In a recent video, the host of VSauce (a fantastic little video log focusing on scientific questions that  often do and don’t matter) asked a fantastic question; what determines cute?  What makes a thing cuter than others?  The answer turned out to be one of comparison to babies (Who have certain visual triggers in them that seem to trigger in human beings a sense of “Awwwwww…….), including large eyes, bigger foreheads, smaller bodies, and so forth.

What’s interesting is how these sense came about, is the language used to describe “Cuteness”.  Cuteness originates etymologically from the word “acute”, which is apparently used as just a synonym for “pretty”.

But what do we judge pretty on?  It’s just another word of the modern day, like “Zany” and “interesting”  One theorist thinks there’s a deeper understanding of aesthetics underneath that.  Sianne  a  Sianne Ngai, an author and Professor of Aesthetics (of the appearance of things) at Stanford, published an interesting question in an interview with Cabinet Magazine:

 To call something cute, in vivid contrast to, say, beautiful, or disgusting, is to leave it ambiguous whether one even regards it positively or negatively. Yet who would deny that cuteness is an aesthetic, if not the dominant aesthetic of consumer society?

It’s interesting to see how cuteness is a modern-day standard of aesthetic. It certainly explains away our obsession with cats (though why one would so much time with that is well beyond me).

But this brings up a question; how does cute correlate to issues of beauty?  Historically, philosophers have always sought out something that made man unique; the thing that gave man access to “The Good, the True, and the Beautiful”.  But modern-day circles, there are a lot of questions to ask about this, since the idea of cute is an idea that was only recently developed.   So, does the distraction of the cute derive from the value of beauty?

Part of me wishes to say yes, since they both involve responses to aesthetically visual properties.  But on the other side, we have the noticable biological attributes, that the consistent definition of cute is often connected to the attributes of younger infants.  So, which is it?

I’d love to get your opinion on this topic!  Comment below, and throw me an email.  Would love to chat with ya!

 I was stuck inside my childhood home, looking for a book to read. Because I was homeschooled, the daughter of passionate book lovers, and one of eight children, our home was full of books of all kinds. It was my goal, at the age of nine, to read all of them. On the bottom shelf of a bookcase, I found something called the Handbook on Abortion by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke. Curious, I opened it. And there they were: pictures. In shock, I quickly shut the book and pushed it away. And then I opened it slowly and looked again. I was looking directly at the picture of a tiny child, maybe ten weeks old, with tiny arms and legs, who had been the victim of an abortion.

Right then I knew it was ugly and wrong. But over the next decade I grew in my understanding of the gravity and urgency of this holocaust of unborn children, of our duty to protect them, and of my desire to help.

Mrs. Lila Rose of Live Action

This is the start of the pro-life account of Mrs.  Lila Rose, known for her works in what actually happens in the Planned Parenthood clinic via journalistic investigation done by her organization Live Action.  It appears that an image, considered dark and revealing for most people started her pro-life journey towards here current role in American politics.

Her account is a clear example of the impact of images; images that can illustrate and reveal ideas and truths that written word or oral description cannot touch.  And many others have felt the same way.  Greg Cunningham of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform is a well-known pro-lifer who uses these images publically, and is often the cusp of criticisms against Pro-lifers.  Cunningham has created his ministry and organization to perform the task of sharing the graphic images in order to “reveal facts that would otherwise be ignored” were it not for the images.

The problem is that I, along with many other  pro-lifers find the use of graphic images in public to a unhelpful and inconsiderate tool since it has consistently creates barriers of dialogue between two divided sides, sides whose understanding of the other are often straw men-esque illustrations that are too often based on a lot of personal emotion and misunderstandings rather than total fact and truth.

But who’s right in this debate?  In the following piece, I hope to explore this issue, and present a case that presenting these graphic images in public settings can have notable response rates but detrimental side effects for the long-term.  Then, I’ll present a potential model that could overcome these detrimental side effects and change the pro-life movement for the better.

The Power of Images:

Most Pro-choice activists have found issue with the images, since they are offensive to every aspect of the human soul.  Most of them wish to say that these images are chosen to quickly offend others and cause controversy, or that these images were faked.  But no matter what they want the images to mean, it doesn’t change the fact that they are real.  Feminist Naomi Wolf  stated herself in an editorial from the 90s that the Pro-Choice proponents cannot say no to these images; that these images are completely true, one cannot fake this reality, no matter how much they want to.

And so, these images are excellent tools for presenting a point.

Consequences of the images

But there are many situations where this can be detrimental to those seeking out the truth.  Pro-Life activist Kristen Walker stated in a column that:

I(Kristen) had seen graphic images of aborted fetuses before (She became Pro-life). Almost everyone has at some point. But – how do I explain this? – I did not see them.

In one case, I was attempting to find a website, typed in the URL incorrectly, and ended up with a giant photo of a mangled unborn baby in my face. I remember this well, because it helped form my resentment of the pro-life cause, and helped make me stalwart in my support for abortion “rights.”

This negative response is understandable.  When I see an offensive image of, say, a murder on a news website, I likely won’t consider it’s implications.  Instead, I’ll ignore it.  Others may choose to ignore the validity of the image and just go after the carriers of the image.  They insult and attack them in order break focus from the image.

Most proponents of the grahic images would say that this is a necessity of the pro-life cause, that the offensive nature of the image is a testimony to it’s effectiveness.  Center for Bio-Ethical Reform Executive director Stephanie Gray herself stated that:

Within the pro-life movement, there should be one, and only one, fundamental principle guiding the choices we make about activism, and that is effectiveness. In fact, at my organization, we have large posters in every office reminding our 19 staff of our guiding principle of effectiveness. We make all decisions through that lens, and our efforts in this regard are complemented by our core values of quality, creativity, and honesty.

This is a really odd statement  how can effectiveness act as the main principle for presenting their truth?  Shouldn’t there be a wider view of human civility and honorability involved with this?

While the images do have a high response rate, they do have a detrimental effect on the Pro-life movement and it’s ability to take political ground.  Pro-life writer Paul Pauker explained this well in his response to Mr. Gray:

It’s a fact that graphic abortion images stir negative emotions. So how many people, after seeing graphic abortion images in public places, have closed their minds to the pro-life message, and therefore also to pro-life politicians? And how many people have then voted only for pro-abortion politicians, or just stayed home? In other words, is the number of people who have voted only for pro-abortion politicians, in whole or in part because of graphic abortion images, higher than the number of people who have converted to the pro-life position, in whole or in part, because of graphic abortion images? This is the most important guide for determining whether or not these images are detrimental.

Pauker’s point is this:  While we may have converted X amount of people to the Pro-life position, how many people have we pushed away?  How will that impact their election of Pro-life candidates?

Mrs. Gray’s desire for truth is honorable and understandable.  But like any method of communication, there are consequences.

A solution:  

So, can one share these truths with minimal consequences that might affect the election process?

Yes, but it must be an act that not only makes the images available and accessible for Americans everywhere, but allows for the Pro-life label to exist without the travesties that people connect the images and the movement to.  and less need for these vile acts to be taken by opposition and misused to illustrate and mislabel the Pro-life movement.

This act is simple; it is called”allowing one to choose to view”.

This is nothing new.  Originally derived from Seth Godin’s “Permission Marketing“, this idea is a revolutionary technique in the last 15 years of marketing that has overwhelmed  the historical method of information sharing.

Godin summarized it as:

Permission marketing is the privilege (not the right) of delivering anticipated, personal and relevant messages to people who actually want to get them.

It recognizes the new power of the best consumers to ignore marketing. It realizes that treating people with respect is the best way to earn their attention.

In other words, if an image is out there, one can choose to ignore it If they don’t want to see it.   And if they don’t want to see it, they’ll reject it, and the viewing will be useless.

Catholic writer and Activist Jennifer Fulwiler noted this as well:

When someone forces you to look at something distasteful, your main reaction is visceral rather than intellectual. You’re surprised, revolted and offended, and you instantly divert most of your mental energy to regaining control of the situation — usually by averting your eyes. Unless someone were already well versed on the issue of abortion, I think it’s unlikely that a surprise viewing of a deceased child would lead him to a lot of reasoned thought on the issue.

However, I’ve noticed that when people freely choose to see these types of pictures, their reactions are completely different. They know what they’re getting themselves into, so they’re prepared for that initial shock. And by agreeing to look at the image in the first place, they’ve given their assent — consciously or unconsciously — that this is an issue worth exploring further.

While it may not be used underneath the “Permission Marketing” label,   we do see that pro-lifers have adopted many of these tactics to great benefit.    Here’s one particular case from a commenter on Mrs. Jennifer’s post:

A sidewalk counselor once shared with me a way to put these ideas into practice.  At prayer vigils, she carries pamphlets that show pictures of living preborn children, as well as small pictures of abortion victims.  When a mother agrees to speak with her, she first shows her what her living baby looks like.  Then, with the mother’s permission, she shows her the graphic pictures.  She and those who work with her do not use any large graphic signs at their vigils.  This counselor had a very high turn-around rate.

The counselor asked permission of the woman to show her the graphic images. The woman responded well, and had a grand result.

Now, other ministries are adopting more indirect techniques for this communication.  Ministries like Abort73.com, who use the To Write Love On Her Arms model in a similar manner to encourage people to visit their website (by free choice), where one can (and should) explore further and choose to understand the travesty of what happens.  By asking permissions, Pro-lifers could have grander results and be changing more souls for the better.

Conclusion:

As I look at this issue of graphic images, it becomes quickly obvious that the issue at hand is one of communication.  No matter how convincing a person’s argument is, they should receive permission from the other, otherwise they are like water bouncing off plastic, where it has little to no effect.  So, I pray that ministries and organizations like this will consider this as they think through the use of graphic images, and what the results will be.

murder while sleeping; is it possible?

Why are we responsible?  This historical question is one that consistently pops up in the debate of humanity and morality.  An underlying issue beneath this is the topic of consciousness.  Do humans have an active consciousness, or is it all an illusion within our mind?  If there isn’t a consciousness within the human mind, then what is the reason for things like subtle murder or fraud?  Some theorists suggest it’s all based on refined forms of instinct. Others say that there is a secondary element in reality that allows man to choose, and thus gives him a form of moral and intellectual responsibility for his choices.  Which is it?

This issue becomes important when judging cases like Brian Thomas, who was caught strangling his wife while asleep.  This creates a moral conundrum related to the issue of “intent”.  If one does not consciously will an evil to occur, should he be blamed for it?

The jury had been told that Thomas’s sleep disorder meant he was in a state of “automatism” – his mind was not in control of his body. It is possible he had suffered particularly severe night terrors because he had come off his regular medication.”

Members of his family cheered as the verdict was returned. Speaking outside the court, Thomas’s brother, Raymond, said: “He’s a gentle man and always has been. He’s a good man. Christine and Brian loved each other.” He said it was wrong that his brother had been held on remand.A neighbour from Neath, Anita Gore, 75, said: “There is nothing that he has to feel guilty about – it is just all so tragic.”

This verdict is really interesting, since it does remove the moral value of the human being, according to journalist Steve Fleming:

If we accept automatism then we reduce the conscious individual to an unconscious machine…..In his book Incognito (2011), David Eagleman argues that society is poised to slide down the following slippery slope. Measurable brain defects already buy leniency for the defendant. As the science improves, more and more criminals will be let off the hook thanks to a fine-grained analysis of their neurobiology.

These observations are important, for they show a philosophical shift in courts towards a form of mechanism (the idea that man’s mind is only a machine, that there is nothing immaterial connected to it)

While it is inevitable that defence teams will look towards neuroscientific evidence to shift the balance in favour of a mechanistic, rather than a personal, interpretation of criminal acts. But we should be wary of attempts to do so. If every behaviour and mental state has a neural correlate (as surely it must), then everything we do is an artifact of our brains. A link between brain and behaviour is not enough to push responsibility out of the courtroom…..

…..Responsibility does not entail a rational, choosing self that floats free from physical processes. That is a fiction. Even so, demonstrating a link between criminal behaviour and conscious (or unconscious) states of the brain changes the legal landscape. Consciousness is, after all, central to the legal definition of intent.

Fleming makes some fascinating observations about the nature of the human mind.  As we continue to discover and study the mind, we’re going to find that certain things seem to correlate and eliminate our understanding of the element of moral choice from human ability.

The problem with this search (Though I heartily support the study of the brain’s complexity) is that it could remove morality from the perspective of the human mind.  If all thoughts are based on chemical interactions, then how do we know when one makes a decision of personal will?

Steve Fleming himself doesn’t think this.  He notes that:

Our legal system is built on a dualist view of the mind-body relationship that has served it well for centuries. Science has done little to disrupt that until now. But neuroscience is different. By directly addressing the mechanisms of the human mind, it has the potential to adjudicate on issues of capacity and intent.

With a greater understanding of impairments to consciousness, we might be able to take greater control over our actions, bootstrapping ourselves up from the irrational, haphazard behaviour traditionally associated with automata. Far from eroding a sense of free will, neuroscience may allow us to inject more responsibility than ever before into our waking lives.

Dualism= the idea that a man has both a soul and body existing at the same time.  

Fleming’s observations are interesting, for they present issues of humans having complex levels of brain activity.  But if one actually observes the brain behavior, it appears that there’s far more going on, more that requires a metaphysical level of existence to truly account for it all.  Of course, most scientists would declare this to be silly, that since the metaphysical isn’t detectable, it isn’t real.  However, these scientists are suffering from an uncontested acceptance of Methodological naturalism.

The presupposition of Methodological naturalism is the concept that there can only be natural causes in the world.  While this seems like a good idea at first for studying the world on a physical level, it’s rather  limiting.  Biologist Paul Nelson explained it like this.

Imagine you have two worlds where the same crime happened in both places, but you have to pick one world to fix the crime in.  Each world is the exact same, except for the first world only has cause type A in it, while the second world has cause type A and B in it.

Which would you choose? Your choice would likely be the second world.  Why? because it has a higher statistical variety and thus, it’s makes a lot of logistical sense for one to choose the opportunity with the highest variety for explaining something.

What Nelson is trying to introduce is that by only choosing natural answers limits one scientifically.  You’re more likely to be right if you allow for physical and metaphysical.

Now, can we prove the metaphysical using science?  Some have said yes, some have said no.  Either way, the metaphysical could (and probably still is) there.  And if it’s there, then the metaphysical turns out to be essential to how one’s moral status stacks up in the long-term.

My next class at Rivendell Sanctuary is Psychology, which provides a basis for understanding human behavior and their individual traits (like having a soul).  I’m terribly excited for this class,  for the human mind is something I tend to turn to studying if I have a choice.  For example, I’m reading a book called The Invisible Gorilla, which provides an interesting exploration of certain behavioral myths that we have, like believing we can “notice” more than one would expect, but we actually tune out more than we think.  (the linked Video is a excellent viral illustration of this idea.) here’s a link for you to understand it)

The one thing I’m getting from the book as a general theme is this conception that human minds are fairly capable, but their capabilities are noticeably less than we want to recognize.  These conceptions of memory and noticing capability are overpowered in our minds, when in fact they’re terribly weak. Our brains don’t act as 360 degree cameras that catch every action and element around them.  So, why do we expect them to?  It’s hard to say; only that we are taught that our sensate faculties are more powerful than we expect.

This idea that our senses are weak isn’t new.  Descartes recognized these flaws over 500 years ago, though they proved to be the foundation for his Cartesian concept of “I think, Therefore I am” (Also known as Cogito ergo Sum)  In Descartes’ mind, the human sense’s incapability to completely be accurate gives him reason to throw them away, to pass them up as untrustworthy.   So Descartes could  never know outside reality.   The only thing that Descartes trusts is his own mind’s existence.

Is this right?  Should our sensate ability be dismissed because of it’s lack of absolute authority? If so, then nothing we know is trustworthy (including the reading of this statement.  After all, I could be writing on issues of Cats vs Dogs, but you’re reading it as a piece on human senses.)The problem with this kind of thought is one of mathematical vs. physical reality.  Descartes was a huge math guy.  He loved math and its ability to make absolute claims (mathematical logic always allowed 1 and 1 to equal 2).  So, he wanted to find that kind of absolutism in reality.  But since the human senses failed to withstand that test of will, it must then be that the sense are not trustworthy at all.  Hence, we throw them away.

The problem is that mathematical absolutism is an impossible standard to judge the world by.  There is nothing out there that matches that kind accuracy, what with reality’s craziness and complicated factors. There is little in the world that can be compared to simple mathematical formulas.  It’s for that reason that we developed Chaos theory, which records non-linear problems in a semi-mathematical manner.  Think Ian Malcolm (played by Jeff Goldblum) in Jurrassic Park.  But even those theories, although they hold a bit of legitimacy, can’t account for everything.

Hence, tossing away our senses is a silly thing to consider.

If our senses are flawed, but we can’t get rid of our senses, then what are we supposed to do?  The simplest thing is to just understand the flawed nature of the senses.  And the Invisible Gorilla is a simple book that helps and assists the readers with understanding and acclimating with both our strengths and weaknesses and human beings.  (Though there are quite a few books that can help us acclimate our behavior to the myths and occurances of the human sensory system.  The Invisible Gorilla is only one place to start your journey)

What is one time where you’re not sure if you’re senses were right or wrong about something?

Hello again.  I know I’ve been busy again, and haven’t been posting constantly.  I apologize.  I’m rebooting the site again to just act as a portfolio and business blog, designed to track, share, and explore the work I’m doing across the internet.  The theme here’s going to be journalistic and analytical looks at the world around us, and their implications, as well as recording the pieces and writing I do across the internet.  Anyway, I hope that we are still able to help you and educate you.

Thanks,

Chris H