer by means of his method are radically different from the kind of questions the natural scientist tries to answer by means of his. The one is concerned with the occurrence and conjunction or sequence of particular events; the other, with correlations among phenomena, which can be expressed in general laws or probability statements. The scientist knows that he cannot solve a single genuinely historical problem by his methods, now or ever; just as the historian knows that he cannot solve a single problem in physics, chemistry, or biology by his.

The same relation obtains between the mathematical sciences, on the one hand, and the experimental or empirical sciences, on the other. Even though mathematics and physics are closely wedded in the hybrid discipline of mathematical physics, we know the difference between the mathematical and the physical problems of mathematical physics, and know that experimental methods cannot produce new mathematical formulations, just as mathematical methods cannot produce new experimental data. Advances in mathematical physics require, first, separate advances in pure mathematics and in experimental physics; only after both have been accomplished, can they be combined fruitfully. Otherwise, we have the situation, familiar to all of us, either of mathematical theorizing in advance of experimental data or of experimental findings waiting for mathematical formulation.

Autonomy of Disciplines

The layman, unacquainted with the specialized techniques of the pure sciences, is fully aware of a similar distinction in the field of applied sciences or the learned professions. He knows that it would be absurd to ask an engineer to cure an illness, just as it would be absurd to ask a physician to build a bridge. He knows, in short, that different technical disciplines are definitely limited by their special methods to solving certain problems only, and not others. The fact that the engineer cannot solve certain problems does not mean to the layman that they cannot be solved by someone else, whose method is adequate for that task. He does not expect the same kind of answer from an engineer and a physician, nor does he expect the reasoning of both to be the same, nor the kind of evidence they offer in support of their answers. But he feels assured that the answer each gives is one that he can rely on, because it has been obtained by a method devised for that purpose and employed by a competent practitioner.

Above all, he knows better than to consult a physician about the soundness of an engineer's solution of a construction problem, or to consult an engineer about the soundness of a physician's solution of a medical problem. He knows, in other word, that the autonomy of separate disciplines, which lies in the difference of their problems and methods, also makes each relatively independent of criticism by the other. If the practitioner of one discipline cannot, by his own methods, solve the problems which belong to another discipline, neither does he have grounds for criticizing the solutions proposed by the practitioners of that other discipline. It takes a mathematician to criticize a mathematical solution for the same reason that it takes a mathematician to solve a mathematical problem in the first place.

I am asserting that science as a whole -- including the natural, social, and historical sciences -- stands in relation to philosophy, as history to botany, mathematics to physics, or engineering to medicine. To give this assertion meaning I must briefly indicate the difference in their methods.

The method of philosophy, like that of science, employs observation and reflection, which is to say, data and theories. Both involve sense-experience and reasoning. But the philosopher, like the mathematician, does not need any more experience than is available to every man by the ordinary use of his senses while awake. Just as the mathematician is properly an arm-chair thinker, so is the philosopher. It would be just as absurd for a philosopher to conduct an empirical investigation to obtain special or additional data in order to solve his problems, as it would be for a mathematician to do so.

Yet the philosopher differs from the mathematician in that he must appeal to the ordinary experience of mankind as supplying the evidence, available to every one, in support of the theories he advances. In this respect, he is like the empirical scientist rather than the mathematician; but where the scientist must always go beyond ordinary experience and by his methods of re. search obtain "scientific data" to support his conclusions, the philosopher needs no special "philosophical data," nor has he any method of obtaining them.

In his Preface to Skepticism and Animal Faith, George Santayana with measured irony describes the posture of a philosopher who understands both the power and the limitations of his method. Speaking of himself, he writes:

There is one point, indeed, in which I am truly sorry not to be able to profit by the guidance of my contemporaries. There is now a great ferment in natural and mathematical philosophy, and the times seem ripe for a new system of nature, at once ingenious and comprehensive, such as has not appeared since the earlier days of Greece.... But what exists today is so tentative, obscure, and confused by bad philosophy, that there is no knowing what parts may be sound and what parts merely personal and scatterbrained. If I were a mathematician I should no doubt regale myself, if not the reader, with an electric or logistic system of the universe expressed in algebraic symbols. But for good or ill, I am an ignorant man, almost a poet, and I can only spread of feast of what everybody knows. Fortunately, exact science and the books of the learned are not necessary to establish my essential doctrine, nor can any of them claim a higher warrant than it has itself, for it rests on public experience. It needs, to prove it, only the stars, the seasons, the swarm of animals, the spectacle of birth and death, of cities and wars. My philosophy is justified, and has been justified in all ages and countries by the facts before every man's eyes; and no great wit is required to discover it, only (what is rarer than wit) candor and courage. Learning does not liberate men from superstition when their souls are cowed or perplexed; and without learning, clear eyes and honest reflection can discern the hang of the world and distinguish the edge of truth from the might of imagination. In the past or in the future, my language and my borrowed knowledge would have been different, but under whatever sky I had been born, since it is the same sky, I should have had the same philosophy.

It would take more space than is at my disposal to distinguish, with logical and ontological precision, philosophical from scientific problems, and to define the special character of the separate objects with which science and philosophy each alone can deal, because of the power as well as the limitations of the methods peculiar to each. Nor can I here defend the view I take of science and philosophy, by answering all the objections which I know from long experience that positivists and scientists cannot help raising. They have every right to ask such questions as: Why, if philosophy is concerned with objective truth and has a method adequate to solving its own problems, are philosophers unable to agree among themselves, as competent scientists of the same generation in a given field are? And why are philosophers unable to make the kind of progress in their work that scientists make in theirs?

To answer these questions, and many others equally searching, requires a book not an essay. But I can point out that the nerve of all the answers I would give lies in the insight that the way in which philosophers agree, disagree, and deal with their disagreements is as different from the way scientists do these things, as the objects and methods of philosophy are different from those of science. The same applies to progress. One should not expect the same kind, rate, or conditions of progress in philosophy and science. Philosophy is misjudged, in regard to progress or to agreement and disagreement, if it is judged in these respects by standards which are applicable only to science.

Utility of Knowledge

To return once more to the metaphors I used at the beginning, let me conclude by saying that philosophy is not in the suburbs of the city of knowledge, nor out on the mountain tops, nor up in the clouds. Philosophy should be pictured rather as one great state in the federal republic of knowledge, in which science is another. Each has a certain autonomy; each exercises the sovereignty of its methods in its own realm.

Yet they can also be functionally related to one another, they can have commerce with another in the exchange of their special commodities; each can serve the interests of the other and be served by the other in its own way. Above all, they can coexist in peace and harmony if each recognizes and respects the rights of the other under the logical principles which both divide and unite them as members of a federation of sovereign yet independent disciplines.

One word more. We have been considering the question of the difference and relation between science and philosophy. Does the man who tries to answer this question answer it in virtue of his competence as a scientist or in virtue of his competence as a philosopher?

Since any answer to the question ultimately rests on a theory of the nature of knowledge itself, and about the kinds of knowledge, I submit that the question is a philosophical rather than a scientific question. It obviously cannot be answered by the methods of science. Now a man may refuse to answer it because he recognizes that it is a question science cannot answer, and because he holds that the questions science cannot answer cannot be answered at all in any valid way. But if a man does try to answer it and, more than that, claims objective validity for his answer, he thereby admits not only the distinction between philosophical and scientific questions, but also the possibility of objectively valid answers to the questions philosophy can and science cannot answer. He cannot, therefore, consistently answer the questions about the relation of science and philosophy by taking any of the three views that I have said are false views of the matter.

This essay first appeared in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, XIII April 1957.

The Sword-wielding Psychotherapist

Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:37:10 GMT

You scored as Miyamoto Musashi. You're considered a sword saint, whatever the fuck that is. You don't give two hoots what weapon or tact people come at you with, as your solution is a steady grip on a sharp blade and it tends to work.

You're never going to be defeated in battle, but you are going to die of Cancer.

C.G. Jung

83%

Miyamoto Musashi

83%

Friedrich Nietzsche

67%

Steven Morrissey

67%

Dante Alighieri

58%

Adolf Hitler

58%

Stephen Hawking

58%

Mother Teresa

50%

Elvis Presley

42%

Jesus Christ

25%

O.J. Simpson

17%

Charles Manson

17%

Sigmund Freud

17%

Hugh Hefner

What Pseudo Historical Figure Best Suits You?
created with QuizFarm.com

Well, thank you for that assessment...

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:31:52 GMT

Harry Potter Personality Quiz by Pirate Monkeys Inc.

None more black...

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:01:23 GMT

Black as midnight, black as pitch, blacker than the foulest witch...

What color is your soul painted?

Black

Your soul is painted the color black, which embodies the characteristics of modernity, formality, power, sophistication, elegance, wealth, mystery, style, anger, sadness, remorse, rebellion, loss, discord, confusion, and absorbing negativity. Black falls under the element of Earth, and symbolizes outer space and the universe, and in some cultures black represents fertility and wisdom.

Click Here to Take This Quiz

Quizzes and Personality Tests

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:31:51 GMT

This has come up in conversation several times recently, and the below quote was a perfect example of how I feel about the topic -

Philip Pullman, author of The Golden Compass (technically, the book was originally called Northern Lights), was quoted in the article Life and Letters: Far From Narnia: The New Yorker as saying, I don’t think it’s possible that there is a God.

I've never had a problem with the word agnostic, but Pullman refers to himself as an atheist. However, the implication in his choice of words is that the existence or absence of God is unknown, i.e., agnostic(Origin: < Gk agnost(os), var. of agnotos not known, incapable of being known).

To me, the use of the word atheist is, and has always been, propaganda, no better than the cramming of religious ideology down my throat: I believe in God, I don't believe in God. I'm not sure if the self-proclaimed atheists realize they're guilty of the same thing the staunch supports of religion are.

Belief, by its very nature, implies theories conformed to with limited knowledge (and even knowledge is overrated - how many times have widely-held facts been later refuted). What we can know and not know is, at best, limited to the data currently available to us.

I don't believe in flying saucers, because I've never seen one. I've seen some convincing footage, but it doesn't have the same impact as personally collected input. But I don't disbelieve either. Until I have sufficient, personal data to draw a conclusion, I "don't know."

The Perception of God

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:33:50 GMT

Inspired by a conversation last night with my sweetie, fionathecelt, spurred by nearly-constant research these days, I want to share the following article.

Here are excerpts from the article of the most salient points -

Andrew Newberg and Eugene dAquili, two medical doctors, studied the brains of Tibetan Buddhist meditators and Franciscan Catholic nuns, using the SPECT camera (single photon emission computed tomography), a high-tech brain imaging tool.

They found that during spiritual activities the front part of the brain, which reflects focused attention and concentration and is considered the neurological seat of the will, became more active.

Further, the spiritual state produced a sharp reduction in the activity level of the posterior superior parietal lobe, or "orientation association area" (OAA), which functions to both draw a sharp distinction between you and everything else (between you and not-you) and to give you the ability to experience a "three-dimensional body" and to orient that body in physical space.

The result of this decreased activity in the OAA would be the perception of discrete objects would cease, there would be no sense of space or the passage of time, no line between the self and the rest of the universe. In fact, there would be no subjective self at all; there would only be an absolute sense of unity -- without thought, without words, and without sensation.

The OAA is an area of the brain that never rests. It requires a constant stream of sensory information to do its job well.

So what would be the effect to our perception of reality when the OAA is deprived of sensory input as a person enters a deep spiritual state?

The perception of discrete objects would cease, there would be no sense of space or the passage of time, no line between the self and the rest of the universe. In fact, there would be no subjective self at all; there would only be an absolute sense of unity -- without thought, without words, and without sensation. The mind would exist without ego in a state of pure, undifferentiated awareness.

In other words, should you be able to achieve this altered state of consciousness, you would experience the sensation of being "one with everything."

The researchers, in their book Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief, go on to express that their findings do not necessarily deny the existence of God, even if these sensations can be explained physiologically. In fact, they imply that this state is widely regarded by those who have experienced it as being more "real" than more common states of consciousness.

THE PERCEPTION OF GOD
Over the centuries mystics and spiritual leaders have reported an experience which they perceived as utterly and unquestionably real -- an experience of God and the Absolute. Today scientists are working on the neurology of such spiritual experiences. What can this research tell us about the roots of our spiritual and religious heritage? Andrew Newberg and Eugene D'Aquhi, two medical doctors, studied the brains of Tibetan Buddhist meditators and Franciscan Catholic nuns. They found that the events the meditators considered spiritual were indeed associated with observable neurological activity. The research was based upon the fact that increased blood flow to a given part of the brain correlates with heightened activity in that particular area, and vice versa. For the measurements they used a high-tech brain imaging tool, the SPECT camera (single photon emission computed tomography). At the transcendent peak of the spiritual state, the subject tugged on a string. Radioactive dye was released into an intravenous catheter in their arm and SPECT images of their brain were recorded.

Medical research has shown that every event that happens to us or anything we do including our thoughts and emotions can be associated with activity in one or more specific regions of the brain. The researchers found that during spiritual activities the front part of the brain became more active. This area reflects focused attention and concentration, and is considered the neurological seat of the will. In addition, the spiritual state produced a sharp reduction in the activity level of the posterior superior parietal lobe, or "orientation association area" (OAA). One job of the OAA is to draw a sharp distinction between you and everything else; between you and not-you. The second job is to give you the ability to experience a "three-dimensional body" and to orient that body in physical space.

The OAA is an area of the brain that never rests. It requires a constant stream of sensory information to do its job well. So what would be the effect to our perception of reality when the OAA is deprived of sensory input as a person enters a deep spiritual state? The perception of discrete objects would cease, there would be no sense of space or the passage of time, no line between the self and the rest of the universe. In fact, there would be no subjective self at all; there would only be an absolute sense of unity -- without thought, without words, and without sensation. The mind would exist without ego in a state of pure, undifferentiated awareness. Such unitary states are the transcendent goal of all spiritual paths! Unitary states range from the mildest to the most profound, and represent a span of a continuum depending upon the degree that the sensory input to the OAA is blocked. In addition to meditation and prayer such spiritual states can begin with physical activity -- any repetitive rhythmic behavior causes the orientation area to be blocked from neural flow. Of course, the process can be set in motion by nothing more tangible than the mind willing itself toward God.
The nerve cells in all living things are very similar. Neurologically, the change over millions of years of evolution is the complexity. This is what separates human brains from those of the toad, the cat, or the monkey. This increased complexity permits an organism to perceive and react more effectively and with greater versatility to their environment. The most recently evolved region of the human brain, the neocortex, enables us to create language, art, culture, and myth. The neurons or nerve cells in our brains plus some in the heart and elsewhere serve as map makers for our perceptions of reality. They map the geography of our body, and of the events that take place within that geography -- this includes both information received directly by our senses and "non-local" input, i.e., input from the Absolute. How did the brain circuitry for transcendence evolve? The researchers believe the neurology of transcendence borrows the neural circuitry of sexual response. The neurological structures and pathways involved in transcendent experience originally evolved to link sexual climax to the powerful sensations of orgasm.

But are we really perceiving a higher spiritual reality -- an encounter with God? What we think of as reality is nothing more than a rendition of reality that we create in our brain. The floor beneath your feet, the chair you're sitting in, the paper you hold in your hands may all seen unquestionably solid and real, but they are known to you only as secondhand neurological perceptions, as blips and flashes racing along the neural pathways inside your skull. If you were to dismiss spiritual experience as "mere" neurological activities, you would also have to distrust all of your own brain's perceptions of the material world. However, assuming you trust your perceptions of the physical world, you have no rational reason to declare that spiritual experience is a mental fiction. If God does indeed exist, the only place he can manifest his existence would be in the tangled neural pathways and physiological structures of the brain. Our reality emerges from our brain, and while the SPECT imaging research doesn't prove the existence of God or the Absolute, it does indicate that these spiritual states are as real as any other brain states. Thus mystical experiences are biologically and scientifically real, and play an evolutionary roll in our survival.

We consider day-dreams and hallucinations less real than ordinary reality. Hence, logic suggests that what is less real must be contained by what is more real. Spiritual experiences are frequently perceived as far more real than ordinary day-to-day experiences. An uplifting sense of genuine spiritual union with something larger than the self is experienced -- the issues of ordinary reality disappear into the peace and love of an indescribable unity. The perceptions of the individuals who achieve this state of transcendence must be interpreted into rational terms, and the ineffable insights they bestow must be translated into specific beliefs. The great mystics and religious leaders of the past were all attempting to grasp this ungraspable Absolute. Thus, all interpretations of God may actually be rooted in the same neurobiological experience of the Absolute. All religions would then be branches from the same spiritual tree and all would express truth.

Reference: A. Newberg, E. D'Aquili & V. Rause, Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief, NY: Ballantine Books, 2002.

billgough@fmbr.org

William C. Gough, FMBR Chairman of the Board; , May 2004

And the winner is...

Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:59:57 GMT

OK, here's the follow-up to my quiz post.

I am screening comments on this one, too, but I have "findings" about your choices I can post.

I was originally going to just post the Key to the poems, but I decided to do more research and discovered something interesting: the data supports each of your choices.

I am screening comments on this post, so I'll leave it up to you -

1. If you post for me to Unscreen, I'll post my findings here.
2. If you prefer to remain anonymous, just post your email for me to mail you my findings.

In case you hadn't guessed - and one smart alec even pointed out to me that I had missed one of the names I should have hidden ;) - the poems were about planets.

There were very popular books in the Middle Ages for the Planets and their Children. These particular poems were from an excellent web version of one of these books -

The Planets and Their Children: A Blockbook of Medieval Popular Astrology

Key (I intentionally scrambled their order):
A - Jupiter
B - Luna
C - Venus
D - Saturn
E - Mercury
F - Mars
G - Sun

As for my results, I got 3 votes for A, 2 for C, 2 for E, and 1 for G. I compared the choices to my natal chart:

A - Jupiter

Three planets in Cancer (in which Jupiter is exalted): Jupiter, Sun, Mercury
Saturn in Pisces (which is ruled by Jupiter)
Sun conjunction Jupiter (which is a positive aspect)

C - Venus

Venus in Taurus, which it rules and is its "joy."
Moon in Libra, which venus rules.
Saturn in Pisces, in which Venus is exalted.
Venus sextile Saturn, a positive aspect, and an interesting connection of 2 of my Venus-influenced planets.

E - Mercury

Mars in Gemini, which is ruled by Mercury
Mercury in Cancer, drawing strength from Jupiter, like my Sun conjunction.

G - Sun

My Rising Sign, Scorpio, ruled by Mars which also rules Aries, in which the Sun is Exalted.
Sun conjunction Jupiter, a positive aspect, and possibly drawing influence from the strong placement of Jupiter in my chart.

I have also compared your choices to your charts, and found similar connections.

An interesting side story:

About 13 years ago, in my heavy Ouija work, the board told me, in response to a question, that I was a "moonchild." I found this very "hippy" and amusing, but never thought much of it. I was unfamiliar with the Planets' Children books at that time, and in light of what I now know, suspect the board was calling me a rebel -
Headstrong, heedless, and half-wild -
If he won't be led, he's Luna's child.

A quiz for you, sort of...

Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:42:49 GMT

So, in an effort to both post more often and keep my head from exploding due to book research, I decided to post the following "quiz" for you to take, that was something fun I stumbled across in my studies. I'm curious to see how this turns out.

Posted below the cut are some poems describing personalities. What I'd like you to do is comment with -

1. The one you think fits you best, and
2. The one you think fits me best.

All comments will be screened, so your choice will be just between you and me.

At a later point, I will post code for the "answers," and some more info.
EDIT: Not everyone could read the table, so I copied the text only below the table

A	Modest, happy, virtuous lives; They're lusty, but they love their wives. Fortune smiles, they're just and wise, Rosy faces and laughing eyes, Well-mannered and well-clothed, refined, With hound and bow they hunt the hind. In falconry they have much art, Well-mounted, they pursue the hart. Sailors and judges and men of the court, Hardworking scholars, their studies not short. If to these things they are inclined, It's _______'s children that you find.
B	All heavenly influence through me must go Now strong, now weak, now fast, now slow. Headstrong, heedless, and half-wild - If he won't be led, he's Luna's child. Pale round faces and brown eyes, Cruel teeth, snub-nosed, and never wise, Easily angered, but soon consoled, Short, lazy, jealous, greedy for gold. Tinkers and jugglers and students who roam, Millers, birdcatchers, those never at home, If you fish or swim or sail, As ____'s child you cannot fail.
C	Lightly loving, full of mirth, My children are happy here on earth. Merry when rich and merry poor, None can compare, you may be sure. Pipe and tabor, harps and lutes, They play organs, horns and flutes. With singing, and with dancing too, Embrace their lovers, kiss and woo. They rejoice to hear fair music's sound. Their mouths are darling, faces round. Beautiful bodies, parched by Lust's heat, My children find Love's duties sweet.
D	My children are vicious, dry and old, Envious, weary, wretched, cold. Deep eyes, hard skin, their beards are small. They're lame, misshapen, depraved withal. Traitorous, brooding, greedy, pale, They often find themselves in jail. They grub the dirt, dig graves, plow land, In foul and stinking clothes they stand. Condemned to die or live in sorrow, Sweat and strain, or trouble borrow, Always needy, never free, It's ______'s children there you see.
E	My children I faithfully instill With lust for beauty, greed for skill. No long journey for them too hard, Strange new knowledge is their reward. Their faces are full and pale and round, Their bodies white, their limbs unsound. Their clocks and organs are the best, Excellent scribes, they take no rest. Dextrous goldsmiths, painters good, People praise them - and they should. They are a smart, hardworking lot, When asked for help they give it not.
F	All my trueborn children fight, Murder, strive, and slay with might. Angry, haughty, warlike, proud, Liars, thieves, their boasts are loud. Burning, cheating, robbing, hot, Their quarrels may be just - or not. Small teeth, small beards, tall and thin, Noses sharp and hard rough skin. Butchers of men, killers of swine, Smiths and marshals, children mine. Captains, gunners, doctors good, All those who deal in fire and blood.
G	Noble and fortunate I am, As are all my children. Good beards, large foreheads, bodies fair, Ruddy lips, of brains their share. Happy, kindly, well-born, strong, Fond of harps, viols, and song. All morning long to God they pray, And after noon they laugh and play. They wrestle and they fence with swords, They throw great stones, and serve great lords. Manly exercises are their sports, They have good luck in princely courts.

A -

Modest, happy, virtuous lives;
They're lusty, but they love their wives.
Fortune smiles, they're just and wise,
Rosy faces and laughing eyes,
Well-mannered and well-clothed, refined,
With hound and bow they hunt the hind.
In falconry they have much art,
Well-mounted, they pursue the hart.
Sailors and judges and men of the court,
Hardworking scholars, their studies not short.
If to these things they are inclined,
It's _______'s children that you find.

B -

All heavenly influence through me must go
Now strong, now weak, now fast, now slow.
Headstrong, heedless, and half-wild -
If he won't be led, he's Luna's child.
Pale round faces and brown eyes,
Cruel teeth, snub-nosed, and never wise,
Easily angered, but soon consoled,
Short, lazy, jealous, greedy for gold.
Tinkers and jugglers and students who roam,
Millers, birdcatchers, those never at home,
If you fish or swim or sail,
As ____'s child you cannot fail.

C -

Lightly loving, full of mirth,
My children are happy here on earth.
Merry when rich and merry poor,
None can compare, you may be sure.
Pipe and tabor, harps and lutes,
They play organs, horns and flutes.
With singing, and with dancing too,
Embrace their lovers, kiss and woo.
They rejoice to hear fair music's sound.
Their mouths are darling, faces round.
Beautiful bodies, parched by Lust's heat,
My children find Love's duties sweet.

D -

My children are vicious, dry and old,
Envious, weary, wretched, cold.
Deep eyes, hard skin, their beards are small.
They're lame, misshapen, depraved withal.
Traitorous, brooding, greedy, pale,
They often find themselves in jail.
They grub the dirt, dig graves, plow land,
In foul and stinking clothes they stand.
Condemned to die or live in sorrow,
Sweat and strain, or trouble borrow,
Always needy, never free,
It's ______'s children there you see.

E -

My children I faithfully instill
With lust for beauty, greed for skill.
No long journey for them too hard,
Strange new knowledge is their reward.
Their faces are full and pale and round,
Their bodies white, their limbs unsound.
Their clocks and organs are the best,
Excellent scribes, they take no rest.
Dextrous goldsmiths, painters good,
People praise them - and they should.
They are a smart, hardworking lot,
When asked for help they give it not.

F -

All my trueborn children fight,
Murder, strive, and slay with might.
Angry, haughty, warlike, proud,
Liars, thieves, their boasts are loud.
Burning, cheating, robbing, hot,
Their quarrels may be just - or not.
Small teeth, small beards, tall and thin,
Noses sharp and hard rough skin.
Butchers of men, killers of swine,
Smiths and marshals, children mine.
Captains, gunners, doctors good,
All those who deal in fire and blood.

G -

Noble and fortunate I am,
As are all my children.
Good beards, large foreheads, bodies fair,
Ruddy lips, of brains their share.
Happy, kindly, well-born, strong,
Fond of harps, viols, and song.
All morning long to God they pray,
And after noon they laugh and play.
They wrestle and they fence with swords,
They throw great stones, and serve great lords.
Manly exercises are their sports,
They have good luck in princely courts.

So, what's going on...

Thu, 01 Nov 2007 20:41:34 GMT

OK, after hearing this from several friends in person recently, I have to begin my post with an apology and an explanation.

I was given grief that I never post anymore, which is true, and for which I'm sorry (to anyone who actually gives a crap enough to read).

The reason behind this is simple: after some turmoil on my personal hobby fronts, I have returned to working on my book, and it's coming along further than ever before. So much so that it's stressing me (aren't hobbies supposed to be relaxing?). But the research I've uncovered has made me very excited, so any free time is spent on that writing project, and it's been hard to get motivated to write here with all that going on.

I have, however, been reading LJ on a regular basis and have been keeping up...

That said, my sweetie fionathecelt just posted the first of our Halloween costume pics, and they're pretty cool -

For those who need help figuring them out,

Screaming Banshee Halloween e-Card Just For You

Ringling Museum Trip

Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:57:56 GMT

So, 2 weeks ago, we headed out to the Ringling Museum to get our culture on -

Our new house -

- A little cramped, but I guess it'll do.

My Leo with a Leo -

In front of the Ringling Gate (or wearing a really silly hat) -

Rest of the pics here: Ringling Trip

Ex Ignorantia Ad Sapientiam; E Luce Ad Tenebras

Mon, 01 Oct 2007 16:55:19 GMT

I was very happy last week to finally receive my diploma, which fionathecelt was kind enough to scan for me -

Click for full size

So, for those who know me well, what do you think? Am I qualified to have a BA in Medieval Metaphysics?

Go 'Pods!

Guinness good for you - official

Fri, 07 Sep 2007 14:51:22 GMT

From my personal physician, christeos_pir

Guinness good for you - official

The old advertising slogan "Guinness is Good for You" may be true after all, according to researchers.

A pint of the black stuff a day may work as well as an aspirin to prevent heart clots that raise the risk of heart attacks.

Drinking lager does not yield the same benefits, experts from Wisconsin University told a conference in the US.

Guinness were told to stop using the slogan decades ago - and the firm still makes no health claims for the drink.

The Wisconsin team tested the health-giving properties of stout against lager by giving it to dogs who had narrowed arteries similar to those in heart disease.

They found that those given the Guinness had reduced clotting activity in their blood, but not those given lager.

Heart trigger

Clotting is important for patients who are at risk of a heart attack because they have hardened arteries.

A heart attack is triggered when a clot lodges in one of these arteries supplying the heart.

Many patients are prescribed low-dose aspirin as this cuts the ability of the blood to form these dangerous clots.

The researchers told a meeting of the American Heart Association in Orlando, Florida, that the most benefit they saw was from 24 fluid ounces of Guinness - just over a pint - taken at mealtimes.

We already know that most of the clotting effects are due to the alcohol itself, rather than any other ingredients
Spokesman, Brewing Research International

They believe that "antioxidant compounds" in the Guinness, similar to those found in certain fruits and vegetables, are responsible for the health benefits because they slow down the deposit of harmful cholesterol on the artery walls.

However, Diageo, the company that now manufactures Guinness, said: "We never make any medical claims for our drinks."

The company now runs advertisements that call for "responsible drinking".

A spokesman for Brewing Research International, which conducts research for the industry, said she would be "wary" of placing the health benefits of any alcohol brand above another.

She said: "We already know that most of the clotting effects are due to the alcohol itself, rather than any other ingredients.

"It is possible that there is an extra effect due to the antioxidants in Guinness - but I would like to see this research repeated."

She said that reviving the old adverts for Guinness might be problematic - at least in the EU.

Draft legislation could outlaw any health claims in adverts for alcohol in Europe, she said.

Feelgood factor

The original campaign in the 1920s stemmed from market research - when people told the company that they felt good after their pint, the slogan was born.

In England, post-operative patients used to be given Guinness, as were blood donors, because of its high iron content.

Pregnant women and nursing mothers were at one stage advised to drink Guinness - the present advice is against this.

The UK is still the largest market in the world for Guinness, although the drink does not feature in the UK's top ten beer brands according to the latest research.

No words...

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:49:38 GMT

Hilly Kristal, a Rock Midwife, Is Dead at 75 - New York Times

The Village Voice: Runnin' Scared - Hilly Kristal: RIP

The Village Voice: Runnin' Scared - Hilly Remembered on the Bowery

The Village Voice: Runnin' Scared - Mourning Hilly Kristal Part II

Hilly Kristal 1932-2007 | News | NME.COM

BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Founder of US punk club CBGB dies

i recall back in '79 i was just a wee kid livin' in a dive
didn't drink, didn't dance, didn't ever smoke hash
but it changed when i heard the clash
and you know i needed more so i got
up and out to the record store
i bought all the records i could afford
an' i played em all on my stereo

this is a song saluting punkrockers rise
and what they did to change the times
but with such a lifestyle they're burnin'
on both sides
now they're droppin' like flies
all those old punk rock guys

i became a fan & i remain that way
and to this day, i'm still blown away
those bands just cut me to the bone
like the damned, the pistols & the ramones
now we just wanna say
they made us what we are today
so now every time we play
we remember those of yesterday

well i became a fan & i remain that way
and to this day, i'm still blown away
and then theres me i'm not dead yet
but never ever know i could be next

Weekend with farkinidjot

Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:23:45 GMT

OK, I've been trying to post this since Monday, but work is kicking my ass...

fionathecelt and I headed out to Orlando to spend the weekend with farkinidjot with son (friends familiar with my favorite samurai movie should catch the reference).

Mom's at Disney for the week, so two birds, one stone (Fri night - Sun morning with farkinidjot, dinner Sat and Epcot Sun with the fam.

You know, it's easy to forget how much you miss someone until you see them again. I started realizing this at my bday cookout, and was happy to get some time to hang. Of course, staying up Fri til 5am involve the ingestion of far more caffeine/nicotine than any rational person should ingest.

So, Sat, FI took us to two of the coolest shops I've been to in years.

Avalon

Amused me that fionathecelt, the less mystical of the two of us, had already been there when I hadn't.

I don't get to these kind of shops much anymore, both because I'm relatively jaded these days and because Amazon is my new, best friend, as well as other excellent sites on line to shop, like Whispered Prayers.

But I have to say, this is one of the best shops of it's kind I've ever been to. I've seen larger book selections, but the books they had tended to be the better titles, the staff was friendly, and the whole vibe of the place very positive. I look forward to going back.

The Housewives Tarot

I picked up a tarot deck at Avalon I had never seen before, even though it's been out since 2004, and it instantly became one of my favorites

If Samantha Stephens owned a tarot deck, it would be this one.

It also had me fondly remembering Witch Hunt on HBO -

Static

Then we stopped by Static. If you've never been, you should. It's like pop culture Mecca, the best store of its kind I've ever seen.

Ouch! The voodoo doll

Static, too, had something I couldn't resist, something I had seen in the Pyramid Collection catalog, and Static had it cheaper!

Sunday, headed to Epcot, finally got to eat at the Rose and Crown in the UK, might be my favorite restaurant there. Sticky Toffee Pudding, Mmmm....

Basically ran around shopping all day (but surprisingly, didn't buy anything. Caught a couple of the film/rides.

Looking forward to visiting with fionathecelt again in Sep or Oct, hopefully this time with more relaxing/movie watching/talking. Best part of seeing friends, in my opinion.

The 80s Ronnie Reagan Horror Show

Fri, 17 Aug 2007 20:41:19 GMT

Check out this RHPS parody from the tv show Fridays from 1980, stolen with thanks to and love for ladycrim.

It's nice to know that nothing changes, ever. This was almost 30 years ago, and it applies to today just as well, Conservatives vs Liberals.

Without further ado, we now present - The 80s Ronnie Reagan Horror Show

Army of Me

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:58:26 GMT

As if it's not bad enough that I have to beware my LJ friends inflicting terrible torment on me, now my sister's responsible!

Previous condition updates:

Initial Exposure

Further Developments

Relapse

Most Recent

My sister's contributions -

Damn you, lisamartin! (just because, even though you had nothing to do with it this time)

Craptastic

Fri, 10 Aug 2007 21:03:45 GMT

OK, so I haven't posted in forever, and I have a lot of catching up to do, but I had to vent -

I just found out my favorite new show ever (with the exception of Heroes) is not getting picked up for a second season. I mention this in the hopes that everyone will run out and buy the first season on DVD (which is currently available), and maybe Sci-Fi will change their minds (they have minds?). Or at least we might get a few movies (made-for-cable or real, I'd be happy with either).

Dresden in Sci Fi's Circular File

After months of fielding questions from fans desperate to know if Sci Fi was ever going to make a decision on the fate of its clever private-eye/fantasy hybrid The Dresden Files, it's official: The show isn't returning for a second season.

A shame, but hardly a surprise, given the reticence to discuss the matter every time I brought it up to Sci Fi or NBC Universal Cable execs during the recent TCA press tour. In their world, it's all about "running the numbers" (in other words: looking at the ratings and budgets, etc.) and to them, Dresden just didn't seem to measure up.

This confirmation came my way the same morning that there are reports in the trades that Paul Blackthorne, Dresden's very appealing star, has joined the cast of ABC's Big Shots in a recurring role as what's being described as the show's "fifth CEO... a sophisticated, iconic tycoon that the [other] four (Dylan McDermott, Michael Vartan, Christopher Titus, Joshua Malina) aspire to be."

At least he's landed on his feet. Harry Dresden would be proud.

Smoke 'em if you got 'em...

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:17:55 GMT

Thanks to christeos_pir

Study finds smoking wards off Parkinson's disease

Mon Jul 9, 2007 5:26PM EDT

CHICAGO (Reuters) - There is more evidence to back up a long-standing theory that smokers are less likely to develop Parkinson's disease than people who do not use tobacco products, researchers reported on Monday.

The apparent protective effect of tobacco against the degenerative nerve disease has been observed for years but a University of California Los Angeles School of Public Health report said a new review of existing studies seems to confirm it, with long-term and current smokers at the lowest risk.

The review also found that the effect seems to extend beyond cigarettes to pipes and cigars, and possibly to chewing tobacco, and that it persisted among those who had stopped smoking years earlier.

What would cause such a preventive effect is not well understood, said the report in the Archives of Neurology, but studies on test animals suggested two possibilities.

One is that carbon monoxide or other agents in tobacco smoke exert a protective effect and promote survival of brain neurons that produce dopamine, which allows muscles to move properly and is lacking in Parkinson's cases.

Cigarettes may also somehow prevent the development of toxic substances that interfere with proper neurological functioning.

While there have been a number of previous studies, most were too small to be conclusive, the report said. So the UCLA researchers looked at 11 studies done between 1960 and 2004 covering more than 11,800 people, of whom 2,816 had Parkinson's disease.

"Our analyses confirmed prior reports of an inverse association between cigarette smoking and Parkinson's disease," the study said.

"Although we found that current smokers and those who had continued to smoke to within five years of Parkinson's disease diagnosis exhibited the lowest risk, a decrease in risk (13 percent to 32 percent) was also observed in those who had quit smoking up to 25 years prior to Parkinson's disease diagnosis," it said.

"Other tobacco products also appeared to be protective. Men who smoked pipes or cigars had a 54 percent lower risk. The number of chewing tobacco users was small, but there was a suggestion of reduced risk associated with this product," it added.

Congratulations, fionathecelt!

Wed, 23 May 2007 18:42:48 GMT

Back from our trip to San Diego, just wanted to send out a quick Congrats to my sweetie for gradjitating with her Masters' Degree. She's all edumacated now! Mmmmm, now her brains will be even more spicy!

Pics of the trip soon to follow. I have a cold, so now I'm going to go die...