Presidential authority and "World War 3"

1. Bush challenges hundreds of laws

Unfortunately, the Boston Globe's site requires you to register online to view the article (it's free though). The article is pretty interesting. It's probably worth the time it takes to register.


5/10 update:

President Bush recently added another interesting bit to his term's stiff rhetoric (the most notable being the "Axis of Evil"): The "war against terror" is "World War III".

Whilst on the topic of 3s, George W. has said that he "would like to see Jeb run [for president] at some point in time". In other news, my roommate has vowed that if ever another Bush is elected president, he is vacating the country.
1. Bush says fight against terror is World War III
2. Bush: Jeb should run for president

The grays of existence-spheres?

To the tune of a summary: for Kierkegaard, existence-spheres are modes of living. (I'll admit my knowledge of his writings are by no means comprehensive, if you notice any error please correct me.) There a three spheres:

• The aesthetic
• The ethical
• The religious

The self in the aesthetic sphere is interested in the interesting. Life is a situation without intrinsic value and befitted best by possibility and the benefaction of the self.

The ethical sphere is the next step up: instead of the individual being interested in the benefaction of the self, the individual is interested in the benefaction of the universal. In Either/Or (Enten-Eller), Kierkegaard explains the difference between the aesthetic and ethical existence-spheres as roughly whether one accepts good and evil or excludes them. The act of exclusion is the aesthetic, the other is the ethical.

The third is the religious. As an agnostic, I find myself omitting or aggregating this in my personal, informal considerations. It seems intuitive that this would be present in the ethical sphere, but Kierkegaard argues against this, primarily with the story of Abraham and Isaac (Abraham murdering Isaac would be unethical, but proper in the religious realm according to SK*). As one could infer, this leads to the individual not being interested in the self or the universal, but infinitely interested in the absolute (viz. God).

*I disagree with this somewhat. (This premise is from Fear and Trembling, I haven't read Stages on Life's Way yet.) If the ethical is determined subjectively and in living for the universal one considers divine decree to be veiled in the highest good, then this example's action would be ethical. The case where this would not be is when the ethical is construed as an aggregate rather than a subjective. I'd contend that subjectivity is the domain of ethics, so even if I consider myself to be moral in a world absolutely composed of others that wouldn't consider me to be moral, I am moral to me.


What I am presently pondering are the gray areas between these. Although these may occur by means of "qualitative leaps", I would consider it almost improbable for one to live solely in the domain of one of these existence-spheres, especially in idle moments. (I realize I am examining this naive issue on naive terms. The act of writing this on my part despite it not serving any scholarly or beneficial end is to deal with idleness, at this moment I am not acting in the ethico-religious mode.) One who devotes their every waking breath and thought to the benefaction of others is nearly inconceivable to me. Does one who has devoted their existence to God never take the time to engage in aesthetic self-interest? Does one devoted to the universal, ever rest when he or she could be doing more to help everyone else?

This discussion is a dead end. I thought that the premise sounded somewhat intriguing, but as I understand it, the act of being in any given sphere is that when it conflicts with another, the given existence-sphere is given precedence. In an ascending fashion (i.e. aesthetic-ethical-religious), this is because one thinks the others are nonsensical. For an esthete, precedence for the ethical or religious would be irrelevant and may think to his or her self, "Good and evil? There are no universals in good and evil-- they are formulated by the individual thinker. God? How can I know anything about God?" In a descending fashion, a religious person would find their inherent obligation to have higher priority. He or she would think, "Why do ___ when the universal doesn't will that I should. Why do ___ when God itself doesn't will it."

Turning out of this cul-de-sac and going elsewhere, is consideration of good and evil necessarily neglected in the aesthetic existence-sphere? Surely, an esthete would make the interesting out to be the good, and develop value criteria from there. I can't think of any objection to this, and for that reason I think the aesthetic sphere should be characterized by strict interest in subjectivity, possibility, and the self, not "good and evil". All three spheres rely on the distinction between good and evil, but the appropriation and position of the subject varies.

To deny good and evil altogether? (Even in the existing subject.) Is that aesthetic? A pure skeptic I don't think would snuggly be positioned in any of these aforementioned Kierkegaardian modes of living. Maybe it's ethical? Maybe it's interest in the universal when the universal (in a non-aggregate sense) has no substance. Maybe it's the religious if the absolute has no substance? Maybe it's possible.

This world of ours 2

In international news, the humanitarian situation in Sudan's Darfur region is as bad as it's ever been, China has been harvesting the organs of executed prisoners, Saddam Husein obviously isn't innocent but his trial continues nonetheless, the price of barrels of oil have hit new records in parts of the world, the US is saying that the world is safer despite over ten thousand terrorist attacks in '05, and a survivor of the Rwandan genocide tells her story to the BBC, saying, "In the years since the genocide, I have been very sick and constantly in pain. I live on pain killers - I'm always on medication. [...] I can't forgive the people that did this to me. It is impossible. [...] The wounds that are inside me will, I guess, always be there."
1. Darfur crisis 'is as bad as ever'
2. China 'selling prisoners' organs'
3. Saddam 'did sign death warrants'
4. Oil hits record $74 on Iran, US gasoline stocks
5. US says world safer, despite 11,000 attacks in '05
6. Genocide survivor can't forgive

In other news: wetlands are "rebounding" now that golf course water hazards (and similar bodies) now qualify as wetlands (though by past definitions they're declining), recent studies suggest that gender equality could mean better sexual relationships, Intel-based Macs can now run Windows and Linux (dogs and cats living together- mass hysteria!), the Silent Hill movie had a good opening weekend despite poor ratings from a vast majority of critics, and, ironically enough, a family that doesn't even own a computer is being sued by the RIAA.
7. Wetlands Rebound, but Wait, So Do Golf Course Ponds
8. Quality of sex life linked to equality
9. Apple unveils software to permit Windows use
10. Spooky thriller tops box office
11. RIAA nails family with no computer


Web upon latticed web,
Step after step,
The feet of
Entangled footsteps
Aggregate and depart.
 

A few thoughts on the Silent Hill movie

I just got back from seeing the Silent Hill movie, and I was pleasantly surprised. I read a few reviews that dismissed it as nonsensical and unintentionally humorous so I was scared I wouldn't buy into it... well it was unintentionally humorous at some parts, but not frequent enough to spoil it altogether... but I liked the film overall.

Firstly, I'm a huge Silent Hill fan. I've played through and still own all four games. Although all of them have their moments, the first is probably my favorite as a game, and the second and fourth are the most intriguing as far as story and symbolism are concerned.

The movie kind of borrows from the first and third, but really just goes off in a new direction while being sure to introduce memorable characters to stay in touch with the fans (Cybil Bennet, Dahlia Galespie and Alessa Gilespie, the infamous "Pyramid Head", and a few monsters borrowed from the first and second games... the guy in the bathroom scene seemed very SH4-ish, but I'm pretty sure it's an original design). The little girl of the story isn't Cheryl from SH1 and 3, she's a new character to fill an identical role (named Sharon). Likewise, her dad isn't Harry, but they seem like a close match.

Anyway, I thought that the very beginning could have been stronger and that the actress-who-portrayed-Cybil's acting wasn't very good or true to her character (she didn't fit in that well either). In fact, it seemed to me that the first half of the movie was more or less packed with incessant tributes to the "feel" of the game, which worked well but seemed shallow somehow. Fortunately, after that the story kicks in and it becomes a sublime cinema moment that actually managed to convey the desperate mood and dense story of the Silent Hill series.

Instead of continuing in a full-review-like fashion, I'd prefer to make some random comments and suggestions (not that they'll ever be heard):

• Pyramid Head was such a tease! He served no role whatsoever but to engorge fans with nostalgia.
• The billboards, etc. with biblical passages shouldn't have been so front-and-center. If they had been left in the scenery, they would have been much more engrossing.
• The nurse in the "post-white" sequence was surreal-- it was executed perfectly.
• A lot of the violence was unnecessary. That said, the movie is likely bound to develop a cult status.
• If someone isn't familiar with the series they are going to be confused beyond comprehension.
• The transformations between the other world were interesting, but it made it the transition a lot less subjective. I still remember in the first Silent Hill where after defeating the lizard boss in the school, you are placed back into the pure and snowy setting of the normal reality and the contrast hits you like a ton of bricks, evoking a feeling of, "Was that a dream?". The observable transformations in scenery made the turn of events much more objective, which I'm not sure is a good thing.
• A lot more could have been done with the character that looked like Kaufmann from SH1...
• The DVD release of the movie needs to have bonus multiple endings. (I'm rooting for a UFO one.) Maybe they could have riddles under special features to unlock them?
• As I implied earlier, I think that the writer and director could have gone in a different direction for the characters rather than making new ones to adopt the roles of existing characters in the series. If there's ever a sequel perhaps they could be so bold as to go in their own direction. Or if not, I'd like to see them approach it more in line with SH4 (which seemed better suited as a movie than a game anyway).

Ethics presupposes deontology

I thought this sounded very succinct (subject, verb, predicate). Maybe "deontology" isn't the right word. Ethics presupposes a priori judgments in order to advance consequent moral contensions, and without those there is no basis for any ethical consideration. This is not to say that there aren't contingent ethical situations, but that those are based upon premises that rely on an a priori moral presupposition. This phrasing seems obvious and ostensibly unoriginal, but I thought it was a quick and easy way to state it.

4/16 update: I originally meant to put this remark in, but it's at least mildly interesting to look at this statement as a response to ethical relativism and do the math from there.