Stuff White People Like

2008-03-25

For those of us in the know, the newish site Stuff White People Like is old news. It is simply brilliant. Aside from being embarrassingly accurate, the choice of tone is masterful. It reads like a guide to interacting with white people, cautioning against certain behaviors, topics and themes. It constantly mentions how to get in white people's good graces. And as one such white person, I have to say that they have us/me pegged.

But, why, you may ask, am I posting about this? Has the formerly illustrious Candy Coating - once higher than Icarus and twice as proud -  been reduced to a mere catalogue of other awesome websites? Are we but petty anthologers, condemned to shifting through the ashes of other's brilliance in hope of holding aloft some residual bit of fast fading glory? Oh no, sir/madam, no. I bring this to your attention because I believe Stuff White People Like (hereafter referred to as SWPL for brevity) has a surprisingly deep undertone that must needs be brought to the fore.

Simply put, SWPL is revolutionary because it treats white culture as a culture rather than the culture. White or western culture has held an implicitly default superiority in anthropology, sociology, and general western thought until the last couple decades. And even in recent times, it still appears to be a struggle for the western mind to judge things truly objectively. In fact, it has been argued that even the act of making judgments involves own-culture bias, fostering such theories as cultural relativism.

SWPL circumvents all of this. Though humorous and a little silly, it nevertheless manages to present the most satisfyingly unbiased account of white culture I've ever encountered. This is most present during listed items like "Non-profit organizations," a post that made me realize that I had never considered that Non-profit organizations are largely a western, white-culture phenomenon. Value judgments aside, I found even my own fanatically progressive thought guilty of ethnocentrism. Namely, I realized that I had been assuming that non-profits were a natural, default good. Probably they are a good: but SWPL points out that they are not natural nor default; they are a sociological phenomenon present almost exclusively in white culture.

See? Convinced? Forgive the language, but I feel compelled to quote the oft-referenced Bad Boys II and assure you that shit just got real for white folks everywhere. One can only hope that SWPL and contemporary sites will provoke an even deeper renaissance of analytical thought and engender truly global perspectives.

Or it can just make you laugh a lot. It's good at that too.

Subjectivity Vs. Objectivity: Death Match 2008

2008-03-21

I've had a number of interesting discussions recently regarding objective and subjective truth. Some were with myself: I did a ten-page paper on it for my Philosophy of Religion class. Others were with actual people. But regardless, the frequency has forced my hand and determined your fate as a reader. Prepare yourself for yet another installment in the ongoing saga: Blogging About Age-Old Conflicts (for the win).

Let us begin by articulating the classic positions. Objective analysis of the truth is essentially the belief that truth can be measured and clearly stated. It is a form of analysis based on the object. Hence, if you are asked to judge a bottle of water objectively, you would go to the object itself and make such profound statements as: "It is full of a clear liquid that is most probably water. It has one of those new-fancy-smancy squirt tops. It is big."

Comparatively, subjective analysis of the truth is measured by experience. It focuses on the subject. Hence, if you were asked to judge a bottle of water subjectively, you would still go to the object, but might respond with things like: "It is a bottle of water of the Aquafina brand. I hate Aquafina. I think it tastes like mildew micro waved in pig farts." See how this response is centered on the subject, rather than the object?

Traditionally, this then leads into debates about whether there really are any objective truths or whether life is simply comprised of a whole slew of subjective ones. It is at this point that we will break. Hit the caesura. Pause, and deviate quite unstanderdly. Because in every single such debate I have ever had (with myself or with others) it comes down to a balance of both.

Subjective truth is the stuff of personalized reality. Faith, for instance, is highly subjective. Faith cannot be measured, tasted, tested, or put in fancy vials; it exists as a reality for the subject or person. At the same time, this does not completely free faith from objective demands. Though it is impossible to question the reality of someone's faith objectively, we can (and must) question that reality insofar as it affects the objective world. Therefore, it is not okay to hide behind the shield of untouchable experience/subjectivity when dealing with faith related acts like suicide bombing. Yes, it is true that the bomber's experience was his own, and that to the degree that he operated on faith it wouldn't be possible to call his truth right or wrong, but this only provides a thin veneer of protection. Eventually things must be reckoned objectively, because eventually everything comes into conflict with the objective world outside of our subjective experience. And through an objective lens, the suicide bomber was definitely wrong, as he killed x innocent people and y amount were children.

I realize this has been little more than an informative rant, but I believe my purpose is/was to disabuse a common notion of mutual exclusivity between objectivity and subjectivity. In my experience (which, according to my own definition makes this a subjective argument and therefore to be taken with a grain of salt. Stupid own definition.) both subjective and objective reasoning are needed in order to holistically appreciate the "TRUTH." With the suicide bomber, for instance, it would not be a holistic appreciation to simply jump to the part where the suicide bomber is in the wrong. First we must try to appreciate his subjective reality, because psychology and other humanity related disciplines are increasingly demonstrating the importance of the individual experience. This isn't merely artsy-fartsy, abstract niceness either; it is a vital component to being able to successfully address problems. To use the suicide bombing example again, we can see how any legal measure that didn't take into account a true rendering of the subjective reality at play would be doomed to failure, as it would solely be working off of the objective conclusion that this is "wrong." Which indeed it is. But this would fail to allow any lasting actions to be taken. With only objectivity in the tool kit, legislation would be passed condemning suicide bombing (probably ironically carrying the death penalty), while the why of suicide bombing would remain untouched. Therefore, in many cases, objectivity is the "how," and results in preventative measures, while subjectivity is the "why" and results in understanding better the roots of the problem. Both how and why are necessary; therefore, both subjectivity and objectivity are necessary.

Whew. This was quite an exhausting post! It spanned a whole week of lateness, two world wars, and a period of sickness (which partially expains the lateness). I hope it wasn't too confusing. What are YOUR thoughts on truth?

IE 6 Makes Small Children Cry

2008-03-12

and probably causes a good number of grown developers to sniffle.  I usually don't join in on the knee jerk Microsoft bashing because, 90% of the time, things work fine for me and I mostly like the MS products I have.  Hell, you would have to pry Visual Studio from my steel like grip to get me to part with it, but today, IE6 was proving to be quite the battle.  If the 14% of you out there still using IE6 would kindly switch to Firefox or IE7, I can assure you that you will sleep better tonight knowing that you've helped a coder in need.

So you may notice over on the left side of the site that we have a nifty status feature.  This, in theory, means that there should never be a point where communication with our readers has ever gone totaly dead.  Hopefully, with these micro updates we can keep you up to date with what's going on in our lives so that you're never wondering where we are, and when we're coming back.  Also, it serves as a cool way for us to share stuff that's of interest, but doesn't warrant a whole post.  Possibly, in the future, I will expand this so you can see all of our recent micro updates if we start putting anything of value in there.  Anyway, hope you like.  Should give you guys a little more reason to keep checking back.  Let me know what you think.

Deliterally Literally

2008-03-11

Hello campers! I know, I know...It has been a while. It's okay: I feel close to tears at the beauty of our reunion too. Let's just get right to it and rediscover, in the triumphant return of routine, our deeply personal bond once more.

Today's post is entirely stolen from my philosophy professor. No, seriously. I am completely plagerizing here.

That having been said, I want to share with you what he dubbed a "Deliteral Literal reading of the Bible." This relates most directly to the ongoing controversy between evolution and creationism. It rageth and it rageth, and up till now we mortals could only pick a side or flee from its destructive trajectory. Now, however, there is a third option: A Deliteral Literal reading of the Bible.

We must begin by expounding on the nature of myths and narratives. The Bible, you see, is a mythological narrative. I do not mean this in the pejorative, common usage connotating "falseness," but rather in the academic use, where myths are simply stories that educate and inform. Thereby, Genesis and the Creation story are myths in the same sense that the american dream is a myth. True and false aren't even on the table in such usage - they are both simply narratives that describe a way of living.

Thus established, we can go about studying the story of creation as we would any other narrative, asking questions such as: What does it tell us? What are the lessons? Who are the characters? And, perhaps most importantly, is there anything within the story that seems to allow for an interpretation that is not entirely literal?

So, let us go to the text itself! As we all (or many all) know, Cain (one of the two original sons of Adam and Eve) did a bad thing and killed his brother Abel. As perhaps less of us know, God then punishes Cain by banishing him. The exchange goes as follows in Genesis:

"Cain said to the LORD, 'My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.'"

"But the LORD said to him, 'Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.'

Now, why is this exchange significant for our purpose? Well, good question. Seriously. Remarkably astute. This exchange bears relevance insofar as there are supposedly only four humans on the planet at this time: Adam and Eve, and their sons Cain and Abel. Yet, when Cain hears of his exile, what does he do? He begs God to protect him from being killed by other people! Even more remarkably, God doesn't respond by calling him crazy. Silly Cain: i've only made you and your brother and your parents, remember? Who's going to kill you? Instead, God puts a mark on Cain to protect him. But if in the beginning there were only Adam and Eve and their children, where in the world did all these threatening people come from?

Next we have the infamous passage in which Cain lays with his wife and founds a city. This is literally next; there are no intervening verses. So, again, where did this wife person come from? And furthermore, how was Cain founding a city? One doesn't found a city for one's wife and children. A townhouse would do just fine, methinks. But a city, and this is the exact word used, implies many people.

It doesn't take much at this point to posit that there were more people on Earth than Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel. And even better, this contention doesn't actually contradict the Bible as so many seem to think it does! Why can't God have made Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, but made other people as well? Further, why can't God be responsible for evolution? He is, after all, God. Supposedly omnipotent. Allegedly all powerful: these things seem to be well within his power.

Most important of all, however, is the simple fact that this type of explanation is the only one that satifies. Without it, we are left with either all how and no why (evolution), or all why and no how (creationism). Instead, why not go with the porridge that is not too hot, not too cold, but just right?

Can We Eat Yet

2008-03-06

Well, it would seem that Dangerboy is off gallivanting in the land of Chicago, doing work for "school," trying to get his "degree," so that he can "make something of his life," which means I am left to entertain you all.  So, seeing as how it's of such immediate relevance, I wanted to talk about the month of the fast.  If you have not heard of such things, I can assure that it is not a month where you are encouraged, nay, required to break the speed limit.  I have tried several times to get such a holiday ratified, but, alas, it would seem that my lobbyists are less than fit for the job.  No matter, the month of fasting of which I speak is totally legal.

By the Baha'i calendar, the last month (the month of Ala) is spent fasting from sunup to sundown.  I think that this is an activity that puzzles a lot of people, so I just wanted to give my interpretation of the event in question.  In modern American society, if you tell someone that you are giving something up for religious reasons, there tends to be an exchange which communicates "why would you do that?"  Sometimes people ask out right, and sometimes it's just the look on their face like you've just asked them to solve a calculus problem.  Well, the basic answer is that it is a lesson in detachment.  Of all the physical things in this world, food and air are probably the most vital.  Abstaining from the intake of air for more than a minute, or so, usually ends with a trip to the emergency room, and, as such, probably wouldn't make a very good learning experience.  Thus air fasting should be reserved for people who prefer to learn things the hard way.  By abstaining from the consumption of food and drink during, the fast teaches us that even the most vital of material things can be done without and we'll still be okay.  That's a pretty neat realization to come to, that even without stuff, we'll be okay.

In my personal experience I do not see the fast as a punishment, or something I have to do.  It has become something I want to do.  I'll admit.  I wasn't sure if I would be ready this year, but still I do it because I want to.  There are a couple of reasons for this.  On one level it feels like I'm giving back.  It's like I say that I believe in this religion and that I love god, but this is a way to prove that I mean what I say without having to resort to Yakuza-like displays of allegiance.  Not that there's anything wrong with that, I just happen to like my pinkies.  Another that I'm fond of is that you're not alone.  There are millions of other Baha'is out there supporting you.  Often, because you are fasting, family and friends will act in a supportive manner.  On a few occasions I've had friends who weren't Baha'i try fasting for a day, just to see what it's like. Because you're doing something so unusual in common culture, the fast becomes an excellent way for Baha'is to tell others about the faith.  Finally, the reason that I think is most important to me, is that fasting changes your perception of what you do have in this world.  An example: my first day breaking fast after work, I had half an Asian pear, 8 - 12 pretzels, and a big glass of water.  For just a moment, I felt like I had discovered true happiness.  Apparently Zen has a recipe and it's comprised of fruits and snack foods.  Seriously, on a normal day we spend the passing hours stuffing our faces with whatever strikes our fancy without giving it a second thought.  When I fast, and I'm finally able to eat, I have a different appreciation for what I do have, and there's something sacred about.

So, there you have it.  Those are just my thoughts on the fast; however, we want to know what you think.  Is your experience similar, or do you have a completely different take on it?  Even further, maybe your thoughts differ on fasting in general and you have a different perspective on the importance of material objects in this existence.  Either way, we want to know, so leave your questions, comments, and recipes for Zen below.  Just click the little link that says "Leave A Comment" and let us know what you think.