The Man who is Thursday- communication, creativity and The Mighty Snore.

         
           

                                       Asgard: remarkably dull, considering.

     The late film critic Roger Ebert described 2011's Thor as: "a failure as a movie, but a success as marketing". Indeed, with the talent involved and the basic interest from the fans of the comic it was never going to be a particularly difficult sell. Yet it was rubbish. It lacked almost anything of interest. Dull scene after dull scene ponderously dripped into the expensive production barrel which was then dutifully scraped.
     However, clearly a lot of people enjoyed it and Ebert also pointed out how well the film was doing on Rotten Tomatoes, so why bother to complain? Why not just set fire to the memory of it and let this dead film drift off to Valhalla? Because it could have been a whole lot better. Because Thor might have been mightier. Because with just a little understanding of creativity, we might have some shoots of wonder amongst this technically proficient but sterile tent-pole event. Something better.
       
     As everything basically works as: Information ----------> Idea, if you want to be creative then look for ideas that are interesting.   You're looking for something that the audience won't have thought of but that comes naturally from the basic information you're working with. To put it another way, when I read a story or watch a film I don't want to see something that I could have done.
    To take a simple example; if you are writing a story about Thor coming to Earth then one  connected idea would be that there is a day of the week named after this guy.  Why wouldn't someone mention this? How could a screen-writer not want to put it in to offer something better than the turgid interaction served up throughout ? You could play it straight or for laughs.  Would Thor know he had a day of the week named after him? Would he be pleased or annoyingly smug about it? Or would he have no knowledge of any of this and demand that all days of the week be named after him. Would he start complaining that Jupiter didn't exist? Or rage to discover that his father has the power of yesterday? Couldn't he possibly do something more interesting than get runover  or hit people ?
    Speaking of Odin, why not try and do something interesting with this character who, after all, is the god of magic! Instead of Anthony Hopkins phoning in the role from Port Talbot why not use this great actor to portray a more interesting character?  You might have Odin as a cosmic Keyser Soze who manipulates everybody and everything in order to rid Asgard of the Frost Giant threat. He anticipates what Loki will do, and what Thor will do in reaction to that, and the banishment to Earth is simply a way to train Thor to think outside the god-box; by coping with the ways of men he can use his new skills to out-wit the Frost Giants. Cosmic politics don't allow Odin to take action, so he must set up his pawns without appearing to be anywhere near the board. Any of this is more interesting than the basic "You were naughty Thor, and now you're grounded...on Earth!" we are subjected to. You might even want to suggest that there's a special reason why the seemingly omniscient Nick Fury wears an eye-patch.....
    Asgard itself appears as if designed by Albert Speer and the general Triumph of the Will aesthetic is matched by the specific Defeat of the Will experienced by the viewer. Wouldn't the whole realm, and film, have been  simply improved with a Gilliamesque tone? The Asgardians farting and carousing, attempting to outdo each other in feats of strength, as Odin looks on and mutters: "As above so below." Humans are rubbish because their gods are rubbish. Now there's an interesting idea.
   
   On Earth, the scientists who run into Thor are a pretty rubbish bunch as well. Natalie Portman, whose character seemingly is just a pretty face,  shows no interest whatsoever in the film's only interesting idea: "Where I come from, magic and science are the same thing." Now, if I were sitting listening to Thor say this, I would agree with him because everything is basically communication so therefore magic and science are the same thing. However, Ms Portman doesn't respond to this controversial concept largely because the movie needs to make space for Thor to beat some people up in a way we've seen a thousand times before.
  . As there is the god of thunder in their midst,there is also the missed opportunity for one of these scientists to comment on the fact that how lightning works is still largely a mystery. With that you could have Thor just say, "it works like this..." or alternatively you might have Thor smile and say: "I don't know either !"
    Overall, and as is usual in these kinds of movies, the scientists show surprisingly little interest in the living god now amongst them. It is possible that this scenario is just the result of a society that cares little for asking and checking, that is quite happy that Bela Lugosi is dead, but when the older male scientist  bizarrely disses the great science writer Arthur C. Clarke we can clearly see that the characters stupidity is directly connected to the writers'/producers' ignorance.
     Beyond that,  a great opportunity is blown for this scientist and Thor to have comical scenes in a bar. Are we presented with Thor wrestling with Karaoke? Or even a decent drinking competition? No and no. You put the god of thunder into a bar on Earth and nothing of note happens. You're really not trying very hard are you?
     Of course, the god of thunder's story was really brought to you by the god of money and he doesn't usually allow a good story to get in the way of profit. Naturally, his wrath was appeased by the success of the first movie and now Hollywood has strained itself to produce a new length of product. Thor 2 is on its way. 
    Surely there's a chance here to do something interesting ? With the basic information established that the Norse god Thor is real and on Earth, and has been clearly, to all news media,  helping to save the very world itself as part of the Avengers, what interesting ideas should be naturally following from all this?
   Shouldn't we have some interesting scenes where the Vatican and Pat Robertson and the Saudi government have to come to terms with the fact that god exists, and he's not theirs.  Inevitably, ordinary believers of all religions would start to worship Thor. Wouldn't they? Organised religion would be in a massive crisis. How would they deal with it? Make a deal with the Devil?

   Unfortunately, I think the new movie will have none of this, and more of Thor hitting people. I'd put money on it.

Moon River.

 

                                    Wherever you're going I'm going your way.        
         
         
                The murky brown waters of the canal near Yokohama Station contain a lot more action than the casual observer might at first notice. There`s the usual carp, but also some pied wagtails and the odd duck. Crabs claw a living from the concrete banks and very occasionally a lost frog will attempt the survival course of rusted bicycles and dead umbrellas.         
                All through the year the waters offer the opportunity to observe a rich variety of discarded plastic bags and pieces of paper, but right now, those who are not giving a second glance to the flapping white vinyl and sodden flyers will in fact be missing the chance to have a look at some real natural beauties. Because at this time of year the river is visited by Moon Jellyfish.        
               The Jellies arrive silently in the canal like lost aliens. I used to wonder why the Jellies decided to swim up the canal. Where were they going ? What did they want?  Was this phenomenon something like salmon who return to their spawning grounds?        
              In fact, I was missing some important information about Jellyfish in general that meant that my ideas were only so much nonsense, because it turns out that Jellyfish are just a nervous system without a brain and, as such, literally go with the flow. The Jellies don't want  to go up the canal, it's just where they end up. All the other Jellyfish who remain in Tokyo Bay probably have a much better time of it, although as they have no brains, those in the Bay never get the chance to feel that smug.
              Mind you, God/Evolution/Explanation of choice  has seen to it that the lack-of-brain situation has been silver-lined by the fact that the Moon Jellyfish has four gonads that are all shaped like horse-shoes. This can only be described as lucky.          
         Although having said that, I did observe once on the canal a Moon Jellyfish meet a terrible fate at the hands of a crab who, considering the usual pickings along the concrete banks, must have thought that Christmas had come early. 
         Now, I am well aware that most scientists would be in agreement that crabs do not celebrate Christmas, but it's always worth remembering that scientists have been wrong before.  In 1957, the Astronomer Royal of the U.K. Sir Harold Spencer Jones said that: "Space travel is bunk." Twelve years later, Neil Armstrong was taking his one small step.  In a world were we've been to the Moon, doesn't the idea of crabs celebrating the birth of Christ actually become more reasonable?       
         In the spirit of questioning, is there any evidence that crabs don't celebrate Christmas?    
         So for sceptics, I offer the following information and ask simply: Is there a better explanation for why crabs are so nuts about Christmas Island ?

                                 

        We easily anthropomorphosise. Certainly, it's easier to do than spell, but it's difficult to see that crab in the road on Christmas Island without thinking of a frustrated hitch-hiker or someone trying to cross a dangerously busy highway. Seeing ourselves in other creatures is the natural result of the human ability to communicate.       
        Last year, as I stood at the canal-side one day, I noticed a frog sitting forlornly on a rusting girder, possibly wondering about the strange nature of this hard brown log he'd found. I was surprised to see him there and wondered if  he would be able to find enough food to survive. I didn't think frogs ate much rust or plastic, so wanted to check on his progress every time I went past. As I left him, he was investigating an iron-oxide sump. It didn't look good.
        For a couple of weeks I didn't spot him and eventually hoped that he'd managed to hop off to a place that was more environmentally friendly to frogs. Maybe he'd managed to find a local pond. Maybe he'd even gone a courtin'!       
       And then he floated into view, his sad little corpse spinning slowly in midstream as the traffic sped overhead.
       Myself, the sole witness to this tiny little passion play, I wondered why I would get upset about a frog. There are any number of horrors in the world, why should I feel bad about a frog who'd....well....croaked?
       Simple empathy for a fellow struggler is a normal human idea. As explained by the character of Jacob in Will Eisner's A Life Force:

             
  The popularity of nature documentaries and the innate wonder we have for animals and plants and other natural phenomena indicates that one simple human desire is to understand the universe around us.
   This desire is the history of all philosophy, from the earliest religion to the latest science. One long and ongoing quest for explanations.
     And, as has long been a popular idea in Buddhism, meditation on the world around us gives us an insight into our true nature.
                 
 
    And the Moon Jellyfish go up the river, totally at one with their floating world, looking only for food and reproduction.
    Mindlessly going with the flow.
    Only to wash up on stoney shores to be easily picked apart by crabs.

                    

The Ofuna Escalator Mystery.

    When I first came to Japan I worked in Ofuna, a city about fifteen minutes from Yokohama by train. I would get the train back to Yokohama every evening,  Occasionally, an Anglo-Australian expeditionary force would reconnoitre such points of interest as the "Pub and Snack" whose neon sign promised familiar comforts.  Remarkably, this venue completely failed to contain a dart-board and a jar of pickled eggs on the counter. Instead, it seemed to be some fiendish kind of Japanese device for removing a substantial amount of money from foolish pockets for very little entertainment in return. Wiser but poorer, we were.
    All part of the normal learning process when moving to a new place, of course, but what would baffle me for over a year was nothing more complex than the station's escalator.

    Here's Ofuna Station and its escalator in 2013:
   

                                                 Ofuna station yesterday.
     
      The original escalator is on the far left, going up. More recently, the down escalator and the lift (or elevator if you prefer) have been added.
    If you happened to use the station after 10:30 p.m. you would find that the escalator had been stopped and you had to use the stairs. Right after the Tohoku Earthquake of 2011 it was normal to find stations without stopped escalators as there was a general drive to save energy.  Before that, any non-moving escalator in a station was broken. And all the other stations I used in my first year in Japan all had their escalators working until they closed, usually around 1 a.m., so why was Ofuna's escalator stopping at 10:30 ? Naturally, I asked Japanese people about this but got no answers. Nobody knew why this strange phenomenon occurred.
    Now, I appreciate that the "Ofuna escalator mystery" may seem like the dullest-ever episode of Columbo, but for me during my first years in Japan, it came to represent the basic question that most have when trying to cope with a different culture: are these people just mad?
    Resigning oneself to not understanding things is a choice that is overwhelmingly popular, the RUN DMC school of philosophy: It's like that, and that's the way it is.    At a party, after a decade in the country, I was telling a long-term English resident of Japan that I'd been here ten years when he quickly interrupted me with: "Oh that's the point at which you realise that you'll never understand anything here !". Not understanding anything about the place where he lived was seemingly of no concern to him, and naturally he didn't bother to check my opinion on the matter, happy as he was with his idea.

                                 Columbo: A pro- asking and checking to get to the
                                 bottom of the Ofuna Escalator Mystery. Possibly.

         However, the entirety of human history is about people making an effort to understand how things work. Everything we enjoy now is a result of people trying to understand how things work. And people are things.
         To understand others is to understand yourself. To see another culture is to see our own, albeit in a fun-house mirror. Yet if we don't understand our own culture, we will really have no good idea of what we are looking at. The chimpanzee who sees his reflection for the first time can't get over how funny the other fellow is. Look at that face!! Look at those antics !         
         In history, the propagandists, those government marketers, have usually been very keen for people not to understand others. It's a very handy tool.
         In order to get a better idea of anything we need better information, and not the information that those with an agenda are supplying us with. To get a better idea of other cultures we need to ask the run of Bela Lugsi's Pyramid to get the information we need.
         But if you ask the people who live in a culture to explain their own culture, they most often can not. And you are left with the idea that these people live in a place that doesn't make sense!
         Which is not at all like our culture, is it?

                             

                                Pigeon: often seen loitering in Ofuna Station. What
                                did he know?

         Of course, understanding cultures is a lot more complex than understanding why an escalator stops at 10:30. But the basic principle is the same as ever:

                             (more) Info ------------> (more) Idea

          Why wouldn't we want a better idea about something?

          However and anyway and eventually; a long time after I'd started trying to get to the (metaphorical) bottom of this moving stair-case,  I received the information I needed, and it was elegant in its simple ability to illuminate:
        It wasn't Ofuna Station's escalator!        The simple fact of the matter was that the escalator belonged to the department store right next to the station. The department store that closed at 10:30.
        With this knowledge I could breathe a long sigh of relief. The situation made sense now, and  I wasn't in a land where you can't possibly know why things happen. With better information you can understand things for that's how communication works.
       No wonder those in power guard information so zealously.
      
       And by the way, that English guy who was quite happy not to understand anything? He worked in marketing.

Bela Lugosi is alive.

     50% of communication is, most basically, asking and checking ( most usually referred to as: Bela Lugosi ).
        In schools, how often are students graded on their ability to ask questions? How often are they tested on their ability to check? Clearly, the usual education systems see no real value to communication as they ignore half of what it takes for it to be most effective.
        Here's Bela with some interesting ideas about life:

       
        Why is asking and checking so vital to communication? Because communication always works like this:
                            
                                       Information -------------> Idea


       
      Any information gives an idea. And any information can always give more than one idea. Naturally then, we will often need to ask and check in order to try to better understand the idea.    As an example let's take this statement from former British Prime Minister Tony Blair to a Labour Party conference in 1996: "Ask me my three priorities for government and I tell you: education, education,education."
        This information, like any information, leads to ideas. So did the audience at the party conference, which mostly consisted of University graduates, ask and check in order to better understand Tony's idea? Did anybody ask him for his definition of "education"? Or did they rise like the front rows of a Bros concert and give him a standing ovation?
         It's not difficult to guess what happened if we consider how "educated" people are generally trained not to ask and check about certain basic things.
          Tony got into power, and nearly 20 years later his idea of "education" still has the consistency of Dracula in gaseous form. We are not allowed anything solid, for then we might be able to understand the idea and could do something about it.

                                          Bela Lugosi's pyramid.

          The universe, and everything in it, most basically consists of information. And all that information can be simply expressed like this:

                                                
           If we wish to try to understand anything, then we need the information in Bela's pyramid.
           It always starts with: "What is it?" Yet, as we are usually not encouraged to ask, the simple and natural desire to find out what something is, is often squashed, and people are often left with ideas that are simply presented to them. Ideas that usually don't help us understand much.
           To take the simple example of Gaza; in order to have a better idea of the problems there, we would first need to understand what it is. Is it a place where nut-cases fire AK-47s randomly into the air, or is it "the world's largest open-air prison"?
           It is an interesting exercise to actually ask  people what they think things are, as it quickly becomes clear that people don't often apply the simple question: "What is it?" to the information that rolls across our screens.
           But never fear, for the great Tony Blair, that good Christian man, is a special peace envoy to the Middle East!
           Hang on... he's a war criminal isn't he? Or is he?
           A war criminal? What is it? Surely it's not one of us?

           Definition of terms is a corner-stone of critical thinking and the question, what is it? is at the apex of Bela Lugosi's pyramid. If we are to make any serious effort to understand anything at all, we need to find the information in the pyramid. Finding that, we can have a better idea whether someone like Tony Blair is a great man, a war criminal, or just some kind of dangerous vampire. Hmm... perhaps the stakeholder society is a good idea.
           
           But of course, because any information gives many ideas, there's always another opinion. Here's another, more musical, view of Bela Lugosi:

           










                                              
                                                            
                                                          


                  

Obama and communication.

http://adage.com/article/moy-2008/obama-wins-ad-age-s-marketer-year/131810/

      In 2008 the Obama campaign won Advertising Age's Marketer of the Year award. Apple and Nike were among the giant corporations whose marketing campaigns were deemed by professionals in the industry to be less effective than Obama's.
      Marketing  is generally defined as "the process of communicating the value of a product or service to customers, for the purpose of selling the product or service. It is a critical business function for attracting customers."
      It is clear that when marketing is "communicating" it is the kind of communication where asking and checking are discouraged. We receive information that is designed to give us a particular idea. And so, when Obama promised "hope" and "change" people tended to wave their flags and weep rather than asking: "hope for what?" or "what kind of change?". The campaign was designed to spark the normal human idea that things can be better and, quite naturally if not asking and checking, people went along with it.
      But what kind of service was Obama really offering?
      As all communication most basically works as: INFO----> IDEA, then to get more of an IDEA about anything, we need more INFO. Useful information to know about the Obama campaign in '08 is that it collected more money from Wall Street than the McCain campaign:
     http://uk.reuters.com/article/2008/06/05/analysis-shares-obama-idUKNOA53525520080605
      It's interesting to note that this Reuters article explains this situation as "investors want to simply back the eventual winner" rather than explaining it as "big business is in bed with politics, and ordinary people simply get to choose which branch of the elite takes power."
      In short, Obama was always going to serve the interests of big business and the powerful elite. That wouldn't really serve as an effective advertising slogan, though.

      Here's an alternative view of marketing-

  
       The recent whistleblowing by Edward Snowden illustrates an important aspect of the Obama administration's attitude towards communication.: We control information, not you. We will look at your information whilst keeping ours in the dark. And when we can get away with it we will get the clubs out and batter people to death.
        Force is a very powerful tool of communication and has been used throughout history by people who want to get their own way without bothering with that tiresome communicative baggage that humans carry with them. Much easier to use your animal mode and start to hit people. Do not ask any questions. Do not check. Explain things in a way that makes you feel better about what you are doing.
       That way, it becomes easier to do stuff like this:
http://www.policymic.com/articles/16949/predator-drone-strikes-50-civilians-are-killed-for-every-1-terrorist-and-the-cia-only-wants-to-up-drone-warfare
             
       If we disagree with people, we kill them. And anyone who wanders into shot. This manic tendency towards violent communication and away from possible human communication is an inevitable consequence of an economic and political system that can only survive by stifling the natural human capacity to communicate.
       But let's pretend otherwise, because there's profit to be made.