49. The Hole In The Sum Of Parts

Synopsis - Two American tourists in London hopped into a taxi and asked the driver for a quick tour of Oxford University in adjacent Stratford upon Avon. The driver brings them around the colleges, libraries and facilities. When back in London, the tourists accuse him of not showing them the university, just buildings. What makes a university?

Gilbert Ryle calls this a category mistake where one associates a concept for tangible material entities. A university isn't one building but more than a space for higher learning. A collection of colleges perhaps. That's it. So the biggest error that the American tourists made was in thinking Oxford university was represented by one building. But the more confusing issue is the case of a university being neither a material or immaterial thing. It is a real word that represents an idea that comprises many tangible things.

Right off Wikipedia, the word university is derived from the Latin universitas magistrorum et scholarium, roughly meaning "community of teachers and scholars.", and not buildings. Over time, we've come to designate physical space to universities and that's what perhaps makes for some twist in meaning. Of course a university needs buildings, libraries and lecture theatres and things but these are extensions of the idea. Couldn't this community of scholars not just talk under a tree?

So no one's really wrong here, just not quite totally right.

48. Evil Genius

Synopsis - Everyone agrees that De Puta Madre is an exceptionally made film and ticks all the boxes when it comes to art and creativity. But most want it banned for it's content. The moral story is deplorable and inhuman. So should the film be banned? Will there be a common ground?

Off the bat, there are many examples when among contemporary blockbusters that defy local moral and ethics. I use the word local because not all mankind respects the same morals and ethics. There are many ambiguous and amorphous factors that surround the acceptance of art. Many cultural notions affect and define the limits and bounds we treat as acceptable. Brokeback Mountain was critically acclaimed from artistic angles but the subject matter was a tricky one and the film was not freely screened in many countries. Of countries and inevitably, governments, someone or some people decides generally what's good for their population and possibly in their self-interest.

As mentioned, Keats wrote 'beauty is truth, truth is beauty' and in some cases the truth hurts. Is watching how depraved we can be on film a relfection of humanity? Perhaps it is. Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction. (Cliche but contextually useful) It might be a learning to experience a darker side of the human psyche on screen instead of real life. But the limits are once again to be set by those who know better. We rely on parents to tell their children to go to bed when something not right is on TV. We develop our sense of morality and ethics as we grow up. So as we see these immoral and unethical deeds are performed by actors in a film, we're not corrupted. Affected yes but not corrupted.

The film described deals with social conditions and hierarchy. Perhaps it will give an insight to another side of humanity, of what could have been. But if the subject matter was closer to some hearts, let's say it was about religion, I am sure even a beautifully made film will not make public consumption in some societies purely because it offends the masses and flips socially accepted norms. It already happens for less serious reasons. Art loses.

Film is art and art is meant to move the soul. If art doesn't make an impact, then it has failed. The fact that critics can find the film beautiful in execution but nasty in content means that this piece of art has worked to some extent. Despite this, the issue of general consumption, I feel, is a different one altogether and a debatable one.

47. Rabbit!

Synopsis - Professor Lapin wants to set up a lexicon of an unknown language used by a newly found tribe. His first word is 'gavagai' which he heard said whenever a rabbit was seen. So is 'gavagai' rabbit? Just rabbit or rabbit seen hopping or rabbit in the evening or slow rabbit that's easy to catch? The possibilities all work. So what's 'gavagai'? How should Professor Lapin begin?

This is not quite a discussion but an agreement with the author that language has to be taken in context of culture and local practices. The example of 'esposas' in Spanish is an awesome one. Haha, how some men would agree they are handcuffs. I read somewhere that Eskimos have over 40 words/expressions for snow, to describe its feel, conditions of arrival and other circumstances. How words and phrases come about in a language is often based on circumstance and perhaps need. There's one word for uncooked and cooked rice in English whereas many Asian languages have separate words to described either state of rice.

It's a hard thing to do, putting a language together. It takes a lot of patience and revisiting concepts to refine the quality of the translation.

46. Amoebaesque

Synopsis - Derek has a peculiar ability - if his arm is chopped off, it regenerates. Like Claire in Heroes. Over time though, his body started deteriorating and during the op to save his life, his brain got split in half. Luckily each half grew back into a whole and was transplanted into a new body each. Now each Derek think its the real Derek and wants his stuff back.

So it's a question of identity. Who's the real Derek? Can there be a real Derek?

I think the biggest mistake post-op was letting both brain-halves regenerate and be transplanted into a new body. Why keep both? An experiment? Was one brain was a backup? All the problems that followed started from the surgeon's error. Bad doctor. I'm not sure if it would have been right to kill off one Derek before he woke up but surely the doctor has the bear the brunt of some of this identity confusion.

Each Derek has the memories, skills and personality of the original Derek. But that doesn't mean they would act, react or make the same decisions in the present time. Maybe they both prefer eggs sunny side up but that doesn't mean that both will enjoy eggs for breakfast all the time. Soon either Derek willl inevitably make his own decisions and live his own life. Let each Derek forge his own identity. It can't be defined at the get-go, just like in a new born. Only time and individual experience, and in this case, a good deal of psychological counselling, will shape and form the identity. It's true that the past will haunt them in a very real sense, but the confusion and denial/acceptance must be settled first. Everyone else around them has to choose also. Which Derek is your Derek? Good, now stick him.

I wonder if the two Derek could eventually be friends?