"His lacklustre attorney-general Alberto Gonzales, who was forced to resign in disgrace, was only the most visible of an army of over-promoted, ideologically vetted homunculi."

from "The Frat Boy Ships Out" The Economist 1/15/09

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Farewell to Sophie Thompson (the Cat, not the Actress!)

My almost-fifteen cat, Sophie, had to be euthanized a couple of weeks ago to save her from a lingering death (probably from starvation) as the result of what the vet called either cancer or kidney disease. To get a precise diagnosis of which one would have required more tests and several days and more suffering for the cat, and as regardless of which one it was, it would have killed her, I didn’t see any point. So the question will remain forever unanswered—though my last cat, Pippin, died of cancer of the kidneys, so it’s possible that it was both rather than one or the other. I find myself missing Sophie more and feeling sadder about her death than I did for Pippin—not because I didn’t love Pippin and find her loss quite distressing, but, let’s face it, Pippin was a crabby cat who did not like to be picked up and who would hide under the bed and smack you with her paw as you walked by, while Sophie was an affectionate little beastie who followed us around and demanded to be petted.

For many years, Tim has scoffed at me for naming Sophie before I ever saw her, and perhaps that does seem silly (though Pippin, too, had a name, from Julia, before I ever saw her, and that worked out fine), but I named Sophie after Emma Thompson’s younger sister, also an actress, who I had seen play Helena in All’s Well That Ends Well at Stratford-Upon-Avon the previous summer, and who had visited our class for a discussion session and charmed the lot of us. Sophie, in any case, is an innocuous name that could fit any female cat, and, as it turned out, the more specific association of the cat with the woman turned out to be fine, too. Sophie Thompson the actress is a charming and talented character actress who plays mostly bit parts consisting of finely-drawn, idiosyncratic characters, and Sophie Thompson the cat turned out to have her own repertoire of roles, equally charming, though fundamentally different, of course. No one would be hiring Sophie the Cat for the movies. She wasn’t bright enough to remember any lines or even walk where you wanted her to walk on demand.

We always said that Sophie wasn’t really very smart. Well, to be honest, we always said that she was dumb as a box of rocks. Among her myriad nicknames were: Little No-Brain and Dorky Cat. We witnessed her falling of furniture and running into walls. She couldn’t seem to find her water without putting her paws in it first (though it eventually occurred to me that maybe she just didn’t see very well, and so I bought her one of those fancified running-water cat fountains, and most of the time she drank out of that without fishing in it first. Most of the time.) From time to time, however, it occurred to us, watching her, that Sophie was just as smart as she needed to be. Certainly she seemed to get everything she wanted, when she wanted it. I was gradually trained to buying certain brands and flavors of cat food, and she could pretty much arrange to be combed, petted, scratched, picked up, let out in the garage, or given catnip at will. One simple expediency, a universal, it would seem, in the cat universe, was to get up on the desk. It is extremely difficult to work, and to ignore a cat, when the cat is standing on the keyboard, blocking the screen, and purring.


Still, despite a lack of talent for complex training, Sophie had her share of goofy adventures, in which she displayed this tendency to quixotic personality and for which she will be forever remembered. Once, in an exploration of the attic (an endeavor to which she committed herself whenever the opportunity arose. This wasn’t often, but if Tim or I failed to close the door of the guest bedroom behind us while we went up the stairs into the nether reaches of the house, we could count on the cat to appear in the attic, lickety-split behind us) she managed to attach herself, inadvertently, to a sticky trap by means of swishing her tail too close to it. That would have been one thing, but she then managed to attach the other end of the sticky trap to the lid of a shoebox. The experience of suddenly finding herself elongated by an extra foot or so upset her a great deal, and she embarked on a virtuoso display of rippety-roaring about the house, trailing her little boxcar appendage behind her. We don’t know how she eventually got it off. This adventure, I might add, did not stop her zipping up to the attic the next time she got a chance.


On another, equally memorable occasion, Sophie met my pet ferret (Shrdni Vashtar, after Saki’s literary ferret), with equally rippety-roaring consequences. The ferret, a one-pound fearless female, was exploring in the bedroom, hiding things under the dresser, when the cat came wandering in. Out came the ferret head from under the dresser, then out came the entire ferret, then whoosh, the entire ferret went barreling toward Sophie to investigate. Sophie, evidently bemused at the sight, simply stood still, and the ferret (none too bright herself, I guess!), went full-tilt into Sophie’s chest and bounced off. That, despite the fact that the cat outweighed the cat eight-to one, was the last we saw of her for the rest of the afternoon. The ferret was left standing in her wake, wondering what become of her new potential friend.

More recently, there was the “Sherlock Holmes Affair.” I was reading the Annotated Sherlock Holmes, a massive book that has at least as much text in the notations as in the stories themselves, when I came across a section of notes having to do with the problems of trying to represent the Cockney accent in print. There was a section of phonetically spelled Cockney, which I started reading out loud to see if it sounded better than, say, Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins, when the cat, who was sleeping on the cedar chest at the time, leapt up and started meowing. Right pronto she jumped down of the cedar chest and up to the bed, climbed on my chest, and peered over the top of the book, meowing all the while. It would seem that she either hated or loved the Cockney. In the true spirit of science, we waited until she went back to her post and repeated the experiment, with the same result. What do you make of a cat—an American-born cat, mind you, who yowls in response to Cockney? This was an animal with distinct opinions and tastes.

Some people want to claim that the dividing line between humans and animals consists of the capacity to reason. I say phooey to that; anyone who has encountered more than one pet could tell you that they have distinct personalities, and that the personality arises largely out of the behaviors the animals exhibit—behaviors that result pretty clearly from decision-making processes, perhaps unfathomable, but exhibiting a capacity for cause-effect reasoning that defies the “animals are creatures of instinct alone” hooey. Take the Sophie-Pippin contrast, for instance:

Where Pippin hid under things and whapped passers-by, Sophie didn’t even hiss—not even when she was stepped on. Where Pippin systematically collected all the glass ornaments—five full dozen of them—off the first Christmas tree she ever experienced, chased them around the apartment and smashed them against the walls, Sophie gave the Christmas tree a wide berth. Maybe she tried climbing the first one she encountered and it prickled her—who knows? Where Pippin spent her late nights (and most of her days when we weren’t home, as far as we could tell) climbing up on furniture from which she was banned—the thud as we would approach from downstairs or outside and the residual warm spot on the chair were a dead giveaway—Sophie simply picked out spots where she would sleep, changing venues every few weeks, perhaps in an effort to keep an eye on her whole territory. She would rotate among “under the futon” to “on the edge of the rug in the front room” to “on the cedar chest” to “on the futon” on some untrackable rotational schedule of her own devising. Where Pippin seemed to spend hours while we were away devising punishments--the Christmas ornament escapade was one; it occurred on a day when I returned quite late from work; others included unraveling all the toilet paper off the roll in the bathroom, and, if she got REALLY mad, pooping on the floor where we could see her but where she was just out of reach, a short of “shit and run” maneuver—Sophie spent the first night after our return from trips licking us half to death and purring. Come to think of it, though, maybe that was her version of a punishment.

Where Pippin LOATHED every human being on earth except me and Tim (including David, whose attraction for cats is legendary. Even a cat he once put in a dresser drawer and left there all day followed him around slavishly), Sophie would eventually warm up to people who stayed in the house—even letting them pet her after a day or two. Of course, she was just as likely to have forgotten that by the next morning and would very probably run away again when she saw the person she had befriended the night before. Where Pippin was aloof and inscrutable, though very beautiful (solid black long-hair with yellow eyes), and saved her “Oh look how cute I am, pay attention to me” look for one memorable occasion when I was cleaning catfish, and Pippin evidently wanted some, Sophie was cute at all hours of the day and night, open, friendly, and leech-like in her bestowal of affection. They were both cats, but they were dramatically different personalities.

Some people want to claim that the dividing line between humans and animals consists of the capacity to reason. I say those people never had pets. Anyone who has ever had a pet is familiar with the fact that pets—and especially cats—mold the household to their liking. They exhibit likes and dislikes that establish certain completely non-negotiable rules to which the whole household adheres (I WILL drink out of that toilet, but not the other one, so leave the seat up; I will NOT sleep on that cat bed, but I will sleep on the couch; I will play with that toy, but you wasted your money on that one, and so on.) They determine when you will pay attention to them and when you will not by the simple expediency of unmerciful pestering when they want it and a complete absenting of themselves when they don’t, and they establish routines which they, and their “masters” follow—usually without the “masters” even realizing that the routines are being instituted as part of the daily household operation.

And it is these things, the little routines that Sophie herself instituted, that I find are the sources of the moments when I miss her the most: when I go out for the mail, I keep looking for her on the front porch when I come back, because she always snuck out the front door behind me so she could chew on the Wisteria leaves. When I come in from work or a day of errands, I look for her to come around the corner in the kitchen, looking for food. (I hadn’t realized until she was gone that the first thing I’ve done upon arriving home, after turning off the alarm, is feed the cat. For YEARS.) When I lock up at night, I look for her in the garage, where she had scoped out a place to lie down, just behind the left rear wheel of whatever car was in there—no matter how hot or cold it got. I pass the hallway and glance down and catch myself expecting to see the cat, mincing along with her outward turned little feet, assiduously avoiding stepping on the runner. I look for her string toy (a simple contraption consisting of a plastic stick about a foot long with a narrow two-foot length of purple and pink fabric attached to one end) to appear in odd spots near the top and bottom of the stairs, as Sophie spent a lot of her day, evidently, dragging the thing either up or down, depending on where she left it last. And most of all, I find myself expecting, when I lie down in bed at night, for her to jump up and sit on my hip—a routine she initiated several years ago. She would sit there awhile, purring, then lie down, stretching all the way to my knee (head toward knee every time) and purr some more.

(There was, however, a “two-person in the bed rule”: once Tim got into bed, down Sophie would invariably jump and head off on her nightly tour of inspection of the house. If Tim got into bed first, Sophie would get up next to him so he could rub her ear, but as soon as I turned up, off she would go, surveying her territory in every corner to which her little fog feet would let her prowl.)

I don’t believe that Sophie is “in a better place” or any of that jazz; I don’t believe that she is a little ghost lurking in the corners of the house just out of sight—if I can almost see her when I pass by the door of the living room, her last “spot,” or if I can almost hear her purring when I sit down in my office to work, that is my memory and not any external reality at work. I don’t believe that I will see Sophie again one day in some other lifetime. Rather, Thomas Hardy got it right in “Proud Songsters,” and Sophie as a cat is no more. Her material self has been returned to the earth, however, and in her next incarnation that matter that once was Sophie will be grass, or flowers, or food for birds and so will remain a small but permanent part of the lasting universe. I believe that we get one life in any given incarnation of matter and experience, and if, after it is over, that life is remembered with love and humor and perhaps a little wondering admiration, then it was a good life. It is in memory and not in physical fact that Sophie Thompson Henly, as Sophie, the affectionate, quixotic, funny, and ever-surprising cat will live on, but that is an effective memorial, properly termed, and good enough tribute for anyone.

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Bday-card

Bday-card
Blogged with the Flock Browser

Saturday, August 1, 2009

Friday, July 31, 2009

Shatner on Palin Part 2: The Tweets



Someone ought to pay the bongo player a bonus!
Blogged with the Flock Browser

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Good-Bye, Sarah Palin; Hello, Reality?

I started this blog last summer as a reaction to the horror I experienced at the idea that anyone could think Sarah Palin was a serious candidate for a position that might land her in the presidency. I find her endless capacity for re-writing reality to be absolutely stunning, and that doesn't even get us started on her garbled speech. Her strange and melodramatic (not to mention completely incomprehensible!) exit from Alaskan politics (at least for the time being) has only validated all my previous ideas of her. It was my intention to wrote a blog on the subject, by way of fitting tribute to the woman who inspired it in the first place, but Conan O'Brien and William Shatner have provided an un-toppable epitaph (see video below), which I will, therefore, not attempt to top.

Instead, I'll say a few words on the whole subject of reality. I have, in the past year or so, encountered an inordinate number of people--adults out in the real world--who seem to function quite happily (if not successfully) on the unexamined and unstated (and possibly unrecognized) belief that there is no external reality, and that, therefore, whatever they think or believe or say is true in that moment. These people seem to exhibit an astounding capacity for living with different "truths" in different moments, feeling no need whatever to reconcile contradictions. My husband's word to describe the phenomenon is "solipsistic," and I have to agree wholeheartedly. For a pithy and pointed essay on this subject with regard to the absolute lunacy over Barack Obama's citizenship, read this.

Awhile back, I posted an essay I wrote on the greatest threat to science; I would have to say that this, in a nutshell, is it: the refusal, or failure, to believe that in order to live successful lives, in order to be free in any meaningful sense, we must operate on the assumption that there is a reality, that it is knowable, and that we ought to attempt to know it. I teach a course called "Theory of Knowledge" (aka TOK)), the central goal of which, it occurs to me, could be described as being the dissemination of this idea. The course curriculum demands that students start thinking about everything they "know" and everything they hear, and start assessing its validity. It requires students to learn about the strengths and shortcomings of our means of making knowledge and gives them the power to respect reality and our ability to know it. One of the two culminating assignments is an essays. The International Baccalaureate (IB) provides a list of 10 titles for the TOK essay, and students must choose one. I try to write one myself every couple of years as a means of keeping in mind the true demands of the task, and this year I wrote the following essay on the title: "When should we trust our senses to give us truth?"

I think the essay is revealing both in terms of what has been on my mind this year (note the positive assumption in the question--we can and must trust our senses to give us truth--a reaction to the lunacy I see around me!), and in terms of why the IB is the best thing going in education: it expects of students actual knowledge, not just the facsimile of it, a temporary and disposable veneer lasting only until the end-of-course test has been passed.

* * * * *

I can easily generate a long list of examples of sensory failure—failing to hear my mother call me (this happened on a regular basis when I was a teenager, especially when I was lost inside my current book), thinking I smell gas when no one else can detect any such thing (this experience is actually quite common with me for some reason—perhaps I suffer from some sort of olfactory paranoia), or not being able to feel the ends of my fingers when it gets really cold outside. When I take my glasses off, I can see very little that is further than two feet from me, and the older I get, the less I can hear. When I recently got a new cell phone, and was testing all the ringers, I got to one that made no noise at all. I was just on the verge of complaining that it didn’t work, when I realized that this must be the “mosquito” ring tone that I’ve been hearing about that pretty much no one over a certain age can hear.

Despite all these ready-to-hand examples of sensory failure, it is nevertheless true that our sense perceptions are the ONLY means by which we get any kind of information which can subsequently be adjudged either true or false, and so in some sense, we have no choice BUT to trust our senses. Given the paradox—we can’t trust our senses and we must trust our senses--I conclude that the basic answer to the question as to when we should trust our senses to give us truth is that we should trust our senses to give us truth whenever there is some means to hand of checking our first sensory experience for validity, or whenever we have no other choice but to trust them.

We trust the truth of our senses for thousands of everyday tasks--we perceive that the floor is in a certain place, we put our foot down, and we are capable of walking; we taste the soup, add more salt, and find that it tastes better; we act based on what we heard someone say, and the action achieves the desired result. In myriad everyday cases, not only DO we rely on our senses, we SHOULD rely on them, because if we DIDN’T rely on them, we couldn't function. We should accept as true those things which cohere, at least until we have good reason not to, because if we refuse to do so, then we mire ourselves in a no-man’s-land of permanent stagnation, constantly questioning every “fact” or proposition made to us.

The problem, so far as sense perception goes, is that although we function perfectly well most of the time operating on the assumption that our sense perceptions are correct, there are inevitably those moments when our sense perception presents us with a reality that doesn’t make sense. In those cases, however, we are not left at the mercy of the foibles of our senses. When we experience those “That cannot be right!” moments in which our mind revolts against what our senses seem to be telling us is true, we can, and in fact have already begun to use reason to help us know whether or not to trust our senses and to what extent, in that moment. Monday morning, for example, I heard the grandfather clock downstairs chime 6:00, but because I had been awake awhile and had looked at the alarm clock not long before and had seen that at that time it was 4:30, I reasoned that I must have heard wrong and that the actual time must be 5:00 rather than 6:00. I verified the rational conclusion simply by turning the alarm clock on the bedside stand around so I could see its face; it was, indeed, 5:00 and not 6:00. Had the alarm clock said 6:00, then my sensory perception based on the chiming of the Grandfather clock would have been verified instead, and I would have had to come up with some other explanation for the discordance: perhaps I would conclude that I had fallen back asleep without realizing it, and that, therefore, another hour had gone by without my noticing. Either way, reason and sense perception together would have allowed me to solve the problem, and I would, therefore, have been able to trust that I know what the reality of the situation was.

Sensory data can, is, and should be trusted in the countless moments that constitute our daily living. We also rely on sensory information, however, in more formalized ways within various areas of academic endeavor, and so we have had to work out systems by which we can ensure the reliability of that data for our knowledge-making endeavors. Within the area of Natural Sciences, this process is highly structured. The objective of the Natural Sciences is to determine the physical nature of the universe, which is presumed to exist. If we are trying to find out about something outside ourselves, we must observe it closely. The essential means of making knowledge, then, is empiricism. In order to compensate for failings of our sensory apparatus, scientists have implemented a number of strategies: they build equipment that extends the range of human perception—telescopes, microscopes, sonar, radar, infrared photograph, NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) imaging, and so on. Scientists also rely on replicability to ensure that an observed phenomenon wasn’t either mis-observed, mis-interperted, mis-reported, or anomalous. Finally, since the essential process of knowledge-making in the natural sciences involves falsification and, ultimately, paradigm shift, science functions in essential ways to ensure that “bad” information is constantly weeded out and the structures of science are designed to ensure that we come ever closer in our refinements of our understanding to absolute certainty--to truth. We can, and should, therefore, trust our senses within the realm of the Natural Sciences so long as we are vigilant about identifying and denouncing fraud, and so long as we continue to make every honest effort to adhere to the standard practices of the sciences.

Within the realm of the arts, however, there is no such formalized structure for regulating sensory data. In the era when mimesis was the paramount objective of art, failures of sensory perception would have posed a problem for the artist and viewer similar to the problems that scientists must deal with, because the goal would have been very much the same thing: the accurate depiction of a world external to us. More recently, however, since creation, rather than copying has been the goal of art, empiricism is still the mechanism by which knowledge is conveyed and received, but "errors" in sense perception become irrelevant or even, perhaps, part of the message. With the arts, understanding happens integrally to the sensory experience. I love Mozart's Sinfonia Concertante for oboe, clarinet, horn and bassoon, but I love it because of the sensory experience of it. The lyricism of the horns is almost like flying. I love Frederick Church's painting, Coast Scene: Mount Desert 1863 because of the feeling of being immersed in rich sensory data--in that case, a spectacular sunrise over a sea whose spray is so vivid that the sea almost seems to move. One of the main reasons, then, that art appeals at all is that the direct sensory experience results in rich emotional experience, so whether that sensory data has any factual relationship to the external physical world or not is completely irrelevant.

This is not to say, however, that there is no possibility of the failure sensory experience to provide artistic truth. In a recent, very famous, incident, Susan Boyle, a middle-aged and rather frumpy Scotswoman created an international sensation because, it turned out, she sings with a beauty and power that very few people possess. The universal first impression, largely determined by sight, was that this woman was kidding herself to suggest that she might be another Elaine Paige. That sensory-based judgment, however, turned out to be sensationally wrong. In Blink, Malcolm Gladwell describes a similar failure of senses: he talks about how until conductors agreed to audition classical musicians from behind screens, it was nearly impossible for women to get hired to play in symphony orchestras, but as soon as the screens went up, the number of women hired--even for instruments like trumpet or French horn, long considered the purview of men only--increased dramatically. The sight of the woman actually caused a failure to hear accurately; the suppression of the sight allowed for a truer judgment of the quality of music (Gladwell 248-254). Sense perception, then, can and must be trusted if we are to experience the full power of the arts, but, as with any other field of endeavor, we must remain vigilant that we aren't misled by false or irrelevant information.

Ultimately, sensory learning is as valuable as the learning garnered via any other way of knowing. We should, therefore, trust our senses as much as we trust any of those other ways of knowing. We should go about our business sensing and learning, but we should always be alert to the fact that we could, at any moment, be misled by our senses--just as we can be misled by emotions run amok, by flawed reason, or by misused language. By trusting all the mechanisms by which we come to know, but by trusting them not in isolation, but rather in tandem, we have the best chance of refining our experience to something that comes ever closer to truth.

Works Cited

Gladwell, Malcolm. Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2005.

NOTE: For further, and quite excellent, commentary on the nature of truth, see Harry Frankfurt's books On Truth, and On Bullshit. (He wrote the former second; you may wish to read them in that order.) These are very short treatises on the nature of truth and the utter disregard of it. I recommend them highly!

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Friday, July 24, 2009

July Travel Blog Complete

I have finished a series of posts to my travel blog; click the map in the menu to the left.  The RealTravel site has been uploading updates, and there are some glitches; one of these is that the blogs no longer appear in reverse chronological order.  Scroll down to "IB Travelin'."  Enjoy!
Blogged with the Flock Browser

Search This Blog

Visitors Since 9/13/08

Followers

Jacquie Lawson

Jacquie Lawson e-cards
Powered By Blogger