american museum of natural history (sic)

I really don't get this museum's idea of natural history... you have things i understand that have to be there, like biological history of the human kind and other animals (i.e. fossils), geological history of our planet and the outer space, etc... then you have things that are kind of crappy, and I don't understand that much, like a lot of stuffed animals, some of them exhibited in painted cages, which kinda reproduce their natural environment, but some of them simply hanging on the wall (foxes, bobcats, etc), and the most stupid of the things: pinned butterflies... why if you love butterflies would you kill them to exhibit them? no idea... i don't like this at all, but well, you can understand that they are in a museum of natural history... now, the problem is that you also have things for which i can't see at all the reason to be in a so-called museum of natural history, like these halls on Asian, Mexican, Polynesian, Native American, African peoples (as in the picture above)... i mean, this is part of natural history according to them? you know, these peoples that are studied by anthropologists, as opposed to those other peoples that are studied by sociologists, economists, etc. this must be the reason why the museum doesn't have a hall of European and White American peoples, huh? this also entails then that the latter are, according to this ethnocentric view, somehow different to all the other peoples on Earth (different or simply superior?? probably the latter, in the mind of the organizers of this place)... now, if you read on their website, what they say is the following:

"The founding of the Museum’s anthropology program in 1873 is linked by many with the origins of research anthropology in the United States. With the enthusiastic financial support of Museum President Morris K. Jesup, Boas undertook to document and preserve the record of human cultural variation before it disappeared under the advance of Europe’s Industrial Revolution. Their expeditions resulted in the formation during the late 19th and early 20th centuries of the core of the Museum’s broad and outstanding collection of artifacts."

So this seems to be the idea: let's eliminate all this diversity that bothers our line of businesses, but let's put it on a museum so that we can be considered philanthropists... Nice!!!

And then, there isn't a single hall in the museum dedicated to plants, their history, their diversity, etc. there is some tree here and there, but nothing that deserves commentary.

And finally, if you pay general admission you don't get to see the really spectacular shows in the museum (because this is their idea of museum: spectacle)... for those really expensive shows, like cosmic collisions, or temporary exhibits, you have to pay supplements that can raise your day in the museum to almost $40 to $50...

The AMNH might be, as some say, one of the most famous and acclamated museums in the whole world, but I think the conception as a museum is old and to a large extent cheesy, and it would need a lot of improvement to deserve that acclamation.

trying to understand...

(i apologize for the cruelty of the image; i'll consider if i remove it in a couple of days) (i've decided in a couple of hours: i won't remove it. first because fuck the politically correct ideology, and second because this is real, these are the differences wild capitalism is bringing us all)

a veure si ho entenc... per funcionar, el capitalisme necessita crèdit, és a dir, que gent o institucions vulgui posar diners que ajudin a fer funcionar el negoci, a canvi de la promesa de benefici en termes d'interès. aleshores, aquests accionistes (els inversors) necessiten un clima de confiança i estabilitat en el qual puguin tenir certeses que rebran beneficis pels diners que hi han dipositat, no? val, clar, però aleshores el que passa és que aviat tot el tinglat funciona sobre la base que el que compta, el més important, és satisfer els inversors, que aquests estiguin contents perquè així puguin continuar posant-hi més diners per encara guanyar més interessos, i seguir guanyant diners sense límits, i això animi a altres a també posar-n'hi amb l'esperança de també ingressar en el club dels rics amb els avantatges que això suposa en termes de tenir sexe sempre que es vulgui, i poder manar sobre altres. Ahh, ara començo a entendre... així doncs, tota la resta està supeditada a aquest benefici dels inversors, i és per això que les empreses han de destinar el màxim possible de benefici als inversors i per tant el mínim imprescindible a tota la resta: salaris dels treballadors, principalment, però també matèries primeres, producció real, etc. Així és per això que uns salaris alts perjudiquen l'economia, ja que això redueix els porcentatges astronòmics a què aspiren els inversors, els quals per tant no estan disposats a deixar escapar ni la més petita molla del seu pa... clar que els treballadors no en són gaire diferents, en el sentit que també volen guanyar el màxim possible en termes monetaris. Però bueno, semblaria que el grau d'acontentament i avarícia dels treballadors i les classes baixes en general és més local, és a dir, afectaria a menys gent i en menor mesura a tots els nivells. i també és interessant com aquests inversors i els seus ideòlegs s'ho han manegat per convèncer a tothom que la justificació teòrica dels seus guanys és ciència econòmica (en un altre post tractaré d'entendre que diu això sobre el concepte de ciència)...

i ara per tant també entenc perquè els inversors volen el mínim d'estat possible, un estat només perquè garanteixi i protegeixi la seguretat dels seus interessos... això és el patriotisme: la defensa dels seus interessos, pels quals volen emprar tota la carn de canó que puguin, i per això fabriquen tota aquesta ideologia per convèncer les classes baixes que el més gran honor és defensar la pàtria, amb la seva vida si és necessari (la vida de les classes baixes) perquè ells (els inversors) en puguin continuar gaudint-ne dels beneficis... i el que és ben curiós és com ho fan de bé perquè totes aquestes persones de classe baixa queden ben convençudes i són els més exaltats en defensar el seu país, un país que en general no fa res per ells.

my name's billy elliot

... and i'm kinda cute

modal logic

It is usually considered that deontic logic is better captured by system D in modal logic. but I don't see exactly why, as deontic logic does not normally accept axiom T. For example, this statement ⊨D [▢P ∧ ▢(∼P ∨ Q)] → ◇Q is a logical truth in D, but not so clearly true in deontic logic, I think:

PROOF
We must show that V([▢P ∧ ▢(∼P ∨ Q)] → ◇Q, w) = 1 for the valuation V for an arbitrarily chosen D-model〈W, R, I〉and world w in that model.

(i) Assume for reductio that V([▢P ∧ ▢(∼P ∨ Q)] → ◇Q, w) = 0
(ii) So V(▢P ∧ ▢(∼P ∨ Q), w) = 1, and …
(iii) … V(◇Q, w) = 0.
(iv) From (ii), and by the derived truth conditions for ∧, V(▢P, w) = 1, and so by the truth conditions for the ▢, P is true in every world accessible from w. Since our model is a D-model, this means that the accessibility relation R is serial, that is to say, for every u ∈ W, there is some v ∈ W, such that Ruv. So in this case, there is at least some world, call it v, such that Rwv, and therefore V(P, v) = 1.
(v) From (ii), and again by the truth conditions for ∧, V(▢(∼P ∨ Q), w) = 1. So again by the truth conditions for ▢, (∼P ∨ Q) is true in every possible world accessible from w. So in particular, V(∼P ∨ Q, v) = 1.
(vi) For (v), and the truth conditions for ∨, V(∼P, v) = 1 or V(Q, v). By the truth conditions for ∼, V(P, v) = 0, so since for (iv), we know that V(P, v) = 1, it must be the case that V(Q, v) = 1.
(vii) Given (iii), Q is false at every possible world accessible from w, so in particular it must be the case that V(Q, v) = 0. This contradicts (vi).
(viii) Therefore, by reductio, we have proved V([▢P ∧ ▢(∼P ∨ Q)] → ◇Q, w) = 1.
But sometimes I do miss.

colloquium generative grammar - YES!

this posting is to inform my hundreds of non-readers that my talk on datives has been selected for poster presentation at the colloquium in generative grammar to be held in gasteiz, euskal herria (i.e. vitoria, basque country) april 1st - 3rd... this means that i'll spend a couple of days in bcn too, and i hope to be able to see many people there...

This photo was taken during the diving competition in the 1992 Barcelona Olympics

rob gonsalves

René Magritte, Salvador Dalí, or M.C. Escher are undeniable influences of the Canadian painter of magic realism Rob Gonsalves.

pierre bourdieu

in this post i wanna quote some excerpts of an article by the french sociologist pierre bourdieu, a writer known for his outspoken political views and public engagement... bourdieu was one of the principal players in the french intellectual life from the early 70s until his dead in 2002, and during the 1990s became one of, or probably "the" intellectual reference for french movements opposed to the neo-liberalist credos and their economical globalization. this quote comes from an article i've recently read in the magazine Manière de voir, which is a thematic bi-monthly review of articles first published in Le Monde Diplomatique.

"ces discours néolibéraux sont devenus une doxa, une évidence indiscutable et indiscutée... un travail constant a été fait, associant des intellectuels, des journalistes, des hommes d'affaires, dans les revues, qui se sont peu a peu imposées comme legitimes, pour établir comme allant de soi une vision néolibérale qui, pour l'essentiel, habille de rationalitations économiques les présupposés les plus clasiques de la pensée conservatrice de tous les temps et tous les pays (...) vision néolibérale [qui] va de pair avec l'art de vivre yuppie, le regne du calcul rationnel ou du cynisme, la course à l'argent instituée en modèle universelle

ce qui peut surprendre c'est que ce message fataliste se donne les allures d'un message de libération, par toute une série de jeux lexicaux autour de l'idée de liberté, de libéralisation, de déregulation, etc. par toute une série d'euphémismes, ou de double jeux avec les mots -réforme, par example, qui vise à présenter une restauration comme une révolution (...), mais entre la confiance des marchés, et la confiance du peuple, ils ont dejà choisi..."