A Sceptical Journey

"A person inclined to doubt all accepted opinions." - Oxford English Dictionary

Scepticism: a philosophy, I'm coming to discover, not quite so simple (or nonchalant!) as the dictionary definition implies. 

Having been brought up in a family almost entirely without religion - with the exception of a few, fairly limited, religious education lessons - I knew relatively little about spirituality and even less about what it must be like to have a spiritual experience. While I was perfectly happy inside my bubble I didn't feel like I had anything to compare it to; just because my life experience told me my belief was right, was it really as unshakable as I thought it was? It felt a bit to me like claiming to have a water tight container that I'd never actually allowed anywhere near water. So, in late 2012 I metaphorically submerged myself in the deepest religious waters I could think of: Israel. 

While my first few days there were more concerned with getting my bearings and enjoying the quaint thrill of alien surroundings, I soon travelled to Jerusalem to try and learn about the religions I knew so little of, directly from the people who followed them. 

I feel at this point I should show my hand: I am an atheist and a sceptic. I do not, however, think this set of beliefs should lead me to immediately rebuff any beliefs or phenomena that do not fit into my existing understanding of the world. In essence, I believe in my system and if my system works it should withstand exposure to anything. If, as has happened, I investigate something that does upset my existing philosophy then, providing I have been thorough and objective in my study of the evidence, I must change my system accordingly. Being consistently open-minded and searching for truth can only, in my opinion, lead to bettering ones understanding of the world. We should demand to be proven one way or the other and not just sit comfortably in the assumption we're right just because the opposing side may appear weaker to us. One just has to be careful not to be so open-minded that our brain falls out (which is a silly way of saying not to readily believe everything that presents itself as fact - take the Stanford Institute researchers completely fooled by Uri Geller, for example).  

I was fortunate enough to stay with a muslim family in Hebron, share a hostel room with a Christian woman and spend time with members of the progressive Jewish organisation: Netzer. As well as trying to learn about these people's personal experience of faith, I also spent time at sites of great religious importance to see if I would have any experiences of my own. 

I first spent time with the members of Netzer and I was lucky to find them! They had travelled around Israel many times, were able to speak Hebrew and just generally saved my incompetent ass. I learnt a lot about the Old City from them - the divisions and the history. I was most excited, however, by an invitation to a Shabbat meal and service (please correct me if this is completely the wrong term). There were about 8 of us and we all sat together in their living room for an informal service before the meal. We read inspirational and thoughtful passages that were relevant to the the group and sang several songs. I wasn't expected to join in if I didn't want to but I decided to, both out of respect but also because of the genuine feeling of open friendliness. Afterwards followed more food than was humanly possibly to consume and I sorely wished I could have eaten more; it was lovely - as was the whole evening. 

Having started my journey with a distinctly positive example of religion it was unfortunate that my next experience would be more melancholy. I had already been staying in my room with a few others when we were joined by new lady. She recounted how she had had to move to this room as she needed to extend her stay in Jerusalem. I was concerned to learn that this was because she had not yet received the sign from God she was waiting for and from what I could gather she had already been waiting in Jerusalem for somewhere in the region of twenty days. She was very sweet and very positive but I couldn't help worrying for her. If I were in her position I could imagine myself getting disillusioned, or worse: blaming myself. The sign she was waiting for related to a long term partner having recently decided not to pursue their relationship. She was vulnerable and needed a friend and the friend she had chosen (God) wasn't delivering; and if my personal belief about God is true - he was never going to deliver. I left Jerusalem just over a week later just as she was being kicked out of the Hostel for having reached their maximum stay length. I learned she was not going home but moving to another hostel. I left Jerusalem feeling confused. I had seen religion draw people together in a wonderful way but I had also seen it seriously isolate someone. 

My trip culminated with a few days in Hebron. I was lucky enough to stay with a local family and do a bit of work in one of the traditional ceramic factories, which was wonderful. Again, I saw their religion bringing them together; the admirable devotion to family and the inclusion of people less fortunate than themselves was, frankly, intoxicating. That coupled with the hauntingly beautiful call to prayer every morning made me consider the fact that, had I been raised here, there was absolutely no way I wouldn't believe in Islam despite all the conflict and animosity. From this, I began to realise that the critical thinking which feels so natural to me, is something I had to be taught and exercise. I hypothesised about a sort of blue pill/red pill situation wherein I could have all the family and community fulfilment I wanted at the cost of my atheism and would I do it. I can't say that I would; but in a different situation - perhaps. 

Throughout all of this I had been visiting and learning about some of the most sacred places for Jews, Muslims and Christians. Many of them were very beautiful. Many of them were very sad. But I'm afraid to say none of them evoked anything other than ordinary interest. The most moving experience I had during my whole trip was galloping on horseback across a mountain top overlooking the ancient city of Petra. The overwhelming sense of freedom and adrenaline I felt was absolutely indescribable. For a moment there was nothing else in the world except the wind and the horse. Staggering. 

Finally, I felt some connection with the people I had been seeing this past month: crying, praying, rejoicing. Was this what they were feeling? If so, I can certainly see why they devote themselves to it. I didn't feel alone in the world at that moment and it was wonderful; but as far as I'm concerned that's just part of the human experience. It seemed to me that the euphoria so many were attributing to their God, was in fact being created by the people themselves with their rich culture, social life and communities. I only saw a darker side to the religious experience when I met people who were isolated and lonely. 

I left with new knowledge and a new respect for those who are religious. Did I believe in their God? No. Did I believe in them? Yes; I believe that it was they that were creating the joy and wonder they experienced from their religion. I believe that against incomprehensible odds some bald apes came into existence and made the most extraordinary and unlikely things. There was no plan. No intervention. 

It was just us, and that is the most beautiful thing of all. 

Science and Religion: Frustrated

Frustrated

(Note: The following critique does not apply to one organisation alone, I am simply using an example from personal experience.)

Recently, I have been talking to a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses in an attempt get a basic knowledge of the Bible and, more importantly, understand how people reach and maintain beliefs so different from my own (atheist and sceptic). They have been patient and informative and we have disagreed; but what's wrong with that? In my experience, social disagreement has been taken as a negative in almost every instance I have seen it arise, but I don't see why it need be so reprehensible. In academia, disagreement is treated more like motivation - spurring on further and more in depth study in order to resolve the issue. I don't see why this use of disagreement cannot be applied outside of the classroom.

While I do not share their beliefs, I have been interested to see where in the Bible their ideas come from and consider how much influence interpretation has on their faith. However, there has been one aspect of our talks which I have found consistently troubling and it is, of course, that most provocative of combinations: Science in Religion. My frustration surrounding this subject did not go un-noticed and I was kindly lent one of their personal books, The Bible: God's Word or Man's, which they had said really helped clarify this hotly debated issue for them. The chapter they directed me to was entitled "Science: Has it Proved the Bible Wrong" (chapter 8 if anyone cares to look it up). The title was alarmingly promising but I am sorry to say the optimism did not last long (though possibly not for the reasons you might imagine).

The Bible quotations I was ready for - I knew I wouldn't find them compelling but I was interested to read them all the same - but it was quotations that were purportedly from experts and scientists that really caught my attention. My initial impression was that they may have been taken out of context or were heavily biased but even I was surprised by what I discovered after running a quick namecheck (emphasis on the "quick", this really is not difficult information to find). The first person quoted was Francis Hitching who is described as "an authority" - keep that in mind - and he stated that "living cells duplicate themselves with near total fidelity". Now, this set my GCSE Biology alarm bells ringing as I recalled studying genetic mutation and meiosis (a process wherein cells reproduce with a different genetic combination than the parent cells). Despite my conflict I thought I'd research him further as he, presumably, was much better qualified than me to speak on the subject. Wrong. Hitching is a television scriptwriter/producer and author. The book from which creationists so often quote him, "The Neck of the Giraffe", stated that Hitching was a member of the Royal Archaeological Institute; needless to say he is not. Hitching also claimed to have had help from palaeontologist Stephen Gould and that the book was endorsed by Richard Dawkins. Not only did both of these people deny Hitching's claims and any knowledge of Hitching, but Dawkins also gave the fairly damning statement "his book … is one of the silliest and most ignorant I have read for years". During my research I was sad to discover that Hitching has been cited as an evolutionary scientist in other Jehovah's Witnesses publications. To add insult to injury Hitching's other books focus on dowsing and psychic phenomena, these being the only subjects on which he may be called "an authority". Sciency. 

I was shocked at the flagrant flimsiness of this so called evidence, but I continued none the less. The other key source of non-Biblical quotations came from Michael Denton who I was interested to learn actually does have scientific qualifications (Phd in Biochemistry). Almost immediately I discovered he does NOT support creationism. He believes in natural selection and common descent however he does advocate intelligent design. On further inspection it would seem that it is the passages concerning intelligent design which, out of context, lend themselves to a creationist interpretation. Despite this, I still found quotations from his book, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", shaky evidence at best; for example "evolution deals with unique events, the origin of life … unique events are unrepeatable and cannot be subjected to any sort of experimental investigation". This is true, but, circumstances can be replicated and irrespective of that, this statement doesn't really prove or disprove anything. Moreover, I discovered that Michael Denton's views since writing that book have shifted somewhat and in his most recent publication he defends evolution more strongly. And by the way, by "recent" publication I mean 1998. His original book was published in 1985. Hitching's quotations came from his 1982 book and the book in which they are quoted was published in 1989. Science teachers wouldn't dare use textbooks that were over twenty years old to teach students - I've even read an article wherein a high school teacher bemoaned newly issued textbooks for having taken four years to be written, deeming them not adequately relevant enough to teach from. Even if the quotations had been scientifically viable at the time, they would still need to have been updated. I was shocked at the thorough misrepresentation I had encountered. 

What made me most unhappy about the whole revelation was the thought of believers who read this book, and others like it, in good faith. It is cleverly written (ish) and contains apparently positive reinforcement for beliefs that those reading it will already have. We have all, at one time or another, needed some form of evidence or reassurance for an aspect of our lives - when we find that much needed assurance who can honestly say their first thought would be to subjectively pick it apart and potentially destroy the comfort we had just found; not many of us. Those being deceived are not stupid and they are not to be laughed at. I in no way hold the people who gave me this book responsible for any of its content. Do I think they should have applied more criticism to its content when they read it: yes, but people cannot be expected to pull a desire for critical thinking out of thin air. I believe them to be good people; they spend their personal time trying to save people from eternal damnation which, on the scale of nice, is pretty fucking nice. When's the last time I saved someones soul: NEVER. Just because I do not believe their method will work does not devalue the intention of the act and I cannot hold them culpable for the fact that the tools they have been sent out to do it with are faulty. It is my belief that people will continue to write misleading material, such as this, in relative safety because they know that the mentality people are in while reading them is not one of scepticism. It does not matter that their sources can be debunked from - quite literally - the first google entry about them; they are banking on the readers not checking and sadly it would seem this tactic has paid off. Will my discoveries have any effect on the owners of this book? Did they already know? I don't know, however I sincerely believe that if you cannot prove your point through honest and reliable means, it is better to leave it disproven than undermine it with a poor imitation of truth. 

But don't take my word for it. 

Response to Discussion of Mental Health Stigma

Recently, Ruby Wax did a documentary discussing her experience with mental health and the stigma attached.

It's available here: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/ruby-waxs-mad-confessions/4od

Firstly, I must say how much I appreciated this documentary and its intentions - truthful and accessible. However, I felt it did not cover the issue of mental illness stigma for the younger generation/s. I loved the painful honesty of Ruby Wax discussing how she had kept her illness from her children and managed to work through it with her husband - but I'm not there in my life yet. What does the mental illness stigma mean to me?

Usefully (or not, depending on how you look at it) I had a very early and thorough education in mental health problems as I have known someone severely bi-polar for a long time. Looking back I can note some stages of my understanding.

Ages 4 - 7 

Not realising my life wasn't normal.

8 - 11 

Knowing it wasn't normal but not fully understanding the illness. 

12 - 15 

More understanding and feeling massively resentful.

16 - 18 

Fully understanding and annoyed by everyone else's perceived immaturity on the subject.

19 - Present

More appreciative of people lack of understanding and realising I suffer with depression too*.

A key behaviour I've noticed among people my age or younger is the flippant use of the word 'depressed' as well as its meaning thought to be solely that of being sad. Does this create a false sense of knowledge in people that use it? Do people who have a bad break up and declare themselves to be depressed think that they actually are depressed, or do they know they're being melodramatic? This is a question I can't answer as I have never not been aware of the meaning of the word depression. 

Aside from simply feeling that my peers did not know about the subject I was also very aware of the stigma. I felt that if I came out, so to speak, it would not just be a case of, "Oh, so what's that then?", but more like a sort of unspoken black mark. Particularly as a teenage girl I was very aware of how it may affect my already meagre popularity with the opposite sex. "Don't date the mentalist!" I would hear the hypothetical boys chant**. Luckily, I am now getting to a stage where the men I socialise with have, or will soon, come across the film 'Betty Blue' and my mental issues suddenly become the hottest thing about me.

I digress.

As I said, I used to be angry and peoples ignorance but I have since asked the question - what would I know about mental illness if it weren't in my everyday life?The answer is: probably nothing. I never heard one mention of mental health at school so of course there's a stigma. People aren't encouraged to talk about it and don't have any appropriate knowledge to do so. As with most stigmas - education is the key. 

So, what does this stigma mean for me? I am less fearful of employment opportunities than the adults featured in the programme; I think thats probably down to positive progress as far as equality in the workplace is concerned. I remain fearful for maintaining and forging new relationships (platonic or otherwise) as I think lack of understanding can be particularly devastating in that aspect of life. 

About a year ago I was unbelievably relieved to read that Sarah Silverman, a very successful comedian, had said she didn't want to have biological children for fear of passing on her depression. This is why talking is important; despite being in contact with mental health problems for a long time I had never heard anyone express this particular concern. Because no one had ever talked about this with me, I had built up a massive amount of stress regarding having kids while suffering with depression. That stress probably wouldn't have been there had I known others had similar misgivings and I am now on the way to being much more rational and calm on the subject. 

Maybe I hope this post will do to someone what that little article about Sarah Silverman did to me. 

*I was actually diagnosed somewhere in the 16 - 18 stage but I don't think I'd quite grasped what that mean't at the time. 

**Then they would hypothetically debate my boobs and social standing in their hypothetical palace of self deprecation. Fuck you hypothetical boys (hypothetically). 

Girls on Film: Suspiria & Shivers

Girls on Film 

Films in Focus: Shivers & Suspiria

(For a brief summaries of these films click here)

I must admit, I did have a problem with seeing some of the things that happened to the women in Shivers. Owing to the subject matter (the release of people's sexual inhibitions via venereal parasites) there was always going to be a sexually aggressive element to the film and although we know this is due to the assailants being out of control, it is still difficult to watch. However, in the closing act of the film the previously abused women were infected with the parasite and I began to feel differently about what I'd seen. When the men had their sexual inhibitions released they became neanderthal and brainless; when the women were infected it was more like a liberation. There are, to my mind, three notable women in the film who all start as secondary characters. Taking the character of Nurse Forsythe as an example; she begins as a perfectly average girlfriend to the one of the male leads. She shows affection when he wants, makes him dinner and does what he tells her - the whole humble female shebang. When infected, however, she becomes powerful and sexual as well as seemingly becoming the leader of the infected masses. The other two main females have a similar character arc.

Suspiria is interesting in terms of female interaction simply because it is almost devoid of males. There are three men in the film: one is blind, one is mute and the other is gay - Argento says this was because he wanted none of the men to interfere with the female interaction (probably not the most P.C. of statements but he said it not me!). His first major film, Bird with the Crystal Plumage, was unusual in that it featured a powerful and punishing female and because of this, a trend developed in subsequent Italian horror and mystery films. I suppose this popularity coupled with his own love of exploring female interaction meant that by the time he got to Suspiria, Argento could go ahead and have a film of females. And I must say, Suspiria is like looking at a kaleidoscope of the female psyche - personified, exaggerated, then bounced off one another. Most interestingly for me was the portrayal of old women. The Principal of the dance school is played by a sixty seven year old Joan Bennet - and she looks fabulous. Similarly, all the other older women are portrayed as strong or powerful - not always positively powerful admittedly but still, there isn't a fuddy-duddy pensioner in sight. 

What does this mean? Well, men are obsessed with women for one. Cronenberg seems to discuss men's fear of women's sexuality (which is also discussed in a film which is said to have taken some inspiration from Shivers: Alien). He also seems to be fairly self deprecating towards male sexuality - I would be interested to know how men feel about this. Argento does not seem so much afraid of female sexuality as enthralled by it. His work has followed a pattern of strong women and in an interview he said the large majority of his audience is women; this would suggest that while awful things do happen to women, the female members of the audience appreciate that its because he is trying to explore every facet of female reaction and not just glorify violence against women. I know this is how I felt. 

My feelings towards Cronenberg, on the other hand, are a little different. There were times when I felt he was excessive and made me feel uncomfortable, however the final act made me consider that this may have been intentional. He seems to want to show that subversive and perverse sexual behaviour is bred of repressed minds and in order to really hammer that through to the audience he exposes us to the very behaviour he would seem to be condemning. While I felt unsure at first, I came to realise there was intention behind it; so whereas I may not have appreciated it at the time - I understand it, and his intentions.

Even if someone has solid artistic intentions, is there a line that can be crossed? 

I would say, no.

Would you?

Suspiria & Shivers: Body Horror as a Device

"For me all art is subversive in someway … it's inevitable, then, that if you consider yourself a serious artist that you are going to bother people."

- David Cronenberg

I have long been fascinated with the use of gore and body horror in film. It's a device, like any other, but does its excessive nature actually stop people from appreciating the meaning behind it and what is that meaning? As I am most interested in the thoughts of people who either know little about or dislike the subject, so as to ensure I don't alienate people with nerdery, I am going to consider two films I have only just seen: Shivers and Suspiria. 

*SPOILERS!!*

Brief Summaries

Suspiria (1977, Dir. Dario Argento)

My Score: 9/10

A young American ballet dancer, Suzy, comes to a European ballet academy to train - her arrival coincides with some strange events culminating in the mysterious death of another student. Bizarre occurrences and noises continue and as her suspicion heightens there are more sudden deaths. Suzy works out that, while the staff say they leave the school during they night, their footsteps tell a different story. 

Shivers (1975, Dir. David Cronenberg)

My Score: 7/10

Set on a luxury island near Montreal, the onsite doctors have been experimenting with the use of parasites to take over from failing organs. It is discovered that one of the doctors has been secretly breeding a parasite to free people of their inhibitions. His test subject is unable to handle the sudden release and becomes wild and promiscuous - infecting several others. With the parasite taking hold, a cast of characters attempt to combat the hysteria while not loosing themselves to it as well. 

Body Horror

Firstly, it was exciting to see how different two horror films can get within only two years of each other. Shivers is like a time capsule of the 70s; Cronenberg reportedly drew on the realism in underground New York cinema when making this film. The characters are all conventional people living ordinary lives who have a parasitic catalyst thrown into their midst. Suspiria, on the other hand, is completely outlandish in almost all respects. The characters are exaggerated, the sets are mad, the lighting is invasive - but it works wonderfully and was a very exciting film for these reasons. 

It is difficult to say which is a better setting for body horror: realism encourages empathy whereas melodrama takes the viewer out of the story and possibly into a more speculative frame of mind. I think the differences between Suspiria and Shivers hark back to the discussion of Brechtian and Stanaslavski storytelling in an earlier film review. With regard to gore, I think a Brechtian style piece (i.e. Suspiria because the audience is constantly reminded it's a film) is able to display its intentions more clearly; however, I don't think one can value either style over the the other as it just comes down to personal taste. 

Right: let's get grisly. An ideal moment for comparison sprung out at me - not only was the violent act the same, it was even filmed in a similar way: a throat slitting in extreme close up. I have to say I was more repulsed by the one in Shivers, probably due to the realistic lighting and mundane setting. Although less disgusted by the shot in Suspiria, I felt a more heightened sense of fear because the lighting was so extreme and the music was so relentless and bizarre. It seemed to me that the melodrama in Suspiria made it an emotional experience whereas the realism in Shivers felt more like watching an autopsy. 

The differing use of blood was also of interest. While featuring some pretty horrific images of parasites and writhing innards, Cronenberg used blood relatively sparingly - I think this comes from trying to base the film in reality so masses of blood would have been out of place. Because of this, when blood was present it was all the more unsettling and it's presence increased towards the climax. Contrastingly, I think Suspiria may have hired the Hammer Horror effects team as the whole thing was awash with the most vibrant blood you've ever seen (funnily enough, the director Argento cited early John Ford and Disney animations as the inspiration for the lurid colours in Suspiria). I found that I became relatively desensitised to the blood as a result of this and it became more of an addition to the colour palette. Suspiria is red. Everything is red. RED. So the blood becomes one with that; for this reason I thought the film felt a lot more like an expressive painting than a narrative. Whereas I believe Cronenberg is trying to express an ideology, it felt like Argento's intention was purely to take us to an vivid emotional place - something he certainly achieves. Possibly this explains the differing use of blood: Cronenberg saves it for moments of significance to highlight his intentions, Argento uses is to keep the viewer in a heightened  state of emotion and fear. 

Two very different films, with very different intentions and yet these are expressed predominantly through the same device: body horror. I appreciate many people are immediately sceptical of any argument professing the intelligence behind any gore films but don't just listen to me: Shivers was funded by the Canadian Film Development Corporation, a government run organisation, and was also passed uncut by the BBFC (British Board of Film Censors) on its 1975 release. Argento has gone on the become a horror film legend and has influenced filmmakers even outside of the horror genre. 

Now, I will hold my hands up and admit that the barrage of mainstream, gory tripe being churned out at the moment is abominable; but those aren't the films I'm talking about. Any device used without a heart or intention falls flat. Personally, I feel just as cheated by a rom-com which is all goo and no heart as I do by a horror which is (albeit graphic and literal) goo and no heart. I appreciate that just as I will rarely be buzzing to watch a romance film, equally there are people who are never going to enjoy watching a gory film; but my intention is not to convert - only to hope people will understand the genre. The transient gore films of today only exist to capitalise on the masterpieces that have gone before it. And masterpieces they are.

Fancy getting intellectually gory?

- The Fly (1986, Dir. David Cronenberg)

- Inferno (1980, Dir. Dario Argento)

Fancy getting rip-roaringly gory?

- Braindead (1993, Dir. Peter Jackson)

- Evil Dead (1981, Dir. Sam Raimi) 

Rothkoca-cola

A friend asked for a painting based on a silly poem I wrote and I thought it might be interesting to record the process.

I wrote the poem because we were at a play rehearsal and someone asked us if we could get them a can of coke seeing we had a break. Naturally, we couldn't be bothered so I said I'd write a poem about a can of coke to give to them instead; as this would not involve moving.

Ode to a Can of Coke - Apologies for the poor opening rhyme, me and my friend both picked a word/phrase we wanted in the poem prior to writing it; why I chose "vending" I do not know! I thought her choice of "ring pull" was inspired.

Thirst. I feel your clutch impending.
Could you, machine, some sweet release be vending?
I await you, from your prison tumbling.
Soon shall I be at your ring pull,
Fumbling. 

Betrayal!
You knew, I was a naive and eager fool.
Alas!
Here stand I shamed; and in a foaming, fizzing pool. 

Too soon I yearned for your refreshment.
Why did I not let you stand?

A spiteful lesson learned - oh victor,
No more you'll see me falter.
Next time I'll choose a truer friend,
Pure and loyal,
Water. 

I thought I'd have a look at an artist for some inspiration and settled on Rothko - in particular some of pieces he did around 1948.

Other reference images:

Evolution of a Painting 1: Miller's Crossing

After watching Miller's Crossing I was struck by how well composed the shots were and was not surprised to find out that the cinematographer came to working in film though stills photography. 

Therefore, I thought I'd try painting one of my favourite shots which would be challenging for me because I don't paint realistically very often. 

I thought this would also be a good time to experiment with showing the evolution of a piece through gifs.

Let me know what you think!

Gif: Final: