I had a girl in here once [at the Planned Parenthood Clinic] - 'bout fifteen.She told me that
Faith is like a glass of water.
When you're young,
The Glass is full, and
it's easy to fill up.
But the older you get,
the bigger The Glass gets,
and the same amount of water
doesn't fill The Glassanymore.
Periodically,
The Glass has to be refilled.
BETHANY :
A fifteen year old who came in here said that?
LIZ : She had gotten knocked up by her pastor.
BETHANY : Jesus! See?
A minister knocks up a teenager
— isn't anyone afraid of The Lord's wrath anymore?
LIZ : •That• would require Faith, and THAT commodity lately seems reserved only for the psychotic zealots that hang around outside HERE.
Except — ah! Except children. Children can hear it sometimes. If their hearts are in the right place, and the stars are too, children can hear your name. Argh! But nobody else. Nobody else, ever.
Experiment Five -- Human resistance to fluid deprivation.
Data : Subject died after nine days, seven hours.
Impairment ofmental faculties, motor reflexes
and physical coordination noted after only threedays.
Conclusion :
Dependence on Fluid is a significantweakness,
which should be exploited in our attack -- as a rider to
the above, We should also like to take into account
the successfulconclusion of Experiment-Four,
where immersion in the fluid H2O
produced asphyxiation in less than three minutes.
(During this speech, Harry started
to creep up on Styre, but The Doctor
put his hand over his mouth then beckoned him away.)
Conclusion :
This species has littleresistance
to immersion in liquids --
Surg. Lt. Harry Sullivan :
Why on Earth is Styre torturing people?
Tom :
He's making an assessment
of Human physical
limitations.
Sontarans are a very methodical people,
and that might give us a slight advantage.....
Experiment Seven --
Subject : Human Female.
Pro-ject : Resistance to Fear —
“Lobster is essentially a summer food. This is because we now prefer our lobsters fresh, which means they have to be recently caught, which for both tactical and economic reasons takes place at depths less than 25 fathoms. Lobsters tend to be hungriest and most active (i.e., most trappable) at summer water temperatures of 45-50 degrees. In the autumn, most Maine lobsters migrate out into deeper water, either for warmth or to avoid the heavy waves that pound New England’s coast all winter. Some burrow into the bottom. They might hibernate; nobody’s sure. Summer is also lobsters’ molting season — specifically early- to mid-July. Chitinous arthropods grow by molting, rather the way people have to buy bigger clothes as they age and gain weight. Since lobsters can live to be over 100, they can also get to be quite large, as in 30 pounds or more — though truly senior lobsters are rare now because New England’s waters are so heavily trapped. 7
Anyway, hence the culinary distinction between hard- and soft-shell lobsters, the latter sometimes a.k.a. shedders. A soft-shell lobster is one that has recently molted. In midcoast restaurants, the summer menu often offers both kinds, with shedders being slightly cheaper even though they’re easier to dismantle and the meat is allegedly sweeter. The reason for the discount is that a molting lobster uses a layer of seawater for insulation while its new shell is hardening, so there’s slightly less actual meat when you crack open a shedder, plus a redolent gout of water that gets all over everything and can sometimes jet outlemonlike and catch a tablemate right in the eye. If it’s winter or you’re buying lobster someplace far from New England, on the other hand, you can almost bet that the lobster is a hard-shell, which for obvious reasons travel better.
As an à la carte entrée, lobster can be baked, broiled, steamed, grilled, sautéed, stir-fried, or microwaved. The most common method, though, is boiling. If you’re someone who enjoys having lobster at home, this is probably the way you do it, since boiling is so easy. You need a large kettle w/ cover, which you fill about half full with water (the standard advice is that you want 2.5 quarts of water per lobster). Seawater is optimal, or you can add two tbsp salt per quart from the tap. It also helps to know how much your lobsters weigh. You get the water boiling, put in the lobsters one at a time, cover the kettle, and bring it back up to a boil. Then you bank the heat and let the kettle simmer—ten minutes for the first pound of lobster, then three minutes for each pound after that. (This is assuming you’ve got hard-shell lobsters, which, again, if you don’t live between Boston and Halifax is probably what you’ve got. For shedders, you’re supposed to subtract three minutes from the total.) The reason the kettle’s lobsters turn scarlet is that boiling somehow suppresses every pigment in their chitin but one. If you want an easy test of whether the lobsters are done, you try pulling on one of their antennae — if it comes out of the head with minimal effort, you’re ready to eat.
A detail so obvious that most recipes don’t even bother to mention it is that each lobster is supposed to be alivewhen you put it in the kettle. This is part of lobster’s modern appeal — it’s the freshest food there is. There’s no decomposition between harvesting and eating. And not only do lobsters require no cleaning or dressing or plucking, they’re relatively easy for vendors to keep alive. They come up alive in the traps, are placed in containers of seawater, and can—so long as the water’s aerated and the animals’ claws are pegged or banded to keep them from tearing one another up under the stresses of captivity 8 — survive right up until they’re boiled. Most of us have been in supermarkets or restaurants that feature tanks of live lobsters, from which you can pick out your supper while it watches you point. And part of the overall spectacle of the Maine Lobster Festival is that you can see actual lobstermen’s vessels docking at the wharves along the northeast grounds and unloading fresh-caught product, which is transferred by hand or cart 150 yards to the great clear tanks stacked up around the festival’s cooker—which is, as mentioned, billed as the World’s Largest Lobster Cooker and can process over 100 lobsters at a time for the Main Eating Tent. So then here is a question that’s all but unavoidable at the World’s Largest Lobster Cooker, and may arise in kitchens across the US: Is it all right to boil a sentient creature alive just for our gustatory pleasure? A related set of concerns: Is the previous question irksomely PC or sentimental? What does “all right” even mean in this context? Is the whole thing just a matter of personal choice? As you may or may not know, a certain well-known group called People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals thinks that the morality of lobster-boiling is not just a matter of individual conscience. In fact, one of the very first things we hear about the MLF … well, to set the scene: We’re coming in by cab from the almost indescribably odd and rustic Knox County Airport 9 very late on the night before the festival opens, sharing the cab with a wealthy political consultant who lives on Vinalhaven Island in the bay half the year (he’s headed for the island ferry in Rockland). The consultant and cabdriver are responding to informal journalistic probes about how people who live in the midcoast region actually view the MLF, as in is the festival just a big-dollar tourist thing or is it something local residents look forward to attending, take genuine civic pride in, etc. The cabdriver (who’s in his seventies, one of apparently a whole platoon of retirees the cab company puts on to help with the summer rush, and wears a US-flag lapel pin, and drives in what can only be called a very deliberate way) assures us that locals do endorse and enjoy the MLF, although he himself hasn’t gone in years, and now come to think of it no one he and his wife know has, either. However, the demilocal consultant’s been to recent festivals a couple times (one gets the impression it was at his wife’s behest), of which his most vivid impression was that “you have to line up for an ungodly long time to get your lobsters, and meanwhile there are all these ex-flower children coming up and down along the line handing out pamphlets that say the lobsters die in terrible pain and you shouldn’t eat them.” And it turns out that the post-hippies of the consultant’s recollection were activists from PETA. There were no PETA people in obvious view at the 2003 MLF, 10 but they’ve been conspicuous at many of the recent festivals. Since at least the mid-1990s, articles in everything from the Camden Herald to the New York Times have described PETA urging boycotts of the Maine Lobster Festival, often deploying celebrity spokesmen like Mary Tyler Moore for open letters and ads saying stuff like “Lobsters are extraordinarily sensitive” and “To me, eating a lobster is out of the question.” More concrete is the oral testimony of Dick, our florid and extremely gregarious rental-car liaison, 11 to the effect that PETA’s been around so much during recent years that a kind of brittlely tolerant homeostasis now obtains between the activists and the festival’s locals, e.g.: “We had some incidents a couple years ago. One lady took most of her clothes off and painted herself like a lobster, almost got herself arrested. But for the most part they’re let alone. [Rapid series of small ambiguous laughs, which with Dick happens a lot.] They do their thing and we do our thing.” This whole interchange takes place on Route 1, 30 July, during a four-mile, 50-minute ride from the airport 12 to the dealership to sign car-rental papers. Several irreproducible segues down the road from the PETA anecdotes, Dick—whose son-in-law happens to be a professional lobsterman and one of the Main Eating Tent’s regular suppliers—explains what he and his family feel is the crucial mitigating factor in the whole morality-of-boiling-lobsters-alive issue: “There’s a part of the brain in people and animals that lets us feel pain, and lobsters’ brains don’t have this part.” Besides the fact that it’s incorrect in about nine different ways, the main reason Dick’s statement is interesting is that its thesis is more or less echoed by the festival’s own pronouncement on lobsters and pain, which is part of a Test Your Lobster IQ quiz that appears in the 2003 MLF program courtesy of the Maine Lobster Promotion Council: The nervous system of a lobster is very simple, and is in fact most similar to the nervous system of the grasshopper. It is decentralized with no brain. There is no cerebral cortex, which in humans is the area of the brain that gives the experience of pain. Though it sounds more sophisticated, a lot of the neurology in this latter claim is still either false or fuzzy. The human cerebral cortex is the brain-part that deals with higher faculties like reason, metaphysical self-awareness, language, etc. Pain reception is known to be part of a much older and more primitive system of nociceptors and prostaglandins that are managed by the brain stem and thalamus. 13 On the other hand, it is true that the cerebral cortex is involved in what’s variously called suffering, distress, or the emotional experience of pain—i.e., experiencing painful stimuli as unpleasant, very unpleasant, unbearable, and so on. Before we go any further, let’s acknowledge that the questions of whether and how different kinds of animals feel pain, and of whether and why it might be justifiable to inflict pain on them in order to eat them, turn out to be extremely complex and difficult. And comparative neuroanatomy is only part of the problem. Since pain is a totally subjective mental experience, we do not have direct access to anyone or anything’s pain but our own; and even just the principles by which we can infer that other human beings experience pain and have a legitimate interest in not feeling pain involve hard-core philosophy—metaphysics, epistemology, value theory, ethics. The fact that even the most highly evolved nonhuman mammals can’t use language to communicate with us about their subjective mental experience is only the first layer of additional complication in trying to extend our reasoning about pain and morality to animals. And everything gets progressively more abstract and convolved as we move farther and farther out from the higher-type mammals into cattle and swine and dogs and cats and rodents, and then birds and fish, and finally invertebrates like lobsters. The more important point here, though, is that the whole animal-cruelty-and-eating issue is not just complex, it’s also uncomfortable. It is, at any rate, uncomfortable for me, and for just about everyone I know who enjoys a variety of foods and yet does not want to see herself as cruel or unfeeling. As far as I can tell, my own main way of dealing with this conflict has been to avoid thinking about the whole unpleasant thing. I should add that it appears to me unlikely that many readers of Gourmet wish to think about it, either, or to be queried about the morality of their eating habits in the pages of a culinary monthly. Since, however, the assigned subject of this article is what it was like to attend the 2003 MLF, and thus to spend several days in the midst of a great mass of Americans all eating lobster, and thus to be more or less impelled to think hard about lobster and the experience of buying and eating lobster, it turns out that there is no honest way to avoid certain moral questions. There are several reasons for this. For one thing, it’s not just that lobsters get boiled alive, it’s that you do it yourself—or at least it’s done specifically for you, on-site. 14 As mentioned, the World’s Largest Lobster Cooker, which is highlighted as an attraction in the festival’s program, is right out there on the MLF’s north grounds for everyone to see. Try to imagine a Nebraska Beef Festival 15 at which part of the festivities is watching trucks pull up and the live cattle get driven down the ramp and slaughtered right there on the World’s Largest Killing Floor or something—there’s no way. The intimacy of the whole thing is maximized at home, which of course is where most lobster gets prepared and eaten (although note already the semiconscious euphemism “prepared,” which in the case of lobsters really means killing them right there in our kitchens). The basic scenario is that we come in from the store and make our little preparations like getting the kettle filled and boiling, and then we lift the lobsters out of the bag or whatever retail container they came home in … whereupon some uncomfortable things start to happen. However stuporous a lobster is from the trip home, for instance, it tends to come alarmingly to life when placed in boiling water. If you’re tilting it from a container into the steaming kettle, the lobster will sometimes try to cling to the container’s sides or even to hook its claws over the kettle’s rim like a person trying to keep from going over the edge of a roof. And worse is when the lobster’s fully immersed. Even if you cover the kettle and turn away, you can usually hear the cover rattling and clanking as the lobster tries to push it off. Or the creature’s claws scraping the sides of the kettle as it thrashes around. The lobster, in other words, behaves very much as you or I would behave if we were plunged into boiling water (with the obvious exception of screaming 16 ). A blunter way to say this is that the lobster acts as if it’s in terrible pain, causing some cooks to leave the kitchen altogether and to take one of those little lightweight plastic oven-timers with them into another room and wait until the whole process is over. There happen to be two main criteria that most ethicists agree on for determining whether a living creature has the capacity to suffer and so has genuine interests that it may or may not be our moral duty to consider. 17 One is how much of the neurological hardware required for pain-experience the animal comes equipped with—nociceptors, prostaglandins, neuronal opioid receptors, etc. The other criterion is whether the animal demonstrates behavior associated with pain. And it takes a lot of intellectual gymnastics and behaviorist hairsplitting not to see struggling, thrashing, and lid-clattering as just such pain-behavior. According to marine zoologists, it usually takes lobsters between 35 and 45 seconds to die in boiling water. (No source I could find talks about how long it takes them to die in superheated steam; one rather hopes it’s faster.) There are, of course, other ways to kill your lobster on-site and so achieve maximum freshness. Some cooks’ practice is to drive a sharp heavy knife point-first into a spot just above the midpoint between the lobster’s eyestalks (more or less where the Third Eye is in human foreheads). This is alleged either to kill the lobster instantly or to render it insensate, and is said at least to eliminate some of the cowardice involved in throwing a creature into boiling water and then fleeing the room. As far as I can tell from talking to proponents of the knife-in-head method, the idea is that it’s more violent but ultimately more merciful, plus that a willingness to exert personal agency and accept responsibility for stabbing the lobster’s head honors the lobster somehow and entitles one to eat it (there’s often a vague sort of Native American spirituality-of-the-hunt flavor to pro-knife arguments). But the problem with the knife method is basic biology: Lobsters’ nervous systems operate off not one but several ganglia, a.k.a. nerve bundles, which are sort of wired in series and distributed all along the lobster’s underside, from stem to stern. And disabling only the frontal ganglion does not normally result in quick death or unconsciousness. Another alternative is to put the lobster in cold saltwater and then very slowly bring it up to a full boil. Cooks who advocate this method are going on the analogy to a frog, which can supposedly be kept from jumping out of a boiling pot by heating the water incrementally. In order to save a lot of research-summarizing, I’ll simply assure you that the analogy between frogs and lobsters turns out not to hold—plus, if the kettle’s water isn’t aerated seawater, the immersed lobster suffers from slow suffocation, although usually not decisive enough suffocation to keep it from still thrashing and clattering when the water gets hot enough to kill it. In fact, lobsters boiled incrementally often display a whole bonus set of gruesome, convulsionlike reactions that you don’t see in regular boiling. Ultimately, the only certain virtues of the home-lobotomy and slow-heating methods are comparative, because there are even worse/crueler ways people prepare lobster. Time-thrifty cooks sometimes microwave them alive (usually after poking several vent-holes in the carapace, which is a precaution most shellfish-microwavers learn about the hard way). Live dismemberment, on the other hand, is big in Europe—some chefs cut the lobster in half before cooking; others like to tear off the claws and tail and toss only these parts into the pot. And there’s more unhappy news respecting suffering-criterion number one. Lobsters don’t have much in the way of eyesight or hearing, but they do have an exquisite tactile sense, one facilitated by hundreds of thousands of tiny hairs that protrude through their carapace. “Thus it is,” in the words of T. M. Prudden’s industry classic About Lobster, “that although encased in what seems a solid, impenetrable armor, the lobster can receive stimuli and impressions from without as readily as if it possessed a soft and delicate skin.” And lobsters do have nociceptors, 18 as well as invertebrate versions of the prostaglandins and major neurotransmitters via which our own brains register pain. Lobsters do not, on the other hand, appear to have the equipment for making or absorbing natural opioids like endorphins and enkephalins, which are what more advanced nervous systems use to try to handle intense pain. From this fact, though, one could conclude either that lobsters are maybe even more vulnerable to pain, since they lack mammalian nervous systems’ built-in analgesia, or, instead, that the absence of natural opioids implies an absence of the really intense pain-sensations that natural opioids are designed to mitigate. I for one can detect a marked upswing in mood as I contemplate this latter possibility. It could be that their lack of endorphin/enkephalin hardware means that lobsters’ raw subjective experience of pain is so radically different from mammals’ that it may not even deserve the term “pain.” Perhaps lobsters are more like those frontal-lobotomy patients one reads about who report experiencing pain in a totally different way than you and I. These patients evidently do feel physical pain, neurologically speaking, but don’t dislike it—though neither do they like it; it’s more that they feel it but don’t feel anything about it—the point being that the pain is not distressing to them or something they want to get away from. Maybe lobsters, who are also without frontal lobes, are detached from the neurological-registration-of-injury-or-hazard we call pain in just the same way. There is, after all, a difference between (1) pain as a purely neurological event, and (2) actual suffering, which seems crucially to involve an emotional component, an awareness of pain as unpleasant, as something to fear/dislike/want to avoid. Still, after all the abstract intellection, there remain the facts of the frantically clanking lid, the pathetic clinging to the edge of the pot. Standing at the stove, it is hard to deny in any meaningful way that this is a living creature experiencing pain and wishing to avoid/escape the painful experience. To my lay mind, the lobster’s behavior in the kettle appears to be the expression of a preference; and it may well be that an ability to form preferences is the decisive criterion for real suffering. 19 The logic of this (preference [[Right arrow]] suffering) relation may be easiest to see in the negative case. If you cut certain kinds of worms in half, the halves will often keep crawling around and going about their vermiform business as if nothing had happened. When we assert, based on their post-op behavior, that these worms appear not to be suffering, what we’re really saying is that there’s no sign the worms know anything bad has happened or would prefer not to have gotten cut in half. Lobsters, though, are known to exhibit preferences. Experiments have shown that they can detect changes of only a degree or two in water temperature; one reason for their complex migratory cycles (which can often cover 100-plus miles a year) is to pursue the temperatures they like best. 20 And, as mentioned, they’re bottom-dwellers and do not like bright light—if a tank of food-lobsters is out in the sunlight or a store’s fluorescence, the lobsters will always congregate in whatever part is darkest. Fairly solitary in the ocean, they also clearly dislike the crowding that’s part of their captivity in tanks, since (as also mentioned) one reason why lobsters’ claws are banded on capture is to keep them from attacking one another under the stress of close-quarter storage. In any event, at the MLF, standing by the bubbling tanks outside the World’s Largest Lobster Cooker, watching the fresh-caught lobsters pile over one another, wave their hobbled claws impotently, huddle in the rear corners, or scrabble frantically back from the glass as you approach, it is difficult not to sense that they’re unhappy, or frightened, even if it’s some rudimentary version of these feelings … and, again, why does rudimentariness even enter into it? Why is a primitive, inarticulate form of suffering less urgent or uncomfortable for the person who’s helping to inflict it by paying for the food it results in? I’m not trying to give you a PETA-like screed here—at least I don’t think so. I’m trying, rather, to work out and articulate some of the troubling questions that arise amid all the laughter and saltation and community pride of the Maine Lobster Festival. The truth is that if you, the festival attendee, permit yourself to think that lobsters can suffer and would rather not, the MLF begins to take on the aspect of something like a Roman circus or medieval torture-fest. Does that comparison seem a bit much? If so, exactly why? Or what about this one: Is it possible that future generations will regard our present agribusiness and eating practices in much the same way we now view Nero’s entertainments or Mengele’s experiments?
My own initial reaction is that such a comparison is hysterical, extreme — and yet the reason it seems extreme to me appears to be that I believe animals areless morally important than human beings; 21 and when it comes to defending such a belief, even to myself,
I have to acknowledge that,
(a) I have an obviousselfish interest in this belief, since I like to eat certain kinds of animals and want to be able to keep doing it;
and ,
(b) I haven’t succeeded in working out any sort of personal ethical system in which the belief is truly defensible instead of just selfishly convenient.
Given this article’s venue and my own lack of culinary sophistication, I’m curious about whether the reader can identify with any of these reactions and acknowledgments and discomforts. I’m also concerned not to come off as shrill or preachy when what I really am is more like confused.
For those Gourmet readers who enjoy well-prepared and -presented meals involving beef, veal, lamb, pork, chicken, lobster, etc.: Do you think much about the (possible) moral status and (probable) suffering of the animals involved? If you do, what ethical convictions have you worked out that permit you not just to eat but to savor and enjoy flesh-based viands (since of course refinedenjoyment, rather than mere ingestion, is the whole point of gastronomy)?
If, on the other hand, you’ll have no truck with confusions or convictions and regard stuff like the previous paragraph as just so much fatuous navel-gazing, what makes it feel trulyokay, inside, to just dismiss the whole thing out of hand?
That is, is your refusal to think about any of this the product of actual thought, or is it just that you don’t want to think about it? And if the latter, then why not? Do you ever think, even idly, about the possible reasonsfor your reluctance to think about it? I am not trying to bait anyone here — I’m genuinelycurious. After all, isn’t being extra aware and attentive and thoughtful about one’s food and its overall context part of what distinguishes a realgourmet? Or is all the gourmet’s extra attention and sensibility just supposed to be sensuous? Is it really all just a matter of taste and presentation?
These last few queries, though, while sincere, obviously involve much larger and more abstract questions about the connections (if any) between aesthetics and morality — about what the adjective in a phrase like “The Magazine of Good Living” is reallysupposed to mean— and these questions lead straightaway into such deep and treacherous waters that it’s probably best to stop the public discussion right here.
There are limits to what even interested persons can ask of each other.
“Anorexia nervosa is often regarded primarily as a disorder of the body image, with affected individuals submitting themselves to the dictate of a predominant model of slenderness.
However, even though this frequently functions as a gateway to the disorder, the paper intends
to show that the actual conflict
in anorexia consists in
a fundamental alienation
of The Self from The Body.
In order to analyse this alienation from a phenomenological point of view, the paper introduces the polarity of lived body (body-as-subject) and physical body (body-as-object).
It then explores the phenomenology of anorexia, drawing on characteristic self-reports as well as on the phenomenological, psychoanalytic and cultural science literature.
The anorexic conflict of embodiment arises in adolescence, where The Body becomes an object of The Other’s gaze in a special way.
Starting with an attempt to comply with the ideal body image, the anorexic patient increasingly fights against her dependency on her body and its uncontrollable nature, above all its hunger and femininity.
To be in total control
of Her Body and to gain
independencefrom it,
becomes the source of
a narcissistic triumph.
Thus, in striving for autonomy and perfection, the anorexic patient alienatesherself
from her embodiment.
This results in a radical dualism of ‘mind’ and ‘body’: pursuing The Ideal of an asexual, angelic, even disappearingbody.
but the fact that people will line up to to engage voluntar voluntarily in a ritual activity of that sort is a manifestation of something that's very deep in the human psyche that we do not comprehend well we're not really smart enough to understand why people would line up for four nights for 10 blocks to watch Star Wars you know I mean they won't do that for a lecture and they wouldn't pay money
One of the things that your brain
is veryconcerned with
is relativestatus —
That's wired-in, by the
way, which is partlywhy
relative poverty is often
such a social problem —
People hate being Low in status, especiallyMen.
Well, the male status hierarchy is a bit different
than women and Women are
pretty sensitive to Status, too,
but they use different markers ,
anyways part of what happens when your status goes up is your brain serotonin levels go up and when your brain serotonin levels go up you're less irritable and and you experience less negative emotion per unit of uncertainty or threat and so when you you know when you demean someone and you interfere with and you lower the their presumed status as far as a very primordial circuit is concerned you alter the system that regulates their emotions and they hate that people hate that more than anything and it's an unbelievably archaic circuit you can kind of tell this because depressed people basically act like their low status and depressed people are depressed about everything now it's not easy to be depressed about everything right and so the fact that that's the case means that what's ever gone astray has to be very primordial because it affects everything anyways people often use anti-depressants to cure depression hence their name um and anti-depressants decrease the rate at which serotonin is taken back up by the neurons that produce it well 300 million years ago Crustaceans emerged and Crustaceans live in dominance hierarchies even though they're not particularly social and if one Lobster fights with another and gets defeated then he won't fight with another Lobster even when he beat for 20 minutes unless you give man depressants in which case he'll fight again right away the reason I'm telling you this is because the status structure that underlies your being not just your brain but your being is is so old you share it with Crustaceans it's necessary for you to look at the world through a limited frame of reference your Consciousness can only handle about four bits of information per second it's not not very much given that the number of bits of information coming at you from the external world are for all practical purposes infinite you're like eldis Huxley suggested your brain seem to be primarily a reducing agent your body's a reducing agent as well because there are lots of things that you just can't detect and then the room that you're sitting in is a reducing agent because it's keeping all sorts of things out that you would otherwise have to deal with and the stability of this city is a reducing agent because we're not going to be stamped by barbarians with any luck at every moment or any moment we we deal with the complexity of the world in part by inhabiting a sequence of reducing structures until the world is reduced enough so that we can actually deal with the minute elements of it that we can comprehend at any one moment and those elements we comprehend um are not the familiar objects of objective reality in fact animals and people included aren't much interested in objective reality um we're interested in pragmatic reality and pragmatic reality is the reality that you act on not that you perceive and because we're embedded in bodies and because we're biological organisms and because we're concerned with survival and reproduction among other things how to act is a much more important much more important question for us than what is the world constituted of so the world that we inhabit given that we're alive and given that what selected us selected us to act is actually a pragmatic world and the objects of pragmatic worlds aren't objects they're tools and obstacles and they have veilance a priority they're they have value a priority from the Newtonian perspective you look at the world and then you think about world that you see the objects of the world that you see and then you evaluate them and then you act and that is not how your brain works it's just wrong um you might see the value of things before you see the object itself I mean there are people for example who are blind they have blind sight they can recognize emotions on faces without knowing they can see so that's partly because their retinas are attached to the amydala your retina is attached a lot of your body not just your vision ual cortex it's attached to your spinal cord it's attached to your nervous system at multiple levels of analysis simultaneously and so you can use your eyes to detect things that you don't know you're seeing so and what in in some sense what you often detect under those circumstances is veilance value so you're very good for example at detecting teeth and predatory eyes and the reasons for that are self-evident fundamentally this
Cruel Mercy : Halpen's punishment for lobotomizing and enslaving the Ood is... to become one himself. Ood Sigma even says that they will take care of him.
Perfect-10 : Funny thing, the subconscious. Takes all sorts of shapes. It came out in the red eye as revenge, it came out in the rabid Ood as anger, and then there was patience. All that intelligence and mercy focused on Ood-Sigma. How's that hair loss, Mr. Halpen?
Defeat by Transformation: Mr Halpern's final attempts to squash the Ood rebellion are brought up short when Ood Sigma reveals that the "hair tonics" that he's been drinking all this time have been infusions of Ood DNA. Over the course of the next few seconds, Halpern is transformed into another Ood - even sneezing out his brains - the episode ending with him fully assimilated into the ranks of the Ood slaves that have retaken the planet.
RANI: But The Rest of The World, Mum and Dad and everyone else, they've moved on from here, forwards in time.
Why has The Trickster trapped us here?
Perfect-10 : Oh, come on, Rani. You know The Answer to that.
RANI: We're Sarah Jane's friends, all of us. Her best friends.
Perfect-10 : Yeah. Which means?
RANI: Hostages. He can use us to get at her.
CLYDE: We've metThe Tricksterbefore,
but we've never found out who he is.
Perfect-10 : The Trickster is a creature from beyond The Universe. Forever trying to break in to Our Reality, manifest himself. He's one of The Pantheon of Discord.
CLYDE: That's a good name for A Band.
Perfect-10 : (frowns, approvingly) Yeah, actually, not bad.
He's an eternal exile, who exists to wreak havoc.
But we can fight him, the five of us. And We can win.
(His sonic screwdriver starts beeping.)
Perfect-10 : Oh! Ha, that's it. A time trace.
Just a hint of Sarah Jane. Ooo, she's close.
[Wedding room]
SJS : The Momentyou put that
ring on my finger, I was your puppet.
PETER: It isn't like that.
It was in case something went wrong.
The Angel said that people would try
and stop us being happy. Listen, I'll explain.
SJS : 'The Angel'? Of course.
I saw him. The Trickster!
PETER: Sarah Jane?
[Hotel reception]
SJS: Doctor, where are you?
(Sarah Jane walks through what is to her an empty area. Rani shivers.)
RANI: What was that? Felt like someone just walked over my grave.
