April 18, 2013

On Dreams, Descartes and Daniel.

Early this month, news reached us from the scientific world that scientists can now see our dreams. In a fourth April publication of the journal Science by a team of Japanese scientists, the findings showed that science has progressed in getting an image of what we see in our dreams and determining what we’re dreaming about. Masako Tamaki, a neuroscientist at Brown University, together with her team was able to achieve this feat. From the news articles online, the method is quite understandable. Here’s a quote from the story by Livescience writer Tia Ghose:

Tamaki and her colleagues tracked brain activity using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) of three people as they were sleeping; the researchers woke up the trio every few minutes to have them describe their dreams. In total, the scientists collected about 200 visual images.

The researchers then tied the dream content that participants described in their waking moments to specific patterns in brain activity (as seen in the blood flow in fMRI scans) and had a computer model learn those signatures.

The computer model then analyzed each person’s dreams. The model was able to pick out the time when each person dreamed of specific objects based on their brain activity when they were awake.

Those findings showed the same brain regions are activated when people are awake as when they are actually having the associated dream.

I am very much skeptical about the importance ascribed to this discovery and I will state my views in another post. Taking all of this for granted however, I am highly intrigued at such news for two reasons.

In Descartes First Meditation, he points out a salient truth which leads him to a major argument for the veracity of mathematical and geometric truths. This is one aspect he touches on while he still deliberates on the nature of dreams. To quote him:

Nevertheless, it really must be admitted that things seen in sleep are, as it were, like painted images, which could have been produced only in the likeness of true things. Therefore at least these general things (eyes, head, hands, the whole body) are not imaginary things, but are true and exist.

Clearly, Descartes in 1639 realized the logic behind the particular scientific method being employed by Tamaki and her colleagues today. That is, things seen in sleep are in the likeness of true things or things that exist in the real world when we are awake and that connection can therefore be drawn. Tamaki may never have read Descartes and it does not seem to me that the recondite French philosopher can be accorded the honour of pioneering this thought. I just happen to find the parallels intriguing, especially since I have been tutoring philosophy freshmen on Descartes First and Second Meditations this semester.

Also enthralling, is the prospect of the technology for this science being able to retell our dreams, even if we forget them. Imagine that. On one hand, we won’t have to struggle to relay a dream, record it through some means and then replay it to ourselves. Once the technology is available to tell us exactly what we dreamt, we can cut through the red tape. Now, is there one significant part of human history where this has already taken place? Here’s a quote from the Bible in Daniel 2:26-28:

²⁶The king asked Daniel (also called Belteshazzar), “Are you able to tell me what I saw in my dream and interpret it?”

²⁷Daniel replied, “No wise man, enchanter, magician or diviner can explain to the king the mystery he has asked about, ²⁸but there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries. He has shown King Nebuchadnezzar what will happen in days to come. Your dream and the visions that passed through your mind as you were lying in bed are these:

If you read further, you will come to see how Daniel narrates Nebuchadnezzar’s exact dream to him and goes on to interpret it. Wonderful stuff! And that’s putting it mildly.
Like I said earlier in this post, I will be expressing my doubts about this ‘breakthrough’ in another post. For now though, join me savour the links with Descartes and Daniel.

April 8, 2013

Examining Our Social Media Rants.

Diligent followers of the Ghanaian political atmosphere on Social Media should by this time be aware of the increasing number of posts directed at the current NDC government. Newbies need only take a cursory look to notice this trend. The occasional reminders of the evils of the NPP are easily drowned out by this plethora of disapproving comments at the decisions of the Mahama NDC. Every now and then, an objective poster comes along with the classic refutation for the references to NPP; that is: The bad examples of the past should not be beacons for the present or future. I have thrown in an update or two, and an occasional tweet on the current atmosphere but as far a thorough internet harangue at the government of the day goes, I am yet to garner inspiration. I believe the time is now very appropriate, for each of us to begin an examination of the effectiveness of our social media rants and our idealistic social media protests in Ghana.

In recent times, social media has been noted to give people a voice they have never had. Anyone can have unmentionable speech disorders and still be able to speak his or her mind on any and every issue. You can be extremely timorous in person and nobody will notice you cowering behind your bold posts. Social media is largely responsible for the sudden audacity to challenge any ‘oga at the top’ on his half-truths, misinformation and gross refusal to be educated. This offspring of the internet appears to be the most developed instrument for giving people a feeling that their views count. On social media platforms, protests are laid at the feet of the masses at the cheapest possible cost to the leaders of whatever ideology is in vogue, given the context. Any Kofi or Ama, can create a Twitter or Facebook account, post in their official names or anonymously, and gain followers in no time. The consensus then is that social media is the new face of democracy that has been a long time coming. However, this new found power on the finger tips of participators in Ghanaian democracy cannot be granted revolutionary accord.

Civilized and non-partisan political discussions on the Ghanaian social media terrain are relatively hard to find. Where they are initiated finally, there is a near unanimous agreement to find strategies to curb the perceived corruption and ineptness of politicos. One clear line of agreement is simply that something ought to be done over and above retweeting, or liking, or sharing, or commenting on issue-related posts and tweets. This ‘something’ presents the major diverging points on many platforms. There is one school of thought that sensibly relies on experience and observations of traditional and modern Ghanaian culture to conclude that few Ghanaians can walk their talk, much less their virtual talk. Another school holds firmly to the hope that some hybrid of the Arab Spring can be started in Ghana, albeit their hopes are built on much misinformation about the major fuelling factors of the Arab spring. The uncurbed exaggeration of the role of social media in the Arab Spring particularly characterizes these local hopes for protests. That notwithstanding, it is common knowledge that the success of any protest movement lies in its ability to stir individuals out of their comfortable and secure homes, offices and so forth, unto the streets with fists clenched at the government. This is precisely where social media in the Ghanaian context seems highly ineffective.
The Ghanaian has been justifiably described as cowardly and introverted at best and his unassertive disposition is seen by many to be at an all time high in recent times, following the blatant condemnable actions and inactions of men in authority. The palpable lack of urgency and discipline in carrying out duties to the nation is trumpeted daily on many unbiased and objective news platforms. Yet, our dear typical Ghanaman shakes his head in disappointment and then posts his disapproval on Facebook and Twitter. He observes and responds to the feedback he gets, sighs in resignation to fate and gets on with his life.

When the user is a more critical and is very much expressing his critique in lieu with the real facts on the ground, it is usually less abrasive. With delectable eloquence, the post gets a strong point across to discerning minds. The comments on such posts usually express shock at this new presentation of the facts behind the half-truths and lies, and an immediate admission of support for the strong point made. And that is all there usually is to it; a strong point made and understood. A strong point made and understood, virtually. There is no button to click, to push people off their latex foam mattresses unto the gardens at the presidential palace with placards at the ready.

When the post is abrasive and replete with invectives, any untrained eye will be convinced of the user’s willingness to step out this very instant to physically abuse some government official with insufficient security protocol. This phenomenon seems to be responsible for the belief currently bandied about that the 2013 Ghanaian is an extremely angry Ghanaian. If this is to be trusted, then we should perhaps be hoping on a Ghanaian Guy Fawkes to succeed in his bombing. I will however continue to bet in favour of the inertia to be expected from such ‘angry’ folks.

Admittedly, my words might come across as pessimistic and cynical at Ghana’s ubiquitous and self-appointed Facebook and Twitter movements for better governance and democracy. As typical Ghanaian common sense reminds me, I am now required to present my solutions to the handful of issues raised or forever hold my peace. All I have been seeking in fact is that we examine the effectiveness of our politically heterogeneous social media posts in our hope for a better Ghana. If you aver that yours is only to inform, then perhaps the implicit suggestion is that evil prevails when good men fail to act out their Facebook statuses and Twitter updates. Before you pick up that internet device to post on social media, ask yourself many questions. Do not let the least of these questions be: ‘SO WETIN I GO DO?’

January 10, 2013

Heaven Helps Those Who Help Themselves?

While many people agree with the rationale behind this phrase, it is not uncommon to find a radical heaven-believer (particularly Christian) point out to you that this is not found in any Holy Book. I have been given dumb looks in the past as I attempted to invoke this phrase. This has been followed by “You know that’s not biblical, right?” The argument is that it flies in the face of God’s grace which does not require our works.

I don’t wish to argue whether it is indeed biblical that a helping-hand stretches out from heaven only when we have made attempts to help ourselves. I rather wish to produce a tale from Aesop’s fables which sums up any opinions I hold on the phrase. The preceding four lines of poetry are by Oliver Goldsmith.

FABLE LIV

Hercules and The Carter

Inactive wishes are but waste of time
And, without efforts, pray’rs themselves a crime:
Vain are their hopes who miracles expect,
And ask from heaven what themselves neglect.

As a clownish fellow was driving his Cart along a deep miry lane, the wheels stuck so fast in the clay, that the horses could not draw them out. Upon this, he fell a bawling and praying to Hercules to come and help him. Hercules looking down from a cloud, bid him not lie there, like an idle rascal as he was, but get up and whip his horses stoutly, and clap his shoulder to the wheel, adding, That this was the only way for him to obtain his assistance.

Prayers and wishes amount to nothing: We must put forth our own honest endeavors to obtain success on the assistance of heaven.

January 4, 2013

Funny Tale from Shimmer Chinodya’s “Can We Talk”.

Well…can we talk?

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book by Shimmer Chinodya. This collection of short stories is excellently written and had me flipping pages amidst smiles and smirks and tiny emotional expressions. I encourage anyone who wants to read it to do so. “Can We Talk” is the title story and final story in the collection. It highlights a marriage in crisis and the coupling emotional prose is from the male perspective; a husband pouring his soul out in pain. Here’s a paragraph from the story I really enjoyed. Though it’s a story within the story, it highlights Shimmer Chinodya’s gift of story-telling.

Back to the graveyard story. It is said that some of the houses in Warren Park were built on old graves. So when the constructors had finished building, strange things started to happen. Stones were thrown at roofs in the night. Sometimes the occupants of the new houses woke up to find themselves sleeping on their beds outside the houses in the yard, surrounded by their belongings. And sometimes if you were walking on the street at night you would meet a tall man in a black suit who walked beside you, and if you greeted him he just grunted back at you. Then, when you got under the street light and you looked at him his eyes turned green, yes, green, and he turned back and vanished in the darkness.
Anyway, one night around nine o’clock I was driving out to Warren Park along the Bulawayo Road. A lady stopped me for a lift and she said she was going to Warren Park and I said OK. We started talking. Within minutes I had found out that she had dropped out of school in Form 3, had a three-year-old son, had worked for a few weeks in a grocer’s shop, and liked rumba music. As we turned from Bulawayo Road and approached Warren Park she asked me where I lived. I had had a few beers and was in a jovial mood. I pointed out to Warren Hills Cemetery and, without turning my head or batting an eye-lid I said, ‘My home is behind that wall. I died two years ago and was buried there. I occasionally come out when the moon is …’ Before I could finish my sentence, the lady started grappling frantically with the door handle. I was afraid she might fall out, so I swerved off the road and hit the brakes. The moment the car screeched to a halt she jumped out and sprinted towards the houses. I jumped out and shouted after her, ‘I’m not a ghost! I was only joking! You can come back!
Not once did she turn back. She ran on and disappeared into the streets. I slowly drove on to the night-club. I told the story to one or two people there. Later one night that same woman came up to where I was sitting and said, laughing, ‘So you are the ghost?’ And we became friends.

December 29, 2012

“I spent my lif...

Reblogged from Where's The Fridge?:

“I spent my life folded between the pages of books. In the absence of human relationships I formed bonds with paper characters. I lived love and loss through stories threaded in history; I experienced adolescence by association. My world is one interwoven web of words, stringing limb to limb, bone to sinew, thoughts and images all together. I am a being comprised of letters, a character created by sentences, a figment of imagination formed through fiction.”

Not Convinced Enough? DON’T VOTE!

‘Convinced enough’ in this context can mean two things:
1. One is convinced enough to physically leave one’s house simply to vote
or
2. One is convinced enough (positively) by candidate A or B to vote for him.
I use ‘convinced enough’ as a movement from 1 to 2 and clearly an end result which is merely a combination of the two.

I believe I am part of an increasing number in this country, who have not been convinced enough to vote for any particular party, come December 7^th. Often times when ‘convinced voters’ try to talk some of us into voting, they commit the fundamental argumentative flaw of missing the point. They fail to address the issue at hand … they fail to try to get us as convinced as they seemingly are. They too easily fail to give us five, or three, or one reason why we should vote for party A or party B like they will. Instead, there is a quick leap into weak retorts against non-voting and non-voters. I will address five of such common retorts that have been thrust at me.

1. ‘IT IS YOUR DUTY TO VOTE.’
I have not found a single sentence in our constitution that states that failure to vote is punishable under the law. If you find it, please educate me. There is no duty to vote in the way that people advertise. People are quick to make it appear that a decision not to vote warrants punishment. However, many people like myself, may have a duty not to vote. In as much I have duties as a citizen, I believe any duty to make decisions that will affect Ghana positively should be backed by critical reasoning and common sense. In my days at Achimota School, the presiding guide to behaviour was: “A breach of common sense is a breach of school rules.” It is a clear breach of common sense to queue for hours and cast a vote for anyone if I have not been fully convinced to do so. Any vote I cast in this unconvinced state of mind will be largely ill-informed and intrinsically worthless. This will have the repercussion of making me fail in my duty not to vote. If you have not satisfactorily outlined to yourself the arguments for your choice of candidate while in the same breath nullified the arguments against him or her, you do not have enough reason to vote. (Note, when I use ‘satisfactorily’ I actually make room for the imperfection to be expected in humans. Yet, accommodating imperfection is not equated to condoning incompetence or mediocrity or worst, a blind following.) I have not been able to successfully do this for any of the candidates in this year’s election and believe it or not, this actually warrants a duty not to vote.

2. ‘IF YOU DON’T VOTE, YOU CAN’T COMPLAIN.’
In his 1851 book Social Statics, the English writer Herbert Spencer deals with this sort of assertion. For instance, if a man votes and his candidate wins, the voter is then “understood to have assented” to the acts of his representative. If he voted for the candidate who lost, the argument goes, “by taking part in such an election, he tacitly agreed to abide by the decision of the majority.” And what if he abstained? “Why then he cannot justly complain…seeing that he made no protest.” Spencer then completes: “Curiously enough, it seems that he gave his consent in whatever way he acted—whether he said yes, whether he said no, or whether he remained neuter! A rather awkward doctrine this.” If you do not find this argument convincing enough (pun intended) then I simply need to remind you that no part of the laws permitting a Ghanaian to exercise his freedom of speech states that one cannot hurl complaints at a government if he has beforehand abstained from the election process that brought it into power. The citizen who votes without being convinced enough, is a far less admirable citizen than the non-partisan serial-caller (if there is any) who can’t be bothered to show up on Election Day. The right to complain as often and as long as one wants, is mercifully, unrelated to any hypothetical duty to vote.

3. “IF YOU DON’T VOTE, OTHER PEOPLE WILL…”
This then expands into: “And when they vote, you will be subject to the flaws of whoever is voted into power.” This appears altogether a destructive argument against non-voting. Getting to the bottom of it however shows a major leak. Just because I will be subject to whatever mistakes a winning candidate makes in his tenure of office should in no way suggest that I vote without being convinced. There is a reason each candidate outlines his party’s manifesto and his intentions for the nation. A critical analyses of these, is then intended to inform a discerning voter’s choice. Now, my claim is simple: A critical analyses of these features have not convinced me enough to vote for anyone. You are free to doubt my level of discernment, but to suggest I follow the crowd is a slap in the face of common sense which as many common people agree, is not common to common people. I cannot and will not take a blind leap of faith just because other people can and will.

4. ‘WHAT IF EVERYBODY STOPPED VOTING?’
What if my arguments against voting were so potent that every single Ghanaian stopped voting?

What if every Ghanaian thought like I did and said “I won’t vote because no one has convinced me enough!”?

If this does happen, it is more likely to have a positive effect far reaching than a situation where ill-informed and unconvinced people lined up the polls to vote. If everybody stopped voting, unless they were fully convinced by their candidate or party of choice, we would rather have a true reflection of what the entire Ghanaian populace wants i.e. a leader who has convinced us enough. We would not have a bunch of partisan ‘sheeple’ queuing to vote for candidates who have not convinced them in an intellectually commendable manner. We would in turn, create politicians who will do a better job at convincing discerning citizens to vote for them, or to vote at all.

5. ‘YOU’RE A CHRISTIAN, YOU MUST VOTE.’
And very often, the premise is that if you don’t vote and some atheist or religious-antagonist is voted into power, he or she will make laws that will prevent you from worshipping as your religion prescribes. Though this argument is greatly hypothetical, it must be addressed in terms of the reality on the ground. First of all, the prevailing laws in Ghana promote freedom of worship. So unless you argue that this new president will successfully change the laws backing freedom of worship to prohibit Christian worship then you really have no case. If you do argue the possibility of this, then you move me to my second rebuttal. Christianity indeed prevails and permeates in some of the most antagonistic countries one can imagine. A typically Islamic country like Saudi Arabia is still unofficially recording scores of Christian converts who worship in spite of existing implicit or explicit prohibitions. No human laws will keep a people who truly know their God, from worshipping Him. Case in point: Daniel and Darius in Daniel 6: 6-28. A greater point to be made to my fellow brethren in Christ is the call from the apostle Paul in 1 Peter 3:15 to all Christians to “…be ready to return a defence to everyone who requests a statement from you about the hope of your faith…” This urge to have a defence for that which informs our day to day choices is characteristically Christian. As I’ve tried to emphasize in this post, I don’t have a proper defence for ‘I will vote on December 7^th’ to inform a choice to vote. That, in itself, is a proper defence for ‘I will not vote on December 7^th’.

p.s. This post did not say that Voting on December 7^th is nonsensical. This post did say that Voting on December 7^th without being convinced enough, is nonsensical.

November 28, 2012

Probably the best comment I’ve read on a Facebook post.

“IT IS the simple truth that man does differ from the brutes in kind and not in degree; and the proof of it is here; that it sounds like a truism to say that the most primitive man drew a picture of a monkey and that it sounds like a joke to say that the most intelligent monkey drew a picture of a man. Something of division and disproportion has appeared; and it is unique. Art is the signature of man.” – G.K. Chesterton: ‘The Everlasting Man.’

Then Eric Matthews (from San Jose, California) wrote on the same thread:
“When someone comes along and counters with examples of elephant and chimpanzee paintings, the distinction becomes only more pronounced when restated:
That it sounds novel to say that the most modern men trained animals to draw pictures of men and that it sounds like a bad joke to say that the best-trained animals trained men to draw pictures. Art is still the signature of man (even if he found an animal to dot his “i” or cross his “t”), and the whole earth is ever more the medium of his art, even into the brains of his fellow creatures.”

Read for yourself http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151113988931143&set=a.10150162575736143.291616.10634906142&type=1&theater

November 20, 2012

Is Art For Everyone?

Reblogged from Where's The Fridge?:

No.

Dear reader.

Again, I expose my thoughts on art, at the risk of hubris. Bear with me as I explain my unpopular (unpopular") stance.

The practice of any art form, in my opinion, is the reserve of an artist with the requisite skill and discipline. To maintain its character, the practice of art is, has always been, and must continue to be the preserve of the few.

Lunch with Kwame Gyeke.

One of Gyekye’s many books.

The time was about 12:30 pm, and though there is no particular adage about philosophers’ love for punctuality, we were all on time. Six of us teaching assistants and three MPhil students in the mighty presence of two of Ghana’s finest intellectuals; Professor Ackah of the Classics department of the University of Ghana and the African philosopher, Professor Emeritus Kwame Gyekye.
Before the meals were brought in, the usual introductions (solely by us, the less-endowed intellectuals) were quickly done away with. Both professors then began to engage in small talk with us, easily erasing any myths that pointed to a general aura of boredom to be felt around philosophy and classics professors. The show really belonged to Kwame Gyekye, as he displayed some of the wit that walked hand-in-hand with his wisdom.

After half-emptying our plates in many logical table manners, I boldly requested for an opportunity to throw one or two questions at the eminent African philosopher. He obliged and basically asked me to shoot away.

“There seems to be a hidden consensus that you have written all there is to write on African Philosophy. I-” I started and got interrupted with a loud laugh.

“-No… no … no. That’s not true,” Gyekye replied smiling. I could almost sense a slight blush emanating from his dark face and his strands of grey hair relaxing a bit more smugly on the head that carried that master mind of his.

“There is a lot more to write. A lot more,” he said, now much more intently.

He then proceeded on a twenty-minute lecture on the many aspects of African philosophy that have not been delved into, by his estimations. He touched on Akan concepts of ‘happiness’, ‘courage’ and so forth, that still qualified for intense philosophical examination and critical analysis. He mentioned in passing, how a look at contemporary African ethics would pass for fitting philosophical literature. Then he quipped about putting forth a critique of his theories and analyses.

For minutes that really seemed like seconds to me, he had exposed an ocean of untapped resources that would contribute immensely to the furtherance of African philosophy. He stressed the need for philosophizing within our social milieu and projecting Africa in the same breadth. His accounts of interactions with people all over the world, who had contacted him in relation to one piece of literature or theory of his, impressed me greatly.

“So, Kwame Gyekye has only started to write about African philosophy,” he said and joined us in giggling at his humuor.
He then dismissed us with a one-liner about his natural ability to go on and on talking for hours. We thanked both professors and stood to leave; my mind no doubt sparked by twenty minutes or so of profundity.

November 6, 2012

Poem: If Jesus Was a Christian.

I found this poem on a facebook group’s discussion board and thought to share it. If you are lenient enough to ignore the strawman fallacies, you’ll appreciate the wisdom in the message.

IF JESUS WAS A CHRISTIAN
Bodyguards would have barricaded,
And the blood would still be an issue.
Offerings bowls would be passed around,
To feed the multitude.
To Jerusalem, a convoy of cars,
He would need- A grand entrance
For Pilate, an army of lawyers,
To mount defence.
The woman in Samaria would continually thirst,
Because he has ethnic preference.
The merchants in church would bring returns.
He would build universities his members can’t afford.
In his ‘holiness’, he won’t wash dirty feet,
For his reverence, he won’t sleep in the streets.
Miracles would be public spectacles,
Lazarus would have paid a handful.
The blind man would lean on his staff,
Waiting for the angel to stir the water.
He would have sold his soul to the devil,
for the riches of the world.
He would send the ‘holy ghost’ fire,
To cremeate judas,
The cup of life would have passed over,
And he would be another jonah.
He would have used the courts,
To block the pains of the cross.
Asking not forgiveness,
for the mob that cursed.
he would never have died like a thief,
To bring humanity everlasting relief
Because jesus was not christian.

BY NWAKANMA CHIKA

A Mixed Bag