We talk a lot about the Taliban. About religious terrorists. But what kind of person will fight to the death to keep music from people, to keep women hidden and in the background, to kill you if you do not wear a beard, to kill you simply because you have a different religion. Or as in America, to organize to put people down, stop behavior that are not your business, to give everything to turn into law, punitive fascism that restricts people's rights and freedoms.
This, is the Authoritarian Personality type. Authoritarianism is the putting of governments, groups, or individuals, above the rule of law. The types of people that are so into putting their beliefs over that of the rest of the state, are authoritarians. Bob Altemeyer wrote a book called,
The Authoritarians. Here are a few words from an article on the University of Manitoba web site:
" “It [the book] ties things together for me,” people have said, “You can see how so many things all fit together.” “It explains the things about conservatives that didn’t make any sense to me,” others have commented. And the one that always brings a smile to my face, “Now at last I understand my brother-in-law” (or grandmother, uncle, woman in my car pool, Congressman, etc.)."
Here is the book in Adobe .pdf format.
The following is from Prof. Altemeyer book.
"But why should you even bother reading this book? I would offer three reasons. First, if you are concerned about what has happened in America since a radical right-wing segment of the population began taking control of the government about a dozen years ago, I think you=ll find a lot in this book that says your fears are well founded.
"As many have pointed out, the Republic is once again passing through perilous times. The concept of a constitutional democracy has been under attack--and by the American government no less! The
mid-term elections of 2006 give hope that the best values and traditions of the country will ultimately prevail. But it could prove a huge mistake to think that the enemies of freedom and equality have lost the war just because they were recently rebuffed at the polls.
"I’ll be very much surprised if their leaders don’t frame the setback as a test of the followers’ faith, causing them to redouble their efforts. They came so close to getting what they want, they’re not likely to pack up and go away without an all-out drive. But even if their leaders cannot find an acceptable presidential candidate for 2008, even if authoritarians play a much diminished role in the next election, even if they temporarily fade from view, they will still be there, aching for a dictatorship that will force their views on everyone.
"And they will surely be energized again, as they were in 1994, if a new administration infuriates them while carrying out its mandate. The country is not out of danger.
"The second reason I can offer for reading what follows is that it is not chock full of opinions, but experimental evidence. Liberals have stereotypes about conservatives, and conservatives have stereotypes about liberals. Moderates have stereotypes about both. Anyone who has watched, or been a liberal arguing with a conservative (or vice versa) knows that personal opinion and rhetoric can be had a penny a pound. But arguing never seems to get anywhere.
"Whereas if you set up a fair and square experiment in which people can act nobly, fairly, and with integrity, and you find that most of one group does, and most of another group does not, that’s a fact, not an opinion. And if you keep finding the same thing experiment after experiment, and other people do too, then that’s a body of facts that demands attention.3 Some people, we have seen to our dismay, don’t care a hoot what scientific investigation reveals; but most people do. If the data were fairly gathered and we let them do the talking, we should be on a higher plane than the current, “Sez you!”
"The last reason why you might be interested in the hereafter is that you might want more than just facts about authoritarians, but understanding and insight into why they act the way they do. Which is often mind-boggling. How can they revere those who gave their lives defending freedom and then support moves to take that freedom away?
"How can they go on believing things that have been disproved over and over again, and disbelieve things that are well established? How can they think they are the best people in the world, when so much of what they do ought to show them they are not? Why do their leaders so often turn out to be crooks and hypocrites? Why are both the followers and the leaders so aggressive that hostility is practically their trademark? By the time you have finished this book, I think you will understand the reasons. All of this,
and much more, fit into place once you see what research has uncovered going on in authoritarian minds.
"Ready to go exploring?"
We have to consider what is causing this growth of Authoritarianism. We have to counter them somehow. Typically, I see people who are feeling a loss to their status quo. That means these people are rigid in their thought and unhappy with the changes coming upon them, even if it means a better life for them. They do not however, consider or take a close look at what it is they are losing, or if it would benefit them to change.
Humans strive to maintain status quo, as genetically, it means safety, productivity as things are because they are working, even if working poorly, but not proficiency. Many times these people are actually fighting to keep a defective system, and many times, a system that simply doesn't work.
More from The Professor's book:
Authoritarian followers usually support the established authorities in their society, such as government officials and traditional religious leaders. Such people have historically been the “proper” authorities in life, the time-honored, entitled, customary leaders, and that means a lot to most authoritarians. Psychologically these
followers have personalities featuring:
1) a high degree of submission to the established, legitimate authorities in their society;
2) high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities; and
3) a high level of conventionalism.
"Because the submission occurs to traditional authority, I call these followers rightwing authoritarians. I’m using the word “right” in one of its earliest meanings, for in Old English “riht”(pronounced “writ”) as an adjective meant lawful, proper, correct, doing what the authorities said."
But, they aren't always lawful, proper, or correct. Are they?
Should we be afraid of these people? No. But we should be wary of them and work to make life better for everyone and find ways to educate these confused, backward people. I do not mean, 1984, or Soviet style re-education. But real, liberal arts education.
So much authoritarianism comes from misunderstanding or ignorance. It would benefit us to take a closer look at these people and work toward some kind of way to assimilate these people into the future and the 22nd Century. This is a good way to look at it, because then we all would be trying to acclimate into this new world and there would be no reason for them for feel alone.
They need to understand, life is exciting, rewarding, not simply fearful and dangerous. Life, is good, if you just let it be and try to make a better world for us all and not just for the vocal minorities.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Arrested Development, the Movie
Arrested Development, the TV show, is being made into Arrested Development, the Movie, scheduled to come out in 2012.
In the last scene of the TV series, executive producer and narrator Ron Howard is pitched with an idea for a show about the Bluth family.
His reply: "I don't see it as a series. Maybe a movie."
So I'm looking forward to seeing this on the big screen. Honestly, I don't know how this could translate to the big screen, but I'm willing to give it a try.
Best of luck guys!
His reply: "I don't see it as a series. Maybe a movie."
Producer / Narrator Ron Howard
Jason Bateman
Michael Cera
Portia DeRossi
I was a late comer to Arrested Development. I watched the entire series last year, one after another. Loved it. That lead to my watching all of Better Off Ted. Another show I liked a lot.
Mitchell Hurwitz
Director Mitchell Hurwitz, an alumni of the TV show version, is directing the film. His past credits include working as producer on shows like some of my favorites: The John Larroquette Show, The Ellen Show, both favorites of mine; as well as The Golden Girls, a very popular show I never watched. I always try watching a show I know I won't like, and sometimes I'm surprised (Firefly, yes, FIREFLY; Farscape, The Wire, and others). The man has game. So I'm looking forward to seeing this on the big screen. Honestly, I don't know how this could translate to the big screen, but I'm willing to give it a try.
Best of luck guys!
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Zen - Bodhidharma and the Emperor Wu
Today, something a little different for the Noon Commentary:
Bodhidharma and the Emperor Wu
Emperor Wu of China was a very benevolent Buddhist. He built many temples and monasteries, educated many monks, and performed countless philanthropic deeds in the name of Buddhism. He asked the great teacher Bodhidharma,
"What merit is there in my good works?" Bodhidharma replied,
"None whatsoever." The Emperor then asked,
"What is the Primal meaning of Holy Reality?" Bodhidharma answered,
"Emptiness, not holiness." The Emperor then queried,
"Who, then, is this confronting me?"
"I do not know," was Bodhidharma's reply. Since the Emperor did not understand, Bodhidharma left his kingdom.
Later, the Emperor related this conversation to an adviser, Prince Shiko. Shiko reprimanded him, saying that Bodhidharma was a great teacher possessed of the highest truth. The Emperor, filled with regret, dispatched a messenger to entreat Bodhidharma to return. But Shiko warned,
"Even if all the people in the land went, that one will never return."
About Bodhidharma (from Wikipedia):
Bodhidharma was a Buddhist monk who lived during the 5th/6th century and is traditionally credited as the transmitter of Zen (Chinese: Chán, Sanskrit: Dhyāna) to China. He is the patron saint of the Shaolin Monastery, and is attributed to, in Chinese legends, to have begun the physical training of the monks that later turned into Kung Fu. Throughout Buddhist art, Bodhidharma is depicted as a rather ill-tempered, profusely bearded and wide-eyed barbarian. He is described as "The Blue-Eyed Barbarian" in Chinese texts.
Some Chinese accounts describe Bodhidharma as being disturbed by the poor physical shape of the Shaolin monks, after which he instructed them in techniques to maintain their physical condition as well as teaching meditation. He is said to have taught a series of external exercises called the Eighteen Arhat Hands (Shiba Lohan Shou), and an internal practice called the Sinew Metamorphosis Classic. In addition, after his departure from the temple, two manuscripts by Bodhidharma were said to be discovered inside the temple: the Yijin Jing (易筋經 or "Muscle/Tendon Change Classic") and the Xi Sui Jing. Copies and translations of the Yi Jin Jing survive to the modern day, though many modern historians believe it to be of much more recent origin. The Xi Sui Jing has been lost.
While Bodhidharma was born into the warrior caste in India and thus certainly studied and must have been proficient in self-defense, it is unlikely that he contributed to the development of self-defense technique specifically within China. However, the legend of his education of the monks at Shaolin in techniques for physical conditioning would imply (if true) a substantial contribution to Shaolin knowledge that contributed later to their renown for fighting skill. However, both the attribution of Shaolin boxing to Bodhidharma and the authenticity of the Yi Jin Jing itself have been discredited by some historians including Tang Hao, Xu Zhen and Matsuda Ryuchi.
About Emperor Wu (from Wikipedia):
Emperor Wu of Han (traditional Chinese: 漢武帝; simplified Chinese: 汉武帝; pinyin: Hànwǔdì; Wade–Giles: Wu Ti), (156 BC–29 March, 87 BC), personal name Liu Che (劉徹), was the seventh emperor of the Han Dynasty of China, ruling from 141 BC to 87 BC. Emperor Wu is best remembered for the vast territorial expansion that occurred under his reign, as well as the strong and centralized Confucian state he organized. He is cited in Chinese history as the greatest emperor of the Han dynasty and one of the greatest emperors in Chinese history. Emperor Wu's effective governance made the Han Dynasty one of, if not by itself, the most powerful nations in the world.
Historians generally treated Emperor Wu with ambivalence. On the one hand, he is recognized for neutralizing the Xiongnu threat and expanding the Chinese territory. During his reign, China roughly doubled her size, and most of the territories he annexed became part of China proper permanently. The empire that Emperor Wu created surpassed in size the contemporaneous Roman Empire. His other, perhaps greater, legacy was the promotion of Confucianism. For the first time in history, Confucianism became the dominant thought in the Chinese government, and it remained so until the overthrow of the monarchy in 1911.
Bodhidharma and the Emperor Wu
Emperor Wu
Emperor Wu of China was a very benevolent Buddhist. He built many temples and monasteries, educated many monks, and performed countless philanthropic deeds in the name of Buddhism. He asked the great teacher Bodhidharma,
"What merit is there in my good works?" Bodhidharma replied,
"None whatsoever." The Emperor then asked,
"What is the Primal meaning of Holy Reality?" Bodhidharma answered,
"Emptiness, not holiness." The Emperor then queried,
"Who, then, is this confronting me?"
"I do not know," was Bodhidharma's reply. Since the Emperor did not understand, Bodhidharma left his kingdom.
Later, the Emperor related this conversation to an adviser, Prince Shiko. Shiko reprimanded him, saying that Bodhidharma was a great teacher possessed of the highest truth. The Emperor, filled with regret, dispatched a messenger to entreat Bodhidharma to return. But Shiko warned,
"Even if all the people in the land went, that one will never return."
About Bodhidharma (from Wikipedia):
Bodhidharma was a Buddhist monk who lived during the 5th/6th century and is traditionally credited as the transmitter of Zen (Chinese: Chán, Sanskrit: Dhyāna) to China. He is the patron saint of the Shaolin Monastery, and is attributed to, in Chinese legends, to have begun the physical training of the monks that later turned into Kung Fu. Throughout Buddhist art, Bodhidharma is depicted as a rather ill-tempered, profusely bearded and wide-eyed barbarian. He is described as "The Blue-Eyed Barbarian" in Chinese texts.
Some Chinese accounts describe Bodhidharma as being disturbed by the poor physical shape of the Shaolin monks, after which he instructed them in techniques to maintain their physical condition as well as teaching meditation. He is said to have taught a series of external exercises called the Eighteen Arhat Hands (Shiba Lohan Shou), and an internal practice called the Sinew Metamorphosis Classic. In addition, after his departure from the temple, two manuscripts by Bodhidharma were said to be discovered inside the temple: the Yijin Jing (易筋經 or "Muscle/Tendon Change Classic") and the Xi Sui Jing. Copies and translations of the Yi Jin Jing survive to the modern day, though many modern historians believe it to be of much more recent origin. The Xi Sui Jing has been lost.
While Bodhidharma was born into the warrior caste in India and thus certainly studied and must have been proficient in self-defense, it is unlikely that he contributed to the development of self-defense technique specifically within China. However, the legend of his education of the monks at Shaolin in techniques for physical conditioning would imply (if true) a substantial contribution to Shaolin knowledge that contributed later to their renown for fighting skill. However, both the attribution of Shaolin boxing to Bodhidharma and the authenticity of the Yi Jin Jing itself have been discredited by some historians including Tang Hao, Xu Zhen and Matsuda Ryuchi.
About Emperor Wu (from Wikipedia):
Emperor Wu of Han (traditional Chinese: 漢武帝; simplified Chinese: 汉武帝; pinyin: Hànwǔdì; Wade–Giles: Wu Ti), (156 BC–29 March, 87 BC), personal name Liu Che (劉徹), was the seventh emperor of the Han Dynasty of China, ruling from 141 BC to 87 BC. Emperor Wu is best remembered for the vast territorial expansion that occurred under his reign, as well as the strong and centralized Confucian state he organized. He is cited in Chinese history as the greatest emperor of the Han dynasty and one of the greatest emperors in Chinese history. Emperor Wu's effective governance made the Han Dynasty one of, if not by itself, the most powerful nations in the world.
Historians generally treated Emperor Wu with ambivalence. On the one hand, he is recognized for neutralizing the Xiongnu threat and expanding the Chinese territory. During his reign, China roughly doubled her size, and most of the territories he annexed became part of China proper permanently. The empire that Emperor Wu created surpassed in size the contemporaneous Roman Empire. His other, perhaps greater, legacy was the promotion of Confucianism. For the first time in history, Confucianism became the dominant thought in the Chinese government, and it remained so until the overthrow of the monarchy in 1911.
Source Code, a new film
Source Code, with Jake Gyllenhaal and Michelle Monaghan is an action thriller centered on a soldier who wakes up in the body of
an unknown man and discovers he's part of a mission to find the bomber
of a Chicago commuter train. This film does look interesting. As long as it doesn't fall into the same old traps this kind of tales can fall into.
Directed by Duncan Jones who recently did Moon which I liked for the effort he put into it. Not as convoluted as say, Triangle which I enjoyed watching recently, but still an interesting film.
Source Code Interview with Jake Gyllenhaal.
Duncan Jones
Although Duncan wasn't writer on Source Code, as he was his debut film, Moon, or his previous short, Whistle, the preview looks interesting and something to watch out for.I like Jake, I liked Duncan's previous film and let's face it, Michelle Monaghan is simply fun to watch.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Explaining Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood
Now, I'm not sure how I feel about these guys. They were made illegal a long time ago in their home country. They had questionable beginnings.They are now trying for a political presence. I'm unsure of them. However, I'm hearing they are composed of intelligent, educated men, who say they are not looking to run a candidate (we shall see). What I do think, is that for now, we need not to have a knee jerk reaction to them, to not fear them, to have a rational dialog with them, to allow them like all other groups with concerns, to have a forum wherein to speak.
From NPR's Fresh Air February 8, 2011
Muslim Brotherhood spokesman Mohammed Mursi takes questions from local
and international journalists at the end of a news conference Feb. 9 in
Cairo.
On today's Fresh Air, Wright talks about the history of the brotherhood, why al-Qaida considers the group an enemy, and what the future may hold for the organization. He says that the brotherhood's decision not to field a presidential candidate in Egypt is remarkable and, in some ways, unsurprising.
"They have an opportunity to put forward their own candidate but they recognize that the West is terrified of seeing Egypt turn into an Islamist state. And they also recognize that the Mubarak administration has used the Muslim Brotherhood as a kind of scapegoat," he says. "I think, very wisely, they declared they are not going to run a candidate, which [destroys] that whole argument that after Mubarak comes the deluge. That decision alone could be the turning point in what happens in these next several days."
Enlarge Courtesy of The New Yorker
Lawrence Wright is the author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning book The
Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11.
Courtesy of
The New Yorker
Lawrence Wright is the author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning
book The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11.
And if the Muslim Brotherhood plays a part in a new Egyptian government, Wright says, it will finally find its proper place and size within Egyptian civil society.
"We don't really know what size of a constituency they have," he says. "Other organized opposition parties [have] been so crippled by the Mubarak administration — and haven't been allowed to function and organize — so they simply haven't had a chance to get their roots out among the people. If the Mubarak regime comes down, which seems likely, there needs to be a period of time where people actually have the time to organize new parties with new candidates. One of the real problems in Egypt is [that there just] aren't very many democrats. They haven't had that experience and they're going to have to have it in an extremely compressed period of time."
NPR Fresh Air interview with Lawrence Wright on the Muslim Brotherhood
Jeopardy! The IBM Challenge
Jeopardy! vs IBMs Watson computer
Everyone lives life through a filter, a delusion. It's a necessary buffer that once protected us from the thought that yes indeed, that tiger, that hyena, that other clan member, is going to kill and eat us; or, just kill us. Night terrors were once reality; sitting awake at night, wondering what those eyes in the dark are going to do is beyond terror to reality.
Thinking we are invincible, can fly, are invisible, or are protected by an all seeing, all powerful dude in a beard, certainly passes the time, and allows us to survive without murderous stomach ulcers or having a stroke, through one more night as a food source.
We have a new delusion. One that will be computer enhanced. It's called, Watson,
For three days this week, I watched IBM's Watson advanced computer play against two of the best Jeopardy! players. Pretty cool. Both as a media stunt and to show off its abilities, IBM began talking two years ago to Jeopardy producers about doing a show, not unlike that of IBMs Big Blue computer playing (and winning) a chess game against Gary Kasparov back in 1989.
Watson beat out two humans and won the $1 million prize on the TV game show. The money won on Jeopardy! will go to charity.
This is one of those things that some day in the future, people may well talk about this three episode day shows of Watson against two of Jeopardy's best players from years past. The longest running player and the highest dollar winning player.
Watson had some quirky moments, like on Final Jeopardy, losing the answer, but winning by having the most monetary win for the day and only betting $947. What the formula is to have allowed it to judge that move is unknown but it was some great showmanship.
After competing against the two greatest Jeopardy! champions of all time, the technology behind Watson will now be applied to some of the world’s most enticing challenges.
“We’re just so excited about all the things we can do with this.” David Ferrucci, Watson Principal Investigator, IBM Research.
Preparing Watson for the Jeopardy! stage posed a unique challenge to the team: how to represent a system of 90 servers and hundreds of custom algorithms for the viewing public. The result? A dynamic visual avatar based on the smarter planet icon. A speaking voice that clearly pronounces a vast vocabulary. And an answer panel that reveals the system’s top responses and confidence levels. Watch the video to find out more about each of these elements.
Operating on a single CPU, it could take Watson two hours to answer a single question. A typical Jeopardy!contestant can accomplish this feat in less than three seconds. For Watson to rival the speed of its human competitors in delivering a single, precise answer to a question requires custom algorithms, terabytes of storage and thousands of POWER7 computing cores working in a massively parallel system.
“There’s a pattern here. It’s random, chaotic but it’s all based on data generated by Watson as it plays the game.” Joshua Davis, Digital Artist and Watson Avatar Collaborator
Watson was optimized to tackle a specific challenge: competing against the world's best Jeopardy! contestants. Beyond Jeopardy!, the IBM team is working to deploy this technology across industries such as healthcare, finance and customer service.
Now that Watson has won, it will be helping to analyze medical records for two hospitals.
One more thing to point out that the Future, is now.
IBMs Watson Avatar
Everyone lives life through a filter, a delusion. It's a necessary buffer that once protected us from the thought that yes indeed, that tiger, that hyena, that other clan member, is going to kill and eat us; or, just kill us. Night terrors were once reality; sitting awake at night, wondering what those eyes in the dark are going to do is beyond terror to reality.
Thinking we are invincible, can fly, are invisible, or are protected by an all seeing, all powerful dude in a beard, certainly passes the time, and allows us to survive without murderous stomach ulcers or having a stroke, through one more night as a food source.
We have a new delusion. One that will be computer enhanced. It's called, Watson,
For three days this week, I watched IBM's Watson advanced computer play against two of the best Jeopardy! players. Pretty cool. Both as a media stunt and to show off its abilities, IBM began talking two years ago to Jeopardy producers about doing a show, not unlike that of IBMs Big Blue computer playing (and winning) a chess game against Gary Kasparov back in 1989.
Watson beat out two humans and won the $1 million prize on the TV game show. The money won on Jeopardy! will go to charity.
This is one of those things that some day in the future, people may well talk about this three episode day shows of Watson against two of Jeopardy's best players from years past. The longest running player and the highest dollar winning player.
Watson had some quirky moments, like on Final Jeopardy, losing the answer, but winning by having the most monetary win for the day and only betting $947. What the formula is to have allowed it to judge that move is unknown but it was some great showmanship.
After competing against the two greatest Jeopardy! champions of all time, the technology behind Watson will now be applied to some of the world’s most enticing challenges.
“We’re just so excited about all the things we can do with this.” David Ferrucci, Watson Principal Investigator, IBM Research.
Preparing Watson for the Jeopardy! stage posed a unique challenge to the team: how to represent a system of 90 servers and hundreds of custom algorithms for the viewing public. The result? A dynamic visual avatar based on the smarter planet icon. A speaking voice that clearly pronounces a vast vocabulary. And an answer panel that reveals the system’s top responses and confidence levels. Watch the video to find out more about each of these elements.
Operating on a single CPU, it could take Watson two hours to answer a single question. A typical Jeopardy!contestant can accomplish this feat in less than three seconds. For Watson to rival the speed of its human competitors in delivering a single, precise answer to a question requires custom algorithms, terabytes of storage and thousands of POWER7 computing cores working in a massively parallel system.
“There’s a pattern here. It’s random, chaotic but it’s all based on data generated by Watson as it plays the game.” Joshua Davis, Digital Artist and Watson Avatar Collaborator
Watson was optimized to tackle a specific challenge: competing against the world's best Jeopardy! contestants. Beyond Jeopardy!, the IBM team is working to deploy this technology across industries such as healthcare, finance and customer service.
Now that Watson has won, it will be helping to analyze medical records for two hospitals.
One more thing to point out that the Future, is now.
Monday, February 21, 2011
My open letter to WWU about Prof. Perry Mills
This letter has been mailed to:
Dr. Deborah Currier, Theatre Arts - Chair
Dr. Deborah Currier, Theatre Arts - Chair
Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA
Dear Dr. Currier,
I have recently heard of Perry
Mills having problems over the years with the school. I was told it would be
helpful to him to communicate information regarding my opinion of his personal
and professional behavior in my past relationship with him. So, I offer you my
open letter on Perry.
Prof. Perry Mills
I graduated from Western in 1984,
in Psychology, Awareness and Reasoning division, with a Minor in Creative
Writing. I was referred to the Theater department by my Fiction writing
Professor, where I took a playwriting class to buff up my dialog. From there I
was selected with a small, special group to experience a year-long screen and
script writing class taught by Bob Schelonka. Perry was adviser to that class. I
cannot now remember how exactly I got to know Perry, but I got to know him
pretty well outside of school activities, including spending time between
classes in his office, at his home and at events at his house that he
sponsored.
I did everything I could to be around
him because I felt my goal at school was solely, to learn. The summer after
graduation, I also took a single credit individual study type class with Perry
to write a full screenplay (“Ahriman”), which I got an “A” on. I wanted to
leave school with a finished screenplay and I did. That later helped me to get
to work with a production company for two years as an “stable” or “in-house” writer.
I have been, among other things,
an IT Sr. Technical Writer and during the day now I work at Regence BlueShield
on web technologies. On the side, I am currently working on original
screenplays, adaptions of novels to screen for published Authors, as well as short
and long fiction. I have been highly thought of in my fields of endeavor. In all
my life since I met Perry, he is one of the people I have told stories about
and thought most highly of among all men, in a good way, of course. When I
think back on my time at Western, I think most fondly of my main Psychology adviser,
Prof. Rod Rees and of course, Perry. They were heads above all others in my
book. I had other great Profs, like the impressive Dr. Paul Woodring, and of
course others, but Perry and Rod stand foremost out in my mind.
Dr. Paul Woodring (Woodring College of Education at WWU)
I got to know Perry because I
was impressed by his acuity, historical even anthropological perspectives, as
well as his being a born entertainer. He had a special personality that was
quite unique. At times he could seem harsh in his evaluations, having little
patience for stupidity or flaws in one’s personality and would serve up comments
regarding these things with a wry sense of humor and if you could see it, a
sense of concern for his students. One thing I noticed quickly was that if you
didn’t have a certain capability of nature and intellect, you might miss that
concern of his.
Perhaps giving several examples
might help to get across my understanding of Perry and his worth as a teacher
and a person. One day I was in his office and we were just sitting and talking.
I mentioned a short story I just wrote set in medieval times (“Poor Lord
Ritchie”). He offered to read it saying he had an interesting in medieval literature.
He did and the next day we discussed it. He offered me some suggestions that
were incredibly valuable. He said I had nailed the speech in medieval times
which he was quite used to reading. He even discussed doing a one man stage
play of it, but I never could work that out and it fell by the way side. Years
later, the actor Rutger Hauer, chose that story as an international story of
the week in a contest he was sponsoring.
I later gave Perry another
story. He turned it back to me the next day with sarcastic comments on it that
although funny, seemed a bit harsh, however, he was basically showing me how
amateurish I was being in my prose. I was, and I admit it, overachieving and
banal in adjectives and overworking my vocabulary. That was simply, like many
amateur writers, how I saw pushing up the quality of your writing. It’s not.
And so, I took it home a little
crushed. But I pushed through and re-read it many times that night. What came
of that was that it changed my entire way of writing. It was like I grew as a
writer overnight, to several many, many months beyond where I had been. Now I could
have gone to complain, or not. I didn’t and it was at that time, that I saw the
value and again, was amazed by the man’s capabilities. He took chances to make
me better and I appreciated it. Should I have whined, or found the value in it?
The comment from the anonymous
poster was:
“I was a student. The guy is a
clown. He ought to be fired.”
I knew students like that when I
was in school and those who felt this way, seemed to us to be of questionable overall
quality in nature. Those who were the best and brightest seemed to appreciate
Perry’s vast knowledge and biting intellect. I should also say, I was never
intimidated by him, fearful or offended. IF I were to have felt any of those
things, I would have examined the situation in my mind, or talked to him if
need be.
My posted blog response was as
follows, and I think it very much sums up this situation. My fellow students
that I still know and who know Perry have read this, and all agreed with me, by
the way:
“I found that the only people who seem to have a problem with Perry,
are those who are weak in intellect or spirit, or both. Just my opinion of
course. Of all my university Profs I learned more and faster from Perry than
anyone else. It wasn't easy, sometimes it was a bit painful, but I took it, and
considered why, and in the end, learned a lot. It’s interesting to note, how a
good group of people got nothing from his teaching, and others got so much. It
would also seem that those who did indeed feel they learned a lot from him,
were somewhat in awe of him, and have little sympathy for those who did not.
Still, all the best to you all and I hope life is easy on you."
I hope life is easy on them
because they will need it. Perry doesn’t pull his punches sometimes. Because
life doesn’t. Some years after I left school, 1992 to be exact, I had a bad
divorce come about. I went to Bellingham for a weekend away and called Perry.
We talked on the phone and he said I should come over to that perfect little
house of his. We talked and he said I should spend the weekend in his loft, in
his shop out back. He had said, “Sure you might as well, all the suddenly
divorced guys seem to end up here.” I believe this speaks to his true nature as
a humanitarian.
I have a fond memory of
breakfast the next day with him in his backyard, sitting at a picnic table in a
warm and sunny morning. I should also mention, one of the “divorced guys” who
ended up in that loft was an alumnus, Doug, who went on to be an author of a
best seller and whose writings lead to a miniseries. I know of others went on
to found acting theaters such as Seattle’s Annex Theater.
Deep down Perry cares greatly,
but I’m sure there are many who haven’t a clue of that, who cannot or will not,
try to take the time to understand what he is saying, or to take the time to
think about what has happened between them; to use their minds, which they are
at school to enable, to push above and beyond, and to realize what it’s all
about.
I will close now with this…If
Perry is having trouble with some individuals, perhaps this can be worked out
by the school? All hearings in my belief, should be open to the public; what is
there to fear? If Perry was wrong, let it come out; if not, let’s hear it.
Does Perry sometimes have
singular techniques for achieving change in a student or person? Yes,
absolutely. Should everyone be able to “get it?” No, I rather think not. That
would be nice, but truly it’s not reasonable. I can think of many Profs whom I
got little from, but others got much from. They were just not so controversial.
A university is not a place to
coddle youngsters. It is a place of Higher Learning. To me a good Prof is one
who does shake things up once in a while. Administration is not there to second
guess them; they are there, in my humble opinion if you will forgive me, to
support their Tenured Professors. Yes, they are there to support the students,
of course. But how many students do you have in a year who are troubled,
defective in thought, sadly educated not just in academia , culture and mores,
but also in a variety of strength of character, perseverance, patience and
understanding? Those types, perhaps, do not work that well with Perry. Well,
there are other Professors for them, in that case.
In my opinion, speaking to the
Perry I had known for many years, he is a benefit to academia and we need
people like him. Even if he does not follow the formats of established method.
Don’t get me wrong, we need those too who do not rock the boat; who do not
disturb the Administration, but we need also and always, those like Perry who
challenge our natures and push our limits. When I think back now of Western,
after so many years from my graduation, two things come to mind: the Western
Old Main building, and Perry. Icons, in my mind. I had never imagined that one
day I would be considering one or the other would be gone by other than old age
and respectful ceremony.
All the best to you and those doing
such admirable work at WWU. I do hope you find a way to maintain a stable and
workable situation that includes my old teacher and friend, Perry Mills.
Yours truly.
About Perry Mills:
Perry F. Mills was hired by the founder of the CFPA,
William Gregory, to further the liberal arts component of the Fine and
Performing Arts curriculum. For thirty years he has taught
aesthetics, film, dramatic literature, playwriting and patience. His
book on film studies is out of print and in the WWU Wilson
Library. His playwriting students have won numerous awards and have
plays in current productions in NYC and London. Take a class with
Perry if you want a sample of academic diversity: he’s not
good-looking, but he’s hard to kill…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)