The Equation.

There is no value in science. 

I mean that very specifically. As I am wont to do.  But seriously, it is a mistake we all make. I would dare to say, that we’ll always make. But it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be mindful of it. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive against it’s inevitability. 

Very often, the same word has different, and closely related, definitions. Despite this common occurrence we still go ahead and use them interchangeably. This is is sometimes called equivocation.

Let’s say there are only two definitions of “value”. Let’s say that they are, one: what something costs or amounts and two: what importance something holds.  Same word, two very closely related, but different, definitions. Sometimes used as a noun. Sometimes as a verb.

When I say science provides no value, I’m saying it doesn’t provide importance. Whether something is a benefit or a detriment is not something that science tells you. Science doesn’t care. Literally. 

As far as science is concerned, the discovery of germs and viagra are, by definition, equal. The importance that these discoveries have are absolute moral decisions. The “goodness” or “badness” of the discoveries is based on our hubris. 

Using science to persuade about the moral rightness of any position, will not get you far, rationally speaking. It’s the wrong tool for the job. I get that it is mighty persuasive. Because magic always is. But it has no basis in reason. 

When you finally take your humanity out of the equation then, only then, do you have an equation. 

Causa Sui

So, I’ve been thinking about “It’s the exception that proves the rule.”

You know that phrase that we've all probably used at some point or another? 

What does it mean, exactly?

It’s an appeal to belief by way of logic.  Yeah?

No? Okay, how about:

It’s a “get out of jail free card”  for when your science suddenly gets backed into a metaphysical corner and lashes out.

Not yet? Then maybe:

It’s a way to dismiss a counter example to whatever point you are  trying to make. Likely a point that had never occurred to you before and you instantly realize that you have no rational means to deny it. At least not until you get some time to think about it. Later. 

So you say: “It’s the exception that proves the rule.”

Because the opposite of a thing, of anything, is really a negation of that thing.

The idea I am trying to draw a circle around starts with a question: Why should it work? 

Why should making that statement hold any value? And what does it actually mean to say those words? Because doesn’t the exception actually disprove the rule? 

It’s more like the exception proves that there IS a rule.

So, putting it all together. The opposite (denial) of a thing proves that there is something to deny. 

But how does it do that?

It does it in the the only way that anything can be known. It does it by contrast. Dualism as they call it. 

This is where we live most of the time. Dualism. No, not all of the time. But, it’s because of dualism that there is time. Or vice versa. 

Time is a measurement of change. 

Change (or time) gives you the ability to say that one moment is not another moment. 

What follows now is that this lets you say that both moments must exist. Remember? If one is the denial of the other, there must be something to deny.

Thus, the exception proves the rule.

But that bit back there? Where I say that one (a) is not the other (b)? That is not demonstrable with out assuming the “a” and “b” to begin with.

To be able to say “a therefore b”, “b” had to exist already so that you could prove “a”. And to have “b” to be able to prove you have “a”, well, “a” had to exist already to prove “b”.

Confused? Good.

Because there is another fairly well known philosophical argument that struggles with this same logic: God. 

Mental Onanism

I've been pretty non-plussed by most of the comic adaptations to film I've seen lately. Vaguely satisfying imagery, but with little of the joy I remember. There are exceptions of course, but they are by definition, rare. So, during the frenzy of anticipation in the lead up for the release of "The Avengers", I wasn't bothering to stake out a piece of sidewalk to camp out on. But when I found out Joss Whedon directed?  I reconsidered. After all, he's done some impressive work. 

"Firefly" by Joss Whedon was TV that surprised me enough into forgetting that I was watching TV. Either in spite of, or because of it's "Old west meets outer space" angle, this show succeeded where others did not. After savouring the show's oh-so-short run, I turned to the now long cancelled, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". With some instruction from one of the devout as to optimum episode viewing order, I found again that I was happily surprised.

Sure. It was pulp. It was TV back in the late 90's. And it was pretty freaking good. Both Buffy and Firefly had something going for them. Something far beyond even the things that I thought were amazing about them. It was shocking: Women watched and enjoyed them too - lots of them.

Space cowboys and Vampire slaying cheerleaders.

Blew. My. Mind.

Further forays into Joss' repertoire led to discovering that he had wanted to do a Wonder Woman movie. But, sadly, the deal fell through. Now, after now seeing a reasonable body of his work, I was hardly surprised. I haven't any claim to know why it didn't happen, but I tell myself a story something like this: 

For my money, the female characters in "Firefly" are just about some of the best realized People that I've ever seen in a male created fiction. I haven't seen or read everything, probably someone else has a better grasp of the field and knows it better than I.  I'm just talking about my experience. Which was that these women are real, fully motivated and self actualizing people. And that puts them in a pretty small pool of examples. 

It starts to make sense that Joss Whedon has a particular leaning towards these kinds of strong female characters. If that's true, I'm pretty sure he wasn't going to create the Wonder Woman that the people, that the men, who were going to front the money for the project were expecting. As in, not at all. I'm willing to bet that she was even going to be…shhh. She was going to be black!

 *Gasp* 

And the deal here is that while I believe that she was going to be a kick ass warrior-woman, what she was not going to be was anyones sex kitten. Again, it's just my belief, but quite honestly, I figure that she wasn't going to feel threatened by men or by patriarchy. Which in a lot of ways just means "hierarchy". And this is where an odd idea showed up in my brain. 

What happened was that I heard myself say, all the while talking the same Joss Whedony jive as above but this time around, when I got to the bit about Wonder Woman? Due to the audience to whom I was speaking, I summed it up more like: "I don't think he was gonna make her a guy with tits." That's when it hit me.

Just how many of these female characters were really just men in women's bodies? And not just in comics and fluff cinema, but in all sorts of media.  For a woman to be considered strong, she basically has to be a dude. Almost invariably. Their morals area easily categorized as typically male. 

I'll risk an assumption about who consumes most of this kind of media: males.  Maybe more young men than old men, yeah? Anyway, I think that the men consuming this product are, at least in part, drawn to a larger-than-life, female version of their already fantasy-selves. Someone who is essentially an implacable warrior and also a perfectly compliant sex partner. 

I don't think that because these guys might be wanting to have sex with a female version of themselves means that what they are feeling is gay. I mean it may be the case sometimes. But that conclusion doesn't follow by necessity. Instead, I want to suggest that it's extreme narcissism. They simply want to have sex with themselves.

The air you breathe.

Violence. 


Our history is choked with horrific examples. Vile, soul-blanching acts of the most depraved kind.  A seemingly unending stream of ways for people to hurt each other. From global conflict to backyard rivalries, as a species we really know how to lay the smack down. The way the theory goes is that life is nasty, short and ruled by brutes.  At the root, people are selfish, uncaring and violent. The only person you can count on is yourself.  Frankly, I don't buy it. 


When you examine our penchant for violence, the picture looks pretty bleak. The further you look into the kinds of atrocities that people are willing to inflict on others, the more you have to question the notion that you can become desensitized to violence. If it was always the same level of violence, maybe you could become used to it.  But we don't live in a world that has an upper threshold for violence.  Every time you think you've heard or seen the worst, another nightmare bludgeons it's way into the light. But as I say, I don't buy into this picture of humanity.

There is something that is overlooked, or at least trivialized to the point of being easily ignored.  It is a most vital fact. That, at heart, we are cooperative, social pacifists.  To me, this is critical. It's kind of like art. How would we see the painting without the canvas?  We live in a cooperative, mutually dependant world; like fish in the sea. A vast, unglamorous life of cooperation surrounds us; almost everywhere, everyday of our lives. It is the reason why acts of war and violence stand out so obviously and noticeably. And very unlike violence, tolerance and cooperation is being delivered at a nearly constant level and so fades into the background.

If you think about it for even a moment it becomes obvious that a vast amount of your day to day life is dependant, is only possible, with the cooperation of other people.

The notion that the physically strongest rule through threat of violence simply doesn't hold water. If the basic premise is that if I have the means to kill (or seriously hurt) you, I will then threaten to take said action and so, force you to conform to my will. This is all well and good. But at best it is a short term strategy to success. How far can intimidation get me? Can I rule you everyday of my life with the threat of doing you harm? Suppose I were to try, what would happen?


There is an old adage about Hawks and Doves.  In a world populated by Hawks, who are agressive, and Doves, who are pacific, if a Hawk meets a Dove, the Dove loses. If two Doves meet, everything stays the same. If two Hawks meet, they fight until one wins. This process continues until there is only one Hawk ruling over the Doves. A good enough metaphor, but hardly complete when looking at complex human motivations. Nonetheless, lets continue to use the analogy just a bit longer.  Perhaps we can say more realistically that people are likely to be part Hawk and part Dove, depending on the situation. Which means that at any point a Dove might turn into a Hawk. If that's true, then where does it leave ruling by force?

Well, if I am violent by nature and I assume that there are others like me, I would have to find these threats and eliminate them. But can I do it fast enough? Not by myself. I simply can't act alone. I need people to help me. I need people that I trust implicitly to surround me at all times and protect me since anyone can turn into a threat at anytime. Again, how long do I have before I start to worry about things like falling asleep or turning my back on the wrong person? Eating poisoned food? Because I have to eat and I have to sleep and if I'm not protected, no matter how strong and brutal I am, eventually I will be killed.


So to be able to succeed in my endeavour to rule through violence I have to find other people that will also benefit from using violence and are willing to help me. Do you see it now? I have to cooperate in order to live. Cooperation is as important to my survival as the air I breathe. Even for a Hawk.

When I was a kid.

What I find most sad and laughable about the bitter, bigoted invectives launched at the Québec Students is how completely the commenters are trapped under the weight of their own suffering. Statements like: "I had to work hard. It's time for a reality check!"  Really? This is the world you want to live in? Because, without fail, each comment laments how easy the students have it, or how they are all puffed up with entitlement.  So when our soldiers come back from war they should wish it upon their children? "I had to go to war and kill or be killed. Why should these young punks have it any different?" To my ears the person whining about how someone else has it better or easier sounds like the person with the inflated sense of entitlement.

Socially speaking, we're in this to win it aren't we? Are we really supposed to stop improving society?  Because that suggests that Democracy, as envisioned by your government, is the end of the line; we've reached the pinnacle of human achievement and there is no more room for social improvement. Accept it, this is the best we can do. Give me a break.  We can do far better than this. Particularly if we stop jumping down the throats of people who suggest differently or literally beating down those that actually try to make it better than we had it. What is wrong with, not only freezing tuition, but doing away with it?  But "Who's gonna pay?" or  "Nothing is free!" will be shouted from the chorus. Instead of answering let me instead ask: Why does it matter?