Abraham Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln (Hodgenville, 12th february 1809 - Washington D.C., 15th april 1865_ was the sixteenth president of the United States. he served from 1861 until his untimely death in 1865. Lincoln was the first United States president to be murdered while serving office. He would eventually be considered one of the greatest presidents that country ever had. He was praised for his instance and leadership skills during the American Civil War, abolition of slavery, consolidation of national government and the modernisation of the economy.

Materialism

Within the domain of philosophy, materialism comprises of the view that our existence is ruled by physical matter, although the term physicalism has been increasingly associated with this doctrine as it has been shown more often than not that matter itself re-arranges itself into forces and energy, earning itself the recognition of being one of the most prominent denizens in the universe. It is also true its roots can be traced back to Greek atomism, arising in the modern period in Hobbes's Leviathan. Another definition for materialism holds that it's the excessive desire for goods and wealth. This definition bears little resemblance to the philosophical use of the term, even though the lingering ambiguity is potentially exploited to stir up controversy against an undifferentiated materialism. This is also the meaning of the term which leads to a life unguarded of the evils that this world has to offer.

The term can be suitably employed to refer to the overall attitude or behaviour of attachment to material goods and the enjoyment derived of being in contact therewith. It also relates to similar pleasures attained from upholding monetary values whilst holding a complete disregard to anything that lies outside the grasp of those confined to a material realm. The unbridled possessing and hoarding of wealth is a character's trait typical of a materialist person ( in the pejorative sense of the term). in the arts scenario, materialism means an inclination to give things a realistic and sensual likeness so as to make them simulate life better.

Below is a neat passage which fitfully sums up the concept of materialism, explaining both the philosophical as well as its down-to-earth application by D.M. Armstrong from Oxford Companion of the Mind:

Classifications of theories are bad masters, but may be useful servants. In the following classification of the main theories of the mind–body relationship upheld by philosophers, it is to be understood that the positions sketched are 'ideal types' to which actually held positions may approximate in different degrees.

If we think of mind and body as two opponents in a tug-of-war, then we can distinguish among theories that try to drag body, and matter generally, over into the camp of mind; those that try to drag mind over into the camp of body; and those theories where an equal balance is maintained. This yields a division into mentalist, materialist (physicalist), and dualist theories.

It is convenient to begin by considering dualism. The major position here is Cartesian dualism, named after Descartes, the central figure in post-medieval philosophical discussion of the mind–body problem. For a Cartesian dualist the mind and body are both substances; but while the body is an extended, and so a material, substance, the mind is an unextended, or spiritual, substance, subject to completely different principles of operation from the body. It was this doctrine that Gilbert Ryle caricatured as the myth of the ghost in the machine. It is in fact a serious and important theory.

Dualist theories are also to be found in a more sceptical form, which may be called bundle dualism. The word 'bundle' springs from David Hume's insistence that, when he turned his mental gaze upon his own mind, he could discern no unitary substance but simply a 'bundle of perceptions', a succession or stream of individual mental items or happenings. Hume thought of these items as non-physical. A bundle dualist is one who dissolves the mind in this general way, while leaving the body and other material things intact.

Besides dividing dualism into Cartesian and bundle theories, it may also be divided according to a different principle. Interactionist theories hold, what common sense asserts, that the body can act upon the mind and the mind can act upon the body. For parallelist theories, however, mind and body are incapable of acting upon each other. Their processes run parallel, like two synchronized clocks, but neither influences the other. There is an intermediate view according to which, although the body (in particular, the brain) acts upon and controls the mind, the mind is completely impotent to affect the body. This intermediate view, especially when combined with a bundle theory of mind, is the doctrine of epiphenomenalism. It allows the neurophysiologist, in particular, to recognize the independent reality of the mental, yet acknowledge the controlling role of the brain in our mental life and give a completely physicalist account of the brain and the factors which act upon it.

Mentalist theories arise naturally out of dualist theories, particularly where the dualist position is combined with Descartes' own view that the mind is more immediately and certainly known than anything material. If this view is taken, as it was by many of the greatest philosophers who succeeded Descartes, it is natural to begin by becoming sceptical of the existence of material things. The problem that this raises was then usually solved by readmitting the material world in a dematerialized or mentalized form. Berkeley, for instance, solved the sceptical problem by reducing material things to our sensations 'of' them. Berkeley thus reaches a mentalism where the mind is conceived of as a spiritual substance, but bodies are reduced to sensations of these minds.

It is possible to combine Berkeley's reduction of matter to sensations with a bundle account of the mind. In this way is reached the doctrine of neutral monism, according to which mind and matter are simply different ways of organizing and marking off overlapping bundles of the same constituents. This view is to be found in Ernst Mach and William James, and was adopted at one stage by Bertrand Russell. The 'neutral' constituents of mind and body are, however, only dubiously neutral, and the theory is best classified as a form of mentalism.

Just as Cartesian dualism may move towards mentalism, so it may also move towards materialism. Surprisingly, Descartes' own particular form of the theory lends itself to this development also. Descartes was one of the pioneers in arguing for an anti-Aristotelian view of the material world generally and the body in particular. First, this involved the rejection of all teleological principles of explanation in the non-mental sphere. Second, it involved taking the then revolutionary, now scientifically orthodox, view that organic nature involves no principles of operation that are not already to be found operative in non-organic nature. Human and animal bodies are simply machines (today we might say physicochemical mechanisms) working according to physical principles.

A view of this sort naturally leads on to the suggestion that it may be possible to give an account of the mind also along the same principles. In this way, a completely materialist account of nature is reached, and so a materialist account of the mind.

The word 'materialism' sometimes misleads. The materialist is not committed to a Newtonian 'billiard-ball' account of matter. Keith Campbell has spoken of the 'relativity of materialism' — its relativity to the physics of the day. Materialism is best interpreted as the doctrine that the fundamental laws and principles of nature are exhausted by the laws and principles of physics, however 'unmaterialistic' the latter laws and principles may be. Instead of speaking of 'materialism' some writers use the term 'physicalism'.

Materialist accounts of the mind may be subdivided into peripheralist and centralist views. A more familiar name for the peripheralist view is behaviorism: the view that possession of a mind is constituted by nothing more than the engaging in of especially sophisticated types of overt behaviour, or being disposed to engage in such behaviour in suitable circumstances. Behaviourism as a philosophical doctrine must be distinguished from the mere methodological behaviourism of many psychologists who do not wish to base scientific findings upon introspective reports of processes that are not publicly observable.

Very much more fashionable at the present time among philosophers inclined to materialism is the centralist view, which identifies mental processes with purely physical processes in the central nervous system. This view is sometimes called central-state materialism or, even more frequently, the identity view. Unlike behaviourism, it allows the existence of 'inner' mental processes which interact causally with the rest of the body.

It remains to call attention to one important variety of theory intermediate between orthodox dualism and orthodox materialism. It is a 'one-substance' view, denying that minds are things or collections of things set over against the material substance which is the brain. But it does involve a dualism of properties, because brain processes, besides their physical properties, are conceived of as having further non-physical properties which are supposed to make the brain processes into mental processes. Such views may be called attribute or dual-attribute theories of the mind–body relationship. A theory of this sort could be said to be a variety of identity view, since it also holds that mental processes are identical with certain brain processes.

According to the doctrine of panpsychism, not simply brain processes but all physical things have a mental side, aspect, or properties, even if in a primitive and undeveloped form.

Although the dual-attribute view is important, it inherits the considerable difficulty and confusion which surrounds the philosophical theory of properties. There are many difficulties in giving a satisfactory account of what it is for a thing to have a property, and these difficulties transmit themselves to this sort of theory of the mind–body relationship.

(Published 1987)

Research ethics

Research ethics deals with the research objectives expected to be accomplished whilst striking a balance between research interests and the observance of universal morals and value for life. At the core of such interests lie the call for accountability on the part of the research staff as well as what possible side effects could occur to research subjects and society.

Examples of socially relevant problems of research ethics include the areas of animal testing and experimentation on live human subjects, stem cell research, genetics, research for military defence purposes and data protection.

Personal view on Muslims

I was on the point of writing about something else entirely unrelated to the current title, but this is what struck my fancy. Having got the idea while behind a crash barrier, I've come to the realisation that a common can of worms seems set to go unaddressed until the end of time: Islam terrorism. First off, I reckon that Islam isn't only about terrorism and that there's much more to it than men hijacking planes to commit suicide attacks and devoted mosque-goers constantly bantering through a mounting need to murder non-muslims as well as muslims who belong in a different sect of Islam. I, too, reckon that behind the controversy veiled behind the Western concept of Islam lies a whole history of culture and traditions. For instance, once I was fortunate enough to meet a true muslim and he was a true gentleman in his mannerisms. He spoke 3 languages- Arabian, English and French- and the transition from one to the other was made effortlessly. He wasn't just an educated Arab. Although he was observant of islamist rites, I noticed that this never hindered his intellectual faculties and so he was never out of the loop. However, it's exactly this what is disturbing. He's living proof that Muslims can be well-meaning and savvy in more ways than one. Problem, he's also a specimen, a rare one at that. So much so that the remainder of muslims I have had the opportunity to happen upon are nothing like him. Most of them are bent on spouting drivel about world conquest and that eventually everyone will become a muslim and those who don't are doomed. This, or that people have no choice but to get on with that and this sharia law crap. No to mention the way they treat women. I have also come across women in islam and I have found out that they have no individual personality of their own at all. Maybe it's just an impression. But this concept has been imprinted on my mind since I saw first hand how alike they all behave. A overly humble demeanour, outright apathy about anything and they way they looked at us without curiosity. So much for tolerance.

But worst of all is the way that Western authorities apparently view them. I, for one, am tired of their relentless attempt to softpedal the threat of radical Islam. This is just downright outrageous, to say the least. It may be true that it's a minority of muslims who take part in terrorist plots. But then we'd be talking only about the number of people directly involved. What about those who have taught them that Islam is the only true path to follow and anyone who dares steer clear is a hectic unworthy of life? What if the own environment where they were raised was to blame for them becoming terrorists? If tolerance to those who follow a different faith were taught early on in life, it's unlikely that those heinous acts would be perpetrated against non-muslims.

To boot, we also have the problem of moderate muslims failing to admonish their naughty religious kin. Of course, it's only radical muslims who go to the extreme of blowing stuff up for their religion's sake. But one has to wonder how they are ever allowed to manifest this way. They should be prosecuted and have charges for crime pressed against them and, eventually, be punished accordingly. If their well-behaved brethren are unable to get a handle on them, something is amiss with their thinking system. However, this pales in comparison to what I deem not only to be the main problem, but what really gets my (and anyone's with a common sense) gall is the way that radical islamic teaching is widespread within muslim territory:

The distorted, nihilistic bigotry and hatred spawned by said teachings have always been the common ground on which terrorist attacks are laid. If there ever was any driving force behind terrorism in the world as it know it today, it's radical islamic teachings. Again, it boils down to Sharia, Islam's universal law which is good at preaching hate towards the homnosexual and demonising those who pursue other religious doctrines (or none at all). Its misogynist underpinnings account for all of the appalling mistreatment and murder of women. And this coming from someone who is against feminism only goes to show how messed up the whole thing is.

In a nutshell,  radical islam is a powerful threat to all open-minded and caring folks in this world. Not only should it be called into question. It should be put an end to, for good.

Braindead 13

Brings back memories of Peter Jackson's most famous film: Braindead (aka Dead Alive)

Doing things on a whim sure does have neat benefits. For one thing, the predictability patterns is gone and life seems more enjoyable without the dreaded viper of convention. This happened to me the other day when I decided to peek at an unknown game. At first I was unsure about what to expect. I even had some reservations about Braindead 13 because I had never come into touch with this game. I just couldn't fathom what would befall on me during the experiment.


But what is the merit backing up Braindead 13's claim to fame? Why does this one game succeed so well at enthralling me? Why have I suddenly found myself checking this game time and again even though neither the ending nor the death scenes ever change? I just can't explain why. Maybe it's a simple premise that makes it out to be much more than what I could have expected. It's a quick time event, which many frown upon for varying reasons, not the least of which is that there is little interaction between player and in-game environment. But if you come to think of it, all games are of this kind. There is only a limited amount of actions to perform in a game, no matter how over the top they may be. You can't do anything that the developers didn't predict, so you too wind up trapped in some warped up version of a tiny universe crafted by a fellow human being for your entertainment's sake. It's only that quick-time event games make no bones about this condition imposed by default on any player.

Yellow backgrounds are darn effective at instilling fear in people

Thus, Braindead 13 can also be called an interactive movie-game, released for DOS in 1995 developed by ReadySoft. It would be ported to the major mainstream consoles the following year. The main playable character is a twenty-something computer ace whom is one day called to service a computer at a haunted castle. His customer is none other than Nero Neurosis, an evil brain creature who settles on the idea of slaying the unsuspecting protagonist after a slight run-in. What started out as a mild insult exchange quickly spiralled into a deadly and frightening speed chase throughout the castle. What is most terrifying about this  hunt is Fritz, the wicked brain's faithful hand and personal mass murderer. What follows is pure gold as the player has a wide choice of paths to follow to get to the end of the quest without being ripped to shreds by the castle's many bloodthirsty dwellers.

Characters:

• Lance Galahad-  oversteps his bounds and doesn't check his smart mouth in time, insulting the main villain in the process. He quickly incurs the bad goons' wrath by committing one slip-up, but his botched first encounter with this customer may cost him dearly.

• Dr. Nero Neurosis - the obligatory stock mad scientist's brain in a vat. He gets offended so easily he might as well just have been the Dormouse in another lifetime. 

• Fritz - the ever loyal henchman who will stop at nothing to bring immolation upon Lance. A dual hook setup for hands doesn't hinder this imp from carrying about quite a haul with just about anything that may come in handy for a quick kill.

• Vivi- players who make it through the early sections of the game will be awarded with the dazzling beauty of this true vampire vixen. Nice additions to her already stunning figure are her southern belle accent and her penchant for putting unwilling patrons through life or death situations in her "funeral salon".

Manos- Hands of Fate

     It's a moot point going on about how this movie has achieved pop icon status. Nearly everyone into B-movies has watched this at least once. So it might surprise some how come I hadn't watched this until some days ago. What is more bizarre is that I only got to watch this as this flick is now in the public domain; I wouldn't be able to do so otherwise. I almost gave up on reviewing this altogether.

Before delving into the plot, a word of warning about this movie seems lordly at this point. The movie was made under a very tight budget by someone without a lot of directing experience. This alone should set off warning klaxons in many viewers' heads. However, there is more to this. The movie has a grainy look that remains with it to its very end and the sound was apparently not mixed very well. Furthermore, the director also rushed through edits during the post-production stage. This becomes easy to notice after a few seconds into the movie, where a long driving scene takes place without nothing else at all happening. The ensuing shots show a car coming out on to a single carriageway, turning inland through a sequence of sparse shrubs lining the curb line. 10 or 20 kilometres further on, they drove across the hills for what appeared to be hours, into a landscaped of unadorned simplicity. According to info found on wikipedia.org, there was an intended purpose behind the disjointed driving scene:

The entire nine-minute opening sequence, which consisted of the main characters driving around looking for their hotel with minimal dialogue or effect on the plot, was the result of such neglect: Warren had likely intended to include opening credits over these shots, but either forgot to add them or did not have the post-production budget to do so.

Is this the excitement of donning the Torgo garb or taking care of the place?

While it's easy to deride a movie for its forgetfulness to make amends on its original cut, the concept also strikes me as interesting as it could engender a host of unpredictable moments in the film, contributing to a far more rewarding experience. In fact, I became outright hooked up on mercurial aspects of film after my none too pleasant experience watching The Twilight Series. I want to get over it as quickly as possible, even if it means watching Manos: The Hands of Fate all the way through.

The family on an outing eventually found their way to a mysterious shack and are promptly "greeted" by Torgo. This is, for many, the movie's high point. Torgo was supposedly screened as a satyr, but came off more like a martyr. The brooding figure is more sinister-looking than his ominous master and their deity: Manos himself. It also bears mentioning that Torgo has a hard to tell personality. It's not clear from the beginning what his intentions were. It is eventually revealed late on, but in such an unconvincing light that the viewer has to wonder what prompted his motivations.

Plotwise, the scene is there to introduce the gloomy caretaker to the audience and the travelling family. They insist on asking him which is the way to Valley Lodge, to which he dryly replies there is no such place. Understandably, the wife is uneasy about Torgo's disposition. She suggests Mike - her hunsband- they should depart the premises willy nilly. Mike eventually drives home the point that "they" would rather stay and leave in the morning. Torgo grudgingly lets them stay, all the while remarking that "the Master would not approve". He says that like 15 times. Then, all of a sudden, the scenery acquires a stronger daylight hue, although it was supposed to be getting darker, and then Torgo starts his famous "Torgo gait". Relying on information found on wikipedia (hurrah to the internet) reveals that the character of Torgo wore metal riggings under his trousers to give him a goat-like look. This is coherent with his overall looks, including the beard, battered apparel and even the way he moves his eyes. John Reynolds, the man behind such an astounding character, actually was the one put his soul into this movie. The remainder of the characters are a sad-looking bunch in comparison. Oh, and there is even a custom tune set to go along with the Torgo gait, aptly titled the Torgo suite.

The Manos staff is mightier than the sword!

What transpires next is not easy to describe. As stated earlier, the movie doesn't follow a pattern for events to unfold within a coherent whole. All that we know is that the family's pet dog dies, slain by some unseen beast. Possibly the master's faithful doberman. The master does appear later on, has a stare-off with Torgo and urges all of his six wives to chase after the suspecting guests. Torgo wants one of the wives for himself and he already took his pick: Mike's wife. The master will have none of this, but at this point his authority is seriously called into question as he fails to break up a catfight that embroils all of his consorts. For some intangible reason, he lets it goo on for what seems to be 20 minutes (movie time). The movie's flaws also become apparent at this point. The sound is barely audible and the acting does not help matters. In another section of the mess that is the plot, Mike's mind constantly switches states between wanting to leave through the desert on foot and trying to start the car. He can't settle on either idea and so he just beckons his family to go back to the Master's dreaded abode and bide their time until dawn breaks so they decide on a better course of action. As the head of a family, one would expect more from him.

The movie ends where it started, with the family on their way to valley lodge with the action-packed dwelling still prominent from the background. Only this time, Mike is the new Torgo. I will go out on a limb and say this is not exactly the greatest movie ever. In fact, it is far from it. On the other hand, it is impossible to imagine how it could have been otherwise. There is little room for improvement to be made because the concept behind the movie demanded just that: a simple movie with a creepy pattern, which was neither supposed to be easily spotted nor overlooked by careful lookers. It was just supposed to be something that would get stuck with the viewer and not leave, but haunt him for years to come. Except that, any attempt at making a haunting impression was upstaged by the movie's incredible production, which is more likely to etch a permanent mark into b-movie fans.

Watch the entire movie here.

Mighty Mouse: Wolf! Wolf!

Title card

Cartoons back in the old days were something else. It seems classic cartoon artists were unafraid to show their imaginations in unprecedented ways while laws about the "ethereal" necessity to restrain oneself out of fear to offend faint-headed people were practically nonexistent. The net result almost always ended being a cartoon which inevitably provided a cool experience for both viewer and artist. Again, this in itself is enough to earn my appreciation.

Mighty Mouse is a cartoon about a tiny superhero whom is, incredibly enough, a mouse. This one is NOT just another filthy rodent scuttling along furniture and threatening humans' health with its feared fleas' bite or its nasty territory-marking practice which is a hotbed for leptospirosis. No, this is one mouse intent on doing good without causing any harm whatsoever as a side effect.

Now onwards to the cartoon. We open with the narrator setting the stage for the action to unfold, which happens from the antagonists' point of view. They eye up a couple of delicious-looking lambs and soon hatch a plan to get hold of them. At first they get one of them to dress up as a female of some species. Presumably, a female of the human species, but this proves unconvincing even to the target of their lustful obsession. He/she eventually gives up trying to lure the sheepish offspring where they want and settles up on the bright idea of outright trying to grab it, at first landing face-first onto the floor in a kind of pouncing attack, then it just chases after it. The lamb's lithe disposition to not be caught proves to be much for the frustrated hunter. So much so he calls for backup on the little bugger and soon classic cartoon pandemonium ensues. It's not until several wolfish hands bearing all sort of weapons surround the disputed lamb that the latter decides to let itself be subdued.

Wolves are found primarily in Canada, Alaska, the Balkans and The Netherrealm.

This is NOT a 2011 version of the cartoon.

Then the picture's title entity makes his entrance. Perhaps Mighty Mouse had been watching over things all along form his perch, but we'll never know. He swoops down on the evil creatures to wreak more cartoony havoc: wolves pummel themselves nonstop in typical Killer Instinct style trying to hit Mighty Mouse, several meat cleavers are hurled in Mighty Mouse's way and he repels them with lightning bolts issuing from his hands and one of the goons wields a automatic claw-12 shotgun in an attempt to rid the world of the minuscule hero, to no avail. Eventually, Mighty Mouse cleans house and has again proven to be the champion of men... and sheep.

Watch this episode here: