Tuesday, 21 November 2023

Point, and Think —








 The Point of Our Eyes (or, Take Stock)



  Our eyes are always pointing at things we are interested in approaching, or investigating, or looking for, or having. We must see, but to see, we must aim, so we are always aiming. Our minds are built on the hunting-and-gathering platforms of our bodies. To hunt is to specify a target, track it, and throw at it. To gather is to specify and to grasp. We fling stones, and spears, and boomerangs. We toss balls through hoops, and hit pucks into nets, and curl carved granite rocks down the ice onto horizontal bull’s-eyes. We launch projectiles at targets with bows, guns, rifles and rockets. We hurl insults, launch plans, and pitch ideas. We succeed when we score a goal or hit a target. We fail, or sin, when we do not (as the word sin means to miss the mark70). We cannot navigate, without something to aim at and, while we are in this world, we must always navigate.71


  We are always and simultaneously at point “a” (which is less desirable than it could be), moving towards point “b” (which we deem better, in accordance with our explicit and implicit values). We always encounter the world in a state of insufficiency and seek its correction. We can imagine new ways that things could be set right, and improved, even if we have everything we thought we needed. Even when satisfied, temporarily, we remain curious. We live within a framework that defines the present as eternally lacking and the future as eternally better. If we did not see things this way, we would not act at all. We wouldn’t even be able to see, because to see we must focus, and to focus we must pick one thing above all else on which to focus.


  But we can see. We can even see things that aren’t there. We can envision new ways that things could be better. We can construct new, hypothetical worlds, where problems we weren’t even aware of can now show themselves and be addressed. The advantages of this are obvious: we can change the world so that the intolerable state of the present can be rectified in the future. The disadvantage to all this foresight and creativity is chronic unease and discomfort. Because we always contrast what is with what could be, we have to aim at what could be. But we can aim too high. Or too low. Or too chaotically. So we fail and live in disappointment, even when we appear to others to be living well. How can we benefit from our imaginativeness, our ability to improve the future, without continually denigrating our current, insufficiently successful and worthless lives?


  The first step, perhaps, is to take stock. Who are you? When you buy a house and prepare to live in it, you hire an inspector to list all its faults—as it is, in reality, now, not as you wish it could be. You’ll even pay him for the bad news. You need to know. You need to discover the home’s hidden flaws. You need to know whether they are cosmetic imperfections or structural inadequacies. You need to know because you can’t fix something if you don’t know it’s broken—and you’re broken. You need an inspector. The internal critic—it could play that role, if you could get it on track; if you and it could cooperate. It could help you take stock. But you must walk through your psychological house with it and listen judiciously to what it says. Maybe you’re a handy-man’s dream, a real fixer-upper. How can you start your renovations without being demoralized, even crushed, by your internal critic’s lengthy and painful report of your inadequacies?


  Here’s a hint. The future is like the past. But there’s a crucial difference. The past is fixed, but the future—it could be better. It could be better, some precise amount—the amount that can be achieved, perhaps, in a day, with some minimal engagement. The present is eternally flawed. But where you start might not be as important as the direction you are heading. Perhaps happiness is always to be found in the journey uphill, and not in the fleeting sense of satisfaction awaiting at the next peak. Much of happiness is hope, no matter how deep the underworld in which that hope was conceived.


  Called upon properly, the internal critic will suggest something to set in order, which you could set in order, which you would set in order—voluntarily, without resentment, even with pleasure. Ask yourself: is there one thing that exists in disarray in your life or your situation that you could, and would, set straight? Could you, and would you, fix that one thing that announces itself humbly in need of repair? Could you do it now? Imagine that you are someone with whom you must negotiate. Imagine further that you are lazy, touchy, resentful and hard to get along with. With that attitude, it’s not going to be easy to get you moving. You might have to use a little charm and playfulness. “Excuse me,” you might say to yourself, without irony or sarcasm. “I’m trying to reduce some of the unnecessary suffering around here. I could use some help.” Keep the derision at bay. “I’m wondering if there is anything that you would be willing to do? I’d be very grateful for your service.” Ask honestly and with humility. That’s no simple matter.


  You might have to negotiate further, depending on your state of mind. Maybe you don’t trust yourself. You think that you’ll ask yourself for one thing and, having delivered, immediately demand more. And you’ll be punitive and hurtful about it. And you’ll denigrate what was already offered. Who wants to work for a tyrant like that? Not you. That’s why you don’t do what you want yourself to do. You’re a bad employee—but a worse boss. Maybe you need to say to yourself, “OK. I know we haven’t gotten along very well in the past. I’m sorry about that. I’m trying to improve. I’ll probably make some more mistakes along the way, but I’ll try to listen if you object. I’ll try to learn. I noticed, just now, today, that you weren’t really jumping at the opportunity to help when I asked. Is there something I could offer in return for your cooperation? Maybe if you did the dishes, we could go for coffee. You like espresso. How about an espresso—maybe a double shot? Or is there something else you want?” Then you could listen. Maybe you’ll hear a voice inside (maybe it’s even the voice of a long-lost child). Maybe it will reply, “Really? You really want to do something nice for me? You’ll really do it? It’s not a trick?”


  This is where you must be careful.


  That little voice—that’s the voice of someone once burnt and twice shy. So, you could say, very carefully, “Really. I might not do it very well, and I might not be great company, but I will do something nice for you. I promise.” A little careful kindness goes a long way, and judicious reward is a powerful motivator. Then you could take that small bit of yourself by the hand and do the damn dishes. And then you better not go clean the bathroom and forget about the coffee or the movie or the beer or it will be even harder to call those forgotten parts of yourself forth from the nooks and crannies of the underworld.


  You might ask yourself, “What could I say to someone else—my friend, my brother, my boss, my assistant—that would set things a bit more right between us tomorrow? What bit of chaos might I eradicate at home, on my desk, in my kitchen, tonight, so that the stage could be set for a better play? What snakes might I banish from my closet—and my mind?” Five hundred small decisions, five hundred tiny actions, compose your day, today, and every day. Could you aim one or two of these at a better result? Better, in your own private opinion, by your own individual standards? Could you compare your specific personal tomorrow with your specific personal yesterday? Could you use your own judgment, and ask yourself what that better tomorrow might be?


  Aim small. You don’t want to shoulder too much to begin with, given your limited talents, tendency to deceive, burden of resentment, and ability to shirk responsibility. Thus, you set the following goal: by the end of the day, I want things in my life to be a tiny bit better than they were this morning. Then you ask yourself, “What could I do, that I would do, that would accomplish that, and what small thing would I like as a reward?” Then you do what you have decided to do, even if you do it badly. Then you give yourself that damn coffee, in triumph. Maybe you feel a bit stupid about it, but you do it anyway. And you do the same thing tomorrow, and the next day, and the next. And, with each day, your baseline of comparison gets a little higher, and that’s magic. That’s compound interest. Do that for three years, and your life will be entirely different. Now you’re aiming for something higher. Now you’re wishing on a star. Now the beam is disappearing from your eye, and you’re learning to see. And what you aim at determines what you see. That’s worth repeating. What you aim at determines what you see.


 What You Want and What You See



  The dependency of sight on aim (and, therefore, on value—because you aim at what you value) was demonstrated unforgettably by the cognitive psychologist Daniel Simons more than fifteen years ago.72 Simons was investigating something called “sustained inattentional blindness.” He would sit his research subjects in front of a video monitor and show them, for example, a field of wheat. Then he would transform the photo slowly, secretly, while they watched. He would slowly fade in a road cutting through the wheat. He didn’t insert some little easy-to-miss footpath, either. It was a major trail, occupying a good third of the image. Remarkably, the observers would frequently fail to take notice.


  The demonstration that made Dr. Simons famous was of the same kind, but more dramatic—even unbelievable. First, he produced a video of two teams of three people.73 One team was wearing white shirts, the other, black. (The two teams were not off in the distance, either, or in any way difficult to see. The six of them filled much of the video screen, and their facial features were close enough to see clearly.) Each team had its own ball, which they bounced or threw to their other team members, as they moved and feinted in the small space in front of the elevators where the game was filmed. Once Dan had his video, he showed it to his study participants. He asked each of them to count the number of times the white shirts threw the ball back and forth to one another. After a few minutes, his subjects were asked to report the number of passes. Most answered “15.” That was the correct answer. Most felt pretty good about that. Ha! They passed the test! But then Dr. Simons asked, “Did you see the gorilla?”


  Was this a joke? What gorilla?


  So, he said, “Watch the video again. But this time, don’t count.” Sure enough, a minute or so in, a man dressed in a gorilla suit waltzes right into the middle of the game for a few long seconds, stops, and then beats his chest in the manner of stereotyped gorillas everywhere. Right in the middle of the screen. Large as life. Painfully and irrefutably evident. But one out of every two of his research subjects missed it, the first time they saw the video. It gets worse. Dr. Simons did another study. This time, he showed his subjects a video of someone being served at a counter. The server dips behind the counter to retrieve something, and pops back up. So what? Most of his participants don’t detect anything amiss. But it was a different person who stood up in the original server’s place! “No way,” you think. “I’d notice.” But it’s “yes way.” There’s a high probability you wouldn’t detect the change, even if the gender or race of the person is switched at the same time. You’re blind too.


  This is partly because vision is expensive—psychophysiologically expensive; neurologically expensive. Very little of your retina is high-resolution fovea—the very central, high-resolution part of the eye, used to do such things as identify faces. Each of the scarce foveal cells needs 10,000 cells in the visual cortex merely to manage the first part of the multi-stage processing of seeing.74 Then each of those 10,000 requires 10,000 more just to get to stage two. If all your retina was fovea you would require the skull of a B-movie alien to house your brain. In consequence, we triage, when we see. Most of our vision is peripheral, and low resolution. We save the fovea for things of importance. We point our high-resolution capacities at the few specific things we are aiming at. And we let everything else—which is almost everything—fade, unnoticed, into the background.


  If something you’re not attending to pops its ugly head up in a manner that directly interferes with your narrowly focused current activity, you will see it. Otherwise, it’s just not there. The ball on which Simons’s research subjects were focused was never obscured by the gorilla or by any of the six players. Because of that—because the gorilla did not interfere with the ongoing, narrowly defined task—it was indistinguishable from everything else the participants didn’t see, when they were looking at that ball. The big ape could be safely ignored. That’s how you deal with the overwhelming complexity of the world: you ignore it, while you concentrate minutely on your private concerns. You see things that facilitate your movement forward, toward your desired goals. You detect obstacles, when they pop up in your path. You’re blind to everything else (and there’s a lot of everything else—so you’re very blind). And it has to be that way, because there is much more of the world than there is of you. You must shepherd your limited resources carefully. Seeing is very difficult, so you must choose what to see, and let the rest go.


  There’s a profound idea in the ancient Vedic texts (the oldest scriptures of Hinduism, and part of the bedrock of Indian culture): the world, as perceived, is maya—appearance or illusion. This means, in part, that people are blinded by their desires (as well as merely incapable of seeing things as they truly are). This is true, in a sense that transcends the metaphorical. Your eyes are tools. They are there to help you get what you want. The price you pay for that utility, that specific, focused direction, is blindness to everything else. This doesn’t matter so much when things are going well, and we are getting what we want (although it can be a problem, even then, because getting what we currently want can make blind us to higher callings). But all that ignored world presents a truly terrible problem when we’re in crisis, and nothing whatsoever is turning out the way we want it to. Then, there can be far too much to deal with. Happily, however, that problem contains within it the seeds of its own solution. Since you’ve ignored so much, there is plenty of possibility left where you have not yet looked.


  Imagine that you’re unhappy. You’re not getting what you need. Perversely, this may be because of what you want. You are blind, because of what you desire. Perhaps what you really need is right in front of your eyes, but you cannot see it because of what you are currently aiming for. And that brings us to something else: the price that must be paid before you, or anyone, can get what they want (or, better yet, what they need). Think about it this way. You look at the world in your particular, idiosyncratic manner. You use a set of tools to screen most things out and let some things in. You have spent a lot of time building those tools. They’ve become habitual. They’re not mere abstract thoughts. They’re built right into you. They orient you in the world. They’re your deepest and often implicit and unconscious values. They’ve become part of your biological structure. They’re alive. And they don’t want to disappear, or transform, or die. But sometimes their time has come, and new things need to be born. For this reason (although not only for this reason) it is necessary to let things go during the journey uphill. If things are not going well for you—well, that might be because, as the most cynical of aphorisms has it, life sucks, and then you die. Before your crisis impels you to that hideous conclusion, however, you might consider the following: life doesn’t have the problem. You do. At least that realization leaves you with some options. If your life is not going well, perhaps it is your current knowledge that is insufficient, not life itself. Perhaps your value structure needs some serious retooling. Perhaps what you want is blinding you to what else could be. Perhaps you are holding on to your desires, in the present, so tightly that you cannot see anything else—even what you truly need.


  Imagine that you are thinking, enviously, “I should have my boss’s job.” If your boss sticks to his post, stubbornly and competently, thoughts like that will lead you into in a state of irritation, unhappiness and disgust. You might realize this. You think, “I am unhappy. However, I could be cured of this unhappiness if I could just fulfill my ambition.” But then you might think further. “Wait,” you think. “Maybe I’m not unhappy because I don’t have my boss’s job. Maybe I’m unhappy because I can’t stop wanting that job.” That doesn’t mean you can just simply and magically tell yourself to stop wanting that job, and then listen and transform. You won’t—can’t, in fact—just change yourself that easily. You have to dig deeper. You must change what you are after more profoundly.


  So, you might think, “I don’t know what to do about this stupid suffering. I can’t just abandon my ambitions. That would leave me nowhere to go. But my longing for a job that I can’t have isn’t working.” You might decide to take a different tack. You might ask, instead, for the revelation of a different plan: one that would fulfill your desires and gratify your ambitions in a real sense, but that would remove from your life the bitterness and resentment with which you are currently affected. You might think, “I will make a different plan. I will try to want whatever it is that would make my life better—whatever that might be—and I will start working on it now. If that turns out to mean something other than chasing my boss’s job, I will accept that and I will move forward.”


  Now you’re on a whole different kind of trajectory. Before, what was right, desirable, and worthy of pursuit was something narrow and concrete. But you became stuck there, tightly jammed and unhappy. So you let go. You make the necessary sacrifice, and allow a whole new world of possibility, hidden from you because of your previous ambition, to reveal itself. And there’s a lot there. What would your life look like, if it were better? What would Life Itself look like? What does “better” even mean? You don’t know. And it doesn’t matter that you don’t know, exactly, right away, because you will start to slowly see what is “better,” once you have truly decided to want it. You will start to perceive what remained hidden from you by your presuppositions and preconceptions—by the previous mechanisms of your vision. You will begin to learn.


  This will only work, however, if you genuinely want your life to improve. You can’t fool your implicit perceptual structures. Not even a bit. They aim where you point them. To retool, to take stock, to aim somewhere better, you have to think it through, bottom to top. You have to scour your psyche. You have to clean the damned thing up. And you must be cautious, because making your life better means adopting a lot of responsibility, and that takes more effort and care than living stupidly in pain and remaining arrogant, deceitful and resentful.


  What if it was the case that the world revealed whatever goodness it contains in precise proportion to your desire for the best? What if the more your conception of the best has been elevated, expanded and rendered sophisticated the more possibility and benefit you could perceive? This doesn’t mean that you can have what you want merely by wishing it, or that everything is interpretation, or that there is no reality. The world is still there, with its structures and limits. As you move along with it, it cooperates or objects. But you can dance with it, if your aim is to dance—and maybe you can even lead, if you have enough skill and enough grace. This is not theology. It’s not mysticism. It’s empirical knowledge. There is nothing magical here—or nothing more than the already-present magic of consciousness. We only see what we aim at. The rest of the world (and that’s most of it) is hidden. If we start aiming at something different—something like “I want my life to be better”—our minds will start presenting us with new information, derived from the previously hidden world, to aid us in that pursuit. Then we can put that information to use and move, and act, and observe, and improve. And, after doing so, after improving, we might pursue something different, or higher—something like, “I want whatever might be better than just my life being better.” And then we enter a more elevated and more complete reality.


  In that place, what might we focus on? What might we see?


  Think about it like this. Start from the observation that we indeed desire things—even that we need them. That’s human nature. We share the experience of hunger, loneliness, thirst, sexual desire, aggression, fear and pain. Such things are elements of Being—primordial, axiomatic elements of Being. But we must sort and organize these primordial desires, because the world is a complex and obstinately real place. We can’t just get the one particular thing we especially just want now, along with everything else we usually want, because our desires can produce conflict with our other desires, as well as with other people, and with the world. Thus, we must become conscious of our desires, and articulate them, and prioritize them, and arrange them into hierarchies. That makes them sophisticated. That makes them work with each other, and with the desires of other people, and with the world. It is in that manner that our desires elevate themselves. It is in that manner that they organize themselves into values and become moral. Our values, our morality—they are indicators of our sophistication.


  The philosophical study of morality—of right and wrong—is ethics. Such study can render us more sophisticated in our choices. Even older and deeper than ethics, however, is religion. Religion concerns itself not with (mere) right and wrong but with good and evil themselves—with the archetypes of right and wrong. Religion concerns itself with domain of value, ultimate value. That is not the scientific domain. It’s not the territory of empirical description. The people who wrote and edited the Bible, for example, weren’t scientists. They couldn’t have been scientists, even if they had wanted to be. The viewpoints, methods and practices of science hadn’t been formulated when the Bible was written.


  Religion is instead about proper behaviour. It’s about what Plato called “the Good.” A genuine religious acolyte isn’t trying to formulate accurate ideas about the objective nature of the world (although he may be trying to do that to). He’s striving, instead, to be a “good person.” It may be the case that to him “good” means nothing but “obedient”—even blindly obedient. Hence the classic liberal Western enlightenment objection to religious belief: obedience is not enough. But it’s at least a start (and we have forgotten this): You cannot aim yourself at anything if you are completely undisciplined and untutored. You will not know what to target, and you won’t fly straight, even if you somehow get your aim right. And then you will conclude, “There is nothing to aim for.” And then you will be lost.


  It is therefore necessary and desirable for religions to have a dogmatic element. What good is a value system that does not provide a stable structure? What good is a value system that does not point the way to a higher order? And what good can you possibly be if you cannot or do not internalize that structure, or accept that order—not as a final destination, necessarily, but at least as a starting point? Without that, you’re nothing but an adult two-year-old, without the charm or the potential. That is not to say (to say it again) that obedience is sufficient. But a person capable of obedience—let’s say, instead, a properly disciplined person—is at least a well-forged tool. At least that (and that is not nothing). Of course, there must be vision, beyond discipline; beyond dogma. A tool still needs a purpose. It is for such reasons that Christ said, in the Gospel of Thomas, “The Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, but men do not see it.”75


  Does that mean that what we see is dependent on our religious beliefs? Yes! And what we don’t see, as well! You might object, “But I’m an atheist.” No, you’re not (and if you want to understand this, you could read Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment, perhaps the greatest novel ever written, in which the main character, Raskolnikov, decides to take his atheism with true seriousness, commits what he has rationalized as a benevolent murder, and pays the price). You’re simply not an atheist in your actions, and it is your actions that most accurately reflect your deepest beliefs—those that are implicit, embedded in your being, underneath your conscious apprehensions and articulable attitudes and surface-level self-knowledge. You can only find out what you actually believe (rather than what you think you believe) by watching how you act. You simply don’t know what you believe, before that. You are too complex to understand yourself.


  It takes careful observation, and education, and reflection, and communication with others, just to scratch the surface of your beliefs. Everything you value is a product of unimaginably lengthy developmental processes, personal, cultural and biological. You don’t understand how what you want—and, therefore, what you see—is conditioned by the immense, abysmal, profound past. You simply don’t understand how every neural circuit through which you peer at the world has been shaped (and painfully) by the ethical aims of millions of years of human ancestors and all of the life that was lived for the billions of years before that.


  You don’t understand anything.


  You didn’t even know that you were blind.


  Some of our knowledge of our beliefs has been documented. We have been watching ourselves act, reflecting on that watching, and telling stories distilled through that reflection, for tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of years. That is all part of our attempts, individual and collective, to discover and articulate what it is that we believe. Part of the knowledge so generated is what is encapsulated in the fundamental teachings of our cultures, in ancient writings such as the Tao te Ching, or the aforementioned Vedic scriptures, or the Biblical stories. The Bible is, for better or worse, the foundational document of Western civilization (of Western values, Western morality, and Western conceptions of good and evil). It’s the product of processes that remain fundamentally beyond our comprehension. The Bible is a library composed of many books, each written and edited by many people. It’s a truly emergent document—a selected, sequenced and finally coherent story written by no one and everyone over many thousands of years. The Bible has been thrown up, out of the deep, by the collective human imagination, which is itself a product of unimaginable forces operating over unfathomable spans of time. Its careful, respectful study can reveal things to us about what we believe and how we do and should act that can be discovered in almost no other manner.


Saturday, 18 November 2023

Because I’m SUCH a GOOD Friend…!



“Now, 
Hitler would have 
never thought of THAT —

STALIN never thought  of that, 
and he thought about these 
kinda of things, a LOT…

How to get one member of 
The Central Committee 
to betray another, and 
keep them all guessing, 
so that You’re the 
ultimate beneficiary, 
but THIS…..

The added bit of 
SadoMasochistic Genius…”


Selvig

Fury :
So, he's building another portal.
That's what he needs Erik Selvig for.

Thor :
Selvig?

Fury :
He's An Astrophysicist. 

Thor :
He's A Friend.


Thor | Erik Selvig And Thor - Bar Scene | Disney+ [2011]


(STATIC CRACKLING)

(MJOLNIR HUMMING)

SHIELD Agent
Sir? He's got A Visitor.

Coulson :
His Name is Donald Blake?

Selvig :
Dr. Donald Blake.

Coulson :
You have dangerous coworkers, Dr. Selvig.

Selvig :
He was distraught when he found out 
that you've taken all our research.

That was years of his life, gone!

You can understand how A Man 
could go off like that.

A big, faceless organisation like yours coming in 
with their jackbooted thugs and...
….That's how he put it.

Coulson :
That still doesn't explain how he managed 
to tear through our security.

Selvig :
Steroids! He's a bit of a fitness nut.

(ALARM BEEPS)

TECHNICIAN
Sir?

Coulson :
It says here that 
He's an M.D.

Selvig :
Well, he is! Or he was.
He switched careers and 
became A Physicist.
A brilliant physicist.

He's a wonderful man. 
He's a man in pain.

Oh, Donny, Donny, 
DonnyThere you are. 
You're gonna be all right
I'm taking you home now.

Coulson :
Dr. Selvig!
….just keep him away from the bars.

Selvig :
I will!

Thor :
Where are we going? 

Selvig :
To get a drink.

Coulson :
Follow them.

Thor :
You know, I had it all backwards.
I had it all wrong.

Selvig :
It's not a bad thing finding out that 
you don't have all The Answers.
You start asking the right Questions.

For the first time in my life, 
I have no idea what 
I'm supposed to do.

Selvig :
Anyone who's ever going 
to find his way in this world 
has to start by admitting 
he doesn't know 
where the hell he is.

Thank you for what you've done.

Selvig :
No, don't thank me. 
I only did it for Jane.

Her Father and I taught 
at university together.
He was a Good Man.
He never listened.

Neither did IMy Father was trying 
to teach me something, but 
I was too stupid to see it.

Selvig :
I don't know if you're delusional or 
if you're pulling some kind of con
I don't care. I just care about her.
I've seen the way she looks at you.

I swear to you
I mean her no harm.

Selvig :
GoodIn that case
I'll buy you another round
and you leave town tonight.

Two boilermakers.

Thursday, 9 November 2023

Escaping The Phantom Zone









Selina, The Wicked Witch :
Enjoy Your Prison, Supergirl... 
...forever and ever

Selina The Witch starts macking 
on Supergirl’s mind-controlled zombie 
would-be boyfriend, Ethan

Supergirl :
No, Ethan! Don't do it! 
Ethan! 




Slowly, The Black Mirror she is trapped inside
begins to turn… and turn…
and spin end-over-end….
and falls into The Sky,
as it begins tumbling 
through endless Space…

Until it crashes into solid rock….
and shatters




Supergirl :
Where am I? 





You can't arrest me without a warrant. 
I'm calling my lawyer. Slow down. 

We want Selena out. 

Selina, The Wicked Witch :
Smile, lunkhead. You're not A Gardener anymore. 
You're Prince Ethan, now. 

Are we gonna stand up to her or not? 

Yes. 

Selena must go! 

Who's this little twerpette? 

Lucy Lane :
She's someone who believes in Freedom. 

Jimmy Olsen :
Lucy, it's not a good time 
to express yourself. 

Lucy Lane :
I don't know, who you are. 
Or what evil force you represent. 
But if you think you can get rid of 
anybody who stands up to you. 
Just make them disappear
Like my friend Linda. 

Who? 

Lucy Lane :
Linda, my roommate. She disappeared 
the day that mountain showed up. 

The wimp. Seize them

Leave her alone! 

Drive off. Leave her alone. 

Nobody messes around with Jimmy Olsen! 
Now, let go of me. I'm with the press!


Supergirl :
Zaltar. 

Squirt. 

Supergirl :
Zaltar? 

Squirt. 

Supergirl :
Zaltar, it's me. It's-it's Kara. 

I know. Squirt. 

Supergirl :
What is that? Where are we? 

Nowhere

Supergirl :
The Phantom Zone? 

Lawrence :
It's lonely here, my Kara. So sad. 
I've been here forever and 
I shall stay here forever. 

Selina, The Wicked Witch :
Ethan? 

Ethan, The Gardner :
Yes, my darlin'. 

Selina, The Wicked Witch :
Don't call me your "darling." 
You despise me. 
Get me The Coffer of Shadow. 

Ethan, The Gardner :
Yes, my darling. 

Supergirl :
Now... 
...I think we need something. There

Oh, Jimmy. 

Oh, terrific. The old dangling-in-a-cage routine. 
Pathetic, Selena. 

Who's that guy? 

He's my math teacher, I think. 

What are they for? 

Insurance. 

Supergirl :
But you can't just give up.
 You founded a whole city

Lawrence :
I did, and then I doomed it to destruction. 

Supergirl :
That was an error. 

Lawrence :
A tragic one. When you're my age and 
you make as many tragic errors as I do, 
it is a different tune that you will sing. 

Supergirl :
I will not. I'll never give up. 
I will never spend my entire life in 
a place like this. I would die first! 

Lawrence :
Strong words —
There are worse things than dying and 
I deserve every single one of them

Supergirl :
What is this? 

Lawrence :
A horse... I think. On Earth, 
I think it's called ‘a horse’. 

Supergirl :
And you made this, here

Lawrence :
Mm. 

Supergirl :
Then you haven't given up. 

Lawrence :
Don't be ridiculous. 

Supergirl :
Earth, Zaltar. Earth, a tree, a horse. 
You keep making things from Earth. 

Lawrence :
The place intrigues me. 

Supergirl :
Well, then, let's go there.

Lawrence :
 Certainly. When is the next train

Supergirl :
(Grins — looks puzzled.)
.…What is a ‘train’? 
What's so funny? 
Don't laugh at me, Zaltar. 

Lawrence :
I'm only laughing at myself. 
For you, I weep. 

Supergirl :
Is this ‘train’ a way out of here? 

Lawrence :
There is no way out of here. 
That is the point of 
The Phantom Zone. 
The criminals, the corrupt, the evil... 
...they're here. Over the hill there. 
With no Way Out

Supergirl:
But, there's always A Way Out. 
If there's a way in
there's A Way Out

Lawrence :
There is a way. But it's impossible

Supergirl :
Why? 

Lawrence :
No, it wouldn't work. You'd be swept into a singularity 
if it didn't work. No. Forget I mentioned it. 
Have a squirt instead. 

….I could do it. 

Supergirl :
Then, please. At least 
teach me how

Lawrence :
There's nothing to teach. 
You can't, as they say 
practice at The Rift. 
You get one chance only

Supergirl :
The Rift? 

Lawrence :
Sure? You won't have a squirt? 
Once you get used to it, 
I think it's delicious. 

Supergirl :
You're right. You are 
absolutely right. 
There is enough 
Doom and Gloom 
in the air already. 
And it is better to accept defeat 
than to take a chance and try 
like fools to redeem ourselves 
and save Our City 
and all those who 
We Love There. 

Plus all the people on Earth 
that this wicked sorceress 
is going to make suffer 
just because of us. Cheers

Lawrence :
We could die trying

Supergirl :
But we won't
We won't. 

Lawrence :
Come on. 

Selina, The Wicked Witch :
Tomorrow. Thursday. Friday. 
Just like here, we go for The Cops 
first, right? And The Army. 
By Saturday, we have the continental 
United States, Mexico, Canada. 

Oh, my God, Selena. 


Selina, The Wicked Witch :
It's The Box. 

Hush it up. 

Selina, The Wicked Witch :
No. What The Box wants, 
The Box gets. 
What is it? 

Fascinating. 


Selina, The Wicked Witch :
I don't know. 

Supergirl :
Is this it? Is this 
The Way Out? 

Lawrence :
Not yet! This is 
The Quantum Vortex! 
We must risk Our Destruction in it. 
To move mountains, 
You must make sacrifices

Supergirl :
Zaltar, I'm scared

Lawrence :
Accept Your Fears. 
Confront Your Demons. 
Find Your Destiny 
in The Maelstrom! 

Supergirl :
Zaltar, I can't. I can't

Lawrence :
You... can

Two specks. Look! 


Selina, The Wicked Witch :
What Do I Do? 
How Do You murder someone 
in The Phantom Zone? 


She's with some old guy, 
it looks like. 

Selina, The Wicked Witch :
Move, huh. Come on! 


Calm down, okay. 

Selina, The Wicked Witch :
(Consults The Grimoire —)
Ah. This is what I want. 
The Salian Fireballs. 
Page 321. Chapter 6. 

Whoa! What is that? Watch out! 

Selina, The Wicked Witch :
"Power of Rainmaking". No! 
"How to separate husband and wife." 
No, not now. Not now

Well, you better find something fast, 
like an atom bomb. 

Selina, The Wicked Witch :
I found it. "Summoning... 
The Demon Storm.

Lawrence :
Hurry... go. 
Higher girl, higher

Supergirl :
Come with me! 

Lawrence :
I am with you! On, girl. 
I am with you. 

Supergirl :
Zaltar! 



Oh, Thank God

Supergirl :
You've had your fun, Selena. 
The Game is finished. 

Selina, The Wicked Witch :
HardlyOne false step, bluebird.

Tuesday, 7 November 2023

Condor





Listen. I work for The CIA. 
I'm not a spy. I just read books. 
We read everything that's published in the world, 
and we-- we feed the plots-- dirty tricks, codes 
into a computer, and the computer checks 
against actual CIA plans and operations. 
I look for leaks, new ideas. 
We read adventures and 
novels and journals. 

I-- I can-- 
Who'd invent
job like that?

 Tell her what you got. Male, Caucasian, mid 40s, appears to have been shot. - Where? - In his room. - Very funny. - O.K., O.K. The wound's below the heart. - Shot once? - Seems to have been, yes. First you said appears to have been shot. Mr. Turner. Oh, Dr. Lappe, I'm sure he'll be here any second now. Really? Mr. Turner's late again. Get back to work. We can dope it out in five minutes and get back to work. - Know what Joey would say? - He isn't the only mind in this place. Come on. Uh, what kind of a slug? - You're missing the point, Ray. - What do you mean? The machine will come back with, " Please express in otherwords." What should we feed in? [Doorbell Rings] [Buzz] - Turner,Joseph. No middle initial. - You're minutes late. Make it will you? I was bucking head winds. Dr. Lappe, anything in the early pouch for me? - Dr. Lappe? - Yes? Nothing in response toyour report. Please have the book I left on your desk analyzed and on the computer by : . Yes, sir. Better get the telemias moved closer to the light. You're getting a blight on the leaf. At ease, Sarge. At ease. Going to rain today. : . [Ray] There's got to be more details. [Harold] I only read two chapters. - No other clues? - Not so far. - [Janice] What time they fiind him? - Early evening. They never said what the caliber ofthe bullet was. - Apparently . . - There it is again-- "Apparently." It made an entry wound characteristic of a . . They couldn't recover the slug. Hey, we're getting somewhere. You guys figure it out. I have Far East journals to read. Was the slug smashed against the wall? No. As a matter offact, there was no exit wound. We're not getting anywhere. Finish the book, Harold. Hi. What we've got so far is-- Ice. Instead oflead. Ice! The murderer pours water into a . caliber mold, freezes it, and keeps it solid until the crime. Then he shoots the guy with the ice bullet. Cops show up, there'sjust a few drops ofwater. - No bullet, no ballistics. - That's great. - Hey. - Yeah? What is this? Mmm. Calligraphy's getting beautiful. - What is it? - Ten. That means heaven. That's it? Nothing else? Well, it can mean the best. Tops sometimes. Why? I'm not sure. We're going to Sam and Mae's tonight, right? - Mm-hmm. - Why don'tyou talk to Sam about it? - About this? - Mm-hmm. I did. He says, "That's interesting, but it's not my department." Which means he doesn't think there's anything,just like Dr. Lappe. - And you. - Well, there's not much. - A mystery that's been translated? - A mystery that didn't sell... has been translated into a very odd assortment of languages-- Turkish, but not French, Arabic, but not Russian... or German... Dutch. Spanish? Yes. Yes. Hey, where'd you get that thing about the ice? Dashiell Hammett? DickTracy. Areyou sure about this ideogram? Look at this face. Could I be wrong about an ideogram? It's a great face, but it's never been to China. - When can I get computer time? - DickTracy? - He was a very underrated detective. - There's free time at : . Morning pickup. No, no, no, no. Stay on schedule. I'll get it. - Four pieces, right? - Right. - Hold it. Hold it. - Five. - Affiirmative. Fiver. - Where is Mr. Heidegger? - Called in sick, Dr. Lappe. - He's probably hung over again. This is extraordinary. I wasjust checking the fiiles... and came across this carbon copy ofan inquiry he sent to Persian Gulfcommand. He did that for me. It neverwent through my offiice. I asked him to do some research for me. I guess he didn't feel it was important. I wish you people would go through channels. [Door Opens] Uh, what's on your mind? O.K. [Buzz] [Not Audible] This was in the pouch from New York Center. HQfrom Langley said there's nothing... from any other intelligence source to supportyour theory. -Gentlemen. -This your idea ofworking on that book? I'll have it on the computer by : . We have people to service these machines. These things are simple. Theyjust look complicated. Mr. Turner, I wonder ifyou're entirely happy here. - Within obvious limits, yes, sir. - Obvious limits? It bothers me I can't tell people what I do. Why is it taking you long to accept that? Well, I actually trust a few people. That's a problem. I believe it's your turn to bring in lunch. What time is it? - : . - The rain's going to stop by : . You can wait eight minutes. Ah, yes. Yes. Mr. Turner? Hey! Hey! Hey! Damn it. It's not a proper exit. He always goes out that way when it rains. Saves him a block. Personnel should enter and exit the premises by authorized means only. [Thunder] Jimmy. - Hey, Shakespeare, how's it going? - Terrifiic. I'm building up a great collection ofrejection slips. Yeah, I know the feeling. I always wanted to be Escoffiier. Maybe it's not too late. Van Gogh was before he started to paint. - No kidding? - There's no mayonnaise on Dr. Lappe's. On the other hand, Mozart was when he started playing the piano. - He was composing at . - Fast starter. It's probably better. I don't know. Van Gogh never sold a painting in his lifetime. Mozart died a pauper. - Where am l, the public library? - That's a very bright man. It's educational. That's why I come in here. You come in here to get sick like everybody else. - Come on. - No butter on Ray's sandwich. He get panicky about butter. [Doorbell Rings] [Buzz] [Typewriter] Give it toJennings in the back. He'll sign for it. - [Gunfiire] - Edwinna Rose. [Clock Chimes] 

Monday, 6 November 2023

Head, Beginning, Origin





race (n.1)
[act of running] late Old English, also rase, "a narrative, an account;" c. 1300, "an act of swift running, a hurried attack," also "a course of life or conduct, a swift current;" from Old Norse rās "a running, a rush (of water)," cognate with Old English ræs "a running, a rush, a leap, jump; a storming, an attack;" or else a survival of the Old English word with spelling and pronunciation influenced by the Old Norse noun and the verb. The Norse and Old English words are from Proto-Germanic *res- (source also of Middle Dutch rasen "to rave, rage," German rasen, Old English raesettan "to rage" (of fire)), from a variant form of PIE *ers- (1) "be in motion" (see err).

Originally a northern word, it became general in English c. 1550. Formerly used more broadly than now, of any course which has to be run, passed over, or gone through, such as the course of time or events or a life (c. 1300) or the track of a heavenly body across the sky (1580s). To rue (one's) race (15c.) was to repent the course one has taken.

Meaning "contest of speed involving two or more competitors; competitive trial in running, riding, etc." is from 1510s. For the sense of "artificial stream leading water to a mill, etc.," see race (n.3). Meaning "electoral contest for public office" is by 1827.

Related entries & more
 

race (n.2)
[people of common descent] 1560s, "people descended from a common ancestor, class of persons allied by common ancestry," from French race, earlier razza "race, breed, lineage, family" (16c.), possibly from Italian razza, which is of unknown origin (cognate with Spanish raza, Portuguese raça). Etymologists say it has no connection with Latin radix "root," though they admit this might have influenced the "tribe, nation" sense, and race was a 15c. form of radix in Middle English (via Old French räiz, räis). Klein suggests the words derive from Arabic ra's "head, beginning, origin" (compare Hebrew rosh).

Original senses in English included "wines with characteristic flavor" (1520), "group of people with common occupation" (c. 1500), and "generation" (1540s). The meaning developed via the sense of "tribe, nation, or people regarded as of common stock" to "an ethnical stock, one of the great divisions of mankind having in common certain physical peculiarities" by 1774 (though as OED points out, even among anthropologists there never has been an accepted classification of these). In 19c. also "a group regarded as forming a distinctive ethnic stock" (German, Greeks, etc.).

Just being a Negro doesn't qualify you to understand the race situation any more than being sick makes you an expert on medicine. [Dick Gregory, 1964]

In mid-20c. U.S. music catalogues, it means "Negro." Old English þeode meant both "race, folk, nation" and "language;" as a verb, geþeodan meant "to unite, to join." Race-consciousness "social consciousness," whether in reference to the human race or one of the larger ethnic divisions, is attested by 1873; race-relations is attested by 1897. Race theory "assertion that some racial groups are endowed with qualities deemed superior" is by 1894.
Related entries & more
 
race (v.)
c. 1200, rasen "to rush," from a Scandinavian source akin to the source of race (n.1), reinforced by the noun in English and by Old English cognate ræsan "to rush headlong, hasten, enter rashly." Transitive meaning "run swiftly" is from 1757. Meaning "run against in a competition of speed" is from 1809. Transitive sense of "cause to run" is from 1860. In reference to an engine, etc., "run with uncontrolled speed," from 1862; transitive sense is by 1932. Related: Raced; racing.
Related entries & more
 
race (n.3)
[strong current of water] c. 1300, more or less a particular sense of race (n.1), which then denoted any forward movement or swift running, from Old Norse ras in its sense of "a rushing of water." Via Norman French the word entered French as ras, which might have given English race its specialized meaning of "channel of a stream" (especially an artificial one, to a mill, etc.), which is recorded in English from 1560s.
Related entries & more
 
racing (n.)
"the running of races, the occupation or business of arranging for or carrying on races," originally especially horse races, 1670s, verbal noun from race (v.).
Related entries & more
 
Advertisement

arms race (n.)
1930, in reference to naval build-ups, from arms (see arm (n.2)) + race (n.1). First used in British English.
Related entries & more
 
foot-race (n.)
"race run between persons on foot," 1660s, from foot (n.) + race (n.1).
Related entries & more
 
horse-race (n.)
also horserace, 1580s, from horse (n.) + race (n.1). Related: Horse-racing.
Related entries & more
 
race-track (n.)
"a race-course, the path over which a race is run," 1814, from race (n.1) + track (n.).
Related entries & more
 
race-course (n.)
1764, "plot of ground laid out for horse racing," usually elliptical and with accommodations for participants and spectators, from race (n.1) + course (n.). Meaning "canal along which water is conveyed to or from a water wheel" is by 1841.
Related entries & more
 

Trending words

Thursday, 2 November 2023

The Lost Art of Forehead-Sweat

Ronald Reagan says 'sorry' to Margaret Thatcher 
in private phone call

In 1983 President Reagan apologised to The P.M. after 
The U.S. invaded Grenada – a Commonwealth country – 
without giving her advance warning. 

This newly released tape recording of 
a private telephone call between them 
reveals the conversation.



Spiritual Engagement

Studio 60 on Sunset strip - Have a little faith in me

“ ‘It’s all going to be over real soon’….?
Those are the words of encouragement 
they give you, just before —