So I had my first slam poetry experience last night. It was really remarkable. I really always thought I would have to prepare and practice and learn and study at it, and spend heaps of time learning how to do it well, but it just all flowed really naturally. Words and ideas came pouring out, in Japanese and English all muddled in together. It was this weird and marvelous play of me understanding and the audience just listening and me just listening and the audience understanding. Although i don't think I said anything really profound in Japanese...just that it was raining and everyone was smiling...and something like that...
I am left again with this amazing sense that the only reason we might think we can't do something is that we have never done it before. And you know what...I'm going to stop saying I'm no good at stuff just because I have never been good at it before. I'm just going to slam. To try. To sing out and flow with the notes and rhythms of the people around me.
Because precedent is a terrible predictor of potential. And potential is all that we really have until we are dead. That's the second law of entropy isn't it.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Thursday, May 28, 2009
I am disappointed morally and scientifically
Today in the BBC it was announced the scientists have managed to create genetically modified monkeys that fluoresce under funny lights. The team of scientist from Japan who synthesized these monkeys, suggested they will aid disease research.
One might wonder how glow in the dark monkeys will aid in human disease research. I did have to scratch my head a bit to make the connection. I wondered is there some human disease that causes us to glow green under certain light conditions. I couldn't think of one, but my expertise is fundamentally limited. I am assuming it is the technique of engineering not by glowing green that will prove beneficial.
This case of glowing monkeys is special, perhaps spectacular as scientists reverse engineered traits into an animal that was in one generation passed on to progeny. (a kind of one generation evolution). Of course we will have to wait to see what happens in subsequent generations (will the trait degrade, will it remain, will it interfere in unanticipated regions).
Anyway, on to the technique, scientists used retro-viruses to "infect" the monkey with new DNA. Of course we all know now how retro-viruses work thanks to ongoing media coverage of HIV research and treatment. The team hopes that this kind of retro-fitting will aid in gene therapies to help people affected by genetic related illnesses. At the birth of this technology viruses can still only carry short pieces of DNA about 10,000 base pairs, but presumably as technology progresses and advances we will create viruses capable of carrying and implanting entire genes maybe even entire chromosomes...
hey...that just gave me a very exciting (?) idea for new generation sex change therapies, in theory this technology could be used to replace X or Y chomosones...wow...I don't know how i feel about that...but it is something isn't it? Sex-change would no longer be the realm of plastic surgeons, but it would be the full and real conversion from one sex to the other...
anyway. The title of this blog suggests I am not happy about this research. Its not the research per say, but the methodology. It seems perverse to genetically modify creatures that never, ever in our knowledge of natural history glowed in the dark to cause them to glow in the dark. I know that scientists are looking for animals that are analogous to humans as this is a technology they are developing for human health care purposes...but somehow I really feel their methodology is fundamentally immoral and unnecessary. There are billions of traits available, more natural and helpful to monkeys than glowing in the dark, why not effect muscle type, or hand bone structure to give them stronger hands, or blue eyes or longer or shorter tails...I know that we think this technology is only for humans because humans thought of it...but I am pretty sure the world doesn't work that way.
I mean algae doesn't insist oxygen is only for algae because they thought of the best way to mass produce it...we all share it, we all benefit from their technological advances, their skills, just as we all suffer from various organisms that think up destructive things to do..magma and its plate shifting, or what is the crimson tide organism...i forget but that thing (cyanobacteria? maybe). We have a responsibility, we especially because of our level or ethical sentience, to use our abilities sensitively to all living creatures.
however if it ever became important to make humans glow in the dark...perhaps I will one day concede my disappointment.
One might wonder how glow in the dark monkeys will aid in human disease research. I did have to scratch my head a bit to make the connection. I wondered is there some human disease that causes us to glow green under certain light conditions. I couldn't think of one, but my expertise is fundamentally limited. I am assuming it is the technique of engineering not by glowing green that will prove beneficial.
This case of glowing monkeys is special, perhaps spectacular as scientists reverse engineered traits into an animal that was in one generation passed on to progeny. (a kind of one generation evolution). Of course we will have to wait to see what happens in subsequent generations (will the trait degrade, will it remain, will it interfere in unanticipated regions).
Anyway, on to the technique, scientists used retro-viruses to "infect" the monkey with new DNA. Of course we all know now how retro-viruses work thanks to ongoing media coverage of HIV research and treatment. The team hopes that this kind of retro-fitting will aid in gene therapies to help people affected by genetic related illnesses. At the birth of this technology viruses can still only carry short pieces of DNA about 10,000 base pairs, but presumably as technology progresses and advances we will create viruses capable of carrying and implanting entire genes maybe even entire chromosomes...
hey...that just gave me a very exciting (?) idea for new generation sex change therapies, in theory this technology could be used to replace X or Y chomosones...wow...I don't know how i feel about that...but it is something isn't it? Sex-change would no longer be the realm of plastic surgeons, but it would be the full and real conversion from one sex to the other...
anyway. The title of this blog suggests I am not happy about this research. Its not the research per say, but the methodology. It seems perverse to genetically modify creatures that never, ever in our knowledge of natural history glowed in the dark to cause them to glow in the dark. I know that scientists are looking for animals that are analogous to humans as this is a technology they are developing for human health care purposes...but somehow I really feel their methodology is fundamentally immoral and unnecessary. There are billions of traits available, more natural and helpful to monkeys than glowing in the dark, why not effect muscle type, or hand bone structure to give them stronger hands, or blue eyes or longer or shorter tails...I know that we think this technology is only for humans because humans thought of it...but I am pretty sure the world doesn't work that way.
I mean algae doesn't insist oxygen is only for algae because they thought of the best way to mass produce it...we all share it, we all benefit from their technological advances, their skills, just as we all suffer from various organisms that think up destructive things to do..magma and its plate shifting, or what is the crimson tide organism...i forget but that thing (cyanobacteria? maybe). We have a responsibility, we especially because of our level or ethical sentience, to use our abilities sensitively to all living creatures.
however if it ever became important to make humans glow in the dark...perhaps I will one day concede my disappointment.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Parent's rights
There is an interesting debate in the Alberta legislature these days about what rights parents have to pull their children from classes on topics they don't want teachers educating their children on. The debate is sparked by the high-tension sexual health segments of school curriculum as well as lessons about religion.
Hmm. In the CBC news article on the topic it suggests that perhaps teachers are not presenting the material in ways that some parents would like their children educated on these topics. Presumably, these parents will provide some sort of homeschooling to compensate for the child's absence from class.
I agree that parents have the right to control, influence and effect what their children learn about the world and how their children learn it. Of course they can't control everything their child learns, but we have a human right to inculcate our children with a worldview that we believe is good. And to introduce them to ways of experiencing and living in the world that will enable them to become mature contributors to Canadian society. Provincial curricula are just one way to educate children. And you can see across every province a myriad of teaching methods, curricula, and pedagogy at work making children into what Canada is. A beautifully interwoven patchwork of differences.
It is what makes our country so great, that we have so many ways of doing everything, and yet more or less we manage to remain a cohesive society. It is what makes me so proud to call myself Canadian. We are diversity at its best. So what of parents pulling their children from classes on topics they don't agree with...I don't agree with this tactic. It doesn't bolster critical thinking in children nor does it support the fundamental Canadian value of diversity.
To me diversity means recognizing there are ways you don't want to live your life, but that for some people they are good ways to live.
A better tactic for parents is to be more involved in their children's classroom learning. Asking about what children learned at school, supplementing school lessons with parental views and values. Adding more information and being a part of the education of children. Trying to make a one size fits all education system in a country like Canada is ridiculous. And trying to give kids outs on education is not the right answer either.
As parents we are responsible to be part of our children's education. We are responsible to make our children's education unique and custom fit tour each child. Sure kids will learn things you don't want them to learn, but with good parenting you will help fix right beliefs in your children. And further prepare them to face the diverse ways of living that exist in Canada. Diversity and tolerance aren't about accepting every ones way of life, but affirming that your way of life is right for you. And accepting all Canadians have the same self-affirming right.
I want to use the example of evolution, as evolution is usually the topic people always say, "you have to learn it, there are uncountable volumes of scientific [ie irrefutable facts] that support evolution, if parents don't want their kids learning evolution then they should home school or not expect to get a science credit from any respectable Canadian school." It seems to be this inarguable truth in education that only simple rock creatures wouldn't agree with. Evolution explains life.
Personally, I have long disbelieved in evolution. I always viewed it as a story, like an Aesop fable...a very good and useful story that hopefully will endure 2000 years as the fables have endured...but in the end it is merely a way of explaining, not an irrefutable truth. It is the moral of the story that is the enduring point. The moral of the story of evolution is "life changes" and evolution teaches that, so it is a useful story to teach. Where as the biblical creation story somewhat falls short of teaching us that life changes and thus is not so useful in that regard, but it does teach belief in the fantastic; which i consider an essential life skill...so it has its place too.
Anyway, even this belief in evolution which we hold up as the bastion of modern though is these days up for debate. Darwinian evolution is fast falling out of favour with many in the scientific community and the whole story itself is changing. But children educated to look at it as "one way" of explaining life are well prepared to handle this debate, this change and the shifting explanations that are now spewing forth from the scientific community. But will children learn this by pulling out of evolution lessons? Even if it isn't the best explanation or the full story, it is a piece of the puzzle. And that's all we should hope for in education...pieces of puzzles.
And parents have the right, and should have the right, to help their children lay with those pieces.
Hmm. In the CBC news article on the topic it suggests that perhaps teachers are not presenting the material in ways that some parents would like their children educated on these topics. Presumably, these parents will provide some sort of homeschooling to compensate for the child's absence from class.
I agree that parents have the right to control, influence and effect what their children learn about the world and how their children learn it. Of course they can't control everything their child learns, but we have a human right to inculcate our children with a worldview that we believe is good. And to introduce them to ways of experiencing and living in the world that will enable them to become mature contributors to Canadian society. Provincial curricula are just one way to educate children. And you can see across every province a myriad of teaching methods, curricula, and pedagogy at work making children into what Canada is. A beautifully interwoven patchwork of differences.
It is what makes our country so great, that we have so many ways of doing everything, and yet more or less we manage to remain a cohesive society. It is what makes me so proud to call myself Canadian. We are diversity at its best. So what of parents pulling their children from classes on topics they don't agree with...I don't agree with this tactic. It doesn't bolster critical thinking in children nor does it support the fundamental Canadian value of diversity.
To me diversity means recognizing there are ways you don't want to live your life, but that for some people they are good ways to live.
A better tactic for parents is to be more involved in their children's classroom learning. Asking about what children learned at school, supplementing school lessons with parental views and values. Adding more information and being a part of the education of children. Trying to make a one size fits all education system in a country like Canada is ridiculous. And trying to give kids outs on education is not the right answer either.
As parents we are responsible to be part of our children's education. We are responsible to make our children's education unique and custom fit tour each child. Sure kids will learn things you don't want them to learn, but with good parenting you will help fix right beliefs in your children. And further prepare them to face the diverse ways of living that exist in Canada. Diversity and tolerance aren't about accepting every ones way of life, but affirming that your way of life is right for you. And accepting all Canadians have the same self-affirming right.
I want to use the example of evolution, as evolution is usually the topic people always say, "you have to learn it, there are uncountable volumes of scientific [ie irrefutable facts] that support evolution, if parents don't want their kids learning evolution then they should home school or not expect to get a science credit from any respectable Canadian school." It seems to be this inarguable truth in education that only simple rock creatures wouldn't agree with. Evolution explains life.
Personally, I have long disbelieved in evolution. I always viewed it as a story, like an Aesop fable...a very good and useful story that hopefully will endure 2000 years as the fables have endured...but in the end it is merely a way of explaining, not an irrefutable truth. It is the moral of the story that is the enduring point. The moral of the story of evolution is "life changes" and evolution teaches that, so it is a useful story to teach. Where as the biblical creation story somewhat falls short of teaching us that life changes and thus is not so useful in that regard, but it does teach belief in the fantastic; which i consider an essential life skill...so it has its place too.
Anyway, even this belief in evolution which we hold up as the bastion of modern though is these days up for debate. Darwinian evolution is fast falling out of favour with many in the scientific community and the whole story itself is changing. But children educated to look at it as "one way" of explaining life are well prepared to handle this debate, this change and the shifting explanations that are now spewing forth from the scientific community. But will children learn this by pulling out of evolution lessons? Even if it isn't the best explanation or the full story, it is a piece of the puzzle. And that's all we should hope for in education...pieces of puzzles.
And parents have the right, and should have the right, to help their children lay with those pieces.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Unconditional Positive Regard
What a wonderful idea! I stumbled on it last night before my mind grew quiet and I drifted out the window into the night air. I was reading Gabor Maté's book "In the realm of hungry ghosts" about his experiences working with the drug addicted and under housed in Vancouver. He said, in quoting someone else, that in this line of work (and I think in all lines of work and life as i will discuss) we need a kind of unconditional positive regard.
He was discussing working with drug addicted people and the kind of expectations we tend to have of them. He suggests that it is not fair or productive to have your own expectations of them, but rather you must learn to learn what their expectations are for themselves and see how you can't help them feel empowered by their expectations and seek and pursue them. Even if you have what you think are better ideas, having an unconditional positive regard means that you don't think in terms of better or worse, but in terms of this is what is and this is a beautiful and powerful human let's be beautiful and powerful humans together.
Drug addicted people are an obvious cohort with whom we must have an unconditional positive regard; as they have usually learned their whole lives that they are useless, worthless, failures with nothing to offer the world or themselves, it is our responsibility to be part of the team that helps them learn their life lessons are untrue and that what has happened in the past doesn't have to determine (fully) what happens next. That we have the power in us to make more in our life than numbing escaping or self-destruction (a lesson not only for drug addicts but for all addicts and all people who seek nothing new but an endless nostalgia and repetition of the good old times). It is this belief that I know everything, have experienced the most high, most positive thing in life and all that is left is to experience death.
In reading Mate's book, I am gaining a sense of what addiction attempts to fill, and how sad it is that we think addictions will fill that desire, need, curiosity, innate human spirit. But in thinking that I am right and those who do things differently are wrong, I refuse to engage an unconditional positive regard. And in the end this regard is what is the best way to help build people up, lift people up, enrage and engage minds and hearts in the positive world, in the creative world, in the uplifted and excited world.
So what is the unconditional positive regard. It seems very clear to me just in those three words. It is a way of regarding, viewing, thinking about, and interacting with other people. It is positive, it focuses on what is done, what is made, what does exist and what i believe i can do. not what i believe you can do. Even if i believe you can do more I disregard that belief and am thankful grateful and cheerful about what you do do. And it is unconditional. I will always be positive about what you do in your life, because it is what you do in your life and it is human. It is beautiful. I don't reward your good behaviour and chastise your bad, but I say always well now what and how can i help.
This might be a nice manifesto, a nice slogan, motto or the like...unconditional positive regard.
He was discussing working with drug addicted people and the kind of expectations we tend to have of them. He suggests that it is not fair or productive to have your own expectations of them, but rather you must learn to learn what their expectations are for themselves and see how you can't help them feel empowered by their expectations and seek and pursue them. Even if you have what you think are better ideas, having an unconditional positive regard means that you don't think in terms of better or worse, but in terms of this is what is and this is a beautiful and powerful human let's be beautiful and powerful humans together.
Drug addicted people are an obvious cohort with whom we must have an unconditional positive regard; as they have usually learned their whole lives that they are useless, worthless, failures with nothing to offer the world or themselves, it is our responsibility to be part of the team that helps them learn their life lessons are untrue and that what has happened in the past doesn't have to determine (fully) what happens next. That we have the power in us to make more in our life than numbing escaping or self-destruction (a lesson not only for drug addicts but for all addicts and all people who seek nothing new but an endless nostalgia and repetition of the good old times). It is this belief that I know everything, have experienced the most high, most positive thing in life and all that is left is to experience death.
In reading Mate's book, I am gaining a sense of what addiction attempts to fill, and how sad it is that we think addictions will fill that desire, need, curiosity, innate human spirit. But in thinking that I am right and those who do things differently are wrong, I refuse to engage an unconditional positive regard. And in the end this regard is what is the best way to help build people up, lift people up, enrage and engage minds and hearts in the positive world, in the creative world, in the uplifted and excited world.
So what is the unconditional positive regard. It seems very clear to me just in those three words. It is a way of regarding, viewing, thinking about, and interacting with other people. It is positive, it focuses on what is done, what is made, what does exist and what i believe i can do. not what i believe you can do. Even if i believe you can do more I disregard that belief and am thankful grateful and cheerful about what you do do. And it is unconditional. I will always be positive about what you do in your life, because it is what you do in your life and it is human. It is beautiful. I don't reward your good behaviour and chastise your bad, but I say always well now what and how can i help.
This might be a nice manifesto, a nice slogan, motto or the like...unconditional positive regard.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Bruce Lipton
Okay, so I haven't done a tone of thinking yet, but I am so filled with excitement about what I am learning that I want to share some of it now. I think I have turned a bit into one of these instant gratifaction people...but anyway.
Bruce Lipton is a I dunno, doctor researchy scientist type person...maybe he is a religious guy too, that hasn't come up yet but it probably will as I learn more.
Anyway he gave this wonderful lecture that finally brought me back to biology. I love biology. I always have. Natural history, the functions of life, generation and decay, ecology all of it is delicious to me. I love learning about it, reading about it, thinking about it. But at some point during my formal education something happened that made me greatly dislike the discourse. That was the doctrinal methodolgies and pedagogies through which it is transmitted to children. I looked at the world, I listened to and read about the explanations but I always felt they were like fairytales, sort of pointings towards a lesson. Although my teachers maintained them as pathways to truth.
I guess being an apostate person I am always a bit suspicious of anyone who claims this is THE pathway to truth. I am certain there are many. In Dr Liptons talk, he shows how the metaphoric language of biology (along with a few errors in word choice along the way) have caused the entire scientific and lay community alike to accept something as true that in fact is fundementally flawed. That is that DNA is the brain, the core, the starting point of life.
He shows a great flow chart that I am all to familiar with that is used again and again to show that everything that happens in your cells starts from DNA.
the chart goes DNA-->RNA-->Protein--->activity.
and I always hated this chart because life is never ever ever ever linear. There is nothing about life the flows linearly. It is a series and cyclically positive and negative feedback cycles. DNA doesn't just start doing things all by it self. Have certain DNA doesn't cause cancer for example. It is merely correlated with cancer. This was the first major error in word choice. Cause and correlate DO NOT MEAN THE SAME THING. DNA has to be turned on. Something my many teachers would say from time to time and then completely ignore. It struck me often that they would say it all starts with DNA, something turns on the DNA and then...uh...wait a second...you just said it starts with DNA and it starts with something before DNA....well which is it. And as we can both see it is the latter why aren't we talking about that "something."
Anyway, Dr Lipton gives a great explanation about why we must change our medical paradigm, we must shift our view of biology and the role of DNA. That not only is DNA not the source of life, but it is also not the cause of illness. Sure it is very strongly correlated with illness, but the truth is our beliefs about illness, our perceptions of our health our world, and the environments we foster for ourselves to live in are far more important than what is written in our code.
We should not be victims of our genes, but of our choices. We want scapegoats, but the truth is if you stop looking for scapegoats you can find the true power, happiness and strength in yourself to be the beautiful person that you are.
It is true you will have no one left to blame but your self when life gives you challenges you think you cannot overcome...but well if you blame no one for those challenges you will find you soon find the strength and resource to tackle any obstacle...in fact the obstacles will soon disappear.
Bruce Lipton is a I dunno, doctor researchy scientist type person...maybe he is a religious guy too, that hasn't come up yet but it probably will as I learn more.
Anyway he gave this wonderful lecture that finally brought me back to biology. I love biology. I always have. Natural history, the functions of life, generation and decay, ecology all of it is delicious to me. I love learning about it, reading about it, thinking about it. But at some point during my formal education something happened that made me greatly dislike the discourse. That was the doctrinal methodolgies and pedagogies through which it is transmitted to children. I looked at the world, I listened to and read about the explanations but I always felt they were like fairytales, sort of pointings towards a lesson. Although my teachers maintained them as pathways to truth.
I guess being an apostate person I am always a bit suspicious of anyone who claims this is THE pathway to truth. I am certain there are many. In Dr Liptons talk, he shows how the metaphoric language of biology (along with a few errors in word choice along the way) have caused the entire scientific and lay community alike to accept something as true that in fact is fundementally flawed. That is that DNA is the brain, the core, the starting point of life.
He shows a great flow chart that I am all to familiar with that is used again and again to show that everything that happens in your cells starts from DNA.
the chart goes DNA-->RNA-->Protein--->activity.
and I always hated this chart because life is never ever ever ever linear. There is nothing about life the flows linearly. It is a series and cyclically positive and negative feedback cycles. DNA doesn't just start doing things all by it self. Have certain DNA doesn't cause cancer for example. It is merely correlated with cancer. This was the first major error in word choice. Cause and correlate DO NOT MEAN THE SAME THING. DNA has to be turned on. Something my many teachers would say from time to time and then completely ignore. It struck me often that they would say it all starts with DNA, something turns on the DNA and then...uh...wait a second...you just said it starts with DNA and it starts with something before DNA....well which is it. And as we can both see it is the latter why aren't we talking about that "something."
Anyway, Dr Lipton gives a great explanation about why we must change our medical paradigm, we must shift our view of biology and the role of DNA. That not only is DNA not the source of life, but it is also not the cause of illness. Sure it is very strongly correlated with illness, but the truth is our beliefs about illness, our perceptions of our health our world, and the environments we foster for ourselves to live in are far more important than what is written in our code.
We should not be victims of our genes, but of our choices. We want scapegoats, but the truth is if you stop looking for scapegoats you can find the true power, happiness and strength in yourself to be the beautiful person that you are.
It is true you will have no one left to blame but your self when life gives you challenges you think you cannot overcome...but well if you blame no one for those challenges you will find you soon find the strength and resource to tackle any obstacle...in fact the obstacles will soon disappear.
Monday, May 18, 2009
ooooh soo exciting and interesting
I have a new great thing to talk about. I am so excited. I have to think about it first. But I will keep you posted, as soon as i finish thinking about it. But in the mean time, you should look up Bruce Lipton.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Categorical fear
"I am afraid of x out of 72 common fears"
Another recent FB thing to post about where you can play make believe that you have said something or written something novel without overworking your creativity muscles and pretend you aren't just showing your friends another postcard you bought at an overpriced gift shop at a tourist attraction that looked better on paper than in life...
But it peeked my interest. 72 things that people are afraid of...I wonder if I am people, so I had a read. But as I read down the list it occurred to me that I am not exactly categorically afraid of anything. For example, I am not afraid of heights. But there are times when I am in high places when I get the sudden feeling that I have left a bit of chocolate on the counter at home and that it would be wise to go and eat it, rather than be in this particular high place. But generally, i rather enjoy being high, especially when it involves jumping down or trees or rocks and that sort of thing.
Or sometimes when I am poking a dead thing with a stick and something comes crawling out in a fastish manner I think i wish I hadn't been poking that dead thing just then, and then have a nightmare about it. But I'm not afraid of fastish things, even in my food. I'll eat whatever, that doesn't scare me.
Or other times when I am in a car with strangers and it is becoming increasingly apparent that they didn't have "favourite things" in mind when they invited me into their car. And then I worry I will have to join a cult...sometimes maybe I am categorically afraid of joining cults. I really don't want to do that. I often face the reality that this stranger is taking me to church...again when i really just wanted to climb a tree or eat some bugs. But that doesn't stop me from getting into cars with strangers, or from talking to strangers on the bus, train, street, in the grocery store, at the library...where ever I happen to run into one.
And so I think that categorical fear is a silly and outdated way of experiencing the world. Haven't we learned yet that all of one category are always different? Haven't we learned the power of context and content? Hasn't it sunk in to our collective belief system that there isn't really any such thing as a category, as a general rule, that really we just want to experience or we are afraid to experience and that's silly...we don't need to be afraid to experience because the worst possible outcome is your experience will kill you, and death is nothing to be afraid of.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
You look just like your picture
I was thinking yesterday about synthetic experiences. About learning through movies, forming impressions through pictures, studying the sound of something. I was thinking about this way of talking we have. We say things like, "Oh, look at that sunset, it is just like a photograph" or "Listen to those birds, they sound like a symphony." It shows what? Is it a drive to reify the world of vital movement? A way to slow down the event of beauty. And why? Why this compulsion to capture little stones of beauty.
I recently took a picture of a sunset, and my friend looked at it and said, "oh, it looks just like a postcard." i thought that was a very funny thing to say, because I had thought it looked just like a sunset. But there you are.
Then there is another wonderful thing we do. When we see something real that we only had virtual knowledge of and we say, "oh it is just like the photograph." Which is equally silly, seeing as the photograph was of the thing...would it not be better to say, "the photograph fared well in capturing this. It did not lie."
But I suppose logic isn't so important to us. We don't seem to mind or even notice how illogical we can be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
