Experiment With Automated Drawing

To me, if photography is preserving a moment of external world, drawing is preserving some moments of the mind... 

I know, talking about "mind" is more of a matter of opinion and personal experience than a body hard fact and mind-body problem is still there to challenge our understanding about ourselves. I know, when we talk about ourselves, we mostly talk about the social constructs that have become so deeply our integral parts that we take them as part of ourselves. Let's take the concept of "self" for example: it makes the core of our identity and a lot of things are attached to it, that we have borrowed from the environment we have lived -the names, places, people, events/historical narratives, rituals, foods, clothing, languages, set of beliefs,...etc- and we identify ourselves with, and draw meaning for our works and lives from are usually "external" things. In other words, what we usually take as a self are borrowed things from our environment. I have not problem with borrowing things but they create problems for us. One of the biggest problems that they create for us is the fear of mistakes. The borrowed things that we care so much about them and usually defend them forcefully and invest our emotions with slow down the force of expression in us (we use the umbrella word, creativity for it). The borrowed things teach us order, logic and rationale attitudes and we learn them with gratitude as they give us the sense of security and acceptability. Evolutionary speaking, the group identity had a survival value but over time it has become so sophisticated that we can't separate the borrowed self from real self. 

Automatism was a movement in art and writing to defy the "control factor" by rationality and logic that have robbed the real inner-self and let the subconscious express itself by let the hand does a free drawing. The expected results are certainly a chaotic and "senseless drawing" as there won't be any particular pattern. Yes,  if we reduce the pattern to fractals then we may say there are pattern even in most chaotic or automated drawings. I thought the idea is worth of trying. Following is my automated drawings: 

Frankly, after initial letting the hand draw totally free, I couldn't resist to the force of getting back to order.  I gave them some shape with semi-automatic drawing (not kidding ;) .... May be, it is because just as controls require practice to become better over time, the same is true about unlearning to control. It may require practice to let the hand becomes free. 

Does Great Literature Make Us Better?

This morning, I read an article by GREGORY CURRIE on Opinionator titled, “Does Great Literature Make Us Better?”. The answer of this question depends on the person who wants to answer it. It occurred to me as the writer is expecting that, “Great literary works are the results of high moral standards (Individuals with high moral standards produce great literary works) therefore the readers of great literary works should become more moral”. Irrespective of whether there are evidences in the favor of the question or not, I was not sure if the right question is asked mainly because literary works are the products of imaginations and exposures to literary works expand imaginations. Great literary works are not the products of high morality but the demands for higher imagination as a result of fierce competition in the pool of imaginations. When a writer writes something, it competes with other works out there. The more innovative and different is a work, the higher is the chance for its success to get attention of readers. It has nothing to do with morality. A work of high morality may not even get the attention of few hundred, not even to consider for competing as a great literary work. 

Now, how is an expanded imagination affect the morality depends on the basic moral teachings that we get as children. I favor the idea that skills beget skills. If the basic moral teachings are positive, the expanded imaginations increase the standards of morality, but if the basic moral teachings have some major contradictions, the expanded imaginations just enlarge those contradictions. For example, by reading/watching “Sherlock Holmes” series, a child who has a supportive environment for discoveries might get inspiration to sharpen his observations for discoveries and another child living in world of crimes might get inspiration for trying more innovative ways to do the job appreciated well in that environment. Do I have evidence to support my claims. No, not the kinds of evidences from academic research but just observing how the popular characters and stories from movies, history, and even fictions influence the behaviors remind me of co-evolution in the Nature. If the diversity of flowers remind us of the thousand faces of beauty, they also remind us of the competition that a beauty faces from the pool of competitive beauties. When an insect is attracted to a flower, it is the success of the flower in attracting that insect (It is possible that there were many other flowers in the area competing for that insect). I understand the temptation of thinking that literature actually increase the moral standards but I doubt it on the ground that followers of most read holy books with high moral lessons and great literary values have the strongest prejudices to others and discriminate on the grounds of the belief systems (let alone the crimes and wars that are waged on the basis of those high moralities). 

I again assert my opinion that the expanded imaginations nourish your basic moral standards and the reason for my assertion is my personal experience from my encounters with literary works. Ever since my childhood, I was keenly studying the lives of people around me. There were individuals around me that climbed fast the social ladder and some of the bad decisions made them not have a pleasant ending and there were people who had a humble beginning but steadily grow prosperous and keep growing. For me, the mistakes and qualities of those individuals were as commandments are to the believers. But I knew, the life is much bigger and asks for countless examples and the shortest and safest way was literature. Literature was providing me with more examples from the lives of others. I am repeating that literature served me as an expansion of my basic moral templates: to learn the lessons of life. For someone else with a different experience, the literature might work differently. Do I have an example for it? Yes. Recently, I watched Lisa Bu’s TED talk, “Lisa Bu: How books can open your mind” in which she tells her story of how books allowed her to expand her shattered dream: Since her childhood, she wanted to become a Chinese opera singer but her parents wanted her to an engineer. She seeks help from school but adults don’t listen to her and she doesn't become an opera singer. Naturally, when one doesn't get heard, one rebels. She blames, the Confucian teaching of obedience for shattering her dreams and the books allow her to express it. For example, in the book, “Jane Eyre” she finds her role model for an independent woman (in contrast to dependent woman in Confucian society), Bible tells her to honor her parents (in contrast to obey her parent in Confucian teaching), the comparative books inform her that the temptation is not just psychological as Buddha says (Lust, Fear and Social Duty) but there are also social temptation as Christ says (Economic, Political and Spiritual). My reading from her talk is that books helped her expand her rebellion to Confucian society for robbing her childhood dream. 

Opinions make sense only in the light of jokes

Well, if biology only makes sense in the light of evolution, then opinions make only sense in the light of jokes. The world of opinions are like worlds of cartoons. When a cartoon runs fast, he doesn’t realize that he has walked off the cliff and is walking in the air, until he looks down. He only falls down when he realizes that he is no more on the solid ground but in the air. One way to distinguish between opinions and facts are the 5 Ws and one H. The basic difference between Ws and H is,

The 5 Ws (What, Who, Where, When and Why) is the most effective basic information gathering tool for everyone. On other hand H (how) is a challenging question as it requires a level of authority to tell, how did something happen, how something can be done, and especially how should something be done, ... and so on. Usually, the individuals who concern themselves with “how-s” on large scale is considered as “wise-men”. Their roles have declined as scholars in modern society and have become specialized as legislators/politicians as modern scholars are mostly concerned with Ws and seldom talks on H. Having said that still, if you are born in any particular region, your worldview is definitely have been influenced greatly by those individuals whose “how-s” are widely accepted in that region. For instance, if you are born in the West, the “how-s” of Greek philosophers are a great component of your worldviews even if you haven’t read them. Western cultures have integrated those ideas in their values (Democracy, atoms as building blocks of universe, evolution... are few big concepts). Similarly, if you are born in a Muslim society, the “how-s” of the prophets make a big part of your worldview even if you haven’t studied them (Not associate partners with Allah, Obedience to parents should be guided by obedience to Allah, Allah will reply to all human actions, Be patient with what happens to you... etc, are some of the big ideas). Of course, there are other major civilizations with their “how-s” thinkers that have become part of their value system. 

Yes, “how-s” are mostly opinions that might have some foundations in Ws, but still if you look them from the perspective of a different civilization, they might look subjects of jokes and might sense only in the form of jokes. In addition, as the world are mostly concerned with facts and evidences so the scholars have mostly limited themselves with Ws. But we can’t ignore the fact that the “how-s” of the past that were products of segregated civilizations and still shapes our worldviews are tearing down societies and creating violence that make heart-breaking headlines almost daily. Now that civilizations are not more segregated, it is time that thinkers also value “how-s” to help reduce the levels of distorted perceptions that we have from other historical civilizations even if their opinions make only sense in the light of jokes.

Occasionally, when it happens that I listen to debates between well-educated and well-versed individuals from different value-systems, I feel one thing very strongly. Neither side appreciate the power of time. The values that each side defend and rationalize with all their logical mights have evolved at least in hundred of years. You can’t expect it to be changed in years. It needs time and plenty of funny “how-s” that “how-s” become identical. 

Let me help you

Usually, I don't watch TV. Today, I turned it on for a while. The frequent interruptions in the show by advertisement were really annoying. But then, I started enjoying the ads as I found one thing common in them. Most of the ads were asking, let me help you do this and do that.  That was not fitting with what we are taught at school, "God helps those who help themselves".... 

Jokes

Set of ethics that vary from society to society are social constructs and those that don't change are Natural. It may take a lot of debates to find those natural sets of ethics but one thing that we can almost spontaneously agree upon is the universality of jokes. I doubt that we can find any society without jokes. Even Obama jokes (I am serious :)... 

"... I know CNN has taken some knocks lately, but the fact is I admire their commitment to cover all sides of a story, just in case, one of them happens to be accurate..." Obama 

It is believed that the sense of humor is an evolutionary adaptation to have a check on our data presentation. In other words, humors and jokes are there to help us in finding and correcting mistakes in our understanding and communication in sweet and rewarding ways. The complex a culture becomes, the jokes become more complex. For example, 

"A member of the United States Senate, known for his hot temper and acid tongue, exploded one day in mid-session and shouted, "Half of this Senate is made of dunces!"

All the other Senators demanded that the angry member withdraw his statement, or be removed from the chamber.

After a long pause, the angry member acquiesced. "OK," he said, "I withdraw what I said. Half of this Senate are not dunces!" (1)

Jokes are also believed to be evolved to reduce violence. It is a civil way to drain anger as well as to avoid violence. The following joke is not a polite one but illustrates well, how jokes work in draining anger and avoiding violence,

" A philosopher made an appointment with Nasrudin to have a scholarly discussion. When the day came, the philosopher dropped by Nasrudin’s house as planned. However, Nasrudin wasn’t home. The philosopher angrily took his pencil out of his pocket and wrote Asshole on Nasrudin’s door, and then left.

Nasrudin finally came home later and saw this. He quickly realized that he had missed his appointment, and he darted off to the philosopher’s house.

“Forgive my error,” Nasrudin told the philosopher when he got there. “I totally forgot about our appointment today. But when I got home and saw that you had written your name on my door, I immediately remembered and I came here as fast as I could.”....

What a style, Sir G!!!

Jokes are mostly spontaneous and make is easy to accept our none sense as there is no escape from it,

One of the student who was sitting next to window was looking outside. The teacher asked him look at black board. A few minutes later, he was again looking outside. The teacher becomes angry and asks,

"What is outside that you are looking at?" ....

"A donkey, Mam" replies the student innocently

"How many times, I warned you that when I am inside, don't look outside"....

1.  Hurley. M.W., Dennett. D.C., and Adams, Jr., (2011), Inside Jokes: Using Humor to Reverse-Engineer the Mind, 1st ed, Massachusetts : The MIT Press, p. 169.