'Cause I said so!
Nah. Here's my answer to that question. Well, if that's the question in a vacuum, then the answer is that the things that happen are neither good or bad. They are just things, and we impose our own ideas of "what is good" or "what is bad" upon them. To this question, we just have to accept that the world is the way it is, and that these things happen. There is no higher power controlling your life. Bad or good things happen because they do, or for whatever reason.
An interesting addendum to that question. "Why does God let bad things happen to good people?" Any takers? Well, let's back up a second. We can have 1 or 2 worlds/universes. One where God exists and one where he doesn't. If God doesn't exist, then we can't be outraged when bad things happen to good people. Those things just happen. There is no question "why did this happen" that can't be answered without science or fact. There is no deeper meaning, and the make-up a person's character has no bearing on their fate.
Okay, so let's live in the world with God for a minute. I'm not trying to make either case, just trying to explicate an argument. So, "why does God let bad things happen to good people?" If God exists, he must be 2 things. 1. All powerful, 2. All knowing. This is our conception of God, is it not? So, if God is all knowing (he knows bad things happen to good people) and God is all powerful - that means that he doesn't intervene. God knows bad things happen, but does nothing to stop them. Some God.
Have you ever thought about what the world would be like if God did intervene every time something bad was going to happen to a good person? I can't imagine it, but if I would, I would imagine that there would be a lot fewer atheists or agnostics. And there'd be a lot more good people (because they'd be saved) and lot fewer bad people (they'd be punished/converted to being good). What a weird world that would be. Unfortunately, it wouldn't be a real world. There would be no science, there would be no diversity in opinion and thought (and no coveting of thy neighbor's wife. Even if they neighbor is Seal). God is watching and he's pissed. Be good, follow His rule and you'll be fine. Don't do that, and watch it.
It's conceivable that if there is a God, that he created the world and the universe, in some sense to run on ration and logic. Things fall to earth because the earth has mass and all things with mass have gravity - the more mass the more gravity. This world seems understandable by humans. The world where God pulls things to the ground (is tiring for God) is not understandable. There is no reason to it. God can do whatever God wants at any time without having to explain Himself. Impure thought? Nope, you're falling in a hole to the center of the universe, sorry. How tense would your daily life be? How little free choice would you have? If God ruled the Earth, it would be heaven. But it can't be heaven.
I'm not trying to make the case for or against God. Bad things happen to good people because they do. God, if he exists, can't step in. He just has to watch and be sad for us, hope we do well, and hope he sees us one day.
Ancillary to this whole thing is that it almost seems that for God to exist, there needs to be doubt about his existence. If you want to get to heaven in any of the major Religions, you gotta have faith. Faith seems to be important. Being able to believe in something you can't see or touch seems to be important. You make it into heaven by believing in something you can't prove. When God created the universe, he created science. God is not science. We can believe in science, can we believe in God too?
Lastly. There are still two things that haunt me. 1. What exists outside of the universe? I can't conceive of forever space or time. Entropy will one day make everything in the universe die. What then?
2. What happened before the big bang/what was outside of that little ball of everything?
These two things are inconceivable to us. So, they have to cast doubt, a little, on science.
If you don't want to die because you haven't chosen to die, and wouldn't choose it, know that you didn't choose to be born. But you're here, so deal with it.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Battlestar Galactica
So, as you know, I've been watching every episode of the television show Battlestar Galactica while at work. Unfortunately, I have finished - rather, I am caught up in the series. I've seen almost 50 episodes over the last few weeks, and now I can just watch it on TV. The problem is, what do I do now when I'm bored at work? Eat? Blog? Eat a Bolrog?
Battlestar has quickly risen to the ranks of being one of my favorite tv shows of all time. It's a tight, dense compelling drama. The show deals with the primes.
Political
Religious
Intellectual
Military
Economic
Social
I enjoy the show because it seriously engages in all of these issues and you often have people making very hard, tough decisions. No one is fully good or bad, and even when people make horrible choices, they have a reason for it. And, often, characters do make very difficult choices, but somehow the alternative would be worse. They make mistakes, they learn, they grow. The relationships are dynamic and interesting, and like any good sci fi - the show deals with current, relevant issues in an artistic way. The show shows us how complicated these issues are, and that there might not be any right side. The shows presents us with a complex, difficult, real world and lets us examine our positions on important issues. We may not entirely rethink our positions, but at least we have cause to reexamine them. That can't be a bad thing.
The show often gets compared to firefly, well, maybe not often, but it does. You have people flying around in space, on the run, and the special effects are similar - although, like everything, the effects are more fully realized on Battlestar. BSG is a more fully realized show, and it's scope and project seem to be much greater and more expansive. Firefly certainly is more fun and has a greater sense of the playful, but the notions of good and bad are much more clear cut. That's fine. One of the things I like about BSG is that they're not. The bad guys question whether or not they're doing the right thing or not. Firefly is a wonderful show that was taken away from us too early, but remember that you don't have to choose one or the other. They're cousins in an unlimited universe with many similarities, but it's their differences that make them remarkable. You can't go wrong with either one.
Battlestar has quickly risen to the ranks of being one of my favorite tv shows of all time. It's a tight, dense compelling drama. The show deals with the primes.
Political
Religious
Intellectual
Military
Economic
Social
I enjoy the show because it seriously engages in all of these issues and you often have people making very hard, tough decisions. No one is fully good or bad, and even when people make horrible choices, they have a reason for it. And, often, characters do make very difficult choices, but somehow the alternative would be worse. They make mistakes, they learn, they grow. The relationships are dynamic and interesting, and like any good sci fi - the show deals with current, relevant issues in an artistic way. The show shows us how complicated these issues are, and that there might not be any right side. The shows presents us with a complex, difficult, real world and lets us examine our positions on important issues. We may not entirely rethink our positions, but at least we have cause to reexamine them. That can't be a bad thing.
The show often gets compared to firefly, well, maybe not often, but it does. You have people flying around in space, on the run, and the special effects are similar - although, like everything, the effects are more fully realized on Battlestar. BSG is a more fully realized show, and it's scope and project seem to be much greater and more expansive. Firefly certainly is more fun and has a greater sense of the playful, but the notions of good and bad are much more clear cut. That's fine. One of the things I like about BSG is that they're not. The bad guys question whether or not they're doing the right thing or not. Firefly is a wonderful show that was taken away from us too early, but remember that you don't have to choose one or the other. They're cousins in an unlimited universe with many similarities, but it's their differences that make them remarkable. You can't go wrong with either one.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Art and Business: The sustainability models of TV shows
There's three types of television dramas...at least for this exercise. There are action based shows, character based shows, and CSI.
Action based shows are shows like Battlestar Galactica or Lost. You don't see a lot of them. An action based show is a show that has one clearly definable plot, and when that action is completed, the show, or series is over. So, in the BSG world, Cylons have taken over and there is a war between humans and cylons. When the war is over, so is the show. When the Lost characters get off the lost island, the show is over. This model for a television show is unsustainable.
Character based shows are shows like ER, Grey's Anatomy, or Gilmore Girls. These shows don't have a basic narrative plot that needs to be fulfilled. Instead, the show survives on the relationships of the characters you bring aboard. ER has been on the air for a looong time. It is an infinately sustainable model. The same is true for sitcoms, as they are character based. Note that Arrested Development failed, but as it was an action based sit com, it's basic narrative tension was fulfilled.
CSI, like 24 (on a different level) seems to be a blend of character and action. Each episode is the same, but the characters never seem to develop. As long as hookers are being murdered, this show will stay in business. 24 seems oddly infinitely sustainable because after each season, the narrative tension is completed, but next season we have the exact same thing. One season of 24 is akin to one episode of CSI.
Action based tv shows sometimes don't do well in the ratings because they're hard to follow. They are hard to follow because if you miss one episode, you can't just pick it back up where you left off. This ends up causing a loyal audience because you can't miss an episode, so people make it a priority to watch. One of the issues with these shows is that once the plot is over, you can't really go anywhere. Once River figures out the history of the Reavers, you can't have a firefly. Once the war is over, you can't continue the show. The challenge in these shows, artistically, is that you have to manage it right so that you give the audience what they need, and you keep yourself in business, but you can't go to the point of having to contrive points to keep people interested. The matrix trilogy ultimately fails because the narrative tension had been fulfilled. So what happens is that you have to make some stuff up to continue the franchise.
This is not to say that shows don't fail because they're not given the proper chance to succeed by the network, or they're too expensive, or whatnot. Sometimes they're also just not that good. Just a bored thought.
Action based shows are shows like Battlestar Galactica or Lost. You don't see a lot of them. An action based show is a show that has one clearly definable plot, and when that action is completed, the show, or series is over. So, in the BSG world, Cylons have taken over and there is a war between humans and cylons. When the war is over, so is the show. When the Lost characters get off the lost island, the show is over. This model for a television show is unsustainable.
Character based shows are shows like ER, Grey's Anatomy, or Gilmore Girls. These shows don't have a basic narrative plot that needs to be fulfilled. Instead, the show survives on the relationships of the characters you bring aboard. ER has been on the air for a looong time. It is an infinately sustainable model. The same is true for sitcoms, as they are character based. Note that Arrested Development failed, but as it was an action based sit com, it's basic narrative tension was fulfilled.
CSI, like 24 (on a different level) seems to be a blend of character and action. Each episode is the same, but the characters never seem to develop. As long as hookers are being murdered, this show will stay in business. 24 seems oddly infinitely sustainable because after each season, the narrative tension is completed, but next season we have the exact same thing. One season of 24 is akin to one episode of CSI.
Action based tv shows sometimes don't do well in the ratings because they're hard to follow. They are hard to follow because if you miss one episode, you can't just pick it back up where you left off. This ends up causing a loyal audience because you can't miss an episode, so people make it a priority to watch. One of the issues with these shows is that once the plot is over, you can't really go anywhere. Once River figures out the history of the Reavers, you can't have a firefly. Once the war is over, you can't continue the show. The challenge in these shows, artistically, is that you have to manage it right so that you give the audience what they need, and you keep yourself in business, but you can't go to the point of having to contrive points to keep people interested. The matrix trilogy ultimately fails because the narrative tension had been fulfilled. So what happens is that you have to make some stuff up to continue the franchise.
This is not to say that shows don't fail because they're not given the proper chance to succeed by the network, or they're too expensive, or whatnot. Sometimes they're also just not that good. Just a bored thought.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
What do we call it?
What do we call 2010? Do we call it "oh 10?" Like 010? Do we call it 10? Let me tell you about back in Ten. We'll think of something I'm sure.
The Science of Sleep
One of the reasons I don't like waking up in the morning is because every once and a while I have dreams in which the emotions are so powerful that I'm really affected when I get up. Does that ever happen to you? The emotions in dreams can be overwhelming. Sometimes they can really affect your mood when you wake up, either in the middle of the night or in the morning. It always takes a little while to separate yourself from the feelings of your dreams.
Generally, emotions, especially unexpected emotions are amazing things. Most of the day, we don't really feel any emotions. We just sort of live at an even level and we go about our day. Every now and again, however, something someone says, some words trigger some awful feelings within us. Even if we think we shouldn't be affected, we are. In some way that's the power of movies. You never know you're going to be affected until you are. Even though you know it's a movie, nothing but light and shadow, you can't help feeling what you feel.
Generally, emotions, especially unexpected emotions are amazing things. Most of the day, we don't really feel any emotions. We just sort of live at an even level and we go about our day. Every now and again, however, something someone says, some words trigger some awful feelings within us. Even if we think we shouldn't be affected, we are. In some way that's the power of movies. You never know you're going to be affected until you are. Even though you know it's a movie, nothing but light and shadow, you can't help feeling what you feel.
Friday, February 9, 2007
Bringing Sexy Back
It's old news, but this is a new blog, so we can deal with it. Justin Timberlake - or "my boy, JT" as I used to call him is/was bringing sexy back. Perhaps it's already back? Is it all the way back? Well, if it's not back, it will be here soon.
So, it begs the question...where did sexy go? I'll get to that in a minute. The bigger issue is "why did sexy go?" Any thoughts? You, kid in the back who doesn't talk? Who looks curiously like me? I think we have to go back to the last time, before JT brought it back, that we had sexy. When was the last time we had sexy?
Hold on, I'm getting ahead of myself. Can we define sexy? He's bringing it back, but how are we going to know what it looks like when it comes back? It's like the second coming of Jesus...maybe Jesus is sexy? Anyway, it's the second coming of sexy. So, what is it? Sexy, as loosely defined by me, is the ability to party/have fun (usually adult fun) without feeling bad about it. Does that seem to work? It's about being hot, damn it. And that hotness apologizes to no man.
So, when, previously to now, were things last sexy? Let's go back to the waning days of the Clinton administration. Maybe even before. That was a sexy time. The economy was vibrant...and what's sexier than a healthy free market economy? My answer? Nothing. So, times were good, people were getting rich on .coms and things were looking up and up. Those were sexy times people.
What happened? Well, the .com bubble burst, the economy started a skid, Clinton left office, and bam, September 11th. That's right. September 11th took our sexy. Let me tell you this. Terrorism is not sexy. September 11th changed everything. And what it did, was to make the world, and our lives, much more serious than they were previously. Sexy was gone. Then there's a Tsunami, then hurricane Katrina. It was the death of Sexy. Case and point. The 2006 Oscars were known as the "return to glamor" Oscars. Well, this is because even Hollywood didn't feel it was right to dress up sexy while the country was at war, and while our own people were dying in New Orleans. 2006 however, seemed to signal the slightest bit of a return to sexy.
Sexy is a zombie. It's back from the dead. What JT is really saying (whether he knows it or not) is that it's time for people to party again. It's time for us to put the misery and seriousness of the last 5-6 years behind us. He's saying it's okay to have fun and not feel bad about it.
Whether you agree with it or not, it's, in my opinion, the real meaning behind the whole thing. I think we need to keep one eye on the sexy and one eye of the ball. The ball of course meaning the Geo-political climate. I don't know if it is time for sexy to come back, but a lot of people seem to think it is, and who am I to disagree? I'm just a Patsy for the man.
So, it begs the question...where did sexy go? I'll get to that in a minute. The bigger issue is "why did sexy go?" Any thoughts? You, kid in the back who doesn't talk? Who looks curiously like me? I think we have to go back to the last time, before JT brought it back, that we had sexy. When was the last time we had sexy?
Hold on, I'm getting ahead of myself. Can we define sexy? He's bringing it back, but how are we going to know what it looks like when it comes back? It's like the second coming of Jesus...maybe Jesus is sexy? Anyway, it's the second coming of sexy. So, what is it? Sexy, as loosely defined by me, is the ability to party/have fun (usually adult fun) without feeling bad about it. Does that seem to work? It's about being hot, damn it. And that hotness apologizes to no man.
So, when, previously to now, were things last sexy? Let's go back to the waning days of the Clinton administration. Maybe even before. That was a sexy time. The economy was vibrant...and what's sexier than a healthy free market economy? My answer? Nothing. So, times were good, people were getting rich on .coms and things were looking up and up. Those were sexy times people.
What happened? Well, the .com bubble burst, the economy started a skid, Clinton left office, and bam, September 11th. That's right. September 11th took our sexy. Let me tell you this. Terrorism is not sexy. September 11th changed everything. And what it did, was to make the world, and our lives, much more serious than they were previously. Sexy was gone. Then there's a Tsunami, then hurricane Katrina. It was the death of Sexy. Case and point. The 2006 Oscars were known as the "return to glamor" Oscars. Well, this is because even Hollywood didn't feel it was right to dress up sexy while the country was at war, and while our own people were dying in New Orleans. 2006 however, seemed to signal the slightest bit of a return to sexy.
Sexy is a zombie. It's back from the dead. What JT is really saying (whether he knows it or not) is that it's time for people to party again. It's time for us to put the misery and seriousness of the last 5-6 years behind us. He's saying it's okay to have fun and not feel bad about it.
Whether you agree with it or not, it's, in my opinion, the real meaning behind the whole thing. I think we need to keep one eye on the sexy and one eye of the ball. The ball of course meaning the Geo-political climate. I don't know if it is time for sexy to come back, but a lot of people seem to think it is, and who am I to disagree? I'm just a Patsy for the man.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)