#there's also instances of both of them reading philosophy books

[distort-opia]

Have joker and batman ever agreed with something (not begrudgingly) ? Always been curious about this

They've even teamed up occasionally in the past, but I wouldn't count all of these instances as agreeing on something. It was out of necessity, most of the time. And explicitly getting Batman and Joker agreeing on something is quite rare, but there are things they've seen eye to eye on. I'll try to go through them below, but I'll put the elaboration and the comic references under the cut, since this got long.

Bruce agreed with Joker that he'd been making mistakes as Batman after Alfred's death;

Both Batman and Joker hate The Batman Who Laughs;

Both Batman and Joker agree that the world is meaningless and absurd (but they disagree on how to deal with it);

Both Batman and Joker believe in Joker's insanity as a reason for him not being fully responsible for his own actions;

Both Batman and Joker see their sidekicks as better versions of themselves, not imitations;

Both Batman and Joker oppose Nazis.

1) Bruce agreed with Joker that he'd been making mistakes as Batman, in Batman: Joker War.

This one is probably the most straightforward:

Batman (2016) #94

Batman (2016) #101

2) Both Batman and Joker absolutely loathe The Batman Who Laughs.

Neither wants Bruce to actually become him, they both think TBWL is an abomination-- which results in Joker teaming up with Bruce to help in defeating him two separate times (Dark Nights: Metal #6, The Batman Who Laughs). It's to the extent that Bruce relies on Joker to kill him if he turns into another TBWL (The Batman Who Laughs #4), and to the extent that Joker pretty much forbids Lex Luthor from working with TBWL, wrecking the Legion of Doom when Lex does not keep his word, in Justice League (2018) #13:

3) Both Batman and Joker agree that the world is meaningless and absurd (but they disagree on how to deal with it).

This is perhaps most evident in Batman: The Killing Joke:

It's been alluded that they agree on this in other stories too, like Batman: Ego and Batman (2011) #48. But TKJ remains the most poignant, since the fact they share a loss of meaning due to trauma they couldn't process is at the basis of the story-- and the point of it is that Joker is wrong that the only possible path after experiencing something like it is madness. "Maybe I've been there too," Bruce says. Despite Batman and Joker disagreeing on the how of dealing with it, they definitely see the world in the same way.

In the same vein, there's this moment in Batman (2016) #48 that's nothing if not agreement regarding the construction of their identities as a way to keep themselves alive in the wake of loss:

4) Both Batman and Joker believe in Joker's insanity as a reason for him not being fully responsible for his own actions.

Over time, more than one character has gotten at the truth of Joker's persona being, in many ways, a desperate performance; Jason dug at it in Batman: Under the Red Hood, Jim ponders it in Joker (2021). But Selina spelled it out best in Batman/Catwoman, even though technically this isn't within continuity:

Batman/Catwoman (2021) #9

"You're like him! Just exactly like him! [...] You know wrong from right, and you just chose a side!"

Most of the time, if Bruce and Joker ever agree on something, it's that Joker is crazy. They both need to believe it, for different reasons. Joker chose "madness as the emergency exit", and if he admits that he isn't mad, he lets go of the single coping mechanism he's constructed in order to keep surviving (not to even delve into the fact that this is how he deals with his breaking of the fourth wall). Although this isn't to say Joker isn't mentally ill (because hoo boy, is he)-- however, he isn't irrational. He's not the chaotic and monstrous force of nature he presents as; he's a human being making choices. And also... because he's "crazy", Bruce pulls stunts like saving Joker's life from the electric chair (Joker: Devil's Advocate), saving him from the Spectre's judgment (The Spectre #51) and from the demon Etrigan (Batman #546), saving his life when he gets stabbed despite Jim stating it's a consequence of his own choices (Batman: Cacophony #3)... by arguing Joker is a psychopath and incapable of making choices. In Batman/Catwoman, it's to the point he makes Selina swear she won't kill Joker, with Selina keeping to herself the thought that Joker was sane, indicating exactly just how much Bruce needed to believe it.

I'll make the note that this is of course my personal interpretation, and that there are times Bruce has referred to Joker as not insane. Like in Batman: Endgame, in which he calls Joker "not crazy, just evil". However, that's kind of the point, at least in my understanding... he only does this at the end of the road. And Joker has also called himself "differently sane" or argued against being called insane in actual courts of law, but his reasons for doing so are usually creating more chaos or a wounded ego (not sincerity).

5) Both Batman and Joker see their sidekicks as better versions of themselves, not imitations.

Well, according to Bruce at least:

Punchline: The Gotham Game #2

6) Both Batman and Joker oppose Nazis.

This is a less personal one, but Joker asserts more than once that he's against Nazis and bigotry, in the Batman & Captain America crossover, and in Injustice: Ground Zero.

And there you go, Anon! I tried to limit this to beliefs agreement can be applied to, since going into the emotional similarities Batman and Joker share is something else. Also, if anyone has other cases in mind, feel free to add on!

[darkmaga-retard]

One of the most widely used means the tyrannical globalists employ, to lull the populace into a state of anaesthesia as far as the goings-on behind the scenes are concerned, has to do with ‘entertainment’ of the kind one finds in the realm of streaming services such as Netflix or Showmax. 

By and large, this covers captivating movies and series, in which one can immerse oneself so completely that events in the ‘real’ world are almost completely blotted out. This is an indirect, or passive manner in which entertainment is ‘weaponized,’ in the form of a smokescreen of sorts, against populations. To this may be added a more direct, or active way of doing so; namely, through films or television series which communicate a mostly subliminal, but sometimes more explicit ‘message’ to viewers about what to expect in the future, thus ‘pre-programming’ them for such events.

Not that I have anything against watching a good movie or series, such as The Blacklist or Maestro in Blue, on Netflix; my partner and I do so regularly, except that it is not at the cost of forgetting the very real threat to our liberty and lives hanging over us daily. After a day of work, during which a fair share of my day is spent on reflecting and writing on different aspects of the neo-fascist scourge confronting freedom-loving people the world over, we relax by either going dancing, reading, or watching a film or a series, of which there are many excellent ones available on streaming services. 

We also have a substantial DVD collection, largely because one of my areas of teaching and research is the philosophy of film and critical film analysis, usually through a psychoanalytical lens as well. In sum – as I teach my students, film should never be merely passively ‘consumed,’ but, while enjoying it at a sensory, perceptual level first and foremost, one should not be lulled into a state of being hypnotised to the point of being anaesthetised. They provide occasions for critical reflection.

Even popular movies are no exception to this rule. Take the widely popular Terminator films, the first two by James Cameron (see Chapter 9 in my film book), for example, as well as his equally popular Avatar movies. In both of these instances, their popular façade may easily hide the serious, albeit entertaining, thematic implications involved. 

[histoireettralala]

Marie de Cotteblanche

Marie de Cotteblanche (ca.1520- ca.1580) Translator and linguist

Born into a family of parlementaires (members of Paris's Parlement), Marie de Cotteblanche was the daughter of Guy de Cotteblanche, a lawyer at the Paris Parlement, and Catherine Hesselin, whom he married in 1517. Her older brother Elie accumulated many honors, becoming a gentleman of the Chambre du Roi in 1571 and knight of the Order of Saint Michel in 1578. Marie had a sister Marguerite, as we learn from the cosmographer François de Belleforest's dedication to them of his pastoral poem, Chasse d'Amour (Love's Hunt, 1560). The bibliographer La Croix du Maine notes that she was a "Damoiselle Parisienne, très docte en Philosophie et Mathématiques" (Damoiselle Parisienne, very learned in philosophy and mathematics).

Marie de Cotteblanche was also adept at languages. Her only extant work, Trois dialogues de M. Pierre Messie, touchant la nature du Soleil, de la Terre, et de toutes les choses qui se font et apparoissent en l'air (Three Dialogues by M. Pierre Messie, concerning the nature of the sun, the earth, and all things that happen and appear in the air), a French translation of three Spanish dialogues by the cosmographer Pedro Mexia (or Mejia, Pierre Messie in French, 1497-1551), was published in 1566 and reissued some twenty-nine times between 1566 and 1643, either independently, in Claude Grujet's translation of Messie's Diverses Leçons, or in an anonymous translation of the complete dialogues of Pierre Messie.

Cotteblanche bases her translation on both the original Spanish version (either the 1547 or 1548 editions) and an Italian rendition by Alfonso d'Ulloa published in Venice in 1557. In her numerous marginal annotations, Cotteblanche compares the Spanish and Italian versions, opting sometimes for the one or the other or sometimes coming up with her own formulations. In her dedicatory letter to her friend and patron, Marguerite de Saluces, maréchale de Termes, she thanks the latter for having taught her Italian. She states her knowledge of only Italian, a privileged language at court and among a select group of translators who were state secretaries, writers, and lawyers. Marie de Cotteblanche combines her knowledge of languages with her interest in the sciences. Of the six dialogues by Messie, she retains only the three that concern geophysical and cosmological topics (the sun, the earth, and the meteors). Her choice of a scientific subject matter was not an unusual one for a woman of the elite class. Many learned women of the nobility and upper gentry were well read in the sciences. Catherine de Médicis, for instance, was interested in astronomy and the natural sciences, Marguerite de Valois and Diane de Poitiers in medical treatises, and Catherine de Clermont, maréchale de Retz, in philosophy and mathematics.

Cotteblanche's choice of the dialogue form, a favorite humanist genre, appealed to a wide readership eager to expand its learning. In her preface, she states her great love for books ("seuls m'ont faict fidèle compaignie" [they alone have been my faithful companions]), study and learning. She was also commited to writing. She viewed her translation as a stylistic exercise, a first attempt to produce a work that would eventually lead to another publication reflecting her own creativity. No other work by her has been published.

Anne R. Larsen in Encyclopedia of Women in the Renaissance

[infantisimo]

It was in the early 20th century that Punjabis studying in the universities of Oxford, Cambridge, London and California began to interact with Western thought. The poet Puran Singh (1881-1931) engaged Nietzsche in Punjabi; the great lexicographer Kahan Singh (1861-1938) collaborated with Macauliffe (1837-1913) on the English translation of the Sikh scriptures for his 6-volume magnum opus The Sikh Religion; the Greek and Sanskrit scholar Dharam Anant [Singh] worked on Plato while Santokh Singh (1892-1927) introduced Marx to Punjab.

Bhai Santokh Singh, a Ghadar activist and one of the founders of the communist movement in Punjab, was tried with 29 other Ghadarites in the Indo-German or San Francisco Hindu Conspiracy Case and sentenced to 21 months rigorous imprisonment. In the McNeil’s Island prison, he came in contact with other political inmates, many of them Russian communist exiles, and began to read leftist books, including the three volumes of Capital. After his release, he travelled to the Soviet Union, where he enrolled in the KUTV – University of the Toilers of the East. After returning to Punjab, he started Kirti (The Worker) in 1926, a Punjabi magazine.

In its first issue, dated February 1926, he published a short introductory article on Dialectical and Historical Materialism. The essay was also an important milestone in the development of Punjabi literary and political prose. Prior to this, historical and political texts – even the traditional medicine formulae – were written in poetry. Given the lack of an established Punjabi tradition of economic and philosophical discourse, Santokh Singh relied on Sanskrit for introducing new philosophical terms into Punjabi.

Dwarka Das Library, which shifted from Lahore to Delhi to Chandigarh after Partition, has in its collection the first English edition of Capital (1887). It is a fair conjecture that Bhagat Singh would have accessed it. In his memoir, Yash ki Dharohar (Heritage of Honour, 1988), Bhagwan Das Mahaur, an accomplice of Bhagat Singh, writes that he had read Capital on the suggestion of Bhagat Singh, but could not comprehend it. Bhagat Singh’s Jail Notebooks include quotes from the writings of Marx and Engels.

Makhan Singh (1913-1973) a whole-timer of the CPI during 1939-1947, spent his time in translating some parts of Marx’s Das Kapital into Punjabi in the Gurmukhi script. In 1942, Jagjit Singh Anand, an editor of Jang-e-Azadi, the CPI organ, received Makhan Singh’s Punjabi translation of ‘Dialectical Materialism’, a chapter in Das Kapital. In his memoir, Anand recalled his deep impression of Makhan Singh’s nuanced grasp of Marxist theory as well as his mastery of the Punjabi language. The two men worked on the editorial board of Jang-e-Azadi until 1947, when Makhan Singh left Punjab for Kenya.

The editorial board of Jang-e-Azadi consisted of communist activists and pioneer Punjabi translators of Marxian literature, including Bhag Singh, a PhD in political science from Berkeley University, Teja Singh Sutantar, a legendary political leader and graduate of the University of the Toilers of the East Moscow, Sohan Singh Josh, Makhan Singh, Jagjit Singh Anand, and Randhir Singh.

In May 1937 a collection of articles on capitalism, imperialism and socialism published in Kirti was compiled by Harkishan Singh Surjeet. This 100-page book was titled ‘Purani te Navi Duniya’ (Old & the New World) by Sathi (Comrade) Karl Marx. It was the first Marxian text in Punjabi that was laden with the new terminology of economics and philosophy, not familiar to most Punjabi readers at the time. Most of the newly-coined terms stuck. But a hundred years later, there is still no consensus about certain words and concepts. For instance, the word ‘Capital’ can be translated both as ‘Poonji’ (origin Sanskrit) and ‘Sarmaya’ (origin Persian).

The first authentic Punjabi translation of Capital was published in 1975 by Navyug publishers, Delhi. The three volumes were translated by a team of fulltime employees of the Soviet Embassy’s Information Department. No other book by Marx except The Poverty of Philosophy was translated into Punjabi.

The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels was first translated into Punjabi in the Gurmukhi script by Randhir Singh and published in Lahore in 1946. It took over 70 years for its Punjabi version to appear in the Farsi script in Lahore translated by Mushtaq Soofi (Sanjh publications, 2022). A booklet about contemporary Marxism, titled Nirvar (The Analysis) was published by Rashid Uz Zaman in the Farsi script in Lahore in 1970. Unlike the East Punjabi translation, which largely relies on Sanskrit, Zaman’s translation borrows heavily from Arabic and Farsi. This duality of one language with two scripts and two dictions has been a serious bone of contention between academics, linguists and writers on both sides of the divided land of Punjab.

[rachellemarzorati]

Introduction to Reading's Impact on Leadership

Reading is often regarded as a fundamental skill for personal and professional development. However, its impact on leadership is particularly profound. Leaders who read regularly tend to develop a broad perspective, improve their decision-making abilities, and inspire their teams more effectively. This article explores how reading contributes to leadership development and why it is essential for current and aspiring leaders.

Enhancing Knowledge and Expertise

One primary benefit of reading for leaders is the enhancement of knowledge and expertise. Reading books, articles, and reports lets leaders stay updated on industry trends, new technologies, and best practices. This continuous learning process helps leaders make informed decisions and remain competitive.

For instance, reading business and management books can provide leaders new strategies and frameworks for problem-solving and organizational development. Additionally, biographies of successful leaders offer valuable insights into their experiences, challenges, and solutions, serving as both inspiration and practical guidance.

Reading also helps leaders understand the complexities of various subjects, enabling them to communicate more effectively with their teams, stakeholders, and clients. By being well-informed, leaders can gain credibility and trust, which are crucial for effective leadership.

Fostering Creativity and Innovation

Reading stimulates the mind and fosters creativity and innovation. Exposure to different ideas, cultures, and philosophies through reading can inspire leaders to think outside the box and approach problems from new angles. This ability to innovate is essential in today's rapidly changing business environment.

Literature, in particular, can expand a leader's creative thinking. Fictional stories often explore complex characters and scenarios that require readers to think critically and empathize with different perspectives. This type of reading can enhance a leader's ability to generate innovative solutions and drive organizational growth.

Moreover, reading about innovative companies and their approaches can provide leaders with practical examples of implementing creative ideas within their organizations. By learning from the successes and failures of others, leaders can develop more effective strategies for fostering innovation in their teams.

Developing Emotional Intelligence

Emotional intelligence (EI) is a critical component of effective leadership. It encompasses self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skills. Reading literature and psychology books can significantly enhance a leader's EI.

Leaders can improve their empathy and understanding of human behavior by delving into characters' thoughts and emotions in novels. This heightened empathy allows leaders to connect with their team members deeper, fostering a positive and supportive work environment.

Reading about psychological theories and emotional intelligence can also provide leaders with tools to manage their emotions and behaviors more effectively. This self-awareness and regulation are essential for maintaining composure and rational decisions, even under pressure.

Furthermore, understanding leadership's emotional and psychological aspects can help leaders motivate and inspire their teams. By recognizing and addressing their employees' emotional needs, leaders can build strong, cohesive teams committed to achieving organizational goals.

Strengthening Communication Skills

Effective communication is a cornerstone of successful leadership. Reading extensively helps leaders develop strong communication skills, including writing, speaking, and listening. Exposure to different writing styles and vocabulary through reading can enhance a leader's ability to articulate ideas clearly and persuasively.

Reading also gives leaders insights into tailoring their communication to different audiences. Whether communicating with team members, stakeholders, or clients, leaders must convey their messages in ways that resonate with their audience. Understanding various communication styles and preferences can make leaders more effective in their interactions.

Furthermore, reading books on communication and leadership can offer practical tips and techniques for improving these skills. For example, books on public speaking can help leaders become more confident and engaging speakers. In contrast, books on active listening can enhance their ability to understand and respond to their team members' concerns.

Inspiring Lifelong Learning and Growth

They were finally, reading fosters a mindset of lifelong learning and growth, which is essential for effective leadership. Leaders who prioritize reading demonstrate a commitment to their personal and professional development. This dedication to learning sets an example for their teams and encourages a culture of continuous improvement within the organization.

Reading about diverse topics, including philosophy, history, science, and the arts, broadens a leader's horizons and encourages a holistic approach to problem-solving. This well-rounded knowledge base enables leaders to draw connections between different fields and apply interdisciplinary thinking to their work.

Moreover, leaders who regularly read are better equipped to adapt to change and navigate uncertainty. By staying informed about global trends and emerging challenges, leaders can anticipate changes and proactively develop strategies to address them. This adaptability is crucial for maintaining organizational resilience and achieving long-term success.

Reading has a profound impact on leadership. It enhances knowledge, fosters creativity, develops emotional intelligence, strengthens communication skills, and inspires lifelong learning. For current and aspiring leaders, making reading a regular habit is essential for personal growth and professional success. By continually expanding their minds and staying informed, leaders can better navigate the complexities of their roles, inspire their teams, and drive their organizations toward greater achievements.

[woodswolf]

4, 11, 18, 21, 35, 49. Feel free to answer as many or few as you so desire

writing ask game

4. Have you ever been published, or do you want to be published?

i have not been, but i maybe would like to be someday. i have some original ideas floating around (most of which have been for years), but it's like. i have a 9-5, i have games to play, i have other hobbies i like to do. if i DO happen to find an original idea that's just so wild that i HAVE to write it that's one thing, but im not gonna go out of my way to write something just to get published.

11. Books and/or authors who influenced you the most

there's only one thing that specifically comes to mind for this question and it's a fanfic that i first read when i was 16. but that's not necessarily an influence in terms of writing style, more like it literally rewired my brain and my analysis of it strongly influences my personal philosophy to this day: "hope is in everything but it is most present in places where it feels absent".

it's easier to break things down by individual works. for instance, my current wip is explicitly a "response" to two other fics i read last year that pulled off the same concept in different ways, with nods to other stories i've read and liked. (i also just realized as i was answering this that it's probably also a subconscious response to another fic i read a few years ago? it had really good disability rep but then kinda undercut itself via stapling on a romantic subplot — it blurred the very sharply-focused themes of disability rights and empowerment by mixing that with "oh but your new boyfriend is evil so :/". it's still a really good fic but this specifically irked me.) and by virtue of being a story about hope and its absence it kinda is indirectly a tribute to that first fic lol

18. If you could collaborate with anyone, who would it be, and what would you write about?

ooooh kinda hot take but i actually Don't like collabs all that much. i've only done a few, but none of them were great experiences. it's probably due to the fact that basically all of them were group-events-with-random-partners kinda things and someone always has to get matched up with the 13y/o, but i've never been able to look on the end results as something i was proud to participate in — they've always ended up pretty mediocre and left me with the feeling of "if i just wrote all of this myself it would suck way less".

a one-on-one more focused collab with co-plotting and more coordination and so on would probably be more fun, but i don't really have any writer Friends (at least not that i talk to on the regular) so it's kinda a moot point. me and my partner have talked about doing a combo collab at some point, though — they have a lot of very interesting ideas for a splatoon au that would play nicely into both of our strengths (writing/art) and i think that could really go somewhere interesting.

21. Who is/are your favourite character(s) to write?

i've really been enjoying the hocotate ship. kinda kooky, kinda smarmy, kinda sarcastic, just a really interesting bag of traits that i haven't previously written all that often.

in general, though, i would have to say olimar, and yes this is accounting for all of the years and years of julien ninjago. olimar is that same kind of "very introspective character who has a strained relationship with their family due to external forces", but unlike julien, who i've always written as being very anxious about keeping up appearances, olimar isn't really anxious at all (at least more than would be normal for someone who ends up in the situations he does on the regular). his problem is that he has a martyr complex taller than the empire state building and zero awareness that Actually That's Kind Of A Bad Thing.

35. What scene/story are you least looking forward to writing?

a few weeks ago i would've said DLDP2, which is the (mainline) sequel to my current wip, but i did a bit of thinking about how to plot things out there and it's a bit better now. it probably still is DLDP2, because there's a lot of other shit i still have to figure out there, but at this point it might be a case of "the devil you know" since DLDP3 and DLDP4 are almost certainly in vaguer states than DLDP2 is. but those two are also years off from being written probably while DLDP2 is Less. but who knows if i'll ever get around to it anyway, the only story i will be MAD if i don't get to wrte it is the DLD's spinoff sequel since that's where a lot more of the disability stuff is going to come into play.

49. Which character would you most want to be friends with, if they were real?

man i have no idea. definitely NOT olimar though at least if he was still 1 inch tall like that. i am afraid of him i would need to kill him to put him out of his misery. what cruel God has condemned them to such forms (and surely it must be a cruel God)?

[alphaman99]

excellent....well worth the read

Daniel Jupp

What is it that makes a human being, human?

One of my favourite authors, Philip K. Dick, was deeply concerned with this question. He asks and answers it in different ways in all his books, but probably most obviously in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, which in its film version became Blade Runner.

Both remain the best novel and best film treatments of the subject of androids, or artificial intelligence in a form that resembles and is in most practical ways indistinguishable from mankind.

As our own technology advances philosophical questions about machine sentience obviously become more and relevant, but there are also multiple other ways in which the question of what constitutes a human being is a vital one.

It’s the question at the heart of an abortion debate, for instance, and it’s really a question underpinning every discussion of individual liberty. People have rights because they are people. The rights that matter most are human rights.

Philip K. Dick constantly asked the question of his characters, because he was asking it of himself. And through him, I found out that this is one of the most important questions in the history of philosophy, especially of ancient philosophy. Dick became obsessed with the Pre-Socratics because they shared his need to explore what makes us fully human. And this is very, very old thinking we are talking about, some of the oldest ideas in the history of western civilisation.

If we were to talk about narrowing the most important questions ever posed down to very simple things, to what their core essence is, we might say that they consist of ‘what am I?’ And ‘what is all this?’. What is a human, and what is the world? All of our real thought begins with these questions, which include not just our philosophy but also our art, our culture, our literature and yes, our religion, our mythology and even our science too.

I think the handprints or animal paintings on a cave that date from long before the Ancient Greeks are asking these same questions. I think the oldest surviving figurines, the Venus figures which are odd, bloated, sometimes many breasted and sometimes headless depictions of the female form (the oldest thus far discovered, the Venus of Hohle Fels, is at least 35,000 years old) are asking these two questions.

These are questions that prompt the entire history of human creativity. Whatever we possess that we created, whatever we have which is most artistic, most sacred and most meaningful outside ourselves and other living beings, is created from the point at which our species started asking these questions.

What defines us as different to another animal, the full range of our sentience, self awareness and emotion, our cognition and our capacity for reason, was born with these questions.

Asking ‘what is a human being?’ is itself one of the things that makes us human. Unless we try to understand ourselves,as individuals and as a species, we are moving through the world propelled only by instinct and animal reaction.

These questions don’t become significant again just because of technological advance. They are always significant, but we rediscover them most urgently at times of societal collapse. Societal collapse presents us with those moments where all of the long and careful answers we have built, the ones which frame our rules, our laws, our morality, are falling down around our ears.

And in these times, these circumstances, we again encounter creatures that share our appearance but share none of our inner life, creatures that wear human form but have no humanity about them.

We are wise to fear the artificial intelligence that has no limits, no conscience, no humanity. We are wiser still to fear the biological human being who has none of these things, either. And it seems to me that we are encountering and producing more and more of the latter. Whether that’s a feral youth stabbing another child to death, a Muslim terrorist committing atrocities, or an ideologically warped leftist supporting those terrorists, we are seeing more and more humans with less and less humanity.

Often, the ones who proclaim their humanity the loudest, possess the least of it.

The closest Philip K. DIck came to an answer to the question of what is a human being is that a human being has humanity. Compassion, to give it another name. And compassion not as a vain signal of virtue, and not as a thing which claims to love everyone at a remove, whilst neglecting those at home. The compassion that cannot comprehend the actions of a terrorist, and would never seek to excuse them.

We have seen compassion itself abused into its opposite. We have seen it turned into a cruelty towards the real innocents, and the real victims. In the UK we once had a man called Long Longford. Longford spent a large portion of his life arguing that the treatment and imprisonment of Myra Hindley was inhumane. He defended her. He protected her. He championed her.

Hindley, of course, was a serial killer who had tortured children to death. Both Longford and Hindley lacked real humanity, real compassion. To support evil is to commit evil. There is of course a difference between an evil action and an evil reaction, but it is a difference of degree, not of kind. Excess of alleged compassion for the guilty and the inhumane is a denial of compassion to the innocent and the human.

For me the thing that makes us human is the capacity to think and feel in ways that are different, ways that are more, than those available to an animal or a machine. We need the capacity to reason, as well as the capacity to love. Both working together prevent us from being either a Hindley or a Longford. Correct reasoning would have told Longford that the victims of Hindley were worth more than she was, as well as a correct emotional response.

In Blade Runner the androids, the replicants, insist on their existence as thinking, living beings, equal to or superior to mankind. In a way they are saying ‘we are human’, even as they despise humanity. Their surface quest is to find a way to extend their lives beyond the very short limit set by their creators. This is the same quest Gilgamesh went on in one of the earliest surviving stories we have. Their deeper quest is to understand their own nature. And this is a human quest. Their surface aim leads them to kill people and behave inhumanely. But ultimately the message is that in dying they find not just the limit of their existence, but the moral limits that make them actually human. Roy Batty in his last moments can kill or save Rick Deckard. Both have been trying to kill each other for the entire film. Batty’s last action is to choose not to kill Deckard.

And it is at this point that Batty delivers the incredible speech improvised by Rutger Hauer. The speech that confirms this was a living being with sentience and worth. But that speech is only unlocked, only made meaningful, moving and true, by behaviour, by Batty having just chosen not to kill, showing human reason, judgement, discernment and compassion. He proves with an action what he is then allowed to confirm with a speech. He reflects on the life of Deckard, and it’s worth, before he is allowed to express the worth of his own existence. In other words the poetry and reflection on his own life is only possible because the action has already made him human.

Humanity, then, is defined both by behaviour and limitation, by choosing not to do certain things, inhumane things. We must have the intellectual capacity to make that choice correctly, and the emotional capacity to want to make that choice correctly. We must be able to discern between innocence and guilt, and pick the action that makes us more, not the one that makes us less, human ourselves.

If Batty earns humanity by choosing not to kill, by understanding Deckard’s life, then conversely the kind of savagery displayed by Hamas is surely also a behaviour, a choice, that lessens their humanity, that removes their right to be considered human. Just as the actions of Myra Hindley made her less than human. You cannot take these actions and make these choices and expect the same treatment that belongs to an innocent. You have already denied that. You have already shown that you are inhuman.

To be human means to judge and evaluate, ourselves first and foremost, but others too. Psychopaths and terrorists of course also claim that they have the right to judge others, and on some religious or ideological excuse determine life and death. But the existence of false judgement that leads to barbarity does not invalidate the need for correct judgement that leads to humanity. It makes it all the more urgent.

There are objectively things you cannot do and continue to call yourself human, or be treated as human by others. The deliberate and personal and sustained act of terrorism that sees you raping women, tearing screaming children away from murdered parents, beheading babies, surely signals that it is now more humane to kill you than to let you live and do these things again. Real human life, life that still has the capacity to think and feel in ways that are more than raw brutal savagery, matters more.

What amazes and depresses me most is not just the existence of inhuman monsters like Hamas. What is almost as urgent a problem is the apparent death of a capacity to think and feel with discernment, reason and compassion amongst others. The person who can see these events and side with the terrorists. And do so whilst perhaps talking about humanity and compassion, as BLM did, or oppression, as Celtic fans did, as if any oppression we can imagine is worse than the kind that beheads babies, as if any compassion can exist whilst making excuses for beheading babies. But also the people who lack the logic and discernment, the thinking and feeling capacity, to distinguish between this and media driven hysteria on a succession of other topics, who think they are being particularly discerning and clever by displaying their own lack of humanity towards genuinely innocent victims.

We must ask what is human to be human. And we must admit that the purely savage and those who support them don’t fit the definition if the definition is to make any moral sense at all. We must demand that they be more than they are, or else we become less than human too.

Patricia Young

Excellent Daniel!!!

[newblogspakistan]

Stanislav Grof's Psychology of the Future

The creator is one the most writers withinside the area of transpersonal psychology. This ee-e book covers thoughts concerning non-normal states of attention. His dialogue attracts on for instance such charming human states of attention as past-lifestyles reports, top reports, verbal exchange with spirit courses and channelling, near-dying reports, crises of shamans like witch-doctors, states of possession, and awakening of Kundalini. He additionally reviews findings from his unique studies into `psychedelic therapy' and 'holotropic breathwork'.

Holotropic attention He writes that during holotropic states, attention is modified qualitatively in a completely profound and essential manner even though humans usually continue to be absolutely oriented in phrases of area and time, now no longer absolutely dropping contact with ordinary reality. At the identical time it's far stated that our area of attention is invaded from contents from different dimensions of lifestyles in a manner that may be very extreme or even overwhelming. We accordingly enjoy concurrently very exceptional realities, having every foot in a exceptional world.

He is going on to mention that holotropic states are characterized through dramatic perceptual modifications in all sensory areas. When we near our eyes we might also additionally see photos drawn from private records or visions portraying vegetation or animals, scenes from nature, or of the universe. We can be experiencing nation-states of archetypal beings and mythological regions. And even if we open our eyes, our belief of our environment may be converted through vibrant projections of this subconscious material. Various sounds, bodily sensations, smells and tastes can also be involved.

He additionally describes feelings feature of those states. Feelings may be very extreme. They might also additionally variety from ecstatic rapture, content material and peacefulness, to terror, murderous anger, utter despair, or ingesting guilt. Such states of thoughts appear to suit both the celestial paradises or hellish nation-states defined in sacred scriptures of the world's religions.

He reviews that, in those non-normal states of attention, we might not be capable of depend upon our judgment of ordinary realistic subjects however we may be flooded through brilliant legitimate records on a whole lot of topics in addition to deep insights regarding our private records, subconscious dynamics, and lifestyles problems. He writes that we will additionally "enjoy notable revelations regarding numerous factors of nature and of the cosmos that through a huge margin transcends our instructional and highbrow background." Finally he feedback that the maximum exciting insights that turn out to be to be had revolve round philosophical, metaphysical and religious issues. And so he thinks holotropic states of attention facilitate deep character modifications and religious opening. Spiritual nature of lifestyles

Grof argues that reports of this type are the primary supply of mythologies, philosophies and spiritual structures describing the religious nature of lifestyles. He continues that the dogmas and sports of mainstream religions have a tendency to difficult to understand the truth that the best vicinity in which actual spirituality may be determined is in the psyche of every of us. Most humans might likely consider his announcement that at its worst organised faith can clearly characteristic as a grave obstacle for any critical religious search, instead of an group which could assist us hook up with the divine. For, through denigrating its members, it makes it hard to accept as true with that the divine is inside them.

Read More: Review of the book Psychiatric Abnormalities Considering

[drmichaelmajickmikelikey]

*"Gone through the first chapter and can already thoroughly recommend it. It's easy to read, well referenced, and where specific props are used there are links provided for them. The book is also very reasonably priced so there's no reason not to add it to your library if you have an interest in performing bizarre magic." -Experts at the Craft Table​ *"I am anxiously awaiting Michael Likey's latest book.  Where else can you get a book (hardcover)  on Bizarre magic for under $20?  It looks like a fantastic collection of material". -Tony Iacoviello​ *"Michael Likey is an experienced International Performer and prolific Author. His books on Magic are detailed, well-researched and due credit is given throughout. This one equally subscribes to his trade-mark philosophy. I am a huge fan of his work & philosophies. The effects contained there-in are not just concerned with the methodology but the reasons why something has to follow a sequential pattern and more importantly, where it should be placed within a performance and ergo, maximize their value.  The book contains detailed tips on organizing how an effect works, how they can, and in some instances, should be adapted. Further emphasis is placed on not just what to present but how to present. He calls upon his vast empirical experience to explain why a particular prop needs to look the way it does and thus work in synch with the effect. A wonderful example of this is contained in his effect using Tarot cards.  Useful information is shared on the effective use of remotes and their potential and how not to regard them as mere devices with on/off switches. It explores the often neglected direction of transformation and explains that this is not merely an adjunct to an effect; the book explains that the creating of Magic is also about using subtle but nevertheless effective key words in scripts and how those key-words ensure a logical sequence in an audiences’ mind. In other words, not creating a puzzle but transforming the effect into an experience that is to be enjoyed and indeed also mystifies. The effects  revealed could be interpreted as “Bizarre” magic but are much more than that and clearly demonstrate how any type of Performer could adapt them to his/her needs.  There is no such thing as darkness but is a way to define the absence of light. Shadows make use of both". -Anthony Darkstone​, President, The International Assembly, The Society of American Magicians Available in Hardcover or Paperback from Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0C1DV38NM?ref_=pe_3052080_397514860&fbclid=IwAR3zI2H1RpbjGWGbsouHmbgfSQqK5ZOtiNVN5bca0KTIjjET6Nl8pnNDpzU

[everythingpolh]

Uninstall mazaika pc

#Uninstall mazaika pc software#

#Uninstall mazaika pc free#

You can read more about it in the book "Linux and the Unix Philosophy". This principle is very important and it is necessary to know it while searching for analogs of Windows-programs in Linux :). (for instance, if there is a program for spell checking, it can be used with the text editor or email client or if there is the powerful command-line program for files downloading, it is simple to write the graphic interface (Front-end) for it, etc). The programs under Linux can be thought of as being like the LEGO building blocks. The ideology of UNIX/Linux - one component or one program must execute only one task, but execute it well. In the same way, this principle is called the "Windows-way". The majority of the Windows programs are made on principle "all-in-one" (each developer adds everything to his or her product). The important ideological difference between Windows and Linux: Stands after the name of the program - the authors of the table are not sure about this program. Ģ) If there is nothing in the field of the table, except "?" - the authors of the table do not know what to place there.

#Uninstall mazaika pc software#

Non-free software (open source or relatively free, but have certain restrictive limits) is marked with the sign. Proprietary software for Linux is marked with the sign.

#Uninstall mazaika pc free#

(Definitions of Free Software: FSF and Debian). All comments, remarks, corrections, offers and bugreports are welcome - send them to .ġ) By default all Linux programs in this table are free as in freedom. If you want to add a program to the table, send mail to with the name of the program, the OS, the description (the purpose of the program, etc), and a link to the official site of the program (if you know it). In future, we plan to migrate this table to the PHP/MySQL engine, so visitors could add the program themselves, vote for analogs, add comments, etc. Also, the right column for a particular class of applications may not be filled immediately. This table is not static since new application names can be added to both left and the right sides. This list of Linux equivalents / replacements / analogs of Windows software is based on our own experience and on the information obtained from the visitors of this page (thanks!). Newbies usually search for Linux analogs of Windows software, and advanced Linux-users cannot answer their questions since they often don't know too much about Windows :). One of the biggest difficulties in migrating from Windows to Linux is the lack of knowledge about comparable software. This page on other languages: Russian, Italian, Spanish, French, German, Hungarian, You can always find the last version of this table on the official site: The table of equivalents / replacements / analogs of Windows software in Linux.

[probablespluyt]

Project Gutenberg's The Mind in the Making, by James Harvey Robinson

Copyright laws are changing all over the world. Be sure to check the

copyright laws for your country before downloading or redistributing

this or any other Project Gutenberg eBook.

This header should be the first thing seen when viewing this Project

Gutenberg file. Please do not remove it. Do not change or edit the

header without written permission.

Please read the "legal small print," and other information about the

eBook and Project Gutenberg at the bottom of this file. Included is

important information about your specific rights and restrictions in

how the file may be used. You can also find out about how to make a

donation to Project Gutenberg, and how to get involved.

**Welcome To The World of Free Plain Vanilla Electronic Texts** **eBooks Readable By Both Humans and By Computers, Since 1971** *****These eBooks Were Prepared By Thousands of Volunteers!*****

Title: The Mind in the Making

The Relation of Intelligence to Social Reform

Author: James Harvey Robinson

Release Date: May, 2005 [EBook #8077]

[Yes, we are more than one year ahead of schedule] [This file was first posted on June 12, 2003]

Edition: 10

Language: English

Character set encoding: ISO-Latin-1

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE MIND IN THE MAKING ***

Produced by Tiffany Vergon, Marc D'Hooghe, Charles Franks and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team.

THE MIND IN THE MAKING

The Relation of Intelligence to Social Reform By JAMES HARVEY ROBINSON

_Author of_ "PETRARCH, THE FIRST MODERN SCHOLAR" "MEDIAEVAL AND MODERN TIMES"

"THE NEW HISTORY", ETC.

CONTENTS

I PREFACE

1. ON THE PURPOSE OF THIS VOLUME

2. THREE DISAPPOINTED METHODS OF REFORM

II

3. ON VARIOUS KINDS OF THINKING

4. RATIONALIZING

5. HOW CREATIVE THOUGHT TRANSFORMS THE WORLD

III

6. OUR ANIMAL HERITAGE. THE NATURE OF CIVILIZATION

7. OUR SAVAGE MIND

IV

8. BEGINNING OF CRITICAL THINKING

9. INFLUENCE OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE

V

10. ORIGIN OF MEDIAEVAL CIVILIZATION

11. OUR MEDIAEVAL INTELLECTUAL INHERITANCE

VI

12. THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION

13. HOW SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE HAS THE CONDITIONS OF LIFE

VII

14. "THE SICKNESS OF AN ACQUISITIVE SOCIETY"

15. THE PHILOSOPHY OF SAFETY AND SANITY

VIII

16. SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF REPRESSION 17. WHAT OF IT?

APPENDIX

*****

I.

PREFACE

This is an essay--not a treatise--on the most important of all matters

of human concern. Although it has cost its author a great deal more

thought and labor than will be apparent, it falls, in his estimation,

far below the demands of its implacably urgent theme. Each page could

readily be expanded into a volume. It suggests but the beginning of

the beginning now being made to raise men's thinking onto a plain which may perhaps enable them to fend off or reduce some of the dangers which lurk on every hand.

J. H. R.

NEW SCHOOL FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, NEW YORK CITY, _August, 1921._

THE MIND IN THE MAKING

1. ON THE PURPOSE OF THIS VOLUME

If some magical transformation could be produced in men's ways of looking at themselves and their fellows, no inconsiderable part of the

evils which now afflict society would vanish away or remedy themselves

automatically. If the majority of influential persons held the opinions

and occupied the point of view that a few rather uninfluential people

now do, there would, for instance, be no likelihood of another great

war; the whole problem of "labor and capital" would be transformed and

attenuated; national arrogance, race animosity, political corruption,

and inefficiency would all be reduced below the danger point. As an old

Stoic proverb has it, men are tormented by the opinions they have of

things, rather than by the things themselves. This is eminently true of

many of our worst problems to-day. We have available knowledge and ingenuity and material resources to make a far fairer world than that

in which we find ourselves, but various obstacles prevent our intelligently availing ourselves of them. The object of this book is to

substantiate this proposition, to exhibit with entire frankness the

tremendous difficulties that stand in the way of such a beneficent change

of mind, and to point out as clearly as may be some of the measures to be

taken in order to overcome them.

When we contemplate the shocking derangement of human affairs which

now prevails in most civilized countries, including our own, even the

best minds are puzzled and uncertain in their attempts to grasp the

situation. The world seems to demand a moral and economic regeneration

which it is dangerous to postpone, but as yet impossible to imagine,

let alone direct. The preliminary intellectual regeneration which would put our leaders in a position to determine and control the course of affairs has not taken place. We have unprecedented conditions

to deal with and novel adjustments to make--there can be no doubt of that.

We also have a great stock of scientific knowledge unknown to our grandfathers with which to operate. So novel are the conditions, so

copious the knowledge, that we must undertake the arduous task of reconsidering a great part of the opinions about man and his relations

to his fellow-men which have been handed down to us by previous generations who lived in far other conditions and possessed far less

information about the world and themselves. We have, however, first to

create an _unprecedented attitude of mind to cope with unprecedented

conditions, and to utilize unprecedented knowledge_ This is the preliminary, and most difficult, step to be taken--far more difficult

than one would suspect who fails to realize that in order to take it we

must overcome inveterate natural tendencies and artificial habits of long

standing. How are we to put ourselves in a position to come to think of

things that we not only never thought of before, but are most reluctant

to question? In short, how are we to rid ourselves of our fond prejudices

and _open our minds_?

As a historical student who for a good many years has been especially

engaged in inquiring how man happens to have the ideas and convictions

about himself and human relations which now prevail, the writer has

reached the conclusion that history can at least shed a great deal of

light on our present predicaments and confusion. I do not mean by history that conventional chronicle of remote and irrelevant events

which embittered the youthful years of many of us, but rather a study

of how man has come to be as he is and to believe as he does.

No historian has so far been able to make the whole story very plain

or popular, but a number of considerations are obvious enough, and it

ought not to be impossible some day to popularize them. I venture to

think that if certain seemingly indisputable historical facts were generally known and accepted and permitted to play a daily part in our

thought, the world would forthwith become a very different place from

what it now is. We could then neither delude ourselves in the simple-minded way we now do, nor could we take advantage of the primitive ignorance of others. All our discussions of social, industrial, and political reform would be raised to a higher plane of

insight and fruitfulness.

In one of those brilliant is

wont to enrich his novels

When the intellectual written,

divagations with which Mr. H. G. Wells he says:

history of this time comes to be

nothing, I think, will stand out more strikingly than the empty

gulf in quality between the superb and richly fruitful scientific

investigations that are going on, and the general thought of other

educated sections of the community. I do not mean that scientific

men are, as a whole, a class of supermen, dealing with and thinking

about everything in a way altogether better than the common run of

humanity, but in their field they think and work with an intensity,

an integrity, a breadth, boldness, patience, thoroughness, and

faithfulness--excepting only a few artists--which puts their work

out of all comparison with any other human activity.... In these

particular directions the human mind has achieved a new and higher

quality of attitude and gesture, a veracity, a self- detachment,

and self-abnegating vigor of criticism that tend to spread out

and

must ultimately spread out to every other human affair.

No one who is even most superficially acquainted with the achievements

of students of nature during the past few centuries can fail to see

that their thought has been astoundingly effective in constantly adding

to our knowledge of the universe, from the hugest nebula to the tiniest

atom; moreover, this knowledge has been so applied as to well-nigh revolutionize human affairs, and both the knowledge and its applications

appear to be no more than hopeful beginnings, with indefinite revelations

ahead, if only the same kind of thought be continued in the same patient

and scrupulous manner.

But the knowledge of man, of the springs of his conduct, of his relation to his fellow-men singly or in groups, and the felicitous regulation of human intercourse in the interest of harmony and fairness, have made no such advance. Aristotle's treatises on astronomy and physics, and his notions of "generation and decay" and

of chemical processes, have long gone by the board, but his politics

and ethics are still revered. Does this mean that his penetration in

the sciences of man exceeded so greatly his grasp of natural science,

or does it mean that the progress of mankind in the scientific knowledge and regulation of human affairs has remained almost stationary for over two thousand years? I think that we may safely conclude that the latter is the case.

It has required three centuries of scientific thought and of subtle

inventions for its promotion to enable a modern chemist or physicist

to center his attention on electrons and their relation to the mysterious nucleus of the atom, or to permit an embryologist to study

the early stirrings of the fertilized egg. As yet relatively little of

the same kind of thought has been brought to bear on human affairs.

When we compare the discussions in the United States Senate in regard

to the League of Nations with the consideration of a broken-down car

in a roadside garage the contrast is shocking. The rural mechanic thinks scientifically; his only aim is to avail himself of his knowledge of the nature and workings of the car, with a view to making

it run once more. The Senator, on the other hand, appears too often to

have little idea of the nature and workings of nations, and he relies

on rhetoric and appeals to vague fears and hopes or mere partisan

animosity. The scientists have been busy for a century in revolutionizing

the _practical_ relation of nations. The ocean is no longer a barrier,

as it was in Washington's day, but to all intents and purposes a smooth

avenue closely connecting, rather than safely separating, the eastern

and western continents. The Senator will nevertheless unblushingly appeal

to policies of a century back, suitable, mayhap, in their day, but now

become a warning rather than a guide. The garage man, on the contrary,

takes his mechanism as he finds it, and does not allow any mystic respect

for the earlier forms of the gas engine to interfere with the needed

adjustments.

Those who have dealt with natural phenomena, as distinguished from purely human concerns, did not, however, quickly or easily gain popular approbation and respect. The process of emancipating natural

science from current prejudices, both of the learned and of the unlearned, has been long and painful, and is not wholly completed yet.

If we go back to the opening of the seventeenth century we find three

men whose business it was, above all, to present and defend common sense in the natural sciences. The most eloquent and variedly persuasive of these was Lord Bacon. Then there was the young Descartes

trying to shake himself loose from his training in a Jesuit seminary

by going into the Thirty Years' War, and starting his intellectual life all over by giving up for the moment all he had been taught. Galileo had committed an offense of a grave character by discussing in

the mother tongue the problems of physics. In his old age he was imprisoned and sentenced to repeat the seven penitential psalms for

differing from Aristotle and Moses and the teachings of the theologians.

On hearing Galileo's fate. Descartes burned a book he had written, _On

The World_, lest he, too, get into trouble.

From that time down to the days of Huxley and John Fiske the struggle

has continued, and still continues--the Three Hundred Years' War for

intellectual freedom in dealing with natural phenomena. It has been a

conflict against ignorance, tradition, and vested interests in church

and university, with all that preposterous invective and cruel misrepresentation which characterize the fight against new and critical ideas. Those who cried out against scientific discoveries did

so in the name of God, of man's dignity, and of holy religion and morality. Finally, however, it has come about that our instruction in

the natural sciences is tolerably free; although there are still large

bodies of organized religious believers who are hotly opposed to some

of the more fundamental findings of biology. Hundreds of thousands of

readers can be found for Pastor Russell's exegesis of Ezekiel and the

Apocalypse to hundreds who read Conklin's _Heredity and Environment_

or Slosson's _Creative Chemistry_. No publisher would accept a historical textbook based on an explicit statement of the knowledge we

now have of man's animal ancestry. In general, however, our scientific

men carry on their work and report their results with little or no effective hostility on the part of the clergy or the schools. The social body has become tolerant of their virus.

This is not the case, however, with the social sciences. One cannot

but feel a little queasy when he uses the expression "social science",

because it seems as if we had not as yet got anywhere near a real science of man. I mean by social science our feeble efforts to study

man, his natural equipment and impulses, and his relations to his fellows in the light of his origin and the history of the race.

This enterprise has hitherto been opposed by a large number of obstacles essentially more hampering and far more numerous than those

which for three hundred years hindered the advance of the natural sciences. Human affairs are in themselves far more intricate and perplexing than molecules and chromosomes. But this is only the more

reason for bringing to bear on human affairs that critical type of thought and calculation for which the remunerative thought about molecules and chromosomes has prepared the way.

I do not for a moment suggest that we can use precisely the same kind

of thinking in dealing with the quandaries of mankind that we use in

problems of chemical reaction and mechanical adjustment. Exact

scientific results, such as might be formulated in mechanics, are, of

course, out of the question. It would be unscientific to expect to apply them. I am not advocating any particular method of treating human affairs, but rather such a _general frame of mind, such a critical open-minded attitude_, as has hitherto been but sparsely developed among those who aspire to be men's guides, whether religious, political, economic, or academic. Most human progress has

been, as Wells expresses it, a mere "muddling through". It has been

man's wont to explain and sanctify his ways, with little regard to their fundamental and permanent expediency. An arresting example of

what this muddling may mean we have seen during these recent years in

the slaying or maiming of fifteen million of our young men, resulting

in incalculable loss, continued disorder, and bewilderment. Yet men

seem blindly driven to defend and perpetuate the conditions which produced the last disaster.

Unless we wish to see a recurrence of this or some similar calamity,

we must, as I have already suggested, create a new and unprecedented

attitude of mind to meet the new and unprecedented conditions which

confront us. _We should proceed to the thorough reconstruction of our

mind, with a view to understanding actual human conduct and organization_. We must examine the facts freshly, critically, and dispassionately, and then allow our philosophy to formulate itself as

a result of this examination, instead of permitting our observations

to be distorted by archaic philosophy, political economy, and ethics.

As it is, we are taught our philosophy first, and in its light we try

to justify the facts. We must reverse this process, as did those who

began the great work in experimental science; we must first face the

facts, and patiently await the emergence of a new philosophy.

A willingness to examine the very foundations of society does not mean

a desire to encourage or engage in any hasty readjustment, but certainly

no wise or needed readjustment _can_ be made unless such an examination

is undertaken.

I come back, then, to my original point that in this examination of

existing facts history, by revealing the origin of many of our current

fundamental beliefs, will tend to free our minds so as to permit honest thinking. Also, that the historical facts which I propose to

recall would, if permitted to play a constant part in our thinking,

automatically eliminate a very considerable portion of the gross stupidity and blindness which characterize our present thought and conduct in public affairs, and would contribute greatly to developing

the needed scientific attitude toward human concerns--in other words,

to _bringing the mind up to date_.

2. THREE DISAPPOINTED METHODS OF REFORM

Plans for social betterment and the cure of public ills have in the

past taken three general forms: (I) changes in the rules of the game,

(II) spiritual exhortation, and (III) education. Had all these not largely failed, the world would not be in the plight in which it now

confessedly is.

I. Many reformers concede that they are suspicious of what they call

"ideas". They are confident that our troubles result from defective

organization, which should be remedied by more expedient legislation

and wise ordinances. Abuses should be abolished or checked by forbidding them, or by some ingenious reordering of procedure. Responsibility should be concentrated or dispersed. The term of office

of government officials should be lengthened or shortened; the number

of members in governing bodies should be increased or decreased; there

should be direct primaries, referendum, recall, government by commission; powers should be shifted here and there with a hope of meeting obvious mischances all too familiar in the past. In industry

and education administrative reform is constantly going on, with the

hope of reducing friction and increasing efficiency. The House of

Commons not long ago came to new terms with the peers. The League of

Nations has already had to adjust the functions and influence of the

Council and the Assembly, respectively.

No one will question that organization is absolutely essential in human affairs, but reorganization, while it sometimes produces assignable benefit, often fails to meet existing evils, and not uncommonly engenders new and unexpected ones. Our confidence in restriction and regimentation is exaggerated. What we usually need is

a _change of attitude_, and without this our new regulations often leave the old situation unaltered. So long as we allow our government

to be run by politicians and business lobbies it makes little difference how many aldermen or assemblymen we have or how long the

mayor or governor holds office. In a university the fundamental drift

of affairs cannot be greatly modified by creating a new dean, or a university council, or by enhancing or decreasing the nominal authority of the president or faculty. We now turn to the second sanctified method of reform, moral uplift.

II. Those who are impatient with mere administrative reform, or who

lack faith in it, declare that what we need is brotherly love. Thousands of pulpits admonish us to remember that we are all children

of one Heavenly Father and that we should bear one another's burdens

with fraternal patience. Capital is too selfish; Labor is bent on its

own narrow interests regardless of the risks Capital takes. We are all

dependent on one another, and a recognition of this should beget mutual forbearance and glad co-operation. Let us forget ourselves in

others. "Little children, love one another."

The fatherhood of God has been preached by Christians for over eighteen centuries, and the brotherhood of man by the Stoics long before them. The doctrine has proved compatible with slavery and serfdom, with wars blessed, and not infrequently instigated, by religious leaders, and with industrial oppression which it requires a

brave clergyman or teacher to denounce to-day. True, we sometimes have

moments of sympathy when our fellow-creatures become objects of tender

solicitude. Some rare souls may honestly flatter themselves that they

love mankind in general, but it would surely be a very rare soul

indeed who dared profess that he loved his personal enemies--much less

the enemies of his country or institutions. We still worship a tribal

god, and the "foe" is not to be reckoned among his children. Suspicion

and hate are much more congenial to our natures than love, for very

obvious reasons in this world of rivalry and common failure. There is,

beyond doubt, a natural kindliness in mankind which will show itself

under favorable auspices. But experience would seem to teach that it

is little promoted by moral exhortation. This is the only point that

need be urged here. Whether there is another way of forwarding the brotherhood of man will be considered in the sequel.

III. One disappointed in the effects of mere reorganization, and distrusting the power of moral exhortation, will urge that what we need above all is _education_. It is quite true that what we need is

education, but something so different from what now passes as such that it needs a new name.

Education has more various aims than we usually recognize, and should

of course be judged in relation to the importance of its several intentions, and of its success in gaining them. The arts of reading

and writing and figuring all would concede are basal in a world of newspapers and business. Then there is technical information and the

training that prepares one to earn a livelihood in some more or less

standardized guild or profession. Both these aims are reached fairly

well by our present educational system, subject to various economies

and improvements in detail. Then there are the studies which it is assumed contribute to general culture and to "training the mind", with

the hope of cultivating our tastes, stimulating the imagination, and

mayhap improving our reasoning powers.

This branch of education is regarded by the few as very precious and

indispensable; by the many as at best an amenity which has little relation to the real purposes and success of life. It is highly traditional and retrospective in the main, concerned with ancient tongues, old and revered books, higher mathematics, somewhat archaic

philosophy and history, and the fruitless form of logic which has until recently been prized as man's best guide in the fastnesses of

error. To these has been added in recent decades a choice of the various branches of natural science.

The results, however, of our present scheme of liberal education are

disappointing. One who, like myself, firmly agrees with its objects

and is personally so addicted to old books, so pleased with such knowledge as he has of the ancient and modern languages, so envious of

those who can think mathematically, and so interested in natural science--such a person must resent the fact that those who have had a

liberal education rarely care for old books, rarely read for pleasure

any foreign language, think mathematically, love philosophy or history, or care for the beasts, birds, plants, and rocks with any intelligent insight, or even real curiosity. This arouses the suspicion that our so-called "liberal education" miscarries and does

not attain its ostensible aims.

The three educational aims enumerated above have one thing in common.

They are all directed toward an enhancement of the chances of _personal_ worldly success, or to the increase of our _personal_ culture and intellectual and literary enjoyment. Their purpose is not

primarily to fit us to play a part in social or political betterment.

But of late a fourth element has been added to the older ambitions,

namely the hope of preparing boys and girls to become intelligent voters. This need has been forced upon us by the coming of political

democracy, which makes one person's vote exactly as good as another's.

Now education for citizenship would seem to consist in gaining a knowledge of the actual workings of our social organization, with some

illuminating notions of its origin, together with a full realization

of its defects and their apparent sources. But here we encounter an

obstacle that is unimportant in the older types of education, but which may prove altogether fatal to any good results in our efforts to

make better citizens. Subjects of instruction like reading and writing, mathematics, Latin and Greek, chemistry and physics, medicine

and the law are fairly well standardized and retrospective. Doubtless

there is a good deal of internal change in method and content going

on, but this takes place unobtrusively and does not attract the attention of outside critics. Political and social questions, on the

other hand, and matters relating to prevailing business methods, race

animosities, public elections, and governmental policy are, if they

are vital, necessarily "controversial". School boards and superintendents, trustees and presidents of colleges and universities,

are sensitive to this fact. They eagerly deprecate in their public manifestos any suspicion that pupils and students are being awakened

in any way to the truth that our institutions can possibly be fundamentally defective, or that the present generation of citizens

has not conducted our affairs with exemplary success, guided by the

immutable principles of justice.

How indeed can a teacher be expected to explain to the sons and daughters of businessmen, politicians, doctors, lawyers, and clergymen--all pledged to the maintenance of the sources of their livelihood--the actual nature of business enterprise as now practiced,

the prevailing methods of legislative bodies and courts, and the conduct of foreign affairs? Think of a teacher in the public schools

recounting the more illuminating facts about the municipal government

under which he lives, with due attention to graft and jobs! So, courses in government, political economy, sociology, and ethics confine themselves to inoffensive generalizations, harmless details of

organization, and the commonplaces of routine morality, for only in

that way can they escape being controversial. Teachers are rarely able

or inclined to explain our social life and its presuppositions with

sufficient insight and honesty to produce any very important results.

Even if they are tempted to tell the essential facts they dare not do

so, for fear of losing their places, amid the applause of all the righteously minded.

However we may feel on this important matter, we must all agree that

the aim of education for citizenship as now conceived is a preparation

for the same old citizenship which has so far failed to eliminate the

shocking hazards and crying injustices of our social and political life. For we sedulously inculcate in the coming generation exactly the

same illusions and the same ill-placed confidence in existing institutions and prevailing notions that have brought the world to the

pass in which we find it. Since we do all we can to corroborate the

beneficence of what we have, we can hardly hope to raise up a more intelligent generation bent on achieving what we have not. We all know

this to be true; it has been forcibly impressed on our minds of late.

Most of us agree that it is right and best that it should be so; some

of us do not like to think about it at all, but a few will be glad to

spend a little time weighing certain suggestions in this volume which

may indicate a way out of this _impasse_.[1]

We have now considered briefly the three main hopes that have been hitherto entertained of bettering things (I) by changing the rules of

the game, (II) by urging men to be good, and to love their neighbor as

themselves, and (III) by education for citizenship. It may be that these hopes are not wholly unfounded, but it must be admitted that so

far they have been grievously disappointed. Doubtless they will continue to be cherished on account of their assured respectability.

Mere lack of success does not discredit a method, for there are many

things that determine and perpetuate our sanctified ways of doing things besides their success in reaching their proposed ends. Had this

not always been so, our life to-day would be far less stupidly conducted than it is. But let us agree to assume for the moment that

the approved schemes of reform enumerated above have, to say the least, shown themselves inadequate to meet the crisis in which civilized society now finds itself. Have we any other hope?

Yes, there is Intelligence. That is as yet an untested hope in its application to the regulation of human relations. It is not discredited because it has not been tried on any large scale outside

the realm of natural science. There, everyone will confess, it has

produced marvelous results. Employed in regard to stars, rocks, plants, and animals, and in the investigation of mechanical and chemical processes, it has completely revolutionized men's notions of

the world in which they live, and of its inhabitants, _with the notable exception of man himself_. These discoveries have been used to

change our habits and to supply us with everyday necessities which a

hundred years ago were not dreamed of as luxuries accessible even to

kings and millionaires.

But most of us know too little of the past to realize the penalty that

had to be paid for this application of intelligence. In order that these discoveries should be made and ingeniously applied to the conveniences of life, _it was necessary to discard practically all the

consecrated notions of the world and its workings which had been held

by the best and wisest and purest of mankind down to three hundred years ago_--indeed, until much more recently. Intelligence, in a creature of routine like man and in a universe so ill understood as

ours, must often break valiantly with the past in order to get ahead.

It would be pleasant to assume that all we had to do was to build on

well-designed foundations, firmly laid by the wisdom of the ages. But

those who have studied the history of natural science would agree that

Bacon, Galileo, and Descartes found no such foundation, but had to begin their construction from the ground up.

The several hopes of reform mentioned above all assume that the now

generally accepted notions of righteous human conduct are not to be

questioned. Our churches and universities defend this assumption. Our

editors and lawyers and the more vocal of our business men adhere to

it. Even those who pretend to study society and its origin seem often

to believe that our present ideals and standards of property, the state, industrial organization, the relations of the sexes, and education are practically final and must necessarily be the basis of

any possible betterment in detail. But if this be so Intelligence has

already done its perfect work, and we can only lament that the outcome

in the way of peace, decency, and fairness, judged even by existing

standards, has been so disappointing.

There are, of course, a few here and there who suspect and even repudiate current ideals and standards. But at present their resentment against existing evils takes the form of more or less dogmatic plans of reconstruction, like those of the socialists and communists, or exhausts itself in the vague protest and faultfinding

of the average "Intellectual". Neither the socialist nor the common

run of Intellectual appears to me to be on the right track. The former

is more precise in his doctrines and confident in his prophecies than

a scientific examination of mankind and its ways would at all justify;

the other, more indefinite than he need be.

If Intelligence is to have the freedom of action necessary to accumulate new and valuable knowledge about man's nature and possibilities which may ultimately be applied to reforming our ways,

it must loose itself from the bonds that now confine it. The primeval

curse still holds: "Of every tree in the garden thou mayest freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not

eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely

die." Few people confess that they are afraid of knowledge, but the

university presidents, ministers, and editors who most often and publicly laud what they are wont to call "the fearless pursuit of truth", feel compelled, in the interest of public morals and order, to

discourage any reckless indulgence in the fruit of the forbidden tree,

for the inexperienced may select an unripe apple and suffer from the

colic in consequence. "Just look at Russia!" Better always, instead of

taking the risk on what the church calls "science falsely so called",

fall back on ignorance rightly so called. No one denies that Intelligence is the light of the world and the chief glory of man, but, as Bertrand Russell says, we dread its indifference to respectable opinions and what we deem the well-tried wisdom of the ages. "It is," as he truly says, "fear that holds men back; fear that

their cherished beliefs should prove harmful, fear lest they themselves should prove less worthy of respect than they have supposed

themselves to be. 'Should the workingman think freely about property?

What then will become of us, the rich? Should young men and women think freely about sex? What then will become of morality? Should soldiers think freely about war? What then will become of military discipline?'"

This fear is natural and inevitable, but it is none the less dangerous

and discreditable. Human arrangements are no longer so foolproof as

they may once have been when the world moved far more slowly than it

now does. It should therefore be a good deed to remove or lighten any

of the various restraints on thought. I believe that there is an easy

and relatively painless way in which our respect for the past can be

lessened so that we shall no longer feel compelled to take the wisdom

of the ages as the basis of our reforms. My own confidence in what President Butler calls "the findings of mankind" is gone, and the process by which it was lost will become obvious as we proceed. I have

no reforms to recommend, except the liberation of Intelligence, which

is the first and most essential one. I propose to review by way of introduction some of the new ideas which have been emerging during the

past few years in regard to our minds and their operations. Then we

shall proceed to the main theme of the book, a sketch of the manner in

which our human intelligence appears to have come about. If anyone will follow the story with a fair degree of sympathy and patience he

may, by merely putting together well-substantiated facts, many of which he doubtless knows in other connections, hope better to understand the perilous quandary in which mankind is now placed and

the ways of escape that offer themselves.

NOTES.

[1] George Bernard Shaw reaches a similar conclusion when he contemplates education in the British Isles. "We must teach citizenship and political science at school. But must we? There is no

must about it, the hard fact being that we must not teach political

science or citizenship at school. The schoolmaster who attempted it

would soon find himself penniless in the streets without pupils, if

not in the dock pleading to a pompously worded indictment for sedition

against the exploiters. Our schools teach the morality of feudalism

corrupted by commercialism, and hold up the military conqueror, the

robber baron, and the profiteer, as models of the illustrious and successful."--_Back to Methuselah_, xii.

*****

II

Good sense is, of all things among men, the most equally distributed;

for everyone thinks himself so abundantly provided with it that those

even who are the most difficult to satisfy in everything else do not

usually desire a larger measure of this quality than they already

possess.--DESCARTES.

We see man to-day, instead of the frank and courageous recognition of

his status, the docile attention to his biological history, the

determination to let nothing stand in the way of the security and

permanence of his future, which alone can establish the safety

and

happiness of the race, substituting blind confidence in his

destiny,

unclouded faith in the essentially respectful attitude of the

universe

toward his moral code, and a belief no less firm that his

traditions

and laws and institutions necessarily contain permanent

qualities of reality.--WILLIAM TROTTER.

3. ON VARIOUS KINDS OF THINKING

The truest and most profound observations on Intelligence have in the

past been made by the poets and, in recent times, by story- writers.

They have been keen observers and recorders and reckoned freely with

the emotions and sentiments. Most philosophers, on the other hand, have exhibited a grotesque ignorance of man's life and have built up

systems that are elaborate and imposing, but quite unrelated to actual

human affairs. They have almost consistently neglected the actual process of thought and have set the mind off as something apart to be

studied by itself. _But no such mind, exempt from bodily processes,

animal impulses, savage traditions, infantile impressions, conventional

reactions, and traditional knowledge, ever existed_, even in the case

of the most abstract of metaphysicians. Kant entitled his great work

_A Critique of Pure Reason_. But to the modern student of mind pure

reason seems as mythical as the pure gold, transparent as glass, with

which the celestial city is paved.

Formerly philosophers thought of mind as having to do exclusively with

conscious thought. It was that within man which perceived, remembered,

judged, reasoned, understood, believed, willed. But of late it has been shown that we are unaware of a great part of what we perceive,

remember, will, and infer; and that a great part of the thinking of

which we are aware is determined by that of which we are not conscious.

It has indeed been demonstrated that our unconscious psychic life far

outruns our conscious. This seems perfectly natural to anyone who considers the following facts:

The sharp distinction between the mind and the body is, as we shall

find, a very ancient and spontaneous uncritical savage prepossession.

What we think of as "mind" is so intimately associated with what we

call "body" that we are coming to realize that the one cannot be understood without the other. Every thought reverberates through the

body, and, on the other hand, alterations in our physical condition

affect our whole attitude of mind. The insufficient elimination of the

foul and decaying products of digestion may plunge us into deep melancholy, whereas a few whiffs of nitrous monoxide may exalt us to

the seventh heaven of supernal knowledge and godlike complacency. And

vice versa, a sudden word or thought may cause our heart to jump, check our breathing, or make our knees as water. There is a whole new

literature growing up which studies the effects of our bodily secretions and our muscular tensions and their relation to our emotions and our thinking.

Then there are hidden impulses and desires and secret longings of which we can only with the greatest difficulty take account. They influence our conscious thought in the most bewildering fashion. Many

of these unconscious influences appear to originate in our very early

years. The older philosophers seem to have forgotten that even they

were infants and children at their most impressionable age and never

could by any possibility get over it.

The term "unconscious", now so familiar to all readers of modern works

on psychology, gives offense to some adherents of the past. There should, however, be no special mystery about it. It is not a new animistic abstraction, but simply a collective word to include all the

physiological changes which escape our notice, all the forgotten experiences and impressions of the past which continue to influence

our desires and reflections and conduct, even if we cannot remember

them. What we can remember at any time is indeed an infinitesimal part

of what has happened to us. We could not remember anything unless we

forgot almost everything. As Bergson says, the brain is the organ of

forgetfulness as well as of memory. Moreover, we tend, of course, to

become oblivious to things to which we are thoroughly accustomed, for

habit blinds us to their existence. So the forgotten and the habitual

make up a great part of the so-called "unconscious".

If we are ever to understand man, his conduct and reasoning, and if we

aspire to learn to guide his life and his relations with his fellows

more happily than heretofore, we cannot neglect the great discoveries

briefly noted above. We must reconcile ourselves to novel and revolutionary conceptions of the mind, for it is clear that the older

philosophers, whose works still determine our current views, had a very superficial notion of the subject with which they dealt. But for

our purposes, with due regard to what has just been said and to much

that has necessarily been left unsaid (and with the indulgence of those who will at first be inclined to dissent), _we shall consider

mind chiefly as conscious knowledge and intelligence, as what we know

and our attitude toward it--our disposition to increase our information, classify it, criticize it and apply it_.

We do not think enough about thinking, and much of our confusion is

the result of current illusions in regard to it. Let us forget for the

moment any impressions we may have derived from the philosophers, and

see what seems to happen in ourselves. The first thing that we notice

is that our thought moves with such incredible rapidity that it is almost impossible to arrest any specimen of it long enough to have a

look at it. When we are offered a penny for our thoughts we always find that we have recently had so many things in mind that we can easily make a selection which will not compromise us too nakedly. On

inspection we shall find that even if we are not downright ashamed of

a great part of our spontaneous thinking it is far too intimate, personal, ignoble or trivial to permit us to reveal more than a small

part of it. I believe this must be true of everyone. We do not, of course, know what goes on in other people's heads. They tell us very

little and we tell them very little. The spigot of speech, rarely fully opened, could never emit more than driblets of the ever renewed

hogshead of thought--_noch grösser wie's Heidelberger Fass_. We find it hard to believe that other people's thoughts are as silly as

our own, but they probably are.

We all appear to ourselves to be thinking all the time during our waking hours, and most of us are aware that we go on thinking while we

are asleep, even more foolishly than when awake. When uninterrupted by

some practical issue we are engaged in what is now known as a _reverie_.

This is our spontaneous and favorite kind of thinking. We allow our

ideas to take their own course and this course is determined by our

hopes and fears, our spontaneous desires, their fulfillment or frustration; by our likes and dislikes, our loves and hates and resentments. There is nothing else anything like so interesting to ourselves as ourselves. All thought that is not more or less laboriously controlled and directed will inevitably circle about the

beloved Ego. It is amusing and pathetic to observe this tendency in

ourselves and in others. We learn politely and generously to overlook

this truth, but if we dare to think of it, it blazes forth like the

noontide sun.

The reverie or "free association of ideas" has of late become the subject of scientific research. While investigators are not yet agreed

on the results, or at least on the proper interpretation to be given

to them, there can be no doubt that our reveries form the chief index

to our fundamental character. They are a reflection of our nature as

modified by often hidden and forgotten experiences. We need not go into the matter further here, for it is only necessary to observe that

the reverie is at all times a potent and in many cases an omnipotent

rival to every other kind of thinking. It doubtless influences all our

speculations in its persistent tendency to self-magnification and self-justification, which are its chief preoccupations, but it is the

last thing to make directly or indirectly for honest increase of knowledge.[2] Philosophers usually talk as if such thinking did not

exist or were in some way negligible. This is what makes their speculations so unreal and often worthless. The reverie, as any of us

can see for himself, is frequently broken and interrupted by the necessity of a second kind of thinking. We have to make practical decisions. Shall we write a letter or no? Shall we take the subway or

a bus? Shall we have dinner at seven or half past? Shall we buy U. S.

Rubber or a Liberty Bond? Decisions are easily distinguishable from

the free flow of the reverie. Sometimes they demand a good deal of careful pondering and the recollection of pertinent facts; often, however, they are made impulsively. They are a more difficult and laborious thing than the reverie, and we resent having to "make up our

mind" when we are tired, or absorbed in a congenial reverie. Weighing

a decision, it should be noted, does not necessarily add anything to

our knowledge, although we may, of course, seek further information

before making it.

4. RATIONALIZING

A third kind of thinking is stimulated when anyone questions our belief and opinions. We sometimes find ourselves changing our minds

without any resistance or heavy emotion, but if we are told that we

are wrong we resent the imputation and harden our hearts. We are incredibly heedless in the formation of our beliefs, but find ourselves filled with an illicit passion for them when anyone proposes

to rob us of their companionship. It is obviously not the ideas themselves that are dear to us, but our self-esteem, which is threatened. We are by nature stubbornly pledged to defend our own from

attack, whether it be our person, our family, our property, or our opinion. A United States Senator once remarked to a friend of mine that God Almighty could not make him change his mind on our Latin-America policy. We may surrender, but rarely confess ourselves

vanquished. In the intellectual world at least peace is without victory.

Few of us take the pains to study the origin of our cherished convictions; indeed, we have a natural repugnance to so doing. We like

to continue to believe what we have been accustomed to accept as true,

and the resentment aroused when doubt is cast upon any of our assumptions leads us to seek every manner of excuse for clinging to

them. _The result is that most of our so-called reasoning consists in

finding arguments for going on believing as we already do_.

I remember years ago attending a public dinner to which the Governor

of the state was bidden. The chairman explained that His Excellency

could not be present for certain "good" reasons; what the "real" reasons were the presiding officer said he would leave us to conjecture. This distinction between "good" and "real" reasons is one

of the most thought. We can readily Catholic or a Mason, the

clarifying and essential in the whole realm of

give what seem to us "good" reasons for being a

a Republican or a Democrat, an adherent or opponent of

League of Nations. But the "real" reasons are usually on quite a different plane. Of course the importance of this distinction is popularly, if somewhat obscurely, recognized. The Baptist missionary

is ready enough to see that the Buddhist is not such because his doctrines would bear careful inspection, but because he happened to be

born in a Buddhist family in Tokio. But it would be treason to his faith to acknowledge that his own partiality for certain doctrines is

due to the fact that his mother was a member of the First Baptist church of Oak Ridge. A savage can give all sorts of reasons for his

belief that it is dangerous to step on a man's shadow, and a newspaper

editor can advance plenty of arguments against the Bolsheviki. But neither of them may realize why he happens to be defending his particular opinion.

The "real" reasons for our beliefs are concealed from ourselves as well as from others. As we grow up we simply adopt the ideas presented

to us in regard to such matters as religion, family relations, property, business, our country, and the state. We unconsciously absorb them from our environment. They are persistently whispered in

our ear by the group in which we happen to live. Moreover, as Mr. Trotter has pointed out, these judgments, being the product of suggestion and not of reasoning, have the quality of perfect obviousness, so that to question them

... is to the believer to carry skepticism to an insane degree, and

will be met by contempt, disapproval, or condemnation, according to

the nature of the belief in question. When, therefore, we find

ourselves entertaining an opinion about the basis of which there is

a quality of feeling which tells us that to inquire into it would be

absurd, obviously unnecessary, unprofitable, undesirable, bad form,

or wicked, we may know that that opinion is a nonrational one,

and

probably, therefore, founded upon inadequate evidence.[3]

Opinions, on the other hand, which are the result of experience or of

honest reasoning do not have this quality of "primary certitude". I

remember when as a youth I heard a group of business men discussing

the question of the immortality of the soul, I was outraged by the sentiment of doubt expressed by one of the party. As I look back now I

see that I had at the time no interest in the matter, and certainly no

least argument to urge in favor of the belief in which I had been reared. But neither my personal indifference to the issue, nor the fact that I had previously given it no attention, served to prevent an

angry resentment when I heard _my_ ideas questioned.

This spontaneous and loyal support of our preconceptions--this process

of finding "good" reasons to justify our routine beliefs--is known to

modern psychologists as "rationalizing"--clearly only a new name for a

very ancient thing. Our "good" reasons ordinarily have no value in promoting honest enlightenment, because, no matter how solemnly they

may be marshaled, they are at bottom the result of personal preference

or prejudice, and not of an honest desire to seek or accept new knowledge.

In our reveries we are frequently engaged in self-justification, for

we cannot bear to think ourselves wrong, and yet have constant illustrations of our weaknesses and mistakes. So we spend much time

finding fault with circumstances and the conduct of others, and shifting on to them with great ingenuity the on us of our own failures

and disappointments. _Rationalizing is the self-exculpation which occurs when we feel ourselves, or our group, accused of misapprehension or error._

The little word _my_ is the most important one in all human affairs,

and properly to reckon with it is the beginning of wisdom. It has the

same force whether it is _my_ dinner, _my_ dog, and _my_ house,

or _my_ faith, _my_ country, and _my God_. We not only resent the imputation that our watch is wrong, or our car shabby, but that our

conception of the canals of Mars, of the pronunciation of "Epictetus",

of the medicinal value of salicine, or the date of Sargon I, are subject to revision.

Philosophers, scholars, and men of science exhibit a common sensitiveness in all decisions in which their _amour propre_ is involved. Thousands of argumentative works have been written to vent a

grudge. However stately their reasoning, it may be nothing but rationalizing, stimulated by the most commonplace of all motives. A history of philosophy and theology could be written in terms of grouches, wounded pride, and aversions, and it would be far more instructive than the usual treatments of these themes. Sometimes, under Providence, the lowly impulse of resentment leads to great achievements. Milton wrote his treatise on divorce as a result of his

troubles with his seventeen-year-old wife, and when he was accused of

being the leading spirit in a new sect, the Divorcers, he wrote his

noble _Areopagitica_ to prove his right to say what he thought fit,

and incidentally to establish the advantage of a free press in the promotion of Truth.

All mankind, high and low, thinks in all the ways which have been described. The reverie goes on all the time not only in the mind of

[rumblebumble22]

The culture of Personality, or why extraverts are praised and introverts shamed

Did your parents tell you in childhood that you should be more sociable and friendly? Did your teachers describe you as ‘’a closed and shy child''? Some of you may have been sent to a psychologist's office in order to ‘’expand your personality’’ and ‘’help you to build a connection with others’’. You may wonder why I ask you, but the truth is I also experienced these things.

My parents told me that I should spend less time with books and more with other children. I was asked why I didn't have a lot of friends and then told that it was because of my character. As soon as I didn't like to chat with others, my classmates thought I was weird. Just because I preferred to read and spend time in libraries than at parties, I was called a ''nerd''. Sounds familiar? You are not alone, though. 

I’m an introvert and I admitted this many years ago, whereas my parents, teachers and acquaintances did not. Isn't it strange that a shy person asks to change himself whereas talkative ones don't? Many times I have asked myself, what is wrong with me, but it never turned out to be anything. Instead, there is something wrong with the world.   

‘’Extraverts are the bliss of our culture, introverts are crazy and weird’’. According to this claim, parents treat their children, coworkers — their colleagues, and partners — each other. I did some research and now I may tell you that I found the root of this thinking. Everything began with the development of Personality.

In society there was a popular concept of Character until the 1950s: people praised discipline and honour, modesty and morality. The right way to seem smart was to keep silent, don’t speak too much and ‘’do’’ instead of ‘’talk.’’ But then a cultural landscape has changed because of urbanisation and immigration. Thousands of people had moved to cities, and all of them needed a job. People started to think that in order to get a job they should be funny and charming. Here's how the concept of Personality was born. 

One of the first to promote extraversion was Dale Carnegie. In his works he taught how to impress people and ‘’make them your friends’’, how to force them to do what you want ad so on. We should understand that Carnegie’s philosophy was not only an answer to society’s need for extraversion, but he was the one who developed this need.

At first, the Extraversion Madness affected only workplaces. For instance, entrepreneurs started to hire not the smartest people, but the most friendly and sociable. Therefore, both men and women wanted to make an impression on companies' owners, so they literally learnt to ‘’sell’’ themselves. Rather than focus on modesty and thorough labor, people focused on how others perceived themselves. The extravert became a new sex symbol of the era, as today it is rock stars and online bloggers. Everyone wanted to be bold and entertaining, funny and energetic.

Therefore, extraversion entered the media, houses and schools. An advertisement praised extroversion, self-help books taught you charm and charisma, and thus, it became a widespread trend. A shy guy was described as ''gay'', and a shy girl as ''frigid''. Doctors healed shyness and even invented a specific term for introverts, ‘’the inferiority complex’’. Being quiet became unacceptable and if you lacked social skills, you remained by yourself in shame. You were called a sensitive and neurotic nerd. 

Certainly, many people couldn’t bear such a pressure for long and soon there were rises in anxiety disorders and depressions. Pharmaceutical companies saw the chance to earn money and invented anti-anxiety drugs, for example, Miltown. It is funny, but this drug’s advertisement was shamelessly straight and claimed that their drug would allow you ''to fit into places you do not fit’’.  

That's how extraversion became a cult. Later there were Tony Robbins and other guys who promised to heal your broken self and make you a ''positive'' and ''open'' person. Unfortunately, in today’s world the prejudices toward introverts still remain strong, and they are still called awkward and weird. 

However, before you make an opinion about anyone, I encourage you to ask yourself, "Why am I assuming a quiet person as weird?" Who taught me to think like that? Why do I think that only talkative people are worthwhile?''. If you don’t find the answer, re-read this text, please. 

[k-s-morgan]

Hi! I've been in the Hannibal fandom for two years now. Rewatched the show many times and yet Will Graham still confuses me like no one else. Hannibal's design is complex but somewhat understandable after watching the show again again. But Will's design is like a loophole. He can empathise with the killers. That means he can understand them. If he can understand them then why does it feel good for him to kill them? How does it work for him exactly. Does he feel for the killers? If he felt for the killers then what about his violent tendencies towards them?

I've always thought that he is like a God. A God of the killers. The killers offer him their design and he takes sacrifice in return of understanding. But how does his psyche work exactly?

Hello! Oh yes, Will is a very confusing character - it’s his defining trait, and I think that’s because he lies to himself, to others, and to us as an audience. He wants one thing, wants to want another thing, does the third thing, and making sense of it is a complex process.

I think Will’s empathy is a big red herring. I agree with Freddie here: he understands killers because he’s one. He has an almost supernatural gift that helps him recreate the situations almost exactly as they happened. He understands what motivates killers, he might sympathize with them, but I think he might also envy them their freedom to be what they are. They are a reminder of what he is and what he can’t allow himself to have. But most importantly, they are a way for Will to find a compromise with himself and feel better about his true self. Killing bad people is an excuse to justify his darkness, but I don’t think it’s a part of his design per se. 

I agree with you that Will is like a God - he and Hannibal both are. That’s one of the things that separates them from others and elevates them above everyone else. Let’s make an overview of Will’s victims.

1) Hobbs. Hobbs was a monster and Will killed him. But it wasn’t about justice and righteousness, not according to him. Killing a person and feeling pleased that you saved someone versus liking the act of killing itself are drastically different things. Many police officers have to kill in their line of duty. Very few of them get off on the act of murder. Those who do are killers, and they are especially dangerous if they immediately try to follow it up with another murder. Will never once says he liked killing Hobbs because he made this world better. When asked, he says that he felt a sense of power. This is a motivation of many actual serial killers. If Will was just glad that he saved Abigail, he would know it's normal. He wouldn't have been almost on the verge of a break-down and haunted by Hobbs. So it’s not about helping others, it's about murder, even if the victim was a monster.

2) Stammets. Will had no reason to try to kill him (which he admits to doing). Based on his and Hannibal’s talk, he understands that he just wanted to feel what he felt after killing Hobbs, and this makes him panic. So again, no someone. He’s chasing the high of killing someone, and Stammets is the most appropriate victim. 

3) Ingram. On the surface, it looks like Will wanted to avenge Peter and himself by proxy, hence pulling the trigger on Ingram. However, after Hannibal manages to stop him, days later, Will complains about losing a chance to feel how he felt when killing Hobbs. Murder high is his main motivation again - everything else is background or an excuse, depending on your reading.    

4) Randall. Will threw away the gun on purpose to make the murder more intimate. This is not about justice and this is not about protecting himself because by doing this, he reduced his chances. Will also beat Randall up until he wasn't moving. There was no reason to snap his neck. Mutilation, cannibalism that followed, keeping his suit, admitting he enjoyed the murder and calling it his design - this is about murder and WIll’s love for it primarily. The design part is especially important: based on it, we can conclude that Will loves a performance just like Hannibal.  

4) Chiyoh and her prisoner who Will set up. Chiyoh was innocent and didn't deserve to die. Her prisoner might not have been guilty - in fact, Will was the one to suggest that, and yet Will still set him up. It was a game and he was an observer - he lied in waiting for Chiyoh’s scream. He then turned the body of a losing party into art. Very creepy and very like Hannibal.

5) Chilton. Will clearly explained his motivation: he wanted Chilton to pay just because he wanted to be famous and messed with Hannibal by writing his ridiculous book. Will showed no remorse and admitted he did it on purpose.

6) Police officers he set up to be killed by cooperating with Francis. The ones he stepped over without a second look. They were innocent and they were a collateral damage. Will is a cruel God who doesn’t bother with mere mortals as long as it fits his purpose. In this case, his purpose was freeing Hannibal. Everything else was still a blur in his mind. 

7) Francis. Enjoyed the murder, admired the blood, called the situation beautiful.

8) Bedelia. She's innocent in comparison to Will and his body count. If Will faced no repercussions and continued getting more and more people killed, she had every right to go free. But God doesn’t have to be fair, and Will proves it by targeting her. 

What does it all say about Will’s design and philosophy? Apart from Godlike attributes and indifference toward collateral damage, I think Will is led by his bloodlust - he just tends to control it and direct it at specific targets. 

Will might prefer to kill “bad people” in the first two seasons, but it’s the process of murder that excites him. So I see his righteous choices as a preference that helps him justify his dark nature partly, not the core reason for his violence. Hannibal seems to be moved by his interest in human nature and his hunter instinct, but Will, I think, is a truer killer because he actually feels drunk on murder. Unlike Hannibal, he looks downright euphoric when/after he kills Randall and Francis. In TWOTL, Hannibal is more focused on the fact that his dream came true and he and Will killed someone together, but Will seems primarily caught up in the murder after-shocks themselves. Hannibal thinks about Will, Will thinks about how beautiful blood looks under the moonlight.

So, post Fall, I believe that at first, Will will stick to killing bad people like murderers, but once some times passes, his need for justifications will fade. He’ll move on to rude people, only his rude will differ from Hannibal’s. Hannibal doesn’t differentiate between genders and ages, but I think Will will. He’s interested in a feeling of power, like he himself says, in a sense of dominance, so he’ll look forward to a fight. He won’t be interested in attacking a teenager like Cassie, for instance, because the power imbalance is too prominent. But as soon as someone more equal does something Will heavily dislikes, something that wakes his bloodlust (a personal insult, physical or verbal abuse toward other people/animals, etc.), he’ll attack. He’ll be careful - he knows how to avoid being caught, but it will still be unpredictable and passionate. Will is a storm to Hannibal’s calm.

Then there is unpredictability. Hannibal tends to plan everything methodically. The only times we see him being impulsive is in Europe, where he’s descending into self-destructive mode, so it’s not a norm for him. For Will, though? Will consists of unpredictability, and Hannibal is fascinated by it.I think Will is going to kill when an impulse strikes. For example, he might go shopping, without having any dark plans, and end up murdering someone because the circumstances pushed some unfortunate soul onto his path. Will might or might not display the body depending on his mood. Today he can be in an artistic mood, but tomorrow he’ll be in a violent and impatient one, wanting to destroy the body entirely and leaving a total mess behind.

How Will would prefer to kill? In my opinion, in an intimate way. It doesn’t mean he’ll be weaponless, but something like a knife would fit his tastes well. He’d be able to feel it plunge into his victim’s body, tearing through skin and muscles, etc. - personal and intimate. Akin to what he did with Francis - his feral half-snarl, the way he paused after stabbing him before opening him up - it was dark and mesmerizing. Will might get into strangling, too, because it takes a lot of time and it is even more intimate. It might end up being his favorite. So, I can see him using his hands or small weapons to fully sense what he’s doing to a victim. This is something that he has in common with Hannibal because from what we saw, Hannibal also enjoys more intimate and prolonged murders that give him a glimpse into a person’s pain and struggle for life.

[shesunety]

My collection of knowledge about my own ocs! I created all of this for fun so i doubt i would ever need this.

Have a good read! Any suggestions or criticisms would be greatly appreciated! <3

The four - PRIDE

Cassane's caretaker

Cassane as a child Stages of growth

Be my coat and I will be your heart. THIST

BODY PROPORTIONS

^none of them have genitals

♡RECEIVED MESSAGES FROM CASSANE FOR YOU!

Message(1):Reminder Message(2):Painends

Message(3):Selflove Message(4):Appreciatemore

♡RECEIVED MESSAGES FROM CREE FOR YOU!

Message(1):Don'tForget Message(2):Notyourproblem

♡HEADCANON VOICES

Cassane-Grayson(Arcane)

Freshsk1-Grell Sutcliff

Furlos-Finnick(Zootopia)

Cree-Sticks the badger(sonic boom)

♡ VOICE DESCRIPTIONS

Cassane: Deep, Monotone, Soothing, Formal, Eerie.

Freshski: Smug, Enthusiastic, Humorous, Charming, Clear.

Furlos: Booming, Husky, Growly.

Cree: Casual, Friendly, Lilting, Animated, Mellifluous

♡Their personalities

♡Height comparison

♡

Fun facts! :)

None of them are innocent.

Their friend group name is The FCs (The Four Criminals) and they consider themselves as found family. The chef of the family is Cassane.

Cassane likes psychology, philosophy and art. Her eyes tend to unknowingly stare at things she finds fascinating.

She draws anything/anyone that gives her appeal and admiration. Her drawings consists of being doodle art with black and white shading (she doesn't like to color). Cassane would most likely never show her drawings to anyone, since they are personal.

Cassane can play the violin fluently, whereas Cree specializes in singing and drama.

Furlos is a big fan of literature and poetry. He loves reading books related to poetry as well as writing some for himself. It helps him cope with his anger. Playing the piano is a way to relax him too.

Freshski has a passion for maths and physics and can also play the flute.

Cassane never hugs back nor holds anyone's hand, still she lets people touch her for comfort whether needed.

Cree's favorite season is spring, for Furlos is summer, Cassane loves autumn and lastly winter is Freshski's favorite.

While Cassane and Cree are obviously not blood related, they were still brought up by the same parents. Having said that, Cree has no memories of his parents.

Considering their contrasting personalities, each of them have their own interpretations on love and connects differently. For instance, Cree enjoys sharing his thoughts and interests, therefore she would be fond of the idea of spending quality time and being listened to. Furlos is usually the one who spends majority of his time with Cree. In consequence, he occasionally receives perfectly hand-crafted gifts from Cree. Furlos would always get flustered, whenever he receives gifts. He appreciates it to a great extent and in order to repay the nice gestures, Furlos would offer his act of service, similarly to Cassane, however Cassane isn't keen on receiving gifts and in fact she would be delighted only with words of affirmation. She frequently gets heap praises from Freshski, furthermore Cassane acknowledges their sincerity in their words and she highly respects it. Freshski's charming side always manages to brighten anyone's day and what they cherish the most from others is physical touch.

I would say Cassane and Freshski share one major personality trait in common and it is that both are good at hiding their true emotions. Although, they do have their own ways of doing it. Cassane is not the type to lie, however Freshski is. Thus, Freshski masks themselves through a façade, whereas Cassane is poker faced and taciturn too.

In spite of the fact that all four are adults, Furlos and Cree compared to Freshski and Cassane are younger hence they lack competence and are not as mature.

THIST's previous designs Doodle

Sonas Related posts (art concepts)

Look, it says gullible on the ceiling!

Cat café

Sit and look pretty

Serve

Cassane in a dress

My girl

Quit staring at me with those big eyes

façade

Lasagna

Habbit

^Technically, Cassane and Thist are in a way the same individual?

Note: Thist is Cassane's skeleton

Fun fact

The smartest cat

December!

Cutie

Mitski.

???? What

Beloveds

I feel trapped

The moon will sing

^Comic explanation:

Based on one of my favorite songs. Cassane and Freshski share a very deep platonic love for each other... I wouldn't say they have a healthy relationship.

Zzzz

Face

Comfort

Mama's girl

Boo

Boo-hoo

Give it back!

Gender is a scam

You make me sick

Bath

I love you

Watched?

inseparable

Studies

BOOM!

Touch-Repulsed

They love it! Do it more often!

Skull

HUGS!

The trio's usual shenanigans

Furlos' expression

Secret

Her girl!

I know

Cassane's plushie

Something is up with you, Cassane

Sisters

Meet up

Not alone

^Comic explanation:

I attempted to showcase Thist's character with my best of abilities. Although, i am not a good writer, thus it might sound unprofessional and poorly executed.

Personally, i don't like how it turned out.

Thist is a parasite demon, who feeds off from people's agony by draining you emotionally and mentally. It is selfish and it does not care for anyone, but its own goals and desires.

I am not satisfied with its design, i will have to make a new one.

Issues

One drink

Curse

Please knock!

Besties being besties

Angry cat

Sleep deprivation

Freshsk1 loves physical contact

Silliness

Coconut

Dad

Cassane's bio Parents

^ Note to myself

These two must be revised.

.

Extremely old or outdated stuff(such as personalities, designs...)

Father and daughter

Tried out an idea

Bluetooth

Very bat puns

Stitches and flesh (thist)

Her flower

Inner child

Shapeshifter

Mother's love and devotion

Mother's embrace

Furlos' old design

Weird nickname

Big dad

Freshski's pet

Goodnight

Two weirdos

Night

Body language

Big girl!

furlos(old design) 2

[addictedtostorytelling]

Do you think Grissom gifted those framed bugs Sara had at her home in Nesting Dolls? I can’t really imagine why she would have them otherwise. Knowing that Sara is tall, my personal thought is that the long legs on the bugs (grasshoppers?) reminded him of Sara. Did the set designer want us to believe they were gifts from Grissom?

hi, anon!

obviously, as canon never addresses this subject, headcanon rules here.

personally, i do think grissom gave sara the shadowboxed insects—not because they physically reminded him of her but because his impulse is always to share with her the things that fascinate him and which he finds beautiful. (as he talks about in episode 06x23 "bang-bang," he has always gone for the girl who will indulge his love of bugs, ever since he was a little kid.)

as for the intentions of the set designers, i do think it's very possible that they meant to imply that grissom had given sara the shadowboxed insects as a gift, particularly as the shadowboxes are so prominently visible during what is perhaps the linchpin of all gsr scenes in episode 05x13 "nesting dolls."

however, i also think that even beyond questions of where sara may have gotten the shadowboxes (whether from grissom or not), the very fact that she has them was intended to show that she and grissom are essentially "birds of a feather."

as i talk about here,

outside the universe of the show, it is probable (and even likely) that [the similar décor in grissom and sara's living spaces] reflect the tastes of the set dressers—i.e., that [the items that they're both shown to own] just seemed appropriately “sciencey” for the show; that a variety of them were purchased to be used in multiple episodes and settings; that when the set dressers were deciding what kind of décor a science-minded csi might have in his or her house, they thought the [model hands, framed insects, etc.] fit the bill; etc., etc.

but that’s not necessarily to say that the set dressers didn’t consider the grander implications of their prop usage or that the presence of [those things] in grissom and sara’s respective apartments isn’t significant within the universe of the show.

—just the opposite, in fact.

the csi set dressers are very tuned in to characterization and have proven themselves to be highly conscientious concerning their décor choices for the characters’ homes.

honestly, i don’t think it’s a coincidence that grissom and sara’s respective apartments have similar décor in these early seasons; it’s a storytelling choice that is meant to demonstrate, at least in part, that they are two of a kind.

not only do both of them have insects in shadowboxes and model hands in their apartments, but they also have similar book selections (i.e., tomes on science, art, and philosophy, many of them overflowing off the bookshelves, claiming table space all over their apartments), levels of cleanliness, spartan layouts to their homes, and even general styles (i.e., lots of dark colors, metals, and sleek cuts to the furniture). 

while it’s clear that grissom makes more money than sara does—his place is bigger and his stuff is slightly nicer than hers is—it’s also clear that, income aside, they lead very similar lives. 

there are not a lot of personal photos on their walls, not a lot of “creature comforts” in their spaces; looking around, you can tell that they’re both scientists, that they both do a lot of reading, and that neither one of them makes a habit of entertaining company. their apartments are where they hole up and hide away from the outside world.

throughout the early seasons of the show, there are several instances in which it is implied that grissom and sara’s similarities make them well-suited for each other, and i think the likeness of their décor choices is just another means by which to prove that point.

in episode 02x23 “the hunger artist,” grissom states that “all animals prefer symmetry in their mates.” the episode then shows that grissom and sara are often “symmetrical” with each other, suggesting that they are each other’s preferred mates.

later on, in episode 03x04 “a little murder,” grissom posits that what attracts us most to other people is “ourselves”—i.e., that human beings seek out mates who are in many ways similar to themselves. again, there is some gsr significance to what he says, considering that he and sara are in many regards very similar in personality, tastes, and even gesture.

the fact that they both have the model hands [and shadowboxed insects] displayed in their apartments speaks, again, to their symmetry and similarity; of all the members of team graveyard, they are most like each other, in terms of their worldviews, interests, what attracts them, etc. 

they are totally suited to each other.

thanks for the question! please feel welcome to send another any time.

[demi-shoggoth]

2022 Reading Log, pt. 22

Two of the five books I read in this block are my nominees for best books I’ve read this year.

106. Hummingbirds: A Life-size Guide to Every Species by Michael Fogden, Marianne Taylor and Sheri L Williamson. I love this gimmick. Printing a book of wildlife photography where the animals are life sized is not something that can be done for a lot of taxa, although there are some others out there (like The Book of Frogs). Hummingbirds are a small enough group that such a book can be comprehensive, but not so small that the book isn’t publishable as a book. The photography is, as you would imagine, excellent, and there’s info about their life histories and possible classification changes for the birds as appropriate. Not all species are depicted life size, but about 90% are—the back of the book has shorter entries on birds that they couldn’t get photographs of (in some cases, because they’re extinct or only known from museum specimens).

107. 100 Animals that can F*cking End You by Mamadou Ndiaye. I’ve read books based on blogs, and books based on podcasts. But this is the first book based on TikTok that I’ve read. I’ve seen a few of Ndiaye’s wildlife videos, and they were fun enough that I wanted to check this out. This is also fun, but fairly slight, as is appropriate for a book based on a short video format. One of the things I found especially charming is that the TikTok algorithm’s ban on the words “die” or “kill” is maintained throughout, so there’s lots of baroque euphemisms and metaphors for how lethal these animals are. Animals are rated on a 1-10 Merk scale, with 10 being the most deadly (except not, because humans get a 99, appropriately). Wanna know what animals rate a solid 10? African elephant, Bengal tiger, chimpanzee, crocodile (covered in total, but most of the text is on Nile crocodiles), hippopotamus, mosquito, orca, polar bear. A pretty respectable list.

108. Accidental Gods: On Men Unwittingly Turned Divine by Anna Della Subin. A nomination for Book of the Year; I loved this. It’s a challenging read, but a very good one, and it made me think. The book is about humans who were seen as divine by other humans in the last 500 years, and how our thoughts on that shaped the philosophy of religion. The theses are twofold: 1) that Western civilization, being built on Greco-Roman philosophy and Christianity, shouldn’t be surprised that humans are seen to have assumed divinity, and 2) these instances were predominately those of the victims of capitalism, white supremacy and colonialism trying to cope with these injustices. We start with Haile Selassie and the Rastafarian movement and several other 20th century instances, move on to how India and its enormity of gods, and how porous the lines seemed to be between gods and men, baffled and angered the British Raj, and then how European colonizers claimed that they were seen as gods by native Americans, and invented the concept of whiteness in the process of enforcing these hierarchies. I learned a lot and highly recommend it.

109. Dinosaurs: New Visions of a Lost Word by Michael J. Benton, illustrated by Bob Nicholls. The book is written for a YA level audience—late middle school or early high school, and covers fifteen Mesozoic animals (not all of them are dinosaurs; that shouldn’t surprise anyone since it’s a pterosaur on the cover) and what their life appearances were, and how we know. Benton was on one of the teams that first discovered the preservation of melanosomes in dinosaur fossils, so there’s a lot of discussion of feather color and the technique. The highlight of the book is in its pictures—both detailed photographic reproductions of the fossils in question, and Nicholls’ life reconstructions of the animals. There is some weirdness in the text, but I think I’m just the most likely to pick up on it; at one point, Benton implies that descriptions of new species and other taxonomic work is less important than life reconstructions, which: rude.

110. Dead Blondes and Bad Mothers: Monstrosity, Patriarchy and the Fear of Female Power by Sady Doyle. Another nominee for book of the year, this is a breezier read than Accidental Gods but still contains sensitive issues. Namely, patriarchy, misogyny and rape culture. The book is split into three overarching themes, each of which is related to how it scares men and has been reflected and distorted in horror: daughters, wives and mothers. Some of the stuff in here brought things I have often thought about, or at least occasionally wondered about, into sharp relief; one of the author’s theses is that slasher movies and true crime are popular with young women as ritual catharsis. In a world where women’s bodies and lives are vulnerable to male predation, media that recognizes that danger is important and valued. I also have an uncommon recommendation to go along with this book: read the Resources. There’s commentary on the movies, TV shows and books discussed, which adds some good context and is occasionally very funny.