| Flight of the Navigator |
[Apr. 17th, 2010|03:54 pm] |
I've just learned that Disney is remaking Flight of the Navigator for 2011. I understand that people are grumbling about this and have low expectations because the original did not do well at the box office. I guess they are figuring it in terms of what was made on the investment or compared to what other movies with that marketing machine had behind them though, because $17 million sounds like more than I would easily know how to spend.
Of course it did better on VHS, those were the days when everyone had a VCR and most people had cable. I don't think I ever saw it in the theater. Though I'm sure I saw ET in the theater 3 times or more.
Older people afraid that the new movie will somehow tarnish their memories are probably over-reacting, that is, unless Michael Bey is going to be the director. I just watched it last night and can say that it was a wonderful story, based on a concept that will continue to have appeal for young boys, and can use a little fresh blood and some updated cultural references.
The special effects in the original are dated, but in my opinion they mostly hold up. Yeah, i could now do a better shape-changing chrome spaceship flying over landscapes without hardly taxing the processor on my laptop, but like Lasseter said with Toy Story, it is still the kind of movie you can watch and enjoy without caring that the strings show. The effects have been surpassed, they aren't laugable for the most part, but they can be done better.
The story is pretty thin. Ordinary boy teams up against the government with the help of superior alien technology in the form of a robot spaceship that enables him to go anywhere and evade capture. But he fails to realize that while he can run, he can never go home until he forgets the yellow brick road and clicks the heels of the ruby slippers 3 times, that is, takes a chance on the time warp that was said to be too dangerous, and wakes up where he started in a world where his adventure could almost have been a dream.
Children get, the experience of flight, a chance to touch the miraculous in a believable way, boys get the chance to imagine themselves temporarily in command of great power granted by pure chance, adults get mostly wholesome entertainment for their children that isn't a musical and a plausible premise.
And none of it requires being rooted in the cultural references of the 70's or 80's or any specific actors or musical numbers to make it work.
The remake could potentially be much better than the original, and need not tarnish it in any way.
If I sound dispassionate or dismissive of the value of t he original movie you should know that not only was it a favorite in my youth, but I based important parts of my personal mythology and career skill ambitions on this movie. I have a chrome starship parked in my soul and have often used it as a vehichle of escapism. The original was good. I enjoyed it when it was the time of my life to enjoy it. But it can be improved upon, given more heart, soul, intellect, it can be made more modern, there is room for improvement in the visual effect department, and in casting. If you liked it, you should look forward to the remake, or at least keep an open mind. |
|
|
| The Education of Edward Bok |
[Jul. 26th, 2009|02:16 pm] |
From, "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie:
Years ago, a poor Dutch immigrant boy washed the windows of a bakery shop after school to help support his family. His people were so poor that in addition he used to go out in the street with a basket every day and collect stray bits of coal that had fallen in the gutter where the coal wagons had delivered fuel. That boy, Edward Bok, never got more than six years of schooling in hi life; yet eventually he made himself one of the most successful magazine editors in the history of American journalism. How did he do it? that is a long story, but how he got his start can be told briefly. He got his start by using the principles advocated in this chapter.
He left school when he was thirteen and became an office boy for Western Union, but he didn't for one moment give up the idea of an education. Instead, he started to educate himself. He saved his carfares and went without lunch until he had enough money to buy an encyclopedia of American biography--and then he did an unheard-of thing. He read the lives of famous people and wrote them asking for additional information about their childhoods. He was a good listener. He asked famous people to tell him more about themselves. He wrote General James A. Garfield, who was then running for President, and asked if it was true that he was once a tow boy on a canal; and Garfield replied. He wrote General Grant asking about a certain battle, and Grant drew a map for him and invited this fourteen-year-old boy to dinner and spent the evening talking to him.
Soon our Western Union messenger boy was corresponding with many of the most famous people in the nation; Ralph Waldo Emerson, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Longfellow, Mrs. Abraham Lincoln, Louisa May Alcott, General Sherman and Jefferson Davis. Not only did he correspond with these distinguised people, but as soon as he got a vacation, he visited many of them as a welcome guests in their homes. This experience imbued him with a confidence that was invaluable. These men and women fired him with a vision and ambition that shaped his life. and all this, let me repeat, was made possible solely by the application of the principles we are discussing here.
|
|
|
| Education as a filter |
[Jul. 26th, 2009|01:23 pm] |
The medieval university degree structures were based on the guild system. In this mileu the bachelor's degree was roughly equivalent to the apprencice, the so-called master's degree was roughly equivalent to the journeyman and the doctor's degree was roughly equivalent to the level of master craftsman, with the doctoral thesis roughly equivalent to the masterpiece. The reason for arranging things this way was to keep knowledge subordinate to the catholic church. It was basically an elaborate filter which was meant to weed out people who were likely to teach heretical ideas before they would become doctors. (Doctor originally meaning teacher.) -source: Steven L. Goldman Ph.D. Lehigh University in the TTC lecture series "Great Scientific Ideas that Changed the World"
If this structure acted as a filter in the middle ages, then its perpetuation into the modern world probably means that it still acts as a filter. What kinds of ideas is today's university structure filtering out before its proponents achieve the status of doctor, or Ph.D.? |
|
|
| A pun |
[Jul. 23rd, 2009|11:09 pm] |
S says: One of the things I like about the design of this cat castle are the posts wrapped in sisal rope, for scratching.
I say: What's that? Rope that just lays there? |
|
|
| What kind of Libertarian are you? |
[Jul. 9th, 2009|01:55 pm] |
Libertarian ideas come from many sources, and lead to many conclusions. Perhaps more than many other political or philosophical people, libertarians like to debate the nuances of their theories, and pay special attention to their differences once they understand that they have much of the big picture in common. Here are some links to debates about the kinds, branches and strategies in libertarian thought that I've discovered today:
Post by Jason Sorens at the Free State Project forums: http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=18387.0
Marginal Revolution post that seems to have started it: http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/07/realizing-freedom.html
Wirkman Netizen's comments: http://wirkman.net/wordpress/?p=1532
I'll have to get back to you about where I stand. Much of this seems overcomplicated, and makes use of terms that are novel and seem contrived to me, and I'm someone who became comfortable with catallaxy and praxeology long ago.
I will say that when I originally became aware of libertarianism I tended towards deductions from moral premises such as the non-aggression principle (NAP) or natural rights as I understood the US Declaration of Independence to refer to. I don't think that was so much a matter of my temperament, as that those arguments are more accessible than arguments that depend on understanding history or economics. In fact, the economics planks in the Libertarian platform initially seemed strange and unrealistic to me. It was only with time, as I came to understand that libertarian economic analysis was among the best, and that this as well as many historical examples confirmed the economic recommendations that I became confident in arguing from a more utilitarian viewpoint.
Also, I have come to see most political ideas and issue positions as historical accidents. That is, gay rights and vegetarianism don't naturally go together, those are associations that seem compatible based on bizarre coincidences in the history of the USA's two major parties. The same thing can be said about big business and religion.
This is not to say that ideas don't have consequences, I think a good case can be made, for instance that a planned economy will tend to lead to a regimented society, and this is a problem for liberals who want to promise job security. Likewise free markets lead to moderation in religious views and a tendency towards cosmopolitan values like tolerance, which could mean that people who want lots of public displays of faith are undercutting themselves if they also want free markets.
One of the biggest philosophical difficulties for libertarians tends to be the question of how to treat children. I don't have easy answers here, but I find it odd that there seems to be very little discussion of what kinds of treatment work best to instill the habits and values of liberty, and what forces are at work in the modern world that may tend to stifle these. But these are extremely important questions to deal with if liberty is going to have any future. Some of the best ideas for how to deal with children and help them become emotionally and otherwise self-sufficient comes from John Taylor Gatto. But he is just one of a cluster of people I could recommend as good writers about how to bring up children well. I also like Lenore Skenazy, A. S. Neil, and others.
Behind the question of how to raise children consistent with and fit for liberty may lie a basic question of the relationship between practice in liberty, volition and maturity or moral action. That is, to the extent we do not have the opportunity for autonomous action our development and capacity for virtue is retarded. |
|
|
| Lyell an evolutionist before Darwin? |
[Jul. 8th, 2009|01:08 pm] |
From Wikipedia:
Lyell first became aware of the ideas of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck when he was 26, in 1827. A letter to Mantell reads, in part, as follows: "I devoured Lamark... his theories delighted me... I am glad that he has been courageous enough and logical enough to admit that his argument, if pushed as far as it must go, if worth anything, would prove that men may have come from the Ourang-Outang. But after all, what changes species may really undergo!... That the Earth is quite as old as he supposes, has long been my creed..."
*** Here we begin to see that there is a bit of a chicken and egg problem with Blaming evolutionary ideas on Darwin, It is well known that he claimed that the gradual changes over eons in landforms as in Lyell's theories, which he read during his voyages inspired him to think animals too were changed by gradual processes, but here we find that Lyell himself was already influenced by evolutionary ideas. It goes to show that ideas, even seemingly shocking ones are in the air.
This is not controversial to anyone, except for a few conservatives* who want to blame Darwin for leading us on some sort of intellectual wrong-turn.
A fuller examination of Darwin, the man, his life and his times has led me instead to the conclusion that evolution was a concept that was in the air in Victorian England. Anyone who even knows about Darwin's family knows that his grandfather had evolutionary ideas. Darwin was periodically exposed to radical materialism at college, and here we see that even the geologist whose theories he found himself testing on his voyage around the world already considered an evolutionary theory to be very likely.
And there were others. There was Alfred Russel Wallace, of course, but there were also journalists and arborists who shook people up and invited ridicule with incomplete theories. Darwin was not so much the originator of the idea of evolution, nor did he ever manage to guess at the mechanism behind it, no he was mostly a patient researcher who proved the case. It was probably better him than a mystic like Wallace, or a militant atheist. because they could have been marginalized, or dismissed as insincere.
In fact, Darwin's experience as a student of theology probably prepared him to face the consequences of his theory better than many of his detractors.
*Conservatives, a few words: Darwin's own work leads us towards an appreciation for conservative principles from an intellectual point of view. I've elsewhere written that it is bizarre to me that people who understand that a complex system built up by slow adaptations can be hurt or destroyed by the introduction of novel elements, as exemplified by mutations in the genome, the introduction of new species or pollutants into an ecosystem or the addition of a new feature into a computer program which inevitably produces bugs could be oblivious to these principles being at work in their own culture or government. Ridiculous ideas may be associated with conservative politics, but it is fallacious to suppose that therefore conservative politics is, or must necessarily be associated with ridiculous ideas. |
|
|
| Are there any atheist conservatives? |
[Jul. 1st, 2009|08:18 pm] |
The left-right dichotomy becomes more time worn and useless with every passing day. But it is very interesting to think about where it originated, and what kinds of things went together under the names of conservative and liberal in those days.
It is also interesting to consider what conservative and liberal mean in non-political speech today. When we look at evolution for instance, we are struck that here is a process that is deeply and essentially conservative, it preserves whatever is good. It adapts existing things to new purposes, it has a tight grasp on what is old, but tentatively and uneasily lives with recent developments, it takes the past as its guide.
It is interesting that our newest technologies teach us to respect this approach as well. Everyone who has written a program and many people who have used them for serious work know that you pay the price of instability and bugs when you adopt the newest version. Every change you make in a complex system opens the possibility for something to go wrong elsewhere that you couldn't anticipate. We all know what beta testing means, that finding errors that you have unintentionally introduced by making changes necessarily takes time.
It baffles me how people who are used to thinking this way about genomes, habitats and computers can be oblivious to the possibility that it might apply to politics as well. |
|
|
| Disorganized musings on contradictions within Pirsig's and Gattos writing |
[Jul. 1st, 2009|12:08 am] |
Her pleading tone, her religious fervor, greatly impressed him, along with the fact that her college entrance examinations had placed her in the upper one percent of the class. -excerpt from "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" by Robert Pirsig *** Why might that impress him? Pirsig presents us with a number of contradictions in this book. Here, and in Lila, he makes a lot of noise about his own IQ, his own great intelligence and observational powers, though he seems to take sorting categories as a craft and the kinds of things he thinks count as evidence are epistemologically unsophisticated. He seems to rely a lot on gut feelings, and the idea that if someone is smart they are more likely to be right. His contradictions though, are such as the identification with students who are failing, corroborated in conversations with other teachers the insight that the best students are always failing, because they are wild, untamed, sometimes hurt and vicious. This is because school is not good for them. Yet he also identifies with the top brains, with people like Einstein, and this girl with the high IQ score, but does not see himself as being like the students who go along to get along, the girl with thick glasses behind which lie the eyes of a drudge, who was coming close to failing an assignment because she couldn't think of anything to say and was distraught by her mysterious, unwilling disobedience, her failure to follow orders. On the other hand, Gatto doesn't believe that IQ tests really measure anything, or that there is any difference in the intelligence of gifted kids or so-called learning-disabled children. He thinks the whole apparent range of mental abilities can almost completely be put down to schools using tracking to separate people with some kinds of backgrounds from others, with a tiny niche of super-schools, with a spare program of hard exercizes designed to build extreme confidence left out by design, to enable an elite to enable their children to take control of society from the top. Though even what Gatto has said about children from different backgrounds has contradictions. He says at one point that shcool makes children give up, and that poor children give up sooner. Yet he describes such childhood scourges as suicide as being an affliction of the rich, almost exclusively. Apparently he sees some source of strength in the poor life. Phaedrus supposedly saw his failure from college as innoculating him against feeling the need to please academics. Yet he goes on to teach, as Gatto might say, institutionalizing himself. Placing himself in a kind of artificial world, in which he was the authority figure, connected to the school but allowed to be the focus of immature students in a vacuum each day. This is kind of an ironic reflection since it also happens literally in this book, in the sense of institutionalize that has the greatest colloquial use. |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
| |
|
|