Where's Waldo in Bosch's Hell?

This is the right panel of The Garden of Earthly Delights. It apparently is a portrayal of hell as imagined by the 15th century painter and member of the Brotherhood of Our Lady, Hieronymus Bosch. Lamentably little is known about this enigmatic painter. His own thoughts and feelings regarding his work were either never recorded or have been completely lost to antiquity. What obscure allegory might be drawn in these fantastical images that will forever go unnoticed by viewers living outside the time when the once-common references would have been easily recognized? Whatever Bosch might have said of his own work, six centuries after it's creation, it is considered some of the greatest (and perhaps the first) in the vast dreamlike genre of surrealism. Even the famed psychiatrist Carl Jung described Bosch as "the discoverer of the unconscious." It's sometimes tempting to think that we, with our modern technologies for the creation of art, have a monopoly on the expression of frightening imagery. When watching decades-old horror films it's easy to laugh at what today seems like only a puerile attempt to show genuinely frightening images, especially when we compare them to the gruesomely realistic monstrosities and gore that splash our television screens now. But the ominous twinges of fearful fascination evoked by the hellish depictions in Bosch's work remind us that the singularly bizarre is embedded in our psyches as humans, regardless of the age in which we happen to live or the technology we have since mastered. There is something in Bosch's creations that touches some archetypal nerve.

Anyways, as I'm sure you've already noticed, I have desecrated this great piece of art by throwing Waldo into it. (But hey, desecration, unlike vandalism, is a victimless crime, right?) If you've never heard of Where's Waldo, check out his wikipedia article, or the Where's Waldo website. Let me explain...

As a child, specifically around my age 6-9 white-wolf-in-the-closet era, I used to stare at a copy of this painting I found in a book we had on "The Mind". I didn't quite understand my fascination with it. I thought it might have something to do with all the naked people in the picture, but we had other art books depicting naked people, maybe even some in photographs. And I didn't stare at them... (as much.) Back then, my answer to any question as to my fascination with it would have been that I thought it was cool because it was just so damn weird. That's still my only answer, only now I'd admit to being a little frightened by it as well. I'm no psychologist, but if I were to pretend I was (always good for a chuckle) and basing it on the conversations I used to have with my Mom (who was a psychologist), I might say it's the result of my subconscious recognition of archetypal symbols of fear that are found throughout the imagery of this piece of art. Be that as it may, this painting is just plain trippy. And I've always appreciated the trippy, even in days long before the cloudy haze of combusted cannabis plant-matter descended upon my mind for the first time.

To my surprise, books with the work of Hieronymus Bosch weren't widely distributed to elementary school libraries, nor were they likely to be found in the home room book box. However, Wheres Waldo was. And unlike The Garden of Earthly Delights, the artwork in the Where's Waldo books came with a list of events or people depicted in the image, and you could search for them, even cross them off the list when you had found them. Bosch, and Waldo each have their strengths and weaknesses. But I thought I would combine them for you here. Waldo is supposed to be difficult to find, but no matter what his placement, he'd stick out like a sore thumb in this painting, considering it isn't real strong with thatcartoony red/white contrast Waldo hides in so well. For this reason, I just put him front and center. But Waldo instills in us a sense of challenge, so as not to disappoint, I also made a list of things you can visually hunt around for.

(Here is a very large version of the image, if you want to look more closely.)

See if you can find...

1. Human feces (and I don't mean the waste that comes from humans) in a bubble beneath the throne.
2. Even with a full suit of armor, he still makes for a fine feast to these beasts.
3. This ladder leads to warmer places.
4. A habit-wearing porker expresses her affection.
5. A demonic battalion crosses a quaint little arched bridge.
6. This man supports one large flute on his back and another partially inside his rectum.
7. A cute little bunny with a stabbing and gouging utensil.
8. A moth-winged demon skewers a man in the belly.
9. Someones face peers out from inside a... drum(?)
10. A man has a large key. Or does it have him?
11. A conversation with a moth-bird beneath a fat man with an anal insertion.
12. On her hand and knees, a woman gives a creature a piggy-back ride.
13. This man is a contented chair for a cloaked story-reader.
14. His blindfold suggests the sword in his neck was a failed execution.
15. A Valentines-esque heart on a stick.
16. She's ringing a triangle, is it dinner time?
17. Into this hole falls feces, vomit, and people who apparently haven't been entirely digested.
18. A metallic booth for a little privacy, maybe?
19. A woman embraced by branching twigs.
20. Someone kneels at a barrel for a drink, sheltered within a grotesque giant

See if you can spot...

• How many characters have something inserted in their anus?
• How many characters have been pierced by an arrow or sword?
• How many humanoid monsters are there?
• How many giant knives can you find?

Here is an image labeling the answers for ya.

If you want to add more to this list of things to hunt for, or phrase some of the list items in a more puzzling way, leave it in the comments and maybe I'll post an updated version later on.

Exorcising the "Demon-Haunted World"

I recently read the jewel of a book that is Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. It is one of those books that I think should be widely read in popular culture, not just by those apt to agree with it's premise. Sadly, the ones who would most benefit from reading it are the least likely to do so. There are many brilliant reviews of this book on the internet that do it better justice than I ever could, so that's not what this post is going to be.

The title of this great book stirred up some thoughts and images in my mind that the book itself only addressed tangentially. These images which were inspired by Sagan's book, though not it's subject, is what I'd like to talk about. Despite my expectations prior to having read it, Demon Haunted World focused very little on the history of science and it's accomplishments. I don't want to give the impression that I fault the book for not living up to my expectations, because it did. It exceeded them. It just didn't delve into some of the territory I thought it was going to. That makes it no less of a masterpiece. I didn't expect it to be a description of specific advancements through time, necessarily, and it wasn't this. (Other works have already done this extremely well). I (somewhat) mistakenly thought it would be a more general reflection on how science has gradually illuminated the shadows of superstition, revealing them as only the flickering shapes our minds construct from the incomplete bits of reality we can see peeking out from the darkness that hides the deeper but entirely natural truths of the universe. This darkness exists because we have not yet been able to figure a way to bring our candle to that shrouded corner, but this does not mean we never can or that we never will. Indeed, the history of science is the story of our holding that candle up to the dark places where the shadows of ignorance lurk, lighting realities that could not have even been guessed at or dreamed of had it never been lit.

Think of prehistoric times, when humanity undoubtedly believed the world to be haunted by demons and spirits as prolifically as it was by humans and animals. Over time, with a slow growing understanding of nature, with the embracing of logic and rationality to show us reality from mythological explanations invented to avail our fears, those endless demons were exorcised from the collective minds of humanity. They were unmasked as natural phenomena, as the understandable effects of discoverable causes. But the human world, despite all its advances in thought and technology, to this day is still unfortunately far from having completely exorcised it's superstitious false beliefs. The most tenacious and arguably the most dangerous one still remains. The supreme supernatural being. The supposed omniscient demon that still powerfully haunts so many otherwise rational minds: God. It seems clear to me that if we are successful in truly exorcising this last irrationality, it will help to usher in a time of unhindered discovery and possibly of greater peace. For peace is rational. If we fail to do such a thing, even as our technology and our capacity for self harm increases, we will be doomed not just to stifled progress, but perhaps eventually to a return to the demon-haunted world of old. Our logical and technological progress having been only a transient aspect of our species. So many people cling to this last vestige of supernatural wishful thinking in an attempt to appeal to the part of themselves that longs for "something more." But something more than what? More than the mind-boggling majesty that nature is still unveiling to us as reality? The vast majority of those who would use such an impotent argument to hold onto their superstitious hope of an all-powerful and watchful father-figure have no idea of the profound grandeur that only rational and skeptical inquiry has been able to reveal. Yes, there is "more out there." Much more. So let's keep looking instead of giving up and erroneously, childishly giving all mystery the name of just another demon/deity in the shadows.

Taking Note of Some Connections (in which I condemn meat-eating and rape while bashing religion a little too)

Eating meat is natural. ..... Yes, as a vegan I recognize this. But my saying so is not an admission of any kind, because it is not the valid argument in favor of eating meat that so many of my defensively-carnivorous opponents like to pretend it is.

When I say it's natural, I mean that it is one of the things our species has done to gain an advantage in a genetically competitive environment. Individuals who were able to take advantage of a pre-killed, unattended carcass to get a quick and costless dose of protein were more likely to pass on their genes. This and just happening upon prey seems likely to have been the primary, if not only methods our ancestors had for obtaining meat before tool use started. If you disagree, consider the oft-cited example of the last time you chased down an antelope and killed it with your teeth and nails. Physiologically, we are almost entirely built like other herbivores as opposed to omnivores. Our body plan hasn't changed that much since our pre-tool-use days. Other primates who are generally herbivorous have also been known to eat carrion and catch whatever unfortunate smaller vertebrate that wandered too close. Those individuals in our ancestry who learned to make their own carcasses (ie., hunt) furthered that advantage, especially since doing it that way reduced the chances of eating dangerously bacteria-rich (spoiled) meat. So yes, eating meat is natural.

But because something is natural, does that mean it is "good?" This is a misconception known as the naturalistic fallacy. Rape can be used to gain a genetic advantage. I don't think it's necessary to detail the obvious mechanism of that advantage. Rape is seen in non-human animals, and it is very possible, even probable, that it has been used successfully as a means of passing on genes by our own ancestors. Those who spread their genes by force are still spreading that genetic code which does continue to get copied. Like killing animals, rape is a natural way to take advantage of a situation to get your genes copied. Yet while rape is considered a serious crime by all "civilized" societies, the murder of animals is seen by most as inconsequential and even necessary. I hope the health of myself and my fellow veg*ans establishes the un-necessity of meat-eating, and good old reason can show that it is only as inconsequential as human suffering is. So the question comes up, why is it so widely acceptable when rape is not? I mean, the prevalent consensus so often seems to be that "if it's natural, it's alright." Why does this apply to meat but not to rape? It can be argued that at least in past times (or even now in some societies) there wasn't (or isn't) much difference. In societies where women were seen as the property of their husbands or fathers, rape was a crime on par with theft. It was "stealing" another man's goods to copulate with his wife, or with his daughter if she had not yet been bought by a husband. I strongly suspect that is why there is little differentiation between rape and adultery in so many biblical stories. In essence they were the same thing. Eating meat, like forcing a woman into sexual intercourse, was never a crime so long as the meat or the woman belonged to whoever was doing the killing or forcing. In such societies, raping someone else's woman would be similar to stealing someone else's livestock. This is one reason (of many) why the animal welfare movement is strongly related to feminism. Fortunately, thanks to the fact that we have made moral progress (which is based upon the choice not to cause suffering to others, it is not based on any arbitrary and backwards biblical mythologies... but I'll save that for another post) modern societies today feel that rape is wrong because it causes suffering. But so does killing animals for meat, especially in the agony-drenched factory farms from where most of our meat today comes.

This still doesn't answer the question, though, why the difference in our actions regarding one form of suffering compared to another? Because our meat lacks the ability to tell us that we are causing it to suffer. At least beyond the wordless cries that still are obvious exclamations of pain. Just as it may be easy for some people to turn a blind eye to the suffering of other humans, which most of us see as bad character, if not deplorable, it is still easy for nearly everyone in our society to turn a blind eye towards the suffering of non-human creatures. The only ones who would speak up for them are easily written-off as the fringe, and not to be taken seriously. It is easier for us to empathize with a member of our own species that can express themselves to us in terms we understand. Empathizing with animals requires taking another step: putting yourself in the place of a creature that has a mind fundamentally different than yours. Though not so different as to preclude their ability to suffer. Just because they can't copy memes like we do, most of those we murder for food are creatures who have no less capacity to experience pain, fear, or any other negative sensation which we all desperately try to avoid. It is no secret to our understanding of the nervous system that just because animals can't tell us with words that they are suffering does not mean that they aren't. It only makes it easier for us to pretend that they aren't. For feeling, for sensing, they've got the same damn apparatus we do. It's time... long past time to extend our sphere of compassion outwards from just ourselves, to not just our family, not just our tribe, not just our species, but to literally all things that are sentient. All things that can suffer. Only when we have done this can we truly consider ourselves moral beings with any kind of consistency.

And to allow for a quick tangent, here we also find another insidious and harmful result of religiosity. Religion puts absolute moral rules on things not based in reality, but on arbitrary ideas that can be manipulated and controlled by whoever or whatever is seen as having religious authority. Religion does not give us morals, it takes them out of our hands and replaces them with false morals that someone in power, someone with an agenda can use to their advantage.

The genes of our ancestors may have benefited their likelihood of getting copied via the promotion of rape, but that might not be the case anymore. Our environment has changed because we (or our memes?) have altered it by creating societies. I surmise that maybe since it is nearly universally agreed that rape is "bad," it is no longer very advantageous. This might be so only because our social structure does not allow it. Those who commit rape today are not necessarily more likely to pass on their genes, especially if they are caught and held accountable for their crimes, we hope to prevent them from ever doing such a thing again. (We may still be far from it now, but that is at least the goal we should strive for.) And in an age when we have greater control over our reproduction, this all but demolishes the genetic advantages of rape. Of course, by 'reproductive control' I mean the female right to an abortion; women having control over whether or not they want to allow the further development of a blastocyst inside themselves, including one conceived by rape. For many reasons, making abortion an inherent right of every woman is another positive movement in limiting the amount of suffering in the world, despite what people might tell you whose sense of morality has been skewed and mangled by mythology/religion. I think it is also safe to say that we now have reached a point along our path as a species where eating meat is not advantageous to gene-copying either. Protein is so plentiful, the problem of not getting enough of it is virtually nonexistent, rather our risk today seems to be getting too much. Or at the very least, too much of other stuff that tends to be found in high-protein foods. It has become apparent that vegetarians are healthier than their meat-eating counterparts in modern society. Of course, the healthier you are, the better able you are to pass on those genes, generally speaking.

There is no reason that the murder of animals for the purpose of pleasing our taste buds shouldn't be treated as a deep moral negative in modern society, like rape is, given that we can agree upon one thing: it is bad to cause suffering. It's not within the scope of this already meandering post to get into the definition of what "bad" is and whether or not it is entirely relative. But if you agree that rape is bad because it causes suffering, so too is torturing and killing animals for any reason beyond absolute necessity.

To refrain from killing and eating sentient life is both moral and genetic evolution.

Through Pain to the Stars

Per Dolorem Ad Astra. Through Pain, to the Stars. I worry that such a title will ring as arrogant to any potential passer-bys who somehow happened upon this personal experiment in (hopefully) creative writing. I admit, at first glance, it does seem somehow self-congratulatory, unnecessarily triumphant to stake a claim in the blogosphere with a Latin phrase for a title. But in my defense, I chose it because of it's beauty and meaning on a broader scale than my measly musings. The title is not meant to refer to any struggle of mine, but as a motto for the struggle of life. Not just human life, either, but organic life in general. That is, the resulting complexity that has arisen after billions of years of 'selfish replicators' making imperfect and competing copies of themselves. From such simple beginnings, this complexity has since brought into existence consciousness that looks out into the universe it finds itself in, emotion that allows it to be angered, delighted, saddened, or awed at what it does see, and inevitably, suffering as well. It is this reality (which we have just recently gained the ability to reflect upon) that fascinates and humbles me more than anything else. It is my aspiration only to write on this theme in my own sophomoric way. It is only my hope to record the sense of awe that I feel in response to it. (And perhaps to practice sounding as if I'm not naive.) We'll see where it goes. I have no expectation to garner any kind of readership. Indeed, I might be too self conscious to write if I knew anyone other than the select few people I've shared the URL with were reading this. Maybe I'll make a few posts only to see the futility of trying to write anything remotely meaningful on a regular basis. Whatever the case, at least I've finally made the first post.

Testing, testing, one, two... three....

This is merely a test post.