Hi, I really loved this show, it's like an english version of "Hablemos Sin Saber", really cool. I especially liked the first half, a great example of bad research, bad reductionism and oversimplification of reality . Here are some comments about it:

– Great thing Miss Huertas gave as fact that Lupercalia was the origin of St Valentine's Day, and that actually it was the christian appropiation of that festivity, when in reality only a few researchers hold that wiew and most of them think otherwise (even the wikipedia article of Lupercalia mention this), but hey, it's much easier to read neopagan FB webpages that lack any academic rigour (and have their own agenda) than actually do some serious research, of course it's Bad Philosophy and this a parody, so I loved it!
– I adored the flower part. Actually only Kevin knew a bit about waht he was talking about, but the lovely couple was lost in a sea of missinformation. Again, what about Holland being the first world producer of flowers? Well, I guess they don't fit in the "third world" cathegory, right? What about the second and third world producers, Colombia and Ecuador? Mmm… yes, third world but not in Africa. But the greatest part was the oversimplification act of saying it's a matter of "cheap labour". Is it just that? Haven't anybody attended to Ag School? Maybe Miss Huertas was absent that day… Maybe, just maybe there are other explanations for this. Maybe if you look at google maps you'll find that Colombia, Ecuador, Ethiopia and Kenya are all almost at the same latitude…hmmm… and maybe being in the northern hemisphere close to the Equator is an advantage for producing flowers, cause maybe having lots of rain, and sun and having all this countries high mountain chains makes cultivating flowers much easier and cheaper than producing them in Canada, maybe this kind of weather and agronomic conditions allows you to produce flowers all year round… but hey, what do I know? You're the experts… it must be cheap only labour the answer. Good thing Kevin actually knew how did they transport flowers and some extra facts. Well done Bad Philosophers!
– Of course the best part was the very clever solution on how to make better the life of poor farmers and workers of those countries! Yes, just stop buying flowers and they will happily switch to other crops that gave them less income! Genius! It's like when the US threw glyphosate to coca plantations in Boliva and forced farmers to switch to other crops that were less suitable for that area and had lower prices. Of course, who cares if that increased poverty in that region and then farmers were forced to send their daughters to prostitute themselves in Argentina and Brazil or theis sons ended up working as cheap labour in urban latinoamerica? Nobody! let's just stop buying flowers and they will thank us for scrwewing their best revenue and will easily move on to the next big thing. Oh, wait! Maybe rural reality it's much complex than that, maybe it's dangerous to oversimplify, maybe we should be more careful before giving advices as such without knowing a thing about the subject. Maybe, just maybe the solution is more holistic…. Bad Philosophy as it's best!
– Colonialism and neocolonialism discussion! From white, spanish/american people, from Canada, via Google! Yes! That's what we, third world people, really like! Of course all of you have being to copper, silver, gold, mines in the third world, right? And of course you know were the lithium of the batteries of your smartphone and laptop comes from, and how is extracted, no? And well, you all have experienced how life is in the third world, feeling first hand the 400 of colinialism, slavery, rapes, and robbery? But hey, one of you guys read Las Venas Abiertas de America Latina, and lived a couple of months there, great! Now you know everything you need to know, of course, it's a dated of book of the seventies, that yes, it's a good introduction to understand the effects of colonialism in Latin America, but even his author later said it was too dated to address neocolonialism as it is today. Maybe again reality it's much complex than that. Maybe it's just offensive to listen some guys who live in the first world have a coffee talk about poor people living in the third world while knowing nothing about it and doing nothing about it. Bad Philosophy indeed.

Keep it up guys! Looking forward for the next one!

PS: You don't necessary need to be an expert to discuss a topic but be very careful to jump into conclusions or show only one side of the matter, otherwise you'll be doing exactly the same of what you criticize traditional media is doing, learn from the great Déscartes: "If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things." I would go even further and say that we must doubt all the time even about things we believe are true.

Chau

When I was small and would leaf through the Old Testament retold for children and illustrated in engravings by Gustave Dore, I saw the Lord God standing on a cloud. He was an old man with eyes, nose, and a long beard, and I would say to myself that if He had a mouth, He had to eat. And if He ate, He had intestines. But that thought always gave me a fright, because even though I come from a family that was not particularly religious, I felt the idea of a divine intestine to be sacrilegious.

Spontaneously, without any theological training, I, a child, grasped the incompatibility of God and shit and thus came to question the basic thesis of Christian anthropology, namely, that man was created in God's image. Either/or: either man was created in God's image—and God has intestines!—or God lacks intestines and man is not like Him.

The ancient Gnostics felt as I did at the age of five. In the second century, the great Gnostic master Valentinus resolved the damnable dilemma by claiming that Jesus "ate and drank, but did not defecate." Shit is a more onerous theological problem than is evil. Since God gave man freedom, we can, if need be, accept the idea that He is not responsible for man's crimes. The responsibility for shit, however, rests entirely with Him, the Creator of man.

In the fourth century, Saint Jerome completely rejected the notion that Adam and Eve had sexual intercourse in Paradise. On the other hand, Johannes Scotus Erigena, the great ninth-century theologian, accepted the idea. He believed, moreover, that Adam's virile member could be made to rise like an arm or a leg, when and as its owner wished. We must not dismiss this fancy as the recurrent dream of a man obsessed with the threat of impotence. Erigena's idea has a different meaning. If it were possible to raise the penis by means of a simple command, then sexual excitement would have no place in the world. The penis would rise not because we are excited but because we order it to do so. What the great theologian found incompatible with Paradise was not sexual intercourse and the attendant pleasure; what he found incompatible with Paradise was excitement. Bear in mind: There was pleasure in Paradise, but no excitement.

Erigena's argument holds the key to a theological justification (in other words, a theodicy) of shit. As long as man was allowed to remain in Paradise, either (like Valentinus' Jesus) he did not defecate at all, or (as would seem more likely) he did not look upon shit as something repellent. Not until after God expelled man from Paradise did He make him feel disgust. Man began to hide what shamed him, and by the time he removed the veil, he was blinded by a great light. Thus, immediately after his introduction to disgust, he was introduced to excitement. Without shit (in both the literal and figurative senses of the word), there would be no sexual love as we know it, accompanied by pounding heart and blinded senses.

It's sad that Yoga is being considered as a sport. (nowadays)

Thanks, Evan!

Also, I think it’s cool that you focused less on consumer/pop culture predictions for 2015 and more on technology/security issues.

Just a few episodes and I’ll be up to date.

Alright talk to you later and good luck with the chatter.

So, everyone is allowed to participate to the show ?
Only if they share 3 links about the subject, right ?
Hm, interesting.

You guys touch on punching up (sticking it to the man – telling truth to power kind of stuff) versus punching down (making fun of those beneath you on the power scale) but it seems to me like there is some value in punching down – pointing out flaws in those lower on the power scale that are actually keeping those people down. Maybe the Onion is a good example of this – they seem to punch down with a fair amount of frequency – about as much as they punch up, anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FERPA

Thanks for your thoughtful reply! We already had episode 144 in the pipeline when you posted this, so we’ll tackle our answer in episode 145 hopefully. Or Kevin might just get ambitious and write a reply here first. ANYTHING could happen. 8)

Great podcast. I was looking for a podcast explicitly philosophical (but not too over the top), and I think I found it!

I enjoyed hearing about the concept of philanthropic colonialism, or, as you gentlemen had rephrased it, philanthropic paternalism–which I think fits their philanthropic activities better.

I would agree with you on the point that this “philanthropists” should only help when help is asked for, and limit their help to a very narrow framework, based upon what the recipient is asking for, as I think it is VERY presumptuous of them to simply give 3rd-world handouts to first-world countries.

That said, I got the impression from both of you that you may be cultural relativists, as neither of you seem to think one way of living was better than the other?

Is that the case? If so, what is your reasoning?

Also, what is your beef against capitalism? You never outright decry it, but you seem to implicitly have something against it, given your negative tone when you mentioned “capitalism” and “wealth disparity,” and “micro lending/debt-and-repayment.”

I must mention that capitalism, as suggested on the podcast, is not defined via there being a lending system in place. Although it is true that lending and debt and repayment systems DO exist in capitalism, they also exist in pretty much every other form of government, so that activity does not differentiate capitalism from other polico-economic institutions.

I also wonder about your view regarding “wealth disparity.” Is it bad? If so, why? Because although there isn’t much wealth disparity in countries without capitalistic elements, there isn’t much wealth to begin with.

ANYHOW.

I hope to receive a response to this too-long comment, lol. Cheers, and I’m going to listen to another one of your casts as I run this morning!

-Nick

For instance, I prefer to act in ways that are adaptable. I.e. I hedge my bets, am more reactive than proactive, tend to weigh new evidence more attentively, and most importantly change my mind given changing facts. I don’t always live up this, doing very hedgehog-like things from time to time (hence not living up to the “ideal” Fox).

That is not at all to say this is the correct approach for all. Some people prefer to be grounded, centered, foundational, etc. In other words, they prefer to be Hedgehogs. Fine for them. I just find it a less defensible position for me than that of the Fox.

I fell in love with the analogy after reading Nate Silver’s “The Signal and the Noise” recently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Signal_and_the_Noise

Which classification do you follow, in your opinion?

I cannot say why or when I originally became enthralled with the concept of wearing hats, but I have always felt a bit more like myself when wearing one. I only own a few, an Irish Flat Cap, a leather High Roller Hat (similar to the one worn by “Micky” in “Snatch”) and yes, a top hat.

I suppose in a way it helps me to separate my personal, or social life, from my professional life (I do hair)

Another thing that I thought of as I listened to the “after show”…both of you mentioned how audio books really stick with you in a way that “read” books don’t. Kevin was/is an auditory learner and I was wondering if Stephen is too.

http://www.freedomainradio.com/DesktopModules/UltraNewsArticle/Read.aspx?Portalid=1&ArticleId=2188

Between the two, and my own experiences, I think the best possible style of school would be one which teaches indirectly in that the students have projects perhaps even with real world value but which requires them to use math, science, etc to complete. Thus, they would not merely be memorizing information for its own sake, but learning information and seeing how it is useful and valuable at the same time.

I think the key to truly learning and being ‘intelligent” about a subject is simply being interested enough in it to want to learn it.

As your interviewer noted, the internet is so much about sectionalizing to the simplest variable that holy moley you mix things more multi-dimensional and people overreact.

I think the only thing I did note in your youtube response was you were talking about ASL unable to transcend its language functions into performance due to being intrinsically linked to Deaf culture, which seemed rather contradictory. Though you certainly have more vocabulary and such to digest (speaking as a hearing person who knows way less than you do, to cover my bases); I feel like that’s predominately what many ASL performers do is perform to communicate. Not necessarily a pragmatic message or anything that needs to be translated into words, but creating a collective conversation that alters and challenges people’s perceptions. Though art roots in self-expression, the definition of art in its effect of “beauty or emotional power” is the key at “power”. Power involves a dialogue internally and externally, sure there are works that are made for selfish and theraputic purposes, but artwork from any time period involves encapsulating ideas that are then displayed to a viewer in order to express an idea.

I’m just going to stop elaborating before I sound like I’m lecturing a high school art class on a 90s sitcom. But I will end on a high note saying I appreciate you being socially responsible, expressing where you come from and trying to maintain your position as someone who is learning and not a representation of the Deaf community. Do what you fucking feel like doing!

To give just one small illustration, consider all of the flippant remarks and occasional ravings about the evils of “fractional reserve banking” in this podcast. I rather suspect that most of Bitcoin’s overwhelmingly geeky boosters are familiar with the concept/practice known as “statistical multiplexing,” i.e., the thing that makes the packet-switched Internet more interesting/useful/efficient than the old switched telephone system…? If only they understood that fractional reserve banking is *the exact same practice* applied to (what would otherwise be) idle monetary bank reserves, perhaps they might recognize that they are parroting the same arguments that the telcos made back in the 1980s (when they realized that the nascent decentralized Internet threatened their cozy monopolies)… the same argument that some telcos continue to make even now, using new terms like “guaranteed QOS.” Too bad Bitcoin advocates seem to be completely unaware of the fact that in parroting this line, they are unwittingly advocating a return to the same static, deflationary, and (often oppressively) hierarchical conditions that predated the rise of modern analog and digital technology-mediated liquidity systems (e.g., monetary-banking systems and the Internet).

I share the same disgust with modern-day financial criminals that seems to animate many Bitcoin enthusiasts, but ignorance of what other/older monetary liquidity mechanisms have taught us — both in how they worked (when they worked), and how all but the current iterations ultimately failed — is *not* a virtue, especially for would-be monetary liquidity system pioneers who aspire to do better.

MH

For what it’y the fans and for the fans. s worth SDCC started off that way as well, it was all about the fans, by the fans for the fans. You can still some remnants of that around the edges of the con and in the smaller rooms. I actually think some of the more fan-oriented stuff is better than some of the big name events.

“[…] from then on, I just have been obsessed with [Bitcoin]”.

I can relate!

p.s., Did Rebecca Black rip off the Beatles?
http://music.witcoin.com/p/493/Rebecca-Black—Friday#r-1278

Unfortunately I’m a little short on time to jump into the discourse above, but I’ve got a couple of quick things to throw in.

1) Totally with Kiki. I too want to eat the world; to experience it through the medium of munch. And I believe this to be an admirable trait. Hell, even old Gran’daddy Darwin spent a reasonable portion of his life eating his subjects, rather than studying them. In fact, during his time in the Cambridge Gourmet Club, he once famously described Brown Owl as “indescribable.”

2) When it comes to eating people and the context in which such a thing might happen, let me just put this out there: If it means living another day – you’re all god damned stew to me. In the nicest possible way, of course.
I see survival and living as two very different things. (When I talk about survival here I refer to the immediate “If I don’t do this I am dead” survival and not the “if we let X happen then Y might possibly happen down the line and F up our Z” survival.) In a case of immediate survival, how can there be any time or place for morals or ethics? In living, such things are arguably vital to the protection of self, society and environment. But in a desperate, near-death survival situation, surely the refusal of a food source on grounds of “ickiness” or “immorality” would acheive nothing but validating one’s candacy for immediate Darwinian execution.

3) If you ever need a Brit on the show: I promise I come off a lot less beligerant in person than in writing. Also, Charles Darwin was British (a useless statement, given the context, I know, but Darwin had managed to worm his way into the 2 points preceding this one and I didn’t want number 3 to feel left out.)

Much love,
Taz

Making disparaging jokes does give you new insight, case in point. Isn’t it necessary to understand an erroneous point of view is in order to correct it?
When people feel sufficiently offended by humor, a dialogue is initiated ideally to attempt to reconcile the cultural values either side may or may not have. The world would be rather boring if we all agreed with each other on everything, if we knew or felt what everyone else did.

Stereotypes and simplifications themselves have never been offensive. Posing a joke is like an experiment where the subject’s reaction gives an idea of a person’s identity and experience. If they like it or chuckle, perhaps they have a tacit agreement with some part of it, or perhaps they only find it surprising or shocking. Even if they find it disagreeable, the dialogue which ensues can be instructive. Unfortunately, in many other cases where jokes come in a continuous stream, many such jokes are ignored and forgotten rather than openly debated.

Be as tolerant of absurdity as of meaning.

Matthew, I think your analysis was really interesting, and I hope you stick around, we always enjoy new perspectives that can share their point of view in an interesting fashion.

Rose, I think you did a great job saying all the things I wanted to but even better. I guess it helps that you’re actually in the field.

Ceimi, I don’t know exactly where you’re coming from with your comments regarding humor. While humor may be able to give new insight into something, making disparaging jokes does not.

If a joke points out a serious flaw in something, quickly and easily that’s great, but if it simply reinforces incorrect assumptions then you have a problem. This is the same reason that race jokes are seriously problematic. Falling back on stereotypes reduces people to those stereotypes which can have serious negative consequences for everybody. Does that mean there can not be a single funny joke about professions (or race?) No, but the context, intent and consequences are all important. Furthermore, you delve into the same issues with your last comments regarding American and British sensibilities and humor. To sum up either one as a single entity does both a disservice and I know there is certainly a lot of crossover in fans of both. There are American comedians as wide ranging as Robin Williams, Chris Rock, Demetri Martin, Sam Kenison, Don Rickles, Jeff Foxworthy, Kathy Griffin, Amy Pohler, Ellen DeGeneres, Richard Pryor, Phyllis Diller and Jay Leno to name a few. I don’t know as many British comedians but people like Eddie Izzard, Jimmy Carr, Dave Gorman, Ricky Gervais, Stephen Fry, Hugh Laurie, Rowan Atkinson, Monty Python (yes, I know they’re group) and Russel Brand all come to mind. I wouldn’t want to claim that any of them have the same style let alone split them up by country.

Enjoy the complexity of life and the people found within it!

I disagree with you about the role of humor. Some forms of humor go beyond what some people feel is the border of controversy, but I think it is part of the magic of showing some local logical contradictions and new perspectives. Ricky Gervais was considered by some to be offensive at the Golden Globes, and consequently our strange obsession with these people and awards, and even comedy itself became a productive point of discussion.

Humor can on the one hand oversimplify, and on the other make a viewpoint concise and succinct. If it prompts an interesting discussion, I think it justified.

Are office managers consistently offended by the depiction of the boss in Dilbert? Should we feel offended for engineers who are represented as lazy Wally? I don’t quite understand what is meant by mean-spirited humor, perhaps a lack of context, etc can contribute to such a misinterpretation. Perhaps Americans take everything in life more seriously, every word to be persecution, every subject a victimization, and can’t stomach something like a more caustic British humor.

I’m the sister that was slightly offended by that psychology related question on BF’s formspring. Ignoring your comment about gender differences in the field of psychology, I have some points of contention with your comment.

I also would not be offended if someone had an insightful critique of the field of psychology that showed that they knew what they were talking about and thought these points were relevant, but that is not at all how I interpreted the formspring question. It seemed to me to be a jab at psychologists in general saying at the least that their occupation is worthless, and at worst that they are con-artists.

Indeed they have not proven that anything in the field of psychotherapy is effective, but psychotherapy is very different than psychology or counseling psychology. Psychotherapy is based on the Freudian theory of personality which, while innovative at the time, was flawed and now generally considered to be bunk. The client-therapist relationship was really formulated by Rogers, and is also quite removed from psychology practiced today.

Psychology today, both in its counseling and research form, has an entirely different theoretical framework that has been scientifically proven. Psychologists who do research (many of them) follow the scientific method and use the same statistical methods that researchers in the “hard sciences” do. They have been doing research for years, and many of the constructs and theories that have been formulated have been tested and re-tested to prove their validity. While getting a bachelors degree in psychology this is mainly what you learn. I have not, and probably will not take a class in counseling methods, but I have taken many classes on psychology research and have undertaken research in the field myself. It is only in graduate school that a person chooses to specialize in counseling or research, and this usually sets them off on different scholarly directions.

The counseling side is, as I have said, very different than what was practiced so many years ago when the study of psychology was in its infancy (for instance, hysteria is no longer a valid diagnosis for women or anybody as it was in the past). I myself have recently undergone psychological counseling for the very reason you say that people seem to resort to counseling. I had not developed a strong social network and I was seeking help. After a few sessions, I learned about myself and developed skills to change what I was unhappy with and now in the space of a couple of months I have started developing a social network and I no longer see a counselor. I realize that this is purely anecdotal evidence, but it is fairly common across anybody who decides to see a counselor for any reason. The way counseling psychology is practiced today is useful. The counselor does not just provide an optimistic, accepting environment in which the person can move toward self-actualization (Rogerian theory), nor does a patient lay on a couch and talk about their past and blame everything on their mother (Freudian theory – there’s more, but that’s the stereotypical view).

What offends me by the question in question and, in some ways, by your comment is that the field of psychology is still seen as useless clap-trap by so many people today. People do not approach a counselor when dealing with issues in their lives because they think seeing a “shrink” is a waste of time and money, and in some cases that it shows weakness. I believe there is a time in everybody’s life, especially the more dynamic times such as college, in which a person would benefit from seeing a counselor.

I enjoy criticism, especially in the fields of my study (I am also earning minors in History, English, and Religious Studies). Criticism brings new ideas to the table and makes a person think. I am not averse to taking a new idea in and changing my mind if I think the new idea is valid. However I am averse to people making fun of any field or occupation in what could be a mean-spirited way. The world has enough unhappiness without us adding to it.

Of course, as with all fields, psychology is not perfect. I am taking a class currently that focuses on research methodology, and there are always flaws. That is why so much research is done with different methodologies to attempt to negate these flaws. However my main dislike of the field is how it is comparatively unknown, I think that there should be more done to educate the general public on what it is now compared to what it once was.

I should qualify this entire argument by saying that I am not going to be going into a specifically psychological field in my future. I am going to be a pastor, which is why I chose psychology. My future career is going to be mainly working with people, sometimes at the worst points of their lives. I will feel confident with this undergraduate degree that I can understand people a little better, and know when it would be best to advise them to see a professional. Because I will not be specializing, I see the field in comparatively broad strokes. I do not feel I am qualified to say where it most needs improvement. However I am confident that my peers who will be specializing will all bring critical thinking to the field and I look forward to keeping up with the research done in future years. Psychology is still a relatively young science, and it has many more lanes of study in its future.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=filaskhth/s

1. Kill someone and eat them
2. Not kill someone and eat them
3. Kill someone and not eat them
4. Not kill someone and not eat them

These are your four options (unless you take the Buddhist route, and then there’s a whole cluster fuck of possibilities that we westerners tend not to posit). If we’re asking about the morality of each of these options, #4 seems like a safe way out, right? But then we have the archetype of the soldier who finds his comrade horribly injured and puts a bullet in said comrade’s head to end the suffering caused by such gruesome wounds. If we hold this archetype to be morally sound (i.e. that killing someone to end their suffering is a good act), then there are instances in which #4 is actually immoral. But we don’t care about that. We want to talk about eating people.

That doesn’t necessarily take #3 out of the running (once we do kill someone, do we have an obligation to eat them?) but we’ll just let that ruminate in the background of our other conversation.

#1 can get tricky. Presumably we want to know the circumstances under which a person was killed before we can pass a judgement. The focus here is still on the killing though; the eating is just a context. I mean, we’re presuming that people are killing others in order to eat said others, though admittedly there could be a subset that kills people and just happens to decide to eat them. We’ll ignore this subset for the sake of brevity.

For the remaining people falling under option #1, they’re either killing people because they want to eat them, or because they (believe they) need to eat them. The latter is your stereotypical survival scenario and the former is your Hannibal.

Let’s start with the Hannibal. The focus here is likely to fall on the killing again; it will only be all the more theatrical because of the cannibalism. Is it moral for a person to kill them and eat them just because they want to? Likely we’ll say that the list of circumstances under which one person can morally kill another will not become more expansive when the consumption of flesh is involved. Perhaps we say that it is permissible to kill in self-defense, to end suffering, for a death sentence, and perhaps a few other circumstances. This list likely gets smaller when cannibalism is involved. Will we accept cannibalism from someone who is claiming to have killed in self-defense? Probably not. But still, there may be circumstances in which we can kill and eat someone because we want to and be able to justify it, like if they are receiving the death penalty. (This depends on whether the eating itself is justifiable, which will be explored later.)

Alternatively, we might kill and eat someone because we feel we need to. Three people are trapped in a mine with little hope of being rescued. After going without food for some time, they decide that somebody will have to be eaten so that the other two can survive. This is a no-brainer. Of course one person should die versus three people dying. Let’s presume that all three of these people are the so-called breadwinners of their families. If all three people die, then all three families suffer immense emotional and financial damage, and they too may even starve to death. If one of the miners is sacrificed to save those other two, then sure, one family suffers grave emotional damage, but likely those other two families can pull together to support the third. The problem here is choice. How does one choose who to eat in this situation? If one person offers to sacrifice their body for the others it’s easy. If not, then do you draw straws? Do you compare the qualities and potentialities of the miners to decide which ones deserve to live most? Does the weakest one get overtaken by the others?

Eating one of them just makes sense. Whether we can, emotionally, prepare ourselves to kill and eat somone that we presumably care about is another question altogether.

Which brings us to #2. If a person dies (of natural causes), is it moral to eat them? Barring a soul, or at least presuming that what happens to the body is of no consequence to the soul, my answer is a resounding yes.

Think about it. We spend our entire lives consuming, rather inefficiently I might add. As of 2006 or 2007, 70% of our corn crops were going to feed livestock. The numbers are similar for other grains and soy. For every 30 calories we put into something like a cow, we get about 1 calorie out. We’re expending an unmaintainable amount of energy so that we can eat meat (and as mentioned in the podcast, as this continues, and as the global population and standard of living grows, meat as we know it will become rarer and more expensive). In fact, it’s estimated that if we shifted our resources away from feeding livestock and instead fed those plant crops to people, world hunger would disappear (at least, until the population grew and land area devoted to farms was diminished as a result… and assuming we cooperated well enough to get that excess food to those that need it).

After we’ve lived on this earth, consumming inefficiently for 60, 70, 80, 90, or even 100 years, they just throw us in the ground. The human animal is being raised very inefficiently, and then just thrown away.

The answer is the get rid of livestock. They take up land and resources that are better used elsewhere. We shift to a society that raises only plant crops. We’ll have more than enough to feed everyone, and to sate our desire for meat, we’ll eat those people that die of natural causes. We won’t have to give up extra land to cattle because we’ll be the cattle. We’ll live long, happy lives, and when we die our bodies will go to nourish the next generations. Yes, human meat will still be just as inefficient to grow as beef, but that fact likely isn’t going to stop us from breeding, so we may as well make the best of it–and we won’t have the calorie degradation that we have from putting plants into animals and then animals into us… we’ll put the plants directly into us and then eat each other.

We don’t cringe at the thought of organ donation, so why should we care about eating people? It’s all a matter of harvesting bodies to preserve the living. I think it would be a good use of my body after I’m dead and have no use for it.

The problem is cultural, not moral. We’re grossed out by the thought of eating another person, just as we’re grossed out by the thought of eating bugs. Bugs are, in fact, quite tasty. Beatle larvae taste like pecans. That doesn’t mean I wasn’t grossed out when I tried it, but I recognize that it had nothing to do with the taste or texture of what I was eating; I had been inculcated from the time I was born to believe that bugs are icky.

Shifting to eating bugs, and to eating those of us humans that pass of natural causes, is the moral choice when considering the alternatives. We just need to shift how we relate to the dead as well. If we could adopt the mentality that our loved ones are living on through us when we eat them, it would help move us beyond our cultural hangups.

Since I submitted the link up there about Objectivism being a cult, I want to say I agree with the sentiment of the article, but I want to take ti one step further.

Ayn Rand is a Drug. Her writings make you feel good as you’re reading them and the buzz can last anywhere from a few hours after you finish reading to weeks, months, or in rare cases, years. Her whole shtick is that human beings are awesome (although some are more awesome than others) and the books (at least Fountainhead and Anthem, I haven’t finished Atlas Shrugged) are meant to make you feel like you could go out and change the world. It allows you to shift the blame to others: government, religion and whatnot, for creating systems that are designed to hold you back. We can all be supermen! (yes I chose a specifically gendered term, because Rand’s depiction of women is problematic to say the least)

But the thing is Everybody can’t be a superman. I suspect even Rand would admit this, probably lovingly embrace it, because it means that some people are better than others. And statistically speaking, any given reader of Rand is unlikely to be the World’s Best at anything, because there is likely someone better.

The real problem is this: What is better? There isn’t an actual objective standard for what the best thing is, no matter how much Randies insist there is. It’s the whole Mac v PC issue, or even put more simply, it’s like saying Green Socks are better than Blue Socks. Some things really come down to opinion.

I may have more to say after I actually listen to the episode. If if ever get around to doing that.

You guys did a much better analysis than I could, I just want to share what I was thinking when I read the piece.

The Mobipaks are a metaphor for the mental hardware with which we are born, the neurotransmitters which can cause us to feel love, pain, perhaps even improve our verbosity. In some sense we are regulated with physiological and psychological responses which are independent of our desire to feel certain emotions. I certainly feel like I only superficially consent to emotions or other physiological reactions, “Drip on?” “Acknowledged.” At first I thought it strange that the experimenters were allowed to consent for the application of neurotransmitters for other people. Yet I suppose as social beings we are also incapable of escaping from tampering with the feelings of others, as Abnesti was trying to force the narrator to do.

With our personal and social free agency being limited by our neurological ‘Mobi-paks’ coupled with the human suffering and anguish (Darkenfloxx), why not commit suicide?

It feels like a long time since you guys have sat down to properly tear into the meat of some philosophical quarry; and what topic to get into.

I’ve got to say, I take the other side of the topic; that the actions of Abnesti and the body he worked for are inherently wrong. I can’t help but feel that the moment tests were resumed after Heather’s death, and with an acceptance that the same was very probably going to happen to Rachel, that the program moved out of the realm of valid scientific enquiry and into the macabre horrors the likes of Japan’s Unit 731 (I concede that the level of horror and twisted humanity present in the latter exceeds that of Spiderhead, but – whether it be the death of two girls or half a million(ish) POWs in the name of knowledge and progress – the moral and ethical reprehensibillity remains the same.)

What I found more interesting, and I’m glad Kevin brought it up, was the difference between actual drugs and the Mobipak drugs. What we know as drugs tend not to, in the short term at least, change a person or dictate their actions, but rather exaggerate certain aspects of their personallity while repressing others. So, as each person is different, they’re affected differently by the same drug. a good example of this is whiskey. Given half a bottle of whiskey I become a genial and gregarious (sometimes garrulous) sort of chap. Conversely, a co-worker’s father has, on threat of divorce, been banned from whiskey because it (and only it) turns him “evil.”
The Mobipak drugs seem not to work this way, but rather override the person completely. Take ED289/290: fuck yourself into friction burn. Take Darkenfloxx: kill yourself. This is quite a troubling concept. Comparatively giving two strangers a combination of, say, MDMA and Viagra, won’t necessarily result in the two subjects rutting like wild boars – in fact, I’d wager that it’d happen very rarely and depend on some instantaneous attraction occurring before the introduction of the drugs. Not so with the Mobipak. Any and all human personallity and free will (or, debatably, illusion thereof) seems to be overridden. This raises the most interesting question of all.

Again, it was Kevin who touched on questioning the reality of the emotions experienced via the mobipak: and i would like to extend this into questioning the validity of the experiences in general. Stephen briefly bought up this idea of a person being the sum of their connectome – which, if I’ve managed to garner the layman’s grasp of this, is the very architecture of their perception and reactions. If you can override a person’s perceptions and reactions to produce the uniform results described in Escape from Spiderhead, do you not change the person in toto? If so, how valid are those results if, once the subject is returned to normal, the entity created by the mobipak no longer exists?
There certainly seems to be some concession to this in the story. For instance, Jeff was supposed to have fallen completely in love, but once returned to “baseline” the memory of this seems to stir no emotion of love, not even the slightest hint of the sort of residual emotion commonly connected with memory. Whereas the emotion of another form of love experienced when not under the influence of the Mobipak, the love for his mother, seems to shine through in stages throughout the story. Especially in the penultimate paragraph. Perhaps this is waxing literal more than philosophical, but it would seem that Jeff still holds that love for his mother because it was Jeff experiencing it, whereas he retains no love for Heather or Rachel because it was not him loving them – it was something else.

Is it right to actually change a personallity? Is the instatement of a second, new personallity tantamount to the murder of the original? Who is this new person? As the product purely of concoctions alien to the body is this person actually human? and the questions continue.

All in all, a bit of a thinker and damn good show guys.
Taz.

I’ve been listening to you guys since…the New Year probably. I’m enjoying it and recently I’ve decided to try and catch up.

First, I’d like to say I’m a big fan. Second, I’d like to apologise for this entirely tangential transition, but I was listening to your older podcasts and I came across your ‘Politics, eh?’ one and, while I enjoyed it (the status quo for your podcasts), I found that there were some nagging issues which I thought could be a fair basis for…well, something: Another show, a random topic-change in another show, ignoring, which ever. (Also, I’ll apologise for commenting here when it’s an episode entirely other that I’m talking about….) The primary one which I found strange (as a Canadian myself…I should probably have prefaced this section of the comment with that fact…) was the lack of…well…Canadiana, let alone Canadians. And while it’s not entirely surprising that it dealt mainly with an American perception of Canada, it tended to drift (not entirely surprising, perhaps) back over to American politics. In the end, I found it to be…not entirely aptly named.

…Wow I can ramble…. At any rate, my point was that I think that it might be interesting to spend a show at some point in future with a Canadian talking about a more…Canadian perspective on the country, and perhaps a perspective on the US (there’s an interesting difference right there: Canadians generally never call your country ‘America’ …Sorry for that needless parenthetical comment, but the linguistics-nerd in me frequently gets the better of me). I seem to remember that you’re hoping to get a multinational show (From Prague, {insert South Korean city name here}, and the US) done in the summer, so…might I suggest a Canadian thrown in there for good measure?

P.S. While I don’t want to self-promote too much…if you can’t find another Canadian…. *waves Canadian flag*
P.P.S. Even after I just spent far too long ragging on that one show, I think I should reïterate that I’m actually a big fan, not just an angry pedant…. Pedant, frequently. Angry one? Not usually.

Look at the change percentages; seems to be a point against the “Nwespaper’s are fine” camp.

In my opinion universities becoming less…”difficult” (for lack of a better word, what I mean is the quantity part’s more probable consequences in the quantity vs. quality argument) is just a normal step in the life cycle of an educational (educating?) system. It’s kind of an historical fact, if you think about the progressive lengthening of compulsory education. As Kevin said, it’s similar to market behavior: when the offer of something goes up, the price goes down (so when a lot of people have a diploma, an employer usually expects you to have it, and in turn you are compelled to get one since you won’t be competitive if you don’t).
If the question that comes to mind is the reason for giving more and more years to schooling. The reply is, I think, that knowledge is expanding at astounding rates, and to keep up (albeit new subjects, theories and the such are not introduced instantly in the system) we have to impart as “background information” a lot more things -and thus learn them in lower-level “educational steps”-. Special relativity for example is something you now study in high school, which was not the case in 1908, as it was then cutting edge.

-I apologize my apparent inability to be clear when explaining ideas, but I’m a master in convoluting simple things-

Anyway. More information needs to be taught in the same time. That demands a reduction of the time spent on each subject, or the addition of more dedicated time. The present case is actually both, as I see it.

A solution to the having-a-diploma-feels-like-being-an-ordinary-person could reside in a complete overhaul of high schooling, maybe adding two years and not teaching things deemed unnecessary (and at the same time instructing students in a lot more universitarian subjects). This could make universities a desire only for someone really interested again, and make post-high schoolers actually competitive in the job world.

Or, you know, finding a way to instantly reach c and beginning using the benefits of slower relativistic time. That could be actually easier, maybe.

p.s.: I apologize for eventual syntactical or orthographic mistakes, but English is not my first language, so I’m not completely able to help it 😛 I tried my best though xD

in my opinion what happens is that we get a mixed response for a stimulus from our consciousness and our unconscius. We consciously know that films
and books are fiction, but what actually happens inside our mind,albeit unconsciously, is “oh hey I can create an image of this in my head, so it must have the same degree of reality as the images I get from the people I phisically meet everyday, whom I know are real”. Thus we react to fictional images the same way we react to the real images of the world we get from our eyes in everyday life.
The difference we have in reacting to book fiction and to film fiction resides, in my opinion, in the presence of other people in the context. Since we value a lot more rationality over irrationality, in a place where we know other people are present our conscious part gets ‘stronger’ and we try not to behave in a way we’re not supposed to (read: taught to). Meanwhile when we’re alone there is no point in hiding anything, and we tend to space out of the story a lot less than when viewing a film if left alone. I hope this makes sense, in my head it does xD To corroborate the point I’m trying to make I want to’ take as an example the 13th (if I remember correctly) century: back then it was perfectly natural to burn witches, and not many thought it wrong, mainly because of a radicated way of seeing reality. Today that kind of behavior would be labeled irrational and crazy, just because we’re not supposed to believe in witches and to like burning women alive.

Ipod’s spelling suggestions are making my eyes bleed curses so I’m stopping now, I hope I was able to channel through my words the meaning of this
comment 🙂 A wonderful episode by the way, one of my favourites so far! Keep on the good work, you’re absolutely wonderful!
And have a nice day 🙂

I wanted to say that I love listening to BF, it’s one of my favorite podcasts, it’s so brilliant and engaging I have no doubt it will be A Thing (it already is)!

Remember when you talked about facebook fake personas? I have a little project about that, and I thought getting you involved (obviously if you want to) could be interesting 🙂 you can contact me at un.erebus@gmail.com, since I couldn’t find your (anyone’s) email on the website

Well, I’m looking forward to another great episode!

Yay! Another location gamer joins the cause! I would suggest checking out http://foursquare.com/help/ for a run-down on how it all works. The “Swimmies” and other badges were specific to SXSW, though, so there’s no way to get those unless you were in Austin last week. As for having you on an ep, I’ll have to be in touch. Is your Twitter handle the same as your handle here?

But yeah, great episode. I learned some new things from it. 🙂

If anyone wants to add me as a friend on foursquare, I’m on as ChaosPlatypus, but I think I’m already friends with Stephen, Jed, and Kevin.

Also, non foursquare related, you should all see “See What I’m Saying: The Deaf Entertainers Documentary” when it comes to Texas. I saw it tonight and it was great, and I got to meet the entertainers who were followed, after the Q&A. Got pics and autographs. And, yes, I checked into the theater on foursquare!

Anyway, Yay Kiki!
Eheh! *flee*

Which I suppose enough to justify the day, or any holiday: people need an excuse to do things a little differently for a day, and this applies to both sides of the celebration – those in the party and those, as it were, in the kitchen. Even if we’re not privy to the festivities at the centre of holiday we will often use that exclusion as an excuse to do something a little different.
But that’s only for holiday’s in general. Much of the stuff at the centre of holidays could go to hell, and I am right with you with fist waving at commercialism (the thoughts on commercial sexism I thought particularly awesome), social response to those outside the holiday and the sexism therein.

Great stuff guys, I hope you’ll all feature more in future episodes.

DFTBA

That said, I’ve only ever had a boyfriend for one Valentine’s Day, and I feel a little sad every time another year goes around and I don’t have one. The one Valentine’s Day I did have a boyfriend, I went out and bought a big heart shaped box of chocolates, and a single red rose for him. He bought me a, umm, smaller box of chocolates and a smaller rose. I could tell he was embarrassed that I’d stolen his thunder, or something. So, even though he did the standard requirements for the holiday, I was still a little disappointed. I don’t know, I just really like going all out for things like holidays. The past two years, though, I’ve had a Valentine’s Day games night with a bunch of other single friends, where we played Apples to Apples and had all you can eat sushi at a local restaurant. Not an anti-Valentine’s Day party. Just a fun get-together with some other people who also happen not to have plans that evening.

So, in recap, I don’t avoid the holiday by any means, and I would much rather be with someone for Valentine’s Day, but I don’t let that stop me from having fun. And I discovered the 50%-75% off chocolate on Feb 15 about 5 years ago, and I get some every year. Still working through this year’s stash that I bought myself. I *heart* Russel Stover.

I spent V-day by myself reading the internet and eating stale Twilight candy hearts from December with such phrases as “Live 4 Ever” and “I <3 E C". 😛

Great episode guys. I had to skip the previous 2 because I’ve watched neither Avatar or Doll House yet but fully intend to soon.

And before I go: such is my irrational fear of the Zombocalypse that a few months ago I came ridiculously close to purchasing a couble of crowbars, a step ladder as well as planning the most efficient way of disabling my stairs.
Max Brooks is a great man.

What you all are doing is amazing. Please keep it up and keep having fun with it. Your podcasts make my insomnia so much nicer to cope with.

Thank you.

I love Bobby Darin, especially the song “Artificial Flowers” (upbeat depressing songs are awesome!), and the conversation in this BF reminded me of a scene from the movie “Beyond the Sea”, which is the Kevin Spacey movie about the life of Bobby Darin.

Bobby has recorded “Dream Lover” and “Splish Splash”, and he’s a big rock and roll hit with the teens. But he’s not satisfied. He tells his manager he wants to be a star.

His manager says, “You don’t have to prove anything! You’re a star already!”

“Is that what you think? Hold on a sec.” Bobby turns to a delivery guy passing in the hall. “Hey, kid! I just have a question, c’mere. Will you look at me?”

“What?”

“Just look at me. Do you know me?”

“What?”

“Do you recognize me?”

“What are you talking about?”

“Do I look familiar to you?”

“No, you don’t. I don’t know you. Will you leave me alone? I got things to do.”

“Thanks pal.” Bobby turns back to his manager. “When the delivery guy knows me, then I’m a star.”

I think that scene is a good example of the levels of fame, and how someone can go from one level to another. Back then, he wanted to go from only being known by teens, to being known by the general populace. Now, it’s people who want to be known by everyone, rather than just being known on the Internet.

I also thought I’d mention that I’m seeing Jonathan Coulton live for the first time on this coming Sunday. I’m excited! Even though I have to be in the crowd, with all the other plebeians, rather than on stage, like the great and wonderful Stephen Torrence, who looks down on all the rest of us from high above.

And, lastly . . . where on Earth did Banana Pancakes come from?! Now I want pancakes . . .

ChaosPlatypus: Scientists have overwhelming evidence about Earth’s poles. You can actually track the switching of the poles on the ocean floor. Learned that in geology and it’s something learned over and over again in my science classes.

Liked this episode though. I personally like the thought of robots taking over the world. Simultaneous flash floods was one I’ve never thought of before. It was an interesting thought. 🙂 I also liked the earthquake theory. Maybe there will be a mass combustion at Earth’s center and something with lava and magma will occur and earthquakes will happen and all that bad stuff.

Is it irrational to react to fiction? With fiction so common, these reactions must be normal, but is this normal thing irrational?

People flock to fictions via libraries, theaters, dreams, and even businesses work out what-if scenarios when they decide where to put the security cameras and write up business policy. This business example seems to use fiction as a tool in preparing for an uncertain future. What about my friend’s addiction to romance paperback novels? She’s a widow, so how is that a tool?

I think we have the habit of surrounding ourselves with fiction because we like to feel the emotional reactions. I think emotions are to feelings as paintings are to eyesight or music is to hearing or food is to hunger. I think we like to choose our feelings the same way trick-or-treating children sift through their candy hoard seeking favorite flavors. Fictional actions give us emotional reactions. We don’t need fiction to feel emotions, but if we want to feel emotions more forcefully or more frequently than they normally unfold in a normal average day then what’re we going to do about that?

I’ll say it is possible to use self-control or mental tricks to engage in the feeling of an emotion at will. I’ll say it isn’t something that I learned quickly. I think it’s simpler to watch a favorite show or read a favorite story or remember a favorite thought at such times I hunger for a particular flavor of emotion. It is primarily my preference for feeling emotions that keep me from liking Buddhism. I’m not ready to get off the wheel; I like to feel.

Separation of philosophy from religion, is that an eastern and western difference? It may be, but philosophy if being a love of truth and religion if being a conviction that a set of beliefs is true, these are not dissimilar topics.

Remixing old stuff, yup, I was surprised. What do we hear about eastern? The My Name is Earl show did remind the general public about the concept of Karma. The Beatles reminded the general public about the concept of Karma. The New Agers are repackaging the same material as the Theosophists, who were repackaging the Hindu writings, Mahabharata, Upanishads, Vedas.

That young prince living the protected childhood, not knowing anything other than the controlled surroundings he was given, seeing an ill old person, was way messed up from seeing that. It was an impossible puzzle to his upbringing, but it was a puzzle that stuck in his mind and he pondered life as he knew it and life as he discovered it and the result was Buddhism. This was Buddhism in India. I couldn’t help thinking of Gautama when I first heard about Skinner and that bothered me.

The cleverness of a bumper sticker is in its ability to say much in few words. The koan has this same restriction. The few words of the koan are selected for the purpose of causing the person hearing this koan to pause mentally before thinking, “oh, yeah, I was missing that whole point and now I get it.” A properly worded koan is likely going to be a non-sequitor.

I’m sorry, I’ve been awake a long time and I’m rambling and I owe it to you folks to have a sit and a listen and give a kind and thoughtful feedback. I’m falling asleep. I’m sorry. I’ll pay close attention and write good stuff…soon.

I love your shows. Please, do, continue.

Always glad to have a new fan! As you’ll probably find out as you make your troll through our archives, we’re not all actually philosophers. (Stephen is, and some of our occasional guests are as well.) Instead, we’re just folks who like to talk about the bigger things in life. I like to thinks that our lack of real philosophy training is part of what makes our shows unique.

So, if you’re all philosophers, how come nobody made the connection between the definition between the Sanskrit word Om (or Aum) and what happens “when the fat lady sings” after the final note fades?

Also, this isn’t strictly speaking about the End of the World, but I was informed in a science class once that the magnetic poles are not fixed points, but instead very slowly, but perpetually, moving, so that one day the North Pole will be the South Pole, and vice versa. And in the hundreds of years when the poles are in the middle of the shift (so N and S poles are in the E and W), you’ll be able to see the Northern Lights from NYC every night. Of course, this process would also destabilize the planet a bit. But I think we, as humans, will be advanced enough by that time to use technology to compensate for any ill effects. Since hearing that, I’ve thought that this would be an awesome setting for a SciFi story. Not a story having the switching of the poles as a plot point, but just having this idea of the poles switching, tech compensating, and the Northern Lights seen every night from North America, as a background setting for the plot to take place in.

Hey, if we didn’t have tech to compensate, that could probably count as a type of apocalypse with a post-apocalypse to follow.

(Yeah, I watch the episodes on the Stickam site when they’re video only, and then think of what I want to say so I’m ready to comment when the episode finally gets officially posted on the BF site. I also just like to talk a lot.)

“I see cannibals munchin’ a missionary luncheon
The years may have flown but the memory stays
Like the hopes that were dashed when the stock market crashed
Ha ha ha ha
Those were the good old days”

Great episode!

Sodawater Rhubarb.

Play on, Maestro!

I suspect that you won’t be reading this any time soon, as I’m responding nearly six months later. I don’t remember exactly what was going on when this episode was recorded, but I’m pretty sure I had been doing some extensive traveling and that unfortunately made me a little more lethargic than my usual self. Hopefully you’ve stuck around and are still enjoying my ongoing rant against the world.

Kevin

I won’t speak for the other folks who do the show, but some of the things you criticize are what I think makes Bad Philosophy what it is. The show really is us talking off the top of our head, which I feel gives us more of a conversational tone. We’re all relatively intelligent folks and letting our minds and thus discussion go where it will gives us new opportunities for discovery that may not occur if we stuck to a more strict outline style. Keep in mind the show is called Bad Philosophy, and we never really try to hide that. We intentionally go down those rabbit trails and where they end up we can never predict.

Some of our episodes are better than others, I won’t deny it, so you may want to try and sample a few before you make a final decision. I strongly suspect that this particular episode would be more enjoyed by our long term listeners as it had a lot of in jokes and references to last year’s new year’s show. Off the top of my head you could try Reading Rainbow (ep 51), Bach in Business (ep 45), Eight Buffaloes in a Row (ep 36) Or you could go way back in the archives and check out The Jolly Llama (ep 14 and one of our best early episodes) and if you wan to know how bad BF used to be, check out MyJority Rules (ep 0, recorded almost accidentally.)

All that being said, BF ain’t for everybody so it’s no skin off my nose if it don’t scratch your back the way it scratches mine.

And your best bet to find info on the stuff we talk about on the show: Google.

Good to have you back, Taz. 😉

However, I think I’m going to start at trying to reconcile the difference (if any) between the investments we make in fictional and non fictional characters and or circumstance. With only a brief moment’s thought it occurs that there is little difference in how rapt we may become over the fictional or non fictional item, which suggests that looking at characters, events, lore or circumstance alone may be reductionist, that what truly matters is the story in toto.
I also can’t help but think about the potential similarity in our responses to stories, be they fiction or not. But a thought occurs in that if we become excited or chilled during the unfalsified and unexaggerated regailing of a true story, does that make said responses and more or less real/ rational than the counterpart reactions to a tall tale?

I apologise, this is literally just a bit of off the cuff cognitive splat. In amongst any real thought I’m getting conceptual interference, by which I mean concepts like “escapism,” “subjective universes,” and “imagination traits” and other crap keep jumping up, asking to be looked at.

Any, I apologise for being about 6 weeks late to the game on this one; work’s been insane, but I’ll promise to get to catching up. In the meantime thanks for this f*#!ing amazing episode; I fully expect to lose some sleep across the next few nights.

Taz

Some of the predictions were slightly amusing (remove your underwear without removing your pants? I predict we will have light sabers before that happens,lol) but I still found myself distracted despite downloading the episode I usually do so I can clean house while listening to them on my PSP.

May I be so bold to suggest a partial script? Not a full rehearsal mind you, I am in college too and the coursework can be quite demanding (Ethics,Geography,Art history,Economics,Biology, oh my) but something like writing questions and topics down before starting and trying your best to cover them before starting. And if possible, providing links that pertain to the discussion, like tech articles about Apple’s projects, or a research blog when talking about the mind and/or body.

That’s just my silly opinion, I’ll still have the RSS feed bookmarked-the least I can do for taking your time to entertain us on youtube. ( The kids I watch at the after school program like your performance of ‘Fireflies” better than the girls that have done it.)

Though, I have to say, I’m a visual person and it’s hard for something to keep my attention when there’s nothing to look at. I start listening to one of these episodes and the next thing I know I’m flipping through websites and puttering around the apartment and such, and not really fully paying attention to what you guys are saying. However, the ones that have the video option, even though it’s just video of you guys talking, completely hold my interest. Is it possible to upload videos more often?

And, hell, I might as well mention that my Twitter account is @ChaosPlatypus. If only because I just recently started using it again, after the obligatory “I used it for a week, got bored, and ignored it for the next 10 months,” and since none of my friends really use it, I only have 4 followers. It’s a lot easier to get in the habit of writing 140 character updates about life if it seems that someone is listening.

Totally. I don’t think you’ll get any argument from us about that. And if we came off as somehow *for* the displacement of peoples, that’s unintentional. Our beef is mainly with the heavy-handedness of the screenplay, even though the message was a sound one.

It’s not anymore of a question because we’re talking about people’s homes. Whether you consider yourself an “environmentalist” or not, it’s still not okay to kick people out of where they live. It wasn’t okay during the Trail of Tears and it’s not okay in Central and South America today.

I think that comment was sarcastic, if I’m not mistaken. That or the point was that if the whole planet was part of this network, the destruction of one tree shouldn’t harm it much. Granted, Home Tree was pretty dang huge, and there’s no telling whether certain parts of the network had more significance, just as parts of the human brain do.

I had an idea for a future Bad Philosophy episode. It’s actually more of a Psychological topic than a Philosophical one, but . . . My friend and I were listening to Jonathan Coulton’s Skullcrusher Mountain and we started trying to see what psychological disorders we could and could not diagnose about the narrator, strictly by the song lyrics. For instance, he’s clearly schitzophrenic, due to the line in the chorus about “the voices that control me from inside my head say I shouldn’t kill you yet”. However, he also believes that he’s capable of making mistakes, unlike many supervillains who believe they’re infallible, and you can tell this from the line, “Maybe I used too many monkeys.” Anyway, I thought it would be funny to see you guys psychoanalyze the various narrators from JoCo’s music.

A person who thinks they have seen a ghost in real life will most likely be more scared (or duped,I would say) at the movie Paranormal Activity than I would.

My wife and I enjoy a good scary movie, but for me that is difficult, my deep and beloved skepticism makes it difficult to be blindly afraid as I should be. I sometimes ruin a movie by pointing out that certain things could never happen in our know world. Still, if the movie is superbly written I will suspend my disbelief and skepticism so I can enjoy it the same way as my neighbors do.

Also, some movies do not work trans-culturally. I love British humor but some of my friends don’t get it and by explaining it, it kinda gets ruined.
Japanese horror movies are most successful in Japan because they are based off of the beliefs and fears that country holds. Same is true for India, France, Canada etc.

A true paradox will happen when a movie causes a great emotional reaction to all people all across the globe, that will be an interesting thing to dissect.

Seriously though, the movie wasn’t that bad or that good for that matter, so I suppose I agree with most of the opinions voiced, albeit, I would have said it a bit different, but I am different person now aren’t I?

Oh, I came here from youtube. Your ASL music videos are very entertaining, keep em coming.

Oh…first.

This leads to my second disagreement with Dr. Curzer. To say that one should not have unconditional commitments. I would instead argue that moral commitments ought to be unconditional. The problem that he thinks exists comes from 1) having unwavering commitment to wrong things and 2) a misunderstanding of what unconditional commitment is. For example, one could have the unconditional commitment to the immorality of theft. This person will never steal. Even bringing up the condition of, for example, stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving family, that person’s commitment to not stealing should not be considered immoral; it is at worst unwise or unrealistic, given his circumstances. Another point is that an unconditional commitment does not mean unwillingness to ever compromise, particularly in his example of a lawmaker’s debate. If one side is unconditionally and uncompromisingly committed, for example, to a pro-life stance, it does not mean they are not willing to compromise with pro-choice lawmakers on a given bill. Rather, it means that they will never go AGAINST their convictions. Compromise between unconditionally committed individuals consists in an arrangement where neither side feels they have “won,” but neither side has lost either. A bill which did not outlaw abortions and did not protect abortions, but did put specific requirements such as requiring the father’s consent, would be an example of a compromise.

Lastly, on the subject of unconditional love, I feel that Dr. Curzer is absolutely mistaken. He assumes that love means shielding someone from the consequences of their actions. One of Socrates’ more coherent claims was that a person would rather their loved one receive punishment, and by punishment, moral improvement, for their actions, rather than wanting them to wallow in their corrupt nature. If a loved one committed a murder, for example, I would turn them in. Not because I stopped loving them, but because I love them and would rather they go to jail than run free unattoned. Likewise, were I in a relationship with someone who abused me, and I loved them, I would turn them in out of love for them, hoping that one day they could be the better sort of person that therapy/counseling could provide. Even if they didn’t change, I wouldn’t stop loving them. As a simpler way of putting it: it is a mistake to claim that loving someone means doing what they would want you to do: loving someone means doing what you believe is best for them.

What if a piece is purely improvised? Are you communicating with a future self? And I would like to draw a semantic difference between Communication and Communion, even if I’m picking nits or just totally off base. Communication means that you are trying to pass information between two (or more) different parties. So you have PERSON A, PERSON B and THE INFORMATION PACKET. It’s a transaction. With Communion, the object isn’t passing something from one to the other, but uniting the two within a common bond or experience. There is an transaction in Communication that can be judged as a failure or success. With Communion, the only objective is to be united within the moment. It’s not a “DOING,” it’s more a sense of “BEING.” Like Taz says, Communion “is what it is,” without need for explanation or judgement. And with music being both communication and communion, then it’s “Do-be-do-be-doing.”

A favorite philosophy joke: “To be is to do”-Socrates; “To do is to be”-Sartre; “Do Be Do Be Do”-Sinatra; “Scooby Dooby Do”-Scooby Do; “Yaba Daba Doo!”-Fred Flintstone

My point with “4:33,” and why I think it’s better performed by a master pianist, is that the piece is about potential. You can’t just sit at a stool without a piano or stand on an empty stage. The piece is written for a piano, it about the unplayedness of the piano. SO, if a master pianist is playing 4:33, your expectation is, “Why aren’t I hearing lovely music? Is this lovely music I’m hearing?”

If 4:33 is played by a terrible musician, your reaction might be, “Thank goodness they aren’t touching the keys!” There is a difference in the unheard potentials.

And yes, I think Cage was also toying with the idea of what musicianship is. He might have been hoping for the reaction, “Now, I can play THAT!”

One of my points with birds and clouds and committees and computers is “Does art require intention?” And if it does, can the intention be on the part of the perceiver and not on the creator. Does art require a Creator? If I see a pattern in the clouds that I like, is that ART? The creation of the pattern is either random (or Divine), but is it still beautiful without my judgement? Am I the creator of the ART when I say, “That ONE, I like THAT!”? How much of an artist was Ansel Adams? And how much was he documenting the ART that was already there?

I believe Man first recognized the ART in creation around him (and attributed it to the DIVINE) long before he began to try to create ART(at first) by imitating creation.

Can I create a work of “ART” using dice? Can I roll the outcome? At the end of that creation, who is the creator? Me or the dice? What if I don’t write the rules to how the dice should be rolled or what each roll signifies? This is a simplified version of my “Can a computer create art?” question.

If a group of friends sits down and plays Dungeons and Dragons, while another friend takes notes, then those notes are written up as a story, who wrote the story? The Dungeon Master, the game creators, the players, the dice or the friend taking notes? If the dice determined key elements of the “plot” (like which characters live or die), did the dice help “write” it?

We don’t know that we both perceive “BLUE” the same way. Some people are color blind, they can’t perceive color the same way. But Blue, Red and Yellow will still be primary colors no matter what our perceptions of them are or what are reactions to them might be. If you mix them, you will still get BLACK, no matter how you see that or how that makes you feel. There is physics and math behind the aesthetics of color. And if we don’t see colors the same way, isn’t it amazing that our reactions to similar colors can be so similar!

Similarly, there are physical properties to sound and vibration and harmony. I’m not a physicist. I’m a lousy musician. And I’m an even worse philosopher. But the acoustics of harmony are not arbitrary. Certain notes mix well, while others clash, not just because we define them that way or perceive them that way. They are physically clashing or harmonizing. And I don’t think the psychoacoustics are all learned responses either. Harmony is calming, dissonance is tense.

Anyway, thanks again for your responses, KevSaund and Taz. Tossing about ideas like this is fun. I hope that I clarified some of my earlier ideas and wasn’t just repetitiously redundant, repeating myself again and again.

I’ll recommend a book that has a section on the origins of art. It’s very similar in thinking to Taz. It’s “Understanding Comics,” by Scott McCloud. It’s a great comic book. It’s a great philosophy book. And it’s a great comic book about comic books. (Very Meta.)

Firstly, I’m glad you cleared up the oral/aural thing. I have first hand experience of this sort of thing going wrong… you can only imagine my embarrassment when my girlfriend politely stated that she had, in fact, offered me favours of the oral variety and that the removal of my personage from her head, with all due care and haste, would probably, ultimately, be best for all concerned.

It was great to listen to your thoughts on music; interested me greatly. However, I’ve always found music and art to be a bit of a philosophical taboo. It’s about the only field at which I can look and think: “Yup, siree. Is what it is,” and be happy with it too.

See, I’ve always been one for the “True Art is Useless” school of thought and have always found the study of the useless to be somewhat… absurd, I guess. Of course, that which is without use is not necessarily without value, and it’s those values that actually interest. The arts are worth a truly honorable mention of the highest order when studying these values (order, chaos, beauty and grotesqueness, for example) as they perhaps offer some of the truest expressions of our perceptions of said values.
I suppose, then, that, within the realm of philosophy leastways, I consider works of art and music to be something more along the lines of literary metaphors or analogies. And while such things can be incredibly intriguing to focus too much thought on them is to somewhat miss the point.

For example, take the metaphor “life is a journey.” The point of this statement is not to make you think about the statement, nor too much about the comparisons between a life and a road trip to your Aunt’s place in Massapequa, but rather to make you think of life itself – moreover, to aid in your understanding of life.
So when I listen to anything from the wuthering heights of Beethoven’s Sym’ 7, through Saint Saens Danse Macabre, to the likes of Nobuo Uematsu’s Terra, I can think about how, in their ways, they each represent parts of what Beauty is. To ask why they are beautiful (or chaotic, dark, rousing etc) is not so much a study of the pieces themselves, but an inquiry into what we understand to be beautiful, which, personally, is where I think the goods really lie.

Incidentally, did anybody else watch the video in the above link to the full orchestral version of 4:33 and spend the whole time wanting so badly for a mobile phone to go off, or am I just a philistine.

I think I’ve rabitted on enough, so if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got some seriour free word association to attend to if I’m going to reclaim the crown for logest post.

Paint, thinner, fumes, smoking, cough, syrup, figs, regularity, japanese transport system, effeciency, germans, sausages, rusk, babies, commitment, escape, prison, showers, soap, water, sea, cucumber, sandwich, lunch, tea, free radical destroying antioxidents, goji berries, tibet, monks, ecclesiarchy, nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, desparate housewives, Lost, plot, vegetables!

(I think I’ll continue in my own time.)

As far as music being used to communicate with “the divine,” There is still an otherness that is being communicated with in those situations. The situation may be different, even to the point of, as some claim, being guided through the music, but there is supposedly something else there. Even if that otherness isn’t anything, there is still a person experiencing the music, that being the performer. If the piece was composed by someone else it is communication with that person as well, if it was composed by the performer, it is communicating with a past version of one’s own self and if it is being made up on the spot the communication is with the now (much like talking through a problem out loud can lead to new insights.)

As you later show with your example of 4:33 being performed with an entire orchestra, the piano isn’t actually necessary. As I understand the piece it doesn’t have to be played by a “master pianist,” but is purposely written to be performed by anybody. Cage was very postmodern in his approach to music and I can imagine would eschew the idea. He often proposed through his work than anything could be music, and through extension, anyone could be a musician. Often times, as I have come to deal with, people (especially “artists”) don’t like this notion. They insist upon a certain measure of work that has to go into being a “real” artist. I’m not saying that you are one of these, but I know that Cage wasn’t.

The instructional video bothers me. Especially because he makes such a big deal of it, with thinks like the intentional mistakes. As I said, the piece can be played by anybody. I see the humor of making an instructional video about it, but making it out to be something that has to be practiced or learned goes against the piece.

Again we come to your connection fo music and “the divine.” There may have always been birds, and noise, but there had to be a first *intentional* song. Be it an imitation of another sound, or a deliberate attempt to create something never heard before. The intent was began somewhere. Now, an artist like Cage would refute that there has to be intent for music to exist, and I certainly understand that, but music as something “other”began with intent.(also you may want to listen to our episode on the meaning of life, for more thoughts on your definition on what we are born to do.)

French is a language, yes, but it is a constructed language. I have no idea what Twelve Tone music is, but If I have to learn it to be able to understand what is ‘said’ with it, then your analogy is quite accurate. I don’t think that music is as universal as you want it to be. People can see the same things in a given piece but that’s because of similarities in context and not an inherent quality in the piece.

If you’re speaking of the “afternoon of a Faun” by Debussy, then I hope you are aware of the Dance of the same name (using the music) by Nijinsky. I find it interesting that you describe the piece as pastoral and relaxing. The dance by Nijinsky was considered vulgar and obscene, depicting sexual release. Was that somehow a misuse of the music? If there is an inherent meaning in the musis as you imply, then it would have to be. But if the music can be open to any interpretation then the pastoral idea you bring forward must be contextual.

(I’m not skipping stuff here, you just cover the same thoughts multiple times)

You talk of being able to “program” people to react to a certain kind of music in a certian way. That only proves my point further. We develop and attach meaning to certain stimulus because of how they are presented to us. Is just this way we are “programed” throughout our lives to have certain reactions to certain stimuli. This doesn’t mean there is a right way to react, just ones that we were taught (albeit, not as directly or intentionally as the hypothetical experiment you propose)

This excuse of “they just do” doesn’t answer anything, unless you again go back to the nature of “divine inspiration.” Also, I hate being a grammar Nazi, but please end your questions with a question mark.

(more stuff about how music and song can make us feel a certain way, that I counter with the same argument about context above)

Ah, the physics of music. Yes, vibrations perform in a certain fashion and we have identified that fashion and codified it. But are those notes (specific wave lengths/frequencies) the ones we use because of their physical qualities? The scales were developed long before we could accurately measure amplitude and frequency of a sound wave. does any string go up an octave when cut in half, or only the ones of certain lengths, causing certain notes? The math may be there, but the selection of certain notes ass the important points seems more arbitrary than that.

How do you know if you and I perceive blue in the same way? There is a wavelength, yes, but how we perceive those is just as important as what they are. The Newberry award winning book “The Giver” as a great bit about this sort of thing when the protagonist begins being able to see in a world of color.

Saying that music is temporal is a tricky thing. Everything is temporal as we exist within space-time. You then go on a fair bit about the technicality of music that I don’t understand, but that doesn’t mean you’re wrong. It doesn’t mean your right either, but I don’t have the tools to build with you. I’ll jump back on when you get to something I have a response to…

If a committee writes a piece of music then the committee is the composer. Now you seem to be saying that if it doesn’t come fully from one single person then it must have come from the aether, but if I hold up a stick and so does somebody else, and a third person straps a net between them we can play volleyball. The act of collaboration means everybody brings something and while in art the contributions might be harder (or impossible) to discern it doesn’t mean they aren’t there.

Yes the audience is part of the process. They complete the composition, which implies that the piece becomes something new and different every time it is heard not even just every time it is played. That whole idea is very postmodern, and taken to the extreme it says that the creator of an art piece doesn’t even need to have an intent when it is created because the audience completes it.

When I write plays, the characters can seem to take on a life of their own. Aristotle (the jerk) identified this by saying that poets (playwrights) had to be either crazy or a geniuses, because they either heard voices or could step outside of themselves. Just because I surprise myself when I’m writing (and that’s what it is) doesn’t mean I am actually embodying some other person, just that I am changing the way I first envisioned them. I actually have a play where I deal with a lot of this stuff quite extensively.

Keep in mind I am an amateur and proud of it.

I could certainly end here with some crap about plugging your own projects, but I won’t because I’ve probably been mean enough already. I do a fair bit of PR for BF, but it helps if you are a little more subtle about it, just so it doesn’t come off as you commenting to plug your stuff, or even worse SPAM. Thankfully, you said enough to avoid that pitfall this time.

o_o

I think you just eclipsed Taz for longest comment EVER. Congratulations, dude. You will go down in the annals of BF lore.

I would write a full reply to many of your points if I had time. Perhaps Kevin, Taz, or another one of our listeners might be interested in responding.

Your description of “4:33” isn’t quite right. It involves a pianist, sitting at a piano. The performer sits at the piano, lifts the keyboard cover and looks at the keys in three specifically timed movements that add up to 4:33. At the end of each movement, the pianist puts the keyboard cover down. Usually the pianist uses a watch to make sure the piece is it’s exact prescribed length. You can’t just sit on a stool and do nothing for 4:33. It’s the unplayedness of the piano that is being played. Get it? It’s a perfectly tuned piano, but it’s not doing much. It’s a classically trained pianist (hopefully a master), but his potential is literally left untapped. They tap at nothing. You are listening, actively listening for something that really isn’t happening. And it’s through this act of active attention that we “hear” the music.

I’ve seen this piece arranged for full orchestra! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUJagb7hL0E

Here’s a hilarious tutorial video for 4:33. At least watch until 1:18. It cracks me up every time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LJFJyvZA94

There was NO first song. There was NO first ART. Is Birdsong (the sounds of Birds) not music? Are cloud formations not art? Once you recognize the beauty even in the music of spheres (the spiraling patterns of atoms or the swirling of the stars, you are on a journey of experiencing and sharing in the Divine. I believe, the reason things seem to contain beauty, (even more) convey beauty, convey meaning, the reason Creation speaks to us, is because that’s part of why it’s there and why we are here! We are born with a desire to seek and doubt, embrace and question, to love and let others love us. It’s not just who we accidentally are, it’s what we are created to be. We didn’t begin to create art until long after we started to recognize it’s existence!

Just because you don’t understand Twelve Tone Music, that doesn’t make it not music. If you don’t understand French, you can’t claim that French is NOT a language, or that NO significant communication can be done in FRENCH, just because you don’t “get it.” Binary Code is a language, even if you can only perceive it as a seemingly random list of ONEs and ZEROs, ONs and OFFs, YESes and NOs.

The REASON Tom and Jerry used the music of Mozart was because it already contained some of the “notes” (the themes) of what the Tom and Jerry cartoon wanted to portray. Mozart would easily recognize those same notes. The playfulness, the frenzy, the whimsy and the conflict would all be familiar to Mozart, because he’s the one who originally put them there in the music.

“Afternoon of a Fawn” is an attempt to communicate a specific idea purely as Music. “Night on Bald Mountain” tries to tell a story, a SPECIFIC story, just with tones and patterns of sound. Most Ballets are attempt to convey a specific story through music alone (aided by dance). Now, how well that idea is communicated can be a problematic in how well the idea is interpreted. But even if someone has no concept of what a “Fawn” is, “Afternoon of a Fawn” still can convey that same pastoral peace and pleasure. It can still be intrinsically relaxing.

Even if you don’t know the meaning of French words, you still may be able to recognize “A French Mother scolding her child.” You might not know exactly what transgression the child has committed or was about to commit, but the “idea,” the basic sense of the transaction/exchange can still be communicated and understood. The child might not be old enough to know the words either, but even they can easily recognize their mother’s tone.

In the same way, almost anybody with senses, regardless of language, culture or musical education can recognize that “Afternoon of a Fawn” is about pastoral peace and “Night on Bald Mountain” is about intimidating power. Even if the specific exact ideas aren’t conjured in the minds of the listeners, that doesn’t mean the composer wasn’t trying to convey specific mental images. And it doesn’t mean the piece is a failure if something else is conjured up for the listener. Even without the specific mental images (a fawn, a demon), you can still get the gist of the piece.

Why do soft, quieter sounds convey “peace”? Why do sharp, loud sounds covey “action” and “attack”? They just do. You could program someone to react oppositely to music. Pinch them, hurt them, surprise them or scare them every time they heard soft, pastoral music and eventually they would hear quiet peaceful music with a feeling of dread and fear. Reward them, praise them, love them to “violent music” and their reactions will be different. This is one reason why kids and parents have different reactions to the same music. They have been “rewarded” by their peers differently as to how they should react!

Why do red colors feel “hot” or make us hungry. The just do. You can reprogram someone to confuse their color sense, but why would you want to!

Graphic artists play with our natural and for the most part shared experiences of color, shape and light to make visual pieces “feel” more than what is contained in the piece. The whole is greater than the sum of it’s parts.

In the same way, musicians use our shared experiences with sound to make us “feel” ideas that might not be readily explained in words.

Songs, when they work well, MAKE us FEEL more than what the WORDS or MUSIC could covey on their own. Because there is something instinctual about how we react to certain sounds. Songs not only let us know the meaning of the words, they help us FEEL the meaning.

“Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away.” If you can “hear” the music in your head right now, that is part of the magic of the words. If you can “feel” the sorrow beyond the face value of the words, that is part of the magic of the music. (And the music’s in me, yeah. Do you believe in magic?)

The OCTAVE system isn’t something we created. It’s something we recognize. It’s something we’ve discovered. It’s a phenomenon of physics and mathematics that exists and has always existed. If you pluck a string and then divide it in half and pluck it again, you will hear the same note one octave higher. That will be recognized by any culture anywhere. The harmonics of fourths and fifths isn’t something we create, it’s something we recognize. It’s a function of the physics and mathematics of sound.

Primary and Secondary Colors are the same no matter what part of the world you are from or what planet. They are function of the physics of light. Similarly, the octave will be an octave anywhere in the world or even in the vacuum of space, because it’s a property of physics, not just perception.

All that said, I don’t think we should limit our definition of music to purely auditory phenomena. Yes, Music is MAINLY auditory. But Music is fundamentally temporal. We are playing about with time and how things exist in time. Rhythms are obviously timed. But so are notes. Those are specific vibrations, recreations of specifically defined timed events. The harmonies and dissonance that is created between two or more notes is function of how those notes mix and blend in time. There is an underlying physics to it that isn’t put there by arbitrary definition. Roots and fifths harmonize because they have shared overtones that blend together. Mix a Root tone with tones that don’t blend as well (or aren’t even on the scale, quarter tones away) and you will have dissonance. The “ugliness” isn’t just a function of perception. It’s part of the basic physical character of the sound. The sound waves clash or unite.

Now, Western Culture uses a tempered scale, this colors the music and our perceptions of music. If you grow up in a culture that doesn’t use a tempered scale, it can make Western music “taste” sour. Like not understanding Twelve-Tone. A tempered scale can just feel a bit Alien and odd to someone who isn’t used to hearing it. It’s like pouring skim milk on the cereal of someone who is used to eating their breakfast only with whole milk. They might spit it out screaming, “Why the hell are you pouring WATER on my Corn Flakes!”

But a pure scale can be something magnificent. It’s one reason a cappella singers can send shivers down your spine. True harmonies, the blending of real fourths and fifths and thirds and minor thirds (and more complex combinations), that can be the stuff of chills. It can set your hair on the back of your neck on end. The twelve tones on the piano are only aproximations of the “true” harmonies.

Musicians are playing with movement and expectation and surprise. Tension and release. Static art can only approximate this kind of momentum. And Dance IS music, even when there is no sound accompanying the dance. Because dance has to be about movement and time. It’s why 4:33 is such a funny, perplexing piece. It’s only about time and not about movement. The movement and surprise is mainly in the “found” negative space that constantly surrounds music but is rarely focused on by the composer. But that “found” space isn’t defined by the composer.

The motion of the planets, the rhythmic swirl and beat, beat, beat of the seasons and moons and planets and stars IS music. Composers have long recognized this and tried to translate that into notes. The submicroscopic spins of particles, the seemingly chaotic “Brownian” motion between molecules is all MUSIC! It’s just Skadillion Tone music! We just don’t understand most of it. But that doesn’t mean that it’s not music or that it has no meaning.

Machines can reproduce music, and make it almost exactly the same every time too. Some people value that. That’s why we value recordings. It’s also why we value live music, because of it’s ephemeral nature.

If a committee gets together and writes a piece of music, who is the composer?

Can someone program a computer to generate music? Can a computer “compose” music that the programmer couldn’t write or even conceive of by themselves without the aid of a computer? If you liked this “Computer Music,” who are you communicating with? Who is the composer? The Computer? The Program? The Original Programmer? Or are the listeners themselves the composer? When they stop and say, “That Bit! Those last 30 seconds of seemingly random Blips and Bleeps. That’s the part that I like and want to hear again, haven’t they become part of the process?” Or are they just recognizing auditory cloud patterns and saying, “Hmm, that one is nice.”

I think that every time you listen to a piece of music, actively listen, and become involved with it, you are collaborating on that piece! “Oh, I like that bit .. ooh, not so sure about that part. Hmm, this reminds me of a fawn. I saw a fawn yesterday. I believe in Yesterday.” You are the person who can turn recorded sounds into “live” music, by actively listening.

Sometimes we don’t compose, we recognize what is already there. If I create a piece of music by transcribing birdsong to an approximation of notes, who wrote the music? Did the Bird? Did I? Did God?

Sometimes it feels like when you create a piece of music that you are discovering it, pulling it whole from the ether. A DIVINE inspiration! And who can deny someone their experiences of the divine! (I guess a cynic or psychiatrist.)

You can’t economically mint a bobble head in lots of less than 500. I heard this from Hank Green, who created a bobble-head of John for his birthday and is now <a href="http://store.dftba.com/product/john-green-bobblehead"selling them to their fans. So you have to be pretty sure there is going to be a demand before you shell out for the supply. This is contrasted by Zazzle which can print on demand.

I’m sorry this comment is novel length. I just kibitzed and typed while I was listening to the podcast. I hope you can forgive the tangential and overly verbose qualities of my comments. Those come all too naturally to me.

Finally, come check out TooMuchAwesome.ning.com. It’s a growing community of artists (mostly songwriters) and other interested fans and folk. I am going to point the TMA crowd toward your podcast too. I’m sure they’ll get a kick out of this episode too. Speaking for the community (and I have no authority to do so, but that won’t stop me), we are in need of some Too Much Awesome Bad Philosophers. Thanks.

I have myself, noticed shifts in said attention spans, however, it is not only shifting in one direction.

While on the one hand, Television shows, for example, have indeed been getting shorter, which in my oppinion is partly due to lack of interest, and partly to corporate greed (in other words, cram as many comercials in as possible)

On the other hand, we find that movies, at least in certain Genres, are actually getting longer.

Take Lord of the Rings, for Example. Here you have Movies upwards of three hours long, People not only go, and sit through the entire midnight premier of Return of the King without so much as a bathroom break (not that I, err, um, did that….) but afterwards they are still not quenched and so will purchase the Extended Editions.

The Trend that I am seeing is more a Craving of Substance. The General population has grown weary of “fluff” and require something more substancial.

This is why 3 hour movies are sucessfull, and 750 page novels are on the best sellers list. It is why Comedy films are getting shorter, while “epic” type films are getting longer. Because when a story needs to be told, Putting a time limit on it only serves to cheapen the tale, and we don’t want that.

It is true, that as you said, some things are “addictive” or “viral” in nature, little five minute clips that make you laugh, even though you’re not sure why they are funny. and yet you watch them over and over, and send them to your friends and they do the same. I recently fell victim to one such clip tittled “llamas with hats” It was horrible, and wrong, and yet I watched it five times, and sent it to everyone.

It is also Notable that while some shows, like sitcoms for example, have grown shorter, there is also a sizable Niche for longer, full hour (well 42 minutes on the dvd) shows like “House” or “C.S.I.” Television series’ which are of a more serious nature, although they often have bits of comedy laced throughout. To Serious and people will still loose interest.

Still, if this is the case, and it is genuinely substance that the people are Craving. That does Bode well for you, as your show is ripe with it. I have come to think of your as not only a show about Philosophy, but a Forum for Intellectual Discussion.

I hope you fellows continue for many years to come.

Here’s a link to the article: http://www.freewebs.com/iecurservedcold/bibiquid.htm

Numero Dos Fanboy
Trey a.k.a. sempertrey

As I would have pointed out before Taz (had I not had some password difficulties, too many to remember and reset) we were pretty much strictly focusing on the dichotomy between East and West, and how they’re perceived in modern (American) society. Had we looked at spiritualism as a whole we would have had a very different show (one we may do yet, who knows. I don’t usually know the topic until Stephen tells me right before we record.)

Anyway, I think I can safely speak for Stephen and myself when I say we love any sort of feedback (especially Stephen) Heck, we like it so much we made our firstr ever fan an occasional guest! There’s always going to be an episode or two that some like more than others, (personally I”m not terribly fond of the ones I’m not in) but we hope the overall quality (what? Where?) keeps you around.

Thanks for listening!

Kevin

Anyhow, great show this week. Potentially a great jumping off point for further discussion into the eastern philosophies. Personally, I love this stuff and find it infinitly more useful than both classic and continental thought. I’ve always preferred Taoist thought; though perhaps I’m too easily swayed by the painting and thought behind the three vinegar tasters. Confucius was obviously brilliant. Epochs worth of oreintals* show this to be true. But the man was clearly insane: as are all those with totallitarian tendencies. Okay, sure, Mohammed told the middle east with which hand to wipe their asses (and I wish to hell I could give citation for this) but he did it with the very best intentions. I mean, you go wiping willy-nilly between meals and you’re asking for a chort sharp slap from the dysentry fairy. But tea ceremonies? Myriad, situational tea ceremonies to be carried out to protocol X. Confucius, you mad old coot, feel free to sit and swivel.

Buddha. Unfortunately, my reading here is slim. Even slimmer when you introduce Zen into the equation. But anyone who’s prepared to lay down a statement or idea like “life is suffering” should probably be sidestepped. He always kinda struck me as the sort of guy that hangs around outside the toilet at a house party, waylaying any unfortunate soul who succumbs to their bladder but is to prudish to utilise the bushes in the back garden (A painful 10 minutes some years ago now in which I learned too much about the issue of printing out every email to a given business and filing them away and about the possibillity of using inverse square law to predict how much data any one conversation may eventually produce). However, as I said, I’m unread, and happy to take correction.

Then we get to Lao-Tzu. How can you not love a man who basically just suggests that you should take it easy, don’t stress yourself or those around you, and go with the the flow.

As for the saturation in western culture, well it ocurred to me while I was listening, that the grand dichotomy between east and west is the magnitude of the thoughts and the presentation therein. Let us say that Everything was in fact a cow. The West, well they hack it up into 60oz steaks and attempt to kick it down your throat from a distance of 20 yards. The East tends to stick the whole thing, still mooing and pooing, into a pot and then serve it up as a chunky soup.
That migfht be a bit erroneous actually, but I liked the imagery. Still, look at the thoughts. One of the most famous from the west is undoubtedly cogito ergo sum. Brilliant. What a marvellous piece of thought and word smithery. Truely beautiful. Means nothing to me, but it’s great nontheless. As a philosopher (so long as you’re religious) cogito is a thing to marvel at. As a human being… hell have I got time to ponder the true nature of my existence during the average day.
Now, let’s take the taoist concept of Pu or Wu Wei (wie?), one of those two. I’m going to trim this down because I’m supposed to be at the pub right now. Not only does it cover basic existentialism – albeit without western style proofs – but it goes on to deliver this wonderful message that can be loosely boiled down into “go with the flow”, emaphasising the importance of simplicity. Action without action, I believe is in there somewhere (it’s been a while since reading), and that is something I use (loosely) on a daily basis. Take the simple route and the the thing happen by itself.

My point is that eastern philosphy is full of things that you can read and latch on to within minutes, things that you can apply to life. The nearest equivolents from the west – say Hegel’s writing on synthesis – require a massive amount of time and resource to understand, let alone apply.

Finally, @ artistfire. Dude, you’re right, there’s a metric shit ton of stuff permeating western culture and there’s a lot of stuff they didn’t mention, but they were covering Eastern philosphy specifically and in under 2 hours to boot. I feel we can forgive a certain reduction of subject matter. No doubt they’ll turn their attention to much of it in turn at a later date.

Once again, great show guys, one of my favourites to date. Keep ’em coming.

Taz

I have found your discussions to be highly intellectual and well researched.

Perhaps it is this high standard which causes my disappointment with this episode, it is unfortunate that my first comment be a critical one, having had many positive thoughts about past episodes. But I say what I think.

What I found Disappointing was the fact that you attribute these types of Spiritual Mysticism only to Asian Culture.

It is in fact true that almost every culture had some form of Spirituality or Mysticism. Early Europeans had a Variety of Forms of Paganism, including Wicca, Druidism, and Celtic Shamanism.

The Native Americans also widely practiced forms of Shamanism as did the Australian Aboriginals.

An Early form of African tribal Spiritualism was later fused with Catholicism to create what we now call Voodoo.

Most of these belief systems Predate the Judeo-Christian way of thinking, And many still exist today, although, for the sake of avoiding persecution, very much underground.

I will concede that Asian Mysticism is currently the most Widespread, and widely accepted of those still enduring today, and its images have been adopted into Pop-Culture on a very large scale. But to imply that Asian culture is the ONLY source of these Ideas is, well, un-Inclusive.

I hope that you will not take offense to this as no offense is intended, instead that you receive this merely as an Intellectual Counterpoint.

~ArtistFire~

While tumbling the contents of this ‘cast around the ol’ grey walnut I eventually found myself overly concerned with the Categorical Imperative (derived loosely from the member’s tendency to quote the qu’ran when asked why they’re part of the movement and the whole duty over choice thing therein). Unfortunately Kant is one of those philosophers that really, y’know, he just gets in there and he… ah, he just, y’know, in there and his stuff and oh good god – so from the ensuing shitstorm I actually produced something that bore no relevance to the point in hand. So here’s some meagre points that didn’t get me into trouble.

* I’m glad these turkish guys are doing what they’re doing. Good on ’em.
* I’d care more about not caring about my apathy towards the world outside my own except apathy has got my back. The inherent meta- in apathy kinda rocks.

So great show, guys. Good to hear Dr. Webb again and I hope to he’ll return again soon. Hopefully I’ll be able to offer more of a say on the next episode.

Thumbs Up For Slurpees.
Taz

Taz

Another great comment, Taz! I think my favorite line was “If you fall you’re probably going to be too busy screaming, pleading and having your scrotum filled with wolverines to care about social networking.” Brilliant. I still want to get you on Skype soon if possible. Do you think you could have an account set up by next Sunday?

On the matter of history, seeing as it’s already forwarded here, I agree whole heartedly with Kevin. History’s a bit of an odd one but, to a certain degree, speaks for itself. Archiving social networking sites would probably be more cumbersome than advantageous as the vast majority of it could easily be considered bunk. It’s not like diaries, which often provide invaluable social and personal information, as there’s no privacy to it. What we put on these sites is what we want the world to see and is not a way for the world to catch a sneaky glimpse into our inner workings. More often than not, Myspace and Facebook pages are tweaked by the user in order to further propagate the ideal self making the majority of the data academically bunk. I honestly think you could just store a random Terabyte of data from these sites every now and then and that would provided a fairly accurate and manageable sample of what was going on in Webland at any given point. More importantly it’ll likely save countless lives as researchers will not be pushed to suicide after slogging through the 4,392,894th profile of a whining, neurotic, self obsessed teen with an inexplicable a self ascribed nickname.

As for the general topic of the show. Can a family member not just contact hotmail, facebook, twitter or whatever and say “Hey. Son’s dead, here’s proof. Very sad. Can we have their password/ you take down the page/ we do this with their page etc?” I’m sure there must be some sort of protocol in place.
But I don’t know how important it is. I mean, if you tackle it from a philosophical stand point you’ve got three possibilities. When you die you may “Transcend”, “Fall” or simply just “Stop” [ I’d love to coin the phrase “Obliviate” for the latter option but JK Rowling has already collared] In either case I can’t see your myspace page being much of a concern. If you’re to transcend then it’s likely that some bigger picture will open up and you’ll understand how little the material stuff actually matters. If you fall you’re probably going to be too busy screaming, pleading and having your scrotum filled with wolverines to care about social networking. If simply reach oblivion then… well, losing one’s propensity towards existence is the sort of thing that can snowball quite quickly.
So if you won’t care about it when you die then that only leaves those left behind, and if it’s the sort of thing that upsets them or inspires them then surely they’ll do something about. In fact the question of what happens to our stuff when we die feels a little moot, all things considered. What we do with that of our loved ones when they die, and why, may bear more fruit.

Thumbs up for slurpees.
Taz.

p.s. a quick note on the previous show. I think it may have been your best to date (and not just because I got a shout out on the interweb – which was awesome). The subject was one I hadn’t ever considered and what you had to say about it I found new and extremely interesting. Moreover the combination of the topic, the panel and the dynamic therein was, if you’ll excuse the Englishicitudeinisticness, bloody perfect. Great work, guys.

I think you guys did a disservice towards historians in the latter part of the show. AS much as your textbooks may tell you differently, there isn’t a single agreed upon “history” that all the historians got together and decided upon. Becasue of some of the the things mentioned on the show (and others not mentioned) our idea of history is always in flux based on new information and interpretations.

The oidea of academic freedom supports multiple competing theories and letting reason and evidence suss out what we cna of the truth. Of course some of the stuff we “know” is wrong, but we can’t know what that is. We can keep looking and be open to new ideas as long as there is something to back them up.

I’m down with all of this interconnectivity and web 2.0 stuff (anybody playing buzzword bingo?) but groupthink and crowdsourcing don’t always come up with the right answer or even the best answer. It may be a little cliche, but Einstein’s thories went against the thought of his contemporaries. His answer was right (or so we think) not because everybody decided it was right, but because it worked. While history isn’t as hard a science as physics, that doesnn’t mean we can just pick what we want to be right based on a group vote (Sorry, Pluto {though to be fair, pluto still exists, the whole thing is just a matter of naming conventions]) and it isn’t done that way.

There is no conspiracy.

I appreciate that you guys/gals are willing to discuss “hot button” issues at times, and I’d like to weigh in on the patriotism issue.

I’m an American by birth (but of Mexican-American heritage), and, thus, support the American effort, but not necessarily because of blind allegiance, but because I’m willing to pay taxes, help create job growth, and pay for my freedom, or until taken away, of course. Think about it, if you stop paying taxes, your freedom is taken away. Interesting, but a fair tradeoff.

I did not see the Iraq war as necessary (nor the Vietnam war, for that matter), and we all see that we’re no better off for it considering the countless lives (US and Iraq), and the dollars that have been grossly misappropriated. Who’s to say we’re any safer? Is this an unpatriotic stance? Clearly not. I’m just asking legitimate, hard questions. And we have the freedom in this country to say such things.

Iran, as we’re all seeing unfold, is about to enter into revolution unless the religious government is willing to concede and hold “legitimate” elections. Can you imagine the propaganda machine in place by the Supreme Leaders to keep a puppet like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in office? Americans may not be willing to accept that we, too, are under machinery such as this. Of course, we’d like to think that our patriotism is principled, and maybe even divinely sanctioned in order to “find their spider hole and smoke ’em out,” like “W” was so fond of saying. It’s no wonder we’re so hated around the world isn’t it? With cowboy politics like that who needs diplomacy? Our god will smash your god, anyway. Oh, and with the help of patriotic American’s, too.

This is in no way a dismissal to those service men, and women who fought honorably as a condition for government employment. I blame entering into unwarranted conflicts, however, squarely on the shoulder of foolish
politicians trying to appease their constituency who keep them in office. That’s not to say, also, that we don’t need a strong, standing military force, but bilateral cooperation is paramount in this global effort to suppress rogue governments like N. Korea.

Patriotism is merely the PR objective while our standing military force is the “business end” of that extension. Am I a patriot? Well, let’s just say, I’ve got a Toby Keith CD loaded in my F-150 Ford pickup, and when I turn on CNN and see the horrors of oppression that are in theocratic or dictatorial countries, I tell myself, “Man it’s good to be in America. Oh, hell yeah!” The PR still works.

Raising a cold beer to all of you fine BF panel members,
Brown Bear

Taz

Once again Taz, very thoughtful response. I like your little rabbit trail into the whole Platonic Ideals realm with the spoon example. We’ve referenced the Ideal Chair on the show before I think, though I don’t think we’ve ever really entertained the idea in too much detail.

What do you think of Skyping into a show one of these days? I don’t think we’ve ever had anyone on from the UK before and it sounds like you could definitely contribute a unique viewpoint.

If anyone needs me, I’ll be in the angry dome.

I’ve gotta tell you that you had me worried for a while that you weren’t going to entertain the notion of life as meaningless. I’m a firm believer (for lack of a better word) that there is no meaning inherrent to our lives apart from that which we ourselves place upon them. I am my own meaning, and that’s enough for me. That’s not to say I’m a nihilist. Far from it. Just because the universe doesn’t present us with intrinsics (quintessence, platonic forms, abstracts, call ’em what you will) that doesn’t mean that we haven’t given it any. One of the basic processes that makes us human is the observation, recognition and labeling of phenomena. We created it all through the very act of perception. Before us there were no plants or animals, no earth or moon, no sun nor stars, there was just Stuff. Stuff that just was, that just did what it did. Then we came along and we saw the patterns, the ways of Stuff. We began to percieve how Stuff worked and what Stuff did and we assigned values upon stuff based on how important that stuff was to us. Then we started creating other stuff to fill in the gaps that made our lives harder and we gave this new stuff names and values and before you knew it where there had been stuff just being and doing stuff there was now suddenly a Universe full of the mundane and the fantastic.

An example I like to use is that of the Quintessential Spoon.
Before I was born, and before my father and his before him. Before all the fathers and before the events which would lead to the first father. Before the moon, the earth and even before the sun, which is a not inconsiderable expanse of time before the coming of the first son. Before the stars and before the galaxy. Before It all, but perhaps just slightly after the universe, there was The Spoon. Not just any spoon, but The Spoon. The spoon of all spoons. The be all and the very end all of all that it is to be Spoon. The Spoon that is, was and always will be, just so that I would be able to sit down and enjoy a nice wholesome bowl of chicken noodle soup (both of which also existed long before fathers, suns and galaxies but maybe just after the universe, naturally.)

I leave the conclusion open ended because I find the ludicracy of the concept starts to become self evident around the “Spoon of all spoons” mark. The point is that: Yes, alright, I’ll concede a certain possibility (as I will in all possibillities) of all things always existing in some sort of super-noumenal potentia but, when you come right down to it, somebody probably just grabbed a piece of curved bark because they were tired of having to wash their hands and face after they ate.

And this is the thing. We did it all. We give meaning to our environment because if we didn’t we would walk around in constant confusion and without any means of communication. We would have ceased a long time ago.

The arguments I often come across are thus: Where did the idea for the spoon come from? If there’s no meaning to life then what’s the point in living? If there’s nothing to give meaning then how can we have morals? etc. ad nauseum.
I find these sorts of arguments to be both small minded and highly offensive as these people obviously credit themselves and our species with no initiative or intelligence whatsoever. Is problem solving not one of the central traits of mankind? Is there not a whole world of stuff do and people to interact with, of mundanity and wonders, of paths to take? Is it not obvious that you don’t want pain inflicted upon yourself and so to inflict it upon others, on any level, is probably not the best thing to do?

I can feel myself slow veering from my original path, which is fine to listen to but can get tiresome to read. My point is that we create meaning, it’s what we as humans do. So what if it’s not predetermined, is that really such a bad thing? If you need a reason to exist then go out and find one, there’s plenty out there. Otherwise, just chill, bro. You have a life so you might as well enjoy it. It’s never done me any harm.

Thumbs up for slurpees.
Taz

I’ve long had a term for the kind of jingoistic jackass (Man, that would have been a GREAT Ubuntu release name) Kevin made an example of. Long before this guy’s self-appellation, I’ve referred to them as Murcans and have even developed something of a mythology on them. The Murcans’ natural enemies are the Turrists. Unfortunately, Murcans tend to confuse Furners for Turrists. And Furners, as defined by the Murcans, are anyone who isn’t aMurcan. I either picture them as red, white, and blue neanderthals or red, white, and blue bipedal fish creatures, similar to Murlocs in World of Warcraft.

I did continue a bit about this on a long dormant blog in a post entitled Rise of the Murcans. It’s not Hunter S. Thompson, but I think it’s worth a read.

I’m glad you liked the feedback and that it could be of use. Now I’m up to date with the all and all (or at least once I injest the next ep.) I’ll try to throw in my two sense every now and then. Also, I know I could probably check on the site but, as I’m here, when do you think you’ll get around to another live show? I could seriously go for a bit of that action.

Kevin:
Firstly, I don’t think I hear the word “howdy” enough. Secondly, I personally feel that being an expert on nothing helps with philosophy as it tends towards less learnt prejudice of thought. Any issue, I feel, is usually best solved with a sort of “cognitive splat”; cover everything and see what sticks, if you will. Finally, I too agree with less control over more control, for sure. But there are pros and cons to both. If you haven’t read Plato’s Republic – a man I consider to be largely “wrong” – then give it a glance as it has much to say on the matter. His argument about the contract between the individual and the state is, not to put too fine a point on it, most awesome.

To wrap up, bring on the BF, Stephen. I wait with bated synapses.

Thumbs up for slupees, y’all.
Taz

P.s. Incidentally, who entered “thumbs up for slurpees” into urbandictionary?

Thanks for noticing us, hope you continue to stick around.

I’ll attack your points in an order that I deem fit.

*Yeah, I say Ain’t and Y’all and even greet people with Howdy (although I don’t know if that’s shown up on the show yet.) I’ll soon be moving to Ohio, where I’m sure this will be pointed out to me on a regular basis, and I look forward to that. Differences make us fun.

I actually was worried about straying too far from Philosophy in some of the various podcasts in the past, but as the resident expert on nothing I really have little in the way of steering us back on track (at least during the discussions) with any luck, we’ll keep that balance that we love so much between philosophy and bad.

If I recall correctly I wasn’t on the BF Orange episode, and if I had been I probably would have stayed on the Death Penalty a little longer. I’m against it, and could articulate why, but I think I’ll save it for an upcoming episode. But it is worth pointing out that as crazy as it seems, the death penalty is rather ignored over here. We seem to prefer focusing on things like whether or not Eminem was really mad about Bruno’s crotch in his face. That and how can we (meaning the government) spend our way out of a depression.

Tell your friends. It’s gong to be a thing.

Oh yeah, that whole anarchy thing. I almost forgot. I don’t know if real true anarchy would ever work as I haven’t tried it myself, but I will always veer on the side of less control than more control. As an idealist (I’m a playwright for crying out loud, it’s hard too get more idealistic that trying to make money in what some would consider a dead medium) I’m always going to push for the extreme in hopes of getting just a little closer.

Taz,

That is possibly THE most intelligent, thoughtful, helpful feedback we have EVER gotten on this podcast. Thank you so much for taking the time to write all that out! It’s sometimes difficult for us to see BF from an outside perspective, so we are incredibly grateful for this. I’ll make sure all the guys involved see it. Heck, we might even discuss it on a Weekly Why or something. You will definitely like the episode we recorded on Thursday; possibly our “deepest” episode in a while. I’m also in the process of lining up some more members of the TTU philosophy department to come on the show.

Thanks so much for listening, Taz! It’s fans like you that keep us going. You rock! 😉

* I was drawn to the show as, unlike other philosocasts I’ve encountered, you guys actually sit around and discuss the matter at hand, as opposed to reeling of text. The digressions 9/10 only make the whole thing sweeter.

* You hooked me within the first couple of episodes as, and I can’t remember which ep. it was, you came to this wonderfully reasoned conclusion that the prescence of evil is, almost paradoxically, potentially the ultimate proof of God’s benevolence – should such a being exist.

*I realise you’re Texans or have been living in Texas for a while but y’all say y’all a hell of a lot, y’all.

* Get that professor back on (I apologise for allowing his name to escape me). The two shows in which he featured are amongst the best. This is no judgement on the quality of the rest of the guests, it’s just good to hear the thoughts of an authority every now and then. Also his presence seems to keep you meandering too far from the philosophy. Which brings me to my next point.

* I love the rabbit trails, honestly I do, but sometimes it leads too far from the philosophy. I appreciate that with this show philosophy is not the be all and end all but acts more as a sort of base or reference point, but there was a while there where it seemed almost absent. I almost stopped listening to the podcast around the mid-twenties because the show seemed to be turning into just another vapid nerdcast without any real substance. As an illustration of this point in the episode about Dollhouse there seemed to be this gentle slope leading towards a discussion about philosophy of mind and philosophy of self (perhaps my favourite fields outside of theosophy) only to have the actual philosophy of the matter briefly mentioned and then brushed aside. However, Along came the episode “A BF Orange” and all was saved and you guys once again started talking about the good stuff.
So, even though you guys are back on track, I raise this point just to keep you aware that listeners will come for the philosophy as much as the flagrant geekery, digressive banter and the theorising about the future. The balance you’ve kept over the past month or so is brilliant.

* I love the fact that your panel doesn’t consist entirely of straight up philosophers. The fact that everyone comes from different fields and bring something different to the table is perhaps your greatest strength.

* You’ve helped to break down some of the stereotypes I, as a Brit, had about Texas and America in general.

* Tell Kevin I think he is, unfortunately, very wrong. Anarchy will never work for the same reason that communism won’t: it relies too heavily on people being balanced, rational and without greed. It’s a beautiful ideal though.

Finally, before I pile on the closing congratulations, something really struck out and kicked me in the head while I was listening to “A BF Orange”. There was a portion during which you were talking about how we treat law breakers and you mentioned, in a really quite offhand sort of fashion, that the worst criminals get thrown into deathrow. I’ve got to admit that I was really taken aback by your blasé attitude towards it, but, after I thought about it a bit I realised that it really highlighted a massive social difference. Then I thought about it some more. For many years now I’ve settled on a very straightforward approach to the morals of taking another life (animals included). I decided that it is completely, unforgivably morally wrong to take a life except for 2 reasons. General Survival – as in food (and subsequently clothing etc. also as it’s a shame to waste any part of the body) Direct Survival – as in you take the life of one who is directly endangering the life of another (essentially kill or be killed that very instant.
Obviously this a very brief outline as I’ve already waffled on for long enough, however I wanted to raise the point because I honestly think the morallity of the death sentence would make a sweet topic for a show. If you all think it’s for the right, then why? Does potential prevention work as a viable reason to murder (after all, there’s no 100% guarantee that those offenders will offend again). Is rehabilitation ever impossible? And also, who’s fault is it that the offenders have ended up the way they have? If it’s the fault of society then surely a) we owe it to the offender to help them b) the drain on resources incurred by keeping the offender in prison acts a sort of punishment to that society for allowing matters to get so bad.
Those are just a few points to think about in the event that you think you could do an episode on the topic. It would be freakin’ awesome to hear what the BFers thoughts about it.

Anyway, that’s a hell of a lot of babble, so I’ll move along now. Love you guys, love your show and I look forward to hearing more.
Taz.

But really, anywhere from 88×31 to 164×72 pixelguys. Small sidebar lol. Those may seem like random numbers, but anything else will make the universe implode. And that would just suck. ^_^

Thanks in advance!

Cool! It’s great to hear positive stuff from fans. We’ve got some neat changes coming, so you’ll have even MORE reasons to love us! 😉

Much hope

Enjoy the making of the show

Greetings from the Netherlands

Marvin,

Thanks for the feedback! We were experimenting with the whole stereo configuration for this episode, and have decided to go back to mono for future episodes. Glad you enjoyed it otherwise!

-M

Greeting from the Netherlands

Eyob

Honestly though, they should focus on the staffing quality over at Rawls rather than dumping money into new buildings, some of the non teaching staff, is really not to up to par. But hey at least the Arts and Sciences will be taking over the BA building when they complete moving over the students. Side note, look into the history of that building, youll find they drastically over paid for it, and such, it is built like a tank, extra needless, concrete and steel everywhere, great stuff.

Just a thought – I would love to see Legmar as a keyword tag! Appreciate it!

Can’t wait for the first episode!!