dave salmoni

Being a huge fan of zoologist Dave Salmoni, i have recently started watching his new show on the discovery channel called 'Rogue Nature'.

Rogue Nature is about animals in the wild that have been claimed to act in a way that is out of their 'ordinary' behavior; that is, to attack and kill humans.

Dave interviews specialised behaviorists and people who were witnesses to the brutal attacks and asks them to show their opinions. He then spends time with someone who shows him the more docile side of the animals, as they believe they are not rogue, just the circumstances were particularly bad, and then the people who believe the animals to be purely vicious and do believe the animals to be rogue. After he has done that, he studies the animals behavior himself by observing them in their natural habitat and then formulates his own opinions.

So far the animals he has investigated are Brown Bears, Chimpanzees, Humboldt Squid, Hippopotamuses and Crocodiles.

The show is really interesting but and I always agree with Dave's final conclusions, but what I really want to tackle is the idea that an animals that attacks a human is considered rogue.

Yet again I think this may turn into another stab at humans for having some sort of hierarchical idea when it comes to them vs. the 'animals' as quite a few of my posts have been about.
I'm just not sure i understand why animals aren't meant to have an instinct to kill humans like they do every other animals in their habitat.
Why do we consider it unnatural for us to have any predators and face every other animal as if they are our prey?
I tried to find a definition of the term 'rogue' to see if there was more elaboration on the one i gave earlier and found this:

–adjective
10. (of an animal) having an abnormally savage or unpredictable disposition, as a rogue elephant.

11. no longer obedient, belonging, or accepted and hence not controllable or answerable; deviating, renegade
 
So i guess that does help to elaborate on my point. A rogue is abnormally savage. Okay - that's is a perfectly understandable definition, except if that were the case, then 'Rogue Nature' would also see if the animals under question have acted abnormally savage to other animals, to its own kind etc. and not just to humans.
 
I feel as if the second definition is more applicable to a lot of people's idea of the word rogue.
And I think what a lot of people forget is that is that we are animals too. Maybe we should reflect upon definition number 10 and see what it says about us

doctor doctor give me the news

The other day when I was watching the news they said that they had created an injection that has the potential to cure all strains of the flu.

The flu is a viral infection which although isn't normally deadly, can kill elderly people as well as young infant and babies who have weaker immune systems.

Thinking back to 50, 200 or even 500 years ago there definitely wasn't the kind of technology that we have now, and people were certainly not making the kind of medical discoveries that they are today.

There was no cure for the flu. There was no cure for leprosy. No cure for small pox, it had long yet to be eradicated. They have cures for venereal diseases. If you became ill, you fought the disease. If you couldn't fight the disease you inevitably died.

But now, all of us 1st world countries citizens and all of the 1st world doctors, are seeking and finding cures for all of these diseases.

And it is nice, not having to worry about contracting one of those diseases and not being able to receive treatment, but that is life.

We have no predators and we are, by ridding ourselves of the threat of these diseases, slowly eliminating all of our weaknesses.

We are eliminating natural selection.

How can we be so bold? So egotistical and selfish to think that we have the right to make ourselves invincible to nature?

Even time is becoming something which we have decided to try and conquer. Since the paleolithic era our life-expectancy has slowly increased bit by bit and scientists today are looking for new ways to regenerate organs and tissues in order to remove the damage from the wear and tear of time on our bodies.

Living to be 150 would be great i'm sure, but we have to look at the repercussions of living longer. Living longer and removing natural selection means that people who may have died from illness or disease, will now be alive and will be alive for longer. Therefore there will be more people on Earth, meaning more crowding, and a much higher demand for resources.

I'm not one to believe that we shouldn't try to change the way the world turned out to some extent, such as trying to transform all of the 2nd and 3rd world countries into 1st world countries. Or even by finding better treatments for diseases, for cancer, and increasing AIDS prevention. But curing the flu? curing every disease? and changing the way nature intended us to be? not so much.

I think that the 'god complex' style train of thought that a lot of humans are taking on is going to end up putting us in a lot of trouble, whether it be now or in several years time. There's a reason we weren't given those kind of powers in the first place.

animal precinct

as a lover of animals, i quite frequently watch animal planet and i often find myself watching the vast array of animal cop shows that deal with animal abuse.

one of the things that i have noticed from watching these shows is the severe lack of justice for the animals that are abused.

one instance that i watched today in fact, featured a pitbull who the people at the Arizona humane society named Lewis. Lewis was hog-tied, severely beaten, thrown into a dustbin, closed in there and then placed in an alleyway bin. Left there to die.

What's even more incredulous than the sheer brutality of Lewis's abuse, is the fact that the person who inflicted such abuse was never found, and thus never convicted.

And worse than that, is the fact that even when they know the people who have caused the animals pain and trauma, and even when they send them to court, and even when the animals have to be put down as a result of the abuse they suffered, what punishment do the people receive?

a $400 fine. a week in jail. a month's community service.

How is it in any way justice for the crimes that they have committed?

Why is it that our justice system for humans is so different from our justice system for animals?

If the sort of crime that had happened to Lewis had happened to a human; an adult or even a child, the law enforcement would be using leagues of crime scene investigators and detectives in order to try and find the culprit and when found, they would be serving a lot more than one week in jail.

I understand that due to the fact that we are one of the only "animals" on the Earth with sentient abilities and because we are certainly the most sophisticated and evolved animals on the planet may mean that we feel as if we are "above" all the other creatures and that we rule this planet over them, but surely, since we are so civilised and so highly sophisticated we would be able to put aside our narcissistic customs and serve equal justice for all crimes of that manner.

i just don't know how we can call ourselves civilised if we allow our people to treat seemingly "inferior" animals like that, with little consequence.

the other thing that baffles me, is that we hold quite severe punishment for people who poach in Africa and for people who sell animals parts on the black market, yet when it comes to domesticated animals, the level of importance seems to drop quite exponentially. Why?

perhaps because we have made domesticated animals, as they are, domesticated, we have little respect for them because they are not wild, they do not surpass us in any way and they have been changed to suit us and therefore we see them as even less important than or 'dignified' than the animals that still put up a 'fight' and that still have their primal instincts in full swing.

and i think that's particular poignant too. by making dogs and cats domestic as well as horses and other pets, we have stripped them of their fighting nature, their protective instincts and have left them at the will of man, defenseless. that should give us even more incentive to protect them. it was us that made them so powerless. we did that to them. making any action of abuse purely unexplainable. inexcusable.

Justice?  my ass.

oh no you didn't

what amazes me is the way that a person's mentality can change once their anonymity changes too.
my excellent friend and IB graduate was talking to me about it the other day and he said

"anyone who has the benefit of anonymity is always going to be unnecessarily harsh, even if they dont believe what theyre saying. I studied it in psychology. Anonymity gives people power to say and do things that they know are wrong. Thats why you see people laughing on facebook groups about people who die because insensitivity becomes irrelevant if you dont have an identity"

I think that last line is fantastic - insensitivity becomes irrelevant when you don't have an identity

And i think its exactly right. When people don't have to worry about being identified they suddenly decide to throw all their morals out the window and become a new person, whether for the better or for the worst. This is evident throughout many forums, blogs and all over facebook. Anonymous comments can be seen all over the web attacking people for their beliefs and making purely insulting and unsubstantiated comments about people the don't even know.

this could also work the other way around. Insensitivity become irrelevant when you're doing it to someone who doesn't have an identithy. I believe that sort of mentality may have some relevance when mentioning certain aspects of torture during periods of war and civil unrest such as WW2. This is not in any way an excuse for the actions of course, but acts merely as a statement of the possible frame of mind and concept belief that those people may have held.

Why is this so however?

I guess a lot of people love the idea of being able to act without consequences, something that is unlikely to happen in their everyday life but in the anonymous world of the internet can be a frequent occurence.

What this says about us as people i don't really know. And i dont even know what this says about us as knowers.

But i suppose it is a good thing that we all have identities, they put boundaries on us and on our actions and make us think twice before acting the way we do.

censor censor

The other day in TOK i had to present an issue that i thought was relevant and that i had come across in everyday life.

I decided to focus on an issue that my parents and i were talking about the other day during dinner.

We were talking about issues from the past, such as the Vietnam War and the Apartheid as well as the genocide with Pol Pot.

My mum then said to my dad

"god i remember when i was much younger and i was watching the news with my parents when they showed this man getting shot by one of Pol Pot's men on the tv, do you remember that?"

and it got me thinking.

When was the last time we saw something like that on our news?

We very seldom get shown any violent footage on the news anymore, nothing compared to what they used to show, and although i would agree world issues has become more televised as a whole, i would argue that the content has been lessened in violence.

If this is the case, should it be up to the news, to decide the extent to which we see things?

As suggested in class the reason behind the news's choice to not show such violent footage could be due to the fact that the public may react negatively and cause problems for the news companies.

But I still don't believe that this is morally right. A lot of people rely on the news to show them important world issues. And although a lot of people may not want to see violent or disturbing footage on the news, it is the truth and just because it makes us uncomfortable doesn't mean we should detach ourselves from it.

In terms of parental issues. I think that it is their responsibility to shield the violent footage from their children if they wish, but not the news channel's decision to not even give the public the choice either way.

As knowers, this says that we may not actually know a lot of what we think we know, and that a lot of our knowledge claims could be more altered or censored than we realise. I guess this particular issue really highlights the concern of truth and reality compared to the perception of reality.

little town it's a quiet village

during tok issue presentation time, lauren brought up the issue of how disney builds up false expectations of life. this then lead to further discussion upon how the capitalist society we live in wants to make us feel sad and inadequate in order so that we buy things, and how we constantly spend time making out our world to be an ugly place.

this topic really interested me as, as a disney fan myself, spent my childhood and even to this day, watching disney movies.

and it really is true. disney tells us things that are utterly untrue and does so through even more false situations. every character is flawless, petite, a wonderful singer, friends to the animals and waiting for their 'prince charming' to come and rescue them. of course, they all end up with their 'handsome hubbies' and live happily ever after.

why?

why do we feel the need to create all these false expectations and ideals if the result is a feeling of inadequacy and failure? and why do we constantly belittle all we have on this earth?

is it not completely strange to be brought up watching disney films with gorgeous heroines, handsome heroes, and perfect scenarios, just to get chucked into the real world and get told ''its what's inside that counts"?

 i guess this shows how conflicting our societies beliefs are, or at least, how different people go about achieving the same goals. as well as showing how little adults value children's opinions, thoughts and ability to remember things. i understand why adults may not desire to smother their children with ''real life'' situations, such as divorces, depression and grocery shopping, but why they need to portray stories through the personas of perfection elludes me. are we not always told "there is no such thing as perfect"

maybe its because people think that what children watch won't effect them in ten years time, that it won't matter in the long run. well i can tell you that it does. my friends and i constantly compare ourselves to the ideals that we were brought up on. we set unachievable standards for guys,

(what do you mean you're not tall, dark, handsome with a thick head of hair, a great singer with style and a magic carpet?!)

and set unattainable goals for ourselves because believe it or  not, your hair will never look like auroras.

what are we trying to achieve? because to me the only ''whole new world'' out there is the supposedly dull and ugly one that we live in.

clear as mud

in theory of knowledge the other day we were talking about how our perception of things can deceive us. how everything we think we know about a situation; our observations, our opinions, our conclusion, can be completely wrong.

i couldn't agree more.

in fact, i knew this person, lets called them gary.
gary and i have known each other for about 2 years now, although we have never really gotten to know each other, it was more a 'knowing of each other' type of relationship. however, i got to know gary. we found each other at several occasions and spent a lot of time getting to know each other. of course i told my friends about gary, they knew him better than i did and gave me some really good advice. my friends and i thought we had the way that gary felt pretty worked out. he was a bit shy, quite reserved, wasn't one to throw people's emotions around. gary was a good guy. then one night, i approached gary to talk to him, this was something we had gotten into the habit of doing so it seemed like a normal situation. but gary was different. gary was blunt, uninterested. gary acted like a complete jerk. so  much so that i was gobsmacked. my friends felt the same. we didn't think that gary was like that at all, everything he had done up until then in fact, suggested otherwise.

our perception of him had been completely inaccurate.

asides from the fact that you can tell i'm probably a bit peeved about the way that gary acted, we can also draw other ideas from this.
maybe our perceptions of events, people and situations are all based on what we want to perceive. of course i wanted to believe that gary was nice, no one would have wanted him to act the way he did. so maybe that's why i perceived him to be like that.
on the other hand though, my thoughts on him were all based on certain things that gary did and said. they were common inferences to make based on what was presented before me. maybe it doesn't matter whether our perceptions of a person are right or not, if the person you have them about disagrees, then i guess that's the thing that counts.
does this mean that we can't trust our own perception though? i would have to say that although our perception may not always be right, they can be trusted; if not as factual and true, then as a direction of how to feel and act.
as to what it says about us as knowers? well thats a perception in itself.

to strip or not to strip

i don't understand the ways in which our society works.

for instance, why is it acceptable to walk around in a bikini, yet scandalous to walk around in a bra and underpants? do they not hide the same things and reveal the same things? in fact i would say some bikinis actually reveal a little more than underpants do.

it goes the same with being naked. why is it so taboo to be naked, to be natural, to hide nothing.

we all know what's down there, we've seen our own, we've learnt about the way they work and i'm sure we will all, in our lifetimes, see other peoples. yet, if i walked down the street in the buff, i can guarantee you i would be yelled at, pointed at and even arrested.

even more confusing, is the fact that our society, although against the naked body, is obsessed with superficiality. if that were so, then wouldn't we want to show off our 'assets' so that we could truly judge and evaluate each other? why does our society spend so much money on plastic surgery; nips here, tucks there,  and waxes right there just to cover it up with clothes?

i don't know what else to say. apart from i am confused.

private vs public

would you read someones diary if it was wide open? fully accessible, almost public you could say. would you really pick it up and read it? okay. lets say you pick it up and you see the writer has created a code or has left out names. would you really spend that extra effort and time just to find out who they're talking about?

how about if you don't even really talk to the person who's diary you are reading? do you think you have the right to know what they feel and their raw emotions? that you deserve to know it? after all they were foolish enough to leave their diary on the ground.

what i've written above, isn't the exact issue that i want to talk about, but certainly relates to it. in fact, in a way its an analogy for what i'm about to discuss.

as you know there are many different websites on the internet; especially lots of websites, like blogspot, which contain hundreds of thousands of peoples' personal thoughts and opinions. now you may argue that these blogs are public domain because they are on the internet, but are they really?

legally, things that are posted onto the internet are generally available to the public. however does that mean that you can ruthlessly search for someone's blog and then feel as if you have the right to pore over their personal thoughts and feelings and then discuss it with your friends?

where do we draw the line between public and private? is there not an important distinction to be made between talking about public and private legally and talking about it morally? of course you may argue, 'well if you don't want people to read it then don't write it', but if that's your expectation then are you not also suggesting that 'if you don't want anyone to hear it don't say it?' or 'if you don't want anyone to see it don't do it?' does this then not lead to the overall suggestion that we are not free to do anything secretive or private at all and should therefore all become introverted and not express ourselves to anyone?

i know that what i have just said may seem a bit far fetched based on the original suggestion, but it is something to seriously consider if your main argument is reliant upon what is above.

even if this isn't the case. lets say you find the person's blog and read it, should you then be at license to discuss it with others? surely when we discuss things with others we are either subconsciously or consciously altering them to an extent, adding our own bias and making inferences based upon what has been written? therefore are you possibly changing what was originally said or meant, because you may not have understood it, into some other completely untrue statement?

furthermore, if those people and their discussions of your feelings and emotions get to the point where you feel ashamed to feel the way you do, unable to express yourself through your blog and forced to change the url has it gone too far? should there be some penalization for making people feel unable to express themselves in their chosen way? if i am not mistaken that is indeed and infringement of human rights.

why is the internet becoming such an abused medium? where people think that they deserve to judge, criticise and speculate everything that is on there because after all, it is public domain. if i were to want to keep a diary in this day and age and with the technologies available to us, i don't see why the internet would not be the most effective medium to use. it can't get lost and allows you to quickly enter your thoughts and then support them by a vast array of pictures available to you. but i would think twice about it now after seeing what some people do with the information found on blogs.

just because we have access to something, does not mean we should exploit it.

can you repeat that?

today i was in the canteen line and there was a boy and a girl in front of me, and the girl was obviously flirting with the boy. but during the conversation, something which happens a lot, happened; but this time to a whole new extreme. this is how it went down.

'hey, i have to go to the library after lunch' says the boy

'wait what?' responds the girl

'i said i have to go to the library after lunch' the boy repeats

'what? i have something on my face?!' said the girl, nervously and surprised.

basically, what happened is that the girl misheard the boy, and quite badly as well, which is slightly embarrassing, but more importantly, interesting.


it made me think, do the sentences we come up with when we mishear someone, tell us anything about what we are feeling, what we think of the person we are talking to, or do they reveal a deeper side of our character.


this is quite similar to the idea of the 'Freudian Slip' named after Sigmund Freud. the theory of the 'Freudian Slip' is as follows (off wikipedia)

'A Freudian slip, or parapraxis, is an error in speech, memory, or physical action that is interpreted as occurring due to the interference of some unconscious ('dynamically repressed') wish, conflict, or train of thought. The concept is thus part of classical psychoanalysis.'

if this is so, then i believe that the girl made a 'Freudian Slip' and i've inferred from this slip that the girl must have been to some extent, self conscious whilst she was talking to the boy. 

i remember when i was younger, in fact we were still on the other campus, and my friends and i were having a discussion at lunch. this is how this conversation went

'oh my god, euan totally shaves his legs' said one girl

to which i replied 'oh my god, euan likes seamus's legs?!'

we all laughed, but it makes me think now, what does that say about me or my feelings towards euan? there was no seamus in the year so that presumption of what the girl had said was even more bizarre. it is mean for me to say this, but i do remember that we all though euan was a bit strange, so that could have had something to do with it.

maybe there is more truth to be found in not what we say, but what we think we hear? there was a quote that we talked about in class the other day. i don't quite remember the quote or who it was by but it went along these lines

'a word is half the person saying it, and the other half, the person hearing it'

maybe if we spent more time mumbling and less time listening then we would hear more truths about ourselves and one another than we would in a deep and meaningful conversation. would life be better if we were all more open about our opinions? if we were self-conscious and we just admitted it?

however, maybe it is a good thing that these 'Freudian Slips' are so infrequent, because in that way, we can of course save ourselves from awkward and uncomfortable moments where our subconscious desire may or may not get the better of us. just imagine if we had much less control of our psyche and things like this happened all the time,

boy approaches girl 'hi, how are you today?'

'wait what? you love me and think i'm beautiful?! oh my gosh i totally like you too!' shrieks girl.

boy walks away.

thank god for our need to shield our true desires from one another.

curious...

i find it interesting how many words in our language have several meanings, or connotations. these connotations, whether negative or positive, whether intentional or unintentional, sure do say a lot about the world we live in, or at least the world we used to live in. here is a list of definitions from dictionary.com

heathen
–noun

1.an unconverted individual of a people that do not acknowledge the God of the Bible; a person who is neither a Jew, Christian, nor Muslim; pagan.

2.an irreligious, uncultured, or uncivilized person.
 
black  
–adjective
1.lacking hue and brightness; absorbing light without reflecting any of the rays composing it.

2.characterized by absence of light; enveloped in darkness: a black night.

3.(sometimes initial capital letter)

a.pertaining or belonging to any of the various populations characterized by dark skin pigmentation, specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Oceania, and Australia.

b.African-American.

4.soiled or stained with dirt: That shirt was black within an hour.

5.gloomy; pessimistic; dismal: a black outlook.

6.deliberately; harmful; inexcusable: a black lie.

7.boding ill; sullen or hostile; threatening: black words; black looks.

8.(of coffee or tea) without milk or cream.

9.without any moral quality or goodness; evil; wicked: His black heart has concocted yet another black deed.

10.indicating censure, disgrace, or liability to punishment: a black mark on one's record.

11.marked by disaster or misfortune: black areas of drought; Black Friday.

12.wearing black or dark clothing or armor: the black prince.

13.based on the grotesque, morbid, or unpleasant aspects of life: black comedy; black humor.

14.(of a check mark, flag, etc.) done or written in black to indicate, as on a list, that which is undesirable, sub-standard, potentially dangerous, etc.: Pilots put a black flag next to the ten most dangerous airports.

15.illegal or underground: The black economy pays no taxes.

16.showing a profit; not showing any losses: the first black quarter in two years.

17.deliberately false or intentionally misleading: black propaganda.

18.British. boycotted, as certain goods or products by a trade union.

19.(of steel) in the form in which it comes from the rolling mill or forge; unfinished.

white
–adjective
1.of the color of pure snow, of the margins of this page, etc.; reflecting nearly all the rays of sunlight or a similar light.

2.light or comparatively light in color.

3.(of human beings) marked by slight pigmentation of the skin, as of many Caucasoids.

4.for, limited to, or predominantly made up of persons whose racial heritage is Caucasian: a white club; a white neighborhood.

5.pallid or pale, as from fear or other strong emotion: white with rage.

6.silvery, gray, or hoary: white hair.

7.snowy: a white Christmas.

8.lacking color; transparent.

9.(politically) ultraconservative.

10.blank, as an unoccupied space in printed matter: Fill in the white space below.

11.Armor. composed entirely of polished steel plates without fabric or other covering; alwite.

12.wearing white clothing: a white monk.

13.Slang. decent, honorable, or dependable: That's very white of you.

14.auspicious or fortunate.

15.morally pure; innocent.

16.without malice; harmless: white magic.

17.(of wines) light-colored or yellowish, as opposed to red.

18.British. (of coffee) containing milk

sally vs russell

why is it human nature to want to pit two things against one another?

dog fights
girls vs boys
football matches
wrestling
wars
team jacob vs team edward
heaven vs hell

why is there a constant need to have a vindicated winner and loser?
one superior to the other; who is now wounded either emotionally or physically from the conflict.

even if we seem to mean it in a joking way, the subconcious desire to eliminate the weaker ones and to triumph with the victor always seems present. what can we take from this subconcious urge to self serve and to belittle others?

does this go back to our caveman days where survival of the fittest was the only way to progress or have we winched ourselves so high up on the hierarchal table that we have lost sight of what put us there in the first place? are we, by our own terms, behaving like animals? hiding our still barbaric and basal needs behind banking systems, 6.8 litres engines and an air of sophistication?

even in global terms we find the need to grade things from best to worst
(1st world countries and 3rd world countries anyone?)
yet we scorned and criticised pretty much everyone from the middle ages to the 1800s when we saw how much they relied on their social system.

maybe our need to derogate others comes from the fact that it is so frowned upon in our day and age. we never got to act like primates, were never given the chance to act without consequence and have never lived in a world without morals and ethics.

somehow, i believe the latter to be an excuse for the truth that we are surrounded by.

perception vs reality. how ironic.

masquerade paper faces on parade

" Language was given to man to disguise his thoughts "

Talleyrand 1754 - 1888

a dream is a wish your heart makes when you're fast asleep

my dreams have always been important to me, and more now so than ever, my dreams have been realistic, vivid and all relating to things i've been thinking about. whilst researching about dreams, i found this rather interesting article, and i loved the way the writer talks about the meaning of dreams.

"An approach to meaning that most people ignore is that of pattern recognition and the correspondence between patterns. The correspondence may be direct and exact, analogous, or formal, as in mathematics. One understanding of meaning is that when we say that one thing means something we are saying that the patterns we see in it correspond to the patterns we see in something else. We may correlate the patterns we see in a person’s life to patterns we perceive in the wisdom literature, or in history.

Does the sport of basketball mean anything? Throwing a basketball through a hoop, the rules of the game--do they mean anything? Was meaning intended by the designer of the game? Why do people get so excited by the game? We intuitively and emotionally respond to the correspondences between the patterns in the sport of basketball and patterns of effort, competition, risk taking and skill in our own lives.

I believe it is perhaps to miss the point to ask if dreams have meaning. Nothing can have meaning without reference to a corresponding pool of patterns with which to make the connection. Rather I would say, can you find patterns in dreams that correspond to patterns in people’s lives? Are the correspondences of any interest?

Clearly the answer is yes. Dreams are a wealth of metaphors and analogies that pertain to important issues in people’s lives. The clinical literature of dream interpretation is full of such data. It can’t be denied."

to say that this is true, would be incorrect, as how would we ever know this for certain? to me i would say this is partially true, as some of the dreams i am currently having are so related to my life that they may aswell be my life. but at the same time i can think of two dreams in particular which as far as i can conciously understand, have no relation to my life at all.

however, like Henry Reed mentions above, those two dreams that i am thinking of, could be metaphors or analogies that pertain to issues in my life. these metaphors just being too convuleted or abstract for my concious brain to decipher, along with the fact that the account of the dream is only based on what i can remember, meaning the most important clues to what the dream could mean, could have been easily forgotten.

maybe our dreams are portals into another world? another life that we have lived, or will live someday. or maybe just insight into our purest of thoughts, free of all inhibition and prejudice.
on the other hand our dreams could just be a random simulation that we play through based on memories.

do we have freedom in our dreams? do we actually play out a role, deciding how the story will play out, or is it all predetermined? i'm trying to think through any dreams that i have remembered, trying to find a memory of myself actively choosing or changing something in a dream, but i just can't remember in enough detail.

maybe that's the reason why we can never remember our dreams completely and accurately. maybe if we did it would unwravel the whole mystery of dreams, it would allow us to see far into our brains, allow us to travel into some other universe, or allow us to live in our dreams forever. maybe we just can't know what's really happening in our dreams, because the truth is too unimaginable, too unbearable or too simple.

i find that we make our dreams seem so overly complicated that they are just too intricate to understand. can they really be so complex and so metaphorical if other animals can dream too? my dogs, do something in their sleep that i can only assume to be dreaming. if we work under the principle that they are 'inferior' to us, then can they really be dreaming? can they really be thinking up and playing through their desires and life problems? to suggest such a thing sounds ridiculous, but it is a valid question.

my mum once said to me, that when i was a baby i used to make sounds and twitch in my sleep the way that the dogs do. does this relate somehow to the relation between their mental capacity and that of a baby?

i don't know the answers to any of my questions, but feel like finding them would turn our dreams into just another bodily function, just another mystery solved. do we really need to solve this one?

a dream is defined as both of the thoughts above.

1.a succession of images, thoughts, or emotions passing through the mind during sleep.

2.the sleeping state in which this occurs.

3.an object seen in a dream.

4.an involuntary vision occurring to a person when awake.

5.a vision voluntarily indulged in while awake; daydream; reverie.

6.an aspiration; goal; aim: A trip to Europe is his dream.

7.a wild or vain fancy.

8.something of an unreal beauty, charm, or excellence.

i know which ones i'd rather believe in...

seatbelt schmeatbelt

so recently, the australian government has decided to impose a new safety rule for young passengers. they have decided that it is now a neccessity for a child seven years or younger to be placed in a specially made car seat. when i heard the news, i was slightly baffled and a little annoyed.

why does a seven year old need to have a car seat? i remember being seven, it was only about nine years ago. i was living in holland and my mum drove a red renault twingo. it was a two door car. i went to the BSN and i once navigated family friends, and strangers to the country, from the airport to my house, by myself.

these random facts about my mother's car and other things may seem irrelevant but i can't imagine being able to think they way i did when i was seven, having the maturity i did when i was seven, imploring the reasoning skills and remembering information the way i did when i was seven, yet having to be restrained like some toddler in a car seat.

i guess this leads me to ask, what makes a seven year old so different from a six year old? do you suddenly hit seven and magically obtain powers that make you able to withstand a car crash whilst sitting in an ordinary car seat? physically, i would imagine the difference is not much at all, and even less mentally.

but then you could ask, well if thats so, then whats so different between a six year old and a five year old? or a five year old and a four year old? and before you know it, babies and toddlers are free to sit in a normal passenger seat.

so therefore, there has to be a limit.

a limit is defined as

• 
  
  The point, edge, or line beyond which something cannot or may not proceed.
• 
  
  A confining or restricting object, agent, or influence.
• 
  
  To confine or restrict within a boundary or bounds.
• 
  
  To fix definitely; to specify.

but who decides where the limit lies? is it something measurable? in mathematical cases, the limit can be measured. is it the same, however, for this circumstance? who should make the final decision on this limit? should it be a doctor, who can use their expertise to decide how a child's body will react?

should it be safety testers of cars? who can use their previous experiments to determine a age where a child can protect themselves better when in a crash?

or should it be the mother? who subjectively knows their child better than anyone else? who's child it concerns?

furthermore, i don't recall the rule of having to put a seven year old in a car seat being around when i was younger so why is it so now? why had the old rule suddenly become 'not enough' to protect children? if a limit is a limit can you really limit it further?

limit limit limit limit limit limit limit limit limit limit limit limit limit limit

wolfman

on the weekend i went to see 'the wolfman' starring benicio del toro, emily blunt, anthony hopkins and hugo weaving. surprisingly enough it raised the issue of different perspectives and how they can affect your actions.

in the movie, benicio del toro is turned into a werewolf by another werewolf, who turns out to be his father. he is tricked by his father, and finds out that his dad was also responsible for the death of not only his mother but his brother as well. his lover in the movie, emily blunt is the last person who loves him and knows the truth.

the townsfolk, along with hugo weaving, a detective from scotland yard, wish to kill benecio, because they see him as nothing but a monster, responsible for killing many people.

obviously, the film was set up in a way that makes the audience empathize with benicio; thus adding to the film but its just interesting how the knowledge that the detective and the townspeople recieved completely changed their impression of the werewolf.

beam me up

i was watching an episode of star trek: next generation with my parents this evening when a real knowledge issue was raised. the klingon people had just seen the return of the supposed 'kahless', a man who was a legend in their culture, much like beowulf, and who was seen as a hero and role model.

commander data, an android, approaches lieutenant warf, who is a klingon and proceeds to have this conversation.

"in the absence of emperical data how can you tell if this is the real Kahless?"

"it is not an empirical matter, it is a matter of faith"

"faith. and you do believe Kahless may have supernatural attributes?as an android i am unable to accept that which cannot be proven through rational means, i'd appreciate hearing your insights on this matter"

"perhaps another time commander, i do not believe i can provide much insight at this moment."

this is exactly what we have been discussing in class for the past couple of weeks. what makes something truth? does it have to be absolute, or justified empirically? it's nice to know we aren't the only ones discussing knowledge issues.

who knows?

recently, the russian ice dancing team performed a routine wearing an "aboriginal costume". they danced in an "aboriginal" style and wore dark skinned costumes with white lines and leaves glued onto it. they later recieved a lot of criticism and speculation from the media and from viewers about whether what they did was racist or inappropriate.

the aboriginal people of australia came forward and said that they didn't mind that the icedancers performed that way because although it was misguided, it was still with good intention and was meant to flatter. however there are a lot of people who think otherwise. but who are they to judge? if aboriginal people themselves are not offended by this performance than is it fair for us to be?

how deep can one persons level of understanding really go before they are limited by their own personal experiences and boundaries?

is culture something which can even be owned? the performers although elluding to the idea of aboriginals, used no actual dance or song from aboriginal culture and only insinuated aboriginal people by their dress. who are we to say they cannot dress that way or dance that way because it is already a certain culture's style? surely if that were so we would not be allowed to do anything in terms of performance.

this case is in some way similar to the case of the men at work and the song 'land down under'. yes the flute part sounds much like the folk song 'kookaburra sits in an old gum tree', but is the song not about Australia itself? to me i don't see a more appropriate place for such a well known australian folk song to appear.

in terms of the law, who actually owns that piece of music? it allegedly belongs to the descendants of the woman who created it. now this woman was a 'tawny owl' or 'guide leader' for her guides group and made it up as something to entertain the girls on their bush hike. when she died did she leave the physical rights of this song to her descendants? surely she didn't know quite how famous it would become?

should it not be australia who owns this song as it is about their nation and native animals? do we not know this song as a folk song of australia?

cultural identity seems to becoming something which some people have decided can be owned independantly, something which has become such a taboo subject, that no one can even begin to use it without asking for some longwinded response of approval.

it's all about perspective

perspective evidently has a huge impact on what you know, how you know it and what you believe. i always try to be open to other perspectives although sometimes its just so hard to understand the other side. but i was listening to the BBC news a couple of weeks ago and i remember hearing an update on the fight against terrorists. i don't remember what the news was exactly but it went something like this

"British and American troops in Iraq have successfully blown up a known terrorist hideout, destroying the building and killing several civilians. This was in response to the death of the five CIA agents who were killed by terrorists last week."

terrorism is defined on dictionary.com as

–noun
1.a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2.a person who terrorizes or frightens others.

and in the oxford dictionary as

• noun a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

this makes me wonder, i'm not condoning the acts of terrorists by any means at all, but if we have defined terrorism as frightening others and using violence for political advancement then how can we say that what we are doing is not terrorism? yes, the 'terrorists' may have killed many more innocent civilians but even the word 'more' is too much of a subjective statement to mean anything.

what are the justified reasons for the 'war in iraq'? is america fighting to protect their access to valuable oil? yes. are they fighting to protect their economic interests in the region? yes. are they fighting in retaliation? yes.

personally, i do not understand, why any of these reasons should be inflicting so much damage to people other than maybe the owner of the land which the oil is found, and the people collecting the oil themselves.

obviously i do not understand the 'war in iraq' to the degree that i should in order to evalutate it properly but how can we expect them to not retaliate the way they do when we attack and bomb their people? yes they may be fighting for something we don't believe is right, but what proof do we have that they are wrong? is it not their own perspective, their own ethics and morals? i assume to them, we are completely wrong.

all that i can say is that if you were blowing up my people, i'd certainly try and blow up yours.

who are the real terrorists here?

on knowledge

doing this theory of knowledge course really has changed my perception of knowledge because although i've always been quite critical of knowledge, now i'm just more aware of everything. or at least i thought i was.

in fact, the so called 'prank' that our principal pulled on us, really did open my eyes to just how accepting of authority i really was.

it also showed me that if something is in a power point, i will most likely believe it. and that does shock me, because that sounds rather sheepish to me, but i completely fell for the graphs and statistics that dr lennox threw at us.

i do feel really privileged to be partaking this tok class, i feel as if i have a really good oppurtunity to better myself as a learner, a thinker and a knower. i know that may sound a bit contrived, but it's true. i do believe that knowledge is more than just pure academia.

you need to know how to apply knowledge and you need to know how to interpret the knowledge you have gained. questioning, discussing and being open minded are all ways of gaining knowledge and to me, showing you have knowledge.