Just recently I watched a documentary on Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1QaCeosUmw) about a blind boy, now a parvenu (he has been on Opera and in various other shows and magazines), who uses echolocation to "see". Echolocation is the method dolphins and bats use to locate objects by sound, clicking and projecting sound waves forth, then interpreting the sound waves that bounce back as objects. The video shows him rollerskating, playing his gameboy, and dribbling and shooting a basketball. Not once in these actives was he maladroit. An outsider wouldn't believe Ben is blind as his movements and actions look like that of someone how has perfect vision. Not being a credulous person I doubted that this could be possible. However, the documentary goes on to tell how Ben has developed a sonar mind. It tells of submarine sonar operators who go through extensive training that teaches them how to use their sonar machines on the submarine to locate objects in the water. The sonar operaters must study the sounds to determine the size, shape and distance using machines that cost millions of dollars. Somehow, Ben has managed to train his brain to do the work of million dollar sonar machines. All throughout the documentary Ben remains sang-froid completely unperturbed by the fact that he is blind. Ben states he wants to live on his own and that being independent will not be hard. However, later in the documentary (Part 3) the narrator states that Ben may be quixotic, and must realize he has limits, despite his extrodinary skill. Ben parent's tried to send Ben to a school for the blind for year before he started highschool, however it quickly became an anathema for Ben, who functioned better than most of the other students. Later on, Ben recieved training from another blind person (Dan) who uses echolocation for mobility. However, Ben deprecated the thought of using a cane which Dan and Ben's mother both pushed him to do. Ben thought that he was not handicapped and that the cane would label him falsely. Dan's training showed Ben that even echolocation has limits and that later on a cane would be necessary. Ben, being only 14, was obdurate and showed choler whenever somehow suggested the use of a cane.

1984 Ponderings

After having read 1984 I often think about the quarrels Winston had with himself, and the Party. More than that, I find myself reflecting on the part of the book when Winston is tortured and cedes his malcontent attitude toward the Party and gives in to ebulliently loving Big Brother. I found myself thinking that the book as a whole was very hypocritical (which doesn't detract from its value). In the book Orwell insinuates that good/bad is a matter of opinion and is not objective, yet in the book is looked at as a warning toward this type of future. My question is that if good and bad are not objective, then why is this future bad thing and something that we should be warned against? Also, the idea of newspeak had me wondering about the purpose of language. There are some who say that people are born inherently knowing what is good and bad, that somehow they just know. Yet the implications of this assumption are huge. For, good and bad are English words and it would be crazy to assume babies are born knowing English. The other side might argue that the babies inherently understand the "idea" of good and bad, but then, how does one express or have an idea without using some form of language? Some people disparage this point of view, because it makes them feel very uncomfortable, as Winston felt uncomfortable when he couldn't prove O'Brien wrong about there being no objective reality, and therfore whatever the Party did was justifiable.

I am currently reading a book called Mistborn by Brandon Sanderson. The book is about a slave race called the Skaa trying to rebel against the Lord Ruler who oppresses them. The Skaa are enslaved by the Lord Ruler's Noblemen and his inquisition. The main characters of the book are two Mistborn Skaa's (meaning they have special powers) Kelsier, and Vin. Kelsier is the leader of a thieving crew that robs from the Lord Ruler, and Vin is a member. So far the tone of the book is saturnine. Kelsier is trying to start a rebellion to usurp the Lord Ruler but most of the Skaa in Luthadel, the seat of Lord Ruler, are not enthusiastic after years and years of enslavement and previous failed attempts. Kelsier hopes to throw the city of Luthadel into chaos using Mistwraiths, amorphous monsters, then use his rebel army to take control of the Palace and eventually the government. Some Skaa in the city think that Kelsier is trying to beguile them, and others have simply accepted the stigma of being a Skaa, and have resigned to being a slave until they die. If Kelsier is able to persuade the Skaa to his cause remains to be seen...

I saw Avatar last week with my family in IMAX 3D. Avatar was about a marine, Jake Sully, whose mission was to negotiate a deal with the Na'vi, a 10 foot tall blue skinned species, on planet Pandora that would include the Na'vi finding a new home on the planet, for their home sits on the largest deposit of a material that humans are trying to mine. Jake Sully reached his nadir when he started sympathizing with the Na'vi, effectively betraying the human military commander on Pandora, who promised that if a negotiation couldn't be reached, he would simply blow up the Na'vi's salient home. When Jake tried to warn the Na'vi, and Jake's Na'vi lover that the military would come if they didn't relocate, the Na'vi were incensed that Jake had been part of the plan. Jake tried to save face by saying he was hectored into and that he changed his mind, but the Na'vi excoriated him anyway. In order to win back the Na'vi's trust Jake tamed a huge banshee, an act of cachet, to show what an outstanding warrior he was. The Na'vi exonerated Jake, and Jake proceeded to lead the sortie against the military that was proceeding to destroy the Na'vi's home. I won't give anymore of the movie away otherwise I might spoil it. Overall, it was an excellent movie with the best visuals of any movie produced thus far. I highly recommend it.

Mayan Pyramids

Another of Crichton's adventures took him to Uxmal, Mexico, where he climbed the Pyramid of the Magician. The pyramid was built near the end of the Classical Mayan period, which is around 950 AD. It has 90 steps at 60 degree angles, making them very steep, and difficult to climb. Crichton remarks in the book that the rising sun illuminating the pale buildings of the ancient city was an ethereal sight. Among the ruins of the Pyramid of the Magician is the House of the Governor, House of the Turtles, and the House of the Pigeons. The pyramid stands 125 feet tall. The House of Turtles is named for a row of turtles on its front, and the House of Pigeons is named because its roof could have been a dovecote. Crichton reflects that even though the structures have names, no one really knows what they were called, or what when on in them. He then goes forth to say that the closer we look at history the less coherent it becomes. He says in his book that "The internal psychological pressure to make up a story, to explain the ruins before one's eyes, is powerful indeed." He is implacable because he wants to know what when on, but he never really can. He makes the analogy that "The Dark Ages weren't dark; it is hard to be sure what the Middle Ages stood in the middle of; and that the Renaissance is as much a birth as a rebirth. Crichton thinks that history books and tour guides beguile people into thinking they know more than they really do.

Wild Animals in Rwanda

Rwanda is one of the many places Crichton visits in his inspired memoir, Travels. Wether due to caprice, or ennui, Crichton decides to go on a wild animal safari in order to catch an ephemeral glimpse of the ever rare, mountain gorilla. The mountain gorilla is said to be the rarest of all apes, with only about 600 left in the mountainous region near Mgahinga in Rwanda. Crichton recalls that seeing a huge, salient mountain ape in its natural habitat was his greatest wildlife experience. In Swahili the mountain gorilla is called "Sokwe." Most grow up to six feet tall, and weigh in at about 300 to 425 pounds. The average lifespan is 40 years. They are vegetarians that live in dense forest, and whose only predator are humans. Crichton reflects in the book that he thought no other animal had the cachet of the mountain gorilla. He remembers the awe he felt, as only one mountain gorilla exists for every ten million humans.

Is Torture Moral?

Another political issue I have been following recently is that of torture. Torture is the intentional infliction of extreme physical suffering on some non-consenting and defenseless person. A U.N. symposium on torture in 1984 identified four reasons for torture, namely: (1) to obtain a confession; (2) to obtain information; (3) to punish; (4) to coerce the sufferer or others to act in certain ways. Supporters of torture say that in the case that vital information can be gleaned from a terrorist that would save American lives, then torture is moral. Critics of torture excoriate the supporters, saying it should never be used and is a greater evil than killing. George Bush and Dick Cheney's actions regarding torture were seen as transgressions of "moral law" (Bush and Cheney both authorized the use of torture by the CIA for Al-qaida detainees). Obama saw to it to eradicate torture as soon as he stepped into office. My view however is that in certain situations, torture is moral, and should be legal. Think of it this way, killing, and causing excruciating pain to someone can both be moral actions. When a police officer uses his gun to kill and save a life, he is applauded, not castigated. When doctors cut off limps and cause excruciating pain to save lives, they are also applauded. So then when can torture be moral? When thousand of Americans lives are at risk and a terrorist who has vital information that can save those lives won't speak. Thus, torture isn't immoral or moral, but the nature of the circumstances can be.