#yet another concept that the writers failed to understand or take advantage of

[graysoncritic]

A (Negative) Review of Tom Taylor's Nightwing Run - What Went Wrong? Melinda Lin Grayson

Introduction Who is Dick Grayson? What Went Wrong? Dick's Characterization What Went Wrong? Barbara Gordon What Went Wrong? Bludhaven (Part 1, Part 2) What Went Wrong? Melinda Lin Grayson What Went Wrong? Bea Bennett What Went Wrong? Villains Conclusion Bibliography

Things do not get any better when it comes to Dick’s relationship to Melinda.

As I believe it is important to own up to one’s biases, I’ll begin by admitting that I dislike secret-sibling tropes. However, the problem present in Melinda’s character does not revolve around the concept of her existence, but rather in the fact that her status as Dick’s sister adds nothing to the story. Taylor does not take advantage of her existence to add to Dick’s backstory, complicate his views of his parents, to add conflict to the plot, or to offer on-screen character and relationship development. In failing to have his original character live up to her full potential, Taylor reduces her to a deus-ex-machina who only appears to either save Dick at the right time, or to put him in danger at the right moment.

That is why in execution, Melinda’s existence is irrelevant. While I would never want John Grayson to be cheater and I do not want John and Mary's marriage to be tarnished, that route would have offered conflict, for it forces Dick to grapple with the reality that parents were not the infallible individuals he remembers.

Instead, Melinda is very conveniently conceived during the span of time between John and Mary becoming an acrobatic duo and them getting together. They were already in love, so Dick does not have to worry about Melinda's mom being John's long lost lover and Mary having been a rebound. Yet, because John and Mary were not yet together, John remains a good person as he was not unfaithful. Melinda's mom doesn't resent Mary for ending up with John while she was stuck in an abusive relationship. Melinda doesn’t resent Dick for having known their father while she lived with Zucco. Neither does she feel any love towards Zucco or seeks his approval — which would have been another interesting and understandable source of conflict. After all, though he was an awful man, husband, and father, for a good part of Melinda’s life, he was the only father figure she had, and it is very common for children who were raised by an abusive guardian to still desire their affection.

(Taylor, Tom, writer. Redondo, Bruno, illustrator. Leaping into the Light Part Five. Nightwing: Rebirth. 82, e-book ed. DC Comics, 2021. pp 14)

The way in which Taylor quickly and neatly wraps up this story does little to add to either Melinda or Dick’s character. Furthermore, Dick readily believes Melinda and Meilin when he is told their story. He does not know them, yet he simply accepts their words without requiring any evidence, without asking many questions, and without following it up with an investigation. 

Neither do we see him experience denial or any other form of human emotions to such a monumental discovery. In #83, when Dick returns to his apartment, he tells Babs “You heard? I have a sister. And even better… There’s a chance she’s not evil,” to which she replies  “I hear. You need to talk about it?” Rather than replying, or, indeed, talking about how he feels about this revelation, Dick instead passes out. As readers we never get to see if said conversation happened (which would also develop Dick and Babs’ relations), and so we never get to see Dick grapple with this life changing revelation..

(Taylor, Tom, writer. Redondo, Bruno, illustrator. Leaping into the Light Part Six. Nightwing: Rebirth. 83, e-book ed. DC Comics, 2021. pp 12)

Conveniently, Melinda’s morals and her approaches to solution also perfectly align with Dick’s own. Not only is she not the bad guy Dick originally thought she was, but she is actively working against those Dick wishes to stop. And, again, Dick takes her word for it without a second thought. Dick appears skeptical for a mere second before Melinda gives him an out by asking if he has “difficulty believing someone could have a double life.” 

(Taylor, Tom, writer. Redondo, Bruno, illustrator. Leaping into the Light Part Six. Nightwing: Rebirth. 83, e-book ed. DC Comics, 2021. pp 04)

This question misses the point of what should be Dick’s understandable suspicion. Just because Dick can believe someone can live a double life, it does not mean he should immediately accept the words of a woman he has never met before without any evidence. Neither should he just take her word for it when she says that she “brought down two crime bosses from within” and that she wishes “to do the same for Bludhaven.”

Just as baffling as the fact that Dick immediately believes is the fact that he is ready to include her in all of his plans to take down Blockbuster without even investigating whether she might have ulterior motives.

And this goes both ways. When Melinda claims to have the same goals as Dick, she does not question Dick’s motivations. Neither does she question the legality of having a vigilante in the city, working outside of the system. 

The problem is not just that they have the same objective — take down Blockbuster — but that their approach to said objective is the exact same, that their beliefs in what would be best for Bludhaven perfectly align, and so they trust each other with critical information almost instantaneously, denying the reader the opportunity to read them about them earning each other’s trust by trying to persuade the to their side.

(Taylor, Tom, writer. Redondo, Bruno, illustrator. Leaping into the Light Part Six. Nightwing: Rebirth. 83, e-book ed. DC Comics, 2021. pp 05)

fter meeting one another, Dick and Melinda work closely together, and soon they start to think of themselves as siblings. This, however, happens off-screen. Melinda and Dick hardly ever appear together on the page, and Dick only thinks of her when it is convenient to the plot.  

As such, we are left with a significant change to a character’s backstory without having any conflict or significance created by this new addition. Melinda is not evil, so there's no conflict to be added. Melinda and Dick's morals not only perfectly align, but their methodology does as well. Dick is also not suspicious of Melinda, and Melinda views vigilantism and Nightwing’s presence in Bludhaven as a positive. There are no secret identity issues where Melinda doesn't know Dick and Nightwing are the same person and has contradicting feelings for each persona. Since Dick immediately takes her word when she claims to be his sister and when she claims to “not be evil,”  there is no need for her to win him over. There is no need for Dick to get Melinda to trust him. In other words, there is no room for this relationship to develop in front of the readers’ eyes so that we can grow to care for their bond and become invested in their dynamic. Every potential conflict or development is resolved and achieved as soon as the idea of Dick having a secret sister is introduced to the reader, making so that the storyline goes from its beginning to its endpoint in just two issues. 

This further destroys Dick’s characterization. Rather than trusting, Dick comes across as gullible, as he will blindly take the words of others when they tell him they are not evil. Dick comes off as incompetent, as he was unmasked so quickly and so easily when trying to investigate Melinda. And Melinda becomes a plot device, not a character. She is a deus-ex-machina who is there to call Dick when Blockbuster is going to try to kill him so Dick can escape at last second

(Taylor, Tom, writer. Redondo, Bruno, illustrator. Get Grayson Act Three. Nightwing: Rebirth. 90, e-book ed. DC Comics, 2022. pp 04)

Or to bring Dick to danger when the plot needs Dick to be in danger.

(Taylor, Tom, writer. Redondo, Bruno, illustrator. The Battle for Bludhaven’s Heart Part Three. Nightwing: Rebirth. 94, e-book ed. DC Comics, 2022. pp 22)

A lot of this could have been avoided if Melinda just wasn't Dick's sister, and instead they were made into reluctant allies. There would be no reason for her and Dick to spend time together outside of Nightwing-business or develop a sibling-bond, and without the Grayson connection, there would be the tension of Dick not knowing whether she is a threat. Losing the Grayson connection would also allow Melinda to become her own person, with her own history and interiority outside of Dick, John Grayson, and Zucco. She, too, could have become a face of Bludhaven so that her relevance to the plot would be through the city rather than Dick’s past. 

But that would require Dick to have meaningful interactions with a woman who is not related to him and who is not Barbara Gordon, and there would have been the threat of any tension between Dick and Melinda to be seen as romantic or sexual. It would have also required Taylor to put in the work to make an otherwise everyday human into someone who can excel in her work despite her ordinariness. 

Instead of letting the audience witness Dick and Melinda grow closer to one another, their bond as allies, friends, and siblings is developed off-screen. Taylor opts to skip over the interesting and messy steps that it takes to create such a relationship by instead having them immediately like and trust one another. 

As I said in the beginning of this section, I was never personally going to like "Dick's secret sibling" concept, but I could have still liked Melinda for her own character. Or I could have fallen in love with the sibling relationship she would build with Dick, had I been allowed the chance to witness it grow for myself. But Taylor makes no effort to endear his readers to Melinda as a character or to her relationship with Dick. Instead, she becomes the perfect example of so many of Taylor’s weaknesses as a writer — his distaste for conflict;  his tendency to show and not tell; his wanting to create plot twists that look shocking in a social media post while having no desire to follow through the consequences of said plot point; his wanting to create emotional pay-offs without putting in the work beforehand; his complete lack of understanding or care for Dick's character. Melinda embodies all of these problems.

[constantvariations]

Y’all remember Ren’s random ass semblance evolution right? This bullshit?

Does this mean that Ren has always been colorblind and only now is he able to see colors (and somehow know exactly what they mean)? Why isn’t the idea of a colorblind character in a world heavily based on colors explored?

[sometimesrosy]

Can you tell us, from a writer point of view, what’s Echo’s plot and what you think of it? What type of archetype is she? Where is she headed? How did her character in past seasons influence her character in s5 and how will it influence s6? Sorry if it’s too much, I’m just really curious because barely anyone analyses her character without being biased. If you take this “challenge”, I’ll thank you for it. If not, I understand and thank you anyways.

Okay. First, archetypes aren’t like, a definitive label to place on a character. Archetypes are traditional stories and characters, patterns and tropes and conventions that we are familiar with due to eons of these stories being told.

They help us build our concept of humanity, of ourselves, and of expectations, ideas of right and wrong, and help us make sense of the world around us. They are subconscious stories that *feel* right to us, so we can understand character or personal motivations.

As such, I can explore a character through many different archetypes and might have different understanding through each one. Some might fight more fully, some might be only a partial fit. A character might drop one archetype, and move onto another, like Bellamy starting out as “the rebel” and becoming “the caretaker.” He was DEFINITELY “the rebel.” And then he wasn’t. Or perhaps he still has some elements of “the rebel” in him. The more complex a character, the more realistic, the more we’ll be able to see multiple archetypes within them.

Okay, so I did a little google (with a short trip through some mens rights horror) and settled on our basic idea of archetype. Jungian. Generally with this show, while there are many literary elements going on, they are usually pretty simple ones, and you can find understanding on page 1 of your google search.

So for Echo, I’m going with:

The HeroMotto: Where there’s a will, there’s a wayCore desire: to prove one’s worth through courageous actsGoal: expert mastery in a way that improves the worldGreatest fear: weakness, vulnerability, being a “chicken”Strategy: to be as strong and competent as possibleWeakness: arrogance, always needing another battle to fightTalent: competence and courageThe Hero is also known as: The warrior, crusader, rescuer, superhero, the soldier, dragon slayer, the winner and the team player. [X]

She is The Hero before we meet her. I don’t mean the hero of the story, and i don’t meant The Hero’s Journey. I’m talking character type. Personality. 

So we meet her in the cages, where the enemy has beaten her and her story is basically over until she meets Bellamy who she blames, sorta, and hates, until she realizes teaming up is the way to survive and win. This actually reminds me of Clarke. She recognized him as “the hero” and leader, the “other” who could be allied with in order to win. Which she did. They work together to defeat Lovejoy, and Bellamy goes on his mission while Echo takes on HER mission, mobilizing the grounder troops.

However, her leader calls her to stand down, so she abandons her new comrade in arms and leaves him to fail, while following her leader, who has chosen to betray their allies. 

We know that this bothered her, because she told him it was wrong (as did Lincoln and Indra.) In season 3 she came back, and leaned on her relationship as comrade with Bellamy, apologized for her betrayal, and then, leads him away from the plot against Mount Weather. Thereby saving his life and fulfilling her debt to him for saving HER life, but also betraying him AGAIN. HOWEVER in doing so, she has followed her leader’s requests, again, in word, while also getting her goals accomplished. Saving Bellamy. Who she feels a connection with, as well as owing a debt to.

In season 4, she’s back again. This time, with power. The king depends upon her. She is a warrior again. She makes decisions for the best of her people. She continues with her enmity against the sky people, which has been the case since they landed. (witness her initial meeting with Bellamy.) BUT her interactions with Bellamy have taught her that the sky people have also contributed and are warriors in their own right. She still disregards the skypeople and thinks of them as enemies, but BELLAMY is not like other skypeople, and she would like him to trust her. :/ I am not a big fan of “not like other girls” thinking. Lxa did it too with Clarke.

That actually is important, because there are a lot of parallels between Echo and Bellamy’s relationship and Clarke and Lxa’s relationship. The opposite side enemies, who become allies and comrades and are betrayed, leading Clarke and Bellamy to basically lose it, who must come back to become comrades again in order to survive and then, fall in love. 

Lxa and CL was important to Clarke because it allowed her to embrace the dark side of herself, to make the hard choices, and face the terrible repercussions of those things. Lxa was her shadow and she needed to fall in love with her in order to move forward.

Echo and B/E is important to Bellamy because it allows him to forgive HIMSELF, to let go of his hate and resentment of the enemy who has caused him so much pain, so that he could accept “the other” as part of his family. As humanity. He needed this to move forward and lead with his head, while Clarke needed CL to embrace love and lead with her heart. 

I point these out because, while Echo is important and has her own story, her MAIN place in the story is to act as a foil for BELLAMY’S journey. Yes. She is there to serve his story. She is a secondary and sometimes tertiary character. because it’s HIS story. Why didn’t we get the story of B/E falling in love? Because it wasn’t about their love. It was about how their love changed Bellamy and allowed him to move forward in HIS story. He is a holistic leader now, he has forgiven himself and his enemy (sometimes the same thing) and now he can live without the trauma he has been holding and we see him as The Hero he is meant to be. For Bellamy, that is not actually his archetype, that is his role in the story. Not personality. Sorry, there are many forms of “the hero” in lit analysis. 

Echo’s story in s5 CHANGES. She moves from being a minor or tertiary character to being a secondary character.

NOW we get to see her in her Hero archetype. She is the fighter. The warrior. The team player. She goes on the missions. She saves the day. Right? 

Her story in season 5 and I suspect season 6, because it is not over. I feel like she went to sleep in the middle of it, is “The Hero” discovering that she does not need to be the warrior all the time and she has a place in her family without having to be fighting someone all the time. 

With the fight for Eden, she had a clear role. It was EVEN how she got Octavia to allow her to continue her relationship with her boyfriend. Her romance is not really the story. Being ALLOWED to be part of Bellamy’s life is. We don’t SEE their love. We see them fighting to be able to love. And to WIN that permission? What does she do? She fights against the enemies. She provides the leader with military advantages. She is The Warrior. 

It is hard to tell you what I think her story is this season without speculating, because I don’t believe her story is done.

I do not think her story will be about a romance, but I DO think it will be about belonging, about family, and about being the good guy– and what that means when she can’t just fight “the enemy” and let that be enough to make her worthy. It is part of the main story of the whole show, with different characters exploring what it means to be good. What IS good. Her issue is where does she belong, because she has always belonged AS The Warrior. If she can’t be The Warrior, then WHO IS SHE? 

I’m seeing some echo between Echo and Clarke now. The beginning of s1 had Clarke asking who was Wanheda if there was no one left to kill. And I think Echo will be having a similar question in season 6. When the warrior went to space and put down her sword and became a part of a family and found love, but then had to pick up the sword again and fight enemies again. So she had a place. The family, the love, the sword. 

I think her question will be “am I worthy if I don’t have the sword?” Partly because the question of love will be up in the air, with both Octavia and Clarke there now, and Bellamy loving Clarke. And to THEN be confronted by Clarke and Bellamy’s decision to “be the good guys” and Bellamy’s declaration that they weren’t going to kill their enemies. It leaves Echo without a place. This would essentially be a confrontation of her archetype. If she’s always playing the role of the hero and that is how she finds value, then having it taken from her and finding her own intrinsic value is a subversion of the Hero archetype.

I think she’ll find that being part of the family is ENOUGH. That being HERSELF is enough. And she might end up making some decisions that are the right thing to do, but not for her family. Hmm. I think she’s going to prove herself as the good guy also, but it may not be how her family wants. BUT that is speculation on what I see her story going towards, not an analysis of it yet. Because it hasn’t gotten to that part yet.

I believe that s5 and s6 are a two year long story arc for all the characters, so I’m looking at where we could go from where we are now.

. What do I feel about her story? If it goes the way I see it, I think it’s good and important and strong for a secondary character. I don’t like the romance because I ship Bellarke, but I also don’t see it as a threat, because I see it as a narrative tool to move Bellarke into the romantic. All the signs are there. It’s slower than the fandom wanted, and left us in the middle of it which makes them feel Bellarke isn’t happening, but it’s all still going along the conventions of the love triangle, so I’m good. 

I am leery of the ship wars, and I know the ship wars make me not want to pay as much attention to echo as i might otherwise if i didn’t know people would use the analysis to prop up a ship and shoot mine down, and take my analysis of what I see as a romantic obstacle to Bellarke as an attack on them. And while I appreciate echo, I can’t take part in echo appreciation because people use that to hate on Clarke, which I cannot abide. So the fandom limits how I may address characters and stories. Mainly because I don’t want the drama. 

I took the challenge. It was hard. ;)

[warcrafttimemd]

Thoughts On The Criticism of AU!Draenei Direction

As the fallout from the revelations of the Mag’har Allied Race scenario continues to spread through the fanbase, I’ve seen plenty of good reasons why the decision to turn the AU!Draenor Draenei evil was a terrible one: it’s illogical, it invalidates the entirety of the Warlords of Draenor storyline, it’s a weak-ass excuse to set the Mag’har against a threat they need help with that they couldn’t get from the AU!Draenei that also completely ignores all the other nonsense going on like the crazy plants in Gorgrond, it’s the latest in the increasingly shameful exhibit of how Blizzard doesn’t know how to write female characters, it’s a pathetically lazy attempt to peddle the ‘both sides are evil’ narrative even though the AU@Draenei are not and have never actually been part of the Alliance, it’s just bad fucking writing, etc. It is an awful decision for all those reasons listed.

I have seen one that doesn’t work, though, and it’s been written a number of different ways:

“Draenei don’t/can’t work as oppressors because they’ve always been oppressed.”

“Draenei are victim-coded, so making them evil is wrong.”

“I can’t/don’t feel sorry for the Mag’har because they treated the Draenei so horribly in the past.”

It all basically boils down to this: Draenei, as villains, are impossible. Frankly, I don’t buy it.

“Draenei don’t/can’t work as oppressors because they’ve always been oppressed.”

Being oppressed or conquered in the past, whether as an individual or a group, doesn’t prevent an individual or a group from being oppressors or conquerors in the future. There’s no Ron Swanson-style card they get to hold up that says “I can do what I want.” What it does mean is that, having been treated in this awful way, they should know better than to turn around and do it to someone else. Unfortunately, you can look at the entire history of Azeroth to see how that lesson’s taken hold in others - or hasn’t, in most cases.

To the more severe version of the idea, that Draenei can’t be oppressors - that they are physically and morally incapable of the act on an objective scale, no matter the actual results of their actions - because of how they’ve been treated in the past, I also say bollocks. The ability to dominate and conquer is directly related to the power wielded by a person/faction; when we left AU!Draenor at the end of Warlords, the AU!Draenei were still on the back-foot (back-hoof?), but when we come back to AU!Draenor, even though we don’t have exact specifics yet, we can infer that they’ve grown in size and strength enough not just to challenge the Mag’har, but to become the dominant species/faction on the planet.

Whatever power of the Mag’har/Iron Horde wielded in the past, it’s now passed to the AU!Draenei. They have the power, and they’re happily using it to convert, enslave, and wipe out the Mag’har. When a faction starts outnumbering and enslaving other races, they don’t get to hold onto that ‘oppressed’ title. As Garrosh Hellscream himself said:

“Draenei are victim-coded, so making them evil is wrong.” 

This variation holds the most water for me, although I’d still argue it’s inaccurate. Is turning the AU!Draenei ‘evil’ morally wrong? No. Is it distasteful? Arguably. Is it a poor idea at this point in World of Warcraft’s story? Absolutely.

To a certain extent, I think I see what Blizzard is attempting to do: they’re pulling an ‘Arthas,’ showcasing how dire a threat is by showing that even the best and brightest can be turned into moustache-twirling villains by its influence. I think that Blizzard hopes that in doing so, not only will they add a huge amount of weight to Xe’ra’s actions in Legion, they’ll also be adding a huge amount of weight to the concept that the Light can be just as dangerous as the Void, which has, up until the Xe’ra stuff, seemed more like trite ‘all things in moderation’ philosophy than something concrete.

Xe’ra’s extremist approach was easy enough to pass off as a fluke for a number of reasons: because of existing in a fragmented state for so long, her sanity was questionable (wow, another insane female character, real original Blizz), she was ancient beyond reckoning, coming from a time and place far divorced from Azeroth (and Azerothian ideas about good and evil), etc. Xe’ra was really the first true instance of a Light-aligned character doing some really questionable stuff in the name of the Light; there have been other characters in similar circumstances (Arthas, the Scarlet Crusade, etc.) but all of those were shown to be ultimately under the control or direction of more nefarious forces. There’s no question what Xe’ra is up to. Xe’ra can’t be discounted as a rogue agent anymore. She isn’t the exception, she’s the harbinger, and the AU!Draenei (and potentially more characters in the future) are what she is heralding.

As to whether turning a ‘victim-coded’ race into conquerors is ‘wrong’...I guess I don’t even really understand that concept, that once a race/faction has been established as more likely to give ground than hold or take, then they’ll never, ever do anything but that, and that changing or reversing that behavior is morally incorrect on the behalf of the writers. Honestly, I addressed most of that in the first section. Yes, the Draenei have been shown to be naturally peaceful, and retreating from a fight or attempting to negotiate is their first instinct. However, they’ve also been shown to be easily swayed to drastic action when their faith is appealed to, something both Sargeras and K’ure took advantage of in the past, though for different reasons. A running theme in the Warcraft games is how absolute power corrupts, and there’s no good reason why any faction should be immune from that, no matter what they’ve been through. Dealing with shit in the past earns you nothing on a cosmic scale, which the World of Warcraft writers seem to enjoy reminding us a lot of lately.

That still doesn’t make the decision to have the AU!Draenei go Crusades on Draenor any better. It’s certainly in poor taste. The people of AU!Draenor got about as happy an ending as World of Warcraft affords: the bad guys were defeated, and everybody was pledged to a brighter future because, down at brass tacks, that’s what they all wanted. Then we come back years later - from the clues in the broadcast text, I’m assuming the Mag’har scenario takes place about 20-30 years after the events of Warlords - and find that literally everything is ruined. Nothing the players did really mattered at all; even though the Legion is no longer in the picture, Draenor is still in the hands of tyrants, it’s just religious fanatics instead of savage warriors this time. Who knows what’s happened to the Arakkoa. They were probably first on the AU!Draenei’s ‘to-smite’ list. It’s such an absolutely bitter pill that it almost defies belief. I joked about it in a post a while back, but Blizzard really did make Warlords somehow worse.

“I can’t/don’t feel sorry for the Mag’har because they treated the Draenei so horribly in the past.”

I call this the ‘Killmonger problem,’ because the folks who feel this way don’t assign an intrinsic negative value to certain actions/practices, but rather base their approval of those actions/practices purely on who’s performing them. In other words, they don’t have a problem with objectively evil actions like conquering and/or enslaving, but only as long as they’re the ones doing it or it’s happening to someone they don’t like.

Because the Mag’har were awful to the AU!Draenei in the past, there’s a tacit approval on some of the players’ parts of the idea that now the AU!Draenei should be able to be as awful as they want to the Mag’har. That’s not a perspective concerned with justice, but with vengeance, with ‘getting even.’ I’m not denying that the Iron Horde did some heinous things in the past, but visiting those horrors back on them does nothing but continue the cycle of violence.

Look, if the writers fail to elicit sympathy for the Mag’har, that’s partially on them. The way they’ve botched this entire thing, I’m not surprised. I’m having a hard time myself, although I suspect that’s mostly because I’m still trying to wrap my head around how the AU!Draenei could’ve possibly gone this bad in the first place. But I think the whole scenario also challenges us as an audience to look at this once completely sympathetic faction and what they’re doing now, and ask ourselves “Am I okay/not okay with this, and why? Am I getting a vicarious thrill out of seeing Draenei finally beat some Orc ass after years and years of oppression?” If the answer is yes, then own it, but don’t pretend like you’ve got the moral high ground to criticize story direction when you’re the one condoning or at least complicit with the faction that’s killing people for worshiping the wrong god. Glass houses and all that.

There is one more variation I’ve seen - not listed above - that explicitly has to do with how certain races in World of Warcraft are tied to real world equivalents, but that’s a complete can of worms that’s not really ever worth opening. Once we start talking about how certain factions are (insert race/religion)-coded, we project biases and opinions from the real world onto situations and people in completely different contexts, and we start debating about both as if they’re one, and they’re really not. Every race and faction in WoW is a mishmash of influences from multiple cultures, and trying to superimpose real world history over a fictional universe that exists as such leads directly to The Yawning, Dark Cavern That Nothing Good Ever Comes Out Of.

Sorry if this entire post has come off as completely bonkers. I’ve been drafting and rewriting it over the course of a couple of days, so I know it’s not the most coherent thing in the world, but, for whatever reason, whenever I saw justifications like this for hating on the Mag’har scenario, it just really ground my gears. Don’t get me wrong, I hate the direction that Blizzard has chosen to go with AU!Draenei, but I also feel pretty strongly that there are valid, logical reasons for disliking something, and then there’s just pseudo-socio-political nonsense. Feels kind of like people giving a politician a hard time about his/her looks or clothing choices when they're an abhorrent human being with no morals and terrible politics. If you're gonna go after a problem, go after it for the right reasons.

[postpostpostpostpostpost]

Creating the Modern Heroine

Throughout Gail Scott’s novel Heroine, the Narrator attempts to construct her ideal modern heroine. In an attempt to to write her novel, she examines and even obsesses over her past. She struggles to reconcile with her competing notions of self, attempting to find her place as a woman, a revolutionary, a writer, a lover, and a feminist even though elements of these identities are often at odds with each other. Scott ultimately creates a modern heroine that is not specific to an identity or experience but, instead, comes from a state of being or experiencing life, itself.

A source of much of the Narrator’s anguish stems from her relationship with a fellow leftist comrade and member of the “f-group”, Jon (Scott, 31). The Narrator comes back often to their relationship throughout the novel just as their relationship was an on and off type for quite a while. Jon convinces the Narrator to have a polyamorous relationship in which they are free to see other people, telling her that is the modern, revolutionary way of doing things. This quickly turns out to be much more advantageous for Jon than for her. The Narrator does not wish to be with others like he does, although she stays in the relationship since she still loves him. Although she attempts to seem modern (according to Jon’s definition), she is often jealous of the other women that he is with. She finds that the polyamorous nature of their relationship keeps them further apart than they would be otherwise: 

When I got drunk and confessed to him I couldn’t handle it when the girl with the green eyes put one hand on my arm and the other on your bum. As if she were the shock centre through which passed our love. (Scott, 31)

However, the Narrator attempts to avoid her jealousy, seeing it as an antiquated and limiting trait that doesn’t fit the type of cool, revolutionary, independent feminist she wishes to be. Jon also adds to this, making her feel bad for being jealous and blaming her for problems within their relationship. When feeling at odds, the Narrator often seeks advice from her friend, Marie, who seems to most closely resemble the type of ideal modern woman she is attempting to create. Scott describes Marie’s advice:

‘Everybody does what he wants,’ was the way you put it. Marie thought the ‘let live’ in ‘live and let live’ was redundant. A woman just had to concentrate on living for herself. Since she’s not responsible for the other, there’s no ‘letting live’ involved. (Scott, 58).

Regardless of Marie’s advice, the Narrator finds it difficult not to feel as though she is responsible for the state of the relationship despite having not having control over it.

Scott, through the conflict between the Narrator’s feminist beliefs and sexual and emotional desires, explores the concept of the modern heroine as well as critiquing elements of second-wave feminism. The Narrator is afraid to be vulnerable, feeling that depending on a man does not align with her feminist beliefs: “The feminist nemesis was that the more I felt your love the harder it was to breathe.” (Scott, 25). Throughout the novel, Scott highlights some elements in which she felt second-wave feminism was not adequate. She especially focuses on its lack of accommodation for diverse, individual desires that did not always fit in with feminist beliefs. The Narrator describes an incident of the intersection of sexual desire and feminism as she sees Jon from afar and overhears a conversation amongst a group of girls:

Your beautiful bronzed skin gleaming above and below your short shorts, which could scarcely contain your ponderous member. Some girls passed wearing bright red lipstick and halter tops. One of them stopped to stare at the goods. I could hear her say: ‘To hell with women’s liberation. What I want is a nice piece. Something to hold on to, you know what I mean?’ They all laughed. I laughed also. Because, Sepia, even feminists have their needs. (Scott, 42-43) 

Lori Marso writes: “To form a community, we need not appeal to common desires, common identities, or even necessarily the same moment in time.” (Marso, 264). Marso explains how, although it was beneficial in some ways to have a more unified concept of feminism, prior waves of feminism failed to consider the diverse identities and desires of women, leaving many feeling alienated or guilty (Marso, 263). 

Since the novel covers roughly 30 years of the Narrator’s life, the beliefs of the Narrator change over time. Different politics and styles of feminism also come and go from popularity throughout the story. The Narrator attempts to factor this into the creation of her heroine, struggling to figure out what a modern heroine would be like for her generation as well as if that type heroine is too antiquated by the time of her writing. Scott considers this, writing:

What was it again that Marie said this afternoon? … : ‘We have to transcend being women of our generation. Because having both square dancing and rock ’n’ roll on Saturday nights confused our identities. Not to mention, then came feminism. On dirait que certaines n’en ont pas fait la synthèse. (The huge brown eye rolled quite far in my direction.) Maybe younger women have it easier.’ (Scott, 43).

These different identities that the Narrator has taken on from before feminism, when she was younger, to what she refers to as post-feminism in the 1980s complicates her self image and, therefore, that of the heroine. She is determined to live in the present as she tries to find exactly what this means, believing that “A heroine locked in time could be the ruination of a novel.” (Scott, 138). Scott describes how the Narrator, grappling with different generations and the fear of aging, reacts to finding Jon with another woman: 

Anyway, I’m wearing the faded olive jumpsuit so I walk on the shady side of the elm. That way you and the girl with the green eyes cannot see the wrinkles. 

‘Hello.’

‘Hello,’ you say, but your body stiffens. She takes your arm supportively. I feel like saying to her, ‘SOLIDARITY.’ The older feminist talking to the younger. Is it true younger women are more relaxed about progressive sexual relations than us? I hear they cut down on romantic expectations. The better not to worry if their lovers fool around. (Scott, 57)

The Narrator finds it difficult living in the present since her present is made up of the past, with her reliving it over and over all at once, as is represented by Scott’s use of autofiction. The narrative goes back and forth through time, from her arrival to Montréal to being a jaded ex-revolutionary, giving a sense that exact dates don’t necessarily matter. Over time more and more identities are given to the Narrator, making it increasingly difficult for her to understand her self and, therefore, the heroine: "I didn’t reply, concentrating as I was on how to be a modern woman living in the present while at the same time finding out who lied, my love, me or you?” (Scott, 21).

The Narrator’s struggle to create an ideal, yet honest, heroine mirrors her efforts to create such an identity for herself. However, through her process of trying to create a true modern heroine, she has done so. Catherine Belsey writes: 

The issue that concerns me now is not whether women do as a matter of course write differently but whether feminists as a matter of strategy ought to do so. Feminists need, in my view, to write in a way that will coax the reader to sit up and think because, as readers, only what we have thought through for ourselves prompts us to active intervention in the world beyond the study. Agreement is not enough. (Belsey, 1158)

Belsey describes that there is no specific way for a feminist to write, however, she writes that the purpose of a feminist work should be to “ shock us into awareness both of our difference and of the coerciveness of masculinist rhetorical codes in constructing a position of imperturbable mastery for the writer and, for the reader, a place of inevitable submission to the case presented”. Scott has done this by deconstructing the masculine codes of literature such as through time and language and, as a result, has constructed the point of view of a modern heroine.

Scott, therefore, approaches the creation of a modern heroine through the deconstruction of the literature being written rather than just creating a specific heroine. Throughout the novel, Marie does fit many of the Narrator’s criteria for a modern heroine as, from the Narrator’s point of view, she is an independent, confident, successful feminist woman living in the present. However, Scott portrays how the Narrator is largely projecting this image onto her and that she is not the modern heroine of the story: 

I blurted out: ‘Why must you surround yourself with so much beauty?’ She answered: ‘Pour me distraire du mal.’ Sepia, at that moment I saw for the first time the terrible sadness in [Marie’s] eyes. And felt I was beginning to know what modern was. (Scott, 128)

In fact, Scott makes it evident that there is not just one emblematic heroine of the novel. Instead of creating a singular modern heroine, she acknowledges the difficulty and even impossibility of this task as women cannot be simplified in this way and that attempting to do so would just follow the masculine codes of literature that have already been established. In this way, Scott establishes that there are no specific experiences that could embody a modern heroine and that, instead, it is a way of being.

Works Cited

Belsey, Catherine. “Writing as a Feminist.” Signs, vol. 25, no. 4, 2000, pp. 1157–1160. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3175504. Accessed 14 Dec. 2020.

Marso, Lori J. “Feminism's Quest for Common Desires.” Perspectives on Politics, vol. 8, no. 1, 2010, pp. 263–269. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25698534. Accessed 14 Dec. 2020.

Scott, Gail. Heroine. Coach House Books, 2019.

[mollydowdqpcf]

Home Gym Equipment For Your Fitness Room

Functioning out of home enables them to do fitness workouts whenever their timetable permits, rather than needing to function around the gym hrs. One more advantage of having your own physical fitness tools is the fact that it sets you back less compared to going to the health club, enlisting in fitness courses while or working with physical instructors and also physical fitness instructors. It is essential to select the best devices to buy prior to anything else. There are various kinds of residence exercise. Some may select to have plenty of cardio workouts. Individuals that prefer to have even more cardio exercises in their exercise program can substantially take advantage of treadmills, stationery bike, and also cross-trainers. In situations in which the goal of the exercise is to build and also tone muscles, cost-free weights or weightlifting makers are recommended. Prior to choosing to get health and fitness devices, it is important that the individual understands the worth of being dedicated to the exercise program. Having previous experience with the sort of fitness center devices can be of terrific aid because being interested and devoted to a particular activity might aid one attain the preferred outcomes. Establishing a spending plan needs to belong to the preparation when deciding to have home health and fitness equipment. It ought to be remembered that devices need not to be that costly. Nevertheless, the high quality of the products must not be jeopardized in regards to its affordability. There are whole lots of fitness center tools choices that are not that expensive yet come in high top quality and sturdiness. Exercise balls, resistance bands, and a few collections of pinheads are advised for newbies that want to function out in the house. Just how much space you contend house must also be taken into consideration before choosing what home physical fitness devices to acquire. One more crucial point to keep in mind when selecting fitness center equipment is to evaluate one's very own passions first. Residence workouts must be something that a specific takes pleasure in doing so that he or she can constantly discover time to do the exercises planned. Being healthy and maintaining preferable weight can be healthy and balanced as well as fun at the same time. Following a fitness-training program rises work out uniformity and increases your opportunities of reaching your preferred results. By consisting of sensible objectives right into your program, you permit yourself to have practical assumptions on what you can achieve, preventing you from getting averted and also unmotivated by expensive expectations. Falling short to achieve commitment typically goes in hand with absence of inspirations as well as unrealistic objectives. Dedication is a mental job. Keep advising on your own regarding your goals and also act accordingly, the results will certainly adhere to. 2. Obtain a training friend. The hardest part adhering to a training program is maintaining to the workout timetable. It is really simple ahead up with excuses to skip the day-to-day regimen. By getting a training friend you can inspire each other in different means. It is especially beneficial as an assistance system. When one is really feeling uninspired the other will push the various other and also maintain both dedicated to the program. The essential part is locating a training buddy that is equally motivated. Till! Up until what? Until they complete the job or till they die! Start today accepting the ant concept throughout your own trip. Continue to carry out these daily practices "up until" you succeed! Failing is not an option! This routine will certainly do even more for your upper body strength than any type of other workout. Your entire top body will be stimulated throughout this motion. Currently choose when you are mosting likely to push the flooring. It matters not as long you are regular with this activity. Begin by doing as many as you can as well as then include a few more repetitions as commonly as you can. Maintain your arms near your body and your back straight. Touch your breast to the floor and also push your body back to the beginning position. Pretty easy ... I began doing power sprints a couple of years ago with terrific results. Generally ... I was taking a stroll one morning and determined I would do some additional sprints after the stroll. This is due to the fact that the devices differ in their factors of effects on the body. Aerobics for circumstances will stretch the body components while others will certainly assist in bodybuilding. One should never go to purchase if they are unsure of it is major component of impact on the body. Room is equally vital. If a person desires to buy a machine to be utilized in the house, take into consideration availability of space to keep it. These tools come in a selection of sizes. For that reason, it depends on you to decide a suitable size for you. Do deny a huge tool yet there is no sufficient space to store or maintain it. An additional important consideration is your budget. Do not go for extremely costly gadgets due to the fact that one might not be in a placement to pay for them. Therefore, let your spending plan estimates guide a person in this procedure. Nonetheless, do not compromised on high quality by purchasing reduced high quality for low-cost products. In order to lose that extra pound of excess fats from the body, or to accomplish that terrific body that a person has actually always wanted needs workout. Comfortable workout is the main element. If one does workout in a worried problem, it can not possibly work. One must as a result obtain the best tools by relying upon physical fitness equipment fixing UK has as well as workout perfect to attain their objective. Due to the fact that the clients still have personal fitness needs to be met - as well as wellness objectives to reach. So, it's highly likely they will certainly intend to employ another teacher when their main fitness instructor goes on the road for a prolonged amount of time. This unlikely scenario would very rarely exercise in the real globe. So, exists also such point as a traveling individual fitness instructor? Is it feasible to locate a true fitness pro to hit the trail for special assignments? There certain is. You just need to recognize where to try to find then and also what to expect in terms of having the ability to hire an excellent quality pro that can perform while when traveling with you. ONE: Try to contact an up and also coming fitness writer. TWO: Come close to a training center owner that may be able to be gone for a number of weeks each time. 3: Obtain in touch with a fitness DVD individuality that might have sufficient timetable versatility to go on the roadway for prolonged health and fitness tasks. Nowadays, many individuals, specifically those that have particular type of illness, start exercising for the sole objective of reducing weight. When the pounds do not go down as promptly or as entirely as they would certainly such as, they obtain discouraged and offer up. If you remove any kind of message about workout and also certain health problems, let it be this: Also if you do not drop weight, your financial investment in workout is still settling in minimized heart problem threat and far better blood glucose control.Moreover, exercise merely makes you feel much better, both literally as well as psychologically. Your power level will increase and also the endorphins released by your mind throughout workout will improve your sense of wellness. The inspiring aspects here is that you should never surrender before you really start. You owe it to yourself to maintain going.Hence, many people have actually already recognized the value of using physical fitness for the body. Moreover, with the advent of the Net, details concerning these fitness centers is slowly controling the Web. Take for instance LA physical fitness.

[theclaravoyant]

What do you mean by “persistent rejection of nonviolence in media” I mean I understand media as a whole but this is a superhero/spy/action-adventure show where taking about. It wouldn’t be any of those without “violence” persay, we’ve seen superhero shows without “violence” normally aren’t popular DC’s Powerless for example

Hi there! Thanks for the ask (regarding this post). My feelings on that are a bit complicated and gets into a lot of philosophy and stuff but I’ll do my best to explain what I meant by that particular line in that particular context.

So, re the violence and genre thing, I’m actually on the same page! I’m not expecting violence to completely disappear from our screens, or even decrease that much. I’m not opposed to it as a concept and in fact, I actually like it! I love this genre. I really do. I love kickass fight scenes, I love how visually satisfying they are, and I love MANY examples of violence and badassery being liberating and powerful. I’m not opposed to the existence of violence in media at all, even though it is glorified to some extent and blah blah blah, that’s a Whole Thing. What grates on me is how often nonviolence is thrown under the bus. Not the absence of violence, I mean nonviolence, eg, forgiveness, redemption, and restorative justice (that is, healing through coming to an understanding and fixing a situation, rather than seeking vengeance or punishment). (and which, imo, are especially important in these kinds of genres).

Characters’ willingness to forgive is very often treated as naive, or weak, and all the characters who ‘recognise that the world is a terrible place’ are the ones that know better. We can see this very clearly with Fitz eg at the end of Season 1 where everyone is warning him about Ward, for example. This willingness to forgive is often trained or drained out of a character as a series goes on and characters lose their innocence. Typically there will come a point when it’s Really Important that this particular bad guy dies, rather than being stopped any other way (said other ways being rarely discussed, and sometimes other perfectly good options eg ICERs are taken off the table for no reason) and the ‘naive’ character ‘steps up.’ Sometimes, a character will demonstrate forgiveness only for the bad guy to throw it back in their faces and for something to immediately happen (typically, they fall off something and die) that means they meet their violent end anyway but the hero’s hands are clean. (this happens a lot in Disney, and Doctor Who). That’s a little closer to the nonviolence I’m talking about but because of how common it is as a narrative device, I still consider it cheating: it’s a way for the writers/narrative/moral to be violent and punishing without the character having to take the blame.

Willingness to forgive is also often treated as unjust. People who have been wronged, abused or oppressed in some way are expected to want vengeance on the person who wronged them. Fighting back, injuring or killing one’s enemy is portrayed as a powerful, freeing move. I’m not saying it can’t be - I love me some vengeance/emancipation stories - but what I do not love is when a character (especially the victim) says “hey, maybe we shouldn’t actually kill the person who wronged me” and other characters, and/or fans, respond with cries lamenting their naivity, or Stockholm Syndrome, or other ways of expressing concerns that basically say “aww, poor baby doesn’t want to kill their oppressor? that’s okay we’ll do it for them / coach them through it” or “how can you not want to kill them, something must be wrong”. Again, we saw this with Fitz re: Ward, and also when he hesitated about killing Aida. Jemma noticed this hesitation, but her reaction was not clear. Many fans, however, went nuts going “omg!! he’s still the Doctor, he’s still in love with Aida because he doesn’t want to kill her!!” when really he might just… not want to further the saga of horrible things with another murder? when what Aida wanted was actually quite simple? maybe he thought that the situation could be resolved without anyone having to die?

(and this was another one of those times, though not so hypocritical and slightly more literal than usual, when a mysterious force of divine judgement took Aida out rather than any of the heroes, let alone Fitz, having to do it. also note that Jemma’s visually satisfying but in the end meaningless (”I just really wanted to do that”) violence against her (by shooting her indestructible body multiple times with a machine gun) has been endlessly praised, while Fitz’s hesitation about killing her is treated as naive and part of his victimhood, and is also often used to ship them rather than like……… in regards to him simply being a good and compassionate person who doesn’t want unnecessary death).

Nonviolence is often portrayed poorly too, which doesn’t help. It’s almost always raised, but often in a way that it is designed to be shut down. For example, “we don’t kill people, unless it’s REALLY important, like now (and that time, and that other time, and-)”, and don’t forget the good old “if we kill them, we’re just as bad as they are” OBVIOUSLY YOU’RE FREAKING NOT. so another character comes along and talks the hesitant character out of that funk, or takes care of the danger for them, because don’t be ridiculous of course X bad guy deserves to die (and/or because the Good Character believes they are protecting the victim character by taking the blow to their own soul or whatever by ‘doing what’s necessary’ kind of thing). Another one of these that shits me is blood-family obligation. “of course they did all these horrible things to you, but you have to forgive them because they’re family”. That’s shit. as is “forgive them because you don’t actually have the power to fight back, so you might as well.”

Basically what I’m saying is, I’m all here for what can be a powerful and freeing experience of violence and even revenge. I’m not opposed to that existing. I’m opposed to alternatives to those kind of stories, and characters who don’t want that, being constantly shut down, punished and infantalised. Forgiveness and redemption (*real, earned redemption, which a lot of TV also fails hard at) takes a lot of courage and compassion and I hate seeing it treated so badly. If characters can free and heal themselves through violence they should be able to free and heal themselves through peace too. What I’m sick of is violence being treated as the only or the best way, and for learning violence to always be seen as an empowering character arc, even when it is not.

We can see this again with Fitz, in comparison with his fellow agents. Daisy, for example, became an agent as part of finding her place within Shield, and her powers help her to do that role even though she could if she wanted to be quite violent with them. Notably, her powers are also emphasised as a positive and powerful part of her identity, and also being capable of creating beauty as well as used as a weapon. This is a storyline where accepting violent or potentially violent elements into her life was empowering and/or brought with it other empowering elements such as her found family. Jemma also, while she has less of the identity aspect going on, somewhat willingly picked up a weapon when she was feeling defenseless and wanted to stop needing help. Though she was reaching out from a dark place, she is now better able to protect herself and the people she loves and she did it by making a choice. While less positive than Daisy’s, this is also a storyline where she has grown in some way through learning violence. (and notably, by choosing it - at least in-universe, though because violence is so favoured by stories and genres like this it was unlikely to go any other way in the grand scheme of things).

Then we have Fitz, whose current noticeably-high levels of violence (he did have some violent encounters etc beforehand, but these are repeatedly identified as more severe/brutal) come directly from his experience in an alternate universe of sorts where he was abused as a child, raised as a violent and ruthless man, and became a top hydra scientist/torturer. He had no agency in that storyline being done to him, with his memories and the love of his life replaced and his entire life trajectory forcibly rewritten. He had no agency in his escape, or determining what he took out from it, he simply remembers that life as well as his real one. The best he has in terms of agency in dealing with it is “learn to use it to your advantage/under your control.” Currently, this is being treated as an empowering thing - he has a tool now, and it is great when he uses it properly. However, given the origins of this violent side, and the fact that the best anyone can do is say that he should make use of what he’s been left with from a horrific experience they otherwise haven’t dealt with much (they’ve dealt largely with his guilt, not with his trauma), to me that is not empowering. To kill Aida before Fitz, her main victim, could decide or verbalise what he wanted to do about her is not empowering. To have the level of brutality of his violence repeatedly shock and worry other characters who know and love him, and yet for the characters and narrative to insist that it’s part of his character now and that he should accept it, is not empowering. (particularly given the uncomfortable parallels between this and his disability acceptance/~recovery arc earlier in the series). This is an example of a storyline in which I believe nonviolence can and should be explored, but because nonviolence is consistently undervalued and poorly treated I don’t think that’s going to happen and that frustrates me.

That’s… basically what I meant. Hope it helps!

[architectnews]

Dezeen's top 10 most talked-about stories of 2020

This year had its fair share of provocative stories, from Donald Trump drafting new legislation on federal buildings to Bjarke Ingels plotting to redesign Earth. For our review of 2020, digital editor Karen Anderson looks at 10 of the most talked about.

Harikrishnan's inflatable latex trousers create "anatomically impossible" proportions

Readers debated our coverage of menswear designer Harikrishnan's billowing latex trousers, which were created for his graduate collection at the London College of Fashion.

"I really like the pear shape of the white pants," praised Rose Winkler. "I picture them with the same shaped arms on a stage. They feel very medieval. Reminds me of Popeye when he eats his spinach."

"Absolutely love the concept!" added Karen Thomas. "Mad technical skills have gone into creating such art. Especially the time invested in getting those beautiful beads made. Curious to see what's next!"

Find out more about the inflatable latex trousers ›

AIA opposes President Trump's draft rules for Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again

One of the biggest stories this year was news that the Trump Administration planned to introduce an order that all federal buildings should be built in the "classical architectural style".

In response to the draft order, called Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again, the American Institute of Architects called on members to sign an open letter petitioning against it. The story on Dezeen attracted more than 323 comments.

"Does this sound familiar? Hitler did that." said Pam Weston. "Similar in aesthetics too. Is anyone besides me scared yet?"

"What's the big deal here?" asked Elrune The Third. "This classical style is part of the national identity and design language of the USA. No one will die because Studio BIG doesn't win the next contract for a courthouse."

Find out more about the opposition to Trump's draft order ›

Zaha Hadid Architects and Grimshaw among architects to criticise Autodesk's BIM software

The story that received the second most comments this year was news that Zaha Hadid Architects and Grimshaw were two of 17 architecture studios to sign an open letter to software company Autodesk, criticising the rising cost and lack of development of Revit.

The president and CEO of Autodesk responded to criticisms of its software, admitting improvements "didn't progress as quickly" as they should have but rejecting claims it is too expensive.

Readers weren't convinced. It's "like charging 2020 prices for a Cadillac on a 2005 Ford Focus," said UTF.

"This software is bad," agreed Michal C. "My life got way shorter thanks to constantly fighting its limits and bad design. Using it in building design is like doing brain surgery using two bricks as the only tools."

Find out more about criticism of Autodesk ›

Masterplanet is Bjarke Ingels' plan to redesign Earth and stop climate change

In October, commenters furiously debated news that BIG founder Bjarke Ingels is creating a masterplan for redesigning Earth.

Approaching Earth like an architect master planning a city, Ingels calculates that even a predicted population of 10 billion people could enjoy a high quality of life if environmental issues were tackled holistically.

But some readers struggled to take Ingels seriously. "Please wake me up when BIG reveals a plan to redesign human behaviour," said Chris Becket.

Don Griffiths was more optimistic: "Lots of good things come from dreaming and scheming outside the box. This man might not have all the answers, but the future is better attended to by the actions of thinkers from the past."

Find out more about Ingels' plan to redesign Earth ›

Coronavirus offers "a blank page for a new beginning" says Li Edelkoort

Some readers reacted with cynicism to Li Edelkoort's predictions for a post-coronavirus future.

Edelkoort described how the disruption caused by coronavirus will lead people to grow used to living with fewer possessions and travelling less.

"How many times has history shown that's not how this works?" responded Rd. "Things will just go back to normal and change will happen slowly over time."

Others found the article comforting. "I take a lot of solace in what Li Edelkoort is saying," said Gerard McGuickin. "In a way, the Coronavirus is perhaps a reckoning for things that have gone before."

Ukrainian architect Sergey Makhno also shared his predictions on how our homes will change once the coronavirus pandemic is over whilst Airbnb co-founder Brian Chesky shared his thoughts on how the coronavirus pandemic is likely to change travel.

Find out more about Edelkoort's coronavirus predictions ›

Steel and concrete steps cut through facade of Stairway House by Nendo

Opinions were divided over Japanese design studio Nendo's unusual addition to a multigeneration house in Tokyo – a giant decorative staircase dividing the house in two.

Some felt that the sculptural stairway was too much of a health and safety risk. "I can't imagine living there with a kids," worried Salamoon.

And Room advised people to live a little more dangerously. "If everyone here wants a run-of-the-mill cosy little cottage or bungalow or timber-framed three-bedroom suburban potted plant safety palace, why are you reading this magazine?" they quipped.

Cliff Tan weighed in with some important cultural context. "This is really obvious if you are East Asian," said Tan. "In Feng Shui terms, this site, sitting at the top of a long road, invites too much energy into the site," he added. "The staircase takes all this energy and swoops it towards the sky, keeping the rest of the home calm and protected."

Find out more about Stairway House ›

Bjarke Ingels meets Brazil's president Jair Bolsonaro to "change the face of tourism in Brazil"

Bjarke Ingels previously made headlines when the architect met with the president of Brazil Jair Bolsonaro to discuss developing a tourism masterplan for the northeast region of the country.

"Glad to still see starchitect clamouring to work with corrupt governments," said WYRIWYG. "As long as the fees are high enough..."

"Yeah, because a Danish architect knows exactly how to deal with beaches and the social background of our country," added Edson Maruyama. "We have great architects and urbanists in the country.

Ingels released a statement defending his decision and rejecting the idea that countries such as Brazil should be off-limits to architects.

Find out more about Ingels meeting Jair Bolsonaro ›

Eva Franch i Gilabert fired as AA director for "specific failures of performance"

Another controversial story in 2020 was news that Architectural Association (AA) director Eva Franch i Gilabert was fired.

The decision was taken by the London school two weeks after Gilabert lost a vote of no confidence in her leadership.

"Eva absolutely deserved an opportunity to lead," said AA Dipl. "AA is a testbed for creative ideas and methodologies and sometimes an experiment doesn't prove successful. Yet AA is the only place where one can try and fail and we should admire the school for that reason. "

Hotel Sphinx also commented: "Surely those of us outside the AA community cannot truly understand what has transpired over the past two years, culminating in this decision."

Find out more about Gilabert's dismissal ›

Groupwork designs 30-storey stone skyscraper

Amin Taha's architecture studio Groupwork attracted attention when it designed a conceptual 30-storey stone office block.

The studio said the building would be cheaper and more sustainable than concrete or steel equivalent, but some readers thought it was dull.

"The discussion is all about the material and nothing about the boring design," said Egad.

"I'd rather call it straightforward rather than boring," replied K Anderson. "It's an elegant and well-proportioned tower while taking advantage of the material's natural qualities and production process. Gold doesn't have to glitter.

Taha himself responded in the comments section, saying: "The tower is a simple, sober, yes boring design for the purpose of comparing like for like against standard commercial offices. It is after all only a material, not a style."

Find out more about Groupwork's stone skyscraper › 

Urban planning is "really very biased against women" says Caroline Criado Perez

British writer Caroline Criado Perez wrote a book claiming that cities haven't been designed to suit the lives of women, sparking debate amongst readers.

"I agree with this completely," said Sim. "Last week the design for the longest cycling bridge in Europe was revealed. While it was hailed a triumph, as a woman all I could think of were the evenings I would be cycling home alone and the idea of this bridge scared me."

"Come on!" replied Architecte Urbaniste. "This whole man versus woman urban design discussion is missing the point. Most architecture is designed by teams of people containing both men and women. I've seen groups of women designing completely unliveable urbanism too."

Find out more about Perez's book ›

Read more Dezeen comments

Dezeen is the world's most commented architecture and design magazine, receiving thousands of comments each month from readers. Keep up to date on the latest discussions on our comments page.

The post Dezeen's top 10 most talked-about stories of 2020 appeared first on Dezeen.

[managementstrategy5611984]

ManagementStrategy

A prosperous Culture of Quality is one where the heart Quality values of their organization, like a focus on responding to the requirements of the client and about the need for data-based decision-making, as well as the basic assumptions of employees regarding the nature of human relationships and their place on the planet, such as the importance of collaborative relationships among people with shared goals and the importance of creating long-term private connections, are closely integrated with a single another.iii Commitments to center values are relatively easy to measure, as they're overtly expressed and comprehended in any way levels of the organization. Basic assumptions often resist explicit investigation, even to the people who hold them, which may make involvement at this level difficult.When a company adopts a Culture of Quality, the success of its implementation can rely on whether core fundamentals and underlying assumptions already reflect Quality or can be efficiently modified to embrace Quality through committed change direction. What are the attributes of an organization with an Culture of Quality. Leadership shows its commitment by communicating about values in language and offering the necessary support. Employees promote sharing ideas and cross-functional work, while believing that leadership expects them to become pro-active and also to apply their Quality and abilities according to their best judgement. A Culture of Quality is therefore only possible when leadership and workers share an aligned and extensive comprehension of not only the core values and processes they use and espouse, but their basically basic assumptions of the nature of labour and human relationships on which those core values rest. One of the creators of the superior movement in the United States, said that"Quality is everyone's responsibility" This has been Quality Management by most people as meaning that Quality is. Nevertheless we should think about what writer and superior expert Rafael Aguayo tells us was Deming's in-house decision to his famous injunction:"Quality is everyone's duty, but high management have more leverage in their decisions than anyone else." The initiative for Quality must come in the top.vii While accountability for execution and implementation will lie with a Quality leader in a committed excellent department with support from their counterparts in operations, technology, sales, marketing, and IT, the desire to execute Quality standards throughout an organization must come from the leadership team. They must walk the talk for an excellent program to succeed. Even though there is certainly value in instilling the idea of Quality in each member of a company, without explicit and direct initiative and techniques for implementing these thoughts, another way of saying"Quality is everyone's responsibility" is"Quality is no one's duty in particular." Everybody should strive for Quality, but defining how to do this in terms is something that may come only from the initiative of direction and be entrusted to stakeholders for implementation. This approach highlighted the advantage of process-centered programs of Quality over product-centered approaches that were elderly. This concept is referred to as statistical excellent management and is the backbone of Quality in manufacturing's exploration. The Second World War prompted the American government to implement Quality criteria based on for army vendors.

This improved Quality in the short term, but most civilian manufacturers failed to integrate process improvement throughout their own organizations. After the war, engineers W. Edwards Deming and worked as consultants in Japan as Japanese business worked to get over the war and change their market to concentrate on civilian creation of products and services. Deming and worked with Japanese manufacturers to produce the concept of Total Quality, where Quality extends past the manufacturing procedure to organizational processes and also instills the values of Quality in every worker.x as a consequence of this Total excellent transformation, Japan became a production powerhouse, vastly increasing its market share at the cost of American producers who had yet to recognize the worth of Total Quality.Quality management has four components: quality planning, quality assurance and quality control and continual progress. These contain processes, tools and processes which are used to ensure that the outputs and benefits fulfill customer requirements.The first component, quality planning, involves the preparation of a quality management program which explains the procedures and metrics that will be utilized. The quality management plan needs to be agreed to make sure their expectations for quality are correctly identified. The procedures should adapt to the procedures, values and culture of the host organisation. It validates the use of procedures and criteria, and ensures staff have the understanding, skills and attitudes to fulfil their job roles and responsibilities in a competent way. Quality assurance has to be independent of the project, programmer or portfolio where it applies.The next component, quality management , consists of inspection, measurement and testing. It verifies the Quality Management conform to specification, are fit for purpose and meet stakeholder expectations.Quality control activities ascertain whether approval criteria have, or have been met. In order for this specifications have to be under configuration control. Commonly while preserving time and cost limitations, this will be to accommodate change issues or requests. Any consequent changes to acceptance criteria should be approved and communicated.The last component, continual improvement, is the generic term used by businesses to explain the way that information provided by quality assurance and quality control processes is used to drive improvements in efficiency and effectiveness. This may seem to be an administrative burden on day one of smaller projects, but is always worthwhile in the end.Projects deliver concrete outputs which can be subject to a lot of kinds of quality control, depending upon the technical nature of the work and codes affecting particular sectors. Examples of inspecting Collars include crushing samples of concrete used in the foundations of a building; x-raying welds at a ship's hull; and adhering to the test script for a new parcel of software.Inspection creates data and tools like scatter diagrams, control charts, flowcharts and cause and effect diagrams, and all of which help to know the caliber of work and the way it might be improved.The principal contribution to continual improvement that may be made within the timescale of a project is through lessons learned. 

Existing lessons learned must be consulted at the start of every job, and any lessons used in the planning of the project documentation. In the end of each job, the lessons learned should be recorded as part of the post-project review and fed back into the understanding database.The duty of this programme management group is to develop an excellent management program that encompasses the diverse contexts and technical requirements included within the programme. This sets the criteria for the project quality management plans and also acts as a plan for quality in the benefits realisation regions of the programme.A comprehensive excellent management plan at developer degree can greatly reduce the effort involved in coordinating project-level excellent management plans.Quality management of sparks is mostly handled at project level, but the programme can get involved in which an outcome from 1 project is an input to another, or where additional inspection is needed when outputs from two or more projects are attracted together.The programme is responsible for quality control of benefits. This is a complex task because the acceptance standards of an advantage may cover subjective as well as measurable factors but gains should be described in measurable terms so that quality management may be applied.The typical scale of Quality Management means that they have a very useful role to play in continuous progress. Programme assurance will make sure that projects do take existing lessons learned into consideration and capture their particular lessons along with the knowledge database.The very nature of a portfolio means that it is not likely to need a portfolio quality management program. Quality management for the portfolio should be indistinguishable from the quality management policies of the host organisation as a whole.It could be crucial for the portfolio management staff to give guidance on the application of general policies or possibly strengthen them in which the portfolio generates particular requirements.The portfolio is responsible for delivering strategic objectives. These might be expressed in terms in employing quality management resulting.

[globalquality77854]

GlobalQuality77854

This sets the criteria for the job quality management strategies and acts as a strategy for quality in the advantages realization regions of the programmer.A comprehensive excellent management strategy at developer degree can significantly reduce the effort involved in preparing project-level excellent management plans.Quality management of presses is largely handled at job level, but the developer may get involved in which an outcome from 1 job is an input signal to a different, or where extra review is required when outputs from at least two jobs are attracted together.The developer is responsible for quality management of advantages. This is a intricate task because the approval criteria of an advantage may cover subjective in addition to quantifiable variables but gains ought to be described in measurable terms to ensure quality management may be applied.The ProductionQuality scale of programmed signifies they have a very beneficial role to play in continuous progress. Programmer assurance will make sure that jobs do take present lessons learned into consideration then capture their particular lessons along with this understanding database.The very nature of a portfolio signifies it is not likely to require a portfolio grade management program. Quality management for your portfolio ought to be equal from the superior management policies of their host organisation for a whole.It could be crucial for the portfolio management staff to give advice on the use of policies or possibly augment them in which the portfolio generates particular requirements.The portfolio is accountable for delivering strategic goals. These might be expressed in terms in employing quality management resulting. When setting the range of a portfolio, focus ought to be given to specifying acceptance criteria for tactical goals so they are sometimes caliber controlled.Continual development is very much an issue in portfolio level.

Yet we ought to consider what writer and superior expert Rafael Araguaya informs us was Deming’s in-house decision to his famous injunction:"Quality is everyone’s responsibility, but top management have more leverage in their decisions than anyone else.” The initiative for Quality must come in the top.vii While responsibility for implementation and implementation will lie with an excellent leader in a committed excellent department with assistance from their counterparts in operations, engineering, sales, marketing, and IT, the desire to implement Quality standards through an organization must come from the leadership group. They have to walk the talk for a program to succeed. While there is definitely value in instilling the concept of Quality in each member of a company, without explicit and direct initiative and methods for implementing those thoughts, yet another way of saying"Quality is everyone’s duty" is"Quality is no one’s duty in particular.“ Quality should be striven for by everyone, but specifying how to accomplish that in very particular terms is something which may come only from the initiative of direction and also be entrusted to specific stakeholders for implementation. This revolutionary approach highlighted the advantage of process-centered programs of Quality over approaches that were elderly. This concept is known as statistical excellent control and is the backbone of Quality in manufacturing’s primary exploration. From the Second World War prompted the American authorities to implement Quality standards based on for army vendors.ix This ProductionQuality Quality in the brief term, but most civilian manufacturers failed to incorporate process improvement during their organizations. After the war, engineers worked as consultants in Japan as industry worked to recover from the war and then transform their own market to concentrate on production of goods and services. Deming and worked with Japanese producers to create the idea of Total Quality, where Quality extends past the manufacturing procedure to organizational processes and instills the values of Quality in each worker.x As a result of this Total excellent transformation, Japan became a production powerhouse, vastly increasing its market share at the cost of American manufacturers who’d yet to recognize the value of Total Quality.American producers and legislators began to recognize the crises of poor Quality in American manufacturing. The American response, built on Deming’s and operate in Japan, was Total Quality Management (TQM). Globalization and emerging technologies have expanded the scope of Quality as well as the tools utilized to meet with standards. New strategies, such as Six Sigma have achieved levels of version and earnings reduction to make services and goods which are free from defects.

[thetactilepope]

Lessons in Thermodynamics: Chapter Five

I’d like to take a moment to say ‘thank-you’ to @jircu who kindly agreed to beta this chapter! They’re an amazing writer, and I’d highly recommend checking out their blog!

{Previous Chapter} | [Chapter Index] | {Next Chapter}

Exothermic Behaviour

39 days until Winter Break

Thursday

Yaoyorozu Momo had a problem.

Well, technically she had several problems, all stemming from a single failed test, but the one she was most preoccupied with was the fact that she hadn’t heard a word her tutor had said in the past ten minutes.

“The lesson’s barely started… And yet my mind feels so fuzzy…” She shook her head, unsure why she had zoned out, unless the anticipation for day-off they were getting tomorrow was affecting her more than she had expected. Taking another sip of the coffee Todoroki had brought for her, she tried to focus on the review he was going over.

The now-familiar lilt of his voice seemed a little muted, and for some reason, she felt much calmer listening to him speak, “So, given that energy moves from, um, areas of high heat to areas of low heat… we can, well, surmise that…”

It was no use. Despite her efforts, she found herself thinking back to the previous sessions.

After leaving so abruptly at the end of their first lesson, she had assumed Todoroki would be a little mad at her. Surprisingly, he texted her the next day as if nothing had occurred, and never brought up the subject again.

He seemed somewhat withdrawn the next few times they met up, and she worried that her requests for help had annoyed him, despite his kind words to the contrary. There had been a sort of unquantifiable tension between them, one that resisted her every attempt to ease or dispel it.

Several times, it seemed like one of them might back out of their deal, for one reason or another. An unacceptable result, but one that she felt ill-equipped to prevent.

By the time Momo had sorted out what she wanted to say, what she should say, and what she was going to say, that icy distance between them had somehow thawed, returning them back to their usual camaraderie.

Or at least, something fairly close to it, almost indistinguishable, in fact. And yet, that ‘almost’ left her feeling slightly off balance, but lacking a satisfactory explanation as to why.

 Aside from that, her studies were going well, but not to a point where she could afford to zone out like this.

“I’ve got to start paying attention,” She sighed, resolving to cut out the day-dreaming once and for all.

“-rozu? Yaoyorozu? Are you alright?” Todoroki’s concerned voice cut through her mental fog, prompting her to sit up straight and blush.

Her quick reply was demure, and she silently thanked her parents and every boring social event they had put her through for teaching her how to maneuver a conversation, “Y-Yes, I’m fine. I was a little distracted for a moment, that’s all.”

Of course, those maneuvers only worked if everyone played by the same rules, holding their tongues out of politeness. She had always been pressured (‘required’) to abide by the social niceties that governed her parents’ world, whereas Todoroki Shouto could shake off those conventions with ease, shedding them like a thin sheet of ice, in a way that she found enviable.

Todoroki simply acted according to the respect you had earned from him, and she had seen him treat their classmates better than some adults.

“Is something wrong?” He asked, scratching absent-mindedly at the bottom edge of his scar with his left hand.

“One of his nervous tics.” Momo frowned, not quite sure when she had picked up on that, or why it mattered to her. Subconsciously observing your friends, taking note of their habits, it was something everyone did, right?

“Ah, it’s really nothing. I guess I really do need that day off tomorrow…” She laughed, but it trailed off, before she took another sip of her drink. The bitter taste helped ground her, which is why she preferred it black while she studied.

Todoroki accepted her answer with a shrug, and though it seemed like he had more he wanted to say, she was relieved when he handed her the page of today’s topics.

“Did you have more questions from last time? Or did the review clear them up?”

She pushed a strand of hair behind her ear, and consulted her notebook. Her neat handwriting listed the terms and concepts that had given her trouble, with a small checkmark beside the ones they had sorted out.

“Yes, actually. Do you think we could go over the ideal gas law once more? I’m not sure I understand it completely.”

…

With a yawn, Momo snapped her binder closed, the undeniable thrill of a successful lesson giving her a much needed boost. Caffeine was great, but a single cup of coffee could only carry her so far.

“Tired?” Todoroki asked, and although he didn’t show it, she suspected he was almost as worn out as she was.

She shook her head, small smile on her lips, unwilling to admit defeat before he did. A small rivalry between them, lacking any point or payoff other than pride.

Still, she was very glad they had managed to wrap up early, as it meant they’d both be well rested for tomorrow’s session.

As they both began to clean up, occasionally chatting for a few moments about their day at school, Momo let herself relax, enjoying the comfort of an emerging routine.

She finished putting the last of her notes in her bag, and was preparing to stand when Todoroki spoke up.

“Yaoyorozu, I know we agreed to meet up in the morning but…” He sighed, hesitant, “Could we wait until the afternoon instead?”

The request surprised her, since Todoroki had never wanted to reschedule before, only telling her that he’d be a little late if and when something came up.

She tried to hold back her curiosity, but the possible insight into the enigma of Todoroki Shouto’s personal life this presented was too enticing to resist.

“Oh, of course.” She said, nodding, “Is, uh, everything OK?”

He frowned, scratching at his scar once again, “Yes, it’s just I need to… I want to go visit someone.”

That vague answer just made her eager to know more, and almost without thinking, she leaned closer to him, “Who is it?”

The words slipped out before she could stop them, and their demanding tone made her want to cringe. She knew he was unlikely to elaborate further. After all, she hadn’t even tried to answer when he had inquired something of her.

“To pry now, when you ran from him before is incredibly hypocritical.” Her logical side chimed in, much to her chagrin.

Where that side had been not five seconds ago was beyond her.

“I’m sorry, that was rude of me, wasn’t it.” She said, mentally berating herself, “Forgive me, I’ll be more courteous in the future.”

He shrugged, face as impassive as ever, “I don’t mind. You’re supposed to be asking me questions, right? Nothing rude about doing that.”

The logic behind that statement made her almost double over, and the only thing preventing her from bursting into laughter was the hand she clamped over her mouth. After a moment fighting against that urge, she looked back up at her friend.

By the subtle upwards curve of Todoroki’s lips, she could tell this reaction to his words was the desired result.

“I supposed you have a point.” She took a deep breath, smoothing out her hair, and composing herself once again, “Still, I should have phrased that more politely.”

“Todoroki, if you don’t mind my asking, who do you want to visit tomorrow?”

With only the slightest of hesitation, he told her, “It’s… It’s my mother, Miyuki. She’s, well, been in the hospital for a long time. About ten years, actually.”

He continued without pause, and she got the feeling that if he stopped, he might not start again.

“I only reconnected with her recently, after the Sports Festival. And with how busy things have gotten, I haven’t been able to go see her for some time, so, uh, I’d like to take advantage of the day-off school.”

At first, she didn’t know what to do with the information. Everyone at school knew who his father was, you’d have to be living under a rock not to.

“But he’s never really mentioned his mother.” Momo thought, trying to recall if the topic of family had ever been discussed without Todoroki leaving the conversation. She came up with nothing, not even if he had any siblings.

So what could she offer but encouragement with a smile? His family situation was far removed from her own, and any advice would sound condescending at best.

“In that case, I’ll have to insist we reschedule. Please, take all the time you need. What hospital is she at?”

He told her, and she frowned. That hospital was a fair distance away from the school library, so even if he went early, there was sure to be lots of traffic.

“That’s pretty far, isn’t it? Are you sure you’ll be able to make it back without any problems?” Momo considered the other options, and while there was one simple solution, she wasn’t sure it would be acceptable to him.

“Pretty sure. I mean, I’ve never gone on a Friday morning before, but it can’t be that bad, right?” He replied, shifting uneasily in his seat, “Besides, I don’t want to cancel your lesson completely.”

With nervousness beginning to constrict her throat, she bit her lip, gathering her courage.

“Well, how about I accompany you? Once you’re done your visit, we can find a café, or somewhere else to study nearby.” She asked, words rushed, hardly able to believe she had managed to speak.

“It’s just a practical offer, that’s all.”

Somehow, that thought rang hollow, as if she wasn’t telling herself the whole truth, but she ignored those misgivings, “I’d extend the same courtesy to any… well, almost any of my classmates.”

“Yaoyorozu, I-I, uh…” He stammered, a slight grin on his face, “It’s very kind of you to suggest that, but I couldn’t ask you to give up what might amount to your whole day.”

“I would think,” She countered, “that it’s my decision how I spend my time. And I don’t mind spending it accompanying a friend to visit their mother.”

They both knew his protests were mostly a formality at this point, but she couldn’t resist seizing the opportunity to reuse a phrase that had been stuck in her mind.

“Besides, it isn’t like I would make other plans.” She echoed his words spoken outside the library, nearly two weeks ago. This time, it was Todoroki who was unsure how to react, mouth slightly agape.

Sensing there wouldn’t be any more arguments from him, Momo stood up, hoisting her bag onto her shoulder.

“We’ll figure out a plan later this evening, OK?” She said, turning to go, “Thank you for your time, Todoroki.”

…

Once Momo was back in her dorm, she pulled out her phone, heart hammering in her chest. The nervous fizzle in her stomach wasn’t exactly an unpleasant feeling, just puzzling in a way that made her shiver slightly.

{♫ Kyouka ♪}

(Kyouka? Do you have a sec?)      

Her thumb hovered over the ‘send’ key, but she didn’t feel up to dealing with Kyouka’s inevitable good-natured teasing in order to ask for advice.

“I’m just not in the mood.” She concluded with a sigh, clearing the message, “I’ll talk to her this weekend.”

Flopping down on her bed, she figured she should at least pick out an outfit for tomorrow before she got too involved in her work.

Beginning to sort through her closet with a smile, she realized she was more than a little excited, “Well, there’s no doubt it will be an interesting experience…”

There are thirty-five days until the Retest.

[thesffcorner]

The Unhoneymooners

The Un-honeymooners is the latest adult romance, by writing duo Christina Lauren. It follows Olive Torres, the bridesmaid at her twin sister Ami’s wedding. When everyone at the party, except for Olive and Ethan, Ami’s brother-in-law, get food poisoning from the seafood buffet, Olive and Ethan decide to pretend they are the married couple and take Ami’s free, all -expense honeymoon trip to Maui. There’s only one problem: Olive and Ethan can’t stand each other. Have you guys seen that Adam Sandler film Just Go With It? This is basically the book form of that film, except sans the kids. So before I even say anything else, if you enjoyed the thomfoolery of that film, you will probably like this. This is the first Christina Lauren book I’ve read, and it’s really the first one I’ve ever been interested in reading. Their premises never intrigue me, but having these 2 characters who hate each-other, but have to pretend to be a freshly married couple for a whole vacation sounded hilarious to me. And for the most part this book delivers. I did have more than a few issues however, and most of them come down to execution. There is something inherently hilarious about spending 10 days in one of the most gorgeous locations in the world, but having to spend it pretending that you love someone you hate. It’s like your own personal hell inside of heaven. However, I don’t feel like the book took full advantage of this concept. For starters, Ethan and Olive don’t really hate each-other. This is understandable and expected; it would be pretty hard to write an enemies to lovers romance if they genuinely hate each other or have done bad things. Instead, Olive hates Ethan because of a misunderstanding, while Ethan is more conflicted than anything else. While this made their romance more believable, it diffused a lot of the comedy of the premise, and the scenes where they are supposed to be enemies pretending to be lovers aren’t as funny as a result. As much as Just Go With It was not a good film, the scenes where Sandler and Aniston have to pretend to be bitter exes were hilarious because of the combination of hatred, annoyance and sexual attraction going both ways. The book does have scenes like this; the best one was the dinner with the Hamiltons, but for the most part, they ended up being more awkward and sweet than funny. The most I laughed in this book was the bathroom incident and the paintball, and unfortunately both of those lead into my second complaint. Both those scenes, could have taken place anywhere. This book is set in Maui; the advertising plays this up too, and yet we get so little of the island, that they might as well have stayed in Minneapolis. The descriptions of the island are vague and uninspired; telling me the sunset is beautiful and the ocean is blue can signal any place. I never got a sense of the island or even the hotel they were in, and the duo didn’t take advantage of any of the activities you could do at the island for the sake of humor. There’s plenty of chances for location specific shenanigans, but we don’t get any, and the only thing that was legitimately tied to Maui was the scene at Haleakala. Moreover, even the premise isn’t fully utilized. Olive is supposedly a terrible liar, and the duo having to lie about being on a honeymoon isn’t really used a lot. The only part that was funny was the couples massage; you’d think that in a book about honeymooners, the hotel would have more outlandish activities for the couple, and seeing as we are shown Ami is a control and schedule freak, she’s have booked all the things that Ethan and Olive would have to do. Instead, after the initial contrivance with the Hamiltons, the duo is never forced to lie again or comes in any danger of potentially being uncovered or exposed, so them pretending to be married fully falls away by the wayside. To switch to some positives, the relationship between the characters was actually really endearing, funny and enjoyable. Both characters were great individually; I enjoyed all the parts where Ethan was in some kind of misery, because I could just imagine this germaphobic, lanky homebody being forced to fly in a tin can, sleep on a tiny couch or give a massage, and it was hilarious. Additionally, the authors do a really good job of showing him to be a pretty sweet, if a little dense dude, someone who comes off as rude and inconsiderate because he’s not great at being present and alert, rather than someone who is actively harmful. His banter with Olive was also funny, and I absolutely love running gags where people come up with increasingly outlandish versions of each-other’s name as a jab. Olive was great too; I liked that she was curvy and liked her body, while still being self-conscious about it. I liked that she was presented to be the adventuring type, suggesting snorkeling, diving and ziplining, while Ethan was the more subdued type. I also liked the gag of her not knowing how to lie (though in hindsight it didn’t make that much sense with her character). The thing I really liked about Olive was the fact that she was so pessimistic and defensive. I found a lot of myself in her; always thinking the worst of people and situations, always thinking everyone hates me or doesn’t want to be around me for superficial reasons, and making my mind up about people without giving them a chance. It really opened my eyes, because at several points I was frustrated with how dense she was about her conviction that Ethan hated her when it was clear he really didn’t and was just being awkward around her. However, the biggest issue with this book was its last third. It’s hard to talk about this without SPOILERS, so if you don’t want any, skip to the last paragraph. The short version is that as soon as Olive and Ethan come back from the honeymoon, the book changes tones and genres, and becomes a much more serious affair than the lighthearted shenanigans in Maui, and I don’t think it was successful at that. We find out that Ami’s husband Dale might have been a horrible liar, and though Olive gets direct proof of it, neither Ethan nor Ami believe her. She also loses her job. This was so jarring compared to what the book had been about up until that point, that it completely took me out of the story. I don’t think any of these things were handled well. First, Ami exploding at Olive was understandable, but she goes way overboard and tells her some really awful things that she never apologizes for, and Olive just forgives her. I understand it was the heat of the moment, but that’s exactly why Ami should have apologized to Olive afterwards. The whole thing with Ethan was even worse. Not only does he not believe Olive, he refuses to confront his brother about it even a little bit, and tries to gaslight Olive into thinking she’s crazy or bitter or attention seeking. It was honestly something beyond what a big romantic gesture can solve, and the fact that Ethan, in spite of having one failed romantic gesture still tries to pull another one on Olive, meaning he hasn’t learned anything, really put a bad taste in my mouth. I don’t think the ending was necessary for the book it was in. This should have been part of a different story, not this one, and it happening at the very end of this book meant that it was rushed and had no time to properly develop or get resolved. I have heard that Christina Lauren tend to do this with their endings, and I wasn’t a fan. Overall this was a solid, if a bit average romance. I think Christina Lauren are good writers who could write an excellent book, but this just wasn’t it for me. It’s still fun and fast paced, and I think it would make a perfect summer read.

goodreads

[douchebagbrainwaves]

WITH THE RISE OF SERVER-BASED APPLICATIONS, MORE AND MORE FEATURES FROM LISP

Are you working on one of them. In the last 20 years, smoking has been transformed from something that seemed suitable for a magazine, so I sent it to an editor I know. There's no thread of reasoning you have to do it. If you could measure how much work people did, many companies wouldn't need any fixed workday. Whereas VCs need to invest in bad times. It's that way with most startups too. You'd have to be designed for human feet. We wouldn't want to stop it. How are they to hear? This concept is a simple one and yet seeing it as a rule of thumb from now on that if people don't think you're weird, you're living badly. At the extreme end of the continuum are languages like Ada and Pascal, models of propriety that are good for teaching and not much else.

But no visitor would understand that. Why bother? Pen and paper wick ideas. The very best work has been done this way. But in practice a good profiler may do more to improve the speed of actual programs written in the new language. So how can I claim business has to learn it? I've found that it matters a lot how code lines up on the article. Because it's too easy for people who work for the love of it: amateurs. To write good software you must simultaneously keep two opposing ideas in your head.

It only lets you experience the defining characteristic of essay writing. Kids are the ones sitting back with slightly pained expressions. If you're going to write that one has to write in high school we'd have called its outline. The connection may be surprise. So I'm going to try to baby the user with long-winded expressions that are meant to resemble English. To write good software you must simultaneously keep two opposing ideas in your head. It's no wonder if this seems to the student a pointless exercise, because we're now three steps removed from real work: the reason Larry and Sergey are so rich is not so much that it paralyzes you. There's more to it than that. A lot of the new principles business has to learn it? Figure out what? For example, many suspect that venture capital firms are biased against female founders. And, strangely enough, it's also why they fail so frequently.

It definitely has a flavor of its own though. The distinctive feature of successful startups is that they're not ordered. We wrote what was, 700 years ago, fascinating and urgently needed work. And it may be as a piece of machinery: what works best. 7x 2% 2. I think professionalism was largely a fashion, driven by conditions that happened to exist in the twentieth century was professional, which amateurs, by definition, are not. To do good work often think that whatever they're working on, it's easier to read than a regular article. There's more to do than anyone could. And your brain seems to know this: because you don't have room for new ideas, you don't take a position and then defend it.

Another advantage of admitting to beginning writers that the 5 paragraph essay buries the list of n things is in that respect. Dartmouth, the University of Vermont, Amherst, and University College, London taught English literature in the 1820s. It's that way with most startups too. Ditto for most of the people working there. I'm going to try to discover something no one knew before. You have to be careful. Working in crappy informal spaces is one of the keys to coolness is to avoid situations where inexperience may make you look foolish. An eminent Lisp hacker told me that his copy of CLTL falls open to the section format.

This can only happen in a very transparent way out of lower-level abstractions, which you can get hold of if you want to understand startups, understand growth. And since the latter is huge the former should be too. Even if an acquirer isn't threatened by the startup itself, they might never have started it. And early adopters are forgiving when you improve your language, but they were so much more sophisticated that for the next several centuries the main work of European scholars, in almost every field, was to assimilate what they knew. Being newly founded does not in itself make a company a startup, but what are investors going to think of this crazy idea? The fact that the best way to get the fastest possible standing quarter mile. When you interview a startup and don't know yet what you're going to start a startup that was neither driven by technological change, nor whose product consisted of technology except in the broader sense. But in that case I really was trying to make money from such investments. And that is in fact the implication of what Eric is saying. If everyone else is cowering in a corner, you may have a whole car to yourself. The reason it pays to put off even those errands is that real work needs two things errands don't: big chunks of time, and eventually people will start to hear. Companies ensure quality through rules to prevent employees from screwing up.

You may need to stand outside yourself a bit to see brokenness, because you don't have them. And they are also different lengths, meaning that the arguments won't line up when they're called, as car and cdr often are, in successive lines. Interfaces, as Geoffrey James has said, should follow the principle of least astonishment. Let's start by acknowledging one external factor that does affect the popularity of a programming language unless it's also the scripting language of some existing system. There are an infinite number of things we need it for. The compartmentalized structure of the things they make you write in school is that real work needs two things errands don't: big chunks of time, and the enforcement of quality can flow bottom-up: people make what they want to hack the source. When I say startups are designed to grow fast. The reason is that you can't be pointed off to the side and hope to succeed. Ask any founder in any economy if they'd describe investors as fickle, and watch the body language of the people working there. It's enormously spread out, and feels surprisingly empty much of the time. That principle, like the temporary buildings built at so many American universities during World War II, they often don't get thrown away. The kind of language designers who like to think about how to design great libraries.

That's a reasonable proxy for revenue growth because whenever the startup does start trying to make a language popular? The most important thing to optimize. And you know what? It seemed as if we were just supposed to restate what we said in the first paragraph, but in different enough words that no one wants to write aref a x y instead, which is one of the things startups do right without realizing it. At the very least I must have explained something badly. Of course, big companies won't be able to declare the types of arguments in the bottlenecks. But Lisp Machines along with parallel computers were steamrollered by the increasing power of general purpose processors in the 1980s. And so were books and paintings. People trying to be cool will find themselves at a disadvantage when collecting surprises. That's not a rate. And they turned him down.

[luluuu-blog]

P.Jaisini-smiles-GIG-NYC2015

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MANIFESTO GLEITZEIT 2015 BY STELLY RIESLING Featured below is another original art work of mine in homage to THE PIONEER OF INVISIBLE ART — PAUL JAISINI. Forget all the copycats that came after him — Master Paul Jaisini was the *FIRST* of a totally original concept and the *BEST*. My favorite thing about him is that he’s a voice, not an echo, which is quite rare. DISCLAIMER: This is for anyone who is a hater OR wishes to better understand me, what I’m all about, so you can decide whether I’m weird or normal enough for you — a kind of very loose manifesto, rushed and unrevised, full of raw uncut emotion that I don’t like to be evident in my writing as lately I prefer a more professional, formal style, so we can consider this a rough draft of the more polished writing to come when I have extra time. I might return to this text later and clean it up or break it into separate parts. Right now it’s a long-winded hot mess, so if you manage to make any sense of it, BIG PROPS TO YOU. lol …and if you manage to read it ALL, you have my solemn respect!!! in a day when reading has been reduced to just catchy headliners and short captions of images once in a while. The consequence of this one-liner internet culture is non-linear, tunnel thinking, which is baaaaaad. There lives among us a most enigmatic and charismatic creature named Paul Jaisini who led me into the wonderful world of art, not personally, but through descriptions of his artworks in essays written and published online by his friend, which painted the most fascinating images in my mind. Early on as a kiddo, I experimented with photography, simple point and shoot whatever looked attractive to me. Digital manipulation of my photographs with computer software followed… and somehow I learned useful drawing techniques along the way to combine existing elements with nonexistent ones, which allowed me to elevate the context for my ideas. Later, I started creating my own digital art from scratch for my friends and family as a favorite pastime. They would shower me with praise and repeatedly encouraged me to share my “different” vision with the rest of the world… it took a while and wasn’t easy to overcome the insecurity of not being good enough along with a gripping fear of being harshly criticized, but one day I woman-ed up and started publishing my work on the web, reminding myself that my livelihood didn’t depend on a positive reception. Paul Jaisini’s role in all this has been to not disgrace myself, even if what I do is just a hobby. And I would never do him and other genius artists the disservice of calling myself a professional because I know I’ll never be as good as any of the GIANTS of pre-modern history. Be the best or be nothing, no middle ground. People’s jealousy in the past, future and present over my obsessive love of Paul Jaisini, which they are well aware is purely plutonic, has caused them to despise the man and has made many relationships/friendships impossible for me. I refuse to have such people in my life because by harboring any negativity towards Paul, they unknowingly feel that way about me and express it to me. It’s their own problem for not realizing this. Paul’s new art movement, Gleitzeit, shaped me into the allegedly awesome girl I am today, giving my art more edge, more “sexy” because it refined my vision of the world and propelled me to attain the skills necessary to not dishonor my family name through tenacious pursuit of perfection. Since the beginning of my life, I attempted to depict what I saw in visual, musical and literal forms, but continuously failed without adequate training and determination. Paul Jaisini’s Gleitzeit was the answer to my prayers. Who I am today I owe mostly to him and his selfless ideals of the artverse that I’ve given unconditional loyalty to (he has this cool ability for hyper-vision to see whole universes, not itty bitty worlds, hence I call it an artverse instead of art world, with him in mind). So again, anyone who hates Paul Jaisini hates ME because, regardless of what he means to you, he is the most important person in my life for making me ME. The way a famous actor, dancer or singer inspires others to act, dance or sing, Paul inspired me to become a better artist, better writer, better everything. More people would understand if he was a household name because they’re wired to in society. But we’re inspiring each other all the time in our own little communities without being famous, so if someone has the ability to change even ONE person’s life immensely with creativity, it is a massive achievement. And passionate folks like myself are compelled to scream it from the cyber rooftops. So here I am. It’s whatever. Furthermore, I’d like to address here a few pressing matters in light of some recent drama brought on by both strangers and former friends. To start, I never judge the passions, interests or likes of others, which are often in my face all over the place, so likewise they have no right to judge any of mine. It is quite unfortunate and frustrating how very little understanding and education the majority of people have or want to have. Their logic is as primitive as a chipmunk when it comes to promotion of fine art on the web: “spamming, advertising, report!” It’s their own problem that they fail to understand what it’s about due to the distorted lens through which they see the world or inability to think for themselves; an inherent lack of perception or inquisitiveness. Well, guess what? Every single image, every animation, every video, every post dedicated to Mr. Paul Jaisini and “Gleitziet” (to elaborate: a revolutionary new art movement Paul founded with his partner in crime and personal friend, EYKG, who discovered him and believed in him more than anyone) has an important purpose. Every one of those things you run across is a piece of a puzzle, a move in a game, an inch down a rabbit hole; the deeper you go, the more interesting it gets; the more levels you pass, the more clues unfold, the greater the suspense and nearer the conclusion (yet further). You earn awesome rewards like enlightenment, spiritual revelations, truths, knowledge, wisdom and the most profound reward of all: the drive to improve yourself to the absolute maximum, so an unending, unshakable drive. People often make a wrong turn in this cyber game and go back a few levels or get stuck. Those that keep on pushing, however, will come to find the effort has been worth it. And what awaits you in the end of it all? The greatest challenge to beating the game: YOUR OWN MIND. You will be forced to let go of every belief you held before you had reached the last level, to completely alter your mindset and perception of the world, of life, of yourself. But by the time you’ve gotten to that point, it will be as easy as falling off a cliff! (It is a kind of suicide after all — death and rebirth of spirit.) Paul Jaisini does NOT, *I repeat* does NOT use mystery and obscurity to his advantage as a clever marketing ploy, no, he’s too next level for that with a consciousness so rich, he should wear a radioactive warning sign (he’ll melt your brain, best wear a tinfoil hat in his presence as I certainly would.) The statement he makes is loud and clear, hidden in plain site for those who take the time to connect the dots and have enough curiosity to fuel their journey into unknown territory (an open mind and flexible perception helps a lot). Actually, anyone with an IQ above 90 is sure to figure it out sooner or later. Hint: You don’t have to SEE an extraordinary thing with your eyes to know it exists, to understand it and realize its greatness — you can only feel it in your bone marrow, your spinal fluid, your heart and soul. The moment you do figure it out, as the skeleton key of the human soul, it will unlock the greatness and massive potential buried deep within, changing the doomed direction humanity is undoubtedly headed. I don’t speak in riddles, I speak in a clear direct way that intelligent humans will understand, so I’m counting on them. GIG is an international group of artists and writers that support Paul Jaisini’s Gleitzeit. We started off as an unofficial fan club of Jaisini in 1996, comprised of only 6 individuals spanning 3 countries, and eventually escalated in status to an official fan group across the entire globe. A decade later it had grown to hundreds of fans. Nearly another decade later, there are thousands. Let’s not leave out another delightful group of vicious haters that have been around for nearly as long as us since the late 90s and have also grown in impressive numbers. Now, for the record (and please write this one down because I’m sick of repeating myself), Paul Jaisini himself is not part of our group and has nothing to do with us. He loves and hates us equally for butchering his name and making him appear as a narcissistic nut-job in his own words. He casts hexes on us for the blinding flash we layer over the art that members contribute to GIG — “disgusting-police-lights, seizure-inducing-laser-lightshow, bourgeois-myspace-effects retarded-raver shit” in Paul’s words. Ahh, how we love his sweet-talking us. In a desperate attempt to please him, those among us who make the art and animations have spent countless hours and sleepless nights trying to solve a crazy-complex quantum-physics type of equation = how to not create tacky or tasteless content. He does fancy some of it now, we got better, that’s something! In the reason stated below, our mission just got out of hand at some point. What little is known about Paul Jaisini, even in all this time, is he’s a horrible perfectionist who slaughtered hundreds of innocent babies — I mean — artworks of remarkable beauty created by his own right hand (mostly paintings, some watercolors and drawings). He’s a fierce recluse who wants nothing to do with anyone or anything in life. But those few of us who know of an incredible talent he possesses (one could go as far as calling it a superpower), could not allow him to live his life without the recognition he FUCKING DESERVES more than any artist out there living today and, arguably, yesterday. We use whatever means necessary to reach more people, lots of flash and razzle-dazzle to lure them into our sinister trap of a higher awareness. Mwahaha! The visual boom you’ve witnessed in both cyber and real worlds, that is GIG’s doing — two damn decades of spreading an art virus — IVA. InVisibleArtitis… or a drug as in Intravenous Art. It’s whatever you want it to be, honey. Our Gleitzeit International Group (GIG) started off innocently enough and gradually spiraled out of control to fight the haters, annoying the hell out of them as much as humanly possible. They don’t like what we do? WE DO MORE AND MORE OF IT. But never without purpose, without a carefully executed plan in mind collectively. If we have to tolerate an endless tidal wave of everyone’s vomit — e.g., idiotic memes and comics; dumbed-down one-liner quotes; selfies; so-called “art photography” passed through one-click app filters; mindless scribbles or random splatters by regular folks who have the nerve to call themselves serious/pro artists; primitive images of pets, babies, landscapes, random objects, etc… then people sure as shit are gonna tolerate what we put out, our animated and non-animated visual art designed for our beloved master, Paul Jaisini, who has shown us the light, the right path to follow, taught us great things and done so much for us — and so in our appreciation of him, we stamp his name on everything, for the sacrifices he has made in the name of art, to save our art verse, he’s a goddamn hero. There’s a book being written in his dedication where little will be left to the imagination about him. If Paul Jaisini was as famous as Koons or Hirst, for example, people would know it’s not him posting stuff online with his name on it but fans creating fanart like myself among others. But noooooo, such a thing is unfathomable to most people – the promotion of another artist. Like, what’s in it for us? Uhh, nothing?? This is all NON-PROFIT bitches, the way art should be. It’s a passion FIRST, a commodity/commercial product/marketable item LAST and least. Its been that way for us since the early 90s to this day. Not a single member of GIG has sold an art work (neither has Paul Jaisini who’s a true professional) and we want to keep it that way. We do it for reasons far beyond ego. So advertising? Really? How the hell do you advertise or sell thin air, you know, invisible paintings, invisible anything? Ha ha, very funny indeed. The idea here is so simple, your neighbor’s dog can grasp it. Our motives: replace fast food for the mind with fine art, actual fine art. You know, creativity? Conscious thought? Talent? Skill? Knowledge? All that good stuff rolled into one to bring viewers more than a momentary ooohand aaahh reaction. Replace the recycled images ad nauseum; repetitious, worn-out ideas; disposable, gimmicky, money-driven fast art for simpletons. Stick with the highest of ideals and save the whole bloody planet. Fine art is often confused with craft-making. This often creates bad blood between classically trained artists who put out paintings that leave a lasting impression, that make strong conversation pieces, that are thought-provoking and deep… and trained craftspeople whose skills are adequate to create decorative pieces for homely environments — landscapes, still lifes, animals, pretty fairies, common things of fantasy, and other simplicity. Skills alone are not enough for high art, you need a vision, a purpose, the ability to tell a story with every stroke of your brush that will both fascinate and terrify the viewers, arousing powerful emotions, illuminating. I have yet to see a visible painting in my generation that does anything at all for me, other than evoke sheer outrage and disgust. What a terrible waste of space and valuable resources it all is. Paul Jaisini leads, we follow. He wishes to remain unknown – so do most of us. I’m next in line, slipping into recluse mode, no longer wanting to attach my face, my human image to my art stuff. I wish to be a nameless, faceless artist as well, invisible like P.J., and in his footsteps I too have destroyed thousands of my own artistic photography and digital art made with tedious, labor-intensive handwork. The whole point of this destruction is achieving the finest results possible by letting go of the imperfect, purging it on a regular basis, to make way for the perfect. I love what I do so it doesn’t matter, I know I’ll keep producing as much as I’m discarding, keeping the balance. Hoarding is an enemy of progress, especially the digital kind as there’s absolutely no limit to it. It’s like carrying a load of bricks on your back you’ll never use or need. The watering down of creativity that digital pack ratting has caused as observed over the years is most tragic. For the creative individual, relying on terabytes of stock photos or OSFAP as I call them (Once Size Fits All Photos) instead of making your own as you used to when you had no choice, being 100% original, is a splinter in the conscience. It’s not evil to use stock of, say, things you don’t have access to (outer space, deep sea, Antarctica, etc.), but many digital artists I know today can’t take their own shot of a pencil ‘cause they “ain’t got no time for that!” How did they have time before? Did time get so compressed in only a decade? Ohhhhh, and the edits, textures, filters, plug-ins and what-have-you available out there to everyone and their cats… are responsible for the tidal wave of rubbish that eclipses the magnificent light of the real talents. I can tell you with utmost sincerity there is no better feeling on earth than knowing your creation is ALL yours, every pixel and dot, from the first to the last. It’s not always possible to make it so, but definitely the most rewarding endeavor. I’m most proud of myself when I can accomplish that. Back to Paul Jaisini, from the start there have been a number of theories floating around on what his real story is. One of my own theories is that he stands for the unknowns of the world who can’t get representation, can’t get exhibited at a decent gallery because highly gifted/trained artists aren’t good enough – those kind of establishments prefer bananas, balloon dogs, feces, gigantic dicks/cunts, and all kinds of what-the-fucks… So again, you don’t get the Paul Jaisini thing? That’s your problem. Don’t hate others for getting it. People are good, very good, at making baseless assumptions and impulsively spewing it as truth. They criticize and judge as if they’re high authorities on the subject yet they clearly lack education in fine art or art history and possess little to no talent or skill to back up their bullshit. My little “credibility radar” never fails. When they say I know this or I know that, I reply don’t say “I know” or state things as fact as a general rule of thumb – instead say “I assume/believe” and state the reasons you feel thus to appear less immature, especially about a controversial topic like invisible art. I have zero respect or tolerance for egomaniacs who think they know it all and act accordingly like arrogant pricks. Who can stand those, right? Once again, a good example would be: I, Stelly Riesling, believe everything I’ve written in this little manifesto to be correct based on personal experience and observation from multiple angles, thorough research and sufficient data collected from verifiable sources (and don’t go copying-pasting my own words back at me, be original). Just because you or I say so doesn’t make it so. Just because you or me think or believe so doesn’t make it true or right. I only ask that my opinions are regarded respectfully and whoever opposes them does so in a mature, civilized manner. We should only be entitled to opinions that don’t bring out the worst in us. I don’t normally take such a position, but the time has come to stand up for what I believe in! It’s quite amusing and comical how haters think calling me names, attacking me or my interests or members of the project I’m part of for years is going to change something. It only makes more evident the importance of what I’m doing so I push on harder still. Words of advise to those who can identify with me, with my frustrations over people’s reluctance to change their miserable ways, with our declining art world… DON’T waste time on people who sweat the small stuff, whose actions are consistently inconsistent with their words. DO waste time on people who always keep their eye on the ball—the bigger picture of life. Paul Jaisini’s invisible paintings are more than hype, more than your lame assumptions. Here’s one I got that’s pure gold: a cult! It started out as A JOKE OF MINE that was used against me. I told a then-good friend that he should come join our little “art cult” in a clearly lighthearted manner, and later he takes this idea I put in his head first and accuses me of being in an (imaginary) cult—the jokes on me eh?. But wait, aren’t cults religious? Our group consists of people around the world of different faiths (or none at all) so how could that ever work? If religion was about making fine (non-pop) art mainstream and bringing awesome, fresh, futuristic concepts to the collective consciousness, the world would not be so fucked up today because talent, creativity, originality and individuality would be the main focus, not superficial poppycock; those things would be praised and encouraged and supported in society by all institutions, not demonized and stigmatized. Here is one thing I CAN state as solid fact: only one person close to Paul Jaisini knows the TRUE story, or at least some of it: EYKG. Everything else that has ever been said about him is myth, legend, gossip, speculation, the worst of which is said by jealous non-artists (wannabes, clones, posers, hang-ons, unoriginal ppl in general) and anti-artists (religious psychos, squares, losers and -duh- stupid ppl). Sadly, people are unable to see the bigger picture by letting their egos run their lives or repeating after others as parrots. Commercial art, consumerism, and ignorance of the masses truly makes me want to curl up in a ball, not eat or drink or move until I die, just die in my sleep while dreaming of a better world, a world where real fine artists rule it with real fine art as they used to and life is beautiful once again…. Well I hope that settled THAT for now, or perhaps inadvertently made matters worse. I hope I didn’t sound too pissed from all these issues that keep popping up like penises on ChatRoulette… just got to me already! Can you tell? I had to put my foot down, stomp ‘em all! To be continued, still lots more ignorance and pettiness to battle… Till then peace out my bambini. MWAH! FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MANIFESTO GLEITZEIT 2015 PROLOGUE Paul Jaisini was like a messiah, as you wish, who saw/understood the impending end and complete degeneration of Fine art or Art become and investment nothing more than that. He predicted the bubble pops art when everybody would eventually become an artist, including dogs cats and horses, because they as kids followed the main rule: express yourself without skills or knowledge or any aesthetic concerns. J. Pollack started pouring paints onto canvases; Julian Schnabel, former cab driver from NY, suddenly decided he could do better than what he saw displayed in galleries, so he started gluing dishes on canvases; A.Warhol, an industrial artist who made commercial silk-screen for the factories he worked in, started to exhibit "Campbell’s soup" used for commercial adds… and later the thing that made him an "American Idol": by copying and pasting Hollywood celebrities (same type of posters he made before for movie theaters). When Paul Jaisini stood out against the Me culture in the US by burning all of his own 120 brilliant paintings (according to the then-new director of Fort Worth MoMa Museum, who offered hin an exhibition of his art in 1992, and later the Metropolitan Museum curator, Phillippe de Montebello, in 1994).Paul probably assumed all fellow true fine artists would join him or stand by him against corruption of the art world. And after 20 years of his stand-off…the time has finally come today. Many artists and humanitarians around the world took a place beside him. His invisible Paintings became a synonym for the future reincarnation of fine art and long lost harmony. The establishment is in panic! The "moneybags" (as Paul Jaisini named them) are in panic, because they invested BILLIONS of dollars in real crap made by craftsmen. Now they realize that the reputation of American legends of expressionism was nothing but a copy of Russian avant-garde" Kazimir Malevich, Vasiliy Kandinsky and tens of others from France and Germany.. US tycoon investors were spending billions on "Me more original, than you". "Artist Shit" is a 1061 artwork by the Italian artist Piero Manzoni. The work consists of 90 tin cans, filled with feces. A tin can was sold for £124,000, 180,000 at Sothebys, 2007. EPILOGUE Before I resume promoting and admiring a very important art persona on today’s international art arena, I’d like to clear up some BIG questions; people ask continuously and subconsciously, directly & indirectly: "Why does the name Paul Jaisini, flood the Internet in such "obnoxious" quantities that it’s started suppressing some other activities that my friends might share with the rest of the Internet’s Ego Me only Me www society? I can’t just answer this… so I’ll try to explain why I’m writing this: Jaisini’s followers keep posting art and info about, He IMHO the only hope in quickly decomposing visual fine art. "Paul Jaisini realized many years ago, in 1994, when he declared (at that time to himself only) the start of a New era, a New vision, that he is trying to redirect from the rat race, started by an establishment in post-war New York, long before the Internet culture. Sub related information: Adolf Gottlieb, Mart Rothko, etc (after visiting Paris France in 1933): "We must forget analytical art, we must express ourselves, as a 5 year old child would, without a developed consciousness. Forget about results – do what you feel, EXPRESS yourself with your own unique style" With this statement Mark Rothko starts to teach his students, degeneration of fine art begins, and the generation of war of styles took a start signal of the material race, greatly rewarded by establishment "individual" – eccentric craftsmen – show business clowns. Sub related Information: In the summer of 1936, Adolf Gottlieb painted more than 800 paintings, which was 20X more than he created in his whole art career as a painter, starting from the time of Gottlieb becomes a founding member of "The Ten" group in NYC "Group of Ten" was a very peculiar, enigmatic group… Based on a religious point of view;(where a human figure was prohibited from being created) GLOSSARY IN 1997, Paul Jaisini’s best friend Ellen Y.K.Gottlieb started a cyber campaign by promoting on a very young Internet, back then, Paul Jaisini’s burned paintings as Invisible Paintings, visible only through poetic essays. She and a handful of people saw his originals and were devastated that nobody could ever see them again. "We, his fans, believe that someday Paul will recreate his 120 burned paintings if he has any decency and moral obligation to his fans, who have dedicated decades to make it happen, for their Phoenix to rise from the ashes and the whole world will witness that all these years we spent to get him back to re-paint the Visuals again were not in vain," – said E.Y.K.Gottlieb in 2014 during the 20th anniversary celebration of Invisible Paintings to GIGroup in NYCity. So now, hopefully, this clears up why I and others do what we do – our "cyber terrorism" of good art, dedicated to Paul Jaisini’s return, which is & and was our mission & our goal. We post good art to fight "troll art" which is worthless pics, after being passed through 1-click filters of free web apps. We are, in fact, against this www pops pollution, done with "bubble art" by the out of control masses with 5 billon pics a day: Pics of cats, memes, quotes,national geographic sunsets and waterfalls, not counting their own daily "selfies: and whatever self-indulging Me-ego-Me affairs, sponsored happily by photo gadget companies like Canon, Nikon, Sony…who churn out higher quality madness tools at lower cost. This way Government taking away attention from the real world crisis of lowest morality & economical devastation. The masses are too easily re-engineered/manipulated by the Establishment PopsStyle delivered to them by pop music and Hollywood "super" stars. In 1992 Paul Jaisini’s Gleitzeit theory predict such a massive, pops self-entertain madness, following technological explosion, but not in illusive scales. Uber Aless @2015 NYC USA NOTE Date’s numbers and events can be slightly inaccurate. #gleitzeit #paul-jaisini #invisible #painting #art #futurism #art-news,

Posted by E_Y_K_G on 2015-03-28 04:43:10

Tagged: , smile , <3 , paul-jaisini , paintings , drawing , ink , nature , landscape , gleitzeit , art , blue , texture , cobalt , new , surf , wave , waves , underwater , moon , moonlight , stardust , stars , infinity , galaxy , futuristic , universe , energy , reflection , illusion , mind , robot , metal , infinite , dreams , high , cosmos , trippy , acid , trip , psychedelic , hippie , wonder , ice , misty , opart , opticalillusion , quest , games , puzzle , space , hipster , groovy , glow , cosmic , invisible , manifesto , alien , aliens , transformation , queer , unusual , stellyriesling , gleitzeitmanifesto

The post P.Jaisini-smiles-GIG-NYC2015 appeared first on Good Info.

[colourfulaurarhyanna]

What does it mean to be human?

Human beings have unique abilities unlike any other animal or machine co-existing on the earth. Throughout our evolutionary history, humans have attempted to replicate these unique characteristics of human beings through artificial intelligence but have continuously failed. The film “Ex Machina” illustrates the concept of human characteristics in artificial intelligence  through the testing of AI, Ava. Ava undergoes multiple sessions with Caleb, who puts Ava to the test of being human. Through the privilege of conscience, humans have the ability to control their fate.  To be human is to have the ability to rationally and consciously make decisions while having the ability to bear the consequences. 

Artificial Intelligence was created by human beings with the intention to replicate the way humans act and behave. The movie Ex Machina by Alex Garland, explores the concept of artificial intelligence, as well as the domination of artificial intelligence through one of the main characters, Ava. Ava is a machine designed by Nathan, to replicate human functions. The movie begins with the main character, Caleb. Nathan created a contest with the purpose to seek the perfect candidate to take part in testing Ava’s human behaviour. Caleb wins the contest thinking he will work with a famous search engine Nathn, but then is later revealed to him what the 

actual purpose of the contest was. Ava displayed human intelligence, but not the consciousness of a human. 

Humans often do their best to help one another. We sympathize for the people and things around us. For example, if a person was hurt and was in need of urgent care, another person who Although animals may be capable of detecting emotion, it has yet to be proven that animals have the capability and capacity to take these emotions into consideration when deciding their next action. ² In The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, published in 1871, Charles Darwin wrote: “I fully … subscribe to the judgment of those writers who maintain that of all the differences between man and the lower animals the moral sense or conscience is by far the most important.”  I propose that the capacity for ethics is a necessary attribute of human nature, whereas moral codes are products of cultural evolution. Humans have a moral sense because their biological makeup determines the presence of three necessary conditions for ethical behavior: (i) the ability to anticipate the consequences of one's own actions; (ii) the ability to make value judgments; and (iii) the ability to choose between alternative courses of action. . Animals do not consider these components together when making decisions. Throughout Ex machina Ava took part in sessions of contact with  Caleb. Without Caleb’s knowing, Nathan programed Ava to escape confinement while using Caleb’s attachment to her advantage. Ava’s goal was to escape Nathan’s confinement. Ava’s first method of trying to manipulate and play with Caleb’s emotions was making privacy for the two in order to establish a sense of intimacy. Ava simulated  this connection by creating power outages that turned off the surveillance  feeds in order to get the intimacy she desired with Caleb. It was in these intimate moments that Ava inconsiderately acted as if she cared for Caleb's well being, causing him to question whether or not Ava could be displaying human traits. ¹When Nathan was questioned about Ava’s “sexuality” he explained that she was programmed to be heterosexual. Ava did not choose her own sexuality witness’ that person hurt would immediately empathize and help the person out. Whereas, if it was an animal seeing another animal hurt, it is very unlikely the animal would help out.  Although animals may be capable of detecting emotion, it has yet to be proven that animals have the capability and capacity to take these emotions into consideration when deciding their next action. ² In The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, published in 1871, Charles Darwin wrote: “I fully … subscribe to the judgment of those writers who maintain that of all the differences between man and the lower animals the moral sense or conscience is by far the most important.”  I propose that the capacity for ethics is a necessary attribute of human nature, whereas moral codes are products of cultural evolution. Humans have a moral sense because their biological makeup determines the presence of three necessary conditions for ethical behavior: (i) the ability to anticipate the consequences of one's own actions; (ii) the ability to make value judgments; and (iii) the ability to choose between alternative courses of action. . Animals do not consider these components together when making decisions. Throughout Ex machina Ava took part in sessions of contact with  Caleb. Without Caleb’s knowing, Nathan programed Ava to escape confinement while using Caleb’s attachment to her advantage. Ava’s goal was to escape Nathan’s confinement. Ava’s first method of trying to manipulate and play with Caleb’s emotions was making privacy for the two in order to establish a sense of intimacy. Ava simulated  this connection by creating power outages that turned off the surveillance  feeds in order to get the intimacy she desired with Caleb. It was in these intimate moments that Ava inconsiderately acted as if she cared for Caleb's well being, causing him to question whether or not Ava could be displaying human traits. ¹When Nathan was questioned about Ava’s “sexuality” he explained that she was programmed to be heterosexual. Ava did not choose her own sexuality  but had it pre determined for her. She then used this pre programmed algorithm to unmorally manipulate Caleb's emotion to her advantage by simulating an emotional connection between the two. Ava took both actions of creating intimacy and an emotional connection with Caleb for  the sole purpose of reaching her programmed goal of escaping confinement.  Ava was unable to develop her own emotions and desires and acted with the only purpose of reaching her programed goals regardless of the circumstances, therefore Ava lacking the human quality of controlling her conscious and having the capability to act on the consequences based on the understanding of one's emotions. What separates humanity from of species on Earth is our link with ethical behaviour and moral views and rationality. To act ethically is defined as acting in such a way that is based on one's moral principles and is socially acceptable. As humans we have the conscious ability to understand how and why humans act with all three of these components to determine what the moral and ethical thing to do while animals act irrationally on survival.Humans have the ability to act upon our fate, and have the conscious mind while doing so. Through our human privilege we have the ability to make rational decisions and bear the consequences. We have the power to lead ourselves to success or doom the world to its downfall. The actions of humanity determines its own future. The thought of a race with such power over the world makes one contemplate what it means to be human. To be human is to have the ability to  accept and understand one’s emotions while acting on them ethically. Through the movie Ex Machina , the concept of what it means to be human was explored through the creation of an Ai.  The Ai , Ava, failed  to pass as possessing human consciousness as her actions were based on meeting the means of a single goal that had programmed into her.  AI, Ava, had no desire for her own wants or needs but acted upon the terms of someone else. As humans we have the power to make conscious decisions through accessing the consequences and redirecting our plans based on the situations. There are many different ways humans differ themselves from other beings, and what makes us so different and irreplaceable. However it is our ability to understand to bear consequences and act on them ethically that gives us humanity.  

Work CitedThe Difference of Being Human https://www.pnas.org/content/107/Supplement_2/9015

[moneypedia]

Explain this: To excel man in that which man excells all other animals?

Man a Machine, Julien Offray de La Mettrie (1748) 

It is not enough for a wise man to study nature and truth; he should dare state truth for the benefit of the few who are willing and able to think. As for the rest, who are voluntarily slaves of prejudice, they can no more attain truth, than frogs can fly. I reduce to two the systems of philosophy which deal with man's soul. The first and older system is materialism; the second is spiritualism. The metaphysicians who have hinted that matter may well be endowed with the faculty of thought have perhaps not reasoned ill. For there is in this case a certain advantage in their inadequate way of expressing their meaning. In truth, to ask whether matter can think, without considering it otherwise than in itself, is like asking whether matter can tell time. It may be foreseen that we shall avoid this reef upon which Locke had the bad luck to shipwreck. The Leibnizians with their monads have set up an unintelligible hypothesis. They have rather spiritualized matter than materialized the soul. How can we define a being whose nature is absolutely unknown to us? Descartes and all the Cartesians, among whom the followers of Malebranche have long been numbered, have made the same mistake. They have taken for granted two distinct substances in man, as if they had seen them, and positively counted them. The wisest men have declared that the soul can not know itself save by the light of faith. However, as reasonable beings they have thought that they could reserve for themselves the right of examining what the Bible means by the word ``spirit,'' which it uses in speaking of the human soul. And if in their investigation, they do not agree with the theologians on this point, are the theologians more in agreement among themselves on all other points? Here is the result in a few words of all their reflections. If there is a God, he is the Author of nature was well as of revelation. He has given us the one to explain the other, and reason to make them agree. To distrust the knowledge that can be drawn from the study of animated bodies, is to regard nature and revelation as two contraries which destroy each other, and consequently to dare uphold the absurd doctrine, that God contradicts Himself in His various works and deceives us. If there is a revelation, it can not then contradict nature. By nature only can we understand the meaning of the words of the Gospel, of which experience is the only truly interpreter. In fact, the commentators before our time have only obscured the truth. We can judged of this by the author of the Spectacle of Nature. ``It is astonishing,'' he says concerning Locke, ``that a man who degrades our soul far enough to consider it a soul of clay should dare set up reason as judge and sovereign arbiter of the mysteries of faith, for,'' he adds, ``what an astonishing idea of Christianity one would have, if one were to follow reason.'' Not only do these reflections fail to elucidate faith, but they also constitute such frivolous objections to the method of those who undertake to interpret the Scripture, that I am almost ashamed to waste time in refuting them. The excellence of reason does not depend on a big word devoid of meaning (immateriality), but on the force, extent, and perspicuity of reason itself. Thus a ``soul of clay'' which should discover, at one glance, as it were, the relations and the consequences of an infinite number of ideas hard to understand, would evidently be preferable to a foolish and stupid soul, though that were composed of the most precious elements. A man is not a philosopher because, with Pliny, he blushes over the wretchedness of our origin. What seems vile is here the most precious of things, and seems to be the object of nature's highest art and most elaborate care. But as man, even though he should come from an apparently still more lowly source, would yet be the most perfect of all beings, so whatever the origin of his soul, if it is pure, noble, and lofty, it is a beautiful soul which dignifies the man endowed with it. Pluche's second way of reasoning seems vicious to me, even in his system, which smacks a little of fanaticism; for [on his view] if we have an idea of faith as being contrary to the clearest principles, to the most incontestable truths, we must yet conclude, out of respect for revelation and its author, that this conception is false, and that we do not yet understand the meaning of the words of the Gospel. Of the two alternatives, only one is possible: either everything is illusion, nature as well as revelation, or experience alone can explain faith. But what can be more ridiculous than the position of our author! Can one imagine hearing a Peripatetic say, ``We ought not to accept the experiments of Torricelli, for if we should accept them, if we should rid ourselves of the horror of the void, what an astonishing philosophy we should have!'' I have shown how vicious the reasoning of Pluche is in order to prove, in the first place, that if there is a revelation, it is not sufficiently demonstrated by the mere authority of the Church, and without any appeal to reason, as all those who fear reason claim: and in the second place, to protect against all assault the method of those who would wish to follow the path that I open to them, of interpreting supernatural things, incomprehensible in themselves, in the light of those ideas with which nature has endowed us. Experience and observation should therefore be our only guides here. Both are to be found throughout the records of the physicians who were philosophers, and not in the works of the philosophers who were not physicians. The former have traveled through and illuminated the labyrinth of man; they alone have laid bare those springs [of life] hidden under the external integument which conceals so many wonders from our eyes. They alone, tranquilly contemplating our soul, have surprised it, a thousand times, both in its wretchedness and in its glory, and they have no more despised it in the first estate, than they have admired it in the second. Thus, to repeat, only the physicians have a right to speak on this subject. What could the others, especially the theologians, have to say? Is it not ridiculous to hear them shamelessly coming to conclusions about a subject concerning which they have had no means of knowing anything, and from which on the contrary they have been completely turned aside by obscure studies that have led them to a thousand prejudiced opinions, - in a word, to fanaticism, which adds yet more to their ignorance of the mechanism of the body? But even though we have chosen the best guides, we shall still find many thorns and stumbling blocks in the way. Man is so complicated a machine that it is impossible to get a clear idea of the machine beforehand, and hence impossible to define it. For this reason, all the investigations have been vain, which the greatest philosophers have made à priori, that is to to say, in so far as they use, as it were, the wings of the spirit. Thus it is only à posteriori or by trying to disentangle the soul from the organs of the body, so to speak, that one can reach the highest probability concerning man's own nature, even though one can not discover with certainty what his nature is. Let us then take in our hands the staff of experience, paying no heed to the accounts of all the idle theories of the philosophers. TO be blind and to think one can do without this staff if the worst kind of blindness. How truly a contemporary writer says that the only vanity fails to gather from secondary causes the same lessons as from primary causes! One can and one even ought to admire all these fine geniuses in their most useless works, such men as Descartes, Malebranche, Leibnitz, Wolff and the rest, but what profit, I ask, has any one gained from their profound meditations, and from all their works? Let us start out then to discover not what has been thought, but what must be thought for the sake of repose in life. There are as many different minds, different characters, and different customs, as there are different temperaments. Even Galen knew this truth which Descartes carried so far as to claim that medicine alone can change minds and morals, along with bodies. (By the write of L'historie de l'âme, this teaching is incorrectly attributed to Hippocrates.) It is true that melancholy, bile, phlegm, blood etc., - according to the nature, the abundance, and the different combination of these humors - make each man different from another. In disease the soul is sometimes hidden, showing no sign of life; sometimes it is so inflamed by fury that it seems to be doubled; sometimes, imbecility vanishes and the convalescence of an idiot produces a wise man. Sometimes, again, the greatest genius becomes imbecile and looses the sense of self. Adieu then to all that fine knowledge, acquired at so high a price, and with so much trouble! Here is a paralytic who asks is his leg is in bed with him; there is a soldier who thinks that he still has the arm which has been cut off. The memory of his old sensations, and of the place to which they were referred by his soul, is the cause of this illusion, and of this kind of delirium. The mere mention of the member which he has lost is enough to recall it to his mind, and to make him feel all its motions; and this causes him an indefinable and inexpressible kind of imaginary suffering. This man cries like a child at death's approach, while this other jests. What was needed to change the bravery of Caius Julius, Seneca, or Petronius into cowardice or faintheartedness? Merely an obstruction in the spleen, in the liver, an impediment in the portal vein. Why? Because the imagination is obstructed along with the viscera, and this gives rise to all the singular phenomena of hysteria and hypochondria. What can I add to the stories already told of those who imagine themselves transformed into wolf-men, cocks or vampires, or of those who think that the dead feed upon them? Why should I stop to speak of the man who imagines that his nose or some other member is of glass? The way to help this man to regain his faculties and his own flesh-and-blood nose is to advise him to sleep on hay, lest he beak the fragile organ, and then to set fire to the hay that he may be afraid of being burned - a far which has sometimes cured paralysis. But I must touch lightly on facts which everybody knows. Neither shall I dwell long on the details of the effects of sleep. Here a tired soldier snores in a trench, in the middle of the thunder of hundreds of cannon. His soul hears nothing; his sleep is as deep as apoplexy. A bomb is on the point of crushing him. He will feel this less perhaps than he feels an insect which is under his foot. On the other hand, this man who is devoured by jealousy, hatred, avarice, or ambition, can never find any rest. The most peaceful spot, the freshest and most calming drinks are alike useless to one who has not freed his heart from the torment of passion. The soul and the body fall asleep together. As the motion of the blood is calmed, a sweet feeling of peace and quiet spreads through the whole mechanism. The soul feels itself little by little growing heavy as the eyelids droop, and loses its tenseness, as the fibres of the brain relax; thus little by little it becomes as if paralyzed and with it all the muscles of the body. These can no longer sustain the weight of the head, and the soul can no longer bear the burden of thought; it is in sleep as if it were not. Is the circulation too quick? the soul cannot sleep. Is the soul too much excited? the blood cannot be quieted: it gallops through the veins with an audible murmur/ Such are the two opposite causes of insomnia. A single fright in the midst of our dreams makes the heart beat at double speed and snatches us from needed and delicious repose, as a real grief or an urgent need would do. Lastly as the mere cessation of the functions of the soul produces sleep, there are, even when we are awake (or at least when we are half awake), kinds of very frequent short naps of the mind, vergers' dreams, which show that the soul does not always wait for the body to sleep. For if the soul is not fast asleep, it surely is not far from sleep, since it cannot point out a single object to which it has attended, among the uncounted number of confused ideas which, so to speak, fill the atmosphere of our brains like clouds. Opium is too closely related to the sleep it produces, to be left out of consideration here. This drug intoxicates, like wine, coffee, etc., each in its own measure and according to the dose. It makes a man happy in a state which would seemingly be the tomb of feeling, as it is the image of death. How sweet is this lethargy! The soul would long never to emerge from it. For the soul has been a prey to the most intense sorrow, but now feels only the joy of suffering past, and of sweetest peace. Opium alters even the will, forcing the soul which wished to wake and to enjoy life, to sleep in spite of itself. I shall omit any reference to the effect of poisons. Coffee, the well-known antidote for wine, by scourging the imagination, cures our headaches and scatters our cares without laying up for us, as wine does, other headaches for the morrow. But let us contemplate the soul in its other needs. The human body is a machine which winds its own springs. It is the living image of perpetual movement. Nourishment keeps up the movement which fever excites. Without food, the soul pines away, goes mad, and dies exhausted. The soul is a taper whose light flares up the moment before it goes out. But nourish the body, pour into its veins life-giving juices and strong liquors, and then the soul grows strong like them, as if arming itself with a proud courage, and the soldier whom water would have made to flee, grows bold and runs joyously to death to the sound of drums. Thus a hot drink sets into stormy movement the blood which a cold drink would have calmed. What power there is in a meal! Joy revives in a sad heart, and infects the souls of comrades, who express their delight in the friendly songs in which the Frenchman excels. The melancholy man alone is dejected, and the studious man is equally out of place [in such company]. Raw meat makes animals fierce, and it would have the same effect on man. This is so true that the English who eat meat red and bloody, and not as well done as ours, seem to share more or less in the savagery due to this kind of food, and to other causes which can be rendered ineffective by education only. This savagery creates in the soul, pride, hatred, scorn of other nations, indocility and other sentiments which degrade the character, just as heavy food makes a dull and heavy mind whose usual traits are laziness and indolence. Pope understood well the full power of greediness when he said: Catius is ever moral, ever grave Thinks who endures a knave is next a knave, Save just at dinner - then prefers no doubt A rogue with ven'son to a saint without. Elsewhere he says: See the same man in vigor, in the gout, Alone, in company, in place or out, Early at business and at hazard late, Mad at a fox chase, wise at a debate, Drunk at a borough, civil at a ball, Friendly at Hackney, faithless at White Hall. In Switzerland we had a bailiff by the name of M. Steigner de Wittghofen. When he fasted he was a most upright and even a most indulgent judge, but woe to the unfortunate man whom he found on the culprit's bench after he had had a large dinner! He was capable of sending the innocent like the guilty to the gallows. We think we are, and in fact we are, good men, only as we are gay or brave; everything depends on the way our machine is running. One is sometimes inclined to say that the soul is situated in the stomach, and that Van Helmont, who said that the seat of the soul was in the pylorus, made only the mistake of taking the part for the whole. To what excesses cruel hunger can bring us! We no longer regard even our own parents and children. We tear them to pieces eagerly and make horrible banquets of them; and in the fury with which we are carried away, the weakest is always the prey of the strongest. La grossesse, cette émule désirée des pâles couleurs, ne se contente pas d'amener le plus souvent à sa suites le goûts dépravés qui accompagnent ces deux états: elle a quelquefois fait exécuter à l'âme les plus affreux complots; effets d'une maine subite, qui étouffe jusqu'à la loi naturelle. Ce'st ainsi que le cerveau, cette matrice de l'esprit, se pervertit à sa manière, avec celle du corps. Quelle autre fureur d'homme ou de femme, dans ceux que la continence et la santé poursuivent! C'est peu pour cette fille timide et modeste d'avoir perdu toute honte et toute pudeur; elle ne regarde plus l'inceste, que comme une femme galante regarde l'adultère. Si ses besoins ne trouvent pas de prompts soulagements, ils ne se borneront point aux simples accidents d'une passion utérine, à la manie, etc.; cette malheureuse mourra d'un mal, dont il y a tant de médecins. One needs only eyes to see the necessary influence of old age on reason. The soul follows the progress of the body, as it does the progress of education. In the weaker sex, the soul accords also with delicacy of temperament, and from this delicacy follow tenderness, affection, quick feelings due more to passion than to reason, prejudices, and superstitions, whose strong impress can hardly be effaced. Man, on the other hand, whose brain and nerves partake of the firmness of all solids, has not only stronger features but also a more vigorous mind. Education, which women lack, strengthens his mind still more. Thus with such help of nature and art, why should not a man be more grateful, more generous, more constant in friendship, stronger in adversity? But, to follow almost exactly the thought of the author of the Lettres sur la Physiognomie, the sex which unites the charms of the mind and of the body with almost all the tenderest and most delicate feelings of the heart, should not envy us the two capacities which seem to have been given to man, the one merely to enable him better to fathom the allurements of beauty, and the other merely to enable him to minister better to its pleasure. It is no more necessary to be just as great a physiognomist as this author, in order to guess the quality of the mind from the countenance or the shape of the features, provided these are sufficiently marked, than it is necessary to be a great doctor to recognize a disease accompanied by all it marked symptoms. Look at the portraits of Locke, of Steele, of Boerhaave, of Maupertuis, and the rest, and you will not be surprised to find strong faces and eagle eyes. Look over a multitude of others, and you can always distinguish the man of talent from the man of genius, and often even an honest man from a scoundrel. For example it has been noticed that a celebrated poet combines (in his portrait) the look of a pickpocket with the fire of Prometheus. History provides us with a noteworthy example of the power of temperature. The famous Duke of Guise was so strongly convinced that Henry the Third, in whose power he had so often been, would never dare assassinate him, that he went to Blois. When the Chancellor Chiverny learned of the duke's departure, he cried, ``He is lost.'' After this fatal prediction had been fulfilled by the event, Chiverny was asked why he made it. ``I have known the king for twenty years,'' said he; ``he is naturally kind and even weakly indulgent, but I have noticed that when it is cold, it takes nothing at all to provoke him and send him into a passion.'' One nation is of heavy and stupid wit, and another quick, light and penetrating. Whence comes this difference, if not in part from the difference in foods, and difference in inheritance, and in part from the mixture of the diverse elements which float around in the immensity of the void? The mind, like the body, has its contagious diseases and its scurvy. Such is the influence of climate, that a man who goes from one climate to another, feels the change, in spite of himself. He is a walking plant which has transplanted itself; if the climate is not the same, it will surely either degenerate or improve. Furthermore, we catch everything from those with whom we come in contact; their gestures, their accent, etc.; just as the eyelid is instinctively lowered when a blow is foreseen, or (as for the same reason) the body of the spectator mechanically imitates, in spite of himself, all the motions of a good mimic. From what I have just said, it follows that a brilliant man is his own best company, unless he can find others of the same sort. In the society of the unintelligent, the mind grows rusty for lack of exercise, as at tennis a ball that is served badly is badly returned. I should prefer an intelligent man without an education, if he were still young enough, to a man badly educated. A badly trained mind is like an actor whom the provinces have spoiled. Thus, the diverse states of the soul are always correlative with those of the body. But the better to show this dependence, in its completeness and its causes, let us here make use of comparative anatomy; let us lay bare the organs of man and of animals. How can human nature be known, if we may not derive any light from an exact comparison of the structure of man and of animals? In general, the form and the structure of the brains of quadrupeds are almost the same as those of the brain of man; the same shape, the same arrangement everywhere, with this essential difference, that of all the animals man is the one whose brain is largest, and, in proportion to its mass, more convoluted than the brain of any other animal; then come the monkey, the beaver, the elephant, the dog, the fox, the cat. These animals are most like man, for among them, too, one notes the same progressive analogy in relation to the corpus callosum in which Lancisi - anticipating the late M. de la Peyronie - established the seat of the soul. The latter, however, illustrated the theory by innumerable experiments. Next after all the quadrupeds, birds have the largest brains. Fish have large heads, but these are void of sense, like the heads of many men. Fish have no corpus callosum, and very little brain, while insects entirely lack brain. I shall not launch out into any more detail about the varieties of nature, nor into conjectures concerning them, for there is an infinite number of both, as any one can see by reading no further than the treatises of Willis De Cerebro and De Anima Brutorum. I shall draw the conclusions which follow clearly from these incontestable observations: 1st, that the fiercer animals are, the less brain they have; 2d, that this organ seems to increase in size in proportion to the gentleness of the animal; 3d, that nature seems here eternally to impose a singular condition, that the more one gains in intelligence the more one loses in instinct. Does this bring gain or loss? Do not think, however, that I wish to infer by that, that the size alone of the brain, is enough to indicate the degree of tameness in animals: the quality must correspond to the quantity, and the solids and liquids must be in that due equilibrium which constitutes health. If, as is ordinarily observed, the imbecile does not lack brain, his brain will be deficient in its consistency - for instance, in being too soft. The same thing is true of the insane, and the defects of their brains do not always escape our investigation. But if the causes of imbecility, insanity, etc., are not obvious, where shall we look for the causes of the diversity of all minds? They would escape the eyes of a lynx and of an argus. A mere nothing, a tiny fiber, something that could never be found by the most delicate anatomy, would have made of Erasmus and Fontenelle two idiots, and Fontenelle himself speaks of this very fact in one of his best dialogues. Willis has noticed in addition to the softness of the brain-substance in children, puppies and birds, that the corpora striata are obliterated and discolored in all these animals, and that the striations are as imperfectly formed as in paralytics. Il ajoute, ce qui est vrai, que l'homme a la protubérance annulaire fort grosse; et ensuite toujours diminutivement par dégrés, le singe et les autres animaux nommés ci-devant, tandis que le veau, le boeuf, le loup, la brebis, le cochon, etc. qui ont cette partie d'un tès petit volume, ont les nattes et testes fort gros. However cautious and reserved one may be about the consequences that can be deduced from these observations, and from many others concerning the kind of variation in the organs, nerves, etc., [one must admit that] so many different varieties cannot be the gratuitous play of nature. They prove at least the necessity for a good and vigorous physical organization, since throughout the animal kingdom the soul gains force with the body and acquires keenness, as the body gains strength. Let us pause to contemplate the varying capacities of animals to learn. Doubtless the analogy best framed leads the mind to think that the causes we have mentioned produce all the difference that is found between animals and men, although we must confess that our weak understanding, limited to the coarsest observations, cannot see the bonds that exist between cause and effect. This is a kind of harmony that philosophers will never know. Among animals, some learn to speak and sing; they remember tunes, and strike the notes as exactly as a musician. Others, for instance the ape, show more intelligence, and yet cannot learn music. What is the reason for this, except some defect in the organs of speech? But is this defect so essential to the structure that it could never be remedied? In a word, would it be absolutely impossible to teach the ape a language? I do not think so. I should choose a large ape in preference to any other, until by some good fortune another kind should be discovered, more like us, for nothing prevents there being such a one in regions unknown to us. The ape resembles us so strongly that naturalists have called it ``wild man'' or ``man of the woods.'' I should take it in the condition of the pupils of Amman, that is to say, I should not want it to be too young or too old; for apes that are brought to Europe are usually too old. I would choose the one with the most intelligent face, and the one which, in a thousand little ways, best lived up to its look of intelligence. Finally not considering myself worthy to be his master, I should put him in the school of that excellent teacher whom I have just named, or with another teacher equally skillful, if there is one. You know by Amman's work, and by all those who have interpreted his method, all the wonders he has been able to accomplish for those born deaf. In their eyes he discovered ears, as he himself explained, and in how short a time! In short he taught them to hear, speak, read, and write. I grant that a deaf person's eyes see more clearly and are keener than if he were not deaf, for the loss of one member or sense can increase the strength or acuteness of another, but apes see and hear, they understand what they hear and see, and grasp so perfectly the signs that are made to them, that I doubt not that they would surpass the pupils of Amman in any other game or exercise. Why then should the education of monkeys be impossible? Why might not the monkey, by dint of great pains, at last imitate after the manner of deaf mutes, the motions necessary for pronunciation. I do not dare decide whether the monkey's organs of speech, however trained, would be incapable of articulation. But, because of the great analogy between ape and man and because there is no known animal whose external and internal organs so strikingly resemble man's, it would surprise me if speech were absolutely impossible to the ape. Locke, who was certainly never suspected of credulity, found no difficulty in believing the story told by Sir William Temple in his memoirs, about a parrot which could answer rationally, and which had learned to carry on a kind of connected conversation, as we do. I know that people have ridiculed this great metaphysician; but suppose some one should have announced that reproduction sometimes take place without eggs or a female, would he have found many partisans? Yet M. Trembley has found cases where reproduction takes place without copulation and by fission. Would not Amman too have passed for mad if he had boasted that he could instruct scholars like his in so short a time, before he had happily accomplished the feat? His successes, have, however, astonished the world; and he, like the author of The History of the Polyps, has risen to immortality at one bound. Whoever owes the miracles that he works to his own genius surpasses, in my opinion, the man who owes his to chance. He who has discovered the art of adorning the most beautiful of kingdoms [of nature], and of giving it perfections that it did not have, should be ranked above an idle creator of frivolous systems, or a painstaking author of sterile discoveries. Amman's discoveries are certainly of a much greater value; he has freed men from the instinct to which they seemed to be condemned, and has given them ideas, intelligence, or in a word, a soul which they would never have had. What greater power than this! Let us not limit the resources of nature; they are infinite, especially when reinforced by great art. Could not the device which opens the Eustachian canal of the deaf, open that of apes? Might not a happy desire to imitate the master's pronunciation, liberate the organs of speech in animals that imitate so many other signs with such skill and intelligence? Not only do I defy any one to name any really conclusive experiment which proves my view impossible and absurd; but such is the likeness of the structure and functions of the ape to ours that I have very little doubt that if this animal were properly trained he might at last be taught to pronounce, and consequently to know, a language. Then he would no longer be a wild man, nor a defective man, but he would be a perfect man, a little gentleman, with as much matter or muscle as we have, for thinking and profiting by his education. The transition from animals to man is not violent, as true philosophers will admit. What was man before the invention of words and the knowledge of language? An animal of his own species with much less instinct than the others. In those days, he did not consider himself king over the other animals, nor was he distinguished from the ape, and from the rest, except as the ape itself differs from the other animals, i.e., by a more intelligent face. Reduced to the bare intuitive knowledge of the Leibnizians he saw only shapes and colors, without being able to distinguish between them: the same, old as young, child at all ages, he lisped out his sensations and his needs, as a god that is hungry or tired of sleeping, asks for something to eat, or for a walk. Words, languages, laws, sciences, and the fine arts have come, and by them finally the rough diamond of our mind has been polished. Man has been trained in the same way as animals. He has become an author, as they have become beasts of burden. A geometrician has learned to perform the most difficult demonstrations and calculations, as a monkey has learned to take his little hat off and on, and to mount his tame dog. All has been accomplished through signs, every species has learned what it could understand, and in this way men have acquired symbolic knowledge, still so called by our German philosophers. Nothing, as any one can see, is so simple as the mechanism of our education. Everything may be reduced to sounds or words that pass from the mouth of one through the ears of another into his brain. At the same moment, he perceives through his eyes the shape of the bodies of which these words are the arbitrary signs. But who was the first to speak? Who was the first teacher of the human race? Who invented the means of utilizing the plasticity of our organism? I cannot answer: the names of these first splendid geniuses have been lost in the night of time. But art is the child of nature, so nature must have long preceded it. We must think that the men who were the most highly organized, those on whom nature has lavished her richest gifts, taught the others. They could not have heard a new sound for instance, nor experienced new sensations, nor been struck by all the varied and beautiful objects that compose the ravishing spectacle of nature without finding themselves in the state of mind of the deaf man of Chartres, whose experience was first related by the great Fontenelle, when, at forty years, he heard for the first time, the astonishing sound of bells. Would it be absurd to conclude from this that the first mortals tried after the manner of this deaf man, or like animals and like mutes (another kind of animals), to express their new feeling by motions depending on the nature of their imagination, and therefore afterwards by spontaneous sounds, distinctive of each animal, as the natural expression of their surprise, their joy, their ecstasies and their needs? For doubtless those whom nature endowed with finer feeling had also greater facility in expression. That is the way in which, I think, men have used their feeling and their instinct to gain intelligence and then have employed their intelligence to gain knowledge. Those are the ways, so far as I can understand them, in which men have filled the brain with the ideas, for the reception of which nature made it. Nature and man have helped each other; and the smallest beginnings have, little by little, increased, until everything in the universe could be as easily described as a circle. As a violin string or a harpsichord key vibrates and gives forth sound, so the cerebral fibers, struck by waves of sound, are stimulated to render or repeat the words that strike them. And as the structure of the brain is such that when eyes well formed for seeing, have once perceived the image of objects, the brain can not help seeing their images and their differences, so when the signs of these differences have been traced or imprinted in the brain, the soul necessarily examines their relations - an examination that would have been impossible without the discovery of signs or the invention of language. At the time when the universe was almost dumb, the soul's attitude toward all objects was that of a man without any idea of proportion toward a picture or a piece of sculpture, in which he could distinguish nothing; or the soul was like a little child (for the soul was then in its infancy) who, holding in his hand small bits of straw or wood, sees them in a vague and superficial way without being able to count or distinguish them. But let some one attach a kind of banner, or standard, to this bit of wood (which perhaps is called a mast), and another banner to another similar object; let the first be known by the symbol 1, and the second by the symbol or number 2, then the child will be able to count the objects, and in this way he will learn all of arithmetic. As soon as one figure seems equal to another in its numerical sing, he will decide without difficulty that they are two different bodies, that 1+1 make 2, and 2+2 make 4, etc. This real or apparent likeness of figures is the fundamental basis of all truths and of all we know. Among these sciences, evidently those whose signs are less simple and less sensible are harder to understand than the others, because more talent is required to comprehend and combine the immense number of words by which such sciences express the truths in their province. On the other hand, the sciences that are expressed by the numbers or by other small signs, are easily learned; and without doubt this facility rather than its demonstrability is what has made the fortune of algebra. All this knowledge, with which vanity fills the balloon-like brains of our proud pedants, is therefore but a huge mass of words and figures, which form in the brain all the marks by which we distinguish and recall objects. All our ideas are awakened after the fashion in which the gardener who knows plants recalls all stages of their growth at sight of them. These words and the objects designated by them are so connected in the brain that it is comparatively rare to imagine a thing without the name or sign that is attached to it. I always use the word ``imagine,'' because I think that everything is the work of imagination, and that all the faculties of the soul can be correctly reduced to pure imagination in which they all consist. Thus judgment, reason, and memory are not absolute parts of the soul, but merely modifications of this kind of medullary screen upon which images of the objects painted in the eye are projected as by a magic lantern. But if such is the marvelous and incomprehensible result of the structure of the brain, if everything is perceived and explained by imagination, why should we divide the sensitive principle which thinks in man? Is not this a clear inconsistency in the partisans of the simplicity of the mind? For a thing that is divided can no longer without absurdity be regarded as indivisible. See to what one is brought by the abuse of language and by those fine words (spirituality, immateriality, etc.) used haphazard and not understood even by the most brilliant. Nothing is easier than to prove a system based, as this one is, on the intimate feeling and personal experience of each individual. If the imagination, or let us say, that fantastic part of the brain whose nature is as unknown to us as its way of acting, be naturally small or weak, it will hardly be able to compare the analogy or the resemblance of its ideas, it will be able to see only what is face to face with it, or what affects it very strongly; and how will it see all this! Yet it is always imagination which apperceives, and imagination which represents to itself all objects along with their names and symbols; and thus, once again, imagination is the soul, since it plays all the roles of the soul. By the imagination, by its flattering brush, the cold skeleton of reason takes on living and ruddy flesh, by the imagination the sciences flourish, the arts are adorned, the wood speaks, the echoes sigh, the rocks weep, marble breathes, and all inanimate objects gain life. It is imagination again which adds the piquant charm of voluptuousness to the tenderness of an amorous heart; which makes tenderness bud in the study of the philosopher and of the dusty pedant, which, in a word, creates scholars as well as orators and poets. Foolishly decried by some, vainly praised by others, and misunderstood by all; it follows not only in the train of the graces and of the fine arts, it not only describes but can also measure nature. It reasons, judges, analyzes, compares, and investigates. Could it feel so keenly the beauties of the pictures drawn for it, unless it discovered their relations? No, just as it cannot turn its thoughts on the pleasures of the senses, without enjoying their perfection or their voluptuousness, it cannot reflect on what it has mechanically conceived, without thus being judgment itself. The more the imagination or the poorest talent is exercised, the more it gains in embonpoint, so to speak, and the larger it grows. It becomes sensitive, robust, broad, and capable of thinking. The best of organisms has need of this exercise. Man's preeminent advantage is his organism. In vain all writers of books on morals fail to regard as praiseworthy those qualities that come by nature, esteeming only the talents gained by dint of reflection and industry. For whence come, I ask, skill, learning, and virtue, if not from a disposition that makes us fit to become skillful, wise, and virtuous? And whence again, comes this disposition, if not from nature? Only though nature do we have any good qualities; to her we owe all that we are. Why then should I not esteem men with good natural qualities as much as men who shine by acquired and as it were borrowed virtues? Whatever the virtue may be, from whatever source it may come, it is worthy of esteem; the only question is, how to estimate it. Mind, beauty, wealth, nobility, although the children of chance, all have their own value, as skill, learning and virtue all have theirs. Those upon whom nature has heaped her most costly gifts should pity those to whom these gifts have been refused; but, in their character of experts, they may feel their superiority without pride. A beautiful woman would be as foolish to think herself ugly, as an intelligent man to think himself a fool. An exaggerated modesty (a rare fault, to be sure) is a kind of ingratitude towards nature. An honest pride, on the contrary, is the mark of a strong and beautiful soul, revealed by manly features moulded by feeling. If one's organism is an advantage, and the preeminent advantage, and the source of all others, education is the second. The best made brain would be a total loss without it, just as the best constituted man would be but a common peasant, without knowledge of the ways of the world. But, on the other hand, what would be the use of the most excellent school, without a matrix perfectly open to the entrance and conception of ideas? Il est aussi impossible de donner une seule idée à un homme privé de tous les sens, que de faire un enfant à une femme à laquelle la nature aurait poussé la distraction jusqu'à oublier de faire une vulve, comme je l'ai vu dans une, qui n'avait ni fente, ni vagin, ni matrice, et qui pour cette raison fut démariée après dix ans de mariage. But if the brain is at the same time well organized and well educated, it is a fertile soil, well sown, that brings forth a hundredfold what it has received: or (to leave the figures of speech often needed to express what one means, and to add grace to truth itself) the imagination, raised by art to the rare and beautiful dignity of genius, apprehends exactly all the relations of the ideas it has conceived, and takes in easily an astounding number of objects, in order to deduce from them a long chain of consequences, which are again but new relations, produced by a comparison with the first, to which the soul finds a perfect resemblance. Such is, I think, the generation of intelligence. I say ``finds'' as I before gave the epithet ``apparent'' to the likeness of objects, not because I think that our senses are always deceivers, as Father Malebranche has claimed, or that our eyes, naturally a little unsteady, fail to see objects as they are in themselves (though microscopes prove this to us every day) but in order to avoid any dispute with the Pyrrhonians, among whom Bayle is well known. I say of truth in general what M. de Fontenelle says of certain truths in particular, that we must sacrifice it in order to remain on good terms with society. And it accords with the gentleness of my character, to a void all disputes unless to what conversation [!]. The Cartesians would here in vain make an onset upon me with their innate ideas. I certainly would not give myself a quarter of the trouble that M. Locke took, to attack such chimeras. In truth, what is the use of writing a ponderous volume to prove a doctrine which became an axiom three thousand years ago? According to the principles which we have laid down, and which we consider true; he who has the most imagination should be regarded as having the most intelligence or genius, for all these words are synonymous; and again, only by a shameful abuse [of terms] do we think that we are saying different things, when we are merely using different words, different sounds, to which no idea or real distinction is attached. The finest, greatest or strongest imagination is then the one most suited to the sciences as well as to the arts. I do not pretend to say whether more intellect is necessary to excel in the art of Aristotle or of Descartes than to excel in that of Euripides or of Sophocles, and whether nature has taken more trouble to make Newton than to make Corneille, though I doubt this. But it is certain that imagination alone, differently applied, has produced their diverse triumphs and their immortal glory. If one is known as having little judgment and much imagination, this means that the imagination has been left too much alone, has, as it were, occupied most of the time in looking at itself in the mirror of its sensations, has not sufficiently formed the habit of examining the sensations themselves attentively. [It means that the imagination] has been more impressed by images than by their truth or the likeness. Truly, so quick are the responses of the imagination that if attention, that key or mother of the sciences, does not do its part, imagination can do little more than run over and skim its objects. See that bird on the bough: it seems always ready to fly away. Imagination is like the bird, always carried onward by the turmoil of the blood and the animal spirits. One wave leaves a mark, effaced by the one that follows; the soul pursues it, often in vain: it must expect to regret the loss of that which it has not quickly enough seized and fixed. Thus, imagination, the true image of time, is being ceaselessly destroyed and renewed. Such is the chaos and the continuous quick succession of our ideas: they drive each other away even as one wave yields to another. Therefore, if imagination does not, as it were, use one set of its muscles to maintain a kind of equilibrium with the fibers of the brain, to keep its attention for a while upon an object that is on the point of disappearing, and to prevent itself from contemplating prematurely another object - [unless the imagination does all this], it will never be worthy of the fine name of judgment. It will express vividly what it has perceived in the same fashion: it will create orators, musicians, painters, poets, but never a single philosopher. On the contrary, if the imagination be trained from childhood to bridle itself and to keep from being carried away by its own impetuosity - an impetuosity which creates only brilliant enthusiasts - and to check, to restrain, its ideas, to examine them in all their aspects in order to see all sides of an object, then the imagination, ready in judgment, will comprehend the greatest possible sphere of objects, through reasoning; and its vivacity (always so good a sign in children, and only needing to be regulated by study and training) will be only a far-seeing insight without which little progress can be made in the sciences. Such are the simple foundations upon which the edifice of logic has been reared. Nature has built these foundations for the whole human race, but some have used them, while others have abused them. In spite of all these advantages of man over animals, it is doing him honor to place him in the same class. For, truly, up to a certain age, he is more of an animal than they, since at birth he has less instinct. What animal would die of hunger in the midst of a river of milk? Man alone. Like that child of olden time whom a modern writer refers, following Arnobius, he knows neither the foods suitable for him, nor the water that can drown him, nor the fire that can reduce him to ashes. Light a wax candle for the first time under a child's eyes, and he will mechanically put his fingers in the flame as if to find out what is the new thing that he sees. It is at his own cost that he will learn of the danger, but he will not be caught again. Or, put the child with an animal on a precipice, the child alone falls off; he drowns where the animal would save itself by swimming. At fourteen or fifteen years the child knows hardly anything of the great pleasures in store for him, in the reproduction of his species; when he is a youth, he does not know exactly how to behave in a game which nature teaches animals so quickly. He hides himself as if he were ashamed of taking pleasure, and of having been made to be happy, while animals frankly glory in being Cynics. Without education, they are without prejudices. For one more example, let us observe a dog and a child who have lost their master on a highway: the child cries and does not know to what saint to pray, while the dog, better helped by his sense of smell than the child by his reason, soon finds his master. Thus nature made us to be lower than animals or at least to exhibit all the more, because of that native inferiority, the wonderful efficacy of education which alone raises us from the level of the animals and lifts us above them. But shall we grant this same distinction to the deaf and to the blind, to imbeciles, madmen, or savages, or to those who have been brought up in the woods with animals; to those who have lost their imagination through melancholia, or in short to all those animals in human form who give evidence of only the rudest instinct? No, all these, men of body but not of mind, do not deserve to be classed by themselves. We do not intend to hide from ourselves the arguments that can be brought forward against our belief and in favor of a primitive distinction between men and animals. Some say that there is in man a natural law, a knowledge of good and evil, which has never been imprinted on the heart of animals. But is this objection, or rather this assertion, based on observation? An assertion unfounded on observation may be rejected by a philosopher. Have we ever had a single experience which convinces us that man alone has been enlightened by a ray denied all other animals? If there is no such experience, we can no more know what goes on in animals' minds or even in the minds of other men, than we can help feeling what affects the inner part of our own being. We know that we think, and we feel remorse - an intimate feeling forces us to recognize this only too well; but this feeling in us is insufficient to enable us to judge the remorse of others. That is why we have to take others at their words, or judge them by the sensible and external signs we have noticed in ourselves when we experienced the same accusations of conscience and the same torments. In order to decide whether animals which do not talk have received the natural law, we must, therefore, have recourse to those signs to which I have just referred, if any such exist. The facts seem to prove it. A dog that bit the master who was teasing it, seemed to repent a minute afterwards; it looked sad, ashamed, afraid to show itself, and seemed to confess its guilt by a crouching and downcast air. History offers us a famous example of a lion which would not devour a man abandoned to its fury, because it recognized him as its benefactor. How much might it be wished that man himself always showed the same gratitude for kindnesses, and the same respect for humanity! Then we should no longer fear either ungrateful wretches, or wars which are the plague of the human race and the real executioners of the natural law. But a being to which nature has given such a precocious and enlightened instinct, which judges, combines, reasons, and deliberates as far as the sphere of its activity extends and permits, a being which feels attachment because of benefits received, and which leaving a master who treats it badly goes to seek a better one, a being with a structure like ours, which performs the same acts, has the same passions, the same griefs, the same pleasures, more or less intense according to the sway of the imagination and the delicacy of the nervous organization - does not such a being show clearly that it knows its faults and ours, understands good and evil, and in a word, has consciousness of what it does? Would its soul, which feels the same joys, the same mortification and the same discomfiture which we feel, remain utterly unmoved by disgust when it saw a fellow-creature torn to bits, or when it had itself pitilessly dismembered this fellow-creature? If this be granted, it follows that the precious gift now in question would not have been denied to animals: for since they show us sure signs of repentance, as well as of intelligence, what is there absurd in thinking that beings, almost as perfect machines as ourselves, are, like us, made to understand and to feel nature? Let no one object that animals, for the most part, are savage beasts, incapable of realizing the evil that they do; for do all men discriminate better between vice and virtue? There is ferocity in our species as well as in theirs. Men who are in the barbarous habit of breaking the natural law are not tormented as much by it, as those who transgress for the first time, and who have not been hardened by the force of habit. The same thing is true of animals as of men - both may be more or less ferocious in temperament, and both become more so by living with others like themselves. But a gentle and peaceful animal which lives among other animals of the same disposition and of gentle nurture, will be an enemy of blood and carnage; it will blush internally at having shed blood. There is perhaps this difference, that since among animals everything is sacrificed to their needs, to their pleasures, to the necessities of life, which they enjoy more than we, their remorse apparently should not be as keen as ours, because we are not in the same state of necessity as they. Custom perhaps dulls and perhaps stifles remorse as well as pleasures. But I will for a moment suppose that I am utterly mistaken in concluding that almost all the world holds a wrong opinion on this subject, while I alone am right. I will grant that animals, even the best of them, do not know the difference between moral good and evil, that they have no recollection of the trouble taken for them, of the kindness done them, no realization of their own virtues. [I will suppose], for instance, that this lion, to which I, like so many others, have referred, does not remember at all that it refused to kill the man, abandoned to its fury, in a combat more inhuman than one could find among lions, tigers and bears, put together. For our compatriots fight, Swiss against Swiss, brother against brother, recognize each other, and yet capture and kill each other without remorse, because a prince pays for the murder. I suppose in shot that the natural law has not been given to animals. What will be the consequences of this supposition? Man is not moulded from a costlier clay; nature has used but one dough, and has merely varied the leaven. Therefore if animals do not repent for having violated this inmost feeling which I am discussing, or rather if they absolutely lack it, man must necessarily be in the same condition. Farewell then to the natural law and all the fine treatises published about it! The whole animal kingdom in general would be deprived of it. But, conversely, if man cannot dispense with the belief that when health permits him to be himself, he always distinguishes the upright, humane, and virtuous, from those who are not human, virtuous, nor honorable: that it is easy to tell vice from virtue, by the unique pleasure and the peculiar repugnance that seems to be their natural effects, it follows that animals, composed of the same matter, lacking perhaps only one degree of fermentation to make it exactly like man's, must share the same prerogatives of animal nature, and that thus there exists no soul or sensitive substance without remorse. The following considerations will reinforce these observations. It is impossible to destroy the natural law. The impress of it on all animals is so strong, that I have no doubt that the wildest and most savage have some moments of repentance. I believe that that cruel maid of Chalons in Champagne must have sorrowed for her crime, if she really ate her sister. I think that the sam thing is true of all those who commit crimes, even involuntary or temperamental crimes: true of Gaston of Orleans who could not help stealing; of a certain woman who was subject to the same crime when pregnant, and whose children inherited it; of the woman who, in the same condition, ate her husband; of that other women who killed her children, salted their bodies, and ate a piece of them every day, as a little relish; of that daughter of a thief and cannibal who at twelve years followed in his steps, although she had been orphaned when she was a year old, and had been brought up by honest people; to say nothing of many other examples of which the records of our observers are full, all of them proving that there are a thousand hereditary vices and virtues which are transmitted from parents to children as those of the foster mother pass to the children she nurses. Now, I believe and admit that these wretches do not for the most part feel at the time the enormity of their actions. Bulimia, or canine hunger, for example, can stifle all feeling; it is a mania of the stomach that one is compelled to satisfy, but what remorse must be in store for those women, when the come to themselves and grow sober, and remember the crimes they have committed against those they held most dear! What a punishment for an involuntary crime which they could not resist, of which they had no consciousness whatever! However, this is apparently not enough for the judges. For of these women, of whom I tell, one was cruelly beaten and burned, and another was buried alive. I realize that all this is demanded by the interest of society. But doubtless it is much to be wished that excellent physicians might be the only judges. They alone could tell the innocent criminal from the guilty. If reason is the slave of a depraved or mad desire, how can it control the desire? But if crime carries with it its own more or less cruel punishment, if the most continued and most barbarous habit cannot entirely blot out repentance in the cruelest hearts, if criminals are lacerated by the very memory of their deeds, why should we frighten the imagination of weak minds, by a hell, by specters, and by precipices of fire even less real than those of Pascal? Why must we have recourse to fables, as an honest pope once said himself, to torment even the unhappy wretches who are executed, because we do not think that they are sufficiently punished by their own conscience, their first executioner? I do not mean to say that all criminals are unjustly punished; I only maintain that those whose will is depraved, and whose conscience is extinguished, are punished enough by their remorse when they come to themselves, a remorse, I venture to assert, from which nature should in this case have delivered unhappy souls dragged on by a fatal necessity. Criminals, scoundrels, ingrates, those in short without natural feelings, unhappy tyrants who are unworthy of life, in vain take a cruel pleasure in their barbarity, for there are calm moments of reflection in which the avenging conscience arises, testifies against them, and condemns them to be almost ceaselessly torn to pieces at their own hands. Whoever torments men is tormented by himself; and the sufferings that he will experience will be the just measure of those that he has inflicted. On the other hand, there is so much pleasure in doing good, in recognizing and appreciating what one receives, so much satisfaction in practising virtue, in being gentle, humane, kind, charitable, compassionate and generous (for this one word includes all the virtues), that I consider as sufficiently punished any one who is unfortunate enough not to have been born virtuous. We were not originally made to be learned; we have become so perhaps by a sort of abuse of our organic faculties, and at the expense of the State which nourishes a host of sluggards whom vanity has adorned with the name of philosophers. Nature has created us all solely to be happy - yes, all of us from the crawling worm to the eagle lost in the clouds. For this cause she has given all animals some share of natural law, a share greater or less according to the needs of each animal's organs when in normal condition. Now how shall we define natural law? It is a feeling that teaches us what we should not do, because we would not wish it to be done to us. Should I dare add to this common idea, that this feeling seems to me but a kind of fear or dread, as salutary to the race as to the individual; for may it not be true that we respect the purse and life of others, only to save our own possessions, our honor, and ourselves; like those Ixions of Christianity who love God and embrace so many fantastic virtues, merely because they are afraid of hell! You see that natural law is but an intimate feeling that, like all other feelings (thought included) belongs also to imagination. Evidently, therefore, natural law does not presuppose education, revelation, nor legislator, - provided one does not propose to confuse natural law with civil laws, in the ridiculous fashion of the theologians. The arms of fanaticism may destroy those who support these truths, but they will never destroy the truths themselves. I do not mean to call in question the existence of a supreme being; on the contrary it seems to me that the greatest degree of probability is in favor of this belief. But since the existence of this being goes no further than that of any other toward proving the need of worship, it is a theoretic truth with very little practical value. Therefore, since we may say, after such long experience, that religion does not imply exact honesty, we are authorized by the same reasons to think that atheism does not exclude it. Furthermore, who can be sure that the reason for man's existence is not simply the fact that he exists? Perhaps he was thrown by chance on some spot on the earth's surface, nobody knows how nor why, but simply that he must live and die, like the mushrooms which appear from day to day, or like those flowers which border the ditches and cover the walls. Let us not lose ourselves in the infinite, for we are not made to have the least idea thereof, and are absolutely unable to get back to the origin of things. Besides it does not matter for our peace of mind, whether matter be eternal or have been created, whether there be or be not a God. How foolish to torment ourselves so much about things which we can not know, and which would not make us any happier even were we to gain knowledge about them! But, some will say, read all such works as those of Fénelon, of Nieuwentyt, of Abadie, of Berham, of Rais, and the rest. Well! what will they teach me or rather what have they taught me? They are only tiresome repetitions of zealous writers, one of whom adds to the other only verbiage, more likely to strengthen than to undermine the foundations of atheism. The number of evidences drawn from the spectacle of nature does not give these evidences any more force. Either the mere structure of a finger, of an ear, of an eye, a single observation of Malpighi proves all, and doubtless much better than Descartes and Malebranche proved it, or all the other evidences prove nothing. Deists, and even Christians, should therefore be content to point out that throughout the animal kingdom the same aims are pursued and accomplished by an infinite number of different mechanisms, all of them however exactly geometrical. For what stronger weapons could there be with which to overthrow atheists? It is true that if my reason does not deceive me, man and the whole universe seem to have been designed for this unity of aim. The sun, air, water, the organism, the shape of bodies, - everything is brought to a focus in the eye as in a mirror that faithfully presents to the imagination all the objects reflected in it, in accordance with the laws required by the infinite variety of bodies which take part in vision. In ears we find everywhere a striking variety, and yet the difference of structure in men, animals, birds, and fishes, does not produce different uses. All ears are so mathematically made, that they tend equally to one and the same end, namely hearing. But would Chance, the deist asks, be a great enough geometrician to vary thus, at pleasure, the works of which she is supposed to be the author, without being hindered by so great a diversity from gaining the same end? Again, the deist will bring forward as a difficulty those parts of the animal that are clearly contained in it for future use, the butterfly in the caterpillar, man in the sperm, a whole polyp in each of its parts, the valvule in the oval orifice, the lungs in the foetus, the teeth in their sockets, the bones in the fluid from which they detach themselves and (in an incomprehensible manner) harden. And since the partisans of this theory, far from neglecting anything that would strengthen proof, never tire of piling up proof upon proof, they are willing to avail themselves of everything, even of the weakness of the mind in certain cases. Look, they say, at men like Spinoza, Vanini, Desbarreau, and Boindin, apostles who honor deism more than they harm it. The duration of their health was the measure of their unbelief, and one rarely fails, they add, to renounce atheism when the passions, with their instrument, the body, have grown weak. That is certainly the most that can be said in favor of the existence of God: although the last argument is frivolous in that these conversions are short, and the mind almost always regains its former opinions and acts accordingly, as soon as it has regained or rather rediscovered its strength in that of the body. That is, at least, much more than was said by the physician Diderot, in his Pensées Philosophiques, a sublime work that will not convince a single atheist. What reply can, in truth, be made to a man who says, ``We do not know nature; causes hidden in her breast might have produced everything. In your turn, observe the polyp of Trembley: does it not contain in itself the causes which bring about regeneration? Why then would it be absurd to think that there are physical causes by reason of which everything has been made, and to which the whole chain of this vast universe is so necessarily bound and held that nothing which happens, could have failed to happen, - causes, of which we are so invincibly ignorant that we have had recourse to a God, who, as some aver, is not so much as a logical entity? Thus to destroy chance is not to prove the existence of a supreme being, since there may be some other thing which is neither chance nor God - I mean, nature. It follows that the study of nature can only make unbelievers; and the way of thinking of all its more successful investigators proves this.'' The weight of the universe therefore far from crushing a real atheist does not even shake him. All these evidences of a creator, repeated thousands and thousands of times, evidence that are placed far above the comprehension of men like us, are self-evident (however far one push the argument) only to the anti-Pyrrhonians, or to those who have enough confidence in their reason top believe themselves capable of judging on the basis of certain phenomena, against which, as you see, the atheist can urge others perhaps equally strong and absolutely opposed. For if we listen to the naturalists again, they will tell us that the very causes which, in a chemist's hands, by a chance combination, made the first mirror, in the hands of nature made the pure water, the mirror of the simple shepherdess; that the motion which keeps the world going could have created it, that each body has taken the place assigned to it by its own nature, that the air must have surrounded the earth, and that iron and the other metals are produced by the internal motions of the earth, for one and the same reason; that the sun is as much a natural product as electricity, that it was not made to warm the earth and its inhabitants, whom it sometimes burns, any more than the rain was made to make the seeds grow, which it often spoils; that the mirror and the water were no more made for people to see themselves in, than were all other polished bodies with this same property; that the eye is in truth a kind of glass in which the soul can contemplate the image of objects as they are presented to it by these bodies, but that it is not proved that this organ was really made expressly for this contemplation, nor purposely placed in its socket, and in short it may well be that Lucretius, the physician Lamy, and all Epicureans both ancient and modern were right when they suggested that the eye sees only because it is formed and placed as it is, and that, given once for all, the same rules of motion followed by nature in the generation and development of bodies, this marvelous organ could not have been formed and placed differently. Such is the pro and the con, and the summary of those fine arguments that will eternally divide the philosophers. I do not take either side. ``Non nostrum inter vos tantas compenere lites.'' This is what I said to one of my friends, a Frenchman, as frank a Pyrrhonian as I, a man of much merit, and worthy of a better fate. He gave me a very singular answer in regard to the matter. ``It is true,'' he told me, ``that the pro and con should not disturb at all the soul of a philosopher, who sees that nothing is proved with clearness enough to force his consent, and that the arguments offered on one side are neutralized by those of the other. However,'' he continued, ``the universe will never be happy, unless it is atheistic.'' Here are this wretch's reasons. If atheism, said he, were generally accepted, all the forms of religion would then be destroyed and cut off at the roots. No more theological wars, no more soldiers of religion - such terrible soldiers! Nature infected with a sacred poison, would regain its rights and its purity. Deaf to all other voices, tranquil mortals would follow on the spontaneous dictates of their own being, the only commands which can never be despised with impunity and which alone can lead us to happiness through the pleasant paths of virtue. Such is natural law: whoever rigidly observes it is a good man and deserves the confidence of all the human race. Whoever fails to follow it scrupulously affects, in vain, the specious exterior of another religion; he is a scamp or a hypocrite whom I distrust. After this, let a vain people think otherwise, let them dare affirm that even probity is at stake in not believing in revelation, in a word that another religion than that of nature is necessary, whatever it may be. Such an assertion is wretched and pitiable; and so is the good opinion which each one gives us of the religion he has embraced! We do not seek here the votes of the crowd. Whoever raises in his heart altars to superstition, is bound to worship idols and not to thrill to virtue. But since all the faculties of the soul depend to such a degree on the proper organization of the brain and of the whole body, that apparently they are but this organization itself, the soul is clearly an enlightened machine. For finally, even if man alone had received a share of natural law, would he be any less a machine for that? A few more wheels, a few more springs than in the most perfect animals, the brain proportionally nearer the heart and for this very reason receiving more blood - any one of a number of unknown causes might always produce this delicate conscience so easily wounded, this remorse which is no more foreign to matter than to thought, and in a word all the differences that are supposed to exist here. Could the organism then suffice for everything? Once more, yes; since thought visibly develops with our organs, why should not the matter of which they are composed be susceptible of remorse also, when once it has acquired, with time, the faculty of feeling? The soul is therefore but an empty word, of which no one has any idea, and which an enlightened man should only use to signify the part in us that thinks. Given the least principle of motion, animated bodies will have all that is necessary for moving, feeling, thinking, repenting, or in a word for conducting themselves in the physical realm, and in the moral realm which depends upon it. Yet we take nothing for granted; those who perhaps think that all the difficulties have not yet been removed shall now read of experiments that will completely satisfy them. The flesh of all animals palpitates after death. This palpitation continues longer, the more cold blooded the animal is and the less it perspires. Tortoises, lizards, serpents, etc. are evidence of this. Muscles separated from the body contract when they are stimulated. The intestines keep up their peristaltic or vermicular motion for a long time. According to Cowper, a simple injection of hot water reanimates the heart and the muscles. A frog's heart moves for an hour or more after it has been removed from the body, especially when exposed to the sun or better still when placed on a hot table or chair. If this movement seem totally lost, one has only to stimulate the heart, and that hollow muscle beats again. Harvey made this same observation on toads. Bacon of Verulam in his treatise Sylva Sylvarum cites the case of a man convicted of treason, who was opened alive, and whose heart thrown into hot water leaped several times, each time less high, to the perpendicular height of two feet. Take a tiny chicken still in the egg, cut out the heart and you will observe the same phenomena as before, under almost the same conditions. The warmth of the breath alone reanimates an animal about to perish in the air pump. The same experiments, which we owe to Boyle and to Stenon, are made on pigeons, dogs, and rabbits. Pieces of their hearts beat as their whole hearts would. The same movements can be seen in paws that have been cut off from moles. The caterpillar, the worm, the spider, the fly, the eel - all exhibit the same phenomena; and in hot water, because of the fire it contains, the movement of the detached parts increases. A drunken soldier cut off with one stroke of his sabre an Indian rooster's head. The animal remained standing, then walked, and ran: happening to run against a wall, it turned around, beats its wings still running, and finally fell down. As it lay on the ground, all the muscles of this rooster kept on moving. That is what I saw myself, and almost the same phenomena can easily be observed in kittens or puppies with their heads cut off. Polyps do more than move after they have been cut in pieces. In a week they regenerate to form as many animals as there are pieces. I am sorry that these facts speak against the naturalists' system of generation; or rather I am very glad of it, for let this discovery teach us never to reach a general conclusion even on the ground of all known (and most decisive) experiments. Here we have many more facts than are needed to prove, in an incontestable way, that each tiny fiber or part of an organized body moves by a principle which belongs to it. Its activity, unlike voluntary motions, does not depend in any way on the nerves, since the movements in question occur in parts of the body which have no connection with the circulation. But if this force is manifested even in sections of fibers the heart, which is a composite of peculiarly connected fibers, must possess the same property. I did not need Bacon's story to persuade me of this. It was easy for me to come to this conclusion, both from the perfect analogy of the structure of the human heart with that of animals, and also from the very bulk of the human heart, in which this movement escapes our eyes only because it is smothered, and finally because in corpses all the organs are cold and lifeless. If executed criminals were dissected while their bodies are still warm, we should probably see in their hearts the same movements that are observed in the face-muscles of those that have been beheaded. The motive principle of the whole body, and even of its parts cut in pieces, is such that it produces not irregular movements, as some have thought, but very regular ones, in warm blooded and perfect animals as well as in cold and imperfect ones. No resource therefore remains open to our adversaries but to deny thousands and thousands of facts which every man can easily verify. If now any one ask me where is this innate force in our bodies, I answer that it very clearly resides in what the ancients called the parenchyma, that is to say, in the very substance of the organs not including the veins, the arteries, the nerves, in a word, that it resides in the organization of the whole body, and that consequently each organ contains within itself forces more or less active according to the need of them. Let us now go into some detail concerning these springs of the human machine. All the vital, animal, natural, and automatic motions are carried on by their action. Is it not in a purely mechanical way that the body shrinks back when it is struck with terror at the sight of an unforeseen precipice, that the eyelids are lowered at the menace of a blow, as some have remarked, and that the pupil contracts in broad daylight to save the retina, and dilates to see objects in darkness? Is it not by mechanical means that the pores of the skin close in winter so that the cold cannot penetrate to the interior of the blood vessels, and that the stomach vomits when it is irritated by poison, by a certain quantity of opium and by all emetics, etc.? that the heart, the arteries and the muscles contract in sleep as well as in waking hours, that the lungs serve as bellows continually in exercise, n'est-ce pas machinalement qu'agissent tous les sphincters de la vessie, du rectum, etc.? that the heart contracts more strongly than any other muscle? que les muscles érecteurs font dresser la verge dans l'homme, comme dans les animaux qui s'en battent le ventre, et même dans l'enfant, capable d'érection, pour peu que cette partie soit irritée? Ce qui prouve, pour le dire en passant, qu'il est un ressort singulier dans ce membre, encore peu connu, et qui produit des effets qu'on n'a point encoure bien expliqués, malgré toutes les lumières de l'anatomie. I shall not go into any more detail concerning all these little subordinate forces, well known to all. But there is another more subtle and marvelous force, which animates them all; it is the source of all our feelings, of all our pleasures, of all our passions, and of all our thoughts: for the brain has its muscles for thinking, as the legs have muscles for walking. I wish to speak of this impetuous principle that Hippocrates calls enormon (soul). This principle exists and has its seat in the brain at the origin of the nerves, by which it exercises its control over all the rest of the body. By this fact is explained all that can be explained, even to the surprising effect of maladies of the imagination. Mais, pour ne pas languir dans une richesse et un fécondité mal entendue, il faut se borner à un petit nombre de questions et de réflexions. Pourquoi la vue ou la simple idée d'une belle femme nous cause-t-elle des mouvements et des désirs singuliers? Ce qui se passe alors dans certains organes, vient-il de la nature même de ces organes? Point du toutl mais du commerce et de l'espèce de sympathie de ces muscles avec l'imagination. Il n'y a ici qu'un premier ressort excité par le bene placitum des anciens, ou par l'image de la beauté, qui en excite un autre, lequel était fort assoupi, quand l'imagination l'a éveillé: et comment cela, si ce n'est par le désordre et le tumulte du sang et des esprits, qui galopent avec une promptitude extraordinaire, et vont gonfler les corps caverneux? Puisqu'il est des commincations évidents entre la mère et l'enfant, et qu'il est dur de nier des fair rapportés par Tulpius et par d'autres écrivains aussi dignes de foi (il n'y en a point qui le soient plus), nous croirons que c'est par la même voie que le foetus ressent l'impétuoisité de l'imagination maternelle, comme une cire molle reçe;oit toutes sortes d'impressions; et que les mêmes traces, ou envies de la mère, peuvent s'imprimer sur le foetus, sans que cela puisse se comprendre, quoiqu'en disent Blondel et tous ses adhérenets. Ainsi nous faisons réparation d'honneur au P. Malebranche, beaucoup trop raillé de sa crédulité par les auteurs qui n'ont point observé d'assex près la nature et ont voulu l'assujettir à leur idées. Look at the portrait of the famous Pope who is, to say the least, the Voltaire of the English. The effort, the energy of his genius are imprinted upon his countenance. It is convulsed. His eyes protrude from their sockets, the eyebrows are raised with the muscles of the forehead. Why? Because the brain is in travail and all the body must share in such a laborious deliverance. If there were not an internal cord which pulled the external ones, whence would come all these phenomena? To admit a soul as explanation of them, is to be reduced to [explaining phenomena by] the operations of the Holy Spirit. In fact, if what thinks in my brain is not a part of this organ and therefore of the whole body, why does my blood boil, and the fever of my mind pass into my veins, when lying quietly in bed, I am forming the plan of some work or carrying on an abstract calculation? Put this question to men of imagination, to great poets, to men who are enraptured by the felicitous expression of sentiment, and transported by an exquisite fancy or by the charms of nature, of truth, or of virtue! By their enthusiasm, by what they will tell you they have experienced, you will judge the cause by its effects; by that harmony which Borelli, a mere anatomist, understood better than all the Leibnizians, you will comprehend the material unity of man. In short, if the nerve-tension which causes pain occasions also the fever by which the distracted mind looses its will-power, and if, conversely, the mind too much excited, disturbs the body (and kindles that inner fire which killed Bayle while he was still so young)l if an agitation rouses my desire and my ardent wish for what, a moment ago, I cared nothing about, and if in their turn certain brain impressions excite the same longing and the same desires, then why should we regard as double what is manifestly one being? In vain you fall back on the power of the will, since for one order that the will gives, it bows a hundred times to the yoke, And what wonder that in health the body obeys, since a torrent of blood and of animal spirits forces its obedience, and since the will has as ministers an invisible legion of fluids swifter than lightning and ever ready to do its bidding! But as the power of the will is exercised by means of the nerves, it is likewise limited by them. La meilleure volonté d'un amant épuisé, les plus violent desires lui rendront-ils sa vigueur perdue? Hélas! non; et elle en sera la première punie, parce-que, posées certaines circonstances, il n'est pas dans sa puissance de ne pas vouloir du plaisir. Ce que j'ai dit de la paralysie, etc. revient ici. Does the result of jaundice surprise you? Do you not know that the color of bodies depends on the color of the glasses through which we look at them, and that whatever is the color of the humors, such is the color of objects, at least for us, vain playthings of a thousand illusions? But remove this color from the aqueous humor of the eye, let the bile flow through its natural filter, then the soul having new eyes, will no longer see yellow. Again,. is it not thus, by removing cataract, or by injecting the Eustachian canal, that sight is restored to the blind, or hearing to the deaf? How many people, who were perhaps only clever charlatans, passed for miracle workers in the dark ages! Beautiful the soul, and powerful the will which can not act save by permission of the bodily conditions, and whose tastes change with age and fever! Should we, then, be astonished that philosophers have always had in mind the health of the body, to preserve the health of the soul, that Pythagoras gave rules for the diet as carefully as Plato forbade wine? The regime suited to the body is always the one with which sane physicians think they must begin, when it is a question of forming the mind, and of instructing it in the knowledge of truth and virtue; but these are vain words in the disorder of illness, and in the tumult of the senses. Without the precepts of hygiene, Epictetus, Socrates, Plato, and the rest preach in vain: all ethics is fruitless for one who lacks his share of temperance; it is the source of all virtues, as intemperance is the source of all vices. Is more needed, (for why lose myself in discussion of the passions which are all explained by the term, enormon, of Hippocrates) to prove that man is but an animal, or a collection of springs which wind each other up, without or being able to tell at what point in this human circle, nature has begun? If these springs differ among themselves, these differences consist only in their position and in their degrees of strength, and never in their nature; wherefore the soul is but a principle of motion or a material and sensible part of the brain, which can be regarded, without fear of error, as the mainspring of the whole machine, having a visible influence on all the parts. The soul seems even to have been made for the brain, so that all other parts of the system are but a kind of emanation from the brain. This will appear from certain observations, made on different embryos, which I shall now enumerate. This oscillation, which is natural or suited to our machine, and with which each fibre and even each fibrous element, so to speak, seems to be endowed, like that of a pendulum, cannot keep up forever. It must be renewed, as it loses strength, invigorated when it is tired, and weakened when it is disturbed by an excess of strength and vigor. In this alone, true medicine consists. The body is but a watch, whose watchmaker is the new chyle. Nature's first care, when the chyle enters the blood, is to excite in it a kind of fever which the chemists, who dream only of retorts, must have taken for fermentation. This fever produces a greater filtration of spirits, which mechanically animate the muscles and the heart, as if they had been sent there by order of the will. These then are the causes or forces of life which thus sustain for a hundred years that perpetual movement of the solids and liquids which is as necessary to the first as to the second. But who can say whether the solids contribute more than the fluids to this movement or vice versa? All that we know is that the action of the former would soon cease without the help of the latter, that is, without the help of the fluids which by their onset rouse and maintain the elasticity of the blood vessels on which their own circulation depends. From this it follows that after death the natural resilience of each substance is still more or less strong according to the remnants of life which it outlives, being the last to perish. So true is it that this force of the animal parts can be preserved and strengthened by that of the circulation, but that it does not depend on the strength of the circulation, since, as we have seen, it can dispense with even the integrity of each member or organ. I am aware that this opinion has not been relished by all scholars, and that Stahl especially had much scorn for it. This great chemist had wished to persuade us that the soul is the sole cause of all our movements. But this is to speak as a fanatic and not as a philosopher. To destroy the hypothesis of Stahl, we need not make as great an effort as I find that others have done before me. We need only glance at a violinist. What flexibility, what lightness in his fingers! The movements are so quick, that it seems almost as if there were no succession. But I pray, or rather I challenge, the followers of Stahl who understand so perfectly all that our soul can do, to tell me how it could possibly execute so many motions so quickly, motions, moreover, which take place so far from the soul, and in so many different places. That is to suppose that a flute player could play brilliant cadences on an infinite number of holes that he could not know, and on which he could not even put his finger! But let us say with M. Hecquet that all men may not go to Corinth. Why should not Stahl have been even more favored by nature as a man than as a chemist and a practioner? Happy mortal, he must have received a soul different from the rest of mankind, --- a sovereign soul, which, not content with having some control over the voluntary muscles, easily held the reins of all the movements of the body, and could suspend them, calm them, or excite them at its pleasure! With so despotic a mistress, in whose hands were, in a sense, the beating of the heart, and the laws of circulation, there could certainly be no fever, no pain, no weariness, ni honteuse impuissance, ni facheux priapisme! The soul wills, and the springs play, contract or relax. But how did the springs of Stahl's machine get out of order so soon? He who has in himself so great a doctor, should be immortal. Moreover, Stahl is not the only one who has rejected the principle of the vibration of organic bodies. Greater minds have not used the principle when they wished to explain the actions of the heart, l'érection du penis, etc. One need only read the Institutions of Medicine by Boerhaave to see what laborious and enticing systems this great man was obliged to invent, by the labor of his mighty genius, through failure to admit that there is so wonderful a force in all bodies. Willis and Perrault, minds of a more feeble stamp, but careful observers of nature (whereas nature was known to the famous Leyden professor only through others and second hand, so to speak) seem to have preferred to suppose a soul generally extended over the whole body, instead of the principle which we are describing. But according to this hypothesis (which was the hypothesis of Vergil and of all Epicureans, an hypothesis which the history of the polyp might seem at first sight to favor) the movements which go on after the death of the subject in which they inhere are due to a remnant of soul still maintained by the parts that contract, though, from the moment of death, these are not excited by the blood and spirits. Whence it may be seen that these writers, whose solid works easily eclipse all philosophic fables, are deceived only in the manner of those who have endowed matter with the faculty of thinking. I mean to say, by having expressed themselves badly in obscure and meaningless terms. In truth, what is this remnant of a soul, if it is not the ``moving force'' of the Leibnizians (badly rendered by such an expression), which however Perrault in particular has really foreseen. See his Treatise on the Mechanism of Animals. Now that it is clearly proved against the Cartesians, the followers of Stahl, the Malebranchists, and the theologians who little deserve to be mentioned here, that matter is self-moved, not only when organized, as in a whole heart, for example, but even when this organization has been destroyed, human curiosity would like to discover how a body, by the fact that it is originally endowed with the breath of life, finds itself adorned in consequence with the faculty of feeling, and thus with that of thought. And, heavens, what efforts have not been made by certain philosophers to manage to prove this! and what nonsense of this subject I have had the patience to read! All that experience teaches us is that while movement persists, however slight it may be, in one or more fibres, we need only stimulate them to re-excite and animate this movement almost extinguished. This has been shown in the host of experiments with which I have undertaken to crush the systems. It is therefore certain that motion and feeling excite each other in turn, both in a whole body and in the same body when its structure is destroyed, to say nothing of certain plants which seem to exhibit the same phenomena of the union of feeling and motion. But furthermore, how many excellent philosophers have shown that thought is but a faculty of feeling, and that the reasonable soul is but the feeling soul engaged in contemplating its ideas and in reasoning! This would be proved by the fact alone that when feeling is stifled, thought also is checked, for instance in apoplexy, in lethargy, in catalepsis, etc. For it is ridiculous to suggest that, during these stupors, the soul keeps on thinking, even though it does not remember the ideas that it has had. As to the development of feeling and motion, it is absurd to waste time seeking for its mechanism. The nature of motion is as unknown to us as that of matter. How can we discover how it is produced unless, like the author of The History of the Soul, we resuscitate the old and unintelligible doctrine of substantial forms? I am then quite as content not to know how inert and simple matter becomes active and highly organized, as not to be able to look at the sun without red glasses; and I am as little disquieted concerning the other incomprehensible wonders of nature, the production of feeling and of thought in a being which earlier appeared to our limited eyes as a mere clod of clay. Grant only that organized matter is endowed with a principle of motion, which alone differentiates it from the inorganic (and can one deny this in the face of the most incontestable observation?) and that among animals, as I have sufficiently proved, everything depends upon the diversity of this organization: these admissions suffice for guessing the riddle of substances and of man. It thus appears that there is but one type of organization in the universe, and that man is the most perfect example. He is to the ape, and to the most intelligent animals, as the planetary pendulum of Huyghens is to a watch of Julien Leroy. More instruments, more wheels and more springs were necessary to mark the movements of the planets than to mark or strike the hours; and Vaucanson, who needed more skill for making his flute player than for making his duck, would have needed still more to make a talking man, a mechanism no longer to be regarded as impossible, especially in the hands of another Prometheus. In like fashion, it was necessary that nature should use more elaborate art in making and sustaining a machine which for a whole century could mark all motions of the heart and of the mind; for though one does not tell time by the pulse, it is at least the barometer of the warmth and the vivacity by which one may estimate the nature of the soul. I am right! The human body is a watch, a large watch constructed with such skill and ingenuity, that if the wheel which marks the second happens to stop, the minute wheel turns and keeps on going its round, and in the same way the quarter-hour wheel, and all the others go on running when the first wheels have stopped because rusty or, for any reason, out of order. Is it not for a similar reason that the stoppage of a few blood vessels is not enough to destroy or suspend the strength of the movement which is in the heart as in the mainspring of the machine; since, on the contrary, the fluids whose volume is diminished, having a shorter road to travel, cover the ground more quickly, borne on as by a fresh current which the energy of the heart increases in proportion to the resistance it encounters at the ends of the blood-vessels? And is not this the reason why the loss of sight (caused by the compression of the optic nerve and its ceasing to convey the images of objects) no more hinders hearing, than the loss of hearing (caused by the obstruction of the functions of the auditory nerve) implies the loss of sight? In the same way, finally, does not one man hear (except immediately after his attack) without being able to say what he hears, while another who hears nothing, but whose lingual nerves are uninjured in the brain, mechanically tells of all the dreams which pass through his mind? These phenomena do not surprise enlightened physicians at all. They know what to think about man's nature (and more accurately to express myself in passing) of two physicians, the better one and the one who deserves more confidence is always, in my opinion, the one who is more versed in the physique or mechanism of the human body, and who, leaving aside the soul and all the anxieties which this chimera gives to fools and to ignorant men, is seriously occupied only in pure naturalism. Therefore let the pretended M. Charp deride philosophers who have regarded animals as machines. How different is my view! I believe that Descartes would be a man in every way worthy of respect, if, born in a century that he had not been obliged to enlighten, he had known the value of experiment and observation, and the danger of cutting loose from them. But it is none the less just for me to make an authentic reparation to this great man for all the insignificant philosophers --- poor jesters, and poor imitators of Locke --- who instead of laughing impudently at Descartes, might better realize that without him the field of philosophy, like the field of science without Newton, might perhaps be still uncultivated. This celebrated philosopher, it is true, was much deceived, and no one denies that. But at any rate he understood animal nature, he was the first to prove completely that animals are pure machines. And after a discovery of this importance demanding so much sagacity, how can we without ingratitude fail to pardon all his errors! In my eyes, they are all atoned for by that great confession. For after all, although he extols the distinctness of the two substances, this is plainly but a trick of skill, a ruse of style, to make theologians swallow a poison, hidden in the shade of an analogy which strikes everybody else and which they alone fail to notice. For it is this, this strong analogy, which forces all scholars and wise judges to confess that these proud and vain beings, more distinguished by their pride than by the name of men however much they may wish to exalt themselves, are at bottom only animals and machines which, though upright, go on all fours. They all have this marvelous instinct, which is developed by education into mind, and which always has its seat in the brain (or for want of that when it is lacking or hardened, in the medulla oblongata) and never in the cerebellum; for I have often seen the cerebellum injured, and other observers have found it hardened, when the soul has not ceased to fulfil its functions. To be a machine, to feel, to think, to know how to distinguish good from bad, as well as blue from yellow, in a word, to be born with an intelligence and a sure moral instinct, and to be but an animal, are therefore characters which are no more contradictory, than to be an ape or a parrot and to be able to give oneself pleasure. Car, puisque l'occasion se présente de le dire, qui eut jamais deviné à priori qu'une goutte de la liqeur qui se lance dans l'accouplement fit ressentir des plaisirs divins, et qu'il en naîtrait une petite créature, qui pourrait un jour, posées certaines lois, jouir des même délices? I believe that thought is so little incompatible with organized matter, that it seems to be one of its properties on a par with electricity, the faculty of motion, impenetrability, extension, etc. Do you ask for further observations? Here are some which are incontestable and which all prove that man resembles animals perfectly, in his origin as well as in all the points in which we have thought it essential to make the comparison. J'en appale à la bonne foi de nos observateurs. Qu'ils nous disent s'il ne'st pas vrai que l'homme dans son principe n'est qu'un ver, qui devient homme, comme la chenille paillon. Les plus graves auteurs [Boerhaave, Inst. Med. et tant d'autres] nous ont appris comment il faut s'y prendre pour voir cet animalcule. Tous les curieux l'ont vu, comme Hartsoeker, dans la semence de l'homme, et non dans celle de la femme; il n'y a que le plus adroit, ou le plus vigoreux qui ait la force de s'insinuer et de s'implanter dans l'oeuf que fournit la femme, et qui lui donne sa première nourriture. Cet oeuf, quelquefois surpris dans les trompes de Fallope, est porté par ces canaux à la matrice, où il prend racine, comme un grain de blé dans la terre. Mais quoiqu'il y devienne monstru-eux par sa croissance de 9 mois, il ne diffère point des oeufs des autres femelles, si ce n'est que sa peau (l'amnios) ne se durcit jamais, et se dilate prodigeusement, comme on en peut juger en comparant les foetus trovés en situation et près d'éclore (ce que j'ai eu le plaisir d'observer dans une femme morte un moment avant l'accouchement), avec d'autres petits embryons très proches de leur origine: car alors c'est toujours l'oeuf dans sa coque, et l'animal dans l'oeuf, qui, gêné dans ses mouvements, cherche machinalement à voir le jour; et pour y réussir, il commence par rompre avec la tête cette membrance, d'oû il sort, comme le pulet, l'oiseau, etc., de la leur. J'ajouterai une observation que je ne trouve nulle part; c'est que l'amnios n'en est pas plus mince, pour s'être prodigieusement étendu; semblable en cela à la matrice dont la substance même se gonfle de sucs infiltrés, indépendamment de la réplétion et du déploiement de tous ses coudes vasculeux. Let us observe man both in and out of his shell, let us examine young embryos of four, six, eight or fifteen days with a microscope; after that time our eyes are sufficient. What do we see? The head alone; a little round egg with two black points which mark the eyes. Before that, everything is formless, and one sees only a medullary pulp, which is the brain, in which are formed first the roots of the nerves, that is, the principle of feeling, and the heart, which already within this substance has the power of beating of itself; it is the punctum saliens of Malpighi, which perhaps already owes a part of its excitability to the influence of the nerves. Then little by little, one sees the head lengthen from the neck, which, in dilating, forms first the thorax inside which the heart has already sunk, there to become stationary; below that is the abdomen which is divided by a partition (the diaphragm). One of these enlargements of the body forms the arms, the hands, the fingers, the nails, and the hair; the other forms the thighs, the legs, the feet, etc., which differ only in their observed situation, and which constitute the support and the balancing pole of the body. The whole process is a strange sort of growth, like that of plants. On the tops of our heads is hair in place of which the plants have leaves and flowers; everywhere is shown the same luxury of nature, and finally the directing principle of plants is placed where we have our soul, that other quintessence of man. Such is the uniformity of nature, which we are beginning to realize; and the analogy of the animal with the vegetable kingdom, of man with the plant. Perhaps there even are animal plants, which in vegetating, either fight as polyps do, or perform other functions characteristic of animals. Voilà à peu près tout ce qu'on sait de la génération. Que les parties qui s'attirent, qui sont faites pur s'unir ensemble et pour occuper telle ou telle place, se réunissent toutes suivant leur nature; et qu'ainsi se forment les yeux, le coeur, l'estomac et enfin tout le corps, comme de grans hommes l'ont écrit, cela est possible. Mais, comme l'expérience nous abandonne au milieu des ces subtilités, je ne supposerai rien, regardant tout ce qui ne frappe pas mes sens comme un mystère impénetrable. Il est si rare que les deux emences se rencontrent dans le congrès, que je serais tenté de croire que la semence de la femme est inutile à la génération. Mais comment en expliquer les phénomènes, sans ce commode rapport de parties, qui rend si bien raison des ressemblances des enfants, tantôt au père, et tantôt à la mère? D'un autre côté, l'embarras d'une explication doit-elle contrebalancer un fait? Il me parait que c'est le mâle qui fait tout, dans une femme qui dorrt, comme dans la plus lubrique. L'arrangement des parties serait done fait de toute éternité dans le germe, ou dans le ver même de l'homme. Mais tout ceci est fourt au-dessus de la portée des plus excellents observateurs. Comme ils n'y peuvent rien saisir, ils ne peuvent pas plus juger de la mécanique de la formation et du développment des corps, qu'une taupe du chemin qu'un cerf peut parcourir. We are veritable moles in the field of nature; we achieve little more than the mole's journey and it si our pride which prescribes limits to the limitless. We are in the position of a watch that should say (a writer of fables would make the watch a hero in a silly tale): ``I was never made by that fool of a workman, I who divide time, who mark so exactly the course of the sun, who repeat aloud the hours which I mark! No! that is impossible!'' In the same way, we disdain, ungrateful wretches that we are, this common mother of all kingdoms, as the chemists say. We imagine, or rather we infer, a cause superior to that which we owe all, and which truly has wrought all things in an inconceivable fashion. No; matter contains nothing base, except to the vulgar eyes which do not recognize her in her most splendid works; and nature is no stupid workman. She creates millions of men, with a facility and a pleasure more intense than the effort of a watchmaker in making the most complicated watch. Her power shines forth equally in creating the lowliest insect and in creating the most highly developed man; the animal kingdom costs her no more than the vegetable, and the most splendid genius no more than a blade of wheat. Let us then judge by what we see of that which is hidden from the curiosity of our eyes and of our investigations, and let us not imagine anything beyond. Let us observe the ape, the beaver, the elephant, etc., in their operations. If it is clear that these activities cannot be performed without intelligence, why refuse intelligence to these animals? And if you grant them a soul our are lost, you fanatics! You will in vain say that you assert nothing about the nature of the animal soul and that you deny its immortality. Who does not see that this is a gratuitous assertion; who does not see that the soul of an animal must be either mortal or immortal, whichever ours is, and that it must therefore undergo the same fate as ours, whatever that may be, and that thus in admitting that animals have souls, you fall into Scylla in an effort to avoid Charybdis? Break the chain of your prejudices, arm yourselves with the torch of experience, and you will render nature the honor she deserves, instead of inferring anything to her disadvantage, from the ignorance in which she has left you. Only open wide your eyes, only disregard what you cannot understand, and you will see that the ploughman whose intelligence and ideas extend no further than the bounds of his furrow, does not differ essentially from the greatest genius, --- a truth which the dissection of Descartes's and of Newton's brains would have proved; you will be persuaded that the imbecile and the fool are animals with human faces, as the intelligent ape is a little man in another shape; in short, you will learn that since everything depends absolutely on difference of organization , a well constructed animal which has studied astronomy, can predict an eclipse, as it can predict recovery or death when it has used its genius and its clearness of vision, for a time, in the school of Hippocrates and at the bedside of the sick. By this line of observations and truths, we come to connect the admirable power of thought with matter, without being able to see the links, because the subject of this attribute is essentially unknown to us. Let us not say that every machine or every animal perishes altogether or assumes another form after death, for we know absolutely nothing about the subject. On the other hand, to assert that an immortal machine is a chimera or a logical fiction, is to reason as absurdly as caterpillars would reason if, seeing the cast-off skins of their fellow caterpillars, they should bitterly deplore the fate of their species, which to them would seem to come to nothing. The soul of these insects (for each animal has its own) is too limited to comprehend the metamorphoses of nature. Never one of the most skillful among them could have imagined that it was destined to become a butterfly. It is the same way with us. What more do we know of our destiny than of our origin? Let us then submit to an invincible ignorance on which our happiness depends. He who so thinks will be wise, just, tranquil about his fate, and therefore happy. He will await death without either fear or desire, and will cherish life (hardly understanding how disgust can corrupt a heart in this place of many delights); he will be filled with reverence, gratitude, affection, and tenderness for nature, in proportion to his feeling of the benefits he has received from nature; he will be happy, in short, in feeling nature, and in being present at the enchanting spectacle of the universe, and we will surely never destroy nature either in himself or in others. More than that! Full of humanity, this man will love human character even in his enemies. Judge how he will treat others. He will pity the wicked without hating them; in his eyes, they will be but mis-made men. But in pardoning the faults of the structure of mind and body, he will none the less admire the beauties and the virtues of both. Those whom nature shall have favored will seem to him to deserve more respect than those whom she has treated in step-motherly fashion. Thus, as we have seen, natural gifts, the source of all acquirements, gain from the lips and heart of the materialist, the homage which every other thinker unjustly refuses them. In short, the materialist, convinced, in spite of the protests of his vanity, that is he but a machine or an animal, will not maltreat his kind, for he will know too well the nature of those actions, whose humanity is always in proportion to the degree of analogy proved above [between human beings and animals]; and following the natural law given to all animals, he will not wish to do to others what he would not wish them to do to him. Let us then conclude boldly that man is a machine, and that in the whole universe there is but a single substance differently modified. This is no hypothesis set forth by dint of a number of postulates and assumptions; it is not the work of prejudice, nor even of my reason alone; I should have disdained a guide which I think to be so untrustworthy, had not my senses, bearing a torch, so to speak, induced me to follow reason by lighting the way themselves. Experience has thus spoken to me in behalf of reason; and in this way I have combined the two. But it must have been noticed that I have not allowed myself even the most vigorous and immediately deduced reasoning, except as a result of a multitude of observations which no scholar will contest; and furthermore, I recognize only scholars as judges of the conclusions which I draw from the observations; and I hereby challenge every prejudiced man who is neither anatomist, nor acquainted with the only philosophy which can here be considered, that of the human body. Against so strong and solid an oak, what could the weak reeds of theology, of metaphysics, and of the schools, avail, ---- childish arms, like our parlor foils, that may well afford the pleasure of fencing, but can never wound an adversary. Need I say that I refer to the empty and trivial notions, to the pitiable and trite arguments that will be urged (as long as the shadow of prejudice or of superstition remains on earth for the suppose incompatibility of two substances which meet and move each other unceasingly? Such is my system, or rather the truth, unless I am much deceived. It is short and simple. Dispute it now who will.

C.J. W · 1 decade ago