Collie's Bestiary

Reflections

To sum up: if you (generalized you) have not thought through why you believe something, it may well be difficult (although not impossible) for you to explain your reasoning — especially if the belief is not based on logic. Also, if you hold conclusions based only on emotion, you will most likely find it extremely difficult to change your mind should you be confronted with facts which contradict the personally stabilizing beliefs you hold.

So to perhaps answer my own question above, the incompetent logician cannot use the "code phrase" I've offered them for one sad, simple reason: they are not competent logicians, but believe they are. Therefore someone insisting they really think logically, rather than simply emoting — or else withdraw from the discussion — is attacking their sense of self-worth. After all, "backing down" in any fashion indicates they might possibly be wrong and, therefore, bad people. Read the rest of this entry »

In effect, as a friend pointed out, they expected me to manage the conversation for them, so they didn't have to take responsibility for their fear of confrontation — which was how they saw a good argument. Curiously, they often then stomped angrily off to yell at someone else about how they were right and I was unkind and illogical, or attacked them unfairly, or was just an intellectual snob who refused to listen.

How can they do this, and claim in the same breath I'm intimidating them? For that matter, let's lay out some questions which have been bothering me for a while: Read the rest of this entry »

or: "Collie, you're just so intimidating!"

(Originally posted January 2005)

To Bob, Dave, & Lou, who aren't intimidated… or so they say. ;)

As those who know me are aware, I love a good argument. By "argument," of course, I don't mean screaming and verbal fisticuffs. I mean a thoughtful, mentally challenging discussion where two or more folks can hash out interesting philosophical beliefs. A good argument isn't about winning — it's about clarity. What's critical in discussions like these is we all hopefully learn something interesting, we all remain polite, and we all gain from hearing each other out.

Discussions like this, however, work only when someone is capable of laying out the reasoning which led to their conclusion and (perhaps most critically) is capable of following that reasoning through to a logical conclusion. Read the rest of this entry »

(Since I seem to be musing about honesty recently… a short college paper written in 1999 for a primate anthropology class. Enjoy!)

A current 'hot' topic in primate studies today is the issue of infant killing. Our readings contain three articles on the subject.

The first was the 1977 Hrdy article "Infanticide as a Primate Reproductive Strategy," in which the 'evolutionarily selected' trait of infant killing is first discussed; in essence she postulates there is a high male turnover rate in gray langur troops, which are primarily single male and multiple female.

Thus it is evolutionarily effective for males to kill all infants that are not their own, as this will bring the infant-deprived females more quickly into estrous, giving the male a higher chance of effectively impregnating the females of the troop before he too is ousted by another male. Read the rest of this entry »

Now that I think about it, I realize there was a constant emphasis of the Pharaoh — a symbol of rightness and order? — triumphing over entangled, combative animals. Do the raging animals symbolize the disorder and "unright" chaos of the assaulting foreigners? Further (in a personally exciting moment of inspiration) I wonder: does this style of art perhaps reflect translatively on Scytho-Sarmatian art?! If so, how very cool!

I loved Tjuya's gilded funerary mask: she really looks like she's smirking at some personal joke, even in death! There was an incredibly fine weave on the linen that was draped over her body and the mask. It left a dark residue, which allowed us to see how beautiful their linen crafts were. Read the rest of this entry »

For my birthday in October, my wonderful housemate took me to see the display on King Tutankhamen at the DeYoung Museum in San Francisco. It was, quite simply, amazing. Not only were the precious items quite breathtaking, but the information which accompanied the display was fascinating. There was some history on King Tut, including probable parentage and some of the beautiful items interred with his relatives, and a bit of time devoted interestingly to the mystery of his sudden death. I had a fantastic time! :)

While wandering happily through the displays and listening to the audio tour, I found a few things which piqued my interest and caused me to take some notes for later research. These are the notes here, typed in so I can find them easily later; hopefully they'll be of some interest to you all as well. Also, a big hug and thank you to both housemates, who made an effort to make my birthday a delight — you're both wonderful! Read the rest of this entry »

This month's Firestarter is a (badly needed) review and reflection on How Do We Keep Honesty? I figured since February is traditionally a month for love, this time I'd attempt to achieve love of self, and gently engage in some internal reflection — always a scary proposition. :-) Fair warning: this Firestarter will make the most sense if you either re-read the original article, or open it in a window next to this one, as I did.

I suppose my internal reluctance to address my previous Firestarter on honesty is due to my recognizing that, from my very starting paragraphs, it's clear my philosophical beliefs have not actually withstood the test of reality. Did I realize my personal ambivalence even then, as I set up the (rather melodramatic, in parts) parameters under which I'd be operating while writing? I'm not sure; I'd guess not, since I think I wove some unwitting personal dishonesty right into the Firestarter as I wrote it. How embarrassing. Still, at least I've attempted repeating the "experiment" — or rather, the questions I was asking myself then. Unsurprising, I guess, that I got somewhat different results this time. Read the rest of this entry »

(Originally written some time in 1999 for an Independent Study anthropology class on various seminal works in the field)

Roland Barthes' exploration of the mythologizing characteristics of bourgeoisie society in France is an absorbing read. He starts out by investigating the possible mythical meanings of many of the conventionally accepted societal norms or rituals in France, then closes the book with a fascinating chapter on the nature of myth today.

His writing uses an implicit formulation. He assumes an informal common ground with his reader, adopting a rather conversational discursive tone; he obviously sees language as a social activity. Oddly enough, even though Barthes almost chattily assumes entitlement in dissecting the meanings of various mythologized objects and ideas, he then does an end-of-book about-face, noting that the "mythologist," by unpacking such possible meanings, excludes and isolates himself from the very society and mythologies he examines. Read the rest of this entry »

I try not to write "hop on the bandwagon" postings about the current "hot" topic in the news. I like to have a bit of time to consider and reflect on issues and situations. Within that timeframe I frequently find that simply quietly helping however I can is all I wish to say on the matter — and often, others have said it better than I could anyway.

The situation in Haiti is a currently evolving issue where, as I did a little research, I was shocked to discover things were much worse than I'd initially thought — because of my country. This is one situation where I believe others have indeed said it better than I could, but I feel strongly that their words need to be shared and passed around so we all know in what we, as citizens of the USA, are unwittingly being complicit. Read the rest of this entry »

I've come to the conclusion I don't agree with the definition of Gatekeeper. I do agree there's more than just the two extremes — regardless of whether you call them "Warrior" and "Forgiver" or "heavy-handed militarism" and "turn-the-other-cheek pacifism." I suppose Gatekeeper is as good a term as any for that "middle of the road" position, especially since I can't yet come up with anything better. However, as someone who thinks they may well be a Gatekeeper, I can say quite definitively that maintaining the status quo is emphatically not my goal — neither in regards to rape nor to self-defense.

I remember years ago watching a television program about date rape — specifically the "gray" area where a young woman at college would be drunk at a party, get taken home by a young man, and the next day claim she was raped — at which point the man would say she'd asked him to stay and have sex, or they were both drunk and she came on to him, or whatever moronic excuse he could come up with so it wasn't his fault that he "accidentally" overpowered her — and thus it was clearly her fault — it simply couldn't be rape! The eminently logical position being developed by the interviewers was that smart men simply didn't do that — didn't take advantage of women who were drunk — instead they'd use the facilities provided by that university to call a ride for the woman to get safely home. Read the rest of this entry »