Fasteriskhead

[QUOTE=Papa Smurf]I just think you're a self-righteous and misguided twerp who doesn't know how to write effectively. [etc.][/QUOTE]A twerp? Well, sure. Bad writer? I'm sure as hell no good at message board chat, at least. But I'm a twerp who answers objections with something other than personal insults, Jack Nicholson, and specious assertions disregarding any kind of consideration of how we come to know things. I'll reply as considerately as I can when you have something serious to say other than "I'm right and you're wrong because falling things make noise, period." (I'm curious about your "we create our own chain," but I don't quite understand what you mean) [quote name='Papa Smurf']When that empty thought process is revealed to be precisely that, then you see the "well, you're just ignorant" popping up.[/quote]Oh, it's popping up, but not where you seem to think. Physician, heal thyself. [quote=sakurasuka][SIZE=1][snip] Sorry Fasterisk, couldn't resist.[/SIZE][/quote]Hee hee! You get a hug for that. Who knew the Buddhists hated mimes so much?

Okay, a bit premature in thinking I'd killed the thread. I won't spend much time in reply to how I'm "asinine," "annoying," "wasting everyone's time," "irrelevant," "philosophical," "long-winded," "posturing," "meaning nothing," "time wasting," "'noble,'" "complicated," and "useless." You're welcome to believe whatever you like, but I'm not trying to impress anyone. Don't get me wrong, I like it when someone appreciates something I've said, but more important to me than that crap is trying to [i]pay attention[/i] to things like these "two sentences" which so obviously seem to be a "simple question" that can be dispensed with in a single sound effect. On to the meat of your post, though, you seem to have misunderstood most of my point eariler - or, you think you can sidestep it. [QUOTE=Papa Smurf]The word "sound" implicates an attached meaning; we call something a sound when our brains organize and interpret the data and structure an information schema around it. "Noise" is the opposite; it's sound before meaning is attached, before our brains have a chance to process it and tell us what exactly it is. So to answer the question, no. The tree doesn't make a sound, per se. It makes noise.[/QUOTE]Ignore for the moment the question of whether it's so easy to talk about noise without any "meanings" attached to it (also: while I understand what you're trying to do, personally I wouldn't use the word "noise" the way you're doing, just because in everyday speech no one will ever say "I heard a noise" and mean "I just had a series of air waves with alternating pressure levels stimulate nerves in my ear"). For most of my second post, sound having "meaning" wasn't the issue. To make that point a second time: do we have any right to talk about the "noise" that this tree makes when [i]by definition[/i] we have no direct evidence about it at all? We can talk about how all the other trees in every other trial run have made such-and-such a noise, and not [I]necessarily[/I] have a smoking gun fact-wise for whether this tree, when it falls over, will do the same. Induction goes a hell of a long way, but it's not a guarantee. Whether we talk about sound or noise or air waves of varying pressure levels, there's [i]still[/i] no getting around the fact that we aren't there to know what the hell's going on.

[SIZE=1]Okay, let's think about this some. This tree, when it falls, is going to make the same sound every other falling tree makes. How do I know what sound falling trees make? Because I've heard them before on a number of occasions. But wait a minute. The question says: "Nothing is around to hear it." Meaning: I'm not around to hear it either. How do I know what the tree's going to sound like? I don't, not directly; I'm making an induction based on other experiences I've had. But I wonder: is it possible that this tree in particular may make a totally different kind of sound than normal? Or even no sound at all? Well, it's at least possible... but I won't know because, by the premise of the question itself, I'm not around to hear it. I state what I know: "A tree falls in the woods and may or may not make a sound." I might add to the end: "...a sound which may or may not agree with my understanding of what a falling tree sounds like." But this might be saying too much, because if I'm not hearing the sound I might not even be aware of the tree falling at all. So: "Assuming it falls, a tree in the woods may or may not make a sound." But even here I might be pushing it. So finally I have to take the content of the question to the extreme, to the point of absurdity: what if I'm not only not aware of the tree falling or its making a sound, but because I'm not really around at all, neither can I rightfully say anything about the tree or the woods? I seem to be making a lot of assumptions just to be able to say that this hypothetical tree will sound how I think it will. So to try that statement one last time: "There may or may not be a tree that may or may not be in a forest which might fall and, if it does, may or may not make a sound which may or may not agree with my understanding of what a falling tree sounds like." This is, obviously, almost completely useless. The original question was, "A tree falls in a forest, and nothing is around to hear it. Does it make a sound?" If I'm going to be totally honest and strict with myself, then the correct answer is not to answer at all. I can talk a lot about trees, woods, and falling sounds in [i]general[/i], apply these concepts to various situations, and even find general rules that apply to all known cases. But about [i]this[/i] tree I can properly say nothing. [quote name='AJeh][size=1']If I told you all to shut up and quit asking stupid questions but you all ignored me, it doesnt mean I never said it.[/size][/quote]Correct. But it does mean, at the very least, that none of us can speak in a responsible way about what you said. We're not talking about certain poorly-understood interpretations of quantum mechanics here, we're asking: does the [i]being[/i] of a sound (which is different from the objective existence of physical waves) in some way require another creature which listens? If so, what about the [i]being[/i] of trees or forests (which, again, has nothing to do with sets of molecules configured in certain large-scale arrangements)? And if there is such a strange connection between the sound and the one who listens, then how does that listener stand towards the original question? Properly they can't say anything about the sound, obviously, but somehow the moment the phrase "tree falls in the forest" is mentioned they [i]already[/i] hear that "kreeeeeeeePOW" in their head, even though that sound can't justifiably be applied to the tree in the question. Curious, that. ...See, this is why I didn't want to get started on this. EDIT: 11 posts and dead. [I]Damn[/I] I am good. EDIT 2: Dancing in the endzone premature, did not notice ref throw a flag.[/SIZE]

I'm not getting into this one too deep, we'd be here all night. See Red 6 for a good showing of the standard answer. Briefly: the question is asking whether "sound" - and in the long run not just sound, but also the tree, the falling, the woods, and the question "if a tree falls in the woods..." itself - in some way *requires* someone like a human being (someone that can "experience") in order to take place. I don't think it's a question about whether sound is "subjective" or "objective" (the trouble is that both of those finally end up assuming the other), and I think we end up screwing ourselves over when we ask it like that. We need to consider whether sound might be something other than the apprehension of an objective sensory experience by a subject (which is itself a certain special kind of object). The classic Buddhist answer would probably be something like: "Where is the tree, where are the woods, where is the sound?" Of course, we in the know understand that this kind of answer is a lot of spiritual bull that is at best only [i]useful[/i] for making you feel good about yourself, and at worst amounts to solipsism and nihilism. Actually, why are we even considering questions like this at all? What [i]use[/i] do they have? It's confusing and depressing, and we might as well not worry about these kinds of things if they're not going to serve any [i]useful[/i] purpose, right? So who's excited about the PS3?

Accuracy on wikipedia comes and goes; I've found that on very general kinds of topics that a lot of people will be reading (e.g. the entry on Canada) usually you can trust most of it, but you should be increasingly wary as you look at more and more specific pages. I'd say wikipedia more has issues with pages' [i]layouts[/i] than their accuracy. The editing system tends to encourage small corrections, wording revisions, and minor overhauls - building [i]on[/i] to something already there rather than starting from scratch. This usually means 1) that the first person who writes on a subject has an inordinately large influence on the thrust and even the content of a page, and 2) if a page is poorly designed from the get-go it tends to stay that way for a long time. Layout on most wikipedia pages thus tends to be overwhelmingly mediocre. They're rarely wrong or illogical outright, but it's very unusual for me to read one that doesn't come across like a Frankenstein's monster... and one pieced together not by Victor, but by his more obscure "special" younger brother Chuck. And no, please don't cite Wikipedia for anything, the quote you use will be gone a week later. Use it to get yourself in the ballpark and don't take it any more seriously than that.

Reading material. First: [URL=http://www.myotaku.com/users/adam/posts/846273]http://www.myotaku.com/users/adam/posts/846273[/URL] Then: [URL=http://www.myotaku.com/users/adam/posts/847280]http://www.myotaku.com/users/adam/posts/847280[/URL] And finally: [URL=http://www.theotaku.com/news/view/our_final_group_of_articles/1671/]http://www.theotaku.com/news/view/our_final_group_of_articles/1671/[/URL] And that's pretty much the whole story, as far as I know. But y'know, who cares? Everyone prefers fanart, podcasts, quizzes, fanart, blogs, books on business concepts, and also fanart anyways. Maybe the articles section wouldn't have failed so badly if it had included [i]pictures[/i] on the side, or (even better) [I]animated gifs[/I] and [I]high-speed flash animations[/I], as I myself petitioned for many times. All those [I]words[/I] are just too boring, you know?

[SIZE=1]The fact that we can ask about soda in a certain way, in regards to which one is our "favorite," indicates that we've already taken up a certain understanding of what soda [i]is[/i] without necessarily noticing the nature of that understanding itself in a clear sense. In Latin the word [i]suda[/i] means "to sweat." This is actually the Romans' translation of a very different Greek word, [i]idio[/i], which speaks with a completely different sense that the mere swapping of one term for another skips over altogether. The most important aspect of that sense concerns the [i]self[/i]. The Greeks could not have been unaware of a certain relationship that this word [i]idio[/i], sweating, holds with another, nearly identical in sound: [i]idios[/i]. [i]Idios[/i] speaks of things regarding "myself" - something that is my own, which lies within my sphere, which concerns me. Sweating, in a strange sense (an accident of language? something else?), is never far away from what is most myself, most my own. If we are to begin to address the question which soda places before us, then we must first consider the possib- [[i]a gang of angry men with bats gag f*head and drag him out through the back door; muffled banging, crunching, yelping kinds of sounds[/i]][/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]As if "culture" only means anything kept in a box, well away from any gaijin interlopers. As if anyone had any kind of specific idea what the hell "culture" was supposed to be, aside from something vaguely valuable and requiring protection and upkeep. As if anyone's ever bothered taking the time to think, [i]really[/i] think, about what "culture" means, where that term is coming from, what kinds of assumptions it makes, and what our using it so constantly says about our current understanding of the world. Are we completely sure about what we're talking about here? I can't respond to this much, but I'll go ahead and say: criticism of "asiaphiles" misses the point. True, they grasp everything about Japan (or whatever) only in an extremely superficial way. True, they completely misunderstand almost everything. The most inane way to investigate something, ignorance par excellence, is to just [i]imitate[/i] it (trying to replicate all the right moves and gestures) and throw oneself in without ever asking the question: "Is [i]Japan[/i] really what I'm throwing myself into? If so, am I doing so with honesty and care? Or am I throwing myself into some mocked-up [i]caricature[/i] of Japan that happens to fulfill some need for me?" But pointing out how absurd this is, telling the people who do it to get a life, accusing them of "fortune cookie-ing my heritage" - none of this considers the problem in any further depth at all, it just takes it as a bunch of adult children living in their own fantasy world making a mockery of someone's "culture" without anything else to it. And neither agreeing with the article for "telling it like it is" (or whatever) nor dismissing it as hateful xenophobic whining really think about what's going on either. Like I said, I can't really get into this at length (sorry to be kind of a tease, but I've slept about five hours in the past two days and I need to go lay down). Some basic questions to ask: 1) [i]Why[/i] do "asiaphiles" feel the need to go drown themselves in the other culture without making the effort to consider what they're doing more deeply? What draws them to it, culture itself or something else? 2) Assuming we can even understand what "culture" is in a clear way, how is it possible for the asiaphiles to "rape, pillage and reappropriate" culture? And what does "rape" mean in this sense? 3) What relation do [i]we[/i] have to culture such that it becomes our concern when it's raped, pillaged, and reappropriated? 4) Doesn't the fact that that the defenders of asian culture object to the foreign interlopers on the basis of the "reappropriation" of that culture [i]presuppose[/i] that, though the foreigners understand the culture incorrectly, by doing so they must have [i]already identified and understood the culture in a more basic sense[/i]? If the gaijin were obsessing over something [i]completely[/i] different from the culture in question, there would be no "rape" of that culture and hence no need for internet rants. If so, what separates the understanding of the defenders from the aliens? 5) What does it mean that both the defenders and the gaijin first understand "the ninja, the anime, the manga, the geisha, the karate, the tae kwon do, the teas, the ceremonies, the lion dance, the yakuza, the curry and the chopsticks" in a cultural sense (that is, as various "aspects" of Asian culture), but without really being able to identify Asian culture [I]itself[/I] as anything more than the [i]sum[/i] of all these items, activities, ideas, etc.? 6) What does it mean if such a sum, and nothing else, is understood to be what "culture" really is? And does all the superficial white fanboyism, as well as all the cries of cultural rape against this fanboyism, always contain such an understanding of culture from the start?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]Ah, the argument that will never end. Short answer: Subs. Long answer: Ideally I should just get my Japanese up to battle readiness and watch anime without having to detour over into English to understand it, but until then subs seem like the next best thing. I just use them as a crutch, mostly. I can get the "gist" of what's being said by ear, but most of the time I need to match that up with the subs to get a more thorough understanding. Plus I read fast. I can think of two good non-aesthetic arguments I can offer for subs. First: if I'm [i]very[/i] doubtful of the English translation of a sentence or even a single key word - or if I just need to understand what's being said there in a clearer way (most recent example: the end of Revi's submarine speech in Black Lagoon 5) - I can go [i]back[/i] to the original Japanese and try to work it out for myself. For a dub this would require switching audio tracks entirely, and anyways I've found that I'm far less inclined to pay attention to these translation questions when I'm watching things [i]eigo de[/i]. Obviously this doesn't happen that often, and obviously for most people this wouldn't be a concern, but for me it's sometimes very important. Second: There are some things which simply [i]cannot be brought across in the audio change[/i]. While I love the hell out of the english VA they got for Osaka (in Azumanga), for instance, and I find that gentle Texas drawl cute as all get out, it just isn't equivalent to Kansai dialect. It doesn't [i]sound[/i] in the same way, and the Texas accent just doesn't have the same implications (we don't have anything equivalent to tsukkomi comedy over here etc.). A better, although more obscure example: a recent episode of Magical Pokaan involves the characters getting into a drinking game where they have to speak in English the whole time and chug whenever they lapse back into Japanese. Now, I doubt that Pokaan is ever going to be released domestically, but if it is... well, there is simply [i]no way in hell[/i] to dub this episode. It's an dub director's worst nightmare. Even switching the English over to some other language wouldn't make it work, because no "second language" here (not even Spanish) has the same sense that [i]eigo[/i] has in Japan. This is the most extreme example that I know of, but it's something that dubs as a whole always run up against. It reminds me of one of my favorite quotes about translation: [quote][SIZE=1][I]If translation were just pinning the tail on the donkey it would be easy, but the donkey is running and the translator is riding another beast, going in some other direction: each language and each and every word has its own momentary vector. So, for instance, even when the original wants to dictate the right word- e.g. Programm-- directly into English, with only a slight shift of spelling, it turns out that the English equivalent now instinctually summons up computers-- not the self-understood political sense of the original-- with bareably containable textual implications. Since the right word was always waiting, and had to be left waiting, this translation is made of whatever else was handy: a carrot for the nose, lightbulbs for eyes, some feathers for the mustache. Propped on a bench in the distance with its back to the sunset, perhaps it even looks alive. But it is not to be leaned against and neither will it bare much scrutiny.[/I][/SIZE][/quote]Anyways, moving on. As for personal taste, at this point I've just watched so much anime in Japanese that viewing it in English becomes... unnerving. Like I'm seeing it through cellophane or something. Anime in Japanese has a certain constant kind of "rhythm" to it that I'm not sure I can describe adequately; there's a "consistency" between how the phrases fall and the gestures, the movements, and in general the ebb and flow of the points of emphasis in a scene. This is all changed in a [i]very[/i] sharp way by the jump to another language, and for me it's quite jarring. I go in expecting Monet and get Picasso. Now, dubs have improved immeasurably over the past ten years or so, which has also gone hand in hand with what I think is a [i]decline[/i] in Japanese VA quality. So we're beginning to see English tracks that are better than the Japanese ones - Howl's Moving Castle being, I think, the best recent case in point. But damn it, it's not all about acting quality. I'm stubborn and crotchety and for me the audio and visuals just [i]gel[/i] better when the audio's in Japanese. Now, I don't think any of the above will remotely matter for someone who's only starting up with anime, or who just watches anime casually, or who isn't bothered by the jump over into English. But for me it's occasionally a make or break kind of thing.[/SIZE]

[quote name='Lunox][color=dimgray'] I followed you up to the last four paragraphs, but then I started to lose you and stray off from the path. Are you making three separate points in your last three paragraphs or are you using them to get across a bigger point? And if you're certain about everything you've said, a concise thesis or something would be nice. So far I don't know how to reply. [/color][/quote][SIZE=1]Yeah, the argument is really written backwards - it might even make more sense if you read it bottom up. As for a thesis... I'm very bad at those. The closest you'll get is that second sentence in the last paragraph. Buuut, mainly just to see if I can do it, I'm going to try to sum up what I'm saying. (And I should note that I'm using my terms very specifically here, so no fair objecting that I'm not using the word "belief" in the right way) 1. Certainty is the essence of religion. 1a. "Certainty" means something given which first makes possible an understanding of the world as such. 1b. As given, certainty cannot be "chosen" because it itself is what first creates a basis for choice. 2. Something taken as certain can, in an abstract way, be [i]admitted[/i] as up to speculation, but cannot [I]actually[/I] be doubted because it itself provides the basis for doubting. 2a. Certainty cannot be doubted - it can only be violently forced out in such a way that the world is thrown into a kind of chaos, an abyss. 3. Believing - that is, making a justified estimate about a state of affairs in the world - has nothing to do with certainty, although beliefs are originally grounded in certainty. 3a. Religions are thus not belief systems in this sense, per 1. 3b. Ditto for value systems. 4. Interpretations of religions as systems of beliefs (or of values) miss the more fundamental meaning of religion as certainty. 4a. These interpretations, by examining a constantly shifting set of beliefs/values, are also incapable of discussing in an explicit way the certainty upon which their own understanding of such beliefs, or any other, is based. 4aa. Religion itself thus becomes obscured, and certainty is understood only in terms of more beliefs among others. 4ab. Increasingly improved sets of beliefs and values are sought, the idea being to create the most "ideal" religion (read: system of beliefs/values). Religion is now understood mainly as a useful vehicle for personal and cultural goals. 5. Is there a [I]danger[/I] in the fact that religion, i.e. certainty, is not recognized or understood in an explicit way? I don't think I had anything from 4a down in my first posts, but there they are.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=1][quote name='indifference][COLOR=DeepSkyBlue']Taking your argument about believing aside, unlike the question of your name or your home, which are provable, by either a document showing your given name or by actually touching the said house. Religion though taken as a certainty is still something that is believed in by faith. The person has faith that God or Jesus exists. They have faith that Heaven and Hell are real. And though they may be certain, it is still in the realm of faith in the sense that they can?t physically prove it like you can prove that your house exists or that you were given the name you use by your parents.[/COLOR][/quote]Okay, let's talk about proof. Let's say I have a compulsion disorder. Whenever I leave the house, the thought pops into my head that a fire might start and burn down my home. So, I drive back and check to check around - sure enough, the home is still intact, nothing wrong with the electrical outlets, the stove is off. So I leave again, and no sooner am I a few blocks away but: "did I look at ALL the burners on the stove? or did I skip that one in the back?" So I go home and check again, and the stove's still off. Ten minutes later: "what if one of the gas lines broke?" And so on. This is obviously an extreme example, but my point is that in such a situation there is [i]nothing[/i] that will convince me that my house isn't going to catch fire and burn down while I'm away. Am I, the compulsive, being unreasonable? Well, no. My behavior is incredibly [I]disabling[/I], obviously, but in spite of that it's still [i]possible[/i] that my house really will catch on fire. So the question one might ask is, why isn't everyone else worried about the same thing? Why isn't everyone [i]constantly[/i] worrying about fires, or germs, or poison, or whatever? I assume that my house exists. I can prove it in this or that way, by taking a picture of it or looking at the bill for the home sale or by touching it. I [i]cannot[/i] prove that it exists ABSOLUTELY: the picture could be doctored, the bill a forgery, and the house I touch an elaborate fake (one thinks of the man who had all the things in his home replaced with exact duplicates). At some point, maybe, I'm convinced by the overwhelming evidence and I go ahead and conclude that my house really exists. Have I received an absolute proof, though? No; being convinced is not the same thing. One has to conclude, then, that folks who are certain that their houses exist, that those houses aren't going to burn down, that they're not going to catch ebola, and that their significant others aren't cheating, are ultimately basing that certainty on something other than proof. Am I saying this to declare, alongside countless morons who think they know everything after watching the Matrix, that "nothing's real," "everything's subjective," "there's no such thing as right and wrong," etc.? No. But all explanations have to come to an end somewhere, and yet we still find ourselves absolutely certain of our names, our hands, and our houses. We can't [i]not[/i] be certain of that stuff, even when we [i]say[/i] that our hands really might disappear etc.. And that should give us pause. As for the cult thing, while there have been plenty of hucksters out there who started their own movements to hoodwink dupes for sex and money, your interpretation isn't exactly what I meant in that section. I can't completely clarify myself here, but I'd say this: I think understanding religion as "belief" (and that means as something cultural, subjective, etc.) puts us in the very real danger of thinking we've figured out the religion thing, don't need to worry about it, and can pick and choose the "values" we like versus the ones we don't... when in truth, religion in a more [I]fundamental[/I] sense has swallowed us whole. [quote name='sakurasuka][size=1']Well. I believe there is a God. I have not seen Him with my own eyes, so there is no way I can say I KNOW there is a God. Well, I could, but it would be a lie.[/quote]If you're a little confused, go back and reread the part of my first post where I talk about the belief/certainty distinction. This is a bit difficult to say in a simple way: someone who is really and truly Christian can admit the possibility on an ABSTRACT level that there may be no being called God that exists (in the same way that I can admit that I might be a brain in a jar), and yet they will still remain absolutely certain of the truth of God, grace, Jesus as the messiah, etc.. They can't not be certain and still make sense of the world in the same way. But this kind of "belief" is completely different from the kind you get with "I believe the problem with your car is the transmission." This is not an estimation of truth, it's not a calculation based on available evidence, it's not even a statement of values. What it is, I think, is best named with the word "certainty." They [i]know[/i], down to their bones, and most everyone else seems to constantly misunderstand what that kind of knowing is. [QUOTE=sakurasuka][size=1]Noone 'knows' or else there would only be one religion. So we say we [i]believe[/i] such-and-such.[/QUOTE]Which is, I think, a degradation and misunderstanding of what's going on. Of course the Christians or anyone else could well be wrong. The sun could well go nova without Jesus coming back; that's obvious and I'm not really interested in it. But that fact, and even their [i]admitting[/i] that fact in an abstract way, has nothing to do with a certainty which, as I said, goes well beyond just being sure about something. And I think that's what needs paying attention to.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]The fact that we're able to talk about religion in this kind of way (and make a [i]poll[/i] about it, as if we were asking whether someone preferred Prada or Christian Dior) indicates that we already hold to a very specific interpretation of what religion is. Generally we think of religions as "systems of faith," as "personal beliefs," or as "cultural institutions." What else could religion be, after all? I think this kind of interpretation completely misses the mark. From the start it assumes that this is a question of individual understanding, cultural influence, and the justification of knowledge, all of which I find very questionable. We, who are so clever and know so much more about things than everyone who has lived before us, talk about being skeptical of "belief systems" or choosing the "faith that's right for us" and think we're really saying something about religion, and this strikes me as extremely misleading. I would argue that religion (at least in any sense of the word I find meaningful) has nothing to do with "beliefs." Let's do a thought experiment about believing, to see if I can clarify this. Suppose someone were to say to me one day: "You behave as if your name was 'Scott' [[i]insert your own name here if you want to play along[/i]]. But what if that's not true? What if your name is really something else entirely, and you don't know it?" EVERYONE here, I would think, has had a thought like this - the old favorite is the one where you're really a brain in a jar somewhere. Anyways, if I'm a very clever person I will reply: "Yes, that's possible." But beyond that - what? From then on, will I introduce myself by saying, "My name's Scott... at least, I'm [i]pretty sure[/i] it is, and all available evidence points in that direction"? This is correct for some purposes, but in most situations it's nonsensical. If I were ever to say in a public place that "I [i]believe[/i] I'm named Scott," people would think I was insane (unless I told them I was just being "philosophical," in which case they'd understand). I do have a point here, hang on. "I [i]believe[/i] my house exists," "I [i]believe[/i] I'm not a brain in a jar," "I [i]believe[/i] my hands don't disappear when I stop looking at them" - who the hell talks like this? These kinds of statements only exist in "philosophical" contexts, as that's the only place they make sense. And in any case, I wouldn't even be able to take myself seriously when I just "assume" my name is Scott - just try, for a moment, behaving as if you aren't sure whether the monitor you're reading this on exists or not. When I say "I believe I'm named Scott" I'm not really speaking accurately, or at least not in accord with the usual meaning of "believe." For example: to say "I believe the problem with your car is the transmission" means I have a strong suspicion, that I'd place my bets there, but that I know I could be mistaken and that the problem could be somewhere else. In contrast, I [i]know[/i] my name is Scott. I'm completely certain. There's no way I could just be mistaken about it, as if I'd forgotten to carry a decimal somewhere and got the wrong answer name-wise. My name being Scott is so fundamental to what I am, so completely obvious, that were someone to tell me otherwise and were I to take it to heart, I really [i]wouldn't be the same person[/i] afterwards. Nothing else in my life, which is [i]built[/i] on the certainty that I'm Scott and not someone else, would remain stable; it would all sink away into a doubting well beyond mere skepticism. When a really devout Christian says, "I believe Christ has redeemed me of my sins," she doesn't mean that she's made an evaluation of the available evidence and that this is her best guess. What she means is: "I [i]know[/i] that Christ has redeemed my sins - If I'm wrong about that, then I'm wrong about everything." Now what about this, exactly, is cultural, epistemological (look it up), or about personal expression or personal fulfillment? Where's the part where we "decide for ourselves"? Religion is not about believing, it's about [i]certainty[/i]. Certainty doesn't just mean being sure of something (the only time we'll ever say a sentence like "I'm sure my house exists" is when some wiseass asks us about it), it means that something is so obvious that it's simply a given in any other understanding we might have, that we never notice it. Having to say "I know x" or "I'm absolutely certain of x" is already to step away from the basic function of x being certain, which is to make any other kind of experience [i]possible[/i] at all. And this also means: if I say something like "I have x set of beliefs" (especially ones that I "choose to believe in") and assume I've done away with the religion question, probably I haven't even glanced at the [i]more fundamental[/i] kind of certainty that grounds the act of mere believing. Okay, time for an admission: I don't think there's any way to separate certainty from the religious, by an appeal to religion being "supernatural" or anything else (speaking about natural and supernatural implies that we've already understood the world in those terms). If we take the word in this way, then, we can never answer the question "Why do you believe in your religion?" because religion, which is essentially certainty, is the [i]basis[/i] for being able to believe anything else or interpret the world in a particular manner [i]at all[/i]. The Latin word [i]religare[/i] means to bind, to secure in place. [i]We[/i] are not the ones doing the binding; we do not choose our religion, and actually it's closer to say that our religion chooses us. We sophisticates think we've gotten rid of the gods, or at least made them into something we can "choose" to believe in or not, when truthfully they might be ruling over us now more than ever.[/SIZE]

You've probably already seen [url=http://www.studentemployment.umich.edu/JobX_FindAJob.aspx][u]this[/u][/url], but I link it just in case. Have a look around. General rule 1: there's almost no way of telling how much downtime you're going to have on a job until you visit and have a look-see around the place. I've found that Admin/Office Assistant positions are generally quiet, but it's ultimately going to depend on who hires you. General rule 2: before you settle on one job or another, try to go on as many interviews as time allows (or, failing formal interviews, just chat with someone who works there). You're trying to play the field here - don't just start off with your ideal job in mind and work backwards, drop a word or two in places that you wouldn't normally consider. Get a wide sense of the different people and environments. General rule 3: ask the folks working at the Student Employment Office for help. Tell them what you're looking for, what you think you'll be able to do, and see if they have any good matches lying around. If for no other reason, it's very possible that the internet database (see link above) is out of date or incomplete, so it pays to speak with a human being sometimes. But in the end, frankly, just go talk them because they're going to know much more about this stuff than a bunch of foreign cartoon fans hanging out on the internet.

Folks I just stubbed my toe walking past the coffee table a minute ago! It really hurts and I thought it was important enough to start a thread about it!!!! And I'm putting it in the forum at the very top of the boards because it is JUST THAT CRUCIAL that you all know this. So do you think toe stubbing is good or bad??? LET'S ALL SOUND OFF WITH OUR OPINIONS!! (I THINK IT IS AWFUL) Also since you're all my personal encyclopedia I want to ask everyone who the guy was that shot Archduke Ferdinand. Thanx!!!!!!

I was hoping the title of this thread would conclude with "The Sex, Girls." (NOTE: joke explained [URL=http://www.myspace.com/gleamingspires][u]here[/u][/url])

[quote name='Doublehex']On another note, would I be interested in Escaflowne? I heard some good things about it, but from what I understand, it is somewhat of a girl-oriented series, so I want your guys opinions on it.[/quote]The series is quite good, although it hasn't aged all that well appearance-wise. It's actually just about an even split between the shounen robot fightin' and the shoujo wistful glances, crushes, and various pretty boys. The real attraction is Yoko Kanno at her peak: she'd just done Macross Plus a year or two before, a year or so after Escaflowne she'd go on to do Bebop, and the score's still one of the high points of TV anime. Just be prepared for the show's ending, which is a bit... odd. (HINT: the Escaflowne director also did Noein, and the Escaflowne conclusion makes the connection very clear) The movie's mediocre, though. Skip it.

[quote name='Retribution][size=1]The only thing I'd like to add is that these terrorists are [i]resourceful as hell.[/i'] True, their intent was malicious, but seriously... who thought of using perfume and food containers to blow the plane up that way?[/size][/quote]Actually, Ramzi Yousef did (with a little help from his uncle, Khalid Mohammed), about 12 years ago. I've seen a very few newspapers comment on this, but for the most part the media seems to have completely forgotten these guys and, predictably, has ended up treating the liquid explosive idea as if it was totally new. It's not - this is basically the same plan that Yousef and co. were planning in 1995, before dumb luck (the explosives they were mixing in their apartment caught fire) probably saved the lives of a few thousand people. Read [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oplan_Bojinka#Airline_bombing_plot][u]this[/u][/url] and also [url=http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/crime/terrorists/ramzi-yousef/][U]this[/U][/url]. There's simply no possibility that the guys from thursday weren't at least [i]inspired[/i] by Yousef's plans; more than likely, they were trying to complete them more than a decade later.

Okay, I'll bite. I'll constrin this to recent shows to keep the list short. I should warn you, though, that whenever I'm watching a series with no redeeming factors, it's almost always for the girls. I'm a moeholic and I need help. [b]Mai Otome[/b] - Absolute trash, but much better at it than Mai Hime was. Both series have in common the rather unfortunate very serious death march towards the end (which happens to many of these series, in fact - guys, is there something WRONG with having your shameless fan service series about superpowered girls in silly outfits end in a fun way?), but Otome understands itself much better. Before the end, only rarely does it split itself into "funny" and "serious" segments as Hime does, as if the writing staff were in constant battle. Otome knows what it is, and delivers the prurient moments in large doses. It has the pool episode to end all pool episodes; one of the DVD extras involves Nao getting Arika and the other freshmen together for a girls-only sleepover, then selling the resulting pictures to an adult magazine. It's wonderful and it makes me feel guilty as all hell. [b]Black Cat[/b] - Cynical Trigun ripoff with one redeeming factor, a blonde nanomechanical robot girl named Eve who likes to read a lot (comparisons to Haruhi's Yuki are warranted here). Eve got me through the rest of the series, folks. But then there's the ending, and, well... let me put it this way. The show should stop at episode 19 or so. It does [i]not[/i], and this is a terrible, terrible mistake. [b]Bakuretsu Tenshi[/b] (Burst Angels) - Again, the girls are the only things that make me bother with this - otherwise the animation is inconsistent and the plot is forgettable at the moments when it makes sense. All the design efforts went into the girls, as far as I can tell - and this was by no means a poor choice. Stupid, trashy fun to be had for all lonely young males. And I'll stop there before I make myself look even worse.

[quote name='Dagger][B]Black Lagoon:[/B']Talk to Fasteriskhead if you're interested in its philosophical implications...[/quote]Good god, I guess I've actually gone and become "philosophy guy" here. Which in practical terms means that whenever I make a post longer than four paragraphs it acts as a kiss of death for whatever thread it's in. :animeswea (T Dagger also what's this I hear about you living near Bethesda? Man, that's only about an hour north of me! We should get together and geek out over Mushishi sometime) Okay, onto the recs. Well, first thing I notice: most of the stuff on your list is straight action stuff. Fine if you like that kind of thing, but if you're really interested in exploring anime it wouldn't hurt to branch out. I'm not going to push this too much, but try some shoujo or something; His and Her Circumstances is very good entry-level stuff, you should already be ready for it (having watched NGE, and having apparently survived), and it's a fantastic series if you ignore the rather sudden ending. Heck, you might even learn that you [i]like[/i] girly stuff. Back in the action scene, Cowboy Bebop is [i]de rigeur[/i] but I don't see it on your list. It's practically made for american audiences, and is all kinds of crazy fun. And if you like it, check out Samurai Champloo (its "sequel" of sorts). I'll second the recs for Trigun and Eureka Seven. Trigun is basically anime junk food, very fun and you can take down the whole series in a week and not even feel it. And E7, well, E7 is the best thing to happen to mecha anime for about three or four years (and, for my money, it beats the pants off of RahXephon). Other than that, I'd suggest getting some comedy in there somewhere (good characterization be damned). Sunabouzo (I think they're releasing it over here as "Desert Punk" or something) is a wonderfully obnoxious action-comedy kind of thing, which doesn't strike me as being too hard to get into. Now, frankly if you're looking for a REASON for everything in a scene being there (I'm amazed at how common this is; have anime fans been reading Leibniz?) then you're going to hate it, because the show is excessive as hell. But it's also very funny if you let it be, though.

It's possible. Anno's been getting back into anime as of late after some time off (see the fantastic Re: Cutie Honey), and Gainax has shown a willingness to return to their bygone series (see Aim for the Top 2). Moreover, there's the zillions of Eva games that have been coming out over the past decade, so we know Gainax isn't afraid to whore out their old successes. That being said, though, the evidence for most of the ANS post is pretty thin. Now, Anno's definitely got a new project going on - I don't doubt this. However, the only cited connection between this project and NGE is the "color" addition to the Eva page... and this could mean practically anything. If Khara is really a spinoff studio, then adding it to the Eva page could just be a way of acknowledging the creator's new home, or it could be something else entirely. Speculating about "4 movies" and an "entirely new ending" is silly at this point if there's nothing else to back it up. And I would add: personally, I don't think Anno would even be up for a major new Eva project, at least not with himself at the helm. NGE doesn't really seem to be where he [i]is[/i] at the moment. (I'm certainly willing to be proved wrong on all this, mind)

God, did they really go and rename 2x2 Shinobuden [i]Ninja Nonsense[/i] of all things? I mean, I can forgive them for ruining the untranslatable pun in the original title, but... [i]Ninja Nonsense??[/i] People, is this really the best that american anime publishing can do? Well then, in the same spirit I suggest that when Haruhi is released over here it should be similarly renamed as "Goofy God." (oh, and the show itself is great - basically they take Wakamoto, stick his voice into a flying ero-ero pacman, and let him take over the series. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED)

Well, if all we're doing is making a list here, then I would add: fear of slipping (on wet or icy surfaces), fear of the death of friends and loved ones, fear of failure. But at the risk of grinding the thread to a halt (as usual), I would ask whether it might be more useful to try to understanding [i]what fear is[/i] - that is, by making a descriptive interpretation of how it takes hold of us - rather than just having everyone sound off about their own set of anxieties. True, in this way you could get a kind of statistical set of which fears are most [i]common[/i], but that doesn't necessarily say anything about what fear [i]is[/i]. So let's see if we can think about fear for a minute. Let's take a very basic, very common kind of fear - I'm arbitrarily picking stage fright - and see if we can understand what happens to us when we fall into that fear. Hypothetically, let's say that I'm to go out onstage and perform a short monologue in front of a small group (say, 20 people), and I'm scared out of my wits. What am I afraid of? The people? No: even if I don't know any of them, I have no reason to believe they're malicious. The stage? No: the stage is just a raised platform in front of the audience, it's not like it's going to endanger me somehow (unless I fall off). When I have stage fright, I'm not afraid of any [i]particular[/i] thing. So the only thing that can make sense as far as my being fearful must somehow be the situation itself. I am afraid of something about my going out on stage and performing. The obvious answer to all this is to say: "F*head, look, quit going around in circles. [i]Everyone[/i] knows that stage fright is the fear of public failure and embarrassment." But as "sensible" as this sounds, I have my doubts about it. In my stage fright, I'm perfectly capable of imagining myself failing somehow onstage. I can imagine the results of, say, flubbing my lines badly, or somehow going out "unzipped." Now, with something like this I would obviously be [i]embarrassed[/i], but I know that the audience would probably be understanding and that, hey, life goes on. I can understand perfectly well that even the worst case scenario won't really be that bad, and that I'll survive. And yet, in spite of the fact that I know this very well, [i]I'm still terrified of going onstage[/i]. Stage fright is [i]not[/i] the fear of any particular bad result that might happen. Or, to illustrate this further: we can [i]know[/i] that shots never hurt all that much, but still be afraid of needles; we can [i]know[/i] that shark attacks are incredibly rare and are usually survived, yet still be afraid of swimming in the ocean. Fear in general is never the fear of a bad result. We'll have to try another approach if we're to get a grasp on this. How do I feel, standing backstage and about to go on? I feel as if my stomach is collapsing into itself; I feel as if the room I'm standing in is shifting away from me in a subtle way that I can't put my finger on; I feel as if my body can no longer hold itself together; I feel as if I'm falling into an abyss. The closer I get to the stage, to the [i]moment[/i] of the performance, the more the anxious, terrible feeling of breaking apart and falling away increases. So we ask even more urgently than before: [i]what[/i] am I afraid of? No particular thing in the theater or beyond, no particular quality of the performance (whether the monologue itself is written well, etc.), no good or bad results that may happen. I can only be afraid of the performance [i]itself[/i], of what it essentially is. As I approach it, the moment of performance shows itself as a kind of abyss; something important will happen there, something will be decided, and what's terrifying isn't what may come about because of this event but the [i]moment of the decision itself[/i]. What I fear in stage fright is the moment where everything is decided, when all practicing and preparation finally gathers itself up and "fate" (if we want to use that word) takes place. The word for this is "crisis" - a crisis is a turning point, a place of impending change. It's a place of [i]possibilities[/i]. But it would be a fatal misunderstanding to hear "possibilities" and only think about a collection of stuff that might or might not happen. I can calculate a half dozen of those kinds of possibilities (results) coming about from a crisis, but possibilities [i]as a whole[/i] is something else entirely. I do not fear one possibility happening, or many; I fear the [i]flood[/i]. In a crisis, the possibilities pull me toward them in a strange way, a terrifying way. There is a sense of sinking, of drowning, of not being able to grab onto something solid and take a breath. Eventually I will be [i]flushed out[/i] somewhere, in one "result" or another, but knowing this has (again) nothing to do with removing the terror of sinking into a crisis in the first place. And this sinking always means: into the sea of possibilities. Stage fright is thus the fear of possibilities as a whole as they confront us in the crisis, i.e. the moment of performance. Obviously this is just a rough sketch, but I think it makes sense of stage fright much better than just saying "it's fear of screwing up." I don't know how well this applies to other kinds of fear, though; I think it works pretty well for, say, fear of shots or fear of flying, but I don't know if this is what's going on in, say, fear of another's death. I'll have to think on this some more.

[quote name='Sara][size=1][color=#b0000b][b]And my question is: [b]How much money should I return?[/b][/color'][/size][/quote]Short answer: giving back 1/6 of the $500 sounds fair, but there's a hell of a lot of room for interpretation here. Long answer: I'd hate to sound like the cynical old bastard here, but it's a [i]very[/i] good idea to get things like this in writing. The point not being to drag the "contract" to court one day, or even to fish it out a few months down the line to point at what was agreed to - rather, more just so that beforehand everyone knows [i]what is going on[/i] and can address discrepancies before they become problems and everyone gets pissed at each other because the two sides thought they were "agreeing" to different things. On the one hand, if they did give you $500 in advance "for the summer," this implies that the total amount was for however much work they called you in to do - hence whether it's two cancelled days or ten, you should get to keep the whole pot. On the other, if they say that they "paid $500 dollars for twelve days," that implies a certain amount for each night and that it's within their rights to renege on money for time you didn't actually work. If they're saying both things, obviously there's a difficulty here. And even better, on hand 2.5 they intended to contract you for 12 nights but only did 10; do you get any kind of "severance pay"? My advice: put off the money question for right now, and don't get pissed. In terms of strategy alone, probably the best thing you can do as an [i]immediate[/i] response is to go and talk to them in a civil manner. Apologize if they thought the note was "nasty" (because you really didn't mean it that way), if necessary explain in detail the reasons for the note (i.e. the situation on Thursday night), apologize for the minor errors in your housekeeping (which, again, obviously you didn't intend), and tell them (firmly but politely) that any problems they have with your work should go directly to YOU rather than through your mother. Add your own points to this list if needed, obviously. The intent here is not to suck up, but to clear the air; unless you or them are going to be leaving the area soon, keeping the relationship relatively open and honest is more important than the sixty bucks (or whatever) you may end up giving back. Given the vagueries of your original deal, god only knows how much (if any) you should be returning. However, discussing the amount with them directly would be more diplomatic than just unilaterally handing over however much and an equation showing how you got the amount (even if they did only request "whatever you think is fair").

[IMG]http://img486.imageshack.us/img486/3764/motivator2940725wb8.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5961/motivator2932521kg8.jpg[/IMG]