If you have been reading my wife's blog (Starkitten) you'll know that she has posted a couple of her stick figures that she created using Inkscape (grab it at: http://www.inkscape.org) and its very fun Order of the Stick tutorial. Well for shits and giggles i did the same tutorial and have created a couple of figures (not for any competition and not for resale as they are definately mine – so there). Anywhoos here they are:
Okay, rather dull but here is a list of the books I read in April. It seems like quite a lot but to be honest most of them were very easy to read (some graphics novels and some TV tie-ins aimed at teenagers). But I read them and this year I decided to record any book I read so here they are:
These first two – whose pictures do not load from Amazon – are Doctor Who: Warriors from the Deep and Hand of Fear – the first is a Fifth Doctor story and the latter is a Fourth Doctor. Both of these were adapted by the solidly dependable Terrance Dicks.
Next up:
Doctor Who: Banquo Legacy and Vanishing Point. Both of these are new novels set during the reign of the Eighth Doctor. They are both solid books, though I must say I enjoyed Vanishing Point more. It wasn't that it was better written as both books had very competent authors, it was that the Banquo Legacy is part of a series of linked adventures and due to the majority of the book being told through memoirs from two of the supporting cast we are not let into what is happening with the Doctor and Fitz so it feels very distant and abstract and in fact about 100 pages are pointless to the story because of this. Unfortunate really as I liked the conceit of it being two narratives from two points of view I just hated the fact that since I haven't read these in order most of the conversation/events of this other plot made no sense.
And finally:
I read the first five novels of the "Y: The Last Man" series. This is a great series of comics and lots of fun. There are elements in this story that do jar quite horribly with me, I think some of the stereotypes on display are too much a caricature and become unwieldy clichés, but the writers do like to mix the events up a notch. Basic premise is great, some cataclysm has destroyed the men on the planet except for a loan bloke and a monkey. Only one unrealistic point is the fact that he didn't die after two months from exhaustion.
That wraps up the books for April, May seems me move onto something a little heavier in terms of Sci-fi – but since I got a parcel containing a lot of Doctor Who books gleaned by my sister from second hand stalls I guess it may have some of those as well.
Okay I know this is April but here are the books I read in March. Both of them were Dr Who books (once again) – those charity book stores and remaindered chains are coming in real handy for this – but I read 'Eater of Wasps' and 'The Slow Empire'.
Currently I am reading two more Dr Who books which I should finish this month. After that I go on to a whole range of old Target Dr Who's – a children's Dr Who book, 'Y: The Last Man' series of Graphic novels and a couple of heavier sci-fi if I can find something I like (I have picked up 'The Prefect' by Alistair Reynolds so that may be a start.
In a surprise piece of litigation the creators of dictionaries worldwide have decided to sue authors everywhere for the "wanton re-arrangement of their words" this was further followed by the Ancient Phonecians who have called a class action on the Western World for the "abusive misuse in the rearrangement of their alphabet".
No comment has yet been made by JK Rowling though an unofficial rumour suggests that she is mortified as both the litagators mentioned above have utilised the word "of" which is a clear breach to the word as used in the titles of some of her books. In reporting this, this article also breaches this word and piously covets the "the" with an "and" in case she takes away the right of people to use propositions and conjunctions.
Below is a reproduction of an email conversation between Starkitten and myself, we were both at work and I think we were very bored with what we were doing….
From Starkitten:
I believe the technical definition of truth is 'something that takes a long time to get its boots on'. Which strangely enough still makes me truth because my new boots take a little getting into. But anyway, the Pratchett theory that lies travel faster than the truth does support the argument that the internet tells great big porkies, as it is indeed and super speedy means of communication. This must mean that the truth travels second class with Royal Mail, resulting in the high possibility of it taking several weeks to get to it's destination, assuming it ever gets there at all. The Post Office mail room must be positively brimming with truth.
From PM:
True, ha
Anyway Pratchett was quoting an older proverb, a Chinese one I think.
But in terms of real definitions the search for truth is actually a procedure for scientific principal as science is the search for the 'essential' truths. Philosophy, i.e. the perception of truths and therefore also the perception of lies, is the searching for meaning and strangely enough there is often more meaning in a well-constructed lie than in the truth. Which is kinda weird, but there you go. Are you purposefully trying to make my mind work to prevent it being numbed by the mundanity of work?
From Starkitten:
So, philosophically speaking, a meaning is better than a truth, for in humanity's constant struggle to find purpose in its own existence any meaning, even a poorly constructed one (not to mention any names – ahem – Christianity) can give us some sense of direction. So while a nice meaning may be that we were created by an all powerful being for some greater purpose with the promise of eternal bliss at the end life, the truth may be that those little acids and proteins that mixed together and made the first life was a bit of a boo boo and we're all messing up someone's nice clean universe. In that case I can see why most people would prefer the lie.
As for science, truth seems to change on a day to day basis. For what is true today may not be so tomorrow, and any truth will do until they find another one which seems to work better. So we really can't be sure of anything that anyone says, so I'm now choosing to disobey the laws of Physics as I can't be completely certain that they are fundamental truth and not just a good one which seems to work at the moment, and I'm giving up gravity.
From PM:
Well, close but I think that I have to say no cigar.
It is not that a meaning is better or more cosy than a truth, it is just that we cannot define truth or lies (in this current understanding of those) without having meaning. So philosophy must explain meaning. As for whether truth or lies are better or worse that is irrelevant they are in fact just different, each of them is actually wrong. There are no eternal verities that we can rely on as we are in fact only giving names to phenomena in order to better understand the fact that they exist.
As you correctly pointed out gravity does not exist. We merely notice the effects of force upon objects, or not upon them as is the case with zero-g (though this in itself is a misnomer as Zero-G is only achieved when one force equally nulls another force i.e. a spaceship in orbit exhibits the exact force against the pull of gravity to negate the pull of gravity, there is not in fact any zero-g just an equilibrium of forces acting upon each other [I think, seem to recall from physics so very long ago that force doesn't actually stop just its effect on the other bodies in the universe becomes negligible over the vast differences – bollocks ask a physicist].)
So science must constantly seek to update its 'eternal truth' not because it finds out what it believed in was a lie, but because it has a better definition of what it is observing. Truth then defines itself by the study, or non-study of the universe (the absence of an item creates the existence of the study of what isn't there). We cannot be so simple as to say that this is then a product simply of causality, as causality relies on an event occurring in order to provoke a study of linear nature (which we could call time) whereas science postulates, and also can prove, the existence of non-events. Effects without cause. Once we can define what these things are we can understand the truth of them.
This then is why people believe in 'cosy' accepted versions of religion; as the idea that we must constantly strive to find new meaning in our understanding in order to truly define what those things we believe in or observe are, is to take away the solid surface that holds our conception, or perception, of reality away from the deep abyss of 'truth', 'meaning' or in this case understanding.
It is neither truth, meaning or the definition of either that most of humanity strive for, it is the feeling that we understand what we can perceive or not perceive. We must feel that ‘we know’ for without knowledge we are forced into believing that we are an empty collection of indefinable random occurrences, that have a pre-determined, yet thoughtless, propensity for interaction.
From Starkitten:
I must contest that humanity does not seek meaning and truth. While I do agree that we primarily strive to comprehend what we are able to perceive, this is because for the most part we believe what we perceive to be truth, so though understanding our perception of the universe we believe that we will find truth. This, however, can not be, for we are ill-equipped to contemplate that which lies beyond our own perception besides that which we believe to exist outside our perception, which we only imagined to be there by looking at what we can see and creating suppositions from that on what else there should be. This is a very narrow view of the universe and cannot even begin to give us a concept of the actual truth.
Anyway, the point was that if we were capable of conceiving truth beyond our perception, we would strive for that rather than content ourselves with a version of the truth that seems acceptable to us and placates our enormous human egos. It seems that we have some drive which propels us to find answers. If it were not in our nature to seek out the truth, then why is it one of our most natural instincts to ask questions? We are in fact designed to be quizzical, seeing out answers from where ever we can get them. Perhaps to seek out the truth is our purpose. That given long enough, assuming we don't blow ourselves up or anything, we may actually discover the answer. Perhaps we operate collectively as a super computer (Deep Thought – hee hee hee), constantly probing and questioning each other, inspiring though, theory, research and exploration, until eventually we do find the truth, that the universe is like a great big rubix cube with the sole purpose to be solved.
From PM:
Well it's nice that you replied so thoughtfully, but you could have tried to reply to my thesis instead of your own preconceptions, snooty I know but I was moving somewhere I think, probably moving badly, but moving nonetheless.
To begin, I did not say that Humanity does not strive to seek truth and meaning I said that 'most of' Humanity does not seek these things as they are too concerned at the implications of that search and also that they seek brevity not depth.
That aside though: We do not comprehend what we perceive, I said we respond to it and form hypothesis from it and from this hypothesis we initiate our understanding, this is not perception based but reaction based. Often we observe the reaction of events without ever perceiving the event we in fact have to hypothesise, or imagine if we use your rhetoric, what those events are. We can never perceive the explosion of the universe as it happened too long ago but we can perceive it by the remains and effect it has on the things we can observe. But we still do not comprehend it for it cannot be beholden, just theorised.
As for imagination leading to a narrow view of the universe as it is constrained by the limited gainsaying of reaction-based opposition hypothesis, that is clearly only your limited view of theoretical conceptualisation. It does not give us a limited view, it in fact gives us a broadened view. By loosening the shackles of perception based prognosis we truly 'open the doors of perception' as Blake would have it. Two thousand years before Rutherford discovered the existence of the atom the word had been created by philosophers in Greece to mean unbreakable, they had already understood that the entire of everything was made up from tiny blocks of matter, too small to be seen, existing in a limited number of shapes but capable of creating an infinite number of conceptions. All of our understanding of physics, biology and chemistry is now based on this provable set of constructions, but it was 'dream't off' in someone's philosophy first.
It is not in our nature to seek out truth and to ask questions, you are confusing intellectual theoretics with carnal acquisition. The thrust of constant questioning of everything is in order to supplant one ideology with another, to lessen your enemy and in its place put yourself. That is a product of group behaviour, part of our pack animal history, we seek to place ourselves at the top of a food chain, even if the nourishment in this case is acceptance of argument (which is sort of what I am doing at this point).
Our function is to procreate and evolve. Our search is for understanding, not meaning or truth. But, the search for understanding has to be achieved through truth and meaning. 'Beauty is truth', but beauty is in the eye of the one who beholds it so we can never understand each others truth, simple procrastination is the destruction of conceptualisation.
But you are fully on the ball when you stated:
'if we were capable of conceiving truth beyond our perception, we would strive for that rather than content ourselves with a version of the truth that seems acceptable to us and placates our enormous human egos. It seems that we have some drive which propels us to find answers.'
That is an essential thrust of a great argument, and one which we can both agree, a synthesis that we have created from our thesis and antithesis.
——————————————-
A final note (very brief and not without some holes):
Science is the search for truth:
Which is why new discoveries can rewrite entire scientific dogma. Science has no meaning, it is merely a method by which we seek to distinguish truth from the broad canvas on ignorance.
Philosophy is the search for meaning:
Philosophy seeks to define the meaning in existence often without even observing it in a strictly empirical sense.
Religion is the search for understanding:
Religion is not philosophy or science, although many great scientists and philosophers have been religious their only crossing is when they seek to add understanding to truth or meaning. Religion is a tool we use to bring order to a universe whose truths we have never fully explained and to whose meaning is so vast that it is almost beyond conception.
Error 13:
Your synapses have crashed please reset your head and insert the Microsoft Brain Server for Humans version 3.2
Warning! This Brain Server is not compatible with your human version.
We cannot offer you any further advice unless you telepathically link with to the Microsoft Psychic Help site, where we will collect information from your mind on your most embarrassing secrets without your permission, and make sure that you're not running any unauthorised copies of our thoughts.
Warning! Your thoughts are not compatible with Microsoft Server for Humans.
Please disconnect all devices from the brain stem and re-format your mind. If this does not solve your problem consult a qualified Microsoft NeuroSystems Advisor who will be glad to help you. Microsoft cannot be held responsible for any loss of intellect inflicted during this procedure.
It's a fact, I'm back and I'm standing on the rooftop shouting out…
We'll maybe not quite like that. So I have been gone, I was still here, but not really here. Not in the sense of being here anyway. Why was i gone, well….there were reasons, mostly I was feeling too sad even to care to breathe….but now I care to again (just about). For those who knew, they knew I was gone, those who didn't know can see that I am now back and possibly didn't notice I was gone. Well I was but now I am back.
Expect new posts of genteel wisdom filled with expositionary phrases crammed full of adroit observations that will act as a Zeitgeist to the dyspepsia of our modern culture.
Or in the words of the great Karl Marx, "looks like he's talking shit again."
Who or what do you really love?
Cheese, Jesus does no-one except me read this blog, think about my writings before asking these questions. I am the Emperor of Cheese and I suffer you all allowance to consume its creamy goodness only on the promise that you will bow to my greater cheese-love.
So it was a beautiful day on 10th February in Lancaster. Very sunny and quite warm so we went for a walk along the canal and I managed to get a few good pictures of birds, as shown below.
So it is the middle of February and I have another two books down on my yearly goal, I intended that it would be somewhere around a book a month if I could, thankfully I have averaged better than that thus far.
The Purity Plot continues EE Doc Smith's D'Ambert family series in fine form, if anything there is more coherence to his themes of hidden agendas and natural succession of nobility (though as always with an undercurrent of some nobility being bad, but nevertheless overall it is nobilis oblige). The second book is a Doctor Who book (picked up at a bargain bookstore) from the New Adventures Series (note the book is Asylum by Peter Davril-Evans not the Sanctuary pic above which is now just for illustration and to remind me that my mind is dead, finally dead). it follows a non-canon meeting between the Fourth Doctor and Nyssa. I have a few comments on the story that I am just going to bullet:
* Historical elements: Felt a little sub-par Name of the Rose, similar feeling with their being death in monasteries but without Eco's excellent sense of narrative pace and timing to religious day. The similarity made for an uncomfortable echo that really upset what the author was trying to achieve, especially since the Doctor was portrayed well.
Aside from that the monastery, history of Oxford and English history was skilfully woven into the narrative without it becoming overbearing or Scamarised to death.
* Nyssa. The writer caught Nyssa particularly well and gave her a believable inner turmoil and then ditched her to a castle courtyard for the majority of the novel. Whenever we returned to her it was to find her shying away and although this was to be as part of the final denouement it was un-subtle and I felt she was badly underused.
* Sci-fi: Well this was almost totally absent, just an essence of the real story (perhaps) hidden in an intriguing prologue-epilogue combination. Unfortunately this then felt tagged on to the rest of the story and quite frankly I would have left it out, it was a good enough Who story without it.
The writer had a big task as he introduced a mix whereby a later companion had to interact with a previous doctor without there being too much causality/paradox elements as that would upset balances, so instead we had a feeble (mental state) companion brushed aside and deserted by one of the canon's greatest emotional doctors. The fourth doctor has always emoted, even with the enemy, who can forget that he debated destroying the Daleks in the mighty Genesis, so there was an internal dichotomy that wasn't rationally presented, just brushed aside in a casual manner by separation.
On the whole I enjoyed the book, the pacing was slow but involving I just felt niggled too much (maybe I'm getting grumpy in my old age).
Currently still reading Web navigation, though now I can add Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to that list (always revisit your childhood if you can) so two books in reading production. Got to find my next book to read 😉
Comments