Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in Freiheit's LiveJournal:

[ << Previous 20 ]

Tuesday, July 14th, 2009
10:17 am	why you can't gain weight So, it looks like it's been about a year since I last even looked at this livejournal-- and that's about the frequency I like! This is a quick post addressed to 'hardgainers', such as myself (not that I think anyone reads this thing anymore!), people who have trouble gaining appreciable muscle mass. First, I want to make some wider comments. I think the most important thing to note is that in our image-obsessed society, it is critical to do some honest inner reflecting about your motivations for wanting more muscle mass. Is it a sense of inadequacy? Of not measuring up to some imagined ideal? Just as women have impossible body-images they are told to live up to, so do men. Look, the most important thing is to be healthy and happy. You don't need that "muscle mag" look to be healthy and happy- in fact, it's probably better if you don't! Now, I draw a distinction between muscle for performance and muscle for show. It is exclusively the former I'm interested in-- let form follow function! On the other hand, I disagree with the viewpoint that no muscular development (or hypertrophy) is ever necessary for the sake of performance. Sometimes, muscles have to grow and get bigger and fuller to accomplish what you are asking of them. To use an automotive analogy, at a certain point you need a bigger engine to get a higher power output-- although it's true that you can generally tweak what you already have pretty darn far! So, as a 'hardgainer' myself, I've concluded there are only two reasons why you can't gain appreciable muscle weight: 1) inadequate nutrition, 2) improper exercise. Nutrition is pretty simple, you need to eat 3 hefty, solid meals a day plus have some fruit and nut snacks inbetween when you've been active. If you're not getting a bare minimum of 0.5*bodyweight(lbs.) in grams of protein per day from *food* sources (not including powders and shakes!), your nutrition is totally inadequate. You also need plenty of pastured animal fats and oily fish (for vitamins A and D, CLA, and the n-3 fatty acids). Seriously, you should be eating much more than you think is 'moderate', if you actually want to gain weight. And it needs to be solid, real foods, not refined carbs. Proper exercise is also basically simple. Most people do not have the base-line strength to pursue specialized lifting programs (which includes all those ridiculous meso-periodo-cyclico-volume-curling regimens promoted by "Muscle and Fiction" for getting "big pipes"). Seriously. If you can't deadlift double-bodyweight, what the hell are you doing on the leg press machine? Similarly, if you can't put your bodyweight overhead in a good strict press, for God's sake stop doing whatever else you're doing and start pressing! Can you do a weighted pullup with +50% of your bodyweight? If the answer is "no", get off the lat pulldowns and bicep curls until you can! You see, once you start making respectable progress on these whole-body strength motions, and you've been eating as I recommend, muscle just starts growing. Even for skinny hardgainers. It's that simple. And I guarantee that once you've reached these respectable standards for baseline strength, your whole physique, health, and athleticism will be so much improved that you'll be able to make an intelligent decision for yourself about where to go from there. You'll enjoy real success and the confidence to continue pursuing your dreams. Take your time and enjoy the journey! Chris (Comment on this)
Wednesday, August 6th, 2008
9:40 am	Energy Crisis, Economic Crisis: Transition from the Era of Fossil Fuels I've published several entries onto my facebook about our current energy crisis, and I've decided to copy and post them here pretty much verbatim. Just to preface, I think we are in fact facing an energy crisis, and unlike the crisis of the 70's this one isn't about an unnecessary blockage of the flow of oil: it's about the limitation of global oil production relative to demand ("peak oil"). It's also about how monumentally unprepared our nation is for dealing with this crisis, and it's about the pervasive spirit of denial in which public discourse has yet to grapple with what we're truly up against. We're in a hole that requires action NOW, not in 10, 20 or 30 years. Read that again, *if we don't start significant action NOW we are hosed*! To understand the simple and hard to deny facts which underlie this assessment please read what I'm reposting below. This is not an insurmountable problem: there are plenty of solutions, but we need to start engaging them now, being proactive, or we're headed for an economic depression or worse. ............... 1) National Debt, for the Love of Jesus (Part 1) Originally Posted on June 12th, 2008 Did you know that our current national debt is 9.43 trillion dollars? The national debt took six years to rise from 5 trillion to 6 trillion dollars. But in 2002 it passed 6 trillion, then just two years later it passed 7 trillion (a record high), then just one year to pass 8 trillion. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ In short, spending under Bush's administration has been reckless and catastrophic. By comparison, when Clinton left office in 2000 the debt was roughly 5.75 trillion dollars, having actually decreased for the first time in decades, because, guess what, Clinton actually managed to get the budget balanced, a feat which has proven suspiciously elusive for the "fiscally conservative" Republicans (whose breed disappeared, if they ever existed, when Ronald Reagan came into office in 1980). These are hard facts-- not political, left-wing, "typical college student" posturings. Our generation is going to be footing the bill for this. Now, most egregiously, John McCain claims that it is viable to permanently institute the Bush tax cuts. Worse, he wants to remain in Iraq, flexing our out of control military budget to the extreme for the foreseeable future in hopes of accomplishing the vague platitudes of "victory". Obama meanwhile has a slightly better plan, but he still has to pander to American's ridiculous idea that taxes are bad. Let's get real. Get the word out that the budget is a simple input/output: you either raise revenues through taxation or reduce spending. There's no other way. By all accounts, we desperately need some spending domestically: a real alternative energy program, health-care, poverty, infrastructure, etc. all need some real funds from somewhere. It's really simple. That means either drastically increased taxes, or a balanced mixture of taxation and reduction of military spending, i.e. getting out of Iraq and reformulating foreign policy away from the military/police mindset, perhaps in the direction of what Jesus Christ may have meant when he said: You have heard that it was said, 'Love your friends, hate your enemies'. But now I tell you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may become the children of your Father in heaven. (Matthew 5: 43-45) ---------------- 2) National Debt, for the Love of Jesus! (Part 2) Originally Posted on June 19th, 2008 I just wanted to add in a quick note about the energy situation vis a vis our national debt. With our current consumption of oil at about 20 million barrels *per day*, and the cost of a barrel of oil at, say $130, this year we will spend: 20 million b/d X 365 d X $130 = $ 949,000,000,000 yes, that's right 949 billion dollars on oil!! Given that we import most of that, this will amount to a literally historically unprecedented transfer of wealth (that we don't have if you've read my previous note about debt). There's no fudging this. Prices for oil are real, and not speculatively driven at $130-- global demand is 87 million barrels a day and production is 85 million barrels, this is basic economics. Futures are closing at exactly the same price, and no one is stock-piling oil (the only way futures trading could drive up prices), in fact reserves in the U.S. are at historic lows especially for diesel, accounting for why it's almost $1 more per gallon. Prices are also highly unlikely to decline significantly for two reasons: 1) There's no new significant production to go on line for years and years, if ever. All of this news hullabaloo about new projects are really quibbling fractions of a percent of global production, 2) Demand from India and China will continue to grow and immediately fill any stop-gaps in U.S. demand There's one final piece of the fossil energy pie to consider: infrastructure. According to Matt Simmons, an energy investment banker with long experience and track record of success, most of infrastructure for exploration, extraction, refinement, and transportation is painfully out of date, and rusting! Flow-rates out of refineries are hampered by this already, and will continue to suffer without significant reinvestment in this capital. Simmons estimates the cost of this as between 10-100 trillion, yes trillion, dollars! Again, money we don't have. I'm not trying to be alarmist, but realistic here. I think there's plenty good that can come of our situation, but only if this country gets real. The era of cheap fossil energy is coming to an end, not because there isn't plenty more oil out there (there is), but because it's all second-rate heavy crude at best, and for the above-mentioned reasons (and others, like being miles under the ocean) we have no way of getting at it... This is why I think a real alternative energy program should be a top priority for this country. It's a matter not only of environmental and economic well-being. It's also about security, and sanity. Hopefully, Barack Obama can get wise to this situation, because McCain is surely not, and it looks like Barack has a good chance of beating him anyways... ------------------ Oil Price Slide, Whoopadeedoo Originally Posted on August 1, 2008 May as well continue my facebook as a platform for occasional energy commentary... To the uninformed, this slide back to todays price of $125 seems something like corroboration of the idea that July's peak of $147 was "too high". That somehow, afterall, oil prices really are being driven up artificially. Maybe 'peak oil', however you choose to understand that term, is over-rated. It's time to get over such day-dreaming. And quickly. I confess I didn't expect this roll-back, but nothing I've written is contradicted by the possibility of fluctuations in prices. Lots of things in life are inherently unpredictable except in general pattern or trend. Since 2000, oil prices have gone up 10 to 13 fold!!! The roll-backs these last two weeks are absolutely insignificant. We still need to expect to be paying significantly more (my guess, $200-300) by this time next year if we don't want to put ourselves in a huge hole. The only thing to stop this is a global depression in economic activity destroying demand. Unchanged facts: the market is still getting tighter as global demand still rises and production is generally unchanged. The Saudi's claim to have boosted production to 9.7 million barrels a day is absolutely unverified, in fact contradicted by IEA statistics. It's an empty claim. Like the full tankers with oil no one is buying. Such things shouldn't be believed until systematic third-party auditing is done. But it isn't being done. On the near term, we also still have unbelievably low inventories of usably low gasoline or diesel. Congress has foolishly opened the strategic reserve. The hope is that releasing inventory is going to "burst this bubble". Why is this serious? Most americans are fed by grocery chains, which stock maybe a couple days worth of food. Once the trucks stop running that's how much time we have before food supply is a serious issue. Is this too doomerish? I don't know. I do know that the long-distance trucking businesses are saying they're in trouble because they can't afford the fuel costs anymore. High prices are actually a good thing. They force people to face the fact that we need to change our way of life in some significant ways in the near future. Temporary roll-backs are dangerous, because they excite the hope that we may not have to do anything significant, or soon. Congress should be boosting reserves and inventories across the board, and setting price *floors* and maybe even adding a BTU tax to boot, to ensure that demand continues to shrink, reform is enacted, and that we have adequate protection in case of supply emergency, which becomes more and more likely as the market gets tighter and tighter. (Comment on this)
Wednesday, January 23rd, 2008
5:56 pm	Cooking Life There is, for pretty much all of us, a desire to have things a certain way, and a relentless drive to find the 'perfect' recipe by which to cook up our lives. I often find myself in analysis paralysis over these recipes, but in my more 'graced' moments, I am generally playing with a recipe, rather than trying to perfect it. The best cooks, I am thoroughly convinced, know how to work with a recipe but not be bound to it-- the recipe becomes a tentative form by which they actualize their creative freedom, and vision. (Comment on this)
Friday, January 4th, 2008
8:30 pm	Why I'm not an Activist From time to time, noticing how much is going wrong in the world, I naturally begin to think how I, personally, can do anything about it. Such reflection is often made distressing by feeling both an obligation and a yearning to have more outward engagement with the problems of our time, yet remaining profoundly dissatisfied with the available outlets of any such engagement. This creates a sort of double-bind, and so I've decided to write a few thoughts here by way of clarification. Insofar as all of this would simply be an obligation, there are some obvious reasons why any such involvement would be unsatisfactory: there is no one in particular to oblige, and if my happiness is dependent on such obligation, I'm only bound to undermine myself with feelings of inadequacy or insufficiency. This would be a disguised way of rejecting myself; a sort of New Year's Resolution mentality which is merely thinly veiled self-contempt. This is not going to be of service. So much for that. But underneath, I do sense a very real, and deep desire to serve, although that's not quite right, or not all of it. It's a movement of compassion and sanity: if you see your house is on fire, you act. There's no question of self or other involved, really. So the idea of service which is inflected so as to include a self-effacement, or servility, is not at all what I have in mind. It is much more like the natural resonance of the human heart, my heart, to the sorrow and struggle around us. So in surveying the field of possibilities, what are the options? There are, to be sure, all kinds of groups and movements afoot, engaged in myriad works. In fact, the roster is almost nauseatingly long. From the stand-point of the modern catalogue mentality, this is surely good news-- or at least good browsing! But there are several general features of movements, as such, which leave me profoundly dissatisfied. These are not features of social preference, such as not liking the particular people who compose them, but rather deep structural features which, in my view, lend most of them an unsatisfactory nature. To begin with, they are almost all predicated on single-issues. They have one axe to grind, and by God they're going to grind it. The problem here is that none of the pressing problems of our times are convergent, which is to say, problems with the property of having a single solution, which can be arrived at or solved by a technical process. They are, rather, all profoundly interconnected. How can the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico be solved except by changing farming, and conservation of wild-lands, all the way from Louisiana through the Great Plains? And how can this be done except by addressing the conditions of rural poverty and the decline of the farmers who actually know the art, craft and science of farming? Get the idea? Thus, despite any overtures to the contrary, movements and activist groups seem never to be truly radical-- which means going to the root. This is not surprising-- insofar as they arise within the context of the whole situation which *is* the problem, their solutions are going to be rooted in the same fundamentally false premises. One such premise is the prevailing spirit of reductionism and specialization. This leads to the mistaken notion that decomposing a problem into its "component parts" and letting so-called experts solve those individually must inevitably lead to a coherent solution-vector in the bigger picture. This is simply not true. So, activism can certainly accomplish a fair amount of single bullet solutions. Witness the recent-- and commendable I might add-- efforts on behalf of the Imokalee workers, agitating for a one penny per pound increase in pay for tomato pickers. Essentially, this method involves isolating the entity with the biggest share in maintaining some single undesirable situation-- in this case, that tomato pickers earn so little income as to be below the officially decreed poverty level-- and leveraging pressure against that entity, here Burger King, to somewhat modify their practices. With sufficient agitation, and skillful organization, such efforts can actually work. Last I recall, Burger King eventually agreed, but then the tomato growers, strangely backed out. Be that as it may; it's immaterial for my purposes here. But the truly radical solution, and therefore the one which most satisfactorily solves this issue, lies not in tinkering with a broken system: it would be tomatoes from small farms, which is to say from farms where the farmer can actually be a responsible steward of his land and the labor that goes into bringing forth food, supplying local-scale businesses, which can actually be responsible to the communities they serve. Side-step the whole big dirty system. And this radical solution, pitched the structural level of our whole economic way of life, has the property that it simultaneously opens up the possibility for solving much of what is wrong in our society right now. Surely there are such radical groups, promoting such things, which I could duly become an activist for? No doubt. But, you see, not even local-scale is enough-- this is also about good farming, and good, ethical business practices, and re-tooling the broken legal and political systems to at least allow, or not interfere with, the emergence of such economic path-ways. Does this mean all action is futile? Not at all. A multitude of different things need to be done, but within the guidance of some sort of holistic understanding. I just reserve skepticism. I am skeptically curious about any organized group or movement. This is not the kind of skepticism that one surrenders in a transition to becoming a True Believer, an ardent acolyte of some group or the other: it is an on-going relational dynamic, necessary to maintaining effective perspective on any course of action. You might call it a mind committed to the process of open-ended inquiry. This sits very uneasily in a context where uttering self-assured platitudes and injunctions seems often to be viewed as a socially-acceptable substitute for real dialogue or individual thought. I'd make a shitty activist, to be honest. The most important action is in the daily choices in one's own life, living with one's own integrity. For me now, as a student, that means primarily seeking to situate myself so that I can, with the prospect of the end of my formal academic studies, move increasingly towards a life-situation congruent with my values. I hope increasingly to bring practical work to bear in these directions as well. In addition, I will continue to speak out, whenever I can, about these issues pressing on us all, and would even like to have a little more engagement with groups that seem to be moving in the right direction, at least. I'm just not going to swear allegiance to ideologically-unstable, and single-issue movements or groups. That's the sort of activism I can't hack. Peace, Chris (Comment on this)
Friday, December 28th, 2007
7:49 pm	Obesity: A Simple Proposal So, inspired by a couple of recent observations and a long time spent researching and thinking about all things health and wellness, I have formulated a relatively simple, general proposal about that subject which spwans seemingly infinite diet books: how excess weight, particularly fat, is gained and lost. I will present my proposal first as a formula for losing weight, and then briefly note its relevant, more general features. Without further ado: if you are actually overweight, then you are consuming too many carbohydrates for your activity level. If you reduce carbohydrate intake by eliminating refined carbohydrates and then moderating starch and fruit intake to match your activity level (i.e. more physical exertion means more starchy food, less means less), then I predict that your weight will, within a reasonable period of time, trend towards the level optimal for you, and you'll feel better and better. Forget about that 'fatty foods' phoniness, and the OCD calorie-counting plans. That's it! Well mostly... There are a few things to note about this. First, by eliminating refined carbohydrates you will pretty much be de facto eliminating refined foods. Thus, your diet will be composed more and more of whole foods, minimally processed without all their nutritive and fibrous bulk stripped away. Thus, your body will be getting all the fibre you need (helping with satiety and digestive health) and your micronutrient intake will go way up, helping to curb cravings and boost your overall organismic resilience and health. All of this will help in weight-regulation. Second, this plan does not restrict fat intake, which also helps to achieve normal satiety signals. If you restrict fat, then your body will want to eat more. It's that simple. In addition, the incorporation of *natural* fatty foods will also supply valuable fat-soluble nutrients. Read my previous posts under the heading "Heart Disease" to dispell your fear of fat and cholesterol in your food. Third, this plan does not berate you with the overly simplistic thermodynamic formula that it's simple all a matter of calories. It's not. Your metabolism is not a static value, and neither is your body's tendency to store fat, to become insulin resistant, and neither are your food-eating habits nor patterns of activity. A high-calorie food that is also highly nutritious is much better for your weight-picture than a low-calorie food devoid of body-building factors. The problem with excess carbohydrates is that they call upon the insulin-system to deal with them, and are thus transformed directly into triglycerides, and from thence into fatty tissue, but not first without messing up your blood chemistry. In addition, when this system is chronically over-activated, your cells become resistant to insulin transport, and thus blood-sugar levels trend higher, along with your insulin levels. This further boosts fat-storage tendency, and is the heart of the process which leads to the so-called Syndrome X, or Metabolic syndrome, at the heart of the civilized cluster of diseases: obesity, hypoglycemia, diabetes, hypertriglyceridemia, atherosclerotic heart disease, and probably cancer. So, with all of that big talking aside, let me tell my recent observation: simply this, in the period of 5 days of holiday eating, which diverged from my established practices mainly in eating lots of refined-carb-loaded desserts, I gained about 2lbs, measured at fasting level. That's it. My fat intake was unchanged, or maybe even slightly reduced from normal (I don't like overloading on butter from non-grassfed cows). My activity level was reduced, but no more than it was for about an equivalent period around finals. I'm not worried, in fact I have some reason to believe it's at least partially muscle mass as I recover from my workout just before leaving for the holidays. In any case, let me recap my simple proposal: eliminate refined carbs (although occasional indulgence shouldn't be problem unless you're diabetic), and moderate overall carb intake to your activity level, and see for yourself. I predict you'll feel better, and that your weight will trend towards whatever is healthy for you. I really do think it's this simple, and that looking at the ever-expanding size of soda bottles it's no mystery why America is so darn fat. Peace, Chris (3 Comments |Comment on this)
Thursday, December 13th, 2007
1:18 pm	Update on Bahai Religion: The Dark Underbelly? There are a few more threads I'd like to follow up on about the Bahai religion generally. I don't intend this to supplant what I wrote previously, but as an amplification of my criticisms of and disgreements with the Bahai cause. 1) I am increasingly skeptical of their institutional structures. Specifically, I find the conduct of the Universal House of Justice to be too authoritarian and grandiloquent for my taste. To begin with, the Bahai religion is not very open about discussing exactly what role the UHJ plays in the life of Bahai groups around the world. For one thing, I've become aware that all of the 'elected' Justices are male. Women are not allowed to participate in this body. This alone raises severe doubt in my mind about their progressiveness or legitimacy as a democratic body. This is an important point because Bahai's believe as a matter of creed that theirs is the new religion for the new modern world. Another disturbing feature of their policy is a weird proviso about not teaching the Faith to Israelites: http://bahai-library.com/index.php5?file=uhj_teaching_in_israel I don't know what's up with that, except that I find such strategizing to be suggestive of a deeply evangelical strain; I don't believe it is right for a religion to invest itself so much in how it can spread itself and win new converts. Plus, if they are truly teaching a Universal Faith (which is part of their belief) than why should the Israelites not be welcomed into it like everyone else? They also have a strong set of laws laid down, much like the Kosher laws of the Jews or the Shariah of the Moslems, which govern all aspects of life. They seem to be implementing them in phases, however, in various parts of the world: http://bahai-library.com/index.php5?file=uhj_laws_not_binding.html Looking through many of these, one sees a strong rooting in the patriarchal legacy of the Abrahamic world. That there is a law regarding the virginity of a wife to be, for instance, seems to be reintroducing old patriarchal statuses for women. The Kitab-i-Aqdas, which is a codification of Bahai laws, also prohibits such things as homosexuality, and the growing of men's hair beyond the earlobe (I guess that puts me in peril). Here is a synopsis of the Kitab: http://www.bahai-library.com/writings/bahaullah/aqdas/synopsis.html#IV.D.1.y.xvii which all leads me to 2) I am increasingly skeptical of the whole position of universality in religion. With all of the mores and patriarchal moral codification the Bahai's seem to be intent on preserving and resurrecting, one must seriously question the claim that the Bahai religion is truly responsive to the modern world. Bahai's also commit a sort of logical fallacy, or at least a subtle theological bait-and-switch, which is worth noting: they lay claim to the notion of a progressive revelation, i.e. that prophets of God appear to people in different times and places and give teachings which are appropriate to their time and place. All of which is well and good, and I agree, if taken in the right way. However, they continue by noting how Christians saw themselves as replacing old Jewish law, and Muslims saw themselves as updating all of them, and how they all claim to be final and complete (i.e. the Moslems have Mohammed as the seal of the prophets). They point out the fallacy in this (how can there be many final and complete religions) and then turn around and do the same thing! It even specifies in the Kitab that Baha-u-llah is one of the special manifestations of God, and that the words of the founder of the Faith, Abdul Baha, are infallible and not to be questioned! (Which is another contradiction because elsewhere they make a point of emphasizing independent search for truth. How this is possible without questioning is not at all clear to me) So, they use the same source of legitimacy that the architects of the other major religions did and do. This, unfortunately, rules them out as a source of real change in my mind. Yet, their spin is that Bahai is uniquely suited for the modern era. All of this assumes an awful lot about the timeline of when a particular form stops being legitimate and valid. Basically, as I see it, they have imported this notion of increasing perfection and development in a sort of progressive revelation, with themselves of course on the top-- otherwise they're forced to make the absurd claim that there form is more legitimate simply because it's newer. Yet, I think that progressive revelation is the wrong way to read this contingency of prophets on place and time. Call me post-modern, but I'm not willing to buy into such schema: I think they're relics from the days of empire-building. Incidentally, I suspect that it is such situating that incites the ire of the Muslim community, especially in Iran. Afterall, the Bab and Baha-u-llah claimed explicitly to be superceding the Islamic faith. This is one of the interesting strands of Bahai, because they are very Muslim in many respects, although they'll be the first ones to deny it. I'll reiterate my position: I don't accept that there is any one religious form appropriate to all of humanity. If a religion is serious about fostering brotherhood and peace between peoples, than they must display the willingness to suspend proselytizing their own form and engage in real dialogue, which implies openness to questioning. This is my challenge to the Bahai's: are you willing to engage in true dialogue with people of other faiths, not secretly positioning yourself as the Bahai talking to a non-Bahai, convinced in the back of your mind that your way is, in the final analysis, best for everyone, but as two humans sharing their religious experience? This may seem rather stiff and judgemental, but I'm forced to be so as I do care about peace and brotherhood on this planet. No true understanding comes when one has an axe to grind, however dissimulated it may be. And I want no part in a Global Order of any sort, and will openly challenge that which seems to be moving in that direction. 3) I increasingly am irritated with what I find of the Bahai attempts to include other scriptures in their programs. Although it is very cool that they make the effort, they are far too selective. Their selections from Buddhism, for instance, are completely insubstantial and sometimes kind of weird-- to the point where I seriously doubt the veracity of the translation and suspect that it has been meddled with. I should know as I've read several of the primary texts from Buddhism (both the Pali cannon and from the various Mahayana schools) in addition to tons of secondary material. This is not surprising as Buddhism is an non-theistic religion (with the possible semi-exception of some forms of Pure Land), and Bahai is fervently theistic, in its theology, practice, and soteriology. Some of what the Buddhist traditions and canons have to say would indeed sit very uneasily in an Abrahamic context. This brings me to my general comment that I find cheap synthesis (i.e. All Religions are the Same) to be a sort of near enemy of real inclusiveness (which must consciously include discernment and respect for genuine differences). As such, it is better than the far enemy of intolerance by far. Its sort of like how politically I find far Right views to be the real enemy, and naive liberalism an irritating near enemy. In faith and with wishes for peace and understanding, Chris (Comment on this)
Monday, December 3rd, 2007
10:08 pm	A real AOC on the horizon? So, I may end up doing a mathematical ecology major, within the Environmental Studies area of concentration. I'm not sure what extent of my thesis project will be strictly along these lines-- I'd like to combine qualitative and quantitative methods-- but in talking this over with Dr. McDonald, who is pretty much a mathematical badass, the math part seems like it would at least be a somewhat useful, definite skill. Basically, this means taking, Probability, an ecological statistics tutorial, at least Ordinary Differential Equations (if not Partial as well), and finishing calc III. Should be do-able in three semesters... (Comment on this)
Tuesday, November 13th, 2007
11:18 am	Impressions of the Baha'i religion So, as I seem to have become friends with several Baha'is here at Umass, I'm finding an urge to note down, at least tentatively, some of my observations, impressions, and views of the Baha'i faith. My interest in such a task was aroused when I heard from Dave, in an off-handed sort of reference, that he'd only read about the Baha'is in the context of cult recovery. Well, the word cult is loaded with connotations, and so it is with reservation and care that I'd deploy this word. But, I'll start with this idea as my lead-in to discussing the Baha'is. First of all, I think a cult, as distinct from a sect, should be characterized by the abdication of responsibility for one's own life and actions and the deference of important decision-making to a charismatic leader of some sort. A cult, then, is the abandonment of individual consciousness to a group-ego, as it were, in the command of a central leader, who is usually seen as a sort of messianic figure. This is the spirit of cultism. (http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/home.html a wonderful resource for learning about religious movements and talks about the issue of cult vs. sect quite a bit) Are the Bahai's, then a cult? I don't think that would be a fair assessment. For one thing, they do not have clergy, so there is no central leader for everyone to defer to. Additionally, individual responsibility and search for truth is stressed, maybe more than in other prominent religions-- with the decided exception of Buddhism. However, the Bahai's do have an institution, which they claim in democratically elected (although I'm skeptical of this), called the Universal House of Justice. I've noted several times in which individual Baha'is have looked to the UHJ to make important life decisions, and to formulate views on various subjects. But is this different than Christians taking the party-line of their church, or seeking guidance from their clergy (Catholicism, especially comes to mind)? Perhaps, if the word cult is to be used-- especially as I've defined it-- it needs to be broadened to include cult-like behaviour in more mainstream religion as well... As for the messianic element, the Baha'is certainly do have this. Although, again, how this would be different from Christianity I don't know. The Baha'is believe that Baha'u'llah was, who lived in the 19th century, was the latest in the line of prophets from God, which includes Moses, Zoroaster, Christ, Buddha, Mohammed, etc. They believe he was uniquely situated as the prophet of our times, living on the cusp of modernity and fore-seeing the need for a global religion, founded on global unity. Therefore, the Baha'is are decidedly a religion with a social agenda . They believe we are entering an era of a global civilization, which is to be founded on the bed-rock of religion and unity, and preferably to contain a universal language as well... So, in a sense, the entire Baha'i religion is a sort of messianism. This is how they want to bring down the Kingdom of God, as it were. So, it is on the bed-rock of this ideal that their movement hinges, as I see it-- otherwise, Baha'u'llah and Baha (his son and successor) would be merely two prophet-mystics, in essence not much different from the the many other monotheistic mystics of the world. But, Baha'u'llah claimed that he fulfilled the promises and covenants of the scriptures, the 'prophetic-cycle'. Very much as the movement within early Christianity grew, eventually to the orthodox consensus of seeing Jesus as having fulfilled this role. Baha'is claim that Christianity has, however, demonstrated by its history that Jesus couldn't have been the promised Messiah. One lady told me, "the lion did not lay down with the lamb" (the same objection many Jews bring to bear!) When pressed as to whether the lion lay down with the lamb with Baha'u'llah the response was that not enough time has been given for the movement to develop. This idealism of the movement I see strongly reflected in the psychologies of my Baha'i friends and acquaintances. Almost all are united in having a fervent ethical and religious idealism, and they actively seek ways to apply this in their life. In my observation, they are very sincere about this. They speak often of their desire for a rich spiritual life, both personally and in community, and evince an aversion for what they often call the 'materialism' of secular society. But yet, and this question I feel has come up tacitly in my interactions with them, where do I stand in relation to Baha'i? In our dialogue, we've come to several significant areas of overlap, but also several areas where my own insight and personal views diverge quite strongly. For one, I disagree quite fundamentally with the ideology of global civilization. I don't think civilization is, could be, or ever should be, a global phenomena. Real human community and culture has an irreducibly local basis. I believe that what we see in the post-industrial world is a disconnected global "house" which fossil fuels built. I don't see, as the Baha'is do, the break-down of barriers all over the world as part of God's plan to unify man-kind. I am sympathetic, however, to the ideals of brother-hood, when not taken too literally. I believe in the power and necessity of dialogue, so that we can appreciate our common human ground, amid a genuine respect for our differences. I am a decentralist. I mistrust anything that reeks of New World Order, or Global Civilization, or Globalization for that matter. Religiously, I share quite agreeably their desire for a genuine communal sharing of spirituality. I appreciate their more open-ended style, which often includes readings from scriptures other than their own, a sign of healthy tolerance. I think, however, that people need to find their own creative ways to come together to have a religious life. I don't think it's appropriate to seek for the spread of any one particular way of doing this. Spiritually, we're on different tracks. For myself, I don't find monotheism a potent tool for revealing the truth, or following a spiritual path. My deepest experience, by which I light my way, contained no devotional element to a deity conceived as apart from life in any significant way. Rather, if anything, it was a devotion to truth and liberation in this life, an embrace of the fullness of ordinary experience. My experience of the Great Peace is not as a deity, to be mediated by special prophets... In conclusion, I have to say that I deeply respect my Baha'i friends. I don't share their religion, but we can find a common ground. In this, I think, can be seen something of the strength of Baha'i... I wish them well, but I'm not going to be rushing out to join the New World Order! peace, Chris (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Thursday, November 8th, 2007
3:16 pm	Heart Disease: We Have Been Misled Heart Disease: We Have Been Misled Part II: The health benefits of saturated fat and cholesterol So, I don't want to make this a lengthy post right now-- so I'm just going to put down some notes and sources, in anticipation of coming back to this when I have more time (and don't have a research project I really should be doing for class;)) Saturated Fat: Basics-- the body makes saturated fat from any excess glucose in the bloodstream, it is our natural storage fat... (incidentally, why animal fats are highly saturated) They are stable molecules, not vulnerable to oxidation the way polyunsaturates (largely in non-tropical veggie oils) are. This is because they don't have any open carbons without a hydrogen bond... benefits-- consitute at least 50% of cell membranes. Therefore, necessary to ensure proper stiffness and integrity of cells. calcium incorporation into skeletal structure requires ample saturated fats lower Lp(a), a stronger biomarker for heart disease risk than cholesterol protect the liver boost immune system necessary for proper utilizzation of essential fatty acids. antimicrobial properties (source: for now see Mary Enig, PhD. Know Your Fats) vital fat-soluble nutrients often found only in highly saturated fatty foods, such as liver and egg yolks. evaluation of literature reveals no basis for concluding that saturated fats lead to ateriosclerotic disease (see Ravnskov, U. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Jun 1998, 51:(6):443-460) (see also http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm) (Also see Dr. John Yudkin's book. Sweet and dangerous. He evaluates fat intake, from all sources, across 22 countries) cholesterol basics-- a sterol molecule because it has a carbon-ring region and an alcohol portion, and also has an hydrocarbon tail. Mainly fat-solute (hydrocarbon regions are non-polar). It is the precursor to pregnenolone which is the precursor to all steroid hormones including, glucocorticoids-- sugar regulation, etc. sex hormones-- testosterone, estrogen, etc. mineral corticoids-- mineral balance and blood pressure (check out any biochemistry text) HDL and LDL are lipoproteins, which contain cholesterol...they are not cholesterol! Actually, it is oxidized LDL which is harmful, and guess what, LDL molecules are more prone to oxidation when they have polyunsaturated fats on their exterior than with saturated fats... benefits-- hormonal regulation and optimal production precursor to vitamin D bile salts made from cholesterol antioxidant and healing properties (possibly why levels naturally increase with age), and possibly increased protection against infections (see Uffe Ravnskov's latest paper) proper function of serotonin receptors, and brain health generally (Wood, W.G. et al Lipids, march 1999, 34(2):225-234) higher-levels associated with longevity in older people (http://www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/benefits_cholest.html) also check out www.cholesterol-and-health.com btw, almost nobody believes in the simplistic lipid-heart idea anymore, not even in the most mainstream circles. It's been highly modified, as far as I can tell, moving into the zone of epicycles, with oxidized cholesterol and inflammation; I suspect in anticipation of the 'Copernican shift' to viewing saturated fats and cholesterol as positively beneficial, when consumed from healthful sources, like grass-fed animals, and extra-virgin coconut oil. (Comment on this)
Tuesday, September 11th, 2007
12:15 pm	Petraeus report: a crock of lies It's maddening how much these people think they can get away with-- basically, the good general gave a heavily distorted, military-rose-lens picture of the troop surge, and reiterated his faith that if we continue in our current logic we'll end up with a legitimate, secure government in Iraq. Bullshit through and through. We've been fighting this so-called war longer than we fought fucking World War II! What we're really doing is meddling in sectarian conflict, arming known war-criminals, and basically putting canisters of kerosene in a fire, as more and more Iraqis are calling for us to leave. Just get out! So, in the Anbar province we've gained some temporary peace because of this-- but it's a false peace, it's the calm before the storm. What independent journalists on the ground actually see is the seeds of civil war being planted, as the hundreds of thousands of Shia refugees from Anbar were brutally treated and are still living in misery. The only sane course is to withdraw, starting now. Withdraw our troops and stop all our meddling, and only leave behind forces in a peace-keeping role, and meanwhile, if we were really serious about helping Iraq, diverting all our efforts to trying to start the long, painful process of dialogue and reconciliation. But, the Iraqis must be given control of their own country and lands back. Finally, we may have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that Iraq may become several autonomous regions, rather than having a central government. If we're not in this for the oil and the market, then that's okay. Chris (Comment on this)
Monday, September 10th, 2007
9:25 pm	Christ and Buddha on Hatred, War Buddha said, "Hatred is never overcome with hatred. Only by lovingkindness is hatred overcome. This truth is ancient and eternal" Christ said, "Love thy enemy" (Comment on this)
Friday, August 31st, 2007
10:58 pm	Politics: Mike Gravel is the man Notes: Mike Gravel seems to be the only Democrat who is unafraid to take controversial positions and defend them to the hilt. His previous leadership on the Vietnam War (vis a vis ending the draft and the Pentagon Papers), and on environmental issues gives him credibility in my mind. Also, he seems to be the only Dem aware of several significant issues, such as the national debt, and how congress has raided social security. Finally, he is, IMHO, an honest-to-god straight-talker and wants to bring political leadership back to the people, and out from the theatrical stage and duplicity. Right now, he's got my conscience vote. Hillary falls short on several fronts, including lack of awareness of lobbyist influence, and on being in general a Clinton-ian, with all the NAFTA and DMCA goodies that implies. She's way too politick for my tastes. Edwards and Obama both seem reasonable, but not terribly inspiring candidates. Neither of them shows a deep-rooted understanding of major issues, such as energy and the environment, replete with ways to go about dealing with them, and both seem to waffle when pressed about the Iraq war, although Obama, to his credit, has maintained that it was "not a good idea" from the get-go. Only Kucinich and Gravel are willing to point out that congress could have ended this war long ago- by either cutting funding (kucinich) or outright making it a felony to remain in Iraq (Gravel). The Dems desperately need solid vision and leadership, which includes the capacity to adopt and defend controversial positions because they are rooted in what is right and true. Half-measures produce half-results. If the Republicans can't do better than Mitt Romney, or John McCain, than it will be a major shame for the Dems to lose...but then we all thought that about 2004! Peace and Justice, Chris (Comment on this)
Friday, March 2nd, 2007
9:58 pm	Real Communication The prominent Israeli politician and strategist, former senior advisor to and spokesman for Ariel Sharon, Dr. Ra'anan Gissin spoke on campus this afternoon (March 2nd), in a small room of the student center, to an audience mostly of older townies curiously enough. Although the Hillel Club hosted him, I didn't notice many other students there. I also thought it curious that he'd agree to speak to us, about 25-odd people...New College has been pulling in some high-profile people recently... I only caught the end, but man, this guy is intense! I half-expected him to pull a Kruschev and whip off his shoe and start banging it on the podium for additional emphasis. Mainly, his comments made me wish I remembered more about the specific facts in the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, but as I don't I'll have to confine my comments more to the philosophical underpinnings of what I see going on. Basically, I think that conflict is inevitably protracted when those involved cannot meet on human terms, realize their shared humanity as a basis for dialogue. Both sides have to be willing to look together at their lives, and be honestly willing to change and do something new. Sacrifice might be involved. If both sides are absolutely convinced their own opinions and ways of framing the situation are right and best, then conflict, war is unavoidable. It's pretty mechanical. Dr. Gissin made some good points-- and he's no doubt had decades of practice exonerating Israel's actions, and framing everything from a very specific point of view. For instance, he can honestly point to the West Bank or Gaza withdrawal, and say "look! Israel did it's part of the deal. Any continued hostility from the Palestinians is absolutely their own mischief-mongering." As if there aren't pernicious, systemic injustices and power-structures at work ensuring that the Palestinians are kept under wraps. But those are part of the unquestioned terms of the situation and it's discussion, so they are all too easy to overlook. So he can further claim, "All Israel wants is to defend its (the Western) way of life. We don't want to conquer others, or anything, just to have our way of life prevail." But, this begs the question whether that way of life is not inherently flawed, unjust, or spiritually bankrupt: specifically, whether or not that way of life depends on afore-mentioned deep power-structures for its maintenance...as any fossil-fuel civilization, in reality, does. So the deeper questions and assumptions are side-stepped, while rhetorical force and the appearance of having mastered the purely factual aspects of the situation become the sine qua non of political verity and might. I think there are alternatives. One of which is to get together to explore real communication, between individuals and groups-- as averred above. I don't know if this can be done by politicians...in any case, I think that massive political structures need to be side-stepped, because at such a scale they cease to be human and that will never be right. But what is real communication? I don't know. I'm still exploring this. Here's what the late great physicist David Bohm has to say about Dialogue, a subject which he pondered quite deeply, in a piece entitled "On Communication": "For example, consider a dialogue. In such a dialogue, when one person says something, the other person does not in general respond with exactly the same meaning as that seen by the first person. Rather, the meanings are only similar and not identical. Thus, when the second person replies, the first person sees a difference between what he meant to say and what the other person understood. On considering this difference, he may then be able to see something new, which is relevant both to his own views and those of the other person. And so it can go back and forth, with the continual emergence of a new content that is common to both participants. Thus, in a dialogue, each person does not attempt to make common certain ideas or items of information that are already known to him. Rather, it may be said that the two people are making something in common, i.e. creating something new together. But of course such communication can lead to the creation of something new only if people are able freely to listen to each other, without prejudice, and without trying to influence each other. Each has to be interested primarily in truth and coherence, so that he is ready to drop his old ideas and intentions, and be ready to go on to something different, which is called for. If, however, two people merely want to convey certain ideas or points of view to each other, as if these were items of information, then they must inevitably fail to meet. For each will hear the other through the screen of his own thoughts, which he tends to maintain and defend, regardless of whether or not they are true or coherent..." So far so good, and all of this seems remarkably in line with what the great sages like Socrates have been saying for a long time, why is it actually so difficult to practice this? What can be done? Bohm continues, in answer, "This is a very complex and subtle question. But it may perhaps be said that when one comes to do something (and not merely to talk about it or think about it), one tends to believe that one *already is* listening to the other person in a proper way. It seems then that the main trouble is that the other person is the one who is prejudiced and not listening. After all, it is easy for each one of us to see that other people are "blocked" about certain questions, so that without being aware of it, they are avoiding the confrontation of contradictions in certain ideas that may be extremely dear to them. The very nature about such a block is, however, that it is a kind of insensitivity or "anesthesia" about one's own contradictions. Evidently then, what is crucial is to be aware of the nature of one's own "blocks". If one is alert and attentive, he can see for example that whenever certain questions arise, there are fleeting sensations of fear, which push him away from consideration of these questions, and of pleasure, which attract his thoughts and cause them to be occupied with other questions. So one is able to keep away from whatever it is that he thinks may disturb him. And as a result, he can be subtly defending his own ideas, when he supposes that he is really listening to what other people have to say. When we come together to talk, or otherwise to act in common, can each one of us be aware of the subtle fear and pleasure sensations that "block" his ability to listen freely? Without this awareness, the injunction to listen to the whole of what is said will have little meaning. But if each one of us can give full attention to what is actually 'blocking' communication while he is also attending properly to the content of what is communicated, then we may be able to create something between us, something of very great significance for bringing to an end the at present insoluble problems of the individual and of society." In short, what Bohm is recommending is a practice of meditative listening (Buddhist meditation gone Socratic:)). In order to really dialogue, we have to both get into this sort of meditative space, and then our communication can become receptive to higher forces because we will both be guided by an honest love of truth in a deep mutual communion, rather than our own fear or craving driven agendas. One thing I think it is important to keep in mind is that I think it would be a misuse of this sort of dialogue to interpret it to mean that one has to stop acting on one's convictions. I think this might be a real danger here -- that all sense of discrimination and guidance in action be foresworn in a sort of artificial openness, which then leaves one rather like a fly-wheel not connected to a motor, thus preventing all motion whatsoever. Although it seems paradoxical, I think one has to bring the integrity of living one's values and convictions to such dialogue in order for it to really go deep. I'm not sure if there's a neat intellectual solution to this contradiction...like all of life's deeper verities. I'm certain that actually practicing it is the only way to live one's way into the answers. So, the million dollar question is, "gee, Chris, do you really think that this sort of thing is ever going actually to happen?" I don't know. I intend to do it, and I certainly hope that at least the spirit of this way of dialogue catches on at many levels and in many places. I can imagine it happening, and as Blake said, "What is now proved, was once only imagined" Peace, Chris (Comment on this)
Friday, February 23rd, 2007
12:10 am	Michael Parenti Parenti gave a talk this evening on campus. It was pretty interesting, and I think he's doing some valuable work in exposing the dynamics of political power. His basic message is that the US behaves like, and is, an empire, and that the few in power are using, like all other empires, morally corrupt and often cynical and secretive methods to maintain and extend their power and wealth. He makes an interesting contrast between the Republic, and the Empire, saying poignantly, to my mind, that the Empire bleeds the Republic to fuel it's imperialism, which last, as he says, is what empires, pretty much by definition, do. My impression is that he is a very sincere man. Although he demurred on this point during his talk, he did come off as rather embittered and cynical. For instance, the humor, some of it quite good, which he injected into the talk was mostly snark. Of course, when it comes to political matters, disgust is an almost inevitable reaction; and his biting irreverence, which would otherwise bother me, seemed appropriate to the subject. In terms of his positive suggestions for change, I'm not sure Parenti has much to say beyond pointing out the supreme importance of securing lines of communication and media not dominated by the oligarchic ruling class, the Right Wing mostly, in our country. Of course, having only heard this one talk, and not having actually read any of his books, I can't say that for sure. He's worth checking out, in any case, if you're interested in trying to understand the dynamics of political power and how we've been influenced and delivered into the hands of the few, despite overtures to being a democratic, free-market society. And this, of course, can offer insight into why we're doing so much shit all over the world. Also, from what my dad told me about it, his book on Julius Caesar sounds really good in its own right as a work of history, not just for its political significance for today. http://www.michaelparenti.org/ Peace, Chris (Comment on this)
Saturday, February 17th, 2007
9:31 pm	Mark Purdey Another recent death was the British dairy farmer Mark Purdey whose research into the origins of Bovine Spongiform Ecephalopathy (BSE) I consider of supreme importance. He wasn't an old man, and, ironically, died of brain cancer. Throughout the 90's he worked very hard on discerning the true nature of Mad Cow disease, and tirelessly challenged the establishment position, at great personal expense. http://www.markpurdey.com/ I, for one, am grateful for his work, not only his results but his philosophically satisfying methods. Anyone interested in this mysterious disease should take a good, hard look at the research he put together. God rest your soul, Mark Purdey. Chris (Comment on this)
Monday, February 5th, 2007
3:42 pm	An awesome talk Here's a link to a talk given in Berkeley by Joel Salatin, the 'Christian Conservative Libertarian Environmentalist Lunatic Farmer'. It's very lively-- Joel is not only a genius, but a dynamic and often hilarious character. I think what he has to say is going to be very important for the future of food in general: http://journalism.berkeley.edu/events/details.php?ID=164 the link appears to be a little flaky; I have to avoid scrolling while the video is playing otherwise the display goes green... enjoy, Chris (Comment on this)
Tuesday, January 30th, 2007
3:54 pm	Walt Whitman "I believe in you my soul, the other I am must not abase itself to you, And you must not be abased to the other. Loafe with me on the grass, loose the stop from your throat, Not words, not music or rhyme I want, not custom or lecture, not even the best, Only the lull I like, the hum of your valved voice. I mind how once we lay such a transparent summer morning, How you settled your head athwart my hips and gently turn'd over upon me, And parted the shirt from my bosom-bone and plunged your tongue to my bare-stripped heart, And reach'd till you felt my beard, and reach'd til you held my feet. Swiftly arose and spread around me the peace and knowledge that pass all the argument of the earth, And I know that the hand of God is the promise of my own, And I know that the spirit of God is the brother of my own, And that all the men ever born are also my brothers, and the women my sisters and lovers, And that a kelson of the creation is love, And limitless are leaves stiff or drooping in the fields, And brown ants in the little wells beneath them, And mossy scabs of the worm fence, heap'd stones, elder, mullein and pokeweed." From Song of Myself (section 5) These lines, or the Meaning contained in them at least, could only have come from the lips of one who'd truly undergone the Mystic Awakening. It is an unmistakable instance of the Cosmic Consciousness first so named and documented in Dr. R.M. Bucke's classic of the same name. I love Whitman's unique character and way of expressing truth. He is a spiritual giant hidden in the barricades of literary criticism, so to speak. "And I say to manking, Be not curious about God, For I who am curious about each am not curious about God. (No array of terms can say how much I am at peace about God and about Death) I hear and behold God in every object, yet understand God not in the least, Nor do I understand who there can be more wonderful than myself. Why should I wish to see God better than this day? I see something of God each hour of the twenty-four, and each moment then, In the faces of men and women I see God, and in my own face in the glass, I find letters from God dropt in the street, and every one is sign'd by God's name, And I leave them where they are, for I know that wheresoe'er I go Others will punctually come for ever and ever. And as to you Death, and you bitter hug of mortality, it is idle to try to alarm me... And as to you Corpse I think you are good manure, but that does not offend me, I smell the white roses sweet-scented and growing... And as to you Life I reckon you are the leavings of many deaths, (No doubt I have died myself ten thousand times before)" Ibid. Section 48-49 About that last paragraph, I think it would be gravest folly to misread it as a species of callous disregard (and thus hidden denial). For Whitman tended tirelessly to the sick and wounded in the hospitals during and after the Civil War, where his presence was deeply moving to many. No, he was a man who had truly come to terms with death, his own and others-- and still gave the 'Everlasting Yea' to Life, which includes of necessity both birth and death. It is one thing to intellectually grasp this, and quite another to embody it and live it (and it is also possible to intellectually grasp this distinction and not really live it, too!) Whitman did embody and live it, though. Peace, Chris (Comment on this)
Wednesday, January 24th, 2007
9:00 pm	Deaths On January 11th of this year, two of my favorite writers and thinkers died: Robert Anton Wilson and Douglas Harding. The former was always entertaining, and occasionally enlightening, and the latter always enlightening and sometimes entertaining to boot! (Comment on this)
Tuesday, January 23rd, 2007
5:25 pm	Iran: the new war? Stay alert. Apparently, an Israeli military conference in the resort of Herzliya has included much rhetoric to the effect of a preparation for war against Iran. Check out today's (tuesday) Democracy Now show, or read the transcript tomorrow for more info. Needless to say, IMHO, any war with Iran would be an even bigger catastrophe than Iraq. Plus, the preponderence of underground bunkers in Iran would probably mean that the US would try to use thermonuclear bunker-busting missiles....The whole thing would be horrible. Peace, Chris (Comment on this)
Thursday, January 18th, 2007
9:38 pm	Severus Snape (Dumbledore) and Philosophy Although I've been converted in all too many ways to Harry Potter nerddom, I don't propose to deal that extensively with the actual content of the books in defending my tentative position that Severus Snape is, in fact, evil, or at least has mixed motives. What I want to do is provide my philosophical heuristic: in examining the development of the plot of the books, and trying to come to a judgement of character, it is desirably to try to remain as faithful as possible to the pattern as it actually manifests itself. The problem with many conspiracy theories of all stripes is that they hinge on assumptions or speculations which derive purely from the realm of logical possibility, and are not related to the situation in any organic way. In fact, they often seem primarily to play to the fears or desires of their creators or audiences. Now, this isn't to say I don't love a good conspiracy theory: I do. But, I really think it is better to try to maintain some common sense, and to rely on sustained, clear observation in forming judgements. It is my impression, based on my admittedly patchy memory of the books, that following this philosophical criterion, I am forced to conclude that Snape is evil or has deeply mixed motives at best. All of the arguments for his being actually, fully good rely on some entirely hidden factor conjured out of thin air. As such, they are not impossible, but improbable to the extent that I don't see them as fitting within the overall pattern of the series. They are possible in a very abstract sense, and not an organic one. (On Dumbledore's death: Similarly for the Dumbledore is not dead folks. Notwithstanding that Rowling herself has gone on record confirming that Dumbledore is, in fact, definitely dead and not coming back, the whole hypothesis rests on a rather strained interpretation of his last scene. My sense is that Dumbledore in fact knew that he was in deep shit. Thus his pretty desperate gambit with Malfoy. When Severus arrives Rowling explicitly writes that Dumbledore's last words "Severus, please!" had a definite tone of pleading, and that Snape's face was contorted with hatred. I think it's pretty clear that Dumbledore rapidly inferred that Snape's behaviour was definitely going against whatever he may have planned for or expected him to do, and realized that Snape was, in fact, going to kill him. The three most intriguing lines of speculation to the contrary, IMHO, are: 1) why did Dumbledore use his last spell to freeze Harry, who was already wearing an invisibility cloak and thus presumably safe?, 2)Why did Fawkes not come to his aid, as he had in OotP in absorbing an Avada Kedavra curse from Voldemort?, and 3) Why did the curse send Dumbledore flying off the tower, when in previous instances the victim merely died in place? There are other consistency questions, such as why don't we ever hear about Dumbledore's wand, again, but these could all just easily be explained by the necessary omissions of story-telling. Now these are interesting questions, but they don't to my mind amount to an organic justification for Dumbledore's death being staged or pre-planned somehow. In terms of the overall plot, his death seems necessary so that Harry can finish what we now know he must do alone. He has had his apprenticeship under Dumbledore's tutelage, and has shown that he's grown up considerably. Dumbledore coming back at this point would just be rather gratuitous to the development of the story. Even as an ardent Dumbledore lover, I'd think that a critical human dimension of loss and grief would be mocked if he had only staged his death. Again, that's not really Rowling's style, as she makes clear with Harry's parents and Sirius. Plus, in terms of archetypes, the Wise Old Man figure is not supposed to hang around forever running the show; the Hero must internalize him and rise to the final challenge himself. Nevertheless, to the first question I have no good response at this point, except that perhaps Dumbledore wanted Harry to see what transpired with Malfoy. I'd welcome anyone else's views on this one. To the second, I'd say that it is possible that Rowling simply overlooked Fawkes in writing that scene, and also that the way the bird works may simply be more complicated than us readers know. To the third, my speculation is that we know that the curse varies in intensity with the intent behind it (from Moody in book 4) and all of Snape's pent-up hatred and rage may have combined to make it exceptionally powerful.) I don't think J.K. Rowling is going to pull some sensational manoeuvre merely to redeem Severus Snape, nor to resurrect Dumbledore; deus ex machina just doesn't seem her style. Peace, Chris (3 Comments |Comment on this)